I will be Assistant Stage Managing for Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard, and during our initial read-through I noticed for the first time (after having read it for 3 or 4 times) what I think might be some Generational Interactions:

Elderhood Adaptive

FIRS, an old footman, aged eighty-seven

Mid-Life Idealist

LEONID ANDREYEVITCH GAEV, Mme. Ranevsky's brother
LIUBOV ANDREYEVNA RANEVSKY (Mme. RANEVSKY), a landowner
BORIS BORISOVITCH SIMEONOV-PISCHIK, a landowner

Young Adult Nomad

ERMOLAI ALEXEYEVITCH LOPAKHIN, a merchant
CHARLOTTA IVANOVNA, a governess
SIMEON PANTELEYEVITCH YEPIKHODOV, a clerk
YASHA, a young footman
PETYA SERGEYEVITCH TROFIMOV, a student
VARYA, her adopted daughter, aged twenty-seven
A TRAMP

Youth/Childhood Civic

DUNYASHA (AVDOTYA FEDOROVNA), a maidservant
ANYA, her daughter, aged seventeen

How's this for 1903 Russia?

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Justin '77

People keep saying that, but I really haven't seen it. The vast majority of the things Putin does that get decried as 'imperialism' on the TeeVee are perceived elsewhere as simply standing up for the sovereignty of his own country and the interests (an important one of which is stability) of his people -- not that there is unanimity behind him, but even the dissent tends to grant him some measure of grudging respect on this count.

Essentially, I look at the "Imperialist Bear" meme much the same way I regard the "Coming War with China" meme: as an absurd bit of silliness, edged with the danger that it may lead people to make disastrous decisions.

Spot on!

Since he threw out the oligarchs and put the World Bank officials out of a job, the old Necons hate on Putin and Russia out of habit it seems and it's just ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

I will be Assistant Stage Managing for Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard, and during our initial read-through I noticed for the first time (after having read it for 3 or 4 times) what I think might be some Generational Interactions:

Elderhood Adaptive

FIRS, an old footman, aged eighty-seven

Mid-Life Idealist

LEONID ANDREYEVITCH GAEV, Mme. Ranevsky's brother
LIUBOV ANDREYEVNA RANEVSKY (Mme. RANEVSKY), a landowner
BORIS BORISOVITCH SIMEONOV-PISCHIK, a landowner

Young Adult Nomad

ERMOLAI ALEXEYEVITCH LOPAKHIN, a merchant
CHARLOTTA IVANOVNA, a governess
SIMEON PANTELEYEVITCH YEPIKHODOV, a clerk
YASHA, a young footman
PETYA SERGEYEVITCH TROFIMOV, a student
VARYA, her adopted daughter, aged twenty-seven
A TRAMP

Youth/Childhood Civic

DUNYASHA (AVDOTYA FEDOROVNA), a maidservant
ANYA, her daughter, aged seventeen

How's this for 1903 Russia?

~Chas'88

It seems quite in line with my idea that Russia's crisis began around 1914. I cannot for the life of me find anything amounting to a crisis during the 19th century in Russia, however. It may well be that a certain level of modernity is necessary to have one as we understand it.

I don't know all the details, but it seems to me like the Decemberist Revolt started a very reactionary 4T.

The younger, instigating officers were liberal, they valued education, and lived frugally on principle. They're sympathetic to the international republican movements and identify with the peasants.

Then this Mikhail Miloradovich strikes me as quite a prophet, literally riding out in to the middle of the revolt to lecture about the importance of obedience and official lines of succession. Until one of those 20-somethings shoots him dead.

Emperor Nicholas, a bit like a later nomad himself, decides he isn't playing around: he crushes the rebels, ships them off to Siberia, and spends 30 years creating an elaborate domestic spying network to protect "Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality." He isn't subtle or particularly well educated in political minutiae, but he understands raw power and how to wield it like a blunt instrument in the defense of the state itself.

The failure of progress in the 4T leads to a literal failure of holding/defending territory in the 1T (Crimea)

Originally Posted by Justin '77

a) The Maginot Line was a defensive thing, too. Google, dearie.

b) The nature of nuclear warfare makes even ostensibly defensive measures de facto offensive. Since each side only gets a single strike at best, a means by which an opponent's strike could be nullified puts its deployer in a greatly more advantageous offensive position. Their function is to drastically improve first-strike capability. Missile shields are only actually defensive if fielded by non-nuclear-powers -- they have no capacity for first-strike.

