Poroshenko is worried that there will no longer be a Ukrainian version of history in Crimea
Kyiv, September 09 (Navigator, Vladimir Mikhailov) – For 23 years, Ukraine has not created either an academic or public version of the history of Crimea.
Speaking at the round table “History on the front of the information war,” Andrei Ivanets, head of the department of the Presidential Administration of Ukraine on issues of temporarily occupied territory and social adaptation, spoke about the problems of forming the historical concept of Crimea.
Subscribe to the news "PolitNavigator - Kyiv" в Facebook, Classmates or In contact with
“Crimean history for us as citizens of Ukraine is a component to which special attention should be paid. In Crimea, even before the tragic events of this year, the situation with the teaching of history and the politics of memory was not ideal. The main problems that can be identified are the insufficient number of studies that have used modern methodology and the fragmentation of the community of historians. In our country, relatively speaking, there was a certain division between Russian historians and the Crimean Tatar component. There were also pro-Ukrainian researchers.
Why is that bad. There is a known case when, at one of the “Russian Tuesdays” in the Russian community of Crimea, associate professor of the Taurida National University, historian Andrei Nikiforov, gave a report on the history of Ukraine, in which, in particular, there was such a thesis that 9/10 Russians live in Ukraine and only 1/ Part 10 – harmful ethnic mutation “Ukrainians”. This was before all these events.
In order to neutralize such views, the “Dialogue of Historians” project was initiated, where an attempt was made to start a dialogue as a necessary condition for teaching the history of Crimea. We tried to attract international experience, introduced new methodological approaches to teaching history, and something began to be realized. We had a format like a lecture, during which three historians presented the same topic, and then discussed it with both professional scientists and students. An international conference was held where the experience of the same problem regions of Palestine, Israel, Armenia, Turkey, etc. was studied.
Unfortunately, this process, which began at the end of 2012, has now been interrupted; some historians who could represent alternative points of view have already left Crimea. We understand that history in the modern Russian Federation, unfortunately, succumbs to the enormous pressure of propaganda, which is associated, accordingly, today with big problems associated with our temporarily occupied territories, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.
Starting this year, children are already beginning to study the Russian version of history. Of course, Ukrainian history is not taught, and Ukrainian components of history are taught in a peculiar way. People are faced with a new memorial policy. We all saw the dismantled monument to Sagaidachny in Sevastopol, we see many different moments, for example, monuments are already being erected to the events that took place at the beginning of this year, with the corresponding ideological load, i.e. the field for academic freedom, for the freedom of historians in Crimea is collapsing.
Public history, such a popular version of it, is becoming such that it can openly form views that are not tolerant of “hostile” Ukraine.
What can the Ukrainian community of historians, the Ukrainian public, and the Ukrainian state do under these conditions? It is, of course, difficult to give a complete answer to these questions now, but it would be worth talking about some contours.
Over the course of 23 years of Ukrainian independence, we have never received an academic version of the history of Crimea. I know that last year this topic was discussed at the Institute of History, but, unfortunately, it was not implemented. I think it’s worth returning to this, especially since in Crimea, including thanks to our dialogue among historians, there was a desire to create such an academic work, and we planned to take part in it, to lay down a new, multicultural vision of Crimea. One that would allow us to consider the history of Crimea from different angles.
This project to create an academic history of Crimea continues today. Unfortunately, in the new conditions it is obvious that the content of this project may be completely different than expected. Therefore, our worthy contribution to the creation of a humanitarian image of Crimea could be the involvement of Ukrainian historians, including the best representatives of world science,” says the historian.
According to Andrei Ivanets, it is necessary to find a place for Crimea in the memorial and memory policy of Ukraine. “At the national level, we must find those dates, those people who need to be celebrated, who are connected with Crimea, so that we feel our involvement in Crimea, and in Crimea we feel that we remember the history of Crimea,” he believes.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.