From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet
Subject: Re: Luna Park....
Date: 14 Oct 92 05:46:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct14.014628.16376
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <92879@netnews.upenn.edu> 
sergei@upenn5.hep.upenn.edu (Sergei Borodin) writes:

>In article <1992Oct13.194842.16357@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>>In article <92803@netnews.upenn.edu> 
>>sergei@upenn5.hep.upenn.edu (Sergei Borodin) writes:

>>>In article <1992Oct12.225039.16316@husc3.harvard.edu>
>>>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>>>You must be joking.  Against whom do you believe the Russian nationalism to
>>>>be aimed?  There are the prodigal brothers (Ukrainians, etc.), and then

SB:
>>>That's you who must be joking. Your logic goes to "if salvage Russia,
>>>than shoot Jews" (Raz spasaj Rossiju - to znachit bei zhidov").

MZ:
>>Note that it was the Russian nationalists of the Black Hundreds who
>>invented the converse slogan, not I. 

SB:
>That's right. Meanwile, for them "bei zhidov" could be the goal, 
>when the second part might (or might not) work
>as the justification.  That's the reason for my question : why
>if one says :"salvage Russia", there always will be another one who
>says: "aha - do you mean - shoot Jews?" 

Simple.  In politics, the moment you say "Save Russia" (I really don't
recommend that you use the term `salvage', which denotes something you
might do with a good battery taken out of a junked automobile), you imply
the need for a response "From what?", which, under the circumstances, is
synonymous with "From whom?"; now, you tell me, from whom do you propose to
save Russia?  As a necessary condition, I suppose your enemies must be not
wholly Russian...

MZ:
>>.......... all ideologues of Russian nationalism defined
>>their politics in the reactionary fashion, by reference to "enemies of the
>>people".  Indeed, as noted Spinoza, _definitio est negatio_: you can only
>>define Russianness by circumscribing and separating it from that, which is
>>not Russian. 

SB:
>How then would you define "Jewishness"? According to you and many
>other posters, by separating it from non-Jewishness.(and it was nicely
>demonstrated here). 

I don't recall having expressed myself on this subject in the present
venue, so kindly abstain from gratuitous attributions.  Jewishness is an
ethnic and cultural quality inherited through matrilineal descent, or
acquired through religious practice.  So what?

SB:
>Would you say then that the first one ('Russianness') is 'reactionary'
>but the second ('Jewishness') is
>'progressive'? 

There is absolutely nothing reactionary or progressive about either; on the
other hand, what *is* reactionary, is any attempt to base a social policy
on the exhaltation of either.

MZ:
>>Now, kindly cite to me some prominent Russian nationalists
>>who are willing to recognize, say, Chaim Bialik or Taras Shevchenko as
>>representatives of Russian culture.

SB:
>Obviously, that not a nationality makes a writer to belong to one
>or another culture. What the difference does it make if somebody
>is willing to consider Chaim Bialik as a part of Russian national
>culture? And, btw, must he belong to it? 

Well, both were born on the territory of the Russian empire, so at least by
birth they must belong to the Russian national culture, inasmuch as the
latter may be constituted by criteria of geography and citizenship.
However, I find it rather hard to believe that any contemporary Russian
nationalist would recognize either of them as a representative of Russian
culture, constituted by a common language, or, more ominously, by ethnic
descent (are Gogol or Mandelshtam Russian writers?), and so would grant
them an equal place in a state openly dedicated to the political promotion
of such culture.

SB:
>>>Russian nationalizm doesn't have to be (and it's not) aimed "against",
>>>but rather "to". The survival of Russian national culture doesn't 
>>>neccesarily mean extermination of Jews. But if you think other way
>>>you must be an antisemite :). 

MZ:
>>The survival of Russian national culture is indeed fully compatible with
>>the survival of the Russian Jewish community; however a national policy,
>>which stipulates that the greatest good and the primary goal of the Russian
>>people consists in exhaltation and glorification of this culture,

SB:
>What's wrong with you? Why I, being a Russian, should not glorify
>the culture of people I belong to? What culture must I admire?
>(don't tell me about "world" culture - doesn't exist). 

Frankly, Sergei, I don't think there is anything wrong with me that is any
of your concern.  Furthermore, I don't give a rat's arse whether you choose
to glorify Russian culture, your spotted underwear, or Limburger cheese, --
just as long as you don't try to make it into a matter of state policy.

SB:
>I got the picture: you are just trying to confirm what Shafarevich had
>said in his "Russophobia", aren't you? 

No, but it looks like you are trying to follow it.

MZ:
>>is most
>>assuredly incompatible with any indigenous cultural dissidence, such as
>>constituted by any ethnic or religious minority.

SB:
>Waitaminute.
>Are you saying that minorities can and shall have
>their national cultures,( where would you think? - in Russia!),
>but Russian culture is inacceptable in Russia??

Any nation can and shall have its national culture (call me a rootless
cosmopolite, but, personally, I am old-fashioned enough to prefer the
universal variety, whose existence you profess to deny); however no nation,
big or small, has any right whatsoever to make it into an instrument of
social oppression.  (This is especially true for nations who, like Russia,
America, or France, have indulged in colonial conquests or other forms of
empire building, whereby their native population became "polluted" by
heterologous minority groups.)  Kindly attempt to keep your culture a
private matter; or publicize it, if you really must, but please don't ever
try to mix it with the state institutions.  If you choose to do otherwise,
at best you will make yourself ridiculous (cf. the Republican attempt to
glorify "family values"), while at the worst, you will become dangerous to
the others (cf. Hitler, Khomeini, et al.), at which point I shall be forced
to ask all decent, freedom-loving people to assist me in implementing a
permanent and irreversible reeducation program for you and your followers.

>S.B.

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."