General Notes About History

[The Wastrel]

First of all, in discussions of the geneology of the martial arts, it is important to avoid falling into the trap of searching for pure national origins that are simply the opposite of the ones that have prevailed before. For whatever reason, martial arts have always engendered this sort of bizarre nationalism. Few people argue about the origins of astronomy, or mathematics. In these cases, we clearly recognize that the dissemination of ideas crosses many boundaries, and that individuals are better identified as the engine of new discovery or of rediscovery.

Second, 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. When I reach that point, I always prefer to leave things to question. In any case, facts matter, and should not be ignored. Interpretations are the field of appropriate debate.

I think this would be a good thread where we can discuss the more academic aspects of history and research, and hold a meta-debate (debate about the debate) on history.

"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 15:53:00

[miguksaram]

Nice threaed Wrastrel.

Jeremy M. Talbott
http://www.koreanma.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.martialscience.homestead.com/home.html

[Bolverk]

People do not need to argue about the origin of astronomy or mathmatics, the history is very well documented.

When you talk about Martial Arts, it is a completely different story. Much of the history was destroyed in many instances, left to be handed down only by word of mouth.

Sincerely,

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

[The Wastrel]

Bolverk,
Word of mouth is not history. Making uncontroversial conclusions from verifiable data is. If data were destroyed then we acknowledge that we can know nothing, we do not accept the explanations of people who have obvious and vested interests in their personal accounts, which may also seem to run counter to verifiable data.

You didn't get my point about astronomy or mathematics, which is basically that these things are idea strains. It is ridiculous to claim that Japan invented Karate. Or that England invented Boxing. Martial arts evolve partially along with interaction with the enemy, they cannot be organic to themselves. And there is no reason to worry about whether they are.

Anyone attempting to establish some sort of bizarre national pedigree is to be viewed with great suspicion.

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

Edited by - The Wastrel on June 18 2003 12:47:35

[Mr. Nice Guy]

The following are several postings from a series that started on the TKD history thread that will probably be more appreciated here, at least by the TKD guys!



patfromlogan
Light-Heavyweight


USA
895 Posts
136 Gold
900 Rep. Points Posted - June 17 2003 : 23:43:38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well as a student of history, truth matters a lot to me. Revisionist bullshit stinks, and fairy tales, "romanticism," and propaganda lead to idiotic beliefs, like that we have evidence of weapons of mass destruction (despite the CIA officials claiming that they had no evidence of the wmd), or that the US supports democracy (Vietnam, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile not withstanding, somehow bullshit seems to rule the popular culture), or that there are “master races” upon the Earth, and the “mud” races are to be ruled by them. But as my hero Robert Nesta Marley sang, "If you knew your history, then you wouldn't have to ask where I am coming from," and "if you don't know your history you are like a tree without roots."

"Masutatsu Oyama Sensei (Choi Yong-i) was Korean, Grand Master Lee (Yi) Won-Kuk trained in Shotokan under Funakoshi Sensei, and General Choi Hong Hi, founder of ITF, was a first Dan in Japanese Karate." If historical methodology supports this, which it seems to clearly do, then to think otherwise is to live is a fantasy world. That is the individual’s business, but I pity those who can't face reality. I’m sure the Nazi bullshit legends and myths gave people lots of warm fuzzy feelings and was to partake in was quite enjoyable. Perhaps it takes courage to face reality, but isn’t courage very important in martial arts?


"Only IDIOTS think kata is useless because they don't know what they are talking about!!!" 5/6/03 Asia

Mr. Nice Guy
Featherweight


USA
34 Posts
100 Gold
39 Rep. Points Posted - June 18 2003 : 09:16:52
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't remember who said it now (Mr. Guy is getting old, time for his medicine...), but the best observation I've ever heard on the subject of history went something like this:

"History? In the end, history is lies about crimes."

There you have it.



Grim, hard, cold words, heartless and miserable. The night was railing against the morning of which it was bereaved, and the cold was cursing the warmth for which it hungered.

Edited by - Mr. Nice Guy on June 18 2003 14:57:36

[Mr. Nice Guy]

patfromlogan
Light-Heavyweight


USA
895 Posts
136 Gold
900 Rep. Points Posted - June 18 2003 : 09:44:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Nice Guy, that's the kind of negative thinking I saw in college when a nobrain asked the prof "why do we have to learn about dead politicians?" In my opinion, living a lie is the crime, but as nonthinking thick necked fools and jerks like to say; 'opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.'

"Only IDIOTS think kata is useless because they don't know what they are talking about!!!" 5/6/03 Asia


Edited by - Mr. Nice Guy on June 18 2003 14:55:29

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Patfromlogan,

I was just making an (admittedly cynical) joke, amplifying on another maxim that historians are fond of: "The victors write the history." I'm a bit of an historian myself, which is why I'm delighted to be having a go at my fellow historians.

Since politicians from time immemorial have based their legitimacy on a superior ability to commit murder, the "lies about crimes" statement can be seen as pretty accurate, humor notwithstanding.

For example, look up the history of history writing on the Wars of the Roses sometime. The Plantagenets lost and the Tudors won, so the Tudors by right of conquest wrote the histories of the those wars that have been read for the last 500 years. Richard III Plantagenet, despite much contemporary evidence from other sources as to the beneficial effects of his public policy for the common people, sources previous to and independent of the Tudors, has been painted in the public mind as the foullest of villains ever since. Historians all have personal motives themselves, either unconscious or blatantly mercenary ones (Kungfoolss comes to mind) that interfere at least a little with their objectivity, so we should be suspect of any historian or history that isn't independently verified by multiple sources.

Wastrel started a thread today about just this subject, a debate on the different historical methods people use, perhaps an administrator would be kind enough to move us there.

Regards,
Mr. N.G.


Grim, hard, cold words, heartless and miserable. The night was railing against the morning of which it was bereaved, and the cold was cursing the warmth for which it hungered.





The Wastrel
Heavyweight


USA
3699 Posts
240 Gold
3704 Rep. Points Posted - June 18 2003 : 14:22:50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just copy and paste your posts and then delete it from this thread. I will delete this myself in two days...

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

Edited by - Mr. Nice Guy on June 18 2003 14:56:20

[Bolverk]

Bolverk,
Word of mouth is not history. Making uncontroversial conclusions from verifiable data is. If data were destroyed then we acknowledge that we can know nothing, we do not accept the explanations of people who have obvious and vested interests in their personal accounts, which may also seem to run counter to verifiable data.

I must disagree with your assessment of what history is. History is not always verifiable, but that does not mean it does not exist. History is like the truth, it has three sides, your version, my version, and what really happened. Your version may not square with mine, but that does not mean either version will square with what really happened.

Sincerely,

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

[Vapour]

Well, there is nothing wrong with saying that Karate is Okinawan arts derived from Kung Fu. There are number of historical records showing that quite few founder of Karate travelled to China and learned the martial arts over there.

Now as far as civilization goes in the East, there are no question that Chinese originated much of everthing. However, that doesn't mean nothing can originate from Japan or Korea.

For example, pasta originated from China(noodle/men in Chinese). Then it's spread around the world through the silk road. However, that doesn't mean pasta is not uniquely Italian. In china it is just noodle in soup. In italy, it's far more than that. Plus, there are no controversy in saying that italian originated a variation of pasta, pizza.

Now, my point is that certain thing such as who or which country originated what can be established given enough historical evidences. On the other hand, whether original is superior to the other is totally different matter. I mentioned in other thread but in Confusius culture, it' is generally assumed that older/original one is better/superior. This "I taught you so I'm better than you" is a sport among Chinese/Korean/Japanese.

There are valid point in investigating history/origin of martial arts. But the exercise become pointless when it's is used to prove something other than mere facts.

[The Wastrel]

Bolverk,
If you disagree that making uncontroversial conclusions from verifiable date is good history, then what is? Pure storytelling?

I think you maintain the relativist position because it squares with your current agenda. I mean, aren't you conservative?

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

[Samuel 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.

[fug]

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.