OP
OP
I did. Those articles were written in 1966, when Gm. Kim was trying to gain a foothold in the US. Now go to his latest writing, his article in Black Belt/MartialTalk here. You might find the following passages pertinent to your own comments:
GMKS: The first generation of instructors (instructors that opened the first kwans following WWII) only taught a few years before the Korean War started and the kwans temporarily closed. Some of the first generation instructors disappeared, such as Yoon Byung-in and Chun Sang-sup. So, the top students of the various kwans may have only 3-5 years of training under the first generation. There wasn’t enough time to really discuss the background because of the classroom environment of “no questions.” Also, because of the Japanese occupation of Korea from 1909 to 1945, the second generation of martial artists hated the Japanese. Connection with anything Japanese, karate for example, was frowned upon. Even though karate was from Okinawa, most kwan founders studied karate taught in Japan during college.
In 1960, I would frequently visit the Korean Taesoo-Do Association office. During one visit, a kwan head instructor got very angry with me because I wrote some history about his organization that included a connection to karate through Japan. I knew he had a reputation of assaulting people when he was mad at them, instead of talking or arguing. He was a “hit first, ask questions later-type person.” Luckily, the Vietnam Taekwondo delegation was visiting the Taesoo-Do Association that day. So, the kwan head instructor had to calm down because of the witnesses. This is an example of the feeling many people held for the Japanese.
RM: What did students call their martial art during those early days?
GMKS: Most people called it Tang Soo Do, Kong Soo Do or Kwon Bop. General Choi Hong-hi called his system, “Tae Kwon Do.”
RM: General Choi Hong-hi created Tae Kwon Do?
GMKS: In the early days he was teaching the same karate forms as the other kwans, such as Pyung Ahn, Bassai Tae, Kon Sang Kun, etc. Then in the late 1950’s he came up with a story about martial arts links to Korguryo dynasty, Silla Dynasty, 2000 years of tradition, etc. He created new forms and gave each form a name related to something in Korean history, such as a scholar’s name or a famous Korean patriot’s name. He called his system, “Taekwondo.” He was trying to get away from the connection to the Japanese - trying to make something patriotic. He wanted everyone to follow this new line and give up their previous training....
RM: It seems that some of the Korean martial art history you mentioned during this interview can be found on the internet.
GMKS: I saw that too. Yes, today the truth is coming out. Still some people try to make up some mysterious stories - claim their art is 2000 years old or from a monk in the mountains or something. But, if people are educated about history and lineage, they cannot be fooled. I believe Korea, like many other countries, had some type of martial arts being practiced before the 20th century. But after the Japanese occupation of Korea (1909-1945), indigenous martial arts were gone and influences from other places (Japan, Okinawa, China) were being taught.
This is the same as if someone’s father is a farmer, but tells everyone his father is a doctor. You should show respect for your father and let people know who he is, not make up some strange story. The same is for martial arts lineage. Your direct instructor is your martial arts father; his teacher is your grandfather, etc. This is your family line in the martial arts. It doesn’t matter where the art comes from. Martial art belongs to the people that practice and preserve it, not to “this country or that country.”
In 1960, I would frequently visit the Korean Taesoo-Do Association office. During one visit, a kwan head instructor got very angry with me because I wrote some history about his organization that included a connection to karate through Japan. I knew he had a reputation of assaulting people when he was mad at them, instead of talking or arguing. He was a “hit first, ask questions later-type person.” Luckily, the Vietnam Taekwondo delegation was visiting the Taesoo-Do Association that day. So, the kwan head instructor had to calm down because of the witnesses. This is an example of the feeling many people held for the Japanese.
RM: What did students call their martial art during those early days?
GMKS: Most people called it Tang Soo Do, Kong Soo Do or Kwon Bop. General Choi Hong-hi called his system, “Tae Kwon Do.”
RM: General Choi Hong-hi created Tae Kwon Do?
GMKS: In the early days he was teaching the same karate forms as the other kwans, such as Pyung Ahn, Bassai Tae, Kon Sang Kun, etc. Then in the late 1950’s he came up with a story about martial arts links to Korguryo dynasty, Silla Dynasty, 2000 years of tradition, etc. He created new forms and gave each form a name related to something in Korean history, such as a scholar’s name or a famous Korean patriot’s name. He called his system, “Taekwondo.” He was trying to get away from the connection to the Japanese - trying to make something patriotic. He wanted everyone to follow this new line and give up their previous training....
RM: It seems that some of the Korean martial art history you mentioned during this interview can be found on the internet.
GMKS: I saw that too. Yes, today the truth is coming out. Still some people try to make up some mysterious stories - claim their art is 2000 years old or from a monk in the mountains or something. But, if people are educated about history and lineage, they cannot be fooled. I believe Korea, like many other countries, had some type of martial arts being practiced before the 20th century. But after the Japanese occupation of Korea (1909-1945), indigenous martial arts were gone and influences from other places (Japan, Okinawa, China) were being taught.
This is the same as if someone’s father is a farmer, but tells everyone his father is a doctor. You should show respect for your father and let people know who he is, not make up some strange story. The same is for martial arts lineage. Your direct instructor is your martial arts father; his teacher is your grandfather, etc. This is your family line in the martial arts. It doesn’t matter where the art comes from. Martial art belongs to the people that practice and preserve it, not to “this country or that country.”
That's 40 years of research and writing after the 1966 article posted on his website, and becoming established enough to not have to worry about offending anyone who doesn't like him undermining the nouveau official line. I've bolded a few of the passages that seem to me relevant to the point. And Robert Young, in his seminal and detailed article 'The history and development of Taekyon' in the 1993 volume of Journal of Asian Martial Arts, singles out Gm. Kim as one of the very few Korean grandmasters who have bucked the enormous social pressure to endorse the official Korean line on 'ancient TKD', and has some choice observations there, based on his years of living and doing research there, on the intensity of that pressure. I'm in my office at the moment and don't have access to the paper, but... yes, I think a choice excerpt or two from Young's comments on Gm. Kim and the others whistleblowers he quotes would be very germane, at this point. More later on that.
True another fact might be that they do not want to be in a position of making any one, two or three individuals to big in the grand scope of things so that the sport is directly government controlled. Meaning everyone has to go through them.
It could be, but it's such a relatively unusual mindset for an Asian MA... and in the end, I think it's going to cause huge disaffection among TKD practitioners. My guess is, it's partly to do with protecting the Olympic golden goose, and partly to do with the essential disappearance of locally produced, family-owned MA in the wake of Yi Dynasty's hostility to civilian martial arts, and latterly the Japanese occupation...
) And one thing that strikes me, over and over again, is that the views these people express, the positions they take, and the spin they put on their own pasts and that of the people around them and the events they've been involved in, depends a great deal on what is happening to them at the time they're writing whatever it is they're writing, or saying publicly whatever it is they're saying. I've come to the conclusion that this is how people work. It's not cynicism or duplicity; it's the brute-force fact that we structure our picture of the world so that it leads up to our being right about whatever it is we need to be right about in order to be vindicated. I think that's just how people are.
