What if Russia had colonized parts of Africa? (living, view, safety)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Africa is a continent still colonized by western powers. so many civil wars, military coups, fraud elections, installation of puppet presidents by France, USA etc.
Much of that came from too many post-colonial leaders(who were backed by both eastern and western powers)legalizing only one political party and declaring themselves president for life. Had these new presidents simply allowed for their people to have more than one party to vote for and not made the state so dominate in the economy(which was more eastern than western)then many of these countries wouldn't have blown up into civil wars. By the state being so dominate in African economies the government became the place to be to get wealthy. This contributed to tribalism because every tribal group wanted their folks in gov't for the wealth. Again making the gov't dominate in the economy is more eastern(socialist)than it is western.
I never considered the idea of Russia being a colonial nation, but then again, most of Russia was colonized by the Russians, a European people.
Russia was very much an empire and colonial power. The difference between Russia and, say, the UK was that the latter had land that didn't necessarily border each other, while Russia has land that did. From Poland all the way to California, and from the top of Siberia to deep into Mongolia. Russia has always been a land power, which led to its forte being empire building by land, and not sea, like the others had done.
Russia was very much an empire and colonial power. The difference between Russia and, say, the UK was that the latter had land that didn't necessarily border each other, while Russia has land that did. From Poland all the way to California, and from the top of Siberia to deep into Mongolia. Russia has always been a land power, which led to its forte being empire building by land, and not sea, like the others had done.
It is part of why I coined such a question. Much of Russia's colonialism was land-bound. Mongolia wasn't exactly "colonized" by Russia, so much as there was a puppet government. It was never part of the former Soviet Union. It had the same status as alot of Eastern Bloc nations like Hungary and Poland. It was never a part of the Soviet Union, but those nations were ruled by puppet governments loyal to Moscow.
The Soviet Union itself was basically colonialism. People don't think about it because it was all land based and everything bordered one another. Everything, from the Baltic Sea to the Sea of Japan, from the frozen Arctic to the deserts Turkmenistan bordering Iran, from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea.
However, it did take crossing the sea to get Alaska. I am still banking on sailing through the Black Sea.
Quite honestly, I was surprised to hear about the Russian attempt of colonization of Africa, ( in Sagallo) because the colonization in classical understanding of it was never a part of Russian national character.
I mean Russians don't like going too far away from their homeland and to deal with foreign cultures; historically they preferred to expand their country taking over the lands along their borders and then *russifying * the local population as much as they could, in order to make the surroundings as familiar for themselves as possible. Their own culture was usually more similar to the native population, than Western cultures, so the assimilation was relatively easier in most cases.
It's not like they were not familiar with the "far away land,"
( this is just an example)
but I don't see Russians claiming India for colony, lol.
They've made this attempt in America ( through Siberia), coexisting with native Indians and attempting to "russify" even them, but found the colony to be too expensive to keep, so they've sold it.
But back to Sagallo, I was surprised to hear about Africa, that I had to look it up - what were the reasons for their landing ( because as I've said I couldn't see them expressing interests in colonizing Africa ( too far away, too foreign.)
So I've looked it up and saw three things;
1. The first reason Russians went there was the search of the potential port where Russian ships could stop during their voyage from the Black Sea to the Pacific Ocean,
2. They were planning to establish connection with then Orthodox Abyssinia,
and 3. It doesn't look that this expedition was sponsored by the government at all, it were just some volunteers, who hired the Austrian vessel.
Even so, there is a history, albeit, relatively small, of Russians going to Africa.
Colonization of Africa took place during the era of the Czars, not the Soviet era. If Russian colonies had been in pace in Africa, they would have been pretty much the same as the colonies held by the other kingdoms and empires of Europe. After Lenin, they probably wouldn't have even bothered to impose socialism on their African colonies, any more than Britain or France imposed democracy or free-market property rights or western philosophy on Africans.
The Russians, like the Chinese and the Japanese, were primarily interested in expanding their own central sphere of influence just by widening their own territorial boundaries, not by sailing around the globe picking up isolated pieces of far-flung continents.
Had there been detached Russian colonies that became Soviet colonies, the Capitalist empires would have just crushed them in local wars in Africa, as part of the ongoing commitment to destroy at the bud all socialist experiments everywhere on the globe.
Also remember that in no case did any of the European empires endeavor to populate Africa with Europeans. All they wanted were a few export terminals from which to ship the booty exploited from African labor. A handful of European citizens, and enough police to quell any uprisings among the heathens. So Russian colonies, as well, would have been limited to a few Russian overseers of the exploit of African resources. Defending their commercial interests it not at all carried out with the vigor of defending your own people established in a homeland.
It is part of why I coined such a question. Much of Russia's colonialism was land-bound. Mongolia wasn't exactly "colonized" by Russia, so much as there was a puppet government. It was never part of the former Soviet Union. It had the same status as alot of Eastern Bloc nations like Hungary and Poland. It was never a part of the Soviet Union, but those nations were ruled by puppet governments loyal to Moscow.
The Soviet Union itself was basically colonialism. People don't think about it because it was all land based and everything bordered one another. Everything, from the Baltic Sea to the Sea of Japan, from the frozen Arctic to the deserts Turkmenistan bordering Iran, from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea.
However, it did take crossing the sea to get Alaska. I am still banking on sailing through the Black Sea.
Russian "colonization" was land-bound not because they didn't have their own fleet, but because the philosophy behind their colonization was somewhat different from the philosophy of Western Europeans.
Russians were bound to Russify the local population, to give them Russian names, to convert them into Orthodox Christianity and to make them same subjects of the Russian king as Russian peasants were.
Even if you read the description of their colonization of Alaska, you can notice that their dynamics of interactions with the locals differ from, say Anglo-Saxons, who were staying apart from the natives and didn't mingle with them.
As you can see, one of the grievances of the local Alaskan tribes was precisely that Russian men had tendency to take local women for wives. They were clearly taking the natives to live in their settlements as well, as this description shows, so they were more or less continuing the same policies that they've used during colonization of Siberian lands, that were included in their empire.
"Ten years later, the first group of Orthodox Christian missionaries began to arrive, evangelizing thousands of Indians, many of whose descendents continue to maintain the religion.
Though the Koloshi (the Russian name for the Tlingit, based on the Aleut name for the Tlingit) initially welcomed the newcomers, their animosity toward the Russians grew in relatively short order. The Kiks.ádi objected to the Russian traders' custom of taking native women as their wives, and were constantly taunted by other Tlingit clans who looked upon the "Sitkas" as the outsiders' kalga, or slaves. The Kiks.ádi came to realize that the Russians' continued presence demanded their allegiance to the Tsar, and that they therefore were expected to provide free labor to the Company. Competition between the two groups for the island's resources would escalate as well..."
"Angered by encroachment on their land and other grievances, the indigenous peoples' relations with the Russians deteriorated. In 1802, Tlingit warriors destroyed several Russian settlements, most notably Redoubt Saint Michael (Old Sitka), leaving New Russia as the only remaining outpost on mainland Alaska. This failed to expel the Russians, who reestablished their presence two years later following the Battle of Sitka. (Peace negotiations between the Russians and Indians would later establish a modus vivendi, a situation that, with few interruptions, lasted for the duration of Russian presence in Alaska.)"
( Compare this with extermination of Indians by Anglo-Saxons, who were too different culturally with the Natives, in order to co-exist on the same land.)
"Despite a number of unsuccessful Tlingit attacks against the post during the winter of 1799, business soon prospered. Urgent matters required that Baranov return to Kodiak (then capital of Russian America) in 1800. 25 Russians and 55 Aleuts, under the direction of Vasilii G. Medvednikov, were left to staff the post. In spring 1802, the population of Redoubt Saint Michael had grown to include 29 Russians, 3 British deserters, 200 Aleuts, and a few Kodiak women."
