Stop the America-bashing!

[Willem]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
What concerns the might of Her Majesty the Queen over Canada and Australia, she has no more power than in her own country, and that is practically zero. It's not like in the United States or in Russia, where the President is the head of the government. Most European countries have a government with a Prime minister (in Germany it's Chancellor Schroeder) as leader for the executive power, and either a President (in Germany that's Johannes Rau) or a (constitutional) Monarch for representation only.

The Queen has even less power in Canada than she does in England. Her role as head of state is purely symbolic and she's more of a celebrity than anything else. She's represented here by the Governor-General, who's only real duty is to preside over ceremonial functions. The only reason we still accept her as our head of state is that it's not seen as a priority at the moment. Occasionaly some politician brings up the notion of getting rid of her influence, so we can have a Republic with a President, but though sympathetic to the idea, no one wants to go through all the trouble.

Partly this is because of our Quebec problem. Changing our constitution and implementing a Republic would no doubt open up the issue of their seperation. In case you aren't aware, we have one province that is predominantly French speaking. There are a number of it's politicians who would like to see it become a sovereign state, and every so often they hold a referendum and allow the people of Quebec to vote on the issue. But the seperatists lose everytime. Although it was very, very close last time, about a 1% difference IIRC. And they have blocked attempts in the past of changing our constitution, so a real effort of dropping the Queen right now would no doubt stir up a lot of trouble and uncertainty. So at the moment, it's not worth it. We have complete control over all our affairs now, so why bother?

[Willem]

Originally posted by siredgar


Can you say the same for the differing viewpoints of the Canadian figure skating pair and the Russian judge?

To tell you the truth, I know very little about that situation and I just don't care. The only thing that appeals to me about the Olympics is that it gives the world a chance to be together in peace. Everything else is just spectacle IMHO.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Arrian
Willem,

I too have enjoyed our running discussion here. As for forums devoted to things like this, I have no idea, but what I can recommend is a newspaper that offers a good mix of ideas/opinions on current events (terrorism, etc.) like you don't get from our (N. American) media: The Lebanon Star. The editorials and letters to the editor are pretty good for getting a variety of viewpoints, especially from the Arab world - something U.S. mass media totally ignores.

Serb - Your English is excellent considering it's not your native language (seriously, your writing compares favorably to many U.S. highschool students), but I think you may have misunderstood my last post, like Ralph said.

-Arrian

Yes, that's a good idea, thanks.

BTW Serb, you would shame many Canadian students as well. In fact some of our college students for that matter. I was in school a couple of years ago, and I was appalled at some of my fellow student's command of English.

[Dauphin]

Her role as head of state is purely symbolic and she's more of a celebrity than anything else

She isn't even a celebrity here, she is seen more as a leech.

The only reason we still accept her as our head of state is that it's not seen as a priority at the moment.

Don't worry, we will get rid of her for you.

[Serb]

One more note, Serb. I just read your response to Arrian and must say you seem to have greatly misunderstood him. He with no word offended you, and he also did not take your words as offense.

I understand him right Ralph, and of course it was nothing offensive in his words, but when I reed his post I’ve just realized that some guys from Europe might find arrogance in my post, it was mostly reply to them not to Arrian. I’ve just wanted to explain that I didn’t want to be arrogant.

[Serb]

Originally posted by siredgar


Can you say the same for the differing viewpoints of the Canadian figure skating pair and the Russian judge?

Do you think it was Russian conspiracy?
As far as I know the fate of gold medals was determinate by vote of judge from Poland not from Russia.
Btw, when Canadian pair becomes the world’s champions it was the same scandal situation.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Serb, Chechnya has never been as independent from Russia, as the members of the British Commonwealth are from the UK. It has had some kind of "local autonomy" with no international rights, without an own foreign policy, a regular army (not talking about rebels) etc.

Disagree.
“It has had some kind of "local autonomy" with no international rights” when it was the part of Russian Soviet Federative Socialistic Republic, in times of SU, it was the same situation for period of time since 1991 until 1996. But, for the period of time since 1996 until 1999, it was not autonomy not even a close. As I see one of the condition of autonomy is that the local (within an autonomy) laws do not denied, (not in conflict) with the constitution of entire country. For that period of time, laws used by them have nothing common with laws by which whole Russia live, this laws were in huge conflicts with the major law of our country- the constitution. We do not use physical punishment, we do not cutting off hands of our thieves, they done. Now about foreign policy, they have their emissaries in many countries of the world. Do you heard about Chechen delegation sent by Maskhadov on previous, and last Parliament Assembly of Europe? I can assure you, they have their foreign policy. On the West their policy was to show how good they are, and how they threaten by evil Russians, to make image that they are not terrorists but only righteous freedom fighters, that their leaders like “president” (btw, no one elected him actually, they lived under fundamentalist, extremist’s regime not under democracy) Maskhadov has nothing common with terrorists, while all this was lies. And they were successful; you prefer to trust them, not to trust us. On East (for most of the part in Afghanistan) their policy was to beg for money and reinforcements of fanatics and mercenaries. And they were successful too; the Taliban constantly supported them with money, people and weapons. Now about an army, of course they have army. What type of regiments Maskhadov salute on all this military parades in Grozny then?
I am waiting for other arguments. And I really like that you use arguments to defend your pov and don’t claim arguments of your opponent as “Russian propaganda”.

What concerns the might of Her Majesty the Queen over Canada and Australia, she has no more power than in her own country, and that is practically zero.

Isn't it the exactly what I said? Does it mean only “de juro” power, while “de fucto” it is not. May be I type this Latin words incorrect?
Yes, for the period of time 1996-1999 the power of Russian’s president in Chechnya was not zero, it was less then zero, he has no power at all.

It's not like in the United States or in Russia, where the President is the head of the government. Most European countries have a government with a Prime minister (in Germany it's Chancellor Schroeder) as leader for the executive power, and either a President (in Germany that's Johannes Rau) or a (constitutional) Monarch for representation only.

Thanks for the lecture. Do you really think that I know nothing about Europeans government systems?

At the same time, Russia always had it's thumb at Chechnya.

I am ready to make vow on Bible that for period of time 1996-1999 Russia has had not even a little finger in Chechnya.
And I don’t know for how long period of time this situation may continue, if they do not attack Russia, not invaded Dagestan. Why you do not want to understand that they started the second Chechen’s war? They are attacked us, not we are attacked them. And you (not you personally Ralph, I mean whole West) do not understand that those wars have absolutely different reasons. And if in first campaign local population was against us, and this war last for few YEARS and finally we’ve LOST that war, then in second campaign population of Chechnya support Russian’s army, and this is the major reason why the second war was WIN within few MONTHS.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Willem


It's an expression in the west, at least in North America, I'm not surprised you don't understand. We say that when a person has said something really stupid, and also somewhat embarrassing, that they've put their foot in their mouth. Don't ask me where it comes from, it's just one of those sayings.

May be it comes from Yoga’s exercises?
Anyhow, Russians have no less ‘extreme’ sayings. For example “ glaz no jopu natyanu” it means- I’m gone put your eye in your as*hole. It’s really hard for me to understand how is it possible to do so, even with enough Yoga’s trainings.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Willem
BTW Serb, you would shame many Canadian students as well. In fact some of our college students for that matter. I was in school a couple of years ago, and I was appalled at some of my fellow student's command of English.

Oh, no I think I’m starting to cry.
Stop this bullsh*t guys, I know the truth about my English, and no one of you will never convince me that it is good, I am just using Word’98 to type my posts, it put red lines below the words if I’ll type something wrong.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin

She isn't even a celebrity here, she is seen more as a leech.

Aah, you must be from Australia. There's a lot of people in Canada that feel the same way, I'm sort of inclined that way myself. It costs us millions of dollars a year to put up this pretext, and for what. I'd rather see that money spent for other things. Still there's quite a number of people who would be aghast at the idea of getting rid of her.

[Harovan]

LOL, at one point the whole British Monarchy has influence even in Germany: It feeds the local yellow press and the cable TV with all kinds of scandals, thus dragging the typical "German Michel" from seeing the real problems.

[Dauphin]

I am actually from England.

The feeling about royalty as seen by the average Brit is the same as the average Aussie or Canuck. The only reason we keep the Monarchy is for tourism and the fact we don't want a President.

Hardly anyone is going to celebrate the Queens Golden Jubilee this year.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Serb
Isn't it the exactly what I said? Does it mean only “de juro” power, while “de fucto” it is not. May be I type this Latin words incorrect?

Even if there was a very, very small error ('de facto', instead of 'de fucto'), it was perfectly understandable.

I am ready to make vow on Bible that for period of time 1996-1999 Russia has had not even a little finger in Chechnya.

I understand what you are saying, but maybe you have to know that for us, western european people, it is not enough just to say that.
Let give me an example, where belgians are the bad guys. Congo.
We colonized Congo and did not educate native people. The few that were allowed to study, were put in subordinate jobs. So, when decolonisation could not be avoided, we 'gave' them independence. Having no experience in how to rule a state, they made mistakes (some slaughter of europeans were not stopped). And it was easy for us to say: 'hey look, they are unable to rule themselves', 'people are killed', 'we need to intervene for humanitary reasons', 'let send the army to save lifes'.
Now you can be even more machiavellian: in Rwanda: you educate only a small part of the natives, and you do it on ethnical base. Only Tustsis get education, so when independence come, they get all the decision posts and soon or later, the others, feeling the unfairness, will get upset... and some may even become killers ('those big bad Hutus, they are just killers').

These were 'classic' scenario of (de)colonization. This was not exclusive to belgian evilness, most europeans colonists did it this way. Today, europeans citizens know that, and they are no more ready to believe simple
redneck theories like 'They are unable to rule themselves', or 'They are terrorists/killers'. We keep asking 'What did you do to them that they become like that?', 'Didn't you s#!t in their boots even a little bit?'.

So, understand me well, I don't say that THIS happened in Chechnya, but as long as we don't know in which conditions this independence was given, we cannot really say who are the good and the bad guys .
Sorry if we wear armored underpants, but we have been (beeeeep)d too much before, and we don't like it.

[Serb]

Nice try Dry
I think I understood you properly.
I wish you can understand my well too. I do not want to say that during our history we were nice guys always, of course not. Every nation has ‘good’ and ‘bad’ periods of own history. Yes, we’ve done bad things too. I am clearly realizing it. I am saying this to explain that my words below are not arrogance of some kind.
So, I should remind that history of Russian expansion is different from European’s. We never have colonies. None territories Russian Empire are included, never were treated as colonies. This is the main reason why Russia was able to keep such huge territories for such long period of time. All territories that Russia included have the same rights; some of territories like Finland for example may have special privileges- they do not pay taxes to budget of Empire and spending all their money within their autonomy, there was other minor privileges. But majority of territories have equal status and rights. When some territory becomes part of R.E. we’ve come there for a long time and brings to this territory all our cultural achievements. Do you know that some of our southern territories like Kazakhstan for example did not even has own alphabet, they have only oral language and do not known writing. When they become part of R.E. Russians invent alphabet for them, using Russian’s letters. So the most important thing that was made to hold territories within empire was the cultural intervention, but it is not exclude military presence of course. As I remember it calls “the policy of an apple and a whip”. You cannot deny the fact that Russia still (not even in times of SU or R.E.) is perhaps the most multinational country in the world, as well is the largest country. (Please don take it as Russian arrogance, I just want to prove my point of view with use of facts). Does it not prove that we learned to maintain our territories a little better than other great empires? We never have “(de)colonization” periods in our history. You may said that SU was disintegrated, but I suppose that you realize that it was because absolutely different reason, it has nothing common with “(de)colonization”.
So, portraying Chechnya as some kind of Russian colony is absolutely absurd, as I see it. Chechens always have the same status and rights as other citizens of R.E./S.U./R.F., as well as always takes benefits of our civilization.

Now you can be even more machiavellian: in Rwanda: you educate only a small part of the natives, and you do it on ethnical base.

Excuse me, we are, In Rwanda? It is in Africa, right? Are you really talking about Russians?

Today, europeans citizens know that, and they are no more ready to believe simple redneck theories like 'They are unable to rule themselves', or 'They are terrorists/killers'

As long as you talk about Africa I am complete agree with you. Of course Europeans was much, much advanced then local population in that times, more advanced in all aspects including social aspect, and possibility to rule the country. Of course natives were unable to rule themselves properly, if I understand you properly they do it as in times before they become a Belgian colony.
1) How else they can do, you said that you do NOT EDUCATE them?
2) Do they have EXPIRIENCE to do it in proper, non-violence way?
3) Do they have connection to the other countries of the world, which may teach them how to do it?
In Chechnya it was absolutely reverse situation:
1) As I said they was educated as well as any other republic in Russia, we have, and always has one general standard of education in all subjects of Russian federation.
2) They have experience how to rule themselves. Chechnya has autonomy when it was part of RSFSR. (former name of Russia it times of SU) and they have an autonomy in Russian Federation.
3) It was in 1996, the end of 20 century, they were not in an information isolation, and have every opportunity to build democratic state. For example the same is happening today in Afghanistan, Afghans starting to build democracy based on experience of other countries, they establishing institutes of powers familiar with western.
So, portraying Chechnya, as some kind of colony is the super absurd, all colonial powers lost their colonies decades ago.

And it was easy for us to say: 'hey look, they are unable to rule themselves', 'people are killed', 'we need to intervene for humanitary reasons', 'let send the army to save lifes'

EDIT: Almost forget a very important thing. Did your former colony attacked continental Belgium? And if (only hypothetically) Congo army attacked Belgium what would you do then?

So, understand me well, I don't say that THIS happened in Chechnya, but as long as we don't know in which conditions this independence was given, we cannot really say who are the good and the bad guys.

I’ve understood you right. All I’ve said above, I’ve said to guys who might think that period of (de)colonization has something common with Chechnya.
P.S. I am really had to run now. If you really want to hear in which conditions this independence was given, write it, I’ll promise to answer after a couple of hours.

P.P.S. Thanks again for Latin lesson.
I think only now I’ve realized how funny this “de Fucto” sounds.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Serb
So, portraying Chechnya as some kind of Russian colony is absolutely absurd, as I see it. Chechens always have the same status and rights as other citizens of R.E./S.U./R.F., as well as always takes benefits of our civilization.

No, it's even pretty similar. The core Russia is a small part of today's, it's even less than it's European part. And that is where Russians come from. All other territories were captured and "colonized" by the Russian Emperors during many centuries. That concerns parts of the Middle East (all those "...stan" countries and regions) as well as the territories of the Mongol type populations in Central and Eastern Asia. People who live there, are all but Russians.

Many of those civilizations (yes!) in Eastern Asia didn't even care that they were captured, they were nomads, hunters and fishermen and remained this till today, not caring about governments and local powers. And the area there is relatively thin settled anyway, so there's not much man power for revolts.

But especially in the Middle East regions live enough people, who are tired of this state. As seen in Chechnya, Russia keeps it's "colonies" by cruel oppression. As long as this lasts, Russia will not have inner peace.

As for the Chechens and other non-Russian parts of the population... Yea, by laws they have the same rights, but I have even in Soviet times seen, how disdainful Russians talked about the merchants from the caucasus, who sold fruits in the market places, about Jews (I would not wonder if half of Israels population are former Russian Jews) and other minorities. On the other hand, being in Estonia (I know it's not Russia), I got not served in stores, because the people thought I was a Russian (I talked in Russian to them) and later got nearly my feet licked when they realized, that I'm from Germany (just from saying the word sh*t in German). Serb, I know that "at the paper" all citizens of Russia (and formerly the SU) have/had the same rights, but they never have been real friends. Admit this. This will always be a problem. Look at Yugoslavia. And take advice from Chechs and Slovaks. They went apart and remained friends.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Serb
So, portraying Chechnya as some kind of Russian colony is absolutely absurd...

Oops, maybe I didn't use the right words, I never meant Chechnya was a Russian colony. The African decolonisation by Europeans was only an example of what hypocrisis can do.

Excuse me, we are, In Rwanda? It is in Africa, right? Are you really talking about Russians?

Apologize again, I wrote 'you', I meant 'we' of course.
In french you can use the 'you' to mean 'anybody', I thought in english, it was the same.

EDIT: Almost forget a very important thing.
Did your former colony attacked continental Belgium? And if (only hypothetically) Congo army attacks Belgium what would you do then?

Honestly, I would say that we would defend our borders, like we did in both WW. Now if the question is about hiting an ennemy on its own ground, well, it never happened in the past. Belgium was often occupied, or under other's rule (France, Spain, Austria, Holland, Germany), but never attacked anyone. We have no great military tradition.
I don't know exactly how we get in Congo, Rwanda and Burundi, but I was never told about some great military campain. I know our king of that time bought it for himself. Later he gave it to the state of Belgium. But I don't know to whom he bought it.
We sent our troops in the past in Africa when our own citizens were in trouble, but it was always in coordination with France and US. But as you said, Congo was for us a colony, and never considered as our own territorial ground, so it is difficult to compare with Chechnya.

Of course natives were unable to rule themselves properly, if I understand you properly they do it as in times before they become a Belgian colony.

Well, yes and no. When you conquer/colonize a country, even if they are not as technologically advanced as you, they have local elites and a way of ruling themselves. This rule may be not-efficient, but it worked. With some local wars - and the europeans used the local rivality to conquer the whole country - but it was their own way.
During the occupation/colonisation, you forbid those able/gifted natives to learn and adapt to the new situation, you forbid them also to learn their traditionnal ways (you kill local culture) and after a few generation, you have a people used to be servant of foreigner, with a foreign logic,...
To give you an excessive example, take Polpot in Cambodge: he killed all intellectuals and then he had a people unable to rule himself. Instead of killing them, forbid the gifted to learn and you will have the same result, or starve them, so read/write is secondary in regards to eat.
The situation after is worse than the situation before.

In Chechnya it was absolutely reverse situation:
...
So, portraying Chechnya, as some kind of colony is the super absurd, all colonial powers lost their colonies decades ago.

Agree, I never wanted to say that Chechnya was (or was not) a colony or was (or was not) educated, but - by taking a colonial/education example - just that things were not always simple.

Let me take a last example:
Take a people - any
and put them in refugee camps at 1 per 10sq meter, forbid communication between them - let's say it is for your own security
make water their first concern, before anything else;
forbid the political leaders to levy taxes to organize the whole thing - pretend that with the money they will buy weapons;
and of course, you can never forbid the religious leaders to receive money from their followers;
now that this people is not helped by politicals, but well by religious people, wait until they are able to rule themselves, wait until they become moderate and democratic.

That is another example of people who 's#!t in the boots' of others.

[Arrian]

There is probably only one reason the United States never had to deal with a Chechenya-like situation: we pretty much wiped out the Native Americans. I wonder if Adolf Hitler was thinking of the Westward expansion of the United States when he came up with Lebensraum (spelling?). Yeah, that analogy may seem harsh, but so was the treatment of the Native Americans.

Before someone brings it up, I may as well explain why I don't think the U.S. Civil War qualifies as a "Chechenya-like situation."
Although the Civil War involved a group of states attempting to break away from the union, it wasn't about ethnicity and religion - it was about a "way of life" which included the institution of slavery. The South didn't want the North telling it what to do, particularly with regard to the ownership of other human beings. It was more of an ideological dispute, which I think seperates it from what's going on in Chechenya.

-Arrian

[Serb]

I do not even mean to exploit it. I am absolutely sure that your claims about you’re Civil war was a war against slavery no less true then your claims that your “humanitarian bombardments” of Yugoslavia is war against monstrous dictator who make ethnical purges.

And you try to convince me that USA never put yourself in Chechen-like situation. Open your eyes men. What kind of situation your bombardments of Yugoslavia then?
And finally Tell me please your vision of what’s going on in Chechnya.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


No, it's even pretty similar.

Excuse me, I don’t get it, are you agree or not that our expansionism is different from colonial type, like GB for example?

The core Russia is a small part of today's, it's even less than it's European part. And that is where Russians come from. All other territories were captured and "colonized" by the Russian Emperors during many centuries.

I do not deny that we expanded through conquest, but again it has differences with western conquest. I suppose you know that core Russia was occupied by Mongols for period of time about 300 years, and only in 1380 separated feudal states united own tiny armies in one big army, and was able to defeat Mongol horde. But it was not lead to an end of occupation and it last about 100 years more. But while occupation was over, attacks on our Eastern borders were not over. As one of our politicians joked- “Russians are very peaceful people, we’ve spend last 800 years constantly fighting in wars and military campaigns”. Western colonialism was based on technological superiority, while I wouldn’t say that our army was far superior with compare with our enemies. Btw wars was not the only way for expansion, many territories joined Russia by own will seeking for protection, for example this is how Ukraine joined Russia in 1654.

Many of those civilizations (yes!) in Eastern Asia didn't even care that they were captured, they were nomads, hunters and fishermen and remained this till today, not caring about governments and local powers.

All those "...stan" territories as well as Siberia always was under rule of various empires since times of the Golden Horde. Yes, they were nomads, but it is the way of life in empires like the Mongols Empire. But I wouldn’t say that they are nomads today. Would you denied that Russian culture make hugest impact and changed the way of life of all this people?

And the area there is relatively thin settled anyway, so there's not much man power for revolts.

Well it’s fair, as well it was not enough manpower to oppress them, I suppose you can imagine distance between those territories and core Russia. I think you know about modern Russian roads and know what is “rasputica”, and can easily imagine roads of that times, well actually there are nothing to imagine it simply do not existed. So, I suppose you can imagine how much time it takes to bring forces to those lands with use of horses as transport. All our expansion on east is familiar with American’s expansion on West, but with little differences again. Yes, Russians are not native population of Siberia, as you said those lands were poor populated by nomads, but when we’ve come there and build up our cities, we’ve become an absolutely majority of population, with no doubt. Our cities assimilate natives; we not killed them or put them in reservations.
Sorry, sir Ralph with this line I cannot agree.

But especially in the Middle East regions live enough people, who are tired of this state. As seen in Chechnya, Russia keeps it's "colonies" by cruel oppression. As long as this lasts, Russia will not have inner peace.

I am really sorry that you think so. Please try to think logically. Peter the Great proclaimed the Russian Empire 300 years ago. In fact we lived in this empire since Ivan the Terrible in that times it called “Rus” and we still live in this empire, it only changed names Rus/R.E./S.U./R.F. Do you really think that through oppression it is possible to keep “colonies” for such long period of time? Look to history of all other empires used this way, did you not notice that all great empires lost their colonies in second half of last century. No matter how cruel oppression is, no nation can forever tolerate it. It was perfectly shown by all former colonies of all colonial countries in last century.
We are always was, and always will by a ONE NATION, consisted of many nationalities, with ONE COMMON CULTURE, consisted of many cultures and religions. This cocktail is called a Russian CIVILIZATION, and we mixed so hard, then I don’t know whom you may call a pure Russian today.

… but I have even in Soviet times seen, how disdainful Russians talked about the merchants from the caucasus, who sold fruits in the market places,

The only one thing I want to say about this is just: try to imagine that all your family including you far, far relatives lives in one house during more then thousand years, and you see faces of this people every day, and that for such long time you know everything about your neighbors, their actions, preference etc. Is it possible then you’ll start to treat some of your relative better then others and otherwise?

(I would not wonder if half of Israels population are former Russian Jews)

I suppose if I don’t read your previous posts I may be found this line offensive. It sounds like charge in anti-Semitism and nationalism. Would you be wonder if I tell you that before 1917 1/3 of all worlds’ Jews lived in Russian Empire? (This information I’ve reed on one of the Jewish Internet sites) Many of them leave with first wave of immigration because of revolution happens, but many remains. When the Iron curtain was up, new wave of immigration begun, and I can assure you Jews was not major part of emigrants. Was it wondering that Jewish emigrants chose Israel as a new home?

On the other hand, being in Estonia (I know it's not Russia), I got not served in stores, because the people thought I was a Russian (I talked in Russian to them) and later got nearly my feet licked when they realized, that I'm from Germany (just from saying the word sh*t in German).

I must agree that it’s true. I think it comes from Peter the Great times, because of his conquest of Baltic States. These states were under Sweden rule and of course have western culture. They treat us as barbarians. Btw, as I know you gone include them in EU. Is it not concern you (I mean EU officials) that Russian population in those countries do not have a civil rights, while its pretty big part of the whole? If I’m not mistaken 20-40%.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Serb
All those "...stan" territories as well as Siberia always was under rule of various empires since times of the Golden Horde. Yes, they were nomads, but it is the way of life in empires like the Mongols Empire. But I wouldn’t say that they are nomads today. Would you denied that Russian culture make hugest impact and changed the way of life of all this people?

Although I've never compared first hand, it's my impression that Russia has done a much better job of allowing the indigenious peoples their own culture than the West has.

Here in Canada we have a similar situation as you do, especially in Siberia, in regards to the original natives of a distant area. Our response was to tell these people they were inferior. We took their children from thier homes, and forced them to live in dormatories where they were sometimes beaten if they so much as spoke a single word of their native tongue, or acted any differently than what Christian morality deemed appropriate at the time.

We've made many attempts to destroy their way of life to the point that now, many of them have forgotten how to be self-reliant on their own land, as they used to be. Some of these tribes have all but forgotten their language, thier art, their customs. In some cases, it's only their oldest members that can still remember, and are able to speak in their own tongue, produce the art they used to, etc.. Only in the past few decades has there been any effort at all by our government of preserving this cultural knowledge.

Yet I see documentaries of people who still seem to live much as they used to in your country. They still have their own language and customs, and they're allowed to live thier lives as they see fit. As I said, I've never compared the approaches to our similar situations first hand, but judging from what I've seen from the media, I'd say we could learn a few lessons from your country.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
On the other hand, being in Estonia (I know it's not Russia), I got not served in stores, because the people thought I was a Russian (I talked in Russian to them) and later got nearly my feet licked when they realized, that I'm from Germany (just from saying the word sh*t in German).

That's exactly the same reaction that Canadians get when people realize we're not Americans. Is that prove that the US is an oppressive nation?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Willem
That's exactly the same reaction that Canadians get when people realize we're not Americans. Is that prove that the US is an oppressive nation?

No. My example was meant to prove that many nationalities in the former SU and today's Russia are not really friends as they are told to be.

Originally posted by Serb
I suppose if I don’t read your previous posts I may be found this line offensive. It sounds like charge in anti-Semitism and nationalism.

I'm not talking about aggressive Anti-Semitism as it existed in Germany in times of the 3rd Reich. But face the fact, for the average Russian the Russian Jews are all but popular. I knew a few when I was there. Just for example, they got mobbed at work, even in Soviet time. Or how else do you explain the massive exodus of Jews from Russia to Israel, in a land that hasn't found peace since it exists? And why is the word "pogrom" a Russian word?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


No. My example was meant to prove that many nationalities in the former SU and today's Russia are not really friends as they are told to be.

Yet we have a similar problem here in Canada with Quebec. We still live together with a certain amount of respect however. Sorry, I'm not trying to be contrary, but I certainly see a similarity between my country and what Serb is talking about. Perhaps you fail to see it, coming from a culture that up until recently was largely homogenous.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Serb
Btw, as I know you gone include them in EU. Is it not concern you (I mean EU officials) that Russian population in those countries do not have a civil rights, while its pretty big part of the whole? If I’m not mistaken 20-40%.

I know this and don't consider it good. But the EU as it is does not tolerate this behavior, so I guess it's a condition to change this. By the way, it's also one of the reasons why Turkey is not yet in the EU.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Willem
Yet we have a similar problem here in Canada with Quebec. We still live together with a certain amount of respect however. Sorry, I'm not trying to be contrary, but I certainly see a similarity between my country and what Serb is talking about. Perhaps you fail to see it, coming from a culture that up until recently was largely homogenous.

Oh, I'm sure at the average you and Serb are right, and I agree to 95%. The remaining 5% are nationalities like Chechens. And as long as they remain oppressed (sorry, for flattening their homes I haven't got another word), they will rebel again and again.

[Arrian]

Serb,

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to convince you that the United States did a GOOD thing by nearly annihilating the Native Americans. It was mocking self-criticism (in the national sense), actually.

I did not say that the Civil War was against slavery. Slavery was one of the primary root causes of the war, however. The conflict was over whether or not the rebel states could choose to leave the Union - a debate I do not intend to get into here. The main reason the South wished to leave the Union, however, was their fear that the North, which was becoming increasingly powerful (both politically and economically) would impose an end to slavery upon the South. The Confederate States didn't want that, so they tried to leave.

