Quote:
Christopher Li wrote:
That's right, and you're seeing the difference between the Japanese conception of what "regulations" should include (which are usually, relatively speaking, extremely non-specific) and the non-Japanese conception. Of course, this is part of the problem.
|
Chris, I realise this is probably not your intended meaning...
How is an inherent factor such as being Japanese a problem here?
That's a losing hand if you're playing a race card that has the hypocrisy of a particular ethnicity/nationality being somehow less able to conceive something as its value.
Quote:
Christopher Li wrote:
The Tani statement is somewhat more recent than that (although I can't remember what year) - but this is also based on more recent discussions that are not open to public posting.
|
You can't remember what year, but you wrote "2000" (twelve years ago) in your blog?
You actually seem to refer to two statements by Mr Tani, although it is the same one used twice for two different times.
First reference:
"this statement by Masaki Tani of the Aikikai Hombu International department appeared in an interview with Aikido Journal
in 2000:"
Second reference:
"Apparently, there was still some confusion, and this was addressed in a statement which appeared on the Aikido Journal website
some years ago, again from Masaki Tani. If you read through the statement you'll find some interesting omissions (Mitsugi Saotome doesn't appear on Tani's list, for example), but I don't think that it was meant to be an exhaustive, formal statement, just an informal clarification."
That second link goes to the same article again as if it is more recent and viewed as such, I suppose it was at least edited in 2002 (10 years ago).
In any case, the article refers to procedures that existed in Japan for awarding titles from "20 years ago" among its content. So a decade ago they were trying to figure out how to formalise a system that included verbal awards and an informal tradition for equivalency of ranks that didn't exist overseas.
You'll understand if this doesn't look very strong as evidence of a current policy of discrimination a decade or so later in 2012. Even back then, it just looks like an ongoing process of fixing the problem of regulation.
As I said before, why not contact Mr Tani for the current policy? If there is something amiss, you could be doing us all a favour.
Carl