Metropole, Colony, and Imperial Citizenship in the Russian Empire

Morrison, Alexander

doi:10.1353/kri.2012.0016

Cited by 19 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ideas and practices fitting in the NTA framework were not unknown to the empire’s governing elites and to the public, including academics and political activists. The Russian imperial rule 2 rested on a complex and fluid institutional mosaic that included separate governance regimes and public institutions designed for different population categories and territories (Burbank 2006, 2018; Khoury and Glebov 2017; Morrison 2012). The government was striving to rationalize the system of rule in accordance with the ideals of Polizeistaat and thus was transforming normative and organizational settings for the purpose of better governability and social integration (Kappeler 2007).…”

Section: Round One: 1917–1922mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonterritorial Autonomy in Northern Eurasia: Rooted or Alien?

Osipov¹

2021

Nationalities Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article examines the ideas and arrangements referred to as nonterritorial autonomy (NTA) in the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and the post-Soviet states. Many scholars regard NTA as a theoretical breakthrough and as a way to drastically rearrange diversity policies. The author seeks to clarify whether NTA had been a groundbreaking innovation and an area of political contestations. Two short periods of NTA-related initiatives after 1917 and in the late 1980s–1990s may look like attempts (albeit ineffective) to replace the earlier forms of diversity governance. The author shows that the ideas of group societal separateness, differential treatment of individuals, group agency, and cohesiveness, as well as a group’s running of its internal affairs, were present in varying degrees in imperial, Soviet, and post-Soviet governments’ thoughts and practices. Academia and civil society were also appropriating and developing these views, and group self-rule on a nonterritorial basis was their logical extension. However, the practical implementation was, in most cases, on a top-down basis, and group agency and self-rule were affirmed mostly rhetorically. The continuity of discourses and practices demonstrates that NTA was an integral part of “normal” and broad ethnopolitical developments across the major historic divides in Northern Eurasia.

show abstract

Section: Round One: 1917–1922mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonterritorial Autonomy in Northern Eurasia: Rooted or Alien?

Osipov¹

2021

Nationalities Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, Jane Burbank argued persuasively that despite all these developments, until 1917 the Russian Empire practiced what she called “an imperial rights regime,” a sort of “mosaic” citizenship in which particular groups of the population enjoyed rights and privileges and owed the state duties through membership in legal estates (Burbank 2006). Alexander Morrison, looking at the practice of subjecthood in colonial Turkestan, suggested that belonging to the polity was not an open-ended phenomenon, and that in Central Asia native populations were excluded altogether from access to imperial subjecthood and membership in estates with attending rights and privileges (Morrison 2012). Research into the practices of subjecthood of the Chinese in the Russian Far East showed a complicated process, in which notions of modern citizenship coexisted with imperial practices of creating separate legal spaces for different groups of the population (Glebov 2017b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exceptional Subjects: Koreans, Settler Colonialism, and Imperial Subjecthood in the Russian Far East, 1860s–1917

Glebov

2020

Nationalities Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article traces debates and policies of the Russian imperial administrators toward the Korean population in the Far Eastern provinces of the Russian Empire. Koreans were initially treated as de facto members of the peasant estate, and in the 1890s many were granted the status of Russian subjects. Yet the rise of settler colonialism and a nationalizing empire from the 1880s, and especially after the Russian revolution of 1905, complicated the issue of Korean subjecthood and led to policies that excluded Koreans from the regulations normally applicable to peasants, such as the right to increased land allotments. At the same time, the neotraditionalist approach to the management of difference in the empire was still present in the 1910s, albeit never clearly articulated to compete with the nationalizing idiom.

show abstract

“…The Russian emperor was afraid the Kishi Zhuze (Junior Horde) and Orta Zhuze (Middle Horde) could unite their rebellious forces, which is why he sent his entire force to suppress the rebellion in this area. The forces were unequal and the rebellion was suppressed; Isatay Taymanov died on the battlefield (Morrison, Veniukov, Bezobrazov, & Hosking, 2012;Von Haxthausen, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Not having found a place in their own land, they were forced to resettle en masse. By the 1890s, vast fallow lands had been explored and the Russian fiscal policy was in effect, which, however, did not take into account the interests of the local population, which turned the Kazakh nation into a victim of colonialization (Morrison et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The social and historical situation in the nineteenth-century Kazakhstan and the anti-colonial trend in Kazakh literature

Oskembay¹,

Kelgembaeva²,

Yerdembekov³

2018

rupkatha

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper features a brief review of the history of Russia's colonization of Kazakhstan in the nineteenth century. During this period, Russia was engaged in colonial activities in Asia. After conquering the Kazakh lands, Russia launched a policy of russification and started to force a new sociopolitical model upon the Kazakhs. The research investigates the status of the Kazakh population in Russia and that of the people who were forced to move to China. The research also reviews the attempts of Kazakhs to regain their independence through rebellions, which were suppressed violently by imperial armed forces. The authors analyzed the works of East Kazakhstani poets in the context of the sociocultural processes of that age. The poetic works best reflect the mood of the nation and its attitude to the new policy. The poems of Arimzhan Zhanuzakuli, Argynbek Apashbayuli, and Nogaybay Suleymenuli discover and contemplate the themes that reflect the political and social controversies of the age of economic, political, and cultural expansion into the country (the theme of disappointment with the past and fear of the future) and unite the poets into the "times of tribulation" literary trend. The works of the "times of tribulation" poets gave impetus to the national rebirth of Kazakhs and the return of independence and the possibility to choose their own policy. Due to the subjects addressed in their works, many poets were subject to purges. Nowadays, the Kazakhs have their own independent state of Kazakhstan, which became possible thanks to the national idea that was formed in the works of nineteenth-century poets.

show abstract

Metropole, Colony, and Imperial Citizenship in the Russian Empire

Cited by 19 publications

References 61 publications

Nonterritorial Autonomy in Northern Eurasia: Rooted or Alien?

Nonterritorial Autonomy in Northern Eurasia: Rooted or Alien?

Exceptional Subjects: Koreans, Settler Colonialism, and Imperial Subjecthood in the Russian Far East, 1860s–1917

The social and historical situation in the nineteenth-century Kazakhstan and the anti-colonial trend in Kazakh literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About