Native American Fighting Arts

[Cruentus]

Another thing, Baldbob,

It sounds like you are creating an even worse logical problem, that I see happening all too often in the martial arts in general. Your saying that a persons opinion has less value unless he really trains with your instructor and become one of his students, because only by being his student will you be able to come to understand what he is doing. The problem is, being his student requires a great investment of time, effort, and money. Once this is invested, the student doesn't want to believe that his instructor and what he is studying may be less then credable, for this also ruins the students credability. The student won't accept the possability that his instructor may not be credable, even when the evidence is right in front of him. In fact, even the slight idea of the possability makes the student upset, with feelings that he must defend his teacher at all costs.

This isn't the case here, is it?

 

[loki09789]

I disagree with this point in that I think that credability is an issue.

Same is true for Native American based arts. (Insert other Arts here) methods with a Native American flair is not a Native American Art, no matter which way you cut it. Also, just because I am "Celtic" by race, that doesn't mean that I learned a family or tribes style of fighting. Same is true for a Native American; just because you might be one by race, doesn't mean you learned traditional healing or fighting methods.

However, if someone actively learned and practiced the Native American fighting methods of their family and tribe, then I would like to explore those. I'll be able to tell the difference if I see them.

Now, I think it is pointless to go on a credability witch hunt, as some have done here. The only way I'll know if any of these instructors are the real deal is if I see them, or if a credable source that I trust sees them.

:asian:

Firstly, I would be cautious in my use of the term "race" here. As far as I know, biologically there is only one race of man and we are all just different shades of the basic make up. As far as Native American "race" - there isn't one in an anthropological sense but there is a DNA fingerprint that can link a group of from a particular period of time.

Within the cultural use of 'us' and 'them', historically Native Americans don't say that you have to have x biological make up. You are accepted into the 'people' based on character, courage and other criteria. Remember "Dances with Wolves'? Mary McDonald's character of an anglo ethnic as a full member of a Lakota tribe wasn't uncommon.

That said, if there is no real credible (as in written or recorded) historical 'art' of the Native Americans, but there is a tradition of practicallity. What is so wrong with someone who as carried on that tradition by absorbing a technical set of skills from another art - and mastered those skills to a BB level, reconfigured them to fit into a cultural package of Native American values and other skills to create something unique? Nothing is original, it all comes from somewhere else. I don't think that the Native Americans are/were worried about who 'originated' the firearms/marksmanship that they applied as time went on. Once they absorbed it, adapted it into the culture it was theirs and they owned it. BB's who teach eastern martial arts within a character building program based on Christian values to problem children aren't too worried about how 'authentic' their practices are because the goal and purpose is what really drives what you do with the art.

Would you argue that American Kenpo is a misnomer because Kenpo isn't 'American' or would you recognize that AK is the Western 'cultural appropriation' of Kenpo because enough people who came from America had put their fingerprints on it and taken ownership of their version of Kenpo? It still is Kenpo, it still is good, it just isn't the same as the Chinese/Japanese versions. Same with the multitude of Modern Arnis and Balintawak that is out there.

In each case, there was a core of basics/concepts that was used to accomplish instructional and self defense goals, but the variances that have grown because of personalization and 'cultural appropriation' by putting your own stamp on the core aren't lacking in authenticity because there wasn't really a blueprint as much as an outline with room in the spaces to fit in your own details once you have mastered the outline. Same for Native arts.

So, really 'original' isn't high on the criteria for FMA or Native Arts as far as I can tell. Effectiveness and practitioner skill is. Can you 'do' what you 'say' when it counts in presentation of individual skill, organization/instruction of the system, production of students of good character and skill, and in the real deal? These seem, to me at least, to be what really matter.

I have read through some of the info on these Native American MArtists with eastern arts backgrounds repackaged or incorporated into Native themed courses. They generally give credit to the multitude of sources they pull into the program: Native American culture/skills, Kenpo... and others. Of course, for advertising purposes of creating a unique 'market niche', some of the other than Native sources are down played.... but isn't that true in any advertising?

 

[Shogun]

Speaking of individually, coordinated mass battle formations didn't really come into play for Native Americans until they were locking horns with the Blue Suits of the US Army. Prior to that, combat was more mobs of individual warriors seeking single combat until there was no one else willing to fight.

for the most part this is true. however, fossil evidence have shown the first real americans were related to the Aborigines of Australia, who came here about 60,000 years ago on Huge canoes. after the last ice age about 12,500 years ago, Mongoloids made their way down from Siberia, and using mass-military tactics, wiped out the aboriginals. However, for thousands of years after that, clan unity for military was rare.
As far as "race, you made some good points.

 

[Bald Bob]

I haven't seen any Red Warrior techniques. I said that I am naturally skeptical in situations like these. When people have other backgrounds, but claim to be the head of a martial art from their own culture, the possability is there that this system of theirs is really just a hybrid of other arts they have studied. I would need to see them in action to verify one way or the other.

