History is Written by the Victor

History students may have heard this often enough. But it pays to pause and think a little about this. I also refer you to Denise's site where she deals with similar issues (plus my comments there).

The title above makes us question - is there objective history? (or rather, what IS "objectivity" in history?). For history students planning to pursue history in university, you might be doing this in year 1, NUS.

In a simple sense, this phrase can mean that the victor (military/political victory, etc.) simply glorifies its actions, whitewashes its misdeeds and vilifies the losing side. So, it could be the Communist government in Russia painting the capitalist "counter-revoluntionaries" as pigs with top-hats, or the Americans making so many caricatures of Bin Laden and the "terrorists".

In another sense, every nation tries to project its own identity, and tries to tweak its history to suit its image. American history tends to highlight its struggle for freedom from colonial rule, and how it then fought for freedon throughout the world, first for the blacks at home, then in the two world wars+cold war, vietnam and now middle-east. But who remembers their treatment of the red indians? and the existing racial inequality that the blacks still face? Or the fact that americans were more often "accidental heroes" in the world wars, preferring to remain neutral (so as to earn more $$ selling weapons!) till the very last minute when their own security was threatened?!

Singapore too, is very conscious of the fact that it is a new nation with a very short sense of its own (common) history. We have a rather 1984-ish icon - the Merlion! It is a pure invention of the STB, complete with its own "story-myth". (notice how every Singapore writer feels impelled to lampoon the poor creature!?) But is our case more understandable? After all, we were a fledging nation-state, small and vulnerable.

"Let us create one nation for all Singaporeans. We are a young country, and we share one future together. Let us build among ourselves a sense of belonging, a feeling of common identity and shared destiny…. [L]et us feel instinctly [sic] that we are, first and foremost, Singaporeans. This is our home and this is where we belong."
Lee Kuan Yew. (I apologise for not having bibliogrpahical details)

"The Singapore Story is based on historical facts. We are not talking about an idealised legendary account or a founding myth, but of an accurate understanding of what happened in the past, and what this history means for us today. It is objective history, seen from a Singaporean standpoint."
DPM LEE, “The Launch of National Education”, May 1997.

My point is that it is often a fine line between the use and abuse of history. We must always put the understanding of a particular history itself in context. Singapore desperately needs its own sense of past and belonging. To what extent should we invent what we need? To what extent should we emphasise what we feel is important to us now? To what extent should we highlight aspects of our history that are misty, confusing or even potentially hazardous (for politics and society)? Isn't that a question that all governments and historians have to ask themselves?

A historian's job is to be faithful to the past (notice i do not say "to present the past as it really was"). There is a need to preserve historical documents as they are. These artefacts allow those who come after to reinterpret the past for themselves, to verify, to ascertain the "facts" for themselves. It is in this respect, i feel, that what the Party does in 1984 is unforgivable - physically destroying historical artefacts. It is one thing to invent historical figures. It is quite another to destroy existing ones.

Orwell also has pointed out a very important facet of history that we should do well to bear in mind - without historical markers in our lives - be they physical landmarks, photos, texts, or even familar smells and sights - we find it harder to define ourselves, our transient personal selves. Personally, I get very frustrated whenever old, familiar bus routes are altered...

LT