Kamil Galeev Profile picture
Aug 2, 2022 11 tweets 3 min read Read on X
1. Whiteness and Blackness are not constants. They reflect the socioeconomic order, not the other way around

2. When we say "Blacks" (черные), whom do we imagine? Hairy smelly brownish wetbacks of course. Ergo, Blackness combines both anthropological and socioeconomic qualities
3. In a sense "Blackness" is a tool for othering and dehumanising the working class, thus reinforcing the socioeconomic hierarchy. Those on the bottom of the social ladder are obviously subhuman. How do we know it? Just look at their skin. Honestly we are too kind to them
4. Until the late 20th c most Russian cities did not have the anthropologically different working class. There were exceptions ofc, like the Chinese immigrant workers who played a major role in the Civil War as the Bolshevik force. But nobody cares of pre-revolutionary era anyway
5. In fact, Tsardom and then the Empire used to have lots of *higher* status newcomers from the South. For example, since 1650s a few Georgian kings immigrated to Muscovy and brought with them masses of aristocracy. Who were all awarded lands and (Russian) serfs. E.g. in Novgorod
6. Here you can see a Georgian prince Alexander Bagration, the first Russian Generalfeldzeugmeister (= commander of artillery) who fought against the Swedes in the Great Northern War Image
7. Georgian aristocracy occupied a very peculiar "Tsarevich" niche in the Muscovite hierarchy. "Tsarevich" is literally a son of a Tsar. In Muscovy though it could refer to the foreign royalty who stood beneath the Tsar but above the Russian bojar aristocracy. A Prince étranger Image
8. Tsarevich were immigrant royalty from wherever whose role largely consisted in maintaining the God-like status of a Moscow ruler. He has royalty on his service, he must be really great then
9. Before Georgians it were mostly Tatars and Circassians who played this role. In the 16th c. it was very common. But in the 17th c Muscovy changed fundamentally and now was much more militantly Christian and more importantly *consistently* Christian. That was no longer possible
10. Georgian aristocracy occupied an important position of the immigrant Tsarevich royalty who confirmed the rank and status of the Tsar. They were showered with wealth and privileges of course. Their Christianity was very much of an advantage in a quickly Christianising Muscovy
11. Btw, I never read a consistent argument about the Russian militant Christianity of the 17th c. being the offshoot of the Counterreformation and specifically of the Jesuit movement. This is very obviously true and yet, I never saw a nice narrative that would make that point
12. Anyway, Georgians enjoyed relatively high status in the pre-revolutionary Russia as providers of the Christian aristocracy. Circassians weren't really Christian, Armenians were associated with commerce which was shameful. Georgians were probably the highest status Caucasians

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Kamil Galeev

Kamil Galeev Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @kamilkazani

Jul 1
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)

So, yes, living under the actual communism sucks
Read 5 tweets
Jun 28
Some thoughts on Zohran Mamdani’s victory

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 Image
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
Read 8 tweets
Jun 28
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.
Theory: X -> Y

Reality:

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
Read 6 tweets
Jun 26
Some thoughts on Zohran Mamdani's victory:

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
Read 12 tweets
Jun 21
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.Image
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 Image
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. Image
Read 4 tweets
Jun 19
On the impending war with Iran

One thing you need to understand about wars is that very few engage into the long, protracted warfare on purpose. Almost every war of attrition was planned and designed as a short victorious blitzkrieg

And then everything went wrong
Consider the Russian war in Ukraine. It was not planned as a war. It was not thought of as a war. It was planned as a (swift!) regime change allowing to score a few points in the Russian domestic politics. And then everything went wrong
It would not be an exaggeration to say that planning a short victorious war optimised for the purposes of domestic politics is how you *usually* end up in a deadlock. That is the most common scenario of how it happens, practically speaking
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(