education for peace

In fact, history is dealing rather with the future, not with the past. To explain what we mean by this further, let us say that the terms “past” and “history” is not the same thing. History is produced from the past, but it is a narrative for the future. That is why, we never say “the past won’t forgive you” but always utter “history won’t forgive you.” This sentence clearly shows us that history is about the future; from the past for the future. Therefore, it is not a coincidence (as in other societies) that the Turkish Cypriot community has changed its history books in circumstances in which she imagined a different future for herself.

Nevertheless, what we mentioned above does not mean that one can change the events that happened in the past haphazardly. What already happened cannot be changed. However, a historical narrative that is produced from the past can always be produced in a different way. This is because history is not the past itself, but the “meaning” that we produce from the past. Thus, it is important to take into account the time and context of an event. In other words, one must consider the events in the right context and evaluate them in the “historical time.”

Let us explain what has been discussed above with an example: Archbishop Kiprianos and many religious functionaries were murdered by the Ottoman Governor Kucuk Mehmet in Cyprus in 1821. This is a fact. History books that were written in a nationalistic manner used to talk about this event as either “barbarian Turks murdered innocent Greeks” or “unthankful Greeks rebelled against the just Ottoman administration and hence had to be punished for that.” These narratives neither considered the “historical period, nor evaluated the events in the right context. For this reason, the meanings that these narratives produced in the minds of the people, will not proceed further than the notion of “barbarian Turks” or “ungrateful Greeks”. Nonetheless, it is possible to produce a different meaning without rejecting the facts. If we think of the events in the context of the 19^th century, then, we can come to the conclusion that: “right after the French Revolution, people discovered some concepts such as national sovereignty and nationalism”. This new idea resulted in the idea of rebelling against the empires and feudal states. After the French Revolution, each society was attempting to establish its own nation-state, based on the notion of nationalist ideology. Within this framework, the Greek nation rebelled against the Ottoman Empire in 1821 and the independence struggle began. Similarly (as all other empires), the Ottoman Empire wanted to protect itself against nationalist movements, and for this reason, tried to suppress the incident (the independence struggle). Because the Governor feared that the Greek nationalist movement was capable of reaching out to Cyprus, he murdered the Archbishop Kiprianos and other religious functionaries.”

There is neither the notion of “barbarian Turks” nor “ungrateful Greeks” in the narrative above. This is because it considers the events in a different context. In this narrative there are “actors” who on the one hand struggle for national sovereignty and on the other hand for the protection of an empire. If one does not consider the events within the context of the 19^th century, then one can talk of “barbarian Turks because they are Turks” and similarly, of “the ungrateful Greeks because they are Greeks.” If we do not consider the historical events within their own historical period, then inevitably, one can assume that the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots of today are responsible for the incidents of the past.

It is very important that we eliminate the biases and enmity in history books but not the enmity that happened in the past. (This is because history is not the facts themselves, but the meaning created from facts). In doing so, one should not forget that the main objective is not simply to establish a communication which is liberated from biases, but also to develop a community of the democratic and open minded citizens.

In Cyprus, there are two kinds of misunderstanding concerning the issue of history books. The first misunderstanding is that when the contents of the history books change, nationalistic ideas and biases will disappear. However, this is not as easy as it seems. Changing the history books will have a limited effect if biases and nationalistic ideas are widespread amongst society. Even changing the contents of the history books is not enough to reach this limited success. The significant issue (along with the revision of the textbooks), is the training of educators and assisting them in being able to use the materials in the new textbooks in new forms of teaching. This is because history books, along with history teachers and teaching techniques, construct the foundation of history education within a mutual interaction. In fact in some instances, changing the contents of the history books may be less important, than improving teaching techniques.

Another mistaken interpretation is the belief that by changing history books, an attack on the national identity and national consciousness will take place. This notion is very common within both the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities. Moreover, this incorrect notion is also widespread in Greece and Turkey. The main reason behind this perception is the damage that widespread nationalistic writings have created (on society) in the past.

Generally speaking, nationalist narrative of history is very much like a Hollywood film. According to this, there are “goodies” and “baddies” in history –and Yiannis Papadakis adds “uglies” to this – and the goodies are “us”, whereas the baddies are “them”, and the uglies are considered as the “foreign conspirators.” Nationalist history writing is based on the notion of “we-right” and “them-wrong.” According to all narratives that are based on this idea, everyone’s nation is either “victorious” or “conceited” and never does anything wrong. This story-like historical narrative, not only makes it difficult to develop a critical way of thinking amongst citizens, but also creates an awry kind of national identity. This is because an identity that is based on the idea of defining itself systematically against the “other” cannot be in peace with itself. At most, it creates a kind of citizen who only boasts with the “greatness” of his/her nation but at the same time believes that his/her nation in always in danger.

The history books that have previously been taught in Turkish Cypriot schools were based on this idea. As this analysis shows, the history books that were taught for many years (and were written by a single author), were written with the idea of “we the Turks are right and just” and “the Greeks are unjust.” The author considered the whole Greek Cypriot community as a homogenous entity and used the term “Greek” as the third singular person to describe the whole community. Moreover, he attempted to legitimise the division of Cyprus by presenting the Greeks as the “other.” Yet, it is significant to cease the dichotomy of right and wrong. It is also important to help the memory exchange through the history books. If we consider the importance of the history books in construction of the collective memory in any country, it becomes evident that Cyprus more than any other country needs to undergo through a process of exchange of memory. Only by doing this, can we free ourselves from dichotomies such as “right and wrong”, “just and unjust”.

The revised history textbooks that were prepared to be taught in Turkish Cypriot schools are very different to the old books in many ways. As the analysis points out, the revised history books do not see the Greek Cypriots as the “other” but try to understand them within the “historical time.” For example, the rise of nationalism in the Greek Cypriot community is seen from a world-historical perspective and it is seen within the context of the rising nationalist movements of the 19^th century. Furthermore, the Greek Cypriot community is not seen as homogenous and considerable attention has been paid to underline the differences within the community. For example the differences and conflicts between AKEL and the Church of Cyprus are well presented.

Another important element of the revised textbooks is the inclusion of social history and events life. This is a very significant improvement. History that talks only about military and political history, inevitably only exposes conflicts and tensions. Whereas social history, reveals the social space that the communities are living in, in Cyprus (in daily life). This in turn, helps to promote the idea of empathy between the two communities. Promotion of the religious bayrams and common strikes show us a different dimension in the history of the two communities whereas ethno-centric approaches present history only in terms of conflicts.

It is also important to mention the visual materials that are used in the revised textbooks. Pictures and caricatures have integrity with the text, and this helps students to be more interested in the books.

However, this does not mean that there are no issues to discuss in the revised textbooks. For example, we see that the history books have changed in the Turkish Cypriot community, but no significant training for teachers has been given. The workshops that we conducted with teachers helped us to identify this as an important issue.

Another significant point is the fact that Turkish Cypriot educational decision-makers prepared the new history books. At this point, it is believed that more pluralistic and ‘civil’ solutions, instead of current centralistic preparation methods should be undertaken. For example, the writing of more than one history book should be encouraged, and a bid for a contract should be proposed.

