Myth and history

I read somewhere: history is what guides you and a myth is what misguides you. The 'learned' dismiss myths as irrational beliefs, quite unable to withstand the rigours of logic, while history is a verifiable and objective record of events that took place at sometime in a time past and is ... well ...  cast in stone; that no matter who the reader is, regardless of his class or creed, it will remain the same, immutable and unalterable. That's the theory. Unfortunately, the world is more complicated than that. In an ideal world populated entirely by impartial scholars, history will be written objectively, uninfluenced by political forces, the writers own subjectivity and his own personal subscriptions to private prejudices and beliefs. In reality, every country has its own version of history, with modifications ranging from mere ornamentation and embellishment, to total rewrites. (China and Japan -- and they are not the only ones -- appear to have an annual festival of contested histories).

Photo-shopped history

Malaysia might be unique in the way different versions of history exist simultaneously in writing and in the minds of people, many of whom are convinced they are being hoodwinked by the powers, while their children are being ruthlessly indoctrinated and exploited in an attempt to reshape the past to conform to a predetermined model. It could be merely a reflection of the confidence (or the lack thereof) that those people have in the readiness, willingness and ability of the administration to speak the truth, or at least not bend it too much. We could consider ourselves singularly fortunate (if we can call it that) to have the opportunity to, actually, see the process of the mythification of history by selective omission, inclusion and embellishment, all in real time; if not (yet) the complete mythologisation and total fabrication.

Hence the irony: history is the primary source of myths. (Superstition is something else.)

Sejarah Melayu

The current collection of Malaysian Classics by Silverfish Books, Marong Mahawangsa, Sejarah Melayu and The Epic of Bidasari, are generally considered 'useless as history', mere myths (note the tone of derision). Are they an important part of our lives, or merely a diversion? There are interesting passage in Sejarah Melayu, some of which made me laugh out loud:

"It was the custom of all the young gentlemen, when they wanted money, to go and represent to the bandahara that the market place in their quarter of the town was not placed even, and had a great many shops irregularly projecting, and that it would be proper to adjust it, for would not His Majesty be in a great passion if he should pass by and see? 'Well then,' said Tun Hasan, 'go all of you with a surveyor and make it all even by the chain.' Then, the young gentlemen would go and, where they saw the houses of the richest merchants, there would they extend their chain and order the houses to be pulled down. Then the merchants, who were the proprietors of the ground, would offer them money, some a hundred and some fifty, and some ten dollars. Such was the practice of the young gentlemen, who would then go away with the surveyor and divide the money."

Nothing much has changed, has it?!

Makota Raja-Raja

Another one, this from Makota Raja-Raja (one of the other tales in The Epic of Bidasari):

"King Harmuz received one day a letter from his minister in which he said, 'Many merchants being in town with a great quantity of jewels, pearls, hyacinths, rubies, diamonds and other precious stones, I bought all they had for Your Majesty, paying 200,000 tahil. Immediately afterwards, there arrived some merchants from another country who wanted to buy these and offered me a profit of 200,000 tahil. If the king consents, I will sell the jewels and later buy others.'

"King Harmuz wrote to his minister the following response, 'What are 200,000 tahil? What are 400,000 tahil, profit included? Is that worth talking about and making so much ado? If you are going into the operations of commerce, who will look after the government? If you buy and sell, what will become of the merchants? It is evident that you would destroy thus our good renown and that you are the enemy of the merchants of our kingdom for your designs would ruin them. Your sentiments are unworthy a minister.' And for this he removed him from office."

Touche.

There are many good stories in these old classics: the one about Raja Bersiong (in Marong Mahawangsa) is interesting in more ways than one; read it and see what you think. Re-editing and publishing these books was immensely educational for us; and, in these days of interesting times, they are good starting points for the lay reader who wants to begin to understand who we are. (It was a challenge to retain the original language and structure as far as possible, and still make it accessible to the modern reader.)

Genetic or memetic

Myths, in many ways, are far more than history and are fundamental to the development of ideologies, religions and cultures. The conventional wisdom says: myths are created to convey a message; history is a record of actual events. Myths are the roots of thought pattern, the foundation of beliefs, and the basis of decision making.

It is far too common to hear the dismissive, "Itu semua mythos," in this country; meaning that they are worthless knowledge. Some have made a career of relentlessly ridiculing them, but they refuse to go away (and even instances when they do, they leave behind a huge vacuum in the culture readily filled be any other passing fad -- benign and malign). I used to be a believer in the separation of the genetic and the memetic, that while the former is biologically driven, the latter is essentially cultural and, therefore, an 'optional' extra, 'apps' that could be added to the basic operating system for personalisation and enhancement. But I am beginning to wonder about that. While myths, per se, are memetic, are we somehow genetically hard-wired to render us incapable of living without them? Can you imagine a world where no one speaks, tells stories or listens to them? How long will we survive? Are we genetically programmed to create myths? Is that why we are such good storytellers?

Only others believe in myths

To those who believe, myths are real and even 'alive'. But for them to remain so, they have to be believed -- totally. Myths of others are not believed because they are considered false. Only the myths of one's own creed are true and, since they are true, they cannot be myths. Besides, to acknowledge one's own beliefs as myths, would be an admission of the creed's belief in falsehood, and that their judgement was really based on a false premise. A creed does not base its decision on falsehood; only others do.

Suicide bombers believe they will go straight to heaven (never mind the virgins); they don't believe that's a myth. The American pioneers 'won' the West against enormous odds because they believed in the myth that it was their destiny, and still celebrate it, although an entire civilisation was annihilated in the process.

As the good poet said, "For you don't count the dead, When God's on your side."