Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tatarstan

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Conflict and History Education in the Post-Cold War Era

  • 526 Accesses

Abstract

Gibatdinov presents an overview of the historical background to the debates and controversies surrounding history teaching in Tatarstan and discusses a number of contemporary issues. The ‘textbook war’ centres on current Tatar historiography against the mono-perspectival approach to history found in Russian federal textbooks. Further controversies concern differing interpretations of history within Tatar historiography, highlighting Tatarist and Bulgarist perspectives. The question of Bulgar heritage is explored against competing Tatar and Chuvash claims. Religion, and its role in Tatar ethnic identity, the promotion in textbooks of peaceful ethnic coexistence as well as disputes involving Finno-Ugric and Bashkir historians are also explored. Debates on history play a crucial role in public discourse in post-Soviet Tatarstan, inevitably coming into conflict with officially approved federal Russian historiography.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    R. Hakimov, ‘Introduction’. In Materialy II Mežregional’noj konferencii Realizaciâ nacional’no-regional’nogo komponenta istoričeskogo obrazovaniâ v nacional’nyh respublikah Povolž’â i Priural’â: problemy i perspektivy, ed. F. Sultanov and M. Gibatdinov (Kazan’: Institut Istorii AN RT, 2005), 4–5.

  2. 2.

    Resolution (Postanovlenie) of the Central Committee of the Communist Party ‘On the conditions and measures for the improvement of political and ideological work in the Tatar party organisation’ (1944); the conclusions of an office within the Tatar regional committee of the Communist Party: ‘On mistakes and shortcomings in the work of the Tatar research institute of language, literature and history’ (1944) and ‘On a situation in the preparation of essays on the history of Tatar АSSR’ (1946). Documents in: S. A. Dudoignon, D. Ishakov and R. Muhametšin, Islam v tatarskom mire: istoriâ i sovremennost’ (Kazan’, 1997), 338–378.

  3. 3.

    Federal statute number 309-FZ became effective from 1 December 2007 and ushered in radical change in the field of education in the Russian Federation. The national/regional component (NRK) was abolished; the ‘unity of the educational space of the Russian Federation’ was accentuated. As a result, there are no in-class hours available in schools to cover regional and local history and native culture. Additionally, an order made by the Federal Ministry of Education (no. 362, 28 November 2008) forbids the use of native languages during the final state examinations (EGÈ), prescribing that Russian only be used. In other words, the educational rights of minorities as protected by the Russian constitution and the requirement in the Federal State Educational Standards of the Russian Federation to show ‘responsiveness to the ethno-cultural peculiarities of peoples and historical specificity of the regions’ have become, in the truest sense, rather academic.

  4. 4.

    According to the Law on Education in the Russian Federation of 29 December 2012 (no. 273-FZ), only those textbooks approved by the government can be officially used in schools. There are two classifications (grif): ‘allowed’ (the first level or ‘rank’ of approval for new textbooks) and ‘recommended’ (the second highest rank of approval). The latter can only be received after ‘approbation’ (i.e. the use of the textbook in the classroom, with positive feedback from teachers). Previously, the regional ministries of education were responsible for the approval of all regional textbooks. Since 2005, however, all textbooks have been required to be assessed at federal level only, by the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian Academy of Education, for their conformity to scientific and academic accuracy and to educational standards. If a textbook passes the assessment procedure, the Russian Ministry of Education will put it on the ‘Federal lists of textbooks approved (allowed) for use in the educational process’, passed by the Federal Ministry of Education for each school year (http://www.fpu.edu.ru/fpu/, accessed 31 January 2018). Non-approved textbooks can be used at the teacher’s own risk, but the first inspection after commencement of use will result in the books being removed from the school library.

  5. 5.

    The term ‘national’ is used here to mean ‘ethnic’; NRK (the Russian acronym for Natcional’no—Regional’nyj Komponent) therefore refers to an ethno-regional component in history teaching (regional and local history and culture).

  6. 6.

    ‘Obâzatel’nyj minimum soderžaniâ srednego (polnogo) obŝego obrazovaniâ. Obrazovatel’naâ oblast’ ‘Obŝestvoznanie’ [The compulsory minimum content of secondary (full) general education]’, Narodnoe obrazovanie 16 (1998), 18–21; ‘Nacional’naâ doktrina obrazovaniâ v Rossijskoj Federacii [The national doctrine of education in the Russian Federation]’, Učitel’skaâ gazeta 42 (1999), 12; ‘Ob utverždenii Federal’noj programmy razvitiâ obrazovaniâ [On the approval of the federal programme of development in education]’, Vestnik obrazovaniâ 12 (2000), 3–15; ‘Ob utverždenii maketov gosudarstvennyh obrazovatel’nyh standartov [On the approval of the State Educational Standards]’, Vestnik obrazovaniâ 10 (2000), 3–7.

  7. 7.

    I. Fokeeva, Naсional’no-regional’nyj komponent istoričeskogo obrazovaniâ: metodičeskoe posobie dlâ učitelâ [The ethno-regional component of history education: teacher’s workbook] (Kazan: TaRIH, 2003).

  8. 8.

    An autonomous republic was the second rank of republic (lower than a Union Republic) in the structure of the USSR. TASSR was a part of the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic).

  9. 9.

    T. Sherlock, Historical Narratives in the Soviet Union and Post-Soviet Russia: Destroying the Settled Past, Creating an Uncertain Future (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007); V. Kaplan, P. Agmon and L. Ermolaeva, The Teaching of History in Contemporary Russia: Trends and Perspectives (Tel Aviv: The Cummings Center for Russian and East European Studies, Tel Aviv University, 1999).

  10. 10.

    For more details, see: M. Leušin, ‘Istoriâ tatar pered sudom CK VKP(b)’ [The history of Tatars before the court of the Central Committee of the Communist Party] Gasyrlar Avazy 3 (1996) 4, 84–95; I. Ismajlov, ‘Ne dano marksistskoj ocenki Zolotoj Orde [[They] did not assess the Golden Horde from the Marxist viewpoint …]’, Gasyrlar Avazy 3 (1996) 4, 96–101.

  11. 11.

    T. Guzenkova, ‘Respubliki Povolž’â za pravo na sobstvennuû istoriû [The Volga Region republics for an entitlement to their own history]’. In Nacional’nye istorii v sovetskom I postsovetskih gosudarstvah, ed. K. Ajmermaher and G. Bordûgov (Moscow: Fond Fridriha Naumanna, 2003), 131–135.

  12. 12.

    Federal’nyj Gosudarstvennyj Obrazovatel’nyj Standart (FGOS), accessed 1 June 2017, http://www.fgosvo.ru/.

  13. 13.

    In the Russian language, the term generally translated as ‘Russian’ refers to the ethnic Russian peoples (russkie); for all citizens of the Russian Federation, without ethnic distinction, the term rossiâne is used.

  14. 14.

    V. Piskarëv et al., ‘Istoriâ tatarskogo naroda i Tatarstana v federal’nyh učebnikah [The history of Tatars in federal textbooks]’, Magarif 12 (2001/2) 1, 54–57/63–65; F. Sultanov, M. Gibatdinov and L. Bajbulatova, eds., Recenzii na federal’nye učebniki po istorii otečestva [Reviews of federal textbooks on the history of the motherland] (Kazan: Institute of History). All translations by the author unless otherwise stated.

  15. 15.

    M. Kuz’min et al., ‘Analiz učebnyh izdanij, imeûŝih grif organa upravleniâ sub’ekta Rossijskoj Federacii [Analyses of the educational materials approved by the educational authorities of the Russian Federation’s federal subjects]’. In Materialy II Mežregional’noj konferencii Realizaciâ nacional’no-regional’nogo komponenta istoričeskogo obrazovaniâ v nacional’nyh respublikah Povolž’â i Priural’â: problemy i perspektivy, ed. F. Sultanov and M. Gibatdinov (Kazan’: Institut Istorii AN RT, 2005), 120–143.

  16. 16.

    ‘Putin potreboval “pravil’nogo” edinogo učebnika po istorii [Putin requires ‘correct’ single history textbooks]’, accessed 25 January 2015, http://newsru.com/russia/19feb2013/putindybom_print.html.

  17. 17.

    The final version of the concept had been adopted at the time this chapter was completed: ‘The concept of the new educational complex on national history’, accessed 1 June 2017, http://rushistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Koncepcia_final.pdf. Many of Tatar historians’ recommendations were quite unexpectedly accepted by the concept’s authors. The controversial term ‘Mongol-Tatar Yoke’ was changed to the more neutral ‘dependency of Russian lands on the Khans (so-called “Horde Yoke”)’. However, the history of Tatars and other peoples of Russia are still not integral parts of Russian history, but only treated as supplementary to the main narrative. The indigenous people’s narrative is represented in the concept mostly via political history, with cultural aspects almost completely neglected. Such sensitive topics as forcible Christianisation and Russification are still ignored in the concept.

  18. 18.

    The only exception is Miftahov’s textbook: Z. Miftahov and D. Muhamadeeva, Istoriâ Tatarstana i tatarskogo naroda: Učebnik dlâ srednih obŝeobrazovatel’nyh škol, gimnazij i liceev. č.1 [The history of Tatarstan and Tatars: Textbook for secondary comprehensive and selective schools Part 1] (Kazan’: Magarif, 1995), which took an approach closer to that of the Bulgarists and ‘Mongolists’, but was not widely used. Almost inevitably the textbook written by the Bulgarist Nurutdinov was never recommended by the ministry or approved for official use in schools: F. Nurutdinov, Rodinovedenie. Metodičeskoe posobie po istorii Tatarstana [The study of native history. Workbook on the history of Tatarstan] (Kazan’, 1995). There is no clear evidence that Nurutdinov’s book has been or is being unofficially used in schools. Because of the unfavourable reviews given by the Tatarstan Academy of Sciences and the In-service Teacher Training Institute, this book could not be used extensively in schools. It was briefly, and illicitly, used by the author and a small circle of those holding the same views, due to a lack of new textbooks. Tatarstan was strongly criticised by federal institutions for using this book, although the author referred to it as merely ‘teaching materials’, as no official classification (‘recommended [authorised] by the Ministry of Education’) appears on its first page as in approved textbooks.

  19. 19.

    For more details, see: ‘Gusman Halilov’s appeal against the decision of the Tatarstan Ministry of Education on Ravil’ Fahrutdinov’s textbook’, accessed 31 January 2018, http://www.bulgars.ru/dela/kitap0.htm; I. Izmajlov, ‘Nezakonnoroždennye deti gospod žurnalistov, ili o navâzčivom šumero-bulgarizatorstve istorii tatar [The illegitimate children of journalists, or: On the obsessive Sumerian-Bulgarisation of Tatar history]’, Zvezda Povolž’â, 17–21 (2003) April–May.

  20. 20.

    F. Sultanov et al., eds., Nacional’no-regional’nyj komponent gosudarstvennogo obrazovatel’nogo standarta osnovnogo obŝego obrazovaniâ po istorii. Predmet—‘Istoriâ tatarskogo naroda i Tatarstana’ (Proekt) [The ethno-regional component of the State Educational Standards of basic general education in history. The school subject ‘History of Tatars and Tatarstan’. A draft] (Kazan’: Institut Istorii AN RT, 2006).

  21. 21.

    G. Davletšin and F. Huzin, Bulgarskaâ civilizaciâ na Volge [The Bulgar civilisation on the Volga] (Kazan’: TKI, 2011).

  22. 22.

    I. Gilâzov, ‘Bulgarizm vozroždaetsâ? [Bulgarism revived?]’, Zvezda Povolž’â 32 (2010) 2–8 September, discussion section.

  23. 23.

    The Bolgar National Congress (local NGO) website, accessed 1 June 2017, http://www.bulgars.ru/.

  24. 24.

    The History of the Tatars since Ancient Times. In Seven Volumes (Kazan: Sh. Marjani Institute of History, 2017). For more information see Sh. Marjani History Institute website, accessed 31 January 2018, http://xn%2D%2D80aagie6cnnb.xn%2D%2Dp1ai/libraries?page=3.

  25. 25.

    Bulgarica. Vremâ i prostranstvo Bolgarskoj civilizacii: Atlas [An Atlas Bulgarica. The Time and Space of the Bulgar Civilisation] (Kazan/Moscow, 2011).

  26. 26.

    ‘Bulgarizm vozroždaetsâ [Bulgarism revived]’, Zvezda Povolž’â 29 (2010) 12–18 August; I. Gilâzov, ‘Bulgarizm vozroždaetsâ?’

  27. 27.

