Introduction

Densely populated in specific areas of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, Kurdish people are the fourth largest community in Middle East region following Turks, Arabians, and Iranians (Kurubaş, 2008). In addition to these political boundaries, Kurds also display socio-cultural differences such as religion/sect and language (Yılmaz, 2015). The tribal structure prevented Kurds living even in the same country from being a socio-economic whole (Kurubaş, 2008). As Van Bruinessen (2011) pointed out, therefore, Kurds give the impression of a community formed by the clusters of different ethnic groups rather than being a single ethnic group in terms of economic, political and cultural criteria. However, the consciousness of common destiny brought about by historical developments brings Kurds into a whole (Kurubaş, 2008). Different theories have been put forward that Kurds, one of the ancient peoples of Mesopotamia, are of Med, Armenian, Arab, Persian or Turkish origin (Dündar, 2009; Eröz, 1982; Hennerbichler, 2012; Limbert, 1968; Nikitin, 2002).

The Kurds, who are a minority within the political boundaries they are divided into in the Middle East, have made various political and cultural claims against the majority culture, bringing with them a number of “problems” for countries that are determined to maintain their unitary structure, such as Turkey. It would be useful to examine the history of Turkish/Kurdish relations in order to understand this complex and multidimensional situation, which is called the “Kurdish problem” in Turkey.

The first meeting between Turks and Kurds dates back to the Middle Ages (Biçer, 2013a, b). With the arrival of Turks in Anatolia and the Middle East, first conflict and then a consensus due to sharing the same religion determined the fate of the relationship between the two communities. The institutionalization of this relationship took place in the fourteenth century when the Ottoman empire significantly dominated the Middle East geography, where the Kurds were densely populated. During this period, a vassal relationship was established between the Ottoman sultans and the local Kurdish beys and an autonomous structure was defined for the region (Koçal, 2014; Yeğen, 2014). In return, the Kurds, who are mostly Muslims, recognized the political presence of the sultan, who was also the Caliph of Islam.

The end of nearly five centuries of peaceful period in Turkish/Kurdish relations and the definition of Kurdishness as a ‘problem’ encounters the period of modernization of the Ottoman Empire (Yeğen, 2014). The struggle to liquidate the ‘loose’ relationship that became a structural feature of the relationship between Kurds and central power in the nineteenth century has caused the first clashes between local Kurdish beys and Ottoman central rule (Koçal, 2014). However, these conflicts, which are considered as the emergence of the Kurdish problem, are distinguished reactions not related to the identity demand of the masses, but based on the demands for the continuation of the autonomy of local/traditional authorities against the Ottoman process of centralization. As a matter of fact, since the social structure based on the tribe delayed the development of a common ethnic/national identity among Kurds, identity-based conflicts took place more during the Republican period, when nation-building policies were strictly followed.

The Republic of Turkey was built on the ideology of the nation-state with emphasis on Turkishness by rejecting the multilingual, multi-religious, multi-ethnical heritage of the Ottoman Empire due to the influence of the internal political conditions of the period (Altun, 2013). For the founding staff, “Turk”, the name of a nation, was also the name of the citizenship identity of the Republic and no distinction was made between both. A citizenship identity built on ethnic foundations meant a process of assimilation or ignoring for non-Turkish communities that did not have the same ethnic references. Kurds were the most affected and most reacting to this process of assimilation and denial due to their demographic density (Yazıcı, 2015). Indeed, during the first years of the Republic, Kurds were defined in the Turkish Language Dictionary as “ a community name, most of whom are Turks who have changed their language and speak a broken Persian…” (Beşikçi, 1986). Because of this approach, Kurds are not defined as a minority community in international texts such as the Treaty of Lausanne, which determines the status of minorities in Turkey.

On the other hand, the secular quality of the newly established state and the citizenship identity it was trying to build has reduced the cooperation of Kurds, who are mostly Muslims, with the Republic (Yazıcı, 2015). Unable to position themselves within the kind of identity that the nation-state is trying to build, the Kurds followed an opposing line that highlighted their differences (Aktay & Kızılkaya, 2014). The Kurdish uprisings, an example of this reaction, have become the founding staff’s greatest endeavor in domestic politics. As Tunçay (1981) noted, only one of the 18 incidents that could have been described as an uprising between 1924 and 1938 did not take place in Eastern Anatolia (Kurdish population region). What is taking place in the East, except for the Nasturî Uprising, is directly related to the Kurds.

The rise of nationalism in Europe in the 1930s (Aktoprak; 2010) brought significant limits to experience cultural/ethnic differences in Turkey as well as in different countries. The shaping of nation-building in the fields of culture, history and language during this period also led to non-Turkish citizens being forced to speak Turkish both privately and publicly (Yıldız, 2010). Avoiding cultural demands of Kurds with such bans shows that the expressions of cultural identity by Kurds, who have the second largest population, are perceived as a potential risk to the integrity of the Republic (van Bruinessen, 2008).

The Kurdish reaction to the singular citizenship identity imposed by the Early Republican Era began to become visible from the 1950s onwards. Doubtlessly, Turkey’s new democratic structure by transition to multiparty system had an effect on this situation (Yazıcı, 2015). In addition, factors such as migration waves from rural areas to cities, the development of transportation and communication tools in the same period have made various identities more visible. Moves such as representation in right-wing and especially left-wing political parties have also ensured that Kurdish ethnic and cultural demands are constantly on the agenda (Altun, 2013).

With the 1980 military coup, the liquidation of the political space in Turkey and the human rights violations that followed have been an important breaking point in Turkish/Kurdish relations. Kurdish groups in the left spectrum of politics have formed the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), launching an armed struggle that will last for decades from this period (Feridun, 2016). Since the beginning of the armed struggle in 1984, approaching the issue as security, not an identity problem, has prevented Turkey from producing permanent solutions to the “Kurdish problem”. Moreover, the armed actions of the PKK, which peaked in the 1990s, fed Turkish prejudices against Kurds, while human rights violations caused during the fight against the PKK supported the negative image of Kurds about Turks (Alkan & Yazıcı, 2020).

In the early 2000s, Turkey’s willingness to join the European Union (EU) positively influenced the approach to Kurdish identity because recognition of Kurdish identity and cultural rights have been issues that the EU has been meticulously focusing on in the Progress Reports during this process. Eu harmony laws enacted between 2000 and 2004 abolished bans such as speaking, teaching and broadcasting in local languages other than Turkish (Ergin, 2010; Nal, 2010; Oran, 2010; Tacar, 1996). Despite these positive developments, it continues to be highlighted in the EU Progress Reports that restrictions on minority rights in Turkey are still ongoing, the language, culture and fundamental rights of minorities should be respected, tolerance should be increased and a more inclusive approach should be taken (Yazıcı, 2015).

As all these historical developments have shown, Turkey continues to significantly ignore the Kurdish problem today, rather than learning about the civil-democratic ways to deal with it. Most human rights violations in Turkey are related to the Kurdish issue (Sambur, 2008). A significant number of its citizens who share this identity believe that they are subjected to various discriminations and cannot maintain their own identity freely (Altun, 2013). The relevant research shows that Kurds think that they are most pressured and excluded among the different ethnic communities living in Turkey because of the way they define themselves (Aktay & Kızılkaya, 2014). Therefore, ethnic belonging, which should be considered natural, has been transformed into a heavy burden for Kurds.

The state’s policy of ignoring the issue makes its presence felt in education as in many areas. In fact, it can be expressed that education is one of the areas where claims of different ethnic communities are embodied. For example, the most fundamental demand on the Kurdish question focused on education in mother tongue/mother tongue education (Kaya, 2012). This shows that Kurdish families in Turkey are concerned about providing their children with an education that will convey their language and culture (Çayır, 2014). On the other hand, it is not officially accepted that children starting school can have a mother tongue other than Turkish, and educational practices are not included to ensure the adaptation of bilingual or not Turkish speaking students to school. This causes student-teacher miscommunication, behaviors of grade-repetition and leaving school, stigma and alienating violence for Kurdish students within the education system (Coskun et al., 2010). In the first phase of education, Kurdish children realize that knowing the official language in school, not their own mother tongue, is a privilege and entitled feature and feel the weight of their identity from a young age. On the other hand, students from the majority culture are deeply unaware of who the people they live with are.

Although discriminatory statements and rights violations about differences in textbooks have decreased relatively in the last 20 years, the fundamental mentality problem remains. Textbooks still continue to produce content that excludes/ignores differences. So much so that Kurds are not mentioned even in the Kurmanci, Zazaki elective textbooks, and moreover, the books contain statements that see citizens with different religions, languages and ethnicity as a threat (Çayır, 2014). This shows that education continues to be a power apparatus in order to legitimize the denial of a social reality called Kurdish.

