i didnt think you needed capitalism or roads for settler colonialism.. just movement of folk and conquest, and genocide or other bad things for the original folk. im not terribly knowledgable but like, how else did so many russians get to be living in kazakstan and other places ?
The early Bolsheviks acknowledged the settlement of Russians in northern Kazakhstan as a colonial act by the Russian empire. And in the early days of the Civil war they consciously pursued policy they even called "decolonization" which was a rather radical pursuit of resettlement of ethnic Russians out of Kazakhstan to ensure Kazakh territorial and ethnic sovereignty.
This was basically all but reversed under collectivization, where a population of semi-nomadic pastoralists was forced to sedentarize or flee and the land was appropriated by the state to resettle ethnic Russians there for sedentary agricultural production. A demographic shift that was only very recently overcome in Kazakhstan where now Kazakhs are once again the majority ethnic group.
The Silent Steppe is a biography of a Kazakh during the collectivization campaigns. Also their was a comparative historiography of the Sioux and Kazakhs that covers mostly the Russian empire iirc called "The Touch of Civilization": Comparing American and Russian Internal Colonization. I forget where I read about Soviet decolonization. I honestly think there's just a wikipedia article about it lol
Like Racism, there's a dichotomy of terms. Sometimes it's used for the general term of conquest and settlement (ie, Romans and Vikings and Bantu and Mongols and Venetian Trade Colonies in the Crimea are all "Settler Colonial").
Sometimes it's used for the complex, initially Anglo-Hispanic economic drivers and sustainers of large scale settlement and capitalist accumulation with limited cultural diffusion that developed around 1450.
i didnt think you needed capitalism or roads for settler colonialism.. just movement of folk and conquest, and genocide or other bad things for the original folk. im not terribly knowledgable but like, how else did so many russians get to be living in kazakstan and other places ?
The early Bolsheviks acknowledged the settlement of Russians in northern Kazakhstan as a colonial act by the Russian empire. And in the early days of the Civil war they consciously pursued policy they even called "decolonization" which was a rather radical pursuit of resettlement of ethnic Russians out of Kazakhstan to ensure Kazakh territorial and ethnic sovereignty.
This was basically all but reversed under collectivization, where a population of semi-nomadic pastoralists was forced to sedentarize or flee and the land was appropriated by the state to resettle ethnic Russians there for sedentary agricultural production. A demographic shift that was only very recently overcome in Kazakhstan where now Kazakhs are once again the majority ethnic group.
deleted by creator
The Silent Steppe is a biography of a Kazakh during the collectivization campaigns. Also their was a comparative historiography of the Sioux and Kazakhs that covers mostly the Russian empire iirc called "The Touch of Civilization": Comparing American and Russian Internal Colonization. I forget where I read about Soviet decolonization. I honestly think there's just a wikipedia article about it lol
deleted by creator
https://de1lib.org/book/934245/89d218
There's the Silent Steppe. Can't find the other one except on JSTOR unfortunately.
deleted by creator
That website has like every book ever btw. Highly recommend it.
deleted by creator
Like Racism, there's a dichotomy of terms. Sometimes it's used for the general term of conquest and settlement (ie, Romans and Vikings and Bantu and Mongols and Venetian Trade Colonies in the Crimea are all "Settler Colonial").
Sometimes it's used for the complex, initially Anglo-Hispanic economic drivers and sustainers of large scale settlement and capitalist accumulation with limited cultural diffusion that developed around 1450.