- Joined
- Mar 29, 2016
- Country
-
What I wanted to point out that discrimination, abuse of power, dictatorship by majority towards minorities and financial inequalities in Russia back then we're not based on skin color or shape of an eyes. Violence and colonialism were typical for the whole Europe back then, and Russia was not different. There were some ugly xenophobic and anti-semitic stuff typical for the whole Europe of those times. But in Russian it never been a state- or tsar-sanctioned or supported by educated establishment. Basically they were discriminating Jews not because they are Jews, but because of their religion and their unwilongless to assimilate as easily as other ethnicities. It was more of the aristocrats vs vassals type of thing, not racially or ethically motivated. Not even discrimination based on religion, because Russia always had variety of religions, mainly 5-10% of Muslims all the time during almost all their history. So they all kinda all had to be tolerant and nice to each other, unless they would not be able to survive that long. Certainly there were many cases, when some localized ethnical hatred was an issues at any given remote region of Russia, abuse of power by local authority or local aristocracy or other. It was common for the whole Europe back then like I said.
However, like I mentioned many times already there was no official and accepted by society the big concept of racial internal politics or ethnically motivated DISCRIMANATION on a big scale. There was no racism per se in Russia. But there were and still are a lot of non-European looking Russians in there. But it never was about racism or xenophobia on a national scale. Never. Therefore there was no racially motivated slavery too.
Their colonialisic conquest Eastwards of Urals had no extermination purposes or so called "Russification" as the main purpose. I did not mean there were no shots fired, or violnece, or does not mean that local native population was always treated right and good. I only meant that their expansionism journey from Moscow to Kamchatka and further had no xenophobic tendencies. And those victims who suffered poor treatment were victims of violence, but not ethnical hatred.
Certainly they captured land of other tiny tribes closed to them and made them part of their Empire, but it was not only Slavs or Russians per se (you know this blodnish nordic varyag type of Russia's North), but many other ethnical tribes which Russia absorbed in their early ages like 10-12th century: Scithians, Turks too, a lot of different Slavic tribes. The moment small tribe became a part of their Empire, the part of their big united culture in a mater of just one generation they also were becoming the same expansionalists as others, so it was their turn to pick on neighbors and demand them to join or else.. Besides those North tribes and united Russia later on had a centuries-long beef with Scandinavians - they were attacking each other villages and castles and stealing valuable stuff and wives from each other. So no wonder they are genetically very similar. Especially Fins and Swedes with those North Russian ethnical groups (not necessary Slavs). They are very diverse like I said, it was not the case of only Russian (East Slavs) captured everyone else and there able to control such a huge territory. They were too weak to act alone, so they were mainly dragging other ethnicities to their side and talking them into becoming one og them too. The most stubborb tribes were receiving swords or rifles, yes. It was a time of colonisation of our planet. I gotta mention that this "militariatic competition" with their Scandinavians and other norhtern neighbors made them stronger military and genetically and more united, while south neighbors - Byzantine (Greece) gave them Chirsitantiy, alphabet and European mentality. So they realized fast enough that it's better to be together as one big nation - Slavs first, then Ruthenians, and later on Russians - so they got united and kicked out mongols nomads who were robbing them for centuries. In conquest of moving Eastwards and in natural desire of providing safety for all their diverse nation Russian tsars, tsarinas, emperors and empresses were constantly having beef with their neighbors and constantly expanding their borders until they were meeting geographically important obstacles and natural borders like high mountain range, sea or ocean, deserts or other strong tribes with different hostile religion. This explains why Russia got expanded to such monstrous size - their ancient and medieval tribes were looking for natural borders and "fances" which would be easy to defend - like Urals mountains at first, or deserts and Caucasus Mountain ridge on the south later on, or cold frozen seas on the north, or ocean on the east, or Polish tribes on the west.
They did exactly the opposite of Trump - they choose not to "build the wall" - they decided to get expanded and absorbed other weaker ethical tribes around them to become strong and diverse. I think it was subconstial decision after so many centuries of suffering from their agressive Asian neighboors. So they got untied for the second time around 12-13ths century. Something that was never possible in congested overcrowded Europe of that time. The Russian expansionism according to researches was primary because of them being tired of constant robbing by Tatars, Turks and Mongol hordes. They got tired of those nomadic tribal hordes stealing their beautiful blonde wives, so they realized they should stop fighting each other and get together to fight aggression from the east and south, it was about century later after Russians got baptized into Christianity, so they were having a big thing to get united around - mutual joint faith - a huge thing for medieval time. It explaons a lot why many Russians even being atheists and just not-beliver or relgious think that their Orthodoxy plays a big role in their national identity and historical heritage. So most Slavic tribes and princes moved more Northish in order not to be on a way of a strong aggressive tribes of east Asians and not to be in the middle of trade routes between China and Europe (a Silk way, yes), because they were kinda weak back then. Only after that and half-century of more/less peace they got stronger and picked up some more new military skills, so united together they kicked Asians tribes back to Mongolia or absorbed them (like Tatars).
So they quickly were absorbing and melting each other. Many traditions and cultural features of Russia goes back into Siberia, North (Scandinavian) Europe and Far East. They still have 14% of Muslim-background minorities (mostly Tatars), half of them are secular and stated not really following Islam or any religion. It's approx 6% of religious muslims in Russia now. They were not put in reservations or exterminated like American natives. They mainly were brought up into Empire. So multiculturalism is one of the Russia's cultural code or distinctive feature.
^^ Russia embraced multiculturalism when it was not even a thing.
They kinda had to in order to provide safety to their borders and keep everyone happy inside the coutnry - its only was possible in a soceity without racial or ethical discrimination. So centuries of crazy and painful Russia history had passed, there were almost no peace time periods. 
