Wow. I thought you guys said he knew something about Koryu? The number of issues, generalisations, and outright mistakes I saw there seriously lowered my estimation of Kacem. Which, to be frank, wasn't that high to begin with, but I thought he at least had some academic credentials that indicated some knowledge.
References please? And what are your credentials to make such a remark? Mr. Zoughari has a PhD title from a prestigious institute in France (INALCO is invloved in a subject which is my professional specialisation, and believe me, it is highly spoken of). He challenges several views towards Koryu in this piece, which BTW is his responsibility as a scholar, to research and review evidence and put forward theories and statements if he believes older convictions to be wrong. His work is judged by his peers, as is usual in schientific circles, so by other people holding PhD's in Japanese studies. And then other people with a totally different background seem to find it necessary to attack him. I find this strange. I do not know enough of the subject to be commenting on the contents of these things, in Martial Arts history I am an amateur, which I suspect you to be, yet I am an historian and linguist, and believe me, if Mrt. Zoughari would do the things you accuse him of, he would probably loose his job or at least be dragged through the mud by his peers. 'Cause that's how it's done in our corner of science, unfortunately. You could always write to Mr. Zoughari's promotor at INALCO and express your concerns at his capabilities. Titles have been withdrawn for gross mistakes. Regards, Tom.
Firstly, the entire word-play when asked what Koryu are, confusing the issue with "Gakko", which doesn't have anything to do with the idea of Koryu, and is only confusing when translating both words into another language. The idea that there weren't locations where certain arts were taught, the comment that "Bojutsu was only used by the peasants", the generalisations about the founding of all Ryu, the methods of transmission, the way students would come to train in a Ryu, the way he dismisses "learning in correct progression", the over generalisations (incorrect) about keeping things correct (the forms) making the art "stale", and more. What are my qualifications? I train in them. And what he says does not match what is known is each of the Ryu I train in, in the ones I have experience with, or in the ones that I have other familiarity with. From a Koryu perspective, the interview has many, many issues.
In general, 'cause I do not feel the need to rebuke all your points one by one, what you're missing here, in my opinion, is the fact that by his discussion on koryu and related words, he is giving a view which he considers to be historically correct, though, and that is probably not menioned overly well in the interview, it is his theory, a new theory based on his own and others' research into these matter. So just because it does not coincide with the general ideas about these things, it is not wrong. To me, he explains what he feels to be the way these words and institutes functioned during different periods in history. If one disagrees with this, one should read his scientific work/articles on these matters (for an interview such as this always generalises of course) and then find arguments in the availeble sources and scientific literature to rebuke his arguments. That's how it's done. I do enjoy these fresh and insightful perspectives on these matters and take them mostly at face value, because of the man's professional qualifications, until someone else, with similar qualifications, rebukes them. Regards, Tom.
So when he is making blanket statements that are demonstrably incorrect bout Koryu, transmission, training methods, and more, stating that what he's saying is a correct historical perspective, it's fine, because it's just his personal opinion? So, if I said that it's my considered opinion that all movies made in Holywood are about space battles, because I really like SciFi, and have only really watched such films, hence my opinion only being about them, that makes my comments correct and fine? In a lot of his comments on Koryu, they are either pointlessly irrelevant (basically word games that have nothing really to do with Koryu at all), or, at best, incorrect generalisations that are possibly correct for some Ryu but far from correct for all. You can listen to what Kacem has to say, but I gotta tell you, it's not something I'd be taking as correct information. And I'm not even getting into the Hatsumi propaganda at the end there. That part is fine to be opinion. I'm only talking about his comments on Koryu.
I think it is fine for anything that is said in that interview to be 'correct as you understand it' or not. It is just an interview and like you seem to have noticed just opinions. I don't think it requires too much of an analysis, you can either take things from it or you cannot get over something that seems to not gel with your understanding. Many times when people are trying to explain a point they may simplify it or use anecdotes that can be misunderstood. Don't worry about it too much.
/facepalm He is explaining the etymology of gakkou and comparing it with the translations of Koryuu (in english) as old school or classical school. He is not confusing anything, just talking like an academic who likes to get side-tracked on etymology. For your reading pleasure. Enjoy! 流 (10) リュウ ; ル なが（し・す・れ・れる） Formerly SIS 㐬 (Type 1 Phonetic) is as per as described in 育 (passing of a fetus through the vagina) + 川 river (→ flowing water) → flow of amniotic fluid accompanying passage of a fetus through the vagina. The further addition of 水 water is to expand the scope of the term to that of a heavy flow of circulating water → float; pour → trendy; school (of thought, art etc.); style; rank; grade. Other extended meanings include wash off/away; circulate; wander; passage (of time); descent; distribute; divert; stroll; cruise; and (a) sink. No connection to Japan. No PHD. Can't speak Japanese.
It's not based on his personal opinion, it's based on his research. If you have done research into the subject and can demonstrate where he is "demonstrably incorrect", then please show us where he is wrong and how he is wrong. He is demonstrating why the western notion of school does not apply to the notion of koryû. If that makes you confused, I don't understand how you can succeed in doing research in this subject. Since you're not quoting him, it's kind of hard to find which part you are talking of. Do you mean this part: [---]in the history of the first Koryû of Japan, there is no indication of such a center, or established place, with the name of Ryû for a house or dôjô with administration, various teachers, fee, etc. We must wait until the Edo period and especially the middle of the second part of Edo period in order to see the settling down of places such as dôjô dedicated to the teaching of different type of Koryû. He said: It’s not the Bôjutsu that is special, but how it helps to practice and to cultivate. It’s important to mention that Bô is not a battlefield weapon, because it will be broken very easily, and honestly only peasants would use it. In the battlefield, if you use a bô, it must be of iron or steel, like a testu-bô, or with metal reinforcements, nails, hooks, etc., in order to face a blade and other hard weapons. We should not forget that even long weapon like Naginata and Yari could be broken during the fight, so the capacity of using half of the weapon, what ever the length, is important in order to survive. From that situation, it’s easy to see that short weapons are deeply connected with the longer ones. Or do you suggest otherwise? Which generalisations? Ah yes, the subject of his 900 page thesis with a humongous amount of references to old documents of transmission that are even translated in the thesis by Kacem. ? Dismisses? This is what he says: It is really important to think and keep in mind what the Flow (the Ryû) is and all its aspects. I think that the only progression is the process of practice and transmission itself. So in this case what is crucial is the capacity to copy and keep the image of the master alive in the heart. It’s not a matter or days, months or years, but more a matter of life and heart’s purpose through the continuity of the practice. To keep the heart and the intention clear all the way, not looking for the result or the progression. Because the rightness and pureness of the art are always reflected by the form of the disciple. So if he follows correctly the form and the image of the master, and becomes a part of the Flow, this is what is the most important. I think that is more important than a « correct progression », because even a « correct progression » has a « roof », an « end », a « limit ». But being part of a flow, never stopping, there is no roof, no limit, no end. I don't think he said that keeping things correct makes the art stale. If he did, please quote. I do believe he talks about not making forms of forms though, maybe that is what is confusing you? So you are training in several koryû? Which ones? I think it matters greatly for the discussion (especially since Kacem is mostly discussing pre-Edo koryû). At least we know for a fact that you have no link to the transmission of the nine ryû of the Bujinkan.
I was going to stay off this forum,and I still plan to, but just read this by Kaceem Zoughari and highlighted by Big Will... Yet two years before this quote I posted this http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88482&highlight=kashima&page=4 I have been ridiculed over this view by some people, yet Kaceem says pretty much the same thing and almost everyone rushes to his defence. Hmmm Nice article by the way. Been reading a few of Kaceems article/interviews and they seem to follow my thinking whilst being extremely educational at the same time. And yes I agree with some of you that state that current theories should be challenged and hats off to people like Kaceem to relook at the theories. For too long our current understanding of martial arts has been bogged down by "The accepted view". Anyway thats my point made, back to having a rest from MAP
replace "peasant" with 郷士 gôshi and it makes perfect sense, his article proves the limited and stiff point of view you and others hold.
When you read the quote in context, it's clear he was talking about the bo as a battlefield weapon- only a peasant would take a bo into a battle, because a professional warrior would have a more suitable tool. That hardly seems debatable. I have no opinion about Kacem. I read Chris's post before reading the interview and frankly, Chris, I think you really misread much of what he wrote. I'm not sure why, as you seem to be a reasonable guy but I would suggest your reread it and pay careful attention to the context of each assertion you disagree with. They're much less black and white than you seem to have taken them, and are very context dependent.
So far, you have not demonstrated why this is demonstrably correct. I did not state that it was his own opinion as such, I stated it was his opinion, but based on his research. If formed in such a way, an opinion becomes a scholarly theory, and to rebuke it one has to work in the same manner as the theory was formed: research. Which he can prove he has done and no one else here can. What I sincerely think he is doing, is trying to break down the modern understanding of the word Koryu and replacing it with an understanding that is more historically correct. For this, he tries to dig through the different layers of language and history that surround this word. Which is quite a common way to tackle such a problem in our line of work. So I really think you're missing the point. Regards, Tom.
Yes. And you can stop any time you want to If you want to go, go. Saying that you quit but still reading everything and then replying if you disagree is not really quitting, is it?
Interestingly, no one ridicules you for that little bit of text in that thread. It's other stuff you wrote that people debated. Nice try, though.
Count Duckula posted Did I say I quit? What i think I said was... In other words out of this argument. now I did PM someone on here and say that I was not going to post on here for a year as i wanted to concentrate more on my training, but when I saw this I just had to comment. And thats it a one off comment, i'm not going to get drawn into a lengthy 18 page argument. I also felt that I had to say well done for Kaceem Zoughari for his work, and whilst his views may not be accepted by everyone I had to say they are very educational and enlightening. PS for those wondering i have contacted Sandy Marwick and asked if I can attend the Kaceem Zoughari course this month in the UK. waiting for reply. Benkyoka posted well as I said i'm not going to get into a debate with you but really if your going to state such things then you really need to provide sources. Anyway sorry for popping in, maybe see some of you at the course on the 25th/26th. Take care.
