He who controls the past controls the future.

Orwell

The teaching of history plays a central role in the process of nation-building. Indeed, national history constitutes one of the main elements of the language with which “nations” describe themselves, because for nationalists their own communities have existed for centuries. The common bonds of the past, transmitted through textbooks and history classes, contribute to the emergence of a sense of national identity and often mobilize populations for particular political and social projects. Of special interest to scholars of national identity and historical memory have been the post-Soviet states, where the collapse of communism spelled the end of Marxist interpretations of history, and the disintegration of the multinational Soviet state required new interpretations for the relations between neighboring peopes and Russians. New states need to legitimize themselves, and such legitimation involves various discursive techniques, from “othering” to vicitimization.
It is no discovery that modern governments throughout the world seek to induce populations to accept and support the official state ideology.^[1] As scholars of educational systems have noted, the teaching of history is one of the best vehicles for conveying the pillars of state ideology to students.^[2] Textbooks include a representative set of values and directly reach a large audience on a continual basis, particularly in transitional countries, where few instructional materials are available and all are directly controlled by the state.^[3] Moreover, teachers rely largely on textbooks to design curricula and class plans. Indeed, as a significant source of both facts and values, textbooks constitute an integral part of the formal education process. It is not surprising, then, that the history curriculum is regularly turned into a political battleground following changes of government. The correlation between political changes in government and changes in the national social studies curriculum in most countries suggests that curricula, textbooks, and teaching methods are heavily influenced by political ideology.^[4] As Farell and Heyneman state:

“Decisions about textbook content frequently reflect deep-rooted political conflicts within a nation. Textbook content is usually shaped carefully to reflect prevailing political ideology. In such cases, sudden political shifts can render obsolete a nation’s stock of textbooks, requiring massive and expensive rewriting and production.”^[5]

In this article, I analyze history teaching in the Republic of Azerbaijan, comparing Soviet and post-Soviet historical narratives and interpretations of the Azerbaijani national past. Among my sources are interviews with officials from the Azerbaijani Ministry for Education, documents outlining the national curriculum requirements for history, and textbooks used in secondary schools.^[6] Anthony Smith’s conception of “components of ethnic myths” is used to establish categories for the analysis. The selected categories are: myths of homeland and ancestry, heroic age, ethnic origin, brotherhood, religion, decline and colonialism, separation/partition, resistance, foundation, oppression, the “other,” and genocide. Apart from content analysis of history textbooks, I rely on recent findings in educational studies, especially those focusing on the role of educational institutions in initiating social change.
In Azerbaijan, as in other transition countries, the rewriting of national history is a key element of the nation-building process for two important reasons (of which practioners are aware).^[7] First, educational and political authorities expect that rewriting history will allow them to legitimize the current regime as the “rightful heir” to the nation’s legacy, since national history “implicitly sets an agenda for the future by explaining the trajectory of the national community from the past through the present and by setting the parameters of legitimate change.”^[8] Second, it is expected that a shared national past will evoke national solidarity and strengthen national consciousness. Therefore, it is thought that rewriting national history will provide an integrative function by building a sense of national identity (and destiny) and by defining collective values and behavior. Although Jansen suggests that schools cannot change societal norms, but only reflect the norms of the dominant society,^[9] other studies provide evidence that schools may in fact initiate change.^[10] The nation-state builders in Azerbaijan seem to have consciously embraced the former idea about the utility of formal education in initiating change and fostering a new national identity. In other words, the Azerbaijani political elite has given priority to educational reforms in its attempts to achieve economic and social transition and secure the construction of independent Azebaijani national identity and statehood.

HISTORY CURRICULUM IN AZERBAIJAN BEFORE AND AFTER INDEPENDENCE

One of the first post-independence bills passed under Azerbaijani President Abulfaz Elchibey was on education reform. The Law on Education of the Republic of Azerbaijan, adopted on December 30, 1992, and partly still in effect today, established new principles and objectives of education in 58 articles. The law clearly reflects the new purposes and values expected from the Azerbaijani educational system: “the main task of the education system is to create the necessary conditions for bringing up and developing individuals on the basis of national and common human values, and of scientific and practical achievements.”^[11] Azerbaijan’s secondary school curriculum under Soviet rule privileged science and engineering. Although the acquisition of factual knowledge was emphasized, individual pedagogical needs were neglected. As Avis points out, a distinctive feature of Soviet education “was the crucial importance it gave to the formation of a new type of person – the model socialist citizen.”^[12] In order to create the material and spiritual bases of communism, Soviet educational institutions allocated resources to a program called vospitanie – political education of the young generation. Under this program, Soviet schools and colleges systematically attempted to instill in the youth officially prescribed attitudes, values, and habits, including a sense of communist morality, a scientific-materialist world outlook, patriotism, internationalism (to encourage love of the socialist motherland and worldwide proletarian solidarity), collectivism, a socialist orientation to labor, atheism, and hostility to bourgeois capitalist regimes and imperialism.^[13] These attitudes and attributes were expected to make young Soviet citizens “well-rounded, hard-working, and loyal members of socialist society.” Vospitanie permeated the content and teaching of all subjects in the academic curriculum and was the underlying goal of many in-school and extracurricular activities.^[14]
“The greatest and principal objective of the social studies curriculum should be the maintenance and, if it is necessary, the creation of national character,” states Boyd.^[15] Confirming to this principle and communicating a sense of urgency, the newly independent Azerbaijani state rapidly executed sweeping reforms designed to discard the educational remnants of Soviet times. Primary and secondary schooling was regarded as an opportunity to transform the so-called “Soviet people” into an “Azerbaijani nation.”^[16] First, the social sciences curriculum was rewritten by a committee consisting of teachers and lecturers from Baku under the supervision of Professor Yakub Mahmudlu in 1991.While those subjects that were no longer deemed appropriate for a democratic society and market economy were excised, history, literature, and the humanities benefited and received more attention. Second, a new national curriculum for history was prepared in detail by Yakub Mahmudlu, Sabir Agayev, Aydin Aslanov, and other well-known historians, and published in Azadliq, one of the leading newspapers, in October 1992.^[17] Since then, a national curriculum for history has been prepared each year with minor changes.
It is now expected that the national history curriculum should encourage students to develop open-mindedness, a high sense of responsibility, attachment to their own ethnic roots,^[18] devotion to the national, spiritual, and cultural values of the Azerbaijani people, love of family, the fatherland and the nation, concern for the growth and development of Azerbaijan to the highest level of civilization, moral purity, modesty, and honesty.^[19]
At the same time, the authors of the curriculum stated that their purpose is “to foster such democratic virtues as independent thinking, constructive outlook, and understanding and respect for human rights, which will ensure the successfully working of democracy.” They also noted that the national curriculum for history is designed to educate individuals who will work hard to make Azerbaijan one of the most developed democratic states. In other words, it is intended that history education will utilize “the past as a resource in developing the future,”^[20] based on democratic principles in a multicultural society.
The Education Minister, Mısır Mardanov, emphasized the importance of the social sciences (if not politicized) on the democratization of education and the promotion of national values.^[21] According to Mardanov, in a transitional society, the renewal, improvement, and implementation of the curriculum is not a one-time effort but a continuous process. While stating that curricular change requires sophisticated planning and an appropriate evaluation process, he admitted that curricular reform has faced some serious problems in Azerbaijan.^[22] However, according to Mardanov, the most difficult task was replacing Marxism with a new national ideology and rewriting national Azerbaijani history, which was silenced in the old textbooks by the official Soviet history.^[23] Mardanov felt sorry that students know more about Pushkin and Gorky than they do about their own national writers and poets, such as Fuzuli and Nizami. Correspondingly, the Ministry of Education is also sponsoring the rewriting of textbooks on literature. According to Mardanov, all ideological, cultural, and historical points of view of the Soviet era need to be changed. Rewriting the national history, therefore, was a must in order to reveal the truth in history and to subvert the Soviet legacy.
If we compare the pre- and post-Soviet social studies curricula in Azerbaijan, we will notice that the first change instituted by the independent Republic was the introduction of national history as a separate class. Previously, Azerbaijani history was included in Soviet history classes, presumably in order to weaken national sentiments, although it was taught briefly as an independent class in the 1958-59 and 1959-60 academic years. Before independence, the numbers of history classes per week were as follows:

<img src=http://abimperio.net/pics/yka.jpg>

Adapted from Azerbaycan’da Orta Dereceli Okullarda Tarih ogretimi ve egitimde sovyet ideolojisinin etkisi (1980-1991) History Teaching and the Influence of Soviet Ideology on Education in Azerbaijan (1980-1991) by Abulfez Suleymanov, Istanbul, 1998. Pp. 38-9.

The above table illustrates the time allocated to each subject for the 1986-1987 academic year, when the time devoted to teaching Azerbaijani history was increased to 71 hours in total for grades 7-10. Moreover, national history classes were introduced into the 4th grade with 18 hours of teaching in a year.^[24] However, a master’s thesis prepared at Istanbul University provides evidence that history teaching before independence, even during the Gorbachev period,^[25] heavily misrepresented Azerbaijani national history.^[26]
In 1991, the time allocated for teaching national history was increased significantly. In other words, a student would study national history for 272 hours (89 hours before independence) before graduation. Soviet history now is incorporated in world history classes. The table below illustrates the number of history classes by grades for the academic year 1997-1998.

<img src=http://abimperio.net/pics/yka1.jpg>

Source: Orta Umumtahsil Mekteblerinin V-XI Siniflari ucun Tarix programi ve metodik vesait. Tahsil Nesriyati. Baku, 1997 (The History curriculum for the 5th-11th grades of the Secondary Schools, Ministry of Education of Azerbaijan).

