Military Review

Did Russia have colonies? Belated preface

356



PUSH

In a recent discussion of my last article (see here) It turned out that I inadvertently missed a rather important point, namely, the concepts of “colony” and “empire” were not considered in detail, which, in my opinion, a number of readers had not quite the correct perception of these terms. Therefore, I decided to devote a separate note to this issue - a kind of preface to subsequent chapters. Yes, it was necessary to start with this, but, alas, we are all strong in hindsight. Let's get down to business.

EXCLUSIVE DICTIONARIES, “VIK” AND “CLEAR THAT NOTHING IS NOT CLEAR”

We begin with the term "empire". Many do not consider the existence of this concept in isolation from the concept of "colony". That is, if there is an empire, then it must also have colonies a priori. A sort of axiom. However, it is not. If you look at the "Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian language" in 4-x volumes, then we read the following:

“IMPIRE, and, well. [latin imperium supreme power]. The monarchical state, the head of which carries the title of emperor. "


As you can see, quite briefly. Therefore, we will use the “Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language” by S.I.Ozhegov and N.Yu. Shvedova. Here we have:

“The monarchical state headed by the emperor; in general, a state consisting of territories deprived of economic and political independence and managed from a single center. ”


This definition is in more detail, but it nevertheless allows for the possibility of its incorrect use: on the basis of it, as an empire, many states can be designated - and at least China and Vietnam: management is centralized, and the territories have no political independence.

In the all-knowing "Vic" there is the following interpretation of this concept:

“An empire (from Latin imperium - power) is a powerful military power uniting different nations and territories into one state”.


As we can see, there is no direct indication that an empire should possess colonies. However, there are indirect indications. The Wikipedia article on the term empire contains the following text:

"Currently widely used also figurative interpretation of the word "empire". In this case, it means a large state and population with the following features [source not specified 1727 days]. ”


I specifically highlighted in bold: figurative interpretation, not direct. The following are a number of signs. They are presented in the screenshot below.



Let me remind you: Wikipedia is positioning itself as a free information resource. indicating the sources of the proposed information. As we see, the sources from which it follows that the presence of colonies for the empire is mandatory, not listed.

Moreover, the signs that are indicated at the very end of the wiki article and designated as common to any empire on the planet, contradict the information in the same article, namely that empires can be of two kindswhich differ in the presence and absence of colonies.

HARTLAND THEORY

Let's see what these two types of empires are. Delve into geopolitics. In 1904, the work of the eminent English geographer H.D. Mackinder - Geographic Axis stories"(Geographical pivot of history), which introduces the concept of" Heartland "(Heartland -" core of the earth "), from which, in fact, derives the theory of the same name.

According to Mackinder’s theory, “geography studies the present in the light of the past, and world history is a continuous struggle between two principles, two civilizations - oceanic and continental”, i.e. the confrontation of two types of empires - “land powers” ​​(or continental empires) and “sea powers” ​​(or colonial empires). The fundamental advantage of the “land powers”, according to Mackinder, is the presence of the Heartland - the pivotal space (Earth's Core or Eurasia), which has huge reserves of natural resources and is inaccessible to sea powers. The advantage of maritime powers (or countries of the “inner crescent”) is the presence of a powerful naval and commercial fleet, which can be used to gradually strangle the countries of the Heartland (the so-called "Anaconda Loop", which was developed already in the theory of N. Spykman).

Did Russia have colonies? Belated preface


Sushi Powers, Continent Powers, Tellurocratic Powers (lat tellūris, genus n. from tellūs "land, land, country" + dr.-grech. κράτος "power"; "Land power") - these are empires, whose expansion is connected exclusively with land, and which, when they adjoin neighboring lands and include them in their borders, for security reasons, are forced to immediately turn them into their provinces, to guarantee the operation of the imperial laws and the circulation of the imperial currency. That is, newly included lands are considered not as only a source of resources that can be abandoned after exhaustion, but a new addition to the empire, which is to be developed to the level of the center. As a rule, this leads to a relatively painless inclusion of elites and societies in imperial construction, although much depends on the level of culture and the development of newly incorporated territories. So, the same Baltic was able to integrate into the structure of the Empire almost painlessly, while the former khanates of Central Asia or certain lands of the Caucasus, who lived according to precepts and traditions that had not changed since the Middle Ages, showed some resistance. And if the Caucasus was able to pacify (what great merit AP Yermolov), then on the territory of Wed. Asia, transformed into the Turkestan Governor-General, almost all the time there was martial law (I will discuss this in a separate article).

"Powers of the Sea", colonial powers, tallosocratic powers (from other Greek θάλασσα "sea" and κράτος "power") - these are states whose development is directly connected with the sea, and expansion is aimed at acquiring colonies - dependent territories used as resource appendages and markets for goods of the metropolis. The management of the colony by the Tallosocratic state is carried out on the basis of a special, colonization mode. Often, under this management regime, civil rights comparable to the rights of citizens of the metropolis are not granted to the population of the controlled territory. At the same time, the citizens of the metropolis possess more power and privileges in the colonial territories than the natives. A striking example is British India of the XVIII-XIX centuries.
At the height of the Second World War (in 1943), Mackinder subjected the concept of the Heartland to a significant revision, abandoning “the rigid dichotomous opposition of land and sea powers” ​​(quoted by V. Dergachev) due to the union of the USSR, Great Britain and the USA. However, as we all know, the "allies" turned out to be those allies (may the editors forgive me for the tautology), which the cold war confirmed. So, in my opinion, Sir Mackinder hurried slightly with making changes.

SUMMING UP

We summarize all of the above.

1. An empire is a state that possesses serious military power and unites different peoples and territories, devoid of economic and political independence, into a single state, where control is exercised from a single center.

2. Empires can be of two types: continental and marine. And if for the first, the presence of colonies is not an indispensable condition for "imperial", then for the second, the presence of colonies is an obligatory condition for the existence and development as an empire.

3. A colony in terms of geopolitics is a territory or a country deprived of independence, ruled by a foreign state (metropolis), managed on the basis of a special regime and used as a raw materials appendage and a sales market for metropolitan goods, and with further economic development and as a kind of reservoir for dumping inflation. on the part of the metropolis (this was perfectly demonstrated by the States in Latin America at the beginning of the 20th century).

PS

Arguing formally, we come to the conclusion: in principle, Russia cannot have colonies, since Russia is a sharply continental power. Dependent territories (the so-called protectorates) - yes, but not colonies (and the difference between the same protectorates and colonies is huge). But since formal logic is not always the best evidence, it is better to confirm it with facts. What I am going to do in subsequent articles.

Sources:
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/
2) http://ozhegov.info/
3) http://dergachev.ru/
4) http://feb-web.ru/
Author:
Articles from this series:
Did Russia have colonies? Part I. Baltic States as part of the Republic of Ingushetia
Did Russia have colonies? Belated preface
356 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Clegg
    Clegg 12 February 2014 08: 15
    -54%
    Did Russia have a colony?

    Yes, Kazakhstan.
    1. saag
      saag 12 February 2014 08: 39
      +34
      It wasn’t, if only because Kazakhstan wasn’t as such
    2. Humpty
      Humpty 12 February 2014 08: 40
      +24
      Show the Kazakh map of Kazakhstan before 1924, then confirm.
      1. Clegg
        Clegg 12 February 2014 09: 42
        -22%
        Quote: Humpty
        Show the Kazakh map of Kazakhstan before 1924, then confirm.

        Show the map of the Russian Federation before 1924
        1. Humpty
          Humpty 12 February 2014 09: 57
          +24


          No problem . I have their whole collection (shelving).
          1. Clegg
            Clegg 12 February 2014 10: 58
            -20%
            Quote: Humpty
            No problem .

            We are talking about the Russian Federation, not the RSFSR. This is not the same thing.
            1. Hort
              Hort 12 February 2014 11: 37
              +12
              the territory of the Russian Federation is practically one-on-one in the RSFSR, so the same thing.
            2. 3935333
              3935333 12 February 2014 17: 25
              0
              you dunce laughing !
          2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Arhj
      Arhj 12 February 2014 08: 45
      +25
      Quote: Clegg
      Did Russia have a colony?

      Yes, Kazakhstan.

      Read carefully.
      A colony in terms of geopolitics is a territory or country deprived of independence, under the authority of a foreign state (metropolis), governed by a special regime and used as a raw material appendage and market for metropolitan goods, and with the further development of the economy and as a kind of reservoir for dumping inflation from the metropolis (the States in Latin America at the beginning of the XNUMXth century perfectly demonstrated this).



      The definition of a colony does not imply pumping money into it, the creation of industry, educational institutions, and even more so does not imply joining the territory of the metropolis to the colony.
      At the time of the collapse of the USSR, Kazakhstan was very well developed industrially and scientifically. How many universities and schools were in jazz at the time of joining the Russian Empire, how many industrial enterprises, how many cities. I'm not talking about the territory of Northern Kazakhstan with such original Kazakh names as Semipolatinsk, Petropavlovsk, Tselinograd, etc.
    4. alicante11
      alicante11 12 February 2014 09: 00
      +14
      It was necessary to keep you in a colonial style, so that at least not in vain then they barked.
      1. Clegg
        Clegg 12 February 2014 09: 43
        -29%
        Quote: alicante11
        It was necessary to keep you in a colonial style, so that at least not in vain then they barked.

        You bark, and I write everything as it was.
        1. Dym71
          Dym71 12 February 2014 11: 05
          +13
          Quote: Clegg
          Quote: alicante11
          It was necessary to keep you in a colonial style, so that at least not in vain then they barked.

          You bark, and I write everything as it was.


          Clegg - transfer the communication to the "samdurak" phase, are you out of arguments?
          1. Clegg
            Clegg 12 February 2014 11: 10
            -25%
            Quote: Dym71
            Clegg - transfer the communication to the "samdurak" phase, are you out of arguments?

            Why do I need arguments when there is a fact? I repeat once again Kazakhstan was a colony of Russians and this is a fact.
            1. Boris55
              Boris55 12 February 2014 11: 58
              +2
              Quote: Clegg
              I repeat once again Kazakhstan was a colony of Russians and this is a fact.

              As they say - feel the difference:



              ps
              Can you define who the Russians are?
            2. pRofF
              12 February 2014 12: 02
              +12
              That's right, you repeat yourself. How many times. Without facts and sources - an absolutely unsubstantiated statement. I once already suggested to you - in order not to expose yourself to idle talk - write an article, argue your position, provide factual material. As far as I remember, you answered that your article would not be allowed through - for ideological reasons, for the writing style, etc. But it still depends on the person! If you write with the aim of competently challenging the opponent's position (while having evidence), then you can always find words that will not hurt or offend anyone. But if you just want to start another "epic clarification" on the principle "I am right, but you are not. You are all fools, I alone - D'Artagnan" - then the question arises: why are you here then? If you really need a conflict - well, go outside, I think that there you will find 100% adventure on your fifth point.
              1. Clegg
                Clegg 12 February 2014 12: 47
                -8
                Quote: pRofF
                As far as I remember, you were told me that your article will not be missed - for ideological reasons, for the writing style, etc. But it still depends on the person! If you write in order to competently challenge the opponent’s position (while having proof), you can always find words that will not offend or offend anyone.

                I am not a journalist, therefore writing articles is not mine. But I’ll try to write when there is more free time. I promise, and then we'll see if they miss it or not.
                1. 3935333
                  3935333 12 February 2014 17: 27
                  +2
                  write .... write, a new chronicle of the "Kazakhstan federal colony", we laugh. Do not forget to dig up old maps in the burial mounds ... coins, there are decorations, harnesses of the great, bows of the very best, arrows of the ancient Nazarbayev family!
                  1. Clegg
                    Clegg 12 February 2014 17: 37
                    -3
                    Nick with the numbers will do without your advice)
                2. Don
                  Don 12 February 2014 18: 49
                  +2
                  Quote: Clegg
                  I am not a journalist, therefore writing articles is not mine. But I’ll try to write when there is more free time. I promise, and then we'll see if they miss it or not.

                  You can not even write a separate article (which you are unlikely to do), but simply a few facts and arguments.
              2. Alibekulu
                Alibekulu 12 February 2014 13: 58
                +2
                Quote: pRofF
                in order not to expose yourself as an empty bell - write an article, argue your position, provide factual material. As far as I remember, you were told me that your article will not be missed - for ideological reasons, for the writing style, etc. But it still depends on the person! If you write in order to competently challenge the opponent’s position (while having proof), you can always find words that will not offend or offend anyone.
                The point is that they really do not miss. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with articles. Only a different point of view, without "huracan". For example, several times I tried to upload an article by Velikhov, written on the basis of his interview with the hero of the Soviet Union, Arnold Mary. But she did not pass the moderation. Although, it just clarifies a lot, if not everything, about the attitude of the Baltic states to Soviet power.
                By the way, an article about Baurdjan Momysh-ula written by the Azerbaijani Yarbai was also not missed. Moreover, it is not clear why they did not miss a purely information article on awarding the Kazakh leader the Order of Friendship of Russia for the construction of the Walk of Fame proposed by the Kazakh. After that, he turned to the Russian Kazakhstani (Ukrainian) and already from him, this article was approved ?! recourse I, as I understand it, the Kazakh nationality did not come out ?! request
                1. bairat
                  bairat 12 February 2014 14: 09
                  +4
                  Quote: Alibekulu
                  By the way, an article about Baurdjan Momysh-ula written by the Azerbaijani Yarbai was also not missed.

                  Maybe it is on a third-party resource? Give a link, I will read it with pleasure.
                2. Clegg
                  Clegg 12 February 2014 15: 36
                  0
                  Quote: Alibekulu
                  By the way, an article about Baurdjan Momysh-ula written by the Azerbaijani Yarbai was also not missed.

                  It was last summer)))

                  Quote: bairat
                  Maybe it is on a third-party resource? Give a link, I will read it with pleasure.

                  I will ask him if I share links
            3. ddmm09
              ddmm09 12 February 2014 13: 09
              +14
              If the Kazakhs in the 18th century themselves asked for citizenship from the rulers of the Republic of Ingushetia, then what kind of colony can we talk about. Even logically you are wrong. Look at the maps of the 18th century, what was the territory where Kazakhs lived? What territory does Kazakhstan have now? Remind you that you acquired the main territory of your state due to the military victories of the Russians over the Dzungars and the Chinese. Or will you credit these victories to your account?!. Take an interest in the current situation of the indigenous population of Australia, USA, South Africa, etc., and then assert about your "slave" life in the Republic of Ingushetia and the USSR.
              1. Zymran
                Zymran 12 February 2014 13: 22
                0
                Quote: ddmm09
                Remind you that you acquired the bulk of your state through Russian military victories over the Dzungars and Chinese


                The Russians did not fight either the Dzungars or the Chinese. Learn the materiel.
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 12 February 2014 13: 40
                  +2
                  Quote: Zymran
                  The Russians did not fight either the Dzungars or the Chinese. Learn the materiel.

                  Here it is necessary to make a clarification, they have never fought with the specified enemy in the territory occupied by present Kazakhstan, only then it will be true (if historians did not lie to us).
                  1. Zymran
                    Zymran 12 February 2014 13: 45
                    +3
                    So. There was the only clash of the Russian detachment of Buchholz, which in the territory of the present Pavlodar region of Kazakhstan tried to establish a fortress, but was blocked by the Dzungars and after the siege, having lost people killed and died from the 2700 disease, cleaned up. It was in 1716. Everything. After this, there were no clashes between the Russians and the Dzungars.
                    1. Don
                      Don 13 February 2014 17: 30
                      +1
                      Quote: Zymran
                      So. There was the only clash of the Russian detachment of Buchholz, which in the territory of the present Pavlodar region of Kazakhstan tried to establish a fortress, but was blocked by the Dzungars and after the siege, having lost people killed and died from the 2700 disease, cleaned up. It was in 1716. Everything. After this, there were no clashes between the Russians and the Dzungars.

                      Not the only one. In 1719, Tsar Peter I sent an expedition under the command of the Guard Major Ivan Mikhailovich Likharev to the upper Irtysh to search for gold deposits. The tasks of I. M. Likharev also included the investigation of the abuses of the Siberian governor M. P. Gagarin and the reasons for the failure of the expedition of Colonel I. D. Bukhholts.

                      In May 1720, I.M. Likharev's detachment headed up the Irtysh towards Lake Zaysan. They reached the lake safely, and a large Dzungarian detachment blocked the further path along the Black Irtysh. On August 1, 1720, the expedition was attacked, which was easily repelled. On the third day, negotiations were held with the Dzungars, the world was restored.

                      Autumn was approaching, the expedition turned back and on August 12-17, 1720 stopped at the mouth of the Ulba River. Upon returning to the place where Ulba flows into the Irtysh, I. M. Likharev decided to lay a fortress. It received the name Ust-Kamenogorsk and became the extreme southern fortress on the Irtysh.
                2. ddmm09
                  ddmm09 12 February 2014 16: 33
                  +2
                  And this is how then the territories were then attached to RI?
                  There were no great wars, but border conflicts and local hostilities were constant, otherwise it would have been included in the Republic of Ingushetia in the territories of the Far East and the eastern territories of present-day Kazakhstan. In different years, these territories joined the Republic of Ingushetia and resisted the invasion by China, Manchuria, etc.
                  1. ddmm09
                    ddmm09 12 February 2014 17: 02
                    +5
                    I’ll supplement, for example, in 1741-42 the Dzhungars again attacked the Kazakhs (the Younger and Middle Zhuzes were already part of the Republic of Ingushetia), the attack was successfully repelled. The lands of the Elder Zhuz became part of the Kokand Khanate, since the ruler of the Elder Zhuz preferred to remain independent. These lands already in the 19th century became part of the Republic of Ingushetia, again, as a result of hostilities.
                    I sometimes read historical works of Kazakh authors, everywhere they try to carry out only one idea - the Kazakhs wanted independence, and the Russians oppressed them. At the same time, China, first of all, will not write a word about relations with its neighbors. It is as if the Chinese are very peaceful people and everyone in the district only wants good. It’s ridiculous. honestly.
                3. Don
                  Don 12 February 2014 18: 55
                  0
                  Quote: Zymran
                  The Russians did not fight either the Dzungars or the Chinese. Learn the materiel.

                  They fought with the Chinese, but not in Kazakhstan, and they didn’t especially fight with the Dzungars, because they would not dare. The middle Zhuz was destroyed, and the Younger Zhuz was no longer risked to attack, due to the fact that he joined the Russian Empire.
                4. Don
                  Don 12 February 2014 18: 55
                  0
                  Quote: Zymran
                  The Russians did not fight either the Dzungars or the Chinese. Learn the materiel.

                  They fought with the Chinese, but not in Kazakhstan, and they didn’t especially fight with the Dzungars, because they would not dare. The middle Zhuz was destroyed, and the Younger Zhuz was no longer risked to attack, due to the fact that he joined the Russian Empire.
              2. Beck
                Beck 12 February 2014 19: 40
                -1
                Quote: ddmm09
                If the Kazakhs themselves in the 18th century asked citizenship from the rulers of the Republic of Ingushetia, then what kind of colony can be discussed. D


                This is what was written in Soviet textbooks, for propaganda.

                After the death of the last unified khan, Tauke, his heirs could not come to a consensus, vanity was over the edge. And the most influential sultans divided Kazakhstan into three zhuzes. Over time, the khan of the younger zhuz Abulkhair, consumed by vanity and lust for power, decided to become the single khan of all of Kazakhstan. He didn’t have his strength and he turned to Russia hoping with her help to become a khan of all Kazakhstan. For such a betrayal, Abulkhair was killed by Sultan Barak in 1748. Killed not from around the corner, but in a duel. He waited for Abulkhair to go hunting and surrounded the retinue of the khan with his people and challenged the khan to a duel. In a saber battle, Barack hacked a traitor. But Russia itself did not need a single khan of all Kazakhstan, Russia needed land. Immediately after the death of Abulkhair, the lands of the Younger Zhuz were joined to Russia and the Yaitsk Cossack army was created for his protection. The remaining lands of Kazvakhstan were conquered to one degree or another.

                Quote: ddmm09
                And now what territory is Kazakhstan?


                And what territory was in Russia until 1582, before the campaign of Yermak. What Siberian and Kazakh lands before Ermak were originally Russian? No, the Turks lived on them.

                Quote: ddmm09
                Remind you that you acquired the main territory of your state through the military victories of the Russians over the Dzungars and Chinese.


                You at least do not disgrace illiterate statements. The Russians did not fight the Dzungars and Chinese. In the 18th century, all the nomadic peoples north of China were vassal to China. Only Dzungaria, which waged a hundred-year war with the Kazakh Khanate, was independent. At one of the meetings, one Chinese minister said to Bogdykhan. That China once had a high regard for the Steppe and was paid for by the loss of independence from Genghis Khan. And now the only independent. on the border with China, these are the jungars. Like, as if history did not repeat itself. Bogdykhan was thoughtful, inspired and gave the order. Was created, from the vasal nomadic peoples, in the foundations of Manchuria, the army of millions. This army in 1758 completely swept the Dzungaria and almost completely destroyed the Dzungarian people. Russians and Russia to do with it?
                1. Beck
                  Beck 12 February 2014 19: 52
                  +1
                  Quote: ddmm09
                  Take an interest in the current situation of the indigenous population of Australia, USA, South Africa


                  Take the USA. When the USA colonized the western lands, it was necessary to wage continuous wars with the Indian tribes. The government decided to end these wars. It proposed to the Indians Peace, on the condition that the Indians live in certain territories - reservations, and the US government will provide all their livelihoods. The Indians agreed. (This is Soviet propaganda and the paintings of Goiko Mitic turned the reservation into something terrible)

                  Since then, the Indians stopped hunting and collecting. Since then, the Indians have not plowed or sowed, nor reaped, nor forged. They just live. On reservations and now the US government provides them with free food, medical care, builds houses, provides secondary education, supplies electronics and spoons with forks, soap and toilet paper, and allocates pocket money. One limitation - do not import alcohol.

                  If the Indian wants to leave the reservation, then this is his business. But then he will have to provide for himself. And the Indians are leaving. They enter higher education institutions, do business, work as workers.

                  This is what DDMM09 do you mean.
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 12 February 2014 20: 08
                    +4
                    Quote: Beck
                    This is Soviet propaganda and the paintings of Goiko Mitic turned the reservation into something terrible

                    The Indians do not appreciate the "happiness" that has fallen on them.
                    Quote: Beck
                    Since then, the Indians have not plowed or sowed, nor reaped, nor forged.

                    They had not sowed or plowed before.

                    Quote: Beck
                    This is what DDMM09 do you mean.

                    Do you have such a subtle sense of humor?
                    1. Beck
                      Beck 12 February 2014 20: 29
                      +2
                      Quote: Setrac
                      They had not sowed or plowed before.


                      Yes, they did not sow and did not plow. But they hunted and gathered the fruits of the earth. Having settled on reservations, they stopped doing this.
                      1. Setrac
                        Setrac 12 February 2014 21: 20
                        0
                        Quote: Beck
                        Yes, they did not sow and did not plow. But they hunted and gathered the fruits of the earth. Having settled on reservations, they stopped doing this.

                        Hunting in the desert is more difficult than on the fertile plain.
                      2. Beck
                        Beck 13 February 2014 09: 42
                        +2
                        Quote: Setrac
                        Hunting in the desert is more difficult than on the fertile plain.


                        Sorry, but pretend to be a newborn. The Indians stopped hunting, not because there was nowhere to hunt, but because the White Father would provide the fig to hunt if all that was needed.
                      3. Setrac
                        Setrac 13 February 2014 12: 35
                        0
                        Quote: Beck
                        Sorry, but pretend to be a newborn. The Indians stopped hunting, not because there was nowhere to hunt, but because the White Father would provide the fig to hunt if all that was needed.

                        You confuse cause and effect. The reason is the destruction by the white man of the food base of the Indians - North American bison. The consequence - the American Indians could no longer feed themselves.
                        Reservations are not on the fertile plains of Missouri, no, reservations in the desert, there is no one to hunt and nothing to collect.
                      4. Beck
                        Beck 13 February 2014 13: 15
                        0
                        Quote: Setrac
                        The reason is the destruction by the white man of the food base of the Indians - North American bison.


                        And it was. And this you confuse cause and effect. The main thing was that the US government proposed - Here are the territories for you to live in, and we provide you with everything. The Indians agreed and stopped hunting even for gophers.
                      5. Setrac
                        Setrac 13 February 2014 13: 31
                        0
                        Quote: Beck
                        Indians agreed

                        And those who did not agree were not preserved even in the reservations. Ah, the Indians agreed. So the Kazakhs agreed, cry, do not whine then.
                        Quote: Beck
                        stopped hunting even for gophers

                        Try living a gopher hunt. The gopher is not only valuable fur.
              3. Don
                Don 13 February 2014 17: 38
                0
                Quote: Beck
                Yes, they did not sow and did not plow.

                Who told you that? At the time the Europeans arrived in North America, some Native American peoples, such as pueblo in the southwestern modern United States, lived in high-rise buildings built of adobe brick, growing corn, pumpkin and legumes.
                Their neighbors, Apaches, lived in small groups. They hunted and farmed. In the east of the modern USA, Iroquois lived in the forests. They hunted, fished, engaged in agriculture, growing 12 types of cereals.
          2. dmitrich
            dmitrich 13 February 2014 06: 16
            +1
            Quote: Beck
            Take the USA. When the USA colonized the western lands, it was necessary to wage continuous wars with the Indian tribes. The government decided to end these wars. It proposed to the Indians Peace, on the condition that the Indians live in certain territories - reservations, and the US government will provide all their livelihoods. The Indians agreed. (This is Soviet propaganda and the paintings of Goiko Mitic turned the reservation into something terrible)

            Since then, the Indians stopped hunting and collecting. Since then, the Indians have not plowed or sowed, nor reaped, nor forged. They just live. On reservations and now the US government provides them with free food, medical care, builds houses, provides secondary education, supplies electronics and spoons with forks, soap and toilet paper, and allocates pocket money. One limitation - do not import alcohol.

            If the Indian wants to leave the reservation, then this is his business. But then he will have to provide for himself. And the Indians are leaving. They enter higher education institutions, do business, work as workers

            Would you like to live on a reservation like the American Indians?
          3. Don
            Don 13 February 2014 17: 07
            +1
            Quote: Beck
            Take the USA. When the USA colonized the western lands, it was necessary to wage continuous wars with the Indian tribes. The government decided to end these wars. It proposed to the Indians Peace, on the condition that the Indians live in certain territories - reservations, and the US government will provide all their livelihoods. The Indians agreed. (This is Soviet propaganda and the paintings of Goiko Mitic turned the reservation into something terrible)

            Well, of course, where are we all-knowing to you. We only know about Indians from the GDR films. What kind and fluffy Americans. So kindly decided to end the war that they themselves started. For each Indian head, money was paid to its citizens, and then they offered peace. Well done just. They destroyed 90% of the Indian population living in 2/3 of the territory of the present United States, and then generously drove the remainder into the desert lands on a reservation. Now they no less generously provide their livelihoods. Thanks to the Americans, they now live as if in paradise. 40% are unemployed, 25% are below the poverty line, of course, of course, the remaining 75% are oligarchs. Diabetes, pneumonia, influenza, and alcohol addiction take away twice as many Indian lives as other Americans. Only 16% have higher education. And of course there’s nothing wrong with the reservations. You look at their photos and direct fashionable quarters of elite housing. How is it for such achievements to the US government that the Indians did not erect a monument for? Maybe you’ll put a beck in your own country in Kazakhstan, otherwise Soviet propaganda cleared our brains for us, we won’t.
          4. Don
            Don 13 February 2014 17: 07
            +1
            Quote: Beck
            Take the USA. When the USA colonized the western lands, it was necessary to wage continuous wars with the Indian tribes. The government decided to end these wars. It proposed to the Indians Peace, on the condition that the Indians live in certain territories - reservations, and the US government will provide all their livelihoods. The Indians agreed. (This is Soviet propaganda and the paintings of Goiko Mitic turned the reservation into something terrible)

            Well, of course, where are we all-knowing to you. We only know about Indians from the GDR films. What kind and fluffy Americans. So kindly decided to end the war that they themselves started. For each Indian head, money was paid to its citizens, and then they offered peace. Well done just. They destroyed 90% of the Indian population living in 2/3 of the territory of the present United States, and then generously drove the remainder into the desert lands on a reservation. Now they no less generously provide their livelihoods. Thanks to the Americans, they now live as if in paradise. 40% are unemployed, 25% are below the poverty line, of course, of course, the remaining 75% are oligarchs. Diabetes, pneumonia, influenza, and alcohol addiction take away twice as many Indian lives as other Americans. Only 16% have higher education. And of course there’s nothing wrong with the reservations. You look at their photos and direct fashionable quarters of elite housing. How is it for such achievements to the US government that the Indians did not erect a monument for? Maybe you’ll put a beck in your own country in Kazakhstan, otherwise Soviet propaganda cleared our brains for us, we won’t.
        2. Don
          Don 13 February 2014 15: 18
          0
          Quote: Beck
          This is what was written in Soviet textbooks, for propaganda.

          And how did you study, considering what you wrote below.
          Quote: Beck
          Russia hoping with her help to become a khan of all of Kazakhstan. For such a betrayal, Abulkhair was killed by Sultan Barak in 1748.

          What is the betrayal? That he wanted to capture all the zhuzes? Do not tell, and who did not want this? Or was he looking for allies?
          Quote: Beck
          And Russia itself did not need a single khan of all Kazakhstan

          And who needed it then?
          Quote: Beck
          Russia needed land.

          What are you talking about? Why, then, for another hundred years, the Younger Zhuz was independent?
          Quote: Beck
          Immediately after the death of Abulkhair, the lands of the Younger Zhuz were joined to Russia

          Nothing of the kind; she only appointed rulers there.
          Quote: Beck
          and the Yaitsk Cossack army was created for its protection.

