Who are the natives?
AFTER a visit to Muzium Negara, a Malaysian-Chinese journalist noted in her column the museum’s lack of inclusiveness in showcasing this country’s history.
She cited the museum’s “failure to document the roles of Chinese and Indian leaders and the communities in the making of this diverse nation”.
This column prompted Arof Ishak to write a letter to the English-language daily titled “Narration of History of Nations” on March 5.
He makes several claims. First, the history of China is a narrative of the Chinese civilisation in the Chinese land, and as narrated by the natives of China; not by the Japanese or Europeans who went to China several centuries ago.
He says the history of Hong Kong is as narrated by the natives of Hong Kong, not by the Indians who are now citizens of Hong Kong.
Second, when a Chinese immigrates, (I think he meant emigrates) she passes into the stage of the “end of history”.
Having become “a new citizen” in the new land, the Chinese immigrant has the choice of either staying in a state of the end of history or joining the continuing history of the native civilisation of the new homeland.
“But (the Chinese immigrant) must realise always that the history of her new homeland is as narrated by the natives of that new homeland. She cannot demand that the natives narrate history the way she likes it done.”
Third, “the Chinese and Indian communities in Malaysia do not ‘make up this diverse nation’… They merely joined the existing and continuing native Malay nation which exists in fact beyond the political borders of Malaysia.
Arof’s letter raises several questions. First, who are the “natives” of a country?
In the US, the 5.2 million Native Americans include American Indians (previously labelled Red Indians), native Alaskans, native Hawaiians and Samoans.
Does Arof mean only the writings of Native Americans can be accepted as the country’s true history?
Leading an expedition financed by the Spanish monarchs, Italian-born explorer Christopher Columbus reached the Bahamas in 1492. Although he failed to reach the American mainland, he is popularly credited as the discoverer of America.
Does this give the Spaniards or the Italians the right to craft America’s history?
Similarly, another Italian adventurer Amerigo Vespucci, who made several voyages to the New World in the late 15th century, gave his name to the new continent.
Does this give Vespucci’s ethnic descendants – the Italians – a stronger claim to be the “na- tives” of the country and to write its history than other claimants?
Furthermore, there is considerable debate among academics whether Columbus was the first to discover the New World.
Some believe the Vikings were the first discoverers of America because they landed in Newfoundland in the 11th century.
Additionally, in his book 1421: The Year the Chinese Discovered America, British historian Gavin Menzies asserts the Chinese were the first to reach America – a claim challenged by other historians.
Among the evidence cited by Menzies is an 18th century copy of a 1418 map drawn by Chinese Admiral Cheng Ho (pinyin Zheng He) which showed major North American rivers and the coasts as well as South America.
Second, does Arof claim later settlers can’t claim the right to write their new country’s history?
On Nov 11, 1620, the Pilgrim Fathers, a group of English religious refugees, landed in Massachusetts. Should the narratives written by their English descendants be rejected as invalid?
Third, Arof says “without the immigrants, the native history here continues and there would still be a Malaysia”. Does this mean the immigrant’s achievements should be omitted from this country’s history?
One example is the history of some of Malaysia’s notable corporations.
Kwong Yik Bank was this country’s first bank. Established in 1913 – 10 years after Wong Ah Fook started its Singapore counterpart – Kwong Yik merged with D&C bank in 1997 and is now part of the RHB Banking Group.
One of Malaysia’s foremost conglomerates, Sime Darby Berhad, was formed by William Sime, Henry d’Esterre Darby and Herbert Mitford Darby in 1910 – the same year another Malacca-based plantation company United Malacca Rubber Estates (UMRE) was established.
Persuaded by Henry Ridley, Tan Chay Yan was the first individual to plant rubber in this country and to set up a plantation company. Chay Yan’s first ancestor arrived in Malacca in 1750 and settled there.
Should Kwong Yik Bank, Sime Darby, UMRE and Chay Yan be obliterated from Malaysian corporate history because their founders weren’t natives while Chay Yan was an immigrant?
I would argue a historical narrative’s validity depends on whether what is written can be substantiated by facts and documents; the authors and founders’ ethnicity is irrelevant.