In the 14th and 15th centuries a powerful Russian state began to grow around Moscow. It gradually expanded west and southwest toward the Dnieper River, north to the Arctic Ocean, and east to the Ural Mountains. By the 18th century Russia had gained full control over a number of major rivers, giving it access to the Baltic and Black seas. These conquests had a huge impact on the country’s trade and economic development. The Russian Empire continued to grow.
Ukraine - History
As the East Slavs expanded, they accepted, in the 9th century, a Varangian (Viking) elite that led them to establish a vast domain, centered in Kyiv (Kiev) and called Kievan Rus. It became one of the largest, richest, and most powerful lands in medieval Europe. In 988 Saint Volodymyr (Vladimir), grand prince of Kyiv, accepted Orthodox Christianity, and in this way brought Kievan Rus under the cultural influence of the Byzantine Empire.
theukrainian wrote:А о чем спор, и что было удалено (можно не дословно )?
Спора нет никакого. Уважаемого Гайдара несколько покоробило уверение авторов-составителей энциклопедии Энкарта о том, что начало отсчета истории Московской Руси (АКА России) следует вести начиная с 14-15 вв., а Киевской Руси (АКА Украины) - с 9 века.
Не берите в голову - дело привычное, обычные русофобские штучки.
Ну дык, а что в этом удивительно.. Это любого разумного человека покоробит..
Политика проникла даже в микрософт - БГ на службе у Госдепа.. (а то посодют олигарха)
(Я не сторонник модного мнения о тупости американцев )
Линк только encarta.com
"Имеешь одни часы - знаешь который час. Имеешь несколько - сомневаешься."
Ничего не понял. Так в чем загвоздка-то? Что, кто-то будет отрицать, что Киевская Русь была намного раньше Москвы? Или будете отрицать, что такое государство было? По-моему это всем известно, что сначала была Киевская Русь - довольно сильное государство.
Toshka wrote:Ничего не понял. Так в чем загвоздка-то? Что, кто-то будет отрицать, что Киевская Русь была намного раньше Москвы? Или будете отрицать, что такое государство было? По-моему это всем известно, что сначала была Киевская Русь - довольно сильное государство.
Совершенно верно. ... а Московскую Русь зачинали и строили фино-угорские племена, ассимилированные славянскими завоевателями. Посему: Киiв - это особь статья, москали - наособицу. И ничего между ними общего.
... не понятно только откуда взялись эти славяне- завоеватели, да почему князей себе из киевской династии Рюриковичей имели - две разные ведь страны, два разных народа...
Да уж, Новгорода конечно тоже не было, его построили потом, после Киева и Москвы, наверняка немцы и построили, подкинув потом берестяных грамот до кучи.
Северо-Восточной Руси (Владимиро-Суздальское княжество), как славянское государство тоже не существовало в природе, а главное доказывается то как просто. Какой город ассоциируется с Владимиро-Суздальским княжеством ( оно в 11-12 веке было сравнимо с Киевской Русью и включало таки Москву) и Киевом, ну конечно Муром и Илья Муромец на службе у Владимира Красно Солнышко. Всем известно, что мурома это финно-угорское племя-родственники мерянам, т.е. никаких тебе славян. Такую шелупонь как Тверское и Смоленское Княжество и всякие там Галицкие Руси, вообще можно не рассмотривать. Сказано, в 15-м веке все началось, значит так тому и бывать. Кто против, может выпустить альтернативную энциклопедию под Linux
Я не историк, но дочитав до первого филологического ляпсуса на первой же странице иазложения материала, дальше читать не стал. Подозреваю, что исторический метриал так же притянут за уши, как и филологический. Напомнило Хаббардовскую сайентологическую галиматью.
Так что не рекомендую. Хотя согласен все авторами в тезисе, что наша история - это _написанная_ история и часто может не иметь ничего общего с действительными событиями. Однако их интерпретация не кажется мне более правильной.
Индусы тоже возмущаются Енкатой. Статья не только про Енкарту, но всё равно интересно. Ничего, что я ету статью целиком даю? Я её в таком виде получила.
Wrath Over a Hindu God
U.S. Scholars' Writings Draw Threats From Faithful
By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 10, 2004; Page A01
Folklore has it that elephants never forget, and Paul Courtright has
reason to believe it. A professor of religion at Emory University, he
immersed himself in the story of Ganesha, the beloved Hindu god with the
head of an elephant. Detecting provocative Oedipal overtones in
Ganesha's story -- and phallic symbolism in his trunk -- he wrote a book
setting out his theories in 1985.
