View Single Post
Old 06-07-2009, 07:33 AM   #21
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,394
Re: Ellis' post about cover-up and Ueshiba

What did you think to accomplish or point out? Everything is obvious to everyone that will see it the way they want to see it. And Peter is accurate in that there is a spiritual component to consider that is not answered by Takeda's involvement at all.
But the replies; to include such wildely and widely disparate views from Ueshiba as a self made and self taught man, to the schools governed by -even though not directly involved with the Butokukai being considered "a bunch of bitchy little Heathers who couldn't play nicely with others, or each other, so it was best to give them their own little padded room." Some seventy years in the future for the sake of a debate on the internet are so polarizing as to be discounted from the start.
While I for one certainly appreciate the humor, and the prequisite semblance of acedemic impartiality to a subject matter; I found it all the more fascinating juxtaposed to the commentary found in the link you offered, with its reference to another organization, the Aikikai. Your link came up with a view of the Aikikai as a rather ugly political machine. The author observed the aikikai as:
....motivated by money and political power.
.... I find it sad that many of those who propose to teach others about respect, self-control, integrity and humility still seek political power themselves and adamantly vie for status, with little or no thought to the price paid by the art.
These organizations (Aikikai Foundation) were important when I ran a commercial dojo. They are supposed to be about legitimacy, but they're too worried about making money. Let me put it this way, an organization as big as Aikikai, how many people can they personally mentor, who's there at the Aikikai? Yet they have hundreds of thousands of members. Why are these people members, they're not members because they get excellent instruction from Aikikai, their instructor may be Aikikai, but they don't get their instruction from Aikikai. The reason they're members is because it legitimizes their rank, which has become more important than the student-teacher relationship and the study of budo.
I think that view is overly harsh as well and is more of the same polarizing that get's us nowhere.

The butokukai in 1942
I made no claims, I asked about "what ifs" and if it were as I had heard or read somewhere about a catagory differentiating the art or arts. I wasn't sure. Your reply, while appreciated was heavily laden with its own conclusions and commentary you had advised against in your own post.
I'm sure with a mandate of organization building, involving Judo and Kendo teachers and Koryu, taking the national stage in war time Japan in 1942; that every one of the modern arts represented; Judo and Kendo, those teachers involved were the epitome of consummate Japanese gentlemen- who of course are known world wide for attaining a level of grace and calm when they reach a level of power , and those "other guys" were are you have described. "a bunch of bitchy little Heathers who couldn't play nicely with others, or each other, so it was best to give them their own little padded room." Great comment by the way; although that comment seems consistent with the threads here by Peter and Ellis and others on their early experiences at hombu.
I thought it might be fun to explore other comments given by the men directly involved in the Butokukai at that time, about the formulation of the new category
"… proposed the establishment of a new section to include arts for actual fighting based on jujutsu techniques."
or the the appearence of Takeda at a Butokukai event where he was reported to have stormed the stage uninvited and said something about the arts being presented not being the true arts of Japan or some such thing and then tossing around a bunch of judoka, as was reported by Sugino to Stan. But all that would only prove to be a distraction and tangential to the discussion here.
I agree with your closing comment and its cautionary tone about romanticizing the past for expediency. I think demonizing or making heroes out of men always misses the mark. Were one to read "all" of the writings of Takeda's son-including his private in-house comments offered in rebuttal to the history offered by the aikikai in light of "all" of the written words spoken of his Dad's involvement in the printed media regarding his pivotal role in the modern public dissemination of aiki- another obvious aspect would emerge. Who offered a more balanced and self aware overview of the direct involvement without the need or desire to demonize of aggrandize for the sake of individuals or organizations.

Last edited by DH : 06-07-2009 at 07:43 AM.
  Reply With Quote