Aagh! Quit using Western countries as paradigms! :)
Seriously, though, no, they should not be "suppressed" or "written off." They (and the dominant group) should be aufgehobened into a larger group identity. (This is why Russian has two words usually translated into English as "Russian," one implying ethnicity and the other implying residency in Russia -- one ethno-cultural group falls into the former category, and about 150 into the latter.)
What you have in Russia is a land empire that expanded and swallowed up the indigenous peoples to its south and east, incorporating them as subjects rather than wiping them out or herding them onto reservations as was done in the US, and, occasional half-assed attempts at russification notwithstanding, for the most part did not impose the dominant culture upon them. As a result, you have 5 million Tatars, 1 million Chuvash and Chechens, about 600,000 Avars, 600,000 Bashkirs and a few hundred thoudand Buryats, and so on and so forth, all with relatively distinct cultures and speaking their own languages (they all speak Russian too of course, except maybe way out in isolated villages). Not to mention the Georgians, Armenians, etc. They all have their real or imagined grievances with the dominant culture and with each other. So as you can see the potential for ethnic conflict is quite large. The civil wars in the fSU have all involved violent nationalist particularisms (Romanian, Tajik, Abkhazian, Azeri, Chechen).
Oh, and yes, money helps. One reason why Tatar nationalism is so mild is probably that Tatarstan is the third-richest Russian region. Almost all of the board of director of LUKoil are Tatars, I believe.
>From: "Todd Archer" <todda39 at hotmail.com>
>
>While I'd have to agree with what you both said about nationalist
>particularism, do you think those smaller cultural groups within the larger
>states should just be written off and suppressed as dangerous or
>potentially divisive? How could they be made to feel part of the larger
>country if, for example, there's definitely a more powerful cultural group
>"in control" over them, as has been the case in Canada vis-a-vis the
>English and French cultures and is now the case with Canada's geographic
>localities eg Canada's West vs. Ontario vs. Quebec vs. the Maritimes (never
>mind First Nations for now)? Should they be accomodated and how far?
>Seems to me, judging from the "integration" (largely one-way, mind) that's
>gone on among Canada's elite, that what's required is, basically, wealth
>and education.
>
>Todd
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
_________________________________________________________________ Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software — optimizes dial-up to the max!
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/plus&ST=1