April 2008
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Mar		May »
	1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

Apr

7

“Avoiding this heap of memes”

April 7, 2008 |

Michael Idov’s “The Hibernation” has received cheers and jeers from SRB readers. One of the issues Idov’s article raises is the difficultly in reporting on Russia. In Idov’s view the real challenge is to talk about Russia without using the “heap of memes” handed down by decades of Cold War. I couldn’t agree more. Here is Idov’s take on the matter (You can also follow his Live Journal):

Popularity: 6% [?]

Comments

197 Comments so far

ivanov on April 7, 2008 12:34 pm
not impressed
at all
Jesse on April 7, 2008 3:04 pm
I’m with ivanov - same old russophobia with a post-modern, hipster face.
Candide on April 7, 2008 9:46 pm
When did Russophobia become an ‘old’ phenomenon? I think it’s much younger than Islamophobia, which was coined sometime after 9.11.2001.

When mockery and hatred of all things Islamic started reaching insane levels, some liberal intellectuals took it upon themselves to defend the best of Islamic heritage and leveled a countercharge against the most unhinged critics of Islam, branding them Islamophobes.

Assorted Putin-lovers saw this and decided, “Hey, neat, we can do it too!” So they started calling Russophobes anyone they didn’t like. Now Idov became a Russophobe for who knows what obscure offense.

Personally, I know exactly one person I could call a real Russophobe and I still think she’s got to be a plant.
Chrisius Maximus on April 7, 2008 11:27 pm
Candide, you’re an assorted-Putin-lover-ophobe!

Seriously, I hate the word “Russophobia,” but in my mind it is connected with a set of essentialist preconceptions and recycled stereotypes about Russia. Analogously, somebody who couched discussion of German foreign policy in Eastern Europe in terms of “the historic German question for Lebensraum” would be a Germanophobe (and they do exist)

I have a 1919 copy of the US philosopher Josiah Royce’s Lectures on the Philosophy of Idealism (originally given in I think 1883). The preface spends much justifying why we should read these German philosophers like Kant, since as everybody knows the Huns exclusively started the war because they are evil Huns. It’s sort of like that.
Kolya on April 8, 2008 4:45 am
Hey, Jesse, you may not like him but what exactly was Russophobic about what Idov said in the clip? In my view, nothing. I would like to know why you so easily accused him of Russophobia.

Candide, the term Russophobia probably predated Igor Shafarevich, but he was the one (as far as I know) who popularized it. He wrote an essay titled “Russophobia” either in the late 1970s or early 1980s. From what I remember, he’s an anti-communist nationalist who detects Russophobia in all sorts of places. Although I don’t like the word because it’s all too often used as an easy excuse as well as to unfairly denigrate someone, there is no denying that some people can be, in all fairness, labeled as Russophobes.
Jesse on April 8, 2008 4:58 am
Kolya,
I war referring to the opinions expressed in his article. In the interview he seems to be claiming that he’s rising above or moving beyond old prejudices and stereotypes. I don’t think he is. Rather, it’s the same old shtick with a young hipster spin:

“Economically booming, politically resurgent, today’s Russia is also culturally stagnant in the widest sense. Its only identifiable passion is to be taken seriously abroad.”

‘Only identifiable passion’? What about starting families (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23972762/) or building careers? These are things we take for granted but which Russians had to put on hold for more than a decade. What sorts of ‘identifiable passions’ does Idov consider worthy anyway? Creating Orange revolutions just for the sake of revolution? Idov’s post-materialist value-set just doesn’t fit in today’s Russia - and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Kolya on April 8, 2008 5:11 am
All right, Jesse, you disagree with him. But does that make him a Russophobe? Isn’t that similar to accusing someone who criticizes Israel of being an anti-Semite?
Michael Averko on April 8, 2008 6:15 am
Promoting and making light of anti-Russian bigotry should be seen as repugnant.

Regarding the Israel reference, many would be understandably offended if the USSR was perceived as something benefitting the Jews at the expense of others.

This is the bigoted legacy of the Captive Nations Committee and the anonymously bigoted crank, who is propped by some. Substitute Russian for Jew and such bigotry gets rationalized, as within the realm of acceptability.

This relates to the recent discussion elsewhere about “Russophobia” (a passively inaccurate term). It had been introduced in a not so perfect way. This was followed by some Russia unfriendly folks disingenuously suggesting an attempt to mute criticism of Russia.

Lost in all this are the great anti-Russian biases that have existed for quite some time.

Those not thinking much of Idov’s material should note who is promoting it.
Jesse on April 8, 2008 6:48 am
Kolya,
If, in making a sweeping conclusion about the stagnation of Russia, Idov introduced at least some objective evidence - statistics, opinion polls, anything - to substantiate his point, then I would focus on the facts. But instead he chose a series of anecdotes that support his point.

He also drops assertions that just aren’t true - for example, he talks about how Duma members pursue their own business ‘in the absence of any real legislative work.’ Actually, this has been the most active Duma in Russian history and many major legislative projects have been passed. Anyone who has researched the legislative history of a Russian law knows that, even with the UR majority, it is often a painstaking process with hearings, proposed amendments, etc. But never mind that, we’ll just accept that the Duma is the subordinate rubber stamp based on a single picture of two female duma members.
Chrisius Maximus on April 8, 2008 7:57 am
“economically booming, politically resurgent, today’s Russia is also culturally stagnant in the widest sense.”

Yeah, what the hell is he talking about? What the hell does it mean to be culturally stagnant? Bad popsa?
Chrisius Maximus on April 8, 2008 7:58 am
“Igor Shafarevich”

Is a nutcase. Has he written anything lately?
Lyndon on April 8, 2008 8:44 am
Jesse, although one can point to a lot of activity on the part of the US Congress (and I apologize for the implicit comparison to the Duma, which is laughable), some people - including some published commentators - still talk a lot of smack, and not without justification, about how Members pursue their own interests as the US stagnates - are such people “Americaphobes”? Or are they just people who may not focus on the workings of the legislative process and are trying (successfully or not) to capture the bigger picture?

I totally agree with your points about the positives - people are confident enough to have children (though you act as though the government’s promotion of this is somehow _not_ connected with its passion to “be taken seriously abroad”); people are focused on and able to achieve success in their careers, which is a wonderful thing to see. Without a doubt, there are positives. But journalists don’t write about the planes that land safely, after all (that’s what Russia Today is for!), and is someone really a “Russophobe” because he criticizes the Duma or fails to take account of its level of activity?

