Geography - MobyGames

sgtcook (1318) on 2/13/2010 5:19 PM · Permalink · Report

My guesses are as following:

The majority of Russia is in Asia

There is no Africa section, and (well Nintendo at least) cover Africa and the Middle East under their Europe branch.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/13/2010 5:30 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start sgtcook wrote--]My guesses are as following:

The majority of Russia is in Asia

There is no Africa section, and (well Nintendo at least) cover Africa and the Middle East under their Europe branch. [/Q --end sgtcook wrote--] The majority of Russia is in Asia - yes, if we talking about geography, but most people of Russia lives in Europe. And our analogue television encoding system is PAL. And Russia is member of Council of Europe.

So this is very interesting because I can't see any powerful argument why Russia is an asian country :)

Zeppin (8408) on 2/13/2010 5:27 PM · Permalink · Report

Although I feel Russia should be included in the European section, as its capital is in Europe, its culture European, and its population largely residing and originating in Europe, it isn't rare to group Russia and China together for geographic reasons.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/13/2010 5:38 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Agent 5 wrote--]Although I feel Russia should be included in the European section, as its capital is in Europe, its culture European, and its population largely residing and originating in Europe, it isn't rare to group Russia and China together for geographic reasons. [/Q --end Agent 5 wrote--] But if we talk about games, there is nothing common between Russia and China. Many games in Russia (especially for consoles: Xbox360, PS3 etc.) are only in english and only european editions (for Great Britain, for example).

And what reasons you talking about? :) China isn't part of Central Asia.

Alaka (106076) on 2/13/2010 6:01 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

This has been discussed many times before.

See this thread:

http://www.mobygames.com/forums/dga,2/dgb,4/dgm,109923/

which leads to even more threads.

The bottom line seems to be this: Since most of Russia is in Asia it stays Asia. Maybe after a million more of these threads it may be changed. Who knows? :)

Me personally, I think Russia should be listed as a European country also. Just makes more sense and I'd be surpised if someone new made a thread in the forums if the case was the opposite here, asking why Russia wasn't listed in the Asia section.

Oh and as for South Africa, it was said they are not making a new heading for just one country so South Africa stays in Europe for now.

vedder (70767) on 2/13/2010 6:09 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

These threads keep popping up because it still doesn't make sense :)

It would be much better to either not group the countries at all or group them in accordance with marketing regions (in which case having Israel and South Africa included with Europe is justified). But still then the group should make this clear to the user.

Unicorn Lynx (181778) on 2/13/2010 7:44 PM · Permalink · Report

It would be much better to either not group the countries at all or group them in accordance with marketing regions (in which case having Israel and South Africa included with Europe is justified).

But Israel is included with Asia in MG system.

It is included in Europe for sports tournaments, but it's only because too many Asian countries don't like us.

I'm curious where we put Turkey. Now that could be a huge debate. I wonder what most Turks think - are they in Europe or in Asia?

Don't know why Russians get so offended when they are called "Asians", but yeah, I see the point. The Asian part of Russia are actually colonies. The "real" Russia is all Europe.

As for South Africa being Europe... that really doesn't make much sense, and it looks too funny.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/13/2010 8:01 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]

I'm curious where we put Turkey. Now that could be a huge debate. I wonder what most Turks think - are they in Europe or in Asia?

[/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] I think it's clear :) Turks want to EU, but I don't think they'll become part of United Europe (however as well as Russia cause we don't need it) so they will say, I think, that they are part of Europe. But most of Turkey is in Asia and most of Turks live in Asia. Clear, isn't it?

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]

Don't know why Russians get so offended when they are called "Asians", but yeah, I see the point. The Asian part of Russia are actually colonies. The "real" Russia is all Europe. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Russians saved Europe from polovtsy (pechenegs, etc.), Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler (when they came to us, I don't know why :) ), so as for me I understand why we are not asians - most of Russians have nothing common with, for example, China.

And please, stop talking about east part of Russia as "colonies" or (I saw in some topic) "non-russian tribes" - if somebody knows about Russia only something that he has read in wikipedia he shouldn't think that all of this is true cause in fact he knows about Russia nothing.

I know, that lots of people in America or west Europe think, that in Russia lives uncivilized tribes of fucking communists, but in fact it's not true. Sorry if it looks rude, but I don't like when somebody talks about something that he saw only in wikipedia, world map or some western book about evil Russians :)

And you know, Russians called 'Asians' only on mobygames.com. :)

Игги Друге (46653) on 2/13/2010 11:38 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--] Russians saved Europe from polovtsy (pechenegs, etc.), Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler (when they came to us, I don't know why :) ), so as for me I understand why we are not asians - most of Russians have nothing common with, for example, China. [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--] I'm glad I live in a country that wasn't "saved" by Russians.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/14/2010 10:26 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Игги Друге wrote--]

I'm glad I live in a country that wasn't "saved" by Russians. [/Q --end Игги Друге wrote--] Russians fought with intervention from Sweden many times so your trolling is not meaningful. As we say in Russia, "whose cow would low, and yours better be silent"

Игги Друге (46653) on 2/15/2010 8:28 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--] [Q2 --start Игги Друге wrote--]

I'm glad I live in a country that wasn't "saved" by Russians. [/Q2 --end Игги Друге wrote--] Russians fought with intervention from Sweden many times so your trolling is not meaningful. [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

That's exactly what I mean. Historically, Russia's sphere of interest has been so big that the mere existence of other nations is seen as intervention.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/15/2010 8:43 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

LOL. Don't think it was just "existance" or maybe you could explain, that Sweden exists in Ukraine and under Old Ladoga and Novgorod?)

Игги Друге (46653) on 2/17/2010 2:54 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--]LOL. Don't think it was just "existance" or maybe you could explain, that Sweden exists in Ukraine and under Old Ladoga and Novgorod?) [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--] In fact, I can. Russia declared war on Sweden and invaded Ingermanland. Neva was an intrusion that shouldn't have occured, I agree about that.

Now, can you explain why Russians live in Karelia?

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/17/2010 10:27 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Игги Друге wrote--] [Q2 --start katarn_88 wrote--]LOL. Don't think it was just "existance" or maybe you could explain, that Sweden exists in Ukraine and under Old Ladoga and Novgorod?) [/Q2 --end katarn_88 wrote--] In fact, I can. Russia declared war on Sweden and invaded Ingermanland. Neva was an intrusion that shouldn't have occured, I agree about that.

Now, can you explain why Russians live in Karelia? [/Q --end Игги Друге wrote--] Ingermanland was land of ancient Russians, it was land of Velikiy Novgorod. If you agree with that fact, that in XIII century Sweden made a mistake fighting with Alexander Nevskiy, you should know that Neva is center of Ingermanland and in XIII century it was Russian land. Karelia was part of Novgorod republic thousand years ago so I think this is our land.

And about Peter the Great and war with Sweden. In Time of Troubles (late XVI- early XVII centuries) Sweden used that fact, that Russian king was dead, enemies from west and south invaded Russia. The time governor concluded the alliance with Sweden king in exchange for part of Karelia. But soon Sweden betrayed Russia and took great part of north-west Russia. So Peter the Great just took back something, that was stolen by Sweden.

In fact, ancient Russians was not only slavic tribes but finno-ugry too so Novgorod republic included not only slavic tribes lands but allied finno-ugry too so I can't understand what you want too say because Karelia is an ancient part of Russia, but Sweden has no any rights on it.

Игги Друге (46653) on 2/18/2010 1:20 AM · Permalink · Report

Ingermanland was land of ancient Russians, it was land of Velikiy Novgorod.

Russia is the land of ancient Russians. Ingermanland is the land of ancient ingrians and votians. You have a very broad definition of Russian.

If you agree with that fact, that in XIII century Sweden made a mistake fighting with Alexander Nevskiy, you should know that Neva is center of Ingermanland and in XIII century it was Russian land. Karelia was part of Novgorod republic thousand years ago so I think this is our land.

First of all, there was no "Russia" a thousand years ago, so it can't be "your" land. It's like saying that North Africa belongs to Greece or Italy because it belonged to Rome in the past. Karelia is the land of the Karelians, and the first town in Karelia was Viborg, which only fell into Russian hands after a bloody war of conquest in 1940.

As I've said, I agree that Novgorod should have been left alone, which was the case most of the time.

And about Peter the Great and war with Sweden. In Time of Troubles (late XVI- early XVII centuries) Sweden used that fact, that Russian king was dead, enemies from west and south invaded Russia. The time governor concluded the alliance with Sweden king in exchange for part of Karelia. But soon Sweden betrayed Russia and took great part of north-west Russia. So Peter the Great just took back something, that was stolen by Sweden.

Ingermanland was first conquered after Russia went to war, trying to conquer Swedish territory in Estonia. When Russia didn't pay tributes (much of Ingermanland) for the aid against the Poles, it was taken again.

In fact, ancient Russians was not only slavic tribes but finno-ugry too so Novgorod republic included not only slavic tribes lands but allied finno-ugry too so I can't understand what you want too say because Karelia is an ancient part of Russia, but Sweden has no any rights on it.

Ancient Russians can't be finno-ugric, they are two different tribes. That's even more stupid than saying that ancient Russians were Scandinavian tribes. The fact that people in Karelia speak Russian nowadays is because of Stalin's politics.

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/18/2010 8:44 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Игги Друге wrote--] Ancient Russians can't be finno-ugric, they are two different tribes. That's even more stupid than saying that ancient Russians were Scandinavian tribes. The fact that people in Karelia speak Russian nowadays is because of Stalin's politics. [/Q --end Игги Друге wrote--]

Actually, considering the number of baltic finns in ancient Novgorod, and the "sameness" of those languages, and that ancient estonian tribes used to hang out with Novgorod a lot, and the whole Sigtuna thing... there seems to be a certain large influence of finno-ugricness in Novgorod. Not to mention the scandinavian influences.

Or how ancient did you mean? The proto-slavic days?

Or how do you approach nations anyway? Do you approach them in the modern deconstructionist way that says that all nations are made-up means of social control, collective fantasies to imprison the individual mind? Or in the nationalistic way that includes proto-people, proto-states as part of modern day nations?

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/18/2010 12:55 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Игги Друге wrote--]Ingermanland was land of ancient Russians, it was land of Velikiy Novgorod.

Russia is the land of ancient Russians. Ingermanland is the land of ancient ingrians and votians. You have a very broad definition of Russian. [/Q --end Игги Друге wrote--] Ancient Russians weren't only slavic tribes, if you can't understand this simple fact, I don't know how to talk with you.

[Q --start Игги Друге wrote--] If you agree with that fact, that in XIII century Sweden made a mistake fighting with Alexander Nevskiy, you should know that Neva is center of Ingermanland and in XIII century it was Russian land. Karelia was part of Novgorod republic thousand years ago so I think this is our land.

First of all, there was no "Russia" a thousand years ago, so it can't be "your" land. It's like saying that North Africa belongs to Greece or Italy because it belonged to Rome in the past. Karelia is the land of the Karelians, and the first town in Karelia was Viborg, which only fell into Russian hands after a bloody war of conquest in 1940.

As I've said, I agree that Novgorod should have been left alone, which was the case most of the time. [/Q --end Игги Друге wrote--] LOL what? Vibog became Russian (ok, it was karelian tribes who lived there, but they were part of Russia) city centuries ago - look in any history book or just wikipedia. Novgorod has so many lands in medieval, so it was bigger than Sweden in 3 or 4 times if not bigger.

[Q --start Игги Друге wrote--] And about Peter the Great and war with Sweden. In Time of Troubles (late XVI- early XVII centuries) Sweden used that fact, that Russian king was dead, enemies from west and south invaded Russia. The time governor concluded the alliance with Sweden king in exchange for part of Karelia. But soon Sweden betrayed Russia and took great part of north-west Russia. So Peter the Great just took back something, that was stolen by Sweden.

Ingermanland was first conquered after Russia went to war, trying to conquer Swedish territory in Estonia. When Russia didn't pay tributes (much of Ingermanland) for the aid against the Poles, it was taken again. [/Q --end Игги Друге wrote--] In time of Nevskiy Ingermanland was part of Novgorod, so what do you whant to proove now? Russia gave Sweden all we should give (I think, it was wrong decision to ask help from one of the greatest enemy, but, but, but...) but Sweden took much more.

[Q --start Игги Друге wrote--] In fact, ancient Russians was not only slavic tribes but finno-ugry too so Novgorod republic included not only slavic tribes lands but allied finno-ugry too so I can't understand what you want too say because Karelia is an ancient part of Russia, but Sweden has no any rights on it.

Ancient Russians can't be finno-ugric, they are two different tribes. That's even more stupid than saying that ancient Russians were Scandinavian tribes. The fact that people in Karelia speak Russian nowadays is because of Stalin's politics. [/Q --end Игги Друге wrote--] LOL. We have no need to be "scandinavian tribes". If you can't understand simple things, I repeat, how we can talk? Even in IX Russia (Novgorodskay Rus') wasn't a country of one nation - slavic - so in Novgorod (Kiev Rus', Moscow Rus', Russian Empire, USSR and modern Russia) always lived many other tribes, finno-ugric too. So during centuries they start to talk Russian - what's problem? Your tale about Stalin is wrong cause it was just 50-70 years ago but russkie and finno-ury lived together for centuries.

