Discussion in 'Kenpo' started by MaxG, Aug 16, 2005.
How the heck did I miss this thread!?
There, now it's complete
In regards to Mitose's book and Kajukenbo's formation, Kaju was formed between 1947-1949. The book was written in 1947 according to the link, but not published till 1950. So it looks like the time lines overlapped extensively. What is the issue?
True, very true. I did go read the book again. I have mentioned it was poisoned from the start. The word. The thing that is pointed out is that Motobu was illiterate, so was Chow. The term is Kempo not with an N the n has just come about in the last mistaken term that was borrowed from others by the Japanese, and the name was used and spelled incorrect. IMHO...
It is hard to explain if you want to say those who are given credit for the book and the translation are in accord. But they wer'nt the translater was Japanese and the person talking was saying it in Okinawan.
I feel the term Kenpo is incorrect and has been for a very long time. But as others have pointed out if it becomes the term, it is hard to say it is wrong. But you are seeing now that the term for most MA is not correctly called Karate. Is It?
If a child is color blind and does not see the correct color does that change the fact that it is the color they don't see. If that is a proper way to say it.
I feel that the term was incorrectly applied and still is.
I can not argue with you over this for it is an impossible situation to get over to others who are not putting the emphasis in it like I am. So it is wrong and therefore should be changed before it is wrong longer. Sort of like reviewing something and realizing it was wrong and you go to the trouble of clairifing it in a paper report, or a new book. And it will take a decade for the correct term to be applied and it will just be a footnote 100 years from now. But it should be changed IMHO...
I feel like it is time to clairify it and the sooner the better. IMHO...
The term Okinawan Kenpo Karate is really funny but at the time it was an ability to get the book published. It is wrong simple... It was changed at that point in time and will forever be wrong. IMHO...
But it is only a suggestion and I am very familiar with all the ins and outs of the sordid situation. I have read vast amonts of literature on the subject and it is probably pointless to mention. But I thought I would. Maybe someone will read this in Google and realize how wrong it really is and they will do something to change it. Or not... Maybe I should write all my findings out and send it to Wikipedia and then it might be taken seriously by some.
Well Jason what it looks like, and what I heard back in the 60's is quite different than what is being said now. So If I seem to be throwing sand into the wind I believe it is true. Sort of pointless but it is something that I have to do at this point in time.
Others will see and maybe read and come up with a better idea of what happened in Hawaii, rather than the story that is spun now...
One of the reasons Sonny Gascon went in a different direction and so did Johnny Leoning. It was where the original came from and both of the men I am talking about gave credit to the Buddha and from whence it came.
Now it is just one happy family? Or is it?
The book was not a secret and it was information that was taught and it was then borrowed and yes Mitose should get the credit. He is given credit by the location I pointed out and that is what I am talking about. John said it is not that way but the location I feel is correct said it was J Mitose's. Simple.
It appears to over lap now, but it was not so clear back then and when the art was taught and who it was taught to. Mitose taught it to others and they borrrowed it and he quit. Some quit and others died, and the story was changed several times to accompany what is being said now.
(The biggest rancher in the valley was not the one who should take or get the credit if he did not start the business, if he bought others out and just became the largest around. Now he can say what he wants).
It needs to be looked at in new light, but it is not new for some, it is actually very different. But then is it worth the effort, probably not.
To answer Johns question about why I am doing this?
Who knows might be because I don't appreciate being called names. Especially when the person using them and calling them, know's I was who I said I was.
It is a long story some know it, others don't. The ones that know understand I am thinking.
I still practice Kempo John, and I also do FMA, hope that answers your question. But I don't have a cert. (a law in the fist given to me, as on a scroll or rice paper, saying I am accredited to teach). Kenpo is the term or was long ago and is now changed. Hope that helps.
Ummm...Anyone out there have a secret troll decoder ring I can borrow to understand this post?
See there it goes back to the same old stuff. Is there a reason to continue, probably not.
A difference in opinion and reading and understanding, then again I am called a troll. I am called that many times, but I see it as different then you are saying. The troll was the thing under the bridge.
The "Wiki" has a bit on it. Similar to any other thing written, in my opinion it is not a bad place to start, but if you want the definition of Kenpo, you need a good reference guide. Then you need a good interpretation of the word as it was during the time of the Samurai. That is what they say Kenpo is right??? Similar to Kempo. NOT...
But maybe it will be solved for I have an on going problem with some on this board and other boards. When the view is different, they like to call people names.
I changed it a little, #45 post... But it still won't make sense to some. Or most who have been brainwashed by the various stories of todays story telling.
I have no idea what that last post was about either. You drop nouns and make obscure references to things; it's impossible to follow.
Hmmm...I think. Perhaps. No? Could be that the kanji is suspect on, or perhaps yes? No? Hard to say...or not? Something about Billy Goat's Gruff perhaps? Hmmm damn elves again trying to get in my head. No or not? LOL.
Mitose or Motobu? Both start with "M" perhaps reason for KeMpo? If it had been Nitose or Notobu, perhaps samurai turtles? Yes? Continue?
Might be good place to start. Or not? Perhaps? Yes? No? LOL :C I feel dizzy. or not?
Sorry, guess I am the culprit, noun dropping is not good.
Well I reread it and it makes sense to me, I must have the decoder.
As for your last post Dan, I understand it. Is that good or bad?
It makes sense to you because you wrote it, and you know what you are referring to. I honestly don't. I am in all seriousness trying to participate in a discussion, but I can't follow what you are typing.
Yes I can understand. I was talking to Pat Kelly this morning and explaining my weird ability, or lack of proper communication, he laughed and said yes Hanshi specks in code also, I have known you for 16 years so it helps.
Noun dropping, is it like name dropping No Just kidding. See I dropped a couple of names above.
Ok, please ask me a quesion regarding the post and I'll try my best to explain if you are willing, or I can just delete it and go from there?
here is what I am confused on:
What exactly is the issue, and what is different between the 60s and now. Please be explicit, ie. "In the sixties I heard ____________, now I hear ______." "My position on issue X is ___________." etc.
For instance, my position is Kajukenbo was founded between 1947-49. Wun Hop Kuen Do, the branch I practice, was founded in 1969.
Fire back some cogent sentences like that please.
Lets not forget Miyamoto Musashi, according to a book I have about the Samurai of Feudal Japan. Ju jutsu was developed about the time he was in his full glory, 1600 to 1650 the book mentions, because it goes in time with the decline of the sword (taken away) one of the reason's MM went to the wooden weapon it was still legal (I have read that thought).
The word Kem/npo is in that time frame as Kempo. Ken was for sword, it is pretty complicated but I have been following it in various books and I am thinking it was misused and then it just stayed that way.
As I stated Motobu was not fluent in Japanese he hated the language, and when his book was written he explained it verbally and it was mis-written by the person translating IMHO...Same with Chow as I said he did not know the various words and J. Mitose was helped by others and they did not do a good job.
We can go on forever, so it really is pointless unless you will read a few of the books I have mentioned, when I mentioned before about the Nelson Dictionary, explanation/definition, it was ignored by you.
Ok, where is it printed in a location that is like, the one I linked to. That will substantiate the time about Kajukenbo being founded, or at the end of that time? Now it is mentioned 1950 by John Bishop.
In the 60's what I heard was and is so far from what is said today, about the people who created the art, it really would be inapproriate to get into that to deep.
But what I was trying to show on the website I posted is the credit to Mitose and when he wrote the book. It was not published for numerous years. The book was around and others were doing his art. If that website credits him don't you think it is proper to say he is where it came from?
Next if the book was around and Kajukenbo was developed at that time is there an independent website to mention it other than the ones from the system? Lets get some other location to credit what Sijo mentions.
It really is not something to get into I am thinking. I did ask for others to come forward and assist. But it will not happen yet. Maybe in a few more years.
Others will see and maybe read and come up with a better idea of what happened in Hawaii, rather than the story that is spun now...
I understand Walter Godin was writing a book maybe it will get published by family. Or his GM of now.
If you will read the link very careful much is answered regarding why I am skeptical of the Kenpo and not Kempo.
This might be of interest to Kempo and Yoshida, Samurai, for your question Dan.
(From the book "Kyokushin Karate - Self-Defense Techniques", by Bobby Lowe. Published by Bobby Lowe, 1999; pgs 4-6)
Of special mention and who was of great consequence and influence to Sosai Oyama was Kotaro Yoshida of Daito-Ryu-Aiki-Jitsu. It is from this martial art discipline that a majority of Sosai Oyama's self-defense movements and techniques were derived and developed from.
It is Kotaro Yoshida who is specifically mentioned by Sosai in his book "This is Karate" as:
"...Unrivaled in the fields of Japanese aikido, sword fighting, judo and knife throwing? When Yoshida was young, he never lost a match in reverse hand techniques (gyakute), sword fighting or judo. He always explained that martial arts are for human physical and psychological training and discipline... I have never seen or heard of techniques as wonderful as my teacher's. His mastery of his art can only be called perfection. As an example of just how excellent this man's technique is, I will cite his ability to catch a fly in flight with a pair of chopsticks. This is the type of technique that can be executed only by someone whose movements, techniques and breathing have been perfected to the ultimate... until he was nearly fifty, Yoshida was performing this difficult technique with extraordinary skill."
Because Sosai Oyama's self-defense techniques are heavily based on daito-ryu aikijustsu, the following account reveals several principal players who were instrumental in the evolution of Sosai's Kyokushin Karate system.
From 1943 to 1945, Sosai Oyama served in the Imperial Japanese Military. Given that he was a yondan in both Kodokan Judo and Shotokan Karate, he was assigned to the Dai-Nippon-Butoku-Kai, Kiho-kai section, for training of military service in Manchukuo (Manchuria, Northwest China) at the Daito-Kan.
The Daito-Kan taught daito-ryu-aikijutsu. The division Sosai was assigned to was a division of Korean nationals being trained in espionage, hand-to-hand warfare, and guerrilla tactics for wartime use. The Kiho-Kai specialized in teaching methods in these areas.
The genealogy and history of daito-ryu-aikijutsu touches the development of Kyokushin Karate at this point in time. It was a young Matsutatsu Oyama who was assigned to Tokimune Takeda, the Soke and chief instructor of the Daito-Kan.
Training at the Daito-Kan was severe, and may explain the tradition for the severity of training found in Kyokushin Karate. Kyokushin style training more greatly reflects this tradition than that of the Shotokan school, the Goju school or Judo's Kodokan, which also influenced Sosai Oyama's martial arts development.
One theory as to why the Imperial Japanese Army used ethnic Korean nationals is that many of the Koreans living in Japan at the time were from Manchukuo or had lived there. They knew the language, customs and culture of the area and could easily fit into the communities there. Yong I Choi (Matsutatsu Oyama) was born near Gunsan, Korea and was sent to Manchukuo as an infant to live with his sister, and did not return to Korea until he was twelve years of age. (Korea, annexed in 1910, was a puppet state under the suzerainty of Japan.)
Mas Oyama's direct instructor was Kotaro Yoshida, a student of Sokaku Takeda, and an accomplished martial artist in his own right. In the Daito-kan "eimeiroku" (registry of students), Takeda conferred "kyoju dairi" (instructor certification) status on Yoshida to teach daito-ryu, and Yoshida was said to be Takeda's secretary for book-keeping and correspondence, as Takeda was proud of the fact that he was illiterate.
It was Kotaro Yoshida that sponsored Morihei Ueshiba in his initial study of daito-ryu aikijutsu, which he later evolved into modern aikido. Ueshiba was not of samurai stock and therefore needed a sponsor to enter the Daito-Kan. It was also Kotaro Yoshida who became one of the main teachers of the late Tokimune Takeda, former Soke of Daito-Kan.
Kotaro Yoshida was a samurai. His father was on the losing side of the Satsuma rebellion of the late 1800's. Through his father, he also studied and mastered yanagi-aikijutsu, the Yoshida family art, as well as the skill of tessen-jutsu, the techniques of the iron fan, and shaken-jutsu, the techniques of a type of shuriken or throwing knife, as well as traditional iaido, the Way of Drawing the Sword, and kendo, the Way of the Sword.
Sensei Yoshida was in his 70's when Sosai Oyama was his student. At the time, Yoshida was famous for his abilities, a martial artist of formidable prowess, and was known as an eccentric ascetic. He also was recognized as an ultra-nationalist, and a conservative on his views of Japanese politics and culture. Beyond this, there is little information about Yoshida, for he was a member of the secret society called the "Kokuryukai" or the "Amur River Society", more commonly known outside of Japan as the "Black Dragon Society", as well as the "Genyosha".
Yoshida acted at various times as a recruiter and teacher for the pre-war Dai- Nippon Butokukai, the Toyama Military Academy, the Navy Academy and the Air Force. Like most Kokuryukai members, when it became apparent that Japan would lose the war, all documents and records of Yoshida's activities were destroyed at his and the government's requests to avoid prosecution by the allied occupation forces.