I’m sure there is plenty of documented Duma legislative history for one to sink one’s teeth into, but you focus on the high volume of legislation passed and “proposed amendments” - since (as far as I know, though you may know better) much legislation is introduced by or on behalf of the executive, query how much of it is actually amended in a substantive way before being passed.

The Duma does a lot of posturing on foreign policy issues of interest to me, but - other than to create excellent quotations for people to cite when complaining about Russia’s aggressive approach to the “near abroad” - it doesn’t really accomplish much (not that the US Congress is exactly a font of intelligent approaches to foreign policy either). Indeed, in the absence of any opposition within the Duma, naturally the esteemed Deputies have to look for other enemies, foreign and domestic, to condemn and do rhetorical battle with. Perhaps they’ll be on to “saboteurs and wreckers” soon (oops, just kidding, that would probably be considered a “Russophobic cliche” in some circles), by which of course I mean NGOs.

You seem to focus on Idov’s mention of the Khorkina/Kabaeva photos, but it’s not as though one needed those photos to reach the same conclusion - he just used them as what they are: a good illustration for the joke which the Duma has become. Lots of Russians commenting on Kommersant’s website and at drugoi’s amazingly heavily trafficked blog expressed the same thoughts about those hilarious photos. One supposes they are not all “Russophobes.” I guess my point is that it’s kind of a loaded term to throw around just because someone writes an article critical about Russia.

Candide (and all may be interested), a search on AbeBooks shows there have been a couple of books about “Russophobia” going back a long way. I have no idea what’s in those books, though I’ve thought about buying the one on Britain if I can find it for a reasonable price. So it seems like the ura-patrioty (with the assistance of the blogger or kollektiv that you identified) have dusted off an old term which is perhaps a relic of the Great Game or somesuch.

By the way, the discussion of “Russophobia” to which I believe Mr. Averko is referring can be seen here this one (in the post and comments), for those of you who are not JRL subscribers.
Kolya on April 8, 2008 9:12 am
Chris, I have no idea if Shafarevich is still writing. Yes, from what I had heard, he was a brilliant mathematician who became a crank. I never read his stuff. He was instrumental, though, in making “Russophobia” a more commonly used word.

Jesse, I know you didn’t like Idov’s article. You were very good in articulating why you didn’t. For the most part I did like it, but have no problems with the fact that you didn’t. However, just like I was bothered by Idov’s “gaydar” reference (after you made me aware of what it meant), I was bothered by you labeling Idov a Russophobe. Perhaps I’m being a pedant and such a label is not as loaded for you. For me, though, the word Russophobe belongs to the same category as the words anti-Semite, racist, homophobe, and so on.
Jason on April 8, 2008 9:30 am
This magazine/website http://www.readrussia.com/ of which Idov is the editor, doesn’t seem very russophobic to me. In fact, quite the opposite. I suppose his article on Black PR could be considered russophobic in the same way Steven Colbert is americaphobic, if one wanted to be obtuse.
Jesse on April 8, 2008 9:48 am
Perhaps some effort should be made in defining what a Russophobe is, as it generates so much debate. For a critical observer of Russia, Putin’s administration has made bad policy choices (e.g., raising the threshold to get into the Duma, making governorships into appointed positions). To a Russophobe, these are indications are far more nefarious trends - Russia’s led by evil people, Russia will inevitably collapse, Russia is dead inside.

It’s one thing to say that Russia’s exports are heavily concentrated in oil & gas, they should diversify their economy to ensure long-term growth. It’s entirely different to say that Russia’s ‘oil-fueled’ prosperity has caused it to stagnate ‘in the widest sense’. Again, it’s one thing to say that by raising the threshold for Duma representation from 5% to 7%, Putin has hindered the development of a strong multiparty system. It’s another to refer to this as ‘corrupting older institutions.’

There’s a huge difference between arguing on the merits of various policies implemented under Putin, and making conclusory statements about how horrible they are. This is irrational. Finally, I guess in Idov’s narrative I detect a little fear of a Russia that is doing well and feels good about itself - perhaps this fear is what provokes the irrational response. And that - an irrational fear of Russia - is Russophobia.
Jason on April 8, 2008 9:50 am
Ehh, I should have read through all the comments on the other thread. My sincere apologies for covering old ground.
Kolya on April 8, 2008 11:03 am
Jesse, you wrote:

“Perhaps some effort should be made in defining what a Russophobe is, as it generates so much debate.”

A good idea. As I wrote, for me Russophobe belongs in the same category of other highly negative words indicative of bigotry (e.g., antisemitism, racism), but I suspect that for you it has a more innocuous meaning. Am I right?

In your comment, though, your definition (if it was indeed one) seemed both vague and wide. You ended with:

“I guess in Idov’s narrative I detect a little fear of a Russia that is doing well and feels good about itself - perhaps this fear is what provokes the irrational response. And that - an irrational fear of Russia - is Russophobia.”

According to you, Russophobia is simply irrational fear of Russia. Is that correct?

And you accuse Idov of being a Russophobe because in his TNR piece you detected “a little fear of Russia that is doing well and feels good about itself.” I did not detect any such fear, but, frankly, if all it takes is for someone to “detect a little fear,” then that’s an awfully easy (and subjective) threshold to cross. It just about renders the term meaningless, in my opinion.
Kolya on April 8, 2008 11:26 am
Lyndon, wow, Russophobia as a word does go way back. I don’t know whether it’s correct, but this is from Wikipedia in Russian:

“Впервые термин «Русофобия» был применён Фёдором Тютчевым в связи с появлением в Европе враждебности к России после подавления русскими войсками венгерской революции 1848 года в Австро-Венгрии, после чего Российская империя получила кличку “жандарм Европы”. Русофобии Тютчев противопоставлял панславизм.”
Jesse on April 8, 2008 11:32 am
Kolya,
You’re right - I don’t see Russophobes in the same light as anti-semites. Most people don’t go out and say, ‘i am afraid of Russia.’ It seems like there are two lines of thought of Russophobes:

1) Strength = Stength: the Russian bear has awoken from hibernation, is made strong on high oil prices, and now bullies its neighbors with the ‘gas weapon;’ also, Putin seemingly has the ability to cause anyone pain anywhere anytime. Russia is moving towards dictatorship. It’s like a bear on steroids. Anne Applebaum’s column ‘trickle down lawlessness’ reflects this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/23/AR2007072301362.html)

2) Strength = weakness: Russia’s political and economic resurgence is really a facade, a potemkin village that masks a decaying and stagnant society. The country’s unsustainable political system will inevitably lead to a horrible downfall. Russia is moving towards anarchy. This makes Russia dangerous and unpredictable because it is near the end - like a bear with rabies. I guess Idov’s article more fits this profile though it has elements of both.

These are the two ‘memes’ - to use Idov’s phrase - for which Russophobes instinctively reach. These memes eschew facts and nuance and that’s why they are irrational. One good example: the demographic crisis. A Russophobe following the second meme would argue that evidence of Russia’s decline is its falling population. But birth and death rates are lagging indicators that follow economic fluctuations and social changes. Thus, the current demographic crisis resulted from the Yeltsin era, which most Russophobes glorify, and is just now beginning to reverse as a result of the stability from the Putin era. Finally, a demographic crisis is simply that - a pressing challenge for the Russian government. An Americaphobe might argue that our ‘obesity epidemic’ is indicative of America’s impending collapse - if the average American’s weight continues to increase then we will soon not be able to leave our houses and all productive activity will halt!
Chrisius Maximus on April 8, 2008 11:49 am
“(oops, just kidding, that would probably be considered a “Russophobic cliche” in some circles),”

No, just really, really, really bad rhetoric.
Chrisius Maximus on April 8, 2008 11:54 am
“These are the two ‘memes’ - to use Idov’s phrase - for which Russophobes instinctively reach.”

They are also what Eco referred to “facist discourse” — the enemy is portrayed as simultaneously overwhelmingly powerful and threatening and weak and crumbling.
Sean on April 8, 2008 12:01 pm
What amazes me Jesse is that sometimes the Strength = Strength and Strength = Weakness is articulated at the same time.

Another element of “russophobia” (if that is the word we’re using) is how certain instances speak for the entire state of Russia. I think how the demographic problem is presented is a good one example.

That said, I’m not satisfied with the word “Russophobia,” because like Chris I see it more rooted in “a set of essentialist preconceptions and recycled stereotypes about Russia.” I’ve been trying to think of something that would capture Edward Said’s notion of Orientialism but make it more Russia specific. I prefer thinking about it as having an history and something that, at least for Americans but probably Europeans too, has slipped into our unconscious. For example, I remember as a kid I thought that the sun never shined in Russia. It was always dark and gray with people huddled in the cold with long miserable faces. This certainly stayed with me because I was surprised how colorful Moscow was. The image of darkness and cold is one thing. More importantly I think is how this image constructed a way of looking at Russia as an inherently miserable place. It also shows how effective Cold War propaganda was.

I also don’t like Russophobia as a term because it fails to account for its flip side. Russophiles fetishize Russia too using similar essentialist assumptions and repeated stereotypes. Some of which, in my opinion, are no less offensive than Russophobia.

The problem is Russophobia and Russophilia because each creates a binary predicated on a fetishism of Russia as mysterious, unknowable, and just plain weird.
Jesse on April 8, 2008 12:09 pm
Sean,
I like the analogy to Orientalism, that’s what I had in mind
Chrisius Maximus on April 8, 2008 12:50 pm
“I’ve been trying to think of something that would capture Edward Said’s notion of Orientialism but make it more Russia specific.”

I think Russia is conceptualized as a subclass of the Orient. It is “Asia.”
Lyndon on April 8, 2008 12:53 pm
Русофобии Тютчев противопоставлял панславизм.

The more things change… Tyutchev, of course, penned the Russo(or, as they called it then, Slavo)philic version of Churchill’s Orientalizing “enigma” line almost a century earlier:

Умом Россию не понять,
Аршином общим не измерить:
У ней особенная стать -
В Россию можно только верить.

I guess today he would perhaps be a Eurasianist.

The problem is Russophobia and Russophilia because each creates a binary predicated on a fetishism of Russia as mysterious, unknowable, and just plain weird.

Yes, both are Orientalist in some sense of the word.

On the other hand, I can’t really speak about Moscow, but from my own memories I can say that SPB in fact was a bit more gray during the Cold War - all those soot-generating factories and none of the neon lights & advertisements.

I guess my problem with all of the discussion of ‘phobes and ‘philes is that it serves as a way to grossly oversimplify things. For example, I doubt Applebaum fabricated the anecdotes about her friends in the column Jesse linked to above. Is it wrong to extrapolate based on a couple of friends and to draw overblown conclusions? Of course. But in dismissing the whole column as “Russophobic” you are implicitly dismissing the problems experienced by the Russians Applebaum discusses. Do you believe them to be made-up, or just irrelevant, unfortunate “broken eggs”?

It does seem hard to believe that she doesn’t seem to have any friends to write about who have been successful in the new Russia, but then again taking a tiny, unrepresentative sample and puffing it up into a preconceived grand conclusion is something that newspaper columnists do every day about pretty much any place in the world. Some, like Tom Friedman, even puff their anecdotal stuff up into whole books. Though I’ll grant you that with respect to e.g. China the grand conclusion is at least sometimes a positive one; with respect to Russia this is much less common.

This may seem like a non sequitur, but I always find people - Americans or not - who have exclusively positive things to say about the US to be sort of suspicious (I remember hearing a speech Shevardnadze gave back in 2000 or 2001 and wanting to vomit from the fawning) or at best uninformed and misguided.

I guess my attitude is that if you care about a place, you treat it like a rough draft of a document - point out the flaws and suggest changes and improvements. And above all (I’m trying to see how pompous I can get, so I’m going to quote myself), “Neither an unabashed ‘phile nor a merciless ‘phobe be.”

As for the article that started all of this, of course it doesn’t propose specific changes, but then again it’s not a policy paper. Jesse, it seems like you have done some remote psychoanalysis to diagnose Idov as a “Russophobe,” as though there is no other possible reason why a snarky journalist might possibly write a story with a knowingly cynical slant. Forgive me, but I find this baffling. Earlier, you suggested that the guy “fixate[s] on and resent[s] a dynamic that has diminished the west’s leverage over Russia.” Now he gets another diagnosis:

I guess in Idov’s narrative I detect a little fear of a Russia that is doing well and feels good about itself - perhaps this fear is what provokes the irrational response.

Where exactly in the article did you detect that? Again, I’m sorry to keep going round and round about this, it just seems strange to diagnose someone so conclusively based on one piece of writing. Now I’ll shut up and await my own diagnosis. Please try not to be too harsh.
Lyndon on April 8, 2008 1:00 pm
Gah! Italics run amok. And all I wanted to do was italicize “any…

Should make the diagnosis easier
Kolya on April 8, 2008 1:15 pm
Thanks for the reply, Jesse. I guess I’ll bow out now on the Russophobia discussion since the conversation turned from common usage to the more scholarly/social science angle (I’m out of of my depth on this).

Jesse, on demographics, you wrote:

“birth and death rates are lagging indicators that follow economic fluctuations and social changes. Thus, the current demographic crisis resulted from the Yeltsin era, which most Russophobes glorify, and is just now beginning to reverse as a result of the stability from the Putin era.”

Well, you blame Idov of exaggerations, isn’t an exaggeration to say that Russophobes glorify the Yeltsin era?

Also, if you say that birth and death rates are lagging indicators then, it seems, that Yeltsin should also be absolved from much of the blame. The birth rate in Russia started to go sharply down in 1989, it stabilized around 1994 and it only started to go up in the last few years. The death rate was increasing very slowly for more than two decades prior to 1992, then it took a sharp upswing until 1995, and then it stayed pretty stable until today. That’s according to the graph I saw in Da Russophile, a pro-Putin blog. Here is a link to the graph itself:

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii139/tolsdogg_photo/demo1.jpg

I am very happy that the demographic situation is improving in Russia, but if you are correct about lagging indicators we certainly cannot blame the downturn on Putin’s immediate predecessor.
Chrisius Maximus on April 8, 2008 1:29 pm
“I am very happy that the demographic situation is improving in Russia, but if you are correct about lagging indicators we certainly cannot blame the downturn on Putin’s immediate predecessor.”

Just simply by looking at dates, the obvious person to blame would be Gorbachev, but people don’t want to go there.
Jesse on April 8, 2008 2:08 pm
What an exhausting subject…

-Lyndon: Idov seized on a series of anecdotes that he knew or should have known were not representative of the entire country. He used them to paint a gestalt of Russia’s inevitable collapse. Why would he do this? I can’t get inside his head, but I would assume he is motivated by something - perhaps a strong dislike, perhaps fear. Also, his article was a feature, not an editorial column. He could have done a really in-depth investigative report on Nashi that would have been far more damning without any of the editorializing.

-Kolya: see, we can have a discussion about the demographic situation without using stark terms about the apocalypse coming to Russia. Idov would be wise to learn from that…
Sean on April 8, 2008 2:09 pm
In regard to this point by Jesse:

He also drops assertions that just aren’t true - for example, he talks about how Duma members pursue their own business ‘in the absence of any real legislative work.’

I wonder how this article, “US Lawmakers Invested in Iraq, Afghanistan Wars” would be presented if the title was “Russian Lawmakers Invested in [Insert war here].”
Jesse on April 8, 2008 2:20 pm
Lyndon, whenever you’re ready to get help:

“The expert phobia team at The CTRN Phobia Clinic is board-certified to help with Russophobia and a variety of related problems. The success rate of our 24 hour program is close to 100%.”

http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/shortdescriptionlist.asp?phobiaid=1821
Jesse on April 8, 2008 2:41 pm
BTW, found this on google books:

“To the great army of russophobes who mislead others, and russophiles whom others mislead I dedicate this book which will be found equally disrespectful to the ignoble terrors of the one and the perverse complacency of the others”

-George Curzon, Russia in Central Asia in 1889
http://books.google.com/books?id=c9ANAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=russia+in+central+asia&ei=fvP7R52lD4PUzASSi5HjDQ#PPR3,M1
Lyndon on April 8, 2008 2:49 pm
Exhausting indeed. I completely agree that he lined up all of the era’s negative aspects being bemoaned by many among the chattering classes in Moscow. I don’t know if he turned on his TV while in Moscow (he mentions NTV coverage, so probably he did), but perhaps he was driven to exclude anything positive by the relentless positivity of that pervasive medium. Or perhaps he does not regard materialism/consumerism as positive at all, as you suggested before, in which case - also as you suggested - he’s probably not on the same page with many Russians. Then again, he’s writing his impressions, not taking an opinion poll - plenty of those exist already.

You say Idov has “paint[ed] a gestalt [I confess I had to look that up] of Russia’s inevitable collapse.” I re-read the article (for like the third time) and honestly did not see anything that hinted at a collapse. He doesn’t deny the country’s wealth and the sustainability of the current system; he even hints at the possibility that Medved might forge a new path of his own. He laments the current state of affairs but does not even hint at a “collapse.” Really, I sort of wonder if we’re talking about the same article.

You’ll also note that he does not engage in condemnation of the “Russian people” - a staple of true Russophobia - he simply, accurately in my opinion, describes many of them as indifferent to or disgusted with politics.

Why did he not do an old-school bit of investigative journalism? Who knows? It could be that it just isn’t as much fun, and he wanted to have fun. Or it could be that he realizes that readers of an American magazine do not want to read a down-in-the-weeds investigation of how Vasya Pupkin skimmed $10m from the Nashi coffers, since they have no idea what Nashi (not to mention Pupkin) is, nor do they particularly care? One of the aspects of journalism that wasn’t really mentioned in the other thread discussing the profession’s difficulties in covering Russia is that journalists (especially if they’re not writing wire reports) have to write for their audience.

Plus it seems that foreign journos are well-advised not to do hard investigative reporting nowadays. Apparently that is now considered “activity inconsistent with the status of a journalist.” Maybe he wants to get through passport control the next time he travels to Moscow. I’ll admit that’s a bit of a reach, but I’m just saying…

OK, now I need to go call that clinic. I know I’ll be a tough case for them, but hopefully they can help. Thanks for looking out for my mental health. And that book dedication is sweet.
Candide on April 8, 2008 3:26 pm
I didn’t know there was a “great army of russophobes” in late XIX century England. I thought they were called ‘jingoists’. I knew that the original ‘jingos’ wanted to fight not just any country, but Russia specifically.

Anyway, I’m not surprised that the term ‘Russophobe’ goes back for quite awhile, however I still think that it was revived and went viral just recently. I don’t remember it being used much in the period from late 80-s thru early 2000-s.

Here’s a comprehensive list of phobias.

http://www.typesofphobias.com/Types_of_Fears/Phobia_Fears_E-F.html

It doesn’t include Russo- or Anglo-, or Islamo-phobias. They all must be subtypes of Xenophobia. So first we must have an unbalanced psyche, then this psyche must fall to Xenophobia out of the great number of other fascinating phobias, and only then it must perverse satisfaction in hatred of all things Russian. So it’s not so easy to become a Russophobe, the journey is quite arduous and full of diversions. Congrats to those who made it to the end, all I can say.
fh on April 8, 2008 3:46 pm
Bravo Lyndon. The dissection Idov’s piece has attracted here is amazing. For folks who (they say) seem to think most journalism is crap, expectations are astonishingly high.

Journos aren’t social scientists or philosophers. They grab interesting stuff — okay, “memes” if you have to be trendy — and turn it into narratives that their audience wants to read. They’re story-tellers. Idov tells a good story. I doubt very much that he regarded it as following either a phobe or phile agenda. It was whatever his editor would buy, based on the editor’s reading of the audience.

Don’t like it? By all means, stop reading and move on.

Meanwhile, I’ve also read the piece several times looking for the leanings adduced here. What I’ve found is a few sharp edges which make the story more readable.

As a consequence, a few more people will have gained a bit more understanding about what’s happening in a place they otherwise wouldn’t spend much time thinking about. That’s a good thing.
Chrisius Maximus on April 8, 2008 3:50 pm
I actually haven’t read it.
fh on April 8, 2008 3:54 pm
I actually haven’t read it.

That’s a given.
Chrisius Maximus on April 8, 2008 3:58 pm
OUCH!
fh on April 8, 2008 3:58 pm
Go to sleep Chris. It’s bloody 4 am!
Chrisius Maximus on April 8, 2008 4:07 pm
I’m nocturnal. Don’t wake up until 10:30.

My bed is looking appealing though. Mmmm…. bed….
fh on April 8, 2008 4:22 pm
g’nite then. Have you clicked on these anti-spam words? Is that Sean talking? You think he spent an evening recording them? And still the video poker people persist.

How many video poker players do you figure are up for grabs on Sean’s blog? Pretty shabby marketing plan I think.
Misha on April 8, 2008 4:36 pm
“By the way, the discussion of “Russophobia” to which I believe Mr. Averko is referring can be seen here this one (in the post and comments), for those of you who are not JRL subscribers.”

****

Mr. Averko has a detailed reply to what wasn’t mentioned by the involved folks. It should be released in a few hours time.

That above mentioned discussion included suggestion of the “Russophobia” claim attempting to deflect legitimate criticism away from Russia. That suggestion can be seen as an attempt to belittle the clearcut anti-Rusian biases out there.

BTW, criticism of Russia should also include constructive criticism of it, in the form of in depth analysis; on whether Russia is pursuing its stated objectives in the best possible manner. More often than not, the propped criticism of Russia typically critiques Russia’s stated objectives; as opposed to agreeing with them, while disagreeing with some of the methods.
Chrisius Maximus on April 8, 2008 10:54 pm
OK, back to the previously above mentioned cited earlier spoken of notion of cultural stagnation. One, why is it supposed to be good for cultures to be dynamic? Panta rhei kai ouden menei (sorry, have to show off)? Two, what the heck does it mean? Is it even possible? Three, with the invective against “materialism,” isn’t a rejection of (ethical) idealism precisely what the collapse of the USSR was all about to some extent?

Note that I haven’t read the article, so I’m speaking broadly.
Chrisius Maximus on April 8, 2008 11:12 pm
“criticism of Russia should also include constructive criticism of it”

Why?
Misha on April 8, 2008 11:46 pm
Why not?

Should the criticism be exclusively based on perceptions that are coming from a way of thinking which isn’t in sync with most Russians?

One can agree with a set of policies, while disagreeing with some of the methodology.
Kolya on April 9, 2008 5:20 am
Thanks, Jesse, for that Curzon book. I downloaded the whole thing.

Chris, maybe we should not even blame Gorbachev. I’m 53, older than most of you, and besides the exciting generated by Gorbachev in the mid-1980s, I remember reading back then plenty of articles warning that Gorbachev was in an unenviable position because of what he inherited–weak economy and infrastructure, declining health system and troubling demographic trends (all those were, of course, interrelated).

Yes, the numbers got worse, but what I find interesting is that the Soviet Union’s life expectancy trend during the pre-perestroika period was nothing to brag about. As we all know, US life expectancy lags behind other developed countries. Nonetheless, like in those other countries, US life expectancy has been rising slowly through the years (with no dips). For example, in 1959 it was 69.98 years and by 1985 it was 74.79 years. Compared that to the Soviet Union: in 1959 it was 67.65 years, and in 1985 it was 68.33 years (and this insignificant rise was not steady, there were some slight dips in the process–the 1979 figure is lower than the one for 1959.)

(I can give links, if anyone is interested.)
Chrisius Maximus on April 9, 2008 5:29 am
“Chris, maybe we should not even blame Gorbachev.”

Oh yeah, I know all that stuff, and am not sure we should _blame_ anybody. I was just pointing out that Gorby is the guy under whom the stark collapse started, so if someonw wanted to point to a direct causal correlation between the state of affairs and the one guy in power, he’s the obvious choice. But Westerners don’t do this (except for a handful of leftover Communists) for ideological reasons.
Tim Newman on April 9, 2008 8:03 am
So it seems like the ura-patrioty (with the assistance of the blogger or kollektiv that you identified) have dusted off an old term which is perhaps a relic of the Great Game or somesuch.

I have heard the term Russophobia used in relation to the attitudes of certain contemporary British parliamentarians and commentators at the time of the Great Game in at least two separate sources written in the early 90s, although whether this term was used at the time or not I don’t know.
Tim Newman on April 9, 2008 8:11 am
It’s entirely different to say that Russia’s ‘oil-fueled’ prosperity has caused it to stagnate ‘in the widest sense’.

If what is meant by this is that Russia’s oil wealth has led to a reluctance to overhaul and reform its state institutions, then they are probably correct. Look to any Persian Gulf state to see that whilst the government coffers are nicely filled with oil money, the governmental institutions remain too weak with power concentrated in one or two of them, corrupt, subject to the whims of those in power, overstaffed, and inefficient. In terms of the development of Russia’s state institutions, they have indeed stagnated. Just spend a couple of hours a week dealing with the immigration or tax authorities to see evidence of that.
Tim Newman on April 9, 2008 8:17 am
I wonder how this article, “US Lawmakers Invested in Iraq, Afghanistan Wars” would be presented if the title was “Russian Lawmakers Invested in [Insert war here].”

It was P.J. O’Rourke who said that if legislators can rule on what can be bought and sold, the first thing to be bought and sold is legislators. The one universal constant running across the globe is that politicians will use their position to line their own pockets at every available opportunity. Whether Russia is any worse than the US or UK in this regard is a matter of degree, and a fine one at that.
Jesse on April 9, 2008 8:55 am
“If what is meant by this is that Russia’s oil wealth has led to a reluctance to overhaul and reform its state institutions, then they are probably correct.”

-Again, that’s a policy choice the government has made and it will have to live with the consequences if it is indeed so stagnant. The distinction is between Russia making poor policy decisions because of oil wealth and Russia’s cultural stagnation and impending doom due to oil wealth. To me, it’s the sensationalization of relatively mundane issues that makes the argument Russophobic. I’m not claiming that oil wealth has made everything awesome…

BTW, have you ever had to deal with the IRS? Try waiting 4 months for them to get a copy of your 1040 while they charge you interest on ‘back taxes’ at a rate that they won’t disclose - not. cool.
Tim Newman on April 9, 2008 9:02 am
The distinction is between Russia making poor policy decisions because of oil wealth and Russia’s cultural stagnation and impending doom due to oil wealth.

I have yet to see anyone, Idov included, claim the latter.

BTW, have you ever had to deal with the IRS?

Fortunately not, but I am quite ready to believe the IRS, like the UK’s HMRC, is as slow, oppressive, and incompetent as their Russian counterpart.
Cyrill on April 9, 2008 9:11 am
The one universal constant running across the globe is that politicians will use their position to line their own pockets at every available opportunity. Whether Russia is any worse than the US or UK in this regard is a matter of degree, and a fine one at that.

Very true. And the only way a country can be better or worse on this scale is actual power of politicians realized via the power of the state to regulate and basically run a racket. Russia is worse on this scale only because more people are dependent on the state then in the US in general.

I did not see “impending collapse” in the article either. I saw critical look at the current environment and some of it goes righ along Medvedev’s own laments about Russia’s legal nihilism. It sure is good for the goose.

I am afraid that some here are exhibiting the old phenomenon of “Russians can bemoan Russia freely but when someone else comes and repeats the same - hands off, Russophobe!” Sort of similar with the use of the N-word that is now reserved for black only in the US.
Kolya on April 9, 2008 9:16 am
Since the article’s reference to zastoi/stagnation is such a bone of contention, for those who have not read Idov’s piece, let me quote the relevant part along with what was immediately before and after.

/////… Coupled with economic hardships, this bureaucratic cronyism would undoubtedly fuel dissent, and perhaps even a popular revolt on par with Ukraine’s “Orange Revolution.” With oil prices where they are, wages rising across the board, and the new middle class getting its first taste of bank credit, however, all it breeds is utter indifference to the very concept of democracy.

Unlike Gorbachev’s perestroika, the key word of the Brezhnev era–zastoi, or stagnation–never gained currency in English, but it describes late-Putinist Russia fairly well. Economically booming, politically resurgent, today’s Russia is also culturally stagnant in the widest sense. Its only identifiable passion is to be taken seriously abroad. The depth of the Russian humiliation cannot be overstated. When a man named Vitaly Kaloyev, whose wife and child died in a Swiss plane crash, went to Switzerland and knifed the culpable air-traffic controller to death, he came back a national hero. A group of Nashi members met his flight with signs reading “You’re A Real Man,” and the North Ossetia Region honored Kaloev as its Man of the Year. He was soon offered a high government post.”/////

Okay, some readers may object to his line that Russia’s “only identifiable passion is to be taken seriously abroad” and I certainly hope Idov is wrong about Russia’s cultural stagnation (or hope that it’s short-lived phenomenon). In any event, FH has it totally right:

“Journos aren’t social scientists or philosophers. They grab interesting stuff — okay, “memes” if you have to be trendy — and turn it into narratives that their audience wants to read. They’re story-tellers. Idov tells a good story. I doubt very much that he regarded it as following either a phobe or phile agenda. It was whatever his editor would buy, based on the editor’s reading of the audience.

Don’t like it? By all means, stop reading and move on.

Meanwhile, I’ve also read the piece several times looking for the leanings adduced here. What I’ve found is a few sharp edges which make the story more readable.

As a consequence, a few more people will have gained a bit more understanding about what’s happening in a place they otherwise wouldn’t spend much time thinking about. That’s a good thing.”

All right, now I have to do some real work!
Chrisius Maximus on April 9, 2008 10:24 am
“When a man named Vitaly Kaloyev, whose wife and child died in a Swiss plane crash, went to Switzerland and knifed the culpable air-traffic controller to death, he came back a national hero.”

I think something similar would happen in pretty much any country. God knows I sympathized with the poor father.

Anyway, countries don’t have aspirations, except to some extent for ideologically fueled ones like totalitarianisms and/or theocracies. In my experience that they SHOULD is usually a province of the young — which perhaps not coincidentally the author or the piece appears to be.

Actually he looks like David Schwimmer. I keep expecting him to cry out “we were on a break!”
Tim Newman on April 9, 2008 10:37 am
I think something similar would happen in pretty much any country.

I can assure you that Brits would not think this chap a national hero.
Lyndon on April 9, 2008 11:07 am
He would get a government job for extrajudicially murdering someone? In “pretty much any country”? Chris, you’ve been in Moscow too long.

There is a big difference between some popular support for this kind of vigilantism and the government rewarding it. And it’s funny how the Russian government didn’t do much to help the victims of this tragedy, which was why this guy felt compelled to take matters into his own hands; yet then when he became a sensation for having taken things into his own hands, groups like Nashi were quick to jump on the “stick it to the evil foreigners” bandwagon for a free ride. Disgusting.
Misha on April 9, 2008 11:14 am
“Tim Newman on April 9, 2008 8:03 am So it seems like the ura-patrioty (with the assistance of the blogger or kollektiv that you identified) have dusted off an old term which is perhaps a relic of the Great Game or somesuch.

I have heard the term Russophobia used in relation to the attitudes of certain contemporary British parliamentarians and commentators at the time of the Great Game in at least two separate sources written in the early 90s, although whether this term was used at the time or not I don’t know.”

****

For sure. Some Brits feared Russia making advances into parts of their empire. India being one example.

Edgar Rice Burroughs was a kind of early day Ian Fleming. In his Tarzan series, there’re two Russian bad guys in India. At that time in history (late 19th/early 20th century), Russia showed no reasonable push in Africa.

For sure, there has been a fear of Russia. What’s greater among the so-called “Russophobes”: fearing or disliking Russia? In a number of instances both seem evident. Overall, which of the two is more prevalent?
IRISHMAN on April 9, 2008 11:29 am
”Disgusting.”

