I suppose he thinks the Holodomor or Pol Pot’s was quite justified.
The one, the only, the great, the Soviet Union.
Because I’m not five years old, and hence see no reason to base my world-view on bizarre oversimplifications and meaningless grudges carried over for the better part of a century, that’s why.
Obviously, my statement referred not to the handful of mercenaries that may or may not be in Libya, but rather to the bona fide Libyan soldiers fighting for the Libyan government. You know, the people that the Westerners have been trying to murder from the air for several months now? The people that the treacherous rebels have been fighting pitched battles with recently? Yes, those people.
You seem to be using an erroneous standard here, as it makes little sense to measure the strength of a nation’s position by the number of countries using it as a justification for warmongering.
Remember, Western imperialism is the barbaric exception rather than the accepted rule. The civilized world, by definition, does not interfere in the affairs of other nations. Hence, while much of the civilized world supports Libya’s right to self-determination and opposes Christendom’s efforts to enslave and oppress it, it is clearly not going to go out and murder people as a result. That would be quite uncivilized.
Thus, while a small handful of Western empires wages war in Libya, the greatest nations (specifically, Russia and China) resolutely oppose this barbarity. As does most of the Arab world. Oh, and the South African president has had some very wise things to say lately.
While it hasn’t happened yet, it is conceivable that, in a hypothetical situation, the occurrence of genocide may be preferable to its non-occurrence.
For example, imagine the following scenario. You have a world oppressed by a truly brutal, bloodthirsty, and savage imperialistic nation. Think the US on steroids; something truly horrific and unjustifiable. The other nations have been so weakened that they cannot rise up and throw off their shackles. The only thing that can end this oppression would be an internal meltdown within the oppressor nation itself. In this situation, a genocide in that one nation would destabilize it enough to save the rest of the world from it. Hence, genocide would be an overall positive development in this (admittedly far-fetched) scenario.
:dubious:
Commissar,
I’m rather confused by your claiming “the glorious Soviet Union” was your “Glorious Homeland” and that your kinsmen fought against the Nazis.
Are you Russian?
I thought you were American, or did Russian relatives move to the US?
I prefer to say that I am Soviet, since that is the nationality that I was born into and raised in. Based on current national boundaries, I would be considered half Russian and half Belorussian, though there really is no distinction between the two other than current political divisions.
I currently reside in the American Empire, yes, but I find the conclusion that this somehow makes me “American” to be entirely offensive. I will be Soviet until I die, regardless of where my domicile is.
Any response to your cognitive dissonance evinced three posts before this one?
Or am I instead to conclude that you deem it possible for a nation to be simultaneously both “great” and not part of “the civilized world”?
Ok, then I’m really confused.
Russians don’t refer to their “Homeland”. They refer to their “Motherland” or Rodina.
This was true under the Czars, during the time when it was the Soviet Union and now that it’s back to Russia.
“Glorious homeland” sounds more like something someone who pretends they’re a Russian or “a Soviet” would say than something that an actual Russian would say, particularly one who was actually born and raised in the Soviet Union.
Had your grandparents been from the Soviet Union I could see how you’d make such an error, but it’s utterly shocking to see someone born and raised there make such a mistake.
That would be like someone who was raised Catholic but didn’t know what “the Rosary” referred to.
Anyway, as someone who’s also a transplant my heart goes out to you that you’ve lost such a connection that you’d make such a huge mistake and I’m sure it’s painful to be so ignorant of the culture and country you claim to love.
If you’d like I can refer you to some books that would help catch you up the culture of the Rodina so you don’t make such an error again that makes you look less like someone born and raised in the Soviet Union and more like someone just pretending to be.
But, since the USSR is now defunct, and Russia a corrupt authoritarian kleptocracy, and the international Communist movement comatose, what if anything are you loyal to now?
It’s a long time since I studied Russian, but I think that’s just one way, for some reason the traditional way, of translating the word Rodina. It does not appear connected with mat’, the Russian word for “mother.” “Rod” means “people,” in the sense of “nation.” (“Person” is chelovek singular, lyudi plural.)
I’ve never heard it being anything other than “Motherland” and every Russian I’ve ever met when speaking of it in English says “Motherland”.
That’s why I’m so shocked by Commissar’s choice of words.
Your argument is erroneous. “Rodina” has no direct analogue in English, and thus no single “correct” translation. It is a concept dear to Eastern European people, but mostly foreign and incomprehensible to Westerners, in my experience.
Now, let me show you why your rodina = motherland argument doesn’t hold water. As BrainGlutton correctly pointed out, the Russian word for mother is “mat’.” This word is not found in “rodina.” It is, however, found in the name of the famous statute commemorating our victory over the fascists: “Rodina Mat’ Zovet.”
“Mat’” means mother; “zovet” means calls. According to your definition, this would render the statue’s name “Mother Motherland Calls.” Er, no. I would just leave it as “Mother Rodina Calls” since, once again, no direct analogue. Most people just combine “mat’” and “rodina” to mean motherland together, however. This does not mean that “rodina” means motherland on its own. Got it?
In conclusion, “rodina” as a concept can be translated several different ways, and none of them will be perfect. The fact that most Westerners like to translate it solely as “motherland” is irrelevant. I personally prefer “homeland.” And don’t even get me started on Westerners translating “tovarisch” as “comrade.”
Er, it’s not just westerners who translate it as “motherland” but Russians as well.
Can you link me to some actual Russians using the term “homeland” in place of Rodina?
[QUOTE=Commissar]
Your argument is erroneous. “Rodina” has no direct analogue in English, and thus no single “correct” translation. It is a concept dear to Eastern European people, but mostly foreign and incomprehensible to Westerners, in my experience.
[/QUOTE]
‘Rodina’/ Родина certainly DOES roughly mean ‘Mother Land’ or ‘Mother Russia’ to Russians…and the concept is hardly incomprehensible to Westerners. The fact that ‘mat’ is the root word for mother in Russian really has nothing to do with it.
Even though I generally think Yahoo! Answers is pretty worthless, Wint’s answer seems the closest to what I recall from reading about this years ago. I’ve also never met a Russian who DIDN’T think Rodina meant Mother Land or Mother Russia.
-XT
It don’t mean “friend,” and it don’t mean “stranger,” and “acquaintance” wouldn’t convey the sense. What English word would you use?
The concept is obviously incomprehensible to westerners so we don’t have a word for it…
-XT
Rebels seize massive Gaddafi munitions dump, near Zintan, which is about 80 miles southwest of Leningr- . . . St. Peters- . . . Tripoli.
How about ‘bud’, ‘pal’, or ‘bro’?
Those concepts would be incomprehensible to non-westerners, I suppose. 
-XT
The world is not black-and-white, my friend. Sometimes a civilized nation will make a regrettable mistake, and sometimes a barbarous one will act with surprising civility. I take a totality of the circumstances approach, if you will. Civilized nations are those that, by and large, behave in non-imperialistic manners.
Hence, the one or two times that the great USSR could have been said to have exceeded the outward boundaries of perfect civility do not detract from its status as a thoroughly civilized nation. Sure, the whole Afghanistan misadventure was a pretty bad idea. Whoops. This does not somehow make us identical to the American Empire, which tends to attack more nations in a year than the Soviet Union did almost a century. That’s akin to arguing that a serial killer should be viewed the same way as someone that committed negligent manslaughter in the neighboring county. The comparisons are equally absurd.
“Roughly?” Roughly simply isn’t good enough when you’re arguing that your favored translation is the one and only acceptable translation for a given foreign word.
I am simply pointing out that, contrary to Ibn’s assertion to the contrary, “motherland” is neither the best nor the sole possible translation of “rodina” into English. Sure, it works. So does “homeland.” So does “fatherland.” So does “birthplace.” So does “nation that I give my allegiance to.” Some Russian words have direct English analogues and thus have one “best” possible translation. “Rodina” is not one of these words.
There is no perfect analogue, but there are acceptable translations, and then there are horribly misleading ones. “Comrade” is an example of the latter. The best (though certainly non-perfect) translation is, indeed, “friend.” This captures most of the original meaning while minimizing the lost-in-translation effect. “Comrade,” on the other hand, has militaristic connotations that have nothing to do with the original Russian word.
Were I to point to X and say, in Russian, “X is my tovarisch,” it would be immediately clear to all Russian speakers that I am declaring X to be my friend (in the context, it would be the same as using the more literal word “drug”). Were I to tell English-speakers “X is my comrade,” they wouldn’t get the same message. The bad translation disguises the actual meaning of the original word.
As Xtisme has pointed out Russians seem to disagree with you.
Now, since you’re an actual Russian who grew up in the Soviet Union and didn’t come to the US until your mid-teens, rather than a monolingual American who likes taking on false internet personas and trolling message boards you shouldn’t have a problem providing some links to Russians using the term “fatherland” when discussing Russia.
As has been mentioned before, Russians don’t refer to their “homeland” but to the “motherland”.
Anyway, it’s quite obvious what has happened.
No, you’re not a troll pretending to be a Russian, but you’ve obviously been so thoroughly Americanized that you’ve forgotten the language you grew up with as well as important aspects of the culture.
Frankly, I think we should help you because I think it’s awful that someone would so completely lose contact with their motherland.
Beyond that, you make a fascinating case study. Lots of people have come the US in their mid-teens, but I’ve never heard of any so completely lose touch with their native culture that they would make such embarrassing gaffes that would cause cynics to think they were frauds rather than actual immigrants.
Like I said, since you obviously need to relearn the language and culture you grew up with, perhaps some of us can provide you with some links to help you relearn about your “motherland” so you won’t make such humiliating gaffes in the future.