Education or Indoctrination ?

By John Lewin

The Korea Times reported (Friday, October 17) that the National Institute of Korean History informed the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology that it should change ``drastically progressive sections of history textbooks." Those who advocate these changes claim that the revisions will ``straighten the facts." This should be done so that ``students should not be confused by textbooks that are at odds with the historical past.'"

As a South African who lived through the worst years of apartheid rule, where the education system, at all levels, was used to reinforce the ruling party's ideology, and as a history teacher, who witnessed and experienced firsthand the effects of this policy, I am most concerned about these developments.

The question that we all should ask is: What is the role and purpose of teaching history in the school curriculum? Is it there to inform students about their past? Is it there to provide facts, which should be memorized? Is it there to develop critically thinking students?

To answer these questions is not easy because the history presented in textbooks is a selection from a vast store of events and a particular interpretation of them. While the institute recognizes that ``History can be interpreted in different ways by different people" it goes on to allege that current textbooks promote the left-of center viewpoint championed by the liberal governments of the past 10 years. Once this revision has been done, will there be any less obvious bias in the textbooks?

My experience as both a student and a teacher in apartheid South Africa may serve as an illustration of the possible consequences of the proposed revision. In doing this I am not suggesting that Korea is on the same path but just to signal possible pitfalls.

The nature of the authoritarian and racist South African regime required that all aspects of the government machinery be geared toward its goals of separation and domination. Schools and history classes served this purpose well.

History books were usually written by supporters of the regime. As the black man was regarded as the enemy of the white ruling elite, he had to be shown as savage, Godless and uncivilized. All pictures and photographs were carefully selected to portray him as such. The white man was ``good," ``right" and ``civilized' as he exercised authority over the black man. The black man was the ``terrorist" and not a ``freedom fighter" while the white man was the ``liberator" and ``savior" of the black man.

All this fed into the prejudices that the majority of white students had formed under the influence of their parents and society. Black students in their segregated schools, on the other hand, were forced to learn a version of history which was painful to them, as the textbooks were carefully vetted and the selection was limited to ``approved" textbooks. The teaching of history then becomes a form of indoctrination in which a one-sided interpretation is favored. It becomes a battle for the hearts and minds of the youth.

Teachers faced a moral dilemma. As employees of the government, they were expected to toe the government line. But some, especially black teachers, could not bring themselves to teach what they regarded as propaganda. Some even organized discussion groups after school to redress the balance. The irony in this situation is that many black students became so acutely aware of their history and heroes that they emerged as the leaders of student protests that swept the country from 1976.

The majority of white students, in contrast, were passive and uncritical and even agreed with the government's ``official knowledge." These students became willing collaborators in one of history's most shameful periods.

Furthermore, the methodology of much history teaching, where memorization and regurgitation of ``facts" are employed rather than critical analysis of evidence and debate, feeds into the development of uncritical thought.

Prejudice, racism and xenophobia are not natural forms of thinking and behavior. They are learned and ``caught" from parents, teachers and broader society.

Then there is the very real question of how often and when there should be a revision of history. Every five years when there is a new government in power? In South Africa, there was general agreement after the first democratic election in 1994 that there was an urgent need for a revision. However, a range of textbooks is available to students so that all sides of the story may be considered and independent, personal opinions formed.

In a democracy like Korea, citizens need to decide what the most appropriate approach to the teaching of history in its schools is.

If a nation does not examine its history critically, it stands to repeat it.

The writer is a South African teaching at Hwaseong High School in Hwaseong City, Gyeonggi Province. He can be reached at jsjlewin@yahoo.com.