Politics of the past: the use and abuse of history - Socialists ...

asic facts: different history curricula with strong ethnocentric bias
and political influences from ministries of education. It is hardly surprising
that the authors of the project thought “… it is not possible
to compile a uniform, homogenising history of South East Europe
in a single textbook which could be used in all countries”.
Taking an open attitude towards these different interpretations must
not, however, lead to historic relativism. When writing history the
facts come first, followed by cognitive and moral aims. An enlightened
approach basing moral judgements on facts and figures is
not in contradiction with making space for different interpretations,
but it is important to underline the responsibility that the historian
has to come to fact-based and individual conclusions.
The authors of the alternative textbooks intended to change the approach
to the study of history. They argued that national history
taught in schools should not be nationalistic history; the history of
the region should be understood as part of European and world
history; and instead of trying to paint a false picture of harmony,
they preferred to teach students about difference and conflict.
This reasoned approach was essential in a region emerging from
horrific wars, hardship and extreme nationalism that had, since the
end of the Second World War, been a model. It was and still is the
precondition for a process of nation building capable of reconciliation
with European integration. “Whether in its true, tragic aspect
or in its idealised, heroic image, war was indeed a core event in the
20 th century and haunted the memories of all generations.”
The authors are right to start their first workbook with the history of
the Ottoman Empire. Not only did much of the region belong for
hundreds of years to this Empire but until today, different interpretations
of that period influence the teaching of history and politics:
“The views about the Ottoman Empire waver between progress
and retrogression, multi-cultural heaven and oppression, liberation
and disaster.” In an examination of the Ottoman Empire alone, it is
clear that different meanings are given to the concept of liberation.
This is even more obvious when dealing with the liberation by the
Soviet forces in Eastern Europe from Nazi occupation. To some extent
the same can be said about the role played by partisan groups
in ending Second World War occupation. Reactions in the region
to the Ottoman Empire were sometimes expressed in resistance
156