Roman-Malay boat-building controversy: A disservice to education

RECENTLY, an academic faced backlash for claiming that the ancient Romans learned shipbuilding from the Malays. More troubling than the evident lack of historical evidence or the issues of authority, credibility, and institutional harm that this claim engenders is an underlying educational and social problem. It is possibly a far more dangerous problem, one that if left unaddressed may trigger the emergence of an uncritical society in Malaysia.

The claim in question, which is by all accounts a fake history that hinges on ideological assertion, is directly at odds with the country's educational policy of fostering critical thinking skills among the younger generation. We must ask what happens if students begin to find pseudohistory more sensational and, in some contexts, more compelling than actual history itself?

At a time when the government has been implementing Historical Thinking Skills (HTS), the abovementioned unfounded claim raises serious concerns about the individual’s responsibility in aligning with the broader goal of fostering critical and independent thinking skills among students. 

(HTS includes understanding events in chronological order, exploring evidence,  interpretation,  imagining, and  rationalising.)

Pseudohistorical claims that often rely on emotional appeal and cultural pride run the risk of teaching susceptible and gullible students to value rhetoric rather than analytical rigour. This is worrying because students may unconsciously reproduce them in their own thought processes. This stifles the promotion of active interrogation of sources, facts, and interpretations of the HTS.

Pseudohistorical claims replace empirical reasoning with emotional appeal and ideological conviction. Since the academic’s controversial statement went viral, students are now, unfortunately, coming across fallacious historical misinterpretation based not on historical analysis, but rather motivated by skewed agenda and sensationalism.

Pseudohistory often bypasses the crucial process of critical historical thinking that requires not only the analysis of sources and facts, but an appreciation of historical complexity. In relation to shipbuilding history, what seems amiss is the appreciation of interconnectedness, technological transfer, and environmental coexistence.

For example, coastal ports were cosmopolitan centres where different groups, from Austronesians to Arabs and Indians, shared knowledge of navigational solutions including the adoption of sail techniques and hull designs. However, the academic’s claim only propagates the myth of isolated maritime genius.

Miseducating a false narrative of ethnocentrism is the main danger that arises out of this. It, therefore, serves as a reminder to all of us of the social consequence of biased narratives and the significance of comprehensive critical thinking. 

On the one hand, the government is imparting history as a form of pedagogy to teach students how to weigh evidence, comprehend chronological logic, and interpret complexity. On the other, pseudohistorical claims are a threat to this pedagogical and civic mission of the country. Such narratives encourage acceptance of knowledge as revelation rather than investigation, and to conflate emotional beliefs.

When historical myth circulates in public discourse and, worse, when it permeates the minds of students, history is transformed into an instrument of belief. Fortunately, scholars and educators have critically panned the recent claim.

Yet, there is still a real possibility that the view has found resonance among students and members of the public. This necessitates pedagogical and possibly institutional intervention of some kind. Perhaps the best people to take up the mission of combating pseudohistory are historians and history teachers.

Since the pseudohistorical claim we are dealing with comes from a non-historian, it is perhaps necessary to highlight the ethics of professional history. That brings us to the unique ethical obligations that professional historians hold, which differ somewhat from those of other specialists.

Historians’ words carry moral weight and they bear an obligation not only in interpreting the past but also to the students and public who learn about the world through their words. This responsibility demands factual precision and, more crucially, honesty and transparency.

So when non-historians and historians themselves resort to ideological or pseudohistorical impulses, they risk preaching to students that history exists to confirm preconceived notions or what one already believes. Since history is invoked more and more outside the discipline, the question of who gets to speak for the past is more urgent than ever.

Non-historians who enter a historical debate bear an equal responsibility and are equally accountable. They ought to engage with the past with the same care and humility that historians are trained to exercise. This is the essence of historical responsibility – a commitment of seeking out truth while resisting the temptations of ideology, emotionalism, and moral certainty.

When an educator, especially someone of a professorial rank, misrepresents history, education as a whole is in grave danger. We should take very seriously that such a claim has the potential to influence students’ understanding of history.

In this sense, the academic’s statement constitutes a serious disservice to both historical pedagogy and the educational policy of the nation. It might not be far-fetched to contend that when an expert promotes fabricated narratives, it becomes a betrayal of trust and a failure to act as an ethical model.

Pseudohistorical claims directly conflict with the educational objective of teaching students how to distinguish reliable evidence from fiction and uncover cross-verifiable sources instead of relying on imagination or superstition.

As an ending note, academic freedom must be exercised with great responsibility and a commitment to truth. 

SIVACHANDRALINGAM SUNDARA RAJA

Retired professor

Department of History

Faculty of Arts And Social Sciences

Universiti Malaya