当代民族经济学家著作中的俄裔美国及其问题

A. Grinev
{"title":"当代民族经济学家著作中的俄裔美国及其问题","authors":"A. Grinev","doi":"10.21638/spbu02.2023.116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article critically examines the publications of modern Russian economists on the history of the former Russian colonies in the New World, sold in 1867 to the United States and subsequently forming the territory of the state of Alaska. Paradoxically, economists tend to mainly examine historical problems of Russian America, while some historians research economy, although everything should be just the opposite. The monitoring of scholarship conducted by the author reveals about a dozen works of professional economists — Candidates and Doctors of Sciences — who devoted their works (in whole or in part) to certain problems of Russian America: the earliest work is dated by 2011, and the most recent articles — by 2021. The depressingly low academic level of the vast majority of the analyzed works should be pointed out with regret. The fact is that Russian economists, for some unclear reason, almost completely ignore a wide range of published documentary sources, not to mention archival materials. The latter, if they are used, are not directly related to the history of Russian colonies in the New World. In the same way, national economists stubbornly avoid getting acquainted with the current Russian historiography about the past of Russian America and do not use more or less modern foreign scientific literature about it at all. Instead of academic works, economists often turn to non-scientific publications (including writings on alternative history) and Internet sites with highly questionable content. The natural result is a large number of errors, inaccuracies and incorrect conclusions, which are sometimes supplemented by negligently prepared bibliography and lack of elementary publication culture: almost all national economists economize on references/footnotes in their works: it is often completely impossible to understand where this or that information comes from. Thus, there is an imitation of scholarly activity and all sorts of dilettantism instead of real useful research on the history and economy of Russian America.","PeriodicalId":53995,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Istoriya","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Russian America and its Problems in Contemporary National Works of Economists\",\"authors\":\"A. Grinev\",\"doi\":\"10.21638/spbu02.2023.116\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article critically examines the publications of modern Russian economists on the history of the former Russian colonies in the New World, sold in 1867 to the United States and subsequently forming the territory of the state of Alaska. Paradoxically, economists tend to mainly examine historical problems of Russian America, while some historians research economy, although everything should be just the opposite. The monitoring of scholarship conducted by the author reveals about a dozen works of professional economists — Candidates and Doctors of Sciences — who devoted their works (in whole or in part) to certain problems of Russian America: the earliest work is dated by 2011, and the most recent articles — by 2021. The depressingly low academic level of the vast majority of the analyzed works should be pointed out with regret. The fact is that Russian economists, for some unclear reason, almost completely ignore a wide range of published documentary sources, not to mention archival materials. The latter, if they are used, are not directly related to the history of Russian colonies in the New World. In the same way, national economists stubbornly avoid getting acquainted with the current Russian historiography about the past of Russian America and do not use more or less modern foreign scientific literature about it at all. Instead of academic works, economists often turn to non-scientific publications (including writings on alternative history) and Internet sites with highly questionable content. The natural result is a large number of errors, inaccuracies and incorrect conclusions, which are sometimes supplemented by negligently prepared bibliography and lack of elementary publication culture: almost all national economists economize on references/footnotes in their works: it is often completely impossible to understand where this or that information comes from. Thus, there is an imitation of scholarly activity and all sorts of dilettantism instead of real useful research on the history and economy of Russian America.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53995,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Istoriya\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Istoriya\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu02.2023.116\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Istoriya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu02.2023.116","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文批判性地考察了现代俄罗斯经济学家关于前俄罗斯殖民地在新世界的历史的出版物,这些殖民地于1867年出售给美国,随后形成了阿拉斯加州的领土。矛盾的是,经济学家往往主要研究俄裔美国的历史问题,而一些历史学家则研究经济问题,尽管一切都应该恰恰相反。作者对学术研究进行了监测,发现了大约十几篇专业经济学家(博士生和博士)的作品,他们的作品(全部或部分)致力于研究俄裔美国人的某些问题:最早的作品是在2011年,最近的文章是在2021年。应该遗憾地指出,所分析的绝大多数作品的学术水平低得令人沮丧。事实是,俄罗斯经济学家出于某种不清楚的原因,几乎完全忽略了大量已发表的文献资料,更不用说档案材料了。后者,如果使用的话,与俄罗斯在新大陆的殖民地历史没有直接关系。同样地,民族经济学家固执地避免去了解关于俄属美国过去的当前俄罗斯史学,并且根本不使用或多或少的现代外国科学文献来研究它。经济学家通常不看学术著作,而是转向非科学出版物(包括关于另类历史的著作)和内容非常可疑的互联网网站。自然的结果是大量的错误、不准确和不正确的结论,有时由于粗心的参考书目和缺乏基本的出版文化而得到补充:几乎所有的国家经济学家都在他们的作品中节省参考文献/脚注:通常完全不可能理解这个或那个信息来自哪里。因此,对俄裔美国的历史和经济的研究并不是真正有用的,而是对学术活动的模仿和各种业余爱好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Russian America and its Problems in Contemporary National Works of Economists
The article critically examines the publications of modern Russian economists on the history of the former Russian colonies in the New World, sold in 1867 to the United States and subsequently forming the territory of the state of Alaska. Paradoxically, economists tend to mainly examine historical problems of Russian America, while some historians research economy, although everything should be just the opposite. The monitoring of scholarship conducted by the author reveals about a dozen works of professional economists — Candidates and Doctors of Sciences — who devoted their works (in whole or in part) to certain problems of Russian America: the earliest work is dated by 2011, and the most recent articles — by 2021. The depressingly low academic level of the vast majority of the analyzed works should be pointed out with regret. The fact is that Russian economists, for some unclear reason, almost completely ignore a wide range of published documentary sources, not to mention archival materials. The latter, if they are used, are not directly related to the history of Russian colonies in the New World. In the same way, national economists stubbornly avoid getting acquainted with the current Russian historiography about the past of Russian America and do not use more or less modern foreign scientific literature about it at all. Instead of academic works, economists often turn to non-scientific publications (including writings on alternative history) and Internet sites with highly questionable content. The natural result is a large number of errors, inaccuracies and incorrect conclusions, which are sometimes supplemented by negligently prepared bibliography and lack of elementary publication culture: almost all national economists economize on references/footnotes in their works: it is often completely impossible to understand where this or that information comes from. Thus, there is an imitation of scholarly activity and all sorts of dilettantism instead of real useful research on the history and economy of Russian America.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊最新文献
Cyclic Concepts of Russian History in Modern Historiography The Varangian Issue through the Prism of the Social Contract Concept Ideology of the Movement of Liberal Legalists and the Theory of Conservative Liberalism Imperial Russia as a Failed State: The Role of Orthodox Church Regency and Transfer of Power in Muscovy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1