Mockery of Liberal Ideas in Russian Blogosphere

We have found a fascinating article in Spanish Wikipedia about Lev Shcharanski.

Shcharanski is a ficitious character mocking Russian liberals and dissidents who are taking desperate efforts to establish American-style democracy in Russia. Shcharanski and his "fans" demonstrate the absurdity of neo-liberal idea by exagerrating its slogans and mottos.

Lev Shcharansky's image is generally depicted as Alexander Solzhenitsyn whose dissent has always been widely rejected by majority of the Russian general public.

(download .xps file with Wiki Article)
Also see: Parody and Dissent

Lev Shcharánski

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, el disidente soviético, las fotografías de quien se utilizan como la aparencia de Lev Shcharánski

Lev Natánovich Shcharánski (en ruso: Лев Натанович Щаранский; en inglés: Lev Sharansky) es un personaje ficticio satírico en el Internet rusohablante que parodia a un ex disidente soviético. El personaje escribe en su blog en LiveJournal y en Twitter, donde utiliza las ideas de los liberales rusos modernos llevándolas al absurdo. Toma su apellido de Natan Shcharánski, el ex disidente soviético y político israelí.

El carácter de Shcharánski se utiliza también para desacreditar la votación en línea. Por ejemplo, en 2011 él ganó la encuesta en línea para determinar el «bloguero del año» organizada por la revista «Afisha».¹

[editar]Referencias

1. ↑ Блогером года стал Лев Щаранский (en ruso)

[editar]Enlaces externos

• Blog de Lev Shcharánski en LiveJournal
• Lev Shcharánski en Twitter
• Russia: The Fake Political Twitter Account Phenomenon (en inglés)
• Parody and Dissent (en inglés)
• A Case Study In Democratic Journalism (part 1) (en inglés)
• Люди российского интернета: Лев Щаранский. (en ruso)

Quiptic: Peasant Movement and Conflict Resolution in Chiapas

It is worthy to note that neo-Zapatista movement was preceded by organised "campesino" unions of the Selva Lacandona.  They resisted the so-called Presidential Decree of the "Lacandon Breach" ("La Brecha Lacandona") by which the majority of selva lands was granted to the Lacandon community (tribal people living in the selva for about 300 years) which deprived other indigenous people in this area of their titles to the same land.  The controversial nature of this decree may be explained in the context of Mexican government's agrarian policy in 40-60s which focused  mainly on colonisation of "unpopulated" lands  and preferring rather the extensive, not intensive development of its agrarian sector.  In search for new lands, thousands of indigenous migrants from the states of Guerrero, Michoacan, Morelos, Chihuahua as well as from other regions of Chiapas moved to the Selva Lacandona trying to establish their homes there. Through a decade, settlers were motivated and commended by the Mexican Government and Secretaria de la Reforma Agraria (Ministry of Agrarian Reform) who legally granted them titles for "unpopulated" lands hoping to resolve the vibrant Mexico's issue of the 60-s - deficiency of land.

The settlers' land titles became invalid when the Decree of the "Brecha Lacandona" was enacted in 1973. Of course, the Presidential Decree envisaged the following re-settlement of peasants from the area of the Selva Lacandona (called "Lacancon Community") and special re-settlement programmes were taken.  Nevertheless, indigenous settlers of the Selva (tzeltal, chol, tzotzil and tojolabal indigenous peoples) resisted the displacement and rightly saw it as a consequence of unlawful and inconsistent agrarian policy of the Government.

In 1975, then biggest campesino union Quiptic Ta Lecubtesel was created uniting 23 resisting settlements ("Quiptic"). Marcela Acosta Chavez, researcher of Quiptic, notes that resistance to the unjust Presidential Decree was the main organising factor in strenghening and uniting of the Selva peasants (Marcela Acosta Chavez, "La Quiptic Ta Lecubtesel"). They managed to organise their representation and negotiated with Chiapas government their land titles by urging them to resolve the real root of the conflict (land deficiency),  and opposing  government's usual "quick solutions" which they saw in replacement of "irregular" indigenous settlements.

This was the first attempt in the modern Chiapas history to resolve the main and long-lasting Chiapas conflict: deficiency of land and uneven distribution of income, which later developed in Zapatista rebellion and San-Andres Accords.

Mediators' Position in Armed Conflicts (Zapatista case)

(a Russian opinion or, rather, question relating to the well-known Mexico's event)

It seems interesting how Mexican CONAI (National Comission for Intermediation) defines their moral position while negotiating the peace between government and indigenous rebels.

The CONAI was created in 1995 by Chiapas bishop Samuel Ruiz Garcia with views to help establish the peace process after armed rebellion by EZLN ( indigenous neo-Zapatistas) which took place on 1 January 1994. Immediately after the conflict, a very unstable truce was established in Chiapas, so bishop Samuel Ruiz put forward his peace initiative proposing himself and his Commission as mediators between the rebels (who were mostly of his congretation) and the government.  Soon CONAI was recognised by then Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari as a lawful mediator between the EZLN and Government representatives.