The Maginot line was certainly defensive, just not effective against the modern German attack. The original missile defense concept for potential USSR attacks complemented the 'MAD" doctrine, which was effective since the two parties were rational( at least most of the time). I don't think any rational person want to start a massive nuclear exchange.

Russia still has massive nuclear arms , but is not a concern as long as rational people are in charge.( You can't rule out takeover by a non-rational person).

It seems to me that there is a clear defensive role for US missile defense in the current world situation where several countries have nuclear strike capability. The current US system is a very limited defnese against a limited strike that some irrational person or group might launch. The current system is totally inadequate against a massive strike from country such as Russia.

The notion of missile defnse as offensive only makes sense if the US is controlled by irrational people. If this were so, missile defense would not be our primary concern.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Spot on!

Since he threw out the oligarchs and put the World Bank officials out of a job, the old Necons hate on Putin and Russia out of habit it seems and it's just ridiculous.

I had hoped ( but not expected) that we could develop a better relationship with Russia. We would both be better off as allies than as adversaries. However, so far there does not appear to be much progress on this front.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

It seems quite in line with my idea that Russia's crisis began around 1914. I cannot for the life of me find anything amounting to a crisis during the 19th century in Russia, however. It may well be that a certain level of modernity is necessary to have one as we understand it.

1860s Russia was in an Awakening, or at least until 1861 with the freeing of the serfs. Reference is made of it in The Cherry Orchard, with Firs saying that by the time he got his freedom, he was already head butler and didn't care that he got freedom and just continued on being the butler due to loyalty to the family. He would've been 45 when the serfs got their freedom, therefore in Mid-Life, which is correct for an Artist generation. He would've been born in 1816, so the 1810s should've been a Crisis for Russia (Napoleon invading sounds about right) and Russia would've been on the old 100 year cycle by my counts.

So, taking The Cherry Orchard ages as markers:

1816 - clear Adaptive cohort
1876 - clear Nomad cohort
1886 - clear Civic cohort

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

1860s Russia was in an Awakening, or at least until 1861 with the freeing of the serfs. Reference is made of it in The Cherry Orchard, with Firs saying that by the time he got his freedom, he was already head butler and didn't care that he got freedom and just continued on being the butler due to loyalty to the family. He would've been 45 when the serfs got their freedom, therefore in Mid-Life, which is correct for an Artist generation. He would've been born in 1816, so the 1810s should've been a Crisis for Russia (Napoleon invading sounds about right) and Russia would've been on the old 100 year cycle by my counts.

So, taking The Cherry Orchard ages as markers:

1816 - clear Adaptive cohort
1876 - clear Nomad cohort
1886 - clear Civic cohort

~Chas'88

Where does the idea of "the old 100 year cycle?" come from?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Where does the idea of "the old 100 year cycle?" come from?

from the theory itself, though not remarked upon by S&H, the Reformation and New World saecula are about 100 years long. Sean Love (Zarathustra) expanded this a lot in the years before I joined.

That doesn't make sense...

The Supremacy & Treason Acts sound pretty 4T to me, then if you go out another 70 years you're at the Gunpowder plot and a half dozen other high profile assasination attempts. Go out 80 more years from that and you're at the Glorious Revolution.

Where is the 100 years?

Alternatively:

Russia 4T

1812 French invasion
1825 Liberal revolution (failed)
1830-31 Polish revolution (failed)

1896 Nicholas II becomes the last emperor at a scene that sounds very late 3T
1905 Bloody Sunday
1917 Socialist Revolution

1985 Attempt at Democratic Reform begins
1989 Berlin Wall falls
1990-92 Dissolution of USSR
1998 Ruble revaluation begins new era of economic growth / Putin's 1T

Originally Posted by independent

That doesn't make sense...

The Supremacy & Treason Acts sound pretty 4T to me, then if you go out another 70 years you're at the Gunpowder plot and a half dozen other high profile assasination attempts. Go out 80 more years from that and you're at the Glorious Revolution.

