The Fundamentals of Russian Racism
Here's an interesting quote from Sean's Russia blog:
I think the Kremlin deserves credit in its attempt to fuse the important place Russian (russkii) culture with its multinational (rossisskii) character. The problem is how this translates to the rest of the population. If the fissures the nationalists exposed in the National Unity Day celebrations are any indication, Russian (russkii) identity continues to present problems for Russian (rossisskii) identity.What if we were to change the first sentence a bit to read as follows:
I think the White House deserves credit in its attempt to fuse the important place White Anglo-Saxon Culture (WASP) with its multinational (American) character.It seems to La Russophobe that Sean would be unlikely ever to make such a statement. In fact, it seems to her that if George Bush went around talking this way (and he might, because what Sean wrote isn't a grammatical sentence), Sean would (quite properly) call him a racist. But Sean wouldn't be calling him a racist out a sense of scholarly accuracy; he'd be saying it because he hates George Bush and loses no opportunity to trash him. He feels more kindly to Vladimir Putin, so he's prepared to let him off the hook. In doing so, he makes a number of serious errors.
Sean seems to overlook the fact that his need to refer to the terms "russkii" and "rossisskii" is a an indication that Russian society -- indeed, langauge -- is fundamentally racist. His euphemism that the terms "continue to present problems" only helps to obscure the problem of racism, not solve it. In fact, it can only be called somewhat intellectually dishonest for Sean to refer to "russkii" without mentioning the fact that what this word really means is "Slavic," a racial term. In other words, most (all?) Slavic Russians consider any non-Slav to be a second-class citizen at best, usually more like an infestation. Indeed, there's no way of even translating this distinction into English so that an American could understand what Russians are doing. There is no word like "russkii" in English, no word that means "real American, because he's white and of a certain religion." The closest you could get would be something like "KKK member" -- words that have an overwhelmingly negative flavor to most white Americans, while most Slavs are deeply proud of the term "russkii." And a word like "African-American" isn't remotely like the world "rossisskii." African-American is a word that the minority group itself adopted as a banner of pride, and tries to get the white population to recognize. The term "rossisskii" is a term applied by the Slavs in Russia to the non-Slavs, without their permission.
2 comments:
UGLY:
If the point of your comment is to try to argue that Russia isn't fundamentally racist, I suggest you first sit down and have an actual conversation with a non-Slavic Orthodox person who lives in Russia first. Your ignorance is showing (even more than usual).
Slavic IS a race, "Russian" is a nationality. I think you need to make better use of a dictionary. Or maybe that wouldn't help, since you have no brain.
Please give me JUST ONE example of a published article from a Slav arguing that the citizenship of Slavs and non-Slavs in Russia is equal. If most Russians didn't think otherwise, there wouldn't be pogroms, now would there?
I KNOW that "rossisskii" is not self-identification, that what I SAID, you ignoramus. And the fact that this is so proves conclusively that the term is racist and not like "African-American."
We can't make a distinction because our language is not fundamentally racist. For the same reason, you can't translate the idea of "American," a word that has no connection to race, because all your ideas of citizenship are tied to race.
You know UGLY, strange to say, I actually expected better from you. You're willing to admit you're happy that Politkovskaya was killed and that you don't want Russia in the WTO, why can't you admit that Russia is fundmantally racist? Have we actually reached the point where you're at last ashamed of your country, or at least fear the wrath of all those billions of dark-skinned people?
UGLY:
Please at least try to keep your ignorance in check.
Why do you use the SECOND definition rather than the FIRST, which states: "A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics."
Why? Because you're a dishonest, propagandizing moron living in a dreamworld, imagining you can still fool the West with your Sovietspeak.
When I said "article" I meant A COLUMN IN A NEWSPAPER written by a Slav arguing that dark-skinned people are just as good and should be treated equally by Slavs. Dimwit.
Post a Comment