This is a really fascinating piece I read recently, on why the Chinese study the period of their history known as the Warring States period.
At one level, there is nothing interesting about this – after all, Stansfield Turner made all staff and students at the Naval War College read Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War. And while almost everyone hated it initially, many eventually came to treasure that book. As it turned out for those Naval War College staff and students, a history book (and one based on ANCIENT HISTORY!!!) provided insights into then-contemporary strategic problems.
So, let me reiterate – there ought to be nothing peculiar or interesting or fascinating about a story that the Chinese remain fascinated with one of the periods of their own history.
That being said, as someone who has been involved in military education for coming on 20 years (and having struggled to convince military students and the SAF about the value of a history-based education), it is validating to know that at least some people see the value of a history-based education. Unfortunately, this was not always my experience in providing military education to the SAF: “why can’t we have more contemporary case studies” was a constant (and mindless!) refrain from my counterparts in the SAF.
As a coda, consider the following part of the piece: “The leaders were ruthless. They established a highly ordered society that was highly obedient to the state. And they used the rule of law – not the code of behavior – as the basis for interaction.” Sounds familiar? Guess what? We can talk all we want about “Confucian scholar-gentlemen”, but the reality of much of Chinese history follows the pattern described above. It almost certainly is the case in Singapore – despite the Singapore government’s talk about Confucian ethics
bernardloo64 