Tesis de Levan Z. Urushadze [7/3/06]

Dear Sir,
I’d like to inform you that in April, 2006, it will be defence of my thesis “The Questions of History of Georgia and the Caucasus of the XVIII-XX centuries in the Georgian Emigrant Literature”, in the Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology, prepared for Full Doctor’s degree (Dr.Sci.) in History. I’m sending you the author’s abstract of the thesis (please see the attached file , VER MÁS ABAJO).

I would be very grateful, if you send me your reference before the March 31 by fax (number: +995 32 348651).

Thank you very much in advance.

With kind regards,

Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze, PhD

+++++++++

The Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology

With the rights of a manuscript

Levan Z. Urushadze

The Questions of History of Georgia and the Caucasus of the XVIII-XX
Centuries in the Georgian Emigrant Literature

Specialty- 07.00.02 – Source Studies and Historiography of the History of
Georgia

AUTHOR’S ABSTRACT

of Dissertation Thesis for the Scientific Degree of Doctor of Historical
Sciences (Dr.Sci.)
Tbilisi
2006

The present work has been accomplished at the Department of Source Studies
of the Ivane Javakhishvili Institute of History and Ethnology.

The scientific consultant: Giuli Alasania,

Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor

Official Opponents: 1. Parnaoz Lomashvili,

Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor

2. Mikheil Samsonadze,

Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor

3. David Malazonia,

Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor

Defense of thesis will be held on “______” _____ , 2006, at “____”, on
the session of the Dissertation Council H-07.02 #2 at the Javakhishvili
Institute of History and Ethnology of the Georgian Academy of Sciences.
Address: Melikishvili Str. 10, Tbilisi 0179, Republic of Georgia. The thesis
is open for scrutiny and is available at the library of the Javakhishvili
Institute of History and Ethnology.

The abstract has been dispatched on “______” ________, 2006

Scientific Secretary of the Dissertation Council,

Doctor of Historical Sciences K. Khutsishvili

The General Characterization of the Work

Urgency of the problem Despite the fact that several works have been
published recently in Georgia on the distinguished representatives of the
Georgian political emigration, research of different issues reflected in the
literature of emigrants have remained as “white spots” until today. How the
issue of the Georgian and Caucasian history have been reviewed in the
emigrant literature is one of the abovementioned questions. Research of this
and other questions from this point of view is extremely significant for the
Georgian historical science. Namely, it will contribute to the correction of
those gross “mistakes” which had been made by the so-called “Soviet
historiography” during 70 years of the soviet domination. All the more, such
distinguished scholars as Mikheil (Mikhako) Tsereteli, Zurab Avalishvili,
Shalva Beridze, Grigol Peradze, Michael Tarkhnishvili, Kalistrate Salia,
Markoz Tugushi, Alexsandre Manvelishvili, Mikheil Mouskheli
(Muskhelishvili), etc. lived in emigration. The objective of the present
work is to fill the existed gap. Namely, we have studied how the questions
of the history of Georgia and the Caucasus of the XVIII-XX centuries were
presented in the Georgian emigrant literature.

Objective, impartial representation of the abovementioned topic
is extremely important especially today, when Georgia has entered the
irreversible path of strengthening of the national statehood again, when
objective representation of 200 years history of the Georgian national
liberation movement should play a crucial role in bringing up of the future
generations with patriotic aspiration.

The objective and goals of the research The objective of the presented
work is to study how some important questions of the history of Georgia and
the Caucasus of the XVIII-XX centuries have been reflected in the Georgian
emigrant literature. Besides the basis of the source studies used by the
emigrant authors is given as well. For this purpose we have studied a number
of works of the foreign authors as well as the documentary sources.

Besides, how the Georgian emigrant authors reviewed the notion
of a nation, the nations rights and the question of the nation’s
self-determination is shown in the work. These topics are presented on the
examples of Georgia and the Caucasus.

Significant attention is paid to the aspects of the history of
relations between the Europe and Georgia.

Scientific novelty of the work In 1990 when we were on official business
trip in France we have collected the emigrant periodicals and scientific
publications that had been unknown or less known in Georgia before with the
support of the Georgian Diaspora in France and the administration of the
Georgian estate Leville.

Very important works of the noted western political annalists
and lawyers as well as the distinguished representatives of the Azerbaijan
and the north-Caucasian political emigration that had been translated by the
Georgian emigrants into Georgian and published in the Georgian emigrant
periodicals is given in the present work. The Russian language Caucasian
emigrant journals “Kavkaz” and “Obyedinionny Kavkaz” deserve some attention
as the articles of the Georgian emigrants used to be published very often in
them.

Material presented in the work contains significant information
and considerations about history of the XVIII-XX centuries of Georgia and
the Caucasus. Particularly often such questions are discussed as relations
of Georgia and other Caucasian nations with Russia and Turkey, the Caucasian
peoples’ genocide, the attempts of creation of anti-Bolshevik block by the
Caucasian political emigration, the question of the Caucasian autochthonic
nation’s unity, the historical-legal evaluation of the Georgievsk Treaty
(1738) and the Russian – Georgian treaty of 1920, the legal evaluation of
the Kars treaty, etc.

The presented work is the first monographic research, which
implies the survey of how the significant questions of the history of
Georgia and the Caucasus of the XVIII-XX centuries is presented in the
Georgian emigrant literature, how the Georgian emigrant authors evaluate
so-called “Georgievsk Tractate” of 1783, the Russian-Georgian treaty of 1920
and violation of both of them by Russia, the Russia-Turkey so-called Kars
Treaty, the Russian-Georgian and Turkey-Georgian relations and many other
burning issues.

It is also very important that many works of emigrant authors
are important primary sources as the authors are eyewitnesses and
participants of the described events.

As to those representatives of the Georgian political emigration
presented in this work, it is necessary to state that: we have concentrated
our attention on those persons whose activity was unknown or less known for
the Georgian public at large, or on those aspects of the activity of
well-known emigrants which are unknown or less known as well. Of course we
have materials on many other Georgian emigrants too, but we do not write
concerning their activity, as their life is quite well known in Georgia.

Theoretical and practical importance of the work The material and the
results of the research given in this work create a certain scientific basis
that should be taken into consideration while creating the textbooks of the
history of Georgia and the Caucasus of the XVIII-XX centuries and while
studying the history of the Georgian political emigration. Besides, the
results of the research could be used for conducting the special courses and
seminars at the Institutes or Universities as well.

Publications 10 scientific-research works, among them 1 monograph have been
published on the basis of material of the presented thesis.

Approbation of the thesis material On 1993-1994 we were elaborating the
following topic: “For the history of the Caucasian peoples’ unity (On the
basis of emigrant literature)” and 4 reports have been presented to the
session of the Department of Source Studies of the Ivane Javakhishvili
Institute of History and Ethnology of the Georgian Academy of Sciences.
Besides, in 1998 we organized the International Scientific Conference
“Genocide of the Caucasian peoples” on which we presented the report
“Genocide of the Chechen people and Georgian political emigration”.

Structure and volume of the work. The thesis consists of:

1.. Introduction;
2.. Sources and references overview;
3.. The source studies methods of the Georgian emigrant authors;
4.. A nation, the nations rights and self-determination of the nations as
a basis of the national statehood;
5.. Some unknown aspects of the Georgian emigrants’ activity (Ekvtime
Takaishvili and Grigol Robakidze);
6.. The problems of the history of the Georgian-Caucasian relations;
7.. Some questions of the history of the Russian-Georgian relations in the
XVIII-XIX centuries and in the first quarter of the XX century;
8.. Some questions of the history of the Turkey-Georgian relations in the
first quarter of the XX century;
9.. Some questions of the history of the XX century of Georgia and the
Caucasus;
10.. Some questions of the history of the European-Georgian relations;
11.. Conclusions.

The work is done on 312 printed pages; The List of references is attached
(275 titles).

Contents of the work . The material we studied includes:

1.. The complete sets of the emigrant magazines and newspapers:
“Tavisupali Sakartvelo”, “Kavkasioni”, “Samshoblo”, “Kartlosi”,
“Sakartvelo”,
“Kartveli Eri”, “Sakartvelos Damoukidebloba”, “Sakhalkho Sakme”,
“Damoukidebeli Sakartvelo”, “Bedi Kartlisa”, “Ornati”, “Mkhedari”, “Iveria”,
“Akhali Iveria”, “Tavisuplebis Tribuna”, “Gushagi”, “Tetri Giorgi”,
“Momavali”, “Mebrdzoli Sakartvelo”, “Kartuli Azri”;
2.. The works of the distinguished figures of the Georgian political
emigration: Ekvtime Takaishvili, Zurab Avalishvili, Mikheil (Mikhako)
Tsereteli, Grigol Robakidze, Giorgi Gvazava, Victor Nozadze, Shalva Beridze,
Kalistrate Salia, Rapiel Ivantski-Ingilo, David (Data) Vachnadze,
Konstantine Kandelaki, Petre Surguladze, Ivane Zurabishvili, Vlasa Mgeladze,
Giorgi Kvinitadze, Solomon Zaldastanishvili, Ivane (Vano) Nanuashvili,
Grigol Uratadze, Elise Pataridze, Markoz Tugushi, Tamar Papava, Samson
Pirtskhalava, Isidore Mantskava, Alexandre Nikuradze (A. Sanders), Alexandre
Manvelishvili, Revaz (Rezo) Gabashvili, Karlo Inasaridze, etc.

Introduction. It includes urgency of the topic, the objectives and goals of
the research.

Chapter I – “Overview of the basic sources and references” The sources and
special references used in the dissertation are reviewed in it.
Specifically, the works of such distinguished representatives of the
Georgian political emigration as: Zurab Avalishvili, Ekvtime Takaishvili,
Mikheil (Mikhako) Tsereteli, Grigol Robakidze, Samson Pirtskhalava, Varlam
Cherkezishvili, Ivane Zurabishvili, Revaz Gabashvili, Konstantine Kandelaki,
Giorgi Kvinitadze, David (Data) Vachnadze, Shalva Amirejibi, Alexandre
Asatiani, Tamar and Akaki Papavas, Vlasa Mgeladze, Victor Nozadze, Elise
Pataridze, Markoz Tugushi, Alexandre Tsomaia, Grigol Uratadze, Ivane (Vano)
Nanuashvili, Kalistrate Salia, Alexandre Manvelishvili, Mikheil Mouskheli
(Muskhelishvili), Isidore Mantskava, Solomon Zaldastanishvili, Rapiel
Ivanitski-Ingilo, Ilia Kuchukhidze (the same Mindia Lashauri), Givi
Gabliani, Karlo Inasaridze. We have considered those historical written
(documentary) sources that had been used by the Georgian emigrant authors.
The sources that had been included in the collection compiled by P. Butkov
(P. Butkov 1869) and by Al. Tsagareli (1891), in the collections: “Documents
and Materials of the history of the Foreign Policy of the Trans-Caucasus and
Georgia” (1919) also in “The Acts of the Archeological Commission of the
Caucasus (1868-1870)”and “The Legal Acts of the Democratic Republic of
Georgia (1918-1921)”.

Different works of the following foreign authors that had been
used in the dissertation are presented in the chapter as well: R. Duguet, L.
Le Four, Von List, I. Marten, A. D. Smith, B. Anderson, E. Gellner, P.
Manchini, E. Niss, O. Nipold, G. Gotlieb, M. Hroch, T. Eriksen, D. Miller,
E. Renan, O. Bauer, A. Pechei, I. Ortega Y Grasset, S. Telbot, R. Konstanza,
R. Gattrey. Works of the following Georgian authors have been used as well:
Iv. Javakhishvili, S. Kakabadze, A. Bendianishvili, A. Menteshashvili, L.
Toidze, P. Lomashvili, N Jorjikia, V. Itonishvili, I. Inaneishvili, M.
Sioridze, G. Tskhovrebadze, Z. Davitashvili, V. Guruli, M. Vachnadze, D.
Shvelidze, N. kirtadze, A. Tsotskolauri, P. Piranishvili, N. Javakhishvili,
L. Javakhishvili, M. Svanidze, Sh. Goginashvili, R. Grdzelidze, G. Mamulia,
A. Surguladze, K. Surguladze, A. Aslanishvili, P. Sikharulidze, M. Dgvilava,
E. Narimanidze, L. Saralidze, R. Tsukhishvili, D. Jojua, N. Tevzadze, E.
Antia, R. Kavrelishvili, D. Chumburidze.

Chapter II – “Methods of source studies of Georgian emigrants”.The methods
of source studies of the Georgian emigrant authors and the basis of their
source studies are considered in this chapter. Specifically for this purpose
works of the following authors have been studied: Mikhako Tsereteli, Zurab
Avalishvili, Samson Pirtskhalava, Ivane Zurabishvili, Alexandre Asatiani,
Kalistrate Salia, Shalva Amirejibi, Alexandre Manvelishvili, Petre
Surguladze, Tamar Papava, Data Vachnadze, Konstantine Kandelaki, Markoz
Tugushi, Victor Nozadze, Elise Pataridze, Isidore Mantskava, Ivane
Nanuashvili, Karlo Inasaridze, etc.

Several major issues are emphasized while considering of methods
of source studies and the basis of it: 1. The notion of a nation, nation’s
rights and self-determination issues; 2. The questions of the history of the
XVIII-XIX centuries of Georgia and the Caucasus, 3. The questions of the
history of Georgia and the Caucasus of the XX centuries.

The Georgian emigrant authors use the following sources while
consideration of the first topic: Chronicles of the Collection of old
Georgian historical chronicles “Kartlis Tskhovreba” (“Life of Georgia”), the
work of Ioane-Zosime “Kebay da Didebay Kartulisa Enisa” (“Praise and glory
of the Georgian language”. The X century), the work of Giorgi Merchule “Life
of Grigol from Khandztda” (VIII century), the correspondence of the last
King of Kartl-Kakheti (Eastern Georgia) Giorgi the XII (1798-1800) with the
Russian military figures. Among modern Georgian and foreign authors they use
works of Ilia Chavchavadze, Niko Marr, Ivane Javakhishvili, Giorgi
Javakhishvili, Alexandre Javakhishvili, Ivane Jabadari, Giorgi Zdanovich
(Maiashvili), Niko Khizanishvili, A. Bergson, O. Bauer, E. Nyss, E. Reclus,
W. Zombardt, P.Manchini, R. Springer, W. von Freigangs, H. De. Mann, A.
Bailly, H. Spenser, I. Leconte, C. Huysmans, K. Renner, L.Le Four, J.-J.
Rousseau, F. von List, Von Ulmann, etc.

When reviewing the history of Georgia and the Caucasus, the
emigrant authors referred to the works of M. Brosset, Vakhushti Bagrationi,
Al. Tsagareli, To “Georgievsk Tractate” of 1783, Russian-Georgian Treaty of
1920, Kars Treaty of 1921, the “Acts of the Caucasian Archeographical
Commission” in many volumes, the collection published by B. Butkov, travel
notes of E. Spenser, the scientific works of Ivane Javakhishvili, Simon
Esadze, Giorgi Gozalishvili, Mikheil Tamarashvili.

Chapter III – “A nation, nation’s rights and self-determination of the
nations as the basis of the national statehood”. In accordance to the modern
understanding the nations, people rights are the indivisible part of human
rights and basic freedoms. It is an extremely important question
particularly for those nations, which are fighting for freedom today.
Besides it is directly connected with such concept as “Nationalism”. The
obvious, unvarnished presentation of this problem is very important for the
Caucasian peoples.

First of all, definition of the concept “nationalism” is given,
what is particularly important for deliberating on the Rights of the
Nations, especially in current, post Soviet society. During the previous 70
years we used to be convinced that “Nationalism” is something very
destructive and is equal to chauvinism and isolationism. They have even
named it as “Fighting Nationalism” and have given a label of “Bourgeois”
“Reactionary” ideology to it.

In the present chapter of the work considerations of the
following distinguished representatives of the Georgian emigration are
given: Vakhtang Tsitsishvili (1937), Mikheil (Mikhako) Tsereteli (1910,
1956), Grigol Robakidze (1954), Victor Nozadze (1934), Vladimer Emukhvari
(1937), Isidore Mantskava (1934, 1944), Spiridon Kedia (1932), Markoz
Tugushi (1952), Alexandre Manvelishvili (1935, 1955, 1970) and the
distinguished foreign scholars: E. Renan, D. Miller, B. Anderson, P.
Manchini, D. Korn, P. Trenor, R. Gattrey, E. Gallner, M. Hroch, A.D. Smith,
G. Gotlieb, T. Eriksen, etc.

It is very notable how the sense of a nation was defined by the
representatives of the Georgian political emigration and how they saw the
national statehood and the ways of its development. It was especially
conspicuous the reflection of Mikhako Tsereteli, Alexandre Manvelishvili,
Mikheil Muskhelishvili (Mouskheli), Victor Nozadze, and Kalistrate Salia.

