Why did Hwang Kee resist General Choi's attempt to unify the kwans?

[Makalakumu]

This question is always something that I've wondered but I have only been able to find conflicting sources in regards to it. Why did Hwang Kee resist General Choi's attempt to unify the kwans? I've read that during this period, he faced threats, intimidation, his house was vandalized, people tried to steal his danbon lists, students of his were attacked, etc. If this was the environment of the times, there must have been a good reason to face all of that...

 

[terryl965]

And do you really expect to get a clear answer here?

 

[exile]

This question is always something that I've wondered but I have only been able to find conflicting sources in regards to it. Why did Hwang Kee resist General Choi's attempt to unify the kwans? I've read that during this period, he faced threats, intimidation, his house was vandalized, people tried to steal his danbon lists, students of his were attacked, etc. If this was the environment of the times, there must have been a good reason to face all of that...

And do you really expect to get a clear answer here?

Well, miracles do happen sometimes!

I've also wondered that. HK's house wasn't just vandalized; it was set fire to and partially burned down.

I've always assumed that it was something about HK's personality—some kind of almost perverse stubbornness, a refusal to cave in to institutional bullying and abuse of power. Somehow, it strikes me as a very Korean thing—who else in Asia stood up to the Mongols and beat them? Or offered such ongoing, continuous armed opposition to the Japanese, thrashing them soundly in at least one spectacular naval battle? He has always seemed to me to embody what I've thought of a cultural value amongst Koreans—resistance to the imposition of authority by force—that lies under the surface of deference and politeness. Probably other things were involved as well; but that's where I've always thought the driving energy for his behavior must have come from, giving some thrust to the edge of his belief that this was not a good thing for Korean martial arts. He may have thought that a homogenized KMA was the wrong way to go, prefering instead a kind of do-your-own-thing approach similar to what he may have learned about Chinese systems, where, relatively speaking, wonderful anarchy reigned...

 

[terryl965]

Well, miracles do happen sometimes!

I've also wondered that. HK's house wasn't just vandalized; it was set fire to and partially burned down.

I've always assumed that it was something about HK's personality—some kind of almost perverse stubbornness, a refusal to cave in to institutional bullying and abuse of power. Somehow, it strikes me as a very Korean thing—who else in Asia stood up to the Mongols and beat them? Or offered such ongoing, continuous armed opposition to the Japanese, thrashing them soundly in at least one spectacular naval battle? He has always seemed to me to embody what I've thought of a cultural value amongst Koreans—resistance to the imposition of authority by force—that lies under the surface of deference and politeness. Probably other things were involved as well; but that's where I've always thought the driving energy for his behavior must have come from, giving some thrust to the edge of his belief that this was not a good thing for Korean martial arts. He may have thought that a homogenized KMA was the wrong way to go, prefering instead a kind of do-your-own-thing approach similar to what he may have learned about Chinese systems, where, relatively speaking, wonderful anarchy reigned...

This is about what I have heard as well

 

[Master K]

You should read the book, "The History of the Moo Duk Kwan" by Hwang Kee if you haven't already. It has the MDK party line in there.

 

[exile]

You should read the book, "The History of the Moo Duk Kwan" by Hwang Kee if you haven't already. It has the MDK party line in there.

Right, but the problem is, that book was published in 1995, thirty years after the fact, and there was plenty of time for post hoc rationalizing and getting one's story straight with... well, the current party line, as you say. The question UpN was asking, I think, is, what was really going through HK's mind at the time, when it wasn't at all clear how events were going to unfold. And the trick here is that so many of the participants at the time were either Choi-supporters or future KKW adherents, both of whom could be predicted to attribute the worst motives to HK.

So who has authority, and a lot of firsthand knowledge, and doesn't fit into that camp? I can think of one genuine TKD leader/pioneer who you could expect to get a straight story from: Gm. Kim Pyung-soo, who fell into neither of those camps, and who you'd expect to have a more objective view of what was going on. It would be very, very interesting to get his take on UpN's question...

 

[tkd1964]

The funny thing is that in 1959, he was selected as secretary general of the KTA before it's short demise.

 

[Makalakumu]

The funny thing is that in 1959, he was selected as secretary general of the KTA before it's short demise.

I've read that before and I've always been a little taken aback. There was something more going on then what we've always been told.

 

[Master K]

Honestly, I don't think you will be able to get to the truth, since it was so long ago. Most people have adopted the party line based on their background and what was taught to them. You may be able to go a little deeper if you have some great relationships with the korean martial arts pioneers at the time. And the info you receive may still be filtered.

For instance, my instructor will tell me things that he wouldn't tell my juniors. At the same time my instructor will tell me seniors things that he wouldn't share with me.

Best of luck to you!

 

[terryl965]

Honestly, I don't think you will be able to get to the truth, since it was so long ago. Most people have adopted the party line based on their background and what was taught to them. You may be able to go a little deeper if you have some great relationships with the korean martial arts pioneers at the time. And the info you receive may still be filtered.

For instance, my instructor will tell me things that he wouldn't tell my juniors. At the same time my instructor will tell me seniors things that he wouldn't share with me.

Best of luck to you!

This is so true, over thirty years and still I have heard five six seven variation to storys so which one is truth and which ones are fabricated?

 

[dancingalone]

I imagine ego was at least part of the answer. Hwang was a kwan founder after all. General Choi, although from a different school than the Moo Duk Kwan, was certainly much more junior than Hwang Kee.

 

[exile]

I imagine ego was at least part of the answer. Hwang was a kwan founder after all. General Choi, although from a different school than the Moo Duk Kwan, was certainly much more junior than Hwang Kee.

True, but there must be more to the story. Nam Tae-hi and Byung Jik Ro were also more senior than Choi in the KMAs, yet both of them threw in their lot with the unification effort; in fact, BJR actually jettisoned the Shotokan curriculum of the Song Moo Kwan in favor of the Ch'ang Hon set, and there are still some SMK lineages which teach the current ITF curriculum! Even though other lineages reinstated the Shotokan-based forms, the fact that it happened at all is pretty good evidence that it wasn't the General's relative juniority in the KMAs, compared with some of the other leaders, which was the sticking point. The thing is, HK was the only one who held out. I think all the Kwan founders probably had pretty healthy senses of self-esteem... so why did they accept the unification under the TKD brand, and why did HK not??. One feels there's something else there—some specific personal antagonism between HK and Gen. Choi, maybe, or something else of that kind?

I agree, we're unlikely to find out at this point (though I bet Gm. Kim Byung-soo could enlighten us a good deal about this, as I say)... but the question is one you can't help pondering, just looking at the early history of TKD/TSD...

 

[dancingalone]

so why did they accept the unification under the TKD brand, and why did HK not??. One feels there's something else there—some specific personal antagonism between HK and Gen. Choi, maybe, or something else of that kind?

From a martial point of view, Hwang Kee's vision was quite different from that of Choi's or Byung Jik Ro's. Both were Shotokan-trained guys if I recall correctly. Hwang Kee always slanted a bit more towards the kung fu/ chuan fa side. He briefly taught an art he call hwa soo do, which I understand was Korean chuan fa, but it failed commercially and he had to close his school. Later, he taught "tang soo do" which owed more than a little to the Japanese technique General Choi and Byung Jik Ro favored.

I doubt this clash of 'styles' was the main reason Hwang Kee eventually resigned from the KTA and left for America, but it's something to throw out there.

 

[exile]

From a martial point of view, Hwang Kee's vision was quite different from that of Choi's or Byung Jik Ro's. Both were Shotokan-trained guys if I recall correctly.

Yes, they both studied in Funakoshi's dojo.

Hwang Kee always slanted a bit more towards the kung fu/ chuan fa side. He briefly taught an art he call hwa soo do, which I understand was Korean chuan fa, but it failed commercially and he had to close his school.

That's my impression too. For a long time—up to his last writings, in 1995, in fact—he maintained that he'd learned the Pinan katas, which became the Pyung-Ahns in TSD, from CMAists in Manchuria!?! :erg:

Later, he taught "tang soo do" which owed more than a little to the Japanese technique General Choi and Byung Jik Ro favored.

I doubt this clash of 'styles' was the main reason Hwang Kee eventually resigned from the KTA and left for America, but it's something to throw out there.

Interesting idea, da. The notion that he didn't want the Korean national MA to reflect techniques associated with the hated occupier? It's true that the Ch'ang Hon set contains a lot of material from Shotokan (there was a very good 1988 Black Belt article probing the CH sets and giving some very clear examples); if so, HK might have rejected the unified form of this emergent KMA for that reason (the irony is, of course, that TSDers seem much less uptight about the JMA origins of their art than a lot of TKDers).

Or, maybe it was an æsthetic thing? He just preferred the look of the chuan fa based styles?

Or, ...

...???

 

[FieldDiscipline]

Interesting excerpts from "A Modern History of Taekwondo" by KANG Won Sik and LEE Kyong Myong.

Regarding the Korea Kong Soo Do Assoc:

However, less than one month after the founding of the new Association, Moo Duk Kwan President HWANG Kee withdrew from the Association because he was not given a position on the Central Testing Committee. After one month following HWANG Kee's withdrawal, Chung Do Kwan President SON Duk Sung withdrew for the same reason. Therefore, the attempt for the complete unification of all the Kwans was another failure. After HWANG Kee returned to Seoul, he personally organized the Korea Tang Soo Do Association and was eager to join the Korea Amateur Sports association. After YOON Kwe Byung and RO Byung Jick realized the seriousness of the situation, they submitted a petition to stop the Korea Tang Soo Do Association from joining the Korea Amateur Sports Association. This impediment was successful.

Thats not going to have pleased him any... This was also the beginning of the end of the organisation.

The 1959 Korea Taekwondo Association seems to have failed due to Hwang Kee's unhappiness at the name TKD. It seems a bit unfair to blame it all on him though! I quote:

Black figures (complainers) later spoke ill of the 1959 Korea Taekwondo Association. Some said, "With the Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan's power, CHOI Hong Hi fulfilled his aspiration for his own personal Association."

The relationship between HWANG Kee and CHOI Hong Hi was bad.
HWANG Kee objected to CHOI Hong Hi being the president of the Korea Taesoodo Association because he said the art and organization would not develop with CHOI Hong Hi in charge.

This was after Hwang had messed about with Declaration of Unification, so is quite understandable from Choi. With Choi's relative inexperience compared to the other Kwan Jang's, it is quite easy to jump to a conclusion why Hwang Kee disliked Choi. It would be interesting to know how long their dislike had gone on.

Hwang Kee and Yoon Kwe Byung's letter of resignation from the later Korea Tae Soo Do Assoc:

Resignation Letter

For the following reason, we resign from the Moo Duk Kwan and Jidokwan:
1. The doctrines and operational systems are totally wrong in the way of martial arts ideology.

August 29, 1962
Moo Duk Kwan Jang HWANG Kee
Jido Kwan Jang YOON Kwe Byung

 

[terryl965]

Interesting excerpts from "A Modern History of Taekwondo" by KANG Won Sik and LEE Kyong Myong.

Regarding the Korea Kong Soo Do Assoc:



Thats not going to have pleased him any... This was also the beginning of the end of the organisation.

The 1959 Korea Taekwondo Association seems to have failed due to Hwang Kee's unhappiness at the name TKD. It seems a bit unfair to blame it all on him though! I quote:





This was after Hwang had messed about with Declaration of Unification, so is quite understandable from Choi. With Choi's relative inexperience compared to the other Kwan Jang's, it is quite easy to jump to a conclusion why Hwang Kee disliked Choi. It would be interesting to know how long their dislike had gone on.

Hwang Kee and Yoon Kwe Byung's letter of resignation from the later Korea Tae Soo Do Assoc:

Very interesting, will need to simmer over it before posting.

 

[exile]

Very useful material, FD... boy, never underestimate the power of bad blood to throw a spanner into big institutional works. Elements of envy and jealousy might come into play here... and is it possible that HK suspected that the other Kwan Jangs had some kind of invisible private club going that he wasn't a member of, based on their common experience as expatriates in the Japanese martial arts world of the 1930s? Like an English executive finding out that all the other big shots in the head office of the company are old Oxonians, except for him or her?

Probably we'll never know, but one could easily imagine HK suspecting the 'old boys' of getting together to support each other and marginalize him because of some 'in the trenches together' mindset based on their shared studenthoods in Japan two decades plus earier...

 

[tkd1964]

True, but there must be more to the story. Nam Tae-hi and Byung Jik Ro were also more senior than Choi in the KMAs,
...

I'm sorry, Exile, but where do you get that GM Nam has more seniority then Gen. Choi? Or are you speaking of training in one of the Kwans?

 

[exile]

I'm sorry, Exile, but where do you get that GM Nam has more seniority then Gen. Choi? Or are you speaking of training in one of the Kwans?

That's what I was referring to, including his role in military training, both before and after the Korean War. That I believe is also the reason why it was THN, not Gen. Choi himself, who did the famous 1954 demo for Syngman Rhee.

 

[YoungMan]

From what I've read, Hwang Ki refused to join Gen. Choi's call for Kwan unification for several reasons:

1. He didn't want Tang Soo Do to become a government subsidized school, the way he saw the others becoming.
2. He was tired of being disrespected and ordered around by Gen. Choi. I don't think he saw Choi as a real martial arts instructor, more of a military leader, and it rankled him to think he should have to follow whatever Choi said.
3. The fact that his rank and those of his students would not be recognized if he didn't follow Choi and join the unification efforts didn't help either.
4. I think he saw his Tang Soo Do or Soo Bak Do as the natural extension of traditional Korean martial arts, and as such he shouldn't have to join the others.