|
Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
GabeKessel
Joined: 27 Sep 2004 Posts: 150
|
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 7:20 am Post subject: The Hollywood USSR |
|
|
If any Soviet person would ever watch Hollywood-made movies about the Cold War, he would be amazed at the following:
a) They had either Polish or Yugoslavian actors and the films were shot in Yugoslavia and other such places. They spoke Russian in them with English subtitles. Their Russian was so badly accented, most Russian speakers could not understand what they were saying for the most part. The Yugoslavian actors were dark compexioned with their peculiar Turkish admixture- Russians look nothing like that. Doctor Zhivago with Omar Sharif playing a Russian was another funny thing. No Russian would have an Arab face like that.
A whole generation or two of Americans was brought up on these movies made by people who had never even been to that country and who spoke no local language. Therefore a Hollywood USSR was created. Consequently, the misconceptions that the directors of these movies had were transfered over to the entire US public. Here they are for the most part ( I have written the corrections underneath them so that when you go and visit your girl, you will impress her by not uttering any of those)
1) USSR=Russia. Soviet Union=Russia. All people in USSR are Russians.
This has been the biggest misconception. Even the most educated Americans made that mistake. You needed to be a PhDed Sovietologist in the Pentagon to know the difference.
Russia was just one of the 15 countries/republics that composed or were members USSR. Russians were in command but they were less than 50% of the USSR population. Outside of Russia there were these other republics( which were basically countries-the set up was very similar to the UK which consists of 4 countries- England, N. Ireland.Scotland and Wales, and Yugoslavia which consisted of five- Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Bosnia.)
Besides Russia there were these:
Ukraine
Belarus
Moldova
Uzbekistan
Kazakhstan
Turkmenistan
Kirghizstan
Tajikistan
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia
Georgia
Azerbaijan
Armenia
The above were *not* parts of Russia. They were constituent republics of the Union * along* with Russia. They were non-independent countries, in fact, outside of the Russian Federative Republic. That is how they could declare independence and become normal countries. Chechnya, though was part of the Russian republic and that is why it has a hard time declaring independence and breaking away.
People from Armenia and Ukraine may have spent their entire lives without ever seeing a Russian. In Western Ukraine, a Russian may wonder into the wrong place and get himself killed just for being a Russian.
In the movie 2001 the Space Odessy" I heard the expression- "Russian citizens" but there was no Russian citizenship in the USSR- it was Soviet citizenship.
2) Russian names end in "sky- or "ski".
This is really weird and is another misconceptrion of the most severe kind. Yes, there was a Dostoyevsky and Chaikovsky but mostly it was noblemen that had names ending in "ski". Most Russian names end in "in" or "ov-ev". Yeltsin, Gorbachev, Putin, Romanov- where do you see the "ski"?
3) Russians use a "Russian" alphabet.
Well, yes, you can call it that way but it the correct name is Cyrillic Alphabet- it is not from Russia but is from Byzantium- I think somewhere in Macedonia- it was artificially created by some Byzantine monks to communicate with the Slavs. Bulgarian, Serbian, Macedonian and another 20 some languages use the Cyrillic. Yes, you can call it a Russian alphabet but it is just like calling the Roman alphabet-English Alphabet. Cyrillic alphabet is not from Russia.
4)All Russians are/were Communists/members of the Communist Party.
Actually, most were not. Only about 3% of the country were members of the CPSU- Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
5) There are European Russians and there are Asian Russians.
If you are Asian, you are not a Russian. You are just a citizen of the country but you are not ethnically Russian. Various Eskimo groups in Siberia are simply non-Russians. It is not like the USA where you can hyphenate people, There, either you are a European-looking man with a Russian name and you speak Russian, or you are not Russian. There is no Asian Russian, just like there is no feline dog. Or a pink panther. If it is pink, it is not a panther.
6) There are White Russians and there are *Black Russians/Asian Russians, etc*. ( Yup, I have heard that one in the USA). Again, it is another projection- because that is how things are in the USA, well, then things must be that way in other countries, too.
The term "White Russian" refers to the Civil War of 1918-1920 where there were the Reds- the Communists and the "Whites"- the monarchists. Probably had to do with the colors of the pawns in the game of checkers. When the defeated Whites arrived in SF, Americans asked them- "What Russian are you, are you a Commie? "No, we are Whites". The Americans probably interpreted it as 'White American" meaning non-Black.
Another misguided translation is that of BelaRus which means "White Rus" -it is a country East of Poland. Rus means a Scandinavian tribe/settlement thereof- the word for Swedes is Ruotsi in Finninsh- hence- Rus. Again, it has to do with a place where these Scandinavians settled and the place became known as Rus. The white thing- Bela- has to do either with the color of the soil or too much snow. Again the American projection would be to immediately transfer this to a skin color. Well, if these are White Russians , the rest must be Blacks or Dark/Hispanic. This is how the American mind works, I guess.
