Ukraine is a pawn at the world stage, but if the West is serious about battling russia (for its own sake really), cultural front has to be among top priorities.
Solzhenitsin is one of the best literary chroniclers of repressions in the Soviet Russia (One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, The Gulag Archipelago, In the First Circle), with the degree of earnestness and realism that approaches Tolstoy's. How does his compassion to Ukranians, or lack thereof, change that? Why do people want writers of fiction to be impeccable moral leaders?
> Solzhenitsyn's Greater Russian, Orthodox-driven nationalism, Elder notes, "once made him appear sorely out of touch, but today has become increasingly fashionable." Although he is best known for his exposure of the Soviet Gulag system and his staunch anti-communism, Solzhenitsyn welcomed Putin's rise to power in 1999 and praised him for restoring Russia's national pride. In 2007, Putin visited the ailing Solzhenitsyn at home to award him a state prize for his humanitarian work. In "Rebuilding Russia," published in the dying days of the U.S.S.R., Solzhenitsyn criticized the Soviet government's haphazard border policies that he said carved up traditional "Rus." He advocated a "Russian Union" encompassing Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, and the ethnic Russian parts of Kazakhstan.
From here: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/ho...
I can only vouch for the realism of his description of a hospital in his Cancer Ward (published in 1966), and for a scene of phonetic spectral speech analysis in In the First Circle (1968). Both unusually lifelike and showing first-hand experience.
Cant disagree more. To understand modern day Russia one needs to have read Solzchenitsyn's books. The country today is a product of decades of strong negative selection favouring the immoral and strongly discouraging moral acts. Those who live in Moscow and make up the modern Russia are the descendants of those who successfully navigated the communist opressions. The westerners should read the books to understand what that meant. There would be far less surprises at the deeply immoral acts of russian govt had the likes of Merkel bothered to read and reflect. Boycotting such books would do Russia a favor.
Me too :-) I don't accept anyone's authority to tell me what I should or shouldn't read (watch, listen to, etc.); and I wonder at anyone who would.
However, I couldn't help noticing that the vocabulary of your comment ("negative selection", "descendants") was rather biological. As I am sure you know, it isn't just the Moscovites who have navigated their way through the communist times, but the populations of the former Soviet republics as well. I also think I won't be too far off the mark if I say that superficial social adaptations or morality aren't hereditary, and people are very malleable creatures.
Surely you can understand why it matters to Ukrainians?
It sucks, but you have to manage expectations, i.e. that barring some unexpected event the smaller political entity will always have a lot more to lose in a battle against an imperial-like entity. Again, we, Romanians, had to learn that the hard way ever since the 1400s, when the Ottomans came around this part of the world.
If Russians look out at the world and see a consensus that their leader has impoverished their nation for his personal benefit, they'll be more likely to question his motives.
Ukraine's best shot at winning the war is for Putin to lose the support of Russian soldiers. That should be one of the top priorities, and it will be better accomplished by driving a wedge between Putin and the Russian people than by driving them together. (Though delivering more HIMARS is an even higher priority.)
You will surely agree with me that Russia is not the world's pioneer in wars of aggression. What about (oh no, whataboutism! We can safely dismiss the argument without thinking now) all the other countries that did, and do the same? Should we also dismiss their cultural output?
I'm not trying to diminish the seriousness of Russia's aggression, or how much Ukrainians are suffering. That is not the point. I want to know why you think we should dismiss Dostoevsky but not Shakespeare (to be clear, Shakespeare is just an example. I am not talking specifically about the UK). Basically every great artist and intellectual was part of a war-waging genocidal empire, and many of them pro-regime in varying degrees (Dostoevsky being a good example of the "varying"). Appreciating these people doesn't mean supporting the empires.
The 11 million muslims killed (and many more displaced) by the collective west (NATO) since 1990 don't count, because they're brown.
But when a non-western majority white country wages war, as George Carlin famously said "That's Our F*ck!ng Job":
We are talking about Russian literature because it is part of our culture, unlike Afghani literature.
Attempts at weaponizing compassion are disgusting.
"On France’s BFM TV, journalist Phillipe Corbé stated this about Ukraine: “We’re not talking here about Syrians fleeing the bombing of the Syrian regime backed by Putin. We’re talking about Europeans leaving in cars that look like ours to save their lives."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/02/civili...
I also watch more movies in English in settings I am familiar with or better know the context of (Western history versus eastern).
I also wear clothes I am culturally comfortable with. Am I racist for not giving all clothes equal wearing?
Because I had a diversity of ethnic foods around, I am comfortable and enjoy eating them. My family from the midwest who had no exposure mostly don't relate to them. I am not less racist, nor are they more, it's just a proximity and culture thing.
I am very fond of Greek and Roman history, yet have no Greek or Roman ancestry, because I am much more familiar with greek and roman history and culture than say Persian. It's not race, it's proximity and culture. Not that I wouldn't love more Parthian Empire stories.
What does eating Thai food have to do with anything? I sense you tried to make an analogy, but it's so obtuse I honestly can't imagine what you were thinking.
Are you honestly saying that empathy is dependent on culture or nationality? That is some pre-enlightenment thinking right there. I thought we civilized westerners had evolved towards universal empathy, all humankind is equal and all that.
You conspicuously left out one thing. It's a biggie. Proximity and culture and RACE.
I recommend you read the article I linked. If you're okay with the statements such as "they are not like the [savage middle easterners], they are blue-eyed like us", then it is an honor to be antagonized by you. I would be disgusted to have someone who thinks that agree with me.
It is so tiring when people nitpick one specific word to "refute" you so that the rest of what you said is automatically invalidated.
I’m not on the “boycott dead Russians” train but the difference is timeliness. Russia is today engaged in a colonial war of aggression. England was last involved in such a thing in the last century.
I stand...correct?