NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6411047.stm
Germany seeks joint history book
By Alix Kroeger
BBC News, Brussels

The German Education Minister, Annette Schavan, is to raise the possibility of creating a common European history book for use in schools across the EU.

The idea is being discussed on the margins of a meeting of EU education ministers in Heidelberg, Germany.

Germany currently holds the EU presidency.

A common history book is already being used in French and German schools. Each chapter is written by two historians, one French, one German.

The idea is that pupils across Europe would learn about events and their causes from all sides - not just their own country's version.

But in practice, it is almost bound to be controversial. There are no details yet about the possible content or the authors.

The Franco-German book in use in schools for the first time this year covers European history since 1945. It gives both countries' points of view and is used in the final years of secondary school.

Germany has traditionally viewed the EU as a peace project, a bulwark against the kinds of wars that devastated the continent before 1945.

A spokesman for the German EU presidency pointed out that the proposed book would be a history of Europe, not of the European Union.

But getting anything onto the printed page will be nightmarishly complicated. The EU has very limited powers in the field of education; the final say rests with national governments.

Moreover, there is no getting away from the fact that precisely because the idea comes from Germany, other countries are likely to have their reservations.

The historian Dr David Starkey told the BBC that what made Europe exciting was its differences, even though these had contributed to conflict, and the proposed book would seek to brush those differences away.

Hehe, they're really going at it, those Germans. I mean, I understand they really like the idea of a federal EU and wanna get stuff done while they've got the presidency, but they just risk alienating and annoying too many people too quickly.

Still, what do you reckon about the idea?

wow, i didn't think anyone really believed that writing a universal history was possible anymore.

It will never, ever happen. Europe has enough trouble trying to agree what's going on at present, without trying to agree about what's happened in the past.

Sounds quite superfluous to me, and very much irrelevant from Sweden's (or most other not-so-continental countries') standpoint.

This is what i really hate about the EU. In theory the EU's a good idea, but people don't know when to leave well alone. If a law or a regulation isn't going to benefit individual countries then it shouldn't be considered. No matter how well it sets us on the road to a unified state. This is just more of same. We don't need unified history teaching. It would almost certainly make things a hell of a lot worse.

However if you're trying to get a superstate at any costs then stopping countries from teaching people their own country's history in favour of a happy clappy hand holding pan european version would be a good step. Likewise actually deciding what's actually going to be in these books will no doubt require loads of additional funding and government in Btussels.

For the EU to really become united, they will have to bond culturaly. This universal book is a good idea, but considering the european countries have fought, raped and butchered each other for the last 2000 years, I dont see it happening easily.

I think that, instead of trying to bring history to a common ground, they should find a common ground and build from that. Dont forget about history, but remember it and ignore it for the common good.

Oy, the USA doesn't have a common history book (They all suck, of course, but still), why would the USE?

Somebody is attempting to compile a "definitive" history textbook? That's priceless.

What would be the problem with that?
As far as I understand, the EU has no say what will be taught in schools in Europe, and in the case of Germany not even the federal government has any say in that matter. So if this book does get published, it will be an option for schools to include in the curricula if they wish to do so.
What's wrong with giving them that option?

Personally, I remember deeply resenting the fact that history lessons were for the most part centered on German history, only occasionally touching on other nations' or continents' history when influential events were concerned. I would have liked to discuss different points of view in history class.

Somebody is attempting to compile a "definitive" history textbook? That's priceless.

I can't help feeling that you and I read completely different articles...

The one the OP posted is about compiling a history book that doesn't describe just one nation's past but that of a continent with several nations. What's definite about that? Even those history books used today which focus on single nations are far from "definite"...

What would be the problem with that?
As far as I understand, the EU has no say what will be taught in schools in Europe, and in the case of Germany not even the federal government has any say in that matter. So if this book does get published, it will be an option for schools to include in the curricula if they wish to do so.
What's wrong with giving them that option?

Personally, I remember deeply resenting the fact that history lessons were for the most part centered on German history, only occasionally touching on other nations' or continents' history when influential events were concerned. I would have liked to discuss different points of view in history class.

