Paper prepared for the workshop
“Learning about the Other and Teaching for Tolerance in Muslim Majority
Societies”
organised by
Center for Values Education, Istanbul
The Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Oslo
10-12 November 2005
Istanbul, Turkey
Munir Bashshur (American University of Beirut):
HISTORY TEACHING AND HISTORY TEXTBOOKS IN LEBANON
I.
Introduction
In his book, the Disuniting of America published in 1992, the American historian Arthur
M. Schlesinger comments on the “uses of history” as a “weapon” in the “battle of
schools”, and asks whether the purpose of history in the schools is therapeutic: “to build a
sense of self-worth among the minority children” (p. 80). “Should public education” he
asks, “strengthen and perpetuate separate ethnic and social sub-cultures? Or should it not
seek to make our young boys and girls contributors to a common American culture?” (p.
90). The “use of history as therapy” Schlesinger goes on to say, “means the corruption of
history as history…Even if history is sanitized in order to make people feel good, there is
no evidence that the feel-good history promotes ethnic self-esteem and equips students to
grapple with their lives.” (p. 93)
In this statement, Schlesinger has two reservations on using history as a “weapon”
in the “battle of schools”, one is academic and the other is practical. The academic is that
if history is used as a weapon; that is, if it is used for any purpose other than its own, then
it is corrupted, i.e. it ceases to be history. Maybe I speak for many in this workshop when
I say that we can live with this reservation, for why should we attach so much value to
history as history anyway? What is the point of it, after all? But the practical reservation
is more worrisome, namely that even when we corrupt history, that is “sanitize” it “to
make people feel good”, as Schlesinger puts it, he is not sure it will do the job of
promoting “ethnic self-esteem”, and equipping students to “grapple with their lives”,
ultimately bringing unity to a “disunited America”.
In a workshop like this one on “Learning About the Other and Teaching for
Tolerance” I , for one, will be willing to put history as history in the washing machine,
sanitize it, hopefully without corrupting it : “Tell the truth and nothing but the truth”, but
not necessarily “the whole truth”, as an Indian writer puts it.2 In this, I derive comfort
and support from a long and ancient debate about the instrumentality of knowledge,
whether knowledge is for knowledge’s sake- or art for art’s sake- a debate that will
1
ultimately connect us with the Biblical admonition: Is Man for the Sabbath or the Sabbath
for Man? With this, I feel we can put the first reservation to rest.
But what about the second, the practical one, namely that even if “sanitized”,
there is no evidence that it will work as “therapy”, even in America?
For a person like me coming from this part of the world, the cradle of ancient
civilizations and the birthplace of the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity
and Islam, the practical reservation is more worrisome. If “sanitized” history does not
work in America, the new World, will it work, can it work in this ancient world of ours,
with it’s many layers of tradition, memories and beliefs, and with its many historical
faultlines?
The comparison between the two worlds brings forth another reason to worry, a
more serious one related not to the power of history to heal or build bridges, but to the
topography of the battlefield, and the way the “battle of schools” is waged: the
difference relates, in my estimation, to the relative isolation of the school as a change
agent in underdeveloped countries, and to its greater vulnerability to other forces or
agencies in society which can more easily hinder or confound its work as a healer of
wounds or builder of bridges. The contrast here is so great between the two worlds that
one has to bring into the picture all the elements that make America a land of laws and
institutions before people as individuals, families or groups, vs. countries like ours (and I
am thinking particularly of Lebanon), which are lands of people as individuals, families
and groups, and of religious groups in particular, before they are lands of laws and
institutions. There is a lot of crudeness here in this picture of contrasts, but the point it
intends to make is clear: that in its normative role (the therapeutic), the school in America
and in advanced countries in general, is positioned to receive more support from the laws
and institutions of the country than it is in countries like ours. Laws, the great equalizersequality before the law, working by the laws- affect and overlap with the work of other
social institutions, including the schools. If Schlesinger is doubtful about the success of
history in America as “therapy”, the doubt has to be multiplied many folds in the context
of a country like Lebanon. Hence the challenge is greater!
* * *
This introduction is necessary as a background to the narrative on history teaching
in Lebanon that I wish to share with you in this workshop. The leitmotif throughout is a
very simple one, namely that conflicts and disputations over history teaching in Lebanon
are simply a reflection of religious/ political divisions in the country. These divisions are
old- in some sense the creation of the State of Lebanon itself was an attempt to contain
them in a workable framework. These attempts have continued throughout Lebanon’s
history. Sometimes they succeeded and sometimes not, affording the country and its
people periods of calm and prosperity intercepted with periods of turmoil ad obstruction
that borders sometimes on self-destruction. All this is reflected in the debates on the
history of the country and its teaching in schools. The “battle of schools” as Schlesinger
put it, is rendered into a “battle over history” 3 fought in school.. These battles rarely, if
ever, give the interests of schools, or children who go to them, much attention.
Furthermore, they never conclude with victors or vanquished but fluctuate, like the
country itself, from one end to another.
2
To trace these fluctuations, we need some historical markers, or guideposts. The most
convenient and meaningful is the 14 years war that started in 1975 and was brought to an
end, officially, in what is knows as Taef Agreement in 1989. We can think of pre-war and
post-war developments, and certainly of events and developments during the war years
as well. We will list, in the following section, the most important historical events before
and after the war, and then in sections following that will trace debates and discussions
relating to the teaching of history, with a special attention given to curriculum efforts and
textbook content.
II. Pre and Post War 1975 – a chronology of major events and developments.
The prewar story stretches way back into the past, but the following are the most
important events and developments:
1919-1943
The French Mandate on Syria and Lebanon
1926
Lebanese Republic declared under the Mandate, with a constitution
confirming: “the rights of (religious) communities to maintain their own
private schools…provided they conform with the general regulations
issued by the State” (Article 10)
1943
Independence of the Republic, some amendments to the constitution, but
Article 10 (above) was kept unchanged
1946
Issuing of the first official school curriculum since Independence for
all subjects at the pre-university level.
1950
Regulations stipulate that textbooks used in schools (including private
ones) on Lebanese history must have Ministry approval (textbooks on
non-Lebanese history did not need approval. Private schools could also
add to the curriculum subjects not included in it).
1961
Passing the official exam of the Lebanese Bacc. (or its equivalent)
established as a condition (for Lebanese students) to join universities.
1968-1971
New Curriculum issued replacing the 1946 version; new textbook issue
for public schools; private schools maintained their freedom of textbook
choice; 1950 stipulation regarding history textbooks unchanged.
1975-1989
the War, the country in shreds, including its educational system. (rise of
new schools established for newly emerging religions/political groups,
adding to the complexity of the religious/ educational terrain).
1994A plan for “Educational Revival” approved by the Government.
1997
New curricula issued (3rd since Independence), for all levels and subjects
except history; new textbooks issued (except history).
the1997 curricula).
2001
A new committee appointed for history textbooks, but since then and up
to the present, nothing has materialized!
III. Textbooks and Debates Prior to 1975
If anything, unity and homogeneity in history textbooks was more a fact during
the French Mandate than during any other time since Independence. To the majority of
Lebanese students, history meant “History of France” or French presence in the mandated
territories. “Children were taught a French interpretation of history and even learned to
3
sing La Maseillaise” During 1935, a certain Italian statesman is reported to have visited
the country and saw some fifty dark-skinned and black haired young Arab boys
stammering together: “Nos ancetres les Gualois etaient blonds:”5 (our ancestors the Guals
were blond).
A reaction came for the first time in the private sector, when two teachers
(Nakkash and Farroukh) at the Makassed ( Muslim philanthropic organization), coauthored a history textbook for elementary school level entitled Tarikh Suriyah wa
Lubnan (1935) (History of Syria and Lebanon), recasting the history of the mandated
territory in a Muslim- Arab light. The Christian establishment within the country reacted
with a textbook of their own, entitled Mujaz Tarikh Lubnan (summary of history of
Lebanon), co-authored by Rustum and Bustani (1937), which “emphasized the special
historical character of Lebanon to an extent which no Muslim was willing to accept”6
In 1974, just before the outbreak of the war, a sample was taken of history
textbooks used in three types of schools: Christian, Muslim, and Public. The authors7
selected key words from these books which could generate value positions of political
importance and measured the amount of coverage given to those words in the books.
They reported two conclusions: a) that there were marked differences between Christian
and Muslim books in terms of amount as well as type of coverage of the chosen words, b)
that books used in government schools were more similar to books used in Christian
schools than to those in Muslim schools: the first stressed the independence of the nation
as vs. Muslim books which stressed the Arabic character of Lebanon. “Heroes” were not
the same; in the Christian books, Phoenician figures were described as our “ancestors”,
while in the Muslim books emphasis was on Arabism. Very little coverage was given to
Palestine in the Christian books while in Muslim books the independence of Arabs was
regarded as incomplete if “justice” was not established, and Jerusalem, Islam and the
Aqsa Mosque appeared in connection with the issue of justice.
In 1986, a PhD dissertation surveyed social studies curricula and textbooks in
three periods of Lebanon’s history8. Regarding the Mandate period, the author concluded
that “Lebanon was not the center of either the curriculum or the textbooks, rather France
and Europe occupied that place…” During the first quarter of the century, after
Independence (1943-68), the “new status of Lebanon as an independent country” and the
“collaboration and mutual understanding between the Muslim and Christian communities
(and) the government’s intention to create a sense of nationhood” was emphasized. For
the 3rd period (1968-1983), the analysis showed “a strong association between religion
and choice of heroes; they (heroes) varied from one textbook to another according to the
religious affiliation of the textbook author and the school”. ( p.342)
Assuming that this sample represented well the content of the textbooks and the
thinking and orientation in the varied schools in the country, it is no wonder that war
broke out soon afterwards in 1975. It will be farfetched to claim that this caused the war,
but it certainly did not help prevent its coming when it came.
IV. After the war of 1975 and before issuing the history curriculum in 2000.
We do not have much evidence on research reported on the war years, but two studies
have value. The first is a survey limited to Catholic schools in the country, and the second
4
is a limited study on a small sample of schools, all of them private but belonging to
different denominations.
The Catholic schools survey was conducted in 1994 based on 221 questionnaires
filled by teachers or coordinators of the subject matter of history in 81 Catholic schools,
or by principals of those schools. It is to be remarked that the Catholic schools
Association includes the largest number of schools under any one organization in the
country, next in size only to the Public. Some of the important conclusions reported in
this survey are as follows9:
1. Choice of textbooks is rarely done in light of pedagogic criteria; the determining
factors relate more often to reputation and influence of authors and publishers of books
than to their educational value: the larger the number of schools which have teachers who
appear on textbook covers as authors, the more likely the book is to be adopted.
2. The closer the content of the book to the guidelines set by the Ministry of Education
the more likely that it will be adopted, as it will have a better chance of securing success
of students on government exams.
3. Historical events are reported with a minimum interest or a minimum inclination
towards analysis stimulating personal reactions. The general tone of presentation is
emphasis on information and compliance from the reader.
4. Despite the presence of a number of textbooks for the same class and subject, the
difference between one book and another is minimal; books seem to derive their
information from the same source, and are all similarly guided by the same concern, viz.,
to prepare students for passing government exams.
5. Controversies are avoided and submerged in almost all the textbooks under the pretext
of objectivity and neutrality, making the text uninspiring and not very convincing. For
many textbooks, there seems to be over attention given to the importance of shared living
and co-existence among various communities compromising historical facts. Ideology,
upholding coexistence takes precedence over historical facts.
6. Events and developments after Independence in 1943 are given minimal coverage as
these are likely to arouse controversies and bring painful memories too close to the
present.
There were many other points reported in this survey but none of it had to do with
“ideological” matters related to attitudes towards “the other”, or national and social
identities or loyalties. If anything, responses showed disappointment of many teachers
who felt historical facts related to conflicts were compromised for the sake of upholding
harmony and coexistence. In the process many books had a “flat” and unexciting
content; as such respondents believed that they were good books for passing the exams
but not for exciting the imagination and stimulating inquiry.
The reason why responses in this survey were relatively “tamed” is that the
survey was largely an “in-house” one, limited to Catholic schools and conducted by
officials in and for the Catholic Association. Teachers in these schools felt by and large
as if history had come to and end with the books published; in terms of a time line, all
books stopped at the year of Independence in 1943, and in terms of interpretation and
choice all seemed to conform closely to the outline given by the Ministry of Education
and the expected questions in the government exams.
The second study was done on seven schools all of them private, but belonging to
different religious inclinations: 3 Muslim schools (Shiite, Sunni and Druze) and 4
5
Christian (a Maronite, an Orthodox, a Protestant, and an Armenian). A small sample, but
a very diverse population, unlike the one reported before on Catholic schools10. The
sample included decision makers (14 persons), history teachers (7), authors of textbooks
(15), and students from the seven schools (48). One important conclusion that this study
draws is that all seven schools used “approved textbooks which conform closely to the
official curriculum but each and everyone of these schools uses a ‘supplemental’ book of
its own choice that is peculiar to its own inclination and offers material and interpretation
unique to its own religious identity; none of the seven schools shares a supplemental
book with any of the others.11
These two studies are the only ones we know which were on pre-war conditions.
The outbreak of the war brought to a sharp focus the importance of history teaching as
never before. A prominent (Druze) leader is reported to have declared, while the war was
still going on, that “the continuing civil war in Lebanon was, in a fundamental way, a war
to determine the correct history of the country…” He went on to say that “the recreating
of the Lebanese history textbook was a necessary precondition for any lasting political
settlement in Lebanon, if not the primary one.”12
The war went on unabated for a total of about 15 years. It was brought to an end
in 1989 with the signing of the Taef Agreement. With that, a new stage started with new
motions and activities under the general title of post war reconstruction, involving reform
in its educational system, and in the field of history teaching.
V. Post War Taef Agreement, and its Aftermath.
The Taef Agreement had five points on education; the fifth one was on revision of school
curricula emphasizing national unity, with specific focus on civics and history. That fifth
point went as follows:
“Revision and development of curricula in such a manner as to strengthen national
identity and social integration encourage spiritual and cultural openness …. Unification of
textbooks in the two subject matter areas of history and national education (is a must)”.
This same statement appeared as one of the goals in the “Plan for Educational
Revival”, which was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers as a working document on
August 17, 1994.
One month later, the Center for Educational Research and Development (CERD)
which is responsible for school curricula, went into the task of curriculum revision with
vigor and speed, assembling a work team of some 350 persons grouped into different
committees. The structure of the educational system was targeted first, and a new “ladder”
was produced and approved by the Cabinet on October 25, 1995. Soon afterwards, a plan
with specific curriculum targets for various school levels was completed; this plan was later
announced by the President of the Republic in a festive celebration, in the presence of the
Prime Minister, the Speaker of the Parliament and the three ministers of education. Subject
matter committees began working on revisions and writing new material; committees for
all subjects were appointed and approved. The subject matter of history, however, was
singled out and delegated to a special committee, including in its composition a carefully
chosen team representing various religious/political groups. The work of this committee
and its deliberations were handled almost like a state secret. Rumors leaked about
arguments and conflicts among its members, and about reshuffling of memberships and
6
resignations, and when a copy of the new national curriculum was submitted for
government approval (on May 8,1997), with a new package of material covering all
subjects, the subject matter of history was missing.
It took exactly three years after that for the cabinet to receive and approve a brief
document entitled, “General Principles and Specific Goals for the Teaching of History”approved on May 10, 2000. When made public, it soon became clear that it was a very
tamed, desensitized, some would even say emasculated document. And to be produced,
clothed in the most carefully guarded and benign language, it took more than 50 meetings
of a committee of six persons.13 When finally presented to the press on May 10, 2000, only
one member out of the original six had survived the duration of its work; other members
either resigned or were replaced. 14
We do not know why 5 of the 6 members were replaced or resigned. Two of the
five, however, had articles published before the document became public, one was
published in 1998 (15) and the other in 1999. 16
The first article of 1998 included interesting information on the workings of the
committee. It reported that when a joint paper was finally agreed and submitted for
approval it included one part on objectives of the teaching history in general, and another
on objectives of teaching the history of Lebanon. The writer says that it was on the second
set of objectives, dealing with Lebanon, that the higher committee in CERD had objections,
hence returning it for modification. When this did not happen the committee, or rather 5 of
its 6 members, were replaced (or some resigned).
The 1998 article included part of the text of the final paper that was submitted by
the history committee (and returned for modification); this gives us the chance to compare
it with the text that was finally approved by the cabinet on May 10, 2000. We will take
from the original paper objectives that had to do with teaching of the history of Lebanon
(as these were the reason for the disagreement) - and they are four:
No. 1 - “Strengthening and deepening patriotic feelings based on the belief that
Lebanon is a final homeland for all its people, and that it is Arab in affiliation and identity,
and that loyalty to it and identification with it as a country are essential. Likewise
commitment to its causes and taking pride in it (is important), so that a unified national
outlook will emerge rooted in the political consciousness of the Lebanese with regard to
their Lebanese/Arab heritage and their Arab culture, reinforcing their unity as a nation
rather than co-existence as religious groups”.
No. 2 - “ Deepening pride in Lebanese identity and Lebanon’s Arab character,
revealing strong ties between Lebanon and other Arab states, by cultivating Arab national
feelings in the minds of its youth through textbook materials and teaching/learning
activities. This is because Lebanese identity did not emerge from the void but is a product
of historical development and cultural heritage, making it essential that Arab history,
ancient, middle as well as modern, is to be given attention and care.”
No. 3 – “ Commitment to Arab culture and highlighting the part played by the
Lebanese in it, opening up to world cultures , human values and recent discoveries, so as to
contribute to the development of these cultures, enriching them and deriving sustenance
from them.”
No. 4 - “ Considering that Christianity and Islam are basic sources for ideals and
human values that run counter to the kind of political behavior which aims at separating
believers of one religion from believers in another, and that sectarianism is first and
7
foremost an attack on the principles and ideals of both Christianity and Islam and also on
the ground roots of national unity.”
The document ,which was later approved by the cabinet, also had a list of objectives
for the teaching of Lebanese history. Comparing these with the four just quoted above
might give us a clue as to why the original paper was returned for revision, and, in addition,
may shed some light on the whole business of political/religious conflict.
In comparing, the first point that stands out is that the final version had 8 main
objectives for the “teaching of Lebanese history”, 3 of which were broken down into subobjectives, which makes the total number 14, as compared with 4 in the original. The final
version turns out to be not only longer and more elaborate, but in terms of inclination, as
cognizant as the original of Lebanon’s (Arab) affiliation, and equally attentive to the need
for Christian/Moslem accommodation. If anything, the final version does all the above
using less “ideological” language than that in the original.
We have no way of knowing what viewpoints or arguments were exchanged during
the long period of the work of the history committee (three years), and what caused change
in membership, and more significantly, what reasons prevented the original committee
from adopting modifications as requested by the higher one. All of such things can perhaps
be explained only in terms of the very peculiar way in which committees and individuals
work in Lebanon in a jittery and diffident atmosphere that has prevailed in the country
since Taef.
In the judgment of an ex-president of the Education Research Center (CERD), “the
content of the 2000 history curricula is more relevant to the students’ interests and level of
ability, since it deals with contemporary issues and events that affect students’ life. At the
first elementary cycle, for instance, learning about the child’s family and community is not
considered to be a new approach in Lebanese Curriculum development. Also, studying
what happened during the period between Lebanon's independence and the Taef Agreement
has become recognized as a necessity for young students.”17
But this was all in the curriculum guidelines, not in material that was produced
and put to use in schools. Once announced on May 20, 2000 what remained to be done
was more difficult, namely to translate these guidelines into teaching tools, i.e. textbooks.
In the meantime, textbooks in all other subject matter areas were already issued and
distributed to schools starting with the academic year 1997/98. Textbooks in history had
to wait until 2001, when the first batch was produced.
The first batch included 2 textbooks under the title, “A Window unto History”,
one for grade 2 and another for grade 3 elementary. Almost immediately after these
books appeared a campaign against them broke out. The attack focused on chapter 11 in
the 3rd grade book, which dealt with Independence. It had the title: “They all went and
Lebanon stayed: independence of the nation”, and used a time line to show various
peoples and states which occupied Lebanon at different points in time. When it came to
the Arab period it referred to it using the words “Arab conquest “ Al Fatih Al Arabi“
(p88). These words were immediately picked up and interpreted by some as equating the
Arabs with other conquerors, and since the title used was that they “all went and Lebanon
stayed …” this meant, according to its critics, that Lebanon was not an Arab country. The
attack was spearheaded by a deputy in the parliament, a neurologist form Beirut. “… I
have read the first chapters in the book and was surprised to see chapters which were
different from history as we know it…it is true that Lebanon stayed, but it remained an
8
Arab country… a feature which is prevalent today and stressed in the Taif accord.” 18
Almost immediately the Center for Educational Research and Development (CERD)
issued a statement saying that page 88 , where mention was made of the Arab conquest,
will be removed, as “some interpreted this to mean that authors of the book classified the
Arab conquest as similar to other occupations that the country has had… The questions
found at the end of the chapter and the accompanying photos… prove the authors’
positive intentions.” 19 A few days later the Minister of Education declared that the draft
of the textbook was not submitted to him, or to any higher official before it went to press.
“…we are concerned with history textbooks and want them to be produced quickly, but
we do not accept writings that declare that the Arabs were expelled from Lebanon… I
had asked that the draft be submitted to me before printing, but I have seen the book only
after 70 thousand copies of it were printed…”. 20 In another statement released by CERD
a few days later, the readers were informed that “… in order to avoid further controversy
the Center, upon the request of the Minister, had deleted the page under criticism in the
book with assurances that it will be changed in future copies.” 21
In the meantime, the Minister announced the appointment of a new committee to
do more work on history textbooks. As a conclusion to this story, we can say that after
more than 12 years since the Taef Accord, teaching of history in the country remains as it
has always been: subject to the interests and shifts of different groups, and that agreement
to unify curricula and textbooks as a means to unify the people and the country have
produced nothing new, except more of the same debate and casuistry that goes as far back
in the history of the country as the framing of the Lebanese constitution in 1926.
VI. Official Government Exams: Their relevance and potential as a stepping stone
for reform.
Our survey so far leads to a number of conclusions that we can take note of here and use
as a springboard for thinking about possibilities of reform:
First, the conclusions:
1. That the country remains divided today just as much as before (some say more), and
that the need to bring about unity among its people and mutual acceptance and respect is
as urgent as ever.
2. That efforts in the post-war years, to use education as a unifying element, did not
achieve great success, and that as far as teaching of history and efforts to revise its
curriculum and produce new history textbooks, though contentious, had little impact on
what actually happens in schools, which continue to make their own choices regardless of
these efforts.
3. That judging by some reviews, and particularly opinions expressed by a large group pf
history teachers in the Catholic schools (as well as others), the one factor that seems to
play an impact on what teachers teach is conformity to the official program (presumably
the prewar 1968 program). Operationally speaking, this means preparing students to pass
the government exams.
We derive from the last point two corollaries:
a) To prepare students to pass an exam, and for them to actually pass it well, does not
necessarily mean an attitude/behavioral change on their part, but the chance for this to
9
happen is worth the try. In a diversified and complex system like that of Lebanon, the
Baccalaureate government exams at the end of the Secondary level, are mandatory. Since
1961, no Lebanese student can join a university without passing these exams (or obtain
an official equivalent one).
b) Schools can still use supplementary books; they can drag for a long time, as
government exams come late at the end of a three year period, but the potential for the
exams to make the needed impact on the students as well as on their teachers, remains
nevertheless.
If the above two points are justifiable, then we should benefit from looking into
the government exams, to see what happens. What questions are given?
We have at hand a valuable guide, which is actually produced commercially to
guide students in preparing for the exams.22 At the end of this guide the exam questions
given for the Baccalaureate for the last three years 2002-2004 are reproduced. The total
number of questions for the three years is 33, covering different streams on the exam for
two sittings per year. The format of all questions is the same: essay type; and a choice of
2 questions to be answered out of 3, always. The surprise (shock?) is that a quick perusal
of these 33 questions leads to the conclusion that none of them touches on any event or
idea after 1946. The only time this happens is in a question on the Algerian revolution,
which broke out in 1954 and continued until 1962. And all the questions are
regurgitative. Examples:
- Explain how the Lebanese achieved the departure of foreign troops out of
Lebanon in 1946.
In 1936, a treaty was concluded between England, France and some Arab states.
Explain the general background of this treaty, and mention the most important
items included in the Anglo-Egyptian treaty.
- After the withdrawal of the Ottomans, the Arab region went through a number of
important developments among which were the establishment of Greater Lebanon
in 1920. explain how this happened.
Not a single opportunity for any personal viewpoint or expression of any personal view
or opinion?
We already know from the account we gave before on the course of development,
that only the general guidelines for the history curriculum were issued in 2000, after
curriculum details were issued for all other subjects. We also know that no official
history textbooks were issued, aside from the two for elementary grades, which were
quickly withdrawn (4 years ago!); which means that schools at present choose whatever
books they wish.
The thought to be ventured here is whether questions of a non-regurgitative kind
can be attempted: questions that may give students an opportunity to interpret, give a
personal view or opinion, and reflect on the meaning of events, particularly with
reference to the future and to the “other”; questions of a transformative (constructive)
bent. The jump does not have to come big or too quickly; steps could be gradual: stay
with “content”, but ask for similarities and contrasts first, and gradually for synthesis and
personal views. The whole thing can be started on a “choice” basis i.e. inject the exams
occasionally with such questions and leave the choice to the students to answer or avoid
them.
* * *
10
A major assumption underlying this presentation has been that what is basically
needed in the field of teaching history in Lebanon (and in all other fields), is a shift away
from emphasis on memory, towards emphasis on inquiry and interpretation. Pedagogical
reasons are certainly behind this assumption and there is in the literature plentiful support
for it, but there are also social reasons : for a culture of memory is very likely the
breeding grounds for submission and dependence which includes submission to
“authority” as well as to “facts”, while that of inquiry is the starting point of resistance
and change. If the school is to be brought out of its relative isolation as a change agent
(an idea that we have broached earlier in our Introduction), then the direction for it is
clear: out of submission and towards resistance and freedom. A good starting point for
this are questions on official exams that all schools and students want to pass.
ENDNOTES:
1- Schlesinger, Arthur M. The Disuniting of America (New York: Norton and Co, 1992)
2- Kabir, Humayun “Education and National Integration in India” in John W. Hanson
and C.S. Brembeck (als) Education and the Development of Nations, Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, New York 1966 (p. 244)
3- This is the title that Kamal Salibi, one of the most iridize historians of modern
Lebanon, gave to the chapter in his recent book A House of Many Mansions, Univ.
Of California Press, 1998 (Ch.11 in the book: “The War over Lebanese History”)
4- Mansfield, Peter. The Arabs (London: Allen Lane 1976)
5- Tibauri, A.L. Islamic Education (London: Luzae 1972) p.137
6- Salibi; Op.Lit p.203
7- Wehbe, Nakhle and Adnan Al Ameen, Syteme D’enseignement sociale an Liban
(Paris: Le Sycmore 1980).
8- Frayha, Nemer “Religious Conflict and the Role of Social Studies for Citizenship
Education in the Lebanese Schools Between 1920 and 1983, Stanford, California,
1985
9- General Secretariat of Catholic schools in Lebanon, The 2nd Annual Conference, Sept
1994.
10- Abouchedid, Kamal and Ramzi Nasser “The State of History Teaching in private run
confessional Schools in Lebanon: Implications for National Integration” in
Mediterranean Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 5 (2), 2000.
11- In the more elaborate survey of Catholic schools described before, no reference was
made to any supplemental books in use; an omission that does not necessarily mean
that such books were absent but simply that investigators did not inquire about
them.
12- . Salibi, Kamal. Op. Cet, pp 201
13- As reported by a member of the Committee (Hassan Muneimneh) in an article
published in An-Nahar on 5/5/1999. Another member (Ahmad Hoteit) gives a total
of 56 meetings (in Al-Marqab magazine, Fall 1998)..
14 - An-Nahar 20/5/2000
15 - ,‫ جامعة البلمند‬,‫ مجاة المرقب‬,"‫ "علمية كتاب تاريخ لبنان بين أزمة المنهج وهاجس التوحيد‬,‫أحمد حطيط‬
1998 ‫العدد الثاني خريف‬
16 1999/5/5 ‫ النهار‬,"‫ "مشروع (رفض) للمبادئ واألهداف العامة لتدريس التاريخ‬,‫حسن منيمنة‬
17- Frayha, Nemer “Developing Curriculum as a Means to Bridge National Divisions in
11
Lebanon” in Tawil Sobhi and Alexandria Harley (edu.) Education, Conflict and
Social Cohesion, BE., Geneva, 2004 (p.197)
18- Daily Star 24/10/2001
19 - Ibid
20 - An-Nahar 1/11/2001
21 - An-Nahar 5/11/2001
22- Hallak, Ali, Brief History: Lebanon and Arab Countries. Dar el Ilm Lil Malayeen,
Beirut 20
12