So...what exactly is your problem with what I am saying?

Ah well, I must have misread. If you are merely saying that there is a possibility of hybridization (is that a real word?) of course there is always that possibility. I agree you or anyone else would need to see the systems to comment on them.

Unfortunately some people seem willing to draw conclusions about what could "possibly" be rather than actually examining what "actually is."

View Red Warrior and I think you will find it a different system than others you have seen. I have written some articles about Grandmaster Roman's RW system but the ones in depth are still in press.

 

[Bald Bob]

Another thing, Baldbob,

It sounds like you are creating an even worse logical problem, that I see happening all too often in the martial arts in general. Your saying that a persons opinion has less value unless he really trains with your instructor and become one of his students, because only by being his student will you be able to come to understand what he is doing. The problem is, being his student requires a great investment of time, effort, and money. Once this is invested, the student doesn't want to believe that his instructor and what he is studying may be less then credable, for this also ruins the students credability. The student won't accept the possability that his instructor may not be credable, even when the evidence is right in front of him. In fact, even the slight idea of the possability makes the student upset, with feelings that he must defend his teacher at all costs.

This isn't the case here, is it?

That might be the case if the student were forced to continue training as if he were enlisted in the military. Then, indeed, what you describe could happen. It is formally called "cognitive dissonance" -- e.g., if I had to spend so much time doing it I hate to think I wasted my time so I convince myself I didn't.

Not so with MA. If you find that the system doesn't make sense after a few lessons you simply quit. Moreover, you can always spend time with students from other areas and compare notes.

In between being a student who has invested years and someone who has seen next to nothing there is a wide range of experience. If you attend several classes of a system and conclude there isn't much there, that's an informed opinion. I find too many people are saying "well I have never seen it but there probably isn't much there" -- and that's just stupidity, not in the insulting but in the dictionary sense of the word.

As for my own credibility I don't worry much about it. In MA, my avocation, and also in my vocation as well, my attitude is if you agree with my advice you'll take it. If it works you will like it and follow it again. If you don't find that what I teach works for you, you won't use it. That's where credibility comes from. People who speculate about what I might be able to teach or possibly could teach or might be biased to teach are speculating about my credibility. And we all know the value of speculation in the absense of actual observation.

Enough. I can't believe I am chatting. I swore to never do that!

 

[Cruentus]

If I am being potentially hammered here for the use of the term "race," when I have made no prejudiced statements, then WHO is the real racist?

Race: 2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

I'll use the term "heritage" if that'll be more "P.C." for you all, but in reality there is nothing wrong with the term I used.

On to more productive things...

What is so wrong with someone who as carried on that tradition by absorbing a technical set of skills from another art - and mastered those skills to a BB level, reconfigured them to fit into a cultural package of Native American values and other skills to create something unique?

It depends if that "something unique" is a bunch of lies, or if it is true. If someone is presenting their kenpo as a native american style that they learned from their uncle, when they didn't really learn anything from their uncle, then they are lying. I have no problems with, "I studied native american spirituality and kenpo, so I decided to merge the two together in my presentation of my kenpo." But, if that is what happened, then say so. I have a problem with people fabricating their backgrounds and credability.

So the difference is in truth or lies, really, and unfortunatily in martial arts, most people can't tell the difference between the two.

We have also been brainwashed to believe in Martial Arts that lies and embelishment is O.K. for "marketing." It's not O.K....it's false advertising.

All I ask is that people be true to their arts and backgrounds. I get fustrated when a school claims to teach a full blown modern arnis program, when the instructor has been to 2 seminars 5 years ago, and their modern arnis program is really TKD with siniwalis. The instructor should just say, "We have incorporated a weapons program that is influenced by Modern Arnis." Students would respect that just as much as anything else. But noooo....he has to pretend that he is qualified to teach the entire art to appease his ego.

So, if any of these gentlemen we are talking about here are being true to their backgrounds, then I have no problems with them. Unfortunatily, because there is not a large "Native American Fighting Arts" community to verify ones credentials, the only way to tell for sure is to see them yourself.

On that note, I am still not sure what people's problems are with what I have been saying. I am advocating to go see any one of these people in person before judging, but I am also choosing to not drink the cool-aid before I know what's in it, so to speak. What's wrong with that? If what they do is credable, then this shouldn't be a problem. I advocate that if anyone questions my credability, that they come see me to decide.

PAUL

 

[loki09789]

If I am being potentially hammered here for the use of the term "race," when I have made no prejudiced statements, then WHO is the real racist?

Race: 2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

I'll use the term "heritage" if that'll be more "P.C." for you all, but in reality there is nothing wrong with the term I used.