M. Tsereteli offers us his own definition of a nation, based on
his historical and sociological research: “A nation is a social
super-organism or a hyper-organism consisting of a homogeneous or a
heterogeneous ethnic and social material, which is able in a certain period
of history to create one outwardly organized common life with its elements,
the single society with all of its organs: language, religion, morals, law
and politics, – the society with its special history, type and
self-awareness, with the full individuality” (“Nation and Mankind” 1910).
The works of Alexandre Manvelishvili “National Formation of
Georgians” (1955) also implies a very interesting definition of a nation: “A
nation is the society of individuals as a result of a prolonged historical
process, ended and fastened together with the united common spiritual life
and aspirations, with the common territory and the common political
organization. A series of the spiritual values have been created on the base
of a common life, which used to promote rallying and strengthening of the
nation for their part.” Then the author underlines the main factors of a
nation’s existence:
1.. Common origin,
2.. Common language,
3.. Common religion,
4.. Common culture,
5.. Common territory,
6.. Relations with other peoples.
A. Manvelishvili denies possibility of creation of “the one common to all
mankind organism” as this contradicts to the evolution of a man and society.
On the basis of research implemented in this chapter we have elaborated our
own definition of the nation: A nation is community of the people united by
means of unity of common origin, common territory, history, tradition,
statehood, culture, literary language, having the characteristic, unique
features. Assembly of nations of the whole world forms the international
community while the union of the national cultures forms the world
civilization.
Chapter IV – “Some unknown sides of activity of the Georgian emigrants. Some
aspects of the activity of distinguished representatives of the Georgian
political emigration Ekvtime Takhaishvili and Grigol Robakidze are discussed
in the present chapter, the aspects, which are unknown for the general
public.
4.1 “The activity of the “Fund of Edition of the Georgian Archaeological and
Cultural Materials” (1937-1939)”. “The Fund of the Georgian Archaeological
and Cultural Materials” was founded by the distinguished Georgian historian
and public figure, professor Ekvtime Takaishvili in Paris in the second half
of 1930-es.
The Fund undertook to carry out a very important mission: to
bring to light and to publish the old Georgian relics and monuments
dispersed abroad.
Ekvtime Takaishvili published the “Address to Georgian
emigration” in the first issue of the Georgian emigrant magazine “Kartlosi”
in Paris In 1937, where main objectives of creation and activity of the
above-mentioned fund are formulated very clearly. Actually creation of this
fund served to the same mission, which had been undertaken previously by the
“Historical and Ethnographic Society of Georgia” and even before that by
“The Society for Spreading of literacy among Georgians”.
The Fund’s activity was reviewed in its periodical reports,
which had been published in the different issues of the emigrant’s newspaper
“Damoukidebeli Sakartvelo” of 1937-1939 in Paris.
Using the donated sums the fund published the following works:
“Archaeological Expedition in Lechkhum-Svaneti in 1910” (Paris, 1937, 440
pages.); “Archaeological Expedition in Kola-Oltisi and Changle in 1907
(Paris 1938, 87 pages.); “The Chronicle of the Kings’ and the Catholicos’
souls in the manuscript of Ninotsminda” (Paris, 1939, 16 pages.) And other
important works published in the western periodic scientific publications.
The author of all these works was Ekvtime Takaishvili himself.
In 1929 E. Takaishvili was one of the founders of the St. Nino
Georgian Orthodox church in Paris.
4.2 “Grigol Robakidze as the Public and Political figure” . The portrait of
the great Georgian writer and patriot Grigol Robakidze (1882-1962) as a
political and public benefactor is represented on the basis of the
publications of distinguished representatives of the Georgian political
emigration: Ioseb Gogolashvili (1964), Severian Chirakadze (1964),
Kalistrate Salia (1953), Karlo Inasaridze (1984) and letters and works of
Grigol Robakidze himself (“The letter to Irakli Abashidze”, “The ruined
soul”, “The history of Lamara’s creation”, “Appeal to the Georgian
people”). Particularly, his role in the activity of the parliamentary
delegation of the democratic Republic of Georgia at the Paris Peaceful
Conference in 1918 and in the foundation of the Georgian Legation in
Istanbul in the same year is ahown.
S. Chirakadze recalleced the active struggle of Grigol Robakidze
against the anti-Georgian activity of the Bolshevik Russia after the
occupation and actual annexation of Georgia in 1921. (“The fate of Kartli”
Kartli-means Georgia N 47, 1964)
Gr. Robakidze recalleced himself how had he greeted the national
rebellion in Georgia in 1924. (“The fate of Kartli” Kartli-means Georgia N
17, 1954)
The writer was the member of the editorial board of the
newspaper “Sakartvelo” and the magazine “Kartveli Eri” issued in Germany in
the early 1940-es. He used to publish different articles on the national
political issues under the pen-name “Givi Gollend”.
The role of Grigol Robakidze was very considerable in the
activity of the “Georgian Allied Staff” in liberating the Georgian prisoners
of war from the German concentration camps. Besides, it has been shown that
acting for liberation of his motherland, he had never been the member of
Nazi party or served the Nazi ideology as it had been presented by the
so-called “Soviet historiography”
Gr. Robakidze was the distinguished representative and one of
the founders (in 1942) of “The Union of the Georgian Traditionalists”,
headed by the Head of the Georgian Bagrationi Royal House in Europe, H.R.H.,
Prince Irakli Bagration-Mukhraneli (1909-1977) in emigration.
Chapter V – “Problems of the History of Georgia-Caucasus Relations “.
Different important issues of Georgian-Caucasian relations are given in the
present chapter on the basis of Georgian emigrant literature and other
sources and publications.
5.1 “The question of the unity of the Caucasian peoples for the history” .
The history of the idea of unity of the Caucasian autochthonic peoples and
the importance of this unity for the development of this region from the
standpoint of the emigrants is presented on the basis of the emigrant
periodical publications: “Obyedinionny Kavkaz”, “Kavkaz”, “Kavkasioni”,
“Tetri Giorgi”, “Ornati”, “Damoukidebeli Sakartvelo”, “Samshoblo”,
“Sakartvelo”, “Momavali” and the works of the Georgian emigrants: Alexandre
Manvelishvili, Revaz Gabashvili and Samson Pirtskhalava. This important
question has always been a burning problem for the Caucasus as Russia and
Turkey always declared their claims on this region. If at present the
Turkish-Georgian relations has become more civilized and some indications of
equal partnership are obvious in different fields, the danger from Russia
still exists and is as great as it was before.
The history of the movement for the unity of the Caucasian
peoples from the end of the XIX century up to the middle of the XX century
as well as considerations of the Georgian emigrant authors on this problem
are successively presented in the present chapter on the basis of the
Georgian emigrant literature.
Unfortunately, the historical past of the Caucasus obviously
shows that the unity of the Caucasian peoples was possible only when Georgia
obtained a zenith of its power. In other cases some contradictions and
conflicts used to occur among the Caucasian peoples that used to make the
accomplishment of that goal impossible.
5.2 “Some questions of the history of the liberation movement of the
Caucasus in the XVIII-XIX centuries in the Georgian emigrant literature” .
The subchapter consists of three parts: 1. The liberation movement of the
autochthonic peoples of the Northern Caucasus against Russia headed by
Sheikh Mansur (the second part of the 18th century), 2. The Kakhetian
rebellion of 1802 and 3. The activity of Prince Alexandre Bagrationi
(1770-1844), one of the leaders of the national-liberation movement of
Georgia and the Caucasus in 1800-1832. The material is fully based on
publications of the distinguished representatives of the Georgian political
emigration: Alexandre Manvelishvili, Giorgi Magalashvili, David (Data)
Vachnadze, Shalva Amirejibi, Tamar and Akaki Papavas.
5.3 “The questions of the history of Georgia and the Caucasus on the pages
of the Georgian emigrant magazine “Kavkasioni” . In 1929
“Kavkasioni” -emigrant literature and scientific magazine was created by the
noted Georgian scholar, public and political figure, Doctor Victor Nozadze
created in Paris. He has been its editor-in-chief and publisher until his
death (1976). The first issue of the magazine was published in 1929 and the
last one the 21 st. issue – in 1986. The fiction as well as different
scientific works used to be published in the magazine.
Survey of different works on history of Georgia and the Caucasus
published in “Kavkasioni” are reviwed in the present subchapter.
We intentionally review this magazine as in spite of its
importance it’s still less known to the Georgian readers.
Different articles published in the abovementioned magazine by
the following distinguished representatives of the Georgian political
emigration are reviewed in the present subchapter: Stephane Kasradze,
Ekvtime Takaishvili, Shalva Amirejibi, Eduard Papava, Victor Nozadze,
Alexandre Shatirishvili, Tamar and Akaki Papavas, Isidore Mantskava, Raphiel
Ivanitski-Ingilo, Giorgi Nozadze, Razhden Arsenidze, Markoz Tugushi,
Alexandre Manvelishvili, Akaki Kvitaishvili, Givi Kobakhidze, Shalva
Beridze, Sosipatre Asatiani, Vakhtang Gambashidze, David Vachnadze, Elizbar
Makashvili, Severian Chirakadze, Archil Donauri, Alexandre Tatishvili,
Nikoloz Tokhadze, Dimitri Shalikashvili (Father of the distinguished
generals of the US Army Otar and John-Malkhaz Shalikashvili), Ilia
Kuchukhidze (the same Mindia Lashauri), David Vashadze, Mikheil Kavtaradze,
Giorgi Sharashidze, Karlo Inasaridze.
Chapter VI – “Some questions of the history of Russian-Georgian relations of
the XVIII-XIX centuries and I quarter of the XX century . Significant
attantion was paid to different aspects of some questions of the history of
Russian-Georgian relations of the XVIII-XIX centuries and the I quarter of
the XX century in the publications and works of the following distinguished
representatives of the Georgian political emigration: Ekvtime Takaishvili,
Zurab Avalishvili, Mikhako Tsereteli, Alexandre Manvelishvili, David
Vachnadze, Victor Nozadze, Alexandre Tatishvili, Ivane Nanuashvili, Grigol
Uratadze, Markoz Tugushi, Samson Pirtskhalava, Karlo Inasaridze, etc.
We have basically reviewed the legal aspects of the
Russian-Georgian treaties of 1783 and 1920 years, violation of these
treaties by Russia, which twice annexed and occupied Georgia; unknown and
less known information proving the genocide implemented against the Georgian
people, etc.
As to legal evaluation of the “Georgievsk Tractate” of 1783 in accordance
with the standards of International Law, different works of the Georgian
authors Z. Avalishvili, K. Inasaridze, Gr. Veshapeli, M. Tsereteli, Al.
Manvelishvili as well as the views of the distinguished foreign scholars in
the field of International Law of those times Louis Le Four, Otfrid Nipold,
Ernest Niss and Vattel are presented in this chapter.
As to the 1783 treaties, the majority of the authors used to
observe that the Kingdom of Kartl-Kakheti (Eastern Georgia) had not lost its
status of the subject of International Law by means of the abovementioned
treaty, but due to this treaty a certain regime of the limited protectorate
had been established between Russia and Georgia. The famous European
scholars in the field of the International Law, professors Otfrid Nipold and
Louis Le Four, the member of the French Academy of Sciences and others
confirmed the same. But Dr. Karlo Inasaridze did not agree with them.
According to his view the regime of full protectorate was established
between Russia and Eastern Georgia and the Kingdom of Kartl-Kakheti did lost
the status of the subject of International Law.
Most of the works of the Georgian emigrant authors as well as of
the above-mentioned European scholars enable us to conclude that by means of
the Georgievsk Treaty of 1783 the Kingdom of Kartl-Kakheti had not lost its
status of the subject of International Law. The analogous situation took
place in February-March, 1921, when the Bolshevik Russia had occupied and
actually annexed the Democratic Republic of Georgia (1918-1921) roughly
violating the standards of International Law.
Chapter VII – “Some questions of history of the Turkish-Georgian relations
in the Ist quarter of the XX century” . We have reviewed in this chapter
how different aspects of the Turkish-Georgian relations of 1918-1920 had
been reviewed in the Georgian emigrant literature. There are some
considerations on the well-known Kars Treaty on the basis of which the last
Georgian-Turkish Treaty (of 1992) had been concluded, the treaty that caused
quite natural resentment of considerable part of the Georgian society.
From the point of view of relations with Turkey, the very first
year of the independence after liberation of Georgia from 117 years of the
Russian domination (1918) turned out to be the gravest for the country, when
in May-June, 1918, the Turkish-Georgian Treaty was concluded in Batumi
(Administrative center of the Ajarian Autonomy of Georgia). According to
this treaty the border between Georgia and Turkey was defined in accordance
with the Russian-Turkish border identified in the Adrianopol Treatise.
We should mention the Brest-Litowsk Treaty, which was made on March 3, 1918.
During preparation process of this treaty the perfidious character of the
Russian foreign policy as well as complete unreadiness of the
Social-Democratic government of the Democratic Republic of Georgia has
become obvious.
The Brest-Litowsk peaceful negotiations and Treaty were reviewed
by V. Nozadze, Gr.Uratadze, A. Donauri and other Georgian emigrant authors.
On March 1921 the Bolshevik Russia passed on Turkey about 13
thousand square kilometers of the historical Georgian territory: A part of
Batumi district and the territories of Artvin and Artaani (Ardagani)
districts behind the Georgian people’s back.
Thus, it’s quite obvious that making of a new agreement with
Turkey on the basis of the Kars Treaty gives Turkey possibility to intervene
roughly in any field of life of the Ajarian Autonomy, its religious economic
and cultural life. That is equal to intervention in internal affairs of the
sovereign Georgian state-that is, absolutely inadmissible. Moreover, Acting
this way Georgia acknowledges itself as legal successor of so-called
“Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic” in the field of the relation with
Turkey that is evident nonsense.
Chapter VIII – “The questions of history of the XX Century of Georgia and
the Caucasus” . Some important topics of history of the XX Century Georgia
and the Caucasus are reviwed in the present chapter.
8.1 “Bolshevizm-Menshevizm and the Democratic Republic of Georgia
(1918-1921) . The fact that policy of both the Bolshevik Russia and,
unfortunately, the governing Georgian Social-Democratic Party was
anti-Georgian is shown in the present chapter on the basis of very
noteworthy data of the Georgian emigrant literature and the documentary
sources reflecting the history of the Democratic Republic of Georgia
(1918-1921). Besides the anti-Caucasian policy of Turkey and Russia, which
had been coordinated between them, should be mentioned as well. All the
abovementioned circumstances as a whole stipulated collapse of the
Democratic Republic of Georgia in February-March, 1921, when the Bolshevik
Russia had occupied and actually annexed Georgia.
The fact that Georgian Social-democrats continued their anti-national
activity even in the emigration is reviewed in this chapter.
A clear example of which was their participation in the
negotiations with the representatives of the Russian and non-Russian
(national minorities) emigration in Wiesbaden and than in Munich. Finally,
the results of the abovementioned negotiations have been officially
legalized in the resolution signed on October 16, 1953 in Munich.
“The Coordinating Centre of the Anti-Bolshevik Peoples” was established.
They signed the Statute of the centre, in accordance with it the
“anti-Bolshevik peoples” which had been the part of the former Tsarist
Empire, would have given up the part of their sovereignty to Russia in case
of victory of the movement.
The distinguished lawyer, Professor of the Strasbourg
University, famous representative of the Georgian Political Emigration
Mikheil Mouskheli (Muskhelishvili) wrote in 1954 concerning this issue:
“Signing of this statute by the Georgians meant of course that Georgia had
lost the status of the sovereign state, which Georgia had gained in
1918-1921. It means that Georgia will not be able to demand its sovereignty,
and independence as its right, which had been taken away by the illegal
action. Consequently, this means that we should not speak about restoration
of this right, now we have to speak about regaining it from the very
beginning” (A magazine “Bedi Kartlisa”, No: 16, 1954).
8.2 “Some questions of history of Georgia and the Caucasus of the I half of
XX century” . Some significant questions of the history of Georgia and the
Caucasus of the XX century are reviewed in the present chapter on the basis
of the works of the following distinguished representatives of the Georgian
political emigration: Alexandre Asatiani (1937), Markoz Tugushi (1965),
Kalistrate Salia (1948, 1962), Varlam Cherkezishvili (1918), Shalva
Karumidze (1935), Victor Nozadze (1965), Mikheil Tsereteli (1935, 1955),
Revaz Gabashvili (1957), Zurab Avalishvili (1935) Givi Kobakhidze (1944),
Tamar papava (1967) Solomon Zaldastanishvili (1938), Valiko Chubinidze
(1953), Ivane Nanuashvili (1966, 1973), Konstantine Kandelaki (1953), Karlo
Inasaridze (1984), Giorgi Magalashvili (1954), David Vachnadze (1952, 1954),
etc.
The subchapter is divided into 3 parts: 1. Struggle of the
Georgian people for the restoration of state independence in 1900-1917; 2.
The National-Liberation movement in Georgia in 1921-1924; 3. The tragedy of
the peoples of the Northern Caucasus of 1944.
The activity of Giorgi Dekanozishvili and his group in the
1900-es, the activity of “The Committee of Independence of Georgia”
(1908-1918), rebellion of Georgian people in 1924 and its importance, and
bloody repressions implemented by the Soviet regime in 1944 against
Chechens, Ingushes and other peoples of the Northern Caucasus are reviewed
in this chapter.
8.3 “The tragedy of April the 9th, of 1989” . The publications of the
Georgian emigrant press dedicated to Tbilisi tragedy of April the 9th, of
1989 are review in this chapter.
8.4 “Some questions of the history of Georgia of the 1990-es on the pages of
the Georgian emigrant magazine “Gushagi” . In 1973-1984 the magazine
“Tavisuplebis Tribuna” was being published in Paris, Giorgi Tsereteli, the
distinguished representative of the Georgian political emigration
(1917-1993) was the editor in chief of this magazine. Total number of the
published issues of the magazine was 42. In 1984 on the basis of this
magazine the new magazine “Gushagi” was created by the same person Giorgi
Tsereteli who became its editor-in-chief as he had been before. It’s
necessary to mention that “Gushagi” was the beyond party publication and it
didn’t serve the interests of any party or political trend.
Of course, “Gushagi” couldn’t calmly observe the military-criminal coup
d’etat
that took place in Georgia in December-January, 1991-1992, and the events
that took place after that. How the abovementioned events have been
reflected on the pages of this magazine is the topic of this subchapter.
With this purpose the issues of “Gushagi” from number 27 to 30 have been
reviewed.
It’s necessary to note that its editorial staff took very
principal position with regards to the coup. G. Tsereteli himself was in
Georgia in autumn, 1991.
The editorial staff of “Gushagi” was very principal when
evaluating the events that took place after the coup. It would be enough to
mention their evaluation of the parliamentary election of October the 11th,
1992: “The elections of October the 11th was the mockery at democracy. It
promoted neither legitimating of the State Council nor the political unity
of the Georgian people, what should have been the main objective of
parliamentary elections”.
Chapter IX – “Some question of the history of relations of Europe and
Georgia” . Several aspects of interrelations of some European countries and
Georgia are represented in the chapter. This material is completely based on
the articles published in the Georgian emigrant press and the certain
publications.
The chapter is divided into the following subchapters: 1. The
Georgian politologists of the West; 2. The Georgians in the European armies;
3. The distinguished scholar and writer Vasili Karist (Vasil
Kharischirashvili); 4. The distinguished kartvelologist (Andro Gugushvili);
5. The distinguished historian (Alexandre Manvelishvili); 6. The solicitous
of the Georgian culture (Professor Shalva Beridze); 7. The true friend of
the Georgian people (Juseppe Motta); 8. The protector of the rights of the
Georgian people (Jean Martin).
Despite the fact that a certain part of the Georgian political
emigration did serve in German Wehrmacht of the III Reich, but their sole
goal was to liberate Georgia from the Soviet tyranny and not to serve for
the Nazi ideology. So-called “Soviet historiography” has represented their
activity in absolutely distorted way.
The basic conclusions

