To pick from splinters

To tell the truth, Albina Zhanbosinova's article “The uniform textbook of history of the CIS countries is necessary” has fall into the hands casually. I agree with the author in many respects because today the theme of quality of textbooks of history in the countries of the former USSR disturbs already even the heads of the states. How we could come to such perverted representation about the history?

The author of article comes up with idea that the first reaction of “independent” republics was accompanied suddenly by the negative estimation of the recent past. And it was necessary to outgrow. Excuse me, but it was told by the historian? Who needed to “outgrow” with an unreasonable glorification of own history? So, there is already nothing special in representing of obviously deformed picture of the past to the people who got used to trust a science. Let’s the historians “outgrow”? And how many minds bear the impress of this “illness” now?

It is clear that it is important to know real, instead of the forged past for the nation preservation. Here the state commission on struggle against the history falsification is created in Russia today. And really, it is the time to forget, for example, Normann theory asserting that the Slavs weren't capable to create the state and have invited the certain Swedish-German “konung” Ryurik. Lomonosov, Tatischev, Gedeonov and many other original historians, resting upon the annals and other sources, have proved that Ryurik and his brothers Sineus and Truvor were the grandsons of Gostomysl prince of Novgorod for a long time! There was the Kiev state long before calling of Ryurik and his brothers and even the Black sea was called as the Russian sea. The prince Oleg has united the Novgorod-Slavic state with the Kiev Russia about what the Nestor-chronicler wrote.

However, Normannism as the form of anti-Russism, prospers to this day in the historical delicacy, including the Kazakhstan scientists. Then this understanding is splashed out in Kazakh-speaking editions and Internet as the facts of “present Russian history”. Not casually, probably, on January, 9, Dmitry Medvedev has signed the decree about the carrying out of Year of the Russian history in 2012. The neighbors and the former brothers “have worn out”. In the decree it is told that the decision is accepted “with a view of attention attraction of a society to the Russian history and a role of Russia in world historical process”.

Albina Zhanbosinova names “quite natural aspiration of each state” to extend the historical way, to have more ancient roots, rather than neighbors. The second part is the attempt of education of pride for the people of rising generation. Who would argue, this fine aspiration if, to tell the truth, not to take into account that the history is all the same a science which should lean against the concrete facts, sources, researches. And still that lifting the consciousness, it is absolutely not necessary to attack the same feelings of the neighbor as O.Suleymenov told: “To ennoble the steppe, without humiliating the mountain”. But the author of the right is that the policy lies at the heart of official history for a long time. In 1928, the main developer of the vulgar-Marxist historiographic technique M.N.Pokrovsky has told: “the history is the policy overturned in the past”.

Our policy changed time and again. We know much in the history in several interpretations. We choose between them moderately prejudices. Here for example, it is literally recently in Kazakhstan the books about orthodox sacred (!) have been decided to be check up on... extremism. The public prosecutor of Aktau city Talgat Alibaev has declared that the works “Heavenly visitor”, “Sacred religious soldier Feodor Ushakov” and “Legend about sacred Gerasim” were directed to the “authorized body” for examination. And the collection “Heavenly visitor”, made by Boris Ganago, includes the fairy tales and stories for children on orthodox subjects. The biography of the Russian admiral and orthodox sacred Feodor Ushakov behind Natalia Skorobogatko's authorship was published in 2009 under the name “Invincible admiral. The sacred religious soldier Feodor Ushakov". "Legend about Sacred Gerasim” has been published in 2005 by publishing house “Brotherhood of sacred princes Boris and Gleb”.

The present textbooks of history, which appear in Kazakhstan hardly annually is accurately looked through that A. Zhanbosinova has defined as “search of those who is guilty in those or other historical processes”. And if the author speaks about all post-Soviet republics, including this process as quite normal, so I would like to stop on realities of modern Kazakhstan, which is already to “outgrow” with the independence which has fallen to a head for two decades. It is said that “historical science passes the natural process of conceptual reconsideration of the historical past and develops new approaches in our country (till now!)”.