I don't know - in Sweden there is only one nation which lived there for centuries? If it's right, I can understand why you can't understand how it could be that in Russia always lived not only Russians. LOL

Indra was here (20756) on 2/18/2010 8:24 PM · Permalink · Report

Egad, people.

The bloke with the bigger gun (threats, alliances, and similar variations) wins in historical political discourse. Sad but true.

Any other argument is PR. :p

Игги Друге (46653) on 2/19/2010 12:35 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--] Ancient Russians weren't only slavic tribes, if you can't understand this simple fact, I don't know how to talk with you.[/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

So you are saying that at some point in time, a common race and language somehow split into two distinctly unrelated languages and tribes? It's an interesting theory, but it is about as academic as the location of Atlantis.

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--]LOL what? Vibog became Russian (ok, it was karelian tribes who lived there, but they were part of Russia) city centuries ago - look in any history book or just wikipedia. [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

So, tell me, who founded Viborg, and why did Alvar Aalto build its library if it's a Russian city?

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--]In time of Nevskiy Ingermanland was part of Novgorod, so what do you whant to proove now? Russia gave Sweden all we should give (I think, it was wrong decision to ask help from one of the greatest enemy, but, but, but...) but Sweden took much more.[/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

Yes, it must have been terrible for poor little Russia to be squished between horrible Poles and Swedes.

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--]LOL. We have no need to be "scandinavian tribes". If you can't understand simple things, I repeat, how we can talk? Even in IX Russia (Novgorodskay Rus') wasn't a country of one nation - slavic - so in Novgorod (Kiev Rus', Moscow Rus', Russian Empire, USSR and modern Russia) always lived many other tribes, finno-ugric too. So during centuries they start to talk Russian - what's problem? Your tale about Stalin is wrong cause it was just 50-70 years ago but russkie and finno-ury lived together for centuries.[/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

That's exactly what I'm saying, Russia is a relatively new invention, considering how many "Rus" there were. The fact that other tribes lived there is a natural result of conquest. The fact that people in Karelia speak Russian is because the Karelians left when the bombs started falling on their houses, houses which Russians moved into after the great patriotic war.

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--]I don't know - in Sweden there is only one nation which lived there for centuries? If it's right, I can understand why you can't understand how it could be that in Russia always lived not only Russians. LOL [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

Actually, there used to live a lot of Finns in Sweden, but one day they all lived in Russia. How do you explain that?

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/19/2010 4:37 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Игги Друге wrote--] [Q2 --start katarn_88 wrote--] Ancient Russians weren't only slavic tribes, if you can't understand this simple fact, I don't know how to talk with you. [/Q2 --end katarn_88 wrote--]

So you are saying that at some point in time, a common race and language somehow split into two distinctly unrelated languages and tribes? It's an interesting theory, but it is about as academic as the location of Atlantis. [/Q --end Игги Друге wrote--] Why unrelated? When Karelia became part of Russia there was started process of russification. It's normal when in 1 country live more than 1 nation and after centuries they start to talk on only 1 language.

[Q --start Игги Друге wrote--] [Q2 --start katarn_88 wrote--]LOL what? Vibog became Russian (ok, it was karelian tribes who lived there, but they were part of Russia) city centuries ago - look in any history book or just wikipedia. [/Q2 --end katarn_88 wrote--]

So, tell me, who founded Viborg, and why did Alvar Aalto build its library if it's a Russian city? [/Q --end Игги Друге wrote--] Viborg was founded by Karelian tribes. About second question I can give such example: ask me why Pope lives in Rome if it's city of August :D

[Q --start Игги Друге wrote--] [Q2 --start katarn_88 wrote--]In time of Nevskiy Ingermanland was part of Novgorod, so what do you whant to proove now? Russia gave Sweden all we should give (I think, it was wrong decision to ask help from one of the greatest enemy, but, but, but...) but Sweden took much more. [/Q2 --end katarn_88 wrote--]

Yes, it must have been terrible for poor little Russia to be squished between horrible Poles and Swedes. [/Q --end Игги Друге wrote--] And you think that's normal to take something not yours if you see that your neighbour is bigget than you? lol

[Q --start Игги Друге wrote--] [Q2 --start katarn_88 wrote--]LOL. We have no need to be "scandinavian tribes". If you can't understand simple things, I repeat, how we can talk? Even in IX Russia (Novgorodskay Rus') wasn't a country of one nation - slavic - so in Novgorod (Kiev Rus', Moscow Rus', Russian Empire, USSR and modern Russia) always lived many other tribes, finno-ugric too. So during centuries they start to talk Russian - what's problem? Your tale about Stalin is wrong cause it was just 50-70 years ago but russkie and finno-ury lived together for centuries. [/Q2 --end katarn_88 wrote--]

That's exactly what I'm saying, Russia is a relatively new invention, considering how many "Rus" there were. The fact that other tribes lived there is a natural result of conquest. The fact that people in Karelia speak Russian is because the Karelians left when the bombs started falling on their houses, houses which Russians moved into after the great patriotic war. [/Q --end Игги Друге wrote--] What? In Karelia Russian never fight against people of Karelia, what are you talking about? It looks like in Sweden there is unique history of Karelia, nobody else knows it.

[Q --start Игги Друге wrote--] [Q2 --start katarn_88 wrote--]I don't know - in Sweden there is only one nation which lived there for centuries? If it's right, I can understand why you can't understand how it could be that in Russia always lived not only Russians. LOL [/Q2 --end katarn_88 wrote--]

Actually, there used to live a lot of Finns in Sweden, but one day they all lived in Russia. How do you explain that? [/Q --end Игги Друге wrote--] More than for century (XIX-XX) Finland was part of Russia. That's why lots of them lived there. As I know, Sweden and Finland are very different countries and their nations are also very different. But Sweden often tried to conquer Finland. So it's your turn to explain this.

Unicorn Lynx (181778) on 2/14/2010 7:44 AM · Permalink · Report

And please, stop talking about east part of Russia as "colonies"

It's not an insult. Asian part of Russia was colonized long time ago. Lots of countries do that. Okay, if you don't like the word "colonies", how about "imperial provinces". That would be historically more accurate.

or (I saw in some topic) "non-russian tribes"

I wouldn't use the word "tribe", but you do agree that Buryats, Yakuts, Chukcha, and many others are not Russians?

if somebody knows about Russia only something that he has read in wikipedia he shouldn't think that all of this is true cause in fact he knows about Russia nothing.

I believe I know more that that about Russia, what with being born there :)

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/14/2010 10:34 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--] or (I saw in some topic) "non-russian tribes"

I wouldn't use the word "tribe", but you do agree that Buryats, Yakuts, Chukcha, and many others are not Russians? [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] It was example from another topic "why Russia is an asian country". But if you was born in USSR, you should know difference between Russians - "russkie" - and Russians - "rossiyane". I can't understand why in english there is only one word for two different terms.

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]

if somebody knows about Russia only something that he has read in wikipedia he shouldn't think that all of this is true cause in fact he knows about Russia nothing.

I believe I know more that that about Russia, what with being born there :) [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] I don't know, cause you have left Russia or USSR I don't know when you was a child as I read in your profile :) and talk now about some colonies - term, that is not correct if we talk about Siberia.

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/14/2010 11:55 AM · Permalink · Report

You seem to live in a very isolated narrative, where others only get their facts of Russia from wikipedia and where you only know the truth. If anything, there are more people in Moby who know a lot about Russia than in other corners of the internet. You seem to mistake anything going against your narrative for trolling, when it isn't meant as insulting at all.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/14/2010 12:41 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Mary O'Hannah wrote--]You seem to live in a very isolated narrative, where others only get their facts of Russia from wikipedia and where you only know the truth. If anything, there are more people in Moby who know a lot about Russia than in other corners of the internet. You seem to mistake anything going against your narrative for trolling, when it isn't meant as insulting at all. [/Q --end Mary O'Hannah wrote--] I don't know what you (or other non-russian people from mobygames) knows about Russia, it doesn't matter anything for me. Something that matters - why Russia is in Asia, if you need talking about history or culture of Russia - make your own topic and talk there (maybe I'll look at it to be sure that you know or don't know something about topic), but in this topic I'm interested only in one mistake in mobygames database - that's all.

P.S. As I see in english-talking part of Internet, people from other countries love to think that they know something about Russia, in fact their knowledge about Russia are funny stories, nothing else.

Why you continue this offtop?

And, one more time, my english isn't good so I want explain that I don't want to be rude or offend somebody.

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/14/2010 1:14 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--] I don't know what you (or other non-russian people from mobygames) knows about Russia, it doesn't matter anything for me. Something that matters - why Russia is in Asia, if you need talking about history or culture of Russia - make your own topic and talk there (maybe I'll look at it to be sure that you know or don't know something about topic), but in this topic I'm interested only in one mistake in mobygames database - that's all.[/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

For me Asia is everything East of Elbe. It's just my personal stand of defiance against the rampant racism in modern day Eastern Europeia. I'm not singling out Russia for some malicious purpose.

I might do one pan-eastern european thread, where I try to analyze how we all have influenced each other, and compare various eastern european nationalistic narratives of protecting Europe from the other and a certain dualism of being asian or european shared by us all.

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--] As I see in english-talking part of Internet, people from other countries love to think that they know something about Russia, in fact their knowledge about Russia are funny stories, nothing else. [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

Ignorant people who love sterotyping others to make themselves feel good. Don't worry, Oleg and me aren't like that. Also, Russia isn't the only eastern european country suffering from this.

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--] And, one more time, my english isn't good so I want explain that I don't want to be rude or offend somebody. [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

That's okay.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/14/2010 2:46 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Mary O'Hannah wrote--] [Q2 --start katarn_88 wrote--] I don't know what you (or other non-russian people from mobygames) knows about Russia, it doesn't matter anything for me. Something that matters - why Russia is in Asia, if you need talking about history or culture of Russia - make your own topic and talk there (maybe I'll look at it to be sure that you know or don't know something about topic), but in this topic I'm interested only in one mistake in mobygames database - that's all. [/Q2 --end katarn_88 wrote--]

For me Asia is everything East of Elbe. It's just my personal stand of defiance against the rampant racism in modern day Eastern Europeia. I'm not singling out Russia for some malicious purpose.

I might do one pan-eastern european thread, where I try to analyze how we all have influenced each other, and compare various eastern european nationalistic narratives of protecting Europe from the other and a certain dualism of being asian or european shared by us all. [Q2 --start katarn_88 wrote--] As I see in english-talking part of Internet, people from other countries love to think that they know something about Russia, in fact their knowledge about Russia are funny stories, nothing else. [/Q2 --end katarn_88 wrote--]

Ignorant people who love sterotyping others to make themselves feel good. Don't worry, Oleg and me aren't like that. Also, Russia isn't the only eastern european country suffering from this. [/Q --end Mary O'Hannah wrote--] LOL. Look, about Elbe. Why Elbe? Why "for me everything to the east of Spain is Asia" for example? Nazi and fascist political party even doesn't exist in Russia and here we have no more racist moods then on the West Europe. Now in Europe lives so many people from Africa and Asia that I don't know what is more Asia: Russia for example or Germany/France/Great Britain with lots of emigrants from Asia and Africa living there. It looks like racism to say that all East Europe is Asia.

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/14/2010 3:05 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

Tesak

Racism in Russia

The rhetoric that Tesak uses is very widespread in the whole eastern europe.

Unicorn Lynx (181778) on 2/14/2010 3:30 PM · Permalink · Report

Nazi and fascist political party even doesn't exist in Russia

Not every racist party is necessarily Nazi or fascist. There are unfortunately more than enough racist parties and organizations in Russia.

and here we have no more racist moods then on the West Europe

This is hard to judge; depends what you mean by "moods". But the education system in Russia is definitely more nationalist than in Western Europe.

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/14/2010 3:31 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--]

LOL. Look, about Elbe. Why Elbe? Why "for me everything to the east of Spain is Asia" for example? Nazi and fascist political party even doesn't exist in Russia and here we have no more racist moods then on the West Europe. Now in Europe lives so many people from Africa and Asia that I don't know what is more Asia: Russia for example or Germany/France/Great Britain with lots of emigrants from Asia and Africa living there. It looks like racism to say that all East Europe is Asia. [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

For historical reasons.

1) People east of Elbe tend to have rather large quantites of something from central asian steppes in their blood.

2) People east of Elbe have had certain asian elements in their pagan days like totems and shamans.

3) People east of Elbe try to constantly prove that their Europe. They also are one of the most racist corner in the world. Mostly against other eastern europeans.

Conclusion: The rampant racism of eastern europe is clearly tied with trying to be as european as possibe. If people east of Elbe would give up this rather tiresome fight to prove themselves as white as possible, and instead adopted a more relaxed attitude towards it's asian heritage, a lot of racial problems would dissappear.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/14/2010 4:40 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Mary O'Hannah wrote--]

For historical reasons.

