« Coming Back Home to 9/11 | Main | And Puppy Makes Three »
September 11, 2007
Russian Conceptions & Progress
This story about Conception Day in one Russian province--Ulynanovsk--is not surprising, though unlike anything we see here in the United States. I wrote about What the Russian Ladies Said two years ago here, at the end of which I noted that the three Russians, who were about to return to Russia after studying in the US, told us "that they thought that best thing they could do for their own country was, well, go home, get married, and have children."
One of those women was from Ulyanovsk, the city in the story above. And the last time we heard from her, about a year and half later, was via e-mail, informing us she was married. That wasn't all: Attached was a picture of her new baby girl. One baby does not a boom make, but like other things, you can only do so "one at a time," or maybe two if you have twins.
I have to ask a question that applies to the West as well: it seems that people in general are increasinlgy skittish about having children, period. Can anyone really say that this really progress for homo sapiens? For any "species"? (Not even by Darwin's lights!)
Posted by James M. Kushiner at 05:31 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e54edb9b158833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Russian Conceptions & Progress:
» Conception Day – To Want or Not To Want Children: This is the Question from Pensees
In case you missed it, yesterday was Conception Day. At least so it was in a Russian province. (HT: MC) It’s a cool deal. You spend the day at home, try to make a baby, and if you are lucky... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 13, 2007 10:59:55 AM
Comments
"... it seems that people in general are increasinlgy skittish about having children, period. Can anyone really say that this really progress for homo sapiens?"
Yes Jim (Virginia), there are most definitely people who say that this is progress for homo sapiens. Ever heard of the phrase "every child should be a wanted child"?
Here's an example: "Planned Parenthood of Indiana wants to make sure that every child is a wanted child, and if you decide to continue the pregnancy and become a parent, our staff can refer you to resources available for prenatal care, financial assistance, and parenting classes."
From: http://www.ppin.org/pregnant.aspx
Or this one: http://www.sightline.org/research/sust_toolkit/fundamentals/child_wanted
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Sep 11, 2007 6:01:23 PM
"[E]very child should be a wanted child."
Every child IS a wanted child. If not by the mother, then by someone else who wants to be a mother. That's the nature of adoption.
Posted by: Bill R | Sep 11, 2007 6:25:21 PM
I've just finished an assessment of Russia as part of a book on future security strategy for the United States. I listed the demographic implosion as the gravest problem facing Russia, one which has implications for the entire stability of central and Eastern Europe,
The population of Russia is about 141 million today. With a total fertility rate of 1.34 and a male life expectancy of 59 years and falling, Russia is losing 400,000 people per year--and the rate is accelerating. In a decade or less, the population of Russia will fall below 120 million. Moreover, it will be a population domnated by women, mainly aging women, since they live an average of 72 years. Drink, drugs, disease and violence combine to kill Russian men much faster.
Russians already live in a handful of urban islands, the largest of which are Moscow and St. Petersburg (both horribly overcrowed, according to my daughter, who was there this summer). The countryside, especially in the oil and mineral rich east, are largely empty, In a generation, there won't be enough Russians to work in its industries, extract its resources and man its armed forces. Russia has zero immigration, legal or illegal (Chechens come to Moscow illegally, but remember, they are nominally Russian citizens), so there is nobody to take the place of the missing millions,
According to the Russian 1990 Census, the fertility rate then was 2.0--slightly better than that for native born Americans. I tend to doubt that number, because it was published by the Soviet government. But since the fall of the Soviet Union, the fertility rate has been in free-fall, leveling off at about 1.3, which is to say about 50% of the replaement rate.
It is reductionist to point to either abortion or contraception per se as being the causes of the problem--though the routine use of abortion for contraceptive purposes almost ensures that a woman in her thirties will be sterile (especially given the low quality of Russian health care). At best these are just proximate causes. The root cause is a wholesale social demoralization which makes people deeply pessimistic about the future--even as, for the young, at least, material prosperity is at hand.
