Why who what

[Jonathan Randall]

Well Exile, after looking at your profile I'm not really sure I want to comment on this because it will definitely come out as racist and there are way too many people with a lot more knowledge about this than I can ever have so maybe one of them, like the Chief Master can give you a more educated answer than I can. I only said what I said because I have seen it and been involved in it. I've tried to write my response 3 times now and it's still not coming out right. So!, any help out there?

I'll give it a try.

Exile, the mid-1960's to the the early-1970's was a very violent time in the KMA's - particularly in Korea itself. People were actually murdered over the future (and "history" and "ownership") of TKD, HKD, etc. Personal and organizational rivalries mixed with nationalist sentiments to creat a "perfect storm" of conflict. I think you could probably find out more, including specifics, by doing a search on this or other forums. However; those really "in the know" don't like to talk about it at all, in my experience.

Also, the progression of KTA to ITF to WTF, etc. as official organizations in Korea and abroad was not pretty either - although ITF/WTF rivalry did not approach the dissension within the KTA, Kwans and ITF as well as other KMA's.

Wade is right, it is a sore subject and easily misunderstood as "talking trash". Also, most Americans, unless they've studied pre-1975 KMA (or lived it as I think Wade may have) history would not believe the way it was at one time.

Now the other "dojo" wars in the U.S. of the 60's-early 80's are easier to find out about from simple searches. It was a bad and immature facet of the "Golden Age" of Karate in America.

 

[exile]

Well Exile, after looking at your profile I'm not really sure I want to comment on this because it will definitely come out as racist and there are way too many people with a lot more knowledge about this than I can ever have so maybe one of them, like the Chief Master can give you a more educated answer than I can. I only said what I said because I have seen it and been involved in it. I've tried to write my response 3 times now and it's still not coming out right. So!, any help out there?

I'll give it a try.

Exile, the mid-1960's to the the early-1970's was a very violent time in the KMA's - particularly in Korea itself. People were actually murdered over the future (and "history" and "ownership") of TKD, HKD, etc. Personal and organizational rivalries mixed with nationalist sentiments to creat a "perfect storm" of conflict. I think you could probably find out more, including specifics, by doing a search on this or other forums. However; those really "in the know" don't like to talk about it at all, in my experience.

Also, the progression of KTA to ITF to WTF, etc. as official organizations in Korea and abroad was not pretty either - although ITF/WTF rivalry did not approach the dissension within the KTA, Kwans and ITF as well as other KMA's.

Wade is right, it is a sore subject and easily misunderstood as "talking trash". Also, most Americans, unless they've studied pre-1975 KMA (or lived it as I think Wade may have) history would not believe the way it was at one time.

Now the other "dojo" wars in the U.S. of the 60's-early 80's are easier to find out about from simple searches. It was a bad and immature facet of the "Golden Age" of Karate in America.

Guys, I really do appreciate your efforts to give me a better picture of what was going on while avoiding the appearance of painting all Korean martial artists with a negative broad brush over the factional rivalries involved. I'd no idea things were as violent as that. What I'm trying to get is a picture of what the conditions were like in Korea which led to that level of conflict in the MAs, sometime I've never heard of in Japan, say, in the postwar era. I'm very interested in the particular history of TKD and the other KMA, because I think that the best interpretation TKD's technical content has to be informed by an understanding of what pushed it in the direction it's taken over the past forty years or so—especially the strange fact that many of the KMAs seem to be driven by national- or international-scale organizations imposing technical decisions top-down on practitioners in a way very much at odds with the more school-driven way things work in other MAs. I feel as though I'm missing something crucial here. What you're both telling me is that there were tremendous conflicts going on in Korea during crucial phases of the KMAs' development, conflicts which led to this kind of institutionally-controlled character in the Korean arts which differs so noticeably from the other Asian MA scenes. And I also gather, from what you're saying, is that things changed quite a bit after the mid-1970s... another historical mystery to me, at this ponnt.

I probably need to get a deeper picture of what the social history of Korea was more generally during that period. I have a rough, approximate picture but I need to go a lot deeper, clearly...

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Guys, I really do appreciate your efforts to give me a better picture of what was going on while avoiding the appearance of painting all Korean martial artists with a negative broad brush over the factional rivalries involved. I'd no idea things were as violent as that. What I'm trying to get is a picture of what the conditions were like in Korea which led to that level of conflict in the MAs, sometime I've never heard of in Japan, say, in the postwar era. I'm very interested in the particular history of TKD and the other KMA, because I think that the best interpretation TKD's technical content has to be informed by an understanding of what pushed it in the direction it's taken over the past forty years or so—especially the strange fact that many of the KMAs seem to be driven by national- or international-scale organizations imposing technical decisions top-down on practitioners in a way very much at odds with the more school-driven way things work in other MAs. I feel as though I'm missing something crucial here. What you're both telling me is that there were tremendous conflicts going on in Korea during crucial phases of the KMAs' development, conflicts which led to this kind of institutionally-controlled character in the Korean arts which differs so noticeably from the other Asian MA scenes. And I also gather, from what you're saying, is that things changed quite a bit after the mid-1970s... another historical mystery to me, at this ponnt.

I probably need to get a deeper picture of what the social history of Korea was more generally during that period. I have a rough, approximate picture but I need to go a lot deeper, clearly...

Exile,

I understand your situation and as someone concerned with history and culture, I would usually feel the same way.

However; in this case, I am tied between my duties as a moderator promoting discussion on the martial arts, and my personal feelings. Personal feelings? Leave it alone and move on. It was a sad, dysfunctional period that is better left behind. Please remember that the Koreas were brutally occupied by the Japanese 1905-1945, then underwent an extemely brutal civil war (what ones aren't?), followed by a separation of families by the North/South divide and punctuated by South Korea's involvement in the Vietnam War (on the ARVN side, of course). I don't know what to say. My first TKD instructor was an officer in the South Korean Army during the Korean War and my Tai Chi instructor's brother was an ITF 6th Dan as an officer in the ARVN during the Vietnam War. Neither had any interest in talking about this time period when nationalism, Communist worries, Kwan rivalries, etc. took on a life/death importance.

My advice; tread softly and respectfully here. There are a lot of still open and bleeding wounds. Better to research privately than to ask publicly. This is not a moderator's answer, but that of a student of folks who went to hell and back and survived to pass on their arts to us Americans.

 

[exile]

Exile,

I understand your situation and as someone concerned with history and culture, I would usually feel the same way.

However; in this case, I am tied between my duties as a moderator promoting discussion on the martial arts, and my personal feelings. Personal feelings? Leave it alone and move on. It was a sad, dysfunctional period that is better left behind. Please remember that the Koreas were brutally occupied by the Japanese 1905-1945, then underwent an extemely brutal civil war (what ones aren't?), followed by a separation of families by the North/South divide and punctuated by South Korea's involvement in the Vietnam War (on the ARVN side, of course). I don't know what to say. My first TKD instructor was an officer in the South Korean Army during the Korean War and my Tai Chi instructor's brother was an ITF 6th Dan as an officer in the ARVN during the Vietnam War. Neither had any interest in talking about this time period when nationalism, Communist worries, Kwan rivalries, etc. took on a life/death importance.

My advice; tread softly and respectfully here. There are a lot of still open and bleeding wounds. Better to research privately than to ask publicly. This is not a moderator's answer, but that of a student of folks who went to hell and back and survived to pass on their arts to us Americans.

Well said, Jonathan. At least that phase of things seems to be over. From Occupation to civil war to a military dictatorship all within twenty years... yes, it's probably hard to visualize if you weren't there or knew the people who were first hand...

Much thanks for your insights and forebearance.

 

[wade]

Exile, let me clear something up here too. When I said I didn't want to respond after looking at your profile, well, that was not meant to be disrespectful, I was talking about your level of education and your job.
As a result Jonathan gave a very good and clear answer on this. Thanks.

