Vladimir Shlapentokh

Июнь 10, 2010


Filed under: Uncategorized — shlapentokh @ 9:39 пп

Vladimir Shlapentokh
Looking at “Izvestia”, in general a very conformist edition, I rarely miss a column by Alexander Livshits, a quite known economist. It seemed to me that despite his “walking into power”, he tries to be an honest author. And it is not a simple task in our world. However, after its regular publication of “Baton’s Anniversery” (May 26, 2010) I began to doubt my belief that the columnist of “Izvestia” is concerned with the truth. In this text the author expresses his wonder as to why the once famous Jackson-Vanik amendment (JVA) has not been abolished 35 years after its approval by the U.S. Congress, as the reason for it, being an obstacle of free emigration from the Soviet Union, had disappeared with the destruction of the Soviet Union and any sort of restrictions for leaving the country.
If Alexander Yakovlevich had completed his text with a disapproval of America (because it is not always that its critics are wrong, whatever their motives), then I would have no grounds for a review of my opinion of him. He really is right in his condemnation of “trans-Atlantic leaders”, who “do not keep their words” and do not wish to abolish the anachronistic law. But, alas, A.Y. does not stop there. He decided to present himself (along with the Soviet Union and current Russia) as a victim of JVA . It turns out, troubles, which A.Y. encountered in the second half of the 70’s after defending his candidateship (“I wasn’t accepted anywhere”, “even into high school”), — a direct result of JVA .
It must be assumed that prior to Jackson-Vanik amendment by the fifth item, discrimination in hiring or college acception was non-existent, and PhD by the last name of Livshits, in both 1960’s and early 1970’s (not to mention 1940-1950’s) could count on full equity in the Human Resources department. Funny, A.Y., while telling his misadventures, as an unwitting victim of JVA , decided not to explicitly call himself a Jew (something prevents him from doing it, even to this day), or even use the term anti-Semitism. The column “Baton’s Anniversary” can be successfully used in teaching, as an example of sophistry permutation of cause and effect. A.Y. was not rejected from work because of JVA, but because of the politics of the HR department, that were finally formed by Stalin in late 1930’s. Brezhnev’s government used the JVA as one of the new, along with the old, rationale of this policy.
However, the cunning columnist went even further. He seemed to instigate to us, that the amendment dramatically increased Jewish emigration and almost set panic in the HR that killed the career of the young candidate. In fact (and I know this for sure, because it was when I emigrated) the amendment rather hand a negative effect on emigration, and the number of “refusniks” grew with each passing day, until the beginning of the 80’s emigration in fact has not been terminated.
Meanwhile, the amendment could indeed, as claimed by A.Y., poison the life of young scientist, if he had “not made a statement”. And further, as is written by Alexander Livshits, in the conclusion about the “statement” and its consequences: “The bottom line: this is my country. I live only here. I will never go anywhere else. I can give a receipt. Oddly enough, this worked. They believed me. They had mercy on me. They gave me a job”. So, with full reverence to the fair Soviet power (after all “they had mercy!”), Alexander Livshits ends the description of a happy ending of this dramatic episode in the life of a capable Soviet Jew. In this story there is a mysterious place. To whom did Alexander Yakovlevich make a “statement”? Who “had mercy on him” and gave him a certificate of good character, which he is proud of even today?
And finally. Strikingly, Alexander Livshits, who has the position of the Russian vice-premier behind him, and even now, apparently, does not understand the incompatibility of self-esteem and affection for the power that “had mercy” on him. What for did the generous rule intend to “spare” the young man? Apparently, only for the fact that he had the fate of being Jewish. So, we hear the intonations of a hearted official from an unknown agency, who removes the blame from poor A.Y. for his unfortunate origin and at the same time for the damned amendment. And if A.Y. actually wrote a “receipt” of his permanent withdrawal from all rights to leave, of which he writes in a subjunctive mood, you can really believe A.Y. that he was forgiven for “everything”.

2 комментария »

  1. Присоединяюсь. Всё выше сказанное правда. Можем пообщаться на эту тему.

    комментарий от Fidel — Август 12, 2010 @ 3:43 пп | Ответить

  2. Конечно. Это было и со мной. Можем пообщаться на эту тему. Здесь или в PM.

    комментарий от unamSoumb — Январь 6, 2011 @ 12:39 пп | Ответить

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Добавить комментарий

Заполните поля или щелкните по значку, чтобы оставить свой комментарий:

Логотип WordPress.com

Для комментария используется ваша учётная запись WordPress.com. Выход /  Изменить )

Google photo

Для комментария используется ваша учётная запись Google. Выход /  Изменить )

Фотография Twitter

Для комментария используется ваша учётная запись Twitter. Выход /  Изменить )

Фотография Facebook

Для комментария используется ваша учётная запись Facebook. Выход /  Изменить )

Connecting to %s

Создайте бесплатный сайт или блог на WordPress.com.

%d такие блоггеры, как: