Yes. That's a complete misunderstanding of how categorisation and statistics work in Russia. My family used to have relatives: three brothers from the same parents: Kurt, Walter and Horst
According to their passport data, Kurt was German, Walter was Tatar and Horst was Bashkir
Discussions on "percentage" miss one key factor. In most regions population is heavily mixed. In reality you gonna have many ancestries and many bloodlines. So who you identify with is mostly a matter of choice. And the question is - on basis of what is this choice made
For example, in Tatarstan around half marriages are mixed marriages. Who will the children identify with? USSR era was characterised by the heavy domination of ethnic Russians, so almost all children from mixed marriages would become "Russian" - the higher status community
In 1989-1991 the ethnic hierarchy changed quickly. That partially resulted from the renegotiation of political balance and partially from the fact that till 1991 Tatarstan was poor, but after 1991 it lived way better than most regions in Russia. The hierarchy changed accordingly
This is the only author that I am aware of that managed to adequately describe what happened in Tatarstan after 1991. She noticed that the program of Beautification of Kazan for example wasn't merely "urbanism". It was a political project of massive importance
Beautification of Kazan (and smaller towns) was political because it helped to renegotiate the ethnic hierarchy. Let's be honest, if Tatarstan cities objectively look better than most Russian ones, that does lead to renegotiation of status, both internally and externally
With the renegotiation of ethnic hierarchy, behaviour changed accordingly. Previously almost 100% of Tatarstan kids from mixed marriages had Russian names. But not anymore. In a heavily mixed area ethnicity is a matter of choice. In the unmixed area, too, it's just less obvious
That becomes even more obvious if you go in Siberia. Consider a very popular "chanson" (criminal songs) singer Ivan Kuchin. You can hear him very often in provincial cabs or cafes. On this photo he looks more "European"
On this older photo, much less so. You can be quite sure he has Asian blood
Which makes total sense if you consider that he is from the Chita region. Almost on the border with Mongolia and with heavily mixed population. When you think of Russia, think about the Iberoamerica. Much of the Urals and Siberian hinterland is the country of Mestizos
When you think about Russia imagine the following. Imagine that we still have the Spanish empire that is run by the Bourbon king from Madrid in the same old ways with peninsulares ruling over everyone else. That wold be the closest analogue to the modern Russia
Arguing that Russia should remain intact because "80% are Russian" is like saying that 90% of the Spanish Empire are actually Spanish, because they are all Castilian speaking Catholics and therefore should stay under the power of Madrid forever. Sounds good, doesn't work. The end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What I am saying is that "capitalist reforms" are a buzzword devoid of any actual meaning, and a buzzword that obfuscated rather than explains. Specifically, it is fusing radically different policies taken under the radically different circumstances (and timing!) into one - purely for ideological purposes
It can be argued, for example, that starting from the 1980s, China has undertaken massive socialist reforms, specifically in infrastructure, and in basic (mother) industries, such as steel, petrochemical and chemical and, of course, power
The primary weakness of this argument is that being true, historically speaking, it is just false in the context of American politics where the “communism” label has been so over-used (and misapplied) that it lost all of its former power:
“We want X”
“No, that is communism”
“We want communism”
Basically, when you use a label like “communism” as a deus ex machina winning you every argument, you simultaneously re-define its meaning. And when you use it to beat off every popular socio economic demand (e.g. universal healthcare), you re-define communism as a synthesis of all the popular socio economic demands
Historical communism = forced industrial development in a poor, predominantly agrarian country, funded through expropriation of the peasantry
(With the most disastrous economic and humanitarian consequences)
Many are trying to explain his success with some accidental factors such as his “personal charisma”, Cuomo's weakness etc
Still, I think there may be some fundamental factors here. A longue durée shift, and a very profound one
1. Public outrage does not work anymore
If you look at Zohran, he is calm, constructive, and rarely raises his voice. I think one thing that Mamdani - but almost no one else in the American political space is getting - is that the public is getting tired of the outrage
Outrage, anger, righteous indignation have all been the primary drivers of American politics for quite a while
For a while, this tactics worked
Indeed, when everyone around is polite, and soft (and insincere), freaking out was a smart thing to do. It could help you get noticed
People don’t really understand causal links. We pretend we do (“X results in Y”). But we actually don’t. Most explanations (= descriptions of causal structures) are fake.
There may be no connection between X and Y at all. The cause is just misattributed.
Or, perhaps, X does indeed result in Y. but only under a certain (and unknown!) set of conditions that remains totally and utterly opaque to us. So, X->Y is only a part of the equation
And so on
I like to think of a hypothetical Stone Age farmer who started farming, and it worked amazingly, and his entire community adopted his lifestyle, and many generations followed it and prospered and multiplied, until all suddenly wiped out in a new ice age
1. Normative Islamophobia that used to define the public discourse being the most acceptable form of racial & ethnic bigotry in the West, is receding. It is not so much dying as rather - failing to replicate. It is not that the old people change their views as that the young do not absorb their prejudice any longer.
In fact, I incline to think it has been failing to replicate for a while, it is just that we have not been paying attention
Again, the change of vibe does not happen at once. The Muslim scare may still find (some) audience among the more rigid elderly, who are not going to change their views. But for the youth, it is starting to sound as archaic as the Catholic scare of know nothings
Out of date
2. What is particularly interesting regarding Mamdani's victory, is his support base. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that its core is comprised of the young (and predominantly white) middle classes, with a nearly equal representation of men and women
What does Musk vs Trump affair teach us about the general patterns of human history? Well, first of all it shows that the ancient historians were right. They grasped something about nature of politics that our contemporaries simply can’t.
Let me give you an example. The Arab conquest of Spain
According to a popular medieval/early modern interpretation, its primary cause was the lust of Visigoth king Roderic. Aroused by the beautiful daughter of his vassal and ally, count Julian, he took advantage of her
Disgruntled, humiliated Julian allied himself with the Arabs and opens them the gates of Spain.
Entire kingdom lost, all because the head of state caused a personal injury to someone important.