The uses of (your MA's) history?

[exile]

The 19th century philosopher Hegel is famous for, among other things, his somewhat bitter comment that `the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history'. I've been wondering for a while if that's true, at least with respect to martial artists and their arts. So my question is, has your understanding of the history of your art—the well-documented record of its past; more on this shortly—given you any essential insights into the living practice of that art, and in particular, your practice of that art? Has it enhanced or shed a light on its technical content that has guided your development, to some extent at least, in pursuing whatever MAs you've studied? And if so, how has it done do?

When I say `history', I'm talking specifically about a narrative of your art's development that's well supported by the same lines of evidence that historians bring to bear in their investigation of any other kind of history. I'm definitely not talking about wishful fantasy-mongering of the kind that the MAs are rife with, and which really knowledgeable professional MA historians have dissected pitilessly (for a good example of how it's really done, take a look at the discussion of the legend of Bodhidharma bringing MAs from India to the Shaolin Temple at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhidharma,_Shaolin_Kung_fu,_and_the_disputed_India_connection, or at Manuel Adrogué's precise, relentless and lethal demolition of the supposed role of the Moye Dobo Tong Ji in supporting an `ancient' lineage for modern KMAs in the 2003 volume of the Journal of Asian Martial Arts, 12(4).8–33). What I'm curious about is whether the sound, well-defended history of your art—to the extent that such a history has been recovered and made available—has influenced your approach to that art as a living combat system—and what thoughts you might have in general about the actual or potential uses of history in pursuing mastery of present-day combat systems.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Let me start by saying that Hegel isn't my fav philosopher. Second, there are things that can be learned form the histroy. Look at Napoleon and hitler's invasion of Russa. Lesson learned, and ignored.
Next Cuong Nhu doesn't really have much of a history to speak of. Founded 1965 by O'Sensei Ngo Dong at the University of Saigon, South Vietnam. Based on (mostly) Tai Chi, Wing Chun, Western Boxing, Judo, Aikido, Shotokan, And Viet Vo Do Vovinam. He didn't really make any revelations to speak of, expect to realise what should have been the obvious.
1. Every one moves differnitly, therefore no two people will ever do the same martial art. So, every one is allowed to make the art his/hers own. Which has one major effect. Cuong Nhu is an ever changing, ever adpating art. Which keeps the style from satgnating.
2. All arts are connected. Within a Karate form are Judo throws, and Aikido takedowns. Within Judo techniques are Wing Chun techniques. To sum it up (in a half jokeing manner), applicaiton is your Martial-God.

So, the only real revelations were what should be obvious. Nextly, I have gained valuable insights, but not form Cuong Nhu, I have gained them from the styles that make it up (mostly Wing Chun). There is a book about O'Sensei/Cuong Nhu in the works. As soon as it is printed, I'm sure it will give me greater insights. There is little material out there for me to refenrce. The only real sources out there are the training maneuls (which mention the history a little), Wikipedia (which has less the maneuls), and the styles homepage (has some more, but not enough to gain alot of insight).
So, yes and no. My love of Kata and applications can be traced to O'Sensei, but not much outside that. My insights will surely grow as soon as the book in the works is printed.

 

[Balrog]

The 19th century philosopher Hegel is famous for, among other things, his somewhat bitter comment that `the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history'.

As opposed to Santayana, who said 'Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it'.

When I say `history', I'm talking specifically about a narrative of your art's development that's well supported by the same lines of evidence that historians bring to bear in their investigation of any other kind of history.

Now that I agree with. The history that we study should be as accurate as possible; not revisionist and not fantasy as you pointed out. Yes, it would be nice to believe that Korean jumping kicks were designed to knock riders off horses. That sounds really cool, but it just ain't so. Instead, there is documentation of martial arts training styles and techniques from the earlier Korean dynasties, and there is the contemporary of history of Korea and the Japanese occupation, etc. One should read those for a better understanding of how the modern martial art of Taekwondo evolved into being.

Good post, Exile.

 

[bydand]

For me personally the history is kind of a tie from past to present, in that aspect it does help me in training because you get that sense of solidness of the system. I mean after all would it really be around for decades/centuries if it didn't work for what it was intended?