 

[tshadowchaser]

back in even the 80s, you'd have no way of knowing whether or not those certificates were legitimate

I was talking about the 60's and early 70's but I also see your point and respect your thoughts on the matter

Also, most Americans, unless they've studied pre-1975 KMA (or lived it as I think Wade may have) history would not believe the way it was at one time.

agreed. But it was not just the Koreans, these things happened at many open tournaments between those who disagreed. It was not a fun time but all at lest knew if the other person had any real ability.

 

[exile]

Exile, let me clear something up here too. When I said I didn't want to respond after looking at your profile, well, that was not meant to be disrespectful, I was talking about your level of education and your job.
As a result Jonathan gave a very good and clear answer on this. Thanks.

Hi Wade, I never thought it was anything but what you've just said, and it never crossed my mind to be offended! I often look up people's profiles because I want to know what MA background they're coming from—sometimes you can get a particular take on someone's ideas knowing just what they've studied, and for how long. I appreciated your answer, and the qualms you feel about going into certain of the details, and appreciate your forthrightness. The fact is, both your posts and Jonathan's really are very much to the point.

As you may have gathered from some of my other posts, what I'm really concerned about in the Korean MA scene is the extreme controlling role of the MA associations (we already know about TKD, but the Tang Soo Do/Soo Bahk Do thread shows some very interesting parallels to the evolution of TKD). I tend to believe that the content of the art is best served by individual experimentation and development at the level of the school, rather than imposition of top-down control from large-scale organizations making curriculum decisions because of their own agendas (which may have very little to do with effective fighting skills and training); I confess, I'm troubled by what looks like this latter kind of way of operating in the KMAs. My questions aren't intended to open up any old wounds or aim at morbid details of a very tough period in Korean history; they're really about this question of what led to the Korean model of MA curriculum and training, as vs. say the Japanese, Chinese or FMA models...

But in any case, I thought everything you wrote was perfectly in order. :asian:

 

[Last Fearner]

Master Stoker, you raise some good questions here, and I believe your observations are worthy of a closer look by everyone who considers himself/herself a Martial Artist. Especially instructors, because this tends to affect us professionally, and our reputation is often perceived as being brought down with these kinds of bad examples.

so why is it that alot of schools do not teach all the positive aspect of a Art and really focus more on how to bring pain to everybody.

I don't know what the percentages are, but my personal observation is that it is a growing problem. Like some here, I agree that many of the problems of the past were intensified, and have tapered off, and many were not as noticeable because it was more common place to act that way - - very good points. However, the other side of the coin is true that the simple growth factor of more schools, the more increased numbers of good and bad, thus we see an awful lot of bad ones.

In fact, it is my opinion that it is becoming more common that Joe Blow is impressed with the Martial Arts, and he knows that others will be impressed with him if he "owns his own school," thus he opens "Joe Blows Dojo." Only problem is, Joe Blow is not the kind of person to put in the hard work it takes to become a legitimate Black Belt, or a qualified instructor (a skill far above just earning a Dan rank). Without the proper training, Joe turns out students of even less quality than he is.

Then, his poor unsuspecting "black belts" open their own schools and think that they can improve on Joe Blows methods by creating their own system. Again, the problem is they didn't have a proper base to start with, so they head even further down the wrong path, creating even more pseudo black belts and unqualified instructors.

Can one be trained and still be tought to be a Lady or a Gentleman in this day and age?

Absolutely! I wouldn't teach students any other way, and I don't believe any instructor worth their weight would fail in this task. I don't believe you would, Master Stoker!

alot of teacher in MA only cares about teaching the rough side o fighting...

There is the breakdown in the passing on of true Martial Art knowledge. A student of the Art should be a disciple of a Master Instructor for many years before they even begin to teach. They should be an instructor under a Grandmaster for decades before they even consider that they are wise and experienced enough to start doing things their own way, and deciding that they know better than all of the Masters before them. This refers to novice instructors thinking, "I don't like this," or "I don't think that works," or "That attitude and respect stuff is not important, so I'm not going teach it."

what happen to walk away and only use what you know when need be.

It's there among those who learned the true Art, and teach it pure and complete. It is lacking among those who are making it up as they go along. - - just an old man's hard-headed opinion :mst:

I learnt all that from my parents....

Of course I talk this way because I think my parents did a great job....

thus I might be completely wrong and many people who go to a dojo need that sort of education...

Exactly right, charyuop! Your parents did a good job, and that is where children should receive the proper influences to build good moral character. You are also correct that many kids do not get this from home, and do need the Martial Art training to provide it.

On the other hand, if I go to a MA school I go there to learn MA, not things that are already in my personality.

In my view, when you go to learn a MA, that is part of what you are there to learn (discipline, courtesy, respect, honesty, integrity, values, moral character), whether you know it or not, or need it or not. All get the same training, and when the training lacks, so do some of the students. Perhaps not individuals such as yourself, but instructors can not be sure.

It is a bad message and bad advertising for those who study an MA.... we don't need these idiots making our press so much worse.

Absolutely right!

It's not the job of a martial arts instructor to make someone be a nice person. Sure, it's a nice benefit, but it's not in their job description.

It's in my job description.

I wouldn't teach it any other way! :mst:

While you can't "make" someone be nice, it is the job of a Martial Art instructor to help "mold" a student's character, teach them proper values, and "make" them a better person. This is exactly what the Martial Art is. Learning to defend yourself with the fighting skills, is a fortunate by-product of the training.

This is my personal opinion about what the Martial Art really is, or what it should be.

CM D.J. Eisenhart

 

[Last Fearner]

If there are no objections, I'll add some of my observations about this extended topic.

Ahhhh, back in the day. When the Korean Masters would go behind the bleachers of the gyms during tournaments and settle their differences right there on the spot.

I've seen that sort of thing myself. I could tell you some stories!!!

But, I wouldn't do it here.

So Wade... here's my question. I've not heard that much about the master karateka of Japan doing this behind-the-bleachers thing.... What was different about Korean martial artists??

Well Exile,... there are way too many people with a lot more knowledge about this than I can ever have so maybe one of them, like the Chief Master can give you a more educated answer than I can.

I'll give it a try.

Exile, the mid-1960's to the the early-1970's was a very violent time in the KMA's - particularly in Korea itself....

However; those really "in the know" don't like to talk about it at all, in my experience.

Wade is right, it is a sore subject and easily misunderstood as "talking trash".

Please remember that the Koreas were brutally occupied by the Japanese 1905-1945,...

then underwent an extemely brutal civil war....

followed by a separation of families by the North/South divide....

punctuated by South Korea's involvement in the Vietnam War...

Communist worries, Kwan rivalries, etc. took on a life/death importance.

My advice; tread softly and respectfully here. There are a lot of still open and bleeding wounds....

Jonathan has hit many of the key points, and done so rather tactfully. I agree that these issues can be rather sensitive to some, but there are things we can discuss, with the proper respectful approach, that should shed some more light on this issue.

When you look at the Korean people's make-up, as compared to the Japanese, consider the influences. Do you blame a child for the way they behave, or the parent. Many older Koreans grew up knowing only Japanese control, and abuses - a loss of identity during the occupation. This had its affects on the Korean people, and certainly, the Japanese people did not experience it from that perspective.

The Korean War (1950-53), not only created more strife, but developed a certain "military" mind-set. The Koreans had fought for centuries to remain free, independent, and alive. Then they were captives in their own land. Finally, they were set free, only to be in a conflict between communism and democracy. War, and military ways seemed to be the only strength, and chance of survival (especially from the South Korean's perspective.)

When the Martial Art was being revised to emerge in post WWII Korea, so was the identity of the nation. Realizing that the Martial Art was becoming a major influence on their culture, and national pride, they strove to make it more their own. There were three main ways for them to do this.

One was to look into their past, and find the root of Korean Martial Art before any occupational influences. Second, was to choose a new name for their Art, and train in it differently than others. Finally, was the drive to make Taekwondo popular world-wide. Thus, the push for International Taekwondo competitions, and eventually, the Olympics.

Another part of this drive was the demonstration of Taekwondo to foreign leaders. One of the best ways to do this, was to send their military General, Choi Hong Hi, as a representative to put on demonstrations, and teach some Taekwondo to foreign servicemen. The personal drive of Gen. Choi, and circumstances of subsequent war time, led Taekwondo (especially Chung Do Kwan and Oh Do Kwan) to be very connected to military training.

Naturally, the methods of the military are autocratic. Officers give orders, and soldiers obey. The classroom structure, and curriculum became very much oriented to preparing soldiers for battle. Subsequently, American soldiers who were stationed in Korea, took to the training rather well. When many of these soldiers (e.g.: Richard Reed with GM H.U. Lee of the ATA, and Edward Sell with GM Hae Man Park of the Chung Do Kwan) returned to America, their schools passed on a "military approach."

There is also something unique about the Korean culture in general. I'm not quite as familiar with the Chinese or Japanese cultures, but I am aware that they teach a very high degree of manners in social settings, and preciseness in details of such simple tasks as pouring tea. The Koreans have similar philosophies, but also have a strong sense of respect among elders to juniors. Not that this does not exist in other Asian countries, but from what I have witnessed, the Koreans approach it a bit different.

Not only is there the use of honorific terms when speaking to parents, bosses, teachers, and elders as opposed to your co-workers, friends, classmates, or juniors, but the enforcement of compliance was traditionally a bit more harsh. Things are changing in modern times, but 3-5 decades ago, it was very common for a junior to be harshly reprimanded for not showing proper respects. I won't go into great detail here, but I have seen many examples of a senior Grandmaster chastising a junior instructor, and that junior would stand with his head bowed in shame and not dare oppose the reprimand - - to do so, would bring dishonor upon himself among all of his Martial Art peers.

I tend to believe that the content of the art is best served by individual experimentation and development at the level of the school, rather than imposition of top-down control from large-scale organizations making curriculum decisions because of their own agendas (which may have very little to do with effective fighting skills and training)

I can see a slight difference here, but not entirely. I agree that the Korean approach is more of a flow from the top down. The high ranking Grandmasters, with the most years of experience, know what has been handed down to them, have tried and tested it for years, have made any adjustments that they feel are necessary, then pass that information down to be taught correctly.

On the other hand, in all my 30 years in the Korean Martial Art, I have never seen these kinds of organizational structures, and chains of command have any restrictive impact on the individual instructor to explore, and expand on the base curriculum. Typically, I believe it is to be interpreted as a "minimum standard" for what should be taught in the core of Taekwondo.

Beyond that, none of these higher ups tend to stifle creative developmnt. They just do not believe in any inexperienced junior black belts messing with the core of what Taekwondo is, and then teaching something different yet calling it "Taekwondo." For many of them, I hear comments like, "Some ask, 'what style of Taekwondo do you study?' There is no 'style' of Taekwondo. Taekwondo is Taekwondo. You either teach it right, or you are not teaching Taekwondo."

This is their point of view, but it is not to say that there is absolutely no flexibility in the training. Beyond the basics, and the core, many things are adapted to, or modified within the over-all curriculum every year.

I hope this helps to shed some light without offending anyone.

CM D.J. Eisenhart

 

[exile]

Very informative and helpful post, LF—much appreciated! :asian:

 

[Kyoshi71]

I learned from Pat Morita after he suckered me into cleaning his car

 

[exile]

I learned from Pat Morita after he suckered me into cleaning his car

Right—one hand clockwise, one hand counterclockwise... :wink1:

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Very informative and helpful post, LF—much appreciated! :asian:

Ditto. Good post, Last Fearner.