Ethnic group divided: social stratification and nationality policy in the Soviet Union

Author(s):  
Victor Zaslausky
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (3) ◽  
pp. 96-102
Author(s):  
E.A. CHEGODAEV ◽  

The article is devoted to political repressions among Belarusians of Bashkiria in the 30s of the XX century. To date, this ethnic group remains one of the little-studied peoples of the republic, which was a consequence of the long-term priority in the research of the titular Bashkir ethnic group against the background of the ethnocentrism of the historical science of the country. The number of publications devoted to the Belarusians of Bashkiria continues to remain insignificant until now, and most of them are published in the periodical press, as a rule, they have a journalistic, local history, popular science, reference or review orientation. For the first time, the researcher was faced with the task of identifying the dynamics of repressive measures against the ethnic group of Belarusians who lived compactly in rural areas of the region. The analysis of the data of the "Book of Memory of the Victims of Political Repression of the Republic of Bashkortostan" has established that rural residents from among the Belarusian ethnic group suffered more at the initial stages of mass collectivization. this confirms the prosperity of the settlers acquired during the functioning of the farm system of management, as well as the fact that the repressions against Belarusians did not have an ethnic coloring, like their neighbors in the farm residence of Latvians. As an example, the archival and investigative cases of the FSB in the Republic of Bashkortostan from 1931 are considered. The fate of a late-period migrant who emigrated to the Soviet Union in 1926 from the territory of Western Belarus is considered.


1981 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-98
Author(s):  
Gerhard Schachner

The 1970 census returns of the Soviet Union provided scholars with additional information about a hitherto little studied ethnic group, the Soviet-Germans. These figures not only broke the Germans down according to the regions and republics in which they lived, but also revealed how many still claimed German as their native language. A comparison of figures for 1959, 1970 and 1979 indicated the number making this claim had decreased considerably.


2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-28
Author(s):  
Mădălin-Sebastian Lung ◽  
◽  
Gabriela-Alina Muresan ◽  

This study aims to present a comparative analysis of the ethnic structure of the population in the Apuseni Mountains (in Romania) during three censuses: in 1880, 1930, and 2011. It emphasises ethnicity continuities and discontinuities, as well as the historical moments that left their mark on that evolution. Statistical data were processed, resulting in the tables showing the ethnic structure of the Apuseni, with absolute as well as relative (percentage) values for each ethnic group. Data were also processed with the aid of ArcGIS 10.3, generating maps of the territorial distribution of the ethnic groups for each administrative-territorial unit. The results show that Romanians maintained their continuity in the mountain area, while other ethnicities changed significantly in terms of numbers and percentages of the total population. The Jewish community was persecuted during the Second World War, finding themselves on the brink of disappearance at the 2011 census. German communities suffered from the socialist policies of deportation to the Soviet Union and other states. Slovaks, deeply affected by industrial restructuring, began to emigrate after the fall of communism in 1989. The most dynamic ethnic group are the Roma, who, according to the censuses, continuously increased in number and percentage.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1187-1216
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Hosking

The USSR was a unique empire in the universality of its claims and its aim of complete equality between nationalities. Its strengths and weaknesses were indissolubly connected. It was formally a federal state, with extensive rights given to constituent nationalities; in practice it was tightly centralized through Gosplan, the armed forces, the security services, and the Communist Party, with its messianic ideology. The USSR’s tight centralization ensured that in wartime it could mobilize social energy to an unprecedented extent, but also that in peacetime localized patronage became the main form of social cohesion. The economy was so rigidly planned as to discourage innovation, which meant that the USSR could not maintain its superpower status. Its nationality policy both encouraged ethnic feeling and repressed it. The final collapse was precipitated by the clash between the largest republic, Russia, and the Soviet Union as a whole.


2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 355-365
Author(s):  
Mayhill C. Fowler

AbstractIn the Soviet Union theatre was an arena for cultural transformation. This article focuses on theatre director Les Kurbas’ 1929 production of playwright Mykola Kulish’sMyna Mazailo, a dark comedy about Ukrainianization, to show the construction of “Soviet Ukrainian” culture. While the Ukrainian and the Soviet are often considered in opposition, this article takes the culture of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic seriously as a category. Well before Stalin’s infamous adage “national in form and socialist in content,” artists like Kulish and Kurbas were engaged in making art that was not “Ukrainian” in a generic Soviet mold, or “Soviet” art in a generic “Ukrainian” mold, but rather art of an entirely new category: Soviet Ukrainian. Far from a mere mouthpiece for state propaganda, early Soviet theatre offered a space for creating new values, social hierarchies, and worldviews. More broadly, this article argues that Soviet nationality policy was not only imposed from above, but also worked out on the stages of the republic by artists, officials, and audiences alike. Tracing productions ofMyna Mazailointo the post-Soviet period, moreover, reveals a lingering ambiguity over the content of culture in contemporary Ukraine. The state may no longer sponsor cultural construction, but theater remains a space of cultural contestation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-46
Author(s):  
Peter A. Blitstein

Soviet nationality policy was one of several political responses to cultural diversity in the interwar period. The author situates that policy in its comparative context, contrasting the Soviet Union to its eastern European neighbors and to British and French rule in Africa. Contrary to the nationalizing policies of the new states of eastern Europe, which sought national unity at the expense of ethnic minorities, Soviet nationality policy was initially based on practices of diff erentiation. Contrary to the colonial policies of Britain and France, which were based on ethnic and racial diff erentiation, Soviet policy sought to integrate all peoples into one state. In the mid-to-late 1930s, however, Soviet policy took a nationalizing turn similar to its neighbors in eastern Europe, without completely abandoning policies of ethnic diff erentiation. We should thus understand the Soviet approach as a unique hybrid of contradictory practices of nationalization and diff erentiation.


Slavic Review ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 273-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter A. Blitstein

Soviet nationality policy was one of several political responses to cultural diversity in the interwar period. Peter A. Blitstein situates that policy in its comparative context, contrasting the Soviet Union to its eastern European neighbors and to British and French rule in Africa. Contrary to the nationalizing policies of the new states of eastern Europe, which sought national unity at the expense of ethnic minorities, Soviet nationality policy was initially based on practices of differentiation. Contrary to the colonial policies of Britain and France, which were based on ethnic and racial differentiation, Soviet policy sought to integrate all peoples into one state. In the mid-to-late 1930s, however, Soviet policy took a nationalizing turn similar to its neighbors in eastern Europe, without completely abandoning policies of ethnic differentiation. We should thus understand the Soviet approach as a unique hybrid of contradictory practices of nationalization and differentiation


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document