Russian family lived alone in the Siberian wilderness for 40 years (2013)(smithsonianmag.com)
smithsonianmag.com
Russian family lived alone in the Siberian wilderness for 40 years (2013)
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/this-russian-family-lived-alone-in-the-siberian-wilderness-for-40-years-unaware-of-world-war-ii-or-the-moon-landing-7354256/
223 comments
How the family found out about satellites is very interesting to me- such an unexplained phenomena wouldn't make sense to some groups (ie, flat-earthers deny their existence altogether), where they would have observed Sputnik zooming across the sky while only being visible at dawn and dusk. With such perfect recurrence the Lykovs would have been able to deduce that the object followed ordinary orbital mechanics against the backdrop of the celestial cosmos rather than being a supernatural object, especially that Sputnik was only in the sky for a couple months in 1957. Later ones would have have likely indicated they were a product of man; I'd personally ascribe it to being supernatural in origin!
I think this is a fabrication by the journalist. Overall, it seems to me that there was an ideological agenda behind this story. In the USSR, no topic could cause a stir in major media outlets without an ideological directive.
The family would have heard about airplanes, they were from Perm Oblast, which isn't exactly remote. It isn't exactly a big leap to think that what they were seeing was the lights of airplanes. Ships carry lights for safe navigation, and if you fly at night you also carry lights for safety.
i sometimes wonder what it was to live in early human times and make sense of everything: time, phenomena etc. i am not religious but i guess back then i would have ascribed anything to gods
You would need to come up with the concept of gods first though
I'm no anthropologist but religion must've started in parallel with verbal communication, storytelling, various degrees of higher level thinking.
That said, cave paintings, which are arguably the earliest "documentation" we have of human activity and their thoughts, depict pretty tangible things; pictures of animals, hand prints, people hunting animals, plants? that kind of thing. The earliest religious symbols may have been venus statues, but it seems that it cannot be concluded definitively whether they were objects of worship / depictions of deities. That said, there's clear signs of shamanic religion dating from the upper paleolithic, 50.000 years BC and onwards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_religion is a good read.
Anyway, ~52.000 years ago is still fairly recent, given homo sapiens emerged ~300.000 years ago and the earliest stone tools were from ~3.3 million years ago.
Personally, I think religion / the concept of gods or a higher power has been a part of humanity for as long as we've had the ability to think smort thoughts and communicate with one another. Some would be grounded in reality - good weather means good times - but others in myth, like the stars/moon, thunderstorms, etc.
That said, cave paintings, which are arguably the earliest "documentation" we have of human activity and their thoughts, depict pretty tangible things; pictures of animals, hand prints, people hunting animals, plants? that kind of thing. The earliest religious symbols may have been venus statues, but it seems that it cannot be concluded definitively whether they were objects of worship / depictions of deities. That said, there's clear signs of shamanic religion dating from the upper paleolithic, 50.000 years BC and onwards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_religion is a good read.
Anyway, ~52.000 years ago is still fairly recent, given homo sapiens emerged ~300.000 years ago and the earliest stone tools were from ~3.3 million years ago.
Personally, I think religion / the concept of gods or a higher power has been a part of humanity for as long as we've had the ability to think smort thoughts and communicate with one another. Some would be grounded in reality - good weather means good times - but others in myth, like the stars/moon, thunderstorms, etc.
Spending a few months in Iceland it was really easy to see why they have so many gods and mythical beings in their history. The place is MAGICAL.
This is their homesite on Google maps: https://maps.app.goo.gl/CkPRPxPuQuCg3q749
Seems to be sort of a tourist attraction now. The nearest road is about 55 miles away according to the measuring tool on google maps. There's several nature preserves/parks in the area that protect the site. I guess people hike to it now.
Seems to be sort of a tourist attraction now. The nearest road is about 55 miles away according to the measuring tool on google maps. There's several nature preserves/parks in the area that protect the site. I guess people hike to it now.
"No wheelchair accessible entrance" sign killed me.
I remember watching a documentary about them, without much context. The old lady who is still living alone out there was talking a lot about how the Patriarch (an Orthodox equivalent of the Pope, more or less) corrupted their old faith, and she was cursing his name a lot. By the way she was speaking, I thought she was talking about some events that must have happened during her father's life, maybe his childhood - I assumed she was upset about some communist era Patriarch who probably was too friendly with the regime or something.
Looking it up later, I realized she was an Old Believer, and the Patriarch she was cursing was in fact Nikon, who corrupted their faith in 1652... I found it deeply fascinating how powerful and alive this almost 400 year old grudge was to this woman.
Looking it up later, I realized she was an Old Believer, and the Patriarch she was cursing was in fact Nikon, who corrupted their faith in 1652... I found it deeply fascinating how powerful and alive this almost 400 year old grudge was to this woman.
It's basically Old Believers' entire identity - opposition to the official church.
Not to the official church, but to Ukrainians bringing it into the alignment with the common Orthodox canon at the time. What happened isn’t purely lithurgical change, they imported a lot of monks who can read canonical greek texts with them.
It’s a repeated historical pattern — top down reforms brought by “enlightened” leader to make the country more European, more Orthodox or more communist.
This was even before Peter cutting beards of the entrenched nobility and was sold on the orthodoxy, autocracy and nationalism thing by the usual suspects.
It’s a repeated historical pattern — top down reforms brought by “enlightened” leader to make the country more European, more Orthodox or more communist.
This was even before Peter cutting beards of the entrenched nobility and was sold on the orthodoxy, autocracy and nationalism thing by the usual suspects.
One of the reasons for the reforms was to "go back to the old roots", because the Greeks peformed some rituals differently from Russians, and the opinion was that the Russian rituals were "corrupted" but, interestingly, some of the "restored" canon was actually later Greek innovations while the Russian Church preserved the older ways. For example, they started to cross themselves with 3 fingers instead of 2 fingers in Constantinople only in the 13th century. In my opinion, an unnecessary and misguided reform.
Funnily enough, this obscure dispute may have been the inspiration for a very modern work of art.
