Verbytska considers the debate concerning history education and textbooks in the context of developments and changes in Ukrainian society in the years since independence. The debate focuses on a study, initiated in 2008 by the ‘Ukrainian Institute of National Memory’, into how textbooks address Ukrainian history. The study found that most textbooks stressed an ethnocentric vision of history, are dominated by political and military narratives, underscore the notion of cultural inferiority, colonial and oppressed social status, and did not correspond to the needs or standards of a modern, pluralistic state. These findings gave rise to considerable debate in the professional community. The imperative rests upon academics and history teachers to engage in open dialogue, thus supporting the long-term sustainability of democratic change in Ukrainian society.
- Hanaba, S. Istorychna osvita u metodychnomu fokusi intersubyektyvnosti [History education in the methodological focus of an interdisciplinary approach]. Kamyanets-Podilskyi: Kamyanets-Podilskyi I. Ohiyenko National University, 2010.Google Scholar
- Hnatyuk, O. Proschanna z imperieyu. Ukrainski dyskusii proidentychnist [Parting with the empire: Ukranian discussions on identity]. Kyiv: Krytyka, 2005.Google Scholar
- Kasianov, H., P. Polianskyy and I. Hyrych et al. Pidruchnyk z istorii: problemy tolerantnosti: metod. posib. dla avtoriv ta redaktoriv vydavnytstv [History textbook: tolerance problems: manual for authors and editors in publishing houses]. Chernivtsi: Bukrek, 2012.Google Scholar
- Yakovenko, N., ed. Shkilna istoriya ochyma vchenykh-istorykiv [School history through the eyes of historical scholars]. Kyiv: Olena Teliha Publishing House, 2008.Google Scholar
- Snyder, T. ‘Memory of Sovereignty and Sovereignty over Memory: Twentieth-Century Poland, Ukraine, and Lithuania’. In Memory and Power in Postwar Europe, edited by J.-W. Müller. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.Google Scholar