Whose History?
The decision to make history a compulsory pass possibly has to do with present times discussion on the rights of BolehLand fellos stipulated in the Constitution. It's a decision done on a spur like most decisions on education and the fellos suffering are likely the teachers and students.
When supposedly unity was perceived as shaky among the different races, they thought out the national service though some suspect that under the guise of inculcating discipline, unity and all that, there was a subtle agenda to remind the NS trainers to be grateful to the BN government and that only the BN government can guarantee unity and NS trainers must show gratitude and remember who they should thank when they reach the age of voting.
Though the government may deny it is a political move but one thought up by academicians, the timing is somewhat suspect. If they thought history was important, the academics and our smart Education officials try to convince us, behind many government policies and decision, the iron hand or rather the only hand behind such decisions is the political one of the ruling BN government.
While noone should dispute that learning the past will at least enable us to better understand the present situation and to avoid the terrible sins of our forefathers, it really is a meaningless effort to force students to study history when these students when they become adults begin to voice against some past practices deemed irrelevant and impractical in the modern generation are branded as traitors and opposition members.
Will making history compulsory, there wasn't a clear explanation of why the sudden compulsion, may be one way to strengthen unity, it comes to nought because the politicians with their own version of telling his or her story are to be blamed for stoking the mistrust and disunity as well as disharmony among the people.
Can we blame those who utter sensitive remarks as not knowing our history? Or was it a result of the history they were thought and lea! rnt in s chool or for that matter in the local universities? Is the subject thought to be blamed or the political party, race based ones the fellos who should be blamed for causing confusion or creating their own version of history for a political agenda than anything else?
Even if history is made compulsory, will it ensure unity at all? Especially if the syllabus may be Melayu or Malaysian centric to paint all the actions of local fellos as heroic and the personalities as heros and any foreign occupation or foreign visitors as exploiters that explains why one race seemed lagging behind because of some historical events a century or so ago.
Ole sage Tun M often berated the colonial powers, blaming these colonial masters for dividing the nation, for the woes of the Malays, for the success of the migrants and even in modern times during the financial crisis, sought history to hurl blame at foreign elements than his own follies in his policies!
It's like children who grow up and blamed their parents for their current situation. When I hear adults complaining and blaming their parents, I'd just remind them their parents similarly inherited normal pair of hands, legs, and a brain. And if they don't want to learn how to use the tools to make something out of it, don't blame the inventor of the pen or brush from allowing them to write a good story or create a beautiful painting. You can't escape your parents DNA or genes perhaps and the rest there is surgery as well as your own brains, attitude and action. So stop blaming the past all the time!
There are those who love to cling to the past to justify perpetuating present past practices. Particularly the one about rights, privileges, those man made decisions that some wants to make them immutable! But why only be selective on some and not others! And to turn history as a sort of definitive science and geometry to close all discussions is assuming that history is an exact science.
Having read history, and like most humanities disciplines! , there is always this tremendous effort to employ philosophy and logic to turn history into an exact science. And that means it deals with facts. Yup of course the people stormed the Bastille, the Portuguese defeated the local residents and the Dutch the Portuguese and the British the Dutch, and the Japanese the British and so on?
So it's one plus one makes two and we should not dispute such facts, no? But as historians know, the historian makes a perception call on why the action occurred, and even philosophers always gabble with the notion of perception and causality.
So the important thing we should ask is whose version of history are we teaching the students. Students don't have the luxury of reading different interpretations of Malaysian history. Even on understanding the political development of Malay politics, there are different versions. What more of the history of Malaysia by various authors Swettenham, Winstedt, Gullick, Heussler, Butcher, Harper, Ampalavanar, Khoo Kay Khim, Philip Fook, Jomo, even our ole Tun M and so on?
Even these days, am told by those teaching history in universities, students command of English have caused them to avoid reading books written in English nor even refer to the Journal of Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (JMBRAS) what more trying to comprehend Collingwood's philosophy of history!
History is about perception than just reporting a matter of fact. And the history we teach in school these days seem to be rather political and party politics centric than looking at a wider context as presented in the many writings out there on the shelves! Are we going to include some political leaders I say, hear me, hearsay how things should be than how they are into our history lessons.
A colleague was sharing her kid's history syllabus on hearing the compulsory decision that the kids these days do not study world history and civilisations and the focus on Bolehland and Southeast Asia, and even one particular religion civilisation is not! about h istory at all! And she is a bumiputra herself!
"Our kids are going to be like the Americans and Japanese kids, only know their history and think the world evolved around their nations!", she said!
Is the history taught in school history as we studied in the past or what we learned in the universities. Of course, we need to adapt to changes but history will turn into a political and sociological subject if it is meant to elevate and extol one group and reduce any influence and contributions of other groups in the shaping of our nations.
We are used to hearing, do not repeat history, study it so that we do not become historical relics who have learnt our history and didn't learnt anything at all because we chose to live in the past and repeat its mistakes. If history has taught us anything, there wouldn't be any wars, right or in BolehLand context, seeing the same kind of fellos who are carbon copy of historical fellos who behaved in a manner that create the same problems as the past fellos did. Which makes most politicians these days bad historians for repeating the past and making up their own 'history' in the process.
Is history the solution to greater unity, harmony and growth of BolehLand? It's like asking whether English these days serve that end too or even Bahasa Melayu right? You can't teach the kid to believe what you say, you got to show and live it and that transcends language or your knowledge of the past, whatever version your are fed with?
Making a pass in history does not necessarily means succeeding in creating a united, harmonious and progressive folks and nations. But then you can say, that's only a matter of perception, yes?YAHMEH!!!
