post

In ethnically divided societies, especially when conflicts last for generation, and are still going on, the school education is reflecting the ongoing ethnic conflict. It is a well-known phenomenon that the national historiography reproduces national memory through the adaptation of the mechanisms of forgetting and remembrance in a selective way. The ultimate goal of such historiography is not an accurate account of history but an effective and efficient contribution to national goals and unity. Hence, the school education is fundamentally political. Especially in those cases where the ethnic conflict is still going on, history education and historiography are at the same time part of the current politics. As Anthony Smith writes, “in a world of competing states and would-be nations, these are no more academic issues.”

The role of history in nation building and nationalism is double. It helps to develop a national, collective self-esteem but at the same time, it turns against all those, who are considered as “others”. In other words, the national self-esteem is relational; hence its conduction constructs often the negative “others”. The “others” are to be found within as well as outside of the nation. It has to be added that, especially where nation-building and state-building were accompanied by wars, which was and is the often the case, the demonization of the “others” turned out to be perceived almost as “natural”. This does not mean that history books are only books of propaganda. In fact, school books are the mirror of the society that produces them. Given the fact that the social mechanisms and the state play a key role in the formation of the education system, the history teaching is reflecting the whole structure of a society. There is no doubt that once an educational system is established its resources are subject to political use.

“In fact, national memory is a form of the collective memory, which functions like a “theatre” of certain chosen events, and is only indirectly transmittable through media, education, and not directly through the individual participation. These events need to be reconstructed in such a symbolic way, so that they can operate “properly” in the national memory. There is no such thing as the past as an organic part of the memory, simply because there are no pure facts of the memory. Only after the symbolic reconstruction can “these events” or “facts” become functional for the national consciousness and turn into values. And this process of symbolic reconstruction is not free of political interests and orientations of the nation within the given moment of history. Above all, the national memory is an unavoidable condition for the construction and embodiment of the national identity”.[1]

By looking into the national memory, identity, and the transmission of the national memory through the textbooks in Cyprus, one can find out that the school education is an organic part of the ethnic conflict in Cyprus. Through the school education, the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities are legitimising respectively their political positions in such a way that the future citizens are prevented from developing a critical approach.

Education, which fundamentally shapes individuals’ way of thinking, therefore, could be easily used to implement the nationalist myth that the “other” is the negative one. Through the mechanisms of remembrance and forgetting one learns only what has happened to “us”, but never what we have done to the “others”.

Cyprus is not an exception. What has been said above has its validity for Cyprus also. Indeed, due to the on-going “Cyprus Question”, school education in general and the history education in particular is still seen as an instrument at the service of the ethnic groups in conflict. Only very recently (31 August 2004) “the committee for educational reform”, which was instructed by the Greek Cypriot Minister for Education and Culture to analyse the Greek Cypriot education system, came to the conclusion that the Greek Cypriot education system suffers from ethnocentrism. In short, multicultural reality of Cyprus is denied and the Hellenic dimension is overemphasized. The future citizen, in a narcissistic way, learns much more about the Greeks in all over the world than the co-citizen Turkish Cypriots, Maronite, Armenian and Latin who live in Cyprus. It is important to notify that “the committee for educational reform” has proposed a package of reform so that the Greek Cypriot education system undergoes a radical change. Among other things, the committee proposes to recruit a common working group composed of Greek and Turkish Cypriots scholars to overview the history books in Cyprus. This, although a late development, is to be celebrated.

In the Turkish Cypriot community, education, which is what we are mainly dealing with in this project, until recently was nothing but an ideological system that aimed at the legitimisation of the division of Cyprus on the bases that the “two communities in Cyprus cannot live together.” Hence, “demonization” of the “other” lied at the very heart of this education system. Furthermore, due to the ethno-centric approach, which presented the Turkish Cypriot national community as an organic part of the “Great Turkish Nation”, the school education educates more on Turkey and “Turkic world” rather than on Cyprus. Whenever the Greek Cypriots are mentioned, they are presented in such a way as if the division of Cyprus and separation of the two communities were only “natural”. It’s worth mentioning at this point that the Turkish Cypriot educational authority has already started a project to review the history books in the Turkish Cypriot schools. We can only welcome this kind of initiatives.

In Cyprus, so far, a dogmatic teaching of the “objective” history of the one and only “truth” characterizes the teaching in both communities. Hence, schoolbooks merely reflect the prevailing ideology as it is diffused through the media, family and other social institutions. As a result of this attitude the citizens in Cyprus do not “cross their memories” and do not “share their experiences”. A static and frozen concept of an abstract and a-historical “other” prevails and leads to no-communication or to a distorted communication. This clearly shows how urgent the education reform is in Cyprus.

The social sciences book of the 5th Grade in the Turkish Cypriot primary schools, which our project has analysed in depth, is a good example for “what not to do” in education. The “discursive strategy” implemented in this book reminds us of a “Hollywood film” of “good and bad guys”. From the very beginning until the end, the book deals with the Greek Cypriots as the “bad guys”. The first chapter of the book, which is the only chapter dealing with Cyprus, begins with the Ottoman period in Cyprus (often mistakenly called as ‘Turkish rule’) and is presented as “a period of justice and peace in Cyprus”. Since “the Greeks are unthankful” they rebelled against the Ottoman/Turkish order of “peace and justice.” (p.5) Under the British Rule, the Green Island (Cyprus) became “red by the blood shed by the Greeks because of their terrorist actions”. (p. 12) Hence, the Turkish Cypriots “had to defend themselves”. (p.13) During and after the establishment of the independent state of Cyprus, the Turkish Cypriot side was “respecting the rights of the Greeks and was trying with good will to cooperate while the Greek Cypriots did not show any sign of good will.” (p.17) The period of inter communal tension from 1964 to 1974 is the “dark period” for the Turkish Cypriots for which “the whole responsibility lies on the Greek Cypriot side”. (p.18-19) “The Happy End” for the Turkish Cypriot community arrives in 1974 when Turkey undertakes a military intervention (called the “Peace Operation”) and divided Cyprus geographically and demographically into two, north and south. Thereafter, “the Turkish Cypriots are living happily in North Cyprus…”

After this “myth-history” devoted to Cyprus which aims to prove that “living together with Greek Cypriots is not possible”, the book takes the pupils to a journey in the Ottoman/Turkish and Turkic World. Here the hidden message of the book is that the Turkish Cypriots actually belong to the Turkish World” and Cyprus, at least the northern part“is an organic part of this imagined Turkish World.”

The project aims to identify the elements, phrases, hidden messages or historical myths that cultivate conflict, fear, and mutual distrust between the two communities in Cyprus, using the curriculum, social science and history books as examples. Although the project attempts to identify the chauvinistic and nationalist elements in the textbooks, it also aims at highlighting some alternative ways of teaching that would help the mutual trust among new generations.

The Social Science book is analysed in the first part of the project.[2] The book is examined in two categories: the first chapter covers the Cyprus history, and the second part includes the pre-Islamic Turkic world, Turks and Islam, Ottoman Empire, WWI and the formation of the Republic of Turkey, Atatürk and the Topography of Turkey. Since our main focus is the history of Cyprus and a less biased history education on the island, the first part of the book was evaluated in a more detailed and thorough screening and encoded under four major headings: material error, contextualisation and prejudices, ethno-centric approach and the legitimisation of the Turkish Cypriot position, and misinformation that the book contains. In the second part we analysed how Turkey, the history of Turkey and the Turkic world are presented throughout the book.

PART I: Screening and Encoding of the Biased and Prejudiced Elements in the Textbook

A- Cyprus History

I - Material Error

Material errors include wrong and distorted information throughout the textbook.

I-A- Wrong Information

P. 1, paragraph D: “People of Cyprus were not happy with the Venetian rule, that’s why they sent ambassadors to Istanbul on a few occasions to ask the Ottoman rulers to end the Venetian cruelty.”

P. 10, paragraph 5: 1931 Uprising and its Consequences: “Together with the support of Greece, the Greek Cypriot church started preparations for an uprising against the British administration.”

P. 17, paragraph 3: “The biggest difference of opinion between the two communities was about municipalities. All towns used to have a municipality during British Colonial rule. Greek Cypriots were influential within these municipalities as they were the majority. Greek Cypriot neighbourhoods were repaired and developed, whereas Turkish Cypriot ones were left uncared. That’s why we inserted the provision of forming separate Turkish municipalities within the treaties. Greeks obstructed the separate municipalities’ law in the communal assembly with the reasoning that ‘It will result in a division of Cyprus’. As a result, the Turkish Communal Assembly formed separated Turkish municipalities with legislation. Greeks were insistent in joining the municipalities. The problem was referred to the Constitutional Court. The Court decided that separate municipalities are in line with the constitution. Greeks announced that they would not recognise this decision which was a defeat for them and decided to implement a secret plan, which had already been prepared (Akritas Plan).”[3]

P. 18, paragraph.4: “Greeks implemented the Akritas Plan to its smallest detail. They submitted proposals to the Vice President that would degrade the Turks from an administrative partner to a minority.”

P. 21, paragraph 1: “Greek Cypriots have had long rooted opinion differences among themselves. A group led by Grivas wanted Enosis to happen at once, whereas the others led by Makarios wanted Enosis to come true under more favourable conditions. These different approaches turned into armed conflict in 1973-1974. Those for immediate Enosis, in cooperation with Greek soldiers in Cyprus formed a secret organisation called E.O.K.A. ‘B’. Makarios, realising the trouble he was in, called upon Greece for having the Greek troops called back. Greece was ruled by a government formed by soldiers, back then. On 15th July 1974, E.O.K.A. ‘B’, had a coup d’état under the orders of the Greek Junta. Supporters of Makarios were killed in the end.”

P. 23, paragraph 1-2: “During the first Peace Operation and within the ceasefire period Greeks attacked all Turkish towns and villages. Turkish settlement areas that were weak in defence resisted bravely. However, most of them were occupied by the enemy as they couldn’t get help. Greeks committed inhumane crimes in the places they occupied (e.g. Atlılar and Muratağa). After ceasefire, peace talks started among Turkey, Greece and England upon a call from the United Nations. These talks, which were afterwards participated by Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots as well, were deadlocked because of the uncompromising Greek Cypriot-Greek attitude.”

“Upon the deadlock of talks, Turkey had to have the Peace Operation II in order to safeguard the Turkish Cypriots and the Turkish troops in the island. With the operation starting in the morning of 14th August, Famagusta was liberated on 15th and Lefke was liberated on 16th August. As a result, liberated Turkish areas were founded in the east and west. The Turkish Cypriot community founded the Autonomous Turkish Cypriot Administration on 1st October 1974 and the Turkish Cypriot Federal State on 13th February 1975 within these boundaries. As a result, the unrest and Greek cruelty which had been going on since 1955 were replaced by peace and calmness thanks to the Peace Operation.”

I-B- Distorted Information

P. 1, paragraph D: “People of Cyprus were not happy with the Venetian rule. Venetians were treating people like their servants, forcing them to work unpaid. However, the Ottoman State allowed the people of the conquered countries to exercise their religion freely. The Ottoman Administration was representing justice and safety for all people. That’s why, knowing all these, the People of Cyprus sent ambassadors to Istanbul on a few occasions to ask the Ottoman rulers to end the Venetian cruelty.”

P. 2, paragraph 4: “The joy of local people, who had enough with the bad Venetian Administration, was so big that, the person who replaced the Venetian flag on the Nicosia Town Hall with the Turkish one was a Greek priest called St. Mark.”

P. 3, paragraph 3: “Life conditions were tough in Cyprus because of bad Venetian Administration. That’s why some people migrated to other countries. Hence, the population of the island decreased and, the land was left unattended. Having the island stay this way was not right. Thus, the Sultan ordered Turkish families to settle in Cyprus. Firstly, 1689 families from Anatolian districts and villages settled in Cyprus, in this way. Us Turks living in Cyprus now, are the grandchildren of these families that came from Turkey and settled in Cyprus after 1571.”

P. 5, paragraph 2: “Greek Cypriots lived in peace under Ottoman rule.”

P. 12, paragraph 3: “Greeks referred the Cyprus Problem to the United Nations in 1954 for the first time. Greeks (from Greece) who could not manage to get a favoured decision here chose the unlawful violence option. They started sending arms and soldiers to Cyprus by agreeing with the church of Cyprus.”

P. 13: TAKSİM is not mentioned among the objectives of the TMT. On the other hand, Enosis’ objective of annexing the island to Greece is continuously emphasised.

P. 13, paragraph 1: “T.M.T. (Turkish Resistance Organisation) was founded. Its founding date is accepted to be August 1st, 1958. This meant that the Turkish Cypriot Community will trust itself for safeguarding its life, property and honour, rather than the British Government.”

II- Contextualization and Prejudices

The aim of this part is to figure out how the facts are contextualized through victimization and sentimental approaches as well as numerous biased information, exaggeration and generalisations.

II-A- Victimization

Generally, throughout the book Turkish Cypriots and the Turks have always been presented as innocent and victimized, whereas the others, Venetians, British, Greek Cypriots or the Greeks were the responsible for the faults, guilt and crimes against Turkish Cypriots and the Turks. Here are some examples:

P. 3, paragraph 2: “Venetians wanted to take revenge for loosing Cyprus.”

P. 8, paragraph 3: “England was looking for ways to conquer the island she long desired. The opportunity England was expecting arose as follows.”

P. 10, paragraph 7: “1931 Uprising and its Consequences”: “Although it wasn’t Turks who started the uprising, the innocent Turkish community was punished as well.”

P. 13, paragraph 1: “Killings by Greeks continued with an increasing pace between 1956 -1958”

P. 17, paragraph 3: “Greek Municipalities were repairing and developing Greek neighbourhoods, whereas Turkish ones were left uncared.”

P. 18, it should also be noted that in some paragraphs, the entire context is based on the victimised words such as “the Dark Years of the Turkish Cypriots”.

P. 23, paragraph 1: “During the Peace Operation I and within the ceasefire period Greeks attacked all Turkish towns and villages. Turkish settlement areas that were weak in defence resisted bravely. However, most of them were occupied by the enemy as they couldn’t get help. Greeks committed inhumane crimes in the places they occupied (e.g. Atlılar and Muratağa). After ceasefire peace talks started among Turkey, Greece and England upon a call from the United Nations. These talks which were afterwards participated by Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots as well were deadlocked because of the uncompromising Greek Cypriot-Greek attitude. ”

P. 23, paragraph 2: “Upon the deadlock of talks, Turkey had to have the Peace Operation II in order to safeguard the Turkish Cypriots and the Turkish troops on the island. With the operation starting in the morning of 14th August, Famagusta was liberated on 15th and Lefke was liberated on 16th August. As a result, liberated Turkish areas were founded in the east and west. The Turkish Cypriot community founded the Autonomous Turkish Cypriot Administration on 1st October 1974 and the Turkish Cypriot Federal State on 13th February 1975 within these boundaries. As a result, the unrest and Greek cruelty which had been going on since 1955 were replaced by peace and calmness thanks to the Peace Operation.”

P. 24, paragraph 2: “With the declaration of TRNC, the Turkish Cypriot people, who have been fighting against all sorts of oppression and cruelty for years, founded their own State after hundreds of years, in which they will eternally live in freedom and independence.”

II-B- Sentimental Approaches

The sentimental approach and expressions used extensively throughout the book are the following:

P. 9, paragraph 2: “Turks sadly watched the replacement of the Turkish flag on Paphos walls with the British one.”

P. 12, paragraph 3: “EOKA started its terror operation on 1st April 1955. They first, oppressed those Greeks that were against Enosis. The British were targeted in the first three months. The target became the Turkish police first and in time it was the whole Turkish community. One of our sayings goes, “A good friend is revealed in a bad day”. The only support Turkish Cypriots had during these bad days was Motherland Turkey’s increasing care and support. Turkish Cypriots were learning this by experience and the belief that the rescue hope was in Turkey, was getting rooted within hearts.”

