![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Excellent start! Maybe there should be more context in there regarding the theory of historical materialism to show that the poliыфьcy was never supposed to lead to a long-term independence of nations. Dietwald 05:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
If nobody objects, I will develop a text that will provide this context. Should take me some time, as it is a difficult subject. I will appreciate any kind of feed-back throughout the process. Since I am something of an anti-Marxist, I recognise that some of my contributions may be coloured by my POV, but I trust the community here to make sure I don't go off too much :) Dietwald 09:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I may add a slight twist to the essay in this sense. As already noted, the word korenizatsiya also can be translated as "rooting," and this was literally what the Bolsheviks were trying to accomplish in the late 1920's -- build roots for the party organization in the locales. In the national minority areas, the recruiting of locals was an important aspect of the struggle against what was called "Great Power Chauvinism," though another threat was "local chauvinism." But in the late 1920's Great Power Chauvinism was officially identified as the main danger to the solution of the national question.
The plan, clearly stated by Stalin at the (I believe 12th Party Congress) was that the fight against Great Power Chauvinism (i.e., Russian chauvinism) had to be carried out by Russians themselves, and the fight against local chauvinism had to be carried out by the locals. They didn't want each group fighting against the other. But they needed a self-regulatory mechanism, and among other things this involved providing representation and voice to all kinds of local soviets. They created and promoted something called "natssovety" (national/ethnic soviets) in all flavors. In Ukraine, for example, there were even natssovety for Russians and Estonians.
Also during the period of late 20's til about 1934 (korenizatsia essentially ended then), there wasn't that much emphasis on the teaching of Russian (contrary to what the essay now says). Rather the emphasis was on the development of schools in the local languages. Although Russian was taught as a language in many schools, it only became universally required as a language of study in 1938 -- arguably sparked by the sense of impending war and the need to do what they could to assure that non-Russians had some comprehension of Russian language, which was the language of command on the Red Army. In this connection, it is well to keep in mind that although the Bolsheviks eliminated the use of the Arabic script in the local languages of Central Asia, at first they did not promote Cyrillic alphabets but rather Latin alphabets. While they wanted to disconnect the locals from the influence of the Islamic clergy, the ma38drassahs, and texts (namely the Koran) in Arabic stript, they did not immediately push Russian script nor Russian language. Both of those came in only in 1938-39, as the Latin scripts were to give way to Cyrillic script in textbooks and other printed form. Thus, on the eve of WW II, the non-Russian areas had not been exposed to widespread and enduring Russification at the hands of the Bolsheviks. The emphasis was rather to avoid ethnic conflict by seeking accommodations.
Thus, I think a fairer way to depict the korenizatsia policy was as a policy of "rooting" the Bolshevik leadership and the new government in the locales in the early phase. Keep in mind that in many of the non-Russian areas, especially in rural areas, there weren't a whole lot of communists. Even after collectivization, there might be one or two communists per collective farm in the non-Russian areas. This is one reason why they created and used the MTS (machine tractor stations) to take political instructors into the countryside: local communists were scarce, so bring in the itinerant propagandists to teach to the locals. But the Bolsheviks also provideed advancement to locals through recruitment of locals into local soviets, and they created natssovety as one form of encouraging local engagement and rooting of the communist regime in the countryside. Further they sought to develop local languages, in many cases 'creating' alphabets -- such as in the project of the Committee of the North -- so that the minorities would have a literary language to use for school textbooks and to carry forward some of their national traditions in literary form. Also bear in mind that prior to ca. 1930, there wasn't much central control of the educational system, and prior to 1934 there wasn't much control over publishing. But in the early 30's things began to shift in emphasis, and the main danger identified as "local chauvinism" instead of "great power chauvinism." And so 1934 witnessed the first significant purges in the national regions to root out local chauvinism (nationalism), and put into place even more docile and indoctrinated (or coopted) locals.-- Mack2 03:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I wish to thank Peltimikko for adding more substance and a better chronology to the discussion throughout the article. I tried to clear up the writing, but otherwise left all of his additions. --Mack2 ( talk) 13:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The section says nothing related to korenizatsiya - a particular, rather short, period. In addition, the section is mostly original research. I don't see what dissolved International and persecution of Jews have to do with korenizatsiya. Not to say that "The national pride of the Great Russian people was boosted by a campaign against rootless cosmopolitans" is rather dubious opinion (who has it, by the way? It is quite a racist remark, and it would be good to know which source is racist). - Altenmann >t 17:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
translate.google.com Korenizatsiya - word of the journalistic jargon of the 20's - 30's, XX century. After this time the word was not used in the USSR, as insulting to small nations. At the same time, Western historians distinguish rooting as a stage of national politics in the USSR, which allegedly ended in the 37-39 year, Reversal to Russification. An indication of the End of korenization, in their opinion, can be considered repression late 30-ies against part of the national intelligentsia and the party nomenklatura in the republics, the translation of the Cyrillic alphabet, etc. This is certainly a vulgar and simplistic understanding of the events of that era. It is possible that foreign "Sovietologists" to this view prompted disappearance corenization words from the dictionary of the Soviet media at 37-39 years. But this fact, as, for example, and the rejection of word туземный ('native') to northern peoples, means rather that the Soviet leadership realized the offensive and politically incorrect connotation of the term. (("His horse koreniziruy !"))
Thus, Korenizatsiya is just only politically incorrect word. The policy consisted of promoting representatives of titular nations of Soviet republics and national minorities on lower levels of the administrative subdivision of the state, into local government, and polic continued in 40-s, 50- s аnd continue...
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Korenizatsiia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Could use more factual material -- if it's available -- on how korenizatsiya worked on the ground, i.e., in practice, in different regions of the Soviet Union. --Mack2 ( talk) 20:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 20:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 21:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Uncontested move request. ( non-admin closure) Colonestarrice ( talk) 05:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Korenizatsiya → Korenizatsiia – WP:COMMONNAME: the most common form in English-language reliable sources [1] (corresponds to romanization by the modified Library of Congress system widely used in academic and popular-academic literature). — Michael Z. 22:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Google Ngram shows that by any spelling, the lowercased form is more commonly used. [3] — Michael Z. 16:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus that the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME and should be retained. If there's further interest in discussing the recommendations of WP:RUS more broadly, that essay's talk page is likely to be a fruitful place for that discussion. ( closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 15:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Korenizatsiia → Korenizatsiya – correct transliteration from Russian per Wikipedia rules - Altenmann >talk 15:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
We should adopt a real system instead-- Sounds reasonable. The question is what is "real" system? And ours in tot "ad hoc amateur". It is basisally an insignificant simplification of BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian. At least you can start a discussion about this in the corresponding board. - Altenmann >talk 22:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Excellent start! Maybe there should be more context in there regarding the theory of historical materialism to show that the poliыфьcy was never supposed to lead to a long-term independence of nations. Dietwald 05:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
If nobody objects, I will develop a text that will provide this context. Should take me some time, as it is a difficult subject. I will appreciate any kind of feed-back throughout the process. Since I am something of an anti-Marxist, I recognise that some of my contributions may be coloured by my POV, but I trust the community here to make sure I don't go off too much :) Dietwald 09:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I may add a slight twist to the essay in this sense. As already noted, the word korenizatsiya also can be translated as "rooting," and this was literally what the Bolsheviks were trying to accomplish in the late 1920's -- build roots for the party organization in the locales. In the national minority areas, the recruiting of locals was an important aspect of the struggle against what was called "Great Power Chauvinism," though another threat was "local chauvinism." But in the late 1920's Great Power Chauvinism was officially identified as the main danger to the solution of the national question.
The plan, clearly stated by Stalin at the (I believe 12th Party Congress) was that the fight against Great Power Chauvinism (i.e., Russian chauvinism) had to be carried out by Russians themselves, and the fight against local chauvinism had to be carried out by the locals. They didn't want each group fighting against the other. But they needed a self-regulatory mechanism, and among other things this involved providing representation and voice to all kinds of local soviets. They created and promoted something called "natssovety" (national/ethnic soviets) in all flavors. In Ukraine, for example, there were even natssovety for Russians and Estonians.
Also during the period of late 20's til about 1934 (korenizatsia essentially ended then), there wasn't that much emphasis on the teaching of Russian (contrary to what the essay now says). Rather the emphasis was on the development of schools in the local languages. Although Russian was taught as a language in many schools, it only became universally required as a language of study in 1938 -- arguably sparked by the sense of impending war and the need to do what they could to assure that non-Russians had some comprehension of Russian language, which was the language of command on the Red Army. In this connection, it is well to keep in mind that although the Bolsheviks eliminated the use of the Arabic script in the local languages of Central Asia, at first they did not promote Cyrillic alphabets but rather Latin alphabets. While they wanted to disconnect the locals from the influence of the Islamic clergy, the ma38drassahs, and texts (namely the Koran) in Arabic stript, they did not immediately push Russian script nor Russian language. Both of those came in only in 1938-39, as the Latin scripts were to give way to Cyrillic script in textbooks and other printed form. Thus, on the eve of WW II, the non-Russian areas had not been exposed to widespread and enduring Russification at the hands of the Bolsheviks. The emphasis was rather to avoid ethnic conflict by seeking accommodations.
Thus, I think a fairer way to depict the korenizatsia policy was as a policy of "rooting" the Bolshevik leadership and the new government in the locales in the early phase. Keep in mind that in many of the non-Russian areas, especially in rural areas, there weren't a whole lot of communists. Even after collectivization, there might be one or two communists per collective farm in the non-Russian areas. This is one reason why they created and used the MTS (machine tractor stations) to take political instructors into the countryside: local communists were scarce, so bring in the itinerant propagandists to teach to the locals. But the Bolsheviks also provideed advancement to locals through recruitment of locals into local soviets, and they created natssovety as one form of encouraging local engagement and rooting of the communist regime in the countryside. Further they sought to develop local languages, in many cases 'creating' alphabets -- such as in the project of the Committee of the North -- so that the minorities would have a literary language to use for school textbooks and to carry forward some of their national traditions in literary form. Also bear in mind that prior to ca. 1930, there wasn't much central control of the educational system, and prior to 1934 there wasn't much control over publishing. But in the early 30's things began to shift in emphasis, and the main danger identified as "local chauvinism" instead of "great power chauvinism." And so 1934 witnessed the first significant purges in the national regions to root out local chauvinism (nationalism), and put into place even more docile and indoctrinated (or coopted) locals.-- Mack2 03:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I wish to thank Peltimikko for adding more substance and a better chronology to the discussion throughout the article. I tried to clear up the writing, but otherwise left all of his additions. --Mack2 ( talk) 13:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The section says nothing related to korenizatsiya - a particular, rather short, period. In addition, the section is mostly original research. I don't see what dissolved International and persecution of Jews have to do with korenizatsiya. Not to say that "The national pride of the Great Russian people was boosted by a campaign against rootless cosmopolitans" is rather dubious opinion (who has it, by the way? It is quite a racist remark, and it would be good to know which source is racist). - Altenmann >t 17:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
translate.google.com Korenizatsiya - word of the journalistic jargon of the 20's - 30's, XX century. After this time the word was not used in the USSR, as insulting to small nations. At the same time, Western historians distinguish rooting as a stage of national politics in the USSR, which allegedly ended in the 37-39 year, Reversal to Russification. An indication of the End of korenization, in their opinion, can be considered repression late 30-ies against part of the national intelligentsia and the party nomenklatura in the republics, the translation of the Cyrillic alphabet, etc. This is certainly a vulgar and simplistic understanding of the events of that era. It is possible that foreign "Sovietologists" to this view prompted disappearance corenization words from the dictionary of the Soviet media at 37-39 years. But this fact, as, for example, and the rejection of word туземный ('native') to northern peoples, means rather that the Soviet leadership realized the offensive and politically incorrect connotation of the term. (("His horse koreniziruy !"))
Thus, Korenizatsiya is just only politically incorrect word. The policy consisted of promoting representatives of titular nations of Soviet republics and national minorities on lower levels of the administrative subdivision of the state, into local government, and polic continued in 40-s, 50- s аnd continue...
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Korenizatsiia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Could use more factual material -- if it's available -- on how korenizatsiya worked on the ground, i.e., in practice, in different regions of the Soviet Union. --Mack2 ( talk) 20:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC) |
Last edited at 20:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 21:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Uncontested move request. ( non-admin closure) Colonestarrice ( talk) 05:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Korenizatsiya → Korenizatsiia – WP:COMMONNAME: the most common form in English-language reliable sources [1] (corresponds to romanization by the modified Library of Congress system widely used in academic and popular-academic literature). — Michael Z. 22:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Google Ngram shows that by any spelling, the lowercased form is more commonly used. [3] — Michael Z. 16:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus that the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME and should be retained. If there's further interest in discussing the recommendations of WP:RUS more broadly, that essay's talk page is likely to be a fruitful place for that discussion. ( closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 15:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Korenizatsiia → Korenizatsiya – correct transliteration from Russian per Wikipedia rules - Altenmann >talk 15:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
We should adopt a real system instead-- Sounds reasonable. The question is what is "real" system? And ours in tot "ad hoc amateur". It is basisally an insignificant simplification of BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian. At least you can start a discussion about this in the corresponding board. - Altenmann >talk 22:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)