Military Review

19th century France: the land of savages

43
19th century France: the land of savagesPro-Soviet and liberal authors like to paint the horrors of life in a Russian village, while by default it is believed that in rural areas of other countries they lived differently. “While the Russians at the bar forced the serfs to feed the greyhound puppies with their milk, the French peasants transferred Ovid between work and went shopping in Milan.” To eliminate this figure of silence ("It’s clear that Europe is there! Civilization! Without the horrors of bloody tsarism!"), We specially translated a chapter from the famous work with the speaking title Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870-1914, which you Entirely available in English on Amazon. So…


“There is no need to go to America to see the savages,” the Parisian mused in the 1840's as he drove through the countryside of Burgundy. “Here they are, the redskins of Fenimore Cooper,” Balzac tells us in his novel “Peasants” 1844 of the year. In fact, there is enough evidence to suggest that vast territories of 19th-century France were inhabited by savages. Louis Chevalier showed us how a similar label, the working class - the dangerous class (classe laborieuse, classe dangereuse), stuck to the urban poor somewhere in the middle of the century. However, it could easily be applied, and over a longer period of time, to a part of the rural population - the same strange and unfamiliar and who worked just as much, although they posed less danger due to their high dispersal.

Not going too deep into the past: in 1831, the prefect of the Ariege department described people living in the Pyrenees valleys as wild and "cruel as the bears that live here." In 1840, an army headquarters officer discovered Morvan from Fur, "who utters such wild cries that they were like sounds made by animals." Officials and soldiers — who else would dare to venture into the wild parts of the countryside, especially the lost lands south of the Loire? In 1843, the infantry battalion, crossing the swampy department of Landa northeast of the city of Dax, found even more poor, backward, violent savages. The whole region was wild: wastelands, swamps, bogs, heather thickets. In the year 1832, when Georges-Eugène Haussmann, who later became a baron, visited the municipality of Uöl in the south-west of the department of Lo and Garonne, he did not find any roads or any landmarks there, and the road building inspector accompanying him was forced to navigate the compass. Around there were only shallow bogs (petites landes); on the territory of the Department of Landa, as the saying goes, a bird crossing a swamp had to carry its food with it. Until the 1857 year, when the planting of pine plantings heralded the onset of a new era (but so far only glimpses of it), references to abundant savagery could imply a description of not only the landscape, but also the living conditions and the population itself. The pilgrims who made the pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela (Santiago de Compostela - the city in which Santiago Cathedral is located - the largest pilgrimage center - approx. Per.) Were afraid to cross these lands, because there was "neither bread, nor wine, nor fish, not drink. " Indeed, even Teng (Hippolyte Taine) announced that he would prefer the desert to these lands. When Édouard Féret published his massive Statistique generale du departement de la Gironde general statistics for the 1874 year, the drainage of the Médoc region swamps was still fresh in memory, and many Bordeaux remembered the fevers and standing ponds that gave the region its original name - in medio aquae (in the middle of the water - lat., approx. per.). As for the huge peatlands south of Bordeaux, they still remained as wild, spreading pellagra and fever among a population as wild as its surroundings.