          Nonsense again. First, the Yaitsk Cossack army was created in the year 1584. Secondly, the Cossacks were not used to protect the occupied lands, but were used to protect the borders.
          Quote: Beck
          Was created, from the vasal nomadic peoples, in the foundations of Manchuria, the army of millions. This army in 1758 completely swept the Dzungaria and almost completely destroyed the Dzungarian people. Russians and Russia to do with it?

          Teach the story yourself. Bogdukhans were from the Ming Dynasty. Manchurians China captured and created the Qing Dynasty. It was the Qing dynasty that destroyed the Dzungar Khanate. And about a million, you generally bent a lot. According to various sources - from 90 to 200 thousand people.
          1. Beck
            Beck 13 February 2014 18: 21
            +1
            Quote: Don
            What is the betrayal?


            Who will Prince Vasily 11 bring the Tatars to Russia in 1445?
            False Dmitry, who brought the Polish troops to Moscow, who is for you?
            General Vlasov who is for us citizens of the former USSR?

            Quote: Don
            Nonsense again. First, the Yaitsk Cossack army was created in the year 1584.


            Then it was not created by Russia. And then the Cossacks settled on Yaik were not at all Russian people. It is by the 18th century that they have Russified. And the Yaitsk Cossack army was officially created in 1948. In 1748, a permanent organization (staff) of troops was introduced, divided into 7 regiments;

            Quote: Don
            Bogdukhans were from the Ming Dynasty.


            I said bogdykhan, since by bogdykhan, in many literatures, the emperor is simply meant. Well, I’ll tell you not Bogdykhan, but the emperor of China and onwards.

            Quote: Don
            And about a million, you generally bent a lot. According to various sources - from 90 to 200 thousand people.


            I took a figure from one source, you from another. Averaging between 200 thousand and a million, it turns out 600 thousand and 100 thousand to go here. But this is enough to destroy the nomadic people.

            And the main thing is not this, but that the Dzungars were destroyed not by the Russians, as the Urashniks write here, but by the Chinese.

            And how did you study, considering what you wrote below.

            In Soviet, where about the history of the Steppe, only a yurt and a shepherd. It was during perestroika that the works of Soviet scientists appeared which had not been published before.
            1. Don
              Don 14 February 2014 14: 30
              +1
              Quote: Beck
              Who will Prince Vasily 11 bring the Tatars to Russia in 1445?
              False Dmitry, who brought the Polish troops to Moscow, who is for you?
              General Vlasov who is for us citizens of the former USSR?

              They were traitors because they betrayed their homeland, the state. And whom did Abulhair betray? He was the ruler of his state and had the right to act as he saw fit, just like any king or khan of that time. Like any ruler, he sought allies. Moreover, he did not join Russia, in modern terms, he was a protectorate of Russia. Only after 100 years, the Younger Zhuz completely became part of the Russian Empire.
              Quote: Beck
              Then it was not created by Russia. And then the Cossacks settled on Yaik were not at all Russian people. It is by the 18th century that they have Russified. And the Yaitsk Cossack army was officially created in 1948. In 1748, a permanent organization (staff) of troops was introduced, divided into 7 regiments;

              How could they be non-Russian if, in 1584, several hundred Don and Volga Cossacks settled on the Yaik River, on the banks of which the Nogai Horde wandered. It has not yet been created, but settlements have already been founded, and not as you say that to secure to Russia the Younger Zhuz, which was not part of Russia at that time.
              Quote: Beck
              And the main thing is not this, but that the Dzungars were destroyed not by the Russians, as the Urashniks write here, but by the Chinese.

              And who writes that the Russians destroyed the Dzungar? They write that the Russians with the Dzungars fought.
              1. Beck
                Beck 14 February 2014 15: 06
                0
                Quote: Don
                They were traitors because they betrayed their homeland, the state. And whom did Abulhair betray? He was the ruler of his state and had the right to act as he saw fit, just like any king or khan of that time.


                He was the ruler of the region, and not of his entire homeland, the Kazakh Khanate. Nowhere is there a definition - the Younger Zhuz Khanate (such as the Astrakhan Khanate). And it was precisely to become the khan of all Kazakhstan that he turned to Russia.

                Just like False Dmitry, to become the Tsar of Russia he turned to the Poles.

                Quote: Don
                And who writes that the Russians destroyed the Dzungar? They write that the Russians with the Dzungars fought.


                You, too, are pretending to have fallen from the moon. Read the comments of Urashniks - Yes, we saved you from the Dzungars, we fought with them so that they would not cut you out. And the Russians did not fight with the Dzungars. Rather, the opposite. At the non-governmental level, either Tomsk or Omsk merchants supplied the Dzungar with a firearm. Of course, these were not mass deliveries, but a fact.

                Quote: Don
                How could they be non-Russian if, in 1584, several hundred Don and Volga Cossacks settled on the Yaik River, on the banks of which the Nogai Horde wandered.


                I first wrote about the origin of the name of a certain group of people, and then the ethnonym Cossacks, about the formation of the Turkic Cossacks, about its transformation into the Russian Cossacks. Somehow it’s inconvenient to repeat myself, but if I insist I can repeat it, only this will be a bit long, even with reductions.
            2. Don
              Don 14 February 2014 14: 30
              0
              Quote: Beck
              Who will Prince Vasily 11 bring the Tatars to Russia in 1445?
              False Dmitry, who brought the Polish troops to Moscow, who is for you?
              General Vlasov who is for us citizens of the former USSR?

              They were traitors because they betrayed their homeland, the state. And whom did Abulhair betray? He was the ruler of his state and had the right to act as he saw fit, just like any king or khan of that time. Like any ruler, he sought allies. Moreover, he did not join Russia, in modern terms, he was a protectorate of Russia. Only after 100 years, the Younger Zhuz completely became part of the Russian Empire.
              Quote: Beck
              Then it was not created by Russia. And then the Cossacks settled on Yaik were not at all Russian people. It is by the 18th century that they have Russified. And the Yaitsk Cossack army was officially created in 1948. In 1748, a permanent organization (staff) of troops was introduced, divided into 7 regiments;

              How could they be non-Russian if, in 1584, several hundred Don and Volga Cossacks settled on the Yaik River, on the banks of which the Nogai Horde wandered. It has not yet been created, but settlements have already been founded, and not as you say that to secure to Russia the Younger Zhuz, which was not part of Russia at that time.
              Quote: Beck
              And the main thing is not this, but that the Dzungars were destroyed not by the Russians, as the Urashniks write here, but by the Chinese.

              And who writes that the Russians destroyed the Dzungar? They write that the Russians with the Dzungars fought.
        3. Don
          Don 13 February 2014 17: 46
          0
          Quote: Beck
          Over time, the khan of the younger zhuz Abulkhair, consumed by vanity and lust for power, decided to become the single khan of all of Kazakhstan. He didn’t have his strength and he turned to Russia hoping with her help to become a khan of all Kazakhstan. For such a betrayal, Abulkhair was killed by Sultan Barak in 1748. Killed not from around the corner, but in a duel. He waited for Abulkhair to go hunting and surrounded the retinue of the khan with his people and challenged the khan to a duel. In a saber battle, Barack hacked a traitor.

          I found confirmation that what you wrote, you yourself probably composed. First of all, it is not clear who Abulkhair betrayed, and in general why did you get the idea that Barack considered him to be a sender. Secondly. The reason for the assassination of Abulkhair was his attempt to control the routes of trade caravans passing through the nomadic sultans of Barak and Batyr. The looting at the beginning of 1748 by the people of Abulkhair of the wedding embassy of the Khiva ruler Kaip, who was following to Sultan Barak with gifts for his married daughter, incredibly aggravated the relationship between Barak and Abulkhair. I. Neplyuev, knowing the group feuds between the Kazakh high nobility, contributed to their further exacerbation. On August 1, 1748, during a skirmish in a camp of Karakalpaks who migrated to Abulkhair, in the area between the rivers Ulkeyek and Turgai, the rebellious khan was killed.
          1. Beck
            Beck 13 February 2014 18: 44
            0
            Quote: Don
            The reason for the assassination of Abulkhair was his attempt to control the routes of trade caravans passing through the nomadic sultans of Barak and Batyr. The looting at the beginning of 1748 by the people of Abulkhair of the wedding embassy of the Khiva ruler Kaip, who was following to Sultan Barak with gifts for his married daughter, incredibly aggravated the relationship between Barak and Abulkhair. I. Neplyuev, knowing the group feuds between the Kazakh high nobility, contributed to their further exacerbation. On August 1, 1748, during a skirmish in a camp of Karakalpaks who migrated to Abulkhair, in the area between the rivers Ulkeyek and Turgai, the rebellious khan was killed.


            Swarms between aristocrats, they are swarms. I admit there are many versions of the killing of the khan, including those with a Russian trace. I have chosen one, you have chosen another.

            But even if Khan Abulkhair bowed to Russia, he still remains one of the most significant figures in the history of Kazakhstan in the first half of the 18th century.
    5. CALL.
      CALL. 12 February 2014 14: 34
      +6
      Quote: Clegg
      I repeat once again Kazakhstan was a colony of Russians and this is a fact.

      Stamps of informational and ideological warfare. And they destroyed the USSR. No matter how rich Kazakhstan is, the Anglo-Saxons will come and bomb the colony. They will definitely come. Those who believe that Kazakhstan was a colony does not yet know what a colony is. Anglo-Saxons and this will explain.
      1. Beck
        Beck 12 February 2014 20: 05
        -1
        Quote: Z.O.V.
        Those who believe that Kazakhstan was a colony does not yet know what a colony is.


        You do not know this, because there is a veil before your eyes, a veil of greatness and great power.

        As expected, with any colonization, the best lands from the indigenous people were taken away, and the population itself was expelled. Only Cossack regions, not to mention other institutions, took a lot of land. And the centuries-old nomadic routes of the indigenous inhabitants should not have passed closer than 5 miles from these lands, and then this zone expanded to 40 miles. For clarity, statistics for 1916. The population of the regions of Cossack troops and the area allocated to the Cossacks of the land according to the len system.

        1. Orenburg Cossack army. The population is about 533 thousand people, over 7,4 million acres of land (10,7 million hectares).
        2. Ural. The population is about 174 thousand people, about 6,4 million acres of land (9,2 million hectares).
        3. Siberian. The population is about 172 thousand people, about 5 million acres of land (7,2 million hectares).
        4. Semirechye. The population of about 45 thousand people, 681 thousand acres of land (987,5 hectares)

        On average, per capita accounted for 30,5 hectares of land. The best land of the indigenous population.

        And to call this entire colonial process pioneering, pioneering is simply absurd, and it is absurd to base our present claims on this absurdity. Now it’s different times, a different environment, a different environment and building relationships between people based on a not always fair past is fraught with unpredictable consequences.
        1. CALL.
          CALL. 13 February 2014 03: 06
          +2
          Quote: Beck
          As expected, with any colonization, the best lands from the indigenous people were taken away, and the population itself was expelled. T

          Kazakhs engaged in farming? Did the Kazakhs drive out? Make a movie. And Bondarchuk and Mikhalkov are directors. Bearded, drunk Cossacks, drove a crowd of women, old people and children from their native nomads, burning everyone on the way who did not have time to hide. The development was carried out of empty land. That's how the Faithful fast was founded. In the Late Middle Ages in this area there was a camp of Turkic and Mongolian nomads - Almaty, later discovered by archaeologists, 1854 - in its place was laid the military fortification Zailiysky, then Vernoye, 1867 - Almaty, 1867-1921 - Verny, from 1921 - Alma-Ata. As we see, they came to an empty place and mastered.
          Quote: Beck
          You do not know this, because there is a veil before your eyes, a veil of greatness and great power.

          I know what a colony is. Saw in Africa. Watch TV. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya are the products of the democratization of the colonies.
          Greatness and great power, I recognize the clichés of Western propaganda.
          1. Beck
            Beck 13 February 2014 09: 56
            +1
            Quote: Z.O.V.
            Kazakhs engaged in farming?


            You have that lack of logic. It is not necessary to engage in agriculture in order to have their own lands.

            Quote: Z.O.V.
            Did the Kazakhs drive out?


            After all, I wrote in the top comment that I had been expelled and brought documentary data from Russian tsarist statistics.

            Quote: Z.O.V.
            Make a movie.


            Why stir up a not always righteous past. We must live in the present. We have created a TS, CSTO, we are moving towards closer cooperation.

            We were nomads - were. We lagged behind in development by the 18th century - lagged behind. Such a khan as Tsar Peter the Great did not freak out here - he did not freak out.

            And the Uroshnikov. The colonial era was all over the world, and Russia, having seized the adjacent territories, was not a colonial power.

            There were no feudalism in Russia, but there was a happy symbiosis of good landowners and flexible peasants.

            What was, was. And it does not cross out, all the more so with the insolvent attempts of modern painters.
            1. CALL.
              CALL. 13 February 2014 14: 34
              +1
              Quote: Beck
              What was, was.

              I agree that we must continue to live and together build a decent life for our peoples.
              1. Beck
                Beck 13 February 2014 19: 04
                0
                Quote: Z.O.V.
                I agree that we must continue to live and together build a decent life for our peoples.


                All these boiling passions on the page come from only one. Uroshniki do not want to admit that Russia, like all the leading countries of that time, while in the era of colonialism, was itself a colonial empire.

                Kazakhs were nomadic people - they were. In their development, they lagged behind developed countries - they lagged behind. And I admit it. There is nothing to argue about.

                Just like at the time, Russia was a feudal country. This is healthy people recognize. So why not admit that Russia, without access to the warm seas, grew in dry colonies. In all scientific works, in Soviet textbooks, one thing is given - Russia was one of the colonial empires.

                Recognize that everything was included, and there will be no other conversations. It won’t be you, but we are this, you are like that, and we are such, you are like that, and they are like that.

                This is a common story of two neighboring nations. And in this story, as in all matters, there are good pages and there are not very.

                Slavs and Turks have been living side by side for more than 1000 years. Starting with the Pechenegs and Kievan Rus.

                Russians and Kazakhs (ancestors of the Kazakhs) have lived in ONE State for more than half a thousand years. 300 years in the Golden Horde. 175 years in the Russian Empire, 74 years in the USSR.

                I admit that the Golden Horde conquered Russia and I am not talking about its voluntary accession, although there were princes who voluntarily submitted.

                And the artists should recognize the colonial segment of Russian history in the colonial era. This is a story. Whatever it is, this is the story of our peoples.
              2. Nachkar237
                Nachkar237 13 February 2014 19: 37
                +1
                Beck, there would be no difference in the concepts of "colony" and "single state", then no one would argue. Colonies did not join empires, they became "milking cows", and states like Kazakhstan were not a colony by definition. Do not change the concept. The colony is not connected to its territory, it is a donor for the empire, a kind of "pawn in the big game" (example: India was not a single state with Britain, a fact? - a fact !!! On its territory, Indians have always been considered servants of vassals, and were such, there was no question of equality !!! The same is Algeria and France, you can list for a long time ...) Kazakhstan was a single whole with Russia, everyone was "under the same test" !!! AND THIS IS A BIG DIFFERENCE !!! THAT'S WHAT YOU SHOULD RECOGNIZE !!! The only country that looked like a colony was Finland, and then, it depends on which side you look at, in fact, Finland had its own laws, its own monetary unit, and this despite the fact that before the entry into the empire of Russia, Finland was not independent at all ... In other words, the Russian Empire helped the Finns to form a state! Even the Finns themselves admit it!
              3. Beck
                Beck 13 February 2014 23: 39
                +2
                Quote: Nachkar237
                Beck, there would be no difference in the concepts of "colony" and "single state", then no one would argue. Colonies did not join empires, they became "milking cows", and states like Kazakhstan were not a colony by definition.


                Yes, let’s leave Kazakhstan.

                The conquest of Kazan, Astrakhan, Crimea is that? 50 year old Caucasian war, partition of Poland, the seizure of Bessarabia, Central Asia is that? Colonial wars of Russia and Iran for the possession of Transcaucasia, wars with Turkey for hegemony in the Balkans. The accession of Manchuria from weakened China in the Sino-Japanese War of 1895.

                And how such actions do not fall under the definition of colonial policy.
              4. Nachkar237
                Nachkar237 16 February 2014 20: 45
                0
                Quote: Beck
                Quote: Nachkar237
                Beck, there would be no difference in the concepts of "colony" and "single state", then no one would argue. Colonies did not join empires, they became "milking cows", and states like Kazakhstan were not a colony by definition.


                Yes, let’s leave Kazakhstan.

                The conquest of Kazan, Astrakhan, Crimea is that? 50 year old Caucasian war, partition of Poland, the seizure of Bessarabia, Central Asia is that? Colonial wars of Russia and Iran for the possession of Transcaucasia, wars with Turkey for hegemony in the Balkans. The accession of Manchuria from weakened China in the Sino-Japanese War of 1895.

                And how such actions do not fall under the definition of colonial policy.


                You either on purpose or really do not understand! COLONY IS A SEPARATE STATE NOT INCLUDED IN THE EMPIRE BUT ACTUALLY MANAGED BY IT !!! A JOINED TERRITORIES (THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THIS CASE IN THIS CASE) THIS IS PART OF A UNIFIED EMPIRE SPACE, UNDER ONE FLAG UNDER ONE AUTHORITY, IN ONE CONDITIONS !!! YES AND BECAUSE WHO KAZAKHOV CONQUERED? YOU SAME FOR HELP AND HELPED FOR THE WING !!! UNGRAPHIC! IT IS BETTER YOU THEN OUR KING WAS NOT REASONING - I WOULD LIKE HOW YOU NAMED YOUR TERRITORY WITHOUT US !!! WITHOUT RUSSIA KAZAKHSTAN WOULD NOT BE !!!
  • kaktus
    kaktus 12 February 2014 15: 23
    +7
    Quote: Clegg
    Kazakhstan was a colony of Russians and this is a fact

    Got independence? Close the borders, we do not need drugs or migrants who transit through Kazakhstan in transit. stop
  • varov14
    varov14 12 February 2014 15: 26
    +3
    I would say thank you for being able to become a colony, now as a nation it would hardly exist, but the Chinese will take nothing of their own.
    1. Beck
      Beck 13 February 2014 10: 03
      +2
      Quote: varov14
      I would say thank you for being able to become a colony, now as a nation it would hardly exist, but the Chinese will take nothing of their own.


      History does not perceive the subjunctive mood. What would be unknown to anyone.

      And in the present, the Chinese, in the future, can take Russia. They can, but not necessarily.
  • Nachkar237
    Nachkar237 12 February 2014 15: 30
    +6
    Clegg? But before you speak in cliches and propaganda that has been hammered into you and driven into you by the enemy, you better try to figure it out yourself without prejudice !!! you say "fact" - justify, give arguments, back up your words with meaning ... Otherwise, anyone can say: "Aunt Zina from the third floor is not an aunt at all, but a raccoon, and this is a fact!" - do you understand what I mean? It's another matter that you won't be able to give arguments, because before the Russian Empire, Kazakhstan did not exist as a separate state entity (or if following your logic, then the Chuvash, Mordovians and many others are now also colonies ... and so they want freedom ... and we evil Russians use them. But this is not true, they have the same rights as we have and the same conditions). Understand the main thing: no one disputes the fact that Kazakhstan has become independent, and respects it, but the fact that each nation or nationality has its own way of becoming independent, up to the formation of a state, this must be understood! Kazakhstan became a separate independent country only after the collapse of the USSR and this is really a fact!
  • Don
    Don 12 February 2014 18: 46
    +3
    Quote: Clegg
    Why do I need arguments when there is a fact? I repeat once again Kazakhstan was a colony of Russians and this is a fact.

    Kindergarten. It was because I said so. The fact is, first and foremost, the availability of evidence.
  • carbofo
    carbofo 12 February 2014 11: 33
    +19
    Quote: Clegg
    You bark, and I write everything as it was.


    You never had anything except a horse and a yurt.
    A dozen cities, by our standards, are small villages.
    Steppe and dust, everything.
    There was not even a written language.
    Now you have everything, but there is no reason and conscience.
    1. Onizuka teacher
      Onizuka teacher 12 February 2014 14: 09
      +1
      Quote: carbofo
      You never had anything but a horse and a yurt. A dozen cities, by our standards, are small villages. Steppe and dust, everything. There wasn’t even written language. Now you have everything, but there is no reason and conscience.

      Hmm. Two stories, no two is a big score, ZERO! Or do not write such nonsense or go learn the history of CA and only then write.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Yeraz
      Yeraz 12 February 2014 15: 27
      -1
      Quote: carbofo
      There was not even a written language.

      thanks to the Russians for bringing us ignoramuses to the Turks writing))))
      Well, damn it kills the stupidity of many, then the Russians defeated the Dzungars, then they brought writing, then the north of Kazakhstan is originally Russian land))))
      1. ddmm09
        ddmm09 12 February 2014 18: 04
        +1
        Local wars of the Republic of Ingushetia never entered the history textbooks, these are not the wars to be talked about, since the Republic of Ingushetia fought a lot, there were much more significant wars in our history. Regarding the Dzungars - see my post above, I described an example there. Please bring yours.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    4. Beck
      Beck 12 February 2014 20: 17
      +5
      Quote: carbofo
      You never had anything except a horse and a yurt.
      A dozen cities, by our standards, are small villages.
      Steppe and dust, everything.
      There was not even a written language.


      Ancient Turkic runic letter of the 6th century.
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. Beck
      Beck 13 February 2014 10: 27
      +1
      Quote: carbofo
      There was not even a written language.


      Here is the Turkic runic writing of the 6th century. Stone stellas with these inscriptions are located on the territory of present Mongolia, the ancestral home of the Turks, in East and South Kazakhstan.
      1. Beck
        Beck 13 February 2014 10: 36
        0
        Quote: carbofo
        There was not even a written language.


        Here is the ancient Turkic letter, sometimes called Old Uigur, transformed from runic. This is the 8th century.

        Books in Turkic written by this alphabet are kept in the libraries of Tibet and China. Single copies for scientific research are available in European libraries.

        It was with this letter that the khans of the Golden Horde wrote labels to Russian princes with simultaneous translation into Russian.
        1. Beck
          Beck 13 February 2014 10: 48
          +2
          Quote: carbofo
          There was not even a written language.


          In the middle of the 14th century, the khan of the Golden Horde, Uzbekistan adopted the state as the state religion of Islam. But this only concerned the nomadic population, which is why the Russians preserved Orthodoxy. Under the influence of the Arab mullahs and for reading the Koran, Uzbek introduced the new alphabet - Arabic. That is, the Arabic alphabet was written in Turkic.

          The Arabic alphabet lasted until 1917. In 1917, the Arabic alphabet was replaced by the Latin alphabet. And only in the 30s, the Kazakhs switched to the Cyrillic alphabet.

          Well, like Carbofo, you’ll rub yourself or continue to ignorantly shout at historical facts.
          1. carbofo
            carbofo 13 February 2014 17: 57
            +1
            And where does the Turks?
            1. Beck
              Beck 13 February 2014 19: 14
              0
              Quote: carbofo
              And where does the Turks?


              Well then, Slavic writing has nothing to do with the Russians.
          2. Don
            Don 13 February 2014 18: 08
            0
            Quote: Beck
            In the middle of the 14th century, the khan of the Golden Horde, Uzbekistan adopted the state as the state religion of Islam. But this only concerned the nomadic population, which is why the Russians preserved Orthodoxy.

            For which nomads? That is, the cities of Saray al-Jedid Bakhchisaray and Saray-Batu did not accept Islam? Russian principalities preserved Orthodoxy because they were not part of the Golden Horde, they were its vassals, just as, for example, Korea was a vassal of the Yuan Empire.
            1. Beck
              Beck 13 February 2014 19: 13
              +2
              Quote: Don
              For which nomads? That is, the cities of Saray al-Jedid Bakhchisaray and Saray-Batu did not accept Islam?


              Here's what to jerk and juggle. You know perfectly well what I had in mind, I had in mind the entire Turkic population of the Golden Horde.

              And the Russian principalities did not begin to practice Islam not because they were vassals. And from the fact that Khan Uzbek did not force them to do so. How he forced the Turks. Not one Sultan and Bek lost their heads, not counting the common people who wanted to preserve the faith of their ancestors - Tengri.
              1. Don
                Don 14 February 2014 12: 29
                0
                Quote: Beck
                Here's what to jerk and juggle. You know perfectly well what I had in mind, I had in mind the entire Turkic population of the Golden Horde.

                Well, I understand how you wrote.
                Quote: Beck
                And the Russian principalities did not begin to practice Islam not because they were vassals. And from the fact that Khan Uzbek did not force them to do so. How he forced the Turks. Not one Sultan and Bek lost their heads, not counting the common people who wanted to preserve the faith of their ancestors - Tengri.

                Then it is interesting for what reason Khan Uzbek suddenly reacted so well to the Russian princes. He was a tough khan, he chopped many heads, and then he suddenly treated the Russians so favorably.
                1. Beck
                  Beck 14 February 2014 14: 05
                  +1
                  Quote: Don
                  Then it is interesting for what reason Khan Uzbek suddenly reacted so well to the Russian princes. He was a tough khan, he chopped many heads, and then he suddenly treated the Russians so favorably.


                  You somehow raised the question without being in time.

                  And I know FIG. And you FIG know him. And all the current people figs know him. It is only known that Khan Uzbek did not force farmers to switch to a new faith. Everything and the Point. And there are no written reports about the reason for this.

                  Uzbek contemporaries undoubtedly knew, but they did not tell us. We, the weird ones, have only a fortune to guess either on the coffee grounds, or on a ram’s shoulder, or someone in what.

                  I have a vague assumption, but only an assumption - there are behind fogs, distant lands.
  • sinukvl
    sinukvl 12 February 2014 13: 56
    +4
    If "write as it was" then you are very well preserved, for your age, by the way, how old are you 300 or 550?
  • Setrac
    Setrac 12 February 2014 10: 54
    +12
    Quote: Clegg
    Did Russia have a colony?

    Yes, Kazakhstan.


    It is time to get rid of the slave essence. What a strange desire to look for a master?
    1. Clegg
      Clegg 12 February 2014 10: 56
      -19%
      Quote: Setrac
      It is time to get rid of the slave essence. What a strange desire to look for a master?

      Am I looking for a host? And n_x do I need this? This is about history, the fact that Kazakhstan was a colony of Russia.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 12 February 2014 11: 27
        +13
        Quote: Clegg
        the fact is that Kazakhstan was a colony of Russia.

        Do not write nonsense, Kazakhstan was part of Russia, and not a colony. fool With the same success, Scotland can be called a colony of England, or Tataria a colony of Russia. Central and northern Kazakhstan was generally settled and occupied by the Russians, and no Kazakhs were evicted from there, there were practically none.
        P.S. My condolences for the default.
      3. Trapperxnumx
        Trapperxnumx 12 February 2014 11: 53
        +6
        Quote: Clegg
        Am I looking for a host? And n_x do I need this? This is about history, the fact that Kazakhstan was a colony of Russia.


        Prove and justify. And then we will argue. Otherwise, you are a troll. Green, vicious and eared.
      4. Was mammoth
        Was mammoth 12 February 2014 14: 08
        +4
        Quote: Clegg
        This is about history, the fact that Kazakhstan was a colony of Russia.

        This is not a fact, these are words.
        1. Alibekulu
          Alibekulu 12 February 2014 15: 20
          0
          Quote: There was a mammoth
          This is not a fact, these are words.
          Again, that was it. And this must be taken as given and nothing more. And, the Kazakhs in this and other discussions seek to convey this.
          There was such a stage in the development of Russia as the "imperial period" with colonialism together.
          I personally understand Bismarck's point of view more clearly: "The great questions of the time will not be decided by the speeches and resolutions of the majority - this was a gross mistake in 1848 and 1949 - but by iron and blood."
          The Kazakhs are opposed to the fact that they sing to us about the attractions Disneyland presented to the Kazakhs.
          The Russians were strong and made an empire. If the Kazakhs were strong, they would also muddle themselves an empire with colonies. bully After all, the "Mongol-Tatars" were strong and they successfully, without unnecessary reflection, crushed Rus, which was the "colony" of Ulug Ulys (Golden Horde) ..
          That is why you call the domination of the Horde over the Russians "yoke", while you vehemently deny that the territory of K-on was a colony of the Republic of Ingushetia ?! request
          Quote: There was a mammoth
          It is not surprising if Nazarbayev scandalously claims that the Kazakhs almost disappeared from the face of the Earth thanks to Russia.
          Nazarbayev is right, and not scandalous.
          It’s just probably necessary to be a Kazakh in order to understand, to feel what he is talking about. NAS means by this the mass death of Kazakhs during collectivization, destruction at the root of the national intelligentsia, the fact that now every 4 Kazakh is abroad (largely due to flight from hunger).
          Well, the fact that the Kazakhs are rapidly (more than all of the Union republics) have lost their language, culture, customs and traditions. And, moreover, they ceased to consider themselves Kazakhs ..
          Since you are dissatisfied with the statement of the National Academy of Sciences, I will give you the opinion of the last hero of the Soviet Union, Bauyrzhan Momysh-ula
          “Once they asked Bauyrzhan Momysh-uly why he was afraid. He said:“ I am afraid of two Kazakhs who do not speak Kazakh to each other, a mother does not sing the lullaby “Besik Zhyry” to her child in Kazakh, an aksakala does not tell her grandson a fairy tale in Kazakh "."
          bairat: Maybe it is on a third-party resource? Give a link, I will read it with pleasure.
          The author was banned am therefore, links cannot be asked .. But, I’ll try to get it ..
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 12 February 2014 15: 32
            +3
            Quote: Alibekulu
            That is why the rule of the Horde over the Russians you call "yoke"

            this is what Western historians say, who wrote the history of Russia under the Romanovs.
          2. Was mammoth
            Was mammoth 12 February 2014 19: 36
            +1
            Quote: Alibekulu
            That is why you call the domination of the Horde over the Russians "yoke", while you vehemently deny that the territory of K-on was a colony of the Republic of Ingushetia ?! request

            It depends on what you consider a colony.
            The Horde, having come to Russia, left behind ashes, which cities were destroyed by the "colonialists"?
            Quote: Alibekulu
            Nazarbayev is right, and not scandalous.

