Tag: Soviet Union

BR#2 – One Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich

Hamar WilliamsLeave a comment

There’s nothing quite like a bit of suffering to inspire you to dig out some Russian novel you’ve been meaning to read for a bit that is grim enough to put your self-indulgence into perspective. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn spent eight years in Soviet Gulags – labour camps – from 1945 to 1953 and this undoubtable inspired his story of just one day in them for the fictional character Ivan Denisovich (Shukhov). Released in 1962, the final decision being made by Soviet leader at the time Nikita Khrushchev himself, during a period of de-Stalinisation, the story was an instant success. Khrushchev was said to have been particularly impressed with the accurate detail Solzhenitsyn went into in the story as it described life in the Gulags to the minute detail.

While the story was censored in parts, it still tells in vivid detail the relative highs and lows of the main character throughout his day. Like much Russian literature Solzhenitsyn goes deep in the psychology of the main character, in this case having lived it for eight years it’s easy to imagine where he got his inspiration from and that it is most likely autobiographical in nature. The moments of elation over little things like an extra hundred grammes of bread, or the small but subtle tricks he uses for his survival, as well as the luck involved along the way. Make no mistake Shukhov is a survivor and he understands the inner workings of those who will make it out and those with the wrong approach to camp life or their unenviable term of twenty-five years who won’t. It is a fascinating insights into a depth we would otherwise be unable to see or comprehend.

Despite the hardship it feels in it’s own way like a positive story. While camp life was described as brutal and unfair through various moments or characters, it is easy to see how it would be able to pass the censors. There was for example never really a criticism directly of communism or Soviet Russia, indirectly yes but you were never left with the impression it was an outright criticism in itself. Equally Shukhov is happy to work hard and stay a little longer to finish his work, although others attempt to skive off whenever possible, Shukhov adopts a sort of tough Soviet hero of sorts. He’s a survivor. I imagine anything being overly critical would have been cut out and what was allowed in would have been allowed in the form accepted by the censors. Considering it was freely released at home and abroad, how we perceive it; would be how it was allowed to be be perceived.

Ultimately he gives an incredible insight into the inner workings of a world hidden behind the iron curtain within the Iron Curtain. While it may not shock modern readers who know many of these truths it must have created a sensation upon it’s realise at the time, as much for the fact these truths were allowed to be written. What makes the book work though is that while a lot happens, it is very easy to say very little happens too, and it is this authenticity that allows a simple day in the life of a prisoner to be a success. Throw in all the details, physical and mental, and you are left with a fascinating read.

Historical Revisionism

Hamar WilliamsLeave a comment

Revisionism in history is nothing new. From the dawn of record keeping people have been telling the stories of the past and re-telling them with their own unique take. From the days of the oral tradition with the traveling bards to the father of western historians Herodotus, we have simply had to take what was recording. In modern times we are able to revise this history, and this is not to say that history was never changed in the past, but with the development of technology in the last few hundred years the stories of the past have been recorded with an increased frequency. Prior to this events could be recorded and the re-recorded depending on the necessities of whoever the new status quo was within society. In modern times exactly the same happens but with the advent of first the printing press and then it’s contemporary equivalent the internet, the ability to hide events from the populace has grown increasingly difficult. The existence of a compliant media propaganda machine and an education system selective in it’s teachings still do much of the work of creating an ignorant populace but with technology evolving at ever faster rates it will be interesting to see what course establishment counter measures take.

China is an example of one way of dealing with the spread of information with certain sites blocked, disruptive opinions deleted and a general hardline approach to the spread of information. In the west we have the alternative approach, allow people access to information but discredit it as crackpot, hide it away from search engines and ultimately take a more distracting approach. It is hard to imagine which one will turn out the more successful. History has shown us you can’t keep people oppressed indefinitely but also they’ll eventually stop being distracted by the magic trick. Do they both then add certain aspect of each others approach, well only time will tell.

The point of this though was not to get into a piece on internet freedoms, but instead write about the manipulation and revisionism of certain characters within our own history. I previously wrote a piece on the myth of the barefoot doctor Li Shizhen, an example of China’s revisionism, and we have done the same with figures from our own past like Winston Churchill; responsible for leading the country against the Nazi’s on one hand and directly responsible for the death of three million people in the Bengal famine with the other. Can you guess which part of his life we are taught in school?

Today I listened to a very interesting podcast on Emmeline Pankhurst. It is undeniable that she was responsible for one of the greatest social changes in this country since the industrial revolution. Through her direct action, determination and network of followers women received the vote, some of the things they pulled off during the struggle were incredible and I’m in awe. However what is not always taught is that she was a classist. Throughout this struggle she wasn’t actually fighting for universal suffrage as is taught about her in modern times. Her intentions were never to get working class women the vote as she believed they were better being led by those above them in society. Arguably she was only ever fighting to get the vote for women of her social standing and above. She actively fought against the spread of communism which was in those days more about the emancipation of the workers than the spread of Soviet authoritarianism. When she moved to Canada in later life she then fought against ‘non-white immigration’ before returning to Britain, joining the Conservative Party and standing for them as an MP much to the horror of her daughters.

That is not to say her achievements are unworthy and she did some great things which should be recorded and educated but it is important not to ignore the less savoury, or the parts which don’t fit the idealised narrative. With technology and the spread of information, as well as misinformation only increasing, it may just be time to redevelop a little trust back between society and those directing it. If not we can only envisage the inevitable suffragette style movement to follow. People are fallible, get over it.