How history is taught in the schools

Stanislav KULCHYTSKY: School textbooks have been a major concern of the institute’s research personnel since the late 1980s when still in the Soviet Union the first adequate Ukrainian history school textbook was published. Actually, we published it in 1991. Previously we had history textbooks for thirty academic hours, rather like studies in local history. The only subject taught on an adequate scope, two or three times a week, was the history of the USSR which came down to Russian history with separate chapters on the Caucasus, Central Asia, Ukraine, etc. And then the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine set up a large board of experts (mostly scholars) to study the problem of teaching Ukrainian history and propagandizing achievements in that domain; there was a special contest for the best publication on the subject. Well, the board worked, and the program was approved. Then the Party was no longer there, but the program was being fulfilled because it was relevant and the people needed it. A lot has been done under that program, including such editions as Mykhailo Hrushevsky’s ten-volume History of Ukraine-Rus’. Over the past decade institute experts have developed Ukrainian and world history textbooks, but the problem is how we should deal with them. Old historical myths have been replaced by new ones and it’s hard to struggle with them, for they flatter our national self-esteem.

The experience of teaching history in European countries is extremely important. We say we want to be part of Europe, so we must borrow the best there in terms of standards. Recently I spotted a small store by a subway station. The notice read “Goods from Europe,” but it turned out to be just another second-hand outlet. We don’t need that kind of merchandise. We do need European experience; the Council of Europe financed the annual conference of history teachers and scholars in Ukraine. We were shown what is happening elsewhere and studied programs. We saw that we couldn’t borrow everything just like that. We are better than they are in some respects; history is taught at a more primitive level in Europe. Why is another issue.

I would like to dwell on ideological disputes centering on teaching history. Authors are criticized from various standpoints, and not only by the Left. I’m not saying that there should be a line drawn between the extreme trends, because it’s a strictly political line. We try to be de-politicized, de-ideologized in teaching history. This doesn’t mean that there should be no methodology, because one can’t approach history using primitive positivism. Nor am I calling for teaching history according to Hrushevsky. He was a great historian, of course, but the first volume of the History of Ukraine-Rus’ was published in Lviv in 1898. A great deal has changed in the world since then: the Annales school, Toynbee’s theory, and, of course, our own so-called true Marxism. Considering the latest attainments, we must not lower ourselves to politicking because it serves only current needs. The older generation is most pained by what they find in modern history textbooks. It’s all wrong, lies, they say. To this I reply: Who says that Stalin’s textbooks had everything true? I have a document signed by four Ukrainian lawmakers of the Communist faction, addressed to the Chairman of Verkhovna Rada. It is about historical subjects relating to the Great Patriotic War. To make the issue more comprehensible to the general public, we decided to join The Day’s round table, because this newspaper is popular and respected in Ukraine and abroad.

Oleksandr UDOD: I’m a trained historian and I taught history at school at the turn of the 1980s, then I mostly worked with college students and schoolteachers. Honestly, I’m ashamed to recall those history classes. More often than not, it was quoting from the resolutions of yet another Party congress, especially when dealing with contemporary themes. All the history textbooks were built on the same principle: Party guidelines for the next five- year plan: such and such will be produced, so much crops grown and harvested. No one bothered to analyze how all this could be achieved. That’s the kind of history we taught, turning it into a double standard. Students would ask me how they were supposed to answer my questions, the way it was “right” or the way they thought. We must reconsider not only historical scholarship, but the way history is taught, because in it the quintessence of science itself is concentrated, here lies its utility for the people, the younger generation, or perhaps its danger. Anyway, this is what Friedrich Nietzsche wrote on the subject.

I’d like to congratulate The Day on the first anniversary of its History and I rubric. I have clippings of almost all of them. I think it’s a very important and useful project; other media outlets would do well to follow suit. Our largest gap in the scholarly and educational domain is our failure to promote historical knowledge. For some reason we believe that this would politicize our society, that unnecessary arguments between parties would start. Without such promotion our population, especially young people won’t be interested in studying our national history. We still have to adopt a concept of how to teach history. In 1993, we had a project worked out by a team of authors at the Drahomanov National Pedagogical University. Another project was produced in 1995 by a team led by Prof. Kulchytsky. There were also social studies projects. Regrettably, none was approved. At the start of 2002, there is hope that the third attempt will be a success. The special journal, History in Ukrainian Schools, carried six variations of the concept. It must conform to the realities of this society. Teaching history must rely on the traditional values of civilization.

