The Korean roots of TKD

[chrispillertkd]

Most of what became TKD (vice TSD) were 100% Karate, but not all were--though they were still mostly Karate. The statement is largely accurate.

Saying something is 100% of whatever (Shotokan, for instance) can't be largely accurate. It's either accurate or not because you've made no allowances for variation. TF has stated before that he thinks Taekwon-Do is just Shotokan and any development of the art or any variation of that isn't Taekwon-Do. Perhaps this is because his initial contact with Taekwon-Do was through Jhoon Rhee's Chung Do Kwan lineage which was basically Shotokan. But as you can see from this thread it's innacurate.

I'd have no problem with someone saying the majority of what was being taught in Taekwon-Do at the beginning was Shotokan or Shotokan-based. But that wasn't what he said.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Earl Weiss]

In General Choi's 1965 book he mentions the Shorin and Shorei roots although he uses the Korean terms for those roots which escape me at the moment, with Shorin being the Okinawan derivation of Shaolin the Chinese roots are more evident. Since Shotokan was rooted in the Shorin and Shorei systems of Okinawa, the statement of Shotokan origins can be viewed as an oversimplification.

It would be like saying the roots of the space shuttle could be found in German rocketry ignoring the much earlier use of rockets by the Chinese.

But what does it matter that the roots were Chinese or not. Sure, the Chinese may have been the first, but the Russians were the first to put an object and man in space and the Americans were the first and only to put a man on a spacial body other than earth.

It's not what it was, it's what it is.

 

[Instructor]

In General Choi's 1965 book he mentions the Shorin and Shorei roots although he uses the Korean terms for those roots which escape me at the moment, with Shorin being the Okinawan derivation of Shaolin the Chinese roots are more evident. Since Shotokan was rooted in the Shorin and Shorei systems of Okinawa, the statement of Shotokan origins can be viewed as an oversimplification.

It would be like saying the roots of the space shuttle could be found in German rocketry ignoring the much earlier use of rockets by the Chinese.

But what does it matter that the roots were Chinese or not. Sure, the Chinese may have been the first, but the Russians were the first to put an object and man in space and the Americans were the first and only to put a man on a spacial body other than earth.

It's not what it was, it's what it is.

You said this so much better than I could. Nice work.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

In General Choi's 1965 book he mentions the Shorin and Shorei roots although he uses the Korean terms for those roots which escape me at the moment, with Shorin being the Okinawan derivation of Shaolin the Chinese roots are more evident. Since Shotokan was rooted in the Shorin and Shorei systems of Okinawa, the statement of Shotokan origins can be viewed as an oversimplification.

It would be like saying the roots of the space shuttle could be found in German rocketry ignoring the much earlier use of rockets by the Chinese.

But what does it matter that the roots were Chinese or not. Sure, the Chinese may have been the first, but the Russians were the first to put an object and man in space and the Americans were the first and only to put a man on a spacial body other than earth.

It's not what it was, it's what it is.

Mr. Weiss, I agree with you on this a great deal. It truly doesn't matter, as you have pointed out.

I do enjoy, on the other hand, looking at other styles that are the roots of my particular style. I am aware of the dangers of reverse engineering, or putting meaning where this is none, but I do find many things very insightful. At this time, I can only make connections, on a technical level, with JMA/OMA's and other KMA's. A while back there was some discussion on here, that we found some links to Goju with a Malaysian CMA, but that doesn't translate well with traditional TKD.

I know there have been some detractors of this type of cross examination between styles on here, but since I do not have the luxury of cross training in another style due to the fact that I live in rural America, with no other traditional schools near me, this is what I find myself doing.. . I did train with some OMA/JMA practitioners while in college, and gained a great deal of insight into my own art through that training.

 

[chrispillertkd]

It's not what it was, it's what it is.

People like knowing where things come from, what the history behind people, places, and events is. It's why people research their family trees. This isn't any different.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Instructor]

I am certainly glad I didn't let who my family was decide who I am...

