Compulsary Martial Arts in PE

[DjinnWired]

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/ed20120315a1.html

Has anyone heard more about this from teachers? I think it's quite cool actually, but I wonder what the martial arts community will think about possibly untrained teachers having to take these classes. Both my JHSs specialise in martial arts already so it won't be an issue for us, but I'm curious how other schools will go. Thoughts?

[Musashi]

So they are going to make kids do judo as a separate class?

[Siyris]

If they're just going to teach manners and how to roll then Aikido would be a much better choice. It's softer, teaches important moral lessons like avoiding and neutralising conflict, and I've never seen anyone injured in an Aikido class. In fact the philosophy of Aikido is much more in keeping with the government "peace education" mandate than Judo or any other martial art.

I'm not sure how you can say that unless you've taken every other kind of martial art. I know for Judo at least, they focus on how to avoid conflict and how to talk down a situation rather than let it escalate... also, most of the beginning moves taught in Judo are defensive moves and how to break a hold if someone grabs you. Aikido is very much about avoiding and neutralizing conflict, but so are many of the Japanese martial arts.

[Siyris]

I will freely admit that I don't know enough about either martial art to make a strong argument either way. However, my friend does Aikido and has for years, however she has gotten a number of serious injuries from it. Not life-threatening ones, but a couple of broken bones, as well as sprains. I don't know enough about it to say one way or the other, but it seems to me that, no matter which martial art is taught, there is a higher risk of injury than if the PE classes stuck to non-fighting forms of exercise.

That being said, the article seemed to be saying not that Judo is going to be enforced, but that many BoEs seem inclined to use it. The government only specified that a martial art should be taught, not which one. It will be interesting to see how this next school year turns out.... it seems there are changes in almost every subject's requirements.

[Musashi]

Well as far as I know Judo is not jujutsu. Judo is a dumbed down non punching martial arts designed for competition. Jujutsu is way more aggressive. I've been doing jujutsu for 3 years, and it's roots are from Japan but developed in Brazil.

I digress.. Anyhow, if they make kids do a whole year of judo or martial arts -- they will need a trained teacher to do it.

If they only do a module in PE, then I think a PE teacher could to it.

I just don't get the article because they start talking about sports club injury and death stats, and don't mention if the compulsory class is a PE module or a full on separate course. (Which I doubt since they would need to cut back on other classes)

Anyhow I think it's an awesome idea whether it's a module or full course. It's a good way for kids to exercise and learn all the cool contributions japan has made to martial arts.

[irishjoe]

Judo was not designed for competition. It is however a very popular competitive sport.

Aikido may be a bit less aggressive than judo, but I don't necessarily think it would be softer or easier for beginners. Judo might seem a lot more aggresive but thats cos as a sport people try very hard to throw each other on their backs.

Both have elements of avoiding conflicts and are defensive martial arts, using your opponents power or force against them, so they would be the same in that respect. So that would depend on the teacher and the focus of the class.

Both also teach break fall techniques at the start so that shouldn't be a problem either, but from what I have seen (I have tried aikido only a couple of times but I have seen a fair amount):

In judo at the start you learn an easy technique such as a sweeping technique (such as o soto gari) or a hip throw (o goshi). these are easy to do, and also easy to control. This makes it easier to hold onto your partner while you throw him, and easier to be thrown and perform a break fall if you are the one being thrown.

However in aikido it seems that the techniques are mostly hand throws (like uki otoshi in judo). These are much harder to do, and harder to control. They also have a bigger impact for the opponent. So this makes it more difficult to do a safe breakfall if you are being thrown.

So maybe aikido isn't easier at the start.

Also I don't know about aikido but I have read stats ages and ages ago saying judo is one of the safest sports there is for minors.

In the end it would depend on the teacher, how well he can teach breakfalls and how well he can teach new techniques safely.

Hopefully any teacher that will teach a martial art in PE class will be a trained coach for that martial art.

[AVN]

I'm with William on this one.
I don't think forcing kids to learn to fight is useful at all. It's one thing if a kid an their parents decide to sign them up for a martial arts, or other fighting sport, but to impose it on all kids? I don't agree. It's asking for trouble both in and out of class.

My BOE just told me schools choose either judo or kendo.
My area has decided to go with kendo finding it safer and they don't have to install tatami.

[losdutchmen]

The decision to mandate martial arts training wasn't made in response to bullying was it? I thought I read that the purpose was to instill traditional "Japanese" values in the younger generations. Based on that, martial arts are a huge cultural tradition in Japan. There are plenty of others also, which I always thought were already well practiced; ikebana, tea ceremony, taiko etc. I always thought that Japanese schools did a good job promoting their culture.

Before we start bashing the decision though, look at it from a traditional Japanese point of view. Japanese people have always had a sense of toughness, whether it is mental or physical. They are taught to deal with adversity and problems quietly without much complaint. They've developed a culture based on conformity and group dynamics instead of individual likes and dislikes. That has created a unique sense of unity within Japan. Not always good, no, but compared with the complete lack of social unity in some other countries, it has its positives. When I heard of this, I tried to think of an activity that American schools could use to promote "American" culture. Can't come up with one. Butter churning? Shooting guns? Lassoing horses? Square dancing? Not many countries can call on a 400 year old art form from its country's past.

I've always admired Japan for keeping its sense of "Japanese-ness". I think a lot of what is wrong with American culture, and some other Western countries, is that they lack that cohesiveness. So before you cry outrage and predict mass death and injury to noob judo students, keep in mind that a huge part of Japanese culture revolves around gaman. Maybe the purpose isn't to raise a country of Olympic Judoka, but rather strengthen their character through the use of a traditional martial art.

[AVN]

The decision to mandate martial arts training wasn't made in response to bullying was it? I thought I read that the purpose was to instill traditional "Japanese" values in the younger generations. Based on that, martial arts are a huge cultural tradition in Japan. There are plenty of others also, which I always thought were already well practiced; ikebana, tea ceremony, taiko etc. I always thought that Japanese schools did a good job promoting their culture.

Before we start bashing the decision though, look at it from a traditional Japanese point of view. Japanese people have always had a sense of toughness, whether it is mental or physical. They are taught to deal with adversity and problems quietly without much complaint. They've developed a culture based on conformity and group dynamics instead of individual likes and dislikes. That has created a unique sense of unity within Japan. Not always good, no, but compared with the complete lack of social unity in some other countries, it has its positives. When I heard of this, I tried to think of an activity that American schools could use to promote "American" culture. Can't come up with one. Butter churning? Shooting guns? Lassoing horses? Square dancing? Not many countries can call on a 400 year old art form from its country's past.

I've always admired Japan for keeping its sense of "Japanese-ness". I think a lot of what is wrong with American culture, and some other Western countries, is that they lack that cohesiveness. So before you cry outrage and predict mass death and injury to noob judo students, keep in mind that a huge part of Japanese culture revolves around gaman. Maybe the purpose isn't to raise a country of Olympic Judoka, but rather strengthen their character through the use of a traditional martial art.

Just throught I would throw out there that baseball, basketball and many other sports have their roots in the west. Those would be traditional sports and can be used promote Western Culture. Just because we view things as normal doesn't make them less traditional.

There are pros and cons to individualism and pros and cons to what you called conformity.

My problem with introducing martial arts has nothing to do with why they made it mandatory it has to do with the risks. I wouldn't want boxing to become a mandatory subject. I think this is something families should be allowed to have a say in. It will exclude and hurt some students more than a lot of other sports would. I actually feel my school made a smart choice in choosing kendo over judo. There's more distance between students and less real life application more like a dance.

[Siyris]

Aikido isn't designed to kill, nor are their tournaments, since these are both held to be too aggressive and focusing too much on competition rather than working with your partner.

Um... this is blatantly incorrect. There are tournaments in Aikido. My partner has trophies that she won at such. So wherever you are getting your information, it is not a very good source.

I don't think forcing kids to learn to fight is useful at all.

How is teaching Japanese students martial arts in school any different than teaching kids in American high schools to wrestle or box? In my gym class in 9th grade we had an entire month and a half where we learned the basics of boxing. I don't see how this is any different.

Martial art means that it once had battlefield application.

This is also incorrect. The term 'martial art' comes from an incorrect translation of a term coined by a scholar on Japanese sports from.... I don't remember the exact year, but pretty recently. Many martial arts were not actually used on battle fields, or if they were, they were not viewed, taught, or performed the way that they are now. Kyuudou is a good example: The double-curved long-bows were used in fuedal Japan, both from standing and from horseback (known as Kyuujitsu). However, they were banned and the use of them was made criminal when the Shogunate took over. During the 1600's after the civil war(s) had ended, long-bow archery shifted in focus from a fighting goal to a personal development/meditation goal (kyuudou). I would not be surprised if most martial arts, as they are taught currently, follow a similar path -- that they were at one point used in a battle setting, but have since been altered and toned down to make them more about the mental and internal focus and growth, rather than the act of violence.

I also find the assumption that 'many students are likely to be injured and die' to be ridiculous. Japanese school teachers serve as parents to students in a lot of instances... I highly doubt that they would allow things to get dangerous to the point of a risk of death. Even if they did, it's no different than any of the sports JETs home countries play. There is a risk of injury in any physical activity, and you would be shocked to learn how many ways it is possible to die in a typical high school. That said... I highly doubt that in a required class that is to focus on the traditions of Japan, students will learn the more dangerous techniques.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a good idea.... I just don't think it is as terrible of an idea as people seem to think. Hell, all my students are required to learn down-hill skiing. There are so many deaths and injuries in that sport that I don't even want to think about it as I watch my little 7 year old students shooting down a ski-slope at upwards of 35-40 miles per hour. Adding in a martial art is no more likely to cause injuries than the Sports Day games are. I mean really, 24+ person human pyramids with no spotters? Just as easy to die from that as it is to die from Judo.

[AVN]

I don't think forcing kids to learn to fight is useful at all.

How is teaching Japanese students martial arts in school any different than teaching kids in American high schools to wrestle or box? In my gym class in 9th grade we had an entire month and a half where we learned the basics of boxing. I don't see how this is any different.

I never said boxing or wrestling was different. In fact I said in one of my posts I would feel exactly the same way about boxing being taught in school, which it was not in my school. Nor do I know anyone in my region who was taught it in school.

I wouldn't want boxing to become a mandatory subject.

I'm not making this a West versus East thing. I don't think fighting should be taught as a mandatory subject in a public school anywhere. Be it boxing or judo.

[losdutchmen]

The word "traditional" is probably the most problematic word in the English language. The nuance most people attach to it is decidedly positive, but that's incorrect. There's nothing necessarily good or glorious about traditional life. Some fine European traditions included burning old women at the stake, dying of a huge variety of diseases because they couldn't wrap their heads around the idea that the privy wasn't supposed to go near the well, abuses of power perpetuated in the name of idiot kings obsessed with their own importance, and of course hordes of limbless beggars from the frequent wars fought over the most ridiculous slights to someone's "honor". Africa isn't much better, there's a similar tradition of killing witches, there are slow and cruel animal traditional animal killings (picture something like the bullfighting in Spain), and of course more kings and more idiotic wars. Japan likewise has its own share of unsavoury traditions, like picking fights with China (and then hoping like hell the Chinese fleet never makes it to Japan), a strong legacy of bullying of junior students in martial arts (this can still be seen in hazing incidents with new students in dojos that still result in deaths, but history suggests that in the old live-in dojos is may even have extended to rape), and a mess of other stuff.

Ahh, the forums, a virtual shooting gallery of opinions. So many nit-pickers and word lawyers at work at the same time. I would hope that "Traditional" is not the most problematic word in the English language. Really? The entire English language and "traditional" is the hardest to comprehend? I'd bet not. But, when reading your examples, I can see where problems might arise. Burning old women at the stake was not a tradition, but a practice. That would be like saying "whipping slaves is an American tradition". Or maybe I'm missing something, are they burning witches in merry ole London still?

A tradition is a ritual, belief or object passed down within a society, still maintained in the present, with origins in the past. Holidays are a good example. Drinking tea and eating crumpets would be one too I would guess, along with wigs for lawyers and bearskin caps for royal guards. In Japan, martial arts are tradition. It is part of Japanese culture. It is still maintained today, without the bloody, violent results. There are no warring states and samurai anymore, but their traditions and beliefs are still carried on, albeit in a more peaceful way. I would say that you most definitely CAN pick and choose which elements of tradition or culture you want to keep and pass on. Japan is a prime example of that. The thought that they are gearing up for war again through a wave of "Nationalism" is ridiculous. Nationalism doesn't have to carry negative connotations either. Canadians are some of the most Nationalistic people, proud of their country, and at the same time, some of the most peaceful.

I'm going to guess that some old cronies decided that the younger generation were lacking in some of the more "Japanese" values and traditions. In order to re-instill some of these values, they decided to mandate a martial art. If you've trained in any of the Japanese martial arts, you know that they are more of a mental struggle than physical. The purpose is not to learn how to hurt someone, but how to control your body and your mind. Could they do this through other means? Possibly. But again, when you have a history of martial arts firmly embedded in your culture, why not use them? I know kids in America could use a mandatory physical education class that taught character, physical fitness, and mental toughness. It would NEVER go though because there are way too many kids and parents that would think it was too "hard" and opt out.

And for the poster who likened Kendo to dance.......AAAGGHHHHHHH!!!!! Seriously? Obviously never done it.

[AVN]

And for the poster who likened Kendo to dance.......AAAGGHHHHHHH!!!!! Seriously? Obviously never done it.

I don't know about kendo, it has been formalised into a sport like fencing, but traditional Japanese swordplay is very much like dancing in that one moves in response one's partner, either reacting dynamically in free-form practice or going through the moves of a formal kata like a ballroom dance.

Thank you William that is exactly what I meant.

Edit: Also if we go with what you have been saying, losdutchmen, that it's not about fighting, hurting or attacking why is comparing it to dancing so insulting?

[Siyris]

In short, my information comes from the best source, the head dojo via my instructor.

The head dojo of one style of Aikido. Perhaps it was the 'head dojo' for all Aikido at one point, but that does not make it the only correct form. As time goes on, activities like martial arts develop and change. For the style of Aikido you learned, it didn't include competitions. For the styles that have been taught to my partner, as well as other friends of mine from back in the states, id did include competitions. Go figure.

... so in order to support your argument that martial arts did not once have a battlefield application you cite the example of kyuudou, saying that it was once used on the battlefield but has now assumed a more meditative focuse.

It seems like you missed my point there. Kyuudou is a meditative focus that would be, quite honestly, entirely useless as a form of trying to hurt someone, for many many reason. Not the least of which is the fact that, even masters of it miss the target at minimum 25% of the time. It is more about what goes on internally and the process of drawing the bow correctly than it is about hitting the target. Even at competitions, if you forget one of the steps then your score is hurt far more than if you miss the target. Kyuujitsu is the use of a bow as a weapon, either from standing or from a horse. It is a different martial art. In a Kyuudou dojo, you will not learn to fire a bow from a horse, nor will you learn any efficient way to fire a bow. If you follow Kyuudou, by the point you actually fire a shot, whoever you were firing at will have either punched you already or ran away. It is not a fast moving thing. So actually, I am not wrong.

Secondly, the quality of coaching cannot be guaranteed.

I agree, the quality of coaching is not a sure thing. I think that is the part of this decision to be concerned about. Even so, I don't think that it's necessarily a bad idea. Maybe my inaka village kids are just different, but I don't think my kids would think 'oh hey, I know how to throw this guy over my shoulder, let me try it.' More likely they would think about it in terms of 'if someone grabs me from behind and tries to force me into a car, I can use that over the shoulder throw I learned in gym class to get away from him.'

[word]

God, I hate martial arts. My hatred stems not from the art itself, nor anything about its practice, but because I've found that discussions about martial arts invariably, inevitably, without fail... ALWAYS end in something like this:



Seriously. No idea why martial arts discussions are so prone to this phenomenon. You know it's true!