Slightly offensive text

[KO1598]

I saw this on the Saskatoon Kendo Club site

Kumdo is the Korean pronunciation of kendo. Kendo was introduced to Korea by the Japanese during the occupation. After the Japanese left, the Koreans continued practising using slightly different gear and new terminology. A considerable amount of revisionist history can be found regarding Kumdo which can be attributed to a strong nationalistic attitude, not to mention bitterness towards the Japanese.

According to some sources, Korea does have its own style of swordsmanship but it is little practised and mostly lost. The older style seems quite circular and often incorporates kicks and punches into the forms: it seems related to Kumdo only in that a sword is used. During the 15th century Japanese swords were imported in significant numbers; previously Korean swords had been straight and mostly double-edged. Most of the older texts which survive label the weapons used as "Japanese swords" but may have been showing older forms incorporating the more modern weapon.

While I know this has been discussed many times before, I found this text to be much more biased than previous texts I've read regarding kumdo. For example it mentions the strong nationalistic attitude and bitterness from the Koreans toward the Japanese. While this is relatively true its fails to take into account the fact that at one time not to long ago Japan tried to "culturally assimilate" Koreans into Japanese. And its not like the Koreans are the only ones trying to reopen old sores. While the Japanese may not talk about the pre-WWII occupation of Korea too much, they used to and still discriminate against non Japanese asians who live in Japan. Theres a reason most Koreans change their names to Japanese ones. You will be discriminated in job selections and other daily aspects of life. Yoshihiro Akiyama who is a celebrated Japanese judoka and mma fighter once stated that he almost gave up on professional judo due to the discrimination he faced in Japan, not to mention the lack of an identity with Koreans being a 4th generation Korean Japanese. Also the text makes reference to Korea's own native swordsmanship as being a lost art and makes it seem as if because the Koreans lost their art they are trying to steal the Japanese. The text fails to mention that the Japanese once tried to systematically destroy anything related to Korea's martial arts history and destroyed countless suits of armour, swords, and texts related to traditional Korean fighting arts. While I have and always will believe that Kumdo/Kendo is 100% Japanese and I acknowledge that the Koreans are sometimes unreasonable with their claim of having invented the art and only borrowing the equipment from the Japanese, this text was profoundly biased and could confuse anyone unfamiliar with Korean-Japanese relations/history.

[stealth_monkey]

Actually, I found that text to be quite objective. In my view, the only thing adding the kind of information you're suggesting would achieve would be to take a very slight anti-korean bias into a full blown anti-japanese bias

[Josh Reyer]

The point of the paragraph was to provide some basic information about kumdo, not go into all the complexities of the Japanese-Korean relationship.

[Anime12478]

It almost seems as though you're trying too hard to read between the lines on this one. I can ALMOST see what you mean, but that's after looking at each word and bending the meaning towards that sort of meaning.

[b8amack]

I sort of agree with KO. If you're going to comment on the bitterness towards Japan, then you ARE discussing the Korean-Japanese relationship, and it would be fair to mention the reasons for the bitterness, which are manifold and heinous, or not to mention it at all.

A point about the historical revisionism about which a lot of people are unaware was that after the end of the occupation, there was a ban on "Japanese culture", which is understandable considering the extent to which the Japanese attempted to both eradicate Korean culture and inject forcibly heavily revisionist Japanese history. I suspect one of the many reasons for the "Kumdo is Korean" ethos, was a means of justifying the continued practice of a very Japanese tradition. Although I am not a judoka, I understand you can hear some of the same things about Yudo in Korea, which is a mandatory high school subject here, and doubtless for the same reasons.

All that said, though, I don't understand why KO didn't just PM Neil Gendzwill about it...

[Kapplow]

Who cares.

[rfoxmich]

This is _not_ the insult you're looking for..
move along, move along.

[Lloromannic]

This (http://www.simplerthyme.com/store/soap_box3.JPEG)

[Josh Reyer]

I sort of agree with KO. If you're going to comment on the bitterness towards Japan, then you ARE discussing the Korean-Japanese relationship, and it would be fair to mention the reasons for the bitterness, which are manifold and heinous, or not to mention it at all.
Well, I said "not all the complexities of the Korean-Japanese relationship", not the Korean-Japanese relationship itself. I think Neil quickly, succinctly and adequately addressed the reasons for Korean bitterness with this phrase:

Kendo was introduced to Korea by the Japanese during the occupation.

