Talk:Nationalism in history textbooks

	This Pseudohistory related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Michael Gove in UK

This could have something about Michael Gove's attempts to get British history being more celebratory. There was a good Guardian article that also discussed teaching in South Africa and Scotland.[1] And another article on historigraphy of WWI[2]. Annquin (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

For future reference

Retroactive, anachronistic projection of national unity; glossing over of intraethnic violence With the development of Romantic nationalism in the 19th century arose the idea that people speaking the same language belong to a single nation and must have a nation-state that belongs to them exclusively. Allegiances which were formerly limited to local regions were transferred to larger "nations", and historians strove to construct histories that presented these new nation-states as timeless entities rather than recent constructs, and to retroactively project an anachronistic view of "national unity" that did not exist until then.

One example of this is found in official Romanian historiography, which portrays Romania as being a millennia-old entity stretching back all the way to Dacia at its maximum extent under the Dacian king Burebista (despite the fact that the Dacians (like the Germanic peoples, Celts, and Greeks) consisted of various tribes all at war with each other.) The political unity of all Romanians is presented as being a political dream of Romanian speakers since time immemorial, consummating in the union of Moldavia with Wallachia in the 19th century, and the union of Transylvania with Romania after World War I. ref

This unity is presented as having been torn apart by various malefic Others, such as the Austro-Hungarians, Slavs, and Ottomans, who continually oppressed "us Romanians". For centuries, Romanians bravely struggled against the military incursions rest of the world, and Romanians must never forget the injustices committed centuries ago by "them" on "our ancestors". These conflicts are presented in Romanian history to inculcate xenophobia towards other nations as well as minorities within Romania.

However, such a narrative ignores the fact that this idea of Romanian unity is a modern projection. What is now Romania originally consisted of the three mainly Romanian-speaking principalities of Wallachia (called "The Romanian land" in Romanian), Moldavia, and Transylvania. Now, while Transylvania was indeed under Hungarian rule, the argument that Wallachia and Moldavia were separate states because of "the powers that be" is a fairly preposterous argument. Romanian nationalists selectively pick examples of bloodshed between Romanian speakers and other ethnolinguistic groups while conveniently glossing over the many wars between Wallachia and Moldavia. If conflicts between Wallachia and Austro-Hungary or Poland [as commemorated in the "patriotic" story Sobieski si romanii] centuries ago are grounds for Romanians to despise modern-day Hungarians and Poles, then by the same logic the battles between Wallachia and Moldavia must be grounds for Wallachian-Moldavian hatred – which is obviously inconvenient for the Romanian nationalist narrative. Conversely, if such historic conflicts are not grounds for hatred, then ethnic nationalist xenophobia is pointless. As neither option is acceptable to Romanian nationalists, Romanian history textbooks prefer to sidestep the issue altogether by ignoring Wallachian-Moldavian conflicts altogether and misleadingly presenting the two states as common brothers united against non-Romanian enemies.

In reality, the main obstacle standing in the way of Moldavian-Wallachian unity was not "them", but rather the fact that the very notion of an ethnolinguistic group having a state exclusive to itself did not yet exist. Prior to the era of Romantic nationalism, states were led by rulers whose main concern was not the linguistic affiliations of their subjects, but rather the acquirement of as much wealth and power for themselves as possible. Many wars were waged between adjacent states whose inhabitants' speech was mutually intelligible; this was true of many states of present-day Italy and Germany, and Wallachia and Moldavia were no exception. Only in the 19th century was the idea developed that those speaking the same language must have a single (ethnically homogeneous) state. It is no coincidence that the unions of Wallachia with Moldavia and Romania with Transylvania occurred not during the centuries-long pre-Romanticist period, but rather in the 19th and 20th centuries, a fairly short time after the development of the ideology of nationalism, and around roughly the same time as similar movements were occurring in regions like Italy and Germany.

I have no sources for this; this is just what I vaguely remember reading. I'm leaving this here until I actually have concrete references.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 21:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is an interview (in Romanian) with a Romanian historian (Marius Diaconescu) in which he essentially says what I wrote above.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 16:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

By definition

Most history books will be nation-centric, emphasise the achievements of the state and its inhabitants (x from y invented whatever, but our z made it a going concern) and minimise the defeats and drawbacks: and two books from two different 'cultures' will describe the same sequence of events quite differently. The same will apply to other special interests (transport, gardens, sport and "an excess of weather"). Anna Livia (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

A history textbook intended for Polish schools is obviously going to cover more about Poland (and the achievements of Polish individuals) than, say, Thailand. But it can include more information about Poland without also going into disproportionately negative value judgments, such as by portraying Poland as angelic and neighboring nations as perfidious and treacherous.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 18:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)