Sir I am not sure that there is a clear answer to that. From my understanding the evolution of TKD was at 1st through a new name. Back in the 1940s, post WWII, they were all doing some form of karate, with some Chinese influence. They of course did not want to use the name karate, so they applied terms like TangSuDo, KongSuDo, KwonBup, HwaSaeDo. There were various attempts to unify that were not successful. We know that by 1955 the new name TKD was approved. I would say that you could look at it as an new umbrella term, as they all were pretty much doing the same thing, more or less, basic karate. I do know that Kwan founders, leaders & individual instructors were adding their own emphasis, flavors & the like, but it was also basic karate.
I am not so sure that in those very early days if that was the case. I think the name then could have been offered as an umbrella term. We know from history that it was rejected then & its use limited to Gen Choi & his followers, who then applied it to the system that they were developing in the military.
There is a gent on another site who is very into taekwondo history, and he had made a post to the effect that the original intent was for taekwondo to be used as a general term for all KMA, past, present, and future. This would certainly clear up the 2000 year old issue if you used the term 'taekwondo' to mean KMA. I suspect that he probably meant it the way that you phrased it above.
Yes but I am not so sure that we can apply 1990's sentiment to what was actually going on in the 1954/55. We know for sure that this was what we were told & came to believe. However I am trying to simply examine this from the context of "that time period". I am not sure that this was the initial intent. We see that those early attempts to unify all fell apart & it seems to disintegrate around a common theme, which appears to be the power to test.
We'll never know for sure what Gen. Choi intended, but he doesn't strike me as the kind of person who was big on compromise 
This is why I think we also need to get that part of his 1959 book translated. I think it has the potential to offer additional insight. I asked Puunui if he ever did translate it & he did not reply in a more productive way.
No it is not sources that show his intentions, but rather those that help paint the context of the time & processes that they were going through. They are what have been put forth here, like the Modern History, Yook's article, Kim Soo's work, interviews etc.
Yes of course & we must remember that at some point the military dictator did see the value of TKD as a powerful propaganda tool when he flew to West Germany. It is no accident that a gifted, talented, highly educated man who spoke several languages & was a KCIA operative was tapped to led the south Korean TKD movement in 1971. Remember he held high govt positions in important places like the ROK Embassy to the UK in London & the USA in Washington & their UN Mission in NYC, followed by the deputy of the presidential security forces.
Good point, but it is esoteric for those not interested & a real bore for partisans of a different view.I don't think it's esoteric. I just disagree with your reading of hostorical events
The division does play a part, as do other aspects of Korean politics.
Yes I hear that & am sorry & do sympathize with you. I have been told that it is difficult to do, due to all the use of Chinese throughout.
Mr. Spiller,
Yes & even the preface, the what is TKD section & the brief history of TKD section all give me a sense that it was in the early days or formative years, more of an umbrella term. I think that after he was losing power & then when he was forced to exile himself, it became much more contentious & the differences much more stark.
