|
Post by nockwasright on Jun 5, 2005 7:08:15 GMT -5
Milan Kundera, the Czech writer, affirms in the essay “Le rideau” that the Slav word is a myth and a creation of the Western European historiography, and that a whole group of countries that he calls Central Europe and comprehends all the linguistically Slav countries + Hungary minus Russia (and Belarus and Ukraina), are an historical and cultural unity, that is culturally far from Russia and belongs solely to the Western world. He finds as a common characteristics of this Central Europe the belonging to the Austro-Hungarian empire, the continuously threatened national identity due to the position between the two great powers Germany and Russia, hence the struggle for national identity; the Russian domination (in his words: “a kidnapped West”). Their unity, in this vision, is in great part due to their common experience as the little nations of Europe. Here follows some excerpts. My copy is in Italian, so the translation is mine, may Milan forgive me. The italics are his, though.
On the myth of the Slav word
“In the seventies I left my country and moved to France, where I discovered with surprise to be “an exiled from Eastern Europe”. Actually, for the Frenchmen my country was part of the East of Europe. I hastened to explain the real scandal of our situation, orbed of our national sovereignty, we had been annexed not only by another country, but by another world, the world of Eastern Europe, that, rooted in his Byzantine past, has his own historical issues, his architecture, his religion (orthodox), his alphabet (Cyrillic, coming from Greek writing) and his own communism ….
I explained that while there is a linguistic unity of Slav nations, there is no Slav culture, no Slav world: the history of the Czechs as of the Poles, Slovaks, Croats or Slovenians … is purely western: Gothic; Renaissance; Baroque; close contact with the Germanic world; struggle of the Catholicism against the Reformation. Nothing to share with Russia, who was far, as another world. Only the Poles lived with Russia in a neighbouring relationship, but similar to a fight to the death. …
Wasted efforts: the idea of a “Slav world” is an ineradicable common place of the world historiography.”
On the unity of the Central Europe and on being “small nations”
“…Central Europe. But what is it? The little countries positioned between two powers, Russia and Germany. The eastern border of the West … these nations have never mastered their destiny or their borders. Rarely they have been subject, almost always object of History. Their unity was unintentional” “What distinguish the small nations from the big ones is not just the quantitative criterion of the number of their citizens; is something deeper. For the small nations the existence is not a certainty but a question, a bet, an hazard; they are defensive about history, this force that towers above them, that does not consider them, that doesn’t even notice them. … Poles are as numerous as Spaniards. But Spain is an ancient power who has never been menaced in her existence, while History thaught the Poles what means not to exist. Orbed of their State, they lived for more than a century in the death corridor. “Poland is not dead yet”, is the first pathetic verse of their national anthem … Witold Gombrowicz, in a letter to Czeslaw Milosz wrote a phrase that would never pass in a Spaniard’s mind: “If, in one hundred years, our language will still exist…”.
So what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by NuSapiens on Jun 5, 2005 12:33:18 GMT -5
Czechs I've met described themselves as Central Europeans. The seemed to me culturally intermediate between Russians and Germans, and perhaps more German-like than Russian-like.
But it's also true that all of the former Bloc countries, regardless of cultural heritage, live in the shadow of the former USSR, and people from there grow up with a kind of poverty and hopeless crime-ridden economy that is alien to Western Europe. In my experience, they tend to be very nice, down-to-earth people who enjoy conversation or sitting down playing cards, eating, or talking with friends. Like many Europeans I've met, they are much more introspective than consumerism-addicted Americans (but of course, travelers tend to be more thoughtful people anyway - the average "Joe" from these countries is probably quite different).
A Hungarian also once told me that in his part of Europe, there is a kind of deep dispairing outlook that is alien to the more Western peoples. I suspect this is both cultural and a product of recent history/economy.
That's my impression based on rather limited experience with people traveling/working in the USA.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jun 5, 2005 12:53:36 GMT -5
Czechs I've met described themselves as Central Europeans. The seemed to me culturally intermediate between Russians and Germans, and perhaps more German-like than Russian-like. The same happened to me. Slovaks I know resent being considered Eastern European (that in the mind of the Western European means "Russia and some other similar countries"). Their refrain is "Bratislava is just 60 km from Wien"! Actually Prague is exactly as Eastern as Naples (geographically), and the eastern side of Italy is more eastern than the Slovakia, or most of Poland, by the way. Obviously the issue is more cultural than geographic. Must be noticed that half of Germany lived in the shadow of the former URSS, but they are not considered "Eastern European".
|
|
|
Post by Anja on Jun 5, 2005 14:33:05 GMT -5
Is it possible that the connection of Central Europe with Eastern Europe is more of a recent trend? Poland, Russia, the Czech Rep., etc, weren't connected in earlier times because of their "Slavicness" but they are now connected in the minds of many because of their common Communist Bloc pasts?
Because it's definitely true that many Russians, at least in the 1800s felt themselves to be disconnected from Europe. There was no real "Slavic world" to them...they were simply a window to the West that they were not a part of.
And there was a large amount of cultural exchange between countries like Germany, Poland, and former Czechoslovakia, ensuring that these countries would probably not have much in common with Russia.
|
|
|
Post by Circe on Jun 5, 2005 18:19:31 GMT -5
Kundera has answered your question, I suppose. The way I see it, “Slavic world” ceased to exist the moment various Slavic tribes converted to Christianity, as the conversion to Byzantine Orthodox Christianity, i.e. Catholicism, predetermined their cultural affiliations. Catholic and Orthodox Christianity have quite different outlooks and values, not only of theological nature: Catholicism seems to be much more “of this world” and oriented towards the practical and rational way of thinking (as rational as any religious outlook can be), while Orthodox theology is way more irrational and turned towards the mysticism and self-sacrifice (I guess indulgence would be a good example here), and these differences have slowly but surely influenced mentality of Orthodox and Catholic Slavs. Geopolitics is another thing. As Kundera has observed, Western Slavs were under the influence of the countries that are generally considered to be Western European, their history, architecture, religion, script and culture ARE Western European. That definitely makes them different from the part of the Southern Slavs who were under Byzantine and later Ottoman influence, and Russians and other Eastern Slavs, whose lands were bordering with Asia, and who remained for centuries without any close contact with the European community. While Catholic Slavs were integrated into the general European pattern, influenced largely by philosophical, political, and economic changes in the West, such as feudalism, Humanism, the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the French and Industrial revolutions, Russia and the Balkan Slavs evolved a system of bureaucratic autocracy and militarism that tended to retard the development of urban middle classes and to prolong the conditions of serfdom. The state's supremacy over the individual tended to become more firmly rooted. Consequently, the Communist idea was best accepted in these countries whose peoples were used to irrational and idealistic approach, while the idea wasn’t embraced with the same zeal in Central European Slavic countries. Also, it’s quite indicative that Pan-Slavism developed as a movement and appeared only in the 19th century, among intellectuals, scholars, and poets, but it rarely influenced practical politics. The various Slavic nationalities conducted their policies in accordance with what they regarded as their national interests, and these policies were as often bitterly hostile toward other Slavic peoples as they were friendly toward non-Slavs. I believe this difference is most obvious in the Balkans, which was the place where the East (the Ottoman Empire) and the West (Austro-Hungarian Empire) met. Yugoslavia was quite a good example of this clash