Paul
Goble
Staunton, January 7 – Cheboksary historian
Sergey Shcherbakov says that unfortunately Russian scholars and following them
ordinary Russians view both Russians and non-Russians as the objects of history
rather than its subjects. Non-Russians must not; and to that end, they must develop
their own academies of sciences and other scholarly centers.
In a wide-ranging interview with Ersubay
Yangarov of the IdelReal portal, Shcherbakov argues that Chuvashia must reverse
a decision taken 15 years ago to strip its Academy of Sciences of a state
status both to counter this Russian perspective and to promote the alternative
(idelreal.org/a/29689963.html).
Scholarship should be super-national,
the historian says; but “when the existential vector of research is directed at
recognizing its place in this global world, then scholarship can and must be
national.” That is certainly the case of the Chuvash and other non-Russians
living within the current borders of the Russian Federation.
“All-Russian academic thought
studies peoples of the country as the object but not the subject of the
historical process.” That is wrong for Russians and for non-Russians alike –
and the latter must promote the idea that they are all subjects of history,
capable of making their own way in the world rather than remaining in the shadow
of larger ethnic communities.
The Chuvash nation needs not a scientific
center which is a branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences but its own
academy. Any federal center will “fulfill common federal tasks.” For the study
of the nation’s unique characteristics, Shcherbakov says, there must be one
under exclusive local control.
“The Chuvash republic public
organization, ‘the Chuvash National academy of Science and Arts’ which we now
have could be such a center,” he says; but it needs financing in order to be
able to attract and hold the best professionals necessary to train the rising
generation and inform the population at large.
One of the first order tasks of any Chuvash
academy is to prepare a serious history of the nation, one that treats it not
as a subordinate and “second class” group of people but rather as a group that
to the best of its ability has been acting as a subject of history and not just
the object of the actions of others.
Only if Chuvash think in that way
will they be able to make their own history in the future, rather than existing
as many of them now are and waiting for others to make their history for them,
the scholar concludes.
No comments:
Post a Comment