Here is my annotated bibliography.
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Nuclear Waste Disposal From the Soviet Union to Russia
So excited to move forward on this!!! Here’s my bibliography.
http://goo.gl/9Iolxy
Annotated Bibliography
Here is my bibliography for my final research project on the Tuberculosis epidemic in Russian Prisons. https://www.evernote.com/shard/s322/sh/49d1a2df-726c-483f-ad4d-c929e6ecbdb9/bf81541f9a73dfb6283f27b7e1f3b6dd
I have also included the short url here: http://goo.gl/UAF5pk
Circus
In this film by Grigory Alexandov, a young woman named Marion Dixon (perhaps a play on the Mason Dixon line) joins a Russian circus after being forced to flee her American hometown after the townspeople discover that her son is black. She performs a daring routine called “The Flight to the Moon” which the manager of the circus, Ludvig, wishes to imitate with his own daughter, Raya. One night when Mary is performing, Ludvig shows her act to Ivan Martinov, a performance director. He feels immediately attracted to her and they fall in love. When she has to return to America, she protests, wanting to stay with him. Due to a mixup with the letter she writes for him, he believes she is in love with another man and refuses to say goodbye to her. She tells him the truth and they do the “new” act, “The Flight to the Stratosphere”. She accepts a deal with the manager to be paid in rubles and as he tells her that “in our country, we love all kids”, the audience understands that she is going to stay in the Soviet Union with her family.
One cinematic scene in the film which is meant to show the divide between the young and old in Russia is when Ivan and Mary first meet and her corrupt agent, Kneishitz, spies on them through the window. The camera cuts between Kneishitz and Ivan so the audience notes the stark differences in their faces. Ivan is young, blonde, and strong-jawed while Kneishitz is unshaven, dark, and sinister. Through this portrayal of the young and old in the performance business, Alexandrov is making the point that we should look to the young people of Russia, as the next generation is our future and hope.
Why were people so much more accepting in the USSR, given our nationalist and ethnicity readings? What would have become of Marion and her child had she chosen to return to America?
Annotated Bibliography
Please follow the link to view my updated annotated bibliography for my final research project: Disappearing Culture of the Native Peoples on Taimyr Peninsula.
Neo-Traditionalism from Modernization
In the 1930’s, the Soviet Union’s intentions were to create a more strongly collected, unified nation. While nations were an inevitable product of modernization through the massive uprooting and relocation of the working classes, there was a shift from a nation being modern in it’s fundamentals to focusing on the primordial roots of the citizen. What spawned from creating a national identity through the conduit of modernization was Neo-traditionalism. Neo-traditionalism in essence is the simultaneous cooperation of both modern and traditional aspects, and was the Soviet Union’s unexpected outcome. A pre-industrial state could not be considered a modern nation, because modernity cannot exist without the technology. However, industrialization exterminates old folk culture and is a catalyst for new culture. As the sense of nationalism developed, the game began to change with shifting ideologies with the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks saw nationalism as something which was on a different plane than class, and socialism would be the unifying principle. However, Soviet affirmative action made class and ethnicity an issue because of discriminatory institutions, a product generated by over zealous statism. The Neo-traditional outcome of modernization is what shaped Soviet nationalities.
This article made me think of how we view the ethnicity of each other in America. When people ask me what I am in regards to ethnic background, I say I am South African and Irish. Most people would answer this way I believe, even though all who were born in America are Americans. What is the line between immigration and a true, newfound sense of nationality? Why do many of us feel a sense of pride to our ethnic backgrounds despite the fact that we have never experienced the culture?
An Unnatural Return to Roots
Governing policies in the Soviet Union consistently blended new ideas with standing tradition. As such, the conflict between the role of the modern ‘nation’ and the primordial ethnicities is very similar to other conflicts: the role of the government and the church, emphasis on peasantry and the quest to modernize, and Western culture and Soviet traditions.
While the idea of a ‘nation’ was a modern construct, the Soviets hoped to supersede that with the identity of class. From the piece by Fitzpatrick, the origin of the ‘nation’ was developed from the villages uniting under feudal systems and then, eventually, identifying as a singular nation. The role of the clergy was the uniting fashion for these early villages and feudal city-states where religion was a large facet of identity, but some of this was lost in becoming a nation, when nationality became the strongest identification. In the Soviet Union, both class and nationality were prioritized as identifying factors. But, like many of the Soviet programs, this was a top-down forcing of a process that should have been natural, if it was to happen at all.
As Nationalism and Class-ism was standardized, they became stratified and eliminated mobility. This had a special impact given that in the USSR class and nationality came with certain privileges, along with obligations and restrictions. Stratifying the population to such an extent actually damaged the ability for demographics to identify with each other, getting in the way of the Soviet dream of a unified class-consciousness. By trying to influence class and ethnic development toward a homogeneous culture, the Soviets created a number of dissatisfied and unique nations. This collection of independent mentalities would slowly fracture the Soviet Union.
