Skip to main content

View Diary: Anti-Chechen Racism Unbridled (152 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think you skimmed over some of it. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lotlizard, earicicle, Rick Aucoin, Avila
    The fact is, Chechans and Russians have been killing each other since well before Ivan the Terrible invaded in the 1500s,
    That's a bit before 'After Chechnaya de-facto gained...'

    While you can certainly make the claim that it's chicken and egg, simply starting at some arbitrary recent point in time and saying side A is at fault is fairly iffy.  I think the author did a decent job of pointing out several times that this is a very long-standing fight along the lines of the ongoing I/P conflict, with bad actors on both sides.

    •  I didn't skimmed (0+ / 0-)

      Although author did a pretty decent job, the quote I provided is wrong.

      Let me ask you a question. Would you consider I/P conflict as "ongoing" even though the last shot was fired 50 years ago? I don't think so.

      The last thing happened in Chechen republic was during World War II, when Nazi forces were close to Caucasian mountains. At this time some "independence fighters" have officially declared support for Germany against Soviet Union. That's why Stalin relocated all of them to Siberia (in very horrific way btw), which is certainly overblown response.

      But since death of Stalin, there was no armed conflicts or anything. Chechen culture was cultivated and cherished. Everybody loved their national dances, cooking and local produce. The problem started when Soviet Union broke up and there was a power vacuum away from Moscow. At this point there was an obvious power grab from criminals and such under umbrella of "independence". And they got one de-facto. Nobody was interfering with Chechen politics for three years. But sh!t started happen, a lot of people sold to slavery under pretence of jobs in Chechnya, a lot of non-natives were forced out, etc. So the conflict began again and it has nothing to do with whatever Nikolay did 200 year ago.

      •  Last shot 50 years ago? Are we talking about the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Avila

        same I/P?  I meant Israel and Palestine, and there have been bullets, rockets, tank raids, air strikes, and suicide bombings aplenty between them in the last 50 years.  So yes, I'd definitely call it ongoing.

        •  I did not bring up I/P conflict (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Alice Olson

          You probably didn't get the picture.

          Let me clarify. I'm arguing against the line of thinking which bundles together whatever troubles happened during Nikolay I time 200 years ago with the current conflict.

          You brought up I/P conflict saying "along the lines of the ongoing I/P conflict". Which I countered with an analogy that if I/P conflict died out 50 years ago, nobody in their right mind would still call it "ongoing". So why Chechen conflict is bundle with the one from 200 years ago?

          •  Because it affects the status quo. (6+ / 0-)

            In America 50 years is a long time, and in Europe, 50 miles is  a long way.

            Chechan Nationalists have been fighting for the independence of their home since the Sassanid Empire invaded.

            Their conflict with Russia has been ongoing, and while it has sometimes been peaceful, it never really ended. You can't have a conversation about Chechnya without going back at least to the actions of Stalin.

            An Fhirinn an aghaidh an t'Saoghail. (The truth against the world.) Is treasa tuath na tighearna. (The common people are mightier than the lords.)

            by OllieGarkey on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 09:26:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Keep in mind that the USSR (Soviet Union) (0+ / 0-)

              was collapsing. Free fall. Corruption, greed and lawlessness was rampant during Yeltsin years. Many regions "forced" their independence. Some got it (Georgia, Ukraine...). Other did not get (Chechnya....). I think Chechnya had some natural resources i.e. oil... and people in Moskau didn't want to let it go without a fight.

              It didn't help that they were muslims and the "Red Army" fresh out of Afghanistan.

              The comments above from "zip95843" are actually in context. But the real reason why they did not get their independence is probably a State secret in Moskau.

              One thing is sure, Putin knows the truth. But do you trust him?

            •  Before that (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              OllieGarkey, pico

              both Lermontov and Tolstoy have novels depicting guerrilla fighting in Chechnya or surrounding areas.

              Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

              by Loge on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 09:23:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And before that, Pushkin. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                OllieGarkey, Loge

                Of course the optimistic (for Russia) conclusion of his take looks pretty grim now (this is from the Roger Clarke translation):

                Hushed now are the furious shouts of war:
                all is in subjection to Russian arms.
                The proud sons of the Caucasus fought on,
                they suffered dreadful losses;
                but nothing could save them -
                not the carnage they inflicted on us,
                not their fabled weaponry,
                not their mountains, nor their spirited horses,
                nor their devotion to an untamed freedom.
                Like the Mongol hordes,
                the mountain folk of the Caucasus
                will not stay true to their ancestral ways:
                they'll forget the call of hungry conflict
                and put aside the arrows of war.
                The traveller will ride without fear
                up to the mountain fastnesses where they used to lurk;
                and sombre tales will be told
                of how their murderous raids were punished.

                Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

                by pico on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:14:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Even more complicated than that. (17+ / 0-)

        First, the years after Stalin's death were hardly a boon in Chechen culture, except by comparison: though they were allowed to repatriate, they were generally not allowed to build mosques, or to participate in local government, or to challenge the mandatory Russification policies of local education.  Richard Sakwa has argued (convincingly, I think) that this was a major reason that this sunk any chances for a progressive, developed, middle-class Chechen population: they were a forced underclass in their own homeland.  And people have to remember that the Stalin era policy was outright genocide, which hangs over a lot of the subsequent history.

        Also remember the proximate reason for the second Chechen war was the series of apartment building bombings across the country during September 1999, and yet nearly all of the arrests and allegations were made against Karachai and Avars.  We don't even have to go as far as some of the Kremlin's biggest critics and debate whether the bombings were an inside job: the fact is that Russia used turmoil in the Caucasus as a way of reinvading territory that had, except for international recognition, become independent a few years before.  

        And yet there's no doubt that the actions of Chechen separatists - so violent and chaotic and indefensible - have made it impossible to sympathize with their cause, even in light of their history.  

        Anyway, none of this may have any relevance to Boston, but I wanted to throw some of this out there.  It's a depressingly complicated history.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 09:06:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site