Month: September 2020

After analyzing numerous attempts at which the Soviet Union has tried to specifically define distinct nationalities, Northrop immediately points to the dilemma they create for themselves instead. The Soviet Union had done so by first insulting the Uzbeks in terms of their capabilities of modernization, then forcing them to change their society specifically through their women (Northrop, 34).

Was the fact that Central Asia was always seen as timeless and unchanging the perfect set up for the Soviet Union to true and push for its assimilation in hopes of using its lasting condition as a prize form of national identity in which they could pursue in showcasing as they had done with the people of the Kresy or briefly with the Romani? In Northrop’s opinion, the answer is yes, and this was evident by how Russian writers had painted ethnographic pictures of Primitive Central Asians which may have helped to bolster Russia’s position among the enlightened nations (Northrop, 37). Furthermore, Northrop explains that Central Asia and its women provided Russia with a visible civilizing mission (Ibid). Once again we the Soviet Union intervening in a long-lived traditional way of life and snatching their self-proclaimed duty of changing it, all the while exuding masculine opinion and power in justifying doing so.

Another trend that can be seen is that the Russian writers (once the Bolsheviks took control in 1917) are that they had very little background knowledge of the peoples in which they were writing about, which in this case is unique with the Muslim faith and the fact that few of the Russian writers were aware of its significance. Regardless, many of the early Russians writers placed the Muslim faith at the root of the issues they encountered, or as Northrop wittingly alludes to Marx by saying that “barbaric” practices could be easily connected to Islam, the opiate of the Muslim people (Northrop, 40).

When reading chapter 1, I find it very interesting on the issue on how to approach women’s roles in the Soviet Union in particularly in Central Asia. Woman from different groups and other backgrounds questioned on how woman should act and and how it contradicts with other cultures within the soviet Union Union. ” With these regional and historical variations … indigenous leftists and socialists.” Pages 45-46 How can the Soviet Union address this matter equally too other all groups of woman and men who may disagree with each other? In addition, what issue does this pose with other cultures and groups within the regime and how will they react when a disagreement works?

Chapter 2 is all about the Soviet attacks against a centuries old tradition. The chapter dives into the tactics the Soviet government used to accomplish this goal. So why start a war against veils? It is abundantly clear that this is not something that can be done overnight. Even the Bolshevik analyst quotes at the start of the chapter acknowledges that it is not reasonable to expect this tradition to disappear quickly. This is yet another instance of the Soviet government acting in its own best interest, but is this a goal too ambitious to achieve? What are some of the issues the Soviet government encountered along the way? What did the veils represent for Uzbek women? These are just some questions to think about as we begin our discussion. 

Northrop describes in Chapter 1 the view European Imperialists had on Central Asia. Northrop uses a quote from Hungarian scholar Arminius Vambery to describe this, “‘In a country where pillage and murder, anarchy and lawlessness, are the rule, not the exception, a sovereign has to maintain his authority by inspiring his subjects with the utmost dread and almost superstitious terror for his person…'” (page 35). It seems as though early soviets had a similar disdain for Uzbek culture. Northrop describes the soviet perspective, writing “If anyone in Central Asia had to change, it was clear who it would be: European practices were the (modern) model to which (backward, primitive) Uzbeks had to adjust” (page 59). Northrop then goes on the explain the reasons for this view, describing the terrible effects poor hygiene and isolation in harems has on the women of the area and citing a study that found “more than 45% of local women (9,772 of 21,626) to be seriously ill” (page 61). So, my question is, from the soviet point of view, is there an obligation to try to change the culture (if so to what extent) or would that be somewhat imperialistic and imposing their culture on a less developed people?

In the end Iasevich defined the Uzbek woman through the dual languages of statistics and sexuality. His results, published in 1928, included painstakingly detailed tables giving the statistical distributions of the measurements and descriptions of every conceivable body part-from spine curvature to skin tone to breast size-within the Uzbek female population of Khorazm. These distributions were compared with those of Russian, German, American, Jewish, and Norwegian women to demarcate the national differences more clearly.

page 53

In the first Chapter of Veiled Empire, we are repeatedly supplied examples of how Uzbek women were surveyed and measured as part of Soviet nationalization policy. I found these “scientific” accounts of national identification particularly uncomfortable and invasive. I would like to us to think about the quote above and how this “method” (emphasis on scare quotes) is designed colonizing, patriarchal frame of reference. What are we supposed to make of this historical record? Do you think nationalization classification would have ever looked like this in the Kresy? Did we see these types of measurements on the other side of the empire?

In the chapter of Portrait of Lenin, “Carpets and National Culture in Soviet Turkmenistan” the authors discuss the cultural and economic changes to Turkmenistan once the Soviet Union gets involved. The once practical and artful carpets made by Turkmen women are transformed into a solely artistic economic endeavor. (Something I found to be interesting compared to the very much anti-traditional art movements in the West) The Soviet Union’s signature mix of respective national newspapers and books were created. As well as an overall theme of socialist messages in said nationality’s language. Moreover, the Soviet Union reviewed areas of Turkmenistan culture that they deemed to be outdated, such as oppressive traditions towards female Turkmen. Most importantly, these nations were remade in a way that was inspired by Russian culture and society- modern and Western in some ways. The authors state, “Because Soviet nations were supposed to be modern and socialist, however, the communist leaders in Moscow took it upon themselves to decide which customs and traditions were acceptable and which were ‘backward’ and ‘exploitive’ and therefore destined for elimination” (Kivelson and NNeuberger, 182). Continually, in the “impressionist” documentary directed by Victor Turin, Turksib, the story of the Turkmenistan economy in the eyes of a Russian filmmaker is transcribed. The film chronicles cotton farmers transitioning into industrial work on a railroad.

Questions:

1. Is it right or okay for one nation to eliminate aspects of another nation’s culture that the first nation deems to be oppressive towards a group of peoples? i.e. veiling and polygamy
2. How are the cultural changes involving Turkmen women and their autonomy different than cultural changes done onto general areas of Turkmenistan culture? Are the actions taken by the Soviet Union towards women admirable? Or should they just stay out of all other nations’ businesses?
3. What is significant about the carpets’ change from a practical and artful object to a purely artful one?
4. In regards to the film, how does the filmmaker develop mood throughout the documentary?

When the Soviet Union took power in Turkmenistan, they encouraged the Russification of many Turkish traditions. Central Asian groups were encouraged to abandon their epic-style poetry for short stories and novels and to adhere to European style symphonies and operas (some of which included traditional instruments). However, they were still encouraged to create their carpets – under a new set of expectations, such as putting Lenin on them. They were taken and hung up in museums, instead of being utilized as a tool that was considered “primitive”. Similarly, in the film Turksib, the Turkish people are shown as primitive farmhands and herders, a nomadic population of people with no real direction or loyalty to any state. When the Soviet Union comes to build the railroad, though, the Turkish people become hard workers for the Union, “taming” the land by building the railroad. In both situations, it seems that the Soviet Union believes they are “saving” the Turkish people from their nomadic and primitive lifestyle. 

Some important questions to note about the text/film: 

1. Why were the Turkish people encouraged to create carpets, but not their traditional style music and poetry? 
2. Could the carpets post Soviet takeover even be considered traditional when compared to those made before Soviet intervention? 
3. In the film Turksib, the footage of the railroad is juxtaposed with footage of the desert, camels, sheep, and the dry steppe. Why do you think Turin chose to show this footage? 

In the chapter we read of A State of Nations : Empire and Nation-Making in the Age of Lenin and Stalin the author discussed the conflict between the Soviet Union and the Kazakh peoples. The forced industrialization and modernization by the Soviet Union was hard on the Kazakh people. The affirmative action program fostered discrimination. And such things like the living situation of Kazakh peoples was in most cases worse than their neighbors. “They were ordered to the back of the line, received goods after the Europeans had first choice, had to accept bread that was cut with the same knife used to cut pork fat (anathema to the Kazakhs’ religious practices), and withstood constant verbal abuse from the clerks” (Martin and Suny, 230). While we’ve seen discrimination of other nationalities within our other readings for this class, these instances seem very blatant, and almost akin to colonization. And while we all may expect this from the Soviet Union, it still seems surprising that they would put these actions in place given the nature of the birth of the Soviet Union- marginalized people standing up to “the man”. Which leads me to wonder, will all governments eventually create their demise from within their own nation? Will even the best government, with the best intentions eventually foster its own demise by putting people into the “loosing class”?

While the Turksib project was meant to modernize the Soviet Union, it also shed light on the racism the Kazakhs faced. Kazakhs were attacked, beaten, excluded, and discriminated against by Russians and Europeans alike. Payne explains the plight of these people but also emphasizes the efforts of the Soviet government to be inclusive and supportive. To further understand both pieces, I included some questions that I believed were relevant.

Important questions:

1. What was the Turksib and why did the plan involve Kazakhs? 
2. Was the Turksib’s affirmative action plan successful? Why or why not?
3. What were some of the possible factors for the lackluster success of the program?
4. Any thoughts on how this reading connects with the first about Jadids and the idea of Nativization?

I found this section very interesting in many ways and caught my eye significantly. This was interesting on how the Russian Empire lost the favor of Jadid’s. Jadids sought and looked for new government reform in the region that they advocated for years. When the revolution struck this was the turning point for jadids, this was a beacon of hope for them. Furthermore, when the revolution happened, the Amir recognized Jadids as a threat and traitor to islam and the city of Bukhara. “Prerevolutionary jadidism, excluded from the political realm, had ex-isted as a discourse of reform and self-help in which the state played little part.This changed dramatically after 1917, and from summer 1918, many Jadids flocked to the new organs of government being built by the Soviet regime and openedto them under pressure from Moscow.” Page 149 Finally, I want to discuss what did the old empire do wrong to the Jadids and how they lost Central Asia to the Soviet Regime. Most importantly, how did soviet policy and government help out Jaddis more rather than the old policy and government of the Russian Empire?

MLA (Modern Language Assoc.)
Ronald Grigor Suny, and Terry Martin. A State of Nations : Empire and Nation-Making in the Age of Lenin and Stalin. Oxford University Press, 2001.