Rewriting History

Here is an interesting Wall Street Journal article about how various religions are demanding changes to history textbooks* to suit their own agendas. For example, Hindus are complaining about being portrayed as polytheists. Yeah that was my reaction. Some are claiming that they really only worship one God, Brahman, and that all the other gods are manifestations of that one. Ok, you're free to start your own minor Hindu sect and believe that, but I'd venture to say that 95% or more of Hindus believe they worship multiple gods. Another claim from Muslims is that conversions to Islam during the Middle Ages weren't forced by military conquest. Who dreamed that one up?

I feared we'd show up in the article, but we don't (not as one of the whiners, anyway). After all we're portrayed quite negatively in history books. Some of it is fair, some of it is unfair. And I am not doubting that there is some misrepresentation or problematic wording affecting Hinduism or Islam. But when you use political pressure to remove accurate statements and replace them with sectarian fantasy, that's just ridiculous. I'm embarassed about the Galileo affair, and while I think it should be portrayed in a balanced fashion (and usually isn't), we can neither gloss over it or pretend it happened differently than it did. It's an important part of history and needs to be told. Peter's denial of Christ was embarassing, too, as was the apostle's cluelessness, but they had to be told.

I'd argue that anything that materially affects the flow of history, the culture, or society needs to be frankly discussed. For example, discussing Galileo is a must, but saying that many Catholic couples in the Middle Ages had sex through a hole in a bedsheet to avoid touching one another (an assertion I've heard) is immaterial to history and would just be anti-Catholic. Language as neutral as possible without sacrificing accuracy should be used. When conflicts are portrayed, an effort should be made to present both sides of the story.

One way to handle the Muslim objection above is as follows. I wouldn't ordinarily recommend teaching history this way, but one could present it in terms of the perceptions of both sides, e.g., "Large numbers of Christians in the Middle East felt enormous pressure to convert to Islam, though many Muslims today deny that forced conversion was intended. Many Christians were put to death. Christians believed this was for refusing to convert, while Muslims believe it was for insurrection." (I made that last part up.)

This is definitely going to be tough for the textbook manufacturers, that's for sure. But we as Christians should love the truth, even when it is difficult for us.

*Note: Only available until 1/31.