was based off of other art then why do we have korean art, here in america karate is still Japanese routed and Kung Fu is still chinese routed so why in Korea is the art korean and not given it proper due for the founding art that it came from.
If Korean Art
- Thread starter terryl965
- Start date
Laurentkd
Master Black Belt
Do you think karate came from Japan with no influence from anywhere else? Same question for kung fu. Korean arts where most definitely influenced by other arts, but I think the same thing can be said about EVERY art. I think we have to simplify, and trace an art back to it's logical roots and just stop there. Taekwondo was named in and a core curriculum (poomse) was developed in Korea, hence it is a Korean art. Otherwise I would say every martial art is REALLY from the first caveman who hit another caveman who was trying to take his cave woman.
Of course, I think it is important to be HONEST with ourselves that Korean arts aren't strictly Korean, and give credit were it is deserved (something that always seem to be sorely lacking with Korean arts), however my eyes just start swimming when people try to prove EXACTLY where each came from.
Maybe I am just not as interested in history as others though... in fact I know I am not, I have always been more of a biology person to tell you the truth.... I'll talk biomechanics with you all night long if you want!
OP
- Thread Starter
- #3
Laurentkd I know karate was derieved from somewhere else and that was from someplace else but mainly they give credit at times for there taken from other venues while Koreans try to put it under the table, for the most part anyway
Well, the way I see it, Terry, there were several factors unique to Korea. Chinese MAs have been in China so long no one remembers `where' they were from, if indeed they came from anywhere else; in Japan too, there were many indigenous martial arts (or at least, arts that were there for so long, no one remembered where they came from). It's true that the karate is usually described as an importation from Okinawa, but even there the historical record shows that things worked in both directions: as Iain Abernethy reports in Bunkai-Jutsu,
many of the Minimoto samurai took Okinawan wives and remained upon the island for the rest of their days. The bujitsu of the Minimoto samurai had a large influence on the fighting methods employed by the Okinawan nobles. One part of Minimoto bujitsu that had an influence on the development of karate was the idea that all motion is essentially the same. Whether striking, grappling or wielding a weapon, the Minamoto samurai taught that all combative methods relied upon similar physical movements... the results of this combat philosophy can still be seen in modern day karate.
(p.6) So the karate which went to Japan from Okinawa with Gichin Funakoshi was itself a partly Japanese product, along with Chinese elements and native Okinawan tuite techniquesa complex synthesis. And this is in general the pattern for Asian MAsexcept for Korea! You know what my take on TKD history is; the fact is that from the outset, as the documentary record I assembled in that little essay I sent you shows repeatedly, Korean MAs were essentially taken over from classical Chinese fighting arts; and as a result of disinterest in combat skills in the later Yi dynasty, these arets fell into disuse for several hundred years prior to the Japanese occupation of Korea at the end of the 19th c. And when that occupation began, the skills that Koreans were exposed to at first were distinctly Japanese artskendo and jujutsu, as per the references in that essay. And when the next wave of Korean MAs rolled in, it was distinctly Japanese(/Okinawan)kong su do, better known as Shotokan karate (with a bit of Shudokan and Goju-ryu in a few instances).
In other words, the whole stamp of Korean MA was Japanese in the early 20th c., and this was also the time of the Koreans' own `trail of tears' under the horribly oppressive Japanese military regimewe all know the brutality of the Korean occupation by this point. So you have two facts pair: (i) a very, very specifically foreign-derived MA as the `national MA' of Korea, and (ii) terrible social disruption and abuse of the Korean people by the source of that MA. It's no wonder that many Koreans have gone out of their way to deny the documented history of the striking MA systems.
