Although explored in several places with varying levels of accuracy and sophistication, in this post, I want to offer an alternative space and discourse on Ontario`s `Bill 67, Racial Equity in the Education System Act, 2022`. 

As an Ontario certified and experienced teacher, I moved abroad some 20 years ago partially as then Premier Mike Harris was politicizing playgrounds with assertions that teachers were the playground bully. Any of us long enough in the profession will recall these dark days. I have lived in Japan and worked in international schools for the past 20 years and want to explore the current Bill in light of my experience and training.

I that the current Bill continues in the Harris vein and, rather than tackle the central issues it purports to address, it falls far short, opting for political showmanship rather than offering teachers and students a viable platform to address issues such as racism and more widely, prejudice.  

I believe Bill C-67 harkens back to a time in the late 1960s when `paternalistic` thinking of the state led to the disastrous White Paper Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy, 1969. This paper and the current Bill share similar DNA in that, without a large body of evidence and limited consultation and heavy handed approach is offered, when in reality it may not be the most viable way forward for Ontario and its pluralistic society. Indeed, many of the lessons learned from the failure of the White paper appear to have been forgotten.

Bill C-67 of legislation is poorly conceived and a shameful indicator of what happens when a lack of leadership and educational know-how is used to wallpaper issues that need addressing in a constructive rather than populist manner. Ontario and its residents deserve far better. Its teachers and students, should be given more respect.


Setting The Stage
Firstly, to clean up some of the misinformation currently circulating on the internet, this is a Provincial Bill and is thus not connected to the Federal Government of Trudeau. Education is a provincial responsibility; however, it must align with the Charter of Rights and Freedom, which itself may be undermined by the current government and its application of the  notwithstanding clause. 

Secondly, while some claim this as an Anti-white piece of legislation, as I will explore, it is far too poorly constructed to constitute such a stance.

Thirdly, Canada and its Charter are cognisant of international pieces of legislation, specifically in this case, the UN`s Declaration of the Rights of a Child, which guarantees, among others, the following: 

The right to equality, without distinction on account of race, religion or national origin; The right to a name and a nationality; the right to protection against all forms of neglect, cruelty and exploitation and finally he right to be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolerance, friendship among peoples, and universal brotherhood.

Without too more deep reading it is possible to see how the current bill, by enforcing racial, and geographical mandated grouping of children is at great odds with the UN`s DRC to say nothing of the politicisation of children. In a single swath the Bill manages, in the name of so-called anti-racism,  to counterfeit the spirit of the UN and  Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  


Catch-all Phrases and Ignorance
Under section 15.2, the Charter guarantees that `(2) Section (1) does not preclude any law, programme or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.` The keyword here for enacting the goals of the Charter is that all such government action aimed addressing injustice should ameliorate the injustice, something which the current Bill does do. Potentially it seeks the opposite. By forcing (or placing) students to identify as either one of the groups mentioned or unspoken the Bill treads on dangereous grounds of pidgeon-holing complex individuals into narrow identity bands. Within a Canadian context, where students may be multi-racial and multi-ethic, to say nothing of those who believe they are more that their socially constructed identifiers the Bill should serve as a warning for all Canadians and not those living in Ontario. Who is deciding who belongs and who is not? When has sharp divisions around external identifiers ever serve humanity well? Indeed are they not the root of the current issues which we are trying to overcome and address? 

It is also not inconceivable that for First Nations and other indigenous groups, the gains made around band membership under the Federal Bill C-31 could be lost if they and their teachers are found to have contravened sections of the Bill such as those addressing `racial disturbances`. For example, if a group of indigenous students decides to hold a walkout to protest the poor water supply on their reserve, will they be deemed opposing on racial grounds and thus need re-education? If they seek more action from the Federal government to move on addressing long-standing land claim issues and students are educated about this in class, will they and their teacher be in Breach of the current Bill? What if a University student group marches on Ottawa supporting indigenous rights?


Failed Classification
Where Bill C-67 reveals its deep-rooted ignorance is in the classification of Ontario citizens. It uses the term `racial` to encompass many groups that appear to have little in common other than being grouped and needing special attention. 

Firstly the term `indigenous people` is used, yet it is not clarified to whom this relates? Are these the indigenous people of Canada? If so, what of indigenous people who have migrated to Canada, such as Pacific Islanders, Tutsui, or Hakka, to name but a few? Do Scandinavian immigrants of Sammi culture fall under this canopy? Have the writers of this Bill lived outside of Canada? If so, they may have missed the reality that many other places have indigenous people, some of whom have emigrated to Ontario. 

