Inner Mongolia

WordPess AI-elicited image: “Mongolia, as imagined by Russian liberals”

Political scientist Andrei Nikulin writes on his Telegram channel: “If even Mongolia can be progressive and democratic, then all the more so can Russia be progressive and democratic.” Claims to the contrary are just neurolinguistic programming, he argues.

I am unironically aware that, from the Moscow intellectual’s lofty vantage point, Mongolia is a backward, third-rate country. The whole semantics of Nikulin’s turn of phrase says so. Since those nomads were able to do it, why can’t we, cultured Europeans, have a normal future?

I generally salute positive affirmation. But before we are cheered up by a sense of superiority, let’s face reality. Here are just a few facts about Mongolians today.

Yes, forty percent Mongolia’s population is made up of nomads who, like their ancestors, live in yurts and travel with their livestock. Yes, there are only three paved roads for a population of three and a half million people.

But since 1990, the Mongolian people have elected six presidents, never once allowing any of them to exceed their rightful term in office. The Mongolian constitution gives a leader only one six-year term without the right to re-election, and this norm has never been violated. The average turnout in elections at all levels of government is seventy percent. By comparison, turnout in progressive Moscow barely exceeded thirty percent when Navalny ran for mayor.

Further, while Russians were seizing Crimea and “nullifying” Putin’s previous terms as president, the humble Mongolian nomads forced their government to resign at least twice, in 2017 and 2021. In 2012, a former president was arrested and jailed on charges of bribery.

The real, democratic Mongolia, as seen in the photos selected by the author to illustrate her post

More recently, in the winter of 2022, Mongolians staged large-scale protests in Ulaanbaatar over a corruption scandal. It transpired that when exporting coal to China, customs officials had “diverted” six and a half million tons of the cargo, according to the paperwork. Mongolians considered this a theft of national revenues and marched on the capital’s square demanding that the theft be investigated and the names of those involved be made public. Eventually, the protesters stormed government house and demanded the government’s resignation.

Remind me again what Muscovites stormed in Moscow after Navalny’s investigations, of which there were dozens?

But Mongolians protested in the cold for three weeks until they forced the government to arrest the corrupt officials and reform the coal industry.

In April, the protests resumed. This time, Mongolian youth blamed the government for its poor performance and rising prices.

And lastly, let’s talk about the culture. Mongolians do not shout at their children or punish them. You will not hear from a Mongolian mom say to her child “I told you to shut your mouth” or “The more you cry, less you piss.” How should I put it? Mongolians love their children. There are only 924 orphaned children the entire country—that is less than 0.03% of the population. By comparison, there are 391,000 children living in Russian orphanages—that is 0.3% of the Russian population. In other words, children in Russia are left parentless ten times more often.

You can remain trapped in the old optics, looking down on everyone and denying reality. This will not bring social and political change any closer. If you want to go on living, but your body is rotting and falling apart, you need an accurate diagnosis. And the more honest it is, the greater the chances of your recovery.

Everything else can be put down to helplessness.

Source: Julia Khazagaeva (Facebook), 21 June 2024. Translated by the Russian Reader

Discourse

“My supervisors would prefer the text to be British English. Is that possible?”

What makes the Expanding Circle Englishes real rather than abstract varieties? This article highlights that it is culture that makes the specifics of an English variety whereas linguistic features might be shared by a number of other varieties Russian English as a linguistic entity is based on the specifics of Russian culture and mentality revealed on all language levels, lexical and phonetic levels being the most noticeable. The negative attitude towards the concept of Russian English can be accounted for by a) the theoretical confusion of the variety with its only one lectal subtype (taking the basilect for the variety), while any variety is a complex and a continuum of several lects; b) scholars’ understanding of a dynamic and functional variety characteristic of a speech community as an interlanguage of an individual with a fossilized level of language competence, and c) ignoring the fact that any variety expresses the cultural mentality in real life discourse. Change in the attitude in the speech community occurs with the gradual overcoming of these misunderstandings, which takes a fairly long time.

“We would prefer to use British English vs. American if possible.”

Merle Haggard Drive

In honor of the gentleman from St. Petersburg who just tried to tell me (on Facebook, of course) what kind of music I, a real American country boy should listen to, I will be listening to Merle Haggard all day today, from dawn to dusk.

The sheer snobbery and arrogance of the Petersburg intelligentsia never fail to amaze me. I would imagine even the Queen of England is more down to earth, friendly, and tactful than the “most educated people” on earth are.

Please refrain here from making comments about the late Mr. Haggard’s politics. They are no mystery to me, since I was born and grew up in the same country as he did. I was not a fan of his politics most of the time, to put it mildly, but I am a fan of his music.

The extent to which Putin-era Russians, from high officials to friends of friends, stick their often wildly ignorant noses in other people’s business is a measure of just how completely they have lost control of their own country’s politics, culture, history, literature, cinema, art, language, music, you name it.

If you do not speak and read Russian, thank Allah for His mercy, because it has not been an edifying spectacle at all observing the blackest reaction nearly everywhere you turn in the “Russian world,” high and low, for the past twenty years. {TRR}

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia

Opinion Leaders Are Losers

The other day, I closed my Facebook accounts and pages, I hope for good.

Part of the reason I closed them was that a New York City writer whose books and opinions I admire greatly, and who has a huge following on Facebook, wrote a mean-spirited and divisive post on Facebook condemning “the Heartland,” meaning the middle part of the United States.

She labeled the place “heartless” and “dangerous” on the basis of her cursory perusal of an “interactive” map of the 2016 US presidential election results, published in the New York Times.

While the map she cited is certainly worth studying and full of surprises, I imagine the writer saw only red, literally and figuratively, and blew a fuse.

I doubted out loud, in the comments, whether the writer knew much about the “heartless, dangerous” Heartland. On the contrary, I know a great deal about it, since I was born and grew up there.

She did not respond to my petty, eminently ignorable objections nor did most of her thousands of self-satisfied, bien-pensant followers, certain that the “heartless, dangerous” (and completely imaginary) “Heartland” had irrevocably damaged their beautiful souls and beautiful lives in Clintonia.

But as reporter Issie Lapowsky and map expert Ken Field argue in an article published on July 26 by WIRED (“Is the US Leaning Red or Blue? It All Depends on Your Map”), there are maps, and then there are maps. For example, there is this map, devised by Mr. Field.

Ken Field, “Presidential election 2016: dasymetric dot density.” Courtesy of WIRED

To Field, there’s no such thing as a totally comprehensive map, but he says, “Some are more truthful than others.” The so-called dasymetric dot density map is one of them. The term “dasymetric” refers to a map that accounts for population density in a given area. Instead of filling an entire state or county with the color red or blue to indicate which party won, Field uses red and blue dots to represent every vote that was cast. On this particular map from 2016, there are roughly 135 million dots. Then, rather than distributing the dots evenly around a county, he distributes them proportionally according to where people actually live, based on the US government’s National Land Cover Database. That’s to avoid placing lots of dots in, say, the middle of a forest, and to account for dense population in cities.

Taken together, Field says, these methods offer a far more detailed illustration of voter turnout than, say, the map in Yingst’s tweet. That map uses different shades of red and blue to indicate whether candidates won by a wide or slim margin. But by completely coloring in all the counties, it gives counties where only a few hundred votes were cast the same visual weight as counties where hundreds of thousands of votes were cast. So, the map looks red. But on the dasymetric dot density map, it’s the blue that stands out, conveying the difference between the popular vote, which Clinton won, and the electoral college vote, which Trump won.

Why do I bring this sad business up on a website dealing with “news and views from the other Russias”?

