Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:55:43 -0700 (PDT) From: the_dojang-request@martialartsresource.net Subject: The_Dojang digest, Vol 9 #205 - 6 msgs X-Mailer: Mailman v2.0.8 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net Sender: the_dojang-admin@martialartsresource.net Errors-To: the_dojang-admin@martialartsresource.net X-BeenThere: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net X-Reply-To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net List-Help: List-Post: X-Subscribed-Address: rterry@idiom.com List-Subscribe: List-Id: The Internet's premier discussion forum on Korean Martial Arts. List-Unsubscribe: Status: OR Send The_Dojang mailing list submissions to the_dojang@martialartsresource.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://martialartsresource.net/mailman/listinfo/the_dojang or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to the_dojang-request@martialartsresource.net You can reach the person managing the list at the_dojang-admin@martialartsresource.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of The_Dojang digest..." <<------------------ The_Dojang mailing list ------------------>> Serving the Internet since June 1994. Copyright 1994-2002: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource The Internet's premier discussion forum devoted to Korean Martial Arts. See the Korean Martial Arts (KMA) FAQ and the online search engine for back issues of The_Dojang at http://MartialArtsResource.com Pil Seung! Today's Topics: 1. khita.net (Ray Terry) 2. Self-defense in the courts (Burdick, Dakin Robert) 3. Re: Kanbukan (Bruce Sims) 4. Re: Decisions, decisions (Richard Zaruba) 5. Japanese arts in Korea (Burdick, Dakin Robert) 6. Re: Deadly Force (Creed71963@aol.com) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: Ray Terry To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 7:36:07 PDT Subject: [The_Dojang] khita.net Reply-To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net Forwarding... Ray ================================ Dear Taekwondoists, First of all we would like to wish you and your TKD-union successful 2002. We are delighted to inform you that Kyung Hee University opens it's fourth door to foreign Taekwondoists from the world over with its inaugural International Taekwondo Academy scheduled for July 15 - July 28, 2002 in korea. The Academy has been taking the initiative in introducing the culture and advanced skills of Taekwondo to TKDists form all over the world since 1998. The academy has improved both qualitatively and quantitatively with time. The academy has developed step-by-step training programs for people who are anxious to learn Taekwondo from beginner to professional levels. The academy promises to improve one's skiils and understanding of Taekwondo as well as the manners and etiquette for the trainess. We believe that the academy will bring about significant impact to the development of Taekwondo. We would like to invite you all Taekwondoists for "the International Taekwondo Academy" being held at the Kyung Hee University. Finally, we hope "The 2002 International Taekwondo Academy" becomes a "Sanctuary of Peace and Friendship" regardless of the the participant's race, nationality, and ideology by sharing friendships, understanding each other, and finally by being united through the medium of Taekwondo. We hope we'll see you in July. Sincerely yours Prof. Dr. Jong Kook Song Organizing Committee for the 2002 ITA Kyung Hee University http://www.khita.net --__--__-- Message: 2 From: "Burdick, Dakin Robert" To: "'the_dojang@martialartsresource.net'" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:08:39 -0500 Subject: [The_Dojang] Self-defense in the courts Reply-To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net Ian Cyrus wrote: > The courts must be convinced that it was > "self-defense" not "self-offense". All sorts of things comes into play; > intent, contributing factors etc. One thing I always mention to my students is that saying you did something in "self-defense" is an admission of guilt. Saying that sort of thing just burdens yourself with the need to prove to the court that you fulfilled the requirements of that defense. And that sort of depends on what kinds of witnesses you have available, right? The upshot is that I tell my students to keep quiet and ask for their lawyers. Beyond that, I recommend that they go look at Mas Ayoob's materials and listen carefully to what he says. He has served as an expert witness in many cases. Here's a question for everybody. It used to be true that the U.S. courts would not recognize a martial arts instructor as an "expert." Is that still true? Can anyone cite some cases to the contrary? Take care, Dakin Burdick burdickd@indiana.edu --__--__-- Message: 3 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:16:56 -0500 From: "Bruce Sims" To: Subject: [The_Dojang] Re: Kanbukan Reply-To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net Dear Folks: In John Sells' book, UNANTE there is a masterful history of the development of Karate from its earliest roots in China and Okinawa to its organizational travails in post-WW II Japan. On pg 145 Sells' relates: ".....A study in evolution, Renbukai grew out of a dojo called the "Kanbukan" or Korean Martial Arts Hall, located in Tokyo. Prior to World War II, a substantial number of Koreans settled in Tokyo. Many of these attended trade schools, where, in some of them, Shotokan Karate was taught. It is thought that in this lies the obvious resemblance of early Tae Kwon Do (the