Many multinational communities, states and empires are known in history. They included various peoples and there were some - decades, and others - centuries. However, they all had a lot in common.
The most important characteristic of any multinational formation is national oppression, relations of domination and subordination. And in Russia, in turn, there was also a similar system of relations.
For example, the reason Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905 there was a conflict "for the right" to plunder Manchuria and Korea.
Russian conquest Central Asia V mid-nineteenth V. similar to the conquest of India by England, the "pacification" of the Caucasus by Yermolov is similar to the "pacification" of Algeria by the French. Yermak defeated the Siberian Khanate. Yerofey Khabarov ruined peaceful settlements along the banks of the Amur. Atlasov was killed by his own Cossacks for cruelty in the treatment of Kamchadals during the conquest of Kamchatka.
The originality of Russia lies elsewhere.
Multinational Russia owes its emergence not so much to conquests as to peaceful peasant colonization and the voluntary incorporation of non-Russian peoples into it. Conquests were always and everywhere. Britain was conquered by the Angles and Saxons, Germany was conquered by the Normans, Gaul by the Franks.
The consequence of this was the extermination of the vanquished: the Anglo-Saxons completely exterminated the Britons, the Germans completely destroyed the Prussians. Sometimes the extermination was limited to the tribal aristocracy.
In both cases, the master people puts caste barriers between themselves and the conquered people (for example, the relationship between Europeans and natives).
In the process of their settlement, the Slavs do not have relations of domination and subordination, because the lands that make up the main subject of exploitation of the Slavs are rarely inhabited and do not represent value in the eyes of, for example, Finns - hunters and fishermen.
The process of assimilation gradually develops.
The well-known Russian historian O.F. Platonov wrote in his article “The Past of the Russian North”: Orthodox faith. Karel and Lapp, accepting Christianity, together with new faith and the Russian name took on the whole appearance of a Russian person, a “peasant”, folding into graveyards around churches or chapels, and starting to live the Russian custom to such an extent that, according to old letters, it is not possible to distinguish a native Novgorodian from a new-baptized heterodox.
A similar process took place beyond the Urals. In one of historical research 19th century It was said: “Marriages of Russians with foreigners were made in multitude. The result was a wide and widespread mixture of Russians with all kinds of foreign tribes - entire volosts are inhabited, as it were, by a new kind of Russian tribe, whose representatives speak a somewhat corrupted Russian language.
However, the peaceful nature of peasant colonization was often also associated with wars.
For example:
- - the attack "on the steppe" was carried out by the Cossacks, i.e. armed Russian and Ukrainian peasants;
- - the capture of Kazan (1552) by the troops of Ivan the Terrible, i.e. colonization could be peaceful, semi-peaceful and non-peaceful.
But there was a fundamental difference from Western European monarchies. Russian peasantry never became master.
West. Settlement by German peasants of the lands of the Teutonic Order in the Baltic States. English colonization of Ireland. French colonization of Algeria. Relations of domination and submission.
Russia. The Russian peasantry organically grows into a foreign environment. There is no people-master complex.
Really voluntary entry into Russia of a number of peoples. For example, in 1658 the ruler of Kakheti, Teimuraz I, asked Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich to include his kingdom in Russia. The reason is the terror of the Iranian Shah. For Moscow itself it was hard times, but, nevertheless, they helped Kakheti: they gave weapons and money.
In 1453 Constantinople fell. Russia takes over historical role patroness of peoples of the same faith - provides assistance to Bulgaria and Serbia.
Unification with Ukraine. Before Bohdan Khmelnytsky, Ukraine repeatedly asked Russia for help in the fight against Poland, but this meant war with Poland.
This issue has been discussed in two Zemsky Sobors(1651 and 1653) - for accepting Little Rus'"under the high hand of the sovereign of all Rus'."
In January 1654, the formal reunification of Ukraine with Russia takes place, but only at the end of the reign of Peter I, Ukraine becomes part of Russia on the terms of unconditional submission.
But there were also conquests, but they are also peculiar mainly in that there was no genocide at all. Such, for example, as the destruction of the Indians in the United States. There was a saying: "A good Indian is a dead Indian." Buying scalps was in vogue.
In his writings, Herzen wrote about the methods of Russian and American colonization: “Russia is expanding according to a different law than America: because it is not a colony, not an influx, not an invasion, but an original world, going in all directions, but firmly sitting on own land. The United States, like an avalanche torn from its mountain, cuts everything in front of it, every step they gain is a step lost by the Indians. Russia, like water, bypasses the tribes from all sides, then covers them with the monotonous ice of autocracy.
America. America in the 17th century - 2 million Indians. By the end of the XX century. - 200 thousand Indians. The scalp cost between £50 and £100, depending on who it was taken from, such as a male warrior or a child.
Russia. The growth of the yasak population. The royal decree of 1598 forbade the Russian authorities to take carts for messengers from the Tyumen Tatars, freed the poor, old, sick and crippled from yasak Tatars and votyaks.
Russia has never waged wars of extermination (an exception is the war with the Chechens in the first half of the 19th century).
The strength of a multinational power depends on how much national interests prevail over national interests. N.V. Gogol said: “I myself don’t know what kind of soul I have, Khokhlyatsky or Russian. I only know that I would in no way give an advantage to either a Little Russian over a Russian, or a Russian over a Little Russian. Both natures are too generously gifted by God, and as if on purpose, each separately contains what is not in the other - a clear sign that they should replenish one another.
However, there was also real national oppression, there was a policy of Russification. But the Russian people in this "prison of peoples" was not a jailer, but a prisoner.
Thus, the specifics of the process of formation of the Russian multinational state:
- - the absence of relations between the people-master and the people-slave;
- - peaceful nature of colonization;
- - active process of assimilation, "positive complementarity";
- - the absence of genocide and wars of annihilation.
Friendship is not always easy. It is usually quite difficult to find such friends that you can really rely on. And it's just as hard to have two great friends who don't get along. If you treat them both with due respect, try to show them that they have a lot in common, then you can help them build a relationship.
Steps
Part 1
Maintaining neutrality in a conflict of friends-
Ask yourself if your delusional friend can accept the truth. Some people just don't want to hear the truth no matter what. Assess your friend's character first to see if it's a good idea to try and tell him your real thoughts.
- Is your friend ready to accept criticism? Is he able to understand his wrong if he is given convincing arguments? Can he take responsibility for his actions when he is wrong? If your answers are yes, then telling a friend the truth is a good idea, which is very likely to make a positive difference in the situation.
- If, on the contrary, your friend, when giving him arguments about his short-sightedness, regularly goes on the defensive and begins to blame others, then your honest attempts to help him understand that he is mistaken will be in vain.
- In the case of a stubborn friend, try presenting him with a situation under different angles. If he doesn't realize that he is wrong the first time you explain it, he may need to explain it differently. Probably, at the first discussion of this topic, you will put your question indirectly: “Do you think that what you said to Sergey was good of you?” If your friend doesn't take the hint, be more open next time: “You were very rude to Sergey. He deserves an apology.”
-
Express your disapproval openly. Don't distort your point of view by insincerely agreeing with your friend because of his insistence on blaming the other person. Do not make any statements until you are sure who is to blame. And finally, don't use phrases like "With all due respect..." or "No offense, but...". Express your opinion directly and honestly in front of a friend, try to explain to him why he is wrong.
Focus on the behavior, not the personality of your friend. Remind your friend that no matter how badly he spoke, treated or insulted another of your friends, you know that he still stays a good man. Emphasize that your friend made a mistake, but he can and should correct it.
Please. Be gentle with your criticism. Don't call your friend names or raise your voice when explaining why you think they're wrong. Conversely, don't shut yourself off from your friend and don't give him a silent boycott. Explaining your point of view in a constructive way will prevent the situation from getting worse, and your friend may better understand the other side of the conflict when he hears your opinion.
Explain to both of your friends that you are friends with each of them. Even if your friends don't get along, that's no reason to end a relationship with any of them. Continue chatting with both friends as you did before. Their personal conflict should not affect you or your attitude towards them.
Emphasize that they should respect your decision. If friends ask you to accept one side of the conflict or insist on an explanation why you do not want to support one of them, stay firm. Remind them that you have the right to make your own decisions about relationships and don't tolerate pressure from anyone. Don't give in to threats and intimidation.
Listen to your friends. Let them speak. If you allow your friends to express their feelings, you can defuse the situation. Understanding that they have been heard and understood often helps friends overcome conflict or realize they are wrong.
Keep calm. Never fall into criticism. Even if your friend's caustic remarks annoy you, don't take it out on him. Increasing the number of conflicts will not allow you to improve relations between your two friends, because of this, everything can only get worse.
Do not agree to be an intermediary in the communication of friends. If one friend asks you to forward his message to another friend of yours, tell him that he must communicate with him directly. Instead of mediating, ask your friend to tell you more about what they want to tell the other friend and offer to help them decide. the best way say it in person.
Unless one of your friends is undeniably wrong, don't take sides. If the conflict is just personal animosity, you won't be able to resolve it if you take sides. If someone asks you for it, or tries to make you feel guilty about your inaction and thereby force you to take sides, just refuse. Say: "Guys, the whole conflict is between you. I'd rather be in Switzerland."
Stay vigilant to make it easier for you to maintain neutrality. Being alert will help you better understand your own thoughts and tendencies. Vigilance is a quality that allows its owner to maintain peace of mind and maintain a peaceful attitude, especially when making difficult decisions or resolving stressful situations. By being vigilant, you will better understand your attitude towards the conflict between friends who cannot stand each other. This can help you remain objective and neutral. Yoga, tai chi, or meditation can help you stay alert.
Part 2
Support in the conflict of that friend who is clearly rightAudrey Hepburn and the famous fashion designer met for the first time before filming Sabrina. Audrey came to Hubert's atelier to pick up costumes for Sabrina.
This meeting forever defined the style and image of Audrey Hepburn in cinema and in life.
De Givenchy - an aristocrat, a patrician with the appearance of a movie character, very energetic, and very close to Audrey in spirit - Hubert was completely alien to arrogance, mentoring, posturing.
When he was told that Miss Hepburn had come, he expected to see her famous namesake, Katharine Hepburn, and went out to meet her.
But he saw another woman - fragile, a little bewildered, with huge expressive eyes and, which struck the fashion designer, not at all made up.
On that day, Audrey was dressed in tight straight trousers, ballet flats, a short blouse and a hat with the inscription "Venice".
Givenchy invited her to choose from those that were ready. And Audrey chose a gray suit in which she returned from Paris.
She also bought a white dress embroidered with black silk - it was perfect for the ball scene, and black dress for a cocktail, and so on that day Audrey Hepburn left Givenchy's atelier with a full set of costumes for the film.
In addition to costumes that day, she acquired an invaluable and devoted friend represented by Hubert de Givenchy. Forty years of friendship bound them.
They both had a lot in common and the attitude to life was also the same. They were two truly kindred spirits.
In 1954, Hubert made a mannequin for Audrey Hepburn, which has never been changed in all the years.
The suits that Audrey bought from Hubert, she had to wear to take them to the US as personal items, so as not to pay taxes and duties on importing clothes.
The film "Sabrina" was nominated for an Oscar in several categories, but won an award in one of them - for the costumes. But how disappointed the fashion designer was when the statuette was handed not to him, but to the official costume designer of the film - Edith Head.
But Givenchy did not show his disappointment in any way - a few more years passed and he was still recognized. More important to him was the pleasure of dressing Miss Hepburn.
And once the fashion designer gave Audrey Hepburn a small box - in her honor, he created a new perfume. "This is impossible!" she exclaimed, and so these spirits began to be called.
Moreover, during the year these perfumes will belong only to her, and only a year later they will go on sale. So highly appreciated Givenchy their incredibly warm relationship.
Ahead was the triumph of "Breakfast at Tiffany's", which was greatly facilitated by the costumes of the famous designer. The images created by Audrey and Givenchy made her a real fashion icon, and time has confirmed their resistance to fashion trends and aging. 50 years have passed, and everything is modern and fresh.
Relationship Audrey Hepburn and fashion designer were free from any mercantile considerations. She never analyzed what and how much it cost, but husband Mel Ferrer was sure that Givenchy was using Audrey.
Secretly from his wife, through her agent, he demanded that Hubert pay for Audrey's services, and he agreed. For Audrey, this was a huge nervous shock. She broke off relations with an agent who had been managing her financial affairs for several years and, as Audrey said, disgraced her in front of Hubert.
Often ordinary people they do not understand how painful it is when mercantile calculations rudely intrude into pure, sublime relationships. But even such misunderstandings could not destroy the friendship between Audrey and Hubert. They constantly kept in touch, texting, calling back.
When Audrey Hepburn got married for the second time, she wore an outfit designed by her true friend. It was short pink dress collar, and a pink handkerchief.
Years passed, bringing old age and illness closer, but nothing could destroy this friendship based on the kinship of souls. Audrey was full of plans when a terrible disease came and cut off this wonderful life.
She had a few weeks to live, and she really wanted to return to Switzerland, to her home. But she would not have survived a normal flight by plane. Then Givenchy sent a private plane from France to the United States, which delivered Audrey, her sons and her beloved dogs to Switzerland.
Audrey no longer ate and hardly left the bed. But, as she said, it was best christmas in her life - she was surrounded by the closest and Dear people. Among them was Hubert de Givenchy.
Everyone exchanged gifts. For Hubert, Audrey also had a gift - a blue coat. "Take this blue coat, Hubert, Blue colour suits you,” she said, and kissing the gift, handed it to her friend.
In the evening, Givenchy flew to Paris, not ceasing to cry and not letting go of Audrey Hepburn's gift, as if it were herself.
