Monthly Archives: September 2014

Role of Christianity in the Development of Russia

Posted on by

Why did Vladimir adopt Christianity, and why did he decide to convert the Russian people as well? Although his mother, Olga, also adopted Christianity during her rule, she did not attempt to convert her people. What political factors influenced Vladimir in his choice to convert the people, as opposed to Olga’s choice to leave them to their pagan faith? Vladimir was canonized and remembered for his grand “baptism of Russia” – wouldn’t Olga want to be remembered in that way as well? True, Vladimir was looking to unite Russia and to develop a strong national culture, but I assume these desires would be present in Olga’s time too. I’m curious about the timing of this Grand Baptism, particularly because similar conversions were taking place in Poland, Denmark, Hungry, and Norway as well. How did Christianity spread so quickly in this particular time period, and not earlier?

Religion undoubtably plays a strong role in a state’s identity, and the Kievan Russians’ acceptance of Christianity both opened up opportunity for exposure to Byzantine culture, while also creating a firm separation from the Roman Catholic Church. How would Russia’s history be changed if Christianity came to the land from Rome and not from Byzantium? Would the same Russian suspicions of the West be present? If Russia had joined the Roman Catholic Church instead of remaining outside of it (and therefore remaining outside of Latin civilization as a whole), an entirely different Russia could have formed.

At what point does the Church begin to threaten a ruler’s power rather than aide it? The adoption of Christianity helped Vladimir in uniting his people just as it did for his son, Iaroslav, but there must come a point when people unite under religion to tear down an autocrat. Religious beliefs cannot always be in line with a ruler’s need for control, and I wonder if Vladimir harbored fears of this mass conversion threatening his future as the ruler of Russia.

With God On Our Side

Posted on by

One of the most prevalent imageries depicted through the course of these stories is the inclusion of God and religious allusions, but specifically in the context of good and evil. This is especially noticeable when discussion battles, where the writers of the story (supposedly those who survived and flourished after these events) had God backing them and their cause; while the others were backed by evil. This is exemplified in multiple stories, such as on page 22 when the author claims that “While Vladimir was desirous of attacking Iaroslav, the latter sent overseas and imported Varangian reinforcements, since he feared his father’s advance. But God will not give the devil any satisfaction. For when Vladimir fell ill, Boris was with him at the time.” This shows that the author believed that what happened in history occurred because God was backing these results. Similarly, on page 25, “God had let loose the pagans upon us because of our transgressions, the Russian princes fled and the Polovtsians were victorious.” This exhibits both values because it shows the prevalence of religious thinking in the interpretations of the people of the time who were experiencing those events. In terms of power, it showed that the leaders of the time were thought of to have the backing of the Gods, and that they themselves (and their decisions that they made for their population) were blessed to a certain extent. Evidently this altered over time as the populous gained more control of their leadership, but for some time the decisions of the leaders were the only decisions acceptable backed by the Gods.

Validity Behind Saint Boris and the Rest of the Chronicle

Posted on by

While this is not a novel concept, it is important to emphasize how history can be skewed to a certain party’s interest or message.  For the purposes of this class, this can be directly related to The Primary Chronicle.  While this document is clearly biased toward the Christian faith, it is one of the very few documents in existence that records any type of history of Rus’.  Sadly, this source is questionable due to its Christian references.

One excerpt, describing the dissension among the princes of the Rus’ dating 1012-1054, is particularly interesting regarding the blatant Christian propaganda it contains.  This excerpt is fascinating because of the boldness in which its author placed Christian messages, leaving the story’s accuracy up for debate.  For example, when explaining the execution of Boris, it states:

These emissaries came to the Alta, and when they approached they heard the sainted Boris singing vespers. For it was already known to him that they intended to take his life. Then he arose and began to chant, saying ‘Oh Lord, how are they increased who come against me! Many are they that arise up agaisnt me’ (Ps. iii.1) . . . . After finishing vespers, he prayed, gazing upon the icon, the image of the Lord, with these words: ‘Lord Jesus Christ, who in this image has appeared on earth for our salvation, and who, having voluntarily suffered thy hands to be nailed to the Cross, didst endure thy passion for our sins, so help me now to endure my passion.  For I accept it not from those who are my enemies, but from the hands of my own brother. Hold it not against him as a sin, oh Lord!’