kicking-oriented, Korean equivalent of Karate), in both basics and kata, to Shotokan. Nevertheless, as for the Kanbukan, a Korean named Geka Yung operated a (sic) training club. There, individuals from various karate backgrounds met and worked out together. This went on until 1949 when Yung returned to Korea and training came under the supervision of Tamae Hiroyasu...." Can anyone shed light on this particular institution or its relationship to KMA? Anyone? Best Wishes, Bruce --__--__-- Message: 4 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:20:29 -0500 From: Richard Zaruba To: Subject: [The_Dojang] Re: Decisions, decisions Reply-To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net Hello all, I figure I'll chime in here with my two cents. There is a heavy influence of japanese arts due to the length of the Japanese annexation (1910-1945 officially, but actually started in the late 1800s). A complete generation of Koreans came up under the annexation during which Japan did its best to turn Korea into a mirror image of Japan (i.e. language, culture, philosophy, martial arts, ....). Some Koreans were taught they're own heritage, many weren't as they were growing up going to Japanese run schools with Japanese curriculum. Fast forward to the end of the war, A sudden rise in nationalism after getting out from under heavy japanese domination for forty years. Anything that is Japanese is now considered despicable and despised, best if you give the karate, judo, kendo, .... you have been practicing for the last thirty years a new history and name so you can continue your practice and teaching. Is it any wonder that the Original Tae Kwon Do looked so much like Karate? The Korean Martial arts have definitely taken their own path to develop over the last 57 years and some of the old arts and techniques did manage to survive the annexation, but not enough to wipe out an entire generation or more of training in Japanese arts. It is best to accept the past but in the end it is the martial artist and his own practice and skill that matter, not history. I feel this is a more pragmatic view based on conversations and some study of the history of the region, but it is still just my opinion. Respectfully, Rich P.S. Sorry about the soap box, I'll put it away now. > Dear Don: > > ".....It *is* strange that Koreans would keep something forced onto them > during > the > Japanese occupation. > But when you think about it, what choice do they have? Should they go "Okay, > the > stuff we've all been practicing for the last 50 years isn't Korean, it's > actually Japanese...." > > I understand your thought and at first blush I want to agree with you. A > couple of points don't fit right for me, though. > > One point is that traditional arts such as Ssireum and Taek Kyon still existed > after WW II albeit in a weakened condition where TKD and TSD needed to be > formulated. For my money, a combination of rising nationalism and reassertion > of traditions should have favored the existing arts and worked against the > reformulation of an alien art, yes? > > Another point that doesn't get adequately explained is who were the people who > were making these decisions and how did they come to be in influential > positions? By this I mean--- using Gen Choi, for instance--- > how did he come to find himself an army general after WW II and why did he > choose to press the idea of teaching Karate to the Korean military instead of > Taek Kyon? Korea has always been traditionally aligned with its Chinese > neighbor and where the Japanese had Judo and ju-jutsu the Chinese had Shiao > Chiao and Chin Na. Where the Japanese had Karate the Chinese has Chuan Fa. Why > select an activity from the losing side of the war and a long-standing > oppressor? FWIW. > > Best Wishes, > > Bruce --__--__-- Message: 5 From: "Burdick, Dakin Robert" To: "'the_dojang@martialartsresource.net'" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:48:32 -0500 Subject: [The_Dojang] Japanese arts in Korea Reply-To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net Bruce Simms writes: > Another point that doesn't get adequately explained is who were the people who were > making these decisions and how did they come to be in influential positions? By this I > mean--- using Gen Choi, for instance--- > how did he come to find himself an army general after WW II and why did he choose to > press the idea of teaching Karate to the Korean military instead of Taek Kyon? I hope you've read Gen. Choi's encyclopedia and his interview in TKD Times, and that this is just a rhetorical question. Just in case.... Gen. Choi was educated in Japan, where he studied karate. He was drafted into the Japanese Army, but was involved in a revolt and was scheduled to be executed when the war suddenly came to halt. Nice timing! Why he succeeded: 1. Survived the war. 2. Finished the war in a patriotic position. 