The Analysis of the Text Books on the History of Ukraine on the Matter of Creation of the Negative I
Association of the Crimean Tatar teachers “Maarifchi”
1. Viktor Misan “The Stories on the History of Ukraine”, 5 grade. Kiev “Geneza” 1997.
The content of this manual contains evident process of creating of negative
image of Crimean Tatars in the historic aspect, including ones in the field
of the relations with Ukrainian people, that could prove the following facts.
1. The description in this or that aspect the history of the relations of Ukrainian
Kassakship and Krimean Khanate provided on the pages 106 – 118. Here we
can notice significant dominance of negative description. The total amount of
mentioning about Crimean Tatars comprises 26 times:
- in neutral aspect – 5 times;
- in positive aspect – 1 time;
- in negative aspect – 20 times.
Even the arrow which wounded Getman Sagaydachny acquires the nationality –
it is “Tatar” arrow (though at that time Sagaydachniy fights according
to the history with Turks).
Conselement of the facts of positive relationships between Ukrainian and Crimean
Tatar peoples and “blowing up” the negative ones. In the liberation
fight of Bogdan Hmelnicky in the battle against Poland troops in the forest
“Zholtie vody” (the battle itself is described), but the battle
by the White Church (doesn’t described at all), though the battle by Berestechko
is described in every details when the Khan’s troops went out from the
battle field. Compare: the description of the two first battles in the text
– in the settlement Zheltie Vody and by the town Pilyavcy occupies in
the text book 19 lines, the last, the one by Berestechko – 90 lines, that
allowed the author to describe in every details in what difficult situation
found themselves the troups of Bogdan Khmelnicky after the betrayal of Tatars.
The association of Cossacks with the troops of the Khan in the beginning of
the battle was the only positive act on the part of Crimean Tatars that was
mentioned by the author.
The following development of the events destroys even this single positive factor.
The hide of other facts of positive relationship of Crimean Khan and Cossakship
allows the author to make the conclusion that “Tatar Khan was able to
sell and betray Ukraine for money” (page 118).
4. The description of the single event as common. For example, here is the way
the author describes the treatment of Tatars with captured elderly people: “The
old and disabled people were given to Tatar children in order that they trained
to shoot with a bow and to sabre”. If this facts ever existed it were
single instance but not the general occurrence.
5. The same example shows how it is possible to strengthen the process of creation
of the negative ethnic image by means of using the descriptions which provoke
strong emotional influence. Taking into account that the text book is mend for
11-12 year-old children, whose emotional perception still prevails under the
rational. It is possible to make the conclusion that this example (the use of
elderly people) could stamped in their memory for all their life time, arousing
hostility towards Crimean Tatars, not only to grown up ones but also towards
Crimean Tatar children.
The usage of contrasts in description, when negative actions of one part are
described alongside with the positive ones of the other part. In the material
the contrast is created artificially between negative war campaign of Crimean
Tatars and positive ones (with noble goal) war campaign of Cossacks against
the Crimea. This could serve as an example of the process of creation of negative
image of one nation by the creation of the positive image of the other (and
visa versa).
8. In the text there is no mentioning the economic, cultural and other relations
between Crimean Khanate and the Cossacks, that undoubtedly, assertion of the
idea about the historic heritage in the relations between Ukrainian and Crimean
Tatar peoples as exceptionally hostile and negative (wars and forays).
2. A.K. Shvidko “The History of Ukraine 16-18 centuries”, the text
book for 8 grade. Kiev “Geneza” 1999 (published in Russian and Ukrainian).
1. Lets have a look the comparative volume of the material of Chapter 8 “Turkey
and Crimean Khanate in the second half of 16 century – first half of the
17 century” which describes the basic historic and economic peculiarities
of Crimean Khanate (pages 66 - 70):
Thus, comparatively neutral description of Crimean Khanate occupies 17% of the
material. Evidently negative role of the Khanate towards Ukrainian population
(slaves) – 50 % of the material. The rest 33% describes the dependence
and unindependance of Crimean Khanate.
2. The interesting thing is also the content of these 25 lines, which describe
geography, history and economy of Crimean Khanate.
The first sentence says “Crimean Khanate of the 16 century occupied less
than a half of the peninsular. The rest more rich and futile lands together
with the main port Kafa belonged to Turkey”. One more phrase: “Productive
forces of the Crimea couldn’t feed the population of the peninsular. The
lack of the goods was compensated by spoils of the war campaigns to neighbor
countries”. As the experts note the majority of the population of the
Crimea constantly fought in Persia, Europe and on the first place in Ukraine.
