I didn't say anything about Japan's moral superiority, the concept of that is silly. Japan is a country like any other, in fact with more violence than most. I don't see how your link relates.
Don't or won't? The lovely character building origins of your holistic system are right there - which proves the point that it is not the system or traditions at all that define something; its the emphasis any individual puts upon it
Don't, although I can see why you think it relates. But I will repeat again, Japan is not morally superior, nor are karateka by their nature morally superior, but the code of morals does exist within the tradition.
I fear we have horribly derailed this thread, if we want to continue this debate we should do so in private message. That being said, I think we both know that would be a fruitless effort. You will not alter your view as you think yourself correct, and I will not alter my view as I see myself correct.
Yes it is - its central to the OP If a system teaches "character" and "moral values" then it is an inherent issue, as my li is above illustrate
I am happy for this thread to continue as it is and am not going to go through it to split it as it currently stands.
What is at issue is not the legitimacy of the values taught, but the simple fact that they are part of the system.
Can you not see that dichotomy? The values you espouse are NOT inherent to the system - - your claim that it has carries little to no validity in the light of all the historical evidence. What is seen as a moral value now is not the same as it was in pre WW2 Japan (as can clearly be seen by even a cursory glance at history) - so if the value is not the same then how can it be inherent? It isn't - it is solely the focus and whim of the instructor and what they choose to focus on Any physical endeavour will yield results of a less tangible nature than what it's core intent is - but that is not the "true" meaning; its a bi-product
As an appendix to the short article I posted a link to earlier in the thread, I would add that the single greatest unifying tradition of Karate that I can see over all the history of all the styles we can observe can be summed up in one word: change. Styles change all the time. Some old fashioned Karateka, like Funakoshi, didn't even like labelling Karate into different styles. I've seen enough variety in Shotokan Karate Kata over the years to label different groups as different styles over the years if I was to take those differences as seriously as the differences between the way a Wadoka or a Shotokai Karateka practise their Kata. Kata are added, Kata are dropped. Personally I've always divided UK Shotokan into Enoeda Ryu and Kanazawa Ryu, but these too now have distinct branches. Some Karate systems drop all the Kata from their parent style and just turn Kumite drills into solo Kata. Some systems take the content but abandon the training method. I've trained enough over the years with different groups and systems to see the same techniques under many headings: Ju Jitsu, Kung Fu, Aikido, Karate. For me I would say that it is lineage and techniques that determine whether something is Karate or Kung Fu, not training method. We change training methods according to need. The training methods of Itosu were not the mthods of Funakoshi, were not the methods of Nakayama etc. They changed what and how they taught to meet different class sizes and cultures. I'm not convinced that if Funakoshi's generation had had the tools we have today they'd still be using Kata as a transmission method. I regard DART as Karate because it has come about from my Karate studies and I'm a 4th generation student of Funakoshi (I'm also a 3rd generation student of Ueshiba but I never graded much in Aikido).
Self betterment is a core teaching in many tykes of karate, not as a by-product, but as a fundamental aspect. Doubtlessly, there are also many styles that don't bother with this at all, that's why the word karate is a poor one. It's very broad and unspecific.
Is it a core teaching or a core statement of intent? It's supposed to be a key component of modern Shotokan but there's no syllabus for it other than 'train hard'. To me that makes it an incidental (and unlikely) byproduct.
Just because the method used to teach it isn't set in stone, doesn't make it any less of a core principle. I don't know much about shotokan so I can't say either way, but I know it is a large focus in shorin ryu shidokan.
And as it is not exclusive in any way shape or form. I know you are not claiming it is, but it is not at the core of the system - it is once again purely arbitrary I love karate - I still teach it - but it is not anything unless I choose to make it so, be that combative, philosophical or physical.
Shall we agree to disagree Hannibal? After all, we will probably end up having this debate again in the future, we need to leave some new ground don't we
Haha! Very well my friend! I genuinely enjoy these exchanges, especially as "Mickey mouse clubhouse" is all I have had for company all morning