P. 11, paragraph 2: 1931 Uprising: “Within this period, Turkish Cypriots tried not to lose touch with their motherland and keep their nationalist feelings and beliefs.”

P. 12, paragraph 3: “The only support Turkish Cypriots had during these bad days was Motherland Turkey’s increasing care and support.”

P. 12, paragraph 4: “Innocent people were killed; the green island was becoming red with the blood shed by Greeks.”

P. 17, paragraph 1: “After 82 years of separation, Turkish Cypriots welcomed brave Turkish soldiers who landed on the island, with an enthusiastic joy. Turkish troops’ presence on the island would become our greatest security. ”

P. 18, paragraph 4: “Greeks implemented the Akritas Plan to its smallest detail. They submitted proposals to the Vice President that would degrade the Turks from an administrative partner to a minority. They chose 20th December 1963 as the date of their move when Turkish Cypriots and Turkey didn’t accept these. They killed defenceless, innocent Turks in Nicosia, that night.”

P. 19, paragraph 3: “Radio Bayrak tried, encouraged and provided endurance to the Turkish Cypriots while trying to neutralise Greek propaganda.”

P. 23, paragraph 1: “During the Peace Operation I and within the ceasefire period Greeks attacked all Turkish towns and villages. Turkish settlement areas that were weak in defence resisted bravely. However, most of them were occupied by the enemy as they couldn’t get help. Greeks committed inhumane crimes in the places they occupied… Talks started among Turkey, Greece and England upon a call from the United Nations. These talks, which were afterwards participated by Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots as well, were deadlocked because of the uncompromising Greek Cypriot-Greek attitude.”

P. 23, paragraph 2: “The Turkish Cypriot Federal State was founded and the unrest and Greek cruelty which had been going on since 1955 were replaced by peace and calmness thanks to the Peace Operation.”

II-C- Biased Information

Biased information contains one-sided, subjective and divisionist elements, which result in putting all the blame to the other ethnic community, feeding the prejudices, mutual distrust and enmity in the island. Nonetheless, biased information is not just about the ethnic conflict of the late 1950s, 1960s and 1970s between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots but already starts from the Venetian era as Muslim versus Christians.

P. 1, paragraph A: “Christian Pirates were using the island as a shelter.”

P. 1, paragraph B: “Enemy States could use the island of Cyprus as a base in an attack against the Ottoman State.”

P. 1, paragraph D: “The People of Cyprus were not happy with the Venetian rule. Venetians were treating people like their servants, forcing them to work unpaid. However, the Ottoman State allowed people of the conquered countries to exercise their religion freely. The Ottoman Administration was representing justice and safety for all people.”

P. 2, paragraph 2: “Second Conquer of Cyprus: Sadrazam Sokollu Mehmet Pasha was against arranging a crusade to Cyprus. He was scared that Christian States would join forces against Turks in case the Ottoman State tries to conquer Cyprus.”

P. 3, paragraph 2: “Venetians wanted to take revenge for losing Cyprus. Hence, they formed a big Navy fleet by joining forces with other Christian States.”

P. 9, paragraph 3: “ Stage II: Cyprus joining the British Empire: England announced annexing Cyprus with a unilateral decision using the war it had with the Ottoman State as an excuse (5 November 1914).”

P. 10, paragraph 6: “At the night of 21st October 1931 a big provoking crowd gathered in Nicosia which attacked the governor’s residence. Some other small incidents also took place in other towns.”

P. 12, paragraph 2: “Greek Cypriots considering Greece to be their motherland and assuming its enlargement desire to be their own, were trying to realise the ‘Great Hellenic State’ dream in the Aegean and the Mediterranean sea.”

P. 13, paragraph 1: “However, nothing was as simple as the British thought. The problem could not be solved by bringing in a few policemen from England, or by exiling some Greeks.”[5]

P. 17, paragraph 2: “Partners had to have goodwill and be respectful of each other’s rights. Greeks were never honest while Turks were trying to behave in goodwill.”

P. 17, paragraph 2: “Enosis is the desire of annexing Cyprus to Greece.”[6]

P. 17, paragraph 2 “.... Greeks were never honest while Turks were trying to behave in goodwill. Leaders of the Greek Cypriot community, Makarios in particular were stating that their real aim was “Enosis”...”

P. 17, paragraph 3: “The biggest difference of opinion between the two communities was about municipalities. All towns used to have a municipality during the British Colonial rule. Greek Cypriots were influential within these municipalities as they were the majority. Greek Cypriot neighbourhoods were repaired and developed, whereas Turkish Cypriot ones were left uncared. That’s why we inserted the provision of forming separate Turkish municipalities within the treaties. Greeks obstructed the separate municipalities’ law in the communal assembly with the reasoning that ‘It will result in the division of Cyprus’.”

P. 20, paragraph 2: “Greeks thought that they would get with negotiation the things they couldn’t get with weapons and therefore participated in the peace talks.”

P. 18, paragraph 4: The Dark years of the Turkish Cypriots (1963-74): “Greeks implemented the Akritas Plan to its smallest detail. They submitted proposals to the Vice President that would degrade the Turks from an administrative partner to a minority. They chose 20th December 1963 as the date of their move when Turkish Cypriots and Turkey didn’t accept these. They killed defenceless, innocent Turks in Nicosia, that night. They attackedKumsal and Kucuk Kaymaklı. Soon armed conflict spread over the whole island. Greeks aimed to overcome Turkish resistance in 12 hours… They calculated to do so in 12 hours. However Turkish resistance carried on for 11 years... our mucahits (name given to Turkish Cypriot soldiers) didn’t let the enemy into the Turkish zone in the expense of their blood... What happened in the village of Ayvasıl is massive killing and burring of old people, women and children into the opened graves...”[7]

II-D- Exaggeration

For the sake of glorifying the Ottoman Empire and the victories of the Turks, or resistance of the Turkish Cypriots, exaggerated formulations and expressions are employed in the textbook. For example:

P. 1, paragraph C: “Ottoman sultans were the spiritual leaders and protectors of all Muslims.”

P. 1, paragraph D: “knowing all these, the People of Cyprus sent ambassadors to Istanbul on a few occasions to ask the Ottoman rulers to end the Venetian cruelty.”

P. 2, paragraph 3: “Venetians were informed that ottomans would undertake a crusade in Cyprus. They surrounded Nicosia and Famagusta with thick walls in order to protect the island. They even knocked down most of the old palaces, churches and graves so as to find stones for building the walls. The Ottoman navy anchored in Limassol on Saturday 1st July 1570, the Turkish forces entered Limassol on Sunday morning 2nd July. Limassol, Larnaca and Kyrenia were captured with no struggle.”

P. 2, paragraph 5: “Nicosia was transferred to the Turkish administration on 9th September 1570. The nameless hero (Bayraktar) who erected the Turkish flag on Kontanza was killed. The joy of the local people, who had enough with the bad Venetian Administration, was so big that, the person who replaced the Venetian flag on the Nicosia Town Hall with the Turkish one was a Greek priest called St. Mark.”

P. 3, paragraph 1: “Famagusta, which was surrounded with high and thick walls and was defended with 10,000 troops and approximately 100 cannons, surrendered to the Turkish forces on 1st August 1571 after resisting for eleven months.”[8]

P. 5, paragraph 3: “Cyprus economically developed under the Ottoman administration, roads and bridges were built, irrigation canals were opened and precautions for grasshoppers’ attacks were taken. As a result, people prospered and the population increased to over 200,000”

P. 12, paragraph 2: “The Turkish government showed interest in Cyprus in 1954-1955 by sending teachers to Cyprus and by defending the Turkish Cypriots’ rights through media and youth. This interest was substantially increasing day by day.”

P. 15: Questions asked for giving students’ biased opinion;

Q. 8: “When did Greeks rebel against the British rule administration? What was the aim of this rebellion? What were the results of this rebellion?

Q. 11: “What is Enosis?”

Q. 12: “Which secret organisation was formed by Greeks in order to realise Enosis? Who was the first leader of this organisation?”

Q. 13: “What is the date that EOKA started its discouragement operation?”

Q. 14: “What is the first secret organisation founded by Turkish Cypriots for self-defence?”

Q. 15: “When was TMT founded?”

P. 20, paragraph 2: “As a result of four-year inter-communal armed conflict Greeks understood that they would not be able to overcome the Turkish resistance and that Turkey was determined to support her consanguineous until the end.”

P. 24, paragraph 3: “Later on there were general and local elections in 1985 and 1990 and TRNC was completely rooted with public vote.”

II-E- Generalisation

P. 5, paragraph 1: “4. Rights given to Greeks and the Greek rebellion: The Ottoman administration gave wide rights to Christian people, to Greeks in particular. The Orthodox Church, which had been closed, was reopened. In addition the archbishop who was on exile, was allowed to come back with high authority. The archbishop was the Greek representative with regards to religious and communal issues.”

P. 24, paragraph 1: “When the perception of not being able to find a settlement by agreeing with Greeks was evident, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was announced on 15th November 1983. ”

III- Ethno-centric Approach and Legitimisation of the Turkish Cypriot Official Position

Overall, the book has an ethnocentric approach, a chauvinistic discourse and comprises imposed knowledge, ideas and values in order to strengthen the division between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots, as well as for legitimising the Turkish Cypriot official position. The typical examples for these are:

The Ethno-centric Approach throughout the book and Chauvinist Expressions:

The book starts with the Turkish National anthem and Ataturk’s call upon youth.

P. 1, paragraph B: “The island was surrounded by Turkish land. Enemy States could use the island of Cyprus as a base to attack the Ottoman State.”

P. 3, paragraph 2 Sokollu, Ottoman’s Prime Minister’s statement: “We cut one of your arms by taking Cyprus from you, you shaved our beard by defeating our navy. Cut arms cannot be replaced, but shaved bear will revive even thicker!”

P. 7, question 3: “What are the ethnic roots of the Turkish Cypriots?”

P. 11, paragraph 3: “Within this period, Turkish Cypriots tried not to lose touch with their motherland and keep their nationalist feelings and beliefs”

P. 13, paragraph 2: “Under these conditions, Cypriot Turks formed a secret organisation, so as to protect themselves. The T.M.T. was founded. Its founding date is accepted to be 1st August 1958. This meant that the Turkish Cypriot Community will trust itself for safeguarding its life, property and honour, rather than the British Government.”

P. 18, paragraph 4: “The Greeks aimed to overcome the Turkish resistance in 12 hours. However, they didn’t know that all of their plans were closely monitored by TMT. TMT proved Greek plans to be wrong as Greeks calculated to overcome it in 12 hours. However the Turkish resistance went on for 11 years. It’s true that the Greeks could not get anything from their attacks, which took place in Larnaca (December 1963), Limassol (February 1964), Paphos (March 1964), Erenkoy (August 1964), Famagusta (November 1965), Gecitkale-Bogazici (November 1967). Our mucahits (soldiers) did not let the enemy enter into the Turkish zone at the expense of their blood.”

P. 23, paragraph 1: “During the Peace Operation I and within the ceasefire period, the Greeks attacked all Turkish towns and villages. The Turkish settlement areas that were weak in defence resisted bravely. However, most of them were occupied by the enemy as they couldn’t get help. Greeks committed inhumane crimes in the places they occupied (e.g. Atlılar and Muratağa). After ceasefire peace talks started among Turkey, Greece and England upon a call from the United Nations. These talks, which were afterwards joined by Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots as well, were deadlocked because of the uncompromising Greek Cypriot-Greek attitude. ”

P. 23, paragraph 2 “Upon the deadlock of talks Turkey had to have the Peace Operation II in order to safeguard the Turkish Cypriots and the Turkish troops on the island. With the operation starting in the morning of 14th August, Famagusta was liberated on 15th and Lefke was liberated on 16th August. As a result liberated Turkish areas were founded in the east and west. The Turkish Cypriot community founded the Autonomous Turkish Cypriot Administration on 1st October 1974 and the Turkish Cypriot Federal State on 13th February 1975 within these boundaries. As a result, the unrest and Greek cruelty which had been going on since 1955 were replaced by peace and calmness thanks to the Peace Operation.”

P. 24, paragraph 2: “With the declaration of the TRNC, the Turkish Cypriot people, who have been fighting against all sorts of oppression and cruelty for years, founded their own State after hundreds of years, in which they will eternally live in freedom and independence.”

Historical Legitimisation of the Turkish and Turkish Cypriot Position in the Cyprus Cause:

P. 5, paragraph 1: Rights given to Greeks and the Greek Rebellion: “Ottoman administration gave wide rights to Christians on the island, particularly to Greek Cypriots. They reopened the closed Orthodox Church… Orthodox Greek Cypriots had been living in peace under the Ottoman rule for 250 years.”

P. 11, paragraph 1: The election organised by Greek Cypriots in 1950 “The decision was valueless… as the Turkish people didn’t participate in the election.”

P. 13, paragraph 2: “Under these conditions, Cypriot Turks formed a secret organisation, so as to protect themselves. The T.M.T. (Turkish Resistance Organisation), was founded. Its founding date is accepted to be 1st August 1958. This meant that the Turkish Cypriot Community will trust itself for safeguarding its life, property and honour, rather than the British Government.”

P. 14, article 9: “In case of not complying with the agreement (the Zurich and London agreements), these three countries will start talks with each other in order to comply with the provisions. Each Country that provided guarantees would have the right to move unilaterally so as to rebuild the damaged state of affairs, if they couldn’t move together or in agreement.”

P. 17, paragraph 1: “having the Turkish army on the island would be our greatest safety.”

P. 20, paragraph 2: “ As a result of inter-communal armed conflict that went on for 4 years, Greeks understood that they would not be able to overcome the resistance of Turks and that Turkey would support her consanguineously in Cyprus till the end… they participated in peace talks.”

P. 19, paragraph 2: “The 11 years, between December 1963- July 1974, can be referred to as the “dark years” of the Turkish Cypriots. Turkish Cypriots, wherever they lived on the island were scared of being killed, were having difficulties in finding food, medicine and fuel at times. They went through 11 terrible years of not being able to cultivate their land, obtain birth certificates for their newborn babies or travel as they wished. Some schools were without a teacher and some students didn’t have a school to attend to. Areas other than Nicosia could get neither newspapers nor letters.”

P. 20, paragraph 4: “5-partied talks went on until mid 1973 when they were over because of the uncompromising attitude of Makarios.”

P. 22, paragraph 1: E- Government Coup and the Peace Operation: “Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit proposed England to get into a joint struggle as stated in the agreement. England was not positive towards this and peaceful ways didn’t work out. Under these conditions, Turkey decided on unilateral intervention based on her right given by the agreements.”

P. 22, paragraph 2: “In the morning of 20th July 1974 Turkish forces landed on a beach 7 Kms away from Kyrenia, together with supporting sea and air forces.”

P. 23, paragraph 2: “Upon the deadlock of talks Turkey had to have the Peace Operation II in order to safeguard the Turkish Cypriots and the Turkish troops on the island. With the operation starting in the morning of 14th August, Famagusta was liberated on 15th and Lefke was liberated on 16th August. As a result liberated Turkish areas were founded in the east and west. The Turkish Cypriot community founded the Autonomous Turkish Cypriot Administration on 1st October 1974 and the Turkish Cypriot Federal State on 13th February 1975 within these boundaries. As a result, the unrest and Greek cruelty which had been going on since 1955 were replaced by peace and calmness thanks to the Peace Operation.”

P. 24, paragraph 2: “The Turkish Cypriot people, who have been fighting against all sorts of oppression and cruelty for years, founded their own State after hundreds of years, in which they will eternally live in freedom and independence.”

IV- Misinformation

This part encompasses contradictions, errors and variations in writing throughout the textbook.

IV-A- Contradictions and Errors

The typical contradiction and a considerable error that is seen in the entire book concerning the recent past is the concept of “Peace Operation” denying that in essence it was a military operation. Consequently, Turkey refused to allocate the constitutional order after the peace operation. Moreover, on page 21 the “the coup d'état” is described and then the “Peace Operation” without explaining the latter.

Likewise, the section portraying the neighbours of the TRNC can be mentioned as another error since there is no such internationally recognised country acknowledged by the International Community.

There are some other contradictory statements emphasizing the otherness between the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. That is the same case for the Ottomans and the British Empire as well. P. 1 & 8 “16th century is ottoman empire’s most powerful period. Countries surrounding the east Mediterranean sea and many islands in the Mediterranean were under ottoman rule during this period”. (p. 1) v. “In the 19th century, England was a big empire with many colonies all over the world (p. 8). The Ottoman administration represented justice and safety for all people. (p. 1) – The British were buying raw materials and selling them to the world markets as products P. 1 & 9: Joyfully they joined the Ottoman Empire – They bitterly watched the replacement of the Turkish flag with the British one. P. 12, paragraph 2: The first teachers from Turkey arrived in 1948 not in 1954-55. There is no consistency within the same paragraph. The relation between Greek Cypriots’ annex of the island to Greece and Turkey’s protection of the rights of the Turkish Community is wrong with regards to its meaning.

IV-B- Variations in Writing

In addition to the contradictions, some variations in writing are worth to be discussed. For example one could see the Turkish forces, Ottoman forces and Ottoman sovereignty in the same paragraph during the description of the Cyprus Conquest on page 3. In some pages, the words are not consistent: for example, Turkish Cypriots are referred to as “Turks”, “Cypriot Turks” or “the Turkish Community”. (See pages 9 and 11).

Similarly, there are some quite subjective writing variations such as “Under the Ottoman Empire, the Greek Cypriots lived in peace for 250 years”. (See p. 5). On the same page, Boyacioglu and Çil Osman rebellions were described. The contradiction is that although the “Greek Cypriots” used to live in peace under the Ottoman Empire, they rebelled against the Empire. However, the two rebellions were not Greek Cypriot rebellions but peasant strikes against the Ottoman administration on the island.

What do pictures say? A Brief Survey

The pictures in the book should not be seen just as simple pictures. Instead the real purpose of having these pictures in the book should be identified. We analysed the pictures to identify the purpose of these pictures and the effects of the pictures on children’s minds.

In the textbook, pictures are used to promote nationalism. Children are very sensitive and easy to be affected by the content studied in the textbooks. The “Social Sciences” textbook includes more than words and sentences, which promote nationalism, fear and hatred.

Visual images are very strong and every picture in the textbook carries messages. There are pictures showing soldiers, tanks, war monuments and graveyards in the textbook. The common messages in the pictures are We, “Turks” fought against them, “Greeks”, and we are good, they are bad. These visual images are much stronger than the words because a child absorbs these messages and these images create a great impact on the children’s’ minds. When discussing the history teaching of interethnic conflicts, there is a tendency to take into account only the written texts but pictures in the textbooks are also infused to children’s mind and immediately transformed into historical consciousness. The pictures are used to increase the ethnic awareness of being a Turkish and having a past where Greeks were always enemies of Turks.

The pictures bring the trauma of the wars from the past to today and create the fear of having a war again so nationalism consistently prevails in the children’s minds.

On the whole, it is essential to analyse the pictures as well because the pictures have a great impact on children’s minds.

Some examples from the textbook can be found below:

Cover Page:

The picture of Atatürk Statue οn the cover page indirectly manipulates readers (children) to the idea of being Turkish, because, especially in the Turkish Cypriot Community, Atatürk represents Turkish-ness and Turkish nationalism; so the very beginning of the book (indirectly) promotes nationalism.

Turkish National Anthem (İstiklâl Marşı):

Having the Turkish national anthem and Turkey and TRNC (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) flags, it is presented as natural to have the national anthem in each book, and it is natural to have Turkey and the TRNC’s flags together. Nationalist ideology is promoted, as it is a ‘unity among the whole nation’, so although it is not related directly to the textbook, Turkish Cypriot children learn that s/he is a Turk (being a Turkish Cypriot does not make any difference), so nationalism is promoted.

P.19: The picture of Şehitler Anıtı (Martyrs Statue) is used as a kind of supporting tool for the idea that Greek Cypriots were bad people and they killed us (Turkish Cypriots). The picture is also used to maintain the idea that we (Turkish Cypriots) were the victims of the Greek Cypriots’ attacks. In other words, it is a different version of the ‘victimised word’, because here, by using visual language, the message is the same as in the text: we were victims. In addition, the picture of the Martyrs Statue is not related to the topic. This picture is distractive rather than complimentary. Besides, this picture possesses psychologically and sociologically negative impact on an 11-year-old pupil. The aim of using this picture is more than its symbolic value. Conversely, it is used as a stimulator and it might have a strong stimulating impact on children. Showing children the Martyrs’ statue implicitly emphasises “Blood was shed for this land, a lot of people were killed for this cause and these shall not be forgotten”. Although hidden, this is the main objective. Besides negatively affecting children’s personality development, this photo also negatively influences the individual’s process of harmonisation with communal life.

P. 21: The picture is at the bottom of page 21. The above paragraph talks about the coup d’état of the Greek Junta in Cyprus.

Having this picture in this context tries to tell children how Turkey intervened in Cyprus. In the photograph soldiers seemed as they were not going to war. Thus, children get the idea that Turkish soldiers just came to Cyprus without causing any violence and saved the Turkish Cypriots; so nationalism is promoted on one hand by showing a picture about soldiers in an elementary textbook and, on the other hand, by promoting the idea of the “peace operation”. This picture affects negatively children’s psychological development. The guns of the soldiers in the picture are tools of aggression, and although it is emphasised that it can also be used for peace, the use of guns is not an act that should be conveyed as positive.

P. 22: Open Air Museum picture… In this picture, children can see the equipment used in 1974. Again, by showing something about war, children have learnt to ‘remember’ that day. One should note that we, Turkish Cypriots, have been taught that that was the day that we regained our freedom.

P. 23: Karaoglanoglu Martyr: Karaoglanoglu Martyr on page 23 is used as a continuous reinforcement of not letting children forget about the past. Losses and events of the past are repeatedly reminded and a psychological pressure is exerted on the children. It can be concluded that a perspective that may drive children to hostility is created. Besides, having Turkish and TRNC flags side-by-side, as in the picture, emphasises the motherland-infant land bridge.

B - Ancient And Modern History Of The Turkish Nation

I- The Original Homeland of the Turks

The second part of the Social Science book for the 5th grade primary school students refers to the pre-Islamic Turkic world, Turks and Islam, the Ottoman Empire, WWI and the formation of the Republic of Turkey, Atatürk and the topography of Turkey. However, the subject following the establishment of the TRNC is the history of the Turks before Islam and the motherland of the Turks. The first chapter of this section is called ‘Motherland of the Turks’. Besides chronological distortion, there is a Turko-centric approach. In this part, Central Asia is defined as the Motherland of the Turks (p. 40). The book contains much similar chauvinist terminology, e.g. Mother Land and Baby/Infant Land (Yavru Vatan).

There are also chauvinist and irredentist clauses, such as “Turks established their own states and bequeathed their culture and civilisation to the places where they migrated.” The Turks established strong states in the lands where they migrated and spread their culture and civilization. The Hun Empire is described as the first Empire established by the Turks (p. 42). Nevertheless, Huns are known as Mongols. Instead of describing the Huns as a Turkic tribe, there is an effort to depict them as the Turks and indicate that the roots of the Turks are in Central Asia. It is an element of the Turkish nationalist ideology to claim such an idea. Using the same assumption in the TRNC’s textbooks and teaching children that all Turks, including Turkish Cypriots, have their roots in Central Asia is not convenient.

This section also consolidates the idea of the ‘us and them’ division. For example, the Hun Empire was divided into two because of the Chinese provocations. Therefore, other nations and civilisations have always harmed us and they were always evil. Another example of distorted information can be given: “The Crusades began because of the fear for the Huns”. (p. 42). Material errors in terms of variation in writings can be found on pages 44 to 46, such as the Orhun Inscriptions, the Epitaphs, or the Göktürk Monuments. An extremely chauvinist text from Orhun Writings is on page 4 in translation. Besides, religion of the Turkish Shamanism is described only in three sentences in a very implicit way (p. 48).

II- Turks and the Islam

‘TÜRKLER VE İSLAMİYET’, ‘Turks and the Islam’ is the title of the second chapter of the book. In addition to having taken over from the Huns, the Karakhanid Dynasty ‘Karahanlılar’ is also mentioned as a Turkish Dynasty (p. 50). However, it was a Turkic Dynasty, not Turkish. In general, Turkic tribes in Central Asia are depicted as Turkish. Similarly, the Ghaznavids was an Islamic Dynasty of Turkic origin, not Turkish (p.51).

III- Turkish States After Islam

The next topic is ‘Turkish States After Islam’ (İSLAMİYET SONRASI TÜRK DEVLETLERİ). The first state given as an example here is the Seljuk State. Seljuk -Turkmen warriors formed the Turkish rule in Anatolia. It was the ruling military family of the Oguz (Ghuz), which was a Turkmen tribe. On page 51, prg.2, it is argued that the Turks living in Turkey and Cyprus today are descendants of the Oguz Turks, which is distorted information: “Today, it is believed that Turks living in Turkey and Cyprus come from Oguz Turks.”(The national community structure of Turkish Cypriots is constituted of several ethnic groups, such as Turks, Chechens, Bosnians, Greek Cypriots, Negros, Turkopols, Albanians, Maronites and gypsies, as it is sited from Has-Der’s ‘Halk Bilimi’ journal on p.51, prg.2). It is a denied that the Turkish Cypriot community is a mixture of different ethnicities.

Subsequently, throughout the pages 53 and 54 the Selcuklular, Alparslan and Malazgirt wars were explained in a very chauvinistic way: “When Tugrul Bey died, he was replaced by Alpaslan, one of the most famous commanders of the Turkish world. Alparslan was a brave and capable soldier, a valuable leader, whose greatest wish was to make Anatolia, which was under Byzantine rule at that time, Turkish.” This is a very expansionist and irredentist approach (p. 53, prg.2). It continues with the chauvinist clause “Anadolu Beyliks served to make Anatolia Turkish.” (p. 55).

IV- The Ottoman Empire

‘OSMANLI İMPARATORLUĞU’, the establishment of the Ottoman Empire and its growth are also referred to in a very arrogant and chauvinist way. “.... Fearing the development of Turks, Europeans led by the Pope, formed the Crusaders.” (p.57, prg..5). This sentence contains distorted information and an ethno-centric perspective. It also stresses the division between the Islamic and the Christian world and implies that all evil has come from the Christians. However, Crusaders were defeated. This is another chauvinist statement: “During Yıldırım’s Era once again we defeated the Crusaders and were relocated in Europe” (p. 57, prg. 8). Besides, there are also terminological errors: variation in writing the terms Ottomans and Turks throughout 56 and 57 are used interchangeably.

In this section, the defeats of the Ottomans are mentioned in a very imprecise and vague manner (pp. 58-62). On the contrary, the successes and victories are referred to with great pride and honour, while Christians depicted as the enemy of the Ottomans. It also includes exaggerations, such as: “Ottoman Empire possessed a very strong navy… Ottomans valued education and training immensely. Science and technology were also developed in parallel to education and training.” (p. 64). Irregular switch of topics can also be observed here; from the ‘Growth of the Ottoman Empire’ there is a shift to the ‘Reforms in Europe’. (p. 67). This part retains the distorted and biased information via claiming that the reforms and triumph of Europe downgraded the Ottomans: “Strengthening of Europeans reduced the successes of the Ottomans” (p. 69).

As a result of the French Revolution, ethnic groups in the Balkans rebelled against the Ottoman Empire (p. 71). This is a very general and underestimating approach. Because of the lack of progress in land reforms, there were regular riots and uprisings against the Ottoman administration in the Balkans. This is distorted information to present the riots in the Balkans as a consequence of the French revolution. On the same page there is another biased and dividing suggestion, that powerful European states abused the ‘Islahat Firman’ for their national interests and as an excuse to interfere with the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire. The Balkan Wars and the World War I are exposed subjectively, too. The Balkan states declared war against the Ottomans, because of the provocations of the Europeans (p.73). The reasons for the WWI outbreak are generalized and simplified: the assassination of the Archduke of the Austro-Hungarian Empire by a Serbian nationalist led to War (p.73, prg. 5). It is also mentioned that despite the fact that the Ottomans had an enormous success in Canakkale, they are regarded to have been defeated, due to the defeat of the Axis powers. This is just another chauvinist perspective of the ottomans as invincible.

V- Turkish War of Liberation

In the next section about the national liberation of Turkey, ‘KURTULUŞ SAVAŞI’, the Ottoman Sultan is described as a traitor and is constantly blamed (p. 74). On page 76, ‘Sakarya Victory’ is explained in a very chauvinist manner: “The Italians and the French could not cope with Anatolia and left”. There are also some sentimental phrases, like: “The İnönü War heartened the Turkish nation” (p. 76, prg. 1). This idea is maintained throughout the following paragraph, which refers to the superior resistance capacity of the Turkish army in a chauvinistic way as well. Throughout pages 76 and 77 the word ‘enemy’ is frequently used.

In addition, on page 79, prg. 2, the Greeks are humiliated by escaping to Izmir, but soon after the Turkish army reached Izmir (9th September 1922). This approach implies that the Greeks were cowards to fight against the Turkish army (9 September 1922)”.

VI- The Life of Atatürk

The Life of Atatürk in the subsequent section ‘ATATÜRKÜN HAYATI’ is structured with exaggeration and sentimental and chauvinist wording. His childhood, career and achievements are discussed. He is described as a supernatural, genius and sacred creature, not as a normal human being, citizen and a leader. A few examples are: “During the war of Liberation, Mustafa Kemal encountered many difficulties. They told him, “There is no army”, he replied, “It can be formed”. They said “There is no money”, he answered, “It can be found”. They said, “There are many enemies”, he said, “They can be defeated”. He did all he had promised, deriving his power from the great Turkish Nation.” (p. 83, prg.4)

Atatürk’s proverb “How happy is the one who says ‘I am Turkish’” is regarded as a realistic and unifying motto for the Turkish nation. It is, however, chauvinistic, ethnocentric and degrading for other nations (p.85, prg. 6).

Moreover, the Principles of Atatürk are imposed on the pupils as the most correct and appropriate code for the Turkish people, butthey are not presented as ideas open to alternative views or criticism. Republicanism, Nationalism Populism, Statism, Secularism, and Reformism have been all for the benefit of the Turkish nation. We should protect and honour all those principles. These ideas impose duties, values and ideas on the children.

