A. B. DAVIDSON

Academician

Keywords: collapse of colonialism, formation of statehood, history of Asian and African peoples, national identity, Afrocentrism

The battles of scientists, publicists, representatives of government structures, and in some cases entire nations over the historical past are now going on so violently and have become so fierce as never before. There are many reasons for this. One of the most important is related to the collapse of colonial empires and the huge changes that have taken place in recent decades, especially in Asia and Africa, with the transformation of many colonies into states and the strengthening of the independence of those countries that were still - by historical standards only recently - dependent. Of course, these battles are also connected with the fact that Asians and Africans are now the overwhelming majority of humanity.

Only in 1960, 17 colonies in Tropical Africa declared themselves states. In 1991, as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, 15 new States emerged. Most of them are located in Asia and at the border with Asia. In total, there are three times as many states in the world today as there were 70 years ago, after the Second World War. And now the new states of Asia and Africa are increasingly influencing the fate of the world, of all mankind.

An important milestone in strengthening the independence of the new states was the end of the Cold War a quarter of a century ago. The impact of the struggle between the Western and Eastern blocs on them is gone. The financial support that many of them received from one or another of these blocks also decreased. This led to greater independence of the new countries in their foreign and domestic policies.

Each of them faces the task of creating its own statehood, or those where its foundations were before - its strengthening. Each country is fighting for the unity of all the peoples of its state, including the ideological one. It instills in their minds the idea of the significance of their state, pride in belonging to it. There is a persistent search for a national identity, a national idea.

How can we do this without appealing to the historical past? It is here - the main support, the basis of the basics. Hence the search in the past for everything that can unite, unite. Search for everything that can be used to build monuments to the past.

In Asia and Africa, the teaching and study of world history has been based on Euro-ceitrism for centuries. The study of the Ancient World focused on Greece and Rome, while medieval studies focused on France and other Western European countries. In general, all periodization: "Ancient World", "Middle Ages". New History is based on European historical experience. And the concept of "great geographical discoveries"? Asians and Africans say: "Why did you discover us? We've lived here for a long time.".. And the expressions "Middle East","Far East"? Counting down from Europe. Can this not cause protest in the countries of the East?

In African and Asian countries, a European may hear this reproach: "You know about our history mainly from books written by white people like you. Even if we assume that they are good scientists, we still want you and the whole world to know about us from ourselves." This reproach cannot be dismissed or ignored: after all, every nation is particularly sensitive to what it considers distortions of history coming from foreigners and gentiles. And here it is even more painful: Africa and Asia are protesting against the interpretations coming from the countries that once made them in colonial dependence.

Of all the violent ideological disputes, this one is especially dangerous. After all, one of the most important contradictions of the modern world

- the consequences of the imperial past, when some countries were metropolises, and others-the vast majority-were dependent or, even officially, colonies. The consequences of this past are acutely felt now and will continue to be felt for a long time to come. What is connected with the life of many generations cannot quickly disappear. Peoples who were colonial or dependent have accumulated many grievances and grievances against the States that ruled them. And even more - to the whole of Europe. They believe that all of it, in one way or another, is involved in the formation of colonial rule.

Such grievances and claims are exploited by those politicians of the current developing countries who want to write off their mistakes and mistakes, and even criminal actions, to the consequences of colonialism and the "malice of neocolonialism". At the same time, intentionally or unintentionally, the positive things that the Europeans brought to the peoples they conquered are often forgotten.

Understanding and respecting the historical past of peoples who were once in colonial dependence is extremely important; race relations largely depend on it.

One of the best Russian historians, V. O. Klyuchevsky, wrote in his diary in 1904: "Asia enlightened Europe, and Europe conquered Asia. Now Europe is enlightening a dormant Asia. Will Asia repeat the same operation over Europe? " ¹

Until recently, the term "Westernization"was in use. We will not judge how legitimate it is. If so, then the term "Afroasiatization" can be introduced for our time. But the point is not in terms or even in long-standing foresight - after all, they can be put in different meanings. It is an indisputable fact that the role of Asia and Africa in the modern world is growing every year - both in the general population of the world, and in the economy, politics, and culture.

Migration flows have also changed: once Europeans moved out of Europe, now millions of people from Africa and Asia have flocked to Europe and the United States. The greatest claims about the underestimation of their history are made to this part of the World and European scientists by the peoples of the tropical and southern parts of the African continent. That huge Black Africa, the population of which exceeds the population of Europe - in Nigeria alone, the population is much larger than in Russia.

AFRICANS AND EUROPEANS ON THE PAST OF THE "BLACK CONTINENT"

"Huge and clumsy in appearance, with inhospitable shores, scorched for the most part by the rays of the tropical sun, Africa... sullen and mysterious, like the sphinx in the Egyptian desert. And as the land is, so is the people. Scarcely known to the mobile races of Asia and Europe for thousands of years, and already, as it were, cast off by its complexion from a number of noble peoples, it lived in isolation for innumerable years, never leaving the natural boundaries of its territory for friendly intercourse or enemy attack... If we can compare the history of the races of Europe with activity on a clear sunny day, the history of Africa is only a heavy night's sleep; it calms or disturbs the sleeper, so that he turns uneasily on his bed; but others do not know it, and the awakener soon forgets about it."

And about the attitude to the study of African history, they said: "Will we move far in knowledge if we become aware that such and such a Negro tribe with a strange name moved to a place of residence in a neighboring region in such and such a year, that it was dispersed and destroyed in some other year?"

This is published in the collective work of the largest German scientists " History of Mankind. World History". It was considered an important achievement of pauka, was also approved by Russian scientists, and in 1909 it was published in full in Russian.²

They may say: after all, it was a hundred years ago. Yes, but more accurately - just a hundred years ago. Of course, now such views, held for centuries, are easy to expose. In the United States, the book "Africa that Never Was" was published, in the second edition - "The Myth of Africa". Works on Africa that have been published in Europe for several centuries have been called "Western fantasy based on ethnocentrism"there⁵. A book published in Ibadan, Nigeria, says that "... the colonial novel about Africa was nothing more than a reflection of European prejudices, "and quotes the words of the French writer Andre Gide:" The less intelligent a white man is, the more stupid he sees a black man. " ⁴

The usual colonialist views have not disappeared without a trace, they are still alive today. This is clearly shown in the recently published book "Artificial Africa. Colonial images in times of globalization"⁵. How difficult

the idea that African peoples have no history has been overcome!

Africans are offended and offended not only by the attitude towards them that has been manifested in Europe from century to century, but also recently, even today. After all, the worst bloodshed of the last twenty years occurred in Africa. The internecine war in the Congo in the mid-1990s killed between 4 and 5 million people. But how much attention did this event attract in Europe and America? And the terrible genocide in Rwanda? Almost a million Rwandans were killed. How much has it been talked about and written about in the rest of the world?

I would like to think that the situation has changed in the last few years. The role of Africa, not to mention Asia, in the global economy and politics is finally being recognized. In 2014, Deii Mukwege, a Congolese doctor, won the Andrei Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought. And the Pakistani schoolgirl Malala Yousafzai won the Nobel Peace Prize.

All this, of course, causes Asians and Africans to respect themselves and their past, which they consider trampled on.

Of course, many, or rather most, young states need to look for their origins, recreate the memory of their historical past. During the period of colonial dependence, they had few such opportunities. Their entire history was presented through the prism of Eurocentrism. Children in schools were taught the history of Europe, not their own country. Now a lot of work is being done to counteract this trend by studying one's own past. They collect long-standing testimonies, oral historical traditions that were not given due attention in colonial times.

But this just and noble task, under the influence of the authorities or emerging ultranationalists, sometimes develops into a proclamation of the exclusivity of one's country, even its superiority, primogeniture. And this is often called "patriotism"... And a patriot can be called not one who is rooting for his people, but one who beats his chest and is constantly proud and proud, blindly following the path that his government leads. This increases nationalism and politicization of history.

