“Russians, wake up! You can’t leave Central Asia ”
“You are at home, you need to know about it,” the sociologist Maxim Akimov urges compatriots
“In no case can not leave. Moreover, you need to return to the region, you need to restore the ethnic balance, because more recently, the Slavs and Kazakhs on the territory of Kazakhstan were about equal! ”
A sociologist Maxim Akimov addressed our compatriots in Kazakhstan and all of Central Asia from the pages of the Russian in Kazakhstan magazine with such a call.
“Russians, wake up,” he repeats over and over again, “we must not leave, we must not retreat, we must not allow the region to fall out of the Russian world. In no case can not leave their positions, show cowardice! "
“You are at home, you need to know about it,” he recalls.
Maxim Akimov knows firsthand about the problems of our compatriots. “By the nature of my scientific and journalistic interests,” he writes, “I am integrated into the theme of Russian-Turkic relations. I was born in Astrakhan, visited Kazakhstan, I am now in Russia, but I know very well about the problems that the Russian-speaking population of Kazakhstan faces. I watch with dismay and regret how the Slavic population of Central Asia continues to decline, and this entails a whole host of negative consequences that affect Great Russia.
By education I am a sociologist, he continues, the dissertation I am currently working on is devoted to the problem of inter-ethnic relations between the Turkic and Slavic peoples of the Caspian, and therefore I would very much like my knowledge and capabilities to help Russian-speaking compatriots. I have something to say, have something to share, and, as it seems, I can contribute, help realize the point of support that can give a new impetus to the revival of Russian-speaking culture in Central Asia. ”
What does the expert want to explain to our compatriots? And the fact that the Russians have almost more rights to consider this territory as theirs than the same Kazakhs.
The situation of the Slavic, Russian-speaking population of Central Asia has become very unnatural since 1991, he recalls. The Russians were artificially driven into that ideological lacuna, which does not correspond to their present status; the Russians were systematically inspired by false buggers, imposed a stereotype according to which they are not in their homeland, but in a foreign land.
Although in reality this is not the case, Akimov notes. Russians, Ukrainians and other Slavs who brought civilization to the steppe region, became the first settlers who founded cities and enterprises, can in no way be “less indigenous” than the same Kazakhs. The situation in which Kazakhs in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz in Kyrgyzstan are declared the “first nation”, the main nation, and the Russians as an alien element, is deeply absurd and anti-scientific, does not correspond to the scientific truth, the author stresses.
The fact is, Akimov continues, that until the Russians came to the steppe region, there was no settled population here at all. Perhaps somewhere in the south of the territory of present-day Kazakhstan there were isolated small villages, but there were no cities, no civilization was found. Russian and other Slavs, who arrived from the inner provinces of Russia, were therefore the first settlers, the first permanent population of the region. It is they who can be considered the indigenous population of Kazakhstan, the author believes.
Nomadic peoples here were very different, he recalls, they moved across vast territories, knew no borders, did not have the statehood that existed among the nations of the New Time. The same Kazakh tribes, whom Russian sources called most often Kyrgyz-Kaisaks or Kyrgyz, wandered not only in what is now Kazakhstan, but also in the lands of present-day Mongolia and China.
It was the Russians who created everything that later became the basis of the statehood of the Kazakh SSR and present-day Kazakhstan, writes Akimov. If the Russians had not founded the cities, hadn’t brought technologies of effective survival, hadn’t created the economy and industry, the fate of the Kazakhs and Kyrgyz would be exactly the same as the fate of the nomadic peoples of present Mongolia, China, Pakistan, Afghanistan: disorder, epidemics, lack of autonomy, low population size, wildness.
And now they declare to us that the territory of Kazakhstan is “originally Kazakh land”. In fact, the expert emphasizes that this statement is more than debatable! Kirghiz-Kaisaki, that is, the nomadic population of the Kazakh zhuzes, he recalls, was far from being the first and not the only tribal union of this territory. There were a great many nomadic peoples here, including those who lived in parallel with the Kazakhs. However, all those quasi-states that were created by these peoples had nothing to do with what we now mean by the term “state”, because they were only tribal unions of the early medieval type. Compare Kazakh Zhuz XVIII. and Russia in the 18th century - this is intellectual dishonesty.
Disputes about the territory between the descendants of the nomadic and sedentary population do not arise only in Central Asia, reminds Akimov, such disputes are not uncommon even in Europe. But every time it is the sedentary ethnic group that is considered the indigenous population, and the nomadic rights are secondary. For example, in the eastern regions of Armenia, where there was a nomadic Azerbaijani and sedentary Armenian population, international experts in the settlement of the Karabakh conflict identified precisely the Armenian one. And in Romania, where Roma roamed from ancient times, Romanians, descendants of the settled Vlachs, are considered as the indigenous population, although there is evidence that Roma could roam on this land before the formation of the Wallachian people.
Also in Kazakhstan, the truly indigenous people should be the one who was sedentary, who created a civilized state here, who first founded villages, cities, permanent economy, the author is convinced.
Akimov reminds that he treats Kazakhs and Kyrgyz well, that he has lived side by side with the Kazakhs for many years, he knows a lot of good things about them, he was friends with them. But the fact is, the expert writes, “that the current official context simply depresses me, surprises with its aggressive nationalism on the one hand, and its absurdity and illogicality on the other.” The Russian state is equated with the Kazakh zhuzes, they represent everything as if it were two equal values, as if before joining Russia in the steppe region there was something that could be called a state similar to the government centers of the New Time. But this is just a lie, Akimov is convinced.
