Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Knit tie]

This is the longer version of the "Passions according to St. Matthew," with the composer himself performing.

[Knit tie]

Doublepost for The Great Justice!

So, ladies and gentlemen, I've been reading into the history of Russia - Caucasus and Russia - Central Asia realtions recently. And I'd like to talk about them a bit.

But first, a question: Russian policy in Caucasus was colonialism Y/N?

[Sheb]

Y.

It's textbook colonialism: come in, move the "savages" out, install settlers (the Cossack among other). In other part, it was a softer kind of colonialism, more like what the British had in India, where you simply have local chief swear allegiance to your Emperor, but colonialism nonetheless.

At least if you talk about 19th century Russia.

[Knit tie]

My answer is that it depends heavily upon the place and the person. The Russian Empire was certainly expanding into the Caucasus and into the Central Asia, but that expansion cannot be labeled colonialistic in many instances due to the entirely different treatment the Empire's officials gave the newly subservient peoples. Consider two examples: Imam Shamil and the Siege of Tashkent. The former was a Caucasian resistance leader who drank a lot of Imperials' blood with his guerilla tactics, and whose treatment after his capture was an honorable exile in a luxurious mansion with a later permission to travel to Mecca for a pilgrimage. The latter was, with all due respect to the defenders of Tashkent, a beatdown where the soldiers of Chernyaev annihilated the opposition with a complete disregard for said opposition's numerical superiority; what happened to to the locals of Tashkent after that was abolition of both slavery (forever) and taxes (for one year).

In general, the conquered Caucasus and Central Asia were treated not as a colonies, but as full parts of the Empire, and this treatment was continued by the USSR, which allocated a lot of resources to development of the "Caucasian republics," resulting in a spiking literacy, life expectancy and HDI in general. Of course, this does not mean that the Emperors and the Gensecs have always treated the peoples of the Caucasus and the 'Stans well, as evidenced by, for example, Stalin's absolutely infamous deportation of the Chechens and Simanovich's punitive expedition, among other things, but I would still say that the Russians were much kinder and merciful rulers in the Middle East than the Americans were in the Philippines and the French were in Algeria.

[Owlbread]

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a colony as follows:

"A country or area under the full or partial political control of another country and occupied by settlers from that country". In turn "colonialism" can be defined as the acquisition or expansion of colonies.

No matter how benevolent the Russians were as Overlords over countries and nations they conquered for economic gain and national security, they were still overlords over other countries. The fact that they conquered established full and partial political control over the entirety of North Asia for instance along with all the countries in the Caucasus and in Central Asia means that Russian policy in its regions of "expansion" was straightforward textbook colonialism.

You can argue the benefits of colonialism - how savages were civilised and taught how to read the language of the conquerer and so on, introduced to the conquerer's laws and so on. People in Britain do it all the time. There is really no difference between Britain's treatment of its subjects and Russia's treatment of its subjects. When the Brits absorbed a country they made them full parts of the Empire - that's still a colony. A British citizen in the Raj was a British citizen. Obviously that's not strictly true when you look at exactly what that meant in a wider context of prejudice and human rights and all that, but it was the same in the Russian Empire. There's very little difference between what the Russians did in the North Caucasus to the Circassians and what the English (and later British) did in Wales and Ireland. Northern Ireland and Krasnodar Krai are very similar in lots of respects - both are highly successful colonies that still exist today. But ramblings aside, my point is you can argue "yeah, Russia was a good colonial power that helped people out". You can try to argue that - I'll argue against you but by all means go for it. What you can't do however is say "Russia was not a colonial power" - that is not in dispute.

"Colonialism" in the strict definition carries a lot of baggage with it that we refer to collectively as "colonialism" in common speech, so things like the othering of a group of people as savages (this continues today in Russia), arguing they're not really human and so on. That's part of the propaganda campaign essential to justifying the moral abomination and evil that is imperialism and colonialism, whether it's Russian, English, British, French, Spanish or American. The abuse of colonised people in some way is pretty much inevitable by the very nature of the beast.

As an aside - I think when you start trying to argue whether one country was a kinder or more merciful colonial power than the other it's a bit like saying one serial killer/rapist wasn't as bad as the other. They're both serial killers and rapists. It's a pointless exercise. 

[Sheb]

Well, colonialism means a lot of different things. The US, South Africa, India, the Falklands Islands, Cyprus and Egypt were all part of the English colonial Empire at one point or another. This gives an idea of the breadth of relations that can be colonial: from replacing the natives with settlers to imposing a protectorate, leaving the place to largely self-govern as long as they follow the foreign policy lead from the capital.

Likewise, Russian colonialism took many forms. Sometimes, it meant killing most of the locals, driving the survivors into the mountains and settling the place with Cossacks. Sometime it was softer forms of colonialism, up to simply bribing the local chief into swearing fealty. But it was always colonialism.

In that way, Russian colonialism was exactly like every single other.

You say that Russian colonialism was different in that the newly-conquered territory were seen as part of the Empire. But the same was true of other Empires. It's especially funny that you cite Algeria as an example. Algeria was a couple of French department. So much so that we still have a clause in the NATO treaty extending the Alliance's reach to "the French departments of Algeria". The fact that Algeria was seen as a part of France is the entire reasons they fought so hard to keep it, unlike much of French Africa for example.

Actually, I think the Algerian War is pretty similar to the first Chechnya War in many ways.

tl;dr

The Russian expansion in the Caucasus was definitely colonialism, and only by forgetting all the bad bits can you pretend it was better than what other nations did.

Edit: Fuck you Owlbread, I haven't read your post yet, but I'm sure you totally ninja'ed me.

[Owlbread]

Edit: Fuck you Owlbread, I haven't read your post yet, but I'm sure you totally ninja'ed me.

I think I did (I'm not sure where I was going with 90% of what I just wrote, I'm very tired) but you put it more succinctly so Knit tie should refer to your post instead.

The Russian expansion in the Caucasus was definitely colonialism, and only by forgetting all the bad bits can you pretend it was better than what other nations did.

When you accept as a basic principle that colonialism is morally wrong, I think it's an exercise in futility to try to justify whether one form of colonialism was worse than the other unless you're going to advocate its continuation in some way or debate the meting out of appropriate punishment/justice to the colonist. Considering nobody here is going to advocate Russia annex Georgia again (even at our worst we're more sensible than that) and you can't charge an entire nation for crimes like that*, I would advise Knit tie that I don't think we should really discuss the issue at length as the discussion probably won't be constructive. You can if you want, by all means, I'm just remembering the old threads getting closed.

*If we did, who would preside over the proceedings? Can you imagine how many countries we'd need to put in the dock?

[Sheb]

Hey our posts are about the same length, and make about the same point.

[Knit tie]

Owlbread, you are a very devoted Communist, aren't you?

We appear to be operating under different definitions of "colonialism." Mine revolves around colonialism being a negligently exploitative relationship between two countries, one of which is under the control of the other, while yours is almost indistinguishable from the definition of "conquest," which, I have to confess, I find very confusing, as according to it the absolute majority of territories in the world are colonies.

But if we do indeed accept your definition of a colony, hypothetically, then I have no choice but to agree with you: Caucasus is a Moscow colony. Along with every other land in Russia outside of Moscow. Which raises another question: if a colony is perfectly happy with its status as a colony and wants to continue being a colony when it is given a chance to stop being a colony, is it still a colony?

EDIT: I think I should clarify here that I do not view "colonialism" (your definition) as inherently morally wrong, I believe it all depends on the opinion, the treatment and the standard of living of the inhabitants of the colony - if country B is conquered by country A, which proves to be altogether a more benevolent ruler than country B's deposed ruler or ruling class used to be, then I believe it is possible to argue that the conquest was ultimately a good thing, after consideration of all other factors, of course.

I also think I should clarify that by "a part of the Empire" in my original post I meant the de-facto attitude towards the newly conquered territory, that it is not exploited for resources or labour and instead recieves due attention and funding when it comes to civic projects and the welfare of its populace.

And, of course, I should clarify that I do not consider the episodes of brutality, exploitation and genuine colonialism that the Russian Empire did show during its Caucasian and Middle Eastern expansions, such as the aforementioned episode with Cossacks (I assume you mean the Semirechye Cossacks there), to be anything but morally wrong in any way, shape or form.

But the question still stands: if a colony is perfectly happy with its status as a colony and wants to continue being a colony when it is given a chance to stop being a colony, is it still a colony?

[Owlbread]

Which raises another question: if a colony is perfectly happy with its status as a colony and wants to continue being a colony when it is given a chance to stop being a colony, is it still a colony?

Yes, yes it is. I believe that has been expressly defined on at least one occasion but I can't remember where. I think Puerto Rico is an example of that.

[Sheb]

No all the product of conquest are colonial. For example, Belgian was conquered in WW2, but is wasn't directed by settlers, so it cannot be called a German colony.

[Descan]

All colonies were conquered, though.

[Owlbread]

No all the product of conquest are colonial. For example, Belgian was conquered in WW2, but is wasn't directed by settlers, so it cannot be called a German colony.

If, however, Belgium was conquered with the aim of establishing a kind of satellite state then it would resemble colonialism; even more so if settlers were involved. Until then it's imperialism I think.

[Knit tie]

No all the product of conquest are colonial. For example, Belgian was conquered in WW2, but is wasn't directed by settlers, so it cannot be called a German colony.

If, however, Belgium was conquered with the aim of establishing a kind of satellite state then it would resemble colonialism; even more so if settlers were involved. Until then it's imperialism I think.

So when, by your definition, doesn't a conquest result in a colony?

Which raises another question: if a colony is perfectly happy with its status as a colony and wants to continue being a colony when it is given a chance to stop being a colony, is it still a colony?

Yes, yes it is. I believe that has been expressly defined on at least one occasion but I can't remember where. I think Puerto Rico is an example of that.

Is it still morally wrong for that territory to be a colony, then?


EDIT: Also please read my edited post on the previous page.

EDITEDIT: In response to Owlbread's edits:

What you can't do however is say "Russia was not a colonial power" - that is not in dispute.

Of course not, Russian Empire was still an Empire, and all Empires are colonial powers by definition.

As an aside - I think when you start trying to argue whether one country was a kinder or more merciful colonial power than the other it's a bit like saying one serial killer/rapist wasn't as bad as the other. They're both serial killers and rapists. It's a pointless exercise.

I think you are being overly categorical here, countries are not monolithic, single entities, they are conglomerations of masses of people, and judging them as you would judge said monolithic, single entities would be misguided, in my opinion. A group of one thousand people that has one murderer in it can be rather successfully, I believe, argued to be an overall better, more benevolent entity than a group of one hundred people that has fifty murderers in it, just like a group of people in which one man is murdered each year can be argued to be an overall safer and more lawful entity than a group of people of the same size in which one hundred men are murdered each year.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Speaking about Caucasus... I can tell many things about what I think about conquest of Caucasus and Russian colonialism but Shevchenko, Ukrainian poet, told everything in his poem many years ago

Spoiler: Nice translation of the poem. Wall of text, yes. Yet I suggest to read it if you are interested in Ukrainian literature (click to show/hide)

"THE CAUCASUS"
To My True Friend, Yakov De Balmen
"O that my head were waters,
And mine eyes a fountain of tears,
That I might weep day and night
For the slain. . . ."
Jeremiah, Chapter 9, Verse 1
Mighty mountains, row on row, blanketed with cloud,
Planted thick with human woe, laved with human blood.
Chained to a rock, age after age
Prometheus there bears
Eternal punishment—each day
His breast the eagle tears.
It rends the heart but cannot drain
The life-blood from his veins—
Each day the heart revives again
And once again is gay.
Our spirit never can be downed,
Our striving to be free.
The sateless one will never plow
The bottom of the sea.
The vital spirit he can't chain,
Or jail the living truth.
He cannot dim the sacred flame,
The great god's fame on earth.
'Tis not for us to duel with Thee!
Not ours the right to judge Thy deeds!
Ours but to weep and weep, and weeping,
To knead the daily bread we eat
With tears and sweat and blood unending.
We groan beneath the yoke of hangmen,
While drunken justice sodden sleeps.
Oh, when will justice rise at last?
And God, when wilt Thou give
Thyself from all Thy toil a rest?—
And let the people live!
Yet we believe in Thy great might
And in the living soul.
There shall be liberty and right!
And then to Thee alone
All tongues will pray, all heads will bow
For ever and ever.
But in the meantime, rivers flow,
The blood of men in rivers!
Mighty mountains, row on row, blanketed with cloud,
Planted thick with human woe, laved with human blood.
'Twas there that We, the Gracious, found
Poor freedom hiding 'mid the crags
(A hungry thing, and all in rags),
And sick'd our dogs to drag her down.
A host of soldiers on those hills
Gave up their lives. And as for blood!?
All emperors could drink their fill,
In widows' tears alone they could
Be drowned together with their seed!
The sweetheart's tears, in secret shed!
Unsolaceable mothers' tears!
The heavy tears of fathers hoary!
Not streams, but veritable seas
Of blazing tears! So—Glory! Glory!
To hounds, and keepers of the hounds,
And to our rulers golden-crowned
Glory!
And glory, mountains blue, to you,
In ageless ice encased!
And glory, freedom's knights, to you,
Whom God will not forsake.
Keep fighting—you are sure to win!
God helps you in your fight!
For fame and freedom march with you,
And right is on your side!
A hut, a crust—but all your own,
Not granted by a master's grace,
No lord to claim them for his own,
No lord to drive you off in chains.
With us, it's different! We can read,
The Gospel of the Lord we know!. . .
And from the dankest dungeon deep
Up to the most exalted throne—
We're all in gold and nakedness.
Come, learn from us! We'll teach you what
The price of bread is, and of salt!
We're Christian folk: with shrines we're blest,
We've schools, and wealth, and we have God!
Just one thing does not give us rest:
How is it that your hut you've got
Without our leave; how is it we
To you, as to a dog a bone,
Your crust don't toss! How can it be
That you don't pay us for the sun!
And that is all! We're Christian folk,
We are not heathens—here below
We want but little!. . . You would gain!
If only you'd make friends with us,
There's much that you would learn from us!
Just look at all our vast domains—
Boundless Siberia alone!
And prisons—myriads! Peoples—throngs!
From the Moldavian to the Finn
All silent are in all their tongues
Because such great contentment reigns!
With us, a priest the Bible reads
And then to teach the flock proceeds
About a king of ancient times,
Who took to bed his best friend's bride,
And slew the friend he wronged besides....
Now he's in heaven! See the kind
We send to heaven! You're denied,
As yet, our holy Christian light!
Come, learn from us! With us, it's loot,
But pay the shot,
And straight to God,
And take your family to boot!
Just look at us! What don't we know?
We count the stars, and flax we grow,
And curse the French. We trade or sell,
And sometimes lose in cards as well,
Live souls ... not Negroes ... our own stock,
And Christians, too ... but common folk.
We don't steal slaves! No, God forbid!
We do not trade in stolen goods.
We act according to the rules!...
You love your brother as is writ
Within the Golden Rule?!
O damned by God, O hypocrites,
O sacrilegious ghouls!
Not for your brother's soul you care,
But for your brother's hide!
And off your brother's back you tear:
Rich furs for daughter's pride.
A dowry for your bastard child,
And slippers for your spouse.
And for yourself, things that your wife
Won't even know about!
For whom, O Jesus, Son of God,
Then wert Thou crucified?
For us good folks, or for the word
Of truth... . Or to provide
A spectacle at which to laugh? :
That's what has come to pass.
Temples and chapels, icons and shrines,
And candlesticks, and myrrh incense,
And genuflexion, countless times
Before Thy image, giving thanks
For war and loot and rape and blood,—
To bless the fratricide they beg Thee,
Then gifts of stolen goods they bring Thee,
From gutted homes part of the loot!...
We're civilised! And we set forth
To enlighten others,
To make them see the sun of truth ....
Our blind, simple brothers!!
We'll show you everything! If but
Yourselves to us you'll yield.
The grimmest prisons how to build,
How shackles forge of steel,
And how to wear them!. . . How to pleat
The crudest knouts!— Oh yes, we'll teach
You everything! If but to us
Your mountains blue you'll cede,
The last ... because your seas and fields
We have already seized.
And you, my good Yakov, you also were driven
To die in those mountains! Your life you have given
For your country's hangmen, and not for Ukraine ,
Your life clean and blameless. 'Twas your fate to drain
The Muscovite goblet, the full, fatal draught!
Oh friend good and noble, who'll be never forgot!
Now wander, free spirit, all over Ukraine
And with the brave Cossacks soar over her coast,
Keep watch o'er the grave mounds on her spreading plains,
And weep with the Cossacks o'er all of her woes,
And wait till from prison I come home again,
And in the meantime — I shall sow
My thoughts, my bitter tears,
My words of wrath. Oh, let them grow
And whisper with the breeze.
The gentle breezes from Ukraine
Will lift them up with dew
And carry them to you, my friend!...
And when they come to you,
You'll welcome them with tender tears
And read each heartfelt line....
The mounds, the steppes, the sea and me
They'll bring back to your mind.
Pereyaslav,
November 18, 1845