Russophobia of "fraternal" peoples

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

An analysis of 187 school textbooks published in the CIS countries showed that, with the exception of Belarus and Armenia, schools teach nationalist history based on myths about autochthonousness, about the ancestral homeland, about linguistic continuity, about glorious ancestors, about kulturtrager, about ethnic homogeneity, about sworn enemy. The images of Russia and Russians are used as the enemy.

The image of the enemy is laid down in textbooks even for elementary grades. For example, 4th grade schoolchildren in Georgia study the history and geography of the country in the Motherland course. The paragraph on South Ossetia (in Georgian terminology - Shida Kartli) boils down to three key theses: 1. Shida Kartli is the birthplace of a number of prominent figures of Georgian culture; 2. Ossetians have long lived "on Georgian soil in close friendship and kinship with Georgians"; 3. In recent years, the "insidious enemy" has infringed upon the friendship of Georgians and Ossetians and achieved his goal. Two kindred peoples with arms in their hands opposed each other. The paragraph describing Abkhazia is constructed in a similar way: "The enemies did everything to sow enmity between the Georgian and Abkhaz peoples in order to tear Abkhazia away from Georgia. The" insidious enemy "has never been named by name, but can there be any doubt who is meant here?

The justification of the antiquity of national history and the autochthonous nature of the modern nation in school textbooks reaches anecdotal proportions. Thus, in Azerbaijani textbooks, the ancestors of Azerbaijanis are declared contemporaries of the Sumerians. "The first written evidence of the tribes of ancient Azerbaijan is given in the Sumerian epics and cuneiforms." Among the ancestors of the Kyrgyz people, the Scythians, Huns and Usuns are consistently named. In Estonian textbooks one can find a statement about the ancestors of modern Estonians and the formation of the "Estonian people" about five thousand years ago.

The Ukrainian version of the origin of the modern nation must also be recognized as fantastic. The Ukrainian textbooks set forth the scheme of M. S. Hrushevsky, the key point of which is the denial of the Old Russian nationality and the assertion of the parallel existence of two nationalities: "Ukrainian-Russian" and "Great Russian". According to Hrushevsky, it turns out that the Kiev state is the state of the "Russian-Ukrainian", and the Vladimir-Suzdal state is the "Great Russian" nationalities. The Kiev period of the history of the "Ukrainian-Russian nationality" gradually passes into the Galicia-Volynsky, then - into the Lithuanian-Polish, and the Vladimir-Suzdal period of the history of the "Great Russian nationality" - the Moscow one. Thus, M. S. Hrushevsky is trying to prove that instead of a single Russian history, there are two stories of two different nationalities: "History of Ukraine-Rus" and "History of Muscovy and Great Russia".

Attention to the antiquity of national history has an obvious projection to the present. The proclamation of the ancient Azerbaijanis by the contemporaries of the Sumerians is intended to substantiate the thesis: "Modern Armenia arose on the territory of ancient Western Azerbaijan." Maps of the history textbook of Georgia for the 5th grade are designed to demonstrate that in ancient times the territory of Georgia was much larger than it is today. The territories included in Azerbaijan, Russia and Turkey are depicted on the map as "historical regions of Georgia". How they got there, schoolchildren know from the 4th grade - they were captured by the enemies.

A common feature of the school textbooks of the new nation states is the presentation of contacts with Russians and Russia as a source of problems and troubles for ancestors. Thus, the first historical acquaintances of Azerbaijanis with Russians are described in textbooks as terrible disasters: "During the campaign of 914, the Slavic squads continuously plundered and ravaged settlements on the Azerbaijani shores of the Caspian Sea for months. They persecuted civilians, took women and children prisoner. ". The authors describe the atrocities perpetrated by the Russians as if they themselves were witnesses.

The first contacts of the ancestors of Estonians with the Russians are described as predatory raids. Aggressiveness has been attributed to Russia as a state from antiquity to the present day. Thus, in Latvian publications the very formation of a centralized state in Russia is presented as a negative factor for Latvia, since it had "aggressive aspirations": it sought to "get access to the Baltic Sea." A picture of horror unfolds before the students: starting from the end of the 15th century, the troops sent by the Moscow rulers repeatedly attacked the Livonian lands, robbed and captured the inhabitants. At the same time, it is only casually noted that the troops of the Livonian Order "also raided Russia." The Livonian War in both Latvian and Estonian textbooks is interpreted as an aggression on the part of Russia.

The accession of certain territories to Russia, as a rule, is assessed negatively. The benefits received by the peoples within the framework of a large state are hushed up, the emphasis is on the loss of independence. The history books of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, and Uzbekistan assess the status of their territories within the Russian Empire as "colonial" and, accordingly, qualify Russians as "colonialists."

Armenian authors show a more balanced approach, noting the progressive aspects of Russia's conquest of the Transcaucasus for the Armenian people. The main content of national history during the period of being a part of the Russian Empire is the national liberation struggle. So, in the Kazakh history textbook it is written: The struggle of the Kazakh people against Russian colonialism lasted for a long time, covering the second half of the 18th century. movements, performances, etc.

The suppression of the uprising of Turkestan Muslims in 1916 in Kyrgyz textbooks is assessed as an attempt to destroy the Kyrgyz people: "The measures taken by the tsarism to suppress the uprising resulted in the mass extermination of the Kyrgyz people. Faced with the threat of genocide, the rebels began to hastily migrate to China." "Only the overthrow of the Russian Tsar and the October Revolution saved the Kyrgyz from complete extermination."

The events of the revolutions of 1917 and the civil war are viewed in textbooks, as a rule, through the same prism of the national liberation struggle. In a number of countries the term "civil war" is not used at all. Modern textbooks portray the Bolsheviks as either Russians or puppets in the hands of the Russians. In the Azerbaijani school, the Bolsheviks are portrayed as allies of the Armenians. The very establishment of Soviet power in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine is portrayed as "aggression", "intervention", "occupation".

"Soviet Russia was not satisfied with the conquest of Georgia and the creation of an occupation government under its control," write the authors of one of the Georgian textbooks.

The entire Soviet period of history, the textbooks of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan are assessed as "colonial". "Azerbaijan has turned into a colony of Soviet Russia, which has begun here to implement socio-economic and political measures that best meet its colonial interests.""Kazakhstan was turning into a source of raw materials for the country, that is, it was and remains a colony." "The enterprises built over these years and Turksib only increased the volume of raw materials exported from the republic."

The origins of World War II are associated with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Ukraine and Estonia. It is assessed as an agreement of the aggressors to start World War II.

… The history is known to be written by the winners. We lost the Cold War in 1991 and, naturally, the winner began to reformat the story for himself. So we have what we have, it is said, in particular, in the publication.