Although the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) officially ended in 1995 with the Dayton Peace Agreement, it is fair to say that the post-war era is still characterized by various forms of divisions in political, economic, and public life. This profound division in BiH is also clearly visible at all levels of education in the country, with three independent educational systems containing several additional sub-systems in different geographical areas (i.e., cantons). These three educational programs roughly correspond to existing ethnic divisions that dominate the political, economic, and social situation in BiH (i.e. Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnjak ethnicity).

There currently exists extensive literature describing various dilemmas associated with history narration in BiH, ranging from traditional educational textbooks (Šimic, 2020), empirical analysis (Pilvi, 2007), to various cinematic representations of the war (Abazovic, 2014). The nearly unanimous agreement in contemporary literature is that the content of these textbooks provides grounds for inappropriate educational practices that might negatively influence free thinking and the construction of a healthy, functional society. Thus, educational programs in BiH are consistently evaluated as being instrumental in the creation of strong and uniform ethnic nationalism and ethnic politics (Pilvi, 2007; Baranovic, 2001).

Considering the widely accepted idea that education represents one of the most important building blocks of a functional society and civic behavior (Pilvi, 2009), a comprehensive analysis of textbooks in BiH would be of paramount importance if one aims to induce political and cultural changes supporting progress, stability, and development. Furthermore, the existence of different historical narratives might represent a challenge to peace-making processes in the country and have a negative impact on the development of democratic attitudes in young people who are expected to participate in decision-making processes in the future (Pilvi, 2009).

However, the conclusions in the previous research, with some exceptions (e.g., Pilvi, 2007), are predominantly based on sheer theoretical reasoning and, more importantly, on relatively narrow data material concerning the content of the history books used as a curriculum on various levels of youth education in BiH. As such, there is very little work that makes the connection between concrete, broad, and transparent empirical material on one side and the conclusions reached on the presented material on the other. Thus, the majority of the previous research on this topic fails to (1) nuance the differences between the three ethnically based educational programs, (2) include multiple educational levels (i.e. both elementary and secondary education), and, more importantly, (3) offer transparent data to support the claims. Based on previous research (Pilvi, 2007), it is expected that all books contain the two main categories, namely “us” vs. “them.” However, there presently exists very little knowledge concerning the nuances between these two categories, the tools used to achieve such separation, and the discursive tone used to promote the idea of ethnic division.

With this knowledge gap in mind, the aim of the present study is to examine the content of a relatively large quantity of various textbooks used in BiH, ranging from the 8th and 9th grades of elementary school up to the 4th grade of high school, including all three educational programs. The empirical point of departure in this paper is based on exploratory content analysis and the search for dominant and common codes that, in an aggregated manner, tend to form central themes in these books. Thus, the main aim is to identify and analyze the central themes that underlie “us” versus “them” divisions and consequently make recommendations for future history textbooks that increase the chance of shared perspectives among young future generations.

Data Material A total of 36 textbooks were included in the analysis (11 Bosniak, 16 Croatian, and 9 Serbian). All educational levels, from the 8th and 9th grade of elementary school up to the 4th grade of high school in all three educational programs, are represented. The majority of the reviewed texts are written in the Latin alphabet, with a few exceptions of the Serbian and Bosnjak textbooks that contain sections in the Cyrillic alphabet. Croatian textbooks are authored by 20 different persons, Bosnjak books by 13, and Serbian by 12. Analysis The present study is based on exploratory content analysis with the aim of "making replicable and valid inferences from texts to the contexts of their use" (Krippendorff, 2013, p.24). Thus, the intention is that extracted categories and the consequent conclusions are possible to replicate, using the same procedures (Drisko & Maschi, 2016). In the method section, the position and the background of the researcher team are discussed. The first step of the analysis consisted of identifying the sections that are relevant for the purposes of the present study. These sections regard the descriptions of the "local" history of BiH, without connections to the historical movements in Europe and the world in general. Second, all sections of relevance were examined to gain an overview of the material. Third, multiple repeating codes were marked and colored. Fourth, identified codes of interest were merged into larger themes with the aim of detecting the main categories. At this point, the well-known "back and forth" process that is characteristic of qualitative analysis took place in the pursuit of the latent messages hidden in the text. The final stage was to select the themes that nuance the division between "us" vs. "them". All analyzed textbooks share a common variance when it comes to the description of the main historical events but drastically differ in terms of (1) focus, (2) terminology, and (3) interpretations when it comes to descriptions of "us" vs. "them". The main categories are (1) discursive tools of separation, historical markers defining "us" vs. "them", and the role of religion in defining "us". It should be noted that the wording "we" vs. "them" could not be replaced by "we" vs. "others," meaning that separation is specifically directed toward the two other competing ethnic groups in the country.

George Orwell (1960, p. 34) famously stated, "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." It is easy to relate these words to the present schooling situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and the current data material. The overall conclusion is that the analyzed books represent an obstacle to a shared future that promotes socially responsible civic actions, as well as democratic, pluralistic, and tolerant attitudes. The shortcomings of these books are not situated within one specific sentence but are rather associated with the general tone, the nature of discourse, and all implicit and explicit literary tools that reinforce ethnicism by using strategic narrative to promote their own ethnic group and devalue others. All three educational programs are sending the same message about who "our" people are and who the "others" are, only varying in the choice of narration. They all use polemical representations of others (Moscovici, 1988) and demographic numbers and maps to promote their ethnic arguments. The problem is not in the accuracy of numbers or maps but rather in the selective choices that serve given ethnic positions. However, the narration differs, with Croatian textbooks tending to use distancing (BiH is "that country" or "this country," indicating foreign territory), Serbian dominating (BiH is established on the territories where Serbs historically populated or was, in fact, a part of Serbia), and Bosniak denying strategy (the ethnicity of Croatians and Serbs in BiH is the result of propaganda from neighboring states and is thus a relatively novel category). The findings in the present study are detailed with quotes and references from various textbooks but are not reported here due to the limited word count. Implications for future research are also discussed, including recommendations for textbooks that promote the development of civic actions.

Abazović, D. (2014): Reconciliation, ethnopolitics and religion in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In: D. Abazović & M. Velikonja (eds.): Post-Yugoslavia. New Cultural and Political Perspectives (pp. 35-56). London: Springer. Baranovic, B. (2001). History textbooks in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina. Intercultural Education, 12(1), 13-26. Drisko, J. W., & Maschi, T. (2016). Content analysis: pocket guides to social work research methods. New York: Oxford University Press. Krippendorff K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes towards a description of social representations. European journal of social psychology, 18(3), 211-250. Orwell G. (1960) Nineteen Eighty-Four. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Torsti, P. (2007). How to deal with a difficult past? History textbooks supporting enemy images in post‐war Bosnia and Herzegovina. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 39(1), 77-96. Torsti, P. (2009). Segregated education and texts: A challenge to peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. International Journal on World Peace, 26(2),65–82. Šimić, G. (2020). To believe or not to believe: Current history textbooks in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In G. Ognjenović & J. Jozelić (Eds.), Nationhood and politicization of history in school textbooks. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.