[KO1598]

Who cares.

Actually a lot of people, Korean-Japanese tensions are comparable to Armenian-Turkish and possibly even to Jewish-German tensions. Its actually rather amusing, often times in sports it comes down to South Korea and Japan (not to mention the WKC) in the finals and then all of a sudden the pressure on the respective teams to win increases ten-fold.

[KO1598]

Originally Posted by Neil Gendzwill
Kendo was introduced to Korea by the Japanese during the occupation.

Thats hardly an adequate explanation for the tensions, occupation does not carry as negative a connotation as it needs to for this situation. America occupied Germany, do they despise us? No. America occupied the Philippines, do they hate us? No. the list goes on and on and I hope you can see my point that occupation is a normal event that happens after a war and does not imply that decades of bitterness would follow afterwards. Colonization would be a better word for the "Japanese occupation" but even then is inadequate.

[stealth_monkey]

Thats hardly an adequate explanation for the tensions, occupation does not carry as negative a connotation as it needs to for this situation.

Then what you are wanting is not an unbiased text, simply a text biased in a way you find agreeable.


and does not imply that decades of bitterness would follow afterwards
I think that's the exact reason it was chosen, and I think you're missing the point of the paragraph. I read the full page you took that quote from, to my mind, it is designed to provide objective answers to questions commonly asked by people new to kendo and sword arts. It succeeds in this. What you want is a biased article filled with anti-japanese sentiment, entirely defeating the point the author is trying to get across. I'll reinforce my earlier statement. Objective and unbiased means devoid of subjective content, it doesn't mean having whatever subjective content you decide is correct.

[Anime12478]

I wouldn't say that he was looking for bias, just a better explanation on why the occupation has caused the bitterness towards the Japanese. But, as stealth_monkey already said, the page accomplishes what it's supposed to, which wasn't a history of the occupation. If it's something you're interested in knowing more about, then you can make an essay about it that accomplishes that sort of thing, but the people that are reading that are looking for sword arts information. If they are curious to know about the occupation, they should hopefully know where to look.

[nikozamo]

do kendo, no war! :D

[hyuna]

[ stuff... ]
I disagree with your criticism.

I could go into detail as to why, but, frankly, I see no point to it since you were plainly offended by it, and there's nothing I can say to make up for that.

What texts of comparable length do you find less biased?

[Neil Gendzwill]

I think I wrote that text about 15 years ago and that's the first I've heard anyone take any offense. Suffice to say, I have no intention of changing it unless I get different information than I've already seen. I'm certainly not going to expand into any further history there. The Japanese behaved badly, the Koreans are (quite rightly, IMO) bitter about it, this bleeds into the martial arts.

[Manuka]

I saw this on the Saskatoon Kendo Club site


While I know this has been discussed many times before, I found this text to be much more biased than previous texts I've read regarding kumdo.(snip)
this text was profoundly biased and could confuse anyone unfamiliar with Korean-Japanese relations/history.

Please help me understand "Slightly offensive", this strikes me like "Slightly Pregnant". Either you are offended or you are not.
In regards to Japanese and Korean history it is unlikely to be any different from any other history; your story, my story, and the truth. The truth is most often that all the bad incidents quoted by both sides are true.
War is not pretty.

[SanguineKendoka]

Actually a lot of people, Korean-Japanese tensions are comparable to Armenian-Turkish and possibly even to Jewish-German tensions. Its actually rather amusing, often times in sports it comes down to South Korea and Japan (not to mention the WKC) in the finals and then all of a sudden the pressure on the respective teams to win increases ten-fold.

You need to spend more time researching what you write about, half-baked opinions won't get you anywhere. International relations are complicated and it takes more than a flick through Wikipedia to understand those in the far east. Don't force your opinions on what you read, be objective.

