The process of the of inclusion the Kazakhstani territory into Russian Empire began in 1731, and had lasted for almost 100 years. The chain of actions [the confiscation of lands, the 1822, 1824, 1868 statute] that the Tsarist government had undertaken forced the Kazakh people to stand against expansion ambitions of the Russian Empire. The majority of rebellions that occurred in the XIX century aimed to limit Russian control over Steppe region and to reestablish the former social and political structure of Kazakhstan. Among such revolts, Kenesary Kasymov’s uprising is considered to be one of the most crucial events in the history of Kazakhstan. However, it reflects different and controversial interpretations. For example, Yuriy Malikov in his work called “The Kenesary Kasymov Rebellion (1837–1847): A National-Liberation Movement or “a Protest of Restoration”?” asserts that Kenesary’s rebellion was neither a national-liberation movement nor an attempt to return the former Khanate. He argues that Kenesary was a modernizer; he aimed to create a new type of state. He also argues that at aforementioned period the clan (Ru) ties were stronger than nation ties. In this paper, I will analyze Malikov’s article, and challenge his argument by maintaining the idea that Kenesary Kasymov’s rebellion could be regarded as a national-liberation movement with a common goal to resist Tsarist expansionist ambitions.
During the reading, he makes several assumptions. Firstly, what is evident when reading the text is that he thinks that Kazakhstani historians are biased, depicting Kenesary as one of the most crucial and important figures in Kazakhstani history.
Malikov argues that the rebellion was driven by personal motives, particularly clan clashes,...
... middle of paper ...
...money were of high necessity in order to have a strength to resist to Tsarist troops.
Evidence that Malikov uses are mostly non-Kazakh. He cites Soviet and Western scholars and works, which in turn could be biased, since they might not be able to illustrate the real pattern of the rebellion. Soviet sources could possibly present another picture of rebellion, because at Soviet time to mention such rebellions at a positive pattern was of a high danger, since you could have been arrested for anti-propaganda of Russian policy.
In conclusion, I would restate that Malikov was wring to state that the rebellion of Kenesary Kasymov could not be defined as a national-liberation movement. He uses the lack of mass support, the absence of national basis as an evidence to prove his claim. However, at that time it was already possible to name Kazakhs as an established nation.
With the coinciding of a revolution on the brink of eruption and the impacts of the First World War beginning to take hold of Russia, considered analysis of the factors that may have contributed to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty is imperative, as a combination of several factors were evidently lethal. With the final collapse of the 300 year old Romanov Dynasty in 1917, as well as the fall of Nicholas II, a key reality was apparent; the impact that WWI had on autocratic obliteration was undeniable. However, reflection of Russia’s critical decisions prior to the war is essential in the assessment of the cause of the fall of the Romanov Dynasty. No war is fought without the struggle for resources, and with Russia still rapidly lagging behind in the international industrialisation race by the turn of the 20th century, the stage was set for social unrest and uprising against its already uncoordinated and temporarily displaced government. With inconceivable demands for soldiers, cavalry and warfare paraphernalia, Russia stood little chance in the face of the great powers of World War One.
When Russians talk about the war of 1812 they do not mean the war in which Washington was burned by the British, but the war in which, apparently, the Russians burned Moscow. This war between the French republican empire and the Russian Tsarist Empire was as remarkable a high - spot in the history of the latter as it was a low - spot in the history of Napoleon. For Russia, it was one of those rare moments in history when almost all people, serfs and lords, merchants and bureaucrats, put aside their enmities and realized that they were all Russians. Russia, sometimes called ‘a state without a people’, seemed to become, for a few precious months, one people, and never quite forgot the experience.
“Split Personality Of The Russian National Character” Russian Empire, USSR, and the smaller states of today, the largest one being Russia itself have had their due share of a very healthy legacy and have been at the forefront of things. Russian Empire was the last largest empire to have survived for so long and when that split up things did not end there. It is a huge piece of land with marked difference in every respect possible. The way they have contributed to the history and made history is simply commendable. One keeps wondering when one sets to read about what is expected and what is due. The history seems intriguing when we start considering the Russian history. The Russians represents a sort of split personality and the way things have turned out over the years it seems that there are a lot of factors working within the system that might have contributed to a lot of problems besides contributing to the uplift of the nation. It is the same nation that has astounded the world by its contrasts and taken the things to the extreme in different ages. Be it wealth and poverty, culture and primitivism, cruelty and human genius. Behind or beneath these contrasts lies the deep dichotomy that splits the national psyche. The heritage and culture is bright and strong but in places is mulled and dark as well and there is proof of conflicting forces represented by the cultures of Europe and Asia, West and East. A nation that had so much and gave so much yet suffered such frequent ups and lows and what could be the reasons that might have contributed to all of this? Split personality of the Russian national character is a part of their heritage as well. Russians had a dual national identity and at times there have been more than two as w...
Dunlop, John B. . Russia Confronts Chechnya : Roots of a Separatist Conflict . : Cambridge University Press , 1998.
Her timeline extends all the way from the runup to the infamous February and October revolutions, through the New Economic Plan, and Stalin’s collectivization efforts, in which he collectivized the peasant agriculture and put an end to private landownership . She then tackles the so-called “Thermidorian” episode of the Russian Revolution, akin to a period which she asserts lead to the fall of the Jacobins after their Reign of Terror, and finally ending with the rise of Stalin and the enactment of his Great Purges . She explains to the readers the main concepts of the greater movement in a straightforward manner, primarily through the use of examples and her chronological presentation of ideas. All in all, The Russian Revolution presents us with a thorough account of the time period with some very interesting perspectives, and should be considered one of the most formative works on the subject to this
Wood, A. (1986). The Russian Revolution. Seminar Studies in History. (2) Longman, p 1-98. ISBSN 0582355591, 9780582355590
The two paramount institutions of Russia’s eighteenth century, autocracy and serfdom, had profound influence each other despite the fact that more often than not, the impact that they had on one and the other was indirect. To complicate matters, the historical evolution of each of the two institutions proceeded on their own paths. The institution of serfdom was already entrenched in Russian life before Peter the Great’s accession and continued after Catherine the Great’s death. The absoluteness and strength of autocracy, however, vacillated through the course of the century.
