ChatterBank2 mins ago
Back To The Ussr
24 Answers
a comment from Naomi on a thread reminded me of an interview I saw this morning on the beeb.
Steve Rosenberg had been tootling about Russia to find out about the 'glorious revolution' 100 years ago (was on The Briefing - between 5 am and 6 am) and he ended up in a town on the far east of Russia, where he spoke to a 100 year old man who would still lay his life down for the Motherland, which to him was still the USSR.
A proud patriot, yes, times move on tho.
I guess my question is, not so much about communism, but why on earth do some folk never waiver from their political beliefs even against surmounting evidence that times have changed?
(I think this should be in a different category, apologies)
Steve Rosenberg had been tootling about Russia to find out about the 'glorious revolution' 100 years ago (was on The Briefing - between 5 am and 6 am) and he ended up in a town on the far east of Russia, where he spoke to a 100 year old man who would still lay his life down for the Motherland, which to him was still the USSR.
A proud patriot, yes, times move on tho.
I guess my question is, not so much about communism, but why on earth do some folk never waiver from their political beliefs even against surmounting evidence that times have changed?
(I think this should be in a different category, apologies)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by albaqwerty. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Perhaps the chap in question saw no evidence that times have changed. For him, things are probably no better and quite possibly worse than in the days of the USSR.
Officially the October/November revolution is not being talked about much in Russia, and the February/March one - which removed the now "beloved" Tsar even less so.
Officially the October/November revolution is not being talked about much in Russia, and the February/March one - which removed the now "beloved" Tsar even less so.
-- answer removed --
Alba...I am going straight into the lions den here, and have a go at answering your question. It won't be popular with everybody, of course !
I would never vote Tory, living where I do here in South Wales. People say that times have changed, but the evidence of all those years of rule, by various English Tory Governor Generals, like John Redwood, is all around me. I am not prepared to believe that leopards can change their spots.
I would never vote Tory, living where I do here in South Wales. People say that times have changed, but the evidence of all those years of rule, by various English Tory Governor Generals, like John Redwood, is all around me. I am not prepared to believe that leopards can change their spots.
I spent a month in the USSR as a student in 1974. At the time it was in the grip of the leaden hand of Brezhnev. Everything was propaganda-driven. The thought that in less than 20 years the USSR would be no more was at the time inconceivable. It was Khrushchev who said that he who waits for the defeat of communism must wait till a shrimp learns to whistle. Yet suddenly all was gone. Cities reverted to their old names and communist propaganda ceased. The sheer suddenness of all this is ripe fodder for academic research.
I totally agree with you about Churchill !
Although he was just what we needed during WW2, as soon as the people had the opportunity to vote, in June 1945, he was rejected by such a large majority, that it wasn't seen again until 1997.
But that takes nothing away from his role in the War....he was bloody-minded and belligerent, and that was just what the Doctors ordered.
Although he was just what we needed during WW2, as soon as the people had the opportunity to vote, in June 1945, he was rejected by such a large majority, that it wasn't seen again until 1997.
But that takes nothing away from his role in the War....he was bloody-minded and belligerent, and that was just what the Doctors ordered.
I am not sure the question is a fair one:
it is never good to press on with one's outdated beliefs in the face of obvious evidence that those beliefs are outdated and no longer appropriate.
But surely the reason many people appear to do so is either because - possibly but we can't be sure in the case of the chap in Russia mentioned above - things are no better,
or else they genuinely believe. And you can't really argue against that. People believe all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, and sometimes they even turn out to be right.
it is never good to press on with one's outdated beliefs in the face of obvious evidence that those beliefs are outdated and no longer appropriate.
But surely the reason many people appear to do so is either because - possibly but we can't be sure in the case of the chap in Russia mentioned above - things are no better,
or else they genuinely believe. And you can't really argue against that. People believe all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, and sometimes they even turn out to be right.
Digressing slightly, but going back to the '45 election I thought there was a strange, if weak, parallel with 2017. In 1945 people said "thank you Mr Churchill but now we move on": in 2017 many voters said "thank you (or words to that effect) Mrs May, for Brexit, now we move on.
Of course Mrs May still won, but it did feel like a defeat. And actually, on a personal level, it was.
Of course Mrs May still won, but it did feel like a defeat. And actually, on a personal level, it was.
-- answer removed --
