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
Ast. Prof. Dr. Yücel Kabapınar (Marmara University):
THE IMAGE OF ‘OTHERS’ AND TOLERANCE IN TURKISH HISTORY
TEXTBOOKS:
‘NOT US’, ‘THE OTHER IS TO BLAME’
Introduction
Pretending not to see the existence of a distinction between ‘us’ and ‘others’ would be a futile
attempt, since it helps to develop attitudes of social solidarity and detachment on the basis of
values, beliefs, ways of living, and cultural indicators. In this sense, history, together with
language gives ‘us’ the most powerful tools for constructing and conveying social/collective
identities (Le Goff, 1992; Florescano, 1994; Bilgin, 1995; Lowenthal, 1995). In the meaning
of being together through time and its interpretation(s), it is acknowledged that the past is of
central importance to the present, a past which shapes and leads the ideas and perceptions of
the present time. Thus, history conveys a sense of solidarity between social and political
groups over the supposedly shared ideas and values, the social order and relations which
determines their lives. A shared knowledge and perception of this framework of the past help
to foster social cohesion and a sense of national pride. In line with this, emphasise on
differences between “us” and “others” seem to be used to reinforce and underline “who we
are” and “who we are not” with reference to “them”. Thus, the idea of others helps “us” to
define “who we are”. The notion of being a bond between identity and the nation is attributed
to history which satisfies the need for belongings.
On the other hand, historians have passed through a phase in which the application of the
methodologies of the natural sciences led historians to believe in the scientific objectivity of
their subject. History has many resources to actualise the ‘us-them’ distinction since history
are never limited to the narration of facts or neutral information of past events. In fact, there is
no neutral, value-free, or non-political past. All history is a production –a deliberate selection,
ordering, and evaluation of past events, experiences, and processes (Stanford, 1987; Marwick,
1989). As a result of the efforts to shape and inform historical thinking, the pasts may have a
possibility to render antagonistic set of values and beliefs based on enhancing positive selfpresentation and negative other-presentation. Parallel to this, the general rhetoric of history
teaching in many countries has aimed to develop a consciousness and pride about “us” and
common roots and heritage of “us”. The curricular aims underline that the past is assigned to
characterize or represent the nation and national identities. In this sense textbooks function as
1
conveyor of meanings, values and perceptions of both from the past into the present, and from
the present into past. As Kaye (1991, 105) indicated the historical curriculum of public
education is the most official, the most authoritative, articulation of a nation-state’s ‘selective
tradition’. Thus, it has a potential to be an essential target of a hegemonic project that aim to
shape and lead history and historical consciousness. It is obvious that the influence of history
and other school subjects shaping identity exercise on public opinion is probably more
immediate and extensive than that of any other institutions and media since their use is wide
and compulsory. The meaning and content of history teaching at school level seem to be
converted the production of a ‘special history’ which serve patriotic duty. In this sense,
schools are one of the basic institutions which help to create and educate citizens, legitimizing
state existence. History and history teaching are taught to foster a sense of pride in one’s
country and its achievements.
This kind of social studies and history teaching is called as “Citizenship Transmission” (Barr
et. al., 1978). The term “Citizenship Transmission” refers to a mode of teaching in which the
whole teaching and learning process aims that certain knowledge, viewpoints and perceptions
transmitted should be gained and internalised by students. To respect for authority and their
country, to grow up to be good citizens seem to be the general purpose of the Citizenship
Transmission. In line with this, citizen is defined as a person “who conforms to certain
accepted practices, holds particular beliefs, is loyal to certain values, participates in certain
activities, and conforms to norms” (Barr et. al., 1978; 21) established by the educational
authorities. These are perceived to be essential so as to preserve society and state from the
internal and external dangers. The factual information presented in the textbooks is used as a
vehicle to transmit proper beliefs and values. In this sense, educational process and its tools
will possibly determine and build students’ perceptions of ‘we and they’ and stereotypes
about the others. The viewpoints and perceptions about the others imposed to students in the
process of studying the past are likely to affect how they see the others in the present as well.
The Image of Others and Tolerance in the Turkish History Textbooks
Wider and compulsory use of history textbooks make them a tool transmitting symbols and
emotions which is difficult to construct with the other tools. History textbooks often create a
powerful emotional attachment with the past and ancestors that can be empowered to various
ends. Through history textbooks, the main aspects of identity are acquired and expressed on a
personal and/or group level. Thus, the past becomes a vehicle which common norms, virtues,
behaviours and perceptions are created. In this sense, textbooks are one of the crucially
important educational tools which determine the boundaries of wide social patterns of
perception and thought, since they provide students with an important and revealing
expression of beliefs and values.
