ONE HISTORY FOR ALL
by Vicken Cheterian
Transitions Online
nguage=1&IdPublication=4&NrIssue=299&N rSection=2&NrArticle=20249
Dec 10 2008
Czech Republic
Georgian students speaking different languages will soon all have
the same, more inclusive textbooks.
Back in 2005 the Georgian Ministry of Education decided to introduce
new history textbooks for two minority communities, the Armenians of
Samtskhe-Javakheti and the Azeris of Kvemo-Kartli. These two regions
are loosely integrated into mainstream Georgian culture. In both, the
majority of the regional population still has difficulty communicating
in the Georgian language. During the Soviet era the lingua franca and
the language used at the level of local administration was Russian,
a situation that changed fundamentally when Georgia became independent
in 1991.
After the collapse of the USSR, the two regions used history texts
imported from Armenia and Azerbaijan. In a sense, these ethnic
minorities were taught the history of neighboring states, but not
of Georgia. Following the Rose Revolution and the reaffirmation of
Georgian statehood Tbilisi was keen to see this situation in the
schools change.
A natural step was the introduction of new history texts. Accordingly,
the Georgian authorities decided to translate new texts being developed
for use in Georgian-language schools into Armenian and Azeri in
order to introduce the books as quickly as possible into linguistic
minority schools. The latest generation textbooks are supposed to
be distributed in Georgian-speaking schools in the coming months. In
minority regions, they should be introduced by 2010 or 2011 and will
replace the Armenian and Azeri texts.
When we at CIMERA – a Geneva-based non-profit organization which has
carried out bilingual education studies in Georgia – heard of the
Georgian authorities’ plans, we wondered how the images of minorities
were reflected in the pages of Georgian history textbooks, and whether
it was appropriate to introduce these books in minority schools. We
asked two experts to study these questions: Levan Gigineishvili,
a scholar from Georgia, and Latvian historian Ieva Gundare.
Their report, based on analysis of textbooks used at the time in
Georgia and interviews with the books’ authors, history teachers,
civil servants and parents in Tbilisi and the two regions of southern
Georgia, found something startling: Armenians and Azeris in Georgia
were by and large absent from Georgian history books. When they were
noted, it was in a negative sense.
For example, a ninth-grade history textbook in use in 2006 had this
to say about the substantial ethnic Armenian population of Tbilisi
of the 19th century: "There was a real threat that the international
bourgeoisie (mainly consisting of the Armenian bourgeoisie) would
gain supremacy over Georgian lands." At a time when Georgia was going
through mass privatization, at the height of globalization, Georgian
history textbooks continued to be suspicious of the "international
bourgeoisie," which turned out to be ethnic Armenian!
"Georgians have always been a peaceful and friendly nation, loved
and respected by other nations.
Always. This is also our shortcoming – the reason why everyone
abuses us."
– Georgian speaker interviewed for the CIMERA report
CIMERA organized a workshop in Tbilisi in December 2006 at which
specialists from the Georgian Education Ministry, textbook authors,
teachers and others were invited to discuss Gigineishvili and Gundare’s
findings. It is not easy to criticize the way history is narrated
in any society, and I was expecting harsh appraisals from various
sides. Instead, criticism was taken well, and we explored ways to
remedy the situation, circulating ideas on how to make minorities more
"present" in the pages of history textbooks to reflect the reality of
Georgia’s multiethnic, multilingual, and multiconfessional past. Guests
also talked of the need for historical research that embraced minority
groups’ contributions to Georgia’s past. One problem we confront today
in Georgia is the lack of material on the history of minorities; for
the past several decades historical research has been exclusivist,
looking at Georgian history from a narrow ethnic perspective.
DUELING HISTORIES
By the late 1980s history and historical discourse in Georgia,
as elsewhere in the Caucasus, had developed into an ideology of
nationalist mobilization and inter-ethnic confrontation – the result
of Soviet policies of ideological control over historical research
and discourse. Moreover, the Soviet system had a dual identity:
"Nationalist in form and socialist in content." Indeed, despite its
internationalist aspirations, the Soviet Union placed the national
question at the heart of its territorial setup.