 

[chrispillertkd]

You family doesn't determine who you are. But it can influence who you become.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Twin Fist]

and if you bury your head and ignore the reality of your roots, your whole experience of learning is a fraud.

"learning"

look it up

now does the (almost 100%) japanese origin of the art matter today? not to the technician. And it doesnt matter where it came from when you throw that kick. And it is certainly it's own beast today...but to anyone aspiring to be a TRUE martial "artist" i would think it does matter where your art came from.

IMO

 

[Rumy73]

How can something that came from China, to Okinawa, to Japan, then to Korea be 100% Japanese?

 

[Twin Fist]

immeadiate source.

the okinawan karate that the japanese adopted bore little to NO resemblence to the original chinese product. likewise the japanese changed much of the okinawan version, and finally, the koreans just copied everything, up to and including the kata, and called it a "lost" korean art.... and went so far as to create false history to back up the claim......this is all historical fact, and isnt even up for debate

 

[arnisador]

How can something that came from China, to Okinawa, to Japan, then to Korea be 100% Japanese?

The term "Japanese karate" has a meaning. It doesn't mean it was wholly native to Japan--it means what was taught and practiced there.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

How can something that came from China, to Okinawa, to Japan, then to Korea be 100% Japanese?

The term "Japanese karate" has a meaning. It doesn't mean it was wholly native to Japan--it means what was taught and practiced there.

I don't think he asked the question that people think he asked. From China to Okinawa to Japan: you are saying that the term has meaning because it was taught and practiced there, but he didn't ask how something that went from China to Okinawa to Japan can be called Japanese; what he's asking is how it can be called 100% Japanese after it then went to Korea and was taught and practiced in Korea, not in Japan.

Modern taekwondo is not kwan era taekwondo, nor is it taekwondo as seen in the sixties. The forms are different, regardless of which federation you are looking at, and in the case of the KKW forms, any Japanese kata have been replaced twice; first by Palgwe pumse and then by the Taegeuk pumse. Tournament rules were established that reflect Korean preference for kicking, and Korean terminology and philosophical perspectives were infused.

Modern taekwondo most certainly has Korean roots, but it also has roots in Japan, Okinawa and China. As for the Korean roots, most are postwar. Which shouldn't raise any eyebrows, as it is a postwar art. There are kwan founders who claimed knowledge of Taekkyeon. Personally, I'm willing to take them at face value; I know how to play baseball, football, and basketball, but I have no pedigree. If the US were occupied and a foreign culture imposed upon it and football were made illegal, after the occupation ended, I could teach youngsters how to play football, but there would be no record of me ever having played on a professional or amateur team. I simply know how to play it because it is what we played for enjoyment.

That said, Taekwondo, modern or otherwise, is not taekkyeon, and has no direct root to any specific prewar KMA. It is a postwar Korean art whose development reflects the changes and the state of Korea at the time that it was systematized. While there are apparently a few people who have links to Taekkyeon and who teach it as Taekkyeon, and while there may be unarmed ancient KMA preserved in sources such as the Muyedobotongji that people may have or may yet reconstruct, Taekwondo is not such an art. It is the KMA of modern Korea.

It is Korean inasmuch as NFL football is American football and not Rugby football.

 

[Earl Weiss]

immeadiate source.

the okinawan karate that the japanese adopted bore little to NO resemblence to the original chinese product. likewise the japanese changed much of the okinawan version, and finally, the koreans just copied everything, up to and including the kata, and called it a "lost" korean art.... and went so far as to create false history to back up the claim......this is all historical fact, and isnt even up for debate

For me the issue is that SOME Koreans made stuff up. Others clearly disclosed it. Of course the guy who disclosed it many chose to basically ignore later so why not ignore that as well.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

My view is that (some) Koreans (and others) never needed to embellish, exaggerate, rewrite or otherwise make anything up to begin with. Every modern art came from something before it. Politics and national pride aside, TKD should have fully embraced its Japanese Karate roots. Mainly because those Japanese roots were fairly shallow with a much longer root going back into Okinawan Karate and into China. In my opinion, it would have lent greater credibilty to TKD, particularly early on when it was establishing its own identity. Indeed, many early pioneers (and even some later ones) referred to their art under (Korean) Karate.

