Here’s an interesting observation, why is so much importance placed on succession in Karatedo? What I mean by this is the passing down of knowledge that qualifies certain individuals to teach based upon a hierarchy of the founder teaching to his disciples and so on (sort of reminds you of catholic hierarchy – pope, cardinals, arch-bishops, bishops, priests, and lay people). Well, this is complete non-sense! Anyone and I mean anyone, practicing under the label of Karatedo can trace himself back to the “founder”. Let’s use Goju-ryu as our “style” and myself and a few of my friends as examples to trace our lineage back to the founder.
Higaonna-Miyagi-Higa-Sakai-Lohse
Higaonna-Miyagi-Uehara-Mori-Uematsu-Swift
Higaonna-Miyagi-Higa-Fukuchi-Tokashiki-Kinjo-McKenna
There that was easy enough wasn’t it. Since Miyagi is considered “the founder” of Goju-ryu and therefore official authority, therefore by extension so is Joe Swift, Fred Lohse and myself. It has to be because I got my kata from Kinjo, who got them from Tokashiki, who got them from Fukuchi, who got them from Higa, who got them from Miyagi. So it has to be valid. LOL. Its pure nonsense. Its things like this that makes it so easy to poke fun at Karatedo. Really, it doesn’t take much effort.
Excellent!
I’ve lost count of the conversations I’ve had with folks who have produced a list of names on a piece of paper as “proof” of their traditional lineage. I stopped having that conversation with people a few years ago though…it was driving me nuts!!!
This is not a plug for my new book…honestly! But in it, I discuss this, and many similar topics that have taken root in todays karate. This is why when asked I tell people….it’s a karate book for “grown-ups”. It remains to be seen if the message in the book gets lost in the rush to kill the messenger!
I’m not sure if karate can ever regain a sense of dignity in the mind of the average westerner, nevertheless, this, and your previous post, are important pointers to the reality of karate in the 21st century.
All the best!
Well I’m getting more and more interested about your upcoming book. One thing that non-Okinawan / Japanese karateka fail (miserably) to understand is that they (Okinawans & Japanese) don’t really think about it all that much. What’s more important is their direct teacher in the here and now. Of course they understand and do respect the teachers before them but in terms of lineage it’s not that important.
Besides training is not a linear process so how could someone honestly have a lineage? At best they have a web of relationships.
M
I couldn’t agree more with you about lineage…but, if people make karate a business then they have to be able to market that business, and this, I believe, is where the focus on lineage and other “marketing tools” come in.
I guess it all depends on why we are involved with karate in the first place. I believe our agenda dictates our actions, or as I put it in the book…”your reason for training in karate will dictate the type of training you do and the lessons you are willing to learn.”
Mike
Mario,
I believe the issue arose by transplanting karate from a culture that accepted karate as a standard practice, into a culture with no similar traditions. Then trying to make sense of it, or trying to explain it became a chore that lineage helped make sense, even when it meant so little.
Should the training survive another century of so in our cultures (and I have no idea if it will) a lot of these discussions will die out.
Hello Victor:
To some extent I agree. There was definitely much more of an emphasis on lineage by non-Okinawan students in the early days that carried over on to succeeding generations. I also suspect that the cultural lens of these new cultures caused things to go askew as well. Whether or not it this will die out, I don’t know, but I certainly hope it does.
Imagin there’s no sempai…it’s easy if you try
No kohai below us…above us only sky
Imagin all the deshi…training just for fun….hooooooo!
You may say I’m a dreamer….but I’m not the only one
Someday the “styles” will join us…and the (karate) world can train as one……
If you think this sounds familiar, that’s because a scouser pinched the words from a book I was writing as a six year old uchi-deshi of the real master and founder of the one and only true karate. Anyone who says any different dosen’t know nothing!!!!
Thank you Mr L @(・●・)@
The interesting thing for me is that it seems only to apply to certain of the (more cultural) Asian fighting arts.
Most Judo people I know don’t waste much time talking about connecting what they do back to Kano. Likewise, most western Boxers, in my experience, don’t talk much about who their boxing coach’s teacher was, nor does anyone I know spend much time tracing their wrestling back to Farmer Burns. For the most part in the above cases, how valid your training was had more to do with who fell down first .
Granted, all the above are martial sports, but it brings up the question of practice as validity versus lineage as validity…
Its interesting that martial sports do not suffer from this problem and I agree that its partially because of their focus on outcome – does it work.
The lineage issue (and lineage charts) did come about for a reason. We can argue its validity, but it originated out of the basic need to establish legitimacy of instructors — particularly as the popularity of martial arts spread rapidly in the post-War era.
One influence was the desire of many Okinawan martial artists to gain acceptance from the mainland Japanese budoka, the Ministry of Education, and the Dai Nippon Butokukai for their “country bumpkin” systems. With so many of the styles of kenjutsu, iaido, jujutsu, etc. having keizu (lineage charts) tracing them back to ancient founders, there was a natural pressure on the Okinawan sensei to produce something equivalent.
Then you had the proliferation of instructors after WW2, during which time any Okinawan who wanted to fleece GI’s could open a dojo. Determining if the sensei had a legitimate lineage was one of the few forms of “consumer protection” available. The situation worsened when those GI’s returned home and became overnight yudansha or even “masters”! Of course, a pretty lineage chart also became the charlatan’s best friend.
The third issue is the whole concept of “ryu” and “ha”. We translate “ryu” as school or style, but the verb form is “nagasu” (to flow). So implied in the Japanese concept of a “ryu” is the flow of knowledge from teacher to student, generation to generation. This leads to the production of charts to document that flow … as well as to document where divergences (“ha”) have occurred in that flow.
You’re absolutely right that a pretty keizu does not make me a legitimate instructor, or even a good one. And the lack of one does not mean that I have nothing to teach others. But I do still think the keizu and menjo have their place. If I want to teach “karate-do” I can slap together a curriculum and start teaching it. But if I present myself as a teacher of Gohakukai Karate-do, then I should expect a McKenna Sensei or others to ask me to prove that I have the proper credentials to teach that specific style. In most respects it’s a form of “trademark” protection.
Here’s an analogy: I could teach you exactly the same material, from the identical textbooks and lesson plans that you would receive in the Harvard MBA program. You would be just as smart, just as capable — or more so — than if you had attended Harvard. But I still have no right to call it a “Harvard” MBA when I hand you your diploma.
I think lineage charts and menjo still have a legitimate purpose in the traditional martial arts. We simply need to stop trying to make them something more than what they really are.
Thank you for the well thought out reply. There is a limited use for keizu within koryu but I find that model has limited utility within the Okinawan martial ways due to the local nature of these ways and the parochial nature of the Okinawans.