This House would show the darker side of the formation of the nation

No country is whiter than white, and often the creation of a country is a bloody event that involves mistakes, tragedy’s and outright massacres. While it is wrong to cover up and not apologise when mistakes are made or horrifying acts are committed the results of this action are likely to have consequences. These events may well be a sour point with neighbouring countries or even just those who feel that the country is not being honest about its past.

Turkey is an excellent example of this. Almost everyone would agree that Atatürk was a great leader and most would not consider that his habits make any difference to this. Nor are they likely to judge Turkey on the basis of the foibles of a long dead leader. However during the period just before Atatürk became president the Armenian Genocide occurred (1915-23) which stains Turkey’s foreign relations to this day, France has supported a law criminalising its denial,[1] the US congress has several times had bills proposed highlighting the genocide[2] and so damaging Turkey’s relations with the U.S.[3] and of course helping to freeze relations with Armenia itself.[4]

[1] Montjoye, Clementine de, ‘France’s Armenian genocide law’, Free Speech Debate, 29 June 2012, http://freespeechdebate.com/en/case/frances-armenian-genocide-law/

[2] United States Senate, S.Res.399 - Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution, OpenCongress for the 112^th United States Congress, 19^th March 2012, http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-sr399/show

[3] Kinzer, Stephen, ‘Genocide vote harms US-Turkey ties’, guardian.co.uk, 5 March 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/mar/05/turkey-armenia-genocide-us-vote

[4] SAĞIR, CELİL, ‘Hopes dim for normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations’, Today’s Zaman, 7 May 2012, http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=279592

A great many states see no need to particularly acknowledge the darker side of their past and founding; the United States still lionises the manifest destiny and the conquest of the west despite the genocide of the Native Americans who still live there. And there is no reason why they should. Some other nations may disagree with the past portrayed by that state and they can present their own competing version if they wish.

History is not something that it is worth sacrificing freedom of speech and expression for. Every individual should be free to voice their own views and this includes on areas that are important to the state such as its formation and national heros. In these areas there can be no compelling reason for keeping secrets or discouraging open inquiry and scholarship, there are no national security interests at stake, for most countries the individuals involved are dead. Therefore the only thing being affected are individuals posthumous reputations and the state should not be protecting individuals reputations. Someone’s reputation should stand on all of their deeds and acts based upon fact not just a cherry picked and idealised image set forth by the state.

The foundation of Islam is potentially an example of this. Some scholars such as Tom Holland have attempted to show that the Arab Empire gave birth to Islam rather than the other way around as it is traditionally understood.[1] Possible revisions of the early history of Islam are extremely controversial but in light of the conflicts in the Middle East and what is sometimes described as a Clash of Civilizations between the West and Islam it is important that the period be studied.[2] Holland suggests that the Prophet may have been much more influenced by Christianity and Judaism than is recognised by Islam;[3] if there were such links might unearthing them not help to heal divides today?

[1] Holland, Tom, In the Shadow of the Sword, Little Brown, 2012,  p.40 (ftnote 53) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5u3Ukw7AftwC&source=gbs_navlinks_s

[2] Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations, The Free Press 2002, pp.209-218

[3] Holland, p.49 (ftnote74) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5u3Ukw7AftwC&source=gbs_navlinks_s

It is difficult to see how discourse and free inquiry are a basic right when it comes to history. This is not an area which is going to affect people’s lives and liberty if they cannot read about every possible opinion on the subject exactly because what is in the past is in the past and does not impact on people’s day to day lives. Very few people are interested in speaking out against their own history that they grew up learning even if it does not tell the whole truth.

History is important because of the way it shapes attitudes and identities. Nationalism scholar Benedict Anderson has dubbed nations ‘imagined communities’ because “members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.” This is the case with all large scale communities. “the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship” a fraternity for which members are willing to kill and die.[1] This very willingness makes nationalism potentially dangerous and so it is much better to take a much more measured approach seeing the bad as well as the good.

Yet because the nation is an imagined community so it is possible for that imagining to be altered as is needed. Turkey will not cease being the Turkish nation simply because views of Atatürk change as a result of some believing him to be a ‘drunken debaucher’. Other countries have come to accept negative parts of their history with little consequence for their conception of the nation such as the UK’s acceptance that imperialism was in large part negative it simply creates a more nuanced view of the past.

[1] Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities, Verso, London 2006, pp.6-7

This is equally an argument for treating national heroes and history with the respect it deserves. Attacking these ideas is attacking the very foundation of the nation state. Of course the national identity is not going to disappear from undermining Atatürk as the national community is built on more than just Atatürk but each attack helps undermine the whole structure and must therefore be stopped. 

While the state may like to whitewash history to produce its own ‘national history’ that sticks to one grand narrative that is about the state this is not history as it really is. While a national history full of patriotism may be good for instilling a love of the nation it is not much use at teaching anything else. In particular it is damaging to any attempt to teach analysis and the use of sources through history. History is for the most part not useful in and of itself,[1] there are for example very few jobs directly working with history. Rather teaching of history emphasises ‘transferrable skills’ such as Critical Analysis, Reasoning and Argument[2] all of which are suppressed if focused on one officially approved narrative.

Moreover having the darker side of a nation’s past both makes history more interesting and more believable and so making it more likely that those being taught it will relate to it. Making the past look whiter than white simply makes it seem out of touch with reality. It makes for a poor teacher as history needs to ‘teach by example’ and if that example is not a complex character that can be related to it has little relation to every day experience.[3]

[1] Stearns, Peter N., ‘Why Study History?’, American Historical Association, 1998, http://www.historians.org/pubs/free/WhyStudyHistory.htm

[2] ‘What skills will a History degree from Cambridge give me?’, University of Cambridge, http://www.historycambridge.com/default.asp?contentID=982

[3] Stearns, Peter N., ‘Why Study History?’, American Historical Association, 1998, http://www.historians.org/pubs/free/WhyStudyHistory.htm

The purpose of history as a subject in Schools and in Universities is very different. The role of history in School is simply to teach about where we come from, to learn about the origins of the nation and why it is organised the way it is organised. History needs to be taught as it binds the nation together by creating a shared sense of identity.[1]

[1] Dilek, Dursun, ‘History in the Turkish elementary school: perceptions and pedagogy’, University of Warwick, January 1999, p.79, http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3669/1/WRAP_THESIS_Dilek_1999.pdf

No country is whiter than white, and often the creation of a country is a bloody event that involves mistakes, tragedy’s and outright massacres. While it is wrong to cover up and not apologise when mistakes are made or horrifying acts are committed the results of this action are likely to have consequences. These events may well be a sour point with neighbouring countries or even just those who feel that the country is not being honest about its past.

Turkey is an excellent example of this. Almost everyone would agree that Atatürk was a great leader and most would not consider that his habits make any difference to this. Nor are they likely to judge Turkey on the basis of the foibles of a long dead leader. However during the period just before Atatürk became president the Armenian Genocide occurred (1915-23) which stains Turkey’s foreign relations to this day, France has supported a law criminalising its denial,[1] the US congress has several times had bills proposed highlighting the genocide[2] and so damaging Turkey’s relations with the U.S.[3] and of course helping to freeze relations with Armenia itself.[4]

[1] Montjoye, Clementine de, ‘France’s Armenian genocide law’, Free Speech Debate, 29 June 2012, http://freespeechdebate.com/en/case/frances-armenian-genocide-law/

[2] United States Senate, S.Res.399 - Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide Resolution, OpenCongress for the 112^th United States Congress, 19^th March 2012, http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-sr399/show

[3] Kinzer, Stephen, ‘Genocide vote harms US-Turkey ties’, guardian.co.uk, 5 March 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/mar/05/turkey-armenia-genocide-us-vote

[4] SAĞIR, CELİL, ‘Hopes dim for normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations’, Today’s Zaman, 7 May 2012, http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=279592

A great many states see no need to particularly acknowledge the darker side of their past and founding; the United States still lionises the manifest destiny and the conquest of the west despite the genocide of the Native Americans who still live there. And there is no reason why they should. Some other nations may disagree with the past portrayed by that state and they can present their own competing version if they wish.

History is not something that it is worth sacrificing freedom of speech and expression for. Every individual should be free to voice their own views and this includes on areas that are important to the state such as its formation and national heros. In these areas there can be no compelling reason for keeping secrets or discouraging open inquiry and scholarship, there are no national security interests at stake, for most countries the individuals involved are dead. Therefore the only thing being affected are individuals posthumous reputations and the state should not be protecting individuals reputations. Someone’s reputation should stand on all of their deeds and acts based upon fact not just a cherry picked and idealised image set forth by the state.

The foundation of Islam is potentially an example of this. Some scholars such as Tom Holland have attempted to show that the Arab Empire gave birth to Islam rather than the other way around as it is traditionally understood.[1] Possible revisions of the early history of Islam are extremely controversial but in light of the conflicts in the Middle East and what is sometimes described as a Clash of Civilizations between the West and Islam it is important that the period be studied.[2] Holland suggests that the Prophet may have been much more influenced by Christianity and Judaism than is recognised by Islam;[3] if there were such links might unearthing them not help to heal divides today?

[1] Holland, Tom, In the Shadow of the Sword, Little Brown, 2012,  p.40 (ftnote 53) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5u3Ukw7AftwC&source=gbs_navlinks_s

[2] Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations, The Free Press 2002, pp.209-218

[3] Holland, p.49 (ftnote74) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5u3Ukw7AftwC&source=gbs_navlinks_s

It is difficult to see how discourse and free inquiry are a basic right when it comes to history. This is not an area which is going to affect people’s lives and liberty if they cannot read about every possible opinion on the subject exactly because what is in the past is in the past and does not impact on people’s day to day lives. Very few people are interested in speaking out against their own history that they grew up learning even if it does not tell the whole truth.

History is important because of the way it shapes attitudes and identities. Nationalism scholar Benedict Anderson has dubbed nations ‘imagined communities’ because “members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.” This is the case with all large scale communities. “the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship” a fraternity for which members are willing to kill and die.[1] This very willingness makes nationalism potentially dangerous and so it is much better to take a much more measured approach seeing the bad as well as the good.

Yet because the nation is an imagined community so it is possible for that imagining to be altered as is needed. Turkey will not cease being the Turkish nation simply because views of Atatürk change as a result of some believing him to be a ‘drunken debaucher’. Other countries have come to accept negative parts of their history with little consequence for their conception of the nation such as the UK’s acceptance that imperialism was in large part negative it simply creates a more nuanced view of the past.

[1] Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities, Verso, London 2006, pp.6-7

This is equally an argument for treating national heroes and history with the respect it deserves. Attacking these ideas is attacking the very foundation of the nation state. Of course the national identity is not going to disappear from undermining Atatürk as the national community is built on more than just Atatürk but each attack helps undermine the whole structure and must therefore be stopped. 

While the state may like to whitewash history to produce its own ‘national history’ that sticks to one grand narrative that is about the state this is not history as it really is. While a national history full of patriotism may be good for instilling a love of the nation it is not much use at teaching anything else. In particular it is damaging to any attempt to teach analysis and the use of sources through history. History is for the most part not useful in and of itself,[1] there are for example very few jobs directly working with history. Rather teaching of history emphasises ‘transferrable skills’ such as Critical Analysis, Reasoning and Argument[2] all of which are suppressed if focused on one officially approved narrative.

Moreover having the darker side of a nation’s past both makes history more interesting and more believable and so making it more likely that those being taught it will relate to it. Making the past look whiter than white simply makes it seem out of touch with reality. It makes for a poor teacher as history needs to ‘teach by example’ and if that example is not a complex character that can be related to it has little relation to every day experience.[3]

[1] Stearns, Peter N., ‘Why Study History?’, American Historical Association, 1998, http://www.historians.org/pubs/free/WhyStudyHistory.htm

[2] ‘What skills will a History degree from Cambridge give me?’, University of Cambridge, http://www.historycambridge.com/default.asp?contentID=982

[3] Stearns, Peter N., ‘Why Study History?’, American Historical Association, 1998, http://www.historians.org/pubs/free/WhyStudyHistory.htm

The purpose of history as a subject in Schools and in Universities is very different. The role of history in School is simply to teach about where we come from, to learn about the origins of the nation and why it is organised the way it is organised. History needs to be taught as it binds the nation together by creating a shared sense of identity.[1]

[1] Dilek, Dursun, ‘History in the Turkish elementary school: perceptions and pedagogy’, University of Warwick, January 1999, p.79, http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3669/1/WRAP_THESIS_Dilek_1999.pdf

Few nations go so far as to deify their national heroes or the formation of the state but none the less it is disrespectful to attack these ideas and many people are likely to be offended. This is indeed the case with the film Mustafa about Atatürk one doctor referring to the poster advertising the film asks "Why is he shown like that, in front of a steppe? His head is down as if he is apologizing for something... I find it disrespectful". Professors Orhan Kural and Ahmet Ercan argue “The content of the film and its interpretation of its topics damage the republic and Atatürk. Damaging such values can lead to the breakup of Turkey and to the loss of national pride.”[1] This is because any attack on Atatürk is equally an attack on the values of the republic he created, some of which such as secularism are already under attack. It is both wrong to offend so many people and unwise, as is the case with the attack on Atatürk, to attack the foundations of the ideology that helps to prevent intolerance.[2]

[1] Doğan, Yonca Poyraz, ‘Heated debates demystify myths surrounding Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’, Today’s Zaman, 16 November 2008, http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?load=detay&link=158863&bolum=100

[2] Malashenko, Alexey, and Shlykov, Pavel, ‘”Anti-Kemalist” Revolution: Where is Turkey Going?’, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 22 September 2011, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2011/09/22/anti-kemalist-revolution-where-is-turkey-going/7psb

Simple ‘disrespect’ is not sufficient reason to limit freedom of speech and freedom of academic enquiry. Those who find it disrespectful need not watch or read that which is written that they find disrespectful but more importantly they should be open minded enough to be able to reconsider their previous views. No matter the subject if it has strongly held views about it then holding up a different prism to that subject is going to be considered disrespectful as it is challenging those deeply held beliefs. Yet if we can’t challenge and test those beliefs then there is no opportunity for change and progress. Ultimately then preventing inquiry due to ‘disrespect’ holds back societies development.

Rightly or wrongly countries are judged in part based upon the past; In Europe Germany is regularly judged on the basis of the Nazi’s[1] and in Asia Japan on the basis of its atrocities in World War II.[2] Any nation would be sensible to want to avoid such vilification on the basis of actions taken by one’s ancestors and the further back the less sense such vilification makes sense. Digging up past wrongs for the sake of digging is wrong simply because of the souring effect it can have on the present. If there are dark areas of the past that have been forgotten then it is best to leave them forgotten than rather than risk creating new enmities between nations. Although not an exact parallel rather similar would be the creation of the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. The Belgian colonial powers divided the population into several distinct groups where no divide had previously existed. The population was then divided through a census and identity card system introduced in 1933-4 which set individuals ethnicity. This was the root of one of the worst genocides of the twentieth century;[3] essentially through creating an enmity where none previously existed, something that could equally be done by digging up the past rather than inventing a past.

[1] Lowen, Mark, ‘Debt-laden Greeks give vent to anti-German feelings’, BBC News, 27 February 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17177200

[2] Komine, Ayako, and Hosokawa, Naoko, ‘The Japanese New History Textbook controversy’, Free Speech Debate, 13 July 2012, http://freespeechdebate.com/en/case/japanese-new-history-textbook-controversy/

[3] Magnarella, Paul J., ‘Explaining Rwanda’s 1994 Genocide’, Human Rights & Human Welfare, Vol.2, No.1, Winter 2002, http://www.du.edu/korbel/hrhw/volumes/2002/2-1/magnarella2-1.pdf

This gives all the more reason to act pre-emptively by allowing free and open scholarship and critical analysis of the past. If a nation will not take a long hard look at its own past eventually someone else will and they are just as likely to uncover any skeletons in the closet as a national historian is. If however the government is open to new ideas then they can quickly say sorry, possibly pay some form of reparation and prevent any creation of enmity that will occur through denials. Japan is an excellent example of this; China and Korea are still calling for the Japanese emperor to apologise for atrocities during imperialism.[1]

[1] Kyodo, ‘Japanese Emperor must apologize for colonial rule: S. Korean president’, The Japan Times, 15 August 2012, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120815b5.html

Past leaders are dead and if they have become heroes it has already been accepted that accounts of that figure may not be entirely accurate as with any myths and legends – and indeed many country’s heroes are myths such as King Arthur. Where they are not as in the case of Atatürk the man is mythologised in order to help show the unity of the nation and provide an example, an ideal if you will, for those who follow.

Insulting this hero by deliberately publicising their dark side is therefore damaging not just for the state but for those who believe in the in the role model that the hero provides. In a country like Turkey where the focus of history teaching is on political citizenship education based upon national history everyone in Turkey learns about Atatürk. The aim is to educate pupils “As future citizens who respect the principles and reforms of Atatürk and democracy; who care for their families, country and the nation; who are aware of their responsibilities towards the Republic of Turkey; who work for promoting their families, country and the nation.”[1] So any attack will be damaging one of the role models for Turks young and old.[2]

[1] Dilek, Dursun, ‘History in the Turkish elementary school: perceptions and pedagogy’, University of Warwick, January 1999, p.79, http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3669/1/WRAP_THESIS_Dilek_1999.pdf

[2] Doğan, Yonca Poyraz, ‘Heated debates demystify myths surrounding Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’, Today’s Zaman, 16 November 2008, http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?load=detay&link=158863&bolum=100

While a country is entitled to promote its own national story, its own interpretation of events and create its own national heroes however it is not entitled to suppress historical events and so blot things out of history by preventing any competing ideas about that history. Most people learn their history through the state education system rather than through scholar’s history books so having competing narratives is not a threat to the state’s interpretation.

Role models are not undermined by having some minor faults.