Print

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

[Knit tie]

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

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

There was that nice quote from UR about that.

Ah, I am sorry, I keep forgetting that nationalism and racism go hand-in-hand.

[Sergarr]

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

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

There was that nice quote from UR about that.

Ah, I am sorry, I keep forgetting that nationalism and racism go hand-in-hand.

It's more of a warrior society mentality.

If you try to help them by giving them aid, they'll think that you're giving them a tribute and therefore weak.

They're not that advanced for nationalism/racism.

[Knit tie]

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

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

There was that nice quote from UR about that.

Ah, I am sorry, I keep forgetting that nationalism and racism go hand-in-hand.

It's more of a warrior society mentality.

If you try to help them by giving them aid, they'll think that you're giving them a tribute and therefore weak.

They're not that advanced for nationalism/racism.

I was referring to you.

[Helgoland]

*puts hands together* The Russians are occupied with infighting - excellent! Soon we shall strike, swiftly and decisively!

[cerapa]

This whole exchange sounds like it's from a movie or a tv show establishing some characters racism.

It's just hilarious.

[Sergarr]

That doesn't have anything to do with a nation or a race. That's purely a cultural issue. It's not something which belongs to a single nation/race.

It's like cannibalism. People that practice it may be of different nationalities and races. Doesn't make it being less wrong, though.

[Knit tie]

Yes it does.

Or even if we say that believing that the peoples of Caucasus are a bunch of, essentially, orks is not strictly racism or extreme nationalism due to some minor technicality, it's still hate speech and incitement of ethnic strife.

[Owlbread]

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.

That claim is too strong not to provide any evidence for. It's incredibly controversial whether Dudayev had the majority support of the Chechen people when he and the National Congress declared independence (all sorts of things went on back then - pushing people out of windows and all that) - but he did win a Presidential election with independence as his mandate and his mandate is surely worth as much as any referendum elsewhere in Russia, including in those republics you mention as having voted to remain within Russia. Considering how the Chechens fought against the Russian aggressors over the next few years and the remarkable zeal of their nationalism I can't imagine them having less than a majority in favour. No 45%/55% situation there....

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.

Can you provide evidence of these referenda? I am very interested to see, I have never seen information on any kind of referendum in Dagestan on independence. I have heard that Ingushetia did not agree to join Chechnya in becoming independent but that seems to have been the opinion of Ruslan Aushev and his wariness of the Chechen situation and the guys like Dudayev that were running the show. If Chechnya became independent peacefully I'm certain he'd have pursued that - he seems pretty nationalist from when I've heard him speak.

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.

A better example in that case (again, I'm not entirely convinced that Russians really were that respectful and laissez-faire) would be the British treatment of people in India. I think the British Raj is the best point of comparison. However - the whole "savage natives" thing is pretty indisputable considering Russia's treatment of North Caucasians e.g. the extermination of the Circassians and the "pacification" of the Chechens, the savage behaviour of whom towards Russians we are constantly reminded of by Guardian G.I. Maybe the state was laissez-faire towards them in the initial stages but it's not like Russian colonialism ended in the 19th century - Stalin's deportations were examples of colonialism too.

I should point out finally that being Muslim does not prevent you from being Russified. It is perfectly possible to be militantly pro-Russian and even Russian nationalist and be Muslim - Ramzan Kadyrov is living proof.

[Sergarr]

Yes it does.

Or even if we say that believing that the peoples of Caucasus are a bunch of, essentially, orks is not strictly racism or extreme nationalism due to some minor technicality, it's still hate speech and incitement of ethnic strife.

One doesn't solve cultural problems by killing all uncultural people, just as one doesn't spread Islamic faith by killing all unbelievers. No, you do it the other way.

Cossacks were at some point glorified bandits, disorganized and unruly. They got better, and not because they were exterminated. No, they got better through service of the Russian Empire as the elite soldiers - the ones who protect not only themselves, but the Empire as a whole.

Just as Scots were, at some point, a collection of mountain tribes. And they, too, got better through serving the British Empire as their elite soldiers.

The way for Caucasus people to the higher understanding of the world around them lies through serving as the elite soldiers. Which they already do, in fact. Maybe in a couple decades we'll see the rise of unified Caucasian nation...

[Knit tie]

A better example in that case (again, I'm not entirely convinced that Russians really were that respectful and laissez-faire) would be the British treatment of people in India. I think the British Raj is the best point of comparison.

It really would be, I agree. British Raj, I believe, is another example of "good" colonialism.

That claim is too strong not to provide any evidence for. It's incredibly controversial whether Dudayev had the majority support of the Chechen people when he and the National Congress declared independence (all sorts of things went on back then - pushing people out of windows and all that) - but he did win a Presidential election with independence as his mandate and his mandate is surely worth as much as any referendum elsewhere in Russia, including in those republics you mention as having voted to remain within Russia. Considering how the Chechens fought against the Russian aggressors over the next few years and the remarkable zeal of their nationalism I can't imagine them having less than a majority in favour. No 45%/55% situation there....

The turnout for that election was ridiculously low, something like 20%, and it's not hard to imagine that the people who did show up were the ones who wanted to see Dudaev win or that the people who didn't want Dudaev to win were intimidated into not voting. As for the fanaticism of the Chechen fighters, we have to remember that the first Chechen war saw horribly mismanaged Russian forces use the same civilian shelling tactics that we are currently seeing used in Donbass, so of course the Chechens did not like their families being shelled and fought with fanaticism.

Can you provide evidence of these referenda?

This referendum was basically "dissolve USSR, Y/N?" Dagestan voted for keeping the USSR, which meant no independence for them, at least if the results of the referendum were respected.

PSEUDOEDIT: The situation with Circassians, I am afraid, has been used as another anti-Russian propaganda stick and is much more complex in reality that just "ethnic extermination," but the pacification of the Chechens really was colonial in the worst sense, I can only agree here. As for Stalin's deportation, I think we need to take into account the historical context - many Chechens actively collaborated with the Axis forces and thus were seen by the other peoples of the USSR as accomplices in the genocide and mass enslavement that said Axis forces perpetuated on the Soviet territories back then. The deportation was viewed by many as a just punishment when it was carried out. Of course, I do not imply that it is therefore excusable, but I would also argue that it was not exactly an example of colonialism, but rather of simple disproportionate retribution.

[Owlbread]

The turnout for that election was ridiculously low, something like 20%, and it's not hard to imagine that the people who did show up were the ones who wanted to see Dudaev win or that the people who didn't want Dudaev to win were intimidated into not voting.

What kind of turnouts were in the other referendums? It's easy to criticise the Chechen elections but every Russian I have spoken to has portrayed the '90s as a hellish time full of gangsters when elections were routinely falsified through intimidation and vote stuffing and all that. I'm inclined to agree - where we disagree is whether the gangster-rule has continued.

This referendum was basically "dissolve USSR, Y/N?" Dagestan voted for keeping the USSR, which meant no independence for them, at least if the results of the referendum were respected.

Ah! I see! That's actually a bit different (i.e. debating the preservation of the USSR, not explicitly independence) - and the question is insanely biased:

"Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, which will fully guarantee the rights and freedoms of any nationality?"

In the Scottish independence referendum we had to choose a completely neutral question without leading words like that - "Should Scotland be an independent country?" The SNP tried to push for "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?" but it was decried by the British government and the press as too biased.

I'm also trying to read the translation of the wikipedia article through google translate and it seems like even Ukraine voted to remain within the USSR. Am I correct?

The deportation was viewed by many as a just punishment when it was carried out. Of course, I do not imply that it is therefore excusable, but I would also argue that it was not exactly an example of colonialism, but rather of simple disproportionate retribution.

Perhaps a better way of looking at it would be to say that it was an example of colonialism, justified to the Soviet people through the excuse of retribution?

[Sergarr]

that's one hell of a butchered quote combo

[Knit tie]

We are having a serious discussion^tm here, quote butchery will be intense!

Anyway.

The USSR referendum. I would say that the biased wording of the question affected the results, but it didn't prevent the populace of the Baltic states and all other peoples who (or, more likely, whose governments) didn't want to be a part of the USSR from refusing to conduct the referendum outright and instead simply declaring that they want independence. Thus, I think it's unlikely that Dagestan's overwhelmingly pro-Soviet vote was affected by the loaded question, as otherwise it would've done what Georgia, for example, has done and "not supported the referendum", especially if we consider that Dagestan was already pro-Russian during the Caucasus war. Also, Ukraine really did vote for the preservation of USSR, but it is not surprising in the slightest if we remember that Ukrainians and Russians considered themselves to be brotherly nations until very recently and freely intermingled and intermarried, leading to extremely blurred language and ethnic distinctions. Back then, Ukrainians had no anti-Russian sentiments and no desire to be independent, the independence was pretty much forced on them in what we call "the great politics mess-up". In fact, anti-Soviet sentiments were extremely rare back then, the current thrend of pouring mud over everything Soviet and glorifying the Russian Empire instead was born in the 90s from the state-funded propaganda campaigns that Yeltsin tried to use to justify his predecessor's dissolution of the Union and the resulting spiked anal dildo fuckfest in its former components.

Kadyrov. There are two different theories going around about him: one says that Ramzan is a pro-Russian philantropist who wants peace and prosperity for his lands, another is that he is an ordinary local warlord who was willing to collaborate with Putin in exchange for tons of money and a chance of running his own personal fiefdom. Neither of the theories explains everything: if Kadyrov is a common thug, how did he achieve the current peace and prosperity in Chechnya, and if he is such a noble and benevolent leader, why are there so many news of his golden pistols and car collections, of shady dealings and questionable circumstances going on in his domain? I am of opinion that Kadyrov may as well be both at the same time: a ruthless but generally benevolent warlord who spends the majority of Russian support money on schools and hospitals and the rest on extravagant parties in his palace, where he makes sure that all the opposition to his rule enjoys an extra helping of supersonic lead to the brain.

Dudaev election. The thing about it is that the aforementioned Soviet dissolution referendum and this election are not related in the slightest. Elections were indeed routinely falsified throughout the nineties, as evidenced by Yeltsin's party retaining its position despite its support being in single digits, but I do not see how the de facto illegitimacy of Yeltsin's government cancels out the de facto illegitimacy of Dudaev's government. I am not arguing about moral superiority here, just about the facts.

Chechen deportation: I believe we are going into semantics here and trying to argue about the definition of colonialism instead of what happened to the poor Chechens.

[LordSlowpoke]

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.

hello

you are ignoring a hundred years of central asian history (independence, existence under the ussr, and during the civil war; i'll modestly ignore the period before everyone and their mother declared various forms of autonomy) in favor of lumping it into "oh it's because the leaders are post-soviets"

that is very silly

goodbye

[Owlbread]

hello

you are ignoring a hundred years of central asian history (independence, existence under the ussr, and during the civil war; i'll modestly ignore the period before everyone and their mother declared various forms of autonomy) in favor of lumping it into "oh it's because the leaders are post-soviets"

that is very silly

goodbye

I had assumed by "the reason" people understood I meant "a very significant contributing factor".