But not all Koreans buy into this denialS. Henry Cho in his book TKD: Secrets of Korean Karate, Gm. Kim intervied by Master Robert McLain in our own MT magazine, and many other acknowledge their debt to Japan; the founder of the Song Moo Kwan named his school with the Japanese cognate of Shoto Kan, where he was trained by Funakoshi (both schools' names = `pine tree house (of training)'. I think there are good reasons for the denial of Japanese contribution, but there are better reasons, at this age and stage, to set the record straight...
many of the Minimoto samurai took Okinawan wives and remained upon the island for the rest of their days. The bujitsu of the Minimoto samurai had a large influence on the fighting methods employed by the Okinawan nobles. One part of Minimoto bujitsu that had an influence on the development of karate was the idea that all motion is essentially the same. Whether striking, grappling or wielding a weapon, the Minamoto samurai taught that all combative methods relied upon similar physical movements... the results of this combat philosophy can still be seen in modern day karate.
(p.6) So the karate which went to Japan from Okinawa with Gichin Funakoshi was itself a partly Japanese product, along with Chinese elements and native Okinawan tuite techniquesa complex synthesis. And this is in general the pattern for Asian MAsexcept for Korea! You know what my take on TKD history is; the fact is that from the outset, as the documentary record I assembled in that little essay I sent you shows repeatedly, Korean MAs were essentially taken over from classical Chinese fighting arts; and as a result of disinterest in combat skills in the later Yi dynasty, these arets fell into disuse for several hundred years prior to the Japanese occupation of Korea at the end of the 19th c. And when that occupation began, the skills that Koreans were exposed to at first were distinctly Japanese artskendo and jujutsu, as per the references in that essay. And when the next wave of Korean MAs rolled in, it was distinctly Japanese(/Okinawan)kong su do, better known as Shotokan karate (with a bit of Shudokan and Goju-ryu in a few instances).
In other words, the whole stamp of Korean MA was Japanese in the early 20th c., and this was also the time of the Koreans' own `trail of tears' under the horribly oppressive Japanese military regimewe all know the brutality of the Korean occupation by this point. So you have two facts pair: (i) a very, very specifically foreign-derived MA as the `national MA' of Korea, and (ii) terrible social disruption and abuse of the Korean people by the source of that MA. It's no wonder that many Koreans have gone out of their way to deny the documented history of the striking MA systems.
But not all Koreans buy into this denialS. Henry Cho in his book TKD: Secrets of Korean Karate, Gm. Kim intervied by Master Robert McLain in our own MT magazine, and many other acknowledge their debt to Japan; the founder of the Song Moo Kwan named his school with the Japanese cognate of Shoto Kan, where he was trained by Funakoshi (both schools' names = `pine tree house (of training)'. I think there are good reasons for the denial of Japanese contribution, but there are better reasons, at this age and stage, to set the record straight...
rmclain
Black Belt
I'd like to add a historical note about the Jido-Kwan instructor/founder, Yoon Ui-byung (Yoon Kwe-byung). As you know, the Jido-Kwan was one of the early kwans in S. Korea prior to the unification of the kwans.
He actually opened a dojang in Japan before the end of WWII. He called his school, Hanmoo-Kwan, meaning, "People of Korea Martial Art School." He even published a book in Japan on Bong sul (Bo Jitsu), including several Bong Hyung. - Most senior Jido-Kwan Masters these days don't even know this. I've seen a copy of this book for myself.
R. McLain
He actually opened a dojang in Japan before the end of WWII. He called his school, Hanmoo-Kwan, meaning, "People of Korea Martial Art School." He even published a book in Japan on Bong sul (Bo Jitsu), including several Bong Hyung. - Most senior Jido-Kwan Masters these days don't even know this. I've seen a copy of this book for myself.
R. McLain
zDom
Senior Master
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,081
- Reaction score
- 111
Well, to use a couple sports analogies:
Baseball came from cricket, but is without a doubt an American sport, even though its roots are British. We put too much of our own stamp on it and it became something else.
(American) football came from rugby, but is without a doubt an American sport, even though its roots are British. We put too much of our own stamp on it and it became something else.
Soccer isn't an American sport; we know it came from somewhere else (Europe) but we decided to name it something else, just because
A lot of Americans play soccer using different terminology and a different name. But we haven't really changed this sport into something else. It is still pretty much the same game.
So I maintain, Koreans put enough of a stamp on things like TKD and TSD that they have indeed become Korean martial arts, despite their Japanese roots.
Baseball came from cricket, but is without a doubt an American sport, even though its roots are British. We put too much of our own stamp on it and it became something else.
(American) football came from rugby, but is without a doubt an American sport, even though its roots are British. We put too much of our own stamp on it and it became something else.
Soccer isn't an American sport; we know it came from somewhere else (Europe) but we decided to name it something else, just because
A lot of Americans play soccer using different terminology and a different name. But we haven't really changed this sport into something else. It is still pretty much the same game.So I maintain, Koreans put enough of a stamp on things like TKD and TSD that they have indeed become Korean martial arts, despite their Japanese roots.
zDom is a genius. Really, to put into perspective....when you old masters that started in the 60's and early 70's was it not important to claim the heritage of the art? Karate for japanese or okinawa; hapkido and tae kwon do for Korea.
Do we not do this with cars. It is more of an accepted rule of "quality" I would think than anything. Afterall, there are a ton of borrowed techniques across all systems. Gee doesn't karate, tae kwon do, kung fu, and wushu as well as kenpo all have a side kick?
Doesn't jiujitsu, judo, hapkido and aikido have a shoulder throw? I think it is the application of the technique that makes it different.
In Scott's last post does he not ask about break falling for Daito Ryu Aiki Jiujitsu?
Do we not do this with cars. It is more of an accepted rule of "quality" I would think than anything. Afterall, there are a ton of borrowed techniques across all systems. Gee doesn't karate, tae kwon do, kung fu, and wushu as well as kenpo all have a side kick?
Doesn't jiujitsu, judo, hapkido and aikido have a shoulder throw? I think it is the application of the technique that makes it different.
In Scott's last post does he not ask about break falling for Daito Ryu Aiki Jiujitsu?
Laurentkd
Master Black Belt
oook, now I understand what you were asking originally.
My opinion... it is largely due to the brutal Japanese occupation. My grandmaster was a little kid when this occured and he can't stand to look at a Japanese flag. I don't think any of us can understand the hatred Koreans (at least the older generations) have for the Japanese. Based on my experiences with this specific person at least, it seems to be a large factor.
Not saying they are correct in denying the roots of Korean martial arts, but I think it helps to understand WHY they are doing it (as I am sure you were hoping to examine on in this thread). Hopefully as the hatred cools over time this is something that will be corrected.. I think we are already heading in this direction (probably due to so many non-Koreans now practicing the arts).
chrismay101
Green Belt
I was under the impression that kung fu was created by a monk visiting a Chinese tempal from india. seeing all the fat lay about monks he devised this system from seeing animal actions! so they could fight the flab!
That is a very loose interpretation of a legend, of course the related legends of Damo say that he meditated for nine years in a cave, got POed because he fell asleep meditating and therefore he ripped his eyelids off.
I'm just as cautious about the origins of kung fu as I am about TKD being an ancient Korean art.
Lamont
Koreans tend to make everything Korean. That's why there is still a Korea. They've been invaded many times & yet prevailed. Judo was taught to them, but they called it Yudo, made it their own & it's a nation triumph when a Korean beats a Japanese judo player in competition.
Don't know how it got here, but it must be Korean.
Don't know how it got here, but it must be Korean.
Very wise, Lamont! Exhaustive analyses of the available documentationwhich is actually quite limited, conveniently enoughmake it clear that anything `anciently Korean' was derived from Chinese sources, and that this ancient connection to CMAs died out well before the turn of the 20th c., and its place taken by Okinawan/Japanese fighting systems. I've got in the works a compilation of what hard evidence there is about the origins of modern KMA (which I hope to submit it to our MT Magazine in the near future), and on the basis of the best evidence we have, your skepticism is 110% justified...
Hey, I'm a kenpoist, we can't even agree on our lineage pre-1945.... and I'm completely serious about that. I've got a hard time believing the truth has been neatly passed down with no embellishment for thousands of years.
Lamont
But waitthere's more! (as they say on those late night TV ads where everything, no matter what, costs $19.95 with a bunch of `freebies' supposedly thrown in if you'e one of the next 50 (million, lol) to call). The exact same thing is true of the KMAs. No one really knows at this point exactly what the Kwans were teaching in the period from the immediate pre-Korean War through the early 1960s. How the hell can anyone presume to say what was happening on the Korean peninsula ten, fifteen or twenty centuries ago when we can't even agree on what was happening in Seoul a mere fifty years ago???
As I say... skepticism and a demand for serious corroboration should be our response to any claims about ancient MA practice...
Last Fearner
2nd Black Belt
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2006
- Messages
- 712
- Reaction score
- 17
Since everyone is expressing their views on this topic, I will offer my dissenting opinion.
I have stated before that I believe the key difference is in what it is that you are calling "Taekwondo." There is no doubt, and I do not believe any serious argument, that the period of Japanese Occupation of Korea (1910-1945), attempted to replace Korean language, culture, and history with that of Japan's. There is no doubt that those Korean individuals who lived during that time were greatly influenced, if not inundated with all things Japanese. For those Korean Martial Artists who studied during the occupation, learned from Japanese run schools in Korea, or lived and studied in Japan, what they learned was, without question, Japanese Martial Art.
Now, if you take that as it appears on the surface, and add nothing else into it, and call that "Taekwondo," then you would be correct that Taekwondo is a reformation of Japanese Karate. I believe you would be in error if that is how you define "Taekwondo," but the term is defined only by its usage. Many words have multiple uses.
There are those who research the background of the early Kwan leaders (1944 - 1955), and acknowledge their study of Japanese Martial Art, then point out that unique Korean skills were added, and the Art changed to make it Korean. However, this definition still attributes the "roots" and "origin" of Taekwondo to be from Japanese Martial Art. This is a different definition of Taekwondo than what I use.
"Taekwondo" by the definition I use, is first and foremost a label to give a name to the collective skills, and Martial Art philosophy that existed in Korea from the three Kingdoms period. I believe there is sufficient physical evidence to show that "unarmed combat skills" were known and studied by the early inhabitants of the Choseun peninsula. I believe that there is recorded history that the soldiers of Koguryo, and Silla used weapons and unarmed skills, and this is how Silla unified the kingdoms, then drove out the Chinese armies.
In my opinion, there is sufficient reason to conclude that Korean people of ancient times practiced blocking, punching, kicking and grappling for self defense as well as sport. I believe that early Korean Martial Artists lived by a code of honor, as evidenced in the later teachings of the Hwarang, and this is a key element of Martial Art, above and beyond the technical curriculum. What do we call those methods used by early Koreans to survive - - Subak, Taekyon, Hwarangdo, Hapkido? What difference does it make? It existed, and it was as much a unique development of Korean culture as any other Martial Art philosophy and technique in Asia. This is what, in 1955, the Korean people, with the official support of the Korean government re-named "Taekwondo." This is what I call Taekwondo.
What happened in Korea in recent times (the entire 20th century), can be called Taekwondo as well, but that would be a limited definition, and a narrow perspective. Some will acknowledge the "ancient skills" of Korea, but say that it all died off before the 20th century, thus lacking any credible link to today's Taekwondo.
First of all, do you know that it ALL died off? Would it be more accurate that the early skills fell from popularity, went into obscurity, but was still practiced by some? Perhaps no one knows who, or how many, but if the ancient skills were maintained to some degree (probably influenced and modified over the centuries), but still handed down from generation to generation, then it was never completely lost, and there is a link.
While it is easy to research recent history, and stop there, more truth exists beyond the Japanese occupation. I have asked this question before, and would be interested in hearing from anyone who could answer it one way or the other. General Choi, whose obvious involvement in Shotokan contributed to his Chang-hon forms, his Oh Do Kwan, and his system of "Taekwon-Do," also claimed that he studied "Taekyon" as a boy. The simple question is, from whom did his Calligraphy teacher learn Taekyon?