Another helpful thing for me dealing with the history is it gives me some insight of WHY we move a certain way. It is much easier for me to understand why a move is done this way if you realize it was being done with armor of some sort either on you or your enemy. If you can visualize the restrictions imposed by either clothing, armor, or weapons of the day it makes it more relevant. Without the history of the early system and culture together it makes for a kind of flat art, the history fleshes it out, gives it a past life and the hope of a future life IMHO.

 

[Monadnock]

I think the history of your art is good to know so you understand why it was developed and just exactly what it was developed for. This may help those who wich to use it in modern day applications, if the art has not eveolved so on its own already.

I also think the legends passed down over time are part of that art's heritage, whether they be 100% factual or not, and may hold some insight into the art's philosophy.

So both may have an influence on your training.

 

[Steel Tiger]

History, especially TMAs, is important to the understanding of the art. It is through the historical context that a full understanding can be reached. In the first instance there is the origin of techniques, then through successive practitioners there is modification and reinterpretation, addition and subtraction, and even deletion. Ultimately, what is practiced now is not what was developed in the past, and it may be that some things are incomprehensible without reference to that past.

In my own art we have what is called a Liu style linear bagua form. Traditionally these have 64 elements, ours has 30 pairs, or 60, why? Well I don't know, but for some reason two pairs were dropped or never developed. Why don't I know? The Cultural Revolution in short. All we know is that the our style of bagua is from Sichaun, probably from Emei, very likely a small temple or monastery called Xuan which is gone now.

Thus, from my perspective, the history of my art only goes back to the mid seventies when my teacher's teacher came to Austalia. It is a point of great sorrow for me that I cannot know the depth of my particular style of bagua. I learn and supplement, but it is not the same as being able to say, "The founder of my art was ..." I envy those of you who can and encourage you to investigate and come to know your art's history as it can only benefit you in the end.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Steel Tiger, is it also possible that your Sifu never learned them? Sadly, things like that happen.

 

[Steel Tiger]

Steel Tiger, is it also possible that your Sifu never learned them? Sadly, things like that happen.

No. He told me he asked his teacher about them and was told that they were removed or considered unnecessary for some reason. Chan Lao Shi (my teacher's teacher) never elaborated on it. I got the feeling that there was something he did not wish to discuss associated with it.

 

[Xue Sheng]

As opposed to Santayana, who said 'Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it'.

Sure I take the time to read exile's post only to find my line has been used.

What Balrog said.

 

[jkn75]

Everything that has been said here is certainly true. It's nice to know how arts were developed and what they were developed for. It's also nice to know who trained with who, when, under what circumstances, etc.

However, as a student of Korean Martial arts, KMA practitioners tend to get very caught up in history. I study Kuk Sool. I did not establish the art yet I am called on to admit that the Grandmaster trained with this guy, stole this from this guy, establish where the Grandmaster was on Tuesday, and for me, that's not what I got into martial arts for nor is it my job to defend the art. Does the history add to the study? Sure, but I'm not going to stop studying KSW because the history is unclear. I have good instructors, I enjoy the art, and I like the syllabus and that's what keeps me going.

I am at the point now where I don't get involved in history discussions anymore. I want to train. If the history is clearer does it make the training better. No, those are just words. History doesn't help you defend yourself, increase your health, or calm your mind.

 

[exile]

Everything that has been said here is certainly true. It's nice to know how arts were developed and what they were developed for. It's also nice to know who trained with who, when, under what circumstances, etc.

However, as a student of Korean Martial arts, KMA practitioners tend to get very caught up in history. I study Kuk Sool. I did not establish the art yet I am called on to admit that the Grandmaster trained with this guy, stole this from this guy, establish where the Grandmaster was on Tuesday, and for me, that's not what I got into martial arts for nor is it my job to defend the art. Does the history add to the study? Sure, but I'm not going to stop studying KSW because the history is unclear. I have good instructors, I enjoy the art, and I like the syllabus and that's what keeps me going.

I am at the point now where I don't get involved in history discussions anymore. I want to train. If the history is clearer does it make the training better. No, those are just words. History doesn't help you defend yourself, increase your health, or calm your mind.

This isn't the kind of history I actually had in mind, jkn.

Here's the kind of thing I was thinking of. We know, about as well as we can know anything, that Japan occupied Korea in notoriously brutal fashion after the terms of the Russo-Japanese War were worked out, and one of the first things they did was institute a series of security measures against the Koreans in order to suppress any resistance or chance of rebellion from the notoriously independent citizenry. That included suppression of any indigenous MAs (which, so far as we can tell based on what little documentation there is, was largely derivative from Chinese systems; see Stanley Henning's 2000 Journal of Asian Martial Arts article for detailed evidence on this point). For a number of years at the beginning of the occupation, Japanese MAs, particularly jiujitsu, had been taught in Japan, but in the 1920s even those arts were forcibly suppressed, and very thorough the Japanese were about it, too! So in the 1920s and 1930s, what little MA training was available in Korea was Japanese, and even that died out. The only route available to Koreans to study MAs was therefore to go to Japan itself and study, which was permitted. The young men who went to Japan to study were therefore virtually without any prior MA background (for a discussion of this point, see Dakin Burdick's 1997 JAMA article `People and Events of Taekwondo's Formative Years', or the somewhat different later paper under the same name at www.budosportcapelle.nl/gesch.html, for documentation and discussion). When these young men, now trained MAists, returned to Korea at the end of the 1930s, they were therefore trained almost exclusively in various Japanese versions of Okinawan karate. That is what the overwhelming message of the historical record shows.

So why is this historical background important to understanding the technical content of the art? Because it means that the technical content that the Kwan founders brought back from Japan is essentially the same technical content as Shotokan, Shudokan and, in the case of the system that Hwang Kee taught, very likely Japanese Goju-ryu (for some discussion of this point, see the exchange here). Which explains why it is that the early hyungs of TKD were identical to Japanse karate kata, and why it is that the subsequent replacement of those kata in the TKD syllabus by more `nativized' versions, which didn't look quite so obviously Japanese, was technically largely irrelevant—because all that happened was that various subsequences of the kata were rearranged, transposed, or `shuffled'; but the content of these later hyungs, the Palgwes, and even the Taegeuks, was indistinguishable in almost every respect to the Japanese kata that the Kwan founders had learned. Which means that the fighting methods encoded in the Japanese kata are still present in the hyungs, and that the methods for deciphering and decoding those applications are applicable in the same way to the hyungs that they are to kata.

What makes us think that such applications actually are present in the kata themselves? Again, knowing the history of karate, we know that Anko Itosu deliberately concealed the actual purpose of the moves of the kata he taught when he was packaging them for use in the Okinawan public schools. There is extensive discussion of this and related points in the thread that starts here); the crucial point is that the kaisai no genri—the general method of deciphering kata for hard, realistic combat applications, not the kind of children's-story bunkai that Itosu and his colleagues propagated as simple block-kick-punch apps—has become the object of intense research by a network of karateka, based mostly in the UK but with US and Australian `branches' as well, and there are now a number of detailed analyses of rules for recovering the fighting content of kata, which KMAists like Simon O'Neil and Stuart Anslow have applied to TKD very convincingly in a number of publications. The message of history here then is that

(i) KMA striking arts as fighting systems (not point-scoring dueling competitions) are virtually entirely based in their technical content on Japanese karate;

(ii) Japanese karate kata yield brutally effective street-ready combat systems when studied from the point of view of the 19th c. Okinawan karate founders whose kata subcomponents show up almost completely unaltered in TKD and TSD forms;

(iii) therefore, the methods and conclusions of the analysts who have exhibited, and `field-tested' under realistic conditions, the combat applications of the subcomponents of Japanese kata are directly applicable to TKD hyungs, which are for the most part nothing but rearrangements of these same Japanese kata subcomponents. This means that the techs you can learn from TKD hyungs to terminate a violent street attack are going to be substantially identical to those recoverable from TKD hyungs, using the same rules of decoding and interpretation.

So you can understand I hope that I have to disagree pretty much completely with your statement that

If the history is clearer does it make the training better[?] No, those are just words. History doesn't help you defend yourself...​

I think that the preceding makes it clear that knowing the history of TKD, where it came, can give you a very different perspective on the actual practice and combat effectiveness of the art. And I think this is going to be true in general—just as knowing how Okinawan karate came about historically gives one a much better picture of the depth of its technical content in terms of non-striking moves (locks, pins, sweeps, takedowns and various other components missing from much modern thinking about what kind of an art karate is). This is what I was getting at when I suggested in my OP that there is a significant link between the history of an art and its technical content and application...

 

[Xue Sheng]

The 19th century philosopher Hegel is famous for, among other things, his somewhat bitter comment that `the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history'. I've been wondering for a while if that's true, at least with respect to martial artists and their arts. So my question is, has your understanding of the history of your art—the well-documented record of its past; more on this shortly—given you any essential insights into the living practice of that art, and in particular, your practice of that art? Has it enhanced or shed a light on its technical content that has guided your development, to some extent at least, in pursuing whatever MAs you've studied? And if so, how has it done do?

When I say `history', I'm talking specifically about a narrative of your art's development that's well supported by the same lines of evidence that historians bring to bear in their investigation of any other kind of history. I'm definitely not talking about wishful fantasy-mongering of the kind that the MAs are rife with, and which really knowledgeable professional MA historians have dissected pitilessly (for a good example of how it's really done, take a look at the discussion of the legend of Bodhidharma bringing MAs from India to the Shaolin Temple at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhidharma,_Shaolin_Kung_fu,_and_the_disputed_India_connection, or at Manuel Adrogué's precise, relentless and lethal demolition of the supposed role of the Moye Dobo Tong Ji in supporting an `ancient' lineage for modern KMAs in the 2003 volume of the Journal of Asian Martial Arts, 12(4).8–33). What I'm curious about is whether the sound, well-defended history of your art—to the extent that such a history has been recovered and made available—has influenced your approach to that art as a living combat system—and what thoughts you might have in general about the actual or potential uses of history in pursuing mastery of present-day combat systems.

Other than as the Monty Python Philosopher’s song suggests, Hume could out drink Hegel I don’t think much about Hegel actually. AND DON’T BE DISSEN BODHIDHARMA!!! :uhyeah:

The 2 TCMA styles I train are both subject to some discussion, confusion and out-right arguing as to their origin. Taijiquan has it origin in the legend of Zhang San Feng (Chang San-Feng) while Xingyiquan is attributed to General Yueh Fei, but then a lot of things are attributed to Yueh Fei in CMA, he was a famous highly honorable and successful general and if you can associate your art with him your art becomes thought of as highly honorable and effective. That aside, it is possible that a Taoist named Zhang San Feng (Chang San-Feng) did develop something (similar to the 13 postures) that was later combined with something else (taijiqigong) that later got combined with whatever the Chen family was doing at the time (paoqui) and there you go…taijiquan. Or as the Chen family states Zhang San Feng (Chang San-Feng) is a myth and they developed it all by themselves (frankly I doubt that claim too). Xingyiquan is more likely from a guy named Ji Jike or at least he is the first documented.

But to the topic, the history, or at least the documented history of most CMA styles tend to be very important to that style, if for no other reason the Chinese Confucian way of thinking about family and government. But it is also in some cases a record of what worked and what didn’t. And many of those that came before ACTUALLY had to use this stuff to survive so it had to work. But admittedly in the case of CMA you have to separate fact from exaggeration from time to time.

However the history of any art I train is important to me, from that I can learn many things about the philosophy behind it (which in CMA terms can lead to applications) and you can on occasion get a glimpse of what and how it was developed which can, at times save you a whole lot of trial and error. Also the written history of the training used is incredibly helpful at times. But the history I am talking about is fairly recent and from books by masters such as Yang Chengfu, Tung Ying Chieh, Jing Yunting, Sun Lutang, etc. But some is old I recently found out something about the 13 postures through the study of Taoist books (Dragon-Tiger Classic) that although not earth shattering it did clear up a big issue I was having with the application and training of the 13 postures.

And as stated before, I fully believe as was quoted by Balrog

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. - George Santayana

And I got enough to do with training all this stuff without having to redo some of the things that were done before that did not work

 

[Rich Parsons]

The 19th century philosopher Hegel is famous for, among other things, his somewhat bitter comment that `the only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history'. I've been wondering for a while if that's true, at least with respect to martial artists and their arts. So my question is, has your understanding of the history of your art—the well-documented record of its past; more on this shortly—given you any essential insights into the living practice of that art, and in particular, your practice of that art? Has it enhanced or shed a light on its technical content that has guided your development, to some extent at least, in pursuing whatever MAs you've studied? And if so, how has it done do?

When I say `history', I'm talking specifically about a narrative of your art's development that's well supported by the same lines of evidence that historians bring to bear in their investigation of any other kind of history. I'm definitely not talking about wishful fantasy-mongering of the kind that the MAs are rife with, and which really knowledgeable professional MA historians have dissected pitilessly (for a good example of how it's really done, take a look at the discussion of the legend of Bodhidharma bringing MAs from India to the Shaolin Temple at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhidharma,_Shaolin_Kung_fu,_and_the_disputed_India_connection, or at Manuel Adrogué's precise, relentless and lethal demolition of the supposed role of the Moye Dobo Tong Ji in supporting an `ancient' lineage for modern KMAs in the 2003 volume of the Journal of Asian Martial Arts, 12(4).8–33). What I'm curious about is whether the sound, well-defended history of your art—to the extent that such a history has been recovered and made available—has influenced your approach to that art as a living combat system—and what thoughts you might have in general about the actual or potential uses of history in pursuing mastery of present-day combat systems.

A few comments before my opinion:

If one does not study history then one is destined to repeat it. (* I am not sure where this quote comes from. *)

There is nothing to fear but bear it self - is a great motivation quote in its' content, but I fear ignorance and lack of knowledge.

The FMA's are great for having oral histories which leads to lots of differences. In the systems I study their history is relatively short. Either meeting the founder or their first generation students. Even though these men learned from others and there is history there as well which one can research via story. The internet is great as more and more people are putting down in writing their version of the story. I have always approached this with a point of via that "HIS"-story cane be looked at with "Other"-stories for interesections and for areas of non intersection. When it seems that all but one of a family of stories gives a pretty good intersection on many points. And some of those that only have one or two points of intersection with no obvious or known points of disagreement of forced non intersection, these as well all look to be good points to be referenced. Those that cannot be backed up or have no points of intersection or so few points and they are minor points such as being of the right age, then these "Stories" are in question.

Now that I have said the above, I tihnk history is a good point to know where you came from. To understand why one group (* as time goes by and groups grow further apart for what ever reason *) is different than some of the others. It does not mean they are right or wrong only different and that should be understood.

 

[Balrog]

A few comments before my opinion:

If one does not study history then one is destined to repeat it. (* I am not sure where this quote comes from. *)

Santayana. Look up at the third message in this thread.

There is nothing to fear but bear it self - is a great motivation quote in its' content, but I fear ignorance and lack of knowledge.

Me, too, but I'm also scared to death of bears.





:uhyeah:

 

[Rich Parsons]

Santayana. Look up at the third message in this thread.

Well DUH! I guess I should read the full thread before replying.

Me, too, but I'm also scared to death of bears.

I like bears and other predators. I respect them for what they can do.

 

[exile]

I hope this won't be seen as off-topic—it isn't, as will emerge—but I always thought that that quote of Santayana's about how those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat is—is typical glib Santayana, all epigramatic flash and cleverness, but all-too-frequently thin substance. Ask yourself just how many members of Charlemagne's court studied history. The vast majority were illiterate (including Charlemagne himself, for much of his life), and there were barely any records of the past during the Dark Ages in any case. So exactly what stretch of history did Charlemagne and his inheritors, who couldn't help ignoring the past (because (i) there was almost no documentation for it and (ii) if there had been, they wouldn't have been in a position to read it), actually repeat? The history of the Dark Ages has few parallels to anything else in Western History, so what got repeated, exactly??

In fact, I have to say that Santayana, if not exactly a charlatan in terms of this quote, was being ridiculously inconsistent with his own philosophy. He had an evolutionist perspective; he believed that institutions reflect adaptations to the environment. That was what his major philosophical writing urges. And so how does it come about that someone who believes that history is the record of cultural evolution (in essentially the biologist's sense of adaptation under selective pressure) formulates an aphorism which seems to claim that people can consciously choose how their history is going to turn out? From his own point of view, I'd have to say that the statement being quoted here makes as much sense as saying that `an animal that ignores its own evolutionary past is condemned to repeat it'. Maybe that comparison makes the absurdity of Santayana's observation more obvious.

So why is this not off topic? Because the history of the MAs is another excellent refutation of Santayana's homily. Most people in the KMAs, for example, do ignore their arts' past, but rather than repeating it, they actually have come up with something very, very different from what the KMAs were either in their literal Korean karate form (early Kwan era) or their later militarized (Korean/Vietnam War) version, meant unequivocally for literal killing of enemies when no other means was available. The decision to turn their back on TKD's brutally effective combat history, and to actively deny TKD's Okinawan/Japanese parentage—and to instead promote it (with an eye strictly to future national glory) as an international, ultimately Olympic sport, has led to the curious current state of affairs in which the world's most widely practiced MA, if the advertisments are to be believed, is held in perhaps the lowest esteem by non-practitioners, particularly those who view MAs as, primarily, self-defense systems. I'd love to hear a convincing demonstration that Santayana's comment receives support from the history of the MAs, but I'm having a hard time picturing such an argument...

Hegel was plenty wrong about history as well (unless you agree with him that the Prussian state was the culmination of Western history, inevitably arrived at by the play of thesis and antithesis ) But what he was saying in the quotation from the OP was not that history has nothing to teach us, but rather that human beings tend to ignore history and draw no intelligent conclusions from it. My feeling is that he was wrong there too; certainly, in the MAs, the current `bunkai-jutsu' movement has been doing its history pretty carefully and learning some terrific things about the MAs that had been largely forgotten during the `sportification' phase of the past forty years or so. My query in the OP was based on my suspicion that the MT membership contains a disproportionately large number of people who do think about their art's past and what they can learn from it, in terms of present practice...

AND DON’T BE DISSEN BODHIDHARMA!!!

Diss Bodhidharma? Perish forbid! I save my diss for the people who made up unfounded stories about him. Anyone who in those days could even get from India to China in one piece deserves the utmost respect, whatever else he might (not) have done!

 

[Xue Sheng]

I hope this won't be seen as off-topic—it isn't, as will emerge—but I always thought that that quote of Santayana's about how those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat is—is typical glib Santayana, all epigramatic flash and cleverness, but all-too-frequently thin substance. Ask yourself just how many members of Charlemagne's court studied history. The vast majority were illiterate (including Charlemagne himself, for much of his life), and there were barely any records of the past during the Dark Ages in any case. So exactly what stretch of history did Charlemagne and his inheritors, who couldn't help ignoring the past (because (i) there was almost no documentation for it and (ii) if there had been, they wouldn't have been in a position to read it), actually repeat? The history of the Dark Ages has few parallels to anything else in Western History, so what got repeated, exactly??

In fact, I have to say that Santayana, if not exactly a charlatan in terms of this quote, was being ridiculously inconsistent with his own philosophy. He had an evolutionist perspective; he believed that institutions reflect adaptations to the environment. That was what his major philosophical writing urges. And so how does it come about that someone who believes that history is the record of cultural evolution (in essentially the biologist's sense of adaptation under selective pressure) formulates an aphorism which seems to claim that people can consciously choose how their history is going to turn out? From his own point of view, I'd have to say that the statement being quoted here makes as much sense as saying that `an animal that ignores its own evolutionary past is condemned to repeat it'. Maybe that comparison makes the absurdity of Santayana's observation more obvious.

So why is this not off topic? Because the history of the MAs is another excellent refutation of Santayana's homily. Most people in the KMAs, for example, do ignore their arts' past, but rather than repeating it, they actually have come up with something very, very different from what the KMAs were either in their literal Korean karate form (early Kwan era) or their later militarized (Korean/Vietnam War) version, meant unequivocally for literal killing of enemies when no other means was available. The decision to turn their back on TKD's brutally effective combat history, and to actively deny TKD's Okinawan/Japanese parentage—and to instead promote it (with an eye strictly to future national glory) as an international, ultimately Olympic sport, has led to the curious current state of affairs in which the world's most widely practiced MA, if the advertisments are to be believed, is held in perhaps the lowest esteem by non-practitioners, particularly those who view MAs as, primarily, self-defense systems. I'd love to hear a convincing demonstration that Santayana's comment receives support from the history of the MAs, but I'm having a hard time picturing such an argument...

Hegel was plenty wrong about history as well (unless you agree with him that the Prussian state was the culmination of Western history, inevitably arrived at by the play of thesis and antithesis ) But what he was saying in the quotation from the OP was not that history has nothing to teach us, but rather that human beings tend to ignore history and draw no intelligent conclusions from it. My feeling is that he was wrong there too; certainly, in the MAs, the current `bunkai-jutsu' movement has been doing its history pretty carefully and learning some terrific things about the MAs that had been largely forgotten during the `sportification' phase of the past forty years or so. My query in the OP was based on my suspicion that the MT membership contains a disproportionately large number of people who do think about their art's past and what they can learn from it, in terms of present practice...



Diss Bodhidharma? Perish forbid! I save my diss for the people who made up unfounded stories about him. Anyone who in those days could even get from India to China in one piece deserves the utmost respect, whatever else he might (not) have done!

OH MAN!!!! First Boddhidharma and now Prussia… QUIT Dissen Prussia… Frederick the Great is an ancestor of mine :uhyeah:

Speaking of off topic

As a note the Dark ages also had a little help from a short version of the Ice age that as far as I know the previous much longer ice age did not have an equivalent population to compare the Middle Ages to and there has been no ice age since and whether or not you know about the history of an Ice Ages certainly would not prevent one from repeating itself.

Back to topic

OK Santayana aside (although I still like the quote)…. I believe knowing the history of the art that you train is rather important and considerably more honest than denying it. Also know the history and you can sometimes find out who is really telling the truth about what they know or who they trained with. I have called a few on bogus lineages in my time; lineages that they were claiming to impress others and looking to capitalize on that were in fact bogus.

Knowing the history of Xingyiquan gives me insight into what came before and why it was done, and in some cases that gives me justification to say, you know this way might be better. And in other cases it shows me that the way that has been done in the past is better and it gives me the understanding to make those judgments.

Ignore or deny the history of a TCMA and what do you have? You still have a MA but no longer a TCMA so why train TCMA if you are not interested in the history of it, at least at the level of training the way it should be trained.

I would not expect anyone to rattle off names of CMA people like I do nor would I expect them to know lineages like I do but to not know the history of a TCMA or any MA for that matter at least form the perspective of how it was trained or should be trained or as to why it is now trained this way just leaves me with why are you training it at all?

 

[Rich Parsons]

I hope this won't be seen as off-topic—it isn't, as will emerge—but I always thought that that quote of Santayana's about how those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat is—is typical glib Santayana, all epigramatic flash and cleverness, but all-too-frequently thin substance. Ask yourself just how many members of Charlemagne's court studied history. The vast majority were illiterate (including Charlemagne himself, for much of his life), and there were barely any records of the past during the Dark Ages in any case. So exactly what stretch of history did Charlemagne and his inheritors, who couldn't help ignoring the past (because (i) there was almost no documentation for it and (ii) if there had been, they wouldn't have been in a position to read it), actually repeat? The history of the Dark Ages has few parallels to anything else in Western History, so what got repeated, exactly??

In fact, I have to say that Santayana, if not exactly a charlatan in terms of this quote, was being ridiculously inconsistent with his own philosophy. He had an evolutionist perspective; he believed that institutions reflect adaptations to the environment. That was what his major philosophical writing urges. And so how does it come about that someone who believes that history is the record of cultural evolution (in essentially the biologist's sense of adaptation under selective pressure) formulates an aphorism which seems to claim that people can consciously choose how their history is going to turn out? From his own point of view, I'd have to say that the statement being quoted here makes as much sense as saying that `an animal that ignores its own evolutionary past is condemned to repeat it'. Maybe that comparison makes the absurdity of Santayana's observation more obvious.