    After the deaths of Al’fred Halikov (1994) and Abrar Karimullin (2000), Bulgarists were unable to gain friends among other prominent historians. Faâz Huzin, the most famous successor of Halikov’s research, was more inclined towards Tatarism, or towards a combination of both approaches.

  28. 28.

    President of the Bolgar National Congress Gusman Halilov’s struggle for the official recognition of the term ‘Bulgar’ as an ethnonym for Tatars: ‘Legal statement to the Prosecutor’s Office’, accessed 1 June 2017, http://www.bulgars.ru/dela/gosov23.htm; ‘Appeal to the European Court of Human Rights’, accessed 1 June 2017, http://www.bulgars.ru/dela/reab6.htm; ‘Appeal to President Putin’, accessed 1 June 2017, http://www.bulgars.ru/dela/reab1.htm; various documents and letters to be found on the Bulgarists’ website, accessed 1 June 2017, http://www.bulgars.ru/dela.htm.

  29. 29.

    Û. Šamiloglu, “‘Džagfar Tarikhy’: kak izobretalos’ bulgarskoye samosoznaniye [‘Djagfar Tarikhy’: the invention of the Bulgar sense of self]”. In Fal’sifikaciâ istoričeskih istočnikov i konstruirovanie etnokratičeskih mifov, ed. A.E. Petrov and V.A. Shnirel’man (Moscow: IA RAN, 2011), 275–287; A. Petrov, ‘Neobulgarskaâ ideâ i legitimizaciâ poddel’nogo svoda Džagfara [Neo-Bulgar concept and legitimisation of the fabricated code of Djagfar]’. In Fal’sifikaciâ istoričeskih istočnikov i konstruirovanie etnokratičeskih mifov, ed. A.E. Petrov and V.A. Shnirel’man (Moscow: IA RAN, 2011), 288–296.

  30. 30.

    M. Zakiev, Proishoždenie Tûrkov i Tatar [The origin of Turkic peoples and Tatars] (Moscow: Insan, 2002).

  31. 31.

    A. Halikov, Kem bes—bolgarmy a̋lla̋ tatarmy? [Who are we—Bulgars or Tatars?] (Kazan: Isdatel’stvo ‘Kazan’, 1992).

  32. 32.

    For more details see: Shnirelman, V. ‘Ot konfessional’nogo k etničeskomu: bulgarskaâ ideâ v nacional’nom samosoznanii kazanskih tatar v XX veke [From the denominational to the ethnic: Bulgarist ideas on the national self-awareness of Kazan Tatars in the twentieth century]’, Vestnik Evrazii 1–2 (1998): 131–152.

  33. 33.

    Chuvash: a Turkic ethnic group, native to the Volga region. Most live in the Republic of Chuvashia (Russian Federation) and surrounding areas. The majority of Chuvash people are Orthodox Christians.

  34. 34.

    Vasilij Dimitriev, ‘Ob osnovnoj argumentacii teorii čuvašskogo ètnogeneza [On the basic arguments of the theory of Chuvash ethnogenesis]’. In Problemy srednevekovoj arheologii Urala, ed. R. Gumerovič Kuzeev (Ufa: BFAN SSSR, 1986), 26–35.

  35. 35.

    For more details, see: M. Gibatdinov, ‘Cross-referencing images of Muslims and Islam in Russian and Tatar textbooks (1747–2007)’. In Narrating Islam: Interpretations of the Muslim World in European Texts, ed. G. Jonker and S. Thobani (London: Tauris Academic Studies, I B Tauris & Co Ltd., 2010), 62–95.

  36. 36.

    For more details, see: M. Bilz, ‘Stiefkinder der Nation. Zur Brisanz der Kategorie “krjašeny” im Russischen Zensus von 2002’. In Neuordnung der Lebenswelten? Studien zur Gestaltung muslimischer Lebenswelten in der frühen Sowjetunion und ihren Nachfolgestaaten, ed. A. Frings (Berlin: Lit-Verlag, 2006), 127–162.

  37. 37.

    This obligatory subject allowed parents to choose only one of the six components (‘The Basis of Orthodox Culture’, ‘The Basis of Muslim Culture’, ‘The Basis of Judaic Culture’, ‘The Basis of Buddhist Culture’, ‘The Basis of the World’s Religious Cultures’, ‘The Basis of Secular Ethics’) for their children to learn, starting from the final year in primary school. Officially, all components are to be taught only using a cultural approach—any form of religious or atheistic indoctrination is not allowed and the use of any official ideology is forbidden by the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

  38. 38.

    The results of surveys among parents in Tatarstan show that the majority prefer the subjects ‘The Basis of the World’s Religious Cultures’ (61.3%) and ‘The Basis of Secular Ethics’ (38.7%); however, experts cite that ‘both the first president of Tatarstan, Shaimiev, and the current president, Minnikhanov, publicly emphasised the secular character of the republic’s schools and recommend strongly that parents choose ‘The Basis of the World’s Religious Cultures’ and ‘The Basis of Secular Ethics’. None of the Tatarstan schoolchildren have studied the option ‘The Basis of Muslim Culture’ or ‘The Basis of Orthodox Culture’, accessed 1 June 2017, http://religare.ru/2_97189.html. ‘We worked with parents, they were fully informed on all details, and they expressed their opinions’, said a spokesman from the Tatarstan ministry of education, accessed 1 June 2017, http://kazanweek.ru/article/5238/.

  39. 39.

    N. Garif, Osvoboditel’naâ vojna tatarskogo naroda [The Tatar People’s War of Liberation] (Kazan’: Tatarskoe knižnoe izdatel’stvo, 2006).

  40. 40.

    A. Ovčinnikov, ‘Prizyv k ekstremizmu [Incitement to extremism]’, an appeal to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Tatarstan containing an analysis of N. Garif, ‘The Tatar People’s War of Liberation’, Zvezda Povolž’â 23 (2009), 2.

  41. 41.

    Â. Amelina, ‘Russkij marš v Kazani [The Russian march in Kazan]’, news posted on the Bashkortostan traditionalists’ website RB-21 vek, 8 November 2009, accessed 10 June 2012, http://www.rb21vek.com/print:page,1,191-russkij-marsh-v-kazani.html.

  42. 42.

    A. Ovčinnikov, ‘Slavânskoe prisutstvie [The Slavic presence]’, accessed 28 May 2012, http://tatpolit.ru/category/zvezda/2009-11-16/2192; I. Izmajlov, ‘Otsutstvie prisutstviâ ili opyt izučeniâ politizacii arheologii [‘The absence of presence’, or observations on the politicisation of archaeology]’, accessed 28 May 2012, http://tatpolit.ru/category/zvezda/2009-11-30/2250; A. Ovčinnikov, ‘Deševaâ istoriografiâ (otvet I.L. Izmajlovu) [Vulgar historiography (a response to I.L. Izmajlov)]’, accessed 28 May 2012, http://tatpolit.ru/category/zvezda/2009-12-24/2400.

  43. 43.

    A. Ovčinnikov, ‘Pričiny otricaniâ [The cause of negation (of earlier Slavic presence in the Volga area)]’, accessed 28 May 2012, http://tatpolit.ru/category/zvezda/2009-12-07/2293; ‘Istoriâ bolezni [The medical report]’, accessed 28 May 2012, http://tatpolit.ru/category/zvezda/2010-03-29/3114.

  44. 44.

    R. Sylejmanov, ‘Fal’sifikaciâ proosifi v uv usifik po istorii Tatarstana i tatarskogo naroda: proroa: pr, masasa:, posledstviv [Advocating textbooks on the history of Tatarstan and the Tatar peoples: manifestations, scale, consequences]’, website of Privolžskij Centr Regional’nyh i ètnoreligioznyh issledovanij RISI; information on round table posted 10 May 2012, accessed 1 June 2017, http://www.kazan-center.ru/osnovnye-razdely/16/284/.

  45. 45.

    A. Ovčinnikov, ‘Neskol’ko slov Ajdaru Halimu [A few words on Ajdar Halim]’, http://tatpolit.ru/category/zvezda/2009-12-24/2404; I. Izmajlov, ‘Ovčinka [The sheepskin]’, http://tatpolit.ru/category/zvezda/2010-03-15/3013; ‘Ovčinka vydelki ne stoit [The game is not worth the candle]’, http://tatpolit.ru/category/zvezda/2010-02-24/2849; ‘Obŝeizvestno, čto naučnye diskussii prinâto provodit’ na konferenciâh [It is generally known that academic discussions must be addressed at conferences]’, http://tatpolit.ru/category/zvezda/2010-04-06/3153; A. Ovčinnikov, ‘V zaveršenie spora [In conclusion of the discussion]’, http://tatpolit.ru/category/zvezda/2010-03-02/2905; A. Sibgatullin, ‘Okaânnye inoplemenniki [The damned members of a different tribe]’, http://tatpolit.ru/category/zvezda/2010-03-02/2907, all accessed 28 May 2012.

  46. 46.

    A. Ovčinnikov, ‘Slavânskoe prisutstvie [The Slavic presence]’, accessed 30 May 2012, http://tatpolit.ru/category/zvezda/2009-11-16/2192.

  47. 47.

    M. Kirčanov, ‘Istoriâ i nacional’naâ identičnost’ v finno-ugorskih regionah RSFSR [History and national identity in the Finno-Ugric regions of the RSFSR]’, Naučnyj èlektronnyj žurnal. Regional’nye issledovaniâ 2 (2010), accessed 1 June 2017, https://sites.google.com/site/regionalnyeissledovanija/arhiv/vyp-2/m-v-kircanov-istoria-i-nacionalnaa-identicnost-v-finno-ugorskih-regionah-rsfsr.

  48. 48.

    Ibid.

  49. 49.

    V. Ûrčenkov, Mir istorii, učebnik po istorii Rodnogo kraâ dlâ 6 kl. [The world of history: textbook of native history for 6th grade] (Saransk, 1997), 43.

  50. 50.

    N. Anufrieva, Rodinovedenie: učebnik dlâ 5 kl. [Textbook of native history for 5th grade] (Saransk, 1997), 222.

  51. 51.

    V. Ûrčenkov, Mir istorii, učebnik po istorii Rodnogo kraâ dlâ 6 kl. [The world of History: textbook of native history] (Saransk, 1997), 66–69.

  52. 52.

    S. K. Svečnikov, Istoria marijskogo naroda IX–XVI vekov [The history of the Mari people from the ninth to the sixteenth century] (Joškar-Ola, 2005), 40.

  53. 53.

    R. Hakim, ‘Kem sin, tatar? [Who are you, Tatars?]’. In Tatar ruhy: sajlanma a̋sa̋rla̋r (1989—2006) (Kazan: Tatar. Kit. Na̋šr., 2007), 109–110.

  54. 54.

    S. Gallâmov, ‘Kak uničtožaetsâ i razvorovyvaetsâ istoriâ i kul’tura baškordskogo naroda [How Bashkir history and culture is destroyed and stolen]’. In Velikij Hau Ben (Istoričeskie korni baškordsko-anglijskogo âzyka i mifologii) (Ufa: Baškortostan, 1997).

  55. 55.

    Rafail (Rafaèl’) Hakim (Hakimov), Vice-President of the Tatarstan Academy of Sciences, Director of Sh.Mardjani Institute of History, Research Director of the Kazan Center of Federalism and Public Policy (KCFPP), former State Adviser to the President of the Tatarstan Republic (1991–2008).

  56. 56.

    R. Hakim, ‘Istoriâ tatar i Tatarstana: metodologičeskie i teoretičeskie problemy [History of Tatars and Tatarstan: methodological and theoretical problems]’, Panorama, Forum 19 (1999): 1–49 (here 3–4).

  57. 57.

    Pyotr Stolypin (1862–1911) was the Prime Minister of the Russian Empire from 1906 to 1911.

  58. 58.

    R. Hakim, ‘Kem sin, tatar?’, 109–110, 120.

  59. 59.

    Salavat Gallâmov, Bashkir researcher in comparative linguistics, etymology and interpretation of words, author of the theory of the Iranian origin of the Bashkir people and hypotheses about the impact of the Bashkir language on the ancient and modern European languages, and of Bashkir myths and epics on ancient Indian philosophy.

  60. 60.

    S. Gallâmov, ‘Kak uničtožaetsâ i razvorovyvaetsâ istoriâ i kul’tura baškordskogo naroda’, 91.

  61. 61.

    Aleksandr Ovčinnikov, Russian historian (PhD in history), lecturer at Kazan Technological Research University.

  62. 62.

    A. Ovčinnikov, ‘Prizyv k ekstremizmu’, 2.

  63. 63.

