Sign-up for Free Fighting Techniques & Videos
Delivered Daily to your Inbox

Hwa Rang Do – Ancient Korean Martial Arts of Shilla

0

Free Fighting Techniques, Fight Videos and Training Courses

Sign-up to Receive Free Fighting Techniques, Fight Videos and Training Courses from the Warrior Combatives Academy 

privacy We value your privacy and would never spam you

Hwa Rang Do – Ancient Korean Martial Arts of Shilla
Original Poster: KoreanTiger
Forum: Korean Martial Arts
Posted On: 06-03-2007, 03:46

Orginal Post: KoreanTiger: Hello martial artists and fighters around the globe!

Have you guys heard of Wha Rang Do?
Wha Rang Do is an ancient Korean martial arts from which Tae Kwon Do, Hapkido, Jujitsu, Judo and Aikido came.
Wha Rang Warriors moved to Japan and taught Jujitsu. And Jujitsu gave birth to Judo and Aikido and Brazillian jujitsu.
In Korea, Wha Rang Martial Arts gave birth to Tae Kwon Do and Hapkido.

Wha Rang Do revived in 1940s in Korea by Grandmaster Joo Bang Lee. Dr. Joo Bang Lee was taught this secret and forbidden Hwa Rang Arts by famous SooAm Dosa (Enlightened Monk) who had been living deep in the mountains. Wha Rang Martial Marts which had been in exile to the mountains finally came back to the public!

If i have to explain what Wha Rang Do is like… it is like the mad combination of Tae Kown Do mixed with Hapkido, Judo, Jujitsu, Kung Fu and Kendo! Would you believe it? It is like watching the most ultimate fighting martial arts ever existed on earth. Totally mixed up but in its most brutal and raw forms. It is not a flashy sport, it is a Killingfield Warrior Combat Martial Arts.

It is absolutely unbelievable. and you won’t believe until you see it.

so, here is the official Hwa Rang Do website for you all.

www.wharangdo.com

Post: KoreanTiger:

It is spelled “Hwa Rang Do”, not “Wha Rang Do”.

Go to www.hwarangdo.com>

Post: Hengest:

[quote=KoreanTiger HelloIf i have to explain what Wha Rang Do is like… it is like the mad combination of Tae Kown Do mixed with Hapkido, Judo, Jujitsu, Kung Fu and Kendo! [/quote 

No, that’s not what it’s like. That’s basically what it is. Hwa Rang Do isn’t an ancient style. It’s origins are a bit cloudy, but it seems to have the same roots as hapkido. The techniques are very, very similar, which means that it is actually just another Korean style with Japanese origins; ironic isn’t it?

The hwarang were not warriors, that’s all myth, and they didn’t teach the samurai anything (except maybe that you should always use a good foundation when applying make-up). It seems they were actually young lads selected to serve as courtiers in the royal household and they were actually required to dress in the fashion of young girls, make-up and all, and look pretty. Again, ironic isn’t it? We discussed the subject in more detail a year or so ago. If you want to take a look it’s at http://www.fightauthority.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=960&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

So, I’m afraid mate, this is just another example of the little fantasy world that Korean martial arts teachers have made up as a security blank for themselves to make up for the fact that the Koreans never really had much of a martial culture while the Chinese and (gasp!) Japanese did.>

Post: setsu nin to:

OK, I have to take break to stay calm…

Just one thing KoreanTiger, could you tell me please where did you finde that informations about HRD? On www.hwarangdo.com?>

Post: bamboo:

Thank you Hengest for that nicely written post.>

Post: 8LimbsScientist:

While I agree the first poster needs to study martial arts history a bit more, I don’t understand why everyone suddenly believes this whole Hwarang gay thing?

One page on a website which is anti-Korean, and its taken as gospel? I’m not saying that the Hwarang were absolutely an elite Korean warrior class, but I’m just saying this page isn’t proof that they weren’t. There are differing opinions on the subject, and I don’t see anything so special about this one.

Also, why is gay considered anti-warrior? This is a modern convention. I’m no expert in Asian history, but I know Spartan warriors were known to engage in a little man on man love every now and then.

I’m just not sure its fair for us ALL to accept the idea that Hwarang were nothing more than the Butt-Sex Patrol based on this evidence.>

Post: bamboo:

Quote:
Also, why is gay considered anti-warrior? This is a modern convention. I’m no expert in Asian history, but I know Spartan warriors were known to engage in a little man on man love every now and then.

