Some people really need to hear this:
Just because you are learning about other people’s perspectives for the first time, it doesn’t mean these are new ideas. It certainly doesn’t mean their perspectives are the product of your society’s latest culture war.
For example, I sometimes get replies like: “Oh, now the Baltics refuse to accept they were even part of the Soviet Union.”
My brother in Christ, we’ve been
#neversoviet since before you were born.
The fact we were occupied by the soviet union and not members of it is the established position of international law and our domestic laws, and the basis of our re-independence movements and restored states. Welcome to the conversation.
There was another funny example this week when we were talking about decolonisation in Eastern Europe, which of course always annoys the tankies and vatniks - but also plenty of westplainers who wanted to ‘correct’ us with the russian perspective.
One person, frustrated with the fact we have our own perspectives about our own countries and histories based on the reality of our experiences, finally replied: “Look, I just don’t think we should rush to label everything decolonisation”.
I turned to the bookshelf behind me to remind myself that - far from a rush - it actually seemed to be more common in the past to talk about decolonisation here. The first book I opened, published in 1993, discusses the impact of soviet settler colonialism in detail, of course as a continuation of russia’s longer colonial history, as well as the challenges of decolonising. It was a nice reality check because the reason that language isn’t as common anymore is because those challenges have actually been pretty well handled in the three decades since as the Baltics have developed as modern democracies.
Just because there’s a new debate in your country about decolonising something, it doesn’t mean we can’t use the word.
For anyone still confused about how the soviet union could possibly be colonial in nature, note that colonisation in the index of this book is listed with ‘See also: Russification’. That’s one place to start.
The counter argument is: “But they didn’t arrive by boats!” - which is such a shamelessly obvious attempt to rig the definition of colonialism. It’s double colonial in that it attempts to both support the russian narrative over their victims but also support the idea that only westerners are special enough to be capable of colonising. Listen, no one on the receiving end of colonialism gives a shit about which mode of transport their colonisers arrived on in order to define the brutality of it. I checked different definitions. None says anything about boats. A small number say, “usually overseas” or “usually from afar”, which is western centric but still not enough to exclude russian colonialism.
The other argument is: “But the soviets gave more than they took”, which is: 1. Not true. 2. The same imperial argument used in defence of every empire everywhere.
And, just a side note, we can criticise how the soviets treated us like colonies and therefore support the decolonisation of its legacy without ever having to accept the status of once being a colony. By its very definition, colonies have no place in international law anyway. We were always occupied independent nations.
A big part of what’s happening here is that too many people around the world grew up with the russian imperial perspective - at least when it comes to understanding russia’s neighbours.
But now russia’s return to more blatant imperialism means all that bullshit is crashing into reality. The facade isn’t holding up.
More people than ever before are learning about the perspectives of russia’s neighbours. And, boy, it’s very different to what those colonists told you.
We’ll continue to celebrate decolonisation every day by enjoying life in our independent countries. Come visit and see it for yourself. 🙂