[Karaken]

Thats hardly an adequate explanation for the tensions, occupation does not carry as negative a connotation as it needs to for this situation. America occupied Germany, do they despise us? No. America occupied the Philippines, do they hate us? No. the list goes on and on and I hope you can see my point that occupation is a normal event that happens after a war and does not imply that decades of bitterness would follow afterwards. Colonization would be a better word for the "Japanese occupation" but even then is inadequate.
If America occupied Germany with no apparent reasons other than expansion of their power and transfer of their own internal problem, If America tried to cut German's hair to assimilate them to America, If they tried to change all German names to American ones, If they forcibly recruit your sons to their war as their soldiers and your daughters to use as their soldiers' sex toys, Germans might still carry slight tension or negative connotation against America. It's been a while ago but people tend not to forget those things. I am not a Japan hater and there are some bad things Korea did to Japan too ( hundreds years before the occupation ) but just trying to explain the differences in circumstances. Every epitaph carries a different story.

[xvikingx]

You seem to have a propensity for digging up really old shit from other websites. Also both are things you thought might be offensive. I can't wait to see what comes next!

[Kyung]

The article is rather accurate. Except in regards to traditional Korean sword techniques. There just isn't any. There have been, but it was probably eradicated when Japan annexed Korea. Or even after becoming a sovereignty within the chinese empire.
My only complaint would be that "strong nationalistic attitude" gives off a negative connotation the way it's worded here, especially followed by the "bitterness". Better words could've been used (i.e. "strong nationalism" and "historical animosity between two countries"). This article is biased based on those two phrases alone.

[bullet08]

Except in regards to traditional Korean sword techniques. There just isn't any. There have been, but it was probably eradicated when Japan annexed Korea. Or even after becoming a sovereignty within the chinese empire.

hmm.. i take offense to above statements. 1) there was traditional korean sword form. ok.. it wasn't as well documented and well catagolized as chinese or japanese sword forms, but there were traditional korean forms. even if they swung sword around like drunking goats it is a form.
2) korea was never a sovereignty within the chinese empire. two country had very close diplomatic relationship. however, korea was never a part of chinese empire. that's just a fact.

pete

[Maku-san]

Regardless of which side of the issue (or relationship) you're on, I consider revisionist history to be just as heinous as occupying a country. Either you tell the story as it happened or don't tell it at all. Neil-sensei wrote the text as he related history as it happened. For one to be offended by some perceived bias is to want to revise history to enhance one's view.

When it comes to history, let all who read it read the words at face value, no more. In all fine arts (literature, painting, dance, etc.), then you interpret as it touches you and your life. History should be devoid of emotion as much as possible (for you Trekkers... think "Vulcan". :D).

Just my humble two Honest Abe's worth...

Mark :beard:

[nikozamo]

History should be devoid of emotion as much as possible

history: objective
story: subjective

that's it!

:D

[Maku-san]

history: objective
story: subjective

that's it!

:D

Man of Few Words! (((APPLAUSE))) :laugh:

[bullet08]

one thing i remember from my military history class back in college is that history stands for 'his story'. we are not studying actual facts, but we are studying what ever was written by some drunk with nothing better to do than seat home and type what he thinks is the fact. then bunch of other drunks get togather and decide which story seems to be more likely story and decide that is the official story. usually the country that wins all the war has more free booze to hand out so the drunks will agree with the winners in lot of cases.

pete

[Maku-san]

one thing i remember from my military history class back in college is that history stands for 'his story'. we are not studying actual facts, but we are studying what ever was written by some drunk with nothing better to do than seat home and type what he thinks is the fact. then bunch of other drunks get togather and decide which story seems to be more likely story and decide that is the official story. usually the country that wins all the war has more free booze to hand out so the drunks will agree with the winners in lot of cases.

pete

Which is why the History section (military and otherwise) in Borders and Barnes & Noble is one of the largest, if not the largest, in the store! :glasses:

[Kyung]

hmm.. i take offense to above statements. 1) there was traditional korean sword form. ok.. it wasn't as well documented and well catagolized as chinese or japanese sword forms, but there were traditional korean forms. even if they swung sword around like drunking goats it is a form.
2) korea was never a sovereignty within the chinese empire. two country had very close diplomatic relationship. however, korea was never a part of chinese empire. that's just a fact.

pete

I acknowledged that there has been traditional korean sword form, but most of it is forgotten if not all.
And yes, Korea was an independent state of China. When the Japanese invaded manchuria, they demanded that Korea be free from the Chinese grasp so that they can serve as an independent country that Japan can annex as a stepping stone to the continent. I read this from a comic book. The educational comic book by the Korean professor from Seoul University. Either that or History Channel or both. The sovereignty bit was from the comic book for sure, though.

