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
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
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
For decades, any resistance to the Reaganomics has been suppressed using the false dichotomy: it is either “capitalism” (= which meant Reaganomics) or socialism, and socialism doesn’t work
Now, as there is the growing feeling that Reaganomics don’t work, the full rehabilitation of socialism looks pretty much inevitable
I find it oddly similar to how it worked in the USSR. For decades, the whole propaganda apparatus had been advancing the false dichotomy: it is either socialism, or capitalism (= meaning robber barons)
Now, as there is a growing feeling that the current model does not work, we must try out capitalism instead. And, as capitalism means robber barons, we must create robber barons
We have to distribute all the large enterprises between the organized crime members. This is the way
Truth is: the words like Rus/Russian had many and many ambiguous and often mutually exclusive meanings, and not only throughout history, but, like, simultaneously.
For example, in the middle ages, the word "Rus" could mean:
1. All the lands that use Church Slavonic in liturgy. That is pretty much everything from what is now Central Russia, to what is now Romania. Wallachians, being the speakers of a Romance language were Orthodox, and used Slavonic in church -> they're a part of Rus, too
2. Some ambiguous, undefined region that encompasses what is now northwest Russia & Ukraine, but does not include lands further east. So, Kiev & Novgorod are a part of Rus, but Vladimir (-> region of Moscow) isn't
These two mutually exclusive notions exist simultaneously
The greatest Western delusion about China is, and always has been, greatly exaggerating the importance of plan. Like, in this case, for example. It sounds as if there is some kind of continuous industrial policy, for decades
1. Mao Zedong dies. His successors be like, wow, he is dead. Now we can build a normal, sane economy. That means, like in the Soviet Union
2. Fuck, we run out of oil. And the entire development plan was based upon an assumption that we have huge deposits of it
3. All the prior plans of development, and all the prior industrial policies go into the trashbin. Because again, they were based upon an assumption that we will be soon exporting more oil than Saudi Arabia, and without that revenue we cannot fund our mega-projects
Yes. Behind all the breaking news about the capture of small villages, we are missing the bigger pattern which is:
The Soviet American war was supposed to be fought to somewhere to the west of Rhine. What you got instead is a Soviet Civil War happening to the east of Dnieper
If you said that the battles of the great European war will not be fought in Dunkirk and La Rochelle, but somewhere in Kupyansk (that is here) and Rabotino, you would have been once put into a psych ward, or, at least, not taken as a serious person
The behemoth military machine had been built, once, for a thunderbolt strike towards the English Channel. Whatever remained from it, is now decimating itself in the useless battles over the useless coal towns of the Donetsk Oblast
Yes, and that is super duper quadruper important to understand
Koreans are poor (don't have an empire) and, therefore, must do productive work to earn their living. So, if the Americans want to learn how to do anything productive they must learn it from Koreans etc
There is this stupid idea that the ultra high level of life and consumption in the United States has something to do with their productivity. That is of course a complete sham. An average American doesn't do anything useful or important to justify (or earn!) his kingly lifestyle
The kingly lifestyle of an average American is not based on his "productivity" (what a BS, lol) but on the global empire Americans are holding currently. Part of the imperial dynamics being, all the actually useful work, all the material production is getting outsourced abroad
Reading Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Set in southwest England, somewhere in the late 1800s. And the first thing you need to know is that Tess is bilingual. He speaks a local dialect she learnt at home, and the standard English she picked at school from a London-trained teacher
So, basically, "normal" language doesn't come out of nowhere. Under the normal conditions, people on the ground speak all the incomprehensible patois, wildly different from each other
"Regular", "correct" English is the creation of state
So, basically, the state chooses a standard (usually, based on one of the dialects), cleanses it a bit, and then shoves down everyone's throats via the standardized education
Purely artificial construct, of a super mega state that really appeared only by the late 1800s