[Mindless Rambling 10]
 

As a non-history major who has vast interest in history, I often ponder about the meaning of History. “Learning from past mistakes?” That is a text book answer which might not be necessary true (There is this particular historian who argued against learning from past mistake, citing that the circumstances in the past is entirely different from today and thus the mistake that seems similar would not be relevant. I forgot his name though). “What are facts” in history can also be rather dubious as the facts are constructed by our judgments (of sources) and can never be objective (Thus post-modern historians do not trust any word-base sources as Man is always influenced by his perception. Artifacts do not have this problem).

So what is the meaning of history then? I am not a history student, so my view on this question will not be as holistic as compared to a history major. What I can provide, is my take on this issue as a non-history major. True enough, the history we learnt are often constructed and may not be the actual reflect of what really transpire. However, is the “truth” really that matter? It is History, of course truth matters. But that is only for historian. For a common man, who is JFK murderer only serves as a lunch topic. For politician, it only will be means to further political agendas. Perhaps, only to a few who are truly concerned about “truth”, It’s is sad to say that it serve little purpose (Especially truth like what the people at X dynasty eat and wear)

Does that mean that history has little value? If think that’s my argument? Try again. To me, history is not meant to be studied but meant to be felt. Yes, circumstances are different but Man is still Man, with a human heart and a human mind. We still cry for losing our loved ones, we still burst into laughter when we are happy. Yes, those who walked before us have a different set of mentality and value, but emotion wise, are they we that different? That’s why some poems written in the past still touches us today as we feel the same. Rather than arguing the reliability of a source, we can ask: “Why he said that?” “How he is feeling at that moment, given the circumstances?” “Why they felt this way?” “How would you feel if you are in is shoes” That is absolutely perceptive and unacceptable. But why not, we are not historian. By feeling what they felt and try to try what they are thinking, I somehow internalize some of the learning and become more appreciative of many things, admiring them instead of criticizing. My perception has also changes and that is a step towards being a better Man. There is difficulty doing so, I admit. That is mostly because the terminology is often alien to most. What I often did when feeling history is changing the terms to something relatable and really focus on the people involve rather than the event alone.

I may be rather wrong in many senses. At the most of it, it is just one man nonsensical rambling.