From: sergei@upenn5.hep.upenn.edu (Sergei Borodin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet
Subject: Re: Luna Park
Date: 15 Oct 92 01:18:27 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania




zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writws:

>Simple.  In politics, the moment you say "Save Russia"  you imply
>the need for a response "From what?", which, under the circumstances, is
>synonymous with "From whom?"; 

  Yeah. Especially if you have a strong desire for that. And asking that
  question you, of course, are asuming the answer. And here it goes:

>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...

 Nice twist.  And having destorted the meaning of my words and implied the
 answer, now can start shouting: "antisemite", or even better, "fascist". 
 
MZ:
>>>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.

  That's strange. Wasn't it you who quoted Spinoza? I just substituted 
 'Russianness' by 'Jewishness'.

>  Jewishness is an
>ethnic and cultural quality inherited through matrilineal descent, or
>acquired through religious practice.  So what?
 
 Oh, I see. From the one hand :
 "you can only
 define Russianness by circumscribing and separating it from that, which is
 not Russian." (MZ.)
 
 And from the other: 
 "Jewishness is an
 ethnic and cultural quality inherited through matrilineal descent, or
 acquired through religious practice." (the same MZ)
 
 Nice, isn't it? In other words, Russians don't have that "ethnic and 
 cultural quality". Moreover, there is no such a thing as Russian 
 culture, because of the definition of 'Russiannes'. And even a talk 
 about it is sorta non-intelligent and there is something vile in 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.

  Weren't they "Rossijskie poddanye"?` Place of birth doesn't determine 
 the belongness to a culture. What about Isaak Asimov? Does he belong
 to the Russian culture?
 BTW, did Zhabotinsky belong to the Russian culture as well? (I don't mean
 the sportsman, as you should have guessed).
  
>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,

  Is it enough just to speak a language in order to belong to some culture?
 (Note please, I'm not saying that they don't belong). You see, we have 
 different definitions (that's for sure). You determine 'Russianness' just
 by separating it "from that, which is not Russian" and implying that place
 of birth and common language are more than enough to belong. At the
 same time you intentionly keep forgetting that there is something besides
 literature (would you guess? - like religion, for instance).

> or, more ominously, by ethnic
>descent (are Gogol or Mandelshtam Russian writers?)
 
 Isn't it better to ask them? :-) Did they feel themselves belonging to that
 culture? That's the main point. Was Katherine the Great a Russian Tsaritsa?
 I mean, did she feel herself Russian? 

>Frankly, Sergei, I don't think there is anything wrong with me that is any
>of your concern. 

 Frankly, I don't care if there is something wrong with you. Just be nice.

> 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.

 Verrry colorful. Gotta be a very intelligent person. Anyway, Try not 
 to imply different meanings. Who's talking about "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.

 I am not and don't. But you are constantly confirming "Russophobia". 

>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); 

 Well, I'm not against variety and never denied it. What I said is
 that there is no "world culture" or "european culture". There are
 cultures of many nations but there is no "universal culture".

>however no nation,
>big or small, has any right whatsoever to make it into an instrument of
>social oppression.

 Who's talking about opression? Your mind is really twisted. It is hard
 to deny that Russian culture was almost destroyed during last 70 years.
 I'm talking about saving it, M. Zeleny understands that as an attempt
 to oppress others. We are speaking different languages. 

> 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.

  Is it a threat? You, probably, remember that such an attempt had been made
 in 1917, but happened to be well reversible. 
 Finally, I hope that not M.Zeleny and his followers will decide what is good 
 and what is bad for Russia and who's dangerous and must be reeducated.
 
 May we still use our language in Russia or we must rush to learn esperanto?
 It will be easier to communicate with different nations in "polluted"
 Russia.

>mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu

S.B.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.afghanistan