*** Please help with the Big Catch Up! ***

From Never Again

Response from Clare

Marian, I think this is a fanstastic essay, both at outlining the issues that led to genocide and making recommendations for policy. There are two points that I think should be further explored.

First of all, I don't think you've given enough credit to the government for the Gacaca process, which has been making an attempt to establish what happened in 1994 through a grassroots and traditional system which involves everyone in the community. How successful is the Gacaca process? - more thoughts, I'd like to ask the Rwandans to contribute to this.

I agree with you that the view of history is quite standardised and think you put forward an admirable set of ideals for history teaching, but am not sure that you can expect it from any nationalised history curriculum. Rwanda is trying to create a nation from a scarred past and inclusive of many people that grew up in exile. In some ways they are forging a new nation. Even in old, secure nations like ours, it is only at much higher levels that you get greater levels of narrative than 'never invaded since 1066, lots of kings, queens, two world ways, one world cup'. Our curriculum has an obssessive preoccupation with Nazi Germany and little or no focus on the British empire and the good and bad things that led to (the Irish famine as an example). We may do quite a lot on sources, which is a useful skill, but how much universal history teaching involves critical analysis of the history itself?

Critical history discussion is certainly a vital skill for young people around the world, but I'm not sure it will ever take place in the classroom. What are the motivations for history teaching by nations? Is it to enhance critical thinking or is it more to develop identities and shared values within a nation? Should a government ever be given the task of setting a curriculum or should it be held by someone else? Do people * have * to disagree on a narrative or is this a luxury that those in more peaceful nations can enjoy?

Anyway, that's enough from me for now... already offshoots to be researched... lucky you getting to do this for your study! ClareWhite 17:27, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Clare, regarding history education, you bring up a very interesting point. If history education is left to the government, as it is now in Rwanda, the perspective is likely to promote the interests of the nation in question—in the case of Rwanda, as Marian points out, the government is fronting its own historical perspective in pursuit of their agenda of cross-ethnic unity. In the United States, history books are written by massive global corporations, interest is to provide the American people with a context of history which minimizes the negative human rights aspects of imperialism—since these multinational firms rely on the support of the American public in order to further their own globalist agenda. One technological development over the past couple of years may provide an objective perspective and context of history: Wikipedia. As a result of the wiki technology, editing is open to everyone, so the final version must please all parties. It's a young project, but it already has six times as much content as Encyclopædia Britannica. We'll see where all of this goes. -- Nick 20:11, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Perhaps Wikipedia will be the end of history as we know it as there is no way to trace sources, distinguish from eye-witness versus secondary reporting, question 'axe grinding' etc. Or is there? Marian 21:15, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Between the hundreds of core "Wikipedians" who spend virtually their entire days fact-checking articles and the ability these administrators have to block people who are known to contribute incorrect information, plus the fact that someone can always come along later and correct false or misleading statements, I'd say appropriate safeguards are in place to prevent incorrect information from staying in an article for too long. In addition to the safeguards already in place, Wikipedia is a growing, developing project, so the system will be refined as time goes on. Perhaps there are more vulnerabilities I'm not aware of. -- Nick 01:10, 16 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Response from Marian

Clare thank you very much for reading the thing! And for your comments. I agree with you on the Gacaca point - I was pushed for space, but probably should have brought it in more. Something I am very interested in persuing is the way in which oral history (as used by Gacaca) can become part of the system of history education.

On the other point, I guess my arguement is that in my opinion, the skills rather than the content of history education should be being addressed in school right now. Contestation over content is what is slowing up the process so massivly. If the government were to shift focus from content to skills-based teaching, then things could move forward, and the content of the national history will develop over time. Of course, our own societies are not necesarily perfect models (I am also a advocate for far more world history in our own schools, for example), but the skills we learn in our classrooms, such as critical and reflective thinking and source analysis, are crucially important. And allow us to have this kind of debate. Critical history discusion can happen in a classroom (been there, done it), and I think it can be dangerous to shift away from this and towards the 'grand narrative' style of history teaching. Especially in an area like the Great Lakes, where nationalism may have drastic consequences and can be manipulated towards violent ends. Shared values such as critical thinking, respect, empathy, understanding multiple perspectives should be built into the curriculum, but nothing more nationalist - national identities and values can develop from this, rather than being imposed by an authority. Freely chosen unity, rather than a forced togetherness will allow reconciliation.

Marian 19:57, 15 Jan 2006 (GMT)