From: sergei@upenn5.hep.upenn.edu (Sergei Borodin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet
Subject: Re: Luna Park....
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:30:37 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

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").

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

  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?" 

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

> 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.

  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? 

>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 :). 

>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,

  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). 

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

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

 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??

>mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu

  S.B.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.books