Nineteen years later, thanks to an Internet campaign, the world has
rediscovered Courtright's book. After a scathing posting on a popular
Indian Web site, he has received threats from Hindu militants who want
him dead.
"Gopal from Singapore said, 'The professor bastard should be hanged,' "
said Courtright, incredulous. "A guy from Germany said, 'Wish this person
was next to me, I would have shot him in the head.' A man called Karodkar
said, 'Kill the bastard. Whoever wrote this should not be spared.'
Someone wanted to throw me into the Indian Ocean."
Other academics writing about Hinduism have encountered similar
hostility, from tossed eggs to assaults to threats of extradition and
prosecution in India.
The attacks against American scholars come as a powerful movement called
Hindutva has gained political power in India, where most of the world's
828 million Hindus live. Its proponents assert that Hindus have long been
denigrated and that Western authors are imposing a Eurocentric world view
on a culture they do not understand.
That argument resonates among many of the roughly 1.4 million Hindus in
North America as well.
In November, Wendy Doniger, a University of Chicago professor of the
history of religion who has written 20 books about India and Hinduism,
had an egg flung at her by an angry Hindu when she was lecturing in
London. It missed.
In January, a book about the Hindu king Shivaji by Macalester College
religious studies professor James W. Laine provoked violent outbursts:
One of Laine's collaborators in India was assaulted, and a mob destroyed
rare manuscripts at an institute in India where Laine had done research.
The Indian edition was recalled, and India's prime minister warned Laine
not to "play with our national pride." Officials said they want to
extradite the Minnesota author to stand trial for defamation, and the
controversy has become a campaign issue in upcoming parliamentary
elections.
Doniger, a 63-year-old scholar at the center of many controversies, is
distressed to see her field come under the sway of what she regards as
zealots.
"The argument," she said, "is being fueled by a fanatical nationalism and
Hindutva, which says no one has the right to make a mistake, and no one
who is not a Hindu has the right to speak about Hinduism at all."
U.S. Cradle of Backlash
The recent controversy began not in New Delhi but in New Jersey.
In an essay posted on a Web site called Sulekha.com, New Jersey
entrepreneur Rajiv Malhotra argued that Doniger and her students had
eroticized and denigrated Hinduism, which was part of the reason "the
American mainstream misunderstands India so pathologically."
Malhotra criticized in particular a book for which Doniger had written
the foreword -- Courtright's "Ganesa: Lord of Obstacles, Lord of
Beginnings." The book drew psychoanalytic inferences about Ganesha, also
known as Ganesa or Ganpathi, the son of the Hindu god Shiva and his wife,
Parvati.
According to Hindu scriptures, Parvati asked Ganesha to guard her privacy
while she was bathing. Shiva, who had been absent, returned to find the
boy blocking his way. A fight ensued, and Shiva beheaded Ganesha. When
Parvati protested, Shiva repaired his hasty action by resuscitating the
child and replacing the missing head with that of an elephant.
Courtright, drawing on the story of a conflict between a woman's husband
and son, suggested that Shiva had chosen an elephant's head because the
trunk represented a limp phallus. By contrast, he said, Shiva's power is
represented in idols by a linga, or an erect phallus.
In his posting, Malhotra quoted passages from Courtright's book that
offended him: "Although there seem to be no myths or folktales in which
Ganesha explicitly performs oral sex, his insatiable appetite for sweets
may be interpreted as an effort to satisfy a hunger that seems
inappropriate in an otherwise ascetic disposition, a hunger having clear
erotic overtones."
Malhotra's critique produced a swift and angry response from thousands of
Hindus. An Atlanta group wrote to the president of Emory University
asking that Courtright be fired.
"The implication," said Courtright, "was this was a filthy book and I had
no business teaching anything." He said the quotes had been taken out of
context and ignored the uplifting lessons he had drawn from Ganesha's
story.
Salman Akhtar, an Indian American psychoanalyst, said the disagreement
sprang from different worldviews. "Are religious stories facts or myths?"
he asked. "Facts cannot be interpreted. Stories can be interpreted."
