From: kosinov@ceg.uiuc.edu (Greg Kosinovsky)
Subject: Re: Communism as a Russian guilt (racist conception)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:21:59 GMT

sergei@upenn5.hep.upenn.edu (Sergei Borodin) writes:

>In article <1992Dec17.224154.18651@husc3.harvard.edu> verbit@brauer.harvard.edu (Mikhail S. Verbitsky) writes:
>>In article <kosinov.724631372@ceg.uiuc.edu> kosinov@ceg.uiuc.edu (Greg Kosinovsky) writes:

>>>  The fact is that the ONLY none- or anti- Communist groups tolerated
>>>during the Brezhnev era were Russian nationalists. Witness the continuous
>>>publication of Nash Sovremennik throughout that time. It may not have been
>>>as virulent back then, but its ideological gist was as clear as it is now.
>>>  Now try to imagine reading a Jewish-nationalist, a pro-Western-democratic-
>>>dissident, or, for that matter Estonian-nationalist publication openly at that
>>>time, and you will understand how silly this overstatement is, and also
>>>how insulting it may be to those people who were prosecuted UNLIKE, rather
>>>then LESS than Russian nationalists.
>					      Greg.

>>I prefer to readdress the answering on this to some 
>>Russian patriot on the net (Sergei Borodin, au!),
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>  Sounds like you're swearing :-).  Anyway, the stupidity of the original
>  posting is so obvious that I desided to ignore it first time.  Respecting
>  your call I'd try to answer.  First of all, I witnessed `the continuous
>  publications of Nash Sovremennik'.  As I understand, Mr. Kosinovsky considers
>  "derevenschiki", who mainly were published by the magaszine at Brezhnev's
>  time,  as "Russian nationalists" -- how else would he call a writer, who
>  describes *Russian* but not "international" country life, and shows all
>  troubles *Russian* people have to overcome.  Of course Mr. Kosinovsky doesn't
>  like it. And it's obvious - why. Because other "problems" imposed by so called
>  "fighters for freedom of emigration" look faded, dont't they?
>  Now, despite publications of the magazine, which, in fact, have *nothing*
>  to do with "Russian nationalism" (at least at that time), Mr. Kosinovsky
>  doesn't offer any single fact of the tolerance of "Russian nationalists"
>  by Soviets.  
>  Phrase "try to imagine reading a Jewish-nationalist ..." is silly. As
>  Misha correctly pointed out, try to imagine reading REAL Russian nationalists.
>   Tried?           
>  Isn't it stupid to compare "nationalist"
>  Astafiev with a nationalist like Zhabotinsky. Can Mr. Kosinovsky imagine 
>  reading let's say Berdiaev, or better yet, Shulgin in ANY magazine at that time?
>
  I do consider "derevenschiky" to be Russian nationalists, both in the good
sence -- that they love Russian peasant, and in the bad -- that they seem to 
believe that the greatest threat to Russian peasant (and to Mother Russia as a 
whole) comes from Jews.
  It is, indeed, very silly to compare Astafiev and Zhabotinsky (it's an
insult to Zhabotinsky). However, Jewish nationalists I had in mind were people
like the great Jewish poet Bialik, who was not guilty of any Russophobia, and
yet not published, while anti-Semites like "derevenschiky" had no problems
whatsoever.
  What is Borodin's definition of a "REAL" Russian nationalist? Is it someone
who was banned in the xUSSR? What are the ones who weren't suppressed -- "FAKE"
Russian natonalists?
  I grew up in a culture that sang odes to the GREAT RUSSIA. Granted, the way it
was often presented was perverse. Chekhov, Tolstoi, and other great masters were
analyzed through the glasses of "Socialist Realism". And yet, contemporary, non-
ideological writings about Russia and Russians were also permitted and published.
Some of such writing came from decent and enlightened individuals, like Vasily 
Shukshin, and some of it was clearly xenophobic, like that of the "derevenschiky".
But the point is, that they were available to Russians (and non-Russians). 
  Can Mr. Borodin, or anybody else point out ANY contempory writings about Jewish
life that were published at that time? In fact, the only Jewish writers of ANY
time who were published in USSR at that time were Sholom Aleihem, who wrote 
about the pre- Revolutionary Jewish "shtetl", and German-Jewish Socialist Leon
Feicht-Wanger who wrote about the Jewish persecution by the "bad guys" -- from
Ferdinand and Isabella to Hitler.
  Now, Aleihem and Feicht-Wanger were great writers (especially the former), but
hardly the A-Z of Jewish literature.
  The suppression of Jewish culture was deliberate and nearly absolute. One of the
intended consequences of this suppression was symbolized by a 1979 article in
my hometown newspaper Vecherni Minsk by one of the "Official designated anti-
Semites" of the USSR, a fellow named Begun. His thesis was that Jews were such
low creatures, that through all their years of wandering on this earth they 
produced no significant art, and the only literature of consequence they 
contributed was that of Sholom Aleihem. The interesting thing is, of course, that
even the better read of the public could hardly argue with that -- what counter-
examples did they have available?

  No one denies that Russians, like other nationalities in the xUSSR, were
thoroughly raped by the commies. My original point was that while some 
cultures, such as the jewish one were thorougly suppressed, as were pro-democracy
dissidents, communists  left more of the Russian culture intact than that
of most others simply because of its size and pre-eminance, and, in fact,
encouraged, rather than suppressed, some of the more base aspects of Russian 
nationalism, and tried to channel them towards their cause ('Soyuz nerushimy 
respublic svobodnih sozdala naveky velikaya Rus ...'). At the present time we can
see the remanance of this policy in the fact that many of the most die-hard
commies (and their "black allies" -- the Zhirinovsky contingent) blame the
democrats for the loss of "Imperial Glory" more than for anything else.
						     
						     Greg.