Worryingly, under the Charter, Canada`s Indigenous people have been guaranteed special status. I have searched but could not verify if the current Bill was part of a consultation process with them? Or, as it seems, was it once again, something imposed upon them by those who think they have a right to speak on their behalf? We need a clear explanation if, once again, our indigenous people have been spoken for rather than spoken with.

Another myopia of the Bill as it currently stands is its conceptualisation of `anti-racism`. As it states:` “anti-racism” means the policy of opposing racism, including anti-Indigenous racism, anti-Black racism, anti-Asian racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia`. However, the notion of race is a highly contentious phrase and a socially constructed grouping which the current bill accepts: `“racism” means the use of socially constructed ideas of race to justify or support, whether consciously or subconsciously, the notion that one race is superior to another.` As I read this section, I was reminded of award-winning Nigerian writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie poignantly noting she did not know she was `black` until she arrived in America. Indeed, what it means to be `black` from a global perspective is by no means uniform, nor would it be uniform, I suspect, among Canada's multilayered, multi-national and diverse population. For example, Caribbean nations and societies tend to discuss colourism rather than the binary of black/white, something also seen in Brazil. Does Ontario have a consistent experience of blackness?

Of course, the term anti-racism is also made to include anti-Asian. Asia is a geographical identifier, not a race. Asia is multiracial. Using its definition, those Russians from Asia (yes, most of geographic Russia lies in Asia and is the largest country in terms of geographic size there) fall under the anti-Asia group. So for those who challenge this as anti-white legislation, only reveal their ignorance of geography. 

A potentially diabolical situation is created through such sloppiness for social science teachers. How will they teach and explore the situation in Kashmir or Palestine without falling foul of Sections 1, 17 and 19? Will deep and complex issues which face us globally be shied away from by teachers and students for fear of needing re-training?

Will this Bill encourage competent people to enter a profession already experiencing a shortage?

Of course, China's international schools' section and that of Saudi Arabia are booming, so well-qualified Ontario teachers could go there to escape the potential pit of falling afoul of authorities. Or they could just move to another province.


Not Researched Based
The most significant shortcoming of this Bill is that it is just not aligned with the research into `anti-racist` training and policies. Simply exposing `others` to each other and punishing teachers has a long history of failure and, in some cases, has even reinforced racial stereotypes (see the studies of Sigelman and Tuch, 1979; Fiske and Glick, 2008; Levy and Green, 2009). Time and time again, studies confirm that Bills such as this one, no matter how well-intended, fail to deliver and may do more harm than good (Hughes, 2019).

We know that starting from an educational programme that places the student as an individual and teaches them frameworks of anti-prejudicial thinking ground in developing meta-cognition and complex problem solving DOES reduce prejudicial actions and thinking. Developing this ability to think with complexity must be part of all areas of knowledge, not just social studies and languages. There are several proven frameworks that, rather than being divisive and punitive, as the current Bill is, seek to include and develop the skills and mindsets for living in a pluralistic society.

While such programmes are positive and relatively easy to implement, they do not attract public attention or click-bath; thus, in the hands of a self-serving member of parliament, they may fail to get them that cushy job or re-election.  The results of such student growth would take a generation or so to become visible at the polls - not so helpful for someone standing for re-election in the next few months.  There again, is this not what leadership is supposed to do? Build for the future.

Most importantly the evidence is clear, such strategies work for students. There again, where they consulted by those who constructed this Bill? Who did have a seat at the table as it was being drafted? 

In conclusion, this Bill, which may have its heart in the proper place, has addressed important  issues very, very poorly. The Bill needs severe re-working, development and a sincere, long-term commitment to addressing the crucial issue of prejudice in our society. While some researchers suggest we are hardwired for in-group vs. out-group thinking, this does not mean we cannot use our sophisticated brain and its ability to use reason over emotion. After all, we do this daily!

While retraining may be helpful by using frameworks focused on cognitive growth rather than reactive, reductionist punishment Ontario can continue to set the standard for a purposeful and cohesive pluralistic society where all are welcome. 

Having lived overseas, my personal experience and one supported by PISA suggest Canada is already a leader in global mindedness and intercultural competencies. Regarding such matters the world often looks to Canada for it has avoided (not perfectly) a number of the racial and ethnic pitfalls and violence that has ravaged so many other places, including my native country. 

Perhaps the greatest incentive to focus on such meta-cognition and dispositions developments is that the skills learned will be transferable to other issues such as the environment, refugees, resource management and personal well being. Agile thinking and acting are more sustainable, productive and powerful than a citizenship cowed into submission by a government unwilling to do the hard work necessary to lead and address important issues constructively. 

Adopting models for cognitive growth require a mature and reasoned commitment; one which will keep Ontario and its citizens as leaders and cooperators within the field rather than confused, naval gazing individuals stumbling backwards toward mediocrity. 

​Ontario, you can do better than this poorly constructed and articulated Bill. Please do so.

 Usually, I do not like to explicitly point out specific places or people regarding misinformation on Chito Ryu, especially if they are not expressly tied to Chito Ryu. Still, the so-called `history` at the site (https://www.hakuakaikarate.org/history.html) is so poorly researched and checked that I must, in good conscience, draw attention to significant inaccuracies in its presentation of Chitose Sr`s history. Firstly, Chitose Sensei Sr did not serve in China. Instead, in World War 2, he worked in Kumamoto as a civilian and helped with the `national guard` during the latter years. Eyewitness accounts from his family certify to this. Indeed, there are no photos of him in military costume, among their collections. Secondly, while he worked with some karate groups on the mainland in the late 1920s and 1930s, he mainly lived on Miyako-Jima teaching karate and working with Kyan and Jyuhatsu.  Thirdly, he did NOT change his name to Chitose Tsuyoshi until AFTER World War 2 - the adoption of this name had nothing to do with the other name changes he made in the 1920/the 30s. 

Indeed thus far, I have found no evidence that Chitose Sr ever served in the Japanese Imperial Army. I must point out, however, such a lack of proof is not sufficient in and of itself to make a definitive statement. In Japan today, discussing wartime actions remains a taboo among those of a certain age. However, as research by Mario Mckenna and others (see, for example, https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20181217/p2a/00m/0na/018000c) has pointed out, draft-dodging among Okinawas was not uncommon and indeed may have been the norm. Due to a combination of ambivalence towards the national conscription law and an awareness of the racism they would face, the majority of draftees were not overly keen (that is, putting it mildly) to follow in the footsteps of Yabu-Sensei.

Even on the mainland, there was a keen awareness of the inequality prevalent in the conscription law. For example, for those who could afford the 280Yen, they could buy an exemption. At the time, 280Yen was approximately half a months salary for a general, so it was a substantial amount. Footsoldiers made about 9 yen. Thus on the mainland, the conscripted army was mainly composed of poor farmers sons until mid-way through the Taisho period. Still, others, such as Kyoda Jyuhatsu, were too short to meet the minimum height requirement of 150 cm.

Another common way of reducing the draft impact in Okinawa was to graduate as a teacher, thus reducing conscription to 6 week stint in the army. For others, the option was to go to the mainland and disappear. Perhaps this may have contributed to Chitose`s name changes during the 1920s and 30s. However, this is only speculation and must not be interpreted as truth. Indeed in Okinawa, he kept using his official name during this period, thus suggesting the name changes on the mainland were done for other reasons.
​
I have contacted the site owners and will let you know if I hear back from them.

Bad history = ignorance and betrayal of Chinen and indeed the life he lived with his family on Okinawa

It is a privilege and an honor again to be able to present some thoughts from Mr Peter Giffen. Always articulate. Always thought provoking. 

The Purpose of Traditional Karate - by Peter Giffen
I didn't want to post this during the Olympics, to disrespect the fine young karate athletes participating. But now that we are done, here we go:

