Russians Outraged That They Are Assessed as Colonizers in Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyz Say Assessing Otherwise is "Extremely Difficult"

At a special meeting of the Russian Military Historical Society, attended by representatives of the two countries, experts from the Russian side analyzed several Kyrgyz textbooks for grades 8, 9, and 11. They stated that they found many alleged inaccuracies and interpretations with which they disagreed. According to them, the difference in assessments is allegedly due not only to different views between the countries but also to different scientific approaches within the historical schools themselves.

The main dispute concerned the Soviet period and Russia's role. While in Russian textbooks it is presented as a time of development and progress, Kyrgyz textbooks note that along with this, there were also problems — for example, the limitation of national independence.

The most acute reaction from the Russian side was caused by the use of the terms "colonialism" and "colony" in Kyrgyz textbooks. Russian experts believe that this is allegedly not entirely correct and has a negative connotation. They propose replacing these words with more neutral ones — for example, "administration" or "administrative rule," claiming that this would change the perception of events.

Director of the Institute of History, Archeology and Ethnology of the National Academy of Sciences of Kyrgyzstan, Abylabek Asankanov, noted in response that the Russian side had set an "extremely difficult task" for their Kyrgyz partners — to abandon the word "colony." "I had to look at the terminology for colony, empire, chauvinism," Asankanov said.

“A colony is the exploitation of labor resources, wealth, and territory; these are the three main characteristics of a colony worldwide.” Whatever a colony may be, it signifies a lack of independence, statehood, and the exploitation of natural resources and labor, the scholar noted. “It is very difficult for us to abandon this term,” concluded the Kyrgyz academician.

At the same time, the Kyrgyz side noted that the Soviet period in local textbooks is not viewed exclusively negatively. On the contrary, it is acknowledged that it was during that time that state institutions, the education system, and industry were formed, which ultimately led to the acquisition of sovereignty. However, they simultaneously urged not to transfer historical assessments of the past to contemporary politics and not to ideologize history.

Russian representatives, in turn, noted that in various countries after the collapse of the USSR, their own historical narratives began to form, and often in these, Russia is depicted as an empire or oppressor. They consider this an exaggeration and emphasize Russia's alleged positive contribution to the development of the regions.

• 68
• 15
• 34
• 9
• 10
• 7
• 3
• 1