This is a very strange take on bushido, and I really don’t have the time or energy to go through it all, but most distinctly, that the code of honor we know as bushido was seriously damaged by the Mongol invasions disrupting the normal ritualistic combat of Japan, not spread or strengthened by samurai participation against the invasions; and that it was not codified until after the Sengoku Jidai, well into the Edo Period.
Many, many scholars of Japanese history have argued that bushido’s origins extend further back in history than its formalization.
Yes, the pre-existing tradition of bushido was greatly challenged, by the Mongol invasions, and it rapidly changed and was reformed during/after this.
and that it was not codified until after the Sengoku Jidai, well into the Edo Period.
I agree, and I said this, but you evidently did not read me saying that.
I am not really sure how or why you find it strange than a pre-existing tradition … becomes a code… when it is formalized… that is kind of the bog standard way that most societies historically evolve.
I also find it a bit cheeky that you feel fine to characterize as ‘strange’ the understanding of bushido from someone who was literally taught and trained in an extant form of bushido for a decade.
Do you perhaps have any firsthand training in a form of Japanese martial arts?
Many, many scholars of Japanese history have argued that bushido’s origins extend further back in history than its formalization.
… yes, which is why we’re discussing the Kamakura period, since, as we’ve both noted, Bushido was not codified until much later.
I agree, and I said this, but you evidently did not read me saying that.
This you?
Its just that it was not formalized into a literal, written code, untill roughly the Sengoku Jidai timeframe.
I am not really sure how or why you find it strange than a pre-existing tradition … becomes a code… when it is formalized… that is kind of the bog standard way that most societies historically evolve.
Would you like to quote where I said I find it strange that a pre-existing tradition ‘becomes a code when it is formalized’?
I also find it a bit cheeky that you feel fine to characterize as ‘strange’ the understanding of bushido from someone who was literally taught and trained in an extant form of bushido for a decade.
There are no extant fucking ‘forms’ of bushido any more than there are extant ‘forms’ of chivalry.
Do you perhaps have any firsthand training in a form of Japanese martial arts?
Or do you just read about it on wikipedia?
I’m a fucking History major. While Japanese history was not my primary area of study, I’ve always had a distinct interest in reading on the subject, including translated contemporary works from the Edo and Meiji periods. It’s a little fucking more than wikipedia, thank you very much.
Would you like to quote where I said I find it strange that a pre-existing tradition ‘becomes a code when it is formalized’?
You seem to not be able to consider the idea that bushido existed prior to its formal codification.
Which is the mainstay of what I am talking about.
You seem anchored on the concept that bushido only began to exist upon its formalization, as well as only particularly existing as a code of honor pertaining to samurai.
There are no extant fucking ‘forms’ of bushido any more than there are extant ‘forms’ of chivalry.
Well, there are extant forms of chivalry, the concept has evolved and changed much over time, its now much less formal, and more an uncodified, general concept of how to be … correctly polite, dutiful to others, etc.
I’m a fucking History major. While Japanese history was not my primary area of study, as someone whose paternal ancestors married into a samurai family just before the abolition of the samurai class in the Meiji period…
Ok, so no, you have absolutely no experience with any modern Japanese martial art, many of which heavily emphasize not just the physical training and combat, but also very much view themselves as torch bearers of past traditions.
Bushido is a concept, a tradition, which has existed for quite a long time, morphed and changed into different variations and forms, and certainly does still persist today, in different ways.
…
Seeing as we are both on the same level of academic expertise on this:
The word Bushidō was not in wide use in medieval Japan. In the middle ages, the scope of bushi activities were described using terms such as kyūba no michi (the way of horseback archery) and yumiya toru mi no narai (customs for those who draw the bow).
Hey look! You are not completely off-base!
And I never said you were, but you got extremely defensive without ever reading all of what I wrote, before downvoting me, then undoing that, then responding, now doubling down on being extremely defensive.
The first use of Bushidō was in Kōyō gunkan, considered the “scriptures” of the Takeda-ryū school of martial arts. The writings, comprising 20 scrolls, mention Bushidō over 30 times. This text was widely disseminated within the bushi class as a martial arts instruction manual, and is thought to have played a large role in popularizing the term.
As I said, but you apparently did not read:
Don’t mean to try and say ‘argh you’re completely wrong!’, I’m just trying to add in more context and nuance.
I suppose thats my own sense of bushido, what with having spent a decade+ practicing karate…
Bushido originated with Japanese martial arts, and again, as a person who achieved Shodan kyu after 10+ years of regular training and tournament competiton, who has personally met, paid respects to, and spoken with, Mabuni Kenzo, who was at the time, the Soke of the Mabuni tradition of Shito-Ryu…
I am telling you, bushido is a living tradition, and a modified or descended form of it serves as the the fundamental philosophical basis for how a warrior should act, conduct themselves both in the dojo and outside of it.
And it is not the case that this is particular to my particular branch of karate… this is a fairly common thing, for bushido to be taught, instructed, taken seriously by many different karate students, of many different karate styles/ryus.
You seem to not be able to consider the idea that bushido existed prior to its formal codification.
Which is the mainstay of what I am talking about.
You seem anchored on the concept that bushido only began to exist upon its formalization,
Where? Where did I say any of that?
Fuck’s sake. For someone who is bitching that I supposedly didn’t read what you said (despite me literally quoting you to demonstrate my objections), you seem totally unable to read what I’ve said.
Well, there are extant forms of chivalry, the concept has evolved and changed much over time, its now much less formal, and more an uncodified, general concept of how to be … correctly polite, dutiful to others, etc.
And the relevance of that to historical concepts of chivalry is near-nil, not unlike bushido. Ironically for someone who linked an article that acknowledges the shortcomings of Bushido: The Soul of Japan, your conception of Bushido seems very in line with Nitobe Inazo’s.
Ok, so no, you have absolutely no experience with any modern Japanese martial art, many of which heavily emphasize not just the physical training and combat, but also very much view themselves as torch bearers of past traditions.
Really not seeing the relevance of this to the actual history of Bushido.
Seeing as we are both on the same level of academic expertise on this:
In general, I don’t bring up my major except when someone accuses me of, for example, garnering my knowledge from reading wikipedia, but I have to stop here and say in what fucking world is majoring in History and being a martial arts student the same fucking level of academic expertise?
The word Bushidō was not in wide use in medieval Japan. In the middle ages, the scope of bushi activities were described using terms such as kyūba no michi (the way of horseback archery) and yumiya toru mi no narai (customs for those who draw the bow).
Hey look! You are not completely off-base!
Oh cool, because you said, and I quote, unlike all the times you’ve, in this short comment chain, accused me of saying things that have no actual relevance to the fucking text I’ve typed:
Eh, bushido wasn’t originally, specifically, the way of the horse and the bow.
And I never said you were, but you got extremely defensive without ever reading all of what I wrote, before downvoting me, then undoing that, then responding, now doubling down on being extremely defensive.
You seem to be very intentionally not actually reading the totality of what I’ve written, to the point that it would be fruitless to address you point by point, as you consistently just completely omit chunks of what I’ve written, and only respond to cherry picked parts of it.
And no, I was not saying having a black belt equates to a history degree.
I was saying neither of us have an academic speciality in the history of Japan.
I have other degrees, but they also are not relevant to the broad history of Japan…
… though I did get a perfect grade in a course on the post WW2 economic history of Japan, and I can tell you that one of the concepts we covered, that we used to analyze inter and intra corporate decision making was how bushido had been reformed into a framework that concieved of the business world as a combat zone, and to apply similar kinds of bushido principles to a battle for market share, as well as how to run a company internally.
But I am sure you will not care, as you’ve made clear that you are not interested in a good faith conversation here.
Normally, I would say ‘toodles!’, but uh, sayonara seems more fitting.
This is a very strange take on bushido, and I really don’t have the time or energy to go through it all, but most distinctly, that the code of honor we know as bushido was seriously damaged by the Mongol invasions disrupting the normal ritualistic combat of Japan, not spread or strengthened by samurai participation against the invasions; and that it was not codified until after the Sengoku Jidai, well into the Edo Period.
Well, you said ‘originally’.
As in… relating to or describing its origin.
Many, many scholars of Japanese history have argued that bushido’s origins extend further back in history than its formalization.
Yes, the pre-existing tradition of bushido was greatly challenged, by the Mongol invasions, and it rapidly changed and was reformed during/after this.
I agree, and I said this, but you evidently did not read me saying that.
I am not really sure how or why you find it strange than a pre-existing tradition … becomes a code… when it is formalized… that is kind of the bog standard way that most societies historically evolve.
