Same thing with passports, I also find that writing ethnicity in passports is archaic and dull, however you should be more explanatory in this specific case. A reader who is less familiar with the topic might think that people are forced to show a nationality in their passports arbitrarily chosen for them by an official (actually as I’ve heard this practice existed in Uzbekistan in mid 20th century). This is not true, all citizens of Kazakhstan at the age of 16 are asked for their ethnicities (nationalities) that they would like to have in their passports, and anyone can choose whatever they please (that is why you probably met people with non-russian ethnicity but with russian nationality in their passports). You probably did not know that or otherwise you would be playing with the truth for the sake of creating a new fuss.

Actually, I think, the situation with writing ethnicity in passports has some reason. It was an obligatory custom in the USSR. After the break of Soviet Union people in Kazakhstan, especially of non-kazakh origin, were very anxious about any changes in ethnic and inter-ethnic policies. New rule that nobody would need to have his or her nationality written in the passport would definitely create some suspicions from, for example, russians or koreans, who would see it as an attempt of “kazakhization” of all ethnic groups in Kazakhstan. The classic example of such suspicions is situation with the kazakh alphabet. You have probably heard that the government has been trying to publicly discuss the idea to change the alphabet from cyrillic to latin. From my observations, the idea is meeting a strong resistance particularly from russian groups, since they see it as a part of conspiracy to allienate Kazakhstan from Russia and russian culture.

Another example: in Russia they changed the policy and they do not write ethnicity in passports, but it has met open resistance from Tatars, who demanded to have special attachments in their russian passports that say that they are Tatars.

So, these things are too complicated and too sensitive (I do not even want to get into the religios issues, you better read Turgai) just to mention them in vain and they need a separate discussion. It would probably be much better if you opened an open discussion on the things that you think need to be given attention, and everybody would participate.

@W. Gibson: I admit that after forming a low opinion of Robbins’ ability to separate fact from party-line fiction I went looking for more info, and I repeated the LA Times’ allegations. I apologize if they were wholly in error, and I have no stance on Michel Thomas’ heroism. I was offering it as a possible example of other examples of erroneous reporting.

@Nyura: In general, I found this book an unenjoyable read whenever it came time to talk about Kazakhstan as it is today. As for Kazakhstan’s history, sometimes I thought he did well, and other times I didn’t agree. I thought he did better than most.

Next, you critisize the book for having a disjointed story. But look at the following piece of your article:
“I’m sure the average Western civilian, let alone journalist, doesn’t care whether Kazakhstan is successful or dismally poor. They have very little to do with each other, economically, culturally, or otherwise. The Uranium market being what it is, that may change as Kazakhstan rises to supply more and more of the world’s ‘fuel pellets.’” – It actually made very little sense to me.

Well, thanks any way, you made me want to buy the book.

Nyura, thank you too.

What does nationalism have with apples?

But this book’s target audience may never read anything more about KZ and more than likely couldn’t are less about Central Asian government and politics. As an only read, I’d rather this book, which stands alone in its positive view of the country and the range of coverage (Kazakh Beatles! Karaganda gulag historians! historic restorationists!), than any of the 100% fact-checked academic or business ones.

If Robbins succeeds in making a few more people care about Kazakhstan and what happens there, more power to him!

The Times article portrayed Thomas as a phony Dachau liberator who also exaggerated or fabricated his WWII experiences. The investigation for Thomas’s defamation suit located every surviving WWII comrade who had fought with Thomas, and they unanimously and emphatically supported Thomas’s ‘claims.’ Several of them had not seen Thomas in more than 55 years. When their affidavits were submitted to the US Army with military records from the US National Archives, the Army awarded Thomas the Silver Star for combat valor. On the eve of the dedication of the WWII Memorial in Washington in 2004, Senators Bob Dole and John Warner pinned the medal on Thomas, with the Ambassador of France in attendance. Two days later Thomas was recognized as a Dachau liberator before a large crowd at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum’s “Salute to Liberators” after their archivists reviewed the photos Thomas took at the liberation and the original signed statements of the crematorium workers whom Thomas interrogated at the liberation — these documents and photos had been ignored by the L.A. Times.