#4
From: "Edward Lucas" <edwardlucas@economist.com>
Subject: apology? re 6310/Weisbrode
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 1
Perhaps I might make a few brief points in response to Dr Weisbrode's request for an apology.
First, diplomats are often quoted anonymously by all sorts of news organisations. This allows them to say things less blandly, which is presumably a good thing, as life would be duller and less informative otherwise.
Second, must any discussion of national character (or values, attitudes, habits or behaviour) be automatically denounced as taboo, or unserious? Perhaps in an extremely politically correct world, but if so that's a pity too. History, political systems, religion and so forth inevitably have some sort of effect on the way in which people think and act, and while they shouldn't dominate our understanding of how different countries work, it seems harsh to exclude them from debate or analysis entirely.
There are plenty of other people looking at Russia who use the same sort of language. For example Alexander Rahr's Putin biography, "the German in the Kremlin" ascribes to the president various "German" (and by implication non-Russian) characteristics such as order, discipline, thrift etc.
People writing about England do indeed point out that the combination of geographical insularity, historical empire, and lingering feudalism sometimes has an effect on the way we arrange things at home and abroad. I haven't noticed any howls of protest.
I'd also like to underline that the speech that I mentioned was delivered before a large and almost entirely Russian audience, and produced a largely friendly and interested reaction.
Finally, I should add that the original posting was not part of an article in The Economist; nor was it actually sent to the JRL. It was part of my private web mailing, available on request via edwardlucas-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
regards
Edward Lucas
The Economist
Moscow
Next Article
June 17, 2002:
#6312
- Back to the Top -