In order to promote this pluralistic way of thinking, the history books should provide more than one interpretation of the same event. In doing so, many common events could be interpreted in different ways. For example, Christians talk about the “fall” of Istanbul, whereas Muslim Turks talk about the “conquest.” Nowadays in Cyprus, concepts such as Invasion/Peace Operation or Turkish Rebel/Bloody Christmas are being used to describe the same events. Including some of the interpretations of the Greek Cypriot historians in the Turkish Cypriot history books may help both to establish pluralism, but also to encourage a common history textbook in the future.

Another issue surrounding the revision of history textbooks is the fact that sometimes revising the history books in a “good” way, could involve the rejection of some facts in order to prevent enmity. It is not a correct way to hide what happened in the past in order to be “Politically Correct” or “pointing the finger” to the “outsiders”, as is the case with some conspiracy theories. It is true that some teachers have this tendency. This makes the teachers training even more urgent.

It is also a fact that the new history books are rather books of “history of the Turkish Cypriots” and not as titled “history of Cyprus”. We find here is a serious gap not to have included any information on the other Cypriot communities beyond Turkish and Greek Cypriots. This is something which should be considered and corrected as soon as possible.

In closing, I would like to point that history books in general reflect the academic history research record of a country. It is a well-known fact that history research could influence the preparation of textbooks in both positive and negative ways. Considering the limited size of scientific research in the Turkish Cypriot community, the history textbooks that were written should be seen as a great success. The new textbooks were written using contemporary methods in an efficient way. This success is even greater considering the limited institutionalised history research within the Turkish Cypriot community.

“Far from creating independent thinkers, schools have always, throughout history, played an important role in system of control and coercion. And once you are educated, you have already been socialized in ways that support the power structure, which, in turn, rewards you immensely.”

Noam Chomsky

Introduction

It is a well-known phenomenon that the education system does not always promote independent thought and critical thinking. Students are not encouraged to search out the truth for themselves, but are instead indoctrinated according to government policies. History teaching can be the most important part of this indoctrination and is used as a tool for propaganda in order to impose the ‘official’ view of the state. Distortion, negative judgements, misinformation, fixing the problems, the omission of facts and the use of information for their (the state) own goals, are some of the methods that are often seen in history books.[1]

A prime example of the above can be seen in the old history textbooks used in lower secondary schools in northern Cyprus. The books which were written by Dr. Vehbi Zeki Serter, subjectively describe the history of Cyprus by legitimising the “national goal” of the Turkish Cypriot community and denying the legitimacy of the “other”. According to Vehbi Zeki Serter’s books, (which was the only history textbooks used in Turkish Cypriot schools for many years), ‘Cyprus was never Greek and Greek Cypriots are in fact not Greek but the remaining of different nations who passed through Cyprus throughout history’.[2]

Serter claims that Cyprus is a geographical extension of Anatolia and emphasizes the importance of Cyprus for Turkey. This, as a matter of fact, is a good indicator to view the intention behind that ‘fact’.[3] The notion of Cyprus being Turkish and always remaining as such is a fundamental ideology that runs consistently throughout the old history textbooks (which were part of the curricula of lower secondary schools until 2005). Moreover, the division of the island in 1974 is described as a victory for the Turkish army (in Cyprus).

“During the operations [of the Turkish army] towards East and West, the Greek and Greek-Cypriot forces knelt in front of Mehmetcik’s [a word for sympathetic, smooth and a humanist description of Turkish soldiers] sharp sword, diffused, and collapsed. These were coward Levant herds, what Grivas and Makarios called the grandchildren of Greeks and considered invincible, who could kill only defenceless Turks. Hadn’t the grandfathers of the same nation been thrown into the sea, on the 9^th of September 1922 in Izmir? History is repeating itself. This time, the Turkish Armed Forces were defeating the Hellenic imperialism in Turkish Cyprus.”[4]

Similarly, the author does not hesitate to warn the Greek Cypriots of the potential use of force: “I tell the Greeks, who are threatening world peace, that because of Cyprus someone will be bleeding. However, this will not be the Turks but the Greek nation, which once spoiled the fields of Izmir with their blood.”[5]

In Serter’s second volume, the book continuously refers to the ‘spoiled Greeks’ who killed the Turks in order to achieve Enosis. Moreover, he describes the Turks as ‘Turkish heroes’, who bravely resisted Enosis. The writer says the following:

Greeks are dreamers and liars because the Greek throughout the history is asking for something. He demands Dollars from America, and Pounds from England. He demands money, he demands territory. For example, from his neighbour Albania, he wants the Epiros, from Bulgaria, demands Macedonia. In the past, he wanted from Turkey the whole western Asia Minor. Now, he demands Cyprus. If he tomorrow wants Egypt because of some Greek element in Egypt, do not get surprised […]. In order to defend our rights and freedoms, we will resist to you. And, for this aim, if we don’t find a piece of stick or stone, we will take in hand the bones of our 80.000 martyrs who died for this land, and resisted to you.[6]

Such statements are examples of a method of history teaching which is far from contemporary. In fact the old history textbooks can be viewed as a mere reflection of nationalistic policies which are based on an ethnocentric perception of history. Moreover, the books have been written in a manner to justify and legitimise the nationalist policy of partition, by instrumentalising the past. As stated in Milliyetçilik Kıskacında Kıbrıs, “Turkish nationalists began to re-establish a ‘past’ rather than establishing a ‘future’ for the Turkish Cypriot Community. [Therefore], they tried to create a non-nostalgic ‘past’ and the ‘future’ was presented in a way of servicing the ‘past’ through the Unknown Soldier Monuments, Martyrs Week, the Museum of Barbarism, remembrance campaigns, God Bless Motherland Days and the education system (through schoolbooks that do not have contemporary education vision).[7]

A significant political change occurred in late 1990s, in which the Turkish Cypriot Community witnessed the rise of ‘Cyprus-centred’ thinking which in turn allowed for the reconstruction of certain social and cultural elements. (For a detailed account of this change, please see Chapter I). “The year of 1999 can be considered as a turning point for the Turkish Cypriot Community.”[8] Many members of the Turkish Cypriot community turned their face to the European Union and expressed a strong desire (and support) for the accession of the island in to the EU. In fact, a u turn of political and nationalistic thinking took place. The Turkish Cypriot community began to reject Turkish nationalism and its proposal of a permanent divided Cyprus, in search of a ‘peaceful European Cyprus’. 41 different non-governmental organisations and opposition parties formed ‘This Country is Ours Platform’, in order to increase the grassroots movements in search of a solution to the “Cyprus problem”. According to the movement, a lasting peace could only be achieved through a federal solution and EU membership. This movement gained impetus through the UN solution Plan which was presented to the leaders of northern and southern Cyprus in November 2002, by the former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. “The Plan is a ‘lengthy, complex, and comprehensive’ proposal … which was presented as the latest international attempt to reach a settlement on the island. The major aim of the Plan was to find a solution for the settlement of the ongoing Cyprus question and to allow a Unitary State of Cyprus to become members of the European Union.”[9]

This idea was particularly supported by the left-wing political parties and NGOs. Following the proposal of the Annan Plan, the Platforms’ representatives increased to 91 and they then went on to develop a “Common Vision”. The notion of a “Common Vision” equated to ‘Peace in Cyprus and ‘yes’ to the EU’ and was supported by the majority of various groups in the community. A cross section of society such as businessmen, trade unionists, teachers, working/middle class came together to fight for a common cause, namely a solution to the ongoing “Cyprus Problem”. Although these groups each held their own ideology, they developed a common aim in order to bring peace to Cyprus. Cyprus now began to be perceived as the homeland of all (including Greek Cypriots) the population living on the island, a fact which radically challenged the ruling ideas of the nationalist elite at the time.

Talking in a conference in Ankara, Rauf Denktash, former Turkish Cypriot Community leader, was asked to reply to the following question “wouldn’t be better for the Turkish Cypriot Community to struggle with Greek Cypriots for a Federal Republic of Cyprus?”

My ancestors come from Anatolia. From top to toe I am a Turk and my origins come from Central Asia. I am a Turk with all my culture, language, history and identity. I have a state and a motherland. All the words such as Turkish Cypriot, Greek Cypriot, and Common Nation are nonsense. They have their Greece and we have our Turkey. So, why do we need to live under one republic? Some circles tend to say that there are Cypriots, some Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. They tend to say stories about a common culture. However, there is neither Turkish Cypriot nor Greek Cypriot nor Cypriot. You should never ask us whether we are Cypriot or not. This may cause misunderstanding. You know why? Because there is one and only Cypriot thing in Cyprus and that is the Cypriot donkey.[10]

As one can see in the words of Denktash, the once prevailing idea of the ruling elite negated all local cultural elements of the Turkish Cypriots and promoted an abstract sense of nation. The growing oppositional movement in the Turkish Cypriot community began to challenge the ruling ideas, such as Turkism and Turkish nationalism and instead advocated the cultural uniqueness of the Turkish Cypriot community. This emphasis on difference was in fact an effort to differentiate the Turkish Cypriot community from the Turkish nation, which in turn led to a political change during the election of 2003. A new government formed by Mehmet Ali Talat in 2003, immediately began to reconsider the history textbooks and the educational policy in general. According to Dr. Hasan Alicik, (head of the Turkish Cypriot Educational Planning and Programme Development), it was the Turkish Cypriot government who decided to review the education system and to make changes to the curriculum taught in all the Turkish Cypriot schools. The newly elected government agreed that the old history textbooks impose chauvinism and nationalistic perceptions. Dr. Alicik also gave an example by saying that Serter’s books describe the EU as a ‘rotten apple’ and a ‘poisoned carrot’. “This was not an idea which was in line with 65% of the Turkish Cypriot community which said yes to the EU. Therefore they (the government) decided to change the methodology used. Dr. Alicik described the new methodology of the textbooks as ‘student-centred’ because it aims to motivate students by involving them in the education process.[11]

Once the Turkish Cypriot authorities made the decision to modify the history books, the authorities responsible for education invited teachers and academicians to come together to completely re-write the textbooks used by the first three grades of lower secondary school students. Thus, a group of volunteer teachers began working on a new style of history textbook. All three books were completed before the new semester began in 2005.

It should be noted that the Primary and Secondary School Teachers Trade Union (KTÖS and KTOEÖS) played a crucial role in ‘This Country is Ours Platform’. They were the pioneers of change towards “Cyprus-Centred” form thinking and this naturally influenced the process of change, and consequently the contents of the textbooks.

In order to fully understand the differences between the old and the new textbooks, it is important to undertake a qualitative comparison: Is there a shift from an ethnocentric approach to a humanist approach?; what is the image of the ‘other’?; is the image of Greek Cypriots always negative?; are there any other enemies (apart from the Greek Cypriots) named and described in the textbooks?; what kind of visual materials are used and what messages do they omit?

According to research conducted amongst 1,413 lower secondary schools pupils: 92% of pupils expressed positive views on the revised books. Furthermore, during an interview, Dr. Alicik, stated that the pupil’s families’ also displayed a positive response to the modified books.

In general, the new history textbooks are far from the ethnocentric approaches used in the old textbooks. Instead, the new books evaluate historical issues from a humanistic perspective. Moreover, there is no obvious indication of a national enemy or the “other” in the new books. One of the most fundamental characteristics of the new books is the emphasis on social history and its role in general history. Reference to social events during various historical periods help the reader to make sense of his/her common social space and identify with the Greek Cypriot community. Caricatures and pictures are also given great precedence and enrich the books further. Such visual imagery helps to further engage the reader into the subject matter and hold their attention. In fact the caricatures and pictures are so well placed that they are become an integral part of the books. Another important aspect of the books is the use of Turkish Cypriot dialect. Until recently, Turkish Cypriot dialect was often viewed as a ‘local cultural characteristic’ and has been strongly snubbed by various dominant Turkish nationalistic groups. However, the authors of the new textbooks have attempted to introduce (although limited) Turkish Cypriot dialect and in doing so promote a sense of pride in the ‘Cypriotness of the Turkish Cypriot community’. Furthermore, the authors of the new textbooks were keen to refer to Greek Cypriot writers and as such recognising the importance of their work.

During the process of educational reform, The Turkish Cypriot Educational Planning and Programme Department set up 147 commissions comprising of teachers and academicians which were involved in the revision of the history textbooks and teaching materials. In total 350,000 books will be published in the northern part of Cyprus. Previously, all the textbooks were printed in Turkey. This is a positive advancement for numerous reasons. Firstly, it allows the Turkish Cypriot community to have greater control and responsibility over the teaching of their history. Furthermore, it enhanced the economy of the northern part of Cyprus as new businesses were set up and thus jobs were created. Entrepreneurs began to open new printing houses and installed new technology. Additionally, graphic designers, academicians and writers were recruited to undertake this heavy task.

Although the majority of the Turkish Cypriot community welcomed the change in the educational curriculum and the new history textbooks were widely appreciated, the matter did stir up controversial discussions among nationalist circles. Rauf Denktash publicly denounced the new textbooks and criticized the authors of the books. Denktash’s main complaint was that the new textbooks would weaken the national consciousness of the new generation. In reference to the Greek Cypriot education system, Rauf Denktash proposed that the Turkish Cypriot education system should also be based on a nationalistic understanding. He expressed concern that because of a possible governmental change in the Turkish Cypriot community, the new textbooks will most probably end up in the dustbin.

I) Dynamics of Change

The revision of the history textbooks in the northern part of Cyprus was not free from the political debate in early 2000s. In order to fully comprehend the revision of the books and the consequent responses, it is important to understand the political atmosphere of the period. At the time, the majority of Turkish Cypriot’s began to react against Denktash’s policy of a no solution to the “Cyprus problem”, and actively become involved in mass movements to bring peace to Cyprus. Organizations such as ‘This Country is Ours Platform’ and the ‘Common Vision’, challenged the old regime and demanded an immediate solution to the Cyprus conflict. The role of the teachers unions (KTÖS: Turkish Cypriot Teachers’ Union; and, KTOEÖS: Turkish Cypriot Secondary School Teachers’ Union) in this process was of great importance. The dynamic involvement of the teachers unions in the aspiration for a unified Cyprus is vital when considering the background of events that led to the revision of the history textbooks in the northern part of the Island.