Research Objective

In this research, it was tried to reveal what it means to be a Kurdish teacher of history working in Turkey. In this context, answers to the following questions were sought:

For a Kurdish teacher of history

  1. 1.

    How does her/his ethnic identity affect her/his relationships with her/his students?

  2. 2.

    How does her/his ethnic identity affect her/his relations with colleagues, the school administration and the education bureaucracy?

Context of Research

National or ethnic identities need common memories to strengthen co-ordnance and belonging among community members (Smith, 1991). History responds to this need of nation-states by producing a number of symbols, memories, customs, habits, values and beliefs (Bilgin, 1999; Korostelina, 2008). History teaching, on the other hand, achieves the purpose of disseminating “we”, which is built through a common memory (Pamuk, 2014). All kinds of values, images, positive and negative judgments that are desired to be included in social memory are transferred to students through textbooks in a planned and programmed way (Yıldırım, 2016). Thus, history education becomes a instrumental quality around the idea of basing the nation-state on a homogeneous society (Parlak, 2005).

Republic of Turkey’s experience in teaching history is an example of the nation-state’s close interest in teaching history. Since it was seen as a political duty to write and teach history after the proclamation of the Republic, active political people have undertaken this mission (Ersanlı, 2006). History teaching has been re-established with a secular nationalism approach with drastic changes made since the 1930s (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2015; Kabapınar, 1992). With the effects of nation-building weakening in the following years, the secular dimension of national identity has been liquidated (Copeaux, 1998; Yazıcı, 2011), however, an ethnically singular identity continued to be conveyed through history courses.

As a result of some developments in favor of differences in the last decade, some ethnic and religious claims within the education system has affected history courses. In this sense, compared to previous years, it can be stated that there has been a relative improvement in discriminatory statements and rights violations in history textbooks. However, problems remain over ignoring differences or discrimination (Çayır, 2014). This affects Kurds along with other minority communities. While Kurdish students have to learn a history in which they have been ignored, the situation is even more interesting for Kurdish history teachers because they have to teach the history, which they are not a part of, belonging to a society they are a part of to both Kurdish and Turkish students. The dilemma of these teachers whose knowledge collides with what they have to teach from time to time is the starting point of this research.

Methodology

Critical qualitative research method was used in the study to understand what it means to be a Kurdish teacher of history in Turkey. In this context, preliminary interviews were conducted with 47 history teachers who defined their ethnic identity as Kurdish, had different political tendencies, religious/sectarian identities, and served in middle or high schools in different parts of Turkey. In these interviews, the participants were explained the purpose and scope of the research. Although they were guaranteed that their identities would be kept secret, many of the participants did not want to take part in this research because they felt that it was dangerous for their professional careers due to Turkey’s political climate. In the final phase, interviews were conducted with 12 history teachers who volunteered for the study and had the same demographic characteristics as the pre-interviewed group. The names of these participants were changed while they are used in findings.

An open-end and semi-structured interview form was used to collect data in the research. Interviews conducted online due to pandemic conditions have been recorded digitally. The recordings of the interviews, which were between 34 and 57 min, were transcribed verbatim. The document obtained in this way has been examined through content analysis. In this context, participant responses were categorized, citations found to be suitable for the purpose of the research and highly representative were determined and converted into research findings.

Results & Discussion

Relations of Kurdish History Teachers with Students from Majority Culture

It is one of the important objectives of this research to reveal the relationship that Kurdish history teachers have with their students from the majority culture. In this context, participants were first asked if they shared their ethnic identity with their students. Participants’ views at this point show that Kurdish history teachers tend not to share their ethnic identity with their students for the most part. Some participants are very clear about this (“no, no, no, I don’t share at all”, P3), some participants prefer not to share their identities with their students as much as possible or unless asked directly. P1’s statements are an example:

In terms of my own teaching ethics, my professional ethics, I try to give my students this: When it comes to it, when they ask, they have nothing to do with my marital status, ethnic identity, political identity, etc., except for my educational identity, just my educational identity. I’m trying to teach them not to ask anyone. Ask about the books I read, ask about the faculty I graduated from, what you should read, that is, here are the books I will recommend… every question is free within the framework of education… Of course, the children are falling for their curiosity, and they ask a lot of questions socially. When asked, I do not avoid expressing it in any way. I never hid my identity. But I’ve never lived my identity in the foreground because identities are temporary and variable.

P1 thinks that it is not suitable for teaching ethics to share not only the ethnical identity but all of the collective identities as well. The reference to the approach of P4, which expresses that it does not “take a choice” from sharing its ethnic identity with its students when “asked” in the same way as P1, is religious: “I am part of the Sunni sect, and I have never bragged about what God has given us, nor has there been any shame in them.”

But is there any differentiation in the relationship between the students of the teacher who shares his ethnic identity in some way? P1 answers this question:

I describe myself as a successful, good teacher. I’m loved by the student. It initially amazes them that someone they love so much, someone they admire, has an identity that is so often referred to as problems, but once they know that identity, I have not yet witnessed their respect or love for me diminished.

Many of the other participants in the study similarly stated that they did not have a problem with their students because of their ethnic identity. However, the view of cultural differences in the education system and society in which students are raised can also cause some teachers to worry about the future:

After the children grow up from that point of view, I wonder if they get into that med and judge me like that, it’s going to be a huge trauma. Of course, it creates a sadness when the person you know and care about changes and gives you a role and imposes on you through super identity, even though he knows you. But I’m telling you again, that sadness is temporary. Because it’s a shortcoming in him that he doesn’t accept you for who you are (P2).

In some cases, you may not be able to hide your ethnic identity even if you want to. For example, if you were born in a predominantly Kurdish city identified with Kurdish identity like Diyarbakir, you can’t hide your ethnic identity from your students or their parents, even if you want to. P5’s statements make this clear:

Of course, they knew. When you are already from Diyarbakir, you have a different position in the thinking of students or parents. Say it or not, you’re from Diyarbakir, then you’re Kurdish. That’s why, at first, most parents approached me with prejudice. They stated that I should not take students’ classes because I could lead their children to different thoughts. But because they later found that the information we gave the students was useful, the parents’ approach towards me was also very different. I only had half a semester of trouble there. After that, the parents and students accepted me.

If you are a Kurdish teacher and teach a course that directly appeals to students’ identities, such as history, it is possible to be met with a bias by your students or their parents. As can be seen from K5’s statements, in this case, you need to prove yourself to students or their parents with your success in your profession and eliminate prejudices with your own efforts unlike a Turkish teacher.

Relations of Kurdish History Teachers with Majority Cultural Colleagues and Education Bureaucracy

While most participants stated that their ethnic identity was not a determinant in their relationship with their students, the participant’s answers may differ when it comes to the relationship they have with their colleagues. In this differentiation, it can be stated that the perception of the participants’ own ethnic identity and the relationship they established with the majority culture were effective. For example, participants who stated that they did not experience the cultural characteristics of their ethnic identity too much or that their different collective identities, such as religious identity, took precedence over their ethnic identity, stated that they did not have any problems due to their ethnicity in the relations they established with their colleagues. However, the situation is different for participants who try to experience the cultural characteristics of their ethnic identity in their social life or shape their worldview through this identity.

P6, who is working in a predominantly Kurdish region, is trying to experience the cultural characteristics of her/his ethnic identity in school, which can cause problems with Turkish teachers:

I, for example, speak Kurdish all the time in the teachers’ room. There was a Turkish teacher, and we were very friendly. There was an argument with me about ‘why do you speak Kurdish, why do you speak Diyarbakir dialect with students in class?’ etc. I said look, you can’t interfere with my class, I’ll talk whatever I want. Because I said my Turkish is not very strong, so I can’t speak Istanbul Turkish, which is none of your business.

According to some of the participants, it is not their own ethnic identity, but the way teachers from the majority culture position themselves in the face of this identity or establish a hierarchical relationship between the two identities is a problem. P2’s statements embody this situation:

When there are Turkish teachers who are trying to impose Turkish identity on the issue of being a senior identity, we can fall into discussion with them. But other than that, we have sincere Turkish teacher friends who act only with teaching qualifications… Presenting and imposing now are two separate things. So you distinguish that. It is ok to present, I can accept or not but if you impose, you get the reaction. I am one of the most intimate with Turkish teachers in school right now. It doesn’t mean we’re a consensual on ideas, but we can have very comfortable relationships humanly. I must tell you that if there is no imposing, I mean the Turkish teachers don’t impose their own systematic on us, we don’t have problem.

P1’s statements also show that it is difficult to make a generalization of the relationship of Kurdish teachers with teachers from the majority culture. However, she/he also states that she/he encounters colleagues who “ideologically approach” her/his identity from time to time and at this point feels discrimination:

They’re wary at first, but I’d say I exist in my own character. If I don’t have a positive with my character, I wouldn’t accept… Here’s how I want to sample ideologically approaching people; On October 10th, you know, there was a huge massacre…There was an explosion in the heart of Ankara…Many friends were on the weekend course…It’s already the weekend of the explosion. A lot of our friends say that ‘they were going to be there; I wonder what happened.’ Well, our friends had emotional moments, they cried. Some of them, those I call approaching this ideologically… state that ‘but they were there’, so if they’re there, they deserve it, there’s nothing we can do… So it doesn’t make much of a change if they’re P1 or someone else… There are people who I feel are very clear that their ideology prevents them from approaching me when there are so many things that maybe they can share, maybe chat with.

Similarly, in the relations established with the school administration, rather than systematic discrimination, the world view of the administrator and whether it reflects this in his profession is decisive:

I didn’t have any problems with the principals I worked with earlier, but I had trouble with the last principal. In the first month of his arrival, the principal called all the teachers at the school to his own room and warned them not to walk around with P2 and not to share information. When the teachers asked why, he/she said, ‘K2 is from Diyarbakır, she/he is Kurd. It’s not right for you to be with him/her, it’s not right for you to share’. Of course, after I heard about it, it went to different dimensions, so can you imagine? Being from Diyarbakir, being Kurdish, identify you with divisiveness, they call you a member of a terrorist organization, that’s how they see it. But they also ignore this: After all, I’m an employee of national education. If the National Education has awarded me this task and sent me away, then there is no problem. I’ve been with these teacher friends for four or five years before the principal even got here. They are my colleagues, and the friends have already expressed it to the principal in the same way, so far, we have never encountered such a divisive identity of P2. They had some rhetoric against the principal like we don’t expect this problem from P2.

P2’s problem with the school administration due to its ethnic identity grows in the future and moves to the district national education directorate. Then, both P2 and the principal with which she/he had problems are assigned to different schools in the same province or, as P2 says, “banished.” However, P2 considers that at this point he/she has been discriminated by the education bureaucracy because of his/her ethnic identity:

They banished me from K. to S. County, and where I went, grey wolvesFootnote 1 were the majority. I had officially fallen into the grey wolves, and the situation made me think differently. I thought, “Why me here?” For example, you could have sent me to K, but S is the county where the grey wolves are the majority. I’m in the middle of it, and I was confronted by a student’s threats. He said, “teacher,” and he said, “we heard you were from Diyarbakir.” I said, “Yes, I’m from Diyarbakir.” He said, “We had a neighbor, he was hiding that he was from Diyarbakir.” I said, “What happened?” ‘My brothers beat them up well after they found out he was from Diyarbakir’. I said, “What do you mean?” ‘Now that your brother found out I’m from Diyarbakir, he’s going to come and beat me up the same way?’ He said, “You never know.” I mean, I worked in a place like this. The way I’ve been in these situations obviously makes me think that I’m not facing the goodwill of national education. I mean, I think they discriminated.

Discrimination by the school board or the education bureaucracy may not always be so pronounced. Sometimes the admiration they expect in vain due to their performance is also associated with their ethnic identity by Kurdish teachers and described as discrimination:

In 11 years, I have worked with many administrators. Although they experienced their ideology very prominently, I did not have problems with people who lived without adding it to their profession. But there are some administrators that I had problem with. For example, there are activities in the school, ceremonies required by our branch, special days… Although you have put forward a much better, much more vocal, much more beautiful work, I have come across approaches that, as a result of ethnic identity or the union of which you are a member, have been praised, given the value they deserve, even if they are mentioned.

