We’ve moved!

Please visit our new site

- www.historyworkroom.com -

for the latest posts and updates.

History and contradictions: reflections after reading Hobsbawm

“For much of the greater part of the human past…it is assumed that it could tell us how society, any society should work. The past was the model for the present and the future,” writes Professor Eric Hobsbawm,¹ perhaps one of the greatest historians of the 20th century. “(I)f the present was in some sense unsatisfactory, the past provided the model for reconstructing it in a satisfactory form.”² It is the “authority for the present.”³

These statements duly sum up one of the most commonly heard sentiments of heralding to the “good old days”. Many pine for the simplicity of the past, an age where we are not overwhelmed by the lightning of changes in the name of development; where we are not overwhelmed by the information overload; where communication is neither email, sms nor internet chat, but a letter in the mail or a voice transmitted by cable from phone to phone. We pine for the days where artistes and writers are regarded and respected as the conscience of society.

But the past is not really perfect, is it? The world could do without the barbarity that characterised the world before “civilisations” (and even in supposedly “civilised times” as well). We could do without the guillotine, institutionalised slavery and discrimination; we could do without the oppressiveness of living under despotic conditions.

Professor Hobsbawm’s sentiments are also, perhaps, illuminating of one of the most commonly cited purposes of studying history: to learn from the lessons of the past so as to create a better future.

But can we ever? Do we ever?

The 20^th and 21^st centuries are still characterised by unbridled violence and barbarity, fuelled by technology. Slavery, discrimination, despotic conditions continue to thrive, albeit in different forms and with different names.

This is one of the biggest contradictions – despite the exhortations to learn from the mistakes of the past, societies never do. Conflicts break out again and again, in spite of the international community’s frequent pledges of “never again” to subject the world to the scourge of wars. In spite of their harrowing Holocaust experience, the Israeli Jews are doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis (and other tormentors throughout history) did to them. In spite of the failures of its attempt to cultivate friendly alliances and allies in despots and dictators in Latin America, Southeast Asia, East Asia and Africa, the US continues to do so. Washington seems immune to the spectacularly devastating effects such acts have on its foreign policy, and more importantly, on the innocent civilians of the countries it meddles in. Despite the failure of economic sanctions on undesirable regimes, world powers turn to that tool which succeeds only in inflicting suffering on the population time and again, blind to the futility of the act.

If history is indeed the authority for the present, it certainly seems not to be the case in the 20^th and 21^st centuries. If history is to be the model on which to satisfactorily reconstruct the present’s imperfections, the world we live in today does not testify to that.

To attribute this state of affair to plain ignorance is an easy way out. I agree with Professor Hobsbawm: “it takes two to learn the lessons of history and anything else: one to give the information, the other to listen”.⁴

Why then study history? Is there any use? Professor Hobsbawm is at once pessimistic and optimistic. Most regimes make their young to study history in some form is “not to understand their society and how it changes, but to approve of it, to be proud of it, to be or become good citizens”.⁵

While history has an inherent tendency to become a self-justifying myth in many situations, we must still strive to learn and teach the lessons of history.

“It is the business of historians to try and remove these blindfolds, or at least to lift them slightly or occasionally – and insofar as they do, they can tell contemporary society some things it might benefit from, even if it is reluctant to learn them.”⁶

Indeed, we must always try if we are not to evolve into a society so arrogant in its knowledge of its ability to manipulate the world to its liking.

<sub>1. Eric Hobsbawm, On History, 3rd edition, London: Abacus, 2005, p 33.
2. Ibid., p 34.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., p 36.
5. Ibid., p 47.
6. Ibid.</sub>

Non-fiction fiction

Where do we draw the line between fiction and non-fiction in books? How can writers marry history and fiction without compromising each genre or misleading readers?

I recently read Margaret Forster’s Diary of An Ordinary Woman. The title is indeed tantilising. As the title suggests, the book is the “diary” of an English woman, Millicent King who diligently kept a diary for 80 years. In those volumes are titbits of her life in 20th century England, meticulously recorded. In the entries that record the tidbits of Millicent King’s life, the book suggests itself to be a woman’s history 20th century England. Indeed, Diary is undoubtedly a rare historical find given that women’s voices are traditionally marginalised in history and contains the much sought-after archival gems by historian.
Reviewers and those who read it recommended the book as a wonderful insight to the history of the 20th century, seen through the eyes of an ordinary English woman who has lived through and recorded it. Despite the rave reviews, I abandoned the book when Millicent was 30 years old, still whinging about what to do about her life. It was hardly a page-turner and Millicent was certainly not a lovable character, or for that matter, one who can sustain a reader’s interest in the rest of her life.

The reason I abandoned the book was the troubling understanding that the book is an absolute creative invention; for all its worth, the book is not a “real” diary, but a creation of Forster’s. It is one thing to create a fiction based on non-fiction, i.e. generally set or based in a historical context. It is quite another to non-fictionalised fiction to give the impression of a fiction being non-fiction.

In the book, Forster keeps up a pretence that the novel is a diary. In her introduction she described how she came across King’s diaries and her decision “to make something out of” them. She even included a reference list for further reading at the end of the book.

There were two clues that the Diary was not what it seems. They were the words “a novel” on the front cover and the word “edited” in quotation marks. If you’ve missed them, the sheer luck of having an almost complete history spanning the most of 20th century Britain, written by a woman, and having the vocabulary and insight far beyond the diarist’s age made the authenticity suspect.

What bothered me was the presentation of it all – it is fiction masquerading as non-fiction. Diary of An Ordinary Woman was touted as the collective history and “authentic record of how a century of English women were shaped”. The social context of the “diary” was accurately constructed, given that Forster is a competent biographer and social historian. But there was no explanation of how the historical materials were used. Yet, the lack of truthfulness about how the historical materials on which the book is based is troubling. Only later editions of the book made it clear that it was fiction; the words “a novel” on the cover were not included in the first edition. Was there an element of deceit? Or was it just a clever way of writing history in a more accessible manner? Or is it a mere marketing ploy? (Remember Arthur Golden’s Memoirs of a Geisha?) The answer is probably a combination of these reasons.

While I am dismayed, many of her readers (see Times Online and Amazon reviews) hardly seem bothered by how the book was presented. Although some were slightly annoyed and disappointed, most applauded Forster’s efforts in seamlessly weaving history and fiction. As for me, I feel the book is a weak attempt at being creative about how to write history, if that was Forster’s intention at all.

The other reason I abandoned the book was that Millicent King’s life was hardly ordinary at all. King’s experiences were supposedly an amalgamation of the lives of many of the women who lived in England during the 20th century. While the individual experiences might have been ordinary, the end result – Millicent King – was hardly ordinary at all! In fact, her life can be considered as extraordinary, even by today’s standards.

The fictionalised memoir is not new. (Even Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote one – One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich). Truth be told, not many people are keen to read cut-and-dried accounts of who-did-what and this-happened-when. Exposés top selling lists, fiction sells well but history is a hard-sell. But is this the reason for packaging fiction as non-fiction? Where do we draw the line between the two? The most important question is perhaps how can we write history creatively without appearing deceptive?

~ Jaime

E-Journal on Singapore studies

An e-journal aiming to open up perspectives and discourses on Singapore has recently made its home on the cyperspace.

Titled s/pores the journal aims to “provide a much-needed multi-disciplinary platform for the dissemination of works investigating different aspects of historical and contemporary Singapore society”.

The journal is managed by en “editorial collective” and welcomes contributions. For guidelines, see s/pore website.

The inaugural issue of s/pores is focused on pre-1965 Singapore, featuring essays by academics, researchers and lovers of history.

Historical Films

The following conversation on historical film with our muse Cliopetra is inspired by the recent trend of historical films – “Miss Potter”, “Becoming Jane”, “300″, “Copying Beethoven” among others. Of course, this is not a new trend. Since the beginning of the movie industry, history has been a constant source of inspiration. Many of the classics and blockbusters are historical films – “Ben Hur”, “Gone with the Wind”, “Casablanca”, “JFK, Elizabeth”, “Pearl Harbour” and “Bobby” among many.

Cliopetra: What are historical films?

Jaime: I would say there are two types:
1) Those that are based on real personalities, stories and events (albeit the silver-screen portrayal is often open to debate re accuracy, romanticisation, biasness etc)
2) The second type is a largely fictionalised story set in a historical background, for example during the American Civil War, 19th century China etc.
Both are of course often subjected to criticisms and taken to task on issues such as the accuracy of the portrayal, romanticisation and biasness.

Stephanie: Historical films are films which depict a certain period, event or personality from the real past. The difficult question is that if some aspects of a film are based on reality, and other parts invented, is the film still historical? How much of the film needs to be based in the past to be historical? For example in the romantic comedy Kate and Leopold – Leopold is a figure from the past transported into the present. The film revolves around Leopold copes with modern life. Is this a historical film? Some theorists avoid this question by saying that a historical film is any film which the viewer thinks is historical!

Cliopetra: Do historical films portray reality? Can we learn history from these films?

Jaime: How can we know for sure about the real “reality” of a period which we have not lived in? What is reality? What is history? The philosophical debates aside, films should not be dismissed as a learning tool for any subject. The key is discretion and a critical mind. Movie goers should always be encouraged to not take what they see on screen as THE REAL THING. Filmmakers should not advertise their films as THE REAL THING. School children, for example, should be encouraged to compare what they see on the screen to other sources. Indeed, any interested student of history worth their salt should bear this in mind – there is no History/Reality – there are different narratives, perspectives, viewpoints and interpretations.