Where is the 100 years?

Alternatively:

Russia 4T

1812 French invasion
1825 Liberal revolution (failed)
1830-31 Polish revolution (failed)

1896 Nicholas II becomes the last emperor at a scene that sounds very late 3T
1905 Bloody Sunday
1917 Socialist Revolution

1985 Attempt at Democratic Reform begins
1989 Berlin Wall falls
1990-92 Dissolution of USSR
1998 Ruble revaluation begins new era of economic growth / Putin's 1T

I just don't see that first 4T at all. The reign of Alexander I was not significant from the standpoint of internal politics and institutions. He himself looks like a Prophet. Catherine the Great presided over a much more tumultuous time. And keep in mind, this was a country comparable institutionally to England in about 1200 or so--it had no constitution and no national political institutions at all except the monarchy.

I spent much of the 1980s reading and writing about early modern Europe, and it's awfully hard to find anything like 80 year cycles in large parts of it. You could argue that France had a long crisis from about 1580 to 1600 but by the 1640s it's having a terrible crisis again. Then come about 130 years of pretty impressive internal stability. In fact I argued in Politics and War that the whole continent was characterized by weak central government for an entire century, 1559-1659. These are interesting problems for some one to work on but I think if anyone does they will eventually find some important differences. That's not surprising, especially since relatively few people lived that long in those days. (In fact, if you take a monarch-centered view, that could help explain France--I could go for Louis XIV as a Hero, but none of his Artist or Prophet kids ever reigned--smallpox killed off at least one.)

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I just don't see that first 4T at all. The reign of Alexander I was not significant from the standpoint of internal politics and institutions. He himself looks like a Prophet.

The most significant thing about Alex I institutionally would probably be the part that Russia plays in the Concert of Europe. The important thing though, is that there is clearly prophet then nomad leadership, credible threats to the survival of the state***, and a growing conflict between autocracy and liberalism. Artistically, what is important are works about this period (1812 overture, War & Peace) rather than the ones written in it.

(***The response of the state to the threat is as much a factor in its credibility as is the actual threat. See "al-Qaeda" vs. CIA, DHS, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, NATO, etc. The Decemberists never really threatened the Tsar-dom, but Nicholas responded like they had with pretty brutal repression and a paranoid surveillance state. "Did someone say something bad about the government? Report them!" This bleeds perfectly in to the conformism of a bad 1T)

Catherine the Great presided over a much more tumultuous time. And keep in mind, this was a country comparable institutionally to England in about 1200 or so--it had no constitution and no national political institutions at all except the monarchy.

No national, orthodox church? No one torn between said church and Islamic & Jewish money? No concern to the interests of the land owners? Formalizing the House of Lords doesn't mean other autocrats didn't have to negotiate between various interests. Alexander and Nicholas both wanted to move past serfdom, but they were partially afraid of the consequences and didn't have much of a liberal political culture to support them. Instead, French liberals come storming in as a physical threat to Alexander's state and later Russian liberals became a threat to Nicholas' state.

As for Catherine II and Awakenings, I don't think anyone ever claimed that they were very stable times. They are times of their own upheavals, but one thing that distinguishes the 2T & 4T is art and music. In the 1770s and 1780s, printed songs and musical instrument sales were booming, and generally I'd say that hints at 2T instead of 4T. By the 3T cusp (1780s) Russian virtuosos were becoming apparent. Compare these guys to early jazz or metal-heads, because:

"Musicians focused on virtuosity are commonly criticized for overlooking substance and emotion in favor of raw technical prowess. Despite the mechanical aspects of virtuosity, many virtuosi successfully avoid such labels, focusing simultaneously on other musical aspects while writing and performing music."

Anyway, this transition from later artist/prophet cusp musicians (masters) to early nomad (virtuosos) is my favorite part of the saeculum and it definitely helps sort out the 2Ts & 4Ts. It is also the greatest legacy of the prophets, so embrace it already! 4T music and art isn't revolutionary or risky at all - it is designed for the least common denominator and includes nationalist anthems, marching beats, and holiday songs. For the last decade, that is the triumph of arena-scale pop and "anyone can sing & play" technologies. In fact, if it weren't for snobs & critics trying to set higher standards, it might just be good enough for a large enough group that no progress would be possible.

I spent much of the 1980s reading and writing about early modern Europe, and it's awfully hard to find anything like 80 year cycles in large parts of it. You could argue that France had a long crisis from about 1580 to 1600 but by the 1640s it's having a terrible crisis again. Then come about 130 years of pretty impressive internal stability. In fact I argued in Politics and War that the whole continent was characterized by weak central government for an entire century, 1559-1659. These are interesting problems for some one to work on but I think if anyone does they will eventually find some important differences. That's not surprising, especially since relatively few people lived that long in those days. (In fact, if you take a monarch-centered view, that could help explain France--I could go for Louis XIV as a Hero, but none of his Artist or Prophet kids ever reigned--smallpox killed off at least one.)

1640s as a terrible crisis? France was undermining Spain and racking up new territories. Of course, there was social unrest, questions about succession, religious leaders in charge, and arts on the rise again - so I'll go for a 2T, sure. Then from the 1660s to 1670s, Louis XIV is taking out big national debt to fund a palace still synonymous with financial privilege & excess. 3T, no contest.

In the 1680s though, the international alliance was set on taking the French state apart.

Defeats, famine and mounting debt greatly weakened France. Two massive famines struck France between 1693 and 1710, killing over two million people. In both cases the impact of harvest failure was exacerbated by wartime demands on the food supply

Yea they ultimately kicked ass and stood tall, but only after a coordinated, international effort to destroy the French state. Nations coming off the height of their power & influence might experience relatively mild crises, but they are still 4Ts. 1Ts aren't always that great either, especially when a state fails to hold territory. So when there was finally peace in the 1710s, well in to the 1T, they had lost a lot of the territory they'd gained in the last saeculum. I'd bet $1000 we see an analogue to that in 202x-203x when America runs fleeing from some of our hundreds of bases the Middle East, Asia, and Africa...


So yeah, sometimes the authoritarians crush the liberals mercilessly in a 4T. They build spying networks and distant prisons to prevent change from happening.

Sometimes the 1T involves losing territory rather than consolidating it - or hunger rather than plenty.

America is a distracting example because our entire history is only the ascendant part of a mega-cycle. We've enjoyed rich resources, natural defenses, and started off with a relatively advanced political system. In many ways though, our fate is sealed because our relative influence will never be as high as it was immediately following the collapse of the USSR, before China or India or the EU were significant economic powers. Like France in the 1680s, we'd reached the peak of relative power in a 3T, and the 4T involves nations organizing to counter-balance that power.

Of course, there is such a thing as over-arching progress, so I wouldn't expect the black plague to suddenly pop up and kill a third of the civilian population. Similarly, international concerts against the leader-state aren't necessarily going to end in troops on the ground. No one really wants to occupy Oklahoma or California, but maybe finding alternatives to the USD would be nice... (ok, maybe there are some actual organized groups who would like to occupy a Spanish-speaking California/Texas, but they're still moving in economically rather than militarily.)

It agree, this magnificent idea is necessary just by the way

Posting some discoveries made in the staging process:

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Elderhood Adaptive

FIRS, an old footman, aged eighty-seven

Duty bound to follow old dying traditions for people who aren't worth his devotion. He didn't like the freedom of the serfs (aka he didn't like getting freedom at age 45) and thinks it was a terrible tragedy to have happened. He is forgotten and silent, dismissed as being senile and a mumbler who's outlived his usefulness. He is to be sent away to a hospital at the end, but the family leaves the place at the end, locking him in the house after its been sold and they've left where he dies, forgotten and alone.

Mid-Life Idealist

LEONID ANDREYEVITCH GAYEV, Mme. Ranevsky's brother
LIUBOV ANDREYEVNA RANEVSKYA (Mme. RANEVSKY), a landowner
BORIS BORISOVITCH SIMEONOV-PISCHIK, a landowner

These characters are Peter Pan-like, ineffective, self-absorbed, non-conformists (to their respective class), and unconcerned with the material world (instead preferring the long gone world of their childhood). Pischik is a better example of an Idealist in the relationship with his unseen daughter Dashenka (like the typical Idealist proud papa he brags about her reading Nietzche). Ranevskya is a woman who left her family after the death of her youngest son, leaving her daughter Anya to be raised by Varya and running off with a lover who simply drained her of money like a leech.

