Albina Zhanbosinova: the common textbook of CIS countries history is needed

Today the subject of textbooks of history, it cannot be denied, is both hot and quite a serious problem. Sometimes pseudo-historians write such surprising things, which disguise the truth. How must we deal with it? Can Russia and its neighbors resolve this problem together? It is the question! And a lot of persons wrestle with this problem...

The Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor of S. Amanzholova East-Kazakhstan State University. Albina Zhanbosinova makes a specialty of mediaeval, modern and contemporary history of Kazakhstan in her scientific work; the last two directions are problematic. She regularly takes part at the conferences of historians, including the Russian ones, she is known in scientific circles of CIS countries. Our conversation with the well known historian of Kazakhstan concerns the today situation with history teaching in the CIS? What textbooks are used for it? Is it possible to create the common textbook on the history for the countries that are united by a general historical fate?

- Albina Sovetovna, why today does the new history textbooks issue generate increased attention?

- At present time, each of the former republics of the Soviet Union goes own way. The development of new independent states is very difficult process, and, of course, it is reflected on public life and on science too. At the very beginning of the development on the way of independence the first reaction was accompanied by negative assessment of yesterday. It fully can be applied to the history. In the 90s, in Kazakhstan and also in other republics, a lot of publications appeared, where predominated exclusively negative. The exaltation of own history was understandable at that stage - and it is necessary to suffer through this illness. All the republics of the CIS have passed through this stage, but it is necessary to go along!

- Everyone tried, if it is possible to say so, to “extend” its history, but this fact caused discontent among neighbors...


- The aspiration to extend the history of its nation in the past is quite natural aspiration of every state. The reasons of it are also tangible ones. Someone from the writers I can’t remember the name, said: “There is not any sense to try to “aggrandize” own nation ... with an extension of its existence in time”.

Every nation in the world, without exceptions, tries both to extend its history and to have more ancient roots than the neighbors. In my opinion, it is due to usual human ambition, which absolutely everyone has ... In total; this leads to the so-called the competitive process: whose roots, whose generations are both older and more ancient? Large-scale idea that is applicable to this phenomenon - the world tribalism.

The second side of this issue is the attempt to bring up the younger generation with the sense of pride for his nation that exists almost from the generation of the humanity or the state, etc., the attempt to preserve its nation, its culture, its traditions, i.e., it is based on ideology, national idea, and the political background slops out - ideal history, ideal state and respectively, the search for those, who are guilty in some historical processes.

- At that time, Russia was drawn only with black inks. Why was it so?

- In this case, present-day Russia is not shown in black paint, it concerns the country that was many years ago and Russia is perceived as the successor of the center of the former USSR. In addition, all the republics of the post-Soviet space have experienced, and some of them are still experiencing the stage of both national identity and renewal, the change of historical and cultural paradigm was the logical expression of it.

Please, remember the beginning of the 80s and the end of the 90s of last century, pseudo-historical conjuncture boom of epoch of glasnost and perestroika, the “millions” of repressed persons that are in Solzhenitsyn, Vernadsky, and Roy Medvedev and appeals of the first one to review the borders of Kazakhstan and Russia in favor of the latter one, this falsified impulsion in history automatically transferred to virtually independent national formations and that started to form with the national actions in the republics. (Alma-Ata, Vilnius, etc.).

At that time many persons thought that with denying of our common history, they will be able to achieve some break-through ... In great quantities, articles and books that were full of historical falsifications, which did not only made the truth distant, but also separated it as well, were publishing and distributing across the former Soviet Union.


The scientific world of the post-Soviet space has considered, if the center can both write and interpret the events as let matters take their course, why we cannot do the same thing. In every republic the concepts were revised, the forgotten and forbidden names were returned, at that from the position of the national traditions, the “new” history backgrounds were building, this history was interpreted from the “now everything is allowed” perspective. Liberty of speech has become like test, everyone could be published, if only Finances allowed to do it ... Formerly in the Soviet period, in order to publish a scientific creation, we passed the professorship sieve reviewers, recommendation and only after it we could expect that we would receive the approval for publication of article or monography.

At present time this situation is double one, on the one hand, it shows the interest in native history, but on the other hand, any “grease-monkey”, publishing actively, qualifies as historian.

In this situation, everyone is ready to criticize Russia, both nationalism and chauvinism, they are in every nation, the question is, how the ones demonstrate themselves, presenting the history of the Soviet Union in black colure, they mean Russia, and vice versa. We all live on the Eurasian continent, all our history is intertwined, and it is not because that the interests of the Russian autocracy were in Asia or the Far East, the Caucasus and in India, but because the Turkic-Slavic or Slavic-Turkic world history cannot be considered separately, without any relationship.


Ethnic groups that reside across the territory of Kazakhstan, are enough tolerant to each other, it is necessary to note in this case, the mentality of the Kazakh nation. The archival materials contain information as to dislike and confrontation and I have faced with such documents, where the cases, when the Russian workers, who arrived according to organizational recruitment in Ridder, in 1930s, with a population of just over three thousand persons, forcibly rubbed the lips of Kazakhs workers with green bacon, were described, the process of imagination of Russia in negative black color it is a kind of genetic memory. That is why the image of Russia in many educational editions not only in Kazakhstan but also in many other former USSR is presented in such a way in order to highlight the aggressive nature of the colonial policy of the Russian state and absence of confrontation with the Russian nation. The authors interpret the events of the epoch of the modern time: the process of the Kazakhstan affiliation in the Russian Empire and Soviet-era events: collectivization, Kazakhstan tragedy- starvation - at their profitable angle, the Ukrainian Holodomor, and the so-called Soviet occupation of the Baltic countries in the history textbooks of the Baltic countries can be as example.

In my opinion, the statements that are both inconsiderate and incorrect as to the historical truth entirely, quotations, phrases of the representatives of various organizations and institutions, made in the period of declared sovereignties that was conceived by indigenous population, ethnic elite as a kind of threat to the nationhood, could be a reason of assessment of Russia in black tones. For example, here is the one of such applications of the department manager of the Diaspora and Migration of the CIS countries Institute Alexandra Dokuchaeva: "The situation in so far as they relate to observance of cultural and linguistic rights of the Russian-speaking population of Kazakhstan is, in fact, quite disturbing, related to the onomastic war. In the north of the country, and East-Kazakhstan region it is perceived especially painfully. Because it is the territory on which the Russians have been living for centuries. For example, the same Ust-Kamenogorsk that is in the eastern Kazakhstan was founded before the Yekaterinburg. The Russians penetrated through the South of Siberia up to the Altai much earlier than to the Middle Ural. At that time the Kazakhs had not have any their state. Moreover, on the mountain bank of the Irtysh and the large Kazakh camps were absent. It is known that mining Altai was mined, explored and developed by the Russians. That's why renaming and replacing historic names of villages into new that are related to the Kazakh history exclusively, is conceived extremely painfully. With relation to Petropavlovsk, let me remind you that it is the fortress that was built to protect against hit-skip raids of Jungars of entire population of this region – both the Kazakhs, and the Russians”.

As the resident of the East Kazakhstan, I did not notice any onomastic war; moreover, I'm not just a philistine, I am a historian by both profession and occupation. By the way, Ust-Kamenogorsk was founded in 1720 and Kazakh Khanate was formed in 1465-1466, how it is possible to say about the absence of single Kazakh state, and on the whole there is the remarkable book of N.V. Alekseenko, who is both the Doctor of Historical Sciences and the expert on the history of Eastern Kazakhstan, where there is the description of the Kazakh nomadic migration across the territory of the Eastern Kazakhstan. And mining Altai was developed in Andronov epoch yet, i.e., in the Bronze Age, i.e., the land was populated, and on it nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes were, but according to the interview we can understand that this land was unsettled and only when the Russian geologists came here, we have received mining industry. What is your reaction concerning the words of A. Dokuchaeva?

In continuation of the subject – “ The people cannot find any forms in Russian, any signs in Russian on the official buildings, hospitals, etc. Unremitting migration sentiments among the Russians, which are recorded by the polls, are related to slow, but firm offensive on the positions of the Russian language in many respects...” If really such offensive was, then Kazakhstan still in the 1990s would change over to the Kazakh language fully, and it would go no worse than in the Baltics countries, why is it necessary to give unverified information about the plates?

I think that before finding the reasons of such assessment of Russia in editions of the post-Soviet space, maybe is it necessary to find out the key problem of said situation?

It is possible to say that some works, written from the negative perspectives once again, as a matter of fact, were like response to the similar books that were published in Russia.

- One of the most important, maybe, questions: Who should write the history textbooks?

- In the Soviet times, in this sense, the system was built very rigidly – it was necessary to pass a lot of instances. It was necessary to: show, prove, fix, test, and only after fulfillment of the ones, we could get the recommendation for publication. Then the period came, when everyone, who wanted to write the books. The principle was very simple and well-known to everyone: he pays the piper calls the tune. Therefore, there were not any standards, at that time was the complete discordance even per methodological issues, in explanation of it, we can say that it was the search of the historical paradigm, the scientists were forced to shy from one side to another due to lack of the scientific methodology .

And the textbooks, of course, should be written by professionals. I teach myself and I want to note that even in the most difficult times our teachers focused on proven, best edition. The teachers of our schools have told me that the “scum”, did not attract their attention and in the educational process they did not use such publications.

Generally, in Kazakhstan, the educational system in this sense is hard enough: education is carried out only with usage of those textbooks, which have been approved at the national level.

- Not so long ago, Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev said that the textbooks have “mass of nonsenses”. What did he mean?

- You mean the Congress of Educators in 2004, where the President Nazarbayev criticized some authors, which wrote such nonsenses, of which we speak. In particular, it was referred to the destructive power of the Saks arrow that is a little less than a kilometer - 800 meters, etc. What's to keep in mind here - he just said that it was nonsense, he called to find out the absurdities and publish them, and authors and those, who publish such textbooks, should be awarded offensive prize “Golden overshoe”, for example.

- What can we say as to the works of Sadvakasova, Tulebaev and other Kazakhstan historians, which see only negativity in the relationship of two countries and in our common history?

- Unfortunately, I cannot say anything neither about the authors nor about their books, because in my practice I have not seen their works, and so I cannot judge of all that I have not read. If we say, in general, about the Kazakhstan vision of Russia history and Kazakhstan one, then the professionals write, as it was in truth, basing only on archival documents and materials.


At present time there are a lot of contacts, both direct and electronic that allow to publish the works of Kazakhstan historians in scientific journals of Russia and other CIS countries and participate in conferences, and if you take into you consideration that the Committee on Control in sphere of Education and Science of RK, when assigning academic qualifications, requires, except for SCADT(State Commission for Academic Degrees and Titles) publications, at least two ones - in the international journals which have, according to the data base of Thomson Reuters company (ISI web of Knowledge, Thomson Reuters), a non-zero impact factor and at least two reports in the materials of international conferences, then taking into account above mentioned, for the Kazakhstan scientists it is just necessarily and profitably to publish their research articles outside of Kazakhstan.

- In 2010, in Novosibirsk the large meeting of Education Ministers of the SCO was. There the conversation was about the quality of school history textbooks. What does such discussion give?

- It was a very important discussion of really actual issues. Now, every republic, in terms of historical cognition, is on its track, but such approach is wrong! We must create collective history textbook by means of the historians of the CIS countries. A lot of “white spots” appeared in our knowledge of the history of each other. For example, how many of Russian students know that the famous 312th Division of General Panfilov that defended Moscow in the heavy days of 1941 was formed in Kazakhstan? Unlikely they know about the fact that our Abay kept a good company with Russian democrats ...

And it is possible to find such examples in any of CIS countries. Therefore, the collective history textbook of the CIS countries is needed. Before, we had taught the history with textbook of the USSR history - of course, there some distortions within the previous ideological system were, but in this case we are talking about the approach: and it was absolutely correct.

- But is it really to create the textbook under present conditions?

- I think that it's quite real task. But upon one condition: we must in fact, not in words unite all forces. And the task should be formulated at the highest level - it will highlight its importance. It will be necessary to create the special commission, which should include not only historians, social scientists, but members of the public. The work will be for everyone – it is necessary only to identify correctly the niche for everyone. It is quite real task to prepare good textbook - and we are able to integrate the best forces of the scientific world of the CIS countries for it.

Such textbook creation will work towards more respectful attitude to nations, with which we have common historical fate. First of all it is very important for youth because the one is the most sensitive to breach of justice, and then those blunders will not be in various announces on the protection of the rights of Russian-speaking population in the former republics of the USSR.

Or let’s pick up the theme of the Great Patriotic War. In some Baltic republics, Georgia, they level to the ground the monuments of the heroes of the Great Patriotic War, in Ukraine, Bandera was declared as hero. In Kazakhstan, the Great Patriotic War assessment has not undergone any changes. On the anniversary of the victory, on the basis of our university, on the initiative of our rector Prof. B. Mamraeva, by the way, who was in past as Minister-Counsellor of the Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the Russian Federation, we held the conference with participation of Russian historians. It is very hurtfully that even in Russia, some authors, estimating the distance covered by the Soviet state for 70 years, do not see anything positive. And, it is quite strangely that they do not even notice events such as the victory of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War, which affected the march of history in the world.

- Albina Sovetovna, what is the starting point of? What should we do to pass from words to deeds?

- In KNU (it is former KSU) the conference “The historical studies and history teaching in contemporary Kazakhstan, Russia and in Central Asia countries” was held. The conference was devoted to the wonderful historian, D. Dulatova, her works were used by us as textbooks. There J. Kundakbaeva, delivered the interesting report, where it was noted that now much literature -mythologized version of the Kazakhstan history, has appeared. It is well published, duplicated and transferred into the mass consciousness. “But in these books there is not quite correct assessment of the past, incorrectly the Soviet past shown and this situation is not only in our country”.

At the same place, at the conference the thought was, which was made public by above mentioned speaker, and which I support in fully: it is the CIS historians gathering on one dialogue ground. There is a total period – Turkic Kaganates, the Tatar-Mongol yoke and the Russian Empire, USSR.

But today the historians of the Baltic States, Russia, Central Asia, have quite different conceptual estimations of these periods. The idea is that the scientists have passed their opinions on these processes - how the policy of the memory formatting is going on, which estimations of the history are left in the memory of the young generation. It is necessary for positive identity formation. For Kazakhstan the formation of tolerant attitudes among youth is very important, because we live in the poly-ethnic state. It is important for us to understand how the transfer of academic knowledge in the public sector is going on. Then the topics of interaction between Russia and Kazakhstan --Central and Central Asia will make public objectively and virtually.