PAUL

Not hammering, just cautioning because the term Race, by the very nature of your #2.a definition makes clear, has many connotations. I am not worried about "PC" as much as sensititivety. Neither you or I are Native American and there may be some who are that read/write here. Without clarity, terms like 'race' can really be misinterpreted - especially within the context of a criticism about an artist marketing Native Americanism in a program.

As far as claims and such, if you have questions, criticism here might be less productive than talking to him direct via email or some other way.

 

[Cruentus]

Bald Bob...

Ha ha...your chatting!

Not so with MA. If you find that the system doesn't make sense after a few lessons you simply quit. Moreover, you can always spend time with students from other areas and compare notes

Ah...but it is so. Studies have shown that when people are "unskilled," then they are unable to recognize a lack of skill in others. This applies directly to MA. If someone is an inexperienced beginner, it is likely that they will not be able to tell much of a difference between a qualified and unqualified instructor. If their teacher sucks, they really won't know it. Then, after years of training, cognitive dissonance takes its effects. A decent study on how those unskilled cannot recognize others who are unskilled, and how being unskilled inflates ones own self perception can be found online here: http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

Beginners have to be really careful because of this. No one should take anything in MA for face value. Credentials should be verified through background checking, peer reviews, and seeing in person. If a beginner is going to check out another instructor, they should try to find another practitioner of the arts with some experience to go with them.

Anyways, I agree with you that people shouldn't make assumptions about others without checking into them thoroughly. However, I feel that there is nothing wrong with asking educated questions, and any good instructor should welcome inquiries.

 

[Cruentus]

Not hammering, just cautioning because the term Race, by the very nature of your #2.a definition makes clear, has many connotations. I am not worried about "PC" as much as sensititivety. Neither you or I are Native American and there may be some who are that read/write here. Without clarity, terms like 'race' can really be misinterpreted - especially within the context of a criticism about an artist marketing Native Americanism in a program.

As far as claims and such, if you have questions, criticism here might be less productive than talking to him direct via email or some other way.

I agree...but I am not actually criticizing any of these instructors here though. I have plenty of questions, but most need to be answered on a training floor. So, I'll have to wait for that opportunity to come around.

:asian:

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

I could be dead to nuts wrong, but the last time I had sociology, three races were identified, with subsets to each race: Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid. American Indians (north & south) were considered to be of Mongoloid descent, as were Oceanic peoples. I do remember them having a hard time pinning down Semitic tribes, and even some of the Hindustani tribes, but there were definite anthropologic divisions, based on cultural and physiological differences, some evidenced by little more than the color of skin or physical attributes (remember the puzzling of giant stone heads in South America with Negroid features?).

One species, yes. Race? Still under debate by persons more learned than us in these areas.

I had to take sociology twice: Once when I forst started school, and another time about 12 years later (grandfather clause stuff ran out on a second degree program). I noticed the 2nd time that, the fear of being labeled a racist or politically incorrect, prevented profs from stating plainly what was considered accepted teaching a decade earlier.

When academic debate about an issue is rail-roaded onto a side-track because of political correctness, we have lost the ability to discover truth, in the presence of preference.

Say what there is to be said, and let the cards land where they will.

Just a thought.

D.

 

[loki09789]

On to more productive things...



It depends if that "something unique" is a bunch of lies, or if it is true. If someone is presenting their kenpo as a native american style that they learned from their uncle, when they didn't really learn anything from their uncle, then they are lying.

So the difference is in truth or lies, really, and unfortunatily in martial arts, most people can't tell the difference between the two.

PAUL

This does sound like a criticism to me. Statements like this might limit the opportunities to train and learn about these arts.

 

[Cruentus]

This does sound like a criticism to me. Statements like this might limit the opportunities to train and learn about these arts.

I apologize if I am being misinterpreted. I am not saying that any of these arts/instructors are bad or good, for I have not seen them.

All I am saying is that lies are prevelent in Martial Arts, so everyone needs to be wearing their critical thinking cap. I am aiming for critical thinking, not criticism.

:asian:

 

[loki09789]

When academic debate about an issue is rail-roaded onto a side-track because of political correctness, we have lost the ability to discover truth, in the presence of preference.

Say what there is to be said, and let the cards land where they will.

Just a thought.

D.

I am not talking about preference, but productive word choice. I was just talking to a student about how the social preception vs the academic/clinical preception of terms like 'race' or 'consequence' can really distract people from your issues - which means that your clarity is your responsibility.

Sociologically and within those circles of folks, connotations are understood better than in these blind audience forums. I simply was cautioning about WC and the results of it. If you reald through my posts, there is a serious trend of just laying it out there at times too. There is a time for that and there is a time for articulation and clarity. I would think that if the point is to avoid the possible side issue of "PC" issues, clarity would take care of that very quickly.

