Writing National Histories: Coming to Terms with the Past
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
No. 8 17 July 2009 Abkhazia South Ossetia caucasus Adjara analytical digest Nagorno- Karabakh www.jeffersoninst.org www.laender-analysen.de www.res.ethz.ch www.boell.ge Writing national Histories: Coming to terms WitH tHe Past ■ ANALYSIS Interpreting the Past – From Political Manipulation to Critical Analysis? 2 By Oliver Reisner, Tbilisi ■ ANALYSIS A Short Sketch of One Century of Azerbaijani Historical Writing 5 By Zaur Gasimov, Mainz ■ ANALYSIS Armenia’s Attitude Towards its Past: History and Politics 10 By Sergey Minasyan, Yerevan ■ OPINION Time Turned Back: On the Use of History in Georgia 13 By Giorgi Maisuradze, Tbilisi ■ CHRONICLE From 25 June to 15 July 2009 15 Jefferson Research Centre for East Center for Security HEinRich Böll STifTung DGO European Studies, Bremen Institute Studies, ETH Zurich SouTH CauCaSuS caucasus analytical caucasus analytical digest 08/09 digest analysis Interpreting the Past – From Political Manipulation to Critical Analysis? By Oliver Reisner, Tbilisi Abstract Georgian historians are not alone in taking a bifurcated view of Russia, with some seeking closer ties and oth- ers blaming it for Georgia’s problems. Over time, these views have influenced the writing of Georgian text- books. The first generation of textbooks published after the collapse of the USSR simply included superfi- cial updates to Soviet versions. The second generation critically redefined Russia’s role in Georgia’s past. The most recent, third, generation focuses on equipping young Georgian citizens with the tools of critical anal- ysis. However, unless there is more dialogue between the two camps of historians, politicians will continue to manipulate history for their narrow purposes. Two Approaches to Georgian History – of their own nation.” That is why they established the Academic and Reformist Historical Legacy NGO in Tbilisi with the intention The issue of Russia weighs heavily on Georgia and has of conducting “objective research” on the most impor- divided the community of Georgian historians into two tant periods of Georgian history to overcome the “dis- camps. One group seeks closer ties with the northern tortion of historical facts for political purposes”. Thus, neighbor, while the other blames it for many of Geor- they intend to demonstrate Georgia’s “real” situation in gia’s problems. the 16th to 18th centuries and Russia’s role in common On 27 March 2009 several Georgian scholars, mainly fights with foreign foes in the 19th and 20th centuries, as historians, who are members of the Historical Legacy well as the cultural interactions between the two peo- non-governmental organization (NGO), addressed an ples. Hoping that both the Georgian and Russian pub- appeal to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, express- lics will well receive these activities, ideally scholars in ing their concern about the deterioration in relations the Russian Federation should take up similar efforts between Russia and Georgia during recent years. Stating not only to collaborate in re-establishing the historical that the Georgian people gratefully remember “Russia’s truth for a better understanding of the young genera- great historical contribution to the survival of the Geor- tions of the Russo-Georgian historical community, but gian nation” and that Russian soldiers died for the return also to pay respect to their great ancestors. of Georgian autochthonous territories (!). On the other Ten members of Historical Legacy signed this appeal hand, they note that Georgians contributed to build- (two from the National Academy of Sciences of Georgia, ing Russia’s state, culture and science over the last three among them a former minister of education under pres- hundred years, and claim that one of the main factors ident Zviad Gamsakhurdia, two from Ivane Javakhish- driving the catastrophic relationship between the two vili Tbilisi State University, one president of the NGO states is the “elaborate falsification of the history of our “For a Neutral Georgia”, one deputy chair of the Geor- countries due to distortion of facts and false interpreta- gian Union of Journalists, one representative of the Geor- tion of historical actors.” They assert that the “cleansing gian Alumni Union of Moscow State University as well of the historical memory” that disconnected the gener- as one Georgian vice-president of the Russian Academy ations finally led to clashes between the brotherly peo- of Social Sciences and the igumen of the Bezhini monas- ples and provoked bloody conflicts to solve “the geopo- tery), which the Russian president published on his offi- litical tasks of third powers.” Implicitly this statement cial website. This group of academicians, mainly com- argues that the current pro-Western leadership subordi- ing from Soviet-style intelligentsia organizations, which nated Georgia to US foreign policy interests at the price since the Rose Revolution no longer represent the Geor- of its national values and past. gian state, seek to mobilize public support for their own Consequently the same historians claim that they are contested and authoritative interpretation of the past as preventing the Georgian people from being turned into “true history”. Since perestroika started in the late 1980s, a blind weapon in the hands of anti-national powers and most of them condemned Russia’s influence and impact reviving the memory of the great and tragic history of in modern Georgian history. Georgia among their compatriots. They assert that espe- As in the late Soviet and early independence period, cially the young generation should realize “the true past various political actors used history to articulate and legit- 2 caucasus analytical caucasus analytical digest 08/09 digest imize political positions and demands for national inde- Now textbooks are mainly prepared by reformist histo- pendence as well as territorial integrity against Abkhaz rians and practitioners as well as political and social sci- and South Ossetian separatists, charging that their alter- entists. A large gap remains between the intended objec- native interpretation of history was mere falsification. His- tives outlined in the ministerial regulations and their tory became a tool for political competition. In fact, the skilful implementation. letter to Medvedev and its intentions indicate the schol- ars’ longing for their lost status as a national intelligentsia Three Generations of History Textbooks: with the sole authority to interpret the “true” past. What is New? In the opposing camp, we have the group of pro- Georgia’s textbooks have evolved considerably since Western reformist intellectuals like Ghia Nodia, Alek- Georgia gained independence. The first generation of his- sandre Lomaia and Gigi Tevzadze. They are attached tory textbooks, published immediately after the demise either to the Ministry of Education and Science or the of the Soviet Union were just reprinted older textbooks newly formed Ilia Chavchavadze State University. They with only the state symbols and some obsolete textual introduced major changes to the general school curricu- expressions about the Soviet Union replaced with those lum five years ago. The most important change concern- of independent Georgia. ing history is the introduction of an integrated program The second generation introduced a national narrative for social sciences, covering history, geography and civic of Georgian history that had formerly been a “dissident” education. Their latest “National Plan for the School Year view. It presented a Georgian history in which Georgians 2008–2009,” seeks, in addition to historical and geo- fought back foreign invaders in a number of glorious wars graphical knowledge about Georgia, to spur the devel- and battles. National heroes were re-established as those opment of patriotic minded and responsible Georgian who made history. The historians critically redefined Rus- citizens and to support the pupils’ independent orienta- sia as an aggressive colonial power that did not adhere to tion within a broader world. To achieve these objectives, commitments undertaken in the Treaty of Georgievsk several special skills are highlighted: orientation within concluded in 1783. Instead of providing protection, Rus- time and space, historical interpretation, application of sia annexed Georgia twice: in 1801 (Kartli-Kakheti) and historical and geographic concepts, and the elaboration in 1921 (Democratic Republic of Georgia). The diverse of a position, its critique and defense. Additionally, it consequences of the integration of Georgia into the Tsarist seeks to develop general skills, such as problem definition, as well as Soviet state were presented as colonization and analysis and solving, finding and organizing information, expansion by the Russians intent on subduing the Geor- creativeness, communication, research, team work, etc. gian nation. These books remained silent about Georgian In contrast to the previous subjects “History of Georgia” participation in the leadership of the Russian empire and and “World History” that were taught in an authoritar- the USSR even though Georgian nobles held high posi- ian style, now the pupils should be empowered to draw tions in the Imperial military, Bolshevik party and secret their own conclusions from a past presented from dif- police (NKVD). Georgia’s cultural revival in the second ferent angles in an integrated manner. This approach half of the 19th century was interpreted as resistance to is in line with European methods of history teaching, Russianization, ignoring the