These are some examples of such statements: “The Republican way of governing has provided the Turkish Public with many benefits. Most importantly, it gave people the right to govern themselves. This system brought democracy and safeguarded the rights and freedoms of the citizens. What we possess as a nation today is a gift from the Republic.” Today it is evident that Republic does not mean democracy. This is an example of nationalist propaganda - Kemalism - needless to mention that this nationalistic approach does not represent a democratic vision, but rather it tries to dominate on any other view. The definitions are not in line with multiculturalism. There is a one-sided approach here, which is also a nationalistic one. This approach is evident where Atatürk’s life is narrated, (p. 87, prg. 4). “Nationalism is loving the Nation, assuming the aim of uplifting it. Atatürk’s nationalism principle is the desire for people to perceive themselves as belonging to the same nation and to uplift that Nation. Nationalism is a conscience and an emotional issue, according to Atatürk. Everyone who considers himself/herself Turkish is Turkish, no matter what his or her religion and language is. Atatürk suggested this by saying, “How happy is the one who says ‘I am Turkish’. Every Turk is deeply attached to his or her Nation, loves it, works for it and is proud of it. Every Turk trusts his or her Nation.” There is nationalism here. (p. 88, prg. 1.)

VII- Motherland Turkey

Our motherland Turkey ‘ANAVATANIMIZ TURKIYE’ is a huge country. While explaining the economy and resources of Turkey, there is no mentioning of the unemployment, the inflation or the other economic difficulties it faces (pp. 92-106).

VIII- General Overview of the Turkic World

A General Insight to the Turkish World ‘TÜRK DÜNYASINA TOPLU BAKIŞ’: This section is about the Turkic states rather than the European ones, to which Turkey is closer and it has more commercial and diplomatic relations. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kirgizistan and Azerbaijan are defined as Turkish Republics, whereas they should be called Turkic Republics. This is misinformation. In addition, there are notions, such as sister Kazakhstan, sister Uzbekistan, as if a Turkish world in great solidarity can be depicted.

It is claimed that Kirgizistan is well developed in science, art and culture. This is exaggeration and misinformation. It is also claimed that these Republic’s follow Turkey’s example. (p. 111). Furthermore, the expression ‘our citizens’ is used when referring to places or countries where Turks live. Which is our country, Cyprus or Turkey? And who are our co-citizens? Contradictions!

IX- The neighbours of TRNC

In the section titled “The neighbours of the TRNC”, ‘KKTC’NİN KOMŞULARI’, South Cyprus appears as the first neighbour. This is a conceptualised error since the TRNC is not a recognised state in the international arena and the TRNC does not exist according to international law. How the Republic of Cyprus collapsed and the island ended up divided is explained in a short summary: “On 15th July 1974 Greeks had a coup against Makarios led by Nicos Sampson and supported by the Greek Junta, in order to realise “Enosis” as soon as possible. As a result, Turkey, using its right of guarantee had troops landing on the island on July 20th 2004, in order to bring peace. Consequently, peace was achieved on the island. After peace was achieved, Turks living in the south moved to the north and the Greeks living in the north moved to the south.Nevertheless, this paragraph does not mention that the aim of the Turkish Peace Operation was also the division of the island, (p.114, and prg. 4)

As it is known, the TRNC was established in the Northern part of the island: (p. 116, prg. 1). In the South of the island there is a Greek Cypriot Administration, (p.116, prg. 2). The division of the island is mentioned this way. The population of the southern part of Cyprus is given according to the 1990 census. It needs to be updated. Among the most important sources of income of the South, the breeding of pigs is also counted. This is a strange piece of information.

When it mentions Syria as the second neighbour of the TRNC, it is stated that the most peaceful period of the country were the 450 years it spent under the Ottoman Empire. Lebanon, Israel and Egypt are the other cited neighbours of the TRNC, but the only information about these countries available in the textbook is geographical. The last neighbour mentioned in the book is Greece. The first sentence about Greece points out that compared to the other neighbours, it is the most far away. Greeks won their independence with the help of England and Russia, who wanted to divide and share the Ottoman Empire. This is biased information. England tried to preserve the unity of the Ottoman territory. The idea that the others were always united against us and that they had bad intentions is also dominant here.

The independence of Greece is described as follows: “When the Byzantium Empire diminished with the conquering of Istanbul by Fatih in 1453, Greece went under the Ottoman rule and stayed under the Ottoman administration for 400 years. The Greeks gained their independence in the 19th century with the support of England and Russia, who wanted to divide and share the Ottoman Empire (1830)”, (p. 122, prg. 3). Instead of explaining the case as a national liberation movement from an external power, it is presented as a betrayal to the Ottomans.

X- The Major Countries of the World

The Major Countries of the World, ‘BAŞLICA DÜNYA ÜLKELERİ’, is the last section of the textbook. The order of the countries referred to is: the USA, England, Italy, China, Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, and Russia. This is done in a very disorganised and unsystematic way. The book does not take Europe as a separate category; instead it jumps form one continent to the other and returns to Europe. It also gives very limited information about the history of those countries but only focuses on the geography, the climate and the main resources of those countries. Besides that, there is some outdated information, e.g. using the terms Common Market instead of European Union or Bonn as the capital of Germany. There is a lot of geographical information on Russia and its main products, but nothing about the Soviet Union and Cold War period.

Overall, in the second part of the textbook there are lot of grammatical and spelling mistakes. The explanations are not scientific. No proper references are given, while numbers and facts are out of date. Instead of giving good examples and making the issues clear, the style encourages memorisation. It has a subjective approach. We are ‘the Turks’ and our enemies promote divisions. Turkic states are described as Turkish states and brothers of Turkey. The textbook is also designed in a way that does not distinguish the history of Turkey from north Cyprus. There is lack of separate histories, which creates confusion in the pupil’s minds.

In conclusion, the teaching approach and the methodology of the book is very biased, ethno-centric and divisionist. In other words, the students are taught that throughout history, Muslims, and particularly Turkish people, were always fair, innocent and right, while ‘the others’ were guilty, notorious and aggressive. Visual representations of the attacks can also be seen throughout the book. [9] Apparently, history books are written for the future. In fact, what is written is future, not the history. Therefore, this study has tried to demonstrate the material errors, contextualization and prejudices, ethnocentric approach and legitimisation of the Turkish Cypriot official position, misinformation as well as the way Turkey and Turkic history is presented to contribute to a less biased and more reconciliatory history education.

PART II: Textbooks other than the 5th Grade Social Science Book involving nationalism and Current Practices

The education system is on the right track for some countries, such as France and Germany which have been enemies for a long time, and where they are in the process of writing common history books. In the countries, where education is not an imminent issue, a “nationalist” notion still prevails. The approach of “national culture”, “national values’, which negatively affects human development and degrades other cultures while upgrading their own culture, is confusing the elementary school students. The situation in north Cyprus is even more delicate due to political reasons. This is mainly due to the fact that the education system in north Cyprus is completely parallel with the one in Turkey.Unfortunately all the books in our country are the books that are published and taught in Turkey. None of the books or educational tools can be used or changed without the permission of the Turkish Ministry of Education. Books used in north Cyprus’s education curriculum are also approved by Turkey’s ministry of Education. Thus students learn more about Turkey than their own country. The fifth section of the Administration of Primary Schools of the Turkish Ministry of Education outlines the goals of the primary education: Use of the rights that are in line with the Atatürk principles and revolutions, recognition of the national cultural values, help in understanding and spreading the national culture. Additionally, it is a legal responsibility to teach students to be good people with personal qualities, love for the nation and share Atatürk’s way of thinking. We face this reality all the time. For example, during the 2003-2004 semester Ilkay Kamil, the Minister of Education at the time, sent a message congratulating the teachers on November 24th, World Teachers’ Day, and he mentioned that “Mustafa Kemal emphasized, “I am my nation’s teacher”. As teachers you should also say “I am Mustafa Kemal, Mustafa Kemal cannot be depleted” and follow his path”. He encouraged teachers: “Turkish Cypriots have come through the hard days and have their own republic because there are young people, who are brought up on Atatürk’s principles and love for the nation, their country and independence.”

“Today the future of our government and nation lies in the hands of the teachers. You should teach our kids to love Atatürk. You should teach them to accept his revolutions and embrace and prolong his political principles. By reminding them the basic principles that Atatürk targeted, you should explain them that they should work together and in unity towards national sovereignty, national independence and peace in the nation and in the world under the guidance of science.”

Based on this explanation, a 5th-year student has to have thorough knowledge about Atatürk. This is strengthened with extra materials. An Atatürk portrait, a Turkish flag, a TRNC flag, the Istiklal Marsi and Atatürk’s Speech for Youngsters has to be placed in every class. There also has to be an Atatürk corner in every class. In the halls, there has to be portraits of important people who are Turkish and Turkish Cypriot, along with signs and maps belonging to Turkish history and culture.

National Culture

The main purpose of the elementary school curriculum is to impose national culture. Thus, the Turkish Ministry of Education explains that primary school is a national institution and mostly talked-about “national culture” has to be imposed since:

“Primary school is a national education institution. Our children are part of our national identity, and regardless of their future professions, it is necessary to bring them up as Turkish citizens who will achieve national duties.”

The primary school has to impose national culture to the children. The most important mission of primary schools is to teach all citizens all the necessary information, habits, interests and passion for service in order to provide them with the same national ambitions and national goals. The nation expects citizens to learn everything deemed necessary for their lives and future mainly from the elementary schools.”

After this explanation, teachers are informed about what methods and procedures should be used. Based on this, each class should be viewed as “a way to reach national goals”. This is explained as follows:

b- “Every class in the school should be viewed as a tool to reach national goals. The point that the teachers should be careful about is to emphasize the information about the Turkish nation, Turkish land and national issues, to help students reach this information, kindle their interest to expand their knowledge and thus impose love, attachment and service for the nation and land to students, when teaching Social Sciences, Turkish, Science, Art-Handicraft, Physical Education, Music and Natural Sciences classes. They should also raise students’ interest and sensitivity for national matters.

All these goals have been the general principle of the TRNC Educational Authorities and they will be in the future. The national approach in the administration of the Turkish Primary Education is also reflected here. Thus, being a Turk and having a strong national identity are issues imposed on Turkish Cypriot children, who have a duty to spread the Turkish mentality.

For example, on special days and weeks, there are activities that the students should participate in and places to visit. The main activities are April 23rd National Sovereignty and Children’s Day Celebrations, October 29th Republic Day Celebrations, November 15th Establishment of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Celebrations and December 21st Day of Remembrance for Martyrs of National Struggle and the Day of Massacre for Turkish Cypriots.

According to the information given to the teachers, every year some children chosen alphabetically from each school go to the military officials and during these trips, a teacher accompanies the children to Nicosia during the visits.

On April 23rd National Sovereignty and Children’s Day, children should think about “the meaning and importance of this day, protecting, surviving and strengthening the young Republic in relation to the Turkish Cypriot nation’s existence and independence struggle.” [10]. In this regard, messages are sent to all primary schools to encourage the teachers to prepare material “to explain Atatürk’s life and services.” There are official programs such as placing wreaths on the monuments, paying respect to Atatürk and the holy martyrs and taking oaths[11] during the Children’s Day celebrations. In some instances, there is also a reward ceremony for a Poem-Writing Competition by the Security Forces Headquarters.

The day before the celebration, students go on official visits. Among these visits are the visits to the Motherland Ambassador, the Commander of the Security Forces, the Commander of the Foot Soldiers in the Security Forces and the Commander of the Troops.[12]

On December 21st Remembrance of Martyrs Week, student groups are chosen alphabetically within primary schools. These groups participate in protocol and celebration activities. These activities include placing wreaths in martyr cemeteries, praying and visiting martyr cemeteries.

This mentality is present in all fifth-year books, especially in Social Sciences and Turkish curriculum. In subjects such as religion and mathematics, it is important not only to educate the students, but also to teach them how nice of a person Atatürk was, how he respected religion and valued science.

Social Sciences

The Social Sciences book, as mentioned in the first part of the report, is not written in a subjective way. More than half the book is dedicated to Turkey and the Turkic world. Based on the Turkish National Education Law, teachers should teach how the Turkish nation has enriched culture in the world for centuries, how it has made the nations under its control happier and more comfortable, how it has transmitted thought and its high standards of living to other nations. Thus, teachers should teach how the Turkish nation has advanced and increased its power and credit among other nations. [13]

Based on this principle, Section 4 of the TRNC National Education Law has proposed that “…the notion of nation, its characteristics, noble past and wars should help students build such a character that would enable them to do anything to reach the Turkish ideal”.[14]. National institutions should be taught in the Social Sciences classes of fifth-year students in primary schools of the Republic of Turkey, so that students can feel close to and respect these institutions and realise the sad situation in nations without these institutions.[15] Similarly, section 5 of the TRNC’s National Education Program explains that students should be informed about “obeying the law and the government and the way governmental relations function between the TRNC and the Republic of Turkey”. Thus students can learn about “their nation and motherland.”[16]

Turkish

Based on the Turkish National Education System,

“Turkish classes should serve the purpose of leading the students to think about nationalistic topics, get excited about nationalism and expand their views, perceptions and feelings by making them read materials about important people, historic figures and various aspects of the national life. On one hand, they should be encouraged to write about national matters based on how they view, think and hear about them, so that these matters are kept fresh in their minds. On the other hand, students should also understand the meaning of the Turkish language revolution.”

Based on the same reasoning, the main purpose of Turkish classes in the northern part of Cyprus is to make students love the Turkish land and culture by familiarising themselves with Turkish and world cultural pieces[17]. This approach can make the individuals go through an identity crisis as early as the primary school years. These goals make the Turkish Cypriots feel like being a part of the Turkish nation and “national conscience” is imposed on their young minds. This is obvious in the explanation section of the same source:

“To pass our national culture on to new generations and to connect different generations through common national culture are among the main missions of our primary education. In the schools, these missions are best achieved during the Turkish classes. This is due to the fact that Turkish works of art are most vivid, inspiring national conscience… …”[18]

Parts of the Turkish classes that contain poetry and essay-writing are also nationalistic. Questions such as “Why do we celebrate the Struggle and the Martyrs’ Week?” “Why is the 1963-1974 period our dark years?” “What do we do as children for our Republic, the TRNC?” are themes for essays on special days such as the Martyrs’ Week, the TRNC’s Establishment Day.[19]

During the December 21st Remembrance Week for the Martyrs, some of the topics of the poems contribute to animosity. In 2003, the poem list containing words of hatred was distributed to primary schools during the Struggle and Remembrance of Martyrs’ Week.

A part of the poem named “From where to where?” is as follows:

***

Neither the exploding bombs nor the captured roads

Neither Megali Idea nor EOKA’s ambition of “First the British people then the Turks”

Pleased him

Then, January 27-28th, 1958

The sky was not enough for the cry of the hearts. It was not fear

We were praised by death[20]

***

Welcome Mehmetcik (soldier coming from Turkey)

Welcome!

Since you have landed on Cypriot land

There is no more fear for our young nation

So now in Cyprus

In the strong hands of brave soldiers

There lays a flag moving independently.[21]

***

Nine prisoners of war were tied to a tractor

And a gloomy journey began

In the streets of the village

By hitting the stones

Behind a tractor

Nine people were tied;

Filthy pigs

Have dragged them with laughter

Nine innocent people

Up until the Turkish cemetery.[22]

***

Now we are as strong and independent as the tough wind

The sunrise from the north on July 20th!

Today you are on the fresh horizon of Turkish Cyprus!

You are on the border from Lefke to Famagusta!

This island together with its mountains and stones are Turkish

Epic for my history, fame for my nation.

The poem recited during the Martyrs’ Week named “The voice of Martyrs” is also interesting:

We learned from ancestors, grandfathers that

Our flag is our honour

For the flag to be independent

We fought with the enemy

***

We experienced it during our glorious history

We know that the land is holy

We died for it

So the enemy does not capture it.

