JAMJTX said:
I didn't kow there was only one opinion allowed. Perhaps then just disable the reply function and make it an editorial board.
I see sir, so when I disagree with something I am not allowed to challenge YOUR opinion? May I suggest YOU disable the reply function if you disagree.
As for the "cultural" reference, I never heard of a karate student committing seppuku for dishonoring thier teacher. This is one part of old Japanese culture that is also discouraged by the government and most people. So this analagy is kind of misplaced.
You seem to take things quite literally. The analogy was simply an answer to your CULTURAL perspective that ALLOWS selectivity, and therefore you have CHOSEN to accept this particular tenent. Accordingly, even your perspective apparently is not written in stone according to you, "old Japanese culture, ... government and most people."
I still think that if someone is misusing the crdentials that they were awarded, then they can and should be revoked in order to protect the integrity of the art or the person who issued them.
Well that's the difference. My personal integrity is only within my control, and is not mystically or intrinsically mated to the behavior of every student I have ever had. Most of us don't feel getting a black belt gives someone a "credential" endorsed by the awarding party. It may put them in your lineage, but is not a guarantee or warranty of ethical behavior in perpetuity.
The mayor-elect of the City of Los Angeles went to UCLA Law School. He has taken and failed to pass the bar four times, and has engaged in questionable activities since entering politics that some disagree with.
UCLA cannot and should not revoke his law degree. He was granted it, therefore it is his and the "shame" of the inability to pass the bar is his, and not a reflection of the impeccable reputation of the institution that granted the degree. If schools, universities, colleges, and yes-martial artists started removing everyone from their previous rolls that did something they subjectively disagreed with, there would be no point to having the distinction in the first place.
I endorse the American academic system that separates passing the basic curriculum for a degree, from the awarding of a credential that actually does imply specific skills, and regulated behavior practices that is therefore revocable.
When a student of mine is awarded a black belt, there is no implied ability to teach or understand the curriculum beyond that of any other student, nor (although it is unlikely) does it suggest that he would never rob a liquor store, use drugs, or cheat on a test.
Those who choose to represent the institution, myself, previous alumni, and teach, are awarded a separate document that is not only regulated, but must be renewed regularly to avoid expiration, and should behavior dictate it, is revocable by standards and opinion set forth by a board of credentials.
However, their place on the "roll" of those who participated, and passed the curriculum is part of a historical document and facts that, as my teacher insisted, can always be "explained" should their behavior warrant it. Nevertheless, history cannot be changed to suit someone else's subjective whims.
The one black belt I have experienced this with will always be on my family tree as well as my teachers under me. All of his diplomas issued by my teacher and I have my signature on the instructor line, as well as my school code number on his diplomas. He is forever tied to us in that descending order whether He, or I, or anyone else likes it. He may not show up to the reunion, but he's on the tree, and I can "explain" why he's not there should I need to.
Just because Grandmaster Slick gave you a belt doesn't mean one day you'll be as good as he, or all students are equal to his other students in character or deed. In the American culture, a degree from a prestigious institution will get you an interview, but if you can't perform, you are fired just like the guy off the street. Your reputation isn't tied to a piece of paper or belt. That is only the beginning of what you MIGHT be.
From all the Japanese terms, titles, and perspective I'm left to presume you subscribe to Japanese ideas of traditional martial arts protocol. Because the Japanese Culture of traditional martial arts is built around the concept of "do" or "way," lineage implies you are "doing" things correctly from that lineage as the lead instructor was handed down information from its progenitor, and therefore from that perspective you may have a point.
The American Culture however, is results oriented and who your teacher was does not have as great an impact on your students as you do. Your teacher may have been the grand poo bah, but if you are not a good teacher and do not deliver to your students, it will not matter whom your teacher was.
In Ed Parker's West Los Angeles School, he understood that fact very well. When he relieved the head instructor from his position, he immediately moved into the school to keep the students, until he could assign another instructor who students would have faith in and trust. Once that was done, after a fashion he was no longer with us. The next person in charge didn't understand that, and against counsel, fired the instructor he had installed. They mistakenly believed that because the 'Grandmaster's" name was still on the school, that students would have some loyalty to him. Unfortunately, they were wrong, and students followed the now "fired" instructor to a new location and he has flourished ever since. The original location has been closed for years.
Some Asian Culture mandates may be fine in traditional Japanese Arts for those who subscribe to them, but to suggest to the rest of the world that is the only way would be a mistake. Especially since Ed Parker's most recent martial arts lineage is American-Chinese. For those who subscribe to your perspective, I say that's fine, but in America especially in the commercial arena you seem to have chosen, it is a huge contradiction sir.