            Especially in light of the latest proposal to rename the state.
            Quote: Alibekulu
            It’s just probably necessary to be a Kazakhto understand, to feel what he’s talking about. NAS means by this the mass death of Kazakhs during collectivization, destruction at the root of the national intelligentsia, the fact that now every 4 Kazakhs is abroad (largely due to flight from hunger).
            Well, the fact that the Kazakhs are rapidly (more than all of the Union republics) have lost their language, culture, customs and traditions. And, moreover, they ceased to consider themselves Kazakhs ..

            Do you seriously think that all these troubles did not affect the Russians?
            I do not want to comment on the words of the Hero.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 12 February 2014 20: 10
              0
              Quote: There was a mammoth
              The Horde, having come to Russia, left behind ashes, which cities were destroyed by the "colonialists"?

              Twelve of the two hundred cities, not to lose count, went straight by fire and sword.
            2. Alibekulu
              Alibekulu 13 February 2014 09: 58
              0
              Quote: There was a mammoth
              Do you seriously think that all these troubles did not affect the Russians?
              Did I say somewhere that these troubles did not affect the Russians? request
              Quote: There was a mammoth
              The Horde, having come to Russia, left behind ashes, which cities were destroyed by the "colonialists"?
              Significance of the ashes of villages and villages are not considered ?!
              Quote: There was a mammoth
              Especially in light of the latest proposal to rename the state.
              Actually, this is our sovereign right ..
              You can rename Russia as you wish to Russians.
              You can, for example, in Honduras so close to the Russian spirit.
              In order to understand the logic of Nazarbayev, one must know the Kazakh or some Turkic language. Or study the history of the ancient Turks of the 1st and 2nd Turkic Kaganates.
              "Stan" is a Persian, Iranian term. Spruce is Turkic, so this is a return to our historical roots. For example, the Chinese insist that they call Beijing Beijing, and the Indians call Bombay Mumbai, and we do not hear hysterics from anyone. The question is, why is all this kipish?
              The ancient Turks called their state the Great Turkic Khaganate - “Eternal El.” An analogue can be found in the Roman Empire. They called their state “Eternal Rome” (“Eternal City”).
              T.O. Kazakhs declare their historical, spiritual succession of the ancient Turks. An analogue can be found in the history of Russia. This is the concept of "Moscow is the third Rome."
              When you are in Astana, you can see copies of ancient Turkic stelas in honor of Bilge Kagan and his brother Kul-tegin.
              1. carbofo
                carbofo 13 February 2014 18: 47
                0
                Quote: Alibekulu
                "Stan" is a Persian, Iranian term. Spruce is Turkic, respectively, this is a return to our historical roots

                Insanity grew stronger, brains smoked.
              2. Setrac
                Setrac 13 February 2014 20: 06
                0
                Quote: Alibekulu
                "Stan" is a Persian, Iranian term.

                Stan is an administrative-territorial unit. Two three camps constituted a county.
                Since the end of the XNUMXth century, there are administrative-territorial units into which counties in Russia were divided. In the XNUMXth century, in the Bryansk district, the Komaritsky volost was divided into camps. In the XVII century, in the Vazhsky district, the chets (quarters, quarterly boards) were divided into camps, and in the Ustyugsky district - thirds.
                Deals with what the Persians have to do with it?
                Moreover, in the Russian language there is a huge number of one-root words to the word "stan".
              3. The comment was deleted.
              4. The comment was deleted.
              5. Was mammoth
                Was mammoth 13 February 2014 20: 41
                0
                Quote: Alibekulu
                Actually, this is our sovereign right ..

                My wife was born in the south of Kazakhstan. Her father is buried there. Let her consider Kazakhstan as her Motherland. Like, by the way, Russians and Koreans, Germans and Tatars ... still living there.
                If you are building a nationalist state, you say that the Kazakhs are in charge, the rest are "second class".
                Quote: Alibekulu
                "Stan" is a Persian, Iranian term. Spruce is Turkic, so this is a return to our historical roots.

                Quote: Alibekulu
                T.O. Kazakhs declare their historical, spiritual succession of the ancient Turks.

                In less than a few centuries, you nevertheless reached historical roots. We will wait for the Kyrgyz, Tatars and other Turks to reach their roots as well.
                Quote: Alibekulu
                You will be in Astana

                I was in Tselinograd.
          3. CALL.
            CALL. 13 February 2014 03: 24
            +1
            Quote: Alibekulu
            That is why you call the domination of the Horde over the Russians "yoke", while you vehemently deny that the territory of K-on was a colony of the Republic of Ingushetia ?!

            If several times they themselves asked and entered voluntarily, then what kind of colony is it.
          4. CALL.
            CALL. 13 February 2014 03: 36
            +3
            Quote: Alibekulu
            NAS means by this the mass death of Kazakhs during collectivization, destruction at the root of the national intelligentsia, the fact that now every 4 Kazakhs is abroad (largely due to flight from hunger).

            So the topic of the famine got out. This famine brought thousands of Ukrainians to the Maidan. So you want to destroy your Kazakhstan. By looking for and inventing the reasons for the hatred of Russians, you are destroying the good that was and is between us.
            He who has ears, let him hear. He who has reason, understand.
            1. The comment was deleted.
          5. Walk
            Walk 13 February 2014 08: 53
            +1
            Quote: Alibekulu
            After all, the "Mongol-Tatars" were strong and they successfully, without unnecessary reflection, crushed Rus, which was the "colony" of Ulug Ulys (Golden Horde) ..
            That is why you call the domination of the Horde over the Russians "yoke", while you vehemently deny that the territory of K-on was a colony of the Republic of Ingushetia ?!

            Maybe the Kazakhs should have paid tribute to Moscow, or maybe they should have provided slaves for sale at the first request of Moscow, or maybe their khans went to Moscow with gifts to confirm their authority? Russia, unlike Britain, did not capture the peoples, but assimilated them into its own state. I hope you understand the difference between extermination and subsequent placement on the reservation, and assimilation with equal rights.
            1. carbofo
              carbofo 13 February 2014 18: 50
              0
              Quote: Walk
              I hope you understand the difference between extermination and subsequent placement on the reservation, and assimilation with equal rights.

              Do not strain in their dictionary there is no word assimilation :(.
              stupidly no one to understand you.
      5. SkiF_RnD
        SkiF_RnD 12 February 2014 17: 39
        +6
        Clegg, I'm sure that you are arguing with Russians just about different things.
        The fact is that the Kazakh Khanate (and, as I understand it, the Kazakhs consider their country to be the successor of this particular state entity) really existed, and it was annexed to the Russian Empire. In fairness, I want to note that in your Kazakh khanate a mess was going on cleaner than we have now laughing But the actual status of that state (it was in fact, or only formally, like the power of the shogun in the Sengoku Jidai era, it is more accurate to say that yes, only formally, the power of the khan was not the power of a sovereign ruler) is not critical. Yes, the Kazakh people were, but their language was, the land was.

        But only if you claim that the Kazakh land has lost the ability to restore / preserve (depending on what status is considered) sovereignty because it has become part of the Russian Empire, then you argue with emptiness. Because the article is not about that at all. No one argues that if they had not joined, Kazakhstan would have got a chance to take the path of enlightenment on its own, felt a new (the old is in antiquity, well, Ulugbek, Farabi, and other interesting people) the rise of science, culture, etc. Although I would never have believed in such an outcome. No one felt by that. They would have met the British, there’s no need to turn to a fortuneteller. And blaming the Russians for their coming means to wish for something like that.

        And now I'm getting to the point. You are so actively minus for the word "colony". Aktyubinsk was built on the territory of the Turks, this is one of your Zhuzes, here my compatriots are wrong, these are not donated lands. By saying so, they only confuse us, take us away from the essence. Dzungars, writing is all wrong. The very status of the territories of the Kazakh Khanate within the Republic of Ingushetia is important. He was not a colony.
        It was a province and was not subjected to predatory exploitation and plundering of land and the local population. Estimate the difference.
        1. Clegg
          Clegg 12 February 2014 17: 56
          -3
          Quote: SkiF_RnD
          But only if you claim that the Kazakh land has lost the ability to restore / maintain (depending on what status is considered) sovereignty because it became part of the Russian Empire

          You write that I seem to say that if it weren’t for the Russians, we (Kazakhs) prospered, I didn’t write this and I don’t think so. Let's not guess if yes if only. History does not like this, I just think that Kazakhstan was a colony. And no matter minus or not
          1. SkiF_RnD
            SkiF_RnD 12 February 2014 20: 36
            +5
            You write as if I affirm


            I’m sure that you are arguing with Russians just about different things ... if you say


            I just tried to read what you mean. No offense, but not all people can express their thoughts so that they are understood correctly. Now I see that I was mistaken.

            So that I change the tone and content to this:
            You, as is obvious, many Kazakhs (who reason in the same way) are just an ungrateful person. You do not even need proof to accuse the Russians, the minuses were hung on you quite rightly. It was worth, indeed, to turn Kazakhstan into an impoverished colony and squeeze all the juices out of it, and then throw it with a kick into the dustbin of history. You would be jealous of Afghanistan today. What is your confirmation of the colonial status of Kazakhstan? Facts, arguments. Well, or go to hell with your beliefs, our tsars should have done nothing with "inclusion in the composition" and other manifestations of a broad soul.
            Unlike Russia, which, in addition to Baikonur, received no sense at all (a good colony. Colonies generally benefit laughing ). There was a subsidized region, electrification was carried out, education was increased, so that now they can read that the Kazakhs "just think they were a colony." Clear.

            The status of the territories of the Kazakh Khanate within the Republic of Ingushetia is important. He was not a colony.


            This is what you need to stick on your forehead, for life. Without respect.
            1. Clegg
              Clegg 12 February 2014 20: 55
              -3
              Quote: SkiF_RnD
              The status of the territories of the Kazakh Khanate within the Republic of Ingushetia is important. He was not a colony.
              This is what you need to stick on your forehead, for life

              It was because you do not think so to change anything.

              Quote: SkiF_RnD
              Without respect.

              He knows what surprises me on this site, it is that the local users demand some imaginary virtual respect for each other. But for me, honestly, it doesn’t matter whether or not a person whom I’m unlikely to ever see))) So stick your respect somewhere. I see you have experience in such matters)))
              1. SkiF_RnD
                SkiF_RnD 12 February 2014 23: 20
                +4
                Your confirmation of the colonial status of Kazakhstan? Facts, arguments. So or...


                It was because you do not think so to change anything.


                Blah, blah, blah ... In life, they are called "balabol".

                The colonies are trying to expel their masters. How the countries of Central and South America put maximum efforts to this. India. Indonesia. Other countries. Colonies have always been in a "cancer" position, figuratively speaking. They had them as they wanted, concluding enslaving trade agreements, forcing them to give their resources for a song or for nothing. One thing was expected from the colonies - profits. This is the fundamental principle of European colonization. "Profit".

                In the second half of the XIX century, the Kazakh steppes turned into an ordinary outlying province of the Russian Empire. With the exception of the Kazakh nobility, included in the Russian political and military hierarchy, ordinary Kazakhs fell under the category of “foreigners” who had limited political and civil rights and obligations (in particular, Kazakhs were not subject to military mobilization). As a result of the construction of hospitals, the spread of vaccination and the use of modern medicines, mortality among Kazakhs from mass epidemics has sharply decreased; the Kazakh population increased from 2,75 million in 1850 to 4 million in 1900.
                In the second half of the 1892th century, mining appeared on the territory of Kazakhstan, the first industrial enterprises appeared, and the development of coal and oil production began. In 1896-XNUMX, the Trans-Siberian Railway was built, connecting Omsk and Orenburg and significantly improving the connection of Kazakhstan with Central Russia. Under the influence of the development of commodity-money relations and trade in Kazakhstan, new cities and urban-type settlements appeared.
              2. SkiF_RnD
                SkiF_RnD 12 February 2014 23: 25
                +2
                Imaginary respect does not exist. You invented it yourself. If respect is imaginary, then it is not. Simply put, you are in your own words

                local users demand some virtual respect for each other


                veiledly accused all "local users" of dishonest behavior, they "pretend", showing each other "imaginary" respect. I respect every worthy person, no matter if I see him in life, or read his messages on the global network. Including "local users". And the fact that you don't need people's respect says a lot about you. I sincerely hope that you are not a "typical" Kazakh, but a sad exception.
            2. Beck
              Beck 13 February 2014 11: 23
              0
              Quote: SkiF_RnD
              In contrast to Russia, which, apart from Baikonur, did not get any sense at all (the colony is good. Colonies generally bring benefits). There was a subsidized region, electrification was carried out, education was increased, so that now they can read that the Kazakhs "just think they were a colony." Clear.


              All the colonial powers created the infrastructure in their colonies and for the sole purpose of earning as much profit from the colonies as possible. Without the creation of Ridder mines and the laying of a railway to them, you will not be able to export ore to the metropolis.

              In general, among the Uroshniks - We have built for you, we have done it for you and are pushing even for the times of the USSR.

              The Sokolovo-Sarbaisky iron ore deposit was developed not for the Kazakhs, but for the metallurgical plants of Chelyabinsk. Virgin soil was raised not for the Kazakhs, but to feed the entire population of the USSR. The Almaty Heavy Engineering Plant was not built for the Kazakhs, but to provide torpedoes for the Soviet Navy.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 13 February 2014 12: 41
                0
                Quote: Beck
                not built for Kazakhs

                Well, shut down all these plants, mines, wells since the Kazakhs do not need them.
                1. Beck
                  Beck 13 February 2014 12: 58
                  +1
                  Quote: Setrac
                  Well, shut down all these plants, mines, wells since the Kazakhs do not need them.


                  I turn to you. I am in a narrow-minded dispute, such as myself ... I don’t participate.
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 13 February 2014 13: 08
                    0
                    Quote: Beck
                    I turn to you. I am in a narrow-minded dispute, such as myself ... I don’t participate.

                    Well, do not participate, who makes you? Che climbed?
                    1. Beck
                      Beck 13 February 2014 13: 21
                      +1
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Well, do not participate, who makes you? Che climbed?


                      And you, that you identify with the whole site? I don’t want to participate with you, because you have no logic, but only a philistine throat. In general, it was you who began to respond to my comments, and not I to yours.

                      Ours with a brush.
                    2. Setrac
                      Setrac 13 February 2014 13: 33
                      0
                      Quote: Beck
                      Ours with a brush.

                      Uh-huh.


                      PS Prize to me, prize, for the most meaningless answer.
                    3. Beck
                      Beck 13 February 2014 13: 55
                      +1
                      Quote: Setrac
                      PS Prize to me, prize, for the most meaningless answer.


                      Yes, even write yourself an Olympic medal.

                      And in addition to the crown of the absence of logic, put it on. It’s just right for you.
          2. 3935333
            3935333 13 February 2014 15: 11
            +1
            Well, they built it in order to include all the republics of the USSR in one economic, scientific and geopolitical space! to Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Kazakhs, etc. studied, worked, created families, a common civilization !!! What kind of colonies can be discussed ... in the Soviet republics, people lived better than in the RSFSR (before 1987)! The Balts are whining the most, but they lived (they are under occupation) better than anyone else in the UNION! I did not expect such a reaction from the Kazakhs ... about a man with the nickname Clegg, I wrote above who he is!
          3. SkiF_RnD
            SkiF_RnD 13 February 2014 23: 56
            0
            In the second half of the XIX century, the Kazakh steppes turned into an ordinary outlying province of the Russian Empire. With the exception of the Kazakh nobility, included in the Russian political and military hierarchy, ordinary Kazakhs fell under the category of “foreigners” who had limited political and civil rights and obligations (in particular, Kazakhs were not subject to military mobilization). As a result of the construction of hospitals, the spread of vaccination and the use of modern medicines, mortality among Kazakhs from mass epidemics has sharply decreased; the Kazakh population increased from 2,75 million in 1850 to 4 million in 1900.
            In the second half of the 1892th century, mining appeared on the territory of Kazakhstan, the first industrial enterprises appeared, and the development of coal and oil production began. In 1896-XNUMX, the Trans-Siberian Railway was built, connecting Omsk and Orenburg and significantly improving the connection of Kazakhstan with Central Russia. Under the influence of the development of commodity-money relations and trade in Kazakhstan, new cities and urban-type settlements appeared.

            In the second half of the XIX century, the Kazakh steppes turned into an ordinary outlying province of the Russian Empire. With the exception of the Kazakh nobility, included in the Russian political and military hierarchy, ordinary Kazakhs fell under the category of “foreigners” who had limited political and civil rights and obligations (in particular, Kazakhs were not subject to military mobilization). As a result of the construction of hospitals, the spread of vaccination and the use of modern medicines, mortality among Kazakhs from mass epidemics has sharply decreased; the Kazakh population increased from 2,75 million in 1850 to 4 million in 1900.
            In the second half of the 1892th century, mining appeared on the territory of Kazakhstan, the first industrial enterprises appeared, and the development of coal and oil production began. In 1896-XNUMX, the Trans-Siberian Railway was built, connecting Omsk and Orenburg and significantly improving the connection of Kazakhstan with Central Russia. Under the influence of the development of commodity-money relations and trade in Kazakhstan, new cities and urban-type settlements appeared.

            In the second half of the XIX century, the Kazakh steppes turned into an ordinary outlying province of the Russian Empire. With the exception of the Kazakh nobility, included in the Russian political and military hierarchy, ordinary Kazakhs fell under the category of “foreigners” who had limited political and civil rights and obligations (in particular, Kazakhs were not subject to military mobilization). As a result of the construction of hospitals, the spread of vaccination and the use of modern medicines, mortality among Kazakhs from mass epidemics has sharply decreased; the Kazakh population increased from 2,75 million in 1850 to 4 million in 1900.
            In the second half of the 1892th century, mining appeared on the territory of Kazakhstan, the first industrial enterprises appeared, and the development of coal and oil production began. In 1896-XNUMX, the Trans-Siberian Railway was built, connecting Omsk and Orenburg and significantly improving the connection of Kazakhstan with Central Russia. Under the influence of the development of commodity-money relations and trade in Kazakhstan, new cities and urban-type settlements appeared.
    2. Beck
      Beck 13 February 2014 11: 14
      0
      Quote: SkiF_RnD
      In fairness, I want to note that in your Kazakh khanate a mess was going on cleaner than we have now


      There is a mess in the Central African Republic, a mess in Syria, so let's occupy these countries and say that this is our native land.
      1. carbofo
        carbofo 13 February 2014 18: 58
        +2
        Quote: Beck


        There is a mess in the Central African Republic, a mess in Syria, so let's occupy these countries and say that this is our native land.

        No, you definitely have problems !.
      2. SkiF_RnD
        SkiF_RnD 13 February 2014 23: 51
        0
        What does the CAR have to do with it? According to a number of indisputable signs, the territory of the Kazakh Khanate was not and could not be. None of the Kazakhs seem to have even read about colonial wars and the conquest of Europeans. And even more so about American colonization. Only your ignorance leaves you a chance not to lose faith in your innocence. It's like a man pokes me into the clear sky and yells, "Look, the whole sky is on fire, I swear, these are forests on fire." And no matter how much you say that if there is a fire, there will be smoke, he will point his finger at the sky and shout that he sees fire. Colonization. American style. A hundred years. Are you sorry, or what? I repeat 100500 times, READ ABOUT HER. To then compare with something. The Kazakh steppes were the most common outskirts of the empire. The facts of cultural influence, such as schools teaching the Russian language, do not paint Russians, but they certainly do not go beyond the ordinary for the 19th century and do not make RI a bloodsucker country. Here, especially gifted Kazakhs are already talking about Armenia. We also colonized them, apparently. good
  • carbofo
    carbofo 13 February 2014 18: 07
    +1
    Quote: Clegg
    the fact is that Kazakhstan was a colony of Russia.

    Kazakhstan was never a colony, the Russian Empire assimilated the territory and inhabitants into itself.
    Applying the Provincial and later in the USSR republican system of relations.
    Most of the newly acquired territories with a population retained a national way of life, only a common system of management and education was introduced.
    Georgians often howl that they say there was genocide for 250 years, awesome guys with completely broken brains.
    Nothing that over the 250 years of the alleged occupation, the literacy of the population rose 20-30 times to about 98%, and the population increased 5-10 times compared to the surviving population, after constant raids by the Caucasians and Ottomans.
  • avt
    avt 12 February 2014 12: 36
    +10
    Quote: Setrac
    It is time to get rid of the slave essence.

    And what then to build a national state ??? Only on self-abasement. Well, how can a nationalist be something whole in the Empire? According to the same scheme, like a carbon copy, everyone in the former Soviet, and now national, republics is nurtured. Stalin once said - in the struggle against socialism, the local bourgeoisie will raise nationalist banners. So nothing new.
    Quote: Setrac
    What a strange desire to look for a master?

    This already looks like sadomasochism, the brain is slowly but surely turned off and only the sensory parts of the body are turned on and a buzz is simply caught. "Common people" are great masters of translating people into such a state. Jehovah's Witnesses ". By the way, in our government, in the economic bloc in particular, after Harvard, they are exactly the same, practically a carbon copy -" Gaidarov's Witnesses. "
    1. carbofo
      carbofo 13 February 2014 18: 14
      +3
      Quote: avt
      This already looks like sadomasochism, slowly but surely the brain is turned off and only the sensory parts of the body are turned on and a buzz is simply caught. "Common people" are great masters of transferring people to such a state.


      Do not judge him severely, they have such textbooks that they are just awesome from their national idea, they almost write that they are the titular nation of the Russian Empire.
      In general, they became an independent country and the Türks still had their brains there.
      Well, I can’t call the transition to Latin smart, but selling your own ass is a personal matter.
  • Yuri Sev Caucasus
    Yuri Sev Caucasus 12 February 2014 14: 04
    +5
    did the nomadic people ever have their own state? Keisuki descendants of the Chinese nomads
    1. Beck
      Beck 13 February 2014 11: 44
      +3
      Quote: Yuri Sev Caucasus
      did the nomadic people ever have their own state?


      The concept of the state does not mean only the state in the modern concept. There were both state cities and nomadic states.

      Signs of the state.

      1. The presence of the apparatus of power and management, apparatus of coercion; Tsar, princes, boyars, army. Khan, sultans, beks, army.

      2. The division of the population into territorial units; Provinces, volosts, villages. Aimaki, audan, auls.

      3. Independence in external and internal affairs; That of a royal country, that of a khan's country.

      4. The adoption of a number of obligations to the people (to protect the territory, to fight crime, to carry out the procedure for general well-being) Such as that of the agricultural states, and that of the nomadic.

      5. The existence of a number of monopoly rights (the right to legislate, issue banknotes, collect taxes, and issue loans). And it’s the same as in the agricultural states, that in the nomadic.

      And where is at least one sign that does not fall under the definition of a nomadic state.
      1. carbofo
        carbofo 13 February 2014 18: 19
        0
        Quote: Beck

        And where is at least one sign that does not fall under the definition of a nomadic state.

        You definitely live in the state where the weed was allowed :).
        Where you nomadic tribes found signs of the state, with the same success I can find such in my family, there are also such signs.
        They lived precisely in separate family groups, to call it a state - only an American can :)
  • vlad.svargin
    vlad.svargin 12 February 2014 15: 41
    +2
    Clegg (2)
    Did Russia have a colony? Yes, Kazakhstan.

    I respect Kazakhs very much. Back in Soviet times, I had many friends among them (both the older generation and my peers) Studied, worked together. Even in the service were friends of the Kazakhs. Now I began to forget your language, but warm feelings for them remained. Whoever inspired you with this is the enemy of both your and my peoples. Since ancient times, we have always been in one union, which is not one thousand years old. Developed in different ways, but always helped each other. To be convincing, I will give some excerpts from TSB:

    Kyrgyz-Kaisaki, Kyrgyz-Cossacks, the name of the Kazakhs, common in pre-revolutionary literature.(TSB)
    By the way, they began to be called Kazakhs in Soviet times.
    In ancient Russia, warriors on an ongoing basis in the army (Horde) were Slavic warriors and Turkic Cossacks.
    Fundamental changes in the economy and culture of Kazakhstan took place after the October Revolution, during the construction of socialism, when the Kazakh socialist nation was formed. Kazakhstan has become a country with advanced industry and highly developed diversified agriculture. The life and culture of K. Have changed: nomads have moved to sedentary life, illiteracy has been eliminated, and national cadres of the working class and intelligentsia have grown. On the history, economy and culture of K. see also Art. Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. alone
      alone 12 February 2014 21: 53
      +2
      I strongly disagree about this list. The current state of the former is the fact who in the USSR was subsidized and who is subsidized. (Ukraine is an exception, those who ruled over 22 years of independence are to blame for its current state).
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 12 February 2014 22: 38
        +1
        Quote: lonely
        Ukraine is an exception, those who ruled over 22 years of independence are to blame for its current state

        There is no exception. Ukrainian industry was focused on the Russian market, the result is logical.
        1. alone
          alone 12 February 2014 23: 00
          +1
          I'm talking about the Soviet era, and not after independence.
      2. CALL.
        CALL. 13 February 2014 03: 53
        +2
        Quote: lonely
        I strongly disagree about this list.

        Provide your details.
        - There are no reserved seats for tomorrow.
        - Well, look at the evening.
        - No tickets, only coupe and SV.
        - And in the morning?
        - They are not even a single train.
        - Look carefully, this cannot be. Me lower.
    2. Hitrovan07
      Hitrovan07 13 February 2014 17: 32
      0
      Brilliantly. Figures with links. And not the yellow press. Sumptuously.
  • Cherdak
    Cherdak 12 February 2014 15: 57
    +6
    Quote: Clegg
    Kazakhstan.


    And where was it? Say thanks to the communists who came up with this strange formation.


    Kazakhstan (Kazakh Republic of Kazakhstan) is a sanatorium resort competing with such a famous place of rest and treatment as Siberia, where vouchers for special merits were issued first by the Tsarist secret police and then by the bloody gebei. bully

    A new rattle "Kazakh eli"- generally pearl.
    It remains for Ukraine to commit ritual violence against itself and become "Қазақі сала елі!»

    You can sign up with Aboriginal historical bombast belay
  • Don
    Don 12 February 2014 18: 41
    +7
    Quote: Clegg
    Did Russia have a colony?

    Yes, Kazakhstan.

    Have you read the article at all? Residents of Kazakhstan did not have the same rights as residents of the USSR and the Russian Empire? In Kazakhstan were there other laws? Kazakhstan used only as a raw material base and market? Think at the beginning, and then draw a conclusion.
    1. Cherdak
      Cherdak 12 February 2014 19: 57
      +3
      Quote: Don
      Residents of Kazakhstan did not have the same rights as residents of the USSR


      In 1941, the Volga Germans Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was liquidated and the forcible resettlement of its German population and the German population of other regions of the USSR to Kazakhstan and Siberia began.
      The German population of the Republic of Kazakhstan over the past ten years has almost halved and amounted to 178 thousand people.


      According to the census, out of 597 Germans living in Russia, 212 people speak German, that is, 188%.

      You can’t deceive a German with slogans - he is not from Kazakhstan to Germany, but now he is emigrating to Russia.
      Sausage souls are torn to lawlessness?
      recourse
  • Interface
    Interface 12 February 2014 23: 30
    +2
    Russia is a continental empire, the western countries are colonial.
    Russia is not a colonial country. Millions of blacks and Indians will confirm this to you.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • FC SKIF
    FC SKIF 12 February 2014 08: 21
    +14
    Entering into the composition of Russia decomp. always guaranteed safety + development. True, often there were those who were not satisfied with those who profit from the insecurity of these peoples — aggressive nomads, lovers of raids and robberies + those who are against the development of all but them — often Europe, and most often Anglo-Saxons. Actually, these two groups were the original enemies of Russia. Nothing has changed now.
    1. Humpty
      Humpty 12 February 2014 08: 58
      +9
      The territories east of the Urals to the Pacific Ocean seemed completely uninhabited in the 16-17th centuries, because not a single permanent settlement was found on this entire vast territory except the Kuchumovskoye village. East, southeast of Kazakhstan passed to Russia when dividing the territories between Russia and China, to a large extent this is a service of China, part (Ili region) then passed to China, again - under an agreement with Russia. Part of the east of the territory of Kyrgyzstan was no one at all (about 20-30 thousand km 2). The rest of the east of Kyrgyzstan became part of Russia, not only voluntarily, but under protection from destruction by their own tribesmen and robbery by neighboring bandit khanates. The heirs of ancient Khorezm degenerated into gangster khanates, they were defeated and included in Russia rather out of need for peace.
    2. mamba
      mamba 12 February 2014 13: 01
      +8
      Quote: FC Skif
      Often there were those who were not satisfied with those who profit from the insecurity of these peoples — aggressive nomads, lovers of raids and robberies + those who are against the development of all but them — often Europe, and most often Anglo-Saxons.

      You forget about another kind of dissatisfied. This is a local selling elite, looking for a master and betraying him as soon as possible. An example is the Georgian elite: http://www.apn.ru/publications/article21261.htm
    3. kaktus
      kaktus 13 February 2014 04: 10
      0
      And the local bais that weren’t given ... well, get insolent fool
  • dark_65
    dark_65 12 February 2014 08: 34
    +13
    Why is this opinion? For a start. If there are no objections - "The Kazakh Khanate split into three zhuzes - senior, junior and middle. These zhuzes were named so because the tribes of the senior zhuz obeyed the descendants of the eldest son of Jochi Orda Ejen, the middle one - the descendants of middle sons Jochi - Batu and Berke, while the clans of the Younger Zhuz were subordinate to the descendants of the youngest son of Jochi Khan - Mogul.
    The Elder Zhuz included the tribes of Alban, Dulat, Shanyshkyly, Jalayyr, Kanly, Oshakty, Sirgeli, Suan, Shapyrashty and Ysty. In the Middle - argyn, kerey, konyrat, kypshak, naiman and uak, and in the Younger - alimuls, bayuly, zhetyru and nogai-kazak. "
    Further, the war with the Dzungars and the expansion of China, is this a fiction? I think not.
    The next stage is complete submission to Chinese policy, do you think it would be different?
    Please name the well-known episodes of the Russian-Kazakh military clashes preceding the declaration of Kazakhstan as a colony of Russia. If any took place.

    On February 19, 1731, the empress signed a letter of voluntary entry of the Younger Zhuz into the Russian Empire, and on October 10, 1731, a congress of representatives of the Younger and Middle Zhuz tribes took place, at which Khan Abulkhair, Batyrs Bogenbai, Eset, Khudainazar-Murza and another 27 influential authorities swore allegiance on the Qur'an for allegiance to the empress.

    I don’t think that joining China promised great benefits, and even cutting out by the jungars directly stood on the horizon.

    We also colonized the Georgians (though, at the same time, saving themselves from the general cut-out by the Turks, or Persians, I am silent about the Baltic states, although, excuse me, we learned culturally ....
    1. Onizuka teacher
      Onizuka teacher 12 February 2014 09: 35
      +4
      Quote: dark_65
      and carving by the jungars stood right on the horizon.

      Again. The war went on with varying success, but the Kazakhs more than once reached the Dzungaria, but dispersed along the way, quarreling. I already laid out everything from A to Z. And once again the Kazakhs fought themselves without support from Russia, with bows against guns and cannons of the Dzungars. They joined Russia because of the danger of the invasion of the Chinese expeditionary forces of which there were at least a million.
      1. Alibekulu
        Alibekulu 12 February 2014 10: 01
        +5
        Quote: Teacher Onizuka
        They joined Russia because of the danger of the invasion of the Chinese expeditionary forces of which there were at least a million.
        I think the situation was somewhat different.
        As you know, the process of "voluntary accession" to the Republic of Ingushetia was started by Abulkhair. Khan of the Younger Zhuz, who several times claimed the role of the All-Kazakh Khan. And he, of all the pretenders to the throne, was the most suitable for this. And, he proved this during the Kazakh-Dzhungar war. But, it is clear that the sultans, heads of clans and tribes did not need a charismatic, intelligent and tough ruler. If he became one, it would not seem enough to anyone. And, therefore, each time when choosing a single leader, they chose not Abulkhair, who was most suitable for this role, but the colorless Kayip and Abilmambet ..
        Desperate, he decided to accept the citizenship of RI. With this decision, he wanted to enlist the support of a powerful power to establish his power over all Kazakhs.
        And then, when he achieved his global goals, I think he would have acted, as Peter I had repeatedly said in relation to Europe: “We need Europe for several decades, and then we must turn our back on it.”
        An irresistible desire to become the supreme ruler clouded the head of clever Abulhair. He acted like a small sharpie who decided to beat the casino. The result in both cases is known ... am
        1. Onizuka teacher
          Onizuka teacher 12 February 2014 10: 17
          +5
          The problem was that the Three Zhuzes did not get along well with each other. Empress Anna Ivanovna, the head of the Orenburg expedition, Ivan Kirillov, wrote: “If both Kyrgyz hordes (Middle and Junior zhuzes) agreed, and they had one khan to enter the war and the other to leave, and so they would lose their possession from the Kalmyks”. The problem was disunity. And from 1750 to 1756, Kazakhs and Dzhungars united against the Qing Empires, Ablai Khan even said: “It is better to have Dzungaria, which has lost its former power, on its borders than the Qing Empire.” But in 1756 under the emperor Aisingioro Hongli, the Qing-Manchu army finally smashed the Dzungarian Khanate. Most of the Dzungars die on the battlefield and from diseases, the remains of the living flee to the Volga in the Kalmyk Khanate. The Chinese historian Wei Yuan wrote: "There were several hundred thousand families in Dzungaria, four-tenths died of smallpox then, two-tenths fled to neighboring countries, three-tenths were destroyed by a great army." Russian researcher A. Chernyshev calls the reasons for such cruelty: “The Qins did not punish the Oirats brutally because they considered them barbarians. No, because they didn’t carve Sibo, Solon, Daur and other tribes, as well as numerous, but scattered tribes of the Khalkha Mongols. The Manchus killed precisely the Oirats, because they were afraid that, without doing so, they would retain in their person a potential rival who already had experience in creating a sovereign state and who maintained long-term ties with Russia. Therefore, the Manchus preferred to destroy almost all the Oirats, and leave their lands under the control of their troops. ”
          So the Dzungar Khanate disappeared from the face of the earth, and on its lands the Qing Empire creates its Xinjiang province in 1761. An interesting fact is that Ablai Khan, being captured by Noyon Amursany, was on good terms, and he used to hide from the Kazakhs, fleeing internal enemies and Chinese.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • dark_65
    dark_65 12 February 2014 08: 35
    +9
    If you had industry, writing, and other benefits, just like in Tibet, I simply am silent about Baikonur.
  • assam4
    assam4 12 February 2014 08: 37
    +24
    Quote: Clegg
    Did Russia have a colony?

    Yes, Kazakhstan.

    Damned colonialists built cities with all infrastructure, schools, hospitals, theaters, etc.
    а
    And they also plowed the virgin lands and set up their plants power plants and all sorts of other industrial facilities, gave a universal education. And many more all sorts of horrors have done ...
    1. bairat
      bairat 12 February 2014 09: 00
      +1
      Quote: assam4

      Damned colonialists built cities with all infrastructure, schools, hospitals, theaters, etc.
      а
      And they also plowed the virgin lands and set up their plants power plants and all sorts of other industrial facilities, gave a universal education. And many more all sorts of horrors have done ...

      Well, this is during the USSR. For example, in tsarist Russia, unbaptized Tatars were under severe pressure: they paid heavy taxes, they were expelled from acquired places, they were not accepted into educational institutions.
      1. Bene valete
        Bene valete 12 February 2014 13: 15
        +7
        Well, you are exaggerating too much ...
        The Russian nobility of the century from 15 to 1/6 consisted of Tatar clans !!! Example: Aksakovs, Bunins, Korsakovs, Saltykovs, Yusupovs, Kudashevs, Chegodaevs, Akhmatovs and others. Are these names about you? What kind of oppression are you talking about?
        There is no need to succumb to contrived "new currents", such as Russia, the prison of all peoples spread rot and did not allow development.
        Russian Vanka "caught up" so much that now we ourselves are almost in bast shoes, but we live in huts on chicken legs!)))
        And about the persecution of non-baptized, so non-baptized (pagans, etc.) Slavs or Russians "got" Much more!
        1. bairat
          bairat 12 February 2014 13: 52
          -1
          Quote: Bene valete
          Well, you are exaggerating too much ...

          And how are these clans in terms of religion, maybe they were baptized?
          It makes no sense to exaggerate me, the affairs of days gone by. There are facts, for example, ancient Tatar mosques can be counted on the fingers of the hand, this is against the fact that in every Russian settlement there was a solid stone church. Forbidden to build. Or take the coastline of the Volga and Kama, there is not a single Tatar village there, all the Tatars were once evicted from there by royal decree.
          1. dark_65
            dark_65 12 February 2014 17: 53
            0
            then count the numbers of Tatars and Russians in those years.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Rebus
        Rebus 12 February 2014 13: 29
        +9
        Quote: bairat
        For example, in Tsarist Russia, unbaptized Tatars were under severe pressure.

        Creepy, cynical, untruth.
        ... by the end of the 70th century in Russia there were approximately XNUMX thousand Muslims - hereditary and personal nobles and class officials ...

        ... An important turn in state and religious policy, including in relation to Islam, took place during the reign of Empress Catherine the Great. On June 17, 1773 she signed a decree on the tolerance of all religions in Russia. In 1774, according to the Kuchuk-Kaynardzhi peace treaty, the Russian government guaranteed the inviolability of all religious freedoms for Muslims. In the manifesto of 1783 on the inclusion of Crimea in Russia, Empress Catherine promised the Muslims of Taurida to protect and defend "the temples and natural faith by which its free exercise by all legal rituals will remain inviolable." A similar policy was pursued in other areas of the Empire. So, according to the "Manifesto on the annexation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to Russia" of 1735, the guarantees of free confession of faith extended not only to the Catholic population of the region, but also to the Muslim Lithuanian Tatars ...

        An important aspect of the life of Muslim nobility was his service in the armed forces of the Empire. Dozens of Muslims - officers and generals distinguished themselves in the many wars that Russia had to wage. So, in the overseas campaigns of 1813-1814. 33 Bashkir and Tatar cavalry regiments showed high valor, Muslims of the Volga, Urals, Crimea, Belarus showed their courage. In the 30s - 80s. XIX century a group of warriors - noble Muslims (highlanders of the Caucasus and Crimean Tatars) was constantly part of the part of the Imperial Guard closest to the throne - His Imperial Majesty's Own convoy. A number of special decrees and instructions are known that demonstrate the government’s special attention to creating the necessary conditions for religious observance to the soldiers of the Life Guards of the Caucasus Mountain Squadron and the Life Guards of the Crimean Tatar Squadron.

        Among the famous Muslim generals of Russia, one can name such names as Alikhanov-Avarsky, Enikeev, Tevkelev, Khalilov, Khan-Nakhichevan and others. During the Russo-Japanese War of I904-I905. the defenders of Port Arthur became famous for their Muslim officers, Samadbek Mehmandarov and Ali Agha Shikhlinsky, who later became generals of the Russian Army, their fellow countryman, and also a native of Azerbaijan, was an outstanding entrepreneur Haji Zeynal Ab-Din Tagiyev, who made his way from a poor journeyman to a millionaire oilman, philanthropist and philanthropist. Tagiyev was awarded the rank of general, he was awarded the highest orders of the Empire

        http://sotok.net/russkij-mir/3859-musulmanskoe-dvoryanstvo-v-rossijskoj-imperii.
        html
      4. Dym71
        Dym71 12 February 2014 14: 29
        +4
        Well, this is during the USSR. And for example, in Tsarist Russia, unbaptized Tatars were under severe pressure: they paid heavy taxes, they were expelled from acquired places, they were not accepted into educational institutions. [/ Quote]

        Dear bairat!
        Why do you mention only negative? Yes, surely it had a place to be, as I am sure that the simple Russian people got no less. In the Russian Empire a lot of things took place to be, and the following happened:
        In Tsarist Russia, free elections were held in the State Duma, thanks to them there was a Muslim fraction in the State Duma, most of the deputies in it were Tatars, more than 70% of Tatars could read and write in Tatar.
        With the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War, permanent mullahs or imams were introduced in the troops of tsarist Russia.
      5. dark_65
        dark_65 12 February 2014 17: 53
        +3
        that's what you persecute? ... you’re not ashamed of yourself? Another orphan weeping ..... all Muslims paid a double tax? then the war would have already been ..... how did you lift small-sized hamsters ....
    2. Alibekulu
      Alibekulu 12 February 2014 09: 31
      -9
      Quote: assam4
      Damned colonialists built cities with all infrastructure, schools, hospitals, theaters, etc.
      Cities "colonialists" built for themselves lol ... so no need to shaggy grandmother .. In cities, most of them lived "Russians". As proof, I will give the opinion of Russian users of "VO". Here are the comments about the notorious cities for Kazakhs:
      Quote: DjozzKazakhs, which before the collapse of the USSR could be counted on the finger in Kustanai,
      repeat
      Quote: Andrey57 city ​​(Uralsk) in which more than 90% of the population was Russian
      what
      Quote: Alex65
      Uralsk / before 90-xtam there were 99% of Russians ...


      About the schools. Here they sing songs to us that they were built for (I emphasize) Kazakhs, but can anyone explain to me why the training in them was conducted in Russian ?! belay
      After all, if it is straightforward for the Kazakhs, it would be logical that the training was conducted in Kazakh ?! And, for the most part, the training was conducted in Russian ??!
      At the millionth Alma-Ata of schools with the Kazakh language of instruction, there were no more fingers of one hand ... negative
      And, with these universities, cities and schools for Kazakhs, it reminds me very much of the characters from the cartoon - "Two from the casket, the same from the face" laughing :
      1. alebor
        alebor 12 February 2014 10: 46
        +8
        Quote: Alibekulu
        Cities "colonialists" built for themselves

        Cities, like everything else, were built by the "colonialists" for everyone. Was it forbidden for the indigenous population to settle in cities, go to schools, attend theaters? Yes, Russian theaters and schools were in more demand, but this is not the result of a policy of suppressing the local population, but the result of differences in the level of cultural development and everyday traditions. Was there a policy of apartheid and racial segregation?
        1. Alibekulu
          Alibekulu 12 February 2014 10: 59
          -4
          Quote: alebor
          Cities, like everything else, were built by the "colonialists" for everyone.
          Well finally got it wink Here you tell your wise men this idea ..
          And then everything "we built schools, hospitals and universities for the Kazakhs."
          In general, this inadequate nourishment starts on your (Russian) side, respectively, what is hi, such is the answer ..
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 12 February 2014 11: 32
            +7
            Quote: Alibekulu
            In general, this inadequate nourishment begins with your

            Srach began with:
            Quote: Clegg
            Did Russia have a colony?

            Yes, Kazakhstan.

            There is such a provocateur on the site as Clegg.
          2. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 12 February 2014 11: 36
            +6
            Quote: Alibekulu
            In general, this inadequate nourishment begins on your (Russian) side

            Srach began with an inadequate statement
            Quote: Clegg
            Did Russia have a colony?
            Yes, Kazakhstan.
            hi
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 12 February 2014 11: 04
        +10
        Quote: Alibekulu
        Why were they taught in Russian ?!

        Probably because all the technology and science in Russia is in Russian, destroy the legacy of the evil colonialists - cities, factories and mines, and live off of the grazing of sheep.
      3. Gorinich
        Gorinich 12 February 2014 11: 07
        +3
        Into the account: "built for themselves." He built mainly the USSR, for the Bolsheviks it was all the same what the main language of communication was (read their main works). Russian was chosen because it is the language for communication of most of the peoples of the former Russian Empire. In the Russian Empire, however, the opinion of the peripheral peoples was really of little weight. But therefore, nothing was being built at that time.
      4. Was mammoth
        Was mammoth 12 February 2014 15: 05
        +4
        Quote: Alibekulu
        Cities "colonialists" built for themselves lol ...

        And under pain of the death penalty, Kazakhs were forbidden to appear and live in cities wink
        Quote: Alibekulu
        At the millionth Alma-Ata of schools with the Kazakh language of instruction, there were no more fingers of one hand ... negative

        If you want to be objective, try to find data on the occupancy of Russian classes and classes in Kazakh schools. At the same time, about the number of teachers per "unit" of students. I believe that the result will not be the next argument for the "humiliation" of the Kazakhs.
      5. xorgi
        xorgi 12 February 2014 17: 20
        +4
        He was silent for a long time, but still I will express myself, because I lived in Kazakhstan and in the Soviet era, and a little already in modern times. In the schools of Kazakhstan in Soviet times there was a MANDATORY study of the Kazakh language for ALL, regardless of nationality. Give an example of at least one colony where the dominant ethnic group forcibly learns the language of a subordinate?
        Second, in Soviet times, in all educational institutions of Kazakhstan there was a lower quota for national cadres. Give an example of at least one colony where the dominant ethnic group is in a worse legal situation than the subordinate?
        The third, from my own observations, in ANY organizations of Kazakhstan of the Soviet period, leading positions were held by Kazakhs, rarely Russians or Jews, middle managers - Jews and Germans, performers Russian, Ukrainians, Germans. He made his observations based on the situation in industrial centers and large cities. I don’t know the situation in the village.
  • saag
    saag 12 February 2014 08: 51
    +2
    Quote: Humpty
    Show the Kazakh map of Kazakhstan before 1924, then confirm.

    To bring enlightenment to the masses is a pleasure for me :-) please - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B
    0_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%B3%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%
    80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F%D0%BC_%D0%B8_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%
    BC_% 281914% 29.jpg? Uselang = en
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. pan_nor
      pan_nor 12 February 2014 09: 31
      +6
      Well, my friend, this is a map of the Russian Empire, not a map of Kazakhstan. Which area do you propose to consider Kazakhstan on it?
      1. saag
        saag 12 February 2014 09: 40
        +1
        Well, as I wrote in the first post, that Kazakhstan did not exist as such, here is the map as an application
    3. homosum20
      homosum20 12 February 2014 14: 07
      +3
      Searched on the specified link Kazakhstan. I apologize - I did not find it.
  • Svetlana
    Svetlana 12 February 2014 09: 05
    +8
    The territory of modern Kazakhstan was part of ancient Scythia, therefore, the current Kazakhs are not the indigenous population of this geographical territory. They have nothing to do with the Scythians. They inhabited these places relatively recently from a historical point of view. Therefore, there can be no talk of any colony in principle.
    1. Onizuka teacher
      Onizuka teacher 12 February 2014 10: 02
      +1
      ... Where does this myth come from? Do you know the story? Then read about the Great Overpopulation of Nations. Yes, and find out what territory the Scythians inhabited and who they are, believe me, you will learn a lot of interesting things. And do not forget about the Saks, there were already THREE strong tribes.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 12 February 2014 11: 11
        +3
        Quote: Teacher Onizuka
        ... Where does this myth come from? Do you know the story?

        The history of this "myth" is paleogenetics. There are no ancient Mongoloid sites in the post-Soviet space, there are only Indo-Europeans (and Indo-Europeans in Russia and the former USSR are Russians), representatives of the Mongoloid race came here (including to the territory of present-day Kazakhstan) after the Nativity of Christ, in our era.
        In defense of the Kazakhs, I want to say that they are not pure Mongoloids, a mixed nation of Rus (white race) with representatives of the Mongoloid race.
        And the fact that Kazakhstan and Russia says that the rest of the Kazakhs do not share your views are not considered Russian colonialists.
        1. Onizuka teacher
          Onizuka teacher 12 February 2014 12: 56
          +3
          Quote: Setrac
          In defense of the Kazakhs, I want to say that they are not pure Mongoloids, a mixed nation of Rus (white race) with representatives of the Mongoloid race.

          Rave. How do you imagine that? The Huns took women, the slaves of men were not needed, they ate a lot. The Huns from the Saks who were Indo-Europeans left only the name. Then there was a union of nomadic tribes led by Genghis Khan. And where is it on the territory of Kazakhstan
          Quote: Setrac
          a mixed nation of Russes (white race) with representatives of the Mongoloid race.
          occurred?
          Quote: Setrac
          In defense of the Kazakhs

          Kazakhs called all the inhabitants of Kazakhstan, and these are tribes that did not consider themselves Kazakhs before.
          And there was a question about the indigenous people. Sorry, but Russians were not seen in Siberia until the 17th century, so what? And such a word as a historical concept is extensible.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 12 February 2014 13: 20
            +4
            Quote: Teacher Onizuka
            Sorry, but Russians were not seen in Siberia until the 17th century, so what?

            Paleogenetics says that the Russians in Siberia are an indigenous nation, the sites of ancient people - Indo-Europeans
            1. Onizuka teacher
              Onizuka teacher 12 February 2014 13: 28
              +4
              Quote: Setrac
              Paleogenetics says that the Russians in Siberia are an indigenous nation, the sites of ancient people - Indo-Europeans

              Link, I want to look. To be honest, I did not think that the Khanty are Indo-Europeans.
              Interesting. Seber / Chiber is a Turkic Bashkir / Tatars word meaning beautiful. For example, Lake Chebarkul translated from Tatar means a beautiful lake. Among the ancient Turks, for example, the name Shiber was common, such as the famous Turkic kagan of the 7th century AD - Shibir-Khan, Turk-shad. Shibir is a Mongolian word meaning a marshland covered with birch trees, a forest thicket. It is assumed that during the time of Genghis Khan, the Mongols called the part of the taiga bordering the forest-steppe.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 12 February 2014 13: 44
                +3
                Quote: Teacher Onizuka
                To be honest, I did not think that the Khanty are Indo-Europeans.

                Is this a photograph of the ancient inhabitants of Siberia? Did you hit the past and take photos? What nonsense are you talking about!
                1. Onizuka teacher
                  Onizuka teacher 12 February 2014 14: 10
                  +1
                  Quote: Setrac
                  Is this a photograph of the ancient inhabitants of Siberia? Did you hit the past and take photos? What nonsense are you talking about!

                  Khanty is a native of Siberia. Is not it?
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 12 February 2014 14: 20
                    +3
                    Quote: Teacher Onizuka
                    Khanty is a native of Siberia. Is not it?

                    The Khanty and other Mongoloids came to the territory of Russia at different times starting from about the middle of the first millennium of our era. Prior to this, ONLY Indo-Europeans lived here.
                    1. Onizuka teacher
                      Onizuka teacher 12 February 2014 14: 27
                      +3
                      According to one of the most important theories of settlement, peoples, as you call the Mongoloids, passed through the territory of Siberia to North and then South America. And how many people of May and the Aztecs exist who were clearly not Indo-Europeans? Or maybe these traces were left by the Mongoloids and not the Indo-Europeans?
                      1. Setrac
                        Setrac 12 February 2014 14: 36
                        0
                        Quote: Teacher Onizuka
                        Or maybe these traces were left by the Mongoloids and not the Indo-Europeans?

                        What does the Maya and the Aztecs have to do with it? Your arguments are ridiculous.
                        Quote: Teacher Onizuka
                        According to one of the most important theories of settlement, peoples, as you call the Mongoloids, passed through the territory of Siberia to North and then South America.

                        This is just another theory, unproven. there is no trace of their "passage".
                    2. The comment was deleted.
                  2. Was mammoth
                    Was mammoth 12 February 2014 15: 09
                    +1
                    Quote: Teacher Onizuka

                    Khanty is a native of Siberia. Is not it?

                    Look by surnames - "purebred" Russians. laughing
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. Beck
              Beck 13 February 2014 12: 52
              +2
              Quote: Setrac
              Paleogenetics says that the Russians in Siberia are an indigenous nation, the sites of ancient people - Indo-Europeans


              Do not confuse the general — the Indo-Europeans with the concrete — the Russians.

              Arkaim is the ancient settlement of the Indo-Europeans, but not Russian at all. And the name of the area for some reason is Turkic - Arkaim, such as a dorsal place. And such settlements of Indo-Europeans - Iranian-speaking Aryans, have been excavated hundreds in the territory of Kazakhstan, Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan.

              Until the 1st century, the territory of Kazakhstan, South Siberia, and Central Asia was inhabited by Indo-Europeans - Iranian-speaking Arians. These were Saks, Massagets, Sarmatians, Ephthalites, Sogdians, Tochars, Habomai, etc. In the 1st-6th centuries, these Aryans were assimilated by the Turkish-speaking Hunnic tribes from Mongolia. Russians, on the other hand, began to populate territories already settled by the Turks only since 1582, from the campaign of Yermak.

              And now look at the map of Novosibirsk, Omsk, Orenburg, Chelyabinsk regions - 80% of toponymy (names of localities, rivers, lakes, etc.) are Turkic names.

              And how could it happen that on the "primordially" Russian territories, suddenly the ancient Russian people began to call rivers and lakes in Turkic, and not in Russian. Nonsense.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 13 February 2014 13: 18
                0
                Quote: Beck
                Do not confuse the general — the Indo-Europeans with the concrete — the Russians.

                Do you think the Russians are not Indo-Europeans?

                Quote: Beck
                And how could it happen that on the "primordially" Russian territories, suddenly the ancient Russian people began to call rivers and lakes in Turkic, and not in Russian. Nonsense.

                Where do you see nonses? German toponyms appeared on the territory of Russia, and for example the city of Tolyatti - Italians are probably also the indigenous people of Russia.
                The whole world in Russia is an indigenous people, except for Russians.
                Quote: Beck
                In the 1st-6th centuries, these Aryans were assimilated by the Türkic-speaking Hun tribes who came from the territory of Mongolia.

                That is, when the Turks assimilated the Slavs - this is normal, but as the Slavs - so immediately the invaders and colonialists?
                1. Beck
                  Beck 13 February 2014 13: 48
                  0
                  Quote: Setrac
                  Do you think the Russians are not Indo-Europeans?


                  Quote: Setrac
                  That is, when the Turks assimilated the Slavs - this is normal,


                  I speak without knowledge and without logic, besides not reading to the end. I’m not answering you, but to other people.

                  Indo-Europeans are a common definition. And the Slavs, especially the Russians, are not Iranian-speaking Arians of Indo-European origin at all. And Aryans, linguists called in the 19th century, Iranian-speaking because the speakers of this language are most fully preserved in today's Iran. The Aryans settled South Siberia, Kazakhstan, Central Asia, Xinjian, advanced further through Central Asia and divided into two streams. The first went to the Iranian plateau and assimilated Semitic tribes became the ancestor of the Persians, the current Iranians. The second stream went to northern India and assimilated the local Dravidian tribes became the basis of modern Indians. Sanskrit is also the Indo-European language of the Iranian group. And since the 1st century, the Turks have assimilated the Aryans of Kazakhstan and Central Asia.

                  Based on the foregoing, historical, and your logic, now call the Iranians and Indians Slavs and Russians.

                  And assimilation is not colonization. During assimilation, one nation dissolves in another, transferring to the prevailing part of its customs and language.

                  About a quarter of the Kazakh language consists of Iranian-speaking Aryan words. Nowruz is the New Year's holiday precisely of the Aryans, and not of the Slavs, who passed to the Türks during assimilation.
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 13 February 2014 14: 07
                    0
                    Quote: Beck
                    And the Slavs, especially the Russians, are not Iranian-speaking Arians of Indo-European origin at all.

                    Indo-Europeans in Russia are Russians, for those who think otherwise let psychiatrists do. If it were the Türks, then they were the largest nation in Russia. However, the Türks were also.
                    Quote: Beck
                    Based on the foregoing, historical, and your logic, now call the Iranians and Indians Slavs and Russians.

                    In addition to the actual concept of "Indo-European" there is also such a concept as the Slavic gene.
                    Quote: Beck
                    Nowruz is the New Year's holiday precisely of the Aryans, and not of the Slavs, who passed to the Türks during assimilation.

                    New Year is not a Slavic holiday, it is a Jewish holiday. Literally, Year is God, New God is the God of the Jews.
                    Quote: Beck
                    And assimilation is not colonization. During assimilation, one nation dissolves in another, transferring to the prevailing part of its customs and language.

                    The ancient state on the territory of Russia - the so-called Grand Tartar - according to eyewitnesses was bilingual. What do you answer to this?
                    1. Beck
                      Beck 14 February 2014 00: 03
                      +3
                      Quote: Setrac
                      The ancient state on the territory of Russia - the so-called Grand Tartar - according to eyewitnesses was bilingual. What do you answer to this?


                      I don’t answer to any garbage of a frustrated reason that fell from the bell tower. It’s like trying to rearrange furniture in an empty room. Witnesses - it is necessary, but there are protocols for interviewing eyewitnesses?
        2. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. siberalt
      siberalt 12 February 2014 10: 14
      +7
      Why is it now not comme il faut to talk about the origin of races. Globalists closed this topic under the pretext of propaganda of the fascist "racial theory". What civilization do the Kazakhs consider themselves to be in terms of race? To yellow, white, or a derivative of the first two? And what do nomadic tribes have to do with it when it comes to state entities?
      1. Onizuka teacher
        Onizuka teacher 12 February 2014 10: 23
        +1
        Kazakhs are united tribes, they were called that. Who do they belong to? To the Turkic peoples. This is a cross between Asians and Europeans. And that there were no nomadic state entities in the CA? Written evidence of the state of Sakov, who inhabited the present territory of Kazakhstan, appeared in the middle of the 1st millennium BC. namely Herodotus, then the Turkic Kaganate and so on.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 12 February 2014 11: 16
          +5
          Quote: Teacher Onizuka
          This is a cross between Asians and Europeans.

          Your ignorance is simply amazing who these "Asians" are, clarify what you mean by this word.
          Quote: Teacher Onizuka
          Written evidence of the state of Sakov, who inhabited the present territory of Kazakhstan, appeared in the middle of the 1st millennium BC. namely Herodotus, then the Turkic Kaganate and so on.

          In nature, there is NONE a written document before approximately the 8th – 9th centuries of OUR era, anticipating your ridicule I will say right away, ofigel himself.
          1. Onizuka teacher
            Onizuka teacher 12 February 2014 12: 39
            0
            Quote: Setrac
            NOT ONE written document

            Documents?
            I'll just write
            Quote: Setrac
            Your ignorance is simply amazing

            Quote: Setrac
            who are these "Asians"

            This is a collective name for the indigenous population of Asia, as well as immigrants from the Asian part of the Eurasian continent, regardless of racial, religious, national or linguistic affiliation.
            And more
            Quote: Setrac
            Your ignorance is simply amazing
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Onizuka teacher
            Onizuka teacher 12 February 2014 13: 02
            +2
            Quote: Setrac
            In nature, there is NONE a written document before approximately the 8th – 9th centuries of OUR era, anticipating your ridicule I will say right away, ofigel himself.

            The most ancient books, and they are essentially a document from those found on Earth, are accounting books of the third king of the Fifth Dynasty Neferirkar Kakai. These hieratic papyruses date from around 2400 BC and were found in Abusir. Delete your text.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 12 February 2014 13: 24
              +3
              Quote: Teacher Onizuka
              The most ancient books from those discovered on Earth are accounting books of the third king of the Fifth Dynasty Neferirkar Kakai. These hieratic papyruses date from around 2400 BC and were found in Abusir. Delete your text.

              Books drawn (according to Zadornov - gain more air) on the walls of the pyramids. here you can judge the age of the stone, but not the age of the inscription.
              What kind of mess do you write? Delete your text.
              1. Onizuka teacher
                Onizuka teacher 12 February 2014 13: 32
                +2
                Quote: Setrac
                Books drawn (according to Zadornov - gain more air) on the walls of the pyramids. here you can judge the age of the stone, but not the age of the inscription. What kind of mess do you write? Delete your text.

                I clearly explained to you that the records were not on stone but on papyrus. The oldest Greek book was found there, in Abusir. It happened during the excavations in 1902 - in the cemetery, next to the mummy of the deceased Greek, a scroll-shaped fragment of Timothy Miletus's poem "The Persians" was found. The document dates back to about 450-360 BC and is in ancient Greek. In addition, this ancient book is a scroll papyrus, while Kakai's books were kept on sheet papyrus. I ask you not to carry ACHINA. What STONE?
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 12 February 2014 13: 49
                  +3
                  Quote: Teacher Onizuka
                  I clearly explained to you that the notes were not on stone but on papyrus.

                  So I disappoint you, the papyrus cannot be stored for MILLENNIUM, you are being deceived. It is so difficult to store in ideal conditions, however, like paper. In what such TOP ideal conditions did your papyrus lay before it was found to have survived for several thousand years?
                  1. Onizuka teacher
                    Onizuka teacher 12 February 2014 14: 21
                    +2
                    Quote: Setrac
                    So I disappoint you, the papyrus cannot be stored for MILLENNIUM, you are being deceived. It is so difficult to store in ideal conditions, however, like paper. In what such TOP ideal conditions did your papyrus lay before it was found to have survived for several thousand years?

                    If you think so, then the mummy of a person is DECEPTION! How did a human corpse survive for several thousand years? Riddles ... Scientists are fools and here is Setrac SAGE! Read the properties of papyrus, such papyrus was made by ANCIENT Egyptians and this technology is lost. What was revived in the 20th century by Dr. Ragab is a fake and a copy, the secret was lost at the end of the era of Roman rule. And according to your conclusions, were Homer’s poems written recently?
                    1. Setrac
                      Setrac 12 February 2014 14: 43
                      +4
                      Quote: Teacher Onizuka
                      And according to your conclusions, were Homer’s poems written recently?

                      Is there an original written by the author during his lifetime in the world? Oh no, well, no, and no trial.
                      Quote: Teacher Onizuka
                      If you think so, then the mummy of a person is DECEPTION!

                      Mummies wrapped in parchment?
                      Quote: Teacher Onizuka
                      How did a human corpse survive for several thousand years?

                      Do not be fooled, the human corpse is NOT PRESERVED, it has dried and decayed.
                      Quote: Teacher Onizuka
                      Read the properties of papyrus, such papyrus was made by ANCIENT Egyptians and this technology is lost.

                      How easily everything is explained by "lost technologies". historians should perpetuate the "lost technologies" in the monument, because they so easily justify the ignorance of these very historians. And historians also need to erect a monument to an unknown nomad, during whose raid these technologies were "lost".
                  2. The comment was deleted.
              2. The comment was deleted.
          4. The comment was deleted.
        2. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 12 February 2014 11: 43
          +2
          Quote: Teacher Onizuka
          Kazakhs are united tribes, they were called so

          Kazakhstan in Kazakh - KazaКmill. Don't you find this coincidence interesting?
          1. Onizuka teacher
            Onizuka teacher 12 February 2014 12: 45
            +2
            The original homeland of the Cossacks is considered to be the line of Russian fortress cities bordering the steppe, which went from the middle Volga to Ryazan and Tula, then abruptly breaking to the south and resting on the Dnieper along the lines of Putivl and Pereyaslav.
            But in fact, when Dzhanybek and Kerey migrated from Abulkhair Khan of the Blue Horde, all the tribes that left with them were called Kazakhs, that is, in translation an outcast, who left, separated.
            1. Was mammoth
              Was mammoth 12 February 2014 15: 16
              +1
              Quote: Teacher Onizuka
              The original homeland of the Cossacks is considered to be the line of Russian fortress cities bordering the steppe, which went from the middle Volga to Ryazan and Tula,

              When I first learned that Ryazan can be considered the "homeland of Russian" Cossacks, I was stunned. wink
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Was mammoth
            Was mammoth 12 February 2014 15: 14
            +3
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            Kazakhstan

            Do not confuse letters. How Kazakhs will go to the Latin alphabet, you will not find matches smile
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • siberalt
    siberalt 12 February 2014 09: 05
    +5
    The article is very useful for understanding the essence of the entire historical development of statehood. Namely: rethinking of some fundamental dogmatic ideas about this. In any case, it is the continental empire - the highest stage of statehood. So it is organized on the principle of collecting lands and peoples without elements of enslavement and exploitation. There are authoritative opinions based on basic research on the myth of the Roman Empire with its stillborn Latin. But this is a separate conversation. It’s just the time to rethink many concepts, meanings and create new terminological tools. Unfortunately, the pressure of the guards is increasing.
  • Was mammoth
    Was mammoth 12 February 2014 09: 18
    +15
    Did Russia have colonies? It depends on what is the point of investing in the definition. And how to consider the historical result of the annexation of lands to Russia. Everyone sees this in the "measure of their depravity." Political. And the presence of an appetite in the form of "bonuses". The Balts are all trying to present the bill. wink And not only the Baltic states.
    Quote: Clegg
    Yes, Kazakhstan.

    It is not surprising if Nazarbayev scandalously claims that the Kazakhs almost disappeared from the face of the Earth thanks to Russia. belay I believe the opposite - only thanks to Russia, Kazakhs live on the earth. And even in their own state. But now stand out. Before the renaming of the state they thought, cities and streets seemed a little wink
    I think that if we consider the level of economic, cultural, political development of the annexed lands, yes. All annexed lands were lower in development. And in this sense, Russian colonialists, people often with a different culture. Alaska was definitely a colony.
    On the other hand. The highest "caste" of Russia - the nobility only half consisted of Russians. This is where it can be imagined, except for Russia. The rest were Kazakhs and Germans, Poles and Georgians .... In the provinces (colonies) there was local self-government, and there was no serfdom .... Also, except for Russia, you will not find "colonizers" worse than the oppressed live. Gradually the economic and cultural development of the outskirts.
    The claims of the now independent and independent can be characterized by the proverb: "He won't see a log in his own eye, he will notice a speck in someone else's."
    PS One of the colonizers. Miklouho-Maclay N.N. is one of the most cruel and greedy. Anyone can continue the list.
    Article plus for attempting objectivity.
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 12 February 2014 09: 46
      +15
      And the Russian colonizers gave the Indians infected with smallpox blankets, killed buffalo and sepoys from guns shot ...
      1. Bene valete
        Bene valete 12 February 2014 13: 34
        +2
        )))) So if you did, then believe me, now there would be a Great Powerful Russia and we wouldn’t hear how much more bullshit ...!))))
        Caught in the steppes, washed, extinguished epidemics (not sparing himself), they invented the story, learned, the state invented and the result ... (((
        And it should have been easier, like the Yankees, a dozen blankets with smallpox ... and now they would have remained a Super Power! And all the "guys" would serve tourists like Indians for cigarettes ...)))
        1. Was mammoth
          Was mammoth 12 February 2014 14: 03
          +1
          Quote: Bene valete
          And it was easier as the Yankees ....

          You, of course, thought well before writing.
          I set a minus. Just think, why Russian puts you minus.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • My address
    My address 12 February 2014 09: 39
    +13
    A little about the Russian "colony" - Kazakhstan. From the stories of the first mother-in-law.

    The Kazakhs have sacred land and they did not develop it. The Kazakh could go to his death, but he would refuse to dig the pit or go down to the mine. Of course, there were only a few, but only a few who were not afraid to offend the land. Therefore, before and during the war, Russians, Ukrainians, Volga Germans, etc. worked in the mines and in construction. The mother-in-law was a repressed person. A girl worked on a trolley in a mine near Karaganda. With the 38-39, the conditions of work and the lives of the exiled migrants improved, but they were worse than those of the indigenous population. Even freelance (or as they called?) Lived worse than the Kazakhs - in dugouts, with poor nutrition. Mother-in-law said that the Kazakhs were jealous. True, the Kazakhs used to help with food.

    Conclusion: Kazakhstan in the 30 and 40 of the last century was a colony, with the following oppressed nationalities - Russians, Ukrainians, Germans.
    1. My address
      My address 12 February 2014 10: 21
      +8
      More about touchiness in Russian.

      After the revolution in Kazakhstan, teaching was conducted in Russian because there was NO ABC IN KAZAKH. This alphabet was developed by the Russians later on the instructions of the "satrap" Stalin.

      This is normal when a senior helps the younger. This junior, becoming the eldest, should start helping the next junior. When the younger, matured, decry his elder, his name is JUDAH. am

      FOREIGNERS enlightened Cyril and Methodius to Russia, but it did not occur to anyone in Russia to accuse them, as various Baltic States are now defying Russia.

      Is not a great nation in Russia drinks , with different nationalities?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Onizuka teacher
        Onizuka teacher 12 February 2014 10: 30
        +1
        Quote: My address
        that there was no alphabet in kazakh.

        Was, but swam away.
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 12 February 2014 11: 48
          +7
          This is not Kazakh, it is Arabic script and Latin letters. hi
          1. Onizuka teacher
            Onizuka teacher 12 February 2014 13: 04
            +1
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            This is not Kazakh, it is Arabic script and Latin letters.

            Alas, it was Farsi and Arabic that were used in the SA as a written language.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. homosum20
            homosum20 12 February 2014 14: 13
            +3
            You are absolutely right:
            "At different times and in different places, different writing systems have been used and are still used for the Kazakh language:
            Kazakh Cyrillic alphabet - officially used in the Republic of Kazakhstan and aimak Bayan-Ulgiy of Mongolia. It is also used by the Kazakh population of the regions of Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan adjacent to Kazakhstan, and the diaspora in other countries of the former USSR.
            Arabic alphabet - officially used in the People's Republic of China on the territory of the Altai and Tarbagatai aimags of the Ili-Kazakh Autonomous Region of the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. Also used by the Kazakh diaspora in Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan.
            The Latin alphabet is based on the Turkish alphabet and is used unofficially by the Kazakh diaspora in Turkey. Also, the Kazakh diaspora uses surrogate Latin letters in Germany, the USA and other Western countries. "Wikipedia.
            The Kazakh alphabet has never been.
          4. Refugee from Kazakhstan
            Refugee from Kazakhstan 12 February 2014 15: 03
            +4
            My grandfather wrote to the grandmother from the front in Arabic so that the NKVD would not read!
            1. Was mammoth
              Was mammoth 12 February 2014 15: 25
              +4
              Quote: RK refugee
              My grandfather wrote to the grandmother from the front in Arabic so that the NKVD would not read!

              In the 70s on agricultural work, I came across the fact that the clerk wrote in Arabic. The whole East previously wrote in Arabic. The only question is how many were literate.
              PS Grandfather respect with all my heart. (Poor Specialists trying to decrypt a letter from the front wink )
          5. alone
            alone 12 February 2014 21: 59
            +1
            Quote: Ingvar 72
            This is not Kazakh, it is Arabic script and Latin letters.

            All Muslim peoples wrote in their own language using the Arabic alphabet.
        2. pRofF
          12 February 2014 12: 14
          +6
          Let's get a look. According to publicly available information, originally the Kazakh alphabet originated from runic writing (the so-called Orkhon-Yenisei alphabet) —that is about VIII - X century, then under the influence of Arab-Muslim culture - the alphabet appeared, which you represented in the picture ... By the way, I found out,
          Kazakhs living in China still continue to use modified Arabic graphics in the media and partly in the education system

          Between 1929 and 1940, the alphabet based on the Latin script was in use.
          The alphabet you use now is based on Cyrillic — starting with 1940, but in 2012, you decided to switch back to Latin.

          So what we have.
          1.Alphabet you had. And constantly changing. Depending on the conjuncture, I would say.
          2. You decided to bring back the Latin font. Again, the conjuncture has changed?
          3. Well, then why should I just petty - return the runic right away smile
          1. Onizuka teacher
            Onizuka teacher 12 February 2014 13: 16
            +3
            Quote: pRofF
            Well then, why nothing small - return the runic immediately

            Runic is already lost. Restoring is difficult, long and terribly not convenient.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Clegg
            Clegg 12 February 2014 13: 20
            -3
            Quote: pRofF
            You decided to return the Latin font back.

            The actions regarding writing at the beginning were taken by the colonial regime, therefore blaming us for market conditions is not correct.

            Quote: pRofF
            .Well then why trifle - immediately return the runic

            I am for Latin
            1. pRofF
              12 February 2014 14: 27
              +5
              Actions about writing at the beginning were taken by the colonial regime, therefore accusing us of conjunctuality is not correct.


              Hm That is, according to your words, it turns out that you were colonized by all and sundry? First the runes, then the Arabic (damned colonialists!), Then the Latin, then the Cyrillic ... Then you shouldn’t blame us for colonialism smile
              By the way, since you are in favor of the Latin alphabet, it was also used from 1929 to 1940, i.e. introduced it again - in your words - "colonial regime". And now you have decided to return to it - again in the "colonial past"? Where is your pride? request
              And I am waiting for your article.
              1. Clegg
                Clegg 12 February 2014 14: 42
                -6
                Quote: pRofF
                First runes, then Arabic (damned colonialists!), Then Latin, then Cyrillic ... Then you don’t need to blame us for colonialism

                I believe that Islam played a very positive role in the history of the Kazakhs, it was Islam that was able to stop Russification.
                Therefore, I will only accuse you of colonialism))) I'm sorry

                Quote: pRofF
                and, by the way, since you are in favor of the Latin alphabet, it was also used from 1929 to 1940, i.e. introduced it again - in your words - "colonial regime".

                I responded to market conditions, the Kremlin had the last word.

                This question is not strange that the writing of the Armenians and Georgians did not touch, but the Turks were changed? How to explain this fact?
                1. Ingvar 72
                  Ingvar 72 12 February 2014 15: 05
                  +3
                  Quote: Clegg
                  is it not strange that the writing of the Armenians and Georgians was not touched, but they changed the Turks?

                  There its own writing was present, and not brought Arabic script and Latin. We just replaced the Latin alphabet with the Cyrillic alphabet, since the Latin alphabet is not native Kazakh.hi
                  1. Clegg
                    Clegg 12 February 2014 15: 28
                    +3
                    Quote: Ingvar 72
                    We just replaced the Latin alphabet with the Cyrillic alphabet, since the Latin alphabet is not native Kazakh.

                    Well, here I am about the same thing, you have decided everything for us)))
                    1. 11111mail.ru
                      11111mail.ru 12 February 2014 18: 18
                      +4
                      Quote: Clegg
                      Well, here I am about the same thing, you have decided everything for us

                      I dare not argue with you, you are our highly educated fighter against colonialism, but tell us to the unenlightened, what works written by a) runes; b) in Arabic characters, b) in the Latin alphabet - did you glorify your "titular" nationality (don't touch the Cyrillic alphabet!)?
                      1. Clegg
                        Clegg 12 February 2014 18: 30
                        0
                        Quote: 11111mail.ru
                        however, tell us unenlightened which works written by b) Arabic characters,

                        Al-Farabi, look for information about him.
                      2. 11111mail.ru
                        11111mail.ru 12 February 2014 19: 59
                        +2
                        Quote: Clegg
                        Al-farabi

                        Yes, undoubtedly the article "Al" indicates that the author was a true Kazakh. You, in the Kazakh language, is it probably very common?
                2. Yeraz
                  Yeraz 12 February 2014 15: 44
                  +1
                  Quote: Ingvar 72
                  There its own writing was present, and not brought Arabic script and Latin. We just replaced the Latin alphabet with the Cyrillic alphabet, since the Latin alphabet is not native Kazakh.

                  No, everything is simple. It was just necessary to ensure that Muslims were torn off about the Ottoman Empire. Arabic writing and language are the basis of Islam. And a Muslim from India could write and speak with a Muslim from anywhere in the Islamic world. And when the foundation is removed, the connection disappears .
                  But that was then. And the Cossacks will soon move to the Latin alphabet and the Turkic world will become closer. It would be great if the leaders finally had the will to create one Türkic language taught in all schools, but alas, no will, and many countries around will be very against.
                  1. Clegg
                    Clegg 12 February 2014 15: 49
                    -2
                    Quote: Yeraz
                    But that was then. And the Cossacks will soon move to the Latin alphabet and the Turkic world will become closer.

                    After our transition, the Kyrgyz will also move. And then we look at the Kypshaks who are now part of the Russian Federation.
                    1. Setrac
                      Setrac 12 February 2014 15: 54
                      +1
                      Quote: Clegg
                      After our transition, the Kyrgyz will also move. And then we look at the Kypshaks who are now part of the Russian Federation.

                      Do you think the transition of Kazakhstan to the Latin alphabet will be a turning point in history?
                      Soon a new redivision of the world will begin, the Third World War, THERE IS THEN AND LOOK.
                    2. Yeraz
                      Yeraz 12 February 2014 16: 06
                      +2
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Do you think the transition of Kazakhstan to the Latin alphabet will be a turning point in history?

                      No, but this will be a step towards the rapprochement of the Turks. Nothing more.
                    3. Setrac
                      Setrac 12 February 2014 16: 13
                      +3
                      Quote: Yeraz
                      No, but this will be a step towards the rapprochement of the Turks. Nothing more.

                      But does Kazakhstan need such a rapprochement? Are you sure that Turkey is more important for Kazakhstan than Russia? Have you fully appreciated the consequences of such a rapprochement?
                      The Maidanites are pulling Ukraine into the European Union, and the Zurkanites are pulling Kazakhstan into a pan-Turkic union. The consequences will be lonely.
                    4. Yeraz
                      Yeraz 12 February 2014 16: 27
                      +2
                      Quote: Setrac
                      But does Kazakhstan need such a rapprochement? Are you sure that Turkey is more important for Kazakhstan than Russia?

                      And what does Turkey have to do with it ?? I talked about the whole Turkic world. If the writing system is on one it will be easier. This is a rapprochement of people.
                      Quote: Setrac
                      The Maidanites are pulling Ukraine into the European Union, and the Zurkanites are pulling Kazakhstan into a pan-Turkic union. The consequences will be lonely.

                      completely different things. Turkey does not pull anyone into a Pantyurian cos, right now Turkey is the least Pantyrian. Right now, these trends are strong in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. Turkey is no longer the same.
                    5. Setrac
                      Setrac 12 February 2014 16: 45
                      +1
                      Quote: Yeraz
                      This is a rapprochement of people.

                      It brings some together, while others it corrodes.
                    6. Yeraz
                      Yeraz 12 February 2014 16: 50
                      +1
                      Quote: Setrac
                      It brings some together, while others it corrodes.

                      Türks will bring down, this is the main thing.
                    7. Setrac
                      Setrac 12 February 2014 17: 03
                      +4
                      Quote: Yeraz
                      Türks will bring down, this is the main thing.

                      Well, why are you sitting in St. Petersburg? Go to Turkey, Peter will not become Turkic anyway. Who are you? What are you like? Why are you sitting in Russia on behalf of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan against Russia, for Turkey? Explain your two-faced behavior!
                    8. Yeraz
                      Yeraz 12 February 2014 17: 18
                      -2
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Well, why are you sitting in St. Petersburg?

                      Maybe because mine shed blood for this city and I grew up here
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Go to Turkey, Peter will not become Turkic anyway.

                      I’m going there already. And why does Peter become Turkic ???
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Who are you? What are you like? Why are you sitting in Russia on behalf of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan against Russia, for Turkey? Explain your two-faced behavior!

                      Hey nerd. I’m not going to express my opinion and ask for your permission. Russia has colonized and it’s true.
                      Now it is clear ??? Live further in your illusion world with a furry one that has not captured anyone with the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union.
                    9. Setrac
                      Setrac 12 February 2014 17: 28
                      +1
                      Quote: Yeraz
                      Hey nerd. I have the right to express my opinion and ask for your permission I’m not going to.

                      The competent authorities will understand what you have the right to and what not. soldier You cannot justify your anti-Russian rhetoric.
                      Quote: Yeraz
                      Live further in your illusion world with a furry one that has not captured anyone with the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union.

                      In my "illusory" world, Russia is surrounded by enemies, and you are among them.
                      Quote: Yeraz
                      Maybe because mine shed blood for this city and I grew up here

                      For whom will you personally shed your blood, for Turkey? Why is Russia an enemy for you? Here it is not necessary about pink and fluffy, specifically you hate Russia because ....?
                    10. Yeraz
                      Yeraz 12 February 2014 17: 37
                      0
                      Quote: Setrac
                      The competent authorities will understand what you have the right to and what not.

                      Please.
                      Quote: Setrac
                      You cannot justify your anti-Russian rhetoric.

                      say that Tsarist Russia and the Soviets have colonized there is an anti-Russian position .... well, I have never seen such a thing in the laws of the Russian Federation))
                      Quote: Setrac
                      In my "illusory" world, Russia is surrounded by enemies, and you are among them.

                      Congratulations.
                      Quote: Setrac
                      For whom will you personally shed your blood, for Turkey?

                      For Turkey, for Kazakhstan and the entire Turkic world, and for the Islamic world.
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Why is Russia an enemy for you?

                      What does Russia ???
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Here it is not necessary about pink and fluffy, specifically you hate Russia because ....?

                      .
                    11. Setrac
                      Setrac 12 February 2014 17: 43
                      +5
                      Quote: Yeraz
                      For Turkey, for Kazakhstan and the entire Turkic world, and for the Islamic world.

                      Quote: Yeraz
                      What does Russia have to do with it ???

                      Despite the fact that you are campaigning here for the separation of Kazakhstan from the Russian world in favor of the Turkic. Turkey is a member of NATO, an enemy of Russia, you have just openly admitted that in case of conflict you will betray Russia in favor of Turkey and NATO. So why do you live in Russia? Maybe you are a spy? Agent of influence? Are you afraid of homosexuals? What is the reason?
                    12. 3935333
                      3935333 12 February 2014 17: 49
                      +2
                      he is the fifth column! they already met Hitler on a white horse, there are few of them, but they are always and everywhere! Peter, in particular, suffers from a dominance of intellectuals, now according to a pan-European trend with East-Arab names!
                    13. Yeraz
                      Yeraz 12 February 2014 17: 58
                      +1
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Despite the fact that you are campaigning here for the separation of Kazakhstan from the Russian world in favor of the Turkic.

                      Well, it would be strange for me to think differently in a Turk !!!
                      Quote: Setrac
                      . Turkey is a member of NATO, an enemy of Russia,

                      Why are you clinging to Turkey. The Turkic world is not composed of Turkey and not the Turks are the most numerous neither in territory nor in population.

                      Quote: Setrac
                      You have just openly admitted that in case of conflict you will betray Russia in favor of Turkey and NATO.

                      You said for whom I will shed. And I answered for the Turkic and Muslim world (in the case of the Muslim there will be clarifications for the Persians and I won’t do some others)
                      Ash stump if Russia will fight with Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, I will burn my Russian passport.
                      Quote: Setrac
                      So why do you live in Russia?

                      because it grew up here.
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Maybe you are a spy?

                      and you?
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Agent of influence?

                      and you?
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Are you afraid of homosexuals?

                      hahahah, here you surprised me. That you popped Turkey for no reason, but you could somehow explain, But what does GOMOSEKI have to do with this ???
                    14. Setrac
                      Setrac 12 February 2014 20: 30
                      +1
                      Quote: Yeraz
                      Why are you clinging to Turkey. The Turkic world is not composed of Turkey and not the Turks are the most numerous neither in territory nor in population.

                      And who are those mysterious, of whom there are more Turks than in Turkey?
                    15. alone
                      alone 12 February 2014 22: 05
                      +1
                      You have a mania to search for enemies. In this case, look where they are not!
                    16. Setrac
                      Setrac 12 February 2014 22: 39
                      +1
                      Quote: lonely
                      You have a mania to search for enemies. In this case, look where they are not!

                      This is not the answer, which country has more Turks than Turkey?
                    17. alone
                      alone 12 February 2014 23: 04
                      +2
                      Turks are Turks, wherever he lives. Living in a country does not solve anything. Also, this does not mean that if I live in Russia, and the Turks ethnically, culturally moving closer to the Turks from Turkey, I’m going to transfer part of Russia to Turkey. Russian living in America have the right to maintain cultural and moral relations with Russia or not? Are Russians living in America considered to be part of the Russian people? Answer if possible briefly on these questions.
            2. Clegg
              Clegg 12 February 2014 17: 58
              -2
              Quote: Setrac
              Despite the fact that you are campaigning here for the separation of Kazakhstan from the Russian world in favor of the Turkic.

              Kazakhstan is a part of the Turkic world. You are nonsense, and what Russian world do you write?

              Turkey means a lot to me, and the fact that you consider them enemies is your problem. In the event of a conflict between the Russian Federation and Turkey, my sympathies are with the Turks.
            3. Setrac
              Setrac 12 February 2014 18: 03
              +1
              Quote: Clegg
              In the event of a conflict between the Russian Federation and Turkey, my sympathies are with the Turks.

              The question was rhetorical, I knew this from the very beginning.
              Quote: Yeraz
              Ash stump if Russia will fight with Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, I will burn my Russian passport.

              And if the war is between Turkey (as a member of NATO) and Russia. After all, it is clear that Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan in this conflict will be on the side of Russia against the West.
            4. Clegg
              Clegg 12 February 2014 18: 14
              0
              Quote: Setrac
              After all, it is clear that Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan in this conflict will be on the side of Russia against the West.

              Not uniquely
            5. Yeraz
              Yeraz 12 February 2014 18: 22
              +3
              Quote: Setrac
              After all, it is clear that Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan in this conflict will be on the side of Russia against the West.

              yeah, the Azerbaijanis will kill the Turks having their own state ?? In the courtyard of the 21st century, and Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are not part of the Russian Federation, where they will be taken away and sent to the front. Specifically, no one will fight against the Turks.
            6. Setrac
              Setrac 12 February 2014 20: 16
              0
              Quote: Yeraz
              Specifically, no one will fight against the Turks.

              This will happen when the Americans begin to build an Islamic state in Turkey, I will pay attention, not if, but when. Do you agree that Azerbaijan should be Islamic, not secular?

              What will Azerbaijan do when Iran creates an atomic bomb and decides to restore the integrity of its state - to return northern Azerbaijan to the bosom of Persian civilization.
            7. Yeraz
              Yeraz 12 February 2014 20: 21
              +1
              Quote: Setrac
              Do you agree that Azerbaijan should be Islamic, not secular?

              of course I agree. we are Muslims and our religion is Islam. The secular state perverts the society. There may be one device state national traditions along with Islam. Let secularity, gay lesbians promote it at home.
              Quote: Setrac
              What will Azerbaijan do when Iran creates an atomic bomb and decides to restore the integrity of its state - to return northern Azerbaijan to the bosom of Persian civilization.

              And what does it mean ?? what manner of downloading from one topic to another ??
            8. Setrac
              Setrac 12 February 2014 20: 32
              +2
              Quote: Yeraz
              national traditions along with Islam. Let secularity, gay lesbians promote at home.

              At the same time, Turkey is a secular state.
              Quote: Yeraz
              And what does it mean ?? what manner of downloading from one topic to another ??

              I want to say that everything will not be black and white, you have to choose between bad and bad, and not between good and bad.
            9. Yeraz
              Yeraz 12 February 2014 21: 52
              +1
              Quote: Setrac
              At the same time, Turkey is a secular state.

              And Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan have secular states. But on the example of Turkey, we see that there is nothing in tune with the good. The Turks are Europeanized, the birth rate is small unlike the Kurds, soon the Turks will be a minority in their own country, etc.
              The main thing is that laws are respected, and then Islam and traditions have more advantages.
            10. Setrac
              Setrac 12 February 2014 22: 41
              0
              Quote: Yeraz
              The main thing is that laws are respected, and then Islam and traditions have more advantages.

              Not the Islam that you see in the mosque will come to your house. The Islam that we observe in Syria, which is sponsored by the United States, will come to your house, rest assured, you DO NOT LIKE it.
            11. Yeraz
              Yeraz 13 February 2014 00: 11
              +1
              Quote: Setrac
              The Islam that we observe in Syria, which is sponsored by the United States, will come to your house, rest assured, you DO NOT LIKE it.

              You are not a psychic to know what will come. And the fact that in Syria it is not Islam, but I'm talking about Islam.
            12. Setrac
              Setrac 13 February 2014 00: 16
              +3
              Quote: Yeraz
              You are not a psychic to know what will come. And the fact that in Syria it is not Islam, but I'm talking about Islam.

              What does the "psychic" have to do with it, the Islam that the US exports, the one in Syria, will come to you.
  • SkiF_RnD
    SkiF_RnD 13 February 2014 04: 12
    +2
    Does Kazakhstan know that it will not fight the Turks? Turkey is the historical enemy of Armenia. Armenia is in the CSTO, with Russia. Turkey to NATO. But Kazakhstan is also in the CSTO. How will he, together with Turkey, fight against Russia, being with Turkey in two different, hostile military blocs? It seems to me that some on this site are taking too much on themselves. If the Kazakhs fought against the Kazakhs, they obviously will not refuse to fight against the Turks. It's about the reason. Whom to protect and why, what is the benefit, whose interests. In fact, nationality and race do not decide anything, the one who thinks so is strongly at odds with reality. Even the fascist Third Reich "was friends" only with true Aryans. Hungarians, Romanians, Italians, ... Japanese laughing ... He was friends against non-Aryan Britain, France (which is no less Aryan than Italy and the Reich), the Soviet Union. What can we say about other military alliances? The declared values ​​have never been more than a disguise for states. What is the struggle for democracy against Iraq and then Syria allied with Saudi Arabia and Qatar? The value is freedom for people. An ally is a religious and totalitarian state, an absolute monarchy. Excellent. The entire ideological canvas is adjusted to the current reality, not vice versa. So your dreams will remain dreams, like the dreams of Russians about Serbia, brothers-Slavs, like the dreams of other nationalists. If it becomes profitable and generally expedient, yes, anything will happen. Also make friends with the Japanese. And with Turkey, and with the Persians, and with the Africans. As blasphemous as it sounds to you, history speaks in favor of this point of view. By the way, are you probably sick of the idea that Russia and Kazakhstan are in a union? That Slavs and Turks are friends? In fact, the friendship between the Turks and the Slavs is thousands of years old. At the time of the great migration of peoples, the southern Slavs were generally present in Europe in general as part of the Turkic-Slavic military-political alliances. Bulgaria in principle emerged as a Turkic-Slavic state. The Eastern Slavs were often in alliance with the Scythians, with other nomads. It's funny that many people today think it strange that some princes "brought the nasty to Russia." Yes, these "filthy" even lived in Russia laughing http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D1%91%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BA%D0%BB%D


    0%BE%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%BA%D0%B8

    And not necessarily in a subordinate position. The princes married the daughters of the khans and gave their daughters for them. Türks and Slavs fought together when against the Turks, and when against the Slavs smile In the meantime, we will dream together about the State of All Rus and the Great Turkic Kaganate ...
  • Clegg
    Clegg 12 February 2014 17: 40
    0
    Quote: Setrac
    Here it is not necessary about pink and fluffy, specifically you hate Russia because ....?

    Iron logic)))))) I allegedly "spit" and eraz "hates" Russia, because we believe that Russia colonized Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan?)))))))
  • Setrac
    Setrac 12 February 2014 17: 50
    +1
    Quote: Clegg
    colonized

    Apparently we will not figure it out until you (both) tell me what you mean by the word "colonized", and how this word differs from the same concept in the West.
  • Clegg
    Clegg 12 February 2014 18: 17
    -2
    Quote: Setrac
    Quote: Clegg
    colonized

    Apparently we will not figure it out until you (both) tell me what you mean by the word "colonized", and how this word differs from the same concept in the West.

    I repeat, you are the colonialists and the West (British, French, Spaniards), too, the difference is that YOU COLONIZED us, not the West. Clear?
  • Setrac
    Setrac 12 February 2014 20: 19
    +1
    Quote: Clegg
    the differences are that YOU were COLONIZED, not the west. Clear

    So you don't see the difference for the "indigenous" peoples?
    In order to understand how wrong you are, compare Kazakhstan with the US reserves.
  • alone
    alone 12 February 2014 22: 07
    -1
    Quote: Setrac
    Apparently we will not figure it out until you (both) tell me what you mean by the word "colonized", and how this word differs from the same concept in the West.

    Who are you to report to you?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Apollo
    Apollo 12 February 2014 23: 03
    +2
    Quote: Setrac
    Setrac

    Quote: lonely
    alone

    I’m deleting your comments. What hope do you have in mind ?! The hope is clear.
  • alone
    alone 12 February 2014 23: 12
    +2
    More than clear))) hi
  • Setrac
    Setrac 12 February 2014 23: 21
    0
    Quote: lonely
    More than clear)))

    Abidnaaaaa, removal had to start with

    Quote: lonely
    Who are you to report to you?


    And yet, I did not have time to read the answer.

    But seriously - why got into a conversation if I’m nobody and I can’t call me in any way?
  • alone
    alone 12 February 2014 23: 26
    0
    Quote: Setrac
    Abidnaaaaa, removal had to start with

    Perhaps to Apollo this may also be removed. bully
  • Setrac
    Setrac 12 February 2014 23: 30
    0
    Quote: lonely
    Perhaps to Apollo this may also be removed.

    I regret more that the answer did not have time to see laughing Did not have time to check out the "syllable".
  • Setrac
    Setrac 12 February 2014 23: 19
    +2
    Quote: lonely
    Who are you to report to you?

    A citizen of Russia, liable for military service, is not tried. I am one of those who will be drafted into the Russian army to protect all the "former" who are now confident in their independence.
  • alone
    alone 12 February 2014 23: 25
    0
    Quote: Setrac
    a citizen of Russia, liable for military service, is not tried. I am one of those who will be drafted into the Russian army to protect all the "former" who are now confident in their independence.


    Those who are confident in their independence do not need someone else’s protection services, and those who need, even report to you.
  • SkiF_RnD
    SkiF_RnD 13 February 2014 06: 13
    +1
    Yes, do not need. Russia just does not need. CSTO for the survival of just RK needed. For Russia it is important, but not fatal. So on the face again empty bragging.
  • smersh70
    smersh70 12 February 2014 17: 17
    -1
    Quote: Yeraz
    Türks will bring down, this is the main thing.

    Do not get nervous Setraca laughing he hates us anyway, plus teasing him laughing
    Quote: Yeraz
    Peter will not become Turkic anyway

    Yes, do not be afraid, no one against St. Petersburg is intriguing!))
  • Setrac
    Setrac 12 February 2014 17: 30
    +3
    Quote: smersh70
    Don’t get nervous Setraca he already hates us, plus you tease him

    I am calm? I am trying to understand the negative of Yeraz against Russia, what does the rest of Azerbaijan have to do with it.
  • Yeraz
    Yeraz 12 February 2014 17: 38
    +1
    Quote: Setrac
    I am trying to understand the negative of Yeraz against Russia

    The argument is that I believe that there was colonial politics. You think not. That's all.
  • Setrac
    Setrac 12 February 2014 17: 47
    +3
    Quote: Yeraz
    The argument is that I believe that there was colonial politics. You think not. That's all.

    But the Russian Empire was not colonial, unlike the Western empires. There can be no talk of any colonies.
    And if some people were treated unfairly (and the Kazakhs are not the most affected people, but even vice versa, one of the most intensified under Russian protection), this does not make Russians colonialists.
  • Yeraz
    Yeraz 12 February 2014 18: 03
    0
    Quote: Setrac
    But the Russian Empire was not colonial, unlike the Western empires. There can be no talk of any colonies.

    It’s you who think so and your Istography. I already said how the history teacher of the Persian campaign of Peter 1 explained to me that he wanted to save us from the Turks))))
    There was a seizure, the resettlement and execution of the people was, there was a swing of resources. But the argument from the series was the same with the Russians. Well, I know dofeni how they treated their own people, I care about mine. And when you read Russian history, there’s only one thing they defended themselves, they asked us, we carried on the good. In different situations, it’s different. What I did with Azerbaijan. I found out about the Cossacks on the site. I can’t argue about the rest because I don’t know enough information.
  • Clegg
    Clegg 12 February 2014 18: 19
    +1
    Quote: Yeraz
    I already said how the history teacher of the Persian campaign of Peter 1 explained to me that he wanted to save us from the Turks))))

    Well, you and the Armenians are clear from the Turks, us from the Dzungars, Georgians from the Persians, Ossetians from the Georgians, Ukrainians and Belarusians, probably from the Poles, Poles and Baltic states from the Germans, etc.))))))))))))
  • Yeraz
    Yeraz 12 February 2014 18: 32
    +3
    Quote: Clegg
    Well, you and the Armenians are clear from the Turks, us from the Dzungars, Georgians from the Persians, Ossetians from the Georgians, Ukrainians and Belarusians, probably from the Poles, Poles and Baltic states from the Germans, etc.))))))))))))

    if it weren’t so categorical. without the Russian Armenians there would not have been here and their existence here would have been unrealistic.
    We will be responsible for the specific sources and causes of our peoples. Of which we know better at times.
  • SkiF_RnD
    SkiF_RnD 13 February 2014 06: 20
    0
    how they treated their own people, my concern


    How did your people treat themselves? Lived the whole world? Try to argue. They tell you that you are mad because of sovereignty. Colony, colony. Yes, they did, and no one will apologize to you for that. You can only find colonies in your fantasies, and with your brothers in mind, of course. Cruel treatment of the people is, in principle, typical for any state in the 18-19 centuries. Not with a "foreign people". In parallel with what. She lived well to know. Look how people were treated there, in your Kazakh Khanate? Surprise us, you can. Kazakhstan was a province.

    In the second half of the XIX century, the Kazakh steppes turned into an ordinary outlying province of the Russian Empire. With the exception of the Kazakh nobility, included in the Russian political and military hierarchy, ordinary Kazakhs fell under the category of “foreigners” who had limited political and civil rights and obligations (in particular, Kazakhs were not subject to military mobilization). As a result of the construction of hospitals, the spread of vaccination and the use of modern medicines, mortality among Kazakhs from mass epidemics has sharply decreased; the Kazakh population increased from 2,75 million in 1850 to 4 million in 1900.
    In the second half of the 1892th century, mining appeared on the territory of Kazakhstan, the first industrial enterprises appeared, and the development of coal and oil production began. In 1896-XNUMX, the Trans-Siberian Railway was built, connecting Omsk and Orenburg and significantly improving the connection of Kazakhstan with Central Russia. Under the influence of the development of commodity-money relations and trade in Kazakhstan, new cities and urban-type settlements appeared.
  • ultra
    ultra 12 February 2014 17: 45
    0
    Quote: Setrac
    But does Kazakhstan need such a rapprochement?

    And where does the Kazakhs come in? This is the blue dream of some citizens of Azerbaijani nationality hiding behind the Russian tricolor!
  • Clegg
    Clegg 12 February 2014 18: 00
    0
    Quote: ultra
    And where are the Kazakhs?

    And where are the Russians here? Cossacks will come closer to the Turks or not, this is definitely not the case for Russians.
  • ultra
    ultra 12 February 2014 18: 27
    +5
    Quote: Clegg
    it’s definitely not Russian.

    You are deeply mistaken, as far as concerns, if our countries were on different continents, or at worst didn’t have such a long border, then it wouldn’t concern!
  • nevopros
    nevopros 13 February 2014 05: 03
    0
    I will support Ultra's answer and try to unroll the reason.

    Take a deep breath and look at the linguistic map. What is the largest Turkic-speaking country? out Russian world (I mean the post-Soviet space and a little further). Named?
    The question is: how long will this country continue to rush about in search of a landmark (Europeanization / Islamization - panisism / Pan-Turkism, etc., etc.)? WHO is capable of realizing "Pan-Turkism-one state" in reality?

    I want to open your eyes: Turkic - this is an integral part of the Russian world.

    And so, to withdraw "national pseudo-identification" from the discussion, keep in mind that the Russian is belonging to the Russian super-ethnos, the World, Civilization.
  • smersh70
    smersh70 12 February 2014 17: 20
    +1
    Quote: Setrac
    Soon a new redivision of the world will begin, the Third World War, THERE IS THEN AND LOOK.

    Svyat.svyat.svyat.typun to your language))) then MIKHAN threatens a new war, frightening everyone, now you bully postpone the start, please, I want to see football in Brazil in the summer)), otherwise I don’t see how much figure skating I understand wassat
  • Setrac
    Setrac 13 February 2014 12: 50
    0
    Quote: smersh70
    Svyat.svyat.svyat.typun to your language))) then MIKHAN threatens a new war, frightening everyone, now you

    Unfortunately, this is not a threat. I’m not happy myself, but I don’t see how we will avoid a global conflict.
  • alone
    alone 12 February 2014 22: 02
    +2
    Quote: Setrac
    Soon a new redivision of the world will begin, the Third World War, THERE IS THEN AND LOOK.


    if the third world war begins, you don’t have to watch anything already. the land will be destroyed with all the inhabitants)))
  • Yeraz
    Yeraz 12 February 2014 16: 09
    +1
    Quote: Clegg
    After our transition, the Kyrgyz will also move.

    that's for sure.
    Quote: Clegg
    And then we look at the Kypshaks who are now part of the Russian Federation.

    These two ways are right now.
    The first radical Islam, the second conflict with other nations. When the boiling point is reached, then everyone will quickly recall their Turkic blood. Because there will be no other place to wait for help.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • TS3sta3
    TS3sta3 12 February 2014 16: 39
    0
    don't tear yourself laughing
  • ultra
    ultra 12 February 2014 17: 42
    +2
    Quote: Clegg
    . And then we look at the Kypshaks who are now part of the Russian Federation.

    Is this a "type" threat?
  • Clegg
    Clegg 12 February 2014 18: 01
    -2
    Quote: ultra
    Is this a "type" threat?

    What a threat? fool
  • ultra
    ultra 12 February 2014 18: 32
    +1
    Hidden threat.
  • Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 12 February 2014 16: 14
    +1
    Quote: Yeraz
    Arabic writing and language are the basis of Islam

    I thought Kazakhstan was a secular state. And how will this affect the attitude of the Kazakhs with other nationalities living there? Kazakhs in Kazakhstan are slightly more than half the population, and the introduction of the Latin alphabet is a spit on the rest of the population. Including the Russians, of whom there are about 30 percent, and they do not profess Islam. A strange move for Nazarbayev. request
    1. Yeraz
      Yeraz 12 February 2014 16: 31
      0
      Quote: Ingvar 72
      I thought Kazakhstan was a secular state. And how will this affect the attitude of the Kazakhs with other nationalities living there?

      So I don’t say to introduce Arabic. I indicated why Muslims were deprived of it at that time. And right now, other times. The state of Kazak and everyone should know the state language. In Kazakhstan, this is not strictly controlled, so a huge segment of the population does not own the state .language.
    2. TS3sta3
      TS3sta3 12 February 2014 16: 42
      +1
      maybe in the presidency of kazakhstan? restore order? tightly controlled?
    3. Yeraz
      Yeraz 12 February 2014 16: 51
      +2
      Quote: TS3sta3
      maybe in the presidency of kazakhstan? restore order? tightly controlled?

      With pleasure))
      those. do you disagree that in the state, everyone should own a state language ???
    4. TS3sta3
      TS3sta3 12 February 2014 17: 07
      +2
      right to the extreme smile . Kazakhstan has its own rulers, leave them to decide what to do and how, otherwise it smacks of interference. and do not speak for others who owes what. you would not like it either. right?
    5. Yeraz
      Yeraz 12 February 2014 17: 22
      +1
      Quote: TS3sta3
      Kazakhstan has its own rulers, leave them to decide what to do and how, otherwise it smacks of interference. and do not speak for others who owes what. you would not like it either. correctly?

      This statement of opinion. But then here everyone had to be forbidden to write comments.
      And my opinion in the state should be in possession of a state language, and this should be ensured by any means.
    6. TS3sta3
      TS3sta3 12 February 2014 20: 47
      0
      you are wrong, this is my opinion. we will not argue.
  • Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 12 February 2014 17: 47
    +2
    Quote: Yeraz
    . The state of Kazak and everyone should know the state language.

    In fact, Kazakhstan, even by UN standards, is a multinational state, because the size of one nation does not exceed 65 percent. Accordingly, there should be a second state language. Like in Switzerland for example. What you offer will lead to an infringement of the rights of the Russian-speaking population. You did not answer my main question - why is Cyrillic worse than Latin? hi
  • Yeraz
    Yeraz 12 February 2014 18: 05
    +1
    Quote: Ingvar 72
    Accordingly, there should be a second state language. Like in Switzerland for example.

    Well, the first state language should be known. And the second can be used in places of compact residence. Conditionally, as in Russia, where they speak their own language in the national republics, local television in their own, etc.
    Quote: Ingvar 72
    You did not answer my main question - why is Cyrillic worse than Latin?

    so I already answered. Follow the branch.
  • Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 12 February 2014 19: 23
    +2
    Quote: Yeraz
    Well, the first state language should know

    Not necessary. Enough for officials of all levels to know both languages.
    Quote: Yeraz
    And the second can be used in places of compact residence

    Where is the Russian compact live?
    Quote: Yeraz
    .Follow the branch.

    Sorry, I already went, and already answered.
  • Yeraz
    Yeraz 12 February 2014 19: 55
    +2
    Quote: Ingvar 72
    Not necessary. Enough for officials of all levels to know both languages.

    Any citizen must know the language of the state in which he is a citizen.
    Quote: Ingvar 72
    Where is the Russian compact live?

    if I’m not mistaken in the north of Kazakhstan there are many of them, the Cossacks will tell you more.
  • Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 12 February 2014 20: 13
    +3
    Quote: Yeraz
    if I’m not mistaken, there are many of them in the north of Kazakhstan,

    It is not compact. In fact, there are many Russians and in the southern regions.
    Quote: Yeraz
    Any citizen must know the language of the state in which he is a citizen.

    A controversial moment for Kazakhstan, in the 80s there were fewer Kazakhs than Russians. People lived there for generations, for centuries, developed lands, built factories, and everyone wrote and spoke Russian with success. Now some part of the manual needed to enter the Latin alphabet and forced to learn the language. Enter Russian as the second state, and in 10 years, people themselves will figure out which language to speak and write. Whole problem.
  • Yeraz
    Yeraz 12 February 2014 20: 28
    -3
    Quote: Ingvar 72
    People lived there for generations, for centuries, developed lands, built factories, and everyone wrote and spoke Russian with success.

    Well, for centuries, you went too far. There were more Russians there when the Soviets drove everyone there.
    Quote: Ingvar 72
    Now some part of the manual needed to enter the Latin alphabet and forced to learn the language.

    This is the land and the state of Cossacks. And the language of the state should be known to everyone. The fact that the councils have changed the national composition in a short period of time does not make Russians indigenous. It’s their state and if you please learn the language of the state in which you are a citizen and you live. With this, the Russians only cause local irritation and even hatred.
    In Azerbaijan, Russians quickly spoke Azeri when they realized that without knowing the language they wouldn’t go anywhere. Cossacks allow and support conditions under which a significant number of the population live without knowing the Cossack. Which is completely absurd.
  • TS3sta3
    TS3sta3 12 February 2014 20: 53
    +1
    ordinary chauvinistic nonsense. this is how ethnic conflicts begin.
    Listen eraz, this is my land, the land of my parents, my house and your statements do not cause anything but hatred for people like you, but there is a plus - because of people like you, I understand that you do not have faith and you need to rely only on yourself. continue to rekindle, in the end it is useful to read to others to broaden their horizons.
  • Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 12 February 2014 21: 02
    +5
    Quote: Yeraz
    This is the land and state of the Cossacks.

    The oldest Russian settlement on the territory of modern Kazakhstan - Yaitsky town (later - the city of Uralsk) was founded in 1520. Later, Guryev (1645), Pavlodar (city status since 1861), Verny (1854), Semipalatinsk (1712), Ust-Kamenogorsk (1720), Petropavlovsk (1752), Akmolinsk (1824), Aktyubinsk (1868), Kustanay (Founded) were founded 1879), Kokchetav, Irgiz (1845), Turgai (1845), Kazalinsk (1848) and other smaller urban settlements.
    Quote: Yeraz
    In Azerbaijan, Russians quickly spoke Azeri when they realized that without knowing the language, nowhere
    With all due respect, they understood this when they had to urgently leave in 1990, after the pogroms. As a result of the Russians there remained about one percent. See in gratitude for the colonial policy.
  • Yeraz
    Yeraz 12 February 2014 22: 01
    +2
    Quote: Ingvar 72
    With all due respect, they understood this when they had to urgently leave in 1990, after the pogroms.

    So many people left from Kazakhstan complaining about nationalists; there were many such people who gave a lot of examples. But the rest of them didn’t speak Kazakh. All under the conditions that the state puts. Why conditionally Azerbaijanis and Armenians who came to Russia speak Russian, and the second stream, which already consisted of Uzbeks and Tajiks, barely connect 2 words in Russian ??? Therefore, the first are busy in those areas of business where there is contact with the population and knowledge of the language is mandatory, and in the second you can do without knowledge, therefore, living for many years still don’t know the language.

    Quote: Ingvar 72
    As a result of the Russians there remained about one percent. See in gratitude for the colonial policy.

    There was a difficult economic situation and everyone was leaving. If for the cause of the pogroms everyone would leave.
  • Clegg
    Clegg 12 February 2014 18: 07
    +3
    Quote: Ingvar 72
    In fact, Kazakhstan, even by UN standards, is a multinational state, because the size of one nation does not exceed 65 percent.

    There is no such standard

    Quote: Ingvar 72
    You did not answer my main question - why is Cyrillic worse than Latin?

    No worse, just the Latin is more convenient.
  • Clegg
    Clegg 12 February 2014 17: 08
    0
    Quote: Ingvar 72
    . And how will this affect the attitude of the Kazakhs with other nationalities living there? Kazakhs in Kazakhstan are slightly more than half the population, and the introduction of the Latin alphabet is a spit on the rest of the population. Including the Russians, of whom there are about 30 percent, and they do not profess Islam.

    In general, I do not see the relationship, the very Russian population who, having lived their whole lives here, did not bother to learn the language. What does the Latin have to do with them ?! if they do not speak the language? Is everything all right with logic? I don’t know Chinese and it is violet to me what writing they will use. Latin only applies to those who speak the language.
  • Ingvar 72
    Ingvar 72 12 February 2014 17: 54
    +7
    Quote: Clegg
    Latin only applies to those who speak the language.

    Isn't it easier to introduce a second state language? And go to the Latin alphabet, for God's sake. And since this is discrimination against a part of the indigenous population, the Russian majority indigenously lived in northern and central Kazakhstan. hi
  • Clegg
    Clegg 12 February 2014 18: 21
    0
    Quote: Ingvar 72
    Isn't it easier to introduce a second state language?

    I'm against)))
  • Was mammoth
    Was mammoth 12 February 2014 18: 58
    +5
    Quote: Clegg
    I'm against)))

    By itself. This is not even discussed. wink
  • pRofF
    12 February 2014 15: 42
    +4
    Therefore, I will only accuse you of colonialism))) I'm sorry

    You sow double standards, however wink

    I responded to opportunism, the last word was for the Kremlin

    Hmm. But right now, you enter the Latin alphabet) The very Latin alphabet that the "colonial regime" imposed on you in theory wink Strange. Or not? smile

    This question is not strange that the writing of the Armenians and Georgians did not touch, but the Turks were changed? How to explain this fact?

    Honestly I do not know what So deep into this question I did not climb. But so, interestingly, it will be possible to search smile Information is never redundant.
  • Was mammoth
    Was mammoth 12 February 2014 15: 26
    +3
    Quote: Clegg
    I am for Latin

    Who would doubt that. Me not. laughing
  • Yeraz
    Yeraz 12 February 2014 15: 38
    +1
    Quote: Clegg
    I am for Latin

    Latin for Turkic languages ​​is much more convenient than Cyrillic. And about the runic, but purely visually beautiful)))) I don’t know how convenient it is.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 12 February 2014 15: 42
      +2
      Quote: Yeraz
      Latin for Turkic languages ​​is much more convenient than Cyrillic

      Why? hi
      1. Yeraz
        Yeraz 12 February 2014 16: 18
        +1
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        Why?

        let them say about the Cossacks. I remembered they here described in detail.
        Regarding the Azerbaijani one, it’s exactly suitable. The letters of the Cyrillic alphabet are not convenient, there are either not those letters that are needed or you need to use 2 letters to designate one.
        I myself studied in the Russian education system and when I decided to read the Azerbaijani book, I decided to start with the old ones, where is Cyrillic, since I decided that it would be easier for me because I always studied on it. When reading it became insanely uncomfortable, for the sake of interest I took Latin, it became so easy to read, the Latin more fully reflected the language than the Cyrillic alphabet. I conducted an experiment with parents for whom the Latin alphabet was generally a dark forest, exactly the same result.
    2. Clegg
      Clegg 12 February 2014 15: 44
      0
      Quote: Yeraz
      Latin for Turkic languages ​​is much more convenient than Cyrillic.

      I agree, I like the Turkish Latin. There is one problem we have the letters i, and, th. I can make Y, I as I, but how will I and i be a question)))
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 12 February 2014 15: 55
        +5
        Quote: Clegg
        I agree, I like the Turkish Latin.

        How cute, you like her, you ask, what does common sense have to do with it? And with nothing, you do not need it.
      2. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 12 February 2014 16: 00
        +3
        Quote: Clegg
        I agree, I like the Turkish Latin.

        So I don’t understand what is the point of switching from Cyrillic to Latin? Or the same thing as with renaming the police to the police? You have nowhere to put money, except to change the writing? And for this, more money will go than to our police. Meaning? In addition to increasing the depth of the trenches in relations between our countries, I see no reason in this transition. hi
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 12 February 2014 16: 14
          +4
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          Meaning?

          To spite mom’s frostbitten ears. That’s the whole point.
        2. Clegg
          Clegg 12 February 2014 17: 14
          +1
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          So I don’t understand what is the point of switching from Cyrillic to Latin?

          Rapprochement with the Turks, because the Turks, Azeri, Turkmens and Uzbeks have already crossed. Of the independents, we remained Kyrgyz.
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 12 February 2014 18: 04
            +3
            Quote: Clegg
            Rapprochement with the Turks, because the Turks, Azeri, Turkmens and Uzbeks have already crossed

            This rapprochement is especially noticeable in the relationship between the Uzbeks and the Kyrgyz. Yes, and with the Kazakhs, these two are strained. Just do not say that it is because of the difference in writing. Besides the fact that everyone has switched, are there any arguments? The Greeks and I, too, seem to be of the same faith, but this is not a Greek reason to introduce. hi
            1. Clegg
              Clegg 12 February 2014 18: 24
              0
              Quote: Ingvar 72
              Besides the fact that everyone has switched, are there any arguments? The Greeks and I are also of the same faith, but that’s not a reason to introduce Greek

              Ingvar did you notice the difference between me and you?
            2. Ingvar 72
              Ingvar 72 12 February 2014 19: 42
              +1
              Quote: Clegg
              did you notice the differences between me and you?

              Of course. I also see a huge difference between you and the Uzbeks, and even more so the Azerbaijanis. And Turkmens are generally an interesting nation; they are indulgent towards other nationalities.hi
            3. Clegg
              Clegg 12 February 2014 20: 06
              +1
              Quote: Ingvar 72
              Quote: Clegg
              did you notice the differences between me and you?

              Of course. I also see a huge difference between you and the Uzbeks, and even more so the Azerbaijanis. And Turkmens are generally an interesting nation; they are indulgent towards other nationalities.hi

              Not that I meant)))
              I mean, when the Slavs (Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians) talk about unity, it does not bother me. But why does the rapprochement of the Turks bother you? This is interesting.
            4. Ingvar 72
              Ingvar 72 12 February 2014 20: 24
              +2
              Quote: Clegg
              This is interesting.

              The comparison about the rapprochement of the Turks, which you are talking about, is inappropriate here. It is more appropriate to compare the Turks and the Slavs. Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians, this is one artificially divided people. But the Poles and Czechs is another nation, although the Slavs. We are not talking about the unity of all Slavs. The Turks have the same thing, Kazakhs and Azerbaijanis, these are two completely different nations. However, like the Uzbeks.
            5. Yeraz
              Yeraz 12 February 2014 22: 06
              +2
              Quote: Ingvar 72
              The Turks have the same thing, Kazakhs and Azerbaijanis, these are two completely different nations. However, like the Uzbeks.

              On the one hand, there is logic in your words. We even differ anthropologically and in clothes.
              BUT!!
              unlike you, who are very anthropologically similar to the Poles, but always fought. We of the Turks fought the most with the Turks, and right now do not spill water. Therefore, we feel close proximity to the Cossacks on the fact that they are Turks. There was no negative, on the contrary they very well received ours. when the councils relocated them there. And for the most part, many remained unlike others.
    3. Yeraz
      Yeraz 12 February 2014 20: 09
      +1
      Quote: Ingvar 72
      This rapprochement is especially noticeable in the relationship between the Uzbeks and the Kyrgyz. Yes, and with the Kazakhs, these two are strained. Just don’t say that it is because of the difference in writing

      written language doesn’t matter. I already said the reason is convenience. And Turkism is insanely small in SA, only in Kazakhstan and it is developing well. Kyrgyz people divide the country north and south and relate to each other. As representatives of different nations. And Uzbeks, well, their sense of turkishness is so dulled that it’s just tin, insanely weak education, the result is a little information, even about yourself, not like the Turkic people in general.
    4. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 12 February 2014 21: 22
      +1
      Quote: Yeraz
      And the Uzbeks, well, their sense of turkess is so dulled that it’s just tin, insanely weak education

      Uzbeks have always been the most educated in Central Asia. Even before the revolution. Even in the Middle Ages.
      Quote: Yeraz
      And Turkism is insanely small in the SA, only in Kazakhstan and is developing well.

      Why the development of Turkic nationalism in a multinational state? Yeraz, guess three times what it will lead to in the future? To the civil war, because a third of the population does not fit into the Turkic scenario. But Russia will not leave its own. the result will be an international conflict using weapons. And as an option, Kazakhstan’s loss of the northern territories, as they are Russian in fact. And there will be no talk of any friendship and alliance. and with such a development of events, do you think Kazakhstan will have many chances against China?
      So Turkism is not needed there, you need a secular state, with two state languages, and a reliable ally. hi
      P.S. Good night, I bainki, get up early tomorrow.
    5. Yeraz
      Yeraz 12 February 2014 22: 11
      +1
      Quote: Ingvar 72
      Uzbeks have always been the most educated in Central Asia. Even before the revolution. Even in the Middle Ages.

      I do not deny. But I'm talking about present-day Uzbekistan and current Uzbeks.
      Quote: Ingvar 72
      Yeraz, guess three times what it will lead to in the future? To the civil war, because a third of the population does not fit into the Turkic scenario.