From Choi Hong Hi's book on Taekwondo (1965)
"Taekwon-Do is a modern version of the ancient Korean art of self-defense known as T'ae Kyon."
"His father sent him to study calligraphy under a well-known teacher Mr. Han Il-Dong."
"Mr. Han, a great calligrapher, was also a veteran of the ancient T'ae-Kyon."
Ok, so Mr. Han had to learn Taekyon from a Taekyon teacher. Who was that person, and who did that teacher learn from? Each teacher of Taekyon had to be a student at one time, and had to learn from another teacher before him. Who were they? Even if that lineage is lost forever, it was still there at one time. Was this the only lineage of the old Taekyon? Isn't it likely that there were others throughout small remote villages of Korea of whom General Choi had never met? What about subak, hwarangdo, and other Korean skills? Is it not likely that some number of descendents of those early warriors passed on their knowledge, even within their own families? At this point, this is just speculation, but I believe there are answers out there.
In any case, if you are comparing the exact curriculum of General Choi's Oh Do Kwan Taekwondo, then you will obviously see the "connection" to his Shotokan training and assume that the term "Taekwon-Do" that he used comes from that. However, his own book denotes a mixture of ancient Korean kicking to the hands of Karate, thus even his version is not a pure descendant of Japanese Martial Art. If you see the "proof" of Japanese roots in the "Hyungs," then you are misjudging the full content of Taekwondo. Forms are just a tool for practicing the movements.
If you see the "proof" of Japanese roots in the movements that "look similar," then you must realize that all unarmed combat, from any country is going to have similar movements and techniques because that is the discovery of nature and how the human body works. Borrowing of this technique or that one, and subtle influences through observation of other country's Martial Art over the centuries is going to naturally progress more toward similarity, but who influenced whom. One did not come from the other.
Ancient Korean Marital Art existed. It does not matter exactly what specific techniques were in the curriculum, the concept of striking, throwing, and holding was obviously there in the 1st century B.C. Regardless of what Chinese influence existed early on, Koreans developed their own cultural Art from centuries ago, and that is what we call Taekwondo. Today's influences are simply a study in comparison, and modern adaptation to refine the skills, and keep them current. Japan's involvement in Korea was nothing more than a tear in the fabric of Korean Martial Art. Mend the tear, and it will still be there, but the history of what came before is carried over, and life goes on.
CM D.J. Eisenhart
So if I import a Mercedes, peel the decals off, slap on some Michelin tires, tint the windows, add a turbo blower, and stick an American made spoiler on the back, can I call it an American car? The US has a long history of car making regardless of what the Germans have done....
I was trying to find a JAMA article on taekyon, and while this article does not corroborate what I remember, its a pretty dang good article:
http://www.goviamedia.com/Korea-DB.pdf?PHPSESSID=f0994fe4e5c5d34558f418a3be83a9c4
I was trying to find a JAMA article on taekyon, and while this article does not corroborate what I remember, its a pretty dang good article:
http://www.goviamedia.com/Korea-DB.pdf?PHPSESSID=f0994fe4e5c5d34558f418a3be83a9c4
zDom
Senior Master
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,081
- Reaction score
- 111
Nope.
And the differences between Korean martial arts and Japanese martial arts are more than cosmetic.
zD, there is nothing in the whole archealological and documentary record which allows us to make a single specific inference about the content of Korean MA from the whole Three Kingdoms period and earlier, other than that it was clearly heavily influence by China. There is no record of any unique Korean fighting system at any point. There is no archaelogical evidence that actually clearly portreys unarmed combat in Korean prehistory, let along a unique Korean fighting art. Taekkyon is a 19th c. invention, and attempts to link it to references in ancient records involve, as Stanley Henning has shown, a mistransliteration of the characters for takkyyon `push-shoulders', very likely a set of grappling/unbalancing techniques having nothing to do with foot/leg combat. There is not a single shred of evidence for ancient, or even historically very old, fighting systems on the Korean peninsula. There is no evidence whatever for any line of transmission of any ancient art that the Kwan founders were aware of which could possibly have been a native substratum of MA technique that they then fused with their Shotkan/Shudokan karate training. Gen Choi is a demonstrably unreliable witness on the subject of taekkyon, having changed his original story about the role of karate in the formation of TKD several times in print, and with other contemporary TKD grandmasters attesting that he only began telling stories about taekkyon much later on, in the 1960s, as part of his increasingly nationalistic construal of Korean MA history.
I can and will document every one of these statements; I have already done so on several other threads, and once I've taken care of several hours' worth of business I need to deal with today, I will later on this evening draw this material, from peer-reviewed journals of MA history and technique and historically well-documented research together (again!) and send a followup to this post stating the historical evidence base on which I base these statements. And anyone who wishes to controvert them is welcome to post the contrary documentation and physical evidence.
More later....
I can and will document every one of these statements; I have already done so on several other threads, and once I've taken care of several hours' worth of business I need to deal with today, I will later on this evening draw this material, from peer-reviewed journals of MA history and technique and historically well-documented research together (again!) and send a followup to this post stating the historical evidence base on which I base these statements. And anyone who wishes to controvert them is welcome to post the contrary documentation and physical evidence.
More later....
zDom
Senior Master
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,081
- Reaction score
- 111
Exile, FWIW, I'm not going to try to make a case for a significant contributions from ancient Korean fighting systems — as you've pointed out there is no real documentation.
(Doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't exist, however. It could be ancient Koreans were too busy dealing with wars from both within and without to sit around documenting something they were using on a daily basis ..)
What I WILL make a case for is: Korean influence on Japanese arts (such as Shotokan) in the 1940s-1960s WAS significant enough that arts like Tang Soo Do and Taekwondo are now Korean arts. Not necessarily influence from ancient indigineous fighting systems, but there was without a doubt SOME sort of significant influence — they altered the arts (and I think, for the better ...)
To go back to my previous analogy, you don't have to argue that there were ancient indigineous stick-and-ball sports in North America to come to the conclusion that baseball is a different sport than cricket and that it is indeed an American sport despite its roots in British cricket.
(Doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't exist, however. It could be ancient Koreans were too busy dealing with wars from both within and without to sit around documenting something they were using on a daily basis ..)
What I WILL make a case for is: Korean influence on Japanese arts (such as Shotokan) in the 1940s-1960s WAS significant enough that arts like Tang Soo Do and Taekwondo are now Korean arts. Not necessarily influence from ancient indigineous fighting systems, but there was without a doubt SOME sort of significant influence — they altered the arts (and I think, for the better ...)
To go back to my previous analogy, you don't have to argue that there were ancient indigineous stick-and-ball sports in North America to come to the conclusion that baseball is a different sport than cricket and that it is indeed an American sport despite its roots in British cricket.
Sure, no question, zD. S. Henry Cho emphasizes this very point in his landmark 1968 book Taekwondo: Secrets of Korean Karate. My conception of it is something like this: TKD is the Korean version and development of an art which also possesses an Okinawan version and a Japanese versionor, in each case, more properly a set of versions. It's the local flowering and specialization of a rootstock that in Okinawa and Japan took somewhat different forms, and developed subspecializations independently. I would never, ever dispute that position. My only point is that we have to leave out of the mix the claim of a pre-existing Korean `substratum' of technical elements that shaped this specialization, and the reason we have towhatever we might like to thinkis that we have no reason to believe that such a substratum actually existed.
My concern though is with what we allow ourselves to believe to be true, or believe to be most likely to be true. I'm particularly concerned about the way in which legends are passed off as history, without having to meet the burden of proof we expect when assertions about what actually happened are made. I believe it's very important that we demand sufficient evidence before granting plausibility to what we're told.
I want to assemble the material I mentioned earlier here, in one place, just to give my position some substance, so that any further argument and discussion can use it as a point of departure, whether to support or to challenge, as the case may be...
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
Taiji Quan for Self Defense- Latest: windwalker099
-
-
-