The space from Bordeaux to Bayonne was a wilderness. The intact nature was preserved on the lands from the island of Ye, located not far from the Atlantic coast, to the Drome department in the east, where in 1857 one colonel expressed the hope that the construction of the railway here would help to improve the share of “those who, unlike their brothers , lives a way of life two or three centuries ago ”and destroys“ wild instincts generated by isolation and despair. ” The townspeople of the city of Tulle called the peasants vicious (peccata), and the priest of the Correz department, a native of the commoners of the same prefecture, but exiled to the village parish, noted with regret: “The peasant is a vice, a pure vice, which is still not weakening, which can be observed in all its natural cruelty. " This observation, recorded by Joseph Roux, was most likely made at the beginning of the Third Republic, but it reflects the opinion that was once unified throughout three quarters of the 19th century. “A villager expresses suffering and grief with every feature: his eyes are uncertain and timid, his expression blank, his gait slow and clumsy, and his long hair falling down on his shoulders makes him moody” (Haute-Vienne department, 1822). “Terrible ignorance, prejudice, abuse” (Department of Morbian, 1822). “Lazy, greedy, mean and suspicious” (Department of Landa, 1843). “Dirt, rags, terrible savagery” (Inner Loire Department, 1850). “Vulgar, barely civilized, meek, but violent” (Loire Department, 1862). It is not surprising that in 1865, a landowner from the Limousin region turned to terminology that was not much different from that used by Labruyer for 200 years before him: “Two-legged animals that bear little resemblance to humans. The clothes of the [peasant] are dirty; and under his thick skin not to see blood flow. A wild, dull look does not give a glimpse of thought in the brain of this creature, morally and physically atrophied. ”

The riots of December 1851 of the year gave their harvest of characteristics: the wild horde, the land of savages, barbarians. It is important to understand that a savage (sauvage) thrown to someone was considered slanderous and, if it came to court, could result in a fine or even imprisonment. The list can be continued: in the beginning of the 1860's, savagery waned in the department of Nievre, but remained in the 1870's in the department of Sart, where the “wild” swamp people live as “troglodytes” and sleep by the fires in their huts “on heather stems like cats on sawdust. ” This continues to exist in Brittany, where children entering school "are like children from countries where civilization has not penetrated: wild, dirty, not understanding a word in [French]" (1880). A collector of musical folklore, wandering west of the department of Vendée to the Pyrenees, compared the local population with children and savages, who willingly, like all primitive peoples, showed a pronounced sense of rhythm. Even in 1903, the theme of rural savagery appeared in the author of travel essays, who during his visit to the Limousin region, north of the city of Brive-la-Gaillarde, was struck by the wildness of the region and the “Indian huts” (“Huttes de Sauvages”), in which people lived. What a relief after the wildness of the endless chestnut groves to get into the town, no matter how small it may be. Civilization, as well as upbringing, is an urban phenomenon (hereinafter, as a reinforcement of his thoughts, the author provides a list of concepts derived from the word civil - approx. Per.): Civil (civic), civilized (civil), civil official ( civilian), brought up (civilized); similarly, the concepts of polity, politeness, politics, police derive from the word polis, also denoting a city.
Civilization was what the peasants lacked. The adoption of the Law of Gramon in 1850, which made the abuse of animals an offense, was the desire to "civilize people" and children. Moreover, in 1850 it became mandatory. A priest from the Bews region believed that the most important thing his parishioners needed was upbringing. In the Haute-Loire Department, boaters on the Allier River had a surprisingly high "level of culture due to their communication with representatives of" more cultured nations "who they met on their way to Paris. The same applies to Saint Didier, which began to turn into a “more cultural place” thanks to trade relations with the city of Saint-Etienne. In the 1857 yearbook, on the contrary, it was noted that “civilization hardly touched” the villages on the Morvan Plateau. Military inspections indicated the same state of affairs in the departments of Law and Aveyron.

In the reports of primary school inspectors between 1860 and 1880, you can find repeated references to cultural growth and the role of local schools in this process. What did such reports mean to contemporaries? This issue will be discussed in detail later. Now suppose that they reflected the prevailing belief that certain areas and groups were not civilized, that is, they were not assimilated, integrated into French civilization: poor, backward, ignorant, ill-bred, rude, violent, treating each other like beasts. It was required to teach them mores, morals, literacy, knowledge of the French language, to give them knowledge of France, to instill in them a sense of legal and institutional structure outside their immediate place of residence. Leon Gambetta summarized in the 1871 year: the peasants were “intellectually several centuries behind the enlightened part of the country”, there was “a huge distance between them and us ... between those who speak our language, and many of our compatriots [who] no matter how cruel it is to talk about it, they can no more than slur mumble on it ”; wealth should have "become a means of their moral growth," in other words, their familiarization with culture. The peasant had to be integrated into the national society, economy and culture - the culture of cities, and, mainly, one city - Paris.
The progress reports mark a campaign: as of 1880, civilization has not yet been able to penetrate the wilderness of the Morbihan department to make it look like the rest of France, however, in the Ardeche department, “rude, vulgar and wild morals are becoming softer and more cultured” , and in the Atlantic West, old customs are "swept away by civilization." Until the campaign ends successfully, the rural people will remain, as two observers from the southwest put it, a rough and incomplete outline of a truly civilized man.

Of course, he was an incomplete sketch from the point of view of the model to which he did not correspond, and there were reasons for that: he [the peasant] had no idea about this model. The cultural and political aborigine, almost an animal or a child, whom even observers sympathizing with him found undoubtedly wild. In 1830, Stendhal spoke of a terrible triangle between the cities of Bordeaux, Bayonne and Valence, where "people believed in witches, could not read, and did not speak French." Flaubert, walking through the fair in Rasporden commune in 1846, as if in an exotic bazaar, described the typical peasant he encountered in his way: "... suspicious, restless, dumbfounded by any phenomenon he does not understand, he is in a hurry to leave the city." However, despite his insight, Flaubert made a big mistake when he tried to judge the peasant by the way he behaved in the city, a place where he came only if necessary. “Because there he only encounters people who look down on him and taunt him,” the observer in the former duchy of Bourbon explained. While in the city, the peasant always felt constrained, not at ease, that the surface observer considered manifestations of "savagery and pretense." In essence, savagery was pretense, complemented by sullenness. Things were worse in regions like Brittany, where the peasant could not be sure who among the townspeople (in addition to small traders and lower classes) spoke his language. As will be shown later, here and in places like this, French speakers required translators, which did not contribute to the convenience of communication or mutual understanding.

The peasant, being in an urban setting, felt "out of place", as a result, he embarrassed the inhabitants of the city, and their opinion of the peasant was a mirror image of his distrust of them. In the 1860's, one author who watched the southwestern peasants, who, he was sure, hated and feared him, could not hide his fear or his contempt for them. And the local landowner near Nantes could not help but notice how the peasants looked at him with a look "full of hatred and suspicion." “Ignorant, full of prejudice,” writes one officer, referring to the population near Le Mans, “they have no remorse when they try to cheat or deceive.” Ignorance, apathy, lethargy, laziness, inertia, as well as cruel, grip, sly and hypocritical nature under various formulations were attributed to anger, poverty and malnutrition. We will hear more about this later. In any case, what else could be expected? The peasant did not reason logically, he was selfish and superstitious. He was immune to beauty, indifferent to the surrounding area. He envied and hated anyone who tried to get better. Urban residents, who often (like in the colonial cities of Brittany) did not understand the rural language, despised the peasants, exaggerated their savagery, insisted on more picturesque and, therefore, more backward aspects of their activities, and sometimes made comparisons not in their favor with other colonized peoples in North Africa and the New World. In Brest in the 19th century, one could easily hear a comparison of its surroundings with “bushes”: a thicket (brousse) or a village (cambrousse). But parallels with the colonies were not needed when the arsenal of abusive terminology was already filled to capacity: “Potatoes - for pigs, peel - for Bretons”.

In the middle of the XVIII century, the famous Encyclopedia expressed a generally accepted point of view: “Many people do not see the difference between such people and animals, which they use when cultivating our land; this opinion is quite old and is likely to be relevant for a long time. " And so it happened. During the Revolution, writes Henri Antoine Jules Bois, members of the National Guard unit in Maine experienced the deepest contempt for rural barbarians in their region and even returned with necklaces from ears and noses after raids into rebellious villages. The 19th-century historians in the Vendée department, in turn, deny that the villagers have any goals or ideas other than those that they received from external sources. This is a topic that has been repeated over and over again in discussions about the culture of the masses, perpetuated by the concept of a meaningless boob, whose thinking was inconsistent, if it certainly existed at all.

At the beginning of the 19th century, folklore collectors were criticized for showing interest in the "lower classes of the population" or for recording a local dialect, unworthy attention, not to mention a respectful attitude. In the 1871 year, the Republicans, clearly wanting to humiliate the majority of the National Assembly, called them "villagers." The villagers themselves agreed: being rural was humiliating. Walking or eating like a peasant was a sin, so small collections of etiquette that the peddlers sold were scattered "with a bang." Others looked at this as the existence of different species. In the Languedoc, the unprivileged classes were considered and even considered themselves a lower species: rural girls, small, dark-skinned and thin were "a different race" in comparison with their urban peers. One of the results of the belief in such a difference was that village midwives crushed the skulls of newborn children in order to “more symbolic than real” try to give the small round skulls of peasant children an elongated shape that was associated with more intelligent city dwellers. And just as the superiority pretended by strangers became the superiority that the peasants began to ascribe to them, so the derogatory judgments of the aliens became part of the language, and from there inevitably got over to the peasant heads.

In Lower Brittany (western Brittany, where local traditions were the strongest - approx. Transl.), The word pemor (originally used to denote a dork) began to refer to local peasants, and then migrated to Breton. Words like pem and beda have come up with a similar path, first denoting a pitfall, then a recruit, and then just any peasant in Lower Brittany. Similarly, in the Franche-Comté region, the term used to refer to cow dung, bouz, turned into a bouzon, referring to a peasant. Rodent (Croquants), dork, lump, man (culs-terreux) - the list we started a few pages earlier is far from over. But, as if this were not enough, the very expression “peasant” became insulting: it was rejected or humbly accepted, but in any case it was changed to a more worthy label at the earliest opportunity. And indeed, in 1890, an English traveler discovered that the word was becoming obsolete: “As soon as the opportunity arises, the peasant becomes a cultivateur!”

Being a peasant was a shame; the peasant was ashamed of lack of culture; he agreed with those who condemned him that he lacked something valuable and much superior to him; he agreed that French civilization, especially everything in Paris, was undoubtedly excellent and desirable: hence the fashion for articles from Paris (articles de Paris). The Bretons reproached people who tried to imitate an exquisite tone in the use of "a little like Paris dialect." However, they spoke with admiration about those who behaved nobly, easily, naturally, as being "on the French foot." Duality was evident and was a recurring phenomenon. We will encounter him further. But in order to realize his uncouthness, the peasant had to get an idea about the opposite. And we will find that in many places this took time. Paris and, moreover, France, meanwhile, for too many continued to be only vague and distant places; for example, the peasants of the Ariege department in the 1850's considered the Louvre a fantastic palace from fairy tales, and members of the royal family were kind of heroes of these fairy tales. However, here they did not differ from urban residents, for whom the peasant seemed "the same mysterious creature as the red-skinned Indian seemed to such a tourist in the stagecoach on the way between New York and Boston."
Originator:
http://sputnikipogrom.com/
43 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. just exp
    just exp 31 January 2014 08: 49
    +18
    Yes, Europeans in general are essentially rabble, they began to wash and shit for a push a little over a century ago, and before that they washed only if they fell in the rain or the river crossed and crap in pots that spilled out from the window on passers-by.
    the whole "civilization" of the west is based on robbery, and so I agree with the liberals, we are "uncivilized" because their "civilization" = robbing the weaker.
    but what they have in abundance of is arrogance, meanness and duplicity.
    1. Canep
      Canep 31 January 2014 10: 36
      +7
      Excerpts from unwashed Europe:
      Many longingly imagine old Europe with noble knights (ha ha), ready for feats in the name of beautiful ladies (ho-ho), with beautiful palaces and gallant musketeers (well-well), with magnificent royal receptions and fragrant gardens of Versailles. Many people think: why wasn’t I born (born) in those beautiful times? Why do I have to live in these boring years when I forgot about honor and beauty?

      Believe me - you are very lucky.

      Until the 19th century, terrifying wildness reigned in Europe. Forget what you were shown in movies and fantasy novels. True - she is much less ... hmm ... fragrant. And this applies not only to the gloomy Middle Ages. In the celebrated epochs of the Renaissance and the Renaissance, essentially nothing has changed.

      Incidentally, sadly, the Christian Church is responsible for almost all the negative aspects of life in that Europe. Catholic in the first place.

      The ancient world elevated hygiene procedures to one of the main pleasures, it is enough to recall the famous Roman baths. Before the victory of Christianity, more than a thousand baths operated in Rome alone. Christians first came to power, closed all the baths.

      The people of that time were suspicious of washing the body: nudity is a sin, and it's cold - you can catch a cold. (Actually - not quite so. The "shift" on nudity took place somewhere in the 18-19th centuries, but they really didn't wash themselves - P. Krasnov). A hot bath is unrealistic - the firewood was already very expensive, the main consumer - the Holy Inquisition - was hardly enough, sometimes the favorite burning had to be replaced by quartering, and later - by wheeling.
      1. Canep
        Canep 31 January 2014 10: 37
        +5
        Queen of Spain Isabella of Castile (end of the XNUMXth century) admitted that she only washed twice in her entire life - at birth and on the day of the wedding.
        The daughter of one of the French kings died from lice. Pope Clement V dies from dysentery, and Pope Clement VII painfully dies from scabies (like King Philip II). The Duke of Norfolk refused to wash himself out of religious conviction. His body was covered with ulcers. Then the servants waited for his lordship to get drunk dead drunk, and barely washed it.
        Russian ambassadors at the court of the French king Louis XIV wrote that their majesty "stinks like a wild beast."
        The Russians themselves throughout Europe were considered perverts because they went to the bathhouse once a month or more - ugly often ...
        If in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries wealthy citizens washed themselves at least once every six months, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries they generally stopped taking a bath. True, sometimes I had to use it - but only for medicinal purposes. They carefully prepared for the procedure and put an enema on the eve. The French king Louis XIV washed only twice in his life - and then on the advice of doctors. The washing made the monarch so terrified that he had sworn never to accept water procedures.
        In those troubled Christian times, body care was considered a sin.
        Christian preachers urged people to walk literally in rags and never wash themselves, since this was the way in which spiritual purification could be achieved.
        One could not wash oneself also because in this way it was possible to wash off the "holy" water that he touched during baptism.
        As a result, people did not wash for years or did not know the water at all. Dirt and lice were considered special signs of holiness. The monks and nuns set the rest of the Christians with a corresponding example of service to the Lord. (Not all, but only some orders - P.Krasnov)
        They looked at cleanliness with disgust. Lice were called "pearls of God" and were considered a sign of holiness. Saints, both male and female, used to boast that the water never touched their feet, except when they had to wade the river. (Also not all, but only some orders - P. Krasnov)
        People are so unaccustomed to water procedures that Dr. F.E. Bilz, in a popular textbook of medicine of the late XNUMXth (!) Century, had to persuade people to wash. "There are people who, in truth, do not dare to swim in the river or in the bath, because since childhood they have never entered the water. This fear is unfounded," wrote Biltz in his book "New Natural Cure", "After the fifth or sixth bath you can get used to it ... ". Few believed the doctor ...
        Perfume - an important European invention - was born precisely as a reaction to the absence of baths. The initial task of the famous French perfumery was one - to mask the terrible stench over the years of unwashed bodies with harsh and persistent perfumes.
        The French Sun King, waking up one morning in a bad mood (and this was his usual state in the morning, because, as you know, Louis XIV suffered from insomnia due to bedbugs), ordered all the courtiers to choke. We are talking about the edict of Louis XIV, which stated that when visiting the courtyard one should not spare strong spirits so that their aroma drowned out the stench from bodies and clothes.
        Initially, these "odorous mixtures" were completely natural. Ladies of the European Middle Ages, knowing about the stimulating effect of the natural body odor, smeared their juices, like perfume, on the skin behind the ears and on the neck to attract the attention of the desired object.
        1. Canep
          Canep 31 January 2014 10: 41
          +7
          Toilet in the "advanced" European castle - everything falls out under the windows
          With the advent of Christianity, future generations of Europeans forgot about toilets with a flush for one and a half thousand years, turning to face the night vases. The role of a forgotten sewer was played by grooves in the streets, where fetid creeks of slops flowed.

          Forgetting the ancient benefits of civilization, people are now celebrating the need wherever they have to. For example, on the main staircase of a palace or castle. The French royal court periodically moved from castle to castle due to the fact that in the old there was literally nothing to breathe. The night pots stood under the beds day and night.

          After the French king Louis IX (XIII century) was doused with shit from the window, the inhabitants of Paris were allowed to remove household waste through the window, only three times previously shouting: "Beware!" Around the 17th century, wide-brimmed hats were invented to protect heads from feces.

          Initially, the curtsy was intended only to remove the stinky smelly hat away from the sensitive nose of the lady.
          The Louvre, the palace of the French kings, did not have a single toilet. They were emptied in the yard, on stairs, on balconies. When "needed" guests, courtiers and kings either squatted on a wide window sill by the open window, or they were brought "night vases", the contents of which were then poured out at the rear doors of the palace.

          The same thing happened in Versailles, for example during Louis XIV, the life of which is well known thanks to the memoirs of the Duke de Saint-Simon. The court ladies of the Palace of Versailles, right in the middle of the conversation (and sometimes even during the mass in the chapel or cathedral), got up and so effortlessly, in the corner, celebrated little (and not so) need.

          The French Sun King, like all other kings, allowed the courtiers to use any corners of Versailles and other castles as toilets. The castle walls were equipped with heavy curtains, in the corridors deaf niches were made. But wasn’t it easier to equip some toilets in the yard or just run to the park? No, this didn’t even occur to anyone, because the guard of the Tradition was ... diarrhea / diarrhea /.

          Ruthless, inexorable, able to take by surprise anyone and anywhere. With the appropriate quality of medieval food, diarrhea was permanent. Published on ruslife.org.ua

          The same reason can be traced in the fashion of those years for men's trousers, trousers, consisting of one vertical ribbons in several layers.
          The Parisian fashion for large wide skirts is obviously caused by the same reasons. Although the skirts were also used for another purpose - to hide a dog under them, which was designed to protect the Beautiful Ladies from fleas.

          Naturally, devout people preferred to defecate only with God's help - the Hungarian historian Istvan Rat-Veg in the "Comedy of the Book" cites the types of prayers from the prayer book entitled:
          "Indiscreet wishes of a God-fearing soul, ready for repentance, for every day and on different occasions",
          which include "Prayer for the Departure of Natural Needs".


          The rest is http://ruslife.org.ua/post163622113/
          1. Svyatoslavovich
            Svyatoslavovich 31 January 2014 11: 21
            +6
            Fashion, whose ancestor and Mecca is France, owes its appearance to the absence of such basic everyday skills as washing clothes. The clothes were not washed, they were changed after the final salting. Remember, in European books you will find the expression to clean clothes, but you will never find the expression to wash. This is in Russia "wild and not washed", with might and main used for washing lye and ash, in enlightened Europe they changed dresses for new ones. It is thanks to this that such important trade and economic formations as the "Great Silk Road" were formed, lice do not get in silk.
    2. Neophyte
      Neophyte 31 January 2014 11: 26
      +5
      Russian travelers in the 19th century, with horror wrote in travel notes that in Italy to
      It’s impossible to approach the Colosseum because of human feces. And in supposedly beautiful Paris, impurities poured out of windows directly onto the street. A certain king of France proudly
      said that he only washed at birth. And what about the other, lower classes. Therefore, in Europe perfumes were abundantly used, and ladies wore on Courtois
      in the hands of dogs so that extraneous fleas and lice are attracted to a poor animal!
      By the way, in the Western press it was written that among the current palace guard of the queen
      Lizki English, an epidemic of pubic lice was noted. And all these are bear hats!
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. olegff68
      olegff68 31 January 2014 14: 18
      +5
      Quote: just EXPL
      Yes, Europeans in general are essentially rabble, they began to wash and shit for a push a little over a century ago, and before that they only washed if they fell in the rain or crossed the river ....

      To this day, little has changed - going into a house in dirty shoes, sleeping in clothes ... and in the same shoes, washing your whole family with the same water from the sink ... etc.
  2. Riperbahn
    Riperbahn 31 January 2014 09: 19
    +6
    Shit behind the tapestries in the Louvre these civilized French. Cologne and spirits came up with what would clog the stench from unwashed bodies.
    1. Andrey78
      Andrey78 31 January 2014 10: 32
      +2
      A special flea market to catch lice
      1. sinukvl
        sinukvl 31 January 2014 16: 49
        +1
        Silk was valued in Europe for only one reason; lice did not start in it! Have you often tried to wash yourself? Here you have the myth of the purity of Europeans dispelled.
  3. predator.3
    predator.3 31 January 2014 09: 23
    +9
    It’s like in that joke, After a trip to Paris, one of our noblewoman, most likely also a blonde, exclaimed: "What a cultural city Paris, there even cabbies speak French!"
  4. Asan Ata
    Asan Ata 31 January 2014 09: 52
    +4
    Tellingly, we are talking about the very famous wine regions of Medoc and Bordeaux. It is quite possible that "French beauty" is a literary product in which it is not accepted to pass off the unwashed body of French women as the charm of French love. drinks
    1. Neophyte
      Neophyte 31 January 2014 11: 37
      +1
      Therefore, today's Europeans are willing to accept Muslim women in hijabs, etc., but in a warm climate, you understand?
    2. Neophyte
      Neophyte 31 January 2014 11: 37
      -1
      Therefore, today's Europeans are willing to accept Muslim women in hijabs, etc., but in a warm climate, you understand?
  5. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 31 January 2014 09: 57
    +8
    Physical purity together with mental purity have been the hallmark of the Russian people since ancient times! So gentlemen "Westerners", before decrying our people, look in the mirror, as grandfather Krylov suggested: "... there is no need to blame the mirror if the face is crooked ..."!
  6. Sadikoff
    Sadikoff 31 January 2014 10: 05
    +5
    More such materials would be yes at the international level.
  7. Djozz
    Djozz 31 January 2014 10: 14
    +3
    Napoleon, two weeks before his arrival, warned Josephine not to take a bath.
    1. Sars
      Sars 31 January 2014 10: 45
      +3
      To be more precise, Napoleon demanded that she not be washed!
    2. Sars
      Sars 31 January 2014 10: 45
      0
      To be more precise, Napoleon demanded that she not be washed!
      1. Djozz
        Djozz 31 January 2014 13: 13
        0
        I, I knew, wanted to say a little more correctly.
  8. Pehmore
    Pehmore 31 January 2014 10: 27
    +5
    Yes, they know that they are backward in terms of purity of body and soul. But they have very developed information, and they use it very skillfully. Someone said that we are barbarians, and went and went, and who wants to be backward, not who. And our people, who don’t know history, prove with foam at the mouth not about the values ​​of their homeland, but about how good they are in the West. We need to learn from them, at least go to the bathhouse so that we would not send them there
  9. Rashid
    Rashid 31 January 2014 10: 32
    +7
    Just yesterday I argued with one person about the stupid expression of our liberals "Russia is part of Europe." He proved that we are a different civilization (call it Russian or Eurasian) and it is just an insult to rank us among this bandit, wild Europe.
    1. Svyatoslavovich
      Svyatoslavovich 1 February 2014 00: 41
      0
      We cannot be part of Europe, if only in size, how can a garden be part of a garden? How the mainland can be part of the peninsula located on its edge. So Russia can not be part of Europe, this Europe, if it behaves well, can become our part, but we will think first)))
  10. Alexandr73
    Alexandr73 31 January 2014 10: 46
    +5