The events in schools related to national days in Turkey are mostly organized by history teachers, as these days are also of historical importance. As can be seen from the above statements of P1, ethnic identity may cause the appreciation that the teacher expects not to be shown by the school administrators. At this point, it is also possible to open a special parenthesis to national days because while these days have the potential to be integrate for national identities, they can be discriminatory for cultural differences within society or for minorities. In Turkey, it is possible to encounter examples that meet both conditions. National ceremonies or events according to P2:

It’s got to be distinguished. Like which can be imposition? National OathFootnote 2 is an imposition according to me. But is the Independence Anthem an imposition? It is not because the Independence Anthem is the anthem of the whole nation, the anthem of all Turkey. Yes, it has a more unifying feature of Turks. But you don’t have a problem with the Independence Anthem. But when you look at the content of National Oath, look at the lyrics of the Independence Anthem, so the two are very different, but National Oath is an imposition, but Independence Anthem is not. Situations in which the state should have, which exists in many countries.

Conclusions and Implications

Anatolia, on which Turkey is founded, has hosted different civilizations since the ancient ages of history and has been a geography where different cultures live together. This cultural diversity was also significantly preserved with the Seljuk and Ottoman states founded after the arrival of Turks in Anatolia. However, the policies of centralization and nationalization, which were tried to be implemented since the end of the eighteenth century, have caused great damage to this cultural variety. The first clashes between Kurds and the state, along with many minority groups living in Anatolia, began during this period.

The republic of Turkey, built on an imperial heritage, was determined to continue its nation-building policies that already started in the last period of the Ottoman Empire, which caused the conflict between Turks and Kurds to increase. Some groups politicized around the cultural rights of Kurds until the 1980s began terroristized armed acts after this date, deepening the conflict between both communities. Although there have been some important improvements regarding cultural rights in Turkey since the 2000s, Kurds still face the forms of being the other such as being ignored, discriminated against and marginalized, and not being able to live their own identity freely.

As can be understood from their answers, the ethnic identity of the participants is not an important determinant in their relationship with their students. Considering that the age range of students in middle and high school in Turkey varies between 12 and 19, it can be stated that the collective identity orientation of the students has not yet been fully shaped. However, it is not the same for parents. It is understood from the participants’ statements that some parents approach Kurdish history teachers with prejudice, and that teachers should do more to eliminate these prejudices and prove themselves compared with Turkish teachers. Parents’ prejudices can affect students, albeit in rare examples.

It is not very possible to talk about systematic discrimination in the relations established by Kurdish history teachers with colleagues or the school administration in their professional lives. However, the fact that some participants carry their cultural characteristics to school, even if they are only From Southeast, can pose a problem for some teachers and administrators from the majority culture. This means that even if there is no systematic discrimination within the education bureaucracy, there is no legal means to prevent discrimination.

When the statements of the participants in the study are evaluated as a whole, it is seen that they have very different or even opposite views on the same subject. It can be stated that although all participants are Kurds, this is due to the difference in how they approach this identity. Although it may be misleading to make a generalization about this issue, the participants’ statements show us that Kurdish history teachers feel that they are being discriminated against within the education system to the extent that they want to experience the cultural characteristics of their ethnic identity or put these identities first. If he/she does not bring these characteristics to the forefront or does not have a problem with the role assumed to his/her own ethnic identity in history lessons, there is no discrimination for him/her.

The discrimination that Kurdish history teachers feel they are subjected to is not unique to them. Kurds in different professional groups in Turkey or in different areas of social life may be subjected to similar forms of otherization. However, for minority groups such as Armenians, Greeks and Jews, whose proportions in the population are much smaller compared to Kurds, the burden of being otherized can be much more severe. Therefore, in Turkey, which inherits the legacy of an empire of different cultural/ethnic elements, the understanding that a singular identity arising from nation-building policies is imposed in everything from the constitution to social life continues to threaten turkey’s multicultural structure.

As can be seen, teaching the past plays an important role in shaping ethnic or national identities and the relations between these identities (Anderson, 2006; Korosteline, 2008; Pamuk, 2014; Yıldırım, 2016). But as a result of the paradoxical nature of collective identities (Kılıçbay, 2003), attempting to create a sense of “we” among those who share the same identity also serves the purpose of legitimizing and disseminating the “other”. On the other hand, the ignoring of diversity in society in history lessons by the nation-states to create a sense of national identity further feeds this distinction (Stradling, 2003). That is because in such a historical understanding of education, students from the majority culture cannot comprehend that cultural and ethnic differences are a natural feature of the society in which they live and cannot react to these differences as it is expected. Students with ethnic differences have trouble seeing themselves as part of society.