3. Was educated in Japan, as were the best-educated Koreans of that time. 4. Was trained by the Japanese Army, as were most of the Korean military leaders of the time. Why he eventually lost out: 1. Was originally from what became North Korea. Eventually he wanted to see his family again, and that made him a traitor to the ROK. 2. Had the misfortune of court-martialing a future President of ROK. > Korea has > always been traditionally aligned with its Chinese neighbor and where the Japanese had > Judo and ju-jutsu the Chinese had Shiao Chiao and Chin Na. Where the Japanese had > Karate the Chinese has Chuan Fa. Why select an activity from the losing side of the war and > a long-standing oppressor? Well, the Japanese kicked butt not only against the Koreans but did pretty well against the Chinese as well. And because of the long occupation of Korea, all of the people who were qualified to lead the country (ie. were educated and trained appropriately) were trained and educated on the Japanese model. That is, the Korean Army was very much like the Japanese Army, and a lot of the people in the government at first were what we might call Japanese collaborators. That was certainly the claim of the North Koreans, since Il-Sung Kim was a legitimate rebel against the Japanese (although his communist basis for that rebellion damned him in the eyes of the Americans after the war). Japanese-trained eaders were around in the ROK until at least the 1990s, along with other power structures. Remember that Korea has had a pretty unhappy history this past century. Occupation by the Japanese. Civil War. Military Coups. Repression and political torture. Riots. Corruption. Etc. I think the image of Buddhist monks waging war on each other is the one that sticks with me as emblematic of the problems in Korea, and that is also derived from Japanese rule (the Japanese allowed monks to marry, while Korean purists insist that they should not). I think we really need to keep all of this in mind when we talk about how KMA are more "combative." Why are they that way? Because their army was trained by the Japanese Army (high morale, great cruelty) and was then tempered by years of external and internal conflict (Korean War, Vietnam, military coups, etc.). That made them the toughest SOBs around, as anyone who has had the pleasure of training with some of the Korean hapkido or kuksulwon or hwarangdo instructors in the 1960s and 1970s will verify. As life gets better, these kinds of skills will probably be harder to find. The hapkido coming out of Korea now, for example, seems very different to me from what we saw in that early period. Yours in the arts, Dakin Burdick burdickd@indiana.edu --__--__-- Message: 6 From: Creed71963@aol.com Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 12:39:01 EDT To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net Subject: [The_Dojang] Re: Deadly Force Reply-To: the_dojang@martialartsresource.net Dagone it! I'm getting long winded in my dotage........ "Bruce Sims" wrote: >>Dear Ian: "......Having served as a Marine (Force Recon) and as an FBI Special Agent >(Defensive Tactics and Firearms Instructor) for 13 years, I can say that use >of deadly force for a law enforcement officer (LEO) is not different for a >civilian. After all, we are all subjected to the same laws weather they be >federal, state, or local......" This is the point I was working to stress in my last post. The fact is, Ian, that we are not all subjected to the same laws in the same way and I think this is an important sticking point. The military and LEO both operate under specific rules of engagement and as you pointed out there is a very strict hierarchy of responses. Philosophically we civilians are often taught in Martial Artist classes to "restrain rather than maim; main rather than kill; kill rather than be killed..." However, these are interpretations of cultural injunctions rather than rules and laws. Rather, a civilian is expected to lead a violence-free life, and when presented with violence to leave its resolution in the hands of those delegated to such tasks. Now, as we all know, in most case the role of LEO, too often, is to clean up the mess and file paperwork regarding incidences -- after the fact. We can't have a LEO present at the specific instance of violation. On these occasions we civilians usurp peace-keeping tasks to ourselves under the rationale of self-defense. However, when we do, I think its important to know that we have crossed a line from being a civilian to being a paramilitary person. To expect that the laws of civilization will neatly cover the uncivilized acts necessary for self-preservation-at-all-costs is gonna be a stretch, and that's what helps the lawyer pay for his Porsche. << You both make good points that point out what I'm trying to get across. On the face of it, self-defense is a simple concept – the Martial Artist is defending himself or herself from an attacker. But today's laws do not allow unchecked and extreme response to an attack unless there was no other choice. Martial Artist s are held to a higher standard in the eyes of the Law. In today's society, an awareness of the Law is almost as necessary as knowing how to effectively defend against a knife thrust to the chest. There are laws on what can and cannot be self defense, and the Martial Artist has less leeway then an ordinary person. A Martial Artist is considered to ‘know better' and is treated differently in the eyes of the Law. The general rule of Law allows a person to use appropriate level of force to defend themselves, their loved ones, or their property. Everyone has the right to defend themselves, but the key words are appropriate level of force. Using lethal level techniques against an opponent who is not threatening lethal force of their own is both stupid and dangerous. In the same context, using lower level techniques against an opponent who is displaying lethal force is also poor judgment. Part of the MA's training should be in recognizing the level of force and the appropriate response to that force. Should the case go as far as the courts, it is up to the Martial Artist when claiming self-defense to show that their actions were within