Article on the History of TKD

[Hollywood1340]

Here in Missoula, we pride ourselves on having one of the oldest collegite (sp) TKD programs in the country. Was browsing the Big Sky TKD website and found this article. If anything, a fine read while waiting for classes to start. What I'm doing right now as a matter of fact.
http://www.bigskytaekwondo.com/Resources/Capener.htm

 

[MSUTKD]

That has been around for a while. It is the "best" history out there.

ron

 

[Zepp]

Hardly the best. It's very biased towards sport Tae Kwon Do, but that's what I expect from Steve Capener. But it is well researched.

 

[Last Fearner]

I have to strongly disagree. I don't intend for this to be offensive to anyone here, but I feel I must adamantly assert an opposing point of view. In my professional opinion, this article is a prime example of the lack of insight, and indepth research, beyond the regurgitation of what is often politically motivated, and personally biased individuals who write books to "promulgate" their own personal beliefs.

Ok, here comes my rant . . .:tantrum:

Without further data, I question the credibility, authoritative opinions, and indepth knowledge about the subject of "t'aegwondo" by the author. This article says that the author, Steve Carpener, is a former "Chief Instructor" of Big Sky Taekwondo at the University of Montana. This sounds impressive, but many novice instructors teach at colleges, and universities (I did, when I was an 18 year old 1st Dan in the late 1970s).

The article also states that Mr. Carpener is a Professor at Ehwa University in Korea - - A professor of what?? A little background on years of training, with whom, what rank in Taekwondo, and what is his "professorship" in, would be helpful in determining his credibility.

The article, itself, is poorly written. One would think that Professor Carpener never took a college writing course. The level of expertise, and skill in writing, tends to lend some credibility toward the individual's education, therefore giving the reader some degree of confidence when the other offers "opinions." One paragraph is inadvertently repeated a second time. Poor Grammar, punctuation, and the lack of flow, and sensible coherency make it difficult to follow, and believe.

These faults are aside from the fact that most of what is concluded by the author, and stated in a rough attempt at a "thesis statement" is false, or cited from unproven theory, and personal opinion, which typically does not belong in an authoritative work such as this, and should be labeled as such.

This article is based on many false statemtents which are presented as, so called, "facts," and erroneous conclusions that obviously come from a superficial method of research, which relies on tainted opinions of other "expert" authors, and this authors obscured view of Korean culture, history, and the true nature of Taekwondo. This is a perfect example of an individual who cannot see the forest for the trees. A broader perspective, and more educated, enlightened, and non-biase influeced view might show this author the big picture that exists beyond the "evidence" of recent recorded history.

In my professional opinion, based on more than 40 years of Martial Art education, and 30 years of Taekwondo training and teaching, it is a shame that articles such as this, which are presented in an apparently credible, and authoritative manner, are filled with inaccuracies, opinions, and an absolute lack of understanding about the subject upon which the author writes. It is unfortunate that many novice, beginner, advanced students, and instructors seeking knowledge, will read this garbage, and mistake it as truth.

I only wish that this was the appropriate forum upon which I could spend hours, and pages, disproving, debunking, and exposing the falsehoods.

Here are but a few examples:

"The overemphasis on establishing and asserting t'aegwondo's indigenous Korean origins and development, however, has actually been an impediment to t'aegwondo's potential growth and development."


The term "overemphasis" needs to be qualified, as it implies more emphasis than is required. This is an opinion rather than fact. The author should state, "the emphasis, which some believe is excessive,..." Also, there is nothing to back up the allegation that "t'aegwondo's potential growth and development" has in fact been impeded. Taekwondo has grown and developed quite well. These are misleading opinions.

"The fact that t'aegwondo was first brought into Korea from Japan in the form of Japanese karate around the time of the liberation of Korea from Japanese colonial rule, and the way this fact has been dealt with in Korea has left many serious inconsistencies [81] in the way t'aegwondo has been developed within Korea and propagated abroad."

This is a false conclusion (whether it is the author's original mistake, or cited from another author's opinion). Proposing that Taekwondo was "brought into Korea from Japan" is more of a ignorant, false and misleading statement, than those who say Taekwondo is "descended" from Japanese Karate or shotokan. People must come to understand that individuals like Gen. Choi Hong Hi, who submitted the name change to "Taekwon-do" in 1955, also had training from Japan. This presents absolutely no conclusive evidence about Traditional Korean Martial Art, wich has been renamed "Taekwondo," other than the fact that people who lived during the Japanese occupation were exposed to Japanese culture, language, and Martial Art. That was unavoidable, and the residue will long waft throughout Korea's future, and Taekwondo's true identity, but it does not change its identity.

"The development of a new system of techniques and training was under-taken by moving away from karate's nature as a martial art of self-defense through the development of t'aegwondo as a sport? This has been called the "competitionalization" or sportization of t'aegwondo."

This is a completely false statement, and misunderstood nature of the "sport aspect" of Taekwondo. Sport was used to enhance Taekwondo competitive skills, and promote the art, not move away from any martial art nature of self defense. Sport Taekwondo does not diminish the Martial Art aspect. The Martial Art is what it is, and always has been. Sporting events, which use similar skills, have existed in virtually every culture throughout history. One is developed from the other, but does not dictate, nor detract from the authenticity, and usefulness of the original host.

These obviously "cliche' like terms," such as "competitionalization," "sportization," and "Korenization" are designed to demean Taekwondo, and mislead the reader into believing that they have meaning beyond a biased opinion of those who see Taekwondo, and competition from a limited, and often objectionable, point of view.

"This philosophical concept, as it was applied to fighting skills by the Japanese, did not exist in Korea.".

False!

