10 ms·

An amazing place. I visited twice about 15 years ago and have many fond memories of it, but mostly when I think about it I'm filled with sadness, because the pe

• ssijak 2y ago
  Your description does not sound like an amazing place that you said it is in the first sentence?
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • geoka9 2y ago
    Some of the most beautiful mountain scenery I've ever seen and very hospitable people. A very nice place to visit. Not a very good place to live though unless you're so rich that you don't have to rely on the local infrastructure and services for survival and quality of life.
    • ssijak 2y ago
      I find life to also be bad if you are the only rich person isolated in a bubble when 99% of the people are in extreme poverty. You just can't feel good, unless you don't care.
      • brnt 2y ago
        Also, sharp gradients inherently incentivize attempts to equalise. It is an unstable situation.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • blackhawkC17 2y ago
        Also makes you a target, living life constantly watching your back and being careful about any stranger you meet. There’s a reason most rich people stick to developed countries.
      • Rinzler89 2y ago
        You'r definitely not be the only rich person there. There's thousands of rich corrupt people in their own bubble.
        • ethbr1 2y ago
          Being in Venezuela in the first years of Chavez was bizarre. National university professor's family (so, upper middle class) living behind 3m concrete walls topped with broken glass and shuttling between there and similarly armored swim clubs. It made me reflect on the difference between token security and actual security.
      • BurningFrog 2y ago
        Being a walking dollar sign in a poor country is seriously dangerous! Money matters, but so does muscle.
    • sumedh 2y ago
      > Some of the most beautiful mountain scenery I've ever seen based on the pics in the article, it seems pretty similar to Himalayan regions of Pakistan, India, Nepal. What was so special?
      • rdlw 2y ago
        I think most people find the Himalayas pretty special
  • rvense 2y ago
    The people are friendly and welcoming, and the scenery is amazing. As a tourist, I don't much mind paying a few bribes to policemen (who barely get paid a wage), and I can stand to keep my mouth shut about their president when I'm there (even though he's obviously a bastard). But it's painful to think what it must be like to live there and have nowhere else to go.
    • protomolecule 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • 0xdde 2y ago
        From the post: > In 2014, Tajikistan was the most-remittance based economy on earth, amounting to almost half of its GDP. The countryside is dotted with half-finished concrete homes which I was told were the long-term retirement plans of Tajiks working abroad; they build their structures for a few months each year over many years or decades using trickles of funds earned from abroad. When the structures are finished, they prepare them to be their permanent homes once they retire from migrant work. They aren't settling out of the country permanently and I doubt the quality of life as a migrant worker in Russia is spectacular.
        • protomolecule 2y ago
          They are. "174,000 Tajiks became citizens of Russia in 2022, up from 104,000 the year before." [0] That's 1.5% of Tajikistan's population in a single year. We are not building walls, you know. [0] https://eurasianet.org/number-of-tajiks-seeking-to-get-russian-citizenship-growing-fast https://eurasianet.org/number-of-tajiks-seeking-to-get-russi...
          • 0xdde 2y ago
            Your link suggests this is largely to remove red tape while working in Russia. It does not answer how many are settling long-term. There is of course also this little complication: > Anecdotal evidence suggests that recent recipients of that status have been prioritized for military mobilization as the Kremlin forges ahead with its offensives against Ukraine.
  • lm28469 2y ago
    The vast majority of the world is amazing if you come with western money as a tourist, Cuba, Turkey, Kirghizistan, &c. you'll have a great time, most locals are great people but living there as an average citizen isn't that amazing in term of quality of life, access to necessities, infrastructure, ...
    • anal_reactor 2y ago
      Nothing beats being rich in a poor country
      • generic92034 2y ago
        Being filthy rich in a rich country, perhaps? :)
        • anal_reactor 2y ago
          No because in a rich country you need to adhere to laws and regulations while in a poor country you can just pay bribes and do what you want
          • sunaookami 2y ago
            That still holds true in rich countries...
            • red-iron-pine 2y ago
              really just a function of how much money, and how you define "rich". poor countries just shift that number lower. but if I had $100MM I'd rather be sorta-rich in Los Angeles than mega-rich in Bolivia
            • sandworm101 2y ago
              It really doesn't. Rich countries have base rules that all must follow. Justin Timberlake was just arrested for drunk driving. He might get off because he can afford the best lawyers, but he was arrested. That is a thing that happened. It would not have happened in somewhere like Tajikistan where a roadside bribe would nullify the entire situation. For the equivalent of a few hundred bucks they would have given him a ride home and nobody would be the wiser.
• ashilfarahmand 2y ago
  I visited last year. I agree with everything you said. It was beautiful. I didn't notice many Russians there at all though. Many more in the surrounding stans.
• justsomehnguy 2y ago
  > ones that didn't manage to leave after the collapse of the Soviet Union > openly racist towards ethnic Tajiks Makes me wonder, maybe something happened between ethnic Tajiks and ethnic Russians between Soviet Union collapse and the present.
  • ashilfarahmand 2y ago
    OP visited about 15 years ago so if you are hinting at the more recent event, it doesn't sound relevant. And if it is not that, I'm not sure what you are hinting at.
    • anamexis 2y ago
      Most likely the Tajikistani Civil War, 1992-1997.
    • shakow 2y ago
      > I'm not sure what you are hinting at. Probably the various ethnic cleansings that happened in the *stans at the fall of the USSR, where most more western ethnicities (Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, Armenians, ...) were at best swiftly & firmly reconducted to the nearest airport, and at worst killed on the spot.
      • cess11 2y ago
        It's best understood against the backdrop of a very long series of colonial endeavours. The circassian genocide is well documented.
        • cpursley 2y ago
          Circassian genocide was especially nasty, but ancient history (and somewhat inline with America's genocidal colonial conquests West). And not that it justifies the genocide, the Circassians were big slavers of Slavs (especially young girls). Also some of the biggest bastards on the Russian side were actually ethnic German. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigory_Zass https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigory_Zass - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_slave_trade#Circassian_slave_trade_(18th%E2%80%9320th_centuries) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_slave_trade#Circassi...
• protomolecule 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • brnt 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • LtVodka 2y ago
      [flagged]
    • kergonath 2y ago
      You can, in fact, be fighting for liberty and be a brutal murderer. You can even be fighting for liberty one day and a brutal dictator the next. Hiding genocides under the carpet because they are done by the former colony or satellite is not great.
      • brnt 2y ago
        There was forced deportation, not genocide.
        • kergonath 2y ago
          Yeah, I had other examples in mind. Ethnic cleansing is not that much better, though.
          • brnt 2y ago
            Again, that's a peculiar way to characterise decolonisation.
    • ogurechny 2y ago
      No, there were real conflicts, violence, and refugees fleeing both across and outside countries before the fall of Soviet Union (not predicted by anyone) and afterwards. Before you reach for checklists and flowcharts to figure out whether you should call them “atrocities” or “civil outrage”, let me refresh your memory. First, we need to look at oil and gas pipeline maps from USSR to Europe. It's easy to do, we're on the internet after all. By pure coincidence, when prices of hydrocarbons had been at their lowest for years, budgets had become empty, and most parts of USSR had decided they need some political autonomy, leaders of three Socialist republics which were involved in extraction and delivery of resources had declared that USSR was no more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezha_Accords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belovezha_Accords By doing that, they shook off the old men from the Party and other parts of Union government who had previously been above them, but became rulers without a country, and they also shook off sharing revenues with other Socialist republics, and supporting all USSR population. Enough of friendship of all Soviet nations! Newspapers across the world called it “the victory of Democracy”, etc. Sure, the petrostate and two intermediate pieces of land under the pipes were full of debts, and planned to keep pumping valuable resources to the civilized world, so everything was fine. Of course, honest and reliable bureaucrats and oligarchs ruling new countries mutually dependent on shared pipe system immediately started to argue whose balls were bigger, and tried to break any official agreement any time they felt like it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus%E2%80%93Russia_relations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus%E2%80%93Russia_relatio... Partially it was because