Print

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

[Knit tie]

I think I should mention here that Shevchenko was a prominent left-winger who was lated praised by the USSR for his anti-Imperial and anti-Tsarist views, so I would take his writings about the Russian Empire with a grain of salt, even though political bias does not detract from their literary worth.

Edited for better accuracy and less flame.

[Helgoland]

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?

I skimmed for a bit, but I may be able to provide an interesting example: Alsace-Lorraine. Originally German, it was conquered by the French - but the inhabitants kinda liked their new freedoms, so not a colony (especially since it was fully part of France). Then Germany conquered the territory again: Not a colony, because the inhabitants were ethnically German and it was - again - made a full part of Germany. Etc etc.

For conquest to be colonialism it happening against the will of the populace is vital, I believe, but ethnicity plays a role as well, at least when talking about conquering states that may be defined by ethnicity.

German- and Russian-occupied Poland pre-1914 would count as a colony, I believe, but I'm fuzzy on the details.

[Knit tie]

-snip-

Helgo, I believe that Sheb and Comhachagaran here are arguing that being "a full part of the conqueror country" does not prevent a conquered territory from being a colony.

But I, personally, agree with you, the will of the populace is vital in determining what is colonialism and what isn't.

[Helgoland]

It is a necessary but not sufficient condition for not being a colony.

[Knit tie]

It is a necessary but not sufficient condition for not being a colony.

What are the other conditions?

[Helgoland]

Hell, I certainly don't know!
And the mathematician in me nags that your question has no proper answer...

For clarification, I was referring to the 'full part' bit, not the 'will of the populace' bit. The latter is a sufficient condition, I agree with you there.

[Owlbread]

I think this is one of those situations where we get caught up in definitions of words, which is very subjective. We can pick whatever definition of colony we think works best to suit our arguments but that's not constructive.

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

I think when it's clear they're the same country, just not the same state. An example of that would be something like the unification of pre-19th century Germany if we believe that Saxons and Prussians are one and the same nation, though force wasn't involved so "conquest" is contentious there.

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

This is a very important question, one I think more and more people are asking themselves these days. I think I'm a bit unreconstructed in my belief that it is still wrong but I have strange ideas about nations.

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.

The issue there is that you can reduce the crimes of certain countries to the actions of a certain number of people. Responsibility ultimately lies with the establishment that govern the state - when I say "Russia did XYZ" I mean certain people did XYZ at the request or under the observation of the government.

Helgo, I believe that Sheb and Comhachagaran here are arguing that being "a full part of the conqueror country" does not prevent a conquered territory from being a colony.

"Aran Chailleach Oidhche" may work a bit better. But defining what a "full part" is is very subjective indeed. I am sure I could point you to people who would say that the Raj was a full part of Britain.

[Knit tie]

The entire reason why I am talking about this is because I am bored very intrigued about how all the different ethnicities that comprise Russia nowadays were able to keep together during the fall of the USSR, where all the external barriers to secession fell thanks to that alcoholic Yeltsin and only the desire to be together with Russians and each other held peoples such as Bashkirs and Tatars from declaring independence (and they sure as hell don't regret that decision now, after all the idependent Central Asian 'Stans have turned into horribly corrupt third-world trainwrecks).

@Aranchailleachoidhche: To quote myself:

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.

[Owlbread]

The entire reason why I am talking about this is because I am bored am very intrigued about how all the different ethnicities that comprise Russia nowadays were able to keep together during the fall of the USSR, where all the external barriers to secession fell thanks to that alcoholic Yeltsin and only the desire to be together with Russians and each other held peoples such as Bashkirs and Tatars from declaring independence (and they sure as hell don't regret that decision now, after all the idependent Central Asian 'Stans have turned into horribly corrupt third-world trainwrecks).

Note - the reason why all those Central Asian Republics are third world trainwrecks is that they are governed by the same people that governed them when they were a part of the USSR. They're still governed by pro-Russians/former Soviets (e.g. Karimov) that never really wanted independence and were quite happy with Russia, but public pressure was too great. Until these states remove their leaderships lock stock and barrel and replace them with younger people with no connection to the old elites they will never succeed.

If a single ASSR successfully became independent then we could be certain that there really was no barrier to declaring independence. The only one that actively tried to become independent was the Chechen-Ingush ASSR and look how that went. I think the threat of invasion and occupation would be very real - plus it's not like the population really had a say in the matter if their governors were pro-Russian. Most ASSRs in their current incarnation are incredibly Russified though, apart from the Caucasian ones. If we consider how Russified Kazakhstan is, look at something like Karelia or maybe Mordovia. When colonialism is successful it leads to situations like this where there's really very little difference now between many ethnic minorities in Russia and ethnic Russians.

Independence was a privilege enjoyed by the SSRs, not the ASSRs.

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.

This is an interesting point - is it possible to argue that Azerbaijan's resources (oil) were exploited by the Russian Empire? We talk about welfare and civic projects, but the British did lots of things like that in places like Malawi and so on. Part of the whole "civilising" process good Victorian Christian missionaries subjected Africans to involved making them literate in English and all that. Are we going to suggest that Malawi was a "full part of Britain" and not a colony?

[Knit tie]

-snip-

Chechnya is a special case, as it tried to secede after the formation of the Russian Federation, when Yeltsin (whom I mistakenly accused of letting the USSR come apart in the post you are quoting, it was actually Gorbachev) has been downright hysterical about further attempts at secession, and furthermore, Chechen secession was driven not by the collective will of its people but rather by the power hunger of its ruling clique.

But to dispute your russification argument, consder Dagestan: its non-Russian Muslim inhabitants voted overwhelmingly in support of remaining in the USSR during the 90s, and when it fell regardless, decided to remain a part of its successor despite still being viewed by many Russians as a completely foreign country.

EDIT:

This is an interesting point - is it possible to argue that Azerbaijan's resources (oil) were exploited by the Russian Empire? We talk about welfare and civic projects, but the British did lots of things like that in places like Malawi and so on. Part of the whole "civilising" process good Victorian Christian missionaries subjected Africans to involved making them literate in English and all that. Are we going to suggest that Malawi was a "full part of Britain" and not a colony?

Malawi was specifically seen as a colony full of savage natives in need of civilising and conversion to Christianity by the British government, while the Russian Empire's opinion of Caucasus was much more respectful and Laissez-faire, especially with regards to faith, so I would say that there are many differenced between the British treatment of Africans and Russian treatment of Caucasians.

Back to modern Russia: Navalny is horribly racist. No, seriously.
An appeal-to-emotion-dripping piece by an italian journalist about the human rights catastrophe in Donbass.
Russia Today bashes bashing Russia.
Turns out private armies of oligarchs in Ukraine are actually private armies of oligarchs! (also some obligatory "evil Russia" talk).

[Sergarr]

It was so respectful there was a 47 year long war just to show the total amount of respect given to the people living there

[Knit tie]

It was so respectful there was a 47 year long war just to show the total amount of respect given to the people living there

-_-
You didn't get my point, did you? I am not saying the Russian Empire didn't conquer Caucasus, I am saying it treated the conquered territories relatively well compared to how many other colonial powers treated their Arabic and African colonies, or at least well enough for most Caucasian peoples to support the White movement during the Russian Civil War.

[Sergarr]

Or maybe they joined the White movement because they saw the chance to kill Russian settler peasants (which were IIRC mostly Red) en masse without repercussions.

Tribal societies consider somebody who treats them well as weaker than them, FYI.

[Knit tie]

Or maybe they joined the White movement because they saw the chance to kill Russian settler peasants (which were IIRC mostly Red) en masse without repercussions.

Tribal societies consider somebody who treats them well as weaker than them, FYI.

Caucasian peoples are not a bunch of savages, Sergarr. They are perfectly capable of being humane and grateful.

[Sergarr]

They're humane to those who they consider to be equal to them.

The list of people who are they consider to be equal to them doesn't include common Russians.

There was that nice quote from UR about that.