"Unified history textbook": attempt No. 3

A meeting of the Russian Historical Society in the Kremlin in the premises of the Peace Chamber of the Patriarchal Chambers was awaiting the president, but the head of his administration came, and S.E. presided. Naryshkin. The main question is about a new (better than “unified”) school textbook on the history of Russia.

There is something randomly unnatural about this obsession. The only reason is Putin's statement in his speech at the Presidential Council on Interethnic Relations last week. If we keep in mind the general context of that meeting, then, apparently, they meant different assessments and interpretations of events and facts of national history, which can be found between the federal (all-Russian) versions and ethno-regional manuals on the history of the region of the republic (or people), which are used there within the framework of the so-called. "regional component". I admit this problem, but it does not exist everywhere in Russia.

But the helpfulness and foolish enthusiasm, including of ministers, TV presenters and academicians, presented the matter in such a way that in the country more than a hundred history textbooks with different versions are “breaking the brains into pieces” of Russian schoolchildren. Moreover, this self-pogrom is carried out by the authors of the most popular lines of school textbooks themselves (even those sitting in the RIO meeting hall today) (only Danilov was missing, whose textbooks occupy more than half of the market for school textbooks on the history of Russia!).

Is there really a trivial idea behind this new initiative to redistribute sufficient money from textbooks? And why should cultural figures write a “new unified” and where is that list of contradictions or unpatriotic or anti-scientific versions and assessments in the approved federal list of textbooks? Has anyone voiced it or at least given some examples?

There have already been two ideas with a single textbook in our history: in 1934, the textbook edited by Shestakov won the competition, and in 1949, at the General Meeting of the Academy of Sciences dedicated to the 70th anniversary of Stalin, Academician-Secretary of the History Department B.D. Grekov also called for writing a unified history textbook. Both initiatives did not achieve anything special.

Now I hold Grekov’s position at the RAS and would not like to encourage a third attempt. Even a single version of a textbook on the history of Russia means 7 textbooks from grades 5 to 11, versions of textbooks for special schools and schools with a special student population. Therefore, even the “single textbook” on Russian history means more than two dozen textbooks! And if you have at least two or three rulers (you probably don’t need more), you’ll end up with about fifty textbooks. The school standard for history and school history curricula should be uniform. They contain a list of main events, facts, heroes, etc., as well as their generally accepted assessments today.

And textbooks, of course, need to be improved, updated, discussed, approved by authoritative commissions, etc. But this mechanism exists, and current textbooks are not so bad. Boredom and mistakes need to be eliminated, as well as irresponsible judgments. But why make a national campaign out of this with the participation of RIO (it is even proposed as an arbiter-evaluator!)? Are there no other problems, including with civic and patriotic education and with the formation of national identity? No, you still need to scratch where it doesn’t itch.

Original