I thought the whole thing was the pits as well. A lot of Russians I spoke to had the attitude that nothing would be done against the air-traffic controller because ”Russians were killed and Russians dont matter to westerners”. What a stinking crock of shit. This kind of crap is just loved by Nashi and their ilk. I can assure you readers that such action would most certainly not be condoned in Ireland either. Russians I guess are just used to having a crap police force and authorities with absolutely no interest in serving the public, and the only way to get ”justice” was to murder in revenge, and think that it must be the same in the west. Thankfully thats not the case here.
Misha on April 9, 2008 11:30 am
The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22The+Genesis+of+Russophobia+in+Great+Britain%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f
Kolya on April 9, 2008 11:35 am
I agree with Lyndon and Tim. I cannot imagine such a guy becoming a hero or being officially honored. One thing is to empathize with him up to a certain extent, quite another is to condone or even call his act honorable. Yes, I can understand that he was distraught, but he killed a man who never intended any harm to his or anyone else’s family.
Kolya on April 9, 2008 11:37 am
Did not see your comment, Ger….
Candide on April 9, 2008 11:45 am
The paradox seems to be there are very few actual Russophobes nowadays, but great many people considering themselves victims of Russophobia.
Misha on April 9, 2008 12:25 pm
“Candide on April 9, 2008 11:45 am The paradox seems to be there are very few actual Russophobes nowadays, but great many people considering themselves victims of Russophobia.”

****

The “very few actual Russophobes” play relatively influential roles, when compared to their opposites.

The kind of tolerated commentary about Russia and Russians would be considered more unacceptable if some other groups were targeted.
Chrisius Maximus on April 9, 2008 12:30 pm
I didn’t think of the government job part. That’s true. He would be a popular hero though in the States anyway. The Free Republic people would go apeshit.

Actually the people who accidentally shot down the Iranian airliner were given honors. Whoops!

“Chris, you’ve been in Moscow too long.”

Could you be any more self-righteous, sonsidering that you live in the First World’s squallid Murder Capital, with a 70% poverty rate? Maybe you should be looking a little closer to home when talking about government callousness.

* In Switzerland, it’s a whopping one-year suspended sentence or a $12,000 fine: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/09/04/swiss-crash.html
Chrisius Maximus on April 9, 2008 12:34 pm
“A lot of Russians I spoke to had the attitude that nothing would be done against the air-traffic controller because ”Russians were killed and Russians dont matter to westerners”. What a stinking crock of shit.”

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/09/04/swiss-crash.html

“Three of those convicted Tuesday — all middle managers — received one-year suspended prison sentences. The fourth was ordered to pay an $11,800 US fine for his role in the collision, on July 1, 2002, of a Bashkirian Airlines Tupolev 154 plane and a DHL cargo jet near the south German town of Ueberlingen, killing the two cargo pilots and everyone on the passenger plane.”

One-year suspended sentences and $12,000. In other words, they were punished with nothing.
Chrisius Maximus on April 9, 2008 12:54 pm
Wait a second — just out of curiosity, was he greeted as a Russian national hero a North Ossetian hero? He’s not Russian you know.
Lyndon on April 9, 2008 1:03 pm
Actually the people who accidentally shot down the Iranian airliner were given honors. Whoops!

Sorry, what does this have to do with the Kaloyev case exactly?

Could you be any more self-righteous, sonsidering that you live in the First World’s squallid Murder Capital, with a 70% poverty rate? Maybe you should be looking a little closer to home when talking about government callousness.

Could you be any more divorced from reality? You’re operating with old info, Chris. DC hasn’t been the “murder capital” for a while, and you may want to check current poverty stats. Google “DC gentrification” (and yes, sadly some of the poverty has just been pushed out of the city - almost Luzhkovian).

Anyway, the knock on DC gov’t has never been that they are “callous” or indifferent - just incompetent/inefficient - e.g., among the highest per capita per-pupil expenditures in the public schools, but with horrible results. I’ve been known to compare the level of corruption and gov’t inefficiency in my hometown to that in my vtoraia rodina.

One-year suspended sentences and $12,000. In other words, they were punished with nothing.

What do you think would happen in a similar situation in Russia? What exact law would you charge them under? Look up the case of the guards at Domodedovo who let the shakhidki bribe their way onto those planes. I could be wrong, and I don’t have time to look it up, but I doubt they were int he dock for murder.
Lyndon on April 9, 2008 1:10 pm
Um, yes, I know he’s not russkii. But IIRC he was feted upon arrival in Moscow by a number of federal-level groups.
IRISHMAN on April 9, 2008 1:14 pm
”One-year suspended sentences and $12,000. In other words, they were punished with nothing.”

In fairness, it was hard for the Swiss to jail the air-traffic control for manslaughter because he was….you know, dead? Murdered? At the end of the day the air-traffic controller was at fault, not middle management. There are no doubt the systems in place were shambolic but jailing middle management would have been ridiculous. So I still think the Russian view of the whole thing, that westerners could get away with manslaughter because it was Russians who died, is a pile of bullshit. This from the same people who hardly batted an eyelid when thousands of their own people were killed in Grozny 1994-1996. Hilarious. Just hilarious. And whilst we’re at it, I’m pretty sure if it were western planes that had collided on account of Russian negligence, no-one would be jailed in Russia. Not a hope. Why? Because everything is the fault of the west, after all:-)

Kolya -d’accord.

Chris - the man was Ossetian, and according to one anecdote I heard, this kind of revenge killing is not unusual in those parts. Did it bring his wife and kids back? No. Did it make him happy that he did it? Unlikely. Would the air-traffic controller have slept a night in peace had he lived? Definitely not. Are a family grieving in Switzerland because of a young man’s death? Absolutely. Yeah, he sure did the right thing. Maladyets.
Chrisius Maximus on April 9, 2008 1:43 pm
“Chris - the man was Ossetian, and according to one anecdote I heard, this kind of revenge killing is not unusual in those parts.”

Yeah, that’s exactly what I was thinking. It’s a vigilante culture.

Lyndon, unless a miracle has happened since I lived in DC (which can happen — it has in Moscow, but then the US has not been experiencing an economic boom), it is divided into areas of squallor full of violence and largely affluent areas, these suspiciously usually correlating to the skin color of their inhabitants. When I was working in an AIDS policy advisory center in Silver Spring in 1999, the HIV infection rate in DC prisons was something like 50% and the average number of abortions per woman in Southeast DC something like 8. However, the point is not to engage in Averkian tu quoqueisms. The point is that you should maybe be a little less gratingly self-righteous about other people’s countries. It’s really irritating. Just imagine what Lyndon Allin’s reaction would be if Medvedev had advocated use of torture in the run-up to the election.
Chrisius Maximus on April 9, 2008 1:51 pm
“Would the air-traffic controller have slept a night in peace had he lived?”

Assuming this is true, which is likely, I think the same is true for most people who commit negligent homicide, such as practically every drunk driver who has ever plowed into somebody. Let alone negligent mass murder. In fact it’s likely true for most people who commit homicide in general. Call me an advocate of retributionist justice if you will, but that is not enough.
IRISHMAN on April 9, 2008 2:03 pm
”Call me an advocate of retributionist justice if you will, but that is not enough.”

