Don’t Blame Dostoyevsky(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Don’t Blame Dostoyevsky
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/russian-literature-books-ukraine-war-dostoyevsky-nabokov/670928/
250 comments
Apart from the abstract conviction that we should not indict the cultural output of a country that is under the thrall of an oligarch, I'm a bit baffled at the notion of decrying Tolstoy of people -- a Christian anarchist who radically challenged all of the assumptions of Tsarist Russia. Basically all of the great Russian writers lived in opposition to the various incarnations of the Russian State (Tsarist Russia, USSR).
EDIT: It's clear that this is a sentiment that is coming from the emotional pressures of war. I don't blame some Ukrainians for feeling the way that they do, though I find the argument dubious and disagree with it.
EDIT: It's clear that this is a sentiment that is coming from the emotional pressures of war. I don't blame some Ukrainians for feeling the way that they do, though I find the argument dubious and disagree with it.
It’s a very strange emotional appeal. Yes, you can ban first-hand imports of Russian culture, or any other nation. But what about all the ways in which your culture has already been affected by decades and decades of integrating these works because they stand on their own, aesthetically speaking, regardless of their origin?
I’m reminded of an equally strange move, in an equally strange vein: “Freedom Fries.”
I’m reminded of an equally strange move, in an equally strange vein: “Freedom Fries.”
While I think it is too simplistic to “blame” or “decry” Tolstoy, the Tolstoy of War and Peace have some nationalistic and anti-individualistic ideas which is easy to see how can be misused for imperialistic purposes.
> I don't blame some Ukrainians for feeling the way that they do
I can certainly see why they're upset but it's a problem with Russia's leader at the time, and not the culture right? If it's a long-standing cultural issue then I'd imagine some introspection would also be required, which seems like it may undermine the whole notion.
I can certainly see why they're upset but it's a problem with Russia's leader at the time, and not the culture right? If it's a long-standing cultural issue then I'd imagine some introspection would also be required, which seems like it may undermine the whole notion.
Frankly, we have been having problems with Russian leaders for the last couple centuries or three.
This makes me wonder, is it possible that the pool of solutions available to Russia's leaders is objectively limited due to Russia's geopolitical and sociopolitical realities and they really don't have too much of a rational choice?
For some reason, Russia never had anything close to a democracy or any rights-enabling consequence of revolution. And that was certainly not for lack of revolutions.
It may be a coincidence (getting rights for the people is hard), or due to some structural issue. I don't believe anybody knows the reason, but yeah, it may be external because when modern democracy first appeared it was concentrated geographically, what usually happens when the causes are larger than a single country.
It may be a coincidence (getting rights for the people is hard), or due to some structural issue. I don't believe anybody knows the reason, but yeah, it may be external because when modern democracy first appeared it was concentrated geographically, what usually happens when the causes are larger than a single country.
That's a point that deserves deeper study.
They have (from memory) 13 countries on their borders, and almost no "natural" borders, e.g. rivers or mountain ranges. They have a history that's blood-curdling. Expecting a new czar to make it like Denmark is a bit much.
The West tried in the 90s, and Boris Yeltsin is not remembered fondly over there. The emergence of gangster capitalism was the result.
They have (from memory) 13 countries on their borders, and almost no "natural" borders, e.g. rivers or mountain ranges. They have a history that's blood-curdling. Expecting a new czar to make it like Denmark is a bit much.
The West tried in the 90s, and Boris Yeltsin is not remembered fondly over there. The emergence of gangster capitalism was the result.
I don’t think this is right. Germany, for example, has 9 countries on its borders and a blood-curdling history, and it’s a very pleasant place now. The idea that a country of 145M people lacking the agency to move forward doesn’t pass the smell test. I think it’s clear that Russia has some deeply-seated cultural problems that fuel this kind of thing.
None of this, of course, makes the banishment of Russian cultural products (especially old ones) any more reasonable. We’ve got to get better at separation of concerns.
None of this, of course, makes the banishment of Russian cultural products (especially old ones) any more reasonable. We’ve got to get better at separation of concerns.
"Russia" has been destroyed, raped and pillaged many times and been under hostile foreign control for the last half millenia (yup, if you dig deep enough). Don't expect them to let go easily, lol. The fact that people survive there never fails to amaze me.
* quotes because lands had different names back then.
Well, no. Germany wasn't even united as a country until Bismarck. And it didn't grow to a gargantuan size by conquering neighboring, nearly empty lands.
Germany had good reasons for their actions in last century. Just remember the aggressions from likes of France... Historically thinking Ukraine is just continuation of constant wars in Europe.
> Just remember the aggressions from likes of France
What? We must not have the same history books. In none of the French-German wars was the German side (or Prussia before that, or the HRE even before) an innocent victim.
And, to be clear, everyone sleepwalked into WWI, sure (though it wasn’t France’s fault any more than Germany’s), but there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for WWII. I cannot believe someone would even write that.
> Historically thinking Ukraine is just continuation of constant wars in Europe.
I grant you that. Though Russia’s justifications are about as credible as Hitler’s were.
What? We must not have the same history books. In none of the French-German wars was the German side (or Prussia before that, or the HRE even before) an innocent victim.
And, to be clear, everyone sleepwalked into WWI, sure (though it wasn’t France’s fault any more than Germany’s), but there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for WWII. I cannot believe someone would even write that.
> Historically thinking Ukraine is just continuation of constant wars in Europe.
I grant you that. Though Russia’s justifications are about as credible as Hitler’s were.
All the west “tried” in the 90s was to use dubious political techniques to support the guy who believed in democracy so much so that he shot at the parliament with tanks and installed a “successor” we’re all familiar with. The west’s meddling is part of the reason we’re in this mess.
As opposed to any other Eastern/Central European country? Is (e.g.) Poland's history any less turbulent?
Yeltsin also has blood on his hands from the First Chechen War. Democracy a la russe…
> They have (from memory) 13 countries on their borders
they have all of them on one side (Western border), and majority of these countries are small and weak. Comparing to Germany, which is surrounded by potential enemies (I am talking about pre WW2 time), Russia had significant advantage.
they have all of them on one side (Western border), and majority of these countries are small and weak. Comparing to Germany, which is surrounded by potential enemies (I am talking about pre WW2 time), Russia had significant advantage.
> we
Indeed, Russia has had its share of problems with Poland before that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Muscovite_War_(...
Indeed, Russia has had its share of problems with Poland before that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Muscovite_War_(...
Thousand years, iirc
I've seen an insightful explanation (from an immigrant from Ukraine) why it doesn't matter is there is a problem with the Russian culture or not but it should be cancelled in any case: to win this war Ukrainian people need to mobilize and hatred to anything Russian will help to mobilize them. It is not enough for them to hate Putin, to fight they need to hate all Russians. For this reason it is important to convince all that all Russians are imperialists and Russian culture is all poisoned by imperialism. And it doesn't matter if it would backfire - in an authoritarian Russia it doesn't matter what ordinary people think. Ukraine on other hand is more or less democratic state - it is for the people to decide if they would accept defeat or will continue to fight.
I am Russian. We will discuss the problems with Russian culture after the end of the war (with the Ukrainian victory, of course). For now, our time would be better spent not mourning Russian culture, but helping Ukrainians and learning how to fight the criminal Russian regime.
When my country has begun the greatest atrocity of our generation, there are now more urgent things to do than write articles about the loss of its culture. For example, volunteering to help Ukrainians, donating money to their cause, and doing other things that will help reverse this disaster, even if only a little bit.
When my country has begun the greatest atrocity of our generation, there are now more urgent things to do than write articles about the loss of its culture. For example, volunteering to help Ukrainians, donating money to their cause, and doing other things that will help reverse this disaster, even if only a little bit.
I have two major critiques here:
1. There's no reason to think the criminal invasion of Ukraine will result in victory for Ukraine. The Russians will fall short of their maximal goals, but they're having significant battlefield successes now. Sometimes, criminal invasions are completely successful. In this case, I suspect that a long, low-intensity conflict with two entrenched sides is the most likely outcome.
2. This is not the greatest atrocity of our generation. There have been at least three invasions and occupations that are significantly worse crimes: the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Saudi-led invasion of Yemen. All three have led to the total destruction and failure of the invaded state. Ukraine has lost territory and there has been substantial suffering, but it has not been nearly on the same scale and the social disruption has not, at least yet, been anywhere near as significant.
I bring this up because moral consistency is important. Just as we should endorse the right of the Ukrainians to defend themselves from criminal aggression, we must also endorse the same rights for other peoples. And we should be making the same calls, or not, for the aggressor states in these crimes to have their cultural influences purged from law-abiding societies.
1. There's no reason to think the criminal invasion of Ukraine will result in victory for Ukraine. The Russians will fall short of their maximal goals, but they're having significant battlefield successes now. Sometimes, criminal invasions are completely successful. In this case, I suspect that a long, low-intensity conflict with two entrenched sides is the most likely outcome.
2. This is not the greatest atrocity of our generation. There have been at least three invasions and occupations that are significantly worse crimes: the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Saudi-led invasion of Yemen. All three have led to the total destruction and failure of the invaded state. Ukraine has lost territory and there has been substantial suffering, but it has not been nearly on the same scale and the social disruption has not, at least yet, been anywhere near as significant.
I bring this up because moral consistency is important. Just as we should endorse the right of the Ukrainians to defend themselves from criminal aggression, we must also endorse the same rights for other peoples. And we should be making the same calls, or not, for the aggressor states in these crimes to have their cultural influences purged from law-abiding societies.
>This is not the greatest atrocity of our generation. There have been at least three invasions and occupations that are significantly worse crimes: the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan
That depends on what numbers you're going to believe about civilian fatalities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen etc.
It is often claimed that the Iraq War killed anywhere from 0.5 million to over 1.0 million Iraqis.
However these big numbers don't make much sense considering that large scale aerial bombings and artillery strikes stopped after a month into the war and large-scale ground operations stopped after the second battle of Fallujah in 2004. The Iraqis then suffered a horrific decade of weekly and monthly sectarian terror attacks. However adding all the civilian fatalities from the US invasion and the decade of sectarian violence still doesn't add up to ~100,000 and not anywhere near the "millions" range.
Don't get me wrong. The people who started the Iraq War are war criminals. However it doesn't make sense to compare the most widely exaggerated estimates from the 10+ year Iraq War with the current UN confirmed counting of civilian fatalities in the 5 month war in Ukraine. If we go by confirmed civilian fatalities Russia is currently killing Ukrainian civilians at a faster pace than anytime during the Iraq War.
That depends on what numbers you're going to believe about civilian fatalities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen etc.
It is often claimed that the Iraq War killed anywhere from 0.5 million to over 1.0 million Iraqis.
However these big numbers don't make much sense considering that large scale aerial bombings and artillery strikes stopped after a month into the war and large-scale ground operations stopped after the second battle of Fallujah in 2004. The Iraqis then suffered a horrific decade of weekly and monthly sectarian terror attacks. However adding all the civilian fatalities from the US invasion and the decade of sectarian violence still doesn't add up to ~100,000 and not anywhere near the "millions" range.
Don't get me wrong. The people who started the Iraq War are war criminals. However it doesn't make sense to compare the most widely exaggerated estimates from the 10+ year Iraq War with the current UN confirmed counting of civilian fatalities in the 5 month war in Ukraine. If we go by confirmed civilian fatalities Russia is currently killing Ukrainian civilians at a faster pace than anytime during the Iraq War.
The study of Iraqi deaths is ongoing and I suspect that the confirmed civilian casualties from direct violence is an undercount, but regardless we should also be counting excess deaths caused by the deterioration of the country's infrastructure. That's a direct result of the war. It does mean we have no good way of counting the dead in Ukraine yet and won't for years.
That said, the Ukrainian state has survived and is continuing to provide civilian services. Ukraine still produces plenty of electricity (it is even exporting it), and still is able to provide food, healthcare, water, and other essentials. There are tight supplies for some things, like gasoline and some medicines, which is awful.
Contrast that to the devastation after the American invasion of Iraq, the starvation in Yemen, or the chaos in Afghanistan. Iraq still has spotty electricity and deals with violent incursions, and the war has spilled into Syria. Yemeni deaths have been horrific, but equally bad has been the widespread hunger and extreme poverty the war has thrust millions into. I just don't see that kind of suffering in Ukraine. At least not yet. If the war continues at this level of intensity and Ukraine collapses entirely, which I find unlikely (indeed, the level of intensity and casualties is already down significantly from its peak in March) I'll reassess.
That said, the Ukrainian state has survived and is continuing to provide civilian services. Ukraine still produces plenty of electricity (it is even exporting it), and still is able to provide food, healthcare, water, and other essentials. There are tight supplies for some things, like gasoline and some medicines, which is awful.
Contrast that to the devastation after the American invasion of Iraq, the starvation in Yemen, or the chaos in Afghanistan. Iraq still has spotty electricity and deals with violent incursions, and the war has spilled into Syria. Yemeni deaths have been horrific, but equally bad has been the widespread hunger and extreme poverty the war has thrust millions into. I just don't see that kind of suffering in Ukraine. At least not yet. If the war continues at this level of intensity and Ukraine collapses entirely, which I find unlikely (indeed, the level of intensity and casualties is already down significantly from its peak in March) I'll reassess.
ROTMetro(1)
I have 1 major critique:
What "major" battlefield successes?
The taking of Mariupol, all of Luhansk and most of Donetsk have been successes. They've been hard fought, grinding successes, but successes nonetheless.
They don't control all of Luhansk and they don't control most of Donetsk oblast. I'd lay off from russian TV for a bit :) The goal was to take Kyiv in 3 days and install puppet government they have not accomplished that and have not taken a single major city in Ukraine despite Kharkiv being 40km from the border. So no for self proclaimed worlds 2nd army they have not accomplished a single strategic goal let alone the goal of the campaign.
They haven't taken a single major city in Ukraine except Kherson and Mariupol, two major Ukrainian cities.
JFC.
JFC.
Kherson population is 280K people Mariupol 400k
Major city would be Kyiv, Kharkiv, Dnepr, Odessa or Lviv
Russia controls less territory today than it did in March, yet I am told that Ukraine losing territory in July is losing, Russia losing more territory and not recovering it in March is not Russia losing.
Funny goal posts seem to get used a lot in this conflict.
Funny goal posts seem to get used a lot in this conflict.
> There have been at least three invasions and occupations that are significantly worse crimes: the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Saudi-led invasion of Yemen. All three have led to the total destruction and failure of the invaded state
Your opinion is very one-sided and misses many details:
- Iraq is currently relatively peaceful democracy after decades of tirany and wars (Iran-Iraq war caused 1M deaths)
- Afghanistan under US rule demonstrated significant economic, demographic and human rights growth
- Yemen civil war started with Iran backed shiite houthis took power by force in country with majority of suni population, and Saudis reacted on this
Your opinion is very one-sided and misses many details:
- Iraq is currently relatively peaceful democracy after decades of tirany and wars (Iran-Iraq war caused 1M deaths)
- Afghanistan under US rule demonstrated significant economic, demographic and human rights growth
- Yemen civil war started with Iran backed shiite houthis took power by force in country with majority of suni population, and Saudis reacted on this
unmole(2)
ROTMetro(1)
I would go one step further. What if we spend our time not on performative cancellation and condemnation of Russian culture, but on helping Ukrainians and learning how to fight the criminal Russian regime?
> For example, volunteering to help Ukrainians, donating money to their cause
And people are doing all those things. People also volunteered to fight and die with them, countries are sending them weapons.
It's not taking away from any of those things.
And people are doing all those things. People also volunteered to fight and die with them, countries are sending them weapons.
It's not taking away from any of those things.
I wonder who Shishkin is writing this for, and why he bothers.
Readers interested in Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, or Chekhov are presumably intellectuals. Presumably, they will be familiar with the countless examples from history when, driven by patriotic fervor, countries cleansed themselves from the culture of an adversarial state, including language, literature, music, linguistic borrowings, scientific contributions, common history, etc. etc. Presumably, these potential readers should be sophisticated enough to separate the crude politics of the day from the valuable contributions to the history of art or science.
Is he _really_ interested in the audience whose interest in the 19-th century Russian literature is predicated on the Russian politics of the 21st century? Why does he want to reach this audience? And, more generally, in the environment that is arrogantly dismissive to "old white men" in general, why worry about the readership of Dostoyevsky at all?
Readers interested in Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, or Chekhov are presumably intellectuals. Presumably, they will be familiar with the countless examples from history when, driven by patriotic fervor, countries cleansed themselves from the culture of an adversarial state, including language, literature, music, linguistic borrowings, scientific contributions, common history, etc. etc. Presumably, these potential readers should be sophisticated enough to separate the crude politics of the day from the valuable contributions to the history of art or science.
Is he _really_ interested in the audience whose interest in the 19-th century Russian literature is predicated on the Russian politics of the 21st century? Why does he want to reach this audience? And, more generally, in the environment that is arrogantly dismissive to "old white men" in general, why worry about the readership of Dostoyevsky at all?
I'm going to challenge this because I think it suggests that reading the Russian classics is an intellectual challenge with a perquisite of studying Russian history and culture.
Dostoyevsky's works are amazing without any background knowledge. No 'intellectualism' is required, just a love of stories. With a few tweaks they could be set in a modern era and turned into Netflex series.
War and Peace is considered a challenge because of the rambling philosophical chapters between the main action, but strip those out and you have Gone with the Wind. Easily enjoyed without any extra frontal lobe matter.
Dostoyevsky's works are amazing without any background knowledge. No 'intellectualism' is required, just a love of stories. With a few tweaks they could be set in a modern era and turned into Netflex series.
War and Peace is considered a challenge because of the rambling philosophical chapters between the main action, but strip those out and you have Gone with the Wind. Easily enjoyed without any extra frontal lobe matter.
I don't think there was an inference that the books are opaque, just that people reading these books in 2022 are already weird ducks. Well, as weird as anyone reading, say, Tao Te Ching or other non-standard-academic-curriculum "classic" books you'd have to go out of your way to read.
One of my nits is implications that Great Works require some sort of extra mental exertion. I've read many Great Works and it's not just that Crime and Punishment is better than As the Crawdads Sing <ugh> but it is also more engaging. People think that these books shouldn't be read without understanding Russian history or society and without careful comparisons of the best translations but it isn't necessary.
One of my mantras as a reader is that I no longer am in school and no one is going to make me write a paper or discuss overriding themes. I can read the way I like and enjoy what I like and if I missed all the mustard seed references than it doesn't matter to me.
I could go into a side discussion on how literature is taught but I'm sympathetic to English curriculum developers who have to give students some books to read and have some criteria by which they can make sure students have read and understood it.
One of my mantras as a reader is that I no longer am in school and no one is going to make me write a paper or discuss overriding themes. I can read the way I like and enjoy what I like and if I missed all the mustard seed references than it doesn't matter to me.
I could go into a side discussion on how literature is taught but I'm sympathetic to English curriculum developers who have to give students some books to read and have some criteria by which they can make sure students have read and understood it.
While you don't need to study history, you should definitely read the Wikipedia article on Napoleon's invasion of Russia before starting War and Peace. Not even from an intellectual standpoint, but to just so you're not taken out of the book every other sentence by another reference to a figure or event.
Almost every book has interesting reference that the reader can choose to follow up on. I'm reading a mystery set in the 30s and took a happy diversion into colonial British officers.
I'm a science fiction fan and I like to approach books as though they were set in Jupiter in the far future. One of my beliefs is that great literature transcends the time and place of where it was written. I haven't been disappointed yet.
I'm a science fiction fan and I like to approach books as though they were set in Jupiter in the far future. One of my beliefs is that great literature transcends the time and place of where it was written. I haven't been disappointed yet.
I'd chalk up some of that to bad/archaic translations. An overwrought translation can easily transform a page-turner into a slog.
It's always worth researching translations to make sure you find the best, most readable one before embarking on a non-English classic.
It's always worth researching translations to make sure you find the best, most readable one before embarking on a non-English classic.
Anna Karenina was an Oprah book club selection. War and Peace occasionally pops up on bestseller lists.
Dostoyevsky could be read by any random Joe, but the fact is, random Joe does not read Dostoyevsky.
> Dostoyevsky's works are amazing without any background knowledge.
Surely, it's a matter of taste :-) I've read Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov, Demons, and The Idiot without particular enjoyment. I would take Tolstoy any day.
Surely, it's a matter of taste :-) I've read Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov, Demons, and The Idiot without particular enjoyment. I would take Tolstoy any day.
YMMV :) Moby Dick didn't do anything for me despite people telling me it's their favorite book. Even stripped of the diversions into the history of whaling I felt like it just went on and on.
>With a few tweaks they could be set in a modern era and turned into Netflex series.
And Anna Karenina was in production too...
And Anna Karenina was in production too...
So... not knowing the subject Anna Karenina, I once put the audio book on while in the car the morning after spending the night with a Russian ex who was married, while driving along a train track with a train on it. She asked if I was encouraging her to kill us both.
On the one hand, I sympathize with your sentiment. However, I feel it can be overstated. Applying your reasoning, we might conclude that formulating and publishing an argument of any kind at all is futile because, as your logic states, "the people who already think this, don't need it. And the people who oppose it, aren't listening." I think this is a simplistic way of looking at it. On all issues, there are people at the margins (or perhaps, in the "center"). Perhaps they have some visceral feeling that they ought to look at Russian literature, at this moment, with some disdain. Or they feel some vague sense of shame in indulging in or enjoying Russian literature. As an audience, people like this are quite able to be convinced that their feelings are misplaced and this post lays out exactly why.
Thanks for saying this, I tried writing the same but more briefly in a sibling comment, and... it wasn't well received. I suppose my wording seemed curt.
[deleted]
pablok2(1)
So you think trying to educate people or sway their opinions should never be attempted?
Freedom fries went back to french fries. I wouldn't worry too much about Russian culture disappearing in the long run.
A lot of the German-language families and culture in America pre-WWI didn't go back. "Freedom Fries" was more of a temper-tantrum to make a point.
I look forward to "Freedom Dressing"
As someone who's read Anna Karenina three times and yet despises anyone in Russia who puts up a Z, or who idolizes Stalin.
The cleanest way out is to separate them. The work of art stands on its own, and you can't critique The Epic of Gilgamesh by complaining that they still had slaves back then and there was no health care system.
I haven't read Pushkin, not being into poetry OR speaking Russian, but if Pushkin said some evil things in "To the Slanderers of Russia", you just have to concentrate on the poetry he wrote that does speak to you. Apparently that's difficult but passing moral judgment is easy?
The cleanest way out is to separate them. The work of art stands on its own, and you can't critique The Epic of Gilgamesh by complaining that they still had slaves back then and there was no health care system.
I haven't read Pushkin, not being into poetry OR speaking Russian, but if Pushkin said some evil things in "To the Slanderers of Russia", you just have to concentrate on the poetry he wrote that does speak to you. Apparently that's difficult but passing moral judgment is easy?
I dont think great litterature can be neatly compartmentalized like that.
See, this is a really interesting point there: do we separate the speaker and the speech, or do we lump them together?
I.e., if a Hitler (you saw that coming) says something demonstrably true, while a Pope (yep) says something demonstrably false — who do we agree with? Working out an answer to this question in a clear form has repercussions for the cancel culture, institutions created by slave owners, etc, etc, etc. It isn't new either. People struggled with the oeuvre of writers who supported Nazism way back when: do we read them or do we forget them? Knut Hamsun comes to mind. Rolf Nevanlinna would be a similar example in mathematics.
I.e., if a Hitler (you saw that coming) says something demonstrably true, while a Pope (yep) says something demonstrably false — who do we agree with? Working out an answer to this question in a clear form has repercussions for the cancel culture, institutions created by slave owners, etc, etc, etc. It isn't new either. People struggled with the oeuvre of writers who supported Nazism way back when: do we read them or do we forget them? Knut Hamsun comes to mind. Rolf Nevanlinna would be a similar example in mathematics.
Heidegger was a big one
A Ukrainian here - couldn't disagree more with the author. Take a beloved in the West author like Solzhenitsyn, whose "compassion" suddenly evaporates when Ukrainian question is raised. Even a modern sci-fi author Sergei Lukyanenko does not shy away from racial jokes against Ukrainians or Lithuanians in his Dozor books.
Ukraine is a pawn at the world stage, but if the West is serious about battling russia (for its own sake really), cultural front has to be among top priorities.
Ukraine is a pawn at the world stage, but if the West is serious about battling russia (for its own sake really), cultural front has to be among top priorities.
