Russian family lived alone in the Siberian wilderness for 40 years (2013)
smithsonianmag.com
smithsonianmag.com
That said, cave paintings, which are arguably the earliest "documentation" we have of human activity and their thoughts, depict pretty tangible things; pictures of animals, hand prints, people hunting animals, plants? that kind of thing. The earliest religious symbols may have been venus statues, but it seems that it cannot be concluded definitively whether they were objects of worship / depictions of deities. That said, there's clear signs of shamanic religion dating from the upper paleolithic, 50.000 years BC and onwards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_religion is a good read.
Anyway, ~52.000 years ago is still fairly recent, given homo sapiens emerged ~300.000 years ago and the earliest stone tools were from ~3.3 million years ago.
Personally, I think religion / the concept of gods or a higher power has been a part of humanity for as long as we've had the ability to think smort thoughts and communicate with one another. Some would be grounded in reality - good weather means good times - but others in myth, like the stars/moon, thunderstorms, etc.
Seems to be sort of a tourist attraction now. The nearest road is about 55 miles away according to the measuring tool on google maps. There's several nature preserves/parks in the area that protect the site. I guess people hike to it now.
Looking it up later, I realized she was an Old Believer, and the Patriarch she was cursing was in fact Nikon, who corrupted their faith in 1652... I found it deeply fascinating how powerful and alive this almost 400 year old grudge was to this woman.
It’s a repeated historical pattern — top down reforms brought by “enlightened” leader to make the country more European, more Orthodox or more communist.
This was even before Peter cutting beards of the entrenched nobility and was sold on the orthodoxy, autocracy and nationalism thing by the usual suspects.
In the game Elden Ring, there are mysterious entities known as the Two Fingers and the Three Fingers. The Two Fingers are well known and respected parts of the church of that land, while the Three Fingers are a secret, heretical cult.
And the Two Fingers is in fact a literal set of two fingers, which seem to be the index and middle finger, corresponding to the fingers used in the Old Believers version of the rite; while the Three Fingers is also a set of fingers, with a thumb, index, and middle finger, also corresponding to the fingers used in the modern rite. It's somewhat likely that they are inspired by exactly this huge dispute in Eastern Orthodox's history.
^^^ If history is any indicator, this is the much more likely outcome. ^^^
For the downvoters: https://www.hindustantimes.com/trending/north-korean-soldier...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Believers
Go to the "Main alterations" segment if anyone wants more info on the changes that angered them so much still after 400 years. Humans can be so ridiculous.
Mmm, stay in a forest for 40 years and come back out a New Urbanist. Typical.
Flying from my home in the Yukon to LAX is like landing in Mordor. The air is disgusting, the brown smudge, etc.
But building and maintaining are going to be hell because I know exactly zero about those.
A more realistic option is to just buy a chalet in a relatively remote area so I have access to some sort of plumbing system. But then again it's tough to find a stable remote job and a good school for my kid. (Again money can probably solve both)
idgi, I kinda get the drive for homesteading, but at the same time it's a luxury lifestyle choice. That said, they chose the hard way and build their own stuff from locally sourced wood, instead of buying a plot of land with a cabin already on it.
Personally I wouldn't mind retreating into the woods for a couple of weeks, but at the moment I like home comforts too.
https://youtu.be/fCcLhdLaxnM?si=fy4D20GyFenA4cqo
But it's a 100X easier to just buy the materials.
It's unfortunate that most of the easily inhabitable world is inhabited, so you have to go to desert or very cold places where the chance of survival is so low.
If there was real untamed wilderness in Southern California, he'd probably still be alive. Or he would have just push on to a harder survival experience...
Best of luck to Agafia.
For various reason, the Finnish version of wikipedia is more informative. https://fi-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Hakassit?_x_t...
And fwiw, the late Soviets tried to course correct regarding ethnic groups. My wife (half ethnic Komi, another Finnish group), was taught that language in school.
Don’t get me wrong, the Finish and Finnish ethnic groups (and many others) got a raw deal, but it’s no reason for the blanket Russophobia that we see on hn so often.
"Noko" was a clan and castle year 1000 in Western Finland.
Sure most major powers did horrible things in the past. But now? How many other major powers are launching bloody invasions of their neighbors?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United...
Thankfully we got to keep SWIFT and our McDonalds since those invasions were all totally justified...
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
2008 Classified Cable describing potential future
Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.
You've a victim of Western propaganda. Can't you see that?
Now you consume Russian propaganda and all is well.
How do u know u haven't been duped by Western propoganda.
Tell us more about what you've been hearing, please.
Especially as regards this topic.
Why would they have the right to intervene? Ukraine is an independent country.
> a decision Russia does not want to have to face.
I'm sure that Russia conquered Crimea against their hearts wish lol.
The Girkin article basically says he started the war in eastern Ukraine as an imperialist who thought eastern Ukraine should be part of Russia. I see no mention western warmongers in that. If you can fault the west it seems to me that they caused the war more by forcing Ukraine to give up its nukes in return for promises to defend it from Russian invasion and then not bothering to do so.
>The Budapest Memorandum consists of a series of political assurances whereby the signatory states commit to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”. But the meaning of the security assurances was deliberately left ambiguous. According to a former US diplomat who participated in the talks, Steven Pifer, it was understood that if there was a violation, there would be a response incumbent on the US and the UK. And while that response was not explicitly defined, Pifer notes that: “there is an obligation on the United States that flows from the Budapest Memorandum to provide assistance to Ukraine, and […] that would include lethal military assistance”.
Iraq invasion? Syria ongoing occupation? WMDs? Assisting Israel's War in Gaza? Come on. Please stop this Western bias nonsense.
And the Ukraine Conflict didnt start in Feb 2022.
Russia did so too.
> WMDs?
Russia has those.
> Assisting Israel's War in Gaza?
Russia is assisting Hamas and Houthis.
> And the Ukraine Conflict didnt start in Feb 2022.
No, it did in 2014 when ... surprise, surprise, Russia invaded Crimea, a part of Ukraine.
Crimea is Russian. The people who live there are Russian and were glad to be part of Russia.
Surely you know the history of Ukraine?
Do you know why Zhelensky was elected leader of Ukraine in the first place and what happened afterward?
It belongs to all of its pre-war citizens equally.
Its sovereignty is Ukrainian.
> Russia did so too
Didn’t Russia was indeed invited while others partygoer wasn’t? I’m more into <div> than politics but I do listen western news and it’s also my understanding of the events, even if bitter (INHM)
> On 30 September 2015, Russia launched a military intervention in Syria after a request by the government of Bashar al-Assad for military support in its fight against the Syrian opposition and Islamic State (IS) in the Syrian civil war.
I know it’s Wikipedia 0. The two sources Al Jazeera 1 and Los Angeles Times 2 seems to confirm it.
0 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_intervention_in_the_...
1 http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/09/russian-carries-air-st...
2 https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-kremlin-oks-troop...
128 actually.
The 700-1000 numbers are disinformation, but people like to copy-paste them around endlessly, anyway.
But if one prefers to carry on with an image, or a number in their mind that differs greatly from the physical reality on the ground -- that's their own lookout.
But I'm curious to know if it's even older and was perhaps used as some kind of powertalk during Soviet times when a new area was being subjugated. "You just don't want us here because you're scared of us".
That's quite recent, and the lead-in's focus on Putin "hysteria" is suspicious. The whole meme just feels an awful lot like the "American" neofascists' persecution complex, and that book seems right in line.
Most certainly there is anti-Russia bias in the West that waxes and wanes - like during that entire Cold War. But extrapolating this general difference of perspective to some narrative that it's all unjust "phobia" is just disingenuous.
We definitely aren't going to agree on this, nor is there any reason we should.
Because every data point is worth taking a look at and considering.
Anyway, my original question was asking about the history of the term itself. Your best argument has been a book from 2016, so I guess the answer must be "no" - this term "Russophobia" is a recent creation, and seemingly just part of the propaganda campaign from the current military aggression.
In regard to the topic -- of course negative sentiment has existed against Russia, as it has against the US, the UK, France, Spain, Germany and and other other major colonial powers at various times. And of course politicians will always say and do stupid things, especially if we go back to the 19th century.
Where the material you are advocating itself crosses into the realm of propaganda is precisely: (1) the attempt to promote "russophobia" as an actual thing, that is, as universally accepted and recognized concept (it is not by any stretch); and (2) the suggestion that negative sentiment in regard to any version of the Russian state and its actions in the world is basically just an instance of irrational "fear", essentially a form of xenophobia, or racially driven fear; and (3) the implication that this imagined "russophobia" is in fact the tail wagging the dog of relations between Russia and other countries today, and is what's really driving people's perceptions about its current regime and what it is doing to its neighbors on the ground, right now.
Points (1)-(3) are all pure nonsense of course, yet they are the very heart of the modern "russophobia" accusation. All that stuff about what happened in the 19th century or what JSM said is just sugarcoating to get you to swallow and internalize these 3 basic messages. And then get on the internet and tell everyone about this neat little book you found, and how they really ought to read it because you know, it just might change their worldview.
Now, I am not saying that a massacre didn't happen. But it also didn't happen they way you are implying. This wasn't "the Communists oppressed poor tribesmen" but rather "imperialistic 18th century power steamrolls some natives". I can name a few more imperialistic powers of the period that did the same or worse.
Also, the Hakassi culture is descended from Mongols, not Finns. Why are they more Finnish than Russian? That's right, because they are not. In fact, Hakassia is nowhere near Finland (it's in the middle of Siberia), but linking to the Finnish Wikipedia makes it seem like another little European country attacked by the Ogre Horde.
Lastly, you say that tiny Finnish stub article has more details than the Russian Wikipedia, and that is simply not true. In addition to the main article, there is a link from it specifically to a standalone article about Hakassia's inclusion into Russia, which is described as "painful": https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%.... The events are covered in great detail starting with the 1600s.
Does this explain why your comment is mostly Russophobia?
How did they light fire, and what vessels did they use to boil water?
I ask this after years of adventure is the Yukon wilderness, where we play the game “if the canoe flipped and we lost everything, could we survive?”. Often the answer is “not unless we luckily rescue our rifles or lighters or gps beacon. Maybe we could walk out in a month. Maybe.
What did you boil water in?
Just eat with your fingers?
Like I said, we often gave ourselves 50/50 of surviving - either build some kind of cabin and stay the winter (need rifle and axe minimum) or walk out.
They had a couple iron pots that eventually rusted after years. Then they made some new ones with wood but that wasn’t convenient because wood burn. Then at year+40 geologists came and bring later (soon?) new one. And grain, blanquet, shirts.
I recommend Vice article, it’s more detailed and respectful in my opinion.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcHbZZPce_ZMUuYr5u6sx...
sad ending of the real life guy. this article - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dersu_Uzala - says he was murdered, maybe for the new rifle that Arsenyev gave him as a parting gift when Dersu realized he could not live in the city and decided to returned to the woods.
It's almost the "which one, first or second?" joke but IRL
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uXdtafGdIVM&pp=ygUWbm9ybSBtYWN...
I'd have to imagine the intersection of Pennsylvania Dutch speakers and internet-active wikipedia-editing people must be small, but it's obviously not nonexistent!
https://pdc.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsilfaanisch_Deitsch
> S'menscht vun die Schwetzer sinn heit Amische un Fuhremennischte, wu Deitsch aa heit noch schwetze zu ihre Kinner, awwer's hot aa en latt Luthrische un Reformierte un Leit vun en Wisch annre Gmeeschafte, wu die Mudderschprooch noch gschwetzt henn, dieweil ass sie Kinner waare.
> According to Google Trends, searches for "Did Joe Biden drop out" started spiking around 6 a.m. on election day and continued to rise over the course of the day until reaching its peak at midnight.
Glad they lived what they wanted
I mean, they were discovered before the Digital Age and missed only The Beatles and TV.
Have a great day
Second, they didn’t live the life they wanted. They were refugees fighting for their survival in a very harsh environment. It‘s ethically questionable to say that they have chosen this life over TikTok.
