Russia's Orient: Imperial Borderlands and Peoples, 1700-1917 (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Russia’s Orient: Imperial Borderlands and Peoples, 1700–1917 Roger Kangas, Dr. Russia’s Orient: Imperial Borderlands and Peoples, 1700–1917. Edited by Daniel R. Brower and Edward Lazzarini. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997. 339 pp. $39.95 Cloth. Histories of Russia’s expansion into Asia—the Far East, Central Asia and the Caucasus—are replete with accounts of battles, migrations, and exploitation. Almost always, though, they are told from the Russian perspective or, at least, based on Russian sources.This Russo-centrism is even more pronounced when examining the state-building process. After all, in the context of establishing institutions of power, it is how the periphery relates to the center that is important—as judged by the center. Through the contributions of various scholars, editors Daniel Brower and Edward Lazzarini tackle the issue of power relationships in Russia’s Orient. A common theme running through the book is that there existed a symbiotic relationship between colonizers and colonized that significantly influenced the policies which were carried out, as opposed to simply a top-down approach to colonial rule. Stressing that the volume does not abide by a single methodological or conceptual paradigm, the authors note that “our project is grounded in general agreement among the authors...on the benefit of viewing that history through new, unfamiliar perspectives.” It is with detailed research and scholarship that the contributors of the volume adhere to this principle. [End Page 192] Part One, entitled “Empire and Orient,” focuses on Russian strategies in dealing with the non-Russian populations of the southern and eastern border regions. The seven contributions range in analyses from how the Caucasian peoples were depicted in Russian literature (Susan Layton) to the role of Islam in Russia’s colonial program (Daniel Brower). Likewise, the selections by Dov Yaroskevski and Austin Jersild explore the definition of grazhdanstvennost (citizenship) in the regional context and point out the more important Russian-controlled interpretations. Michael Khodarkovsky reminds us that a similar question of perspective arises when viewing the conquest itself—namely, its nature differs depending upon who is evaluating the situation. Since the peoples of Siberia and the east could claim lineage to the great Chinggis Khan, it is with merit that Khodarkovsky notes, “[w]hereas Moscow regarded all the newly encountered peoples as its subjects, the non-Christians often considered Russia no more than a military ally. What the natives of Siberia often considered to be trade, Moscow regarded as levy that it was due.” Thus, an immediate problem of interpretation and understanding of roles have plagued colonial relations in the Russian empire. The seven selections in Part Two entitled, “Frontier Encounters,” continue the theme of colonial relations and examine how the regional populations—especially the elite—worked with and within the Russian colonial system. For example, Thomas Barrett observes that the Terek Cossacks were just as influenced by the peoples of the north Caucasus as was the other way around. The author notes that, “[t]he Cossacks needed frontier trade as much as the gortsy did and were threatened by every attempt to curtail or cut off trans-Terek exchange [by Russia proper].” The result was that both sides—the indigenous peoples and the “colonizers” who lived in the region—occasionally found themselves on the same side with repect to policy decisions from St. Petersburg. Adeeb Khalid notes interestingly enough that in Central Asia, “...Russia and the Russians were integral to the reformist project of the jadids and to their creation of a sense of self.” This assertion is particularly evident, as Khalid points out, in the portrayal of Russians in Central Asian literature of the early twentieth century. All of this is not to gloss over the problems that existed—the violence, forced evictions, and supremacy of Russian laws over local ones—but rather to highlight a situation that was much more complex than it was perceived. Readers looking for a comprehensive analysis of Russian [End Page 193] colonial policy in the Asian regions may be disappointed by this volume, as it never really gives a comparative assessment of the policies implemented by the tsarist government in St. Petersburg. However, the fact that each chapter is a “case...