The life of Kazakhs was at the level of nomadic herders, he recalls, while the Lomonosovs and Mendeleevs already appeared in Russia. The Russian people, straining their intellectual strength and physical abilities, created a high culture, statehood and technologies for effective survival, which he transmitted to the peoples who roamed on the outskirts of the expanding Russian empire. The Russians were a successful nation; they were heirs to Greek culture; at the same time, Kazakhs and Kyrgyz, unfortunately, could not boast of creating such a state, they were comprehended for several reasons historical failure.
But now Russians are being forced to pay for this failure, Akimov writes. We are forced to impose a mandatory study of the Kazakh language, although, unfortunately, neither science nor literature has been created. When a person learns Russian, French or English, he gets the opportunity to use the achievements that this language has. But when a person is forced to switch to a language that does not have a tenth of the same civilizational opportunities, this only shows that there is someone's whim, someone's desire to force, to impose this language. And the Russians are forced to learn the Turkic language, which is incomprehensible to them, just to make someone pleasant, just to please.
But if we discard false hypocrisy, if we look truth in the eyes, we will have to admit that imposing the Kazakh language is just a whim of politicians and the egoism of the nationalists, that this language can not give anything like the Russian language. vast opportunities and amazing wealth.
Of course, this did not start yesterday, the author recalls: even the Bolsheviks did their best to increase the teaching and dissemination of Kazakh and other languages. And now in the advancement of non-Russian languages the West is very interested, which wants to completely oust Russia from Central Asia. And, perhaps, if the Kazakh and Kyrgyz languages continue to develop in the 500 years, if they manage to accumulate the same literary tradition that the Russian language already has, then they will be able to compete with it. But as long as the situation is as it is, insisting on switching to the Kazakh language is the same as forcing adults to communicate in children’s dialect. And there is nothing offensive, just such is the reality of the story, the expert notes.
However, he believes that the Russians themselves, the Russian-speaking population of Central Asia, are also to blame for the situation that has developed in the most recent years. After all, we ourselves agree with the stereotype that imposes on us the role of poor relatives, an alien element in the steppe region. Although this is nonsense, the Russians on the territory of present-day Kazakhstan, at home, in their homeland, were the first and indigenous settlers of these places. These lands are part of the Russian Empire.
In present-day Kazakhstan, there are places (the territories adjacent to Petropavlovsk, for example), where there was almost no Kazakh nomads, that is, these territories can only be Russian. But after all, the Kazakhization is carried out there, and there Russians are declared an alien element.
“Slavs, wake up! - appeals to compatriots Maxim Akimov. “You are not a guest, you are at home.”
Here is a letter sent to the site "Russian in Kazakhstan." And it reveals, in fact, the most vital dilemma facing our compatriots in Central Asia (and not only in this region). How should they be, how can they survive in the conditions of the constant growth of the oppression of local ethnocracy? Run to Russia or stay in their homeland (which, as Maxim Akimov reminds, is also a territory of Russia)?
The question is very difficult. Yes, in Russia for more than four years, there is a state program of resettlement of compatriots. But how does it work (if this word is appropriate here at all)? That's how. “Since the start of the implementation of the State Program for Assisting Voluntary Resettlement in Russia to Compatriots, about 54 000 applications for participation in it and 27 300 applications for issuing a certificate of its participant have been accepted,” the Federal Migration Service of Russia reported recently. “To date, over 26 000 certificates have already been issued, and 44 000 former compatriots with family members, including a quarter of them this year, have arrived in the Russian Federation.”
Thus, in 4, all 44 000 compatriots moved to Russia! It is somewhere two times less than what the program developers expected! In fact - a complete failure of the federal program! Which looks so relief, if we recall that in Russia, according to experts, there are now more than 15 million migrants, most of whom are simply hiding from the same FMS, since they are staying here illegally! It turns out that our migration authorities, which have opened wide the borders to migrant workers, are more interested in settling Russia with migrant migrants, who sometimes do not even speak Russian, than in repatriating to the historical homeland of the age-old Russian people? It turns out that way.
Well, those compatriots who were still able to move to Russia - how did they do it? Forums to articles in RuNet on this topic are full of stories of displaced people about arbitrariness, bureaucratic obstacles and indifference of officials (including the very FMS) that people who have decided to move to Russia have encountered. In fact, they received no real help and support from the state. Yes, there are undoubtedly some examples of the concern shown by the authorities about compatriots, but this is a real drop in the ocean. An exception that only underlines the general rule: the compatriots were not needed by the Russian authorities.
Why, then, should our compatriots leave the countries in which they found themselves against their will? And then, as there they feel the farther, the more and more uncomfortable. But in many “independent” states, our compatriots are simply persecuted and fully experience the manifestations of discrimination by “indigenous” nations. And here they also cannot count on help from official Russia. Ta with might and main in trading with these countries, earning money, and the oppression of their fellow countrymen simply fall out of sight of the Russian authorities. A fresh example: the Russians in Kazakhstan are sounding the alarm in connection with the "Kazakhization", and something is not heard that at least somehow the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation is concerned or at least our embassy in Astana.
And what then remains to our compatriots? In Russia, they, with rare exceptions, are not expected. And in those countries it is also harder for them to stay.
The question is very complex and very painful. Maxim Akimov, of course, is right, urging compatriots to defend their rights more resolutely. In the end, it is our Russian land, our ancestors raised it and arranged it. That's just our compatriots have the right to count on at least some help in protecting their rights from the Russian state, which declares itself at almost every corner as a power, which everyone in this world reckons with.
Information