History Whitewash?

CRITICS SAY HISTORY IS BEING WHITE-WASHED
By Stephen Wilson

(Moscow, Russia) - What is history but a fable told by others.

Napoleon

History is bunk!

Henry Ford.

'Paper puts up with anything that is written upon it, 'said a cynical, cunning and calculating Stalin. That is what the proponents of a new 80 page state history book which was launched by the Duma a few days ago hopes. There is a grain of truth to this crude axiom.Words do appear more potent and powerful when inscribed on paper.For paper embellishes the word with a layer of hypnotic authority which can disarm the impressionable.

The problem with this book is that there is no attempt to be objective and it          practically eulogises President Putin and condemns previous leaders such as Yeltsin and Gorbachev. The 'wild 1990's' were replaced by the prosperous stability of the Putin years. The huge human cost of collectivization and the repression is either understated or overlooked. There is not even a mention of the famous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which paved the way to the second world war.No wonder critics accuse the government of whitewashing history.

The idea for a standardised history which would represent the interpretation of all interpretations had been floated around for years. It was only this February that President Putin summoned historians and asked them 'to come up with a unified version of Russian and Soviet history. He called for school pupils to be given a text free of internal contradictions and double interpretation. 'The task was given to Andre Petrov,an executive secretary of the history society and Sergei Naryshkin, who is part of the United Russia     elite.


If you read this book,you might think be forgiven that the mass protests of 2011 and 2012, the arrest of so many businessmen, opposition leaders and the demonstrators just did not happen! The increasing threats, attacks and arrest of dissidents is not mentioned.You might as well just title the last chapter 'Happy Russia'.

During the same week, a writer called Boris Akunin, an author of historical detective novels brought out his only history book on ancient Russia. The contrast could not be more striking.While the former is crude, vulgar and crassly written, the latter is more poetic, perceptive and well-balanced. In contrast to the former,it does not pretend to present some novel view of history or advance a new idea.

If this state history book is actually introduced into the classroom then the teaching of history in schools will further decline. Students will view history as simply a course where you must just pass an exam by providing the one and only acceptable answers. They will purchase general state exam guides with the right answers in shops, and simply memorise them by heart. Questioning the teacher will be either discouraged or viewed as 'wasting the teacher's time' as in some South Korean schools.

That history should be perceived as 'free of contradiction and double interpretation' indicates a complete lack of understanding of not human history, but child intelligence. The statement represents an insult to human intelligence. A reasonably intelligent person starts off in life with an insatiable curiosity. He or she is an ocean of questions. History       should reflect this questioning. This textbook precludes debate, discussion or alternative viewpoints.It is almost reminiscent of the old Soviet communist textbooks. It seems that the serious study of history will be marginalised from not only the schools, but the universities.It might lead to an absurd situation where informal enthusiasts or amateurs do the proper research which the professionals are supposed to do, but won't because they don't want to lose shaky  positions or prestige in schools.
                
Yet what the older generation are doing to the minds of young children is dangerously irresponsible.I have come across young school-children aged 13-14 who tell me 'Stalin was a great war leader and did not repress anyone'.

Daniel Ogen, an American English teacher, was also taken aback by one of his students who defended Stalin. Where do they get those notions? Just school-teachers? My daughter had an argument with a history teacher who claimed all the German invaders of Russians were fascists and were evil. My daughter should know! Her grandmother told us how some German soldiers entered a town hall building to give milk 'to Russian children' they were worried about. When they looked at the portraits of Lenin, they told the bemused Russians 'Lenin was a great man! Those German soldiers did not sound like ruthless fascists. Other history teachers tell their students how some German soldiers hid some Jews from the Nazis.

It is very possible that children acquire favourable views of Stalin from being looked after by their grandparents who hold a nostalgic view of the Soviet era. Those were the generation who truly wept when Stalin died. While the mothers are having to go to work they leave the child's grandparents to look after them. Being impressionable, they might uncritically accept their  grandparent's views as gospel.

The school history books can be written in a different way. You could easily write special sections containing the recorded statements of a prisoner of the Gulag or a Russian soldier at the front. Those interviews could select different viewpoints and help personalise history as being essentially made by the people, and not just tsars and presidents. You could title special sections of chapters 'Critical debate' where two different views of an issue are presented. This would at least help avoid a one-dimensional view of history.

It would be tragic if the only acceptable interpretation of history was based on what Pushkin stated, 'The Tsar and nobles initiate change while the people remain silent, or to quote the last act of Boris Godunov,'narod bezmolstvuet'. 

Concerning the new history book, we can't afford to remain silent. The honour of Russian   history, not to mention historians, is at stake.