Anyway, after three-year process of peace negotiations, in 1998 the CONAI withdrew from the negotiation process.  Bishop Ruiz explained this action as a protest again government's infulfilment of San-Andres Accords.  In response to this claim, he was accused by various officials of "evading his mediator's duty" and "non-neutrality".  Indeed, mediators' code of conduct reads that they shall be neutral and promote the process of negotiation by being impartial and free of any personal or political preferences, as well as be adamant against any external pressure.

Miguel Alvarez Gandara, then CONAI Secretary, explained the  Commission's moral position by arguing their moral standpoint:

The CONAI, -  he said, - was an independent entity which was impartial to all parties in the conflict. The accusations of non-neutrality refer mostly to CONAI's moral position which they assumed from the very beginning of the armed conflict - the CONAI was seeking to build the type of negotiation which would eliminate the real roots of the conflict, and namesly, disrespect and exclusion of indigenous peoples of Mexico. The only resolution of the conflict, as it was seen by multiple experts, opposition politicians, observers and majority of Mexicans, might be found  only in pursuing the appropriate and relevant constitutional reforms granting indigenous peoples the status of "public law entities", not "objects" by public law to be easily manipulated by unstable and ever changing political situation.

Pablo Gonzalez Casanova, one of the Mexican most prominent intellectuals, ex rector of the UNAM (Autonomous University of Mexico) and a former member of CONAI,   formed this standpoint by saying that he "cannot remain neutral while facing the truth."

Shall a mediator be neutral as it is demanded by his/her job position?  Shall he/she seek the real solution of the conflict, or confine himself with pacification measures only? What is the real objective of political mediation?

Zapatistas' Mexican Agenda - Why Autonomy, Not Separatism?

Gary Gossen in his article "Maya Zapatistas Move to the Ancient Future" provides his view on one of the core points that Zapatistas demanded in the course of San-Andres negotiations:  this point is indigenous autonomy.

Why autonomy, but not separatism? Why neo-Zapatista agenda coincides with the national agenda of Mexico? Why Mayan Zapatistas do not see their future apart from the Mexican state and Mexican nation? Why do they want to be Mexicans?

Gary Gossen, one of the most prominent Mayanists undertakes to answer these questions, and his arguments seem to be quite convincing. Gossen argues that among the Tzotziles, for example, foreign "heroes", regardless of their positive or negative nature in indigenous perceptions, are very commonly taken as a "necessary precondition for collective identity within the Chamula pattern of  historical memory and being in the present" (see Gossen 1993).

For example, Miguel Hidalgo (the father of Mexican Independence) and Erasto Urbina (local hero of Chiapas) are both ladinos and bearers of Mexican mestizo culture, yet Mayan Indians perceive them as part of their indigenous history. Emiliano Zapata, a  "campesino" leader of the Mexican Revolution and also being mestizo (not Indian) has become a hero of the Mayan indigenous peoples of Chiapas.  From the point of view of religion, Catholic saints have always played and are playing a very important and active role in modern Mayan panteon:  in particular, St Jerome is considered to be a keeper of animals and animal soul's companion (nahualli). At the same time, surprisingly, the heroine of the Mexican history and "mother" of all Mexicans, legendary Malinche is known in Chamula culture as "Nana Maria Cocorina", wearing a ladino dress "and is ritually addressed as xinulan antz, "stinking ladino woman"."

So why ladinos have become an inseparable part of the Mayan culture? Why sub-comandante Marcos, also being a ladino among Indians, has been entrusted the role of spokesperson of the Mayan rebels?

According to Gary Gossen, "Mayans have always constructed enthnicity, cosmology, historical reckoning and political legitimacy by drawing freely from symbolic and ideological forms of other ethnic and political entities - particularly those perceived to be stronger than themselves - in order to situate and center themselves in the present.  Therefore, what I have identified as the apprently anomalous and peculiar link of the Zapatistas to foreign alliances and symbolic affiliations - including Marcos, white foreign martyrs, the paladin of Zapata and the Mexican revolutionary ideology that he embodies - is not at all strange to the Maya imagination.  In fact, such alliances appear to have been a centrally important strategy for Maya cultural affirmation and political legitimacy since well before the contact period."

Problems of Translation

Attention: Marta-Yolanda Diaz-Duran, Libertopolis

I was accused of being an author of a  "communist" blog who made a bad translation of Libertopolis interview regarding conflict between Russia & Georgia and presidential elections in Russia.

As far as I understand from the above Facebook link, my parents were called to school, and I was discussed at the Todo a Pulmon radio programme of Libertopolis (under Francisco Marroquin University), making me (or at least, my translation) famous all around Guatemala.

(Or otherwise, I was not honoured enough to be mentioned in the said programme -  anyway, I am quiet about that).

I admire the naivity of persons who genuinely believe the manipulators who are telling them "all the truth".   As a matter of fact, it is exactly Mr Toursinov who is acting here as a manipulator making Marta-Yolanda think that  "communists" of the city have captured the radio station, banks, a telegraph and internet.  Frankly, the reasons that made Mr Toursinov write this message about "bad translation" are purely personal, not political, and "communist blogs"  have nothing to do with this. The real reason is that by that message Mr Toursinov made a preliminary step saving his... well, I will say this word - ass, and preventing the disclosure of the fact that he does not comply with academic Code of Conduct, which notice may come to the attention of his superiors in the Marroquin University (or Rafael Landivar University). As we know, the discipline - for students as well for academics - in UFM is extremely demanding and severe.

You want further explanations? I am Mr Toursinov virtual opponent from Russia, being an independent researcher of Latin America with focus on Mexican and Guatemalan indigeous peoples.  He knows me personally,  and he is lying that "he was sent a link from Russia", because he is constantly and nervously monitoring my blog himself.  He fears that I may deliberately or unintentionally mention his fabulous adventures on the Russian internet by giving out particular details of his ardent and peculiar struggle against "communists" in the Russian blogosphere. I swear, if you heard the details, you'd really be HORRIFIED, and none of bad translations would ever be able to produce a similar horror on you. It has nothing to do with politics, it's just a matter of  violating the professional ethics by virtual harassment on the Internet and personal insults of myself, my family and my children.  Mr Toursiov naively thinks that if nobody there in Guatemala speaks Russian, his mischiefs will come unnoticed. He is mistaken.

I left a notice about this incident in my Russian Livejournal diary (all in Russian), yet I think that I owe Marta-Yolanda the courtesy of some explanations. Segun se dice, lo prometido es deuda, pues le debo, Marta-Yolanda, y mientras, que se relaje Sr Toursinov es que yo soy muy apurada en estos dias,)) y no tengo mucho tiempo. Sin embargo, lo recuerdo y volvere con mas explicaciones, sin duda ninguna.

p.s. The translation is OK, there is nothing added nor detracted or intentionally distorted. The transcript of video was made by a native Spanish-speaker, and I personally have been in translation for many years, and my translations were "authorised" by a number of international projects.

p.p.s. If this blog be frozen (Mr Toursinov is doing his best to close down or cripple my other blogs, especially on LiveJournal) please make a search for my nick on the internet, and you will find my response.

Why Russians Don’t Smile

Submitted by Alex on Wed, 02/15/2012 

Many in the West have the stereotype that Russians don’t smile in public. Russians may look serious, sad or even depressed, but they never smile! On the other hand, many Russians I’ve spoken to say they find western (especially American) smiles false and insincere and don’t see why people smile so often. In Russia, if you smile a lot at strangers in public they think you’re either insane or on drugs! In the West, people who fail to smile at the correct times and in the appropriate situations may be considered impolite or even aggressive.

In reality, we have a similar separation between public and private spheres in our societies and we behave differently in each. Smiling in the West often acts as a defence mechanism or a way of signalling to those around us that we mean them no harm. This doesn’t indicate that we want to be friends or engage in conversation, it is merely an acknowledgement and acceptance of the other person’s presence. Western smiles of this kind are not connected with feelings of happiness. They are instead extra linguistic signals which are not intended to convey emotion. This is why I would argue that they are neither false nor insincere – they simply serve a different purpose from smiles in Russian culture.

La controversia sobre el testimonio de Rigoberta Mench'u

Una copia del texto por Shannon Will acerca la controversia del testimonio de Ribogerta Menchu

Introduccion en ruso sobre el contexto politico de este tema:
"Противоречие" в свидетельствах Ригоберты Менчу о геноциде народа майя - любимейший козырь антикоммунистов, расистов и неолиберальных политологов (или псевдополитологов), которые (включая текст Википедии по этому вопросу) считают, что нобелевский лауреат мира индеанка-киче Ригоберта Менчу якобы наговорила немало лжи по поводу геноцида индейцев майя в Гватемале.
 


Shannon Will (Spanish 4240)

En definir qué es el testimonio y la importancia de ello en la sociedad actual, John Beverly lo explica muy bien en su artículo “Testimonio: The Politics of Truth”. Él define el testimonio como un “novel or novel-length narrative…told in the first person by a narrator who is also the real protagonist or witness of the event…and whose unit of narration is usually a life or significant life experience” (31). Es decir, es una historia de una persona dicha por sí misma, que cuenta de sus experiencias claves en su vida. La experiencia del protagonista en el testimonio suele tener el propósito de comunicar una problema social más grande del individuo, que llama la atención a un cierto estado de represión o sufrimiento de una gente. Proviene el testimonio de los años sesenta, cuando la inestabilidad civil crecía en proporciones inmensas. Los grandes movimientos de la época de la liberación en muchos países, y el radicalismo del día daban la luz a un nuevo estilo de escribir en la América Latina y Norteamérica. John Beverly lo llama la literatura de la resistencia, y la describe como un “direct-participant account, usually presented without any literary or academic aspirations, although often political ones” (32). El testimonio ha servido a la gente marginalizada de resistir su opresión y miseria y despertar en la sociedad su necesidad de liberación.