The book was withdrawn in India, where the local edition's book jacket,
which Courtright had neither seen nor approved, depicted Ganesha as a
child -- in the nude.
"It was very painful reading," said T.R.N. Rao, a computer science
professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette who advises the
university's branch of the Hindu Student Council, a national group with
Hindutva roots. "It makes Ganesha a eunuch . . . It was very vulgar."
Rao and the council started an Internet petition against the book. Seven
thousand people signed within a week -- and among their comments were 60
threats of violence.
The petition was swiftly removed. "We condemn any threats to the author
and the publisher," said Rao. "We wanted to get the book corrected and
replaced. . . . We are not asking for banning the book. I am a professor
and I know the value of academic freedom."
Insider vs. Outsider
Courtright was not the first to find Oedipal overtones in the Ganesha
story. But his book became a rallying point for devout Hindus in the
United States who say the academic study of their religion is completely
at odds with the way they experience their faith.
"For the past five years, our field has been in turmoil," said Arvind
Sharma, a professor of comparative religion at McGill University in
Montreal, who sides with the critics even as he disavows the violence.
"There may be a Hindutva connection in what happened in India and the
death threats and the person who threw the egg, but there also is a Hindu
response."
Sharma was asked to write an essay on Hinduism for Microsoft's Encarta
encyclopedia to replace a previous essay written by Doniger. The switch
came after a Hindu activist, a former Microsoft engineer named Sankrant
Sanu, charged that Doniger's article perpetuated misleading stereotypes
and asked for a rewrite by an "insider."
"For pretty much all the religious traditions in America, most of the
people studying it are insiders," said Sanu. "They are people who are
believers. This is true for Judaism, Islam, Christianity and Buddhism.
This is not true for Hinduism."
In January, fresh controversy along the same lines erupted over a book by
Macalester College's Laine, "Shivaji: A Hindu King in Islamic India,"
which explored the life of a 17th-century icon of the Hindutva movement.
After Laine suggested in his book that Shivaji's parents may have been
estranged -- an assertion that upset Hindus who see them as nearly divine
-- a history scholar in India who had collaborated with Laine was roughed
up and smeared with tar by members of Shiv Sena, a Hindutva group.
Another nationalist group called the Sambhaji Brigade stormed the
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in the city of Pune, and destroyed
priceless manuscripts. The reason? Laine had done research there .
"No one in Pune today will defend my book, not my friends, not my
colleagues, because they are fearful," Laine said. "Oxford University
Press pulled the book because they are fearful of physical violence.
There will be a chilling effect on what topics you choose to do."
Many Indian scholars have rushed to the defense of the American authors.
They say the controversy over the books is part of a larger pattern of
political violence against scholars in India.
Doniger blames the Internet campaigns. "Malhotra's ignorant writings
have stirred up more passionate emotions in Internet subscribers who
know even less than Malhotra does, who do not read books at all,"
Doniger wrote in an e-mail. "And these people have reacted with
violence. I therefore hold him indirectly responsible."
Dwarakanath Rao (no relation to T.R.N. Rao), a Hindu psychoanalyst in Ann
Arbor, Mich., said Doniger had written moving interpretations of Hindu
texts that made them accessible for the first time in North America.
"I just do not hear disrespect," he said. "I hear a woman who, frankly,
is in love with India."
India Inc.
Malhotra said he began his campaign after visiting African American
scholars at Princeton University, who told him that it had taken the
civil rights movement before black scholars were allowed into schools to
tell their own history.
Hindus were only following in the footsteps of blacks, Jews and the
Irish, he said, likening his campaign to a consumer struggle: "It's no
different than Ralph Nader saying we need a consumer voice against
General Motors."
Malhotra disavowed the violence -- he called the attackers "hooligans."
He said he has campaigned against the Hindutva agenda and opposed the
Internet petition against Courtright. "I know I am championed by the
Hindu right but there is nothing I can do about that," he said.
Indeed, Malhotra's critique seems to have less to do with religious
nationalism than public relations. Doniger and other academics are "an
inbred, incestuous group that control a vertically integrated industry,"
the former telecom entrepreneur said. Unlike other critics' objections,
Malhotra's is not that outsiders have written about India -- he has
himself encouraged many Americans to study India -- but that the books
have harmed the image of what he calls "India Inc."
"In America," he said, "everything is negotiable -- you have to negotiate
who you are and how they think of you." Previously, Malhotra waged a
campaign against CNN for coverage that he charged was biased toward
India's rival, Pakistan. A foundation he has launched is dedicated to
"upgrade the portrayal of India's civilization in the American education
system and media."
This approach does not go down well within the academy. "We are not in
the business of marketing a nation state," said Vijay Prashad, an
international studies scholar at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., in a
recent Internet debate with Malhotra. "That is the job of the ambassador
of India, not of a scholar."
McGill's Sharma, a practicing Hindu, countered that the academy had never
been neutral, objective ground. Trends in academia have always been
governed by shifts in public opinion: "The recalibration of a power
equation is an untidy process."
But if the controversies are only about influence, Doniger said, there
was little use in discussing the merits of the various books, or her
Encarta essay on Hinduism. "It does not matter whether the article
published under my name was right or wrong," she said in an e-mail. "The
only important thing about it was that I wrote it and someone named
Sharma did not."
Toshka wrote:Ничего не понял. Так в чем загвоздка-то? Что, кто-то будет отрицать, что Киевская Русь была намного раньше Москвы? Или будете отрицать, что такое государство было? По-моему это всем известно, что сначала была Киевская Русь - довольно сильное государство.
Это все верно, но что общего у современного гос-ва Украина и гос-ва Киевская Русь? Только территория, отчасти религия..
Вести история Украины от князей Киева так же "исторично", как историю современной Италии от Древнего Рима, хотя конечно и приятственно
"Имеешь одни часы - знаешь который час. Имеешь несколько - сомневаешься."
DmTs wrote:Это все верно, но что общего у современного гос-ва Украина и гос-ва Киевская Русь?
Может, Киев?
Ну вообще то произошли украинцы от Киевской Руси. Как и русские с белорусами. Просто истории разныя, да и комбинации неславянских примесей отличаются
Вот и я о том же. А говорить, что русские, украинцы и белоруссы - совсем разные народы, ничего общего не имеющие - это уже совсем новая история, за уши притянутая.
wolfboy wrote:Ну вообще то произошли украинцы от Киевской Руси. Как и русские с белорусами. Просто истории разныя, да и комбинации неславянских примесей отличаются
Как может народ произойти от государства?
"Имеешь одни часы - знаешь который час. Имеешь несколько - сомневаешься."
Ну и за что такие на меня тут гонения? Я ж только посетовал, что вместе с Крымом, братья-украинцы ещё и Киевскую Русь себе при разводе оставили.
Ну смешно ж - явно владимирско-суздальское, а потом московское княжество имеет больше общего с Рюриком. И династически и религиозно и культурно... Ну уж никак не меньше.
Гайдар wrote:Ну и за что такие на меня тут гонения? Я ж только посетовал, что вместе с Крымом, братья-украинцы ещё и Киевскую Русь себе при разводе оставили. Ну смешно ж - явно владимирско-суздальское, а потом московское княжество имеет больше общего с Рюриком. И династически и религиозно и культурно... Ну уж никак не меньше.
Т.е. как так "себе оставили при разводе"? Ну что ж вы такое говорите? Вы же сами сказали, что московское княжество имеет больше общего с Рюриком. В таком случае с Киевской Русью оно имеет мало общего. Т.е. братья-украинцы не "себе оставили" а просто на своем месте, где и было раньше их государство создали новое, под названием Украина. Или нужно было отдать Киевскую Русь, а самим убраться куда-то?
Получается, что славяне настоящие - это украинцы и белоруссы, а русские тогда больше викинги.
Toshka wrote: Т.е. братья-украинцы не "себе оставили" а просто на своем месте, где и было раньше их государство .создали новое, под названием Украина Или нужно было отдать Киевскую Русь, а самим убраться куда-то? .
Мне смешно такое читать..
"Имеешь одни часы - знаешь который час. Имеешь несколько - сомневаешься."
Toshka wrote: Т.е. братья-украинцы не "себе оставили" а просто на своем месте, где и было раньше их государство .создали новое, под названием Украина Или нужно было отдать Киевскую Русь, а самим убраться куда-то? .
Мне смешно такое читать..
А мне это:
Получается, что славяне настоящие - это украинцы и белоруссы, а русские тогда больше викинги.
Вероломных учили на льду
Да секли кочевых по полям
)?
Как может народ произойти от государства?
