Hello Harlan:

<<Is there 'elitism' in MA?

An intersting question.... The generic answer would be of course. "US" vs. "them", (ie non-martial arts population). All by itself an "elitist" view to some degree. If "elite" is defined meaning characteristics and common experiences as an individual, but as a member of a larger group? I would say yes... elite could apply. Examples of potential elitism...

1) Specific/minimum rank requirement to take part in X

2) Mandatory usage of completely alien (ie non-native language) in classes to communicate?


I am certain others exist without too much trouble...
Jeff

Does this smack of elitism?

http://www.e-budo.com/html/snobb.htm

I think so...but a more socially acceptable form of it. Then...there are the schools that are 'hard'...keep up or you'll leave (and that is the way they want it). You know the ones...this is 'REAL karate...blood and guts'. Then, there are the schools that don't use tactics of attrition...they simply don't advertise.

Yes...I don't think that people consider this particular 'ism' enough. As you say...potentially...it could be there...

Quote:

---

Examples of potential elitism...

1) Specific/minimum rank requirement to take part in X

2) Mandatory usage of completely alien (ie non-native language) in classes to communicate?

Jeff

---

Another example: teaching 'higher' katas to newbies. When did it get written in stone that there were 'higher' katas...and one had to be at an approved level before learning them? For example, refusing to teach Kururunfa (sp?) to someone unless they (insert criteria). Could be belt level, could be years practicing, could be the excuse that the student has to be technically proficient (assumed in belt level/years training).

Then again...the concept of 'special' students...those that get to learn different applications. More levels...

Quote:

---

Another example: teaching 'higher' katas to newbies. When did it get written in stone that there were 'higher' katas...and one had to be at an approved level before learning them? For example, refusing to teach Kururunfa (sp?) to someone unless they (insert criteria). Could be belt level, could be years practicing, could be the excuse that the student has to be technically proficient (assumed in belt level/years training).

---

I don't believe in higher kata only higher understanding and you do not have to be a certain rank to achieve X results.

I could take a complete beginner, show them the basics, and then teach suparempei (If I knew it)as a first kata.

Kata are in different orders from school to school.

Gen choi didn't know everything and he certainly didn't invent kata or it's concepts.

What about elitism as in "My style is t3h r34l" ? Lineage and style purity have been subjects of elitist debates here on the forums.

Not to mention the dreaded "XYZ won't work on t3h Str33ts". Seem both sides of that here, as well.

This isn't a style bashing thread; I am focusing on whether within one's experience (talk about your own style) elitism exists...either in garnering students, keeping them, or promoting them. Since students DO represent one's teacher, lineage, dojo, principles, etc....it's to be assumed that those 'at the top' (whatever that means in your own system) have been successful at passing whatever internal criteria exists within their particular schools.

Simple question: do you consider the practice of 'closed dojos' to be elitist? What do you think about 'by referral' only.?

Harlan,

The Traditional Martial Arts pyramid scheme, at least as I understood it meant that most of the money raised from testings or class tuition, went not to the instructor or school, but to the instructors instructor and right up the chain to the top.

Back in the day, a portion of my instructors testing fee would have made it all the way back up to General Choi. To get certified for a certain rank, you couldn't just go right to the top, you had to go through all of the middle-men instructors in between.

If some Korean instructor, further up on the hierarchy was willing enough to even come and teach at your school, you weren't allowed to talk directly to him. Questions had to go through your instructor.

You put up with it though, because it was the organization/hierarchy that gave you status and legitimacy. My understanding is that most of the split and factions in tkd came, not from disagreeing with the curriculum but because of money. Either the people splitting were tired of having all of their money taken away from them, or were tired of not getting a share of the cut.

Being able to trace your lineage back to the founder doesn't mean you are going to a good school. Now as a school owner, you can pick which organizations you want to be involved in, if any. And money that you earned at the school stays in the school.

oh and as for the attendance thing, harlan, I tried to make a distinction between the irregularly attending and the irregularly attending and goofing off people. We have students that can attend only once a week but who are very dedicated to their training when they are there and others who attend whenever, but are more of a distraction than anything else.

Laura

thank you for the clarification. That is not how I define 'traditional' karate...but I understand what you are getting at.

Quote:

---

The Traditional Martial Arts pyramid scheme, at least as I understood it meant that most of the money raised from testings or class tuition, went not to the instructor or school, but to the instructors instructor and right up the chain to the top.

Laura

---