I a) Growing Reactions towards Denktash and Mobilisation against the Status Quo

In 2000, Rauf Denktash sent a letter to Glafkos Klerides inviting him to begin negotiations regarding the “Cyprus problem”, (defined as proximity talks). However, during the fifth round of negotiations, Denktash leaves the table, which instigated strong reactions among the Turkish Cypriot community. Subsequently, the banking and finance sector faced a huge crisis, which resulted in the collapse of many private banks in 2000. The resulting economic crisis was the final straw, and negative reactions against the Turkish Cypriot administration gained momentum. A widespread belief developed among a cross section of Turkish Cypriot society: that economic dependency on Turkey was having a negative impact on the local economy. Moreover, Turkey and Turkish bureaucrats were strongly criticized by various civil society activists during the period of 2000 to 2004.

Representatives of KTÖS and KTOEÖS, who were angry with the policies of the Bülent Ecevit and Devlet Bahçeli government in Turkey, publicly stated on 30^th January 2001 “Ankara we do not want your money or support, nor the advice of your bureaucrats. We refuse to be enslaves”. ‘Peace and solution’ emerged as a popular slogan against the Turkish controlled governance structure in the northern part of the island. Following the arrest of Afrika newspaper’s editor, Şener Levent, Mustafa Akıncı (former chief of the Communal Liberation Party-TKP) expressed in an interview with The Guardian newspaper that “Cyprus is an open air prison”.[12] Akıncı conveyed the desire for Turkey to leave Cyprus and talked about “real sovereignty”.

Up until this point, civil society activists had held an important role in establishing ad hoc umbrella associations in order to gain support against the so called “status quo” government in the north. Furthermore, these associations outwardly supported a solution to the Cyprus conflict. The Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce initiated the formation of “The Common Vision of Turkish Cypriot Civil Society”. The Common Vision brought to the forefront the urgent need of solving the Cyprus problem before the Republic of Cyprus joined the EU. However, before the creation of the Common Vision, the “This Country is Ours Platform” had already gained the support of various civil society organizations and political parties, against an economic package scheduled by Ankara and approved by the previous local government. The economic package introduced a number of severe measures in 2000.

(…) “This Country is Ours” called for self-governance of the Turkish Cypriots and demilitarization, as well as a negotiated settlement to the Cyprus problem. The Platform leaders were loyal to the idea that Cypriot communities could share the same political entity on the basis ‘inter-communal peace’ which has been the historical objective of Turkish Cypriot leftist movement.[13]

Soon after the Plan published in November 2002, the aforementioned associations and the Platform prompted many Turkish Cypriots to take to the streets and demonstrate in favour of the Annan Plan. Nevertheless, “This Country is Ours” came forward as the “more influential mobilizing Platform”. Due to the characteristics of civil society in northern Cyprus, professional syndicates and unions hold a prominent position and possess great influence. Essentially, “among the more than fifty organizations in the ‘This Country is Ours’ movement, the teachers’ unions (KTÖS and KTOEÖS) and civil servants’ union (KTAMS) played a crucial role in intensifying and maintaining civil society actions because of their strong organizational structures.”[14]

Moreover, during the mass demonstrations in support of the Annan Plan, thousands of people called for the resignation of the so called status quo government and particularly the nationalist leader Rauf Denktash, who was the chief negotiator and Turkish Cypriot representative in the Cyprus talks. Numerous leaflets and brochures which highlighted the main points of the Anan Plan and its advantages were printed and widely disseminated. Many pro-solution intellectuals attended TV and radio programmes and journalists wrote intensively about the positive aspects of the Plan for the Turkish Cypriots. Following these events, the border in Nicosia which had separated the two communities for more then 30 years, was opened.

I b) Change of the Status Quo Administration

Ultimately, the right wing nationalist government (once seen as the status quo government), lost the subsequent 2003 and 2005 general elections. The old government was replaced with the left wing political party, the Republican Turkish Party (CTP). CTP increased its popularity and subsequently won the last election, by gaining 45% of the total votes. This dramatic shift was partly due to the influence of the peace movement on local politics and the situation of the “Cyprus problem” at that time.

Rauf Denktash, the communal leader of Turkish Cypriots since the early 1970s, was increasingly challenged by his various opponents in different political circles. The appearance of the Annan Plan saw the dawn of a new era and reversed political configuration in the north. Denktash was unable to use his previous legitimacy and failed to convince the masses for a “no” vote, as trust for Denktash declined. According to research, which “asked how much Turkish Cypriots trust the Turkish Cypriot leader (Rauf Denktash) as far as the Cyprus negotiations are concerned, 39.2% said they had ‘complete trust,’ 13.2% said they had ‘little trust’ and 35.5% said they had ‘no trust at all.’ Those who said they did not have enough trust totalled 9.1%. 3.1% said, I do not know/no reply.”[15]

I c) Role of the Teachers Union over the Revision of the Textbooks Process

During the Annan Plan negotiations, the teachers’ unions played an important role as promoters of non-violent mass demonstrations. A significant number of youngsters were mobilized to participate in demonstrations supporting the Annan Plan. This was aided by the striking of teachers during these demonstrations. Anti-Annan Plan and right wing circles used the media to strongly criticize the participation of students at these demonstrations. Volkan newspaper attacked the teachers unions and described them as “militant teachers organizations” and “syndicate ağa’s”[16]. Volkan newspaper in the front pages of 14-15 January 2003 issues condemned the government for not stopping the abuse of students by the “militant teachers” and their syndicates, and students’ exploitation in favour of the CTP policies.

Once the CTP government came to power, one of its major tasks was to undertake the revision of history textbooks. The process began with the revision/re-writing of the secondary school history textbooks. Preceding this, the revision of 5^th grade social sciences book followed.

However, the modification of the education system and teaching materials is not a new phenomenon. Discussions regarding this issue have been taking place within the Turkish Cypriot community since 1970s. The official line was based on “maintaining a nationalistic perspective in secondary school education and encouraging and extolling ethnocentrism. However, civil society has been supportive of a more universalistic education system according to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”[17]

Concern on how we teach history, how we make linkages between past and present, and how we connect past and present in history teaching, deepened in the northern part of the island during the peace process. This concern enabled the new administration to make substantial changes to the traditional history textbooks. With the start of the new semester in September 2004, the new history textbooks started to be used in all secondary schools.

In accordance with the conclusions of the Civil Society Impact Study on Secondary Education, the teachers’ unions have played an active role in promoting a new curriculum. The new government responded by preparing revised history textbooks with an altogether deeper understanding than the previous ones. The Turkish Cypriot Primary and Secondary School Teachers’ Trade Unions (KTÖS and KTÖEÖS) gave their own account of this change.

