#pookaposts

Language

There is a common confusion about 'Georgia'. The confusion stems from the centuries-existent country in the Caucasus and the US state founded much later sharing the exact same name in English, seemingly the lingua franca of the internet. I think the best solution to this problem is to use a name similar to the endonym for the country in the Caucasus. Not Sakartvelo, but Kartvelia, as it rolls off the tongue nicer. This means that never again will we have to distinguish between Georgia and Georgia, and the country will get the luxury of having a name much closer to its native counterpart. The best way to drive this change is to enter Kartvelia into popular usage, so from now on, in all communications, I will refer to the country by that name and that name only, as one of the drivers of this change.

Foreword

Abkhazia was subjugated under Russian rule in the 1800s during several expansionist wars in the Caucasus and following the Circassian genocide. Since then, Russia has made life for Abkhazians all the more difficult. Other than perhaps the most grave crime, the expelling of Abkhazians into the Ottoman Empire, Russia also salted the wound by banning Abkhaz as a language in church services as part of a Russification effort.

Brief respite was had during the Kartvelian Republic declared during WWI, during which Abkhazia enjoyed considerable autonomy, and it continued up til the death of Nestor Lakoba, who gave his personal protection to Abkhazia as its administrator during the early years of the USSR. After friction with the USSR's dick-tator, Stalin, Lakoba was very likely poisoned by Soviet statesman, serial killer and serial rapist, Lavrentiy Beria. A mouse didn't fart in the Union without Stalin's say-so, so while officially only up for speculation, there is no way Lakoba's murder happened without Stalin's knowledge.

What followed in Abkhazia was a process of Kartvelification, where Kartvelians settled the empty land from which Abkhazians were expelled way back when during Tsarist Russia. It is important to note that Stalin and Beria were themselves Kartvelians.

This population of Kartvelian settlers would prove to be a hot-button issue during the prelude to the USSR's collapse. It was greatly upsetting that the majority population of Abkhazia should not be Abkhazians, but settlers occupying once-Abkhazian land as forced by the totalitarian USSR.

By playing favorites with ethnic groups, the USSR had effectively made Abkhazia a powderkeg, ensuring that if the caucasus is to ever see independence, daddy Ivan can come and mediate. Since the settlers were Kartvelian and not Russian, Kartvelia became the most immediate threat to Abkhaz identity and independence.

Smaller states always flock to larger powers for protection against whatever threat is most grave at the moment. This isn't always a good thing, but it's the way things are. I don't think it's how they have to be, though. In a sad turn of historical tragedy, Abkhazia turned to its century-long oppressor for guidance. It came to Russia.

While at first independent, after more than a decade, Russia moved in to support the small country against Kartvelia during new armed conflict. Since then, Abkhazia has largely remained reluctantly dependent on Russia, while trying to function as a regular democratic country.

For Abkhazia this is an important step toward legitimacy and proper function. For Russia it is another opportunity to expand its influence and subjugate the countries of the former USSR.

The war for independence was marked by gross human rights violations against Abkhazians and Kartvelians alike. The result is thousands dead and hundreds of thousands of Kartvelians displaced.

The story of Abkhazia is a tragedy for all involved, and there are no winners. Except for Russia.

Proposal

No one chooses where they are born. For the Kartvelians who settled in Abkhazia, it is their home. It is not right to murder and expel them. If they are not allowed to return, a massive historical injustice will have been committed against them.

Yet at the same time, it is not right for Abkhazia to have its titular, native population be a minority. The settlement of Kartvelians came as part of a subjugation and assimilation policy. It was not a natural migration, but an attempt to make the indigenous inhabitants a minority in their own country. If the Kartvelians make up a majority in Abkhazia, a massive historical injustice will have been committed against Abkhazia.

Abkhazia is only partially recognized, its main supporter is Russia. Abkhazia yearns for diplomatic relations with legitimate countries, but if the position of the world at large remains that it is illegitimate itself, it will never be able to get out of the Russian sphere of influence.

I would say the best thing Kartvelia can do to help end the conflict is to extend a helping hand. If recognition and trade normalization comes, and the world at large stands behind Abkhazia, it will not have to live under a Russian boot any longer. This would come with dropping territorial claims against Abkhazia. I would say that's worth it in exchange for pushing Russia out of the region further.

Abkhazia, very clearly, wants to be independent. Once you give a population a whiff of freedom, they will never forget it, and even if you take it from them, they will forever have that memory to reminisce about. Incorporating Abkhazia into Kartvelia might be viable someday, but that cannot come by force and it cannot come today. It has to come out of love, and it can only happen once trust has been built.

It goes both ways, though. A full right of return for the Kartvelian settlers would create a demographic crisis for Abkhazia, even if fair. There are about 100k Abkhazians living in the country, with 200k displaced Kartvelians. Their return would mean a Kartvelian majority.

This crisis could be avoided were the Abkhazians deported back in the 1800s also given a right of return. The ones in Turkiye either number as little as 15k or as many as 1.5 million. Some of those are assimilated into Turkish society and are Abkhaz only by descent, but with tutoring and re-Abkhazification they would be able to get in touch with their roots and become indistinguishable from any other Abkhazian.

Were Abkhazia to receive international recognition, those same Abkhazians in the diaspora might feel safer about coming back to their ancestral home, and with financial incentive, might even stay there.

You might find yourself skeptical since the Abkhazians that were expelled in the 1800s were Muslim and the Abkhazians in the country right now are majority Christian, but in a secular state this should be no problem.

While all of this might be a difficult sell, it is worth a try. For Kartvelia's safety against Russia, for the displaced Kartvelians, for the Abkhazian diaspora, for the independence of Abkhazia.

Аиааира!

Thoughts:

The creation of art is labour in itself. It is the intersection of both mental and physical work, first requiring the creation of the mental image before the actual piece is birthed. Every single piece of art is the result of the artist toiling away at their work in the hopes of reaching some kind of satisfactory endpoint. Artists often have little to no success when it comes to their extensive efforts, due to a volatile and highly competitive market, where corporations dominate over independent auteurs. Being an artist under capitalism usually means financial instability and insecurity. You are not always fairly paid for your labour and companies find much more success and have way more money to spend and earn. Other than some creatives that make it big and become millionaires and such, most artists will never see this kind of success and will have to do the work they enjoy with no monetary achievements.

The process of labour is art in itself. Labourers also toil away at their own creations, yet the perception is different. Their endpoint is a commodity that should come to serve somebody. I would argue that the process of creation is what makes art, it is the human effort behind the product. I would say the buildings in my city, the cars roaming the streets and every other product of effort is a tapestry of the millions of unidentified hands that toiled for the comfort of people and their own security. Every single man-made object is a piece of art simply because of the effort that went into it from people we will never know by name. But you've passed them in the street, or maybe talked with them at family dinner. It is the labourers who build our society, and it is the labourers who, like artists, will often get the short end of the stick. What sense does it make for bosses to get more money just for managing the people that do all the work?

Art & Labour are linked and inseparable, from both sides. You can't have one without the other. Process and Symbolism: I decided to have the background be FF0000 in RGB, or the purest red possible according to the sliders of paint.net. This flag draws heavy inspiration from already existing leftist and working class imagery. For example, red is widely associated with with leftism as a representation of the blood spilled by the working class. I wanted the red to be the purest red imaginable, very vibrant and striking.

000000, or the blackest black, compliments the red very nicely. I added black as a symbol of anarchism. When red and black are combined they usually signal anarcho-communism, but I want this flag to be useable by any movement that advocates and fights for the working class. This flag is not explicitly anarcho-communist, the red of the working class and the black of anarchy represent the freedom of the working class and do not endorse any specific ideology besides a general libertarian leftism. So if freedom and the working class are what you fight for, this flag is for you, no matter what the specific label may be.

The whitest white, or FFFFFF, is the colour of the anarchist A. I used a common public domain punk-style A, but I changed the formerly diagonal line to be horizontal instead. This was done to distinguish the A and make it less recognizable for people who have a keen eye for the specific punk-style A. On its own, the A represents anarchy, but in this flag it's meant to show the freedom of the working class and that they belong to no state. The reason I made it white is to represent pacifism. If you read any of my other polpookaposts, you might know how I feel about civilian casualties, unconditionally. This doesn't mean that I support pacifism blindly. Once all peaceful means have been thoroughly exhausted, pacifism is no longer an option. I kept it in the flag anyway to show that the working class is non-violent unless forced, and it contrasts nicely with the other colours.

The hydra of hands represents the collective character of the working class. The hands themselves are created from photographs of my own hands. I silhouetted them and touched them up to make them look a bit smoother. There are three left hands and two right hands. The fist I chose to base on my left hand as a nod to leftism. The center fist represents worker solidarity. It is central and larger than the other hands and holds no tools as it is the most important thing, I believe.

The lower-left hand holds a fountain pen to represent the intellectual artist who mostly writes, the upper-left holds a hammer to represent the industrial labourer, the upper-right holds a brush to represent the artist who makes physical pieces and installations, and the lower-right represents the agrarian labourer.

The hammer and sickle were appropriated from the Soviet flag and the pen and brush were free-to-use, no-attribution-required clipart.

I showed the flag to some of my young and progressive-minded friends, and some of them took issue with such explicit use of symbols that have been used by totalitarian communism. Slovakia has a communist past which is still a point of discussion and much of the youth feels apprehensive toward the former regime, which I don't fault them for. Authoritarianism, capitalism, nationalism, are all plagues that need to be purged from the human populace. They are the three pillars of harmful ideology.

Despite the symbols also being associated with totalitarian communism, I feel comfortable using them because symbols of the working class belong to the working class, and not to any specific ideology. Even if the hammer and sickle are most associated with the USSR, perpetrator of many atrocities against civilians, they do not belong to communism or to the Soviet State. They belong to us and we should be able to use them without any shame. There is a lot of stigma in Slovakia about being left-wing and you have to add thirty disclaimers if you don't support authoritarianism or SMER's cultural backwardism and corruption. The best way to fight back against this perception is to not be afraid of using the symbols associated with those negative perceptions, and explicitly use them in a positive manner that is antithetical to those negative perceptions.

EDIT: I have attempted the creation of a flipped-colour variant to some success