Reposted from Gazeta.kg, originally published on Polit.kg.
Interview by Hilarion Zvyagintsev
Translation by Google/style edit by Ryan Weber
As part of the "Sharp Corners" series which focuses on the portrayal of Kyrgyz history in school textbooks, Polit.kg interviewed prominent historian Alexander Knyazev, Ph.D [of the Kyrgyz Slavic University, Bishkek]. The conversation quickly moved past the works of Osmonov and other pseudo-historians, and ultimately dealt with the connection of the past, present, and prospects for the future state of Kyrgyzstan.
Hilarion Zvyagintsev: In your opinion, what role does the Kyrgyz ethnic group play in the history of Kyrgyzstan? Why has this subject become such a fixture in today's debates?
Alexander Knyazev:- Ethnocentricity in the interpretation and teaching of history is largely the result of compromise among the unprincipled parts of the scientific community. At the turn of the 1980s and 90s, when the idea of ethnocentrism began to dominate - how this dishonored the academic community of the [Kyrgyz] Republic will be discussed - many just began to go along [with this narrative]. This is particularly noticeable in the proclamation of the 2,200th anniversary of Kyrgyz statehood, the 3,000th anniversary of Osh, and the question of the historicity of Manas as a person. It is characterized by lack of professionalism among our scientists. No profession can exist without lapses in professional ethics, but it's wrong to change [the way we write] history in favor of short-term interests. This causes harm and does not bring any benefit, and in a multicultural society - even more so. In a context where the socio-economic situation does not allow most people to travel outside the republic, not only young people, a huge part of society formed a provincial consciousness, ideology, limited to the extent of Kyrgyzstan and the myths operating here.
