How majority of Russians see the role of Russia today?

[Balamut]

PS. "pathological"? I can say about you just the same. At least, I'm not so self-confident to say it about whole nation, because we have here an example of normal Pole - Zbyszek.

[Dan26]

Originally posted by Balamut
Best way: Annexation of Latvia by Russia. We are waiting Zirinovsky on tank for hell knows how long.

LOL!!!

[Dan26]

Originally posted by MichaelB_PL

I understood that the question was asked about the general attitude toward other nations in Poland so I answered. BTW in most countries there are 'classifications'about other nations, don't you think?
Is it something wrong to tell what are the ones in my country?

So you deny the existence of national cultures? Interesting.

Probably become peace-oriented,democratic and progressive. Generally it's the kind of thing a WISE nation will do for itself not for anybody's opinion.


BTW I do not understand the visible sarcasm when you write "higher-cilivilised" - if you put sarcasm there,then the only thing I can suggest to you is to study both history and present state of Poland and Russia,then the sarcasm will quickly disappear, I assure you.

PS. To make it clear: I do not consider my own nation to be an example of something special or some super-nation or something. I consider my nation to be an average and normal normal nation.
"Higher civilised" means "average/normal vs pathological" in this case.
Michael [/b]

This word fight will continue forever, I'l stop. I'll just tell you that there common classification in russia also about some peoples but it's more like a folklore and has no relationship with countries. (and it's not gonna change like it's changed about ukraine in poland) It's well known about jews - in many countries it means the same thing (france, arabic countries as far as I know), but it doesn't really have any relationship to israel. For many russians kyrgyz means some uneducated horserider who lives in mountains etc., and this `classification` might be somewhat correct - a lot of population (which is small) live in mountain regions and traditionally have horses etc. As to the russia - it's too big to stick a small lable "barbarians" for them.

[Alex_Ivanov]

Originally posted by Balamut
we have here an example of normal Pole - Zbyszek.

Yeah, poor Zbyszek. Probably it's hard to live with michaels, prawdas and jeremis around and see how they ruin your efforts to have friendly relations with neighbours.

[MichaelB_PL]

Originally posted by Dan26

This word fight will continue forever, I'l stop. I'll just tell you that there common classification in russia also about some peoples but it's more like a folklore and has no relationship with countries. (and it's not gonna change like it's changed about ukraine in poland) It's well known about jews - in many countries it means the same thing (france, arabic countries as far as I know), but it doesn't really have any relationship to israel. For many russians kyrgyz means some uneducated horserider who lives in mountains etc., and this `classification` might be somewhat correct - a lot of population (which is small) live in mountain regions and traditionally have horses etc. As to the russia - it's too big to stick a small lable "barbarians" for them.

Dan, as every country, Russia has it's national culture and traditions.
I did't want to say that as individuals Russians are barbarian, I wanted to say that overall as a nation/country, Russia was and is less developed and less civilised (ergo: "primitive") than it's western neighbours.(Poland,Lithuania,Germany,Czech Republic)

What's the EXACT problem of people here with me writing that?


Michael

[Balamut]

How do you measure it?

We oppresed some countries in different time periods. You
(you here as representative of the "more civilised" nations) opressed others as well. We liberated some countries. How many countries did you or other "more civilized" countries liberated? I'm not talking here about russian contribution to world culture, we'll leave it for the next posts.

Waiting for your definition.

[Alex_Ivanov]

more civilised/less civilised... Considering themselves "more civilised" (or just "civilised" as opposed to other barbarians) is characteristic feature of the West (to which Poland belongs, despite of being Slavic).

Westerners called destroyed civilisations of Central America "primitive", though they were more advanced than West, they called Eastern Slavs "primitive" (you think Michael is first to invent it? Nah, it started back in 1000s. They called China and India "primitive", they call everybody who differs from them "primitive".

Why? They firmly believe that only their way of development is valid, and their customs, morality, intitutions are considered "top of the hill". From such point of view, every other civilisation hasn't developped same culture yet. Thus, others are "primitives".

Here westerners do their main mistake, obvious to every non-westerner. Others have other paths that do not repeat western path, but lead in completely diferent directions. Others have other development "tops".

Westerners do not admit equality of cultures and variety of development routes. I call it "cultural intolerance", another characteristic feature of the West.

From the above I have to make one more inportant conclusion. It's pointless to argue with westerner, because he doesn't take reasons of "primitives" serioulsly. He is the hub of the universe.

P.S. Sorry for generalisation.