According to Wikipedia, many historians think the suffragettes hurt the cause of women getting votes. There were several suffragist movements, and "suffragette" was used to describe the militants (who went on hunger strikes, committed arson, etc).
The opponents of suffrage would refer to suffragists as "suffragettes" (in much the same way Fox News might refer to left-wing politicians as socialists or communists), and would often argue "women are too crazy to vote - just look at the tactics they use!".
Women got the vote in 1918, 4 years after WSPU (the militant suffragette group) ceased activity (they essentially disbanded / split after the war started, because domestic terrorism during a war was obviously not a winning strategy).
It might be fun to think they beat up policemen, forcing people to take them seriously. But it actually had the opposite effect. At best, they were comparable to Malcolm X (making other groups look relatively acceptable).
Meh. People in power always say the militants were too militant and actually hurt the cause - whether it's true or not.
When you think about it, the only thing the establishment wants is an opposition too weak to effectively stop them. Winning movements almost always have a radical edge. You mentioned Malcolm X, but even Martin Luther King was accused of hurting the cause for black equality by being too extreme.
And even if all the militant suffragettes did was make the mainstream suffrage movement look more acceptable, that's still a huge impact for a numerically small group.
There have been some studies showing that militant tactics in the civil rights era provoked conservative backlashes compared to geographic areas where militant tactics were not employed. We're not in the realm of pure hypothesis and supposition anymore.
It's worth considering that the people in power who say the militants are hurting their cause may be speaking the truth. Rather than dismissing them out of hand because you find their motives suspect.
Oppression isn't provoked or a backlash. It's cold and calculated for purposeful effect. The banal logic of colonialism is why Reginald Dyer's troops had .303 Enfields [and the used because they were too wide armoured cars] at Jallianwala Bagh. [1]
Jim Crow, the Klan, George Wallace and segregated public schools were long established before events such as those which earned Edmund Pettus Bridge [2] it's National Historic Register status. Though I suppose "conservative backlash" one could mean the Cahaba Boys [3], I'm not really seeing anything that I would qualify as provocative in a neutral sense of the word.
OK. Then use a different set of words. Violent protest in these historical contexts has been demonstrated as causally linked to political changes antithetical to those preferred by said protesters.
Happier? The exact same phenomenon has now been described without using either of the words you object to. What has been gained by this exercise? The phenomenon in question has not changed because a vocabulary some people might consider more neutral has been used.
Do you have something to contribute to this conversation?
There's a faulty premise that militant action is a strict choice. Once the police start beating and arresting people there's often no going back. Look at all the movements that in the US that no one cares about. That study seemingly doesn't say anything about why the riots happened, it might very well be that "social control" was more politically prevalent at certain times which reflected in both in violence and in public opinion.
Militant action is a choice. People choose violence. Sentient human beings are always capable of not choosing violence. Therefore, I believe the premise to be correct and valid. Do you have a reason for believing otherwise?
The study doesn't just look at years. It looks at county-by-county voting patterns.
Well. HN is probably not the best place for this, so I'm not going to make this too long, but there are a couple of point.
Few movements will survive its more prominent members being beaten and arrested, which is what happens when there's no power balance. Even fewer movement will survive going out and doing the same thing all over again. No seasoned movement can ever guarantee that a protest won't turn violent if the police start arresting people. I'm not saying you should go out and do militant things, but you can't make is easy for the authorities to stop you from protesting. If the choice is between your movement being silenced and trying to defend yourself then maybe that's not really a choice as such.
Of course the US is so far beyond any reasonable protest culture that you might as well not protest at all.
Few governments can beat and arrest more than a few movement leaders (unless those movement leaders were behaving violently).
Arguably, the only reason a relatively free society would want to beat (or kill) a movement leader (if they're rational) is to provoke a riot in order to discredit the movement. Even then, it's a risky move.
"unless those movement leaders were behaving violently"
What you consider violent and what the police consider violent isn't necessarily the same thing. "The individuals who linked arms and actively resisted, that in itself is an act of violence" [0]. Read comments on YouTube [1] for extra confidence in humanity. In reality you don't have to be violent to get beaten and arrested by the police, you essentially only have to not comply with whatever they say.
A little poke from a baton will do more to harden a protester's stance than scare them off. And it will create massive backlash by spectators.
The fact that you're pulling out a 4 year old article about it shows how counter-productive those tactics are.
Even though I don't have any opinion on that particular protest (I don't know what it was about), I think that whoever let that happen should be sacked, because it would have only escalated the protests.
> Of course the US is so far beyond any reasonable protest culture that you might as well not protest at all.
Really? It seems like it's all some people do anymore. You can even become a professional activist and monetize your own victimhood. In the past year we've had people literally rioting and burning down buildings while the intelligentsia provided apoligies for them. "This is self-expression of a voiceless people, that burning car is a statement...."
Are you upset that you're not allowed to stop traffic during rush hour and chant slogans at people? Name one thing you can't do in the US that's part of a "reasonable protest culture"
Your not really offering any arguments to this discussion. If you're interested you can compared the student tuition protests in the US and Canada[0]. Violent or non-voilent, no protest can occur if people don't believe in the right of making your voice heard. In the US you are very good at rationalizing away those rights. I would do that to if I faced the US justice system and frankly that's why I don't spend a lot of time in the US. Plenty of incidents have been written about, from unlawful arrests to free speech zones and jail time for simple Internet attacks.
The pepper spray incident you linked was just about the best thing that could happen to those protesters. It was the plan, and then after it happens you go "oh my god we never saw this coming!" It's political theater - they got pepper-sprayed while trying to get arrested. Yeah, the cop was a jerk, but I'm not sure what linking the article is supposed to prove.
I have no idea why the Quebec students were even protesting - you're getting tuition subsidized so much that it's cheaper than the areas that are subsidizing it? Unless it's a remarkably worse education that doesn't any sense to me.
Seriously, don't just wave your hands at somebody asking you to back up a serious claim you made. This is why you're so easy to write off. You said we're so far beyond a reasonable protest culture that we shouldn't protest at all. You posted two links - one showing political theater is alive and well in the US and the other showing what look like some unreasonable students getting their way in Quebec. If that's your idea of "reasonable protest" then why should we even want it?
A reasonable protest culture is where people step up to defend others right to protest even if they don't agree with them.
Protesting in the US means potentially facing physical harm, detention, bail you can't pay, overworked public defenders, overzealous prosecutors, civil forfeiture, court fees, harsh sentencing, plea bargains, restrictive parole and being discriminated again because of your record. And most of that even if you don't go to prison. Of course you don't even have to be protesting, just be close enough to one and panic when the police, maybe even undercover, comes to abuse you and you'll be just another footnote in the history of the US justice system.
What happened in Montreal was that when the police tried to crack down on the protests everyone who remotely agreed started protesting too. When the government then went on to enacted a new law to limit the protests, even the people who didn't agree with the original protests started protesting. Then the government was subsequently voted out in the next election. That is a culture where it's reasonable to protest. Because even if worst comes to worst, you at least have some chance of people coming to your aid. Instead of rationalizing what you had to go through by proclaiming essentially "you shouldn't have been protesting".
So in Quebec there was no physical harm, detention, high bail, etc? I think you like Quebec's way because the protesters "won"
You've yet to name, specifically, one thing you can't do in the US that you think you should be able to do. You just use a blanket term "protesting" like anything under that umbrella should magically be OK. You're like a child complaining that the ice cream isn't there. But when you're talking about intentionally damaging property (spraypainting, breaking windows, burning cars and buildings) or disrupting infrastructure yeah you don't get to do that.
If you want to deal with the paperwork you can get 10,000 people and walk down major streets with a police escort even if the police don't like what you stand for. But you can't do it on a Tuesday when other people need to go to work. You can't force people to listen to your ideas.
In the history of the entire world has it ever been easier to have not only a voice but a LOUD voice than in modern day US? In the 1800's maybe they'd shut down your printing press and literally prevent you from distributing information. Today that's not the problem. Today people are sick of hearing it.
Plus Canada has a much smaller population than the US. You have 35 million people total - we have 46 million people living below the poverty line. We have more illegal immigrants in our country than you have people in Quebec. Quebec doesn't have problems America has because it's 90% white people with the same religion living in a large area. Our major cities have 4-10 times the population density of Quebec City. Overall the US has 5 times the population density of Quebec. We have one state (of 50) with a GDP as small as Quebec's. It's an apples and oranges comparison.
"You've yet to name, specifically, one thing you can't do in the US"
What makes you think it would be about one thing? One thing doesn't make the difference. It's overall climate that matters. If you can't de facto exercise your right as much as in another country that right isn't worth as much.
"You're like a child complaining that the ice cream isn't there"
Of course you have to resort to calling names when you can't make a good argument, who's really the child here?
"disrupting infrastructure yeah you don't get to do that"
In many countries you can disrupt traffic because of a protest without the need for a permit. Now you have your one thing. I'm guessing you're now going to tell me how it doesn't matter?
"You can't force people to listen to your ideas."
You've made that point very clear. I've stated repeatedly the differences between protesting in the US and elsewhere and you keep changing the question to something that suits your own thinking and rationalizing the problems.
"a police escort even if the police don't like what you stand for"
The US police are no exactly known for being unbiased.
"You have 35 million people"
No "we" don't since I'm not from nor have ever been to Canada. I have friends and can read material from there though.
"In the history of the entire world has it ever been easier to have not only a voice but a LOUD voice than in modern day US? [...] Today people are sick of hearing it"
I quite specifically talked about protest culture i.e. how people care about other peoples voice and your "counter" argument is that "people are sick of hearing it"? Some great logic right here.
"It's an apples and oranges comparison"
So you agree it's the situations are different now? Or is this just a case of the magic "but US is different" excuse. The US has much higher free speech ambitions than most other countries. Maybe there should be more footnotes in the constitution.
> Of course you have to resort to calling names when you can't make a good argument, who's really the child here?
I didn't call you a child. It was a metaphor suggesting you're being shortsighted and entitled without understanding that the things you want don't just magically appear. A child just wants ice cream, they have ice cream at Johnny's house so why can't he have ice cream at home? The child stomps their feet and says "It's not fair!" An adult grows out of this mindset.
> In many countries you can disrupt traffic because of a protest without the need for a permit. Now you have your one thing. I'm guessing you're now going to tell me how it doesn't matter?
That's great - which countries? They don't get arrested for it over there? You're sure you're not idealizing them because it supports your feeling of outrage?
That's the one concrete thing you're upset about and it's ridiculous. Other than that you're upset Americans don't just blindly go support protesters because they're protesting. Key word there is 'blindly.' That's the protesters fault for not knowing why they're there, not being able to express themselves clearly, and frankly for being so idiotic so much the time. Protesters have trained us that protesters are idiots.
I looked up the Quebec protests you linked - that's the point right, to raise awareness for an issue? - and it looks like a temper tantrum that happened to work.
Yet there's also the clearly demonstrated possibility of a counterproductive backlash. This is not something to be dismissed idly or a risk to be taken lightly by rational people in pursuit of serious goals.
The reason why Martin Luther King is the person we as people in 2015 know about is because he was selected by the administrations of his time as the black rights leader they would and did endorse.
Likewise, the reason why people in the West know Gandhi and not Bhagat Singh is because the British Empire selected Gandhi as the entity they would transfer power to.
It seems extraordinarily questionable to claim that the reactions of existing power holders is the benchmark by which we should measure liberatory struggle.
It also seems likely that there were strategic and geopolitical reasons why the power holders selected those groups, rather than others, to legitimize and endorse. Certainly Johnson, the man that fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident in order to bring the nation to war, did not select Martin Luther King as the torchbearer for civil rights purely because he believed the man's cause to be just and his morals pure.
I wonder, what do people who oppose radical groups say to the continued efficacy of the Afghan people at expelling occupiers from their nation? Certainly, attacking Soviet tanks and American patrols can only increase the resolve of an occupier. If only they knew of the power of nonviolence! Then they could really achieve independence rather than remaining crushed under the boot of oppression for so long.
Bhagat Singh/Rajguru/Sukhdev or Ram Prasad Bismil/Ashfaqullah are good examples but Subhash Chandra Bose would probably be a slightly better one for the sake of generalizability
That's quite a selective extract from that Wikipedia article. That section starts: "Historians generally argue that the first stage of the militant suffragette movement under the Pankhursts in 1906 had a dramatic mobilising effect on the suffrage movement": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette#Legacy
Do you believe that without the movement, which forced many public discussions and debates, that the right to vote would still have been granted in 1918? Sooner?
It's pretty normal for there to be militants, as well as moderates, in a resistance. The militants create pressure and demand total capitulation while the moderates leverage the pressure to promote pragmatic solutions. Good cop, bad cop.
Historically, these backlashes are unsustainable, less so the more networked and humanized the resistance becomes, and so the burden of proof is still on you to show that these militants are truly harmful to their goals.
In particular, I would ask you to consider the following conflicts:
* The American Colonies vs. The British Empire
* The Bolsheviks vs. The Russian Empire and Republic
* The Mujaheddin vs. the USSR
Can you elaborate on how, in those cases, militant political action harmed the overall cause?
It's spelled out in the article. Backlashes shifted voting patterns, possibly enough to affect electoral outcomes away from a President favorable to the cause of the protesters. The result was, at the very least, a significant delay in civil rights.
Is that enough for you?
I suspect that if you asked a historian, you could find many examples of movements that were utterly discredited after a turn to violence. Such as anarchism in the US.
I suspect if you asked a historian you would get a much more nuanced view of the concept of a movement being "discredited"; especially any American leftist movement that was under significant state suppression for virtually all of its lifespan.
There were possibly more anarchists predating the first Red Scare using violent tactics than state socialists, but Eugene Debs still ended up in prison, and I think it's pretty impossible to claim he was somehow violent.
Further, a historian would tell you that a societies' definition of "violent" is highly contextual; for example, the Occupy movement was classified as "violent" and subsequently subject to significant (and actually, physically violent) repression because as other comments in this very thread have pointed out, they used nonviolent civil disobedience tactics similar to the 60's civil rights movement.
Further, since we can't experiment, we can't make statements about whether or not there were delays in civil rights because of any particular thing. It could very well be that violent tactics from "extreme" leaders like Malcolm X caused backlash, but it might also be that media presentation of these events in a certain way was more causal of backlash, or that these events were polarizing, resulting in some people identifying more with the civil rights struggle while others identified more strongly with white supremacy. So no, it is not enough for me. Why is it enough for you?
The study in question implicitly controls for a number of the factors you raise in the items it compares and convincingly demonstrates a link between contextually-defined violent action and voter outcomes. This assumes you think voter outcomes matter at all - I do, you may not.
If the events in question are polarizing and produce the outcome observed, that would be consistent with both the data and the hypothesis.
What more would you like to see? What would be enough for you? Can there be enough for you, or do you think this question is forever unknowable and to be relegated to the realm of radical hypothesizing forever?
Backlashes are not a hypothesis. The idea(s) that all movements can or should avoid militancy or that there is some easy guide to when mililtancy is and is not appropriate are extremely weak and questionable hypotheses.
The point is that militancy is not all beer and skittles. It's not the magical cure-all that makes everything better that so many radicals view it as. I wish I was exaggerating, but I actually do know a number of radicals who really do believe that militancy makes everything better. Often there's some rationale about how their chosen form of violence is actually non-violence.
Militancy has drawbacks. Those drawbacks can in fact be measurable counterproductive. That's the hypothesis at hand.
Well that was easily the coolest thing I've seen all day.
I advocate for everybody to study martial arts. Learning to fight is a process that teaches you to synchronize your mind and body out of sheer necessity: if you don't practice your technique, strengthen your entire body, or take care of your diet, you're gonna get punched in the teeth.
Most of my youth was spent playing video games, and sports were boring exercises that my parents dragged me to. If anyone else can relate to my experience, take my advice and try a martial art.
Yup, as a kid I was even told by doctors to avoid strenuous exercise because of a minor heart condition.
These days I do good old english boxing four times a week. It's an amazing workout and you will never achieve so much focus and flow as quickly as you will in a sparring session. For those three minutes, you are there, you are fighting, there is no room to think about anything else, or to stress about anything else.
Nothing like the immediacy of a potential punch to the face to make all other stress in your life melt away and become meaningless.
Nothing like the immediacy of a potential punch to the face to make all other stress in your life melt away and become meaningless.
The necessity of focus and putting everything else out of your mind is similar in motorcycling, FWIW.
Bikes are probably more likely to kill you though. But not as likely as horse riding - that's a seriously dangerous sport.
I think the effect is pretty much the same in all adrenaline sports and adrenaline seeking behaviors. Which one you pick is a combination of convenience, enjoyment, money, and risk tolerance.
I love downhill longboarding for instance. But it's extremely inconvenient. Especially the part about walking back up the damn hill.
Breathing exercises are under appreciated by almost everyone. Breathing dictates everything that you do. Not learning how to control it is essentially crippling yourself through opportunity cost.
I started northern-style shaolin Kung Fu at 20 when I was in college. It was a great program. Very disciplined (scratch your nose without turning around first results in push-ups), very thorough. The warm ups and breathing exercises I learned are my gold standard for a full body workout that doesn't require any more equipment than the floor.
Nowadays the gym I go to specializes in Muay Thai and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. I haven't gotten into BJJ but I really enjoy Thai boxing.
Something us hackers can appreciate is that learning the difference in styles between Kung Fu and Muay Thai is like learning different programming languages: you learn to do more things, or learn how to accomplish the same but in different ways.
For example, every move in Kung Fu has a discrete set of states and is meant to be highly controlled. Your feet are almost always flat on the ground and you move by sliding them across the floor so you can always be sure you're on stable ground and your weight is appropriately centered.
Muay Thai, on the other hand, is always in a state of flow. You rock back and forth between your forward foot and the balls of your back foot so that you're lighter on your feet and more able to react to various attacks. If you ever watch boxers/Thai boxers warming up, you'll notice that jump ropes are a common sight.
I took martial arts as a kid, taekwondo, hapkido, karate. I loved knowing my limits thats what martial arts teaches you, your physical limits and it lets you stay out of fights unless absolutely necessary.
More over I loved the discipline, and a strong sense of inner confidence. The stress release. I find martial arts is more about meditation and practicing control over yourself.
As for practicality, you are better off learning something that special forces developed for hand to hand combat.
Out of all martial arts I'd say taekwondo if mastered is the most lethal because the leg is the most powerful muscle, perfect for women as they have much more lethal leg muscle than men.
My instructor practiced it since he was a kid and went to a special university where they practice TKD day and night. His control over space and footwork was WTF grade. Even when a group of black belts tried to spar him, the non stop array of fakes and quick turn kicks knocked somebody out.
The most practical form of hand to hand combat is practiced by special forces
A favorite martial art of mine is Aikido. It is quite different from all other martial arts in that it emphasizes disabling your opponent while minimizing harm to them. There are different styles. Here's a demonstration of one such style called Yoshinkan (it is considered one of the rougher/more rigid styles):
Actually, I seriously question the practicality of any martial arts. I practiced judo and thai boxing for 20 years (both sports are considered practical), and I certainly don't see myself in a street fight. Actually, I was mugged once in NYC and "fighting" was the last thing in my mind! I'm not saying that fighting can't have a practical value, but it's so unlikely that it can help, that it doesn't have to be a criteria when choosing a martial art. I'd recommend people to choose a sport that they like, rather than something that they think can be practical.
There are endless discussions about which martial art is the most practical for "self defense", but if people are so concerned about their safety, I'm sure it's much more cost effective to invest in a better diet, drive more safely and so on rather than practicing boxing 3/4 times a week for years Also, fighting sports can actually hurt your body in the long run.
I agree with you to an extent here. I've always believed the best form of self-defense is probably a gun. In real life, you're not likely to encounter one person who wants to fight. Chances are they're armed or they have many other people with them.
So when I say practical I'm largely referring to its near lack of existence within the world of mixed martial arts.
You didn't learn martial arts, you learned how to fight in a ring (which is awesome, don't get me wrong). You learned how to defeat your opponent according to a certain set of rules.
Martial Arts and self defense is about training you how to react in real-life scenario. They are meant to incapacitate and perhaps kill your aggressor by any mean necessary.
> Actually, I seriously question the practicality of any martial arts.
If in a fight, typical MMA training does work. First, it prepares you to get hit. Most people have never been punched and that first time is such a shock that people freeze. Second, most street fights end up on the ground in some sort of grappling which is what MMA training will teach someone to deal with. So, guard yourself, close distance into the grapple, and throw shots when there are openings.
I would advocate to obviously avoid a fight if possible.
MMA is based on the assumption of a single opponent. Going "to the ground" against multiple assailants is suicide. This is why when the USMC needed to teach a martial art to Marines they had to develop their own, because Brazilian Ju Jitsu is only useful for sports.
But yeah, the best martial art is to spot trouble in advance and be somewhere else.
There's a great movie, called "Man on the Train", that I always remember because of a scene where a school teacher and a gangster are in a cafe and they get hassled by a coupe of local punks. The gangster, who is - by cinematic standards - a total, murderous bad-ass, does nothing as they get taunted by a couple of local hoodlums. Afterwards, the schoolteacher is confused and asked the gangster why he didn't react to the couple of punk kids who were bothering them - he says something like "one guy can't take on two, except in the movies."
If you're talking about a gang beating, then nothing is going to protect you. Typically when someone says fight I think a couple people somehow end up a disagreement and confrontation may occur.
Let me start by saying, arguing about martial arts on the internet is beyond cliche, so I'm a touch embarrassed to write this. But I'm a dan ranked aikidoka who has also spent a fair bit of time on jujitsu mats and in boxing rings (though I've never fought competitively) so maybe I can add some context.
You are absolutely right to question the practicality of Aikido, especially as judged by "effectiveness by any of the standard mma rulesets that have evolved in the last 20 years". Quite simply for an aikidoka to be competitive in that sort of violent conflict they must learn the standard techniques of what has evolved into a new martial art. Things like sprawling (and other take down defense), guard/ground work, thai kicks, etc are the most effective form of fighting for non-weapon, similarly sized, time limited 2 person combat sporting events.
Aikido will add nothing to your chance of winning that event, and could potentially increase your chances of losing. This is unsurprising as all of the martial arts have had to adapt in the face of this modern art (including things like thai boxing and bjj). The Aikido community has been particularly bad at taking these lessons to heart and in conjunction with an already high level of ambient mysticism you get a combination that makes a style of practice that is closer to dancing meditation than to a martial practice.
So why do I continue to train in Aikido (in conjunction with other martial arts)? Because violence is a wide subject. To be quit honest, when it comes to violent encounters between 2 largely similarly skilled opponents, the one that is stronger and faster and more willing to commit violence will "win" the encounter more often than not. No amount of nerd wishing that technique can make up for physique will change that and I'm unlikely to actually need to engage in that sort of violence. But multiple attacker scenarios or scenarios where it would be bad for me to inflict physical injury on an attacker are much more likely for my own risk assessment. Good aikido dojo have practice that allows for this sort of training (but many do not).
Finally, I'll say that you can learn most of what you need to know about self defense (assuming its not a part of your profession) in a weekend seminar (IMPACT! for women I highly recommend). But I train in boxing and aikido both regularly because of the physical benefits. I like the dance meditation, just like I like taking a well placed punch. But I'll be training in aikido long after I've had to give up the boxing.
Having trained in Aikido, Ju-Jitsu, and Wing Tsun... I agree.
Aikido isn't bad but it's not what I'd recommend to someone as a fighting style. Wing Tsun's Lat Sao drills sometimes get derided (by people who don't know any better) as "play fighting" but Aikido is pretty much always trained in that sort of form.
Also the minimizing harm to the opponent is the exact opposite you want to end a confrontation.
Also the minimizing harm to the opponent is the exact opposite you want to end a confrontation.
It really depends. If attacked, my priority is to stop the attack. More often than not an attacker can be halted without escalating the confrontation, once the attacker realizes I have taken his initiative away.
Immediately inflicting harm, on the other hand, puts the opponent in a situation of survival anxiety, and someone fired up on Adrenalin is less predictable and thus more dangerous. It's important to recognize a win when it's available to you.
Well, I have been in a lot of street fights, ranging from random run-ins with drunken louts, to being assaulted by a group, to deadly conflict involving weapons. I am sure you have experience of your own and that your beliefs have worked well for you, but I do not feel any obligation to adopt them based on your say-so. Nor do I expect you to adopt mine, but I will lay them out for your consideration.
Of course conflicts can escalate once you are already fighting. A bully's objective may be simply to scare someone, knock them down and administer a few painful blows. Or a mugger's objective might simply be to get whatever cash is in a person's wallet. Knocking such a erson down a few times or slapping them around may be sufficient to get them to take off. One can escalate a conflict by actively trying to hurt someone rather than merely repel them or drive them away, in which case the opponent will be inclined to try to knock the escalator unconscious or inflict a serious, debilitating injury such as breaking someone's arm. There's another level of escalation again in which one person actively attempts to kill the other and makes their intention absolutely clear, such that the other person fully believes their life to be in jeopardy and either begs for mercy or fights to remain alive.
You are suggesting that there is no distinction between the different states. This is nonsense. At the international level we are well aware of the differences between skirmishes, limited engagements, limited war, and total war. Conflicts between individuals are similarly nuanced, and the notion of a proportionate response is well established in law; if someone tries to steal your cellphone, say, and slaps you in an attempt to startle/intimidate you into letting go of it, you do not automatically have the right to kill them and you'll need to make a convincing case about being in fear for your life rather than just angry about the prospect of losing your phone.
There are certainly situations in which is it appropriate to inflict as much harm as possible. I have been there and done that. But I believe those situations are exceptional and I make no apology for holding back in situations where extreme measures are not warranted. Of course I would not like to be wrong and find myself a victim, but nor would I wish to be wrong and find myself having gone too far.
> One can escalate a conflict by actively trying to hurt someone rather than merely repel them or drive them away
I'd say this leads to a situation where you are actively trying to give the attacker more situations that they can hurt you.
> You are suggesting that there is no distinction between the different states. This is nonsense.
No, I'm saying assuming they aren't actively trying to hurt you is outright dangerous. Any street fight can kill - all it takes is the wrong fall or a lucky contact and someone is dead. Assuming the attacker is somehow nice and should be scared away is insane in that situation.
That is what you are advocating.
However you have characterized my position (wrongly as):
> inflict as much harm as possible
Which is NOT what I am saying. I am saying the goal is to end the fight. That doesn't mean giving them a chance to get back up and attack you again - it means ending the fight as soon as possible no matter what it takes.
Minimizing harm to your attacker is counter-productive to that. That's not to say that the only alternative is maximizing harm. That's silly, a false dichotomy, and not what I'm suggesting at all.
Of course that is what you are suggesting: That doesn't mean giving them a chance to get back up and attack you again - it means ending the fight as soon as possible no matter what it takes.
You've made it clear that you don't feel safe walking away from a conflict unless your opponent is completely disabled, even if temporarily (but then how do you know they won't come after you later?). I think this is bunk and am quite willing to tolerate the risk that they'll attack again, because I feel confident about my ability to repel such attacks. I have in fact knocked someone down repeatedly, let him get back up, let him attack me again, and and a third time, until he got the message and stayed down.
Yes, this is dangerous, but so are a lot of things. It's dangerous in that it perpetuates a low-level danger in time, but I prefer an ongoing low-level risk to a sudden significant increase in risk. My judgments about risk in real-world situations have so far served me very well. It's true that any given street fight could kill, but it's also true that it probably won't unless you're quite unlucky, so I see no point in altering that probability if I don't need to. This is the same reason I avoid fights in the first place and am indifferent to mere verbal abuse or bluster - it is virtually never in my interest to initiate or escalate a conflict.
Assuming the attacker is somehow nice and should be scared away is insane in that situation.
I don't assume they're nice, in fact I make a habit of avoiding value judgments about people because they can so easily be misleading. My experience is that many assailants are cowardly (not nice) and can in fact be scared away with minimal retaliation. It's both risky and wasteful to inflict more harm than is required; I do not, for example, want to become the subject of a police investigation. How you got the idea that I think those who would attack someone else on the street might be nice people underneath their criminal exterior is beyond me.
Regular aikido student here--yeah, I'd agree. Better off learning to rabbit punch a throat or kick someone in the groin. But there are lots of reasons to train a martial art. I like aikido because it's mentally / kinesthetically taxing.
I've also trained in judo and danzan ryu jujitsu. DZR probably had the most immediately practical self defense (beyond groin / throat strikes). Judo is also a fantastic choice for self defense in that it shares aikido' removal of lethal / maming techniques, but unlike aikido has "shiai" or full intensity competitive fights. I'm not a very competition oriented person, but traditionally taught judo is, in my opinion, something of a local optima between traditional martial art, practical self defense, and solid fitness. That said, I get less banged up in aikido, which is nice in my mid-thirties :-)
Edit: I should also add that martial arts are a last resort option for self defense. If running or screaming or handing over your wallet could work, those are all better options. People get hurt in fights, especially if someone is armed.
True. Though the Shiai I've seen (Tomiki style) looks very different than judo shiai. What I've seen appeared to be point scoring with brushes. I actually know nothing about Tomiki style beyond that, and the history that Tomiki was a student of both Kano and Ueshiba.
I've practiced Shiai in both the Tomiki style and outside of it. I've also spent a fair amount of time in Judo dojo seeing the variants there.
What I'd say is that shiai means lots of different things to lots of different people. What you get out of it is school to school and student to student dependent.
I'm into Tai Chi, and Aikido is pretty close to the flavors I've learnt. In my experience it has proved eminently practical in real world situations. One reason it suits me is that for a man, I'm quite small physically (about 5'7", 120 lbs) so I've usually been at a significant weight/strength disadvantage when I've been a target of assault. Being able to redirect an aggressor's strength against them is beneficial in terms of both interrupting the physical attack and regaining the strategic advantage through surprise and confusion; people who make a habit of throwing their weight around tend not to be very sophisticated.
Edit: you shouldn't treat this as advice, of course. I come from an abusive background and got bullied a lot growing up, so while I avoid starting fights under any circumstances I'm not beset by fear or panic on the rare occasions where someone tries to make trouble. Petty criminals rely on others' being fearful and usually don't have an alternate strategy.
Aikido and judo both aren't really martial arts: they do provide an advantage in fights but in both case if your opponent knows that you do this sport, he can easily find a way to nullify your advantage.
This is much less the case for real martial arts such as ju-jitsu, krav-maga..
That's like questioning the practicality of C because it's an ineffective for web development.
Like programming languages, each martial art has strengths and weaknesses. One of Aikido's strengths is its ability to quickly neutralize a situation with minimal harm to all involved parties, just as one of C's strengths is its minimal memory usage compared to higher level languages. Aikido is not the "best" choice in all situations or for all users any more than C is the "best" choice for all programs or for all users.
Still, learning C is of great benefit to many programmers, even if they rarely code C itself, because the knowledge and skill spills over into other work. Likewise, learning Aikido is of great benefit to many martial artists, even if they don't rely on Aikido alone, because the knowledge and skill spills over into other work.
It's worth questioning for sure, but at the same time it's easy to misunderstand Aikido.
"opponents playing along" is half-accurate. In Aikido you spend most of your time practicing techniques with a partner, and they do not play the role of an uncooperative opponent for two specific reasons:
1. The goal of Aikido is to, through repetition, build muscle-memory of very specific techniques. These are very different types of techniques than what you'll find in say, karate, where it's basically kicking and punching. These techniques are designed to disable your opponent while minimizing harm. Aikido is also not about kicking and punching, it's about responding to kicks and punches (attacks).
There is simply no way to build that muscle memory other than by having repetition with a cooperative partner. To outsiders this may seem like opponents that merely "play along" with your attacks, but that is ultimately a misunderstanding of what's going on.
2. These techniques are painful if you don't cooperate. The reason the "opponent" seems to be "playing along" is because they have to do this over and over for the length of the class session. If you're a poor Uke (the opponent) and are uncooperative, you will end up missing most of your classes due to injuries. A good Uke will be uncooperative to the extent that it helps Nage (the person practicing the technique) learn the technique without seriously injuring themselves.
The difficulty with that claim is that it's circular, and it makes it untestable: the effectiveness of Aikido cannot be tested because testing the effectiveness of Aikido goes against the spirit of Aikido.
Not exactly. The question was "Why do you think...?"
"Spirit of Aikido" was my thoughts, a conjecture, not a claim as spokesperson on behalf of the Aikido community. :)
To rephrase what I said before:
If a high-ranking Aikidoka wants to play UFC, they're certainly free to do so. However, I think none have done so because it goes against the spirit of Aikido. (e.g. people attracted to Aikido are not those attracted to UFC, Aikidoka UFC fans don't associate Aikido with UFC)
I've seen others express the same sentiment. Your explanation may be true, but I think a parallel explanation is also probably true: they are unprepared for a fight with a skilled opponent.
I agree that "unprepared for a fight with a skilled opponent" is true for many Aikidoka (perhaps they are more self-aware of their limitations than students of other arts?), but it's also true of Cat Zingano ;)
My point, made in jest, was that even the most seemingly prepared, skilled, and qualified person can be unprepared for a skilled opponent. I was aware of her record, hence the example. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you?
She's demonstrably prepared for a fight with a skilled opponent. She's just not prepared for the most skilled opponent - but right now, it appears that no other woman on the planet is. Surely our bar for "skilled opponent" in this discussion has not been Ronda Rousey, a bronze medalist in Judo and the most dominant female MMA champion, ever.
There's also something else to consider. If Aikido is effective, why aren't current UFC fighters training Aikido? There are plenty of fighters who pick up new martial arts as they progress through their career but I haven't heard of one single fighter who has added Aikido into their training.
I'm not a UFC expert. I was told Aikido wrist and hand techniques qualified as "small joint manipulation." If they don't, I apologize for my mistake in repeating misinformation.
Wrist locks are allowed, but I don't think I've ever seen an MMA fight end via wrist lock. Small joint manipulation (individual fingers, individual toes) is not allowed. All other joints - neck, elbows, knees, ankles, wrists - are allowed.
It seems the goal is to prevent broken fingers and toes. Would manipulating 4 fingers simultaneously (to achieve wrist/elbow/shoulder lock) violate the small joint manipulation rule?
That's valid, as that's seen as manipulating the hand. For example, to defend a rear choke attempt, people will grab the meat of the hand. Grabbing an individual finger would not be okay. However, if you're going for another kind of lock, and the only control you have is the four fingers (no thumb, not applying pressure at base of hand), you're probably not going to succeed.
Those techniques are for armed fights where you cannot afford to let the other person wield their knife/sword freely. (It also shows you how to get rid of people trying to stop you from using your knife.)
As training, they teach you the basics. You can do it without the grabbing, and you can do the grabbing if you want to throw too, it's just far harder.
Simple- Aikido is very difficult to use effectively against a trained striking opponent, even harder to use against someone not wearing a gi, and almost impossible to use against someone not wearing a gi who is also drenched in sweat.
The same can be said about wrestling. Many take-downs are practiced against people who will, quite literally, throw their weight a little early to help the takedown. Why? Because it hurts like hell not to!
Fact of the matter is: you cannot resist this. You will fall. Resisting will twist your leg sideways putting strain on your knee. That hurts like hell. Once it hurts, you'll allow yourself to fall. You learn very quickly to not resist at all and to fall before the pain happens. This can look a lot like "throwing yourself" instead of being "taken down" and that's because, to some degree, it is. But in practice - you'd be able to take down anyone like this (so long as you have the strength to raise their leg).
While you wouldn't be using wrestling moves in an actual fight (at least, most of them...) - they will all effectively take down an opponent. The same can be said about Aikido. In practice, it looks impractical and "likely wouldn't work". In reality - your opponents will be taken out.
Now the practicality of the moves is something to be question. In an actual fight, chances are you'd be unable to perform a single leg sweep with someone pounding the back of your head in or kneeing you in the face when you put your head so conveniently near their knee. But if you got into that position - you'd easily have your opponent on the ground. Which is where you want them.
That is where Aikido is being criticized. To get into a position for many of the takedowns is impractical.
Yes you're right. The same can be said about wrestling. You do give a bit to avoid injury. However, there's a huge difference between wrestling and Aikido in practice.
Watch Division 1 wrestling and you see guys really going at it. It's brutal stuff. Meanwhile every single Aikido video I've seen looks like it's a choreographed set of moves for a movie.
I think that people from outside of the grappling and MMA world seriously underestimate the effectiveness of wrestling as both self defense and a "martial art".
I wrestled all four years of High School. My point was to conflate it with Aikido in that some parts don't look practical or "only work if someone is working with you to make it work" when, in reality, they work. Although some are genuinely impractical. I would never go for a single leg sweep in a street fight, unless I managed to catch a poor kick, but most people don't try and kick that high. Or when their opponent isn't already on the ground.
Because I'm getting reply limited...
@atom-morgan
>Watch Division 1 wrestling and you see guys really going at it.
The difference there is it is a competition between two people trying to take each other down and pin. Aikido is not a competition between two people trying to take the other down - thus looks more demonstrative.
Demonstrative stuff looks fake and impractical, because it looks like a demonstration. :)
But imagine if your years of wrestling had no competitions, and no live wrestling during practices. Just four years of technique. That's the point myself and atom-morgan are making.
I'm not refuting that many of the takedowns are impractical. They involve "first get into this position" but offer no practical methodology of "getting to that position". While the impractical wrestling example I gave has a method of "get to the position you are holding your opponents leg up" it doesn't necessarily make it any more practical because getting to that position in an actual fight isn't well... practical. It's only practical within the rules of wrestling. There are takedowns I can cite that are practical in street fight scenarios, and I'm sure I could find Aikido ones that are equally practical.
I don't practice Aikido and I'm not overly familiar outside of what few videos I've seen of it. So I won't try and argue "X and Y move would be practical!" just that "looking impractical and being impractical are two different things".
I shared your criticism and pointed it out near the end of my original response:
>That is where Aikido is being criticized. To get into a position for many of the takedowns is impractical.
The body doesn't bend certain ways and using your own or your opponents body weight is effective regardless of how much they appear to be "allowing you to". Any criticism needs to be directed towards "you could not practically get into that position during a fight" which isn't as readily proved.
Although you are correct, that if it were more practical you would see more MMA/UFC fighters using Aikido and that can be used for a supporting claim of the impracticality of such positions.
I mostly responded because "looking impractical and being impractical aren't the same" because a lot of wrestling looks impractical, but people know it works.
Another tangent/example:
This is a big issue within Krav Maga, specifically the tactics for disarming knife-wielding opponents. A lot of it is battle-proven and works and has saved lives of field operators. But while being practiced it looks impractical or "the other person is letting you" and so people readily dismiss it ("Krap Maga")
I'm making a different point, which is that you are only good at what you have trained. And in the context of fighting, the training that matters most is against a live opponent.
Oh lord, Krav Maga and their knife disarms. You know what happens when an unarmed guy tries to fight a guy who is armed with a knife? He loses. Period.
Learning how to fall is just as important as any other aspects of learning how to fight. It's the difference between rolling into a defensive stance and falling flat on your back and absorbing the last of the impact with the back of your head.
> That is where Aikido is being criticized. To get into a position for many of the takedowns is impractical.
Sure, but didn't you just criticize wrestling along the same lines?
I'm not claiming Aikido is "the best" martial art (I don't think that's a meaningful thing to say), I just said it was a favorite.
Many techniques are very practical and naturally flow in response to the actions of your opponent (like what to do if someone grabs or pushes you). Others could be less practical, I agree (at least less practical for someone like me).
> didn't you just criticize wrestling along the same lines?
No-one is marketing wrestling as a practical fighting style (though it is of course useful to incorporate ideas from it). That's the difference. Aikido proponents act like it's actually useful in general fighting.
I think that any "martial art", to have transfer to anything like a real fight, has to incorporate live sparring. I do Brazilian jiu jitsu, and we also have "technique" periods where we have a cooperating opponent. But that's just for getting the movement and ideas. It's only when you can do something during live sparring that you actually know it, and can realistically reproduce it in anything like a real fight.
I can't speak to Aikido specifically, but a comment on this:
> Then how are you supposed to minimize harm? Your real-life opponents are unlikely to know Aikido, so they won't know that they should cooperate. [emphasis added]
In relation to this:
>> These techniques are painful if you don't cooperate [emphasis added]
Pain and harm are distinct things. Something is painful because signals are going from a point of the body (caused by pressure, heat, twisting, something) to nerves to your brain. Someone can cause you pain by twisting your arm, and it may be excruciating, but won't actually cause you (physical) harm so long as they don't cross a critical threshold. This is how many submission holds work, in fact. Ever had someone grab your arm and hold it behind your back? If they really go too far they may injure your elbow or shoulder, but they don't have to take it anywhere near that point to cause you enough pain to cry uncle.
Minimizing harm does not mean not causing pain. With the help of Uke, the idea is that through years of repetition you'll learn how to respond correctly in a way that disables Uke while minimizing harm.
It's the difference between: do I punch you in the face and break your nose to disable you, versus, do I respond to an attack coming from you in a way that you find yourself suddenly on the floor, incapable of moving.
Thanks for sharing! That video is worth watching in full, and I wish he had shown Rogen the video I shared above, as that's the best example of "serious Aikido" online that I'm aware of.
Maybe because women were seen as inferior fighters by the British men at that time? Russians had no problems sending women to fight in WWI.
PS. Women and Men did not get the _same_ rights to vote at the same time. 1. The act for the right to vote didn't happen until WWI was nearly over, and 2. Only women over 30 (with heavy restrictions most of which tied to being married to a man) were allowed to vote when that bill was passed in 1918. The bill passed in 1918 allowed _all_ men over 21 to vote, and if you fought in the war, it was reduced to 19+. So saying, "No strings attached" is completely incorrect. They couldn't even fight to gain their voting rights if they wanted to since the bill only allowed for men 19/20 to gain those rights if they fought.
The article even states that if you had read more than the first paragraph.
Edit: Also you act as though women did _nothing_ in WWI to deserve the right to vote. Yes they weren't forced to fight in the front lines and did not die by the millions, but they weren't exactly at home twiddling their thumbs waiting for the outcome. They were in factories, hospitals and doing non-combatant roles to help the war effort. Is that any less a contribution especially given the attitude in those days that women shouldn't be fighting?
First off, don't quote me out of context. I reference their contribution as helping in the war effort at home, and not because they were abstained from fighting. Maybe that's not what you were trying to write, but you seems to imply that considering how you wrote it.
Second off, "any less a contribution" does not mean I'm saying they are equal contributions. It means that even though they weren't fighting, they were doing some part in helping people on the front lines.
Oh I see, it was a figure of speech not intended to be a comparison. I see greater than/less than primarily as comparison operators.
If all you're trying to say is that women did more than nothing during WWII then obviously that can't be argued. Grandparent comment has been deleted but I'm guessing it had something to do with a comparison of contributions?
BTW it's not quoting you out of context when the context is like 200 pixels away, I quoted you for emphasis and brevity trusting that anybody who wanted the full quote had complete access to it.
The opponents of suffrage would refer to suffragists as "suffragettes" (in much the same way Fox News might refer to left-wing politicians as socialists or communists), and would often argue "women are too crazy to vote - just look at the tactics they use!".
Women got the vote in 1918, 4 years after WSPU (the militant suffragette group) ceased activity (they essentially disbanded / split after the war started, because domestic terrorism during a war was obviously not a winning strategy).
It might be fun to think they beat up policemen, forcing people to take them seriously. But it actually had the opposite effect. At best, they were comparable to Malcolm X (making other groups look relatively acceptable).