"Koreans' first concrete exposure to this concept of martial art was through the martial arts training judo and kendo under the militaristic education policy effected by the Japanese during the colonial period. This concept was reinforced with the entry of karate into Korea."

False!

"While attempting to escape the stigma of Japanese karate through the creation of a new system of techniques based on competition, Korean t'aegwondo had already put itself in a quandary by asserting that its origin was rooted in traditional Korean martial arts such as subakhui or t'aekkyon."

False! There is no "quandry" here. Subak, and Taekyon existed prior to the Japanese occupation, and influence of Karate. Korea's decision to rename their ancient skills, which did exist as far back as the 1st century B.C. (and beyond), and to call their traditional Martial Art by a new name, Taekwondo, was their full right. To compare what is naturally similar, and historically contained in both systems, and claim that one then came from the other is a ridiculous, and unfounded conclusion. The only quandry comes from people who continue to attach the name "Taekwondo" to General Choi's "Taekwon-do" and his Oh Do Kwan (Gym of my way) which led to his personal I.T.F. organization. They are NOT one and the same!

"This problem results from efforts by t'aegwondo leaders to distort the real history of t'aegwondo's development by not acknowledging its Japanese origins."

"Consequently, the techniques and training systems of competition t'aegwondo which were developed exclusively in Korea are not recognized for their value as the original core of t'aegwondo because to do so would be to acknowledge that Korean t'aegwondo is a very recent phenomenon, having a history of not more than a few decades."

False! These statement is biased opinions based on pure ignorance.

"If the Japanese had banned the practice of t'aekkyon, how and why would they force Koreans to call it karate or incorporate karate techniques into it? This is a moot point."

If this were a "moot point," then why bring it up? The fact is, this is a key point. Taekyon did not "disappear" as the author suggests in his article, and the above questions are ones that the author should seek answers to in order to understand what actually took place.

I could go much deeper, and present an entire essay in contradiction to virtually every asserted "fact" that this author passes off as a revelation about the "problems" of Taekwondo, its alleged "false history," "Koreanization" and "sportization." However, I'm sure most of you are tired of my ranting here anyhow, and others are just going to disregard it because they already have formed concrete opinions matching that of "professor Steve Carpener."

No intent to offend, just stating my professional opinion in opposition of this article.
CM D. J. Eisenhart

 

[MSUTKD]

I understand how this article might make some people feel. You speak of information that is “regurgitation of what is often politically motivated.” What about the “dogma” that is taught as the history of Taekwondo. THAT is the politically motivated info. If he is wrong then instead of claiming falsehood one should include some information to the contrary. That is the problem. The stories that are told can not be backed up, academically at least. That does not make him correct, but I think he has some very valid points.
My teacher, Kim Jongoon, was alive and there in Korea during the occupation. His story is similar to many of the other teachers of that time. He has said, on many occasions, that Taekwondo is Karate. Most books written in the 60’s and early 70’s also repeat this fact. In Taekwondo: Secrets of Korean Karate by S.H. Cho (p. 19) he states,

“Tae-kwon is the Korean word for karate recently adopted by the Korean Tae-Kwon do Federation. Tae-kwon do is identical to Japanese karate, and the title is a literal description of an art consisting of foot and hand techniques,” he continues, “However, in spite of the various philosophies in the long history of karate, it has evolved into a completely modernized form; its basic concept being the building of karate practitioners with the strongest techniques of sportsmanlike self-defense.”

Not until after 1973 do you see these histories begin to change. I think Marc Tedeschi in Taekwondo, does an excellent history. He tries to be neutral and presents the legends, facts and dogma.
If you look at old pictures from the YMCA era you will clearly see, in both Korean and English, “karate” written on the signs. Kong soo do, tang soo do is still karate do.
If you practice Taeguek or Palgwe, then you do karate forms. If you look at Shotokan forms you will see all of the techniques and even complete sequences of motions in Taeguek and Palgwe. Some examples would be: Heian 3 and Palgwe 4, Tekki 1-3 and Pyongwon and Kanku and Koryo. The link is even deeper with the structure of the forms (yunmusen/embusen), the topic of a paper that I am in the process of publishing now.
What makes Taekwondo what it is today is the sport idea. It took martial arts to the masses, developed a physical philosophy; different from the Japanese idea and through the sport fighting explored more effective and powerful techniques.

I think we both believe in the same things and as scholars we should put the pieces together. If we look at the similarities, not the differences, then we will have the truth.

ron

If you do any research you will find that Steve Capener has been around for a long time. He is a nice guy and great fighter with a real love for Korea and the culture. This will help. http://www.bstkd.com/SteveCapenerInterview.htm

 

[IcemanSK]

I hate to dredge up an old article &/or old issue. But I see that there is a lot of discussion around this idea here lately.

This article of Carpener's is an hyoptheis of how it may have been: not how it was. I find this arguement plausible, but his timeline a bit off. In my experience, "sport" TKD didn't really come about in a fever until 1986-ish. Carpener seems to say that it started much earlier.

 

[MBuzzy]

Thought I may not be a TKD practitioner, I feel that I have some interest in the topic, due to Hwang Kee's involvement in the history of KMA.

Personally, I think that the article is relatively well written. Without going through each of the cites and intricately examining the article, I can't comment on the historical accuracy or basis of it, though. I trust the When Last Fearner says that he can refute these claims ad nauseum, he means that he can provide citations and sources as well. If so, I would be VERY interested to read the counter opinion to this article. In fact, in academia, there are often published articles simply to refute a previous article.

Master Carpenter obvious has an extensive knowledge of Korean history and culture (as is evident simply in his spelling of t'aegwondo and other Korean words).