Did I think he was being racist? No. Did I make my cautionary statement with the intention of preventing a side track? Yes. Notice how I went right back into the topic?

 

[Shogun]

Neither you or I are Native American and there may be some who are that read/write here. Without clarity, terms like 'race' can really be misinterpreted - especially within the context of a criticism about an artist marketing Native Americanism in a program.

I'm not offended at all! lol. (I am Koyukan Inuit, and Wyandotte Native, with a hint of "White")

Race can be taken way out of context here, but as long as everyone knows what was meant, then we could probably move on.

 

[Tgace]

If the stuff being taught is good, does the rest of the @#$% really matter? Yes lies about sources are distasteful, but many people put up with questionable sales pitches as long as the product is good. Dr. Gyi's history has been up for question, but by all accounts his stuff is good.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

I am not talking about preference, but productive word choice. I was just talking to a student about how the social preception vs the academic/clinical preception of terms like 'race' or 'consequence' can really distract people from your issues - which means that your clarity is your responsibility.

Sociologically and within those circles of folks, connotations are understood better than in these blind audience forums. I simply was cautioning about WC and the results of it. If you reald through my posts, there is a serious trend of just laying it out there at times too. There is a time for that and there is a time for articulation and clarity. I would think that if the point is to avoid the possible side issue of "PC" issues, clarity would take care of that very quickly.

Did I think he was being racist? No. Did I make my cautionary statement with the intention of preventing a side track? Yes. Notice how I went right back into the topic?

Loki:

I apologize if it seems I was being confrontative towards you. That was not my intent. I'd read a couple threads in a row regarding "one race", presented in the space where "one species" would most certainly have been approprate. I just finally opted to phlbbbt my thoughts on the subject to a post, and this is where it landed.

And in the spirit if the ethos, pathos, logos components of effective communication / rhetoric / argumentation and debate, you are absolutley right. The meaning of a communication is the response it gets, and the honus is on the communicator to manage the response potentials within the defined fields. Rather than challenge you, you are to be commended for being among the roughly 2% that is willing to take responsibility for the effects of their communication -- real or percieved -- and plan appropriately.

I would have been wiser to start a different thread to put this to the forum; I will aim my future sights appropriately.

Thank you for the course correction and feedback,

Dave

PS -- crow tastes better warm

 

[loki09789]

Dave,
You're regularly a straight shooter who doesn't try and babble on (like me at times).

No problem,and no need for an apology in my mind. Thanks for the clarification of intention though. Yes, I am a firm believer that you are responsible for the control, accuracy and form of your word delivery - just as you are responsible for physical techniques and control in martial arts. You can't control someones interpretations or reads, but you can make sure your thoughts, words and deeds are consistent enough that any misinterpreations are easy to clear up with mature interaction. In the work place or out of it, "That isn't what I mean't" isn't good enough, and doesn't speak to responsibility, it is an excuse to be insensitive and unclear.

It would be nice if it didn't look so tacky to have "he said earnestly" or "jokingly" included with these posts. This text only communication does eliminate the 70% of other levels of human communication that happens in face to face and the 40-50% of other levels that take place voice to voice. THe little smiley faces don't help too much either.

Ah, the importance of my trade as English Language Arts teacher is still obscure and often misunderstood... it is nice to see that at least once in a while it is recognized as the most siginificant job in the world. After all, even President Bush had an.....never mind

 

[arnisador]

Seen on Eskrima Digest:

Nagondzog -- The traditional Apache methods of hunting, survival, and
guerrilla warfare.

find contact info. for training at www.yashai.com or
www.boneheadllc.com

Information on Chief Instructor Blaise Loong’s background/experience can be
found at http://www.blayshalla.com/Blaise/MainFrame/MainFrame.htm.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Blaise was in Fountain Valley, CA, while I lived in Huntington Beach. Knew a couple guys who trained with him, and stopped by to watch some sessions. Very intense guy who takes his training quite seriously, and has developed some excellent (read: scary) skills. Has a demo tape for his hall...bit of alright, actually.

Dave

 

[Northstorm]

I grew up on an Indian reservation in North Central plains of Montana. I was aware that the native language and stories were passed on, but there was never any fighting skills passed on that I was aware of. I went to many pow wows as well, and never saw any demonstrations of fighting skills other than wrestling. But I can say without hesitation that the indians did love to fight. I am as white as a fishes underbelly, but my grandfather was an old Scottsman who herded sheep in that valley, so I was accepted and learned a lot about the culture and the people. I speak with a reservation accent, which was pointed out to me often by my white friends.

One thing I noticed was that Native Americans prefer to wrestle rather than to stand and punch. They may start out with a punch, but almost always it turns into a wrestling match. Wrestling is not only present in the streets, but it is VERY big at reservation schools. Maybe this tells us something about the roots of their fighting style.