Where does our worldview come from? Through international reporting, we can see events and phenomena currently unfolding around the globe. However, what is necessary to understand the world in depth is not limited to current events. History also plays an important role. With an understanding of the past, we can interpret what is happening now. Compared with our own country, we have less information about the wider world and fewer direct experiences. Therefore, history in education and international reporting by the media have a major impact on how individuals form their image of the world. But how much of the world are we actually seeing through history and international reporting?

One of the subjects taught in high school is “World History.” Despite the word “world” in its name, in practice students often study in detail the politics and culture of certain regions, or learn background knowledge and frameworks regarding specific events and conflicts, while many other regions are left largely untouched. Can we really call this “world” history? Meanwhile, GNV has long pointed out that Japanese international reporting is regionally biased. In Japan, where international news coverage is limited to begin with, the “world” seen through the media is highly skewed. If there are also biases in world history textbooks, are they similar to those in international reporting? If so, might there be some kind of relationship between the two? Here, we explore the relationship between “world history” and “reporting,” which together form the foundation on which individual worldviews are built.

World history textbooks (Photo: YUNA)

Biases in world history textbooks

First, using three World History B (※1) textbooks used in Japanese high schools (Shōsetsu Sekai-shi B/Yamakawa Shuppansha; Sekai-shi B/Jikkyo Shuppan; Sekai-shi B/Tokyo Shoseki), we examined the amount of coverage by region. Referring to the textbooks’ subheadings, we measured coverage by counting lines of text, and focused only on the post–World War II period. Please see the graphs below.

Loading…

Across all three publishers, the regions with the most coverage are Asia (excluding Japan), Europe, and North America. These three regions alone account for roughly three-quarters of the total. Looking more closely at Yamakawa Shuppansha’s Shōsetsu Sekai-shi B, the most widely adopted among world history textbooks in Japanese high schools, there are many descriptions of how the post–World War II international order advanced centered on the Allied side, the U.S.–Soviet Cold War, the Korean and Vietnam wars as proxy wars, the transformation of socialism including the Tiananmen Square incident, and moves toward European (EU) integration.

By contrast, in regions with little coverage—for example, Africa—the longest section is titled “Democratization, Poverty, and Civil Wars in Africa.” It covers the establishment of Zimbabwe, apartheid in South Africa, economic growth driven by mineral resources, the Somali conflict, and Ethiopia’s turn to socialism, each in about 100–170 characters. Regarding Latin America, while there are mentions of the founding of the Organization of American States, Argentina’s social reforms, Mexico as one of the NIES (newly industrializing economies), Argentina’s democratization and the Falklands War with the United Kingdom, and democratization in Brazil and Chile, the Cuban Revolution receives the most attention, accounting for about 38% of Latin America’s history section. As for Oceania, the only mentions are that countries became members of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization and concluded the Pacific Security Treaty with the United States. In many cases, it is merely a list of events, with little background or detail provided.

Conflicts that appear in textbooks—and those that do not

Examining the content that appears in world history textbooks, all three publishers include the most material related to wars and armed conflicts. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the conflicts in Cambodia—geographically close to Japan and large in scale—are described relatively in detail. There is also substantial coverage of the so-called “Palestinian issue,” the Arab–Israeli wars, the Iranian Revolution, and the Gulf War. For the post–World War II period, the textbooks discuss the founding of Israel and all four Arab–Israeli wars, and use color maps and photos to aid understanding. Content related to the Israel–Palestine issue accounts for about 16% of the textbook descriptions of postwar wars and armed conflicts. However, not all conflicts are explained in such relative detail.

A soldier of the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Photo: MONUSCO/ Flickr [CC BY-SA 2.0] ）

Moreover, there are large-scale conflicts that do not appear in world history textbooks at all—not because they are lacking in historical significance. One example is the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which began in the 1990s. It involved eight African countries and caused approximately 5.4 million deaths—the highest number of fatalities in any conflict since the Korean War. It has even been called “Africa’s World War.” Despite the magnitude and severity of the toll, not a single character about this conflict appears in the Yamakawa textbook reviewed here. Likewise, there were no mentions of the Angolan Civil War, the Ethiopia–Eritrea conflict, or the North–South Sudan conflicts, all considered among the world’s largest armed conflicts.

“World history” and “international reporting”

Next, let’s look at the regional balance in international reporting. The graph below shows the regional breakdown of international news coverage in 2015 and 2016 in Japan’s three major national dailies (Asahi, Yomiuri, and Mainichi).

Loading…

As with the textbooks, Asia, Europe, and North America account for the majority, while Latin America, Africa, and Oceania are very low. Of course, the history covered in the textbooks (post–World War II to around 2009) and the newspapers analyzed (2015–2016) are from different periods, so a direct comparison is difficult. Even so, we can still see similar patterns of bias. Why do “world history” and “international reporting” show such similar tendencies?

From “world history” to “international reporting”

We found that the modern history portion of high school world history shows biases similar to those in the regions covered by the news. If a region seldom appears in educational settings, our knowledge of it naturally remains shallow and it becomes harder to form a clear image. Complex international issues are difficult to understand without background knowledge. If people cannot understand them, it is difficult to attract their interest in the first place. For example, both the Israel–Palestine issue and the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are complex and hard to understand in terms of causes and developments. However, many people learn about the Israel–Palestine issue in world history, so they know of its existence and have some background knowledge, making it easier to take an interest. In contrast, when it comes to the DRC conflict, if people have not been taught that the conflict occurred or the background behind it, then even when it appears in the news it may feel like a difficult, distant foreign problem, and people may not show any interest at all. Without public interest, news organizations judge that there is no demand and reduce coverage. Even when they do cover it, they may greatly oversimplify issues to facilitate understanding, or focus mainly on content related to their own country, thereby reinforcing such tendencies. In other words, understanding world history in education provides important background knowledge for understanding international reporting; thus, the regional imbalance in world history as taught can be one factor producing regional biases in international news coverage.

From “international reporting” to “world history”

We have considered the influence from world history to international reporting, but the relationship can also run the other way—from international reporting to world history. Imagine how the facts we learn come to be written as “history.” There is a saying: “Journalism is the first rough draft of history.” As this suggests, among what is reported, items deemed important are recorded to be passed on to posterity. In addition to daily reporting, news organizations further narrow down what should be preserved for the historical record. For example, newspapers and TV programs pick out what they judge to be the most important events of the year and produce year-end special features. World history is written by selecting from the accumulation of countless events around the world. If that is the case, events that are not reported at all may be treated as having little historical value and may never be preserved as the world history we are taught.

The adage “Journalism is the first rough draft of history,” engraved at the Newseum in the United States (Photo: gottaspharepics/ Flickr [CC BY-NC 2.0])

In both history and reporting, there is a tendency toward ethnocentrism, prioritizing events in regions closely related to Japan or in powerful major countries, a tendency that can be observed. Beyond this, we can also say there is a close, mutual relationship between world history and international reporting, with each influencing the other. As world history and international reporting shape one another, a vicious cycle arises in which large parts of the world—such as Africa and Latin America—are cut off from both sides.

It is certainly unrealistic to study in detail the histories of the entire world in world history education. However, the extreme regional imbalance in world history education, as shown above, needs to be addressed. World history is not merely the accumulation of the histories of powerful great powers. In today’s increasingly globalized society, there is no region unrelated to one’s own country. We sometimes exert influence even on places far away, and conversely, we are influenced by them. Regarding conflicts, we can actively contribute to resolving some of them, but conversely, our actions may unknowingly help cause conflicts in certain regions. To concretize our relationship with the world and contribute to solving problems in global society, we need a balanced understanding of the world’s past and present. History is alive even now.

※1 There are two types of courses for world history taught in high school.

World History A: Understand modern and contemporary world history, in relation to Japanese history (standard credit units: 2)

World History B: Understand the broad framework and flow of world history, in relation to Japanese history (standard credit units: 4)

Writer: Yuna Takatsuki

Graphics: Yuna Takatsuki