Post by sharshuvuu on Sept 20, 2008 6:40:28 GMT 3
In support of Sarmat's point of almost a year ago, let me quote from something I compiled some years back in connection with another discussion:
"A glance at the literacy programme in Marxist Mongolia is useful for present purposes. It paralleled the Soviet programmes, especially those in the Asian republics. Literacy was indeed promoted among a population that had been only partly literate previously, while at the same time, access to Mongolian literature was actually reduced. This was done by abolishing the traditional Mongolian script and introducing the Cyrillic in its place, while not printing the monuments of Mongolian literature in the new alphabet; by condemning almost the whole literary tradition of Mongolia as ‘reactionary’; and by sequestering and even physically destroying the ‘old books’. At the same time, the history of Mongolia was falsified by depicting it as much worse that it had actually been, a regular practice of Marxist-Leninist regimes now used by China to justify its occupation of Tibet; in both these cases, as in others, Western writers, both deliberate apologists and honest dupes, repeat the propaganda as factual.
"Since, however, Mongolia was not part of the Soviet Union, a movement to defend the Mongolian literary tradition was able to reverse the most pernicious policies decades earlier than in the Soviet republics. What permanent losses the book-burners may have inflicted can hardly be estimated even now. The following excerpt is highly instructive:
" 'In modern terms the [pre-Communist] Mongols were a backward, uneducated people. This is not to say that learning and culture were unknown to them, far from it. Marxist writers have over the last forty years been assiduous in spreading the most pitiful tales about the squalor of ignorance in which their forebears allegedly lived until the 1921 revolution opened the way of progress and enlightenment to them. These falsities and half-truths have unfortunately been perpetuated by Western writers who had no other basis to go upon. Literacy was said to be almost nil, schools non-existent except for Jamtsarano’s middle school in Urga. But once the Stalinist era was over, something could be done to correct the distorted image its propaganda had imposed, and some Mongolian scholars, in particular Academician Damdinsuren, have done what they could to pre-sent the reverse of the coin. Some essays written by Damdinsuren in 1956 and 1957 give useful facts and arguments, but as they have been printed only in Mongol they have done nothing to rec-tify the opinion generally accepted abroad, and fostered by Marxist apologists, that pre-revolutionary Mongolia was a barbarous sub-civilization. Damdinsuren states quite openly that the purpose of the propaganda of the Stalinist era was to decry the traditional Mongolian culture so as to make the achievements of the revolution stand out more vividly in contrast. He shows that for twenty years since 1936 nothing was allowed to be taught about early Mongol literature in Mongol middle schools, so that a whole generation and more of Mongol children was allowed to grow up ignorant of the realities of their people’s past. In the same period, only one book from the pre-revolutionary period was reprinted. While some scholars were doing their best to salvage what they could of the country’s literary past, other ‘responsible workers’ were organizing searches for old books in order to destroy them by burning them or by throwing them down ravines—this as late as 1955. Of schools in pre-revolutionary Mongolia, Damdinsuren wrote:
" ' "Some of our intelligentsia, instead of finding out the truth from the facts of past history and uttering it, distort it and fal-sify it in every possible way. They make the ignorance and backwardness of the past even more ignorant and backward that it was, and their writings show how they insult as savages their own parents and grandparents. For example, under the autonomous regime there were forty-nine primary schools. But some writers state that in that period there was only as single school, and others that there was not even one."
" ' From all the details he gives, Damdinsuren concludes:
" ' "Before the 1921 revolution there was a lot of literature of democratic character amonst [sic] the old writings. It is only a pity that as we have been unable to edit and collect these writings which form the cultural heritage of the Mongols, they have to a great extent got lost. For this regrettable and sorry state of affairs the destroyers of the Mongolian cultural heri-tage are greatly to blame. They have declared old literature feudal in its entirety and have inflicted no small damage on the work of editing and caring for our old literature . . . . Literary readers and histories of literature do not exist, and the study of Mongol literature in all our higher and middle schools is in a deplorable state.
" ' "Literacy statistics are quite unreliable, especially as the basis on which such figures as we have were compiled is unrealistic. In Manchu days only those who could write as well as read were marked down on the local registers as literate, and as the ability to write involved liability for cleri-cal service in the administration, many men would disguise their capabilities or even fail to learn to write properly, though they were fluent readers." ' (C. R. Bawden, _The Modern History of Mongolia_, 2nd revised edn [London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1989], pp. 246-248.)"
Sharshuvuu
"A glance at the literacy programme in Marxist Mongolia is useful for present purposes. It paralleled the Soviet programmes, especially those in the Asian republics. Literacy was indeed promoted among a population that had been only partly literate previously, while at the same time, access to Mongolian literature was actually reduced. This was done by abolishing the traditional Mongolian script and introducing the Cyrillic in its place, while not printing the monuments of Mongolian literature in the new alphabet; by condemning almost the whole literary tradition of Mongolia as ‘reactionary’; and by sequestering and even physically destroying the ‘old books’. At the same time, the history of Mongolia was falsified by depicting it as much worse that it had actually been, a regular practice of Marxist-Leninist regimes now used by China to justify its occupation of Tibet; in both these cases, as in others, Western writers, both deliberate apologists and honest dupes, repeat the propaganda as factual.
"Since, however, Mongolia was not part of the Soviet Union, a movement to defend the Mongolian literary tradition was able to reverse the most pernicious policies decades earlier than in the Soviet republics. What permanent losses the book-burners may have inflicted can hardly be estimated even now. The following excerpt is highly instructive:
" 'In modern terms the [pre-Communist] Mongols were a backward, uneducated people. This is not to say that learning and culture were unknown to them, far from it. Marxist writers have over the last forty years been assiduous in spreading the most pitiful tales about the squalor of ignorance in which their forebears allegedly lived until the 1921 revolution opened the way of progress and enlightenment to them. These falsities and half-truths have unfortunately been perpetuated by Western writers who had no other basis to go upon. Literacy was said to be almost nil, schools non-existent except for Jamtsarano’s middle school in Urga. But once the Stalinist era was over, something could be done to correct the distorted image its propaganda had imposed, and some Mongolian scholars, in particular Academician Damdinsuren, have done what they could to pre-sent the reverse of the coin. Some essays written by Damdinsuren in 1956 and 1957 give useful facts and arguments, but as they have been printed only in Mongol they have done nothing to rec-tify the opinion generally accepted abroad, and fostered by Marxist apologists, that pre-revolutionary Mongolia was a barbarous sub-civilization. Damdinsuren states quite openly that the purpose of the propaganda of the Stalinist era was to decry the traditional Mongolian culture so as to make the achievements of the revolution stand out more vividly in contrast. He shows that for twenty years since 1936 nothing was allowed to be taught about early Mongol literature in Mongol middle schools, so that a whole generation and more of Mongol children was allowed to grow up ignorant of the realities of their people’s past. In the same period, only one book from the pre-revolutionary period was reprinted. While some scholars were doing their best to salvage what they could of the country’s literary past, other ‘responsible workers’ were organizing searches for old books in order to destroy them by burning them or by throwing them down ravines—this as late as 1955. Of schools in pre-revolutionary Mongolia, Damdinsuren wrote:
" ' "Some of our intelligentsia, instead of finding out the truth from the facts of past history and uttering it, distort it and fal-sify it in every possible way. They make the ignorance and backwardness of the past even more ignorant and backward that it was, and their writings show how they insult as savages their own parents and grandparents. For example, under the autonomous regime there were forty-nine primary schools. But some writers state that in that period there was only as single school, and others that there was not even one."
" ' From all the details he gives, Damdinsuren concludes:
" ' "Before the 1921 revolution there was a lot of literature of democratic character amonst [sic] the old writings. It is only a pity that as we have been unable to edit and collect these writings which form the cultural heritage of the Mongols, they have to a great extent got lost. For this regrettable and sorry state of affairs the destroyers of the Mongolian cultural heri-tage are greatly to blame. They have declared old literature feudal in its entirety and have inflicted no small damage on the work of editing and caring for our old literature . . . . Literary readers and histories of literature do not exist, and the study of Mongol literature in all our higher and middle schools is in a deplorable state.
" ' "Literacy statistics are quite unreliable, especially as the basis on which such figures as we have were compiled is unrealistic. In Manchu days only those who could write as well as read were marked down on the local registers as literate, and as the ability to write involved liability for cleri-cal service in the administration, many men would disguise their capabilities or even fail to learn to write properly, though they were fluent readers." ' (C. R. Bawden, _The Modern History of Mongolia_, 2nd revised edn [London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1989], pp. 246-248.)"
Sharshuvuu
relationship.
