3 ms·

If a kid in the Soviet Union was interested in art and used that to express national memory, then there would be consequences. As an adult, they'd probably be s

If a kid in the Soviet Union was interested in art and used that to express national memory, then there would be consequences. As an adult, they'd probably be sent to a gulag and never seen again. This is how the Soviet Union crushed national memories beyond just the name (never the name itself, making sure they knew they were "different" somehow). They didn't succeed in completely crushing all national memories, but a few more decades and who knows what might have happened.

kvemkon 1y ago
> to express national memory The culture has been preserved using non-provocative way by not mixing it with politic. Surely we must be respectful and thankful to those going rather provocative way and suffering. The daily Soviet system issues have been successfully mentioned in a subtle way in films since middle 60s, which became classic. I'm not aware of similar from movies from China. Famous Belorussian and Ukrainian songs have been performed in public on radio, TV in the USSR. Even today some western world artists say, that sure, of course, the culture is not separate from politic while the others say they are doing art not politics and welcome questions about their public art not their private political opinions and preferences. Similar to many singers and actors dislike questions about their private life and lovers instead of what actually matters: their art of doing music, singing, performing. > ... what might have happened. Since middle 80s the level of freedom started rapidly to increase.
- throwaway3060 1y ago
  Only bits and pieces of culture can survive through such methods. It is enough to escape full assimilation, but only just. All it would take is the whim of another Stalin. The damage is such that those who went through it may not even realize what has been lost, until one day they (or future generations) find evidence on the outside of what culture was once like.
- watwut 1y ago
  > The culture has been preserved using non-provocative way by not mixing it with politic. Surely we must be respectful and thankful to those going rather provocative way and suffering. Local cultural symbols themselves were seen as "political" and "provocative". The definition of political and provocative was broad. Small bits a pieces passing through the barriers are not "it".
nbaksalyar 1y ago
In the Stalin times, yes. But the policy in the early Soviet Union was in fact opposite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiia

kvemkon 1y ago

> to express national memory The culture has been preserved using non-provocative way by not mixing it with politic. Surely we must be respectful and thankful to those going rather provocative way and suffering. The daily Soviet system issues have been successfully mentioned in a subtle way in films since middle 60s, which became classic. I'm not aware of similar from movies from China. Famous Belorussian and Ukrainian songs have been performed in public on radio, TV in the USSR. Even today some western world artists say, that sure, of course, the culture is not separate from politic while the others say they are doing art not politics and welcome questions about their public art not their private political opinions and preferences. Similar to many singers and actors dislike questions about their private life and lovers instead of what actually matters: their art of doing music, singing, performing. > ... what might have happened. Since middle 80s the level of freedom started rapidly to increase.

throwaway3060 1y ago
Only bits and pieces of culture can survive through such methods. It is enough to escape full assimilation, but only just. All it would take is the whim of another Stalin. The damage is such that those who went through it may not even realize what has been lost, until one day they (or future generations) find evidence on the outside of what culture was once like.
watwut 1y ago
> The culture has been preserved using non-provocative way by not mixing it with politic. Surely we must be respectful and thankful to those going rather provocative way and suffering. Local cultural symbols themselves were seen as "political" and "provocative". The definition of political and provocative was broad. Small bits a pieces passing through the barriers are not "it".

nbaksalyar 1y ago

In the Stalin times, yes. But the policy in the early Soviet Union was in fact opposite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiia