Rossiian

The principle question that must be asked is what we expect to record in the census: a certain nomenclature “of nationalities, national or ethnographic groups” (as this question has now been put in the census question) or the presence among citizens of Rossiia (or the Rossiian people) of various forms of ethno-cultural identity that are often multiple and not mutually exclusive?

[M]oderate national leaders I interviewed, though in a milder form, echoed their rejection of a common Rossiian identity. […] Thus, [Rafik] Abdrakhmanov and the other moderate Tatar national leaders seek recognition within a greater Rossiian polity. […] They [Tatars] must also be respected as Tatars – that is, a people with a distinct national culture, a people different from the Russian nation and a greater Rossiian nation. […] It is unlikely that a unitary state, one with a single set of laws for an assumedly unified Rossiian people, will accommodate the Tatars’ aspirations – or those of other large non-Russian peoples.

table 8. Sources of Change in State Policies on Ethnicity: Germany, Russia, and Turkey […] [“Country”:] Russia [“Counterelite”:] [Boris] Yeltsin presidency (1992–2000) [“New Discourse”:] Rossiian (territorial) nationalism [“Hegemonic Majority”:] 58% (Yeltsin) vs. 40% ([Gennady] Zyuganov) in 1996 elections [“Content of the Reform”:] Passport reform (1997) […] I will follow [Valery] Tishkov’s usage of Rossian in English, although a direct transliteration would be Rossiian nationalism.

A new RNU [Russian National Unity] program has been adopted which at first glance appears to be more modest. It does not insist on «ethnic-proportional representation» and refrains from explicit antisemitism. However, it still sees future Russia as a state of «ethnic Russians and Rossiians». By definition the Jews are excluded (98).

[T]he value of a common statehood has likewise acquired particular importance. To the question “Whom do you feel yourself to be more—a Rossiian or a resident of Tuva?” 90 percent of Tuvans responded that they consider themselves to be a resident of Tuva.

But Tatars cannot be appreciated and recognized merely as Rossiians. They must also be respected as Tatars – that is, a people with a distinct national culture, a people different from the Russian nation and a greater Rossiian nation. […] Some degree of territorial autonomy is necessary to reassure Tatars, Chechens, and other national groups in Russia that, while they all are valued Rossiians, their unique ethnic identities are safeguarded.

Following the description of the interaction between Mamai, Jogaila, Oleg [II of Ryazan], and Dmitrii [Donskoy], Karamzin colorfully depicts how collecting the troops awoke the Russians (whom he, as [Mikhail] Shcherbatov, calls “Rossiians”): […]

Take [Nikolay] Novikov, for example, who had also praised the former ‘virtues of the Rossiian’, opposing them to the same putrid tropical plants, which ‘flourished in gentry greenhouses’!

Under such conditions, Russian scholars and politicians faced a dilemma: either use old recipes to sort out constantly evolving and often ethnically-based conflicts or try to develop new policies. The latter would require developing a new theoretical framework of inter-ethnic/national relations, which was non-existent immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Since the political leadership was quick to proclaim their policy of building Rossiia as a country of Rossiians, inclusive of not only ethnic Russians (Russkiie), but also non-Russians, academic discourse followed.

[Nikolay] Karamzin’s main source in writing his Kulikovo description were the sixteenth century depictions, especially The Tale. Even though he quite faithfully retells the story according to those sources, he interprets the events boldly in hindsight framing them with the idea of a coherent continuum of national history. For instance, his representation of the Battle of Kulikovo is strongly toned by the idea of the anticipation by the collective of the people, “the Russians” (or Rossiians, as he calls them), of the “liberation” from “the tyranny of the khans;” […]