Disappearing History...

[Daniel Sullivan]

It's amazing to me how invested many Americans are in this story. I understand why it's culturally important for the Koreans, esp. since the Japanese colonization, but Americans?

Like it or not, Americans want the 4000 year old myth. We want to be connected to something that is greater than 232 years old. It is the same fascination that we have with the royal family in England. Even if modern monarchs are more figurehead than heads of state, we have an interest in them. We want to be connected with England's history because our own history as a sovereign nation only goes back a little over two hundred years.

Likewise, we want our MA to be this ancient tradition. Maybe we watched too many Kung Fu movies. Maybe we read too many comic books, but as a general rule, we have a mentality that a 4000 year old martial art is somehow superior to a fifty year old martial art.

Now, if taekwondo had been invented in the US, then we'd proudly proclaim that it is only about fifty years old. But because we didn't invent it, we don't see legitimacy in it if isn't packaged with some ancient tradition or currently used in some cutting edge military program, as told by the history chanel. That is the main reason for the interest in Krav Maga; Nothing against Krav Maga, but if it weren't used by the IDF against terrorists (that is the key; we're at war with terrorists), I doubt that the interest in the US would be as strong as it is.

And that is what it comes down to. Americans like the gimmick. And by gimmick, I mean sales gimmick. Krav Maga's gimmick is that it is used by the IDF and we aren't nearly as familiar with it as taekwondo. After all, you don't see mini mall Krav Maga grandmasters. BJJ's gimmick is that the Gracies beat a bunch of guys in the UFC with it. JKD schools' gimmick is Bruce Lee.

Taekwondo's current gimmick is the olympics, but since the olympics aren't a sure thing, given the lack of viewership, they need a non olympic gimmick. So enter the 4000 year old history, wherein taekwondo was handed to the Hwarang by the man on the silver mountain. And for that mini mall dojang king, he wants every gimmick he can get his hands on, as loss of any one can mean the loss of income.

Every art that I just mentioned is a good, solid MA that any serious practitioner can do well with, so don't take the work gimmick the wrong way; I certainly mean no disrespect to any aforementioned MA. I use it to describe what Americans collectively are drawn to. Americans like the gimmick and are willing to overlook an outright fraud if the gimmick is good enough. Americans also take the gimmick and use it as a sales pitch and become financially invested in it.

Couple that with the tendency that sometimes occurs in TMAs to take what your master says at face value and not quetion it. After all, when Daniel san questioned Mr. Myagi, we just knew that he should just do as Mr. Myagi asked him to and not question it, even though Myagi was having him paint his fence, wax his car, and sand his deck, things that had seemingly nothing to do with karate training. After all, Myagi was the master. The student should accept what his master says without question, right?

Personall, I'd rather the true history. It is much more interesting than the fabrication with the added bonus of being, well, true.

Daniel

 

[YoungMan]

To understand why there is little to no mention of the Kwan founders, or Gen Choi for that matter, on the Kukkiwon website, you must understand the Korean view of their martial arts. They see Korean martial arts as a continuous process throughout their history, whereas the Japanese see their arts as individual endeavors created by specific people over time.
You don't see the Kwans and their founders listed because the Koreans, in my opinion, do not consider it important as to who did what, but instead where the art is now and where it is going. To quote Yong Bok Lee, "one individual cannot take credit for the art as a whole."
And as we get further away from the era of the Kwans, this will become more the case.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I'd agree with you to a point on that, Youngman, but taekwondo doesn't really have a continuous process to connect it with Korea's past. It has strong roots in Shotokan Karate, with its Koreanization being performed largely after the fact.

The Koreans took something that was impressed upon them from outside, made it their own, and in doing so, created a whole new art. This is not the continuing process of an ancient KMA, but something new.

I cannot comment on your assessment of how Japan views its martial arts, as I don't have a strong background in JMA's.

Daniel

 

[YoungMan]

To the contrary, it may have been originally strongly connected to Shotokan in the past, but now bears little resemblance to it-to the point where it stands completely on its own. I've watched Shotokan videos on Youtube, and modern Taekwondo looks little to nothing like it or any other Japanese art. It doesn't matter what aspect you're talking about either. I've also seen clips of Taekwondo from 50 years ago, and there are similarities but many differences.
To me, modern Taekwondo can rightfully say it owes very little to Japanese arts. As such, the Kwan history plays an increasingly small part in current Taekwondo other than being a part of a particular moment in the history of Korean martial arts.

 

[MBuzzy]

To understand why there is little to no mention of the Kwan founders, or Gen Choi for that matter, on the Kukkiwon website, you must understand the Korean view of their martial arts. They see Korean martial arts as a continuous process throughout their history, whereas the Japanese see their arts as individual endeavors created by specific people over time.
You don't see the Kwans and their founders listed because the Koreans, in my opinion, do not consider it important as to who did what, but instead where the art is now and where it is going. To quote Yong Bok Lee, "one individual cannot take credit for the art as a whole."
And as we get further away from the era of the Kwans, this will become more the case.

