On the discipline of History

Disclaimer: What follows is just a series of unsystematic ramblings that are going through my head as I am 1) packing my History readings, 2) pondering about my career path, and 3) knocking myself silly thinking "what the hell possessed me to major in History?!". It also helps me to clarify my thoughts a little. I may have said some of the following in other places before.

At first I took up History purely as a matter of interest. Absolutely no economic calculations. Just had a career talk with my cousin who is doing well in an international bank, and she said I should have gone into teaching since I had such an intense interest in the subject and I could keep in touch with the discipline in the teaching profession. Furthermore it's a more stable job, with better pay.

I replied that under the state, it is not your interest that you teach, but the fixed syllabus that you are being told to teach. So it doesn't matter what your interest is. You can be a physics major and yet be assigned to teach History.

I loved (and still do) European history. For that I must thank Mr Michael Thompson, my JC European History teacher. There was something in his gait and his style of lecturing that makes History extremely interesting. Especially the part about blundering kings (think Louis Napoleon) and exposing the faults of man (Bismarck for example). Historical figures were brought down to the level of the common man as their defects were one by one revealed and laid bare. And probably also due to the method of delivery. Locals could never speak English with such charm.

I entered university only to study history because I thought it allowed me to have a better understanding into the background of things, events, systems that were happening around me on a daily basis. I knew for example why China and Taiwan would never reconcile, I understood the tensions the US had with Russia over the Eastern European countries joining the EU.

Still no economic calculations then. When the vast majority (up to about 99%) of my secondary school classmates went into engineering, I was the only brave soul that stepped into History. Even fellow Arts classmates from JC went into more lucrative careers--law, economics, business.

I did have two serious thoughts about History at the time. History, I thought, could either go backward (archaeology) or forward (political science). And one can only go forward. Going backwards has no future (pun intended) at all. In any case, NUS did not offer Archaeology (and still doesn't). So I went into a double major--History and PS.

As it turned out, I didn't do too well in PS, partly because I didn't have any background in the discipline before. I had no clue what it demanded of me. At the end of my second year I made a decision and reverted back to majoring in History. Though then I still had an interest in the workings of political institutions, I knew it wasn't going to help my grades in any way.

In uni I realised an interest in another sub-discipline in History--military history. The field marshal's lectures definitely had something to do with it. His lectures felt so substantive that nearly every one in the hall were scribbling something down whenever he spoke. It felt like we were really learning something. He broke traditional understandings of military events that had been propagated by MOE before. Neville Chamberlain for the first time was being spoken of as a hero. The fundamental significance of the Allied victory in WWII revealed. Also nothing else spoke better to my experience in NS. It made me understand the whole NS institution in Singapore better. There was also something in the structure of his modules. It shaped how I viewed the structuring of undergraduate History modules later on.

At the same time I realised another significance of the discipline, and it became my sole justification for continuing the course. And I guess it has become my sole justification for continuing interest in history. History reveals the human condition, provides a better insight into the behaviour of people, and hence how one should behave. History provides the life experiences of others as a reference for our own lives. It adds a measure of instrospection to whatever we do, for some parallel will be drawn with what has happened before.

This came about as a result of my interaction with people who were less enthusiastic about history than I was, even though many were fellow History majors. They were more focused on life in the present, and what mattered directly to them. These were the people who didn't read the newspapers, who didn't care about abstract ideas, because these were "too far away" to touch their lives. They taught me relevance to reality. Nothing was important if it did not relate to real life. History then, became no longer an abstract discipline. It taught life itself. Who cares about the great kings or peoples that lived before but have perished since? If not it had a direct relevance to our little lives through their actions and how they conducted their daily lives? That has become what I have been searching for in History ever since.

So as I graduate with a degree in History I have gained an insight into the lives of past men, and hope they can offer guidance as I go through mine.

The next question to ponder over is whether I should pursue this path. I have no wish to enter the teaching profession. It is less about History than about pedagogy itself. I cannot handle children on an intellectual level. I would not know how. On the other hand I can't go into academics. I have no wish to be stuck in an ivory tower. Life is definitely more than just discussing about history. I have been proven on more than one occasion just how boring and repulsive that makes a person.

I want to experience life in its entirety. Live life like a human being. To do that I must have money. Yet I hope it shall not be the sole consuming pursuit of my life. I would have become no more than a shallow materialistic money-grabbing bastard that I despised in my younger days. But money is a necessity I can't do without. This is made more urgent by the fact that I have two old parents at home, both well-advanced in age.

So should I continue in History? Or should I pursue something (like everyone says) more practical, ie. money?

Maybe I should have gone into business...

Finally it's Over!

After 3 whole months of hard work, I am pleased to announce that it is all over. We have created a precedent. We have successfully organised and hosted the first Singaporean commemoration ceremony for the WWII veterans and those who sacrificed their lives for Singapore. The veterans were all very touched and grateful and some were even moved to tears. many Singaporeans also turned up on their own, after they've read about us in the papers. Really gratifying to see that.

However after all the pomp and ceremony recently, I was suddenly brought down to earth by the boss today.

I was supposed to write a thank-you note to the editor and the graphic designer to thank them for the marvelous work they've done. But when the boss saw my drafted letters, he said I left him and the firm out, thus creating the impression that they were not recognised by the higher-ups and thus being slighted.

But the point here was that he reminded me painfully that I am a "junior officer" in the firm. More than once. I didn't show it on my face at the time, coz it wasn't the issue at the time, but it registered. And the fact was that it is true. I've only been in the firm slightly less than 4 months, and the only people who had spent considerably less time in the firm were Geoff and Aishah.

It gave me a whole new orientation, or rather, made me realise "my station".

Sigh... indeed a wake-up call. Been pampered too much by the boss who listened to all my opinions.