Orwell Readings
In George Orwell’s Down and Out in Paris and London and chapter four of The Road to Wigan Pier he writes about groups of destitute people in Britain who live on the fringes of society under hideous circumstances. Down and Out in Paris and London focusses on the homeless epidemic that has afflicted the country. Orwell depicts how these so called “tramps” live a mundane existence that does not contribute in any way to the good of society. He seeks to inform the public of the difficulties that these people face in order to combat some of the prejudices that exist towards them. In The Road to Wigan Peer Orwell describes the horrendous housing conditions that the impoverished class of industrial workers are forced to inhabit. The shortage of adequate housing forces these inhabitants to cram into overcrowded, dilapidated, and oftentimes condemned houses because they are the only available housing options of any sort. Many of these people would have gladly moved into different housing situations had the opportunity existed.
It was interesting how Orwell addressed the the much higher proportion of homeless men compared to homeless women. Many of Orwell’s contemporaries had failed to take this discrepancy into consideration when evaluating the homeless problem. It was nearly impossible for men to meet women because there were very few women who lived amongst them and it would be quite rare that a women of a higher economic class would desire a male from the lower class. Orwell writes “the evil of poverty is not so much that it makes a man suffer as that it rots him spiritually and physically… And there can be no doubt that sexual starvation contributes with this rotting process,” in order to empathize with their predicament. I found this quote fascinating because it states how although sexual pursuit is not as important to human wellbeing as food, water, and shelter, it is still an important aspect of a person’s health.
Orwell proposed a solution to lower the expense that homeless individuals had placed on the state by putting them to work. He argued that they would be able to settle down and live a decent and structured life. Although they would be working and contributing to the good of the whole of society, aren’t the conditions experienced by the working class as described in The Road to Wigan Pier nearly as impoverished and grief stricken as those suffered by the tramps. Does this housing situation really constitute a decent and settled life in your opinion?
Orwell’s Description of Poverty in Britain
In the excerpts from The Road to Wigan Pier and Down and Out in Paris and London, George Orwell describes the daily struggle of living in poverty in England—particularly for men. In Down and Out in Paris and London, he strives to depict “tramps,” or vagabonds in a more positive way, and offer the reader an opportunity to overlook former prejudices. He describes tramps as Englishmen with broken spirits; they are not dangerous or manic. In his later book, The Road to Wigan Pier, Orwell describes his findings when visiting houses in lower-class neighborhoods in England, and provides examples of the filthy residences that thousands of English families are forced to call home. He argues how difficult it is to support a family on such a low income, and describes the loss of hope that many people feel after living in such disgusting homes for so long. Generally, Orwell’s aim in these excerpts is to humanize the lower classes of England who have often been swept aside to the margins of society.
Something that I thought was interesting in Orwell’s excerpts was that he mentioned the lack of productivity of people who were down and out, and incapable of giving back to the state. While Orwell’s aim was to make the reader feel sympathetic toward members of society living in poverty, it seems contradictory to his argument to go on to describe them as a loss to the community. His book was released in 1933, the same year that eugenics in Germany took off, so it is interesting to compare and contrast Nazi Germany to Orwell’s eugenics at the time.
I also thought that Orwell brought up a fascinating point about the very different roles of males and females when discussing tramps. Orwell stated that being a tramp as a man was mentally debilitating, because there was little or no access to women. Women were not tramping, because during that time, they relied on men to support them. Because male tramps were unable to engage in sexual activity with women, they turned to other men to satisfy their desires. Ultimately, the number of men who were out of work and living as vagabonds had an impact on the traditional gender roles of that time.
Orwell often describes the “broken spirits” of homeless men, and aims to inform the audience that people who are living in poverty are not dangerous. His two pieces were written in 1933 and 1937, times that weaker members of society were frowned upon, and often corrected. How much do you think his work impacted the people of Britain and France? Do you think their perceptions of the lower classes change? Or did they remain loyal to the eugenics movements at that time?
Narod and Narodnost: A Transformation of Russia
The piece for class on Monday is on the subject of modernity, nationality, and ethnicity. The etymology of words such as narod and narodnost are used as a basis for discussion throughout the piece. The piece explores the transformation of Russian society and nationalism throughout centuries through the use of narod and narodnost to illustrate this societal transformation.
The piece begins by an explanation of the word narod in different contexts. The piece states that narod was a term to denote ethnicity. The piece insinuates that the term is much deeper than just ethnicity-it also refers to culture. The piece then talks about narod is different aspects of culture such as political and cultural. The piece explores how narod evolves into the term of narodnost. Narodnost is illustrated through examples of literary figures in Russia and philosophers. The effects of Narod and narodnost are explained through cultural and political movements in Russia, leading to a new definition of nationalism.