reason. The Martial Artist has to demonstrate that they truly believe that themselves or other innocent people were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm from the aggressor. Martial Artist has to illustrate to the police and the courts that the level of force used was: first, necessary; second, appropriate, and third, the Martial Artist either tried to avoid the confrontation, or did nothing to escalate the level of violence. But the criminal courts are not the only area of worry for the Martial Artist when it comes to the law. The assailant, despite being the cause of the event, could sue the MA, forcing the Martial Artist into civil court and a legal fight. In today's legal morass, it is frighteningly easy to sue someone over the most frivolous things. There have been numerous case in which a criminal, injured while committing a crime, suing the person who injured them. The fact that these lawsuits are not thrown out at first glance is troublesome. While it won't lead to time in prison, the civil lawsuit could end up costing the Martial Artist a significant amount of time, in money, time, mental stress, and damage to their reputation, all because they reacted as they had been trained to. In Ian's case, his use of force seems to be clear and beyond reproach. A LEO, while doing his job, being attacked by a felon with a weapon. Yet, Ian ends up in trouble with the felon (suing because Ian broke his arm while the felon was trying to break Ian's skull with a lead pipe) and his superiors (who would prefer that Ian shoot the felon) Yet, what would have happened if Ian had not reacted with that level of force? He might have been hurt, or even killed. But it now rests on Ian to show that his use of force level was justifiable. Would he be under the same pressure if he wasn't a LEO? This is the same type of pressure that the Martial Artist is put under when they have to use their skills in defense. It doesn't matter that the martial Artist probably doesn't have the same level of training in control techniques and has standard operating procedures to fall back on that a police officer does. They usually don't have the experience of a police officer to judge a situation. Simple because they practice an art that is dedicated (to those who know nothing about the martial arts) to killing and maiming other human beings. And I think that's another facet of this discussion of deadly force -- how do the public, who will be members of a jury should the actions of the Martial Artist land him in court, perceive the martial arts? The Martial Artist has to face the fact that the public lacks real knowledge about the martial arts. This misconception could lead to trouble for the MA, as these people's perceptions of the martial arts have been colored in a negative way. To the public at large, Martial Artist s are ‘Bruce Lee wannabes', trained fighters who start kicking and punching at the drop of a hat. To them, martial arts are embodied in the images of Chuck Norris, Jet Li, Steven Segal, Jackie Chan, and others throwing high kicks and flying fists with reckless abandon. The idea of overwhelming assault by the hero against the bad guy is a common event in these movies, as is the idea that the Martial Artist can take huge amounts of physical damage and still function. The reality is markedly different. Fighting on the screen is highly choreographed, designed to be both spectacular looking and safe for the actors and stuntmen involved. Most of those fight techniques are highly dubious for use in a self defense confrontation, and while taking martial arts will toughened a MA, they are still human, and can be injured just like anyone else. Also, most of these fights would lead to criminal charges or other legal trouble were they to occur in the real world. Hollywood has done nothing to change this distorted image of the martial arts. Remember the ‘Ninja' craze of the 1980s? The American Ninja series of films, the TV series The Master, and the ones that starred Sho Kosugi (Enter the Ninja and Revenge of the Ninja, for example)? While the actors and stuntmen in these and other martial arts films showed great fighting abilities, fantastic stunt work and amazing choreography, it is not reality. For every movie that treats martial arts with respect and understanding, there are a hundred ‘chop-socky' movies that reinforce all the negative stereotypes. While it is an enjoyable form of entertainment, it isn't the real thing, and should not be treated as such. Another mark against the public perception is the so-called ‘No Holds Barred' (NHB) fighting events that regularly appear on the Pay-Per-View channels. Despite the name and the image they try to project, there are rules, or else there would be a high percentage of fighters who would either be killed or crippled for life. While there has been at least one person who has died while participating in these type of events, and local governments have moved to ban these events in their jurisdictions, they still draw people to them the same way Romans used to be drawn to the Gladiator arena. As with the movies and TV, there is an air of unreality that cloaks these events that isn't there in real life. Again, these fighters are at the top of their game, who train for this type of ‘sport'. To the public, these are two combatants fighting for their pleasure. What they do inside the ring is not true martial arts, but just skimming the surface of the arts, the lowest common denominator that the pubic expects to see. As most people's exposure to the martial arts is