Rossiian

From Rossiia +‎ -an.

Rossiian (comparative more Rossiian, superlative most Rossiian)

1. Alternative spelling of Rossiyan.
   • 2005 fall, V.V. Stepanov, “The All-Russia 2002 Census: Ways to Measure the Identity of Large and Small Groups”, in Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia, volume 44, number 1, Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, →DOI, →ISSN, →OCLC, page 35:

     The principle question that must be asked is what we expect to record in the census: a certain nomenclature “of nationalities, national or ethnographic groups” (as this question has now been put in the census question) or the presence among citizens of Rossiia (or the Rossiian people) of various forms of ethno-cultural identity that are often multiple and not mutually exclusive?

   • 2010, Matthew Derrick, “Contested Autonomy: Tatarstan Under [Vladimir] Putin (2000-2004)”, in Sedat Laçiner, Mehmet Özcan, İhsan Bal, Halil İbrahim Bahar, editors, USAK Yearbook of International Politics and Law, volume 3, Ankara: International Strategic Research Organization, →ISBN, →ISSN, pages 377, 380, and 381:

     [M]oderate national leaders I interviewed, though in a milder form, echoed their rejection of a common Rossiian identity. […] Thus, [Rafik] Abdrakhmanov and the other moderate Tatar national leaders seek recognition within a greater Rossiian polity. […] They [Tatars] must also be respected as Tatars – that is, a people with a distinct national culture, a people different from the Russian nation and a greater Rossiian nation. […] It is unlikely that a unitary state, one with a single set of laws for an assumedly unified Rossiian people, will accommodate the Tatars’ aspirations – or those of other large non-Russian peoples.

   • 2012, Şener Aktürk, Regimes of Ethnicity and Nationhood in Germany, Russia, and Turkey, New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, →ISBN, pages 40 (part I (Theoretical Framework and Empirical Overview), chapter 1 (Regimes of Ethnicity: […])) and 231 (part IV (Soviet Union and the Russian Federation), chapter 7 (Ethnic Diversity and State Building in Post-Soviet Russia: […]), footnote 10):

     table 8. Sources of Change in State Policies on Ethnicity: Germany, Russia, and Turkey […] [“Country”:] Russia [“Counterelite”:] [Boris] Yeltsin presidency (1992–2000) [“New Discourse”:] Rossiian (territorial) nationalism [“Hegemonic Majority”:] 58% (Yeltsin) vs. 40% ([Gennady] Zyuganov) in 1996 elections [“Content of the Reform”:] Passport reform (1997) […] I will follow [Valery] Tishkov’s usage of Rossian in English, although a direct transliteration would be Rossiian nationalism.

Rossiian (plural Rossiians)

1. Alternative spelling of Rossiyan.
   • 1998, Victor A[lexandrovich] Shnirelman, “Is there room for the Jews in a Russian Pagan State?”, in Russian Neo-pagan Myths and Antisemitism (Analysis of Current Trends in Antisemitism; 13)‎^[1], Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, →OCLC, archived from the original on 13 March 2021:

     A new RNU [Russian National Unity] program has been adopted which at first glance appears to be more modest. It does not insist on «ethnic-proportional representation» and refrains from explicit antisemitism. However, it still sees future Russia as a state of «ethnic Russians and Rossiians». By definition the Jews are excluded (98).

   • 1998–1999 winter, Zoia Anaiban, “The Republic of Tuva: A Model of Ethnological Monitoring”, in Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia, volume 37, number 3, Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, →DOI, →ISSN, →OCLC, page 77:

     [T]he value of a common statehood has likewise acquired particular importance. To the question “Whom do you feel yourself to be more—a Rossiian or a resident of Tuva?” 90 percent of Tuvans responded that they consider themselves to be a resident of Tuva.

   • 2010, Matthew Derrick, “Contested Autonomy: Tatarstan Under [Vladimir] Putin (2000-2004)”, in Sedat Laçiner, Mehmet Özcan, İhsan Bal, Halil İbrahim Bahar, editors, USAK Yearbook of International Politics and Law, volume 3, Ankara: International Strategic Research Organization, →ISBN, →ISSN, page 381:

     But Tatars cannot be appreciated and recognized merely as Rossiians. They must also be respected as Tatars – that is, a people with a distinct national culture, a people different from the Russian nation and a greater Rossiian nation. […] Some degree of territorial autonomy is necessary to reassure Tatars, Chechens, and other national groups in Russia that, while they all are valued Rossiians, their unique ethnic identities are safeguarded.

   • [2017, Kati Parppei, “N[ikolay] M[ikhailovich] Karamzin’s Patriotic Viewpoint”, in The Battle of Kulikovo Refought: “The First National Feat” (Russian History and Culture; 17), Leiden; Boston, Mass.: Brill, →ISBN, →ISSN, chapter 2 (From Manuscripts to National History Writing […]), section 3 (“First National Victory”: […]), page 124:

     Following the description of the interaction between Mamai, Jogaila, Oleg [II of Ryazan], and Dmitrii [Donskoy], Karamzin colorfully depicts how collecting the troops awoke the Russians (whom he, as [Mikhail] Shcherbatov, calls “Rossiians”): […]]

   • 2019, Frances Nethercott, quoting Pavel Miliukov, “Style: The Literary Cadences of Russian Historical Narrative”, in Writing History in Late Imperial Russia: Scholarship and the Literary Canon (Library of Modern Russia), London; New York, N.Y.: Bloomsbury Academic, →ISBN:

     Take [Nikolay] Novikov, for example, who had also praised the former ‘virtues of the Rossiian’, opposing them to the same putrid tropical plants, which ‘flourished in gentry greenhouses’!

   • 2021, Olexander Hryb, “The Heritage of Soviet Ethnography and the Revival of Ethno-Geopolitics in Russia”, in Understanding Contemporary Ukrainian and Russian Nationalism […] (Ukrainian Voices; 2), Stuttgart: ibidem-Verlag, →ISBN, chapter 4 (From Soviet Ethno-Political Engineering to Ethno-Geopolitics: […]), page 127:

     Under such conditions, Russian scholars and politicians faced a dilemma: either use old recipes to sort out constantly evolving and often ethnically-based conflicts or try to develop new policies. The latter would require developing a new theoretical framework of inter-ethnic/national relations, which was non-existent immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Since the political leadership was quick to proclaim their policy of building Rossiia as a country of Rossiians, inclusive of not only ethnic Russians (Russkiie), but also non-Russians, academic discourse followed.

   • [2025, Kati Parppei, “‘[Alexander] Peresvet’s Victory’ in Mariupol: […]”, in Anastasija Ropa, editor, Medievalism in Russian and Ukrainian Political Discourses (Medievalism; 3), Budapest: Trivent Publishing, →ISBN, →ISSN, page 126:

     [Nikolay] Karamzin’s main source in writing his Kulikovo description were the sixteenth century depictions, especially The Tale. Even though he quite faithfully retells the story according to those sources, he interprets the events boldly in hindsight framing them with the idea of a coherent continuum of national history. For instance, his representation of the Battle of Kulikovo is strongly toned by the idea of the anticipation by the collective of the people, “the Russians” (or Rossiians, as he calls them), of the “liberation” from “the tyranny of the khans;” […]]