    Gusman Halilov, graduated as a radio technician (1970) and historian in the Kazan State University (1979), was a police officer (1981–1997) and is now retired. He is president of the NGO ‘Bolgar National Congress’.

  64. 64.

    Halilov’s appeal to the State Council of the Republic of Tatarstan of 14 June 2000, accessed 31 January 2018, http://www.bulgars.ru/dela/gsv1920.html.

  65. 65.

    Prof. Gennadij Tafaev, Chuvash historian, head of the department of regional history at the Chuvash State Pedagogical University.

  66. 66.

    G. Tafaev, ‘Positions of Tatar and Chuvash historians on the Golden Horde in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries’, Gennadij Tafaev’s blog, last modified 17 March 2011, accessed 1 June 2017, http://tafaj.blogspot.com/2011/03/xiii-xiv.html.

  67. 67.

    Sergej Svečnikov, Mari historian, PhD in history, head of the department of socio-cultural technologies at the Mari State University.

  68. 68.

    S. K. Svečnikov, Istoria marijskogo naroda IX–XVI vekov [The History of the Mari people from the ninth to the sixteenth century] (Joškar-Ola, 2005).

  69. 69.

    Prof. Valerij Ûrčenkov, Mordvinian historian, director of the Research Institute for Humanities (NIIGN), member of the Executive Committee of the Association of Finno-Ugric Peoples of the Russian Federation (since 2009).

  70. 70.

    V. Ûrčenkov, Mir istorii, 66–69.

Further Reading

  • Bilz, M. ‘Deconstructing the myth of the Tatar Yoke’. Central Asian Survey 27 1 (2008): 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilz, M. Tatarstan in der Transformation. Nationaler Diskurs und politische Praxis 1988–1994. Stuttgart: ibidem-Verlag, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cwiklinski, S. ‘Tatarizm vs. Bulgarizm: “pervyj spor” v tatarskoj istoriografii [Tatarism vs. Bulgarism: ‘The first debate’ in Tatar historiography]’. Ab imperio 3 (2003): 361–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibatdinov, M. ‘Teaching History in Multicultural Russia’. Yearbook of the International Society of History Didactics (2006/2007): 39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishakov, D. ‘“Bitva istorikov” v Respublike Tatarstan v 1990-h godah i sozdanie Instituta istorii AN RT [The ‘battle of historians’ in the Republic of Tatarstan in the 1990s and the creation of an Institute of History within the Tatarstan Academy of Sciences]’. Zvezda Povolž’â. 3 June 2011, accessed 5 July 2016, http://tatpolit.ru/category/zvezda/2011-05-15/5844/.

  • Ishakov, S. ‘Istoriâ narodov Povolž’â i Urala: problemy i perspektivy ‘nacionalizacii’ [The history of the Volga region and the Ural peoples: problems and prospects of “nationalisation”]’. In Nacional’nye istorii v sovetskom I postsovetskih gosudarstvah, edited by K. Ajmermaher and G. Bordûgov, 273–295. Moscow: Friedrich Naumann Foundation, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shnirelman, V. ‘Očarovanie sedoj drevnosti: Mify o proishoždenii v sovremennyh škol’nyh učebnikah [The charm of hoary antiquity: myths around origin in contemporary school textbooks]’. Neprikosnovennyj zapas 5 37 (2004): 79–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usmanova, D. ‘Sozdavaâ nacional’nuû istoriû tatar: istoričeskie i intellektual’nye debaty na rubeže vekov [Creating a national history of Tatars: historical and intellectual debates at the turn of the century]’. In Novaâ imperskaâ istoriâ postsovetskogo prostranstva, edited by I. Gerasimov et al., 109–126. Kazan’: Centr Issledovanij Nacionalizma i Imperii, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Modern History and History Didactics, Sapienza University of Rome, Roma, Italy

    Marat Gibatdinov

Authors
  1. Marat Gibatdinov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Modern History and History Didactics, Sapienza University of Rome, Roma, Italy

    Luigi Cajani

  2. German Historical Institute, Washington, DC, USA

    Simone Lässig

  3. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Maria Repoussi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gibatdinov, M. (2019). Tatarstan. In: Cajani, L., Lässig, S., Repoussi, M. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Conflict and History Education in the Post-Cold War Era. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05722-0_51

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05722-0_51

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05721-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05722-0

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation