Advertisement

Tatarstan

  • Marat Gibatdinov
Chapter

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.

Further Reading

  1. Bilz, M. ‘Deconstructing the myth of the Tatar Yoke’. Central Asian Survey 27 1 (2008): 33–44.Google Scholar
  2. Bilz, M. Tatarstan in der Transformation. Nationaler Diskurs und politische Praxis 1988–1994. Stuttgart: ibidem-Verlag, 2007.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Gibatdinov, M. ‘Teaching History in Multicultural Russia’. Yearbook of the International Society of History Didactics (2006/2007): 39–48.Google Scholar
  5. 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/.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marat Gibatdinov
    • 1
  1. 1.Modern History and History DidacticsSapienza University of RomeRomaItaly

Personalised recommendations