The Social – Psychological Roots of the Ethnic Problems in
Crimea
Crimea is one of many regions of the former Soviet Union
fraught with economic, political, and social instability. Surrounded by the
Black Sea, the Crimean peninsula was once a prime vacation spot during the
Soviet era . Crimea is now a part of Ukraine, which is struggling with the
highest unemployment rates in the country, political upheaval, and brewing
ethnic tension.
The Crimean peninsula covers a territory of approximately
26,000 square kilometers. The population is nearly 2.5 million. Ethnic Russians
comprise 64% of the population, 23% are Ukrainians, 10% Crimean Tatar, 3%
Belorussian, Armenian, Greek, German, Jews, and others. Crimea was considered a
part of Russian territory, up until 1954, when it was handed over to Ukraine.
Since Crimea became a part of Ukraine, the Russian ethnic minority population in
Crimea has found itself in a complicated predicament. In the same sense, the
Ukrainian population struggles with the fact that they are a minority in their
own land. Even more complex is the situation of the Crimean Tatars. In 1944, the
Crimean Tatar population (260,000 people) was deported to Central Asia and
Siberia en masse by Stalin. During the last ten years, approximately half of the
deported population of ethnic Tatars have returned to their "homeland"
only to find that they are repeatedly denied citizenship rights, access to
education, employment, and housing. In May 1999, 20,000 Crimean Tatars joined
together in protest against these discriminatory practices, which in turn
provoked a negative reaction from the minority ethnic Russian population, who
felt threatened. In addition to the brewing ethnic tensions between the
"majority" minority ethnic Russians and the Crimean Tatars, the
presence of the Russian Black Sea fleet at Sevastopol further exacerbates
political relations between Ukraine and Russia. Today, the Crimea remains
threatened by competing ethno-political ambitions, and the potential for further
unrest is significant and troubling.
Ukraine's national budget has been severely crippled by the
economic crisis and the growing burden of debt. The government is ill-equipped
to constructively handle the deteriorating situation in Crimea. Limited
financial resources which were intended to aid the region have been curtailed or
eliminated from the state budget.
Fortunately, in the Crimea and throughout Ukraine, the
conflicts among different ethnic groups and their political elite did not result
in any violence or armed clashes. In Ukraine, the ‘war of laws’ has not
developed into civil, intra- or inter-state war, as had happened in many regions
of the former USSR. In March 1995, after several years of concessions and a
policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of the Autonomous Republic of
Crimea (ARC), the central authorities took the first decisive step toward a
legal-political solution of the conflict between the constitution of Ukraine and
the Crimea. On March 1995 the Supreme Rada of Ukraine annulled all legislative
acts of the ARC which were not consistent with Ukrainian legislation. The
institution of the presidency was abolished and the law "On the Autonomous
Republic of the Crimea" was adopted.
During the last 60 years, as a result of ethno-migrational
processes, the ethnic structure of the population of Crimea has changed
considerably. In traditionally multinational and stable Crimea, the balance of
material resources and multicultural harmony has been broken. As a result,
problems of ethnic nature have sprung up. At the same time, Crimea, as no other
region, has the structures to develop once again into a multicultural state, and
to solve all its problems by mutual agreement space, because:
- for thousands of years, various ethnic groups have peacefully coexisted in
Crimea. Even during times of war and invasions, no war or historically
significant conflict has ever involved interethnic strife;
- Crimea is known as "the good neighborhood" of different
religions. It has remained this way throughout history, irregardless of the
number or type of followers of various religious beliefs who inhabited the
peninsula. Nowadays, when conflicts having inter-religious foundations are
on the rise, Crimea serves as a very good example to the rest of the world,
as a place where Muslims peacefully coexist alongside Christians.
However, various analyses of the current social situation in
Crimea show that one of the basic reasons for which there is so much tension is
due to the fact that the government is operating between both west-focused and
east-focused ideologies. Furthermore, the official governing bodies do not
always adequately estimate and understand the needs of both the Crimean Tatars
and the Slavic population. Currently, the governing bodies are attempting to
pursue a policy of affirmative action, and cross-cultural adapters, and are
using the appropriate analytical tools for the resolution of ethnic conflict and
hence, peacebuilding in the Crimea.
The concept of peacebuilding was proposed by Boutros
Boutros-Ghali in "An Agenda for Peace," in 1992. There are three
elements which are central to the concept of peacebuilding:
1) the rehabilitation, reconstruction, and reconciliation of
societies that have suffered the ravages of armed conflict;
2) the creation of the security-related, political and/ or
socio-economic mechanisms needed to build trust between the opposing parties in
order to prevent the resumption of violence;
3) external (foreign) intervention (at the national or
multilateral levels or the UN) to help create conditions conducive to peace.