They constantly had some kind of beef with one (or many at the same time) of their neighbors. A natural thing for medieval times - competition and constant evolution of all Europeans. Thats why Europeans become more advanced than other civilizations. Chinese and Iranian civilizetions were stronger and more scnietifically and techologically advanced than Europeans. But constant fighitng and wars in Europe are the main factots why Europeans (and including Russians too) got more advanced than their Asian neighbors. However Russian melting pot of different nations, ethnicities and cultures for 8-9 centuries made Russians what they are now. Their genes are so mixed already, it's hard to know who is who already and my observations no one really bothers... But yet most of them keep their cultural heritage. Something similar to most of Italian Americans and Irish Americans in the States. Russians kinda had to allow multiculturalism many many centuries ago. Otherwise they would not be able to survive. There was no centralized national doctrine of discrimination on ethnicity (like it was in Europe itself or in ther multiple colonies all around the globe), other than some local issues Russian colonisation was not like European. Were Russians or newly converted Russians violent? Yes. Those tiny ethnical tribes who did not want to become part of them - received a stick, not a carrot. But there was no institutionalized slavery. Period. Certainly there were abuse of power and violence in new lands, usually far away from capital
Basically, I suspect it was like this: until the tsars dotn know - its a free game. At that time of Alaska colonizarion, Russia already was a huge and clumsy land. For and simple message to travel from tsar to his colonies and back could take years or even decades at some cases...
Well, Russian aristocrats of later time (17-19th centuries) find themselves a wealthy people who inherited vassals from their ancestors. But with time more and more educated elite of Russia empire refused the idea of vassals and we're singing of a freedom to their peasants and demanding tsars to stop vassal thing in their country all together. Leo Tolstoy and many others come to mind. I believe it was tsar Peter the Great himself who signed off freedom to Pushkin ancestors, if my memory serves me well. So an African family got education and raised their kids and grandkids into educated elite of Russia, one of them eventually became the most renowned Russian poet and gave the world his 'Eugene Onegin' and many more. For Russians Alexander Pushkin is the same symbolical figure as Shakespeare for Brits. So some part of Russians elites were applauding to French Revolution and other were solemnly against tje idea of letting seldom go. It was classic case of educated urban aristocrats of Moscow and St Petersburg against provincial elites depending on their agricultural family business. So some were insisting on more human rights to simple folks, but some did not want cheap labor to leave them. I think it was abut at the same time (give or take few years) when Russia and USA came to the obvious decision to give full human rights to all their citizens. Russia granted full rights to their serfs and US abolished slavery.
So later on. It's only after Bolshevik Revolution they suddenly jumped from centralized monarchy into very leftish socialist democracy. Although a very crooked and flawed one, but Soviet state was indeed the most leftist country ever existed on Earth. So all ancestors of their serfs and peasants suddenly become a very equal citizens to the rest of the Russians. Their idea was too idealistic: everybody is a friend to each other, and everyone have to be polite, a big no-no to ethical discrimination, no to gender inequality, no financial inequality - OR you go to jail for being intolerant, no career advancements either if you have a spot on your employment record of being a bad comrade.
All that jazz, ya know. It took many many years and MLK for American soceity to get rid of xenophobic tendencies of the past at start treating their woman and Afro-American and people of races other than white as equals. In Soviet Russia everyone was equal all of an sudden. With some force and blood and civil war at first 5 years, but they got to perfect left socialist society pretty fast. Belive it or not Soviet Union was a very very leftist soceity, some of them still have that socialists mentality sometimes. Soviet Union was was a champion of women's rights too. The were so ahead of anyone in women emancipation and gender equality. Shortage of men after few bloody wars (WW1, civil war, WW2) was a natural boost for women to get career advancement and stuff. Besides, everything was utopicialy free for everybody: education (starting from 1st grade to PhD), medicine, public transportation is dirt cheap, etc. In short: it was too good to be true. But it was good for human rights in a way. It's just few mistakes they did. Stalin was one of them. Lack of private property and personal space. Lack of artistic freedom. (Ful artistic freedom) And few other major mistakes. So, here you have it, the modern Russians as they are now. Rough around the edges and having no clue about how their great ballet heritage with blackface could seem offensive to anyone outside their coutbry.
Without the concept of being too tolerant or too carefull to other "people's feelings". They solved their mutlicultural and multiethical issues long time ago. Besides they simply never had a concept of institionalized slavery or state-backed racism. Periods of xenophobic tendencies towards Jews and some other ethnicities - yes. It was more due political reasons. But racism never was their cup of tea. You gotta give them that. It's their current generation who learned about racism through our Hollywood movies in the 90s and rap/hip-hop music. Some of them think it's cool. Mostly uneducated lowlives, like soccer hooligans and few random ultraright nationalists who are still not in jail, but they are on their way there. As unefective as current Ru police is, they still jailing troublemakers prertty good, especially those who commited ethically motivated hatecrimes.
IIRC, it was Peter the Great who banned some type of household slavery of ancient Russia's time and developed the current system of serfdom for agricultural and military conscript purposes, which also was abolish by Alexander 1, about the time when Americans had our civil war. But it took us decades to fully accept people of different races, while Russians simple were forced in heart beat - few years is nothing for history - to be nice to one another by repressive Soviet government. ):
Word 'pogrom' is very wel-knwn to me, as I'm a Jew, but let me emphasize it one more time: anti-semitism in Russia was mainly caused because of political reasons, but not due xenophobia. And because of the usual Jew thing - unwilingless to fully assimilate within the Russian nations. Tatars did it, many others did it too, but they still kept their culture and religion. Russian internal national politics never fought or surpressed cultures of their minorities, on contrary actually. The concept of ethnical institutionalozed xenophobia was unknown to them. That's a fact.
I mean it is just too cheesy. 
