Vestnik Kavkaza together with Vesti FM is implementing the project ‘National Interest’, trying to figure out how the problems between different nationalities are solved in different countries, different nations, different governments at different times. Today the director of the Roosevelt Fund of Study of the US at the Moscow State University, the Doctor of Historical Sciences, Yuri Rogulyov visited hosts of the program, Vladimir Averin and Gia Saralidze
Saralidze: There have been a lot of debate around the term ‘melting pot’ in Russia. Once Vladimir Zhirinovsky as a solution to ethnic conflicts proposed to apply the theory of the ‘melting pot’, referring to the textbook example of the US that Russia should become a ‘melting pot’ of nations, which should absorb the representatives of different nationalities, and all will become one nation, the Russians . What do you think about it?
Rogulyov: Zhirinovsky even offered to abolish national republics and break the whole territory of Russia into administrative districts. So, do not 83 subject of the federation and regions, provinces, territories, whatever they are called, that could be in more or less equal situation and could be the administrative units. But it was in the 1990s, when there was a parade of sovereignties in the former Soviet Union, as you know. And there we allowed all sorts of ideas, sometimes very dangerous from the point of view of Russia's existence as a state, which could lead to complete disintegration. In general, some analysts abroad expected that Russia would not survive this, so it would go the way of such a decay, would not survive these difficulties. Therefore, these discussions took place, but they are in the past now largely.
Saralidze: Does the American ‘melting pot’ negates the national differences, friction? Can we say that the US does not have such a problem?
Rogulyov: I am a person who has been engaged with the United States, the history of this country, who repeatedly visited the United States for a long time, so I can say that there is no ‘melting pot’. The ‘melting pot’ in direct relation to this term is complete assimilation, joint marriages, ignoring of any differences. In the United States racial and ethnic differences, ethnic and cultural differences are preserved and persist. The United States is a country, where the right to believe, to choose the faith and follow it illuminated by the Constitution and is faithfully preserved. In America there is a great variety of churches, sometimes it is even difficult to understand whether it is a churn or some house of worship. Nevertheless, the freedom of religion exists, and this is one of the achievements of the United States. The free development of religion was largely due to the historical roots, because for America in the first place were leaving people who fled religious persecution in Europe. They were the Puritans, Protestants who started to colonize the expanses of the United States. There were indigenous people, the Indians, who for the time elapsed since the occurrence of the colonies have disappeared. There were a few million of them, now the Indian population is steadily declining. It is no longer any significant force. But it's the Native Americans, the one nation, that nationality, which historically was born and lived in this area for centuries. Everyone else came.
Saralidze: Clash with the solution of the national question at that stage proved to be fatal for them.Averin: In Europe, too, at a time the Goths, Visigoths came, apparently, this is some kind of a stage of any continent. Let us confine ourselves to the second half of the 20th century, the beginning of the 21st century. When did the term ‘melting pot’ gain some visible contours and the wording?
Rogulyov: In America there are many opinions, many different experts, political scientists of different directions. The latest trend is that a multiculturalism develops in America.
Saralidze: This concept, the opposite idea of a ‘melting pot.’
Rogulyov: Absolutely. And the multiculturalism leads the followers of this concept to the fact that they deny the European roots of the American civilization. They do not recognize the Greek-Roman civilization, as a European source, on which the current US state is based.
Averin: Are they ready to throw their jurisprudence, which grew out of theRoman law, to the trash?
Rogulyov: Absolutely. I'm talking about cultural studies and political philosophy. And when we take economics, law and so on, there are other approaches. We see the concept of multiculturalism. America is a country that is open to the world, so the Asian trends and the European trends have the same influence there. We can not say that the European trends prevail.
Saralidze: And does this trend correspond to the realities that exist in the country, or the aestheticism philosophers put it forward?
Rogulyov: That is pretty much leftist, I would not say that radical, but this is the leftist philosophy, leftist views, leftist liberalism, that is, from the point of view of freedom. It is associated with the human rights, with the rights of the individual, with the latter rights of people who are fighting for gay marriage. All the rights should bloom with the hundred flowers. This, in my view, an utopian concept.
Saralidze: It is strange that it occurs in the United States at a time, when Europe's political leaders of one or the other country say that the policy of multiculturalism has failed. We heard it from the British politicians and the German.
Rogulyov: It has also failed in America, if we face the truth. There are racial and ethnic conflicts. There is a category of people, who are called ‘black’ or African Americans. What is ‘African American’? In this sense, President Obama is a real black, his father is an African from Kenya and his mother is an American.
Saralidze: This term was invented not to say ‘black’ or ‘negros’.
Rogulyov: Yes. But people who were born, grew up in the United States are referred to the African Americans. Those who came from Latin America are called hispanics, those who speak Spanish. They are protesting: "What do you mean hispanics? We we have nothing to do with Spain.’Latinos’ is more decent term. Many call themselves so, because from the point of view of the ‘melting pot’ they are not the Protestants, that Catholics, who faithfully observe not only the religious, but also the national holidays of the country they came from. They speak Spanish, settle compactly, organize business and provide work based on this ethnic and linguistic principle. They are law-abiding, rather modest, quiet. But this humble, quiet category has already become a mass, it has already exceeded the number of the African-Americans.
Averin: in some cases they are law-abiding, in some they are not. They do not stop to use the cheap labor that comes.
Rogulyov: Illegal immigrants are used by everyone. Of course, not only the Latinos, they are used by the white, and the blacks, and by anyone. This is a completely different problem. If you arrive at any major city, you will hear the Spanish speech. If you go to the store, there you will hear the Spanish language, you'll see a newspaper in Spanish, you hear the radio in Spanish. You will see the ATM in Spanish. You will see that schools have programs in Spanish.
