| THEMATIC LEAFLET NO. 01 | ||||||||||
Why this thematic leaflet? The idea to prepare and publish
a thematic leaflet on such a highly sensitive and emotionally
conflicting issue came to the participants of the youth training
course "History as a cause of conflicts in Europe",
which was organized by UNITED in August 2003 near Krakow (Poland).
Many stories, mythologized in different ways, become a basis for self-identification of various ethnic groups and majority population of different countries. In Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) in particular, this factor is accompanied by an economic crisis, a feeling of insecurity, a deficit of civic consciousness and responsibility, the weakness of political culture and becomes a serious danger for stability. School education provides the majority of the population with historical information for the whole of their life. That is why history teaching, first of all, must contribute to tolerance and open-minded approach to conflicting opinions. However, today approximately 70 per cent of information in history textbooks is related to wars, conquests and other destructive events. Any state and society has an obligation not to discriminate against ethnic, linguistic, religious and other minorities, but to integrate them actively into society. Therefore, the first political requirement for history manuals is giving a fair representation of domestic minorities, as well as of the neighbouring nations and countries. The main goal of this thematic leaflet is to encourage debates and more intensive cooperation between the UNITED network (and the European anti-racist movement in general), historians, media and people responsible for the content of school curricula to make history work for the benefit of society. UNITED for Intercultural Action (www.unitedagainstracism.org), the largest pan-European anti-racist network, brings together organizations and activist groups from all over Europe, from the countries that might not have been historically 'on friendly terms' e.g. Armenia and Azerbaijan, Russia and Germany, countries in the Balkans - former Yugoslavia (Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Slovenia, Macedonia), Albania, Romania and Hungary, Greece and Turkey, etc., but their activists are united to fight discrimination and racism. This leaflet is a chance for the anti-racist movement to start a European-level dialogue in the field and to draw attention to these problems.
2. NATIONAL HEROES OR CRIMINALS FOR HUMANITY? 3. MEDIA: A MODERN WRITER OF HISTORY 4. HISTORY BOOKS AND NEGATIVE STEREOTYPES 5. RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR HISTORY TEACHING:
The main value of history is a
possibility for the human beings of the present to make conclusions
from the experience of the past.
Society needs to understand that humankind's past is not always a rose garden, and it is not only a rich positive heritage that every citizen should be ready and willing to accept. There were certain periods in European history that happened to be full of bloodshed. A persistent re-division of territories in the past caused conflicts between whole nations and countries. It often happens that the same historical facts are being interpreted by different groups of people - mostly ethnic, religious, etc. - in absolutely different ways. In its interpretation one country/nation may very often present another in dark colours - worse than it really is. The 20th century is notorious for numerous ethnic and territorial wars and conflicts, the growth of extreme nationalism and racism both in Eastern and Western Europe. Some recent manifes-tations of these are ethnic cleansings and bloody wars in the republics of former Yugoslavia, the col-lapse of the Soviet Union followed by wars in the republics of the Southern Caucasus (Nagorny Karabakh, Southern Ossetia, Abkhazia), Moldova (Transnistria) and the Russian Federation (Chechnya), etc. Most of today's conflicts are rooted in the past
e.g. age-old hatred and interpretation of historical facts by
far not in favor of the Chechen people in the case of Russia.
The historical aspect became one of the main factors in the ethno-political
Georgian-Abkhazian conflict, too. Both sides speak about the
factor of historical justice and cannot reach a consensus when
they discuss a possible conflict resolution. The Georgians say
that during many centuries the Georgian state system was spread
in the territory of Abkhazia. The Abkhazians stress those historical
periods when Abkhazian political units were independent from
the Georgian centers (Middle Ages). Some Georgian human rights
activists call it "an intellectual mistake" to consider
the history as the main criterion during the discussions of problems
about the administrative-territorial arrangement of Georgia.
Of course it is possible to get out of one's own past, re-write one's history, but it is impossible to change the facts that have already taken place. What is done cannot be undone. The society that does not want to understand and accept its own past is condemned to repeating it some time in the future. Therefore, it endangers the fate of future generations. We can bring an example of Germany where the process of 'recovering' from the past lasted for fifty years and a lot of steps were taken by both society and the governments to this aim, e.g. many years public essay contests have been organized for young people to write about World War II and its tragic events. This experience can be used by other countries to overcome lingering hatred and murderous past or to get rid of the remnants of its totalitarian past (by Russia, for example). When representatives of different ethnic groups belonging to a nation consider its common history, it is often difficult for them to find a common language, not least because of a struggle to get a pri-ority right for prestigious heritage of history or striving to hide ugly pages from the country's history. Often attempts at history revision are characterized by such tendencies as attributing heroism, claiming an older statehood than it actually is, exaggerating the political and social development of ethnicities, self-overestimation at the expense of the neighbours, creating a chain of great national heroes. An extinct conflict should not be hyperbolized and poeticized. Thus, for example, a heroic interpretation of the Nagorny Karabakh conflict in Azerbaijan and Armenia interferes with achieving a compromise. The same situation is with the parties in the Yugoslav wars. Changing the way of history teaching in schools was an obligatory precondition for Bosnia to join the Council of Europe and the process in this sense has started with omitting some of the disputable contents in schoolbooks. Nevertheless, children in Bosnia and Herzegovina still learn differently about the same historical events depending whether they are Croats, Serbs or Bosniacs. The education reform in the country is ongoing with the support of the OSCE. According to the theory of narcissism (Erich Fromm) people are inclined to consider in the most positive way an "imagined community"- mostly nation - they belong to. Today we witness a process of transformation when history as a field of knowledge and as a study subject develops into the history of ethnicities, while ethnicities in their turn replace classes, and "national liberation movement" supersedes class struggle. In national and regional historical descriptions the topic of heroic spirit and victimization take more and more meaning, especially in CEE, former Soviet Union, and also in countries such as Spain and Ireland. With the collapse of the Communist block and formation of new states people, faced with co-existence of old and new ideologies, including national ones, frequently resort to previous notions of their identity.
Alexander the Great, Jeanne d'Arc, Peter the Great, Napoleon,
Kemal Ataturk, Ion Antonescu, and many other personalities became
models of bravery and power for their own nations or certain
groups in the country.
It is common knowledge that national heroes tend to be closely connected with nationalism: they have usually fought for their state's independence and/or its domination in the world. They may have been good for their own nation/country, but hostile to the neighboring countries at the same time. Interpretation of national heroes constantly changes: in one period he/she can be a hero, in another period he/she is suddenly a criminal. Also the same "national heroes" can be claimed by different ethnic groups, insisting that the hero was born or had lived, or "had the mentality" of their territory. A good example of such a "national hero" can be Marshal Ion Antonescu, dictator in Romania and ally of Hitler from 1940 to 1944, whose criminal acts are being justified by a certain part of the population today. Hitler's Germany was satisfied with its Romanian ally. Joseph Goebbels wrote: "When it comes to the issue of Jews, it is to say that a man like Antonescu acts much more radically than we do." Antonescu was responsible for
killing over 400,000 Jews and many thousands Roma in 1941-1944,
but today some historians and right extremist parties in Romania
and Moldova justify him. Among them are "Romania Mare"
(Greater Romania Party) in Romania and Christian-Democratic People's
Party in Moldova, known for its radical nationalism. They
emphasize that he killed "Jews who were engaged with Communists
and partisans", he was also able to overcome an economic
crisis in Romania and, as a Marshal, he tried to return the lost
Romanian provinces. Today there is no true information about
Antonescu in many school textbooks on history both in Romania
and Moldova. The books contain either a "neutral" narration
or even a positive evaluation of the politician. Otherwise, in
other countries, e.g. in Bulgaria, history textbooks provide
information about Antonescu as Hitler's ally and war criminal.
Besides, in many history textbooks in Romania and Moldova not
a single word is written about the Holocaust, and even students
who graduated from the History Departments often cannot give
its definition.
Another example is Mustafa Kemal who is considered to be the symbol of modern Turkey. He was given the title of "Ataturk", which means the Father of all Turks. Kemal is best known for his language reforms and women's rights that he introduced in Turkey in the early 20th century. In Turkish textbooks he is presented as a saint and role model for everybody to follow. Kemal also tried to westernize Turkey: he wore western suits as opposed to traditional dress and converted the Arabic-style alphabet into Latin. He implemented educational reforms, prevented Turkish economy from destruction, and did other positive things. At the same time he is seen by Greeks and Armenians as a person who started the first campaign against Christians and Greeks. According to Greek textbooks, out of the 700,000 Greeks, 400,000 were killed and the rest fled to all parts of the world. The Turkish government denies having killed a single Christian, and instead claims merely relocating them. Today the figure of Ataturk is one of the issues that cause contradictions between the Armenians and the Turks. One more example. The Ministry
of Defense of Latvia paid honor to the group of the so-called
'Forest Brothers'- people who were fighting against the Soviets
in support of the Nazis. They were praised for "patriotic
educating of the young people". From the view-point of some
Latvian authorities, they are national heroes and defenders
of the national interests, but from the view-point of veterans
of the Soviet army and victims of Nazi occupation they are fascists
who aided Hitler's war machine. But there are people who can
be truly called as heroes and their real contributions to human
society do not create any misunderstanding. Among them are Martin
Luther King, Janusz Korczak (a Polish-Jewish teacher and writer
who looked after Jewish children during the Holocaust) and Albert
Einstein. They turned from national heroes to truly international
heroic figures.
Mass media play a crucial role
in the process of cultivating the image of a national hero. Sometimes the national hero controls
and leads the media machine of which Hitler could be an example.
Or, due to a sensational aspect of media activities, a national
hero is created. Mass media often play a critical part in conflict
initiation and its fading. They can also provoke a bloody war,
as it happened in former Yugoslavia, since they were instrumentalised
by the lords of war like Slobodan Milosevic and Franjo Tudjman.
Some of the persons indicted for war crimes by the International
Tribunal in the Hague are still free like Radovan Karadzic and
Ratko Mladic, who claimed in the media, upon committing massacre
in Srebrenica in 1995, that "this was revenge for the battle
for Kosovo", which happened in 1389!
The first to use modern radio for unleashing a war was Goebbels, who was responsible for Hitler's propaganda. Just several days after the murder of a German diplomat in Paris, Jewish pogroms were planned and organized throughout Germany. Many Jews were killed and many were taken imprisoned; the night of 9th November 1938 became a symbolic beginning of the Holocaust. At present there are many discussions about freedom of speech and limits where this freedom should be stopped not to provoke hatred. Especially does the latter concern the countries of CEE, in which, on the one hand, people have suffered from totalitarian regimes and, on the other, journalists feel full freedom and see no limits to it. Certainly, free speech is one of the most important preconditions of democracy. There can be no free society if the press is controlled by the government or is manipulated by powerful vested interests. However, freedom of speech also presupposes a strong feeling of social responsibility on the part of mass media, particularly editors and reporters who have to measure the effects of what they say and under what circumstances they do it. Unfortunately, today especially in the so-called new democracies (CEE) journalists' ethical code is often not respected or even non-existent. Plenty of press people do not feel responsibility for the effect of their words and may not resist being manipulated or driven by a party, group or other forms of outside pressure. Moldova can be an example in that case, when journalists try to accuse the government of violations of the freedom of speech. When in fact the government started to follow country legislation by implementing different legislative measures to reduce antisemitism, racism and hatred against minorities in media. 'Hate speech' is intended to be given a broad definition
comprising not only direct insults caused by hurling pejorative
ethnic nick-names or reciting ethnic prejudices, but also references
to ethnicity of a given person in a negative context in which
ethnicity is irrelevant or attributing to a certain ethnicity
(negative) ideological or political meaning. 'Hate speech' is
a problem common to many countries and, therefore, has been in
the centre of attention of many human rights and minority rights
groups.
A certain contribution to disrespect for other peoples is made
by the media, which support the creation of historical national
myths often hostile to other nations. Thus, for example,
the stereotype of the Turks as 'barbarians', uncivilized people
is spread in Greece. Otherwise some Turks accept Greeks as people
who want to return 'the lost territories' and still support the
'imperial idea' to lead the world. How they can hate others,
if they do not know them? Nationalists vandalized Muslim cemeteries
in Greece and Greek Orthodox cemeteries in Turkey.
Stereotypes have deep roots and are widely spread. The
Greeks lived under the Ottoman Empire about 400 years, which
means that they can consider Turkey as an enemy. On the one hand,
when dealing with the Cyprus conflict, the Greek media keep reminding
the Greeks about the invasion of the Turkish army into Cyprus
in 1974; on the other hand, the Turks cherish bitter memories
of the Greek army's aggression on the Anatolian territory in
1919 and the Greek junta's attempt of coup d'etat in Cyprus in
1973. Therefore, it is necessary to raise public awareness of the 'hate speech' problem in relation to history on both institutional and public level. A low level of general tolerance and respect in society is a reason why journalists and editors practice this. Unfortunately, today we can state a wide spread of 'hate speech' and its effect on political and social stability as well as ignorance of the existence of this problem.
Most of negative attitudes to
some ethnic groups are being formed during the school years
through studying subjects such as literature and history, first
of all. Post-World War I French-German relations may be the best
example. In that period the degree of mutual hatred that lasted
over a hundred years reached its peak. The negative stereotypes
were reinforced by literature and history writings.
Terror in Kosovo started neither in 1989 nor in 1981, but as early as 1912. Before the explicit fight started, there had been a long period of hatred when the Serbs were taught about the Albanians in the negative ways and vice versa. Therefore, we can speak of over a hundred years of mutual psychological misunderstanding resulting with hatred and divisions. One of the cruelest conflicts after the collapse of the USSR took place in Nagorny Karabakh (Southern Caucasus) the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The historical burden of the conflict became an integral part of the public life, educational system, and mass media of both states. A new generation of Azerbaijani and Armenian citizens grew up feeling hatred toward each other. The "people's diplomacy" carried out by some non-governmental organizations, such as Helsinki Citizens' Assembly does not meet much sympathy either in Azerbaijan or in Armenia. Just recently one of the offices of this organization in Azerbaijan was attacked by a group of aggressive young people. The textbooks and historical books, which were published in these states during the last 15 years, present two contradictory views on the history of this region, on the relations between the two peoples from ancient times, and especially on the roots of the conflict.
There are examples of positive
use of history in the field of overcoming stereotypes and creating
good attitudes to other nations in people's minds:
5. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HISTORY TEACHING: History without Propaganda! History teaching has been one
of the priorities for the Council of Europe since 1950s: from
developing a proper paradigm of history education to overcoming
xenophobia, historical prejudices, nationalism, and chauvinism.
It considerably determines the destiny of peoples and states
as well as the possibility of integration processes in Europe.
As a result of radical changes
in both Eastern and Western Europe after 1989, the interest in
history learning and teaching increased, which made historians
face the necessity of serious revision of the already shaped
historical concepts. The Council of Europe appealed to history
professionals asking them to follow three main principles: history
without propaganda, history without prejudices, and history based
only on real facts. The project initiated by the Council
of Europe on "Learning and Teaching about the History of
Europe in the 20th Century" adopted an interdisciplinary
and pan-European stance, which stressed the importance of social,
scientific, cultural and oral history. A direct result of the
project was Recommendation No R (2001) 15 of the Committee of
Ministers. The document covers such issues as the goals of history
teaching, European dimension, syllabus content, learning methods,
teacher training, information and communication technologies
and misuse of history (more information: www.coe.int).
The discussions among participants of the UNITED Summer Camp
paralleled the recommendations of the Council of Europe on history
teaching. It was strongly recommended to:
The important point is that the emphasis should be made on creation in history, highlighting not quantity - predomination of wars, but quality - appreciation of the positive factor: peace-loving and wise ancestors from whom we inherited monuments of civilization. Two stages in history teaching
are strongly recommended:
It should not be overlooked
that teaching history needs to be primarily oriented to European
human rights aspect:
On the level of Newly Formed States, it is necessary to write not a history of the "state forming ethnos", but a history of inhabitants of the territory within the borders. E.g. in Moldova (in Romania also) they study the history of the principal ethnos "History of Romanians", but not history of the country. Minorities are excluded from this history. As the borders undergo changes
with time, their dynamics requires taking into consideration
both an interstate and an internationalist factor. Why
not supplement, for example, the course of the history of Kazakhstan,
by the history of the peoples of Central Asia, history of the
states in the East and special courses on archeology, history
of geography, history of culture of the peoples of the country,
etc.?
6. HOLOCAUST TEACHING A special place in history teaching
must be given to teaching about the Holocaust. As it follows
from the project of the Council of Europe on "Learning and
Teaching about the History of Europe in the 20th Century",
"it is necessary to develop the concept of remembrance as
vital to the prevention of crime against humanity." The
Holocaust is a sensitive and delicate topic and it is not just
a phenomenon of the past, as it affects the present and the future.
Holocaust teaching can be an elective or a compulsory subject. To include or not to include teaching about the Holocaust as a discipline is even a bigger question and the answers vary greatly from country to country. In most European countries the Holocaust is studied in secondary schools and beyond. In Hungary, for example, it is a compulsory subject and studied within the context of national and international history.
In some countries, e.g. in Lithuania,
despite the fact that Holocaust teaching is compulsory, as an
issue it is still unresolved. Perhaps there are still many people
who are not yet ready to admit that there were collaborators
who actively participated in the destruction of the Jewish community.
In Moldova, the country which fully felt the Jewish tragedy under
the administration of Antonescu, the Holocaust is not a popular
issue at all.
The leaflet is written by Natalia Sineaeva, a Summer Camp participant from the Youth Helsinki Citizens' Assembly of Moldova. The author understands that this leaflet can raise a lot of discussions among the network activists, as many questions were not covered in it. The main goal of the leaflet is to raise interest in the topic and to start these discussions! The leaflet does not necessary present the official opinion of UNITED secretariat or the whole UNITED network. Thanks to Nihad Mesic (Human
Rights Office-Tuzla) for his contribution to the preparation
of this leaflet.
|
||||||||||