Creation by fans of the game.

A practically scientific work is presented for the judgment of fellow forum members.
The Siberian of the 19th and the Siberian of the 21st centuries – have the theories of the regionalists come true.
The question of how Siberians differ from the inhabitants of European Russia arose long ago. As early as the beginning of the 19th century, such questions were addressed first by exiled Decembrists and later by Siberians themselves. The first person to raise the issue of the reasons for the difference between Russians and Siberians was the first Siberian historian and geographer P.A. Slovtsov. However, he did not yet address the degree and nature of this difference.
In the middle of the 19th century, a trend emerged among the Siberian intelligentsia known as Siberian regionalism (oblastnichestvo). It is difficult to pinpoint the exact time of its emergence, but several facts can be highlighted. In 1859, G. N. Potanin came to study in St. Petersburg, where a Siberian student association already existed. That same year, the circle dissolved, and it was recreated the following year. The new circle included G. N. Potanin, N. M. Yadrintsev, N. I. Naumov, F. N. Usov, I. A. Khudyakov, I. A. Kuklin, S. S. Shashkov, and others. N. S. Shchukin was not a member of the circle but was aware of its affairs and influenced the worldview of its members. Issues and needs of Siberia were discussed in this circle. All its members had formed their views (revolutionary-democratic according to M. V. Shilovsky; bourgeois-liberal according to M. G. Sesyunina) even before arriving in St. Petersburg, and their orientation was developed during this period. At this time, regionalist ideology began to take shape. In 1863, most members of the circle returned to Siberia, where the ideology began to adapt according to the actual situation in Siberia. In 1865, the so-called "case of the Siberian separatists" occurred. Potanin, Yadrintsev, and some other regionalists were accused of "separatism and preparing the separation of Siberia from Russia," although the investigators themselves doubted the possibility of such a conspiracy. In 1868, a sentence was passed, by which the regionalists were sentenced to hard labor, replaced by exile. From this moment, one can consider the final completion of the formation of regionalism and simultaneously the collapse of the regionalist organization. The regionalists were the first to truly and seriously raise the question of the formation of a "special type of Russian person" in Siberia. Furthermore, it was the regionalists who clearly formulated the regional characteristics of the ethnic type of Siberians.
Of course, the regionalists were not the only ones interested in this issue. Many travelers, writers, and people simply passing through Siberia noticed differences between Siberians and Russians. But it was the regionalists who assembled a unified, holistic picture from scattered fragments.
This work describes the positions of the regionalists regarding the reasons and nature of the formation of a "regional type of Russian nationality" in Siberia. Additionally, based on an analysis of publications in the modern Siberian press, an attempt is made to understand whether the assumptions of the regionalists came true.
As the main reasons for the formation of the Siberian ethnos, the regionalists highlighted the following:
1. Special physico-geographical and natural-climatic factors. Among these, specifically: the severity of the climate, the combination of the "endless green sea" - the taiga - and coastal steppes. As a result, a special sense of territory and distance emerged.
2. The presence of a fairly large amount of Turkic and Mongoloid elements in Siberia. Consequently, miscegenation was inevitable, leading to a "lowering of the race."
3. The predominantly free-folk character of the colonization of Siberia: "Siberia was conquered and populated by the people; it was opened by Yermak and conquered by Cossacks. All major enterprises in its colonization were carried out by private individuals without government participation."
4. The absence of serfdom in Siberia, which led to the development of a sense of freedom among Siberians. Siberia came to be considered a free land.
5. Power in Siberia was exercised by appointed governors, which, due to a lack of control, acquired all possible negative qualities – bribery, embezzlement, nepotism, etc.
Under the influence of all these factors, a special Siberian ethnos emerged. The main traits of a Siberian, distinguishing them from a Russian, were as follows:
1. Strong health, but at the same time an absence of any outstanding features – such as great height or weight.
2. Change in physical appearance both as a result of miscegenation (the introduction of Mongoloid traits into the Slavic type, which became defining) and due to natural conditions. Moreover, the change in type usually occurred already in the first generation.
3. A certain "wildness," loss of roots of Russian culture, and consequently, a coarsening of the people.
4. The free, freedom-loving, and individualistic character of the Siberian, explained by the absence of serfdom and total control of the community.
5. At the same time, there is an extraordinary thirst for knowledge and a desire to be educated.
6. A rational rather than mystical mindset and character, explained, firstly, by the loss or forgetting of Russian folk traditions, and secondly, by the need to constantly solve pressing problems.
7. Siberians considered themselves the true Russians, while they looked upon newcomers from Russia with suspicion and doubted their national affiliation.
From all this, the regionalists concluded that in the future, it would be the Siberians who held the leading role. "The Russian people have laid new foundations here for the continuation of their life; if one imagines Siberia as populated in the future as European Russia is now, then one cannot help but think that the center of gravity of the Russian state must shift to it." Not striving for political separation from Russia, the regionalists pointed out the need to distinguish independent regions based on a "national-regional" principle. And Siberians were meant to play a leading role in transforming Russia into a federation.
About 150 years have passed since the conclusions of the regionalists. The state system changed twice; several generations have come and gone. What picture is observed now?
During this time, the Siberian ethnos has almost completely formed. One of its main traits remains openness to the influx of various ethnic elements, which occurred almost continuously. Nevertheless, the traits identified by the regionalists are largely preserved. Siberians still possess strong health; many have Mongoloid features in their appearance. A certain "wildness" combined with a thirst for knowledge has persisted. Rationalism and a sense of distrust toward newcomers have also remained. All this constancy is explained by the constancy of the conditions in which the ethnos lives. Physico-geographical and natural-climatic conditions change too slowly. The free character of settlement and development was combined with forced (deportations and resettlements in the USSR), but recently, all those forcibly resettled have returned to their homeland. Power is still exercised by people appointed from the center. So, how are the regionalists' predictions coming true?
In this regard, something surprising is happening – Siberians are becoming centralists. While maintaining the unique Siberian type, the actions of Siberians are directly opposite to the forecasts of the regionalists. This is evidenced by publications in "Krasnoyarsk Gazeta" and on the website "Siberian Eurasian Portal" (http://mirhosting.com/~evraziak/). "The people in the regions themselves, especially in Siberia, have felt the need for Union with a capital U. Our multinational, multiconfessional Motherland is tired of the small and large predators tearing it to pieces." At the same time, the idea of Siberia's special position (not only in Russia but also in the world) persists: "A more detailed-concrete and theoretically fundamental consideration of the problems of modern Siberian civilization occurs and will obviously occur as the industrial-economic and political potential—and accordingly, the significance of Siberia not only for Russia but for a broader modern reality—increases. This is most obvious given Siberia's reserves of oil, gas, nickel, rare and precious metals. Siberia is transforming from an economic region into, in Spengler's words, a Siberian civilization." Thus, one can speak of the emergence of a kind of pan-Siberianism, the main idea of which is the unification of Russia under the leadership of Siberia.
In conclusion, a conclusion can be drawn. In terms of ethnic type characteristics, the 21st-century Siberian and the 19th-century Siberian have much in common. However, the conclusions made by the regionalists are only half justified. Siberians indeed strive to play a leading role in Russia, but their energy is directed not toward creating a federation, but toward restoring a "single and indivisible" state, but under the leadership of Siberia.

See Sesyunina M. G. G. N. Potanin and N. M. Yadrintsev – Ideologues of Siberian Regionalism. Tomsk 1974 and Shilovsky M. V. Siberian Regionalists in the Socio-Political Movement in the late 50s – 60s of the 19th century. Novosibirsk 1989
Shilovsky M. V. Socio-Political Movement in Siberia in the second half of the 19th – beginning of the 20th century. Regionalists. Novosibirsk 1995, p. 33
Potanin G. N. Notes on Western Siberia // Russkoye Slovo. 1860. No. 9, p. 196
See Yadrintsev N. M. Siberia as a Colony vol.1. Tyumen 2000
Potanin G. N. Notes on Western Siberia // Russkoye Slovo. 1860. No. 9., p. 196
Kalachkov P.V. "Eurasian Union" builds a new space // "Krasnoyarsk Gazeta", No.30 (1401), April 22, 2005
Kolmakov V.Yu. Siberia – Eurasia // http://mirhosting.com/~evraziak/?q=node/88