This article raises the question of why we learn history and how it helps us, especially when it comes to our personal economic lives. It also explores why and what it means for nations to appeal emotionally to their citizens through history.

In his book, Yuval Harari, author of the international bestseller “Homo sapiens: A Short History of Man,” explains why we study and learn history as follows
“History is neither inevitable nor accidental. History is not a means of predicting the future. The reason we study history is to expand our horizons, to realize that blacks could have brought about the Scientific Revolution before whites in Europe, and that they could have owned white slaves.”
In short, the reason we study history is to expand our horizons, which may not resonate with all of us. For example, a historian may work hard to shine a light on the discipline of history, but this may not be the case for those who are not familiar with history. In South Korea, history is compulsory from 5th grade to high school, and if you don’t know much about history (especially your own country’s history), you can be seen as ignorant and shallow. It seems that history has already become an essential knowledge in everyone’s mind. If we study history in order to realize that it is not inevitable or natural for peasants in the Middle Ages to be exploited by nobles for their harvests, that is right, but even in this case, the question arises: “Why history?” Because this realization can be learned without studying the past (history) in disciplines such as morality or ethics. I wonder, if historians were to actively promote to the general public how learning history would help them make a living, or how it would hinder their lives, on what basis would they convince me?

What is livelihood?

First, let’s talk about sustenance. I’m not talking about “eating” in the sense of simply eating a sandwich from the fridge, or “living” in the sense of continuing life’s activities. I’m talking about how history helps or hinders us in our economic activities, as we produce and consume through economic activity. I mention economic activity because we need to earn money to buy food, necessities, and the services we need. It’s important to note that we shouldn’t generalize about history sellers if we want to make general statements about everyone. By “people who sell history,” I mean people who profit financially from the study of history, such as history professors and history online instructors.
An example of someone who doesn’t sell history is Mr. A, a bakery owner. Mr. A has been running a bakery for 10 years, and he realized that customers are looking for souvenirs in November and December, when there are many anniversaries and events, so he prepared event products for that time of the year and increased his sales significantly. His 10 years of business experience can be considered a kind of history, but the difference with textbook history is that his experience is very micro and recent. If Mr. A’s business diary is found 3000 years from now, it could be a valuable source for micro-history research. But what I’m curious about is not this micro-history, but the macro-history of textbooks, and how it helps us make a living. No matter how I think about it, macro and old history doesn’t seem to be economically beneficial in the modern world unless it is directly selling history. For example, knowing that King Munmu of Silla unified Goguryeo and Baekje to form a unified Silla doesn’t help Mr. A’s economic activities. In this way, history seems to be less helpful to an individual’s livelihood as it moves from the micro to the macro, and as it gets older.

So, can “broadening horizons,” as Yuval Harari calls it, help you make a living?

In our daily life, economic activities are divided into income and expenditure, and there is an inevitable causal relationship between income (labor -> income) and expenditure (expenditure -> savings, purchase of necessities and services). Imagine if we studied history and realized that history is not inevitable. However, this realization is meaningless because we live in an economy where it is inevitable. For example, let’s say I bought sundae soup for dinner last night for 6,500 won. It is inevitable that I spent 6,500 won and received sundae soup. Imagine if this fact was known 3,000 years later and became history. People in the future will be able to realize what Yuval Harari said and say, “It was never inevitable or accidental that he bought a sundae soup for 6,500 won. He could have bought a suyuk soup for 8,000 won at any time.” But this is completely meaningless to me 3,000 years ago.

So why do we need history to make a living?

If macro and long histories don’t help individuals make a living, why do states and scholars say that history is important? The truth is, states don’t teach history for the sake of individual livelihoods. They need to manage their people effectively. In Korea’s case, in order to get 50 million people to pay taxes and live by the laws that have been enacted, it will need a good reason to convince the majority of people. This reason is more emotional than rational. It is “because we are Korean”. We didn’t choose to be South Koreans at birth. Only one of our parents has South Korean citizenship, and if we register our birth in South Korea, we become South Korean citizens. Therefore, “because we are South Korean citizens” is not rational at all. To compensate for this lack of logic, the state indoctrinates us with history, starting as early as elementary school when we are receptive to learning. “We are one because we are one people born on the Korean Peninsula and have shared the history of Gojoseon, the Three Kingdoms, Goryeo, and Joseon.”
Somehow, this makes the nation sound like a fraud. But the nation is not a fraud. The state is a fictitious entity that does not fulfill the self-interest of individuals. It doesn’t make sense for the state to collect taxes from its citizens to buy a new Audi or an apartment in Gangnam for the state to drive around in. The state uses the taxes it collects to reinvest in the well-being of its citizens. The state tries to minimize disputes and conflicts among its citizens by making them obey the law, but it is difficult to convince all citizens rationally, so it appeals to them emotionally with history.
In sum, history is important not because it helps “me” make a living, but because it helps “everyone” make a living. The logic of necessity of all the aforementioned economic activities cannot be sustained without the rule of law. The state tries to protect this structure of economic activity from fraudsters and robbers. This is not something we should be grateful to the state for. It’s natural because we receive rights and benefits from the state, and we fulfill our obligations to it.
But even this is not perfect. In the modern world, those who run the state spend taxes that should be reinvested in the well-being of the people to fulfill their own self-interest. Taxes and people’s production are used to fulfill the material desires, power desires, and connections of some of those in charge of running the country. This is because the theoretically perfect state is in the hands of human beings who are not perfect at all. For the time being, it seems unlikely that anything else will emerge to replace these imperfect humans. In the distant future, when A.I., free of self-interest and irrationality, decides how to run the country, all problems may be solved, but for now, a country run by immature humans can lead to corruption and disruption. We have the right and duty to be outraged and resist such a situation. Because we are a people born on the Korean Peninsula, a people who have shared the history of the Three Kingdoms, Goryeo, and Joseon since Gojoseon.