THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HISTORY

More documents

Recommendations

Info

204 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND to talk about the blanks in Tatar history, to evaluate the periods and problems that had been left untouched, to probe the official historical approach and to turn out diverging interpretations from the official history. Furthermore, for the first time, they critically reviewed the Tatar-Russian relations. For instance, in mid-1970s, Tatar historian Selam Alişev rejected the fundamental positions of official Soviet historiography such as the Russian supremacy in comparison with non-Russian peoples, the voluntary submission of these peoples to the Russian hegemony and the progressive outcomes of the submission to the Russian hegemony. He further exemplified that the Tatar case had denied all these three positions. 388 The beginning of the processes of Glasnost and Perestroika in 1985 in Soviet Union contributed to the empowerment of the “Respect to legacy” movement started in 1960s among the Tatar community. National identity search which had been halted by the Bolshevik intervention seventy years before reappeared in new forms under new circumstances. Firstly, the existence of several important personalities such as historians and authors that had been forgotten by force during the Soviet period was remembered and their legacy was rediscovered. The works of S. Merjani and other historians influenced by him were republished. The discussions on the Golden Horde Empire started with the publication of the prohibited İdegey legend in 1988. At the same time, the interest on the history of the Kazan Khanate increased. The history’s reinvention process initiated new discussions on the ethnic identity and descent questions of Tatars. Under these new circumstances, “pro-Tatar” and “pro-Bulgarian” views began to clash again. 389 In the periodical press of Kazan in 1987, a new debate erupted on the names of “Bulgarian” and “Tatar”. The discussion that started with the question whether the Tatars were of Bulgarian descent or Mongol-Tatar descent peaked with the pro-Bulgarian authors’ call for the abolishment of “Tatar” name and adoption of “Bulgarian” name. Pro-Tatar authors blamed the pro-Bulgarian side of defending Stalinism on the basis that the “Bulgarian” theory was the invention of the Soviets. With the political armament of the pro-Bulgarian side via foundations and organisations, the conflict spread to the political 388 See: Lazzerini, Edward J., “Tatarovedenie and the “New Historiography’ in the Soviet Union: Revising the Interpretation of the Tatar-Russian Relationship”, Slavic Review, Vol. 40, No. 4 (1981), pp. 625-635. 389 See: Ishakov, D. “Sovremennıy Natsionalizm Tatar”, Panorama-Forum, no. 13 (1997), pp. 31- 58. See also: Karimullin, Ebrar. Tatarlar: Isemebez hem Cisemebez, Tatar. kit. neşriyatı, Kazan 1991.
THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HISTORY 205 realm. Because of that, pro-Tatar side accused the pro-Bulgarian side of weakening the Tatar national movement. 390 Certain points about post-Soviet pro-Bulgarian movement (Neo-Bulgharism as Allen J. Frank proposed) require attention. On the one hand, as Frank emphasised, this movement reiterated the positions of Soviet historiography by completely ignoring the original religious essence of the “Bulgarian” identity. On the other hand, this new movement overlooked the reality of Soviet political manipulation complained by the pro-Tatar side. In this regard, Frank assesses the new pro-Bulgarian movement as a “peculiar Soviet phenomenon”. 391 However, we have to assert that regarding this movement as a mere product of Soviet ideology would be wrong. As understood from the ideas of prominent pro-Bulgarian historian Ebrar Kerimullin, the reason behind the calls for the adoption of the name “Bulgarian” instead of “Tatar” stemmed rather from the negative image of “Tatar” as a result of Soviet legacy. In this sense, the neo-Bulgarian movement can be seen as a reaction to the Soviet policies (the expression of the negative feelings accumulated during the Soviet period). In conclusion, this neo-Bulgarian movement could only affect a limited part of Tatar community. The pro-Tatar movement that was busy with the uncovering and absolving of the accusations against the Tatar history during the Soviet period (especially the Khanates of Golden Horde and Kazan) found much more supporters. During the rewriting process of the Tatar history’s defamed and lost pages, the Tatar name was also exonerated. Taking everything into consideration, we have to also note that a consensus was not attained on the Tatars’ ethnic question among the Tatar society. Published in 1999, the Tatar Encyclopaedic Glossary avoided precise remarks about the Tatars’ ethnic descent and listed three different positions about this delicate issue: pro-Bulgarian, pro-Tatar-Mongol and pro-Turkish-Tatar. 392 Studies and research on the Tatar national history continue today as well. 390 Frank, ibid, p. 186-192; Fehretdinov, R. G. Tatar Uglı Tatarmın, Yar Challı, 1993, pp. 3-4. 391 Frank, ibid, pp. 184; 199-200. 392 Tatarskiy entsiklopediçeskiy slovar, p. 566-567.
Page 1 and 2:
THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE Q
Page 3 and 4:
Symposium Organization Committee: P
Page 5 and 6:
CONTENTS 11 ERMUKHAN BEKMAKHANOV AN
Page 7 and 8:
THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HIST
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25:
Page 28 and 29:
28 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND of
Page 30 and 31:
30 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND co
Page 32 and 33:
32 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND Ru
Page 34 and 35:
34 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND de
Page 36 and 37:
36 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73:
Page 76 and 77:
76 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND co
Page 78 and 79:
78 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND of
Page 80 and 81:
80 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND se
Page 82 and 83:
82 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND in
Page 84 and 85:
84 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND de
Page 86 and 87:
86 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND pr
Page 88 and 89:
88 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND st
Page 90 and 91:
90 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND BI
Page 92 and 93:
92 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND Ma
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101:
Page 104 and 105:
104 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND b
Page 106 and 107:
106 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND i
Page 108 and 109:
108 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND B
Page 110 and 111:
110 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND R
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
114 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND p
Page 116 and 117:
116 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND l
Page 118 and 119:
118 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND A
Page 120 and 121:
120 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND f
Page 122 and 123:
122 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND B
Page 124 and 125:
124 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND s
Page 126 and 127:
126 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND o
Page 128 and 129:
128 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND J
Page 130 and 131:
130 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND d
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
142 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND
Page 144 and 145:
144 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND I
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154: THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HIST
Page 189: THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HIST
Page 192 and 193: 192 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND T
Page 194 and 195: 194 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND b
Page 196 and 197: 196 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND I
Page 198 and 199: 198 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND W
Page 200 and 201: 200 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND o
Page 202 and 203: 202 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND m
Page 206 and 207: 206 THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND B
show all

THE SOVIET HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE QUESTION OF KAZAKHSTAN’S HISTORY

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?