“Modern World History,” a book taught in The International College’s (IC) curriculum since 2003, suddenly became a topic of discussion in the Lebanese press. The controversy focused on a few pages, titled “Hunting for Terrorists”; specifically about labeling Hizbullah and Hamas as terrorist organizations. Then, just as suddenly, everyone fell silent. 

It is worth noting that no member of the IC’s parents committee, parent, student or teacher (or anybody in the Education Ministry) had considered this important. Perhaps it is because we didn’t read the book, or perhaps because we read it and we approved of it, perhaps because we are simply apathetic, or, perhaps because we are content with any history book at all. 

IC’s administration swiftly responded with saying that it had either “pasted over the [controversial] pages” or ordered students to “tear them out.” This is a reminder – with some notable differences – of how Queen Mary I of England burned the “History of Italy” in 1554 after ordering the execution of its author William Thomas. Similarly, in 1988, some groups in Europe and the United States burned Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses,” while in May 2008 the Israeli Shas party burned the New Testament. 

This book deserves to be methodologically challenged, yet we only removed some pages. The IC was established in Lebanon in 1936 but they “do not teach the Arab-Israeli conflict.” The parents committee had no comment despite being displaced because of the war. 

Since 1936, the Education Ministry has overlooked private school’s non-standardized curriculums. It did not take notice that the deterioration of public schools has led 55 percent of students to enroll in private schools today. Private schools in Lebanon have their own “free,” “sovereign” and “independent” republics as well. The Education Ministry does not even come close to that of UNIFIL in counting the violations of Lebanese laws related to education. 

The reader is urged to consider the book’s methodology. The description of Hizbullah and Hamas as terrorists reflects a specific view of history. How do the authors of the book regard other peoples? 

What if I were a Native American, also known as an “American Indian?” 

I would be very pleased with what Suzan Shown Harjo wrote on page 109: “We will be asked to buy into the thinking that … genocide and ecocide are offset by the benefits of horses, cut-glass beads, pickup trucks and microwave ovens.” 

But I would be angry because the issue of genocide is not tackled in detail. The book portrays history through several general viewpoints that end with the “American Indians” succumbing to diseases instead of genocide. But the questions, listed at the end of the chapter, urge the mind to go further. 

The book’s authors therefore understand that there can be more than one perception of historical events. 

They appear more understanding and more prepared to accept the principle of “different perspectives” when it comes to “American Indians,” African-Americans and Latin-Americans (Hispanics), topics directly linked to American society. 

This also leads to questioning, albeit in a shy manner, of the role of the CIA in toppling Salvadore Allende, an “admitted Marxist,” in 1973. 

However, the method takes a different direction once we leave the social make-up of the United States and enter other regions, less important to the authors. 

What if I were from the Congo? 

There is no room here for “different perspectives.” Instead, we are fed the official US position, telling us the sugarcoated version of the 1961 overthrowing of Lumumba. It fails to mention the circumstances behind the mysterious death of UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold. The book settles for saying on page 519 that Mobutu came to power with a “bloodless coup” in 1965. 

What about Iran and the coup against Mossaddeq? 

“They [Iranians] nationalized a British-owned oil company and, in 1953, forced the shah to flee. Fearing that Mossaddeq might turn to the Soviets for support, the United States had him arrested. It then restored the shah to power.” (494)

The issue is that Iran is locked between the “seculars” (the shah) and the clerics (Khomeini), and of course, all of this has a distinct aroma of petrol. There is no need here for questions about human rights or the illegitimate intervention, what the authors called “the arrest of Mossaddeq” and of course, there is no mention that Mossaddeq was democratically designated prime minister with the support of an overwhelming majority. 

What if I were a Muslim? 

The book dedicates a few lines to Islam as a monotheistic religion, in the second chapter entitled “Judeo-Christian Tradition” on page 12. 

But what if you were from this region of the world? Here I will not find a mention of my country or any other country. 

“Judaism and Christianity both began in a small corner of southwest Asia?” 

Where exactly is southwest Asia? 

What if I were Palestinian? 

The division of Palestine after World War II set off bitter disputes in the Middle East. Some of the problems faced by the new nation of Israel were similar to those experienced by new nations in Africa and Asia … Palestinians who did not remain in Israel faced a disruptive life as refugees.” (Page 521) As for those who did remain in Israel, the authors apparently think they are living a life of leisure. 

On page 522 there is a beautiful picture of Golda Meir subtitled “one of the signers of Israel’s declaration of independence.” Israel must then have been occupied (but by whom?) and then liberated! 

On pages 524 and 525, the book describes “life in a Kibbutz” in 1951 Israel: “… instead of teaching math, philosophy, or psychology … Israel’s eager immigrants [who] are former lawyers, professors, or physicians … pour over the latest publications on scientific farming from the US Department of Agriculture.” There is of course no mention of the land’s former residents. 

In order for us not to think that the book is insensitive toward the Palestinian cause, it did skirt taboo: “They say the Arab-Israeli conflict is not between right and wrong but between two rights,” and asking what the reader thinks. Of course, there is nothing in there about the Deir Yassine massacre (refer to what was been written about Native Americans) 

The book deserves to be debated. This is a matter that should be undertaken by IC’s parents committee. The Education Ministry should also fulfill its role, or else why have one at all? 

So! 

If some schools in the US that do not teach – or censor – books like “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” that object to teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, then why would IC leave this book unchallenged? 

How? 

First: Lebanese General Security should not interfere in the issue of books, and this requires amending the law. Leave the matter to people who actually teach. 

Second: No book should ever be censored. 

Third: The book should be critiqued or challenged. If this book is part of the curriculum of what is called the “International Baccalaureate,” that should be justified. Where is the problem if IC students were taught that its authors express a specific point of view that is not necessarily correct? 

Fourth: The book is a call to those who take “pride” in their “Arabic,” “Lebanese” (sometimes “Phoenician”) patriotism to publish a history book that is as captivating with its illustrations, questions and stories as this book is. 

This is an American book that reflects a semi-official point of view of the world, in which racism and American patriotism are camouflaged in a history book. This is met by a horrifying vacuum in our curriculums, which are filled with our superstitions, our gibberish or books like this one! 

Maybe this is the “unified book” that the Americans gave their students, and that March 8 and March 14 – and those before them, above them and after them – will never get around to doing. 

Let us read this book, criticize it and then toss it aside, with the full knowledge that it is Rome’s book on the Barbarians, and that we are the Barbarians. Do not tell your children that this is a history book. Tell them it is “their” book on “our” history that we have yet to know, comprehend, discuss or write. To quote a friend: “What if students were asked in an exam if Hizbullah was a terrorist organization? How would they reply and how would they be graded? His answer is that the grading will depend on the examiner: Will it be Asaad AbuKhalil or Avigdor Lieberman? 

Based on the book’s definition of terrorism, the US invasion of Iraq is considered a terrorist act, while the killing of 1,400 human beings in Gaza could be justified. Perhaps in the next edition, we will not find a single picture of them, but we will find one of abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. 

We wait for the next edition.