Interestingly one of my students, Sam Wiederspan, brought up some good points about the issue of training with live blades, and why we in the West have such an opposition to such training. These were points that I was going to cover in my first essay, but left out since I didn’t want to go to far off topic. However, these reasons directly influence modern opinion, and fuel the controversy on why or why not live blades should be used when practicing swordsmanship.
The main issue Sam brought up was that the “taming” of the West, especially in regards to the United States was done with the use of the gun, not the sword. We live in a culture that is gun oriented, not sword oriented. Clearly the sword didn’t win the American frontier; it was the six-shooter, and as a result we now look to bladed weaponry as something mysterious and foreign.
In a historical perspective, few if any sword battles occurred on US soil; there are no indigenous American sword forms, and even in Europe the use of the sword became more symbolic with the advent and eventual widespread use of firearms. Sword fighting as a necessity and as an art form died out. Old sword masters died without ever passing on their knowledge, and entire Western style sword fighting arts were lost forever. They were lost to the degree that many people don’t even know these sword-fighting methods, many akin to those found in China and Japan, ever existed.
Because the sword was set aside in favor of firearms the sword became a mystical symbol. It was a link to our past, when man fought savagely in hand-to-hand battles. The sword marked a time when man had to face his opponent eye-to-eye, and actually thrust or slash a piece of sharpened metal in the body of another. Barbaric really.
Unlike a gun, where one can shoot another at a distance, fighting with a sword involves direct physical contact. As a result a warrior using a sword had to develop a mindset that allowed him to do such a thing, a mind set most of us in these modern times can’t even phantom.
This mind-set to kill, especially in such a face-to-face circumstance, is directly opposed to our natural innate adversity to kill. For example, we humans are so programmed not to kill that specific science based methods to teach military recruits to overcome this predisposition had to be developed. Prior to such programs being developed it wasn’t that uncommon to hear of soldiers being unable to return fire during an actual combat situation.
As I tell my students, anyone who attacks another individual with a bladed weapon, and has the mind-set to really stab or cut someone else, is a much more dangerous threat than a person who uses a firearm.
Pulling the trigger of a gun is easy and impersonal. Shooting someone is clean. Most importantly, shooting a gun, especially at close range, requires no skill. You just point and pull the trigger.
A bladed weapon has to be used close in, normally within two feet (spears excluded), and requires someone with the mind-set to actually forcibly push it through skin, muscle tissue, tendons, and organs. It is messy, and to be truly effective requires some degree of skill.
Clearly of the two weapons, the bladed weapon also has more of an emotional edge to it. That is why bladed weaponry is often used in “slasher” movies, or as the preferred weapon used by emotionally distraught lovers to seek revenge--think Glen Close in the movie “Fatal Attraction.” The act of being hacked, cut, perforated, chopped, pierced, flayed, diced, or slashed scares most of us on a very primordial level.
I for one have actually witnessed many individuals who actually fought a gun-wielding adversary; as opposed to those threatened with a knife. The knife victims are often far more traumatized. In fact, I’ve often had victims describe a pocketknife as a machete due to the fear the bladed weapon has evoked.
This leads to another point Sam brought up which I failed to mention in my previous essay. We have all cut ourselves at some point in our lives, and we know what it feels like. Few, if any of us have ever been shot.
Getting cut hurts, and since we know it hurts we avoid anything which might lead to being cut. We avoid handling sharp objects, are taught not to run with scissors, and learn early on to treat knives with a certain degree of respect.
However, as respectful as we may be when using bladed or sharp objects we all know accidents occur in an instant. We all know there is uncertainty when handling these objects, and how quickly the slightest wrong movement can lead to injury. After all, how many of us have cut ourselves while cooking?
Because we collectively know the inherent danger of sharp objects we fear them just a little more than we fear the unknown.
Sam mentioned that almost everyone who rides a motorbike has fallen at least once. Clearly, based on statistics many more people are injured and killed each year by motorcycle related accidents, than by swords or other bladed weaponry. However, few people have a fear of motorbikes, and I’ve never heard of a serious discussion stating motorbikes should be banned, or never ridden.
How come we don’t fear motorbikes?
The truth of the matter behind this whole controversy is the stigma we in the West have placed on martial art weaponry, or to state things more specifically the weaponry of the East. Because they are “foreign” to us, and require skill to use properly, they must for some unknown reason be more inherently dangerous.
Why else would so many laws governing their possession, transportation, manufacture, and distribution, make them illegal. Why would possessing (in public or privately) many of these martial art weapons be a felony, punishable by over a year in state prison, while possessing a firearm in public is a misdemeanor?
Examples of some of the martial art weaponry that is illegal to possess in the state of California.
It doesn’t make sense! When was the last time you read about a robbery where the robber used a sai, or a drive by that was committed with a blowgun?
The controversy over training with live blades is really a silly argument, stemming mostly from ignorance, irrational fear, and poor quality instructors. It is a direct result of martial arts training becoming more of a hobby (recreational activity) than serious life or death business.
The truth is that most devotees of Japanese sword arts don’t practice, nor have any real desire to practice, true “sword fighting skills.” They want to use a sword without acknowledging its lethal potential. Their sword is symbol and a link to the past. For many, the use of a sword is a way to grow spiritually.
These practitioners go through the motions with replicas, saying they are swordsmen. They cut mats or other objects and boast how they could cut through bone and body tissue. They see the sword as something that gives life, rather than take it away.
Ridiculous!
A real purist might say you can never be a swordsman until you’ve been a real sword fight. I won't go that far, I do have my limits, but in a way these extremists would be partially right.
I for one have never been in a real swordfight, and I hope to never face that situation. However, I’ve trained my whole life in a manner that that has prepared me (mentally and physically) for such a situation, whether I should be fortunate to live, or lose and die.
I’ve learned the mind-set that when ever I pick up my sword to practice it's not for fun. It’s serious business and I must give my training the full attention it deserves or be prepared to suffer the consequences of injury. My mind, body, and spirit must be unified and act as one.
I’ve learned to respect, sometimes to even fear the lethality, of my sword, and my actions with it.
Could I have achieved this level without using a real sword? Maybe, but I most probably would have missed many of the important lessons training with a live sword instills, lessons that in no way shape or form can be learned with replicas, or as a hobbyist.Labels: Essays, Swords, The Dojo