Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Kind of a weird irony when you think about it. I never heard of "racial purity" being praised in Russia. I know there are alot of issues concerning racism in Russia today. However, I never heard of Russia in those terms before. Even more interesting was that Russia's national poet had Ethiopian blood.
I figured they might be cruel colonizers because of the cruelty exercised in other places. In Belgium and Germany, cruelty was big hallmark. When the German Empire tried to colonize Namibia, it went on a massacre. In fact, the word "concentration camp" was used in Namibia first, before it was ever used in the Holocaust. In Belgian colonialism, there was even more cruelty, as people were getting their hands chopped off, and 10 million people died under King Leopold II, over rubber. I wonder how Africa would have faired under Stalin. Stalin pretty much killed anyone.
I should specify that Russia values itself as "Mother of the Slavic People." I guess this isn't EXACTLY racial purity, but that, coupled with Russia's notorious nationalism and historical push for "Pan-Slavism," makes it pretty darn close.
You can be sure that Russia would have been absolutely horrid to its colonies. Stalin alone would have been absolute ruin for them...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrueDat
Even if Russia had colonized some part of Africa, I don't know if the effect would have been to push African societies to market capitalism. if they had gotten to Africa, they would have been only to colonize a small part of it; they still would have been overwhelmed on the continent by the English, French, and Portuguese and to a lesser extent the Germans, Spanish, and Belgians.
And if the Russian way of running things had turned a significant amount of Africans against socialism, they would still have been no more enamored of the way the Brits and the French and everyone else was treating the continent. If anything, it might have fostered some sort of African nationalism that turned against both market capitalism and Soviet socialism.
Russian imperialism may have pushed Africa even more to intra-Africa trade, aid, and communication, as they would have been burned by "capitalism" and "Sovietism."
Africa is a continent still colonized by western powers. so many civil wars, military coups, fraud elections, installation of puppet presidents by France, USA etc. 8 million africans were subjected to slavery in USA. I guess aficans would have been better off under Russian socialism rather then American slavery, segregation and humiliation.
Don't forget Russia's colonial policy in Alaska; they killed some of the Aleuts, burned their villages and enslaved quite a few, forcing them to work on their sealing expeditions, and also had them as servants working in their forts. They also forced Russian Orthodoxy on them.
I should specify that Russia values itself as "Mother of the Slavic People." I guess this isn't EXACTLY racial purity, but that, coupled with Russia's notorious nationalism and historical push for "Pan-Slavism," makes it pretty darn close.
I know that with every place Russia colonized, there was a policy of Russification. I know about the nationalism. I still wonder because when it took Central Asia, it basically dominated the place and made everyone speak Russian. If you wanted education, you had to speak Russia. I wonder if that might be the case for Africa.
Quote:
You can be sure that Russia would have been absolutely horrid to its colonies. Stalin alone would have been absolute ruin for them...
I know Stalin would have been crazy. He was an indiscriminant killer.
Russian imperialism may have pushed Africa even more to intra-Africa trade, aid, and communication, as they would have been burned by "capitalism" and "Sovietism."
It might have done as such. One thing I am thinking about is this. There was quite a war when Portugal's colonies wanted independence. The chances of war would have been imminent if the USSR had colonies in Africa.
I have a theory that Russia had colonized Africa, it would have lasted into the early 1990s, around the same time the USSR broke up. Czar Nikolai had this to say. "In the land where the Russian flag is once
raised, it should never come down".
Africa is a continent still colonized by western powers. so many civil wars, military coups, fraud elections, installation of puppet presidents by France, USA etc. 8 million africans were subjected to slavery in USA. I guess aficans would have been better off under Russian socialism rather then American slavery, segregation and humiliation.
Neither one was good when you think about it. Stalin killed 18 million people, in his own backyard.
Don't forget Russia's colonial policy in Alaska; they killed some of the Aleuts, burned their villages and enslaved quite a few, forcing them to work on their sealing expeditions, and also had them as servants working in their forts. They also forced Russian Orthodoxy on them.
In short, no different from other colonizers in Africa.
Africa is a continent still colonized by western powers. so many civil wars, military coups, fraud elections, installation of puppet presidents by France, USA etc. 8 million africans were subjected to slavery in USA. I guess aficans would have been better off under Russian socialism rather then American slavery, segregation and humiliation.
