What do you think?
Rate this book
Наш Крим: неросійські історії українського півострова
Міф про Крим як про «ісконно русскую землю», що «завжди належала Росії» став наріжним каменем пропагандистської кампанії Москви як у переддень анексії півострова, так і сьогодні — задля виправдання своїх дій. Пропонований вашій увазі збірник української історичної публіцистики підважує тези російської пропаганди. Автори цієї книги, відомі науковці та публіцисти, не ставлять за мету замінити російський історичний міф іншим — українським чи кримськотатарським, — а прагнуть показати минуле півострова у всій його складності та різноманітності. Матеріали охоплюють період від становлення Кримського ханства і до відновлення української незалежності у 1991 році.
318 pages, ebook
Published November 14, 2016
1 person is currently reading
13 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 15, 2019
This is a collection of (media, not academic) articles about history of the Crimea, from the 1620s to 1990s. The articles are good, but editors made a very poor job of uniting them into a single narrative. As a result, we got 3 star collection of sometimes 4-5 star articles.
The source of the articles (newspapers, weeklies, magazines) leads to absence of cited literature. The fact that each article was written as a stand alone, and by different authors leads to different highlights and even shows minor errors. So, for example, on one hand we got a piece how forces from Ukrainian territories helped Russian empire to capture the peninsula in 1783 and on the other we get two views on last rulers of the Crimean Khanate, one that sees them as perpetrators, another – as victims. Plurality is great, but it dissolves the narrative to separate episodes.
A minor problem was also awful formatting and presence of broken links in the text, which came with copy-pasted articles.
The source of the articles (newspapers, weeklies, magazines) leads to absence of cited literature. The fact that each article was written as a stand alone, and by different authors leads to different highlights and even shows minor errors. So, for example, on one hand we got a piece how forces from Ukrainian territories helped Russian empire to capture the peninsula in 1783 and on the other we get two views on last rulers of the Crimean Khanate, one that sees them as perpetrators, another – as victims. Plurality is great, but it dissolves the narrative to separate episodes.
A minor problem was also awful formatting and presence of broken links in the text, which came with copy-pasted articles.
Displaying 1 of 1 review