It is the difficult and morbid process which doesn't do without costs. Therefore there was no without purpose that there were serious claims to A.Margulan Institute of archeology, R.Suleymenov Institute of oriental studies and Ch.Valikhanov Institute of history and ethnology which turned to be in the list which has been sounded by the president N.Nazarbayev on one of the meetings. These establishments of the science are responsible for creation of the scientific base on the basis of which the history school textbooks of Kazakhstan should be created. But, the scourge of history textbooks of Kazakhstan is still the historical dates. Earlier all dates were carefully checked by the scientists-historians and only after that were entered into textbooks. And now what? There is only one example. The different dates of key fights of Kazakh-Jungar wars are given in different textbooks on national history for some years. There are the cases when the dates given in school textbooks don't coincide with dates which are given in base of UNT. That is correct — chooses... the teacher.


They speak very often about tolerance of a society in Kazakhstan. But it is absolutely clear that the tolerance can't be a certain reality, but should be cultivated constantly and every day. In this respect it is important to analyze a role of history school textbooks of Kazakhstan which just should give the mediated experience of the previous generations to the youth. For example, the negative estimations from these positions are given in the analysis of the Kazakhstan textbooks by T.P.Volkov – Candidate of History, the professor, the dean of faculty of Social sciences of Kazakh-German University (Almaty, Kazakhstan).

And it is really, here, for example, the textbooks of 5th form. “Textbooks of new generation”. It is said in the introduction that “history of Kazakhstan tells the story of the Kazakh people, the people occupying Kazakhstan, all country – the Republic Kazakhstan”. But it becomes clear even at the most superficial reading of the textbook that it is the textbook of the Kazakh history for the Kazakh children. It is told nothing about customs, culture of any other people in the book which live in Kazakhstan. The examples, stories, illustrations - all are only from the life of the Kazakhs. Even the homework, “to make the list of the ancestors to the seventh knee” owing to cultural features is basically for the Kazakh children.


The new textbook of 5th form is entered into educational process since September, 2007. According to the idea of authors, it should capture all period of history of Kazakhstan from an antiquity up to now. But already in the second line as the main maintenance of all history of Kazakhstan “the colonial past lasting by centuries” is marked which, as appears from the text, has terminated only in the XXI century, that is with the independence approach. Speaking about the difficult process of acceptance by a part of the Kazakh sorts of the Russian citizenship, the authors draw an image of Russia as artful state: “Russia has decided to use the position of the Kazakhs in the political-economical purposes”.

Though the historians repeatedly study and comprehensively open all complex of the internal and external reasons which have pushed the Kazakh governors to acceptance of the Russian citizenship and the similar one-dimensional approach characterizes the tendentious relation to the events. Further it is said that “using the oath of the Kazakh governors on fidelity, Russia has started to grasp the lands for fortresses building and settlement of the Russian Cossacks under the pretext of protection of the Kazakhs against external threat... The lands for moving on began to decrease day after day.” And after all, as the authors mark, the matter is about the middle of XVIII century when the penetration of Russia into the Kazakh steppe was still minimum.

The image of Russia-colonizer, seemingly, is completely transferred by authors to the Soviet Union which appears in the form of such monster from textbook pages before the poor fifth formers. So, talking about the politics settlement of the Kazakh people and collectivization, the authors draw the following picture: “The Soviet government has confiscated all cattle of the Kazakhs, thus, intentionally having subjected the people to hunger and observed how the people perish to the last. It didn't hurry up with the help. The Kazakh people with the land and cattle weren't necessary to the Soviet Union, the other people wanted to move here and to set up the camps”. Is it necessary to say that at reading of the text of such maintenance along with empathy of tragedy of the people there is an image of the enemy that can become the fruitful soil for various phobias. Though there are thousand documents even in regional archives about the organization of the scale help starving (not only to the Kazakhs), the hunger then has amazed also other republics not to a smaller measure. However, the gamble concerning the holodomor goes towards Russia which has suffered from hunger in the greatest degree.

Also it is the textbook of friendly state of Russia! It is remembered, the president of Georgia M. Saakashvilli told in due time, how his son- the fifth former, has told coming back after the history lesson at school: “Father, I hate the Russians more and more!” But it is in Georgia, but here it is Kazakhstan consisting with Russia in all conceivable unions.

The image of the enemy is convenient also that it is possible to write off everything on its actions. Such crimes of the totalitarian regime in Kazakhstan as the violent settlement and hunger of 30th years were fallen actually down on one person - Feodor Goloshchyokin. It is directly written in the textbook “Contemporary history of Kazakhstan” for 9th forms under the general edition of professor B.G.Ayagan that “the strengthening of totalitarian system in Kazakhstan is connected with F. Goloshchyokin's name” and it is underlined that his real name is Shaya Itskovich, than is accurately defined his national identity. The destruction of almost all Kazakh intelligentsia is attributed to him.

As B. Ayagan's textbook affirms that “Goloshchyokin has chosen those methods of collectivization with the consent of Stalin which should cause full disorder of the Kazakh economy and actual extinction of the whole people. So the course on a large-scale genocide was taken”. According to B. Ayagan, the workers from the Central Russia and Ukraine should be moved on the released lands. It is absolutely not clear, whence such statement is taken and, especially, what for it was necessary to give it in the school textbook. Without wishing to rehabilitate Goloshchyokin's actions and for the sake of objectivity it is necessary to notice that the representatives of all Soviet elite have been got mixed up in reprisals of 30th years (including Kazakh), despite of nationalities. And the aspiration to give the national character to originators of reprisals of 30th years is fraught with formation of hasty and dangerous conclusions in unripe minds of schoolboys.

The image of the historical past in black color became one of widespread receptions of separate authors of school textbooks. In this respect the textbook “History of Kazakhstan” for 11th forms of socially-humanitarian direction is especially indicative. Here the period of history of Kazakhstan from XVIII century till the present days is presented. According to the concept of the textbook authors, the basic maintenance of this period up to 1991 is made “by national-liberation struggle of the Kazakh people on a way to independence”. This formulation, by the way, is the name of the first section of the textbook and means struggle against Russia in the beginning and then the USSR.

The ethnic component of the Russian power is underlined from the very beginning. It is directly declared that “national-liberation struggle of the Kazakh people was born at collision of two civilizations, two ethnic systems”. But it is not so clear what is the ethnic system, but the matter is about Russia, that obviously means the Russians and Kazakhs. As a whole, three periods of the development of national-liberation movement in Kazakhstan are defined: 1. the end of XVIII – middle of centuries; 2. beginning of ХХ century, the revolt of 1916; 3. at last, “the third period of national-liberation movement proceeded in the conditions of the Soviet power”. It is necessary to say that there are no any facts, but rather categorical statement, nevertheless, is made: “the given actual materials and conclusions testify the difficult way of national-liberation movement of the Kazakh people and even the totalitarian regime couldn't suppress its aspiration to freedom”.

It is necessary to say especially about the third period marked out by the authors. Here the most diverse displays of the social protest of the Soviet period are shown without analysis. It is the country performances of the period of collectivization and the events of 1959 in Temirtau and the performances of 1979 in Tselinograd against the formation of the German autonomy. And each of these events proceeded in concrete historical conditions, had own reasons, differed on ethnic structure, but all of them are presented as links of the uniform chain on free treatment of authors representing the struggle of the Kazakh people.

And, finally, “December revolt of 1986 in Almaty has finished a long way of national-liberation struggle of the Kazakh people for independence”. Though the revolt purpose, actually was the disagreement with appointment of the person never living in republic as the first secretary of Central Committee KP of Kazakhstan and the requirement to put “own person”. It was the main slogan. Thus, it is underlined that “movements of the Kazakhs for the independence occurred continuously”, all performances were against the colonial domination of Russia and are put in one number with “struggle of the Indian people against the English colonizers, struggle of the Algerian people against the French colonial domination, war of the Vietnamese people against the American colonialism”.

The reading books leave the strange impression. In particular, “Reading book of Kazakhstan history” for 10th form of the natural-mathematical comprehensive schools, published in 2006 by the publishing house “Mektep”. The composer S. Zholdasbaev has included not documents in the edition, but the fragments from various articles and books of modern writers. He has placed here the fragment from own work where has declares that “the history hasn't been investigated in the Soviet period. The history was restored anew when the special significance was given to this question". It becomes clear for what purpose for it was required, when read “reading book” truth belonging to T. Abdrazakov. He directly asserts that “the policy of settling of the Russian peasants has crushed the agriculture of the Kazakhs”.