In Ukraine there are two camps- the Orange- for Yuschenko and the Blue, for Yanukovich- it means that there are Orange Ukrainians and Blue Ukrainians. But obvioulsy, it does not mean that these are names of races.
7) Russians hate (ed) Americans.
Actually, the traditional Russian hatred was always against Germany and Germans. Not against Americans. The USSR government always taught that American people were good but oppressed by a bad government. Germans on the other hand have always been enemies and both the people and the government were bad.
From my understanding, people in the US were taught to hate " the Russians" and never was there a distinction between the government and the people. All Russians were bad- such was the propaganda during the Cold War. Again, the projection- they must be the same , too.
So, Americans are mostly well-treated in Russia- this is why most Americans are surprised when they visit there. People treat them very well. Why? We hated their guts and they did not hate our guts?
A German or anyone with German blood, though, will not be liked by most anyone. The hatred runs deep. If you are an American of German descent, it may be wise not to advertise it too wide.
If given a chance, most Russians would leave their country in droves and come to the US.
That is baloney. Most people love their country the same way Americans love America. Do you see Americans lining up in front of the Luxembourg, Swiss, Bruneian and Kuwaiti consulates? There is more money there.
Governments and educational departments of every country teach their citizens patriotism and love for the Motherland. To a Russian, leaving one's country and going to live overeseas is equivalent to High Treason. Plus, why would he go to a country whose language he cannot speak?
9) Russia is cold all year around.
Russia has very hot summers and quite well pronounced springs and autumns. It has four seasons just like most other places in Europe.
10) All Russians speak English but roll their "rs" and use the word " comrade" to each other.
Most people in Russia do not speak English and most do not use the word "comrade". The word they used during the Communist times was "tovarishch" and that means kind of like best friend or "pal" or "buddy". The word for comrade is "soratnik"-and that is used only by military people. "Comrade" is another Hollywood invention.
11) Russians are all blonds/ or Russian are all dark-haired.
I think in the thaws during the Cold War, Russians were portrayed as fair heaired, blond people. When things would get bad, for some reason, in the US movies they would look dark, kind of like Greeks or Turks.
In reality, most Russians look kind of like the Irish- with light brown/dirty blond hair. The faces are a bit more round and the noses are of the "pug" variety. Eyes are mostly grey or blue. If people in Russia are really dark, they are usually not Russians ethnically- mostly Armenians or Jews.
12) Russia is an Asiatic/Asian country.
Truman called Russians "a bunch of Asiatics". I have heard this one more tha once and even read it in the American books on travel to Russia. I do not know what Asiatic means, but if most Russians travel in Asia- i.e, HK, Japan, Korea, Philippines, people usually ask them " What state in the US are you from?" and talk to them in English. Kids start screaming " Americano! Americano!.
Probably the people who wrote the books confused the onion tops of Orthodox churches with Taj Mahal. And they looked at the map and saw Siberia with the word "Russia" written all over it, and concluded that it was in Asia. The CIA World book now lists Russia in Asia. Check out if when you bring your blond blue eyed wife with you to the US, maybe you can enroll her in the local Asian American as.sociation and get some help- grants, affirmative action, etc. Bring the CIA world book with you to prove your point. Would be a nice joke and an unprecedented legal case before the US supreme court- Maria Ivanova vs. John Wong and Asian American as.sociation- refusal to admit an "Asian" into the American Asian as.sociation.
Actually, Russia is a European country that happens to own Siberia which is in Asia. Most people live in the European part and most people in Siberai are also of European stock. Most average Russians look Slavic just like people in Serbia or Croatia.
Conclusion:
Most US books on Russia or USSR, and such novels, and movies were written by people who had never been to the country and do not speak Russian or any other local languages. Think about how good would be a book or a movie about America by someone who does not speak English and who has never been to the US. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
chechevitsa
Joined: 17 Oct 2005 Posts: 22
|
Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no doubt no such stereotypes or misconceptions exist outside of the US, either regarding russia and the USSR or regarding the US and other associated countries such as Canada.
moreover, I am sure that your assertion that virtually nobody in the US has seen through the stereotypes is entirely true, and that any exceptions are mere flukes. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
canucktechie

Joined: 07 Feb 2003 Posts: 343 Location: Moscow
|
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Russia was just one of the 15 countries/republics that composed or were members USSR |
On paper this was true of course, but in reality the USSR was just a reconstitution of the old Russian Empire, which had no formal recognition of its non-Russian parts except for the Grand Duchies of Finland and Warsaw (the Russian-ruled part of Poland).
And of course the USSR, particularly under Stalin, made a far more determined effort to extinguish non-Russian culture than the czars ever did.
In particular few Russians recognize the Belarussians and Ukrainians as distinct nationalities and instead cling to the czarist-era idea of "Little Russians". Look at Putin's behaviour during last year's "Orange Revolution" for an example. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
coledavis
Joined: 21 Jun 2003 Posts: 1838
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Great contribution, Gabekessel. A few comments:
a) USSR=Russia, Europe/Asia etc. Yes, this confused the west. At the
same time, it was a confusion that the Russians, or at least
the state, shared. They have never agreed between
ideas of Russia as almost anti-European (pan-Slavists such as
Doestoevski were very much against amalgamation with western
European culture), as a primarily European power (St Petersburg
was built as a 'window on the west' and remains a European city
in outlook), or as a multiracial empire. These conflicts, including
the state-inspired movement called Russification, could be said to
have led to the ultimate downfall of the Romanovs.
b) No such thing as a Russian citizen? Well, although this certainly
was different from being a citizen of the USSR, you could also be a
citizen of Russia (or Kazakhstan etc). Although, Russia had less
rights as an independent state than the others, because of its
inherent confusion as centre of Soviet power. (This is a bit akin
to demands for English localised govt. in the light of the Scottish
Assembly.)
c) Russian alphabet. These days, Russians refer to their alphabet
as Russian and not Cyrillic (I found to my surprise). Having said
that, there is some logic to this. Other versions do differ somewhat.
Although this could also be the resurgence of Russian identity as
a nation.
d) Russians don't hate Americans. Having said that, I think they
respect the British rather more. Not sure if this is cultural or
reflects different relationships in WW2 and after.
e) Wanting to leave the country. A lot of people do, but not as
many as you might think (for the reasons Gabekessel gives). The
'high treason' argument only tends to be espoused by ultra nationalists
like Zhurinovsky). I've only heard similar sentiments expressed by
one Russian. Most seem supportive of those who wish to emigrate,
although most are content to stay in Russia (if not happy with
living conditions in the country).
f) Russians do roll their R's! (although not as splendidly as Scots). |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kent F. Kruhoeffer

Joined: 22 Jan 2003 Posts: 2129 Location: 中国
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
steven_gerrard
Joined: 07 Feb 2003 Posts: 155
|
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mind you, doesn't the Russian's perception that England is the UK (Much the same as Russia was the same as the Soviet Union from most British people's point of view) and we all eat porridge for breakfast and drink tea at 5pm etc etc etc get on your nerves as well?
As for Russians looking like the Irish- er, if you mean the fellas all look like they have been drinking all day since the age of 12 then yeah, but I reckon that's where the similarity ends. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
GabeKessel
Joined: 27 Sep 2004 Posts: 150
|
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
On paper this was true of course, but in reality the USSR was just a reconstitution of the old Russian Empire, which had no formal recognition of its non-Russian parts except for the Grand Duchies of Finland and Warsaw (the Russian-ruled part of Poland). |
The difference between "Russia" and "Russian Empire" is roughly the same as that between England and "the British Empire"- which included India and Burma". I guess the new PC teaching that has trickled in from the US declared HK Chinese and Bombay Indians living in the UK as "Britons" and "Englishmen", however in private conversations there are many racial epithets being circulated such as "the bloody w-gs" and other such words even though the people are now officialy "English".
In the USSR, no such thing. An Uzbek would never have a document stating that he was a "Russian". Not like in the UK where an Asian has a British passport stating that he is now a Briton. It would never be accepted. Uzbekistan was Uzbekistan. No Russian in his right mind would ever think that a half-Tirkish/half Mongolian Uzbek was a "Russian". In addition to that, all people had their nationality clearly stated in the internal "passports"- id cards- Russians had "Russki" written in the fifth paragraph of it, and Uzbeks had "Uzbek" written there. Pretty formal if you ask me. Even Britain does not have "Irish", "Scottish" or "Welsh" written in any of its formal documents. And a British Pakistani does not have it written in his passport that he is a Pakistani. In the USSR he would.
Uzbekistan had its formal parliament and all. Schools were allowed to teach in Uzbek. The official teaching was "15 republics joined by Russia into a mighty union". Pretty formal.
With Armenians and other dark-skinned people getting beat up on the streets of Moscow nowadays it has become even more "formal". Russia is for Russians" is the new right wing slogan. And no, the word "Russian" clearly does not mean "an Armenian born in Moscow".
Quote: |
And of course the USSR, particularly under Stalin, made a far more determined effort to extinguish non-Russian culture than the czars ever did. |
He did try and create the "Great Soviet People" with the Russian language as a way to unite them, but again, while he was trying to do that, he was not trying to convert people into "Russians" which is an impossibility. "Russian" is not a citizenship- it is a race/culture/ethnicity. Same as "Japanese". He would have a hard time convincing the Slavic population that a Turkmen was a "Russki" now. The British may have tried to convince their population that Ghandi was a "Brit" but such an approach would never fly in the USSR.
Quote: |
In particular few Russians recognize the Belarussians and Ukrainians as distinct nationalities and instead cling to the czarist-era idea of "Little Russians". Look at Putin's behaviour during last year's "Orange... |
These are trickier since they are Slavs and Orthodox for the most part and do not look too different from the Russians themselves. But an Uzbek? Nah! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
GabeKessel
Joined: 27 Sep 2004 Posts: 150
|
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Mind you, doesn't the Russian's perception that England is the UK (Much the same as Russia was the same as the Soviet Union from most British people's point of view) and we all eat porridge for breakfast and drink tea at 5pm etc etc etc get on your nerves as well? |
It is annoying however, the English, the Welsh, the Scotts and the Irish do not look very different from each other physically. So, yes, they confuse them. But they would never go as far as saying that India was "part" of England and that HK Chinese were "English", whereas in the West , many people would actually think that Uzbekistan was "part" of Russia and that Uzbeks were "Russians". They would think that these:
http://www.shjolg.com/images/russian%20man%20+%20woman.jpg
And these
http://www.alovelyworld.com/webouzbek/gimage/ouz036.jpg
were the same
Quote: |
As for Russians looking like the Irish- er, if you mean the fellas all look like they have been drinking all day since the age of 12 then yeah, but I reckon that's where the similarity ends. |
LOL. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
GabeKessel
Joined: 27 Sep 2004 Posts: 150
|
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
USSR=Russia, Europe/Asia etc. Yes, this confused the west. At the
same time, it was a confusion that the Russians, or at least
the state, shared. They have never agreed between
ideas of Russia as almost anti-European (pan-Slavists such as
Doestoevski were very much against amalgamation with western
European culture),
However, it did not mean that he would favor being united with India, China or Japan. He would be very happy to be united with the Greeks, Serbians, Bulgarians, and other such Orthodox European people. So, while he was against being united with *Western* Europe, the Orthodox Europe was never on his pet-peeve list. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
chechevitsa
Joined: 17 Oct 2005 Posts: 22
|
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Uzbekistan had its formal parliament and all. Schools were allowed to teach in Uzbek. The official teaching was "15 republics joined by Russia into a mighty union". Pretty formal.
|
of course, at the same time, a friend of mine was born in uzbekistan, and reached the ripe age of 22 living there without being able to use the uzbek language functionally, let alone fluently.
maybe my experience is tainted by living in a country of immigrants (canada), but to my knowledge usually people who are born in a country speak the main/official language of that country, and if there is a language they don't speak, it is because it is socially unattractive for some reason--usually some reason greater than "it's not what we speak at home."
Quote: |
With Armenians and other dark-skinned people getting beat up on the streets of Moscow nowadays it has become even more "formal". Russia is for Russians" is the new right wing slogan. And no, the word "Russian" clearly does not mean "an Armenian born in Moscow". |
is this universal in russia, or is it just the media-hyped position of a significant minority? I think in most of europe and certainly in north america, being born and growing up in a country entitles you to call yourself by the name of the nationality/culture...is russia really so different, or are there just people within russia who wish it was? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
GabeKessel
Joined: 27 Sep 2004 Posts: 150
|
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
of course, at the same time, a friend of mine was born in uzbekistan, and reached the ripe age of 22 living there without being able to use the uzbek language functionally, let alone fluently. |
So could British colonial administrators/residents in Burma, India and Egypt. They just got along with English. So did many Americans in the Philippines. So?
Quote: |
maybe my experience is tainted by living in a country of immigrants (canada), |
Very much so. Now you are living in a country of indigenous people.
Quote: |
but to my knowledge |
Your Canadian knowledge? Not valid on the territory of another sovereign state.
Quote: |
usually people who are born in a country speak the main/official language of that country, and if there is a language they don't speak, it is because it is socially unattractive for some reason--usually some reason greater than "it's not what we speak at home." |
It is just not necessary for a Russian colonial resident in a Muslim republic under the jackboot of Moscow. Look at all those British colonial people living in HK. Did they speak Chinese? Most did not. However, is your friend Uzbek? I mean does he look like this?
http://www.peopleintl.org/fi/photos/PI-0335.jpg
Quote: |
is this universal in russia, or is it just the media-hyped position of a significant minority? |
Ask a German who had been in the country since the 1700ies and who had to starve to death in a labor camp. Ask many people who had their non-Russian nationalities written in all their documents and denied jobs, residences, college admissions, etc. Ask them.
Quote: |
I think in most of europe |
Really? I do not think so. Maybe in Britain they started doing that, but only in the last century. Look at the riots in France. Sorry, an Abdul Mohammed Ibrahim Ibn Hattab may have papers that say that he is French, but he still cannot get a job interview.
And in the East you had mass deportations for centuries. After WWII Germans who were living in Poland ( born and raised there, yup) were deported. So were Poles from Ukraine ( again, all born and raised there), and so were the Ukrainians who were kicked out of Poland. Many were also killed in the process. ( All of these people had lived in Poland for centuries. So?) Part or Romania is ethnically Hungarian and people there are Hungarians, albeit with Romanian citizenship. But citizenship is just a piece of paper, at least, there it is. They are considered Hungarians by both Hungary and Romania. And these are the countries that decide who and what you are on *their* territory.
Maybe you forgot Srebrenica? Or mass graves in the former Yugoslavia? People taken out and shot for being Serbs, Croats, Muslim Bosniaks, etc. Albanians being kicked out of Kosovo? You think all those people were not born there, in the lands where they were killed? So what did they call themselves? According to the place where they were born? No, absolutely not. Please scroll down and I have a mini-lecture for you down below.
Most of the history of Europe is filled with blood of people killed for being what they are *even though* they were born in the country. The policy is "a dog born in the stables is not a horse because of that".
Did you forget the year 1999 with people being put in cattle cars and shipped off to Albania out of Kosovo? You think they were not born in Kosovo? They lived there since the 7th century. They are Albanians and not Serbs. Why? Because they look Albanian, they speak Albanian, they have Albanian names. They are Muslims, too.
And I hope you did not forget Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia to protect the Germans there ( all born in Czecoslovakia). And remember the Holocaust? People living in Germany for centuries and still not Germans?
Quote: |
and certainly in north america, |
Now we are talking. Most of the Americas are populated by immigrants and their children. So, if you are born there, you are American, Canadian, Argentinian, Venezuelan, it is automatic. In Europe it is not. In North America people generally use birthplace to determine who and what you are. In Europe/Asia you do not.
Quote: |
being born and growing up in a country entitles you to call yourself by the name of the nationality/culture...is russia really so different,
|
Yes, it is *absolutely* different. It is the same as Japan. Who is Russian and how is not is decided by the Russians according to their culture and laws. The official Russian policy for centuries, if not millenia, was that a ""Russian"is a race/ethnicity- "narodnost'"- I hope you know what that word means. It has nothing to do with birthplace. It has to do with race, religion, language, name and physical appearance.
Quote: |
or are there just people within russia who wish it was? |
It is the official policy of their government and culture. Or has been so for a thousand years. You, as a Canadian, may disagree, but unfortunately, you do not decide who is Russian and who is not. Sorry, but it is a bit outside of your jurisdiction. I guess I will have to do a little lecture for you:
There are two nationality principles: Jus Solis ( Latin "Right of the Soil)- "You are where you were born". This is used by the countries in the Americas- which are recent countries- same with Oz, NZ, etc. Born there, one of us. End of the story.
The second principle is called "Just Sanguinis"-right of the blood- you are what your ethnic heritage is- meaning your face, name, physical apperance, race, the language you speak, religion. If you look, talk and have a name like us- you are one of us.
Most countries in Asia and in Europe follow that route. And in Russia, it has been the official policy for a millenium, at least. Look at some Soviet birth certificates. Ever seen one? Look at some Soviet era passports. Ever seen one? If you can read the language, you will see it clearly says "Nationality": Uzbek" in both. You inherit your nationality over centuries and do not acquire it just because you are born in a certain place. You also do not lose it. And in addition to that, nationality and citizenship are two separate concepts there. One is ethnic, the other one is just a political "registration paper". You can get the last one, but not the first one.
By the way, when a blond Ivan appears in an Uzbek village, the people look at him and say "�rus"- a "Russian"". Born there or not.
This is an Uzbek:
http://www.galenfrysinger.com/asia/uzbek31.jpg
This is a Russian:
http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/news/2004/07/09icon.jpg
See the difference?
Same in Japan, China, etc. Germany had such laws until the year 2000 but, recently, they bucked down and passed the right of the soil" as a new citizenship law so that Turks could now be "Germans". But it will a lo-o-ong time before a Turk or an Arab will be a German and treated as such in social interactions. He will have to intermarry at least three generations to become such. To *you* he may be a German but not to "them" for who is German and who is not German is decided by the Germans. Who is Russian and who is not is, again, decided by the Russians.
Why do you think about half a million Germans have already left Russia and went to the Federal Republic? All these Germans had lived there (in Russia) for centuries. They were treated as Germans, interned during WWII and many have died. What happened to them would make what happened to Japanese Americans a boy scout camp. They had it written in their documents "Natsionalnost'-Nemets". No, it is not "some" people who wish it were so. It is the official policy. Formal. Written in stone. In papers. Government papers. The infamous Fifth Paragraph that had ruined many million lives. Ever heard about it?
In Canada these would have already been as Canuck as you could get, but not in Russia. In Russia their birth certificates said nationality ""German". Why? Because of blood laws. Jus Sanguinis. That's why.
There are no such words in the Russian language as a "native Russian" or ""Russian, born and raised". There is not even a term "foreign-born". These cannot be translated into the language. Either a person is Russkiy- like this:
http://www.gandynet.com/art/Masters/Babailov/Images/Putin.jpg
Or a person is Ne-Russkiy- like these:
http://www.entu.cas.cz/fyziol/freetime/eternity/jew.jpg
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Huddle/images/TajikMan1.jpg
http://siberiangifts.com/front/3.jpg
It would be nice if Russia were like Canada. But it is not Canada and will never be.
Last edited by GabeKessel on Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:45 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
coledavis
Joined: 21 Jun 2003 Posts: 1838
|
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It won't change. Even a Russian I know who lives in England and has shed a lot of her old prejudices still refers to, for example, a jew as being a jew by nationality. Not ill-will in this case, just ingrained mental habit. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
GabeKessel
Joined: 27 Sep 2004 Posts: 150
|
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is not a prejudice- it is the official policy of her gov't. The government issues people documents that say that. At least , until recently they had.
In most European countries at least from Germany on east, everything is the same as in Russia as far as Jews being a separate nationality. Britain is an exception because of many liberal governments in the past, and also, because in 1914 laws were passed to accomodate lots of immigrants coming from other parts of Europe. Everybody born in Britain was now automatically "British". I suspect a lot of it was copied from America because of the close ties between these two countries. So, a person could be now a Jew and also an Englishman. Also, during deportations of Gypsies from different European countries, Britain was the only one that did not kick out the Gypsies who were 'born' there. Somehow, this 'birth thing' entitles a person to live like a Brit and makes Britain his country as that person's birth right.
Same with most British colonies. However, other countries are not like that. Russia had the word "Yevrei" written in ID booklets for Jews there, and had the word "Tzigan- Gypsy" written in such people's IDs. And German people ( who had been in Russia for centuries) had their nationality written in their ID documentation. So, whenever one went to apply for a job, discrimination would start. If the "foreign" facial features were physically visible, people could be beaten or even shot.
However, not all is dandy in Britain, either. London may be very cosmopolitan, but I have had friends who grew up in other parts of the country amidst the shouts of "Paki go home" and other such things. These people were born in Britain. A guy I knew in Saudi had been arrested in Britain for verbal assault. He called a dark complexioned cop who gave him a parking ticket "a bloody w-g" . So, while Britain has had a change in documentation, what people say about "Germans" and "Greeks" in the Buckingham Palace and other "bloody foreigners" while drinking in pubs, notably outside of London, is still very much alive. Something to do with the UK being 'not quite' the "land of immigrants".
Russia is changing, albeit slowly. They have almost stopped using the word "Russkiy"( ethnic Russian, as a race) on TV and, instead, use the word "Rossiyanin". In English these two words mean "Russian", but Russia almost never used the word "Rossiyanin" before. And it means , basically, a citizen of Russia, born there or not. Any race, any background. The word "Russkiy" may disappear after a hundred years or so if the PC efforts by various "Ne-Russkiy" people in society keep up.
It used to be , actually, in the times of various Alexanders, that anyone, I mean, anyone, who were baptised in the Russian Orthodox church became a Russian. A Russkiy. Somehow things changed with the influx of too many " inozemtzy". |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
chechevitsa
Joined: 17 Oct 2005 Posts: 22
|
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
GabeKessel wrote: |
Quote: |
of course, at the same time, a friend of mine was born in uzbekistan, and reached the ripe age of 22 living there without being able to use the uzbek language functionally, let alone fluently. |
So could British colonial administrators/residents in Burma, India and Egypt. They just got along with English. So did many Americans in the Philippines. So?
Quote: |
maybe my experience is tainted by living in a country of immigrants (canada), |
Very much so. Now you are living in a country of indigenous people.
Quote: |
but to my knowledge |
Your Canadian knowledge? Not valid on the territory of another sovereign state.
Quote: |
usually people who are born in a country speak the main/official language of that country, and if there is a language they don't speak, it is because it is socially unattractive for some reason--usually some reason greater than "it's not what we speak at home." |
It is just not necessary for a Russian colonial resident in a Muslim republic under the jackboot of Moscow. Look at all those British colonial people living in HK. Did they speak Chinese? Most did not. However, is your friend Uzbek? I mean does he look like this?
http://www.peopleintl.org/fi/photos/PI-0335.jpg
[snipped]
This is an Uzbek:
http://www.galenfrysinger.com/asia/uzbek31.jpg
This is a Russian:
http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/news/2004/07/09icon.jpg
See the difference?
|
my friend looks like neither the russian nor the uzbek samples you have provided. I'm afraid that I'm unused to describing people as ethnicities, so all I can really tell you is that he is dark-haired and heavy-browed, but light-skinned. his first name is Salikhyan--definitely not a russian name, although he usually goes by his second name, Alexander. I think he presents a more complex picture than you would like to, although I remain uncertain as to what it represents.
you say that the fact that british immigrants to colonies around the world did not deign to learn the native language disproves my point that usually, if a nation's native culture and language are flourishing as they do in an autonomous country, the second generation will learn the language. I say that this case is what I was trying to represent by saying second generation immigrants become fluent unless "it is socially unattractive for some reason" to speak the local language. a colonial attitude towards a certain language/culture certainly makes that language/culture unattractive.
Quote: |
However, not all is dandy in Britain, either. London may be very cosmopolitan, but I have had friends who grew up in other parts of the country amidst the shouts of "Paki go home" and other such things. These people were born in Britain. A guy I knew in Saudi had been arrested in Britain for verbal assault. He called a dark complexioned cop who gave him a parking ticket "a bloody w-g" . So, while Britain has had a change in documentation, what people say about "Germans" and "Greeks" in the Buckingham Palace and other "bloody foreigners" while drinking in pubs, notably outside of London, is still very much alive. Something to do with the UK being 'not quite' the "land of immigrants". |
this is what I mean when I ask if this is truly the opinion of the majority in any given country, or if it is merely the opinion of the most vocal minority. people of visible minorities born in north america suffer the same abuse, but I believe (and I think my belief is borne out by statistics) that the majority of north americans are not participants in this abuse. so far, you have convinced me that things are worse in russia than they are in other countries, but you have yet to make me believe that the majority are so viciously and actively bigoted as you suggest.
and finally, although much of my knowledge about language shift is drawn from experience, some of it is also drawn from reviews of research; please do not dismiss it so cavalierly. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
GabeKessel
Joined: 27 Sep 2004 Posts: 150
|
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
my friend looks like neither the russian nor the uzbek samples you have provided. I'm afraid that I'm unused to describing people as ethnicities, so all I can really tell you is that he is dark-haired and heavy-browed, but light-skinned. his first name is Salikhyan--definitely not a russian name, although he usually goes by his second name, Alexander. I think he presents a more complex picture than you would like to, although I remain uncertain as to what it represents. |
Well, in Russia people are used to describe people by ethnicities. That is the only way they do it. The best way to check would be to ask your friend what his birth certificate says. It should clearly say " Natzionalnost' -and then what he is. According to the then active Soviet Nationality=Ethnicity laws, he would be classified as some nationality. Or a mixture of two. He may present a "complex picture" 'to you', but the Soviet government had a classification system to deal with people like that according to 'their own' terms.
Quote: |
you say that the fact that british immigrants to colonies around the world did not deign to learn the native language disproves my point that usually, if a nation's native culture and language are flourishing as they do in an autonomous country, the second generation will learn the language. |
Not always, somehow, Hong Kong is flourishing and so is Singapore, but it is hard to find children of Brits there who speak Chinese or Malay. I guess it is not flourishing enough to warrant a serious interest in the language. Plus it has to be something that is really necessary for people to learn it. In the USSR, Russian was necessary in everything.
Quote: |
I say that this case is what I was trying to represent by saying second generation immigrants become fluent unless "it is socially unattractive for some reason" to speak the local language. a colonial attitude towards a certain language/culture certainly makes that language/culture unattractive. |
I see your point. Well, yes, in those times, not speaking Russian for young people in any of those countries was seen as unpatriotic, as Russian was supposedly the language that united all the Soviet peoples, including Uzbeks. Not that they particularly asked for the Russians to come and conquer them and include them into the Empire, but that is another issue.
Quote: |
this is what I mean when I ask if this is truly the opinion of the majority in any given country, or if it is merely the opinion of the most vocal minority. |
I assume you are talking about the attitude towards ethnicity? Here we are dealing with 'opinions' in the UK vs, "laws" in Russia, so, it is a bit of apples and oranges. Let me first compare the UK to Russia.
In the UK for a long time now, any person with a British ( that is, "mainland" British passport) is considered a Briton by law. Any descent, any race. Britain used to have many liberal governments before and people could just come in and change their names, learn the language and no one would care. The majority of Brits would consider these people British. Now, even people with 'weird' names are seen as Brits. It is amazing, really.
Now, Russia traditionally accepted few immigrants. Those it did accept had to convert to Orthodoxy to qualify for Russian citizenship, so that the Russian gov't could now say that they were Russian. By citizenship, that is. However, in daily lives these people would almost never be considered Russian even after conversion. And their children would be only if one parent was ethnically Russian. No matter how many generation sin the country. And if they did not convert to Orthodoxy and did not intermarry, they would not be Russian by law. So, yes, it would be an overwhelming majority plus the laws. You had to mix your blood with the original population for three generations to be considered fully Russian by both people and the government. Not just be born there.
However, it did not mean that you would not be accepted socially as a person and a human being. You would still have friends and could marry quite easily. You just wouldn't be seen as a "Russkiy".
To be a Russkiy, you had to LOOK Russian. Speak the language and have a Russian name and face. Ivan Ivanov is a Russian. Ahmed Sharafuddin is a Tatar. End of the story. However, if you start mixing through intermarriage, then three generations would accomplish it. Is it a minority's opinion? No. It is the traditional concept held by almost all.
Again, mind you, it did not mean that you would not be allowed to mingle with the people , drink with them and fall in love with them. Except in some extreme cases when your culture/race was very different, you would live a normal life there.
Now, in the Soviet Times they took it even one step further and did it legally. They started writing in all the documents of the people: "Tatar", "Russian", "Uzbek", German", etc. So, it became a 'law'. Opinions now would matter little be they majority or minority opinions. Good or bad. If your documents say that this is what you are, these are no longer 'opinions' that you can challenge. They are now written in all of your work, town hall records, school rosters, etc.
Quote: |
people of visible minorities born in north america suffer the same abuse, but I believe (and I think my belief is borne out by statistics) that the majority of north americans are not participants in this abuse. |
There is a difference there. In North America most people know that it is a land of immigrants and though they may abuse a visible minority, few see people born there as "foreigners". Few come and say "You are not a Canadian!" You do not have it written in documents at schools, at work and all; Nationality Ukrainian for people who are Canadian citizens. In Russia, people remained foreigners in documents whereas such documents were not in existence in Canada or the US. And all those people were born in Russia. That is the difference. It is a legal difference.
Quote: |
so far, you have convinced me that things are worse in russia than they are in other countries, but you have yet to make me believe that the majority are so viciously and actively bigoted as you suggest. |
Now we get to the most serious part of it all. Xenophobia and lack thereof can actually be documented, and I have read somewhere that some 60+% of Russians do not care about one's nationality. That is a big number of very good people. Plus, because the culture is communal, it is quite easy to have a great time there. Even with hateful people there, those people who do not fall into the most hated categories such as Jews ( the really Semitic-looking ones) or African Blacks may have it all right there. But if you are black, or dark, you will be taunted more ( with greater frequency) in Moscow and it is much more dangerous than in Canada. And the police will not do much to protect you. Also, in North America you can hide in your ethnic neighborhood, but in Russia you cannot.
If you have 5% that hate you, does it matter after you get beat up a few times that these are only a minority?
If you have dark hair in Moscow you get stopped by the cops all the time, and they check your documents. It is a daily thing. I talked with some guys from Dagestan and they have told me that.
In North America, while the "abuse" is less, and the laws are strong- the ones that protect the minorities, that is,-the main obstacle to minority's full integration is the polite and passive exclusion from social life. "You stay here, and we stay there". That is why you have all these ethnic neighborhoods, and all these people that do not mingle so much and prefer to stay with their own kind. It is less violent, but very exclusive with its soft but firm, informal kind of exclusion. People are more 'tolerant', but it does not mean they want you to hang out with them or go and visit them at their house. In Russia, it would be more of an inclusion, but at the same time more violence would be coming from the bad people. Two opposites living side by side, I guess.
And the heritage of ethnic 'laws' ( not opinions, mind you but 'laws') lives on until today and is very strong. Check any birth certificate and see what they say. Many people still have those. They only eliminated "the fifth paragraph"- "pyataya grapha" in the early 90ies.
Quote: |
and finally, although much of my knowledge about language shift is drawn from experience, some of it is also drawn from reviews of research; please do not dismiss it so cavalierly |
.
OK, I won't. Sorry I got so hot under the collar. My bad.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling. Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|