With the Tokyo Olympics underway, karate is in the spotlight. I hope that its debut makes a good impression with viewers and helps to build memberships in dojos worldwide hard hit by the coronavirus pandemic.
While modern karate competitions are exciting — especially with rules that provide scoring incentives for competitors to execute high kicks — I think the karate masters who founded the different styles, and the todi practitioners before them, would little recognize their practical methods of self-defence in these contests.
Yes, the young competitors are highly skilled athletes who should be admired for their physical abilities and determination. But the danger is, people will perceive that you need to be an elite athlete in order to do karate effectively. This may have been what happened when judo appeared in the Olympics 1960s. Some experts argue that the Olympics harmed rather than helped judo’s growth, and branded it more as a sport than martial art.
Karate is not just for young athletes. It developed as a civilian method of self-defence, with highly effective techniques, including hand strikes, kicks, joint locks, chokes and throws. Anyone, any age can gain increased self-defence skills through regular and committed practice.
But the key is to stay true to karate’s purpose as a traditional martial art, and not get distracted by modern variations and attitudes. We have practitioners who just like to have a bit of exercise and perhaps socialize a little bit with other members. We have regimens like Tae Bo, which strip away the combative aspects of karate and turn it solely into a cardio exercise. We have parents who want to make their children a little more disciplined.
All these uses of karate are good, but you don’t need to water down the art to receive the benefits. The exertion required to do a martial art properly hones the body and focuses the mind. And yes, if adults want to get together after a workout because they feel a joint sense of relief for surviving a gruelling workout, that’s fine too. 
If you want to become an elite athlete, that’s also good. But after your competitive career is finished, don’t just sit in a chair, looking at your past medals, and say to yourself, “Ah, those were the days.” Continue to practice and continue to grow outside the structure and rules of tournament karate. Be a coach, if you wish, but cultivate a personal practice of traditional karate that draws on your discipline as an athlete.
Traditional karate requires rigorous training so you can execute techniques properly. You must also train the mind to be focused and calm, so you can perform effectively even when pressured by a dangerous situation (such as being attacked) or a deflating one (you feel lazy and uninspired). You must continually push your boundaries and strive for self-mastery.
I have students who have come to me and say they don’t like violence or the idea of hurting other people. I say, good: You should train yourself every class as if you were going to fight for your life, or someone else’s. But then you should conduct your life in a way that you never have to use your skills.
If you practice in this way, the old masters would be much more likely to recognize their karate in you than in the rules-bound contests of Olympics karate.

​

The or A 6th Generation Toudi master? Lost in translation of something more nefarious?
At the outset, I would like to thank my Japanese colleague, Dr Nishimura, who has provided support for this research. Indeed, his work in unscrambling the connection between Kyan and Chitose continues to prove immensely helpful. However, although Dr Nishmura has helped and provided feedback on my ideas, what is written here must in no way be taken to infer Dr Nishimura agrees with the hypothesis or arguments herein. 

Previously I have attempted to examine the myths, and exaggerated stories presented by some  promoting the karate system developed and left to the world as Chito Ryu. At one level, these fanciful stories present the real-life Chitose as a version of the mythical Kwai Chang Cain and their worst, as an uncouth country bumpkin who was nothing short of a meathead. 

Neither of these images, in my opinion, do the man justice. While those promoting such stories may have good intentions, what has emerged is that over time is a story that does not age well.

A central part of the ChitoRyu mythical canon is that Aragaki Ou, upon his deathbed, proclaimed Chitose THE 6th generation TouDi master. This was the first story in the canon that I heard and was impressed with, even though I had no clear understanding of what TouDi was or even who this person Aragaki was.

The above photo is from a joint publication issued by both the Hombu in Japan and the Canadian Chito Kai as part of the commemorative magazine and competition guide for the Soke Cup, 1998. In Japanese it simply states that Chitose was the 6th generation of TouDi, in English the story is significantly different. Such discrepancy between the Japanese official story and the one issued in English, may lie at the heart of the confusion.

Using this simplified version of the TouDi master lineage assertion, I will attempt to demonstrate in the following blog why this story may be as simple as something lost in translation, or indeed a fanciful assertion without much historical merit.

Fact Number 1.
Chitose`s Birthdate is listed as 1898. Aside from the fact that the Birthdate is wrong, what is of more relevance to the current discussion is that Chitose, or Chinen as he was known then, would have been between approx. 22 years old in 1920. While not unheard of, passing a designation of THE 6th generation toudi master to one so young would be highly uncommon, especially as Aragaki had more senior students, not least of whom was Gichin Funakoshi, who was preparing to move to the mainland and introduce karate there. As far as we know, Chitose was not a blood relative of Aragaki, thus making the passing on of such a title even less plausible. For those aware of the Okinawan adoption systems, Chitose was not adopted by Aragaki as either a son or son-in-law, thus furthering the distance between Arakaki and Chitose (Swift, 2015).