Russia is a deeply cynical society in which everything is for sale and the government is a criminal enterprise. Success is attained not through merit but through connections and bribes. There is more openness and personal freedom than in the Soviet days, but it is strictly circumscribed and limited mainly to personal affairs.
The Russian government is finally taking cognizance of the depths of the crisis, which is why it is trying to make common cause with the Russian Orthodox Church, which Putin at least sees as the only focus for a moral revitalization of the country, But the Moscow Patriarchate is deeply compromised by its collaboration with the Soviet authorities (let us not forget that Patriarch Alexei II is a decorated ex-colonel of the KGB), and is viewed with the same cynicism as the government by many Russians. To the extent that a religious revival is taking hold, it is not driven from Moscow, but is rising from the grass roots through a restored monasticism and by hard-working but horribly poor parish priests. To the extent that these are viewed as independent of the "institutional" Church, they have managed to pick up many tens of thousands of new believers, mainly young, but who are also greatly alienated from society and more prone to opt out from it than to try to change it.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 11, 2007 6:30:26 PM
Stuart, that is a fascinating post. Since the Russian government has always more or less been a criminal enterprise, do you think that the Russians will have the ability to pull themselves together despite the crookedness of their rulers? I ask this because they seem to have been able to get through somehow in the past.
Posted by: John L | Sep 11, 2007 7:08:40 PM
>>>Since the Russian government has always more or less been a criminal enterprise, do you think that the Russians will have the ability to pull themselves together despite the crookedness of their rulers? <<<
A recent poll taken in Russia showed that far more people preferred security (72%) than democracy (36%) (it was not an exclusive choice--you ranked your preferences). This reflects Russian political and social history: when the mass of people are simply exploited or manipulated by different strong men or factions, it is better to have one ruler than several (or worse, many). Whenever Russia has had anything resembling democracy, it has generally equated to chaos, Nobody likes chaos, not evern anarchists,
Russia is also a society with weak social institutions, but this also has normally been the case, whether under Tsars, Kommisars or Kleptocrats. It is a patronage society in which getting things done requies favors from powerful people, who demand favors in return. Think "The Godfather" write large. How much of this is due to Russia receiving the entire Romano-Byzantine inheritance in its mature form in one instant is an interesting question.
In any case, with weak social institutions, there were always patrons to look out for the little guy, and as the societal superego, there was always the Church. Contrary to popular misconception, the Orthodox Church was not caeseropapist (not even in Russia). The Church and the state were supposed to act in "symphonia", the Church responsible for the souls of the people, the state responsible for the security of their bodies and the protection of the Church. When the ruler stepped over the lines, usually someone from the Church was there to oppose him, whether it is Metropolitan Filip standing up to Ivan the Terrible (a quick way to attain martyrdom and sainthood), or the more subtle methods of the monastic "non-possessors" and the various famous staretsi.
In other words, though the Church could not oppose the state or the powerful directly, it could shame them into more Christian modes of behavior ("Holy Fools" were extremely good at this). The Church also provided an entire worldview and way of life for the masses of peasants, who received spiritual comfort and also moral instruction from it.
Today, I think the pernicious influence of sixty years of communism will be hard to overcome. Most of the ruling elite are either unbelievers or cynically exploit belief (I haven't looked into Vladimir Putin's soul, but I've looked into his weaselly, beady eyes and seen an unrepentent Chekist). They aren't that influenced by the Chuch, and their attitudes infect the people and the Church alike. Moral regeneration, if it comes, will come from the bottom up, as I said, from people of faith who are not associated with the leadership of the Patriarchate. Fr. Alexander Men, had he not been murdered, would have been an important figure in that movement.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 11, 2007 7:38:25 PM
Stuart,
I am curious about what the security implications of what you describe.
Many people fear the security implications of China's demographics, a bunch of young men without available women. What are the implications of a Russia populated by a bunch of old women. It would seem to be a nation ripe for a take over, say by more fecund Muslims to the south (though their fertility is falling rapidly as well) or unattached Chinese males to the southeast (who may view some of the younger Russian women as good wife material, while their government would covet Russia's natural resources), but the Russians do still have nukes.
Posted by: GL | Sep 11, 2007 7:38:53 PM
>Since the Russian government has always more or less been a criminal enterprise
Whatever the flaws of the autocracy of the Romanovs I wouldn't describe it as a "criminal enterprise."
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 11, 2007 8:02:01 PM
>>>Whatever the flaws of the autocracy of the Romanovs I wouldn't describe it as a "criminal enterprise."<<<
The entire society was, faut de mieux, incurably corrupt, with the Imperial Court being the engine of corruption. Inevitable in a patronage-based society in which it is not what you know but who you know that counts. Gven the sclerotic nature of the Russian bureaucracy, nothing could get done without bribery and influence peddling at every level of society.
For this there is a long historical precedent going all the way back to the Roman Republic. The current Mafia ethos is nothing more than a degenerate form of the client-patron system that began in the Republic and continued through the Empire, and was eventually handed down to both the Russian Imperial Court and La Cosa Nostra.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 11, 2007 8:11:09 PM
>The entire society was, faut de mieux, incurably corrupt, with the Imperial Court being the engine of corruption.
However the government was not criminal in the sense it was under the Bolsheviks or even the current regime.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 11, 2007 8:14:37 PM
>>>What are the implications of a Russia populated by a bunch of old women. <<<
I covered some of them. It will soon be impossible for Russia to find workers to fill all the jobs in its economy. There will not be sufficient manpower to maintain the military at its present (greatly reduced) force levels. Vast stretches of territory along Russia's borders will be depopulated and unguarded. At some point, people are going to start crossing the border and squatting on Russian soil. Given the geography of the region, those peopel are going to come from the "Stans", and they will be facing Mecca five times a day,
Regarding the long border with China, Russia and China already exist in a symbiotic relationship, with China providing cash, and Russia providing the two things it has in abundance: petoleum and minerals. As long as this relationship remains mutually beneficial, why should China stir up the apple cart? In fact, China and Russia are moving to form a kind of Far-East "Opec With Nukes", and have even begun holding joint military exercises. For China to invade or infiltrate economically important parts of Russia would be a sure way to drive Russia back into the arms of the West.
And although Russia's economy is still only as large as New Jersey's, remember that it is New Jersy with 5000 strategic nuclear warheads.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 11, 2007 8:16:50 PM
>>>However the government was not criminal in the sense it was under the Bolsheviks or even the current regime.<<<
The Bolsheviks and the New Class under Putin are all parvenues. You can't expect them to have the class and subtlety of the Russian aristocracy.
On the other hand, I think you underestimate just how brutal and lawless Russian society was in actual practice almost to the end of the Tsarist era (there were significant improvement under Alexander III and Stolypin, short-circuited by their assassinations and the conservative reaction to them).
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 11, 2007 8:19:54 PM
>On the other hand, I think you underestimate just how brutal and lawless Russian society was in actual practice almost to the end of the Tsarist era (there were significant improvement under Alexander III and Stolypin, short-circuited by their assassinations and the conservative reaction to them).
I don't think so. And Stolypin was PM under Nicholas II, not his father.
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 11, 2007 8:55:10 PM
>>How much of this is due to Russia receiving the entire Romano-Byzantine inheritance in its mature form in one instant is an interesting question.<<
Reminds me of "the Abomination" in Frank Herbert's *Dune.*
>>Contrary to popular misconception, the Orthodox Church was not caeseropapist (not even in Russia).<<
Despite popular legends, was the Church anywhere *ever* caesaropapist? I suppose it depends upon your definitions, but I dare say that no matter where you look, you can always find ecclesiastics kicking their spurs into the state, or perhaps bucking, depending upon which was on top at any given moment.
