"Unfortunately, up to now in the middle of not only the inveterate liberals, and many ordinary people there is a conventional wisdom about our world is not enough" European. "Implies that we — the boondocks of Europe, wild and unenlightened, which have to surrender to education" the civilized world. "It's obsessive zeal to squeeze" in Europe ", even with complete loss of identity, based on the belief that there is only one civilization — European — and only the values — Europe — which, as the universal and universal.
This look is ready to accept Russia only to the extent that it is ready to dissolve in Europe, for Europe and for it all has a population of earth, and the rejection of "Europeanness" is equivalent to a denial of the status of the human race. This much wrote our excellent thinkers: NY Danilevsky, NS Troubetzkoy, PN Sawicki, etc. But in this article I want to focus on what Europe. Because I think we need to just get out of the wrong forever equating civilizational concept of "European" to the moral assessment of the "good and proper." The reason for this is often a geographical definition of Europe, stretching to the Urals. The mixing of these 3 levels leads to conceptual confusions and remembers literally walk in a 3-pines.
So after all is Europe?
In ancient Greece Europe initially called all known land to the west of the Aegean Sea, contrasting it with Asia, which lies to the east (and to date the peninsula, which is currently available in Turkey, called Asia Minor). Since the geographic zaniya initially were very limited, the Aegean Sea was seen as the boundary between the parts of the world: Asia, the sun was rising in Europe — was setting. Hence, the etymology of the word "Europe" — the country sunset. With the passage of time, when the earth had mastered the Black Sea basin, the border of Europe was "pushed" to the Don (Tanais on old maps). Why specifically to the Don? It's simple: the ancient Greeks then not leaked, and land to the east to lay their already abroad of the "civilized world." At the same time, and there was a belief by barbarians who live to the east of Europe. Barbarians called the foreign-language ethnic groups who speak unintelligible languages. (Until now, live in the Russian language similar words meaning incomprehensible speech: "coo" — when the lovers speak only the language they understand, "grumble" — mumble something unintelligible, "varnyakat" — non-literary rude word, meaningful unpleasant speech. )
It was later the word "barbarian" was a sign of savagery, ruthlessness, cruelty and vandalism. By the way, the word "vandal" and "barbarian" became synonymous specifically because vandals tribes perceived an active role in the ruin of the decomposed and no longer able to resist Rome (IV-V cent.). These actions are then strengthened the notion that the eastern tribes (the barbarian, by definition) are necessarily bad. Say, Europe has always Machala from the raids of Asian barbarians plundering "civilized Europeans." So, in the ancient border Europe was "pushed" to the Don, for the Greek settlements proliferated specifically to these limits.
But the ancient civilization went into oblivion, and later Western European, emerging around the IX century (at that converge naikrupneyshie thinkers: Spengler, Toynbee, L.Gumilev and others, well, Samuel Huntington wrote about it right), similar to the Russian land himself never considered. On the contrary, on the European side of Russia has always believed the threat of Poland, the Teutonic Order, Sweden, church expansion of the papacy through the Commonwealth. The threat specifically because it comes from quite alien to our civilization. While the Russian people easily penetrated farther to the east, discovering the original, but close to the cultural code of ethnic groups, almost always only peacefully poured into the Russian government, relations with Europe have always been a very intense character.
(About our millennial struggle against temptation Protz "European choice" I tried to lay out in his article "Millennium against the evil of the" European choice ").
Of course, the reason for this systemic confrontation — belonging to a very special Russian civilization, which is precisely call is still not Russian, and Eurasian (recalling its multi-ethnic structure) or the Russian-Eurasian (recognizing the Russian core). Anticipating the possible comments on the blurring of the concept of "Eurasian", I note that we are only talking about the "inner Eurasia" from the rest of Asia, bounded on the south chain of mountains — from the Caucasus through the Kopet Dag, Pamir, Tien Shan, Altai, Sayan, and on to the hills of Manchuria. This northern part of Eurasia during 1000 lety has detected a common destiny in their own quest for unity (Power Hun, Turk Empire, Tatar Empire, Russian Empire, the Soviet Union). For the time being, and we had no idea to call itself Europe, denying his extraordinary civilizational identity, and Europe — regard us as Europe, recognizing the alien in spirit and culture equal to themselves.
But everything changed Peter. Obsessed with the idea of making Russian Europeans, imitating them in all, Peter "suffered" a geographical border of Europe to the Urals, which from the beginning of XVIII century (from Tatishcheva) and now there is. And in all the textbooks and reference books and writing: the eastern border of Europe is held in the Ural mountains. We agree with this for some reason, delighting themselves with the idea that we also de Europa. But neuzh something someone seriously considers the Kalmyks, Chechens or Nogai Europeans? Of course not. You need to correctly understand Europe — is not so much a geographical as civilization. And deep down, we realize this is not a geographical concept spreading in Europe on our ethnic groups belonging to the Russian-Eurasian civilization. But then question gets an edge: where lies the boundary of Europe?
In my opinion, having exhausted the answer given by Samuel Huntington in his "Clash of Civilizations." Understanding the fundamental nature of the issue, he writes clearly and laconically: "The clearest answer against which the objection is hard to do, give us a line of majestic historic section that exists throughout the ages, the line separating Western Christian nations of the Muslim and Orthodox peoples. This line has caused division in the days of the Roman Empire in the fourth century and the creation of the Holy Roman Empire in the tenth. It was about the same place and at the moment, in 500 years. Beginning in the north, it runs along the current border of Russia and Finland and the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), on western Belarus, in Ukraine, separating the Uniate west from the Orthodox East, through Romania, between Transylvania, Hungary's population, Catholics, and the rest of the country, then the former Yugoslavia, the border separating Slovenia and Croatia from the other republics. In the Balkans this line coincides with the historic bo
undary between the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires. This — the cultural border Europe … Europe ends where Western Christianity ends and Islam and Orthodoxy begin. "
In fact so says virtually every European, Russian people are not recognizing the same for themselves. Let us ask ourselves the question: what-we nibudt of losing? The most unusual is completely nothing! We have to realize the strangeness of our European civilization and return to the home for themselves, ie to their own culture, rather than trying to become the poor relations in this "common European home" (and hunt to say — the public, taking into account the depravity in which degenerated Europe). Enough to entertain the "universal" illusions and fall into sin of self-abasement, by securing an advantage for moral civilization concept of "Europe". Russian civilization was, is and will be good from the west. But this is our homeland, and we must keep him faithful.
It's time to cure the disease of Eurocentrism! "