I've been reading a history book on Rasputin, which has been interesting for a variety of reasons.
I'd heard about Rasputin before - who hasn't? - but never really looked into the details. I just knew a story of some dark and sinister figure that was eventually murdered in a rather spectacular way. That is, if I recall correctly, that he was stabbed (and/or shot?) and an attempt was made at drowning him, and he only finally died of hypothermia on his way back from that. Or something like that.
So it's interesting to see what a historian can make of the details, their assessment of what is likely fact or fiction, and what it all means.
It also provides some interesting insights into Russian culture/history, though I have no idea how much of it would still be relevant to today. I vaguely recall learning that Russia's relationship with their eastern edges was a bit like our own relationship with our expansion into the American west, and it was interesting to see that Siberia was more than just some freezing cold place for political exiles.
What's weird, to me at least, is that our Western notions of right and wrong are so at odds with some of the values here. Like, I keep wanting to label someone 'good' or 'bad', even though I know it's not realistic, but it still catches me up in odd ways.
Like some of what Rasputin did for the tsar and tsarista seem - positive. Encouraging a weak ruler, building confidence, etc. But, as an American, we've never been to keen on the authority of the crown or any such nonsense, so Rasputin trying to discourage the tsar from bending on certain issues seems short-sighted and foolish to me. Especially given what I know is coming... better to bend a little, then have the revolution they eventually got, and see the murder of the entire Romanov royal family. Right?
And then there are some of Rasputin's opponents. Like - Rasputin himself seems a complex and mysterious figure, hardly a shining example of holiness. (Some of the historical accounts of his relationship with women are downright disturbing). But the people who opposed him seem hardly any better. Spreading malicious lies, making up facts...
And, well, some of his former-friends-turned-enemies were conspiracy theorists that honestly seemed to believe that Elders of Zion bs. Is conspiracy thinking that engrained? They hardly seem like principled (or holy) opposition to a demonic Rasputin, when they seem about as bad as our own neo-Nazis.
These perceptions of Jewish - and foreign - conspiracies just seemed so... widespread. (That's not even touching on the deep strands of mysticism and whatnot that Rasputin tapped into. Iirc, something similar was going on in the West at the time, with mediums and seances and whatnot being quite popular.) Why did so many people buy into them? They seem so ridiculous to me, on the face of it, but too many of the figures in this account who buy into them seem to have real influence.
And while I find myself sympathizing, a bit, with the royal family's desire for privacy and unwillingness to listen to the wild rumors and whatnot when it came to Rasputin, it also seems somewhat foolish for anyone in a leadership position to fail to address public perceptions, even if they do seem erroneous. How much of the way this plays out is because of poor public relations on their part?
To add another layer of interest - as accusations and rumors fly, I find myself thinking that Russia back then was dealing with what we're dealing with now...
Information warfare, where it's almost impossible to sort fact from fiction, and people spread misinformation for their own personal gain.
I'd heard about Rasputin before - who hasn't? - but never really looked into the details. I just knew a story of some dark and sinister figure that was eventually murdered in a rather spectacular way. That is, if I recall correctly, that he was stabbed (and/or shot?) and an attempt was made at drowning him, and he only finally died of hypothermia on his way back from that. Or something like that.
So it's interesting to see what a historian can make of the details, their assessment of what is likely fact or fiction, and what it all means.
It also provides some interesting insights into Russian culture/history, though I have no idea how much of it would still be relevant to today. I vaguely recall learning that Russia's relationship with their eastern edges was a bit like our own relationship with our expansion into the American west, and it was interesting to see that Siberia was more than just some freezing cold place for political exiles.
What's weird, to me at least, is that our Western notions of right and wrong are so at odds with some of the values here. Like, I keep wanting to label someone 'good' or 'bad', even though I know it's not realistic, but it still catches me up in odd ways.
Like some of what Rasputin did for the tsar and tsarista seem - positive. Encouraging a weak ruler, building confidence, etc. But, as an American, we've never been to keen on the authority of the crown or any such nonsense, so Rasputin trying to discourage the tsar from bending on certain issues seems short-sighted and foolish to me. Especially given what I know is coming... better to bend a little, then have the revolution they eventually got, and see the murder of the entire Romanov royal family. Right?
And then there are some of Rasputin's opponents. Like - Rasputin himself seems a complex and mysterious figure, hardly a shining example of holiness. (Some of the historical accounts of his relationship with women are downright disturbing). But the people who opposed him seem hardly any better. Spreading malicious lies, making up facts...
And, well, some of his former-friends-turned-enemies were conspiracy theorists that honestly seemed to believe that Elders of Zion bs. Is conspiracy thinking that engrained? They hardly seem like principled (or holy) opposition to a demonic Rasputin, when they seem about as bad as our own neo-Nazis.
These perceptions of Jewish - and foreign - conspiracies just seemed so... widespread. (That's not even touching on the deep strands of mysticism and whatnot that Rasputin tapped into. Iirc, something similar was going on in the West at the time, with mediums and seances and whatnot being quite popular.) Why did so many people buy into them? They seem so ridiculous to me, on the face of it, but too many of the figures in this account who buy into them seem to have real influence.
And while I find myself sympathizing, a bit, with the royal family's desire for privacy and unwillingness to listen to the wild rumors and whatnot when it came to Rasputin, it also seems somewhat foolish for anyone in a leadership position to fail to address public perceptions, even if they do seem erroneous. How much of the way this plays out is because of poor public relations on their part?
To add another layer of interest - as accusations and rumors fly, I find myself thinking that Russia back then was dealing with what we're dealing with now...
Information warfare, where it's almost impossible to sort fact from fiction, and people spread misinformation for their own personal gain.
No comments:
Post a Comment