Ashamed of their motives?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Black Bear
  • Start date Start date
Black Bear said:
...I suspect that often, martial arts students are “shamed” for being interested in fighting/sd/safety when the system, school, or group IS IN FACT UNABLE to meet their need in this area BUT, the school simultaneously wants to believe that they're effective in this area...


I believe this hits the nail right on the head. I would add: The overwhelming majority of MA schools don't understand what comprises SD.

(Of course, some do understand what SD is, and they don't teach SD, and they still put SD on the door and in their yellow pages ad. There will always be charlatans when money is involved.)

Personally, I think many schools say they teach SD b/c they honestly think they do. They are wrong, of course, but they are not dishonest. They are simply ignorant.

The majority of "SD" teachers don't understand that SD stems from topics such as awareness, OODA, legal ramifications (ability, opportunity, manifest intent, preclusion), verbal tape loops "Stop fighting me!," etc.

If you're not practicing these and other similar topics, you are not practicing self-defense. You might be able to fight like heck, but you are missing the point if you say you're practicing SD. It would be like a student who only practices piano scales claiming to be a concert musician.

Indulge me and let me share a recent incident from my first instructor:


"12 Mar 04

This is from one of my students....This young lad was probably selected for victimization because of his age:

"The first incident happened just a block way from the restaurant. ...I had just gotten in the far right lane to make a right turn at the light, when a car came rapidly around my front and pulled directly in front of me. It was 9:00pm. In my mirror, I then see a man get out of the driver's seat of a Ford Explorer two cars behind me. The man walks to the car right behind my truck and taps that car's driver-side window. I could see the driver nod to the man at his window. The man then hunched over and walked toward my truck. In his hand, I could see what looked like a pistol.

I was boxed in...The light turned green, but the car in front of me did not move. I honked at him, and he finally pulled forward. I was out of there in a flash. I made a fast right, then a left into the hospital parking lot. They were not able to follow me.

I arrived home a few minutes later, badly shaken but okay....As I exited my truck, I heard leaves crackling behind me. I turned around and saw a man walking straight toward me in my own driveway (I don't know if is was the same man). I went into my interview stance and said, ‘May I help you, sir?' He hesitated but made no response. I said, ‘Stop right there, sir. How may I help you?'

He stopped abruptly and just looked at me. I could see that he was palming something in his right hand. I glanced behind me. I made one last verbal challenge, ‘Do not move. How may I help you?' My right hand was on the butt of my pistol, although he probably couldn't see it well.

Abruptly, the color drained from his face. He started to pitch left to right, finally stuttering, ‘I'm . . . I'm . . . I'm looking uh . . . uh! . . . for uh . . . my dog.' I replied, ‘There are no dogs here. Turn around and walk away now, sir.' He compliantly took a few backward steps and then turned around and walked away, disappearing into the night....."

Lesson: Here is another crime prevented by a competent and practiced defensive routine, fast thinking, and fearlessness. Such challenges should not be thrown at teenagers, but my student did just fine anyway. Good show!..."


I don't know if the young man has ever taken a "martial arts" class in his life, but he's certainly capable of discouraging an attack after he's already been selected for victimization, and he was ready to attempt to repel the attack with force if left with no other option.

Self defense is usually misunderstood by martial artists b/c, IMHO, martial artists don't understand the context of their martial skills. Actual fighting is a sliver of the overall continuum of SD. SD practitioners practice the "before" and "after" of an altercation.

Again, many "SD" teachers are simply ignorant. It's up to us lucky enough to be in-the-know to politely guide these teachers to look at themselves strictly and dispel their ignorance.

Be safe! :asian:
 
I have never been ashamed of my motives for studying/practicing martial arts. It is for self defense, plain and simple. When I applied to a school, that is what went on the application form.

The "art" side has little importance to me. Although I appreciate a good form, it's not the "art" I am personally looking for. Although I have training and experience with rifles and handguns (worked as a range officer during college), it is illegal to carry in Canada. I also have young children and would not have a firearm within reach. My martial arts is ALWAYS with me, and ALWAYS ready - but controlled.
 
"Can't fight, worth poop. "

MA wasn't invented to "learn foreign culture" nor to "turn the other cheek" nor to "preserve tradition or style". MA was invented to prevail in combat. To argue otherwise is simply distorting the truth.
 
KennethKu said:
"Can't fight, worth poop. "

MA wasn't invented to "learn foreign culture" nor to "turn the other cheek" nor to "preserve tradition or style". MA was invented to prevail in combat. To argue otherwise is simply distorting the truth.

Black Bear....Do you ever feel like the God Father?

"I keep trying to get out...(and back onto the topic of discussion)"

"But they keep pulling me back in(to discussing Martial Arts definitions)"

There was no one single source of Martial arts creation. There was no one single source of Martial theory/philosophy or goals.... therefore there is NOT going to be a single definition of Martial arts. There will be personal and stylistic definitions and goals... but not a UNIVERSAL one.

Besides which, please excuse my assuming any powers here Black Bear, but MA def.'s is not the point of this thread. Much like the Cath. Church looking back to 1st and 2nd century church for inspiration, please look back to the 1st post in the thread.... for commenting inspiration. Otherwise take the def. argument elsewhere.
 
markulous said:
The word Martial does mean fighting!

From dictionary.com
Martial: Of, relating to, or suggestive of war.

Obviously in wars you fight, therefore it means "of fighting". So no I am not a quibbler or a bigot, I speak the truth.


Ah, so when we play martial music we beat the crap out of the audience during intermissions? Sounds fun. Let me go get my bagpipes....

Read your dictionary definition: SUGGESTIVE of war, or relating to. Wu Shu and other non-fighting arts fit that category as much as yours.

If you want to be a purist in using that definition, then most of the arts practiced on this forum are anachronistic...including the stuff I do. We live in an age of cruise missles and armored fighting vehicles.

What's next? "Oh, they fight with PROTECTIVE GEAR. That means they're not really a martial art." Or perhaps, "They're not the real thing if they don't go full contact all the time." It gets silly.

Okay, now let's take a look at the definition of the word "bigot":

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Sounds to me like you might qualify.


Regards,



Steve
 
KK, the honourable Prime minister is not talking about you. We's all on the same page.
 
To say you disagree with my idea is one thing but to label me and judge me is another. You don't know me so back your truck up.

I wasn't going to post back again out of respect since it was off the subject of the thread but...well I changed my mind. If the art itself is suggestive of war it would mean it would have intentions of war. But if you don't plan on using it to fight then that would mean not having the intentions of war or fighting.
 
markulous said:
If the art itself is suggestive of war it would mean it would have intentions of war. But if you don't plan on using it to fight then that would mean not having the intentions of war or fighting.
All of this is correct. But it has nothing to do with the usage issue.
 
markulous said:
To say you disagree with my idea is one thing but to label me and judge me is another. You don't know me so back your truck up.

I wasn't going to post back again out of respect since it was off the subject of the thread but...well I changed my mind. If the art itself is suggestive of war it would mean it would have intentions of war. But if you don't plan on using it to fight then that would mean not having the intentions of war or fighting.

On the contrary, I'll be more than happy to shift it into overdrive.

I'm not much for people dissing systems by saying they're "not martial arts". I can't conceive of a more immature response.

But it is O.T., so if you want to pick this up elsewhere, start a thread and I'll be happy to go at it.


Regards,


Steve
 
Back
Top