That may be the case for TKD specifically, but isn't true of all Korean culture or the Korean view of all Martial Arts. The Koreans are interested in their heritage and history - in fact, I would venture to say that as a culture, they are just as interested, if not more than Americans. From the respect that they pay to their history, ancestors, culture, elders, and the "national treasures," their love of heritage is evident. In fact, in Tang Soo Do, almost any Dojang you go into will proudly display a photo of GM Hwang Kee and almost all Master trace their heritage to him. Their history just isn't as accurate as ours due to the way that histories are passed down.

Honestly, in this case, I would think that it is more a matter of trying to hide or de-emphasize something based on the organizational goals.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Like it or not, Americans want the 4000 year old myth. We want to be connected to something that is greater than 232 years old. It is the same fascination that we have with the royal family in England. Even if modern monarchs are more figurehead than heads of state, we have an interest in them. We want to be connected with England's history because our own history as a sovereign nation only goes back a little over two hundred years.

Let's just keep in mind that this is a rather sweeping generalization. I know plenty of Americans who think the notion put forth by the Kukkiwon is complete bunk and are completely happy with tracing their lineage back to the particular Kwan form which they come.

And that is what it comes down to. Americans like the gimmick. And by gimmick, I mean sales gimmick. Krav Maga's gimmick is that it is used by the IDF and we aren't nearly as familiar with it as taekwondo. After all, you don't see mini mall Krav Maga grandmasters. BJJ's gimmick is that the Gracies beat a bunch of guys in the UFC with it. JKD schools' gimmick is Bruce Lee.

Taekwondo's current gimmick is the olympics, but since the olympics aren't a sure thing, given the lack of viewership, they need a non olympic gimmick. So enter the 4000 year old history, wherein taekwondo was handed to the Hwarang by the man on the silver mountain. And for that mini mall dojang king, he wants every gimmick he can get his hands on, as loss of any one can mean the loss of income.

Your comments here may or may not be correct. If it was, however, and given your comments about KM then I'd argue that Taekwon-Do has at least as potentially effective "gimmick" as its supposed thousands of year long history: it was, in fact, developed in a modern military setting as a supplement to training with firearms. Taekwon-Do was used as a training tool for ROK soldiers during the Korean War (or, rather, the Tang Soo that would eventually become Taekwon-Do). Gen. Choi and his instructors in the Oh Do Kwan during the Korean War began developing the art during that would eventually lead the ROK army during the Viet Namese war being a feared enemy of the Viet Cong.

Rooted in tradition (karate via the various Kwans); modern (developed during the late 40s to early 50s); effective (used by Korean soldiers). Pretty good if you're interested in "marketing," I'd say.

Pax,

Chris

 

[MBuzzy]

To me, modern Taekwondo can rightfully say it owes very little to Japanese arts. As such, the Kwan history plays an increasingly small part in current Taekwondo other than being a part of a particular moment in the history of Korean martial arts.

Modern TKD may have evolved and moved past where it was 50 years ago, but I wouldn't say that it owes nothing to one of its major influences. If nothing else, just an acknowledgment that at one point in its history, the Japanese did have an influence. I just don't understand why the Koreans and so many people are SO adamant about DENYING any influence of other styles. It detracts nothing from the modern art to admit that things were learned from other styles at some point in history.

To this day in Korea, many of the older people HATE the Japanese with a passion. Not only those who were alive during the occupation, but those who have heard the story. It is really only the youngest generation that is willing to forgive the Japanese for some of the attrocities done to them and their families. But it is still a part of their history - they just choose to try to ignore it and hate the country that perpetrated it. I think that the Japanese occupation is much of the reason for trying to completely separate ANY Korean links to Japan, even when it is so overwhelmingly evident.

 

[exile]

To the contrary, it may have been originally strongly connected to Shotokan in the past, but now bears little resemblance to it-to the point where it stands completely on its own. I've watched Shotokan videos on Youtube, and modern Taekwondo looks little to nothing like it or any other Japanese art. It doesn't matter what aspect you're talking about either. I've also seen clips of Taekwondo from 50 years ago, and there are similarities but many differences.
To me, modern Taekwondo can rightfully say it owes very little to Japanese arts. As such, the Kwan history plays an increasingly small part in current Taekwondo other than being a part of a particular moment in the history of Korean martial arts.

Our TKD looks a lot like Shotokan. And a lot of other people's does as well, and for the best of reasons. Our TKD comes in a straight lineage from Byung Jik Ro, founder of one of the five original Kwans. Yours doesn't look like Shotokan? Fine.

Just don't confuse what you do with what everyone else, or anyone else does, or should do, and things will be just fine.

 

[chrispillertkd]

The Chinese took information from an Indian Buddhist monk and made it their own. The Okinawans took information from the Chinese and made it their own. The Japanese took information from the Okinawans and made it their own. My senior Glenn U. convincingly argues that the Koreans took information from the Okinawans (i.e. not Japanese) and made it their own.

Can you expound on the connection between the Okinawans and the Koreans that he argues for? I'd be very interested in hearing this as the main influence on the various Kwans was Shotokan (Chung Do Kwan, Oh Do Kwan) and Shudokan (Ji Do Kwan). There was some influence from Chinese Chuan Fa (Chang Moo Kwan), but this seems to have been a minor on Taelwon-Do in comparison to that from karate.

In any event, I'd be very interested in seeing the evidence for this claim as I enjoy doing a little armchair research on martial arts history in general and Taekwon-Do history in particular.

I don't see General Choi in the Kukkiwon's version of history. I also don't see Kwan founders GM Lee, Won Kuk, GM Chun, Sang Sup, GM Hwang Kee, GM Yoon, Byung In, GM Ro, Byung Jik, GM Park, Chull Hee, GM Lee, Kyo Yoon, or GM Lee, Yong Woo in the Kukkiwon's version of history.

The fact that the Kwan founders are left out of official accounts of Taekwon-Do history is shameful. Without them we wouldn't have Taekwon-Do.

I have General Choi's textbook. I don't see the aforementioned GMs in his book either.

They are mentioned in his autobiography.

Also, I will say that in his books Gen. Choi at least mentions the existence of the Chung Do Kwan (as well as his own Oh Do Kwan) and makes no bones what so ever about having received training in Shotokan. When I started hearing this 2,000 year old stuff my initial reaction was "What are you people talking about???" At least some people know the roots of Taekwon-Do (and we're fine with it, btw!).

Pax,

Chris

 

[Twin Fist]

Honestly, in this case, I would think that it is more a matter of trying to hide or de-emphasize something based on the organizational goals.

quoted for truth

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

To the contrary, it may have been originally strongly connected to Shotokan in the past, but now bears little resemblance to it-to the point where it stands completely on its own. I've watched Shotokan videos on Youtube, and modern Taekwondo looks little to nothing like it or any other Japanese art. It doesn't matter what aspect you're talking about either. I've also seen clips of Taekwondo from 50 years ago, and there are similarities but many differences.

To the contrary?? That's what I just said: It has strong roots in Shotokan Karate, with its Koreanization being performed largely after the fact. The Koreans took something that was impressed upon them from outside, made it their own, and in doing so, created a whole new art.

To me, modern Taekwondo can rightfully say it owes very little to Japanese arts.

That is a bit like saying that a man born in 1944 shouldn't put their father's name in their geneology because his dad left when he was young and he owes relatively little of who he is as 64 year old adult to him. While the man is a unique person, he still carries his father's dna and his early life will have been shaped by his father's relation to his mother and his father's early departure.

Point of fact, had shotokan been introduced to Korea the way that taekwondo had been instroduced to the US, taekwondo may never have been created. But because it was introduced via a brutal occupation, the Koreans were motivated to take it and change the most visible fascets (forms and sparring) as much as possible to make it not only not Japanese, but eventually, more Korean.

As such, the Kwan history plays an increasingly small part in current Taekwondo other than being a part of a particular moment in the history of Korean martial arts.

Yes, and it is history that is being discussed. And neither this, nor anything else that you have stated justifies the fabrication of a 4000 year old history.

Daniel

 

[Twin Fist]

So does mine. So does anyone's if they still use the Chong Han forms, you know, the ORIGINAL TKD forms, since they are Shotokan forms rearranged.

Our TKD looks a lot like Shotokan. And a lot of other people's does as well, and for the best of reason. Our TKD comes in a straight lineage from Byung Jik Ro, founder of one of the five original Kwans. Yours doesn't look like Shotokan? Fine.

Just don't confuse what you do with what everyone else, or anyone else does, or should do, and things will be just fine.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Let's just keep in mind that this is a rather sweeping generalization. I know plenty of Americans who think the notion put forth by the Kukkiwon is complete bunk and are completely happy with tracing their lineage back to the particular Kwan form which they come.

Of course its a sweeping generalization. I'm an American and I think that the notion put forth by the Kukkiwon is complete bunk. I'm talking about the general public, not those of us who have taken the time to dig into history. By and large, if its presented as having a 4000 year old history on television or the internet, then most people just accept it. Yes, there are exceptions, but if every school kept getting comments about the TKD history on their website being a fabrication, nobody would put it up.

Your comments here may or may not be correct. If it was, however, and given your comments about KM then I'd argue that Taekwon-Do has at least as potentially effective "gimmick" as its supposed thousands of year long history: it was, in fact, developed in a modern military setting as a supplement to training with firearms. Taekwon-Do was used as a training tool for ROK soldiers during the Korean War (or, rather, the Tang Soo that would eventually become Taekwon-Do). Gen. Choi and his instructors in the Oh Do Kwan during the Korean War began developing the art during that would eventually lead the ROK army during the Viet Namese war being a feared enemy of the Viet Cong.

Rooted in tradition (karate via the various Kwans); modern (developed during the late 40s to early 50s); effective (used by Korean soldiers). Pretty good if you're interested in "marketing," I'd say.

Pax,

Chris

I totally agree. But TKD's military background and martial application isn't the sales gimmick used to promote taekwondo in the USA, and it hasn't been for a very long time. Taekwondo is promoted via the use of the olympics and in order to lend it the legitimacy of long standing martial arts, a fabricated history was provided. And while I agree with your last sentence, such marketing isn't used by the KKW for nationalistic reasons.

I'm just disappointed that nobody caught my 'man on the silver mountain' reference.

Daniel

 

[CDKJudoka]

So does mine. So does anyone's if they still use the Chong Han forms, you know, the ORIGINAL TKD forms, since they are Shotokan forms rearranged.

Our looks a lot like Shotokan, as noted in my thread about CDK and KKW. If you didn't hear the Korean being spoken, you would think that it was SHotokan with more kicks.

 

[MBuzzy]

As such, the Kwan history plays an increasingly small part in current Taekwondo other than being a part of a particular moment in the history of Korean martial arts.

Yes, and it is history that is being discussed. And neither this, nor anything else that you have stated justifies the fabrication of a 4000 year old history.

Just to emphasize here....a particularly CRUCIAL part of their history at the exact right moment. Without the influence of other styles, most KMAs wouldn't exist....so I fail to see how this is such a small part of modern TKD. Just because it has evolved doesn't mean that it owes any less to its heritage.

 

[arnisador]

To the contrary, it may have been originally strongly connected to Shotokan in the past, but now bears little resemblance to it[...]I've watched Shotokan videos on Youtube, and modern Taekwondo looks little to nothing like it or any other Japanese art.

Perhaps this is true of your style--I believe you on this--but many TKD schools retain the stances, hand techniques, and forms of Japanese Karate. The kicks are different but on acen see the connections. Technically, they're more similar than many of the Okinawan Karate styles are to Shotokan. Isshin and Uechi, for example, are less similar to Shotokan in appearance than is the typical TKD style.

To me, modern Taekwondo can rightfully say it owes very little to Japanese arts.

I suppose that Japanese Karate has a sufficiently tangential similarity to the Southern Chinese styles that on could make a similar statement about them--there's an historical link, a lineage, but the influences are now hard to decipher in most techniques. But the TKD-Karate connection is more recent and more direct. Yes, TKD is its own style and stands on its own and those who made it what it is today have truly created something different; but as always they stood on the shoulders of those who came before.

 

[dancingalone]

Perhaps this is true of your style--I believe you on this--but many TKD schools retain the stances, hand techniques, and forms of Japanese Karate. The kicks are different but on acen see the connections. Technically, they're more similar than many of the Okinawan Karate styles are to Shotokan. Isshin and Uechi, for example, are less similar to Shotokan in appearance than is the typical TKD style.

I suppose that Japanese Karate has a sufficiently tangential similarity to the Southern Chinese styles that on could make a similar statement about them--there's an historical link, a lineage, but the influences are now hard to decipher in most techniques. But the TKD-Karate connection is more recent and more direct. Yes, TKD is its own style and stands on its own and those who made it what it is today have truly created something different; but as always they stood on the shoulders of those who came before.

True. I'm frankly amused by the attempts to excise karate out of the TKD family tree. I suppose it's like Al Pacino's family in Scent of a Woman wishing embarrassing Uncle Frank wasn't around....

And I don't care what type of taekwondo you practice, it's still bound to be a lot close to Shotokan karate than it will be some other art like tai chi chuan.

 

[Twin Fist]

I love that my TKD, the original TKD is so like Shotokan

that Olympic style crap they (the koreans)have turned it into is a disgrace to martial arts.

 

[arnisador]

Well, it's a successful sport, and that's fine...but they try to sell it as all things to all people, and it just ain't.

I've also seen strongly self-defense oriented TKD done. It's a different focus!

 

[YoungMan]

I love that my TKD, the original TKD is so like Shotokan

that Olympic style crap they (the koreans)have turned it into is a disgrace to martial arts.

So practice Shotokan. I've never trained for the Olympics a day in my life.