This item contains the bar ideas of the whole 25 lines, dedicated to the description
of Crimean Khanate as the community of gangsters whose main source of living
is taking of captives and spoils. The author also notes that this kind of business
was typical for the majority of the population of the Crimea. And, finally,
the idea that the majority of the population fought constantly, and in the first
place in Ukraine. The idea imposed here of constant war between Crimean Khanate
and Ukraine, except for being a historic falsification, naturally inclines students
on the definite attitude towards Crimean Tatars.
At the end of the chapter there are three control questions which asked for
the fixing of the material and accentuate the attention of the students on the
definite aspects of the material. The questions are:
1. What were the reasons of the predatory campaigns of Tatars and Turks against
Ukraine?
2. With what goal Tatars and Turks took “yarys”? (yarys- captured).
The knowledge fixed by the answer to these questions and fixed in the memory
of the students, undoubtedly, contribute to the fixing of the negative ethnic
stereotype of Crimean Tatar people.
3. In Chapter 9 of this text book “Ukrainian Cossacks in the beginning
of the 17 century. Getman Sagaydachniy” two items are emphasized: “Turkish
– Tatar attacks” and “The epoch of heroic campaigns”.
In the items “Turkish – Tatar attacks” (page 72) we can pay
attention on that picturesqueness and emotionalytyness the material is provided
with. Here we can find the following sentences “There wasn’t a year
when Turks and Tatars invaded Ukraine, burned its villages and towns, killed
its citizens took yarys”. “In 1616 Tatars invaded Tatars invaded
Podol’e” as the contemporary writes, “hands in our blood up
to the elbow and vastened everything with fire and sword”. “However,
Turkish-Tatar hordes vasted Ukrainian land for years”. For example, in
1626 Osman Empire sent Tatars who reached Galicia to plunder and to intimidate
Ukraine.
Except for the surplus of negative-figurative provision of the material the
whole item consist of, we can notice the fact that except for the lack in those
times the State of Ukraine, the author constantly notes that aim of Turkish-Tatar
campaigns right against Ukraine and Ukrainian lands that undoubtedly, must left
ones trace in the mind of the contemporary Ukrainians.
4. The following paragraph “The epoch of the Heroic Campaigns” (pages
273) describes 8 successful large scale campaigns of Cossacks against Turks
and Tatars. The title of the paragraph calls attention itself “Heroic
Campaigns”, though except for the liberation of the captured and slaves
they were as predatory and gangster as the ones described on the part of Turks
and Tatars and the main goal of these campaigns was taking of plunder. The fact
that in the result of such campaigns perished Turks and Tatars isn’t even
cosealed, but it is regarded as the positive fact, because it “weakened
the military strength of the enemy”. For example, in the campaign against
Kafa were killed 14 southlands of Turk warriors, however the death of local
civil population is passing over the silence.
5 Here we can note that two paragraphs “Turkish-Tatar attacks” and
“The Epoch of Heroic Campaigns” are close together and they tell
about the events of the same level – war attacks but they described absolutely
in the different aspects and in the different language that lead to the result
that the campaigns of one part are considered as negative when the campaigns
of the other part as positive (even heroic phenomena). Due to this methods the
natural contrast is appears between negative Tatars and positive Cossacks which
serves as an additional mean of creation of negative image of Crimean Tatar
people in Ukrainians opinion.
In this aspect to our mind, the main idea is emphasized that in light of that
Tatars are the source of negative to Ukraine so to kill and to rob them is blessing
deed.
6. Chapter 28 (page 217) is entitled “The Fight Against Turkish-Tatar
Aggression in the Second Half of the 17 Century” (pages 217-223).
Considering the correlation of the number of attacks described in this chapter
we can see that Turkish-Tatar attacks do not prevail, however, the very title
of the chapter beforehand incline the reader on the definite way of perception.
Moreover we find with already described above method of evaluation of the events
when the events of the same level (war attacks) are considered in different
scale of evaluation. The attacks of one part is an aggression (negative), the
attacks of the other is the defense from the aggression (positive).
To our mind the attempt to regard the whole history of Cossack and Russian attacks
against the Crimea as the fight against Turkish-Tatar aggression is as a matter
of fact, the process of artificial idealization of one of the part.