 

[exile]

Thought I may not be a TKD practitioner, I feel that I have some interest in the topic, due to Hwang Kee's involvement in the history of KMA.

Personally, I think that the article is relatively well written. Without going through each of the cites and intricately examining the article, I can't comment on the historical accuracy or basis of it, though. I trust the When Last Fearner says that he can refute these claims ad nauseum, he means that he can provide citations and sources as well. If so, I would be VERY interested to read the counter opinion to this article. In fact, in academia, there are often published articles simply to refute a previous article.

Last Fearner was never able to cite a single effective piece of counterevidence to any of the (historical) points in this article, which have subesequently been confirmed by further research (e.g., the article on Taekkyon by Mark Pederson in the Encyclopædia of Martial Arts of the World, and by the declarations of the Taekkyon Research Association and the World Taekkyon Headquarters site (you can check out these sources and citations in my post here; the thread has some interesting point and counterpoint bearing on the issue).

The fact is, Capener is based in Korea, is fluent and literate in Korean, and has actually read the original Korean documents bearing on the case, most importantly the writings of Song Duk Ki. Last Fearner neither spoke nor read Korean, which meant that he was in no position to challenge Capener's invocation of SDK or other Korean sources. If you pursue the discussions on this point through the archives, you'll see that the gist of LF's attempts to rebut Capener's carefully reasoned and documented history was that, as a sixth dan in TKD, he knew better than the many TKD historians (many of them advanced KMA practitioners themselves, but that's another discussion) whose linguistic and philological knowledge of Korean, Japanese, Chinese and the extant documentation gave them access to the actual evidence base that any claim about the history of TKD must be based on.

The current gold-standard sources are the following:

Young, Robert W. 1993. The history and development of Tae Kyon. Journal of Asian Martial Arts 2.2, pp. 45-69.

Young's essay was the first of the new wave of critical historical scholarship on TKD that has dealt a series of decisive blows to the nationalist mythology of ancient TKD propagated by the ROK government through its MA directorate agencies, such as the KKW, KTA and WTA. There are some points of confusion—Young projects taekyon backward in time to subak far too readily, based solely on the first reference to taekkyon we have, in the 1790 Chaemulpo: Book of Treasures by Yi Song-ji. It's evident that YSJ himself is basing this comment on a very nonspecific sense of subak, probably—as Marc Tedeschi observes in his encyclopædic handbook Taekwondo: Tradition, Philosophy, Technique—denoting nothing more than empty-handed combat, by this point. (Subak itself derives from the generic Chinese shoubo/shoupai, meaning just 'boxing', and the term was applied, at least in the 16th century and after, to village sport competition as well as military combat techniques. Given the actual status of taekkyon as simply an intervillage competitive kicking game, this subak--->taekkyon transition seems to refer to the decreasing influence of Chinese cultural elements in the late 18th and early 19th century in Korea. Young's article touches on the irrelevance of the claimed physical evidence for early TKD, and much else besides.


Capener, Steve. 1995. 'Problems in the identity and philosophy of T'aegwondo and their historical causes.' Korea Journal, Winter (available here)

The first part is a brilliant debunking of the role of taekkyon in the history of TKD.

Burdick, Dakin. 1997. 'People and events of Taekwondo's formative years. Journal of Asian Martial Arts'.

Burdick, Dakin. 2000. 'People and events of Taekwondo's formative years'. [expanded version of the 1997 JAMA article], available at http://www.budosportcapelle.nl/gesch.html


Burdick's work continues the critical discussion of supposed evidence for early TKD, thoroughly demolishing all of the putative archaeological support for this postion with almost contemptuous ease, and documenting the deep involvement of the founders of modern TKD in Japanese karate.

Henning, Stanley. 2000. 'Traditional Korean Martial Arts'. Journal of Asian Martial Arts.

Henning corroborates Burdick's conclusions, focusing in particular on the near total dependence of Korean MAs on Chinese techniques and sources for almost all of their history.

Adrogué, Manuel. 2003 'Ancient Military Manuals and Their Relation to Modern Korean Martial Arts'. Journal of Asian Martial Arts.

Detailed analysis of the history of Korean military manuals, again showing their source in almost word-for-word translations of Chinese texts—including the celebrated Muye Dobo Ton Ji. Meticulous analysis showing the completely foreign sources of the technical elements in these manuals. The claimed 'early TKD' in the few pages of the MDTJ devoted to empty hand combat turns out to be, most likely, Long Fist chu'an fa.

Madis, Eric. 2003. 'The evolution of Taekwondo from Japanese Karate'. In Martial Arts in the Modern World, ed. by Thomas Green, Prager Publishing.

The title says it all. Covers some of the same ground as Burdick's 1997 paper, but focuses on the deliberate efforts of the ROK to fabricate a 'folk history' of TKD that would detach it completely from its Shotokan sources.

Pederson, Michael. 2002. 'Taek'kyon'. In Martial Arts of the World: an Encyclopædia, ed. by Thomas Green.

A worthy follow-up and updating of Young's and Capener's seminal papers, with much new material. Shows conclusively the lack of any connection between Shotokan-based TKD and this village competition game (used as a fighting method only by gangsters). Makes very clear the virtually complete lack of shared technical content between taekkyon and actual KMAs.

Master Carpenter obvious has an extensive knowledge of Korean history and culture (as is evident simply in his spelling of t'aegwondo and other Korean words).

Note also the interview with Gm. Kim Pyung Soo, noted in the post I provided a link to above, and S. Henry Cho's Korean Karate, one of the pioneer TKD textbooks, written in 1968, which debunks the whole taekkyon connection based on the firsthand knowledge of what was adopted from where, by one of the pioneering giants of TKD.