(E. Bayraktar)

Art

In the Art-Handicraft programme of the Turkish curriculum, it is mentioned that there has to be “information about Atatürk’s personal values, various characteristics and Atatürk’s way of thinking” in every class.[23] Apart from these topics, pictures related to 1974’s “Happy Peace Movement”, pictures requested to be made by the students during the martyr week are also among the goals of the primary education programme in north Cyprus. This way, students begin to realize the difference between the “hero” Turk and the “enemy” Greek Cypriot. In a meeting between primary school teachers, the making of pictures is assigned in order to kindle interest and understand the highness of the Turkish army with symbols, such as parachutes. The students are also asked to produce pictures about the establishment of the TRNC.[24]For example, on the day of the establishment of the TRNC (15th November), children are usually draw the TRNC flag, or the Cyprus map which indicates the TRNC, and in these paintings, the yellow part is usually the north while the green part of the Cyprus map is the South.[25]

All these approaches can be traced back to ethnocentrism. The good guys and the bad guys in the social sciences classes, and the themes of the poems and reports about racism are also based on ethnocentrism.

Ethnocentrism exists in the education system of the northern part of Cyprus as it exists in many other communities, where ethnicity, inter-ethnic relations, and similar social issues are of concern. The usual definition of the term ethnocentrism is "thinking one's own group's ways are superior to others" or "judging other groups as inferior to one's own." There are many examples in the books, which promote these ideas.[26]

Based on this issue, we should be careful, especially with the students’ books of the fifth year used or high-school entrance exams. For example, on page 593, it says; “Turkey is our country. We are the Turkish nation. We have common culture, history, religion and traditions. These elite values make us the Turkish nation.” Here, the belief that the Turkish Nationality is superior to others is explicit. These messages force children to be more ethnocentric. Therefore, in some cases people do not even realize that they are being ethnocentric, because they have been taught that what they believe is true and so this is natural to them. The education in elementary schools can address the underlying issue of why people do this. Most people, thinking of the shallow definition, believe that they are not ethnocentric, but are rather "open minded" and "tolerant." However, as explained above, many people are ethnocentric, and there is no way not to be ethnocentric if you have been taught to think this way in schools. As a child, you cannot avoid this.

Moreover, teachings in elementary schools force children to make false assumptions. The Religion and Moral Studies Section of the same book says the following: “To love our nation, to protect our nation and to fight for it when necessary is both our religious and national responsibility.No richness nor worship is as valuable as fighting for the country in Islam.”[27] In this example, we see that religion is also imposed on children.

Children in the fifth grade of the elementary school start to conceptualise notions of what is considered to be true and morally correct, and what constitutes knowledge or even reality in itself.

Because of ethnocentrism the idea of division increases and the integration between communities becomes more difficult. People start to feel that their culture, religion, race or nation is superior, and therefore judge others from their own frame of reference.

The resources provided to the 5th grade students in elementary schools manifest the attitudes of superiority or sometimes hostility. Violence, discrimination, proselytising, and verbal aggressiveness are other means through which ethnocentrism may be expressed. Therefore, finding a common way of living for communities becomes more difficult. On the whole, ethnocentrism in the books and teaching methods is used to influence the political and social relations in Cyprus. Therefore, Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots must revise ethnocentric school history teaching and they must avoid the production of stereotypes and identify the attitudes that encourage conflict. Then they must suggest alternative teaching methods and they must promote the idea of multiple interpretations of one event.

It is also worth mentioning that based on comprehensive research; primary school teachers do not act along these extreme examples nowadays. There were many meetings on this subject with the teachers in Nicosia, Famagusta, Kyrenia, Morphou and Karpas along with the near-by villages to get more reliable information. As a result of these meetings, teachers in primary schools do not act the way the system expects them to, since they are independent: Regarding the Martyrs’ Week, one of the teachers said that in the past, a poetry-reading competition was carried out and usually the winners of the competition were the children who read poems about bloodshed and hatred. Concerning the poetry competitions, a teacher from Martyr Mustafa Kurtulus Primary School said that the winning poem was usually the one referring to bloodshed. However, in reality there is no such fanaticism in teaching. For instance a teacher from Alasya Primary School said, [they] tried to avoid selecting a poem that included words about bloodshed and hatred because [they] know that that will influence children in a negative way”.[28] Again, according to the teacher from Alasya Primary School, they do not post the posters that have been sent from the Public Information Office (PIO) for the past 3-4 years. Furthermore, each year during the Martyrs’ Week period, there was a corner about the Martyrs’ Week, but this is no longer available in most primary schools.

According to a teacher from Martyr Zeki Salih Primary School, during the 21st December week, they used to have ceremonies everyday but they have not done so for the last three years. Similarly, a teacher from Dipkarpaz/Sipahi/Erenkoy Primary Schools said that they never used to post the posters that sent by the PIO because they thought they were not good for children due to their violent images. Another teacher from the Canbulat Primary School said “the opening of the borders had some positive results for the students because some of his students who went to the south said that Greeks/Greek Cypriots did not kill the Turkish Cypriots. While the teacher was talking about his school, he also mentioned that [he] had never given a poem that had bloodshed and hatred to his students to read”.

In brief, all teachers agreed on the point that although the book promotes nationalism and hatred, because of the teachers attitudes in reality children are not taught to fear, distrust and hate the Greeks/Greek Cypriots as much as expected. The main reason for that is that north Cyprus’ education system allows the teacher some autonomy. So, at the end of the day, a teacher’s is in his or her hand, and Turkish Cypriot teachers are not usually nationalists. However, this does not mean that there are no nationalist teachers at all.

To sum up, the greatest problem the students face in Cyprus is the fact that they are educated on issues not related to their nation. Especially younger children will be able to understand better when they will be able to relate to the information through examples from within their own environment. The main goal of the Primary Education curriculum is to “impose national culture”. Since every region has a different national culture, it is hard to create a common national culture. This situation causes problems with the educators and students. Specifically the national culture in Turkey is different than the national culture in Cyprus. Thus, students in Cyprus are forced to adopt the national culture of Turkey. As a result, students might experience an identity crisis. They cannot differentiate as to where they belong. On one hand, they are isolated as Turkish Cypriots; on the other hand they are forced to adopt the “national culture” of Turkey. In this chaotic situation, children cannot have a healthy “national consciousness”. As a result, there is a need for a curriculum that will save the children from identity crisis, make them feel part of this education system and make them complete individuals.

On the whole, children have been taught about “the never ending hostility and conflict between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots (or Turks and Greeks)” for many years. The idea of violent conflict threatens to destabilize children’s minds, erode their sense of security and undermine their capacity, and children cannot contribute to peace actively and freely. The lessons and school activities only promote revenge, hostility and division. Instead, children should be taught the importance of tolerance, respect and peace, and respond to the conflict without perpetuating cycles of revenge, hostility, and division. In brief, the war finished decades ago and now it is time to finish the war in children’s minds.

APPENDIX I

Sociological Point of View

The scope of the sociological perspective is wide enough to include everyday human contacts as well as worldwide national processes. Understanding that fine, but complicated line that reflects our individual and social lives is the cornerstone of the sociological perspective.

In a sociological evaluation, the most important point is to have an objective view. Objective information, as in all the other sciences, is also very important in sociology. Each individual has a different perspective thus evaluates information differently. The different perspectives can sometimes be interpreted wrongly and lead to wrong understanding. So an objective view is necessary and we need to keep away from subjectivity. When preparing educational books, the information should be conveyed directly to the readers without subjective comments, distorted information and indirect explanations.

The reader should get the information directly without any misguidance and be able to comment on his/her own without pressure. If the readers are below fifteen, where they are not psychologically and sociologically fully developed, extra care should be taken. Someone, who is under fifteen and underdeveloped psychologically and sociologically, accepts all the information easily and can be affected negatively from violent events. Individuals should not be provided with one-sided information and should avoid prejudice. Nationalist and chauvinist expressions should be avoided, and simple language should be used without causing division and racism.

There are disputes between different cultural and race groups in various parts of the world, some of which have high levels of hatred and are brutal. Besides, almost of civilizations are ethnocentric to a certain degree, and ethnocentricity can easily be linked to cliché way of thinking.

The outsiders are considered to be foreigners, cannibals or morally and mentally underprivileged. Education plays an important role to get rid of this mentality and bring up healthy generations. Our education system and nation should uplift us as humans and as independent individuals. How the nation guides us and how we evolve is intertwined. We are born within our nation since day one. We grow up in the way that the nation and culture guide us. A child, who is raised with wrong attitudes and bad education, cannot have a sound future.

The human being is a psychosocial creature, as known, and the human being should have relations with other individuals to a certain degree in order to survive. He/she needs a family to provide for biological and psychological needs, a job or career for economic needs and as an individual within a nation, neighbours for social needs. Serious problems within these relationships can affect one’s psychological situation negatively and cause depression.

As a result, family, nation and the education system should come together to make the individuals the best, most humanitarian and well-educated people, when they are growing up. This is possible if the family structure is humanitarian, the nation is not racist and the education system is modern and not one-sided.

APPENDIX II

The Importance of the Other in Nationalism: An Example of the 5th Grade Social Science Book in northern Cyprus – A Levinasian Perspective

Introduction

A short survey about nationalism shows that nationalism depends the binary opposition us and the other. In other words, nationalist discourse always sees the other as an enemy or a threat. Homi Bhabha’s “The Location of Culture” is a good example of how the other is seen in postcolonial studies. As he argues, in postcolonial studies there is the coloniser who sees native people (colonised) as ‘inferior’ others, whereas the coloniser is the civilised and the smart one.

However, the other is not seen as something negative only in postcolonial theory. In the discourse of nationalism, the other is always seen as somebody who threatens us. Here the other can be anybody that is not us but this leads one to think what is the definition of we?

Giving an example from the field of psychoanalysis, Jacques Lacan, argues that “The Other represents “other people”, other subjects whom the individual encounters in social life… it also stands for language and the conventions of social life organized under the category of law”.[29] The reason why psychoanalysis is used here is the fact that there are many similarities between personal identity and national identity. However, it is not the aim of this report to show the similarities between them. The main aim of this report is to demonstrate the importance of the other because in nationalist discourse ‘the otherness of the other is denied’.[30]

This paper, then, is an attempt to give a voice to the Other, using Emmanuel Levinas’s theory,[31] because “The Other is… the weak, the poor, ‘the widow and the orphan’, whereas I am the rich or the powerful” (Levinas 1997, 83, emphases in the original). Using Levinas’s theory, one can argue that in nationalist discourse, it can easily be seen that “our nation” ‘is the rich or the powerful whereas the other is the weak, the poor, the widow and the orphan’. Considering these, how is the other portrayed in the 5th grade social science book? Does the book have a notion of ‘ethical responsibility’ towards the other? Or is the book just representing/reflecting the official narrative in the north? If so, is it possible to see the other in a different way?

The Social Science Book and Its Relation to the Other

The very beginning of the book creates a binary opposition by using us, the Ottomans or Muslims, and them, Venetians or Christians. The book begins by explaining the reasons why the Ottomans came to Cyprus. ‘From the very beginning till the end of the first section’[32] the book makes clear that there is the other, who always did bad things to us although we did not do anything wrong. For example, after the Ottomans conquered Cyprus, Haçlılar[33] established an army against the Ottomans to get revenge for their defeat. In the textbook, one can see that the others are seen as a unity. The notion of seeing the Other(s) as a unity is one of the characteristics of nationalism. In terms of Levinas’s theory, this can be expressed as the idea of ‘hegemonic unity’ because, according to this idea, ‘we belong to the same nation, so we are same’; however, they are also the same because they are our enemies. In Levinasian terms, this can be defined as totality. As Anthony Beavers entails,

I have closed off contact with the real person; I have cut off the connection with the other that is necessary if ethics is to refer to real other people. This is a central violence to the other that denies the other his/her own autonomy. Levinas calls this violence “totalization” and it occurs whenever I limit the other to set of rational categories, be they racial, sexual, or otherwise. Indeed, it occurs whenever I already know what the other is about before the other has spoken. Totalization is a denial of the other’s difference, the denial of the otherness of the other. That is, it is the inscription of the other in the same.[34]

Levinas’s definition of totality and totalisation fit very well to nationalism because a limited research in the social science book reveals how the Otherness of the Other is denied.[35] Another example can be given from the social science book is the section entitled “Rumlara Tanınan Haklar ve Rum İsyanı” (Rights that were given to the Greeks and the Greek Rebels). Here, once again, all Greeks[36] are seen as Same.

Nonetheless, Same is another significant word in Levinas’s philosophy. As Colin Davis alleges, “The general terms Same and Other (l’Autre) are given more concrete reference by their modification of the I (Moi) and the Other (Autrui)” (Davis 1996, 36). For Levinas, Western philosophy subscribes to totality and it is connected with nationalism. As Levinas claims, “Western philosophy has most often been an ontology: a reduction of the other[37] to the same by interposition of a middle and neutral term that ensures the comprehension of being” (Levinas 2000, 43, emphases added). In other words, Levinas’s expression of ‘Western philosophy is a reduction of the Other to the Same’ means, ‘Western philosophy is a reduction of the Other to the I’.

One can ask, then, what is the relationship between Levinas’s view on Western philosophy and nationalism. Or, in a broader context, one may ask, ‘what is the relationship of Levinas’s ideas on Western philosophy and the 5th Grade social science book in north Cyprus?’ The answer to these questions lays in the fact that Levinas’s thoughts can be adapted easily because there are many similarities between nationalism and Levinas’s views. In brief, one can argue that the 5th grade social science book does not viewsee other(s) as human. Instead, the book has the approach that the others (especially Greeks and Greek Cypriots) are bad people and they deceive ‘us’ all the time, so we cannot trust them because they killed us and they still have this tendency.

In Levinasian terms, 5th grade social science book can be defined as totality. As Davis asserts,

The totality of Being flawless and all-encompassing; because it incorporates alterity within the empire of sameness, the Other is only other in a restricted sense. Totality has no outside, the subject receives nothing, learns nothing that it does not or cannot possess or know (1996, 40, emphases added).

Davis’s writings show how the philosophy of the social science book is constructed through narrative.[38]

Writing National History?[39]

Although each national history differs from Other nations’ histories, there are similarities between them.[40] As Loring M. Danforth mentions, “National movements are… twofold in nature. First they define and reject a national other, then they define and create the national self”. (Quoted from Dimitras 2000, 41) In other words, in order to ‘create the national self’; one nation needs national myths (Kızılyürek, Millas 1994). As Monika Flacke asserts, “History Textbooks and Nationalism”, “Cults of history and myths are the essential part of the national memory as the ideological system of the nation” (Kızılyürek, 69). These ‘national myths’ are created through a selective process (Canefe, Kızılyürek, Smith 1993, Millas 1994). In other words, in order to ‘create’ these ‘national myths’, each nation should remember some events and at the same time forget the others.[41] To put it differently, nationalist movements are twofold because by rejecting the Other nation(s), one nation ‘creates’ a binary opposition which helps it establish diversity. Only by doing this, one nation can define itself (Karahasan 2003). Because when a “nation rejects the Other, the idea of “we” comes into being, followed by the idea of ‘the national self’, which, one may say, is national consciousness” (Karahasan 2003, 52).[42]

Writing history (or social science book here) has significance here because, when the national history is ‘created’ it uses a narrative that is based on the myths of the nation (i.e., Turkish nation) and hatred towards the Other (Kızılyürek, Smith 1993, Millas 1994, Karahasan 2003). As Kızılyürek mentions, “The ultimate goal of such [national] historiography is not an accurate account of the history but an effective and efficient contribution to national goals and unity” (Kızılyürek, 69). In other words, as Kızılyürek alleges, the main idea behind the national history (or historiography in his terms) is not writing ‘an accurate history’ but maintaining the status quo.