The Soviets also encouraged research in and production of "national
histories" to justify their territorial policies. As a result,
historical research and teaching increasingly became a competition
between national narratives to legitimize certain territorial claims
and attack rival claims. For example, the dispute between Armenia and
Azerbaijan over the right to Nagorno-Karabakh led a competition between
historians (as well as archaeologists, ethnographers and linguists)
each claiming the existence of "their" nation-states going back
thousands of years and presenting such narratives as evidence for
"their" right to this land.
A similar duel took place over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, territories
Georgian scholars claimed for historic Georgia. Some historians went so
far as to dispute the existence of an Abkhaz ethnicity, and considered
the historic term "Abkhazia" to be a synonym for "Georgia." In the
words of Georgian historian Pavle Ingoroqva, the ancestors of the
Abkhaz were a "Georgian tribe with a Georgian dialect."
This was not an innocent, detached scientific observation based on
a coherent methodology and the study of material evidence. It was
part of an ideological battle in which history was transformed into a
weapon. In the early 1990s, historian Mariam Lordkipanidze wrote that
the 1921 act creating the Abkhaz Soviet Socialist Republic (downgraded
10 years later to an autonomous republic within the Georgian SSR)
was "illegal, for it had no historical or juridical basis."
Russian anthropologist Victor Shnirelman has studied the debates
over history among social scientists in the Caucasus. In his The
Value of the Past: Myths, Identity and Politics in Transcaucasia,
he concluded, "Differences in approaches to early history were by no
means insignificant to the creation of the ideology of confrontation,
which played a major role in the Karabakh, Abkhazian and South
Ossetian tragedies."
Historians, it seems, bear a heavy responsibility for preparing the
ground for ethnic mobilization and the wars of Soviet succession.
SLOW PACE OF CHANGE
A workshop held in November for 30-odd history teachers, textbook
authors, and ministry and international experts concluded that the
Georgian Education Ministry is moving forward in its efforts to change
the way history is taught. At the event, organized by the European
history educators’ association EuroClio, Georgian educators presented
their ongoing project to develop new textbooks with the aim of giving
more space to minorities in the official version of history presented
to youngsters from majority and minority linguistic communities.
These new texts should begin appearing soon in Armenian and Azeri
schools, and be in use in all history classes in Samtskhe-Javakheti and
Kvemo-Kartli by 2011. Some of Tbilisi’s planned classroom changes have
raised concerns among linguistic minorities, but so far representatives
of these groups have not commented on the new texts.
"If a history textbook is written, this means that there is some
consensus among nations.
How can a book be wrong? … Armenians do not misinterpret the history
of Georgia! How would it be possible to do so?"
– Armenian speaker interviewed for the CIMERA report
As we wait to see how the books will be received by pupils and
teachers, we should not underestimate the difficulties ahead. At
this stage, Georgian history teachers and authors are moving from a
position of negation of ethnic minorities to one of recognition. But
important obstacles remain in the path toward an integrated narrative
of history in which minorities move from being the "other" coexisting
with "us" into being part of society.
For this, history teachers need space to meet and debate the changes,
and the numerous practical problems they pose. Moreover, Georgian
historians need to develop new research projects – looking at the
biographies of prominent personalities, and micro-histories of places
and institutions – and structure their findings through an integrated
approach that develops a new narrative.
One thing is clear: In spite of all the difficulties fulfilling the
promises of the Rose Revolution, in a turbulent political climate
following the catastrophic August war, Georgian education authorities
and many educators continue to press for change.
Vicken Cheterian is director of programs at CIMERA. He is a former
member of TOL’s advisory board. His book War and Peace in the Caucasus:
Russia’s Troubled Frontier has just been published.