History Repeats Itself—Because We Don’t Feel It: How VR Can Help Students “Live” the Past

 History Repeats Itself—Because We Don’t Feel It: How VR Can Help Students “Live” the Past

---

The saying “history repeats itself” is often used to describe how societies fall into the same mistakes over and over again. It is not that people are ignorant of the facts; many students can recite dates, names, and events. The real problem is that history is taught as something distant and abstract, not as lived human experience. Without feeling the fear, confusion, hope, or moral weight of past events, people struggle to internalize their lessons.

This is where virtual reality (VR) can change everything. Instead of reading about a war, a protest, or a famine, students can step into an immersive simulation that places them in the middle of that moment. They can walk through a bombed‑out street after an air raid, hear the voices of refugees, or stand in a courtroom during a historic trial. When learners “experience” history directly, it becomes harder to treat it as a mere textbook chapter.

VR‑based history education can:

• Build empathy by letting students see the world through the eyes of people from different times, cultures, and social positions.

• Strengthen critical thinking by forcing them to make choices under historical constraints (for example, deciding whether to speak up in a totalitarian regime).

• Make abstract concepts like “propaganda,” “inflation,” or “colonialism” concrete by showing their real‑life impact on families and communities.

Of course, VR is not a magic fix. It must be designed carefully, with accurate research, diverse perspectives, and clear learning goals. Teachers still need to guide reflection, ask hard questions, and connect the virtual experience to the present day. But when used well, VR can help break the cycle of repetition. If young people truly feel the cost of past mistakes, they may be less likely to repeat them—and more likely to help humanity move forward instead of going in circles.

---

From “盡忠報國” to “精忠報國”: How a Historical Phrase Was Rewritten

---

From “盡忠報國” to “精忠報國”: How a Historical Phrase Was Rewritten

The story of the famous general Yue Fei (岳飛, 1103–1142) and the four characters on his back is one of the most enduring symbols of loyalty in Chinese tradition. However, the widely known phrase “精忠報國” (jingzhong baoguo, “serve the country with utmost purity of loyalty”) is actually a later, popular distortion of the original historical record, which gave instead the words “盡忠報國” (jinzhong baoguo, “serve the country with one’s utmost devotion”).

In the official Song dynasty history, the Song Shi (《宋史》), Yue Fei’s biography clearly states that his back was inscribed with “盡忠報國” (jinzhong baoguo), deeply carved into the skin by his mother, as a lifelong injunction to serve the nation to the utmost. This phrase means “to exhaust one’s loyalty and effort for the country” — it emphasizes total dedication, effort until the end, and moral responsibility, framed in a Confucian sense of duty to the ruler and state.

The form “精忠報國,” however, does not appear in the original Song records as the words on Yue Fei’s back. Instead, it originated from the imperial banner given to Yue Fei by Emperor Gaozong of Song, who wrote “精忠岳飛” (Jingzhong Yue Fei — “Yue Fei, with pure and perfect loyalty”) on a banner to reward his general’s military service. “精忠” (jingzhong) means “pure, refined loyalty” — a more idealized, almost spiritual form of loyalty, closer to an imperial label of virtue than a personal vow.

Over later centuries, especially in Ming and Qing dynasty novels, operas, and folk traditions, the two concepts blurred. People began to conflate the banner’s “精忠岳飛” with the tattoo on his back, and the phrase was transformed into “精忠報國” as the popular version of Yue Fei’s motto. This version entered modern textbooks, school plays, and propaganda images in the 20th century, especially in mainland China and Taiwan, where the state used Yue Fei as a model of loyalty and patriotism.

The significance of this change is profound:

• Historical → Symbolic: Yue Fei’s personal vow of “盡忠報國” (doing one’s utmost for the country) was replaced by “精忠報國” (loyalty of perfect purity), turning a historical figure into a state-sanctioned icon.

• Effort vs. Purity: “盡忠” emphasizes action, perseverance, and moral effort, while “精忠” shifts focus to moral purity and unquestioning obedience, making it more useful for state propaganda.

• State appropriation: The change allowed authorities to redirect loyalty from the people’s duty to the state toward an ideal of loyalty to the state itself, often regardless of the ruler’s virtue or justice.

In modern usage, “精忠報國” has become a standard patriotic slogan, especially in military and school education, but it obscures the original Confucian spirit of “盡忠報國” — a call to serve the nation fully, even when the state is flawed, not simply to obey it.

Brexit Through Cohen's Three Keys: Event, Experience, and Myth

 

Brexit Through Cohen's Three Keys: Event, Experience, and Myth

The United Kingdom's decision to leave the European Union – Brexit – is arguably the most significant political event in modern British history. Like the Boxer Rebellion, it is not merely a collection of facts, but a complex phenomenon whose understanding has been shaped by its immediate unfolding, the diverse experiences of those involved, and the subsequent narratives constructed around it. Applying Paul A. Cohen's framework from History in Three Keys allows us to dissect Brexit's lasting historiography.

Key One: Brexit as Event 

This key focuses on the verifiable sequence of actions and decisions that constitute Brexit. It's the factual chronology:

• The 2016 Referendum: The political decision to hold the referendum, the campaign leading up to it, and the 51.9% vote to Leave.

• Article 50 Trigger: The formal notification to the EU of the UK's intention to withdraw.

• Negotiations: The protracted and often acrimonious negotiations between the UK and the EU regarding withdrawal terms, future trade relationships, and the Northern Ireland Protocol.

• Withdrawal and Trade Agreements: The signing and ratification of the various treaties that legally separated the UK from the EU and established a new trading relationship.

• Key Actors: The prime ministers (Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak), EU officials (Barnier, Juncker, Von der Leyen), and their respective roles in the process. This key aims to provide an objective, factual account of "what actually happened" throughout the Brexit process, from its inception to its current legal and economic realities.

Key Two: Brexit as Experience 

Beyond the bare facts, this key explores the deeply subjective and often emotional "experience" of Brexit for millions of individuals. It delves into the diverse ways people understood, felt, and responded to the changes:

• Leave Voters' Experience: The feeling of reclaiming sovereignty, taking back control, escaping burdensome regulations, and addressing perceived issues like uncontrolled immigration. This often stemmed from a sense of being left behind by globalization and feeling unrepresented by the political establishment.

• Remain Voters' Experience: The sense of loss, betrayal, concern for economic stability, loss of freedom of movement, and worries about the UK's international standing and future. This often included feelings of grief,anger, and alienation from their own country's decision.

• Business Owners' Experience: Adapting to new customs checks, trade barriers, changes in supply chains, and labor shortages.

• EU Citizens in the UK / UK Citizens in the EU: Navigating new immigration rules, residency applications, and anxieties about their future status and rights.

• Northern Ireland: The complex and often painful experience of the Northern Ireland Protocol, impacting identity,trade, and peace. This key seeks to understand the lived realities, the personal stories, and the varied emotional landscapes that Brexit created, moving beyond aggregated polling data to the human dimension of the event.

Key Three: Brexit as Myth 

This key examines how Brexit has been, and continues to be, interpreted, reinterpreted, and selectively remembered to serve various political, economic, and cultural agendas. These narratives often simplify complex realities into compelling,yet frequently divisive, stories:

• The "Global Britain" Myth: Post-Brexit, a narrative emerged positioning the UK as a nimble, independent global player, forging new trade deals worldwide and free from the constraints of EU bureaucracy. This myth emphasizes future potential and national pride.

• The "Broken Britain" Myth: Conversely, critics of Brexit frequently frame it as a catastrophic national error,leading to economic decline, reduced international influence, and societal division. This narrative often blames Brexit for a wide range of national challenges.

• The "Will of the People" Myth: This narrative, often invoked by Brexiteers, asserts that the referendum result was an unequivocal expression of democratic will that must be respected above all else, often dismissing calls for closer ties with the EU.

• The "Brussels Bureaucracy" Myth: A persistent narrative portraying the EU as an undemocratic, overreaching bureaucratic monster, justifying the need for the UK's departure. These "myths" are powerful, shaping public discourse, influencing political rhetoric, and cementing deeply entrenched identities (Leave vs. Remain). They represent not just history, but a contested future.

By applying Cohen's three keys, we gain a more nuanced understanding of Brexit, recognizing it not only as a series of political maneuvers but also as a profound societal rupture whose meaning remains subject to ongoing interpretation and reinterpretation.