Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (34830)	8/13/1999 12:23:00 AM
From: jbe	Respond to of 71178

X, the fundamental distinction here is between "land" empires (like the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empires) and "overseas" empires . To this day, the UN only recognizes as "colonies" those that are separated from the "metropolis" by a body of water. Bad news. In the 19th century, the Russians were as infected as any other European colonial power with the notion that they were bringing "civilization." They had a real tough time, however, in the North Caucasus, which emphatically did not want to be "civilized." The Caucasian (read: North Caucasian) war is one of the great themes of Russian literature: Tolstoy served there as a young man, so did Lermontov, and a host of other literary luminaries. In the Soviet period, the Chechens (along with the Ingush, the Karachai, the Balkars, the Kalmyks, the Crimean Tatars, the Volga Germans, etc.) were deported en masse to Central Asia, returning only after Khrushchev's secret speech. No Dagestanis (except for the local Chechens in Dagestan). This has something to do with present Chechen intransigence, needless to say. And helps to explain why the Dagestanis are less intransigent. A long story....