The philosopher Vladimir Solovyov, who deeply studied the problems of nationalism, formulated the law of development of society, known as the" Solovyov ladder":"National self - consciousness - national complacency - national self-sufficiency-national self-destruction". He wrote: "National self-consciousness is a great thing; but when the self-consciousness of a people passes into self-complacency, and self-complacency reaches self-sufficiency, then the natural end for it is self-destruction: the fable of 11arcis is instructive not only for individuals, but also for entire peoples." ⁶

This is a process that Europe, it would seem, went through a long time ago. A process that resulted in many wars, including two world wars. One of the reasons for the creation of the European Union was precisely the desire to prevent the emergence of similar trends in the future. Will it succeed?..

SEARCH FOR NATIONAL IDENTITY

For new young states, this process is complicated by the perception that their country or their people belong to large racial, religious, or regional interethnic and supranational communities. This was especially true during the period of anti-colonial revolutions, when the anti-colonial movement of each country sought support in those states where there were similar problems. Then the ideologies of arabocentrism and other orientocentrisms, islamocentrism, and Afrocentrism emerged... All of them were opposed to European colonialism and Eurocentrism. It turned out that the search for national identity was closely intertwined with the identity of race, religion, and region - and often contradicted it.

How the ideas of national and state identity will relate to each other in the future with a broader one - racial, religious, regional - is difficult to foresee. It depends on various global changes. But it is safe to say that, for example, the romantic belief in pan-Africanism, in pan-African unity, is no longer as widespread today as it was in the 1950s and 1960s.

The collapse of colonial empires and the associated global changes could not but affect the attitude to their history among the metropolitan countries, and indeed in Western Europe, where almost all states were at one time or another associated with colonial politics. It is not easy to judge changes: understanding the past continues and will continue. After the collapse of empires and multinational states, historians should try to find out what role each country played in the imperial period,

part of the empire? What useful things did the former metropolises give to the countries dependent on them? And what can these countries blame them for? For historians and for the public of countries that were dependent on the Soviet Union.: what good did being in the empire do them, and what bad did it do them?

Unfortunately, the answers will depend for a long time on the political situation and on the prejudices accumulated from generation to generation. But still, you need to think about it and try to figure it out. An example of such a dialogue is the controversy surrounding the referendum on the separation of Scotland from England, Catalonia from Spain. This is a rational dialogue, in which each of the parties presents its own arguments for the judgment of fellow citizens. Judge them. No one imposes their rightness by force of arms.

Even during the reign of colonialism, the opinions of various British, French and other Western European historians about the role of colonialism in the history of their countries were far from unambiguous. Conquests were also treated as a boon for the conquered peoples. Here are Kipling's lines:

  
  
 7 
  Half men  
 , Half devils, 
   Restless savages,  
  To penal servitude For the sake of 
  sullen Nations to the ends of the earth-  
 to those who are subject  
  To your service, send your  
  own sons

^{Bear this proud Burden -}

. 
 
 

But there was also condemnation of the crimes of colonialism. The same Kipling in other poems respectfully wrote about some of the African peoples who fought against the British.

A sharp turn in the perception of Europeans occurred in the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, when the collapse of the colonial empires was at its peak. In Europe, there was a fear of a future that was unclear because of this disintegration, and bitterness at the departure of imperial greatness. But there was something else: a sense of guilt towards the peoples of the colonies, and a belief in their future. There is also a sense of relief at being freed from the imperial burden, and a sense that the African peoples do not sufficiently appreciate the merits of the mother countries in introducing the colonies to the achievements of European civilization.

In 1960, the World Congress of Orientalists was held in Moscow, where I met the British African historians Roland Oliver and John Feige. I was lucky: the conversations turned out to be, as they say, heart-to-heart. And I allowed myself to ask: what do they, in the current situation, consider the main thing for themselves, as historians. They answered, as I recall:

- The main thing is to move away from the usual British and generally European arrogance towards "colored people". Try to understand them, to see the world and history through their eyes. And in general, do not blame "strangers", "dissimilar", "others", but, first of all, think about what mistakes and unseemly actions your own state, your nation, has made in history.

The British African historian Christopher Fyfe told me much the same thing. And before that, Basil Davidson. All of them were recognized in African countries, studied with them there, their works were published, they left a good reputation about themselves.

But how can the vision of the history of Britain itself reflect the attitude to the former colonies and to the history of its relations with them? This proved particularly difficult not only for Britain, but also for other European countries. A lot of things need to be reviewed. Even the most familiar, deeply ingrained in national feelings. After all, many generations have been brought up with ideas about the "burden of whites", the benevolence of this burden for "colored people" and, consequently, the greatness of those who carried this "burden" on their shoulders. Now, former colonial and dependent peoples declare that for whites it was not a burden, but an assertion of their dominance.

Nostalgia for the imperial past is sometimes reinforced by news of the most difficult difficulties of the new states. This gives some Europeans the opportunity to say: now they have left us, and what is it like for them now?..

Kipling's words "West is West, East is East, and they will not move" were perceived as absolutely irrefutable. And now millions of people from Asia and Africa are moving to Europe, North America, Australia-countries that are perceived as the "Western world".

You hear about inter-racial and inter-ethnic complications and conflicts in Europe itself all the time. It would seem that multiculturalism is the best solution for a country where large flows of immigrants are sent: let each community develop in its own way, live in accordance with its own norms and concepts. But faced with challenges along the way, the leaders of Germany and some other European countries have already declared that multiculturalism in their countries is simply impossible. And the question arises: what should I do?

HISTORIANS FACE MORE AND MORE DIFFICULTIES AND PROBLEMS

Working with foreign historians - at scientific conferences, at meetings at the Association for British Studies, at our Center for African Studies -how much do we hear about the difficulties of working as historians in many countries, including in young countries!.. Moreover, the obstacles to the objective work of historians are becoming more and more complex.

It was said that in the conditions of the regimes of African states, it is not allowed to criticize not only the despot himself and the upper state structure surrounding him, but also their support - the security structures and the army. That, for example, the DPRK, where this is loudly declared state policy, is being watched by the rulers of other regimes. And they strive to raise the authority of their guardians in the eyes of the people, to create a high image for them, even if in the past they tormented the parod with repressions.

At our meetings with African historians, we, Russian historians, of course, wanted to know their opinion on the now widespread ideas of Afrocentrism. But how to question them? Is it delicate? Would it offend them? Perhaps they consider afronentrism to be an absolutely objective approach to the past and present? When we finally decided to ask, we got this answer.

- Well, there are ideas of afrocentrism, of course, as well as Euro-centrism, Americanocentrism, Islamocentrism, arabocentrism and many growing varieties of Orientocentrism. We, our interlocutors said, still believe that there are more grounds for Afrocentrism than for many other "centrisms". The role of African peoples in world history was too much underestimated. So Afrocentrism is a natural reaction to this underestimation, to the neglect that offended Africans.

And then added:

- Well, you think about whether you do not have Russian centrism, or Russian-centrism. During the break between the conference sessions, we went to the huge Biblio-Globus bookstore, to the history section, and saw that the vast majority of books there are on the history of Russia. According to world history-much less. And about Africa-what can we say... Maybe we're wrong, maybe this store can't be judged, it's not typical?

We took the liberty, also, of course, with caution, to ask the African historians:

- In general, isn't there still too much idealization of the long-standing, pre-colonial past of Africa? The blame for all the bad things in the past - and is it too much shifted to external forces - to colonialism? Or what is now called neocolonialism? Isn't this being done too aggressively in the media, in political statements, and in the works of historians?

We cannot say that our African colleagues like such questions. But still, they did not leave the discussion. It was often explained that this approach, like the ideas of Afrocentrism, was caused by the long rule of colonialism and the disregard of Europeans for the authentic African past.

At the same time, we were reminded that this approach, the desire to blame all the blame on external forces, is still not quite universal. And they gave an example: they recalled the behavior of Leopold Senghor, the most famous poet in Africa and for many years the president of the Republic of Senegal. In the early 1930s, Seigor developed the theory of "non-grit". Its main idea (of course, if you simplify it very much): the "white man", having subordinated himself to logic, calculation, and technology, weakened the main thing in himself - spirituality. And the "black man" has it. But, they recalled, the same Senghor later, after the declaration of independence by the majority of African countries and after he became president of the country, said that it was not necessary to blame all the troubles of the continent on colonialism.

Our African colleagues said that since we are talking about such sensitive issues, maybe we should also think: maybe the ideas of Slavophiles and Russian nationalists are somewhat similar to Negroes?..

Yes, historians of the new states of Asia and Africa often see what outraged Saltykov-Shchedrin in his native Russia. "Opinions that the West is decaying," he wrote, " that this or that race has become decayed and incapable of enjoying freedom, that Western science is affected by sterility, that the social and political forms of the West are an endless chain of lies, in which one lie disappears to give place to another-these are the opinions most pleasing to Mitrofan"⁸.

"WE" AND "THEY". WHAT ARE THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES?

Our foreign colleagues would like to compare their approaches to the past with our own-

try to understand the similarities and differences. Especially difficult questions come from foreign Russian historians, experts in the past of our country and its peoples. Here are some typical questions from the British.

- In your country, they insist that the Soviet Union was not an empire. Let's say. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union, did not the same problems arise in approaching the past that we experienced after the collapse of the British Empire? Does Moscow study the approaches to the history of the Russian Empire and the USSR that are born in the states that emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union? How are they taken into account in today's Russian historical science? How do you feel about them if their assessments contradict those traditionally accepted in Russia? Are there any joint discussions at the scientific level? After all, you are neighbors with these new countries, and you have a lot in common in the past. Your country needs to find a common language with them-what do you do and how do you do it?

In general, they are very interested in approaches to the past in the states that emerged after the collapse of the USSR. Do Russian scientists participate in the revision of historical approaches in these countries? And, since most of the new African states emerged three decades earlier than the post-Soviet states, have post-Soviet politicians and historians used the experience of the past already accumulated by Africans? In Africa, especially at first, the new states were to some extent united by the idea of pan-Africanism, a kind of unity of historical processes. Is there anything that unites the new post-Soviet states? To what extent do national histories contradict the usual history that was generally accepted before 1991?

Foreign Russian scholars recalled that in the 1920s and partly in the 1930s, Lenin was often quoted in the USSR as saying that Russia was a " prison of nations." They wrote a lot and even made films about the uprisings against Russian colonialism. That the two-volume university textbook on the history of the USSR published in Moscow in 1939/1940 also spoke about Russian colonialism. But later, even the mention of this concept completely disappeared.

...Of course, there are those among our compatriots who find it untimely to recall the questions raised by our foreign colleagues. But after all, many of these issues are still discussed in our country both on the Internet and on the pages of academic publications. So why avoid them? After all, as a rule, what is hushed up, then necessarily attract more attention.

Of course, it is easier for every nation to assume that the most complex disputes about history going on abroad are "their problems", and they have nothing to do with us, we are special, different. But maybe every nation, every state should still think more carefully and deeply about the disputes that are being waged in other countries? Despite the "specialness" of each nation, some of the issues raised during these disputes are also relevant to it.

In our world today, what is striking is not reconciliation, but disputes and battles. They are obvious, they attract attention, they are closely connected with the current political struggle, they are its reflection. Yes, and the "demand" for them is greater.

Sensationalism always attracts attention - and what is true in it, it is understood later.

The English have a saying: "No bad news, no news" - no bad news, so no news at all. This statement has a wise meaning: if people live peacefully, without quarrels, then there is no sensation, journalists have nothing to write about. But if there is a quarrel, a fight, a scandal-pa-parazzi is right there. So it turns out that we learn immeasurably less about peacefulness than about pugnacity.

WHAT DOES THE SOUTH AFRICAN EXPERIENCE TEACH?

But is there really no peacefulness in history? There is. Even in Africa, the continent with the most conflicts, wars, and armed confrontations.

A striking example is the Republic of South Africa. Political analysts around the world predicted that the "blacks" would stage a mass massacre of "whites" in South Africa in revenge for their three-hundred-year rule. But that didn't happen. There were social forces that were able to keep their peoples from a bloody inter-racial massacre. In the early 1990s, the parties managed to reach an agreement. Outgoing President de Klerk and his successor Nelson Mandela were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. They persistently called on the peoples of their country to forget their mutual grievances and build a future together. Of course, it is extremely difficult to erase historical grievances from memory, but still they play a much smaller role in the life of South Africa now than they did a hundred or even thirty years ago.

And here is the book of the Tatarmas of the Kara historian. It describes how reconciliation was achieved not only in Madagascar, but also in a number of other African countries. Russian scientists considered

a book so important that it was translated and published in Moscow ⁹.

There are many examples of peacemaking, mutual understanding, and striving for peaceful coexistence in today's world. Of course, you can often say: not everything goes so well there. But after all, it means that the insults, even if not completely, but softened. And this is very important.

Now about the main thing. About the future. Throughout the history of mankind, many conflicts have led to wars and have been resolved by wars (or so the victorious parties believed). And now? Of course, the desire for war is incurable.

"The first task of the tyrant will be to constantly involve the citizens in some kind of war, so that the people will need a leader. [ ... ] And if he suspects someone of free thoughts or denial of his rule, then he will destroy such people under the pretext that they have surrendered to the enemy." So wrote Plato two and a half thousand years ago ¹⁰. Isn't that the case now?

"The time will come," Leo Tolstoy hoped, " when, after terrible calamities and bloodshed, the exhausted, maimed, exhausted peoples will say to their rulers: get out of here to the devil or to God, to the one from whom you came, and dress up in your own stupid uniforms, fight, blow each other up like a madman." if you want, divide Europe and Asia, Africa and America on the map, but leave us, those who worked on this land and fed you, alone." And continued: "We do not care at all whether we are considered a great or small or no power, what is important for us is to enjoy the fruits of our labors without hindrance."¹¹

That time never came. But is a big war possible now, even if not as terrible as the First and Second World Wars? In a situation where several states, even North Korea, already possess nuclear weapons, this can lead to unpredictable consequences, up to the death of humanity...

MUTUAL TOLERANCE -THE PATH TO PEACE

This means that the only way to peace between peoples is through mutual tolerance, or as it has become more customary to call such mutual understanding - tolerance. But it is possible only if the state, its people, and its authorities try to understand others. They do not insist on their old prejudices, do not constantly talk about their birthright, the superiority of their culture and religion, and their victories, but pay tribute to others as well. They try to learn from the experience of others, think about innovations in their development, and not about imperial ambitions.

But even now, political leaders, when talking about ensuring the security of their states, often associate this with the strengthening of weapons and the combat capability of armies. And much less-with the fact that the peace of their people should be ensured by good relations with their neighbors. But only this way can become a guarantee against regional and, even worse, global conflicts. But how difficult this path is!

For the first time in world history, it has become so vital to resolve disputes not by wars, but by negotiations, compromises, mutual concessions, and mutual understanding. Just like between people.

This was particularly discussed by politicians in December 2013, following the death of Nelson Mandela. In the early 1990s, when events related to his name were taking place, the world did not give them the attention they deserved. They were overshadowed by other events: the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the Soviet Union... But after 20 years, their significance for the whole world has become obvious. Mandela has become a symbol of peace and mutual understanding. Who would not praise this man! United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said at his funeral that Mandela showed the way the world should go. And he added: sometimes a kind smile is stronger than brute force.

The funeral was attended by statesmen from all over the world. Mandela's statements have appeared in newspapers and magazines in various countries, including our own and Russian ones. "I am against white supremacy and against black supremacy." "Fighting and destroying is very easy. The real heroes are those who establish peace and begin to build." "Difficulties and adversities destroy some people, but create others." "It's hard to change society, but it's even harder to change yourself." "We must use our time wisely, and remember that the right thing can be done at any moment." And his words that he is against " ... long speeches, shaking the air and waving his fists, condemnations and harsh resolutions."

You can interpret some of his statements in different ways, you can agree or disagree with them. But they make you think.

Obama called Mandela his idol. And Putin, when he came to the South African Embassy in Moscow, left this entry: "A courageous, wise man

Nelson Mandela has always consistently fought for his beliefs, but at the same time remained a great humanist and peacemaker. This is exactly the approach that is in demand in the world today: the search for compromises is the best basis for agreement and cooperation."

But from the proclamation of a peacemaking approach to its implementation in real politics - a huge distance. The burden of the eternal desire to resolve disputes with the fist, bayonet, tanks, howitzers, and rockets is too great.

MISSION OF HISTORIANS

What is the role of historians in approaching this truly pivotal issue of our time?

All the historical literature accumulated over the centuries-from research papers to school textbooks-is full of wars, conflicts, and discord. What monuments stand tall around the world? Wars, victories, and generals.

Wars and victories, of course, should be remembered. But why are there so few, or almost no, monuments to peacemaking and peacemakers? Yes, now there are monuments to those who proceeded from the principle, in the words of Kipling: "Know how to forgive, and do not seem to forgive, more generous and wiser than others." Yes, there are monuments to Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi. Yes, the memory of Leo Tolstoy is deeply respected. We remember his commandment: "Make no distinction between different nations and love strangers as well as your own."

I recall the words of Joseph Brodsky in a letter he sent to Brezhnev on June 4, 1974: "The only right thing is kindness. From evil, from anger, from hatred-even if they are called righteous-no one benefits."

But how little is all this compared to perpetuating the memory of conflicts and wars!

Isn't the time now when historians should pay much more attention to how the desire for peace, mutual understanding, and the ability to find a common language was manifested in the past? Something that, of course, was, but, alas, did not attract the proper interest of scientists. Attention to the history of peacemaking is important for all peoples and countries.

Objective, unbiased, i.e. strictly professional, approaches of historians-how difficult it is to implement and formulate them in the current most difficult political situations! But if historians take this path, they will be able to influence the public, mass perceptions, and political movements. And maybe even politicians, even those who are committed not to mutual understanding, but to aggressiveness.

...My generation (now older) was brought up in the spirit: "Whoever is not with us is against us." Uncompromising attitude was considered an integral feature of the Soviet man. The ideological campaign of the "struggle against low worship of foreigners" taught us not to believe anything foreign coming from abroad. Western scientists are " bourgeois lackeys." Our job is to expose them. At the height of this campaign, at the turn of the 1940s and 1950s, they even demanded to expose without quoting, because "quoting is propaganda." The propaganda of "rejection of others", distrust of them, alas, was conducted not only in our country. And it is being conducted in many countries even now.

In particular, in a number of countries in Africa and Asia, where inter-State, inter-religious and other conflicts escalate from year to year. What is the cost of one appearance of the monstrously cruel "Islamic State" banned in our country, claiming to create a world caliphate? Distrust of other nations, of co-religionists who profess a different version of the great world religion - Islam-has reached such an intensity that the world is threatened with tragic and unpredictable events.

That is why the topic of mutual understanding and trust is so important-it now attracts historians from a number of countries. Mutual understanding between people, between social groups, peoples, and states.

^{Klyuchevsky V. O.} 1 Aphorisms. Historical portraits and sketches. Diaries, Moscow, Mysl Publ., 1993, p. 394.

² History of mankind. World History, vol. 3. St. Petersburg, Book Publishing Association "Prosveshchenie", 1909, pp. 377, 378.

^{Hammond L.,Jablow A.} 3 The Myth of Africa. New York, 1977. P. 7.

^{Nwezeh E.C.} 4 Africa in French and German Fiction (1911 - 1933). Ibadan, 1978. P. VII, 3.

^{Mayer R.} 5 Artificial Africas. Colonial Images in the Times of Globalization. Hanover-London, 2002.

^{Solov'ev B.C.} O narodnosti i narodnykh delakh v Rossii [On the National identity and national affairs in Russia]. Solov'ev B.C. Sochineniya, vol. 1. Filosofskaya publitsistika, Moscow, "Pravda", 1989, p. 282.

^{Kipling R.} 7 Izbrannye stikhi iz vsekh knigov [Selected poems from all books]. Translated by A. Sergeev. [B. M.], 2011. p. 175.

^{Saltykov M. E. (Shchedrin N.) .8} Poln. sobr. soch. Vol. VII. SPb., Tip. M. Stasyulevich, 1906. pp. 282-283.

^{Imbiki Analet.} 9 National Reconciliation: The Complex Case of Madagascar, Moscow, IAfr RAS, 2013.

^Plato. 10 Gosudarstvo [The State] / / Platon. Collected Works in 4 volumes / Translated by A. N. Egunov, Moscow, Mysl, 1994, vol. 3, p. 356.

^{Tolstoy L. N.} 11 Collected Works, vol. 16. Moscow, Khud. lit., 1964. p. 617.

Permanent link to this publication: