Crimean Tatars in exile: community belonging and being the Others

Martin-Oleksandr Kisly

doi:10.18523/2617-3417.2019.2.41-55

Abstract

As a result of the deportation, the Crimean Tatars became an “unnation” for the regime and unwanted neighbors for local population, particularly the Uzbeks. The deportation ruined the traditional way of life, social structure and cultural institutes of Crimean Tatars. Among the factors that played an outstanding role in the process of preserving the nation identity, religion, traditions, and holidays have constituted the core elements. At the same time, merging of completely different traditions occurred. Narratives recounted within families played a crucial role in both the maintenance of Crimean Tatar memory about their lost Homeland and creation of the image of the promised land. The family was considered as the last stronghold against Russification. Although the Uzbek language is similar to the Crimean Tatar language and was considered as an option of preserving native language, the level of education in Uzbek schools was much weaker than in Russian ones. After 1956, Crimean Tatars began leaving distant places of exile. They were valued as specialists due to their education, knowledge of the Russian language, and experience in working on leading positions in Crimea before the deportation. Due to these changes in the life of Crimean Tatars, they became the ordinary Soviet citizens, if only they had not been stigmatized as traitors and had the right to return home. An accusation of betrayal, the core component of the life of Crimean Tatars in exile, used to take place in the first years of exile and even later. Nevertheless, Crimean Tatars did not assimilate with Uzbeks due to the differences in faith, socio-economic background, education and culture. Crimean Tatars greatly increased their education level and forced the knowledge of Russian language. By the end of the 1980s, Crimean Tatars along with Russians occupied the majority of knowledge-intensive sectors of industry. However, despite the rapid change in their social status, Crimean Tatars remained second-class citizens, being still labeled as traitors. Due to Soviet propaganda that provoked aggressive othering and dehumanization of Crimean Tatars in exile, as well as socio-economic, cultural difference, and colonial status of Uzbekistan, Crimean Tatars were treated as Others by Uzbeks. Article received 10.03.2019

Highlights

The deportation ruined the traditional way of life, social structure and cultural institutes of Crimean Tatars
The proposed paper is based on my fieldwork conducted between 2013 and 2018 in Crimea with informants formerly living in Uzbekistan[11] and born between 1928 and 1975
Crimean Tatars were able to keep a certain number of traditions inherent in Islam as their everyday practices and, turn Soviet holidays from being imposed by the state into their own festivities through the establishment of new rituals not always related to the dominating ideology of the Soviet Union

Summary

The Tatars of Crimea

Concerning the impact of the Soviet states antireligious propaganda, Crimea in the pre-war period was a populous and urbanized region with powerful local authorities, including Veli Ibrahimov, and influential policy of korenizatsia, whereas in Uzbekistan the Soviet Union was fighting with basmachi movement (defeated by 1931) by the hands of local Muslim peasants.[7] Attempts to reduce the impact of Islam and native traditions in Uzbekistan were not successful, because Central Asian communists remained unaware of the goals of the Soviet transformation and tried to combine their identities as Muslims and Communists.[8] the influence of Islam had increased during the wartime.[9] As Crimean Tatars recall, Uzbeks did not treat them as Muslims; they criticized exiles for the wrong type of Islam (“Girls with covered faces used to threw stones at our women saying ‘Pantless[10] Russians!’”11). Crimean Tatars found themselves “inbetween”: in exile far from Homeland, too good to be Uzbeks (according to testimonies), not innocent to be Russians

Conclusion

Findings

Bibliographic References