tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (11/14/85)
In article <776@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: >What American empire? The U.S. is a large country, but that doesn't make >it an empire. Culturally and socially, it is a unit -- not totally >lacking regional diversity, but relatively so. The same applies to China, >with the exception of Tibet, which is occupied territoritory. >(Historically, China was an empire, but successfully imposed its culture >on much of the occupied territory. Most of the exceptions, such as >Korea, are today independent.) > >Russia today, however, has a dominant Russian culture, which rules a variety >of subject peoples of diverse cultures -- the various central Asian >Moslem peoples, Ukrainians, Georgians, and the nations of eastern Europe. >This is an empire. > >(India, by the way, is not an empire because of the lack of a dominant >culture. It isn't overwhelmingly stable, either.) > >Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka >Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108 Wow. Sounds so pellucid. The US is a unit? Harlem, El Paso, New Berne, San Francisco, Charleston, Atlanta, Miami are similar, culturally and socially? Mississippi and Massachusetts similar? "relatively so?" And if the US has successfully "imposed" its culture, it was imposed by the extermination of the Indians as a culture. "Russia" did much less. I also don't think the "subject" peoples of "Russia" are any more "subject" than Hispanics or Blacks here, to just choose two. Especially in the central Asian republics, where natives have a higher standard of living than Russian immigrants, so much so that Russians are migrating back to Russia from the CA republics. There is no indication that CA residents are EVER going to speak Russian as a native tongue. So where is the "cultural" dominance? Note, I'm not talking about political dominance -- you have that here too; Congress is very far from being a cross-section of the US citizenry. As far as "dominant" culture goes, was Stalin (a Georgian) some kind of aberrant case? Or when crowds screamed for Kasparov during the recent world chess championship (Kasparov is half-Jew, half-Armenian), was that some kind of repressive tolerance on the part of the dominant culture? As most all journalists and experts on the Soviet Union would attest, the vast, vast majority of residents of the USSR do not want any other system of government than the one they have right now. Democratic sentiments have less support than bringing Stalinism back. Why then do some continue to maintain that Russians have an empire over the other Soviet republics? I don't get it. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (11/20/85)
> > As most all journalists and experts on the Soviet Union would attest, > the vast, vast majority of residents of the USSR do not want any > other system of government than the one they have right now. > Democratic sentiments have less support than bringing Stalinism > back. > Ya can't miss nothin ya never had! > Why then do some continue to maintain that Russians have an empire > over the other Soviet republics? I don't get it. > > Tony Wuersch > {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw Have you ever wondered how the Soviet Union came to be the largest country in the world? How about expansionism? Aggression? They've built up their empire for the past 700 years. In a few hundred years, do you think East Germany, Poland, etc. will be any more viable or distinct than the Ukraine or Georgia is now? Those countries most likely witll be gradually incorpor- ated into the Soviet system to such a degree that people a hundred years from now will say: "What Soviet empire? Poland, East Germany, etc. are a part of mother Russia." I wonder if people then will still be saying; "Ya, but look what the U.S. did to the Indians, too bad the U.S. is not a peace loving, non-aggressive country like Russia." ray Prussia? What's that, a new Unix editor?
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/23/85)
[ray@rochester]
>[Rebutting Tony Wuersch who argued the USSR is not an empire]
Mostly right, Ray, except for some details. Georgia is very dis-
tinct ethnically from Russia; many Georgians don't even know Rus-
sian. They are a proud people and have been getting privileged
treatment, in some ways, for decades.
The Ukraine is being rapidly Russianized.
In Latvia, the Latvians are not allowed to come to their own cap-
ital, Riga, which has become a predominantly Russian city. It
has become that as a result of massive *deportations* of Latvians
to Siberia.
Tallin, the capital of Estonia, is not much different.
In Kishinev, the capital of Moldavia, by 1980 only 5
of 57 school were teaching in the "Moldavian" language (actually
the Rumanian, Moldavia being simply the annexed part of Rumania).
The attitude of most Russians living in the ethnic republics is
arrogantly colonialist; they hate and despise the local population.
In the armed forces almost all the officers and NCO's are Great
Russians or Ukrainians; the enlisted men are increasingly from
Central Asia. The torments and humiliations they are subjected
to are as ugly as anything you can imagine.
The largest group among political prisoners in today's USSR are
regional "nationalists" - people who have talked imprudently
about some kind of autonomous development (usually just cultural)
for their republics. The most numerous are Ukrainians and
Lithuanians.
*Soviet Union is a prison for nations as well as individuals*.
As for Poland and other East European nations - no, I don't think
they are in any danger of losing their ethnic or cultural identi-
ty (ask Gabor, he knows better) - but of course they are captive
nations in every other sense of the word. Their governments,
their political systems and their policies are all imposed by
Moscow, and the people there have few illusions on that account.
They know that if they budge, the tanks will come and crush them
again. These countries are held by brute force, pure and simple.
In Afghanistan, the Soviet policy is that of extermination.
About 1 million have already been killed, about 4 million fled to
Pakistan and Iran. Even in the Communist party there (which was
only some 5000 strong when the troops came) the Soviets have no
sincere support. But they've deported 20000 Afghan children to
the USSR, where they are groomed to come back later and rule what
will be left of their country.
Jan Wasilewskyjanw@inmet.UUCP (11/23/85)
[ray@rochester] >>[Tony Wuersch:] As most all journalists and experts on the Soviet >>Union would attest, the vast, vast majority of residents of >>the USSR do not want any other system of government ... >>Why then do some continue to maintain that Russians have an empire ^^^^ >>over the other Soviet republics? I don't get it. What should puzzle Tony even more is that "most experts" of the 1st paragraph are *also* among the *some* of the 2nd paragraph. > Ya can't miss nothin ya never had! Ray's answer is right on target. It is not even like missing a billion bucks you never had, it is like missing the absence of gravity. The Communist system is the only one most people there can *imagine*. But: (1) This tells you *nothing* about the relations of nationalities within the existing system - which *are* imperialistic. (2) Neither does the population there *support* the force of gravity *or* the system of government. (3) They are prevented by force from *acquiring* knowledge of other systems. Their consent cannot be informed. (4) All these other republics have been *conquered* by force of arms. In several, there was guerilla resistance for a decade or so. That resistance was smothered by force. (5) *Some* people *do* have an idea of other systems. But their ideas and knowledge are prevented from spreading by KGB terror. (6) There are whole *republics* - the Baltic ones - where the majority know of other ways of life and *want* them. They are in a position similar to (but worse than) (7) the captive nations of Eastern Europe. There people *know* what is being done to them. Every decade or so one of these nations becomes restive and is crushed by force. (8) The only purpose of the Afghan genocide is joining that piece of real estate to the Empire. Jan Wasilewsky
gil@cornell.UUCP (Gil Neiger) (11/24/85)
In article <13348@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > >Have you ever wondered how the Soviet Union came to be the largest country >in the world? How about expansionism? Aggression? They've built up their >empire for the past 700 years. For those who are unaware, the Soviet Union is less than 70 years old, and have *not* been building up their empire for 700 years. The Soviet Union came to be so large because it inherited the lands of Imperial Russia. Much of the land the Soviet Union has acquired since 1917 (Sakhalin Island, Lithuania, Latvia, Esthonia, parts of Finland and Poland, and, if you will, the Ukraine and Belorussia) were parts of the Russian Empire at the turn of the century. True, much of this land as well as other parts of the Soviet Union were obtained via expansionism and aggression (whether by the Soviets or by the Romanovs), but these are things on which neither the Soviets nor the Russians in general have a monopoly. -- Gil Neiger Computer Science Department Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853 {uw-beaver,ihnp4,decvax,vax135}!cornell!gil (UUCP) gil@Cornell.ARPA (ARPAnet) ; gil@CRNLCS (BITNET)
gil@cornell.UUCP (11/25/85)
From: gil (Gil Neiger) Sorry if this is posted twice - we had some problems with news. In article <13348@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > >Have you ever wondered how the Soviet Union came to be the largest country >in the world? How about expansionism? Aggression? They've built up their >empire for the past 700 years. For those who are unaware, the Soviet Union is less than 70 years old, and have *not* been building up their empire for 700 years. The Soviet Union came to be so large because it inherited the lands of Imperial Russia. Much of the land the Soviet Union has acquired since 1917 (Sakhalin Island, Lithuania, Latvia, Esthonia, parts of Finland and Poland, and, if you will, the Ukraine and Belorussia) were parts of the Russian Empire at the turn of the century. True, much of this land as well as other parts of the Soviet Union were obtained via expansionism and aggression (whether by the Soviets or by the Romanovs), but these are things on which neither the Soviets nor the Russians in general have a monopoly. -- Gil Neiger Computer Science Department Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853 {uw-beaver,ihnp4,decvax,vax135}!cornell!gil (UUCP) gil@Cornell.ARPA (ARPAnet) ; gil@CRNLCS (BITNET) -- Gil Neiger Computer Science Department Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853 {uw-beaver,ihnp4,decvax,vax135}!cornell!gil (UUCP) gil@Cornell.ARPA (ARPAnet) ; gil@CRNLCS (BITNET)
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (11/27/85)
> In article <13348@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > > > >Have you ever wondered how the Soviet Union came to be the largest country > >in the world? How about expansionism? Aggression? They've built up their > >empire for the past 700 years. > > For those who are unaware, the Soviet Union is less than 70 years old, and > have *not* been building up their empire for 700 years. The Soviet Union > came to be so large because it inherited the lands of Imperial Russia. The Soviet Union as we know it today is only 70 years, but 'mother' Russia dates back well before 70 years. The government has changed just as the government of England has changed since the days of the all powerfull kings and queens. But England is still England just as Russia is still Russia with it's idiologies still intact. You say Russia 'inherited' the lands from Imperial Russia. What happened, some rich person died and gave a country to Russia. No, Imperial Russia has been growing with an insatiable appetite for real estate for 700 years. Because of the Soviet suppression of Solidarity in Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Afghanistan by imperialistic Russia troops, we invoked sanctions against Russia, ie; limited trade, no direct commercial flights to Russia, etc. During the recent Summit, we lifted most of these sanctions. Guess what, Solidarity is still dead, and 100,000 Russias are still killing in Afganistan. And people say we took a hard line at the summit talks. Seems that Russia came out ahead. This in general seems to be the atitude of Russian negotiators, what's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable. And for those who don't know, Russia has been working on their own star wars since 1975, just because it is not as successful as they had hoped in no way diminishes the fact that they tried to do what they are most against us doing in 1985, that is, star wars research. I suppose we should let them win this one too and drop all research? I'm not saying we should'nt have summits, horror of horrors, we should have many summits. But we need to go into negotiations with open eyes. We need to let the Soviets know that we know where they're coming from and what they want. We can't pretend they're nice guys ready to be honest and accomadating. The U.S for the first time in memory has taken a rather hard stand with the Soviets, having from past dealings with them, realized that this is all they understand or respect; negotiating from a position of power and realism. ray
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/28/85)
[Gil Neiger :gil@cornell] >For those who are unaware, the Soviet Union is less than 70 years old, and >have *not* been building up their empire for 700 years. The Soviet Union >came to be so large because it inherited the lands of Imperial Russia. Much >of the land the Soviet Union has acquired since 1917 (Sakhalin Island, >Lithuania, Latvia, Esthonia, parts of Finland and Poland, and, if you will, >the Ukraine and Belorussia) were parts of the Russian Empire at the turn >of the century. True, much of this land as well as other parts of the >Soviet Union were obtained via expansionism and aggression (whether by the >Soviets or by the Romanovs), but these are things on which neither the Soviets >nor the Russians in general have a monopoly. All these facts are true. Apart from Sakhalin, these lands that you mention, as well as the three Caucasian republics and the Central Asia, all broke off after the Revolution. Their indepen- dence was *recognized* by the Soviet Russia who then proceeded to reconquer them by force of arms. I quite agree with you that expansionism and colonialism of the old Russian empire was no worse (and no better) than that of some other powers. It just happened to grow on a large plain and have some weak neighbors; because of geography, its conquests were on land, not overseas. Jan Wasilewsky
lkk@teddy.UUCP (12/06/85)
In article <815@mmintl.UUCP> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: [Talking about "Is there an American Empire"] >But I *am* talking about political dominance. An empire occurs when >one cultural entity politically dominates another. In the U.S., there >are no cultural entities in the sense I mean that are being dominated. >(There may be such an entity developing in southern Florida. I find >the situation there quite worrisome.) The idea of the blacks in this >country forming a separate nation is preposterous. > How about Puerto Rico, Guam, Philipines, virtually all of Central America? The Romans allowed a degree of autonomy to the outer provinces of its empire. It was still an empire. The United States culturally and politically dominates every country in Central America except Cuba. We have in the past unilaterally replaced governments not to our liking. We call it our "backyard" (are we Nicaragua's backyard? Do they have the right to fund contras against us?). No political leader can make policy in Central America without asking, "How will the US govt. react to this?" -- Sport Death, (USENET) ...{decvax | ihnp4!mit-eddie}!genrad!panda!lkk Larry Kolodney (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa -------- Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing. - Helen Keller