Peacebuilding is one of the popular concepts underpinning UN
missions today. However, case studies of peacebuilding show that the standards
which peacebuilding call for often conflict with prevailing local conditions,
despite the fact that the countries in question had undergone a process of
democratization, adopted a market economy, and followed the advice of
international organizations and agencies. Now scholars and political activists
begin to stress that successful peacebuilding must be based on the
social-psychological models of a given society. In this article, we will attempt
to describe how ethnic and cultural peculiarities may influence the processes of
ethnic conflict and peacebuilding.
The person carrying out his ability to live within the
boundaries of social validity always estimates and expresses the attitude to the
validity as a whole, to the particular forms of this validity, upon which it is
structured: moral, legal, economic, or political. This attitude expressed in the
person, is his mentality (criteria for the estimation of a situation, value
system orientations, representations. The social mentality (social cognition) is
presently being analyzed by scholars within the Commonwealth of Independent
States (CIS) (Abulhanova-Slavskaya ?.?., Belitskaya ?.A.,
Belyaeva ?.?., Starovoitenko T.B.), and by those outside of the CIS
(Asch S., Davies M., Forgas J.P., Brooks-Cunn J., Lewis M., Scheneider D.J.,
Srull T.K. Etc.). Each person does not simply react to stimulus, but creates his
own Weltanshauung (or his own theory of the world) and human attitudes.
According to the principle of the activity of perception, each person creates
his own interpretation of a situation (PetrenkoV.F., Pohilko V. I., ?.?,
Shmelev ?. G. etc.). On the basis of such a structure, there are the
subjective spaces of reflections consisting of constructions - ways of
estimation and differentiation of objects, values, and representations (J.Kelly,
F.Fransella, D. Bannister).
Consciousness contains some cognitive models of ethnic
situations on the basis of cultural and national representations, and the
subjective experience of the members of society. As it was shown in the research
of ?.?.Van Deik, oftentimes, negative characteristics of one of the
aspects of an ethnic situation are reported to the whole particular group of the
representatives of the minority. In such a case, a stereotypisation of the norms
and estimations of the behavior of other peoples, recipes of actions, and
reactions are formed.
The cognitive structures prevent one from estimating
adequately not only disputed situations and laws, but also the need of other
people and national groups. But if people cannot satisfy their needs within the
frameworks of social institutions, then they begin to work outside of these
frameworks (J. Berton.). Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a careful
analysis of both the needs of the existing national groups, and the degree of
their satisfaction.
- Their View of One Another: How Crimeans Perceive the Other Ethnoses
The analysis of the stories of the Crimean Tatars and Slavs
about cases of interaction with the representatives of other ethnoses has
enabled us to reveal the cognitive models of interethnic interaction rendering
influence on the estimation and attitude toward other ethnoses. While comparing
these stories, it is possible to make the following conclusions:
1) The stories of the Crimean Tatars are almost all of the
same type and concern practically only situations of interaction with strangers
in public places. The stories of the Slavs are more varied, and are connected
with the situations of everyday contacts with neighbors, in daily life and at
work.
2) All the stories of the Crimean Tatars are negative, while
in 30% of the stories of the Slavs, the Tatars are perceived positively.
3) Crimean Tatars perceive situations of insult in public
places as very painful, and have calm concern for everyday squabblings (they are
practically not mentioned in the stories). The Slavs react sharply to the
negative act of interaction in everyday conditions.
4) Stories of Crimean Tatars concern only cases of personal
interaction; in the stories of the Slavs, the relative or familiar person acts
as a character in 25% of the stories.
5) In the stories of Crimean Tatars, one cannot find any
generalizations (some cases are of emotional character: "I am always
angry...;" "It makes me angry, when..."). In the stories of the
Slavs, generalizations are used rather often: in 45 % of all cases there are
statements like: "All the Tatars... ;" " Now all the Tatars...
;" and so on.
6) In the stories of the Crimean Tatars, social actions
connected with bad feelings include: a rejection, intensity, antagonism. Unlike
the Slavs, the Crimean Tatars did not name good emotions. And even more
surprisingly so, the Crimean Tatars describe themselves more negatively than
they are seen by the Slavs. The behavior of the Slavs is perceived by the
Crimean Tatars as more aggressive and antagonistic, in comparison with the
self-perception of the Slavs. In general, interethnic relations are perceived by
the Crimean Tatars as more tense, as the Slavs are perceived as being the
bearers of negative opinions and information. The attitudes of the Slavs toward
the Crimean Tatars is more varied; they display and expect from Tatars not only
negative, but also positive actions. In situations described by the Slavs, the
Crimean Tatars quite often initiate conversation with requests and offers;
however, all these actions, in the opinion of the Slavs, carry negative
character. The Crimean Tatars do not describe themselves as initiators in one of
the stories, attributing the responsibility for conflict to the Slavs.
7) The Slavs, unlike the Crimean Tatars, in their stories and
in the stories of the representatives of other party, act as very emotional,
showing various emotions. But the Crimean Tatars attribute only negative
emotions to the Slavs, above all the prevalence of anger and disgust. The Slavs
describe their emotions as more various than that of the Crimean Tatars; they
describe them with interest, pleasure, and pleasant surprise. The Crimean Tatars
note that these emotions are more often anger. The Slavs in their stories
practically do not pay attention to the emotions of Crimean Tatars; however, as
well as Tatars, mostly allocate anger among their emotion. The absence of
interest in the emotional state of the other party is frequently the reason for
the strong tensions which they feel when communicating with one another.
8) The Crimean Tatars commonly perceive themselves and Slavs
as absolutely strange, different groups, having minimal interaction. The Slavs'
concern toward Crimean Tatars, is that they are merely neighbours in one and the
same society; however, this attitude is polymodal with some shade of antogonism.
Analysis these of stereotypes also can help us to understand
the peculiarities of perception and estimation of other ethnoses.
Autostereotypes (the thoughts about one's own ethnos) of
Crimean Tatars are much less advanced than those of the Slavs. In comparison
with the Slavs, the Crimean Tatars in their thoughts separate themselves from
the majority of the representatives of their ethnos and estimate their behavior
as far from the ideal. The Slavs as a whole estimate their people as sociable,
open, and intellectual (basic stereotypes): witty, sociable, rectilinear,
tactful, economical, easy, quick-witted, courageous, and inquisitive. Hence, the
Slavs consider that in communication, they display more tact and emotions than
other Slavs, but underestimate such characteristics as witlessness, boldness and
quick-wittiness a little. In comparison with an ideal, in the opinion of the
Slavs, the typical representative of their nation lacks qualities connected with
personal contact and inquisitiveness.
The Crimean Tatars estimate their people, first of all, as
selfvirtual and showing those qualities connected to it (straightforwardness,
punctuality, and easiness). In connection with this interpretation, they condemn
many features of the behavior of the representatives of their ethnos, thereby
justifying their similar behavior. The Crimean Tatars interpret their own
behavior as cautious (instead of cowardly as in an autostereotype), carefree
(instead of thoughtless), cheerful (instead of noisy), complaisant (instead of
spineless). They see themselves as more kind, witty, constrained, tactful, and
sociable, than the majority of the Crimean Tatars. As a whole, these
autostereotypes are rather adequate. Concurrence of the autostereotype and the
ideas of the Crimean Tatars about the Slavs are displayed in 4 qualities:
wittiness, tactfulness, inquisitiveness, and boldness. There are no concurrences
in negative stereotypes. The Crimean Tatar has concurrence only in one positive
quality - he has the feeling of being self-virtual, but this quality is pivoted.
There is a concurrence in the negative quality of noisiness. In spite of the
presence of the negative tendencies in interethnic relations, there is a rather
large degree of mutual understanding between the Slavs and the Crimean Tatars.
The autostereotypes of the two ethnoses coincide only in two
positive estimations: easiness and straightforwardness. And although both an
objective and subjective psychological distance appears to be rather high
between them, there are nevertheless ways to reach mutual understanding through
sincere, easy communication.
In comparison with the heterostereotypes (ideas about the
other ethnos) of the Slavs, the heterostereotypes of the Crimean Tatars are
rather negative. The Slavs have the following stereotypes regarding the Crimean
Tatars: prudent, self-virtuous, economical, hypocritical, cunning, tittering,
nervous, and rough. In comparison with an ideal, typical representatives of
Crimean Tatars are not estimated highly, but the connection is positive (0, 08).
In the opinion of the Slavs, the Crimean Tatars lack tactfulness, courtesy,
restraint, sensitivity, straightforwardness, wittiness, and inquisitiveness. The
stereotypes of the Crimean Tatars concerning the Slavs are also less developed
than their autostereotypes, and they are negative. Positive heterostereotypes
are expressed poorly, and are connected with such qualities as care, wittiness,
tactfulness, inquisitiveness, and boldness. Among the negative heterostereotypes,
the stereotypes that the Slavs "treat others with neglect" and that
they exhibit "flattering, noise, roughness,and greed" are agreed upon
as the most common heterostereotypes of the Crimean Tatars toward the Slavs.
The qualities that are of main importance in the estimation
of another nationality greatly influence the representatives of both ethnoses,
and oftentimes making these estimations negative. This tendency is more
pronounced for a Crimean Tatar: the rod autostereotype " feeling of
self-virtue" is used for an estimation of the Slavs, exceeding at its
negative meaning by 4 times, in comparison to other negative heterostereotypes.
As negative heterostereotypes, the representatives of the
both ethnoses often describe: flattering, noise, and roughness. Interethnic
relations are estimated as insincere and negative, with a lack of mutual
respect. Furthermore, the Slavs consider the Crimean Tatars to be artful and
hypocritical, and Crimean Tatars consider the Slavs to be scornful and greedy.
These heterostereotypes are also the mark of mistrust in interethnic contacts.
Hence, the basic tendencies in interethnic relations between
the Slavs and the Crimean Tatars in Crimea are reflected in the processes of
stereotypisation. These stereotypes, as illustrated by the examples above, are
often of negative character and are connected with the goal of denying the other
ethnos of the most highly estimated characteristics of their own ethnos.
