THINKING HISTORICALLY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN LEARNING ONE HISTORY

27 July 1996

Our new-found enthusiasm for history is welcome. 
Unhappily, it has outstripped our understanding 
of what history is. Unless we bridge the gap, we 
will not benefit fully from learning history.

History is not the past: the past is dead; it 
does not speak for itself. History comprises 
present interpretations of the past competing to 
influence the future. This dynamic view of 
history as contingent upon present conditions is 
in contrast to the usual portrayal of history as 
a fixed record of past events. Although one 
explanation may dominate for a time, its 
dominance is not guaranteed. For example, during 
the apartheid era, black South Africansí 
explanations of South African history were 
submerged beneath accounts written by whites. 
With the end of apartheid and the full 
enfranchisement of black South Africans, new and 
more balanced South African histories are 
emerging.

Insofar as history is a story about our past, it 
is selective with the facts: a ëcomplete historyí 
is an oxymoron. Facts are easy to learn, if less 
easy to obtain. The difficulty lies in knowing 
how to derive a history from the facts.

Hence, a sense of history is much more than mere 
knowledge of historical facts. It is crucially 
dependent upon developing the ability to think 
historically. That is, we must cultivate the 
skill of sifting important facts from trivia and 
fiction. After that comes the simpler task of 
constructing a story from the facts we have 
chosen.

Therefore, in translating our renewed interest in 
history into educational programmes, we should 
emphasise the development of historical thinking. 
Facts about our past, even unpalatable ones, 
should be made freely available so that we can 
construct a national history in a fully informed 
way. Only by learning to think historically will 
we understand how we got to where we are now and 
be able to choose our own destination.

Some speak confidently of teaching *the* history 
of Singapore. I think their optimism is unfounded 
because there are many possible versions of our 
history. Obviously, there will be areas of broad 
consensus. Just as obviously, there will be areas 
of sharp disagreement. We must not irrationally 
fear disagreement, but welcome it as part of the 
unending attempt to understand our history 
better.

On the other hand, suppressing alternative 
historical accounts in favour of one particular 
interpretation will stunt the development of 
historical thinking. The reduction of history 
into an instrument to build solidarity condemns 
us to peering myopically at a little corner of a 
vast and rich canvas of historical possibilities. 
Instead of grasping the centrality of human 
choice in the making of history, we might be 
seduced by the myth of inevitability in 
historical development. The logical outcome is a 
fatalistic apathy, for history as destiny implies 
the ultimate futility of all human struggle.

Our ignorance about our history does not free us 
from history. Instead, our thinking and vision 
are trapped in a version of our history written 
by someone else for purposes that may not be our 
own. We should realise that the teaching of only 
one interpretation of a selection of past facts 
is not the teaching of history. It may well be 
indoctrination, with propaganda masquerading as 
history. The cultivation of historical thinking 
is a powerful vaccine against such manipulation. 
It will improve the resilience of our society and 
should therefore be encouraged.