A helpful correction for Jonah Goldberg about Soviet racism
The other day at the Corner Jonah Goldberg wrote:
The Soviet Union was deeply racist. If memory serves, white Russian women received “Hero of the Motherland” awards — and subsidies — or some such if they bore enough children. They didn’t give such prizes to the more Asiatic races in the supposedly race-blind Soviet Union.
Except that they did. They definitely did. Without any shadow of a doubt they did (pg 9). That took me 3 minutes worth of Googling, so it’s not exactly like I had to plumb the depths of the Kremlin archives, or that I fancy myself particularly intelligent, though I was surely assisted in my efforts due to the fact that I distinctly remembered having once seen a big picture of a Turkmen “hero mother,” one who was certainly “Asiatic,” in one of my undergraduate history textbooks.
There’s a reason that the party leaderships of the various Central Asian states didn’t initially support the breakup of the USSR, and it wasn’t because the Politburo and Central Commitee could be easily confused for the KKK. Now of course Soviet society, or to be particular the Slavic parts of it (the Central Asians weren’t very racist against themselves!), was, in many ways, deeply, disgustingly, and primitively racist, and Russian society, like most East European societies, remains very racist to this day. I suspect that this is almost entirely explained not by communist ideology but by the Soviet Union’s largely closed borders and the almost total lack of external immigration, but that’s a debate for another day.
The point is that pretending that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was a straightforwardly and cartoonishly racist outfit, one that felt perfectly comfortable explicitly discriminating in favor of “whites” is, quite simply, a lie.* What’s more its a lie that is easily disproven and one that would be instantly recognized by someone who knows anything about Soviet history.
I’m not going to get too long-winded here, few people really care, but anyone familiar with the breakup of the Soviet Union will know that korenizatsia, a word which derives from the Russian word for “root” and which denotes a process by which members of a republic’s titular nationality (i.e. Kazakhs in Kazakhstan) were systematically groomed for advancement and leadership in the party organs, was absolutely vital, and maybe even the most important single factor. In fact one of the major (and accurate!) complaints of anti-Soviet Russian nationalists was that the Soviet government constantly discriminated against ethnic Russians living in the other Union Republics, who were usually much better educated and qualified than local population, obsessed as it was with promoting Kazakhs, Kirgiz, Turkmen, and others. This is why a non-trivial percentage (I remember professor Martin saying it was something like 50%, but I fully admit this may be way off) of ethnic Russians born in Union Republics chose, as was their right, to have the titular nationality placed on their passport: as a general rule it was far easier to get a spot in a good university, or a plum job in the state administration, as an Uzbek than it was as an ethnic Russian living in Uzbekistan.
In fact what my dear friend Jonah should be attacking is the Soviet Union’s embrace of affirmative action on behalf of Central Asian minorities. Yes, you read that right folks, the Soviets backed affirmative action! In fact, they were the first to do so, all the way back in the 1920s! This issue certainly isn’t my wheelhouse (though I know that Terry Martin, whose brilliance was surely wasted on your humble author, has done some good work on it if anyone cares enough to want to read more) but the Soviet state’s explicit embrace of positive discrimination surely presents a far jucier target for a movement conservative than it’s (non-existant) crusade on behalf of white fertility.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
The sad thing is that the Soviet Union dissipated only 20 years ago, but a whole bunch of lies has been thrown at it already. One of the most laughable, of course, is accusations of racism in any form. While general accusation are quite rare and easily refuted, as you aptly demonstrated, the most popular slander is so-called “state anti-Semitism”. Advocates of this theory fail to present any instance of anti-Semitic Soviet law, and constantly ignore the numerous statements of the Soviet leaders denouncing anti-Semitism. And to make the matter funnier, Stalin actively participated in the foundation of Israel, some say that he was a key player in its creation. Get your facts straight, defamers!
A small disclaimer: I am DEFINITELY not a Soviet sympathizer.
Who is this Goldberg clown anyway? This is some elementary stuff.
Mark makes a lot of excellent points, and one major conclusion (relevant to the U.S. as well) is that individual expressions of racism, while abhorrent, are way less important than governmental policy towards races and national minorities. I contend that the break-up of the Soviet Union was engineered by Russian nationalists (in alliance with future capitalist oligarchs) as a way of (a) stealing all the wealth accumulated by 3 generations of Soviet laborers, and (b) relieving themselves of the “ballast” of the Central Asian republics. These republics required subsidies from the center and, as Mark points out, received preferential treatment in hiring and education. Which is why they didn’t want to leave the Soviet Union — they were FORCED OUT by the Yeltsinites. The only nations that actually wanted to leave were the Baltic republics and the Gruzians. (Well, maybe the Chechens too, but let’s not open that can of worms!)