through television and the movies, they have a distorted view of who the martial Artist is and what martial arts are for. Poorly run schools and poorly disciplined students just add to this image. At least one martial arts organization has been accused of being a ‘Cult' and the founder and other senior members are currently in jail. Other schools are run by instructors who are more interested in making money then in teaching real martial arts. These ‘McDojos' and ‘McDojangs' (So named because of their fast-food approach to the martial arts) guarantee a black belt within a set period with an upfront paid membership (Something like eighteen months to two years.) They soak the unknowing student for as money as they can get and in return teach techniques of dubious value, give the student little or no understanding of the morals and philosophy that underpin real martial arts, and leave a bad case in the student's mouth when they do realize they have been had. Still, other schools see themselves as ‘hard-core' who despise any weaknesses in the people they teach. Like the fly-by-night McDojos, they do not stress the moral and philosophic infrastructure that is as vital to the MA's education as leaning twenty-three ways to break someone's neck. The closest they get to philosophy is teaching their students to hit the opponent until they stop moving. Control and restraint are not concepts they teach and practice themselves, and it shows up as the ‘thug' image that is rightly or wrongly associated in the public mind with the phrase, ‘MA'. These are the type of people who are quick to jump on what they see as moneymaking fads in the martial arts arena. The ninja craze of the 1980s brought these unscrupulous people out of the woodwork, hucksters who wouldn't know a real ninja if one walk up to them and kicked them in the head. The number of ‘ninja grandmaster' that appeared and disappeared during this time would have been laughable, if not for the damage they did to both Ninjutsu's reputation and the reputation of the martial arts as a whole. This lack of strong leadership at the top filters down to the students, resulting in displays of arrogance and poor judgment that gives all martial arts a bad name. Another level of the public's misunderstanding is what exactly a black belt means in the martial arts. To them, the idea of a black belt confers some mystical aura of ‘superhuman' ability that is neither warranted or deserved. In the real world, a black belt can be described as ‘master of basics', able to perform the requirements for black belt well enough to teach the techniques to the lower ranks. The black belt is just a step on the road, not a destination. The advancement through the lower belt up to the black belt prepares the Martial Artist in body, mind, and spirit for the role as both a teacher and student, for a Martial Artist is always a student. He never stops learning, for there is always something for him to learn. Through discipline and thought, the Martial Artist learns about themselves and others. It is a way of the Martial Artist understanding themselves that goes far beyond the wearing of a dark strip of cloth around the waist. This is not appreciated by the general public, and this lack of understanding has caused problems. People who have no idea about the moral and philosophic underpinnings are willing to start fights with Martial Artist s to see how ‘good' the Martial Artist is. Others will simply taunt, looking for a loss of control from the MA. People act different around MA, falsely believing that the Martial Artist could explode into a murderous rage at any moment. There is a feeling of ‘mistrust' for those who are in the martial arts, born out of the lack of comprehension the average person has about the subject. Self defense is only a small part of the martial arts, but it liable to be the only part that people will ever see for themselves. With that sort of public opinion, any self defense situation that has a hint of overreaction is trouble for the MA, especially if there are outside factors, such as racial overtones. What starts out as a simple straightforward self defense situation could end up being something that plays out like a made-for-TV-movie. It is a sad situation when a Martial Artist ends up losing money and time just because they had to use their training, and there must be a chilling effect on others who hear about such a case. To be ignorant of these all these factors could land the Martial Artist in deep trouble, yet if they dwell on them could end up getting the Martial Artist killed or serious wounded. Deadly force should always be an option, but it shouldn't be the first. In today's 'politically correct' society, the idea that is there is a need for justifiable force is looked down upon as being 'uncivilized.' I today's world, the thud of an assailant hitting the ground may not be the end of the MA's problems but the beginning.... Craig --__--__-- _______________________________________________ The_Dojang mailing list The_Dojang@martialartsresource.net http://martialartsresource.net/mailman/listinfo/the_dojang http://the-dojang.net It's a great day for Taekwondo! Support the USTU by joining today. US Taekwondo Union, 1 Olympic Plaza, Ste 104C, Colorado Spgs, CO 80909 719-578-4632 FAX 719-578-4642 ustutkd1@aol.com http://www.ustu.org Old digest issues are available via ftp://ftp.martialartsresource.com. Copyright 1994-2002: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource Standard disclaimers apply. Remember 9-11! End of The_Dojang Digest