Surely that is the point of external reading?

History courses prior to university are limited by a necessity to be of universal appeal, hence the history of bongo-bongo land is unlikely to rate highly on most syllabus.

I can't help feeling that you and I read completely different articles...

The one the OP posted is about compiling a history book that doesn't describe just one nation's past but that of a continent with several nations. What's definite about that? Even those history books used today which focus on single nations are far from "definite"...

Because its being of universal merit to all EU members renders it definitive.

Surely that is the point of external reading?

History courses prior to university are limited by a necessity to be of universal appeal, hence the history of bongo-bongo land is unlikely to rate highly on most syllabus.

Which is what I did eventually, despite never moving on to study history at university. However, I would have liked the opportunity to discuss events like the 100 years war or the Irish question in class, in order to further my understanding of the issues. I think that this is what school is about, teaching things that are difficult to gather from books alone, but then again I might be wrong there.
My knowledge of geography seems rather limited, though. Where is bongo-bongo land?

Because its being of universal merit to all EU members renders it definitive.

Only if the members want it to be. Which renders it opptional, I believe.

Which is what I did eventually, despite never moving on to study history at university. However, I would have liked the opportunity to discuss events like the 100 years war or the Irish question in class, in order to further my understanding of the issues. I think that this is what school is about, teaching things that are difficult to gather from books alone, but then again I might be wrong there.
My knowledge of geography seems rather limited, though. Where is bongo-bongo land?

I do appreciate that, and I have been immeasurably frustrated at having studied "Weren't the Nazis and Soviets naughty" for four years, however, the majority of students cannot deal with anything more complex than simple history, hence why courses are so limited. Personally, I do think it is wrong; even as an Englishman, I would have appreciated the oppurtunity to study the War of the Roses or the Crusades earlier in my history, however, the nature of secondary level education dictates that subjects must be accessible.

I do appreciate that, and I have been immeasurably frustrated at having studied "Weren't the Nazis and Soviets naughty" for four years, however, the majority of students cannot deal with anything more complex than simple history, hence why courses are so limited. Personally, I do think it is wrong; even as an Englishman, I would have appreciated the oppurtunity to study the War of the Roses or the Crusades earlier in my history, however, the nature of secondary level education dictates that subjects must be accessible.

Well, I can only relate to the German system here, which for grammar school would basically deal with prehistory to the end of WW II in grades 5 - 10 (11 - 16 years of age), and then restarts at the begining of "Oberstufe" in grade 11 with the 19th century and discusses the past 2 centuries in greater detail. There's always a bit of a rush at the end, before the Abitur exams, to pack in the 70s, 80s and 90s, but I honestly don't see why issues that are pan-European such as the crusades, the 100 years war, the Enlightenment, the industrialisation, WW I and WW II and particularly the post-war years can't be discussed by taking more than just your own nations viewpoint into account.
That sort of focus on one's own nation makes me hang my head in shame when I have to admit I know virtually nothing about fascism in Italy and Spain, as they were hardly mentioned during class and I never was interested enough to bite myself through several hundred pages of books on the subjects. German history lesson will only teach you about German fascism. I think that's both sad and slightly worrying.

uggh. Not more EU "european inergration" nonsense. many single countries don't have a common history book, so why should some stupid union.

uggh. Not more EU "european inergration" nonsense. many single countries don't have a common history book, so why should some stupid union.

Why on earth not?
What is wrong with teaching kids about countries other than their own? Polish history books do...

how hard can it be to write an objective history book...it's a very good idea...

where I went to school in Canada we studied the histories of as many countries as time would allow and for the most part my teachers tried to give both sides versions of the conflicts....only my last year of high school was devoted to Canada....

my favourite history teacher was a foreign Uni student in pre-war Germany, then later a bomber crewman flying over Germany...his firsthand observation of Nazi rallies, politics and propaganda was fascinating........

Why on earth not?
What is wrong with teaching kids about countries other than their own? Polish history books do...

no, I just hate the idea of having just one for the whole EU. I hate that idea with a passion.

It sounds fairly insane...why is the history of Bulgaria of relevance to 14 year olds in Tipperary?

How can a valid history encompassing 27 nations of differing pasts ever be written?

It sounds fairly insane...why is the history of Bulgaria of relevance to 14 year olds in Tipperary?

How can a valid history encompassing 27 nations of differing pasts ever be written?

obviously a detailed study of every country would be difficult but a general knowledge of each and the important common history they all share....

the US has 50 states that are studied if they can do it I'm sure the EU kids can do the same with only 27.....

in essence its a good idea.

The only problrm I see is that people will feel disconnected with their own country. Whether thats a good thing or not is upto the individual

Oy, the USA doesn't have a common history book (They all suck, of course, but still), why would the USE?

Yes this reminds of the big text book battle between the two superstates California and Texas over science. California wanting evolution in their text books and Texas wanting creationism and all the smaller states are pissed off because they have no say due to the publishing companies printing only what the big states want.

obviously a detailed study of every country would be difficult but a general knowledge of each and the important common history they all share....

What common history does Bulgaria share with Portugal? Or Macedonia (a soon to be EU country) with Ireland?

How do you meaningfully cover the growth of the Irish nationalist movement of the early 20th C and the War of the Spanish Succession in the same book, to enough depth to make it of any worth, and squeeze it all into the mandatory years of taught history?

the US has 50 states that are studied if they can do it I'm sure the EU kids can do the same with only 27.....

Yes, but at the same time, the 50 states have a similar history, generally as a single nation, with a single government, foreign policy etc. whereas the EU has 27 nations with different histories, often converging, but even more often diverging.

Sure, teaching people about the EU and informing them about our neighbours is a very important thing, but you can't bring them all together in any kind of worthwhile history textbook. It would have to be volumes thick to be of any worth at all.

It sounds fairly insane...why is the history of Bulgaria of relevance to 14 year olds in Tipperary?

How can a valid history encompassing 27 nations of differing pasts ever be written?

Well considering that the United Kingdom very nearly embroiled herself in war over the Eastern Question several times, Bulgaria may very well be more relevant to Tipperary kids than you realise :p

Though yes, if the common EU history book is to follow the French and German example i.e. including each national viewpoint, then the book(s) will be exhaustively long and probably too dense and convoluted to be of much use.
Having said that, trying to achieve a continental unity in history for many subjects is desirable - as mentioned, the Crusades, but also big things like the 12th century renaissance, the Renaissance, the Refomation, the Counter-Reformation, the Military Revolution, Enlightenment, Romanticism, the rise of nationalism, diplomatic dealings, the Revolutionary Wars, the Restoration, the 1848 Revolutions, the Age of Nationalism etc. etc. and all the other wonderful capitalised, compartmentalised periods and topics.
In my uni my history course is still divided along a quaint "British History" and "European History" border, with cross-referencing discouraged. Does make things a joy when talking about the Enlightenment in Europe whilst keeping references to British contributions at a minimum :rolleyes:

Well considering that the United Kingdom very nearly embroiled herself in war over the Eastern Question several times, Bulgaria may very well be more relevant to Tipperary kids than you realise :p


Considering that Tipperary is smack-bang in the middle of Ireland, the 'Eastern Question' really isn't of much concern :p

Considering that Tipperary is smack-bang in the middle of Ireland, the 'Eastern Question' really isn't of much concern :p

Probably would have been Irish troops sent to die for King/Queen and Country though

Probably would have been Irish troops sent to die for King/Queen and Country though

Only after 1800, and even then enlistment to the British Army was low except for the north-east and (I suppose) Dublin.

Even the Crimean War would be completely overshadowed by the continuing effects of the Famine in its aftermath.

As I said, really not much of a concern.

Hmmmmm, the Germans trying to impose their will on the rest of Europe. Where have we seen that before?

On a more serious note, that's centralising things far too much. I think education policy is something that shold be left to individual countries, the EU should butt out.

the US has 50 states that are studied if they can do it I'm sure the EU kids can do the same with only 27.....

50, of which only Hawaii has been its own proper country for most of its existence.

What common history does Bulgaria share with Portugal? Or Macedonia (a soon to be EU country) with Ireland?

How do you meaningfully cover the growth of the Irish nationalist movement of the early 20th C and the War of the Spanish Succession in the same book, to enough depth to make it of any worth, and squeeze it all into the mandatory years of taught history?

well you won't like me saying this but in the big picture of the world or even the EU,...most euro countries don't matter much ,Ireland, Bulgaria and Macedonian are quite insignificant, the natives attach more historic importance to themselves than they deserve.......that doesn't mean locals shouldn't know their own culture/history, they should it's very important....my country of birth and my new country are also minor players on the world stage...

I grew up being taught history with the major players whose past has shaped our world, then about my own country and thirdly my home province....if I were to have criticisms it would be that not enough attention was paid to Africa and Asia.....

Yes, but at the same time, the 50 states have a similar history, generally as a single nation, with a single government, foreign policy etc. whereas the EU has 27 nations with different histories, often converging, but even more often diverging.

I would deisagree, the 50states are more different than you realize, Texas is on another planet from California, Hawaii, Alaska and New York, they each have different histories, I would say Texas has a history is as unique and bloody as Ireland's.....

Sure, teaching people about the EU and informing them about our neighbours is a very important thing, but you can't bring them all together in any kind of worthwhile history textbook. It would have to be volumes thick to be of any worth at all.

I don't think it would be that difficult it a matter of separating minor local history from continental history....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6411047.stm


Hehe, they're really going at it, those Germans. I mean, I understand they really like the idea of a federal EU and wanna get stuff done while they've got the presidency, but they just risk alienating and annoying too many people too quickly.

Still, what do you reckon about the idea?

probably quite good. i'd actually like to have learned about the history of other countries while i was at school, not just all about britain and britain's part in WW2, etc.

this could pave the way for tighter integration in the future and less euro-skepticism :)


though this bit surprised me:

Moreover, there is no getting away from the fact that precisely because the idea comes from Germany, other countries are likely to have their reservations.

why? :confused:

Sounds quite superfluous to me, and very much irrelevant from Sweden's (or most other not-so-continental countries') standpoint.

Bah, Swedes, nobody cares about Scandanavia.
Nothing important ever happened North or East of Germany anyway. Ever.

Ah-HAH. It took me a while, but I found it.
Behold, history as it is seen in textbooks:
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/1601/worldmapofhistoryuf6.jpg

:P

Oy, the USA doesn't have a common history book (They all suck, of course, but still), why would the USE?

USE?

Wow, my blood's just run cold. NURSE!

The idea is a pretty good one. Of course, kids would have to learn a lot more then, because until now only the history of the respective country they live in is taught in depth. But it is always good if kids learn more. And in this case it would help kids understand why and how things are differently in other countries (at least around the EU). And the US could use some history books that go beyond their country's short existence as well.

Hmmmmm, the Germans trying to impose their will on the rest of Europe. Where have we seen that before?

On a more serious note, that's centralising things far too much. I think education policy is something that shold be left to individual countries, the EU should butt out.No, education must be equal and thus give equal opportunities for students all over the EU.

Yes this reminds of the big text book battle between the two superstates California and Texas over science. California wanting evolution in their text books and Texas wanting creationism and all the smaller states are pissed off because they have no say due to the publishing companies printing only what the big states want.However, the EU does not descend into such retarded christian US bullshit disputes. States that want creationism in school books should be nuked immediately, they have dropped out of humanity anyways.

Sure, teaching people about the EU and informing them about our neighbours is a very important thing, but you can't bring them all together in any kind of worthwhile history textbook. It would have to be volumes thick to be of any worth at all.And? Once a kid can read, then it should be no problem to read much. Learning more is always a good thing, because kids are way too dumb these days.

No, education must be equal and thus give equal opportunities for students all over the EU.


Equal, yes, but not the same. People from different areas have different ways of doing things and different priorities. When other areas don't respect that, disaster happens.

Equal, yes, but not the same. People from different areas have different ways of doing things and different priorities. When other areas don't respect that, disaster happens.
Well, if you go from equal to same it remains equal and folks learn more in the end. If everyone learns all, that's a good start to understanding.

I think I am speechless.

This will never work as the specialisations are studied at University....

I think I am speechless.

This will never work as the specialisations are studied at University....
Why? It's a good thing to gain extensive knowledge before one goes to University to specialize. And not everybody goes to University, but still should have comprehensive knowledge.

Why? It's a good thing to gain extensive knowledge before one goes to University to specialize. And not everybody goes to University, but still should have comprehensive knowledge.

It won't work...how much time will be spent on the subject? It will end up being a cursory 'speed read' of a nations history...never a good thing...what about the teachers...how indepth knowledge will they need?

I'm not saying its a bad thing as a concept...I just really find it impossible to see how it would actually work...there are only 24 hours in a day....

There is quite an easy way to do it without annoying the majority. Have a semi-centralised set of history textbooks.

The first would be about the whole of europe, with about 3 chapters (ancient/migration, before 4-5 ce then from 4-5 ce to modern) for each country then a slew of chapters dealing with how they interracted and major historical events both nationally and supranationally.

You then have a series of textbooks dealing with each country in particular.

There, problem solved!

obviously a detailed study of every country would be difficult but a general knowledge of each and the important common history they all share....

Exactly!

It won't work...how much time will be spent on the subject? It will end up being a cursory 'speed read' of a nations history...never a good thing...what about the teachers...how indepth knowledge will they need?
I'm not saying its a bad thing as a concept...I just really find it impossible to see how it would actually work...there are only 24 hours in a day....And how many years are kids in school on average?

And how many years are kids in school on average?

And how many other subjects do they have to study? And each year the subject becomes more specialised...

And how many other subjects do they have to study? And each year the subject becomes more specialised...Good training for a brain, isn't it? The more you already know the easier is it to learn new stuff. Knowledge is like a puzzle, the more pieces you have in place, the easier it is to fit in more pieces.
And we all don't want dumb kids, do we?

It won't work...how much time will be spent on the subject? It will end up being a cursory 'speed read' of a nations history...never a good thing...what about the teachers...how indepth knowledge will they need?

I'm not saying its a bad thing as a concept...I just really find it impossible to see how it would actually work...there are only 24 hours in a day....

I think that is the thing, from my point of view people need to understand how things are close to them to give them a feeling of place. To understand how the past has affected their nation and their people, first.

As you gain an understanding for this you can then begin to look further afield. The problem is writing a history of an area so large is that Europe has been divided into so many states which transend boarders and have difference influences I would not know where to start.

And how many years are kids in school on average

They have to study other subjects as well. Unfortunatly kids go to school and study for 6 hours per day add in 1-2 hours home work per night and you see how little time they have.

Good training for a brain, isn't it? The more you already know the easier is it to learn new stuff. Knowledge is like a puzzle, the more pieces you have in place, the easier it is to fit in more pieces.
And we all don't want dumb kids, do we?

Totally....sadly though we are getting dumb kids...and its not because the kids are stupid...

I still don't see how they can fit the time to teach the history of every European country...it'd be great for sure...

Eh, I dont know if the EU really needs books, because technically arent you guys a Confederacy?

...and its not because the kids are stupid...It's because kids are allowed to be lazy (especially mentally), which directly leads to stupidity.

It's because kids are allowed to be lazy (especially mentally), which directly leads to stupidity.

Well, I'd say its more Ignorance than stupidity.

I wouldn't even say they are a confederacy yet.

They have to study other subjects as well. Unfortunatly kids go to school and study for 6 hours per day add in 1-2 hours home work per night and you see how little time they have.And? In past ages kids had to do much more than they have to do these days. And if their time is used for something useful, such as education, then I see no problem with that.

I wouldn't even say they are a confederacy yet.

Sad.....

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I don't think they want one book to teach all of European history, I think they want a book that covers roughly the same things as the current ones, but from more than one perspective.

For example, if you cover the Battle for Britain, having a chapter written by a British and a German guy together might be better than having one only written by either.

Plus, with the Franco-German book already in use, the kids learn both about the post-war trends in their own country (for example the Berlin Wall or the '68 generation and the RAF) as well as across the border (like the student riots, the war in Algeria and so on). That can't hurt, can it?

Well, I'd say its more Ignorance than stupidity.Those two come in bundles.

Well thats another issue...kids in Germany or the Netherlands or France seem to be, on the whole, much more educated than kids from British schools...yet British education is regarded as very good...Whose regard?

It's because kids are allowed to be lazy (especially mentally), which directly leads to stupidity.

Well thats another issue...kids in Germany or the Netherlands or France seem to be, on the whole, much more educated than kids from British schools...yet British education is regarded as very good...

Ahhh! I see...hmmm....that would mean that Historians are biased :shock:Well, they didn't have paneuropean schoolbooks...

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I don't think they want one book to teach all of European history, I think they want a book that covers roughly the same things as the current ones, but from more than one perspective.

For example, if you cover the Battle for Britain, having a chapter written by a British and a German guy together might be better than having one only written by either.

Plus, with the Franco-German book already in use, the kids learn both about the post-war trends in their own country (for example the Berlin Wall or the '68 generation and the RAF) as well as across the border (like the student riots, the war in Algeria and so on). That can't hurt, can it?

Ahhh! I see...hmmm....that would mean that Historians are biased :shock:

Whose regard?

Well in that UNESCO report about kids in 'rich countries'....seems the UK fails at many things but not education...

personally I am not able to reconcile that...

Ahhh! I see...hmmm....that would mean that Historians are biased :shock:
Well, not necessarily politically biased, but of course their areas of interest and expertise can be rather different.

For example, have a look at a series of documentaries made in Germany about the Nazis and WWII by someone called Guido Knopp. There are versions with English subtitles out there. If you watch them, it certainly has the potential to completely change the way you look at WWII.

Well, not necessarily politically biased, but of course their areas of interest and expertise can be rather different.

For example, have a look at a series of documentaries made in Germany about the Nazis and WWII by someone called Guido Knopp. There are versions with English subtitles out there. If you watch them, it certainly has the potential to completely change the way you look at WWII.

Cheers...I'll have a look...

I think his wiki entry needs refining though....

Well, they didn't have paneuropean schoolbooks...

LOL!!! Yeah...good post!

Iam sure there already is some knid of EU atlas of European History or something like that cant rember the title but i got it out of my lil library a few months back.

I don't understand why people seem to think that the EU is trying to create some sort of history book covering every single element of every single member nation's history right back to the stone age. I studied history for five years at advanced higher. During that time, all the history I learned except for sections on the world wars was Scottish history, and even then it only really touched on the Wars of Independence and industrialisation, two very important but very narrow sections of Scottish history. However, other schools learned about other subjects, such as the Enlightenment.

I don't see why this history textbook will be any different to ones used just now, except it will be far less focused upon one geographic area. If it focuses on events which encompass most of Europe - the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Crusades, Industrialisation, the World Wars - I don't really see what the problem is. Not to mention the fact that, at least in the UK, textbooks are usually up to the teachers or schools discretion anyway, so even if they don't like the book they don't have to use it.

Sad.....

Why sad? At best it is a soft confederation quite a lot of policies need total support by the member states, the currency is even printed for different countries (though all worth the same and called euro).

Hmmmmm, the Germans trying to impose their will on the rest of Europe. Where have we seen that before?

On a more serious note, that's centralising things far too much. I think education policy is something that shold be left to individual countries, the EU should butt out.

Please read the article, and then think before posting :rolleyes:

i don't see that working, a lot of the history classes we received actually were about the history of our own country, there are quite some interesting things you need to know about our history to understand modern politics. but i don't think that the struggle between flanders and wallonia would really receive a lot of attention in such a book.
it could be interesting to have another look on some other larger events, second world war for instance, but i don't think it's really necesary.

wow, i didn't think anyone really believed that writing a universal history was possible anymore.

If you want to unify a worldview with a specific group of people, and sweep things under the rug, that's what you do.

Could be a very useful resource to compliment exam board textbooks for many history courses that deal extensively in European history, I think.