1) People east of Elbe tend to have rather large quantites of something from central asian steppes in their blood.

2) People east of Elbe have had certain asian elements in their pagan days like totems and shamans.

3) People east of Elbe try to constantly prove that their Europe. They also are one of the most racist corner in the world. Mostly against other eastern europeans.

Conclusion: The rampant racism of eastern europe is clearly tied with trying to be as european as possibe. If people east of Elbe would give up this rather tiresome fight to prove themselves as white as possible, and instead adopted a more relaxed attitude towards it's asian heritage, a lot of racial problems would dissappear. [/Q --end Mary O'Hannah wrote--] Can you tell me where are you from? Cause I can't read some of your posts without laughing, sorry :)

Tesak, skinheads - so what? There are only about, I think, hundred or them in 5 million city like St. Petersburg - it proves nothing, cause racism you can find in each country of the world.

And you should remember - I have no need you recognize Russia as part of Europe that made me Euroman like British people or French people. Lol. We are self-sufficient nation, I want to recognise facts: we live in Europe, we use euro versions of consoles, games etc.

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]Nazi and fascist political party even doesn't exist in Russia

Not every racist party is necessarily Nazi or fascist. There are unfortunately more than enough racist parties and organizations in Russia.

and here we have no more racist moods then on the West Europe

This is hard to judge; depends what you mean by "moods". But the education system in Russia is definitely more nationalist than in Western Europe. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Come on, please, give me name though one of this parties. Even if you name one, any of probably named are illegal so it doesn't matter anything.

And your words about our education just proves to me that even if you was born somewhere in USSR, now it matters nothing. When did you vist Russia last time? Ten years ago? Maybe twenty? :) Кстати, по-русски говорите?

Unicorn Lynx (181778) on 2/14/2010 4:57 PM · Permalink · Report

Come on, please, give me name though one of this parties. Even if you name one, any of probably named are illegal so it doesn't matter anything.

I don't think so. What, Zhirinovksy is not a racist? He almost won the elections.

When did you vist Russia last time? Ten years ago? Maybe twenty? :)

A few years ago. But that's not the point. My brother is Russian. Lives in St. Petersburg. We have regular communication, of course. So it's not that I lack knowledge about Russia...

And don't worry about Mary O'Hannah, he knows what he's talking about. Even though his views might sometimes seem... err... extravagant.

Кстати, по-русски говорите?

Разумеется. But it's a pain to type Cyrillic on my keyboard...

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/14/2010 5:07 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]Come on, please, give me name though one of this parties. Even if you name one, any of probably named are illegal so it doesn't matter anything.

I don't think so. What, Zhirinovksy is not a racist? He almost won the elections.

When did you vist Russia last time? Ten years ago? Maybe twenty? :)

A few years ago. But that's not the point. My brother is Russian. Lives in St. Petersburg. We have regular communication, of course. So it's not that I lack knowledge about Russia...

And don't worry about Mary O'Hannah, he knows what he's talking about. Even though his views might sometimes seem... err... extravagant.

Кстати, по-русски говорите?

Разумеется. But it's a pain to type Cyrillic on my keyboard... [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Говорите? Тогда про жирика отвечу по-русски. Жирик - клоун. Он не нацист, не либерал, не демократ. Он сидит в думе двадцать лет и будет там сидеть пока Кремль ему разрешает, все, что он говорит к нацизму вообще никоим образом не относится ибо его в серьез воспринимают только подростки и, может быть, студенты, которые и голосуют за него и его команду. Кстати, может Вы не в курсе, но с каждыми выборами у ЛДПР все меньше и меньше мест в думе, так что... Да, продублирую: Zhirinovksy won nothing for last ten years, maybe on next elections he'll stay out or Russian... Legislature maybe don't know how to say in other way :)

I don't worry, I want to know where is he from cause I think it's very important if we talking about such things. What's a problem to say that?

Ну и "лэк" не "лэк" - у меня знакомый бичует в Христиании, я же не говорю что я что-то знаю о Дании :) Судить о другой стране по рассказам друзей/родственников/знакомых (как Вы, например, пусть и частично), по статьям в прозападной прессе и видео на ютубе (как товарищ выше) - роликам с желтизны вроде НТВ - последнее дело, на мой взгляд.

St. Martyne (3648) on 2/14/2010 6:09 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--] Судить о другой стране по рассказам друзей/родственников/знакомых (как Вы, например, пусть и частично), по статьям в прозападной прессе и видео на ютубе (как товарищ выше) - роликам с желтизны вроде НТВ - последнее дело, на мой взгляд. [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

Цирк. Какая разница, кто, где, откуда и что узнает? Каким образом ваше мнение от этого делается более или менее обоснованным? Находясь в России, вы тоже можете дальше носа собственного и Первого канала ничего не видеть.

Это касается и политики, и культуры, и русского шовинизма и, собственно, геополитического вопроса.

You are, after all, a man living in the most European of all Russian cities. So, I can perfectly understand your frustration. But, please, don't assume everyone here to be ignorant "dumb Americans and westerners" just because Russia happens to span two world regions instead of one. Nobody is going to think less of your precious country or make up far-fetched stories because of that.

Сохраняя вам время, я из Мариуполя, 55 км от границы с Россией. Делайте свои выводы.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/14/2010 6:18 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start St. Martyne wrote--] [Q2 --start katarn_88 wrote--] Судить о другой стране по рассказам друзей/родственников/знакомых (как Вы, например, пусть и частично), по статьям в прозападной прессе и видео на ютубе (как товарищ выше) - роликам с желтизны вроде НТВ - последнее дело, на мой взгляд. [/Q2 --end katarn_88 wrote--]

Цирк. Какая разница, кто, где, откуда и что узнает? Каким образом ваше мнение от этого делается более или менее обоснованным? Находясь в России, вы тоже можете дальше носа собственного и Первого канала ничего не видеть.

Это касается и политики, и культуры, и русского шовинизма и, собственно, геополитического вопроса.

You are, after all, a man living in the most European of all Russian cities. So, I can perfectly understand your frustration. But, please, don't assume everyone here to be ignorant "dumb Americans and westerners" just because Russia happens to span two world regions instead of one. Nobody is going to think less of your precious country or make up far-fetched stories because of that.

Сохраняя вам время, я из Мариуполя, 80 км от границы с Россией. Делайте свои выводы. [/Q --end St. Martyne wrote--] Причем тут первый канал и собственный нос? Я, в отличие от жителя Мариуполя, что в 80 км от границы с Россией, Россию знаю хорошо, много где бываю, много что вижу. Вам бы понравилось, если бы я начал судить об Украине по тому, что найду в интернете и зомбоящике? Независимо от Вашего отношения, мои представления были бы заведомо неверны и необъективны.

Я не говорю о промывании мозгов. Я говорю о том, что речь в данном топе изначально велась не о том, хорошие в России люди, культура, политика и т.п. или нет, а о том, что в России многие технические моменты подведены под европейский стандарт и нет смысла выделять Россию в Азию, ведь у нас тот же стандарт - PAL, у нас работают европейские отделения известных игровых контор и проч. Вам это, кстати, должно быть прекрасно известно раз Вы живете на Украине. Поэтому речь не идет о признании/не признании России - европейской страной, если тут так много знатоков России, то они должны знать, что непосредственно в самой России к этому вопросу относятся весьма спокойно, если не сказать больше. Речь идет сугубо о техническом вопросе. И этот вопрос был неверно озвучен, по-моему, как раз, американцем (в одной из старых тем) примитивным "большая часть России - в Азии, значит на мобигеймс - Азия". Россия с точки зрения видеоигр - сугубо европейская страна. Так понятнее?

Я еще раз повторю, что мне без разницы (в общем смысле, я оставляю за собой право поправлять неграмотные ремарки в адрес истории или чего бы то ни было еще, относящегося к России) мнение "глупых" американцев или кого-то другого из западной Европы, меня интересует сугубо технический вопрос.

И самый европейский из всех российских городов наверное все-таки Калининград. :)

St. Martyne (3648) on 2/14/2010 7:52 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

Про технические аспекты я с вами не спорил, я спорил с вашей репликой касательно того, что про Россию нечего говорить, если не живешь там.

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--] Я, в отличие от жителя Мариуполя, что в 80 км от границы с Россией, Россию знаю хорошо, много где бываю, много что вижу. Вам бы понравилось, если бы я начал судить об Украине по тому, что найду в интернете и зомбоящике? Независимо от Вашего отношения, мои представления были бы заведомо неверны и необъективны. [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

Нет. Ad hominem. Ваши мнения и представления никогда не будут заведомо неверными, вне зависимости от того где вы живете, на какой сайт заходили или какой канал смотрели.

EDIT: Topicwise, yes, if it was in my power I would include Russia in Europe, based on everything said. However, I don't find the current state of events that harmful to the database at large.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/14/2010 8:08 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start St. Martyne wrote--]

Нет. Ad hominem. Ваши мнения и представления никогда не будут заведомо неверными, вне зависимости от того где вы живете, на какой сайт заходили или какой канал смотрели.
[/Q --end St. Martyne wrote--] Отчего же? Если Вы не имеете представления о вкусе мороженого, Вам не помогут ни фото пломбира, ни рассказ очевидца о его вкусе, запахе, внешнем виде. Чтобы иметь четкое представление о вкусе мороженого, его надо съесть. Чтобы иметь представление о любой стране мира, надо в ней побывать, причем не только в Лувре или Эрмитаже, но и в каком-нибудь Мурманске, Якутске и Новосибирске. Тогда можно будет говорить о том, какие люди в этой стране живут, что она из себя представляют, и правда ли буряты кутаются в шкуры яков :) Лично я никогда не был на Украине, все, что я читаю о ней, очень противоречиво и не дает возможности судить об этой стране. Я никогда не скажу, что Украина любит Россию или ненавидит Россию. Зато кто-то позволяет себе судить, например, о скинхедах по выложенной на ютубе новости с НТВ. Вот это - цирк.

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/14/2010 8:50 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--] Зато кто-то позволяет себе судить, например, о скинхедах по выложенной на ютубе новости с НТВ. Вот это - цирк. [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

I was giving that youtube video to show that I identify as asian because of those guys, who pretty much use the same rhetoric in my corner of eastern europe. It's a widespread problem in eastern europe (not just in Russia) and has been well documented problem with a lot of academic research done to study it.

And since they always play out the european card for the justification of their ideology, so I take it personally when someone tries to prove that eastern europe is europe. It has a lot of negative connotations for me. And besides, if we really are so Europe then why there is a centuries long historiographical tradition, in all of our countries, in which we try to prove ourselves as european as possible. And beside the "proving" part, there has been also the "becoming european" rhetoric used both in Russia and... well not yet :P.

I mean, if you gotta really "prove" or "become" something, then that says a lot, doesn't it?

Я эстонский.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/14/2010 10:44 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Mary O'Hannah wrote--]

Я эстонский. [/Q --end Mary O'Hannah wrote--] Это как в том анекдоте про русского и американского? :)

Ну знаете, у нас в стране нацисты и расисты реальной силой не являются. Плюс у нас в стране фашистские ублюдки не двигают памятники советским солдатам и не маршируют по улицам под защитой властей. Теперь я начинаю понимать о чем Вы говорили: да, Прибалтика - очень восточный регион в том смысле, что русофобия в нем возведена чуть ли не в ранг государственной политики (особенно в Эстонии и Латвии), что есть дикость для современной Европы.

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/15/2010 12:48 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

I'm going to answer in english, because my russian skills are too non-existant to write this.

Плюс у нас в стране фашистские ублюдки не двигают памятники советским солдатам и не маршируют по улицам под защитой властей.

I think it's a bit misleading to call the current estonian leaders fascist... the russophobian rhetoric does not have it's roots in government, but in collective ignorance.

The current political party in power is something of a born-again aristocratic party, consisting of oligarchs, and thus they tend to resort to these populistic means to gain emotional votes and thus managing to represent themselves as standing for Estonia's best interests, while creating a new class-based society.

However there are those who are indeed true russophobes, and who are popular amongst the people, and thus the government to remain in power, sometimes flirts with russophobia every now and then.

Here's the backstory.

Before the statue removal of 2007, there was a statue removal of 2004. For some reason, 2004 was the year when a lot of extremists were gaining popularity. Those extremists erected a statue for SS. The political party in power then intervened and destroyed the statue... but also lost power. It was kind of kink in the estonian political system in those days that when something scandalous happened, other parties used it to take over. Governments were changing every two years.

There was a lot of outcry about the government using force against it's own people and the other parties used this outcry to gain power. Ansip, the current prime minister, through clever manipulation did a legal coup and became the prime minister in 2005. He was in power, and there was still 2 years before the elections could remove him from the position. So he had to come up with something.

Ansip saw how acting against those extremists lost the previous party their power. So he decided to win those russophobic votes. By removing the Soviet Statue. And he won. His government is the first to stay in power for more than two years. But really, the current government doesn't take it that seriously, because right now they're trying to come up with a plan to win both the russophobic and russian votes.

They're pragmatists, with completely different interests than russophobia. To stay in power, as long as they can.

