My conclusions and inferences follow directly from my scholarly sources. That's very neutral & objective.
Your writing is in the format of Korean Martial Arts vs Japanese Martial Arts which is influenced by your extreme dislike of Japan or anything Japanese. You may not think you are being biased but it's really coming out in the messaging of your writing. When I read what your posts, I always feel as if someone has done wrong to another person and that you are trying to set things straight. I know it's not just me because other people are picking up on it as well. If you were really writing in a neutral manner then we wouldn't be picking up this feeling that you have an agenda.
You could easily just talk about the history of breaking in Korea, the influences, the creations, the impact, and how long it's been practiced in Korea. But you don't. It's always Korea vs Japan. I used to read and listen to many black Americans who wrote and spoke with the same agenda that you have "the perspective that someone did me wrong!" That perspective becomes very tiring because every little thing becomes a battle and instead of just correcting history, it becomes "us vs them" and "black vs white." and very little meaningful history.
As a black American if I had the same chip on my shoulder that you have, then many of the people in this group would be my enemy just because their skin is white. I would be spending all of my energy being pissed off at everything thing that I think is "white." You are on a similar path, because I have never seen anyone make as big of a deal about "Breaking" stuff as you have. For the millions of martial artists out there. "breaking" isn't a historical error. "Breaking" is all about "Can I break this board or brick without breaking my hand, foot, or toe." Not once in my life have I ever wondered who invented breaking.
As for my tone of voice, I can't help it. I do have hostility against Japan and everything that's been going on around me. (I'm not hiding it. I don't deny it.
The key phase here is "
I can't help it." Which is exactly why there is bias in your writing, your research, and assumptions. If you want to be neutral about what you are posting then you have to drop all of that anger and hate that you have towards the Japanese.
When counter-evidences are provided, I accept them including Taekwondo. You people should too.
I don't have any interest in breaking so it's not a matter of accepting or not accepting what you say. I don't have an opinion on breaking. Knowing who invented breaking ranks right up there with who invented the shoe strings.
My intention is to find and spread the truth.
If this was true then you dropping your anger would be easy. Just like I don't go on a rant about slavery in America and how my ancestors were treated or how I've been treated because of the color of my skin. I can easily talk about it from a point of view of just stating facts. I often prefer to do so because it keeps my emotions out of the conversation by only focusing on the facts. But the moment I begin to focus on how I was "done wrong" is the exact same moment that I begin to let my personal experience get in the way of truth.
Yeah, Kung Fu styles that rotate shoulder when punching? Not common. Do you really claim Oyama taught Karate shoulder rotation by observing it from Korean arts or from such uncommon Chinese arts? That sounds like a wish, bias.
There are a lot of kung fu systems where rotating the shoulder is considered basic punching. Hung gar, Choy li fut, Jow Ga, Choy Ga, Tai Chi, Northern Shaolin, Suthern Shaolin, and others have punches that are done by rotating the shoulder.
I don't know who Oyama is and I have never mentioned his name other than to say this statement. Oyama is totally irrelevant to me in the context of "Kung Fu doesn't have punches that rotate at the shoulder." What does Oyama or karate have to do with your statement about what kung fu does or doesn't do? This is another example of your bias getting in the way. One has nothing to do with the other.