Turkish experience in using history teaching in the creation of national identity and the
building of the nation from the 1930’s to the present is an interesting case study as well. As
regards the socio-political context, it illustrates several aspects of the relationship between
history and nationalism. In the beginning of the 1930’s, the New Regime initiated a great
campaign in order to create a consciousness about the meaning of being Turkish and having
nationalistic feelings since the citizens of the new state had little idea what it was. The new
state had to work very hard to build a unifying ideology. Turkish language and history were
the most crucial social agents to do that. The general framework of the newly formulated
official history thesis, namely “The Turkish History Thesis” was that the Turks created a high
culture in the Central Asia in the pre-historic ages. As a result of the deterioration in the
2
climate, they had to emigrate all over the world. Thus, these Turkish tribes created the wellknown civilisations of the Antiquity, such as Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, China, Greek and so
on. It also supports the idea that Anatolia has been the homeland not only since 1071, but
since Antiquity. Thereby the idea that all Anatolian civilisations were, in fact, Turkish
civilizations (Copeaux,1998; Behar, 1992; Kaya, et. al., 2002) came into the scene. These
ideas also had their places in the history textbooks as they were seen the most important
medium of transmitting the New Regimes’ history thesis.
In the history of the politicisation of school textbooks, although the role of the social studies
and history courses seem to elaborate and foster a sense of national identity, during the period
of “The Nationalist Front Governments” in the 1970’s, which was composed of centre right,
fundamentalist right and extreme nationalist parties, religious effects over the interpretation of
social and historical issues has been quite extensive as well. An ideological movement known
as “Turkish-Islamic Synthesis” was launched in order to shape society according to the
principles and values of the prevailing ideologies. Copeaux (1998), a French historian,
examines the history textbooks published in the Republican Era of Turkey and concludes that
social studies and history teaching convey the necessary truths about the national purpose and
enhance a moral code which helps to create a common notion and reflexes about social
cohesion. As can be seen, during the Republican Period there was a close and clearly
expressed association between perceived political needs and the institutionalisation of the
past. The governments in power have designed history and social studies school curricula
which aimed to teach children to become certain kinds of adults and citizens, based upon the
virtues and beliefs within their ideological stance.
The Turkish history curriculum is mainly designed to develop national and personal values
and attitudes. As a result, Turkishness, national identity and respect for one’s ancestors and
the heroes of the past are the dominant features emphasised throughout the curriculum. In the
present secondary history curriculum, for example, it is emphasised that “Each lesson must be
considered as a means for implementing national goals”, and in accordance with this idea,
“The duty of the teacher in a history lesson is not only to impart knowledge but also to teach
that the Turkish nation has shown its superiority since ancient times, that the Turks have
spread their culture to other nations and created a role model for them, and that they have
endured a great deal of hardship to establish this superior civilisation through their brilliant
example”( Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, 1995).
The history curriculum particularly stresses that Turkishness is at the heart of the teaching by
stating that “As can be gleaned from the aims and subjects of the curriculum, the history of
the Turks and Turkey will form the basis of history teaching”. Hence, it has also been pointed
out that “The successes of the Turkish nation will be taken into consideration” and “The great
role that Turks have played in history will be emphasized”. It is one of the curriculum targets
that “Pupils’ attention will be drawn to the idea that our nation, which has established large
states, empires and civilizations, and won glorious victorious, has sometimes been exposed to
misfortune and injustice but the strength which derives from its history and its inborn skills
help it to overcome these problems” (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, 1995).
The examples taken from the curriculum can be multiplied. Thus, it is not wrong to say that
the social purposes and hidden agendas of the state rather than the educational and
methodological considerations of the subject matter/discipline come to the fore in the Turkish
history curriculum. It is also possible to say that the Turkish history curriculum has been a
resource for national virtues, pride and self-esteem. As emphasised in the curriculum, the
3
successes of national heroes and figures have been taught with the expectation that they
would be seen as moral and spiritual exemplars. Thereby, the great military victories of the
Turks are the preferred subjects in the history curriculum that they help to build patriotism
and create the feeling of superiority. In line with this viewpoint, the written excerpts and
visual materials seem to be used to communicate a particular image of the past or of desired
social virtues representing national symbols. The collective aspect of society is often
emphasised and reflected throughout all the schooling system. In this sense, social studies
courses serve to convey national symbols and rituals created to new generations. Turkish
history and social studies textbooks often underline and emphasise the distinctiveness of
Turks from others. For instance, Turkish social studies curriculum at primary level includes a
subject called “Characteristics of Turks”. In this subject, eight characteristics are attributed to
Turks. Two of them with the preliminary sentences of the subject are given below:
From a social studies textbook for fifth graders
Characteristics of Turks
Every nation in the world has different features. These features are related with the
history, culture and geography of that nation. Our nation has different features as
well. These are:
Breavery: Turks are the bravest nation that the entire world knows. As a result of this
bravery, Turks has founded the great states which have great importance in history
and Turks has also dominated many nations for a long time. Turks devote themselves
to become independent. They are fearless when their independence is in danger. Our
Independence War is a great struggle in order to save our sovereignty. It was not easy
to win this war at all. The entire world saw that this kind of struggle could only be
won by the bravery of the Turks.