government budgets were empty in the '90s, and they had to became creative with money from the main source of income, partially it was because they fought for properties and energy supply for them, were selling industry piece by piece or seizing it. However, all was well as long as civilized world got their cheap oil and gas. Even in Soviet times, southern Soviet republics were not that rich. Big industry was limited to isolated locations, and depended on exchange of goods and resources with other republics, and often factories were founded proprotionally according to state plans, not because something was logical. Agriculture was a neglected sector across all USSR in its late decades, and farm workers had very little opportunities, were generally poor, and sometimes grew crops no one needed (because distribution of food was also centralized, and US and Canada would sell as much grain as needed). Despite endless propaganda about workers and peasants, they were generally forgotten and ignored part of population. So-called “national specifics”, that is, corruption and nepotism, and remains of tribalism of pre-Soviet era, while not discussed openly until later years, also played a role. Therefore, life in agricultural regions was pretty drab. After the — forced — independence they were plunged into poverty. Perestroika and economic turmoil uncovered national tensions (not just limited to “Russians go home”). Sure, a lot of people considered such far away places provincial shitholes, especially if they were sent to work there (in many cases, higher education resulted in government assignment that depended on your grades, loyalty, and family connections), and looked down upon locals. However, for a lot of other people the home was right there, sometimes for whole their lives. Of course, those who judged people by the color of their skin or facial features didn't bother with that. (Turns out that reading and even giving speeches about a single family of all nations does not make you friends with everyone, just like talking about colonial past does not make you any less of a white man in a cork hat.) While change of citizenship was offered to any ex-Soviet citizen (but still was not that easy), prices of property in southern republics were next to zero, and most savings disappeared, so many emigrants effectively became refugees relying on relatives and friends. That is, if they had prepared, and had not ran from a local mob. By the way, it is widely accepted that Brighton Beach has the highest concentration of those vulgar Soviet hoi polloi on Earth, and the only place Soviet service can still exist. Obviously, future historians will agree that annexation of Brighton Beach was completely motivated and adequate move. To conclude, Anglo-American self-chastising about colonial past can't be globally applied to each and every country as one-size-fit-all tool, just like the horrible bureaucratic concept of “race” (reminding a lot of people about Soviet “nationality” brand mark) does more harm than good outside of its native lands. Decolonial and postcolonial works from actual local researchers do exist, and they also mention that.
• grecy 2y ago
  > many fond memories of it, but mostly when I think about it I'm filled with sadness, because the people there deserve so much better. They're constantly knee-deep in corruption, both street level and just the very blatant kleptocratic presidential family I spent 2 years driving the length of the Pan-American Highway, and 3 years driving right around the African continent. What you said can equally be applied to many places I spent a good deal of time in. Incredibly friendly, warm, kind and happy people to a degree I did not know was possible on planet earth. Sadly they're held down by corruption, ineptitude and the West. Happily, virtually every single person laughs, sings, dances and celebrates basically everyday, because they choose to be vibrantly happy despite all the BS.
  • blackhawkC17 2y ago
    > Incredibly friendly, warm, kind and happy people to a degree I did not know was possible on planet earth. Sadly they're held down by corruption, ineptitude and the West. The problems are significantly of their own doing. I live in one such country (Nigeria), and many people say the same thing about my people- warm, friendly, and whatever. But being warm and friendly doesn’t build a successful nation. Tribalism, high tolerance for corruption from the locals, and lack of the rule of law are what ruin these countries, and citizens are either too apathetic or outrightly support the same incompetent leaders ruining them. Besides, some people are friendly to white foreigners but hostile to locals from another tribe.
    • simfree 2y ago
      What do you think of the wave of companies trying to cash in on inexpensive labor from countries in Africa? My experience working as a vendor to a company that hired Zimworks out of Zimbabwe was rather underwhelming. Pastoral care was all they offered for healthcare to the local Zimbabwean employees, and the time shift the local employees endured seemed to wear heavily on them.
    • coldtea 2y ago
      >But being warm and friendly doesn’t build a successful nation No, but kicking out the greedy WASPs and their lackeys and post-colonial infuence schemes does though - though seldom realized