Propaganda is broadly defined as the deliberate attempt to shape perceptions and manipulate others, often for certain political ends. Although propaganda is as old as society itself, it has exploded and become smarter and stealthier since the printed word helped spread ideas and opinions to a wide audience. The period of the Enlightenment saw the increased production of printed works, the rise in the opening of public libraries and schools, and general literacy. Encyclopaedia Britannica notes that, “the school system became more and more in the 18th century an ordered concern of the state.” In many, if not most, countries, the primary and secondary levels of education are still provided as a public service. Even where a private education system exists, it is often sanctioned by the state. This situation allows the state much leverage to dictate the nature of children’s’ education.
It is perhaps natural that the priorities, objectives, and beliefs of the state are absorbed into the institutions of the state. However, it is not natural that the institutions of the democratic state should comply cowardly to the whim of the government of the day. This goes against the fundamental liberty of a democratic society. Even more worrying is when the government, or other groups in society, in the name of nationalism, incorporates malicious propaganda in the education of its minors.
The projection of propaganda and biased history on those in the education system is not a new phenomenon. Frequently American’s are reminded of their divided history when southern states’ school boards push a confederate biased agenda into the states’ textbooks, as was evidenced, particularly in the 1960s. Joseph Moreau documents the ever-brewing conflict in his outstanding book, “Schoolbook Nation: Conflicts over American History Textbooks from the Civil War to the Present”. In Britain, strong military propaganda and biased readings of events is identifiable in school textbooks discussing both WWI and WWII in 20th century textbooks. More recently, in spring 2009 the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs carried an article called “The Hindutva View of History: Rewriting Textbooks in India and the United States”. The article discusses how Organizations associated with India's BJP political party and the Sangh Parivar, a Hindu nationalist movement, have attempted to fundamentally and inaccurately revise textbooks to propagate a Hindu nationalist view in Californian and Indian schoolbooks.
However, where there are problems there are opportunities. Rescinding textbook propaganda could prove to be a major diplomatic strategy for easing tensions and restoring relations. Only a few days ago, (Oct. 30, 2009), the Japanese foreign minister announced that negations were underway between Japan and North Korea to develop a history textbook agreeable to both parties, with the possibility to include China in the endeavour. Such a joint book could go a long way toward mending fences, Japan's foreign minister argued.
In this writer’s opinion the merits of this approach to history are dubious. While cooperation and agreement between old enemies would be welcome, what is the cost to the truth? History is something that ‘is’, not something that can be decided at a later date. Do the ends justify the means, when the means is a revisionist approach that allows for all parties of the conflict to be replenished in forgiving and illusionary waters? Is this not merely propaganda, further robbing children of the truth, whatever the truth may be. The struggle to redesign the past and correct history, in this case at least, is destined to be obstructed by the inevitable struggle for mutual benefit.
While, this particular endeavour seems doomed to failure, the rewriting of Russian textbooks after the fall of communism has succeed for many of the same reasons the Korean-Japanese-Chinese effort is set to flounder. Before 1991, Russia’s school history textbooks had been dominated by Marxist-Leninist interpretations of historical events. Multiple perspectives on history that were offered in more recent textbooks contrast with the grand narrative that dominated the study of history before 1991. Zagda & Zagda note while “Evaluation of the past events and leaders (the October Revolution, wars, Lenin, and Stalin) in schools has been somewhat uninformed, biased and superficial. However, there is a tendency, as demonstrated by our… analysis, to present different views, and different interpretations of the events.” Perhaps the difference in this situation is that the country is introverting and soul-searching for its own cleansing, rather than being a sort of charade that is propaganda in itself.