However, yeah, the rampant russophobia that is widespread in Balticum is ugly. As are other phobias all over eastern europe. I could say a lot more, since there are so many levels to analyze in this subject, but my post is long enough at the moment.

But it's not that bad for russians living in Estonia. They still win our pop idol contests. This girl is russian for example. So there's hope... as ridiculous as it is to find hope in a pop idol contest. But I wanted to end on a positive note.

Unicorn Lynx (181778) on 2/15/2010 7:02 AM · Permalink · Report

Just my 2 cents: removing a statue of Soviet soldiers in a country that was occupied and suffered under Soviet regime is not necessarily an act of russophobia.

Hating the Soviet regime is not only understandable, but, I should say, the duty of every thinking person. It's not at all the same as hating Russians.

Of course, you could say there is no more Soviet Union and the Baltic countries should forgive and move on. You could also say that those Soviet soldiers were simple people who fought for their ideals and sacrificed their lives to defeat the Nazis. But I can understand the feelings of the Estonians.

Correction: except whatever feelings they have that make them erect statues for SS soldiers... this is overkill.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/15/2010 7:35 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]Just my 2 cents: removing a statue of Soviet soldiers in a country that was occupied and suffered under Soviet regime is not necessarily an act of russophobia.

Hating the Soviet regime is not only understandable, but, I should say, the duty of every thinking person. It's not at all the same as hating Russians.

Of course, you could say there is no more Soviet Union and the Baltic countries should forgive and move on. You could also say that those Soviet soldiers were simple people who fought for their ideals and sacrificed their lives to defeat the Nazis. But I can understand the feelings of the Estonians.

Correction: except whatever feelings they have that make them erect statues for SS soldiers... this is overkill. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] This is their right to move this statue, I have no thoughts to condemn this act. It's their country. But I said about HOW it was made, nothing else. So, I'm very happy, that Russia lives separately from ex-soviet republics that hates Russian (even if they were part of Russian Empire for centuries, it's just history)

So I can say about "hating" Soviet regime: as citizen of foreign country you can think anything you want, but don't say what we should think about USSR - it's our history and it's not shame for me cause soviet people did not burn down millions people in furnaces to do of them soap like did Hitler's Germans, who are idols of some modern Estonians.

Unicorn Lynx (181778) on 2/15/2010 8:16 AM · Permalink · Report

soviet people did not burn down millions people in furnaces to do of them soap like did Hitler's Germans, who are idols of some modern Estonians.

Soviet communists also killed millions of people. Nazi atrocities do not diminish Soviet atrocities.

but don't say what we should think about USSR

I don't. I just say what I think.

it's our history and it's not shame for me

Of course, you can have any feeling you want about the Soviet regime, but as someone who has experienced this regime first-hand, I can only say that it was a great shame. Not just for Russian people, but for entire humanity. But, speaking of Russian people, it's a bit strange that you are defending a regime that exterminated the best people your nation had to offer.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/15/2010 11:15 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Soviet communists also killed millions of people. Nazi atrocities do not diminish Soviet atrocities.

Of course, you can have any feeling you want about the Soviet regime, but as someone who has experienced this regime first-hand, I can only say that it was a great shame. Not just for Russian people, but for entire humanity. But, speaking of Russian people, it's a bit strange that you are defending a regime that exterminated the best people your nation had to offer. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] All centuries Russian people suffered from their lords, kings, emperors and presidents. Ivan Grozny has exterminated Novgorod, Pskov and other cities, Nikolay II killed thousands of Russians and killed lots of jews. Stalin killed millions of people.

So, our leaders killed millions of Russians. This is our domestic concern, not foreign citizens. By what right germans killed millions or Russians?

About "Great shame" - this is our great shame, not somebody's else. Russians never killed hundred thousand... hmmm... non-guilty people without any reason like did germans in East Europe or americans when they destroyed Japan cities with nuclear bombs.

About defending regime: I don't defend communists, I can't understand why when you remember about millions, you forget about first man in the space for example. USSR was country not only of the great evil. My family suffers until Stalin dies because my family is half ethnic ingermanlands (черт его знает как по-английски ингерманланды:), and my wife's family - half ethnic germans (in fact, there were russians too). So during USSR-Finland war and WWII some people of our family were executed, some - moved far from our homeland, but it doesn't mean that USSR was bad country from 1918 to 1991. It means, that it was bad page of our history. But even when our family was moved from St. Petersburg, my grandfarther was defending our common country from nazi army cause he was officer of NKVD, frontier guard and was killed by germans in first two weeks of the german invasion in USSR.

that's why I can't stay calm when somebody tells fairy tales about Russia. In USSR there were lots of bad things, but in fact it was great country in last 20-30 years of its existing.

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/15/2010 11:47 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--] My family suffers until Stalin dies because my family is half ethnic ingermanlands (черт его знает как по-английски ингерманланды:) [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

Ingermanlands? In German Lands...hmm... you don't happen to be thinking of ingerians do you? Closely related people to estonians? No?

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/15/2010 12:25 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Mary O'Hannah wrote--] [Q2 --start katarn_88 wrote--] My family suffers until Stalin dies because my family is half ethnic ingermanlands (черт его знает как по-английски ингерманланды:) [/Q2 --end katarn_88 wrote--]

Ingermanlands? In German Lands...hmm... you don't happen to be thinking of ingerians do you? Closely related people to estonians? No? [/Q --end Mary O'Hannah wrote--] Ingerians? Это как по-русски? Я знаю, что ингерманландцы - это те же финны, но проживающие на территории современной Ленинградской области. Ну, да, и финны с ингерманладнцами, и эстонцы, и карелы - все они финно-угры, родственные народы. I know this. So what? :)

Игги Друге (46653) on 2/15/2010 8:11 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Mary O'Hannah wrote--] Ingermanlands? In German Lands...hmm... you don't happen to be thinking of ingerians do you? Closely related people to estonians? No? [/Q --end Mary O'Hannah wrote--] Ingermanland is a fennic region east of Finland.

Unicorn Lynx (181778) on 2/15/2010 11:56 AM · Permalink · Report

So, our leaders killed millions of Russians. This is our domestic concern, not foreign citizens.

It's not just the Russians who suffered. There were people of other nations who were killed in masses.

But even if the murdered people were exclusively Russian - you can't say it's a "domestic concern". If my neighbor kills his wife, it's not his domestic concern. You can't just tell everyone not to interfere if crimes are committed near you.

Russians never killed hundred thousand... hmmm... non-guilty people without any reason like did germans in East Europe or americans when they destroyed Japan cities with nuclear bombs.

You see, that's exactly what I was talking about when referring to Russian nationalist education. You are against the atrocities committed by other nations, but for some reason defending atrocities committed by Russians. All the nations conquered by Russia during its imperialist and Soviet periods - do you honestly think no innocents were killed in the process? And what is "without any reason"? Has there be a reason for killing innocents?

I can't understand why when you remember about millions, you forget about first man in the space for example.

Man, this is... pretty awful thing to say. Maybe we should also forget the millions killed by the Nazis and instead only remember the Autobahns and the Z2 computer? Or forget the book-burning and the systematic executions of Qin Shihuang just because he built the Great Wall?..

What do cultural and scientific achievements have to do with the moral face of the regime that endorsed them? So I love Shostakovich and the movie "Diamond Arm" - in what way does it testify for the "good" in Soviet regime?

In USSR there were lots of bad things, but in fact it was great country in last 20-30 years of its existing.

Sorry, I don't agree with you. USSR was an evil regime, and no amount of men sent into space will ever redeem it from the blood it spilled.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/15/2010 12:51 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]So, our leaders killed millions of Russians. This is our domestic concern, not foreign citizens.

It's not just the Russians who suffered. There were people of other nations who were killed in masses.

But even if the murdered people were exclusively Russian - you can't say it's a "domestic concern". If my neighbor kills his wife, it's not his domestic concern. You can't just tell everyone not to interfere if crimes are committed near you. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Who else? Don't tell me about Poland. When there is something wrong in Russia, Poland always invades Russia and after that suffers from counter-strike, so it's their own problem. Возьмите смутное время 17 века, возьмите гражданскую войну когда поляки оторвали куски Украины и Беларуси.

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Russians never killed hundred thousand... hmmm... non-guilty people without any reason like did germans in East Europe or americans when they destroyed Japan cities with nuclear bombs.

You see, that's exactly what I was talking about when referring to Russian nationalist education. You are against the atrocities committed by other nations, but for some reason defending atrocities committed by Russians. All the nations conquered by Russia during its imperialist and Soviet periods - do you honestly think no innocents were killed in the process? And what is "without any reason"? Has there be a reason for killing innocents? [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] What countries Russians conquered. Name them. But, please, don't name Finland, Turkey or for example Poland - during medieval Sweden, Turkey and Poland-Lithuania for centuries tried to snip off piece of Russia so in those wars we have no choice: if we didn't conquer Krym, in XXI in St. Petersburg would be only muslims mosques, and as ex-soviet man you should know that it's true. Your rhetoric about "nationalist" education is just a rumour cause you are talking about history separately from reality.

Did you forget, that president of USA and premier of Great Britain have agreed to split Europe with Stalin after war? Did you know, that Truman wanted to use nuclear bomb against USSR and that almost all russian generals wanted conquer all Europe and America but only Stalin stoped them? When you talk about USSR, you should remember, that there is only one thing (in foreign policy) that USSR did without consent of the west nations - war in Afganistan.

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--] I can't understand why when you remember about millions, you forget about first man in the space for example.

Man, this is... pretty awful thing to say. Maybe we should also forget the millions killed by the Nazis and instead only remember the Autobahns and the Z2 computer? Or forget the book-burning and the systematic executions of Qin Shihuang just because he built the Great Wall?..

What do cultural and scientific achievements have to do with the moral face of the regime that endorsed them? So I love Shostakovich and the movie "Diamond Arm" - in what way does it testify for the "good" in Soviet regime? [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Stop trying to represent Soviet regime like regime of Stalin. I said, that Stalin was the greatest mistake of communists, why did you remember "брильянтовую руку", when Stalin was already dead and millions victims already then were history? It's not true; it looks like sophistic rhetoric of inveterate russophobe.

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--] In USSR there were lots of bad things, but in fact it was great country in last 20-30 years of its existing.

Sorry, I don't agree with you. USSR was an evil regime, and no amount of men sent into space will ever redeem it from the blood it spilled. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Blood was in the past. Remember all blood in the world and you can realize that all regimes are evil. It's yours logic - not mine - so you should agree with this fact.

Unicorn Lynx (181778) on 2/15/2010 1:14 PM · Permalink · Report

What countries Russians conquered. Name them.

Oh come on. You are not serious, are you? Even if we are being extra-nice and suppose that nothing was ever conquered within the Russian Federation itself (which is of course not true) - what about the ex-Soviet republics? They were all conquered by Russia at that time or another.

I don't understand why you're being so defensive. Everything gets conquered, almost every country has conquered something during its history. And Russia has always been one of the biggest conquerors around. So what?

Stalin was the greatest mistake of communists

Stalin was much more than just a "mistake". And I was not talking about Stalin only, I was talking about the whole Soviet regime. They killed people before and after Stalin too. Lenin and his gang began the murders long before Stalin rose to power.

Blood was in the past. Remember all blood in the world and you can realize that all regimes are evil.

For sure, no regime is impeccable, but some regimes are definitely bloodier than others. Soviet regimes is among the bloodiest ones in history.

I still can't understand what you are defending here. Soviet Union was a murderous regime - you won't deny it, right? During its history, Russia has conquered and subdued other nations - a fact, right? So what's the debate about?

And what are those insinuations about me being a russophobe? I said absolutely nothing bad about Russian people.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/15/2010 1:48 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]What countries Russians conquered. Name them.

Oh come on. You are not serious, are you? Even if we are being extra-nice and suppose that nothing was ever conquered within the Russian Federation itself (which is of course not true) - what about the ex-Soviet republics? They were all conquered by Russia at that time or another.

I don't understand why you're being so defensive. Everything gets conquered, almost every country has conquered something during its history. And Russia has always been one of the biggest conquerors around. So what? [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Oh come on, I already see that your knowledge about your ex-homeland are... поверхностны :) Within Russia itself there weren't bloody conquers except for Kazan, Astrahan and Krym when russian king reconquers lands, which were conquered by mongols. What we are talking about? You have proove of rivers of blood in Chukotka, Yakutiya, Buryatiya? This nations (who are also russian - citizens of Russia) love russian (russkie) people. Belarus and Ukraine were part of Russia till USSR, Georgia, Armenia etc. asked russian emperor to join for defend them from Turkey - just read some books, I ask you not to tell tales please. Because conquer of Syberia and conquer of North America - very different things and almost all republics and regions of Russia were conquered without fight except for North Caucasus - in this fact I agree with you.

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Stalin was the greatest mistake of communists

Stalin was much more than just a "mistake". And I was not talking about Stalin only, I was talking about the whole Soviet regime. They killed people before and after Stalin too. Lenin and his gang began the murders long before Stalin rose to power. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Before Stalin - ok, it was civil war. What about after? What we are talking about? Who were murdered after death of Stalin? Except of Beria of course :)

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Blood was in the past. Remember all blood in the world and you can realize that all regimes are evil.

For sure, no regime is impeccable, but some regimes are definitely bloodier than others. Soviet regimes is among the bloodiest ones in history.

I still can't understand what you are defending here. Soviet Union was a murderous regime - you won't deny it, right? During its history, Russia has conquered and subdued other nations - a fact, right? So what's the debate about?

And what are those insinuations about me being a russophobe? I said absolutely nothing bad about Russian people. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Russia of course is one of the gretest conquerors, but most of our lands were taken without any battle - you just can't deny it cause this is historical fact. Historical fact is: for several decades Soviet regime was killing for it's own people, but I can't understand how it is possible to equate bloody nazis of killing inhabitants of other countries and the communists harming exclusively to inhabitants of the USSR. You are getting off subject talking about some conquers which were made many centuries ago (USSR conquers only those lands that were part of emperor's Russia except of Kaliningrad and Kurily) and some crimes, made communists exclusively to russian people.

Прекрасно известно, что не все территории России завоевывались огнем и мечом, в Сибири считанные народы оказывали хоть какое-то сопротивление, большинство принимало завоевателей вообще без проблем. Исключения на территории современной России - северный Кавказ.

Поэтому я не совсем понимаю к чему эти спекуляции на преданьях старины глубокой - глубочайшей - если мы говорим о СССР, то к завоеванию Сибири, средней Азии или Кавказа коммунисты не имеют никакого отношения.

А что лучше - кровавый режим коммунистов или кровавый режим последнего Романова, знаменитого российского антисемита - еще большой вопрос.

Unicorn Lynx (181778) on 2/15/2010 3:20 PM · Permalink · Report

almost all republics and regions of Russia were conquered without fight except for North Caucasus - in this fact I agree with you.

So isn't that enough? What are you trying to prove? Please note, I'm not saying that Russia was the bloodiest conqueror. Surely, the conquest of North America was much bloodier than the conquest of Siberia. But that's not the point. I was only answering to your statements of the type "Russia never killed innocents". It did.

I'm not condemning Russia. I am: 1) condemning Soviet regime, and 2) clearing the fact that Russia, throughout its history, did conquer other nations, and killed people in progress.

Before Stalin - ok, it was civil war.

You see how most of your statements sound? Well, Stalin was a mistake, what can you do. Well, before Stalin there was civil war, what can you do. Well, yeah, we conquered Poland, but it was their fault. Yeah, we conquered Caucasus, but that's because they actually asked us to.

This sounds... how should I say... naive, at best.

I can't understand how it is possible to equate bloody nazis of killing inhabitants of other countries and the communists harming exclusively to inhabitants of the USSR.

Do you really believe it's okay for a regime to torture and kill whoever it wants, as long as they do that in their own country? Or are you making sole exception for USSR?

In both cases, your line of thought is... disturbing.

что лучше - кровавый режим коммунистов или кровавый режим последнего Романова, знаменитого российского антисемита - еще большой вопрос.

I'm not saying the Romanov regime was good. Undeniably, there were reasons for a change. February revolution was perhaps a more or less justified attempt. But the October revolution was a crime, and a disaster for the Russian nation.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/15/2010 3:53 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Before Stalin - ok, it was civil war.

You see how most of your statements sound? Well, Stalin was a mistake, what can you do. Well, before Stalin there was civil war, what can you do. Well, yeah, we conquered Poland, but it was their fault. Yeah, we conquered Caucasus, but that's because they actually asked us to.

This sounds... how should I say... naive, at best. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] But. Really. What can we do with Stalin and civil war? Not only Russia took part in conquering of Poland, but it sounds like Russia was the greatest enemy of Poland. And please, stop playing with words. Don't mix conquering North Caucasus and asking, for example, Georgia to become a part of Russia - it's historical fact, just read some book if you don't believe me. Not Saakashvili's book, of course :)

So I think it sounds as it was, if you think, that you know all truth about Russia - I see this "truth" right there :) - it sounds - yes - naive at best.

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--] I can't understand how it is possible to equate bloody nazis of killing inhabitants of other countries and the communists harming exclusively to inhabitants of the USSR.

Do you really believe it's okay for a regime to torture and kill whoever it wants, as long as they do that in their own country? Or are you making sole exception for USSR?

In both cases, your line of thought is... disturbing. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] I didn't say it's OK. Right, look from other side. I could say, that it'll be much better if Hitler executed only citizens of Germany cause in such way soviet people would never suffer because of nazis. Maybe you're man "of the world", but it's normal for citizen of one country to live calm and happy if bloody leader lives in another country.

You know, "freedom" and "good leader" depend on way you look on it. Now you say about some blood, millions. OK. Americans and british premier said about ethnic cleaning in Serbia - they destroy country, let albanian kill slavic citizens and doesn't here anything about slavic cleanings in Kosovo. Americans said "Saddam has powerful weapon". They destroy country, kill Saddam, take oil of Iraq and now say "sorry, there is no powerful weapon, we was wrong". Americans want to place their rockets in Europe near Russia. They want Russia to keep our systems - iskanders - out of our territory - Kaliningrad - and say, that this rockets are targeting not on Russia - only on Iran. Is there any thinking man, who will believe that half-wild Iran could make rocket capable to reach Europe? Is there any thinking man who'll believe in tales "this rockets not against Russia"?

When USA, NATO etc. will be responsible for hundred of thousands lives in Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Afganistan, Iraq? What do you know about Thailand? Do you know, that Thailand - unique place, only Thailand can sell tin to americans so we are talking about strategic resources for USA. And USA will shut eyes to lawlessness in Thailand until Thailand is sole exporter strategic resources to USA. So freedom and other things depend on business and created public opinion, never on real facts.

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--] что лучше - кровавый режим коммунистов или кровавый режим последнего Романова, знаменитого российского антисемита - еще большой вопрос.

I'm not saying the Romanov regime was good. Undeniably, there were reasons for a change. February revolution was perhaps a more or less justified attempt. But the October revolution was a crime, and a disaster for the Russian nation. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Власть лежала - ее подобрали, никакого криминала. Ничто не мешало подобрать власть временном правительству, но его премьер сбежал в женском платье. Ничто не мешало подобрать власть большинству РСДРП - но они как-то не появились на расдаче. Так что винить коммунистов в этом смысле не приходится. А вот что делали многочисленные интервенты - американцы, немцы, японцы, англичане и т.д. - набросившиеся на Россию сразу после того, как власть взяли большевики - интересный вопрос. Как, по-вашему, можно доверять странам, которые позволили себе вооруженное вторжение на территорию вашего государства, а?

Unicorn Lynx (181778) on 2/15/2010 4:28 PM · Permalink · Report

Look, dude, I'm kinda tired of this discussion. You are trying to justify everything Russia did - okay, I understand your feelings, everyone is impartial to his country - all true. But you are taking it a bit far, meaning that every time someone criticizes Russia even a little bit, you keep pouring historical examples, which you always interpret on the levels of "what else could we do", "it was for the greater good", and - when you really run out of arguments - "others do that too".

Sorry, but it's really hard to discuss anything when your opponent keeps clinging to this kind of thinking. No hard feelings!

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/15/2010 2:11 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

What countries Russians conquered. Name them. But, please, don't name Finland, Turkey or for example Poland - during medieval Sweden, Turkey and Poland-Lithuania for centuries tried to snip off piece of Russia so in those wars we have no choice: if we didn't conquer Krym, in XXI in St. Petersburg would be only muslims mosques, and as ex-soviet man you should know that it's true.

It is unnecessary fatalistic thinking which makes people say things like "we had to do this, because otherwise our modern world would not have existed." Historical fatalism. Because, if there were mosques in Peterburg today and you was a muslim, you would be all like "it's great that we didn't conquer Krym, cause otherwise there would be churches in Peterburg."

Medieval times are much better to be viewed with a more distanced attitude.

Here's my alternate interpretation: "Medieval Russia hanged out with the cool kids. Tatar pride worldwide!" Just saying.

Within Russia itself there weren't bloody conquers except for Kazan, Astrahan and Krym when russian king reconquers lands, which were conquered by mongols. What we are talking about?

Medieval Russia (by which I mean Muscovy) and those mongolian-tatar khanates were not that different from each other. In 15th to 17th century, muscovian nobles took pride in their tatar-turkic blood and tatarified their names as much as possible. Fell out of fashion in the glory days of Peterburg, but came to fashion again in late 19th century as I recall.

А что лучше - кровавый режим коммунистов или кровавый режим последнего Романова, знаменитого российского антисемита - еще большой вопрос.

Under Nikolay II, being a socialist was the noble thing to do.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/15/2010 3:05 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Mary O'Hannah wrote--]What countries Russians conquered. Name them. But, please, don't name Finland, Turkey or for example Poland - during medieval Sweden, Turkey and Poland-Lithuania for centuries tried to snip off piece of Russia so in those wars we have no choice: if we didn't conquer Krym, in XXI in St. Petersburg would be only muslims mosques, and as ex-soviet man you should know that it's true.

It is unnecessary fatalistic thinking which makes people say things like "we had to do this, because otherwise our modern world would not have existed." Historical fatalism. Because, if there were mosques in Peterburg today and you was a muslim, you would be all like "it's great that we didn't conquer Krym, cause otherwise there would be churches in Peterburg."

Medieval times are much better to be viewed with a more distanced attitude.

Here's my alternate interpretation: "Medieval Russia hanged out with the cool kids. Tatar pride worldwide!" Just saying.

Within Russia itself there weren't bloody conquers except for Kazan, Astrahan and Krym when russian king reconquers lands, which were conquered by mongols. What we are talking about?

Medieval Russia (by which I mean Muscovy) and those mongolian-tatar khanates were not that different from each other. In 15th to 17th century, muscovian nobles took pride in their tatar-turkic blood and tatarified their names as much as possible. Fell out of fashion in the glory days of Peterburg, but came to fashion again in late 19th century as I recall.

А что лучше - кровавый режим коммунистов или кровавый режим последнего Романова, знаменитого российского антисемита - еще большой вопрос.

Under Nikolay II, being a socialist was the noble thing to do. [/Q --end Mary O'Hannah wrote--] Ну и логика "давайте мыслить так:" неверна. А может Гитлер был прав? Может если б он вырезал всех цыган, евреев, сделал бы из славян рабов - может так лучше было бы жить, да? На Россию напали - Россия отбилась. Все вопросы по поводу расчленения Польши надо обращать - правильно, к Польше. Поляки веками терроризировали запад России, за что и поплатились в XVIII веке, когда Польша (временно) перестала существовать на карте Европы, причем в ее разделе участвовала не только Российская империя.

Не надо представлять Россию как агрессора и душегуба: исторически сложилось, что по дороге в Европу туркам надо было пройти Россию и балканы - не получилось. По дороге к кавказской нефти Гитлеру надо было пройти Сталинград - тоже не получилось. Россия в нынешних границах обеспечена практически всеми стратегическими ресурсами, а завоевательные - я подчеркиваю! - завоевательные походы прекратились в XVIII веке, когда империи удалось получить выход к Балтике и Черному морю. Затем они возобновились только в ХХ веке, но если бы Сталин не отнял у финнов Карельский перешеек, то в Петербурге сейчас говорили бы или на немецком, или на шведском, или бы вообще не говорили ни на каком языке.

Да, конечно, "если б да кабы" - это все понятно, но не надо вещи представлять в заранее негативном свете. Я прекрасно понимаю, что в Вашей системе координат времена, когда тевтоны покоряли Прибалтику - это хорошо, а вот когда русские затем туда сунулись (вот и я не знаю - зачем?) - это плохо.

Московское дворянство никогда не "отатаривало" свои имена. Наоборот, это татары шли на службу к русскому царю, уже из них произрастают знаменитые татарские фамилии вроде Апраксиных или Юсуповых. Тем не менее, доподлинно известно, что главные имена российской истории с татарами ничего общего вообще не имеют. Ну и напомню, что до Новгорода, например, татары так и не добрались. Почитайте серьезных историков или хотя бы Радзинского, если хотите и дальше рассказывать мне о генах наших дворян :)

А Николай II был бездарь и самодур, сколько он народу погубил, сколько бед России причинил, во сколько воин втянул - и все проиграл! Как бы кто ни относился к коммунистам, Николай свою участь вполне заслужил.

Unicorn Lynx (181778) on 2/15/2010 3:39 PM · Permalink · Report

если бы Сталин не отнял у финнов Карельский перешеек, то в Петербурге сейчас говорили бы или на немецком, или на шведском, или бы вообще не говорили ни на каком языке.

You see, that's the kind of thinking I have problems with. "Russo-centric" thinking. The world doesn't revolve around Russia. Yeah, I suppose it was better for Russia to conquer all those places - doesn't mean it was better for them. You see my point?

A lot of your statements sound characteristic for Russian historiography: 1) Russia never attacked anyone, 2) When it did, it was vital to its survival, and 3) It was actually for the greater good of Russia - and therefore, the world.

It's the last part I'm having problems with.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/15/2010 4:08 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]если бы Сталин не отнял у финнов Карельский перешеек, то в Петербурге сейчас говорили бы или на немецком, или на шведском, или бы вообще не говорили ни на каком языке.

You see, that's the kind of thinking I have problems with. "Russo-centric" thinking. The world doesn't revolve around Russia. Yeah, I suppose it was better for Russia to conquer all those places - doesn't mean it was better for them. You see my point?

A lot of your statements sound characteristic for Russian historiography: 1) Russia never attacked anyone, 2) When it did, it was vital to its survival, and 3) It was actually for the greater good of Russia - and therefore, the world.

It's the last part I'm having problems with. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Вы в курсе, что от финской границы до центра Ленинграда до войны было рукой подать? Наверное, Вы в курсе, что финны не скрывали свои пронемецкие настроения, и было понятно, на чьей стороне они выступят, если начнется война? Что Вы предлагаете? Серьезно. Вот у Вас война на носу, второй по величине город - в считанных километрах от границы вероятного противника, которому, кстати, предлагался бескровный обмен Карельского перешейка на большую часть Карелии и Мурманской области, сосед отказывается и вместо этого строит укрепеления - как это понимать? Ваша логика "надо сидеть сложа лапки и ждать пока немцы весь Ленинград перережут", знаете, уже совсем не смешна.

По другим пунктам.

1) Я не говорил, что Россия никогда ни на кого не нападала. И да, я признаю, что в 90-х в школах еще пытались этому учить, но сейчас уже понятно, что такое не прокатит. В конце концов, любой, как Вы выразились, думающий человек, может открыть Большую Советскую Энциклопедию и узнать из самого коммунистического из всех возможных источников источника, что, да, Россия нападала первой.

2) И да, необязательна жизненная необходимость. Взять самый простой пример хотя бы - Олег и Константинополь. Простенький, но вполне приличный пример на мой взгляд.

3) Идеологические чистки никто не любит, не надо, пожалуйста, передергивать, я за весь топ ни разу не высказался в духе "Россия спасла весь мир". Исторически сложилось, что чем больше страна, тем большую роль она играет в мировой политике - это не я придумал, это придумал вполне независимый от коммуняк, которых Вы так ненавидите (я к ним отношусь совершенно спокойно, они принципиально ничем не хуже тех товарищей, что сейчас сидят у власти, все зависит от персоналий), источник: прусский король Фридрих (цитату не вспомню, суть такая, что Россия слишком велика, чтобы игнорировать ее при решении общеевропейских вопросов).

Ну и я не отрицаю, что в России любят приукрасить некоторые вещи. О чем я говорю (на протяжении всего разговора, от начала и до конца): если отбросить всю мишуру, то останутся факты, которые можно считать истинными. А относиться к России так и никак иначе просто потому, что когда-то там и без того славные страницы российской истории еще больше приукрашали - это просто смешно, ведь действительно славные страницы российской истории знает подавляющее меньшинство россиян. О самой впечатляющей такой странице я сам узнал относительно недавно.

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/15/2010 4:20 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

"Не надо представлять Россию как агрессора и душегуба"

Huh? When did I do that? My only goal is pan-mongolianism.

"Я прекрасно понимаю, что в Вашей системе координат времена, когда тевтоны покоряли Прибалтику - это хорошо, а вот когда русские затем туда сунулись (вот и я не знаю - зачем?) - это плохо."

Well I'm not sharing that view. And it wasn't a conquest, but a clever series of political alliances between everyone and against everyone. And these local "historiographical interpretations" are no different than what you are doing with Russia in this thread. It's really what I've been trying to tell, is that this nationalistic approach to history is shared by all eastern europeia and is also one of the reasons for it's problems.

When it comes to history I'm an anarchist. For me, history is just means of social programming. I don't think in "official historiographical" way.

"Ну и напомню, что до Новгорода, например, татары так и не добрались."

Well of course not. Because they destroyed Novgorod. Ivan was as khanate as you can get.

"Московское дворянство никогда не "отатаривало" свои имена. Наоборот, это татары шли на службу к русскому царю, уже из них произрастают знаменитые татарские фамилии вроде Апраксиных или Юсуповых. Тем не менее, доподлинно известно, что главные имена российской истории с татарами ничего общего вообще не имеют. Ну и напомню, что до Новгорода, например, татары так и не добрались. Почитайте серьезных историков или хотя бы Радзинского, если хотите и дальше рассказывать мне о генах наших дворян :)"

"Many Russian families had Mongol origins. "Scratch a Russian and you will find a Tatar," Napoleon once said. The coats of arms of Russian families - where Muslim motifs such as sabres, arrows, crescent moons and the 8-pointed star are much in evidence - bear witness to this Mongol legacy. There were four main groups of Mongol descendants. First there were those descended from the Turkic-speaking nomads who had swept in with the armies of Genghiz Khan in the thirteenth century and settled down in Russia following the break-up of the "Golden Horde", the Russian name for the Mongol host with it's gleaming tent encampment on the Volga river, in the fifteenth century. Among these were some of the most famous names in Russian history: writers like Karamzin, Turgenev*, Bulgakov, and Akhmatova; philosophers like Chaadev, Kireevsky, Berdiaev; statesmen like Godunov, Bukharin, Tukhachevsky; and composers like Rimsky-Korsakov. Next there were families of Turkic origin who came to Russia from the west: the Tiutchevs and Chicherins, who came from Italy; or the Rachmaninovs, who had arrived from Poland in the eighteenth century. Even the Kutuzovs were of Tatar origin (qutuz is the Turkic word for "furious" or "mad") - an irony in view of the great general Mikhauil Kutuzov's status as a hero made of purely Russian stuff. Families of mixed Slav and Tatar ancestry made up a third category. Among these were some of Russia's grandest dynasties - the Sheremetevs, Stroganovs and Rostopchins - although there were many at the lower level, too. Gogol's family, for instance, was of mixed Polish and Ukrainian descent but it shared a common ancestry with the Turkic Gogels, who derived their surname from the Chuvash word gögül - a type of steppeland bird. The final group were Russian families who changed their names to make them sound more Turkic, either because they had married into a Tatar family, or because they had bought land in the east and wanted smooth relations with the native tribes. The Russian Veliaminovs, for example, changed their name to Turkic Aksak (from aqsaq, meaning lame) to facilitate their purchase of enormous tracts of steppeland from the Bashkir tribes near Orenburg: and so the greatest family of Slavophiles, the Aksakovs, was founded.

Adopting Turkic names became the height of fashion at the court of Moscow between fifteenth and seventeenths centuries, when the Tatar influence from the Golden Horde remained very strong and many noble dynasties were established. During the eighteenth century, when Peter's nobles were obliged to look westwards, the fashion fell into decline. But it was revived in the nineteenth century - to the point where many pure-bred Russian families invented legendary Tatar ancestors to make themselves appear more exotic. Nabokov, for example, claimed (perhaps with a tongue in cheek) that his family was descended from no less a personage than Genghiz Khan himself, who "is said to have fathered Nabok, a petty Tatar prince in the twelfth century who married a Russian damsel in an era of intensely artistic Russian culture."

The name Turgenev derives from the Mongol word for "swift" (türgen); Bulgakov from the Turkic word "to wave" (bulgaq); Godunov from the Mongol word gödön ("a stupid person"); and Koraskov from the Turkic word qorsaq, a type of steppeland fox. Akhmatova was born Anna Gorenko. she changed her name to Akhmatova (said to be the name of her Tatar great-grandmother) when her father said he did not want a poet in his family. Akhmatova claimed descent from Khan Akhmat, a direct descendant of Genghiz Khan and the last Tatar khan to receive tribute from the Russian princes (he was assassinated in 1481). Nadezhda Mandelstam believed that Akhmatova had invented the Tatar origins of her great-grandmother (N.Mandelstam, Hope Abandoned (London, 1989), p.449)."

From Orlando Figes's "Natasha's Dance" p. 361-363. That serious enough for you?

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/15/2010 4:31 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Mary O'Hannah wrote--] "Ну и напомню, что до Новгорода, например, татары так и не добрались."

Well of course not. Because they destroyed Novgorod. Ivan was as khanate as you can get. [/Q --end Mary O'Hannah wrote--] Извините, это что сейчас было? Монголы не уничтожали Новгород. Они вообще до него не доходили. Не несите чушь, пожалуйста. Новгород за всю его более, чем тысячелетнюю историю разрушали лишь однажды - нацисты в ВОВ.

И о каком Иване идет речь?

[Q --start Mary O'Hannah wrote--]

From Orlando Figes's "Natasha's Dance" p. 361-363. That serious enough for you? [/Q --end Mary O'Hannah wrote--] Улыбнуло :) Нет, работа некого британского ученого достойна внимания, однако: 1) речь шла о дворянах, большинство же людей в списке - далеко не боярских кровей. 2) я не отрицал факта смешения славян и татар на юге России. Это нормальное явление. 3) нормальное явление для языка заимствовать слова из других языков.

Так что не вижу никакого криминала и панмонголизма - только лишь примеры (местами - откровенно притянутые за уши) "монгольских" фамилий. Простой пример: гоголь - русское слово, причем тут татары?

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/15/2010 5:00 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--] Извините, это что сейчас было? Монголы не уничтожали Новгород. Они вообще до него не доходили. Не несите чушь, пожалуйста. Новгород за всю его более, чем тысячелетнюю историю разрушали лишь однажды - нацисты в ВОВ.

И о каком Иване идет речь?[/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

I meant that metaphorically. As in Ivan the Terrible sacking Novgorod, Ivan coming from a much more asian part of the world and Novgorod being much more european, hanging out with the Hanseautic League and what not.

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--] Так что не вижу никакого панмонголизма. [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

"Pan-Mongolianism, it's music to my ears."

Well Orlando Figes doesn't have any agenda. His book just analyzes different schools of russian identity. But I do, and made it my personal historiography.

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--]Так что не вижу никакого криминала.[/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--] Me neither. MONGOLIA!!! :-D

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/15/2010 5:20 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Mary O'Hannah wrote--] [Q2 --start katarn_88 wrote--] Извините, это что сейчас было? Монголы не уничтожали Новгород. Они вообще до него не доходили. Не несите чушь, пожалуйста. Новгород за всю его более, чем тысячелетнюю историю разрушали лишь однажды - нацисты в ВОВ.

И о каком Иване идет речь? [/Q2 --end katarn_88 wrote--]

I meant that metaphorically. As in Ivan the Terrible sacking Novgorod, Ivan coming from a much more asian part of the world and Novgorod being much more european, hanging out with the Hanseautic League and what not. [/Q --end Mary O'Hannah wrote--] ЛОЛ. Понятно. Но Иван Грозный по матери литовец, по отцу - грек, потому как мать его отца - Софья Палеолог - была последней византийской принцессой.

[Q --start Mary O'Hannah wrote--] [Q2 --start katarn_88 wrote--] Так что не вижу никакого панмонголизма. [/Q2 --end katarn_88 wrote--]

"Pan-Mongolianism, it's music to my ears."

Well Orlando Figes doesn't have any agenda. His book just analyzes different schools of russian identity. But I do, and made it my personal historiography. [/Q --end Mary O'Hannah wrote--] Читать книги британцев о русско-монголах - это интересно. А читать книги русских историков не пробовали? Повторюсь - попробуйте Радзинского для начала если еще не читали, иностранные псевдобеллетристы и рядом не валялись :) Ну и все население монголы в любом случае не могли охватить: да, Украина была вся под пятой монголов, да, вплоть до Москвы все княжества были под монголами, но все, что севернее - это факт - монголам в крайнем случае отсылало дары с князьями, а в большинстве случаев вообще плевали на них и жили вполне нормально :D

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/15/2010 5:52 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--] ЛОЛ. Понятно. Но Иван Грозный по матери литовец, по отцу - грек, потому как мать его отца - Софья Палеолог - была последней византийской принцессой. [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

It's funny how the craziest rulers in Russia aren't ethnically russian.

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--]Читать книги британцев о русско-монголах - это интересно. А читать книги русских историков не пробовали? Повторюсь - попробуйте Радзинского для начала если еще не читали, иностранные псевдобеллетристы и рядом не валялись :) [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

I've read some Радзински - Alexander II and Napoleon.

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--]Ну и все население монголы в любом случае не могли охватить: да, Украина была вся под пятой монголов, да, вплоть до Москвы все княжества были под монголами, но все, что севернее - это факт - монголам в крайнем случае отсылало дары с князьями, а в большинстве случаев вообще плевали на них и жили вполне нормально :D [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

Hmm... by pan-mongolianism I just mean that we eastern europeans have certain asian influences in our history, which are worthy of larger scale research to battle racism. I didn't mean that mongolians covered the entire Russia... and can we even talk of Russia then? It was Ivan III who laid out the foundations of modern-day Russia. Before it was more like separate states with somewhat different cultures.

Anyway, Eastern European historiographies are very isolated from each other. For example, most young estonians don't know that Latvia and Estonia used to be the same country - Livonia. So there's this sort of isolation from each other, while there should be a more continental approach to our historiography.

So, I really use the word pan-mongolianism in my own way, which means, a more unified cultural identity which admits asian influence, so there wouldn't be so many "protectors of white race" anymore in eastern europe. If we tell our children that "honey, you ain't white, just relax, smoke some marijuana" then they stop being so protective of their "whiteness".

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/15/2010 6:02 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

It's funny how the craziest rulers in Russia aren't ethnically russian.

причины "сумасшествия" у Ивана Грозного и Сталина абсолютно разные :) Ну и кстати Романовы все по большей части немцы, а Рюриковичи - скандинавы.

I've read some Радзински - Alexander II and Napoleon.

Понравилось?) Советую Ивана Грозного посмотреть.

Hmm... by pan-mongolianism I just mean that we eastern europeans have certain asian influences in our history, which are worthy of larger scale research to battle racism. I didn't mean that mongolians covered the entire Russia... and can we even talk of Russia then? It was Ivan III who laid out the foundations of modern-day Russia. Before it was more like separate states with somewhat different cultures.

Anyway, Eastern European historiographies are very isolated from each other. For example, most young estonians don't know that Latvia and Estonia used to be the same country - Livonia. So there's this sort of isolation from each other, while there should be a more continental approach to our historiography.

So, I really use the word pan-mongolianism in my own way, which means, a more unified cultural identity which admits asian influence, so there wouldn't be so many "protectors of white race" anymore in eastern europe. If we tell our children that "honey, you ain't white, just relax, smoke some marijuana" then they stop being so protective of their "whiteness".

Ну, во-первых, самые ярые расисты как правило сами представители отнюдь не "чистой" расы. Во-вторых, самые ярые противники евреев сами частенько были евреями. Николай II сражался с Германией на фронтах Первой Мировой, а по ту сторону окопов сидел его, если не ошибаюсь, двоюродный брат или кто-то другой, в общем, довольно близкий родственник. При этом не сложно посчитать, что в самом Николае втором русской крови было меньше процента, ведь все императрицы, начиная с жены Петра Великого, были немками. И в-третьих, отличить русского от финна или финна от татара и татара от русского на данный момент времени еще пока возможно, значит и расы еще не окончательно смешались :)

Ну а про историческое невежество - так получилось, что на данный момент времени вообще мало кто знает свою историю, так что ничего удивительного. Особенно, когда в книгах каких-то историков к реальным фактам примешивается отсебятина.

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/15/2010 11:14 PM · Permalink · Report

Понравилось?) Советую Ивана Грозного посмотреть.

I liked the Alexander II one. That was sort of like an epic tragedy about a gentle and slightly peculiar german man against unpredictable Russia. Napoleon not too much. Радзински is a great storyteller though, but Napoleon just didn't work for me. I'll keep an eye out for the Ivan one.

Ну, во-первых, самые ярые расисты как правило сами представители отнюдь не "чистой" расы.

Pretty much the basis of my thesis. :-D

При этом не сложно посчитать, что в самом Николае втором русской крови было меньше процента, ведь все императрицы, начиная с жены Петра Великого, были немками.

Wasn't Catherine the First ethnically latvian? A latvian peasant girl born in Rõngu, which is now a town in modern-day central Estonia.

И в-третьих, отличить русского от финна или финна от татара и татара от русского на данный момент времени еще пока возможно, значит и расы еще не окончательно смешались :)

Finns huh? I don't know. Alsou looks like a typical estonian girl and she's a tatar (a mixed one I assume). Well one type of estonian girl anyway... there's like several different types. I guess estonians are more mixed than finns.

Though finno-ugric is a pretty asian thing itself too. Early hungarians for example.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/15/2010 11:42 PM · Permalink · Report

Венгры - это угры, другая группа.

Все императрицы в России - немецкие принцессы. Екатерина - единственное исключение, плюс ее дочь, которая в принципе не пришлая. Но все же.

Unicorn Lynx (181778) on 2/15/2010 4:31 PM · Permalink · Report

Many Russian families had Mongol origins...

That was really interesting! Thanks for that bit of information. I love those linguistic investigations :)

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/15/2010 10:45 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--] ...Hitler's Germans, who are idols of some modern Estonians. [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

Extremists are mostly middle-aged people. So, not really modern. And it's not just in Balticum... western ukrainians and bulgarians also tend to remember the german soldiers in a positive light. It's sort of eastern european thing.

However, unlike Moscow, ideological murders don't happen at all.

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/15/2010 11:12 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--] .... as citizen of foreign country you can think anything you want, but don't say what we should think about USSR... [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

You're mostly okay, but you keep falling back to this defensive stance a la "you don't live here." It's somewhat very nationalistic of you. I mean, you really don't have to protect Russia from us.

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/15/2010 11:28 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Correction: except whatever feelings they have that make them erect statues for SS soldiers... this is overkill. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]

Literally built by Crazy John and Looney Marta in their backyard, in a remote village in the remote corner of Estonia. Media just blew it out of porportion. But that was what the extremists wanted anyway... that "poor Looney Marta" reaction from the public, to get that emotional support for whatever antics they had in mind for the future.

I just now figured out why 2004 was the year when the extremists started to be so public.

2004 was also the year when Estonia joined the European Union and those extremists are also homophobic ("europe will bring all those gays here and they'll destroy our family values!"), europhobic ("we just got out from one union, we don't want to join another!") and islamophobic ("europe's process of islamification is irreversible now! they'll bring those nasty muslims here!").

So they're very complicated people.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/15/2010 11:27 AM · Permalink · Report

Главное, что понимаете что я пишу, а как Вы писать будете - это как Вам угодно :)

You know, it's yours (citizens of Estonia) choice. You can destroy all statues made by russians, kill all russians (for example, however I disagree with that, but I have my own country), because I believe, that if it's country, you should do your own decisions about that. I just said how it looks in Russia when we are watching or reading news from Estonia, Latvia etc. :)

I hope admins or moderators wouldn't execute me for this great offtop :)

Unicorn Lynx (181778) on 2/15/2010 11:37 AM · Permalink · Report

I hope admins or moderators wouldn't execute me for this great offtop :)

Don't worry about that, on MobyGames a thread is considered boring when nobody goes off-topic :)

Indra was here (20756) on 2/18/2010 10:17 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]I hope admins or moderators wouldn't execute me for this great offtop :)

Don't worry about that, on MobyGames a thread is considered boring when nobody goes off-topic :) [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] In real life, people consider someone boring too if they don't go off topic. :)

Somehow the context of "freedom of speech" doesn't seem to apply in most internet forums. What a boring way to socialize. :p

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/15/2010 11:38 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Mary O'Hannah wrote--] [Q2 --start katarn_88 wrote--] ...Hitler's Germans, who are idols of some modern Estonians. [/Q2 --end katarn_88 wrote--]

Extremists are mostly middle-aged people. So, not really modern. And it's not just in Balticum... western ukrainians and bulgarians also tend to remember the german soldiers in a positive light. It's sort of eastern european thing.

However, unlike Moscow, ideological murders don't happen at all. [/Q --end --] Ideological murders are ideological murders only if you think about them like about "ideological murders". So what, if we talk about murder, who just kill russian girl - it's not bad, but when some drunk teenager kills student from Africa, Europe starts shouting: "look, they killed man from Africa, it's iedological murder!"

[Q --start Mary O'Hannah wrote--]

You're mostly okay, but you keep falling back to this defensive stance a la "you don't live here." It's somewhat very nationalistic of you. I mean, you really don't have to protect Russia from us. [/Q --end Mary O'Hannah wrote--] But you don't live there :) Look, even when you explained me why soldiers SS from Estonia are almost heroes in modern Estonia, I can't understand such wildness, cause I live here, not in Estonia :)

One great man in Russia said some centuries ago "умом Россию не понять, аршином общим не измерить"

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/14/2010 10:11 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--] I want to recognise facts: we live in Europe, we use euro versions of consoles, games etc.

[/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

I think the part in bold should qualify as being part of the european gaming region.

Just to make things clear, I wasn't arguing about that. I just took the opportunity to discuss some issues of cultural identity with fellow easterners.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/14/2010 10:55 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Mary O'Hannah wrote--] [Q2 --start katarn_88 wrote--] I want to recognise facts: we live in Europe, we use euro versions of consoles, games etc. [/Q2 --end katarn_88 wrote--]

I think the part in bold should qualify as being part of the european gaming region.

Just to make things clear, I wasn't arguing about that. I just took the opportunity to discuss some issues of cultural identity with fellow easterners. [/Q --end Mary O'Hannah wrote--] I'm talking only about video games.

But in fact it doesn't matter: agree or disagree with it, but most of Russians lives in Europe. That's what you can read in any geography book :)

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/13/2010 6:22 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start ALAKA wrote--]

The bottom line seems to be this: Since most of Russia is in Asia it stays Asia. Maybe after a million more of these threads it may be changed. Who knows? :)

[/Q --end ALAKA wrote--]

Very funny.

So look on the map and answer please: why in mobygames Denmark is part of Europe, if most of Denmark - Greenland - is part of North America?

Alaka (106076) on 2/13/2010 7:01 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--] [Q2 --start ALAKA wrote--]

The bottom line seems to be this: Since most of Russia is in Asia it stays Asia. Maybe after a million more of these threads it may be changed. Who knows? :) [/Q2 --end ALAKA wrote--]

Very funny.

So look on the map and answer please: why in mobygames Denmark is part of Europe, if most of Denmark - Greenland - is part of North America? [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

Look, I agree with you. The countries should be decided by things other than purely by land mass but that's the way its been decided to be done around here. Like I said, maybe after a million complaints it may be changed.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/13/2010 7:07 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start ALAKA wrote--]

Look, I agree with you. The countries should be decided by things other than purely by land mass but that's the way its been decided to be done around here. Like I said, maybe after a million complaints it may be changed. [/Q --end ALAKA wrote--] No, I understand your opinion, I agree with you :)

My question is for some powerful admin or I don't know who rules mobygames :) : he could just think about my example (Denmark) and do something. Move Russia to Europe or Denmark to North America :) , in any other way it looks very strange.

Indra was here (20756) on 2/13/2010 6:48 PM · Permalink · Report

Way ahead of you. We've been fighting over this since before god was born, to no avail. Simply put, it isn't considered an important issue to fix.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/13/2010 7:01 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Dewa Indra? wrote--]Way ahead of you. We've been fighting over this since before god was born, to no avail. Simply put, it isn't considered an important issue to fix. [/Q --end Dewa Indra? wrote--] Can't understand what's the problem just to move from "Asia" to "Europe". I don't know experts of mobygames, that decided to do my country an Asian one, but I think, that Russians know better where they live than people from west Europe, North America or south Asia for example :)

Indra was here (20756) on 2/13/2010 7:15 PM · Permalink · Report

Still way ahead of you. You aren't the first Russian (or Asian for that matter) to come up with this issue, mate.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/13/2010 7:24 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Dewa Indra? wrote--]Still way ahead of you. You aren't the first Russian (or Asian for that matter) to come up with this issue, mate. [/Q --end Dewa Indra? wrote--] I saw last topics and (not clever) opinions ("most Russia in Asia - so it's Asia"), and lots of incorrect representations about Russia, Russians, geography of Russia etc. So for me it's important, I want somebody from administration to convince me that I live in Asia =)

In other way it looks that decision to make Russia an Asian country was made by the man from another planet or most likely galaxy :)

Indra was here (20756) on 2/13/2010 7:28 PM · Permalink · Report

Well, at least now you can claim that you're Asian. :p
But seriously, this won't be fixed anytime soon. We've tried.

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/13/2010 9:37 PM · Permalink · Report

I identify myself as asian.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/13/2010 9:42 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Mary O'Hannah wrote--]I identify myself as asian. [/Q --end Mary O'Hannah wrote--] So what? Who you are and where are you from? Maybe you are an asian, not a question then =)

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/13/2010 9:45 PM · Permalink · Report

I'm thinking that eastern europe suffers from a collective inferiority complex and is ashamed of it's asian roots.

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/13/2010 9:55 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Mary O'Hannah wrote--]I'm thinking that eastern europe suffers from a collective inferiority complex and is ashamed of it's asian roots. [/Q --end Mary O'Hannah wrote--] In common all people are brothers and sisters and were made by god. Or, maybe, all europeans came from places where Proto-Indo-Europeans were lives. Stop trolling please, cause if you know history - all nations of Europe of XXI century are barbarians from the East who destroyed Roman Empire - so what? Are you Russian? Если не русский, то и говорить нечего, если наоборот - не неси пургу, пожалуйста.

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/13/2010 10:05 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--] In common all people are brothers and sisters and were made by god. Or, maybe, all europeans came from places where Proto-Indo-Europeans were lives. Stop trolling please, cause if you know history - all nations of Europe of XXI century are barbarians from the East who destroyed Roman Empire - so what? Are you Russian? Если не русский, то и говорить нечего, если наоборот - не неси пургу. [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

I'm not trolling. I'm very passionate eurasianist. :D

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/13/2010 10:15 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--] Если не русский, то и говорить нечего, если наоборот - не неси пургу, пожалуйста. [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

For me there is only one Eastern Europe which is a mixture of slavic, turkic, mongolic, finno-ugric and germanic influences, and that now suffers from a collective schizophrenia, bickering with each other and trying to prove themselves more european than the other eastern european countries.

You say Russia "protected" Europe from Genghis Khan. Where I come from, we "protected" Europe from Russia. In truth, Genghis Khan is as much part of you, as Russia is part of me. It's not like Russia hasn't had people who think like me. Remember the Scythian school of russian identity in 19th century?

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/13/2010 10:22 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Mary O'Hannah wrote--]

You say Russia "protected" Europe from Genghis Khan. Where I come from, we "protected" Europe from Russia. [/Q --end Mary O'Hannah wrote--] So you are riddler? Don't want to say where are you from and use appropriate arguments - ok, I have no need to talk with you.

Indra was here (20756) on 2/18/2010 8:31 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Mary O'Hannah wrote--]I identify myself as Asian. [/Q --end Mary O'Hannah wrote--] Ghastly. :)

Don't know why, but many peoples in South East Asia would never call themselves Asian. Myself included. Wonders if persons from India, Pakistan, etc., consider themselves Asian?

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/18/2010 9:55 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Dewa Indra? wrote--] [Q2 --start Mary O'Hannah wrote--]I identify myself as Asian. [/Q2 --end Mary O'Hannah wrote--] Ghastly. :)

Don't know why, but many peoples in South East Asia would never call themselves Asian. Myself included. Wonders if persons from India, Pakistan, etc., consider themselves Asian? [/Q --end Dewa Indra? wrote--]

Ghastly, mate.

Do you people have some negative connotation associated with "being asian"? Is it like mexicans saying that they're not central america, but NORTH AMERICA, or like some eastern european countries saying that they're not eastern but CENTRAL or ALMOST SCANDINAVIA?

What do you call yourselves then? The Pacificers Next Door? Because of the austronesian, malay-polynesian element?

katarn_88 (1231) on 2/18/2010 10:03 PM · Permalink · Report

Почему Вы думаете, что все хотят примазаться к другим, "элитным" расам и нациям? Не знаю что думают мексиканцы или жители юго-восточной Азии, жители европейской части России считают себя европейцами потому, что живут в Европе и только. Если Вам так нравится, можете считать себя не только азиатом, но и, например, вьетнамцем, что было бы более уничижительно, учитывая уровень жизни во Вьетнаме :D

Так что кто-то занимается самобичиванием, а кто-то ссылается на учебник географии :)

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/18/2010 11:52 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start katarn_88 wrote--] Если Вам так нравится, можете считать себя не только азиатом, но и, например, вьетнамцем, что было бы более уничижительно, учитывая уровень жизни во Вьетнаме :D [/Q --end katarn_88 wrote--]

Well, I've read some studies claiming that estonian and chinese are kindred languages. Why, they're practically the same! :D. So I'm still asian.

I guess it must be telling that I didn't find anything in english, but it was just an article in local newspapers introducing some ideas of some chinese linguist, and I have no way to tell if it was just some random lunatic like me or a real scientist. Anyway.

Let's watch some asian-looking finns.

Some swedes also have a certain look to them. I've always found that Anette Olzon, the current Nightwish singer looks a lot like Jennifer Podemski, canadian native actress.

They both also look kinda like Björk too.

Indra was here (20756) on 2/18/2010 10:12 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Mary O'Hannah wrote--]What do you call yourselves then? The Pacificers Next Door? Because of the austronesian, malay-polynesian element? [/Q --end Mary O'Hannah wrote--] Would depend on the context. If the person still has strong cultural ties, usually tribe first. At maximum, mentioning the nationality of country.

Racial-wise, would use Malay (Melayu) but always in a negative context. Asians for some reason seem to fit those of Chinese/Mongoloid ancestry. Feels culturally odd (from my perspective) to dub myself Asian. But not odd to identify myself as being from Asia.

Weird. Must be one of those sub-conscious cultural things.

Pseudo_Intellectual (66360) on 2/18/2010 10:40 PM · Permalink · Report

Maybe the only people to whom "Asians" really applies are those to whom it was first applied -- Persians and Anatolians described by Herodotus. Wikipedia reports "The peoples of ancient Asia (Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Persians, Arabs etc.) never conceived the idea of Asia, simply because they did not see themselves collectively. In their perspective, they were vastly varied civilizations" and from the looks of things, that persists to the present day 8)

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/18/2010 11:36 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]Maybe the only people to whom "Asians" really applies are those to whom it was first applied -- Persians and Anatolians described by Herodotus. Wikipedia reports "The peoples of ancient Asia (Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Persians, Arabs etc.) never conceived the idea of Asia, simply because they did not see themselves collectively. In their perspective, they were vastly varied civilizations" and from the looks of things, that persists to the present day 8) [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]

When you read recent deconstructionist takes on modern day cultural identities, then according to them none of our ancestors saw themselves as part of the collectives we now put ourselves into. So in medieval times, a person didn't say that he is german or estonian, but that he is a Lübeckian who hates those nasty Tallinnians, and or that he is a Tallinnian who hates those nasty Lübeckians.

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/18/2010 11:59 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Dewa Indra? wrote--] Racial-wise, would use Malay (Melayu) but always in a negative context. [/Q --end Dewa Indra? wrote--]

So whenever you make those joking comments bordering on white supremacy, that's actually very indonesian of you? That there is an actual collective self-hate going on in there?

Are there any leading indonesian cultural and racial identiy authorities, and where can I read them?

Indra was here (20756) on 2/20/2010 10:30 PM · Permalink · Report

Unfortunately, culture is something to be experienced. Any examples I have made are from personal experience, not from a book I read, hence I take personal responsibility for the views I offer.

Racism in the cultural-political context should differ from place to place. Racism is the most of the U.S. for example is a big no-no, even in social gatherings. Unless of course you are the minority (e.g. not white), which you can surprisingly get a way with...something I've experimented on several occasions...to the astonishment of my Caucasian peers and to the delight of my non-Caucasian peers.

Racism in Indonesia would be extremely shocking to the West. Although I wouldn't go as far as saying that it is culturally acceptable, I would say that we don't make a big deal out of it as it is in the West. Here, we are culturally taught to know our place. If you are a minority in religion, race, etc., deal with it. There are too many success stories from each minority...if you aren't getting a piece of the cake, it simply means you aren't good enough.

One of the most extreme examples in of racism is the "almost" genocide of the Madura settlers by the Dayak tribe in Kalimantan (Borneo). An obvious human rights violation, but whispered behind the dark corners, we would say that the Madura people deserved it. Something that peoples outside of Indonesia would probably never understand. No one faks with the Dayak tribe in their home turf. Something the Indonesian army learned the hard way...when it comes to spears vs. AK-47s, in Borneo...spears win.

The Malay issue is a political one. Indonesians have a national obligation to loathe Malaysians (due to some anti-Indonesian political maneuvers they've been doing for several years). The fact that we have common ancestry turns the race issue into an odd parody of sorts.

Thus far, my views are consistent with leading Indonesian anthropologists from my university. Though they take a more PR route than my direct blunt approach, but that is culturally acceptable due to the nature of my tribe.

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/26/2010 3:36 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Dewa Indra? wrote--]Unfortunately, culture is something to be experienced. Any examples I have made are from personal experience, not from a book I read, hence I take personal responsibility for the views I offer. [/Q --end Dewa Indra? wrote--]

Now what I'm going to say is a bit off-topic from your post, but in my experience "culture" is always a collective delusion that's exact roots have been forgotten. Culture or civilization can always be traced back to some book or man, who influenced other men and books until everyone started living out their personal delusions and say that they have been this way since the beginning of time, but really their world is just made-up. It's all make believe.

Foxhack (32100) on 2/19/2010 6:48 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Mary O'Hannah wrote--]Ghastly, mate.

Do you people have some negative connotation associated with "being asian"? Is it like mexicans saying that they're not central america, but NORTH AMERICA, or like some eastern european countries saying that they're not eastern but CENTRAL or ALMOST SCANDINAVIA?

What do you call yourselves then? The Pacificers Next Door? Because of the austronesian, malay-polynesian element? [/Q --end Mary O'Hannah wrote--]Dear Sister: Mexicans ARE North American.

Central America just so happens to begin right at our Country's Southern border.

PWNED.

The Fabulous King (1332) on 2/26/2010 3:30 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Foxhack wrote--] Dear Sister: Mexicans ARE North American.

Central America just so happens to begin right at our Country's Southern border.

PWNED. [/Q --end Foxhack wrote--]

Of course you are. :D

Right back at you.

Zeppin (8408) on 2/26/2010 3:55 PM · Permalink · Report

I've always considered the border between North and South America to be roughly along the border between Panama and Columbia, geographically.

chirinea (47496) on 2/26/2010 4:30 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Agent 5 wrote--]I've always considered the border between North and South America to be roughly along the border between Panama and Columbia, geographically. [/Q --end Agent 5 wrote--]But there is no border between North and South America. There's Central America in between!

Lampbane (20801) on 2/27/2010 4:02 AM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start chirinea wrote--] [Q2 --start Agent 5 wrote--]I've always considered the border between North and South America to be roughly along the border between Panama and Columbia, geographically. [/Q2 --end Agent 5 wrote--]But there is no border between North and South America. There's Central America in between! [/Q --end chirinea wrote--]

Central America is part of North America. That's what I learned in school and that's what it says on Wikipedia.

Unicorn Lynx (181778) on 2/27/2010 4:08 AM · Permalink · Report

Central America is part of North America. That's what I learned in school and that's what it says on Wikipedia.

That's weird... The way I learned is like Kit says - North America "ends" in Mexico. Everything between Mexico and Columbia is Central America, then comes South...

Maybe you mean continental division. Then there is no Central America, just North and South. But in this case, there is also neither Europe nor Asia - just Eurasia...

Lampbane (20801) on 2/27/2010 6:07 AM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]Central America is part of North America. That's what I learned in school and that's what it says on Wikipedia.

That's weird... The way I learned is like Kit says - North America "ends" in Mexico. Everything between Mexico and Columbia is Central America, then comes South...

Maybe you mean continental division. Then there is no Central America, just North and South. But in this case, there is also neither Europe nor Asia - just Eurasia... [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]

Actually, all Kit really said was that Mexico was in North America. Which it most definitely is.

In terms of continental division, yes, they're North America. If we're talking about contiguous landmasses like Eurasia, North and South America are just collectively referred to as the "Americas" anyway. And it feels weird to refer to Central America as part of South America, since it shares more of a border with Mexico than it does Colombia.

Wikipedia (because we all know how trustworthy Wikipedia is) mentions that Central America is considered part of North America in "English-speaking" countries, which might be where some of the disagreement here comes from.

Pseudo_Intellectual (66360) on 2/27/2010 7:53 AM · Permalink · Report

I would argue that in this particularly waspy corner of Anglo North America, everything south of English as the primary language gets lumped together. No geographic basis, no political or economic basis.

chirinea (47496) on 2/27/2010 3:02 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Lampbane wrote--]In terms of continental division, yes, they're North America. If we're talking about contiguous landmasses like Eurasia, North and South America are just collectively referred to as the "Americas" anyway. And it feels weird to refer to Central America as part of South America, since it shares more of a border with Mexico than it does Colombia.

Wikipedia (because we all know how trustworthy Wikipedia is) mentions that Central America is considered part of North America in "English-speaking" countries, which might be where some of the disagreement here comes from. [/Q --end Lampbane wrote--]Wikipedia doesn't seem to be wrong in this matter, as I learned in school that Central America is something different than North America. Of course "America" is the whole continent, but we learn to separate South America up to Colombia, Central America from Panama to Belize and North America from Mexico up.

Foxhack (32100) on 2/27/2010 10:11 PM · Permalink · Report

[Q --start chirinea wrote--]Wikipedia doesn't seem to be wrong in this matter, as I learned in school that Central America is something different than North America. Of course "America" is the whole continent, but we learn to separate South America up to Colombia, Central America from Panama to Belize and North America from Mexico up. [/Q --end chirinea wrote--]Exactly. Those silly gringos just lump all of us together.

chirinea (47496) on 2/27/2010 3:08 PM · edited · Permalink · Report

[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]Maybe you mean continental division. Then there is no Central America, just North and South. But in this case, there is also neither Europe nor Asia - just Eurasia... [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]It depends on what we consider continental division. In terms of tectonic plates, Central America is in the Caribbean Plate, separate from North and South America.

Starbuck the Third (22606) on 2/14/2010 7:19 PM · Permalink · Report

I find this weird as well.

I mean, ask any geography teacher what continent Russia in on, they'll say Europe. It is also accepted as European by every one that i know.

Pseudo_Intellectual (66360) on 2/15/2010 5:28 AM · Permalink · Report

On a tangential note, here's a big mad prop to Google Translate for apparently successfully handling the majority of the Russian conversation conducted in this thread on behalf of Cyrillic illiterates. The only thing I found that didn't make sense were references to the nose, which I just chose to interpret as non sequitur invocations of my favorite Russian short story 8)