In this quote from The Primary Chronicle, it is quite clear how the language of the document very similarly resembles the language found in the Bible.  Additionally, it is remarkable to note how the narrator retells how the emissaries find Boris, along with Boris’ final words.  It is very skeptical that they found “the sainted Boris” in the middle of vespers, and even more dubious that Boris’ final words were so aligned with holy scripture.

It is rather apparent that the monks which wrote The Primary Chronicle had more for in mind than simply recording history as it originally happened.  They instead wanted to weave Christianity into history in order to solidify the truth behind their religion, which in turn, rendering historians today to question which parts of the Chronicle can be trusted as accurate.

Kievan Rus’ & Pravda Russkaia

Posted on by

The Pravda Russkaia, or the law code of Kievan Rus’, has a very interesting and unique mixture of possible offenses and punishments, some of which are logical, while others are not.  For example, Point 9 states that “If someone unsheathes a sword, but does not strike anyone,then he pays 1 grivna.”  This offense is somewhat similar to laws about carrying a weapon with out a permit.  Another example is point 12, which states that “if someone rides on someone else’s horse, not having asked him for permission, then he is to provide three grivnas.”  This law is similar to that of auto theft.  These laws shows that the Kievan Ru’s “state” had some idea of what was right and wrong, even showing similarities to modern statutes.

Additionally to these logical laws, the laws also show signs of a modern judicial system. Some of the crimes explicitly state that a witness must be found if there was one present.  This third party individual would aid in solving the dispute, as well as helping determine if someone is guilty or innocent.

However, some of these laws have penalties that do not fit the crime.  For example, article 7 says that one must pay 3 grivnas for cutting of a man’s finger, but must pay four times that amount for cutting a man’s mustache, which is stated in article 8.  While it is understandable that cutting a man’s beard be an offense in a culture where a beard and/or mustache is sacred, cutting a finger off could potentially kill a man due to infection, as well as severely hinder him and his ability to do labor.  Another odd punishment is that of article one, which states that one must pay 40 grivnas, which is the same exact amount for cutting a man’s arm off, even if it does not kill him.

Overall, Kievan Rus’ code of law is much more  advanced than I originally had thought it would be, despite some odd penalties and punishments for crimes.

Modernity: Crop Tops or Mindless Bureaucracy?

Posted on by

In Bauman’s article, Modernity and the Holocaust, it is questioned whether the Holocaust was a social phenomena or the culmination of European antisemitism. Genocide is a ‘normal’ aspect of human civilization, one group reaches a point where it believes it is necessary to eliminate the other. Often this is carried out by senseless violence and bloodshed, Rwanda for example. It is a logical conclusion that the Holocaust occurred due to ethnic and religious hatred, yet, the murder of millions of Jews was carried out by a systematic, and well-oiled machine, the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy is something that has exploded in modern life, and with it came the Holocaust. As Bauman states, “whatever moral instinct is to be found in human conduct is socially produced. It dissolves once society malfunctions” (Bauman 4). In the case of Nazi Germany, the people were willing to give up many freedoms and power to achieve normality in their lives given the turbulence following WWI. The Jews were a common scapegoat. The leaders of Germany made it morally acceptable to its soldiers and citizens to commit the Holocaust by making violence authorized, routine, and dehumanizing the victims. Given this, the everyday man could have a hand in a mass murder. Only 10% or so of SS men were sadistic or considered madmen, most were normal men, the accountant down the street, the salesman, the father of four. Men no longer felt responsible for their actions when they were following orders, the man who gave the order to kill did not pull the trigger and did not feel responsible, he merely signed a piece of paper. The man who did pull the trigger felt no responsibility as the actions were not his own, he was merely following orders, being a good soldier.

