From: the_dojang-owner@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com To: the_dojang-digest@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Subject: The_Dojang-Digest V8 #426 Reply-To: the_dojang@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Errors-To: the_dojang-owner@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com Precedence: The_Dojang-Digest Sat, 21 July 2001 Vol 08 : Num 426 In this issue: the_dojang: Re:?for Carsten re Technique the_dojang: Re:ATA Question the_dojang: KSR 2001-10: _Constructing "Korean" Origins_, by Hyung Il Pai ( the_dojang: Re: ITF in Seoul the_dojang: Kook Sool Hapkido the_dojang: Korean Weapons Re: the_dojang: Re: ITF in Seoul the_dojang: . ========================================================================= The_Dojang, serving the Internet since June 1994. ~1111 members strong! Copyright 1994-2001: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource The premier internet discussion forum devoted to the Korean Martial Arts. Replying to this message will NOT unsubscribe you. To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe the_dojang-digest" (no quotes) in the body (top line, left justified) of a "plain text" e-mail addressed to majordomo@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com. To send e-mail to this list use the_dojang@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com See the Korean Martial Arts (KMA) FAQ and the online search engine for back issues of The_Dojang at http://www.MartialArtsResource.com Pil Seung! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: JSaportajr@aol.com Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 09:53:14 EDT Subject: the_dojang: Re:?for Carsten re Technique Dear Carsten You are probably weary of being put on the defensive re Hwarang Do history, so here is a question of a different nature. In one of your posts you mentioned long-short techniques in a list of unique Hwarang Do techniques. I train with a Korean Master (in addition to my training with Master Whalen) who has some combination hand techniques which are a short technique, say an upper cut to the abdomen, followed immediately by a long technique, say punch to chin, then short technique of an elbow followed by long technique of knife hand or ridge hand to neck. I believe he calls this Um-Yung Kwon Bop. This is the person that trained in Hapkido with Joo Bang Lee and his brother in Korea in the very early 60's. Is this anything like what you were referring to with short-long techniques? If not, can you describe this a bit more? Jose' ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Sims" Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 08:44:04 -0500 Subject: the_dojang: Re:ATA Question Dear Folks: I have been trying to follow the various exchanges regarding ATA and Songham TKD and am getting more than a little confused. Originally I understood that ATA was a representative organization for Songham TKD. No issue there. Then I moted that there have been some posts that seem to merge the Korean Weapons issues with the ATA and it seems that they have a pretty liberal policy about practicing weapons of various sorts. To me this seems to characterize the ATA as not necessarily strictly a Songham TKD organization, unless I am to understand that Songham is not as "traditional" as first represented and is likewise pretty liberal regarding practicing various weapons. Finally there was the post that reported witnessing a demo by ATA people which was "embarrassing" in its quality. IME this is usually a strong sign that the presenters have played fast and loose with their original art and have become too liberal in their practice. Perhaps it would help if I could know if the observer/reporter attributed the poor performance to the participants themselves or the overall attitude of the organization. Just as a help in framing this let me say that we have a local school which seems to be asscoiated with ATA, NAPMA, and the NKA all at the same time. Its a McDojo/McDochang babysitting service which is long on kids and short on quality. It would help if someone who has first hand experience with the ATA could help me clear up the actual nature of the organization. Thanks. Best Wishes, Bruce ------------------------------ From: Ray Terry Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 11:18:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: the_dojang: KSR 2001-10: _Constructing "Korean" Origins_, by Hyung Il Pai ( Forwarded msg: _Constructing "Korean" Origins: A Critical Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and Racial Myth in Korean State Formation Theories_, by Hyung Il Pai. Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard East Asian Monographs, 2000. 543 pages. ISBN: 0-674-00244-X. Reviewed by Roald H. Maliangkay Leiden University [This review first appeared in _Acta Koreana_, 4 (2001): 170-73. _Acta Koreana_ is published by Academia Koreana of Keimyung University.] Nationalism has been a major force in the creation of the Korean state in the twentieth century. It was fueled during the colonial period when it underpinned the struggle for independence. Korean intellectuals promoted patriotism, and with it a sense of nationhood, yet the question of identity suddenly became an important issue when Japanese archaeologists began digging into Korea's past. Their activities and those of anthropologists, paid for largely by the Japanese government, focused on the history and culture of Korean civilization. The Japanese military government planned to assimilate the Korean people and the outcome of the studies, so it hoped, would serve to facilitate the assimilation process. It also made efforts to prevent expressions of a distinct Korean identity. For that purpose it imposed strong censorship and ruled that, among other things, the Korean Confucian institution was to be broken down, Korean history books rewritten, and Japanese taught as the primary language at schools. After the liberation, the ensuing strong anti-Japanese sentiments helped the state to further boost nationalism, this time in order to increase competitiveness and productivity, improve national unity, and preempt criticism of the government. The success of South Korean president Park Chung Hee's policy of cultural indoctrination, in particular, was such that today most South Koreans share the same ideas about their unique cultural heritage and 5,000-year history. Park's nationalism focused on the threat from foreign powers and the uniqueness of Korea's national identity. It involved advocating old Confucian values that underscored the responsibility shared by all strata of society in achieving the state's economic and political objectives. Perhaps under the influence thereof, many Koreans, both scholars and laymen, began dealing with their colonial past their own way. They did so either by blaming the Japanese for stripping the country of its cultural treasures and economic resources, and leaving the country in ruins, or by rewriting the history of Korea, which they considered to have been greatly contrived by the Japanese during the colonial period. The starting point was to "prove" the historical truth of the myth of Tan'gun, who allegedly founded the first Korean state as early as 2333 B.C. Popular support for adopting the Tan'gun theory was significant, and was further gained under Park's rule. Due to this widespread support, and the fact that many of these historians gained prestigious positions in the academic world, the misconceptions stand largely uncorrected and continue to thwart objective Korean historiography. In _Constructing Korean Origins_, Hyung Il Pai tackles most of the post-colonial historiographical constructions. With great dexterity she examines how and whether Korean historians have used the available data in formulating their many preconceived theories on the existence of Tan'gun's very early and purely Korean civilization, which, so they argue, was one of formidable cultural development and influence. Based on her findings, she shows that, instead, the first Korean state was not an isolated culture and cannot have been formed until much later. In terms of the number of pages, the book is divided in two sections. The first part is made up of seven chapters, and the second of a relatively long section (127 pp.) of appendices, followed by the notes, bibliography, glossary and index. In the introduction, "The Formation of Korean Identity" (pp. 1-22), Pai summarizes the factors that led to the current trends in historiography. She outlines the nationalist cultural policy of South Korea's post-war governments and the nationalist activities of scholars, and explains how they have managed to shape the Korean identity. Urged on by the fast industrialization and urbanization, the government has become the arbiter in terms of which archaeological sites are salvaged from destruction by building projects. According to Pai, it is now "the supreme authority over the 'authentic domain of identity'" (p. 13). Not only do I find her assessment of the role of the state here overly strong, but unless one recognizes the shared interests of the state and the archaeologists, the former seemingly contradicts what follows on page 17. There, Pai writes that due to the extensive interference with Korea's past by the Japanese, the Korean archaeologist has become the "mostÉwidely recognized" and "most authentic authority" on what constitutes the Korean identity. In "The Colonial Origins of Prehistoric Korea" (pp. 23-56), Pai elaborates on the colonial activities of Japanese archaeologists in Korea. She describes the enormous scope of their research and discusses the most important Korean racial theories. Japanese archaeologists were the founders of archaeology in Korea. They not only excavated hundreds of burial sites, but also identified more than two thousand of them. Because, moreover, they published their findings in many reports over the years in a language similar to Korean and would eventually even train the first generation of Korean archaeologists (p. 35), their work and methodology have had an enormous impact on Korean historiography and archaeology to date. The excavated objects were carefully restored and preserved, and many of them were taken to the museums in the capital. To prevent further damage to the objects, the Japanese enacted a series of laws and measures, aimed at both Korean looters and Japanese soldiers (p. 33). Pai argues that the system of kokuho (Kor.: kukpo = "national treasures"), which the current Korean cultural properties preservation system employs, started with the enactment of the 1916 law (p. 434, n. 29). The term, however, does not appear in the law (see Chosen sotokufu 1916: 3-5) and in Korea appears not to have been introduced until after the end of the Pacific War. It was first used in the name of a committee, the Kukpo myOngsOng ch'OnnyOn kinyOmmul imshi pojon wiwOnhoe (Interim Committee for the Preservation of Natural Monuments, Places of Scenic Beauty and Historic Interest, and National Treasures), which the then Minister of Education, Kim POmnin, established on 19 December 1952 to carry out repairs on cultural properties damaged during the Korean War (ChOng Chaejong 1985: 4; see also Maliangkay 1999: 78). There is no doubt, however, that the system, and with it the concept of national properties, found its origin in the 1916 law. Chapter 3, "The Mythical Origins of Ancient Korea" (pp. 57-96), primarily deals with the Tan'gun myth and how noted nationalist historiographers, such as Sin Ch'ae-ho, Ch'oe Nam-sOn, Paek Nam-un and Kim Chae-wOn, began using it to define a new and foremost distinctive, separate Korean history. As she discusses the claims made by these early scholars and their contemporary followers, Pai systematically repudiates their state-formation theories, which heavily relied "on data, methodologies and data inherited from the Japanese" (p. 96). In the consecutive chapter, "Korean State-Formation Theories: A Critical Review" (pp. 97-126), she shows how racism already imbedded in the methodology of Japanese archaeologists led to the contrivance of Korean state-formation theories. Criticizing the methodology of the general Korean archaeology today, she says: "Korean scholars today have yet to fathom the imperialistic motives lurking behind colonial scholarship's imagined Korean racial origins in 'primitive' Manchuria, even though they continue to target Japanese ancient historians as arch-villains for their 'distorted' view of Korean history É (p. 98) Pai also warns against the adoption of Confucian ideas, which emphasize a dynastic lineage and presume a certain superiority (p. 112). Instead, she proposes a new approach to understanding Korean prehistory, which focuses on the interactions between identifiable groups. This method is illustrated in the following two chapters, "Lelang: A Case Study in Cultural Contact and Cultural Change" (pp. 127-173) and "The Lelang Interaction Sphere in Korean Prehistory" (pp. 174-236). In these chapters she systematically discusses the data and objects collected of the Han dynasty commandery of Lelang and paints a clear picture of the cultural interactions spheres in the area. By doing so, Pai proves quite convincingly that the first Korean state cannot be dated earlier than around 108 B.C. In the final chapter, "Nationalism and Rewriting the Wrongs of the Past" (pp. 237-287), Pai once more underscores the importance of history and archaeology as political tools. She relates the 1995 dismantling of the building of the Seoul National Museum, the former headquarters of the Japanese Government-General in Korea, and the issues the handling of cultural heritage raises from the perspective of identity. In describing the history of the museum, however, she fails to mention that because the properties, many of which had long been hidden from view, were turned into national icons, the Japanese intentionally deprived some of them of their religious significance (De Ceuster 2000; see also Maliangkay 1999: 79). In her final conclusion, Pai once more repeats what she set out to prove, namely that "'the ancient' is as an indispensable and unavoidable source of a nation's identity." Despite the large number of novel claims Pai makes in her book, I found most of them well supported. The only two hiccups I came across were the "musicologists tell me," which turned out to