Reading
a valuable book becomes most personal.
While
reading Joe Swift’s “Itosu Anko
–Savior of a Cultural Heritage” I found so many
topics discussed that meant so much to my various studies about what earlier
Okinawan Arts were like, and blended together with my previous research cause
me to rethink many things I formerly believed true. These are not the major
sections of the book, often footnotes that drive my thought. Everything in the
book is valuable, though in different ways.
I
am just going to shotgun my observations out.
As
Joe was discussing possible Chinese origins for Te and Toudi might have
been from Chinese Military Training. And the forms that were studied very likely
every technique went to a lethal conclusion. Most likely that was modified for
the purposes that Okinawa needed in their developing arts. Later for further
modification of those arts so that karate training might be more appropriate
for the Okinawan schools.
I
was particularly interested in him mentioning an early newspaper article (Ryukyu
Shimpo March 21,1916) which mentioned that kata Bunkai was performed during the exhibition. This was well
before Mabuni
Kenwa discussed kata bunkai in his books in the 1930s. Apparently
the term Bunkai was known
connected to karate well before Mabuni used it inn the 1930s and spread that
use through Japan.
Joe
also notes there was no description as to what that Bunkai was. Just the mention that it was performed at a
demonstration. That leaves one to wonder what that consisted of. I
had read in a magazine back in the 1980 that Americans got the term from
Japanese karate-ka as that use moved to the US. Then when they went to Okinawa
and queried their instructors, received quizzical looks. Finally those
instructors (under assumed politeness not wanting not to leave a polite
question unanswered) then began to show some kata applications.. ..This adds
another piece to the puzzle for me. Not conclusive but nevertheless…..
However
a much larger issue around previous arts has opened in my mind. Basically it
seems incorrect to lump centuries of prior Te
and Toudi arts together as they were
the same ground that Itosu used to create and rename Toudi as Karate (the
Japanese pronouncation.
As
I understand it prior to about 1870 the arts developed by the Okinawan Bushi
clans were done to serve 5 separate functions.
I
previously mentioned those traditions in this article.
When thinking of the Toudi that became Karate this exercise may
be interesting.
I
would think of the training those instructors was geared to prepare them for
the eventual roles where their use of
Te/Toudi was but a part of that role. After leaving their instructor and
assuming those roles, as they were junior members likely group training filled
in more details. Think of the instructor role as base preparation.
Then
Japan took control of Okinawa and their roles as Bushi groups was ended,
Japanese groups took on those role functions that remained. At that point in
time their training was for no society useful function. Many of those families
suffered when their clan stipend was ended too. Of course some of those who had
been trained continued to train others, with their prior arts likely for little
purpose but to keep training.
So
there was phase 1- the original Te/Toudi
which served a function, and that was in four different roles.
Then
there was phase 2 – the training remained and continued but served no further
function.
That
where Itosu Anko
stepped forth and defined a new function and purpose for his Karate
in the schools.
This
realization yields greater benefit as to what the prior Te/Toudi might have been than considering all of that together.
There
is so little documentation from that era it is easy to lump all of it together.
That seems to be incorrect and represent a difference in my thinking.
This
leave the greater part of Joe Swift’s
“Itosu Anko
–Savior of a Cultural Heritage” for you to discover.
Much
detail about the technical changes around the kata, the applications, the
timing of movement as well as the method of movement that occurred. Then there
is a great deal of Okinawan articles on the developing School karate, as well
as many articles on Itosu’s life. Some of has racy connotations suggesting
something I have read about other Okinawan karate-ka.
Note for Isshinryu: Shimabuku Tatsuo is referenced also.
Now
I am looking forward to reading the book a third time and seeing what I
discover anew.