Over the last several years, I have been fighting a similarly invidious myth about Russia and Russians. To wit, Vladimir Putin is incredibly popular, as conclusively shown, allegedly, by dicey “public opinion polls” and rigged elections, and his “base” is in the “Russian heartlands,” which are, apparently, just as “heartless” and “dangerous” and stupid as the US “Heartland,” and similarly prone to throw their electoral weight behind a tyrant, unlike, we are meant to imagine, the smart sets in Russia’s two capitals, Moscow and Petersburg.

I have been at great pains to show a discursive apparatus I have dubbed the “pollocracy” produces the results that both Putin’s quasi-fascist supporters and faux-liberal detractors need to cling to their respective security blankets. In the case of the so-called liberals, the security blanket consists in the notion that the world’s largest country is largely inhabited by woefully ignorant yahoos who have laid waste to any chance at building a democracy in the Motherland. As viewed by their opponents, the fake “patriots” in Putin’s camp, the same heartland yahoos are the country’s “pious,” “conservative” core and the source of the Putin’s ruling elite’s self-produced mandate to rule the country till kingdom come and particularly badly.

Seventy percent of why I do this website is to show that Russia actually consists of lots of other Russians and lots of other Russias that belie the dodgy “findings” of pollsters and the lazy clichés reproduced ad nauseam by Russian and international reporters, “Russia experts” (nearly all of them resident somewhere other than Russia), politicos, and spin doctors to prove a self-serving conclusion they arrived at long ago without bothering to find out whether it was true or not.

It’s not true. Just as it is emphatically not true the US “Heartland” is “heartless” and “dangerous.” Or maybe it and its mythical Russian counterpart, the “Russian heartlands,” are heartless and dangerous part of the time, but not all of the time and everywhere and on the part of every single woman, child, man, dog, and cat who live there. Nor, vice versa, are the alleged oases of high intellect and liberalism where pollsters, reporters, and opinion leaders (such as the well-known New York writer who, railing and trembling like the Prophet Jeremiah, condemned the place where I was born and grew up to the fires of hell) congregate, cities like New York, Los Angeles, Moscow, and Petersburg, utterly free of meanness, menace, vice, crime, bad governance, popular indifference, ignorance, and support for tyrants.

What does this have to do with abandoning Facebook? First, I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to produce a quasi blog there that would complement and promote this website. Since I am nobody, however, more or less nobody was interested in what I wrote.

They did, however, hang on every word written by people like the New York writer, who, having achieved a modicum of fame, felt no compunction about compounding a rank prejudice about a huge part of her own country and all the people who live there.

So, I have found Facebook an incredibly dispiriting place to try get out my word, a word very few of my so-called friends, real and virtual, wanted to hear, much more wanted to share and spread with their own friends.

Second, the continuing crackdown on bloggers and social media users in Russia has meant that fewer and fewer Russians are willing to write anything interesting on Facebook and its Russian ripoff, VK. Judging by my own real friends, more and more of them have either been observing total radio silence or retreating into the little cubbyholes known as Telegram channels, where they are invisible and inaudible to all the world except their own clique. Since one important feature on this website has been translations of the pithy, thought-provoking things Russian activists and just plain Russians have posted publicly on Facebook and other social media, I was left staring at a once-overflowing well going drier by the minute.

Third, WordPress gives its bloggers some crude but decent tools to see where their readers are finding out about their blogs and blog posts. Over the last two years, as my readership here as continued to climb, the share of those readers who were turned onto my website or particular posts through Facebook has shrunk, meaning that my own friends, real and virtual, have been less likely to share my posts with their friends than complete strangers have been to look up Russia-related topics on the internet and find their way here.

So, rather than continue to pine for support from actually hostile liberal and leftist opinion leaders whose only interest in my Facebook posts and blog posts was to scavenge them for news and ideas they would instantly pass off as their own thoughts and finds without crediting me, I have decided to live without them in order to more fully embrace you, my anonymous, ever more numerous, faithful readers.

In any case, this website will continue to be promoted on Twitter, Google+, Tumblr, and Ello, as before, so it is not as if I am doing a disappearing act. I just wanted to stop pretending I had friends in places where I did not have them. {TRR}