Creation bias

[ShoriKid]

Something I've noticed from basically the time I started training until now is a bias toward arts with both an Asian creators and those who's start was at least 60 years ago. It seems quite common that a western practitioner of martial arts, even one with decades of training, who founds a style is questioned as to their validity in doing so. Their skills and lineage are closely examined. Often new styles are derided as made up and inferior to what came before.

What I guess I wonder is the why of it. If someone has the skill and the knowledge to formulate their own approach, and they cannot do so within their old base style, why is this a bad thing? All of the styles we look to as "traditional" these days were founded by relatively young men with good training and the idea of how martial arts should be trained and applied. Was there a resistance to their new teaching or "styles" when they were still young and teaching? Where they told by the older martial artists that they shouldn't be doing their own thing? I feel comfortable saying that they would in the current day and age.

Do we see only those founders at the turn century up until the middle of that same period as some how more legit than martial artists of today? If, as Sensei 8 is fond of saying, the proof is on the floor in both physical ability and ability to teach, is going their own way always going to be view these days as a bad thing?

[JusticeZero]

Mostly it's a culture thing. not Asian culture; American culture.

American culture has a particular peculiar form of xenophilia; it is a marker of high status to experience and enjoy the foreign. But not just the foreign, it must be associated with an entire package of experiences and rituals that transform it into an experience of 'authenticity', with the most 'authentic' being reserved for those things that were supposedly created with the minimum of interference from the all-pervasive American influence.

It is a way of counting social status coup to reveal that one has eaten in a restaurant in a faraway place. but not just any restaurant for the fueling of the body, no, it must be peppered with regional-looking art, the food must be prepared and served in some foreign and exotic way, it must be eaten in some specific bizarre ritualistic fashion in order to accentuate the differences, and the waitstaff must wear traditional looking costumes even in spite of matters of practicality or rationality. All of these things are presented to heighten the "authentic" nature of the cultural artifact thus experienced, and each level builds further status upon the others.

It is the same with the martial arts. While some may say that "crystallizing" an art is a bad thing, it is in itself a change.. to lock an art down so that it never changes - or at least to give it the APPEARANCE of never changing - can add authenticity to the art, and hence value. The ability to trace a long pedigree of sameness offers that authenticity.

This can be seen in many arts where "traditions" have been constructed RECENTLY and sold as "the ancient tradition". Colored belts, for instance, are "traditional" only because "modern innovators" sold it as a tradition.

"Fighting barefoot" is one that confuses me; the art i do had a style split, but the side that used the distinguishing feature of barefootedness was the modern style. They did it knowingly and explicitly to cripple the art and make its practitioners less able to fight in real world situations, and to make them dependent on a paid training hall.

An art created and formulated recently by a white person, therefore, has the absolute minimum of social status possible. Quality regardless, it has almost zero "authenticity" to inflate its students' smug.

Its only appeal to quality would be to claim the use of vast amounts of technology and science, but it is rare to see an art able to convincingly make that claim. (regardless of whether or not it is true)

[sensei8]

Acceptance is a very fragile thing...especially in the MA.

It's not easy to accept that which seems new and threatening to ones own existence. To gaze into the very eyes of that which might possibly destroy their very own existence with new methodologies/ideologies and the like than their own must be quite unsettling to say the least.

Tracing the MA back to the Asian cultures of China, Japan, and Okinawa, to name just a few, to where their style was birthed is comforting to those who hold those truths tightly and so dear to them. Anything else is truly foreign to them, and in that, not a true MA in their eyes.

A true style of the MA must come from those aforementioned cultures for it to be accepted by the masses, both laypersons as well as those MA whose deeply trenched in the Do. Westerners are felt by those who believe wholeheartedly that the Asian way of the MA is the only true type of the MA, and in that, Westerners are often and so easily cast aside because they're not of and/or not tied directly connected to that Asian blood.

Is Shindokan a true MA because its comes from Okinawa? Is Shindokan a true MA because its founder was born in Okinawa with an impressive lineage? NO!! Shindokan is a true MA because our student body, who believes in its effectiveness and complete totality, says so. Shindokan could've came from anywhere and it would still be effective, and not only because of its Okinawan roots.

Bias to the creator of its creation is fine, nonetheless, the proof is on the floor...and only there.

Imho that is.

[darksoul]

In reply to JusticeZero -

Japanese martial arts pretty much always trained barefoot as it was expected to remove your shoes when entering a home/dojo/place of worship.

We train both ways. Outside with shoes. Inside barefoot.

That was my only reply, the rest I'll leave to you guys to discuss

[bushido_man96]

I've noticed that the problem in the MAs when it comes to forming something new, is that the style that brought them along sees them as somehow disloyal, and so they get offended. It often becomes political in nature, and separations occur.

I do think that if someone starts up something new, then it should be given a chance, and looked at to see what they offer, how they present it, and what their credentials are in doing so.

[JohnASE]

Styles that have been around for a long time have proven themselves by enduring the test of time. Newly created styles have to prove themselves through other means. Judging the style by the credentials of the creator is faster than actually learning the style.

Anyone can create a style. If a style has something that make people want to learn it, it will endure. If it doesn't, it will die out. The new styles of today that endure will become the traditional styles of tomorrow. In the meantime, the new styles of today are just another new style created by a guy who might or might not know what he's doing.

As far as Asians verses non-Asians goes, I can see how people might assume that an Asian could have a more extensive background in the martial arts, especially if they're older. I can think of many Japanese senseis that have trained for over 50 years, but I can't think of many Caucasians. Martial arts is big in the USA now, but it wasn't that long ago that karate was some funny thing done by cartoon characters with squinty eyes and Coke-bottle glasses. Yeah, I'm not young.

[JustLuke]

I've been thinking about this very issue quite a bit recently. I have a brown belt in Shotokan (2nd kyu) and I'm working on getting my 1st kyu in Shorin Ryu. I would like to teach in the future and when I do, the style that I teach will be my personal style, which is something of a cross between Shotokan and Shorin Ryu with a few "unique" elements.

Will people consider me to be a fake?

Will they consider the style that I will teach to be made up?

I am sure that some people, perhaps many, will consider me to be a fraud who teaches a fake karate style but, like Sensei8, I think that if my future students consider what I teach to be worthwhile then it will be legitimate in the eyes of the people who matter.

[DoctorQui]

Will they consider the style that I will teach to be made up?

All Karate (indeed all MA) is made up, just some were made up a long time ago.

I think the real test is, are you making up a new style to complement Karate and expand knowledge or are you simply trying to produce an easy style that will attract people because they can attain BB quickly and thus make you rich fast.

I'm sure I know which one you are, and on that assumption, no I do not think you would be considered a fake.

[DWx]

Styles that have been around for a long time have proven themselves by enduring the test of time. Newly created styles have to prove themselves through other means. Judging the style by the credentials of the creator is faster than actually learning the style.

Anyone can create a style. If a style has something that make people want to learn it, it will endure. If it doesn't, it will die out. The new styles of today that endure will become the traditional styles of tomorrow. In the meantime, the new styles of today are just another new style created by a guy who might or might not know what he's doing.

As far as Asians verses non-Asians goes, I can see how people might assume that an Asian could have a more extensive background in the martial arts, especially if they're older. I can think of many Japanese senseis that have trained for over 50 years, but I can't think of many Caucasians. Martial arts is big in the USA now, but it wasn't that long ago that karate was some funny thing done by cartoon characters with squinty eyes and Coke-bottle glasses. Yeah, I'm not young.

Great post

I think that that's the crux of it. Anything new has always got to prove itself first before becoming accepted.

[Dobbersky]

Good thread. And very close to my heart as I am one of those people who "created" my own style and I'm not Asian. I was verbally chastised by many people on forums when I announced it to the world, I even had one senior karate say how dare I mix Wado with another style when I'd only been doing it 5 mins (4 years isn't long enough) I've moved on since then, I don't care what they think as MY students have chosen me to teach them my style over other styles out there. I don't make any false statements . I say this style is the best for me and it will always keep changing and with that I've even said from my students that when they get there too, from their training in this and other arts, if they wanted to add things or change things, as long as they show me the reason etc I'm happy to include it.