Over the weekend I had the opportunity to attend a symposium about General Choi 최홍희.
The symposium was in honour of the 100th Anniversary of the birth of General Choi, the “principle founder of original Taekwon-Do” (as Taekwon-Do historian Dr George Vitale likes to put it). General Choi’s claim to the title of “founder” of Taekwon-Do is not without controversy and while his great contribution to Taekwon-Do is undeniable (even so far as coining the term “TaeKwon-Do”), in South Korea his legacy has been nearly eradicated because of the conflict he had with the then dictator-president Park Chonghee. Gen. Choi’s later visit to the North further estranged him from South Korea.
The purpose of this symposium, organised by Taekwondo Box Media and hosted at the Korea National Sports University, was to re-asses General Choi’s contribution. The university president gave an opening remark, which was followed by the reading of a handwritten letter by General Choi’s wife.
 |
| A handwritten letter of appreciation from Mrs Choi, the widow of Gen. Choi |
There were two speakers. The first speaker was Dr. Heo Keon-sik (허건식), General Director of the Chungju World Martial Arts Masterships Organizing Committee. He discussed “The Martial Artist, Choi Hong-hee”. Dr Heo had an interesting approach. He looked at the founders of Judo (Kano), modern Karate (Funakushi), and Kyukushin Karate (Mas Oyama, aka 최영의) and noted how each of them studied a previous martial art and then changed it into something new. By comparison, he argued, that General Choi did the same within the Oh Do Kwan (which was the name of Gen. Choi’s karate school in the ROK military from which Taekwon-Do evolved). Dr Heo also differentiated between the “core” of ITF Taekwon-Do (i.e. Gen. Choi’s Taekwon-Do) and WT / Olympic Taekwondo. For him, the core of Olympic Taekwondo is sport competition, whereas in ITF it is traditional martial arts (if I understood him correctly). A point Dr Heo frequently brought up was “Red Complex”, which is a term used in Korea to refer to the overreaction of anything remotely related to North Korea or Communism. Because of General Choi and the ITF’s connection with North Korea, General Choi became a taboo topic and anything to do with him enticed “Red Complex”. Unfortunately, my understanding of the presentation was limited, so this is all I could derive from Dr. Heo’s presentation.
The second speaker was Dr. Mikhail Han (한병철), a martial arts movement researcher at the 88 Exercise Science Institute. Dr. Han also looked at the Oh Do Kwan as the root of (ITF) Taekwon-Do, noting that it started with Karate training but evolved. He suggested, if I understood him correctly (i.e. if I interpreted his Powerpoint slides correctly), that ITF Taekwon-Do concepts of power generation were derived from various other martial arts influences that were part of the collective knowledge of the early ITF Taekwon-Do pioneers, which included karate, Western boxing, some Chinese martial arts, Taekkyeon, wrestling (I’m guessing he refers to Judo), fencing, Muay Thai, and weightlifting. I’m not sure what his sources for fencing and Muay Thai are, but the other activities mentioned were definitely part of early (ITF) Taekwon-Do. He then spoke about ITF’s sinewave movement and pointed out that ITF Taekwon-Do’s conception of force shares concepts with the knee-bending principle 오금질 in Taekkyeon, and certain concepts of movement within the Chinese internal styles: Hsing-I Chuan, Taichi Chuan and Baqua. This was a pleasant surprise because this is the first time I heard someone formally make this claim—which is something I’ve written about for years on my Taekwon-Do blog. (The only other person I know who has made similar statements is Manuel Androgue.)
Dr Han stated that Choi Hong-hee should get credit for being the "major shareholder” in the foundation of Taekwon-Do, for his attempt to break away from Japanese-karate, for introducing Taekwon-Do to North Korea, for preserving Taekwon-Do as a “Martial Do” 무도태권도, and for being a Korean patriot.
He concluded his talk by addressing the tasks ahead. He suggested that an objective reappraisal of General Choi’s contribution is required, that it should be “beyond ideology”, that General Choi should receive amnesty (he was declared a traitor by the Park Chong-hee regime), that there should be an independent meritor of Gen Choi’s work, that a Choi Hong-hi memorial should be established, and that Inter-Korean Taekwon-Do exchanges should (continue to) occur.
 |
| Symposium Q&A Panel |
The second part of the symposium involved a discussion (Q&A) with six specialists, including Sean Yu, who is the Secretary General for one of the ITF groups in South Korea. Because this part of the symposium did not include presentation slides, I wasn’t able to follow along as well. One of the questions from a university student was why General Choi’s contribution to Taekwon-Do were not taught to them in university. The uncomfortable answer was because of “Red Complex”.
 |
| Dignitaries, presenters, panelists and PhDs in attendance |
I don’t know what the long term implication of this symposium will be because as far as I could tell it was not sanctioned by the World Taekwondo, the Kukkiwon or Taekwondowon. It was a rather low-key event. Nevertheless, it is of great significance. When I came to Korea over a decade ago, General Choi was a taboo topic. I was even warned to avoid talking and writing about him because I might get investigated by the NIS (National Intelligence Service), which could result in having my visa revoked. Since then, the political climate has made a 180-degree turn. The legacy of General Choi is slowly re-emerging and hopefully he will get the credit as the “major shareholder” of Taekwon-Do in the homeland of Taekwon-Do.
No comments:
Post a Comment