a little stroll through crimean history

i'm following with interest the events unfolding in the crimea. i really liked this piece in this morning's guardian/observer, which i think, in an even-manner, outlines what's going on, tho' there's more in this piece and it clouds the picture for me a bit. there are many facets to this story i'm trying to decide exactly what i think about the situation. i think it's hard for us to really get at the truth of what's happening, despite our instant access to information about it. so to try to understand, i dug in my memory to tolstoy's sebastopol sketches, the small tome of vignettes that some say makes tolstoy the first war reporter (i also think it's his best work, but that's the stuff of a different post).

the original crimean war (1853-56) was the first extensively-reported and photographed war. you might remember some musings on the roger fenton photos right here on mpc. it also changed the nature of war in many ways, including medically, as it was there that florence nightengale did her groundbreaking work. in the original crimean war, the russians fought the declining ottoman empire and were even winning, but thanks to napoleon and the brits getting involved on the ottoman side, they lost and ended up losing their black sea fleet. (that's admittedly the very short version of the story.) russia ostensibly got involved to protect the interests of orthodox christians in the ottoman empire, seeing themselves as champions of eastern orthodoxy everywhere. it was actually some trouble with various factions in the ukraine which made russia get involved in the first place. sounds familiar, eh?

well, in the accords after the war, the crimea ended back in russian hands, tho' they were prevented from establishing naval bases along the black sea, which crippled them there for years afterwards and probably served to prop up the dying ottoman empire for a few more decades.

as late as 1954, russia transferred administration of the crimea to ukraine, much to the dismay of the many russians living there, but they were all part of the soviet union so that was that. but those russians have remained russian and there are arguments for russia protecting their interests against a ukraine in chaos (no matter who has caused that chaos).

so i suppose by now you can tell that i'm actually inclined to be not that opposed to the russian "invasion." and i find it absurd and ludicrous that the US is making noise about getting involved, even going so far as to stick some hypocritical words in the mouth of the US secretary of state john kerry, "you just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext.' um, mr. secretary, i know it wasn't your administration, but wasn't there a rather recent invasion by your good selves in another little country called iraq on some trumped up charges of wmd?" how will we ever learn from history if we can't even remember it a mere decade later?

regardless of who is wrong and who is right (and there are undoubtedly many aspects of wrong and right on both sides), this isn't going to end well. but maybe a return to the cold war will do us good. we've been a little lost without it. and i don't just mean in the russian history departments of american universities.

the A&F thing is much ado about nothing

i have to start by saying that i have long loved abercrombie and fitch, from the artfully ripped jeans to the dark moodiness of their stores, with that alluring scent of buy-me that they waft through the air. i get a little light headed just thinking about it (in a good way). hell, i even once named my cats after the place. the A&F items in my wardrobe are largely sweatshirts, but one of my favorite dresses - a simple blue linen one, that i've worn to tramp through egypt, russia, morocco, turkey, greece and the balkans, as well as my own back yard is also one of theirs. these clothes are old friends - they've been with me through thick and thin, we've had good times together and we will continue to do so. they're somehow an essential part of who i am. and also of how i see myself. and want to see myself. it's also how i want to see husband, so his wardrobe has had its share of A&F items as well.

there's a tag on the inside of this sweatshirt that says, "this body is incredibly shaped to meet and exceed standards for perfection." i bought it in an A&F shop in a mall in fargo (we could ask how exclusive they really are if they are in the mall in fargo, but i digress) in 2003. it's ten years old. so what the ceo of A&F said recently isn't news. it's how A&F has always been - targeting exclusive, upscale, popular kids. like me. because i want to be that and see myself as that. and i do.

so i have to say that my feelings aren't hurt by his statement. in fact, i find it refreshingly honest. the world is full of hierarchies and most everything is aimed at one or the other place in the hierarchy. it's about marketing and target audiences and who you're trying to reach and what you're trying to sell. am i the only one watching mad men? and he was being honest - their audience is the cool the kids, the posh ones, the snobs. why is it that we can no longer admit that there are differences between people? why does the world (or maybe just the internet) get outraged by something so nonsensical and so not newsworthy (it not being news and all)? what the hell is the matter with people?

maybe it's all just a publicity stunt. but i still love my A&F sweatshirts and especially that blue linen dress. and i'm not giving them to anyone. they're part of me, part of my story, part of who i am. let the homeless have ralph lauren instead.