TKD, as far as its roots in Karate, has nothing to be ashamed of in any regard. Indeed, it could/should be a feather in its cap because of the rich history Karate has established. Trying to change things up, after the fact, only takes away from TKD as an art. Perhaps they felt it was necessary to estblish TKD as a legitimate art? But in reality, sticking with the facts of the matter would have done that as well as TKD standing the test of time and evolving into its own entity.

 

[Rumy73]

My view is that (some) Koreans (and others) never needed to embellish, exaggerate, rewrite or otherwise make anything up to begin with. Every modern art came from something before it. Politics and national pride aside, TKD should have fully embraced its Japanese Karate roots. Mainly because those Japanese roots were fairly shallow with a much longer root going back into Okinawan Karate and into China. In my opinion, it would have lent greater credibilty to TKD, particularly early on when it was establishing its own identity. Indeed, many early pioneers (and even some later ones) referred to their art under (Korean) Karate.

TKD, as far as its roots in Karate, has nothing to be ashamed of in any regard. Indeed, it could/should be a feather in its cap because of the rich history Karate has established. Trying to change things up, after the fact, only takes away from TKD as an art. Perhaps they felt it was necessary to estblish TKD as a legitimate art? But in reality, sticking with the facts of the matter would have done that as well as TKD standing the test of time and evolving into its own entity.

These points are reasonable, but before we get too judgmental about Korea downplaying karate's impact, let's remember all institutions and nations create myths about themselves.

 

[Rumy73]

My view is that (some) Koreans (and others) never needed to embellish, exaggerate, rewrite or otherwise make anything up to begin with. Every modern art came from something before it. Politics and national pride aside, TKD should have fully embraced its Japanese Karate roots. Mainly because those Japanese roots were fairly shallow with a much longer root going back into Okinawan Karate and into China. In my opinion, it would have lent greater credibilty to TKD, particularly early on when it was establishing its own identity. Indeed, many early pioneers (and even some later ones) referred to their art under (Korean) Karate.

TKD, as far as its roots in Karate, has nothing to be ashamed of in any regard. Indeed, it could/should be a feather in its cap because of the rich history Karate has established. Trying to change things up, after the fact, only takes away from TKD as an art. Perhaps they felt it was necessary to estblish TKD as a legitimate art? But in reality, sticking with the facts of the matter would have done that as well as TKD standing the test of time and evolving into its own entity.

These points are reasonable, but before we get too judgmental about Korea downplaying karate's impact, let's remember all institutions and nations create myths about themselves.

 

[Dirty Dog]

These points are reasonable, but before we get too judgmental about Korea downplaying karate's impact, let's remember all institutions and nations create myths about themselves.

True enough. In this case, I suspect it boils down to a backlash against the culture that did it's best to detroy Korean culture. A lot of effort went in to distancing Korea from Japan.

 

[Rumy73]

True enough. In this case, I suspect it boils down to a backlash against the culture that did it's best to detroy Korean culture. A lot of effort went in to distancing Korea from Japan.

You hit the nail on the head.

 

[Twin Fist]

True enough. In this case, I suspect it boils down to a backlash against the culture that did it's best to detroy Korean culture. A lot of effort went in to distancing Korea from Japan.

while this is true, and even to a degree understandable, lying, an repeating the lies is NOT understandable. And should not be condoned...

 

[arnisador]

True enough. In this case, I suspect it boils down to a backlash against the culture that did it's best to detroy Korean culture. A lot of effort went in to distancing Korea from Japan.

Agreed--and understandable, albeit taken to an extreme.