Documents menu
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 23:20:31 +1000
From: Mikhail Alexandrov <Mikhail.Alexandrov@ANU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Empiers/ Kazakhstan
This message is not addressed to those American scholars who have already made self-critical statements.
Abdulrakhim Aitbayev made the following remark about Kazakhs:
"It is widely believed in Kazakstan that Kazakhs lost half of their population, that is around 2 million people in the process of Stalin's policy of collectivization and "sedentarization" of nomads. For Kazakhs it is the same as if Russians would have lost 50 million".I think this statement is important because it raises the question about Russia's own record in treating national minorities, as compared to that of the US. First, about the factual accuracy of the statement. There was no Stalin's policy of "collectivization and "sedentarization" of nomads". There was Stalin's policy of collectivization that applied to the whole of the country. As far as "sedentarization" of nomads is concerned, it was a longstanding policy, which was conducted by authorities in Kazakhstan since mid-1920's.
Why Kazakhstan is important? The answer is simple. Russian colonization of Kazakhstan can be compared in some basic parameters to the colonization of America by West Europeans. Like North America Kazakhstan was a vast land with relatively small population.
In mid-1860's when Russian colonization of Kazakhstan started there were 2.5 mln Kazakhs there. The first wave of Russian colonizers were illegal migrants, who fled their villages after abolition of serfdom due to the lack of sown land in the European part of the country. In 1871-1896 estimated 327,000 Russians arrived to Kazakhstan. During the same period Kazakh population of the area increased to 3,645,000 (45%).
The most intensive years of Russian migration to Kazakhstan were those between 1896 to 1914, when the Government sponsored this process. During this period 1,456,000 Russians arrived to Kazakhstan. Meanwhile Kazakh own population also continued to grow reaching 4,168,918 (increase by 14.4%).
There were some losses in Kazakh population due to the Civil War and subsequent famine organized by the West through military intervention and economic blockade of Russia in 1918-1921. According to the 1926 census Kazakh population amounted to 3,918,000 (decrease by 6.1%).
The most serious blow to the Kazakh society was delivered during the collectivization campaign (1930-33) due to stupid application of the methods and forms of collectivization designed for grain producing areas to nomads. There are different estimates of Kazakh death tall in that period. According to the 1939 census there were 3,100,900 Kazakhs in the USSR (decrease by 26.3%). Serious, very serious tragedy! But it is not even close to the 79% drop in the US Indian population.
By 1989 Kazakh population reached the level of 6,534,000, which accounted for 261% growth in comparison with 1867. This was even higher then average growth rate in the Russian/Soviet Empire which accounted for 193%. Meanwhile Indian population of the US has not yet reached the level of 15th century. More to that Indians still live in reservation, can not return their traditional lands, do not have even autonomous statehood. While Kazakhs have their own independent statehood and a masters in their own land.
Whose colonization was better after all?
Mikhail Alexandrov
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 14:19:23 -0400
From: "H. M. Hubey" <hubey@AMIGA.MONTCLAIR.EDU>
Subject: Re: Empiers/ Kazakhstan
On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, Mikhail Alexandrov wrote:
The most serious blow to the Kazakh society was delivered during the collectivization campaign (1930-33) due to stupid application of the methods and forms of collectivization designed for grain producing areas to nomads. There are different estimates of Kazakh death tall in that
OK Alexandrov. Now you have proven that even Uncle Joe made mistakes. Naturally we understand that what you mean is that the Kazakhs should have been treated the way Al Capone would have treated them ; "Don't hurt them. Kill them gently."
By 1989 Kazakh population reached the level of 6,534,000, which accounted for 261% growth in comparison with 1867. This was even higher then average growth rate in
What does that mean "in comparison with 1867"?
Empire which accounted for 193%. Meanwhile Indian population of the US has not yet reached the level of 15th century. More to that Indians still live in reservation,
They never will. Most of them have been assimilated. Have you ever heard of the Chicanos?
traditional lands, do not have even autonomous statehood. While Kazakhs have their own independent statehood and a masters in their own land.Independent maybe.
"Masters in their own land?" No. Half the population is Russian. That means that a few years from now Zhyuganov can send the army there.
Whose colonization was better after all?Genghis Khan's colonization was better than all of them.
As evidence you can see that there are now 150 million Russians, and only about 150,000 Mongols (Kalmucks) left.
That means that Russian colonization was about 1,000,000 % worse than Mongol-Tatar colonization.
Which just goes to prove that Russian historians can stop complaining about the Mongols, Tatars, and Turks.
Regards, Mark
http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey
hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu