This week has been a relaxing one for me. My parents, who generally spend the summers at our cottage on Lake Michigan, are traveling in France right now so I've been occupying the cottage in their stead. It's a super place, built by my great-grandfather in the 1920s, and I've been coming up here since I was three weeks old. I can think of no better place to chill out and collect my thoughts—especially as I write and try to get ready for the upcoming academic year.

Wild beaches, sand dunes, and blue water help make West Michigan special

In mid-July, the sun sets at around 9:30 and it doesn't get completely dark until after 10

I was checking my email the other day and saw a post from H-Russia that I wanted to comment on. Andrea Graziosi of the Italian Society for the Study of Contemporary History  contacted the list to register the society's disapproval of Russian government efforts to counter what it calls the "falsification of history" in Russia.

On May 15 of this year, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev signed a decree authorizing the creation of a committee to counter the "falsification of history" in Russia. On June 23, the Director of the History section of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Valery Tishkov, sent a letter to the senior staff of the Historical-Philological department of the Academy outlining the steps they hope to take in combating historical "falsification" as well as the "main sources, individuals, and organizations involved in developing and disseminating the falsification." [Here is the original text in Russian, and here is an English translation].

According to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Tishkov backed off from the letter somewhat when they contacted him for an interview, claiming that the letter had been written by one of his assistants, that it represented only a draft, and that, presumably, final decisions have not yet been made regarding what will constitute historical "falsification" in the eyes of the Russian government. Indeed, Tishkov is a respected scholar and I think it's more than likely that, even if he is not enthusiastic about the direction scholarship is taking in Russia, he may have little choice about his involvement in this.

Nevertheless, government-sponsored efforts to root out "falsifications" constitute  a despicable example of state interference in scholarly activity and need to be spoken out against.

People have often asked me what it's like working in the Russian archives, and my answer has always been that I've felt I was given unfettered access to the materials I needed in order to conduct my work. Granted, it's been five years since I've worked in big national archives in St. Petersburg and Moscow, so perhaps things have changed. Moreover, working in the provinces, I think, is easier from the standpoint of overcoming people's suspicions and being given the opportunity to see documents. While the the price of making photocopies and taking digital photographs has risen to the extent that these are no longer practical options in Kazan, I've still never had any trouble gaining access or working there, and that goes double for Ufa (which, as of last summer, was still an extremely accessble place to research).

Indeed, I've often found that researching Russian imperial history in Russia is an undertaking much less fraught with concern than researching Ottoman history in Turkey. Don't get me wrong—I don't find researching in Turkey to be terribly difficult, either. But in my opinion there are many more people in Turkey (both scholars and non-scholars) who feel much more invested in Ottoman history than there are individuals in Russia who feel invested in Russian imperial history. People in Russia generally don't feel that their country's contemporary status is at stake in the interpretations of their imperial history made by historians, whereas many people in Turkey do feel (and with some good reason, in my opinion) that the discussion of some issues—particularly the genocide issue—are directly related to Turkey's present-day interests.

So I find it quite depressing to see the Russian government getting involved in the interpretation of history. My sense is that the Russian government is probably less concerned with foreigners and more interested in what local scholars (that is, citizens of Russia) are writing. The government is also perhaps eager to slow down the involvement by Russian scholars in panels, workshops, and other activities sponsored by American scholarly organizations like IREX, the SSRC, and others.

Ultimately, the very raising of the subject of historical "falsification" by the Academy of Sciences will, I predict, have a chilling impact upon the interpretation of history by Russian scholars, who—unlike Americans and others who obtain their grant money from their own universities and scholarly agencies—are dependent upon organizations like the Academy of Sciences for funding.

Dmitry Medvedev, who appears to have been chosen for the presidency at least partly due to his seemingly more western-friendly and laid-back demeanor, encourages visitors to his website to write him and talk about their concerns. If you have an extra minute or two, why not take him up on his offer and send him a message about this issue?