I also find it a bit cheeky that you feel fine to characterize as ‘strange’ the understanding of bushido from someone who was literally taught and trained in an extant form of bushido for a decade.
Do you perhaps have any firsthand training in a form of Japanese martial arts?
Or do you just read about it on wikipedia?
… yes, which is why we’re discussing the Kamakura period, since, as we’ve both noted, Bushido was not codified until much later.
This you?
Would you like to quote where I said I find it strange that a pre-existing tradition ‘becomes a code when it is formalized’?
There are no extant fucking ‘forms’ of bushido any more than there are extant ‘forms’ of chivalry.
I’m a fucking History major. While Japanese history was not my primary area of study, I’ve always had a distinct interest in reading on the subject, including translated contemporary works from the Edo and Meiji periods. It’s a little fucking more than wikipedia, thank you very much.
You seem to not be able to consider the idea that bushido existed prior to its formal codification.
Which is the mainstay of what I am talking about.
You seem anchored on the concept that bushido only began to exist upon its formalization, as well as only particularly existing as a code of honor pertaining to samurai.
Well, there are extant forms of chivalry, the concept has evolved and changed much over time, its now much less formal, and more an uncodified, general concept of how to be … correctly polite, dutiful to others, etc.
Ok, so no, you have absolutely no experience with any modern Japanese martial art, many of which heavily emphasize not just the physical training and combat, but also very much view themselves as torch bearers of past traditions.
Bushido is a concept, a tradition, which has existed for quite a long time, morphed and changed into different variations and forms, and certainly does still persist today, in different ways.
…
Seeing as we are both on the same level of academic expertise on this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20191108042249/https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-topics/g00665/bushido-an-ethical-and-spiritual-foundation-in-japan.html
Hey look! You are not completely off-base!
And I never said you were, but you got extremely defensive without ever reading all of what I wrote, before downvoting me, then undoing that, then responding, now doubling down on being extremely defensive.
As I said, but you apparently did not read:
Bushido originated with Japanese martial arts, and again, as a person who achieved Shodan kyu after 10+ years of regular training and tournament competiton, who has personally met, paid respects to, and spoken with, Mabuni Kenzo, who was at the time, the Soke of the Mabuni tradition of Shito-Ryu…
I am telling you, bushido is a living tradition, and a modified or descended form of it serves as the the fundamental philosophical basis for how a warrior should act, conduct themselves both in the dojo and outside of it.
And it is not the case that this is particular to my particular branch of karate… this is a fairly common thing, for bushido to be taught, instructed, taken seriously by many different karate students, of many different karate styles/ryus.
Where? Where did I say any of that?
Fuck’s sake. For someone who is bitching that I supposedly didn’t read what you said (despite me literally quoting you to demonstrate my objections), you seem totally unable to read what I’ve said.
And the relevance of that to historical concepts of chivalry is near-nil, not unlike bushido. Ironically for someone who linked an article that acknowledges the shortcomings of Bushido: The Soul of Japan, your conception of Bushido seems very in line with Nitobe Inazo’s.
Really not seeing the relevance of this to the actual history of Bushido.
In general, I don’t bring up my major except when someone accuses me of, for example, garnering my knowledge from reading wikipedia, but I have to stop here and say in what fucking world is majoring in History and being a martial arts student the same fucking level of academic expertise?
Oh cool, because you said, and I quote, unlike all the times you’ve, in this short comment chain, accused me of saying things that have no actual relevance to the fucking text I’ve typed:
Lord.
You seem to be very intentionally not actually reading the totality of what I’ve written, to the point that it would be fruitless to address you point by point, as you consistently just completely omit chunks of what I’ve written, and only respond to cherry picked parts of it.
And no, I was not saying having a black belt equates to a history degree.
I was saying neither of us have an academic speciality in the history of Japan.
I have other degrees, but they also are not relevant to the broad history of Japan…
… though I did get a perfect grade in a course on the post WW2 economic history of Japan, and I can tell you that one of the concepts we covered, that we used to analyze inter and intra corporate decision making was how bushido had been reformed into a framework that concieved of the business world as a combat zone, and to apply similar kinds of bushido principles to a battle for market share, as well as how to run a company internally.
But I am sure you will not care, as you’ve made clear that you are not interested in a good faith conversation here.
Normally, I would say ‘toodles!’, but uh, sayonara seems more fitting.