KAZAKH NATIONAL LIBERATION UPRISINGS AGAINST RUSSIAN COLONIAL POLICY: CAUSES OF DEFEATS, PECULIARITIES, RELATIONSHIPS

2024

Closed access Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.62724/202440105
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

National liberation rebellion is characteristic of colonial countries. The Kazakh people also resisted the metropolis for a long time to preserve their independence. The resistance movements were persistent. The values of honour and dignity were high. Secondly, we consider political, social, economic reasons. A bright and tragic page of Kazakh history is when the Kazakh people throughout the XIX century periodically rose to major uprisings and defended their independence. Because of unequal strength all resistance was defeated. The main reason for the defeat was the military technique between colonists and colonisers. The paper analyses the reasons for the defeat of the armed struggle against the empire. The historical significance, general patterns, interrelationships of the uprisings led by Kazakh leaders in the history of the nation will be studied. The rebellions were led by heroes from dynasties that enjoyed great authority in Kazakh society. One of them was Yeset Kotibaruly from the Shekty clan. The rebellion of Eset batyr was defeated in history. However, the reader and subsequent generations have created history so that it can be studied. That is its peculiarity. The national uprisings had interconnections. The leaders had not only outwardly familiar-knowledgeable, but also communicative relations. There were strongholds to each other. There was military support. Recognising bravery and valour, they followed each other. They were united by common interests against a common enemy. This is noteworthy. Because past historiography has divided the uprisings of the Kazakh people against colonialism. We subscribe to the concept of the unity of the freedom movement.