Live data from Hacker News

Notes on Tajikistan

mattlakeman.org

201–210 of 412 posts

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#201
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

really tough choice for a government: violate human rights of opposition or descend into ISIS/afghon

I disagree - the best solution to minimizing radicalism would have been raising living standards and allowing civil society and institutions to form, yet it's the same Soviet apparatchiks who continue to tenuously hang on to power to this day. By preventing civil society from forming, perpetuating the same autarkic and autocratic economic and political system that has been in place since the 1980s, and failing to rai…

> allowing civil society and institutions to form

To be fair if they tried that Islamists would have just taken over. Those things don’t tend to just form on their own when you let people do whatever they want without supervision (you need very specific conditions).

The most effective path for countries in similar positions is probably balanced authoritarianism + focus on education and economic growth and then starting to introduce democracy and other civil rights gradually after a generation or two. Pretty hard to pull off, though (especially in the Muslim world).

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#202
post #188
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most Russians hold racist views. It doesn't change if they are expats. As a result of the colonial conquests, Russia is a multiethnic state. But the minorities have never been fully accepted. The govt balances between suppressing the far right and managing it for its own purposes. This wiki article has plenty of references, with many pointing to the racist actions by the senior officials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki…

This blanked statement is false. I’m speechless somebody can make claims like this tbh.

[deleted]

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#203
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many fond memories of it, but mostly when I think about it I'm filled with sadness, because the people there deserve so much better. They're constantly knee-deep in corruption, both street level and just the very blatant kleptocratic presidential family I spent 2 years driving the length of the Pan-American Highway, and 3 years driving right around the African continent. What you said can equally be applied to many…

> Incredibly friendly, warm, kind and happy people to a degree I did not know was possible on planet earth. Sadly they're held down by corruption, ineptitude and the West. The problems are significantly of their own doing. I live in one such country (Nigeria), and many people say the same thing about my people- warm, friendly, and whatever. But being warm and friendly doesn’t build a successful nation. Tribalism, hig…

>But being warm and friendly doesn’t build a successful nation

No, but kicking out the greedy WASPs and their lackeys and post-colonial infuence schemes does though - though seldom realized

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#204
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

No, there were real conflicts, violence, and refugees fleeing both across and outside countries before the fall of Soviet Union (not predicted by anyone) and afterwards. Before you reach for checklists and flowcharts to figure out whether you should call them “atrocities” or “civil outrage”, let me refresh your memory.

First, we need to look at oil and gas pipeline maps from USSR to Europe. It's easy to do, we're on the internet after all. By pure coincidence, when prices of hydrocarbons had been at their lowest for years, budgets had become empty, and most parts of USSR had decided they need some political autonomy, leaders of three Socialist republics which were involved in extraction and delivery of resources had declared that USSR was no more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezha_Accords

By doing that, they shook off the old men from the Party and other parts of Union government who had previously been above them, but became rulers without a country, and they also shook off sharing revenues with other Socialist republics, and supporting all USSR population. Enough of friendship of all Soviet nations!

Newspapers across the world called it “the victory of Democracy”, etc. Sure, the petrostate and two intermediate pieces of land under the pipes were full of debts, and planned to keep pumping valuable resources to the civilized world, so everything was fine.

Of course, honest and reliable bureaucrats and oligarchs ruling new countries mutually dependent on shared pipe system immediately started to argue whose balls were bigger, and tried to break any official agreement any time they felt like it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus%E2%80%93Russia_relatio...

Partially it was because government budgets were empty in the '90s, and they had to became creative with money from the main source of income, partially it was because they fought for properties and energy supply for them, were selling industry piece by piece or seizing it. However, all was well as long as civilized world got their cheap oil and gas.

Even in Soviet times, southern Soviet republics were not that rich. Big industry was limited to isolated locations, and depended on exchange of goods and resources with other republics, and often factories were founded proprotionally according to state plans, not because something was logical. Agriculture was a neglected sector across all USSR in its late decades, and farm workers had very little opportunities, were generally poor, and sometimes grew crops no one needed (because distribution of food was also centralized, and US and Canada would sell as much grain as needed). Despite endless propaganda about workers and peasants, they were generally forgotten and ignored part of population. So-called “national specifics”, that is, corruption and nepotism, and remains of tribalism of pre-Soviet era, while not discussed openly until later years, also played a role. Therefore, life in agricultural regions was pretty drab. After the — forced — independence they were plunged into poverty.

Perestroika and economic turmoil uncovered national tensions (not just limited to “Russians go home”). Sure, a lot of people considered such far away places provincial shitholes, especially if they were sent to work there (in many cases, higher education resulted in government assignment that depended on your grades, loyalty, and family connections), and looked down upon locals. However, for a lot of other people the home was right there, sometimes for whole their lives. Of course, those who judged people by the color of their skin or facial features didn't bother with that. (Turns out that reading and even giving speeches about a single family of all nations does not make you friends with everyone, just like talking about colonial past does not make you any less of a white man in a cork hat.) While change of citizenship was offered to any ex-Soviet citizen (but still was not that easy), prices of property in southern republics were next to zero, and most savings disappeared, so many emigrants effectively became refugees relying on relatives and friends. That is, if they had prepared, and had not ran from a local mob.

By the way, it is widely accepted that Brighton Beach has the highest concentration of those vulgar Soviet hoi polloi on Earth, and the only place Soviet service can still exist. Obviously, future historians will agree that annexation of Brighton Beach was completely motivated and adequate move.

To conclude, Anglo-American self-chastising about colonial past can't be globally applied to each and every country as one-size-fit-all tool, just like the horrible bureaucratic concept of “race” (reminding a lot of people about Soviet “nationality” brand mark) does more harm than good outside of its native lands. Decolonial and postcolonial works from actual local researchers do exist, and they also mention that.

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#205
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think by "kept in check" they mean good separation of church and state. Some islamic countries don't have good separation of church and state.

The thing described is far from separation of church. It is straight out oppression.

What other options are there though when the other side has zero interest in secularism and will do whatever they can to institute a theocratic government when given the opportunity?

Some (most?) forms of Islam are just not compatible with western style democracy and secularism. It’s unfortunate but I don’t really see any other realistic options of solving this besides “oppression”.

Some countries like Jordan kind of partially pulled it off but they had very specific conditions which can’t really be replicated elsewhere.

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#206
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not just a religion, but a legal and societal system. A very medieval one. Few people care if you believe that Muhammad rode to heaven on a magic horse (Buraq). But quite a lot of people care if you want to introduce hand amputations for theft, as demanded by Sharia Law, or different inheritance rules for sons and daughters where being female = being less valuable. The medieval-practical parts of Islam must def…

Islamic law is understood by Muslims to be applied only in an Islamic state. In a secular state, the consensus understanding by Muslims is that the secular law is to be followed. A secular state need not suppress Islam

Not really? Islamists in secular Muslim states are trying to overturn the secular legal all the time (and have succeeded on numerous occasions). Often they end up compromising and end up with a mixed system which is also far from ideal.

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#207

Not so new fact that many here may already know: The (in?)famous -stan suffix, coming originally from Persian, is an etymological cousin of State, Street, Statistics, Strategy and Stadt. In Iran, provinces are called Ostan and some Ostans' names end with -stan (e.g. Ostan of Kurdistan). By the way, since it's not clear from their names, it may be worth noting that Tajiki and Persian are two dialects of the same langu…

*Farsi. Persia doesn't exist anymore. I find it strange that somewhat uniquely people refer to Iran by its ancient name. We're not speaking anglo-saxonish

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#208
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A secular state need not suppress Islam" What about a secular state that doesn't want to become an Islamic state, but has a significant minority that has the opposite wish? AFAIK this is the most important common political problem across the Islamic world. Many organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood want to Islamize their respective secular countries, some by peaceful means, others by violence. There has alrea…

A liberal secular state must respect the will of its citizenry, whatever it is. It must also suppress violent sedition with violence. Expressing that responsibility as suppressing religion per se is counterproductive

So democratically abolishing democracy?

> respect the will of its citizenry, whatever it is

How do you define that? Is it always what the majority decides? What if the liberal secular government knows that going along with the will of the people will result in a minority of the population losing most of their rights and potentially suffering extreme oppression?

One could could assume that after learning what happened in Germany in the 30s (and some other comparable situations) most people would agree that even liberal states need to draw a line at some point.

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#209
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A liberal secular state must respect the will of its citizenry, whatever it is No. A tolerant, secular, liberal state should not respect the will of its people if the will of (the majority of) its people is to become an intolerant, religious, oppressive state. It is OK -- possibly even necessary -- to have a set of core founding principals which must never be abandoned.

If you're saying that core founding principles were so important then you must feel that slavery shouldn't have been abolished, no?

Slavery was a “state rights” issue from the beginning. In what way was it part of the core founding principles of the US?

Also having “core founding principles” doesn’t mean that they are valid or that you got them right from the beginning.

Re: Notes on Tajikistan

#210

Not so new fact that many here may already know: The (in?)famous -stan suffix, coming originally from Persian, is an etymological cousin of State, Street, Statistics, Strategy and Stadt. In Iran, provinces are called Ostan and some Ostans' names end with -stan (e.g. Ostan of Kurdistan). By the way, since it's not clear from their names, it may be worth noting that Tajiki and Persian are two dialects of the same langu…

*Farsi. Persia doesn't exist anymore. I find it strange that somewhat uniquely people refer to Iran by its ancient name. We're not speaking anglo-saxonish

Persia doesn't exist anymore, and I referenced to the country as Iran, if you check a bit more carefully.

The language, however, is spoken by roughly 100 million people, so I believe it is safe to assume that it still exists. Farsi is an endonym, just like the official language of Austria which is known in English as "German" and not Deutsch, its endonym.

Post reply on HN