Seven theses

A small excursion into the history of history.

For the ancients, everything was simple.

The will of the gods was assumed to be the primary cause of any historical process.

They controlled the actions of people, the prosperity and decline of empires, people were little independent instruments in their hands.

And only the Age of Enlightenment decisively left Caesar - Caesar's, focusing on human affairs.

Historians of the modern era began to try not only to describe the past, but also to identify the patterns of historical development, and, therefore, to give instructions on the present and predict the future.

It turned out differently for everyone, but let's give it credit - it came out especially convincingly with Marx and Engels.

Marxist theory, among other things, established clear criteria for historical assessments.

Example.

The French Revolution is a blessing because it drives development.

Louis XVI is a kind, but reactionary man: he strove to preserve outdated social relations.

Therefore, he naturally ended his life on the guillotine.

Robespierre, Marat are unkind people, ideologists of mass terror, but they are progressive, as they accelerated the course of history to a brighter future.

Therefore, in their honor - monuments, streets and embankments.

Marxism in historical science has taken possession of the minds of half of the world ... but with the collapse of the USSR, history and mathematics have sunk into oblivion.

What have we got instead?

Nothing.

Emptiness.

At best, different variations of the theory of "modernization", the interpretation of history as a movement from the lack of freedom of the individual to freedom.

Moreover, to freedom in its expanded interpretation.

From protecting minority freedoms and rights to “freedom” of gender choice and same-sex marriage.

From the freedoms and rights of people with different skin colors - to looting and pogroms by the “descendants of the oppressed”, the demolition of monuments, desecration of cultural heritage.

From freedom of conscience to dancing in temples.

Freedom from "Russian imperial oppression", imposed on a painful infatuation with certain national characteristics, led to the situation in Ukraine and the Baltic states, and now it threatens fraternal Belarus.

The nature does not tolerate emptiness - that is why primitive “historical libertianism” has settled instead of istmata, a sort of ideological basis for the gradual reduction of Russia to the status of a raw material colony of “regional significance”, devoid of both its history and the right to vote in the present.

What do we offer?

I must say right away that this is not a theory that has not been formed in detail.

But this is a certain doctrine, a system of views and beliefs - how do we look at the historical process, how to study and teach the history of our native country, how to relate it to the world one.

First.

Historical politics as part of state politics.

The concept described by the Greek word "politics" affects all spheres of society and manifests itself in everything, including the attitude of the state and society to its history. 

It is, whether we admit it or not.

Let me remind you that ten years ago the phrase “cultural policy” aroused bewilderment or even rejection among some.

Today "Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy" is a basic sectoral document signed by the President.

As a defense of the historical truth, the heroic deed of the people, the veneration of historical memory, historical policy is now also enshrined in amendments to the Constitution.

In fact, the concept of state historical policy is even broader, it is an integral part of the sovereign policy of the state, both foreign and domestic.

The

follows from this

:

On the need for "historical sovereignty".

Historical politics is directly related to our ability to independently interpret our own history and path of development.

Or failure - in the absence of historical sovereignty.

Example.

The United States has been interpreting its vision of world history from the moment of birth and intrusively spreading it with all tools - both "soft" and the most severe force.

The United States does not fight, as we do, against falsifications of history.

They simply shamelessly plant their point of view on history - everywhere and by all means available.

From Facebook to Hollywood, from Twitter of the White House and Soros textbooks to their talkative vassals: MEPs, politicians of “limitrophe” states, etc.

Therefore, I would generally propose to gradually move away from the position of combating “falsifications”.

Stop making excuses - you need to instill, you need to push your point of view.

Moreover, it is much easier for us than for our “opponents”.

We speak the truth, and therefore we will never get confused in our own lies, in "testimonies".

We do not need to check our view of history with the latest “training manuals from the center”.

We operate only with facts, figures, chronicles and archival documents.

Only the historical truth.

And we believe in what we do.

We understand that the “fight for history” today is just a part of the competitive struggle of states, an ordinary, propagandistic business, carried out consciously.

But I will also emphasize something else here - the stable historical consciousness of the people can be based only on objective historical knowledge.

Therefore, the following,

is important 

About objective historical assessments.

Disputes and discussions about a particular person, events in history have always been, are and will be.

This is normal and correct.

It is abnormal and wrong - to cross out, remove someone or something from the historical memory, to fall into thoughtless praise or censure.

To give assessments, only and exclusively on the basis of our today's ideas about morality, law, good and evil.

Judging the figures of yesterday is as if detached, from above, knowing today both the exact results and the consequences of their actions.

Simply put, there is no need to compare Ivan the Terrible with Mahatma Gandhi and Princess Diana.

They lived in different universes.

It is necessary to compare with contemporaries - Grozny, for example, with Henry VIII and the actors of St. Bartholomew's Night.

In general, one should judge according to the laws and concepts of that time, striving to recreate history.

What made the historical figure take this or that step?

Under what circumstances?

How did his contemporaries act under the same circumstances?

Only in this way will we be able to understand how our ancestors thought and why exactly did this.

And in this case, we will certainly look differently, with greater understanding at the history of their actions.

I will say more, it will inevitably take on a more positive, explainable, human tone for us.

Therefore, the next,

thesis is 

.

Russian historical science emerged as a critical and instructive science.

But we cannot fail to see in Russian historians from Nestor, Lomonosov, Karamzin and Pushkin to Klyuchevsky, Solovyov, Tarle and Rybakov - that they all put at the forefront not only a detached "surgical interest", the desire to "learn lessons", but also love for your own past.

Such a story, written through a sense of belonging to the affairs of fellow tribesmen, through "love for the native ashes, love for fatherly coffins," it is objectively, it inevitably, always - acquired positive meanings.

They are manifested in respect for their country, a desire to devote their strength and talents to it.

A positive story makes it possible to judge the past (both good and bad), based on a sense of involvement in the affairs of their loved ones, relatives, compatriots.

You will say: "If everything is clear with reasons for pride, then what about what you cannot be proud of?"

The answer is simple.

The story must be honest.

And especially carefully analyzing its difficult, difficult periods.

Let me give you a clear example.

I think that it is not enough just to tell in a school textbook about the repression of the 1930s.

We must go deeper.

It must be shown that they were not simply generated by the regime, they were conditioned by the system created by Lenin and Stalin.

This must be understood in order to exclude even the theoretical possibility of reconstructing such a system.

At the same time, it is very important to emphasize that this is the

thesis - the

.

Our history is one and continuous, there can be no unnecessary figures and lost links that are hushed up in accordance with the political situation.

We have no right to rip out whole pages from our history textbooks, from our memory.

For the denial of our past is a 100% guarantee that we will repeat our mistakes.

Our history is great, voluminous and continuous.

Modern Russia is the legal successor of the USSR in exactly the same way as Soviet Russia is the legal successor of the empire, and that, in turn, of the Moscow state and ancient Novgorod-Kiev and Vladimir Rus.

And this continuous history must be studied, striving not only to praise or condemn.

And trying to understand.

I will repeat again and again: the main thing is to understand the motivation, the logic of the actions of our ancestors.

It is very important.

Sixth

(hereinafter we will talk about teaching history in schools and universities today).

.

The traditional approach to teaching history at school - from ancient times and gradually up to this day in isolation of our history from the world - is incomplete.

It's like studying geography - separately our country, on a separate globe of Russia, then separately - the rest of the planet ... Until we reach Moscow and the present, we have already forgotten that there is the rest of the world, where nature, climate, also rivers and lakes, winter and summer - and similar patterns of the existence of the animal and plant world.

The current attempts at the next reform of teaching - jumping from a "linear" to a "concentric" system of presentation of the material and vice versa - do little at all.

Each of these approaches has exactly as many advantages as there are disadvantages.

The problem is completely different.

We must move away from Euro- and Moscow-centricity in teaching history, we must teach the history of the Fatherland - constantly comparing it in parallel - with the history of the world.

In parallel, and not sequentially, showing what was happening at that time in Russia, what was in Europe, and what was in the East.

It is this study of history in the most natural way (I wrote about this many years ago in Myths about Russia) that will allow us, without varnishing the past, at the same time not to generate a new Chaadaevism, a flawed sense of our own historical inferiority, the syndrome of “lagging behind the civilized the world ".

Only in this way can we approach the next most important task ...

Seventh.

A simple mechanical increase in the hours of history in school, as well as the introduction of the Unified State Exam, the OGE, and the return to the "linear system" for the umpteenth time - these are all, as they say, details.

Obviously, for our children to grow up as responsible citizens of a great country, they don't have to just memorize the correct answers for the exam.

I do not offer a ready-made solution, but I see that it is required and that this solution will be difficult.

It requires the education of a pupil not as a "tin soldier", but as a complex person.

Able to think not in a binary system of simple multiple choice answers - yes / no.

Not through praising the past and not through mockery of it.

And through comprehension and acceptance.

Through your own answers to questions - why and how did it happen?

Under what circumstances and why did your ancestors do this?

What did they think?

What did they believe in?

Where were they mistaken, and where were they better than us?

And what is worth taking an example from them?

Such comprehension of the past will give us an image of the future based on our basic values: freedom and independence, sovereignty and integrity of our land, memory of the heroic work of our predecessors, reliance on the millennial culture and tradition of Russian statehood.

At the same time - I will emphasize especially - having formulated the standard of teaching history (it is now in every school), having selected the best lines of textbooks (there are only three or four of them today, and hardly more is needed), it is time to stop pettyly managing the school process of teaching history.

Free the teacher from endless bureaucratic reporting.

Give the school maximum freedom in choosing the form - how to better and more effectively convey knowledge to children.

Let the teacher and the school principal decide together for themselves what is better to teach in the classroom, what is to be taught at an interclass conference, what to tell when going with the children to a museum, an art gallery, and when it is better to just show the children a historical movie or a play.

After all, there is no more interesting school subject than history!

So let's make sure that not only we, parents, but also our children, students of teacher training universities, and teachers themselves think so. 

Of course, all the theses expressed - although they sound like a definite doctrine - are not at all dogma.

And even - not a guide to action.

This is an invitation to discussion for everyone who is not indifferent to our past, and therefore our present and future.