[Kyung]

history: objective
story: subjective

that's it!

:D

Not really...
History = His story = subjective
History is written in the eyes of the beholder.
For example:
US History: Founding Fathers
British History: Traitors
They're both the same but "different" at the same time.

[Bokushingu]

Which is why the History section (military and otherwise) in Borders and Barnes & Noble is one of the largest, if not the largest, in the store! :glasses:

Which is why i keep having one question constantly nag me...why are people so into military & war history? Noone ever really research humanitarian moments in history...or the facts about them are very vague or short.

My son just bought a huge non-fiction book called "Famous Battles" which he's always reading. i asked him if he wanted to talk about peace movements in history & he said "No time, Dad."

[bullet08]

I acknowledged that there has been traditional korean sword form, but most of it is forgotten if not all.
And yes, Korea was an independent state of China. When the Japanese invaded manchuria, they demanded that Korea be free from the Chinese grasp so that they can serve as an independent country that Japan can annex as a stepping stone to the continent. I read this from a comic book. The educational comic book by the Korean professor from Seoul University. Either that or History Channel or both. The sovereignty bit was from the comic book for sure, though.

sooo... you base sovereignty of 4000 yr old culture based on a comic book.. and possibly a tv show.. sigh..

pete

[bullet08]

Which is why i keep having one question constantly nag me...why are people so into military & war history?

blood, guts.. raping cow and stealing women.. what not to like about it?

pete

[Maku-san]

Which is why i keep having one question constantly nag me...why are people so into military & war history? Noone ever really research humanitarian moments in history...or the facts about them are very vague or short.

My son just bought a huge non-fiction book called "Famous Battles" which he's always reading. i asked him if he wanted to talk about peace movements in history & he said "No time, Dad."

The long reason: you haven't searched hard enough.

The short reason: War, like Sex, sells.

[Kyung]

sooo... you base sovereignty of 4000 yr old culture based on a comic book.. and possibly a tv show.. sigh..

pete

Well, what's on papers doesn't delete the korean culture. But it was what it was. Chinese left Korea alone, so Korea's own culture still flourished.
Lol stay tuned for a new thread I'll make you'll have a heart attack.

[Paikea]

Lol stay tuned for a new thread I'll make you'll have a heart attack.Please, don't.

[KO1598]

If America occupied Germany with no apparent reasons other than expansion of their power and transfer of their own internal problem, If America tried to cut German's hair to assimilate them to America, If they tried to change all German names to American ones, If they forcibly recruit your sons to their war as their soldiers and your daughters to use as their soldiers' sex toys, Germans might still carry slight tension or negative connotation against America. It's been a while ago but people tend not to forget those things. I am not a Japan hater and there are some bad things Korea did to Japan too ( hundreds years before the occupation ) but just trying to explain the differences in circumstances. Every epitaph carries a different story.

I agree and understand what you're saying except for the part about Korean doing bad things to Japan. The only aggression Korea ever carried out against Japan is when they invaded and took over Tsushima for a brief period of time. And that was only because the Shogunate couldnt control the wokou who were using Tsushima as a base to raid the Korean and Chinese coastline. The Wokou were notorious for raiding the Eastern Asian coast like Korea, China, Thailand etc, (granted a lot of chinese pirates called themselves wokou so that their crimes would be blamed on real wokou) Other than that Korea has never carried out aggression against Japan. In fact the Korean Kingdom Paekche was good friends with the Yamato government until Paekche was swallowed up by the emerging Korean power Silla. So the only aggression I could think of that you might be referring to is when the Mongolians forcibly conscripted Koreans into their army and navy to invade Japan and when the North Koreans kidnapped some Japanese a couple decades ago.

[SanguineKendoka]

Not really...
History = His story = subjective
History is written in the eyes of the beholder.
For example:
US History: Founding Fathers
British History: Traitors
They're both the same but "different" at the same time.

I remember being 15...I was so certain I had everything figured out, but with hindsight I was such an idiot.