Stephanie: I believe that there is a range of historical films, and the best of them do portray some aspects of reality. For some the reconstruction is based on existing texts, sources, or the memories of living personalities. In some cases although some minor aspects may not be totally accurate, generally the film can still convey a spirit of the era or provide some insight into the lives of people who lived in the past.
Yes, we can learn something about the past from films. However, the viewer should be aware that this is just one version of history, among many others, and as an entertainment genre, there will definitely be simplification and exaggeration. The film can make us interested in histories which we would otherwise would not venture into. For example, Dances with Wolves inspired an interest in Native American history.

Cliopetra: Are there good and bad historical films?

Stephanie: It depends on how we define ‘good’ and ‘bad’. For me, a good historical film will be one which can capture something of the spirit of the era and give insight on the people who live in that period, and can connect with the audience. A good film may differ in its interpretation of history from conventional historical texts, but it will provide some evidence for its case and more importantly provoke some thought on the subject. For me, a bad film is one that is (a) dull – a repetition of what we read in books with no additional insights or (b) a film that makes extreme assertions that go against conventional ideas of that period without adequate substantiation.

Jaime: I agree with Stephanie on this one. But I would question by what yardsticks are we measuring these films against – do we judge them by entertainment value or academic value.

Cliopetra: As an extension then, are historical films to be judged as entertainment or should they be judged on their use of history?

Jaime: Depends on the context and uses of the film really. Clearly, films such as 300, the Gladiator etc are meant to entertain. They should therefore be judged by that.

Stephanie: I think both ways, a good historical film should be good entertainment and good history. However when I mean ‘good history’ it does not mean ‘history’ in the same sense as written history. Here ‘good’ will mean evocative, analytical, provocative and with a clear viewpoint.

Cliopetra: Is film a good medium for bringing history to life? Is it the right forum to discuss the meaning of history?

Stephanie: Yes, film is an excellent medium for bringing history to life. It makes reconstruction possible and the audience is able to suspend disbelief and immerse themselves in the experience of the film. As a multi-media, film is able to reconstruct the past in visuals, sounds that appeals to intellect and emotions.
It can be used to discuss the meaning or construction of history, although it is not frequently used as such. The disadvantage of film is that it does not allow explicit interaction like for example, a website, so it cannot be a forum for different beliefs. Also, it is hard for it to flag the arguments of others eg like using footnotes. However, some avant-garde filmmakers use different techniques to make explicit how they create the film, and draw attention to various arguments related to a certain topic.

Jaime: Definitely. History is more than just dates, names, events, wars and statistics. It is a lived experience. There is no doubt that films reach a wider audience than books. This potential, together with what Stef mentioned about visuals and sounds, makes it a good platform to begin the discussion. Films should not be the be all and end all of history (or any subject for that matter); instead it should be regarded as a starting point for further research, reading, discussion and debate. For the history student and scholar, it is interesting to note how movies are regarded by some as the bible of all truths.

Book launch

Last night my friend Michael Otterman launched his book, American Torture: From the Cold War to Abu Ghraib and Beyond at Gleebooks, an intellectual institution in Sydney. I had the privilege of photographing the event.

His is a timely publication that examines the history of America’s use of torture. While many of these techniques are not American in origins, they have nevertheless become associated with the American military. Mike’s website tracks the news and developments related to America’s use of torture.

American Torture was launched alongside Australian historian Associate Professor Ian Bickerton’s new book, Unintended Consequences: The United States at War. In the book, Professor Bickerton and his co-author, Kenneth Hogan examines ten major wars that the United States had waged and reached the conclusion that these wars were unnecessary, avoidable, and catastrophically unpredictable.

Last night, Prof Bickerton reiterated that no war is a good war. Mike’s book points to a chilling facet of the civilised world one would rather not see – that primitive actions, no matter how humiliating, are still being used despite proof of ineffectiveness.

If no war is a good war and if torture has been discredited, why then, in the 21st century is the civilised world still relying on such neanderthal methods of resolving conflicts?

This begets the questions: Does history repeat itself? Are the lessons of history futile?

Is it the sheer arrogance of the belief that a “modern” and “civilised” world as such can, against the odds, dictate the outcomes of its actions; that the lessons of history can be changed? Or perhaps it is just sheer stupidity?

~ Jaime

Samsui Girl

What happens when you pair a national icon with a young girl in the 21st century?

With a grant for first time writers and illustrators from Singapore’s Media Development Authority, Stephanie wrote and illustrated the story of Amber, a cheeky Singapore girl who has a habit of putting her legs up on the chair. Her mother dislikes this and says that only Samsui women put their legs up on the chair. To get her way, Amber decides to be a Samsui girl – at least for a day.

This book follows Amber’s adventures as she learns to look and work like a true Samsui woman. It’s a whimsical story (J. Adamson, Sydney) but very “readable” and “a delightful way to explore an important part of Singapore’s social history” (Select Books, Singapore).

Samsui Girl is a delightful and uniquely Singapore gift for interested in Singapore and its colourful social history.

The book is on sale at major bookstores (Times, Popular, Kinokuniya) in Singapore. Copies are also available outside Singapore.