The writing and teaching of history

The present report is the first of two consecutive studies by the Special Rapporteur on historical and memorial narratives in divided and post-conflict societies being submitted to the General Assembly in 2013 and the Human Rights Council in 2014. The present report pertains to the writing and teaching of history, with a particular focus on history textbooks. In the second report, the Special Rapporteur will focus on memorials and museums.

Most, if not all, societies today face challenges in terms of the writing and teaching of history, in particular those that have seen international or internal conflicts in the recent or less recent past; post-colonial societies; societies that have experienced slavery; and societies challenged by divisions based on ethnic, national or linguistic background, religion, belief or political ideology. The ability of people, in various contexts, to have access to and have acknowledged their own cultural heritage, and that of others, in terms of historical narratives, to have access to information and education and to develop critical thinking and an understanding of the realities and perspectives of others is at stake.

Throughout her country visits, the Special Rapporteur has noted the paramount importance of history writing and teaching for people’s identities, sense of belonging and relationships with societal others and the State. Taking an approach to history writing and teaching that is based on human rights invites further thinking about the objectives of education in general and of history teaching in particular. It also calls for more debates, in the context of nation-building, on ways to articulate policies aimed at peace, fostering mutual understanding between people and communities and providing the spaces necessary for various communities to present their perspectives on their own history, which they consider to be an integral part of their identity and cultural heritage.

Nation-building and community-building processes use narratives that usually interweave stories, myths and legends with history. Becoming a part of the community’s cultural heritage, such narratives enable the transmission to younger generations of cultural references on which community members build their cultural identity. In the present report, the Special Rapporteur tackles a different, albeit related, issue: the way in which history, understood as a discipline, is taught in schools. She seeks to identify under which circumstances the historical narrative promoted by the State in schools becomes problematic from a human rights perspective.

The Special Rapporteur’s two studies on historical and memorial narratives suggest that there is a need for further reflection on the possible interaction between the teaching of history and the wider processes of collective memorialization. History is an academic discipline based on rigorous and systematic research of historical sources using confirmed methods and providing ascertainable results. History is only one of several elements influencing collective memory, which, in addition to information provided within kinship and community circles, draws upon numerous sources, such as literature, the media, entertainment industries, cultural landscapes, official holidays and memory extracts from the past that recall certain events, actions or persons from a particular perspective and without necessarily recalling the wider context. Memory constructs a specific vision of a collective self and attendant value system. Memorialization processes are emotional by definition, while the aim of history teaching should be critical thinking. As stressed by Pierre Nora, the discipline of history should not celebrate the past as memory does, but study the ways in which the past is celebrated. The writing and teaching of history should help to uncover the selective and self-serving nature of memory. In recounting the relationship with the past, it should highlight prejudice and stereotypes embedded in collective memory.

The conclusion and recommendations presented herein are based on an acknowledgment that history is always subject to differing interpretations. While events may be proven, including in a court of law, historical narratives are viewpoints that, by definition, are partial. Accordingly, even when the facts are undisputed, conflicting parties may nevertheless fiercely debate moral legitimacy and the idea of who was right and who was wrong. Provided that historical narratives rigorously follow the highest deontological standards, they should be respected and included in the debate.

The past constantly informs the present. History is continuously interpreted to fulfil contemporary objectives by a multiplicity of actors. The challenge is to distinguish the legitimate continuous reinterpretation of the past from manipulations of history for political ends. The Special Rapporteur’s recommendations are therefore based on the principle that history teaching should promote critical thinking and adopt a multiperspective approach, taking into account the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the right to information and education, academic freedoms and the rights of individuals and groups to have access to their cultural heritage and that of others.

A consultation on these issues was organized from 1 to 3 July 2013 by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, in association with the University of Ulster and in cooperation with the Special Rapporteur, in Londonderry, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The consultation included a public symposium and a two-day experts’ meeting (see annex). On 5 July, the Special Rapporteur convened open consultations in Geneva in order to offer an opportunity to States, national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations to present their views. The Special Rapporteur is grateful to all those who contributed and extends her special thanks to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for its support.

Numerous human rights provisions provide guidance in the area of history writing and teaching.

The Special Rapporteur considers the issue from the perspective of the right of all persons to have access to cultural heritage, based in particular on article 15 (1) (a) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (see also A/HRC/17/38).

Relevant provisions also include the right of all persons to education, as enshrined in article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and articles 28 and 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the right to disseminate and have access to information and knowledge, based on the right to freedom of expression, as set out in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which encompasses the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers. Access to scientific knowledge and information is another key dimension of the right of all persons to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress, as stipulated in article 15 (1) (b) of the Covenant (see also A/HRC/20/26, paras. 26-28).

Several provisions call for the incorporation into educational programmes the histories of indigenous peoples (art. 15 (1) of the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) and of minorities (art. 4 (4) of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities) (see also general comment No. 21 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, paras. 27 and 54 (c), and general comment No. 11 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, para. 58).

The repeated call by human rights bodies to eradicate stereotypes and racial and gender prejudices from textbooks is pertinent here. The Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance recommended that States should encourage an accurate reflection of history in education so as to avoid stereotypes and distortion or falsification of historical facts, which could lead to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and that textbooks and other educational materials should reflect accurately historical facts as they related to past tragedies and atrocities (see A/HRC/23/56, para. 57 (f)).

The Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1974, is particularly relevant. It recommends that a global approach should be the framework for presenting local and national aspects of different subjects and serve to illustrate the scientific and cultural history of humankind. States should, pursuant to its paragraphs 38 (c) and 45, encourage wider exchanges of textbooks, especially history and geography textbooks, and, where appropriate and possible, undertake bilateral and multilateral agreements for reciprocal studies and revisions of textbooks and other educational materials to ensure that they are accurate, balanced, up to date, unprejudiced and enhance mutual knowledge and understanding between different peoples.

The Council of Europe has developed relevant tools and instruments. Article 2 of the European Cultural Convention of 1954 stipulates that Contracting Parties are to encourage the study of history and civilization in one another’s territories. Recommendation 1283 (1996) on history and the learning of history in Europe proposes supporting independent national associations of history teachers and historical research, including the work of multilateral and bilateral commissions on contemporary history, the development of codes of practice for history teaching, academic freedoms and cooperation between historians.

Importantly, Recommendation Rec(2001)15 of the Committee of Ministers on history teaching in twenty-first-century Europe stresses that history teaching must not be an instrument of ideological manipulation, of propaganda or used for the promotion of intolerant and ultranationalistic, xenophobic, racist or anti-Semitic ideas. It states that historical research and history taught in schools cannot be compatible with the fundamental values and statutes of the Council of Europe if it promotes or allows misuses of history, through falsification or creation of false evidence, doctored statistics, faked images, etc.; fixation on one event to justify or conceal another; distortion of the past for the purposes of propaganda; an excessively nationalistic version of the past which may create the “us” and “them” dichotomy; abuse of historical records; and denial or omission of historical facts. It is further noted that history teaching should, among other things, occupy a vital place in the developing of respect for all kinds of differences; be a decisive factor in reconciliation, recognition, understanding and mutual trust between peoples; and play a vital role in the promotion of fundamental values, such as tolerance, mutual understanding, human rights and democracy. Furthermore, it should develop pupils’ intellectual ability to analyse and interpret information critically and responsibly, through dialogue, through the search for historical evidence and through open debate based on a multiperspective approach, especially on controversial and sensitive issues; and be an instrument for the prevention of crimes against humanity. Lastly, Recommendation CM/Rec(2011)6 of the Committee on Ministers on intercultural dialogue and the image of the other in history teaching offers an important additional tool in devising practical methods of history teaching in the context of intercultural dialogue and post-conflict situations.

The Cultural Charter for Africa of 1976 contains relevant provisions. In the preamble, it is recalled that cultural domination led to the depersonalization of part of the African peoples and falsified their history and that it is imperative to carry out a systematic inventory of cultural heritage, in particular in the spheres of traditions, history and arts. The aims of the Cultural Charter include the rehabilitation, restoration, preservation and promotion of African cultural heritage and the encouragement of international cultural cooperation for a better understanding among peoples (art. 1). In addition, African States are called upon to take steps to ensure that the archives removed from Africa are returned to African Governments so that they may have complete archives concerning the history of their countries (art. 29).

While other regional instruments may not specifically address the issue of history teaching, it is worth noting that the Convention for the Promotion of Inter-American Cultural Relations of 1954 is based on the idea, expressed in the preamble, that the exchange of professors, teachers and students among the American countries will contribute to greater knowledge and mutual understanding of their peoples.

In all countries, history teaching is adjusted to politics to a certain extent. Historical narratives are commonly used to build nations, shape communities and foster national or regional identities beyond differences of religion, language and ethnicity. They also serve to legitimize a particular political authority and its political concepts and ensure loyalty to the State. The logic of nation States itself propels the projection of a common culture, language and history or, more specifically, a desired image of the past, to construct a unique imaginary foundation as the core of the nation.¹

1. See Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism, revised ed. (London, Verso, 1991), p. 74. ↩

Such processes are usually shaped by the desire to present the past of one’s own people or nation as better than it may have been. Darker episodes from the past tend to be omitted, minimized or justified, in particular when they relate to crimes against humanity and genocides, colonization and slavery, wars and civil strife, occupations and conquests, and grave violations of human rights. Policies may sometimes stipulate that a positive outlook is to be adopted in interpreting the past, impeding a critical approach.

In the twentieth century, a massive rewriting of history accompanied the emergence of numerous independent States after decolonization and the development, and subsequent abolition, of authoritarian and totalitarian political systems. Today, in a world accustomed to ideological conflicts, historical narratives have become an integral part of the agenda and rhetoric of various political actors at the local, regional and international levels. It is therefore important to ensure that diverse viewpoints are heard, so as to simultaneously combat mechanisms that allow for the manipulation of history.

State practices leading to revisionism, meaning intentional, tendentious and politically orchestrated changes of the images of the past impervious to evidence, are of concern. Such practices include fabricating historical facts and highlighting and decontextualizing facts that confirm the desired narrative while omitting those that question it. Revisionism often occurs during or after major political upheavals. Too frequently, the diversity of historical facts and interpretations is replaced by a single interpretation of the past that accords with a particular philosophy or ideology. In many cases, the State’s promotion of a single interpretation is reinforced by banning or systematically marginalizing alternative narratives.²

2. See Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (London, Routledge, 1945). ↩

The reconstruction of human history to fit a particular world view is a phenomenon in all societies. The question is whether, and to what extent, access to resources or historical facts and earlier interpretations is obstructed and whether space is given to articulate differences freely without fear of punishment. Even without deliberate manipulation, history teaching is not exempt from bias and, too often, the diversity of historical narratives is insufficiently acknowledged. Democratic and liberal societies too must question their existing paradigms from the perspective of ensuring a multi-voice narrative inclusive of, and accessible to, all.

Sharp disagreements over the past can fuel contemporary tensions between communities or countries. Specific cases brought to the attention of the Special Rapporteur are numerous and concern regions across the world. They include North-East Asia, where intense conflicts between China, Japan and the Republic of Korea stem from interpretations of the period of Japanese domination before or during the Second World War. Controversies over history writing and teaching are also intense in South Asia, as well as in the Middle East, in particular between Israel and the State of Palestine.³ In South-Eastern Europe, dramatic transitional changes have profoundly affected the interpretation of history and history teaching has contributed to, served to justify and even fuelled conflicts. In the European Union, most countries have had conflicts with neighbouring countries either bilaterally or as part of antagonistic blocs, rendering all European history controversial.⁴ European countries continue to offer differentiated narratives of the Holocaust,⁵ while former Eastern bloc countries face difficulties with their communist past. Examples may also be found in Latin America and in Africa, where the teaching of history remains controversial, including in countries that have undergone a truth and reconciliation process.

3. See Sami Adwan, Baniel Bar-Tal and Bruce Wexler, “Victims of our own narratives: portrayal of the ‘other’ in Israeli and Palestinian school books”, February 2013. ↩
4. See Maitland Stobart, “Fifty years of European cooperation on history textbooks: the role and contribution of the Council of Europe”, Internationale Schulbuchforschung/International Textbook Research, vol. 21 (1999), pp. 147-161. ↩
5. See Robert Stradling, Teaching 20th-Century European History (Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing, 2001); Falk Pingel, The European Home: Representations of 20th Century Europe in History Textbooks (Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing, 2000); John Slater, Teaching History in the New Europe (Cassell, London, 1995). ↩

Often, a specific period of history or event is simply omitted from school teaching. This is especially evident following major upheavals, when a new narrative is promoted, and in societies seeking to achieve reconciliation after wars, internal strife or dictatorships, motivated by a deliberate attempt to conceal data, either to shield key actors from prosecution or to achieve reconciliation, or both. Such an omission can also result from the sheer impossibility of divided societies reaching agreement on how to describe a shared past of conflict, violence and pain.

Past conflict is sometimes considered too recent to be addressed and taught in schools. Understanding the past requires distance. It is usually considered that at least one generational period is needed before painful events can be discussed openly. Nevertheless, discussions on recent events are inevitably conducted within society, and younger generations receive historical narratives from various sources, including the Internet. History teaching in schools therefore appears to remain the best option to deal with a recent painful past because it affords an opportunity to exercise critical thinking and expose pupils to various narratives. This, however, calls for robust education of teachers.

Following the cessation of armed conflicts (and sometimes even during conflicts), history textbooks may gain a new mission: that of laying the ground for a potential future “payback” for past events. The teaching of history may serve as the continuation of war by other means, given that books continue to construct the image of the enemy, preparing future generations for the continuation of hostilities, with even the most ancient past being readjusted to accommodate the needs of contemporary politics and future conflict.

In acute cases following internal conflicts, such policies can be accompanied by a segregated school system in which pupils are taught diverging monochromatic historical narratives. Major political upheavals create deep social turbulence, social confusion and the circulation of unreliable knowledge, weakening the critical thinking of citizens. When different parts of the same society learn divergent historical narratives and have negligible opportunities to interact, this can lead to living in disconnected realities. Such policies tend to have a greater negative impact on the poor, the working class or marginalized sections of society, who are most deprived of opportunities to interact with others and lack access to alternative narratives.

The homogenizing of narratives constricts the space for diverse perspectives and debates, foreclosing pupils’ ability to see the complex events in their country, region or the world in a more nuanced manner. The lack of a pluralistic multi-voice narrative of history can lead to the creation of so-called “parallel” narratives,⁶ i.e. a single official narrative transmitted in schools, which sometimes only a minority believes to be true, and private narratives, gathered from other sources. This disjuncture creates spaces that can be filled by those promising the triumph of justice and real truth upon assuming power.

6. See Sami Adwan, Dan Bar-On and Eyal Naveh, eds., Side by Side: Parallel Histories of Israel/Palestine (New York, New Press, 2012). ↩

Acute, chronic or intractable conflicts between States are often supported through historical narratives that present the conflicting peoples in terms of enemies and victims or perpetrators of aggression. Iterated images from the past create the illusion that conflict is the natural state in which the concerned people or groups exist, completely obscuring historical cooperation and good relations. When history is presented as an ever-repeating process, with preordained societal relations, textbooks become the bearers of conflict ideology, helping to create an atmosphere in which new conflicts become possible.

Distortions of history teaching are not restricted to post-conflict societies. In many societies, history teaching either altogether ignores or carries, validates or strengthens stereotypes about marginalized groups, especially minorities and indigenous peoples, in addition to women and the poor. The dominant homogenizing narrative blanches out diversity, ignoring the cultural heritage of everyone outside the group in power, simultaneously depriving the majority of the opportunity to understand the complexity of their country. Reported cases include history textbooks failing to refer to women and minorities or to acknowledge renowned historical figures and contributions of a specific group, in addition to imported history books in which sections on specific minorities have been deleted during translation into the national language.⁷ The histories of migrant populations are also commonly excluded.

7. According to the contribution by the Bahá’í International Community to the open consultation, 5 July 2013. ↩

History teaching of colonization and slavery continues to be problematic.⁸ In former colonizing States, history teaching tends not fully to address the atrocities committed during colonization and through slavery, or acknowledge their contemporary legacies. Colonialism deeply influenced European self-understanding, combining a sense of one’s own superiority with notions of the colonial other’s inferiority. In countries in which a critical stance towards this period is not visible, such as when teachers are required to recognize the positive values of colonialism, it is important to develop competencies such as a multiperspective approach, transnational historical awareness and critical awareness of Eurocentrism. In post-colonial societies, various methods of manipulating history may be deployed: from omitting so-called “dark periods” to a special insistence on them, creating what may be termed a “victim culture” that may be used to excuse non-performance in diverse areas. Manipulations may also be used to avoid addressing past complicities and local oppressions.

8. See Alicia C. Decker, “Painful pedagogies: teaching about war and violence in African history”, Perspectives on History, vol. 48, No. 5 (May 2010). ↩

A specific challenge confronting many post-colonial States was the absence of written histories of their own. In many societies, local histories were oral and shaped outside contemporary academic methodology. Moreover, the pre-eminence accorded to the written word over the oral tradition as “more authentic” undermined the value and traditions of oral history. Consequently, history continued to be taught from the perspective of the colonizers. In many cases, history textbooks had to be developed from scratch, without the benefit of previous research. Consequently, controversial issues and, therefore, entire periods of history were sometimes overlooked.

History is subject to government control when authorities are not keen on allowing an independent, critical academic discipline.

As an academic discipline, history is based on the study of historical sources, analysis of facts and the synthesis of data into a narrative. The resulting narratives depend on various factors, including the historian’s ability and level of competence, but also her or his way of thinking and value system, the general climate of work and political and social circumstances. Historians need to be aware of their positions and the resulting impact on their narrative. Debate among historians, following the deontology of the profession, obliges them to take into account various and conflicting data and to analyse events in the widest possible context.

The State may impose a single, politically dictated historical narrative through restrictions affecting the entire process of researching and writing history, including those on freedom of opinion, of speech and of academic freedoms, in particular the freedom to choose a specific research subject, to have access to archives and specific publications, to work with historians from other countries or groups and to publicize syntheses that challenge a prescribed pattern. State control over historical narratives varies.

The Special Rapporteur recalls that several human rights provisions protect academic freedoms. In particular, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights considers that the right to education can be enjoyed only if accompanied by the academic freedom of staff and students, in particular in higher education, which is especially vulnerable to political and other pressures. Members of the academic community, individually or collectively, must be free to pursue, develop and transmit knowledge and ideas, through research, teaching, study, discussion, documentation, production, creation or writing. Academic freedom includes the liberty of individuals to express opinions freely about the institution or system in which they work, to fulfil their functions without discrimination or fear of repression by the State or any other actor, to participate in professional and representative academic bodies and to enjoy their human rights. The enjoyment of academic freedom carries with it obligations, such as the duty to respect the academic freedom of others, to ensure the fair discussion of contrary views and to treat all without discrimination (see general comment No. 13, paras. 38-40).

The Human Rights Committee states that laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which does not permit general prohibitions of expressions of an erroneous opinion or an incorrect interpretation of past events, and that restrictions on the right of freedom of opinion should never be imposed and, with regard to freedom of expression, they should not go beyond what is permitted in paragraph 3 of article 19 or required under article 20 of the Covenant (see general comment No. 34, para. 49).

State control over historical narratives mainly operates by controlling universities and research institutes. This particularly applies to countries in which a public listing of available positions in such institutions is not required by law and people are recruited by a narrow inner circle. Procedures for career advancements of historians may also be driven by political criteria, including cases in which regulated standards of professional advancement require researchers to work inside the framework of specified hypotheses.⁹

9. For example, in the former Yugoslavia, the stated goal of an academic paper was to contribute to the development of a “self-managed and non-aligned Yugoslav community of brotherhood and unity”. ↩

Systems of financing research that enable political control of academic institutions by ministries and political elites are of concern. Analysis of the allocation of funds, transparency in decision-making and approval criteria shed light on the degree of control exercised.

Controlling the university history curricula is another means of controlling historical narratives. The complex process of adopting and accrediting the curriculum frequently passes through a series of university bodies and sometimes requires government approval. When combined with a reduced level of university autonomy, this state of affairs significantly limits the freedom of professors to suggest and conduct their own courses.

Prescribing or rejecting thesis topics at the graduate, postgraduate and doctoral levels is another common means of control. Such action can be taken by professors and mentors or by university bodies, in addition to the ministry departments involved in approving topics. Similarly, public research institutes functioning outside the university system may follow a complicated approval procedure for research topics, sometimes requiring ministerial approval. Comparing proposed topics with accepted topics indicates dominant or politically “desirable topics”. Such patterns are also visible in calls for new projects and in advertising vacancies, for which ministries determine the focus. So-called “desirable topics” are recognizable by the fact that they fail to undergo change in keeping with normal academic dynamics and remain constant throughout a specific Government’s tenure.

The applied research methodology can provide further insights. The complete domination of a particular methodological approach (e.g. political history, military history or the history of class, religion, anti-colonial or similar struggle) indicates that the primary goal of research is to generate evidence supporting the dominant narrative, rather than independent studies of history based on freedom of choice and diverse methodological approaches.

As noted by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the enjoyment of academic freedom requires institutions of higher education to have sufficient autonomy in terms of self-governance for effective decision-making in relation to their academic work, standards, management and related activities. Self-governance, however, must be consistent with systems of public accountability, especially in respect of State funding. Given the substantial public investment made in higher education, an appropriate balance between institutional autonomy and accountability is required. While there is no single model, institutional arrangements should be fair, just and equitable and as transparent and participatory as possible (see general comment No. 13, paras. 38-40).

Research can be restrained by limiting the use of library funds and exchanges with foreign libraries. Access to what are seen as “undesirable” documents can be curtailed, either by open prohibition or if the document is in poor condition. In some countries, library cooperation and publication exchange must be approved by library officials, affording an opportunity to reject the procurement of particular books from foreign libraries. In addition, the overpricing of books can render them inaccessible to poorly paid researchers.

Limits on access to archival materials take various forms: complicated procedures for granting special permissions, allowing for arbitrary refusal; restricting the number of archive units that researchers can borrow daily; or unjustified prohibitions on photocopying, scanning or photographing documentation, or arbitrarily setting high prices for such services. Researchers may also face discrimination in access based on their national or ethnic affiliation or be told that controversial documents no longer exist.

Post-colonial societies face particular hurdles in researching their past when a substantial part of, or all, archives are located in the former colonizing country, impeding access to research materials and rendering research expensive, sometimes prohibitively so. In some instances, controversial archives have been kept secret or deliberately destroyed.¹⁰ Access can be improved through digitalization and online availability of archives, publishing the relevant volumes of primary sources and creating a system of grants for researching archives located in the former “home country”. Open-access policies in this area should be developed, while respecting the right to privacy of persons by introducing an inaccessibility clause following the rules established by archive specialists.

10. See Eric Albert, “Justice pour les Mau-Mau”, Le Monde, 10 June 2013. Available from www.lemonde.fr/a-la-une/article/2013/06/10/justice-pour-les-mau-mau_3427618_3208.html. ↩

In paragraph 19 of its general comment No. 34, on article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Human Rights Committee stated that, to give effect to the right of access to information, States should proactively put in the public domain government information of public interest and make every effort to ensure easy, prompt, effective and practical access to such information. This is an important provision regarding access to archives.

Restrictions on publishing and disseminating results are common in authoritarian regimes, where reviewers and editorial boards of publishing companies act more as political censors than as competent expert bodies, obstructing or banning the publication of alternative narratives. More subtle mechanisms of censorship also exist in more democratic societies, however. For example, in countries in which no private foundations finance the publishing of scientific results, control is exercised by extending or denying financial support, thereby impeding the circulation of alternative historical narratives.

Monopolies over historical narratives may also be established through the prominence that a State accords to a specific circle of historians, who shape attitudes on critical issues. These persons become the principal arbiters, sitting on various committees that decide upon selections and promotions, grants for projects and publications, and university rankings. The situation is better in countries with a range of professional associations of historians and history teachers competing for membership of such committees. When there is only one association, the fear is that it will be under State control and represent the interest of the State rather than of the profession.

In history teaching, an important distinction must be made between primary and secondary education, where States bear important responsibilities to ensure appropriate curricula and minimum educational standards, and higher education, where a higher degree of academic freedoms should be enjoyed and where States should refrain from influencing the curriculum. In all cases, States should ensure the independence of professional bodies mandated to define the history curriculum and follow their conclusions and recommendations.

Various tools are at the disposal of States to develop a multiperspective approach in history teaching. Developing such policies requires action on several fronts, including:
(a) Setting appropriate aims for history teaching;
(b) Ensuring an appropriate ratio between local, national, regional and global history;
(c) Ensuring that history is not limited to political history;
(d) Ensuring that a wide array of history textbooks are accredited for selection by teachers and giving teachers the liberty to use supplementary teaching materials;
(e) Raising awareness about manipulations in history textbooks and refraining from encouraging such abuse;
(f) Using examinations or appraisals that encourage analysis, syntheses and critical reflections rather than rote learning;
(g) Respecting academic freedoms of teachers and their right to freedom of association, and protecting them from aggression and threat;
(h) Ensuring the continuous education and professional training of history teachers, especially on how to introduce a multiperspective approach in their teaching.

No one model suits all situations. Depending on the circumstances, countries that have been engaged in conflict will be able to undertake the writing of common/shared history textbooks through independent mixed commissions of historians. This may, however, be extremely difficult and ambitious, in particular when the countries concerned do not have the same level of development regarding their historiographies.

It is of paramount importance that pupils be made aware of transnational perspectives that can help to overcome a narrow nationalistic, ethnic or microfocused identity and understand that history can, and should, be interpreted from a multiperspective approach. Teachers and pupils should critically assess narratives. It is crucial, therefore, to move beyond models using only one textbook, to authorize the use of supplementary teaching materials and to give free access to historical sources. Communities are always internally diverse and suggesting that communities have monolithic narratives must be avoided.

International instruments contain important indications regarding the objectives of education. Of particular relevance is article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, under which States parties agree that education is to be directed to the development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own; and the preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin.

The challenge is to simultaneously ensure the empowerment of individuals, respect for their human rights, the transmission and enrichment of common cultural and moral values and the building of harmonious and peaceful relationships between individuals and groups. A balanced approach must be adopted when implementing article 29 of the Convention.¹¹ In particular, the right of individuals and communities to express their identities and enjoy their cultural heritage should not lead to situations in which people, on that basis, create separate, hermetically sealed worlds. Cultural rights protect the right to interact culturally with the other or others, and history should never be manipulated to indoctrinate pupils into believing in mutually exclusive antagonistic identities.

11. See also paragraph 4 of general comment No. 1, on the aim of education, of the Committee on the Rights of the Child. ↩

Practices where the aim of history teaching appears to be less about transmitting adequate information about the past and more about establishing historical continuity of the current dominant order with past so-called “golden ages” are of particular concern. More generally, assigning a political agenda to history teaching, such as the promotion of patriotism, the strengthening of national pride and the construction of national or regional identities, appears to be common in most States. It is time to question this practice, which is not in accordance with history understood as an academic discipline.

It is true, however, that entirely disconnecting history teaching from political objectives is difficult. Positive examples are where the aim of history teaching is more clearly oriented towards the reduction of conflicts within and among societies, the peaceful articulation of social and political controversies and the promotion of democratic principles underpinned by an approach based on human rights. Such goals are attainable only when teaching includes critical thought and analytic learning, thereby encouraging debate, stressing the complexity of history and enabling a comparative and multiperspective approach.

The relationship between general, regional, national and local history in textbooks is usually determined by the State at the ministerial level, by education commissions or by pedagogical institutes.

The recommendations by UNESCO and the Council of Europe to include a balanced ratio of national and general history are rarely implemented. Most often, a marked domination of national history promotes an ethnocentric image of the past that accords centrality to one’s own nation, producing a distorted world view.

At the other end of the spectrum are situations in which local history is omitted altogether and the emphasis placed on regional, continental or world history. Challenging local historical events may be avoided by studying general history; very small countries may lack a critical mass to develop local historical narratives of their own and/or have them incorporated into the curriculum (see A/HRC/23/34/Add.2, paras. 48-50).

History teaching is often limited to political narratives, suggesting to pupils the pre-eminent place of politics in human society. Moreover, political history itself is often reduced to the history of wars, conflicts, conquests and revolutions. This suggests that periods of peace and stability are unimportant and opens space for glorifying war and promoting a military-oriented education. When other histories are taught, such as the history of science, engineering and the arts, and information provided on how developments in these fields affected societal developments, including politics, people learn of the complexities of both the past and the present. Understanding that people make decisions within specific contexts and particular constraints promotes understanding of the importance of choices and the values of responsibility.

It is important that history teaching incorporate a balance of political, social, cultural, scientific and economic history, in addition to the history of everyday life, so as to convey the complexity of human society and the multifaceted reasons leading to certain historical events. A balance also invites the adoption of a wider perspective regarding the contributions of peoples across the world to arts, sciences and philosophy.

History is one of the few curriculum subjects mandated in education systems throughout the world, indicating both the potential of history teaching to influence pupils and its importance for societies and Governments.

Textbooks as a decisive tool for history teaching

History textbooks are an important tool in the hands of Governments for transmitting to pupils the official historical narrative. Especially in countries in which history teaching promotes a single narrative, textbooks occupy a key place¹² and are widely considered to be a decisive tool for transmitting government messages to the widest possible audience.¹³

12. See Henry Steele Commager and Raymond Henry Muessig, The Study and Teaching of History (Columbus, Merrill, 1980). ↩
13. See M. I. Finley, The Use and Abuse of History (London, Penguin, 1990). ↩

The accreditation of one single history textbook is problematic. This includes situations in which States aggressively promote one particular book through subsidies or by purchasing large quantities, thereby influencing selection by schools. Reducing the number of offered textbooks to only one must also be seen as a retrogressive trend. State-sponsored textbooks carry the risk of being highly politicized.¹⁴

14. See Stuart J. Foster and Keith A. Crawford, eds., What Shall We Tell the Children? International Perspectives on School History Textbooks (Charlotte, Information Age Publishing, 2006). ↩

While States are entitled to reject a textbook failing to meet required and transparent standards, having a single history textbook inevitably promotes the monopoly of one narrative over all others, especially when laws and regulations do not provide for open tenders enabling competition between textbooks.

The possibilities of publishing non-profit scientific books and the legal provisions governing the creation of private publishing companies are important. Positive steps include dedicated governmental funds to encourage the publication of academic works without political influence, following transparent allocation procedures; public procurements of books; and incentives to publishers to publish non-commercial books. Without such assistance and private foundations, publishing academic books is extremely difficult and expands the scope for rejecting so-called “undesirable” manuscripts. Special attention should be paid to State-controlled publishing houses with a near or actual market monopoly that receive financial support to publish so-called “desirable” books.

Textbooks require extensive data to be presented in a very limited space, obliging authors to carry out rigorous data selection. That situation can lead to manipulation, especially in junior elementary grades, where the space in books is the most restricted, forcing authors to express themselves in only a few sentences. The constraint makes textbooks for younger children a particularly effective — and thus dangerous — tool for promoting ideological messages among young, more susceptible, minds. Younger children are also most vulnerable to the dissemination of fear and prejudice when history teaching is used to lay the foundations for violence, especially towards so-called “enemy nations” or peoples.

Manipulation in textbooks takes place in numerous ways, including:
(a) Choice of facts, from a weaker to stronger emphasis on certain events to the complete removal of particular data. While the writing of history always entails selecting facts, intentional misuse is primarily based on a purposeful self-serving selection;
(b) Narratives suggesting preferred conclusions. Such messages are found in the text, especially in lesson summaries, and in the questions posed to pupils that directly suggest certain sociopolitically desired conclusions;
(c) Choice of the context in which certain peoples or nations are described, typically in cases of conflicts. Excluding periods of peace and cooperation from history lessons impedes pupils’ learning about shared elements of culture, scientific advancements and economic and social structure;
(d) Disseminating stereotypes about nations or particular groups. The selective relating of history as moments of conflict between nations or peoples is used to legitimize contemporary standpoints and promote the notion that the (antagonistic) relations between nations are immutable. The attributes of certain nations or people may be presented as predetermined and specific identity markers resorted to so as to naturalize or sacralize historic relationships. For example, the French expression “traite des noirs” (slave trade/trade of blacks) implies that black people were traded because of the colour of their skin, rather than because of social and historical relations in a specific context. Such qualifications, often promoted by those initiating or benefiting from a system of domination, veil the historical and therefore impermanent dimension of the relationship and are so routinely used that no one interrogates their relevance;
(e) The use of photographs to transmit specific messages, which can convey stereotypes and also be brutal. When used to create a collective feeling of victimization, this practice relies on evoking emotions instead of applying critical analysis in history teaching. Young children are unprepared to critically process the frightening images imposed;
(f) Geographic or historical maps and other visual material can also transmit political messages (e.g. painting neighbouring regions or countries in a uniform grey colour, suggesting that such places are of no significance; historical maps showing the former size of the country; tendentious geographic maps completely ignoring historical events);
(g) Using particular terms or phrases to convey a specific understanding of events (e.g. using terms such as “war of liberation” or “conquest”, “uprising” or “war of independence”, “revolution” or “counter-revolution” and “catastrophe”);
(h) The use of apodictic language that leaves no room for doubt and forecloses debate and dilemma;
(i) Specific linguistic styles, figures of speech, metaphors and other means that, by dramatizing certain historical events, achieve desired emotions among pupils (primarily the use of hate speech). As with brutal photographs, the purpose is to create fear, which provides a good foundation and motivation for revenge afterwards;¹⁵
(j) Constructing a mythical past of one’s own people, its place in history and its characteristics. Common elements include stressing the superiority of one’s own nation over the other and creating the impression that “we” never waged wars of conquest or behaved unjustly. This can create a historical indulgence for present or future actions. An important component is projecting the impression of a victim nation, so as to secure a permanent moral and political privilege that can be “redeemed” in the present, either in the context of international relations or as a means of social cohesion within State borders;¹⁶
(k) Skipping over or underplaying defeats while emphasizing the victories, so as to suggest that the nation was always on the “right” side of history and never harmed anyone;
(l) Transmission of a particular philosophy of history. Many ideologies presume a strong historical determinism, presenting events as predetermined and unavoidable. This eliminates any awareness of the importance of individuals, groups and different parts of society who influence historical events and the decision-making process.

15. See David R. Olson, “On the language and authority of textbooks”, in Language, Authority and Criticism: Readings on the School Textbook, Suzanne de Castell, Allan Luke and Carmen Luke, eds. (London, Falmer Press, 1989), p. 241. ↩
16. See Peter Burke, Varieties of Cultural History (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1997), p. 53; and P. Nora and F. Chandernagor, Liberté pour l’histoire (Paris, Editions du CNRS, 2008). ↩

While States should always ensure that educational material is exempt from hate speech, it is essential to allow the use of supplementary teaching material in classes without requiring the permission of the authorities. Such material can follow the curriculum, but also take up subjects outside the required programme. This is particularly important when history teaching is predominantly set up as a political endeavour. Supplementary material allows the teacher to introduce pupils to domains of history other than political history, which often hold pupils’ attention more than narrow political history.

Ideally, additional supplementary material should include primary historical sources that bring pupils closer to the periods being studied. Working with historical sources requires a critical approach, especially when teachers point out sources that interpret the same event differently.

Given that it may be difficult to adapt traditional textbooks to a multiperspective approach, work may need to be done to model a textbook approach that presents a range of competing narratives in a problematic way.

Teachers play a central role in the process of knowledge acquisition. Their education, skills and training determine how much innovation they introduce into the learning process and whether they manage to compensate for inadequacies with their inventiveness. At the same time, teachers can also be the final barrier that in the end betrays well-designed programmes and intentions.

History teaching can be set up defining the whole curriculum from beginning to end in ways that leave teachers no room to introduce additional material and subjects that would encourage pupils to engage in critical thinking. Nevertheless, teachers can, through their lectures or organized discussions in classes, problematize the controversial themes of the past. When teachers do not adhere to the required programme and opt to teach outside the curriculum, however, there is a risk of totally subjective interpretations.

Countries that provide teachers with a certain amount of time and freedom to create their own programmes fare better. For example, in Serbia, a 2002 law on primary and secondary education allocated 30 per cent of time for that purpose. For the approach to be successful, however, it is essential that teachers be well educated, trained through special seminars and encouraged to create the syllabus independently.

It is important that States respect, in accordance with article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the rights of teachers to freedom of association, in particular freedom to join professional associations that enable them to connect, become acquainted with the work of other teachers, exchange material and organize teachers’ continued education. States should also protect teachers from attacks by members of the community in which they serve, who may consider that their teaching is not in conformity with the community’s “truths”.

The constant training and education of teachers is of utmost importance. Teachers should be facilitated to recognize that they inevitably see history through their own background.

Various examples are provided below to illustrate ways of moving forward in the area of history teaching.

The UNESCO General and Regional Histories (dealing with such topics as the history of humanity, Africa, Latin America, civilizations of Central Asia, the Caribbean and the different aspects of Islamic culture) promote a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approach that offers a pluralistic vision of history and constitutes one of the finest contributions to the dialogue between cultures and civilizations. The approach consists of what might be termed “disarming” history and rising above the dominant perception of history as a study of nations. It aims to demonstrate that scientific and cultural achievements result from intense human interactions across time and space. One current pioneering initiative by UNESCO, in close cooperation with the African Union Commission and the ministries of education of African countries, is the elaboration of a common pedagogical content based on the General History of Africa, intended for use in all African primary and secondary schools.

The Franco-German joint history textbooks, Histoire/Geschichte, resulted from a cooperative effort of large teams of historians from both countries.¹⁷ The project has developed an identical narrative about the past in both countries; textbooks are in both languages and founded on the highly developed scientific historiography in both countries. French and German historians reached a consensus in their approach and interpretation of even the most controversial events of their common history,¹⁸ overcoming the usual modes of interpretation to reach a common narrative and offer pupils different perspectives. The project has stimulated discussions about producing such books in other countries with similar problems in interpreting shared history.¹⁹

17. L’Europe et le monde de l’Antiquité à 1815, published in 2011; L’Europe et le monde du congrès de Vienne à 1945, published in 2008; and L’Europe et le monde depuis 1945, published in 2006. ↩
18. See www.bpb.de/system/files/pdf/9XFS2N.pdf‎. ↩
19. See also the current project of a German-Polish textbook, available from www.gei.de/en/research/europe-narratives-images-spaces/europe-and-the-national-factor/german-polish-textbook-commission.html. See also K. Korostelina and S. Lässig, eds., History Education and Post-Conflict Reconciliation: Reconsidering Joint Textbook Projects (Abingdon/New York, Routledge, 2013). ↩

In South-East Europe, a regional approach was used by the Joint History Project of the Thessaloniki-based Center for Democracy and Reconciliation. Following parallel analyses of textbooks from 12 countries,²⁰ four volumes of supplementary teaching material for high schools students were published in nine languages. Entitled Teaching Modern Southeast European History: Alternative Educational Materials, the volumes address the most sensitive issues in the region. The multiperspective approach ensures that every event is shown, by way of historical sources, from the perspectives of the countries involved. Considering that historiographies in those countries are underdeveloped and seen as closely linked to political agendas, publishing the historical sources and supplementary teaching material was a reasonable way of presenting sensitive issues.

20. See Christina Koulouri, ed., Teaching the History of Southeastern Europe (Thessaloniki, Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe, 2001); Christina Koulouri, ed., Clio in the Balkans: The Politics of History Education (Thessaloniki, Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe, 2002). ↩

Another model has been developed by the Peace Research Institute in the Middle East, a non-governmental organization founded in 1998 by Palestinian and Israeli researchers and peace activists, in the form of a binational history textbook. In view of the experts’ assessment that a common or even a bridging narrative cannot be reached at this time, the book relates Palestinian and Israeli historical narratives of the twentieth century in three-columned pages: one column carries the Palestinian narrative, another the Israeli narrative. The third is an empty column for high school students to write down their own ideas, reactions, questions, additional data or conclusions. The book has not, however, been accepted or approved by the relevant ministries of education and is therefore not used openly in Israeli and Palestinian schools.²¹

21. See www.gei.de/en/research/textbooks-and-conflict/4-learning-in-post-conflict-societies/schulbuchprojek-israel-palestina.html. ↩

In Canada, there have been interesting developments regarding the history of indigenous peoples. In 2011, the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission, established under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, published, as mandated, a history book on the residential school system, which affected many generations of indigenous children. It remains to be seen how such history can be included in the mainstream curriculum (see www.trc.ca). Brazil, for its part, has introduced the compulsory study of the general history of Africa and the history of people of African descent in primary and secondary schools, but has encountered difficulties in implementing the law (see A/HRC/17/38/Add.1, para. 29).

Across the world, organizations have developed that promote history textbook revision and dialogue, including, in particular, the Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research, the European Association of History Educators, the Peace Research Institute in the Middle East, the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education and the Northeast Asian History Foundation. States and other stakeholders are encouraged to support the establishment of similar institutions in other regions.

In too many cases around the world, the historical narratives promoted by States in schools are problematic from a human rights perspective. In promoting nationalistic political agendas and/or monolithic views of dominant powers, education policies relating to history teaching fail to acknowledge cultural diversity and the multiplicity of historical narratives between and within communities. Those policies are at odds with the right to education, the right of all individuals, groups and peoples to enjoy and to have access to their own cultural heritage as well as that of others, the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the right to information, regardless of frontiers. In many instances, such policies depend on unjustified restrictions on academic freedoms and the promotion of a single history textbook in schools. In the most acute cases of conflict, such policies can be seen as either the continuation of war in the area of culture and education, or as a means to prepare revenge in the future. They constitute worrying obstacles to peacemaking and peacebuilding.

The right of children to develop their own historical perspective throughout education is to be considered an integral part of the right to education. Indoctrination on any grounds, including political or religious ideology, should not be tolerated in either public or private schools. History teaching should be based on the understanding of history as an academic discipline.

