General Notes About History

[Sam Browning]

I'd just like to comment on the reliability of 'oral history' or word of mouth. Historians use such accounts but most are pretty careful to only use information that the person relating the story actually saw or experienced or was related to them through one person. Not a long line of people.

For example based on my dad's stories I have a fairly good idea about his father's personality (1900-1962) I really can't reliably jump back a prior generation without depending on written records. I would argue that the oral accounts become unreliable once they pass through more then a couple people at best.

Secondly, while history has a lot of subjective elements, there is an underlying truth and just because someone comes up with a weak version of history doesn't mean that we cannot make a judgment on the merits deciding that one version is more accurate then another. For example I think we could generate a history of the battle of Waterloo that people of all nationalities could accept, though this would have been impossible in say 1840 when nationistic passions would have prevented such an exercise. most of the time in my view one of the two or more versions is obviously more reliable and the observer can reach some sort of semi-objective judgment based on the information out there.

[patfromlogan]

History = written.

and as the girls (women) say HIS! STORY!

oral = myth, legend, traditional knowledge, or "oral history." Like Clinton differentiated sex (put inside, as the Hawaiians say) and oral sex.

Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
I never opened my science book
Don't know much about the French I took
But I do that I love you
And I know thatif you love me too
What a wonderful world this would be




Edited by - patfromlogan on June 19 2003 07:59:27

[Bolverk]

The primary definition of History is:

<ol type=1>[*]TALE, STORY[*]<ol type=a>[*]a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes[*]a treatise presenting systematically related natural phenomena[*]an account of a patient's medical background[*]an established record <a prisoner with a history of violence>
</ol id=a>[*]a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events <medieval history>[*]<ol type=a>[*]events that form the subject matter of a history[*]events of the past[*]one that is finished or done for <the winning streak was history> <you're history>[*]previous treatment, handling, or experience (as of a metal)
</ol id=a>
</ol id=1>

As you can see, not all history is recorded.

What has been engaged in here is Histrionics:

<ol type=1>[*]theatrical performances[*]deliberate display of emotion for effect
</ol id=1>

This would seem to be the case anyway.

Sincerely,

Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

Edited by - Bolverk on June 19 2003 11:28:44

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"...cynicism and alethic relativism in discussions of history is really just a dodge. Narratives of history are certainly questionable, they involve interpretation, no matter how concrete the facts upon which they are based. But there is nonetheless much that is verifiable and significant. Remember to avoid the temptation of thinking that it is the interpretive parts of history that are interesting."
-the Wastrel

Wastrel,
In the interest of the meta-debate, I'd like to provide some perspective on cynicism itself. Fowler's Modern English Usage has this to say about cynicism:

MOTIVE or AIM
Self-justification

PROVINCE
Morals

METHOD or MEANS
Exposure of nakedness

AUDIENCE
The respectable

It is easy enough in simple conversation to blur the lines between cynicism and invective, satire or irony, and then see 'cynicism' in their reflected light as a purely egotistic exercise, but in the end the classical usage of cynicism is a compliment to one's readers, and serves an important purpose in such a subjective area as historical debate.

Regards,
N.G.



Edited by - Mr. Nice Guy on June 19 2003 15:35:42

[The Wastrel]

Bolverk,
Calm down. Who's being histrionic? I'm talking about the academic practice of history. If you suggest we simply abandon any standard in favor of embracing all competing and contradictory accounts, then I have trouble understanding how you function in debate at all.

Mr. Nice Guy,
I don't see the application of the classical definition of cynicism. No one's talking about Diogenes of Sinope. I'm talking about the contemporary use of cynic to mean one who retreats to the abandonment of any belief in integrity, truth, etc.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

Edited by - The Wastrel on June 19 2003 16:13:36

[Bolverk]

Actually, since this post stems from the discussion about the History of Taekwondo, it was in that context that I refer to the engagement of Histrionics.

As you can plainly see by the defenition of History, it is not required to be recorded to exist. It can come from folklore, legends, and various other means of passing on what has gone before. That is my point, one which seems to elude you. History in and of itself is not a discipline.

Sincerely,

Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

[The Wastrel]

It doesn't elude me Bolverk. Whatever. If I ticked you off by asking about that EGM thing...too bad. It sounds ridiculous to me. Oh well. As far as I'm concerned, you're the only one being histrionic, because you seem to be taking an academic debate far too personally.

You want to use an all-encompassing definition of history. Fine. But what's the matter with trying to come at some sort of standard by which the debate might productively proceed? Nothing. Except for the fact that you want your instructor's personal mythology to outweigh the staggering counterbalance of actual evidence. We'll wait until things swing the other way and watch you abandon that position as fast as it suits you.

Oh and there is a discipline called "History". If you want to keep telling campfire stories, that's fine. Just recognize that they're not convincing, and they're hardly equivalent.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Wastrel,

Yes, what I want to do is to decry the modern usage of "cynic" as well. Hence my comment about the lines of its definition being too easily blurred in simple conversation.

My classically cynical quotation of the joke line "lies about crimes" is just an observation to the point that throughout history, in its actors and recorders, there is indeed precious little belief in integrity, truth, etc. That lack of belief (or lack of care) is a position of nakedness to those who have enough experience of history - real or feigned - and the laws that govern its transmission, to see it as such.

The cynicism that I would use here is just to expose the nakedness of much that passes for 'history' (and not just in the martial arts). To expose for discussion that it usually is a shallow attempt to either grant oneself a somehow more ancient or distinguished pedigree, or to whitewash a pre-existent connection (say between Japan and Korea) or both. This is made more important for a debate on martial art history in that very, very few of the arts in question have the independant documentation that an accomplished historian would need to make definitive statements.

So my little jibe was 'cynical' in the sense that it was intended to announce that merely hoping that one's style's received history is true isn't going to be enough to support increasingly strident public statements to that effect, at least to those of us who take this subject seriously.

I'm not saying that there isn't valuable history of the arts, or worth in the study of the historical forces that shaped them (the most interesting bit for me, at least). I just want to be clear, as I think the serious people here also do, that there has to be some actual thought and verifiable references behind any absolute statements that people make if they don't want to be argued with, which is what I think you are also asking for.

Regards,
N.G.

[The Wastrel]

Agreed. BTW: Diogenes of Sinope r0x0rs.

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."

[Bolverk]

Actually Wastrel, I don't care if you like that fact that the Late Grand Master Haeng Ung Lee was elevated to 10th degree after his passing. You can think what you want, but you do not know the facts, so your criticism is unfounded. Many Grand Masters of martial arts including Grand Master Joon Rhee and Grand Master Bong Soo Han, gathered to pay respect to Eternal Grand Master H.U. Lee. They formally sanctioned a petition to elevate the Songahm Grand Master to 10th degree black belt, Eternal Grand Master, the highest position attainable outside the philosophy of Songahm Taekwondo. It was not done by our organization, but by respected people of Taekwondo.

As for my all encompassing defenition of history, I would only say this, your defenition is to narrow, as well as narrow minded. The history and roots of Taekwondo may not be within my realm of expertise, but it is among others. Also, I do not just rely on information that supports my view.

In fact, there is a surviving historical document, the Muyedobotongji, that supports a view that Taekwondo, though influenced by other arts, was also attempting to get back to a style similar to Taek Kyon.

This sites goes over the Muyedobotongji.
http://www.koreana.or.kr/search_db/v...article_id=830

Also, this site, though a bit out of date, explains the probable roots to Taek Kyon as well. It also points out the obvious influences of other Martial Arts, which went on for thousands of year in the area.

http://www.indiana.edu/~iutkd/history/tkdhist.html

Sincerely,

Knowing it is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.

Edited by - Bolverk on June 19 2003 16:39:19