The Tlingit who chose to return were allowed to reside in a part of the village just below the heavily-guarded stockade on "Blockhouse Hill" (an area known as the Ranche until around 1965). Russian cannon were constantly trained on the natives as a reminder of their defeat at Shis'kà Noow. The Kiks.ádi supplied the Russians with food (including corn, or maize, which the settlers taught them how to cultivate) and otter pelts, while the colonists introduced the Tlingit to the various aspects of Russian culture and the Russian Orthodox Church. "
South Africa was populated by Europeans. Even Namibia and Rhodesia were populated with whites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
Colonization of Africa took place during the era of the Czars, not the Soviet era. If Russian colonies had been in pace in Africa, they would have been pretty much the same as the colonies held by the other kingdoms and empires of Europe. After Lenin, they probably wouldn't have even bothered to impose socialism on their African colonies, any more than Britain or France imposed democracy or free-market property rights or western philosophy on Africans.
The Russians, like the Chinese and the Japanese, were primarily interested in expanding their own central sphere of influence just by widening their own territorial boundaries, not by sailing around the globe picking up isolated pieces of far-flung continents.
Had there been detached Russian colonies that became Soviet colonies, the Capitalist empires would have just crushed them in local wars in Africa, as part of the ongoing commitment to destroy at the bud all socialist experiments everywhere on the globe.
Also remember that in no case did any of the European empires endeavor to populate Africa with Europeans. All they wanted were a few export terminals from which to ship the booty exploited from African labor. A handful of European citizens, and enough police to quell any uprisings among the heathens. So Russian colonies, as well, would have been limited to a few Russian overseers of the exploit of African resources. Defending their commercial interests it not at all carried out with the vigor of defending your own people established in a homeland.
Colonization of Africa took place during the era of the Czars, not the Soviet era. If Russian colonies had been in pace in Africa, they would have been pretty much the same as the colonies held by the other kingdoms and empires of Europe. After Lenin, they probably wouldn't have even bothered to impose socialism on their African colonies, any more than Britain or France imposed democracy or free-market property rights or western philosophy on Africans.
Again not true.
Central Asia and Caucasus greatly benefited from the Soviet system, imposed by Russians on them.
These areas were heavily subsidized through Soviet times as poor as they originally were, their citizens received schools and hospitals in the same manner as they were in Russia, their women received the same the same rights and protection as Russian women ( which is an important factor for predominantly Islamic culture,) and their children were not allowed to work as much as Russian children of school age were not allowed to work.
Russians did have in place some kind of "affirmative action" making sure that spots were reserved in Universities for ethnic people from different republics, if they wanted to enter Universities in Moscow and St. Petersburg ( that's on top of the local Universities in the Asian Republics,) and overall the infrastructure of these republics built mostly by Russians greatly benefited during Soviet times. (When capital of Uzbekistan, Tashkent was completely destroyed by the earth-quake in the 60ies, Russians made sure that it was built anew. They didn't forget that during the WWII Central Asia took thousands of refugees from the Western part of the country, that was destroyed as well.)
With the fall of the Soviet Union these Central Asian Republics suffered the most, because when Russians left, they've plunged back to the middle ages and were taken over by Islam.
They were not by any means "rich" during Soviet times ( but neither were Russians,) however they were better off indeed having the safety of the Soviet system; pensions, guaranteed jobs, infrastructure and all.
People have tendency to lump the Soviet Union up as one place, thus making no differentiation between, say, Baltic Republics and Soviet Asia and Caucasus.
However it was not one and the same thing.
Russian "colonization" was land-bound not because they didn't have their own fleet, but because the philosophy behind their colonization was somewhat different from the philosophy of Western Europeans.
Russians were bound to Russify the local population, to give them Russian names, to convert them into Orthodox Christianity and to make them same subjects of the Russian king as Russian peasants were.
In short, you think if Russia had colonized parts of Africa, the Russians would have tried to make the natives Russian, convert them to Orthodox Christianity, and treat them as subject of the czar.
Quote:
Battle of Sitka - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From what I'm getting out of this, the Battle of Sitka was a last major battle and a turning point for Russian-Alaska Native relations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
