“The history of Cyprus does not begin in
1571”: This is what the Turkish Cypriot children are being taught
Overcoming the mental wall Turkish Cypriot history books: A small miracle or an imperceptible change?
By Efi Ioannou - Alithia
Experts characterize the new Turkish Cypriot history books as a small miracle, though of limited range. At the same time, they emphasize that the time for a common history book of Cyprus, written by Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, which will boost the efforts of reconciliation and peaceful cohabitation, has come. “It’s useless for each community to write books with the title “History of Cyprus” which however, in essence are presenting only the history of one community”, they stress. At the same time, when in Greece, the last changes to the new history book of the 6th Grade of Primary School were made on the other side of the checkpoints in Cyprus the Turkish Cypriot books of history were being evaluated. The tenacious task was undertaken with UNDP funding, by POST Research Institute, a non-governmental organisation in the northern part of the island. Specifically, a group of Turkish Cypriot experts has undertaken to compare the old Turkish Cypriot history books with the new ones. The representative of POST Research Institute Murat Kanatli speaks to Alithia for the findings of the evaluation. “In comparison with the previous history books and under the circumstances which the changes materialized, we can characterize the new books as a small miracle”, he states.
“The positive changes” The truth is that the new history books of the Turkish Cypriots are very different to the old ones, both in presentation and in content. The biggest change was noted in the content. Now the children of Turkish Cypriots are beginning to learn about the history of Cyprus from the pre-historic years. In the old books, the narration was starting from 1571, date of the conquest of Cyprus by the Ottomans. Also, now there is mentioning of the emergence of Cyprus from the sea bed, while in the previous book, Cyprus was presented geographically as an integral part of Asia Minor (and hence Turkey). Another innovation is the introduction of place names in Greek and Turkish language. For instance, on the map of Cyprus on page 4 of the first volume, where Cyprus does not appear divided, the place names are written as they are pronounced in both languages e.g. Pareklishia – Pareklışa, Petra tou Limnidi – Limnidi Kayalığı etc. The main thing is, however, that the material is embellished with information from the social history of the island. It is not restricted to the military and political developments anymore. In this framework, common peaceful activities of Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots are accentuated. In the third volume on page 31, a picture shows Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots working together in the mines at Lefka and on page 46, a Cypriot team in which in 1955 both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriot football players were listed, is shown. The books no longer make a distinction between “us” (Turks or Turkish Cypriots) and the “others” (Greeks or Greek Cypriots). As M. Kanatli explains, the effort was to portray Cyprus as the common homeland of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots: “The new books refer to Cyprus as our country, our own homeland, before the existence of national states, like Greece, Turkey, etc. Until recently, the history books were defining Turkey as our country (of the Turkish Cypriots). In contrast, the new books are creating a new perspective for Cyprus, a common homeland for Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, which is not exclusively Greek or Turkish. It gives a strong message that Cyprus is our homeland and that Greek Cypriots are our compatriots”. With regards to presentation, the new books are embellished in their greater part with old photos, sketches, gravures, drawings and caricatures. A substantial change to the aesthetics of the book is noted. The extensive and incomprehensible texts of the past are omitted. The texts are shorter, concise and most importantly they do not give always an absolute conventional answer. The illustration is often accompanied by questions for discussion e.g. in the second volume on page 23, in the framework of a dialogue during the ottoman period, the question is put across: “Why does a Christian pay a different tax than a Muslim?”. Here, there is a conscious effort to introduce new methodology and approach of the historical knowledge. At the same time, the Cypriot history is not presented as cutaway from the international scene. Together with the developments in Cyprus, there are references to treaties and ideological movements which prevail in other countries. For instance, in the third volume on page 12, there is a picture which shows the life of people in England during the Second World War. A special mention is given to the role of England in the conflicts in Cyprus. In the third volume on page 59, a hand which has on it the British flag, is separating people.
“The negative points” The evaluation of the Turkish Cypriot history books has nevertheless brought to publicity some negative points both with regards to their content and their effectiveness. First of all, all the books cite even the national anthem of Turkey, the picture and the views of Kemal Attaturk at their first pages. It is thus pointed out that what has been written is in essence not the “History of Cyprus” but the “History of the Turkish Cypriot community”. As M. Kanatli explains: “From the Ottoman period and afterwards, the books present what we might call Turkish Cypriot history. The reference to the Greek Cypriots, you see, is done only if it is necessary, that is, if they come into contact with the Turkish Cypriots. This is a weak point of the book.” This view is verified by the fact that there is no mention to the other communities of Cyprus, like the Armenians, the Maronites and the Latins. The absence of the Greek Cypriot interpretation and approach of the facts is also detected in the negative of the Turkish Cypriot history books. The interpretation of the Greek Cypriots is definitely different to that of the Turkish Cypriots especially with regards to the contemporary period. The Turkish Cypriot books, for instance, are referring to the war of 1974 exclusively as a “peaceful intervention”, while it is obvious that for the Greek Cypriot community it is Turkish invasion. From the evaluation, it seems that the Turkish Cypriot teachers are themselves finding it difficult to use them. As they point out, they are unable to teach them because they have not had the necessary previous further training. Moreover, the additional material that would help the teacher to have the correct approach has not been prepared. So, the traditional teaching, which involved the teacher dictating and the students to listen passively, continues. Besides, a number of teachers continue to support extreme nationalist views with regards to the history of Cyprus. As a result, the climate at schools has not changed drastically. The situation worsens by the fact that the Cypriot history is still only being taught for one period every week. Given the extensive syllabus, the Turkish Cypriot teachers are unable to cover it and resort to selective teaching. They choose, that is, thematic units that they know and have always been teaching with the result of important new matters to be overlooked.
“Common history books” The evaluation concludes that all these points lead to a broader conclusion that the change did not have the expected results. Its effect is still limited, since neither the teaching mentality, nor the climate has changed at schools. In the presence of all these, the evaluation committee is suggesting the further training of the Turkish Cypriot teachers to familiarize themselves with the new methodology with a series of seminars, which will derive examples from the international scene. It also points out the need to write a book for the teachers but also of additional historical material. However, the most important conclusion is the fact that for a peaceful Cyprus of co-existence and reconciliation the writing of a common history book by Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot writers is urgent. “What we should strive for”, says M. Kanatli, “is to start the discussion for a common history book of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. We need all the Cypriot teachers to state their view, write their thoughts, their feelings for ’63 and ’74 and to consolidate the views. In a different situation, each community can not continue and change only her books and to refer only to its own history. Ultimately this would not be for the benefit of anyone”.