Cultural Construction in the Soviet Empire (HIS315 F20)

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 Moreover, the Soviet Union reviewed areas of Turkmenistan culture that they deemed to be outdated, such as oppressive traditions towards female Turkmen.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.

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.