|
Post by zemelmete on May 2, 2005 12:05:49 GMT -5
Yes there were. I was reading in one brittish history book that serfs were sold in market in Russia. There was even shown advertisement from 19th century were was written approximately like that:"19 years old girl. Teeth in good condition". I will look this book tonight and i'll write this advertisement precisely tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by henerte on May 2, 2005 13:03:22 GMT -5
Yes there were. I was reading in one brittish history book that serfs were sold in market in Russia. There was even shown advertisement from 19th century were was written approximately like that:"19 years old girl. Teeth in good condition". I will look this book tonight and i'll write this advertisement precisely tomorrow. Are you sure she was sold for slavery work. Maybe, for something different...
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on May 3, 2005 0:54:26 GMT -5
It also makes little sense to compare gulags to slavery. Gulags were concentration camps for forced labour. The situation of the political prisoners there can be compared to that of slaves, but it was not slavery. They were not buying or selling political prisoners... nor were there "serf markets" during tzarism in Russia... They were not sold or bought because they were State's slaves in a communist economy. Nothing is bougth or sold in a communist economy as everything belongs to the state. The essence of slavery is not being "on a market", but "being owned as an object". There's little doubt this was completely achieved in Gulags. Actually in a totalitarian state you don't need to be in concentration camp to be a slave. Everybody is a slave all the time. This of course does not mean Russians are "slaves" or "nasty", at least not more than other populations who had totalitarian government (Germans, Italians, Japanese, Chinese etc.). It is not an argument relevant to the thread.
|
|
|
Post by Batucan on May 3, 2005 1:38:34 GMT -5
Hanan,
But Russians are not nasty at all. Why did you ask such a question? As you said previously it sounds really racists. Moreover, seeming as if you are honest but on the other hand trying to hide your racists opinions behind "honesty" is not a very clever behaviour. Since it can be only influential on people whose mental capacity is limited. You can play only with them and the result would not be much different than Hitler came; crashed like an insect by a nation which was seen as inferior to Germans.
|
|
|
Post by Newman on May 3, 2005 2:05:00 GMT -5
I tend to agree with the author of this thread. Eastern Europeans aren't exactly known for being the chirpiest of people. Not to mention that there's a delusional arrogant aura of superiority about them, I'm not sure from what though. Maybe they're trying to compensate for something, who knows. This of course is a generalisation. In no way am I implying that every Russian on the planet is a miserable depressing figure but from the ones that I've come into contact with have fitted this mould. Personally they're not the sort of folk I would like to hang around for long periods of time, from my experience they don't make the best company.
|
|
aeon
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by aeon on May 3, 2005 2:23:43 GMT -5
They look reatarded beacuse they are retarded. Most of the Russians are children of former slaves. They have the same background as Blacks in USA, but they were slaves on their own lands. No wonder they are so primitive. Russians think they have great culture, they forget that most of their famous writers , composers, producers are not that pure Russian at all. For example, look at the portraits of one of the greatest, Russian poets, Alexander Pushkin. Pushkin was blond and blue-eyed. You would never guess his great-grandfather was Ethiopian. And I should tell you that all European aristocracies were mixed, and not pure this or that at all. Do you know pure Anglo-Saxons among Britain's famous writers, composers or producers? Does this mean that the English are inferior?
|
|
aeon
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by aeon on May 3, 2005 2:42:01 GMT -5
There was the so-called "second edition of serfdom" since the 17th century in countries to the east of Elbe - Prussia, Poland, Russia, etc. This was not a unique Russian phenomenon. However, Latvians and Estonians may not be included here. They were conquered by Germans in the 13th century and remained serfs all the way till the 19th century. Their oppression was very harsh, and their masters were of different ethnicity. So only their condition may be justly compared to the condition of the blacks in the US. Concerning wider interpretations of the term "slavery", there are now more inmates in the US penitentiary than there were in Stalin's GULAG. They include both criminals and opponents of the US regime. And they are forced to work. Can we speak of modern-day slavery in the US?
|
|
|
Post by zemelmete on May 3, 2005 3:21:42 GMT -5
Yeah latvian and estonian serfs had propably the worst situation in Russia (and propably also in whole Europe), especially in those districts which were under direct russian rule (for example Lagale-eastern part in Latvia). Some parts of Latvia and Estonia were also under swedish rule but there anyway was serfdom (though not so harsh as in Russia). The thing is, that german crusaders conquered part of baltic and finnish-baltic tribes in 12.-13. century and founded Livonia. Germans owned lands where lived natives who had to pay taxes. When natives got poorer, they couldn't pay taxes and had to work for these already settled german crusader descendants. Step-by-step peasants stayed more and more dependent of german landlords. But still peasants were more or less free people. Things changed after Livonian War (16.century) when Livonia was destroyed and joined into Russia. That time ruled tzar Ivan the Terrible who legistated laws about serfdom. From that time many peasans were private property of landlords. In former Livonia situation was more comlicated than in rest Russia- landlords belonged to different nationality than peasants. Baltic germans asked more and more privileges (it means-more and more power above serfs). This process was interrupted after Northern War (17. century), when many parts of former Livonia joined in Sweden and Poland. In these countries was more liberal society (especially in Sweden). In Livonian parts, which were under swedish rule, serfdom became much weaker and many peasants got freedom. Still nowdays swedish rule latvians remember as "old good swedish times". But serfdom wasn't abolished completely. In 18. century whole teritory of Latvia and part of Estonia joined into Russia (i don't remember how was that war called). These times started the heaviest period for serfs. They were completely dependent of landlords.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on May 3, 2005 3:25:58 GMT -5
. Concerning wider interpretations of the term "slavery", there are now more inmates in the US penitentiary than there were in Stalin's GULAG. They include both criminals and opponents of the US regime. And they are forced to work. Can we speak of modern-day slavery in the US? No we can not. 1) All the people in USA's jail had due process. Decision are taken by the judiciary on the grounds of law pre existing to the judged fact and open to everyone's knowledge. Crime in URSS was legally defined as "act against the people", i.e. anything the Popular Court decided, i.e. everybody was simply at their mercy. 2) All the people in USA's jail are there because they did something (as opposed to just being someone, e.g. a "kulak"). 3) No one is jailed in the USA for being an opponent of the regime. Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky are among the most revered and well sold intellectuals of the country, actually. 4) The inmates in USA are not used by the state to do something. They are jailed to prevent other crimes and to punish the crimes committed. They are forced to work only in their supposed interest of being kept busy, surely not because their unskilled and unwilling labour is of use for the biggest economy in the world. Please notice that where inmates have rights and can't be shot at sight or at the whim of their guardians (i.e. in USA or the rest of Western World) to guard them while working is a cost, higher than the profit that can be obtained from their work. People interned in gulags were an active part of the USSR economy, they built dams, railroads etc. They were interned because such things had to be built. 5) Inmates do not die in USA's prisons. Russians interned in gulad died by the hundred of thousands. 6) There is no reason at all to single out USA's penitentiary and judiciary system between Western World's ones. It works basically on the same lines of any state where there's the so called rule of law. Finally, this has nothing to do with Russians as a population. It is not like gulags are a typical Russian thing. All this thread is quite unfair to Russians, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Circe on May 3, 2005 10:43:09 GMT -5
They were not sold or bought because they were State's slaves in a communist economy. Nothing is bougth or sold in a communist economy as everything belongs to the state. The essence of slavery is not being "on a market", but "being owned as an object". There's little doubt this was completely achieved in Gulags. Actually in a totalitarian state you don't need to be in concentration camp to be a slave. Everybody is a slave all the time. I agree with you on this, nock, I guess I wasn't clear enough in my last post I wasn't trying to defend the Communist regime, or to deny the ordeals of the kulaks, or those of the serfs, for that matter. My point was that there was no institutionalized slavery in Russia. Was the feudal idea of serfdom perverted beyond recognition? -Yes. Did the same later happen to the communist idea? - Yes. However, to say Russians are nasty because they were slaves in their own country... really... To say such assertion smacks of racism would be an understatement. Exactly. My response was provoked by cullen's post. I disagree with you on this bit ;D I don't think that the sole reason for the internment of the kulaks were the needs of USSR economy. They were interned because they were considered to be subversive elements, and as such dangerous to the state. Free labour was just a by-product of totalitarian regime, and, of course, a big bonus for the Soviet economy at the time...
|
|
eee
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by eee on May 4, 2005 1:02:04 GMT -5
Pushkin was blond and blue-eyed. You would never guess his great-grandfather was Ethiopian. Blonde? Blue-eyed? He looks African. Probably it wouldn't be safe for him to live in modern Russia.
|
|
aeon
Junior Member
Posts: 50
|
Post by aeon on May 4, 2005 2:03:46 GMT -5
eee, you have probably seen many Africans like this. I havn't.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on May 4, 2005 9:41:51 GMT -5
I disagree with you on this bit ;D I don't think that the sole reason for the internment of the kulaks were the needs of USSR economy. They were interned because they were considered to be subversive elements, and as such dangerous to the state. Free labour was just a by-product of totalitarian regime, and, of course, a big bonus for the Soviet economy at the time... Yes I think likely we are both a bit correct/wrong on this issue; but as it is off topic, I'll live it alone. On topic instead, I suspect that some harshness in Russian behaviour (if such harshness exists) may depend by the fact that it remained a noblemen-warriors/peasants society (as opposed to borgueois) for longer than Western Europe. This of course would apply to other countries as well. Circe: didn't Milosevic once said something on the line: "The only thing we can do is fight"? This is the attitude I am thinking to (of course now I am lumping Serbs with Russians, but there is a special bond between the two population, isn't it?). Personally and without evidences, I think I see some harshness in all the Eastern Eurpean populations, and at the same time as the other side of the coin, stoicism. This last is acknowleged by many historicians: in IIWW even the most Nazist German generals come to respect the courage and endurance of the Russian soldiers (I can find the quotes if needed).
|
|
|
Post by henerte on May 4, 2005 9:59:04 GMT -5
@ nockisalwaysright "It takes a lot of courage to be a coward in the Red Army" - Joseph Stalin ;D
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on May 4, 2005 11:53:22 GMT -5
@ nockisalwaysright "It takes a lot of courage to be a coward in the Red Army" - Joseph Stalin ;D Well, you may have a point ... however I was also thinking to the Polish charge on horses against armored troops, this feat often is used as example of the brave but unpractical Slav charachter ... but I didn't want to flatter Polish too much, as you flirting with the green eyed Serbian whitch all over the board is making people jealous ...
|
|