Do we know of any authentic ones? I'm writing a story where the main character is a Native American and he's from Alaska but I haven't decided if his ancestry should be one of the people native to the state. What I'm asking is do we know of any formalized style of unarmed and weapon combat meant for use against other people and not hunting? Although I'm sure there are transferable skills to both.
:*(?* *Is that racist? Perhaps not PC? Not trying to offend anyone but Native Americans always went "woo-woo-woo" when I was a kid. just on the wrong side mate - Mushroom
This may be a start point http://www.fact-index.com/n/na/native_american_fighting_styles.html There is no formal structure to any system that has antiquity; it appears tribes had "trademark" weapons and tactics, but these were never named or codified and by the time they were able to do so they had pretty much been whupped by the newcomers in Cavalry shirts
What you can do is examine the weapons available from archaeological record and draw reasonable conclusions based on their properties. As an example Bronze Age swords would likely not have been used to parry weapons as a primary tactic due to the metal's softness and consequently are almost always found to be used with shields. North American Aboriginals' weaponry was made of natural materials. Blades were made from knapped stone making them sharp but brittle. Knives were relatively short and therefore likely not used in warfare. This leaves a relatively small range of weapons available; axes, clubs, spears, bow and arrow, and an Inuit weapon similar to manrikikusari for entangling the legs of prey. Some regions would also have had hide shields usually about the size of a targe which could have made for some axe/club and shield fighting but more likely were for countering ranged weapons. The specific armament would vary from region to region so I recommend reading up specifically on the weapons of the Inuit which were usually co-opted hunting tools. As for specific fighting style keep in mind that: Weapons made of natural materials are likely to break Because of #1 you won't have parries or hooking with bladed weapons except in emergency Most weapons end up either being ranged or bludgeoning and axes were really the only reliable bladed weapon There was likely wrestling training because it's pretty much globally common There may or may not have been some specific pugilistic training across tribes but for the North I would doubt it
Although native to Canada, Okichitaw is a First Nations martial art developed from Cree fighting technique and other martial arts. The weapon of choice appears to be the gunstock war club. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okichitaw
I have seen it - not convinced of ANY antiquity to it whatsoever. I have several Cree friends, and amongst them a couple of real fighters, and they have no clue about any indigenous system. Now that COULD mean they are ignorant of their culture, but as they know many hunting, backwoods and spiritual aspects I doubt it Any time I see "has trained in X, Y, Z" before any credit to a "rediscovered system" my radar goes off
Are we including central and south america? because there are a number of indigenous arts there EDIT: MY BAD - i didn't realise first nations refers to aborigine canadians and metis peoples
Just looking at the migration patterns of native peoples in the americas - the folks up north, especially alaska were actually a later migration up north, likely to avoid conflict. Their whole lifestyle isn't geared towards the mass warfare seen countries with higher profile martial arts like in europe, central america, africa, oceania and asia. Saying that, wrestling and spear throwing are really popular world wide and while not unique to anyone culture, they exist in every culture atlatl assisted spear throwing among native alaskan folks is well documented in the british museum (they have a whole section on it)
I am not, hence why I'm asking. I don't want to do an injustice to my neighbors by misrepresenting them in my art. (I myself am Irish, German, and Scottish.)
I am, but if I only wrote what I knew, then ALL of my protagonists would be writers from Pennsylvania/New Jersey who know Kung Fu. There is wisdom in that don't get me wrong, but one doesn't need to necessarily live something in order to represent it in art. Shakespeare wasn't a direct witness to the historical dramas he wrote, but even with dramatic license he captured the spirit of the conflicts. The Raid was about an Indonesian police officer with training in Pencak Silat but Gareth Evans is a Welshman who's never been a police officer. See what I mean? Depicting a culture that you aren't from, my teacher told me, is simply a matter of research, respect, and most importantly never assuming anything. Hence why I posted the question.
Shakespeare used those historical settings to create drama to illustrate truths about life that he knew. Do you believe that The Raid is in any way representative of police activity? It's about what Evans knows about action movies. He also lived in Indonesia at the time. Respect is the key issue here. Why is one of your characters aboriginal? If it's an essential element of the plot then really you need to spend some time in country (that's research). If it's just a device to try and make your story more interesting, add more colour or integrate some hokey mystical element that's actually pretty disrespectful and tbh lazy, gimmicky story telling.
I would politely ask you not to assume my intent with my writing. Especially since I wrote this in my last post as a response to you. "See what I mean? Depicting a culture that you aren't from, my teacher told me, is simply a matter of research, respect, and most importantly never assuming anything. Hence why I posted the question." My protagonist's ancestry and how he perceives and relates to it is a key part of his character and his relation to the conflict. Again, I'm asking in the first place so that I'm not disrespectful to my neighbors, even by accident.
Because I don't want to write the same protagonist, over and over again. I mean I ask you, you think all writers MUST experience the same exact events that their protagonists endure to write them as convincing and compelling characters?
Then as I said, you need to spend some time with that community because at the moment you are a long way from what you know and it's a culture that's hard to understand from literature and said literature certainly won't give you the necessary insight into the subjective experience which is essential if you're writing about the subjective experience. If that's the story you want to tell, that's great, but there's likely ways to tell that story using points of reference that are more familiar to you. I would also suggest that it is slightly paternalistic (ie disrespectful) to write about the subjective experience of people from other cultures.
