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.
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.
There is also another element to this. People in Central Asia have basically felt dominated by Russia, and saw the fall of the Soviet Union as a return to their old ways.
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.
In case of Abyssinians - yes, close to it - that would be the most likely scenario.
However on your guard, because even the most progressive of them ( Russians that is) had very specific view on ethnic people, that were living on the territory of the Russian empire. In this case under the "most progressive" I mean the group of the Russian aristocracy, that was plotting to depose the Tzar back in 1825. Their view on the population of Caucasus for example ( and Northern Caucasus was the area where Russians received the most resistance from the locals,) was such, that they were dividing the people of Caucasus on "peaceful" and "militant" nations. The "peaceful" nations of Caucasus from their point of view were supposed to get the Russians in commanding positions and to let be, while the "militant" people of Caucasus were supposed to be dispersed throughout the country, thus ceasing to exist as a nation.
So keep that in mind, when you are talking about Africa.
Another thing - even Stalin himself was of a low opinion about Arabs for example; so Russian approach to ethnic people always differs as in what they can assimilate and what they can't.
There is also another element to this. People in Central Asia have basically felt dominated by Russia, and saw the fall of the Soviet Union as a return to their old ways.
Oh I'm sure they did, particularly some in the upper crust during the Soviet times.
The question however - did they fair well as a nation after turning to their old ways.
In case of Abyssinians - yes, close to it - that would be the most likely scenario.
However on your guard, because even the most progressive of them ( Russians that is) had very specific view on ethnic people, that were living on the territory of the Russian empire. In this case under the "most progressive" I mean the group of the Russian aristocracy, that was plotting to depose the Tzar back in 1825. Their view on the population of Caucasus for example ( and Northern Caucasus was the area where Russians received the most resistance from the locals,) was such, that they were dividing the people of Caucasus on "peaceful" and "militant" nations. The "peaceful" nations of Caucasus from their point of view were supposed to get the Russians in commanding positions and to let be, while the "militant" people of Caucasus were supposed to be dispersed throughout the country, thus ceasing to exist as a nation.
So keep that in mind, when you are talking about Africa.
Another thing - even Stalin himself was of a low opinion about Arabs for example; so Russian approach to ethnic people always differs as in what they can assimilate and what they can't.
What would have been the attitude towards Africans in the days of the czars, given all that you have mentioned? I know that the national poet, Aleksandr Pushkin, had an Ethiopian great-grandfather, Abram Petrovich Gannibal, who was enslaved by the Ottoman court and then given to Peter The Great, who raised him.
Oh I'm sure they did, particularly some in the upper crust during the Soviet times.
The question however - did they fair well as a nation after turning to their old ways.
Economically, no. Reverting back to the old ways didn't help. However, why did Estonia do well after the breakup?
I think of it this way. Tashkent,Uzbekistan might have been built up immediately after an earthquake by Soviet laborers. However, there were also alot of abuses that were on, especially environmental. Alot of this can be traced back to the fact that this was also done to Russians living in Russia. However, this is what I know. I did a political geography report on the Aral Sea. Under Soviet rule, the Syr Darya and Amu Darya rivers were pumped for its water to grow cotton in the desert. This drained the Aral Sea to the point where now the lake is two ponds, and might disappear in our lifetime. Agricultural pollution took place, as the chemicals were dumped back into the rivers and lakes. The effects of that are still being felt, with one of the highest rates of cancer in the world around the Aral Sea region, and the water being poisoned. Kazakhstan was used as a nuclear testing place and for storing nuclear stuff. Some of the nuclear pollution was blown downwind, causing many problems.
Yes, people were educated, and infrastructure was built, but alot of bad things came out of that as well.
Last edited by green_mariner; 09-02-2012 at 06:07 PM..
What would have been the attitude towards Africans in the days of the czars, given all that you have mentioned? I know that the national poet, Aleksandr Pushkin, had an Ethiopian great-grandfather, Abram Petrovich Gannibal, who was enslaved by the Ottoman court and then given to Peter The Great, who raised him.
He was apparently from ( former) Abyssinia, that's why I've said that most likely Russians would have tried to Russify the Abyssinians, what's about other places in Africa - I have no idea. African cultures/countries are very different.
Because Estonia received European investments right away; don't forget that it's an old European country, unlike Uzbekistan or Tajikistan.
How come no one invested in Uzbekistan or Tajikistan right away?
Something else to mention: I added more to the post that you responded too.
And Central Asia was flourishing when the Silk Road was active. After it died out, it wasn't the same. Places like Bukhara and Khiva was booming. I think one disadvantage was its location in the desert.
He was apparently from ( former) Abyssinia, that's why I've said that most likely Russians would have tried to Russify the Abyssinians, what's about other places in Africa - I have no idea. African cultures/countries are very different.
African cultures were different from other European nations as well. I don't really know what Russia's colonial policy towards Africa would have been if it had colonized African south of the Sahara.
Economically, no. Reverting back to the old ways didn't help. However, why did Estonia do well after the breakup?
I think of it this way. Tashkent,Uzbekistan might have been built up immediately after an earthquake by Soviet laborers. However, there were also alot of abuses that were on, especially environmental. Alot of this can be traced back to the fact that this was also done to Russians living in Russia. However, this is what I know. I did a political geography report on the Aral Sea. Under Soviet rule, the Syr Darya and Amu Darya rivers were pumped for its water to grow cotton in the desert. This drained the Aral Sea to the point where now the lake is two ponds, and might disappear in our lifetime. Agricultural pollution took place, as the chemicals were dumped back into the rivers and lakes. The effects of that are still being felt, with one of the highest rates of cancer in the world around the Aral Sea region, and the water being poisoned. Kazakhstan was used as a nuclear testing place and for storing nuclear stuff. Some of the nuclear pollution was blown downwind, causing many problems.
Yes, people were educated, and infrastructure was built, but alot of bad things came out of that as well.
Absolutely.
Soviet Union had plenty of controversies. ( Sort of like Russians themselves.)
They have tendency to live like there is no tomorrow.
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.
