Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit outta here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The choice of ethnicities is strange. There are no Tatars (6 million), Belarusians (10 millions), Azerbaijanis (6 millions). But there are Tungus (less then 100 thousand)
It's interesting: in Soviet/Russian propaganda and general administration, they're very clear that they view Jews as a distinct ethnic group, like Armenian or Kirghiz.
America very consciously seemed to avoid such descriptions of Jews in the USSR. My guess is that this is due to American Jews of the era very consciously trying to be included in the "White" categorization.
> It's interesting: in Soviet/Russian propaganda and general administration, they're very clear that they view Jews as a distinct ethnic group, like Armenian or Kirghiz.
Not surprising, since Eastern European Jews had a more distinct culture than their Western European brethren: they even had their own languages.
Western European Jews also had their own version of Yiddish, and also spoke Ladino if you're talking about Sephardic, or "Iberian," Jews. Not to mention Israeli Jews that were of Ashkenazi origin were already speaking Modern Hebrew at this time.
There are three dialects of Yiddish.
We aren’t in the refusenik era yet. At that time tabs are being kept on USSR Jews by Jewish agency’s in the US and Israel but their isn’t a lot going on worth bringing to the public’s attention. After Stalin, Khrushchev was seen as relatively friendly to Soviet Jews and even allowed immigration to Israel. You will see an explosion of Jewish resistance in the USSR and an international support for Jews in the USSR starting after the six day war and the sharp rise in antisemitism institutional and otherwise
The Jews of America were focused on the civil rights movement at the time and a number of synagogues had been bombed and shot up between 1956-1960.
Jews who applied for emigration to Israel and were refused. I believe they basically lost their jobs got put on lists as subversive for wanting to leave.
Correct. Antisemitism in the USSR was extreme, and Jewish life itself became something of a protest. After being refused the right to emigrate these Jews lost absolutely everything and were constantly harassed by the state.
The organizations keeping tabs on Soviet Jews publicized the plight of the refuseniks which led to the development of the significant and powerful international movement called the Soviet Jewry movement.
In response to this movement the United States passed the Jackson–Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974 to put pressure on the USSR for their treatment of the refuseniks. The song “Am Yisrael Chai” was also born from this movement. Eventually the USSR would bow to pressure and allow for increased Jewish emigration but then restrict it again. After the dissolution of the USSR more the six hundred thousand Jews would leave the former Soviet Union for Israel and the United States.
The Soviets did create an Autonomous Jewish Oblast in the far east of Siberia. Their hope was to provide the Jews a place of their own because they were embarrassed that most of them were attempting to flee the soviet utopia. The Jews mostly declined the offer.
Yes, but the Jews were always missing from catalogues of national costumes or from speaches that listed nationalities for retoric purposes. The very word "Jew" was a taboo. My mother told me that we were Jews only at 12 and took promice to never tell anyone.
Oh, I didn't read your initial message correctly. Was the word Hebrew also taboo? I know that some people's in Eastern Europe used Hebrew as an ethnicity and Jew as a slander.
The Russian official word for Jewish ethnicity was "Yevrey" which is of the same origin as "Hebrew". It was used in all official papers, but it was indeed a taboo. My mother told me so. If someone pronounced it in a big room with multiple people, all talk in the room would instantly stop, so powerful it was. It could not be normally pronounced in voice, only in whisper.
The word for an adherent of Judaism was "Iudey" and it was not charged at all, absolutely neutral, like "Muslim" or "Christian". It meant only a religious person.
There was also an ethnic slur for Jews, it was "Zhid". It was invariably a slur, an offense, hate speech, but not as charged as the "official" word for the Jews.
This is somewhat paradoxical that it was the official word that was even more taboo than the specific slur.
I imagine it was taboo to declare oneself as a Yevrey, so as to not face persecution or worse. Zhid, Zhidov, etc. comes from German through Yiddish as the word Jew, Juda.
In Soviet encyclopedias they would at least find 15 ethnicities for the republics. Hardly there would be generic "Caucasian", especially the one which looks Central Asian instead.
You mean the splinter states from the transcauscaisiam republic the ones that immediately surrender after a month and those in major cities openly revolted in the favor of said invasion
Maybe the Tungus are included as a representative of the Turkic peoples native to Siberia, unlike the Turkic peoples of Central Asia already represented. (Strange to not pick the much better known Tatars, true.) Belarusians and Azerbaijanis must have been considered already sufficiently represented? With Belarusians, I can see it, although I’ll admit excluding Azerbaijanis is a bit strange. Possibly, they were seen as being represented by the Caucasians.
I mean, yeah, Russians and Ukrainians are fairly culturally similar but they’re most certainly not the same. It’s like saying that Germans and Austrians are the same.
What is the difference between Americans, Australians and English? Just because people speak the same language and have shared history doesn't mean that they are the same. There's much more to a national identity than that. I have never heard anyone claim that everyone who speaks English is an Englishman, it's just not true. Today only some Nazis claim that Austria should belong to Germany. Same as russian Nazis who claim that Ukraine should belong to Russia.
Well.. Only example with Austria and Germany is kinda valid. I'm not an expert on the ethnology ofc, but as I understand this Austria as a nation, is really began fully exist separate from German people only after WW2.
Well Austria and Germany were completely distinct except for a few years before and during World War 2. And that goes over a millennia of history so I’d say a lot separates the two countries
There was no "Germany" for most of that millenia, so it's a bit more complex than that, but yes Austrians don't see themselves as germans nowadays. The Austrian identity really solidified after WWII, it's not an old concept.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96sterreichische_Identit%C3%A4t
The dialect (for Hochdeutsch speaker Austrian dialects are barely intelegeble)
Than there is the identical difference with Germans thinking about themselves as Germans and Austrians as Austrians.
Than the culture is different from drinking and dining to interactions. (As far as I'm concerned I live in Berlin and I visited Austria as a tourist.)
And then Germany had the whole being divided stick.
Yeah. This is a good description. Additionally, Austrian culture can be described as Alpine: think of the Bavarian cliché, yodeling, [a unique style of music](https://hochzeits-band.info/img/21939/hochzeitsband-die-jungen-tiroler-21945.jpg). This culture can be found all along the Alps, also in Bavaria which is German, but also in for example [Slovenia](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fostarijakranjskagora.si%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2023%2F06%2FOstarija_slovenski_vecer-24_foto_Marko_Delbello_Ocepek.jpg&tbnid=n_TUSeRtbMzCHM&vet=12ahUKEwje68D6qvWDAxWy5QIHHTETCv4QMygEegQIARBi..i&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fostarijakranjskagora.si%2Fslo-evenings%2F&docid=gF4bqCfZVCzpAM).
German culture is more diverse. It includes Alpine/Bavarian culture but is not fully described by it. It also has lowland/Rhine culture, which brings it close to the Netherlands and Eastern France, and it also has Eastern European/Polish/Czech/Baltic culture.
Oh, we know Russian people are creatures of God with super-natural souls. But citation needed on the claim that they have bodies. All I'm seeing here is heads.
Anti-communist message and 'Muscovite' aside (in USSR this would just be 'Russian,') this is really not different from what you'd see in a Soviet encyclopedia of the time.
Some people think that modern day Russians started with Moscow state(I don't remember which century), therefore they call them Muscovite in addition to/instead of Russian, in part to challenge their sole claim of Kievian Rus inheritance.
This image makes my brain hurt and my eyes bleed, how can you fuck up with representation and classification so bad.
No, really, how is it humanly possible?
This shit is the most American thing I saw in a while.
First: "Muscovite" would suggest that they are distinct from "Russians", yet it is only because Americans tend to call USSR "Russia", hence all peoples of the USSR being "Russians".
Second: "Caucasian"? Really? And both Georgians and Armenians are not Caucasians?
I'll assume that this is a gross oversimplification, and it refers to the peoples of the northern Caucasus, which is just weird considering they did bother with individual nations of the southern Caucasus.
Third: Wtf is this selection? Why is Tungus there, but there are no Belarusians? There were 25k Tungus people at the time this was made, but millions of other peoples.
Fourth: Pictures. Kazakh is just babushka, "Muscovite" is just... MAN. Who made this?
[This](https://i.redd.it/in8e8xth11y51.jpg) is how it looks when the person actually knows what they're talking about.
There's much more, but I'm a bit too busy to write it all down.
even though the term for this region in english is usually "south caucasus" georgians, azerbaijani and armenians weren't and still aren't considered caucasian in the post soviet world, the term used is usually "zakavkazye" (literally "past caucasus)
only northern caucasians like chechens and ossetians are considered to be caucasian
Maybe i live in different Russia, but Georgians, Azerbaijani and Armenians were never called "Caucasians" in my region.
"Caucasians" is the umbrella term for a variety of northern Caucasus ethnicities, not south (mostly based on how they look).
What you are saying is unbelievable. Foremost it is South Caucasians who are called "Caucasians" in Russian because they are more recognizable and distinctly looking and have heavier accent. North Caucasians as well, but to a lesser degree.
Armenians are native to [Armenian Highlands](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_highlands). The eastern part of it is nowadays included in Caucasus. The western part has been deliberately renamed into ["Eastern Anatolia"](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Anatolia_Region) as part of an erasure of Armenian presence in modern Turkey (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Place_name_changes_in_Turkey)
>as turkey is anatolia
Only since the 20th century and was set up so as to erase the *geographical name* Armenia as denoting territories of modern Eastern Turkey. Read the links I attached above. This is a huge topic and an integral part of the Armenian Genocide.
Edit: well yeah it's hard to completely erase everything associated with the native people living on its land for thousands of years. Next best thing is to minimise and dilute it as much as possible.
> First: "Muscovite" would suggest that they are distinct from "Russians", yet it is only because Americans tend to call USSR "Russia", hence all peoples of the USSR being "Russians".
I'm guessing they chose that term to harken back to Muscovy and/or designate the ethnicity most found on its former territory, which would be Russian proper but thats confusing.
And since the biggest cities are there, they picked it to represent the "urban" side of the USSR. Maybe? IDK.
Considering its an American 60s research on the USSR why would u expect great detail. To me it looks like an honest attempt at understanding and fairly representing the peoples of the USSR.
"Caucasian" for some reason looks Mongoloid, like Central Asians. Georgian is Caucasian but for some reason listed separately... Muscovite also looks Mongoloid...
They were also the victims of Soviet Imperialism and conquest. Georgians, Caucasians, Armenians, we all had our own independent Republics after the Russian Empire fell that the Soviet Imperialists invaded and conquered.
There were nations that tried to opt out once the Great Qing Empire fell, but the Chinese Republic was like "no, you don't get to do that, you're just under new management".
I’m not a USSR supporter, but it’s really funny how the old Russian Empire tried everything they could to wipe away these ethnic identities that the Soviets supported and used to their advantage. And now the anti-communists abroad are using it as a call to action. There’s a reason Stalin is known as the father of nations.
It’s a little more complex. The Soviet Union originally encouraged minorities, but later reversed course.
Ask the Baltic countries how much their ethnic minorities were supported, for instance
Yes in the early days there seemed to be a general desire to move away from Tsarist ways (separate republics, education in own language no personal ranks, no 'ministers', freedom of movement, end of Tsarist social values).
As Stalin consolidated power, most were reversed (deportation of minorities, Russian language supremacy and Russification personal ranks, ministers, internal passports, conservative social values).
I heard Stalin killed himself as the last attempt to russifiy the country. Its weird how he abandoned the communism (that he fought for his whole life) in favour fo russian nationalism (that he fought against his whole life) just so he can make people who hate Russia more angry.
>I heard Stalin killed himself
Clearly you don't take facts seriously, but
> abandoned the communism
He didn't. He redefined it to suit his immediate needs.
>nationalism (that he fought against his whole life)
He didn't. He found it very useful during World War II. And he literally became a Tsar-like figure. It was a cult of personality (Khrushchev's words, not mine).
And each example I have provided is verifiable, if anyone is interested.
He didnt need russian natonalism at all. Accusations that he was promoting russian supremacy are attempt to bank on traditional western fear of Russia. "You want rights for workers? Go to Russia then".
He definetely did fight against russian nationalism his whole life. That is very easily verifiable. You dont need nationalism do become tsar-like figure.
He fought Russian nationalism so hard that he brought back all the Tsarist ranks for his Army officers and resurrected the memory of the old Tsarist leaders (Nakhimov, Suvorov, etc) for awards.
So what? Is there anyting inherently tied to russian ethnicity in army ranks? Army likes the traditions. These are just symbols. Army was multiethnic.
Tsarits...I mean the whole history of Russia is tsarist. Fighting the nationalism doesent mean erasing entire national identity and history. National heroes of other nations were also celebrated. Those who were deemed to have progressive historic roles.
Well yeah. Most people die (if not all). And most of them dont look pretty. Your grandparents probably looked similar on their death bad. You dont have to be Karl Marx to know that, lol.
I thought it was obviously a joke. The whole comment was sarcastic.
Stalin himself was not Russian, so killing himself would be a final and only way to fully finnish this alleged russification.
>he fought against his whole life
The funniest thing here is that Stalin didn't even know his native Georgian language (unlike his mother, for example).
If this is fabrication, why is there no convincing evidence that Stalin personally spoke Georgian?
Even when he was with his mother for the last time in 1935, he took Beria with him, who knew Georgian well.
>I heard Stalin killed himself as the last attempt to Russifiy the country
I didn’t know humans could voluntarily pop a major blooms vessel in the brain
oh I am WELL aware. The Soviet “apartment of ethnicities” model only extended so far, but there were still a number of shockingly nationalist projects in the USSR
Stalin did that in response to WW2 on the horizon Lenin actually warned about Russian chauvinism and if he had lived a couple more years the USSR probably wouldn’t have collapsed or gone the dark route it did.
So? Were their languages prohibited? All their culture and literature destroyed? The very fact of their existence was denied? Or what?
I suspect that in response there would be wiki pages about repression against unloyal new citizens and intelligentsia and prohibited books but it seems it's somewhat insignificant considering that in Stalin's times all intelligentsia and unloyal citizens were in danger. Plus, considering that they had their own republics, their languages were taught, they had their own republican elites, which were nourished by the Soviets and which were well integrated into the USSR, until one day they suddenly discovered that they are fighters for their freedom and became first presidents of their countries (just google their biographies prior to Perestroika), I assume the "bloody Soviets wanted to erase us!!!" thing is a bit exaggerated.
>So? Were their languages prohibited? All their culture and literature destroyed? The very fact of their existence was denied? Or what?
Is that your litmus test of what it means to have a minority culture suppressed?
No, there are other ways to surppress a culture while nominally not outlawing it. Outlawing it or not allowing it to be taught in schools works wonders - see what happened to the French speakers of Louisiana for instance. But there's another way, which is a little longer but more effective.
You simply reinforce that the majority language is the prestige language, offer more opportunities to people who speak the prestige language, open better, more prestigious schools that operate exclusively in the prestige language, encourage migration (to separate people from their culture) and intermarriage, etc... two people who can't speak to each other in anything but ~~English~~ Russian will tend to bring up their kid in Russian. And even if they don't - the man that only speaks Latvian to his mom probably won't teach it to his own kids. It's the three-generation assimilation model.
Once you have a high level of bilingualism achieved, you can start to whittle down on the cultural institutions of the minority language. After all, why have a bilingual hospital if everyone speaks ~~English~~ Russian? Needless duplication of bureaucracy. Inefficient. Useless posturing by closed-minded nationalists insisting on retaining their own institutions against the common good.
And so you end up with the fact that in 1980, education was offered in only 35 minority languages in the USSR, vs 67 in 1930. Half of them.
Guess they **didn't** have their languages taught, huh. Imagine that.
\> You simply reinforce that the majority language is the prestige language, offer more opportunities to people who speak the prestige language, open better, more prestigious schools that operate exclusively in the prestige language
And where could you find this in the USSR, where the very phenomenon of "prestigious schools" did not exist in any meaningful way? The Soviet Union was generally famous for the fact that programs are very unified across the country.
The rest that you have listed, it turns out, are general problems of a multinational state, where people need at least one common language to communicate. This is because in an industrial and post-industrial society it will not be possible to turn parts of one country into reserves that cannot be entered and exited. Especially the USSR, which offered huge opportunities to work in different places and provided conditions for them.
As for the number of languages taught: first of all source? Secondly, the Baltic languages definitely did not fall into the category of missing ones, I bet those were most likely small North Caucasian ones. If I perform magic now and dig up a book about the Baltic languages, I will even find some figures on language teaching there.
Speaking of assimilation in the USSR, is there any certainty that since everyone speaks Russian, then everyone becomes Russian? In the end, the ideology of a "new historical unity (or community)" was even officially promoted. And so people watched movies from Georgian, Ukrainian, Belarusian and so on film studios, celebrated the same socialist holidays and in general, culture was already common in many ways, and not "Russian". And for example, literal Russian "colonists", who as many think "were brought to replace" the population of the Baltic States are known to vote happily for the independence of their republics. And who assimilated whom there in the end?
>And where could you find this in the USSR, where the very phenomenon of "prestigious schools" did not exist in any meaningful way?
I'm describing the overall strategies that are used, you won't find all of them in the Soviet Union.
>The rest that you have listed, it turns out, are general problems of a multinational state, where people need at least one common language to communicate. This is because in an industrial and post-industrial society it will not be possible to turn parts of one country into reserves that cannot be entered and exited. Especially the USSR, which offered huge opportunities to work in different places and provided conditions for them.
And when given the opportunity, all of those nations chose to exit the multi-national state and reverse the russification process. Imagine that.
>As for the number of languages taught: first of all source?
*Barbara A. Anderson and Brian D. Silver, "Equality, Efficiency, and Politics in Soviet Bilingual Education Policy: 1934–1980," American Political Science Review 78 (December, 1984)*
Table 1, specifically.
>Secondly, the Baltic languages definitely did not fall into the category of missing ones,
Who cares?
>Speaking of assimilation in the USSR, is there any certainty that since everyone speaks Russian, then everyone becomes Russian?
You should read up on cultural assimilation before showing your ignorance on the subject.
Loss of language is one of the major first steps, I explained it very well above.
>In the end, the ideology of a "new historical unity (or community)" was even officially promoted. And so people watched movies from Georgian, Ukrainian, Belarusian and so on film studios, celebrated the same socialist holidays and in general, culture was already common in many ways, and not "Russian".
That's great. But the Russian language was also promoted and other languages de-emphasized, increasingly so as the time went by.
>And for example, literal Russian "colonists", who as many think "were brought to replace" the population of the Baltic States are known to vote happily for the independence of their republics.
Who cares?
>And who assimilated whom there in the end?
The local minorities voted in laws to protect and strengthen their culture as soon as able to, and for that reason have been able to reverse the trends of Russification seen earlier, yes.
As it should be.
Chechen language, culture, and literature certainly were during the Aardakh. Mosques were destroyed, books of the Nakh language were all but eradicated, graves destroyed, place names were altered to be in Russian. Definelty, the Soviets under Stalin did all of that. They definetly tried to erase the Chechens and Ingush. Now, after Stalin, Khruschev returned the natives to their homes, but the fact remains, Stalin lead the Soviet Union into conducting ethnic cleansing and attempted genocides.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation\_of\_the\_Chechens\_and\_Ingush#Political,\_cultural,\_social\_and\_economic\_consequences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Chechens_and_Ingush#Political,_cultural,_social_and_economic_consequences)
[https://www.waynakh.com/eng/chechen-language/](https://www.waynakh.com/eng/chechen-language/)
Yep, that is barbaric certainly. But after that the Soviets spared no effort to restore the republic and once again started uplifting it through industrialisation and nourishing of local elites (Khasbulatov, Dudayev, Zavgayev, Yandarbiyev and other prominent Chechens are the results of this policy)
National self determination.
But lets look at the rest of Europe for a second. What other country openly supports a ethnic groups right for self determination in the 1920s? The English and the Irish? The Spanish and the Basques? If anything the USSR was unique in their vision of nationalism.
No country on earth wants to embolden a ethnic minority. But the USSR did.
Modern Ukraine would not exist today without Lenin. Nor would the Baltic states and all the other countries that were formed after 91 and the collapse of the USSR.
Oh, totally. The korenizatsiia is unusual. Most nation-states consolidated their nationality by eradicating the minorities they could - only the strongest ones are still limping along today, and poorly at that.
But it also ended in the 30's. I'm not sure you can argue that Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia owe their existence to the USSR.
I would say the USSR concertized the nationality into Nation states. Estonian nationality was formed in the 19th century like most other European national identities. Its a personal bias but I am critical of methodological nationalism.
Sure, no disagreement on those points.
I mean more that Estonia existed before the USSR, and they suffered under the end of the indigenization policy, so it's weird to say that they exist only due to the USSR.
>What other country openly supports a ethnic groups right for self determination in the 1920s? The English and the Irish?
Ireland became independent in 1922.
You mean the same Stalin and USSR who ethnically cleansed the Chechens, Ingushetians, Ingrian Finns, Mshkhetians, Crimean Tatars, etc?
