뉴스레터

From 23-24 July 2018, the NAHF-EUROCLIO Joint Conference on History Education 2018: Teaching the Borderless History Around the World was held at Seodaemun Prison History Hall. The first day of the conference consisted of three panels: Image of the Other, History Conflict and Reconciliation, and The Process of Developing Cross-Border History Education Resources. All panels included presentations by NAHF and EUROCLIO representatives, with each featuring four speakers, two discussants, and a moderator. The second day featured a roundtable discussion by the moderators and all participants, to allow for reflective conversation of the presentations of the previous day. The purpose of the conference was to facilitate cross-border exchange between EUROCLIO history educators and Korean history teachers on the subject of how best to approach teaching history.

23 July 2018: Image of the Other Panel

The first two presentations, by Sang-gu Nam and Maurizio Riotto, introduced the theoretical frameworks behind the concept of othering in history and in current affairs. Sang-gu Nam, a researcher from NAHF, spoke about how Japan is viewed by South Koreans through the lens of historical issues, and how the Japanese view South Koreans back. He raised some data based on polls, which found that South Koreans believed, for example, that the Japanese had not properly reflected on their colonial past. The Japanese, on the other hand, believed that South Koreans were overly critical of Japan to the detriment of Japan-South Korea relations. Though these views exist in the present, they are informed by each country’s respective stance on the past. Maurizio Riotto, a professor from the Naples University of Oriental Studies, focused on the importance of one’s stance on the past for determining one’s present. He aimed to illustrate the process of othering through examples from ancient to modern times, arguing that caution in representation of the other was vital to avoid the development of stereotypes, and discussed the historian’s role in challenging oversimplified versions of the past. Thus, the primary themes raised were the danger of stereotypes fostered by history education, and how they can perpetuate unhealthy relations between peoples in the present.

The third and fourth presentations, given by EUROCLIO delegates, offered a practical perspective of how these othering issues manifest in two specific contexts. Eyal Naveh, a professor at Tel Aviv University, described a project he had conducted which was meant to be a joint initiative history textbook of the Israel-Palestine story, as told by Israeli and Palestinian historians. In the end, Naveh termed the project to have been a “successful failure.” The project was successful because it made large steps in reconciling the two sides through concessions both made to acknowledge the other’s story, despite not agreeing with one another. However, despite these successes, the textbook was banned from use in the region, therefore ultimately failing to achieve the utility its authors had hoped. Nana Tsikhistavi, a professor at SS Orbeliani University, spoke about how othering is found in Georgian textbooks, and the project “Sharing History Cultural Dialogues” which was undertaken in 2015, to attempt to eliminate practices of othering from the historical narratives. Both presentations offered examples of civil society initiatives to deter simplistic and stereotypical representation in history education, and to prevent the perpetuation of conflicts from the past into the present day.

23 July 2018: History Conflict and Reconciliation Panel

The issue of reconciliation after a conflict, raised in the first panel, were further explored in the second. Byongtaek Lee, of NAHF, spoke of how Darwin’s theory can be applied to the study and practice of history: the strong will survive, and tell their story, while the weak will die, and so will their perspectives. He argued, however, that in the modern age of democratization, liberalism means that the minority, and the defeated, can have their story told as well, which was why more research in history needed to be done, to fill the gaps of the stories of the defeated. Sanghee Han, of the Jeju Special Self-Governing Provincial Office of Education, continued this theme of “stories of the defeated” when she spoke of the victims of the Jeju Incident of 1948, when an estimated 14,000-30,000 civilians were killed. She argued that the official state acknowledgement of the incident did little to reconcile the victims and needed to be included as part of the school history curriculum to be properly recognized. In the first panel, it had been argued that an important first step in reconciliation is acknowledgement of the other side. Han argued further, proclaiming that this was only the beginning of a long road towards reconciliation.

These first two presentations offered food for thought concerning what the challenges of reconciliation are: the issue of winners and losers in history, the forgotten stories, and how acknowledging the existence of another perspective is not enough. The third and fourth presentations, given by the EUROCLIO delegates, discussed the role of civil

Savitsky 2

society initiatives in fostering ground for reconciliation through better history education. Emina Zivković spoke about how reconciliation in the former Yugoslavia had not occurred, and the attempts of history educators from the former Yugoslavia to develop a mutual understanding of how to teach their history. With violent and aggressive mentalities still being the norm, it is easy for people of different countries to fall back on simplistic and divisive thinking. Jihane Youssef Francis spoke of the Lebanese Association for History (LAH), which has formed to challenge the ways history is taught in Lebanon. By creating this history organisation, and pursuing the work that they do, Francis and the other members of LAH are challenging the peace treaty, because they (among other things) advocate for teaching about the Civil War, which is not allowed under the current system. However, Francis pointed out, it is important to note that they do so quietly, so as not to provoke open confrontation with the government.

During discussion, many members of the audience were curious about the methods used by Francis and Zivkovic to teach history in their respective countries. Zivkovic replied saying that the people of Serbia are in denial, and refuse to discuss the wars. In the history curriculum, to avoid tensions, the wars are described as if they happened very far away to mitigate emotional connections. Zivkovic said that she tries to adapt the lesson to the students who are present. Most students will have some connection to the wars; thus, she asks them about their own stories, learns from them how they were affected, then tells them what the textbook is saying, and tries to fit the two stories together. If they ask for it, she tells them her own opinion on the matter. Francis, on the other hand, explained that classrooms in Lebanon have no interaction between the teacher and the students. The teacher presents information, the students memorize it, and come to class next time ready to memorize more. There is little room for critical thinking, though there is much need for it.

A discussant raised the question often found at the core of reconciliation: if wounds caused by conflict are not healed right away (as they so often are not), then who is to do this healing? Is it fair to expect future generations, who were not involved in the conflict in question, to apologize for the mistakes of their elders? Some of the main points raised by the speakers were: ensuring that the work that is done does not openly confront the government, because this is energy-consuming and not productive. The first steps of reconciliation need to be acknowledging each other’s points of view, but then it has to go farther, and it has to begin confirming the validity of some of these points and establishing them as part of the mainstream historical narrative.

23 July 2018: Process of Developing Cross-Border History Education Resources Panel

The final panel focused on the practical side of the issue: creating hard resources for teachers to use in the classroom that offer multiple perspectives. Jeong-il Lee, a researcher at NAHF, presented on the topic of prevailing Sinocentrism in the narrative of Western textbooks of East Asian history. Sin-cheol Lee compared the merits of two cross-border textbooks, one European and one East Asian, on the basis of their mirror of pride and pain, as well as how they represented various regions around the world. The European textbook, for example, was too supportive of the EU and too critical of the US. The East Asian textbook, on the other hand, was very sympathetic to the US, lauding its support for democracy-building in the region, and did not focus as much on the development of the EU. He concluded that though the European textbook is quite useful, it fails to incorporate Asian perspectives in its narrative, and that textbooks globally should endeavour to further the dialogue between East and West. The main themes of the first two presentations were thus representations of the East by the West.

The third and fourth presentations, by EUROCLIO delegates, spoke to the challenges of developing joint history resources between parties recently exited out of conflict. Marjeta Sifrer, from Slovenia, presented the “History that Connects” project conducted through EUROCLIO, which created teaching material for sensitive history topics of the former Yugoslavia and included 260 participants. The output was 23 developed modules focusing on the experiences of the common people. Christiane Brandau, from the Georg Eckert Institute, discussed an ongoing German-Polish joint history textbook project from its inception to current status. The presentations of about joint history material projects raised a lot of interest. The audience asked how such materials are funded, how they are related to curricula, to what extent they are used, and how you can evaluate the results. Sifrer and Brandau had very different experiences, because the former was not funded externally, and depended upon the volunteer work of many history teachers, while the latter was supported officially by both the German and Polish state, and thus had the luxury of financial and public relations support. Also, the latter went through an authorization process that the former did not. Ultimately, however, both projects face the same challenges, because teachers can choose for

Savitsky 3

themselves which materials to use, and therefore they cannot be sure that their outputs will be implemented by schools until they are or are not.