In the 34 years of her rule, Catherine accomplished necessary tasks to improve the nation for its prosperity and for the development of her people. However, her place as a female ruler overturning the nation this drastically led to divisiveness regarding her actions while in power. Those who looked up to her were compelled to keep her deserved name alive and well, a mere exchange with the empress said to leave an impression on her subjects (Dixon 649-653). Moreover, the Nakaz not only revised and improved numerous aspects of Russian life and politics, but it was often seen as a symbol of what Catherine’s time on the throne meant—a representation of her autocracy (Dixon 670). On the other hand, the criticisms centering around Catherine’s rule brought up exactly how much she had changed in Russia, and certain reforms, such as the judiciary’s alterations, were a result of acute feminization influencing how the nation would be operated (Dixon 678). Although these praises and criticisms are justifiable, the impact Catherine the Great had on Russia is inarguable. Her application of western thought on a nation that remained isolated from the advancements of its European neighbors set Russia on a path to become one of the great powers of the world. In short, Catherine the Great was the face of Russian modernization, and it is this accomplishment that empowers her reputation long after her time as empress has
“Your Excellency,” Ivan Ilyitch had only been known as such for a few short weeks, but with his statue of mind and manner, it seemed like years. He was, in his own mind, always right and if someone did not understand what he was doing or saying, they were idiotic. “And how could he fail to understand? It was more difficult not to understand than understand,” is not even a statement against a drone, but rather against another even more credible bourgeoisie than himself. To his due, he is a very brilliant man, but he lacks common respect and tries to use his position in authority to gain popularity amongst the proletariat culture. Due to his economic stature, and his social class, he believed he could do anything he pleased; which he showed by walking in on a fellow colleague’s wedding party. Under no circumstance did he know or relate to Mr. Pseldonymov, but only ...
These Central Asian states that have now since newly emerged from the now broken Soviet Union for the first time had their language, traditions, and histories. Forced to practice their culture in secret under the blanket of Soviet equality and anti-cultural diversity, the Soviets called this nationalism. While all struggled, some to which still struggle to this very day, in creating a manageable economy, I believe that Kyrgyzstan has succeeded where all the other states had failed in creating a sustainable democratic community. We see this through the anniversary of Manas because not only did it open the world’s eyes to the culture of Kyrgyzstan, but also heavily influenced the Kyrgyz people who were able to realize how significant their history and culture means
"Plekhanov and the Origins of Russian Marxism." Readings in Russian History. Ed. Sidney Harcave. Vol. 2. New York: Crowell, 1962. 80-90. Print.
Rents and taxes were often unaffordable, while the gulf between workers and the ruling elite grew ever wider. After their defeat in the Crimean war (1853-1856), Russia’s leaders realized they were falling behind much of Europe in terms of modernisation and industrialisation. Alexander II took control of the empire and made the first steps towards radically improving the country’s infrastructure. Transcontinental railways were built and the government strengthened Russia’s economy by promoting industrialisation with the construction of factory complexes throughout rural Russia.... ...
The poor performance of the Russian government, and with the stress that the war put on the Russian society and economy, made people who were already unhappy with the regime want to split and rebel. Russians had been unhappy for a long time with the autocratic tsarist regime and the country's economic backwardness. This unhappiness had been had been their since the country's war loss against Japan in 1905. Less than ten years later after the Japan war, Russia was back at war. Once again Russia suffered humiliating defeats. This made the people once again more angry and unhappy with their government. 1.7 million Russians were killed and about 5 million wounded. The Russians were later unhappy with the regimes ineptitude and also with its lack of concern for huge casualty numbers. The people also got upset with the economic issue. The Russian economy was never really strong, and now it had to waste all it had to fight in the war. This led to shortages for civilian population and even more unrest. And since the Ottoman Empire was allied with Germany, and was the southern blockade route that led to Russia. It made Russia stop getting supply's, run out of food, prices went up, huge inflation, and massive poverty. How do you think the Russian people felt ? All of this unhappiness of the Russian people helped to create a situation where the Russian Revolution could take
One of the most important events in History of Kazakhstan is the rebellion of KenesaryKasymov (1837-1847). In this paper I will analyze the article “The Kenesary Kasymov Rebellion (1837–1847): A National-Liberation Movement or “a Protest of Restoration”? ”written by YuriyMalikov, which was published in December 2005 in Nationalities Papers. The author in his article claims that the rebellion of Kazakh sultan Kenesary was “neither a “national-liberation” revolt nor “a protest of restoration.” Not return to the “good old days” but the creation of a new type of state without precedents in Kazakhstani history”. In order to prove his point of view Y. Malikov analyzes and gives evidences from four different aspects. Firstly he explores the immediate cause for the rebellion, then he focuses on the composition of the rebels, after that he looks at the reforms brought by sultan Kenesary, and finally he investigates the traditional political and social structure of Kazakh society. I will briefly stop at arguments provided by the author in each of these aspects and then I will answer whether these arguments convinced me or not (Malikov, 573).
̳The fall of the monarchy‘ [map] in M. Gilbert (ed.), The Routledge atlas of Russian history, 4th ed. (London, 2007), map 86.