If we examine the “recommendations section” in the 1997 history curriculum, we will notice that the new program has a number of differences with Soviet programs. First, the new program parts from the ideological confines of Communist education in history teaching. Second, the subjects are no longer to be selected by the government, parties, or classes, but would represent historical reality based on scientific studies.^[27] Third, the new program gives priority to contemporary world history topics in order to cultivate an objective understanding of the problems of development.
Finally and most importantly, the national curriculum in history combines national history topics with world history subjects. The first six pages lead the reader to think about how objective and democratic values are emphasized in teaching Azerbaijani history. However, the desire to forge a new national identity becomes clear on the seventh page, when the program’s authors stress that it pays special attention to teaching the history of the Turkic-Islamic World.^[28] Furthermore, it orders that the historical periods concerning national history be taught according to the following sequence: national history, Caucasian-Central Asian history, the history of Kazakhstan and the Volga region, the history of Siberia, the history of the East, and, finally, that of the West. The authors declare that “this order is completely appropriate to describe historical development, because ancient societies, states, and civilizations were first established in the East, and only later in the West.”^[29] As is evident, the issue of cultural superiority is the first sign of a subjective approach to national history. In what follows, I will attempt to closely analyze the textbook Ata Yurdu in order to evaluate the content of Azerbaijani historical teaching.
The official textbook Ata Yurdu (Fatherland) for grade five is the first history textbook Azerbaijani students encounter. Unlike the upper level textbooks, Ata Yurdu covers all of Azerbaijani history from time immemorial to the present day. It depicts all major events and epochs of the nation's history. The book consists of 61 chapters and 392 pages. I will also occasionally refer to other national history textbooks for the upper grades to explain the qualitative dimension of the history textbooks.
My content analysis focuses on the words that appear most frequently in the textbook. These recurrent words are chosen as the recording units. Correspondingly, many words in the text are classified into fewer content categories for coding. I chose the following categories: ‘kadim devlet (the antiquity of Azerbaijan), Ulu tarix, şanlı geçmiş (superiority of national culture), vatan sevgisi (love of fatherland), vatan yolunda ölüm (readiness to die for the fatherland), Canubi Azerbaycan’in Şimal Azerbaycan’la birleşmesi (the desire to unite with Southern Azerbaijan), and qara donlu kafirler (the enemy).
Although the word-frequency list reveals what the new Azerbaijani state wishes to instill in students, it does not reveal much about context and meaning. Therefore, this study combines a quantitative technique with qualitative analysis. The qualitative dimension focuses on how these recurrent words are employed to convey meaning in the context of constructing a new national identity. For in-depth analysis, the categories are mainly selected according to Smith’s conception of “components of ethnic myths.”^[30] Smith writes, “ethnic myths themselves provide a framework for social solidarity and hence cement national identity,” and argues that every nationalist movement maintains ethnic myths.^[31] Therefore, the degree of emphasis upon each category determines whether and to what extent the Azerbaijani textbooks convey discourse that we can describe as “nationalist.” The selected content categories are: (a) the homeland and the ancestry; (b) the heroic age; (c) ethnic origin; (d) brotherhood; (e) religion; (f) decline and colonialism; (g) separation/partition; (h) resistance; (i) foundation; (j) oppression; (k) the “other”; and (l) genocide.
Smith argues that “nationalism always involves an assertion of, or struggle for, control of land… not any land; a historic land, a homeland, and an ancestral land. Only an ancestral land can provide the emotional as well as physical security required by the citizens of a nation.”^[32] Indeed, the design of the history curriculum and the time allocated for teaching the antiquity of Azerbaijan demonstrates the desire for creating a fervent attachment to Azerbaijan. The time allocated for teaching this subject at the fifth-grade level was 15 hours out of 68, a quarter of the academic year.^[33] The curriculum and textbooks emphasize the idea that “Azerbaijani land had an influence over historical events and was a witness to the survival of the Azerbaijani nation over centuries.” The Azerbaijani land is described as a historically unique and poetic territory in the textbooks. Moreover, it is quite frequently stated that the current borders of the state do not coincide with those of the ancient homeland. It is claimed that Azerbaijan’s natural area was 200,000 square kilometers before the enemy invasions. “In the west, the borders reached to Eastern Turkey including Armenia, in the south, they extended to Northern Iran.”^[34]
The key premise of the Azerbaijani myth of origin is that the Azerbaijani people are the indigenous people of the Caucasus. The history of Azerbaijan, as depicted in the fifth- and sixth-year textbooks, begins from very early times, 300,000 to 400,000 years ago, with the men of antiquity called Azix adami, the ancestors of contemporary Azerbaijanis. The books assert that Azerbaijanis currently live on the same territory and that they have inhabited it since time immemorial and this fact is proven by the examination of fossils, cave illustrations, and other monuments. Correspondingly, “Azerbaijan was among the oldest civilizations in Europe.”^[35] The sixth-grade book utilizes more scientific language and merely states that “the land of Azerbaijan was one of the places where ancient men originated.”^[36]
The books detail the importance of territory on the development of civilizations and cultures in Azerbaijan, as well as on the establishment of one of the first states in the world. For example, the chapter of Ata Yurdu on the first large state to emerge in “Azerbaijan” in the second half of the 8th century B.C. (called “Manna”) begins with the following:

There is only one truth: if a nation does not have its own state, sooner or later it will be assimilated into another nation and vanish from history. However, my nation has existed for thousands of years and will continue to live forever, because my Azerbaijan is the homeland for all the ancient states. ^[37]

