Each "Russian" or simply a Russian who has lived in the West for some time and have learned language of the country of residence so to understand the interlocutor, read newspapers, watch on TV programs can not help but feel, with a few exceptions, Wall alienated relationship to themselves and to Russia . Russians are shunned by both the population and the press.
I came to Finland in 1970 year in the midst of stagnation, so I thought that the reason was a negative attitude towards communism in the capitalist countries in general. I myself took a negative attitude to totalitarianism, showing the same opinion with my interlocutors. But there was something else. To the Russian attitude pejoratively as supposedly no other nation would fall under such a system would not have suffered such a system, but in Russian slave character, servility, they were with the king accustomed to the lack of freedom, and so on. N. While others are not so - they are free, independent, so it's just impossible with them.
"The point here is not in the national character," I boiled, "we will skip to racism if we consider the cause of totalitarianism in national character traits." Quite reasonably reminded of other European socialist countries, not to mention communism in great China, about the different destinies of one and the same nation, such as the Germans living under different social systems in West and East Germany. But there are also South and North Korea, Cuba, etc. "It's about the monolithic arrangement of the lever of government in a one-party state," I tried to convince my opponents. However, in vain: they had a firmly established view of the "worst" of the Russians. Even reminders about what a great country created a Russian (1 / 6 of the globe!) And what a powerful culture, which is on the West as they honor and respect, could not shake this view "top-down" on the Russian in the even the tiniest countries in which I happened to live: in Latvia, Estonia, Finland.
In a word, you feel not only a stranger, but according to the standard of national value is much lower than any other European people. Many of us are afraid to speak their native language, so as not to cause unhealthy negative interest. Such a racist attitude is not in honor of the people among whom you live: well, if we are bad, be you human, show the Russians an example of European loyalty and humanism. Such, according to the Russian press, "fluffy and white" Finns at the closest acquaintance are swaggering and willingly show disrespect to the person, especially if it is (collectively) "Russian".
The opinion about the "worst" of Russians: their way of life, kings, presidents, laws, ability to live - sits among Western people in the subconscious, passes through the spine and acts from the depths of the cerebellum as an innate reflex. Then involuntarily you ask: where does it come from? why? what's the matter?
The reason should be sought in the depths of history. In my reflections about the rejection of Russian or Russified bearers of Russian culture, I proceeded from the fact that, speaking of Russian culture, the Russian national storehouse of the soul and the Russian outlook, almost always comes from Orthodoxy. So, I decided to observe how Orthodoxy was perceived in Europe.
Has the adoption of the Christian faith brought Russia closer to or closer to Europe?
As you know, the Christian faith grew into two strong trunks: eastern (Greek) and western (Roman) - already in the time of magnificent and strong Byzantium. The first disagreement at the time of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (451), when the pope declared himself the viceroy of the apostle Peter and demanded that the Byzantine patriarchs obey him. The Western Roman Empire finally lost its significance in 476, when Constantinople declared itself independent of Rome.
In all Ecumenical councils, the dogmas of Christianity were created and each time various "heresies" were condemned: Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, etc. Orthodoxy turned to the VIII Ecumenical Council in 869-870, which condemned Byzantine, in a different way, Greek, or Eastern , Christianity as a heresy. Of course, the decision of the VIII Ecumenical Council was not accepted by Byzantium. That's when the second terrible split of the Christian world took place in the Greek (Eastern) and Roman (Western) Catholic churches. About Russia in the Christian world, then they did not even know who they were, they never heard of it. However, it is in these still "pre-Russian" strife, in our view, the root of many future historical events in Russia. It is a well-known fact that the Russian Orthodox Church recognizes only seven Ecumenical Councils, this is understandable.
In the beginning, the Slavs enter the Christian arena as victors. After St. Cyril and Methodius created the Slavic alphabet (863) and liturgical books began to be translated into Slavonic, Rome in 967 gave the right to create a church service in the Slavic language (thereby raising the Slavonic to the level of holy languages along with Hebrew, Greek, Latin ). However, neither these strife nor the victory of the Slavic language had any relation to Rus as such.
Russia, like Byzantium, was characterized by love of freedom, and she did not want to obey the steep in circulation of the popes, about whose love for power were legends. The adoption of Prince Vladimir in 988 Baptism from the Byzantine church introduced Rus into even closer contact with Byzantium, but simultaneously in the crucible of the struggle against Byzantium, all-powerful and intriguing in the political arena of the popes and subordinate to them in the "spiritual" plan of states and sovereigns.
Thus, in our opinion, in 988, Russia did not join the "commonwealth" of Christian countries, but, on the contrary, Rome had another opponent or competitor in the sphere of Christianity, which was necessary if not destroyed, then, at least, break. In 1054, there is a final split. The Pope betrays the anathema of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the latter, in turn, the Roman Pope. (Only in 1965 year these anathemas were removed!) This split is mentioned often, but the first two should not be forgotten either. From the fork, the two churches moved in different ways: the Byzantine continued the Hellenic speculative tradition of inner deepening and coexistence of people according to the laws of conscience, and the Roman went on in an aggressive military way, where only the law could stop and punish the criminal (this is so clearly and perfectly said by F.M. Dostoevsky in "Crime and Punishment", "Idiot" and other works).
Since the Kiev church was part of the jurisdiction of Constantinople, this anathema concerned Russia directly.
The adoption of Christianity in its reading, which condemned Rome, decided the fate of Russia for centuries ahead: open invasions, anti-Russian coalitions, support for enemies and enemies of Russia outside of even confessional borders, such as supporting the Tatar khans and Islamic Turkey. Gradually, in the West, a hostility to Russia is cultivated, the roots of which no one remembers and does not understand. On the other hand, the Russians educate themselves, beginning with the epic Ilia Muromets and his associates, the heroic readiness to defend Holy Russia, the Orthodox Rus, their homeland from invasions, which, with the exception of the Mongol-Tatar invasion, were almost always sent from the West and sanctioned or partially financed by the Vatican.
Jerusalem was (and still is) a common holy place for Christian pilgrims. From history we know that knightly orders of the hospital, Templars (Templars) and other crusaders appeared, designed to protect pilgrims from Islamic and robber attacks both on the way to Jerusalem and in the city itself. The first crusade managed to liberate Jerusalem for almost a hundred years (1096-1187). But soon the popes and secular authorities used these Vatican-administered orders for other purposes. And in 1204-1261 years Constantinople (the center of the Orthodox "heresy") was taken by the Crusaders. For half a century his wealth was plundered and, according to art historians, Constantinople art gave impetus to the European Renaissance. After this attack, Byzantium never recovered and in 1453 fell under the blow of the Ottoman army.
Russia in the same period could not help Byzantium, being conquered by the Tatar-Mongols (from 1237 to 1380 - partial liberation, and until 1480 - complete liberation). The well-known historian L. N. Gumilev emphasizes that the strengthening and growth of Moscow in the 15th century became possible and was due to its remoteness from the hostile Europe. Tatars did not try to destroy or change the religions of their subordinate countries, Orthodoxy developed and even strengthened: churches and monasteries were built.
Immediately after liberation, Tsar Ivan III (1462-1505) began to reorganize the state: he took the title of tsar, married the Byzantine princess Zoya (Sophia) Paleologus, once again confirming the relationship established in the time of Monomakhs, and continuity with Byzantium: the double-headed Byzantine eagle. The banner of Orthodoxy (correct faith) and its defense passed as a mission to Russian tsars and the Russian church. There was a rich ideologem: Moscow - The Third Rome, confirmed in the Time of Troubles, when the Orthodox expelled the Latins from their territory. After the election of Mikhail Romanov to the throne in 1613, Russia grew, mainly to the east (and, basically, peacefully, not like the conquistadors - European colonizers, practically ruined the American Indians and turned conquered Hindus and Negroes into their slaves).
From the Catholic West, Russia is forced to constantly defend itself. It is no secret that the initiators of aggression each time took the blessing and money in Rome. As soon as the Tatars inflicted great damage on the country, Catholics intensified: the Orthodox under the leadership of Prince Alexander Nevsky fought back at 1240 and 1242. from the German order and the Swedes, the Teutonic knights moved to the Baltics. Do not consider the Swedish invasions, associated with the ruin of Orthodox churches and monasteries. Sprawling into a huge state from sea to sea, Rzeczpospolita sought to conquer heretics. No wonder the Cossacks appeared on the borders. Not for that Taras Bulba killed his son Andrii, that Poles fell in love, but because he changed his faith.
In 1605, the Poles almost reached their goal: Lzhedmitry reigned with Marina for several months in Moscow, and from the north, sensing easy prey, the Swedes moved. It was in defense of Orthodoxy from St. Trinity St. Sergius Lavra that the voice of St. Germogen - the Orthodox rose and drove the interventionists, the Latins. Every 100 years there were major aggressions: in 1709 - Swedes and Poles, in 1812 - the French, or rather, assembled from all the peoples of Europe armies. But when Russia made its "crusades" to liberate Constantinople, in the Russian-Turkish wars, and especially in the war 1853-1855, on the side of Muslim Turkey against Russia fought the whole Christian world, and the United Kingdom even brought the Sipa Indians. The Polish press (Slavic, but Catholic!) Is "traditionally" on the side of Turkey. In the war 1877-1878 years. For the liberation of Christian, but Orthodox (!) Bulgaria did not participate in any European country, however, all fled to share dividends in Berlin and achieved the same that Turkey was returned part of the Bulgarian territory, won by Russia.
Often one can hear the opinion that Rus was peculiar to secrecy from the West: here, could absorb a high European culture. Let's see what the Europeans thought of the Russians.
Here we allow ourselves quite lengthy quotes from the work of L. Mokroborodova, a researcher from Turku, who studied Latin sources in the process of working on her thesis on Botvidi. "Russian discourse," she writes, "begins as a narrative about an exotic country, another barbaric peripheral world in relation to its European home. If Kampenze at the beginning of the sixteenth century could still write: "To deceive each other in them is considered a terrible, heinous crime. Adultery, violence and public debauchery are very rare, unnatural vices are completely unknown, and there is no sound at all about perjury and blasphemy, "then Baron Herberstein's book in the same century later repeated an already existing stereotype of the heretical country and further filled Europe with new negative things about the life of Muscovy ". Muscovy is regarded as an organically hostile force. The Baron repeated stories about it, declaring every time that he himself does not believe them, and yet purposefully flooded Europe with Russian "divas" (we will mention that the notes of Baron Herberstein as an educated person have cognitive value.) -L. S.). So, Russia fills "that niche in the mythological consciousness, where cultural antipodes settle. Out of the country of outlandish (frosty, etc.), Muscovy is turning into a country that is not right. "
We would say the opposite: from the idea of Muscovy as a country heretical and wrong, everything that happens in it is perceived as outlandish. It is from this that "two standards" occur in relation to identical phenomena (bribery, tax evasion, theft, etc.), which are perceived as normal in their country, but rare, and for Russians they become abnormal and universal: they are either generalized in as a Russian national trait, or they acquire a scandalous character: "You see, what is happening in Russia".
Mokroborodova practically and she draws a similar conclusion, speaking about the formation of the concept of Russian as non-European, and therefore, "inhuman". The fundamental topos of the Russian myth are "abnormal", "irrational", unmanly in the mind of the European. In behavior and any Russian life practice, there is a discrepancy between the motive and the result, the absence of the normally expected consequence. Trade - this is theft and deception, military art - flight from the battlefield, religious practice - baptized bears, etc. Even at the beginning of the XVI century, Russian - heretics, and by the end of the century - sinners, the dead people. Russia turns into a moral anti-world. Thus, the Frenchman de Neville wrote in 1698: "When the Russians meet, they cross themselves and shake hands. I believe to call witness to their treachery of God, for betrayal is one of their virtues. "
This trend of turning Russia into an anti-civilization became especially felt by the beginning of the 17th century. However, this applied not only to Russia, but to Orthodox countries in general: Yuri Krizhanovich, a Serbian educator, a Catholic, theorist of the Pan-Slav idea, wrote: "They depict and describe us with the greatest hatred ... Moreover, they portray us as even worse than there were legendary cyclops, centaurs and lestragons. Such slander, such shameful dishonor and such universal hatred and reproach seem to me an intolerable evil. " Mokroborodova concludes her report with the words: "Europe learned about Russia what she wanted to hear about it, and received the image that she wanted to receive. The truth is that this optics of the negative is not so much talking about the Russian mentality as reveals the features of the mentality of the West. " Notice, there were no such problems with the Catholic Poles. It is quite natural that the scientific debate reflected a negative attitude toward Orthodoxy (as well as Rus). So, I. Botvidi in his dissertation in 1620 year (this is 632 years after the Baptism of Russia!), When the Russian smerds took so deep into themselves the belief that they began to call themselves christians, poses the question: "Are the Christians Moscovites ? "
Russians by this time already know about this blasphemy, and there is already a saying that the heroine of N. Leskov's novel "Soboryane" cites: "Other lands boast, and ours and haiku are strong."
And here is the long-awaited openness: the Russian nobles went to the West to get an education. And what did they learn about their homeland of Russia? Within the walls of European universities, and not only in the academic world, Russian students absorbed this negative view of Russia as a wrong and wrong people. Then these views of "European educated people" or "educated in the best European universities" (as it is customary to write in the biographies of Russian cultural and political figures) migrated into Russian textbooks and became part of such a picture of the world about themselves, their country and its place in the European community , which is full of epithets: "backwardness," "inadequate reforms," descriptions of the hard life of the peasants, the inability of Russian czars to rule and other self-flagellation. By this scourge to this day, the Europeans are whipping us, and this whip was given to the Europeans by the Russian "intellectuals" themselves. Chaadaev and many other "Westerners" were imbued with this negative potential to their homeland and compatriots, and indirectly to themselves.
Pay attention, as from the middle of the XIX century, even in such an outstanding historian as V.Klyuchevsky, a new subject appears in the history of Russia: tsarism, which seeks to do mucks to the Russian people. The term "tsarism", in our opinion, is the quintessence of denying the ability of Russians in their country to live as people, that is, as Europeans. The term by content is clearly imported. Russian tsars made the country a great one, and this obviously did not appeal to the Europeans. Let's compare what the Swedish or Polish kings did, leading their countries to almost disappear from the map of the world.
All this pejorative criticism of Russia was repeatedly refuted not only by individual historians, but by the strength and grandeur of pre-revolutionary Russia itself, the "granary" of Europe, where paper money was guaranteed by gold. However, many European pejorative attitude poisoned the mind: hence the morbid attitude to what will be said in the West. First you need to be praised in the West, and then already in Russia, as V. Kozhinov wrote in "The History of Russia and the Russian word". For example, take the travel notes of the French (Catholics!) Marquis de Custine or the Jesuit de Maistre, who are often cited as a serious study ("The History of Russia and the Soviet Union." Otava, Helsinki, 1986). Let's ask ourselves: can this Catholic overcome his cultural and confessional barrier in order to penetrate the essence of the Russian Orthodox mentality and find something good there? The notes themselves are written with French vivacity and the desire to once again amuse the European public.
The Moscow Patriarch did not wear the robe of the apostle Peter and did not claim that he was sinless. It would be difficult for a Russian person to learn such dogmas. And how would we beat ourselves in the chest and called barbarians if we had an Inquisition that killed hundreds of thousands of people who tortured, exiled to galleys and burned the unfortunate at the stake for many centuries. The Institute of the Inquisition was approved in 1215 year, and abolished, for example in Portugal, in 1834. And from Europe it migrated to the American colonies. And the desire to enrich and sell indulgences? And the Jesuits, the rule of which was to call black white, and white black, if the church requires it ?! And the Ku Klux Klan in the US and slavery? Ivan the Terrible, who, uniting feudal Russia in a centralized state, introduced oprichnina for seven years (1565-1572), with them simply incommensurable.
We also do not have a Jesuit unprincipled and cunning, which, for example, was developed in the European diplomacy by the example of the church (today this is called the "double standard"). The standard has always worked against Russia. Not knowing the background, the notorious phrase: "Russia lost in diplomacy" can easily be explained so that Russian diplomats were not on the level. When you know this for centuries, the Vatican's continued rejection of the Orthodox "heresy", you realize that it's not in the mind or in the ability of Russian diplomats. The fact is that all countries were negotiating and standing against them, and although they fought each other, they always showed unanimity towards Russia. The West even joined with Islam more willingly. He brilliantly demonstrated this during the Crimean War (1853-1855), and today, inviting Turkey, and not Russia in the European Union.
We do not even have the ingratitude or cynicism with which Alexander I was rewarded, not only liberating Europe, but also returning their crowns to all crowned men, without demanding anything in exchange for the Holy Alliance, so that in Europe there will never be wars in the future! The Finnish textbook states: "European states have never seen Russia as an equal" partner "among other European states." In their eyes, Russia in the XIX century had a semi-Asian image. Thus, the Foreign Minister of the UK, Castelereagh, at the Congress of Vienna allowed himself to be called "Kalmyk Prince" on the sidelines, and further: "The results of the Crimean War revived these sentiments again, and some European diplomats directly declared their desire to oust Russia to Asia, from where, in their opinion, it came "(" History of Russia and the Soviet Union. "S. S. 253.)
Russian thinkers know the West. Let's recall V. Soloviev, N. Berdyaev, I. Ilyin, A. Me. Russian thinkers fused in their creations a high Western thought with the domestic (also one of the forms of sobornost), raising questions about good and evil in our manifested world. But the West does not know the Slavonic language, which means that it does not know Russian early sacred-paternal spiritual literature, as well as the secular Slavophile philosophical thought that grew out of it. Having no idea of the verbal spiritual wealth that has been accumulated in Russia, they still erroneously believe that there is not or almost none in Russia. Only such great minds as A. Pushkin (in the series of articles about Radishchev, the poem "Slanderers of Russia"), F. Dostoevsky (in the novels "Idiot" and "Demons"), L. Tolstoy (in comparison of the images of Alexander I, Kutuzov and Napoleon in War and Peace), Ivan Goncharov (in the works of the Frigate Pallas and Oblomov), not to mention the enormous work of the Slavophils, managed to comprehend this negative and understand the difference in the spiritual worldview of the Russian (Orthodox) and European (the Catholic or Lutheran).
But there is no evil without good: no other nation thinks so deeply about who we are, what task is before our nation and what we Orthodox should bring to this God's world.