Saralidze: Does this lead to some friction, collisions at the household level?
Rogulyov: There is no problem with the Hispanics yet, as long as they do not require an official status for the Spanish language. While this language is spoken, and the market conditions are conducive to its spread. America is a country of the market economy. The unifying factor is economy. At the beginning of the 20th century, when Ford Sr. built his factories, he took everyone to work- a black and white, and a yellow, giving them the same wage. It was a breakthrough in the relationship. However, these businesses were in the north. In the south the situation was different. Nevertheless, the economy is the rallying point of the American nation, the American state. Still, racial and ethnic differences will manifest themselves in business, and in all other aspects. Those blacks are still in all categories are inferior to white populations.
Averin: Racial segregation is in the distant past, and the topic arises again and again in culture, in society. What did not work?
Rogulyov: If we talk about the blacks, the gap was so great, and the programs that were implemented after the abolition of the racial segregation were largely political. Lets take the right to vote. The blacks got the right to vote, the black Americans got the opportunity not only to vote but also to be elected. And even the first back president was elected. Now a disappointing in the ranks of blacks has reached a boiling point. They thought that the election of President Barack Obama would change the situation. But nothing has changed. The level of education of the African Americans is much lower, the income levels are much lower, the level of unemployment is much higher, the level of the number of pupils dropping out of school is much higher, and dysfunctional families, and so on.
Saralidze: Why? There were the programs, preferences for the blacks. Is this not working as well?
Rogulyov: It was not of a mass character. It was rather a declaration. If you are playing basketball, the University gives you a scholarship, you will learn. And what if you do not play basketball? And if you're not graduated from school? Nothing will happen. There will be the documents contest. And even if there are some scholarships, they will be provided to the best students, who do not have the finances to pay for their studies.
Averin: Try, please, there is a chance.
Rogulyov: Try! But if you take a compact settlement of the blacks, the level of schools, the level of education they receive, they can not compete with those who graduated from high school in the suburbs, the parents of whom hired tutors, who took additional music classed, and other creative directions, acted in some kids collectives.
Saralidze: Is the social mobility of the African-American population working worse? But for the Hispanics it's OK , there are governors, politicians among them. Why, then, does it work here?
Averin: Maybe the African-American population live with the feeling that they have not been paid the debts, so you can relax and wait for these debts still to be given. And no one should give anything to the Latinos who came, so they are included in the economic life immediately.
Rogulyov: There is a popular expression ‘black tax’ among the African Americans. Like, all the black pay ‘black tax’, that means, work more, get less. They live with this and consider this as a colossal injustice. Even if they are working in a bank, there is a difference in a position, a difference in a payment. But they are not the only ones. Women in the United States, regardless of nationality, are also getting for the same work less. The element of inequality is still there. The Latinos as the immigrants from India, Pakistan, the Arab countries realize that they can brake through only by themselves. They learn to study engineering, mathematics, strength of materials, the most sophisticated science. They will study science and succeed.
Averin: Recently the most famous Sibelius violin competition has passed. The fiddlers all around the world, from Russia, Finland, the United States and Europe gathered in Helsinki. At the competition the United States, Europe, Finland, Australia, New Zealand are represented by the natives of China and Korea. A competition of young ballet in Lausanne, look at the names- Korean, Japanese, Hispanic, Chinese. They are all over the world. This is an indication that the Chinese and Koreans have taken the first positions in all those professions that require work, where there is a fierce competition
Rogulyov: China and Korea pay for the education of their students abroad. In America, tens of thousands of Chinese students, whose studies are paid by their governments, are studying, knowing that even if some of them will remain, the others will return and they would be educated people. This is a deliberate policy of the state in support of the specific areas of knowledge or art that they could not receive at home at the same level.
Saralidze: When we talk about racial contradictions in the United States, can they be called a national controversy?
Rogulyov: Not from a scientific point of view. We must speak of the racial and ethnic issues. This is a problem of language, color of skin problem, a problem of culture, the issue of religion. That is, these ethno-racial and ethno-religious differences, which in America bloom largely, because historically it happened so that immigrants arriving in the United States, preferred to settle compactly. Every American city will consist of various ghettos.
Averin: But despite of this, there are no national-territorial divisions.
Saralidze: In the classic sense the frictions based on ethnicity were common to the United States. We remember the relation to the Italians, earlier to the Irish from literature, from films. Is this a passed stage for the United States?
Rogulyov: To a certain extent this is passed stage. It was connected with the fact that historically the majority was formed, which was represented by the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. And if you think of the American history, until 1961 the president of the United States could become the only representative of the WASP. That is, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. That is, the white male Protestants of Anglo-Saxon origin. Kennedy was the first Irish Catholic, who became president of the United States. His father really wanted to have someone of his sons to prove that the Irish could be the presidents of the United States. He gave a lot of money.
In America, during the 1961 election campaign there was such a caricature: father Joseph is sitting, and his son John Kennedy is coming up to him and crying. ‘Why are you crying my son?’’ ‘’I’m afraid, Dad, that I wilI lose this election campaign." "Do not cry, son, I'll buy you another country!"
The Clan Kennedy invested the maximum, to make the Irish a president.
Now we are witnessing the same thing. There were enormous expectations that the entire policy would change after the election of Barack Obama . But everything remained as it was, the establishment twisted his hands and feet. It led to a colossal disappointment of many who voted for him, and of course, of the African Americans. They believed that justice would exist from now. But there was no justice. Anyway the inequality remains.
To be continued
