History is complicated, I know. And I've never claimed that Alexander didn't abolish serfdom, or even that he was a bad ruler. All I'm trying to say is nobody should be surprised that his accomplishments are not part of the school curriculum as he was simply an occupier.
That's not the history, as you just admitted yourself: he abolished serfdom and started a period of unprecedented prosperity in Polish history (when the Polish city Łódź had gone from a village to become one of the main industrial centers in the whole of Europe), among many other things. The list could go on but the point is this: you pick statements that suit your feelings and therefore are not even close to serve as an objective description of a historical figure.
I would even argue, as a separate point, that he wasn't an “occupier” at all, much like Donald Trump is not an “occupier” of Native American lands.
I think there are grounds to be surprised and dissatisfied when the school curriculum teaches kids shallow, anti-intellectual ressentiments, instead of actual history, with all its shades of gray. And when it does that, it's awful for their future. Indeed, as one great Polish historian once said, false history is a mistress of false politics. Mistress in the old Shakespearean sense. Although the modern alternate meaning of the word gives the saying quite an appropriate twist…
> when the Polish city Łódź had gone from a village to become one of the main industrial centers in the whole of Europe
To what degree it was his doing though? Industrial revolution was happening all over Europe, so what Tzar had to do with it? (I'm genuinely asking). I imagine that maybe he approved projects for building railroads which allowed industry to flourish, but otherwise I am out of ideas.
Well, this isn't so much a question of whether there was progress at all, because, as you're saying, the industry was booming all over Europe, but a question of what parts of the Russian Empire would benefit from it the most. One would think that a Russian Emperor would do everything to make sure that it's the metropolis that gets the cake, not the peripheries. All the more that Russia had been lagging in the industrial development, as would later be brutally demonstrated during the Revolution of 1917, so focusing on the western provinces would seem like a misinvestment (clearly, in the case of a war they would be the first ones to be chopped off). Of course, I'm not saying Alexander II was a covert lover of all things Polish. In fact, at times he, just like Alexander I during the Kingdom of Poland era (1815–1831), would have to back down under the pressure of the Saint Petersburg elites, who were not happy with a favourable policy towards Poland. Intuitively, one would think that a Russian emperor would put the interests of the metropolis first, and use, or even exhaust, the peripheries for the good of it. It's what the British Empire would do, for sure. ;-) Yet, under Alexanders I & II it was different. Which is why I think he deserves a radically more nuanced description than an occupier.
"I would even argue, as a separate point, that he wasn't an occupier at all, much like Donald Trump is not an occupier of Native American lands."
Alexanders policies against Poles were direct result of the January Uprising. Polish, Lithuanian, Ukrainina and Belarusian languages were banned, and many people were sent to Siberia. You're comparing this to current situation of Native Americans? That's a joke right?
I know what your trying to say, but to my point - do we have any military insurrection of Native Americans going on right now? And I know you hate speculations but if in 200 years Native Americans regain their independence, do you think they will not think about every American president as an occupier?
No, there's no insurrection of Native Americans going on. And they can, if they wish to, speak their indigenous languages, and are not being expelled to Alaska. Indeed, you properly identified the cause-and-effect relationship between imprudent and reckless insurrections, and the repressions that follow. That link is the reason why so many residents of the Kingdom of Poland were strongly against insurrections at the time when they were provoked. And it is the very same reason why there was no such thing in Finland, which was also part of the Russian Empire. Finland, in contrast to Poland, kept its autonomy the whole time, and patiently waited for the right moment to say “cards up” to try to separate from the Empire and have an independent state, which was at the end of World War I.
And how do you know that the right moment will ever arrive? And when it arrives how would you know that it is the right time? If Poles waited until 1918, and gain their independence, but lost war of 1920 would you also claim that they simply made mistake - again? Maybe the repressions that we the result of insurrections where what solidified Polish nation, and helped us win independence in 1918.
Are Kurds wrong trying to fight for their independence? Probably ,in your opinion they would be better of if they just "waited for the right time"?
> And how do you know that the right moment will ever arrive? And when it arrives how would you know that it is the right time?
It's called political realism, so you look at the reality, do an analysis and try to draw conclusions based on a calculation of chances of success/failure and potential benefits and losses compared with the status quo. You look at how strong you are, and how strong is your opponent. You look at how much you have now and how much you could possibly gain. You look at who else could benefit from your action, and whether those foreign parties are not provoking you to take a certain course of action in their interest, not yours (the classical question cui bono?). Sadly, the ones who were bothered to do any of this, were being marginalized, and in today's pop historical discourse (fortunately, not the scientific one) are often referred to as predators or collaborators. And Fins were smarter than that.
When it comes to Poland regaining independence in 1918, the role of "us" is often blatantly overestimated in the Polish historical mythology. First of all, there wasn't really an us. There was a land-owning class and there were peasants, with often conflicting interests. The land-owning class would do just fine without an independent state (well, it became a concern for them after the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, for obvious reasons), and the peasants were bothered not so much about independence but who would give them right to land, and who would not. Their varying role in the 1920 war gives us a good idea about this. Second, while the role of the very blurred us is overestimated, what gets neglected is the role of foreign powers, who were drawing the maps of the post-war Europe. And here, I'm afraid, they couldn't care less about how many hazardous insurrections the Poles pulled off in the 19th century. All that mattered was that the Western Europe needed a cordon sanitaire between them and the Soviet Russia that'd protect the interests of the capitalistic model from a foreign intervention (this was way before the Bolsheviks settled on building socialism in their own country). Plus, the Anglo-Saxons needed a political arm in Central Europe, which would serve as an instrument in their policy of keeping Germany and Russia conflicted or at a distance, in the spirit of their perennial divide and conquer strategy towards continental Europe. And even the Polish representatives, whose signatures can be found under the Treaty of Versailles, were indeed the realists (national democrats), not the romantic insurrectionists.
I don't know too much about Kurds and their political situation, so I won't be making opinionated statements.
