Anonymous wrote:Not to get political, but can anyone recommend books on the Russian identity, why they think & act the way they do, etc. does it stem from Peter the Great or the time of great distrust under Soviet rule? From serfdom to war of 1812 and world wars, etc? I think Ken Follett did a fine job, as well as Rutherford, but they are researchers, and can't truly convey the identity. TIA!

It appears that you’d like to read some quality Russian-bashing literature. I remember a Russian analyst on this board with ridiculous impressions , so maybe s/he could help with your search. I suggest this book https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Art-Soviet-Cooking-Longing/dp/0307886824

Russians are different just like Americans are, with many social and cultural elements responsible for the diversity in views, life styles, etc. I was traumatized by my Russian childhood in many ways, but I appreciated a healthy dose of fun absurdity in my life and I do miss it. I find Mexico in many ways similar on some “spiritual level”, although I can never clearly conceptualize why.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As a person born in the USSR, I agree. Oppression and tyranny are never ok. Some people still can’t understand the basic premise of human rights. In the SovietvUnion people were doing what the state told them to do, they were like domesticated animals. If they strayed and did not work, for instance, they were immediately jailed for 15 days. Even being late for work had serious consequences. I remember stories about women who slept in and ran out the door in nothing but a coat to avoid tardiness.

LOL you say this like there were no housewives in the USSR. Enough women did not work you know.

Did you live in the same USSR? Everyone had to work, even military wives. If there was a housewife that was the exception, perhaps, some nomenclature wife with connections. Maternity leave was about eight months and I’m not sure what it was for the rural people who lived on collective farms.

I don't know what to tell you. I grew up in the North Caucasus. In my recollection, at least 25% women were homemakers. For some ethnic groups, it was seen as unseemly for married women to work you know.

I am not familiar with that part of Russia. Perhaps, ethnic minorities had concessions, not the core populace, which further proves my point that Russian government really loved oppressing its own people the most.

Could it possibly be two Russians had different experiences? And that no one person really understood what life was like EVERYWHERE in Russia?

PP is not Russian, someone who lived in an ethnic minority enclave, which is part of the Russian territory. I am talking about the experience in the European part of Russia, Siberia and the Far East, something that is typically associated with Russia. Unless OP is interested in that, idk

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Colonization was abandoned because it was a net loss, not a net gain for Europe. If Europe never had colonies, Europeans would not have lost anything. Colonization enriched some people, not Europe as a whole. Do some research. The argument that Europe is richer because of colonization is not true. Europe is and was richer because it was a freer and more open society, had trade, had to constantly evolve and survive.

You are stunningly ignorant - and racist - about the impact of colonization on both the colonies and the colonizers.

That is not argument. And how is it racist? You are ignorant if you don’t know that Europe as a whole did not benefit from colonization. Colonization enriched some people, not all all of Europe combined. And not just Europe controlled lands, Russia also controlled Afghanistan and Mongolia. Mongolia even conquered and colonized Russia itself back in the day, yet did not build any roads or hospitals, just pillaged and plundered. This is not a discussion of whether Europeans were good or bad to their former colonies, this is about Russians and Europeans and their respective citizens.

Anonymous wrote:
Colonization was abandoned because it was a net loss, not a net gain for Europe. If Europe never had colonies, Europeans would not have lost anything. Colonization enriched some people, not Europe as a whole. Do some research. The argument that Europe is richer because of colonization is not true. Europe is and was richer because it was a freer and more open society, had trade, had to constantly evolve and survive.

You are stunningly ignorant - and racist - about the impact of colonization on both the colonies and the colonizers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I already said that Russia may be nice to visit, especially with US income, and Moscow and St Petersburg have a decent standard of living. Speaking of Russia as a whole and as a place to live, it is not a nice place with ever-decreasing opportunities and ever-increasing corruption and government overreach. I can have love for Russia as a Russian, but I have no love for the totalitarian state and the way people are treated when they come into contact with the government corruption. It is easy to think well of Russia when none of the horrors affect you (e.g dark realtors, burial mafia, lack of cancer treatment access, no money for medicine, all good jobs taken up by the clannish connections, gay beatings, rural nurses making 165 dollars a month, regional hospitals and schools closing in the name of efficiency). And we are not comparing Russia and the world (all governments to go around). We are discussing Russia as a lesser, more backwards European country. Russia is European and needs to be compared only to Europe. It pales in comparison even to Poland, the former Soviet bloc country.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. You don't know what horrors have affected me so let's not go there. Certainly enough people are having a tough time in Russia, but enough people are having a tough time everywhere. I choose to see humanity everywhere and so far, I've been able to do that. Perfection is not required for love.

Again you are having a hard time with comparison. This is not Russia vs. anywhere in the world, but Russia vs Europe because my original premise is that Russians are European in many ways, just poorer, more superstitious, more corrupt, more intolerant, more violent than other Europeans (not the world, we are not talking about anywhere else).

You'd have to get more granular with Europe because I can think of some places in Eastern Europe that are just as corrupt, intolerant or violent. Of course, Russia is a huge country and as such, will have areas that are less or more violent, or less or more intolerant. Incidentally, I think you're missing the mark on tolerance - compared to many European countries, Russia is more diverse both ethnically and religiously. Certainly, ethnic minorities in Russia fared much better than ethnic Russians in post-USSR republics! It's much nicer to be a Kazakh in Moscow than a Russian in Astana, believe me.

But no matter. Russia can be all these things, and she's still OK with me.

Which one would that be? Name one European country that was not part of the Russian Empire or USSR that is more violent, corrupt, intolerant, superstitious, poorer - all of that combined - than Russia. Ukraine does not count, it was part of Russia in the 19th and 20th century. I’m talking Europe in a sense of England, Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Switzerland and, to some extent, Poland, Hungary, Romania, former Yugoslavia. The rich and educated Russians aspired to be on par with the wealthiest and most cultured part of Europe, with England, France, Germany and Italy at the core. Other European states, including Russia, were part of that realm. We have Russian composers, and we have Hungarian and Polish composers, as well as the masters like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and Vivaldi. We have numerous scientists from England and Germany and also Nikola Tesla who was a Serbian and a Russian Mendeleev and Lomonosov. England has the most novelists and writers - Shakespeare, Milton, Austen, Dickens, Thackeray, Trollope, Elliott, and on and on. Russia is known for Chekhov, Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy and, to some extent, Pushkin and Bulgakov. Many Russian novels were written in Europe, as Russian writers loved to vacation there, St Petersburg was built by an Italian architect, opera singers learned from Italian masters. Russia learned the ropes from Europe and added its own layer. Russia had and has smart people, but many were either not valued or succeeded in spite of oppression, like it was with Bulgakov. Russia has a lot of unnecessary suffering and tragedy, the sense of doom built into its psyche because of this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Any history book would tell you as much. Russians historically comprised close to 80% of the population. Other minorities were non-European and on par with their non-European counterparts in mentality, religion and culture. I don’t think that the OP is interested in Chechens, Tatars, Bashkirs, Yakuts, Buryats, and other forty or so ethnic minorities. Some of these minorities also participated in the wider Russian culture and politics. The Jewish minorities actively contributed to Russian culture and science, for instance, and many were persecuted and discriminated against, which made them change their names and hide their identity.

Forty? Dagestan ALONE has over eighty ethnicities, you dolt!

Anonymous wrote:
Europe was more prosperous and educated than Russia. And the countries that were colonized by Europeans had roads, hospitals, schools and now enjoy a richer life and better opportunities than the equivalent never colonized countries. Look up the statistics, and former colonies would have much better living standards.

Oooh that's right, white people left them much better off, what are they complaining about! Hey, if I leave your daughter better off than her neighbor, may I colonize her for a few years?

I’m not an expert on ethnic minorities. Do any of these minorities, whatever their number, have at least one scientist, world known novelist, composer, architect, philosopher, Nobel prize winner, inventor - at least one per each minority?

The daughter is not an equivalent comparison. The fact is former colonies are now better off than the never colonized countries. I will leave out your racie-related remarks. You can look at some native human sacrifice rituals and cannibalism that were no longer in place after colonization. You intellectually can’t understand apples to apples comparison.

You aren't? What else aren't you an expert on and yet have confidently opined on? You're saying an ethnic group has to produce a Nobel prize winner to be counted as human in your book?

Perhaps the daughter remark was too subtle for you, so here's the blunt version: roads, hospitals and schools aren't a good price for getting colonized. And since you're getting all "intellectual", let's not forget a basic truth that colonizers weren't in the colonies to build roads, schools or hospitals, they were there to get stuff. To extract resources they didn't own. To steal, pillage and plunder, by force if necessary. Schools and hospitals (and prisons and amputated thumbs) were just a side effect.

I never claimed I know all of the ethniciminorities of Russia and their exact numbers. OP can let us know if that is what he or she meant by understanding Russians. And I never said they were not humans, they are not relevant to this discussion, as colonization is not relevant. Colonization had a civilizing effect, although this is not even the point of this discussion. This is about how the state treats its own people. Russia has treated its own people horribly, often worse than other people. And Europeans treated its own people comparatively way better. Colonization was abandoned because it was a net loss, not a net gain for Europe. If Europe never had colonies, Europeans would not have lost anything. Colonization enriched some people, not Europe as a whole. Do some research. The argument that Europe is richer because of colonization is not true. Europe is and was richer because it was a freer and more open society, had trade, had to constantly evolve and survive. Only one city Florence, which had 60,000 people in the 15-16 century produced an incredible number of artists, inventors, scholars, philosophers whose works are studied today. That means they were doing something to make it happen. Russia produced a lot less artists, scientists, philosophers, etc. in comparison to its population, but at least it did give something the world admires and respects it for. Everyone is human, just not everyone contributes to the world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As a person born in the USSR, I agree. Oppression and tyranny are never ok. Some people still can’t understand the basic premise of human rights. In the SovietvUnion people were doing what the state told them to do, they were like domesticated animals. If they strayed and did not work, for instance, they were immediately jailed for 15 days. Even being late for work had serious consequences. I remember stories about women who slept in and ran out the door in nothing but a coat to avoid tardiness.

LOL you say this like there were no housewives in the USSR. Enough women did not work you know.

Did you live in the same USSR? Everyone had to work, even military wives. If there was a housewife that was the exception, perhaps, some nomenclature wife with connections. Maternity leave was about eight months and I’m not sure what it was for the rural people who lived on collective farms.

I don't know what to tell you. I grew up in the North Caucasus. In my recollection, at least 25% women were homemakers. For some ethnic groups, it was seen as unseemly for married women to work you know.

I am not familiar with that part of Russia. Perhaps, ethnic minorities had concessions, not the core populace, which further proves my point that Russian government really loved oppressing its own people the most.

Could it possibly be two Russians had different experiences? And that no one person really understood what life was like EVERYWHERE in Russia?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I already said that Russia may be nice to visit, especially with US income, and Moscow and St Petersburg have a decent standard of living. Speaking of Russia as a whole and as a place to live, it is not a nice place with ever-decreasing opportunities and ever-increasing corruption and government overreach. I can have love for Russia as a Russian, but I have no love for the totalitarian state and the way people are treated when they come into contact with the government corruption. It is easy to think well of Russia when none of the horrors affect you (e.g dark realtors, burial mafia, lack of cancer treatment access, no money for medicine, all good jobs taken up by the clannish connections, gay beatings, rural nurses making 165 dollars a month, regional hospitals and schools closing in the name of efficiency). And we are not comparing Russia and the world (all governments to go around). We are discussing Russia as a lesser, more backwards European country. Russia is European and needs to be compared only to Europe. It pales in comparison even to Poland, the former Soviet bloc country.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. You don't know what horrors have affected me so let's not go there. Certainly enough people are having a tough time in Russia, but enough people are having a tough time everywhere. I choose to see humanity everywhere and so far, I've been able to do that. Perfection is not required for love.

Again you are having a hard time with comparison. This is not Russia vs. anywhere in the world, but Russia vs Europe because my original premise is that Russians are European in many ways, just poorer, more superstitious, more corrupt, more intolerant, more violent than other Europeans (not the world, we are not talking about anywhere else).

You'd have to get more granular with Europe because I can think of some places in Eastern Europe that are just as corrupt, intolerant or violent. Of course, Russia is a huge country and as such, will have areas that are less or more violent, or less or more intolerant. Incidentally, I think you're missing the mark on tolerance - compared to many European countries, Russia is more diverse both ethnically and religiously. Certainly, ethnic minorities in Russia fared much better than ethnic Russians in post-USSR republics! It's much nicer to be a Kazakh in Moscow than a Russian in Astana, believe me.

But no matter. Russia can be all these things, and she's still OK with me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As a person born in the USSR, I agree. Oppression and tyranny are never ok. Some people still can’t understand the basic premise of human rights. In the SovietvUnion people were doing what the state told them to do, they were like domesticated animals. If they strayed and did not work, for instance, they were immediately jailed for 15 days. Even being late for work had serious consequences. I remember stories about women who slept in and ran out the door in nothing but a coat to avoid tardiness.

LOL you say this like there were no housewives in the USSR. Enough women did not work you know.

Did you live in the same USSR? Everyone had to work, even military wives. If there was a housewife that was the exception, perhaps, some nomenclature wife with connections. Maternity leave was about eight months and I’m not sure what it was for the rural people who lived on collective farms.

I don't know what to tell you. I grew up in the North Caucasus. In my recollection, at least 25% women were homemakers. For some ethnic groups, it was seen as unseemly for married women to work you know.

I am not familiar with that part of Russia. Perhaps, ethnic minorities had concessions, not the core populace, which further proves my point that Russian government really loved oppressing its own people the most.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I already said that Russia may be nice to visit, especially with US income, and Moscow and St Petersburg have a decent standard of living. Speaking of Russia as a whole and as a place to live, it is not a nice place with ever-decreasing opportunities and ever-increasing corruption and government overreach. I can have love for Russia as a Russian, but I have no love for the totalitarian state and the way people are treated when they come into contact with the government corruption. It is easy to think well of Russia when none of the horrors affect you (e.g dark realtors, burial mafia, lack of cancer treatment access, no money for medicine, all good jobs taken up by the clannish connections, gay beatings, rural nurses making 165 dollars a month, regional hospitals and schools closing in the name of efficiency). And we are not comparing Russia and the world (all governments to go around). We are discussing Russia as a lesser, more backwards European country. Russia is European and needs to be compared only to Europe. It pales in comparison even to Poland, the former Soviet bloc country.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. You don't know what horrors have affected me so let's not go there. Certainly enough people are having a tough time in Russia, but enough people are having a tough time everywhere. I choose to see humanity everywhere and so far, I've been able to do that. Perfection is not required for love.

Again you are having a hard time with comparison. This is not Russia vs. anywhere in the world, but Russia vs Europe because my original premise is that Russians are European in many ways, just poorer, more superstitious, more corrupt, more intolerant, more violent than other Europeans (not the world, we are not talking about anywhere else).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As a person born in the USSR, I agree. Oppression and tyranny are never ok. Some people still can’t understand the basic premise of human rights. In the SovietvUnion people were doing what the state told them to do, they were like domesticated animals. If they strayed and did not work, for instance, they were immediately jailed for 15 days. Even being late for work had serious consequences. I remember stories about women who slept in and ran out the door in nothing but a coat to avoid tardiness.

LOL you say this like there were no housewives in the USSR. Enough women did not work you know.

Did you live in the same USSR? Everyone had to work, even military wives. If there was a housewife that was the exception, perhaps, some nomenclature wife with connections. Maternity leave was about eight months and I’m not sure what it was for the rural people who lived on collective farms.

I don't know what to tell you. I grew up in the North Caucasus. In my recollection, at least 25% women were homemakers. For some ethnic groups, it was seen as unseemly for married women to work you know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Any history book would tell you as much. Russians historically comprised close to 80% of the population. Other minorities were non-European and on par with their non-European counterparts in mentality, religion and culture. I don’t think that the OP is interested in Chechens, Tatars, Bashkirs, Yakuts, Buryats, and other forty or so ethnic minorities. Some of these minorities also participated in the wider Russian culture and politics. The Jewish minorities actively contributed to Russian culture and science, for instance, and many were persecuted and discriminated against, which made them change their names and hide their identity.

Forty? Dagestan ALONE has over eighty ethnicities, you dolt!

Anonymous wrote:
Europe was more prosperous and educated than Russia. And the countries that were colonized by Europeans had roads, hospitals, schools and now enjoy a richer life and better opportunities than the equivalent never colonized countries. Look up the statistics, and former colonies would have much better living standards.

Oooh that's right, white people left them much better off, what are they complaining about! Hey, if I leave your daughter better off than her neighbor, may I colonize her for a few years?

I’m not an expert on ethnic minorities. Do any of these minorities, whatever their number, have at least one scientist, world known novelist, composer, architect, philosopher, Nobel prize winner, inventor - at least one per each minority?

The daughter is not an equivalent comparison. The fact is former colonies are now better off than the never colonized countries. I will leave out your racie-related remarks. You can look at some native human sacrifice rituals and cannibalism that were no longer in place after colonization. You intellectually can’t understand apples to apples comparison.

You aren't? What else aren't you an expert on and yet have confidently opined on? You're saying an ethnic group has to produce a Nobel prize winner to be counted as human in your book?

Perhaps the daughter remark was too subtle for you, so here's the blunt version: roads, hospitals and schools aren't a good price for getting colonized. And since you're getting all "intellectual", let's not forget a basic truth that colonizers weren't in the colonies to build roads, schools or hospitals, they were there to get stuff. To extract resources they didn't own. To steal, pillage and plunder, by force if necessary. Schools and hospitals (and prisons and amputated thumbs) were just a side effect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
As a person born in the USSR, I agree. Oppression and tyranny are never ok. Some people still can’t understand the basic premise of human rights. In the SovietvUnion people were doing what the state told them to do, they were like domesticated animals. If they strayed and did not work, for instance, they were immediately jailed for 15 days. Even being late for work had serious consequences. I remember stories about women who slept in and ran out the door in nothing but a coat to avoid tardiness.

LOL you say this like there were no housewives in the USSR. Enough women did not work you know.

Did you live in the same USSR? Everyone had to work, even military wives. If there was a housewife that was the exception, perhaps, some nomenclature wife with connections. Maternity leave was about eight months and I’m not sure what it was for the rural people who lived on collective farms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Any history book would tell you as much. Russians historically comprised close to 80% of the population. Other minorities were non-European and on par with their non-European counterparts in mentality, religion and culture. I don’t think that the OP is interested in Chechens, Tatars, Bashkirs, Yakuts, Buryats, and other forty or so ethnic minorities. Some of these minorities also participated in the wider Russian culture and politics. The Jewish minorities actively contributed to Russian culture and science, for instance, and many were persecuted and discriminated against, which made them change their names and hide their identity.

Forty? Dagestan ALONE has over eighty ethnicities, you dolt!

Anonymous wrote:
Europe was more prosperous and educated than Russia. And the countries that were colonized by Europeans had roads, hospitals, schools and now enjoy a richer life and better opportunities than the equivalent never colonized countries. Look up the statistics, and former colonies would have much better living standards.

Oooh that's right, white people left them much better off, what are they complaining about! Hey, if I leave your daughter better off than her neighbor, may I colonize her for a few years?

I’m not an expert on ethnic minorities. Do any of these minorities, whatever their number, have at least one scientist, world known novelist, composer, architect, philosopher, Nobel prize winner, inventor - at least one per each minority?

The daughter is not an equivalent comparison. The fact is former colonies are now better off than the never colonized countries. I will leave out your racie-related remarks. You can look at some native human sacrifice rituals and cannibalism that were no longer in place after colonization. You intellectually can’t understand apples to apples comparison.

There is a huge different between Ukraine and Russian in the 1930s. How is it that people don't know this? Because Ukraine was part of the USSR?