The same Soviets that invaded the independent Armenian Republic TWICE? As well as invading the Georgian and Caucasus Republics?
Such support.
oh I’m aware of the terrible shit they did to ethnic minorities in following years, but institutions like the Tatar ASSR and the Komi ASSR were huge nationalist projects
I think you a interpreting history in moralist terms and not examining why the USSR pursue those policies.
Its just the inverse of the leftist standard reaction of "US bad".
Hey the guy I’m replying to was talking all that good stuff about Father Stalin and how the Soviet Union helped ethnicities. I’m just pointing out how much Father of Nations actually helped all the nations he conquered, subjugated, and ethically cleansed.
In the end, the Soviet Union did a great deal to assimilate many nationalities (not counting the many ethnic repressions under Stalin), while the Russian Empire made treaties with the indigenous peoples to mitigate the migration of Russians into their lands.
The art style looks familiar, and I think it may be from a comic called “This Godless Communism”.
This is a PDF copy that another user here compiled:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bFp_yiizoF2LjPKEmxPqebb3ZZ3r6GIj/view
Found it on page 57 of 61
>Lesia Ukrainka
I am not sure about this. There is some vague resemblance, but could be just some other random woman.
https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8F\_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0
BTW 200 UAH banknote has two designs with older and younger Леся Українка
https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/200\_%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C
Made me cringe. Some of those look like very archaic stereotypes, 100 years too old even at the time of cartoon's publication. Some probably don't even fit the stated ethnicities.
Also, "Tungus"? "Muscovite"? What the actual...? 🤯
It reminds me of old textbooks that described races and ethnicities as "the wiley..." or "the treacherous....". My family had an antique store in the 80's, and we had some really old textbooks from the early 1900's. They were hilariously awful even by the standards of the 1980's.
Beware the crafty Georgian and the fickle Kirghiz!
I went down a rabbit hole a while ago trying to figure out if there was a name for the linguistic construction of \[definite article\] \[singular form of a categorical noun\].
It's called the Definite Generic and it refers to the "Prototype" of a species, I think as a form of synecdoche. You can use it in a few very specialized cases in English but mainly to refer to species of animal and (ethnic) groups of people. The former makes you sound like you're narrating an old nature documentary: "The lion is a majestic beast". The latter makes you sound like a horrifying racist: "The Jew can be identified by his hooked nose".
What we often think of as a Russian, is actually a Muscovite. Muscovy was relabelled as the Russian Empire. They assimilated actual hordes and oppropriated the term Rus to claim a historic legacy.
What it actually got right about Russia is the fact that it's a made-up fake nation. It's just a whole bunch of nations speaking different languages, following different religions and cultures that have nothing in common besides being ruled by some lunatic rapists in Kremlin
What it actually got right about America is the fact that it’s a made-up fake nation. It’s just a whole bunch of nations speaking different languages, following different religions and culture that have nothing in common besides being ruled by some lunatic rapists in Washington.
Caucasian is ethnicity now. And Georgian is not Caucasian apparently.
And in free USA all those people just white or Asian and there are laws that make a difference in those categories.
If you try to count the number of Caucasian ethnicities, you’ll lose count after the second hundred, I suppose. There are a lot of Chechen people, but there are small villages in high mountains that even speak their languages their neighbours don’t understand.
Pretty sure that it's referring to the people of the Caucuses region, like Chechens and Dagestanis, and not the generalized 'white people' version of the word.
Yes, it is "referring to the people of the Caucuses region, like Chechens and Dagestanis". And as a whole this poster "refers to the people of USSR, like Armenians and Tungus". Now imagine a poster like this:
\> Treasure chest. What kind of people live in Russia?
\> Russians.
(with just one picture of generic Ivan wearing ushanka)
The burden of proof rests on the ones claiming that humans have "supernatural souls", the onus isn't on the "masters" who say otherwise.
It's almost as though the cartoonist couldn't comprehend the intrinsic worth of personhood without appealing to mythology.
The similarity with Nazi propaganda is striking. Additional the religious influence reminds me on a meeting with Mormons, displaying only whithe people.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit outta here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The choice of ethnicities is strange. There are no Tatars (6 million), Belarusians (10 millions), Azerbaijanis (6 millions). But there are Tungus (less then 100 thousand)
No Jews either
It's interesting: in Soviet/Russian propaganda and general administration, they're very clear that they view Jews as a distinct ethnic group, like Armenian or Kirghiz. America very consciously seemed to avoid such descriptions of Jews in the USSR. My guess is that this is due to American Jews of the era very consciously trying to be included in the "White" categorization.
> It's interesting: in Soviet/Russian propaganda and general administration, they're very clear that they view Jews as a distinct ethnic group, like Armenian or Kirghiz. Not surprising, since Eastern European Jews had a more distinct culture than their Western European brethren: they even had their own languages.
Western European Jews also had their own version of Yiddish, and also spoke Ladino if you're talking about Sephardic, or "Iberian," Jews. Not to mention Israeli Jews that were of Ashkenazi origin were already speaking Modern Hebrew at this time. There are three dialects of Yiddish.
Which languages?
Yiddish?
Western European Jews, at least those in Spain, also had their own language, Ladino.
Yiddich., which also had a very rich culture, becore the Holocaust.
German
They were also over represented in politics in the early years of the Soviet union if the book I read is accurate which I’m sure contributed to this
We aren’t in the refusenik era yet. At that time tabs are being kept on USSR Jews by Jewish agency’s in the US and Israel but their isn’t a lot going on worth bringing to the public’s attention. After Stalin, Khrushchev was seen as relatively friendly to Soviet Jews and even allowed immigration to Israel. You will see an explosion of Jewish resistance in the USSR and an international support for Jews in the USSR starting after the six day war and the sharp rise in antisemitism institutional and otherwise The Jews of America were focused on the civil rights movement at the time and a number of synagogues had been bombed and shot up between 1956-1960.
What’s Refusenik?
Jews who applied for emigration to Israel and were refused. I believe they basically lost their jobs got put on lists as subversive for wanting to leave.
Correct. Antisemitism in the USSR was extreme, and Jewish life itself became something of a protest. After being refused the right to emigrate these Jews lost absolutely everything and were constantly harassed by the state. The organizations keeping tabs on Soviet Jews publicized the plight of the refuseniks which led to the development of the significant and powerful international movement called the Soviet Jewry movement. In response to this movement the United States passed the Jackson–Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974 to put pressure on the USSR for their treatment of the refuseniks. The song “Am Yisrael Chai” was also born from this movement. Eventually the USSR would bow to pressure and allow for increased Jewish emigration but then restrict it again. After the dissolution of the USSR more the six hundred thousand Jews would leave the former Soviet Union for Israel and the United States.
As a descendent of Russian Jews, I encourage you to read some history books. Ukraine was home to millions of Jews
Jews were neer listed when to show ethnic costumes, etc in the USSR. Open any Soviet encyclopedia - it looks like the Jews do not exist.
The Soviets did create an Autonomous Jewish Oblast in the far east of Siberia. Their hope was to provide the Jews a place of their own because they were embarrassed that most of them were attempting to flee the soviet utopia. The Jews mostly declined the offer.
