Yes and we have some great ones like GM Kurban, GM Pelligini, GM Sells just to mention a few, in that case threw me in the mix since I have been doing this for Twenty five years. And I'm certainly an American. See the above post for reference.
Yes and we have some great ones like GM Kurban, GM Pelligini, GM Sells just to mention a few, in that case threw me in the mix since I have been doing this for Twenty five years. And I'm certainly an American. See the above post for reference.
SageGhost83
Brown Belt
Well, look at it this way - TKD is shotokan that was koreanized and it no longer pays homage to Japanese karate, yet it is still considered legitimate. I don't see why there can't be American TKD as a purely american thing with a western flavor a la American kenpo. Korea didn't "invent" the style itself, so how can it be called "theirs" and why should anybody have to pay homage to Korea, or any other nation for that matter, when practicing a martial art? I mean, does anybody have to honor the west and take up Christian values to learn western boxing or western wrestling? I mean seriously.....When will the cultural/ego masturbation end? The techniques and principles belong to *everybody*, not just Korea. If you want to Americanize something, then yes, you most certainly can. Nobody has a monopoly on the martial arts. Saying that you can't Americanize it is like saying that General Choi couldn't Koreanize the Japanese Shotokan that he learned while in Japan. He is no better than anyone of us, and Korea is no more important or entitled to anything than any other country. Now go personalize your style and do what works best for you!
I think this is the core point at issue. Things don't work because of national or cultural identity, they work because of the way the world itself works. If you extract the gist of a skill set, and adapt it to your own needs and applications, you've made it your own, but the basic foundations are the same. And it's true: the martial arts are a brilliant example of how the same principles and techniques have been continually re-incorporated into the fighting systems of different countriesbecause they work.
Korean are certainly adept at assimilating things they like into their culture. But so are Americans.
My first instructor, a Korean man, taught us a more "Koreanized" version of TKD in some respects (bowing to both flags as a small example) but taught almost all techniques in English. I know some American instructors who only have a US flag in the dojang ("because we're in the US") but insist on teaching Korean terminology, as well.
Heck, we've got doboks made to look like the US flag (few other nationalities have that) & rank stripes on our belts (so everyone knows our specfic rank). XMA is a western creation that the Koreans have seemed to have adopted.
These are just a few small examples of how Westerners (Americans specifically) have Americanized TKD. We make it "BIGGER" & more garrish. (Just like Christmas time:supcool
My first instructor, a Korean man, taught us a more "Koreanized" version of TKD in some respects (bowing to both flags as a small example) but taught almost all techniques in English. I know some American instructors who only have a US flag in the dojang ("because we're in the US") but insist on teaching Korean terminology, as well.
Heck, we've got doboks made to look like the US flag (few other nationalities have that) & rank stripes on our belts (so everyone knows our specfic rank). XMA is a western creation that the Koreans have seemed to have adopted.
These are just a few small examples of how Westerners (Americans specifically) have Americanized TKD. We make it "BIGGER" & more garrish. (Just like Christmas time:supcool
True. All cultures think that they are the best culture - so anything they find that is better from another culture something becomes assimilated.
GM Lang tells stories about his first instructor, who was Korean and spoke heavily accented English. His demonstrations were awesome - but understanding was difficult because he was so hard to understand verbally. Those of us who learned from people who speak English clearly have no real idea how hard it was for those who learned from people who spoke unclearly.
As far as the flags go, we only bow to an American flag; we don't even have a Korean flag. But it's not quite "because we're in the US" - it's because we're not Korean. We do, however, use Korean terminology, for several reasons. One, it is to respect the history of the art. Two, it is because understanding the differences in terminology helps to understand the evolution of the art; for example, we have a block we call "wedging block", but the word "wedging" does not exist in Korean in the form we use it - the actual word means something more like "spreading", which gives a different interpretation to the movement. Three, for students who participate in international competition, a working knowledge of Korean terminology used in the dojang allows them to participate without needing an interpreter, and provides a common ground for all participants who share that terminology.
I alway thought the doboks made out of US flags looked pretty hokey, myself.
As far as having rank stripes on my belt - I wear the belt my sahbum gave me. As the number of participants grows, it's not possible to know everyone who could show up at an event. Having rank stripes on one's belt, just like having different color belts for gup ranks, helps the instructor(s) to have some idea of who knows what.
Can't really disagree with that.
These are just a few small examples of how Westerners (Americans specifically) have Americanized TKD. We make it "BIGGER" & more garrish. (Just like Christmas time:supcool
Well... that's a much bigger issue than this thread can hold, I think! After all, in America, bigger is better - at least, most people think so! But that is, I think, just part of thinking our own culture is the best - even when our noses get rubbed in the fact that we're not best at everything (sacrilege though it may be to say it).
Many things are based more on perspective than anything else, and one person's perspective will always be different than another's, because each person's experiences are different.
I hope it's not an intrusion for a non-practitioner to stick his oar in and my prior apologies because this is not entirely on-topic.
To not take 'on board' and respect the arts 'host' country and it's history is to lose something important from the art.
It might not make any difference at first to the sheer mechanics of learning how to kick and punch but as time and training accrues the lack of the social element can undermine the attempt to learn the subtleties of an art.
From a personal example, I'm learning Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu iaido. On a purely pragmatic footing, what possible use is it for me to have an understanding of where my art came from?
In the early years, if I had ignored the Japanese roots of MJER it would probably not have made much difference to my Seiza no Bu or Batto Ho kata, as simple rote copying without understanding can carry you along the road aways. As you develop tho', the 'Why?' as well as the 'What?' comes to have an impact on the physical movements you perform.
Why do you put the left hand on the floor first when executing a kneeling bow? So that your right (drawing) hand is still ready if anything 'untoward' happens. Why, when you get more fully into the bow, is it not proper to fully flatten your hands on the floor? Because having the inner edge 'triangle' in the middle slightly raised acts as a cushion so you don't get snot on your hosts floor ... and also because it acts as a shock absorber if someone tries to smack your head down in a sneaky Ningerz-stylee assault.
Likewise, when sitting in seiza, it is considered slothful and ill-mannered (in some cases 'womanly' and non-martial too) to cross your feet with the left over the right. Why? Because the first step you make in a nukitsuke cut is done with the right foot and trapping it under the left will slow your draw.
These are cases where what was done because it was practical became good manners over time but if you don't know the background and just ape the motions then you never develop as deep an understanding of the movements and the thought processes that go with them.
Continuing the vein, without knowing what Japanese architecture and clothing is like, many of the kata in iai will make no sense to you (or at least some elements of them will not). Low ceilings and gate lintles, full sleeves and long 'trains' on kimonoes, the facts that most houses are raised on stilts and corridors are very narrow ... all these have a direct impact on sword techniques.
So without a committed knowledge of the background to your art what you learn is not fully that art and the tiny gaps in understanding caused by seemingly irrelevant details prevent you from fully developing.
Of course, you can train without such homage to the host country/society and will probably do just fine but you'll always be missing that last 1%.
To not take 'on board' and respect the arts 'host' country and it's history is to lose something important from the art.
It might not make any difference at first to the sheer mechanics of learning how to kick and punch but as time and training accrues the lack of the social element can undermine the attempt to learn the subtleties of an art.
From a personal example, I'm learning Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu iaido. On a purely pragmatic footing, what possible use is it for me to have an understanding of where my art came from?
In the early years, if I had ignored the Japanese roots of MJER it would probably not have made much difference to my Seiza no Bu or Batto Ho kata, as simple rote copying without understanding can carry you along the road aways. As you develop tho', the 'Why?' as well as the 'What?' comes to have an impact on the physical movements you perform.
Why do you put the left hand on the floor first when executing a kneeling bow? So that your right (drawing) hand is still ready if anything 'untoward' happens. Why, when you get more fully into the bow, is it not proper to fully flatten your hands on the floor? Because having the inner edge 'triangle' in the middle slightly raised acts as a cushion so you don't get snot on your hosts floor ... and also because it acts as a shock absorber if someone tries to smack your head down in a sneaky Ningerz-stylee assault
. Likewise, when sitting in seiza, it is considered slothful and ill-mannered (in some cases 'womanly' and non-martial too) to cross your feet with the left over the right. Why? Because the first step you make in a nukitsuke cut is done with the right foot and trapping it under the left will slow your draw.
These are cases where what was done because it was practical became good manners over time but if you don't know the background and just ape the motions then you never develop as deep an understanding of the movements and the thought processes that go with them.
Continuing the vein, without knowing what Japanese architecture and clothing is like, many of the kata in iai will make no sense to you (or at least some elements of them will not). Low ceilings and gate lintles, full sleeves and long 'trains' on kimonoes, the facts that most houses are raised on stilts and corridors are very narrow ... all these have a direct impact on sword techniques.
So without a committed knowledge of the background to your art what you learn is not fully that art and the tiny gaps in understanding caused by seemingly irrelevant details prevent you from fully developing.
Of course, you can train without such homage to the host country/society and will probably do just fine but you'll always be missing that last 1%.
Terry, you will get a lot of justifiable disagreement from traditional Hapkido people about him. It's a bit of a long story.
Howard you are right some like him some don't. I'm not associated with him but he seem OK.
True. All cultures think that they are the best culture - so anything they find that is better from another culture something becomes assimilated.
GM Lang tells stories about his first instructor, who was Korean and spoke heavily accented English. His demonstrations were awesome - but understanding was difficult because he was so hard to understand verbally. Those of us who learned from people who speak English clearly have no real idea how hard it was for those who learned from people who spoke unclearly.
As far as the flags go, we only bow to an American flag; we don't even have a Korean flag. But it's not quite "because we're in the US" - it's because we're not Korean. We do, however, use Korean terminology, for several reasons. One, it is to respect the history of the art. Two, it is because understanding the differences in terminology helps to understand the evolution of the art; for example, we have a block we call "wedging block", but the word "wedging" does not exist in Korean in the form we use it - the actual word means something more like "spreading", which gives a different interpretation to the movement. Three, for students who participate in international competition, a working knowledge of Korean terminology used in the dojang allows them to participate without needing an interpreter, and provides a common ground for all participants who share that terminology.
I alway thought the doboks made out of US flags looked pretty hokey, myself.
I brought the USA flag dobok idea just to point to a very American "over-the-top" thing that Americans do.
As far as having rank stripes on my belt - I wear the belt my sahbum gave me. As the number of participants grows, it's not possible to know everyone who could show up at an event. Having rank stripes on one's belt, just like having different color belts for gup ranks, helps the instructor(s) to have some idea of who knows what.
It's my prefence to not wear stripes, but I too, wear the belt my Kwan Jang gave me. I point that out only as another American invention. Heck, I s'pose we could add camo belts, too.
Can't really disagree with that.
Well... that's a much bigger issue than this thread can hold, I think! After all, in America, bigger is better - at least, most people think so! But that is, I think, just part of thinking our own culture is the best - even when our noses get rubbed in the fact that we're not best at everything (sacrilege though it may be to say it).
Many things are based more on perspective than anything else, and one person's perspective will always be different than another's, because each person's experiences are different.
I agree that perspective has a lot to do with it. It's not always easy to find those lines. TKD is Korean. We can't pretend that it's not. But I've met folks with the last name of Smith who live there lives as if it was Kim & I've met high ranking TKD folks who say the most hateful things about the Korean people in general. I find both extremes quite odd.
SageGhost83
Brown Belt
They became good manners because somewhere along the way, somebody thought that it would be a good idea to turn a purely military martial art into a spiritual and cultural pursuit. The Jutsu became the Do and inherited a lot of extra, unnecessary baggage along the way, thus leading to certain things becoming "good manners" as opposed to practical techniques. Had they avoided doing such things in the first place and just taught the art for what it was originally meant to be taught for, then such things would be a non-issue. Adding the unnecessary cultural components is what leads to the confusion in the first place. If a certain technique is meant to be used a certain way in a certain situation, then simply teach the student the how and why of the technique from the beginning. No reason to beat around the bush or add unnecessary fluff to it. You shouldn't be aping anything, if you have a good teacher who knows what they are doing, then they will tell you why you are doing the movements and they will teach you the purpose and principles behind the techniques, not just empty movements/techniques. There is nothing wrong with learning the original context in which the techniques were used, but keep in mind that you don't live in that time period under those circumstances, so the way *you* apply the techniques is automatically going to be different, unless you are posting from a computer in medieval japan :lol:. Btw, MSJ is awesome, I would like to practice it myself. Those swords get pretty expensive, though.
SageGhost83
Brown Belt
I'll second that. It comes down to how you view the arts and what your purpose is for practicing them. TKD is Korean because its founders took Japanese karate and Koreanized it, similar to how the OP was talking about Americanizing TKD, which is why I answered "yes". We did it with kenpo, so why not TKD? I respect the fact that some people really love Korean culture and wish to pay homage to Korea. If that is their thing, then no problem, they can have at it. However, I don't think that it would make what you are doing illegitimate if it is not affiliated with a particular country or culture, either it works for you or it doesn't work for you, the rest is superficial. Isn't the goal to eventually make the style "your own" anyways?
Hi Sage
I suspect that we have fairly divergent views on this issue and it possibly comes down to the base fact that in years gone by, for my sins, I was a historian and museum curator.
For me, to disassociate the cultural baggage from a martial art is to ditch one of the things that makes that art worth learning. So, tho' my PC may not be performing it's MFLOPS in a medieval timeframe, when I'm practising my Iai that is exactly where I am.
Other than for 'anti-burgular' events and it's development of zanshin and seme, the JSA has no practical value for self-defence (apart, perhaps, from the implicit moves that such empty handed arts as aikido and karate took from the sword arts). They are a product of their time and not to pay attention to where they came from is to lose a certain amount from the experience of learning them.
Spirituality was part and parcel of learning the 'Samurai' arts, for if you did not die on the battlefield then eventually you had to 'retire' to something else. For many, that something 'else' was a religious retreat. No art, regardless of where it came from is entirely pragmatic, they are always influenced by the cultural environment from which they spring forth.
The so-called Bushido Code had nothing to do with the roots of these arts, it came centuries later. The etiquette and morality bound within the sword arts is inherent as it pervaded them from the culture of which they are a part. That affects the techniques themselves and not giving them proper place within the training regimen leaves something behind which, in my not-so-humble opinion, deserves to be retained.
The Itomagi kata, for example, are open to a duality of interpretation depending on how you place them in the cultural framework. They are either assassination techniques or a last-ditch defence against underhanded assault during the 'leave taking' ceremonies between people in the same social circle. Without cultural context they are meaningless.
In Ryu arts this is not even a subject for discussion but I do accept that in the wider field of Martial Arts as an area of human endeavour it is debatable as to whether it is 'useful' or not. I, clearly, feel that it is but that does not make me right.
I suspect that we have fairly divergent views on this issue and it possibly comes down to the base fact that in years gone by, for my sins, I was a historian and museum curator.
For me, to disassociate the cultural baggage from a martial art is to ditch one of the things that makes that art worth learning. So, tho' my PC may not be performing it's MFLOPS in a medieval timeframe, when I'm practising my Iai that is exactly where I am.
Other than for 'anti-burgular' events and it's development of zanshin and seme, the JSA has no practical value for self-defence (apart, perhaps, from the implicit moves that such empty handed arts as aikido and karate took from the sword arts). They are a product of their time and not to pay attention to where they came from is to lose a certain amount from the experience of learning them.
Spirituality was part and parcel of learning the 'Samurai' arts, for if you did not die on the battlefield then eventually you had to 'retire' to something else. For many, that something 'else' was a religious retreat. No art, regardless of where it came from is entirely pragmatic, they are always influenced by the cultural environment from which they spring forth.
The so-called Bushido Code had nothing to do with the roots of these arts, it came centuries later. The etiquette and morality bound within the sword arts is inherent as it pervaded them from the culture of which they are a part. That affects the techniques themselves and not giving them proper place within the training regimen leaves something behind which, in my not-so-humble opinion, deserves to be retained.
The Itomagi kata, for example, are open to a duality of interpretation depending on how you place them in the cultural framework. They are either assassination techniques or a last-ditch defence against underhanded assault during the 'leave taking' ceremonies between people in the same social circle. Without cultural context they are meaningless.
In Ryu arts this is not even a subject for discussion but I do accept that in the wider field of Martial Arts as an area of human endeavour it is debatable as to whether it is 'useful' or not. I, clearly, feel that it is but that does not make me right.
SageGhost83
Brown Belt
Hey, no problem. I understand, and I was definitely not trying to offend. If you are in it for the culture, then yes, those things are of paramount importance, so go for it. I deeply respect the Koryu, and I understand the role that culture and history play within them. I guess that we do have two different viewpoints. I choose to look at the science and principles behind things, those elements based in science that are transferrable between countries and cultures and are not reliant upon a specific country or culture for the successful performance of a method. I guess that I am more of a martial scientist than a martial artist, if that even makes sense. With this viewpoint, you can see how I would answer "yes" to the OP. Different people practice for different reasons, and they are all equally valid, IMHO.
You said: "I, clearly, feel that it is but that does not make me right."
I say: "Neither does it make you wrong. You practice for spiritual/cultural reasons, therefore, it is useful for you. So I would argue that you *are* right, given the purpose for this particular practice.
As for Taekdwondo:
If something is taught openly and logically, and if the purpose is explained from the beginning, then you will know what the technique is intended for without having to touch on the cultural part. Why does the tech work? If we learn the science behind why it works, and we can make it work repeatedly irregardless of which country or culture we are from, then why do we need the cultural part to begin with? Couldn't we just take the techniques and principles and practice them without a foreign culture or within the context of our own cultures, which is what "americanizing taekwondo" would basically amount to?
You said: "I, clearly, feel that it is but that does not make me right."
I say: "Neither does it make you wrong. You practice for spiritual/cultural reasons, therefore, it is useful for you. So I would argue that you *are* right, given the purpose for this particular practice.
As for Taekdwondo:
If something is taught openly and logically, and if the purpose is explained from the beginning, then you will know what the technique is intended for without having to touch on the cultural part. Why does the tech work? If we learn the science behind why it works, and we can make it work repeatedly irregardless of which country or culture we are from, then why do we need the cultural part to begin with? Couldn't we just take the techniques and principles and practice them without a foreign culture or within the context of our own cultures, which is what "americanizing taekwondo" would basically amount to?
I think that that is a very well brought forward distinction there, Sage.
I love your turn of phrase - "Martial Scientist" is a wonderfully precise way of stating clearly that you are interested in how things work and where they can be applied, whilst who thought of it first is not relevant to yourself because they were from elsewhen and elsewhere.
This is basically my approach to things as well. The art is effective because of the way the world is structured; no matter what culture you're from or what language you speak, the structure will stand up if it satisfies the relevant mechanical principles and will fall down if it doesn't. If, on the other hand, you want to know what kind of decorative treatment to give the buildingis it a ziggurat, a pagoda or a Gothic cathedralthen you'd better understand the culture, and its æsthetic rules, to the core.
I personally am more interested in what is common across particular cultural expressions, and in the MAs, that means what the karate-based arts, the CMAs, and many other combat systems have in commontheir common basis in human biomechanics. But both the engineer's and architectural artist's points of view are valid in their own domain of creative activity. The important thing is not to confuse one with the other.
SageGhost83
Brown Belt
Thanks, my friend. You are in Staffordshire? OMG, please tell me that you are kidding...because I am in Stafford, VA! That is crazy! I really appreciate the fact that even though you are not in Taekwondo you are willing to offer a well articulated opinion on the subject matter :asian:.
I thought for a second there that you meant you were in our county-town of Stafford (which is only eight miles up the road from where I live) ... then I noted your location in the banner line and saw the VA in your post and calmed back down again
. There seem to be more than a few 'exported' English placenames around the world - I've heard of Paris (Texas), Birmingham (Alabama) and Liverpool (New South Wales) for example.
Anyhow, I'm in danger of stepping over the precipice of off-topic'ness so I'll hush myself - I just wanted to return the compliment with regard to well thought out and articulate posting :thumbs up:.
I just don't think it's possible to truly "Americanize" Tae Kwon Do away from its Korean roots. It is perfectly acceptable to add things that Americans can relate to (English terms, counting, handshakes when appropriate); my Instructor certainly did. Even as a Korean, he recognized you must make certain concessions in the Art to make it palatable to Americans.
But as far as bowing, philosophy, flags, and culture, those all stayed. Tae Kwon Do is a product of Korean culture and history, and those must be included if the Art is to have any meaning.
For example, we bow, but explain why we bow. We use both flags as a sign of respect to the host country as well as respecting where TKD originated.
But to remove the culture, philosophy, etiquette, and background from TKD is to remove a great deal of what makes it what it is. I just can't see that. Otherwise, it just becomes a set of techniques.
But as far as bowing, philosophy, flags, and culture, those all stayed. Tae Kwon Do is a product of Korean culture and history, and those must be included if the Art is to have any meaning.
For example, we bow, but explain why we bow. We use both flags as a sign of respect to the host country as well as respecting where TKD originated.
But to remove the culture, philosophy, etiquette, and background from TKD is to remove a great deal of what makes it what it is. I just can't see that. Otherwise, it just becomes a set of techniques.
What is wrong with the perspective that a set of techniques is exactly what TKD is, so far as the American practitioners are concerned?
The Okinawans recognized the role of Chinese MAs in the formation of linear karate, as the name itself tells you. But so far as I can tell they didn't worry overmuch about tying the art to what the leading practitioners of Fukien White Crane thought or believed about that art, or their own culture, or themselves for that matter. The Japanese learned karate from the Okinawans, but they didn't regard it as inherently Okinawan (if they had done, their deeply racist attitudes towards the Okinwans would have made them deeply disdainful toward the art). And when the Kwan founders brought Japanese karate back to Korea from Japan, they still identified it as Japanese, using the names Tang Soo Do and Kong Soo Do, literal translations of the two transliterations of Okinawan kara te. Each one of these peoples, by synthesis, reduction, and expansion of the technical content they learned, transformed what they learned into their own art. At its core, it was indeed the same technique sets, and much of the Okinawan content is still recoverable from the Korean hyungs that are the core of the curriculum—even in the Taegeuks and Chang Hon forms, both of them created in part to try to eliminate the Japanese source of TKD (something that, interestingly enough, didn't happen in Tang Soo Do, the oldest/most technically conservative living version of the Kwan-era MA that came over from Japan). To insist that just at the point when the art in question, in its Chinese/Okinawan --> Japan --> Korean transmission, crossed onto the Korean Peninsula, it suddenly 'froze' in its continuously evolving and changing shape and became for all time attached inextricably to the culture, history, symbolism and political iconography of the latest country on its long developmental path, seems really unmotivated. It suggests to me a kind of almost antiquarian attitude: this isn't a living art full of potential for development and application, but a kind of relic, fossilized art form that we have to regard as a museum piece. I just don't see why the attitude that each successive borrower and adapter took in the development of the karate-based arts isn't good enough for us. They each took what they learned, made it their own and developed it as they saw fit. What is wrong with our doing the same?
The fact that 'Tae Kwon Do is a product of Korean culture and history' does not entail that 'those must be included if the Art is to have any meaning', any more than the fierce efforts of the Koreans to purge the Japanese sources of their art (after all, what they got was a product of Japanese culture and history, eh?) deprived that art, the Koreanized take on the karate root-stock, of meaning. So I just don't see the logic of the argument here...
