Revisiting History Without Bias
A few years ago, there was an interesting debate on whether historical figures mentioned in a number of historical documents were real or myths. The debate on Hang Tuah and his brethren as well as Hang Li Po was indeed attention-grabbing, and sparked the interest on “historical revisionism.”
Historical revisionism is a term used by historians to describe the act of revisiting and re-interpreting historical records, usually (but not necessarily) based on newly found historical evidence, which leads to challenging current and popular interpretations of historical facts.
More often than not, historical revisionism is met with much controversy and uproar. Those who are comfortable with the status quo would find new interpretations of historical facts unnerving and troubling.
The problem with history is that it is often interpreted by victors of a conflict (some argue, survivors) as well as those in power, arguably rendering the interpretation biased and subjective.
This is quite in contrast to the many branches of science when theories and ideas are regularly revised, refined and re-interpreted when new knowledge come into light. We see this all throughout the history of scientific development.
As an example, the Arab-Muslim polymath, Ibn al-Haytham (965-1040 CE) revised and corrected the theories of vision propagated by his Greek predecessors such as Euclid, Ptolemy and Aristotle based on experimentation which were empirical and objective.
Ibn al-Haytham’s theory of vision still stands true to this very day, until and unless someone revises it based on new evidence. The beauty of scientific knowledge is that it can be tested and retested, and subjected to peer reviews. This exhaustive process results in science being regarded as “trusted” knowledge.
Having said that, there are also instances when certain quarters exhibit “scientific denialism.” This term refers to the irrational rejection of empirically verifiable realities. Examples include those who subscribe to the flat Earth theory, those who reject vaccination as a conspiracy, and those who view climate change as a myth.
The challenge with interpreting history is even greater compared to interpreting scientific data. While science has empirical evidence which can be tested and subjected to peer reviews which scientists can rely on in making an argument, historical interpretation is much more difficult to carry out in an objective manner.
There are those who deny empirical evidence even with science, so imagine the challenge with historical interpretation. It is clear that there have been many cases in history where events had been interpreted in a biased manner, or even going to the extent of denying that events actually took place.
Without a doubt, history is an important branch of knowledge that must be learnt, understood and appreciated. Without a sense of history, we would not know of events that had transpired, the important people who were involved, and the significance of their contributions.
We had just celebrated the 60th anniversary of Merdeka and in a few days, we will celebrate the 54th anniversary of the formation of our beloved country, Malaysia. In this regards, having a sense of history is critically important for today’s Malaysians who are mostly born after 1957.
Without any objective reflection of history, we may not truly understand the struggles of the past. The lesser appreciation that we have for history, the greater the risk of creating a generation of Malaysians who do not appreciate the value of independence.
It is perhaps worth noting at this juncture one important reminder found in Muqaddimah, written by the 14th century Arab-Muslim historiographer, Ibn Khaldun. He put forward an interesting theory with regards to how long a civilization would survive, based on observations of the Arabs and Berbers. Ibn Khaldun astutely noted that civilizations generally lasted around 120 years, or three generations.
He wrote that the first generation was a generation of fighters, who endured hardship and fought for freedom for their children and grandchildren. They were strong-willed, had a strong sense of brotherhood, possessed strong patriotism, and were willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their country.
The second generation benefited greatly from the sacrifices of the previous generation. However, because of the relative comfort that they experienced, the characteristics possessed by the first generation began to wane with the second generation. Nonetheless, since there was still direct contact with the first generation, the second generation still exhibited an appreciation to the importance of patriotism.
With the third generation, all the traits possessed by the first generation was almost non-existent. They lived in a comfort zone that they no longer appreciated nor understood the importance of the sacrifice of their forefathers. It was during the third generation that civilizations began to crumble, according to Ibn Khaldun.
We could indeed see this in our own history. The Empire of Malacca stood for about 111 years (a mere nine years short of Ibn Khaldun’s theory) before it fell to the Portuguese in 1511. We have read how treachery, egoism and materialism crept into the empire that led to the downfall of Melaka.
Again, this shows how important it is for us to learn from history, and to say as such is an understatement. What is more pertinent is that history that is learnt is history that is objective and unbiased.
There is nothing wrong with revisiting, re-evaluating and reinterpreting historical events and players. Historical revisionism can be an enlightening and beneficial academic exercise which can contribute towards enriching knowledge.
However, we must ensure that proper methodology is used, and that arguments presented are sound and valid, as there is a very fine line between “historical revisionism” and “historical negationism.” If revisionism is done to present a new narrative that negates or denies people or events, then the exercise would not be objective.
Negationism would lead to corruption of knowledge, in this case history. Those who have read George Orwell’s dystopian novel Ninety Eighty-Four would be familiar with the protagonist, Winston Smith, who works for the Ministry of Truth, whose job is to revise history to suit the narrative of the tyrant Big Brother.
We shudder to think should Orwell’s vision become a reality. History should be factual, not fictional nor mythical. As such, we can appreciate the rationale behind the debate surrounding Hang Tuah and Hang Li Po. Such debates are healthy as they do not lead to negation or denial of history. Instead, they could spark a real interest in history itself.
However, if revisionism is done as simply as editing out photographs or names, then this would tantamount to historical negation, and is a disrespect to history which is knowledge that should be enriched and not be disgraced.