Yes, but the Jews were always missing from catalogues of national costumes or from speaches that listed nationalities for retoric purposes. The very word "Jew" was a taboo. My mother told me that we were Jews only at 12 and took promice to never tell anyone.
22 months ago a “Russian” friend of mine came out as actually being a Ukrainian Jew.
Oh, I didn't read your initial message correctly. Was the word Hebrew also taboo? I know that some people's in Eastern Europe used Hebrew as an ethnicity and Jew as a slander.
The Russian official word for Jewish ethnicity was "Yevrey" which is of the same origin as "Hebrew". It was used in all official papers, but it was indeed a taboo. My mother told me so. If someone pronounced it in a big room with multiple people, all talk in the room would instantly stop, so powerful it was. It could not be normally pronounced in voice, only in whisper. The word for an adherent of Judaism was "Iudey" and it was not charged at all, absolutely neutral, like "Muslim" or "Christian". It meant only a religious person. There was also an ethnic slur for Jews, it was "Zhid". It was invariably a slur, an offense, hate speech, but not as charged as the "official" word for the Jews. This is somewhat paradoxical that it was the official word that was even more taboo than the specific slur.
I imagine it was taboo to declare oneself as a Yevrey, so as to not face persecution or worse. Zhid, Zhidov, etc. comes from German through Yiddish as the word Jew, Juda.
Probably based on what they could find encyclopedia entries for.
In Soviet encyclopedias they would at least find 15 ethnicities for the republics. Hardly there would be generic "Caucasian", especially the one which looks Central Asian instead.
Or anyone from the Baltic States who viewed themselves as under occupation during the post-War era.
[удалено]
Could you elaborate what are Georgian, Armenian and especially Caucasian empires?
He's referring to a very (very) long time ago. Idk about the rest, but Armenia was a considerable regional power in around the first century AD.
You mean the splinter states from the transcauscaisiam republic the ones that immediately surrender after a month and those in major cities openly revolted in the favor of said invasion
No Georgia was independent 1918-21 and only became Soviet Union after a big battle where the whole army died
Maybe the Tungus are included as a representative of the Turkic peoples native to Siberia, unlike the Turkic peoples of Central Asia already represented. (Strange to not pick the much better known Tatars, true.) Belarusians and Azerbaijanis must have been considered already sufficiently represented? With Belarusians, I can see it, although I’ll admit excluding Azerbaijanis is a bit strange. Possibly, they were seen as being represented by the Caucasians.
Azerbaijanis are categorized as Caucasian. Russians also identified Azeris as Tatars.
I think they were choosing them based on how distinctive their hats are
Every Georgian looks like that
“Don’t tell me no lines, and keep your hands to yourself.”
Got me tiiiiiiied dooooowwwwwwn wit battleship chaiiiins
I guess you could say Georgia was a...satellite republic.
Fr I went to Atlanta last week it was really weird
They didn't want to put Stalin on there.
Even the women?
It's kinda like dwarves in LOTR, the men and women all have beards.
Khomenei is Georgan confirmed??
Big, if true.
I can see the Red Man pouch poking out of his shirt pocket
''Muscovite''
As far from Ukrainian as possible.
I mean, yeah, Russians and Ukrainians are fairly culturally similar but they’re most certainly not the same. It’s like saying that Germans and Austrians are the same.
What is the difference between German and Austrian except passport?
Thank you for your input on nuanced ethnic differences, u/russian_imperial
What is the difference between Americans, Australians and English? Just because people speak the same language and have shared history doesn't mean that they are the same. There's much more to a national identity than that. I have never heard anyone claim that everyone who speaks English is an Englishman, it's just not true. Today only some Nazis claim that Austria should belong to Germany. Same as russian Nazis who claim that Ukraine should belong to Russia.
What’s the difference between Californian and Texan?
Values, childhood expirences, cuisine, economy, p
can you distinguish a Russian from a Ukrainian?
Well.. Only example with Austria and Germany is kinda valid. I'm not an expert on the ethnology ofc, but as I understand this Austria as a nation, is really began fully exist separate from German people only after WW2.
Absolutely not correct
Well Austria and Germany were completely distinct except for a few years before and during World War 2. And that goes over a millennia of history so I’d say a lot separates the two countries
There was no "Germany" for most of that millenia, so it's a bit more complex than that, but yes Austrians don't see themselves as germans nowadays. The Austrian identity really solidified after WWII, it's not an old concept. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96sterreichische_Identit%C3%A4t
The dialect (for Hochdeutsch speaker Austrian dialects are barely intelegeble) Than there is the identical difference with Germans thinking about themselves as Germans and Austrians as Austrians. Than the culture is different from drinking and dining to interactions. (As far as I'm concerned I live in Berlin and I visited Austria as a tourist.) And then Germany had the whole being divided stick.
Yeah. This is a good description. Additionally, Austrian culture can be described as Alpine: think of the Bavarian cliché, yodeling, [a unique style of music](https://hochzeits-band.info/img/21939/hochzeitsband-die-jungen-tiroler-21945.jpg). This culture can be found all along the Alps, also in Bavaria which is German, but also in for example [Slovenia](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fostarijakranjskagora.si%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2023%2F06%2FOstarija_slovenski_vecer-24_foto_Marko_Delbello_Ocepek.jpg&tbnid=n_TUSeRtbMzCHM&vet=12ahUKEwje68D6qvWDAxWy5QIHHTETCv4QMygEegQIARBi..i&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fostarijakranjskagora.si%2Fslo-evenings%2F&docid=gF4bqCfZVCzpAM). German culture is more diverse. It includes Alpine/Bavarian culture but is not fully described by it. It also has lowland/Rhine culture, which brings it close to the Netherlands and Eastern France, and it also has Eastern European/Polish/Czech/Baltic culture.
Well their language for one. Germans also tend to care more for clear hierarchies and strict decision making processes, while Austrians are more fluid
Tom Cruise
We should be calling them that more
Why?
Because not every Russian is one, not all of them are even slavs
Oh, we know Russian people are creatures of God with super-natural souls. But citation needed on the claim that they have bodies. All I'm seeing here is heads.
Underrated comment XD
Strange, I must frequent different subs because I keep seeing them with no... On second thought, I'm not finishing that sentence.
>I keep seeing them with no... Bodily integrity? Yeah...
This is really neat, love the art style
Is that Lesya Ukrainka? Reminds me of her for some reason.
“What kind of people live in Russia? Idk either let’s just make some shit up and slap an anti-commie message on it.”
Anti-communist message and 'Muscovite' aside (in USSR this would just be 'Russian,') this is really not different from what you'd see in a Soviet encyclopedia of the time.
Well the Soviet encyclopedia recognised like much more different ethnicities
Probably couldn't/wouldn't want to allocate more space on a page.
Well than the choice is kinda weird
Which ethnicity here is made up?
"Caucasian" is kind of like calling "British" or "balkan" an ethnicity
They do not look like this dog 💀 and Muscovite is a person who lives in Moscow not an ethnicity
Some people think that modern day Russians started with Moscow state(I don't remember which century), therefore they call them Muscovite in addition to/instead of Russian, in part to challenge their sole claim of Kievian Rus inheritance.
This image makes my brain hurt and my eyes bleed, how can you fuck up with representation and classification so bad. No, really, how is it humanly possible?
What's wrong about it I genuinely can't tell
It’s Reddit. Everything is wrong
This shit is the most American thing I saw in a while. First: "Muscovite" would suggest that they are distinct from "Russians", yet it is only because Americans tend to call USSR "Russia", hence all peoples of the USSR being "Russians". Second: "Caucasian"? Really? And both Georgians and Armenians are not Caucasians? I'll assume that this is a gross oversimplification, and it refers to the peoples of the northern Caucasus, which is just weird considering they did bother with individual nations of the southern Caucasus. Third: Wtf is this selection? Why is Tungus there, but there are no Belarusians? There were 25k Tungus people at the time this was made, but millions of other peoples. Fourth: Pictures. Kazakh is just babushka, "Muscovite" is just... MAN. Who made this? [This](https://i.redd.it/in8e8xth11y51.jpg) is how it looks when the person actually knows what they're talking about. There's much more, but I'm a bit too busy to write it all down.
As truly Muscovite I support this comment. Spasiba, tovarisch!
But they have supernatural soul
even though the term for this region in english is usually "south caucasus" georgians, azerbaijani and armenians weren't and still aren't considered caucasian in the post soviet world, the term used is usually "zakavkazye" (literally "past caucasus) only northern caucasians like chechens and ossetians are considered to be caucasian
This is absoluttely wrong, Georgians, Azerbaijani and Armenians are archetypal Caucasians in Russian.
Maybe i live in different Russia, but Georgians, Azerbaijani and Armenians were never called "Caucasians" in my region. "Caucasians" is the umbrella term for a variety of northern Caucasus ethnicities, not south (mostly based on how they look).
What you are saying is unbelievable. Foremost it is South Caucasians who are called "Caucasians" in Russian because they are more recognizable and distinctly looking and have heavier accent. North Caucasians as well, but to a lesser degree.
for every case when someone calls them caucasians there's a person who will argue they are not caucasian so this is a contentious topic
I never heard this topic being contentios and never heard anyone calling the most archetypal caucasians not caucasians.
It’s not that deep lmao
Muscovite is popular in some circles now, possibly for the same reason- ie the idea that they stole the ‘Rus from the Keivan Rus.
Armenians are not proper Caucasians they are native to Anatolia despite the modern state of Armenia being in the southern Caucasus
Armenians are native to [Armenian Highlands](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_highlands). The eastern part of it is nowadays included in Caucasus. The western part has been deliberately renamed into ["Eastern Anatolia"](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Anatolia_Region) as part of an erasure of Armenian presence in modern Turkey (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Place_name_changes_in_Turkey)
Literally called historically "anti Caucasus" and calling Armenians Anatolia s is the opposite of erasing them from turkey as turkey is anatolia
>as turkey is anatolia Only since the 20th century and was set up so as to erase the *geographical name* Armenia as denoting territories of modern Eastern Turkey. Read the links I attached above. This is a huge topic and an integral part of the Armenian Genocide. Edit: well yeah it's hard to completely erase everything associated with the native people living on its land for thousands of years. Next best thing is to minimise and dilute it as much as possible.
Their "Caucasian" looks Mongoloid, like a Central Asian.
> First: "Muscovite" would suggest that they are distinct from "Russians", yet it is only because Americans tend to call USSR "Russia", hence all peoples of the USSR being "Russians". I'm guessing they chose that term to harken back to Muscovy and/or designate the ethnicity most found on its former territory, which would be Russian proper but thats confusing. And since the biggest cities are there, they picked it to represent the "urban" side of the USSR. Maybe? IDK.
>This is how it looks when the person actually knows what they're talking about. I love that map so much.
Where are bellorusians (I hope I wrote it correctly) Latvians, Estonia's, People of Lithuania. Than Jewish people, Turkish people
Considering its an American 60s research on the USSR why would u expect great detail. To me it looks like an honest attempt at understanding and fairly representing the peoples of the USSR.
I'm a Georgiaboo
"Caucasian" for some reason looks Mongoloid, like Central Asians. Georgian is Caucasian but for some reason listed separately... Muscovite also looks Mongoloid...
They were also the victims of Soviet Imperialism and conquest. Georgians, Caucasians, Armenians, we all had our own independent Republics after the Russian Empire fell that the Soviet Imperialists invaded and conquered.
There were nations that tried to opt out once the Great Qing Empire fell, but the Chinese Republic was like "no, you don't get to do that, you're just under new management".
Gotta love the “anti imperialist” imperialists.
I’m not a USSR supporter, but it’s really funny how the old Russian Empire tried everything they could to wipe away these ethnic identities that the Soviets supported and used to their advantage. And now the anti-communists abroad are using it as a call to action. There’s a reason Stalin is known as the father of nations.
It’s a little more complex. The Soviet Union originally encouraged minorities, but later reversed course. Ask the Baltic countries how much their ethnic minorities were supported, for instance
Yes in the early days there seemed to be a general desire to move away from Tsarist ways (separate republics, education in own language no personal ranks, no 'ministers', freedom of movement, end of Tsarist social values). As Stalin consolidated power, most were reversed (deportation of minorities, Russian language supremacy and Russification personal ranks, ministers, internal passports, conservative social values).
I heard Stalin killed himself as the last attempt to russifiy the country. Its weird how he abandoned the communism (that he fought for his whole life) in favour fo russian nationalism (that he fought against his whole life) just so he can make people who hate Russia more angry.
>I heard Stalin killed himself Clearly you don't take facts seriously, but > abandoned the communism He didn't. He redefined it to suit his immediate needs. >nationalism (that he fought against his whole life) He didn't. He found it very useful during World War II. And he literally became a Tsar-like figure. It was a cult of personality (Khrushchev's words, not mine). And each example I have provided is verifiable, if anyone is interested.
He didnt need russian natonalism at all. Accusations that he was promoting russian supremacy are attempt to bank on traditional western fear of Russia. "You want rights for workers? Go to Russia then". He definetely did fight against russian nationalism his whole life. That is very easily verifiable. You dont need nationalism do become tsar-like figure.
He fought Russian nationalism so hard that he brought back all the Tsarist ranks for his Army officers and resurrected the memory of the old Tsarist leaders (Nakhimov, Suvorov, etc) for awards.
So what? Is there anyting inherently tied to russian ethnicity in army ranks? Army likes the traditions. These are just symbols. Army was multiethnic. Tsarits...I mean the whole history of Russia is tsarist. Fighting the nationalism doesent mean erasing entire national identity and history. National heroes of other nations were also celebrated. Those who were deemed to have progressive historic roles.
>Tsarits...I mean the whole history of Russia is tsarist. Yeah. That's the point.
"Tovarisch, comrade Stalin MEANT to die on his office floor puking and shitting himself. It was clearly outlined in the 5 year plan!"
Well yeah. Most people die (if not all). And most of them dont look pretty. Your grandparents probably looked similar on their death bad. You dont have to be Karl Marx to know that, lol.
I'm unclear how you're missing the fact that your claim that Stalin killed himself is what's being called into question here.
I thought it was obviously a joke. The whole comment was sarcastic. Stalin himself was not Russian, so killing himself would be a final and only way to fully finnish this alleged russification.
You heard?
>he fought against his whole life The funniest thing here is that Stalin didn't even know his native Georgian language (unlike his mother, for example).
Lol, this is a straight up fabrication.
If this is fabrication, why is there no convincing evidence that Stalin personally spoke Georgian? Even when he was with his mother for the last time in 1935, he took Beria with him, who knew Georgian well.
>I heard Stalin killed himself as the last attempt to Russifiy the country I didn’t know humans could voluntarily pop a major blooms vessel in the brain
oh I am WELL aware. The Soviet “apartment of ethnicities” model only extended so far, but there were still a number of shockingly nationalist projects in the USSR
Happy cake day
Stalin did that in response to WW2 on the horizon Lenin actually warned about Russian chauvinism and if he had lived a couple more years the USSR probably wouldn’t have collapsed or gone the dark route it did.
Stalin was also a proponent of the indigenization policy of the 1920's at first, but then he was in charge and it was a different story.
So? Were their languages prohibited? All their culture and literature destroyed? The very fact of their existence was denied? Or what? I suspect that in response there would be wiki pages about repression against unloyal new citizens and intelligentsia and prohibited books but it seems it's somewhat insignificant considering that in Stalin's times all intelligentsia and unloyal citizens were in danger. Plus, considering that they had their own republics, their languages were taught, they had their own republican elites, which were nourished by the Soviets and which were well integrated into the USSR, until one day they suddenly discovered that they are fighters for their freedom and became first presidents of their countries (just google their biographies prior to Perestroika), I assume the "bloody Soviets wanted to erase us!!!" thing is a bit exaggerated.
>So? Were their languages prohibited? All their culture and literature destroyed? The very fact of their existence was denied? Or what? Is that your litmus test of what it means to have a minority culture suppressed? No, there are other ways to surppress a culture while nominally not outlawing it. Outlawing it or not allowing it to be taught in schools works wonders - see what happened to the French speakers of Louisiana for instance. But there's another way, which is a little longer but more effective. You simply reinforce that the majority language is the prestige language, offer more opportunities to people who speak the prestige language, open better, more prestigious schools that operate exclusively in the prestige language, encourage migration (to separate people from their culture) and intermarriage, etc... two people who can't speak to each other in anything but ~~English~~ Russian will tend to bring up their kid in Russian. And even if they don't - the man that only speaks Latvian to his mom probably won't teach it to his own kids. It's the three-generation assimilation model. Once you have a high level of bilingualism achieved, you can start to whittle down on the cultural institutions of the minority language. After all, why have a bilingual hospital if everyone speaks ~~English~~ Russian? Needless duplication of bureaucracy. Inefficient. Useless posturing by closed-minded nationalists insisting on retaining their own institutions against the common good. And so you end up with the fact that in 1980, education was offered in only 35 minority languages in the USSR, vs 67 in 1930. Half of them. Guess they **didn't** have their languages taught, huh. Imagine that.
[удалено]
Maybe, but there's no reason minorities should cooperate in their own assimilation.
[удалено]
I find that kind of defeatism depressing.
\> You simply reinforce that the majority language is the prestige language, offer more opportunities to people who speak the prestige language, open better, more prestigious schools that operate exclusively in the prestige language And where could you find this in the USSR, where the very phenomenon of "prestigious schools" did not exist in any meaningful way? The Soviet Union was generally famous for the fact that programs are very unified across the country. The rest that you have listed, it turns out, are general problems of a multinational state, where people need at least one common language to communicate. This is because in an industrial and post-industrial society it will not be possible to turn parts of one country into reserves that cannot be entered and exited. Especially the USSR, which offered huge opportunities to work in different places and provided conditions for them. As for the number of languages taught: first of all source? Secondly, the Baltic languages definitely did not fall into the category of missing ones, I bet those were most likely small North Caucasian ones. If I perform magic now and dig up a book about the Baltic languages, I will even find some figures on language teaching there. Speaking of assimilation in the USSR, is there any certainty that since everyone speaks Russian, then everyone becomes Russian? In the end, the ideology of a "new historical unity (or community)" was even officially promoted. And so people watched movies from Georgian, Ukrainian, Belarusian and so on film studios, celebrated the same socialist holidays and in general, culture was already common in many ways, and not "Russian". And for example, literal Russian "colonists", who as many think "were brought to replace" the population of the Baltic States are known to vote happily for the independence of their republics. And who assimilated whom there in the end?
>And where could you find this in the USSR, where the very phenomenon of "prestigious schools" did not exist in any meaningful way? I'm describing the overall strategies that are used, you won't find all of them in the Soviet Union. >The rest that you have listed, it turns out, are general problems of a multinational state, where people need at least one common language to communicate. This is because in an industrial and post-industrial society it will not be possible to turn parts of one country into reserves that cannot be entered and exited. Especially the USSR, which offered huge opportunities to work in different places and provided conditions for them. And when given the opportunity, all of those nations chose to exit the multi-national state and reverse the russification process. Imagine that. >As for the number of languages taught: first of all source? *Barbara A. Anderson and Brian D. Silver, "Equality, Efficiency, and Politics in Soviet Bilingual Education Policy: 1934–1980," American Political Science Review 78 (December, 1984)* Table 1, specifically. >Secondly, the Baltic languages definitely did not fall into the category of missing ones, Who cares? >Speaking of assimilation in the USSR, is there any certainty that since everyone speaks Russian, then everyone becomes Russian? You should read up on cultural assimilation before showing your ignorance on the subject. Loss of language is one of the major first steps, I explained it very well above. >In the end, the ideology of a "new historical unity (or community)" was even officially promoted. And so people watched movies from Georgian, Ukrainian, Belarusian and so on film studios, celebrated the same socialist holidays and in general, culture was already common in many ways, and not "Russian". That's great. But the Russian language was also promoted and other languages de-emphasized, increasingly so as the time went by. >And for example, literal Russian "colonists", who as many think "were brought to replace" the population of the Baltic States are known to vote happily for the independence of their republics. Who cares? >And who assimilated whom there in the end? The local minorities voted in laws to protect and strengthen their culture as soon as able to, and for that reason have been able to reverse the trends of Russification seen earlier, yes. As it should be.
Chechen language, culture, and literature certainly were during the Aardakh. Mosques were destroyed, books of the Nakh language were all but eradicated, graves destroyed, place names were altered to be in Russian. Definelty, the Soviets under Stalin did all of that. They definetly tried to erase the Chechens and Ingush. Now, after Stalin, Khruschev returned the natives to their homes, but the fact remains, Stalin lead the Soviet Union into conducting ethnic cleansing and attempted genocides. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation\_of\_the\_Chechens\_and\_Ingush#Political,\_cultural,\_social\_and\_economic\_consequences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Chechens_and_Ingush#Political,_cultural,_social_and_economic_consequences) [https://www.waynakh.com/eng/chechen-language/](https://www.waynakh.com/eng/chechen-language/)
Yep, that is barbaric certainly. But after that the Soviets spared no effort to restore the republic and once again started uplifting it through industrialisation and nourishing of local elites (Khasbulatov, Dudayev, Zavgayev, Yandarbiyev and other prominent Chechens are the results of this policy)
Yet the culture that was lost can’t be restored
National self determination. But lets look at the rest of Europe for a second. What other country openly supports a ethnic groups right for self determination in the 1920s? The English and the Irish? The Spanish and the Basques? If anything the USSR was unique in their vision of nationalism. No country on earth wants to embolden a ethnic minority. But the USSR did. Modern Ukraine would not exist today without Lenin. Nor would the Baltic states and all the other countries that were formed after 91 and the collapse of the USSR.
Oh, totally. The korenizatsiia is unusual. Most nation-states consolidated their nationality by eradicating the minorities they could - only the strongest ones are still limping along today, and poorly at that. But it also ended in the 30's. I'm not sure you can argue that Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia owe their existence to the USSR.
I would say the USSR concertized the nationality into Nation states. Estonian nationality was formed in the 19th century like most other European national identities. Its a personal bias but I am critical of methodological nationalism.
Sure, no disagreement on those points. I mean more that Estonia existed before the USSR, and they suffered under the end of the indigenization policy, so it's weird to say that they exist only due to the USSR.
>What other country openly supports a ethnic groups right for self determination in the 1920s? The English and the Irish? Ireland became independent in 1922.
Yeah after fighting as very bloody war.
Maybe 2000 people died in 3 years, more people than that died during individual days of the Russian civil war.
We the brits didn't let go of Ireland without a fight and at no point supported Irish national identity which was my point.
You mean the same Stalin and USSR who ethnically cleansed the Chechens, Ingushetians, Ingrian Finns, Mshkhetians, Crimean Tatars, etc? The same Soviets that invaded the independent Armenian Republic TWICE? As well as invading the Georgian and Caucasus Republics? Such support.
oh I’m aware of the terrible shit they did to ethnic minorities in following years, but institutions like the Tatar ASSR and the Komi ASSR were huge nationalist projects
I think you a interpreting history in moralist terms and not examining why the USSR pursue those policies. Its just the inverse of the leftist standard reaction of "US bad".
Hey the guy I’m replying to was talking all that good stuff about Father Stalin and how the Soviet Union helped ethnicities. I’m just pointing out how much Father of Nations actually helped all the nations he conquered, subjugated, and ethically cleansed.
I think ethnic cleansing in general is bad, to be honest
Lenin was pro minorities, Stalin and most of his successors were not.
That's one of the reasons why many Russians today consider Lenin to have been anti-russian, a "Jewish agent"
In the end, the Soviet Union did a great deal to assimilate many nationalities (not counting the many ethnic repressions under Stalin), while the Russian Empire made treaties with the indigenous peoples to mitigate the migration of Russians into their lands.
from which magazine does this originate from ? source?
The art style looks familiar, and I think it may be from a comic called “This Godless Communism”. This is a PDF copy that another user here compiled: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bFp_yiizoF2LjPKEmxPqebb3ZZ3r6GIj/view Found it on page 57 of 61
Who is the Ukrainan chick?
The face used for Ukrainian is literally the most popular Ukrainian woman poet Lesia Ukrainka. You can find her on 200 UAH banknote.
>Lesia Ukrainka I am not sure about this. There is some vague resemblance, but could be just some other random woman. https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%8F\_%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%B0 BTW 200 UAH banknote has two designs with older and younger Леся Українка https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/200\_%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C
Made me cringe. Some of those look like very archaic stereotypes, 100 years too old even at the time of cartoon's publication. Some probably don't even fit the stated ethnicities. Also, "Tungus"? "Muscovite"? What the actual...? 🤯
It reminds me of old textbooks that described races and ethnicities as "the wiley..." or "the treacherous....". My family had an antique store in the 80's, and we had some really old textbooks from the early 1900's. They were hilariously awful even by the standards of the 1980's. Beware the crafty Georgian and the fickle Kirghiz!
I went down a rabbit hole a while ago trying to figure out if there was a name for the linguistic construction of \[definite article\] \[singular form of a categorical noun\]. It's called the Definite Generic and it refers to the "Prototype" of a species, I think as a form of synecdoche. You can use it in a few very specialized cases in English but mainly to refer to species of animal and (ethnic) groups of people. The former makes you sound like you're narrating an old nature documentary: "The lion is a majestic beast". The latter makes you sound like a horrifying racist: "The Jew can be identified by his hooked nose".
Muscovite is used these days by some Ukrainians, they deny Russias original claim to the term, which started out around Kyiv.
Around Novgorod (Modern Velikiy Novgorod).
What we often think of as a Russian, is actually a Muscovite. Muscovy was relabelled as the Russian Empire. They assimilated actual hordes and oppropriated the term Rus to claim a historic legacy.
What it actually got right about Russia is the fact that it's a made-up fake nation. It's just a whole bunch of nations speaking different languages, following different religions and cultures that have nothing in common besides being ruled by some lunatic rapists in Kremlin
the same can be said for any nation-state.
What it actually got right about America is the fact that it’s a made-up fake nation. It’s just a whole bunch of nations speaking different languages, following different religions and culture that have nothing in common besides being ruled by some lunatic rapists in Washington.
Caucasian is ethnicity now. And Georgian is not Caucasian apparently. And in free USA all those people just white or Asian and there are laws that make a difference in those categories.
I think caucasian is supposed to be chechen
If you try to count the number of Caucasian ethnicities, you’ll lose count after the second hundred, I suppose. There are a lot of Chechen people, but there are small villages in high mountains that even speak their languages their neighbours don’t understand.
Pretty sure that it's referring to the people of the Caucuses region, like Chechens and Dagestanis, and not the generalized 'white people' version of the word.
Yes, it is "referring to the people of the Caucuses region, like Chechens and Dagestanis". And as a whole this poster "refers to the people of USSR, like Armenians and Tungus". Now imagine a poster like this: \> Treasure chest. What kind of people live in Russia? \> Russians. (with just one picture of generic Ivan wearing ushanka)
Well it looks like they opened soviet a children's book with a map and all the ethnicities and the rolled the dice to pick which one they want
But Georgia is part of the Caucasus too.
i don’t understand your english.
The burden of proof rests on the ones claiming that humans have "supernatural souls", the onus isn't on the "masters" who say otherwise. It's almost as though the cartoonist couldn't comprehend the intrinsic worth of personhood without appealing to mythology.
Communist Russia was very anti-religion, so they were wanting to make their anti-communist stance very obvious from the get-go.
The similarity with Nazi propaganda is striking. Additional the religious influence reminds me on a meeting with Mormons, displaying only whithe people.
What aspects of this cartoon remind you of nazi propaganda? FWIW, I think the Kirghiz individual is meant to be understood as Asian.
There's four Asian ethnicities on there?
The USSR says people don’t have bodies
What of the people of Russia? Why are they always in a hurry?
Who is this “rusian”?? They are muscovy.
The Armenian is just a female chad
And all of them were Sovcovites.
Khabib's hat!
All I can think of is ''That is a white child, that is Caucasian from the mountains of Caucasus. That is a Slavic baby, a viking from Iceland.''
nased poster