See What Barisan Nasional Gotta Say?
When supposedly unity was perceived as shaky among the different races, they thought out the national service though some suspect that under the guise of inculcating discipline, unity and all that, there was a subtle agenda to remind the NS trainers to be grateful to the BN government and that only the BN government can guarantee unity and NS trainers must show gratitude and remember who they should thank when they reach the age of voting.
Though the government may deny it is a political move but one thought up by academicians, the timing is somewhat suspect. If they thought history was important, the academics and our smart Education officials try to convince us, behind many government policies and decision, the iron hand or rather the only hand behind such decisions is the political one of the ruling BN government.
While noone should dispute that learning the past will at least enable us to better understand the present situation and to avoid the terrible sins of our forefathers, it really is a meaningless effort to force students to study history when these students when they become adults begin to voice against some past practices deemed irrelevant and impractical in the modern generation are branded as traitors and opposition members.
Will making history compulsory, there wasn't a clear explanation of why the sudden compulsion, may be one way to strengthen unity, it comes to nought because the politicians with their own version of telling his or her story are to be blamed for stoking the mistrust and disunity as well as disharmony among the people.
Can we blame those who utter sensitive remarks as not knowing our history? Or was it a result of the history they were thought and lea! rnt in s chool or for that matter in the local universities? Is the subject thought to be blamed or the political party, race based ones the fellos who should be blamed for causing confusion or creating their own version of history for a political agenda than anything else?
Even if history is made compulsory, will it ensure unity at all? Especially if the syllabus may be Melayu or Malaysian centric to paint all the actions of local fellos as heroic and the personalities as heros and any foreign occupation or foreign visitors as exploiters that explains why one race seemed lagging behind because of some historical events a century or so ago.
Ole sage Tun M often berated the colonial powers, blaming these colonial masters for dividing the nation, for the woes of the Malays, for the success of the migrants and even in modern times during the financial crisis, sought history to hurl blame at foreign elements than his own follies in his policies!
It's like children who grow up and blamed their parents for their current situation. When I hear adults complaining and blaming their parents, I'd just remind them their parents similarly inherited normal pair of hands, legs, and a brain. And if they don't want to learn how to use the tools to make something out of it, don't blame the inventor of the pen or brush from allowing them to write a good story or create a beautiful painting. You can't escape your parents DNA or genes perhaps and the rest there is surgery as well as your own brains, attitude and action. So stop blaming the past all the time!
There are those who love to cling to the past to justify perpetuating present past practices. Particularly the one about rights, privileges, those man made decisions that some wants to make them immutable! But why only be selective on some and not others! And to turn history as a sort of definitive science and geometry to close all discussions is assuming that history is an exact science.
Having read history, and like most humanities disciplines! , there is always this tremendous effort to employ philosophy and logic to turn history into an exact science. And that means it deals with facts. Yup of course the people stormed the Bastille, the Portuguese defeated the local residents and the Dutch the Portuguese and the British the Dutch, and the Japanese the British and so on?
So it's one plus one makes two and we should not dispute such facts, no? But as historians know, the historian makes a perception call on why the action occurred, and even philosophers always gabble with the notion of perception and causality.
So the important thing we should ask is whose version of history are we teaching the students. Students don't have the luxury of reading different interpretations of Malaysian history. Even on understanding the political development of Malay politics, there are different versions. What more of the history of Malaysia by various authors Swettenham, Winstedt, Gullick, Heussler, Butcher, Harper, Ampalavanar, Khoo Kay Khim, Philip Fook, Jomo, even our ole Tun M and so on?
Even these days, am told by those teaching history in universities, students command of English have caused them to avoid reading books written in English nor even refer to the Journal of Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (JMBRAS) what more trying to comprehend Collingwood's philosophy of history!
History is about perception than just reporting a matter of fact. And the history we teach in school these days seem to be rather political and party politics centric than looking at a wider context as presented in the many writings out there on the shelves! Are we going to include some political leaders I say, hear me, hearsay how things should be than how they are into our history lessons.
A colleague was sharing her kid's history syllabus on hearing the compulsory decision that the kids these days do not study world history and civilisations and the focus on Bolehland and Southeast Asia, and even one particular religion civilisation is not! about h istory at all! And she is a bumiputra herself!
"Our kids are going to be like the Americans and Japanese kids, only know their history and think the world evolved around their nations!", she said!
Is the history taught in school history as we studied in the past or what we learned in the universities. Of course, we need to adapt to changes but history will turn into a political and sociological subject if it is meant to elevate and extol one group and reduce any influence and contributions of other groups in the shaping of our nations.
We are used to hearing, do not repeat history, study it so that we do not become historical relics who have learnt our history and didn't learnt anything at all because we chose to live in the past and repeat its mistakes. If history has taught us anything, there wouldn't be any wars, right or in BolehLand context, seeing the same kind of fellos who are carbon copy of historical fellos who behaved in a manner that create the same problems as the past fellos did. Which makes most politicians these days bad historians for repeating the past and making up their own 'history' in the process.
Is history the solution to greater unity, harmony and growth of BolehLand? It's like asking whether English these days serve that end too or even Bahasa Melayu right? You can't teach the kid to believe what you say, you got to show and live it and that transcends language or your knowledge of the past, whatever version your are fed with?
Making a pass in history does not necessarily means succeeding in creating a united, harmonious and progressive folks and nations. But then you can say, that's only a matter of perception, yes?YAHMEH!!!
See What Barisan Nasional Gotta Say?
Comments