Domination & Assimilation

Scholars observe that many of the Soviet policies initiated in the 1930s were similar in nature to those imposed by European imperial powers in the colonies (Kuzio, 2002). Assimilationist policies of the Soviet Union constituted through the following processes, typical for imperial colonization projects: imposition of colonial ideology, economic exploitation, linguistic and cultural domination as well as psychic subjugation (Oleszczynski, 2016).

Already in the second half of the 1930s there was a distinct shift from a moderate ethnic discourse to a repressive policy (Martin, 2001). In the late 1920s and early 1930s, supporters of

conservative approach to indigenous policy had lost their influence on state institutions and political sentiment shifted in support of the radical approach (Vakhtin, 1992). The earlier toleration of the Russian state for the quasi-independence of indigenous societies was replaced with forced integration. State control and regulation were introduced into all aspects of the economic, social and political lives of indigenous peoples. The priority became an unconditional submission of the interests of individual nations to the overall governmental tasks. Governed by the concept of socialism as the most progressive ideological system that also “highly resembled the Western European quest of Modernity”(Oleszczynski, 2016, p.12), Soviet political discourse revolved around the notion that the whole society had to move quicker along the road to “true” socialism and eventual communism. Ideology of socialism and Soviet patriotism was further reinforced by the USSR victory in the Second World War that was seen as a victory of socialism over capitalism. From that moment socialism and its ideas became major point of reference in national policy. Developed slogan “ethnic in form, socialist in content” implied eventual merge of all nationalities into a single Soviet nation and “brotherly family,” that offered an alternative to “the world’s prior imperial, colonial, caste-based, universalist, and melting-pot ideologies” (Moore, 2001, p.27). This Soviet identity meant to prevail over a narrower ethnic one (Kuzio, 2002). Official Soviet narratives celebrated ethnic differences through aggressive promotion of colorful folkloristic aspects of culture that emphasized the existing unity and friendship of the peoples of the USSR but—at the same time—concealed any forms of cultural difference that would threaten the state dominant discourse (The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank, 2014).

Assimilationist policies were presented as a nations-bonding based on voluntary, equality and brotherhood. Yet, while the USSR was conceived as a union of distinct nations, in reality it represented a multi-layered hierarchy with Russian ethnicity at the top (The International Bank

for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank, 2014). Within this discourse, Russians were attributed the status of the “elder brother” and the “leading nation” of the Soviet multi-national state. Scholars tend to identify similarities between the term “elder brother” and depiction of Western colonisers as more civilized and advanced. Superiority of Russians was also mentioned in the 1945 Stalin’s speech, where Russian people were cited as “the most outstanding of all the nations forming the Soviet Union” (Kohn, 1971, p.59). Next in line were the family of Slavic nationalities: the Ukrainians and Belarusians, followed by other ethnic Europeans inside Russia: the Baltic peoples, the Moldavians and Greeks, etc. The last group attributed with the least political power was the indigenous communities (Gretchen, 1994). The leading role in building socialism was, surely, given to Russian people.

Another aspect of Soviet colonial policy that can also be applied to other colonized regions, is a rewrite of Soviet historiography in the early 1950s aimed at promotion of Russian superiority, Soviet nations’ equality and absence of ethnic hostility between Russians and non-Russians. As such, the indigenous population did not have the privilege of possessing a separate history: “By a kind of perverted logic, it turns to the past of the oppressed people, and distorts, disfigures, and destroys it … The total result looked for by colonial domination was indeed to convince the natives that colonialism came to lighten their darkness” (Kuzio, 2002, p.248). Absence of a national history, furthermore, turned indigenous peoples into passive subjects of history whose identity had been subject to drastic transformations imposed by the imperial rulers.

The linguistic, cultural and psychic domination presents itself in the policy of Russification implemented from the 1930s. Introduction of Russian as the official language across the country and promotion of the Soviet culture through state institutions, media and literature helped to consolidate the new national state. Many native languages disappeared from schools (The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank, 2014). Indigenous children were removed from their families for residential school-based education (in Russian

language). In some regions it was forbidden to speak indigenous languages. Consequently, the loss of native languages and disappearance of ethnic culture advanced and gave rise to the so-called “broken generation” (Vakhtin, 1992, p.18).¹⁴ This situation made possible the destruction of identities for various groups, especially those who did not have autonomous republics. The Committee of the North was dissolved in 1934.

The 1950s and 1960s saw mass relocation of indigenous people to larger, often multi-ethnic settlements (where the leadership was often non-native). Many Russians resettled to the territories which were traditionally inhabited by indigenous communities. Soon newcomers outnumbered the indigenous population; already by 1950s more than 50% of the northern residents consisted of recent migrants. The development strategy was the establishment of massive urban centers with extensive supply networks to support in-migrating populations (The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank, 2014).

The 1930s signaled the beginning of industrialization programs through the USSR (Vakhtin, 1992). Collectivization policy introduced in 1928 became the major factor of reorganizing traditional economy with the aim to bring all Soviet colonies under a unified Soviet economic organism. The policy aimed to consolidate individual landholdings into co-operative farms. The main strategy was to transform traditional activities into production activities, and to remove aspects of the traditional lifestyle by introducing a settled lifestyle. Indigenous traditional enterprises and villages were liquidated under the pretext of being settlements “with no future.”

Household-based family relations gave way to collective farms sustained by state subsidies.

Policy reflected a common perception that native people were backward and had to be ‘saved’

14 The group of population between thirty and fifty years old, generation situated between the native-speaking elderly and Russian-speaking youth, who lost the native language at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union

from their ‘primitiveness.’ (The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank, 2014, p.6).

As such, the goal of national policy was to eliminate nomadic habits and traditional practices such as animism, shamanism, nomadism, rituals and ceremonies, native languages, etc.—were proclaimed harmful were to be reformed by socialist principles (ibid.). The transition to a settled way of life was a complicated and painful process, because it involved crucial changes of the whole lifestyle and the wholesale destruction of traditional values and erosion of indigenous lifestyle.

The economic exploitation hit indigenous lands in the 1950s. Development of the North that turned out to be rich in natural resources was accompanied by loss of traditional lands, migration and resettlement. Oil and gas deposits were discovered and developed, timber-cutting enterprises were created (Vakhtin, 1992).

The result of such drastic changes became the distrust of USSR among indigenous population, followed by anti-Soviet manifestations. Yet, due to their small numbers they could not resist the totalitarian policy. (If existed) conflicts were not strongly pronounced and veiled with the rhetoric of solidarity of the Soviet people. In a multi-ethnic state threatened by ethnic conflict, any display of national self-consciousness, any aspiration to sustain native languages and culture was met with deep suspicion and considered to be a demonstration of nationalism.¹⁵ Despite emerging ethno-nationalist sentiments, indigenous groups and their supporters were

“fighting a losing battle” (ibid., p.17). As a result, these policies made the opposition virtually impossible. At the same time anti-Soviet movements that begun to arise from the 1960s later

15 1930s, the concept of “bourgeois nationalism” started being widely used as an accusation against national minorities’ representatives ( anti-Soviet beliefs and dissemination of these beliefs, as well as the connection with the pre-Soviet bourgeois system or the support of capitalist Western countries).

contributed to the emergence of a reformist General Secretary, Mikhail Gorbachev (The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank, 2014).

Between 1937 and 1957 no legislative acts aimed at the small- numbered peoples of the North were published. The policy of the Soviet Union had the most significant impact on indigenous lifestyles. It destroyed ecologically balanced environmental management systems that had prevailed for centuries. This was coupled with the reduction of accessible hunting, fishing and herding areas and the loss of opportunities to engage in traditional activities. Those trends led to a spiritual and economic crisis among indigenous peoples. From the 1970s, hidden unemployment, alcoholism, broken families and the undermining of traditional culture all continued to increase. These phenomena led to a decrease in rates of population growth and later to declining aboriginal populations (ibid.). For indigenous peoples of Russia, the period from the 1940s to 1980s came to be referred to as the dark years of indigenous history (Vakhtin, 1992).