Oh God. WHAT are talking about? Africa, indeed, is still under the sways of European/American influence, but so is the rest of the world. Now, more than ever since the beginning of the modern age, Africa has a growing influence, self-control, and self-awareness. Also, Africa as a continent is Europe, specifically France, the UK, and Portugal's problem. If you want to talk about a region whose blood is on the US' hands, look to Latin America.
And the Russians would have enslaved and callously treated Africans as well, if not worse so. Look at how Russia at this time treated its serfs. They were slaves under another name, and were the sole reason a city like St. Petersburg. I am definitely not defending slavery and colonialism/imperialism in general, but Russia was absolutely awful during this time, and was in no state to govern anything, let alone past its borders.
Do you have any way of illustrating that Russia was more egalitarian, cosmopolitan, and open than its more advanced counterparts?
Oh God. WHAT are talking about? Africa, indeed, is still under the sways of European/American influence, but so is the rest of the world. Now, more than ever since the beginning of the modern age, Africa has a growing influence, self-control, and self-awareness. Also, Africa as a continent is Europe, specifically France, the UK, and Portugal's problem. If you want to talk about a region whose blood is on the US' hands, look to Latin America.
And the Russians would have enslaved and callously treated Africans as well, if not worse so. Look at how Russia at this time treated its serfs. They were slaves under another name, and were the sole reason a city like St. Petersburg. I am definitely not defending slavery and colonialism/imperialism in general, but Russia was absolutely awful during this time, and was in no state to govern anything, let alone past its borders.
Do you have any way of illustrating that Russia was more egalitarian, cosmopolitan, and open than its more advanced counterparts?
I think when people mention that, some people think about how it was as the USSR. Usually, people think of the USSR, often not knowing how things were under the czars, or knowing the ravages of Stalin.
I'm not advocating colonialism. There were alot more bad going on than good when it came to colonialism. However, I have often wondered what would happen if Russia had colonized some places in Africa for a long period of time. In The Scramble for Africa, the continent was being carved up by Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. Russia tried to get a piece of the action in the Sagallo Incident. Sagallo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Basically, Russia tried to take part of Djibouti, which was controlled by the French. It ended in failure.
I think about the colonial policies the colonizing nations had. For instance, France had direct rule(with elements of assimilation policy). German and Belgian colonialism was particularly cruel, basically a cruel form of paternalism. Italy's colonial policy, from what I gather, had a preservation policy. Portugal's colonial policy had a mixture of direct rule, paternalism, and assimilation. Spain had some paternalism elements. British rule was more indirect rule. Colonialism had forced labor and cruelty involved.
What I am wondering is this. If Russia had been part of the Scramble for Africa, and carved out a portion of Africa for itself, what do you think the colonial policy would have been like? What do you think would have happened?
Quite honestly, I was surprised to hear about the Russian attempt of colonization of Africa, ( in Sagallo) because the colonization in classical understanding of it was never a part of Russian national character.
I mean Russians don't like going too far away from their homeland and to deal with foreign cultures; historically they preferred to expand their country taking over the lands along their borders and then *russifying * the local population as much as they could, in order to make the surroundings as familiar for themselves as possible. Their own culture was usually more similar to the native population, than Western cultures, so the assimilation was relatively easier in most cases.
It's not like they were not familiar with the "far away land,"
( this is just an example)
but I don't see Russians claiming India for colony, lol.
They've made this attempt in America ( through Siberia), coexisting with native Indians and attempting to "russify" even them, but found the colony to be too expensive to keep, so they've sold it.
But back to Sagallo, I was surprised to hear about Africa, that I had to look it up - what were the reasons for their landing ( because as I've said I couldn't see them expressing interests in colonizing Africa ( too far away, too foreign.)
So I've looked it up and saw three things;
1. The first reason Russians went there was the search of the potential port where Russian ships could stop during their voyage from the Black Sea to the Pacific Ocean,
2. They were planning to establish connection with then Orthodox Abyssinia,
and 3. It doesn't look that this expedition was sponsored by the government at all, it were just some volunteers, who hired the Austrian vessel.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