History, as a field of scholarship and particularly as a school subject, is quite specific and manifestly distinct from other subjects. I’ve never heard of such discussions among chemists or physicists. Here we call in doubt practically everything, from the contents to the method of each lesson. Everybody considers himself a professional in the field. Too bad that the interest in history is being raised by nonprofessionals. Among other things, I have in mind the discussion of certain pages in the annals of World War II and the Great Patriotic War, in conjunction with the well-known books by Viktor Suvorov (Rezun).

The essence of teaching history is accumulated in two major categories: the school program and the textbooks that must be written in keeping with that program, at least the law says so. Ukraine is the only CIS country (apart from Russia which is hors concours, retaining methodological personnel and printing facilities) to have created a whole set of textbooks on national history. These books more or less conform to European standards in terms of typography, design, and sanitary requirements. The production of textbooks is actually a separate, independent branch of knowledge. There are quite a few requirements imposed on the format, contents, and the author’s qualification. Textbooks, especially ones dealing with history, are extremely vulnerable to critique, yet ours were approved by the Ministry of Education and most teachers; they reflect and incorporate an alternative approach as a mandatory component of the history-teaching structure. Of course, history cannot be allowed back into the old official vein.

When I was still head of the education department I attended a lesson in the fine arts. The teacher used the following methodological technique. A mock antique vase was placed in the middle of the classroom and children seated around it (12 children in all), each had to draw the vase, viewing it from a different angle: twelve angles. In the end the teacher displayed all the drawings. The same vase as seen from twelve different angles. Even if ten children showed a similar perception, two would have a different one. Even if wrong, it had to be respected, for it was their own. Likewise every individual has his own world outlook. Now that we have the absence of an official ideology in Ukraine laid down in the Constitution (Article 15), we must acknowledge the impossibility of official history, of any official view of history.

Viktor MYRONENKO: I would like to thank the Editors and all those present for inviting us to this round table, because truth can be learned only in the confrontation of different views. I agree with my colleagues in part. Yes, we must work hard to secure de-ideologization. Anyway, we must not create an official history. We have a multi-structural economy and multiparty system. All this is here to stay. Meaning what? That there will be a different kind of history taught, depending on who comes to power, the Left or the Right?

I taught history in the 1970s and 1980s; I wasn’t a member of the Party, although they suggested that I join. I considered myself a free individual, although I always shared the Communist idea; I disagree with those saying that everything was bad in our history. Yes, there were shortcomings. They say that five- year plans were reflected in the textbooks. Thank God they were! Five- year plans were mostly fulfilled and society did register progress, in all walks of life. You will all recall that most people rode bicycles in the 1950s and motorcycles in the 1960s; cars were no problem in the 1980s. The living standard was increasing. Yes, there were purges, just and unjust. There are subversive elements in every country. Purges are underway after the September 11 terrorist attack on the United States, and they will continue; they even formed a special court martial. We had enemies of Socialism and the Soviet Union, who strove to use those subversive elements. Finally they accomplished their mission and liquidated the USSR. And there were a lot of unjustifiable purges; I spoke of them in class. The reason was careerism on the part of individuals who found their way into the party ranks. I taught history the Way I thought best; I wasn’t afraid and no one punished me. I’d send letters to Leonid Brezhnev, pointing to shortcomings in [Soviet] society. There was humaneness about teaching history. At present, immorality is noticeable in both society and history.

