I certainly do not want to take Master Stoker's thread too far off topic with an in-depth, and everlasting debate on the origins of Taekwondo, or Korean Martial Art in general. However, there is some significance to the conversation as to why there seems to be little evolution of Taekwondo, and my answer is based partially on the fact that many people have limited understanding, and strongly held misconceptions about what Taekwondo is, and where it came from.
These misconceptions are mostly based in limited research (if any) which often boils down to internet regurgitation of the same quotes from people with their own limited points of view, or biased personal agendas. Many Korean Grandmasters who are quoted about the history, speak from their own perspectives, and seldom take into account a larger, more connected path of events, and a philosophy that departs from the context of the written word, and people's opinions about who did what, when, and why.
This passage makes it sound as if General Choi's training was the only source of the martial art that was packaged as TKD in the mid-fifites.
Not to be argumentative with you, exile, because I do respect your opinions, but the passage you quoted does not imply that General Choi was the only source at that time. In fact, quite the opposite! I do acknowledge, and often emphasize, that there where many who contributed to the modern day emergence of the Kwans, what was taught in each of those Kwans, and how it all came together to be labeled as Taekwondo.
However, the most important point that I was making, which goes in line with the original topic of this thread, is that many people who study Taekwondo (in one form or another) these days, tends to place a heavy focus on the events following WWII, the instructors involved in the Kwans at that time, and their recorded background in Japanese Martial Art.
Since the majority (if not every single one) of those Kwan founders, were born after the occupation began (or became a student of the Martial Art during the occupation) then it is obvious that there is going to be a Japanese Martial Art history there. With that notion, there would be no such thing as Korean Martial Art, no matter what name you chose.
My focus is on the fact that Koreans had methods of unarmed combat dating back to the first century B.C., which combined with their cultural identity, spiritual beliefs, moral conduct, and defense of their nation, made it their own indigenous art - regardless of what origins it came from thousands of years B.C., or what influences occurred throughout the later centuries. Virtually ALL combat, armies, weaponry, and unarmed fighting, in all countries were influenced to some degree by others. It is futile to argue against that fact, and frivolous to claim that any of these Asian countries don't have their own unique Martial Art.
These people, like in your quote, who call General Choi the "father of Taekwondo" are fostering the notion that he "invented" or "created" the skills contained in the art. A few decades ago, some called him the "father of
modern Taekwondo." Others have removed the word
modern, which was intended to denote his contributions post WWII. At best, he reorganized, and repackaged what was already in existence, and
also called what he did in his Oh Do Kwan, "Taekwon-Do." Many of the other Kwans agreed to use the same term, but the word "Taekwondo," today, should be understood as representing a long chain of events that stem back to the three kingdoms period.
This why, I believe, we see so little evolution of Taekwondo on the surface. Because so many students of "modern Taekwon-do" think of it as a modern creation, developing since WWII, and based mostly in Karate. They rob this Native Korean Art of its historical identity because of the more documented recent events, and personal, eye-witness testimony of those who have only been alive for less than one-hundred years.
Behind the scenes, those who are deep into Taekwondo, have no problem with the evolution. It is those who are stuck in this modern definition, feeling like Taekwondo is not even a true Korean art, or believing the hype of others that it is a sport (that is the WTF's job - and part of the promotion by the Korean Government). The real art is self defense (as promoted by the Kukkiwon) and is from ancient Korean fighting arts.
I've heard references to the supposed influence of indigenous fighting systems like taekyon. But I have never seen any good documentation of what the content of taekyon is or was---there are articles on the history of TKD which maintain that it was a kind of competitive game rather than a full martial art, while others deny that. But what did it consist of? Do we actually have any substantive information of how it worked? I'm not asking this rhetorically; maybe information on that does exist, but I've never seen it.
What did General Choi say about his training in "taekyon" as a youth in Korea. Did he describe it as a sport, or a game? Did he later claim that he combined his Taekyon kicking with his Japanese hand skills to create Taekwondo. Well, he was not the first to put hand and foot together, but the taekyon was, indeed, Martial Art training.
Quotes from General Choi's book,
Taekwon-do The Art of Self-Defence (1965):
"T'ae-Kyon, the ancient name of Taekwon-Do, was as old as the history of the Hwarang-Do. There was a primitive activity known as T'ae-Kyon in the Silla Dynasty about 1,300 years ago."
"His father sent him to study calligraphy under a well-known teacher Mr. Han Il-Dong." "Mr. Han, a great calligrapher, was also a veteran of the ancient T'ae-Kyon." "Thus it came about that in 1936 the author took up T'ae-Kyon, which was consisting solely of foot maneuvers."
Taekyon was ancient. Subak was also ancient. The Hwarang used the ancient skills in military combat training. People of those days (1st through 6th century A.D.) probably did not worry or argue about the origin of their skills. They did not hesitate to evolve their training and make it into what they needed for exercise, moral and spiritual cultivation, self defense, and survival.
Today, Taekwondoists need to connect to those roots, and make Taekwondo their own. Learn the ancient skills, and why they were taught, then apply that knowledge to modern day circumstances. I think many people are afraid to evolve in that they might be accused of not teaching Taekwondo anymore. Keep the core, and adapt its application to every new situation - - that is what Taekwondo is.
Again, you're providing arguments for why Korea wants to monitor the content of its high profile MA `brand'. And I don't disagree at all!
No, what I was referring to was Korea's "pride" in their National Art, and wanting to set some minimum standards for Black Belt and instructor certification, yet I clearly stated that the neither the government, nor the Kukkiwon, nor the WTF attempts to control what is taught in the classroom (and I have trained and taught in Korea). All an instructor is expected to do is prepare their students to be eligible to promote to each Dan level with the minimum basic requirements. Any instructor worth their weight goes way beyond that with their full curriculum.
But the question Terry asked is not about why, but about what---specifically, what has gone wrong (as he sees it, and I agree, there's something definitely wrong).
Actually, Master Stoker's original question was "why."
Why have we not seen more evolution in the Korean Arts over the last 10 years
My answer was, we have in remote places, but in the forefront of public attention, all they see is the sports, flashy demonstrations, and hear the limited perspective that Taekwondo came from Japanese Karate. That's what's gone wrong, and why people hesitate to take the helm into a new direction in future generations.
I don't see why we need to `preserve the foundations of Korean history'---surely that's a job for the Koreans, no?
Actually, you misquoted me, and misunderstood my meaning. I did not say to preserve the foundations "of" Korean history; I said to preserve the foundations "from" Korean history. The difference being that I am not talking about a history lesson, but finding the core knowledge, and foundations of the Korean Martial Art that existed in history, and preserving the intrinsic nature of the original art. Then, moving forward into modern times, we can evolve the art as needed, without fear of losing the identity of this unique system, the scientific principles and philosophies upon which it was built, yet keeping it effective, fresh, and current for all times.
This is a serious topic, for serious discussion among Taekwondoists, and I thank Master Stoker for posing the question, and exile and others for respectfully discussing, and even debating the valid points.
CM D.J. Eisenhart
_____________________
Last Fearner