It is a fact that Matsutatsu Oyama and Kotaro Yoshida were associated during the years of 1943 through 1945, yet there is speculation that they also had a post-war relationship.
After WWII, Yoshida moved to Tokyo and opened a daito-ryu dojo in Toshima-ku, near to where the present IKO Honbu stands today. It is considered that Sosai Oyama trained there immediately after the war for a period of time, as his name is found in Sensei Yoshida's student registry of the time.
The association of Sosai Oyama and Sensei Yoshida may also have been inter-twined through Gogen Yamaguchi and Nei Chu So of the Goju School of Karate.
At that time, Gogen Yamaguchi was serving with the Japanese Imperial Army in Manchukuo as an intelligence officer. Meanwhile, Nei Chu So was a Korean national living in Japan, a priest of the Nichiren Buddhist Sect, and who was known as a
gentleman and a superior karate man. (So later returned to Korea where has was active in helping to rebuild his homeland after the civil turmoil of the early 1950's.)
All three men, Oyama, Yamaguchi and So, were associated through the same dojo in Tokyo until the early 1950's.
Hi here is an example of what I am mentioning about time lines and information.
Johnny Leoning info is interesting.
All over the place. Google Kajukenbo and you get a lot of sites that give the same time frame. How many of these have had no input from the Kajukenbo community is fairly hard to determine; then again, I doubt the link you gave is completely free from Kenpo influence as well.
In the 60's what I heard was and is so far from what is said today, about the people who created the art, it really would be inapproriate to get into that to deep. [/quote]
If you won't talk about it, then you shouldn't mention it in an argument.
So overall, what is your issue with the statement "Kajukenbo was founded between 1947-1949." I want a 1 sentence answer back, along the lines of: "I disagree with this statement because I think Kajukenbo was founded during X date." After that one sentence, clear explanation, you can provide your evidence.
Well Jason what you are asking for, and what I will say are not going to be satisfactory for you I am thinking..
To much water has gone over the dam, for me to find any evidence that will substantiate.
I did find a time table that shows Johnny Leoning was a Chow student and it has been denied by many. I had heard that and read it, but how can I refute it, except to point it out.
He was in the arts for much longer than it took Sijo Emperado to give himself a 5th degree black. But it is said he was not a Black belt after 9 years
(Sonny Gascon mentions Johnny was his teacher even earlier I believe)
Remember Johnny Leoning went to the Mainland and it is mentioned he was still a brown and teaching (You don't become a sensei until 2nd as a rule). Same problem came up about another in a different org. Even when I found something to back up he was a Sensei, it is still denied by the org.
I believe the location I supplied is pretty good and is very reputable, so why is John Bishop denying what that website mentions.
I doubt if you will find one like that about Kajukenbo.
According to the book John wrote he mentions "Sijo found out about kenpo at age 20", at that age the book that was written by Mitose was about Kempo...Not Kenpo.
(Notice at the site in 42 he is teaching Kempo and Thomas and Chow are contact's) But it was around by others who wrote a book. So he sets out and devises a system and a few years later he is the Sijo of it at about 23/24...
In fact when John wrote the book about Kajukenbo it is clearly stated in the "preface" about all the contridictions and various stories and now he is trying to make it clearer, based on what is now being mentioned... (and it might get changed again). I believe that is an honest evaluation.
So with that I'll just have to say, if John mentions all the contridictions (and there are plenty), it will have to stand at that.
I have nothing other than a memory that contridicts some of the things that have been mentioned of late. Maybe they were wrong then and John has found what has been told him, better?
Right now that is about it, (I have mentioned a few things if you want to think about something) I believe. No point, I am thinking, about now to continue this.
I got a couple of problems with that last post, although I appreciate it being more cogent that previous ones:
1) you did not give my the single sentence I asked for.
2) that webpage you keep referring to does not contract the Kaju timeline.
3) your evidence isn't any better than the Kaju evidence. I have no reason to think the Kaju history is being dishonest.
4)You, unfortunately, speak in obscure references without primary literature. When I have a question, I go ask my Sifu about it; he was there for most of this stuff. What he tells me jives with the Kaju history, so again, I believe what I hear from people who were there.
Separate names with a comma.