I have said before, maybe not here, that I did not agree with Nato's actions in Yugoslavia, such as the bombing of Serbia. I'm not attempting to convince you that it was right. I do think that Milosevich's downfall was a good thing, but the ends do not justify the means. However, the U.S. has not put itself in a Chechnya-like situation in the Balkans, because we don't lay claim to that territory as part of our nation, whereas Chechenya is part of Russia. We don't want Kosovo as the 51st State, or even as a "territory" like Puerto Rico.

I didn't mean to say that Russia had made some error that lead to the Chechen war, though it may have, I don't really know. My post was sarcastic - in other words, Russia's "mistake" was not ethnically cleansing Chechenya at some earlier time, as the United States did during its westward expansion. Since Chechnya is still populated by "natives" it is more difficult for Moscow to maintain control.

As for my thoughts on Chechnya... well, I don't know all that much about the history of that area, but I have seen reports of atrocities committed (and yes, I understand the outrage over the bombing of apartment buildings in Moscow) by the Russian Army. I occasionally read the Moscow Times (since I can't read Russian, my options are a bit limited) and that's where I saw those reports. Whether or not Russia is right to fight the war, I won't pass judgement, as I feel I should know more about the history of Chechnya before doing so. But if the conduct of the Russian military matches what I read in the Moscow Times many months ago, I don't like it. Just as I don't like it when ANY army acts like that. Please do not assume I'm anti-Russian - you seem to respond to my posts as if I'm trying to convince you that your country is "bad" and mine is "good." That is not the case.

-Arrian

[Serb]

Sorry,
I think when I type that post I was too emotional, and not because of your post. I’ve misunderstood you, sorry.
I just want to remind once again that the outrage over the bombing of apartment buildings in Moscow, like outrage about all previous acts of terrorists, was not the reason why the war was started. The war was started when those bustards attacked a neighbor Dagestan- another subject of Russian Federation. It can't be called by other words then the- ‘declaration of war’. They start this war, not we are. Why are you (western world) bashing us for victory in defensive war? Is it fair?

[Harovan]

About Dagestan I know only what our media said. That is only one source of (mis)information and not sufficient to make a difference between truth and NATO propaganda. To be honest, I didn't put much own interest in this matter and will not argue about this.

May be you explain your point of view. But please, if you can, without any emotion. I don't wish to know what the Russian newspapers write or TV says. I want to know what you believe to be the truth. Try to clean the propaganda fog away.

[Serb]

Ok, Ralph I’ll try.
You have to forgive me. I know that sometimes I am too emotional, but this is because I am too tired to hit a two bricks wall with my head. I am continuously saying to all of you that the second campaign has nothing common with the first. And if some of your (western world) arguments for bashing us in times of first war was reasonable, are you not realize that the same was here in this time? I was against this war as most of the Russians. Practically this war was stopped because of the public opinion was against this war. Then the second campaign was war against terrorism (absolutely the same as Americans done in Afghanistan), not against Chechen people, because for the period of three years passed after we completely leave Chechnya, there was established the Taliban’s type regime which constantly threatened to Russia through terrorist’s acts, stealing people from Russia for use those people as slaves, and for receiving ransom. And massive invasion in Dagestan launched by terrorists was culmination of their actions. We can’t no longer tolerate this.
I do not have access to your mass media in this time. So I don’t know how your media portrayed those events.But I wonder, if those events might be portrayed as something different. In 1999 about 5000 terrorists invade Dagestan with only one purpose- to capture this territory and to take control under this land.The familiar event you might see when UCK attacked Macedonia, after they were victorious in Kossovo. Terrorist’s regimes are never stopped, they always expand, when they achieved one goal they point another. Invasion in Dagestan was stopped on first stage by natives, by people who start to defend their land with arms in their hands, Dagestan’s people perfectly know what’s going on in Chechnya and do not wanted to live under terrorist’s rule. Later Russian army arrived; terrorist was defeated and they retreat to their base- Chechnya. Our army followed them and destroyed this snake’s nest. And they were successful because local Chechen people do not resist them, this people was tired of terrorists rule, they do not want live longer under such regime.
That’s all.
I am really had to go now, on birthday party. Ralph I suppose as man who know Russians very good you realize that I’ll do not show here for couple of days.

[Harovan]

Of course I understand. Enjoy!