Veracity: Turks don’t like ruse and lie. They don’t deceive anybody. They are
outspoken. They don’t hesitate to tell the things that they think it is true. They respect
for the rights of the others. They are honest not only to their friends but also to their
enemies. Because Turks believe that being honest is of great importance (Karabıyık,
1996, 86-87).
The other “Characteristics of Turks” mentioned in the primary social studies textbooks are
“diligence, human love and tolerance, benevolence, independence, hospitality, respecting the
elders and loving the young ones”. According to the discourse presented in the textbooks,
societies have specific characteristics possessed by birth and those mentioned above belong to
Turkish nation. It seems that one of the aims of studying history and social studies is to
understand and appreciate the development of the shared values which describe distinctive
features of Turkish society and culture and which continue to shape individual perceptions
and public policy. In the same textbook, the question “What are the distinctive features of
Turks that differentiate them from the other nations?” are asked to students to answer as an
“Evaluation Question” at the end of the chapter. The patriotism that the history and social
studies courses promote intends to develop the notion “we-are-the-greatest”. The questions of
“Do these features represent a whole nation?”, “Can they be the criteria defining a nation?”,
“How those features can be assessed?”, “By whom?”, “Why do not the other nationalities
have those features” or “Can they be criteria for defining a person”, “Can this way of teaching
be acceptable to create the identity of Turkishness?” are the questions need to be answered by
the authorities. The distinctiveness of Turks from others has a potential source to create bias
against other nations. For instance, the textbook writer below makes a comparison with the
virtues that the Balkan nations and Turks possess, and concludes that;
4
From a history textbook for eleventh graders
“The Balkan nations admired the virtues of the Turks, which they themselves did not
possess or only partly had, such as patriotism, integrity, charity, good manners,
cleanliness, loyalty, respect for woman and gratitude” (Şirin, 1992, 224).
The very positive adjectives generously used by the Turkish textbook writers to attribute a
particular quality or feature to their nations can be seen in both history as in this example, and
social studies textbooks as presented above under the title of “Characteristics of Turks”.
Turkish students have no choice to explore or challenge the claims made by the textbook
writers, but to believe them. However, historical issues open to doubts to investigate and
questions to ask. Where does this information come from? Is it the perception and value
judgement of the textbook writer, or is it a result of a research? What criteria were applied to
assess these value-based concepts? What educational importance does this information have
for pupils?
History at school level seems to be conceptualised as a process of infiltrating certain
viewpoints, perceptions and values at the expense of fostering and developing creative talents
of students. For example, Turkish history textbooks stress the national unity and integrity and
state authority. While maintaining this, textbooks degrade and discriminate against the other
giving almost no attention the rights and perceptions of them (Boztemur, 2004; Kaya et
al.,2002). In line with this, the textbooks employ a discourse that all states around Turkey and
some groups within the society are hostile to Turks and Turkey. Thus everybody must be in
the state of alertness. As a result of this, the emphasise on being conscious about “the external
and internal threats” can be seen as widely and regularly used motives in history and social
studies textbooks. An example taken from a History of the Revolution of the Republic of
Turkey and Atatürkism for High School textbook summarizes this notion as “To demolish and
destroy the Republic of Turkey is the great dream of internal and external powers” (Mumcu,
Su, 2002, 255). High school history textbooks were even covering the title “Enemies of Our
Country” while “examining the need for learning history” at the beginning of the 1990’s
(Sümer, Turhal, 1991, 12). Being in the state of the alert against the foes can be seen
throughout all schooling levels. Three excerpts taken from social studies and history
textbooks, primary to high schools are presented below.
From a social studies textbook for fifth graders
The principle of nationalism serves to keep our nation in full unity against external
hazards. It fortifies our state against internal and external threats. … Certain
neighbouring countries are attempting to obstruct this aspiration of the Turkish
society to develop and modernize rapidly. These countries are striving to expand their
lands and to achieve dominance in the seas. Under these circumstances our duty is to
eliminate all subversive and divisive threats directed to our country (Şenünver, et al.,
2001, 49-50).
From a social studies textbook for seventh graders
Only through strong national unity and solidarity are we able to foil the nefarious
plans that are concocted. …It is in order to eliminate all subversive and divisive
threats that we have to work resolutely as a nation to be strong. For there are external
threats targeting the Turkish youth, our intellectuals, and the sensitive aspects of our
country (Şenünver, et al., 2002, 68-69).
From a history textbook for ninth graders
5
Our long history underlies the reasons for the negative attitude toward our country of
the nations and states that we are in the same alliance with them, and seemingly, our
friends. Campaigns to divide our country, support for these campaigns, and the
economic inhibitions imposed on us are all products of the mindset introduced by the
Crusades. Decline in Turkish states started with deteriorating domestic unity.
Ottoman Empire managed to survive six centuries as a result of this unity. Same game
is being played today. Our enemies, today, fully aware of the unlikelihood of a military
attack against the Turkish Republic, employ all possible tactics to overthrow our state
and especially to disturb the domestic unity.
(Yıldız et. al., 1991a, 12).
The results of a project which aimed to examine all the Turkish textbooks from the point of
view of human rights issues reveals that the scenario detected in history and social studies
textbooks is also accentuated in the textbooks such as “Citizenship and Human Rights
Education” (Gök, 2004), “Turkish and Literature” (Ceylan, 2004), “Sociology” and
“Psychology” (Irzık, 2004) which help shaping identities. An excerpt taken from a
Citizenship and Human Rights Education textbook for eighth graders lists that “The elements
of external threat” and explains that “States that are enemies of our country and nation; states
that want to establish their own political regimes in our country; states according to whom the
development and strengthening of our country is against their interest; international illegal
arms and drug traders” (Kapıkulu et al.,2002, 109). The examples show that “the national
identity is being defined in terms of danger, threat, exclusion, and animosity” (Gök, 2004) in
the Turkish textbooks of the aforementioned courses. This conception could be related to the
idea that the Ottoman Empire “spreading across to the three continents”, “ruling many
countries” declined, thus they do not want to loose the last castle, which is existing Turkish
territory. As this conception suggests that the state and society will be destroyed unless
children are taught the unique qualities of Turkish history and institutions together with their
enemies.
Apart from this, while Turkish history textbooks emphasise and underline successful
historical events, the successes of others have been either ignored or overlooked by textbook
writers. Although harsh criticisms are made about the Westerners, Turkish textbook writers
attribute a major influence during great historical periods of European history, such as the
Reformation and Renaissance. Some examples are presented below:
From a history textbook for seventh
“What Jan Gutenberg did was merely to convert wooden letters into metal ones. The
credit for inventing the printing press, therefore, belongs to the Uighurs,(Note: A
Turkish tribe) and also to the Chineese” (Merçil et. al., 1996; 153).
From a history textbook for ninth graders
“The commercial activities that the Anatolian Seljuks carried out had the effect of
making the Italian Republics very rich. Thus, the economic conditions which were the
most important reason for the advent of the Renaissance in Italy was established”
(Tekin, Turhal, 1990, p.35).
From a history textbook for tenth graders
“The rise of civilization of Islam to this level would influence not only the Muslim
world but also the Christian Europe and perhaps would prepare the ground for the
civilization of the West has accomplished today” (Dikmen-Koçak, 1991, 42).
6
From a history textbook for eleventh graders
As a result of the tolerance and respect that Fatih had for free thinking, the Ottoman
Palace was opened to some of the European artists and scholars. Close cultural
relations were established. Europeans learnt free thinking. This greatly helped to
bring about the Reformation and Renaissance” (Miroğlu, Halaçoğlu, 1992, p. 17).
Biased ideas against other nations and religions appeared in the Turkish history textbooks are
greatly likely possible to lead students to discrimination, intolerance against others and
violation of their rights (Boztemur, 2004). The term “others” seems include not only a nation
and/or religion but also some groups such as historians. Pejorative words are used for
historians when their interpretations about Turkish history are not in line with that of the
government policies, curriculum designers and textbook writers. Those are not necessarily the
Western historians to be labelled as “others”. The “others” might even be Turkish historians if
they interpret Turkish history differently. Some examples are shown below:
From a history textbook for ninth graders
About the Institution of Devşirme (recruiting Christian boys for the Janissary corps)
“Unlike some of the enemies of the Turks claim, Devşirme was realised according to
Devşirme laws, as follows. Here is the institution of Devşirme which was declared as
atrocious and barbaric by the Westerners who habitually altered the facts against the
Turks” (Yıldız et. al., 1991b, 191).
From a history textbook for ninth graders
About Sultans’ killing of their own brothers
“When Turkish history is analysed, sibling rivalry emerges as the most significant
factor leading to the fall of the state. Albeit, the Ottoman Dynasty, which held the state
sacred above all, was accused of ferocity and sibling murder by the European
historians who fail to understand the mentality of Sultans’ killing of their own
brothers for the sake of the state’s subsistence” (Yıldız et. al., 1991b, 173).
On the contrary to the contemporary conception of historical methodology, the discussion so
far leads to the conclusion that the presentation of controversial issues in social studies and
history teaching in Turkey seems to be affected by the orthodox values and approved
interpretations of the governments and textbook writers. The purpose of humanities and
history teaching is not just the stated aim of transmitting a tradition but also the cultivation of
one-dimensional view of Turkish history and related perceptions about it. The plurality and
validity of different points of view as the basic requirements of the methodology of social
studies and history seem to become absolutism in social studies and history teaching
approaches used in Turkey. The curriculum designers assume an imaginative harmonious
community and academic consensus on the interpretation of the past and present issues. The
existence of widely diverging views among social scientists and academicians is not taken
into consideration in order not to endanger the social cohesion. In parallel with this, some of
the historical events and social issues do not find a place in the school curriculum since it is
supposed that they conflict with the imperatives of nation-building function of the courses.