> Take a beloved in the West author like Solzhenitsyn, whose "compassion" suddenly evaporates when Ukrainian question is raised.
Solzhenitsin is one of the best literary chroniclers of repressions in the Soviet Russia (One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, The Gulag Archipelago, In the First Circle), with the degree of earnestness and realism that approaches Tolstoy's. How does his compassion to Ukranians, or lack thereof, change that? Why do people want writers of fiction to be impeccable moral leaders?
Solzhenitsin is one of the best literary chroniclers of repressions in the Soviet Russia (One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, The Gulag Archipelago, In the First Circle), with the degree of earnestness and realism that approaches Tolstoy's. How does his compassion to Ukranians, or lack thereof, change that? Why do people want writers of fiction to be impeccable moral leaders?
Solzhenitsin was also a right wing Russian nationalist who was absolutely part of the problem. That "realism that approaches Tolstoy's" you mentioned is actually mostly folklore and vastly exaggerated for propaganda purposes (see https://www.nytimes.com/1974/02/06/archives/solzhenitsyns-ex...).
> Solzhenitsyn's Greater Russian, Orthodox-driven nationalism, Elder notes, "once made him appear sorely out of touch, but today has become increasingly fashionable." Although he is best known for his exposure of the Soviet Gulag system and his staunch anti-communism, Solzhenitsyn welcomed Putin's rise to power in 1999 and praised him for restoring Russia's national pride. In 2007, Putin visited the ailing Solzhenitsyn at home to award him a state prize for his humanitarian work. In "Rebuilding Russia," published in the dying days of the U.S.S.R., Solzhenitsyn criticized the Soviet government's haphazard border policies that he said carved up traditional "Rus." He advocated a "Russian Union" encompassing Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, and the ethnic Russian parts of Kazakhstan.
From here: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/ho...
> Solzhenitsyn's Greater Russian, Orthodox-driven nationalism, Elder notes, "once made him appear sorely out of touch, but today has become increasingly fashionable." Although he is best known for his exposure of the Soviet Gulag system and his staunch anti-communism, Solzhenitsyn welcomed Putin's rise to power in 1999 and praised him for restoring Russia's national pride. In 2007, Putin visited the ailing Solzhenitsyn at home to award him a state prize for his humanitarian work. In "Rebuilding Russia," published in the dying days of the U.S.S.R., Solzhenitsyn criticized the Soviet government's haphazard border policies that he said carved up traditional "Rus." He advocated a "Russian Union" encompassing Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, and the ethnic Russian parts of Kazakhstan.
From here: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/ho...
> That "realism that approaches Tolstoy's" you mentioned is actually mostly folklore and vastly exaggerated for propaganda purposes
I can only vouch for the realism of his description of a hospital in his Cancer Ward (published in 1966), and for a scene of phonetic spectral speech analysis in In the First Circle (1968). Both unusually lifelike and showing first-hand experience.
I can only vouch for the realism of his description of a hospital in his Cancer Ward (published in 1966), and for a scene of phonetic spectral speech analysis in In the First Circle (1968). Both unusually lifelike and showing first-hand experience.
ROTMetro(1)
> How does his compassion to Ukranians, or lack thereof, change that?
Surely you can understand why it matters to Ukrainians?
Surely you can understand why it matters to Ukrainians?
I don't think I can, not really — it's like throwing away the whole corpus of Kipling's works for his imperialist verses, cancelling J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter because of her feminist tweets, or calling to boycott Noam Chomsky's linguistic works because of his political statements — but I can pretend that I do :-) However, I don't think the commenters in this thread are all Ukrainians.
I mean when the Russian president makes a televised speech before the invasion saying that he is going to “find the solution to the Ukrainian question” another author and another book seems a more appropriate comparison…
Maybe, and if that other book was interesting, I wouldn't mind reading it; but from what I heard, it's neither entertaining nor deep. From what I understand, its author was a better painter than writer.
I think the point OP was trying to make was that due to A.S. demonstrated disdain for the Ukrainians his books deserve a boycot.
Cant disagree more. To understand modern day Russia one needs to have read Solzchenitsyn's books. The country today is a product of decades of strong negative selection favouring the immoral and strongly discouraging moral acts. Those who live in Moscow and make up the modern Russia are the descendants of those who successfully navigated the communist opressions. The westerners should read the books to understand what that meant. There would be far less surprises at the deeply immoral acts of russian govt had the likes of Merkel bothered to read and reflect. Boycotting such books would do Russia a favor.
Cant disagree more. To understand modern day Russia one needs to have read Solzchenitsyn's books. The country today is a product of decades of strong negative selection favouring the immoral and strongly discouraging moral acts. Those who live in Moscow and make up the modern Russia are the descendants of those who successfully navigated the communist opressions. The westerners should read the books to understand what that meant. There would be far less surprises at the deeply immoral acts of russian govt had the likes of Merkel bothered to read and reflect. Boycotting such books would do Russia a favor.
> Cant disagree more.
Me too :-) I don't accept anyone's authority to tell me what I should or shouldn't read (watch, listen to, etc.); and I wonder at anyone who would.
However, I couldn't help noticing that the vocabulary of your comment ("negative selection", "descendants") was rather biological. As I am sure you know, it isn't just the Moscovites who have navigated their way through the communist times, but the populations of the former Soviet republics as well. I also think I won't be too far off the mark if I say that superficial social adaptations or morality aren't hereditary, and people are very malleable creatures.
Me too :-) I don't accept anyone's authority to tell me what I should or shouldn't read (watch, listen to, etc.); and I wonder at anyone who would.
However, I couldn't help noticing that the vocabulary of your comment ("negative selection", "descendants") was rather biological. As I am sure you know, it isn't just the Moscovites who have navigated their way through the communist times, but the populations of the former Soviet republics as well. I also think I won't be too far off the mark if I say that superficial social adaptations or morality aren't hereditary, and people are very malleable creatures.
As per the pawn thing, welcome to the club. I’m writing from neighboring Romania, we lost some part of our territory to you guys when we were the pawns and you were part of an imperial entity that was doing its thing, I’m talking about the USSR, of course.
It sucks, but you have to manage expectations, i.e. that barring some unexpected event the smaller political entity will always have a lot more to lose in a battle against an imperial-like entity. Again, we, Romanians, had to learn that the hard way ever since the 1400s, when the Ottomans came around this part of the world.
It sucks, but you have to manage expectations, i.e. that barring some unexpected event the smaller political entity will always have a lot more to lose in a battle against an imperial-like entity. Again, we, Romanians, had to learn that the hard way ever since the 1400s, when the Ottomans came around this part of the world.
As a fellow Ukrainian: "Ukrainian question" is a colonial narrative term that deprives Ukraine of subjectivity, it should not be reinforced
Yeah, it’s identical to the “Jewish question”. I argue that whoever has any “question” like this at all should be stopped by all means.
If ordinary Russians look out at the world and perceive that they and their culture are despised and hated, they'll rally around their xenophobic leader.
If Russians look out at the world and see a consensus that their leader has impoverished their nation for his personal benefit, they'll be more likely to question his motives.
Ukraine's best shot at winning the war is for Putin to lose the support of Russian soldiers. That should be one of the top priorities, and it will be better accomplished by driving a wedge between Putin and the Russian people than by driving them together. (Though delivering more HIMARS is an even higher priority.)
If Russians look out at the world and see a consensus that their leader has impoverished their nation for his personal benefit, they'll be more likely to question his motives.
Ukraine's best shot at winning the war is for Putin to lose the support of Russian soldiers. That should be one of the top priorities, and it will be better accomplished by driving a wedge between Putin and the Russian people than by driving them together. (Though delivering more HIMARS is an even higher priority.)
I guess culture shouldn't be canceled so people can figure out how things actually work. The only thing that will make the populace question Putin is if he looses the war.
The "cultural front" terrifies me. I hope war is not waged on that front.
Uhm... It always has been. One could even say it's the only reason wars end up happening, as a lack of cultural conflict creates a much easier road for diplomacy.
I'm baffled how this seems only to apply to the Ukraine this one time. Any meaningful discussion is labeled "whataboutism" and dismissed.
You will surely agree with me that Russia is not the world's pioneer in wars of aggression. What about (oh no, whataboutism! We can safely dismiss the argument without thinking now) all the other countries that did, and do the same? Should we also dismiss their cultural output?
I'm not trying to diminish the seriousness of Russia's aggression, or how much Ukrainians are suffering. That is not the point. I want to know why you think we should dismiss Dostoevsky but not Shakespeare (to be clear, Shakespeare is just an example. I am not talking specifically about the UK). Basically every great artist and intellectual was part of a war-waging genocidal empire, and many of them pro-regime in varying degrees (Dostoevsky being a good example of the "varying"). Appreciating these people doesn't mean supporting the empires.
You will surely agree with me that Russia is not the world's pioneer in wars of aggression. What about (oh no, whataboutism! We can safely dismiss the argument without thinking now) all the other countries that did, and do the same? Should we also dismiss their cultural output?
I'm not trying to diminish the seriousness of Russia's aggression, or how much Ukrainians are suffering. That is not the point. I want to know why you think we should dismiss Dostoevsky but not Shakespeare (to be clear, Shakespeare is just an example. I am not talking specifically about the UK). Basically every great artist and intellectual was part of a war-waging genocidal empire, and many of them pro-regime in varying degrees (Dostoevsky being a good example of the "varying"). Appreciating these people doesn't mean supporting the empires.
> That is not the point. I want to know why you think we should dismiss Dostoevsky but not Shakespeare. Basically every great artist and intellectual was part of a war-waging genocidal empire, and many of them pro-regime in varying degrees (Dostoevsky being a good example of the "varying").
I’m not on the “boycott dead Russians” train but the difference is timeliness. Russia is today engaged in a colonial war of aggression. England was last involved in such a thing in the last century.
I’m not on the “boycott dead Russians” train but the difference is timeliness. Russia is today engaged in a colonial war of aggression. England was last involved in such a thing in the last century.
Is Russia-Ukraine the only military conflict going on in the world?
>The conflict began on 2 April, when Argentina invaded and occupied the Falkland Islands, followed by the invasion of South Georgia the next day.
I stand...correct?
I stand...correct?
fwiw - I counted the last century starting from today and backwards
This is not a meaningful discussion.
There's an agression going on right now perpetrated by Russia. Talking about UK agression is just not relevant. It's an odd distraction.
There are other conflicts going on in the world besides the Russian-Ukrainian war. We do not usually avoid/cancel authors from any of the nations or cultures involved. Well, I suppose writings by ISIS authors are not in any bestsellers list...
Don't be disingenuous. I'm not talking specifically about the UK. I made that clear in the original post, but just to avoid further tangentials like this I made an edit so it is triple clear now.
It is so tiring when people nitpick one specific word to "refute" you so that the rest of what you said is automatically invalidated.
It is so tiring when people nitpick one specific word to "refute" you so that the rest of what you said is automatically invalidated.
FYI, it's not "the Ukraine", it's "Ukraine".
It really comes down to race, but most will never openly admit it. Let's face it, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a white people war.
The 11 million muslims killed (and many more displaced) by the collective west (NATO) since 1990 don't count, because they're brown.
But when a non-western majority white country wages war, as George Carlin famously said "That's Our F*ck!ng Job":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qyG6cmTHco
The 11 million muslims killed (and many more displaced) by the collective west (NATO) since 1990 don't count, because they're brown.
But when a non-western majority white country wages war, as George Carlin famously said "That's Our F*ck!ng Job":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qyG6cmTHco
No, it's about culture and proximity. There is a huge hunger problem in America. I give to my local food bank. It's not because I'm pro my state and anti all the others.
We are talking about Russian literature because it is part of our culture, unlike Afghani literature.
Attempts at weaponizing compassion are disgusting.
We are talking about Russian literature because it is part of our culture, unlike Afghani literature.
Attempts at weaponizing compassion are disgusting.
Exactly. This is the absolute core of the issue.
"On France’s BFM TV, journalist Phillipe Corbé stated this about Ukraine: “We’re not talking here about Syrians fleeing the bombing of the Syrian regime backed by Putin. We’re talking about Europeans leaving in cars that look like ours to save their lives."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/02/civili...
"On France’s BFM TV, journalist Phillipe Corbé stated this about Ukraine: “We’re not talking here about Syrians fleeing the bombing of the Syrian regime backed by Putin. We’re talking about Europeans leaving in cars that look like ours to save their lives."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/02/civili...
So proximity and culture. I instantly place myself and my family in those cars fleeing Ukraine, I relate easier because it's familiar. My human empathy and compassion is not evil, and your attempts to weaponize it are gross and deny human nature and realities of the human experience.
I also watch more movies in English in settings I am familiar with or better know the context of (Western history versus eastern).
I also wear clothes I am culturally comfortable with. Am I racist for not giving all clothes equal wearing?
Because I had a diversity of ethnic foods around, I am comfortable and enjoy eating them. My family from the midwest who had no exposure mostly don't relate to them. I am not less racist, nor are they more, it's just a proximity and culture thing.
I am very fond of Greek and Roman history, yet have no Greek or Roman ancestry, because I am much more familiar with greek and roman history and culture than say Persian. It's not race, it's proximity and culture. Not that I wouldn't love more Parthian Empire stories.
I also watch more movies in English in settings I am familiar with or better know the context of (Western history versus eastern).
I also wear clothes I am culturally comfortable with. Am I racist for not giving all clothes equal wearing?
Because I had a diversity of ethnic foods around, I am comfortable and enjoy eating them. My family from the midwest who had no exposure mostly don't relate to them. I am not less racist, nor are they more, it's just a proximity and culture thing.
I am very fond of Greek and Roman history, yet have no Greek or Roman ancestry, because I am much more familiar with greek and roman history and culture than say Persian. It's not race, it's proximity and culture. Not that I wouldn't love more Parthian Empire stories.
This is wrong in so many levels.
What does eating Thai food have to do with anything? I sense you tried to make an analogy, but it's so obtuse I honestly can't imagine what you were thinking.
Are you honestly saying that empathy is dependent on culture or nationality? That is some pre-enlightenment thinking right there. I thought we civilized westerners had evolved towards universal empathy, all humankind is equal and all that.
You conspicuously left out one thing. It's a biggie. Proximity and culture and RACE.
I recommend you read the article I linked. If you're okay with the statements such as "they are not like the [savage middle easterners], they are blue-eyed like us", then it is an honor to be antagonized by you. I would be disgusted to have someone who thinks that agree with me.
What does eating Thai food have to do with anything? I sense you tried to make an analogy, but it's so obtuse I honestly can't imagine what you were thinking.
Are you honestly saying that empathy is dependent on culture or nationality? That is some pre-enlightenment thinking right there. I thought we civilized westerners had evolved towards universal empathy, all humankind is equal and all that.
You conspicuously left out one thing. It's a biggie. Proximity and culture and RACE.
I recommend you read the article I linked. If you're okay with the statements such as "they are not like the [savage middle easterners], they are blue-eyed like us", then it is an honor to be antagonized by you. I would be disgusted to have someone who thinks that agree with me.
I notice you don't mention conflicts in Ethiopia, Eritrea, or Sudan that have accumulated 300,000–500,000 fatalities. I notice you don't mention the ongoing conflict in Myanmar. I can only assume it's because of racism against black Africans and Asians.
It's clear to me lbrito is mentioning them tacitly, as part of those horrifying conflicts that don't cause outrage in the West because "they are not like us". You are making lbrito's point, really.
zmgsabst(1)
Right, blame Gogol:
“We all come out from Gogol's 'Overcoat'.”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/513055-we-all-come-out-from...
“We all come out from Gogol's 'Overcoat'.”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/513055-we-all-come-out-from...
Gogol is an interesting one though.
There being no Ukrainian state at the time, he was appropriated by the Russian literature as a quintessential Russian writer, but his sympathetic sentiment towards the Cossack tradition is well-known (and obvious in his texts), and one can make a good argument that in his early stuff he is more subversive about the entire Russian empire thing than a naive reader may think. (Ok, his late stuff is also subtle, but in a different way.) One has to realize that in an empire, with official censorship etc, one cannot be openly anti-czarist.
Here is a nice paper highlighting some of the subtleties in Taras Bulba: https://cius-archives.ca/items/show/1514
There being no Ukrainian state at the time, he was appropriated by the Russian literature as a quintessential Russian writer, but his sympathetic sentiment towards the Cossack tradition is well-known (and obvious in his texts), and one can make a good argument that in his early stuff he is more subversive about the entire Russian empire thing than a naive reader may think. (Ok, his late stuff is also subtle, but in a different way.) One has to realize that in an empire, with official censorship etc, one cannot be openly anti-czarist.
Here is a nice paper highlighting some of the subtleties in Taras Bulba: https://cius-archives.ca/items/show/1514
Thank you for sharing this paper, will be great evening reading!
Feels like an odd choice to imply that Gogol was subtle in any way about being subversive and unsympathetic to the state.
I haven't read that many of his works, but the two that almost any Russian adult would know about are "The Government Inspector" and "Dead Souls". Both of which are almost 100% about satirizing government corruption and awful local politicking in the most grotesque ways possible. The intent and overall theme of those stories was as obvious as it can get, though both pack plenty of great less obvious nuance as well.
Not disagreeing with you overall though, Gogol had so many massively impactful works, it is hard to neatly pack his work as "here are his 2-3 monumental pieces everyone knows", he has way too many of those. "Taras Bulba", as you've mentioned, is extremely different from the two i listed above, but there are just as many people who know Gogol exclusively for that. And that can be said about half of his works imo. Then "Viy"? That one was a whole different genre completely (supernatural horror with some subtle themes under), and there is a whole swath of people who would know him just for that as well.
I haven't read that many of his works, but the two that almost any Russian adult would know about are "The Government Inspector" and "Dead Souls". Both of which are almost 100% about satirizing government corruption and awful local politicking in the most grotesque ways possible. The intent and overall theme of those stories was as obvious as it can get, though both pack plenty of great less obvious nuance as well.
Not disagreeing with you overall though, Gogol had so many massively impactful works, it is hard to neatly pack his work as "here are his 2-3 monumental pieces everyone knows", he has way too many of those. "Taras Bulba", as you've mentioned, is extremely different from the two i listed above, but there are just as many people who know Gogol exclusively for that. And that can be said about half of his works imo. Then "Viy"? That one was a whole different genre completely (supernatural horror with some subtle themes under), and there is a whole swath of people who would know him just for that as well.
Gogol was Ukrainian though. Lots of references to Ukrainian culture in his early writings as well.
But in "Dead Souls" and elsewhere he never referred to himself as a Ukrainian. He called himself, proudly, Russian, through and through.
And 1000 years ago Rus was an empire centred on its capital, Kyiv. Ukrainians used to be called Rusyn or Ruthenian. There was a Rus empire encompassing Ukraine, Belarus and western Russia before Moscow even existed.
Ukraine as a country is a relatively modern construct. Born out of centuries of oppression at the hands of Muscovites. That doesn't mean that Ukrainians didn't exist just because they were called something else in the past.
Anyhow, tons of Gogol's writings reference Ukrainian culture. He was born in a cossack town. Which also happened to be part of the Russian Empire, before the idea of Ukrainian independence became widespread.
Might as well say Italians didn't exist before modern Italy, or deny the Germans' history and existence just because Germany is a relatively modern state.
Ukraine as a country is a relatively modern construct. Born out of centuries of oppression at the hands of Muscovites. That doesn't mean that Ukrainians didn't exist just because they were called something else in the past.
Anyhow, tons of Gogol's writings reference Ukrainian culture. He was born in a cossack town. Which also happened to be part of the Russian Empire, before the idea of Ukrainian independence became widespread.
Might as well say Italians didn't exist before modern Italy, or deny the Germans' history and existence just because Germany is a relatively modern state.
My comment did not deny Ukrainians ANYTHING.
Also, your claim of oppression needs to be cited or else it's hot air.
Again, I didn't say Ukrainians didn't exist: they were called Russians the same way Bavarians are called German now.
finally, once again, I didn't say Gogol didn't reference Ukrainian culture: he did, but he never called it a "Ukrainian" culture. In his writings, he always said: "My Russia". It is the same as saying a Texan says he is American. Does that mean we are denying Texas their Texan culture and dialect?
And for reference, Germany has always been called that--Germania.
Also, your claim of oppression needs to be cited or else it's hot air.
Again, I didn't say Ukrainians didn't exist: they were called Russians the same way Bavarians are called German now.
finally, once again, I didn't say Gogol didn't reference Ukrainian culture: he did, but he never called it a "Ukrainian" culture. In his writings, he always said: "My Russia". It is the same as saying a Texan says he is American. Does that mean we are denying Texas their Texan culture and dialect?
And for reference, Germany has always been called that--Germania.
[deleted]
[deleted]
If you're interested in some constructive arguments why this article is wrong, please see a thread:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1516162437455654913.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1516162437455654913.html
I’m quite certain a very similar article could be written about, say, UK and Ireland with quotes from famous authors. It’s not that the English lack an imperialist past and feelings of superiority.
If UK will take weapons and go on a killing spree to “restore the great empire”, I’m gonna boycott them just as much.
The UK has plenty of great authors, I'll make sure to keep reading them even if the UK decided to go on a genocidal rampage. That's because I understand that not all British people are the same, and especially not the same at all times, and also know that literature has ties to the present, but it doesn't necessarily cause the present. In fact, many times the leaders who decide to go to war deride the classics, or would have imprisoned/executed them had they lived during the same time.
The point is that you can write a very similar article about a country that doesn’t invade its neighbours, which means that it just doesn’t prove anything.
Be just in your quest for justice. If the UK goes on a killing spree to restore the empire, that has zero to do with Shakespeare or Milton. Don't blame the centuries-dead guys for the current generation's going genocidal.
Sure, there may be plenty to boycott. Boycott anyone who supports the genocidal regime. The dead ones didn't get a say, though.
Sure, there may be plenty to boycott. Boycott anyone who supports the genocidal regime. The dead ones didn't get a say, though.
I love Galeev threads - but he is sometimes a bit slopy. In this tread the quote
"Submit, Cherkes! Both West and East,
May soon share your fate,
When the time comes, you'll say arrogantly:
Yes, I'm a slave but a slave of the Tsar of the World!"
I nod along with a lot of the things he says, but only because I’m already deeply familiar with them. I think for someone less familiar it’s easy to get an illusion of learning, as he frequently exaggerates to make a point and makes some basic mistakes here and there.
So, the arguments are:
1. Pushkin supported the Russian unitary empire and subjugation of Ukraine.
2. Pushkin was instrumental in the development of the modern Russian language and is thus seen as symbolising the forced linguistic homogenisation imposed on Ukrainians.
The first argument has some explaining power as to why Ukrainians wouldn't want to have a Pushkin memorial.
The second argument is presented with a helping of founding myth: Russians are a homogeneous blob of NPCs, Ukrainians are autonomous and diverse individuals. This is a weak argument.
For a thread that rails about conflating history with modern reality, it strangely sidesteps contemporary linguistic politics. The modern Russian state has federal divisions specifically for non-Russian ethnic groups called republics which are distinct from oblasts i.e. provinces. And these republics established official languages of their own as expressly allowed by the Russian constitution. Ukraine on the other hand clamped down on the use of Russian and Hungarian. Ukrainian is a co-official language in Russian occupied Crimea but Russian has no official status anywhere in Ukraine.
And considering how unnecessarily long-winded the thread is, I wouldn't say it was particularly constructive.
1. Pushkin supported the Russian unitary empire and subjugation of Ukraine.
2. Pushkin was instrumental in the development of the modern Russian language and is thus seen as symbolising the forced linguistic homogenisation imposed on Ukrainians.
The first argument has some explaining power as to why Ukrainians wouldn't want to have a Pushkin memorial.
The second argument is presented with a helping of founding myth: Russians are a homogeneous blob of NPCs, Ukrainians are autonomous and diverse individuals. This is a weak argument.
For a thread that rails about conflating history with modern reality, it strangely sidesteps contemporary linguistic politics. The modern Russian state has federal divisions specifically for non-Russian ethnic groups called republics which are distinct from oblasts i.e. provinces. And these republics established official languages of their own as expressly allowed by the Russian constitution. Ukraine on the other hand clamped down on the use of Russian and Hungarian. Ukrainian is a co-official language in Russian occupied Crimea but Russian has no official status anywhere in Ukraine.
And considering how unnecessarily long-winded the thread is, I wouldn't say it was particularly constructive.
Why do you ignore that the one Federation that didn't teach Russian in schools was forced to change their policy? Russia can have all the written rules they want, they follow them the same way they followed their statements during February that 'they had no intention to invade Ukraine', or agree to allow Ukraine shipment of grain then bomb the ports to ensure no ships will risk docking there, or their law making non-defensive wars illegal (hence this is not a war to them).
China has freedom of speech and democracy guaranteed by their constitution, would you defend China's open press and elections next as quickly as you are defending Russia's hollow laws? (not anti-Russians here, my grandfather was Russian, but definitely anti-Russia today).
China has freedom of speech and democracy guaranteed by their constitution, would you defend China's open press and elections next as quickly as you are defending Russia's hollow laws? (not anti-Russians here, my grandfather was Russian, but definitely anti-Russia today).
> Why do you ignore that the one Federation that didn't teach Russian in schools was forced to change their policy?
What federation? I have no idea what you're talking about. I made a specific claim about the status of minority languages in Russia and Ukraine. Do you have any evidence to show that it is inaccurate?
> Russia can have all the written rules they want
What exactly are you implying in this specific instance? That minority languages aren't actually used? The state broadcaster runs services in a dozen or so minority languages.
What federation? I have no idea what you're talking about. I made a specific claim about the status of minority languages in Russia and Ukraine. Do you have any evidence to show that it is inaccurate?
> Russia can have all the written rules they want
What exactly are you implying in this specific instance? That minority languages aren't actually used? The state broadcaster runs services in a dozen or so minority languages.
1. There was one republic that did not include Russian as the primary language for education, and they were forced to change that. I will try to dig up something on it, I didn't bookmark such a random thing.
2. They are free to have official languages, as long as they include Russian. They are not free to exclude Russian.
Ukraine did not clamp down on Russian prior to Russia annexing 10% of Ukraine in 2014.
2. They are free to have official languages, as long as they include Russian. They are not free to exclude Russian.
Ukraine did not clamp down on Russian prior to Russia annexing 10% of Ukraine in 2014.
> They are free to have official languages, as long as they include Russian. They are not free to exclude Russian.
This is the most proper thing to implement in all national republics that form a larger federation. This policy makes sure that younger generations are not deprived of economic and cultural opportunities due to language barriers.
> Ukraine did not clamp down on Russian prior to Russia annexing 10% of Ukraine in 2014.
If the Ukrainian government feels like to clamp down on Russian due to their own uncivilized messing with the right to representation of East Ukrainians (mostly russian-speaking) via the violent coup against a democratically elected president that didn’t break a law, then it tells a lot about their self-awareness and general ability to reflect on the matter. Have they ever studied how civil wars get started?
This is the most proper thing to implement in all national republics that form a larger federation. This policy makes sure that younger generations are not deprived of economic and cultural opportunities due to language barriers.
> Ukraine did not clamp down on Russian prior to Russia annexing 10% of Ukraine in 2014.
If the Ukrainian government feels like to clamp down on Russian due to their own uncivilized messing with the right to representation of East Ukrainians (mostly russian-speaking) via the violent coup against a democratically elected president that didn’t break a law, then it tells a lot about their self-awareness and general ability to reflect on the matter. Have they ever studied how civil wars get started?
He is right and wrong.
This part is most definitely true: "The Russian system of political power has remained unchanged and unchanging down the centuries—a pyramid of slaves worshipping the supreme khan. That’s how it was during the Golden Horde, that’s how it was in Stalin’s time, that’s how it is today under Vladimir Putin."
This is why 90s and russian democracy failed so utterly, why it will fail completely in the future. There is no nice way out. People love the tsar that wins, it does not matter if he murders, tortures, rapes. He is tsar and above it all, boyars might be held responsible.. but tsar has one measure, winning. Narod will love him as long as he is strong.
"Slaves give birth to a dictatorship and a dictatorship gives birth to slaves. There is only one way out of this vicious circle, and that is through culture."
This is a delusion, there is only one way out and that is the fall of the empire. As Golden Horde died so must its successor state. Culture has not saved Russia in the last 2 centuries, it won't save it now.
This part is most definitely true: "The Russian system of political power has remained unchanged and unchanging down the centuries—a pyramid of slaves worshipping the supreme khan. That’s how it was during the Golden Horde, that’s how it was in Stalin’s time, that’s how it is today under Vladimir Putin."
This is why 90s and russian democracy failed so utterly, why it will fail completely in the future. There is no nice way out. People love the tsar that wins, it does not matter if he murders, tortures, rapes. He is tsar and above it all, boyars might be held responsible.. but tsar has one measure, winning. Narod will love him as long as he is strong.
"Slaves give birth to a dictatorship and a dictatorship gives birth to slaves. There is only one way out of this vicious circle, and that is through culture."
This is a delusion, there is only one way out and that is the fall of the empire. As Golden Horde died so must its successor state. Culture has not saved Russia in the last 2 centuries, it won't save it now.
What does "the fall of the empire" mean? The empire has already fallen several times.
crazy that the case even need be made. Says a lot about where we are, and - how quickly we got there
Do you consider it crazy to think authors can influence culture?
I consider it crazy that there is talk about banning literary classics
Who is talking about banning? The question discussed in the article is whether we may blame Russian authors.
It is possible to be critical towards the philosophy of some litterature without banning it.
It is possible to be critical towards the philosophy of some litterature without banning it.
indeed. It's also possible to seek wider context beyond the immediate and understand where some stories start
https://collegenews.org/italian-university-suspends-course-o...
https://collegenews.org/italian-university-suspends-course-o...
Joke's on the author, I've hated Dostoyevsky since high school, long before I heard of Putin.
Living in Eastern Europe, I have to say that I've always felt that there was something brutal and thuggish about both Russian and Ukrainian culture (they are more similar than Ukrainians want to admit). The article merely hints at this while talking of the "illiterate peasants" that create the foundational popular culture.
The Russian people's spectrum is incredibly wide though, and have also produced some of the deepest writers, musicians and filmmakers humanity has seen.
Admitting both of these truths at the same time is something people have a hard time doing, and that's the real issue here.
The Russian people's spectrum is incredibly wide though, and have also produced some of the deepest writers, musicians and filmmakers humanity has seen.
Admitting both of these truths at the same time is something people have a hard time doing, and that's the real issue here.
The greater the suffering of a people, the deeper the art they produce.
(This is not a justification for violence of course.)
Russia has been a nation of serfs for millennia now.
(This is not a justification for violence of course.)
Russia has been a nation of serfs for millennia now.
giraffe_lady(1)
Why be interested in art for serfs?
Serfs can still make art..
Not all art is equal. Just because someone suffers doesn’t mean they are talented. If that was the relationship, that would imply that Italian artists of the renaissance were tortured horribly every day.
This seems to be only a part of the reason. Tolstoy was born into wealth, and it might be that his simultaneous exposure to the highlight of European culture, combined with the harsh reality of the lives of his serfs produced his insights into human nature.
Many cultures have had genocides and countless atrocities without producing anything of similar value.
Many cultures have had genocides and countless atrocities without producing anything of similar value.
[deleted]
Well, I can live with not blaming Dostoyevsky. But when I read Pushkin's "To the Slanderers of Russia", or Brodsky's "On the Independence of Ukraine", I can't help noticing the same mindset of entitlement that perpetuates and fuels the present war.
It beats me how Brodsky, the same person who penned "Bosnia Tune", could have succumbed to that thinking.
It beats me how Brodsky, the same person who penned "Bosnia Tune", could have succumbed to that thinking.
Dostoyevsky was also a nationalist, right? He had a lot of bad things to say about Germans and Polish. I am comfortable just reading his work and taking what I appreciate from it and disregarding the dated or problematic parts. Would have no issue applying the same logic to Pushkin
This is a good point. Just like it should be ok to read Kipling for his literary merits, keeping in mind you don't have to agree with his politics.
Yep. Likewise for Solzhenitsyn who denied Ukraine and its language the right to existence in no uncertain terms. See e.g. the 1990 essay "How should we organize Russia": (link in Russian)
https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%BD%D0...
https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%BD%D0...
Solzhenitsyn also held antisemitic views. But the Western world is more or less in love with him because he was an anticommunist. Oh, well.
That's why cherry picking quotes to show how "imperialist" classic Russian writers were because we currently dislike Putin's Russia is so silly.
That's why cherry picking quotes to show how "imperialist" classic Russian writers were because we currently dislike Putin's Russia is so silly.
[deleted]
Russian intelligentsia ends where Ukraine begins. Always been the case
Those who terrorize Russian diaspora for the actions of their government have rocks for brains.
It has seeped into even major UK broadsheets like the Telegraph. They printed a sympathetic article on how uncomfortable it was for a steward to award a Russian tennis player the winning prize. Baffling. Usually these sentiments are decried in the strongest terms.
I think we seeing that many who decry racism didn’t mean it.
They just wanted a cudgel for power — they’re perfectly happy to engage in that behavior themselves, when it suits them.
They just wanted a cudgel for power — they’re perfectly happy to engage in that behavior themselves, when it suits them.
Yeah, the Russians who fled are not those who are fighting in Ukraine.
[deleted]
A good read for folks riding on the anti-all-things-Russia bandwagon right now or for people with a more nuanced view trying to understand where the Russian stereotypes, tropes and general bigotry originate from:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34237648-creating-russop...
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34237648-creating-russop...
This description just reads like Russian propaganda. Indeed, from the author's Wikipedia page:
"Mettan's journalistic credibility has been questioned on several occasions. In 2017, Reporters Without Borders criticised Mettan for his pro-Russian militancy and for serving as a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda. Florian Irminger, Secretary General of the Swiss Green Party, also called Mettan an apologist for Putin's government. Following Mettan's support for the Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory in a Die Weltwoche essay in 2022, Swiss magazine Republik referred to the article as a 'breathtaking compendium' of Russian propaganda."
From what I've seen, hand-wringing over "russophobia" is just another armament in Russia's information war.
"Mettan's journalistic credibility has been questioned on several occasions. In 2017, Reporters Without Borders criticised Mettan for his pro-Russian militancy and for serving as a mouthpiece for Russian propaganda. Florian Irminger, Secretary General of the Swiss Green Party, also called Mettan an apologist for Putin's government. Following Mettan's support for the Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory in a Die Weltwoche essay in 2022, Swiss magazine Republik referred to the article as a 'breathtaking compendium' of Russian propaganda."
From what I've seen, hand-wringing over "russophobia" is just another armament in Russia's information war.
That book might have been relevent in 2005 but throw it out the window now. All anti-Russian sentiment in the world is due to the fact Russia is literally engaging in genocide against Ukrainians, right now.
Are you suggesting that bigotry is now okay towards all Russians?
Why don't you read what I wrote instead of making up your own meaning?
Your link was about anti-Russian sentiment being tied to western propaganda when in reality, they're creating that sentiment through their own actions.
Your link was about anti-Russian sentiment being tied to western propaganda when in reality, they're creating that sentiment through their own actions.
Hostility against Russians as a group, and Russia as a nation-state, when this group is collectively aggressive? If you call that bigotry, then yes, definitely. As a nation, you cannot have self-determination and a free pass when you fuck up. You own your mistakes, just like all of Germany at the time own nazism even though not all of them were nazis.
Against specific Russian people, that would be counter-productive and unfair. A lot of them individually disapprove of their government and act in smaller or larger ways against it. I know personally a couple of them, and Inadmire them because they are doing their best in a terrible situation. Collectively, they still put Putin in power and let him come to that point.
It’s exactly the same thing in the US: a lot of Americans are great, but there is no escaping the fact that enough of them think that Trump was a good idea (and I have no doubt we will see worse in the near future).
Against specific Russian people, that would be counter-productive and unfair. A lot of them individually disapprove of their government and act in smaller or larger ways against it. I know personally a couple of them, and Inadmire them because they are doing their best in a terrible situation. Collectively, they still put Putin in power and let him come to that point.
It’s exactly the same thing in the US: a lot of Americans are great, but there is no escaping the fact that enough of them think that Trump was a good idea (and I have no doubt we will see worse in the near future).
[deleted]
As someone with a Russian grandfather, who read all the classics, who took his daughter to the traveling Russian ballet each year where she waited after the show to take the ballerinas flowers, and then was motivated to learn ballet herself, I have HUGE attachments to Russia and Russian culture. But just like my russian speaking Ukrainian friends who called themselves 'Russians from Ukraine' prior to this war but now are just Ukrainian, the war changed everything.
[deleted]
Cultural imperialism is part and parcel of Russian literature.
Brodsky derided the Ukrainian quest for independence 30 years ago just like Pushkin did the same for the Polish one 150 years before that.
This is perfectly rational for a writer concerned about his audience size: why should Poles or Ukrainians read inferior poetry in Polish or Ukrainian when a vastly superior poetry is available in Russian?!
Brodsky derided the Ukrainian quest for independence 30 years ago just like Pushkin did the same for the Polish one 150 years before that.
This is perfectly rational for a writer concerned about his audience size: why should Poles or Ukrainians read inferior poetry in Polish or Ukrainian when a vastly superior poetry is available in Russian?!
[deleted]
I only get a single quote here with no option to scroll down. I assume there's an article underneath?
Non-paywalled: http://archive.today/G6QlD
[deleted]
>I understand why people hate all things Russian right now.
Bigotry?
Bigotry?
Genocide?
Do people hate all things German, then?
Does Germany have a violent authoritarian government?
Did Germany commit genocide in the recent past?
Does the West condemn all authoritarian governments?
Does the West condemn all authoritarian governments?
Is it bigotry to hate the bigot?
vadiml(2)
I think it’s important to understand that russian culture has failed.
If it can’t guide a nation towards humanistic values, what is a culture’s point?
If it can’t guide a nation towards humanistic values, what is a culture’s point?
To survive? I don’t think cultures have points. They survive or die, and it’s a bit strange to use a specific cultural value as a measure of success of all other cultures.
The point of spammers or ransom ware authors is to survive as well. Doesn’t mean they are valuable.
If you say that russian culture is valuable, you must set the context why.
It doesn’t communicate anything particularly original. It’s not especially beautiful (arguably). It didn’t stop and some might argue even enabled the carriers of that culture to either tolerate a genocidal regime or actively support it. What’s the point of it then?
What’s the point of the moral dilemma in “Crime and punishment” for example, if their choice is always “let’s kill another old lady because we can”?
If you say that russian culture is valuable, you must set the context why.
It doesn’t communicate anything particularly original. It’s not especially beautiful (arguably). It didn’t stop and some might argue even enabled the carriers of that culture to either tolerate a genocidal regime or actively support it. What’s the point of it then?
What’s the point of the moral dilemma in “Crime and punishment” for example, if their choice is always “let’s kill another old lady because we can”?
You can certainly say that you don’t think Russian culture is valuable, or that you just don’t plain like it, and that is certainly understandable given the current circumstances. But that is something very different from saying that it has failed.
And you have clearly not read and understood Dostoyevsky if that is what you got out of Crime and Punishment. Maybe you shouldn’t be that fast to condemn a whole culture if your understanding of it is on the level your last paragraph reveals.
And you have clearly not read and understood Dostoyevsky if that is what you got out of Crime and Punishment. Maybe you shouldn’t be that fast to condemn a whole culture if your understanding of it is on the level your last paragraph reveals.
Of course I can say it failed given the context.
The usual way of framing it and especially russian classical literature in russian schools, like in my case, was that it is the moral guiding light of the nation. As such it has clearly failed.
Also, I'm confused by the notion that I have the obligation to you to interpret a work of art just like you to have an opinion on it.
The usual way of framing it and especially russian classical literature in russian schools, like in my case, was that it is the moral guiding light of the nation. As such it has clearly failed.
Also, I'm confused by the notion that I have the obligation to you to interpret a work of art just like you to have an opinion on it.
Ukraine's war on Russian culture isn't just about removing Russian culture, it's about emphasizing Ukrainian culture, which the Russian Empire and USSR both actively tried to suppress.
It's not anti-Pushkin as much as pro-Shevchenko...
Edit - also interesting that the author is Russian-Swiss, presumably living in Switzerland.
It's not anti-Pushkin as much as pro-Shevchenko...
Edit - also interesting that the author is Russian-Swiss, presumably living in Switzerland.
If you want to keep commenting on HN in the future, please review the site guidelines and make sure you're using this site as intended: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
We all know there's a war going on. That doesn't mean the rules here don't apply. It means we have to work harder to stick to them. If you don't want to do that, or feel too strongly to be able to, please don't post until you do and can.