In the game Elden Ring, there are mysterious entities known as the Two Fingers and the Three Fingers. The Two Fingers are well known and respected parts of the church of that land, while the Three Fingers are a secret, heretical cult.
And the Two Fingers is in fact a literal set of two fingers, which seem to be the index and middle finger, corresponding to the fingers used in the Old Believers version of the rite; while the Three Fingers is also a set of fingers, with a thumb, index, and middle finger, also corresponding to the fingers used in the modern rite. It's somewhat likely that they are inspired by exactly this huge dispute in Eastern Orthodox's history.
In the game Elden Ring, there are mysterious entities known as the Two Fingers and the Three Fingers. The Two Fingers are well known and respected parts of the church of that land, while the Three Fingers are a secret, heretical cult.
And the Two Fingers is in fact a literal set of two fingers, which seem to be the index and middle finger, corresponding to the fingers used in the Old Believers version of the rite; while the Three Fingers is also a set of fingers, with a thumb, index, and middle finger, also corresponding to the fingers used in the modern rite. It's somewhat likely that they are inspired by exactly this huge dispute in Eastern Orthodox's history.
That's a different schism chef. It's all schisms all the way down. They were unhinged from the beginning you may say.
[deleted]
I tried watching "Ivan Vasilievich Changes Profession" (1973) to see which way they had Ivan IV (the Terrible) crossing, but the director very cleverly has the actor's back to the camera during that moment in the elevator...
You can see how oral knowledge and traditions could stay strong over many generations in human history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Believers
Go to the "Main alterations" segment if anyone wants more info on the changes that angered them so much still after 400 years. Humans can be so ridiculous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Believers
Go to the "Main alterations" segment if anyone wants more info on the changes that angered them so much still after 400 years. Humans can be so ridiculous.
Give them some smartphones with social media and it'll be forgotten in a generation.
Or, it will be amplified, and will become the basis of a religious-nationalist movement.
> "Or, it will be amplified, and will become the basis of a religious-nationalist movement."
^^^ If history is any indicator, this is the much more likely outcome. ^^^
^^^ If history is any indicator, this is the much more likely outcome. ^^^
Pravoslavnik motorbike gangs? Check.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Wolves
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Wolves
Mormons?
You joke, the North Koreans fighting for Russia in Ukraine are fascinated with the internet.
For the downvoters: https://www.hindustantimes.com/trending/north-korean-soldier...
For the downvoters: https://www.hindustantimes.com/trending/north-korean-soldier...
Enh I don’t get it. Cheers folks.
“You can’t breathe. There are cars everywhere. There is no clean air. Each car that passes by leaves so many toxins in the air. You have no other option but to stay at home.”
Mmm, stay in a forest for 40 years and come back out a New Urbanist. Typical.
Mmm, stay in a forest for 40 years and come back out a New Urbanist. Typical.
Haha not bad but that would be more funny to me if I didn’t experience it every Holliday back. One week in the mountains is enough to reset my tolerance and get bitter tickle as soon as back in urban home.
I’m walking the Camino in Spain. After A single day out in the wilderness the smell of traffic is terrible and very noticeable.
Flying from my home in the Yukon to LAX is like landing in Mordor. The air is disgusting, the brown smudge, etc.
Flying from my home in the Yukon to LAX is like landing in Mordor. The air is disgusting, the brown smudge, etc.
I wish I could do that in Canada. Not totally isolated but a few kms from a main road with a chalet and something. Solar for power, Starlink for network and I can die in that chalet.
But building and maintaining are going to be hell because I know exactly zero about those.
But building and maintaining are going to be hell because I know exactly zero about those.
Literally the only things stopping you from doing this are money (to buy a rural lot somewhere, tools, a truck and so forth) and time. You can learn most of your skills with YouTube and practise, not kidding. Thanks to YouTube, we renovated a borderline crappy house, built outbuildings, landscaped, etc. with essentially no construction experience. I am still kind of amazed by this.
I know someone from the internet that ended her 20 year relationship and went with someone else that she's known for at least that long too, they decided to buy a plot of land and build their homestead from scratch. They're struggling though because everything costs a lot of money and time, like buying an old bulldozer that of course needs a lot of repairs and work. They were hoping to have a cabin up before winter but due to all the setbacks they're forced to rent something for over the winter now. They also have a baby on the way.
idgi, I kinda get the drive for homesteading, but at the same time it's a luxury lifestyle choice. That said, they chose the hard way and build their own stuff from locally sourced wood, instead of buying a plot of land with a cabin already on it.
Personally I wouldn't mind retreating into the woods for a couple of weeks, but at the moment I like home comforts too.
idgi, I kinda get the drive for homesteading, but at the same time it's a luxury lifestyle choice. That said, they chose the hard way and build their own stuff from locally sourced wood, instead of buying a plot of land with a cabin already on it.
Personally I wouldn't mind retreating into the woods for a couple of weeks, but at the moment I like home comforts too.
I'll add, there are also databases of home improvement projects available through your local library. That way you can fully evaluate the YouTube video to see if the creator is wildly unsafe or something.
Yeah, it's half money and time and half kid.
A more realistic option is to just buy a chalet in a relatively remote area so I have access to some sort of plumbing system. But then again it's tough to find a stable remote job and a good school for my kid. (Again money can probably solve both)
A more realistic option is to just buy a chalet in a relatively remote area so I have access to some sort of plumbing system. But then again it's tough to find a stable remote job and a good school for my kid. (Again money can probably solve both)
Watch this series, you'll be able to do anything.
https://youtu.be/fCcLhdLaxnM?si=fy4D20GyFenA4cqo
But it's a 100X easier to just buy the materials.
https://youtu.be/fCcLhdLaxnM?si=fy4D20GyFenA4cqo
But it's a 100X easier to just buy the materials.
It was fascinating to discover a similar channel from (presumably, or at least, as he claims to be) a russian lawyer who does this as a hobby, and very successfuly so: https://www.youtube.com/@adekvate/videos
In Norway they have a bunch of chalets like that, the key is to build and stock them in the summer. Don't pull a Chris McCandless, but plenty of people have survived the arctic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy-4NxJRxNQ
It boggles my mind that people don't read Chris McCandless' story and notice that in his previous adventures, he'd also fucked up, but always got bailed out by other people. Then he got the brilliant idea of going someplace where there were no other people...
I think that was a big draw. Being dependent on his dad whom he grew to hate was a big push to his adventures, and he just wanted to be able to try himself against nature. People kept bailing him out, so he could never get the answer of whether or not he could really survive on his own.
It's unfortunate that most of the easily inhabitable world is inhabited, so you have to go to desert or very cold places where the chance of survival is so low.
If there was real untamed wilderness in Southern California, he'd probably still be alive. Or he would have just push on to a harder survival experience...
It's unfortunate that most of the easily inhabitable world is inhabited, so you have to go to desert or very cold places where the chance of survival is so low.
If there was real untamed wilderness in Southern California, he'd probably still be alive. Or he would have just push on to a harder survival experience...
[deleted]
I know plenty of people doing exactly that in the Yukon. Head up and spend a few years in Whitehorse. You’ll meet good people who can teach you what you need to know. Changed my life for sure.
tantalor(1)
The Vice documentary mentioned in the article is really great [0].
Best of luck to Agafia.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt2AYafET68
Best of luck to Agafia.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt2AYafET68
Nobody ever mentions this area was wilderness, because the invading Muscovites totally decimated indigenous population known as Hakassi.
For various reason, the Finnish version of wikipedia is more informative. https://fi-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Hakassit?_x_t...
For various reason, the Finnish version of wikipedia is more informative. https://fi-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Hakassit?_x_t...
I hate to tell you this, but most of the major powers did all sorts horrible things during that time period. Especially my people group, who were arguable the most effective at it.
And fwiw, the late Soviets tried to course correct regarding ethnic groups. My wife (half ethnic Komi, another Finnish group), was taught that language in school.
Don’t get me wrong, the Finish and Finnish ethnic groups (and many others) got a raw deal, but it’s no reason for the blanket Russophobia that we see on hn so often.
And fwiw, the late Soviets tried to course correct regarding ethnic groups. My wife (half ethnic Komi, another Finnish group), was taught that language in school.
Don’t get me wrong, the Finish and Finnish ethnic groups (and many others) got a raw deal, but it’s no reason for the blanket Russophobia that we see on hn so often.
>blanket Russophobia
Sure most major powers did horrible things in the past. But now? How many other major powers are launching bloody invasions of their neighbors?
Sure most major powers did horrible things in the past. But now? How many other major powers are launching bloody invasions of their neighbors?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United...
Thankfully we got to keep SWIFT and our McDonalds since those invasions were all totally justified...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United...
Thankfully we got to keep SWIFT and our McDonalds since those invasions were all totally justified...
The USA has 700 military bases world wide. Russia, China, India have 15 bases. Who's spreading their tentacles around the world?
Iraq invasion? Syria ongoing occupation? WMDs? Assisting Israel's War in Gaza? Come on. Please stop this Western bias nonsense.
And the Ukraine Conflict didnt start in Feb 2022.
Iraq invasion? Syria ongoing occupation? WMDs? Assisting Israel's War in Gaza? Come on. Please stop this Western bias nonsense.
And the Ukraine Conflict didnt start in Feb 2022.
> Syria ongoing occupation?
Russia did so too.
> WMDs?
Russia has those.
> Assisting Israel's War in Gaza?
Russia is assisting Hamas and Houthis.
> And the Ukraine Conflict didnt start in Feb 2022.
No, it did in 2014 when ... surprise, surprise, Russia invaded Crimea, a part of Ukraine.
Russia did so too.
> WMDs?
Russia has those.
> Assisting Israel's War in Gaza?
Russia is assisting Hamas and Houthis.
> And the Ukraine Conflict didnt start in Feb 2022.
No, it did in 2014 when ... surprise, surprise, Russia invaded Crimea, a part of Ukraine.
Taking the risk of receiving the same fate as Protomolecule, but didn’t understand why he’s flagged
> Russia did so too
Didn’t Russia was indeed invited while others partygoer wasn’t? I’m more into <div> than politics but I do listen western news and it’s also my understanding of the events, even if bitter (INHM)
> On 30 September 2015, Russia launched a military intervention in Syria after a request by the government of Bashar al-Assad for military support in its fight against the Syrian opposition and Islamic State (IS) in the Syrian civil war.
I know it’s Wikipedia 0. The two sources Al Jazeera 1 and Los Angeles Times 2 seems to confirm it.
0 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_intervention_in_the_...
1 http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/russian-carries-air-st...
2 https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-kremlin-oks-troop...
> Russia did so too
Didn’t Russia was indeed invited while others partygoer wasn’t? I’m more into <div> than politics but I do listen western news and it’s also my understanding of the events, even if bitter (INHM)
> On 30 September 2015, Russia launched a military intervention in Syria after a request by the government of Bashar al-Assad for military support in its fight against the Syrian opposition and Islamic State (IS) in the Syrian civil war.
I know it’s Wikipedia 0. The two sources Al Jazeera 1 and Los Angeles Times 2 seems to confirm it.
0 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_intervention_in_the_...
1 http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/russian-carries-air-st...
2 https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-kremlin-oks-troop...
Russia is in Syria at request of Syrian regime. USA still occupies the oil fields in Syria. Not at all comparable in intent is itm
Crimea is Russian. The people who live there are Russian and were glad to be part of Russia.
Surely you know the history of Ukraine?
Do you know why Zhelensky was elected leader of Ukraine in the first place and what happened afterward?
Crimea is Russian. The people who live there are Russian and were glad to be part of Russia.
Surely you know the history of Ukraine?
Do you know why Zhelensky was elected leader of Ukraine in the first place and what happened afterward?
The Crimea is multiethnic.
It belongs to all of its pre-war citizens equally.
Its sovereignty is Ukrainian.
It belongs to all of its pre-war citizens equally.
Its sovereignty is Ukrainian.
WMDs was referring to the lies USA told to invade Iraq.
The USA has 700 military bases world wide
128 actually.
The 700-1000 numbers are disinformation, but people like to copy-paste them around endlessly, anyway.
128 actually.
The 700-1000 numbers are disinformation, but people like to copy-paste them around endlessly, anyway.
Odd description of intervening in a civil war manufactured by western war mongers to support ethnic Russians.
Dunno. See "Russia's Igor Strelkov: I Am Responsible for War in Eastern Ukraine" https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/11/21/russias-igor-strel...
See
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
2008 Classified Cable describing potential future
Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
2008 Classified Cable describing potential future
Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.
Your source says the Americans were aware the Russians would be upset by Ukraine joining NATO. Partly as a result I guess Ukraine did not join NATO and was not invited to.
The Girkin article basically says he started the war in eastern Ukraine as an imperialist who thought eastern Ukraine should be part of Russia. I see no mention western warmongers in that. If you can fault the west it seems to me that they caused the war more by forcing Ukraine to give up its nukes in return for promises to defend it from Russian invasion and then not bothering to do so.
The Girkin article basically says he started the war in eastern Ukraine as an imperialist who thought eastern Ukraine should be part of Russia. I see no mention western warmongers in that. If you can fault the west it seems to me that they caused the war more by forcing Ukraine to give up its nukes in return for promises to defend it from Russian invasion and then not bothering to do so.
So what did the West promise to Ukraine and when, in this regard?
It was kind of vague to be honest:
>The Budapest Memorandum consists of a series of political assurances whereby the signatory states commit to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”. But the meaning of the security assurances was deliberately left ambiguous. According to a former US diplomat who participated in the talks, Steven Pifer, it was understood that if there was a violation, there would be a response incumbent on the US and the UK. And while that response was not explicitly defined, Pifer notes that: “there is an obligation on the United States that flows from the Budapest Memorandum to provide assistance to Ukraine, and […] that would include lethal military assistance”.
>The Budapest Memorandum consists of a series of political assurances whereby the signatory states commit to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”. But the meaning of the security assurances was deliberately left ambiguous. According to a former US diplomat who participated in the talks, Steven Pifer, it was understood that if there was a violation, there would be a response incumbent on the US and the UK. And while that response was not explicitly defined, Pifer notes that: “there is an obligation on the United States that flows from the Budapest Memorandum to provide assistance to Ukraine, and […] that would include lethal military assistance”.
[deleted]
Exactly - "an obligation that flows from [it]" is quite vague, and in any case wasn't the language of the Memorandum itself.
> Russia would have to decide whether to intervene;
Why would they have the right to intervene? Ukraine is an independent country.
> a decision Russia does not want to have to face.
I'm sure that Russia conquered Crimea against their hearts wish lol.
Why would they have the right to intervene? Ukraine is an independent country.
> a decision Russia does not want to have to face.
I'm sure that Russia conquered Crimea against their hearts wish lol.
Ah OK, that settles it - Putin is innocent.
Ok, we won't confuse you with the facts, as your mind is already made up.
You've a victim of Western propaganda. Can't you see that?
You've a victim of Western propaganda. Can't you see that?
I don't pay that much attention to media actually. But I work with actual victims: refugees from Ukraine whose homes were bombed by Putin's army. We can talk about who is bad for hours on end, but in the end there is an aggressor and there are victims. You can try to blur the image as much as you want but it will not change reality.
Compared to the Russian propaganda you are consuming and spouting?
Bye the way, so you don't get offended, I used to think just like you. In 2014 I was all anti Putin viz-a-viz Ukraine, Crimea etc. That was because I consumed a lot of Western main stream news media. It's all propaganda.
> That was because I consumed a lot of Western main stream news media. It's all propaganda.
Now you consume Russian propaganda and all is well.
Now you consume Russian propaganda and all is well.
I don't consume Russian propaganda. The information i get is from US Military personnel. And also written records by US and Western Officials over the last 20 years.
How do u know u haven't been duped by Western propoganda.
How do u know u haven't been duped by Western propoganda.
The information i get is from US Military personnel.
Tell us more about what you've been hearing, please.
Especially as regards this topic.
Tell us more about what you've been hearing, please.
Especially as regards this topic.
"You have to understand how hard this makes it to engage honestly with your post. All useful conversation requires a minimal foundation of trust/honesty/charity - i.e. that both parties honestly want the best overall outcome for everybody, and the disagreement is only about what that compromise looks like and how to get it. When you write like this, it makes you sound like you just want confrontation."
What is the origin of this word "Russophobia" ? It seems like a recent invention trying to take advantage of the general western progressive concern of xenophobia to encourage weakness, similar to how their propagandists have re-purposed and abused general anti-war sentiment stemming from the Iraq debacle.
But I'm curious to know if it's even older and was perhaps used as some kind of powertalk during Soviet times when a new area was being subjugated. "You just don't want us here because you're scared of us".
But I'm curious to know if it's even older and was perhaps used as some kind of powertalk during Soviet times when a new area was being subjugated. "You just don't want us here because you're scared of us".
Goes back a while, there's even a book on the topic: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34237648-creating-russop...
> First published January 1, 2016
That's quite recent, and the lead-in's focus on Putin "hysteria" is suspicious. The whole meme just feels an awful lot like the "American" neofascists' persecution complex, and that book seems right in line.
Most certainly there is anti-Russia bias in the West that waxes and wanes - like during that entire Cold War. But extrapolating this general difference of perspective to some narrative that it's all unjust "phobia" is just disingenuous.
That's quite recent, and the lead-in's focus on Putin "hysteria" is suspicious. The whole meme just feels an awful lot like the "American" neofascists' persecution complex, and that book seems right in line.
Most certainly there is anti-Russia bias in the West that waxes and wanes - like during that entire Cold War. But extrapolating this general difference of perspective to some narrative that it's all unjust "phobia" is just disingenuous.
Sounds like you're just looking for excuses to justify bigotry and/or collective punishment (not a western value, btw).
Seems like more superficial appeals to Western values that end up falling apart under the slightest scrutiny. I'm out. Enjoy the great explanatory power of your phobias.
And people write nonsense books about nonsense topics all the time.
Have you read the book? Or you simply don’t like the premise because it might challenge your existing world-view?
Not every book is worth reading, nor is every worldview that comes along worth considering.
We definitely aren't going to agree on this, nor is there any reason we should.
We definitely aren't going to agree on this, nor is there any reason we should.
Yes, every data point is worth taking a look at and considering. That's not the same as agreeing. And yes, there's a long history of Russophobia - especially in Western Europe that goes back to "uncivilized hordes from the east", to the Great Game competition (why the British in particular are so vapidly anti-Russian), then the more recent anti-soviet/communist mentality (excluding the current modern Putin era).
I suppose you're the type to spend at least 10 minutes talking to everyone on the street who hands you a flyer, or makes some other approach to you suggesting that you join their church, cult or whatever it is they're trying to get you to be a part of. And if they give you a book to read, you'll take that home and read it cover to cover.
Because every data point is worth taking a look at and considering.
Because every data point is worth taking a look at and considering.
[deleted]
You do realize the default state of separate societies is mutual distrust, right? And that liberalizing communications and trade creates familiarity and mutual interdependency? And that such liberalization was essentially impossible until the fall of the Iron Curtain, after which relations with Russia had indeed been liberalizing until Putin decided to flip the table and become a military aggressor?
Anyway, my original question was asking about the history of the term itself. Your best argument has been a book from 2016, so I guess the answer must be "no" - this term "Russophobia" is a recent creation, and seemingly just part of the propaganda campaign from the current military aggression.
Anyway, my original question was asking about the history of the term itself. Your best argument has been a book from 2016, so I guess the answer must be "no" - this term "Russophobia" is a recent creation, and seemingly just part of the propaganda campaign from the current military aggression.
The book did not invent the term Russophobia in 2016, it's an exploration of historical negative sentiment towards Russia and Russians. And to be precise, philosopher John Stuart Mill coined it back in 1836 (who was no doubt, under the influence of Russian Propaganda™ and just repeating Putins talking points).
What you seem to be tripped by is the fact that an information source can on first appearances seem quite legitimate and useful, by telling you all kinds of perfectly valid and interesting stuff, like the book you are promoting here, with all these nifty factoids about 19th century history, that fun quote by JSM and so on -- while at the same time also subtley (or in the case of this book, not so subtley) blowing smoke in your face in regard to other aspects which are important to the key message it's trying to get into your head.
In regard to the topic -- of course negative sentiment has existed against Russia, as it has against the US, the UK, France, Spain, Germany and and other other major colonial powers at various times. And of course politicians will always say and do stupid things, especially if we go back to the 19th century.
Where the material you are advocating itself crosses into the realm of propaganda is precisely: (1) the attempt to promote "russophobia" as an actual thing, that is, as universally accepted and recognized concept (it is not by any stretch); and (2) the suggestion that negative sentiment in regard to any version of the Russian state and its actions in the world is basically just an instance of irrational "fear", essentially a form of xenophobia, or racially driven fear; and (3) the implication that this imagined "russophobia" is in fact the tail wagging the dog of relations between Russia and other countries today, and is what's really driving people's perceptions about its current regime and what it is doing to its neighbors on the ground, right now.
Points (1)-(3) are all pure nonsense of course, yet they are the very heart of the modern "russophobia" accusation. All that stuff about what happened in the 19th century or what JSM said is just sugarcoating to get you to swallow and internalize these 3 basic messages. And then get on the internet and tell everyone about this neat little book you found, and how they really ought to read it because you know, it just might change their worldview.
In regard to the topic -- of course negative sentiment has existed against Russia, as it has against the US, the UK, France, Spain, Germany and and other other major colonial powers at various times. And of course politicians will always say and do stupid things, especially if we go back to the 19th century.
Where the material you are advocating itself crosses into the realm of propaganda is precisely: (1) the attempt to promote "russophobia" as an actual thing, that is, as universally accepted and recognized concept (it is not by any stretch); and (2) the suggestion that negative sentiment in regard to any version of the Russian state and its actions in the world is basically just an instance of irrational "fear", essentially a form of xenophobia, or racially driven fear; and (3) the implication that this imagined "russophobia" is in fact the tail wagging the dog of relations between Russia and other countries today, and is what's really driving people's perceptions about its current regime and what it is doing to its neighbors on the ground, right now.
Points (1)-(3) are all pure nonsense of course, yet they are the very heart of the modern "russophobia" accusation. All that stuff about what happened in the 19th century or what JSM said is just sugarcoating to get you to swallow and internalize these 3 basic messages. And then get on the internet and tell everyone about this neat little book you found, and how they really ought to read it because you know, it just might change their worldview.
[deleted]
Your link has few details of indigenous population decimation. The "Indigenous peoples of Siberia" Wikipedia link seems to have more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_Siberia
Your link does not say what your summary says. The Wiki article just says the Hakassi joined the Soviet revolution (presumably happily) and moved from nomadic to modern livelihoods. No mention of a massacre.
Now, I am not saying that a massacre didn't happen. But it also didn't happen they way you are implying. This wasn't "the Communists oppressed poor tribesmen" but rather "imperialistic 18th century power steamrolls some natives". I can name a few more imperialistic powers of the period that did the same or worse.
Also, the Hakassi culture is descended from Mongols, not Finns. Why are they more Finnish than Russian? That's right, because they are not. In fact, Hakassia is nowhere near Finland (it's in the middle of Siberia), but linking to the Finnish Wikipedia makes it seem like another little European country attacked by the Ogre Horde.
Lastly, you say that tiny Finnish stub article has more details than the Russian Wikipedia, and that is simply not true. In addition to the main article, there is a link from it specifically to a standalone article about Hakassia's inclusion into Russia, which is described as "painful": https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%.... The events are covered in great detail starting with the 1600s.
Does this explain why your comment is mostly Russophobia?
Now, I am not saying that a massacre didn't happen. But it also didn't happen they way you are implying. This wasn't "the Communists oppressed poor tribesmen" but rather "imperialistic 18th century power steamrolls some natives". I can name a few more imperialistic powers of the period that did the same or worse.
Also, the Hakassi culture is descended from Mongols, not Finns. Why are they more Finnish than Russian? That's right, because they are not. In fact, Hakassia is nowhere near Finland (it's in the middle of Siberia), but linking to the Finnish Wikipedia makes it seem like another little European country attacked by the Ogre Horde.
Lastly, you say that tiny Finnish stub article has more details than the Russian Wikipedia, and that is simply not true. In addition to the main article, there is a link from it specifically to a standalone article about Hakassia's inclusion into Russia, which is described as "painful": https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%.... The events are covered in great detail starting with the 1600s.
Does this explain why your comment is mostly Russophobia?
Every time this story comes up I ask.
How did they light fire, and what vessels did they use to boil water?
I ask this after years of adventure is the Yukon wilderness, where we play the game “if the canoe flipped and we lost everything, could we survive?”. Often the answer is “not unless we luckily rescue our rifles or lighters or gps beacon. Maybe we could walk out in a month. Maybe.
How did they light fire, and what vessels did they use to boil water?
I ask this after years of adventure is the Yukon wilderness, where we play the game “if the canoe flipped and we lost everything, could we survive?”. Often the answer is “not unless we luckily rescue our rifles or lighters or gps beacon. Maybe we could walk out in a month. Maybe.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but for the record whenever I spent a few weeks in the mountains as a younger person, I never brought rifles, lighters, or gps beacons (or any other electronics). I did have matches though, in a waterproof bag. But I also had steel and flint. Knife. And a fishing rod. In fact the most useful modern society thing I brought would be soap.. if you have it you don't think much about it, if you don't then you realize how very useful it is.
I’m impressed!
What did you boil water in?
Just eat with your fingers?
What did you boil water in?
Just eat with your fingers?
I brought a pot.. metal, made for this.. I thought that was a given. It would easily last forty-fifty years (re the original article). Not that I would need the pot all the time, fish I would grill in various ways, e.g. on a stick on a fire, or just leaving them on a flat rock close to the fire. The pot was for soup of some kind which I didn't eat very often.
As I don't drink coffee when I'm on a mountain hike I wouldn't bring a coffee pot. A knife is a must, if I didn't already mention that. The main point is that I wouldn't need a rifle, a lighter, or a GPS. I wouldn't even have thought of it. Not that there was much GPS around when I was a teenager. A paper map though, that's useful sometimes.
GPS we carry to save our lives. Even 10 days out in the Yukon without gear in late September would be brutal.
Like I said, we often gave ourselves 50/50 of surviving - either build some kind of cabin and stay the winter (need rifle and axe minimum) or walk out.
Like I said, we often gave ourselves 50/50 of surviving - either build some kind of cabin and stay the winter (need rifle and axe minimum) or walk out.
> Boil water
They had a couple iron pots that eventually rusted after years. Then they made some new ones with wood but that wasn’t convenient because wood burn. Then at year+40 geologists came and bring later (soon?) new one. And grain, blanquet, shirts.
I recommend Vice article, it’s more detailed and respectful in my opinion.
They had a couple iron pots that eventually rusted after years. Then they made some new ones with wood but that wasn’t convenient because wood burn. Then at year+40 geologists came and bring later (soon?) new one. And grain, blanquet, shirts.
I recommend Vice article, it’s more detailed and respectful in my opinion.
That reminds me of the documentary Happy People: A Year in the Taiga
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcHbZZPce_ZMUuYr5u6sx...
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcHbZZPce_ZMUuYr5u6sx...
Reading the post title, the film Dersu Uzala by Akira Kurosawa comes to mind.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dersu_Uzala_(1975_film)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akira_Kurosawa
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dersu_Uzala_(1975_film)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akira_Kurosawa
Well, that brought up a memory from childhood. My parents borrowed this on a tape and my brother and I would go about calling the Sun “a very great man” and the Moon “another great man” because that’s what the character says about them.
The book is even better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dersu_Uzala
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dersu_Uzala
didn't know, thanks.
sad ending of the real life guy. this article - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dersu_Uzala - says he was murdered, maybe for the new rifle that Arsenyev gave him as a parting gift when Dersu realized he could not live in the city and decided to returned to the woods.
sad ending of the real life guy. this article - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dersu_Uzala - says he was murdered, maybe for the new rifle that Arsenyev gave him as a parting gift when Dersu realized he could not live in the city and decided to returned to the woods.
This story sure has done the rounds. I like it both in the particular and thematically speaking so perhaps there's a good non-tragic variation* on it out there to be found..?
> When in recalling the “first world war” with Karp Osipovich the geologists engaged him in conversation about the last one, he shook his head: “What is this, a second time, and always the Germans. A curse on Peter. He flirted with them. That is so.”
It's almost the "which one, first or second?" joke but IRL
It's almost the "which one, first or second?" joke but IRL
"Always the Germans". My Dutch friends will laugh pretty hard at this. It fits in with yelling "Hey, where's my bike?" at German tourists (the Nazis confiscated Dutch bicycles in WW2 to limit movement) and referring to people from the eastern part of the country as "spare Germans".
At a certain point, we gotta say "Hey, Germany, you don't get to be a country no more, on account of you keep attacking THE WORLD"
For those not in the know, it’s a reference to Norm MacDonald:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uXdtafGdIVM&pp=ygUWbm9ybSBtYWN...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uXdtafGdIVM&pp=ygUWbm9ybSBtYWN...
Yeah, but Peter actually flirted with the Dutch, not Germans. Nobody just sees any difference ;)
Back in Peter the Great's times the Dutch and Germans were called with the same word in Russian. I think it was the case in English, too. IIRC that's why they call it Pennsylvania Dutch, even though it's German.
Fun local wikipedia: https://pdc.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaptblatt
I'd have to imagine the intersection of Pennsylvania Dutch speakers and internet-active wikipedia-editing people must be small, but it's obviously not nonexistent!
https://pdc.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsilfaanisch_Deitsch
> S'menscht vun die Schwetzer sinn heit Amische un Fuhremennischte, wu Deitsch aa heit noch schwetze zu ihre Kinner, awwer's hot aa en latt Luthrische un Reformierte un Leit vun en Wisch annre Gmeeschafte, wu die Mudderschprooch noch gschwetzt henn, dieweil ass sie Kinner waare.
I'd have to imagine the intersection of Pennsylvania Dutch speakers and internet-active wikipedia-editing people must be small, but it's obviously not nonexistent!
https://pdc.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsilfaanisch_Deitsch
> S'menscht vun die Schwetzer sinn heit Amische un Fuhremennischte, wu Deitsch aa heit noch schwetze zu ihre Kinner, awwer's hot aa en latt Luthrische un Reformierte un Leit vun en Wisch annre Gmeeschafte, wu die Mudderschprooch noch gschwetzt henn, dieweil ass sie Kinner waare.
I was always fascinated by siberia. Pretty sad that visiting it will be off the table for many years now.
It's relatively safe for foreigners to visit Russia at the moment. Just stay away from military objects and rare public protests, and don't do generally stupid things, like praising Ukraine in a restaurant full of people (you may get both support and a visit by police). You will also need a lot of cash.
That does not sound safe at all, it's irresponsible of you to suggest such a thing, imo.
This reminds me of a two-part documentary about a family living in the Russian far east: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BGo1vMdHEo
As long as I internet, just tell me where to sign up.
Well... Not that being connected to the world has helped others...
> According to Google Trends, searches for "Did Joe Biden drop out" started spiking around 6 a.m. on election day and continued to rise over the course of the day until reaching its peak at midnight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4vphcHGmo
> According to Google Trends, searches for "Did Joe Biden drop out" started spiking around 6 a.m. on election day and continued to rise over the course of the day until reaching its peak at midnight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS4vphcHGmo
Those poor people missed TikTok, Tiger King, and all the other amazing things we have to offer.
Glad they lived what they wanted
Glad they lived what they wanted
My first thought was rather that they missed modern medicine, balanced diet and even basic kitchen utensils. Not some entertainment.
And I'm not even sure they truly wanted to live that way. I'm no psychologist, but it reads like they were severely traumatized by their religious zeal. While I respect their agency, I suspect their behavior was much less voluntary than they believed.
I don't know how I should feel about it, but I'm not glad they had to suffer, even if it was voluntary (or "voluntary"). It's so fucked up. The only thing I'm sure is that [unregulated] religion can sometimes be such a memetic cancer.
It's somewhat comparable to those modern-day homeless that are scraping by on the streets but refuse to do anything about it. (I don't really know what to make of those people either.)
And I'm not even sure they truly wanted to live that way. I'm no psychologist, but it reads like they were severely traumatized by their religious zeal. While I respect their agency, I suspect their behavior was much less voluntary than they believed.
I don't know how I should feel about it, but I'm not glad they had to suffer, even if it was voluntary (or "voluntary"). It's so fucked up. The only thing I'm sure is that [unregulated] religion can sometimes be such a memetic cancer.
It's somewhat comparable to those modern-day homeless that are scraping by on the streets but refuse to do anything about it. (I don't really know what to make of those people either.)
> I'm no psychologist, but it reads like they were severely traumatized by their religious zeal.
You seem to have missed the part where they were fleeing the bolsheviks
> It's somewhat comparable to those modern-day homeless that are scraping by on the streets but refuse to do anything about it.
You're missing some things there too
You seem to have missed the part where they were fleeing the bolsheviks
> It's somewhat comparable to those modern-day homeless that are scraping by on the streets but refuse to do anything about it.
You're missing some things there too
> You seem to have missed the part where they were fleeing the bolsheviks
I have not. A lot of people fled from oppressive governments (myself included), but those people intentionally picked a deliberately self-harming way. And kept to it even after they certainly knew it's harming them.
I think attributing self-harm to religious zeal as the primary cause is pretty obvious here.
> You're missing some things there too
Like what?
Acting against of one's own best long-term interests because of inability to get through the short-term problems (be it religion abuse or substance abuse) is common in both situations. There are certainly myriad of differences, of course - I would not argue that the comparison is quite a stretch.
(Disclaimer: this comment is not about religion, rather the focus must be put on zealotry. A non-religious belief cranked up to 11 could be equally harmful.)
I have not. A lot of people fled from oppressive governments (myself included), but those people intentionally picked a deliberately self-harming way. And kept to it even after they certainly knew it's harming them.
I think attributing self-harm to religious zeal as the primary cause is pretty obvious here.
> You're missing some things there too
Like what?
Acting against of one's own best long-term interests because of inability to get through the short-term problems (be it religion abuse or substance abuse) is common in both situations. There are certainly myriad of differences, of course - I would not argue that the comparison is quite a stretch.
(Disclaimer: this comment is not about religion, rather the focus must be put on zealotry. A non-religious belief cranked up to 11 could be equally harmful.)
I was kind of hoping you'd respond. One look at your profile page was enough to dispel the two assumptions I made (Doctor of Iranian descent :), but that was exactly my point. There are things we can't know categorically, and there are lots of things we don't know because we are deeply limited and don't have experience with them.
Regardless, we can still imagine arguments, which can lead to knowledge, and that is a much better approach than rejecting/dismissing behaviors we don't understand.
For the folks who fled to the woods, they were shot at by the Bolsheviks, which you were probably not shot at- so you can't assume your experience relates to them (and the Bolsehviks murdered millions of people during and after the time they fled, which is probably very different from when you fled). Not all people who fled the Bolsheviks went into the woods (my grandfather went west eventually to America), but these people had already been leaving on the periphery of the forests, so retreating into it probably made sense to them because they already knew how to live in it (they would have probably been as bewildered trying to live in the west as my grandfather would have been trying to live in the forest). Likewise with homeless people in America- they live on the streets in the culture they know how to live. They don't retreat into the forest probably because they don't know how to survive there, and similarly probably do not know how to work as a fast food cashier, office worker, or lawyer when they have no money or housing (and all the other prerequisites for participating in the economy). My hunch is that you are blaming them for their condition when this is much better seen as a cultural, social and economic failure rather than a personal one. If entering into the economic trap of poverty is a possibility in our society, we should at least educate people how to survive- at least if we're not going to take the time to fix the obvious failings in our economy
I.e., don't blame this on religious zealotry or personal failings- those traits seem largely circumstantial, in the absence of a caring and equitable society
For the folks who fled to the woods, they were shot at by the Bolsheviks, which you were probably not shot at- so you can't assume your experience relates to them (and the Bolsehviks murdered millions of people during and after the time they fled, which is probably very different from when you fled). Not all people who fled the Bolsheviks went into the woods (my grandfather went west eventually to America), but these people had already been leaving on the periphery of the forests, so retreating into it probably made sense to them because they already knew how to live in it (they would have probably been as bewildered trying to live in the west as my grandfather would have been trying to live in the forest). Likewise with homeless people in America- they live on the streets in the culture they know how to live. They don't retreat into the forest probably because they don't know how to survive there, and similarly probably do not know how to work as a fast food cashier, office worker, or lawyer when they have no money or housing (and all the other prerequisites for participating in the economy). My hunch is that you are blaming them for their condition when this is much better seen as a cultural, social and economic failure rather than a personal one. If entering into the economic trap of poverty is a possibility in our society, we should at least educate people how to survive- at least if we're not going to take the time to fix the obvious failings in our economy
I.e., don't blame this on religious zealotry or personal failings- those traits seem largely circumstantial, in the absence of a caring and equitable society
> Acting against of one's own best long-term interests
Acting against one's best interests is based on judgment and is fundamentally subjective. You are making dubious judgments without much apparent self-reflection and missing key things (and many things you and I cannot know).
Let's flip it around. You seem to be taking an "establishment" view of the world. You seem to have done well within it (I assume, you have Dr. in your name and they are very much part of the elite in western society, even if they are not the pinnacle of wealth). You don't understand why other people like this family (or "modern-day homeless") would reject what you take to be the way of world and not "act in their best interests".
But what if someone recognized that our society is polluting the world and decided to no longer participate (either by fleeing, or by just dropping out and living on the streets). They are no longer producing or consuming the garbage that is polluting the planet. They could claim, as validly (and perhaps more so), that you are not acting in your best interests by continuing to participate in this destructive system.
We can imagine (and even find in reality) thousands of similar arguments.
I think it is good that you voiced your concerns, but I also think it would be best if you reflected on them and reconsidered your beliefs and become more skeptical and philosophical about your own judgment.
>>> The only thing I'm sure is that [unregulated] religion can sometimes be such a memetic cancer > A lot of people fled from oppressive governments (myself included) > I think attributing self-harm to religious zeal as the primary cause is pretty obvious here. > the focus must be put on zealotry. A non-religious belief cranked up to 11 could be equally harmful
It sounds like you may have left Iran (or other religiously affiliated oppressive regime). If that is the case, I understand how that regime would loom large in your thoughts about religion, power dynamics, suffering, etc, but be careful not to project it into places where it can obscure other considerations.
Regardless, you included "modern-day homeless" in your comments, and I doubt you would say that they are driven by religious zeal.
Acting against one's best interests is based on judgment and is fundamentally subjective. You are making dubious judgments without much apparent self-reflection and missing key things (and many things you and I cannot know).
Let's flip it around. You seem to be taking an "establishment" view of the world. You seem to have done well within it (I assume, you have Dr. in your name and they are very much part of the elite in western society, even if they are not the pinnacle of wealth). You don't understand why other people like this family (or "modern-day homeless") would reject what you take to be the way of world and not "act in their best interests".
But what if someone recognized that our society is polluting the world and decided to no longer participate (either by fleeing, or by just dropping out and living on the streets). They are no longer producing or consuming the garbage that is polluting the planet. They could claim, as validly (and perhaps more so), that you are not acting in your best interests by continuing to participate in this destructive system.
We can imagine (and even find in reality) thousands of similar arguments.
I think it is good that you voiced your concerns, but I also think it would be best if you reflected on them and reconsidered your beliefs and become more skeptical and philosophical about your own judgment.
>>> The only thing I'm sure is that [unregulated] religion can sometimes be such a memetic cancer > A lot of people fled from oppressive governments (myself included) > I think attributing self-harm to religious zeal as the primary cause is pretty obvious here. > the focus must be put on zealotry. A non-religious belief cranked up to 11 could be equally harmful
It sounds like you may have left Iran (or other religiously affiliated oppressive regime). If that is the case, I understand how that regime would loom large in your thoughts about religion, power dynamics, suffering, etc, but be careful not to project it into places where it can obscure other considerations.
Regardless, you included "modern-day homeless" in your comments, and I doubt you would say that they are driven by religious zeal.
[deleted]
When I was 6 years old I was confused just like you about the age of things.
I mean, they were discovered before the Digital Age and missed only The Beatles and TV.
I mean, they were discovered before the Digital Age and missed only The Beatles and TV.
I suppose the lazy ad hominem could be met with: and to this day, you are confused by things like sarcasm.
Have a great day
Have a great day
Your sarcasm was factually incorrect to the point where it did not make sense. First, you chose the wrong tech for it. As a matter of fact, the only survivor from that group is in active contact with modern civilization - even being personally informed about certain space launches. She isn’t on TikTok, of course, but she is not different from many other people.
Second, they didn’t live the life they wanted. They were refugees fighting for their survival in a very harsh environment. It‘s ethically questionable to say that they have chosen this life over TikTok.
Second, they didn’t live the life they wanted. They were refugees fighting for their survival in a very harsh environment. It‘s ethically questionable to say that they have chosen this life over TikTok.
I'm not sure... several parts of this story seem unbelievable to be honest.
What parts seem unbelievable?
All the kids died of pneumonia caught from the visiting geologist. What a cute story.
> In the fall of 1981, three of the four children followed their mother to the grave. According to Peskov, their deaths were not, as some have speculated, the result of exposure to diseases to which they had no immunity. Both Savin and Natalia suffered from kidney failure, most likely a result of their harsh diet. But Dmitry died of pneumonia, which might have begun as an infection he acquired from his new friends.
[deleted]