Paper prepared for the workshop “Learning about the Other and Teaching for Tolerance in Muslim Majority Societies” organised by Center for Values Education, Istanbul The Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Oslo

10-12 November 2005 Istanbul, Turkey

Munir Bashshur (American University of Beirut):

HISTORY TEACHING AND HISTORY TEXTBOOKS IN LEBANON

I. Introduction

In his book, the Disuniting of America published in 1992, the American historian Arthur M. Schlesinger comments on the “uses of history” as a “weapon” in the “battle of schools”, and asks whether the purpose of history in the schools is therapeutic: “to build a sense of self-worth among the minority children” (p. 80). “Should public education” he asks, “strengthen and perpetuate separate ethnic and social sub-cultures? Or should it not seek to make our young boys and girls contributors to a common American culture?” (p. 90). The “use of history as therapy” Schlesinger goes on to say, “means the corruption of history as history…Even if history is sanitized in order to make people feel good, there is no evidence that the feel-good history promotes ethnic self-esteem and equips students to grapple with their lives.” (p. 93) In this statement, Schlesinger has two reservations on using history as a “weapon” in the “battle of schools”, one is academic and the other is practical. The academic is that if history is used as a weapon; that is, if it is used for any purpose other than its own, then it is corrupted, i.e. it ceases to be history. Maybe I speak for many in this workshop when I say that we can live with this reservation, for why should we attach so much value to history as history anyway? What is the point of it, after all? But the practical reservation is more worrisome, namely that even when we corrupt history, that is “sanitize” it “to make people feel good”, as Schlesinger puts it, he is not sure it will do the job of promoting “ethnic self-esteem”, and equipping students to “grapple with their lives”, ultimately bringing unity to a “disunited America”. In a workshop like this one on “Learning About the Other and Teaching for Tolerance” I , for one, will be willing to put history as history in the washing machine, sanitize it, hopefully without corrupting it : “Tell the truth and nothing but the truth”, but not necessarily “the whole truth”, as an Indian writer puts it.2 In this, I derive comfort and support from a long and ancient debate about the instrumentality of knowledge, whether knowledge is for knowledge’s sake- or art for art’s sake- a debate that will

1 ultimately connect us with the Biblical admonition: Is Man for the Sabbath or the Sabbath for Man? With this, I feel we can put the first reservation to rest. But what about the second, the practical one, namely that even if “sanitized”, there is no evidence that it will work as “therapy”, even in America? For a person like me coming from this part of the world, the cradle of ancient civilizations and the birthplace of the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the practical reservation is more worrisome. If “sanitized” history does not work in America, the new World, will it work, can it work in this ancient world of ours, with it’s many layers of tradition, memories and beliefs, and with its many historical faultlines? The comparison between the two worlds brings forth another reason to worry, a more serious one related not to the power of history to heal or build bridges, but to the topography of the battlefield, and the way the “battle of schools” is waged: the difference relates, in my estimation, to the relative isolation of the school as a change agent in underdeveloped countries, and to its greater vulnerability to other forces or agencies in society which can more easily hinder or confound its work as a healer of wounds or builder of bridges. The contrast here is so great between the two worlds that one has to bring into the picture all the elements that make America a land of laws and institutions before people as individuals, families or groups, vs. countries like ours (and I am thinking particularly of Lebanon), which are lands of people as individuals, families and groups, and of religious groups in particular, before they are lands of laws and institutions. There is a lot of crudeness here in this picture of contrasts, but the point it intends to make is clear: that in its normative role (the therapeutic), the school in America and in advanced countries in general, is positioned to receive more support from the laws and institutions of the country than it is in countries like ours. Laws, the great equalizers- equality before the law, working by the laws- affect and overlap with the work of other social institutions, including the schools. If Schlesinger is doubtful about the success of history in America as “therapy”, the doubt has to be multiplied many folds in the context of a country like Lebanon. Hence the challenge is greater!

* * * This introduction is necessary as a background to the narrative on history teaching in Lebanon that I wish to share with you in this workshop. The leitmotif throughout is a very simple one, namely that conflicts and disputations over history teaching in Lebanon are simply a reflection of religious/ political divisions in the country. These divisions are old- in some sense the creation of the State of Lebanon itself was an attempt to contain them in a workable framework. These attempts have continued throughout Lebanon’s history. Sometimes they succeeded and sometimes not, affording the country and its people periods of calm and prosperity intercepted with periods of turmoil ad obstruction that borders sometimes on self-destruction. All this is reflected in the debates on the history of the country and its teaching in schools. The “battle of schools” as Schlesinger put it, is rendered into a “battle over history” 3 fought in school.. These battles rarely, if ever, give the interests of schools, or children who go to them, much attention. Furthermore, they never conclude with victors or vanquished but fluctuate, like the country itself, from one end to another.

2 To trace these fluctuations, we need some historical markers, or guideposts. The most convenient and meaningful is the 14 years war that started in 1975 and was brought to an end, officially, in what is knows as Taef Agreement in 1989. We can think of pre-war and post-war developments, and certainly of events and developments during the war years as well. We will list, in the following section, the most important historical events before and after the war, and then in sections following that will trace debates and discussions relating to the teaching of history, with a special attention given to curriculum efforts and textbook content.

II. Pre and Post War 1975 – a chronology of major events and developments.

The prewar story stretches way back into the past, but the following are the most important events and developments: 1919-1943 The French Mandate on Syria and Lebanon 1926 Lebanese Republic declared under the Mandate, with a constitution confirming: “the rights of (religious) communities to maintain their own private schools…provided they conform with the general regulations issued by the State” (Article 10) 1943 Independence of the Republic, some amendments to the constitution, but

Article 10 (above) was kept unchanged 1946 Issuing of the first official school curriculum since Independence for all subjects at the pre-university level. 1950 Regulations stipulate that textbooks used in schools (including private ones) on Lebanese history must have Ministry approval (textbooks on non-Lebanese history did not need approval. Private schools could also add to the curriculum subjects not included in it). 1961 Passing the official exam of the Lebanese Bacc. (or its equivalent) established as a condition (for Lebanese students) to join universities. 1968-1971 New Curriculum issued replacing the 1946 version; new textbook issue for public schools; private schools maintained their freedom of textbook choice; 1950 stipulation regarding history textbooks unchanged. 1975-1989 the War, the country in shreds, including its educational system. (rise of new schools established for newly emerging religions/political groups, adding to the complexity of the religious/ educational terrain). 1994- A plan for “Educational Revival” approved by the Government. 1997 New curricula issued (3rd since Independence), for all levels and subjects except history; new textbooks issued (except history). the1997 curricula). 2001 A new committee appointed for history textbooks, but since then and up to the present, nothing has materialized!

III. Textbooks and Debates Prior to 1975 If anything, unity and homogeneity in history textbooks was more a fact during the French Mandate than during any other time since Independence. To the majority of

3 Lebanese students, history meant “History of France” or French presence in the mandated territories. “Children were taught a French interpretation of history and even learned to sing La Maseillaise” During 1935, a certain Italian statesman is reported to have visited the country and saw some fifty dark-skinned and black haired young Arab boys stammering together: “Nos ancetres les Gualois etaient blonds:”5 (our ancestors the Guals were blond). A reaction came for the first time in the private sector, when two teachers (Nakkash and Farroukh) at the Makassed ( Muslim philanthropic organization), co- authored a history textbook for elementary school level entitled Tarikh Suriyah wa Lubnan (1935) (History of Syria and Lebanon), recasting the history of the mandated territory in a Muslim- Arab light. The Christian establishment within the country reacted with a textbook of their own, entitled Mujaz Tarikh Lubnan (summary of history of Lebanon), co-authored by Rustum and Bustani (1937), which “emphasized the special historical character of Lebanon to an extent which no Muslim was willing to accept”6 In 1974, just before the outbreak of the war, a sample was taken of history textbooks used in three types of schools: Christian, Muslim, and Public. The authors7 selected key words from these books which could generate value positions of political importance and measured the amount of coverage given to those words in the books. They reported two conclusions: a) that there were marked differences between Christian and Muslim books in terms of amount as well as type of coverage of the chosen words, b) that books used in government schools were more similar to books used in Christian schools than to those in Muslim schools: the first stressed the independence of the nation as vs. Muslim books which stressed the Arabic character of Lebanon. “Heroes” were not the same; in the Christian books, Phoenician figures were described as our “ancestors”, while in the Muslim books emphasis was on Arabism. Very little coverage was given to Palestine in the Christian books while in Muslim books the independence of Arabs was regarded as incomplete if “justice” was not established, and Jerusalem, Islam and the Aqsa Mosque appeared in connection with the issue of justice. In 1986, a PhD dissertation surveyed social studies curricula and textbooks in three periods of Lebanon’s history8. Regarding the Mandate period, the author concluded that “Lebanon was not the center of either the curriculum or the textbooks, rather France and Europe occupied that place…” During the first quarter of the century, after Independence (1943-68), the “new status of Lebanon as an independent country” and the “collaboration and mutual understanding between the Muslim and Christian communities (and) the government’s intention to create a sense of nationhood” was emphasized. For the 3rd period (1968-1983), the analysis showed “a strong association between religion and choice of heroes; they (heroes) varied from one textbook to another according to the religious affiliation of the textbook author and the school”. ( p.342) Assuming that this sample represented well the content of the textbooks and the thinking and orientation in the varied schools in the country, it is no wonder that war broke out soon afterwards in 1975. It will be farfetched to claim that this caused the war, but it certainly did not help prevent its coming when it came.

IV. After the war of 1975 and before issuing the history curriculum in 2000.

4 We do not have much evidence on research reported on the war years, but two studies have value. The first is a survey limited to Catholic schools in the country, and the second is a limited study on a small sample of schools, all of them private but belonging to different denominations. The Catholic schools survey was conducted in 1994 based on 221 questionnaires filled by teachers or coordinators of the subject matter of history in 81 Catholic schools, or by principals of those schools. It is to be remarked that the Catholic schools Association includes the largest number of schools under any one organization in the country, next in size only to the Public. Some of the important conclusions reported in this survey are as follows9: 1. Choice of textbooks is rarely done in light of pedagogic criteria; the determining factors relate more often to reputation and influence of authors and publishers of books than to their educational value: the larger the number of schools which have teachers who appear on textbook covers as authors, the more likely the book is to be adopted. 2. The closer the content of the book to the guidelines set by the Ministry of Education the more likely that it will be adopted, as it will have a better chance of securing success of students on government exams. 3. Historical events are reported with a minimum interest or a minimum inclination towards analysis stimulating personal reactions. The general tone of presentation is emphasis on information and compliance from the reader. 4. Despite the presence of a number of textbooks for the same class and subject, the difference between one book and another is minimal; books seem to derive their information from the same source, and are all similarly guided by the same concern, viz., to prepare students for passing government exams. 5. Controversies are avoided and submerged in almost all the textbooks under the pretext of objectivity and neutrality, making the text uninspiring and not very convincing. For many textbooks, there seems to be over attention given to the importance of shared living and co-existence among various communities compromising historical facts. Ideology, upholding coexistence takes precedence over historical facts. 6. Events and developments after Independence in 1943 are given minimal coverage as these are likely to arouse controversies and bring painful memories too close to the present. There were many other points reported in this survey but none of it had to do with “ideological” matters related to attitudes towards “the other”, or national and social identities or loyalties. If anything, responses showed disappointment of many teachers who felt historical facts related to conflicts were compromised for the sake of upholding harmony and coexistence. In the process many books had a “flat” and unexciting content; as such respondents believed that they were good books for passing the exams but not for exciting the imagination and stimulating inquiry. The reason why responses in this survey were relatively “tamed” is that the survey was largely an “in-house” one, limited to Catholic schools and conducted by officials in and for the Catholic Association. Teachers in these schools felt by and large as if history had come to and end with the books published; in terms of a time line, all books stopped at the year of Independence in 1943, and in terms of interpretation and choice all seemed to conform closely to the outline given by the Ministry of Education and the expected questions in the government exams.

