19世纪60年代俄国和奥地利帝国政府政策背景下顿河哥萨克人和奥地利格雷泽人的自我认同

A. Peretyatko
{"title":"19世纪60年代俄国和奥地利帝国政府政策背景下顿河哥萨克人和奥地利格雷泽人的自我认同","authors":"A. Peretyatko","doi":"10.31168/2619-0877.2020.3.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The 1860s were marked by aggravation of national issues in the Austrian Military Frontier and in Russian Don Host. This paper undertakes an attempt to compare the processes that took place among the Don Cossacks and Austrian Grenzers at that time. The author shows that in both cases there were three variants of identity: state (as loyal servants of their emperor), corporate (as Cossacks/Grenzers), and national (as Russians/Croats/Serbs etc.). Historically, these identities complemented each other without being juxtaposed in direct contradiction; moreover the isolation of Cossacks and Grenzers, as well as their clear association with particular territory by the middle of the nineteenth century had already brought into their corporate identity traits of another, national, identity. However, by the 1860s, the economic problems of the Military Frontier and Don Host Oblast became so acute, that the issue of the abolishment of their special militarised status was discussed. In given circumstances, the imperial governments tried to establish dialogues with the Cossacks and Grenzers, which however led to unexpected consequences and greatly destabilised the situation. In fact, subsequently both at Don and at the Military Frontier a public struggle started between the proponents of convergence of local populace with their respected nations, and the people who considered that the Cossack/Grenzer estate status had to be preserved no matter the cost. As a result, by the 1870s the corporate identity of the Cossacks and Grenzers was increasingly becoming not an addition, but an alternative to their historical national identity, which created preconditions for the emergence of new political nations, although this did not occur.","PeriodicalId":30305,"journal":{"name":"Central European Political Studies Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Self-Identification of Don Cossacks and Austrian Grenzers in the Context of Government Policy of the 1860s in the Russian and Austrian Empires\",\"authors\":\"A. Peretyatko\",\"doi\":\"10.31168/2619-0877.2020.3.4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The 1860s were marked by aggravation of national issues in the Austrian Military Frontier and in Russian Don Host. This paper undertakes an attempt to compare the processes that took place among the Don Cossacks and Austrian Grenzers at that time. The author shows that in both cases there were three variants of identity: state (as loyal servants of their emperor), corporate (as Cossacks/Grenzers), and national (as Russians/Croats/Serbs etc.). Historically, these identities complemented each other without being juxtaposed in direct contradiction; moreover the isolation of Cossacks and Grenzers, as well as their clear association with particular territory by the middle of the nineteenth century had already brought into their corporate identity traits of another, national, identity. However, by the 1860s, the economic problems of the Military Frontier and Don Host Oblast became so acute, that the issue of the abolishment of their special militarised status was discussed. In given circumstances, the imperial governments tried to establish dialogues with the Cossacks and Grenzers, which however led to unexpected consequences and greatly destabilised the situation. In fact, subsequently both at Don and at the Military Frontier a public struggle started between the proponents of convergence of local populace with their respected nations, and the people who considered that the Cossack/Grenzer estate status had to be preserved no matter the cost. As a result, by the 1870s the corporate identity of the Cossacks and Grenzers was increasingly becoming not an addition, but an alternative to their historical national identity, which created preconditions for the emergence of new political nations, although this did not occur.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30305,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Central European Political Studies Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Central European Political Studies Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31168/2619-0877.2020.3.4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Political Studies Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31168/2619-0877.2020.3.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

19世纪60年代,奥地利军事边境和俄罗斯顿host的民族问题恶化。本文试图比较当时顿河哥萨克人和奥地利格雷泽人之间发生的过程。作者指出,在这两种情况下,身份都有三种变体:国家(作为皇帝的忠诚仆人),企业(作为哥萨克人/格雷泽人)和民族(作为俄罗斯人/克罗地亚人/塞尔维亚人等)。从历史上看,这些身份是相互补充的,而不是直接矛盾的;此外,哥萨克人和格雷泽人的孤立,以及他们在19世纪中叶与特定地区的明确联系,已经将他们的集体身份特征带入了另一种民族身份。然而,到了19世纪60年代,军事边境和顿host州的经济问题变得如此严重,以至于人们讨论了废除其特殊军事化地位的问题。在特定的情况下,帝国政府试图与哥萨克人和格雷泽人建立对话,然而这导致了意想不到的后果,极大地破坏了局势的稳定。事实上,随后在顿河和军事边境,一场公开的斗争开始了,一方支持当地民众与他们尊敬的民族融合,另一方认为无论付出什么代价都必须保留哥萨克/格伦泽的遗产地位。因此,到19世纪70年代,哥萨克人和格雷泽人的集体身份逐渐不再是一种补充,而是他们历史上的民族身份的一种替代,这为新的政治国家的出现创造了先决条件,尽管这并没有发生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Self-Identification of Don Cossacks and Austrian Grenzers in the Context of Government Policy of the 1860s in the Russian and Austrian Empires
The 1860s were marked by aggravation of national issues in the Austrian Military Frontier and in Russian Don Host. This paper undertakes an attempt to compare the processes that took place among the Don Cossacks and Austrian Grenzers at that time. The author shows that in both cases there were three variants of identity: state (as loyal servants of their emperor), corporate (as Cossacks/Grenzers), and national (as Russians/Croats/Serbs etc.). Historically, these identities complemented each other without being juxtaposed in direct contradiction; moreover the isolation of Cossacks and Grenzers, as well as their clear association with particular territory by the middle of the nineteenth century had already brought into their corporate identity traits of another, national, identity. However, by the 1860s, the economic problems of the Military Frontier and Don Host Oblast became so acute, that the issue of the abolishment of their special militarised status was discussed. In given circumstances, the imperial governments tried to establish dialogues with the Cossacks and Grenzers, which however led to unexpected consequences and greatly destabilised the situation. In fact, subsequently both at Don and at the Military Frontier a public struggle started between the proponents of convergence of local populace with their respected nations, and the people who considered that the Cossack/Grenzer estate status had to be preserved no matter the cost. As a result, by the 1870s the corporate identity of the Cossacks and Grenzers was increasingly becoming not an addition, but an alternative to their historical national identity, which created preconditions for the emergence of new political nations, although this did not occur.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信