Month: September 2020

In the Forge of Kazakh Proletariat, the struggles the Soviet faced in attempting to assimilate the Kazakh people was a reflection on the national identity issues the government faced when dealing with the multitude of enthic groups within the empire. The main goal of the Soviet Empire was to  “….end national oppression and ethnic “backwardness” through economic development and political mobilization”. (Payne 224) Industrialization was number one on the list for Soviets to get the economy on its feet as it fit into the “Big Picture”. The Kazakhs faced ethnic discrimination and were forced to leave their nomadic, agricultural-based lifestyles and adapt to the Soviet- coerced industrial work life. The Soviet government wanted to create an industrial-booming society that was not divided by social/economic class, genders, and was free of ethnic discrimination. However, what was achieved was a complete breakdown of the Kazakh society; as it did not align with the wants and needs of the Soviet government. After reading this chapter, some questions that came to mind was:

1. Why was the idea of social advancement for ethnic groups such a threat for the Soviet government?
2. “Ethnic Backwardness” was a common trope that was used by the Soviet government as an excuse to single out an ethnic group that didn’t share the same cultural characteristics as the majority in the Soviet Empire. By the Soviet government not embracing these different ethnic groups and instead deeming them as “backwards” and trying to assimilate them, doesn’t that serve as a form of ethnic discrimination? 
3. Nativization was the main policy the Soviet government tried to implement in order “to build ethnically based nations within the context of a politically and economically unitary state.” (Payne 224) Do you think this was an effective way of working towards constructing a unified nation or another forced concept by the Soviet government to dismantle and correct “ethnic backwardness”?

The Jadid intellectuals and the Soviets shared common ground on their disdain for European imperialism. Likewise, both parties share the goal of modernizing central Asia. A quote from Stalin is included in the text stating the desire to “‘raise the level of the backwards people,… to enlist the toiling masses… in the building of the Soviet State, [and] to do away with all disabilities … that prevent the peoples of the East… from emancipating themselves from the survivals of medievalism and national oppression'” (page 153). the text also expresses the view of the Jadids, that “the path to salvation lies through enlightenment, education, and moral rectitude…” (153). However, the text explains that the Jadid view of exploitation was focused on imperialism, while the Soviet was on class. Furthermore, the Jadid’s Islamic beliefs seem to conflict with the aniti religious view of the Soviets. So, my question is was the ideology of the Jadids compatible with the Soviets?

When the Soviet Union attempted to push their ways on the Kasakh population, they struggled with the lack of work ethic and the general ability to do the jobs they forced them to do. Industrialization was not something that had occurred within Kazakhstan yet, and so the Soviet Union believed they were “saving” the Kasakh people from their “primitive ways”. However, this proved to be a struggle for the Soviet Union, who thought that the Kazakh people were being ungrateful. Why do you think that Soviet officials wanted to force these people, who for centuries were farmers and nomads, to be industrial workers when there was still a high demand for farmers? Would it not have been easier to use their skills to provide higher amounts of food for the Union?

The reading for today shed light on a population within parts of the Soviet Union who experienced conflicting views on their identities and discrimination due to labelling and prejudice. Two impactful quotes from the piece that have weighed heavily on me were: “Due to its immense popularity among tsarist elites and merchants in imperial Russia’s urban capitals, so-called Gypsy music filled many Bolsheviks with dread. They regarded the genre as a vile, corrosive, and pseudo-Gypsy element of bourgeois decadence that needed to be destroyed completely” (192) and “They endeavored to strangle the putrid roots of Gypsy art and to unmask the dangerous bourgeois cancer masquerading as traditional Romani folk music” (196). Both of these quotes degrade an entire culture and its existence, even as far as placing a target on this population by comparing them to the old Bourgeoisie. This made an entire population within the Soviet Union be seen as enemies, further perpetuating them to discrimination and prejudice. These unfair disadvantages continue to impact that population’s existence today. Has anyone ever seen a film/tv show in which a member of this population, or a Romani/Roma person, had been portrayed as villainous or hyper-sexual? How did our reading for today shed light on how the Soviet Union manifested these ideas?

The election is on November 3, and it is vitally important that you make your voice heard! If you plan to vote in Pennsylvania, you must register by Oct. 19. You can do so here. If you will vote in another state, please check the registration deadline. Voters get extra credit! Send me a picture of yourself outside your polling place or at home with your sealed mail-in ballot.

After reading chapter 5 of Brigid O’Keeffe’s’ “New Soviet Gypsies: Nationality, Performance, and Selfhood in the Early Soviet Union”, I have raised some questions. Specifically, I question the overall thinking of Boris Schtienpress and how he made certain observations. For example, he focuses on gypsy women as a distinct ethnic emblem of the seeming threat posed to righteous and pure Bolshevik masculinity (O’Keeffe, 196). With his thoughts in mind, I ask what people had come to think of the male performers of the Romani arts? Furthermore, I ask what birthed such principles of misogyny rooted within Bolshevik thought? Were his critiques of the arts simply propaganda like statements regarding the values in which Bolsheviks expected women to adhere in the Soviet Union?

In this reading, I found a lot of similarities between the Gypsies’ question of their national identity and the question of national identity in the Kresy. It seemed like both the Gypsies and the Ukrainian, Polish, and Germans in the Kresy were both comfortable to call themselves by their own labels until the Soviet government tried to force each group into a certain box for the census and resettlement. However, there were some differences within the decision to push the Gypsies into one group, that mirrored what happened to the Jewish population. What made the question of nationality for the Gypsies different from the ones of Ukrainian, Polish, or German identities?

I found this reading very interesting. Given the long history of anti-Semitism in both Russia and Europe as a whole, I went into this excerpt wondering how exactly the Soviets would address the Jewish people of Russia. It’s not exactly a surprise that the Stalinist government handled the issue by attempting the creation of a Jewish community in their image, out in the Far East. The thing I found most interesting was the contrast between the material and the cultural effort that the Soviets put into this region. The Soviet government did a great deal to promote Soviet Jewish culture both in the region and abroad (in a way that they never did in the Kresy), while neglecting the actual physical needs of the inhabitants. As such, this begs the question: was this a legitimate effort to help the Soviet Jewish community or a simple propaganda move? And if it was to be a sort of “model community”, why wasn’t more effort put forward to improve the material conditions of the inhabitants?

Sydney Kightlinger

On page 70, we are presented a photo of an elementary school primer from 1936 that is written in Yiddish. Lenin is at the top of the page and the words read: “Vladimir Ilich Lenin / Lenin is our leader, / Our teacher, our friend / We do as Lenin teaches us, / All working people know and love Lenin.” This is supposed to exemplify the Soviet Government’s commitment to “national in form and socialist in content.” I believe message is conveyed fairly well, but do we think that it is a representation of Jewishness? The commentary beneath this argues that “Yiddish was an insufficient basis on which to maintain one’s identity.” Going back to conversations we had in the first two weeks, do you think that the J.A.R was an actually celebrated Soviet Jewish region or an area settled by Jewish people that had to give up major parts of the Jewish faith in order to comply with Soviet policy?

Reading through today’s selection in “Stalin’s Forgotten Zion,” I noticed that we seem to get a full picture of Stalin’s plan concerning the diverse nationalities in the Soviet Union over time with the Jews as the example. Both Lenin and Stalin seemed to have believed that religion and national identity would eventually fade away completely as the Soviet culture became more dominant. In the reading, we see the Kremlin start out by “respecting” the Jews to completely forgetting all about the JAR by the time we reach page 71. Instead of the Jewish nationality fading away, the government seems to just close its eyes and pretend it doesn’t exist. This seems to me like the perfect example of why Lenin and Stalin were completely wrong. Culture and the sense of nation do not just disappear. It seems to me that the Soviet government just uses the idea of the JAR as a public relations tool for the rest of the world. Does anyone else see that too, or am I delusional on a Sunday night? We know the Soviets did not actually care what happened to the Jews since Weinberg points out that the government heavily promoted the program, but did not actually provide any assistance or prepare the settlers for the harsh conditions of their new home. Is this evidence that Stalin knew a nationality could only be suppressed, not eliminated?