On the new accents in rethinking the history of the Golden Horde (in the understanding of the unity of the Turkic community)

The article's author undertakes the rethinking of certain interesting facts of the history of Ulug Ulus – the Golden Horde, through the scientific interpretation of the works of Abai, Shakarim, Mashhur Zhusup, and is aimed at analyzing views on the history of Ulug Ulus in the context of the unity of the Turkic peoples. This kind of discussion provides us with an opportunity to present a new vision of this issue, as well as to identify the necessary new accents to the consideration and presentation of the history of the Golden Horde state, to assess its role in the history of the Great Steppe. Research on the history of Ulug Ulus is now in demand by a wide readership and is very relevant. To date, there are many monographic studies, collections of materials, anthologies, scientific articles on the history of the Golden Horde that are popular and well-known among experts. There were publications, articles and books that consider particular and specific issues of the history of the Golden Horde. These works are for the most part works of generalizing nature, contributing to the assimilation of the given material, and their conclusions, comprehension, presentation and explanation of historical facts and events in the history of this state were carried out within the framework of the Soviet historical school. In teaching history, Golden Horde history is most often presented only as a period or stage of history, while in Soviet publications it was most often presented as the process of enslavement of peoples, as a one-sided interpretation, and there was an established name “Tatar-Mongol invasion”, “Tatar-Mongol yoke”. Nowadays such new concepts as “Turkic-Tatar states”, “Turkic state” are sometimes used. Of course, in the conditions of hanging such labels, there could be no question of any objective view of the history of Ulug Ulus. We need the new view of the history of the Turkic peoples, free from prejudices, labels and clichés. As we see it, it is necessary to make a transition from the views and judgments that have developed within the framework of external sources and external historiography to the priority of internal sources and internal historiography. We propose to implement the experience of this kind of new vision by referring to the historical memory of the carriers and subjects of this history – the Turkic Kazakhs and other Turkic ethnic groups. So, for example, if you delve into the works of pre-revolutionary Kazakh authors, Abai, Shakarim, Mashhur-Zhusup, which were written before the establishment of the dominance of the Soviet paradigm in history, Chingiz Kagan appears to us not as an oppressor, but as a collector of the heritage and lands of the Turkic kagans.