Live data from Hacker News

Bushido: Way of Total Bullshit

tofugu.com

201–210 of 210 posts

Re: Bushido: Way of Total Bullshit

#201
post #188
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going by personal anecdote (well, by my grandmother who fled Silesia as a child): German refugees in late WW2 largely considered the Russians far more gruesome (violent, rape-y, etc, especially when drunk) than the British and Americans, although some considered their brutality justified by what they were hearing from how German soldiers (and the SS especially) had treated Eastern Europeans. I'm guessing it's because…

> I'm guessing it's because Germans had racial propaganda dehumanizing Eastern Europeans The Russians also distributed plenty of propoganda pamphlets to their troops to show no mercy to the Germans (including citizens) as they faught their way towards Berlin. Propoganda comping from some high-ranking soviets, not just within the military. It was said to be a big contributing factor to their notorious behaviour afterw…

I'm fairly certain the racial propaganda against "Japs" is part of the reason for the lack of inhibitions in how the US dealt with Japan (namely the massive firebombing of civilian centres and the ultimate decision to become the first nation to use nuclear weapons and also the first nation to use nuclear weapons against civilian targets).

Humans who are taught to dehumanize others are capable of doing pretty horrible things.

Re: Bushido: Way of Total Bullshit

#203
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want self-defence, my impression is that world-wide Krav Maga is generally a form that manages to hold a high standard across different locations and instructors. But as always, practice will never be any better than the instructor and the students he or she accepts. In general, any martial school that focuses not on competition, can be good (the set of techniques are not really that different, they're all way…

The competitive element of judo is a pro and a con. Executing a technique against someone actively trying to resist is very educational and good for your training - it shows what works (vs practicing with someone who just lets you throw them). But trying just to win has its own drawbacks and leads to weakness and a very narrow focus.

I agree that the sport part of judo can be a benefit, but not because of the competition aspect; but because the sport mindset led to efficient and safe techniques that can be practiced at "full force".

Two typical examples are: tomoenage that in its original jujitsu form was a kick to the groin, but in judo is a foot to the hip; first you can't go and kick your practice partners full force to the groin (without them wearing protection - hence you can't really practice the actual technique) , and second if you kick someone in the groin they'll roll up, and the throw becomes ineffective (although you could argue that a good kick or two to the groin is usually quite enough. But only if you actually hit. A good landing on the head is also quite effective). And ipponseionage which in a jujitsu variant involves crossing the arms in an elbow lock, hoping to break the lower arm in the throw - but also becomes a slower and less efficient technique.

So the safe set of judo techniques makes for very good sparring practice. But it won't prepare you for a thumb in the eye or a bite to the face. Or being stomped on the head while grappling.

Re: Bushido: Way of Total Bullshit

#204
post #172
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want self-defence, my impression is that world-wide Krav Maga is generally a form that manages to hold a high standard across different locations and instructors. But as always, practice will never be any better than the instructor and the students he or she accepts. In general, any martial school that focuses not on competition, can be good (the set of techniques are not really that different, they're all way…

My understanding of Krav Maga is that it's more or less formalized mixed martial arts. I studied Tang Soo Do for many years, and the really useful self defense techniques were not taught until I got my black belt, and we started learning techniques from different martial arts. This teaching was deferred primarily because the useful techniques can be extremely dangerous to practice (strikes to the throat being a good…

See my other comment on how techniques aren't all that different due to physics and biology.

MMA can mean many things; I usually read it as the modern circus that is UFC etc - a sport.

Krav Maga is self defence (or self offence, it's pretty violent; it's for situations where you'd be justified in using lethal force, not for "scuffles"). It's simple, and has a curriculum that's built around survival; you'll typically see something that looks a lot like Krav Maga in any martial arts self defence class (if it's any good). And you can typically find "krav Maga" techniques in any martial art. For example one of the first techniques thought in taekwondo is the straight front kick, the first movement of the kick is lifting the knee - so you start practicing a knee to the groin as a white belt. But sadly you could become a fifth Dan in taekwondo and not even realize that, because of the sorry state of self defence in a lot of taekwondo dojangs.

Re: Bushido: Way of Total Bullshit

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've done some form of boxing, grappling /judo or martial art for 30 years. I taught physical skills- use of force, to law enforcement for 6 years. For 5 years I worked in a violent custodial environment. Some young people entering that work-place had never faced an angry man, never been in a real fight. For them that "martial arts" environment is a reasonably safe and accessible place to start. I agree that it is no…

What you would recommend as a more practical form of self defense training for those not working in a high-risk environment?

As for what makes practice "self defence" as opposed to "martial arts" -- there really shouldn't be any contradiction - "martial arts" really is about fighting, maiming hurting and killing people. Or it was. But of course there are lot of other benefits to what is good "martial arts" training - soundness of mind and body etc.

But if what one wants to learn is primarily "self defence", then one has to, unsurprisingly, practice self defence. Practice the type of situations you want to defend yourself from. I could probably link to videos all day, but eg: this one with Phil Thompson explains some of the basics (despite the cheezy intro):

"Protect Self Defence on TV3's Pacific Beat Street" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLkKE-gSuj0

Some more snippets with Thompson:

"Self-Defence Seminar with Phil Thompson - The Passive Stance" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9cU6yGSgB8

"Self-Defence Seminar with Phil Thompson - Wrist Grabs" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlI3rzsml_g

There's also something to be learned from military martial arts, like (this is more typical Martial Arts wanking, so to speak, but I really love this guy):

"Systema Demonstartion on Korean Special Forces" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfHfua9ku4s

Note, don't put too much emphasis on the "Systema"-bit, DK Yoo probably holds high level dan grades in more martial arts styles than I even know about. That said, Systema is a very interesting style - developed by and for the Russian/Soviet special forces with inspiration from traditional Russian wrestling and judo -- it's a surprisingly soft style for a modern military martial art. Like man other styles, if you can find a good instructor/dojo I'm sure it can be a perfectly fine approach to self defence. But as Thompson says above, it's not the physical techniques that are the hard part.

The reason I call out Krav Maga (developed from practical self defence in the Warsaw ghettoes, and evolved by the Isreali military and special forces) is that it is modern (as in new), it has a pretty reasonable and well-functioning system of grading instructors - so if something "really is" Krav Maga, it's a bit easier to know a little about the quality of the training - unlike, say "karate" or "jujutsu" - or "taekwondo" (which encompass everything from the funny stuff that is in the olympics to more traditional stuff that is closer to the founder's original vision [ed: note that the second two videos with Thompson is from a taekwondo seminar, so there are obviously still places where you can practice taewkondo and actually learn something useful]) - and the general civilian training (to the best of my knowledge) has a strong focus on self-defence - practising actually useful stuff like verbal assault, multiple attackers, situation awareness and so on.

It very much is a system for self defence, while most other things one could practice ends up being "martial arts with self defence added on". Personally I prefer that, I don't really enjoy practising just self defence - not to mention the fact that I'm not entirely convinced there are enough situations that are dangerous enough that I really need to defend myself violently, and yet not so dangerous that I won't simply be stabbed to death or shot -- that's its really worth the effort to practice all that much with the aim of self defence.

But practising any kind of physical confrontation for fun will boost confidence, and give one a better idea of when a situation is dangerous, and how it might be dangerous.

Re: Bushido: Way of Total Bullshit

#206
post #204
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding of Krav Maga is that it's more or less formalized mixed martial arts. I studied Tang Soo Do for many years, and the really useful self defense techniques were not taught until I got my black belt, and we started learning techniques from different martial arts. This teaching was deferred primarily because the useful techniques can be extremely dangerous to practice (strikes to the throat being a good…

See my other comment on how techniques aren't all that different due to physics and biology. MMA can mean many things; I usually read it as the modern circus that is UFC etc - a sport. Krav Maga is self defence (or self offence, it's pretty violent; it's for situations where you'd be justified in using lethal force, not for "scuffles"). It's simple, and has a curriculum that's built around survival; you'll typically…

My point in calling it formalized MMA (by which I mean the literal definition of the acronym, mixed martial arts) was that rather than the techniques being passed down by tradition (like tang soo do, kung fu, aikido, etc), it was built up by mixing and matching techniques from various art forms with the explicit goal of a brutal, effective form of self defense.

Taekwondo, I think, long ago parted ways with any intention of being an art of self defense, if that intention was ever there to begin with.

Re: Bushido: Way of Total Bullshit

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's your source for the 'myth' of the Bataan Death March? "100–650 American prisoners of war died on the march before they reached their destination." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bataan_Death_March I'm not saying the march didn't happen. I'm just saying that the propaganda surrounding the bataan "death" march is a myth. Growing up, you'd think it was worst thing in the world. But then you learn that hardly any…

Okay, 'myth' = 'only 10% of the people died.' Revisionism FTW.

Yes. Myth is a few people dying. Hell more americans are killed on a slow weekend in chicago than in bataan "death" march.

Re: Bushido: Way of Total Bullshit

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Basically the Japanese were using perfidy as a normal war tactic (perfidy is a war crime, surrender and then, when your enemy's guard is lower, attack). The japanese started suicide runs because the allies had a no prisoner policy. "American soldiers in the Pacific often deliberately killed Japanese soldiers who had surrendered." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World... Not only that the alli…

I think that you will find evidence in both directions. It was a feedback loop. The Americans soldiers had a racist preconception of the Japanese, and at the same time were exposed to the the atrocities that the Japanese committed in China, way before fighting the Americans. You cannot ignore the indoctrination of the Japanese (and please, don't make me here recount some of their massacres in China). Many Americans c…

> I think that you will find evidence in both directions

Most american POWs survived ww2 under japanese control. Almost no wounded or surrendering japanese survived ww2 under American control.

There was brutality on both side for sure. But the allies were especially racist and especially brutal. What the allies did in the pacific has no parallels in human history in terms of brutality and savagery on the battlefield.

Hundreds of thousands of japanese were tortured and mutilated. Hundreds of thousands of japanese were decapitated and their heads were boiled to make war trophies.

It is the ugly side of history hidden from view because the winners get to write the histories.

As I said, evil won ww2 and evil lost ww2.

> Many Americans considered them killing machines without heart with whom it was impossible to reason.

That doesn't explain the mutilation, torture and other depraved behavior by the allies. America was the most racist society on earth during ww2. The nazis modeled their racial ideology on the US for a reason.

The brutalizing of nonwhites has a long history in the US. The propaganda about the japanese being "unreasonable" or "suicidal" are lies we invented to hide our savage behavior. No different than our excuses for mutilating native americans and blacks.

FYI: The mutilating of non-whites continued in the korean war and the vietnam war. I guess they were "unreasonable" too... I guess all the blacks that were tortured and lynched were "unreasonable" as well.

Or maybe the US was just extremely racist.

Re: Bushido: Way of Total Bullshit

#209
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you haven't heard of the mass rape of german and japanese women by the victorious allies. The allies raped far more women than the axis.

The allies had far less incidents of rape. And defently not systematic like Japan. If you really beliefe that its clear that you have never actually studied the issue.

>The allies had far less incidents of rape. And defently not systematic like Japan.

Systematic? Is that a joke? Millions more german and japanese women were raped by the allies than vice versa.

Lets not belittle the german and japanese women who were raped.

Re: Bushido: Way of Total Bullshit

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My impression is a lot of soldiers and contemporaneous sources said Japanese fought to the death, engaged in suicidal 'banzai charges', killed themselves rather than surrender, and that those few who did surrender thought it was shameful That is the propaganda/"history" that I am talking about. If you look at previous battles/wars, the japanese soldiers did surrender. The japanese soldiers did surrender in the begi…

In ww2, you can objectively say that pure evil won and that pure evil lost. If both sides are equally evil in your view, would you say you are indifferent to which side ended up winning WWII? Is it a mistake on my part to assume you would be indifferent had the Axis powers achieved complete and utter victory over the Allies? After all, they are both equally evil. Seeing as you seem to be claiming that both sides were…

> If both sides are equally evil in your view, would you say you are indifferent to which side ended up winning WWII?

As an american, of course I'm glad the US won. All I'm saying is that the US wasn't any better than anyone else. We weren't saints. And certainly the brits, who had been brutalizing africans, indians, chinese, aborigines, etc for centuries weren't saints either.

> Is it a mistake on my part to assume you would be indifferent had the Axis powers achieved complete and utter victory over the Allies? After all, they are both equally evil.

As an american, of course I would care. The point is whether one was more evil than the other?

> Seeing as you seem to be claiming that both sides were equally evil, I'm very interested in your views on how you think the victorious Axis powers would have treated those they defeated.

Pretty much exactly the same as british treated their colonies? You do realize that europeans had been raping, pillaging and exploiting much of the world before ww2 right?

> it seems to me that both Japan and Germany fared rather well after surrender considering they were both completely defeated.

Initially no. Japan, especially, were brutalized by the allies after ww2 because of racial hatred while germany was built up because of racial "pride". Lets not forget that we destroyed japanese infrastructure and pretty much starved them for years before the korean war broke out. While white europe god the marshall plan, asiatic japan got starvation.

> We are not all that far removed from WWII and yet today Japan and Germany are both overwhelmingly populated by the descendants of Germans and Japanese,

What's your point?

> I'm curious how you think Jews in Germany, or Europe, or indeed the rest of the world would have fared under an Axis victory.

Not too well. Just like the natives in the US/canada and the aborigines in australia. I bet every palestinian wishes that the axis had won...

> Do you think there would be any meaningful Jewish community left in Germany or Europe?

No more than there are meaningful natives in us/canada or aborigines in australia.

> How do you feel the Roma, or Slavs or homosexuals would have fared?

The roma/slavs would have been germanified. The homosexuals would be brutalized like Alan Turing was by the british.

> How would the populations of the Korean peninsula, Taiwan, China, the Philippines and elsewhere in Asia have fared in the subsequent decades of a Japanese victory in the Pacific?

They would have been japanofied and not much would have changed since most of asia had been under brutal european domination anyways.

> Would these communities have fared as well in defeat as the Germans and Japanese have?

You are making arbitrary assertions just to push your agenda.

If the axis had won, there would have been WINNERS and LOSERS. Just like if the allies had won.

Yes, the jews would have suffered. But the arabs/palestinians and most of the world suffering under european colonization would have rejoiced.

After all, many people around the world supported japan and germany. Much of the independence movements throughout the middle east and asia was supported by japan and germany. Not only that, in asia, the japanese soldiers even stayed behind after ww2 ended and joined independence movements to fight the returned savage european colonialists.

Post reply on HN