Western historians of Russia and the Crimea: why do they continue to use imperialist and racist frameworks?
Western scholars writing about “Russian” history continue to use Russian imperial historical frameworks that were used prior to the disintegration of the USSR. Although a Russian nationstate emerged in 1992 and has been independent for over a quarter of a century there ae no histories of the Russian Federation. Since the late 1980s, Western historians of Ukraine, such as Orest Subtelny, Paul R. Magocsi, Serhiy Plokhy, Serhiy Yekelchyk, and George Liber, have adopted this approach. Western histories of “Russia” thereby continue to ignore its territorial limitations by conflating empire with nation-state. In doing so they subsume Ukrainians within “Russian” history and Crimea is viewed as always being “Russian.” Western historians of “Russia” have not adapted to the emergence of an independent Russia by using standard Western frameworks whereby the histories of countries are the territories of nation-states. The history of France and Great Britain, for example, includes all events that took place within the internationally recognised boundaries of these nation-states.
historians, Western historians, Russia, Crimea, imperialist frameworks, racist frameworks, nationalism, Russian imperialism, Putin, Tatar genocide, national identity, article
Kuzio T. Western historians of Russia and the Crimea: why do they continue to use imperialist and racist frameworks? / Kuzio Taras // Cicero Foundation great debate paper. - 2018. - No. 18/02. - P. 1-25.