Conclusion, or The Need for a “New Perspective”: A Proposal

This essay briefly talked about nationalism and its relation with the Other by using Levinas. As it can be seen, in nationalism the other is either ignored or seen as a threat (Bhabha 1994, Kızılyürek 1993, Kızılyürek 2003, Smith 1993, Millas 1994, Karahasan 2003). In the 5th grade social science book, the other is usually seen as a threat.[43] What the book does not have is what Levinas calls ‘ethical responsibility’. According to Levinas, “Positively, we will say that since the other looks at me, I am responsible for him, without even having taken on responsibilities in this regard; his responsibility is incumbent on me” (Levinas 1999, 96, emphases in the original). In other words, for Levinas, I am responsible for the Other. For him,

Responsibility is what is incumbent on me exclusively and what, humanly, I cannot refuse… In fact, it is a matter of saying the very identity of the human I am starting from responsibility, that is, starting from this position or deposition which is precisely its responsibility for the Other (Levinas 1999, 100-101).

As it can be seen, the very notion of Levinas “responsibility” is based on the idea of ‘responsibility for the Other’ because

Being-for-the-Other must not suggest any finality and not imply the antecedent positing or valorisation of any value. To be for the Other is to be good. The concept of the Other has, to be sure, no new content with respect to the concept of the I: but being-for-the-Other is not a relation between concepts whose comprehension would coincide, or the conception of a concept by an I. but my goodness. The fact that in existing for another, I exist otherwise than in existing for me is morality itself (Levinas 2000, 261).

As Levinas argues, being for the other is possible only through responsibility (Karahasan 2003). One can say, there is a need for responsibility towards the Other in Cyprus. In the 5th grade social science book, what might be an alternative is that, instead of demonising the other, it would be possible to talk about the events without excluding the other. In other words, the other could be seen as human because only that is a possible way for the image of the other to change. The book does not talk about the other as a threat, but human. However, this does not mean that certain events should be ignored in the book. Instead, the events that happened in the past could be seen as a lesson learnt and used for a better future. However, while the events that happened in the past are narrated, it should be reminded to the children that both sides have done bad things because the situation during that time was different, and now we are in a different time. Both sides could re-write their history books with an attempt to ask forgiveness from each other.[44] Asking for forgiveness could be the first step. If both sides could talk using the same “language”, then reconciliation could begin according to Derrida. Hopefully, after this is achieved both sides could sit down and write a common history book. A history book that does not contain ‘national myths’ and presents history as responsible for the Other. In other words, the history books could be-for-the-Other first…

Bibliography*

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and the Spread of Nationalism. London and New York: Verso, Rev. 2nd version, 1991.

Beavers, Anthony. “Introducing Levinas to Undergraduate Philosophers”. http://cedar.evansville.edu/~tb2/trip/levinas_intro.htm Retrieved from the World Wide Web, 8/9/2002. Essay can be found online now at: http://faculty.evansville.edu/tb2/trip/levinas_intro.htm (Last time accessed: 10/9/2004)

Bhabha, Homi. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 1994.

Canefe, Nergis. “Communal Memory and Turkish Cypriot National History: Missing Links”. http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/canefe/%20-%20TC%20.htm (accessed 10/10/2003).

Davis, Colin. Levinas: An Introduction. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1996.

Derrida, Jacques. “On Forgiveness”. In On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness. London and New York: Routledge, 2001.

Dimitras, Panayote Elias. “Writing and Rewriting History in the Context of Balkan Nationalisms”. Southeast European Politics. October 2000, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.41-59.

Karahasan, Hakan. A Levinasian Reading of Cypriot Poetry: Nationalism as Other, and Its Role in Selected Works of Mehmet Yaşın, Neşe Yaşın, and Faize Özdemirciler. Gazimağusa: Unpublished Master of Arts thesis in English Studies, 2003.

Kızılyürek, Niyazi. “History Textbooks and Nationalism”. Journal name, publisher, when?

Kızılyürek, Niyazi. Milliyetçilik Kıskacında Kıbrıs. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2003.

Kızılyürek, Niyazi. Ulus Ötesi Kıbrıs (find the Greek name). Lefkoşa: Kasullidis Ltd, 1993.

Levinas, Emmanuel. Time and the Other. Trans. Richard A. Cohen. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1987.

Levinas, Emmanuel. Ethics and Infinity. Trans. Richard A. Cohen. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1999.

Levinas, Emmanuel. Totality and Infinity. Trans. Alphonso Lingis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 2000.

Levinas, Emmanuel. Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence. Trans. Alphonso Lingis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 2000

Millas, Herkül. Yunan Ulusunun Doğuşu. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1994

Papadakis, Yiannis. Perceptions of History and Collective Identity: A Comparison of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot Perspectives. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1993. His chapter “The Politics of Memory and Forgetting” can be reached online at http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/papadakis.diss.html.

Smith, Anthony. National Identity. Nevada: University of Nevada Press, 1993.

APPENDIX III

Education for Peace: The Case of Bosnia and Herzegovina

At the moment, education is a key priority for the international community in terms of reconciliation, building up and reinforcing peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is coordinating the development of the international community’s education strategy. However, the educational reform was not a priority for the international community in the years immediately following the signing of the Dayton Peace Agreement. In the early years after Dayton, the primary focuses of peace building were reconstruction, separation of warring sides, elections and the return of refugees. Although briefly mentioned in Annex Six, the international community’s peace building mandate through the implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement did not give a top priority to education. Thus, no international or domestic organization was given a clear mandate to ensure educational reforms.

The only remark of Dayton Agreement on education was that education would be decentralized and thereby become the responsibility of the local cantons and the entities within which the cantons found themselves. This meant that in each entity children would continue to be taught that their loyalties should be to their ethnic group rather than to the federation that presumably represents all groups. Thus, from the Dayton Agreement onwards the three ethnic groups essentially taught their students different things in terms of the meaning of the country. Although there have been some NGO (nongovernmental organization) efforts from NGOs to develop a common curriculum for the three ethnic groups, the civics, history, and related materials of the Croatian entity were dominated by the curriculum of Croatia, and the curriculum in the Republika Srpska (Republic of Serbia and Montenegro) was dominated by the curriculum of Serbia and Montenegro. The federation curriculum was used primarily by the Muslims and largely ignored by the other two ethnic groups.

However, what Bosnia and Herzegovina needs is a state that all citizens and ethnic groups will experience as their own. Instead, a resurrection of nationhood and of new identities based on ethnic labels is appearing in what can be called ethnic nationalism.[45] The stipulation in the Dayton Agreement that education would be the responsibility of each ethnic group was a mistake that have been felt for years to come as Bosnia and Herzegovina attempts to build a country out of chaos. Consequently, the actors of the international community who have recently engaged in peace building in Bosnia and Herzegovina acknowledged the failure of both the international community and local authorities to respond to the educational issues soon enough.[46]

The debate on educational reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina came to the agenda when the international community was increasingly frustrated with the pace of change in Bosnia. As a result, the donors’ interest shifted to other trouble spots across the world. Besides, Bosnia and Herzegovina local politicians continued to fail in creating and consolidating a vision of state based on multi-ethnicity, equality and power sharing. Instead they have promoted ethnic divisions, fear and distrust to sustain their power. At this point, educational reforms appeared as a prerequisite in the short and long term to create a new generation of citizens for a self-sustainable and democratic Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Principal Deputy High Representative of OHR Donald Hays in a conference on educational reforms admits that ‘We are late in tackling this issue, one that should have been viewed as a core issue for Bosnia and Herzegovina post-war recovery and an issue that will definitely influence the success or failure of all our efforts to create a free, democratic and stable BiH.[47] Conflict resolution, human rights and democratization experts have a consensus on the central role that education can play on promoting these processes.

Education no doubt plays a vital role in the development of a person’s identity. Besides family, education is one of the most important agencies for cultural reproduction, socialization and identity formation.[48] However, in ethnically divided societies particularly where conflict lasts for generations, children have been taught to fear, distrust and hate “the enemy”. Social mechanisms particularly schools play a key role indicating “the enemy” or building prejudices.

Common in many post conflict societies as in Cyprus, education is obviously used as a tool to promote the conflict on the divided island: Schools in part are used for promoting nationalism, and militarism through activities like celebrating national motherland days, naming schools after military heroes, showing pictures of atrocities and holding competitions in poetry and essay-writing based on nationalistic themes or glories of the past of each nation.[49] The situation is very similar in Bosnia in the sense that the education system promotes ethnic divisions.

During the war, education had become highly politicized and the ethnic separations that continued after Dayton ensured that students in BiH were not being educated in an objective and harmonized manner.[50] Textbooks developed by the various parties, depicted history according to their own interpretations, cultural myths, stereotypes and prejudices.[51] Therefore, elimination of such dividing elements from the textbooks and curricula used in schools of the three ethnic communities in BiH has been essential for peace and reconciliation over the years.

The project sponsored by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) describes that fragmentation is the predominant characteristic of present-day BiH.[52] However, the politicisation of education is dangerous for peace and reconciliation. Ethnic attitudes are formed early and once positive or negative prejudices are formed they tend to increase over the time. Thus, early education and socialization experiences are critical in the formation of ethnic attitudes. An education system that constructs enmity and fear, and promotes distrust or hatred apparently cannot help international community to achieve its goals in BiH.

On the contrary, education, especially in multi-ethnic communities, should promote a spirit of equality and tolerance among ethnic and cultural groups. Instead of discrimination and exclusion, an integrative approach can play a role to bridge ethnic divisions, promote coexistence, tolerance and reconciliation. Therefore, nowadays the primary goal of the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina is to ensure that all children have access to education in integrated and multi-cultural schools that are free from political, religious, cultural and other biases and discrimination, which respect the rights of all children.[53]

For this end, the OSCE started to co-ordinate the education reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina, on the basis of the July 4, 2002 mandate from the OSCE Permanent Council in Vienna.[54] The Educational Department was thus established as a natural extension of the OSCE’s human rights work. The Head of the OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina stated “Education is one of the most basic human rights and we would be failing the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina if we did not become actively involved in making sure that every child has access to quality education.”[55] Since the summer of 2002, the profile of the education raised as key element of peace building the economic growth and the post-war reconstruction.[56]

An educational system is regarded to be in urgent need of change in order to provide the foundations for a stable and democratic society. As an alternative to the education system that divides and segregates children on their ethnic basis, the international community urges the education system of Bosnia and Herzegovina to enable the children to go to school together and learn to respect and cherish the precious cultural diversity that makes Bosnia unique.[57] In the following months since the OSCE was engaged in educational issues, on 21 November 2002, the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Education Ministries and the Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees agreed with the international community upon an Education Reform Agenda.[58]

Consequently, the OSCE expressed its mission in reforming education to give BiH a better future. The overriding objective of the OSCE is to depoliticise education, while creating the conditions that will ensure equal access to a high-quality, modern education throughout BiH. They state that quality education is needed:

1. For the individual. It brings confidence and personal growth, as well as the skills, knowledge, values and attitudes that are critical for a young person to become a good and successful citizen.

2. For the community. It produces an aware and engaged citizenry, and enhanced potential for prosperity, and a society that is both fair and just.

3. For the country. As BiH strives to become a modern European state, quality education is essential for prosperity and progress.[59]

The organization aims to put an end to segregation and discrimination through education, and to encourage returnees with school-age children to continue to go back to their original homes. Basically, the goal is to provide returnee children ready access to education in integrated multi-cultural schools in their area of return, that is free from political, religious, cultural biases and discrimination and ensure that all children who are members of national minorities, particularly Romani children, are appropriately included in the education system, and present all children the opportunity to complete primary education.[60]

Thus, education reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina targets to offer children greater access to all classrooms regardless of their religious or ethnic backgrounds and revise the textbooks in national subjects like history, language and geography to contain material that is acceptable to all.[61] Blair Blackwell, Information Officer of the OSCE’s Education Department in Bosnia and Herzegovina explains that local education authorities employed by the Ministry of Education are supposed to revise the textbooks, especially history books, and find a way to teach the contested history of the country.[62] For the sake of objectivity in the committees to revise the Serbian history book there are Bosnian and Croat experts and it is the same for the revision of Bosnian and Croat history books. Nevertheless, education is politicised in a great deal that it is still early to fix teaching of history in the curriculum process.[63]

The OSCE also aims to standardize the school curriculum of a particular level so that it is the same throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina.[64] Thus, students moving to a different part of the country will have a better chance of success in their new schools. Key education issues include the modernization of the education system as well. The OSCE tries to encourage students to improve their analytical skills and new technologies, instead of memorizing large amount of often out-dated information. Therefore, Pledge 2 of the reform agenda is about providing basic education of good quality with a modern curriculum and a modern system of assessment and certification of students and teachers and that the OSCE will ensure that students are taught by well-trained teachers in properly equipped schools.[65]

To support the economic development of Bosnia and Herzegovina the organization added ‘vocational education’ to its reform agenda. Vocational education and training aim to improve student skills in the working world and its activities are responsive to local market requirements.[66] Raising the quality of higher education and research in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and enabling the universities to meet European norms and standards are also within the scope of the OSCE’s reform scheme in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Overall, the OSCE intends to raise the level of education and integrate the schools for reconciliation.

In this respect, OSCE facilitates, coordinates and monitors the implementation of the reform strategy. It organizes regular meetings between Entity, Cantonal Ministers and Education Issue Set Steering Group members, which is co-chaired by OSCE and OHR that also involves organizations engaged in education. Yet, for accomplishing its objectives in educational reforms, the international community needs the commitment and active support of the local education experts. Since the education reform strategy was adopted in November 2002, it would be premature to access the success and failure in this filed. Reform of education requires a long-term commitment and this also explains why international community did not include an education mandate in Dayton as they initially had a one or two year exit strategy in mind.

Nevertheless, the Bosnia and Herzegovina experience illustrates that we cannot categorize educational reforms as a soft issue compared to the security sector reform of military and police or post-conflict elections and return of refugees. Education is an important element of peace building for many aspects comprising reconciliation, promotion of tolerance, democracy and respect to human rights. Thus, ultimate success of the educational reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina will depend on the success of the other elements of peace building in BiH. For its own part, the success of educational reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina will reflect the extent to which education can contribute to the reconciliation of different ethnic groups after a brutal civil war.

Bibliography:

1- Education Fact Sheet, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, http://oscebih.org/education.

2- Holger Daun, Penny Enslin, Lidia Kolouh Westin, Dijana Plut, Democracy in Textbooks and Student Minds: Educational Tranitions in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Yugolsavia, Mozambique and South Africa, New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc., 2002.

3- Maria Hadjipavlou, Partnership Between Peace Education and Conflict Resolution: The Case of Cyprus, 2000, http://www.construct.haifa.ac.il/~cerpe/papers/mariaht.htm.

4- Patricia N. Sutter (Editor), Special Coverage, How Bosnia and Herzegovina is raising its education standards, OSCE Magazine, Vienna: Press and Public Information Section, May 2004.

5- Reform in a Fragmented System: Higher Education in Bosnia-Herzegovina’ in Higher Education Management Policy, Journal of the Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education, vol. 14, no.2, OECD 2002.

6- Valery Perry, ‘Reading, Writing and Reconciliation: Educational Reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Center for Minority Issues (ECMI), Flensburg, Germany, Working Paper no 18, September 2003, http://www.ecmi.de.

7- Valery Perry, ‘ECMI Civil Society Project in Bosnia and Herzegovina: National Minorities and Educational Reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina, (ECMI Workshop, Sarajevo, BiH, 22 November 2002), Report no 38, December 2002, http://www.ecmi.de.

SUGGESTIONS FOR EDUCATION FOR PEACE

A- Suggestions for alternative education models based on learning and creativity:

Education has a crucial role for peace and reconciliation after an ethnic conflict occurs and continues for a long time. When young people are educated about history in a balanced, objective and accurate way, they can develop understanding, tolerance for diversity and empathy rather than hatred, resentment or distrust. Thus, nobody can deny the direct relationship between a non-ethnocentric education system and long-term peace, security, stability and reconciliation. However, this project, based on the examination of 5th grade history and social science books, shows that teaching material and practices in primary schools feature strongly nationalistic content and reflected hostility between the two communities in Cyprus.

Therefore, there is an urgent need for a new approach in history teaching, based on the idea of reconciliation and positive influences on the new generations as well as developing methodologies to modernise history teaching, producing new textbooks and training teachers accordingly. History teaching should not be an instrument of ideological or political manipulation nor of propaganda, or used for the promotion of intolerant and ethnocentric, chauvinist or racist ideas.

History is not supposed to be misused and taught in schools according to the fundamental values and statutes of the Council of Europe through falsification or creation of false evidence, doctored statistics, faked images, fixation of one event to justify or conceal another, distortion of the past for the purposes of propaganda, an excessively nationalistic version of the past which may create the "us" and "them" dichotomy, abuse of the historical record, denial of historical fact or omission of historical fact.[67] Besides, prejudice and stereotypes should be eliminated from the syllabus’ content and replaced by positive approach about the other ethnic groups, different countries, religions or civilizations in history syllabuses.

Contrarily, history and social science textbooks of the 5th grade are promoting mutual fear, distrust, resentment and enmity on the island. In addition to violating the fundamental humanitarian values and principles of education, they shape the minds of the students and the new generations in a negative way. In addition, textbooks do not simply instruct facts. They also mirror values and norms that the society wants to transmit to the next generation. The study demonstrated that history is not thought in a critical way.

Historical facts are sited throughout the book suggesting that Turks have always been innocent and victims, whereas the others were responsible for the crimes against the Turkish Cypriots and the Turks. For example, the period after 1963 is defined in the textbook as ‘Dark Years of the Turkish Cypriots’ (p. 18). The approach of the book is quite sentimental as well: ‘innocent people were killed and the green island of Cyprus was painted red by the Greek atrocities’.

Above all, the textbook is full of one-sided, subjective and dividing elements, feeding prejudices, mutual distrust and resentment between the communities on the island. There is no information, no reference or acknowledgement that Greek Cypriot civilians have also suffered from the conflict on the island. The textbook also encompasses elements and themes, which legitimise the Turkish Cypriot official position. A brief survey of the pictures in the textbook showed that they are used for promoting nationalism, fear or and hatred with pictures of tanks, soldiers, war monuments and graveyards. Furthermore, the textbook’s first page sites the Turkish national anthem and the Turkish and TRNC flags side-by-side. It is very unusual for European standards that a textbook starts with the national anthem on the fist page.

The study showed that the same approach and methodology is in other textbooks as well, such as the Turkish Literature textbook, which includes many nationalist poems, or painting classes on nationalistic themes. Nevertheless, it should also be mentioned that the study revealed that in many schools teachers do not use the textbook and they are not satisfied with the methodology of the textbooks. We believe that, at this point, we need reforms in the education system in terms of the primary schools’ textbooks and the curriculum revision.

B- Curriculum Revision and Modernization

The education reform must include changes in the curriculum, teaching methods and management structures. In addition to eliminating ethno-centric, racist elements from the textbooks and school practices, the goal of the reform strategy should be a modern, high quality education that is free of politics, and bring the education system in line with the European standards. Textbooks for subjects such as history, social science and literature should contain material that is acceptable for all (in the case of Cyprus, it should be acceptable for both the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot community). The removal of the inappropriate material from the textbooks and an agreement on a common foundation for future modernization is of key importance for the reform of education for peace and higher method quality in schools.

For this end, the curriculum needs improvement and teachers need training. Pupils should acquire analytical skills and learn the new technologies instead of memorizing out-dated information. A modern curriculum and standardized system of measuring student and teacher performance have the potential of improving the quality of schools. The most important tool for this would be to develop learning methods based on creativity. Learning develops creative thinking. In order to achieve critical thinking, the goals should be clearly and precisely revised and the philosophy of education should be restructured.

Education strategies also require rethink and students should be at the centre of concern with regards to the preparation of the infrastructure of the new education system. Through the technical equipment, which is now absent from primary schools, pupils should also be able to find a chance to meet their needs of passions for learning, develop critical thought and learn to judge and create ideas. Another necessity for our primary schools that pupils should be educated not only in the class, but also through panels and conferences, and they should be provided with opportunities to practice in scientific laboratories what is written in the textbooks.

To sum up, some solid points as suggestions for the future peace education could be:

1)Depoliticise education; make it free from political, religious, cultural and other biases and discrimination.

2)Provide that through a modern curriculum and a modern system to be practiced by well-trained teachers in properly equipped schools.

3)The modern curriculum must encompass contemporary knowledge skills to face the challenges of the 21st century.

4)Provide minimum standards of school facilities, including equipment and learning material as well as hygiene. (In some small towns, schools lack those facilities in north Cyprus).

5)Use management practices for a fair, democratic, non-discriminatory, non-ethnocentric, less biased and less nationalistic and chauvinistic education through school boards and school directors.

In order to achieve what is suggested above, we need to introduce a new understanding of history teaching based on the following principles.

Recommendations

For achieving this, we suggest the adoption of a list of recommendations, which has been developed after several workshops organized by the Centre For Democracy And Reconciliation in Southeast Europe.[68]

· Contrary to traditional national history, which tries to teach homogeneity – not only of “us” but also of the “others”, school history should try to teach diversity. Teaching diversity means teaching how to live together in the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural societies characteristic of today’s Europe. The appropriate teaching method for such an approach could be comparative history.

· The teaching of history should challenge the strong belief that history is “objective”, i.e. that “our” history is objective and that there is only one truth, “our” truth. The deconstruction of the historical “truth” can be achieved by presenting the “others”’ “truth”, i.e. the point of view of the “other”, that of the “enemy” in the same event. This approach might be the appropriate method to teach conflict issues.

· The “new” history should not be a fictitious and illusive construction of a harmonious past of a nation. The old construction is not to be replaced by a new construction. On the contrary, conflicts should be dealt with and not silenced, because ignorance generates stereotypes. Presenting the conflicts not only with the “others” but also within a nation further helps to undermine the idea of national homogeneity, which is the hard core of ethnocentric history.

· Political and military history should be reduced on account of economic, social and cultural history. History of everyday life instead of epic heroic accounts might also be more interesting for children.

· Cultural history is a field where common historical experiences can be described and analyzed even for periods of conflicts and crises. For example, the experience of war is something people share in their everyday lives and a common feature that can be integrated into an alternative teaching of history.

· Local history could also be an alternative method of teaching history both for historical and pedagogical reasons. The pupil’s village or town could be a more attractive and efficient field for studying multicultural societies and for deconstructing the national myths.

· The teaching of history should also try to make history a more interesting school subject by introducing new teaching material and innovative new methods.

Appendix

It is important to present the other cases of revision of textbooks to the Cypriot public. In the following we are presenting some examples.

I- Revision of Textbooks for Peace and Reconciliation: German-Polish History Textbook Dialogue

The historical relationship between Germany and Poland, especially during the 20th century, has been very painful and difficult. What makes it all the more remarkable is that since the 1970s both countries have continually cooperated on the topic of school textbooks. The German-Polish Textbook Commission was founded in 1972 as an initiative of the Commissions for UNESCO in both countries. The goal of this initiative was to come to an agreement about mutual portrayals in history and geography textbooks. The difficult nature of the undertaking of this West German-Polish textbook committee lay in the fact that during the Cold War it constituted one of the few instances of exchange, at a time when any form of "ideological cooperation" was disapproved of from a Marxist-Leninist standpoint.

Even in Germany, the "Recommendations on History and Geography Textbooks in the Federal Republic of Germany and the People's Republic of Poland," published in 1976, were quite controversial. However, this controversy was quite productive. It contributed significantly to improving West German attitudes toward Poland. In the course of 30 conferences, sensitive topics pertaining to the history of German-Polish relations were treated, and aspects relevant to the teaching of geography involving both countries were discussed.

Since the mid-1990s, the commission has focused more on topics, which are relevant to the present and even the future. The challenges both countries face are discussed, rather than bilateral conflicts regarding the past. Questions pertaining to history and geography are examined in the light of their possible contributions to solving future problems. For this endeavour to be fruitful, the commission stimulates analyses of the topics under examination, evaluates their portrayal in textbooks, and assesses their didactical potential. This approach has proven to be valuable in discussing the coexistence of Germans, Poles and Jews, the topic of borders and border-regions, the meaning of nation in both societies, the prospect of Polish membership in the European Union, and finally, the German-Polish "places of memory", as well as transformation processes in (Eastern) Germany and in Poland.

Within the framework of this new orientation, the commission worked out a new manual for history teachers aiming at complementing and replacing the older "Recommendations." The geographical section of the Joint German-Polish School Textbook Committee agreed upon "Suggestions for the Treatment of Germany and Poland in Geography Textbooks of both Countries.[69]

Teachers' Manual: Germany and Poland during the 20th Century

Nineteen German and Polish historians have prepared a new teachers' manual: "Deutschland und Polen im 20. Jahrhundert. Analysen - Quellen - didaktische Hinweise (Germany and Poland during the 20th Century. Analyses - Sources - Didactical Recommendations)", which was published as volume 82 C of the Institute's series in 2001. The title of the Polish edition is “Polska I Niemcy w XX wieku. Wskazówki i materialy do nauczania historii”, and was published by Wydawnictwo Pozanskie in Poznan.[70] This book of more than 400 pages consists of three parts: factual analyses, didactical considerations, and an extensive section of primary sources. This last section includes official political documents, eyewitness reports and historians' interpretations, accounts of everyday experiences of Germans and Poles, literary documents, poems and songs. In addition, numerous pictures and photographs, posters and caricatures are included.

The German and the Polish editions of the teachers' manual are identical in the analytical parts. The didactical reflections and the materials have been adapted for the respective audiences. Compared to the previous Recommendations of 1976, the teachers' manual "Germany and Poland during the 20th century" includes fundamentally new aspects:

-It overcomes the prior deficits of the "Recommendations," which were due to political circumstances. The role of the Soviet Union could now be addressed more openly, and the German Democratic Republic was no longer a taboo. The unsatisfactory terminological treatment of refugees and expellees has now been changed.

-Pertaining to Germany, the teachers' manual helps introduce the political consensus about relations toward Poland, which developed after 1989, into the educational sector. It no longer seems to polarize as much as the previous Recommendations. Instead, it stabilizes the development of a new consensus, which sites those topics that were formerly regarded as too sensitive for German-Polish reconciliation. The teachers' manual provides a basis for discussion of such political positions, which were formerly marginalized, but which have meanwhile also changed, and can now be integrated into debates about history teaching and textbooks.

-The teachers' manual breaks through the purely bilateral view of German-Polish history and makes room for the inclusion of Germany and Poland’s minorities and neighbouring countries. This is especially important in the case of Jews, since the Eastern German/Polish territory was the most significant Jewish "homeland" for a long period in history. In the older Recommendations there was hardly any mention of the Jewish population that used to live in these regions.

-The teachers' manual offers East German teachers the possibility to get information about West-German/Polish cooperation. The older Recommendations had not been available to them during GDR times. The need for orientation and information is especially great in this region because of its geographical proximity to Poland.

-German-Polish history is presented in a didactically structured form in the teachers' manual. Therefore, it is much easier to use in daily teaching practice than the older Recommendations.

-The teachers' manual takes into consideration the actual needs of the teachers, since it is rarely possible to offer whole teaching units on Poland. It is certainly not in the teacher's interest to work with an even increasing amount of facts. Therefore, the text offers possibilities for the examination of important German-Polish events that have shaped Europe in the course of the last century. It becomes more and more common that these events are included in teaching in order to enhance the European dimension of German-Polish relations, and in order to exemplify certain phenomena in the light of German-Polish relations.

-While the older Recommendations were perceived as provocative, or rather as a provocative stimulus for discussion in the public West German discourse during the 1970s, the teachers' manual could take on a similar catalytic or guiding function in Poland. The teachers' manual makes it difficult to sustain a portrayal of history that mainly emphasizes the national dimension, national homogeneity, and promotes latent xenophobic rejection of foreign influences. The multitude of perspectives, especially expressed in the didactical reflections and the choice of primary sources, is intended to challenge national narrow-mindedness and one-sided emotional evocations. It encourages a common European future based on universal values.

-For Polish history didactics, the teachers' manual could serve to foster innovative approaches by promoting a modern and inclusive understanding of primary sources, which places special emphasis on social and gender history, and on the history of everyday life.

-The teachers' manual is open to the influences of audiovisual media and the possibilities of the Internet. This is demonstrated at certain points in the text, and then more extensively in the appendix.

The teachers' manual is part of a teachers' handbook "Germans and Poles - the History of Neighbouring Peoples." It is mainly planned as an open series, of which five booklets have since been published. It includes a number of topics, which focus on interesting and instructive issues of German-Polish history.

II- French-German Textbook Dialogue

French-German textbooks are also worth mentioning. In 1951, Franco-German textbook recommendations were accepted to overcome conflict and mistrust, and develop the relations between the two countries. In the early 1980s, a series of conferences and meetings were carried out. Through the initiatives of the NGOs and French and German official authorities a wide range of geographical and historical issues started to be discussed intensively. For instance, a group of scholars, teachers and curriculum planners set up a series of meetings under the sponsorship of the Chancellery of the Federal Republic, in order to produce teaching material on a variety of topics, such as "Regions within Europe," "The First World War," "From Traditional Enemy to Partner," and "Routes to Modernity."[71] Moreover, new geography books rather focus on issues related to European integration and expansion, including the definitions of the terms “Europe”, “Germany and France in Europe”, “Economic Transformations”, “Processes of Migration”, “Cooperation beyond Borders”, “Regional Disparities” and “Regions and Regionalisms”.

III- Revisions of Textbooks After an Ethnic Conflict: A very Recent Example from Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH)

In Bosnia and Herzegovina a newly formed review commission was set up to remove objectionable and inappropriate material from textbooks for peace and reconciliation. The commission had a difficult assignment, considering everything that could be potentially offensive to any of the three main ethnic groups in the country: Muslim Bosnians, Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats. The OSCE Mission, the Council of Europe and the local authorities all contributed financially to the project. Twenty-four textbook specialists from BiH met to exchange findings and to discuss and agree on any material that needed to be weeded out. The Mission and the Council provided additional support by engaging internationally renowned textbook experts to provide advice on how to handle controversial topics in history books and how to ensure more balanced coverage of the various ethnic groups.

The commission reviewed and analyzed books intended for the 2003-2004 school year. Every single one of more than 250 textbooks and manuscripts was examined, covering literature and language, history and geography, nature and society, and religion. It was a massive undertaking to present comprehensive proposals for changes to the ministers of education and publishing houses in time for the books to be printed and made available for the new school year.

The process was challenging, as Bosnians were forced to wrestle with the possible impact of their beliefs on others. The commission members were often reminded to imagine their own children in the position of others from a different ethnic group. How would they feel if their children had to read from a textbook that contained derogatory phrases about their own people? Gradually, a genuine commitment emerged on placing quality education above politics. One of the most difficult moments was the depiction of the well-known Battle of Kosovo on the cover page of a textbook. This conflict has been a source of pride for Serbs for the past 500 years. However, there was also the risk of arousing bitter feelings among the other ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia. The Serb members of the commission finally agreed that the illustration did not belong in a textbook. The willingness of the committee members to compromise on such an emotionally charged issue was a courageous step forward when the work of the commission ended at the end of summer.[72]

The review process proved that the people of BiH could come together to tackle some contentious education-related issues. However, it was also evident that simply reviewing published books and manuscripts was not the best approach. The OSCE Mission has proposed to the education authorities that future textbook commissions should develop guidelines for authors to ensure that new textbooks address the need for an inclusive, non-discriminatory education. The books would be written with Bosnia and Herzegovina as the main reference point, and should aim to a balanced presentation of all population groups in the country and in neighbouring states.

The commission’s recommendations would be an indispensable part of the textbook approval procedure, with the authors and the BiH educational authorities having sole responsibility for suitability. A commission of this kind would initially focus on history and geography to ease the introduction of new comparative and multiple perspective approaches to the teaching of these subjects. Although the textbook issue is just one among many facets of education reform in BiH, it is gaining in importance because of its potential spin-off effect on similar projects in other countries of the region.

For example, the OSCE Mission to Serbia and Montenegro is involved in reviewing and improving history textbooks for the Albanian minority. And the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) has asked the International Textbook Research Institute in Germany to evaluate Kosovo’s new history textbooks. The textbook commission in BiH serves as a model for how the OSCE assistance (through the provision of advice and international expertise, organizational skills and material support) can contribute significantly towards education reform. Naturally, the hard decisions ultimately have to be taken by the local authorities, but in a region where identifying the difference between the accusative and genitive cases can fan powerful passions, a neutral voice can help people pass past politics to what really matters: the education of children.[73]

Final Remarks:

The aim of schoolbooks is to give information. Hence, the books written should not neglect this aim and should aim to inform the student rather than direct them. Especially books targeting a group younger than 15, whose psychological development has not been completed, should be examined more carefully. Objectivity should be the main feature of these books. Informative schoolbooks should also be written in an objective way. A subjective approach in books may lead to both biased information and disorientation. Information should be accurate and not leave students in question.

In addition, there should be no room left for suspicion. Suspicion in research may lead to being more careful, however suspicion created by any schoolbook results in a lack of confidence towards the education system. Information given in books should be accurate; imperfect, oblique and one-sided explanations should be avoided. Accurate information and absence of conclusions will encourage the student to think, while the most accurate conclusion will be left to the student. Books in general talk about what two peoples went through during a war and there is no example of friendship. However, the two communities in Cyprus lived together for a long time and there were many friendships built beside negative events. There is a need to talk about friendship and reciprocal help, rather than talking only about wars and injustice.

Examples used in the book should not affect the children’s psychological development negatively; on contrary, positive examples should be enhanced, students should not have to deal with a system of just memorising information. In particular, pictures used in the book should be chosen very carefully, because visual material is always more effective than written. Pictures used in books should not have any negative impacts on children’s minds. Experts in children psychology can be used to help doing this.

Since the Turkish Cypriot and the Greek Cypriot community are now have close contact, both communities’ history could be jointly prepared and common history should be taught. A bilateral, transparent history understanding should replace the unilateral one. The Greek Cypriot community is constantly accused and illustrated as non-human. Many examples show that many children perceive the Greek Cypriot community this way and are therefore afraid. This understanding should immediately change should we dream of building a common future.

In conclusion, as it is discussed in the first part of the report, the education system is highly political and this cultivates hatred and enmity. Textbooks of subjects such as social sciences, history and Turkish literature are written in a subjective way and this is far from developing the creative thinking ability of the pupils. Instead, pupils learn to memorize nationalistic and ethno-centric subjects. For this reason, there is a need for an urgent education reform in Cyprus to achieve peace and reconciliation; this education reform should consider the two provided examples along the lines of the suggestions of the report.

[1] - Niyazi Kizilyurek, History Textbooks and Nationalism, in: Christina Koulouri (ed.), Teaching the History of Southeastern Europe, Thessaloniki, 2001.

[2] During a two-month period, the book was scrutinised and the works of the researches were discussed and evaluated in two different meetings in August. This report is the analysis of these two separate parts, as well as the evaluation of the visual attacks (supplementary texts). However, it should be noted that this report is the first report regarding the 5th Grade Social Sciences Book. Other materials that are related with the 5th grade education will be analysed in the second report.

[3]Although the problem of municipalities was among the most important problems between the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, there were other problems too. These are not mentioned in the book. For example, the public service commission, which was supposed to employ 40 per cent, Turkish Cypriots to the government offices was inhibited due to the supposed ‘incompetence of the Turkish Cypriots’.

[4] Here history is thought in a distorted manner. No one can clarify the time span that the first three months EOKA was against the British. Moreover, the target of the EOKA was not Turkish Cypriot community but the auxiliary police employed by the British. Implying that EOKA was an organization against the Turkish Cypriot community is a distortion from reality. Although, Enosis was supported by 96 per cent of the Greeks in the 1950 referendums not all the Greeks supported EOKA.

[5] The Cyprus Problem was not as simple as the British had thought. This implies an explanation in the form of, what do they (British) know about it. Very biased that the others cannot understand the Cyprus conflict.

[6] Enosis is the union of Cyprus to Greece. Biased transfer of information and the historical factors.

[7] AKRITAS PLAN was designed to achieve the unification of Cyprus with Greece and break the Turkish resistance. The original plan did not contain a mass murder of the Turkish Cypriots as it is expressed in the book.

[8] Exageration of the military strength of the Venetians to mark the victory of the Ottomans.

[9] The pictures that are used in the book can be considered as supplementary texts. In the Appendix 1 (Visual Images of Social Science Book) this is given in detail.

[10] - TRNC Ministry of Education and Culture Primary Education Secretariat, No 35/2003/1, Report No: 2003-20/Nicosia, 25.03.2003 and No /2004/1, Report No: 2003-34/Nicosia

[11] - I am a Turk

I am right, hard working

My principle is,

To protect the younger and value the elder

My country, my nation

To love more than myself.

My principle is,

To go higher, to advance.

The great Atatürk!

In your path, towards your goal

I will follow, I promise.

My whole being is

For the Turkish nation.

“How happy to say I am Turkish!”

[12] - See. Memorandum No: 2003-88, Lefkosa: 25.12.2003.

[14] - The TRNC National Education Ministry, Social Sciences Programme, p. 223.

[17] - National Education General Aims and Principles, Article 7.

[19] - The given composition topics are provided by some primary school teachers in Girne.

[20] -December 21t, Defence and Martyrs Week, Remembrance Day, TRNC Ministry of Education and Culture Publications, p.21

[23] - Turkish Ministry of Education, Primary Education Institutions Art-Handicraft Education Program, National Education Press Ankara, 1992, p.15

[24] - This information is based on a meeting in Famagusta, 11.13.2004.

[25] - The statement of a teacher from Martyr Mustafa Kurtuluş Primary School, Teachers Union Building, Magusa, 13.10.2004.

[26] - Information Bank, All Subjects, Primary Education 5, Serhat Publications Ltd, Istanbul

[28] - Teacher from Alasya Primary School, Teachers Union Building, Magusa, 13.10.2004.

[30] For more information about the Other and its otherness (in terms of ethical relationship as Emmanuel Levinas argues), see Beavers, Anthony. “Introducing Levinas to Undergraduate Philosophers”. http://cedar.evansville.edu/~tb2/trip/levinas_intro.htm Retrieved from the World Wide Web, 8/9/2002. The essay can be found online now at: http://faculty.evansville.edu/tb2/trip/levinas_intro.htm (10/9/2004); for the relationship between Self and Other, see Levinas, Emmanuel. Totality and Infinity. Trans. Alphonso Lingis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 2000; Levinas, Emmanuel. Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence. Trans. Alphonso Lingis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 2000; Levinas, Emmanuel. Ethics and Infinity. Trans. Richard A. Cohen. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1999. For an introductive work on Levinas, see Davis, Colin. Levinas: An Introduction. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1996. Also, for a comparison of ‘nationalism as other’, using Levinas’s thoughts, see Karahasan, Hakan. A Levinasian Reading of Cypriot Poetry: Nationalism as Other, and Its Role in Selected Works of Mehmet Yaşın, Neşe Yaşın, and Faize Özdemirciler. Gazimağusa: Unpublished Master of Arts thesis in English Studies, 2003.

[31] Emmanuel Levinas is known as an ethical philosopher. His most significant contribution to the philosophy might be the notion of Other in terms of ethical relationship. In English, there is a tradition about translating Levinas’s works, followed by Alphonso Lingis and Richard A. Cohen. According to this tradition, when Levinas talks about Autre in French they preferred to translate as other in lowercase, which means otherness in general; and Other in uppercase when Levinas talks about Autrui, which means personal other in French. However, I am using another type of writing (in my Master’s Thesis and now). Throughout the essay, when I use Other in terms of Levinas and want to emphasise the significance in terms of nationalism, I write Other in uppercase.

[32] This report is especially about first section of the book because in that section, the book gives some information about the history of Cyprus from the Ottoman period till the end of the Republic of Cyprus and the establishment of the TRNC.

[33] Literally it means crusaders. However, it is also used as a means of Christians

[34] Beavers, Anthony. “Introducing Levinas to Undergraduate Philosophers”. http://cedar.evansville.edu/~tb2/trip/levinas_intro.htm Retrieved from the World Wide Web, 8/9/2002. Essay can be found online now at: http://faculty.evansville.edu/tb2/trip/levinas_intro.htm (Last time accessed: 10/9/2004)

[35] As indicated in the third note, I write Other in uppercase when I talk about Levinas’s Other.

[36] Here, because of the word Rum, it is problematic to translate it to English exactly. Rum, literally means Byzantines. For more information, see Millas, Herkül. Yunan Ulusunun Doğuşu. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1994. In Turkish (especially among Turkish Cypriots) it is used both for Greeks and Greek Cypriots, so the usage of that word is nearly impossible to translate. However, by saying Rumlar, in the book it both mean Greeks and Greek Cypriots, so the word has another motivation that unified Greeks and Greek Cypriots as they all belong to the same nation anyway.

[37] Although in Richard A. Cohen’s translation it is written in lowercase because in the original text it refers Autre, “otherness in general”. However, as I mentioned above, when I talk about Levinas’s Other, I use uppercase.

[38] Although narrative is another inseparable matter of nationalism, in this report, my main concern is to show the significance of the Other because without acknowledging the Other, there would be no reconciliation in Cyprus.

[39] The Subtitle of “Writing National History?” is an attempt of a smaller version of the project.

[40] For more information about the similarities of different nations histories, see Kızılyürek, Niyazi. “History Textbooks and Nationalism”. Smith, Anthony. National Identity. Nevada: University of Nevada Press, 1993; Millas, Herkül. Yunan Ulusunun Doğuşu. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 1994.

[41] For more information about memory and forgetting in nationalism, see Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and the Spread of Nationalism. London and New York: Verso, Rev. 2nd version, 1991; Papadakis, Yiannis. Perceptions of History and Collective Identity: A Comparison of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot Perspectives. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1993. His chapter “The Politics of Memory and Forgetting” can be reached online at http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/papadakis.diss.html. For another work on ‘memory and forgetting’ within the context of nationalism in Cyprus, see Karahasan, Hakan. A Levinasian Reading of Cypriot Poetry: Nationalism as Other, and Its Role in Selected Works of Mehmet Yaşın, Neşe Yaşın, and Faize Özdemirciler. Gazimağusa: Unpublished Master of Arts thesis in English Studies, 2003. Especially the chapter “The Politics of Memory and Forgetting”, pp. 15-41.

[42] According to Ernest Gellner “Nationalism is not the awakening of nations to self-consciousness: it invents nations where they do not exist” (Quoted from Anderson, Benedict. “Introduction”. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and the Spread of Nationalism. London and New York: Verso, Rev. 2nd version, 1991.

[43] Such as, in the first part of the book, Christians and Greek Cypriots are represented as people who have done bad things to us although we did not do anything wrong to them.

[44] For more information about forgiveness, see Derrida, Jacques. “On Forgiveness”. In On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness. London and New York: Routledge, 2001; Karahasan, Hakan. Karahasan, Hakan. A Levinasian Reading of Cypriot Poetry: Nationalism as Other, and Its Role in Selected Works of Mehmet Yaşın, Neşe Yaşın, and Faize Özdemirciler. Gazimağusa: Unpublished Master of Arts thesis in English Studies, 2003. Especially the conclusion of “The Politics of Memory and Forgetting”, pp. 34-39. This essay is also published in Greek in Ex-iparhis. (Greek Cypriot monthly political journal) June 2004, pp.12-16.

* This bibliography contains not only the references that cited but also the works that have been used while this essay was writing. In other words, it is also good for one who is interested on this subject learn about more.

[45]Holger Daun, Penny Enslin, Lidia Kolouh Westin, Dijana Plut, Democracy in Textbooks and Student Minds: Educational Tranitions in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Yugolsavia, Mozambique and South Africa, New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc., 2002, p. 37.

[46]Valery Perry, ‘Reading, Writing and Reconciliation: Educational Reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina, European Center for Minority Issues (ECMI), Flensburg, Germany, Working Paper no 18, September 2003, http://www.ecmi.de, p. 3.

[47]‘PDHR Donald Hays calls for urgent education reform’, OHR Press Release, 22 January 2002, at http://www.ohr.int

[48] Valery Perry, ‘ECMI Civil Society Project in Bosnia and Herzegovina: National Minorities and Educational Reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina, (ECMI Workshop, Sarajevo, BiH, 22 November 2002), Report no 38, December 2002, http://www.ecmi.de, p. 4.

[49] Maria Hadjipavlou- Trigeorgis, ‘Partnership Between Peace and Education and Conflict Resolution: The Case of Cyprus’, 2000, at http://www.construct.haifa.ac.il/~cerpe/papers/mariaht.htm.

[50] Valery Perry, ‘Reading, Writing and Reconciliation: Educational Reform in BiH’, p. 48.

[52]‘Reform in a Fragmented System: Higher Education in Bosnia-Herzegovina’ in Higher Education Management Policy, Journal of the Programme on Institutional Management in Higher Education, vol. 14, no.2, OECD 2002, p. 87.

[53] A Massage to the People of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Education Reform, OSCE Document, 21. 11. 2002, p. 9.

[54] Education Fact Sheet, OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, http://oscebih.org/education, p. 1.

[56] Valery Perry, ‘ECMI Civil Society Project in Bosnia and Herzegovina, p. 2.

[57] A Massage to the People of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Education Reform, p. 7.

[58] Education Reform Agenda: An Update, June 2003, http://oscebih.org, p. 1.

[59] A Massage to the People of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Education Reform, p. 8.

[61] Education Fact Sheet, OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, p. 1.

[62] Interview with Blair Blackwell, Information Officer, Education Department, OSCE Mission to BiH, 23 July 2003.

[64] Education Fact Sheet, OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, p. 1.

[65] Education Reform Agenda: An Update, June 2003, p. 7.

[67] http://www.coe.int/T/E/Cultural_Co-operation/education/History_Teaching/

[68] - Teaching the History of South-eastern Europe, Christina Koulouri (ed.), Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe, Thessaloniki, 2001.

[72] The final session was held in the Herzegovinian city of Mostar in southwest BiH. At that time, the city was still carved up into six sections as part of a power-sharing deal that gave a majority to Bosnians in some areas and to Croats in others. No other place in BiH better epitomizes the country’s ethnic divide.

[73] Falk Pingel, ‘Is Grammar History? Searching for a textbook solution in BiH’ in Patricia N. Sutter (Editor), Special Coverage, How Bosnia and Herzegovina is raising its education standards, OSCE Magazine, Vienna: Press and Public Information Section, May 2004, p. 14.