So why is this not off topic? Because the history of the MAs is another excellent refutation of Santayana's homily. Most people in the KMAs, for example, do ignore their arts' past, but rather than repeating it, they actually have come up with something very, very different from what the KMAs were either in their literal Korean karate form (early Kwan era) or their later militarized (Korean/Vietnam War) version, meant unequivocally for literal killing of enemies when no other means was available. The decision to turn their back on TKD's brutally effective combat history, and to actively deny TKD's Okinawan/Japanese parentage—and to instead promote it (with an eye strictly to future national glory) as an international, ultimately Olympic sport, has led to the curious current state of affairs in which the world's most widely practiced MA, if the advertisments are to be believed, is held in perhaps the lowest esteem by non-practitioners, particularly those who view MAs as, primarily, self-defense systems. I'd love to hear a convincing demonstration that Santayana's comment receives support from the history of the MAs, but I'm having a hard time picturing such an argument...

Hegel was plenty wrong about history as well (unless you agree with him that the Prussian state was the culmination of Western history, inevitably arrived at by the play of thesis and antithesis ) But what he was saying in the quotation from the OP was not that history has nothing to teach us, but rather that human beings tend to ignore history and draw no intelligent conclusions from it. My feeling is that he was wrong there too; certainly, in the MAs, the current `bunkai-jutsu' movement has been doing its history pretty carefully and learning some terrific things about the MAs that had been largely forgotten during the `sportification' phase of the past forty years or so. My query in the OP was based on my suspicion that the MT membership contains a disproportionately large number of people who do think about their art's past and what they can learn from it, in terms of present practice...



Diss Bodhidharma? Perish forbid! I save my diss for the people who made up unfounded stories about him. Anyone who in those days could even get from India to China in one piece deserves the utmost respect, whatever else he might (not) have done!

Exile,

Charlemagne is someone I enjoy learning about. I obviously am not an expert.

Charlemagne repeated the Roman history or trying to conquer western Europe. He sent his sons into England and Ireland and Scotland to quell the northern tribes and rebels. I also appealed to the Pope to recognize him as the Emperor. Long history discussion. In the end he split his Empire to his sons. Which some could say is just a relaization that Europe at the time could not be easily controlled en masse.

Now I am not an expert on Santayana. I only like his quote which like others is out of context. Society will repeat mistakes unless they are aware of those mistakes to try to avoid and address issues.


As to repeating martial arts history and history in general, I see the winner writing the story they want written. I see people spliting from others and going out and doing there own thing. Be it martial arts or be it a colony. Both could be looked at in how the leaders dealt with those they controlled or ruled. How the "people" felt about the leaders actions and then they sometimes violent actions taken to free themselves or to walk away.

Now, is there value in going out and investigating things yourself? Making something your own through ownership? I agree oh boy do I agree. Is there value in not being trapped by history and only thinking the world is flat? Yes there is value to look at the history and current beliefs and decide if you wish to agree or follow them.

 

[Steel Tiger]

Do you guys realise that what Santayana said is very similar to something that Confucius wrote (I paraphrase as I cannot remember exactly, and anyway its in classical Chinese),

To know the future one must understand the past.


Now, as to MA history.

Like Xue, the foundation of my art is a confused mixture of traditions and cultural references - 150 to 200 years ago Dong Hai Chuan appears and starts teaching bagua. He may have been taught by Daoist monks from Wu Dang, Emei, or Jiuhua. The essential concepts of the art may have been developed by the Yellow Emperor 3000 years ago. What do you do with a history like that? There is no doubt that it is fascinating but it is very confusing and thus difficult to extract those aspects that might point to important developments or modifications or concealments.

From my own perspective one of the most important developments in bagua were the creations of Liu Fengchun who invented the linear forms to supplement circle walking. However, because of the nature of bagua, this does not give me a direct link to Liu, but the concept is still relevant. And it is because of this relevance that I will continue to study my art's history looking for clues to unlock any little mysteries that are very likely to be present.