Skip to comments.Russian Oppression And Chechnya: Violence Is A Choice
Posted on 05/01/2013 12:39:25 AM PDT by cunning_fish
Due to the background of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the half-Chechen half-Avar brothers who bombed the Boston marathon, many Americans are suddenly very interested in the tortured history of the North Caucasus. I cant credibly claim to be an expert on the multitudinous ethnic and linguistic groups that populate the area, so if youre looking for in-depth analysis of Chechen politics, a data-driven account of the economics of Dagestan, or a blow-by-blow account of the past 20 years of the regions history you should look somewhere else. If youre still wondering where in Gods name is Chechnya? or why are the Russians and the Chechens fighting in the first place? I would enthusiastically recommend this Max Fisher piece which does an able job of presenting the relevant issues in a fair and succinct manner.
However, knowing a little bit about Soviet and Russian history generally, I did want to comment on the broader issue of Chechen terrorism and Chechnyas habitually violent struggle for independence. Many accounts of Chechnya, such as this ostentatiously one-sided piece from Thor Halvorssen (which accomplishes the truly remarkable feat of summarizing recent Russian-Chechen history without mentioning the Beslan school massacre) all but suggest that Russian imperialism and oppression justify Chechen terrorism and violence. After all, the Russians have done any number of awful things to the Chechens since they first tried to take control of the region in the 19th century: they deported them en masse to Central Asia, theyve installed a vicious puppet regime, and theyve arbitrarily arrested, tortured, and murdered innocents. As Halvorssen said, Chechnya has been ripped apart by Russian aggression for centuries. Considering all of that, it almost seems natural for the Chechens to resort to violence. How else could they struggle against someone as evil as Putin?
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
The non-violence of the anti-Soviet movement in Eastern Europe does not reflect a deep, unchanging, or eternal truth about any of the ethnic groups involved. Back in the day Lithuanians, known today for being somewhat dour and unassuming, were famous for being violent pagans, and the stereotypes associated with ethnicities always change. Yesterdays war-loving German becomes todays Euroweenie. The non-violence reflected not the inherent goodness of people involved, but a number of deliberate and calculated decisions. There was nothing fated about the non-violence of the movements for Baltic independence and there was no unseen force which mandated a peaceful outcome. But the political leaders of the time (accurately!) understood that non-violence was the only way to achieve a decent outcome, and they studiously eschewed violent means of political persuasion. Political leaders across Eastern Europe made similar determinations. The Chechen leadership made a very different choice, opting for a war of independence against the Russians that almost immediately descended into criminality, nihilism, and depraved violence, with both sides in the conflict seemingly waging a competition to see who could be
The Caucasus doesnt offer any simple answers or easy truths. But for this brief moment that people are paying attention to Chechnya, its worth remembering that the violence there doesnt simply happen, it always reflects a deliberate choice from people possessed of agency. I fully sympathize with the Chechens evident desire to be free of Russian domination and can easily grasp the many reasons why fighting seems justified. But while such a choice is understandable, it should be understood as a choice, and not as the inevitable outcome of Russian imperialism.
Before the Russians came, the Chechens used to ride unicorns, talk to the animals, and heal the earth. Since the Russians, the Chechens have decided to specialize in drug trafficking, kidnapping and terrorism. Where can I blame George Bush?
Well played, Sir.
Actually, the article is not pro-Chechen, if you read the whole thing. The author points out that the Russians oppressed everybody in their sphere (Poles, Ukrainians, etc.), and did things much worse than what they did to the Chechens. But only the jihadis responded by doing even more evil things, and the fact that the Chechens are still doing appalling things even though the Russians are behaving themselves fairly well now shows that it is not just a question of “Russian oppression” and that this excuse for Chechen evil doesn’t work.
He unfortunately didn’t manage to name the root cause of their evil behavior, but we all know that it begins with an I and ends with an M.
Yes, a careful read does indicate it isn’t a defense of Chechnya’s action. However, the long winded hand-wringing exercise trying to develop “Why” the Chechens are violent and ‘what happened where when’ goes against my grain, and probably man others. Actually, I don’t give a damn about Chechnya except to say that we should stop taking their ‘refugees’.
Foreign oppression begetting violence exists in every corner of the globe. Somehow, our liberalist State Department and the US Government feels it has to provide refuge for those “poor downtrodden victims of oppression” everywhere. BS. We take in refuges from third world countries who are nothing but terrorists. A hell of a lot of them are Muslims. The rest? There is no valued added to this country by any of them.
What did all this get us? Boston. [and a hell of a drain on the welfare system, to boot]
Gotta hand it to you. Kudos.
Historically, Chechens lived off robbing merchants travelling between Russia and Middle East&Indochina via North Caucasus.
Chechen’s most insulting N-word is ‘chaban’ - a shepherd. It brings things into perspective because being a shepherd is probably a single legal occupation possible in their environment.
Hard working is a destiny of infidel slaves following their beliefs, initiative and enterprise are dirty Jewish things.
Chechens also taught to be supremacists since the early age.
All of the above combined makes a nice bunch, isn’t it?
At one time, that phrase had a purpose behind it other than empathy for the foreign downtrodden. There was a substantive need for people from other countries that actually wanted to create a better life, expand our (America's) horizons, and to become American.
The opportunity, the wide open spaces and the hard work involved then pretty much forced self-independence of some measure. It also facilitated assimilation to American values, whether they intended so or not.
Today? In truth we don't even really need even the best of what the rest of this world's population has to offer, let alone its dregs. And, by dregs, I mean the third world sh!thole denizens for whom this country is so adamantly cultivating entry and citizenship.
Instead of H1-B visas, asylum/refugee green cards and the like, we should be instilling real education, drive for accomplishment and success for our own children so they can fulfill our future needs instead of some Muslim Terrorist or other foreigner just out to bleed our entitlement system dry.
Grover tried to deceive the audience on at least two occasions in that video. THAT should tell us he is not ‘looking out for the people’s interests’. Sadly, most folks —Ann Coulter excepted— do not caqtch the deceptions and Grover skates right through with his specious arguments defending amnesty for invaders. Folks, when 50% of illegals are already on government assistance, how in hell will bring more of the same skill/education level people improve that percentage? It won’t, but Grover lies and claims it will improve the economy; disgusting globalist stooge.
yep OLE GROVER....it’s amazing ..here’s a guy with a reasonable schtik ..i.e.makin rinos sign a ‘no new taxes’ pledge...which seems quite enlightened to smart people like you and I. THEN this winkum dinkum ...spews this utter foul immigraton crap it’s incomprehensible. What could they possibly have on the guy...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.