Tashkent-Tokyo: Yangi nashr, 2010, 744 p. In recent years, the main direction in the study of pre-colonial, colonial and Soviet Central Asia has been the rejection of an exclusively Russian-centric view of local history, associated, of course, with the collapse of the USSR and the emergence of independent national states in the region. Freed from the ideological dictates of Moscow, they seek to rethink their history, rewrite it, including using a variety of texts by local authors, who are often seen as forerunners of independence. This turn coincided with the growing methodological criticism of Eurocentrism in world historiography, and the growing call for a more careful analysis of the voices of all participants in historical interaction, primarily those who had been "silent" for a long time, were in a subordinate and repressed position (see, for example: [Khalid, 2007,p. 15-16; Kemper, 2007). 2007, p. 126-129]). Both of these trends overlap and create a popular genre in the current "Central Asian studies" (Central Asian studies) to expose Soviet science, and also contribute to the discovery of new - non-Russian-language sources. This turn not only causes a clash between different generations of scientists, who evaluate new fashions in different ways, and different national schools, which defend their special rights to the history of the region, but also creates some tension between different disciplines. The fact is that the Russian-centric view assumed the inclusion of pre-colonial, colonial and Soviet history of Central Asia in "Slavic/Russian" or "Soviet" studies (Russian/Slavic/Soviet studies), which today are turning into "Eurasian" studies (Eurasian studies). Everything that happened in the region was evaluated in terms of what the Russian Empire and the USSR were, and how they first drew Central Asia into their orbit, and then changed it. The same view suggests that the history of the region is studied by specialists with a basic Russian language, who study ... Читать далее