Suchergebnisse

Jeg havde set frem til at læse om de kvindelige terrorrister, der hjemsøgte Rusland i slutningen af det nittende århundrede og i begyndelsen af det tyvende, men dem hører vi desværre ikke så meget om. Havde jeg været tilstrækkeligt opmærksom, da jeg læste bogens titel, kunne jeg have sagt det til mig selv på forhånd og være gået til værket med de rette forventninger og måske undgået noget af min skuffelse. Som titlen nemlig røber, og som man til overmål bliver overbevist om allerede i de indledende kapitler, er det nemlig ikke disse bemærkelsesværdige kvinder, der er bogens anliggende, men konstruktionerne af dem i form af selvbiografier og biografier, og det er jo som bekendt ikke det samme. Forfatteren, der er lektor i historie på Örebro Universitet, er dog ikke mere grebet af postmoderne konstruktionsteori, end hun kan gå med til, at der er en historisk virkelighed, der ligger under konstruktionerne, og som lader sig erkende. Det viser hun i det forholdsvis korte, men velskrevne afsnit om den historiske kontekst for terrorismen og altså for konstruktionerne. Og så til konstruktionerne.

Håvard Bækken, Senior Researcher at the Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies, reviews Putin's Russia and the Falsification of History: Reasserting Control over the Past, by Anton Weiss-Wendt (Bloomsbury Academic, 2021).

Helge Blakkisrud (Norwegian Institute of International Affairs) reviews the anthology Nationhood and Politization of History in School Textbooks: Identity, the Curriculum and Educational Media, edited by Gorana Ognjenović and Jasna Joselić.

Armenians; Turkey; history; 20th century

Svein Mønnesland, professor emeritus at the University of Oslo, reviews Yugoslavia and Political Assassinations: The History and Legacy of Tito's Campaign against the Émigrés, by Christian Axboe Nielsen, published in 2020 by I.B. Tauris.

transl. from the Armenian by C. F. Neumann ; Volltext // Exemplar mit der Signatur: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- 4 A.or. 120-14

transl. from the Armenian by C. F. Neumann ; Volltext // Exemplar mit der Signatur: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek -- 4 A.or. 3768 m

In 2019, the Swedish government officially switched terminology from using the traditional endogenous term Vitryssland to the exogenous Belarus. Vitryssland (lit: White Russia) had been in use in the Swedish language since the 17th century, and the decision was neither easy nor swift. There was no consensus about the utility of the change, and significant opposition from linguists and editors against abandoning a term which had emerged and become established over centuries of contact. The debate preceding the switch was often shrill, led by activists and steeped in identity politics. In fact, controversies regarding what to call the country were nothing new, highlighting diverging visions of its geopolitical and cultural position between East and West. Discussions mirrored the far more emotional and polarized discussions among Belarusian nationalists in the 20th century, which at times became violent. Kryvia, Byelorussia, Greatlitva were but some of contenders. This article is an attempt to place discussions about the Swedish terminology in the larger context of history, memory, geopolitics and identity politics.

Abstract: On the Historiography of Zubov et al.'s History of Russia in the 20th CenturyAround 2009, a certain Kremlin-sanctioned Vergangenheitsbewältigung of Russia's Soviet past developed. A case in point is the collective two-volume work edited by Andrei B. Zubov, Istoriya Rossii. XX vek, published in 2009. Societal agency is said to be stressed over structural forces, but it is mainly the agency of Lenin, Stalin and later Soviet leaders that is analyzed. The narrative of the times before Stalin's ascent to power emphasizes repression, terror and planned famine as precursors of the totalitarian excesses under Stalin (1923–1953). The originality of Zubov's historiography is evident in his approach to the Great Fatherland War of 1941–1945, which Zubov refers to as The Soviet–Nazi War. Further, the narrative of the Cold War era culminates in an 'imperial overstretch' theory about the Soviet collapse. However, Zubov has been vehemently criticized for lack of critical rigor; his work represents an awkward mix of liberal enlightenment and obscurantism in its veneration of the fascistoid thinker Ilyin. Today Russia officially operates with one historical truth about the years 1941–45 and is hereby distancing itself from scholars like Zubov.

"The images in this volume are unique engravings and postcards from the late 16th through early 20th centuries that show Armenian women held in high esteem. The majority of these gravures and postcards are from the author's personal collection. These images have exceptional value as a source for historical, ethnographic, and iconographic research. The book is in Armenian, English, and Russian with 200 images." --Title page verso

The article analyses representations of history in today's Russia as part of the ideology for expressing central political concepts underlying the Putinist regime. Mainstream interpretations of history build on a populist vision of Russia as a community with a stable, unchangeable core of identity. In this ideological context, history serves as the canvas on which the 'authentic' Russian identity manifests itself. The present research article examines representations of history by focusing on the concepts of 'historical sovereignty', 'unity of history', and the role of elites in history. It finds that regime ideology in today's Russia relies on a sizable infrastructure that involves producing historical knowledge for the purpose of securitizing history and making it an instrumental element in the populist (conservative-communitarian) ideology. Sources for this study come from the network exhibition 'Russia – My History', contextualized through content analysis of the key producers of ideology in Putin's Russia.