|
|
The Dutch history canon: a never-ending debate?!
An
Addendum to the
article by Huub Kurstjens
By Drs. H.K.J. (Huub) Kurstjens, test developer
for history and politics at CITO (Institute for Test Development),
Arnhem (The Netherlands)
One year later … (1)
When I wrote this article one year ago, I couldn’t immagine what
impact the canon would have, not only on history as a subject at
school, but also on education and even on society in general. To be
brief: the canon has become a hype.
The Minister of Education decided that the canon will be compulsary
from the beginning of the new schoolyear in August 2009 and for all
pupils in the Netherlands in the age from 8 to 14. The national
curriculum and the textbooks will be changed and implemented from
that date on. Moreover, the government decided to raise a new
National Historical Museum, based on the canon. This museum will
give an overview of Dutch History based on the canon, similar to the
idea and concept of the German ’Haus der Geschichte’ in
Bonn and
Leipzig . After an open competition with other cities in the
Netherlands, the government decided to locate the museum in Arnhem (eastern
part of the Netherlands), in an area together with other national
museums. The costs for building the museum are estimated at 50
million euros. In 2011 the museum should open its doors. From then
on, the government will spend 12 miljoen euros each year for the
exploitation of this museum.
Figure 3: An impression of the new National
Historical Museum at Arnhem that will be built in the shape of a ‘canon-tower’.
Together with the cultural and historical canon, a lot of new,
different canons were derived from the original canon-idea. To give
an impression of all kinds of canon-ideas:
-
Canons based on a theme like: Dutch movies,
(classical) music, christianity (roman-catholic as well as
protestant), the history of water, occupation during the Second
World War, feminism, education, social work, photography, etc.
(2)
-
Canons based on sciences like: natural
sciences (‘bčtacanon’) and social sciences (‘gammacanon’) (3)
-
Canons based on a region like local history
(some cities made a canon of their own history), provincial
history and even European (4) and world history (5).
-
All kinds of tests and quizes (very
inventive and original, but based on very divergent views. (6)
-
Supportive didactical material, for
instance a Canon Treasure Chest with all kinds of historical
objects, ‘canonmovies’ , etc., etc.
The real debate of course is whether or not the
government should and could implement the content of a
cultural-historical canon on every Dutch school for every Dutch
pupil, irrespective of his or her background. Therefore the debate
is about identity. And the debate on identity is a very sensitive
one.
After the assassination of two famous Dutchmen (Pim Fortuyn, a
successful, charismatic politician, shot on May 6th 2002 by an
anti-globalist, and Theo van Gogh, a famous provocative filmmaker,
assassinated by a Dutch Muslim on November 2nd 2004), the debate of
what part history should play in the Netherlands aroused. Should not
everybody know something about the roots of our country, i.e. Dutch
history, including immigrants? Is history not an outstanding example
of a subject to connect people in order to understand our roots and
the position of citizens in the current society? But what is the
contribution of historians in that debate? Historians, according
critics, write books wich are too specialistic containing too much
detailed information written in an inaccesible language for ‘normal’
people. At the same time: Dutch people are alienated from their own
history although there is a big need for knowledge of the past.
The emphasis in history education for many years has been on ‘education’
rather than on ‘content’. At the same time the chronology in
textbooks has gradualy been replaced ever since the eighties by a
thematical approach. These two developments, together with a deep
need for more and profound knowledge in a confused society, caused
the raise and need for historical knowledge in general and a
historical canon in particular. Who are we? What are the essential
values of the Dutch? What are the features of the Dutch? All these
questions became pregnant because of the presence of more and more
immigrants. The multicultural society became a multicultural drama
in the eyes of some people. If we demand integration from immigrants,
then we should first ask ourselves in which they should integrate,
what kind of values and traditions should be taken over from the
Dutch culture and history.
Ever since the Second World War, nationalism had a negative
connotation in the Netherlands. It was generally accepted that a
feeling of (western) superiority was misplaced in an open society.
To put it more strongly: due to the open Dutch society based on a
long history of trade with foreigners, the Netherlands became what
they are now: one of the richest nations in the world. But the last
decade, fear has got the upper hand. Fear of terrorism, fear of
strangers and immigrants, fear of the impact of ‘strange’ religions,
fear of losing Dutch values. In short: fear of losing its own
identity (whatever that may be). A nation, known worldwide for its
trading history and liberal way of thinking, for its tolerance and
hospitality, suddenly became a nation of fear that turned against
itself in search of something that could bind it together into a
nation, in search of its identity, in search of … its own history.
In order to get more proud of themselves, the Dutch tried to invent
a new kind of nationalism: a sure and clear idea of what the nation
stands for, the values and traditions that bound the nation in the
past and gave it glory. Some politicians nowadays pretend to have
found one clear unvariable identity based on our history that can
make us proud.
But isn’t it the task of every historian to search the past in a
critical way and not to use or misuse it for political reasons? That
is why the idea of the canon is not by definition wrong. It should
not be a tool for nationalism, but a means to explain history to a
broad public that in general shows to be indifferent to things
concerning the past. Therefore history should be made accessible
again by telling stories, by criticising the past but at the same
time also to be proud of heroes. Empathy is the keyword, but also a
sentiment that could be misused if knowledge wasn’t at the same time
the other weight for the counterbalance. And that brings me to my
conclusion. The fifty items of the current cultural and historical
canon contain merely stories. It opens ‘windows’ to the past but
without factual knowledge. Something should be known for example
about slavery (as a point of criticism) or Rembrandt (to be proud
of) but what exactly is not clear. Some people say that this is good,
because now the threat of indoctrination and state pedagogics is not
predominant anymore. Other people say it’s a pity that there still
is no basic framework on which we can teach and learn history on a
common base. We are having this discussion for a long time now and
so we can say that the circle is round again. Like I paraphrased
Pieter Geyl in the beginning of this article: history is a
never-ending debate.
And what about the debate between the approach in history education,
the struggle between the ‘ten historical periods with characteristic
aspects’ and the ‘the canon with fifty items (‘windows’) that opens
the past through stories’? Well, a really Dutch solution evolved:
the merging of the specific illustrations of the canon and the ten
periods became a fact. It did not turn out to be satisfactory for
everyone, but it is a good example of a typical Dutch value: the
policy of compromising, ‘the poldermodel’.
(June 11, 2008)
1. With thanks to Evelyn Reichard for her comment
concerning the English version of the text.
2. Look for an overview at
Histoforum
3.
Bčta
canon 1 and
Bčta canon 2
4.
Historie te vangen in canon
5. Even the famous Dutch historian Prof
Wesseling contributed the debate by
describing a canon for worldhistory
6. Some examples of tests, games and quizzes:
|