The Holocaust could not have occurred without the chain of bureaucracy, which is a development of modernity. The Holocaust was a failure of modernity, the bureaucratic system was corrupted, used for unthinkable cruelty, yet was utilized to its utmost potential. The Holocaust is a product of the modern world, no longer is it necessary to run through a village brandishing torches and pitchforks to remove undesirables, you merely have to file the proper paper work to send millions to their graves. This is the triumph of the modern world.

Modernity and the Holocaust

Posted on by

Zygmunt Baumans’ article provides the reader a look at the sociological aspect of modernity and the holocaust.  In his article, Bauman mixes “modernity” and ‘sociological behavior” together while using the Holocaust to look at human behavior.  Bauman argues that the Holocaust is another chapter in modern society.  Like many events that preceded the Holocaust, violence, in Bauman’s mind, was a “constitutive feature of Modern Civilization” and that the “Holocaust-style phenomena must be recognized as legitimate outcome of civilizing tendency.”  (Bauman Pg 28) He thinks that because of how humans interact with one another, how each individual thinks differently, and how each individual solves problems differently, humanity will always be doomed to use violence from time to time to solve its problems.  For example, he believed that the Holocaust had a feeling of familiarity from its past.  He uses the “slaughter of Albigensian heretics” and “the British invention of concentration camps during the Boer War” as examples of how the Holocaust took a familiar path from other events in history.

Bauman provides his audience with a valid argument in that the Holocaust became another example of how human behavior tends to lead toward violence from time to time. As society has and will continue to advance, humans will continue to fight over various issues.  Over the course of time, Humanity has seen violence over  Religion, imperialism, politics, and present day terrorism.  In the 20th and 21st centuries, humans continue to fight over natural resources and politics.  These conflicts over natural resources and politics have led to two global conflicts and many more small scaled wars.   Whatever the reason may be, the fact that violence continues today makes a strong case for Baumans argument that humans will continue to fight and the Holocaust was another chapter in modern societies.

Bauman used the term “Modernity” to describe the social beliefs humans have and will have toward the world.  He used it in a way that helped him explain how the legacy of the Holocaust became another example of human tendencies toward violence, like  predeceasing conflicts before it.

 

 

 

European and Soviet Modernity and Socialism

Posted on by

Within David L. Hoffman’s article about European Modernity and Soviet Socialism he explores the many ways that the European governments viewed their populations. He further explores the many different policies and regulations that they put upon their populations. To view the history of Russia and its take on its population one must understand that while England and France were transforming into liberal, democratic, and a industrial  capitalistic state, Russia did not follow suit. Russia remained a absolute monarchy under the tzars . It was not until the october revolution of 1917 that Russia’s government shifted into a socialist state. As different as the governments and economic systems of the west and the Soviet government where the leaders of each system had a similar view on their population. As modern Soviet and Western powers entered the modern age they began to see not only the opportunities but also the resource of having a large and healthy population. The governments understood that in order to maintain power a government must have its people healthy and educated this in turn would benefit the society and the country as a whole. Each country began to initiate well fair programs for the benefit of the population and with the aim to increase the population size and safety. In 1936 the Commissar of health in the Soviet Union justified the ban on abortion as curtail to increasing the population of the country which would lead to an increase of nationalism. In other countries the government took a darker approach to maintaining their population. In Nazi Germany the regime began a eugenics program aimed at sterilizing the members of the population with disabilities both physically and mentally. As most people think only of the Nazi regime committing this crime it is also true that the Stain regime also committed this crime. However unlike the Nazis Stalin sent his political enemies and minorities to Siberian  work camps. Zygmunt Bauman has argued that the reason why Hitler and Stalins victims were killed was because they didn’t fit into the scheme of a perfect society. It is impossible to put all the blame of these crimes on modernity it is true that modernity enabled the industrialization of nations which led to governments taking an increased concern with their populations.