>>New Jersy with 5000 strategic nuclear warheads.<<
Now there's a fertile premise for a new mob film. :-)
Posted by: DGP | Sep 11, 2007 8:59:40 PM
>>>I don't think so. And Stolypin was PM under Nicholas II, not his father.<<<
I know. The reforms began under Alexander III, were carried forward by Stolypin.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 11, 2007 9:29:20 PM
>>>Despite popular legends, was the Church anywhere *ever* caesaropapist?<<<
I seriously doubt that it ever was, though the term is tossed around a lot, usually in the form of a rock directed at the Orthodox Church. But at least until Peter the Great's "reforms"--which actually organized the Orthodox Church as a department of the government under a secular "procurator" on the lines of German Protestant state churches--the Russian Orthodox Church always maintained an independent and deeply Christian witness against state abuses. They have the martyrs to prove it.
>>>>>New Jersy with 5000 strategic nuclear warheads.<<
Now there's a fertile premise for a new mob film. :-)<<<
I thought the metaphor was apt in more ways than one. I got the idea from a map I saw, in which each U.S. state had its name replaced with a country of equivalent GDP. New Jersey was Russia. And when you think abot it, it fits in so many ways.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 11, 2007 9:34:01 PM
Stuart --
I hesitate to ask, as I've tried to avoid Eastern European politics, Church politics, and above all, Eastern European Church politics, but as he is now my Patriarch, and I've heard conflicting things --
What evidence is there that Patriarch Alexis was in the KGB? My priest said once (if I remember correctly) that the only evidence he was in the KGB (and therefore untrustworthy) comes from a KGB agent (who is obviously trustworthy), and that the rumors tend to be promulgated by anti-ROCOR-reunification groups (who we aren't too fond of right now anyway, since they co-opted half our parish.)
Posted by: Peter Gardner | Sep 11, 2007 10:23:29 PM
A fascinating discussion. & here's the map Stuart refers to:
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/06/10/131-us-states-renamed-for-countries-with-similar-gdps/
I look forward to The Sopranovs.
Posted by: Neil Cooper | Sep 12, 2007 2:46:23 AM
>>>What evidence is there that Patriarch Alexis was in the KGB? <<<
When the KGB archives were opened (briefly, to be sure, but thanks to some very diligent scholars, a lot was scanned and removed before Putin thought better of it), they contained files about a high-ranking Estonian churchman code-named Drozdov whose career parallels in every respect the events in Patriarch Alexei's life. There just aren't that many high-ranking Estonians in the Moscow Patriarchate. That Drozdov and Alexei were one and the same person was the conclusion both of former KGB archivist Vasily Mitrokhin and by Fr. Glreb Yakunin. The relevant documents were placed in a library at Cambridge University in 1999. The Keston Institute at Cambridge, which monitors religious freedom worldwide, has used these to issue a statement that Drozdov, recruited in 1956 and recipient of a KGB "Certificate of Honor" could be no other person than Fr. Alexiy Ridiger, later Patriarch Alexei II.
That Alexei had KGB connections should not surprise. The KGB vetted everyone elevated to the episcopate, and collaboration was the only way to move up. The only real issue was how much one collaborated. Most priests and biships, I am convinced, tried to do the absolute minimum, giving up trivial or harmless information about fellow churchmen and parishoners. Few actually provided really harmfful information, and fewer still became members of tke KGB, let alone rose to the rank of colonel and received decorations for valuable services to the state.
To this day, I do not believe one brishop or even priest of the Moscow Patriarchate has resigned his position in contrition for his cooperation with the atheist regime. The comparison with the late Romanian Patriarch Teoctist is unavoidable. He DID resign his seat and retired to a monastery, made a public admission of his guilt, and asked forgiveness of his people. They, in return, repaid his honesty by recalling him to the patriarchate by acclamation. For the remainder of his tenure, until his death earlier this year, he was an examplary spiritual father to his people.
As a followup, an article by Seamus Martin in Irish Times gives some details of the file:
But the Keston Institute, an Anglican religious rights organisation, has informed The Irish Times that it has "reviewed all the available documentary evidence from the various archives of the KGB" and has concluded that the allegations are based on fact.
Representatives of the Keston Institute have had access to documents in Tallinn which reveal that the Patriarch was recruited by the Estonian KGB on February 28th, 1958. Although he is referred to only as "Drozdov" the documents make it clear that they refer to the then Father Alexiy Ridiger as the personal details given match those of no other priest of the Estonian diocese.
The document in the Estonian State Archive (record group 131, file 393, pages 125-126) signed by the chairman of the Estonian KGB, Col I.P.Karpov, and the head of the Fourth Department "Belyayev" notes that Drozdov "positively recommended himself" to the KGB.
It adds: "During secret rendezvous he was punctilious, energetic and convivial. He is well-oriented in theoretical questions of theology and the international situation. He has a willing attitude to the fulfilment of our tasks and has already provided materials deserving attention which are forming the basis for documentation of the criminal activity of a member of the leadership of the Johvi Orthodox church . . .
"In addition, 'Drozdov' also provided valuable material for the case under way against the priest Povedsky. At present he is working on improving his knowledge of German. After consolidating the agent's experience in practical work with the organs of state security in the cultivation of agents, we intend also to use him in our interests by sending him to capitalist states as a member of church delegations."
KGB papers in the Moscow archive state that Drozdov was sent to England in 1969 as part of a church delegation, that he and another agent were involved in "educational work" with monks in Pskov in western Russian in March 1983 and that he was sent on a mission to Portugal in 1985.
According to Keston, a file in the archive dated February 1988 states: "An order of the USSR KGB chairman was prepared to award Agent Drozdov the Certificate of Honour."
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 12, 2007 5:39:30 AM
Stuart,
Did you explore the likelihood and necessary conditions for Russia to increase its fertility rate? Are the natives in an inevitable death spiral? How far out did your analysis go?
Posted by: GL | Sep 12, 2007 6:12:16 AM
>>>Did you explore the likelihood and necessary conditions for Russia to increase its fertility rate? Are the natives in an inevitable death spiral? How far out did your analysis go?<<<
I noted a small uptick from the absolute nadir of 2005 (TFR 1.25) to the present 1.34. Putin and company have instituted a number of financial incentives to make people have babies. But the inverse correlation between "family friendly" policies (e.g. family leave, subsidized or free day care, long vacations, free health care) and TFR in countries like Sweden and France would indicate that something more than money is involved. I would posit that people need to have optimism about the future and a sense of belonging to something bigger than themselves.
To that end, only the revitalization of religious life in Russia will do the trick. And to some extent, we see a superficial move back to the Church, with the majority of people now calling themselves "believers". But transforming belief into new life is another matter altogether, and I think such a rebirth will have to begin from the bottom and work its way up.
This will be difficult as long as the present generation of Church leaders holds power. Fortunately for Russia, they're finally getting long in the tooth, and there are many young, pious and charismatic men and women coming up through the ranks both of the ordained ministry and the monastic world.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 12, 2007 7:07:54 AM
>>Fortunately for Russia, they're finally getting long in the tooth, and there are many young, pious and charismatic men and women coming up through the ranks both of the ordained ministry and the monastic world.<<
I'd like to have what she's having. :-)
Posted by: DGP | Sep 12, 2007 8:56:53 AM
>>>I'd like to have what she's having. :-)<<<
So would we all. My daughter has spent considerable time in Eastern Europe over the past three years--more time, in fact, than I have. She spends a lot of time down at the grass roots of the Church--monasteries, town and village parishes, Church-run orphanages. She's really impressed by a lot of what she has seen. Out and away from the big cities, there are people really trying to live according to God's will. The monasteries are filling up again, and most of the monks and nuns are quite young. Seminaries and theological schools are full and have long waiting lists. This is true of both Orthodox and Catholic institutions. And it is not like people are entering the seminaries hoping to make a killing off the Church. Particularly in the countryside, priests live a hand-to-mouth existence. Often, their gasoline bills to vist their widely dispersed flocks are larger than their monthly salaries. Only through the charitable contributions of the (already impoverished) people and donations from Westerners do they manage to get by (at the Carpatho-Rusyn Greek Catholic Theodore Romzha Seminary in Uzhorod, the annual tuition is $150--and many cannot afford that. Yet there are more than 400 men waiting to get in.
So, while there are notorious examples of worldliness and corruption in the Church in Eastern Europe, there are also many other examples of holiness and fidelity to Christ. One must pray that the holy men and women being formed at the bottom of the Church today will rise to the top in the future. For as Christ said, the last shall come first, and the first shall come last.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 12, 2007 9:07:04 AM
"This will be difficult as long as the present generation of Church leaders holds power. Fortunately for Russia, they're finally getting long in the tooth, and there are many young, pious and charismatic men and women coming up through the ranks both of the ordained ministry and the monastic world."
I wonder if this is as true here in the West as well. When I was a youngster I read a book by Thomas Kuhn, The structure of a scientific revolution. He wrote that: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up familiar with it." In other words, science progresses one retirement at a time.
I wonder if this is not true in the area of the church as well. Denominations are dominated by liberal belief. It causes the destruction of the denomination. The older members cling to their belief despite the facts of the denomination's decline. A new generation can see what is happening with fresh eyes and returns to orthodoxy.
Posted by: mark | Sep 12, 2007 2:15:56 PM
Perhaps so, Mark. Unfortunately, it happens in both directions, i.e. the decline happens because the younger generation loses what the elder possessed and "sees the truth."
Basically, I agree with you.
Posted by: Josiah A. Roelfsema | Sep 12, 2007 2:30:02 PM
Aw, c'mon Mr. Koehl, do you really want us to pay for it? Give us a little free commentary on Zubkov.
Posted by: DGP | Sep 13, 2007 5:11:03 AM
>>>Aw, c'mon Mr. Koehl, do you really want us to pay for it? Give us a little free commentary on Zubkov.<<<
Every Russian ruler of the past century has tried to hand-pick his successor in a manner that allows him to retain power behind the scenes. Deng Zhao Ping did this successfully in China, remaining the kingmaker and decisive voice, much like some Mafia don after passing the mantle off to his son. But in Russia, it has never worked like this--either you left the job feet first, or your successor repudiated your policies and consigned you to the ash heap of history. Thus Yeltsin hand-picked Putin, who rejected Yeltsin's economic and political liberalization. Will Zubkov repudiate Putin? We need to wait and see.
I do note that as a "hairy", Zubkov is qualified to succeed Putin, a "baldy".
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 13, 2007 6:42:06 AM
"I do note that as a 'hairy', Zubkov is qualified to succeed Putin, a 'baldy'."
Ah, those two ancient factions, fated forever to compete. Aspects of most political visions can perhaps be combined, but those remain implacable foes. (If you don't count the brief Italian nineteenth-century movement led by Harribaldy, of course...)
Posted by: Joe Long | Sep 13, 2007 8:28:15 AM
>>>Ah, those two ancient factions, fated forever to compete.<<<
Lenin-Bald
Stalin-Hairy
Khruschev-Bald
Brezhnev-Hairy
Andropov-Bald
Chernenko-Hairy
Gorbachev-Bald
Yeltsin-Hairy
Putin-Bald
Zubkov-Hairy
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 13, 2007 9:43:38 AM
There is precedence for God favoring smooth over hairy men. ("Jacob I have loved...")
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Sep 13, 2007 10:00:52 AM
Yet Nazirites like Samson were ascetics who were set apart "holy unto the Lord" either temporarily or permanently and could not cut their hair.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Sep 13, 2007 10:27:22 AM
I'm presently hairy, but in the future, I will be bald. Perhaps I should succeed myself?
Posted by: Peter Gardner | Sep 13, 2007 11:09:56 AM
>>>I'm presently hairy, but in the future, I will be bald. Perhaps I should succeed myself?<<<
Too bad for Putin he got the progression wrong.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 13, 2007 11:43:31 AM
Stuart,
Do you speak Russian, by chance? Vi govoritye po-russkie?
Posted by: Josiah A. Roelfsema | Sep 13, 2007 2:42:22 PM
>>>Do you speak Russian, by chance? Vi govoritye po-russkie?<<<
Wife and daughter do.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 13, 2007 2:44:23 PM
In February of 2000, my grandparents took me to visit Russia and see the family of an immigrant who lived with them at the time. We visited Moscow; I saw the crowdedness of the streets Stuart mentioned. We went to Red Square, the Lenin Mausoleum (an interesting sight awaits those allowed inside), the Kremlin, St. Basil's Cathedral (they knew we were foreign so the entrance price was much higher), and some of the city. Our hosts were wealthy land developers as near as I can tell. They lent their driver to us, who took us around and showed us the city along with their son. They had a year old Chevy Tahoe. We also strolled through Gorky Park and across the river one night. I found Moscow fairly beautiful overall, except for the half melted, dirty snow that time of year. After staying there about four days, we left to see my friend's family. That was a world apart.
My friend's parents live in Siberia, near Blagoveschensk, in a town named Svobodny (derived from "freedom", but it didn't seem like it). Arriving in Blagoveschensk by plane, we met a markedly different life. In Moscow it was still winter, around 30 degrees each day. In Siberia it was WINTER, -40 the morning we flew in. I finally experienced the kind of weather my dad had described regarding his childhood days in Casper, WY. Anyway, we were all picked up in a small Toyota minivan, about seven us total, I think. The driver was on the right of the vehicle even though the roads were as they are in the U.S. We bumped along frozen roads half-covered with snow until we made it to the home of some relatives of my friend.
During the few days we spent in winter in Siberia, we saw China across the Amur river, we shopped for food in an outdoor bazaar of sorts, in the cold again, we visited a school, we talked with relatives, and we rode an electric train, among other things. Everyone lived in apartments. At least, all those we met. We did see some dachas (summer houses) where peasants still farm and keep orchards.
I noticed a difference though from Moscow.
In Siberia, we found poor people willing to give us almost anything so that we would be happy and have a good time there. In the economy at that time, they often didn't know what money they would have day to day, or whether there would be anything to buy with it. Yet they still shared as though they had a surplus. Perhaps they saw us as family. Either way, it left a distinct impression upon me.
As far as I could tell, they were all, at least nominally, Russian Orthodox. Considering our limited communication though, we mainly spoke of simple things, like what our life was like. My friend did whatever translating was necessary. She explained many other things about life there as well. We left by train to Khabarovsk, thence to Moscow by cold plane, and home via Frankfurt and Chicago.
What I saw in Siberia was cold, bleak, wide open, forgotten. But the people there still loved us as best they knew how. I will never forget them.
Posted by: Josiah A. Roelfsema | Sep 13, 2007 3:10:09 PM
>>>Do you speak Russian, by chance? Vi govoritye po-russkie?<<<
Wife and daughter do.<<
I tried. I actually learned most of the grammar, but have forgotten nearly everything else over the last 4 years out of disuse.
Posted by: Josiah A. Roelfsema | Sep 13, 2007 3:11:46 PM
>>When I was a youngster I read a book by Thomas Kuhn, The structure of a scientific revolution. He wrote that: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up familiar with it." In other words, science progresses one retirement at a time.<<
So THAT's what I've got to do on the global warming thread! Wait for people to die!
Posted by: Francesca | Sep 16, 2007 10:22:12 PM
But it really makes one question whether something is true (no matter what it is) when it depends on the opinions of one's own generation.
Posted by: Josiah A. Roelfsema | Sep 17, 2007 9:26:22 AM
>>>When I was a youngster I read a book by Thomas Kuhn, The structure of a scientific revolution. He wrote that: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up familiar with it." In other words, science progresses one retirement at a time.<<<
>>So THAT's what I've got to do on the global warming thread! Wait for people to die!<<
Ideally, that goes for old threads, too. But sometimes one returns from the grave to wreak its terrible vengeance. :-)
Posted by: Ethan C. | Sep 17, 2007 10:40:19 AM
Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004