Canadian journalist Eric Morgalis was once trying to put the blame on Russia for its recent troubles in Caucasus, because under the orders of Stalin and later Soviet leaders, the Chechens have received an ethnic cleansing so complete that their population is less than half of what it used to be. In his view, it was Russia that has been constantly oppressing Chechens, it is receiving a blowback from people cornered and making their last fight for survival, and Russia’s problems with them would be solved if they left them alone.
But you know, if we applied the kind of logic that Rothbard and Mises used to apply, it just does not matter one bit whether the great great grandparents of today’s Chechens were being killed Stalin. What is the motivation for today’s Chechens in today’s environment? Why does one given Chechen terrorist get so willing to kill Russians? What were the root causes as far as his intentions and his desires go? Surely the Chechens can’t decide together whether they want to fight Russians, because it’s always a Chechen who acts, not some amorphous blob of Chechens.
Once we take that Rothbard or Mises style view of it, we come to the disturbing conclusion that perhaps Chechens kill, because they want to kill, they like to kill, and they enjoy killing. And if that is so, it just would not matter whether a Chechen were appeased or oppressed. Some Russians argue the same - the amount of violence from Caucasians has not reduced after giving them an independent nation, nor has it increased any more than what it was before Grozny was bombed by Russians.
So is it a correct application of Austrian thinking to say that history and past oppressions have nothing to do with root causes of violent ethnic groups? Should we simply forget about this talk of past wrongs, of truth and reconciliation, and instead get ready for more vigilance against those who happen to be violent now?
The past certainly matters to some people. If someone is unkind or hateful or murderous toward you, and getting revenge will make you feel better, then from a praxeological standpoint it makes sense to do just that.
Bombing russians won’t bring back the dead. But the Chechens still feel very angry and upset over the actions of the past. Knowing no better way to deal with their feelings, they resort to murder themselves. It makes them petty, weak, and immoral, but it doesn’t make them irrational.
But let’s consider. The Vietnamese are not taking revenge against Americans. The Chinese are not taking revenge against Japanese. The Egyptians are not taking revenge against Israelis.
It’s possible to have collectivist sentiment. Does that necessarilly translate into action? Could the crucial difference between many Chechens and many Chinese be that many among the former are simply petty, immoral people who like cruelty, while the latter do not? If we looked at human nature as a root of human action, isn’t it just plain and deep malice and inability to feel empathy that makes one kill others indiscriminately?
It’s just that past feuds seem to have a next to irrelevant role when we see why people act.
The Vietnamese are separated from America by multiple large oceans. China is separated from Japan by a sea, but more importantly, face(d) potential nuclear annihilation of them/the planet with another superpower if they attacked Japan. Egypt tried to take revenge (or at least territory) from Israel for a long time before other powers essentially had to step in from keeping one from kicking the other’s ass.
Meanwhile, Chechnya borders Russia so, in additional to borders fueling tension, an angry dude can just take a walk right over. And they don’t have an outside power threatening them with invasion and/or nuclear annihilation. With insufficient distance and incentive for heads to cool, it perpetuates a cycle of violence and animosity. Just as importantly, you know there have to be people in power in Chechnya (or elsewhere) that benefit from the continuation of conflict and encourage continued hatred while supplying the means to maintain armed violence.
