Arguments
A.P.
Chekhov, "The Cherry Orchard". People are afraid of change when they cannot live up to it. We see this situation in the play “The Cherry Orchard”. Ranevskaya and Gaev are impoverished nobles whose family estate was put up for auction for debts. Only a change in the approach to the distribution and use of finances would help save the property, but the heroes cannot remake themselves because they are not mentally and physically ready. Therefore, any proposal by Lopakhin that helps save the estate is met with hostility by the property owners. The garden could be divided into plots and rented out as dachas, but the nobles reject this idea and continue to waste the remaining parts of their former material wealth. They behave as if nothing has changed: they give gold coins to the poor, organize balls, buy expensive delicacies and do nothing to preserve the family nest. Ranevskaya and Gaev prefer to run away from problems into the world of illusions and big words, because deep down they understand: they are not able to meet the requirements of the new era, when money has to be counted and saved. The realities of the modern world forced them to learn to live again, and mature people could no longer adapt to such conditions. This is the main reason for their fear of the future.
I.A. Goncharov, "Oblomov".
Change requires effort from us and giving up bad but pleasant habits. Many people are afraid of difficulties, so they do not want to change. We meet such a hero on the pages of the novel “Oblomov”. Ilya Ilyich does not like to overcome himself and strives to satisfy all his whims, the main one of which is idleness. The master's day begins, continues and ends on the sofa. He doesn’t get out of his old worn robe and doesn’t go outside, doesn’t read or write, doesn’t work and isn’t interested in art or science. Every change in this stagnant lifestyle causes fear and rejection in Ilya Ilyich. When the landlady told him to move out, he took the news as if it were a tragedy worthy of Shakespeare. The need to move from his favorite place frightens him, because it forces Oblomov to work hard and overcome his laziness. Every strain of power frightens a person who is morally weak and pampered by idleness. That is why changes caused such fear in Ilya Ilyich.
A.N. Ostrovsky, "The Thunderstorm"
. Any change begins with the recognition of one’s own delusion, and many people cannot bear to give up what they once elevated to the rank of an axiom. We find a similar example in the work “The Thunderstorm”. Residents of Kalinov are accustomed to trusting superstitions more than science, so they even try to adjust their family life to the requirements set out in medieval books like Domostroy. They get all their information about the world from the stories of illiterate wanderers who invent creepy stories to force the public to donate. Particularly significant is the episode when Kuligin, a local educator and progressive citizen, suggests installing a lightning rod to avoid fires from lightning. In response to his speech, the influential merchant Dikoy began to seriously argue that thunder is a consequence of the fact that Elijah the Prophet rides a chariot across the sky, and therefore the city does not need any lightning rods. Every change is perceived by the inhabitants of Kalinov with fear and disgust, since the most influential of them cannot admit that they are wrong. They, like Dikoy, will stand their ground to the last, not correcting the mistake and not accepting the need for change. Conservative people are afraid of losing their authority and moving away from the dead point of their illusions.
M. Gorky, “At the Bottom.”
Any change for the better requires effort on our part and a willingness to remake ourselves. Therefore, people are afraid not so much of change as of the accompanying difficulties. Thus, Vaska Pepel, the hero of the play “At the Bottom,” sincerely wanted to start a new life with Natasha and give up stealing, but he was stalling for time and did not dare to end his criminal path, because he was afraid of honest work. He was not accustomed to work, always supported himself by stealing and did not know what to expect from Siberia with its difficult conditions and harsh climate. Luke advised him to move there to escape the vicious environment of the big city and not return to old habits. Neither the authorities nor his accomplices could find him there. But Vasily was burdened with responsibility, because he wanted to go not alone, but with Natasha. He was also responsible for her fate. All these fears and hesitations led to the fact that Ash never became an honest man, never married Natasha, and never left for Siberia. The fear of change, the source of which was the hero’s inability to work, destroyed Vasily and did not allow him to escape in time.
I.S. Turgenev, "Fathers and Sons"
.
Sometimes changes cancel out our entire lives and force us to abandon our ideals. In this case, we are afraid of changes, seeing them as a destructive element that overturns our worldview and devalues our experience. We see such an example in the novel “Fathers and Sons”. Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov is aggressive towards what goes beyond his “principles”. He condemns Bazarov and his views without even delving into their meaning. When Arkady first tells him about nihilism, he, unlike Nikolai Petrovich, who began to translate the term: “This is from the Latin nihil, nothing,
as far as I can judge; So, this word means a person who... who does not recognize anything? - , immediately put a stamp: “Say: who does not respect anything.” Pavel Petrovich does not allow his nephew to explain the essence of philosophy, because he knows in advance that everything new is bad. He makes jokes and ironizes, although he realizes that the jokes turn out to be forced and unsuccessful. His persistent and pathetic desire to disparage the new ideology obviously stems from fear. The hero is afraid of ideas that contradict his own beliefs and refute his ideological positions. If Bazarov could prove to his opponent that he was right, Pavel Petrovich would be forced to admit the insignificance and futility of his own life. This prospect would frighten anyone.
A.S. Griboedov, "Woe from Wit"
. New trends destroy and replace outdated trends, and people have to adapt to new realities, losing their previous supports and looking for an alternative. Those who have already achieved something do not want to repeat their path or give up the privileges they have received, so they are afraid of change. A similar example was described by A.S. Griboyedov in the play "Woe from Wit". The main character arrived in Moscow after a long study abroad, so he immediately discovered stagnation in the highest spheres of society and revealed the vices of the surrounding social environment. Chatsky tried to open the eyes of the nobles to the true state of affairs, criticized their foundations and traditions, and also called for changing the existing order in the country. In particular, he spoke out against serfdom, cronyism and nepotism in the service, ignorance and admiration for foreign culture. However, the nobles were afraid of what Chatsky was promoting, and the reforms were completely useless to them. The destruction of errors and vulnerabilities in the system of relations with the state and society promised the landowners the end of a well-fed and carefree life. Many of them would not have achieved anything if everything was fair and just. They were afraid of change because they did not want to work, improve themselves and lose the privileges that fate had given them.
N.V. Gogol, "The Overcoat"
. Sometimes change is negative, and we are frightened by its very obvious bad consequences. This example was described by N.V. Gogol in the story “The Overcoat”. Akaki Akakievich was malnourished and stubbornly saved in order to buy himself a new overcoat. In this thing he saw an increase in status, which he so lacked. In the team he was bullied and disrespected because he was poor, harmless and lonely. No one saw him as a man without smart clothes and high rank. Bashmachkin hoped that he could change the opinion of those around him by matching him in appearance. Having put on a new thing, he himself felt more significant. However, on a dark street he was robbed. The tramp liked the overcoat. Akaki Akakievich could not come to terms with this change, but he could not do anything: the “significant person” did not help him, and he himself was unable to buy new outerwear. Bashmachkin died from grief, having never adapted to the new realities. His fear of being left without an overcoat is quite understandable and justifiable, because he could not go to work without warm and decent-looking clothes, and he was unable to buy them again. Not every person can cope with despair and fight fate, overcoming the completely natural fear of cold, hunger, and public condemnation.
A.P. Chekhov, "Three Sisters"
. A person is afraid of change because it leads him into the unknown. Nobody knows if they are for the better or for the worse? This problem was raised by A.P.
A.P. Chekhov in the play "Three Sisters". The heroines want to move to Moscow because in the outback they cannot realize their potential and satisfy cultural needs. Among the townsfolk and townsfolk, the Prozorovs are bored; they feel that they were born for a different life. Each of the sisters recalls with pleasure their distant childhood in a big city, which was prosperous and carefree. Their father was a military man and spoiled the children, but then he was transferred to serve in the outback, and after his death the family’s affairs were in decline. But Irina, Maria and Olga did not give up hope of moving, which somehow miraculously would fix everything. And yet none of them did anything to move. The girls continued to complain about their fate and remember Moscow, but they sat in the outback and did not pack their suitcases. Why? Apparently, they were still afraid of the unknown, because a change of place of residence could be the beginning of a wonderful life, as well as a terrible one. Therefore, the Prozorov sisters did not go anywhere, despite their desires and needs.
A.P. Chekhov, "Man in a Case"
. Changes are fraught with completely unknown consequences, which a person fears even more than the changes themselves. So the hero of the story “The Man in the Case” is afraid of every innovation and always repeats: “No matter what happens.” Belikov reacts this way to every unusual phenomenon from the surrounding reality, therefore he strives to isolate himself from it physically and spiritually. Despite the weather conditions, he is always dressed in a coat with cotton wool, a hat, and galoshes. He always has an umbrella and glasses with him, as well as cases for every item. Belikov is only interested in events from the distant past and teaches a “dead” language. He is lonely, because people also harbor many dangers and risks. When his colleagues hinted to him about the need to get married, he was so frightened that he “lost weight, turned pale and seemed to retreat even deeper into his sheath.” Thoughts about a wedding frightened him because of the unknown and another indispensable condition - leaving his comfort zone. Therefore, Belikov never took a single decisive step towards love. He died of a nervous breakdown and found the most reliable case. He was driven to his grave by fear of the unknown - the only emotion that the world around him evoked in him.
M. Gorky, “Old Woman Izergil”.
Any transformation of the world around us means, first of all, hardships, difficulties and sacrifices, for which we are often not ready. They cause fear of innovations and reforms. This is proven by an example from M. Gorky’s story “Old Woman Izergil”. The tribe, which was forced to leave their lands and move in an unknown direction through a dense forest, found themselves face to face with the trials that cost positive change. People were tired and lost their way; they did not know how to get out of the thicket. Only one of them, a young man named Danko, was able to take responsibility for the future of his fellow tribesmen and lead them to the exit. He himself did not know where to go, but he instilled hope in the travelers for a happy outcome. When they were again exhausted and began to reproach the leader that his promises had not come true, the young man sacrificed himself and lit the way with his heart, torn out of his chest. His fellow tribesmen were saved, their fate changed for the better, but Danko gave his life for the sake of these changes. People were afraid to go forward because they did not want to make sacrifices and endure hardships. When one leader took on these concerns, the entire society was able to move forward and overcome the streak of failure.
A.I. Kuprin, "Olesya"
. People are afraid of change because it promises many trials and problems. A person needs to adapt to changes and even sacrifice something for them. We find a similar example in the story by A.I. Kuprin "Olesya". The main character fell in love with a girl who lived in the forest and was raised outside society. She was the illegitimate daughter of a woman from the common people, and Ivan was a nobleman. However, in intelligence, beauty, nobility and morality, Olesya surpassed all the young ladies whom her chosen one knew. The relationship with his beloved became serious, and Ivan decided to marry her. His work in Polesie came to an end, and he dared to have a frank conversation with Olesya about their future. She did not want to burden him with marriage and agreed to live with him just like that, but Ivan could not openly break the rules of his environment. At the same time, he could not imagine how Olesya would adapt to a noble society full of prejudices and arrogance. The hero was afraid to take a decisive step and throw everything at the feet of his beloved, because the consequences of this decision would be terrible. Ivan was not ready to endure the condemnation and neglect of those around him. This is what he feared most. Therefore, she and Olesya were unable to start a family: when she announced her departure, he did not hold her back, did not show the will and initiative. Thus, in change, Ivan was afraid of the trials that he would face in his circle. He was afraid of his condemnation.
I.A. Bunin, “Business Cards”
. Change is always a challenge to fate. A person who decides to change something always takes risks. We find confirmation of this in the story of I.A. Bunin "Business Cards". The heroine encountered a famous writer on the ship and struck up a conversation with him. Her life was not at all happy: the marriage was early and brought disappointment, the relationship with her husband was monotonous and boring. She didn’t have time to look back when life flew by. And so she met a handsome and successful man who showed sincere interest in her. Before this incident, she had not cheated on her husband and was very afraid to cross this line. Why? Because adultery is a risky act, and also condemned by society. Such a change could lead to very negative consequences. Therefore, the author described how the unhappy woman is brave, how she drinks too much in order to finally decide to agree or refuse. Her fear is born of risk and high stakes in the game of love.
I.A. Bunin, "Caucasus"
. Some changes can clearly be called bad. We are afraid of them because they, like any negative phenomenon, will have a bad effect on our destiny. This example was described by I.A. Bunin in the story "Caucasus". The main character cheated on her husband with her lover and went on vacation with him. The husband suspected deception and went after her. He didn't want to lose her. First of all, he loved his wife. Secondly, he saw treason as an insult to his masculine honor. Thirdly, at that time divorce was a disgrace for the family. At the same time, the officer understood that his wife had become hopelessly distant from him and would never return. “The same as before” will no longer be the case. Realizing this fully, the hero found only one way out - suicide. He never accepted the changes in his relationship with his chosen one, because they destroyed everything he lived for.
Why are we afraid of being bad in the eyes of others and how to overcome this?
Photo in collage: Psychotherapy in Russia / Youtube
Hello everyone, Psychology in the Rain is here. I'm Alexandra Yakovleva, and with us again is Viktor Efimovich Kagan, clinical psychologist. Hello, Viktor Efimovich.
Hello. Hello, hello.
Today I decided to talk to you about such a concept as “I am bad.” Why did I decide to ask you about this and discuss it with you? The other day I saw on Facebook that a wonderful woman, whom I respect very much, had a sad message to people, where she said that she was called a bad person, and it really hurt her. She was somehow incredibly hurt, and she asked why, when you are praised, do you somehow not fully believe in it, or politely say “Thank you,” but when they tell you that you are a bad person? , you worry so much and it traumatizes you so much. “What’s going on in your dreams?” - she asked, and also said that it’s like some kind of gypsy curse, you know for sure that it doesn’t exist, but at the same time it affects you. Viktor Efimovich, please tell us what is happening to us?
On the one hand, you said, this is a very interesting difference, they praise me - that’s so-so, well, that’s good, but they say that I’m bad, a “radish” - I’m tense. But you see, praise does not threaten me, but judging me as bad does. Let's start with basic things, a fear that I am not aware of. If I'm bad, what should I do? Throw it away, give it to scrap if I am made of valuable metal, alter it, recut it, isolate it, what to do with me if I am bad. The first thing that arises, and in my opinion, this is a normal reaction, is this prick of an unpleasant feeling. The question is how long this thing is, like a moment, it necessarily arises, without it it is impossible.
If we talk about where it comes from, here’s your friend, she absolutely said, it’s like a gypsy curse, you know for sure that it’s not so, but it torments you, and you don’t tolerate it well. And in general, I know that opponents of psychology and psychotherapy will laugh, you know, as they say, if you had parents, then you are definitely a patient of a psychotherapist, in this case, yes, this is childhood. This is childhood, which for a thousand circumstances, I won’t even say reasons, because the reasons, God knows, they are very often not recognized by the people themselves who become the reasons. But this is childhood, from which I take away this experience, most often these are relationships with parents, these can be relationships with peers, these can be relationships with other adults, such as teachers, if they were significant to me, but the first seeds are sown in childhood - “you are bad.” “You’re bad” not because you’re bad, maybe no one will tell me that I’m bad, no one, but if I bring not an A, but a B, they’ll frown... In general, people are humane, they know what to fight for it’s not good, it’s not good to say bad words, but they’ll wince... And in ten minutes they’ll tell a story about how well they studied and how it helped them in life, whether you like it or not, you start to feel bad. And this man, this little child inside, this is my past, but he wakes up every time or almost every time when there is some kind of trigger, when some button is pressed, as if an alarm clock rang for him - stop sleeping, wake up , now you will suffer. And he wakes up and suffers until he eats it, or drinks it, or comes in, or persuades himself. These are traces of childhood.
How can we deal with this? Is there anything we can do?
Why is quarantine introduced?
Isolation in the form of quarantine is the most effective way to combat the spread of coronavirus. If it is not administered, the rate of spread of the disease will increase exponentially. Therefore, Russia has closed its borders, schools and entertainment venues are closed. You don’t need to go looking for examples - Lyubov Sokovikova has already told why introducing quarantine is the best way to combat the CoVID-19 pandemic.
This is what will happen if you ignore quarantine and don’t stay at home
If people do not leave their homes, the number of new cases of infection slows down significantly, and the number of cases begins to decline, while the number of recovered people increases. This is the only way to defeat the spread of the virus, especially when a vaccine has not yet been developed for it.
A completely different picture - contacts between people are reduced to a minimum
So far, according to my observations on the streets of Moscow and other Russian cities, everything is moving towards the development of the situation as in the first graph. Many continue to take to the streets unnecessarily. Do you think they realize that something terrible is coming because they are buying up all the pasta, cereals and canned goods? No. There was just a rumor that food might soon be in short supply, and many people switched to the “90s” with empty shelves in stores and queues for milk and a loaf of bread. With all this, the majority do not understand at all what is happening.
In Kazakhstan it is also unclear what they believe in
How did you cope with the virus in China and South Korea? They quickly introduced mass quarantine (yes, even at Apple and Samsung factories), began large-scale disinfection, and organized mobile points where you can take a coronavirus test without contact with other potentially infected people. To go outside, you need to get permission from the mobile application! Other countries realize that this needs to be done even earlier than the Chinese and Koreans, including the Russian authorities. But until people are explained the full danger of the impending threat or strict penalties are introduced for quarantine violations, these measures will be of no use.
We monitor the spread of coronavirus every day - here's what we know so far.
Theses
- People have a fear of change because they don't want to leave their comfort zone.
- We are all afraid of change because we find it painfully difficult to live up to it.
- Any change is fraught with unknown consequences, and it is the unknown that scares us the most.
- Fear of change is caused by a person’s unpreparedness for sudden and radical metamorphoses.
- Not all changes lead to the better, so we are not even afraid of them, but of a possible sad outcome.
- We are afraid of change, because it may not at all meet our expectations.
- Any change requires willpower from a person to adapt to it, but not all people are able to demonstrate this quality.
- Some changes are fraught with a negative context, so they obviously frighten people.
WHY BE AFRAID OF RUSSIAN SOLDIERS WHEN WE HAVE OUR OWN “BRAVE GUYS”
Such a post, full of irony, was left by a resident of Norway in one English-language public page dedicated to the past NATO military exercises Trident Juncture 2020, and it is worth noting that no one objected to him.
Ordinary Europeans have long been looking without much enthusiasm and trust at the prospect of providing collective military assistance to the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance in the event of a “threat” from the East, with which the European media frighten the local burghers, every time it is necessary to divert their attention from the growing com internal problems.
According to a public opinion poll conducted by one American independent polling company, today every second European does not associate NATO with anything that can protect Europe in the event of a global war, and is increasingly asking the question “Where is Billy’s money?”, and he is fair. Indeed, given the trend, when the EU countries, by hook or by crook, are trying to fulfill the will of their overlord America and raise military budgets to two percent of their GDP, and this despite the fact that some European countries will soon have nothing to pull on except “holey pants”, the state of weapons and military equipment, equipment, as well as the combat training of Alliance personnel itself raises a lot of questions for NATO generals.
Back in 2020, the Ministry of Defense of Germany, one of the key countries in the Alliance, admitted that only a third of the military equipment that entered service this year can be considered serviceable, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
And as the latest large-scale military maneuvers, which took place from October 25 to November 7 in Norway, showed, ordinary Europeans have something to fear and think about when their sleep and peace are protected by such “brave guys” from NATO.
The Trident Juncture 2018 exercises became a real challenge for the North Atlantic Alliance, as they were considered the largest since the end of the Cold War. Over 50 thousand military personnel, 10 thousand units of military equipment, 250 aircraft and 65 ships took part in the maneuvers.
And somehow things didn’t work out right away for them.
The population of Norway realized back in August, when preparations for the exercises had just begun, that their roads had turned into a place of hostilities. After all, the northerners have never seen such a number of road accidents that NATO soldiers caused.
In particular, from August to November, about 30 accidents involving Alliance vehicles occurred on Norwegian roads, in which more than 100 people were injured, some of whom are still in hospital.
Thus, at the end of October, an accident occurred in the province of Trøndelag involving several NATO combat vehicles that had arrived for an exercise. Four cars rolled into a ditch and overturned, the other three simply piled up into an accordion. As a result, four US servicemen who received severe injuries required medical attention.
But that was only the beginning.
Already in early November, the Swedes distinguished themselves by driving three Pansarterrangbil 360 armored cars onto the side of the road, hitting a civilian bus. The result of the trip - four were injured, the bus was in "trash".
The first death in an accident occurred in early November, when a senior corporal of the 5th company of the 232nd battalion of mountain riflemen of the Bundeswehr died on the highway in the commune of Hultolen. The local press wrote that he violated the rules of behavior on the road, crossed in the wrong place .
Among other things, the Norwegian Ministry of Defense received more than 50 statements of complaints from the local population about the actions of NATO soldiers, who, in their opinion, “deliberately caused severe harm to the Norwegian environment,” what exactly they did remains a mystery.
There were also some maritime adventures; in October, the French and Americans distinguished themselves. The first ones destroyed the multi-purpose helicopter NH90 TTN, which, when taking off from the helicopter carrier Dismude, “belly flopped” onto the deck, which led to the injury of four sailors.
The Americans went even further. Even before the start of the exercises, they disabled two entire ships - the landing ship-dock Gunston Hall and the heavy landing craft LCU 1610 located in it, which was torn from its fasteners during rolling and damaged against the walls of the dock. In Facebook groups where American military personnel communicate, they write that the accident was caused by the actions of the crew of the docking ship, who were unable to bypass the storm front and decided to “push” into the breach. As a result of the wrong decision, dozens of crew members and Marines suffered varying degrees of injuries.
However, according to the results of the exercises, the “Darwin Award” went to the Norwegians themselves, and all for little - they sank an entire frigate.
On the morning of November 8, the Norwegian Navy frigate Helge Ingstad, equipped with the Aegis missile defense system, the most modern ship in the Norwegian fleet, costing more than 650 million dollars, possessing a unique system for searching for various types of targets, etc., collided with a Maltese tanker “Sola TS”, after which it sank, but the tanker went on “about its business”. Eight members of the frigate were injured.
In addition, the accident also caused damage to the fauna; in the place where the ships collided, several tens of thousands of liters of aviation fuel spilled from the tanker’s hold into the water. Therefore, we are waiting for Norwegian environmentalists to file lawsuits against the Ministry of Defense.
It is worth noting that the Trident Juncture-2018 exercises not only showed poor organization during the preparation and conduct of maneuvers, but also the weaknesses of the military personnel themselves in moral and psychological terms.
As local publications write, some NATO troops did not want to carry out the combat missions assigned to them until they were provided with warm uniforms and especially shoes, and although their indignation can be understood, but if they encounter such problems in real combat conditions, then how they will behave.
And now a rhetorical question: who is to blame for all this disgrace?
And the answer suggests itself - Russia, whose military, according to Norway, interfered with the clear operation of GPS during the exercises. Thanks to the Russians, the easiest way to fight NATO troops has been found - “cut off the Wi-Fi.”
But seriously, the past exercises showed large gaps in the organization of interaction between the troops of the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, and most importantly, demonstrated a very low level of combat and moral-psychological training of personnel.
Well, ordinary Europeans, after everything that has happened, should hope that the next exercises will take place away from their homeland.
"Red Menace"
The myth of “evil Russians” is known to Russians from American cinema of the 80s. It was in Hollywood films such as Red Dawn that compatriots first saw a caricature of themselves: gloomy, rude men in gray pea coats, ready to kill civilians and destroy everything around them. Although the emergence of such a stereotype is usually associated with the beginning of the Cold War, in reality its roots go much deeper. The mysterious image of Russia frightened the West even in Napoleonic times. “Barbarians”, “dwellers of the steppes”, bearded, wearing high black hats - this is how Russians were seen in Europe in the 19th century. The October Revolution also frightened the Americans, who had previously kept aloof from the politics of the Old World. The Soviet man very quickly became a universal bogeyman, a threat to the American way of life. As part of the special project “Myths about Russia,” Lenta.ru talks about how the myth of a dangerous and ruthless Russia has taken root in the minds of Westerners.
The year is 1812 - the time of the bloody war with Napoleon. Emperor Alexander I has many enemies throughout Europe, and each of them dreams of further complicating the fate of the Russian Empire. At this time, the “Testament of Peter the Great” was published in France. A previously unknown document was allegedly found by a secret agent in the secret royal archives. It would seem that just a quick glance at him is enough to be horrified by the scale of the “evil genius”:
“...The Russian nation must constantly fight in order to keep the army in fighting condition. We must not miss a single chance to interfere in the affairs of European states, especially Germany. Poland should be divided, maintaining constant discord in it, and chop off as much territory as possible from Sweden. It is necessary to expand our lands to the north, near the Baltic Sea, and to the south, near the Black Sea. It will all end, of course, with the complete capture of Europe.”
After reading these lines, any European should be breathless with excitement and fear. In fact, it was precisely for intimidation that it was created. Throughout the 19th century, it was reprinted over and over again in one variation or another. But they were all lies. As well as the “original”, which was written not by the Russian emperor at all, but by an unknown French author decades after the death of Peter the Great.
This was done for only one purpose - to create a myth about the “Russian threat”
However, this was just the beginning. The image of a formidable enemy really stuck with Russia in the 20th century. This was done largely thanks to America.
On the screen is a small American town in Colorado. Families with children move slowly along the quiet streets, shops are open, and occasionally a car or two passes by. History lesson at local school. Suddenly, in the middle of this idyll, the students and teacher see armed paratroopers descending from the sky. The teacher leaves the school, asks the newcomers what’s going on, and immediately receives a machine gun fire in the chest.
What will happen next is clear. Paratroopers shoot at the school with machine guns, pistols and even grenade launchers. Explosions, screams and death all around. There are also soldiers on the city streets. Machine gun fire can be heard everywhere as unidentified troops tear the city to pieces and shoot innocent American civilians.
Soon, however, it becomes clear: this is Soviet occupation. The Russians and Cubans attacked the US and won an instant victory. And no one helped America - there is a crisis in Europe, NATO no longer exists.
This is how Red Dawn begins, filmed in 1984 at the height of the Cold War. Almost every minute someone is killed, blown up and beaten in it. And according to the plot, the Russians are, of course, to blame for all these deaths.
The film was in unison with the rabid anti-Soviet rhetoric of those years. The US presidential election is just around the corner.
In the same year, a book by historian Robert Conquest, “What to Do When the Russians Come,” was written and published by order of the Reagan campaign headquarters. A Survival Guide, co-written with John Manchip White. She methodically created an image of a near future when the Soviets would, for some reason, take over the United States.
“This may not happen. But, on the other hand, IT MAY HAPPEN,” Conquest’s creation began with such an ominous sketch.
At the same time, the book gave very clear advice on what to do immediately after the occupation, how to avoid ending up in a labor camp, whether it is worth fleeing abroad (and where to flee), how to live further, how the quality of life will change and whether resistance is possible.
The effect was not long in coming. Progressive play on the fear of the “red machine,” anti-Soviet rhetoric and the image of an experienced politician secured Ronald Reagan a second presidential term. He won those elections with a landslide result.
During that period, the myth of the terrible Russian reached its apogee. But it was not always so.
Russia and the USA at the beginning of the 20th century
By the beginning of the 20th century, the United States approached as an industrialized country, interested mainly in its own internal affairs, trade and industry. If any of the Americans remembered the Russians then, what came to mind was a bearded Cossack and a bear - typical caricatured images of a resident of the Russian Empire. Two events influenced US citizens' attitudes toward Russia at the time: the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 and America's involvement in World War I. The first spoiled the image of our country, since the United States sympathized with Japan, while the second, where the Russian Empire, like America, acted on the side of the Entente, consolidated friendly relations between the two countries.
The image of the “evil Russian” did not appear in America right away. According to Americanist and RIAC expert Alexei Naumov, in the 19th century, Americans had a quite positive attitude towards Russia.
In addition, before the First World War, the United States had little interest in what was happening in the Old World, and only with its beginning did they understand the need to intervene in European politics. The first impetus for this was the Russo-Japanese War. America then viewed Russia, according to Naumov, “as Goliath attacking the ‘Eastern Yankee’—David.”
The United States sees the October Revolution as a threat to itself
The end of World War I in 1918 forced the United States to almost immediately switch its economy from war to peace. The rapid demobilization threw hundreds of thousands of veterans into the labor force, leading to soaring unemployment and 15 percent inflation that had a huge impact on middle-class wages and savings. In turn, the workers, who during wartime worked for the benefit of the front and did not complain, now began to demand an increase in wages and humane working conditions. Strikes swept the country, involving up to four million workers—or a quarter of all workers in the United States. The black population, which had migrated north during the war to find industrial work, now began to demand equal rights with whites, sometimes with force. Whites also did not hesitate to use force - a wave of lynchings swept across the country. The radical left was also raising its head, which seriously frightened the establishment. By 1919, the authorities and big capital were sure: if something was not done, the Russian communists would very soon stage a revolution in the United States, and the stereotypical image of the bloody Bolshevik began to be assigned to Soviet Russia.
But everything changed in an instant with the October Revolution. After it, the United States, fearing a repeat of the communist coup, began to openly take an anti-Soviet position. An antagonistic attitude towards Soviet Russia developed on the part of the West quite quickly. The execution of the royal family and the first emigrant refugees only fueled the mood of the Western elite. In addition, even before the formation of the USSR, the Bolsheviks openly spoke about the need to oppose capitalism and the world socialist revolution.
At the same time, labor movements and trade unions were gaining strength in the West.
In 1918-1919, the hand of the communists was seen in all strikes - and they were directed, as politicians believed, of course, the Bolsheviks
This is how the first wave of the search for the “Red threat” began - precisely at the beginning of the 20th century, after the revolution, and not in the middle, as is often believed.
In his book Red Scare. FBI and the origins of Anticommunism in the United States, American historian Regine Schmidt calls the fear of the “Red Scare” in the United States from February 1919 to December 1920 “a spectacular confluence of dramatic circumstances.” They began on February 6, 1919 with a strike of workers at a shipyard in Seattle, which was peaceful - its organizers put forward quite adequate demands. However, employers and American conservative politicians branded it as a revolutionary riot. The city authorities turned to the feds, who sent troops to disperse the striking workers.
Almost immediately, the Overman Commission was convened in the US Senate, which had previously been looking for agents of German influence in America, and now completely switched to the alleged interference of the Bolsheviks in the American way of life. Since there was little reliable information, the commission discussed all the wildest rumors regarding Soviet Russia (including the supposedly adopted “decree on the socialization of wives”, which in reality, of course, no one adopted) and decided that such disgrace would not happen in the United States.
But the more resistance the protesting workers encountered, the more the situation escalated. Bombs exploded on the streets of American cities, and the American conservative elite declared a real war on the radicals, while believing that it was the Bolshevik puppet masters who were radicalizing the workers and blacks who actively took part in the protests. What was later portrayed in Soviet cartoons was not far from the truth: the police and military actually killed protesters during mass protests - for example, more than 120 people were killed during the demonstrations of the summer of 1919, during which American workers demanded rights for themselves.
In turn, the US Department of Justice launched a real war against the “radical movement.”
More than 1000
emigrant workers from Russia were arrested and deported
In total, the frightened American authorities arrested and imprisoned from five to 10 thousand people who were suspected of having connections with the communist movement.
The fire of panic was also fueled by the media, which constantly published grotesque articles about the Bolshevik threat. Patriotic public organizations also contributed to the general chaos by seeking out and ostracizing “leftists” and nonconformists in the educational system, church and cultural life.
However, the first wave of fear of the “Red threat” subsided as quickly as it began. Almost overnight, mass arrests and deportations of people stopped, including because employers came to their senses and realized that just a little more and they would not have enough cheap emigrant labor.
As Regine Schmidt writes, this event was a product of post-war public hysteria, the fear that Bolshevism would very quickly spread from Russia throughout Europe, and then inevitably come to the United States.
It created a very strong intolerance towards all political minorities, a fear of Russian emigrants, and very quickly cemented in the public consciousness the image of the Soviet state as the main enemy of the American way of life.
At the state level, it was stated that the Reds want to “take away your freedom, property, and so on.” The unity between the people and the authorities was complete, since the people were very quickly explained who was to blame for this, and it was quite easy to do
Alexey Naumov
Americanist, expert of the Russian International Affairs Council
It was then that numerous conservative public organizations appeared in the United States, aimed exclusively at combating the mythical “Russian threat.” They launched a vigorous propaganda campaign, publishing pamphlets with titles like “The Enemy at the Gates” and “If Bolshevism Comes to America,” holding rallies and lobbying for restrictive changes in state laws aimed at dissent.
During World War II, the USA and USSR become allies
“Any defense against Hitlerism, any unification with forces opposing Hitlerism, whatever the nature of these forces, will contribute to the possible overthrow of the present German leaders and will serve to benefit our own defense and security. Hitler's armies are currently the main threat to the American continent." This was the statement of the US State Department on June 23, 1941, in which it stated that the USSR was at war with Nazi Germany. This was how the status of the Soviet Union as an ally in the anti-Hitler coalition was secured. The propaganda of both the USSR and the USA has ceased to frighten their citizens with images of greedy bourgeois moneybags and bloodthirsty red commissars. Now the Americans and Russians were united by one goal: to crush the Nazi vermin at any cost. However, the music did not play for long. Almost immediately after the end of World War II, the Cold War began, and the old fear and hatred returned, now intensified by an order of magnitude.
Although the wave of mass hysteria that swept across the United States in 1919-1920 has more or less subsided, the new stereotypical image of the Russian as a Bolshevik who wants to come and take away the rights and freedoms of the American, for which he incites the proletariat and radical fringes, has taken hold in the American national consciousness.
The fact that the USSR and the USA had been allies since the summer of 1941 in the fight against Nazi Germany had no effect on the lens through which most Americans viewed the USSR.
The Soviet Union was never accepted as a true friend. Here it is rather appropriate to recall Churchill’s words that in the fight against Hitler one can cooperate with the devil. It was a forced friendship and it wasn't sincere
At the same time, according to the Americanist Naumov, politicians did not identify Soviet man with an animal, as was the case with the Germans during the First World War. “This is not the American position - they are all created equal and with a desire for freedom,” says Naumov. “They’re just bad communists who want to take away your property and rights.”
Therefore, when the war ended, the “friendship” between the USSR and the USA lasted only a few months, and the Fulton speech, delivered by Churchill in America, where he did not hesitate to make anti-communist sentiments, is generally considered the beginning of the Cold War.
For the average person, little has changed - the usual picture in which sinister communists in gray pea coats under the leadership of their leader (then Stalin) strive to spread their influence throughout the world has returned.
It is significant that at the same time the “Testament of Peter the Great” resurfaced. A figure in the white emigration, Dmitry Lekhovich, described how this fake was read out in 1948 at a gala reception in New York, and was also discussed in all seriousness among emigrants and military personnel of “one European nation.” “Anonymous and rootless, like a ghost, it reappears, wins the trust of the audience, and then disappears again into its forgotten grave,” Lechowicz wrote.
The acquisition of nuclear power by the United States was greeted by American society for the most part with enthusiasm - after all, if something happened, the ominous Bolsheviks could be wiped off the face of the Earth with the help of an atomic bomb. Popular songs were composed about how the damned “commies” would finally be left with only one wet spot, and all sorts of experts wrote columns for the press about how the United States, undoubtedly, should launch a nuclear strike first, preemptively. The bravado ended when the Soviets successfully tested their own nuclear weapons in 1949.
In the 50s in the USA, Russian spies were looked for everywhere
Historians call this period the McCarthy era. In the early 50s, an unprecedented wave of political repression and intimidation related to the fear of the “Red Scare” swept across the United States. Soviet spies were seen literally everywhere, and the image of the villainous Soviet soldier was exploited both in the media and in literature and cinema. In Washington, the “banner” of paranoiacs looking for “red” spies was Senator McCarthy, who made crazy statements and pushed through paranoid legislative initiatives. However, this was largely a grassroots movement, a people's militia, and McCarthy was only a spokesman for their fears. Despite the terrible noise, none of them were able to present to the public a single traitor or spy, although vigilant citizens made every effort to do this. The “Free Press” not only actively helped the “witch hunt”, but also fanned the flames of hatred towards the ephemeral “Reds”, not hesitating to publish the wildest rumors.
As historian Don Carlton writes in his book The Red Scare: Right-Wing Hysteria, '50s Bigotry, and Its Legacy in Texas, in the spring of 1951, as hostilities escalated on the Korean Peninsula, the Houston Post published a letter from a reader. “I'm just a guy from Mobile, Alabama, who came to Houston to work. I know for a fact that I don't want those red freaks breaking into my house and taking the last can of beans I have. And you? Someone needs to finally start doing something!”
And American society, spurred on by the fear of unknown communists who were about to break into the house of a “simple guy from Alabama” and eat his last can of beans, began to act. Public organizations were created in which Republicans and more conservative-minded Democrats joined. Activists of these organizations did not skimp on donating funds to create anti-communist propaganda in both print and film formats.
Among the materials that such groups produced, there were both quite informative ones, explaining to the average person why capitalism works, but Soviet-style socialism does not, and openly, as they would call it now, Russophobic. So in the famous comic book Is This Tomorrow? (“Will It Really Be Like This Tomorrow?”), released in 1947, the cover with a burning American flag depicts a standard NKVD villain, more like a goblin or Koshchei the Immortal, strangling a US citizen. This is how Soviet soldiers are depicted in the 1950 comic “Socialism Has Come to America.”
Many people know the name of Senator Joseph McCarthy from Wisconsin, who announced in 1950 that the number of communists in the US State Department had reached 205 people, but not everyone understands the reason why, frankly, the legislator’s insane statement led to the adoption of draconian laws and a witch hunt. . It was precisely that American society was so intimidated by the image of the mythical all-powerful supervillain Bolshevik that McCarthy simply could not help but exist
As Igor Govryakov, a specialist in the history of Soviet propaganda, candidate of philological sciences, senior lecturer at the Faculty of Journalism of Lomonosov Moscow State University, tells in an interview with Lenta.ru, stereotyping the people and their representatives according to the most unsightly, most vile traits has been used for political purposes since ancient times. English and French propaganda, for example, depicted stupid, greedy and cruel Russians on popular prints back in the 18th century. In the 19th and especially in the 20th centuries, the basic rules of the propaganda game were formed, the purpose of which was to convince one’s own people that the enemy people were the most disgusting in the world.
With the advent of the Cold War, when the world was divided into two poles, this game turned into a world championship in two main sports: demonization and ridicule. It was these two tasks that any propaganda, whether Soviet or American, set itself: to make the whole country and its inhabitants look terrible and at the same time hilarious
Igor Govryakov
specialist in the history of Soviet propaganda, candidate of philological sciences, senior lecturer at the Faculty of Journalism of Lomonosov Moscow State University
According to Govryakov, many films in which bad Russians appeared in one way or another were financed directly from the budget of various interested departments. This image became a recognizable and well-selling brand that was actively adopted by the American public.
Although the USSR and the USA “played propaganda by the same rules,” Govryakov notes that in the Soviet Union, all Americans were not demonized and ridiculed, but “only those who are responsible for the decay of public morality.” But American filmmakers did not divide Soviet people into good and bad.
All characters of Soviet origin turned out to be caricatured, filled with stereotypes that “accumulated over centuries.”
Although McCarthyism was condemned in 1954, the purges on charges of anti-Americanism ended, and the senator himself died in 1957 from cirrhosis of the liver, the fear of the image of the sinister “Reds” has not gone away.
In 1955, the US Army Publishing House even published an official guide, “How to Recognize a Communist.” Recognizing that “it is impossible to identify a communist one hundred percent,” the authors called for paying attention to a person’s vocabulary. If he used words like “comrade”, “chauvinism”, “hooliganism” or “colonialism” - then it is quite possible that he is a communist! And if he condemns McCarthyism or “violation of human rights” too vehemently, then there should be no doubt.
And it is worth repeating once again that this manual was officially issued by the US Army. The understanding of what was happening in the USSR was not facilitated by the lack of normal expertise on the closed country; it was not for nothing that the discipline that dealt with this, Sovietology, was often compared to fortune telling.
Sovietology did not appear from a good life. There were no normal sources about the Soviet Union, they guessed using what they could. In Germany there was actually a term “Kremlinastrology” - it had so little to do with reality
Alexey Naumov
Americanist, expert of the Russian International Affairs Council
He points out that experts on the Soviet Union, trying to understand what was happening in the USSR, even looked at the order of the Politburo members at the mausoleum during parades.
“They looked at how positions were indicated, whether “first secretary” was written with a capital letter or a small letter, they studied the statements of the Communist Parties of the Warsaw Pact states,” says the Americanist, noting that approximately the same thing is happening now in the field of expertise on North Korea .
Sociologist Michael Burawoy, in his 1992 article on the end of Sovietology, wrote that the greatest failure of Sovietologists was their failure to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union. “Like the Pentagon and the Soviet nomenklatura, Sovietologists were interested in seeing the power of the USSR grow,” he wrote. “Their criticism was not far-sighted: they denounced totalitarianism, wrote treatises on the ineffectiveness of the planned economy, rejoiced at the degradation of Leninism, but could never imagine a world without the Soviet Union—a world without themselves.”
In this world, the image of an evil Bolshevik who wants to take over the United States very quickly disappeared, and in the public consciousness what remained in the public consciousness was the same standard stereotypical Russian who likes to drink, is always gloomy and is not very good with the law. With the beginning of the third wave of emigration, this image was supplemented by the fact that emigrants from the USSR, and then from Russia, are not very rich, roguish, rude people, but at the same time they are kind of smart guys. To some extent, Russian emigrants took the place that had recently been allocated to Italians. In addition, a powerful stereotype has appeared regarding the Russian mafia, and here all Eastern Europeans are considered Russians, including Kazakhs, Central Asians, “the entire space that is to the right of Poland on the map.”
As Andrei Tsygankov, professor of international relations and political science at the University of California at San Francisco, told Lenta.ru, the history of the US perception of the new Russia can be divided into three periods. The first is the euphoria from the collapse of the USSR, from the fact that the country is finally “becoming like us, democratic.” It did not last long and was replaced by a second one, characterized by fatigue and uncertainty. After the 1996 presidential elections and the 1998 financial collapse, Russia began to be portrayed as a “banana republic with missiles” that was heading “into an unclear direction.”
At the same time, the stereotypical image of the “evil Russian” very quickly returned to the mass media, where Russians were portrayed in this way, first as a joke, and then seriously.
Since about 2012, the rhetoric about Russia as a dangerous neo-Soviet autocracy has been taken up by the state
Andrey Tsygankov
Professor of International Relations and Political Science at California State University, San Francisco
However, some things have not changed at all over all these years. Western expertise regarding Russia is still not only lame, but does not withstand any criticism at all, although the country has long been open.
According to the director of the Franklin Roosevelt Foundation for the Study of the United States at Moscow State University, Yuri Rogulev, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the number of departments, specializations, centers of Sovietology, and Kremlinology decreased many times over. Therefore, the number of specialists in this matter has also decreased. As for the highest power circles of the United States, they, according to Rogulev, “have never had a good knowledge of Russia.” Even if we talk about the American embassy in Moscow, “those times when they were looking for an ambassador with the appropriate characteristics and who knew the language ended a long time ago.”
Nowadays you will hardly find a person who knows Russian in the entire American Embassy in Moscow.
Yuri Rogulev
Director of the Franklin Roosevelt Foundation for American Studies
According to Alexey Naumov, this happens because no one is interested in the real state of affairs. There is no point in American politicians explaining complex things about Russia to their voters; stereotypes within which “it is very convenient for them to act” are enough.
Next you will go to the special project - Myths about Russia
Why are we afraid? What are the causes of fears?
First you need to understand the reasons, figure out why. And only then will we be able to answer the question “How to get rid of fear?”
Why is that?
Because we are people of flesh and blood. We hate pain . Be it physical pain or mental pain. It is unpleasant, it brings suffering. Nobody likes to be in pain and suffer.
And I will write again “ because we are people of flesh and blood .” We believe and identify too much with people as we see them .
The eyes do not reveal the whole picture to us, but show us only a very small part of it. But we are used to understanding the world only with our eyes. And we see a man with arms and legs, a body.
Many of us will never be convinced that we are more than just a pile of bones. But that’s just how they like to think of themselves. If they are happy in this vision, then maybe that's not a bad thing. Everyone wants to see this world in their own way.
Accepting oneself as a mortal animal triggers a chain of endless fears. And no matter where you go, it’s impossible to run away from yourself, so there’s nowhere to hide from your fears.
How can you be afraid of what you like!?
Hello. I would like to ask for help on what to do, how to cope with myself. I am a future dentist, I am studying well, this summer I got the desire and got a job as a dental assistant, it didn’t work out very well - I was embarrassed by everyone at work, I was also always gnawing at me from the inside that I don’t know anything yet, that I have some mistakes, there were girls there who told me that it was like that for them at the beginning, but with experience everything got better (they had been working for like 2-3 months, I the same first week).But it always seemed to me that when we were all sitting in the room, the doctors and assistants, that they were thinking about how incompetent, uncommunicative, or something else I was, I wasn’t comfortable, what kind of stupid embarrassment, I was so I understand that this looks stupid and wild from the outside, this has never happened to me anywhere, usually I’m different and when I see that the guys behave the way I behaved, I try to stir them up to make them feel more comfortable. I would like, if possible, not to distort the picture with subjectivity - at school I was on the books of the teachers, I graduated with a silver medal, I had many friends and acquaintances with whom I communicated well, I study well at the institute and in the group I am respected and I understand that work - it’s a different environment, but what’s the matter?? There are guys from my group, they work well, they’ve already earned enough, but it’s like after a month of working there I’ve lost self-confidence, now my dreams are not so colorful, I’m scared, my mood is constantly falling , I hate myself, I so wanted and still want to work, learn, earn money, I just need it now, but I’m afraid, now I don’t know why exactly, as soon as I read the requirements - sociability, friendliness, good mood...
This is not how I imagined it, on the very first day at work I shouldn’t have behaved like this, I was embarrassed, I felt like my voice was gone, it’s amazing how different we can be. Fear associated with thoughts that I might not be able to cope I’m paralyzed with my responsibilities, so to speak, I also really want to help my mother with money, but the fact is that I’m studying and I can’t go to another job not in my specialty - firstly, there’s a full-time job, and secondly, as an assistant - after all, I still learn something along with my studies. It turns out that with this letter I am admitting my weakness, it’s hard to realize, I would never have thought that I would write such a letter, and yes, I’ll also send it. Now I’m scared at the thought of that we need to go through everything again too. Thank you for your time.
How can I not be afraid that he might leave me? (3 answers)
Why we get what we fear most and how to deal with it
Why do we often get what we fear? If we clearly imagine something unwanted, then it will usually come true. Then we say: “nakarkal (nakarkala)” or “I knew it (knew).”
Everyone can be convinced of this simply by remembering how he got exactly the situation that he was afraid of and tried to avoid. This happens as a result of the fact that we concentrate on fear and further intensify it.
For example, someone is very afraid of losing their job, breaking up with a loved one, or getting sick. He lives this situation in his thoughts and the fear becomes even greater. And so, sooner or later this happens. Everything that we are very afraid of usually happens.
When you become very afraid, you think about it often or constantly. You show a certain reaction, begin to experience certain emotions. And these emotions are negative. This is not only fear, but also resentment, pity for oneself, for others, anger, hatred, jealousy and others. These emotions are very strong. The stronger the body's reaction, the more likely it is that this will happen.
Where your attention is directed, energy goes. It is our thoughts and emotions that control our lives. The more you think negatively and stress yourself out, the less strength you have to realize your plans, goals, and dreams. Hands give up to do anything. The body becomes tense and experiences a stressful situation that has not yet occurred. This greatly hinders further development and advancement.
If you are sure in advance that everything will be bad, you expect it. Someone once told me when an unpleasant situation occurred: “Well, I knew it.” To which I replied: “Or maybe I shouldn’t have known that way, maybe I should have known it some other way!”
How to deal with fears?
All people are subject to fears. Some have more, others have less. And it is the reaction and emotions to this fear that decide the outcome of the event. Therefore, to prevent your fears from becoming reality, make it a rule to control your emotions. You need to remain completely calm, not panic, and under no circumstances push or overwhelm yourself. It is peace and tranquility that is the main enemy of fear. Remember the proverbs: “The devil is not as terrible as he is painted,” “Fear has big eyes.” If something has already gone wrong, just stop, think about how it can be changed. You just need to soberly assess the situation and make decisions. Maybe you really are moving in the wrong direction.
Think about where this fear came from in the first place. Maybe you came up with all this yourself. For example, at work there has been talk about layoffs, and you are afraid that you will be laid off. Why exactly will you be laid off? Are you performing your duties poorly or violating labor discipline? Or are you just not confident in yourself? Besides, even if they lay off you, you can find another job and it will turn out to be even better. You say there is no work, that’s a lie. If you want, you will find it. If you want to feel sorry for yourself, no one forbids you. This is first and foremost your life.
⇒