But he would have been jailed had he lived Chris, of that there is no doubt. And he was already dead, when you think about it. His heart was still beating, but his life was over. And retributionism is not justice -he did not deserve to die. He did not murder anyone. I’m actually in favour of capital punishment for violent rape and murder, but he murdered no-one, and should not have died. The only murderer in all this was the Ossetian.
Misha on April 9, 2008 2:20 pm
“However, the point is not to engage in Averkian tu quoqueisms.”

****

More like Doss absurdly thinking that he’s a more knowledgeable and intelligent source on a number of issues.
Tim Newman on April 9, 2008 2:23 pm
Could you be any more self-righteous, sonsidering that you live in the First World’s squallid Murder Capital, with a 70% poverty rate?

Relative poverty, probably calculated without considering non-cash governmental aid. That’s a bullshit statistic if ever I’ve seen one.
Chrisius Maximus on April 9, 2008 2:36 pm
“Relative poverty, probably calculated without considering non-cash governmental aid. That’s a bullshit statistic if ever I’ve seen one.”

You’ve never been in DC, have you? Please do not try to tell me what the city I lived in for 6 years is like. If you do, I will begin lecturing you on living conditions in Wales.

By the way, ALL poverty is relative.
Chrisius Maximus on April 9, 2008 2:39 pm
“And he was already dead, when you think about it. His heart was still beating, but his life was over.”

You’re such a softy! Neither you or I know what was going through the guy’s head.

“But he would have been jailed had he lived Chris, of that there is no doubt.”

How do you know this?
IRISHMAN on April 9, 2008 2:54 pm
”How do you know this?”

First of all, the middle boys got suspended sentences inspite of only indirect involvement, and seemingly criminal negligence causing death is a custodial offence in Switzerland. I saw it on a BBC documentary about the whole thing. He was going down by all accounts, as he was explicitly responsible. 10 years as I recall was what was thought of.

”You’re such a softy!”

Ya znayu, znayu:-) But in fairness it would be a rare person indeed who could put that much death behind them.
Tim Newman on April 9, 2008 3:01 pm
You’ve never been in DC, have you? Please do not try to tell me what the city I lived in for 6 years is like.

I will if you’re going to tell me that 70% of the population live in poverty. Yes, I have been in DC, and no, it wasn’t twice as bad as Victorian London.

By the way, ALL poverty is relative.

Not true. There is absolute poverty, which has been defined in numerous ways, which is not relative. However, absolute poverty does not allow scary stastics to be bandied about quite so easily.
Kolya on April 9, 2008 3:13 pm
Chris, I don’t see any self-righteousness in Lyndon. He’s more than willing to slam the US when it deserves it. The impression I get from you, though, is that all too often you respond with typical knee-jerk anti-West/US reactions. Ironically, such reactions are not too uncommon among Americans.
ivanov on April 9, 2008 3:23 pm
Dzhesus kraist!
I just said that Idov didn’t impressed me!
It’s much more fun and interesting to read this blog’s “writers”, indeed, than the person who pretends to be smart and knowledgeable but …

PS. It also shows how effective Cold War propaganda was. WAS? I think - IS.
Chrisius Maximus on April 9, 2008 4:52 pm
“Yes, I have been in DC, and no, it wasn’t twice as bad as Victorian London.”

Comparing a city in 21st century America to one in Victorian Britain is fucking ridiculous as you well know.

And no, you cannot be absolutely poor, because the concept of “poor,” like “rich,” only makes sense with respect to an average, which only exists in a given time and place.
Chrisius Maximus on April 9, 2008 4:57 pm
“Chris, I don’t see any self-righteousness in Lyndon. He’s more than willing to slam the US when it deserves it. The impression I get from you, though, is that all too often you respond with typical knee-jerk anti-West/US reactions.”

There is some truth in this. However, Lyndon’s flag of righteousness is seen to wave whenever he accuses people he doesn’t agree with of being inheritors of the NKVD or whatever, which is frequent. He seems incapable of believing that people can disagree with him without being either evil or stupid.
Tim Newman on April 9, 2008 5:31 pm
Comparing a city in 21st century America to one in Victorian Britain is fucking ridiculous as you well know.

No more ridiculous than claiming a 21st century American city has 70% poverty.

And no, you cannot be absolutely poor, because the concept of “poor,” like “rich,” only makes sense with respect to an average, which only exists in a given time and place.

Who said anything about rich or poor? I am talking about the concept of poverty, which can be defined in absolute or relative terms. I find the former much more useful when addressing the problem of poverty (which certainly exists) because absolute poverty is something all societies need to eliminate, whereas eliminating relative poverty is an exercise in making everybody of equal wealth. And we’ve all seen the ultimate conclusions of these type of plans.
Lyndon on April 9, 2008 7:00 pm
Wow, step away for a few hours and look what happens…

Lyndon, unless a miracle has happened since I lived in DC (which can happen — it has in Moscow, but then the US has not been experiencing an economic boom),

Actually, DC property values basically doubled from about 2000-2005. They’re not growing anymore, that’s for sure, but they aren’t plummeting, either. I’m sure you think I’m bullshitting, but the change has been amazing. Yes, the areas across the Anacostia are still in bad shape, and (as I mentioned above) some people have simply been priced out of the city and moved to PG County, but there are far fewer such places than there were 10 or 15 years ago.

it is divided into areas of squallor full of violence and largely affluent areas, these suspiciously usually correlating to the skin color of their inhabitants.

Chris, please read my earlier comment again and spare me the “Chelovek s Pyatogo Avenyu” bit (the article at that link is priceless). Believe it or not, it is no longer the 1990s, DC is no longer the “murder capital,” and I doubt the poverty rate has ever been 70% (see, e.g., here for income and poverty figures, and here for crime stats, although I know you’re sometimes averse to reading things that interfere with your worldview).

There is great disparity in incomes, to be sure, but is that not the case in Moscow as well (the triumph of capitalism!)? Although arguably many of its problems stem from too much government money spent badly as opposed to the sort of inhumanity you imply, DC is definitely a fucked up and perhaps even an unjust place in many ways (for example, see

Meta

Topics

Recent Posts

Academic Jounals

Blogs on Russia and Post-Soviet States

CIS News Links

CIS Online National and Regional Newspapers

Listening

Other Blogs

Reading

Resources

Stats

Apr

7

“Avoiding this heap of memes”

Comments