of cultures. Created under the influence of the illustrious pan-Slavic idea, this political union was not quite matched by feelings of ethnic or cultural accord - the ex-YU national slogan “brotherhood and unity” has a quite a bitter ring to it nowadays. To be as clear as possible, I’ll say that the distance between Belgrade and Novi Sad is only 80km, but the difference in mentalities, architecture and general behaviour is striking – it is still quite obvious that Serbia south of Danube was under Ottoman rule, while part of Serbia north of Danube was under Austro-Hungarian rule. However, although culturally different, there are also many similarities between the Slavic peoples. Slavs are the most numerous ethnic and linguistic body of peoples in Europe, their languages are still strikingly similar, their status of “small nations” throughout history, constant struggle for independence and finally the decades of Communist rule also left their mark - education/indoctrination system, the doomed-to-failure economy and overall despairing and despondent point of view caused by the oppressive regimes somehow brought all the Warsaw Pact countries closer, and it is these common features that made the majority of laymen “Westerners”, who are seldom attuned to differences other than economic, to lump all the Slavs together as their Eastern European “country cousins”. Finally, as a member of a Slavic people, I’ll take the liberty to express my point of view: although I acknowledge all the cultural and religious differences, and do perceive Central European Slavs culturally closer to Western Europe than to Russians and Ottoman-ruled Southern Slavs, I still can’t help feeling somehow closer to Poles and Slovaks than to Germans or French. I guess it’s my not-so-rational Byzantine-Slavic nature talking
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jun 5, 2005 19:11:32 GMT -5
their status of “small nations” throughout history, constant struggle for and finally the decades of Communist rule also left their mark - education/indoctrination system, the doomed-to-failure economy and overall despairing and despondent point of view caused by the oppressive regimes somehow brought all the Warsaw Pact countries closer, and it is these common features that made the majority of laymen “Westerners”, who are seldom attuned to differences other than economic, to lump all the Slavs together as their Eastern European “country cousins”. To this I would partially object that the fact that Russia never shared the small country status, and that it has a completely different political experience, of dominance and imperial rule, creates another problem in the Slav unity. On the other hand, what Kundera calls the "skindeepness of the West" in considering thir eastern neighbours can help create such unity, as they are united in the perception of others. But isn't this the problem? The Eastern Slavs elaborate the panslavist idea and enforce it. So did Russia, but also in Yugoslavia it was Serbia the centripete force. You may feel closer to a Slovak than to a German. But does the Slovak feel closer to a Serbian than to a German? It takes two to tango.
|
|
|
Post by Circe on Jun 6, 2005 5:28:43 GMT -5
To this I would partially object that the fact that Russia never shared the small country status, and that it has a completely different political experience, of dominance and imperial rule, creates another problem in the Slav unity. On the other hand, what Kundera calls the "skindeepness of the West" in considering thir eastern neighbours can help create such unity, as they are united in the perception of others. You’re absolutely right. The menacing size of Russia, its imperialistic policy and territorial pretensions in Central Europe were one of the main obstacles to Slavic unity, as Russia’s idea of Slavic unity was “all Slavs under Russian rule”. However, I wasn’t thinking about Russia when talking about “smaller nations”, but rather about Kundera’s compatriots and the Balkan peoples (Croats and Slovenes in particular and in part Macedonians and Serbians) whose position was pretty much similar, as they were fighting for independence. My point there was only to stress the factors which made the “skin-deep” West form their idea of all Slavic countries belonging to the same category. Although I agree that this division is extremely superficial, it is still there. Bratislava may be just 60 km from Vienna for a Slovak, but is the distance same for a German? As you have said, it takes 2 to tango Actually it was not the Easterns Slavs who elaborated the idea, but Western and Southern ones The Pan-Slav idea dates back to 17th century (Krizanic, Orbin etc.), but it was only in the first half of the 19th century that it gained real impetus. It was particularly promoted and supported by West and South Slav intellectuals, scholars, and poets, whose peoples were at that time also developing their sense of national identity. Pan-Slavic congresses were held in Prague and Belgrade, not in St. Petersburg or Moscow However, intellectual enthusiasm and speculations are one thing and politics is another. The movement was a too idealistic, painfully romantic idea; as such it did include all the variables in the final equation, and was doomed to failure. After the Crimean war, Russia started using Pan-Slavic idea as a means for dissemination of Russian propaganda. The movement became popular in Russia, to which many Pan-Slavs looked for protection from Austro-Hungarian and Turkish rule. Russian Pan-Slavists, however, altered the theoretical basis of the movement. Adopting the Slavophile notion that western Europe was spiritually and culturally bankrupt and that it was Russia's historic mission to revivify Europe by gaining political dominance over it, the Pan-Slavists added the concept that Russia's mission could not be fulfilled without the support of other Slav peoples, who must be liberated from their Austrian and Turkish masters and united into a Russian-dominated Slav confederation. In the case of Yugoslavia, I’m not trying to downplay Serbian hegemonic tendencies or to glorify or idealize her here saying that she was willing to sacrifice itself for the sake of her “Slavic brothers”, but I do believe that the romantic Pan-Slavic idea was most warmly welcomed in Serbia, just like the Communism was some decades later. The cultural differences were much greater and dangerous than anyone could expect, and two conflicting state-views were united: Serbs experience (influenced by Russia) had always revolved around the creation of a strong state, that of the Croats and Slovenes around the struggle to defend the nation against too strong a state. It’d have been a miracle if the union had worked. Politically, it was quite a bad move, sadly followed by a series of bad moves which eventually resulted in the tragic demise of the experiment in Slavic unity. As I explicitly said, I was expressing my personal “not-so-rational Byzantine” feeling, based mostly on the linguistic affinity of Slavic speakers and common totalitarian and economically disastrous recent history, which is by no means the opinion of the majority of Serbs (as a matter of fact, I’d say most Serbs feel closer to Greeks because of the Balkan connection and shared religion, than to their Catholic “Slavic brothers” ) Similarly, I suppose Slovaks do feel culturally closer to Germans than they do to Serbs, but when it comes to tango... hehehe I wouldn't be so sure... ;D
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jun 6, 2005 8:23:44 GMT -5
[ Bratislava may be just 60 km from Vienna for a Slovak, but is the distance same for a German? As you have said, it takes 2 to tango Of course not, and this is the drama Kundera speaks about. Of course it's up to decide if its the "kidnapped" west or the "refuted" west, or both. With all his sagacity and complexity Kundera is a man, and thus is not immune to national pride. In the same book above quoted he talks of the two Czech ambassadors who had to wait all day in a waiting room while the big nations where discussing Czechoslovakia's fate, for finally being told that "Czechoslovakia is a far away nation we know nothing about" as a justification for UK non involvment. The author feels the humiliation. His referents are Ghoete, Kafka, Rabelais, Flaubert. He doesn't feel "far away." He wants to "crash" the party of the rich and the powerful. They keep him out. Seems that the most complex issues can be reduced to very basic human instincts and feelings (here we need an Amksa comment ). With a very skin deep knowledge of what's happening now, seems to me the Slav speaking states are eager to enter the EU, without the slightest thought about creating a common front (the opposite is true, maybe). So maybe the attraction toward the centre is still much stronger than the self cohesion or attraction toward the East. And slowly it seems the EU is going to tango with them.
|
|
|
Post by Circe on Jun 6, 2005 8:43:19 GMT -5
Of course not, and this is the drama Kundera speaks about. Of course it's up to decide if its the "kidnapped" west or the "refuted" west, or both. I believe it's both, i.e. that Slavic speaking Central European countries belong culturally to the West, and linguistically and somewhat historically to the East, which is a kind of mixed blessing, as they don't really belong anywhere, but at the same time one can argue that they have the best of both worlds I'll allow myself another personal comment and say I'm painfully familiar with the story... Your "skin deep" knowledge seems less skin and more deep, as you have a Slav here agreeing with you ;D The attraction towards the East has never been particularly strong in Central Europe (except in the very short period when they looked up to Russia as to a potential liberator), and I doubt that any kind of common Slavic front will appear in the nearer future. Veeeery slowly, but than again, tango is best danced slowly
|
|
|
Post by Ponto Hardbottle on Jun 6, 2005 8:59:20 GMT -5
I found the way the writer comprehended Eastern European, and the slavic world quite ethnocentric and illuminating. The tag Eastern European does not refer to actual geography or religion or culture or language. It is a way of recognizing the political situation in Europe after WW2 and during the Cold War years when the USSR was in its prime, controlling the affairs of certain countries in Europe. Remember or from history, what happened in Hungary in 1956 or the squashing of the Bubcek reforms or that bloody wall in Berlin. Whether the writer likes to admit it or not, for over 40 years, the countries known East European came under Soviet hegemony. That is what, East European meant. Even after the USSR did its Swan Song, former citizens of countries like East Germany took a long time to adjust, to stop being Easties, and forget the Stasi. Now East European justs means Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine. The writer probably forgot that Albania, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Romania were also part of Eastern Europe during the Communist times despite their geography languages, religions or cultures. As for the writer's dislike of the tag, maybe he should join this board and vent his feelings under stereotypes of his country. The statement about the Spaniards is rather odd considering the long presence of the Moors in the Iberian peninsula.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jun 6, 2005 9:24:25 GMT -5
The tag Eastern European does not refer to actual geography or religion or culture or language. It is a way of recognizing the political situation in Europe after WW2 and during the Cold War years when the USSR was in its prime, controlling the affairs of certain countries in Europe But Eastern Germans do not share that tag. Italy was a bordeline case during cold war. Do you think that, had it joined the Communist Block, it would have been called a Eastern country?
|
|
|
Post by NuSapiens on Jun 6, 2005 10:15:19 GMT -5
People admire power and money. If Western Europe becomes a slum relative to Russia, all those "West" admirers will crane their necks and look East, as people did when Baghdad was a center of revived Greek philosophy and science, while Western Europe was a feudal dump.
What's amazing to me (as an American) is the partial admiration some people from Bloc countries have for the West. For instance, Russia has generated some of the most soulful and beautiful music and skillful folk dances of Europe, but now young Russians have become herky-jerky dorks who can only awkwardly dance to techno pastiche. And they don't even realize this.
Fortunately, everyone from Russia or Eastern Bloc countries that I've met in the USA tends to be very, very ambivalent about all of the "Western" glamour - perhaps because when they are here, they can see the subtle deficiencies up close.
|
|
|
Post by Mimers on Jun 6, 2005 10:53:15 GMT -5
Wow, nice posts people. So informative... They taught me close to nothing about any of this, but from personal experience and where I live, we Polish, Slovacks and Serbs stick together....hang out together, and we just have this bond...we don't even talk about history or anything... maybe it's the similarity in food and langugage that makes us gravitate towards each other... heheheheh It must be those famous cabbage rolls yum yum. But don't misunderstand, we befriend everyone, but let's say an Italian just wouldn't understand the cabbage roll thing.. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by Circe on Jun 6, 2005 10:59:44 GMT -5
Wow, nice posts people. So informative... They taught me close to nothing about any of this Our posts were so informative that they taught you close to nothing about all this... you get some extra points for sarcasm, lady! ;D but let's say an Italian just wouldn't understand the cabbage roll thing.. LOL! I wouldn't bet on it - that strongly depends on the Italian
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Jun 6, 2005 11:08:59 GMT -5
Wow, nice posts people. So informative... They taught me close to nothing about any of this Our posts were so informative that they taught you close to nothing about all this... you get some extra points for sarcasm, lady! ;D I thought the same at the beginning but then the usual kindness of Minidamoon made me prefer the interpretation that they didn't taught her in school about this. Am I right, Mini? Anyway thanks for joining the thread but let's say an Italian just wouldn't understand the cabbage roll thing.. LOL! I wouldn't bet on it - that strongly depends on the Italian [/quote] Yeah there's more slavophile than it is thought here in the Peninsula . In the end, we border with Slovenia ...
|
|