Hordes and Russia

[unmerged(652342)]

Oh, yay, more Russian nationalists, just what the forum needs.

- yay, more russophobes.

source

Then you hit the Soviet era and Stalin which brought those policies to pretty much every non-Russian culture in the USSR, with the Crimean Tartars getting the worst of it.

- 1. lol wiki
2. lol Stalin
Try better next time, horde fanboy.

 

[Novacat]

Ahh... I see someone is still butthurt over the Russian nerf. Should I refer you to Dr. Osterreich for some ointment?

 

[unmerged(652342)]

Ahh... still butthurt over the Russian nerf?

- wad? I think i previously said that i never plays as Russia, so why i should be butthurt because of a game? If you remember (i doubt it ofc) i said many times that nerfing Russia would lead to nowhere, and as we see now i was right. Now it is not Russia who stomps Asia but Spain, lel.

 

[Novacat]

Except I always said that Russia was never a problem in the first place and the reason why Russia was 'OP' was because of the complete lack of credible opposition to Russia's east.

 

[Taterthomp2]

- yay, more russophobes.

- 1. lol wiki
2. lol Stalin
Try better next time, horde fanboy.

it never ceases to amaze me, how people without any evidence providing for their own points, manage to laugh at wiki sources, because wiki is 'unreliable' a stereotype that is so ridiculously unfair as to be something ONLY someone with absolutely no real capacity for proper response would ever use.

it's the equivelant of me saying "lol you read it... why don't you think for yourself about what happened 400 years before you were born, instead of doing that 'research' like a retarded undergrad student!" (this has literally been said to me not 2 days ago on this forum btw. :\ )

wiki is the easiest source to use, because it is an encyclopedia. when someone links you to a wiki page, they expect you to not just read the words, but check wikipedia's own, quite numerous, citations in the bibliography area of the page. But it always feels like no one knows, or in fact, everyone refuses to accept, that they are capable of further delving into the matter. for this reason, for the reason that you mocked wikipedia, i shall now list a multitude of non-wikipedia sources, for what he sourced, simply to smite your usage of such a frustratingly arrogant response. :laugh:

original link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_conquest_of_Siberia#Massacres_of_indigenous_peoples
wikipedia.

here is a list of JUST the citations WITHIN that SUB-ARTICLE itself, since you seem monumentously incapable of using an encyclopedia!
1. http://books.google.com/books?id=Mg...ocide indigenous Dauri Amur Kamchatka&f=false

2. http://www.economist.com/node/15108641

3. http://books.google.com/books?id=nzhq85nPrdsC&pg=PA104#v=onepage&q&f=false

4. http://books.google.com/books?id=Jce4rBWjG5wC&pg=PA64#v=onepage&q&f=false

And, an entire, readable from start to finish book on it directly sourced by the wikipedia, uploaded by a UNIVERSITY.

5. http://history.emory.edu/home/assets/documents/endeavors/volume4/EmoryEndeavors4Complete.pdf

These are just the citations in the single paragraph first shown under his source link sub article. :|

Now the second article!
1. http://books.google.com/books?id=Vz...ge&q=russian genocide siberia natives&f=false

2. http://books.google.com/books?id=xp...=onepage&q=Cossack genocide kamchatka&f=false

3. http://books.google.com/books?id=nzhq85nPrdsC&pg=PA145#v=onepage&q&f=false

4. http://books.google.com/books?id=nzhq85nPrdsC&pg=PA147#v=onepage&q&f=false

5. http://books.google.com/books?id=ez...=onepage&q=Cossack genocide kamchatka&f=false

6. http://books.google.com/books?id=qV...=X&ei=JulWU9jEBqWysASw0IDIDQ&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBw\

7. http://books.google.com/books?id=be...a=X&ei=uelWU5KPMfLMsQTu7ILwAg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA

8. http://books.google.com/books?id=qE...a=X&ei=JulWU9jEBqWysASw0IDIDQ&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCQ

9. http://books.google.com/books?id=lp...ge&q=russian genocide siberia natives&f=false

Second paragraphs sources. :/

I won't contue, as with 14 citations, in the span of 2 paragraphs, if you question that with the ridiculous assumption that all of it is automatically wrong becuase it's found in an encyclopedia, and taken from sources 'unkown' simply because you are not able to understand that the sources are findable, verifiable, and well... incredibly credible!

So do, please, never try to use that response in this forum again... or i will be there, to indomitably respond with a few DOZEN citations from all around, no matter the topic, no matter the reason. :rofl:

 

[nicechinos]

source

Then you hit the Soviet era and Stalin which brought those policies to pretty much every non-Russian culture in the USSR, with the Crimean Tartars getting the worst of it.

Well, buddy. You missed it by a thousand miles. That's the most clueless one-shot I've ever seen on this forum.
1. What has USSR has to do with Russia/ Russian Empire?
2. What does Dzhugashvili has to do with Russians? What does Soviet ideology has to do with Russian national consciousness? Communists thought that Russian nationalism is the largest threat to their existence and it has to be utterly crushed. That's why Russian language was banned and then reinvented. Not going to talk about reinvented national identities.
3. Why do you speak about eradication of "natives" (they were not natives but citizens of Russia and Soviet Union) and do not mention Russian casualties under communist regime? What were the absolute numbers?

Colonisation numbers: the link you provided suggests that total casualties of Siberian natives were below 100 th. The text itself is murky copy-paste of a biased book which doesn't provide any adequate analysis but is a collection of "stories" so the numbers don't add up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Pre-1948_examples. The question of colonization and genocide in the Americas: Russell Thornton (1987) arrived at a figure (pre-contact population in Americas in 1492) around 70 million. Depending on the estimate of the initial population, by 1900 the indigenous population can be said to have declined by more than 80% (more than 50 million people), due mostly to the effects of diseases such as smallpox, measles and cholera, but also violence and warfare by colonizers against the Indians.
On a comparative basis the colonization of Siberia was absolutely bloodless.

"In light of the U.N. language, even putting aside some of its looser constructions - it is impossible to know what transpired in the Americas during the sixteenth seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and not conclude that it was genocide".

 

[toroltao]

USSR is pretty much just Russia with vassal states.

 

[Taterthomp2]

Well, buddy. You missed it by a thousand miles. That's the most clueless one-shot I've ever seen on this forum.
1. What has USSR has to do with Russia/ Russian Empire?
2. What does Dzhugashvili has to do with Russians? What does Soviet ideology has to do with Russian nationalism? Communists thought that Russian nationalism is the largest threat to their existence and it has to be utterly crushed. That's why Russian language was banned and then reinvented. Not going to talk about reinvented national identities.
3. Why do you speak about eradication of "natives" (they were not natives but citizens of Russia and Soviet Union) and do not mention Russian casualties under communist regime? What were the absolute numbers?

Colonisation numbers: the link you provided suggests that total casualties of Siberian natives were below 100 th. The text itself is murky copy-paste of a biased book which doesn't provide any adequate analysis but is a collection of "stories" so the numbers don't add up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Pre-1948_examples. The question of colonization and genocide in the Americas: Russell Thornton (1987) arrived at a figure (pre-contact population in Americas in 1492) around 70 million. Depending on the estimate of the initial population, by 1900 the indigenous population can be said to have declined by more than 80% (more than 50 million people), due mostly to the effects of diseases such as smallpox, measles and cholera, but also violence and warfare by colonizers against the Indians.
On a comparative basis the colonization of Siberia was absolutely bloodless.

"In light of the U.N. language, even putting aside some of its looser constructions - it is impossible to know what transpired in the Americas during the sixteenth seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and not conclude that it was genocide".

that in no way invalidates any of the article, or the books fielded with hundreds of hours of research apiece, on the subject, just because soviets also killed russians.

i will not get into a discussion on how you define a genocide based on the targets, because that is probably the fastest ways around to get banned. but nothing you could post will invalidate in any manner the citations i listed from his source. it is all you trying to ignore them, in favor of something you care about due to personal feelings...

 

[nicechinos]

USSR is pretty much just Russia with vassal states.

Nice haiku, mate. I don't understand a bit of it but sounds nice.

 

[nicechinos]

that in no way invalidates any of the article, or the books fielded with hundreds of hours of research apiece, on the subject, just because soviets also killed russians.

i will not get into a discussion on how you define a genocide based on the targets, because that is probably the fastest ways around to get banned. but nothing you could post will invalidate in any manner the citations i listed from his source. it is all you trying to ignore them, in favor of something you care about due to personal feelings...

Sure, Soviets killing Russians is no big deal in your opinion. That's ok, we already got used to your Russophobia and I asked not to come back with your clueless link spamming. Do not write me in private, I won't read. Not interested.

 

[CompositeGNR]

Well, buddy. You missed it by a thousand miles. That's the most clueless one-shot I've ever seen on this forum.
1. What has USSR has to do with Russia/ Russian Empire?
2. What does Dzhugashvili has to do with Russians? What does Soviet ideology has to do with Russian national consciousness? Communists thought that Russian nationalism is the largest threat to their existence and it has to be utterly crushed. That's why Russian language was banned and then reinvented. Not going to talk about reinvented national identities.
3. Why do you speak about eradication of "natives" (they were not natives but citizens of Russia and Soviet Union) and do not mention Russian casualties under communist regime? What were the absolute numbers?

Colonisation numbers: the link you provided suggests that total casualties of Siberian natives were below 100 th. The text itself is murky copy-paste of a biased book which doesn't provide any adequate analysis but is a collection of "stories" so the numbers don't add up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#Pre-1948_examples. The question of colonization and genocide in the Americas: Russell Thornton (1987) arrived at a figure (pre-contact population in Americas in 1492) around 70 million. Depending on the estimate of the initial population, by 1900 the indigenous population can be said to have declined by more than 80% (more than 50 million people), due mostly to the effects of diseases such as smallpox, measles and cholera, but also violence and warfare by colonizers against the Indians.
On a comparative basis the colonization of Siberia was absolutely bloodless.

"In light of the U.N. language, even putting aside some of its looser constructions - it is impossible to know what transpired in the Americas during the sixteenth seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and not conclude that it was genocide".

Nice whataboutism at the end there, bringing up something completely unrelated.

 

[toroltao]

Nice haiku, mate. I don't understand a bit of it but sounds nice.

USSR = Russia + vassal states

 

[itsuart]

USSR = Russia + vassal states

"Nice math, mate. I didn't understand a bit of it but sounds scientific."
Sorry, couldn't help myself

Also, posting into closed thread.

 

[Taterthomp2]

Sure, Soviets killing Russians is no big deal in your opinion. That's ok, we already got used to your Russophobia and I asked not to come back with your clueless link spamming. Do not write me in private, I won't read. Not interested.

you once again take what i say, and use it to assume the absolute worst of me, while trying to lecture me before about ad hominem....

i did nto say it was good, or it wasnt bad. i did however say that IT DOESNT INVALIDATE THE FACTS.

:/

 

[ekorovin]

As a Russian person with some Tatar and Udmurt ancestry (yeah, I'm literally am Finno-Tatar of Ukranian BDSM fantasy) I find this thread amusing.

 

[Zak Preston]

it never ceases to amaze me, how people without any evidence providing for their own points, manage to laugh at wiki sources, because wiki is 'unreliable' a stereotype that is so ridiculously unfair as to be something ONLY someone with absolutely no real capacity for proper response would ever use.

it's the equivelant of me saying "lol you read it... why don't you think for yourself about what happened 400 years before you were born, instead of doing that 'research' like a retarded undergrad student!" (this has literally been said to me not 2 days ago on this forum btw. :\ )

wiki is the easiest source to use, because it is an encyclopedia. when someone links you to a wiki page, they expect you to not just read the words, but check wikipedia's own, quite numerous, citations in the bibliography area of the page. But it always feels like no one knows, or in fact, everyone refuses to accept, that they are capable of further delving into the matter. for this reason, for the reason that you mocked wikipedia, i shall now list a multitude of non-wikipedia sources, for what he sourced, simply to smite your usage of such a frustratingly arrogant response. :laugh:

original link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_conquest_of_Siberia#Massacres_of_indigenous_peoples
wikipedia.

here is a list of JUST the citations WITHIN that SUB-ARTICLE itself, since you seem monumentously incapable of using an encyclopedia!
1. http://books.google.com/books?id=Mg...ocide indigenous Dauri Amur Kamchatka&f=false

2. http://www.economist.com/node/15108641

3. http://books.google.com/books?id=nzhq85nPrdsC&pg=PA104#v=onepage&q&f=false

4. http://books.google.com/books?id=Jce4rBWjG5wC&pg=PA64#v=onepage&q&f=false

And, an entire, readable from start to finish book on it directly sourced by the wikipedia, uploaded by a UNIVERSITY.

5. http://history.emory.edu/home/assets/documents/endeavors/volume4/EmoryEndeavors4Complete.pdf

These are just the citations in the single paragraph first shown under his source link sub article. :|

Now the second article!
1. http://books.google.com/books?id=Vz...ge&q=russian genocide siberia natives&f=false

2. http://books.google.com/books?id=xp...=onepage&q=Cossack genocide kamchatka&f=false

3. http://books.google.com/books?id=nzhq85nPrdsC&pg=PA145#v=onepage&q&f=false

4. http://books.google.com/books?id=nzhq85nPrdsC&pg=PA147#v=onepage&q&f=false

5. http://books.google.com/books?id=ez...=onepage&q=Cossack genocide kamchatka&f=false

6. http://books.google.com/books?id=qV...=X&ei=JulWU9jEBqWysASw0IDIDQ&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBw\

7. http://books.google.com/books?id=be...a=X&ei=uelWU5KPMfLMsQTu7ILwAg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA

8. http://books.google.com/books?id=qE...a=X&ei=JulWU9jEBqWysASw0IDIDQ&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCQ

9. http://books.google.com/books?id=lp...ge&q=russian genocide siberia natives&f=false

Second paragraphs sources. :/

I won't contue, as with 14 citations, in the span of 2 paragraphs, if you question that with the ridiculous assumption that all of it is automatically wrong becuase it's found in an encyclopedia, and taken from sources 'unkown' simply because you are not able to understand that the sources are findable, verifiable, and well... incredibly credible!

So do, please, never try to use that response in this forum again... or i will be there, to indomitably respond with a few DOZEN citations from all around, no matter the topic, no matter the reason. :rofl:

Wow, dude! May I shake your hand?
I really hate when people start blaming your sources when they oppose their point of view: "wiki is a bullsh1t, everyone can edit/create articles", "western sources about XXX country are fake, better read our official rewritten history"... And it's so easy this days call someone XXX-phobe or XXX-nationalist.

 

[Zak Preston]

As a Russian person with some Tatar and Udmurt ancestry (yeah, I'm literally am Finno-Tatar of Ukranian BDSM fantasy) I find this thread amusing.

I'm Chuvash, actually)) My ancestors settled on Volga more then 1000 years ago (Volga Bulgarians), since all my family and me are more Finnish type rather than Asian. This is why I continue saying that there are little to no Russians that are pure 100% (even 50%) Slavs =)

 

[DevastatingTech]

Slavs and Altaic peoples are brothers in modern days because they mixed too much through the history. Forget the wars in history and Stalin, I think. I'm saying these as a semi Slav semi Altaic.

Don't be ***cking Hitler in this thread.

Spoiler

***k murica'

 

[victimizer]

Most Russians are of finno ugric ancestry, even in the south and the far east. I'm speaking of the great Russians not of ukranians.

 

[WalrusDickenson]

It's good to see that historical sources support the aforementioned point: Russian colonization of Siberias was nothing close to what white settlers did in Americas: the indigenous population was much smaller (by several order of magnitude), just compare the figures. Settlers with agriculture always outbreed and absorb nomadic tribes and hunters/gatherers, there have been no exceptions in the world history. However, I would take any pre-1700 sources regarding Russian colonization with a grain of salt due to the lack of proper statehood required for proper documenting of colonization effort.

Most Russians are of finno ugric ancestry

A person does not have single «ancestry», people are mixed. Greater Russians are predominantly Slavs+Finno-ugric, southern are Slavs+Turkic.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=qrbr4m&s=6#.VFdtaHB8E4g
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253976/