Interethnic relations lack sincerity and respect. However, this research has
also shown signs in the improvement in mutual relations. That being said, the
Crimean Tatars estimate adequately such qualities of the Slavs as wittiness,
tactfulness, inquisitiveness, and boldness, and the Slavs recognize high
development of the feeling of self-virtue in the Crimean Tatars. Furthermore, as
stated previously, the representatives of both ethnoses estimate their people as
easy and straightforward. These positive stereotypes can aid in the
establishment of better mutual understanding, and more sincere communication
between the peoples of Crimea.
2.What Lies in the Basis of Behavior: The Main Motives and
Emotions
1. Analysis of values. Both ethnoses are aimed identically at
the basic human values: health and family, and underestimate the values
connected with an active life, creativity, and efficiency in businesses. With a
little bit of higher orientation to activity, the Crimean Tatars has not yet
formed the complex values that are responsible for the process of activity. The
Crimean Tatars are more focused on well-being, entertainment, high inquiries,
and they are less tolerant (close-minded). The most important values (breeding
for the Crimean Tatars, and honesty and responsibility for the Slavs) are used
in the negative estimation of other ethnoses.
2. Analysis of emotions. Communicative emotions (connected
with dialogue) appear to be for the most part advanced for both ethnoses, and
emotions, connected with struggle, and the overcoming of difficulties connected
with storage, appear to be the least developed. However, communication, for the
Crimean Tatars, is connected with their aiming at glory (concerning the feeling
of pride, and desire of recognition). Communication with the representatives of
the Crimean - Tatar people will be fruitful, if the feelings of pride, desire of
respect, and recognition are taken into account. The underestimation of such
emotional needs may result in conflicts. Altruistic emotions are well advanced
in the Slavs; they display them in international dialogue, and they can become a
sign of the peace between ethnoses.
3. The needs analysis shows, that there are essential
distinctions in the estimation of the conditions of life by both ethnoses. The
Crimean Tatars estimate housing conditions and social security as the least
satisfactory; the Slavs estimate health services and level of incomes as the
least satisfactory. Both ethnoses are mostly satisfied with an opportunity for
freedom of speech (having a free press, the right to protest), freedom of
religious beliefs, and the right to vote. The Slavs also estimate opportunities
for the use of money in improving their quality of life as good. Hence, the
greatest source for complaints is mostly associated with economic and social
conditions, which for Crimean Tatars means housing conditions and social
security, and for the Slavs, health services and income. The problems of freedom
of religious belief, which are risen in speeches, used to be far-fetched and
introduced. As a whole, Crimean Tatars are more tolerant to everyday problems
and more often, than the Slavs, find support and consolation among relatives for
their woes.
4. Results of the Comparative Analysis of Attitudes
As a whole, positive or tolerant attitudes prevail in the
Slavs. Many people who consider the Crimean Tatars to be the same as the Slavs,
think that they need to be respected. Many Slavs remarked that the Crimean
Tatars seek a peaceful co-existence. One-third of attitudes however, are
negative. The roughness of the Tatars and their bad attitude toward the Slavs
are noted. The expectations of the Slavs concerning the Tatars' attitude toward
them are basically negative: the Slavs consider that the Crimean Tatars treat
them as aggressors, dull-witted, guilty in deportation, and basically, as
enemies. It is known in psychology, that negative expectations provoke negative
behavior, which only confirms those expectations. The Slavs consider that the
Crimean Tatars kindle civil war, and behave in an uncivilized manner. The Slavs
become irritated, when the Crimean Tatars consider the Crimea to be their Native
Land. The attitude to families and women practically does not carry any
estimating character: basically, the diligence and beauty of Crimean-Tatar women
and the large size and closeness of their families is noted.
The attitudes of the Crimean Tatars are tolerant: they
consider the majority of the Slavs to be normal people, and they are ready to
cooperate with them. Among the positive qualities of the Slavs, the Crimean
Tatars note their cultural level, intelligence, education, and free-thinking,
and expect greater friendliness, ethnic tolerance, and respect for other peoples
like them. The Crimean Tatars attribute to the Slavs a set of negative
qualities: they consider the Slavs to be arrogant, uncivilized, disjointed,
inhospitable, lacking family traditions, drunkards, and thoughtless. Most of
all, Crimean Tatars do not like displays of nationalism; for instance when the
Slavs treat other peoples badly, particularly the Crimean Tatars, and then
proceed to speak about their superiority, by considering themselves more clever,
at the same time refusing to learn the Crimean-Tatar language.
The Crimean Tatars think that the Slavs consider them to be
illiterate and uncivilized; however, there are also positive expectations (they
are well-mannered and hospitable). The most important factors of self-estimation
act as positive expectations. The Slavs treat the Crimean Tatars, their
families, and women with great respect, marking unity, diligence, and love of
their nation. The negative attitudes of Crimean Tatars are expressed and are
displayed in the underestimated estimation of the Slavs. Primarily negative
tendencies are reflected in thoughts concerning the treatment of other ethnoses.
The representatives of both ethnoses condemn nationalistic behavior. The Crimean
Tatars do not like at all the way that the Slavs consider themselves to be more
clever, and how they are rough, while the Slavs do not like the bad manners of
the Crimean Tatars, and how they consider Crimea to be only their Native Land.
The Slavs estimate the Crimean Tatars' attitude toward themselves as more
negative, while the Crimean Tatars expect positive estimations from the Slavs.
Crimean Tatars have less general and more individual attitudes in their relation
to the Slavs. Atttitudes of the Slavs are more general in nature.
5. Results of the Analysis of Interrelations of Motivating
and Requiring Sphere The Crimean Tatars are focused on interdependence inside
their close circle of family and friends. They are unsatisfied with their
situation, because they realize that everyone in their circle has the same
needs, or level of dependence upon eachother. The satisfaction derived from
nature and art, from leisure time, from the feeling of pride and respect by
others, and public recognition depends completely upon the satisfaction of
social and legal security, their situation in society, and housing conditions.
Only then, when their life as a whole will be appreciated better, the
representatives of the Crimean Tatar people can take pleasure in its different
parts. Hence, the Crimean Tatars are constantly in an unsatisfied state (which
frequently surprises the Slavs), and are engaged in a constant struggle for the
satisfaction of their needs. Basic needs include satisfaction of housing
conditions, of their status in society, and social and legal security. If these
needs are not satisfied, then all the other parts of their life are considered
to be unsatisfactory.
The Slavs consider good breeding (the main value of the
Crimean Tatars), in contrast to knowledge, creativity and width of views; while
the Crimean Tatars consider honesty (the main value of the Slavs) in contrast to
nationalism and emotional knowledge. The representatives of both ethnoses have a
handicap in acknowledging the value of the other ethnos: the Slavs regard
breeding as stagnancy, the Crimean Tatars regard honesty as irrationality. The
representatives of both ethnoses consider that education prevents one from
receiving satisfaction from conversations with friends, and that a happy family
life and satisfaction from family relations will suffer in the case of an
re-orientation toward knowledge and creativity. But the "family"
orientation is considered by the Slavs as close-mindedness, while the Crimean
Tatars regard family relations, and conversations with relatives and friends as
basic values.
6. The need of ethnic belonging is little expressed by the
Slavs. They are not inclined to follow the rules, norms, and purposes of their
ethnic group.
Table 1.
The Crimean Tatars' need of ethnic belonging is two times
higher than that of the Slavs'. The representatives of both ethnoses have their
basic needs for identity and they feel a connection with the basic groups of
family, professional generality, and gender. However, the need for someone to
feel that he is a person is 1.5 times more important for the Crimean Tatars than
for the Slavs. It is possible to increase the importance of such value as the
person means the characteristic "I am a person too " and the desire to
ensure basic human rights, which are considered to be restrained. The Crimean
Tatars have less a need for gender identity than the Slavs express, while family
identity as the most important value is expressed much higher by the Crimean
Tatars than by the Slavs. It confirms the importance of family values for the
Crimean Tatars. The Slavs are more interested in finding a balance between
family and individual values. Really, the basic objective category of
self-estimation for the Slavs is trade, while for the Crimean Tatars it is
family.
7. Analysis of ethnic identity. The need for ethnic identity
occupies a leading place among etnopolitic categories for both ethnoses. The
need for religious identity in the given research appeared to be poorly
developed by the Tatars and was not displayed by the Slavs. The category of
citizenship was practically not used. Half of the representatives of the Slavic
and the Crimean-Tatars have the advanced adequate need for ethnic identity.
Table 2.
Another half of the Slavs does not have the advanced need for
ethnic identity; as for the Crimean Tatars, the presence of two equally
expressed tendencies is observed: absence of the need for ethnic identity and
the need for the superiority of their ethnic group and the struggle for its
rights.
3.What the Real Differences in Ethnic Consciousness ?
When comparing two disputed groups, such as the
Crimean-Tatars and the Slavs, the distinctions in the reasons for and in the
displays of disputed behavior are visible. On the basis of disputed behavior of
the Crimean Tatar is a deep self-respect of the people, on the one hand, and the
unwillingness to recognize the humanity, the good nature of the Slavs and their
readiness to help. The underestimation of the cultural values and education of
the other people and, probably, some levity and irascibility are the basis for
the disputed behavior of the Slavs. Disputed, active, and energetic styles of
behavior unite these two groups. The comparison of two liberal groups also shows
the presence of the different reasons for undisputed behavior. The Crimean
Tatars reject the conflicts, proceeding from a width of views, optimism and
humanity. The Slavs do this proceeding from self-criticism, morals, and good
nature.
The disputed and liberal Crimean Tatars are united, unlike
the Slavs, by the wide use of qualities connected with humanity, readiness to
help, beauty, and sympathy. The wide use of qualities connected with the
self-analysis, self-criticisms, and shyness is peculiar to the Slavs unlike to
the Crimean Tatars.
Hence, the various reasons connected with the ethnic features
of perception and estimation of the social validity lie on the basis of the
disputed behavior of the Slavic and the Crimean-Tatar peoples. The negative
attitude toward the Slavs, which consists of the underestimation of the depths
of the Russian soul, the readiness to help is revealed in a disputed Crimean
Tatar. Disputed Slavs had the wrong opinion about the insufficient level of
culture and education of the Crimean Tatars, who actually are glorified by their
cultural traditions. To understand and to realize the negative installations
means to make a step towards each other. One more reason for the conflicts is
found in the features of national character. On the one hand it is the levity
and irascibility of the Slavs, on the other hand, it is the Crimean Tatars'
great need for respect. It is necessary to perceive these features simply as
inherent in other people, instead of pointing at its negative qualities. The
research has also shown the ways of rapprochement of our peoples - through the
Crimean-Tatar people's humanity, understanding, readiness to help, and the
Slavic people's self-criticism, good nature, and sociability. And certainly, the
road towards consent leads through good spirit, and acquaintance with the
culture and traditions of other people.
The results of further research shows that the people with a
disputed type of behavior have all the qualities, with the help of which they
estimate the behavior of other people, strongly connected with each other and
the conclusions about the presence of these qualities in another person
logically follow one another. While estimating the behavior of other people with
the help of one quality, such people automatically estimate them with the help
of other qualities. For example, very strong connections were discovered between
the following qualities of the Crimean Tatars: cleverness, kindness, wisdom,
generosity, moral inquisitiveness; and between such qualities as generosity,
inquisitiveness, having morals and being responsible. Having estimated a person
as malicious, such people will regard him simultaneously as silly, thoughtless,
stingy, adapting. Having decided that the person is careless will automatically
attribute to that person a whole aray of other negative qualities such as:
nonsense, rage, levity, cowardice, unscrupulousness and so on. People who have
liberal behavior hardly ever have these qualities connected to themselves. While
estimating other people, they do not make generalized conclusions, but rather
examine each person's qualities separately. Having decided that a person is
clever, such people will estimate separately his kindness, his resoluteness, and
his wisdom.
The disputed type of behavior is determined by the fact that
the world is estimated as rigidly connected, determined, and not open to various
interpretation. Therefore, the way to liberalization of behavior, and the
mitigation of disputed installations, lies in the development of the ability to
estimate the world with the help of various criteria, or qualities, in order to
understand the world as polyhedral, having a set of parts and displays. It is
also important to not simply bring up moral qualities, but also to form them in
interrelation with activity, responsibility, and care for the future. It is
necessary to mark that good nature, and the ability to understand and to feel
for somebody are not synonyms of unscrupulousness and softness. The research
shows that first of all, humans should develop moral qualities, and a national
self-consciousness, care of traditions and ideas of the certain people are to be
formed on the basis of them. We were interested in the way estimated qualities
connect different groups. Disputed Crimean Tatars have the basic building block
of national self-consciousness, upholding their rights; but liberals have moral
qualities carrying active character and an orientation toward the future.
The next stage of our research is to reveal the attitude of
the representatives of these peoples to displays of social behavior of the
people to different social roles. So we have offered to the estimate the social
roles of the representatives of the Crimean-Tatars and the Slavic peoples with
the help of various special methods. This special analysis has allowed us to
allocate basic kinds of social roles, which are characterized as psychologically
similar and close to everyday reality. The distinctions between the two groups
of Slavs have appeared to be more significant, than those between the disputed
and liberal Tatars. Rough nationalistic behavior by both the liberal and
disputed Tatars is regarded as negative, and they attribute to such people
negative qualities, however disputed Slavs estimate them also as basic people.
The disputed Slavs extremely disapprove close contacts with other nationalities
(joint holidays, neighbours, colleagues, marriage of children) and prefer a
rather large distance during communication or refuse communication with other
nationalities completely. The people who communicate with the Crimean Tatars, of
a liberal mind-set, are considered by the Tatars as unprincipled, careless, and
neglecting traditions, and this once again confirms the results of the analysis
of the correlations between psychological properties. In general, the disputed
Slavs prefer to not interfere with an active opposition, and simply to avoid
contact with other people. The liberal Slavs regard the behavior of the disputed
as carrying some features of dogmatic bitterness, cowardice, and
irresponsibility. They prefer active interaction with the representatives of
other ethnoses, based on such qualities as kindness, wisdom, boldness,
generosity, inquisitiveness, responsibility, good nature, altruism, optimism,
and organization.
Therefore, the distinctions between liberal and disputed
Crimean Tatars, while estimating and interpretating social roles and behavior
are not essential and are displayed in the stronger negative attitude of the
liberal Tatars toward nationalistic behavior. The distinctions between the
disputed and liberal Slavs are more pronounced. The disputed Slavs estimate more
positively the behavior directed toward avoiding contact with the
representatives of another nationality. The liberal Slavs, on the contrary,
consider such behavior to be irresponsible and cynical, and estimate positively
any contact with the Crimean Tatars.
4. The Crimean View to Situation in Kosovo
The estimation of ethnic conflict in other country is
connected with attitudes toward ethnic problems in the region of the
respondents. Ethnic stereotypes play an important role in the estimation of the
political leaders, countries, and actions involved in a situation of ethnic
conflict. We hypothesized that the more the representatives of an ethnos have no
satisfaction in the ethnic situation in their region, the greater their tendency
is to support military action, and to connect them with their purposes in the
region.
We now will elaborate on the results of a special
questionnaire, which will help us to estimate the attitudes of both the Slavs
and the Crimean Tatars toward the situation in Kosovo.
The Slavs
The Slavs displayed a neutral attitude toward Milosevic and
NATO. Their attitude toward Serbia appeared to be positive, and their attitude
toward NATO's decision to bomb Yugoslavia was very negative.
Attitudes toward Western European and NATO intervention.
The Slavs believe that Western Europe and NATO want to watch over all of Europe,
plus the whole world, and that The West and NATO want to divide the Eastern
European countries between East and West, in order to improve their own dominant
power.
Attitudes toward Eastern Europe. The Slavs agree that
Eastern European countries have lost their force and power, but consider that it
has to be taken into account that Russia is still a world power.
The ethnic concept of the country. The Slavs were faster
to disagree, that the Serbs have the right to move the Kosovars from Kosovo as
foreigners, and consider that the Kosovars should have equal rights of
citizenship with the Serbs in Serbia and agree that the cultural autonomy of
Kosovars was disrupted unfairly. They agree that Serbia belongs to all the
people who have been living there for years, including the Kosovars.
The attitude toward violent and military action. The
Slavs consider it unacceptable that one million Kosovars had been driven out of
Kosovo with violence, but at the same time, agree that outside military
intervention in a sovereign country is unacceptable, even if the human rights of
a minority groups are being violated.
The attitude toward Muslims. The Slavs completely
disagree that Muslims are elected people.
The attitude toward the situation in Crimea. The Slavs
completely disagree that Crimea should become a Crimean-Tatar Autonomous
Republic. At the same time, the Slavs believe that the Crimean Tatars should
have equal rights with them in Crimea.
Autostereotypes. The Slavs attribute kindness and
tolerance, to the representatives of their ethnic group, and deny their own
egoism, aggressiveness, and haughtiness.
Stereotypes in relation to Muslims. The Slavs consider
them as egoistic, aggressive, haughty, and intolerant; but also clever and
artful.
Stereotypes of West European peoples. The Slavs consider
them as egoistic, kind, tolerant, and artful.
The Crimean Tatars
The Crimean Tatars revealed neutral attitudes toward
Milosevic, Serbia, and the decision of NATO to bomb Yugoslavia. Their attitude
toward NATO intervention though appeared to be positive.
Attitudes toward Western European and NATO intervention.
The Crimean Tatars disagree that the termination of the bombing of Kosovo was a
victory for Milosevic. They also consider that the introduction of an
international force of peacekeepers will help to restore Autonomy for the
Kosovars. Crimean Tatars consider, as well as the Slavs, that Western Europe and
NATO want to keep watch over all of Europe and the world; but unlike the Slavs,
they consider that The West and NATO do not want to change the existing borders
of Eastern European countries, because that would provoke much ethnic conflict.
Attitudes toward Eastern Europe. The Crimean Tatars agree
that people in the former socialist countries feel that that their lives and
history during the Communist era was a failure.
The ethnic concept of the country. The Crimean Tatars
disagree that Serbia has the right to expel the Kosovars from Kosovo, because
they are a foreign people in Serbia; but at the same time, they agree that the
Kosovars should have equal rights of citizenship with the Serbs in Serbia, and
that the cultural autonomy of the Kosovars was disrupted unfairly. They express
strongly disagree with the statement that it was right for Serbia to destroy the
cultural autonomy of Kosovo within Serbia, because Kosovo is a holy historical
ground for the Serbs. The Crimean Tatars also disagree that the Kosovars are
ethnic Albanians allied to Turkey and to the former Ottoman Empire, and are
therefore alien to Serbia, and that Serbia should belong to the Serbs. The
Crimean Tatars completely agree that Serbia belongs to all the people who have
been living there for years, including the Kosovars.
The attitude toward the Kosovar Liberation Army. The
Crimean Tatars completely agree that The Kosovar Liberation Army has the right
to struggle for the independence of Kosovo; but at the same time, disagree that
the Kosovar Liberation Army wants to liberate Kosovo from Serbia, and create a
Greater Albania
The attitude toward violent and military action. The
Crimean Tatars consider it completely unacceptable that one million Kosovars
have been driven out of Kosovo with violence; but they normally disagree with
external military intervention in a country, even if the rights of a minority
were violated. But in this case, they consider that external military
intervention in a sovereign country is acceptable only if the United Nations are
not powerful enough to prevent the violation of the human rights of ethnic
minorities.
The attitude toward the Muslims. The Crimean Tatars
disagree that the Muslims should live in the East, instead of in Europe, and
completely deny that the Muslims threaten European civilizations. The Crimean
Tatars consider that the Muslims have the right to live in Europe and to have
Autonomous Republics.
The attitude toward the situation in Crimea. The Crimean
Tatars completely agree that they should have equal rights with the Slavs in
Crimea, and that Crimea should become a Crimean-Tatar Autonomous Republic. They
completely oppose any opportunity letting Russia re-annex Crimea.
Autostereotypes. The Crimean Tatars attribute to the
representatives of their own ethnos great kindness and tolerance, and deny their
own egoism, aggressiveness, haughtyness, and cunningness.
Stereotypes of the Slavs. The Crimean Tatars consider
them as egoistic, aggressive, haughty, tolerant, clever, and artful.
Stereotypes of The West European peoples. The Crimean
Tatars consider them as egoistic, aggressive, very haughty, very clever, artful,
and deny their kindness and tolerance.
Feeling of a belonging to Eastern Europe. The Crimean
Tatars agree that for them it is important to feel that they belonging to
Eastern Europe.
Comparative Analysis
1. Slavs had more precise attitudes toward Serbia and NATO
bombing. The Slavs express a very negative attitude toward bombing; however,
they have an ambivalent attitude toward the groups of peacekeepers. The Crimean
Tatars are positively concerned only with the groups of peacekeepers,
demonstrating their neutral attitude toward Serbia and NATO bombing. The
representatives of both ethnoses did not define their attitude toward Milosevic.
2. The Slavs have practically no opinion on the reasons for
and the consequences of the introduction of peacekeepers, while the Crimean
Tatars deny the victory of Milosevic, and consider that these groups of
peacekeepers will help to restore an Autonomous Republic of Kosovo within
Yugoslavia..
3. The representatives of both ethnoses agree that Western
Europe and NATO want to supervise Europe and the world, but disagree in their
estimation of NATO's motives: the Slavs consider that The West and NATO want to
divide the Eastern European countries between East and West, in order to improve
their own dominant power, while the Crimean Tatars consider that The West and
NATO do not want to change the existing borders of Eastern European countries,
because that would provoke much ethnic conflict.
4. The Slavs, in contrast to the Crimean Tatars, consider
that the Eastern European countries have lost their force and power, but at the
same time, Russia is still a world power that has to be taken into account. The
Crimean Tatars, in contrast to the Slavs, perceive the situation on more
personal level, and agree with the feeling that their lives and history during
the Communist era was a failure. It is interesting that the representatives of
both ethnoses feel neutral about belonging to the group of the formerly
Socialist countries.
- The Crimean Tatars have stronger attitudes toward the rights of the
Kosovars in Kosovo, to the destruction of an Autonomous Republic, and
intolerance toward "the ethnic concept of the country." The were
most negative to the statement, that Serbia has the right to expel the
Kosovars from Kosovo because they are a foreign people in Serbia.
6. The Slavs barely have expressed their attitude toward the
Kosovar Liberation Army; however, the Crimean Tatars are deeply sure, that this
Army has the right to struggle for the independence of Kosovo, however, they
assert that the Kosovar Liberation Army just wants to secede Kosovo from Serbia
and create a Greater Albania.
7. Opinions of the Crimean Tatars and the Slavs on the
question of admissibility of military intervention are quite divergent. The
Slavs consider any military intervention inadmissible, while the Crimean Tatars
consider that military intervention can help to protect the rights of the ethnic
minority.
8. Attitudes toward the Muslims are more precisely expressed
by the Crimean Tatars: they assert their right to live in Europe, thus denying
the threat of the Muslims for a European civilization. The attitude to this
question either was not generated, or is ambivalent for the majority of the
Slavs.
9. The more expressed attitudes to presence of the equal
rights a Crimean Tatar and Slavs in Crimea are at the Crimean Tatar. There is
absolutely miss of the sights of the representatives of both ethnoses on the
future of Crimea: the Slavs completely disagree, and the Crimean Tatars agree
that Crimea should become a Crimean-Tatar Autonomy. Besides, the Crimean Tatars
completely deny that Crimea should belong to Russia.
10. Both nations have positive autostereotypes, however, the
Crimean Tatars consider themselves as more kind and less artful, than the Slavs
estimate their own nation.
11. Both ethnoses have negative stereotypes of each other.
The basic distinction is, that the Slavs consider a Crimean Tatar more
intolerant. The Crimean Tatars, as against the Slavs, estimate representatives
of The West-European peoples as more aggressive, clever and haughty, and less
kind and tolerant.
12. It is interesting that it is more important for the
Crimean Tatars to feel that they belong to Eastern Europe than for the Slavs.
