From: sergei@upenn5.hep.upenn.edu (Sergei Borodin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet
Subject: Re: Shafarevich
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:50:16 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania




aps@sonia.math.ucla.edu (Alexei Stolboushkin) writes:

>this question you have actually asked below. Here the point was, that
>people of the Russian ethnicity (an implicit reference to which was made)
>are not sensitive enough to feel antisemitic ideas of the book in question.

  No, in fact, I just ment that Russians should not be so oversensitive
  to suspect any description of a bad Jew as an antisemitic attack.

>While, I believe, Russians should be extremely sensitive to antisemitism,

  Why? BTW, I still cannot figure out what this thing is. The word is
  so freely used that I expect anything by that.

>as, for example, many Western Germans are after WWII. It is a national
>shame...

 You mean antisemitism is a Russian national shame? Come on.
 
>quite right you are. I apologize for the joke. 

  I don't mind jokes about my english, but can everybody here 
 (I mean Russian-speaking) be sure that sometime later he might
 become a target for that kind of jokes too?

>However, I also think that
>a reference to opponent's ethnicity, implicit or explicit, is not
>a good argument in discussion.

 I'm sorry if it looked like this. See above. Besides, I repeat, it was
 not supposed to be an argument. Just a long question.

>>>Also, the argument was to demonstrate that it had been possible to publish
>>>antisemitic texts long ago, and you are seemingly agree with the claim.
>>
>> Depending on what you call antisemitic. No, I didn't agree. I don't think
>> that "Vse vperedi" is antisemitic.

>I meant, that you agreed that at least ``Litso sionizma'' is antisemitic.

 Is it the book written by Jakovlev? If yes, it's rather stupid.
 It's not even worth to take it into a consideration. Besides, its
 obvious stupidity makes me suspect that it was written to provide
 the evidence of the official anticemitism and make critics easier.
  
>let's ask ourselves, what is the key idea, embodied in the book by ``artistic''
>means? Does the ``Sobach'e serdtse'' survive, if we replace ``Shvonder'' to
>``Kunjaev'' (for example)? I think yes, and without any damage to the book.

  There is no question about the survival. Rather about historical realism.
 Bulgakov had shown a Jew Shvonder as a leader of "sharikovs". Would he have
 shown 'Kunjaev' on this place the historical realism would have been lost.
 Remember Ph.Ph. said that "sharikovs" are the main danger to "shvonders"?
 
>While ``Vse vperedi'' is strongly based on the fact that this personage
>is ``supposedly of Jewish origin''.

 This is a simplification.

>>  Right, it's worth mentioning.  Now I won't spend my $14 on this book.

>it is generally unwise to save on books: they may make a person more sensitive,
>and thus contribute to his/her personality, which is invaluable.

 Generally it's true. But generally. Go to buy "Main Kampf" then.
 I bet you won't. 
  
>more precisely, as ``organizers of mass murders''. Their writings
>were a mean of this organizational work.

  May be, in the sense that writing could have helped them to organize their
  own thoughts. But not to organize murders themselves.

>We also know, that Belov et al. are not just writers, but
>organizers of the ``Pamyat' '' 

  Do we? Something new to me. Who told you that? Semen Reznik?

>society and of ``black hundred''
>press like ``Den' '', ``Nash sovremennik'', etc. They are
>public figures of the very definite orientation.

 Right. The orientation is the survival of Russian culture. But do you
 think that :"raz spasai Rossiju, to znachit bej zhidov". 
 I didn't read "Den'", but was a subscriber to "Nash sovremmennik",
 and I still think it was worth my time and money. Although, it 
 published sometimes quite stupid articles, but in general many
 of its authors (Belov, Rasputin, Kozhinov, Shafarevich .....) were
 worth to read.

>this is exactly the point. We know that Belov, Rasputin, Kozhinov,
>and Kunjaev are nazists NOT from their writings but due to their 
>public activity.

 Who are "we"?  I'm not among those "knowers".  


 S.B.