It's clear that Civilian defense is used to distinguish martial arts from what military people do. Yet again, it is used to distinguish what we do from martial arts as a sport. In fact, the dynamics of military and sport fighting is quite different from those of civilian defense.
 |
| Image Source: Pixabay |
The real world scenario
People often use the words ''real fight''. You will hear them talk about how so and so engaged in a real fight with another guy outside a pub.But whenever they use this term, they often refer to a situation where two guys throw punches at each other inside a pub or bar after a disagreement over a girlfriend or whatever else they're fighting for. They are never talking about a struggle that could have potentially led to death -- such as one that typically happens in a war-tone country like Somalia's Mogadishu, Baghdad and so on.
To put it in a better perspective, I'd refer to what Thomas Hobbes once said. He talked about man being reduced to ''the state of nature'', and by using that phrase, he was talking about the kind of physical resistance that makes man brutish, nasty and care-free when they live in a place where life is short!
And you don't need to visit Somalia or any other country with some form of unrest to witness what am talking about here. Look at the appalling stats of crime rates in your town right now. You realize that crimes which have led to loss of lives are often committed with some form of brutality. There is no empathy anywhere!
But this might lead you to asking me one question: Does this apply to where I live too?
The answer is yes, it applies, but in a subtle way. The society now appears very comfortable watching extreme violence in the media. You can see it in movies and computer games.
In fact, with certain events like MMA now allowing ''ground and pound'' form of fights to the extent of seeing it as light entertainment, we can confidently conclude that we've slowly began accepting the way of violence into the society.
So, what exactly is civilian defense in relation to self defense or military defense?
Martial arts such as Karate seemed to have developed at the same time other Chinese martial arts were developing. These arts were closely tied to some philosophical or religious trends of the ancient time.
If you look at some societies around the world, you realize that they have never had a structured form of community self defense training despite the need to equip persons with those skills even when they live in the most peaceful places on earth.
As a matter of historical fact, I can say that the act of ''grappling and striking'' was taken into civilian defense systems back in the 18th century. This happened in the far east where such practices originated.
So what I can say is that the primary deference between civilian defense and military combat lies in the root intent.
A military guy in a war zone will hit back with an intent to neutralize an enemy even if it means putting an end to the life of that enemy.
On the other hand, civilian defense is primarily meant for avoidance as opposed to inflicting harm on your opponent.
Gichin Funakoshi once made a powerful statement when he put it like this -- Karate ni sente nashi. In English, that means there is no first strike in the art of Karate.
As far as my level of skill is concerned, (I train in Shou Shu anyway), I know that most martial arts, if not all of them begin with defensive skills rather than attack skills. I have carefully observed Korean or Japanese martial arts only to realize that all forms put emphasis on defensive skills first before anything else.
In Shou Shu Kung Fu, Yellow belt is the lowest level a student will achieve before climbing up the ladder. But even then, you find that students are mostly taught how to defend themselves as opposed to being the one to attack first.
In military defense however, there are no rules of engagement. Here, anything goes as long as it will inflict maximum harm against the enemy.
In short, there are all dirty tricks you might have had of. There is scratching, biting, gouging, including the use of lethal techniques or weapons.
Therefore, in a warfare atmosphere, relevant Geneva conventions apply and so do his or her own army's rules of engagement. However, rules are very minimal here, plus the intent is different. This is contrary to what happens in a civilian defense scenario where rules of engagement are too restrictive. In other words, your response to a threat has to be rational, appropriate and necessary. If you do otherwise, you will end up facing a judge in court.
In a civil defense situation, you will typically have the skills required to defend yourself. But no one will ever teach you how and to what extent you should use force. Instead, you will do it with reference to the law and society values.
I can say that most human beings are empathetic beings. We don't resort to drastic measures unless we have undergone some brutality in the past. But those individuals are very rare to come across, plus the instinctive empathy to preserve fellow human being is something that can't always be subsumed.
In short, we will be reticent to inflicting harm in the form of gouging eyes, biting or other drastic things. This is almost the same thing to what happens in a snake bite scenario. Most snakes know that venom is precious. It is used to maim a prey so it won't escape, thus it will be presented to the reptile as a meal.
But to use venom extravagantly would mean the reptile suffering extreme hunger and frustration. They wouldn't be able to kill a single prey, hence they have to learn to preserve venom by not wasting it, i.e biting everything they come across, including human beings.
Bottom line is that self defense equips you with the skills you will need to react when attacked in a life-threatening scenario. But then, until you are attacked, you can never lift a finger on the attacker. Also, even if you're forced to react, your intent will generally be different from that of the military defense.
No comments:
Post a Comment