curious

[Twin Fist]

so, if i make up a story, which i KNOW isnt true, and claim it is factual, doesnt that make me a liar?

if i take something, call it something else and claim i invented it, doesnt that make me a thief?


yeah i thought so too.

 

[seasoned]

This is the obvious TF, is there more?

 

[Twin Fist]

well, i just wanted to make sure that I had my definitions correct.

Since, I have said, and I truly believe that TKD's "official" origin is a matter of theft and lies.

Koreans took Shotokan, claimed it was something else, and gave it a new name

thats theft

and in calling it something else, and then making up some myth about 3000 year old dynasties and some other crappola,

thats lying

hapkido? thats nothing but stolen/renamed aikido with some kicks added in

whats the korean judo? and the korean version of kendo?

korean martial arts are in large part, the result of theft and lies.

now this isnt unique to korea

and it is, in this day and age, 50 years after the thefts more or less irrelevant, partiuarly when the arts have grown into thier own unique entities

but it is an accurate statement, IMO

 

[SPX]

I've seen you make several posts on this.

I'm guessing it's something that is very important to you?

 

[Twin Fist]

it is, and it isnt.

it is because IMO all martial artists should strive to discard all that is false.

it isnt cuz in the big picture, as long as i know the truth, thats ok with me.

then again, i hate it when someone pees on my leg and tries to tell me it's raining......

 

[Twin Fist]

so that was prob no help at all...lol

sorry, i cant help but try to see all sides of an isssue

 

[SPX]

it is, and it isnt.

it is because IMO all martial artists should strive to discard all that is false.

it isnt cuz in the big picture, as long as i know the truth, thats ok with me.

then again, i hate it when someone pees on my leg and tries to tell me it's raining......

The thing about fake histories is that it's something that's part of most martial arts to one extent or another. I think a degree of deception and BS just comes with the territory. If you're going to be involved with the field of MAs, it's just one of those things.

It seems to me that most people who do TKD know what's really up as far as the history goes. But then again the Korean guy who runs the corner store up the street was telling me the other day that TKD is 3000 years old, so maybe it's just people on message boards. . .

 

[Tez3]

It's 20 centuries old.... says so here.
http://www.tagb.biz/TKDHistory.html

or it has it's roots in Korean martial arts over 2000 years
http://www.britishtaekwondo.org.uk/what-is-taekwondo.html


Methinks that many that train TKD are still telling us it's 2000 years old.

 

[puunui]

Koreans took Shotokan, claimed it was something else, and gave it a new name

Taekwondo is different from Shotokan. By the way, the pioneers studied more arts than Shotokan.

hapkido? thats nothing but stolen/renamed aikido with some kicks added in

Hapkido has nothing to do with Aikido. In fact, they call Aikido in Korea, Aikido. I have a korean book on Aikido, the title of which is, "Aikido".

whats the korean judo? and the korean version of kendo?

Yudo is the korean pronounciation of the chinese characters for Judo. Kumdo is the korean pronounciation for the chinese characters for Kendo.

 

[puunui]

Methinks that many that train TKD are still telling us it's 2000 years old.

What those types of histories are saying is that taekwondo's cultural roots which emphasize kicking is over 2000 years old. That Korean culture emphasizes fighting with feet vs. hands is indisputable at this point. If you or others do not believe that taekwondo or other korean martial arts are not 2000 years old, then how do you account for the emphasis on kicking in the korean martial arts?

 

[Tez3]

What those types of histories are saying is that taekwondo's cultural roots which emphasize kicking is over 2000 years old. That Korean culture emphasizes fighting with feet vs. hands is indisputable at this point. If you or others do not believe that taekwondo or other korean martial arts are not 2000 years old, then how do you account for the emphasis on kicking in the korean martial arts?

The second link said the roots went back 2000 years, the first said that TKD was 20 centuries old.

Why does the emphasis on kicking mean it's Korean? does no one else kick?

 

[jks9199]

This isn't really something restricted to TKD. After all, Shotokan karate is really Okinawan Te, as packaged for a Japanese market by Funakoshi. And Okinawan Te may be a repackaging of any of several Chinese styles. Which are probably repackagings of other styles, etc. on back. While elements of the modern Bando system I practice can be traced back over 2000 years, the modern system was also clearly assembled in 1930s and 1940s.

So... how do you define "theft?" TKD certainly has similarities with karate -- but they aren't identical. It's kind of like the question of plagiarism versus inspiration; the line is very subjective. And is repeating the story you were told or taught a lie? Especially if you sincerely believe it?

 

[Tez3]

Legal definition of theft under our law 'dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intent to permanently deprive'. You have to prove all those points to prove theft, in this case the 'dishonestly appropriating' would be difficult, as it may have been believed that it was given to them or the 'owner' of said martial art would give his permission if asked for it to be used.

 

[Cyriacus]

The extent of My Taught Knowledge of TKD History: This System was founded in 1965.

I shut a whole ton of stuff out of My head from the ITF I choose to not be concerned by it.

 

[Twin Fist]

which is exactly my point


thats a LIE

and we are LIARS if we repete it

It's 20 centuries old.... says so here.
http://www.tagb.biz/TKDHistory.html

or it has it's roots in Korean martial arts over 2000 years
http://www.britishtaekwondo.org.uk/what-is-taekwondo.html


Methinks that many that train TKD are still telling us it's 2000 years old.

 

[StudentCarl]

For how many people is this 'history' a factor in the choice of what/where to study? It wasn't even on the bottom of my list.

I chose an art and master that suited my interests, and continue to study to learn better technique and mechanics. History was not and is not a factor.

 

[Twin Fist]

Taekwondo is different from Shotokan. By the way, the pioneers studied more arts than Shotokan.

not in 1958 when it came to america it wasnt. it was SHOTOKAN with barely rearranged kata

won yo = pinan shodan

all teh fan boy denial and lies in the world will not change that simple fact

the ORIGINAL TKD was nothing but shotokan.

it is totally it's own animal NOW, but at first?

SHOTOKAN

why do people continue to tell the LIES?

hell, Jhoon Rhee, the FIRST to teach in the US said it wasnt even CALLED tkd till after 1960, before that it was tang soo do, or just karate.

but i guess some people here know more than jhoon rhee........../roll

 

[Twin Fist]

The extent of My Taught Knowledge of TKD History: This System was founded in 1965.

I shut a whole ton of stuff out of My head from the ITF I choose to not be concerned by it.

nice. As i am directly descended from jhoon rhee, i trace mine back to 1958

 

[Twin Fist]

So... how do you define "theft?" TKD certainly has similarities with karate -- but they aren't identical. It's kind of like the question of plagiarism versus inspiration; the line is very subjective. And is repeating the story you were told or taught a lie? Especially if you sincerely believe it?

what teh KKW does, which is to continue to publish the "2000 year history" BS is a lie, plain and simple, and every teacher that repetes it is repeting a LIE

if i take an intel chip, and copy it, call it a twinfist chip, have I comitted theft?

yeah i thought so too

 

[SPX]

It's kind of like the question of plagiarism versus inspiration; the line is very subjective. And is repeating the story you were told or taught a lie? Especially if you sincerely believe it?

I think the issue at hand may have to do with not citing your sources, so to speak. . .