1.Considering the notion of a nation, the rights of the Nations and the
issue of the national self-determination, the problems of interrelations
between a nation and the state, the representatives of the Georgian
political emigration (Mikhako Tsereteli, Vakhtang Tsitsishvili, Victor
Nozadze, Ivane Zurabishvili, Markoz Tugushi, Isidore Mantskava, Alexsandre
Manvelishvili, Alexandre Asatiani, the leaders of the Georgian
National-Democratic Party (was founded in 1917) and the National-patriotic
political organization “Tetri Giorgi” (“The White Giorgi”) pointed out,
that a nation is a result of a prolonged historical process, the society of
individuals of the common origin, having common language, common culture
and faith, and common territory. They came also to the conclusion that
political system of the state must be based on the equal rights and duties
of the whole people, whole nation. The state should not turn into a weapon
of a certain social class, but it should represent the whole nation,
implementer of its interests and protector of its rights.
Reaserches of the following foreign authors (E. Renen, E.Gellner, E-D.
Smith, G. Gottlib, T. Eriksen ect.) alongside with works of emigrant authors
have been used in the present work. There is our own definition of Nation
given in it.
2. Those fields of activity of the distinguished public figure, famous
scholar Ecvtime Takaishvili and the writer Grigol Robakidze, that are
unknown or less known to the general public is presented in the work.
Namely, very productive publishing activity of the prominent historian
Ekvtime Takaishvili, who had published his major scientific works
(“Archaeological expedition in Lechkhum-Svaneti in 1910”, “Archaeological
expedition in Kola -Oltisi and Changle in 1907”, “The Chronicle of the Kings
and the Catholicoses in the manuscript of Ninotsminda”, etc.) are reviewed
in the work. All these works have already been identified as the assets of
the Georgian historical science. As to Grigol Robakidze, great Georgian
writer and public figure, he is presented as the public and political
figure.
3. Considering the question of unity of the autochthonic Caucasian peoples
the Georgian emigrants authors (Victor Nozadze, Leo and Giorgi Kereselidze,
Mikhako Tsereteli, Revaz Gabashvili, Alexandre Manvelishvili, Samson
Pirtskhalava, etc.) pointed out that the main guarantee of the development
and security of the Caucasian people is their unity, their coordinated
policy that would be based on the mutual understanding. But, in reality, the
historical past of the Caucasus shows that, unfortunately, the Caucasus
managed to unite only when Georgia reached the zenith of her power. In other
cases various contradictions used to eppear between the Caucasian peoples.
4. The National-Liberation movement of Georgia and the Caucasus in the
18-20th centuries was one of the main topics of the Georgian emigrant
authors (Alexandre Manvelishvili, Shalva Amirejibi, Tamar and Akaki papavas,
etc.). The liberation movement of Sheikh Mansur, uprising in Kakheti in
1802, the liberation movement headed by Prince Alexandre Bagrationi
(1770-1844), the son of the King of Kartl-Kakheti Irakli the II are
reviewed in the present work.
5.Such significant Georgian emigrant publications as the magazine
“Kavkasioni” (the editor-publisher Victor Nozadze) was almost unknown for
the Georgian public at large. The important questions of history of Georgia
and the Caucasus reviwed on the pages of “Kavkasioni” are represented in the
present work.
6. The questions of history of the Russian-Georgian relations of the 18-19th
centuries and the Ist quarter of the 20th century, had been deeply reviewd
in the works of the Georgian emigrant authors (Zurab Avalishvili, Mikhako
Tsereteli, Grigol Veshapeli, Alexandre Manvelishvili, Markoz Tugushi, David
Vachnadze, Victor Nozadze, Ivane Nanuashvili, Karlo Inasaridze, etc.) They
paid particular attention to the legal assesment of so-called “Georkievsk
Tractate” of 1783, the Russian-Georgian Treaty of 1920, and so-called Kars
Treaty. As to the treaty of 1783, the majority of the above-mentioned
authors pointed out that the Kingdom of Kartl-Kakheti had not lost its
status of the subject of International Law as a result of this treaty and
the regime similar to the limited protectorate had been established between
Russia and Georgia. Famous European scholars in the field of International
Law, professor Otfrid Nipold and the member of the French Academy of
Sciences Louis Le Four had the same opinion concerning the abovementioned
issue. We have the similar situation in February-March, 1921, when Bolshevik
Russia occupied and actually annexed the Democratic Republic of Georgia
(1918-1921). This was the greave violation of the standards of International
Law as well.
7. Many Georgian emigrant authors (Victor Nozadze, Grigol Uratadze, Archil
Donauri, Elise Pataridze, Alexandre Manvelishvili, etc.) examined the
history of Turkish-Georgian relations in 1918-1921. They came to unanimous
conclusion on the bais of the analysis of these relations: Having come to an
agreement with Bolshevik Russia, behind Georgia’s back Turkey played a very
negative role in the newest history of Georgia. With the support of Turkey
the Bolshevik Russia occupied and actually annexed Georgia in February-March
1921. While the Russian-Turkish so-called Kars Treaty was the obvious
violation of territorial integrity of Georgia. According to this treaty
Turkey had received about 13 thousand square kilometers of the historical
Georgian territory, which was rude violation of the standards of
International Law.
8. The Russian-Georgian relations and, namely, the relations between the
Bolshevik Russia and the Democratic Republic of Georgia in 1918-1921, always
were in the lime light of the Georgian emigration. Besides the role of the
Georgian Social-Democrats (Mensheviks) in the creation and history of the
first Republic of Georgia are considered here as well. Of course, we mean
the attitude of the Georgian national political emigration, which was very
critical towards the Bolsheviks as well as to the Mensheviks. Significant
attantion is paid to these questions in the works of Victor Nozadze, Archil
Donauri, Ivane Zurabishvili, Revaz Gabashvili, Giorgi Kvinitadze, Valerin
Tevzadze, Nikoloz Matikashvili, Mikheil Kvaliashvili, Alexandre
Manvelishvili, Shalva Kalandadze, Elese Pataridze, D. Sindikeli, Alexandre
Asatiani, Ivane Nanuashvili and others.
9. Some significant questions of the history of Georgia and Caucases of the
20th century that had been reviewd in the works of the Georgian emigrant
authors are represented in the present work: (Markoz Tugushi, Alexandre
Asatiani, Mikheil Tsereteli, Varlam Cherkezishvili, Kalistrate Salia, Victor
Nozadze, Shalva Karumidze, Revaz Gabashvili, Zurab Avalishvili, Givi
Kobakhidze, Tamar Papava, Ivane Nanuashvili, Alexandre Kargareteli, Shalva
Amirejibi, Solomon Zaldastanishvili, Valiko Chubinidze, Karlo Inasaridze,
David Vachnadze, Giorgi Magalashvili, Giorgi Tsereteli). Namely, the
questions of the struggle of Georgian people for the restoration of state
independence in 1900-1917, the National-Liberation movement in Georgia in
1921-1924, the tragedy of the North-Caucasian peoples 1944, the tragedy of
Tbilisi of April the 9th, 1989 are reviewed. In the process of reviewing of
these topics some of those aspects are emphasized that were unknown or less
known for the public at large. In particular, many important details of the
history of the National-Liberation movement of the Georgian people in
1900-1917 and in 1921-1924.
10. The newest history of Georgia, namely the 1990es is marked with lots of
significant milestones, which had played crucial role in restoration of
state independence and formation of national statehood of the country. (The
first democratic and multiparty, non-Soviet Parliamentary Elections on
October 28, 1990, the National Referendum on March 31, 1991 and adoption of
the Act of Restoration of the State Independence of Georgia on April the
9thof the same year, the first Presidential Elections on May, 26, 1991).
Unfortunately, the same 1990es were noted by that villainous event as well
(the military-criminal coup d’etat in December-January, 1991-1992), which
led to the 12 years dictatorship and violation of the territorial integrity
of Georgia in 1992-1993. How these events have been reflected on the pages
of the emigrant magazine “Gushagi” (the Editor-publisher Giorgi Tsereteli)
is represented in the present work.
11.Some material which clearly illustrate that the Democratic Republic of
Georgia (1918-1921) maintained close contacts with the European states and
the Georgian political emigration kept in touch with the European countries
are reviewed in the present work on the basis of the Georgian emigrant
literature. Namely, the contribution of the Georgian political analyst and
military figures to the European politology and military affair, as well as
productive scientific activity of the emigrant scholars Vasili Karist
(Kharischirashvili), Andro Gugushvili and Alexandre Manvelishvili. The huge
services that the remarkable European statesmen Juseppe Motta (Switzerland)
and Jean Martin (Switzerland) had rendered to Georgia is reviewed.

The list of published scientific works concerning the dissertation thesis:

1.. L. Urushadze. About the history of the question of unity of the
Caucasian peoples.- J. “Amirani”, XIII, Montreal-Tbilisi, 2005, pp. 109-124
(in Georgian, English summary);
2.. L. Urushadze. Prince Alexandre Bagrationi – the Leader of the
Liberation Movement of the Georgian People.- “Perspective – XXI”, VI
(Studies Volume in Honour of Professor Mzia Andronikashvili), Tbilisi, 2004,
pp. 278-282 (in Georgian, English summary);
3.. L. Urushadze. Some Questions of the History of the Russian-Georgian
Relations of XVIII-XIX Centuries and I Quarter of the XX Century in the
Georgian Emigrant Literature.- J. “Historical Verticals”, Number 7, Tbilisi,
2005, pp. 9-22 (in Georgian, English summary);
4.. L. Urushadze. About the fighting of the Georgian People for the
Restoration of State Independence of Georgia in 1900-1917.- J. “Historical
Verticals”, Number 7, Tbilisi, 2005, pp. 44-58 (in Georgian, English
summary);
5.. L. Urushadze. Grigol Robakidze as the Politician.- J. “Prometheus”, 5
(17), Tbilisi, 2005, pp. 172-175 (in Georgian, English summary);
6.. L. Urushadze. The Activity of the Istanbul Feri-Kvey Cloister of the
Georgian Catholics in the Cultural-Enlighten Path.- J. “Religion”, 7-8-9,
Tbilisi, 2005, pp. 92-96 (in Georgian, English summary);
7.. L. Urushadze. Some Questions of History of Georgia and the Caucasus in
the Georgian Emigrant Literature. Edited by Prof. G. Alasania. Publishing
House “Ena da Kultura”, Tbilisi, 2005, 115 pp. (a Monograph. In Georgian,
English summary);
8.. L. Urushadze. Some Questions of History of Georgia in the Georgian
Emigrant Literature.- Bull. Georg. Acad. Sci., Vol. 172, No: 2, 2005, pp.
356-358 (in English);
9.. L. Urushadze. Some Questions of the Cultural and Publishing Activity
of Academician Ekvtime Takaishvili in Emigracy.- J. “Historical Verticals”,
Number 9, Tbilisi, 2005, pp. 9-14 (in Georgian, English summary);
10.. L. Urushadze. Some questions of history of the Turkish-Georgian
relations in the 1st quarter of the 20th century.- “Historical Studies”, VI,
Tbilisi, 2005, pp. 140-148 (in Georgian, English summary).

Tesis de Israel [28/7/06]

El 27 de julio de 2006 fue aprobada con la máxima calificación, Apto Sobresaliente Cum Laude, en la Facultad de Geografía e Historia de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela (España), la tesis doctoral de Israel Sanmartín, “El Debate Fukuyama y el futuro de la historia”, coeditor de la red internacional Historia a Debate. Investigación e teoría de la historia, historiografía e historia inmediatas, de gran relevancia porque supone, entre otras cosas, la crítica detallada del “fin de la historia” de Fukuyama y el desarrollo del punto XIV del Manifiesto historiográfico de HaD sobre los “fines de la historia”.  Carlos Barros, coordinador de HaD

Convocatoria

O DIRECTOR DO DEPARTAMENTO

DE HISTORIA MEDIEVAL E MODERNA

SAÚDA

Ó seu amigo/a e compañeiro/a e infórmalle que o vindeiro venres día 28 de xullo, ás 10.30 horas, no Paraninfo da Universidade, terá lugar o acto de lectura da tese de doutoramento de don Israel Sanmartín Barros “El debate Fukuyama y el futuro de la historia”, dirixida polo Dr. don Carlos Barros Guimeráns.

Forman parte do Tribunal para xulga-la tese os seguintes doutores:

Presidente:
Dr. don José Carlos Bermejo Barrera (USC)

Vocales:
Dr. don Claudio Canaparo(University of Exeter)

Dr. don Gonzalo Pasamar Alzuria (Universidade de Zaragoza)
Dra. dona Mari Luz Pintos Peñaranda (USC)

Secretario:
Dr. don Santiago Jiménez Gómez (USC)

SANTIAGO JIMÉNEZ GÓMEZ

comprácese en aproveitar esta ocasión para

lle manifestar o seu aprecio máis cordial

Santiago de Compostela, 20 de xullo de 2006

Índice                                                                                                                                                                                     3

 

Agradecimientos                                                                                                                                                                 16

 

Introducción                                                                                                                                                                        17

 

  1. Los Contextos generales en los que surge la tesis del “final de la Historia” 32

 

1.1. El Contexto Histórico-Político                                                                                                                     32

 

1.1.1.  La New Right                                                                                                                             34

 

1.1.2. El cambio de contexto de los 90                                                                                               43

1.1.2.1. De la “revolución conservadora” al “momento progresista”                                                                                                                                                                                                          44

1.1.2.2. El gran rechazo a la New Right                                                                             56

 

1.1.3. La caída del llamado “socialismo real”                                                                                   57

1.1.3.1. El desmoronamiento del Muro de Berlín                                                             57

1.1.3.2. De la URSS de Gorbachov a la Rusia de Putin                                                   59

1.1.3.3. La nueva Europa del Este                                                                                      62

1.1.3.4. Balance sobre las interpretaciones del llamado “socialismo real”

después de los acontecimientos de 1989-91                                                                   66

 

1.1.4. El mundo después de 1989                                                                                                       68

1.1.4.1. La nueva sociedad internacional                                                                          69

1.1.4.2. La crisis del Estado Nación                                                                                   72

1.1.4.3. Chiapas, una revuelta nueva                                                                                 74

1.1.4.4. Nacionalismo, fundamentalismo y modelo asiático                                           77

1.1.4.4.1. El auge del nacionalismo                                                                    77

1.1.4.4.2. El renacer del fundamentalismo Islámico                                         79

1.1.4.4.3. La alternativa asiática                                                                          82

1.1.4.6. De Seatle a la guerra de Irak                                                                                  86

 

1.1.5. El retorno de la historia                                                                                                             91

 

1.2. El Contexto económico                                                                                                                                93

 

1.2.1. Los cambios económicos desde 1989                                                                                     94

 

1.2.2. La economía tras 1989                                                                                                               98

1.2.2.1. La globalización                                                                                                      98

1.2.2.2. La nueva economía                                                                                                 103

1.2.2.3. La síntesis entre la globalización y la “nueva economía”, el caso de EEUU                                                                                                                                                 106

1.2.3. Las consecuencias de la nueva situación                                                                              111

1.2.3.1. El desempleo                                                                                                            111

1.2.3.2. La crisis del estado de bienestar                                                                          115

1.2.3.3. El papel de las grandes instituciones económicas transnacionales                                                                                                                                                               117

1.2.3.4. El Norte-Sur y el Cuarto Mundo                                                                           120

 

1.2.4. Los movimientos altermundistas                                                                                             123

 

1.2.5. El fracaso del neoliberalismo                                                                                                    127

 

1.3. El Contexto Sociológico                                                                                                                               130

 

1.3.1. La sociedad de la información                                                                                                 132

1.3.1.1. Las nuevas tecnologías de la información                                                          135

1.3.1.2. Los nuevos medios de comunicación                                                                 137

1.3.1.2.1. Las redes académicas internacionales                                              141

1.3.1.3. Internet: Ciberespacio, cibercultura y realidad virtual                                      143

 

1.3.2. La nueva interrelación entre lo local y lo global                                                                   147

1.3.2.1. El archipiélago capitalista                                                                                      147

1.3.2.2. La nueva familia                                                                                                      149

1.3.2.3. El relevo generacional                                                                                            151

1.3.2.4. La sociedad multicultural                                                                                       155

1.3.2.5. El medioambiente                                                                                                    158

1.3.2.6. La exclusión social                                                                                                  161

 

1.3.3. El rechazo al modelo estadounidense de sociedad                                                              163

1.3.3.1. El “modelo” hacia: la mcdonalización                                                                  164

1.3.3.2. El “modelo” hacia adentro                                                                                     167

 

1.3.4. Una sociedad en cambio: el retorno del sujeto social                                                          170

 

1.4. El Contexto Intelectual                                                                                                                                 174

 

1.4.1. Algunos textos desde 1989                                                                                                      177

 

1.4.2. El neoconservadurismo                                                                                                            182

1.4.2.1 ¿Qué es el neoconservadurismo?                                                                          183

1.4.2.2. Orígenes                                                                                                                   185

1.4.2.3.  Ideario                                                                                                                      189

 

1.4.3. Consecuencias de la relación entre la New Right y el neoconservadurismo                                                                                                                                                                                   194

1.4.3.1. El pensamiento único                                                                                             194

1.4.3.2. Lo políticamente correcto                                                                                      197

 

1.4.4. El “pensamiento alternativo” y el compromiso del intelectual                                           200

 

 

  1. La tesis y el debate de “el fin de la Historia” 204

 

2.1. Precedentes finalistas                                                                                                                                  206

2.1.1. Los precedentes en la filosofía de la historia                                                                        207

2.1.2. Los precedentes en el pensamiento político                                                                         216

2.1.3. Fukuyama                                                                                                                                    220

2.1.4. Conclusiones                                                                                                                              222

 

2.2. Contexto próximo del nacimiento de la tesis                                                                                             224

 

2.2.1. El epicentro: Washington                                                                                                         225

 

2.2.2. La revista The National Interest y la financiación neoconservadora                               229

2.2.2.1. La necesidad                                                                                                            229

2.2.2.2. La renovación                                                                                                          231

2.2.2.3. La unidireccionalidad de las subvenciones                                                        232

2.2.2.4. ¿Una teoría resultado de una conspiración?                                                      236

 

2.2.3. La relación con la Administración Bush                                                                                240

2.2.3.1. La situación internacional                                                                                     240

2.2.3.2. El declive interno                                                                                                    242

2.2.3.3. Consecuencias                                                                                                        246

2.2.3.4. Fukuyama                                                                                                                 248

 

2.3. Aproximación a la biografía de Fukuyama                                                                                                249

2.3.1. Los años de formación                                                                                                              250

2.3.2. La relación con la Administración Reagan                                                                            251

2.3.3. Los años tecnocráticos                                                                                                             252

2.3.4. En la Administración Bush y “el fin de la Historia”                                                             253

2.3.5. El salto a la universidad                                                                                                            257

2.3.6. El regreso a la órbita republicana                                                                                            260

2.3.7. La autocrítica y el intento de renovación del neoconservadurismo                                  262

2.3.8. Ideólogo de la expansión de EE.UU                                                                                        263

 

2.4. ¿Qué argumenta la tesis de “el final de la Historia”?                                                                               264

2.4.1. La euforia                                                                                                                                    265

2.4.2. La digestión                                                                                                                                268

2.4.3. La resaca                                                                                                                                     270

2.4.4. La marcha atrás                                                                                                                          271

2.4.5. El obcecamiento conservador                                                                                                  272

2.4.6. La rectificación                                                                                                                           274

2.4.7. El fin de “el fin de la Historia”                                                                                                  275

2.4.8. Un nuevo neoconservadurismo                                                                                              285

 

2.5. Texto claves de la tesis de “el fin de la Historia”                                                                                     285

 

2.6. El fin de la Historia en España                                                                                                                    286

 

2.7. Causas de la repercusión de la teoría de “el fin de la Historia”                                                            297

2.7.1. Causas histórico- políticas                                                                                                       298

2.7.2. Causas intelectuales                                                                                                                  302

2.7.3. Causas científicas                                                                                                                      305

2.7.4. Causas mediáticas                                                                                                                     306

2.7.5. Causas de “el fin de siglo”                                                                                                       309

 

2.8. El diálogo con los críticos                                                                                                                           312

2.8.1. Los juicios personales                                                                                                              314

2.8.2. La sorpresa y la intuición                                                                                                         318

2.8.3. La influencia de los críticos                                                                                                      325

2.8.4. Una discusión oportuna y de perfil teórico alto                                                                   335

2.8.5. La ventaja de los críticos y los acontecimientos                                                                  345

2.8.5.1. La cultura y la economía al final de la Historia                                                   345

2.8.5.2. El orden social y la moral de “el fin de la Historia”                                            349

2.8.6. Las dudas de Fukuyama                                                                                                           353

2.8.7. La Historia abierta de nuevo                                                                                                    354

2.8.8. El fin de “el fin de la Historia”                                                                                                  357

2.8.9. La recepción en la derecha y la izquierda                                                                               363

2.8.10. La sustitución del debate                                                                                                       369

 

2.9. Los fines de la Historia                                                                                                                                375

 

 

  1. El debate de la historia con “h” minúscula 381

 

3.1. Los riesgos de la importancia del acontecimiento                                                                                   383

3.1.1. La “historia inmediata”                                                                                                             385

3.1.2. El acontecimiento                                                                                                                       386

3.1.3. La historia mundial/global                                                                                                        388

3.1.4. El nuevo paradigma                                                                                                                   390

 

3.2. Consecuencias de la aceleración de la “h”istoria                                                                                   391

 

3.2.1. El fin de la Guerra Fría y comienzo de la “paz caliente”                                                       395

3.2.1.1. El fin de la Guerra Fría como proceso histórico                                                  397

3.2.1.2. El fin de la Guerra Fría como conflicto ideológico                                             401

3.2.1.2.1. El exceso de autocomplacencia                                                         405

3.2.1.3. El fin de la Guerra Fría como acontecimiento intelectual                                  411

3.3.1.4. La “paz caliente”                                                                                                     418

3.3.1.5. La trampa de Fukuyama                                                                                         419

 

3.2.2. Del “Nuevo (des)Orden Mundial” a la “política preventiva”                                             420

3.2.2.1. El apareamiento Fukuyama/Bush

y la declaración del “Nuevo Orden Mundial”                                                                421

3.2.2.2. La conversión del “Nuevo Orden Mundial” en “Nuevo (des)orden Mundial”                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           428

3.2.2.3. Las otras interpretaciones                                                                                     431

3.2.2.4. Favorables, contrarios y otros                                                                              433

3.2.2.5. Una paz mundial hobbesiana                                                                                439

3.2.2.5.1. Las redes de Kant                                                                                440

3.2.2.5.2. El descubrimiento de Hobbes                                                            444

3.2.2.5.3. Una “paz negativa” hegemónica                                                       446

 

3.2.3. La consecuencias de la participación de Fukuyama como sujeto político e intelectual                                                                                                                                                 448

3.2.3.1.Un sistema de geometría variable                                                                          449

3.2.3.1.1.Un internacionalismo con trampa                                       449

3.2.3.1.2. La propuesta de una “unimultilateralidad”                      454

3.2.3.2. La configuración de un “nuevo realismo” basado en el fundamentalismo de mercado                                                                                                                              459

3.2.3.2.1. La recuperación del “Interés Nacional”                                           460

3.2.3.2.2. La falsa equivalencia entre Occidente y EE.UU                              462

3.2.3.2.3. La invención del enemigo                                                                   465

3.2.3.2.4. Después de Bush (padre)                                                                   466

 

3.2.3.3. La “utilidad” de  Fukuyama para la nueva hegemonía mundial       467

 

3.3. Una tesis negada por los acontecimientos                                                                                               471

 

3.3.1. Las revoluciones liberales de 1989-91                                                                                    471

 

3.3.1.1. El cumplimiento de la profecía                                                                              472

3.3.1.1.1. Buscando parecidos…                                                                         475

 

3.3.1.2. El desengaño                                                                                                           478

3.3.1.2.1. El fracaso del modelo de “el fin de la Historia”

en la Europa del Este                                                                                           483

3.3.1.2.2. El fin de la URSS                                                                                  489

3.3.1.2.2.1. El coro neoconservador                                                   491

3.3.1.2.2.2. La reacción desde otros círculos                                    495

3.3.1.2.2.3. El cheque en blanco a Yeltsin                                         499

3.3.1.2.2.4. Los primeros atisbos del

pensamiento alternativo                                                                     501

3.3.1.2.2.5. Una revolución subvertida desde dentro                     505

 

3.3.1.3. El regreso de los actores                                                                                        509

 

3.3.2. ¿Es posible que la hierba deje de ser pisoteada?                                                                  510

3.3.2.1. El ninguneo al Tercer Mundo                                                                               511

3.3.2.2. La nueva bipolaridad                                                                                              515

3.3.2.2.1. La ampliación del mundo “histórico”                                               519

3.3.2.3. El diseño de un “nortecentrismo” optimista                                                       522

3.3.2.4. El intento de un “nuevo desarrollismo” o el espejo equivocado                    525

3.3.2.5. La resistencia del Tercer Mundo ante “el fin de la Historia”                           532

 

3.3.3. Un nuevo progreso histórico humano                                                                                   538

3.3.3.1. La sustitución del hombre por su naturaleza                                                     538

3.3.3.2. La recuperación del hombre                                                                                  540

3.3.3.3. Las nuevas ideas de progreso                                                                              545

 

3.3.4. La técnica de Procusto                                                                                                              549

3.3.4.1. Globalización/antiglobalización                                                                            550

3.3.4.2. El 11-S de 2001                                                                                                         558

3.3.4.2.1. La fractura Oriente/Occidente de nuevo                                          559

3.3.4.2.2. La vuelta al compromiso y la fractura de Occidente                       565

 

3.4. “No es eso, no es eso”                                                                                                                                569

3.4.1. Lo que Fukuyama decía que no era                                                                                        570

3.4.2. Lo que los críticos decían que era                                                                                           576

3.4.2.1. Otros intentos                                                                                                         581

3.4.3. Lo que era                                                                                                                                   582

3.4.4. Algo más que una cuestión semántica                                                                                   590

 

3.5. El fracaso del fin de la “h”istoria                                                                                                                593

 

3.5.1. La “h”istoria y los hombres escriben y hacen la historia                                                    593

3.5.1.1. El protagonismo de los acontecimientos                                                            593

3.5.1.2. La consolidación del sujeto social                                                                       597

3.5.1.3. La importancia de los críticos                                                                               600

 

3.5.2. La “h”istoria y el “sujeto social” sí influyen en la “H”istoria                                             601

 

 

 

  1. “El fin de la Historia” como fin de las ideologías 610

 

4.1. La capacidad de triangulación de Fukuyama                                                                                           614

4.1.1. El rechazo desde la derecha                                                                                                     616

4.1.2. El rechazo desde la izquierda                                                                                                   620

4.1.2.1. La desaprobación como defensa                                                                          620

4.1.2.2. Fukuyama como estímulo para una parte de la izquierda                                 622

4.2. El dogma del supuesto triunfo de la democracia liberal como

primera expresión de la tesis de Fukuyama                                                                                                      627

 

4.2.1. El triunfo de la “democracia liberal” como ideología                                                            629

 

4.2.2. Lo que esconde el triunfo de la democracia liberal                                                               635

 

4.2.3. El supuesto triunfo del capitalismo convertido en supuesto triunfo de la democracia liberal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     647

4.2.3.1. El triunfalismo                                                                                                          649

4.2.3.2. El intento de universalización de un modelo único                                           657

4.2.3.3. La aparición de contradicciones y alternativas                                                  662

 

4.2.4. Deconstruyendo el argumentario político de Fukuyama                                                    667

4.2.4.1. La democracia                                                                                                          667

4.2.4.1.1. Una concepción estática de la democracia                                      669

4.2.4.1.2. Críticas al modelo de democracia de Fukuyama                              675

4.2.4.1.2.1. Objeciones de concepto                                                  675

4.2.4.1.2.2. Impugnaciones desde la práctica                                   681

4.2.4.1.3. Otras democracias son posibles                                                        685

4.2.4.1.3.1. Propuestas desde la teoría                                              685

4.2.4.1.3.2. Alternativas desde la práctica                                        688

 

4.2.4.2. El liberalismo                                                                                                            690

4.2.3.2.1. Un intento de legitimización del liberalismo                                    692

4.2.3.2.2. Un liberalismo confuso                                                                       694

4.2.3.2.3. ¿El fin del liberalismo? La conformación de un liberalismo

triunfante ahistórico y sin salida                                                                      700

 

4.2.4.3. Democracia y liberalismo                                                                                       710

4.2.4.3.1. La relación entre democracia y liberalismo de

Fukuyama vista por los críticos                                                                         712

4.2.4.3.2. Democracia y liberalismo, un matrimonio infiel                               720

4.2.4.3.3. El engarce entre democracia y liberalismo                                       726

4.2.4.3.3.1. La treta de los prerrequisitos                                          726

4.2.4.3.3.2. La cuestión del deseo de reconocimiento                     729

 

4.2.5. Las contradicciones entre la democracia y el liberalismo                                                    732

 

4.2.5.1. Contradicciones endógenas de las democracias liberales                               733

4.2.5.1. La desintegración del Estado-nación                                                  736

4.2.5.2. La cuestión de la sociedad civil                                                            738

 

4.2.5.2. Contradicciones exógenas provocadas

por las relaciones entre las democracias liberales                                                          742

 

4.2.5.3. Las contradicciones teóricas                                                                                746

4.2.5.3.1. Una democracia liberal con déficit democrático                              746

4.2.5.3.2. Las incompatibilidad entre la democracia y el liberalismo             748

4.2.5.3.3. A vueltas con la igualdad y la libertad                                             751

4.2.5.3.4. La discusión Held versus Callinicos                                                 757

 

4.2.5.4. La falsa superación de todas las contradicciones                                             761

 

4.2.6. Las alternativas a la democracia liberal como negación de su triunfo                               764

 

4.3. El colapso del socialismo real como segunda formulación de la tesis de “el fin de la Historia”                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     770

 

4.3.1. La idea del fracaso del “socialismo real” como triunfo del capitalismo                             774

4.3.1.1. Las vicetiples de Fukuyama                                                                                  775

4.3.1.2. La tesis de Fukuyama como simple constatación

del fracaso del “socialismo real”                                                                                       778

4.3.1.2.1. Otras explicaciones                                                                              780

 

4.3.1.3. El rechazo al colapso del “socialismo real”

como triunfo del capitalismo                                                                                              782

4.3.1.3.1. El fracaso del capitalismo tras las revoluciones liberales              787

 

4.3.1.4. El triunfo de la idea socialista                                                                               790

 

4.3.2. Superando la alargada sombra de “el fin de la Historia”                                                     798

4.3.2.1. El debate sobre el Libro negro del comunismo                                 807

 

4.3.3. Las alternativas dentro del socialismo                                                                                   809

4.3.4. El socialismo tiene futuro                                                                                                         820

4.3.5. El fracaso del “socialismo real” no es la muerte del socialismo                                          827

 

4.4. La tercera versión (esotérica) de la tesis de Fukuyama                                                                          829

 

4.5. La alusión a una “paz democrática”                                                                                                           836

4.5.1. Doyle repristinado por Fukuyama                                                                                           836

4.5.2. Una “paz democrática” basada en la economía                                                                    839

4.5.3. Los críticos descubren a Doyle                                                                                               843

4.5.4. Críticos que obviaban la tesis de la “paz democrática”                                                       844

4.5.5. Una fractura estructural de la tesis de Fukuyama                                                                 848

 

4.6. Otras ideologías alternativas                                                                                                                      856

4.6.1. Los fundamentalismos                                                                                                              860

4.6.2. El capitalismo autoritario del sureste asiático                                                                       867

4.6.3. Los nacionalismos                                                                                                                     869

 

4.7. Paradigmas alternativos a “el fin de la Historia”                                                                                      883

 

4.7.1. El “choque de civilizaciones”                                                                                                  884

4.7.1.1.  El debate sobre “el choque de civilizaciones”                                                  888

4.7.1.1.1. Favorables                                                                                            889

4.7.1.1.2. Contrarios                                                                                             890

4.7.1.1.3. Huntington y Fukuyama cuerpo a cuerpo                                       898

 

4.7.1.1.3.1. La utilización de la cultura por

parte de Fukuyama                                                                              903

 

4.7.2. La “fractura de Occidente”                                                                                                       906

4.7.3. La lucha por “otro mundo” y otra globalización                                                                   909

4.7.4. Otros paradigmas                                                                                                                       910

 

4.8. El fin de la Historia como continuación de “el fin de las ideologías”                                                   912

4.8.1. Una renuncia fallida                                                                                                                   913

4.8.2. La conexión con  “el fin de las ideologías”                                                                            915

4.8.3. La tesis de Fukuyama no significa el fin del conflicto ideológico ni de la izquierda                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      921

4.8.3.1. Los acontecimientos se burlan del profeta una vez más                                  925

 

4.9. La ideología sigue siendo uno de los motores de la Historia                                                                928

 

 

 

  1. De los fines de la “H”istoria posthitóricos al “nuevo paradigma” 940

 

5.1. Del fin de la “H”istoria a los fines de la “H”istoria                                                                                  942

 

5.1.1. La falta de originalidad filosófica de Fukuyama                                                                    943

5.1.2. La cuestión semántica                                                                                                               950

 

5.1.3. Los referentes teóricos de Fukuyama                                                                                     954

 

5.1.3.1 La apoyatura en Hegel                                                                                            954

5.1.3.1.1. Fukuyama recurre a Hegel                                                                  954

5.1.3.1.2. El objetivo de  revitalizar a Hegel                                                      957

 

5.1.3.2. La apelación a Marx                                                                                                964

5.1.3.2.1. Situación del marxismo                                                                        966

5.1.3.2.2. El debate sobre el marxismo

(el legado y propuestas de Marx)                                                                      973

5.1.3.3. Modernidad posthistórica                                                                                     983

5.1.3.4. La crítica antihistoricista                                                                                        987

5.1.3.5. Kant versus Hegel                                                                                                  995

 

5.1.4. Los fines de la Historia                                                                                                             1002

 

5.1.4.1. El fin de la Historia en Hegel                                                                                 1002

5.1.4.1.1. La configuración del fin de la Historia en Hegel                             1009

5.1.4.1.2. La Dialéctica                                                                                         1025

 

5.1.4.2. El fin de la Historia en Marx                                                                                  1036

5.1.4.2.1. El fin de la prehistoria                                                                          1036

 

5.1.4.3. Distinciones y coincidencias entre el fin de la

Historia de Hegel y el de Marx                                                                                           1042

 

5.1.5. El Fukuyama hegeliano                                                                                                             1054

5.1.5.1. ¿Fukuyama Hegeliano?                                                                                          1054

5.1.5.2. Elementos hegelianos-kojevianos en Fukuyama                                               1066

5.1.5.3. Hegelianismo de derechas liberal                                                                         1085

5.1.5.4. La sustitución de la importancia de Hegel por su interpretación

y consumo                                                                                                                           1102

 

5.1.6. El Fukuyama marxista                                                                                                                1107

5.1.6.1. Marxismo kojèviano                                                                                               1107

5.1.6.2. El aparente “marxismo invertido” de Fukuyama                                                1113

5.1.6.3. Las dificultades de unir a Fukuyama y a Marx                                                   1123

5.1.6.4. Fukuyama como enterrador del marxismo                                                           1139

5.1.6.5. Fukuyama no es marxista                                                                                       1145

 

5.1.7. El fin del hombre                                                                                                                        1149

 

5.1.7.1. El “primer hombre” como puente entre Hobbes y Hegel                                  1150

5.1.7.2. El “último hombre” como punto de

encuentro entre Kojève y Strauss                                                                                     1161

 

5.1.8. Los motores de la Historia como una excusa para defender la teleología                         1173

5.1.8.1. La ciencia                                                                                                                 1174

5.1.8.2. El thymos y el “deseo de reconocimiento”                                                         1179

 

5.1.9. Fukuyama como víctima de los intérpretes de Hegel y Marx                                              1200

5.1.9.1. Modernidad posthistórica                                                                                     1200

5.1.9.2. Una Historia Universal excluyente occidentalista (y en crisis)                      1205

5.1.9.3. Un fin de la “H”istoria teleológico, ahistórico y esencialista                          1211

5.1.9.4. Del fin de la Historia a los fines de la Historia                                                    1218

 

 

5.1.10. La necesidad de abandonar la explicación de los fines de la Historia                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      1223

 

 

5.2. De los “fines” de la Historia a los “objetivos” de la Historia                                                                1232

 

5.2.1.El finalismo de nuevo                                                                                                                 1232

 

5.2.2. La posthistoria como justificación de la petrificación social                                             1237

 

5.2.3. Fukuyama kojèviano                                                                                                                 1245

 

5.2.3.1. Kojève                                                                                                                      1246

5.2.3.1.1. Quién es Kojève                                                                                   1246

5.2.3.1.2. Kojève como intérprete de Hegel                                                     1262

5.2.3.1.3. Rasgos del pensamiento de Kojève                                                 1285

 

5.2.3.2. Las diferentes lecturas sobre Kojève                                                                  1315

5.2.3.2.1.Kojève liberal                                                                                         1316

5.2.3.2.2.Kojève marxista                                                                                     1317

5.2.3.2.3.Kojève postmoderno                                                                            1324

5.2.3.2.3.1. Kojève, Japón y el inicio del  postmodernismo            1327

 

5.2.3.3. Fukuyama y Kojève                                                                                                1331

5.2.3.2.1. Fukuyama en relación con Kojève                                                    1332

 

5.2.3.2.2. El legado de Kojève                                                                             1344

 

5.2.3.2.2.1. Kojève, Fukuyama y el hombre                                      1345

5.2.3.2.2.1.1. El “último hombre”                                        1348

 

5.2.3.2.2.2. El deseo de reconocimiento                                            1351

5.2.3.2.2.2.1. El deseo en Kojève                                        1351

5.2.3.2.2.2.2. El “deseo de reconocimiento”

kojèviano de Fukuyama                                                      1356

5.2.3.2.2.2.3. El thymos y el “deseo de reconocimiento”

o la imposibilidad (una vez más)

de unir a los griegos con los modernos                                           1361

5.2.3.2.2.2.4. El fracaso de la explicación

del “deseo de reconocimiento”                                         1377

 

5.2.3.2.2.3. El dualismo (no dialéctica)

del amo y el esclavo                                                                            1384

 

5.2.3.2.3. El naufragio de Kojève y Fukuyama                                                1396

5.2.3.4.Fukuyama más allá de Kojève                                                                                1379

 

5.2.4. El Fukuyama straussiano                                                                                                         1400

5.2.4.1. Algunas notas sobre Strauss                                                                               1400

5.2.4.2. ¿Qué es el straussianismo?                                                                                   1412

5.2.4.3. La importancia de On Tiranny                                                                              1412

5.2.4.4. Fukuyama en las garras de Strauss-Bloom                                                         1416

5.2.4.5. El “último hombre”                                                                                                 1420

5.2.4.6. Fukuyama en las redes del cenáculo straussiano                                             1431

 

5.2.5. Fukuyama atrapado en el debate entre Kojève y Strauss                                                  1432

 

5.2.5.1. El debate entre Kojève y Strauss                                                                         1433

5.2.5.1.1. Filosofía versus tiranía                                                                        1437

5.2.5.1.2. El fin de la Historia                                                                               1445

 

5.2.5.2. Encuentros y desencuentros entre Kojève y Strauss                                       1449

5.2.5.3. La explicación de las contradicciones de Fukuyama                                         1452

5.2.5.4. El “posthistoricismo” de Fukuyama                                                                    1462

 

5.2.6. El Fukuyama neoconservador                                                                                                 1464

 

5.2.6.1. El neoconservadurismo                                                                                         1465

5.2.6.1.1. Biografía del neoconservadurismo                                                   1465

5.2.6.1.2. Generaciones de neoconservadores                                                 1474

5.2.6.1.3. Una aproximación (general)

al ideario neoconservador                                                                                  1481

5.2.6.2. El straussianismo neoconservador de Fukuyama                                             1499

5.2.7. Los fines de la Historia posthistóricos                                                                                   1501

5.2.7.1. La posthistoria como escenario de encuentro

entre el fin de la Historia neoconservador y la postmodernidad                                  1502

5.2.7.2. Los fines de la historia postmodernos

en relación a la modernidad                                                                                                1506

5.2.7.3. Los fines de la Historia postmodernos                                                                1521

5.2.7.4. La modernidad de nuevo                                                                                       1529

 

5.2.8. El Fukuyama postmoderno                                                                                                       1535

5.2.8.1.Fukuyama como resultado de una extraña síntesis

posthistórica entre modernidad y postmodernidad                                                       1537

5.2.8.2. Hacia una nueva modernidad                                                                               1540

 

5.3. La sustitución de los “fines de la Historia” por los objetivos de la Historia                                       1544

 

Conclusiones                                                                                                                                                                       1553

Fuentes y bibliografía                                                                                                                                                        1540

 

Apéndice: entrevista con Francis Fukuyama

Portada

Logotipo da Universidade de Santiago de Compostela
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

Facultade de Xeografía e Historia

Departamento de Historia Medieval e Moderna

El debate Fukuyama y el futuro de la Historia

Tesis doctoral presentada por Israel Sanmartín
y dirigida por el profesor Carlos Barros

Santiago de Compostela, 26 de abril de 2006

Agradecimientos

Quiero agradecer al profesor Carlos Barros su dedicación, interés y esfuerzo para que esta tesis doctoral saliera adelante. En gran medida muchas de las ideas desarrolladas aquí son consecuencia de sus enseñanzas. Igualmente, me gustaría mostrarle mi gratitud por permitirme crecer intelectualmente, a diario, en ese gran proyecto científico que es Historia a Debate, al que debo todo. Por otro lado, quisiera tener unas palabras de recuerdo a mis antiguos compañeros del Instituto de Estudios Gallegos Padre Sarmiento (CSIC-Xunta de Galicia) con los que tantos años compartí. En el mismo sentido, pero en referencia a la Facultad de Geografía e Historia de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, quisiera manifestar mi agradecimiento por la acogida que me han dispensado todos los miembros del Área de Historia Medieval y en general toda la Facultad. Paralelamente, me gustaría dar las gracias a todos aquellos que me han facilitado mi investigación a lo largo de todos estos años. De este modo, desearía tener una mención de aprecio para Everette Larson (de la Library of Congress) así como para los bibliotecarios del Instituto Padre Sarmiento (en especial a Paco Queija). Por último, me siento en deuda con Hebe Pelosi, Isidro García, Gerardo Pereira, Eduardo Pardo, Baldomero Cores, Harvey Kaye, Gonzalo Pasamar, Santiago Jiménez, José Carlos Bermejo, Teófilo Ruiz y Claudio Canaparo, porque me han proporcionado apoyo logístico e intelectual. Por otro lado, quisiera mostrar mi reconocimiento a Francis Fukuyama, quien me recibió en su despacho de la George Mason University y que siempre me ha tratado con exquisitez.

Santiago, 26 de abril de 2006

Agradecimientos

Tesisna Rubén Kotler [1/9/06]

[email protected], quería compartir con todos ustedes la noticia que me confirmaron esta semana que al fin y gracias al Programa de Historia Oral de la Universidad de Buenos Aires ha salido la publicación de mi tesis de Licenciatura sobre la historia de las Madres de Detenidos – Desaparecidos de Tucumán. La publicación es dentro de las publicaciones del programa de Historia Oral que dirige Pablo Pozzi. A todos, los que de una u otra manera estuvieron y están conmigos les doy las gracias y en cuanto tenga conmigo un  ejemplar prometo enviarles escaneada la tapa (VA EN ANEXO). Demás está decir que es un momento de mucha felicidad para mi ya que es ver como ha nacido mi primer hijo, fruto de mi primera investigación en esto que espero sea mi carrera de toda la vida. Un saludo y un abrazo a [email protected]

 

Rubén Kotler – Universidad de Tucumán / Universidad de Salamanca

Felicitaciones

Felicidades a Rubén Kotler por la publicación de su trabajo de investigación sobre la resistencia a la dictadura argentina. Una de las características de la segunda mitad del siglo XX en materia de los movimientos sociales es la proliferación de organizaciones civiles y ONGs que desempeñan al menos dos funciones: la de conciencia crítica y la de sustitución de los vacíos de justicia y acción gubernamentales. Enhorabuena y gracias a HaD por compartir con nosotros esta trascendental información. Rigoberto Rodríguez, Universidad de Sinaloa, México


Mensaje recibido, gracias.Saludos y un abrazo

Gabriel Mario Santos
UNAM


FELICITACIONES RUBÉN!!! Como militante de los Derechos Humanos en épocas nada felices, es una alegría. Decime dónde se puede comprar tu libro.

Guillermo Daniel Ñáñez (GM-HAD 460)
Profesor en Historia
Alumno UnQui (Argentina)


Rubén:

No nos conocemos pero te felicito. Me imagino lo orgulloso que debés estar. Voy a tratar de hacerme de la publicación porque es un tema que me interesa particularmente. Felicitaciones otra vez.

Marcela Odero
Colegio San Ladislao
Olivos. Buenos Aires


Estimado Kotler

Saludo. Siempre una felicitacion es insignificante ante la laboriosidad que ya se demuestra desde la titulacion; un abrazo seria reconfortante; una critica seria pertinente; un tomarlo como referencia para las clases que se dictan… la mejor de las suertes. Esperamos asi sea. Adelante siempre! Desentramar los oscuros senderos de la historia de Latinoamerica es parte de nuestra tarea. Espero conseguir la obra pronto y compartir comentarios y aprendizajes.

Att.
Ernesto Salas-Machado
Venezuela (ULA-LUZ)-Italia


Muchas felicitaciones para Rubén Kotler desde la Universidad Simón Rodríguez en Venezuela. Publicaciones como esta sirven de referencia sobre el devenir histórico de nuestro continente en épocas pretéritas, y también de ojo avisor para nuevas formas de dictaduras “enmascaradas” que nuevamente pretenden instaurarse en latinoamérica. Éxitos, espero con gusto la publicación de la obra para leerla.

Felipe Hernández

Tesis de Fernando Chavarría Múgica[20/10/06]

Monarquía fronteriza: Guerra, linaje y comunidad en la España Moderna
(Navarra, siglo XVI)
Leída el 6 de octubre de 2006 en el Department of History and Civilisation
del IUE/EUI – Instituto Universitario Europeo/European University Institute,
Florencia (Italia).
Supervisor: Prof. Diogo R. Curto (EUI/Universidade Nova de Lisboa)
Tribunal: Prof. I. A. A. Thompson (University of Keele)
             Prof. Alfredo Floristán Imízcoz (Universidad de Alcalá de
Henares)
             Prof. Bartolomé Yun Casalilla (EUI/Universidad Pablo de
Olavide, Sevilla)
Un cordial saludo
F.Chavarria

Tesis de Carmen Michelena [6/5/07]

Estimados Carlos e Israel:
  Hace mucho que no contacto con vosotros, pero sigo siempre vuestras  actividades por la web y os felicito por el invalorable aporte que haceís a  la historiografía contemporánea. Quiero invitaros a vosotros y a todos los  colegas de Historia a Debate a la lectura de mi tesis doctoral en Historia  de América, en la Universidad de Sevilla, el jueves 10 de mayo a las 11:30  am.
  Esta investigación que lleva por título: “Reformas y rebeliones en la  crisis del imperio borbónico. Dos intentos revolucionarios ilustrados: De  San Blas (Madrid, 1795) a La Guaira (1797)”, surge a partir del Convenio  marco entre la Junta Autonómica de Andalucía y el Ministerio de la  Secretaría de la Presidencia de Venezuela, ratificado en Sevilla, 1993,  firmado por la Dra. Carmen Mena García y el Prof. Alberto Filippi, en  representación de ambas instituciones respectivamente, y financiado por la  Junta Autónoma de Andalucía. Asimismo, forma parte del proyecto central de dicho Convenio, que lleva por título: La Configuración Histórica de la  Nacionalidad Venezolana: Reformas Ilustradas; Regionalismo e Independencia Bolivariana: La Aportación Andaluza (1700 – 1830), dirigido por la Dra. Mena García.
  En mi trabajo me refiero a  la práxis libertaria durante el siglo XVIII,  tanto en Madrid como en el venezolano puerto de La Guaira.   Gracias por vuestra atención y espero veros pronto. Por cierto, hace dos  años que dejé la Fundación John Boulton de Caracas y vivo en Madrid, aquí  estoy a vuestra disposición.
  Abrazos
  Carmen Michelena
Universidad de Sevilla