History

I’ve not many things to write about so it’s very likely that for the next blog entries I’ll be writing and commenting about examinable subjects. Previously, I wrote on the subject of Science. Today, I’m in a mood to comment on the subject of History.

So, what is History? According to Herodotus (I hope I’m right), History is the study of events and the reason for they were held or carried out. Personally, I think History is a subject where things of the past are being discussed or unravelled in today’s society. History is about the past events, important figures and civilisations that took place long, long ago. History is about when, where, why and who are involved in a certain event. A biography of a distinct figure is part of History. Archaeological findings and artefacts are all elements of History.

Therefore, what is History for? It serves as a reminder to the human race about certain events that had taken place before that should never be repeated. It is also a channel where past glories of many kingdoms are being exhibited. It serves as a tunnel connecting the past with the future.

Nevertheless, how many would appreciate History? Not many, I daresay. How many would enjoy the History of World War II (I do.)? How many of you know about the Crusades (even I have only a very blur idea of the Crusades)? Could you recognise the following figures and what role(s) had they played?

1. Mahatma Gandhi
2. Dr. Sun Yat-Sen [or Sun Zhongshan or Sun-wen]
3. William of Orange
4. Soekarno [Sukarno]
5. Josef Stalin
6. Adolf Hitler
7. Benito Mussolini
8. Sir Winston Churchill
9. Theodore Roosevelt
10. Leonardo da Vinci
11. Niccolo Machiavelli
12. Mao Zedong
13. Anne Frank
14. Akhenaton [Akhenaten] and Cleopatra
15. The Tsars [Czars or Tzars]
16. Abraham Lincoln
17. Martin Luther King Jr.
18. Yap Ah Loy
19. Admiral Zheng He [Cheng Ho]
20. Nelson Mandela

Yet, one question remains unanswered. Is history as accurate as it seems to be? Is history not written by man, and therefore bound to contain errors or elements of biasness? A European historian and an Asian historian may look at the subject of World War II with different perspectives. Personally, I think History is not something that we can discuss about or talk about, but rather about what we can learn from it.

We can talk about the happenings of World War II and its consequences, but we cannot discuss about the reason of World War II because different people have different opinions, even if based on historical evidence. The fact is that we can learn a lot from the consequences of a certain historical event.

If we have to ensure that the historical facts that we learn are accurate, we have to go straight down to the root and enquire about it. But as History is something of the past, we cannot make enquiries from the root of the event. Archaeological evidence can only give us an idea about a certain event, and why it had happened long, long ago. Carbon-14 dating can only give us a clue or even determine the age of the artefact found. This evidence can give us an idea about how people of the past lived.

In my opinion, the only historical facts that are (or can be considered) accurate and unbound by biasness are those in black and white, found by archaeologists. They can appear in forms of papyrus scrolls, bamboo scrolls or paper.

History is definitely subjected to biasness. No one man can ensure that his or her historical facts are accurate, but we can be quite sure that the lesson that we obtain from a particular historical event is the same.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” --- George Santayana