Construct
Today had an interesting conversation in HQ regarding history. The story basically starts with YA bringing a pile of bulletin compliation to show us. It was a vintage, since it indirectly recorded the growth of the church since YA's time. Then the question then arises, the differences in how we view history.
It always amuses me how people think that there are important lessons to be learnt in history and we learn history or study them so that we will not repeat them anymore. The ultimate bullshit is that people who says this dun normally study history enough to know what is happening. Indeed there are important lessons for us to learn in history but we dun study history so that we won't repeat them. The temptation is there, but the evidences suggest otherwise. Humans do repeat history no matter how much is being studied. One example, if the lesson of history is being hinded, then the European powers of 1914 will have learnt from the American Civil War that economic warfare will become an integral part of war in an industrial age. The neglgience of this led to the tragedy of WWI and subsequently WWII. It is to my opinion that we study history not to learn lesson from the past, but to be able to reconcile the past with present, to be able to understand why certain things happen in certain times in certain places.
Also the construction of history comes to play. Basically, one topic discussed was how YA picked and chose the bulletins that are worth keeping for archiving. History is a human construct of the past. In the construct of history, we cannot simply include everything that is available to construct the story. Somethings have to be forgotten or thrown away, something has to be kept as part of the memories for the construction of the story. Unfortunately, there are some smart idiots out there who think that history writters often are hiding something from their readers, as seen in the Singaporean context. Anytime people learn of what is not told in the textbook, they say it's part of PAP's move to maintain hegemony. The ultimate bullshit comes as these people will become the ones (if they ever become the one) to depict PAP in a certain way and forgetting something else in an attempt to construct the Singapore Story they think it is. It is in this stand that I maintain that I will abide by the most persuasive argument supported by the most persuasive evidences. Of course, everyone's memories will be different, and each has their own right to construct their own history.
Well, that's all I have for now. Till I found out where my 0.1 goes to, I will write again.
It always amuses me how people think that there are important lessons to be learnt in history and we learn history or study them so that we will not repeat them anymore. The ultimate bullshit is that people who says this dun normally study history enough to know what is happening. Indeed there are important lessons for us to learn in history but we dun study history so that we won't repeat them. The temptation is there, but the evidences suggest otherwise. Humans do repeat history no matter how much is being studied. One example, if the lesson of history is being hinded, then the European powers of 1914 will have learnt from the American Civil War that economic warfare will become an integral part of war in an industrial age. The neglgience of this led to the tragedy of WWI and subsequently WWII. It is to my opinion that we study history not to learn lesson from the past, but to be able to reconcile the past with present, to be able to understand why certain things happen in certain times in certain places.
Also the construction of history comes to play. Basically, one topic discussed was how YA picked and chose the bulletins that are worth keeping for archiving. History is a human construct of the past. In the construct of history, we cannot simply include everything that is available to construct the story. Somethings have to be forgotten or thrown away, something has to be kept as part of the memories for the construction of the story. Unfortunately, there are some smart idiots out there who think that history writters often are hiding something from their readers, as seen in the Singaporean context. Anytime people learn of what is not told in the textbook, they say it's part of PAP's move to maintain hegemony. The ultimate bullshit comes as these people will become the ones (if they ever become the one) to depict PAP in a certain way and forgetting something else in an attempt to construct the Singapore Story they think it is. It is in this stand that I maintain that I will abide by the most persuasive argument supported by the most persuasive evidences. Of course, everyone's memories will be different, and each has their own right to construct their own history.
Well, that's all I have for now. Till I found out where my 0.1 goes to, I will write again.
Comments
Post a Comment