The upshot is that there is an enormous burden of proof on proponents of a Taekkyon influence on TKD—not least of which is the Taekkyon Research Institute's own denial of any teaching influence between TKy, based on the transmission lineages that they have been able to establish by painstaking study of records during the Occupation period. As I say, if you look through the archives at any length you like, you will not find a single fact-based challenge to this massive body of publically documented evidence, from LF or anyone else. When someone aserts that they can rebut a given claim, don't take their word for it. Demand the proof that they allude to. Much of the time it's sheer outright bluff. If they can't supply proof, or start mumbling about secret knowledge that they could share if they had permission to, or start speculating about monks hiding in the hills practicing deadly techs going back to Old Stone Age... pull the plug. They got nuthin'.

Reread LF's post, and compare the statement here—

This article is based on many false statemtents which are presented as, so called, "facts," and erroneous conclusions that obviously come from a superficial method of research, which relies on tainted opinions of other "expert" authors, and this authors obscured view of Korean culture, history, and the true nature of Taekwondo. This is a perfect example of an individual who cannot see the forest for the trees. A broader perspective, and more educated, enlightened, and non-biase influeced view might show this author the big picture that exists beyond the "evidence" of recent recorded history.​

with the actual content of Capener's paper. Capener cites the original sources which first mentioned taekkyon in the last decade of the 18th c., the book by
Song Duk-ki, who kept taekkyon alive through the Occupation era pretty much alone, the 1895 monograph on Korean games by Stuart Culin, the foremost descriptive anthropologist of sports, games and competitions in non-Western society in the 19th century (later Curator of the Brooklyn Museum, one of the outstanding centers of American ethnography during the Boasian era), and a number of other sources who were there at the time, all of these people being either highly trained contemporary observers, or the participants themselves. By contrast, in the preceding paragraph I've cited, not one fact is cited, not one piece of evidence is provided to justify characterizing anyone in particular as a 'tainted' source... nuthin', as I say. Pure bluff. Repeatedly challenged to back up this kind of clumsy attempt at something like 'intellectual character assassination', LF provided zip. The discussions are all on the record. You can judge for yourself what kind of credibility this sort of response to a serious, heavily documented historical analysis deserves.

 

[terryl965]

The fact is, Capener is based in Korea, is fluent and literate in Korean, and has actually read the original Korean documents bearing on the case, most importantly the writings of Song Duk Ki. Last Fearner neither spoke nor read Korean, which meant that he was in no position to challenge Capener's invocation of SDK or other Korean sources.

Exile here is some tidbits for you please take this with again of salt, I feel I am probably the highest ranking and longest person in the TKD forum so I am speaking from what I know. Capener article is based on facts and interpretation of those facts, he was not there and has done alot of research and I applaud his efforts but lets remember a a person perspective is not the same as actual facts. LF is not and was not a fan of most people here but one thing for sure he read and spoke Korean, not like a a true Korean but as most as a American.

Burdick's work continues the critical discussion of supposed evidence for early TKD, thoroughly demolishing all of the putative archaeological support for this posiition with almost contemptuous ease, and documenting the deep involvement of the founders of modern TKD in Japanese karate.

Again this is based on his interpretation of the facts that was given to him, me and you can sit down and read paperwork and come away with two different views. So who is here to say this is true or not.

The upshot is that there is an enormous burden of proof on proponents of a Taekkyon influence on TKD—not least of which is the Taekkyon Research Institute's own denial of any teaching influence between TKy, based on the transmission lineages that they have been able to establish by painstaking study of records during the Occupation period. As I say, if you look through the archives at any length you like, you will not find a single fact-based challenge to this massive body of publically documented evidence, from LF or anyone else. When someone asserts that they can rebut a given claim, don't take their word for it. Demand the proof that they allude to. Much of the time it's sheer outright bluff. If they can't supply proof, or start mumbling about secret knowledge that they could share if they had permission to, or start speculating about monks hiding in the hills practicing deadly techs going back to Old Stone Age... pull the plug. They got nuthin'.

The evidence I have is from old GM that tells story's from there GM's, is it true who knows is it false again who knows. I know when I am dead and gone my book will be publish and read by alot of folks some will say I was great will other will say I am a fraud. I will not care when I am gone to that big Dojaang in the sky I will finally find the truth. Truth is a tainted as love, one cannot have it without pain and misery. I have read over three thousand books from people claiming this or that and I still choose to believe my GM, he grow up in Korea came over in the sixty and has never ever lied to me, that I know of.

PLEASE CARRY ON. :asian:

 

[exile]

The fact is, Capener is based in Korea, is fluent and literate in Korean, and has actually read the original Korean documents bearing on the case, most importantly the writings of Song Duk Ki. Last Fearner neither spoke nor read Korean, which meant that he was in no position to challenge Capener's invocation of SDK or other Korean sources.

Exile here is some tidbits for you please take this with again of salt, I feel I am probably the highest ranking and longest person in the TKD forum so I am speaking from what I know. Capener article is based on facts and interpretation of those facts, he was not there and has done alot of research and I applaud his efforts but lets remember a a person perspective is not the same as actual facts. LF is not and was not a fan of most people here but one thing for sure he read and spoke Korean, not like a a true Korean but as most as a American.