The Special Rapporteur recommends that States make or continue efforts to reform school history curricula. In particular:
(a) History teaching should aim at fostering critical thought, analytic learning and debate; stressing the complexity of history, it should enable a comparative and multiperspective approach. It should not serve the purpose of strengthening patriotism, fortifying national identity or shaping the young in line with either the official ideology or the guidelines of the dominant religion;
(b) Processes for reforming curricula and formulating history teaching standards must be transparent and include the input of practitioners and professional associations. Appointments to and the functioning of committees and sections of ministries dealing with such matters should also be transparent and ensure that there is no conflict of interest. A good practice is contracting out such work to professional pedagogical institutions independent from ministries. The adoption of these programmes requires a wide debate among professional bodies, associations and organizations;
(c) Official standards should determine the goals and outcomes of history teaching without prescribing the content of teaching material. Such standards should be made publicly available. Political control exercised through official guidelines, including direct recommendations regarding which periods are to be stressed, how they are to be interpreted and ready-made directives on the conclusions, must be avoided. Guidelines for writing textbooks should be developed to enable authors to offer various interpretations and include various standpoints in textbooks;
(d) A wide array of textbooks by a range of publishers should be accredited, thereby allowing teachers to choose from among them. In addition, the curriculum should allocate a certain amount of time (ideally at least 30 per cent of the time) for teachers to introduce supplementary material, in particular authentic historical sources, without prior approval by the ministry;
(e) Approval and accreditation procedures and the criteria for textbook selection should be clear and rely on expertise in history and education, not on particular ideological and political requirements. Good practices in terms of approving and accrediting textbooks consist of open tenders in which all publishers are able to bid equally and independent expert committees reviewing and approving those meeting the required standards;
(f) The content of assessment and examinations should be reformed to match the reform of curricula and the establishment of history teaching standards;
(g) While diverse communities and groups should be consulted, the elaboration of history textbooks should be left to historians; decision-making by others (especially politicians or thinkers from religious, literary or wider intellectual circles) should be avoided.

The Special Rapporteur recommends that States review their legislative frameworks to ensure that they fully respect academic freedoms for teaching staff, researchers and pupils and that they ensure the autonomy of universities. In particular:
(a) States should ensure that university staff are recruited and promoted without discrimination based on national, linguistic or ethnic affiliation, religion or political opinion. Conditions for employment and promotion in universities and research institutions should be clearly defined and transparent. Staff vacancies should in all cases be publicly listed;
(b) Researchers should be free to choose their research subject and to disseminate their results. They should not be constrained to research the history of the nation or of the community or reduced to investigating a particular time frame, but be encouraged to research all periods of history, from prehistory to contemporary times. The financing of research institutions, of specific projects in the field of history, in addition to scientific journals and the publishing activities of scientific institutes or universities, should be transparent. The law should provide for the publication of non-profit history books and guarantee the freedom to publish scientific results;
(c) States should review regulations and practices regarding the use of libraries and archives. Issues to be examined include time limitations for the opening of archival records; procedures for granting access to archive documentation; provisions for classifying documents as State secrets; researchers’ opportunities to photocopy, scan or photograph documentation; and possibilities of foreign researchers having access to archives and effective remedy in case of refusal to grant such access;
(d) States should make available important archives relating to the history of other countries, in particular former colonies, by digitizing records and making them freely available, and should consider research cooperation.

The Special Rapporteur recommends that:
(a) States ensure continuing education and regular high-quality training of teachers at universities and within supplementary seminars and workshops. The criteria for hiring and promoting history teachers should be transparent, and continuous education should be a precondition for their professional promotion;
(b) Relevant ministries call for open competitions to organize seminars and conferences in which various non-governmental professional organizations could participate and in the process receive accreditation for seminars. Doing so would widen the selection of permanent education for teachers and reduce the possibility of political control and State monopoly;
(c) Teacher education in post-conflict situations be designed to develop new competencies specific to building and helping to sustain peace;
(d) Learning materials for adults be developed, in particular in societies engaged in peacebuilding processes;
(e) States respect and promote the right of teachers to freely form professional associations.

The Special Rapporteur recommends that efforts be made, or pursued, to include the views and perspectives of all parties and communities in historical narratives (textbooks) by, for example, establishing commissions of historians comprising individuals from various countries or communities. Such commissions should enjoy the support of the State, regardless of whether they operate as parts of ministries or independently. In this, greater independence is achieved if members are appointed by professional bodies and associations (e.g. associations of historians, history teachers, research institutes and universities, pedagogical institutes or minority associations).

States should respect professional standards as defined by the profession of historians.

The Special Rapporteur recommends that States fully implement international provisions regarding international cooperation in the area of culture and education, in particular article 28 (3) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and article 15 (4) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for history writing and teaching. 26/27 Annex Experts participating in and contributing to the meeting held in Londonderry, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, on 2 and 3 July 2013 Name Affiliation Sami Adwan Professor of Education and Teacher Training, Bethlehem University; Co-Founder and Co-Director, Peace Research Institute in the Middle East (through correspondence) Noro Andriamiseza Programme Specialist, Education for Peace and Human Rights Section, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris Mélanie Borès “PIMPA” project (politics of memory and art practices: the role of art in peace and reconstruction processes), Geneva University of Art and Design, Geneva Dominique Bouchard Curator of Education and Outreach, Hunt Museum, Limerick, Ireland Dominic Bryan Director, Institute of Irish Studies, and Reader in Social Anthropology, Queen’s University, Belfast, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Bob Collins Chair, Arts Council of Northern Ireland, and Broadcasting Authority of Ireland, Dublin Christine Collins Commissioner, Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Belfast, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Elizabeth Craig Lecturer, Sussex University, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Willie Doherty Artist, Londonderry, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Pierre Hazan Co-Director, “PIMPA” project, Geneva University of Art and Design, Geneva John Johnston Co-Director, Centre for Arts and Learning, Goldsmiths, University of London Milton Kerr Commissioner, Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Belfast Name Affiliation Nina Kochelyaeva Academic Secretary, Russian Institute for Cultural Research, Moscow Simone Lässig Professor, History Department, University of Braunschweig, Germany; Director, Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research, Braunschweig J. Wilton Littlechild Founder, International Organization of Indigenous Resource Development; Chair, Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Deirdre Mac Bride Cultural Diversity Programme Director, Northern Ireland Community Relations Council, Belfast Mumsy Malinga Workshop Facilitator, Apartheid Museum Johannesburg, South Africa Mikel Mancisidor Member, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Director, UNESCO Etxea-Centro UNESCO del País Vasco, Bilbao, Spain Alan McCully Senior Lecturer in Education, School of Education, University of Ulster, Ireland Michael O’Flaherty Chief Commissioner, Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Belfast Sylvie Ramel Senior Researcher, “PIMPA” project, Geneva University of Art and Design, Geneva Nobuhiro Shiba Professor Emeritus, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Division of Area Studies, University of Tokyo, Japan Dubravka Stojanović Professor, History Department, Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade University, Belgrade Ibrahim Thioub Professor, Dakar University; Director, Centre Africain de recherches sur les traites et les esclavages, Dakar; Associate Fellow, Nantes Institute for Advanced Study, Nantes, France