EDITORIAL
Russia and Racism
After Russia’s pathetic, truly stunning loss to Canada in the quarterfinals of the Olympic men’s hockey tournament, NBC sportscaster Mike Millbury commented:
I was shocked that it was this one-sided. And I was really disappointed that these guys came with their euro-trash game. It was just. No heart, no guts, no nothing there to back it up. I mean Alex Ovechkin was an average player tonight. I know they’re going to bounce back, but to be that poor and to be that intimidated physically by the Canadians, that really shocked me.
Wikipedia then immediately added the following to Millbury’s entry: “He was employed by NBC to serve as a hockey analyst during the 2010 Winter Olympic Games, during which he caused some controversy by referring to the Russian team as the racist phrase ‘Euro-Trash’.”
Oops. Wikipedia itself defines the term “eurotrash” and it pertains only to class, not race, according to Wiki. Millbury was merely saying that the Russians played like spoiled rich kids, soft, weak and craven. The reference to racism had to be deleted from the Wiki page. Apparently, the fellow who wrote the Wiki entry on Millbury wasn’t a big Wiki reader himself. Too bad. Could it have been some Russophile nationalist who rushed to smear Millbury for his tough (and accurate) criticism of Russian’s play? Possible, very possible.
We grow very tired of hearing Russophile propagandists label criticism of Russia “racist.” The status of “Russian” is not a race status, it’s a nationality status. True, if you pay attention to the Russian language then you know Russians themselves have two different words for “Russian,” one that means “Slavic” and one that means “citizen of the Russian Federation,” and that they use the former to imply the latter but not vice versa. Russia itself, of course, is a very racist country. But the outside world, when it speaks about “Russians,” is referring to nationality, not race, and it’s simply pathetic that desperate Russophiles can find no other way to deflect blame from the Putin regime than to attempt to smear its critics as racist.
A recent article from the slime-covered pages of Pravda is a good encapsulation of Russia’s crazed frenzy over race. In a truly insane diatribe, one of the craziest and most embarrassingly unhinged pieces of pro-Putin propaganda we’ve ever seen, the author attempts to argue that because the number of racist murders in Russia is smaller than the number of racist incidents in the USA, Russia has no problem with racism. Oh and, for good measure, he doesn’t tell his readers he’s comparing apples and oranges. He simply lies and says the Russian murder rate is the incident rate.
Hearing Slavic Russian complaining about being victimized by racism even as they carry out ritualistic killings of dark-skinned people across Russia is truly appalling. It’s a perfect exemplification of the failed Russian state, blind to reality, hurtling headlong into the abyss of neo-Soviet failure.
La Russophobe 
I’m afraid the term Euro-trash is not accurate.
Anyone who has ever been to Russia knows that they have nothing in common with European Culture.
Asian-Trash might be more spot on.
“Trash” sounds for me as something much more related to US, the world champion of trash culture. An average American is not more civilized than their former president who couldn’t pronounce “nuclear”. And it is clear why Millbury uses “Euro-trash”. Well, he knows that Russia is somewhere oversea, but he wrongly guessed that it is somewhere in the West Europe.
True, it was very ignorant of Millbury to assume that Russia has anything to do with Europe.
Gregor,
Does your comment mean to imply that the average Russian is “civilised”?
Wow!
Let me put it this way: I have flown both to Russia and the USA several times and never have I tripped on the collapsed body a drunken police officer on the streets of NY as I have in the streets of Moscow.
The US are our younger cousins and sometimes they misbehave. They’ll learn in time.
But, as a European, I find it deeply insulting to be compared to that primitive and savage steppe tribe which has deliberately wasted every single opportunity it has been given to become a civilised nation.
Thank you for your complimentary remarks, but many Americans on this board would resent your patronizing attitude. I sure do.
We are nobody’s “younger cousins” and we have nothing to learn, “in time” or otherwise from Europeans. Maybe we did in 1776 but not anymore. Now it’s your turn to learn from us.
Next time you in Europe start waging bloody war on each other, remember who saved Europe twice in the 20th century.
I bet you are a Frenchman!
