Battling for a place in history

As is known, the Russian aggression has diplomatic, military, and informational components. The Kremlin is using all these fronts to attack Ukrainian statehood in an attempt to resolve its own internal and external problems. But, what is more, Putin opened one more – humanitarian or, to be more exact, historical – front the other day. Unlike Ukrainian politicians, the Russians have always “worked” in this direction. They have been interpreting the past in line with the Kremlin’s ideology and even writing schoolbooks together with the Ukrainians in the Kuchma and Yanukovych eras. Visiting two events last week, the Russian president in fact began to revise history live on TV. Here is what our contributors and experts think on what Putin was saying and what response the Ukrainian side should give.

“IF I WERE THE STATE, I WOULD SUPPORT DEN’S INITIATIVES”

Serhii KOT, Ph.D. in history, author of the book Lancelot Lawton. The Ukrainian Question; chairman of the board, Oleh Olzhych Foundation; manager, Historical and Cultural Heritage Research Center, Institute of the History of Ukraine, National Academy of Sciences, Ukraine:

“First of all, whenever it comes to the role of history in the making of a state, I always recall Mykhailo Drahomanov’s catchphrase: ‘A politician must know history as much as a surgeon must know anatomy.’ That’s it. Unless you now history, you cannot shape a governmental policy or simulate the development and construction of a state, for the state structure in all its variations rests on this knowledge as if it were a foundation. Firstly, it is the experience of state construction; secondly, it is knowledge of the historical subtext of the territories and human destinies which have been forming for centuries, i.e., mentality and historical identity. And, thirdly, the knowledge of history is, after all, a practical thing. Let me cite the example of Valentyn Otamanivsky, a well-known Vinnytsia area researcher, ex-member of the Central Rada, a Kruty battle participant who came back from emigration to Soviet Ukraine in the 1920s and set up the Vinnytsia branch of the Academy of Sciences library, one of the most successful in Ukraine. He headed the Ukrainization commission and studied local history. As the commission head, he demanded that local officials know the area’s history and was convinced that it was impossible for one to successfully develop and govern a territory unless one knows how this area was forming in terms of nature and what historical processes took place there. Of course, he was repressed and spent all his lifetime in internal exile. These approaches still remain valid.

“Secondly, it is the role of history in the self-assertion of a state and a nation. We are now participants in a centuries-long confrontation with the Russian imperial machine which began to turn history to its own advantage as long ago as in the times of Catherine II, when ‘unsuitable’ chronicles were either falsified or hidden in archives. Academics are now restoring, grain by grain, the historical truth from the evidence that has survived. The fables about the ‘Russian world’ began to be concocted in the times of Ivan III and Ivan IV the Terrible. One of them was the first to speak of ‘Monomakh’s gifts’ to justify the claims of Muscovite Rus’ to Kyivan lands. They wanted to find a connection between Monomakh’s descendants and Moscow princes. This brought forth tall stories about Monomakh’s hat and gifts. In reality, according to the best-known Russian historian Likhachov, this hat is the creation of a later, 14th, century. Yet Ivan IV instructed his envoys to say all over Europe that those ‘gifts’ entitled him to own Kyivan lands. All this led to endless wars for these territories. Since then this myth has been seated so deep in the philosophy of Russian rulers that the current Russian powers that be and Putin continue to play this card unchangingly.

“The present-day Ukrainian academe should thwart these attempts to rewrite history. The power of the truth is the main instrument here. The Ukrainians have the easiest option – to disclose what is in the archives and write the truth about this. The inner attitude of a historian undoubtedly influences the conclusions in his works. But this is reconsideration of facts. A patriotic historian does not falsify facts – he only critically assesses them. Incidentally, the newspaper Den follows the line of the historical truth, when history itself speaks out.

“Our state has not yet raised our history to the level it deserves. We write very little and let speculations run riot. I mean books and animated cartoons for children, historical novels and films on the key figures that contributed to the grandeur of the Kyivan state, etc. We need mass literature: it is a problem to win broad readership because very few buy scholarly monographs. Speaking of the system of national historical education, there should be governmental orders to the ministry of culture, the writers’ league, filmmakers, and cartoonists. This should be a system that shows a true history and heroism of the people who have been building Ukraine since the times of Kyivan Rus’. Instead, we are so far giving this field to a narrow circle of academics, and we are out of touch with the general public. Therefore, what the newspaper Den is doing, trying to give a systemic account of the difficult and little-known pages of Ukraine’s history, is an extremely important thing. On the one hand, the newspaper is shaping historical awareness and, on the other, it is filling its own niche in the informational face-off, in the struggle for the historical truth.

“Any state builds itself by forming a certain identity and rallying the public around the common goals. And it is impossible to do so unless there is a common historical identity. I categorically object to decentralization in the field of societal identity and language. We have done so and ended up with the Crimea and Donbas setbacks. This is a lesson for the state to learn. I say ‘yes’ to financial decentralization and ‘no’ to that in the sphere of societal and historical awareness and pedagogy. For what is now a problem region used to be a communist conservation area. Even when the central authorities were striking Lenin monuments off their balance sheets, they would demonstratively leave them on the local government books. So, we got a warped post-Soviet awareness, where Russian imperial and post-communist persuasions intertwined, resulting in an ugly alloy. We need a system and a governmental order for publications in line with the Ukrainian Book program. The state should support the publishers that annually turn out widely read books and must not stint on money here, for, otherwise, we will lose much more as a result of societal crises.

“Now about popularizing our views abroad. I worked as a Fulbright Scholar at the US Congress Library in 2009. Studying foreign historiography with respect to my subject, I noticed that very few academics in the world quoted Ukrainian-language publications. If we want to influence the world historical thought and put across information about ourselves, we must find a way to relay the achievements of our historical science. This should not be the question of academics only. There should be translations of fundamental works that would convey the vision of Ukrainian historians. This requires state resources, but this can also be done in partnership between the state and charitable foundations, etc., so that works could, if necessary, be translated into English and published worldwide and people could see the Ukrainian side’s viewpoint on the history of Ukraine or the processes now under way in the world. The newspaper Den has done an extremely important thing by publishing a collection of what it considers to be crucial questions of Ukrainian history – Ukraine Incognita. TOP 25 – in Russian and English. It was a very opportune choice of the target language and audience. I think other publications and the state should use this experience of Den. If I were the state, I would support the newspaper’s initiative and find a possibility to release additional copies of these publications which could be spread all over the world via our cultural representations and embassies and made available to politicians, historians, and the general public in other countries.”

“DELIBERATE IGNORANCE”

Yurii SHAPOVAL, professor, Doctor of Sciences (History):

“I am not going to make a long commentary on the statement of Russia’s president who will go down in history as a person who has done his utmost to fuel anti-Russian sentiments in the world and in Ukraine, which resulted in the slogan ‘It is a shame to be Russian.’ But he is not ashamed, however. Yet, although Putin is the president, he is not the whole Russia. The world has already seen and – believe me – will see still more proof of this.

“In principle, there is nothing new for Russia in Putin’s historical ‘exercises.’ In 1839, a French traveler and journalist, Marquis Astolphe de Custine, wrote about the importance of history in Russia: ‘In Russia, history is part of the royal domain; it is the immaterial property of the ruler exactly as men and lands form his material property. History is kept locked away with the crown jewels, and only that part of it is displayed which the ruler deems useful to display. The memory of what happened in the past belongs to the Tsar alone. He amends the annals of the nation at his good pleasure, and dispenses daily to the people those historic truths which are consonant with the fiction of the moment.’

“If you remember these wonderful words, you should not be surprised with the new exploits of a former KGB lieutenant-colonel at the ‘historical front.’

“As for Crimea, the Russians are losing out on everything – they are trying to ‘privatize’ Prince Volodymyr, they have forgotten that they came to Crimea in the 18th century as occupiers. Crimea is a Tatar land, and Putin’s words expose the deliberate ignorance of those who drew up texts for him to read out.

“I now can recall one more Frenchman who found himself in Russia in 1786. He lived at the emperor’s palace in Petersburg for eight years as a teacher and mentor. In particular, he taught mathematics to the empress’s grandchildren. It is Charles Masson, the author of the book Secret Memoirs of the Court of St. Petersburg, which, incidentally, the Russians banned. They also destroyed its foreign-language editions. Masson recalls not only the conquest of Crimea by Catherine II, but also his meeting with a Tatar after that event. Stopping by the house of an old Tatar in Crimea, Masson noticed that the man was sad and asked him about the reason why.

“‘I have great reason,’ said he. ‘The Russian soldiers, who are in the neighborhood, come every day and cut own my fruit-trees that serve me both for shade and nourishment to burn them.’

“‘Why do you not you complain of this treatment to their commander?’ the guest advised him.

“‘I have done so. He told me that I   should be paid two rubles a foot for such as they had already cut down and as many as they may cut down hereafter. But I do not want their money. Let me at least die in peace under the shadow of the trees which my fathers have planted! Or, if this is not so, then I must follow my unhappy brethren and flee my country, as they have been compelled to do before me.’

“Masson says in conclusion: ‘The Russian government is an oppressor and a conqueror, the Russian is a soldier and a ruiner.’

“A ruiner and a soldier, Putin quite logically demands that the history of Crimea be rewritten to his liking. The Russian political and academic rabble is bound to back him. But, thank God, there are those who know what Crimea was and still is in reality.”

By Olha KHARCHENKO, Dmytro KRYVTSUN, The Day