Young Adult Nomad

ERMOLAI ALEXEYEVITCH LOPAKHIN, a merchant
CHARLOTTA IVANOVNA, a governess
SIMEON PANTELEYEVITCH YEPIKHODOV, a clerk
YASHA, a young footman
PETYA SERGEYEVITCH TROFIMOV, a student
VARYA, her adopted daughter, aged twenty-seven
A TRAMP

Those who've felt the impacts of the Idealist generation's actions. Some, like Lopakhin were beaten as children, some have no clue who their parents were and were raised amongst traveling gypsies (Charlotta). Others are eager to start a revolution tomorrow (though they have no clue as for what cause to fight for and just like the general idea) as Trofimov is. Varya has the practicality and resourcefulness and has had to take care of Anya in her mother's six year absence, as well as look after her child-like adopted Uncle Leonid. The tramp of course is a vagabond much akin to an Xer drug addict. Yasha is eager to escape Russia and live the good life in Paris. Yasha also has a way of treating Dunyasha as a piece of meat to have ones way with more akin to some lesser Xer males I've noticed. Yepikhodov is a rejected lover who's always tripping over things and has a shoe that constantly squeaks. He talks about killing himself but never goes through with it. He has a very Eeyore philosophy towards life (American version of Eeyore and not the original British one). He is young enough to probably be a cusper and the equivalent of an emo.

Youth/Childhood Civic

DUNYASHA (AVDOTYA FEDOROVNA), a maidservant
ANYA, her daughter, aged seventeen

The inexperienced two young girls who meet with things in life that make them wiser to its ways. Anya sees her mother in Paris living in conditions she's never seen before, which while not dampening her optimistic view of the world (which is encouraged by Varya and Trofimov) makes her more on guard for its potential dangers and hazards. Dunyasha rejects Yepikhodov for Yasha--she sleeps with him after he seduces her & mistreats her and he leaves her flat. Our interpretation of that final scene is that he leaves her pregnant. She is still optimistic herself and probably goes on to marry Yepikhodov on the rebound and to keep people from talking about an unwed mother.

~Chas'88

Locked in the house and abandoned to die --- shudder - that's one of my nightmares. I can't stand to see it happen to a goldfish, or why watching Animal Planet back when proved so stressful. Or "Life after people" when I couldn't stop thinking of all those indoor pets slowly starving or dying of thirst and *unable to get out.*

If that's what happens to elder Adaptives in a 4T, I think I'd rather live in my daughter's basement. Except....

No. Thanks for the nightmares, Mister Chekov.

Of course, they could always have done what Cato the Elder did - announced that he was free and then evicted him. But Cato the Elder always struck me as a hard-ass Nomad.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Locked in the house and abandoned to die --- shudder - that's one of my nightmares. I can't stand to see it happen to a goldfish, or why watching Animal Planet back when proved so stressful. Or "Life after people" when I couldn't stop thinking of all those indoor pets slowly starving or dying of thirst and *unable to get out.*

If that's what happens to elder Adaptives in a 4T, I think I'd rather live in my daughter's basement. Except....

No. Thanks for the nightmares, Mister Chekov.

Of course, they could always have done what Cato the Elder did - announced that he was free and then evicted him. But Cato the Elder always struck me as a hard-ass Nomad.

Thanks for tonight's nightmares!

Russians voting on whether to bury Vladimir Lenin

Here's some scenes which I think really display the Generational Interactions and philosophies of the characters in The Cherry Orchard:

Originally Posted by The Cherry Orchard, Act III

VARYA. Why is Yepikhodov here? Who said he could play billiards? I don't understand these people. [Exit.]


LIUBOV. Don't tease her, Petya, you see that she's quite unhappy without that.


TROFIMOV. She's such a busybody, always poking her nose into other people's business. She hasn't left Anya and me alone the whole summer, she's afraid we're having a...an affair. What business is it of hers? Besides, it's not true. I'd never do anything so sordid. We're above love.