It is declared contrary to all historical sources that “the Kazakhs of Semipalatinsk were engaged in agriculture, there were rich families occupying to 100-200 dessiatinas, they employed the workers before the resettlement of the Russians". When you start to understand, it appears that it is the matter of 1893, and, thus, this lifting of the Kazakh agriculture is just connected with the resettlement of the Russian peasants. But T. Abdrazakov goes further and declares: “the statement often meeting in the economic and historical literature is absolutely false that “owing to resettlement of the Russian peasants, the development of productive forces was accelerated, the Kazakhs have got to know how to sow, mow a grass”. Certainly, it is possible to estimate differently the degree of influence of resettlement peasantry on an economy of the Kazakhs, but the similar categoricity doesn't approach for the educational literature. By the way, it is necessary to notice that the ethnographers don't challenge the fact of mowing development of the Kazakhs under the influence of the Russian peasantry.

Why I result so many examples? Because I was “stirred” by “A.Zhanbosinova's statement that if there are the conditions, why “not to scold Russia?” Yes, the archives “contain data on hostility and confrontation” between the Russians and Kazakhs. Certainly, it didn't carry the mass character. But the author of article tries to justify the negative “genetic memory” by these data. And even blames the Russian side “for some statements” to the Kazakhs, including onomastics.

She writes an obvious lie: “I, as the inhabitant of East Kazakhstan, didn't notice any onomastic war...”. Didn't notice or didn't want to notice? The Russian public in Kazakhstan extremely is disturbed by proceeding process of renaming. The Russian toponymy disappears in republic and together with it and the historical memory of creative activity of the Russian population, who civilized draw the Kazakh steppes throughout more two hundred years. It won’t be the big exaggeration to tell that “not titled” citizens of republic have brought the solving contribution paid by work and lives of the generations of the Russian people in creation of a modern infrastructure of Kazakhstan. The visible certificate of that are the service lines, industrial and economic objects and thousand cities and settlements, being today the national property of sovereign republic.

Meanwhile, the Kazakh linguists and “onomasts”, guided by reasons far from the science, continue persistently to sulk the theme replacement of the Russian toponyms by the Kazakh in the Kazakhstan society of. And the matter is not about the Russian “Ivanovkas” and “Mikhaylovkas” (the disappearance of which is already put on a stream in republic for a long time), but about big cities of Kazakhstan (Pavlodar, Petropavlovsk, Uralsk), having the sign and even sacral character for the Russian citizens. Recently one more attempt has been made (already from the parliament of the country) to give the idea in the society about renaming of these cities.

And the thought doesn't come to mind of inveterate onomasts that the ideological truncation of century Russian-Kazakhstan historical and cultural communications enters the acute contradiction with integration processes between Russia and Kazakhstan within the limits of the Customs Union and now already the Eurasian space. Trying to erase the traces of the Russian material culture in republic territory, it is difficult to the Kazakh authorities to count on trust of own citizens of not title accessory. For example, Aksu city is in the Pavlodar region of Kazakhstan. It has been renamed in 1993 though the majority of inhabitants was against. The pulling down of Ermak monument has taken place before it. The city public was against the pulling down. But the monument was taken down all the same, as they say, “under the screen of night”.

The assistance to the pulling down was rendered by the members of “Azat” movement. So why did they rename the city and have taken down the monument of the historic figure all the same? All is simple. It was done under the pressure of southerners who have appeared here for this purpose. But they have told, as if the people have made it. Ermak was overthrown as “conqueror of the Kazakhs” though any competent historian knows that Ermak never was at war with the Kazakhs, and moreover, under many data he is descended from the Kazakh sort of Nymans. So the history fancifully is included into the modern policy sometimes. And even more often, the image of the Russians as “damned colonizers of an empire of evil” is drawn especially in the Internet and the Kazakh-speaking editions.

But let’s give on this circumstance in detail. Now it is accepted to abuse “empire of evil” – the Soviet Union, and especially its center - Moscow. This is the favorite theme of the political elite of the Central Asia countries, and of those intellectuals who serves their interests. Moscow, the Center, exploited the Central Asia, mercilessly maintained the region resources, behaved as “the typical colonizer” in general. Huge efforts are spent for hammering it into the population heads. And after all trust in these cock-and-bull stories!

Though what could be simpler: simply to think of the obvious thing. The USSR isn't present for 20 years. All “colonizers” have disappeared as a smoke. Also what we see? Unless the standard of living, the same average salary in any of the states of the Central Asia have exceeded the indicators of Russia that is of “colonial center”? On a surface: it has appeared that the independence is not panacea from all troubles and complexities of life that it is automatically provide the progress. The social groups, first of all not such big on number, namely the elite basically have received the benefit from independence. But they couldn't provide sometimes even elementary - to support that infrastructure in working condition which has got to them actually for nothing from the Soviet period.

And nevertheless, it seems to me, that Albina Zhanbosinova is right in the main thing: it is time, for a long time to gather all historians of the CIS on one dialogue platform. Perhaps, it will turn out to create the general textbook. Notice, not politically coordinated, but historically true. And after all we have strongly gone in cycles today on national, forgetting that history is general. We have gone in cycles in a genotype of the person, having forgotten about his phenotype which is defined by a hereditary basis of an organism, but with the conditions of environment in which his development proceeds. Any “blue blood” will rescue, if the Russian newborn baby would be grown up in the USA. He will grow the American, having kept some genetic features. But according to culture and language, and these are two major signs of the nationality, he will be “thoroughbred” American. It is enough to remember the swindler Peter the Great.

For me, for example, it is obviously clear that Kazakhstan will never return to former relations in structure of Russia and never becomes a part of Russia. It is necessary to think of other. If Kazakhstan and Russia builds the partner, allied, integration relations not opportunistically, but in perspective, so it is necessary to look into the historical science. Already now it is heavy to speak with the people poisoned with mythologized history and what will be further if nothing to change?

Certainly, the citizens of Kazakhstan will want to be convinced that they are offered the fair relations, without any double game, without pressure, without desire to get unilateral advantages. Let Russia runs fair business with Kazakhstan – here it will be its best contribution to the development of the Russian-speaking culture and the Russian world to Eurasia. But the honesty is the street with two-way traffic. It is necessary to consider the historical claims for events as the nonsense which are forgotten for a long time by all if we undertake to consider the insults, so they will be from both parties, and there would be no end to it.

There were enough abrupt bends and even changes in history almost of each people on the earth, but the desire to dull a pain from the endured sufferings was the most natural reaction of the subsequent generations, not to injure the national mentality endlessly. And we, both in Russia and in Kazakhstan, frequently prefer to look back in the past, without seeing a way forward. Has the time come to stop? You will not correct the history, it such what is it, and there is no another simply. It is known in Kazakhstan that there are problems in a historical science of Russia today and what are the fights of scientists concerning the Great Patriotic War! There are disputes concerning that whence Russia has gone and there is.

The interesting citation has sounded recently in one of documentary films: “The power forms the historical memory dominating in a society and the power spring is the secret, deficiency of the information and frequently the distortion of historic facts. The syndrome of privacy in the field of foreign policy is seen where the inconvenient themes are under an archival taboo or deliberately forgotten or presented in that kind which is favourable to prestige of the country”. It is necessary to regret only, that not all historians are really researchers, but go in the footsteps of the conventional authorities and stereotypes in knowledge. Such spiritual and scientific blindness costs much to all.

And it never suited the present scientists. We will remember, the opposition of Lomonosov to the German historical school in the scientific world of Russia was named in due time as “great fight”. The German professors-historians tried to achieve the removal of Lomonosov from Academy. The discredit of his name, his discoveries have begun, with simultaneous influence on the empress Elizabeth and then on Catherine II, and attune them against Lomonosov. All had the results and were promoted by domination of foreigners in the scientific world of Russia. There were only three Russian academicians among 34 academicians-historians – M.V. Lomonosov, Ya.O.Yartsov, N.G.Ustryalov during 117 years in the Russian Academy of Sciences, beginning from its basis in 1724 and to1841.

Throughout more than century, the foreigners supervised all process of the Russian history writing! All documents, archives, annals were under the authority of them. And they decided the destiny of Russia as the uncontrolled access to history documents (most valuable) allowed them to manipulate the information about the past at own discretion. And the reason of struggle against Lomonosov was the desire to force the great scientist and patriot of the country to refuse independent researches in the field of history studying. And they were necessary then, so necessary today.

The unified textbook is necessary if not to everyone, but to the majority of the CIS countries. Because we have the general history which was done by our ancestors. The revision of history from nationalist positions is capable to start mechanisms, leading not only to scientific or world outlook opposition, but also to real public split. Owing to similar circumstances, the historians-professionals and furthermore that who works with the youth audience, always necessary to remember the huge moral responsibility, the formation of public consciousness, tolerance education depends on results of their scientific activity in many respects as universal value of a modern society.

N. Valov, the member of the journalists union of the USSR and Kazakhstan
Pavlodar city