Talk:Neo-Eurasianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Neo-Eurasianism is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| я | This article is about a person, place, or concept whose name is originally rendered in the Cyrillic alphabet; however the article does not have that version of its name in the article's lead paragraph. Anyone who is knowledgeable enough with the original language is invited to assist in adding the Cyrillic script. For more information, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic). |
hm, it doesn't strike me as self-evident that there is much of a connection between "Byzantism" and "Neo-Eurasianism" (why the "Neo-" btw?) -- Byzantism appears to be essentially Hellenism, Orthodox Christian values, while Neo-Eurasianism is rather less Christian, identifying with the Turkic and Mongolian tribes of Central Asia. That's just what I gather from the surface and from google; I haven't read any of these gentlemen's works. 81.63.61.110 23:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
- The connection is that both deny that Russia is a part of Western (aka European) civilization. Thus, such things as democracy, secularism, public political life, freedom of press, free market economy etc. are assumed to be foreign and harmful for Russia. For many of these gentlemen the conclusion is more important than the base (whatever it is because of the assumed Byzantium influence or because of the influence of Tartars and China. abakharev 01:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- huh? you realize, of course, that Byzantium/Hellenism is the very core and nucleus of European civilization? By identifying with Byzantium, they are actually saying "we are more European than any of yous". 09:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- It is difficult to defend the POV I don't share, but they mostly refer to the later Byzantine Empire of 12-15th centuries. It was reasonably different from the core Western European civilization of that time. It had different religion - the Orthodox Christianity, that crusaders consider not lesser the enemy than Islam, it had no semi-independence of knights and barons -just an absolute power of the Emperor and the Church,it had lesser interest to the trade and science, and probably stronger interest to the theology and the martyrdom, etc. Some people claim Russia to be the third Rome (with the first Rome killed by the barbarians, the second Rome (Constantinople) killed by the crusaders and Islam, with the Moscow, the only surving major capital of the Eastern Orthodoxy that they believe is the only legal heir of the Church of jesus Christ. Then they claim the modern Western Europe to be the spiritual ancestors of the barabarians who destroyed the first Rome, etc. It would be better if a proponent of this views will argue them, I can make a straw man out of their argumentsabakharev 10:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- come now, I know the crusaders sacked Constantinople, but that was because they were an undisciplined rabble, not because they had an ideological axe to grind. The great schism only occurred in the 11th century, before that, there was no "Eastern Church" as distinct from a "Western Church" (of course there were cultural differences before that). 'Byzantinism' still strikes me as rather different from identifying with Turkic (Byzantium's arch enemies!) and Mongolian tribes, so I think I'll try to clarify the positions a little bit. I admit that insomuch as the main point is 'rejection of the West', the ideologies are similar. But they appear to have positive agenda that are in themselves rather irreconcileable. dab (ᛏ) 18:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- It is difficult to defend the POV I don't share, but they mostly refer to the later Byzantine Empire of 12-15th centuries. It was reasonably different from the core Western European civilization of that time. It had different religion - the Orthodox Christianity, that crusaders consider not lesser the enemy than Islam, it had no semi-independence of knights and barons -just an absolute power of the Emperor and the Church,it had lesser interest to the trade and science, and probably stronger interest to the theology and the martyrdom, etc. Some people claim Russia to be the third Rome (with the first Rome killed by the barbarians, the second Rome (Constantinople) killed by the crusaders and Islam, with the Moscow, the only surving major capital of the Eastern Orthodoxy that they believe is the only legal heir of the Church of jesus Christ. Then they claim the modern Western Europe to be the spiritual ancestors of the barabarians who destroyed the first Rome, etc. It would be better if a proponent of this views will argue them, I can make a straw man out of their argumentsabakharev 10:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- huh? you realize, of course, that Byzantium/Hellenism is the very core and nucleus of European civilization? By identifying with Byzantium, they are actually saying "we are more European than any of yous". 09:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Should we add a reference to Alexander S. Panarin?
I have considered the late Alexander S Panarian to be a Neo-Eurasianist (see his book Politologia: uchebnoe posobie. Moscow, Gardariki, 2002; also Pravoslavniaia Tsivilizatsia v Global'nom Mire, Moscow, Algoritm, 2002). While, as the latter title suggests, he refers to Orthodox Civilization, he sees it aligned with Islam and especially Hindu civilization on the Eurasian continent, and opposes it to the "pirate" Atlantist civilization; futhermore, he is fiercely critical of Huntingdon's taxonomy of civilizations.