The Caucasian Albanian^[38] period (4-3 B.C.) and the Atropatenian period (328-150 B.C.) are also described as the history of the ancestors of Azerbaijanis in order to explain Azerbaijani ethnogenesis. These two states emerged on the territory of northern Azerbaijan and in southern Azerbaijan, respectively.^[39] The etymology of the term “Azerbaijan” is traced to this period: the name “Atropaten” eventually changed into Adurbadagan, Adirbican, Adarbadgen, and Aderbaycan, and ultimately into Azerbaijan.^[40] The state seems to expect that students will derive logically that Atropatenians were ancestors of the contemporary Azerbaijanis, since the concept of Azerbaijan began with the state of Atropaten.
The Caucasian Albanians are also identified as the ancestors of Azerbaijanis. Correspondingly, the time allocated for teaching this subject is four hours in the fifth grade and eight hours in the sixth grade. This indicates the official history’s claim that Albanians played a major role in the ethnogenesis of modern Azerbaijanis. In other words, the Azerbaijani state attempts to consolidate national identity by attributing its origins to the ancient and indigenous states of Manna, Median, Atropaten, and the Caucasian Albanian states.
To be indigenous and ancient like the Georgians and, especially, the Armenians, is seen as a matter of national pride, and this subject is highlighted frequently in Ata Yurdu. The first 120 pages (22 chapters) of the book depict major states established on the territory of Azerbaijan until the 12th century, while emphasizing the antiquity of the Azerbaijani nation at least 70 times. It defines Azerbaijan as a very powerful state 21 times, as having a glorious past 15 times, and as having a formerly large territory 12 times.
Ironically, for Azerbaijanis there is another reason to accentuate the Turkicness of Azerbaijan. On the one hand, Azerbaijanis are deemed to be the indigenous people of the land, on the other hand, their ethnic origins are recognized as Turkic throughout all textbooks. Although Western sources state that the indigenous peoples of Azerbaijan were assimilated by Turks in the 11th century, it is not made clear in the books when the process of Turkicization began in Azerbaijan.
The textbooks put emphasis on the presence of Turks long before the Seljuks’ conquest of Azerbaijan. While the fifth-grade book claims that the Seljuks completed the process of unification of all Turks, the sixth-grade textbook asserts that the indigenous people of Azerbaijan were ethnic Turks. The second book states that the ancient Turk dili (proto-Turkic language) was the predominant language of the states of Manna (7th century B.C.) and Albania (3rd century B.C.).^[41] It claims that from the third to the first millennium B.C. onward, the indigenous peoples have been speaking a Turkic language.^[42] Correspondingly, the use of a Turkic language currently proves that the inhabitants were Turks from the beginning.
These two books also use the dastans (ornate oral history) dated from the pre-Islamic period, and some from the pre-Christian era, in order to link today’s Azerbaijanis ethnically to the ancient inhabitants of the Caucasus. Each textbook devotes one chapter to the Book of Dede Korkut, which is the traditional oral history of the Turkic world.^[43] Examples are given from the Book of Dede Korkut as proof of the long-time existence of Turks in Azerbaijan. Dede Korkut’s tales refer to Azerbaijanis as ethnic Oghuz Turks (48 times in one chapter).
One of the official textbooks for grade six, published in 1997, criticizes the Soviet renaming of both the Turks as Azerbaycanli (Azerbaijani) and Türk dili as Azerbaycan dili (Azerbaijani language).^[44] Moreover, contrary to the language provision of the current constitution, it praises the change of the name again to Türk dili in 1992 during the Elchibey period.^[45]
In a personal interview, Professor Yakub Mahmudlu, adviser to former President Haydar Aliyev and the Dean of the Department of History at Baku State University (one of the authors of the Ata Yurdu and Azerbaycan Tarixi and the National Curriculum for History) stated that the Azerbaijanis are the direct descendants of the ancient inhabitants of the country.^[46] Contrary to his own claims in Ata Yurdu and Yusifov’s argument (one of the writers of the sixth-grade history textbook Azerbaycan Tarixi-6), Mahmudlu agreed with Western sources that the indigenous people merged with the Turks around the 6th and 7th centuries, but he insisted that they did not lose their historical and cultural traditions. He claimed that he is a Turk with an Azerbaijani identity.
However, not all Azerbaijani historians believe in the indigenous origin of Azerbaijanis. Sahin Mustafayev of the Azerbaijani Academy of Sciences found that this kind of history writing is fictive, and represents the legacy of Soviet official history.^[47] According to him, Soviet authorities imposed the idea that Azerbaijanis descend from the indigenous Caucasian peoples in order to separate the Azerbaijanis from the Turks in Turkey. This version of history is also used to eliminate the claims of Iran on Azerbaijan. According to Iranians, Azerbaijanis are Iranian people forcibly Turkicized as a result of the Mongol invasions. Mustafayev argued that adopting these myths of origin supported by the Soviet authorities is a fateful mistake.
While the textbooks illustrate an attempt to inculcate the Turkishness of Azerbaijan into the students, they also attempt to establish a distinct national identity connected with the ancient peoples of Azerbaijan. However, whereas in the Soviet history textbooks, the Ottomans were presented as the enemy, in the new textbooks they are portrayed as brothers. For example, the tension between the Aghgoyunlu state and the Ottomans is described as a result of an infidel plot aimed at dividing and ruling the Turks.^[48] In reality, Uzun Hasan, the ruler of the Aghgoyunlu dynasty, wanted to create a powerful Azerbaijani state. Indeed, the Aghgoyunlu dynasty eradicated the Garagoyunlu dynasty in 1467.^[49] Iran and Iraq were added to the territory of Azerbaijan. Then, in order to expand the boundaries of Azerbaijan, Uzun Hasan agreed to an alliance with the small fiefdoms of Trabzon and Kastomonu and other places in order to fight against the Ottomans. However, Uzun Hasan lost in battle against Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror in 1471.^[50] Yet, in the textbook, the tension between the Ottomans and the Aghgoyunlu state is narrated as if no war had been waged between them. It is only stated that the fiefdom of Trabzon was conquered by the Ottomans and its treasury given to Aghgoyunlu following an agreement between Sultan Mehmet and Sara Xatin, the mother of Uzun Hasan, in 1461. Sara Xatin, who ended the war between the two Turkish brotherly states, is represented as the first great female diplomat in Azerbaijani history,.^[51]
Moreover, in the textbook, the military role of the Ottoman Turks during the establishment of the first Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan is emphasized. The title of Chapter 45 is “March 1918 Genocide” (soyqırımı) and the chapter itself details the events in Baku. According to the chapter, more than 12,000 Azerbaijanis all over Azerbaijan were killed by Armenians under the Shaumian (an Armenian Bolshevik and Dashnak) government. In this chapter, the Turkish efforts during the takeover of Baku by the Bolsheviks with the help of Armenians are detailed in paeanic sentences such as this: “Despite the fact that the Ottoman Turkish state was subjected in part to foreign occupation, the Turks helped and protected us from Armenian brutality.”^[52] More examples can be read in the chapter on the establishment of the Azerbaijani Democratic Republic of 1918: the Ottoman Turks, who sent schoolteachers^[53] and military personnel^[54] to Azerbaijan between 1918-1920, were welcomed and thanked as they helped the Azerbaijanis to preserve “their independence against the Bolsheviks, and to establish their own institutions.”^[55] Moreover, each time the words “Turks from Turkey” are used, they are preceded by the word “brother” throughout the book. The Ottomans helped Azerbaijan until 1920. However, during the Turkish War of Independence against the Allies, due to the need for an alliance with Russia, Turkey withdrew its army from Baku and allowed Russian Bolshevik operations against Azerbaijan.^[56] These developments, as well as the British occupation after the Turkish army’s withdrawal, are neglected in the textbooks.
Nationalist historiography tends to develop myths of a heroic age and heroism. Smith explains that these kinds of myths generate courage and trust in a community, particularly in times of oppression.^[57] Myths of the achievements, wisdom, self-sacrifice, and zeal of the forefathers also create a view of the “picturesque uniqueness of the people’s past.”^[58] Azerbaijani history textbooks are no exception and narrate many stories of heroes and heroic times. The most significant example of the heroic age for Azerbaijan in the textbooks is the chapter “The Powerful State of Azerbaijan” in Ata Yurdu.^[59] This chapter depicts how the unified kingdom of Shah Ismail from the Safavid dynasty ended the quarrels between feudal lords and how Azerbaijan became one of the most powerful states in the world. Although Shah Ismail proclaimed himself the shah of Iran,^[60] the book deliberately neglects this fact and represents the Safavids as Azerbaijanis. Moreover, Ata Yurdu particularly stresses that Shah Ismail declared the Azerbaijani language the language of state.^[61]
By using the myths of heroism and martyrdom, the textbooks also attempt to inculcate into students a readiness to defend and die for the fatherland. In the fifth-grade textbook, eleven out of sixty-one chapters are devoted solely to the semi-mythical founding fathers of Azerbaijan from medieval times to the present. While Javanshir, King of the Albanians, is presented as the founding father of Azerbaijan, since he extended the borders of the homeland in the 7th century,^[62] Babek is presented as the symbol of the struggle against Arab oppression.^[63] The courage and bravery of Babek and the Albanians in defending the fatherland is constantly stressed in the textbooks. Furthermore, students are quizzed at the end of lessons with the following questions: “what proves the Albanians’ love for their fatherland?”^[64] or “what is the role of Babek’s rebellion in the independence of later generations?”^[65] Uzun Hasan is also said to be one of the great founding heroes of the Azerbaijani state, as well as a great politician of wisdom and foresight. He is argued to have introduced a tax system, a treasury, and a regular army.^[66]
Contrary to the inculcation of atheism in Soviet history textbooks,^[67] the current ones quite frequently (for example, more than 40 times in Ata Yurdu) refer to Islam as the religion of the Azerbaijanis. Ata Yurdu describes the importance of Islam. It states that the acceptance of Islam as a religion united all the Turks and non-Turks of Azerbaijan. The non-Turks as new Muslims eventually accepted the traditions and moral values of the Oghuz Turks. Contrary to the previous pages describing the ancient origins of the Azerbaijanis, Ata Yurdu^[68] and the seventh-grade textbook Azerbaycan Tarixi-7 state that, “this was the time that the ‘Azerbaijani people’ were created.”^[69]Furthermore, the authors declare that the unification of Turkic tribes with non-Turks under the banner of Islam was an advantage to the Azerbaijanis against their Armenian Orthodox neighbors. While recognizing the fact that Azerbaijanis are Shi’a, neither book gives an explanation about the difference between the Shi’a and Sunni streams in Islam. However, the textbooks claim that “the proclamation of Shi’sm as the state religion in Azerbaijan had negative implications for the Turkic-Islamic World, as it led to a division among brothers. This division placed a heavy burden on the Turkic-Islamic union. This division helped the infidels, and still does so.”^[70]
The national curriculum for grade nine allocates 10 hours to the establishment of the khanates (feudal lordships) in Azerbaijan and their power struggles. The aim is to ensure that students understand that Azerbaijan was invaded by the Russians because of the existence of so many petty khanates and because of the power struggles among them (i.e., disunity helps the enemies).^[71] Therefore, the textbooks sharply criticize the internal struggles between the feudal lords in different periods. The authors of Ata Yurd proclaim that the petty khanates cared more about their own material interest than about their homeland.^[72] The lords were probably bribed by the infidels. These internecine struggles are blamed for the disharmony of the state and for its subjection to foreign rule. These stories of the decline and dissolution of Azerbaijani unity are followed by summaries written in bold and italic letters: “once the unity dissolves, the enemies burst through and the fatherland vanishes.” Students are advised to unite in order to keep their independence and their fatherland free.^[73]
Contrary to Soviet history books, Russian domination is now firmly condemned. While Soviet history books thanked the tsars for liberating Asia from savage oriental despotism,^[74] the post-independence textbooks depict the yoke of the tsars as the most brutal. In order to teach how cruel the Russians were, Russian generals, particularly General Tsitsianov, are defined as qanicen (the shedder of blood). The books describe how the Russians exploited the oil wells, confiscated land, and brutally persecuted the Azerbaijanis. In Ata Yurdu, the word “Russian” is directly used with the adjective “enemy” at least 119 times (including the pages devoted to Soviet rule).
The Russians are accused of invading and sharing Azerbaijani land with Iran, first by the treaty of Gulistan in 1813, and then by the treaty of Turkmenchay in 1838. Although it is accepted that Northern Azerbaijan developed under tsarist rule, while Southern Azerbaijan remained uncivilized under the Persians, the division of the national territory is perceived as a violation of the vital myth of the homeland. Nationalist discourse claims that the separation of Northern Azerbaijan from the South was solely the result of an artificial political division of territory between Iran and the Soviet Union. It is not surprising, therefore, that a particular emphasis is laid on Southern Azerbaijan within Iran. Three chapters in the fifth-grade book, three out of eight chapters in the tenth-grade book, and five out of fifteen chapters in the eleventh-grade book are devoted to developments in Southern Azerbaijan. The chapters look into the history of Southern Azerbaijan, beginning with the relations between Persia and Tsarist Russia, and then Iran and Soviet Russia until 1990. A chapter in Ata Yurdu describes the mass revolt against the Shah and the British troops, and the rise in Southern Azerbaijan in the 1920s of the Democratic Union under the leadership of Khiabani. The reasons for its defeat are linked to the cooperation among the enemies of Azerbaijan, namely the Russians, the Armenians, and the Iranians.^[75] The chapters in the tenth- and eleventh-grade books also treat the issue of the separated existence of Southern and Northern Azerbaijan. They detail how the Southern Azerbaijanis have been exposed to oppression and persecution through the denial of their identity, language, history, and culture under the Iranian regime. They examine the revolts in Southern Azerbaijan, as well as the establishment of short-lived national liberation movements. Most strikingly, the chapters, particularly the ones in Ata Yurdu, indicate a growing irredentism in Azerbaijani politics. For example, while the maps of Azerbaijan including Southern Azerbaijan are used as a stylistic device for the demands of nationalism, it is often stated that the current administrative borders of Azerbaijan do not coincide with those of its historic homeland. While the cover page of Ata Yurdu is illustrated with one of these maps, there are 17 direct remarks on the future unification of Northern Azerbaijan with the South.
The longing for Southern Azerbaijan is also presented with pictures and poems. One of the poems includes these lines:

The Araz^[76] flows with sorrow,
The fatherland is like a bird,
One wing is here, the other is on the other side of the river ^[77]

Another poem at the end of the chapter on the Gulistan treaty directly calls for armed struggle:

So long as your children remain without a fatherland,
Unite, revolt, wake up, wake up Azerbaijan
Stand on your feet Azerbaijan,
Either gain your independence or burn yourself, Azerbaijan

As the textbook authors maintain, North Azerbaijan is an independent state recognized as such worldwide, after struggling for its sovereignty for so many centuries. Now, Azerbaijan is living through a renaissance period. When the time comes, this partition will end. The terms “North” and “South” Azerbaijan and their history will pass. All our lost territory will be ours again.^[78]
Furthermore, the books squarely place the blame for the roots of today’s Armeno-Azeri controversy over Nagorno-Karabagh on tsarist rule. The authors argue that the migration of Russians to Azerbaijan started in the second decade of the 19th century, and after that Russians also placed Armenians, “who are now a direct threat to Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity,” in Karabagh.^[79]
Contrary to Russian and Soviet sources, the post-Soviet history textbooks emphasize the Azerbaijani people’s resistance against the Russian conquest. A chapter on revolts in Quba in 1837 and Shemaka in 1848 against the Russians details the boldness of Azeris.^[80] However, the subject of resistance is mostly treated in terms of the intellectual life of Azerbaijan. Specifically, the textbooks discuss how Azerbaijanis began to question their identities and produced intellectual work on national consciousness for the first time in the last decades of the 19th century. The writers and poets are dealt with in the same manner as the heroes who fought for Azerbaijan in the revolts. It is frequently highlighted that they wrote in order to forge a national consciousness in the people, as well as to organize and incite struggle against the foreign yoke. For example, a chapter on Abbasqulu Agha Bakihanov, a historian who set the tone for the cultural revival in Azerbaijan by the end of the 19th century, starts with his quote: “during the struggle, our enemies could not destroy the heart and soul of my people.”^[81] His book Gulistani-Irem (Heaven Gulistan) is assumed to have played an important role in the development of Azerbaijan’s history writing.
Another chapter in Ata Yurdu is dedicated to Mirza Fetali Akhundzade, who contributed to language modification and advocated the Latin alphabet in the 1830s. He is presented in bold letters as the first to write a play in the Muslim world. Indeed, he wrote plays that emphasized the need for national independence in a colloquial Azerbaijani Turkish accessible even to the illiterate. He emphasized the need to spread education in order to nurture a new elite who would fight for Azerbaijan’s independence.^[82] The authors of Ata Yurdu write that Akhundzade struggled to introduce the Azerbaijani language into primary schools. He asked permission from the Russian ruler to write a book in the native language, yet his proposal was refused. In Ata Yurdu, Akhunzade’s ideas are presented as follows:^[83]

<img src=http://abimperio.net/pics/yka2.jpg>

The last decades of the nineteenth century are described as a time when political movements in Azerbaijan began to take shape. One chapter is devoted to the first Azerbaijani- language newspaper, Ekinci (published in 1875), which became the platform for intellectual discussions on national issues. Another chapter is allocated to the first comical journal, Molla Nasreddin, which employed ambiguity, satire, and cartoons to illustrate contempt for foreign oppression and domestic religious conservatives.^[84] Ata Yurdu’s authors emphasize that the journal condemned people who did not use their native language. A cartoon from the journal is described as:

a group of men trying to cut an Azerbaijani’s – Azeri Turk’s – (dil) tongue, while pushing their own tongues into the man’s mouth. Beneath the cartoon, the caption reads ‘Brothers, I was created without a tongue. I have my native tongue. Why do you put other tongues in?’^[85]

A chapter on Soviet rule also gives examples of how writers learned to speak freely by projecting Azerbaijan’s problems onto other objects, different historical periods, or geographical locations during the Soviet era. In what were seemingly innocuous poems and essays, astute readers could find criticisms of Soviet realities by “reading between the lines.” Azerbaijani national consciousness survived and independence was regained thanks to the ingenuity and courage of those who thought and struggled to keep their dreams and aspirations alive despite these circumstances.^[86]
The most important feature of recent history textbooks in Azerbaijan is their extensive description of the establishment and achievements of the first Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan (ADR) in 1918. According to the history curriculum for grades 5-11, schools should devote at least six hours of teaching to the Azerbaijani Democratic Republic period.^[87] The intent is “to express to students the nation’s will to live and to be recognized as an independent state with its own flag, army, language, and culture among the other nations of the world eighty years ago.”^[88] Teachers provoke students to not only see the relationships between the events of April 29, 1920 (when the Red Army invaded Baku), and the 1990 Black January events (when the Soviet army invaded Baku), but also to compare the current borders of Azerbaijan with those of ADR on the maps.^[89]
In the textbooks, the discussion of the establishment of ADR is followed by a dozen or more pages detailing the occupation of Azerbaijan by the Bolsheviks with massive help from the Armenians. Although there were many factors that led to the ruin of independent Azerbaijan, the book concentrates once again on the purported enemies of Azerbaijan. The Russians are the enemy in the context of the struggle for oil, and the Armenians are the enemy in the context of the occupation of Karabagh. Indeed, many more pages detail how Armenians negotiated with Russians to divide and occupy Azerbaijan than discuss the occupation of Azerbaijan by the Red Army. The textbook authors repeatedly declare that “Armenians wanted to use this opportunity to rule Karabagh, one of the most beautiful parts of Azerbaijan, entirely.”^[90]
Soviet official history teaching about the “voluntary unification” of Azerbaijan with the other peoples of the USSR and the “historic friendship” between Russia and Azerbaijan were the first subjects to be changed in the history textbooks after independence.^[91] In order to demonstratep- the cruelty of Soviet rule, the books cover the 1937 Stalin purges. For instance, one chapter of Ata Yurdu describes the repression carried out by Stalin, who was determined to wipe out the intellectual potential of the Azerbaijani nation.^[92] Interestingly, Stalin is not referred to as an ethnic Georgian in this textbook. The purges are viewed as Soviet crimes; yet, Armenians are mentioned seven times as cellads (slayers), as they allegedly led the operations against the intellectuals. Writers and poets such as Husein Javid, Ahmed Javad, Mikayıl Müsfiq, and Yusif Vazir Çemanzeminli, arrested by Stalin’s regime, are introduced as national heroes who struggled to preserve their national identity and the independence of Azerbaijan.
The role given to the “other” or the “enemy” in the creation of ethnic and national consciousness is evident in the Azerbaijani history textbooks. For example, the most frequently used word after “independence/independent” is “enemy,” whether it is used along with the word “Russian” or “Armenian.” The chart below shows the distribution of “enemy,” “Armenians the enemy,” or “Russians the enemy” throughout the 61 chapters.

<img src=http://abimperio.net/pics/yka3.jpg>

The first noticeable thing in the chart above is the frequent use of the term enemy, whether it refers to Russians or Armenians. Second, from the beginning to the end of the chapter, there is an upward trend in the frequency of its use. The first chapter is an introduction and a brief overview of Azerbaijani history and in this part the word is used as a generalization without reference to any specific country. Most strikingly, Armenians are introduced as an enemy from the outset. Chapters 30-34 also concentrate on the “other,” namely the Russians and the Armenians. In the second half of the book, students’ attention is repeatedly and increasingly drawn to this theme, whatever the period of time or subject being taught. The final chapters are allocated to the war over Karabagh. Therefore, it is not surprising to see excessive references to Armenians as the enemy. Armenians are defined as qanicen (bloody). The last chapter of the book is about the establishment of Azerbaijan under the leadership of Aliyev. It once again focuses on Azerbaijan’s enemies: Azerbaijan is shown to have surmounted all obstacles, having survived and established its independence despite them. Overall, the term “enemy” is used 116 times without any explicit reference. Iranians are referred to as enemies 44 times, Russians 119 times, and Armenians 187 times within the 391 pages.
Myths of the “other” appear to be insufficient in forging a national identity, at least from the perspective of the Ministry of Education and the textbook authors. They also use stories about genocide and massacres to evoke nationalist feelings against Armenians. The işğal (invasion) of Baku by the Red Army on April 28, 1920,^[93] and on January 20, 1990,^[94] and the soyqırım (genocide) of Azerbaijanis by Armenians in Baku in March-September 1918^[95] and in Khojally in 1992,^[96] are detailed in very strong language and illustrated with photographs of the massacres.
On April 21, 1920, Moscow ordered the 11th Army to invade Azerbaijan, and on April 27, the Musavat government was overthrown. On April 28, the Red Army entered Baku and independent Azerbaijan formally ceased to exist. April 28 is described in the textbook as the starting date of continuing massacres against the Azerbaijanis under communist power with the help of Armenians, massacres that allegedly lasted for 70 years. The authors claim that there were many Armenians in the 11th Army. According to the authors of Ata Yurdu, even before Moscow’s decision to invade Azerbaijan, Armenians applied to Moscow and volunteered to help Russia in exchange for Karabagh. The textbook authors regret that the leaders of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic were unable to unite the Azerbaijani people against the invaders.^[97]
The events of Qanli Yanvar (Black January) 1990 are described in 12 pages. This is the only time that the establishment of the Azerbaijani Popular Front and its leader, Abulfez Elchibey, are mentioned in the textbook, produced under Heydar Aliyev’s regime. The Front is praised for trying to engage people to fight against enemies and to help establish independence. Gorbachev is criticized for not being able to end the uprising of Armenians in Karabagh. Fighting between Azerbaijanis and Armenians in Baku started in early January as well. Although this communal conflict ceased later, Moscow ordered troops into Baku on January 20, 1990. According to Ata Yurdu, Moscow’s aim was to discourage any movements demanding greater sovereignty and independence within Azerbaijan and other Soviet Republics. Many people were killed and wounded as tanks and armoured vehicles entered the city. All these martyrs were buried in the same place, together with those killed during the soyqırım of March 18, 1918.
Pages 269-276 and 368-377 are devoted to a description of the soyqırım of Azerbaijanis by Armenians in Baku in March-September 1918 and in Khojally in 1992. The authors argue that “Armenians surrounded a building where more than two thousand injured Azerbaijanis, Russians, Lezgins, and Jews were being treated. They covered the building with oil, set it on fire, and let people die in the flames. Armenians also fired at whoever tried to escape from the building.” The textbook describes how the dying people were shouting and how the Armenians enjoyed watching them.^[98]
Consistent with Ernest Gellner’s argument, Azerbaijani nationalist discourse is aimed at taking the existing high culture that emerged under Soviet rule and turning it into a national one. This new national discourse is expected to transform a Sovietized society into a national one. The Aliyev government set its general objective as creating a nation-state on European (civic) lines.^[99] Its tools of nation-state building are cultural Azerbaijani nationalism and Westernization. In other words, Aliyev’s nationalism represents itself as not ethnic but civic, promoting the idea of Azerbaijan for all its citizens. In this process, education appears as the key to the formulation and socialization of the new course. The Education Minister declared in an interview that the first principle of writing Azerbaijani history is objectivity. However, this study proves the opposite. It shows that the rhetoric of the current government, stressing the need to promote civic nationalism as the new ideology of the state, is not emphasized in history teaching at schools. Rather, an examination of the curriculum and the official textbooks demonstrates growing ethnic nationalism and irredentism. The findings of this study can be summarized in six points.
First, myths of homeland, ancestry, and ethnic origin, to borrow Anthony Smith’s terminology, are components of the general process of “the territorialization of memory.”^[100] This is an important part of inculcating devotion and mass sacrifice into students. By detailing the history of ancient states in Azerbaijan, or concentrating on national heroes, or depicting monuments, the Ministry of Education expects that students will develop an attachment to the sacred lands of Azerbaijan and will be ready to defend it. As Smith emphasizes, “nationalism, as the right education of collective will, had to inculcate a profound knowledge and keen identification with the father- or motherland as a sacred and inviolable ancestral homeland, the only guarantor of its history and destiny.”^[101] Moreover, an ethnogenetic interpretation of Azerbaijani history appears as a necessary component for Azerbaijani ethnic nationalism, since legitimization of the nation as a community of descendants of old and indigenous Caucasian civilizations means legitimization of the claim to Karabagh. Therefore, the political use of the territorial conception of “ethnies” in Azerbaijani nation-building is evident. However, despite the fact that the history of Azerbaijan has been subjected to foreign occupation and internal struggles over the last three hundred years, the textbooks glorify both Azerbaijani history and Azerbaijani ethnicity, while vilifying others.
Second, while the national curriculum allegedly aims at teaching the developments in Azerbaijani history, it intends to inculcate in students a model of an Azerbaijani who has “a special national identity, in virtue of the principle of cultural diversity and the uniqueness of his/her country in every aspect of life.”^[102] Therefore, the myths about Azerbaijan’s heroes are expected to provide models of patriots for students. The idea is that the myths of their heroism and their boldness will inspire faith and courage in the students and prepare students to fight against the “other” when necessary. Moreover, the myth-makers reflect their trust in their nation and encourage students about the future of Azerbaijan by detailing the myths of resistance and foundation in nearly eighty pages.
Third, the development of the myth of separation is clear evidence of nationalistic tendencies in historiography in Azerbaijan. The history textbook Ata Yurdu implicitly and explicitly advocates the unification of Northern Azerbaijan with Southern Azerbaijan, which is currently under Iranian sovereignty. It seems that the rise of Azerbaijani nationalist irredentism is directly related to the country’s post-Soviet independence and nation-state building, and this is reflected in the textbooks.
Fourth, recent historical events are also dealt with subjectively, most of them being illustrated from the perspective of the government rather than from an objective, scholarly one. One of the most striking features of the books is the presentation of Azerbaijan’s post-independence presidents. The first democratically elected president, Abulfez Elchibey, is only mentioned as the founder of the Azerbaijan Popular Front, whereas Haydar Aliyev, the former president, is shown as a national hero. Almost sixty pages are devoted to his achievements starting from 1969 to the present day. Ata Yurdu presents Aliyev as the only leader who struggled for independence against the Soviets since 1969: “He is the one who seeks to awake and to forge the national consciousness among the people ... He is the founder of the new independent republic of Azerbaijan. He started the nation-state building process 40-50 years ago.”^[103]
There is no doubt that rewriting national history and creating national myths are part of the political process of establishing a nation-state and legitimizing the current leadership. However, the history of the Aliyev period and his personality cult falls far short of advocating objectivity in the history writing of Azerbaijan.
Fifth, the Minister of Education stated that the truth of a shared past under Soviet rule is now expected to invoke national solidarity and civic consciousness among the minorities and the titular nation of Azerbaijan.^[104] Therefore, he continued, the stories of oppression provide an integrative function by building a sense of destiny among all inhabitants of Azerbaijan. However, the textbooks do not cover any facts related to the ethnic minorities of Azerbaijan. Only a geography textbook on socio-economics for the eighth grade devotes a paragraph on ethnic minorities in terms of the distribution of the population.^[105]
Finally and most importantly, Azerbaijani official textbooks misuse history to encourage hatred and feelings of ethnic and national superiority. The Armenians, who are certain to become the largest minority of Azerbaijan, especially if Nagorno-Karabagh becomes a de facto part of Azerbaijan, are presented as historical enemies and derided in very strong language. It is natural that nations who have been at war with one another are a particular target for prejudices and negative images generated on each side. However, Ata Yurdu stimulates direct hostility to Armenians and Russians. Even if the efforts to establish peace in Nagorno-Karabagh are successful, how can it be expected to survive? How can a new generation live with Armenians in peaceful coexistence after being inculcated with such prejudices? As of now, the civic nationalism that Azerbaijani officials speak of appears to be a distant myth or a mere rhetorical device.