Skip to main content

Lumberjack “Savate” Addendum: Poor Vision by Mark Hatmaker


[This entry likely appeals only to the deep-diving combat thinker. It is best read in conjunction with Combat Archeology: Surface Mining & The Amber Problem. That link also has freebie video.]


We open with an anecdote to illustrate one of today’s two points.


Two trappers, one old one young, wound up hunting and travelling together for a season. The younger respects the elder’s wisdom and know-how and keeps an avid eye on all that he does. He treats this season as one of intensive study. He watches how the old man cuts for sign, where he places traps, where he skips traps in areas that seemed fertile ground at first glance. He even subtly tries to imitate the old man’s series of odd rolling movements that he performs after he alights from horseback and just before they head off to trail game. In short, whatever the old man does, he does. He has a thirst for knowledge.


But in the beginning, he asks few questions, a bit of pride and all that. 


As the relationship matures, he ventures questions and receives cogent and canny answers about reading sign, choosing camps sites, hiding your own sign, and myriad other things. Finally, one morning after a long ride through a snowclad coulee, the two are going through their pre-hunt ritual of slow rolling movements.


He finally asks, “So, is this series of movements something you picked up from your time living with the Crow?”


The old man answers, “No.”


Is it a bit of tolling to lull game?” [See this blog for the lowdown on Tolling and another version of today’s lesson on misinterpreting.]


No.”


“Then, if you don’t mind me asking, why do we do this?”


I have bad hips; I don’t know why you do it.”


And that slight moral reveals one side of today’s combat lesson.


The young trapper was smart and attentive, but perhaps so tunneled on his own cache of knowledge and looking for significance in everything he sees, he rendered labels and meanings where none might exist.


What does that have to do with lumberjack savate?


We must never forget that we are receiving testimony from witnesses seeing things through their own cache of experience [or inexperience.]


Say, we are backwoodsmen with a knowledge of what savate is, and know it is of French derivation. If we come across Quebecois speaking lumberjacks who let some kicks fly during a scrum, we are likely to report it as, “Ah, I am seeing the French influence. They do savate.”


Could be….


Could also be, we are seeing the influence of a Cornish miner who drifted North to chop wood for a season and in the midst of a fight he tossed in some purring. Others saw it worked and they did it to.


Could also be, we are seeing lumberjacks adding the kicking aspects they saw amongst Cheyenne and other tribes.


Could be, two lumberjacks got into a fight, one threw a chance kick and then the other did too and our observer, says “Aha! French influence. Savate!”


It is often the witness that gets to label what he sees, rightly or wrongly. Perhaps we will come across the diary one day of a venturesome Chinese man who left his family in Hunan to come to the States to work on the railroad. He witnesses a lumberjack fight, observes the kicking and records, “These woodsmen know kung fu.” [Not an unsound proposition considering the mingling of populations, but you get my drift.]


We must recall that friends of Texas Ranger Frank Hamer assumed he learned savate because of his propensity to kick. They assumed Savate because, well, savate has kicks. They had read or had heard of savate and put two and two together.


According to Hamer himself, he just kicked because it worked. 


Like the young trapper we must be wary to make broad or concrete connections where none may exist. Things are often far less “formalized” then we may think, particularly in the time period we are focusing on and in such remote pockets of lineal influence.


Yet another reason why, “Oh, lumberjack savate? Cool! If I study today’s savate I’m in good company.”


Yes, perhaps, you will be in good company, but don’t assume too much from a small amount of evidence. The story often takes more digging and, in many cases, is more interesting than that first glance.


[For more Rough& Tumble history, Indigenous Ability hacks, and pragmatic applications of old school tactics historically accurate and viciously verified see our RAW/Black Box Subscription Service.]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Apache Running by Mark Hatmaker

Of the many Native American tribes of the southwest United States and Mexico the various bands of Apache carry a reputation for fierceness, resourcefulness, and an almost superhuman stamina. The name “Apache” is perhaps a misnomer as it refers to several different tribes that are loosely and collectively referred to as Apache, which is actually a variant of a Zuni word Apachu that this pueblo tribe applied to the collective bands. Apachu in Zuni translates roughly to “enemy” which is a telling detail that shines a light on the warrior nature of these collective tribes.             Among the various Apache tribes you will find the Kiowa, Mescalero, Jicarilla, Chiricahua (or “Cherry-Cows” as early Texas settlers called them), and the Lipan. These bands sustained themselves by conducting raids on the various settled pueblo tribes, Mexican villages, and the encroaching American settlers. These American settlers were often immigrants of all nationalities with a strong contingent of

Resistance is Never Futile by Mark Hatmaker

Should you always fight back? Yes. “ But what if …”           Over the course of many years teaching survival-based strategies and tactics the above-exchange has taken place more than a few times. The “ but what if …” question is usually posed by well-meaning individuals who haven’t quite grasped the seriousness of physical violence. These are people whose own humanity, whose sense of civility is so strong that they are caught vacillating between fight or flight decisions. It is a shame that these good qualities can sometimes stand in the way of grasping the essential facts of just how dire the threat can be.           The “ but what if …” is usually followed by any number of justifications or pie-in-the-sky hopeful mitigations. These “ but what if …” objections are based on unfounded trust and an incorrect grasp of probability. The first objection, unfounded trust, is usually based on the following scenario. Predator : Do what I say and I won’t hurt you. Or

Awareness Drill: The Top-Down Scan by Mark Hatmaker

American Indians, scouts, and indigenous trackers the world over have been observed to survey terrain/territory in the following manner. A scan of the sky overhead, then towards the horizon, and then finally moving slowly towards the ground. The reason being that outdoors, what is overhead-the clouds, flying birds, monkeys in trees, the perched jaguar—these overhead conditions change more rapidly than what is at ground level. It has been observed by sociologists that Western man whether on a hike outdoors or in an urban environment seldom looks up from the ground or above eye-level. [I would wager that today, he seldom looks up from his phone.] For the next week I suggest, whether indoors or out, we adopt this native tracker habit. As you step into each new environment [or familiar ones for that matter] scan from the top down. I find that this grounds me in the awareness mindset. For example, I step into my local Wal-Mart [or an unfamiliar box store while travelli