5 The second study was done on seven schools all of them private, but belonging to different religious inclinations: 3 Muslim schools (Shiite, Sunni and Druze) and 4 Christian (a Maronite, an Orthodox, a Protestant, and an Armenian). A small sample, but a very diverse population, unlike the one reported before on Catholic schools10. The sample included decision makers (14 persons), history teachers (7), authors of textbooks (15), and students from the seven schools (48). One important conclusion that this study draws is that all seven schools used “approved textbooks which conform closely to the official curriculum but each and everyone of these schools uses a ‘supplemental’ book of its own choice that is peculiar to its own inclination and offers material and interpretation unique to its own religious identity; none of the seven schools shares a supplemental book with any of the others.11 These two studies are the only ones we know which were on pre-war conditions. The outbreak of the war brought to a sharp focus the importance of history teaching as never before. A prominent (Druze) leader is reported to have declared, while the war was still going on, that “the continuing civil war in Lebanon was, in a fundamental way, a war to determine the correct history of the country…” He went on to say that “the recreating of the Lebanese history textbook was a necessary precondition for any lasting political settlement in Lebanon, if not the primary one.”12 The war went on unabated for a total of about 15 years. It was brought to an end in 1989 with the signing of the Taef Agreement. With that, a new stage started with new motions and activities under the general title of post war reconstruction, involving reform in its educational system, and in the field of history teaching.

V. Post War Taef Agreement, and its Aftermath.

The Taef Agreement had five points on education; the fifth one was on revision of school curricula emphasizing national unity, with specific focus on civics and history. That fifth point went as follows: “Revision and development of curricula in such a manner as to strengthen national identity and social integration encourage spiritual and cultural openness …. Unification of textbooks in the two subject matter areas of history and national education (is a must)”. This same statement appeared as one of the goals in the “Plan for Educational Revival”, which was approved by the Cabinet of Ministers as a working document on August 17, 1994. One month later, the Center for Educational Research and Development (CERD) which is responsible for school curricula, went into the task of curriculum revision with vigor and speed, assembling a work team of some 350 persons grouped into different committees. The structure of the educational system was targeted first, and a new “ladder” was produced and approved by the Cabinet on October 25, 1995. Soon afterwards, a plan with specific curriculum targets for various school levels was completed; this plan was later announced by the President of the Republic in a festive celebration, in the presence of the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the Parliament and the three ministers of education. Subject matter committees began working on revisions and writing new material; committees for all subjects were appointed and approved. The subject matter of history, however, was singled out and delegated to a special committee, including in its composition a carefully chosen team representing various religious/political groups. The work of this committee

6 and its deliberations were handled almost like a state secret. Rumors leaked about arguments and conflicts among its members, and about reshuffling of memberships and resignations, and when a copy of the new national curriculum was submitted for government approval (on May 8,1997), with a new package of material covering all subjects, the subject matter of history was missing. It took exactly three years after that for the cabinet to receive and approve a brief document entitled, “General Principles and Specific Goals for the Teaching of History”- approved on May 10, 2000. When made public, it soon became clear that it was a very tamed, desensitized, some would even say emasculated document. And to be produced, clothed in the most carefully guarded and benign language, it took more than 50 meetings of a committee of six persons.13 When finally presented to the press on May 10, 2000, only one member out of the original six had survived the duration of its work; other members either resigned or were replaced. 14 We do not know why 5 of the 6 members were replaced or resigned. Two of the five, however, had articles published before the document became public, one was published in 1998 (15) and the other in 1999. 16 The first article of 1998 included interesting information on the workings of the committee. It reported that when a joint paper was finally agreed and submitted for approval it included one part on objectives of the teaching history in general, and another on objectives of teaching the history of Lebanon. The writer says that it was on the second set of objectives, dealing with Lebanon, that the higher committee in CERD had objections, hence returning it for modification. When this did not happen the committee, or rather 5 of its 6 members, were replaced (or some resigned). The 1998 article included part of the text of the final paper that was submitted by the history committee (and returned for modification); this gives us the chance to compare it with the text that was finally approved by the cabinet on May 10, 2000. We will take from the original paper objectives that had to do with teaching of the history of Lebanon (as these were the reason for the disagreement) - and they are four: No. 1 - “Strengthening and deepening patriotic feelings based on the belief that Lebanon is a final homeland for all its people, and that it is Arab in affiliation and identity, and that loyalty to it and identification with it as a country are essential. Likewise commitment to its causes and taking pride in it (is important), so that a unified national outlook will emerge rooted in the political consciousness of the Lebanese with regard to their Lebanese/Arab heritage and their Arab culture, reinforcing their unity as a nation rather than co-existence as religious groups”. No. 2 - “ Deepening pride in Lebanese identity and Lebanon’s Arab character, revealing strong ties between Lebanon and other Arab states, by cultivating Arab national feelings in the minds of its youth through textbook materials and teaching/learning activities. This is because Lebanese identity did not emerge from the void but is a product of historical development and cultural heritage, making it essential that Arab history, ancient, middle as well as modern, is to be given attention and care.” No. 3 – “ Commitment to Arab culture and highlighting the part played by the Lebanese in it, opening up to world cultures , human values and recent discoveries, so as to contribute to the development of these cultures, enriching them and deriving sustenance from them.”

7 No. 4 - “ Considering that Christianity and Islam are basic sources for ideals and human values that run counter to the kind of political behavior which aims at separating believers of one religion from believers in another, and that sectarianism is first and foremost an attack on the principles and ideals of both Christianity and Islam and also on the ground roots of national unity.” The document ,which was later approved by the cabinet, also had a list of objectives for the teaching of Lebanese history. Comparing these with the four just quoted above might give us a clue as to why the original paper was returned for revision, and, in addition, may shed some light on the whole business of political/religious conflict. In comparing, the first point that stands out is that the final version had 8 main objectives for the “teaching of Lebanese history”, 3 of which were broken down into sub- objectives, which makes the total number 14, as compared with 4 in the original. The final version turns out to be not only longer and more elaborate, but in terms of inclination, as cognizant as the original of Lebanon’s (Arab) affiliation, and equally attentive to the need for Christian/Moslem accommodation. If anything, the final version does all the above using less “ideological” language than that in the original. We have no way of knowing what viewpoints or arguments were exchanged during the long period of the work of the history committee (three years), and what caused change in membership, and more significantly, what reasons prevented the original committee from adopting modifications as requested by the higher one. All of such things can perhaps be explained only in terms of the very peculiar way in which committees and individuals work in Lebanon in a jittery and diffident atmosphere that has prevailed in the country since Taef. In the judgment of an ex-president of the Education Research Center (CERD), “the content of the 2000 history curricula is more relevant to the students’ interests and level of ability, since it deals with contemporary issues and events that affect students’ life. At the first elementary cycle, for instance, learning about the child’s family and community is not considered to be a new approach in Lebanese Curriculum development. Also, studying what happened during the period between Lebanon's independence and the Taef Agreement has become recognized as a necessity for young students.”17 But this was all in the curriculum guidelines, not in material that was produced and put to use in schools. Once announced on May 20, 2000 what remained to be done was more difficult, namely to translate these guidelines into teaching tools, i.e. textbooks. In the meantime, textbooks in all other subject matter areas were already issued and distributed to schools starting with the academic year 1997/98. Textbooks in history had to wait until 2001, when the first batch was produced. The first batch included 2 textbooks under the title, “A Window unto History”, one for grade 2 and another for grade 3 elementary. Almost immediately after these books appeared a campaign against them broke out. The attack focused on chapter 11 in the 3rd grade book, which dealt with Independence. It had the title: “They all went and Lebanon stayed: independence of the nation”, and used a time line to show various peoples and states which occupied Lebanon at different points in time. When it came to the Arab period it referred to it using the words “Arab conquest “ Al Fatih Al Arabi“ (p88). These words were immediately picked up and interpreted by some as equating the Arabs with other conquerors, and since the title used was that they “all went and Lebanon stayed …” this meant, according to its critics, that Lebanon was not an Arab

8 country. The attack was spearheaded by a deputy in the parliament, a neurologist form Beirut. “… I have read the first chapters in the book and was surprised to see chapters which were different from history as we know it…it is true that Lebanon stayed, but it remained an Arab country… a feature which is prevalent today and stressed in the Taif accord.” 18 Almost immediately the Center for Educational Research and Development (CERD) issued a statement saying that page 88 , where mention was made of the Arab conquest, will be removed, as “some interpreted this to mean that authors of the book classified the Arab conquest as similar to other occupations that the country has had… The questions found at the end of the chapter and the accompanying photos… prove the authors’ positive intentions.” 19 A few days later the Minister of Education declared that the draft of the textbook was not submitted to him, or to any higher official before it went to press. “…we are concerned with history textbooks and want them to be produced quickly, but we do not accept writings that declare that the Arabs were expelled from Lebanon… I had asked that the draft be submitted to me before printing, but I have seen the book only after 70 thousand copies of it were printed…”. 20 In another statement released by CERD a few days later, the readers were informed that “… in order to avoid further controversy the Center, upon the request of the Minister, had deleted the page under criticism in the book with assurances that it will be changed in future copies.” 21 In the meantime, the Minister announced the appointment of a new committee to do more work on history textbooks. As a conclusion to this story, we can say that after more than 12 years since the Taef Accord, teaching of history in the country remains as it has always been: subject to the interests and shifts of different groups, and that agreement to unify curricula and textbooks as a means to unify the people and the country have produced nothing new, except more of the same debate and casuistry that goes as far back in the history of the country as the framing of the Lebanese constitution in 1926.

VI. Official Government Exams: Their relevance and potential as a stepping stone for reform.

Our survey so far leads to a number of conclusions that we can take note of here and use as a springboard for thinking about possibilities of reform: First, the conclusions: 1. That the country remains divided today just as much as before (some say more), and that the need to bring about unity among its people and mutual acceptance and respect is as urgent as ever. 2. That efforts in the post-war years, to use education as a unifying element, did not achieve great success, and that as far as teaching of history and efforts to revise its curriculum and produce new history textbooks, though contentious, had little impact on what actually happens in schools, which continue to make their own choices regardless of these efforts. 3. That judging by some reviews, and particularly opinions expressed by a large group pf history teachers in the Catholic schools (as well as others), the one factor that seems to play an impact on what teachers teach is conformity to the official program (presumably the prewar 1968 program). Operationally speaking, this means preparing students to pass the government exams.

9 We derive from the last point two corollaries: a) To prepare students to pass an exam, and for them to actually pass it well, does not necessarily mean an attitude/behavioral change on their part, but the chance for this to happen is worth the try. In a diversified and complex system like that of Lebanon, the Baccalaureate government exams at the end of the Secondary level, are mandatory. Since 1961, no Lebanese student can join a university without passing these exams (or obtain an official equivalent one). b) Schools can still use supplementary books; they can drag for a long time, as government exams come late at the end of a three year period, but the potential for the exams to make the needed impact on the students as well as on their teachers, remains nevertheless. If the above two points are justifiable, then we should benefit from looking into the government exams, to see what happens. What questions are given? We have at hand a valuable guide, which is actually produced commercially to guide students in preparing for the exams.22 At the end of this guide the exam questions given for the Baccalaureate for the last three years 2002-2004 are reproduced. The total number of questions for the three years is 33, covering different streams on the exam for two sittings per year. The format of all questions is the same: essay type; and a choice of 2 questions to be answered out of 3, always. The surprise (shock?) is that a quick perusal of these 33 questions leads to the conclusion that none of them touches on any event or idea after 1946. The only time this happens is in a question on the Algerian revolution, which broke out in 1954 and continued until 1962. And all the questions are regurgitative. Examples: - Explain how the Lebanese achieved the departure of foreign troops out of Lebanon in 1946. - In 1936, a treaty was concluded between England, France and some Arab states. Explain the general background of this treaty, and mention the most important items included in the Anglo-Egyptian treaty. - After the withdrawal of the Ottomans, the Arab region went through a number of important developments among which were the establishment of Greater Lebanon in 1920. explain how this happened. Not a single opportunity for any personal viewpoint or expression of any personal view or opinion? We already know from the account we gave before on the course of development, that only the general guidelines for the history curriculum were issued in 2000, after curriculum details were issued for all other subjects. We also know that no official history textbooks were issued, aside from the two for elementary grades, which were quickly withdrawn (4 years ago!); which means that schools at present choose whatever books they wish. The thought to be ventured here is whether questions of a non-regurgitative kind can be attempted: questions that may give students an opportunity to interpret, give a personal view or opinion, and reflect on the meaning of events, particularly with reference to the future and to the “other”; questions of a transformative (constructive) bent. The jump does not have to come big or too quickly; steps could be gradual: stay with “content”, but ask for similarities and contrasts first, and gradually for synthesis and personal views. The whole thing can be started on a “choice” basis i.e. inject the exams

10 occasionally with such questions and leave the choice to the students to answer or avoid them. * * * A major assumption underlying this presentation has been that what is basically needed in the field of teaching history in Lebanon (and in all other fields), is a shift away from emphasis on memory, towards emphasis on inquiry and interpretation. Pedagogical reasons are certainly behind this assumption and there is in the literature plentiful support for it, but there are also social reasons : for a culture of memory is very likely the breeding grounds for submission and dependence which includes submission to “authority” as well as to “facts”, while that of inquiry is the starting point of resistance and change. If the school is to be brought out of its relative isolation as a change agent (an idea that we have broached earlier in our Introduction), then the direction for it is clear: out of submission and towards resistance and freedom. A good starting point for this are questions on official exams that all schools and students want to pass.

ENDNOTES: 1- Schlesinger, Arthur M. The Disuniting of America (New York: Norton and Co, 1992) 2- Kabir, Humayun “Education and National Integration in India” in John W. Hanson and C.S. Brembeck (als) Education and the Development of Nations, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York 1966 (p. 244) 3- This is the title that Kamal Salibi, one of the most iridize historians of modern Lebanon, gave to the chapter in his recent book A House of Many Mansions, Univ. Of California Press, 1998 (Ch.11 in the book: “The War over Lebanese History”) 4- Mansfield, Peter. The Arabs (London: Allen Lane 1976) 5- Tibauri, A.L. Islamic Education (London: Luzae 1972) p.137 6- Salibi; Op.Lit p.203 7- Wehbe, Nakhle and Adnan Al Ameen, Syteme D’enseignement sociale an Liban (Paris: Le Sycmore 1980). 8- Frayha, Nemer “Religious Conflict and the Role of Social Studies for Citizenship Education in the Lebanese Schools Between 1920 and 1983, Stanford, California, 1985 9- General Secretariat of Catholic schools in Lebanon, The 2nd Annual Conference, Sept 1994. 10- Abouchedid, Kamal and Ramzi Nasser “The State of History Teaching in private run confessional Schools in Lebanon: Implications for National Integration” in Mediterranean Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 5 (2), 2000. 11- In the more elaborate survey of Catholic schools described before, no reference was made to any supplemental books in use; an omission that does not necessarily mean that such books were absent but simply that investigators did not inquire about them. 12- . Salibi, Kamal. Op. Cet, pp 201 13- As reported by a member of the Committee (Hassan Muneimneh) in an article published in An-Nahar on 5/5/1999. Another member (Ahmad Hoteit) gives a total of 56 meetings (in Al-Marqab magazine, Fall 1998).. 14 - An-Nahar 20/5/2000

11 أحمد حطيط, "علمية كتاب تاريخ لبنان بين أزمة المنهج وهاجس التوحيد", مجاة المرقب, جامعة البلمند, - 15 العدد الثاني خريف 1998 حسن منيمنة, "مشروع (رفض) للمبادئ والهداف العامة لتدريس التاريخ", النهار 5/5/1999 - 16 17- Frayha, Nemer “Developing Curriculum as a Means to Bridge National Divisions in Lebanon” in Tawil Sobhi and Alexandria Harley (edu.) Education, Conflict and Social Cohesion, BE., Geneva, 2004 (p.197) 18- Daily Star 24/10/2001 19 - Ibid 20 - An-Nahar 1/11/2001 21 - An-Nahar 5/11/2001 22- Hallak, Ali, Brief History: Lebanon and Arab Countries. Dar el Ilm Lil Malayeen, Beirut 20

12 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12