Struggling with a declining birth rate, Russia openly encourages all women of childbearing age to have and raise more children. The racial angle is a favourite strawman of Russophobes, but none provide any real substantiation for it, and the annual incidence of hate crime in California alone is far higher than all of Russia. Yes, I can substantiate that for anyone too lazy to look it up.
Many countries encourage an accelerated birth rate, for various reasons. Israeli girls in the late 1960’s were encouraged to “bear soldiers for Israel”. In Russia’s case, it’s just simple math – either more Russians or increased immigration from neighbouring countries will be relied on for growth. For obvious reasons (not racist), they prefer that it be more Russians.
Mark,
I certainly agree with your assessment of the Soviet policy in 1920s and forth as affirmative action. You just need to dig a little bit into speeches of Stalin and other party leaders of that time to see that they fought against GREAT RUSSIAN CHAUVINISM and NATIONALISM OF THE OUTSKIRTS. And the “Russian chauvinism” was considered the 90% of the problem.
http://www.angelfire.com/nt/oboguev/images/rkpbxii.htm
Evgeny,
allow me to submit a small addition. Immediately after the Revolution, the prevailing idea among the Bolsheviks was the concept of “world revolution” or “permanent revolution”. And Trotsky was perhaps the most influential thinker of the time. The whole notion of nationality was considered rudimentary, as Bolsheviks thought about society in terms of social classes. So Russian nationalism was viewed as an obstacle to a true proletarian revolution, while regional nationalism was beneficial, as it should have helped with the emancipation from Tsarist oppressions. Among the main motives of the Polish–Soviet War were the hopes of spreading the Revolution to Poland and, more importantly, Germany. The results of the war proved the idea of immediate world revolution wrong and the balance power slowly shifted to Stalin and his concept of “Socialism in One Country”. Who promptly aligned himself with Soviet and Russian nationalism. Although, regional cultures were also supported. Stalin clearly stated his ideological divergences with Trotsky, assassinating him in 1940.
kovane:
Your analysis of Bolshevik internationalism is absolutely correct. As Marxists, the Bolsheviks viewed all of mankind as divided into socio-economic classes, e.g., feudalists, capitalists, workers. Russian nationalism (what they called “Great Russian chauvinism”) was a completely alien concept to them. At the same time, they did emerge from the crucible of World War I (slaughterhouse of European nations) and the aftermath. Along with all other important politicians of that era (including American Woodrow Wilson), the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, struggled with the nitty-gritty issues around national self-determination, ethnic minorities, regional languages, etc. The ensuing structure of the Soviet Union, with the major republics, autonomous republics, use of national languages, etc. was a reflection of their debates and decisions. Meanwhile in the West, capitalist countries were struggling with these exact same problems, as they re-drew the boundaries in Europe.
Additionally, Stalin’s rise to power within the Communist Party can be partially attributed to his “expertise” with the national/ethnic issues. That was his “shtick”, and it was an important gig within the Party. As an ethnic Gruzian himself (albeit half Ossetian, on his father’s side), Stalin had convinced his comrades that he was an indispensible “expert” on Caucasian issues; and in fact, to give the devil his due, he DID show a certain flair for drawing ethnic boundaries. (Although he really goofed when it came to Abkhazia and Ossetia, as recent events have demonstrated…)
Anyhow, there are a lot of interesting books out there to be read about this fascinating period of history. For starters, I recommend Isaac Deutscher’s biography of Trotsky.
Mark, I often don’t understand why you bother with intellectual midgets like Goldberg.
Be that as it may, one thing you might have also noted was the creation of the People’s Friendship University in 1961 which offered free education to Africans, Asians, Latin Americans and people from the Middle East. It received over 25,000 applications for 4000 spots in its first year. Now granted, Africans in particular experienced racism from Russian citizens, but it would be hard to say that the Soviet government was racist.
The real problem with talking about racism, at least in the Imperial and Soviet periods (and to some extent even now), is defining what Russians exactly consider a “race”. American concepts don’t apply. From my research the concept of “white” is fairly recent in Russia. Most Russians see others in ethnic, not racial terms. But Goldberg wouldn’t understand that.
But, hell, what do you expect from a guy who argued that Rousseau was a precursor to fascism.