Ah, the colonials and their obsession to outgrow us.
No, I’m not French.
It was us, Britons who saved Europe twice (with a huge help from the Russians, it must be said, on WWII) and you colonials did little more than show up just in time for for the victory parade.
Books, that’s where you are supposed to learn your history. Not Hollywood films.
Well, we like Britons, we do share the language and more, so don’t be ridiculous. Yes, we colonials still remember 1776 and 1812. I am surprised you consider yourself a European; a lot of Englishmen I know make a clear distinction between themselves and the continentals.
It was unbelievable how you troops ran from Dunquirque. Read some books yourself. I especially recommend Mr. Churchill’s magnum opus “World War II.” Read his vivid description concerning the food we sent and equipment we sent, and troops we sent. Who do you think invaded the Normandy beaches? Yes, there were some Brits there, but mostly us and Canadians.
Yeah, it was unbelievable how our troops, vastly underequipped and outnumbered staged a fantastic and heroic strategic retreat that saved the Free World.
But I am sure you are familiar with “strategic retreats”, as your troops pulled off a rather large one at the Ardennes… only ours did not involve throwing our guns to the ground, yelling for your mummies or surrendering to forces half our size.
Now, to answer your question “Who do you think invaded the Normandy beaches?”
Here’s your answer:
73,000 American Soldiers
61,715 British Soldiers
24,100 French, Polish & Canadian Soldiers
Facts… they always get in the way of silly jingoists… be them American or Rooshan.
Dunqurque was no strategic retreat, it was just a panic flight, a stampede. Again, read Mr. Churchill. And look at your own numbers. I think 73,000 is a number that is substantially larger than 61,175, to say nothing that the Americans were on the most important and best defended beaches.
Well, I’d say let bygones be bygones; we are friends after all, let’s instead remember who our enemies are
Well actually RV, the British beaches were just as heavily defended than the US beaches, but the British used special weapons such as the “Funnies” to break through the defences with far lower casualties than the US troops. The US tank commanders (never noted for any great ability in WW2) considered the Funnies to be “Unsoldierly”.
In addition, the Germans considered the Commonwealth forces to be a far greater threat than the US forces, of the 10 German armoured divisions in Normandy, only 1 was facing the US, the other 9 were facing the British and Canadians at Caen.
The reason for the success of “Cobra” was the fact that the British had tied down the overwhelming majority of German forces in Normandy, and ground them down severely.
The retreat to Dunkirk was caused by the complete collapse of the French and Belgian armies, and even while retreating the British were able to give the Germans several very bloody noses, the battle of Arras springs to mind.
For panicked retreats see Kasserine pass in North Africa, where the entire US Army chucked and ran, and were saved by a single British Guards brigade….
But the thing is that Normandy was part of a “Grand Alliance” between the British Commonwealth and the USA, we were all on the same team.
I’m with Andrew here.
And the fact is that I have absolutely nothing against the US. If I refer to them as our “younger cousins” it is because, as a nation, they have been around for a few centuries less than us.
But I very much dislike jingoism. And it makes no sense to critices Russians for it and then come along with one’s very own, local brand of fanaticism.
Borders are imaginary, after all.
How many Allied troops were involved in D-Day?
On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.
11,590 aircraft were available to support the landings. On D-Day, Allied aircraft flew 14,674 sorties, and 127 were lost.
In the airborne landings on both flanks of the beaches, 2395 aircraft and 867 gliders of the RAF and USAAF were used on D-Day.
Operation Neptune involved huge naval forces, including 6939 vessels: 1213 naval combat ships, 4126 landing ships and landing craft, 736 ancillary craft and 864 merchant vessels. Some 195,700 personnel were assigned to Operation Neptune: 52,889 US, 112,824 British, and 4988 from other Allied countries.
By the end of 11 June (D + 5), 326,547 troops, 54,186 vehicles and 104,428 tons of supplies had been landed on the beaches.
As well as the troops who landed in Normandy on D-Day, and those in supporting roles at sea and in the air, millions more men and women in the Allied countries were involved in the preparations for D-Day. They played thousands of different roles, both in the armed forces and as civilians.
http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm
Britain, Canada and Australia all the way! However it was (and still is) useful to have the vast American industry behind your back…
Oh, and a side note on whether or not you could learn a thing or two from us even today:
We are currently conducting an inquiry to determine if the invasion of Iraq was a violation of international an UK laws. We have put both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in the stand and, eventually, both may be tried for war crimes.
Will your country ever have the courage and honesty to put Dubya and Cheney on the accused bench? I sure hope so.
Neither Bush nor Cheney can ever be tried for this; under our laws a president and vice president have absolute immunity from any prosecution, criminal or civil, for their policies. We have also had an inquiry, it was called “an election.” There is no other recourse
“world champion of trash culture”
Which everyone strives to emulate.
yes,the editorial hits the spot.quite apart from labelling anybody of a darker “hue” a truly untranslatable phrase,the vampire only recently banned christmas as a “foreign” tradition,and sometime in 2008-i think,i am not good with dates-banned all chinese traders on markets, in order to “clamp down on racism”.RIGHT, in order to eliminate racist attacks you ban “foreigners”-brings to mind the old adage about anti-semitism without jews. oh yes ,which reminds me-why exactly is mr. khodorkovsky in the gulag???because….he’s a jew,that’s why! a jew who made money,but that is circumstantial,me thinks. just wait for it(i don’t really want to, but i see not many volunteers at the moment,queing up to shoot the vampire),soon there will be a wholesale persecution again of jews in russia,except we won’t hear about it ,since our media is to busy bullshitting around. and no,it’s not really comparable to america,because in the usa-at least- you have some access to the courts;in russia most of the judges,police,press is owned and controlled by the socalled “government”, ie the vampire.it’s tragic,and it’s true and i hope more people will notice,but i am not hedging any bets.
yes,the article hits the spot. only a while ago the vampire banned christmas as a “foreign” tradition,and in 2008 (or thereabouts) banned chinese traders from working in markets,in order to clamp down on racism.RIGHT,so you ban “others” to prevent them from being attacked by braindead morons-brings to mind the phrase about anti-semitism without jews. which reminds me – why is mr. khodorkovsky in the gulag??? because he’s a jew,that’s why!!!and soon there will be a whole lot more of persecution of jews – except we won’t hear about it because our media is too biased too bother. makes me just want to …oh,and before someone relativises again- it is NOT the same in the usa, since there you have courts that are somewhat independent,whereas in russia the judges,police etc are all controlled by “the authorities” ie the vampire.so no comparison there,i’m afraid.
Negative class names may accurately define a group. Negative race names are no worse and may accurately define another group. In general, however, eurotrash is very poor form. Why not just accurately describe how they played???
[because the number of racist murders in Russia is smaller than the number of racist incidents in the USA, Russia has no problem with racism. ]
Of course Russia has a problem with racism. But you and I are Americans, we live in America. Since Russia has a problem with racism and the number of hate crimes in USA is larger per capita than in Russia, we must have a big problem here in USA. Shouldn’t you and I do something to fight racism in our own country?
Or are we trying to talk about racism in a foreign country like Russia in order to justify our support for racism in our own country, of USA?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Russia
From January 1 to July 31, 2007, Amnesty International registered 310 victims of neo-Nazi and racist crimes in Russia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crimes_in_the_United_States#Prevalence_of_hate_crimes
Victims per Year by Bias Motivation
2008
Race 4,934
Religion 1,732
Ethnicity/National Origin 1,226
Total 9,691
……..
I urge everybody to raise their voices against hate crimes in our countries: Americans about hate crimes in USA and Russians – about hate crimes in Russia, the French – about hate crimes in France etc. Together we can make a difference!
Artie, you’re either dumb or deliberately misleading. “Hate crimes” is a very broad term, it’s not the same thing as MURDERS. So don’t compare “hate crimes” with murders, compare racially-motivated MURDERS in the US to those in Russia (and have in mind that in Russia most racist attacks go unreported, since the police, judiciary and public opinion are generally sympathetic and supportive of neo-Nazi gangs).
You are not an American. We have established that long ago. Still, if you live in the United States, nobody forces you. Go to you beloved spiritual or actual motherhood of Russia and live there if you prefer their race relations. We just elected a black president. Come back when Russia has a Chechen, a Jew, or a Georgian for President.
You really are a moron
[Wikipedia itself defines the term “eurotrash” and it pertains only to class, not race, according to Wiki. Millbury was merely saying that the Russians played like spoiled rich kids, soft, weak and craven.]
Can we clarify the word usage here? For example, does the term “eurotrash” refer only to people born in Europe? What is the correct term to denote those Americans who are “European wannabees” and give themselves pretentious faux French names that start with “La” or “Le”, like “Le Xénophob” or “La Xénophobe”? Euro-trash-wannabee?
How can Russians be racists when EVERY one of them has a mongol blood. The four hundred years of Mongol domination was the happiest time in Russian history. While attacking the Cental Asian people they attack themselves.
Modern Mongolia is a democracy. And the Mongol Empire provided a system of communication and trade across the Eurasian continent unparalalled in its security and efficiency until the development of the telegraph and railroads and steam ships in the 19th century. The Mongols were well known for their religious tolerance too.
So not everything is white and black. You cannot blame only the Mongols for Russia’s backwardness. There are more reasons to it.
And besides, everybody has some Mongol blood. They were the must succesful warriors (and rapists) in history. They defeated armies from China and India to Poland, Hungary and Croatia. I’m a Croat, but when I look upon myself I wouldn’t exclude Asiatic influence completely (be it Hunnic, Avar, Magyar, Mongol or Turkish).
I said it once and I will say it again. Russia has a big problem with racism, and if she wants to have a steady flow of immigrants to increase available manpower she’ll have to start solving this problem immediately.
hroboatos,
Where is Mongolia now – Russis is heading the same direction.
You are implying that Russia is becoming a democracy, because Mongolia is one already. Also, Mongolia is on good terms with the United States, because it is wary of it’s autocratic neighbours Russia and China. That’s why it is not a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
It seems to me that you have mistaken Mongolia for Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan. Those two are going down the drain politically ( and in Uzbek’s case economically too), not Mongolia.
hroboatos is spot on, comparing Russia to Mongolia is unfair to the Mongolians. It’s also true that most Europeans have some Mongol blood, but I think what mcc was referring to is that Russians have mixed with Central Asian populations more than Europeans have (due to closer physical proximity and centuries of cohabitation). You can still notice today that a lot of Russians, even those with blonde hair and blue eyes, have Mongoloid features (for example, Boris Yeltsin or Anna Kournikova). Nothing wrong with that, genetic diversity is great, it just makes Russian racism particularly idiotic.
And speaking of Mongols, I’ve just seen the Kazakh epic “Mongol” which Robert recommended on another blog post. You can see that the director is Russian: the visuals are stunning (Russian directors excel at that), but the script was mediocre, and it seems to be symptomatic of that typical Russian obsession with the myth of the “ruthless but just” authoritatrian figure, and of an equally Russian casual attitude towards rape. I’m sure Putin watched the movie, and his hands were probably in his pants. Putin most likely fancies himself some sort of modern Genghis Khan, like a lot of other Russian rulers.
I agree that the Rooskies make the Mongols look even worse. Roosiykies are more bloodthirsty and for less reasons. Moscals caused Mongols getting killed in Moscali intrigues, so much, that even Mongol Cousins could not stomach the slaughters and loosing fellow Mongols. The Black Plague and internecine fighting stopped all the happy butchery of the Mongols. RooSSiykis are their successors in terrorizing Europe. A pox on all of them.
Does anyone else see the irony of an article expressing Russia’s racist barbarism….with posts of people expressing how Russia is like that because there a bunch of mongoloids or making some mongol and Russian comparison?
Jason,
Russophobia is an instance of a decease called Xenophobia. How can you expect a xenophobe not to be a racist and not to hate Asian people?
Jason, I don’t think that was the point, the point was that racism is rampant in Russia DESPITE (not because of) Russians not being exactly the most “Aryan” of people.