“To catch up and surpass!” That is one of slogans stuck in my memory since the obligatory Russian language classes in 1980s. There were also jokes about Russians having everything superlative: the biggest machine, the best rocket, the first woman in space, the fastest clock… But I digress.
Simply, we have an image that Russia always liked to keep up the pace and outdo the rest of the world. Recently, this trend has spread into the ever-growing frenzy of reality TV shows. Like the United Kingdom or the United States, Russia decided to give the populace a chance to elect a national hero in a Survivor-style elimination vote-off. So far so good. Stranger things have happened. But alas, all did not go as planned.
There are two lessons that can be learned from this experience. One is that good intentions can lead to undesirable consequences, and the other is that the way collective memory is made sometimes has little to do with either a collective or a memory.
On June 12, the gates opened to the voters. Soon enough, the text messages and online votes shot the despised and revered leader / dictator Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin to the top, where he floated on 2nd position for weeks. Much to the dismay of the organizers and human rights activists. Grassroot campaigns sprung up, pushing this or that other candidate up the ladder of this popularity contest. They succeeded on and off – the first place went to different personalities over the weeks. But Stalin clung like a louse under a scab, as we Slovaks say. The television channel changed the voting process in August, claiming that hackers were getting the better of it. Yet Stalin clung on. Very shortly before announcing the 12 finalists at the end of September, the organizers announced there has been a massive hacking incident, and removed one million votes from Stalin, sending him to the twelfth place. Still he clung on, making the cut and placing among the12 remaining contesters who will be defended in front of the Russian TV audience by experts and personalities of Russian political and cultural life in December, competing for the post of Russia’s All-time Greatest Citizen.
One way in which this age of Google and Wikipedia is different from that of decades past is that even the most obscure names live on forever, remaining forever a mouseclick away. How many times haven’t you thought, “hey, I wonder whatever happened to..”: fill in the name of an old acquaintance, a long-forgotten band, a football star of yore? In previous eras, you’d spend that wistful thought on it, and then by necessity shrug it off. Who knows?
Well, now you too can know. That obscure new wave band? The singer writes songs for TV shows now; the bassist works as a market salesman. That ridiculous Eurovision Songfestival contestant? He’s online now, editing his own Wikipedia entry and touting the brilliancy of his performance on specialist web forums. And a surprising number of tragic endings… one moment you’re listening to a song by The Sound that happened to pass by on last.fm, the next you’re looking up their bio and find out that the singer committed suicide, and his band mate died of AIDS.
So who remembers the Redskins? They were a punk band in the early eighties, and they were as political as could be. Committed to the revolution, they played every benefit gig, in support of the miners’ strike, against racism, against apartheid, you name it. They were Billy Bragg’s little skinhead brothers. They threw in pop and soul in too if that enabled them to reach a wider audience with their message: “think the Jam, the Clash, the Specials, Dexy’s, the Fall and the Supremes all rolled into one,” as a retrospective review put it.
Their second single, Lean On Me, was dubbed “a love song to workers solidarity” and “a modern soul classic” by the NME. They even had some minor top 50 hits. Keep On Keepin’ On! reached #43 in the UK charts in 1984; Bring It Down (This Insane Thing) reached #33 the year after. The Redskins, concludes fan Dave T. on the unofficial band website redskins.co.uk, “were the first band to bring revolutionary socialism to the dancefloor.”
But when you wonder whatever happened with them, the story you find is rather tragic, and something of an allegory for an entire political culture which they, in their way, represented.
The Hungarian TÁRKI Social Research Institute conducts an annual survey on xenophobia. As part of the survey, the sociologists asks respondents whether they would accept or refuse refugees from a list of specific ethnic backgrounds. Standard fare, so far.
Except as control group, they slip in a fictional group: the Pirezians.
Hungarian press agency MTI reports that once again, Hungarians blithely dismissed entry for these obviously no-good Pirezian refugees:
"Somewhere there is Piresia", the editors of Uncylopedia helpfully note
Sociologists divide Hungarians into three groups – 25-33 percent who would hermetically seal the country’s borders to all foreigners, 10 percent who would accept everyone with open arms, and the middle group of about 58 percent, who would pick and choose whom to accept, wrote [..] Nepszabadsag, citing a recent survey.
Sociologist Endre Sik pointed out that a key point in the survey [..] concerns the “Pirezians,” a non-existent ethnic group included in the survey as a reality-check. The two extremes on the scale for the pick-and-choose group are Arabs (rejected by 83 percent) and Russians (rejected by 76 percent) on the one side and ethnic Hungarians from neighbouring countries (rejected by 7 percent) on the other. The Pirezians were rejected by 66 percent of the mid-group, down slightly from last year’s 68 percent rejection figure, and up a bit from 59 percent in 2006.
The TARKI data reveal (Hungarian) that the middle, “pick-and-choose” group itself shrunk, while the xenophobic group that would hermetically seal the country’s borders to all foreigners grew in the past two years from 24% to 32%. So the group that would dismiss all foreigners, including those poor Pirezians, grew — and in addition, a larger part of the middle group looked askance at them as well. All in all, then, 70% of Hungarians want none of them Pirezians (Piresians?), against 65% two years ago.
Then again, other foreign peoples should be so lucky… It’s not just the Arabs and Russians that are even more undesired.