Kapok | Teaching history: what for?

Eric Sautedé

It is not an easy thing to win the heart and mind of the people for government officials in peaceful times.

Being elected is a good start, as elected representatives embody an ideal(ised) form of popular sovereignty. When you are chosen, by a majority nonetheless, then it is easier to build on that initial legitimizing public endorsement.

Sure, it is not perfect — the tyranny of the majority, pitfalls of populism or confiscation of power by professional politicians ring a bell? — but as Winston Churchill famously said: “Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” In a nutshell, elected officials do not get to decide on the validity of their mandate.

And then, for public support to endure, one needs to do a good job. This is what we now call “good governance,” meaning that public policies need to not only effectively address issues affecting society but also anticipate on these issues and nurture the community — and its position in a wider globalized world. Sensible public policies do not only help create jobs, but motivate a community of individuals to grow together. Meaningful urban planning, for example, is not only a question of making economic agents more productive, it also impacts territorial integration and thus the social construct of our community perceived as a “we”.

Splashing money around helps too, but it does not earn respect, or even loyalty: at best it delays things for a while, and at worst and more often it only soothes angers superficially, leading to abrupt backlashes made worse by the inability of officials to face the reality of the situation.

Education aims at the long term and is crucial in building a sense of belonging for any community. Language is prime, as your mother tongue — or rather your education language — determines the way you engage with others — family, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens and even foes! Language also shapes the way you think and argue.

When it comes to content, the teaching of history, the history of one’s own community as well as the rest of the world, is crucial for a community. When history was not a science, historical chronicles were the cradle of national (or imperial) narratives that served as a justification for the hold on power of ruling monarchs and governments. Even today, despite the triumph of logos and scientific reasoning, history is instrumentalized to create a “national narrative” or  even a “national story”. This is true in Communist-led China, in which freedom of expression is heavily curtailed. This is also true, in more subtle ways, in democracies: the recent debate around a new “World History of France” authored by Patrick Boucheron perfectly illustrates that. The big difference, though, is that in France — the same goes for the United States, Sweden, Portugal, etc. — there was and still continues to be a debate. History as a science dictates that a public discussion, shaped by historians and experts, takes place. This is also true and even more so for textbooks.

What is indeed shocking in the recent superficial buzz (clearly not a controversy) regarding the publication of new history textbooks for secondary pupils in Macao is not the content of the textbooks (the three chapters on Macao, out of 18, do not strike me as indignant), but rather the absence of debate about them, the inability to mix historiographies (that would indeed give substance to the “East meets West” narrative), the personal intervention of Alexis Tam to remove supposedly offensive wording, and the very fact that critical Chinese commentators have to remain homonymous when talking to the press!

In the latest poll by Hong Kong University regarding whether or not Hong Kong people are proud of having become national citizens of China, only a meagre 16% of those aged 18 to 29 express a sense of pride! Can a propaganda-like master narrative turn things over in an open society? What would it then mean in terms of identity and the preservation of the “one country, two systems” formula? And is Macao not an open society as well?