Neotraditionalist Rule to the Rescue of the Empire? Viceroy I. Vorontsov-Dashkov amid Crises in the Caucasus, 1905–1915

Riegg, Stephen Badalyan

doi:10.1353/imp.2018.0061

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, Chichagov’s position uneasily combined the new racializing rhetoric so characteristic of the last Romanov reign in Russia with what one can call a neo-traditionalist view of imperial diversity (for a discussion of neo-traditionalist rule in the Caucasus in the aftermath of 1905 revolution, see Riegg 2018). While Chichagov was determined to limit the presence of the Chinese, he was surprisingly positive in his tone about the Koreans.…”

Section: Koreans: Neither Foreigners Nor Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the imperial situation, the idea of Koreans as peasants—and thus useful agents of colonization—conflicted with the notion that peasants, the ultimately “national” estate, ought to be ethnically Russian. Consequently, I argue that the neo-traditionalist practice of empire was still present—yet never articulated as a coherent vision for the organization of the imperial space—at the very peak of settler colonialism and the nationalizing empire (on late imperial neotraditionalism, see Riegg 2018). Practitioners of the neo-traditionalist approach were not necessarily premodern archaists who saw the empire as a combination of differently defined corporate groups.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Koreans: Neither Foreigners Nor Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%