As explained so far, Turkish history textbooks contain a clearly biased view of Turkish
nation, ennobling their experiences while discriminating and degrading “the other”
(Boztemur, 2004). Others in the Turkish social studies and history textbooks can be
categorised as follows:
7
others among ‘us’
Historians creating different
versions of Turkish history
Some religious sects
Some minority groups
Some political ideas and their
supporters
others among ‘them’
Western historians creating different
versions of Turkish history
Christians
Some western countries
The states becoming independent
from the Ottoman Empire
The examples presented so far do not only display the others issue, but also hidden agendas
attached to social studies teaching purposes. Preserving and maintaining the identity of
Turkishness, enriching the beliefs about myths and rituals of the past and promoting certain
values and attitudes against others have been at the centre of this subject area. In line with
this, social studies and history courses have been functioned as one of the social cements for a
national unity and a common identity of the society in order to reproduce the existing beliefs
and viewpoints in the new circumstances.
It is interesting to note that a new promising project that aims to renovate the whole Turkish
education system has been launched in 2004. Different than the existing ones, the new
curriculum expresses and underlines the new priorities, aims, concepts and skills in education,
history and social studies specifically. The curriculum has been restructured for the first five
years (7-11 ages) of schooling period as a first step. Since the 1930’s, it has been the most
radical reformation encompassing not only the alterations in the content of curricula, but also
educational aims, teaching strategies, instructional materials, assessment and evaluation
techniques. In the first phase of the project, which included only the primary level of Turkish
school system, the curricula and related textbooks of five school subjects, Life Sciences,
Social Studies, Science and Technology, Turkish Language and Maths have been designed
according to the philosophy adopted. After primary schooling, the reformation in the
secondary and high school levels seems gradually to be taken into consideration.
The preliminary conceptions and indications of the new social studies curriculum launched in
2004 give a sense that the ideological struggle has been shifted to a struggle over the
intellectual development of children. In the new curriculum (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, 2004)
“the use of primary and secondary sources”, “the possibility and validity of different
interpretations of historical events”, “students’ interpretations of history on the basis of the
evaluation of primary and secondary sources in the social and cultural context, the limitations
of historical sources” (p. 5-6) are the concepts and ideas emphasised. Accordingly, these new
concepts and ideas are complemented by an objective as “to acquire the methods that social
scientist uses in the process of construction of the scientific knowledge” (p. 44). In this sense,
the new curriculum appears to be more open towards modern scholarship of history teaching
as compared to the old one. In line with this, the new curriculum also clearly defines and
underlines the importance of helping students to acquire the skills such as “explaining
different viewpoints”, “recognising stereotype”, “seeing others’ perspective”, “respecting
differences”, “differentiating facts from opinions and recognising propaganda” (p.47-50).
Examining the new curriculum (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, 2004) evokes the impression that the
educational authorities in Turkey seem to reconsider what social studies and history are, why
it is worth teaching and learning and how it should be organized for students. The new
perspective of teaching social studies underlines and prioritise new concepts, such as enabling
students have responsibilities of their learning, developing personal moral code based on their
8
own preferences, and having different opinions and values. Hence, it might not to wrong to
say that the new social studies curriculum seems to underline that students need to meet more
than one set of cultural expectations. Thus, the concepts such as inquiry, values exploration
and social decision-making come to the fore in the new social studies curriculum. This
represents a departure from the traditional emphasis on national history towards an emphasis
on individual and societal differences.
The primary curriculum has changed and put into practice via social studies textbooks and
classroom teaching. This might be seen as a step forward to contemporary way of looking
social and historical issues, thereby reducing stereotypes and bias. On the other hand, it is a
dilemma that while the courses shaping and leading identity in the secondary and high
schools, infiltrating certain viewpoints, perceptions and values, thus producing prejudice and
bias against “internal” and “external” others, students in the primary schools are involved in
activities to develop skills of “recognising stereotype”, “seeing the other perspective”,
“respecting differences”, “recognising propaganda”. This dichotomy seems to be lasting until
the curricula reformations are completed in the same direction for the secondary and high
school levels. It will not be surprising that the secondary and high school history curriculum
will evoke firestorm of criticism when launched in comparison with that of the primary
school. The primary objections will possibly be grounded on preserving traditional values
embedded in textbooks.
Appreciate the voice of others and tolerance
In the contemporary conception of history teaching, it is acknowledged that reasoning about
historical events necessitates the use of a variety of evidence to understand the nature of
historical knowledge. Thereby, history and social studies teaching cover the analysis and
interpretation of historical, social and moral issues encompassing the ability to compare and
evaluate different experiences, beliefs, value judgements and motives of others, and to discuss
differences and resolve conflicts finding solutions to personal, social and moral dilemmas. In
this way, students learn to consider multiple perspectives, to challenge arguments and to
appraise competing value judgements, perceptions and ideas. Providing opportunities for
students to work on individual and social issues also help them to appreciate that the
distinction between right and wrong is not always straightforward (Cooper, 1992; Slater,
1995; Husbands, 1996; Brophy and VanSledright, 1997; Haydn, Arthur and Hunt, 1997;
Nichol and Dean, 1997; Singer, 1997). It helps pupils to identify problems that they confront
in the social life, to analyse the various points of view of others and to evaluate
alternative/compelling proposals for dealing with the problems. These foster positive attitudes
about learning respect, tolerance, and understanding with regard to individuals, groups, and
cultures in the global community.
This process may also assist students to grasp the importance and place of evidence in
understanding the nature of the discipline of history and social studies (Leinhardt et. al., 1994;
Husbands, 1996). As stated by Lee and Ashby (2001, 47) learning history includes “acquiring
historical ways of making sense of what is learned”. In other words, learning history is to try
to understand the past and explain it by its own terms and concepts embedded in the priorities
of historical methodology. In this approach, background information, a variety of historical
sources including others’ perspectives, and activities are the main constituent of historical
investigation for students. Thereby, students will be aware that in many occasions there is no
such a single and/or correct answer to questions posed by social and historical issues. Students
are expected to develop the ability to weigh and distinguish one point of view from another in
a balanced way. They will eventually need to understand different modes of experience and
9
interpretative frameworks in order to appreciate the existence and validity of the others’
values, perceptions and the ways how they think and feel about social and historical issues.
In this approach, textbook writers, opposite to the Turkish counterparts, hesitate to be the final
decision-makers in interpreting historical events, but rather invite students to evaluate
historical sources and to arrive at individual conclusions. This way of teaching history is
called as “the New History”. The New History then includes the examination and critical
analysis of the historical documents termed as primary and secondary sources in order to
enable students to develop some skills similar to those possessed by social scientists.
The discussions are being introduced not just for its own sake, but for describing teaching
method to explore the past and the present issues and to see how justificatory arguments are
developed and decisions are made. The expectation is that students will eventually be able to
make informed judgements based on a consideration of the arguments and evidence extracted
from historical sources, rather than uninformed judgements based on prejudice and emotions.
Another expectation is that students will deduce that one can never achieve certainty nor be
purely objective. By continually searching out the different perspectives and studying about
controversial issues, by considering the other side of the coin, and by understanding and
appreciating different values and experiences of others, students are greatly likely widen their
knowledge and skill base and gradually modify the framework of their perceptions and
understanding of others.
So far the teaching methods which are in line with the new history are discussed and the
students’ role is portrayed together with their gains. However, the content of the history
curriculum also affects students’ perceptions of the other. Students learn through active
engagement with their social and physical world. They naturally grapple with social issues
that are part of their daily lives, and create their understanding of others and themselves from
their interactions and observations. Thus, the history curriculum should not solely cover
political history with its main focus on war history with great victories, conquests, uprisings
and unfortunate looses, since they tend to incite the new generations to develop the biased
notion of others. One solution might be to limit the political history and therefore the story of
its actors such as kings, sultans, and commandants. This will help to save time in history
curriculum. This time could be used to present the history of others and/or “history from
below” (Burke, 1990), layman/ordinary people with emphasise to their ordinary life, and the
comparisons between different societies within the same period and cross-national
comparisons of the historical sources and interpretations of the same historical account. Also
the history of toys, plays, food, entertainment, starvation, diseases and economical factors and
their effects over mankind might also find place and time in the history curriculum. Such
content will likely to help students to be part of the past issues or at least come to understand
and appreciate them. In addition, students might have a chance to empathise with others and
appreciate the history of mankind from the wider and multiple perspectives and thus make a
balanced interpretation by seeing the other side of the coin.
Educators consider historical empathy as key to historical understanding (Skolnick et al.,
1999; Lee & Ashby, 2001; Yeager & Foster, 2001) since it acts as a means in the process of
considering and appreciating other points of view (Davis, 2001). Empathy also helps building
respect for diversity and another’s point of view since it enables students to think and feel
about how the world might look through the other’s eyes and be able to explain it. Thus,
historical empathy fosters in students a willingness to challenge prejudice in themselves and
others by provoking the questions “What might they/I feel or think”, “How would they/I feel
in their position” about the historical issue under consideration (Skolnick et al., 1999). In
10
other words, students might gain the ability to understand the past through the eyes of others
that let them to study of multiple perspectives. Additionally, via historical empathy, it is
possible to understand the perspectives and motives on which human actions are based. It
goes without saying that self-questioning of the ideas, intentions and feelings behind the
actions of historical actors develops “habits of critical and multi-dimensional thinking”. The
research indicates that empathy “reduces prejudice and helps students act compassionately
and responsibly in their world” (Skolnick et al., 1999, 2). Studying multiple perspectives also
supports the idea that each person has a unique perspective, and thus, the resolution of
sensitive social and historical issues should be treated fairly (Pesmazoğlu, 1998; Tekeli, 1998;
Moulden, Marshall, 2002). In the new social studies curriculum launched in Turkey, historical
empathy is defined as one of the skills that students need to gain and develop during the
courses. As far as the contemporary conception of history and social studies is concerned, this
should be seen as a promising progress to abolish bias and stereotypes against others.
History, both as an important branch and discipline of the social sciences, and as a course
taught to students in the school should not serve anything, but for its own sake. The
worldwide experience underlines that the abuse of history and history teaching (Ferro, 1984;
Kabapınar, 1998; Ceram, 2003) are greatly likely to develop and foster stereotypes and biases
against others. As indicated by Kaye (1991, 105) “those who control the present control the
past … those who control the past control the present. … Our image of other peoples, or of
ourselves for that matter, reflects the history we are taught as children. This history marks us
for life. Its representation, which is for each one of us a discovery of the world, of the past of
societies, embraces all our passing or permanent opinions, so that traces of our first
questioning, our first emotions, remain indelible”. As a result, we can conclude that those who
control the past seems to control how we perceive and appreciate the other as well.
Bibliography
a. Textbooks used in the research
Dikmen, S., Koçak, K. (1991)Tarih Lise II, Ankara: Üner Yayınları
Karabıyık, E. Ü. (1996) Birleştirilmiş Sınıflar İçin Sosyal Bilgiler Ders Kitabı, Ankara: Üner
Yayınları
Kapıkulu, A., Kapulu, S., Tekin, A. (2002) İlköğretim Vatandaşlık ve İnsan Hakları Eğitimi 8,
Ankara, Koza Yayınları
Merçil, E., Miroğlu, İ., Halaçoğlu, Y. ve Öden, Z. G. (1996) İlköğretim Milli Tarih 7,
İstanbul: Altın Kitaplar
Miroğlu, İ., Halaçoğlu, Y. (1992) Lise İçin Tarih III, İstanbul: Altın Kitaplar
Mumcu, A., Su, M. K. (2002) Lise ve Dengi Okullar İçin Türkiye Cumhuriyeti İnkılap Tarihi
ve Atatürkçülük, Ankara: MEB Yayınları
Sümer, F., Turhal, Y. (1991) Tarih Lise 1, İstanbul: Ders Kitapları A.Ş.
Şenünver, G. (2001) İlköğretim Okulu Sosyal Bilgiler 5, İstanbul: MEB Yayınları Şenünver,
G. (2002) İlköğretim Okulu Sosyal Bilgiler 7, İstanbul: MEB Yayınları
Şirin, V. (1992) Tarih Lise III, İstanbul: Gendaş A.Ş.
Tekin, G., Turhal, Y. (1990) Meslek Liseleri İçin Tarih, İstanbul: Ders Kitapları A.Ş.
Yıldız, H. D., Alptekin, C., İ, Şahin & Bostan, İ. (1991a) Tarih Lise 1, İstanbul: Servet
Yayınları
Yıldız, H. D., Alptekin, C., İ, Şahin & Bostan, İ. (1991b) Tarih Lise I1, İstanbul: Servet
Yayınları
b. References
11
Barr, R., Barth, J. L., Shermis, S. S. (1978) The Nature of Social Studies, California, ETC
Publications
Behar, B. E. (1992) İktidar ve Tarih: Türkiye’de “Resmi Tarih” Tezinin Oluşumu (19291937), İstanbul: Afa Yayınları
Bilgin, N. (1995) Kollektif Kimlik, İstanbul: Sistem Yayıncılık
Blyth, J. E. (1982) History in Primary Schools, McGraw Hill, London
Boztemur, R. (2004) “History Textbooks and Human Rights”, Human Rights Issues in
Textbooks: The Turkish Case (edited by D. T. Ceylan, G. Irzık), İstanbul: The History
Foundation of Turkey
Brophy, J. and VanSledright (1997) Teaching and Learning History in Elementary Schools,
Teachers College, Columbia University, New York
Burke, P. (1990) The French Historical Revolution: The Annales School 1929-89, Cambridge:
Polity Press
Ceram, C. W. (2003) Tarihin Kötüye Kullanımı, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları
Ceylan, D. T. (2004) Human Rights Issues in Turkish and Literature Textbooks in Primary
and Secondary Education”, Human Rights Issues in Textbooks: The Turkish Case
(edited by D. T. Ceylan, G. Irzık), İstanbul: The History Foundation of Turkey
Cooper, H. (1992) The Teaching of History: Studies in Primary Education, London: David
Fulton Publishers
Copeaux, E. (2000) Tarih Ders Kitaplarında (1931-1993) Türk Tarih Tezinden Türk-İslam
Sentezine; İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları
Davis, O. L. (2001) “In Pursuit of Historical Empathy”, Historical Empathy and Perspective
Taking in the Social Studies (edited by O. L. Davis, E. A. Yeager) Lanham: Rowman
and Littlefield Publishers
Ferro, M. (1984) The Use and Abuse of History, or, How the Past is Taught, London:
Routledge
Florescano, E. (1994) “The Social Function of History”, The Social Responsibility of the
Historian (edited by F. Bedarida), Providence: Berghahn Books
Gök, F. (2004) “Citizenship and Human Rights Education Textbooks”, Human Rights Issues
in Textbooks: The Turkish Case (edited by D. T. Ceylan, G. Irzık), İstanbul: The
History Foundation of Turkey
Haydn, T., Arthur, J. and Hunt, M. (1997) Learning to Teach History in The Secondary
School: A Companion to School Experience, London: Routledge
Husbands, C. (1996) What is History Teaching?, Open University Press, Buckingham
Irzık, G. (2004) “Human Rights Issues in High School Sociology, Psychology, and
Philosophy Textbooks” Human Rights Issues in Textbooks: The Turkish Case (edited
by D. T. Ceylan, G. Irzık), İstanbul: The History Foundation of Turkey
İnal, K. (2004) Eğitim ve İktidar:Türkiye’de Ders Kitaplarında Demokratik ve Milliyetçi
Değerler, Ankara: Ütopya Yayınevi
Kabapınar, Y. (1998) A Comparison Between Turkish and English History Textbooks:
Design, Construction and Usability Issues, Unpublished Doctorate Thesis, Leeds:
University of Leeds
Kaya, H., Kahyaoğlu, D., Çetiner, A., Öztürk, M. & Eren, N. (2002) “National Report:
Turkey”, Improvement of Balkan History Textbooks Project Reports, İstanbul: The
History Foundation of Turkey
Kaye, H. J. (1991) The Powers of the Past: Reflections on the Crisis and the Promise of
History”, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press
Le Goff, J. (1992) History and Memory, New York : Columbia University Press
12
Lee, P., Ashby, R. (2001) “Empathy, Perspective Taking, and Rational Understanding”,
Historical Empathy and Perspective Taking in the Social Studies (edited by O. L.
Davis, E. A. Yeager) Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers
Leinhardt, G., Stainton, C. and Virji, S.M. (1994) “A Sense of History”, Educational
Psychologist, 29 (2), pp. 79-88
Levstik, L. S., Barton, K. C. (1997) Doing History: Investigating with Children in Elementary
and Middle Schools, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers
Lowenthal, D. (1995) The Past is a Foreign Country, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Marwick, A. (1989) The Nature of History, London: MacMillan
Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (1995) Ortaokul Programı, Ankara: MEB Yayınları
Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2004) İlköğretim Sosyal Bilgiler Dersi (4.-5. Sınıflar) Öğretim
Programı, Ankara: MEB Basımevi
Moulden, H., Marshall, W. L. (2002) “Empathy, Social Intelligence, and Aggressive
Behaviours”, In Their Shoes: Examining the Issue of Empathy and Its Place in the
Treatment of Offenders (edited by Yolanda Fernandez), Oklahoma: Wood ‘N’ Barnes
Publishing
Nichol, J. ve Dean, J. (1997) History 7-11: Developing Primary Teaching Skills, Routledge,
London
Pesmazoğlu, S. (1998) ““Ötekilik” Üzerine Bazı Yöntemsel Yorumlar”, Tarih Eğitimi ve
Tarihte “Öteki” Sorunu, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları
Singer, A. J. (1997) Social Studies for Secondary Schools: Teaching to Learn, Learning to
Teach, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers
Skolnick, J., Dulberg, N. & Maestre, T. (1999) Through Other Eyes: Developing Empathy
and Multicultural Perspectives in the Social Studies, Toronto: The Pippin’s Teacher’s
Library,
Slater, J. (1995) Teaching History in the New Europe, Cassell Council of Europe Series,
London
Stanford, M. (1987) The Nature of Historical Knowledge, Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Tekeli, İ. (1998) “Tarihyazıcılığı ve Öteki Kavramı Üzerine Düşünceler”, Tarih Eğitimi ve
Tarihte “Öteki” Sorunu, İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları
Yeager, E. A., Foster, S. J. (2001) “The Role of Empathy in the Development of Historical
Understanding” Historical Empathy and Perspective Taking in the Social Studies
(edited by O. L. Davis, E. A. Yeager) Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers
13