History – Page 2

History is irrelevant for modern times. Discuss.

• an understanding and appreciation of history can be a pointer to future events
• ignoring history runs the risk of shutting eyes to the future
• those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it
• we can learn to understand change and how our society has evolved and will probably evolve
• history can be one-sided since it is often written by winners in conflict or those in power
• history is irrelevant since it did not stop wars, financial crises or even pandemics
• history is irrelevant in a VUCA world; brings up many questions.

Check out this other essay on history.

A suggested intro. Add your own scope and thesis

Historians do not perform heart transplants, improve highway design, or arrest criminals. In a society that quite correctly expects education to serve useful purposes, the functions of history can seem more difficult to define than those of engineering or medicine. History is in fact very useful, actually indispensable, but the products of historical study are less
tangible, sometimes less immediate, than those that stem from some other disciplines.

A suggested paragraph

History offers a storehouse of information about how people and societies behave. Understanding the operations of people and societies is difficult. An exclusive reliance on current data would needlessly handicap our efforts. How can we evaluate war if the nation is at peace-unless we use
historical materials? Some social scientists attempt to formulate laws or theories about human behavior. But even these recourses depend on historical information, except for in limited, often artificial cases in which experiments can be devised to determine how people act. Major aspects of a
society’s operation, like mass elections, missionary activities, or military alliances, cannot be set up as precise experiments. Consequently, history must serve, however imperfectly, as our laboratory, and data from the past must serve as our most vital evidence in the unavoidable quest to figure out why our complex species behaves as it does in societal settings. This, fundamentally, is why we cannot stay away from history: it offers the only extensive evidential base for the contemplation and analysis of how societies function, and people need to have some sense of how societies
function simply to run their own lives.

Does it answer the question?

Is History anything more than the study of warfare?

History is the account of events that have happened in the past, usually recorded in the most objective way possible. Being a subject in schools, colleges and universities, too many people the subject History remains merely something to do with dates, famous people and events that have left some impact or other on mankind, especially warfare. However, to the less ignorant, history studies not only man’s bloody and violent past, but its political and cultural structures, socio-economic policies and, more often than not, history teaches us very valuable lessons that are applied to current life situations. Therefore, it is a great injustice to merely classify History as the study of warfare, as it is a far greater and more diverse subject than the discussion of brutality and bloodshed.

It must be acknowledged that a large number of conflicts and wars that have occurred in the past does take up most of History, especially when studied in tertiary institutions. Destructions and death; the consequences of war and armed conflicts are clear, and the importance to stop this violence is duly imparted to the younger generation. One thing man has learnt from these past conflicts is that war can never be justified because not only do soldiers die in the front line, never mind the fact if they were forced to fight for an ideal they never believed in, but innocent women, children and elderly are caught in the crossfire and are shown no mercy. Many perish, and so the world learns the hard way that war can only be used as a last resort to end conflicts. Diplomatic negotiations are to be used whenever possible as it is seen as a peaceful process of finding a resolution to disagreements between parties that do not involve the massacre of innocents, though its process may be long-winded and inefficient. However, with so much violence and so many wars occurring in the world today, it can be questioned whether the idea of using diplomacy to end conflicts is being passed down to the younger generations at all.

Though this may be the case, this is a very shallow interpretation of what one can learn from History, as it holds far more diversity than mere warfare. The early development of European superpowers can be used as models or examples for developing countries to imitate and follow on their way to prosperity and growth. For example, the British and their Industrial Revolution changed the world from a technological point of view; men using machines as part of our daily lives to be more productive and efficient, as well as making eighteenth-century life more comfortable. From a local context, Singaporeans learn how nationalists David Marshall and Lee Kuan Yew fought for our independence from the British Colonial masters, the hardships our ancestors had to go through during the Japanese Occupation and during the post-independence years. We learnt the importance of racial harmony, for fear of a repeat of the violent racial riots of the past. In doing so, national identity is formed amongst the citizens; a sense of belonging to a country that accepts and respects people of different ethnicity with different religions, languages, beliefs and cultures. Therefore, war is not the only topic that is learnt, but also the political and cultural development of countries too.

Economic booms and recessions make up part of our global history; different strategies and policies employed by countries to survive in an ever-changing economic climate. The development of new large economies, such as India, can show us how the rise of a superpower can effect the global economy as a whole in the coming decade. Measures to avoid or at least prepare for a recession can be put in place by the government as man learns from mistakes and failures in policies employed in the past. Such events like the Great Depression and the Asian Financial Crisis have had severe effects on many people in many countries, and a repeat of such events will want to be avoided at all costs. Referring to Singapore, we learn that its lack of natural resources and its comparative advantage in importing and exporting foreign goods allows the country to strive on the growth of other economies, having such an open market. Therefore, it can be said that there is a lot to be learned from history from an economic standpoint, as it helps new economies develop while avoiding past errors and mistakes.

Above all, history allows us to be better prepared for the future on many levels. In many circumstances, learning from past experiences improves our lives, and can even save them. For example, from the bad experience from dealing with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Singapore is now more prepared, mentally and medically, to deal with such a situation, as shown with the recent cases of the H1N1 virus. After the horrific events in New York on September the eleventh in the year 2001, the world is aware of terrorist organisations, and Singapore has successfully foiled bomb attacks on our soil. With lessons learnt to form the past, we are more aware of our surroundings and are able to use this knowledge to our benefit.

History entails so much more than merely the study of warfare, as shown above. Its study makes us prepared for a future crisis, and therefore makes our lives better and more comfortable.

Should the British Empire return the looted artifacts?

History has been witness to the British Empire looting many countries of their precious artifacts. The Elgin’s Marbles from Greece, The Benin Bronzes from Nigeria and many artifacts from countries like Australia, India and Native America. Many believe that these artifacts should not be returned but in reality there is an increasing need for these artifacts to be returned to their respective countries because it is their rightful place and if Nazi-looted art is fair to be returned then it is also fair that the empire returns the looted artifacts.

Many believe that the artifacts kept in the British museums are safe and encourage archaeological research done on them. However, it should not be forgotten that the artifacts stored in the British museums are looted and the countries from which they are looted will feel satisfied if their artifacts are returned to them as they are a part of their cultural heritage. For example, many believe that the Elgin’s Marbles should be returned to Greece as it belongs to them but UK does not plan to return the artifacts. The British believe that if they have the artifacts they can take better care of the artifacts. It is true that, the countries deserve to get their artifacts back.

It is also necessary to understand that returning the artifacts can also maintain the amicable relationships between countries. It is true that if the artifacts are returned to their respective countries, it would help in maintaining smooth relations between countries, while not doing so can lead to countries becoming more hostile towards the British Empire. One such instance can be Egypt declaring that it is going to sue museums in Britain and Belgium and if the artifacts are not returned the archaeologists will not be allowed to continue their research in the country. The artifact issue is not only limited to countries like Egypt and Greece but also extends to countries like India, China Australia and so on. Hence, it is only justified that the British return the looted artifacts to their respective countries because not doing so can lead to spoiling relationships between countries.

Additionally, Britain’s expectation that Nazi-looted artifacts should be returned to them reflects their hypocrisy. On one hand, they are readily accepting their artifacts but on the other hand, they are denying requests of other countries for reclaiming the artifacts which are rightfully theirs. British officials argue that many of these countries are incompetent in preserving their national artifacts. Therefore, according to them, the empire is doing a great service by keeping the important artifacts safe. However, it should not be forgotten that if the British believe that they should receive the Nazi-looted art then it should also be return the artifacts looted from various countries. Hence, even if the countries are not stable and are asking for their artifacts it should be returned to them.

It is completely wrong to believe that the British are deserving of getting their artifacts back while the colonized countries are undeserving. There is an underlying race issue prevalent here; it is evident from the fact that Elgin’s stones are the face of the artifacts return debate. Greece’s request for the artifacts is considered while from another country is completely ignored. One instance of this can be the denying of the request of the return of Benin’s Bronze wherein one journalist even said that Nigerians do not deserve the artifacts as they were bought by selling slaves. Hence, this shows that the British are wrong in their approach where they are constantly denying the requests of repatriating the artifacts.

In conclusion, it can be said that the British need to realise that they are no longer the colonisers. Today, the world has changed and it is high time that the artifacts were returned to their respective countries. The British should introspect and understand that behind the guise of a beautiful artifact is a long history of violence and subjugation. It is important that these museums try their best to return the artifacts and the ones they cannot return should have an explanation given of how these artifacts reached Europe. In this way, we can share the cultural heritage and maintain amicable relationships with countries around the world.

To what extent does the migration of people have a positive effect?

While this is a good essay, by today’s standards, the introduction and conclusion are excessively long.

Migration of people has become a collective norm, such that it is an ascendant characteristic of the contemporary society thus regulating international and cross-provincial migration is a prime concern on the policy agendas of developed and Third World states. The term “migration of people” refers to the movement of individuals such as refugees and economic migrants. This phenomenon is chiefly pertinent at present, taking into account the projection of unceasing global and regional migration animated by ageing of First World populations, mounting labour shortages in numerous developed states and urban provinces, as well as chronic disparities in income and standard of living across industrialized and developing civilizations. The modern unparalleled degree of migration incites substantial demographic, ethnical and socio-cultural reforms in many communities. Camps are divided on a myriad of issues and the aftermaths of resettlement. Consequently, there is an emerging consensus that migration of people, supposing appropriate policy measures are implemented, may engender crucial merits for expatriates, host nations and motherlands. However, given that immigration can be perceived as a double-edged sword, it does not emphatically imply propitious outcomes. Hence, migration of people has a positive effect to a large extent.

In a gradually more diverse world, where migration is repeatedly discerned as a menace to national and provincial identities in addition to social cohesion, it is fundamental to stress the positive stimulus migration initiates in host states and regions, with regard to workforce, creation of affluence, ubiquitous poverty decline, innovation and fecundity. On one hand, there is proliferating belief that immigration precipitates growth. Migration tends to boost employment in host societies, draw an influx of foreign capital and investment, beget a cosmopolis, and heighten the capacity for modernism. Several economists claim that the import of cheap labour has trifling bearing on incomes and trade openings for domestic workers since migrant workers are frequently employed in low-wage unskilled practices for which there is a lack of local supply of manpower. Therefore, the migration of people is beneficial for the receipt states and districts.

On the other hand, sceptics assert that immigration would intensify public welfare strain as well as hostility between the migrant population and the locals in host communities. One Centre of Immigration Studies (CIS) repudiated the advantages of immigration, stating the case of Mexican migrants in the United States. The study alleged that Mexican immigrants have spawned a five percent regression in wages for the poorest ten percent of the American households. Furthermore, impecunious immigrants exploit social services at twice the rate of native Americans. Thus the detractors argue that migration is detrimental. Despite the element of legitimacy in their approach of analysis, I consider their deduction to be too sweepingly pessimistic. The Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) elucidated findings such as the majority of immigration trends illustrated modest or zero influence on employment and earnings of residents. Although economic theory suggests that in the short run, and on the assumption that the skill composition of the immigrant inflow diverges from that of locals, migration may be adverse, the net effects of migration are generally positive over the protracted period.

Concurrently, Third World countries and rural provinces may experience the “brain drain” phenomenon which describes the loss of trained and educated individuals to emigration. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), there are more African scientists and engineers in practice in the United States than in their homeland. The United Nations Population Fund, 2010 State of the World Population report determined that Africa merely retains 1.3 percent of the globe’s health care practitioners despite having over a quarter of tuberculosis cases worldwide. Moreover, Chinese farms are observing a scarcity of labour as rural-urban immigration level rise to a prodigious high. With escalating reliance on agricultural imports, China’s food security is increasingly threatened. Nevertheless, source states also reap benefits through remittances, both cash and societal, in the form of declines in fertility, child mortality rates, higher school enrolment rates and the empowerment of women. The exodus of highly skilled workers should be reflected as a symptom instead of a rationale behind failing public systems in those regions. Therefore, migration is advantageous on the whole, for the sending societies.

It is temerarious to form elementary assessments about the benefits of migrant flows from developing to developed states, and from rural to urban provinces. For poverty-stricken countries, the migration of a sizeable fraction of their talents imperils those remaining behind. The underlying reality is that communities necessitate human capital to ensure progress, assemble institutions as well as implement guiding principles which are the strategic pillars of sustained development. The central factors of intercontinental and domestic migration lie in the inequalities which exist in stages of development. Since the significant magnitude, doggedness and flagrancy of the gaps are likely to reinforce the pressures for migration in the imminent future, this migration trend is probable to increase. Given the considerable and multifaceted aftermaths of migration, the global community should seek a more impartial recruitment of less skilled, greater emphasis on provisional employment with incentives to return, and accent on remedying the institutional malfunctions which motivate talents to leave. With these rudiments in place, migration would be more advantageous for development.

Dominance of Asia is inevitable. Discuss.

A ten year old essay that still reads fresh!

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew gave a piece of his advice to the US administration when he was there to receive the Lifetime Achievement Award in Washington. He opined that if the US does not recognize that the Asia-Pacific is where the economic center is going to be, US would lose its influence worldwide in decades to come. Once considered a poor continent from the devastations of the World Wars with little or no influence (with the exception for Japan) on the global economy, Asia is now seen as playing a leading role on the global stage. The dominance of Asia in decades to come will be more defined as a shift in new economic global order sets in.

Intrinsic integration of economies has opened up markets in Asia which has widely benefitted it. Compared to the developed continents of Europe and North America, Asia is largely still a developing continent which strangely is working in her favour. The opening of emerging economies like Thailand, Vietnam and the two economic superpowers India and China has seen low wages being offered partly due to an abundant supply of labour and partly due to lower skills of these workers. As a result, these had led to many multinational corporations to outsource production of their goods in Asia to take advantage of the low-cost of production so as to be able to retain global competitiveness. China known as the world’s largest manufacturer has seen surge in demand for its labour that led to its economy to be overheated. India too is known to export IT services to countries due to her level of competency in that field, many Indian expatriates have been working in Silicon Valley, making up 30 per cent of the workforce. Due to greater demand from corporations it too allowed Asia to grow at an accelerating for the world to straighten up and recognize the rising dominance of Asia due to her economic prowess.

A downside to this though is that as Asia expands at an accelerating pace internal problems have become more poignant. In large parts of Asia, rural developments still persist. People in these areas tend to be illiterate and still engage in the cradle to grave employment – farming. They do not benefit from economic growth that other sectors do arising to the microeconomic problem of widening income inequality. China’s Gini coefficient is relatively high which signifies that if Asian government do not address the bipolarity in developments within its boundaries, the dominance of Asia may just become a passing fad.

On the entertainment area, Asian movies have been making its mark globally. Mention Bollywood and immediately one would conjure up an image of constant song and dance that revolves around a tree. Several Asian movies have received international awards such as Mother from South Korea, My Magic from Singapore; the Japanese movie The Departures won an Oscar award for best foreign film. Cross-border collaborations are rising as well. Westerners see Asia rich in culture and its diversity appealing as more Hollywood movies direct their movies in Asia. Even remakes of Asian films such as “My Sassy Girl” and “Departed” illustrate the growing influence of the Asian entertainment industry.

The myriad of traditions able to blend together in a melting point allows many Asian films to the created derived from the cross-cultural experiences in Asia which is its triumph card in the international market. Models too known for their “exotic looks” are making waves on in the fashion industry. Its dominance yet is not obvious but in decades to come, its rippling of waves would turn to full tides.

Education – a vital, necessary tool to equip are with the necessary knowledge to be able to command a higher wage for skills learnt to provide a comfortable life for one has seen Asian university rankings rise in the annual QS list. The desire to be taken seriously by their competitors have witnessed an immense hunger in Asia to strive for the best or so to speak. Asian education system is known for its rigours and is clearly evident in the number of international maths and science Olympiads Asians win. Compared to the US education system, where school days follow the 19th century agarian calendar which has become irrelevant in today’s world, pale in comparison to the Asian school system, Japan has 242 school days, South Korea 220 and Singapore 200. This has provided Asians a competitive edge in consistent production of highly skilled workers. This, coupled with low-cost labour, creates an ideal investment environment. Academics aside, athletes too are becoming serious competitors in international competitions. It is no wonder then that Asia will lead with an army of well educated scholars that can shape policy and industry.

However, a crucial limiting reagent that can potentially undermine the dominance of Asia is that it is the most vulnerable continent to climate changes that can adversely impede the growth of Asia. The Java coastline of Indonesia has the world’s most fault lines, making it most exposed to earthquakes. To recent surge of fury of mother nature all occurred in Asia. From typhoons rampant in Philippines to Taiwan to Japan, it creates havoc, destroys buildings and more importantly creates casualties. The economic aid into reconstruction from the damage is huge. As Asia constantly experiences such calamities, resources have to be diverted to aid devastated neighbours. This would hinder the capacity Asia has to grow. It is of utmost importance and only circumspect that Asia weaves a social fabric to truly become a domineering force. Lack of aid in times of need would result in a fallout as a whole. Increasing dominance will be diminishing in decades to come instead.

Boasting multi-ethnic groups, multi-talented individuals and large domestic market, Asia is a force to be reckoned with. Its buzzing nightlife and rising social entrepreneurs has sent a message to the world. It is said to be the makeshift of new economic world order. These are transparent signs of rising dominance but to see it turn to actuality, only time will tell.