Sign up for a free recipe e-book →

Clarissa's Blog

A Good Article on Chechnya

Published by

Clarissa

on

Among mountains of really stupid garbage that is being published on the Tsarnaevs all over the world, I finally found a good piece from somebody who actually knows what he is talking about:

 I did not know Tsarnaev’s motivations. But if he is guilty of the bombings—and I have little doubt at this point that he is—there must be a link to the deeply troubled history of Chechnya, and to the generations of anger, despair and trauma experienced by his people.

The article is not perfect, of course. The author identifies with the Chechens and forgets to mention the horrors that Chechen terrorists have been visiting on Russia for two decades.

The story of the two Chechen wars is not about good guys versus bad guys. This is a story about the horrors of nationalism that turn everybody – I repeat, everybody – into animals. The real victims here are neither Chechens nor Russians. The real victims are civilians on both sides. And now that the violence that the conflict has created has started spilling out from the area where it started, even more people can observe how high is the price paid for the imaginary comfort of an invented national identity. Sadly, this is a message nobody wants to hear, which is why the media are bursting with idiotic reports on the Boston bombings.

34 responses to “A Good Article on Chechnya”

  1. Roberto Severino Avatar
    Roberto Severino

    Even though I’m starting to become a lot more apathetic and apolitical altogether as I’m focusing on more important matters, you are completely right about this issue. People need to learn how to not look at everything in such a black and white, vague, wishy washy good guy vs. bad guy cliche.

    Like

    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
      bloggerclarissa

      I think you are doing the right thing in concentrating on figuring out your own life at this stage. The news channels want us glued to the TV screens all day long, which is why they create endless drama. This is why I disconnected my television altogether.

      Like

      Reply
  2. cliff arroyo Avatar
    cliff arroyo

    Agree about the lack of good and bad guys.

    Disagree about dumpingo on the very idea of national identity. Like religion it can be given too much importance and abused but groups of neurotypical people don’t seem to be able to create living conditions that people want to live in if there’s no shared identity. Degeneracy and nihilism tend to take over which are not a noticeable improvement on restrained non-antagonistic nationalism.

    Like

    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
      bloggerclarissa

      “Like religion it can be given too much importance and abused but groups of neurotypical people don’t seem to be able to create living conditions that people want to live in if there’s no shared identity.”

      – Humanity seems to have survived very well until the late XVIIIth century. The only reason why these national identities were invented was because nobody in Europe could afford to pay for soldiers to fight any longer. So something was needed to make these doofuses die for free. The project succeeded beyond anybody’s wildest dreams.

      “Degeneracy and nihilism tend to take over which are not a noticeable improvement on restrained non-antagonistic nationalism.”

      – Degenerates are the ones who need to define themselves through violence done to others. Not the ones who feel complete and human without it.

      Like

      Reply
      1. cliff arroyo Avatar
        cliff arroyo

        “Humanity seems to have survived very well until the late XVIIIth century”

        I think we’re talking about different things.

        Like

        Reply
        1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
          bloggerclarissa

          Yes, I’m talking very specifically about the myth of national identity that was created by the Enlightened thinkers of Europe in the XVIIIth century:

          Like

          Reply
  3. titfortat Avatar
    titfortat

    When it comes to the Russians and Chechens it may not be as easy as good guy, bad guy but it is easy enough to see big guy versus little guy. I think most people can logically figure it out from there.

    Like

    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
      bloggerclarissa

      So you support the 9/11 terrorists, then, I presume? And the Boston bombers?

      Like

      Reply
  4. titfortat Avatar
    titfortat

    Another take on things.

    http://ericmargolis.com/2013/04/chechnya-we-will-make-you-feel-what-we-feel/

    Like

    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
      bloggerclarissa

      “An independent Chechnya could also open another door to growing US penetration of the Caucasus and campaign to encircle Russia. The US and Russia came frighteningly close to a head-on clash over Georgia. The Cold War has not ended.
      An independent Chechnya would be unstable and violent. But that is better than the savagery and atrocities that this terrible conflict continues to generate.
      Modern Russia should set the Chechen free.”

      – What a blathering fool, seriously. The Chechens only manage not to starve today because Russia is giving enormous amounts of money to them. There is nobody who wants independence at this point in Chechnya. The majority of the Russians would actually prefer to get rid of Chechnya and stop handing over money to them. But there is nobody in Chechnya willing to take the power in the country if it becomes independent. The terrorist groups that exist there today don’t care two straws about independence.

      Like

      Reply
  5. titfortat Avatar
    titfortat

    Surprise, surprise………….not so much. Unfortunately the majority of Russians don’t have much say. It seems the ones in power aren’t so ready to let Chechnya go. One person’s terrorist, anothers freedom fighter. It is interesting to see how a Ukranian seems to think the Russians are not terrorists but the Chechens are, seriously.

    Like

    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
      bloggerclarissa

      Please try to read the comments you are responding to.

      Like

      Reply
    2. valter07 Avatar
      valter07

      —It is interesting to see how a Ukranian seems to think the Russians are not terrorists but the Chechens are, seriously.

      So you are essentially questioning why Clarissa’s views do not conform to your ideas about “Ukrainian national identity”? 🙂 The latter being, according to you, a primitive “Russians are always guilty of everything”?

      Like

      Reply
      1. Titfortat Avatar
        Titfortat

        Nope, I question why she thinks the Chechens are terrorists but doesnt use the same terminology for the Russians. I wonder, would you identify as Russian?

        Like

        Reply
      2. valter07 Avatar
        valter07

        Good question TFT… I am asking this question myself a lot. And the short answer is no, but the long answer may be not that simple. But it does not belong here. Or if your interest is more genuine than “you must be a Russian to defend (did I?) those evil Russians”, I may elaborate some day. I do, however, identify as a) intelligent person, who is never satisfied by primitive schemes a la “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” and b) a person more informed on the situation in ex-SU, Eastern Europe, etc, than the average westerner.

        Like

        Reply
      3. Titfortat Avatar
        Titfortat

        I dont remember suggesting anyone was “primitive” or “evil” for that matter. If you must, continue with your slurs.

        Like

        Reply
      4. valter07 Avatar
        valter07

        TFT, if you’d really understand Eastern Europe, you’d know that publicly suspecting someone of being Russian, and publicly attributing somebody’s views to one’s alleged ethnic origins (regardless of what those origins are), would feel offensive to great many people… Slurs my ass…

        Like

        Reply
        1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
          bloggerclarissa

          As I said, Titfortat is not intellectually prepared to participate in such complex discussions.

          Like

          Reply
      5. Titfortat Avatar
        Titfortat

        And suggestions of being primitive or lacking intellect dont mean anything, right? Yep, my ass too.

        Like

        Reply
      6. valter07 Avatar
        valter07

        TFT, it is not my blog, so I am not the one to tell you that you were welcome to START from stating your vision of the situation. But you really could do just that. Without questioning anyone’s national identity.

        Like

        Reply
      7. Titfortat Avatar
        Titfortat

        Tell you what, youre right, Im wrong. Please enlighten me so I can understand the complexity of Eastern European relations. Afterall, I am just an uneducated westerner who is trying to form an idea on what is going on.

        Like

        Reply
      8. valter07 Avatar
        valter07

        Well TitforTat,
        the truth is that everything is more complicated than what any country’s politicians, propagandists, or educational system teach people about… anything. Is it true that Russia invaded Chechen territories as part of its expansionist conquests? Yes. And no one here justifies that. Did Russians kill, throughout the history, hundreds of thousands of Chechens? Yes they did. The facts of Margolis article are true. But these are not all the facts. What Margolis ignores are civilian casualties on the other side. Which were arguably smaller than on the Chechen side, but they were present. If you have two different warrior nations contacting and clashing for centuries you get a long history of raiding each other. And the deeper one goes into the history, the less humane those raids were. Like everywhere else. Maybe in some sense Chechen-Russian relationships resemble the history of wars between the European settlers and Native Americans. Yes, we have a lot of sympathy towards Native Americans these days (but in the beginning of the 20th century it was totally acceptable to describe Indians as cruel savages), but we kind of draw a line somewhere. Nobody portrays those Native Americans that were killing settler women and children as unequivocally good guys. We understand their reasons, but we do not normally cheer for them when we watch westerns… Will the US government support a Native American terrorist (oops, freedom fighter) movement, should such a movement emerge? This is a stupid and demagogic question, of course. But that is the point. 🙂
        Why don’t we call the Russians “terrorists”? For the same reason other “big guys” (using your terminology) are not called terrorists… This name happens to be reserved for the representatives of “small guys”, incapable of direct military action, and targeting “big guy’s” innocent civilians. By the way, you did not answer Clarissa’s question if your sympathy for the “small guys” goes far enough to justify 9/11 or the Boston bombers… That’s where you started to feel uncomfortable, and to hide that questioned Clarissa’s Ukraineness… 🙂
        Somehow having a legitimate army excuses one from being called a terrorist. And I do not think this is right. But if we (collective we, I am counting myself as a westerner here) want to make it right, we should change our logic consistently, and not just when it suits us (meaning we should apply it to our own legitimate army as well, and to our history as well).
        The West also has to somehow learn not to be hostage to its own myth (us being some morally superior protectors of freedoms). How many times we have to step on the same nail to understand that our myth has become the way all kinds of …interesting… characters (e.g. Syrian jihadists) are manipulating us into supporting them?
        And, as Clarissa said, Chechen independence is possible only if billions currently invested there by Russia will be substituted by billions invested by someone else. Otherwise it turn into Afghanistan. I am not sure if Saudis are willing to pick that bill…

        Like

        Reply
        1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
          bloggerclarissa

          “Somehow having a legitimate army excuses one from being called a terrorist.”

          – I’m opposed to carelessness with terminology. Terrorists are terrorists, invaders are invaders, what is the need to dilute the terms to the point where they mean everything and nothing at the same time?

          “And, as Clarissa said, Chechen independence is possible only if billions currently invested there by Russia will be substituted by billions invested by someone else. ”

          – This is precisely what the quoted article refuses to accept. Thing are SO much more complicated than “Just give them independence” at this point for the simple reason that there isn’t anybody in Chechnya right now asking for independence. How can you give what nobody is willing to take? I’m the last person to cheer Russian expansionism but there is a specific reality here.

          Like

          Reply
      9. Titfortat Avatar
        Titfortat

        @Valter

        By the way, Clarissa presumed I supported the bombers not so much as asked a question. I do not, on any level, for your information. I agree with pretty much all you say and I hold my government and many western nations culpable in many areas in regards to military or terrorist activity(can you say drone attacks) also. I question Clarissa’s description because I felt it was one sided. That does not make me ignorant or primitive in regards to what is transpiring in regards to Chechnya and Russia. The funny thing is that much of what Margolis writes so too does the journalist that Clarrisa references.I am aware that these are not issues that are simple and include much history and nastiness on both sides. I think we as people need to remember that our military’s are made up from our civilian populations and most times they re enter them once they are finished with their agreed upon duty. I also think, as a population, we need to better inform ourselves about much of the world so it doesnt just boil down to the good guy, bad guy meme. Thanks for your thoughts. 🙂

        Like

        Reply
        1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
          bloggerclarissa

          ” The funny thing is that much of what Margolis writes so too does the journalist that Clarrisa references.”

          – As I already said, if you can’t even see the differences between these two articles, you are not prepared to discuss this complex issue.

          Like

          Reply
      10. titfortat Avatar
        titfortat

        @Clarissa

        You do realize that he may have written more than just that article, maybe even part of a book……….but, like you say, it may just be too complicated for me to understand. Im glad you as a Spanish professor seems to have it all covered.

        Like

        Reply
        1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
          bloggerclarissa

          Seriously, just stop. You are making yourself look petulant and stupid. I’m embarrassed for you.

          Like

          Reply
  6. titfortat Avatar
    titfortat

    I am, I think your views are misguided at best. As with other discussions, I think your birth nation gives you a very biased view of things that, in my opinion, is not necessarily very accurate. That’s ok though, we don’t have to agree on things.

    Like

    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
      bloggerclarissa

      Buddy, you are not prepared to discuss these issues. It’s best that you abstain until you manage to educate yourself at least marginally. It really pains me to see you make yourself look silly time and again.

      Like

      Reply
  7. titfortat Avatar
    titfortat

    Ok sweetie.

    Like

    Reply
  8. el Avatar
    el

    // the myth of national identity that was created by the Enlightened thinkers of Europe in the XVIIIth century

    Those warm, fuzzy feelings I previously tended to have at the term ” Enlightened thinkers” or “thinkers” are disappearing now. Still, the process is going on. 😦

    Aren’t thinkers supposed to be working for humanity’s benefit, instead of being machiavellian types, doing their best to kill more people for free, according to your explanation? Was their initial goal to help humanity? How?

    // Humanity seems to have survived very well until the late XVIIIth century.

    But haven’t power groups always been organized? F.e. in savage tribal cultures, different tribes were often at the state of “little” or big war with each other. By “little” I mean “calling the heads” of old people or children of another tribe, if one happened to meet them. In medieval Europe were kings. In addition, the 3 monotheistic religions with crusades, “freeing Jerusalem” and so on. Do you think the current national organization is worse for people than having a king or being organized world-wide, according to religion?

    Like

    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
      bloggerclarissa

      “Those warm, fuzzy feelings I previously tended to have at the term ” Enlightened thinkers” or “thinkers” are disappearing now.”

      – They are also the ones who invented feminism, human rights, comprehensive public education, and the idea that science and technology can improve the lives of people. How do you feel now? 🙂 🙂

      ” Do you think the current national organization is worse for people than having a king or being organized world-wide, according to religion?”

      – I think that nationalism has served its purpose. Now people can start looking at alternatives. The EU tried doing that and I think this is the future.

      Like

      Reply
  9. el Avatar
    el

    Also, what about Jews? Weren’t they a nation, praying for return to Jerusalem in live independently in their own country since long before the Enlightenment?

    Like

    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa Avatar
      bloggerclarissa

      “Weren’t they a nation, praying for return to Jerusalem in live independently in their own country since long before the Enlightenment?”

      – No, of course they weren’t a nation. An ethnic group does not make a nation, and vice versa. They didn’t have a single characteristic of a nation (an army, a map, borders, flag, anthem, archive, museum, a written history.) The Zionist movement was founded in the XIXth century precisely as a result of the creation of nationalism a century earlier.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment

A conservative literary critic and college professor

Recent posts