Terry, it's always true that a historical picture is based on facts and interpretation. Every single book, article or essay on history is based on facts on interpretation: you look at the best evidence you can and you reason to a conclusion. In presenting your evidence, you cite your sources and you say why those sources are reliable, and you construct an argument that reasons to the strongest conclusion. That's how historical reasoning works. Now that's what Capener did. He cited his sources, which include the 'founder' of 20th century taekkyon's own memoirs; he cited the cold objective reportage of a descriptive ethnographer with no horse in any particular race, providing as full a range of facts as he could—this is an entire monograph devoted exclusively to Korean games that Culin wrote (though he noted that taekkyon was also played in Japan, where he had done research as well) and so on. And LF did not once challenge any of Capener's sources. He did not address a single one of his factual claims, he did not cast a single piecee of reasoned doubt on anything Capener said. There is no content to Eisenhart's remarks. What there is is a massively disrespectful series of insulting comments, ungrounded in facts or even plausible contemporary observations from the era in question. In any debate between the two judged by trained judges in formal debate, Capener's essay will win by a knockout over LF's response.

Burdick's work continues the critical discussion of supposed evidence for early TKD, thoroughly demolishing all of the putative archaeological support for this posiition with almost contemptuous ease, and documenting the deep involvement of the founders of modern TKD in Japanese karate.

Again this is based on his interpretation of the facts that was given to him, me and you can sit down and read paperwork and come away with two different views. So who is here to say this is true or not.

No. Burdick was able to show conclusively that the physical evidence for 'ancient TKD' actually consists of pan-Asian guardian figures and similarly non-martial iconography; he further documented the Muye Dobo Tong Ji as a translation of a Han general's text written twelve generations earlier, and he was able to show, on the basis of all surviving documentation, the source of the KMAs in that documentation as Chinese in origin, a conclusion which has continued to receive support as historical investigation continues. The question of what is true or not is actually the question of where the weight of the evidence lies. What you say about this particular issue is also true about our very best theories of physical science, the ones which allow us to predict what certain properties of electrons are to one part in a billion. Who is to say what is true or not there either? The nature of research is to approach the truth, as closely as possible, showing why a given set of conclusions enjoys greater compatiblity with all sources of reliable evidence than others. That's what the pursuit of the truth consists of, and in this case, Capener has done what a responsible investigator can be expected to do, and Eisenhart did nothing, not one thing, on behalf of that objective. He contented himself with applying derogatory adjectives to Capener and reminding us of his self-described authority and experience in TKD.

I think of it in terms of a bridge. If you had to drive over one of two bridges spanning a thousand foot deep chasm, one of them constructed with engineering that was at the same level of professional excellence as Capener's essay with respect to historical argument and interpretation, and one constructed with a degree of competence in engineering that was at the same level as LF's response, which bridge would you feel more secure driving over? Reread the article, reread that post from LF, and imagine yourself behind the wheel of your car, having to choose....

 

[terryl965]

I think of it in terms of a bridge. If you had to drive over one of two bridges spanning a thousand foot deep chasm, one of them constructed with engineering that was at the same level of professional excellence as Capener's essay with respect to historical argument and interpretation, and one constructed with a degree of competence in engineering that was at the same level as LF's response, which bridge would you feel more secure driving over? Reread the article, reread that post from LF, and imagine yourself behind the wheel of your car, having to choose....

Ok here goes one more time, I have never ever meet Capener and have read is article over the years so I do not need to reread what I have read, but thank you for asking me too. Secondly we are not talking about a bridge we are talking about points of views of history. LF has alot of problem and cannot communicate what he wanted to say so be it and he did not want to devolge his people, his rights. I know I have talk to alot of high ranking people that have ask me not to ever say they said certain things for the sake of pissing off higher up and people with alot of influence me I do not care, I would go ove rwhat ever bridge I found to be safer at that particular time. We just have to agree that we agree on some thing and dis-agree on others and remember me and LF was not friends.

 

[tellner]

Terry, you're not making any sense here.

The writers exile is talking about can tell you exactly what they believe and why they believe it. They have well-researched sources. They have multiple sources that support each other. The core evidence is there and can be verified.

You are saying "I do not want to believe this. So I will choose to believe what makes me feel happy and comfortable. My sources all have a vested interest in the outcome. They can not provide any sort of evidence, facts or documentation. But since no Angel with a Flaming Sword has come down and branded the Answer on our butts any opinion is as good as any other opinion."

If your standard is "I believe what I want to believe because it makes me feel good about myself" you are perfectly welcome to do so. That is what most people do most of the time. But if you are interested in truth (small "t") it is a very poor way to go about things. It puts the ego and self-gratification at the pedestal of human endeavor and allows anyone with a slick line of BS to drive people like sheep.

Dogs don't have twelve legs. If someone says "My Master says that dogs have twelve legs, so dogs must have twelve legs," you would probably say he's insane or dangerously credulous. That is the standards which you are applying here.

 

[IcemanSK]

I do not have a dog in the fight over the importance of Carpener's article. But I also did not bring it up to fuel a "bash LF session," either. I think ideas can be discussed without bashing a person who holds ideas that we disagree with.

As I said eariler, I think Carpener's hypothesis is interesting. "Koreans wanted to move away from the Japanese forms of doing things & therefore invented a sport." In other words, because A,B, & C: we now have X, Y, & Z. Perhaps Carpener's hypothesis is correct: but perhaps his hypothesis is not correct & it's because of other factors that we have x, y, & z, today.

My GM has mentioned that when he trained Korea in the early 60's, it was "blood & guts" training. He came back to the States & taught TKD to Americans. He realized quickly that he could not teach TKD to American civilians the same way that he was taught. The early days of TKD & other MA in the US were much more blood & guts as well. Perhaps the "kinder, gentler MA" was something that more Arts realized needed in order to grow the Arts. Perhaps it had less to do with nationalism & more to do with necessity to grow the Art. Carpener's thought would suggest that the change to sport would have happened eariler than the mid 80's if that were the intentional plan to "Koreanize" the Art completely.

 

[terryl965]

Terry, you're not making any sense here.

The writers exile is talking about can tell you exactly what they believe and why they believe it. They have well-researched sources. They have multiple sources that support each other. The core evidence is there and can be verified.

You are saying "I do not want to believe this. So I will choose to believe what makes me feel happy and comfortable. My sources all have a vested interest in the outcome. They can not provide any sort of evidence, facts or documentation. But since no Angel with a Flaming Sword has come down and branded the Answer on our butts any opinion is as good as any other opinion."

If your standard is "I believe what I want to believe because it makes me feel good about myself" you are perfectly welcome to do so. That is what most people do most of the time. But if you are interested in truth (small "t") it is a very poor way to go about things. It puts the ego and self-gratification at the pedestal of human endeavor and allows anyone with a slick line of BS to drive people like sheep.

Dogs don't have twelve legs. If someone says "My Master says that dogs have twelve legs, so dogs must have twelve legs," you would probably say he's insane or dangerously credulous. That is the standards which you are applying here.

Well Tellner let me put it this way Exile knows me we have talk in person and knows how we feel. The article in question is still based on what other have said , since none of the author was there and are going by here say so will I. For every article about this type of history there are more on the other side of the fence, Please understand my ego is none and void at all times. But certain people around here have been doing TKD and researching to back up there claims, I on the other hand have lived and trained in Korea and have what my father who help train people during WW and the Korean war and GM's that knew him. Yes I will believe them, never once did I ever say they was wrong just said it is there opinion about and there intrepitation of said history.

Well since the only opinion that matter is what a few certain people want to believe then I will leave this so called thread and stop in so those that have the same train of thought can tell all other how stupid we are.

Have a wonderful day.

 

[terryl965]

I do not have a dog in the fight over the importance of Carpener's article. But I also did not bring it up to fuel a "bash LF session," either. I think ideas can be discussed without bashing a person who holds ideas that we disagree with.

As I said eariler, I think Carpener's hypothesis is interesting. "Koreans wanted to move away from the Japanese forms of doing things & therefore invented a sport." In other words, because A,B, & C: we now have X, Y, & Z. Perhaps Carpener's hypothesis is correct: but perhaps his hypothesis is not correct & it's because of other factors that we have x, y, & z, today.

My GM has mentioned that when he trained Korea in the early 60's, it was "blood & guts" training. He came back to the States & taught TKD to Americans. He realized quickly that he could not teach TKD to American civilians the same way that he was taught. The early days of TKD & other MA in the US were much more blood & guts as well. Perhaps the "kinder, gentler MA" was something that more Arts realized needed in order to grow the Arts. Perhaps it had less to do with nationalism & more to do with necessity to grow the Art. Carpener's thought would suggest that the change to sport would have happened eariler than the mid 80's if that were the intentional plan to "Koreanize" the Art completely.

Well said I have no dog in this fight either but why call other people who no longer is here out. They cannot defend themself and I know you GM and he is right you cannot train people like they did back in Korea.

 

[terryl965]

Oh yea I forgot one thing 47 years of training, let see 6 in Japan, 4 in Okinawa and 8 in Korea :erg: but then again I should all away because somebody does some research and dictrates that this is the Gospel truth. :rofl: That is right I am a fraud plan and simple

and I am also as dumb as hell, I will close down my school get rid of everything and buy five books because these are the fore front of TKD history. :rofl:

 

[exile]

I do not have a dog in the fight over the importance of Carpener's article. But I also did not bring it up to fuel a "bash LF session," either. I think ideas can be discussed without bashing a person who holds ideas that we disagree with.

Ice, I'm not bashing a person. I'm pointing out the content of what they themselves said; if correctly characterizing that content sounds like bashing, then the problem is with what they said, not with what I'm saying about them. My comments are based on the text of LF's note, as alluded to by MBuzzy. The fact is, the precise problem with that text is just that it does not devote any attention to the ideas—the evidence, in particular—but takes wild shots at Professor Capener personally, substituting innuendo for specific criticisms.

And this is a problem with the history of TKD as a discussion topic in general. Very often, what you have is one person offering evidence and argument, and someone else who disagrees with the first one's conclusions responding in an ad hominum fashion. If you want to look carefully at the where the debate actually stands, it's important to consciously subtract the mud thrown at the personalities in the discussion by any mud throwers who happen to be involved, and look at the residue. LF's post was largely mud-throwing, and in order to fairly evaluate the strength of Capener's position, it's essential that that mud and other mud be recognized for what it is, and scraped out of the discussion, so that just the factual content is left.

One of the points that I think needs to be emphasized is the degree of nationalist partisanship that has gotten attached to this issue. Look at what Gm. Kim mentions in that interview in Black Belt/MT Magazine that I mentioned:

In 1960, I would frequently visit the Korean Taesoo-Do Association office. During one visit, a kwan head instructor got very angry with me because I wrote some history about his organization that included a connection to karate through Japan. I knew he had a reputation of assaulting people when he was mad at them, instead of talking or arguing. He was a “hit first, ask questions later-type person.” Luckily, the Vietnam Taekwondo delegation was visiting the Taesoo-Do Association that day. So, the kwan head instructor had to calm down because of the witnesses. This is an example of the feeling many people held for the Japanese.​

There is still plenty of partisanship along these lines. One of the virtues of Capener's evidence is that it comes from people who had no axe to grind. Stuart Culin was simply practicing his craft as a descriptive ethnologist; he had no idea of the symbolic weight that taekkyon would acquire. Song Duk-ki's patriotism can hardly be questioned; when he says that there were only a handful of taekkyon players in Korea, at the time when the Kwan founders were getting their MA educations, it's hard to imagine him having any kind of political motive! In contrast, Gen. Choi mentions that it was Syngman Rhee, not himself, who described the MA that Nam Tae-hi demo'd in 1954 as taekkyon; Gen. Choi referred to what he was doing as tangsudo at that point. And Eric Madis shows how the ROK government deliberately constructed a revisionist narrative about ancient TKD as part of its pursuit of Olympic status for the newly branded 'Korean national martial art'. The nature of the whole discussion—the topic of which is the history of TKD, no?—is distorted by the nationalist/ideological context in which TKD, and Korean culture in general, is embedded, a point Madis makes very nicely in his paper, in talking about the symbolism of taekkyon, as vs. its historical role in the modern KMAs. For that very reason, it's crucial that the accounts of people with a vested interest in the outcome be taken with a very large grain of salt. One of the things which gives considerable credence to the nature of the arguments that Capener produces is that they do not depend on uncritical acceptance of the claims of people who have a stake in the outcome.

As I said eariler, I think Carpener's hypothesis is interesting. "Koreans wanted to move away from the Japanese forms of doing things & therefore invented a sport." In other words, because A,B, & C: we now have X, Y, & Z. Perhaps Carpener's hypothesis is correct: but perhaps his hypothesis is not correct & it's because of other factors that we have x, y, & z, today.

I actually have no sympathy, not one little bit, with Capener's views of what TKD should be. Capener has served as a technical consultant to the WTF in Korea, advising them on referee training; he's as WTF-minded as you can get; and his use of the locutions 'Koreans wanted...' is suspect here, because it neglects the degree of deliberate, conscious government intervention in the development of TKD in the particular direction it took, one which he, as a sport TKD coach, fully approves of and want to promote. He wants TKD to be a sport, not a combat art; and he wants us to accept that because he says, that's what the Koreans want. I see absolutely no reason to accept that argument. What I find impeccable is Capener's method of critically examining the history of TKD; but I see no support at all in his article for anyone who does TKD to follow the policy he advocates simply because it is, or may be, what the TKD directorate in Korea thinks is the right way to go. I want to be clear on that: there are two distinct parts to Capener's essay, and once he starts trying to reason from what happened to what should happen, I part company with him 180º.

My GM has mentioned that when he trained Korea in the early 60's, it was "blood & guts" training. He came back to the States & taught TKD to Americans. He realized quickly that he could not teach TKD to American civilians the same way that he was taught. The early days of TKD & other MA in the US were much more blood & guts as well. Perhaps the "kinder, gentler MA" was something that more Arts realized needed in order to grow the Arts. Perhaps it had less to do with nationalism & more to do with necessity to grow the Art. Carpener's thought would suggest that the change to sport would have happened eariler than the mid 80's if that were the intentional plan to "Koreanize" the Art completely.

'Grow the art?' Why would taking the martial combat teeth of a fighting system grow it? Sorry, but the term 'grow' in this case is nothing other than code for what the user thinks the art should be like. I'd like to 'grow the art' by revising the TKD curriculum around the bunkai/boon hae in the hyungs, and train the practical, street-effective moves that can be distilled from these using reality-based formats that conceivably could get you hurt, but which would prepare you for real conflicts by training the techniques latent in the forms. That to me is growing the art. What Capener is suggesting, so far as I can see, is defanging TKD completely and turing it into a kind of point-scoring Korean wushu set in an arena. If he wants to do that with his TKD, fine, but neither I nor anyone else is under any moral pressure to accept his own preferences, or that of the TKD apparat, as to how we practice our art.

But here, you see, Capener is not giving evidence and reasoning of a sort appropriate for identifying what happened in history. He's trying to persuade us of how we should view TKD's future development, a very different thing. And in this area, so far as I can see, he has no compelling evidence to offer at all.

 

[tkd1964]

Everyone can take an article and interpret it a different way. Also, history may be viewed in different ways also. Take the qoute below from Taekkyon history. As Exile said, Song Duk Ki said that Taekkyon was practiced only in the Southern part of Korea, yet this article states different.





In an account in Joseon Sang Go Sa, Shin Chae-ho confirmed that taekkyon, once famed throughout the Goryo dynasty, nearly died out during the Yi dynasty. In Joseon Mu Sa Yeong Ung Jeon, An Ja-san also intimated that taekkyon was waning. In spite of these pressures, the art did not succumb. Park wrote that taekkyon, facing Neo-Confucianism's effect on the government and military, was able to survive only because of its popularity among the general public. A large number of practitioners spread across the peninsula ensured the art's survival, if only in remote locations. In his writings about the later Yi dynasty, Shin noted that archery and taekkyon contests were still held in some locations to test the skill and strength of soldiers.

Although Song Duk Ki was the outspoken proponent and practitioner at the time does not mean he was the only one.

Mike

 

[FieldDiscipline]

Although Song Duk Ki was the outspoken proponent and practitioner at the time does not mean he was the only one.

Here I agree.

 

[exile]

Everyone can take an article and interpret it a different way. Also, history may be viewed in different ways also. Take the qoute below from Taekkyon history. As Exile said, Song Duk Ki said that Taekkyon was practiced only in the Southern part of Korea, yet this article states different.

In an account in Joseon Sang Go Sa, Shin Chae-ho confirmed that taekkyon, once famed throughout the Goryo dynasty, nearly died out during the Yi dynasty. In Joseon Mu Sa Yeong Ung Jeon, An Ja-san also intimated that taekkyon was waning. ​

Mike, how could it have been 'famed throughout the Goryo dynasty?' The first evidence we have for its existence is a mention in the Book of Treasures in 1790! This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about: we have this confident assertion about something which we have no evidence of any kind for. The putative history of TKD is full of these kinds of statements. But the case you bring up is a very nice bit of evidence on behalf of my general point: Shin Chae-ho's credibility—he being one of the first militant nationalists of modern Korean 'history' —is just a bit shakey, even if we didn't know anything about his ethnoracial historical doctrines : he claims that taekkyon was the combat art of the Hwarang, in spite of the fact that what little evidence we possess strongly suggests that these young Confucian aristocrats got their education in classical Chinese bodies of knowledge. Give that so far as anyone can tell, taekkyon only appears at the beginning of the 19th century, what would Hwarang youths have been doing learning it, when the oldest contemporary references we have to unarmed Korean fighting arts specify subak, from the Chinese shoubo 'boxing'??? This guy was born 100 years after the first mention of taekkyon, in 1880, and spent almost all of his life under the Occupation, and given that we only have two—yes, only two—sources on the specific content of taekkyon before the twentieth century, both written in the 19th century, with the earliest reference to it barely 100 years before them, and this guy is talking about taekkyon in the 7th–10th century... he's supposed to have historical credibility??? When there is not one, single, solitary document describing what the Hwarang actually did in the way of empty-hand combat?? Sorry, but I wouldn't trust this guy with what day of the week it was, let alone who was doing taekkyon when.

And let's note in passing—because it is crucial to the logic of the argument—that Shin Hae-cho's 'affirmation', with not one single documentary citation or plausible basis in first-hand knowledge, wasn't that of a disciplined historian, or ethnographer, or even of a MA practitioner or an adept in the folk kicking game of taekkyon—because he wasn't any of these—but rather an avowed ethnic nationalist with an anti-Japanese agenda. Consider the discussion here, which gets at the crucial content of SHC's putative 'history':

Think back on Korean history; it is fraught with fighting kingdoms, battling "nations." They inherently thought of themselves as different from one another to fight with each other, and whatever identity one had was surely defined as different from that of the others. And yes, Korean "culture" has links to them all. But historical links do not a national identity make. Ask Shin Chae Ho or any other nationalist who has helped construct a national history – you need to actively build a national identity through myths and heroes, stories and fables. There must be central organizing concepts chosen to organize the others – the notion of minjok [= 'racial brotherhood' (exile)] so close to Shin's heart was not naturally understood to be "real" before the 1900's – the construction of the modern notion of minjok and the nation is Shin's legacy. ​

SHC appropriated 19th and 20th century Western ethnonationalist constructs on behalf of his own patriotic advocacy. Stuart Culin and Song-Duk Ki were speaking in as apolitical a way as we can imagine, comparatively speaking. I'm supposed to believe anything Shin says that has the effect of rejecting the documented overwhelming influence of first Chinese, then Japanese MAs on Korea? On the basis of this overt ideologue's racial nationalist agenda?? No names, no schools, no places cited? Why would anyone accept what Shin had to say without the most stringent examination of the specifics of his claim and his evidence, his citations, the names he provided... and did he give any? So far as I can see, Shin was about as credible as the WTF, or their puppet organization USAT (faithfully mimicking the South Korean government's aspirations to erase the detailed documented history of TKD's origins as per here). He was nothing more than a stalking horse for the deliberate revisionist reconstruction of Korean MA history initiated by the ROK government, begining with Syngman Rhee and nicely charted in Eric Madis' paper in my previous post on well-founded historical sources.

In spite of these pressures, the art did not succumb. Park wrote that taekkyon, facing Neo-Confucianism's effect on the government and military, was able to survive only because of its popularity among the general public. A large number of practitioners spread across the peninsula ensured the art's survival, if only in remote locations. In his writings about the later Yi dynasty, Shin noted that archery and taekkyon contests were still held in some locations to test the skill and strength of soldiers.

As I say, strictly on their own, Shin's comments have exactly the weight they merit as the express views of a racial nationalist telling edifying stories on behalf of his agenda. No one denies that taekkyon persisted at the village competitive level in some places. The point is, it was not regarded as a combat system except the way it was used by criminals, a point SDK makes, and every bit of evidence we have on its technical content indicates a radically different set of assumptions from TKD about what the antagonists are doing to each other, particularly with their legs. And there is not a single well-supported link between these village competitive festivals and the technical evolution of TKD.

Although Song Duk Ki was the outspoken proponent and practitioner at the time does not mean he was the only one.

There were, by the time the Occupation was in its last decade, only a handful of Taekkyon practitioners that the Taekkyon Research Foundation can identify. As Capener points out, this at a time when there were hundreds of TKD schools in Korea.

The point is, taekkyon's relationship to TKD is, on the face of the evidence from both sides—the Taekkyon people's side as well as the TKD side—marginal at best. If we want to identify the source of TKD's elaborate leg techniques—which is all I've ever heard even the most ardent Taekkyon-influencing-TKD advocate claiming—why not look at the far more probable linkage that Twin Fist mentioned in another thread: the contribution of Hapkido in the 1960s, where some of those Hapkido techniques may well have been influenced by the spectacular, complex kicks—much more like the TKD approach—of the Northern external CMA styles, such as Long Fist chu'an fa? The fact is, there is solid, hard evidence of the training in Japanese systems on the part of the TKD founders; the evidence that any of them were exposed to taekkyon is tenuous, with the Taekkyon people remaining highly skeptical about it, in spite of the fact that if they were able to establish a claim that their sport had significant impact on TKD, Korea's 'national sport', it would only enhance their glory and likely increase their still relatively very small numbers. Myself, I think that appeals invoking an unapologetic racial nationalist's undocumented references to 'large numbers' of unknown taekkyonists 'scattered across the peninsula' are a fine example of grasping at straws.​