Why are history lessons in secondary schools limited to the history of Europe and the USA?

Dear Siofra Avila,

the history curriculum itself is the result of particular conceptions of history: what aspects of the past are important for turning schoolgirls into good citizens?

Schools and conceptions of history in the 19th century

In the 19th century, when the structure of today’s secondary schools was established, all these conceptions of history were purely Christian and, above all, national in character: the focus was on the origins of their respective states. In France, this meant everything dating back to the Gauls; in Switzerland, everything dating back to the pile-dwelling people; in Norway, everything dating back to the Vikings; and so on. This was regarded in each case as the most important past, precisely because it was ‘their own’ (and supposedly distinctive and special) – a dreamt-of journey back in time.

Colonies without an independent history

This concept persisted in all European countries well into the last third of the 20th century. In colonial nations such as England, Belgium and France, their own colonies in Asia and Africa were also mentioned, but only as objects of successful English or French conquests, not as independent territories with their own history.

The Ottoman Empire as an adversary

Non-Christian political structures were portrayed solely as ‘adversaries’ or threats from the past. Consequently, in my own history lessons in Vienna in the 1970s, the history of the Ottoman Empire did not feature, even though all the neighbouring countries had been profoundly shaped by their contact with it. ‘The Turks’ were only mentioned in lessons as the attackers and besiegers of Vienna in 1529 and 1683, and likewise as the vanquished.

This had nothing to do with the reality of the past or the present at that time – characterised by massive and successful immigration of many hundreds of thousands of people from Turkey and the Balkan countries – nor was it meant to. History was the fiction of state sovereignty. That is how it was told.

History lessons and historical scholarship

But that is only possible if one simply leaves out all the others out there with their very different stories – from Istanbul to Hong Kong and beyond. And it’s exactly the same in Switzerland. History lessons have only a very limited connection with historical scholarship: only a tiny fraction of the information that is actually important can ever be conveyed. The criteria for what is deemed ‘essential’ in each case simply change.

Outlook

That is why I suspect that the history of Eastern Europe and Asia will be taught more extensively in future; simply because these countries are becoming more important. But the changes in teaching and in the official curriculum will take a very, very long time. In 20 years’ time? Historical timescales, after all – the pace of history.