Theory about decline of USSR

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by erasure

NJ, while what you are saying might be correct, ( about the attempts of manipulations on behalf of Gorbachev's government,) you connect the dots incorrectly nevertheless.
The picture you are getting is that throughout Soviet times the USSR was some kind of a pressure cooker, where different nationalities hated the "conquerors" - (Russians that is) or each other and were waiting for a chance to get rid of each other. But it was not quite the case; I insist there was no "ethnic strife" and hatred towards ethnic Russians among the minorities or hatred of ethnic Russians towards the minorities overall, except for cases here and there (in Army in particular, but that's a different story.)
The country turned into a pressure-cooker only in Gorbachev's times in each and every sense of it, when it was sinking into chaos that he induced with his economic reforms. And that's when the republics started jumping out of this pressure cooker, whether the majority of population wanted it or not.
The only exception were Baltic countries, that were always very vocal about Soviet occupation - their intelligentsia in particular.

How do you explain the situation in the Caucuses then? Are you going to argue that there was "no ethnic strife" between Chechens, Ingushes, Ossetians, Russians, etc.? How did the events in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkestan, Uzbekistan and Kazakstan boil up so quickly if there wasn't existing "strife"? Is there no "ethnic strife" between ethnic Moldovans and ethnic Russians in Moldova? Was it not "policy 101" of the Soviet state to replace ethnic leaders of the Republics with ethnic Russians from the Lenin years straight through to the fall? Did the Soviet state not engage in widespread "resettlement" of ethnic groups via deportation to lessen the ability of nationalist groups to have local influence? Did the Soviet system not carry-over the basic elements of "Russification" that was used by the Tsars? Were ethnic Russians who were sent to live in the "ethnic" Republics not given preferential treatment meaning they held the high paying jobs, had the best housing, dominated the government, etc. even though they were a minority of the population?

Like I said in the recently posted Chechen thread, much of the modern strife traces its roots back to Tsarist expansion and then right into the modern era with Soviet policies. I simply can't agree that it was something that suddenly burst forth under Gorbachev. What you are saying is like me claiming that the Civil Rights movement happened because Eisenhower created a situation where it was allowed to happen and that it had nothing to do with slavery and Jim Crow.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

How do you explain the situation in the Caucuses then? Are you going to argue that there was "no ethnic strife" between Chechens, Ingushes, Ossetians, Russians, etc.?

The situation in Caucasus goes back to pre-Soviet times when it comes to relations between Russians and North Caucasians, and when it comes to the conflict between Azeris and Armenians - that has got nothing to do with Russians to begin with.

How did the events in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkestan, Uzbekistan and Kazakstan boil up so quickly if there wasn't existing "strife"?

I've already explained that the reason behind Armenia\Azerbaijan conflict has got little to do with Russians, as for Turkestan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan - yes, it boiled that fast for a number of economic reasons throughout Gorbachev's times, not because there was constant "ethnic strife" there before.

Is there no "ethnic strife" between ethnic Moldovans and ethnic Russians in Moldova? Was it not "policy 101" of the Soviet state to replace ethnic leaders of the Republics with ethnic Russians from the Lenin years straight through to the fall?

I would assume that this policy has been promoted since Tzarist times, (just to remind you that Lenin referred to Russian Empire as "the prison of nations" to begin with,) and Soviet government only continued Imperial practices. Therefore I'd like to verify whether you are talking about the "ethnic strife" specifically in Soviet times, or about the "ethnic strife" in Russian Empire in general?

Did the Soviet state not engage in widespread "resettlement" of ethnic groups via deportation to lessen the ability of nationalist groups to have local influence? Did the Soviet system not carry-over the basic elements of "Russification" that was used by the Tsars?

So yes, sorry - I'd have to repeat my previous question here.

Were ethnic Russians who were sent to live in the "ethnic" Republics not given preferential treatment meaning they held the high paying jobs, had the best housing, dominated the government, etc. even though they were a minority of the population?

No, I don't believe so; your average ethnic Russians didn't have any preferential treatment in terms of "best housing," or "high paying jobs," what is true however, is that while living in republics with less-developed population, ethnic Russians were the most-educated and capable people when it was coming to engineering and technology. They were the ones who basically created the whole infrastructure in the regions inhabited by nomads or by people whose development was a century behind.
However when it comes to "high paying jobs" for Soviet functionaries ( that is Russian communist bosses, the overseers,) - yes, they were paid well, but so were the local ethnic communist bosses, equally, who were hand-picked by Russians.