Europe is Socialist for the most part; we must move toward Socialism and a union of republics. Do we have to go to Europe? I’m ashamed to hear this; we are in Europe. We must be oriented toward integration into the world economy and from this we must get the best for our people. And people are alarmed, for example, to find history textbooks like the ones edited by Burlakov et al. (Geneza, 2001), Berdychevsky et al. (Premiera, 1998) totally devoid of the notion “Great Patriotic War”. Wasn’t that war great? Tremendous losses and scope of hostilities. Wasn’t it a patriotic war? Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians, all defended their Fatherland together. I’d very much wish the authors did include the notion in the body of the text. Also, I am very pained at heart and greatly alarmed by the attempt to somehow whitewash the activities of the OUN-UPA. Do not the authors know that the OUN-UPA formed under the auspices of fascist Germany? Clause 3 of the Act of Proclamation of the Ukrainian State, of June 29-30, 1941, reads: “The newly created Ukrainian state will closely cooperate with the great National Socialist Germany which, under the guidance of its leader Adolf Hitler, is establishing a new order in Europe and the rest of the world.” That “new order” meant the annihilation of whole peoples. The OUN-UPA Ukrainians alone massacred 40 thousand! Tens, even hundreds of thousands of Poles and Jews were murdered. Is it not generally known that the Halychyna SS Division was commanded by SS Brigadenfuehrer Fritz Freitag? So what kind of society are we building? A fascist, totalitarian or democratic one?

Oleksandr UDOD: With all respect due to Comrade Myronenko for his individual and very special point of view, I would like to express my own opinion, concerning practically every aspect of his statement. Mr. Myronenko, you said that teaching history previously asserted in children, the younger generation as a whole, confidence in the future; that there was progress in society (from bicycles to motorcycles and so on.). But if one compared the living standard in Ukraine and the rest of the Soviet Union to the way the man in the street lived in Western Europe (mind you, I don’t mean capitalists!), such comparison would not be in our favor. I resolutely disagree that there were “just” and “unjust” purges, because “just” and “purge” are simply incompatible notions. What we see in the United States now isn’t purges but counteraction being undertaken in accordance with the law; they have no unlawful tribunals as we did in the USSR under Stalin. You mentioned certain shortcomings in our history and attributed them merely to the careerism of certain politicians and officials. The reasons go much deeper than that. The very system was based on an inhuman ideological monopoly. If one analyzes the [history] textbooks of that period and today, man was absent in the old ones, just patterns: forces and relationships of production, imperialism, capitalism vs. Socialism. What about people with their own life stories and destinies? There was no history reflecting daily realities, with man in the limelight, rather than political parties, states, and peoples as a whole.

About the problems raised in the people’s deputies’ inquiry. I have one of the books you’ve mentioned, Bulakov’s World History published last year, and I have the fourth edition of Turchenko’s Modern History of Ukraine, also published in 2001. Misunderstanding often happens for want of information; it’s as simple as that. The parliamentary inquiry was answered by the Ministry of Education. Its statement read that the Great Patriotic War, as part of World War II, must be studied at school and reflected in textbooks. The new curriculum of 2001 has a chapter called “Ukraine during the Second World War.” Another one is titled “The Start of the Great Patriotic War.” Turchenko’s textbook uses the notion of the Great Patriotic War. Page 2 reads, “That war was the Great Patriotic War, meaning that it was a just and liberation war.” No one has deleted this page from the instruction of history and no one is going to. Yet one must remember what happened between September 1, 1939, and June 22, 1941, because the Soviet Union was actually involved. The Polish border was crossed September 17, most of Poland was occupied. Polish POWs were shot. Also, what about the joint military parade of Nazi and Red Army units in Brest in September 1939? Or the German-Soviet peace pact signed on September 28, 1939? It was officially referred to as a friendship treaty. Let alone the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact and Secret Protocols signed earlier. What about the war the Soviet Union waged on Finland? Does all this point to World War II as being a just and liberation one on the Soviet part? Ukraine’s status and role are a different story altogether. Here we have a tragedy of the Ukrainian people. Its society was not homogenous ideologically, there was a resistance movement in Ukraine, as was the case with all countries fighting Nazi Germany like France and Poland. That movement was heterogeneous; there were Soviet partisans and nationalist units. We cannot strike out of the historical record 400,000 people fighting in the OUN-UPA ranks (compare this to 280,000 Soviet partisans). The passage you quoted from the document published June 30, 1941, was almost a paraphrase of a clause in the Soviet-German treaty signed September 28, 1939.

Viktor MYRONENKO: It is true that the Soviet government made mistakes at that period. They must be pointed out in the textbooks.

Oleksandr UDOD: Mistakes or crimes?

Viktor MYRONENKO: It depends. Western Ukraine joined the Soviet Union in 1939. Was it a crime or mistake? Stalin made possible a single independent Ukraine, didn’t he? What did our Ukraine have then and what does it have now? Compared to 1990-91, we have economic and cultural decline. Wasn’t this inhuman? What about Kovpak? Wasn’t he an outstanding personality, an excellent man? Why isn’t his name in the textbooks?

Vitaly MALAKHOVSKY: I’m at the head of the social sciences chair and teach ninth through eleventh graders students at Lyceum No. 142, one of the elite government-run institutions. As a teacher, I’m satisfied with the current textbooks, because they reflect different points of view. Various textbooks from various regions of Ukraine make it possible for the teacher and students to select the context they find acceptable. Yet history can be learned only if a student can use certain sources.

A Ukrainian citizen must be aware of the roots of his state and its place in the international community. We have a multiethnic society and we must show tolerance toward people from other countries and their history. We know about the difficult aspects of our common Polish-Ukrainian and Russian- Ukrainian history. But there are also positive aspects.

Not so long ago we held a young people’s conference involving school and college students from various regions of Ukraine. We discussed tragic pages in the history of Jews during World War II. We know from the constitution that no ideology can be dominant in this country. We often communicate and cooperate with veterans of the Great Patriotic War. While studying Kovpak’s partisan operations, we mustn’t forget that the Moscow center formed special military units commanded by Kovpak and Medvediev. It was done to defend the Soviet Union. But the students must also know about nationalist operations led by Melnyk, Bandera, Bulba, etc. We live in a country for whose independence nationalists gave their lives. Another question is who they sided with. Young people today work mostly with computers and computers must be used in class. What I find lacking about our textbooks is that each topic must be followed by questions to help the student understand it. And more illustrations. There are different format techniques like italics and boldface to emphasize certain statements. The curriculum means a state standard, it can’t be corrected, but while using it the teacher can make his own inferences. Using the twelve-point grading system and assigning students his own tasks, he or she can be creative. There were school readers under the Soviets, but children are not teachers or scholars; they can’t work with archives. And the sources must not be selected by and dependent on the author’s persuasions. The documents must be arranged in chronological order.

Oleksandr UDOD: There are modern approaches to the teaching of history in Europe. For example, the method of de-romanticizing history, showing war as the people’s tragedy and suffering. Indeed, whatever angle you take in looking at war, it is an abnormal phenomenon in the history of mankind. Thus when dealing with wars, we must tell the students not only about combat operations, actions of military leaders, but also about how people responded to wars, what they experienced at the time. I see no revanchism in modern German history textbooks. On the contrary, the subject is de-romanticized. The narrative starts with specific documents, letters from the front. People write about the horrors of war, violence, death, and so on. If we were to tell the students about Ukrainian history at the time of World War II the effect would be tripled, because our situation was truly unprecedented. Germany has long officially apologized for Nazi atrocities; the former hostile combatants have long fraternized in France and Poland. Why can’t we Ukrainians do the same and recognize OUN-UPA soldiers as combatants? Where does this fratricidal hatred come from?

Another interesting trend in modern European history is a turn toward the history of everyday life. Students ought to be encouraged to take a closer look at the historical process through individual human destinies. Children are mostly interested to know how people’s daily life, household appliances, even footwear changed. The third methodological inference from our discussion is, so far as I’m concerned, that it’s impossible to de-ideologize history as a science, and the same is true of the teaching process. For the educational authorities and authors of textbooks, the task of the highest priority is not to become chained to a single ideology.

For the first time this year the Pedagogic Academy’s teacher’s training institute formed a modern science laboratory. A conference was held to analyze textbooks, to see whether they conform to the standard, length of the line, paper quality, illustrations, etc. This is not control over ideology, but over observance of the didactic requirements for the program structure.

The Day: A question for all the esteemed historians present. We are discussing textbooks and their de-ideologization. What about the teachers using these textbooks? They are supposed to have their own political convictions and adhere to a certain ideology.

Oleksandr UDOD: I have for several years taught the fundamentals of pedagogy at the university level. I tell my students that we have our constitution and our curriculum, just as you have your own views as future teachers. The highest priority for the contemporary teacher of history is to help his students perceive different viewpoints, so they can determine which are closest to the historical truth and modern assessments. The twelve-point grading system is not just giving so many points, but mainly it’s positive in nature; there is no negative grading.

Viktor MYRONENKO: I agree that different points of view should be reflected. Of course, the schoolteacher must be quite honest in expressing his own views. Without imposing them or pressuring the student, forcing him to give the kind of answer the teacher desires. So far our textbooks lack objectivity with regard to the Great October Socialist Revolution and the Great Patriotic War. The French Revolution and subsequent revolutions resulted in the annihilation of more than half of the French population, yet this revolution is annually celebrated in that country. Here the Great October Socialist Revolution is reduced to some horrible phenomenon and is not celebrated. Still, it was an event that facilitated the great movement forward of not only our country, but also of the whole world. Reconciliation can be different. State criminals, those that tortured people during the Great Patriotic War, are not pardoned in any country. Otherwise we would spit on the memory of those that fought for the independence of our Fatherland as well as against fascism.

The Day: It is very good that you have a specific practical experience as a teacher. So you are convinced that the OUN is an organization created under the Nazi auspices, and that it served the Nazis. On the other hand, you know that the OUN was formed in 1929, when the Nazis were not in power in Germany. Will you mention the fact in front of your students? You also know that a number of noted OUN leaders were executed by the Nazis (suffice it to recall Olzhych and Telyha). How do you propose to comment on this, being convinced that they were also Nazi lackeys?

Viktor MYRONENKO: If those people really fought for the people of Ukraine, for Ukraine, and died in Nazi torture chambers, they were heroes. But if they shot at Soviet troops, Kovpak, if they murdered Kuznetsov and lethally wounded Vatutin, the liberator of Ukraine, how can we justify them in any way?

Oleksandr UDOD: All war criminals have long been meted just punishments in 1944 and 1945. Then there were numerous trials in the 1950s. We are not talking war criminals, we’re talking rank-and-file combatants, people that found themselves taken hostage by the situation.

Viktor MYRONENKO: I was told that Kulchytsky, begging his pardon, is a nationalist. So I came to The Day’s office to look that nationalist in the eyes. Most likely, however, the man is still searching for the truth. I very much hope that we will find a common language, that we’ll understand each other after all.

Stanislav KULCHYTSKY: Our discussion is taking two directions. One is assessing certain facts or episodes from history. I don’t think we can change anything there. The other direction is more professional, discussing textbooks in general, which are worth buying, and what they must be like to be really good. I have worked in Germany on three occasions in Brunswick with its world’s only research institute specializing in school textbooks. Indeed, history is an extremely hazardous science, because it is used by politicians. I’m happy to know that we have a laboratory for modern textbooks. Vitaly Malakhovsky mentioned an electronic textbook, so I’d like to wish the Geneza Publishers, specializing in textbooks, to keep in mind that every new textbook must have a set of computer files. We must proceed from the concept of teaching history from standards to programs and textbooks.

Mr. Malakhovsky also mentioned primary sources. We are preparing a large book on terror and terrorism in Ukraine in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The project involves many research fellows and staff workers. I’ve seen some of the texts and photos. One photo shows a man whose name doesn’t say anything to me, but he was the one to propose special Cheka units. We all know what for. I also know documents from the SBU archives, attesting the formation of OUN’s SB security service units wearing Soviet military uniforms. This year I visited Poland twice, Lublin and Warsaw, where we broached difficult aspects of Polish- Ukrainian history. For the Poles, Communists and Ukrainian nationalists were also enemies. Imagine the situation in Poland, with three camps operating: OUN-UPA, Armia Krajowa [Poland’s Home Army], and the Red Army. Then all this settled, becoming primary sources. But what are these primary sources? Myths are born just as truth is. Also, we must never forget that there were criminals in the Soviet Army; people armed with submachine guns can never be kept under control. I mean that primary sources also have to be handled with care. The teacher assumes a great deal of responsibility, but he is supposed to be trained to handle such sources, so he can judge a given source’s authenticity or reliability.

Vitaly MALAKHOVSKY: I think the October Revolution is to be regarded as a Russian historical fact. It has nothing to do with Ukraine, because from what I know this revolution did not take place in Ukraine. If you tell me differently as a historian, I will have to accept it, but only if I’m shown documents saying there were such and such organizations supporting that revolution in Ukraine. I might also add that modern textbooks published in 2000-01 conform to the program and help teachers and students, but the financial status of grade schools is a big obstacle. If a school could afford 5-6 prestigious textbooks, there would be no problem. And it is solved at our school, so we can teach our students using various textbooks, and our students already can draw their own conclusions.

Viktor MYRONENKO: The Great October Socialist Revolution was of tremendous importance not only for Russia and Ukraine, but also for the whole world; shutting one’s eyes to the fact means historical blindness. We know that the Civil War began as a result of the October Revolution. That war enveloped the whole of the former Russian Empire; naturally, it concerned Ukraine as well (when the Russian Red guards invaded, to be sure, with some local support – Consultant). Most people supported the Bolsheviks (not when they went to the polls in 1917-18 – Consultant).

Oleksandr UDOD: All our shortcomings in the production of textbooks, teaching, development of research programs, their implementation, reprinting books on history, and so on, are in the economic domain, coming down to lack of funds. While the applied sciences and scientists manage to keep afloat by earning on the side, we all know the drastic situation of academic scholarship. This is especially true in the humanities. I address this message to Viktor Myronenko as a deputy in Verkhovna Rada: “Esteemed Deputies, please stop violating the law!” Under the law on education, 10% of the national income must be spent on education, and I think that 4% is to be spent on science and research programs under the law on science. All major textbooks we will start producing in 2002 are to have CD versions made simultaneously. We have a pilot CD with a series of lectures on Bohdan Khmelnytsky’s Liberation War (this term actually comes from the nineteenth edition of Anna Pankratova’s History of the USSR published in 1950 – Consultant), prepared by the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy jointly with us. Our studies show that 99% of the textbooks on the market originate in Russia. Again, I address Viktor Myronenko as a deputy of Verkhovna Rada. Do you know that there are six factories in Ukraine capable of making such CDs, and all are closed? Why? Simply because Verkhovna Rada cannot pass the bill.

The Day: There are very few educational publications and even less in Ukrainian. The book market at Petrivka has 95% of such books in Russian. We watch discussions and interactive polls on television, but there was only one nationwide historical discussion on STB, dealing with Suvorov (Rezun). We can discuss all kinds of subjects — attitude to political parties, Chornobyl, soccer, you name it — but never history.

Oleksandr UDOD: We’ve learned how to make good books. We have The History of Kyiv (Alternatyva Publishing House), prepared by the Institute of History. It is ideal in content, European standard, but its costs 225 hryvnias. Who is this publication meant for? Teachers ask us for books, never mind the makeup or format, cheap paperbacks without illustrations, whatever, so long as they can have them and learn from them.

The Day: Take The History of Ukrainian Literature with a press run of 5,000 copies. The first volume is by Kyiv authors, the second by Lviv’s. Five thousand copies. Who will get them? There are 24,000 schools in Ukraine and seven million students. It means that far from all schools will have the book. Once again, it is an interesting book, good binding, illustrations, contents, but again the problem is economic.

Oleksandr UDOD: Today, we start with each new book by estimating how much it will cost.

Of course, we have not touched on all aspects of the problem at issue; for example, we have practically omitted the teaching of history in institutions of higher learning. That is a separate topic of discussion. We have mainly concentrated on grade schools. Mr. Udod correctly pointed out that history is a unique discipline. For example, if we produce bad chemists or mathematicians, it will be a great shame. Yet the shortcomings and unsolved problems in today’s instruction of history at grade schools eventually add up to producing bad citizens, meaning no civil society, no democracy, and no national identity. Hopefully, future textbooks and teaching methods will not consist of borrowings, generalizations, and focusing on separate facts. All the facts must be taken into account. Unfortunately, many Ukrainian textbooks have precisely this kind of shortcoming. If and when we overcome this, we will be able to cope with the ultimate task of rearing worthy citizens. Teaching history is unique in that it makes it possible to do just that. A humane society places in the forefront man’s dignity, spiritual, and material well- being, with the rest of the factors serving as means to reach that end. The history of mankind is a road stretching millennia, leading toward that society, and historical knowledge shows the younger generation that it is necessary to make an adequate contribution on this road.