      Why remembering and unity in the Türks means the destruction of the Russians, and the unification of the Slavs is a union of brothers?

      Quote: Ingvar 72
      So Turkism is not needed there, you need a secular state, with two state languages, and a reliable ally.

      This is your opinion, my other.
      Quote: Ingvar 72
      P.S. Good night, I bainki, get up early tomorrow.

      good night.
  • Yeraz
    Yeraz 12 February 2014 20: 06
    +1
    Quote: Ingvar 72
    So I don’t understand what is the point of switching from Cyrillic to Latin? Or the same thing as with renaming the police to the police?

    No, the Latin alphabet is stupidly more convenient than the Cyrillic alphabet.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 12 February 2014 20: 35
      0
      Quote: Yeraz
      No, the Latin alphabet is stupidly more convenient than the Cyrillic alphabet.

      You and I stupidly switched to a meaningless argument, such as, which is more convenient, Windows, or Android. I believe that in this situation the Cyrillic alphabet should remain, because the Kazakhs are already accustomed to it, and the Russians, even more so. I repeat. About 30 percent of Russians are there.
      1. Yeraz
        Yeraz 12 February 2014 22: 17
        0
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        I believe that in this situation the Cyrillic alphabet should remain, because the Kazakhs are already used to it,

        I already said, it turned out to me who grew up in Russia and in his educational environment and parents in the Soviet Union, that it is easier to read Azeri in Latin than in Cyrillic.
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        I repeat. About 30 percent of Russians are there.

        i.e., if Czechs in Russia become 30 percent, then it is necessary to make Chechen a 2-state language?
  • Yeraz
    Yeraz 12 February 2014 16: 20
    0
    Quote: Clegg
    There is one problem we have the letters i, and, th. I can make Y, I as I, but how will I and i be a question)))

    so what is the problem did not understand ??
    confuses you as will be both small and And big ??
    1. Clegg
      Clegg 12 February 2014 17: 15
      0
      Quote: Yeraz
      confuses you as will be both small and And big ??

      We have both beech and letter i. therefore do and how i fail.
  • Hort
    Hort 12 February 2014 11: 49
    +1
    Russia was enlightened by FOREIGNERS Cyril and Methodius,
    well, and educators. It was just that they adapted the Greek church texts, taking the RUSSIAN ABC (Letter) as a basis.
    It's just that with the increasing influence of the church, Church Slavonic (aka Cyrillic) gradually replaced it (and that, conditionally, because Lomonosov, if my memory serves me, then "modernized" him)
  • Sars
    Sars 12 February 2014 10: 12
    +9
    Regarding training in Kazakhstan in Russian.
    Kazakh language - the language of nomadic tribes is not intended for teaching science.
    After 91, new Kazakh words were actively invented. At first, the ending "lar" (pencillar) was simply added to the Russians.
    Regarding the training of the Kazakhs themselves, from my own experience I will say that such subjects as physics, higher mathematics, theoretical mechanics, etc. able to study the extremely low percentage of individuals.
    In my university I somehow took up academic performance, but stopped on time because it was necessary to expel all the nationals, but now all these comrades work fine, with most of them being high-level leaders (in the police, the KNB, in government agencies).

    About the exploitation of the Kazakhs. One acquaintance wanted to join the CPSU. They say to him: lead the Kazakh to the party and we will accept you.
    1. Clegg
      Clegg 12 February 2014 11: 01
      0
      Quote: SarS
      After 91, new Kazakh words were actively invented. At first, the ending "lar" (pencillar) was simply added to the Russians.


      For the gifted

      Pencil (Turk. Karadaš, “kara” - black, “dash” - stone, literally, - black stone) [1] - a tool in the form of a rod made of writing material (coal, graphite, dry paints, etc.) used for writing, drawing, sketching. Often, for convenience, the writing core of the pencil is inserted into a special frame.
      1. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 12 February 2014 11: 55
        +8
        Quote: Clegg
        Pencil (Turk. Karadaš,

        It's about writing, not about the lack of language. And the name pencil, if it came from Turkic, then rather from Uzbekistan, where there were the ancient cities of Samarkand and Bukhara. In Kazakhstan, by definition, a pencil was not needed; there was no need for nomads.
        1. Clegg
          Clegg 12 February 2014 12: 59
          +2
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          And the name pencil, if it came from Turkic, but rather from Uzbekistan,

          In Uzbek, black will not be punishment, but bark.
          1. Ingvar 72
            Ingvar 72 12 February 2014 14: 56
            +2
            Quote: Clegg
            In Uzbek, black will not be punishment, but bark.

            Uzbek belongs to the Turkic language group, so there is only one root. Even in Russian, some say-who, and others-chyago and hto.
          2. Yeraz
            Yeraz 12 February 2014 15: 46
            0
            Quote: Clegg
            In Uzbek, black will not be punishment, but bark.

            Yes, it does not matter. The fact is that it is a Turkic word.
          3. Was mammoth
            Was mammoth 12 February 2014 21: 03
            0
            Quote: Clegg
            In Uzbek, black will not be punishment, but bark

            And, what is considered incorrect in Russian to write -Orandash? smile
      2. bairat
        bairat 12 February 2014 14: 06
        -3
        Quote: Clegg
        For the gifted

        Pencil (Turk. Karadaš, “kara” - black, “dash” - stone, literally, - black stone) [1] - a tool in the form of a rod made of writing material (coal, graphite, dry paints, etc.) used for writing, drawing, sketching. Often, for convenience, the writing core of the pencil is inserted into a special frame.

        laughing it is necessary to be softer with the older brother, softer and thinner, they are also offended by such comments)
      3. 11111mail.ru
        11111mail.ru 12 February 2014 18: 27
        +4
        Quote: Clegg
        Pencil (Turk. Karadaš, “kara” - black, “dash” - stone, literally, - black stone) [1] - a tool in the form of a rod,

        Have the Kazakhs invented?
    2. Setrac
      Setrac 12 February 2014 11: 20
      +4
      Quote: SarS
      At first, the ending "lar" (pencillar) was simply added to the Russians.

      Abkhazian cigarettes AKOSMOS, laughing in Abkhazia, the word "A" was added at the beginning.
    3. Yeraz
      Yeraz 12 February 2014 15: 45
      0
      Quote: SarS
      At first, the ending "lar" (pencillar) was simply added to the Russians.

      hahahahahaah laughing )))
      Well, you made me laugh in the morning))) Russian word pencil)))
  • Humpty
    Humpty 12 February 2014 10: 14
    +3

    To bring enlightenment to the masses is a pleasure for me

    As Stalin used to say, your plan is burning up, comrade Frunze, pfff.

    Thank you.
  • serge
    serge 12 February 2014 10: 22
    +11
    The Russian Empire had overseas territories - Alaska, Fort Ross, Hawaiian Islands (!), Port Arthur. Those. The Russian Empire was not only tellurocracy, but also thalassocracy at the same time. But it was not the predatory, non-colonial nature of the use of the annexed territories that led to their loss. Those. the matter is not only in the structure of the lands included in the state, but also in the civilizational character of the Russian Empire as such. The Golden Horde (and other Hordes), for example, being a continental imeria, ruthlessly plundered subjugated suburbs. As for the USSR, you can call it anything you like, but not an empire. Given at the initial stage of the formation of the USSR (1917-1937) the genocide of the indigenous population, the Russian foundation of the empire, the USSR was an anti-empire, a chimera state, as defined by Gumilyov. In peacetime, the chimera state in every way infringes on the imperial-forming people, turning to him for help only with an external threat. What has been happening in Russia over the past 20 years can be called the re-establishment of the chimera state, despite the almost mononational-Russian (80%) composition of the state. Many national republics have been created on the territory of Russia, and in all these republics Russians are or were the predominant ethnic group and the main factor in the production and creation of material wealth, but the name of the republics, their management and distribution of resources, including those coming from the center, are not in favor of the Russians . The current Russian Federation is a state destined for disintegration along borders specially for this purpose drawn by the outspoken enemies of the state of the national republics. The current president of the Russian Federation did not draw these borders and, it seems, whatever he is guided by, he would like to get rid of at least part of them. In many respects, the future of Russia depends on whether it will be possible to unite the Russian people (Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians) within one state without national or subnational borders. If it succeeds, the Russian people will inevitably build the Russian Empire again. The current events in Ukraine and immediately subsequent to them are of a key nature in the unification of the Russian people.
  • Nomad
    Nomad 12 February 2014 10: 58
    -7
    Quote: saag
    It wasn’t, if only because Kazakhstan wasn’t as such

    The Russian Federation, if one so argues, was not there either. Like many states of Western Europe.
    Quote: Teacher Onizuka
    They joined Russia because of the danger of the invasion of the Chinese expeditionary forces of which there were at least a million.

    The Chinese had enough strength for the Dzungars, but no longer for the Kazakhs. The Kazakhs went on raids on the Chinese border for another 50 years, the Chinese only scribbled complaints from the Russian administration. And then in China, the "century of humiliation" began in general, and everyone and all and sundry were trampling there.
    Quote: Alibekulu
    At the millionth Alma-Ata of schools with the Kazakh language of instruction, there were no more fingers of one hand ...

    More precisely, there was one Kazakh school throughout Alma-Ata
    Quote: My address
    Conclusion: Kazakhstan in the 30 and 40 of the last century was a colony, with the following oppressed nationalities - Russians, Ukrainians, Germans.

    Many times I heard about how the Russians built everything for everyone (you must understand, voluntarily, for free, out of kindness, with the intention of building everything and then leaving), but this! You are burning! What do we smoke? laughing
    1. A. Yaga
      A. Yaga 12 February 2014 14: 13
      +5
      Quote: Nomad
      Quote: Alibekulu
      At the millionth Alma-Ata of schools with the Kazakh language of instruction, there were no more fingers of one hand ...

      More precisely, there was one Kazakh school throughout Alma-Ata

      That is, even in Alma-Ata there were almost no Kazakhs? This is also a Russian city.
  • Nomad
    Nomad 12 February 2014 11: 03
    -3
    Quote: SarS
    Regarding the training of the Kazakhs themselves, from my own experience I will say that such subjects as physics, higher mathematics, theoretical mechanics, etc. able to study the extremely low percentage of individuals.

    Something this all reminds me ... Ah, yes, Dr. Goebbels with his texts about inferior races, including Slavs. By the way, but among Russians, physics, higher mathematics, thermal baths, etc. How many percent are able to master? You have to understand, no less than 95%, right? laughing
  • Nomad
    Nomad 12 February 2014 11: 03
    -4
    Quote: SarS
    Regarding the training of the Kazakhs themselves, from my own experience I will say that such subjects as physics, higher mathematics, theoretical mechanics, etc. able to study the extremely low percentage of individuals.

    Something this all reminds me ... Ah, yes, Dr. Goebbels with his texts about inferior races, including Slavs. By the way, but among Russians, physics, higher mathematics, thermal baths, etc. How many percent are able to master? You have to understand, no less than 95%, right? laughing
  • nnnnnn
    nnnnnn 12 February 2014 11: 09
    +4
    From the Draft of the All-Substantive Report of Adjutant General K.P. von Kaufman on civil administration and organization in the areas of Turkestan Governor General. November 7, 1867 - March 25, 1881.
    (St. Petersburg: publication of the military training committee of the General Staff, 1885):
    "... with the occupation in the first years of the best of the areas designated for settlement, the colonization movement to the land of Russian immigrants not only did not decrease in later years, but, on the contrary, even increased in strength, especially in 1878 and 79."

    The pressure of the colonization movement in Central Asia seems truly surprising. By 1914, 40% of the population of the Kyrgyz steppe and 6% of the population of Turkestan [very densely populated] were Russians, most of them farmers. From 1896 to 1916, more than a million peasants who came from Russia settled in the Akmolinsk and Semipalatinsk districts. The model of Russian colonization can be represented as follows. The Russians, joining another empire to their empire, seemed to play the mystery on it: the flight of the people from the state to new lands - the return of the fugitives again under state jurisdiction - the state (ordered) colonization of newly acquired lands. So it was in the XVII century, it remained so at the beginning of XX. So it was in Siberia, so it was in Central Asia.

    However, colonization is far from creating an empire. Colonization and imperial construction lie, as it were, on different planes.
  • nnnnnn
    nnnnnn 12 February 2014 11: 11
    0
    Let's start from the fact that Peter the Great spoke about the need to capture and colonize Central Asia. The certificate of this was left by one of the emperor’s associates, an active conductor of colonialist politics, a baptized Tatar, Major General A.I. Tevkelev: In 1720, upon returning from the Persian campaign, His Imperial Majesty Emperor Peter the Great deigned to have a desire for the whole fatherland of the Russian Empire to have a useful intention in bringing from time immemorial the vast and unknown Kirghiz-Kaisat hordes to Russian citizenship by his High Monarch I had the least intention to use it, with the intention that, if the horde didn’t want exact citizenship, I should try to keep me at least up to a million, despite the great costs, but only ostomy under the patronage of the Russian Empire to be pledged.

    Then Tevkelev confirms the emperor’s intentions: Peter the Great in 1722, being in the Persian campaign and in Astrakhan, through many, deigned to be notified of one horde; although the de ne horde of the Kyrgyz-Kaisatsky steppe and frivolous people, tokmo de all the Asian countries and lands of this de horde is the key and the gate; and for the sake of the cause, de Horde, it would be necessary under the Russian patronage to be able to take useful and capable measures to the Russian side only through them in all Asian countries.

    That is, initially the imperial policy of Russia initially assumed the seizure of Central Asia. First of all, Kazakhs. As it was written, one of the Russian officials “Through the Kaisak horde to India and Singapore, we are paving the way!”.
  • nnnnnn
    nnnnnn 12 February 2014 11: 14
    +2
    The then Russia was not much different from the current Russia. However, about myths. The main one, "they fed the whole of Europe with Russian grain." What is a hoax. What can we talk about if Russia has always been accompanied by a lean year. According to the then Minister of Agriculture, A. N. Naumov (1915-1916): “Russia practically does not cope with hunger, either in one or the other province, both before the war and during the war.” 70 percent of coal production was controlled by foreign joint stock companies. This also included the Karaganda coal basin. By 1914, approximately half of oil production and three quarters of oil trade belonged to foreign financial syndicates. The first oil in Kazakhstan (then Russian colonies) was developed by the British, and Alfred Nobel traded Russian oil itself. A similar situation developed in real production. Foreigners produced 67 percent of “Russian” cast iron and 58 percent of finished metal products. In the production of electrical products, Germany occupied a monopoly position. Agricultural machines were made by the Americans. The Belgian owned tram roads. 40 percent of all Russian banks belonged to foreigners. Even the pride of Russia, the Trans-Siberian and Manchurian railways were built with the serious participation of foreign capital, which means it belonged to it. And the Russian Empire was even stronger on the credit needle than even the current Russian Federation. In 1913, the average annual per capita income in Russia was only 32% of the German and 11.5 percent of the American. And as we see, the situation has not changed much since then. Russia then and today was and is a raw materials appendage for Europe and the United States. In fact - a colony.
    1. pRofF
      12 February 2014 15: 20
      +3
      oil in Kazakhstan (then the colonies of Russia)

      Again on the same rake. Your comrade. Clegg has already said - without facts, all phrases about Kazakhstan as a colony of the Republic of Ingushetia are not worth a copper.

      statements of the chief of staff of the Turkestan Military District


      Take a look at the CUG map - Kazakhstan was not a part of it. GPG is already Central Asia. And there - the situation is completely different. At the end of the article, I noted that in the UIG from its very inception to the end - in fact, there was martial law. In Kazakhstan, this was not. Yes, one more thing tell me - was there slavery in the territory of Kazakhstan? As far as I know, no. And in Turkestan - it was.

      In Turkestan, in 1867 — 1881, Governor KP Kaufman abolished slavery and carried out a series of reforms aimed at integrating native and all-Russian land use, local government, and judicial procedures.


      The military governor of the Syrdarya region wrote
      - the same, this area is not related to Kazakhstan.

      By the way, considering Russia's credit dependence, you lose sight of that moment, and intensive credit dependence on the West began to grow into the reign of Nicholas II. With past emperors this was not. So, it is not necessary to extend the state of the Empire of recent years to the whole period of its existence.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. 11111mail.ru
      11111mail.ru 12 February 2014 18: 33
      0
      Quote: nnnnnn
      Russia then and today was and is a raw materials appendage for Europe and the United States. In fact - a colony.

      Unfortunately I have to agree with you!
      1. Dym71
        Dym71 12 February 2014 22: 20
        +3
        Quote: 11111mail.ru
        Quote: nnnnnn
        Russia then and today was and is a raw materials appendage for Europe and the United States. In fact - a colony.

        Unfortunately I have to agree with you!


        And in vain agree!
        I carefully and with interest read the three comments nnnnnn, sets out in an accessible, beautiful way, but for example, for industry in tsarist Russia, it is disingenuous.
        The fact is that he puts out facts - consequences, without mentioning the causes of these consequences. The reason for attracting foreign investment is the result of a competent and consistent policy of the Russian state and no more, foreign capital worked for the Russian economy (naturally, not without its own benefits).
        For example, when setting out his opinion in the Committee of Ministers in October 1888, Minister of Finance I. A. Vyshnegradsky pointed out: “Attracting foreign capital seems to be one of the necessary conditions for the development of domestic industry, introducing improvements in various industries and promoting distribution in the working population "useful technical knowledge, without which many branches of factory activity would remain inaccessible for us."

        Competition from the Russian side was not long in coming:
        In the first half of the 1890s. The competition between Russian and foreign companies for government orders for steam locomotives led to their prices dropping to around 128% of similar prices in Belgium. This is one example, I’m sure of a lot of them.

        Another example, finally:
        The formation of oil exports was greatly facilitated by the activities of trading, oil producing and oil refining companies controlled by English capital. Export development did not go to the detriment of consumption on the national market. In 1913, for example, exports amounted to only 12% of the volume of oil products, only "surplus" was exported. Interestingly, in that era, unlike today, it was not crude oil that was exported from the country, but its refined products.

        That's it! Good night everyone! hi
        1. 11111mail.ru
          11111mail.ru 13 February 2014 05: 50
          -1
          Quote: Dym71
          And in vain agree!

          The pebbles flew into the wrong garden.
          As for "Tsarist Russia" you know better, but I will not compare the indicators with the level of 1913, the current ERF. And the fact that the modern EEP is "plowing" not for itself but for the West is a FACT, and not to notice it - it is necessary to tightly close your eyes and ears.
          Quote: Dym71
          led to their prices dropping to around 128% from similar prices in Belgium. This is one example, I am sure a lot of them.

          A strange figure was drawn at you 128%. What does it mean? The locomotives were delivered to Russia free of charge, and did the supplier pay 28% for them? Where to find such sponsors! Strange things are happening now with mathematics.
          1. Dym71
            Dym71 13 February 2014 12: 39
            0
            Good afternoon, 11111mail.ru!
            The pebbles flew into the wrong garden.

            Sincerely sorry, aimed at the garden nnnnnn.
            As for "tsarist Russia" you know better, but I will not compare the indicators with the level of 1913.

            You know better. hi
            And the fact that the modern EEP is "plowing" not for itself but for the West is a FACT, and not to notice it - it is necessary to tightly close your eyes and ears.

            Facts are stubborn, but they can be submitted in different ways.
            A strange figure was drawn at you 128%. What does it mean?

            Russia paid 28% more for Belgian locomotives than Belgium.
            1. 11111mail.ru
              11111mail.ru 13 February 2014 17: 16
              0
              Quote: Dym71
              Russia paid 28% more for Belgian locomotives than Belgium.

              If I understood your comment on comment correctly, then it was necessary to write that brought down the price by 28% compared to the original, the question would not be.
  • nnnnnn
    nnnnnn 12 February 2014 11: 16
    0
    The goals of the colonial administration are revealed by the following statements by the chief of staff of the Turkestan Military District: property, but the state. Establishment of Russian settlements is the same state necessity as the construction of fortifications, which were erected in the Orenburg steppe on the best nomadic places or winter quarters. The Russian sedentary element must oust them (Kazakhs) from the region, or transfer them altogether. "

    Colonization began during the reign of Peter the Great, when Russian fortresses were built on their lands using the fact that the Kazakhs were mired in a bloody war with the Dzungars. These are military engineering structures - Yamyshevskaya (1716), Omsk (1716), Zhelezinskaya (1717), Semipalatinskaya (1718), Ust-Kamenogorsk, Koryakovskaya (1720) and other military defensive points that made up the Upper Irtysh line, which meant a direct the presence of foreign intervention in the Kazakh Khanate. It was the military pressure on the Kazakhs weakened after a 200-year war that became the basis of the so-called "voluntary accession." Having carried out a complete seizure of the Kazakh lands by military forces, the tsarist government began to carry out territorial and administrative reorganization in the region. So, in violation of all treaties, in 1822, the khan's power was abolished and a new management system, "The Charter of the Siberian Kirghiz", was introduced.

    Then began a large-scale resettlement of peasants from Central Russia under the Stolypin reform. The situation was not much different from the colonization of the Wild West. The settler had more rights than the native. The military governor of the Syrdarya region wrote: "Each Russian village ... may be of great importance in the future in the event of any external military undertakings. In general, it would be useful to surround the most important local settlements with a ring of Russian villages." The settlers were seen not only as the economic base of colonialism in the region, but also as a military force to fight the Kazakhs. “In general, here a Russian person must be literate and know how to use a weapon,” wrote Russian officials. This is now the friendship of peoples in Kazakhstan, and the imperial regime did not want it at all.

    In the region, the military nature of government was formed - through a fortress, which inevitably influenced the relations of the colonialists with the local population. The need to strictly suppress any manifestations of discontent on the part of the conquered peoples led to the fact that the authorities vigilantly watched whether representatives of the local population were showing due loyalty to all Russians, including the lower social strata. This was not typical for Russian politics: the settlers were only protected from armed attacks, otherwise the authorities did not interfere, leaving Russian farmers to cope with their difficulties on their own. As a result, Russians in Turkestan, firstly, significantly less than in other outskirts, came into direct contact with the local population; secondly, they were placed in the position of "masters". With one stroke of the pen, yesterday's serf slave was given the best Kazakh lands, and the auls were sent to semi-desert areas. Such in the United States are called Indian reservations.
    1. Refugee from Kazakhstan
      Refugee from Kazakhstan 12 February 2014 15: 12
      +1
      I wanted to correct it: according to the Stolypin reform, peasants even sent from Poltava, they still live there (Akmola oblast. Odessa state farms and others. I just don’t remember) even the talk remained. Stupidly engaged in pushing up the nomads under the auspices of the Governor General.
    2. SkiF_RnD
      SkiF_RnD 13 February 2014 06: 42
      +2
      statements of the chief of staff of the Turkestan Military District

      The military governor of the Syrdarya region wrote

      Russian officials wrote

      In the region formed

      Such in the US are called Native American reservations.

      So now the evidence looks? What do you smoke? Do Russian officials have names? And you generally realize that Akmolinsk was a part of the Empire for a hundred years until 1917. During such a time, with the American model of colonization, your compatriots in this area would have left memories.

      In general, this is a clinic. With you, gentlemen of the Kazakhs, everything is clear. Soon, Armenia will tell us that we wanted to supplant them. The construction of military fortresses is now colonialism. Remember this day as a new milestone in the evolution of the Russian language (in which a foreigner so kindly communicates with us, whose ancestors suffered from colonialism), created by a Kazakh.
      In Ukraine, fascists are praised; in Kazakhstan, they will soon call us fascists. There are no words what to call it. I begin to sincerely believe that all these peoples are completely consciously doing such tricks. And what is convenient. And it turns out that they also owe us. Nooo, that won’t do. We are the colonizers. You bastards, damned, what you thought up, a benefactor to fasten on yourself. No, you are the same bloodsuckers as the British! Well, I will know that from the Kazakhs one can only expect a stab in the back. This is a really useful article, a lot has been opened for me fellow
  • Nomad
    Nomad 12 February 2014 11: 30
    -3
    Quote: Arhj
    At the time of the collapse of the USSR, Kazakhstan was very well developed industrially and scientifically. How many universities and schools were in jazz at the time of joining the Russian Empire, how many industrial enterprises, how many cities. I'm not talking about the territory of Northern Kazakhstan with such original Kazakh names as Semipolatinsk, Petropavlovsk, Tselinograd, etc.

    The Empire came, all so kind, kind, angelic blue eyes, and said: "Dear savages, you have neither industry, nor science, nor education, nor culture (your dancing with a tambourine does not count) and in general you live in the dustbin of history We will give you everything, build everything, teach you everything (including wiping and not peeing ... against the wind), and absolutely free of charge, out of the kindness of our soul, for we have already built a paradise on earth and we have become in it We apologize in advance, if half of you die of hunger, some kind of ecological catastrophe breaks out on hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of the territory, the wealth of your bowels will go in a wide flow to the needs of the Empire (and they are huge, from Cuba to Vietnam and Central Africa) , you will forget your language (who needs it, this gibberish?), you on your own land will be considered second-class people (culturally so, more and more to yourself, we are not some kind of insolent Saxons), but everyone who is against, will be defamed and shot or rotted in the camps. "
    The savages replied: "Maybe not? We ourselves somehow, on the sly?"
    The empire disobeyed, and ultimately collapsed, either torn, or decayed at the very top, or simply out of stupidity.
    And now she is offended by savages (and indeed the whole world) for the reason that those (ungrateful, traitors, further on the list) for some reason do not sing her hosanna and do not bow to the feet of every true Aryan.
    Something like that. smile
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 12 February 2014 11: 52
      +9
      Quote: Nomad
      Something like that.

      You push your pathetic speech to the North American Indians, or to the native Australians, if you find any.
      Quote: Nomad
      you will forget your language

      This is generally past the cash register, the Kazakh language was cherished and cherished.
      Quote: Nomad
      "Maybe not? We ourselves somehow, on the sly?"

      Actually, those who are slowly - they are already gone, became extinct like dinosaurs.
      Quote: Nomad
      The empire disobeyed, and ultimately collapsed, either torn, or decayed at the very top, or simply out of stupidity.

      Too many non-Russians were in management structures, as a result - collapse.
      Quote: Nomad
      your dances with a tambourine do not count

      Dancing with a tambourine has not gone away, those who want a tambourine, one with a tambourine, maybe you yourself were not very willing to preserve your culture and language? And the filthy colonialists kept it in spite of your indifference!
      1. Yeraz
        Yeraz 12 February 2014 15: 52
        -2
        Quote: Setrac
        You push your pathetic speech to the North American Indians, or to the native Australians, if you find any.

        What kind of a way to always turn arrows to the West ?? we have to go to them. Do you think we consider them fluffy, and you are evil ?? You are an empire, they are an empire, you have colonized, they have colonized. The only difference is that we were driven out of our lands and destroyed you, not them.

        Quote: Setrac
        Too many non-Russians were in management structures, as a result - collapse.

        No collapse made 3 Slavs))
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 12 February 2014 16: 05
          +5
          Quote: Yeraz
          What kind of a way always translate arrows to the West ??

          Because some unscrupulous users of this resource make an attempt to put an equal sign between the Russian Empire and the British Empire, to level, so to speak, crimes.
          Quote: Yeraz
          ? You are an empire, they are an empire, you have colonized, they have colonized.

          The problem is that the Russian Empire was not colonial, and the policy regarding the annexed territories was not colonial.
          Quote: Yeraz
          the only difference is that we were driven out of our lands and destroyed by you, not them.

          Those who were expelled and destroyed were expelled and destroyed. If you are in your own country, it means that you have not been expelled or destroyed, you are lying, ay-yay-yay how bad.

          Considering where you are writing from - much less your statements are a two-faced lie.
          1. Yeraz
            Yeraz 12 February 2014 16: 34
            -3
            Quote: Setrac
            Those who were expelled and destroyed were expelled and destroyed. If you are in your own country, it means that you have not been expelled or destroyed, you are lying, ay-yay-yay how bad.

            uh, awesome logic. So the Hindus have to do with it in huge quantities, like many other nations. So Britain did not destroy anyone and did not expel or colonize ???
            Quote: Setrac
            Considering where you are writing from - much less your statements are a two-faced lie.

            Yes, of course, my ancestors were driven out by aliens and it seemed to me.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 12 February 2014 16: 49
              +5
              Quote: Yeraz
              uh, awesome logic. So the Hindus have to do with it in huge quantities, like many other nations. So Britain did not destroy anyone and did not expel or colonize ???

              Kazakhs are not Indians, Kazakhs are a little smaller, very small, once a hundred.
              Quote: Yeraz
              Yes, of course, my ancestors were driven out by aliens and it seemed to me.

              They drove your ancestors to St. Petersburg? Something you say about your ancestors!
              1. Yeraz
                Yeraz 12 February 2014 17: 25
                0
                Quote: Setrac
                Kazakhs are not Indians, Kazakhs are a little smaller, very small, once a hundred.

                Come on ?? Well, you discovered America. Only according to your logic, it turns out that Britain has not colonized anyone.
                Quote: Setrac
                They drove your ancestors to St. Petersburg? Something you say about your ancestors!

                Yes, my ancestors were expelled from their lands first by Tsarist Russia. Then the Soviets.
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 12 February 2014 17: 36
                  +4
                  Quote: Yeraz
                  Yes, my ancestors were expelled from their lands first by Tsarist Russia. Then the Soviets.

                  You are repeating yourself. At least hide your place of residence so that your words do not cause laughter.
                  And how is this to be understood? Did your ancestors come back, and then they were kicked out by the Soviets again? And why did your ancestors fight for these very "councils"? You have to justify your mantras somehow.
                  1. Yeraz
                    Yeraz 12 February 2014 18: 16
                    -4
                    Quote: Setrac
                    At least hide your place of residence so that your words do not cause laughter.

                    and sorry you would have written more clearly.
                    I come from what is now called Armenia. The khanate of Yerevan was. Tsarist Russia first liberated Iravan from us. Therefore, the Soviets, when there was a plan for the invasion of Turkey, fearing that the Azerbaijanis who made up the majority of the Turkish government relocated everyone to the Azerbaijan SSR directly. that many of our people lived in the mountains, many died during the transition and in the conditions of a plain, where the conditions were very different. And the last stage, when the collapse of the Soviets. When the Soviets did nothing and expelled the Azerbaijanis from their lands, and this was 87 years before 90. And the Karabakh war was later. The truth in the latter case, Russia can only be blamed indirectly for its inaction. But the fact remains. My people were expelled and others were resettled here.
                    Quote: Setrac
                    And why did your ancestors fight for these very "councils"?

                    Have you heard the voluntary-compulsive concept ??? For this reason. The truth, some relatives managed to avoid this and fight on the other side of the barricades.
                2. 3935333
                  3935333 12 February 2014 17: 44
                  +2
                  and rush about? still not settled? it seems like right now you can live in peace in the villages? currently no one is being kicked out in Russia, even land is being given! Drive home to the land of ancestors, live, raise children and preach your beliefs to them! But dear friend, time does not stand still, the story continues ...
                3. SkiF_RnD
                  SkiF_RnD 13 February 2014 07: 16
                  +2
                  Come on ?? Well, you discovered America. Only according to your logic, it turns out that Britain has not colonized anyone.

                  This is your way. The European colony means "to make it a raw material appendage and an internal sales market." And it was not, to accuse such nonsense. This was discussed at the beginning. But you have translated the arrows to another meaning of the word - the settlement of empty or natives-owned territories. That is, reclaiming land. Moreover, emphasizing that it is with the destruction of the Kazakhs, that is, the main charge is already in genocide. Of course, this is even more nonsense, since about a third of Kazakhstan by the end of the 19th century would have been Russian.

                  The fact that the Russians were already advancing towards Bukhara, reached the borders of Kokand and Khiva, and the Kazakhs, as they lived in their "Cossack ELY" and lived, in itself completely and unconditionally confirms that you are talking nonsense. Nobody evicted or exterminated you. I repeat, INTEREST how the Indians of America, with whom you dared to compare yourself, felt when their territories were colonized. The Kazakhs were completely, that is, they were not at all capable of offering serious resistance. The person wrote to you correctly, they would like to evict, they would evict. If they were going to destroy, they would destroy. This was not the case. Kazakhs in Kazakhstan, the territory was Kazakh and remained. Moreover, within the boundaries of greater than before the collapse of the Kazakh Khanate. For a hundred years of the "monstrous colonial policy" of the Russians. I would have felt ashamed after such arguments, you just have to submit to the international court, demand the recognition of the genocide, you will succeed.
    2. SkiF_RnD
      SkiF_RnD 13 February 2014 07: 02
      +2
      I’m saying that deprivation of sovereignty is driving you crazy.

      You do not "do not sing hosanna" and are not "offended" for this. You blame. You could not stay consistent even within the same comment. Where do you logically prove your "idea".
      Since such a dance has begun, about "Indian reservations" and the like, why did the number of ethnic Kazakhs increase sharply over the 50 years of the Empire? North-West Kazakhstan was "colonized" and the Kazakhs "survived" from there even before the beginning of the 19th century. Where did the Kazakhs come from then? Today, and in 1900, and in 1940? Have they returned? Kicked out, and then changed your mind? Share with us. Because no one would have been there except Russians for more than a hundred years. We did not assimilate even those peoples that are part of Russia today, and joined much earlier (except for quite antiquity). How can you blame this? Ask what happened to the Indian tribes over a hundred years of colonization. Is that what they say in Kazakhstan now? "Russian officials said"? "did the governor of the province H say"? As I say, this is the perfect story. We were oppressed, we were a colony, and therefore at least we owe nothing to anyone (I mean the ethical side, not the material side). And so it turns out, because you did not have any justification for your lies, and you still do not.
  • Nomad
    Nomad 12 February 2014 11: 36
    +4
    But seriously, the pluses were great (nobody seems to argue much with this), but the cons are no less. And they built, and studied, and fought, and suffered together (and not just the Russians).
    Russia, by the way, before the Stalinist industrialization, was predominantly an agrarian country. Stalin bought technologies and specialists in the West in exchange for Russian wood, Ukrainian grain, Kazakhstani meat, etc.
    So, comrades Russians, do not need ungrateful and mediocre savages, donated lands, etc., okay?
    What was, was. History, as you know, does not tolerate the subjunctive mood.
    It is not necessary to clarify relations between themselves, for the enemy, as they say, is not asleep. And who is the enemy, everyone seems to understand on this site.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 12 February 2014 11: 58
      +2
      Quote: Nomad
      Russia, by the way, before the Stalinist industrialization, was predominantly an agrarian country.

      Russia became a backward agrarian country as a result of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the ensuing civil war and intervention.
      And Russia was not that backward, yes, the industry sagged as a result of the aforementioned events, but in comparison with some "savages" everything looked very good.
      Quote: Nomad
      So, comrades Russians, do not need ungrateful and mediocre savages, donated lands, etc., okay?

      Go to the beginning of the branch, this is your "inappropriate" address to users under your flag.
      1. Was mammoth
        Was mammoth 12 February 2014 15: 42
        +2
        Quote: Setrac
        Russia became a backward agrarian country as a result of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the ensuing civil war and intervention.

        Cool!!! A revolution in the comprehension of history. wink You at least look at the statistics, how many peasants were in tsarist Russia.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 12 February 2014 15: 57
          0
          Quote: There was a mammoth
          Cool!!! A revolution in the comprehension of history. You at least look at the statistics, how many peasants were in tsarist Russia.

          And what is this talking about? The number of peasants.
    2. Sars
      Sars 12 February 2014 12: 00
      0
      Quote: Nomad
      What was, was. History, as you know, does not tolerate the subjunctive mood.


      As for the subjunctive mood in history, I agree.
      But history can make a significant zig-zag.
      Suppose the next president of Russia will be from the former KazSSR and not an intillegent-sissy like Medvedev, but something closer to Zhirinovsky?
      1. SkiF_RnD
        SkiF_RnD 13 February 2014 07: 22
        +1
        As for the subjunctive mood in history, I agree.

        But in vain. This is utter stupidity, and the words clearly do not belong to a professional historian. Moreover, they belong to a woman, that is, a creature with an excess of emotional wink
        History is based on the subjunctive mood, this is its essence. Although they repeat this once-heard saying.
    3. Sars
      Sars 12 February 2014 12: 00
      +1
      Quote: Nomad
      What was, was. History, as you know, does not tolerate the subjunctive mood.


      As for the subjunctive mood in history, I agree.
      But history can make a significant zig-zag.
      Suppose the next president of Russia will be from the former KazSSR and not an intillegent-sissy like Medvedev, but something closer to Zhirinovsky?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Onizuka teacher
        Onizuka teacher 12 February 2014 13: 14
        +2
        Quote: SarS
        and something closer to Zhirinovsky?

        Well, come such and what will change? The Baltic states sent you, and officially a relationship with Kazakhstan will not be spoiled even by a person similar to Zhirinovsky who, as he says in Soviet times, was given little bread in Almaty, he had to sprinkle bread with golden crumbs. Kazakhstan, unlike other countries, has not thrown rotten eggs at you and is not going to throw it.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 12 February 2014 13: 27
          +5
          Quote: Teacher Onizuka
          officially relations with Kazakhstan will not spoil

          Of course, due to several provocateurs on some site, no one will spoil relations with Kazakhstan.
        2. Gecko
          Gecko 12 February 2014 13: 43
          +1
          Well, that Russia can send so little seems.
          Well, what will you do? Lie down under the Turks!
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 12 February 2014 14: 03
            +1
            Quote: gecko
            Well, what will you do? Lie down under the Turks!

            Above it was said about conjunctural writing, whose writing - under that and gathered to go to bed.
          2. Refugee from Kazakhstan
            Refugee from Kazakhstan 12 February 2014 15: 45
            -1
            I think Russian opponents could be more convincing if they bothered to read a little bit of history at least in the Soviet interpretation (by the way, the rebellion of Isatay Naimanov and Makhambet Utemisov there was assessed as anti-colonial). But a derogatory attitude that is already more like a mentality does not allow you to read the story at least a little (as if these natives could have a story, writing, culture - the darkness is dense) and this reads your chauvinism, I am silent about the comments!
            1. SkiF_RnD
              SkiF_RnD 13 February 2014 07: 24
              +1
              Your chauvinism is no better. Silence is better.
    4. Clegg
      Clegg 12 February 2014 13: 17
      +2
      Quote: Nomad
      It is not necessary to clarify relations between themselves, for the enemy, as they say, is not asleep. And who is the enemy, everyone seems to understand on this site.

      And who is the enemy then? and I? Little shaver? Geyropa? Liquid Masons? Who!
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 12 February 2014 13: 55
        +2
        Quote: Clegg
        And who is the enemy then? and I? Little shaver? Geyropa? Liquid Masons? Who!

        Come on, we already know that these are your friends, but not friends of Kazakhstan.
        Especially
        Quote: Clegg
        Geyropa
        1. Clegg
          Clegg 12 February 2014 14: 12
          0
          Quote: Setrac
          C'mon, we already know that these are your friends

          Who are we?))) Friends or not, this is a question, but the fact that I do not consider them enemies is true.

          In general, I think that Kazakhstan has no particular enemies, there are some concerns about the TS / EAC and nothing more. You just have to be a responsible subject of international law, and not to wonder how Gaddafi or Chavez did it.
          1. Zymran
            Zymran 12 February 2014 14: 21
            +3
            Quote: Clegg
            not to wonder how Gaddafi or Chavez did it.


            This character of one person reminds me very much, especially the words at the very beginning of the song.

            1. Clegg
              Clegg 12 February 2014 17: 18
              0
              They will die to protect me? Lol, in fact, it turned out the opposite)))))))))))))
              1. Zymran
                Zymran 12 February 2014 17: 52
                +1
                I mean, there are still some who have such misconceptions
                1. Clegg
                  Clegg 12 February 2014 18: 27
                  +1
                  Quote: Zymran
                  I mean, there are still some who have such misconceptions

                  It seems to me that someone has already bought a piece of land on Hainan Island, and sits packing their things and keeps a Boeing with full refueling))))))
          2. Setrac
            Setrac 12 February 2014 14: 25
            +6
            Quote: Clegg
            Friends or not, this is a question, but the fact that I do not consider them enemies is true.

            And your grandfather fought in World War II?
            Quote: Clegg
            In general, I think that Kazakhstan has no particular enemies

            Therefore, let's cut the army, navy and nuclear triad - familiar phrases. You are either mistaken or conduct enemy propaganda (read pro-Western).
            1. Clegg
              Clegg 12 February 2014 14: 49
              0
              Quote: Setrac
              And your grandfather fought in World War II?

              And here it is?

              Quote: Setrac
              Therefore, let's cut the army, navy and nuclear triad - familiar phrases.

              Well, I'm not talking about you (RF), these are your problems. It’s not for me to advise you ...
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 12 February 2014 14: 58
                +4
                Quote: Clegg
                And here it is?

                Kazakhstan has too many resources for the west to leave you alone.
                Quote: Clegg
                Well, I'm not talking about you (RF), these are your problems. It’s not for me to advise you ...

                I brought for example, we hear these phrases constantly. Western countries thirsting for foreign resources with both hands for disarmament - disarmament of Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, but not their own.
    5. Yuri Sev Caucasus
      Yuri Sev Caucasus 12 February 2014 14: 54
      0
      For this approach, a fat plus. otherwise we’ll measure it with pipiskas!
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • TS3sta3
    TS3sta3 12 February 2014 12: 05
    0
    “Whoever shoots the past with a pistol, the future will shoot with the gun,” R. Gamzatov wrote
  • Nomad
    Nomad 12 February 2014 12: 10
    -1
    Quote: Setrac
    Too many non-Russians were in management structures, as a result - collapse.

    Well, of course!!! Non-Russians are to blame for everything! Anyone, but not Russians, for Russians are sinless and infallible! Hallelujah! laughing
    Either the Americans or the Kazakhs destroyed the USSR, since 1986, Jews organized the Red Terror. The revolution of 1917 was staged by the Germans. If Russia fought with someone, it was solely because it was pitted by the wise old woman England, because the Russian rulers are pure as angels and naive as children. The fact that Russia has always lagged behind the West in technical development is guilty, of course, of the Mongol-Tatars, as well as of the Russian desire for totaltazmu, sorry, to a strong hand.
    The trend, however.
    In general, I had no doubt that you would not understand my sarcasm. The historical consciousness of the Russian person is too mythologized and ideologized (maybe English or French there too, I don’t know about them).
  • Nomad
    Nomad 12 February 2014 12: 28
    -1
    Quote: Setrac
    Go to the beginning of the branch, this is your "inappropriate" address to users under your flag.

    That is why the words "colonial policy, colony, colonization" have become offensive for the Russian, while all other former imperial peoples (the British, French, Spaniards, etc.) are calm about them? Maybe because they don't dream of luring the colonies back? Accordingly, they do not need to convince anyone that the power over the colonies was for the colonies a continuous stream of gingerbread, presents and pleasant surprises. Or are they mature enough to calmly look in the mirror of their history?
    And, dear, on this and on other sites, some Russians do not offend Kazakhs as soon as possible. In comparison, the definition of Russian expansion as "colonization" is just a compliment.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 12 February 2014 13: 04
      +6
      Quote: Nomad
      That is why the words "colonial policy, colony, colonization" have become offensive for the Russian, while all the other former imperial peoples (British, French, Spaniards, etc.) are calm about them?

      Because radishes (a stronger word does not miss the site engine) they are, and we are not.
      Quote: Nomad
      Maybe because they don’t dream of luring the colonies back?

      Take an interest in the fate of countries trying to leave the British community.
      Quote: Nomad
      Or are they mature enough to calmly look in the mirror of their story?

      There is no mirror of history, they wrote to themselves a story that is convenient for them, this has nothing to do with real history.

      Quote: Nomad
      And, dear, on this and other sites, some Russian Kazakhs as soon as they do not insult.

      No one insults the Kazakhs, they answer a specific person under the Kazakh flag, who may not be a Kazakh, in any case, they do not insult the Kazakhs, but Russians are always welcome, doesn’t it seem unfair to you?
      1. Clegg
        Clegg 12 February 2014 13: 14
        +1
        Quote: Setrac
        Take an interest in the fate of countries trying to leave the British community.

        Ireland is out and feeling relatively good.
        1. Gecko
          Gecko 12 February 2014 13: 46
          +6
          Ireland is still not an independent state, which is controlled by a superstructure called the EU, and the EU is controlled by the USA i.e. they remained under the same Anglo-Saxons in a different form.
          1. Clegg
            Clegg 12 February 2014 13: 52
            -4
            Quote: gecko
            Ireland is still not an independent state, which is controlled by a superstructure called the EU, and the EU is controlled by the USA i.e. they remained under the same Anglo-Saxons in a different form.

            Well, if we argue like that, there are only two independent countries left: the USA and China.
            1. nevopros
              nevopros 13 February 2014 00: 15
              0
              Ridiculous irony. Actually, yes, the UK, US and China are more "independent" than other players on the planet. In Russia, independence is now manifested in the understanding of the processes on the outskirts of the Eastern Hemisphere and in Eurasia in particular.
            2. CALL.
              CALL. 14 February 2014 01: 45
              0
              Quote: Clegg
              Well, if we argue like that, there are only two independent countries left: the USA and China.

              There are two independent states: the USA and England. Although they are controlled by the Fed and the IMF.
    2. pRofF
      12 February 2014 15: 33
      +7
      That is why the words "colonial policy, colony, colonization" have become offensive for the Russian

      The following reasons:
      1. For a normal Russian person, a comparison with nations that carried out the planned genocide of other nationalities is a direct insult.
      2. Russians differed from Europe in good nature and conscientiousness. And yet - the desire for truth, which we inherited from our Slavic ancestors. I'm not talking about state power and those in power. We are talking about ordinary Russian people. Of course, we are not white and fluffy, but we did not hand out blankets with smallpox. But ordinary people often tried to help their neighbors - as far as possible, regardless of nationality. And now, when they are compared with the colonialists - they have the right to be offended.
      1. Was mammoth
        Was mammoth 12 February 2014 18: 55
        +4
        Quote: pRofF
        The reasons are as follows: ...

        It's hard to prove something if you have a convenient stereotype in your head. It is convenient when the Russians are to blame. And arguments are not needed. You can blame all the troubles on the "colonialists", like our "allies", on the "ocupants", like the Balts, which is basically the same thing. It’s not our own fault.
        You tried to impartially define what a colony is. The "oppressed" already have their own definition. Yours does not suit them.
        By the way, one of the reasons for the expansion of Russian land was just the neighbors themselves. There were raids from Kazan — the Kazan Khanate didn’t, the Poles climbed — the Polish kingdom didn’t, the Crimean Tatars got the Crimean Khanate (and the Turks didn’t help), the Kazakh ancestors raided (one of the descendants on the site boasted that his kind Samara made raids) - there were no Kazakh khanates ..., and so on. wink
        1. Alibekulu
          Alibekulu 14 February 2014 11: 30
          -1
          Quote: There was a mammoth
          One of the reasons for the expansion of Russian land was precisely the neighbors themselves.
          There are very few Russians, Russians who are not blinded by the long-standing and centuries-old propaganda "about the good nature and conscientiousness of Russians" and are really objective.
          And, one of the few is Alexandr0id whose comment I will give:
          so, the huge population of Russia was the key to its expansion and transformation into an empire, in the 16 century the Moscow kingdom began to expand eastward, where this same population was many times smaller, the largest opponent on the path of expansion - the khanate of Kazan in 11-12 times was inferior in number to the Moscow kingdom (450 thousand vs 5 million)and taking into account the loyal (Tatar) population of the Khanate, then in 25 times (210 thousand vs 5 million). the Astrakhan Khanate is 200 times (25 thousand), the Siberian Khanate is 125 times (40 thousand, of which Tatars are about 12 thousand) in the 17 century, 7 Russia is expanding beyond the Urals, where the largest people are the Yakuts (40 thousand).
          Ukraine's transition to Russian citizenship is dramatically changing the demographic situation in Eastern Europe. if before that time the population of the post-political speech was 11 million people, and of Russia - 7 million, then Russia with Little Russia is already 11 million against the "Poles" who have shrunk to 7 million. from that time on, the speech has gone to decline and decay. the main enemy in the west actually self-destructed.
          The expansion of Russia to the south due to the militancy of the local population became possible only from the end of the 18 century, when the Russian population exceeded 20 million, and accordingly the recruitment capabilities for conducting large-scale military operations increased significantly. the main adversary in the south is the Crimean Khanate (about 450 thousand of the Tatar population at the end of the 18 century) and its boss is the Ottoman Empire, with which it was equal in size. only in OI out of 24 million the Turks themselves amounted to about 5 million people, and together with the loyal Tatars, Kurds and Albanians - a maximum of 7 million (30%), and in Russia Russian (large, small and white) population - 90%.
          in the 19 century, Russian conquests spread to the Caucasus and Central Asia. The census of the 1897 year shows that the entire population of the Caucasus and Central Asia is 17 million people, i.e. 13,5% of the population ri.
          from all this we can conclude that the root cause of the power of Russia is the demographic prevalence of the Russian (including in its broad concept) population over neighbors and foreigners within the country. the loss of such demographic dominance inevitably leads to the loss of domestic and foreign policy significance and influence.
          Why prove about individual qualities, about opposition to more numerous adversaries? after all, Suvorov's "not in number, but in skill" refers to the period when the army consisted purely of professional soldiers recruited for 20-25 years, and in such quantities that no country of the then world could afford
          1. SkiF_RnD
            SkiF_RnD 14 February 2014 21: 39
            0
            There are very few Russians, Russians who


            Who compose such dregs? This man doesn't really understand the story. 7 million against 11 and 11 against 7, this is not a reason for "decay and decay". And you are no smarter than the one you quoted if you fell for this nonsense. It takes a long time to explain, actually a long time, but I assure you that if these numbers were deciding who will prosper and who will "wither away", the Indians and Chinese would remain on the planet. Even in the 15th century, even in the 18th century, the prosperity of the state was impossible without a strong army. It was the internal reasons that ruined the so-called "Ulus Jochi". It was the internal reasons that destroyed the Achaemenid State, the Commonwealth, the USSR, the Austrian Empire and many others. External influence is a catalyst and aggravating factor. A person who does not have the slightest idea about historical processes faked this opus and captivated your sympathies, because his point of view is simply convenient for you. Appraising impartially this "masterpiece" cannot be defined as a balanced, serious opinion. It's all.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Nomad
    Nomad 12 February 2014 12: 30
    +1
    Quote: SarS
    Suppose the next president of Russia will be from the former KazSSR and not an intillegent-sissy like Medvedev, but something closer to Zhirinovsky?

    Do you mean that he can start "collecting land" in a tough way? Not those times. And Russia is not the same, whether you like it or not.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 12 February 2014 13: 06
      +1
      Quote: Nomad
      Do you mean that he can start "collecting land" in a tough way? Not those times. And Russia is not the same, whether you like it or not.

      Or maybe Siberia will give to Kazakhstan? am
      1. Onizuka teacher
        Onizuka teacher 12 February 2014 13: 22
        +2
        Quote: Setrac
        Or maybe Siberia will give to Kazakhstan?

        No thanks, we don’t need someone else’s, we already have a lot of undeveloped land.
      2. Onizuka teacher
        Onizuka teacher 12 February 2014 13: 22
        0
        Quote: Setrac
        Or maybe Siberia will give to Kazakhstan?

        No thanks, we don’t need someone else’s, we already have a lot of undeveloped land.
  • groin
    groin 12 February 2014 12: 32
    +11
    Losers will always find a culprit in their problems and in order not to go far they will be the one who is nearby (it does not matter brother, matchmaker ...) I am a citizen of KAZAKHSTAN, Russian by nationality and was born in Russia, and I don't care what skin color or eye shape from my friends or relatives. Many people argue like medieval ignoramuses (at the level of "self" who will shout louder) and looking at you young people with fragile brains, who do not know the good things that happened between our ancestors (friendship, solidarity during common troubles, victories, space and much the other) sees only chernukha, an enemy who destroyed identity, culture, and then his "exclusivity" in this world.
    Think about who benefits from it now, today. And so, each nation is unique in its own way. And the Russians adopted a lot from the Kazakhs ("illiterate Asians," as they write here), and my homeland Russia gave a lot to the Uzbeks, Kirghiz, Kazakhs, etc. D.) What are you sharing? (Golovkina, Musabayeva, Maldagulova with 28 Panfilovites .... ???) Teach children correctly and fairly (review new history books), only TOGETHER we are strong.

    P / S Uncle CEM is only too happy for many comments.
  • Nomad
    Nomad 12 February 2014 12: 42
    -5
    Quote: Setrac
    Dancing with a tambourine has not gone away, those who want a tambourine, one with a tambourine, maybe you yourself were not very willing to preserve your culture and language? And the filthy colonialists kept it in spite of your indifference!

    The number of Kazakh schools has already been mentioned. In principle, there was no higher education in Kazakh. Do you know that in Soviet times in Alma-Ata, Kazakhs who spoke Kazakh in a public place could easily be approached by brave Russian guys and said “hey, you, speak like a human being!”? By the way, a couple of years ago I was in Russia on a business trip, I saw exactly the same picture on the bus (either Caucasians, or Azitians, I could not see). The state language was Russian, Kazakh was actually driven into the homes of the aul Kazakhs. It's all called simply - Russification.
    Quote: Setrac
    You push your pathetic speech to the North American Indians, or to the native Australians, if you find any.

    And this is what, do not understand? Hint that we must say thank you that you did not destroy us? Thanks, thank you! Or maybe you say thank you to the Mongol-Tatars or to the Germans there that they did not destroy the Russians?
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 12 February 2014 13: 08
      +4
      Quote: Nomad
      Hint that we must say thank you that you did not destroy us?

      What kind of person, such thoughts, you immediately thought about the bad - you mean a bad person, but do not judge by yourself. Say thank you that the Anglo-Saxons did not destroy you. They have such a national tradition - to destroy peoples and countries.
    2. Yeraz
      Yeraz 12 February 2014 16: 00
      0
      Quote: Nomad
      Do you know that in Soviet times in Alma-Ata, Kazakhs speaking Kazakh in a public place could be approached by brave Russian guys and said "hey, you, speak like a human being!" By the way, a couple of years ago I was in Russia on a business trip, I saw exactly the same picture on the bus (either Caucasians, or Azitians, I did not see).

      Russians have always been jealous of their language. Recently, one tried to prove to me that in Russia I should always speak Russian. I am like that and with what hangover I should speak Russian with my fellow countryman ?? And there was a brilliant answer that you are in Russia) )) I’m such a hell then you are speaking in your own language outside of Russia, in England, Germany and many other countries ?? There was a dumb look. There was a desire to introduce it even more stupidly, citing the example of Russian Ukraine, Kazakhstan, who were born and living there I don’t own a local nifiga, but pity prevailed))
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Nomad
    Nomad 12 February 2014 12: 47
    +1
    Quote: Setrac
    Actually, those who are slowly - they are already gone, became extinct like dinosaurs.

    The Lord God himself told you that the same thing would certainly happen with the Kazakhs? Or are you a light magician out of categories, can you view and calculate multiple versions of a story?
  • nnnnnn
    nnnnnn 12 February 2014 12: 51
    0
    Quote: Setrac
    Russia became a backward agrarian country as a result of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the ensuing civil war and intervention.
    And Russia was not that backward, yes, the industry sagged as a result of the aforementioned events, but in comparison with some "savages" everything looked very good.

    Minister of Agriculture A. Naumov (1915-1916): "Russia practically does not crawl out of a state of hunger, either in one or the other province, both before the war and during the war." 70 percent of coal production was controlled by foreign joint stock companies. This also included the Karaganda coal basin. By 1914, approximately half of oil production and three quarters of oil trade belonged to foreign financial syndicates. The first oil in Kazakhstan (then Russian colonies) began to be developed by the British, and Alfred Nobel traded Russian oil itself. A similar situation developed in real production. Foreigners produced 67 percent of “Russian” cast iron and 58 percent of finished metal products. Germany occupied a monopoly position in the manufacture of electrical products. Agricultural machines were made by the Americans. The Belgian owned tram roads. 40 percent of all Russian banks belonged to foreigners. Even the pride of Russia, the Trans-Siberian and Manchurian railways were built with the serious participation of foreign capital, which means it belonged to it. And the Russian Empire was even stronger on the credit needle than even the current Russian Federation. In 1913, the average annual per capita income in Russia was only 32% of the German and 11.5 percent of the American. And as we see the situation has not changed much since then. Russia then and today was and is a raw materials appendage for Europe and the United States. In fact - a colony.
  • Clegg
    Clegg 12 February 2014 13: 08
    -5
    I was already called a provocateur and a troll, they accused me of allegedly starting srach.

    For me, the fact that Kazakhstan was a colony of Russia is an axiom.

    And, the question here is that you do not want to accept the fact that your country was a colonial empire. These are obvious things, do not want to admit that you were wrong? Do you think that the former colonies will ask the Germans for money like Jews? What is the problem?
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 12 February 2014 13: 32
      +7
      Quote: Clegg
      For me, the fact that Kazakhstan was a colony of Russia is an axiom.

      Axiom is something indisputable. The controversial issue cannot be an axiom. Put things in order in your head.
      Quote: Clegg
      Do you think that the former colonies will ask the Germans for money like Jews?

      The former ask, without any "would".
      1. Clegg
        Clegg 12 February 2014 13: 35
        -2
        Quote: Setrac
        Axiom is something indisputable.

        Do you think I do not know the meaning of the word I wrote?))) Or decided to "civilize" me)))))))) By the way, the indisputable is written like this, through "C")))))

        Quote: Setrac
        Put things in order in your head.

        You are most likely a communist, right?
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 12 February 2014 13: 58
          +4
          Quote: Clegg
          By the way, the indisputable is spelled like this, through the "C"

          Without contentious - denial of the dispute.
          Demon controversial - arguing demon.
          Deny the Western BES ideology.
          Quote: Clegg
          Do you think I do not know the meaning of the word I wrote?

          There was such a thought. So are you deliberately cheating?
          1. Clegg
            Clegg 12 February 2014 14: 02
            0
            Quote: Setrac
            Deny the Western BES ideology.

            Western ideology))) Are you a communist? answer the question please
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 12 February 2014 14: 26
              +2
              Quote: Clegg
              Western ideology))) Are you a communist? answer the question please

              No, I’m not a communist, unfortunately I can’t rank myself among these worthy people.
        2. 11111mail.ru
          11111mail.ru 12 February 2014 18: 53
          0
          Quote: Clegg
          By the way, the indisputable is spelled like this, through "C

          Withoutcontroversial, withoutuseful, withoutglorious = true and written in Russian.
          You were taught to write and introduced into the consciousness that BESScontroversial, BESSuseful, BESSnice.
          Think about whom you praise and do not try, following a formal rule, to blame your opponent for illiteracy.
    2. Gecko
      Gecko 12 February 2014 14: 43
      +2
      Everything, we were ashamed of our imperial behavior ...
      I'm going to carve myself ... What's next?
      Each time you will say a little: yes, you are generally colonialists here, you should be ashamed of it, go repent before us.
      Well, if it’s disgusting to live in a vehicle with former colonialists, why don’t you go to the EU, Turkey, China, etc. ?
      1. Clegg
        Clegg 12 February 2014 14: 57
        -1