>From: "Chris Doss" <itschris13 at hotmail.com>
As a
>result, Russia, which is a land mass the size of an ocean, is a crazy-quilt
>of ethnicities and cultures that have by and large preserved their own
>identities, as opposed to living on squalid reservations as the native
>peoples often do elsewhere.
See what I mean?
Population Census and Changing Identities in Russia
Valery Tishkov
Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology
----
The 2002 census list of nationalities is based on updated methodological principles that take into account contemporary ethnic dispositions, the new demands of government in the sphere of ethno-cultural policy and education, the democratization of social and political life, and the need to eliminate the defects of previous population censuses and the outdated approaches on which they were based. The main goal of the changes introduced was to safeguard the right of the citizens to declare their ethnic and language identity, and to minimize the ideological, political, and bureaucratic obstacles to the fulfillment of this right. A significant difference between the lists of nationalities in the 1989 and 2002 censuses is the number of ethnic categories. The 1989 census included 128 nationalities, while it is now proposed to increase the number to about 150 (in fact, adding 50 nationalities, while removing approximately 30).
How do we explain this proposed increase? It is attributable, first and foremost, to the fact that, beginning in 1937, the number of officially recognized peoples was lowered by order of the state, as part of its propaganda efforts aimed at highlighting the processes of consolidation in the USSR (such tendencies were characteristic of other states that were closely linked to the USSR ideologically, especially for multi-ethnic China and Vietnam, where the number of “official” nationalities was far below that of existing ethnic communities). This practice was readily pursued by the Party and intellectual elites of certain republics, which boosted the numerical strength of the dominant nationality of their republics at the expense of small ethnic communities that had supposedly merged with the dominant group. Naturally, this joining of many small peoples to the larger nationalities had an effect on the actual state of affairs in connection with “ethnic consolidation.” “Avarization,” “Darginization,” “Russification,” “Tatarization,” “Yakutization” took place at the expense of small groups, or, more precisely, at the expense of identity at a lower (local) level. The greatest advance, of course, was made by Russification, i.e. an identity shift towards the dominant culture and language. However, small ethnic communities, or smaller ethnic identities continued to exist, albeit in mixed (plural) form, their actualization dependent on the social and political context. Although academic science (ethnography and linguistics in particular) recognized and studied small cultural groups, politics and the state tried not to notice them. The course of enlargement or consolidation joined the following peoples to larger ethnic groups: the Andiitsy, Botlikhtsy, Godoberintsy, Karatintsy, Akhvakhtsy, Bagulaly, Chamalaly, Tindaly, Tsezy, Ginukhtsy, Khvarshiny, Bezhtintsy, Gunzibtsy (usually called Ando-Tsezskie peoples), as well as the Archintsy were joined to the Avars; the Kaitagtsy and Kubachintsy to the Darginians; the Shapsugi to the Adygei; the Budugtsy, Kryzy, and Khinalugtsy to the Azerbaijanis; the Mingrelians, Laz, Svan, and Batsbiitsy to the Georgians; the Khemshily to the Armenians; the Yezidy to the Kurds; the Vod' and Kamchadaly to the Russians; the Kriashen, Siberian Tatars, and Nagaibaki to the Tatars; the Besermiane to the Udmurts; the Telengity, Teleuty, Tubalary, Kumandintsy and Chelkantsy to the Altai; the Soioty to the Buriats; the Tazy to the Udegei; the Aleuts and Kereki to the Koriaks; the Shugnantsy, Rushantsy, Bartangtsy, Ishkashimtsy, Vakhantsy, Yazgulemtsy, and Yagnobtsy to the Tajiks. A group calling itself Chulymtsys was partially included among the Tatars in the Soviet censuses, and partially among the Khakasy. --- It would be wrong to now base ourselves on the 1926 census as the “most scientific” in order to restore some “real number of ethnic groups” in Russia. There are two problems. First, the vulnerability of the very aim of the 1926 census to divide the population into clear-cut groups called “nationalities,” which was a fundamental ethnographic and political error; and second, the significant change that has taken place in the past few decades in the nomenclature of identities, which provide the basis for constructing a picture or list called “The Peoples of Russia” (Narody Rossii) or the “Principal Nationalities of the Russian Federation.” Thus, the majority of the small peoples of contemporary western Dagestan have experienced partial cultural-linguistic Avarization and Russification. What would be most adequate for these people is a dual identity, i.e. “Andiets-Avar,” or “Kubachinets-Darginian.” However, science, statistics, and the Russian public have not yet recognized this variant of “hyphenated Rossians.” (“Rossiian” as in rossiiskii, i.e. referring to a civic identity, as opposed to the ethnic connotation of russkii/Russian).
http://www.iea.ras.ru/topic/census/doc/tishkov2002-2.htm
_________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus