‘History’ in textbooks?

After the presentation on the Uses of History in Singapore, Prof. Emmanuel questioned most of our reactions, i.e., the rejection of national narratives as ‘good’ history. As Nisa has mentioned in her post, these national narratives are a history of sorts – they talk about the past, and they use the methods that other historians do to uncover the past. Sure, they are selective in their use of facts and events, but that can be said to be true for any historian to varying degrees.

But, after doing a study of secondary school history textbooks for another module, I am convinced that history, when ‘used’ for a certain purpose such as nation-building, is bastardized. Much as it pains me to agree with our favorite textbook writer M. C. Lemon, history, I believe should be written for its own sake. We are all familar with the ‘national narrative’ of Singapore that we find in our school textbooks. Singapore, essentially, did not exist before 1819. Or at the least, that time period is deemed too irrelevant for study. The main reason for this is that, Singapore writes its textbooks with the ‘future’ in mind, and as long as there aren’t any ‘lessons’ to be learnt from pre-1819 history, it is not of importance to the school student. The reason for the ‘update’ of history textbooks in 2003 was done to ensure that the “syllabus remains relevant and future-oriented” (From the 2006 Lower Secondary Syllabus for History). As we can see here, the basis on which facts and events are selected for study in secondary schools are dependent on its usefulness in terms of preparing for the future, as opposed to giving historical knowledge, understanding Singapore’s past in its entirety etc.

In the second half of this course, we have come across innumerable problems in the writing of history. We have accepted that objectivity is not something that is possible; but surely, one can continue to strive towards it? When authors write ‘history’ for school textbooks, they aren’t writing to give the students an understanding of the past, but contributing to the nation-building program of the state. Any historical knowledge that one gains in the process becomes a mere by-product of the ‘National Education’ program.

I am not in a position to make a moral judgement about whether it is right to use ‘history’ for nation-building purposes. But, what I can say with conviction is that, ‘national narratives’ and school book histories can never be on par with academic history. As history, or the past, is merely a nation-building tool, they cannot be read as History at all, but rather, as ‘National Education’ lessons.