be based on personal communication with no more than one person (p. 423 n. 12), and, on a similar note, "the Japanese perspective" (p. 238, 460 n. 8), which is also backed up by one presumably primary source only. Overall, the style and editing are excellent. The book reads very well and has a clear layout. The index and glossary are, unfortunately, very short, the first listing only 150 words, the second 134. Their constrictions were probably necessary to limit the total number of pages, though I would have thought that specific terms such as sadae--the first mention of which (p. 15) is not listed in the index--minjok t'ujaengsa (pp. 137, 245), hwabunh'yong (?) (p. 135) and chuch'e (pp. 59, 254) certainly merited listing. As far as the editing is concerned, I only found one inconsistency on p. 121, where Pai speaks of a majority of 77 percent, which on p. 452 n. 26 seems to be 75.4 percent. Apart from a few occasional misspellings (see Leland [Lelang] on p. xii, S™kkurram [S™kkuram] on p. 434, and Talch'um[T'alch'um] on p. 468n54), the translations and romanizations are very consistent and accurate. On two occasions, however, I felt that words had been too quickly repeated: "During É subjects" and "the main agenda É people" on page 36 and 37, and "Thus É peninsula." and "The É Korea" on page 240 and 243. _Constructing Korean Origins_ is a wonderful achievement. It is thorough and provocative and a very important addition to Korean historiography. My own prime interest being cultural policy and music, I personally found the case studies of Chapters 5 and 6 somewhat turgid at times, because of their great detail and the complex comparisons of data, but the remaining chapters are certainly significant to Korean cultural studies in a more general sense. This is simply a brilliant piece of work that I trust will soon find its way to the reading lists of all Korean history and East Asian archaeology classes. References: ChOng Chaejong. 1985. "Munhwajae wiwOnhoe yaksa [Short History of the Cultural Properties Committee]." Munhwajae 18:1-18. Chosen sotokufu. Taisho 5 [1916]. _Chosen koseki chosa hokoku_ [Reports on Investigations of Ancient Sites in Korea]. Keijo. De Ceuster, Koen. 2000. "The Changing Nature of National Icons in the Seoul Landscape." _Review of Korean Studies_ 3.2:73-103. Maliangkay, Roald H. 1999._Handling the Intangible: The Protection of Folksong Traditions in Korea_. Ph.D. thesis, The University of London. Citation: Maliangkay, Roald H. 2001 Review of _Early Korean Literature: Selections and Introductions_, by David R. McCann, (2000) _Korean Studies Review_ 2001, no. 10 Electronic file: http://www.iic.edu/thelist/review/ksr01-10.htm ------------------------------ From: "Robert Martin" Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 14:31:37 -0600 Subject: the_dojang: Re: ITF in Seoul > > From: Ray Terry > Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:35:53 PDT > Subject: Re: the_dojang: Re: ITF in Seoul > > > Not a problem, Ray. > > > > Look for Korea Pro Taekwondo Federation. They teach ITF Taekwon-Do. I don't > > know exactly where they are. The email address I have is > > yangjiwon81@hanmail.net. > > yangjiwon81@hanmail.net? The 21 year old named Ji-Won that posted to the ITF > Bulletin Board back in March? (yes, you're right, I need to get a life...) > > But you'll note that in subsequent posts to the ITF Board Ji-Won says that > this Korea Pro TKD Fed was 'similar' to the ITF, I guess because he thought > they did the ITF 'poomsae'. One person then replied to him via the ITF Board > stating that he also lived in Seoul and had never heard of this group and > asked for more info. None followed. > > I did check for an ITF NGB listed for Korea, none, save one for North Korea. > > More info is always welcome. I've emailed Ji-Won, but will try it again. > > My original point was wrt the IMHO silly statement that ITF Taekwon-Do was > the 'best'. But there does not appear to be any ITF schools in the Seoul > area and probably not in S. Korea. But who really cares. What really > matters is that ITF TKD is no more the 'best' than is WTF TKD the 'best'. > > Ray Terry > raymail@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com > I did have a brief "conversation" with Ji-Won back in March (outside the ITF BBS). (His English is far better than my Korean.) At first, I didn't buy any school doing ITF patterns in South Korea. I'm still a bit skeptical. I would think one would have to travel there and see for themselves. Does it really surprise you that the ITF doesn't have any official representation in South Korea? To put it mildly, General Choi hasn't been real popular with the government. I understand that the current South Korean president, Kim Dae-jung served in the army with General Choi (and they were friendly). Who knows, with Kim Un Yong's failure at IOC president and the pressure he is getting at home, this situation may change. The "best" argument is one of the most inane battles there is. So much depends on instructors, etc. Most good historians agree that Choi Hong Hi was the first to use the name Taekwon-Do (doesn't matter how it's translated into English). Over the past 50 years, he has developed (with the help of many others) a very powerful martial art. If he hadn't forced the KTA to change its name back to Taekwon-Do in the early 60's, Tae Soo Do might be an Olympic sport. Oh, the ironies of the world. So much for Saturday afternoon musings, Robert Martin 4th Dan ITF PS: Ray, it seems that geeks must do the geekie thing and play with computers. Happy surfing. ------------------------------ From: "Patrick L" Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 14:04:53 -0700 Subject: the_dojang: Kook Sool Hapkido Dear Piotr Bernat, Kuk Sool Won means approximately (Country ((Korean)) Technique Association). From my view as a member of a different Won, I would interpret "Kuk Sool Hapkido" to mean that they would like to be considered part of the brotherhood of Hapkido, and their focus would be an emphasis on native technique. However since "Hapkido" is the basically Koreanization of Jui Jitsu, I do not understand how they reconcile the conundrum. Getting in the WAY, Patrick _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ From: "Patrick L" Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 14:41:51 -0700 Subject: the_dojang: Korean Weapons Dear Mr. Sims, Regarding your concern of the misrepresentation of non-Korean weapons as Korean. Your same arguments could (and have) been made against most MA that I can think of. Cultures are dynamic. MA is dynamic. Hapkido has allowed its practioners the luxury of embracing a diversity of technique, right at the time that cultural barriers to Japan, Korea, and China were dropping for the West. I personally have two rules for those who wish to add technique to an art: 1) you must be Master (5th degree? or above) 2) it must blend into the basic philosophy of the art. How the instructor represents the information is an extension of his goals and/or insecurities. I obtained my Masters permission to teach 4 technique that I had created. When asked by other Hapkido Masters where did that technique come from, I tell them "I created it". When I talk to my students about where Hapkido techniques come from, I say "Aiki Jui Jitsu", I never say; "3808 for Aiki Jui Jitsu, and 4 from me!" To your comment: >I still see Korean practitioners presenting Kendo as the equivilent of or >replacement for Kumdo.< I would have to say that if Japanese sword was good enough for Choi, Young Sool, it is good enough for me. And I would have to ask you why you need to focus on Korean Sword? Are you going to become Kuk Sool? :) >I would wonder out loud if the traditional Korean MA are well-served by >introducing weapons from other arts. Maybe yes, maybe no. I think it is a >dis-service to introduce those weapons and then work like hell to make up >some rationale that they were always in use though not commonly known.< I no longer think of Hapkido as Korean MA - I think of it as MY MA. When a Korean GM (that I greatly respect) taught us Nunchuck in the 70's because they became popular, I smiled, paid my fee for the seminar, and said "That is marvelous". Getting in the WAY, Patrick _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ From: Ray Terry Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 15:32:45 PDT Subject: Re: the_dojang: Re: ITF in Seoul > PS: Ray, it seems that geeks must do the geekie thing and play with > computers. Happy surfing. Someone has to keep ya'll honest... Difficult to not give Major General Choi credit for his early influence over the KTA, but clearly his huge ego got in his way, over and over again. Ray Terry raymail@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com ------------------------------ From: Ray Terry Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 16:16:05 PDT Subject: the_dojang: . ------------------------------ End of The_Dojang-Digest V8 #426 ******************************** It's a great day for Taekwondo! Support the USTU by joining today. US Taekwondo Union, 1 Olympic Plaza, Ste 104C, Colorado Spgs, CO 80909 719-578-4632 FAX 719-578-4642 ustutkd1@aol.com http://www.ustu.org To unsubscribe from the_dojang-digest send the command: unsubscribe the_dojang-digest -or- unsubscribe the_dojang-digest your.old@address in the BODY (top line, left justified) of a "plain text" e-mail addressed to majordomo@hpwsrt.cup.hp.com. Old digest issues are available via ftp://ftp.martialartsresource.com. Copyright 1994-2001: Ray Terry and Martial Arts Resource Standard disclaimers apply.