Sean, I think Rousseau’s association with France did him a grave disservice in this case.
In response to another comment. See in context »Imho, what matters the most is the culture, rather than ethnicity. It’s obvious that all citizens of Russia share very much the same culture (contents of school textbooks, patterns of everyday life, Russian language, etc). However, different ethnic groups do exist in Russia.
For example, take a look at the interview with Ramzan Kadyrov:
http://ya-kadyrov.livejournal.com/2878.html?mode=reply
“If there’s no spirituality, there’s no point in building anything — it will collapse anyway. Population and the growing generation must be ready for everything. They must perceive everything what happens — good and bad — they must stay and protect the people, the republic, the state.
First of all, everybody must be proud of — if he is a Chechen, be proud of being a Chechen, if he is a Russian, be proud of being a Russian. I am not a nationalist, but any way first of all he must put stress on his nation, religion, his teip (we have them in our republic).
We have in the republic the law, the Constitution that are sacred and protected. But any way, if a person won’t have his own identity, he won’t have any patriotism. A person must be a patriot, he must love his Homeland, the state, Russia. He must protect this country as his house, his family. He must take care. Only then will we have order.”
In response to another comment. See in context »Evgeny,
I’m afraid that the problem is much deeper than that. I agree that there is no racism in Russia per se, tensions arise among different ethnic groups, as Sean precisely noted. At the moment, ethnic Russians constitute around 80% of Russia’s population. They form a modern society, with a low birth rate, a relatively high level of women emancipation, and, more importantly, weak links between distant relatives. Main conflicts occur with Caucasian ethnic groups (Georgians, Azerbaijani, Armenians and, most noticeably, Cechens and Dagestani) and illegal immigrants from Middle East (Uzbeks, Tadjiks). For example, I’ve never heard about a SINGLE incident when there was an ethnic conflict with Ukrainians, Belorussians, people of the Baltic states, and that is knowing the difficulties between those countries and Russia. But back to the problems with some Caucasian ethnic groups I mentioned. The reason of tensions, as I see it, is their much more traditional way of life. They form strong ethnic diasporas that amass significant money reserves, control businesses and gain connections in local authorities. Unfortunately, ethnic crime groups aren’t rare either.
And given the appalling level of militia corruption, they very often get away with serious crimes, like extortions and murders. The events in Kondopoga come to mind. There, the Chechen diaspora controlled a majority of businesses, was closely affiliated with local authorities. Some Chechens felt impunity and commited violent crimes that were promptly hushed up. An outburst happened after two locals were knifed to death by Chechens. Practically the whole diaspora had to flee from the cityand their property was destroyed. So, the government officials’ corruption and short-sightedness of diaspora leaders resulted in such tragic outcome. Unfortunately, events like that are too common in Russia. Most recently, Yuri Volkov was killed in fight with Chechens. The media traditionally avoid reporting on such events. But that’s an equivalence of hiding head in the sand.
So I don’t think that any pride in being Russian will solve this problem. Only a strict control of ethnic groups and a crackdown on ethnic crime organizations will help. Oh, and slightly less corrupt militia would also be nice.
In response to another comment. See in context »Kovane,
1)
I am not sure that the basic problem is ethnicity/ethnic culture. Socially-economical situation is not less important (although it’s discussable to which extent is socially economical situation defined by the national culture).
I mean, although securing the rule of law and banning ethnic crime is essential, it’s not enough. But socially-economical situation in the “ethnic” republics of North caucasus must also be improved. Starting from high-quality school + university education, and ending with enough number of well-paid jobs.
Speaking about ethnicities, it’s worth remembering about Tatars. Tatarstan is one of the most developed republics in Russia, with life standards rivaling those in Moscow. Why? I am not sure, but I know that Tatars have rich ethnic culture, for example with classic literature dated to XIth century or the like.
May be, Kadyrov is right about person’s foundation in ethnic identity? May be Russians should also pay more attention to what forms their ethnic national identity????
In response to another comment. See in context »Evgeny,
You’re right, the problem is not in ethnicity or ethnic culture. It’s a standard problem when modern society co-exist with traditional society, which represent ethnic and/or religious minority. It this case, traditional society gets a significant edge. I guess the rise to prominence of ethic Italian Mafia in the USA could have the same roots. Nobody can accuse the Italians of having poor culture, but, still, the picture was roughly the same. By the way, only coordinated and concentrated efforts from the law-enforcement agencies managed to stop that.
