Sorry for the late post y’all
What I noticed most while reading The Silent Steppe was Shayakhmetov’s portrayals of the Soviet Authorities. From the end of the first chapter, Shayakhmetov describes the Soviet authorities as destroyers of the nomadic way of life (Shayakhmetov, 10), only a few pages later Shayakhmetov writes about the Soviet government’s exploitation of the people of Kazakhstan in the form of “expressly exorbitant and unrealisable” taxes (Shayakhmetov, 13). These both give a clear view of how Soviet authorities were received by at least some people in Kazakhstan, however I think the most important characterization comes a bit later in the book, when Shayakhmetov writes of the activists in Kazakhstan “They behaved arrogantly towards simple people, just like the officials of statist times.” (Shayakhmetov, 27)
The continuity that Shayakhmetov sees between the tsarist authorities and the Soviet authorities seems to be important. The first characterization he provides of the Soviet authorities as the destroyers of nomadic lifestyles is an echo of the attempts by tsarist authorities to settle Kazakhs (Shayakhmetov, viii). The impossible to pay taxes seem to just be a different way of extorting the people of Kazakhstan, taking grain which they didn’t have rather than claiming that anything they owned in reality belonged to the Tsar (Shayakhmetov, ix), even if it was theoretically done only to bring an end to the kulaks as a class. The seemingly non-existent definition of kulak is one of the major ways Soviet authorities exploited people, Shayakhmetov writes that lists of kulaks were constantly changing based off of personal grudges and relationships (Shayakhmetov, 51). Based on this characterization Soviet authorities were arbitrary, much like Tsarist authorities and could do just about anything they wanted. Shayakhmetov also stresses arbitrary enforcement when discussing his father’s dispossession after being labelled a kulak, despite the fact that his flock was of average size (Shayakhmetov, 52)
While Shayakhmetov writes at length about the evils of the Soviet authorities, he also does write about a few changes Soviets made that he believes were beneficial. The beneficial changes were mostly in the schools that Soviets built (Shayakhmetov, 46) and in the (closer to) equal rights that Soviets provided for women, no longer allowing polygamy, the forced marriage of widows to a relative of her deceased husband, or the paying of “bride money” (Shayakhmetov, 27).
So I guess the question that I want to put to the class is how does Shayakhmetov view the Soviets? I want use to consider this in light of his comments that people “who experienced the joys and freedoms of the wandering way of life tend to remember none of the hardships involved, but only the good things” (Shayakhmetov, 31). Shayakhmetov seems to have a complicated relationship with Soviet authorities, they clearly had a negative impact on his life, especially in childhood, but he also feels the need to address the nostalgia that many settled Kazakhs felt for the nomadic way of life and ways he feels he benefitted from Soviet rule, including his love of school (Shayakhmetov, 54). It seems important at this point to mention, even though we haven’t quite gotten their in the reading, that Shayakhmetov later went on to rise through the education system in the Soviet Union and “become the head of one of Kazakhstan’s largest regions” (Shayakhmetov, back inside cover). I want to be clear at this point that I am not in any way trying to excuse the actions of the Soviet government in Kazakhstan, or anywhere else for that matter, but only trying to figure out how Shayakhmetov viewed the Soviet government.
I also noticed the kind of continuity in the relationship between the Kazakh people and the Russian colonists (both Tsarist and Soviet). I thought this was most notable when he talks about the different waves of expatriation to China, some of which happened under the Tsar and some of which happened under the Soviets and did not seem all that different.
It seems to me that really the only thing he liked about Soviet rule was the schooling, and its not totally clear how Soviet that schooling actually was. I was struck by the section on the principle who stood up for the children and valued the children’s individual experiences, and I’m not really sure how common that would have been in other Soviet school systems. His school seemed like less of a Soviet success and more like a personal success for one particularly kind, well-meaning man.
While he is willing to acknowledge some of the good that was done by the Soviets and the drawbacks of a nomadic lifestyle, I think Shayakhmetov focuses on a lot of the negative impacts the Soviet authorities had. He seems to lament about the end of a lot of cultural traditions or institutions and describes some of the collectivization campaign as “vicious” (48). He portrays the Soviet authorities in a particularly negative light when describing the trail of his uncle. He states, “It was obvious that everything was designed to speed up the destruction of the well-off holdings in the villages with a total disregard for logic and law” (15). So, while Shayakhmetov may be aware of the positive consequences of the Soviet rule, he seems to focus on what was lost during this period and the manner in which these changes were imposed upon his people.
The way in which I think Shayakhmetov demonstrates his view of the Soviets throughout the chapters we read is through the loss of tradition he seems to chronicle. When reading, I noticed that he emphasized his explanations of the traditions that the family followed and the rituals that they participated in (i.e. he described in detail the greeting that his grandmother and grandfather did with their hands and chest). Through spending so much time describing these cultural traditions, I got the sense that these traditions were very important to him and his family — they are essential. With these descriptions, the reader recognizes the importance, which makes the disappearing of these traditions even more tragic. I am thinking of the sister’s wedding; the family had to be careful to observe Soviet law, make sure people didn’t think that they were doing banned practices, and keeping it hidden from Soviet officials and activists. We also see loss of his father’s way of life, his livelihood raising livestock, being stripped away slowly. This loss of tradition struck me and I believe that Shayakhmetov demonstrates this loss powerfully, revealing his view of the Soviets. Soviets are associated with loss of tradition, loss of the way of life he knew as a boy, and loss of family members who tried to hold onto their way of life.
It’s a good question. Looking at Chapter 8, page 53-54, he describes how he cried at being prohibited from attending school any longer, and even relates being almost upset with the family housing him for a night, “as though they were to blame for my fortune.
But in Chapter 9, he doesn’t talk about his feelings at having his house robbed and his grandmother essentially manslaughtered. What he does do is use various terms to describe their actions: “their greedy eyes” (56); “the repressive measures” (55); “inhuman laws” (58). I think he conveys his disdain of the Soviets by clearly pointing out how much suffering they caused people, rather than taking time to explicitly inveigh against them. So it’s more sure that he strongly dislikes them at the least.
I feel like in this portion of the book, he presented the facts fairly neutrally, and gave some perspective on situations that can’t be represented by a Soviet outsider. For example, he presents how belongings were taken to pay taxes, but how those being taxed had no idea how to follow up on how these taxes were actually being paid. This doesn’t feel like an academic text, but a memoir, and I think offers some very interesting data. I think noting emotions should be important to the narrative of historic events, and I appreciate that he admits that sometimes things that maybe weren’t so great actually made him feel relieved or he just didn’t care.