From: schan@birch.srg.af.mil (Stephen Chan x4485)
Subject: Re: Badass Karate (-Do?) -- note: lengthy post
Organization: SRG, Arinc Research Corp., Annapolis, MD
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 14:04:32 GMT

In article <1dna0nINN332@spool.mu.edu> kickda@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Damien Kixk) writes:
>       I feel that the commercialization of the martial arts
>  is grevious crime to the very martial spirit which was
>  once the backbone of "the arts".  My reasons for feeling
>  this way are uniquely mine -- since this is, by nature,
>  very much of an opinion kind of a thing.  I feel that the
>  capitalization of humankinds' skills, to turn what it is
>  that a person can do into a commodity, is to fundamentally
>  alienate humanity from itself.  Humankind becomes part of
>  the very mechanism of capital which humankind itself created
>  and the creator ends up serving its creation ...  This is
>  a quasi-poetic attempt at voicing a bit of a neo-marxist
>  view on the nature of captialism.  But not to stray to far
>  afeild -- yes, I think that going commercial is a sell out.

	Sheeesh...read more Zen or Taoism and less Marx, and maybe you'll
decide that alienation is a symptom of attachment. Who is interpreting MA in
a foreign context now?

>       And here comes a completely modern twist ...  Don't
>  sell out!  Keep ma underground and keep it punk!  Check out
>  the martial art history of Okinaowa ... strong tradtion of
>  underground rebellion against an oppressive society.  

	Check out the martial tradition of Japan. Martial arts were for the
oppressive military class. Check out the martial tradition of China, many of
the Kung-Fu schools were/are training camps for criminals and subversives.

>  Strong tradition of self-reliance.  What about ... Capoerica?
>  ... that martial art that came from African slaves learning
>  to fight while in shackles.  What about ninjitsu?  Could
>  one possibly get any more radical than that?

	I think that you are projecting your own romantic notions
into some kind of Truth(tm) about MA in general.

	Nothing wrong with romanticism - it makes the dreary cycle of birth,
reproduction and death a LOT more interesting. The Chinese martial arts are
certainly rich in history, tradition and a certain kind of romance. I once
saw a Kung-Fu form which was nominally created by a man imprisoned for his
political views: much of the form was practiced as if the martial artist's
hands were in shackles - at one point, he snaps apart the chains, and is free
to fight with both hands.
	I thought it was immensely cool.

>  Or at least, how can you truely speak of a martial art
>  unless there is fighting of some sort which is a common
>  factor in you're life.  Not just the potentiality but
>  rather the actuality ...  To talk of such a thing, would
>  it not be a bit pretentious?  Would this not make for a
>  "pack of suburban commandos?"  ... Any comments on this?
>  please?

	You answered your own question: martial arts come from a particular
culture, with it's history and traditions. By practicing a martial art in a
traditional manner, you are showing respect for that tradition, and enjoying
the benefits of those people who actually had to use the stuff. If they didn't
want their art to live on, then they wouldn't have taught it. It's not
pretentious to perpetuate a rich and colorful heritage (In My Pretentious
Opinion)
	Is it pretentious to say that you are proud to be an American, even
though you didn't sign the Declaration of Independence, or fight in the
--
	Stephen Chan
	uunet!srg!schan or uunet!srg!schan@uunet.uu.net