What do you think?
Rate this book
The Kazakhs
This compete history of one of the largest non-Slavic ethnic groups charts it from its emergence in the mid fifteenth century to the present. Olcott details the major events that have shaped the character of the Islamic nation of Kazakhstan, discussing the rise and fall of the Kazakh Khanate, the Kazakhs in imperial Russia, revolutionary and Soviet Kazakhstan, and the struggle for autonomy under Soviet rule. Up-to-date material continues the Kazakhs' story from the dismissal of Dinmukhamed Akhmedovich Kunaev, chairman of the Council of Ministers (December 1986), to independence (December 1991) to the present. Outlining changes in Kazakh historiography since the fall of the Soviet Union, this volume identifies areas of contention and ways in whch new groups of scholars, using new sources are approaching them.
341 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1986
8 people are currently reading
148 people want to read
About the author
Martha Brill Olcott
23 books9 followersAka Toni Brill (joint pseudonym with her husband Anthony Olcott)
Martha Brill Olcott is a senior associate with the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington, DC.
Olcott specializes in the problems of transitions in Central Asia and the Caucasus as well as the security challenges in the Caspian region more generally. She has followed interethnic relations in Russia and the states of the former Soviet Union for more than twenty-five years and has traveled extensively in these countries and in South Asia. Her book, Central Asia’s Second Chance, examines the economic and political development of this ethnically diverse and strategically vital region in the context of the changing security threats post-9/11.
In addition to her work in Washington, Olcott co-directs the Carnegie Moscow Center Project on Religion, Society, and Security in the former Soviet Union and the al-Farabi Carnegie Program on Central Asia in Almaty, Kazakhstan. She is professor emerita at Colgate University, having taught political science there from 1974 to 2002.
Olcott served for five years as a director of the Central Asian American Enterprise Fund. Prior to her work at the Carnegie Endowment, she served as a special consultant to former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger.
Soon after 9/11, she was selected by Washingtonian magazine for its list of “71 People the President Should Listen To” about the war on terrorism.
Olcott is the author of Tajikistan’s Difficult Development Path (Carnegie Endowment, 2012); In the Whirlwind of Jihad (Carnegie Endowment, 2012); Central Asia’s Second Chance (Carnegie Endowment, 2005); Kazakhstan: Unfulfilled Promise (Carnegie Endowment, 2002); Preventing New Afghanistans: A Regional Strategy for Reconstruction (Carnegie Endowment Policy Brief 11, 2001) Getting It Wrong: Regional Cooperation and the Commonwealth of Independent States, with Anders Åslund and Sherman Garnett (Carnegie Endowment, 1999); and Russia After Communism edited with Anders Åslund (Carnegie Endowment, 1999).
Martha Brill Olcott is a senior associate with the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington, DC.
Olcott specializes in the problems of transitions in Central Asia and the Caucasus as well as the security challenges in the Caspian region more generally. She has followed interethnic relations in Russia and the states of the former Soviet Union for more than twenty-five years and has traveled extensively in these countries and in South Asia. Her book, Central Asia’s Second Chance, examines the economic and political development of this ethnically diverse and strategically vital region in the context of the changing security threats post-9/11.
In addition to her work in Washington, Olcott co-directs the Carnegie Moscow Center Project on Religion, Society, and Security in the former Soviet Union and the al-Farabi Carnegie Program on Central Asia in Almaty, Kazakhstan. She is professor emerita at Colgate University, having taught political science there from 1974 to 2002.
Olcott served for five years as a director of the Central Asian American Enterprise Fund. Prior to her work at the Carnegie Endowment, she served as a special consultant to former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger.
Soon after 9/11, she was selected by Washingtonian magazine for its list of “71 People the President Should Listen To” about the war on terrorism.
Olcott is the author of Tajikistan’s Difficult Development Path (Carnegie Endowment, 2012); In the Whirlwind of Jihad (Carnegie Endowment, 2012); Central Asia’s Second Chance (Carnegie Endowment, 2005); Kazakhstan: Unfulfilled Promise (Carnegie Endowment, 2002); Preventing New Afghanistans: A Regional Strategy for Reconstruction (Carnegie Endowment Policy Brief 11, 2001) Getting It Wrong: Regional Cooperation and the Commonwealth of Independent States, with Anders Åslund and Sherman Garnett (Carnegie Endowment, 1999); and Russia After Communism edited with Anders Åslund (Carnegie Endowment, 1999).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
May 10, 2025
It's a grind but serves the purpose - being an overview of the history of the Kazakh people. Tedious text book style of writing about a remote, vast, difficult to report on land. There were the gulags in Siberia and then there were the open-air prisons of Kazakhstan. A climate too remote and too hostile to just walk away from. The gulags aren't mentioned - that is another story. The book is out of date; second edition -1995. Over twenty-three years have passed and much has changed. Still worth a look back there little else to choose from.
298 Pages that felt like 498. The last pages question the future of strongman Nazarbaev. He's still there; considering all the possibilities, including anarchy; that is probably a good thing. Sharing a 3,000-mile border with Russia can't be easy. Like walking a 3,000-mile long tightrope. 1991, A newly independent Kazakhstan, a nation that found itself having to deal with the reality of “owning” 1,360 nuclear warheads, the radioactive polygon (again, a subject not broached), and the space-port Baikonur; over which Russia, for the most part, maintained control. (The warheads were a more complicated issue; we had a hand in their disassembly – imagine Trump and his posse of clowns managing that. What could possibly go wrong?)
Interesting 18th century historical note: the Kazakh blood price (Vikings had a similar legal concept) for a man’s life; 1,000 rams; for a woman’s; 500 rams. Handy conversion rate: 100 camels equal 300 horses equal 1,000 sheep. Seems meet, right and salutary.
Nomads are hard to control. Tsarist Russia didn’t care for them as they were prone to banditry. Difficult to develop trade when caravans are fearful of being attacked. Catherine tried to turn the Kazakhs into farmers. Not easy to convince a warrior to give up his horse in exchange for laboring on his own two feet. Manhood diminished. I have been reading Will James’s early works, before he drowned in alcohol, as a rule the American cowboy refused any work that necessitated his going afoot. No doubt a universal trait amongst those men who had formed a bond with the horse, a beautiful, powerful and intelligent animal. Gallop with the wind in your face or trudge about with weary feet? Especially on the endless steppes of Central Asia. But over time the movement toward sedentary farming proved inexorable. They both still exist though, cowboy and nomad, just fewer in number. Montana is no more suited to dry farming than the Kazakh steppes. Wonder if I’m right? I am wandering off the trail. See “Bad Land: An American Romance” by Jonathan Raban; excellent book on dry-farming the northern Great American Desert circa 1909.
As is too often true this is yet another book marred by too few maps. Maps, photos, anything to relieve the tedious text would have been appreciated.
Cities were never a part of Kazakh culture. That is probably is the reason Islam never truly took hold of the population. Not so far back, the Kazakhs were animists and ancestor worshipers. Page 20. “to serve the dead was a more sacred duty that to serve the living.” The tsars were ambivalent as to the introduction of Islam to the Kazakhs. On the one hand they thought it would have a civilizing effect on their banditry and on the other; they preferred the Kazakhs becoming Orthodox Christians like their masters. And to the Communists all religion was anathema. The Kazakhs, according to this text, were never all that enamored of Islam, preferring the trappings, such as the treatment of women, to the philosophy. The nomads to the south became the zealots. The Kazakhs rejected both the Russians and their religion. Note from page 117, “many of the intellectuals (tsarist Russian) were critical of some of the customary Kazakh practices, particularly the treatment of women, which had become much worse with the increased influence of Islam.”
During the 1890s thousands of Kazakhs starved to death as pastoral livestock breeding was put under extreme pressure. This was repeated when Stalin forced everyone into collectivization. His efforts were even more lethal.
So much sad history as during the first world war the Kazakhs were treated as disposable toilers; as their best lands were seized and given to Russian immigrants; as their access to fresh water was curtailed; as their freedom of movement was infringed by expanding railroads. The nomads revolted with calamitous results. They were too easy to starve into submission. By this time machine guns cancelled out their cavalry. As in the American west, the rule was, never mind the warriors just kill the women and children. Kill the old folks and destroy the culture.
These lovely events were followed by the even more deadly civil war between the Red and White armies. Many a Kazakh family took to wandering the steppe until death took them. A familiar story to any original native of the Americas.
The Bolsheviks gave them an economy that had no markets and even if cash was somehow raised, there was nothing to buy. Stalin solved this economic conundrum by devouring his own people. A large percentage of the population was sacrificed, and their wealth given to others – Russians benefited - as luck would have it.
Olcott states that research for the book was extremely difficult. Little was recorded. The little that was documented, is kept hidden. The Bolsheviks/Communists published propaganda. Page 187, “The history of the eastern nationalities in those years (1941-1953) has been utterly ignored.” – on the reluctance to judge Stalin. WWII was yet another nail in the coffin of the Kazakh culture. Yet again Kazakhstan experienced extreme duress during the years of yet another European war. Even my condensed notes comprise pages of statistics of the dreariest sort. There are other books of a more personal perspective that I plan on reading; my objective in reading Olcott’s work was to provide a good background.
Page 218, in my notes I have written, “confusing history – seems that all the old Bolshevik-Kazakhs were executed no matter what. And then the executioners were themselves liquidated.” The generation of party leaders that Stalin promoted still hold those offices (well maybe, in as much as this book is 23-years old). Still, the point is well taken.
The history continues; more leaders, more grandiose plans that were ill-conceived and ill-funded. The Kazakhs persevere, and their economy grows.
And then, of a sudden, the Republic of Kazakhstan declared its independence, 12/16/1991. An “independence” that looked more of an abandonment as the following three years were once again, hard times. Nazarbaev is still the leader. Compared to the middle east and Afghanistan, Kazakhstan seem relatively stable – for now.
298 Pages that felt like 498. The last pages question the future of strongman Nazarbaev. He's still there; considering all the possibilities, including anarchy; that is probably a good thing. Sharing a 3,000-mile border with Russia can't be easy. Like walking a 3,000-mile long tightrope. 1991, A newly independent Kazakhstan, a nation that found itself having to deal with the reality of “owning” 1,360 nuclear warheads, the radioactive polygon (again, a subject not broached), and the space-port Baikonur; over which Russia, for the most part, maintained control. (The warheads were a more complicated issue; we had a hand in their disassembly – imagine Trump and his posse of clowns managing that. What could possibly go wrong?)
Interesting 18th century historical note: the Kazakh blood price (Vikings had a similar legal concept) for a man’s life; 1,000 rams; for a woman’s; 500 rams. Handy conversion rate: 100 camels equal 300 horses equal 1,000 sheep. Seems meet, right and salutary.
Nomads are hard to control. Tsarist Russia didn’t care for them as they were prone to banditry. Difficult to develop trade when caravans are fearful of being attacked. Catherine tried to turn the Kazakhs into farmers. Not easy to convince a warrior to give up his horse in exchange for laboring on his own two feet. Manhood diminished. I have been reading Will James’s early works, before he drowned in alcohol, as a rule the American cowboy refused any work that necessitated his going afoot. No doubt a universal trait amongst those men who had formed a bond with the horse, a beautiful, powerful and intelligent animal. Gallop with the wind in your face or trudge about with weary feet? Especially on the endless steppes of Central Asia. But over time the movement toward sedentary farming proved inexorable. They both still exist though, cowboy and nomad, just fewer in number. Montana is no more suited to dry farming than the Kazakh steppes. Wonder if I’m right? I am wandering off the trail. See “Bad Land: An American Romance” by Jonathan Raban; excellent book on dry-farming the northern Great American Desert circa 1909.
As is too often true this is yet another book marred by too few maps. Maps, photos, anything to relieve the tedious text would have been appreciated.
Cities were never a part of Kazakh culture. That is probably is the reason Islam never truly took hold of the population. Not so far back, the Kazakhs were animists and ancestor worshipers. Page 20. “to serve the dead was a more sacred duty that to serve the living.” The tsars were ambivalent as to the introduction of Islam to the Kazakhs. On the one hand they thought it would have a civilizing effect on their banditry and on the other; they preferred the Kazakhs becoming Orthodox Christians like their masters. And to the Communists all religion was anathema. The Kazakhs, according to this text, were never all that enamored of Islam, preferring the trappings, such as the treatment of women, to the philosophy. The nomads to the south became the zealots. The Kazakhs rejected both the Russians and their religion. Note from page 117, “many of the intellectuals (tsarist Russian) were critical of some of the customary Kazakh practices, particularly the treatment of women, which had become much worse with the increased influence of Islam.”
During the 1890s thousands of Kazakhs starved to death as pastoral livestock breeding was put under extreme pressure. This was repeated when Stalin forced everyone into collectivization. His efforts were even more lethal.
So much sad history as during the first world war the Kazakhs were treated as disposable toilers; as their best lands were seized and given to Russian immigrants; as their access to fresh water was curtailed; as their freedom of movement was infringed by expanding railroads. The nomads revolted with calamitous results. They were too easy to starve into submission. By this time machine guns cancelled out their cavalry. As in the American west, the rule was, never mind the warriors just kill the women and children. Kill the old folks and destroy the culture.
These lovely events were followed by the even more deadly civil war between the Red and White armies. Many a Kazakh family took to wandering the steppe until death took them. A familiar story to any original native of the Americas.
The Bolsheviks gave them an economy that had no markets and even if cash was somehow raised, there was nothing to buy. Stalin solved this economic conundrum by devouring his own people. A large percentage of the population was sacrificed, and their wealth given to others – Russians benefited - as luck would have it.
Olcott states that research for the book was extremely difficult. Little was recorded. The little that was documented, is kept hidden. The Bolsheviks/Communists published propaganda. Page 187, “The history of the eastern nationalities in those years (1941-1953) has been utterly ignored.” – on the reluctance to judge Stalin. WWII was yet another nail in the coffin of the Kazakh culture. Yet again Kazakhstan experienced extreme duress during the years of yet another European war. Even my condensed notes comprise pages of statistics of the dreariest sort. There are other books of a more personal perspective that I plan on reading; my objective in reading Olcott’s work was to provide a good background.
Page 218, in my notes I have written, “confusing history – seems that all the old Bolshevik-Kazakhs were executed no matter what. And then the executioners were themselves liquidated.” The generation of party leaders that Stalin promoted still hold those offices (well maybe, in as much as this book is 23-years old). Still, the point is well taken.
The history continues; more leaders, more grandiose plans that were ill-conceived and ill-funded. The Kazakhs persevere, and their economy grows.
And then, of a sudden, the Republic of Kazakhstan declared its independence, 12/16/1991. An “independence” that looked more of an abandonment as the following three years were once again, hard times. Nazarbaev is still the leader. Compared to the middle east and Afghanistan, Kazakhstan seem relatively stable – for now.
July 26, 2009
Great scholarship. Dense, heavy on economic history and the role of Soviet mismanagement of the Kazakh SSR's agricultural and other resources: indifference, lack of education/understanding of Soviet econ-political theory/scientific developments in farming, etc. on the part of local Kazakhs; Russian chauvanism, myopic/imperialistic view on the needs of the republics vs the needs of the entire Union, constant purges of the Kazakh CP due to changing central views on national development in the republics, all on the part of Moscow.
This study covers from the genesis of the Kazakhs in the 15th century to the waning of the Union in the late 1980s. In the edition I read, Olcott returned ot the book in 1995 and wrote the epitaph for the USSR and the birth announcement for independent Kazakhstan (she has quite a positive view of Nazarbayev). Along with Soviet ag experimentation (collectivization, kolkhozi, etc., The Virgin Lands Campaign) she covers the constant Soviet struggle to destroy the cultural, political and economic power of the Bays as well as the nomadic way of life and it's residual effect on agriculture/the Kazakh SSR's economic life.
The biggest theme I saw running through this analytical narrative was the destructive power of ruling by fiat from the central government. Time and time again, Olcott shows how Moscow, however well intentioned its central planners were, could never lead the republic to its full potential economically, due to corruption, lethargy resulting from loss of initiative, favoritism of Russian citizens of the Kazakh SSR in terms of land, ignorance in the center of local conditions, ignorance locally on how to implement the center's plans, etc.
Basicaly the same depressing crap that took place in all of the USSR, though more particularly in Central Asia. By no means an easy read, but one of those seminal baseline studies that you have to read in order to understand the more specialized studies.
This study covers from the genesis of the Kazakhs in the 15th century to the waning of the Union in the late 1980s. In the edition I read, Olcott returned ot the book in 1995 and wrote the epitaph for the USSR and the birth announcement for independent Kazakhstan (she has quite a positive view of Nazarbayev). Along with Soviet ag experimentation (collectivization, kolkhozi, etc., The Virgin Lands Campaign) she covers the constant Soviet struggle to destroy the cultural, political and economic power of the Bays as well as the nomadic way of life and it's residual effect on agriculture/the Kazakh SSR's economic life.
The biggest theme I saw running through this analytical narrative was the destructive power of ruling by fiat from the central government. Time and time again, Olcott shows how Moscow, however well intentioned its central planners were, could never lead the republic to its full potential economically, due to corruption, lethargy resulting from loss of initiative, favoritism of Russian citizens of the Kazakh SSR in terms of land, ignorance in the center of local conditions, ignorance locally on how to implement the center's plans, etc.
Basicaly the same depressing crap that took place in all of the USSR, though more particularly in Central Asia. By no means an easy read, but one of those seminal baseline studies that you have to read in order to understand the more specialized studies.
June 15, 2015
Initially written during the Cold War and largely as a critique of Soviet Communism - though this makes the book feel somewhat dated, this is not a bad thing, and there is plenty of opportunity for scholars to relate this work to contemporary issues. However, the author's focus on political science in this history seems to take precedent over the (related) cultural history of the Kazakh people - as such, this book's title may be somewhat misleading for those who pick it up not knowing what to expect, though it does provide a decent overview of Kazakh culture in the first 200 pages.
I have one MAJOR critique of this book, which is that there has not been a new edition since 1994! An updated edition would certainly be a boon to the study of Central Asia and former Soviet states as a whole.
I have one MAJOR critique of this book, which is that there has not been a new edition since 1994! An updated edition would certainly be a boon to the study of Central Asia and former Soviet states as a whole.
May 6, 2014
I picked up this book so that I could understand more about the area of the world where my family and I are moving to later this summer. I had read some articles by Olcott a few years ago when I was focusing on Russia (more areas studies) before I went to earn a political science PhD. She does a good job of tracing the (admittedly sparse in many areas) history of the Kazakh nation.
What struck me about this book was its relevance to today's issues between Ukraine and Russia. Nazarbayaev's dilemma, and one which he has faced well, has been to navigate the difficult relations between Russia and the other former republics of the Soviet Union. Kazakhstan's geographic position, along with its large Russian-speaking population at the time of its independence, made it a potential early target for Russian irredentism. Nazarbayaev has been the most (perhaps second most after Lukashenko in Belarus) accommodating of the republics in its relationship with Moscow.
Olcott makes the observation that Kazakhstan traded large degrees of sovereignty to Russia in exchange for its fixed borders. Kazakhstan is in Moscow's shadows, but the leadership of the country has done an admirable job of developing relations with many different countries in many different spheres while maintaining a certain deference to Moscow. This deference will probably make the difference in the potential for a Ukraine-type situation in Kazakhstan in the coming decade.
What struck me about this book was its relevance to today's issues between Ukraine and Russia. Nazarbayaev's dilemma, and one which he has faced well, has been to navigate the difficult relations between Russia and the other former republics of the Soviet Union. Kazakhstan's geographic position, along with its large Russian-speaking population at the time of its independence, made it a potential early target for Russian irredentism. Nazarbayaev has been the most (perhaps second most after Lukashenko in Belarus) accommodating of the republics in its relationship with Moscow.
Olcott makes the observation that Kazakhstan traded large degrees of sovereignty to Russia in exchange for its fixed borders. Kazakhstan is in Moscow's shadows, but the leadership of the country has done an admirable job of developing relations with many different countries in many different spheres while maintaining a certain deference to Moscow. This deference will probably make the difference in the potential for a Ukraine-type situation in Kazakhstan in the coming decade.
December 2, 2015
I can't say I could recommend this for the lay reader (of which I am one) but unfortunately there isn't too much out there on the history of Kazakhstan so you're sort of stuck with this one.
Definitely written with the Kazakh specialist in mind, Olcott shows that she knows her shit. Unfortunately, page after page of confusing clan history (Small Horde, Middle Horde, Large Horde and so on) all interwoven and peppered with references to multitudes of names of prominent leaders and khans and such makes this a challenging read.
Written in an era where most scholarship on Kazakhstan was Soviet and, thus, distorted to fit with the historiography of the time, the book is dense and dry in its noble effort to come to an understanding of Kazakh history but it gets bogged down in the detail and no greater, overarching truths of interest emerge. For such a complex area, something a bit more streamlined and easier-to-follow would help engage the reader better. Sadly, a pass on this one.
Definitely written with the Kazakh specialist in mind, Olcott shows that she knows her shit. Unfortunately, page after page of confusing clan history (Small Horde, Middle Horde, Large Horde and so on) all interwoven and peppered with references to multitudes of names of prominent leaders and khans and such makes this a challenging read.
Written in an era where most scholarship on Kazakhstan was Soviet and, thus, distorted to fit with the historiography of the time, the book is dense and dry in its noble effort to come to an understanding of Kazakh history but it gets bogged down in the detail and no greater, overarching truths of interest emerge. For such a complex area, something a bit more streamlined and easier-to-follow would help engage the reader better. Sadly, a pass on this one.
April 25, 2008
The edition I read is dated 1987 (pre post Soviet era) with many references extending only into the early 80s; fully half of the volume deals with Kazakh history after 1917, much of it of the Sovietology sort, something of a disappointment to me.
Want to read
July 23, 2010I want to read this book out of curiosity to see how Ms. Olcott perceives history of Kazakhstan.
January 20, 2014
Unfortunately, Dr. Olcott's Western bias shines through.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews