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