Tweet
Arguments Against a Single History Textbook for Former Soviet Union
11.23.2013 00:29 epress.am
In the near future, countries of the Former Soviet Union will have a
networked university and a common history textbook for the purpose of
strengthening the integration process. This was announced during a
meeting of an international group under the auspices of the Chair of
Russia's Federation Council. The initiative was announced by the
rector of Moscow's State Institute of International Relations, Anatoly
Torkunov, and the chair of the Federation Council, Valentina
Matviyenko.
This is not the first time an attempt has been made to create a single
history textbook. As told to Epress.am by Sasun Melikyan, the head of
the Management and Coordination of Professional Education division at
the RA Ministry of Education and Science's Department of Higher and
Post-Graduate Professional Education, in the 2000s, there was an EU
program to write the history of the Caucasus, but this attempt failed
since Armenia's and Azerbaijan's historians could not reach an
agreement.
According to cultural critic Vardan Jaloyan, such initiatives can be
considered politics of memory; that is, an attempt to use historical
memory for political purposes. Jaloyan said that Russia already has
several types of history textbooks, which, he says, "try not to allow
the history to contradict the official viewpoints."
Those chronicling history in the Commonwealth of Independent States
(CIS), Jaloyan continued, mainly carry out orders; therefore, the
opposition and the authorities cannot agree on anything written there.
As a result, the authorities' version is accepted as the truth while
the opposition version is censored. This situation, according to
Jaloyan, is especially characteristic of Armenian historiography.
"In the Ukraine, Georgia, and the Baltic states, also written is the
point of view other than that of the authorities, which Russia doesn't
like, since those books speak about the Russians being vicious
imperialists," he said.
According to Jaloyan, in Armenia's case, neither in recent history nor
in the historiography of the19th century is there a single episode
represented that is contrary to Russia's interests.
"If at least they recalled what Leo and Ashot Hovhannisyan wrote about
the role of Russians in Armenia. There is also no dialogue with
historians of the [Armenian] diaspora, most of whom in Armenia are
considered traitors of the nation and whose works absolutely do not
match the history written in Armenia," he said.
Ethnographer Hranush Kharatyan, also weighing in on the matter,
informed Epress.am that history is a strictly political phenomenon and
generalizing it will lead to the dominant history in those books being
Russia's, with only a few words about other states; for example, the
section about Armenia will only be about the Arshakuni dynasty,
Urartu, and so on.
"During the Soviet years, we also studied the history of the USSR,
which was basically the history of Russia. There are other similar
examples in the EU: Germany and France attempted to create common
textbooks," she said.
According to Kharatyan, the political weight of participating
countries is important in the depiction of historical events in common
books: after all, it's not a coincidence that history is Eurocentric.
http://www.epress.am/en/2013/11/23/arguments-against-a-single-history-textbook-for-former-soviet-union.html
11.23.2013 00:29 epress.am
In the near future, countries of the Former Soviet Union will have a
networked university and a common history textbook for the purpose of
strengthening the integration process. This was announced during a
meeting of an international group under the auspices of the Chair of
Russia's Federation Council. The initiative was announced by the
rector of Moscow's State Institute of International Relations, Anatoly
Torkunov, and the chair of the Federation Council, Valentina
Matviyenko.
This is not the first time an attempt has been made to create a single
history textbook. As told to Epress.am by Sasun Melikyan, the head of
the Management and Coordination of Professional Education division at
the RA Ministry of Education and Science's Department of Higher and
Post-Graduate Professional Education, in the 2000s, there was an EU
program to write the history of the Caucasus, but this attempt failed
since Armenia's and Azerbaijan's historians could not reach an
agreement.
According to cultural critic Vardan Jaloyan, such initiatives can be
considered politics of memory; that is, an attempt to use historical
memory for political purposes. Jaloyan said that Russia already has
several types of history textbooks, which, he says, "try not to allow
the history to contradict the official viewpoints."
Those chronicling history in the Commonwealth of Independent States
(CIS), Jaloyan continued, mainly carry out orders; therefore, the
opposition and the authorities cannot agree on anything written there.
As a result, the authorities' version is accepted as the truth while
the opposition version is censored. This situation, according to
Jaloyan, is especially characteristic of Armenian historiography.
"In the Ukraine, Georgia, and the Baltic states, also written is the
point of view other than that of the authorities, which Russia doesn't
like, since those books speak about the Russians being vicious
imperialists," he said.
According to Jaloyan, in Armenia's case, neither in recent history nor
in the historiography of the19th century is there a single episode
represented that is contrary to Russia's interests.
"If at least they recalled what Leo and Ashot Hovhannisyan wrote about
the role of Russians in Armenia. There is also no dialogue with
historians of the [Armenian] diaspora, most of whom in Armenia are
considered traitors of the nation and whose works absolutely do not
match the history written in Armenia," he said.
Ethnographer Hranush Kharatyan, also weighing in on the matter,
informed Epress.am that history is a strictly political phenomenon and
generalizing it will lead to the dominant history in those books being
Russia's, with only a few words about other states; for example, the
section about Armenia will only be about the Arshakuni dynasty,
Urartu, and so on.
"During the Soviet years, we also studied the history of the USSR,
which was basically the history of Russia. There are other similar
examples in the EU: Germany and France attempted to create common
textbooks," she said.
According to Kharatyan, the political weight of participating
countries is important in the depiction of historical events in common
books: after all, it's not a coincidence that history is Eurocentric.
http://www.epress.am/en/2013/11/23/arguments-against-a-single-history-textbook-for-former-soviet-union.html