Its not, even the samurai were famous for this behaviour. So where some zen monks, catholic priests and a whole army of “missionaries”.

What I believe gets people bustles in a hedgerow (name that tune! :wink:) is the rewriting of martial arts history à la state korean propoganda.

They created jiujitsu? Brought it to japan? Taught the samurai? Wheres the proof?
Like the whole “hapkido from daito ryu choi was a houseboy” history. Funny how the records on the Japan side are near perfect in this regard but of course they lost ONLY the papers of the mysterious korean houseboy of Sokaku Takeda and he in turn had them “stolen” when he returned to korea. :roll: . Wierd how his son had no memory of a foriegn houseboy.

Honestly, I have no idea whether or not the “flower knights” practiced any martial arts. Koreans should be proud of what they do and who they are, I am quite certain that they don’t need a few ego maniacs reinventing history to make them feel better about themselves.
Is hwa rang do a decent art, its the results on the mat that make the difference, not the nobility of its past, real or fictitous.

-bamboo>

Post: bamboo:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/H/Hw/Hwarang_Segi.htm

When korean scholars are disputing the authenticity of historical documents turned up in 1989 and the disputed writing is the only mention of the subject in question, it makes one wonder.

-bamboo>

Post: Bushi:

All I can do is laugh at the TKD schools that brainwash their students into believing they are studing an elite art.

Hahahahaha>

Post: nbotary:

[quote=bamboo What I believe gets people bustles in a hedgerow (name that tune! :wink:) [/quote 
DUUUUDDE – Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven”!!! Nice use of the lyrical content to make your point!!! :wink:>

Post: Hengest:

[quote=8LimbsScientist While I agree the first poster needs to study martial arts history a bit more, I don’t understand why everyone suddenly believes this whole Hwarang gay thing?

One page on a website which is anti-Korean, and its taken as gospel? I’m not saying that the Hwarang were absolutely an elite Korean warrior class, but I’m just saying this page isn’t proof that they weren’t. There are differing opinions on the subject, and I don’t see anything so special about this one.

Also, why is gay considered anti-warrior? This is a modern convention. I’m no expert in Asian history, but I know Spartan warriors were known to engage in a little man on man love every now and then.[/quote 

As bamboo said, it’s not. You’re missing the point of the argument mate. It’s not the evidence pointing towards their sexual persuasion that I use to try and disprove the hwarang myth. It’s the evidence that they were not warriors, plain and simple.

And neither is my opinion based on that one website. I just used that to spark the previous discussion on this subject. Stanley Henning, Dakin Burdick, Robert Dohrenwend, Manuel Adrogué, Eric Madis, and Joseph Svinth, to name but a few, have written excellent, well-researched pieces on the history of Korean martial arts that all point to the fact that there is little evidence for Korean styles having a basis in native ancient combat systems, and even less linking them to the hwarang.

On the little evidence of hwarang existing at all, there is nothing to suggest they were warriors. Some did go on to become warriors, but that was after they served as hwarang. At best, the hwarang can be seen as a system of grooming boys to become leaders, political and military. But for Koreans to talk of them as great fighters equal of the samurai, the Templars, or the Spartans, is as ridiculous as the British of the year 3000 swapping tales of that great warrior league, the Etonians!>

Post: shurite44:

I would like to point out that not all TKD schools teach this history. Ok, I said it now on with the show. :D>

Post: mjeon:

[quote=Hengest [quote=KoreanTiger HelloIf i have to explain what Wha Rang Do is like… it is like the mad combination of Tae Kown Do mixed with Hapkido, Judo, Jujitsu, Kung Fu and Kendo! [/quote 

No, that’s not what it’s like. That’s basically what it is. Hwa Rang Do isn’t an ancient style. It’s origins are a bit cloudy, but it seems to have the same roots as hapkido. The techniques are very, very similar, which means that it is actually just another Korean style with Japanese origins; ironic isn’t it?

The hwarang were not warriors, that’s all myth, and they didn’t teach the samurai anything (except maybe that you should always use a good foundation when applying make-up). It seems they were actually young lads selected to serve as courtiers in the royal household and they were actually required to dress in the fashion of young girls, make-up and all, and look pretty. Again, ironic isn’t it? We discussed the subject in more detail a year or so ago. If you want to take a look it’s at http://www.fightauthority.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=960&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

So, I’m afraid mate, this is just another example of the little fantasy world that Korean martial arts teachers have made up as a security blank for themselves to make up for the fact that the Koreans never really had much of a martial culture while the Chinese and (gasp!) Japanese did.[/quote 

Sry, but Hwarang’s DEFINATELY exsisted… you know.- It’s not made up.
It is very clear in the Korean history – as I remember/ And- there is a famous hwa rang warrior in shilla(forgot his name..) who fought bravely for his castle an for shilla. It is in the history book anyway..
Like Kim-you-shin for example/.. who was the true Hwarang and who existed! It’s just the plain truth- so obvious
Ive seen some Korean forums talking about how some people got angry about some people thought that hwarangs didn’t exist.

also that even the researchers were good.. whos the ones that know about their own history? They were warriors, did extreme trainings, and thats the truth. ridiculous?? that doesnt make any sense at all.
If Korea was well-known, the history of the hwarangs would have been obviously believed by other people. Just like the Japanese-samurai warriors. Or just look at the root of Koreans(partly – a tiny bit of mongolians actually) and warriors, armours and stuff.
But Britain’s diifferent.. you can’t compare Britain saying something ridiculous and Korea saying that hwarangs were equal to spartans or samurai’s. Because – there were totally different. Britain invaded lots of countries, and stole lots of stuff. And also they were a big country.
On the other hand, Korea wasn’t really much of an attacking country, sometimes went to fight for their land back from the mongolians.
And they went over to Japan and taught them about Buddhism, and shared culture.(Shilla was the first ones to share culture with Japan)
If the Japanese did not invade Korea for – 36years, and other countries had cared more, the Koreans wouldn’t have been known as having no origins of culture.(The Japanese had massive destruction when they invaded the peninsula- and that’s when lots of the evidence got destroyed- and some stolen reamains in Japan privately collected and passed on through generations unknown that is is not from Japan- is mistakenly recognised as Japanese remains.)

I don’t think itsa myth really..really. Need to stick to the point-

It’s true – what KoreanTiger said.>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

Give it up kid, and stop believing everything you read.>

Post: Stazzy:

[quote=Tease T Tickle Give it up kid, and stop believing everything you read.[/quote 

Yeah, seriously. You need to learn to only trust credible sources like television infromercials.>

Post: Hengest:

[quote=mjeon [Britain invaded lots of countries, and stole lots of stuff. And also they were a big country.[/quote 

Ever looked at an atlas, at all? :roll:>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

I looked at an atlas once. Then I took a marker to shade all of Britain’s colonies.

They were kind of a big country.>

Post: Hengest:

I think you’re confusing “country” and “empire” Tease. But, in all fairness, that seems to be a common misunderstanding amongst your countrymen.

:twisted:>

Post: Tease T Tickle:

all nations aspire to empire. except maybe costa rica.>

Post: Gazelle:

I just looked up ‘nation’ on wiki…

The members of a nation are distinguished by a common identity, and almost always by a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent.
That doesn’t work for being ‘British’ anymore, nor with anyother nationality that has a fair amount of immigrants from some generation or other, which, would be pretty much everyone of them.

Anyway, i was looking it up before i made the off-hand comment of, ‘depends who’s running it and the individuals within it’, but given what the definition of it could be – a collective group of people holding some sort of common trait, that is not neccesarily so.

Apologies, this rather a rambling post, probably worth being deleted.>

Post: Hengest:

If you look in the OED Gazelle, it defines “nation” as: “a large body of people united by a common descent, culture or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory”. I think this makes more sense. The wiki definition would make it difficult to argue that the US, Canada, Australia, Brazil, etc, were nations, which is, of course, ridiculous.

That aside, I think the wiki definition would still allow the British to be a nation (despite my personal views on the subject). Recent studies on the UK’s population are showing that, genetically at least, we are nowhere near as diverse as we thought. The overwhelming majority of British citizens are descended from only two mass migrations, both quite soon after the last Ice Age. The southern English, Welsh, Cornish, Irish and a large section of the Scots moved in from the south, most probably from Iberia, while the north English and the rest of the Scots came across from the north, almost certainly from Scandinavia. The impact from more recent migrations (Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Huguenots, etc) has been tiny, only registering at all in East Anglia (probably a Saxon/Danish mix), Yorkshire (possibly Saxon, more probably Norse) and Orkney and Shetland (most definitely Norse).>

Post: Gazelle:

[quote=Hengest If you look in the OED Gazelle, it defines “nation” as: “a large body of people united by a common descent, culture or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory”. I think this makes more sense. The wiki definition would make it difficult to argue that the US, Canada, Australia, Brazil, etc, were nations, which is, of course, ridiculous.

That aside, I think the wiki definition would still allow the British to be a nation (despite my personal views on the subject). Recent studies on the UK’s population are showing that, genetically at least, we are nowhere near as diverse as we thought. The overwhelming majority of British citizens are descended from only two mass migrations, both quite soon after the last Ice Age. The southern English, Welsh, Cornish, Irish and a large section of the Scots moved in from the south, most probably from Iberia, while the north English and the rest of the Scots came across from the north, almost certainly from Scandinavia. The impact from more recent migrations (Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Huguenots, etc) has been tiny, only registering at all in East Anglia (probably a Saxon/Danish mix), Yorkshire (possibly Saxon, more probably Norse) and Orkney and Shetland (most definitely Norse).[/quote 

Hmmm…very interesting.>

Post: Triple T:

I think it’s funny that you two are contemplating the definition of nation when the definition of empire would be more revealing to the previous point made in this thread: that the British have possessed a vast amount of land across the globe.

And even if you want to write that off as history and not relevant to the now, feel free to look up the definition of neo-colonialism or investigate the disparities within the flow of resources in globalized economics. The Korean runt above still made a valid point that the British can get away with advancing myths as truths because they have been and continue to be dominant over others who may disagree.>

Post: Hengest:

I think it’s funny that you think Britain still has any power in this world.>

Post: Gazelle:

If we have a respectable prime minister, i think we definately have influence, but otherwise, i think, with Tony Blair and Bush, is was more like Bush had the power, and Tony Blair would for the most part go along with him partly because of it. But, i know nothing of politics.

But, yes, i’m more with Hengest, anyone can put their army anywhere, any top government officials can be present at meetings and talk, but, doesn’t mean they have any power. But, i’m completely unqualified to comment, in reality on any power UK may or may not have.>

Post: Gazelle:

What i mean to say is, people so what they want when it suits them. If someone has power it just means they have it in their grasp to make things suit people more or less in different situations according to how it suits them.

I suppose diplomatically UK has some standing, and then, i think UK leans on US a bit on the more shall we say ‘upfront’ things i.e. weapons and such, but, this is based on too fewer observations to be reliable…

To what extent to different places have this ability? Well, with all this nucleur weapons malarchy, i suppose it’s likely to be that some are more weary than usual about stepping on other peoples toes, depending on how much they have and how volatile they are…

The most power one can have is wit combined with influence, i believe, at least at this moment.>

Post: bamboo:

The Brits and ‘mericans may move thier armies around and attend meetings or they may choose to be absent, but thier economic power is felt everywhere.

The world is conquered through $$$, not might.

-bamboo>

Post: zefff:

LMAO @ Tony Blair and regular British citizens considered as ‘we’. There is no ‘we’! He is up there and you are down there – thats all there is to it. You could be British or not, he would not give a rart either way about a plebe!>

Post: Gazelle:

Yes, well, i guess i thought i’d be diplomatic:) Besides, it is easier…and, though this may come as a shock, he is still human!>

Post: Triple T:

Quoting: Hengest;47836 I think it’s funny that you think Britain still has any power in this world.

I think it’s funny you don’t. See Bamboo’s post and then reread mine.>

Post: Hengest:

Quoting: Triple T;47852 I think it’s funny you don’t. See Bamboo’s post and then reread mine.

I did and you make two very different points: your original arguement is that Britain’s former position in the world allows it to propogate myth as history. Bamboo’s point is that the UK’s current power is a result of their economic situation.

I’m sorry, but I don’t see that your arguement that history is written by the victors applies to the UK’s situation anymore. Gone are the days when world history was recorded by stuffy Victorian academics. Current British writing on history and archaeology has much more to do with deconstructing myth as history rather than confirming it. I hear your arguement a lot and, quite frankly, I think it’s just an excuse to allow sloppy historical research to go unchallenged.>

Post: Gazelle:

Quoting: bamboo;47847 The Brits and ‘mericans may move thier armies around and attend meetings or they may choose to be absent, but thier economic power is felt everywhere.

The world is conquered through $$$, not might.

-bamboo

Sorry, didn’t notice your post. Yes, i suppose that is correct…but, i thought i heard somewhere that UK was in debt, or something???>

Post: zefff:

Quoting: Gazelle;47860 Sorry, didn’t notice your post. Yes, i suppose that is correct…but, i thought i heard somewhere that UK was in debt, or something???

LOL! Every country is in debt – to business! Governments dont run the country, business does…and every person who works in government or even public sector management jobs like NHS, Local council etc – does so for their own benefit, not the benefit of the society. We pay the government and they offer contracts to business, while gov. workers claim expenses!

You always hear about endemic corruption in Asian and African countries but for some reason its cushty for Mandelson, Blunkett, Prescott and Tony Blair himself plus the thousands of dodgy middlemen who cream off their bit.

Yes, I despise centralised government! What is it good for?…Safety in numbers?…’safety’ is a lie!>

Post: Gazelle:

Government workers don’t get paid that much, at least, most of them don’t, certainly not relatively to what they could earn. My dad is one of them. He hasn’t had a pay rise in years and years, only cuts. And, the further up the promotion chain you go, the less money you get, one reason why he isn’t interested in going up further…it actually sounds like a badly organised mess.>

Post: Triple T:

Quoting: Hengest;47856 I did and you make two very different points: your original arguement is that Britain’s former position in the world allows it to propogate myth as history. Bamboo’s point is that the UK’s current power is a result of their economic situation.[/quote 
They aren’t that different. Imagine a world where a country’s economic power is based in its ability to produce valuable resources – minerals, foods, oil, you get the idea. What does the UK produce? Once upon a time, an argument might have been made for coal, but given the amounts and varieties of resources produced by other nations, it would be easy to see why the UK would flounder in such a world. However, nations capable of producing vast amounts of resources – just think of how much paper and carpentry supplies the Congo could provide – are the ones who flounder. Why? The short and long of it is that when the period of European colonialization ended, the itinerant populations were left without sources of education and a power vacuum leading in some cases to a couple centuries of political turmoil. Obviously, the UK is not alone in this issue and just as obviously the UK had some good results with former colonies like Canada, Australia and India. But the fact remains that the UK’s current economic situation is predicated on 1) the effective use of principal funds taken from other, more resource-productive nations and 2) the fact that most resource-productive nations have not achieved a state where they can actually use their resources because of the impact of colonization. The UK’s current situation is not disconnected from the past.

Quote:
I’m sorry, but I don’t see that your arguement that history is written by the victors applies to the UK’s situation anymore. Gone are the days when world history was recorded by stuffy Victorian academics. Current British writing on history and archaeology has much more to do with deconstructing myth as history rather than confirming it. I hear your arguement a lot and, quite frankly, I think it’s just an excuse to allow sloppy historical research to go unchallenged.

What research is going unchallenged? The research into the impact of colonization in what are now Third World nations? It’s very convenient that the history being brushed off here is the story of how European nations fucked other nations in the ass. Regardless of what anyone wants to argue, it happened. Just ask the Tasmanian Aborigines who descended out of the “Black War.”>

Post: Hengest:

On your first point Tease, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I say your and bamboo’s points were poles apart, and you fail to convince me otherwise.

Your second point, however, completely misses my arguement. The research into the impact of colonization in Third World nations is exactly the kind of research I’m championing. If I’m brushing off anything, it’s the rather antiquated idea you propose that the history of the Empire is still told from the Victorian British point of view. If history were still written by the victors, as you previously implied, I don’t think we’d be seeing too much research published on the adverse impact, do you?>

Post: zefff:

Quoting: Gazelle;47871 Government workers don’t get paid that much, at least, most of them don’t, certainly not relatively to what they could earn. My dad is one of them. He hasn’t had a pay rise in years and years, only cuts. And, the further up the promotion chain you go, the less money you get, one reason why he isn’t interested in going up further…it actually sounds like a badly organised mess.

Gov. workers dont get paid much because it goes to management. If it doesnt go to management it goes to consultants and contractors. If it doesnt go to those guys it just gets wasted away as they have to spend all the money they are budgeted for to justify getting the same or more for next year. Have you never seen workmen dig a hole in the road then just fill it back up? :lol:>

Post: bamboo:

Quoting: Gazelle;47871 Government workers don’t get paid that much, at least, most of them don’t, certainly not relatively to what they could earn. QUOTE 

Depends on what you do and who you work for (ie. what gov’t, which dept.). I would never leave my extremely cushy gov’t position, private industry would never pay me what the gov’t does.

As well, lets not forget the security, benefits and paid holidays.

-bamboo>

Post: zefff:

Haha! You are one of those I despise/am jealous of! :lol:>

Post: Gazelle:

Quoting: bamboo;47886 Quoting: Gazelle;47871 Government workers don’t get paid that much, at least, most of them don’t, certainly not relatively to what they could earn. QUOTE 

Depends on what you do and who you work for (ie. what gov’t, which dept.). I would never leave my extremely cushy gov’t position, private industry would never pay me what the gov’t does.

As well, lets not forget the security, benefits and paid holidays.

-bamboo

Well, he does get ridiculuos amount of holidays, but, my point was that he could get paid a lot more for his skills, he would if he was working at a company.

You always see people digging and filling holes…but, i don’t think i’ve ever seen it done without a purpose…but then again, i’ve lived in Cyprus for the past 6 years. And, for the past couple they’ve been doing all the piping under the roads…and ridiculuosly patching the road in stead of just retarring it all.:) Apparently the UK government pay for, or at least for some of the work on the roads there.>

Post: zefff:

No, the government doesnt have any money to pay…its you who pays!>

Post: Gazelle:

lol. You know what i mean:).>

Post: Triple T:

Quoting: Hengest;47880 On your first point Tease, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I say your and bamboo’s points were poles apart, and you fail to convince me otherwise.[/quote 
fair enough.

Quote:
If history were still written by the victors, as you previously implied, I don’t think we’d be seeing too much research published on the adverse impact, do you?

Unless of course the research were carried out by non-Brits. In America, even amongst the Ivory Tower of academia, there is a strange tendency for “minority” views to be presented very easily and adopted very quickly. However, the topic here has been how non-western “myths” are usually dispelled by western scholars and not vice versa. Think about how much credibility is lent to traditional chinese medicine while western pharmecology and procedure is championed. Then think about how many drugs became recalled or banned because it’s discovered that they’re harmful. Or, to make this issue one that personally relates to you, think about how the majority of Europeans and their offspring abroad look back on the Eddas as nothing but story but then genuinely believe that a guy named Jesus could turn loaves of bread into fish. The bulk of biblical scholarship and research is actually attempting to legitimize what the Bible claims, as if religious scripture were historical documentation. THAT is the phenomenon that this thread’s author was driving at, and the one that I feel is undeniable. No scholar tries to shoot down the myths they themselves believe.>

Post: Hengest:

Quoting: Triple T;47924 Unless of course the research were carried out by non-Brits. In America, even amongst the Ivory Tower of academia, there is a strange tendency for “minority” views to be presented very easily and adopted very quickly. However, the topic here has been how non-western “myths” are usually dispelled by western scholars and not vice versa. Think about how much credibility is lent to traditional chinese medicine while western pharmecology and procedure is championed. Then think about how many drugs became recalled or banned because it’s discovered that they’re harmful. Or, to make this issue one that personally relates to you, think about how the majority of Europeans and their offspring abroad look back on the Eddas as nothing but story but then genuinely believe that a guy named Jesus could turn loaves of bread into fish. The bulk of biblical scholarship and research is actually attempting to legitimize what the Bible claims, as if religious scripture were historical documentation. THAT is the phenomenon that this thread’s author was driving at, and the one that I feel is undeniable. No scholar tries to shoot down the myths they themselves believe.

Fair points all Tease, but you make the assumption that British attitudes are the same as American, which couldn’t be much further from the truth.

Britain, like most northern European countries is a largely secular nation. Of course, there are still some people that believe in the Bible, but I think the vast majority of Brits would place the Bible and the Eddas in the same bracket. There is little to no serious academic research being carried out to legitimise the Bible because very few British academics would seriously entertain such a concept.

Similarly, British academia sounds as if it is quite the opposite of that in the US in that it is notorious for its reluctance to accept new ideas. It is capable of change and it is certainly capable of destroying its own myths, both just take a long time. A good example is the massive swing that has taken place among British scholars regarding our origins. There are very few academics that still believe the “English are Anglo-Saxons, everybody else is Celtic” myth. Any societal differences were more than likely due to purely cultural rather than genetic changes. In fact, many now argue that there was never any truly Celtic peoples in the British Isles at all.

Of course, every scholar has their own mythology to some extent but, despite this, and despite British academia’s reluctance to accept change, I think you would find it very difficult to find a single academic who still believes in the Victorian view of the Empire you seem to believe is so prevelant. Much like the Germans and WWII, the British have spent the last 60 years being made to feel guilty for their Imperialist history, arguably rightly so. Perhaps, when it comes to the Empire, history has been written by the victors, but they have certainly not written a history that supports Imperialism. Quite the opposite.>

Share.

About Author