I’m sure that you’ noticed the regularity of violent fights with Chechens in Moscow.
http://www.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/171427/
And that’s the most developed and rich region in Russia. So, poverty is definitely not the key factor here.
You’re also right in saying that improving the socio-economical situation in North Caucasus is essential for any positive changes in the region. But that’s another side of the same problem. While there’s incessant infightings within Chechen clans, the chances of restoring economy, capable of providing a decent income level for Chechnya’s citizens, are practically non-existent. So, weakening of traditional ways of life is required.
It’s very convenient that you brought up Tatars. Tell me, when was the last time you heard about any ethnic clashes with Tatars outside Tatarstan? I haven’t heard about them at all. Despite being Muslims and a distinct ethnic minority, Tatars transformed into a modern society a long time ago. And any Tatars living outside of Tatarstan have no significant problems fitting in.
Kadyrov is indisputably right about person’s foundation an in ethnic identity. Rampant Chechen nationalism is crucial in bolstering the current social structure. And the people who are getting all the benefits of it at the moments are clan leaders, Kadyrov much more than others. But what about common Chechens? Is constant murders of officials, blood feuds, and abject poverty a suitable environment for a living?
As much as some people want, the Russians cannot return to a clan system, as well as the French can’t break up into the Gauls and the Franks. We just have to learn to co-exist peacefully.
In response to another comment. See in context »@hoct and Mark
“Who is this Goldberg clown anyway? This is some elementary stuff.”
Well, I did not know that the Soviets were pro-Asiatic and ‘anti-Russian’ in their racial/ethnic policy. Thanks for the expose, Mark – though the fact seems well-known to most of you guys.
As to ‘Eastern Europeans” being very racists, well….I, an Asian, did not experience any racism when I was in Czech Republic. But then again, I was a ‘casual’ tourist and perhaps I am shown only the ‘beautiful’ view of the country and not the warts also. Anyway, welcome back Mark. I enjoy your realistic posts about Russia.
Sinotibetan
I believe that there was no negative or positive discrimination in _racial/ethnic policy_. The situation is different and can be described in terms of receivers and providers of financial aid. Within the Soviet Union, RSFSR — now Russia — was a provider, while Soviet Asian republics were receivers.
Now that we live in different countries, in Capitalist economies, former Soviet Asian republics were just allowed to sink down to the nightmarish economical conditions.
I am deeply assured that all the talks about “racial policies” aren’t of the top priority, while the economy is. Try to answer a simple question — do former Soviet Asian republics now have better opportunities for seeking national self-identification rather than had in the Soviet Union, or not?
In response to another comment. See in context »Spot on, Evgeny. Due to the economic subsidies and general socialistic rules of fairness within the Soviet “empire”, the average person in these Central Asian republics had a shot at a halfway decent life. Men had guaranteed jobs. Women also had jobs and were more or less “liberated” (almost up to European levels). Children got to go to school and even university. There was high-quality film-making (as you point out), literary culture, and even Olympic-level athletes were produced.
In response to another comment. See in context »Then the “catastrophe” occurred (thanks, Boris!) and these republics were cast loose from Russia (not their own choice) to rot in their individual Third-World hellholes. Now, instead of jobs and education, the people get guns and religion. (And “democracy”, of course, because capitalism = democracy, right?)
For example, do you know that after the collapse of the Soviet Union most of ethnic republican film-making studios are now defunct or ceased to exist? Including those in the Baltic states. But now they have the museums of Soviet occupation.
http://www.ogoniok.com/4957/3/
A great historic advancement, isn’t it?
In response to another comment. See in context »They weren’t pro-Asiatic. They had an ethnic quota system which inevitably favoured the less educated ethnicities over the more educated ones. In this case most non-Russians over Russians (and some others).
I would not say East Europeans are more racist than anybody else. I would say that in East Europe there is less political correctness and so those who are racist are more likely to casually voice their opinions, where in the West many prejudiced people will have learned to guard their tongues.
Also again it has to be pointed out that examining things in terms of racism while possibly useful elsewhere is deficient in this case. In Russia one of the ‘most popular’ ethnic minorities are Koreans and one of the ‘least popular’ ones are the Chechens. Chechens are white and Koreans are yellow. So how is that for racism? Ethnic chauvinism, not racism as such, is what you tend to find in the old world.
In response to another comment. See in context »hoct, spot-on about all points, except the last. The term “racism” is broader that simply prejudices against race. Quote: “According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination.”
In response to another comment. See in context »http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
Yes, but this Jonathan Goldberg character specifically speaks about “Asiatic races” and “the supposedly race-blind Soviet Union” as if that were a factor.
He is not talking about ‘ethnic chauvinism as racism’ in the manner of a UN convention.
He is making up a story of the Soviets looking through the lens of race, when that in reality was not a term the Soviets ever thought in. Even if they had been prejudiced against Central Asians it would have been through the lens of ethnicity rather than of race.
You can legitimately think of that as a form of racism, but that is not what he is saying. I should have probably been clearer.
BTW, how lame does this person get? I mean “supposedly race-blind Soviet Union”? Why would the USSR ever to describe itself lift a phrase from American political discourse? Yeah, I can just picture Yuri Andropov hoping about talking about how “race-blind” he is.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Also again it has to be pointed out that examining things in terms of racism while possibly useful elsewhere is deficient in this case.”
hoct, I was referring to this phrase. Prejudices against Chechens, for example, are still considered as racism, even though they belong to the white race and in reality the precise term is ethnic discrimination. If not conducted by blacks, I guess.
BTW, what do you mean by describing Koreans as the most popular minority in Russia?
In response to another comment. See in context »Kovane:
Speaking to some Chechens a while ago, I heard complains about the image of enemy thoroughly forged by the media in preceding years.
Indeed, I remember that in 1990s Chechnya was deemed a place to be afraid of. All the bloody stories and stuff.
Hopefully now the problem is alleviated, although it takes the time to change the public mind. But, you need to define precisely the problem of “racism”. Chechens are — and were — respected. The only problem is that they are also — sometimes — feared. It takes some time to change that attitude.
By the way, it’s fun to compare that story with perceptions of Georgians after 080808. May be I am mistaken, but IMHO they are simply despised for supporting that kind of a government, but not viewed as an enemy.
In response to another comment. See in context »Kovane:
“BTW, what do you mean by describing Koreans as the most popular minority in Russia?”
Popularity of Viktor Tsoy T-shirts?
In response to another comment. See in context »I mean that there aren’t negative prejudices (stereotypes) about Russian Koreans.
In response to another comment. See in context »Evgeny,
these horror stories are not just stories. There indeed were atrocities beyond imaginable in Chechnya, like mass-murders, abductions of people, slavery, forcible evictions, and ethnic cleansings. And the victims of these crimes were those who didn’t have any strong clan to step in (in other words non-Chechens, predominantly ethnic Russians). Any assessments are hard to make now, scars are too fresh, but the following figures can clarify the picture: in 1989, around 370 thousands of non-Chechens lived there (census data, around a quarter of all population). Today – a mere handful.
http://pzrk.ru/genocide_id1.html
So, tainted public image of the Chechens certainly has some grounds. The problem of “racism” against Chechens is that there is rather widespread belief that all the Chechens are murderous savages. Unfortunately it is often countered by extremist nationalism and hatred towards Russians among Chechens themselves. I hope that the situation will improve over time as well.
I don’t think that there is anything in common with the Georgian war. It was too short-lived, and had a completely disparate scale. You’re right, the attitude towards Georgians was a mix of disdain and fatherly disappointment at a wayward son. And of course, the Georgians, living in Russia, didn’t suffer at all.
Tsoy hardly qualifies as Korean I guess.
The closest popular thing related to Koreans in Russia I know is Korean carrot salad. And as far as I know the recipe is not from Korea, it just bears the name.
In response to another comment. See in context »hoct, I wouldn’t be so sure about that. People from Far East might add some interesting facts. For example, one of my closest relatives was murdered by a gang of Koreans.
In response to another comment. See in context »@ hoct:
Thank you for the clarification.
About racism – it exists everywhere. Europe, Asia, Africa. Agree with you – East Europeans seem to me to be not more racist than enyone else but less politically-correct. There are many racist Asians who hate other fellow Asians who are not of the same ethnic group – what more foreigners like whites or blacks. The Western media when they mention racism only caricatures a white racist but not the many black supremacists, for example.
“I would say that in East Europe there is less political correctness and so those who are racist are more likely to casually voice their opinions, where in the West many prejudiced people will have learned to guard their tongues. ”
Why is this so? Could it be because no Eastern European nations were involved in colonialist expansion and are/were not burdened with ‘white guilt’ as Western European nationalities? I mean Portugal, Spain, France, the UK, Belgium and the Netherlands were ‘colonial powers’ with many colonies in Africa, Asia and North and South America. Natives of those areas ‘blame’ those nationalities for their predicament of ‘being exploited’. Maybe the rise and defeat of Hitler also led to the politically-correctness seen in the West? The USA – a country of immigrants trying to forge a national identity also lead to political-correctness in the West as the USA is the dominant socio-cultural hegemenon in the West? Is American multiculturalism so iconic of being “Western” and supposedly ‘civilizational progress’ that Western Europeans want to follw American multiculturalism and political-correctness? Whereas, most Eastern European nations were never colonialists and instead were subjugated by Western powers(esp Germany, Austria) and had to fight for their freedoms and identities as separate nations – hence their sense of ethnic-awareness and nationalism? Now with many Eastern Europeans becoming members of USA-dominated NATO and Franco-Germanic dominated EU – multiculturalism and Western political-correctness: will these cause a fracture between their more western-minded/liberal populations and those that want to retain ethnic identities? Just some of my thoughts.
“Ethnic chauvinism, not racism as such, is what you tend to find in the old world.”
I come from the ‘old world’(East Asia) and I must concur this is true. We….whether Russians or Chinese are ‘ethnic chauvinists’ – generally speaking. I, as a person of Chinese descent, can say we are so, generally-speaking. Maybe because we feel we have ancient roots? Maybe that’s what Russians feel too? Unlike America, Canada etc. which are basically ‘young’ nations which to us ‘are still trying to take root’. They are ‘nationalities’ in the making – their histories are so recent. Their populations still not properly cut(ethno-culturally) from where they migrated from to form a truly separate national identity? Hence the Western ‘confusion’ of whether they want multiculturalism or assimilation?
“In Russia one of the ‘most popular’ ethnic minorities are Koreans”
Wow, really? Why?
In WW2, the Japanese massacred the Chinese and both are ‘yellow’. Till today, I am not so sure why the Japanese hated us when so much of their culture came from us.
sinotibetan
In response to another comment. See in context »Kovane:
It looks like you are collecting good links. Then let me show you the article “Ethnically political situation in Chechen Republic”, published at the website “Chechen Info”. That informational resource is founded by Lema Gudaev — a great person who once worked as the head of Chechen President’s press service, and then chose to leave that position and establish his own informational resource.
http://tinyurl.com/32suq3m
In my humble opinion, what prevents Russians from returning to the Chechen Republic is the combination of the two — fears of insecurity and the complex of guilt. Unfortunately, Chechnya won’t live better if we just ignore it.
Evgeny,
please allow me to respectfully disagree here. While I don’t know anything about the alleged greatness of Lema Gudaev, his article consist of two parts:
1. Cautious acknowledgment of ethnic discrimination.
2. Standard politically-correct boilerplate about tremendous efforts to bring back non-Chechens and rebuilding of churches.
While a simple glance at the facts gives a slightly different picture. The unemployment rate is over 50%, the leading sector of Chechnya’s economy is building, financed by the Federal budget. You can be sure that all the money and contracts are funneled to the people affiliated with Chechen leaders. That, by the way, is one of the main reasons of instability in Chechnya.
“In my humble opinion, what prevents Russians from returning to the Chechen Republic is the combination of the two — fears of insecurity and the complex of guilt.”
This statement just shook me up. It’s true, Russian military inflicted a lot of suffering on common Chechens. Some of the soldiers should feel guilt.But let’s remember some poor Russian fella from 90s, whose relatives were killed, whose house was taken from him forcibly. What complex of guilt is stopping him from returning?
In response to another comment. See in context »“The unemployment rate is over 50%”
Yes, the current problem in the Chechen Republic is the lack of solid foundations of the local economy. But to make things working they will have to invite professionals from the mainland Russia. Or they would have to grow their own generation of professionals. Both ways will take time — the first way would take the time for extra reconciliation, the second way would take the time to improve educational system and let people pass through it — can be estimated as 5 years to improve the system, and like 5+5 years to grow up good profis — which totals to 15 years. Then those profis will have to make things working, what would take some 5 to 10 years.
So it looks, that optimistically it will take the Chechen Republic like 25 years to rebuild itself as a powerful economy. Anyway, it’s the time of a generation change. Good if they are already in the middle of the process.
“What complex of guilt is stopping him from returning?”
I get your position. There was a good discussion here:
http://timur-aliev.livejournal.com/225534.html
Yet, there are Russians in Chechnya who have willingfully decided to stay there, like
In response to another comment. See in context »http://chet-nik.livejournal.com/
Evgeny, btw if you love livejournal so much:
http://smitrich.livejournal.com/1081435.html
In response to another comment. See in context »