There had been an ideological confrontation between the then ‘government’ and the teachers' trade unions about the content of curriculum. While the former had usually been supportive of a curriculum stressing the 'historical enmity' between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, the latter stressed the necessity of universal principles such as friendship, anti-chauvinism and mutual understanding as the basic values on which school curriculum should be based. The teachers' trade unions and their leading members published strong anti-chauvinist polemics but could not exert any meaningful impact on the education policy till the December 2003 elections through which the CTP came to power. In September 2004 history textbooks were replaced by new ones which were ostensibly more empathetic than the predecessor.[18]

II) The Renewed History Books and the New Discursive Strategy

What is it that must precede the conveying of history? Must there not be the declaration of a double passion, an eros for the past an ardour for the others in whose name there is a felt urgency to speak? ... Nietzsche may have been right in proclaiming that remembering the past is a sick passion; yet without necrophilia of the historian who gives herself over to overcoming the past’s passing into oblivion, there would be only the finality of death.

Edith Wyschogrod- An Ethics of Remembering

As is evident from the previous sections of the report, the issue of revising the history textbooks (in particular) and re-designing the curricula is a complicated process. The formation of a new government, the general dynamics of change, and the search for a solution to the Cyprus conflict are all interrelated matters in the decision making and writing process of the new textbooks.

With this in mind and having surveyed the revised textbooks, it is apparent that there are huge differences between the old and new textbooks. This section, will deal with this differences in relation to the discursive strategy. Is there any difference between the old and the new textbooks? If so, how and why has the discursive strategy changed? What is the relationship between the “newly formed” administration and the ‘change’ in history textbooks and the general curricula? In order to fully appreciate the new textbooks and highlight the differences between the old and new books, it is imperative that the old textbooks are also examined.

As Niyazi Kizilyurek states, the old textbook, written by Vehbi Zeki Serter begins with the emphasis that “…Cyprus is a geographical extension of Anatolia…”[19] As Vehbi Zeki Serter claims,

Cyprus controls the Southern ports of Turkey. In case of a Russian threat, the Turkish army can be attacked form different fronts and can ask for help only from the Southern ports of Turkey. Cyprus for Turkey is for the point of history, also very important. Our ancestors conquered Cyprus in 1571 for the cost of 80000 martyrs’ lives. The Turks ruled Cyprus until 1878, for three centuries, and treated the native population in a very good manner. They brought freedom and justice to the island. The Turks have developed Cyprus and built so many monuments, which gave Cyprus the Turkish Character. In short, one can say that Cyprus is historically, geographically, strategically, and economically tied to Anatolia and a part of Asia Minor.[20]

Kizilyurek (1999) goes on to point out that, the last sentence of the paragraph is a good example of the discursive strategy of the old textbook, written by Vehbi Zeki Serter. In Kizilyurek’s (1999) words,

The “discursive strategy” of the author is evident through the emphasis on the “80.000 martyrs”, in Turkish “şehit” – deriving from Jihad, holy war in Arabic – which attaches a “holy meaning” to the fact of the Ottoman conquest of Cyprus by using the political language of Islam.[21]

However, contrary to the old textbook which emphasised ‘Cyprus’ ties to Anatolia’, the new Cyprus History textbook (vol. 1), begins by providing the reader with some general information about Cyprus and how Cyprus took its name –‘Kıbrıs’ (in Turkish). Following this, the geographical location of Cyprus is discussed, after which information regarding the prehistoric period through to the arrival of the Venetians in Cyprus are the main points of the book.

The old textbook did not provide students with any space to think, analyse, and interpret events from different perspective. However, the new books are strikingly different. (Meltem Onurkan highlights these differences using the following example.) The new textbook asks questions –such as ‘having conquered Cyprus three times, why did the Egyptians not have much effect on the civilisation of the island?’ Onurkan stresses that such questions– encourage students to think, analyse, and understand different points of view.[22]

In addition, the new textbooks present the names of places using both the Greek and Turkish name, which indirectly acknowledges that Greek Cypriots/Greeks are also living on the island and share in Cypriot culture. However, in the old textbook, this was not the case. Examples of the place names stated are as follows (from the first volume of the Cyprus History book): p. 13 – Akrotiri (Ağrotur), Aetokremnos (Kartal Yuvası), Akdeniz Köyü, Dragontovounari (Ejderha Tepesi); p. 14 – Tatlısu-Çiftlikdüzü (Akanthou); p. 18 – Petra tou Limnidi (Limnidi Kayalığı), and p. 21 – Cape Andreas Kastros (Zafer Burnu).

The aforementioned examples are also important in highlighting: “the new discursive strategy” of the revised history books.

II a) New Discursive Strategy and its Relation with Critical Pedagogy

Another important detail regarding the new discursive strategy of the revised textbooks lies in the fact that, “It is also important to encourage teachers and students to evaluate the textbooks that they are using and discover better ways to learn about the world’s problems.”[23] The new Cyprus History textbooks actually encourage a different way of thinking to the mainstream pedagogical approach: Paulo Freire’s “transmission” or “banking” model[24], in which the teacher “knows everything” and the students “know nothing”. According to mainstream pedagogy, the ‘teacher speaks and the students listen’.[25] There are many instances in the new textbooks in which students are encouraged to think, analyse the given information and discuss the subject matter further. This is aided by the careful use of caricatures. The caricature draws the reader’s attention in a manner that is not “dull”. Instead, the message is clear and simple: people can have fun whilst studying history.[26] Moreover, students are encouraged (with their teachers) to think and visualise past situations. For example, in the first volume of the history book, the book talks about the first settlements in Cyprus and the caricature asks “how the first settlers of the island came to Cyprus and what types of ships they used?[27] Questions such as these are important because they provide an actual space (both metaphorically and literally) for students to learn. By encouraging student participation, pupils are more able to enjoy the history lesson and subject matter.

Critical pedagogy in education is very significant, as Mashoed Bailie asserts in “Critical Communication Pedagogy: Teaching and Learning for Democratic Life”,

Critical education, then, embraces a concept of education that challenges students to take their responsibility as moral citizens seriously: to participate in the development conditions and critiques that promote social transformation while uncovering, resisting, and challenging, the supposed “naturalness” or “neutralness” of the way things are. Education for democracy must provide the conditions for critical reflection, social critique and the possibility for change.[28]

Although Bailie discusses education in general, a history book that not only “teaches” so called “only” facts but also encourages students to think and question the given information in a very significant progression. Questioning the given information not only “happens” by asking questions in the book, but also in the way teachers teach history. Contrary to the “transmission” or “banking” model, as Paulo Freire claims, (or the hypodermic needle approach in communication models) critical education pedagogy is important because “what is at issue is the process, the content, and the context within which students struggle, and the development of a curriculum that includes the voices and the visions of multiple communities of persons.”[29] With the new textbooks, students will be able to see that “they” are not the only people that talk about the “truth” but there are also other people, who are living on the same island, who have other “truths.” Furthermore, by emphasising the importance of social history, the new history textbooks does not demonise the “other” but “normalises” it.[30] By using the term “normalise”, it is being suggested that the new textbooks see the “other” as people like “us”, who have the same needs, such as food, shelter, clothing and a place/land to live.

II b) New Textbooks in Terms of Colour and Bibliography

The new textbooks also differ from the old books in terms of their visual presentation, especially in the use of colour. The old textbooks where printed in black and white, the paper quality was poor and the books contained very few pictures. The pictures that were used mainly focused on the contemporary (interethnic violence) period. In contrast, the new textbooks use many bright colours and the paper (and the print) is of good quality. Cyprus (as a geographical place) stands in the centre of the front cover of all three textbooks. Furthermore, in terms of discursive strategy, the new history book has been divided into three volumes, whereas previously one book was used by all students in the first three years of lower secondary school. The first volume is concerned with general information about the island of Cyprus, the Prehistoric period, Cyprus during the Egyptians rule, Hittites, Greek colonies, Persians, Alexander the Great, Roman Empire, and Cyprus during the Middle Ages (Lusignans & Venetians). The second volume of the book focuses on the Ottoman Period, and the third volume primarily concentrates on the contemporary history of Cyprus (from the British Administration till now).[31]

Last but not least, there is a vast difference between the old books’ approach and the new ones, in terms of references. The new textbooks’ draw on more up to date references, and interestingly, the writers of the new textbooks were not apprehensive in using Greek and/or Greek Cypriot writers. In contrast, Vehbi Zeki Serter’s book did not contain many references from different authors. Instead, Vehbi Zeki used only one Greek Cypriot writer as a reference. Additionally, the new textbooks contain a greater number of references than the old one.

In brief, one can say that the main difference between the old and the new textbooks lies in the very idea of seeing Cyprus as a mainland versus ‘Cyprus as a geographical extension of Anatolia’.[32] The new textbooks talk in terms of the former, whilst the old book attempted to prove the latter. Furthermore, the old books use of bland and poor printing quality, subscribes to mainstream pedagogy, as no discussion points appear throughout the chapters (until the end of the units). However, the new textbooks regard the student as an individual, and encourage him/her to think and understand events from the past. Moreover, the new textbooks place a greater emphasis on social history, rather than solely providing the reader with information about who conquered Cyprus. Although the discursive strategy of the new textbooks reveals that the new books contain many positive changes, it can be claimed that more work needs to be done. As Michalinos Zembylas and Hakan Karahasan (2006) claim, …we want to suggest that in addition to revising textbooks or writing common textbooks for both communities in Cyprus, it is equally important to develop pedagogies that promote reconciliation and peace. We view reconciliation and peace not as states but as ongoing processes of respecting difference and seeking alternatives to hatred.[33]

Consequently, the change in discursive strategy in the north will only be of use if efforts like this take into account the pedagogical aspects of education. However, in order to do this we urgently need to have a common pedagogy that promotes reconciliation and peace.[34] Only by doing this, will the new curricula in Cyprus be able to achieve its main goal.

III) Textual Evaluation of the Cyprus History Textbooks

III a) Cyprus History Book, Volume I[35]

As previously mentioned, (contrary to the old history books) the new textbooks do not project the ‘other’ as an enemy, or cultivate mutual distrust between the two main communities living in Cyprus. (POST 2004). The most significant development in terms of the new textbooks lies in the discursive strategy of the books. The old textbooks primary aim was to prove that ‘Cyprus is part of Anatolia’ (Kizilyurek 1999) and that “we-Turkish Cypriots” are the grandchildren of the Ottomans, who conquered Cyprus in 1571.

This section of the report is an analysis of the Cyprus History Textbook Volume 1. It will become apparent in the pending paragraphs that the new textbook is a positive initiative in terms of print quality, page design, and narrative.

The main subject headings of the Cyprus history textbook, volume I are as follows: a) The island of Cyprus, b) Prehistoric periods, c) Cyprus in historical periods (information is given about the Egyptians, the Hittites, Greek colonies, the Assyrians, the Persians, Alexander the Great, and the Roman Empire), d) Cyprus in the Middle Ages (covers the periods of the Byzantine Empire, Isaac Commeneus, British Kingdom, Lusignan Kingdom, and Venetians).

An outline of Cyprus is located in the centre of the front cover and is shown without borders. This in itself displays a vast difference in terms of discursive strategy, compared to the previous textbook. Furthermore, the exclusion of borders on the diagram can be interpreted as an attempt by the authors, to show students that Cyprus is an island (as a whole). By presenting Cyprus as a whole entity (rather than divided), the old discourse is fundamentally challenged. Furthermore, the background colour of the front and back cover is purple, which is neither the colour of the Greek or the Republic of Cyprus nor Turkish Republic or the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus flag. The title of the book and subject matter (Kıbrıs Tarihi) is situated in the middle of the front page.

The back cover of the book continues with the ideology that ‘Cyprus is our homeland’ (rather than being part of Anatolia), by inscribing ‘Kıbrıs Tarihi’ in the background several times. In the centre of the back cover, a Carretta turtle can be seen, which is greatly connected to Cyprus. Again by doing this, the emphasis of ‘Cyprus as our mainland’ is stressed.

As mentioned above, contrary to the old book, the new textbook stresses the fact that Cyprus is an island from the very start. One can see that the old discourse is replaced with ‘Cyprus is our mainland.’ This is further emphasised on page 7: “Cyprus has arisen from the bottom of the sea, and because of this, the island of Cyprus has no connection with any continent”.

Whilst explaining the history of Cyprus before and after various historic periods, the book provides general information about Cyprus during that particular era and a variety of visual materials are used to reinforce the text. This in itself is a new concept, in terms of history textbooks in the northern part of Cyprus.

Another significant difference in terms of the narrative (again related with the main theme of ‘Cyprus is our mainland’) is in relation to the Cypriot language. The old textbook did not attempt to acknowledge the existence of a Cypriot language, despite it being one of the oldest languages in the world. However, the revised textbook refers to and gives examples of this language.

As previously stated in “the renewed history books and the new discursive strategy” section, the use of caricatures in the new textbook are also important in terms of pedagogy and narrative strategy.[36] The caricatures in the new books are often used as tool for posing questions to students, which encourages them to evaluate, think, and criticise the given information. It also prompts the teacher to prepare himself/herself for the lesson; otherwise s/he may experience difficulties, as the book does not subscribe to mainstream pedagogy. Instead, it encourages students to think freely (given the boundaries of course), criticise and/or evaluate the given information. It also drives teachers to improve themselves and their teaching methods.

Moreover, there are many points in the book that prompt the students to discuss the subject matter further, by using their imagination and analytically thinking about the given information. For example, ‘having conquered Cyprus three times, why did the Egyptians not have much effect on the civilisation of the island?’ (p. 37), “Let’s discuss why Cyprus has been named ‘the green island’ throughout history?” (p. 41), “Let’s talk about the Trojan Wars” (p. 40), “Let’s discuss the terms empire and province” (p. 45).

In addition to prompting further discussion, the caricatures also provide important information about the given subject. Whilst the book talks about the Hittites, one of the characters asks a wise man “Does Hittite civilisation come from Anatolia?” and he answers “Yes, they are also called Etis – Etiler” (p. 38). Another example of such questions and answers are as follows: “What is the race of Mycenae?” Answer, “It is said that they belong to the Indo-European, East Asia group” (p. 39). Additionally the caricatures often summarise a particular whole event in a brief and visual way, making it easy for the student to remember the most crucial points of a subject area.

Upon examination of the first volume of the new history textbook, chapter 1 begins with a general account of the history of Cyprus and explains how Cyprus got its name. The following pages briefly discuss the geography of Cyprus. One of the most interesting sentences in the textbook can be found at the very beginning of the book: ‘having conquered Cyprus three times, why did the Egyptians not have much effect on the civilisation of the island?’ (p. 7). This sentence cannot be separated from the main philosophy of the book, which is previously explained in the “new discursive strategy” section. The final part of the 1^st chapter ends by providing information about the climate and vegetation of Cyprus.

The second chapter of the book deals with the prehistoric period of Cyprus. It begins by explaining how Cyprus became an island and the island’s geologic structure. Once again, “the new discursive strategy” of the book is quite visible: what is being said on page 7 is repeated in a different way on page 10. In other words, contrary to the “old discursive strategy” (found in Serter’s books), which were based on the notion of togetherness with Anatolia, here, the idea of ‘Cyprus as our homeland’ is re-emphasised.

As stated previously, another significant element of the new textbook is related with the practice of ‘naming’. Places are named in a bi-lingual way (Greek and Turkish), which promotes the notion of bi-linguality and multiculturalism. Although the book does mention how the first settlers to Cyprus came from Anatolia, it does not promote the idea that “…Cyprus is historically, geographically, strategically, and economically tied to Anatolia and a part of Asia Minor.”[37] Instead, the book presents this as a normal detail. At the end of chapter 2, the first languages and scripts used in Cyprus are explained.

Chapter 3 discusses the Egyptians, the Hittites, the Greek colonies, the Phoenicians, the Assyrians, the Persians, Alexander the Great, and the Roman Empire in Cyprus. While the book examines these civilisations, the reader is continuously encouraged to think and analyse the information presented to them. However, in the old textbook, students were only invited to answer questions after the end of each chapter.

The final chapter of volume 1 begins with the Byzantine Empire in Cyprus and provides a general background as to how the Roman Empire was divided into two. Later, the book goes on to talk about the Orthodox Church in Cyprus and various Arab attacks. The following pages briefly explain the Isaac Commeneus in Cyprus, the British Empire, the Lusignans, and the Venetians in Cyprus. The book concludes with the Venetians.

The “new discursive strategy” is excellently highlighted at the end of the first volume. On page 73, a diagram illustrates “Who ruled Cyprus from 15 AD till the end of ancient times”. The diagram commences from 1450 AD and progresses onwards. As the diagram moves from one era to the next, the civilisation which ruled Cyprus during that period is stated. Hence, the Ottomans rule is presented as simply one of many civilisations that ruled Cyprus. In other words, the normalisation of the Ottomans rule in Cyprus signifies the fact that the new textbook does not ‘try to prove that’ “…Cyprus is historically, geographically, strategically, and economically tied to Anatolia and a part of Asia Minor[38] as did the old book. Instead, the Ottomans rule is simply seen as an empire which once came to Cyprus and ruled the Island, as did other civilisations previously.

In conclusion, on examination of the first volume of the Cyprus History textbook, it can be seen that the new book is better in terms of print quality, colour and page design. Pedagogically speaking, the new textbook does not follow the mainstream ‘teacher knows everything’ idea (Bailie 1997). Instead, there are many points in the book that students are encouraged to discuss amongst themselves, evaluate, and combine the taught subject with their ‘past’ information. The use of caricatures and other visual materials (i.e. pictures) assist in the learning process and allow for the students to gain a better understanding of the subject matter.

III b) Cyprus History Book, Volume II[39]

The second volume of the Cyprus history textbook consists of five chapters. Chapter One covers the Ottoman Empire in Cyprus and begins by explaining the motive behind the Ottomans arrival in Cyprus. Unlike the previous textbook, the reasons are presented in an objective way (pages 2-4). The book claims that the ‘major reason’ for the conquest of Cyprus (by the Ottomans), was a direct result of the pleading of the Orthodox Bishops to be saved from Venetian cruelty. This unit also mentions the dispute between the Grand Vezier Sokollu Mehmet Paşa and Vezier Lala Mustafa Paşa concerning the advantages of a conquest in Cyprus (p. 5).

Throughout pages 6 to 12, the necessary groundwork required by the Ottomans for the conquest of Cyprus is explained: The different ports from where the invasion was launched are illustrated using old maps and pictures and the settlement of the Ottomans is also explained in pages 13 and 14. A great majority of the Ottoman settlers were forced to leave their country and the notion of deportation as a method of settlement is discussed more comprehensively than in the previous textbooks. The expulsion of Turkish criminals to Cyprus in subsequent years is also examined.

Chapter two describes the Administration and Social Life in Ottoman Cyprus, paying particular attention to the administrative divisions during various historical periods. Locus attacks, hunger and starvation are examples given to describe the hardships of Cypriots at that time (p. 18). The legal system that was adopted by the Ottomans is presented as fair due to the equal numbers of Muslim and non-Muslims representatives in the Sheria courts (p. 20). Furthermore, the Land and Tax Order is explained in pages 22 to 23 and the Öşür/Muslim tax and cizye/non-Muslim tax are illustrated with the use of caricatures (p. 23). The dialogue poses the question; ‘why does a Christian pay a different tax to a Muslim?’ This is a good example of the books attempt to highlight the discrepancies during the Ottoman era. This unit also reveals the corruption of the Ottoman officials in relation to tax collection, thus encouraging students to have a critical mind. In contrast, the previous textbooks were one-sided, referring only to the positive aspects of the Ottoman administration.

Educational and religious institutions and the functions of the Vakıfs are explained in the following section (pp. 24-29). Furthermore, Christian institutions and their religious representatives are also examined. The next section describes the common uprisings and rebellions by Turkish and Greek Cypriots, against the Ottoman rule (p. 31). In doing so, the textbook demonstrates a shared history, involving common concerns and cooperation between the two communities.

Chapter two portrays Cypriot society as a multicultural society, by addressing the social lives of Cypriots. The book goes on to explain that the religious, ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences of people did not lead to conflict. Family life, marriages, crimes and their punishments, property matters and relationships amongst different communities are discussed on pages 32 to 36. Societal and religious objections to mixed marriages are also cited (p. 37). The textbook attempts to highlight the importance of mutual respect towards one another’s culture and beliefs, and stresses the importance of a peaceful co-existence of the people of Cyprus. These messages are in striking contrast to the messages found in the old textbooks. The position of women in society is also given attention. Often, women and their own personal history are not addressed in history books.

Moreover, unlike the old book, the new textbook gives great precedence to the issue of social history. This is of fundamental importance because social history is a vital tool in de-nationalizing history. Instead of simply addressing the goal of building national identity (by simply teaching the history of one’s nation), social history contributes to students’ understanding of how people used to live in the past.

Volume II only contains two chapters relating to the Ottoman rule in Cyprus. Contrary to the former textbook, this theme does not dominate the whole book. Chapter Three proceeds to discuss the British rule and the role of Cyprus in the British Empire. The history of colonialism and the geo-strategic interests of the British Empire are stated in the beginning of this unit (pp. 41-45). The decrease in power of the Ottoman Empire and the Great Powers balance of power struggle are explained excellently by the use of interesting caricatures (pp. 46-47). Within this context, the importance of Cyprus for the British Empire is highlighted (pp. 48-49). Subsequently, the Congress of Berlin and the agreement of the Ottoman Empire with the British Empire (concerning the future of Cyprus) are addressed (pp. 50-51).

The next chapter concentrates on the arrival of the British to the island. Despite their (the British) fears there was no resistance from the locals (pp. 54-55). The nationalism movement in Europe and its manifestation in Cyprus; the desire of some Greek nationalists to unite all Greek lands; ENOSIS and its so-called ‘Megali Idea’ ambition are all explained within an international context. In doing so, the subject matter is normalized. Interesting, previously Turkish Cypriot textbooks purposely used the grammatically incorrect word MEGALO IDEA, which is more aggressive in its meaning. However, this book uses the correct word MEGALI IDEA
(p. 55).

This section of the textbook (chapter 4), discusses the rise of nationalism as a global issue and not simply an ideology that was limited to Cyprus. This is strikingly different from the previous textbook. Moreover, Greek Cypriot/ Greek nationalism is not described as evil (pp. 55-56). Furthermore, the Greek and Turkish flags are presented side by side (p. 56), suggesting an equality of the two countries.

The divide and rule policy which was used in Cyprus in order to avoid any common struggle by the Cypriots against the British; the so-called democratization of Legislative Council (Kavanin Meclisi) in 1882 and its implication on the equality of the Cypriot communities are all explained with the use of caricatures. Moreover, on page 57 a diagram using scales proves an interesting way to explain the changing balance of power in the Kavanin Meclisi. By drawing on visual materials, students are encouraged to use critical thinking rather than absorbing various imposing ideas (p. 57).

The socio-economic conditions of Turkish and Greek Cypriots and the effect on Cypriot social life are described in the next section. Everyday experiences, common food, culture, music, customs, and common entertainments are highlighted. Furthermore, shared sufferings such as famine, epidemics, earthquakes, corrupt administrations and heavy taxes are also cited. The unit concludes by explaining that the real problem between the two communities did not emerge due to differences in religion and language, but due to the political abuse of the communities by nationalist movements, as well as the divide and rule policy of the British (pp. 58-59). In addition, examples of various professions undertaken by Cypriots are illustrated with the aid of pictures, and no distinction between Greek or Turkish Cypriots is made (pp. 60-61).

The education system during the British rule, the role of the teachers, textbooks being produced in the respective motherlands and their contribution to the rising nationalism and conflict in Cyprus, are also highlighted (p. 65). The book goes on to illustrate Turkish Cypriot society and the development of a Turkish Cypriot identity. Furthermore, Turkish music and art, the Turkish Cypriot family structure, marriage ceremonies and rituals are portrayed on pages from 66 to 68. The contribution of the British to the island’s infrastructure, railroad, harbour, road building, forestation, establishment of village cooperatives, department of Antiquities and the first press office are also described. In doing so the positive aspects of British colonialism are stated, this is a good example of multi-perspective history teaching.

The last chapter covers the First World War (WWI) and Cyprus. Reasons for WWI, the annexation of Cyprus by the British and the consequences of the war are discussed and explained throughout pages 72 and 73. The negative impact of the war on Cyprus, such as the emergency measures of the Colonial government and the deprivation of the economy are indicated. Unlike the previous textbook, the War of Independence in Turkey is only briefly mentioned in one paragraph. In the old textbook, the subject was given great coverage, including details of how the war was conducted. Instead, the new textbook discusses the position of Turkish Cypriots and their support by means of donations, therefore placing Cyprus at the core of the subject matter. The textbook proceeds to explain how the “Greek Cypriots celebrated the Greek invasion of the Ottoman territories and that the Turkish Cypriots celebrated Mustafa Kemal’s victory” (p. 74). Even though the contrasting standpoints of the Turkish and Greek Cypriots are revealed, the book does so in a non provocative way.

Following this unit, the book discusses the conditions of the Lausanne Peace Treaty, Atatürk’s, “peace at home, peace in the world” policy and the rapprochement between Atatürk and Venizelos (p. 74). An open ended question is posed: “Do you think that this friendship would come to an end due to the Cyprus conflict?”, therefore, encouraging the reader to consider the topic further. The book also attempts to deal with the matter of whether Cyprus was negotiated in Lausanne and it points out that Turkey agreed to give up all its rights over Cyprus and accepted British sovereignty (p. 75).

Consequently, around 5,000 Turkish Cypriots immigrated to Turkey during the period 1924-1927. The Turkish Cypriots which remained in Cyprus demanded to rule Vakıfs, as well as their educational and religious institutions. Therefore, the need for organisation was paramount. Thus, the next topic of the textbook focuses on the leadership and organisation of Turkish Cypriots (p. 76). After Lausanne, the island fell solely into the British legislation. Due to these changing conditions, Turkish Cypriot members of the Legislative Council fell into conflict and divided into Kemalists and Conservatives (Evkafçılar). In contrast to the previous textbook, the new book exposes the dispute amongst the Turkish Cypriot elite at that time, instead of merely concentrating on the dispute between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots (pp. 76-79).

Following this, the 1931 Riot in Cyprus is described. The common social and economic hardships of the Cypriots are explained, as well as their joint vote in the Legislative Council and the punishment of both communities by the British. However, the previous textbook had a completely different approach to this subject matter and placed all of the blame on the British administration in Cyprus. Furthermore, the old textbook suggested that the British treated the Turkish Cypriots unfairly, as they had not taken part in the riot. The previous textbook went on to accuse the Greek Cypriots for the heavy sentence imposed on the Turkish Cypriots. In contrast, the new textbook focuses on the common position and suffering of the two communities regarding the 1931 Riot.

III c) Cyprus History Book, Volume III[40]

Volume III of the Cyprus history textbooks, consists of 7 units including “The Second World War”; “The Cold War and Cyprus”; “The Big Problem in the Small World”; “A Solution for Cyprus Problem: The Republic of Cyprus”; “Difficult Years”; “New Era in Cyprus”; and, “The Cyprus Peace Movement”.

The first chapter explains the situation in Europe during the Second World War period and relates the issue to Cyprus by describing the social life of Cypriots at that time. The countries partaking in the War and the economic crisis that European countries faced are explained objectively. The words in the text are chosen and described carefully, such as totalitarianism, Nazism and fascism. Furthermore, the reader can understand how the people of Cyprus experienced the War. For