You see, nuances of your background and record play a big role in an established system, which is relatively static. Nice CV, correct ancestry, social polish, that's all your social capital
But in the time of crisis all this capital can lose its value and very quickly
A crisis is always a Jubilee and in 1917 Russia went through a massive crisis. Social capital lost its value. Very quickly nobody cared if you were a prince, or if you have a nice French accent, or how close you were to the Court. Social capital lost its value, just like money
This works both ways though. Savings are annihilated, and debts too. Positive social capital is annihilated, and negative, too. You must keep this in mind to get why revolutions get so much popular support, even if life "objectively" becomes worse (it usually does)
Crisis destroys all capital, both positive and negative. Old glamour is destroyed, but the old stigma, too. White propaganda tried to use anti-Semitic stereotyped against Trotsky. It didn't really work among the *commonfolk*. To the upper class surprise, they didn't really care
That does not mean there was no anti Semitism. It was massive. Red army did a lot of Jewish pogroms. Dit it accept a Jewish commander though? Yes. Would Russia accept a Jewish Tsar? Also yes. Provided that he would take the Russian name and surname
Just a quick illustration. Old Muscovy had mestnichestvo. Let's say if my grandpa served under your grandpa, that means me and my descendants must serve under you and your descendants. Social hierarchy should never ever change and all families must occupy always the same position
Under the normal circumstances that worked. Time of Troubles changed everything immediately. During the Civil War Prince Telyatevsky was just an officer in an army of his former slave - Ivan Bolotnikov. Both positive and social capital was destroyed in the crisis
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Position of Muslim Tatar murzas in Muscovy can be briefly summarised this way:
Till 1550 - ultra privileged, more expat-like position. They were more of guests of the Tsar rather than his slaves and this could leave and come back freely. Unlike the Russian bojars who were slaves
1552-1556 - after the fall of Kazan and then Astrakhan they were quickly reduced to the status of Russian aristocracy. Now they were openly referred to as slaves. Also now they could not leave. Many did ofc, but now they couldn't come back. Expat-like status was lost
1. Whiteness and Blackness are not constants. They reflect the socioeconomic order, not the other way around
2. When we say "Blacks" (черные), whom do we imagine? Hairy smelly brownish wetbacks of course. Ergo, Blackness combines both anthropological and socioeconomic qualities
3. In a sense "Blackness" is a tool for othering and dehumanising the working class, thus reinforcing the socioeconomic hierarchy. Those on the bottom of the social ladder are obviously subhuman. How do we know it? Just look at their skin. Honestly we are too kind to them
4. Until the late 20th c most Russian cities did not have the anthropologically different working class. There were exceptions ofc, like the Chinese immigrant workers who played a major role in the Civil War as the Bolshevik force. But nobody cares of pre-revolutionary era anyway
Regarding the ethnic hierarchy in Russia. It's not some objective system like the Social Credit. There is of course a broad understanding of who stands higher or lower and the darker your skin is, the lower you are. Nevertheless, privilege and underprivilege are often situational
Example. I knew an Armenian technician from Avtovaz, the largest car producer in Russia located in Samara Oblast. His career wasn't going well and he explained it by his ethnicity:
"If I was some Tukhvatullin ("...ullin" = Tatar surname), I'd have been promoted long ago" said he
What did an Armenian technician mean by that? He didn't mean that Armenians "objectively" stand lower than Tatars. He implied that Armenians don't form a big interest group in Avtovaz. There are too few of them there to form a lobby. There is no Armenian network there to fit in
Yes. That's a complete misunderstanding of how categorisation and statistics work in Russia. My family used to have relatives: three brothers from the same parents: Kurt, Walter and Horst
According to their passport data, Kurt was German, Walter was Tatar and Horst was Bashkir
Discussions on "percentage" miss one key factor. In most regions population is heavily mixed. In reality you gonna have many ancestries and many bloodlines. So who you identify with is mostly a matter of choice. And the question is - on basis of what is this choice made
For example, in Tatarstan around half marriages are mixed marriages. Who will the children identify with? USSR era was characterised by the heavy domination of ethnic Russians, so almost all children from mixed marriages would become "Russian" - the higher status community
"There's now a shortage of places on Nizhny Tagil graveyards"
Nizhny Tagil is located in the Urals. It's one of the most heavily industrialised Russian cities. Metallurgy, chemicals, machinery. Uralvagonzavod which is usually considered to be the largest Russian military producer is located in this city
Despite its massive industrial production, Nizhny Tagil is one of the most quickly shrinking cities in the region. People die or leave. All the revenues from the industry are sucked by the insatiable Moscow, while the locals get only the poisoned air and water
Someone X. visited a mid size Russian city. Half a million population. He met with a few people including "the watcher" (смотрящий), the mafia boss controlling the situation in this city. X. can be described as a person widely known in the narrow circles
The mafia boss followed X. closely So when they met he told him:
"Let's talk business. I know Freemasons secretly control everything. And I know you are one of them. How can I join you, guys?"
X. denied his freemasonry. So the mafia boss got angry:
"I knew you won't tell me!"
I find this case very illustrative. Low brow culture, low brow agenda, low brow intellectual concepts are often dismissed as "dumb" or "not serious". No, it's those who dismiss them who are really dumb. Because a lot of people with power and resources *actually believe in them*