LIUBOV. And I, I suppose, am beneath love. [In agitation] Why isn't Leonid back yet? I just want to know: has the estate been sold or not! The whole disaster seems so impossible to me, I don't know what to think, or do. . . Oh, God, I'm losing my mind! I want to scream . . . or do something completely stupid. Help me, Petya. Say something, say something!


TROFIMOV. Whether they sell it or not, does it make any difference, really? You can't go back to the past. Everything here came to an end a long time ago. Try to calm down. You can't go on deceiving yourself; at least once in your life you have to look the truth straight in the eye.


LIUBOV. What truth? You seem so sure what's truth and what isn't, but I'm not. I've lost any sense of it, I've lost sight of the truth. You're so sure of yourself aren't you, so sure you have all the answers to everything, but darling have you ever really had to live with one of your answers? You're too young! Of course you look into the future and see a brave new world, you don't expect any difficulties, but that's because you know nothing about life! Yes, you have more courage than my generation has, and better morals, and you're better educated, but for God's sake have a little sense of what it's like for me, and be easier on me Petya, I was born here! My parents lived here all their lives; so did my grandfather. I love this house! Without the cherry orchard my life makes no sense, adn if you have to sell it, you might as well sell me with it. (She embraces Trofimov and kisses his forehead) And it was here my son drowned, you know that... (Weeps) Have some feeling for me, Petya, you're such a good, sweet boy.


TROFIMOV. I pity you. (Beat) I do, from the bottom of my heart.


LIUBOV. Yes, should have said that differently, just a little differently. . . . [Takes another handkerchief, a telegram falls on the floor] You can't imagine how miserable I am today. All this noise, and every new sound makes me shake. I can't get away from it, but then when I'm alone in my room I can't stand the silence. Don't judge me, Petya! I love you like one of my own family; I'd be very happy to see you and Anya married, you know I would, only, darling, you must finish school first! You have got to graduate! You don't do anything except drift around from place to place--what kind of life is that? And we have to do something about that beard of yours; it's so scraggly... (Laughs) You've gotten so funny-looking!


TROFIMOV. I have no desire to be good-looking.



LIUBOV. The telegram's from Paris. I get a new one every day. One yesterday, now again today. That madman is sick again and in trouble... He wants me to forgive him, he wants me back... and I suppose I should go back to Paris to be with him. Now see, Petya, you're giving me that superior look, but darling, what am I supposed to do? He's sick, he's alone, he's unhappy, and who has he got to look after him? To give him his medicine and keep him out of trouble? And I love him--why do I have to pretend I don't, or not talk about it? I love him. That's just the way it is: I love him. I love him! He's a millstone around my neck, and he'll drown me with him, but he's my millstone! I love him and I can't live without him! (Grabs Trofimov's hand) Don't judge me Petya, don't think badly of me, just don't say anything, please just don't say anything...

TROFIMOV. (Almost in tears) But for God's sake, you have to face the facts! He robbed you blind!

LIUBOV. No, no, please, you musn't say that, you musn't--

TROFIMOV. He doesn't care a thing for you--you're the only person who doesn't seem to understand that! He's rotten!

LIUBOV. (Gets angry but tires to control it) And you, you're what? Twenty-six, twenty-seven? Listen to you: you sound lik you'd never even graduated to long pants!

TROFIMOV. That's fine with me!

LIUBOV. You're supposed to be a man; at your age you ought to know something about love. You out to be in love yourself! (Angrily) Really! You think you're so smart, you're just a prude who doesn't know the first thing about it, you've probably a virgin, you're ridiculous, you're grotesque--

TROFIMOV. (Horrified) What are you saying!

LIUBOV. "I'm above love!" You're not above love; you've just never gotten down to it! You're all wet, like Firs says. At your age, you ought to be sleeping with someone!

TROFIMOV. What a terrible thing to say! That's terrible! That's just horrible... I can't listen to that; I'm leaving. All is over between us![Exit.]

Here it really shows Trofimov to be a cusper akin to millennialX, with Liubov being a tainted Idealist in late Mid-Life, early Elderhood.

Also, Pat, there's another option which Chekhov gives to elderly Silents, it's the offstage, godmother of Anya, who Liubov refers to as "the old lady in Yaroslavl". She's described by Liubov's brother Leonid as "very rich but she doesn't like us. Because in the first place, my sister married a mere lawyer instead of a man with a title... She married a lawyer, and then her behavior has not been--how shall I put it?--particularly exemplary." Which Leonid describes as the godmother's opinion of Liubov. Later in the play she sends money (after Anya went to ask her to give money to save the estate from going up for auction) but only 15 thousand because she doesn't trust either Liubov or Leonid. So the other depiction beyond the poor servant, is the rich dowager who hoards her money and looks down upon those of her relations who don't live up to the old standard.

Neither depiction is really wonderful, I know, but there's another option.

There's a lot more, but I have to go now.

~Chas'88

Another deadly homicide attack in Russia - this time at the main Moscow airport:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wor...east_35_People

Who the hell calls Domodedovo the main airport? Sheremetevo (to the north side of the city) is much heavier-trafficked. Domoded is just the one with the flights going southward. It is the most recently-renovated, to be sure. But it's second of the three.

And it's been amusing to observe the reaction of a 1T-society to a genuine attack (as opposed to the "ZOMG!! someone walked away from his backpack for three minutes to go take a piss!!1!111!!" type bullshit that gets hyped up into some sort of major incident in freakout-land). The portion of the airport that was immediately affected was roped-off as a crimescene; meaning incoming international flights were diverted to Vnukovo (the smallest of the three airports in moscow). The rest of the airport was back up in operation somewhere around a half-hour after the explosions.

The media has been reporting it as "Moscow's man airport."

But whether it is or not, it points up the fact that Islamic nationalism is clearly a greater direct danger to both Russia and China than it is to the United States, since in both of their cases, but not ours, irridentist claims to outright territory are involved - Chechnya, Dagestan etc. in Russia's case; and vast, subcontinent-sized Xinjiang and its untold mineral wealth, in China's.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

The media has been reporting it as "Moscow's man airport."

I noticed. I assume one idiot said it, then all the other fools just got to repeating it. That's what 'journalists' do, unfortunately.

But whether it is or not, it points up the fact that Islamic nationalism is clearly a greater direct danger to both Russia and China than it is to the United States, since in both of their cases, but not ours, irridentist claims to outright territory are involved - Chechnya, Dagestan etc. in Russia's case; and vast, subcontinent-sized Xinjiang and its untold mineral wealth, in China's.

Wow, are you misinformed. Russia's issue has close to zero to do with Islam (which has been a major religion in that country for more than a thousand years), and everything to do with the fact that Moscow rules over people who wish not to be ruled by them.

The history of the Caucasus is a bloody one, stretching back at least three hundred years for Russia; and to the death of Alexander the Great for the region as a whole. You could read Tolstoy's "Cossaks" (? I assume that's how the name would be translated), for example.

Imagining Russia's problem to be one of Islamic extremism seems to me to just be America continuing to assume that it is the template for the rest of the world.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I believe I recall that Al Quaeda has been seen to be involved in Chechnya. If this is the case, you both may be Correct(as I suspect). Also, if Correct, who is co-opting whom?

Al-Q did the whole 'solidarity' thing during the Chechen wars. Collected together donations of money and arms. Volunteers (like Hemingway in Spain). That sort of stuff. Like they did, btw, in Serbia/Croatia. Although in that scuffle, Al-Q was helping the guys the US ruling class decided to call 'good'. So you don't hear so much about it.

In any case, neither terrorism nor suicide bombing, nor conflict in the Caucasus are anything new or at all exclusive to the blowback the US (and to a lesser extent, Europe) are getting from their decades of hurting people in the oil-rich parts of the world. Russia has its own problems -- and they're quite a bit older than the ones the US is freaking out about this last decade-or-so.

Russia The Once and Future Empire from Pre-History to Putin

by Philip Longworth

The book compared Russia's recent Crisis to The Time of Troubles. The Time of Troubles was triggered by crop failures due to the Little Ice Age.

I have considered that Russia's recent Crisis may be a model for our own. There may be similar themes, just as the American and French Revolutions had similar themes.

"As in the Time of Troubles four centuries earlier, disaster struck six years out of seven, in the form not of unusual weather and crop failure this time, but of precipitous industrial decline.By 1998 the country's gross national product was less than half what it had been in 1990...."

Kill yourself)