The Martialist

Cunninghammery: The Martialist Responds to
Don Cunningham
By Phil Elmore

---

Even before the debut of this e-zine, The Martialist was the subject of
vocal criticism from Don Cunningham, respected author of Secret
Weapons of Jujutsu.  Mr. Cunningham recently began publishing
articles at his personal website that would seem directed at this publication
and those who read it.  While we bear no ill will for Mr. Cunningham
and understand that he feels strongly about what he writes, the staff of The
Martialist cannot help but take issue with his public statements.

The
first editorial Mr. Cunningham wrote does not mention this publication.  It does not, in fact, name
many names at all, which makes Mr.
Cunningham’s assessments of the opinions, experience, and actions of those
studying with the anonymous “combative martial arts organizations” he
indicts a matter of the reader’s speculation.  It is easy to make mistakes
when generalizing in this fashion,  accidentally creating straw men who are
all too easily knocked down with great drama.  Given that Mr. Cunningham identifies no one in
the article, we must give him the benefit of the doubt.

In my opinion, however, the editorial is
flawed.  It appears to me to be a string of unsupported assertions strung together with a few valid criticisms of the martial arts community. 
It includes more than one reasonable observation about “martial” sports and their
practitioners, but ultimately it takes the reader nowhere.  That is the
limitation of criticizing individuals one does not name.

Mr. Cunningham’s online discussions at e-budo.com
and that first editorial inspired our question
and answer section, the queries in which are generalized versions of
issues raised by those who share Mr. Cunningham’s skeptical view of combatives
exponents.  The first issue of The Martialist
touches on several of these same themes in multiple editorials.

At e-budo, however,
Mr.
Cunningham had this to say about The Martialist and its publisher:

What’s really funny here is that [Phil] has
set himself up for even more trouble if something ever should happen. …[S]uppose
[Phil] is attacked on the street and stabs his assailant. For purposes of
argument, let’s assume even more provocation, for example, he is attacked by
three men, all armed with sticks and chains, and as result, he kills one of them
with a knife.

Okay, the first thing the Assistant District Attorney is going to do is look
into his motivations. If he reads any of [Phil]’s rantings on his web
site… there is probably sufficient grounds to show premeditation.
Basically, the ADA would claim that [Phil] had thought about his response prior
to the incident and his actions were based on his personal moral philosophy.

Instead of a simple manslaughter charge, [Phil] would now find himself facing a
murder charge, a much more serious offense.

This could even be extended to anyone who has trained with [Phil] or even
subscribers to his magazine.
All the ADA has to do is show that there is sufficient reason to believe they
had considered their actions prior to the incident and decided beforehand what
they would do, in this case, kill or maim another person. They even went so far
as to arm themselves with a weapon just in case of such an event.

Mr. Cunningham may, in fact, be
correct.  Think about the implications of that attitude.  If you seek
out instruction, if you carry a weapon, if you train in anything but strictly
nonlethal fighting techniques and you understand the aggressive mindset
necessary to defeat multiple armed attackers, you may indeed be burned at the
stake for your forbidden knowledge and for the unacceptable morality you have
embraced.

Is this really what the
“ADA” would think?  What is the nature of this Catch-22? 
Few of us would deny that a “martial” sports practitioner has little
chance of successfully defending himself from three armed attackers.  If a
combatives exponent who does succeed through vicious aggression in the
face of potentially lethal assault will be hanged from the mast of his devotion
to the very combatives that saved his life, why not simply lie down and cut
one’s own throat with one’s tactical folding knife right now?

This is the nature of the very difficult
decisions we all must make when faced with violence.  What is reasonable to
us and what will appear reasonable to a jury, judging our actions after the fact
from the safety of a courtroom, may diverge.  We will suffer the social
sanctions and the legal punishments for choosing unwisely, for behaving
recklessly or “excessively,” for knowingly breaking the law without
justification.  No one in the martial arts community would deny that, I
think.

As you will read repeatedly in the pages of The
Martialist, you must make the choice.  We pray fervently that you will
not be forced to do so.  We understand that there exists the possibility
that you might.

We hope you do the right thing.

The second
of Mr. Cunningham’s articles takes aim at this site specifically, quoting a
portion of it:

Most of the popular martial arts magazines are full of advertisements using emotionally charged scare tactics to attract students. 
…Such rhetoric is not limited to the print media, either. For example, the following is is an actual quote from an Internet website devoted to self-defense:

“The attitude of martialism [sic] is predicated on the idea that society is full of predators. These predators can and will injure and violate you to take from you that which they have not earned.”

“Some of society’s predators covet your property. Some desire your body. Some simply hate you for being you. All will use violence against you (or they would not be predators).”

“In a world of ‘martial’ artists who support gun control, consultants who preach the Gospel of Victimization, and complex or even silly fighting systems with no relevance to today’s world, many individuals come to the conclusion that to fight fairly is to be more vulnerable to defeat. All self-defense involves risk. The martialist [sic] understands that to take every advantage possible is to hedge his or her bets — to better the odds of success in the face of an attack.”

Such unsubtle appeals are reminiscent of the old bodybuilder advertisements, where the stereotypical bully kicks sand in the face of the 90-pound weakling before walking off with his beautiful girlfriend.

Of course, such “unsubtle
appeals” are not comic book advertisements at all, but realistic
assessments of the world in which we live.  Consider, for example, the
informed comments of J. Kelly McCann, CEO of Crucible
Security Specialists.  Writing as Jim Grover, he made these comments in Street Smarts, Firearms, & Personal
Security:

“Simply put, you must pay attention to your personal security. Failure to do so may result in total tragedy for you or your family. If you don’t pay at least nominal attention to your personal security, then you deserve what comes your way. 

“The crime rate right now (1999) is lower than it’s been since the mid 1960s. However, the incidence of violence in those crimes is much higher — less crime, more violence. The FBI has amassed statistics that tell us a person generally stands a six percent chance in his or her lifetime of being victimized in some way. Of course, all statistics are capable of manipulation and don’t normally reflect the reality of any given situation. The fact is that if your experience in that six percent includes a stabbing which results in your requiring a colostomy, that mere six percent becomes pretty life altering. If it includes a nonconfrontational property crime — your mailbox gets destroyed by vandals, for example — you got off easy.

“This is not melodramatic, just truthful, prudent, and appropriately concerned.”

Mr.
Cunningham went on to call the “emotionally charged tactics” of the
introduction to this site appeals to “our innermost fears and
insecurities.  We all want to believe that if we just use a certain brand,
we’ll be more attractive and successful.  Marketing specialists understand
this and use it to promote their products all the time.  …When examining
the facts, though, the premise that predators lurk everywhere and we are all
subject to constant dangers really has no basis in reality.”

No basis in reality?  Think about that
for a moment.  Stating plainly that society is full of predators isn’t a paranoid
assertion, emotional hyperbole, or a marketing ploy.  It’s a fact. 
If you can look around and honestly state that you don’t believe our society (I
am American and speak only about the United States) contains a
significant criminal element that preys on our citizens with regularity, you’re
living in denial.  You don’t believe the news reports of shootings,
stabbings, rapes, burglaries, and robberies that appear every day in the
media.  You don’t believe the tales of your friends, relatives, and fellow
citizens who all seem to know someone who’s been robbed or assaulted or found
themselves in an extremely threatening situation for which they felt
unprepared.  

When you disbelieve in this manner you are evading
reality — refusing to see something you don’t wish to see. This is
understandable — for the reality in which we find ourselves, the reality of
violence and of the potential threats that exist within society, is
unpleasant.  It is not a nice thing to think about and it does not make us
happy.  We do not get to choose to believe only those things we want
to believe, however.

Mr. Cunningham’s editorial continues as
follows::

“Society is full of predators…” On what facts does the author base this assumption? Most would point to media reports, stories related by other victims, or even personal experiences. Yet, this is anecdotal evidence at best and has no scientific or logical validity.

…Of course there really are predators within our society. Certainly they exist. One should be prudent and take reasonable precautions. The point, though, is what is prudent and reasonable? How much should one be concerned?

…To be constantly concerned that you might be a victim at any moment based on anecdotal evidence or such flagrant emotionally charged scare tactics is just as unreasonable as refusing to fly because you heard about a plane crash.

Yes,
as Mr. Cunningham admits, there are predators within society.  Yes, as Mr.
Cunningham admits, they do exist.  They exist in sufficient numbers,
in fact, to make the statement “Society is full of predators” a
rational and logically supportable one.  One could choose to ignore all these pieces
of evidence, yes.  One could choose to ignore the statistics for the murder
rate in one’s city and for national rates of violent crime.  One could
proclaim the data of one’s senses and the accumulated crime figures for an
entire country to be media sensationalism and illogical, hysterical
interpretation of events far less harmful than our fearful assessment indicates.

One would be ill-advised to do so.

Check your premises, as Ayn
Rand was fond of urging.  Ask yourself if you would leave your child
unsupervised in the food court of the average shopping mall.  Ask yourself
if you would leave the doors of your home unlocked at night.  Ask yourself
if you would feel ill at ease walking through a parking garage shrouded in
darkness.  Ask yourself if you would roll down your windows and chat with a
homeless man if he approached your car when you were stopped at a light. 

If you answered “no” to any of
those questions, I have just one more:

Why?

Recognizing that there are people who will
prey on you if given the opportunity — and that there are people who seek to make
those opportunities — is not paranoid hysteria.  It is merely
realistic.  Preparing to meet emergencies that have not yet occurred is not
paranoid or mentally unbalanced.  It is prudent.  

Have you ever purchased life insurance? 
You don’t actually think you’re going to die soon, do you?  Have you ever
purchased a handgun and obtained a license to carry it?  You
don’t actually think there are home invaders hiding in your shrubbery right now,
do you?  

I tell you now that it is very possible you’ll get through
your
entire life never being confronted by someone who means you harm or who seeks to
take what you have earned.  I hope you do.  Unfortunately, the
possibility that you won’t is also real.  It is measurable. 
You should not expect to face rampaging barbarian hordes the second you leave
the relative safety of your home — but neither should you think, “It can’t
happen to me.”  The list of martial artists and others who have lost
fights and had their lives forever changed because they were naïve
enough to assume this is a long one.

Those who understand the risks life entails
also understand that they must hedge their bets and be prepared for possible
dangers.  They do not stockpile illegal weapons.  They do not dig
foxholes in their flowerbeds.  They do not sit at home sweating bullets and
aiming firearms at passing cars from beneath ghillie suits knitted from their
living-room curtains. They do, however,  think carrying firearms or other
weapons suitable for personal protection is a reasonable action.  They understand that a society increasingly
hostile to individual self-defense, regardless of whatever lip service that
society pays to recognizing your right to preserve your life, may indeed punish them
should they make the choice to use force — no matter how justified they might
believe themselves to be.

The legal penalties for one’s actions cannot
be ignored.  Learn them.  Know them.  Remember them.  Make
informed choices.

Where preparation is concerned,
however, err on the side of caution.  No
doubt the grasshopper considered the ant “paranoid,” too. 
Charges of “paranoia” and “hysteria” are very common when
those who are not prepared face those who are.  This is
understandable.  We are uncomfortable when confronted with others’ superior
abilities to cope.  We rationalize our own lack of effort or lack of
ability in order to evade the cognitive dissonance we feel.  Noted
firearms columnist Jeff Cooper
commented on it thusly:

In my opinion, neither money nor greed
(cupiditas) is the root of all evil. The root of all evil is envy. The non-coper hates the coper, and thus the non-shooter hates the shooter. I see no other explanation for the pointless and irrational activism of the gun grabbers on the political scene. They know that their machinations can have no effect upon crime. Guns have no effect upon crime, but they do make all men equal, as the saying goes. This puts the coper on top, and infuriates the
non-coper.

Mr. Cunningham’s second editorial also touches on instructors and the advice
they provide:

…Many so-called self-defense experts are actually encouraging illegal actions, often without realizing the full ramifications of their ill advice.

The problem with assuming “many” unnamed
“experts” are leading their students down the garden path of self-destruction
is that A) there is no way to know whom Mr. Cunningham is indicting, as
every instructor is different; and B) the issue sidesteps the responsibility
of the student to evaluate what he or she is learning and to think about what is
being taught.  

At no time does the student have the luxury to allow a
teacher or another student to think for him or for her.  You must apply
critical thinking to everything you do.  Many students assume
their instructor won’t try to get them into bed by exerting pressure on them —
pressure made possible by his position of authority.  Many students assume
their instructor won’t teach them a knife defense technique that will get
them killed should they ever try it.  Many students assume the
sport they are studying translates into at least some ability to assert
themselves physically and defend themselves when necessary — despite the
protestations of their gi-clad gym teachers.

You cannot afford to assume.

The broad charge Mr. Cunningham makes also ignores direct
evidence to the contrary.  James
A Keating, noted arms instructor, wrote an article in this very magazine in
which he indicts portions of the combative and traditional martial art community
while expressing a very high regard for the legalities and moralities of
self-defense and lethal force.  Sammy Franco, in his book First
Strike: Mastering the Preemptive Strike for Street Combat, spends
considerable time discussing the legal ramifications and the strict
justifications of and for using force against another person.  These are only two
examples.  Most of the literature produced by the portion of the martial
arts community Mr. Cunningham indicts touches on, if it does not deal with at
length, issues of legality and morality.

The fact is that no corner of the martial arts community
is untouched by poor teaching or questionable advice.  The numerous
incidents of students being sexually exploited, physically abused, or
emotionally mistreated by instructors (traditional, “combative,”
sport, or otherwise) in the martial arts contradict the notion that this problem
is specific to, or a product of, “combative” teaching.

Mr. Cunningham goes on to say this:

Some rationalize their responses with a false moral imperative, even recommending their students take the initiative if necessary to prevent a potential assault. In other words, “a good attack is the best possible defense” or “you have the moral right to respond violently to any perceived threat.”

Note the use of hyperbole that makes the opinion sound
unreasonable.  ‘Any‘ perceived threat?  Most genuine teachers
would say something along the lines of, “You have the moral right to
respond violently to the credible threat of violence.”  That
sounds remarkably less reckless, now, doesn’t it?

For that matter, who would consider false
the moral imperative to defend one’s person from harm?  After a lengthy
discussion of social contracts, societal convention, “reasonable”
versus “excessive” force, and morality, Mr. Cunningham concludes his
editorial as follows:

To suggest any individual has the moral authority to defy society’s unwritten rules of conduct or written codes is irresponsible. Who determines what moral authority is in this case? 

Think about that horrific statement
for a moment.  It is “irresponsible” to suggest any individual
might defy unwritten rules?  

Was Harriet
Tubman, who actively resisted society’s written rules to steal the
property of slave owners, an “irresponsible” person?  Who was Rosa
Parks to defy “society’s unwritten rules” (or its written ones),
to defy societal convention in refusing to be pushed aside by a racist who had
the support of society’s morality?  Who the hell was Oskar
Schindler that he thought he could go around bribing people and breaking the
laws of his society, violating his social contract with law-abiding German
citizens?

Suggesting that societal conventions are
immutable is what I would consider irresponsible.  If society can never be
wrong, no societal ills can be challenged, no unjust laws actively resisted — for the challengers will be shouted down as
immoral for daring to dissent.  Such attitudes lead to pyres
feeding on the bodies of so-called heretics.  

Moral authority, for that matter, isn’t
granted by some agency from whom we must petition it.  Moral authority is a
function of reality — of logic applied to that reality.  A person
who initiates
force against you is violating objective moral principles and thus
surrendering his or her sovereignty through that violation.  

It is not irresponsible to understand these
moral principles — or to believe the default “morality” of the
collective, of society, of majority opinion, is not always right simply
because it is “society.”  It would be equally irresponsible,
of course, to ignore the law or to encourage others to ignore the legal
consequences of their actions.

Mr. Cunningham is well-known in certain
martial circles and we wish him the best.  His work is even cited
in the first issue of this magazine. We cannot, however, agree with the opinions
he expresses.  The staff of this magazine believes you are
responsible for your actions and intelligent enough to weigh the
consequences of your decisions.  No one can do this for you.

The choice is yours.

It always was.

 

Don Cunningham’s website is http://www.e-budokai.com/.
His
Secret
Weapons of Jujutsu is available in bookstores nationwide.