At 08:44 AM 11/3/02 +0900, you wrote:
>The Subjects are:
>   hiroshin-ken <hi  Martial art, the "Art of War"

<snikersnak>

>      I've already read Chris McFarland's not-so-small (or nice) rant, but 
> I'd
>have to agree with him whole heartedly.  And not just because he has the
>alliteral facts.

Ehe...sorry, that subject is a hot button for me.  ^_^

And "alliteral," that was a nice touch, I had to look that up.  :D

>      Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but just because something
>wouldn't be as 'accessible' does not mean it loses its 'label' as a martial
>art.  If you read Sun Tzu's "Art of War" he states that the sword should, in
>essence, "become one with your arm"...
>
>
>[note to Chris:]  I was kinda hoping you would have made that connection with
>your little vocabulary lesson, there.  Tying in 'martial art' to mean the
>"Art of War"...

Good call!  I've never actually read "The Art of War," I keep meaning to, 
but the notion flits out of my brain whenever I visit the library.  I'll 
pick it up one of these days though.

>      Now, I know that no one in their right mind would walk around, 
> nowadays,
>with a sword in their grasps.  That would just be asking for trouble.  But

<snikersnak>

<meanwhile, back at the ranch...>

>When you learn any form of weapon, I think you have to
>know at least the basics of non-weapon art.  So, with
>or without a weapon, you should be able to fight.  And

Not really, but it does help.  I took fencing before I took firearms, and 
yes, that helped with the firearms, but some of the folks in my class 
caught up to me quite nicely /without/ the fencing, or any other martial 
art related background. (some were OBVIOUSLY not martially inclined.)

>you should be able to use any of the weapons you

<snikersnak>

>McFarland-san is 100% correct in his explanation.
>And, I kinda took a small offense to that comment (Wiz
>not considering weapons a form of martial arts).  I'm
>a beginner learning to fight South Shaolin style and I
>have to learn at least two sets(kata, whatever) before
>I can even TOUCH any of the weapons.  And I'm looking
>forward to the day my master says I'm fit for a
>weapon, so, saying that isn't a martial arts is
>kinda....... not so good.

OOOH!!!  I got called McFarland-san for the first time ever!  I feel tingly 
now!  :D

>I agree w/ Hiroshin-san also.  People do use knives a
>lot... I've seen some Konbatan (Fillipino martial arts
>with stick fighting) and the grandmaster showed us how
>to use a pencil to fight! Err... about Konbatan, if
>your sticks are knocked away or broken, the style you
>fight w/o sticks is very similar to when you DO have
>sticks.  BUT, I don't agree that swords are useless.
>I know Hiroshin-san said *might*, but I disagree with
>that statement entirely.

<snikersnak>

<meanwhile, out on the plains...>

>OOOO! good your learning southern shaolin, so am I. What I said was kendo was
>not a martial art because it only uses swords. Shaolin teaches weapons as

<snikersnak>

>you people dont agree with me. I mean hell, if we could carry swords in day
>to day life, learning something like kendo would be great! It would have a
>purpose to so you could attack/defend against other people or whatever. But
>we cant and it has no real purpose other than to fight like a sport. I

<snikersnak>

Actually, the predominance of weapons in a society is directly proportional 
to the level of control a particular government wishes to exert over it's 
citizens, and technology level determines the type of weapon carried.  A 
government (or authority figure, this works in any power structure) that 
wishes greater control over it's citizenry or a portion of society will 
restrict weapon use for that segment.  A few examples throughout 
history:  Greeks not allowing slaves to carry weapons; Rome disbanding any 
local organized military and prohibiting the ownership of weapons unless 
you were a roman soldier in a conquered territory; total weapons bans in 
/all/ strata of society in Japan, save for the samurai; western feudal 
lords limiting the peasant classes to basic hunting implements or 
variations thereof (peasants who fought in wars /never/ got swords, and not 
only because they were expensive); English restrictions on weapons and 
ammunition manufacture and trade in the American Colonies shortly before 
the Revolutionary War; English colonialists not giving, trading, teaching, 
or selling the secret of the modern firearm; etc...

I could go on, I won't.

The /type/ of weapon is directly determined by the technology of the 
era.  A medieval knight wouldn't be caught dead without a sword, and a 
cowboy a hundred years ago WOULD be dead if he didn't have a revolver.

The /lack/ of weapons on the streets of the "civilized" world would 
indicate one of two things, either a) we're becoming a much more peaceful 
society in which we simply don't feel the need for a weapon, or b) 
restrictions and controls are being placed on us to the point where unarmed 
martial arts is the only legal self-defense option.

I'll let you look at the newspaper and tell me which is going on.


Chris McFarland
I have no tag line, except maybe, "Why, yes, my mother IS an outspoken, 
politically active historian, why do you ask?"
The Ranma 1/2 Expressway
http://home.nethere.net/homernet