Without Russia - and without Hrushevsky. How to change Ukraine's history

Ukrainian historical science is captured by certain myths, stereotypes and bias. Journalist Vadim Denysenko proposes to fight them strongly, creating a new history of Ukraine, which will not be Russian discourse, but also outdated national theories such as Hrushevsky . . . This text is an attempt to summarize some thoughts about problems in our modern historical science. And, if possible, to push discussions on this topic.

In recent years, thanks to the discovery of new sources, on the one hand, and by changing approaches in historical science, we have in many ways advanced in starting to create a new history of Ukraine. However, as for me, there are several problematic points, without which we will not be able to make real breakthroughs in the creation of a new history of Ukraine and culture of historical memory. So what are these problems? 1.

An attempt to compete with Russia and write history, starting from Russian historical myths. Our history is largely reflection on Russian historical narratives (not fundamentally - mythologized, invented or real). And here is our first global problem, because with Frankenstein, which changes its face, depending on the situation, only more Frankenshein can fight it.

We do not have so much money to build our Frankenstein, we do not have management from a story that could manage all these reincarnations at the state level and, most importantly, our history is not an ideology. The fact is that Putin Russia built the ideological model of the nineteenth century, where history replaced the philosophical basis of national formation. We have a history of history, but only part of it.

Our huge problem is that we are constantly responding to Russian historical nonsense instead of creating our own historical canon (s). The classic example is the lack of Ukrainian history of World War II. Until it is, we will always get into various ideological failures, which are built not only by the Russians, but also by the Poles and not only.

An equally illustrative example is the story with Andrew Bogolyubsky, which the Russians, according to Klyuchevsky, consider perhaps the first "Great Russian", and we are talking about him almost as a traitor and as a historical gravity of confrontation between Russia and Ukraine. But the problem is that neither Bogolyubsky nor his father Yuri Dovrykky or his descendant Vsevolod was a large nest or Ukrainian werewolves.

So, the first problem to overcome is to abandon reflections on Russians about our history. It is difficult, but just vital. Otherwise we will walk in a circle. What do you need? We already have serious breakthroughs in this matter, and it is worth noting, for example, the work of G.

Efimenko on the creation of the USSR, which are just forming a new Ukrainian canon (immediately I will say - I do not have the opportunity to list all the authors I consider it worthy, so I immediately ask apologies to those whom did not call). At the same time, as mentioned above, several works (Grand-Nariativ), especially from the history of the twentieth century, should become a priority for us in this context. We are very missing, as mentioned above, our history of World War II.

It is extremely important for us to write a series of works on Ukraine and Stalin and, it seems, it is extremely important for me to write the history of Ukraine from 1991 to 24. 02. 2022. Without the last work, it will be extremely difficult for us to work on mistakes and move into the future. 2. An attempt to impose modern historical science with an extremely important but already outdated concept of Mikhail Hrushevsky.

The history of Ukraine-Rus has played one of the most important roles in the creation of the Ukrainian political nation in the early twentieth century, but now to say that since the time of formation on our lands of the first state until today, Ukrainians have dreamed of creating their own state-it is to live in the illusions of a century ago .

At the same time, we need to understand that now our people are undergoing one of the most difficult transformations in their history, and therefore, a large mass of people will simply not be able to take a serious discussion about what century the Ukrainians were born as a nation: together with Svyatoslav Brave, the first Cossacks or already After the Cossack wars of Bohdan Khmelnitsky.

At first glance, we are in a certain historical trap, because, given the war, a better grandiour than it is in Hrushevsky, it is not necessary to invent. On the other hand, it is because of this that we fall into the trap of Russian historical Frankenstein. What should you do? First of all, not only a society but even representatives of the Ukrainian historical community should not rush to such changes.

We already have a number of works that break the canons: for example, a large collective monograph on "decryption" of the Galicia-Volyn chronicle, is the work of G. Filipchuk, which breaks the pattern of ideas about Vladimir the Great, is the works of N. Yakovenko and N. Starchenko about the Ukrainian worlds of the Commonwealth (in fact, is called the book of the last author). It is very good that there was now an attempt to give an essay on the history of Ukraine as a frontline (edited this work).

But as for me, we do not have enough attempts not to write the history of the Ukrainian state from Adam, but the history of the Ukrainian people, which would be interdisciplinary and would allow something differently to look at our history. In 1992, Yuriy Shevelyov gave the first lecture in the newly reverse of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy on the history of Ukrainian. And he ended with the words of "Golden Homon" by P. Tychyna: "I am a strong people, I'm young.

" And then he added (quote in memory) that there is nothing bad that the first signs of the Ukrainian language emerged only in the VII-VIII centuries. For those who do not remember, while at the peak there were pseudo -historical idiocyms that were produced in particular by vomiting historians, about the history of Ukrainian and Ukrainians from the second millennium BC. 3. Fear of overcoming certain stereotypical models of whole historical periods.

History always deals with historical myths (sorry for tautology) dressed in ideological clothing. In addition, very often the whole generations of historians simply refer to someone (something), because there is such a tradition, until someone who calls into question certain things or historicity of events appears. We have been living in the myth of V.

Tatishchev for two and a half centuries about the library of Yaroslav the Wise, and this myth became part of our pride (after all, as well as Anna Yaroslavovna's mythical bath, which she brought across Europe to Paris). All of these myths are part of the historical memory of the people and their evil not just painful, they can often knock out the resistance from under their feet (repeated-resistance in confrontation with Frankenstein).

But at the same time, if they are not gradually broken, we will never win this Frankenstein. What should you do? The history of Ukraine has several important rapper points that we have been afraid to change for centuries. The classic example is the wars of Bohdan Khmelnitsky, which have been considered primarily as a response to the Ukrainian people to the Orthodox Church for two centuries, although to consider this is how it means to follow Russian Frankenstein.

Over the last two decades, we have work that try to break these stereotypes (P. Kralyuk, "Bogdan Khmelnitsky", for example), but we are still afraid to approach the situation in the seventeenth century, which has changed the whole story and is one of our history For the main historical causes of modern war. Equally painful and practically unexplored is the issue of Ukrainians as a building empire in the XVIII-XX centuries.

We need an array of work on this, which from different views and from different approaches to considered this issue. In my opinion, it is a position to consider Paskevich as a Ukrainian, but it is also a good consideration of the Ukrainian question because of the prism that there were 5 Ukrainian -speaking families in Kiev at the end of the nineteenth century. If there were only 5 of them, there would be no Ukrainian revolution.

Similarly, the Movement of the Sixties cannot be considered, focusing on 20-30 names. If there were several tens of them, there would be no 1991. 4. An attempt to create a system of dominance of glorification over the truth. It is one of the most painful and complex topics of our history, because it is, first and foremost, with a close history and is a cementing myth not only for the masses, but also, importantly, for a proactive minority.

And most importantly, great politics is involved here, and sometimes even geopolitics. Therefore, no matter how painful it may sound, the story here will have to consider not only the historical realities, but also on political battles and pitfalls. What should you do? First of all, it is necessary to distinguish the main events and persons that are part of a modern myth that we cannot (do not have the right) to change dramatically. They cannot be more than 5-6.

And we need to agree that we postpone these issues in the postwar period. In the end, such an agreement is already in fact. 5. Lack of entering Ukraine in a broader context. It is no secret that, despite the declaration of comparative studios, despite the fact that we seem to try to go beyond the globe of Ukraine, we still return to its orbit very often. The above mentioned Khmelnytsky region and the causes of the war.

But it is simply impossible to consider this period without taking into account the port of ports of the Commonwealth and the subtle game of Crimea. In the same way, it is impossible to speak about many other periods, despite the influences of other states, ideas that existed in those periods, and betrayal that were influenced by different geopolitical situations by Ukrainians at that time.

We need to move Ukraine to the geopolitical context of the historical past, even if it turns out that the conditional Ataman Sirko was a traitor and Samoilovich is a bigger statesman than many. What should you do? Under the USSR Foreign Minister A. Gromyko, a legend went at one time that before making important decisions, he closed in the office and sat on the world map for a long time.