those pics of your are brilliant!!)) They really capture the atmosphere underground. I especially like the Kutznetskii Most ones. How many times have I waited there for a train home at 6am after a night out in Kitai Gorod!
Unlike you I havent the balls to take pics underground. Her indoors says ”no” and thats the end of it for me. Do you anywhere I’d get a pic of ‘metro girl’, the pretty blonde/redhead in the poster adds?

The Moscow metro has to be the most photography-friendly metro I’ve ever encountered. Even the DC metro now periodically makes announcements that photography is not allowed, SPB has signs up, police stop you in Tashkent… but in Moscow, I’ve only ever been approached once by a cop in the metro – unpleasant, but fairly remarkable given all the times I’ve been down there with a camera.

Some of my metro pics are here;
some better metro photos are here;
Artemy Lebedev’s excellent metro site is (with old maps, tokens & tickets, archival photos, etc.) here.

Andy, not telling you your business or anything, its your blog, but why not put up a post where people can discuss their favourite streets/metro stations/Russian women? It’d be popular I’m sure.

Hilarious is ever. Should be more like ”i’ve never said I’m right full stop”
That’d be more accurate.

Sadly your reasoning on your own use of anonymity is as flawed as all your other arguments. The reason you practice anonymity is very simple – if your name was out there, you’d never get a Russian visa again. Gratuitiously offending the Russian Federation publicy is an actual offence and if the Russians knew who you are – and to be honest I’d say they do anyway – you’d just be told ”nyet” next time at the embassy. The line is quite strict ”entering Russia is a courtesy of the Russian Federal government and shuold not be considered an automatic right.” So if I were you I wouldnt be too suprised if you never see Moscow or Petes again. Then again, lets face it, its hardly Russia’s loss really.
Never mind! You’ll still be as influential as you think you are. Obviously, the continetal United States is the best place to influence change in Russia from. After all its only 10 hours away on the plane, uses a totally different language and couldnt care less what westerners think. Who needs to actually be in Russia anyway, eh?) Perish the thought! You can make that revolution happen from there at your pc!)

Please dont compare yourself to Shakespeare. Its really upsetting. To quote Polonius giving his fatherly talk to Laertes ”give very man thine ear but few thine voice”. Maybe you should take Polonius’ advice, stop your ranting and actually learn something about Russia?

“Tim Newman said:
March 16th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
To my knowledge, Russia doesn’t even have a legal tradition where race is written into or interwoven with law, again like in the United States.

I am of the opinion that the practice of making Soviet citizens having their race clearly stamped in the passports as a legal tradition. Certainly those who had “Jew” displayed boldly and clearly on the first page of their passports would think so.

Sean said:
March 16th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Tim you are of course correct. I also forgot about the Pale of Settlement for Jews. Thanks for the correction. What a mistake on my part.”

***

Sean:

Your rejoinder to my last prior posted comments clarifies your views. I respect your logic, while having a different take.

Folks:

I’m as anti-Soviet as they come and I don’t see my opposition to bigotry as being less that of anyone at this discussion.

Let’s distinguish between propaganda and reality. Zionism acknowledges a Jewish nation and hence a Jewish national identity. Every ten years, a Soviet census was taken. Soviet citizens had the freedom to list whatever of many chosen groups were offered. For example, a Russian in Aremina could choose an Armenian identity.

During this period, NO ONE forced Jews to list a Jewish identity. Some Jews chose an identity other than Jewish. What if the USSR didn’t list a choice of ethnic groups? Suppression of national identity! I’m also unaware that a Jew’s document was (as suggested) constructed differently from others.

Bigotry? How about Jackson-Vanik which essentially stated that only a Jew can leave the USSR? Was it okay for others to live in an unfortunate situation? This shortsighted clause saw a good number of Soviet citizens forge a Jewish identity just to get out of the USSR. I recall eXile having written a piece on this.

As for the Pale of Settlement, in fact many Jews lived in Russia proper (the territory of today’s Russian Federation) during that paper law which was frequntly not observed. Also, consider what was going on elsewhere in the world during that period.

So yes, Russia has ethnic tensions. Who doesn’t? It’s not skirting the issuie to show double standards and clarify certain points related to Russia’s ethnic problems.

Try building a mosque in Slovenia. Try getting an article published in American mass media on Jewish bigotry against Arabs without noting what nurtures such an attitude. On the matter of bigotry, where’s the outrage against the bigoted anti-Russian Captive Nations Committee?

I am of the opinion that the practice of making Soviet citizens having their race clearly stamped in the passports as a legal tradition. Certainly those who had “Jew” displayed boldly and clearly on the first page of their passports would think so.

LR you really are a one trick pony. Yes I’m all the things you call me: hypocritical, demented, hollow, bombastic, shrill, etc, etc, etc. What do I care?

But on to something more substantive and interesting.

Thank you James for pointing me to your post on Russia and the PRI. I think it is a comparison worth exploring. Unfortunately I don’t know enough about Mexico myself to go into any deep analysis.

Mike, I think we will continue to disagree on the issue of race and racism in Russia. Racism strikes a particular cord with me mostly because politically I am not only anti-racist, I’m anti-race.

I have the problem with the concept of tolerance. Unlike most liberals, I don’t see anything antithetical between “tolerance” and “racism.” The latter does not prevent or sublimate the former. In fact, I would say that tolerance is a way to repress racism and even to some extent reinforce it. Tolerance by no means undoes it.

But first a definition. In my view, a race is when persons or groups are defined or define themselves biologically or culturally with characteristics (skin color, language, traditions, facial or body features) that are immutable and transhistorical. These immutable characteristics are historically invested with political and cultural meanings that define what that person or group ultimately is. I always wonder why we have races based on skin color, but not races based on say eye color or big feet.

It is difficult to measure the extent of racism in Russia because race works differently there. And I would never say that Russia is more racist than other countries. Russia certainly has a race problem but I’m not sure if race or racism is a core foundation in Russian ideology like it is in American or Brazilian ideology, where it is a fundamental pillar. Russian nationalism plays a far more critical role, but that nationalism is not necessarily predicated on an idea of race or racism. To my knowledge, Russia doesn’t even have a legal tradition where race is written into or interwoven with law, again like in the United States.

One day I would like to conduct a historical study of “race” in Russia, from the 19th century to the present in order to understand what it is in the Russian context. Race seems to function very differently there than in the US. And what I consider a race or racist might not necessarily be seen as such by a Russian or in Russia.

I do wonder what profit this law on concealing the race of hate crime victims and perpetrators will do for the betterment of race relations in Russia.

Race in Russia is a fascinating subject. I hope others are interested in it too.

Yeah, but if you really loved Andy you’d have taken the effort to meet up with him. Raaaaaaaassspppp!

For the record, I’d said that Andy’s work was something I appreciated prior to his interviewing me.

This was communicated to Andy AFTER his first interview and before he invited me for an exchange.

Andy might recall himself having a brief exchange with me awhile back. This was before his recent return to active blogging.

While I’m on the subject of Andy. I like the way Andy’s blog lists most recent posted comments at the top right of the SL home page. It also appears quite easy to post comments at his blog unlike some others which are pre-screened.

Andy’s blog is the closest to a hybrid forum and blog. Among the Eng. language Russia topical blogs, I rate Andy’s and Sean’s respective blog as having the best conversations.

Sean has been commenting on Siberian Light since way back when.

A quick search of Sean’s blog for siberianlight reveals at least two links to Siberian Light before my 2005 hiatus.

http://seansrusskiiblog.blogspot.com/search?q=siberianlight

Thanks for the correction, Sean did mention and fail to link to you. This actually makes my point even stronger: It gives me the opportunity to point out that, like Averko and unlike me, I believe Sean never once commented upon or expressed open interest in your blog until you interviewed him; certainly, there was no active ongoing expression of interest on your pages as there was from me. Seems to me like they are fair-weather admirers. I commented on your blog extensively long before I had any idea you wished to interview me, giving me legitimate basis to praise you in my interview.

I’m sure you’ll agree upon reflection that Sean openly questioning my gender is inviting a revival of the “demented” inquiry to which you referred. I appreciate your confirmation that you don’t approve of personal abuse (I carefully refrained from it in my interview as you well know, out of respect for your pages) and appreciate as well your tacit recognition of Sean’s gross hypocrisy on this point, not only because he haughtily purports to dislike personal attacks but also because he purports to embrace tolerance for all kinds of people. To me, these seem like very hollow words given his remarks.

I should be clear in saying that I have no problem with personal attacks based on intelligence or morality that are tied to specific substantive statements of the target (I have published many such statements about me on my blog in the form of comments), and I have no problem with challenges to a person’s identity if they place it at issue by seeking to invoke their credentials as support for their positions. However, your word “demented” is quite appropriate for personal attacks on identity made against someone who does not invoke credentials. It’s the action of a brigadnik. I despise the publishers of Copydude and Russian Blog and have repeatedly criticized their statements, but I’ve never once questioned their identity or lack thereof, since neither one claims any special gravitas for their views based on who they are. In my view, it’s the finest expression of bloggerism to let your views and facts stand utterly alone, and many famous writers agree. It means far more if Shakespeare gets a play accepted for publication if he submits anonymously than if he uses his famous name. In my view, it’s the ultimate confirmation of a failed argument (maybe even a failed intellect) if one makes a gratiutous personal attack unconnected to any substantive basis, as Sean has done by calling me “she.” Whether I’m one or many, male or female, changes nothing about anything I’ve ever written. I’ve never said I’m right because of who I am.

Above all, though, I despise the hypocrisy of someone like Sean who purports to condemn shrill language while using it and to decide for others what forms of abuse are acceptable. To your credit, you seem to have avoided that ugly situation. However, I’m not sure you can avoid all responsiblity for what appears on your blog just because you choose to give subjects the freedom to write what they want. I’m willing to bet that, no matter what you say, there are things you would in fact censor. If you wouldn’t, you wouldn’t be human.

Just to put things in perspective, on a global scale, I can’t think of much that is less significant or has less inherrant ‘worth’ than comments on an obscure blog. (Sorry Andy!)

I do see that the exchange of views and clarification of political stance resulting from the posts has a value, but who is posting is, I suspect, fairly irrelevant as long as a discussion is perpetuated.

I appreciate your points of view LA R, if only because they and the answers they invoke make for an amusing read on a dull Friday, but if you stopped commenting tomorrow, I don’t believe that this or any other blog would decrease in net worth.

I respectfully take issue with Sean on several points regarding Russian intolerance, Russia’s ability to honestly look back at the past and how Russia is situated vis-a-vis East and West. Without seeking to repeat previously stated views:

On Being Russian
http://www.russiablog.org/2005/12/on_being_russian.php

Coverage of Intolerance in Russia & Abroad
http://www.russiablog.org/2006/05/coverage_of_intolerance_in_rus.php

Ukraine’s First Lady and the Ugly History of the Captive Nations Committee
http://www.russiablog.org/2006/04/yuschenkos_wife_and_the_ugly_h.php

When applied to Russia, the political discipline of comparative politics is very much lacking. As per what’s selected for top billing, the English language mass media, academia and body politic have done a disservice to the idea of fostering a better understanding in terms of providing varied perspectives which cover all of the angles.

At their respective blogs, Sean and Andy (as well as some others elsewhere) are pleasant alternatives.

A closing general thought on Sean’s observation about Russian differences with the West. Individual nations each have their particular ways of going about doing things. In this sense, Russia isn’t so different from the West, which is far from being a monolithic entity.

LR -above you take a lot of credit for 100 or so comments generated by yourself here. You fail to take into account that a large portion of those are actually from ME validly questioning and criticising you. A bit rich, no? Questions which you are unable to answer. You really live in Lah-Lah Land. Like an ostrich.

Probably the two most-cited English language magazine pieces on Russia over the past year would be those by Perry Anderson and Michael Specter, and it is interesting to note that both Russia critics and Putin supporters alike seem to find something in them to cheer about. They must be doing something right in their approach.

It’s also interesting that Sean notes the comparison between United Russia and the PRI – I also blogged about that on RA recently: http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2007/02/a_perfect_dictatorship_1.htm

I seem to recall saying that attempts to discover La Russophobe’s true identity were “demented”, not attacks on her personally. Having said that, I don’t approve of gratuitous personal attacks either.

I provide the interviews in an unedited form. This is to encourage people to write what they really think – not what they think will pass my censurious eye. I’d rather have people’s honest views, and allow them to be dissected in the comments section if necessary.

The order in which I choose to interview bloggers does not in any way indicate my opinion of the interviewees themselves. The order in which I sent out (and continue to send out) requests for interviews is pretty random, and the order in which they are published tends to be based on the order in which the completed interviews are received.

Actually, Sean did complement Siberian Light (thanks Sean). You may have missed it, because there was no hyperlink.

Sean, do you have any basis for implying that I’m not female? Don’t you think it’s rather hypocritical to condemn “shrill” and “bombast” whilst making such a totally gratuitous personal attack upon me? Andy’s called such statements “demented.” Are you demented? Or were you just trying to prove how bad shrill bombast is by example?

Speaking of “bombastic and shrill,” how about when your beloved (and defunct) Wally Shedd accused me on your blog of advocating mass murder of Russians? Seems like what is bombastic and shrill is all in the ear of the listener, I guess. Fortunately, we have Sean to decide for all of us what the “truth” is.

Rich? compared to what? A tree stump? Actual data clearly shows that compared to the blogospheres other countries have inspired in English, Russia’s is woefully impoverished. Part of the reason may well be that folks like Sean fail to challenge it to improve. Sounds vaguely neo-Soviet — the Soviets were always talking about how rich they were too, right up until they went bankrupt and disappeared. Come to think of it, not one but two of the blogs Sean’s named in Russia’s “rich” blogosphere are defunct and one is about Turkey. Seems like a contradiction. Maybe it’s just me.

“Worthwhile exchange”? Hmmm. So I guess then you think that the 100 or so comments that I’ve generated here on Andy’s blog recently are worthless, huh? Gosh, that’s pretty harsh. Come to think of it, Andy’s blog wasn’t among those you admired, was it? Talk about biting the hand that interviews you! You may be right after all . . . he did interview you, and not until he’d first interviewed Mike Averko. I guess you feel that the over 100 bloggers and thousands of readers who support LR are not “worthwhile” huh? Gosh. You don’t plan to exterminate them or anything, do you?

Speaking of Averko, Sean is (apparently proudly) taking sloppy seconds from a blog sponsored by Discovery Insitute, a neocon group that promotes intelligent design. That’s just about the most amazing factoid in the blogosphere, given what Sean otherwise purports to believe.

Умом Россию не понять,
аршином общим не измерить,
У ней особенная стать,
в Россию можно только верить.

Фёдор Иванович Тютчев