And I'm not even sure they truly wanted to live that way. I'm no psychologist, but it reads like they were severely traumatized by their religious zeal. While I respect their agency, I suspect their behavior was much less voluntary than they believed.
I don't know how I should feel about it, but I'm not glad they had to suffer, even if it was voluntary (or "voluntary"). It's so fucked up. The only thing I'm sure is that [unregulated] religion can sometimes be such a memetic cancer.
It's somewhat comparable to those modern-day homeless that are scraping by on the streets but refuse to do anything about it. (I don't really know what to make of those people either.)
You seem to have missed the part where they were fleeing the bolsheviks
> It's somewhat comparable to those modern-day homeless that are scraping by on the streets but refuse to do anything about it.
You're missing some things there too
I have not. A lot of people fled from oppressive governments (myself included), but those people intentionally picked a deliberately self-harming way. And kept to it even after they certainly knew it's harming them.
I think attributing self-harm to religious zeal as the primary cause is pretty obvious here.
> You're missing some things there too
Like what?
Acting against of one's own best long-term interests because of inability to get through the short-term problems (be it religion abuse or substance abuse) is common in both situations. There are certainly myriad of differences, of course - I would not argue that the comparison is quite a stretch.
(Disclaimer: this comment is not about religion, rather the focus must be put on zealotry. A non-religious belief cranked up to 11 could be equally harmful.)
Acting against one's best interests is based on judgment and is fundamentally subjective. You are making dubious judgments without much apparent self-reflection and missing key things (and many things you and I cannot know).
Let's flip it around. You seem to be taking an "establishment" view of the world. You seem to have done well within it (I assume, you have Dr. in your name and they are very much part of the elite in western society, even if they are not the pinnacle of wealth). You don't understand why other people like this family (or "modern-day homeless") would reject what you take to be the way of world and not "act in their best interests".
But what if someone recognized that our society is polluting the world and decided to no longer participate (either by fleeing, or by just dropping out and living on the streets). They are no longer producing or consuming the garbage that is polluting the planet. They could claim, as validly (and perhaps more so), that you are not acting in your best interests by continuing to participate in this destructive system.
We can imagine (and even find in reality) thousands of similar arguments.
I think it is good that you voiced your concerns, but I also think it would be best if you reflected on them and reconsidered your beliefs and become more skeptical and philosophical about your own judgment.
>>> The only thing I'm sure is that [unregulated] religion can sometimes be such a memetic cancer > A lot of people fled from oppressive governments (myself included) > I think attributing self-harm to religious zeal as the primary cause is pretty obvious here. > the focus must be put on zealotry. A non-religious belief cranked up to 11 could be equally harmful
It sounds like you may have left Iran (or other religiously affiliated oppressive regime). If that is the case, I understand how that regime would loom large in your thoughts about religion, power dynamics, suffering, etc, but be careful not to project it into places where it can obscure other considerations.
Regardless, you included "modern-day homeless" in your comments, and I doubt you would say that they are driven by religious zeal.
For the folks who fled to the woods, they were shot at by the Bolsheviks, which you were probably not shot at- so you can't assume your experience relates to them (and the Bolsehviks murdered millions of people during and after the time they fled, which is probably very different from when you fled). Not all people who fled the Bolsheviks went into the woods (my grandfather went west eventually to America), but these people had already been leaving on the periphery of the forests, so retreating into it probably made sense to them because they already knew how to live in it (they would have probably been as bewildered trying to live in the west as my grandfather would have been trying to live in the forest). Likewise with homeless people in America- they live on the streets in the culture they know how to live. They don't retreat into the forest probably because they don't know how to survive there, and similarly probably do not know how to work as a fast food cashier, office worker, or lawyer when they have no money or housing (and all the other prerequisites for participating in the economy). My hunch is that you are blaming them for their condition when this is much better seen as a cultural, social and economic failure rather than a personal one. If entering into the economic trap of poverty is a possibility in our society, we should at least educate people how to survive- at least if we're not going to take the time to fix the obvious failings in our economy
I.e., don't blame this on religious zealotry or personal failings- those traits seem largely circumstantial, in the absence of a caring and equitable society
Salt