History should document the voiceless

As the writer George Orwell said, "who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past". History is a biased collection of stories censored by the victor. Columbus "discovered" America because he killed the natives. The Civil War was all about slavery because the North won. As documentation evolves technologically, the question of whether to remember the lives of the conquered becomes a matter of choice. A common conception is that the winner of the war has a responsibility to the memory of the corpses trampled beneath their feet. As a matter of respect, history should hold the memories of the voiceless, but only as long as it does not endanger the lives of the living.

The bias of history is apparent throughout the textbooks fed to the nation's youth. If "education" is certainly the priority of courses in history, those of adequate age should have full access to this information. According to local residents of Hong Kong, a lack of information for the sake of a nation's pride jeopardized lives with the outbreak of the SARS virus. Trying to maintain pride and quell chaos, the Chinese government hid SARS from international eyes, and help, until it appeared in Hong Kong. In this case, censorship of recent history was fatal. In a science fiction rendition of historical "censorship" analogous to the terrorism of the Crusades or the conquest of America, Michael Bay's The Island, depicts a dystopian future where the government hides a stock of human clones underground so that their originals, who had the clones made for organ transplants, are unaware that the harvesting of an organ results in the murder of a human being [Bay]. Burying the truth in history often gives the victors too much power, as stated by George Orwell. Without society's willing knowledge acting as a moral check, full control over history can lead to ruthlessness. Being able to understand a situation is a vital part of making moral decisions. As explained by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, the noblest decisions in life are autonomous and well-understood choices. To deny access to historical information is to gravely limit human morality, reducing humans to animals.

In rare cases, however, historical bias will be necessary to the maintenance of a healthy state. In Johnnie To's film Breaking News, the power of the Hong Kong Police is greatly dependent on public reception. Its effectiveness in enforcing the laws in such a complex and important city in Hong Kong required the "putting on [of] a show [trans.]". The case of an officer surrendering to bank robbers was turned into an issue of a father staying alive to support his family as part of a campaign to garner public support for the police. Similarly, in a discussion with Nick Hwang, a Chinese student at Polytechnic School in Pasadena, an agreement was reached that, while the Maoist authorities may have taken it too far, their destruction of the "Old Ways" was a vital part of managing the heavily-populated People's Republic of China. Much of the "Chinese censorship" against things such as facebook is not a backwards form of oppression, but a method of preventing an uprising of a fifth of the world's population [Hwang]. Even Kant would agree that some measures must be taken for the greater good of the people.

Controlling the past is the bloody cherry for the victors of history's battles. History is a well chosen collection of stories. It seems fitting that anyone who could would choose to have lived a fantasy of a life, for sake of shame or judgement. The power of history is a prize of denying the consequences of a war. The power to change history usually comes at the price of thousands of lives. So there should be no more need to lose lives. Sustaining life is the ultimate criterion for most moral decisions, especially that of whether to abridge history. Such a choice is literally a choice between life or death.

I hate conclusions. Actually I just hate my own writing.