3 Answers

  1. It doesn't enter information, but rather clarifies it. “Russian” – citizenship, “Russian” – nationality. Ivanov, Hajiyev, and Hakobyan can be Russian, but only Ivanov can be Russian. It would be nice if the languages of Europe also had such a defining difference about our situation.

  2. Mr. Krasnov.

    It seems that everyone has completely forgotten the grammar of the RUSSIAN language, not to mention the sacred (semantic) content of expressions and phrases.

    The definition of RUSSIAN refers to an adjective that answers the questions what, what, what and describes the characteristics of the subject (noun).

    Based on the rules of the RUSSIAN language, the adjective RUSSIAN cannot be an ethnic group in any way, but refers to the cultural component of an ethnic group., that is, those who speak, write, and have similar traditions and worldviews that are part of a multinational enclave can be called Russian people.

    Before 1918, such words as RUSSIAN Tatar, RUSSIAN Jew, and the like were in use.

    Our numerous ethnic groups, getting abroad, acquire the characteristics of a Russian ethnic group, and even after several generations of arrival in a foreign country, they bear the stamp of a Russian native from the territory designated by Russia.

    Rus in pre-revolutionary times was written with the letter OUK and positioned as a defender of the interests of the population.

    ROSSI-YANG-YIN is written through the letter O and means polyhydramnios of territories with male and female populations.

    The word was introduced by Boris Yeltsin for civil use in the Russian Federation.

  3. They replace it correctly. A Russian is a person living in Russia. This is such a broad concept that it is still worth at least a little more specific to the following gradations: great Russian or little Russian, or white Russian. At least so, since all these three territories at this historical time are managed by different state structures: the Russian Federation, Ukraine and Belarus. And the Russian concretizes the individual as a citizen of modern Russia, who may not live on the territory of Russia at all, but be a Siberian, or a Kazan Tatar. And Siberia is no longer Russia.

    By the way, in connection with these arguments, the word “Tatar” also does not correctly characterize the national identity as a whole. There are two peoples: Kazan and Crimeans, both called Tatars. But they are Tatars only in the person of Great Russians, since the word “tat-ar” is a tribute collector (taxman). Newcomers from the Kazan lands and the Crimean lands did once collect tribute on the Great Russian lands, but no more. I think the name Kazan Bulgarians is more suitable for Kazan Tatars, and eastern Bulgars are better, and for Crimean Tatars: Osmanites. It is necessary to get away from the word Tatar altogether. In fact, it is offensive to everyone, both native speakers and Great Russians (in particular).

Leave a Reply