Like I said in the recently posted Chechen thread, much of the modern strife traces its roots back to Tsarist expansion and then right into the modern era with Soviet policies. I simply can't agree that it was something that suddenly burst forth under Gorbachev.

It did. Because already throughout Khrushev's and particularly Brezhnev's times, the younger generations whose parents already grew up in Soviet times didn't remember much about the beliefs of their forefathers; they were born and raised in new system, with new set of beliefs; they were given opportunities of high education/better jobs on par with their Russian counterparts, they could move to big cities ( Russian cities including) and those who preferred to stay behind in villages and to adhere to their own culture/language were able to do so as well. The only time when the will of the Soviet government was truly imposed on them ( in terms of losing their ethnic identity) was two years of conscription in the Army.

What you are saying is like me claiming that the Civil Rights movement happened because Eisenhower created a situation where it was allowed to happen and that it had nothing to do with slavery and Jim Crow.

You mean Civil Rights movement in the 1960ies? Rosa Parks, Martin Luther and all?
No, the Civil Rights movement in the 60ies happened as the result of constant suppression of Blacks in the US - plain and simple; they were treated as the second-class citizens and to say that there was the same situation in the Soviet Union ( in terms of treatment of minorities) is simply not true.
Number one - Soviet society was not really governed by money ( and you can control your second-class citizens by money in far more efficient way than by official ideas as it was the case in the SU., lol)
and Number two - don't forget that Russians acquired their minorities population WITH their ancestral lands, so they didn't feel cornered in terms of choices what kind of culture they'd rather adhere to.

( Sorry NJ if my writing is a bit sketchy - have to juggle few things here at the moment at once..)

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by erasure

The situation in Caucasus goes back to pre-Soviet times when it comes to relations between Russians and North Caucasians, and when it comes to the conflict between Azeris and Armenians - that has got nothing to do with Russians to begin with.



I've already explained that the reason behind Armenia\Azerbaijan conflict has got little to do with Russians, as for Turkestan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan - yes, it boiled that fast for a number of economic reasons throughout Gorbachev's times, not because there was constant "ethnic strife" there before.



I would assume that this policy has been promoted since Tzarist times, (just to remind you that Lenin referred to Russian Empire as "the prison of nations" to begin with,) and Soviet government only continued Imperial practices. Therefore I'd like to verify whether you are talking about the "ethnic strife" specifically in Soviet times, or about the "ethnic strife" in Russian Empire in general?



So yes, sorry - I'd have to repeat my previous question here.



No, I don't believe so; your average ethnic Russians didn't have any preferential treatment in terms of "best housing," or "high paying jobs," what is true however, is that while living in republics with less-developed population, ethnic Russians were the most-educated and capable people when it was coming to engineering and technology. They were the ones who basically created the whole infrastructure in the regions inhabited by nomads or by people whose development was a century behind.
However when it comes to "high paying jobs" for Soviet functionaries ( that is Russian communist bosses, the overseers,) - yes, they were paid well, but so were the local ethnic communist bosses, equally, who were hand-picked by Russians.



It did. Because already throughout Khrushev's and particularly Brezhnev's times, the younger generations whose parents already grew up in Soviet times didn't remember much about the beliefs of their forefathers; they were born and raised in new system, with new set of beliefs; they were given opportunities of high education/better jobs on par with their Russian counterparts, they could move to big cities ( Russian cities including) and those who preferred to stay behind in villages and to adhere to their own culture/language were able to do so as well. The only time when the will of the Soviet government was truly imposed on them ( in terms of losing their ethnic identity) was two years of conscription in the Army.



You mean Civil Rights movement in the 1960ies? Rosa Parks, Martin Luther and all?
No, the Civil Rights movement in the 60ies happened as the result of constant suppression of Blacks in the US - plain and simple; they were treated as the second-class citizens and to say that there was the same situation in the Soviet Union ( in terms of treatment of minorities) is simply not true.
Number one - Soviet society was not really governed by money ( and you can control your second-class citizens by money in far more efficient way than by official ideas as it was the case in the SU., lol)
and Number two - don't forget that Russians acquired their minorities population WITH their ancestral lands, so they didn't feel cornered in terms of choices what kind of culture they'd rather adhere to.

( Sorry NJ if my writing is a bit sketchy - have to juggle few things here at the moment at once..)

erasure, go back and read what you wrote. You are asking me if we are talking about ethnic strife in the Imperial or Soviet time. In the same post, you are then stating that the Civil Rights movement in the US was the genesis of centuries of oppression. I was trying to make a rather subtle point and it may have been lost.

The ethnic strife and oppression that existed during the Imperial times continued in the Soviet Union in many ways. The "strife" has deep roots. It may have been papered over in the post-Stalin Soviet era to give the appearance of harmony where there was none. They may have tried to eliminate it by indoctrination of younger people with Russo-Soviet culture, education, language, etc. However, it was very much present under the surface and never went away.

Do you think that young Chechen's even if they have no cultural connection to their history not realize that the cultural connection and their history was destroyed by the Soviet state in order to allow for "Russification"? African Americans spent the better part of 100 years being enslaved and conditioned, then another 100 years of being second class citizens and it still did not completely wipe out their ethnic and cultural identity.

You state that the Civil Rights movement has deep roots do to the history of African Americans and their treatment in the US. You are very correct. What I am saying is that the same is also true in the former Soviet Union. A brief period of Soviet "papering over" and oppression did not eliminate the deep-seeded issues between the various groups that go back hundreds of years. You've often stated that "Russian" is greater than Tsar or Soviet or Putin. You are very much correct. The ethnic strife caused by the actions of Imperial Russia did not disappear simply because the Soviet Union was formed and in many cases the Soviet Union simply continued existing policies under a different name, perhaps with a brief respite for around 30 years up to the collapse.

Chechens did not suddenly wake up one morning and decided they hate Russians, there is a LONG history there and that history didn't simply disappear in 1957 when Krushchev reversed the earlier oppression. That's like saying that the institution of slavery and Jim Crow have had no lasting impacts on African Americans in the US because around 40+ years ago equality was granted and now there is a black president.

You seem insistent on viewing this as a Imperial vs. Soviet vs. Now situation. I am telling you they are all connected and one in the same.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by erasure

I've already explained that the reason behind Armenia\Azerbaijan conflict has got little to do with Russians, as for Turkestan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan - yes, it boiled that fast for a number of economic reasons throughout Gorbachev's times, not because there was constant "ethnic strife" there before.

Why must "ethnic" strife have to be defined as ethnic minorities vs ethnic Russians, when the conversation is about ethnic strife within the Soviet Union? Certainly Stalin wasn't an ethnic Russian but rather was a Georgian. Ethnic conflict existed in the Soviet Union between ethnic minorities and ethnic Russians.

They were the ones who basically created the whole infrastructure in the regions inhabited by nomads or by people whose development was a century behind.

Which raises the question, if the Soviet Union was the multi-ethnic paradise as advertised, then why after nearly a century of Soviet rule where those other members of the Soviet state still developmentally behind their ethnic Russian counter-parts?

One last thing, as the link pointed out what the referendum actually meant was solely dependent upon what those who voted for it actually meant. Without clear and consistent statement of purpose, voting for the referendum was purely a matter of personal/regional interpretation and in light of the developments that immediately followed wasn't uniformly accepted.

Only eight of fifteen republics approved of the treaty to preserve the union and of those eight only the Ukraine and and maybe Beyelorussia stood a chance of independent economic development. And when you consider the six that boycotted the referendum all together, they represent the most economically advance republics in the Soviet Union or were farthest way from Russia and closest to NATO aligned nations to make independence a real and long lasting possibility (of the six only Armenia hasn't taken active sets to join the alliance.)

[btownboss4]

Originally Posted by belmont22

Do you think it declined because of Gorbachev's harsh stance on alcohol? Did taking away vodka = the end of Soviet Russia?

I know if the US government took away our brewski, people would be pissed.

Its because Gorbachev gave new freedoms to the Soviet Bloc nations, that gave them the inspiration to rise up because they now could be heard. Also it gave people abilities to express their culture, and eventually realizing that the Soviet Union was not good for anyone, and many others agreed.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

erasure, go back and read what you wrote. You are asking me if we are talking about ethnic strife in the Imperial or Soviet time. In the same post, you are then stating that the Civil Rights movement in the US was the genesis of centuries of oppression. I was trying to make a rather subtle point and it may have been lost.

The ethnic strife and oppression that existed during the Imperial times continued in the Soviet Union in many ways. The "strife" has deep roots. It may have been papered over in the post-Stalin Soviet era to give the appearance of harmony where there was none. They may have tried to eliminate it by indoctrination of younger people with Russo-Soviet culture, education, language, etc. However, it was very much present under the surface and never went away.

Yes, that subtle point has been lost, because I didn't realize that you were talking about "ethnic strife" on a different level comparably to what I expected; if you mean a deeper layer - then that's what the whole modern history of the world is basically all about - about a few nations ( I am talking about Europeans,) their advancement in trade/ technology and their colonization of other nations/countries. That, and history of Christianity ( and Islam) of course. That's how the United States were born and that's how Russia turned into a big and influential empire. But if we are talking about "ethnic strife" from this perspective, then Russia was a more benevolent colonizer than other European conquerors, be that Spaniards or Anglo-Saxons. Russians ( unlike Anglo-Saxons) didn't need to exterminate the local population for a couple of reasons I suppose; reason number one - Russian culture itself is much closer to the culture of indigenous population, and number two - the Russification of the local population was probably the best way to spread Orthodoxy among them, the way Russians saw it. They didn't need exactly to turn locals into slaves ( or to import slave labor for this matter,) because the serfdom already served this purpose ( meaning Russian aristocracy already had their own, local slaves,) and if the indigenous population was exploited, so were Russian peasants side by side with them.
So you see? Quite different picture, if we are talking about the "ethnic strife" on historical level.
But that is if we are talking about Tzarist times of course, without touching Soviet times yet.

Do you think that young Chechen's even if they have no cultural connection to their history not realize that the cultural connection and their history was destroyed by the Soviet state in order to allow for "Russification"?

The young Chechens could not completely lose their cultural connection, because as I've already mentioned all the ethnicities were acquired by Russians with their ancestral lands, and that means that their respective cultures were preserved up to a certain degree, and so were their native languages. The part of their culture that young Chechens couldn't get connected to, of course, ( being under Russians,) was precisely that; the honor killing, the pillaging, the usage of slavery, the family vendetta and the rest, that Islam mixed with their cultural traditions could produce. Quite a combustive combination, and keeping in mind that a big chunk of other ethnic population incorporated in Russia confesses Islam, I can't blame Russians that they've kept this particular group of people (Chechens) under their thumb as much as they could.

African Americans spent the better part of 100 years being enslaved and conditioned, then another 100 years of being second class citizens and it still did not completely wipe out their ethnic and cultural identity.

Why would they lose their cultural identity? How could they? They are way too different from Anglo-Saxons; in fact their culture in its very core is so opposite to Anglo-Saxon culture, that Anglo-Saxon culture ( as modified as it is in American version) simply can't absorb them.

You state that the Civil Rights movement has deep roots do to the history of African Americans and their treatment in the US. You are very correct. What I am saying is that the same is also true in the former Soviet Union.

No, it's absolutely not true, and I've already explained why, even simply going back to the times of the Russian empire and the difference in history of colonization itself, even though I didn't touch much on Soviet history in this respect. I already explained that Russian culture is different from Anglo-Saxon culture to begin with, plus Soviet state was pursuing different policies, obviously, comparably to the US.

You seem insistent on viewing this as a Imperial vs. Soviet vs. Now situation. I am telling you they are all connected and one in the same.

Are you telling me that Russian Empire is no different from the Soviet Union and that Soviet Union is no different from Putin's Russia?
I beg you different; and if those three have big differences between them, so the dynamics of ethnic relations in Russia under different systems differ as well.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Why must "ethnic" strife have to be defined as ethnic minorities vs ethnic Russians, when the conversation is about ethnic strife within the Soviet Union?

Because for the most part that's what's usually implied under "ethnic strife" in Soviet Union - other etnicities (supposedly) dominated by Russians. That's usually the center of discussion, with squabbles between other ethnicities being of lesser concern.