One of the discussants raised the issue of combatting competing narratives students receive at home. Collective memory that students hear at home serves the needs of the present, but what happens to formal education? Is history forgotten as soon as a student exits the classroom, or can it be linked to people’s lives? Jeong-il Lee responded that the crux of his presentation had been to highlight the importance of the multi-perspective approach. In East Asia, the initiative is taken by countries to talk to one another and discuss how to write and what to write about history; however, more academic exchange is required with global scholars. Sin-cheol Lee responded that European history textbooks lack a self-reflective description of the past and must acknowledge the past atrocities committed in order to foster a cooperative future between East and West.

24 July 2018: Roundtable Discussion

The roundtable discussion the next day began with each moderator summarizing what had been said in each of their respective panels, and discussion was opened to the floor between the presenters from the previous day and the delegates. The EUROCLIO delegates began with some questions regarding how the other is portrayed in the Korean context, and whether there is any discussion between these parties as to what caused the conflict. Riotto responded that there is self-censorship in South Korea, so tensions are often not spoken of at all.

The issue of reunification with North Korea came up when one of the EUROCLIO delegates asked whether a mutually sour relationship with Japan would facilitate healthier relations with North Korea. To this, Riotto responded that South Korea does not hold the reigns to its own destiny, because it is too politically weak. Instead, its fate will be decided by the US, China, and Russia. To this, Ahn responded that he disagreed, and that South Korea was strong enough to determine its own destiny in the face of global powers. He also pointed out that Japan was not a mutual enemy of South and North Korea, and therefore is not relevant to the reunification of the Koreas. Instead, he emphasized that North Korea had to first normalize its relations with the US. Riotto again disagreed, stating that South Korea’s societal issues made it incapable of making its own decisions, but Ahn replied that this capability can be weakened and strengthened over time without ever becoming fully obsolete. He argued that the conditions had never existed for unification before, but this did not mean that the Koreas were destined for failure. He emphasized that this was not a matter of inherent weakness, but a matter of what the situation allowed. When the discussion reached an impasse, it was suggested that the conversation move on to another subject.

Christiane Brandau wanted to add nuances to the presentation she had made the previous day. She wanted to underline that the German-Polish project was not one of reconciliation per se such as the Lebanese or Yugoslav projects, because WWII was much longer ago, and other steps have already been taken, making this one of the last steps on the path of reconciliation, not the first. However, she wanted to also point out that the book did not signify that all of the problems were solved, or that it could solve all problems. It rather was one element of many that together encompass a solution which will one day be achieved. Even if the textbook is never used, she urged that the book’s publication was a success in itself, because the authors and publishers had never before cooperated in the way that they did. Eyal Naveh entered the discussion, supporting wholeheartedly Brandau’s emphasis on cooperation, and added that cooperation with the government especially was vital.

The final point to be touched was that of multi-perspectivity, the primary issue which EUROCLIO focuses on. Eyal Naveh argued that in teaching history, one must never position themselves as the righteous victim. The perpetrator of the past must acknowledge that they have done wrong, but the victim must also admit that they hold no moral high ground. Continuing to harden one’s stance of victimhood is counterproductive to good relations, and it is necessary to one day reclaim the position of a sovereign and responsible nation that does not only push blame on others. Jacek Staniszewski recounted a story of German-Polish reconciliation, in which Polish bishops wrote to German bishops very soon after WWII, saying they forgave and were asking to be forgiven, extending a hand across borders to a past enemy in order to rebuild. This move takes humility and courage, and its effects are strong. Professor Ahn admitted that Korean and Japanese historians have a lot of trouble exchanging ideas, so have trouble showing multi-perspectivity, but the case for South Korean and North Korean historians is even worse.