[mosypeSom]

cklin, I think you have hit the nail on the head. You find jukendo "offensive" because it is a little bit closer to home, because it maybe looks like a 'modern' battlefield technique. But I think this proves my point. I think there's a kind of self-deception in locating kendo's "lethality" in a distant past and using this as a defence for its martial origins.

Kenjutsu was in fact employed during the modern era. Many Australian Servicemen (and not just Australians) were beheaded with katana by their Imperial Japanese Army captors during WW2. So iaidoka (and kendoka too, if we practice kata with real swords) are all handling weapons which are facsimilies of ones that were potentially used against their grandparents.

And I have to disagree with you on the second point. Any mid to high grade kendoka (even the ones who don't practice iaido) could wield a sword with lethal effect. Yes kendo's main aim isn't to teach how to cut or kill with a sword, but its techniques (eg tsuki) would be no less effective with a live blade than jukendo's with a live bayonet.

I suppose my disagreement with you is, in short, if jukendo is "offensive", then kendo must be as well.

And my personal position? They both are and are-not "offensive"(!). I haven't totally worked that one out yet...

b