Search results

History schoolbooks are part of a much broader legitimation process through which every society's ruling elite secures the uncritical acceptance of the existing political, social and economic system, together with the cultural attributes that re ect its hegemony. In central Europe, the need to justify the creation of nation-states at the beginning and end of the twentieth century has generated proprietary accounts that have pitted the region's national groups against one another. Post-communist democratization has intensi ed these divisions as political leaders feel obliged to employ hoary myths—and avoid inconvenient facts— about their country's history in order to survive the electoral process. In this way they succumb to the "Frankenstein Syndrome" by which the history taught in the schools destroys those who dare to challenge the arti cial constructs of the past. The article surveys history teaching throughout central Europe, with special emphasis on the Yugoslav successor states.

A rejoinder to comments by Istvan Deak, John R. Lampe, & Gale Stokes (all, 1999) on Charles Ingrao's "Understanding Ethnic Conflict in Central Europe: An Historical Perspective" (1999) that admits to a certain nostalgia for the multiethnic society that existed for centuries across Central Europe before the 20th century. Although both the Ottoman & Hapsburg empires failed to bring this multiethnic tradition forward into the 20th century, primarily because they bestowed benefits on corporate groups rather than individuals, the Hapsburgs were more committed to a democratic alternative to the nation-state than the Ottomans. Although the commentators suggest that a post-nation-state alternative to the present conflicts is idealistic, they implicitly agree that the nation-state has been a primary culprit in the region's troubles. The challenge has become the creation of a vibrant civil society in a wholly uncivil region of the world. It is this challenge to which Western leaders & scholars ought to be committed. D. Ryfe

Discusses a number of historically informed insights that might bridge the gap between Anglo-American scholarly discourse on Central Europe & the public's self-confessed ignorance about this region. These insights include (1) the East is different from the West for specific historical reasons; (2) ethnic cleansing has a long history; (3) the Hapsburg-Ottoman frontier is still in existence; (4) multiethnicity is less a problem in the region than a solution; (5) the nation-state is less a solution than a problem; (6) the treaties signed at the end of WWI still cause problems in the region; (7) the creation of nation-states in the region produced dire consequences for the Jews; (8) the US has always deferred to its allies in the region; (9) war crimes trials against Serb criminals are important to maintain a sense of justice in the region; & (10) at the end of the 20th century, the West has another opportunity to play a positive role in the future of the region. Success in the region will be contingent on how well Western leaders have learned these lessons & are able to educate their publics about them. D. Ryfe