Certainly Stalin wasn't an ethnic Russian but rather was a Georgian.

And?
What problem do you see here?

Which raises the question, if the Soviet Union was the multi-ethnic paradise as advertised, then why after nearly a century of Soviet rule where those other members of the Soviet state still developmentally behind their ethnic Russian counter-parts?

Huh? They were developmentally behind their ethnic Russian counter-parts for the same reason that a guy next to you can't play piano while you can ( just an example) or because not everyone is capable of good math ( or physics) no matter that you explain the same material to everyone.

One last thing, as the link pointed out what the referendum actually meant was solely dependent upon what those who voted for it actually meant. Without clear and consistent statement of purpose, voting for the referendum was purely a matter of personal/regional interpretation and in light of the developments that immediately followed wasn't uniformly accepted.

Oh no, everything was clearly stated of course, with five precise questions being voted on ( with those questions being amended by specific requests of certain republics,) it's just the American source that you've quoted is very vague on the issue, but Russian wiki has all the details of course.

Only eight of fifteen republics approved of the treaty to preserve the union and of those eight only the Ukraine and and maybe Beyelorussia stood a chance of independent economic development.

That is correct; the economy of the majority of those republics was subsidized by Russia during Soviet times, and as history showed even Ukraine and Belorussia didn't fare well economy-wise, when they went their separate ways.

And when you consider the six that boycotted the referendum all together, they represent the most economically advance republics in the Soviet Union or were farthest way from Russia and closest to NATO aligned nations to make independence a real and long lasting possibility (of the six only Armenia hasn't taken active sets to join the alliance.)

No, not really - they were not necessarily the most "economically advanced" - ( Moldavia in particular,) the reasons behind the boycott were first of all political.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by erasure

Yes, that subtle point has been lost, because I didn't realize that you were talking about "ethnic strife" on a different level comparably to what I expected; if you mean a deeper layer - then that's what the whole modern history of the world is basically all about - about a few nations ( I am talking about Europeans,) their advancement in trade/ technology and their colonization of other nations/countries. That, and history of Christianity ( and Islam) of course. That's how the United States were born and that's how Russia turned into a big and influential empire. But if we are talking about "ethnic strife" from this perspective, then Russia was a more benevolent colonizer than other European conquerors, be that Spaniards or Anglo-Saxons. Russians ( unlike Anglo-Saxons) didn't need to exterminate the local population for a couple of reasons I suppose; reason number one - Russian culture itself is much closer to the culture of indigenous population, and number two - the Russification of the local population was probably the best way to spread Orthodoxy among them, the way Russians saw it. They didn't need exactly to turn locals into slaves ( or to import slave labor for this matter,) because the serfdom already served this purpose ( meaning Russian aristocracy already had their own, local slaves,) and if the indigenous population was exploited, so were Russian peasants side by side with them.
So you see? Quite different picture, if we are talking about the "ethnic strife" on historical level.
But that is if we are talking about Tzarist times of course, without touching Soviet times yet.

Am I to assume that the ethnic strife/tension created in the Tsarist era simply ceased to exist in Soviet times? I can't buy that. The ethnic minorities attempted to assert their national identities in immediate post-Revolution era and they were suppressed. The tension remained under the surface, with good behavior compelled by force, until 1991 when it all came gushing back to the surface. If there was no ethnic strife, whether you think the complaints were valid or not, how do you explain the massive move to independence led by nationalist parties during the break-up?

The young Chechens could not completely lose their cultural connection, because as I've already mentioned all the ethnicities were acquired by Russians with their ancestral lands, and that means that their respective cultures were preserved up to a certain degree, and so were their native languages. The part of their culture that young Chechens couldn't get connected to, of course, ( being under Russians,) was precisely that; the honor killing, the pillaging, the usage of slavery, the family vendetta and the rest, that Islam mixed with their cultural traditions could produce. Quite a combustive combination, and keeping in mind that a big chunk of other ethnic population incorporated in Russia confesses Islam, I can't blame Russians that they've kept this particular group of people (Chechens) under their thumb as much as they could.

The deportation was not just about deportation. The Soviets set about eradicating Chechen culture. They destroyed the mosques, they destroyed the historical texts and buildings, they destroyed the graveyards and used the stones to make buildings and walkways, etc. They attempted to eradicate the culture, not just move the people. Even when the people were allowed to return, they were denied settling in the mountain areas that were traditionally their homes as these were now occupied by Russians. Instead they were massed into the cities. The Chechen language was suppressed with no schools allowing it to be taught, no publications, no radio, no TV, etc. They weren't just denied the darkside of Islam that some embrace, they were denied their entire culture.

Why would they lose their cultural identity? How could they? They are way too different from Anglo-Saxons; in fact their culture in its very core is so opposite to Anglo-Saxon culture, that Anglo-Saxon culture ( as modified as it is in American version) simply can't absorb them.

You don't know much about African Americans if you don't understand how they lost their cultural identity and the modern movements and desire to recapture it. Do you really think names like "Tom Smith", being a protestant Christian and speaking English are "African cultural traits"? I would argue that the cultural destruction of African Americans was far more complete than anything that occurred in the Tsarist or Soviet system and still there are strong movements towards recapturing the cultural identity.

No, it's absolutely not true, and I've already explained why, even simply going back to the times of the Russian empire and the difference in history of colonization itself, even though I didn't touch much on Soviet history in this respect. I already explained that Russian culture is different from Anglo-Saxon culture to begin with, plus Soviet state was pursuing different policies, obviously, comparably to the US.

The counter to that is the simple fact that when the Soviet state started to crumble, what happened in the ethnic minority republics and areas? Strong, ethnic based, nationalist independence movements. These were not sudden inventions that came about as a result of Gorbachev's policies, these were long simmering tensions and desires that were simply allowed to come out into the open once the Russo-Soviet state stopped repressing them.

Are you telling me that Russian Empire is no different from the Soviet Union and that Soviet Union is no different from Putin's Russia?
I beg you different; and if those three have big differences between them, so the dynamics of ethnic relations in Russia under different systems differ as well.

What I was pointing out is that Russians are Russians. You constantly refer to the longterm preservation and realities of Russian culture to explain things that seem odd to "westerners". I think you are very correct. In the same thread of thought, the ethnic minorities are still the ethnic minorities and despite the best efforts of the Tsarist and Soviet state to eliminate those cultures, they still exist. Those conflicts between cultures are what shapes the landscape regardless of whatever type of government happens to be around.

[erasure]

Am I to assume that the ethnic strife/tension created in the Tsarist era simply ceased to exist in Soviet times? I can't buy that. The ethnic minorities attempted to assert their national identities in immediate post-Revolution era and they were suppressed.

I don't know of any particular strife/tensions between Russians and ethnic population anywhere in Russian Empire except for the Northern Caucasus. If the life was not peachy for impoverished ethnic population, it was not peachy for impoverished Russians themselves either. If Russian nobility had a good life, so did the ethnic nobility.When Lenin called Russia "prison of nations," he meant that Russians themselves were in that prison too; his father happened to be of ethnic background as well by the way. The Northern Caucasus however was the only place that was at the state of constant war in Tzarist Russia; it was not just "strife/tensions."
So this particular conflict obviously didn't go away with Soviet time; it was squashed however, when another Caucasian stepped in ( I mean Stalin) and dealt with Chechens in his own way.
As for the rest of ethnicites - their nobility was sure scared enough after the revolution in Russia and change of the government; it was scared not less than Russian nobility for understandable reasons and from that point on they started stirring their people to rise up against Russian dominance, because at this point Russian dominance meant totally different thing in their eyes comparably to Russian dominance they used to have.
I know for example that when Soviet power came to Caucasus, the younger brother of my grand-father was studying somewhere in German University; he was too afraid to return so he never came back.

The tension remained under the surface, with good behavior compelled by force, until 1991 when it all came gushing back to the surface.

Not exactly, because to begin with - the ethnic nobility that was stirring its people up was finished off for the most part ( as much as Russian nobility) during Soviet times, and again as much as Russians themselves, the ethnic people went through the transformation of the society - from Stalin's times to Khrushev's and Brezhev's times, with Russians lving side by side with them in their midst, building schools and hospitals in the same manner as they were building them in Russian cities. The children of ethnic people were forbidden to work as much as Russian children, their women were guaranteed jobs and child care as much as Russian women, and for less advanced societies such as Kazahstan/Tajikistan/Uzbekistan Russian dominance in this respect was a good thing. ( Note - those were the people who voted to keep the Union, no matter that their ruling elite decided otherwise at the end.)
Now those were the positive traits of the Soviet system, positive from ethnic point of view including, but we can look of course at the negative ones too, and in this respect we should bring the point that different ethnicities had their own class of intelligentsia, as much as Russians had it, and this class was as negative and critical of the Soviet system as a lot of representatives of Russian intelligentsia. These people didn't want any Russian dominance, because it represented for them the Soviet system that they didn't condone, but they didn't have any problems with like-minded Russians and here I'm talking first of all about Caucasians and already even about Balts. That's one part of the story and another part of it - when economic situation in Russia became destabilized in Gorbachev's era, and particularly when his rulership was already coming to an end, as much as Russian nomenclature was looking forward to "shake off" the republics economically-dependent on Russia, the ethnic nomenclature in different republics was looking for the same opportunity, mistakenly thinking that without Moscow ( and Soviet Union) dominating over them, they'll turn somehow into yet another prosperous European-like country and will be swamped with western goods that they were craving so much.
In the world divided into the "West and the rest," (where the Soviet Union was occupying quite unique position of the second world ) for one reason or the other they never thought that going separate ways from Russians they'd end up like Bangladesh or any other third world country; they ( and their intelligentsia in particular) always thought that they'd be more like Europe.
So that's why the upper class of these republics rushed to jump out of the Union ( in spite of the opinion of general population,) encouraged by the Russian nomenclature that was looking for its own chance of enrichment. How it all end? Well Moscow at least still had its gas and oil that the West was interested in, the rest were left with nothing and instead of "flourishing European countries" they've turned into impoverished places. As they've learned with time, the coveted West was interested in natural resources and natural resources only. That, and a possibility to destroy the might of Russia.

Lesson learned, or what do you think?

[erasure]

The deportation was not just about deportation. The Soviets set about eradicating Chechen culture.

Not just "the Soviets" but Stalin, Josef Jugashvili, heh, yet another Caucasian as I've underlined it earlier.

They destroyed the mosques, they destroyed the historical texts and buildings, they destroyed the graveyards and used the stones to make buildings and walkways, etc.

I already explained that their culture has way too many negative traits in it, that are deeply ingrained in Chechen identity, so I have no qualms about this particular ( militant in its core) culture being destroyed and removed from Caucasus.

You don't know much about African Americans if you don't understand how they lost their cultural identity and the modern movements and desire to recapture it. Do you really think names like "Tom Smith", being a protestant Christian and speaking English are "African cultural traits"?

What I meant to say was that I find AAs too strong in spirit that they'd be able to lose their identity, Protestant church or not. And speaking about church - even there Black Churches are very different from White Churches in the US; the way they worship, the way they sing, the way they praise. As I've said - the AA's identity is too strong to be changed. In this particular case it can be modified up to a certain degree, but to be changed - no.

The counter to that is the simple fact that when the Soviet state started to crumble, what happened in the ethnic minority republics and areas? Strong, ethnic based, nationalist independence movements. These were not sudden inventions that came about as a result of Gorbachev's policies, these were long simmering tensions and desires that were simply allowed to come out into the open once the Russo-Soviet state stopped repressing them.

I already commented in my previous post before that the main reason was economic hardship created in Gorbachev's times ( not "long simmering tensions," because there were really none for quite some time,) and the misguided desire of ethnic elites to become "independent countries with flourishing economies."
They flourish all right now, don't they?

What I was pointing out is that Russians are Russians. You constantly refer to the longterm preservation and realities of Russian culture to explain things that seem odd to "westerners". I think you are very correct. In the same thread of thought, the ethnic minorities are still the ethnic minorities and despite the best efforts of the Tsarist and Soviet state to eliminate those cultures, they still exist.

Russians were never trying to eliminate them - it's a wrong projection; ( what would be the point, when they didn't bother Russians or caused them any particular head-aches?)
The only times they were trying to eliminate them ( as in case of Chechens) when it WAS a danger for them. In the rest of cases they were only trying to modify them, which only makes sense in the modern world.