After the Russian Elections...

.... No Apocalypse Yet

by ISRAEL SHAMIR

Moscow

The anticipated apocalypse did not come to pass. The presidential election in Russia ran its course, Putin was duly elected, and to the great astonishment of the opposition, multimillion crowds demanding the blood of the tyrant did not materialize. Only some 15,000 protesters gathered in central Moscow and dispersed peacefully within two hours. Only a remaining hundred hardcore activists were resolved “to stay until Putin goes” in the frozen city fountain. They were removed by police, charged and released. What a flop!

PUTIN WILL GAIN ELECTIONS, SAYS ANTON TOURSINOV

ИНТЕРВЬЮ ПРОФЕССОРА ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОГО ДИСКУРСА ИЗ ГВАТЕМАЛЫ О ПРЕДСТОЯЩИХ ВЫБОРАХ, УВЕРЕННОЙ ПОБЕДЕ ВЛАДИМИРА ПУТИНА, И РОССИЙСКОЙ ПОЛИТИКЕ

An interview with Anton Toursinov, professor of political discourse, University Francisco Marroquin, Guatemala City (Guatemala). Courtesy of making a transcript by my Spanish friend. Translation from Spanish into Russian by the Author of this blog.  

Script of original Spanish-language video.

ССЫЛКА НА ВИДЕОРОЛИК САЙТА "LIBERTOPOLIS"


Марта-Иоланда: Добрый вечер, уважаемые друзья, добро пожаловать на передачу Сontravia Vespertino. Сегодня у микрофона вас сопровождает Марта-Иоланда Диас-Дуран, и на пульте – Эдмар Вильеда. Сегодня к нам присоединится наш друг родом из... я его называю “советским”, так как он родился еще во времена Советского Союза – который сегодня называется Россией. Это Антон Турсинов, который уже несколько лет живет в Гватемале, он преподаватель литературы, но также увлекается и темой политики, особенно сложностями сегодняшней ситуации в стране своего происхождения. Сегодня, дорогие друзья, в нашей передаче мы продолжим разговор который, как мы помним с Антоном, мы недавно вели в предыдущей передаче, когда началась война между Россией и Грузией. Что произошло в то время? По какой причине разразился конфликт? Какое отношение эта тема имеет к тем конфликтам, которые происходят близко от границ нашей Гватемалы – например, та ситуация, что сейчас имеет место в Венесуэле, что сейчас происходит в Гондурасе... Какие уроки мы можем извлечь из этой темы? Пусть нам лучше об этом расскажет тот, кто жил при этой социалистической утопии. Неплохо услышать о том, какова реальная ситуация в этом конфликте, где столкнулись силы, борющиеся за власть. Был ли это этнический конфликт, или опять мы имеем дело с амбициями тех, кто хочет контролировать жизни других людей, и всеми способами наживать богатства при помощи ресурсов... это как раз то, что происходит все ближе и ближе к границам нашей Гватемалы... Антон, добрый вечер, добро пожаловать!

PUTIN WILL GAIN ELECTIONS, SAYS ANTON TOURSINOV

Путин выиграет президентские выборы, утверждает Антон Турсинов.

Как работают и развлекаются  профессора с советским прошлым в Гватемале.

Антон Турсинов Барильяс Гарсия (Anton Toursinov Barillas Garcia) является кубинцем казахского происхождения (казахская фамилия - Турсынов). Получил образование в России (Иркутский государственный лингвистический университет - видимо, незаконченный,  затем  Челябинский университет, РУДН, Москва), краткое время отработал в университете г.Пуэбла (Мексика), а затем переехал в Гватемалу, где преподает в Университете Рафаэля Ландивара, и с 2005 года - в качестве приглашенного преподавателя - в университете Франциско Маррокина (известный частный университет либертарианского направления).

Антон Турсинов активно участвовал в российский социальных сетях, проводил ярко-выраженную анти-российскую пропаганду. Будучи эмоционально нестабильным, он нажил себе плохую славу, и вскоре был исключен из LiveJournal, из обсуждения в Википедии и других социальных сетей в России. В России он не является и не считается экспертом - ни в области семиотики (профессором которой является), ни в области политического дискурса (профессором которого он относительно недавно стал). Его специализация признана лишь в Гватемале.