Languages of the Caucasus - Russian and Soviet Language Policy
As background information, I highly recommend, Löwe's article which discusses language policy issues in pre-revolutionary Russia, highlighting attempts at Russification of the non-Russian population. In addition, Lenore Grenoble's book on language policy in the Soviet Union: Chapter 2 - An overview of Soviet Language Policy pp. 35-64, and Chapter 5 - The Caucasus 111-136 are extremely relevant to the topic. On pages 22-25 you will also find comparative statistics on the percentage among different ethnic groups in the USSR that considered their heritage language their mother tongue as well as the level of their knowledge of Russian.
It is important to note that linguistic diversity is an issue that is of concern both to the individual who lives in a country where many languages are spoken, but also to a large extent an issue that the state must address. The state has to take into consideration numerous conflicting factors:
- There is a need for a common language that all citizens understand and are able to use both in communicating with authorities and with other groups in the country.
- Speakers of different minority languages will have the desire to continue speaking their heritage languages and maintaining their culture and language; when pressed to acquire the majority language this will be perceived as a threat to their culture and identity and may easily lead to opposition and conflicts.
- Active multilingualism (as well as multiple identities) is difficult to develop and also costly with respect to resources for parallel systems of education, media and administration.
Information on the video clip (Youtube):
Mohydeen Izzat Quandour - About Russification of Circassians
"Russification refers to both an official and unofficial ethnic and language policy which was implemented (and continues to be implemented) by Tsarist Russia, the Soviet Union and today‟s Russian Federation against national minorities with the aim of russifying other peoples and making them speak Russian. It is one of the forms of linguistic imperialism where the objective of language policy is the hegemony of the language of the (former) colonial or imperial power."
Recommended Literature:
Löwe: Heinz-Dietrich: Russian Nationalism and Tsarist Nationalities Policies in Semi-Constitutional Russia, 1905-1914 http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/fakultaeten/philosophie/zegk/sog/loewe_artikel_russian.html
Grenoble, Lenore A. 2003 Language Policy in the Soviet Union Kluwer Academic Publishers
Solchanyk, Roman, 1982, Russian Language and Soviet Politics, Soviet Studies, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 23-42
Unfortunately, This Russification program wiped out the Yiddish speaking culture of Ashkenazi Jews but had a limited impact on The Mountain Jewish Tat language in the Caucuses. Why? I am not sure.
Perhaps the geographic isolation which would be plausible considering mountainous regions were generally better protection from not just physical invaders but also cultural and social factors.
I think your thesis is quite plausible.
I am Serbian. I worked in Russia for 6 years. At the construction sites of the company where I worked, there were thousands of citizens of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.I also worked with Kyrgyz and Ukrainians. In addition to them in Russia, I meet many Tatars and Bashkirs. All those who are Russian citizens speak excellent Russian. Those who come to Russia must use that language and it is desirable to learn it.
Both in Germany and France, communication is exclusively in their languages. Large are dominant in relation to small ones.
Why do you see this problem only in Russia? There is complete freedom of language in Russia. Both Tatars and Bashkiri and many Caucasian peoples attend schools (state schools) where they teach in their own languages.
The Stalin example is just one profound use of language as a tool or socio-cultural policy of incremental indoctrination. If you examine the scholarship and historical records, the Soviet use is a textbook application on a domestic level. Language in itself can be a powerful unifying factor bonding collective human societies apart from ethnicity, religion or even political leanings. It was one example which did prove successful despite antagonisms that resulted and eventual formed a kind of cultural resistance.
Russia and the Russian people are victims of Stalin and the communist regime. Stalin is not a Russian but a Georgian. Stalin died 64 years ago.
Why is he an example?
And again the question: Why do you analyze the dominance of the great only on the case of Russia?
What about the others? Did others impose their language on small nations?
What about other examples?
You are letting your allegiance blind you to a historical example which is relevant to the study of language as a means of cultural dominance and even as a tool of indoctrination. Stalin was a glorious example and one that was mass applied to a subjugated population. Academics and scholars can argue about the results but nevertheless, the example has been historically verified. It matters not that I have used it as an example to illustrate usage and hiding this for some political allegiance does not dismiss it's viability. Sure there are other historical examples, the British for one suppressed culture in subjugated colonies as a means of control, especially in regards to dissent. Another is the Spanish Empire which had a religious incentive making some of their methods more brutal to the indigenous civilizations in South America. In this respect, this example would prove more fatal considering extinction was the desired results as opposed to any form of cultural assimilation. Spain as an empire and it's effects could be seen today through the expansion of it's culture and language which became the dominant language in much of it's former colonies like Puerto Rico to Mexico. There are more examples. One just has to get past nonsensical notions of allegiance in order to enlighten oneself to the horrors of collective human idiocy, especially when politically motivated.
I'm not politically motivated!
I resided in Russia and saw what Stalin did to that nation. I wrote about demolished monuments, Orthodox temples ...
Millions of Russians lost their lives in the period of his reign.
I agree with you that the Russian language was at the same time increase its domination.
Exactly this is a gain for Russia. What is the price of that gain?
Millions of human lives, repression... It would be human to mention that too.
Interesting. You have personal and first person perspectives from a historical standpoint. If you have not done so already, I was urge you to write about such experiences. It would be good to enlighten others, especially when it contrasts popular notions or the status quo interpretation of events. Such is what Zinn or Chomsky to a certain degree encourage if not for revisionism sake. I for one would be very interested in reading of such individual accounts of any key historical events.
I wrote about the terror of communist authorities over their own people. The texts are published in one Serbian daily newspaper.
I plan to translate a part of that matter into English and publish it to some of my next posts.
Please do and I will look forward to reading it. There was an interesting book about the US/Nato invasion of Serbia under Clinton which I was curious about reading as well. It heavily contrasted the western perception of the war and was written by an independent journalist. The name of the book and authors escapes me at the moment ....