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/11/85)
In article <1771@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: >[Talking about "Is there an American Empire"] > >>But I *am* talking about political dominance. An empire occurs when >>one cultural entity politically dominates another. In the U.S., there >>are no cultural entities in the sense I mean that are being dominated. >>(There may be such an entity developing in southern Florida. I find >>the situation there quite worrisome.) The idea of the blacks in this >>country forming a separate nation is preposterous. > >How about Puerto Rico, Guam, Philipines, virtually all of Central America? > >The Romans allowed a degree of autonomy to the outer provinces of its >empire. It was still an empire. > >The United States culturally and politically dominates every country >in Central America except Cuba. We have in the past unilaterally >replaced governments not to our liking. We call it our "backyard" >(are we Nicaragua's backyard? Do they have the right to fund contras >against us?). > >No political leader can make policy in Central America without asking, >"How will the US govt. react to this?" You have a point, but I don't think it is as strong as you think it is. It is certainly true that in the early twentieth century, the U.S. had an empire, which included Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, Hawaii, and more or less included all of Latin America. Today, Hawaii has been incorporated, and certainly is not politically dominated. The Philippines is an independent nation. (Really. Marcos's government accepts U.S. aid, but it was not created by us, and is not all that different from, say, Indonesia. My own guess is that without the U.S. presence, he would have consolidated power more thoroughly, and would not now be having problems.) Puerto Rico is an anomalous case, but in repeated referendums, its people have voted to continue the current relationship. (I don't know enough about the situation in Guam to comment.) As for the rest of Latin America, while we hardly are innocent, I think it is a great exaggeration (sp?) of our influence to call them U.S. colonies. We have intervened to adjust developments which are not to our liking, and such interventions are possible in the future. Still, the threshhold required to provoke intervention has gotten steadily higher, and Latin American governments have wide latitude to adopt policies which are unpopular in Washington. (In the early part of the century, Latin American governments threatening not to repay loans would have seen the Marines long before they convinced bankers to reschedule them. Even in the 50's, this would have been a likely response.) Nicaraugua was not above interfering militarily with its neighbors. Whether or not they sent arms to the El Salvador rebels (I think they did), they stated publicly the *right* to export their revolution. No U.S. President can formulate economic policy without considering how Europe and Japan will react to it. Does this make us a European or Japanese colony? Russian power dominates Eastern Europe much more than U.S. power dominates Latin America. This is not to mention Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, and perhaps Azerbajian and Georgia, (have I missed any?) which by all rights should be independent countries. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
jens@moscom.UUCP (Jens Fiederer) (12/29/85)
Regarding Guam and the Virgin Islands: I lived in the former for 2 years, and the latter for 6 years. In the VI, there is a weak separatist movement, mocked by at least 95% of the people I met. Because the indigenous population of the Virgin Islands was exterminated in the times of the Spaniards, there is no real nationalist feeling. Guam, with which I am less familiar, (I was 10-12 years old at the time of my residence), does have an extant (though well mixed) indigenous population of Chamorros. There is some nationalist feeling (the Chamorro's language is still remembered, and even used for the welcome slogan "Hafa Adai!". I did not detect much separatist feeling, but I may have been insensitive. Azhrarn
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (12/31/85)
> > > >Have you ever wondered how the Soviet Union came to be the largest country > >in the world? How about expansionism? Aggression? They've built up their > >empire for the past 700 years. Substitute 'Russia' for 'Soviet Union' and you are absolutely correct. One should note that the U.S., and our predesessor the colonies, have been expanding through conquest for about 300 years. In fact, the U.S. conquest of North America and destruction of the original inhabitance closely parallels the Russian conquest of Siberia. Much of North America was 'purchased' from various European powers, but it was still necessary to eliminate the inhabitants.