A question.....

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Is it always a good thing for a hegemonic power to break down? When the USSR broke up a lot of people were expecting good things to come from it. Instead Russia's more or less returned to dictatorship, most of the smaller former SSRs are dictatorships and/or mired in ethnic conflict, and there's the issue of what happens with the Russians the Soviet government had the desire to colonize non-Russian lands with it. Yet the USSR and its Romanov predecessor were hardly the most benevolent governments that have ever existed. Then there's Habsburg Austria and Austria-Hungary, which did a damn sight better ruling even the Austrians than its successor states have done. There's also the Ottoman Empire, which provided about 6 centuries of peace in the Middle East prior to its dismemberment. The USA, Canada, and Mexico establishing three imperial states has pretty much stifled feuding here on the Continent.

Yet what I don't understand is that some people at least appear to be enthusiastic about national self-determination, which is the root of the ills of places like Yugoslavia and the root of things like the Azeri Genocide and the Rwandan Genocide. So....which is better? A functional but somewhat-repressive multiethnic state or a nation-state democracy that gets that way after it ruthlessly exterminates all minorities it can and expels the ones it can't?

Comments

[evildamsel.livejournal.com]

Your use of the term "functional but somewhat repressive multi-ethnic state" lets USSR right out of this discussion.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Er.....by the standard of its successors, the USSR was more functional than any of them. Including the Russian Federation and the Baltic states.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

I have a Bulgarian friend who would not agree with you.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Except Bulgaria was never part of the USSR or the historical Russian Empires. Bulgaria was also responsible for a bloody ethnic cleansing of Turks, which in any case does not matter because we all know Muslim lives are worth less than Christian ones. /snerkgrowlmutternsnarl.

[evildamsel.livejournal.com]

Uhm. Being MORE functional than a wreck doesn't mean it's functional. When your economy begins to heavily rely on barter, functional isn't the word I'd use.

And that somewhat repressive part? Yeah not so much.

Part of the reason the USSR collapsed was because it was trying to become less repressive and all the problems came tumbling out.

Now out of curiosity, why exactly do you feel like the only options are the repressive multi-ethnic state and the cleansed nation-state? There is room for middle ground. The problem we're running into with that area is that none of the changes are organic.

I have this theory if the tsarist Russia was allowed to slowly evolve, maybe it'd be nowhere near the state of the UK (I'd imagine it's be a constitutional monarchy type) but the structure for people's rights and other values we find important would be much more stable. (Not to mention they would have gotten to skip the joy of Stalin.) Course the communists preferred to make a big crazy fuss and destroy that particular path to freedom and democracy. I'm not sure at this point we can do anything but attempt to keep human rights violations on check, mind Russia's hungry maw and wait patiently for all those countries to find their way.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Because those are the only two options. The USA and Canada do not usually revert to Soviet-style repression on a wide scale (though blacks were victims of a long sustained outburst of one version of this, and Japanese victims of another), but there is still some small degree of repression there.

And the only pure "nation-states" that exist got that way from ethnic cleansing.

And Tsarist Russia was desperately attempting to halt all social evolution, period. That's a big part of the reason it disintegrated. The Ottomans were somewhat different, but Imperial Russia was the rotten structure, even more so of one than the USSR.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

So....which is better? A functional but somewhat-repressive multiethnic state or a nation-state democracy that gets that way after it ruthlessly exterminates all minorities it can and expels the ones it can't?

Yes.

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

define "better"

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

A lighter shade of grey.

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

gunmetal grey would be more appropriate.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

As much for the democracy like Czechia that expelled the potential troublemakers and hence used anti-democratic methods to create an ethnically homogeneous democracy as for China or Canada (because alliterative nations are easier to type).

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

I'd say any comparison depends on the situations you're looking at. I don't like dealing in absolutes.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Why do you reject the possibility of having an ethnic-based state which hasn't destroyed or persecuted its minorities, and where diverse ethnicities and religions can exist in harmony? I can give you some examples if you like. Ever heard of the Bulgarian Ethnic Model?

Also, your beloved Ottoman Empire, this pillar of peace and prosperity, maintained its rule over other nations by resorting to outright genocidal means.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Ever heard of

Google knows all. You're just a click away from pure knowledge. And the 'Truth'. For example I wasn't very familiar with the 'Azeri genocide' until I saw it being mentioned up here. A couple of clicks on Google, and now I'm an expert. So easy! Now I know how underlankers became history major.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Sarcasm. You master it.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Your systematic harassment of underlankers is unwarranted. I know you do it for "teh lulz" or whatever you call it, but i suspect he doesnt enjoy it all the time.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

You're right, it's just for teh lulz. However, point taken, and duly noted.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Level-headed mod is level-headed. Almost flat-headed.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

How many Muslims were there in Bulgaria prior to the Balkan Wars? How many afterwards?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

I don't have exact numbers, and I'm lazy to search for sources right now (and probably most of them are in Bulgarian anyway), but I do get your point.

First of all, you should take the Liberateion (1878) as a starting point, not the Balkan Wars, if you want your theory to hold.

So, from what I know, the Muslim population prior to the Liberation was 1/4. A large part of these were ethnic Bulgarians, but most were Turks.

Here's what you're trying to say. The Muslim population decreased drastically in the first years (between the Liberation and Unification, 1886). There were no massacres. Most of these moved back to Turkey, either freely or forcefully. Same was the case with the Bulgarians who remained outside of Bulgaria - all neighbors did that. Mass deportations. And assimilation attempts on those who remained behind. Turkey was the only country to commit massacres in that period, but not in Europe. They did that in Anatolia. So your "bloody massacres" theory crumbles here.

Today, 15% of the BG population are Muslims. 1% are Muslims of Bulgarian ethnicity (pomaks), the rest are of Turkish origin. They're not persecuted. News flash: they have their own party, it participates in the governments and ruled the country along with the Socialists until a couple of months ago. Today, they have full control of 1/7 of all municipalities in Bulgaria, i.e. they're proportionately represented in the structures of power. What's more, they regularly bring thousands of voters with double Turkish/BG citizenship at times of elections, and they additionally boost the results of their party.

So you can't say they're persecuted. For 99.9% of the post-Liberation period, until today, there was a remarkable form of ethnic and religious tolerance here, and there still is - the only exception the 1984/6 period, which I mentioned. Back then, Turkey staged several terror acts, and the Communist government responded with deportations, and a plan to assimilate them by changing their names. It didn't work. The society rebelled against this plan - the Bulgarians (Christians) did not allow their rulers to do that to the Muslims. This was one of the several reasons why Communism fell here. The other factors which triggered the change was teh ecology issue, the perestroika in USSR, and the processes in Poland and the Czech republic.

While you're right that the Muslim population had been gradually decreasing through the years, either through immigration to Turkey, or deportations in the earlier stages, your assumption of mass killings, or ANY killings to that matter, is false and untrue.

To add to that, the demographic trend today points to an increase in the Muslim population (higher birth rate), while the Christian one is falling down. But that's another topic.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I warned you, pal. He's been pulling your leg. If you want to continue talking to a wall, feel welcome.

It's amusing that an average Bulgarian can teach a lesson in history to a US history major ;-)

Also, from the little I know, the Bulgarian nation was formed in the 9-10th century. An amalgam between Bulgars, Slavs and Thracians. The Revival period in 17-19th century is what completed the formation.

And yes, the Ottomans killed millions during those 5-6 centuries when they ruled the Balkans. The opposite cannot be said.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

The society rebelled against this plan - the Bulgarians (Christians) did not allow their rulers to do that to the Muslims.

WOW.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Bulgarians are extraordinarily tolerant people, even often too tolerant. It has sometimes caused them lots of problems, like when they tolerate a bad government for too long. Whenever they rebel, it must mean things have reached an extreme level of intolerability. Same about ethnic and religious tolerance.

[robert-johnson.livejournal.com]

"Is it always a good thing for a hegemonic power to break down?"

It's neither. It's just inevitable. And probably nessecery. Nothing lasts forever, either the works of God or the works of our hands. Our political organizations either break down, or change so much that even when they keep the brand, the actual organization bears little or no resemblance to what it was when it was named. You postpone it, deflect the worst of it, but it can't be stopped.

And a discussion like this....first you need to define good. You ask what is good, then what is better, you need to define those terms.

Let's throw in Republic of Greece and the Republic of Turkey. The Greeks and the Turks kept going to war until the population exchanges of 1922. Then after that, there has been tension, but no more wars unless you count Cyprus, which was an aberration,resulting from a civil war from both sides and the result of mixed populations.

In forcing out the other ethnicites that refused to be "Turks" in 1922, Ataturk saved himself a whole lot of trouble. Where is Turkey's number one internal problem today? The Kurds. Telling.

The Greeks did the same. At their 19th Century independence the reformed their language, and forced it on all of their little ethnicites. Within a generation, most people in Greece spoke demotic Greek, regardless of what their family had spoken before. Had they not, then the Aromanians in Thessaly, Epirus and Macedonia (proper not FYROM) might have tried some crap and gone all ETA in the 1940's or later.

Just fromt hese two examples, if you either repress the people to keep them from fighting, or you kick out anyone who is part of a group that can't be assimilated, you can maintain order and prevent bloodshed. But is that good? Or better than what?

In theory if you can keep these different factions from killing each other, in enough time they learn to interact, and with enough successful interactions, they will grow together. I think that won't work quickly unless they are actually speaking the same language. The Czechs and Slovaks and Slovenians, were pressed together and learned not to fight each other, but they still split up as soon as they could. And it took about 1500 years for the Europeans to give it a shot voluntarily.

So maybe it's better to keep the groups small enough so they can self determine. This would work in a largely decentralized EU Europe of the regions. But where else? I don't know, No one else has that kind of model right now.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Dear OP,

If the gist of your argument is that "Gulags are acceptable as long as the trains run on time." I'll have to respectfully disagree.