I read a post on the Free Idel-Ural forum, “I would prefer a bourgeois revolution, where all languages are equal. What can nationalists give me? I would love an article. As for culture, I would prefer multi-culture. And I am in this group to find out what is being promoted here. Maybe there is a better solution to the problem here.”
All questions raised are derived from certain principles. These principles, embodied in legal norms, form national constitutions – the main laws of the state. In democratic countries, very important principles are those that guarantee the observance of human rights – to life, to freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, etc. We will talk, in fact, about these principles.
The phrase “I would prefer a bourgeois revolution where all languages are equal” is not entirely clear. Today, to operate with the concepts of “bourgeois”, “proletarian” revolution is somehow no longer accepted. You rarely see proletarians in their pure kind nowadays, they are often shareholders-co-owners of enterprises. And where did you get the idea that as a result of the “bourgeois” revolution, the language policy will be so liberal? What if it’s the other way around? After all, the bourgeoisie can be not patriotic, but, on the contrary, comprador. As for “What can nationalists give me?”, then shouldn’t any patriot be a nationalist in the conditions of the colonial state of his homeland? And let me quote D. Kennedy, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
If we are talking about linguistic tolerance, then the author has spoken out on this issue more than once. The model is as follows: one state language – of the indigenous people of the country, all the rest have the right to exist and develop, can be studied in public schools as a second foreign language.
Multiculture is a product of the application of the same principles of tolerance. But it seems to me that this is more likely in countries with a multi-million population and metropolitan cities. A condition for the multiculture flourishing is a “new Babylon” complex, emerging in cities like New York, London, Berlin, Paris. In the national republics of the Russian Federation (after its collapse), such a complex is unlikely to develop. But it is certainly necessary to strive to create conditions for the natural functioning and development of different cultures. There are plenty of examples – Estonia, Poland, Turkey with some reservations. The main thing is not to start copying Iran with its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (I really wanted to write “inquisition” instead of “revolution”) or North Korea with the Juche ideas.
I would like to note that it is important to maintain a cultural balance between the principles of liberalism and national traditions. It is important to smartly approach the separation of manifestations of obscurantism from the true cultural attitudes of the people. And in any case, not to act in haste, not to hit hard. Here it is worth referring to the practice of the Chinggisid Empire and Ottoman Turkey, where the authorities left the issues of foreign religions and national cultures to the discretion of foreign diasporas, not interfering without special need.
The author would like to note that, in his opinion, today the source, the spring of the national cultures of many Muslim republics, has become heavily silted up, clogged with debris and sediments, for a long time no one processed it, ennobled it, sincerly cared about it. Today it is entrusted to people who are indifferent to both national culture and culture in general. They rather protect our cultural source from the admission of outsiders who claim to control the “cultural asset”. In plans for the future, I would like to see more care and assistance in bringing the source of our cultural life in the proper form. Without prohibitions and restrictions, with help and sympathy. It can still bring a lot of benefits to the joy of all the inhabitants of a particular republic. If my metaphor is too complicated, I’ll put it simply. There are a lot of young people in our cultures, full of creative ideas, but you don’t see them on the TV screen, at big competitions, exhibitions, on the stage. For some reason, well-fed “artists-propagandists” are more seen there, working out the order of the authorities to fool mobilized people or glorifying the heavenly life of ordinary people in the republic at the present stage.
All these questions make sense if you, dear reader, are going to take part in their solution. Do something for your country in this direction. At least something!
If the alternative is simply contemplation of the ongoing processes from a comfortable sofa, then you can not read this article. And if you have already read it, then forget it as soon as possible, since it is intended for a completely different person.