Ideology in reverse
At its core, the school history book dispute is an ideological one. It concerns the different manner in which we now grasp the notions of national interest and national identity. In that sense, it’s part of that same pattern of disagreements that have so far been limited to foreign policy issues. Apart from the left-right dichotomy, there is also a second distinction that cuts across the spectrum of political and social elites. As always, none of the blocs are monolithic. Unfortunately it’s not all the colorful nationalists on one side or spies on the other. Rather, it’s two main blocs that both contain serious people and fools, conservatives and liberals, ideologues and opportunists. All agree Greece must open itself to the world and take part in global affairs. The question is whether it will do so carrying its national luggage or as a pulverized society adapted to the standards of a pax Americana. The biggest problem about the book is that it mostly serves the latter. Starting from the right position that we should not cultivate intolerance among pupils, it takes things to the other extreme: It enervates history, it pulverizes the sense of belonging, effectively stripping people of national identity. But one needs to have a sense of national identity to recognize the other. Otherwise, one’s posturing is molded by political correctness – a superficial recognition that may conceal deep disregard. In all countries, history courses inevitably shape national conscience. The controversial book does not just transcend a sterile, Greek-centered reading of history. In their bid to uproot nationalism, the writers have put history on their own Procrustean bed. It is no coincidence that the book presents an idealized picture of the Ottoman occupation. In fact, it tries to convey a dogmatic and reversed national ideology that is more dangerous than the rather innocent national myths that it wants to undo.
