მეძმარიაშვილი, ელენე / Medzmariashvili, Elene2024-07-152024-07-152024-02-14თბილისის უნივერსიტეტის დაარსებისადმი მიძღვნილი სამეცნიერო კონფერენცია. თსუ 106, თეზისები, 2024, გვ.: 64-69 / Scientific conference dedicated to the foundation of Tbilisi University. TSU 106, Abstracts, 2024, pp.: 64-69https://dspace.tsu.ge/handle/123456789/2481The report discusses the tools of propaganda, among which the falsification of history is one of the most effective and relevant topics of all times. Although modern Georgian history textbooks do not contain examples of falsification of history, especially radical or extremist assessments, still, to achieve a specific propaganda goal, textbook authors sometimes manage to reveal their subjective attitude to political events. They achieve this when, depending on their political orientation, they cover an event acceptable to them, or ignore it. They also do not dare to adequately cover sensitive issues. They often turn a blind eye to them or only cover them one-sidedly and repeat the existing stereotypes. Based on the study of the general theoretical framework of propaganda tools, the report highlights the tools of propaganda that are used in history teaching. The mentioned framework is suitable for all historical periods, and evaluations of a specific event or person and is mainly based on the falsification of history. Each direction of propaganda: political, economic, social, cultural, and ideological has its methods, including different types of visual material. No less important is the written material, its content, and the formulation of questions and tasks in textbooks. Sometimes every word - assessment, key question, and other questions can be asked in such a way as to serve the purpose of propaganda. The report is based on the classification of propaganda methods developed by Alfred and Elizabeth Lee (“The Fine Art of Propaganda” 1939). Out of the seven methods of propaganda studied by the authors, the paper focuses on those methods that are used both in world history and in the history of Georgia. Among them, perhaps the most popular method is name-calling propaganda, which means giving a person or idea a bad label (usually undeservedly) by using an easy-to-remember pejorative name. This method occurs when the author wants to dismiss and condemn a person or idea without examining what the label means. For example, during the Cold War in the Soviet Union the West in general, and primarily the United States and its allies were called imperialists; also, terrorists, extremists, Nazis, slaves, etc. For example, the terrorist has a negative connotation. It is used by both the West and the Russian government when describing any individual or group they oppose. Conversely, when the government wants to praise or support a group, it uses titles such as freedom fighters or rebels. Therefore, the authors of history textbooks should refrain from such labels and be as neutral as possible. It will not be difficult to find them in Georgian history textbooks (they may even escape experts if they are not aware of propaganda methods well or do not want to see them). Only by teaching a critical and objective attitude (thinking) to the information that students receive and to the motives of their distributors, it is possible to recognize false information and, accordingly, propaganda. It is also desirable to compile a list of labels that historians use for propaganda in the past or today. The paper also discusses such a tool of propaganda used in history, especially in political campaigns, as glittering generalities. A good example of this method is the slogans of American presidents’ election campaigns and their programs. For example, Biden’s - Build Back Better; Trump’s - Make America Great Again/MAGA; Obama’s - Change We Can Believe In; his own Yes We Can; Hillary Clinton's - Forward Together, etc. Studying history provides a good opportunity to analyze them and draw conclusions. If historians use the name-calling propaganda when they want to make a good idea look bad, they need glittering generalities to make a bad idea look good. Any good, positive word has a distinct meaning for different people. For example, we perceive the word democracy according to our own experience and knowledge, and we believe that others understand it as we do. But the words “the US wants to spread democracy in the world” do not have a positive meaning for Afghans and North Koreans. The name-calling method encourages us to reject ideas and people or evidence, while glittering generalities expect us to like ideas and people without evidence. The propagandists want us to ignore the details. They hope that these good words will cause a positive emotion. Based on the study of specific examples, the report emphasizes the diversity of propaganda tools and the need to use modern methods of history teaching to identify them, such as the development of critical and analytical thinking, and multi-perspectivity, which also provides the opportunity to identify false history.otherThesis