Fact 2
Who is this Aragaki O?
An oft-overlooked fact is that Aragaki O is an honorific title. It is not an actual name. It translates as honourable Aragaki (or Aragaki the older man).  Therefore, Aragaki O could be many people for on Okinawa as Aragaki is a unbiquitious family name similar Tanaka on the mainland. 

The assumption has been that the Aragaki referenced is Aragaki Seisho (新垣 世璋), a well-known martial artist who had traveled to China to study martial arts. As an official Ryukyu court Chinese language expert, Seisho moved in fairly illustrious circles, which included karate luminaries Ankō Asato, Ankō Itosu, and Matsumura Sōkon. Indeed, he and Matsumura are reputed to have demonstrated karate before a visiting Chinese dignitary in 1867. If we assume that this is the Aragaki to which the Chito story refers, we have a further two problems. One, while he did train in China under Wai Xinxian from Fuzhou, he only tarined six months+ hardly suffiecent to master the entire martial tradition of China. Second, and a central issue is that Arakagi has died in 1918, making the transition date of 1920 highly unlikely!

Fact 3
TouDi Master. 
This fact demands a particular proficiency with the subtleties of the Japanese language. Indeed it was not something I had paid particular note to until my friend Joe Swift drew my attention to it.  A direct translation of TouDi means ALL Chinese Martial arts, including weapons and the diversity of martial forms in China. Calling oneself THE TouDi master would appear impossible, although a master of ONE of the versions of TouDi is plausible. Even allowing for the fact that on Okinawa TouDi was an eclectic daily term, it nonetheless includes all of those Okinawan fighting systems influenced by China, such as Shorin Ryu, Uechi Ryu, GoGyu Ryu and Kojo-Ryu, to name but a few (Bishop, 1999). While there is some evidence that Aragaki played a role in the foundations of these systems none lay any claim to him as a THE TouDi master of his generation.  Indeed, to state he was THE master would be fanciful, especially given that he had  trained in China for only six months. Finally, nowhere do we see Aragaki referred to as THE master of TouDi. Indeed, history has passed him down as A master of TouDi along with the more other famous Meijin" (名人) such as Itosu and Matsumura.

Fact 4
The Kyan factor. 
Thanks to research by my colleague, Dr Nishimura, we now know that Chitose was training with Kyan Chotoku by 1920. This creates a significant dent in the claim of THE Toudi master story. Why would Chitose/Chinen continue to train and learn from Kyan, who was about to embark on travels to China (Taiwan) and later Yaeyama Island to pursue a deeper budo study (https://ryukyu-bugei.com/?p=4158)? If Kyan did not claim to be a master of TouDi, how could his student, Chinen, be asserted as THE master?

Fact 5 
Chitose`s own words.
In both his penned publications Kempo Karate-Do (1957) and the largerand still untranslated All Japan Karate Federation: Chito Ryu KyoHon (1971) Chitose clearly outlines that he is a 6th generation teacher/student of a particular lineage Shorin but not THE only one. Indeed in Kempo Karate-Do, he names other Shorin Schools, which have Chibana and Motobu as the current generational leaders. A similar pattern is shared in the latter position, although with the division between Shorin and Shorei. Nowhere in either of these texts does he claim to be a master of Toudi, let alone THE master of Toudi.

​
Fact 6
The vs A - an important article
Lastly, Chitose tells us in Kempo he started training with Aragaki in 1905, and learned Sanchin. The lineage he cites and the later work all point to him being A 6th generation of Shorin and Shorei Ryu schools. Aside from the fact that his presentation of these lineages is selective, what is of more pressing relevance is he does not claim to be THE Toudi Master OR indeed anointed as such. With the latter text, Chitose suggests that when he left Arakagi is was not under the best of conditions as there appears to have been a falling out. Having learned one kata and trained for seven years, the current discourse, at least as it appears in English, asserts  that Aragaki appointed a fourteen-year-old, with no blood or legal connection to him, as the inheritor  and head of the Toudi system: a fourteen year old who had no legal or blood connection to the master and had stopped training with him at least two years prior to his death. 
Aside from the strangeness of such a selection, why would a well-educated and well regarded public figure such as Aragaki claim it as his right to confirm such a lofty title? He was a court official not one of the well-trained bodyguards such as Matsumura.

Fact 7
Aragaki`s age and Location. 
If we take Chitose’s starting date at face value, Aragaki would have been in his late 70s and in poor health when they started training together. Aragaki died in 1918, so Chitose would have stopped training with him somewhere between 1914-16. On-going work by Scott Mertz indicates that Aragaki did not live in Naha during these years, and thus, it would have been difficult for Chitose to train regularly with Aragaki as the road system and transportation were not supportive of such mobility. Aragaki weekly traveled to teach karate at a middle school in Naha. Therefore,  he could have instructed the young Chitose at that time or in private lessons afterward (May 2021, Personal Correspondence with Scott Mertz). Again, Scott continues to dig into this aspect of Okinawan history, so hopefully, more clarity will emerge.

Fact 8
Other TouDi Lineage Schools?
None of the current schools which trace their lineage to Toui-di or China claim to be THE Toudi Master. Those to whom I have spoken have never heard the phrase nor have ever heard that Aragaki used it.

So where does all of this leave us?
As I said at the outset, I do not believe the vast majority of those passing along such information do so with any ill intent. However, as teachers of Chito Ryu we do have a responsibility to pass on as accurate a history and lineage as possible - especially if we claim legitimacy via such lineages.

From what I have presented herein there are sufficient grounds upon which to be skeptical of this story. Based upon the evidence we currently have, it would appear to be apocryphal. However, such an assertion based solely upon my sense-making of evidence currently available to me and others. 

New evidence may emerge that completely disproves my argument, and I look forward to the hypothesis herein furthering research into this topic. However, we must no longer be lulled to sleep by stories passed down by word of mouth.  There is far too much good, scholarly work being done for us to remain selectively ignorant.  To be productive members of Chito Ryu and all karate, we must and should challenge old assumptions.  

So what do I think happened? 
As my forthcoming publication exploring the early years of Chitose`s life, Chitose`s claim to legitimacy was established in Okinawa in the 1920 and 30s. There is no need for us to assign him mythical or superhuman attributes. 

Likewise, based on what appears to be a poor translation which built up a life of its own, there is NO need to assume a deliberate intent to mislead. 

Regardless, of which version of history we choose to believe their is no denting that Chitose was a man of his time, who rose to leave a powerful legacy.

Selected Bibliography
J. Hatch (May 2021) Personal Correspondence with Scott Mertz. Tokyo, Japan.

M. Bishop (1999) Okinawa Karate: Teachers, styles and secret techniques. Boston: Tuttle.

Bowerbank, A (1998). Spirit of the Sensei. Toronto:Morris .

Chitose, T. (2000) Kempo Karate-Do. Trans. C. Johnston. Toronto: Shindokan Interntional.

Chitose, T. (1971) All Japan Karate Federation: Chito Ryu KyoHon. Unpublished personal translation J. Hatch, Tokyo 2001. 

Quast, A. and Motto, N. (2018) Okinawan Samurai: Instructions to a Royal Official to his Only Son. Germany: Private Publication.

Quast, A. (2020) Matsumura Sokon:The Seven Virtues of Martial Arts. Germany: Private Publication.

​Shimabukuro, Z and Smith, D. (2012). Shorin Ryu Seibunkan: Kyan Karate. Okinawa: Private Publication.

Swift, J. (2015). The Essence of Naha-te. Tokyo: Lulu Press.

​

Many thanks to  沖縄剛柔流空手古武道拳志會山口県支部 Okinawa Gojuryu KenshiKai-Yamaguchi Prefecture branch for putting this timeline together. I have translated it roughly and added a few key dates for those interested in Chito Ryu. The text below was posted on their Facebook page. I have shared my translation with them

Article stats below:
.昇級昇段に関する資料として動画を制作しました。
間違いや問題がありましたらご指摘お願い致します。
I made this video as a document on promotion to the rank of dan.
If there are any mistakes or problems, please let me know.
空手における称号段位制度の歴史　超ザックリ！柔道も含む。
History of the title-dan system in karate. Super zany! Judo included.

• 1882年 講道館柔道創立 (Founded Kodokan Judo). 
• 1895年 大日本武徳会創立。称号「範士」「教士」「錬士」設定。(1895 Founded Dai Nippon Butoku Kai. Titles "Hanshi", "Teacher", and "Renshi" are set).
• 1919年 大日本武徳会、「武術」の名称を「武道」と改称統一。(1895 Founded Dai Nippon Butoku Kai. Titles "Hanshi", "Kyoshi", and "Renshi" are set).
• 1920年 講道館柔道「段級規呈」を発表する。(1920 Announced Kodokan Judo ``Dan Requirements and expectations").

 

• 1933年 大日本武徳会沖縄県支部設立、日本の武術として唐手を承認。12月8日付け。(1933 Established Dai Nippon Butoku Kai Okinawa Chapter and approved Karate as a Japanese martial art. Dated December 8th).
• 1934年 大日本武徳会に「剛柔流唐手」と登録。(1934 Goju-ryu Karate Registered with the Dai Nippon Butoku Kai).
• 1937年5月5日宮城長順、大日本武徳会より「教士」授与。(May 5, 1937 Chojun Miyagi was awarded a "KYOSHI" by Dai Nippon Butoku Kai).
• 1939年船越義珍(松濤館)摩文仁賢和(糸東流)新里仁安(剛柔流)大日本武徳会より「錬士」授与。(1939 Gichin Funakoshi {Shotokan} Kenwa Mabuni {Shito-ryu} Hitoshi Niisato {Goju-ryu} Awarded "Renshi" by Dai Nippon Butoku Kai).
• 1940年比嘉世幸(剛柔流)、長嶺将真(松林流)、大日本武徳会より「錬士」授与。(1940 Dai Nippon Butoku Kai Awarded "Renshi" to Sekō Higa {Goju-ryu}, Shoshin Nagamine {Matsubayashi-ryu} .
• 1946年第二次世界大戦終結 大日本武徳会解散。(1946 End of World War II Dissolution of Dai Nippon Butoku Kai).
• 1948 - Chitose appointed as the Head of the KyuShu Regions HQ for the All Japan Kenpo-do Promotion Society )added by James H based on the work of Hokama. T. in 100 masters of Okinawan Karate).
• 1956年5月 沖縄空手道連盟創立 (May 1956 Established the Okinawa Karatedo Federation).
• 1960年12月30日沖縄空手道連盟、初の段級制を実施(3段25人、2段23人、初段40人発表) (December 30, 1960 Okinawa Karatedo Federation implements and issues the first dan grading/system {3rd dan 25 people awarded, 2nd dan 23 people awarded, 1st dan 40 people awarded}).
• 1964年4月国際空手道連盟極真会館創立 (April 1964 Established Kyokushin Kaikan, International Karatedo Federation). 
• 1964年10月全日本空手道連盟創立 (October 1964 Established Japan Karatedo Federation).
• 1967年「沖縄空手道連盟」を解消し「全沖縄空手道連盟」を結成。(1967 The "Okinawa Karatedo Federation'' was dissolved and the "All Okinawa Karatedo Federation" was formed. In April this group established and clarified dan expectations. In May this group awarded the following” Hansei-rei {1}, Hanshi {5}, Kyoshi {24} and Renshi {29}. Later this year the All Okinawan Karate Kobudo Federation Union Formed - in 1968 they will Award Chitose 10th Dan - however the union never took hold and disbanded soon thereafter.)
• 1982年「沖縄県空手道連盟」設立、「全日本空手道連盟」に加盟。(1982 Established "Okinawa Prefecture Karatedo Federation" and joined "All Japan Karatedo Federation". Not all Okinawan karate groups joined).

Other Key Dates

• 1920 大正9年 6月5日 「講道館段級規呈」を発表する (1920 June 5, 1919 Announcement of "Kodokan Grade Regulation").
• 1943 昭和18年1月10日 本館段級規則による帯の色分を改正する (1943 January 10 Karate amended the color of the obi according to the Kodokan regulations and grade rules). 
• 1957 昭和32年5月6日 講道館審議会規則「昇段基準に関する内規」制定 (1957 May 6 Enactment of Kodokan Council Regulations "Internal Regulations on Promotion Standards" - establishes again the regulation of dan system on a global scale).
• 1957 昭和32年8月1日 「講道館昇段資格に関する内規」制定 - not too sure as this repeats what is above - but gives a different date.
• 1977 昭和52年12月1日 「講道館女子柔道昇段資格に関する内規」制定 (1977 December 1, Enactment of "Kodokan Women's Judo Promotion Qualifications" established)

For a fuller chronology of Karate key dates please see Hokama., T (2007) Timeline of Karate History: Pre-History to 2000. Trans J. Swift