    Before the Romanov era, there were no slaves in Russia. (This is open information, it’s simply not accepted to talk about it. Muscovy, savages, Peter 1 cut a window into Europe and introduced us to civilization)
    Yes, society was divided into classes: princes, boyars, slaves, smerds. Now, who is who. Smerd is a peasant who works on land owned by a prince or a boyar. A tenant of a kind. He leases land, grain (seeds), inventory. For this, the "tax" pays - the tax. and pays off the debt. Until he pays the debt, he has no right to leave the owner. But! even if he is all in debt, like in silks, his children are born and are considered free and have the right to go anywhere as long as they do not collect debts themselves.
    Serfs - according to their position, as it were, higher, by freedom of action - lower. Servants of the boyar (prince) - when signing up for serfs, a man received Hryvnia with silver (he could give it to his relatives, drink, etc.) he transferred to full support to the owner (without a salary) and his complete submission. Mostly young men were taken to slaves for training military affairs. Because each boyar (prince) was obliged, when collecting troops, to arrive with his soldiers armored on horses, etc.
    Boyars - I won’t write anything special. - Their responsibilities. Keep trained and armed slaves (the number varied from the number of villages, etc.) Keep in the order of the fortress (city). Protect the land from raids, etc. In principle, an army that needs to be fed, shoeed, dressed, trained. What kind of income? With taxes from smerdy.
    John 4 the Terrible (nicknamed Vasilyevich for his cruelty) began reforms in the country, which were opposed by noble families. He deprived the boyars and princes of the "weapon slaves" and transferred them to "State support", and forced the boyars and princes to pay taxes to the treasury. He introduced compulsory education for peasant children at monasteries. Equalized in the rights of smerds and princes. It is clear that democracy is far away. But the prince or the boyar had no right to kill the smerd just like that. Therefore, he had to introduce the oprichnina, the army that was personally subordinate to him, because before that the troops were subordinate each to his prince or boyar. And they very strongly opposed such reforms. The princes and boyars wanted to live as in Europe - where the baron or count is the Tsar and God for their peasants. Can sell, buy, kill and eat them. Therefore, after the death of John there were uprisings, "SMUTA" and as a result the Romanovs came to Power, who did everything as in enlightened Europe. They turned all the inhabitants of a huge country into slaves.
    1. Svyatoslavovich
      Svyatoslavovich 1 February 2014 00: 48
      0
      Something you're carried away, that means
      (nicknamed for cruelty by Vasilievich)
      , he is, incidentally, the eldest son of the Grand Duke of Moscow, Vasily III and Elena Glinsky.

      And you are not right about serfdom, if you are interested, then briefly the chronology of enslavement of peasants in Russia can be represented as follows:

      1497 - The introduction of restrictions on the right to transfer from one landowner to another - St. George's Day.
      1581 - Abolition of St. George's Day - “reserved summers”.
      1597 - The right of the landowner to search for the fugitive peasant for 5 years and to return him to the owner - “lesson summers”.
      1637 - The term of investigation of runaway peasants was increased to 9 years.
      1641 - The term of investigation of runaway peasants was increased to 10 years.
      1649 - The Council Code of 1649 canceled the summer classes, thus securing the indefinite search for the fugitive peasants.
      1718 — 1724 - tax reform, finally attached peasants to the land.
      1747 - the landowner was given the right to sell his serfs to recruits to any person.
      1760 - the landowner received the right to exile peasants to Siberia.
      1765 - the landowner received the right to exile peasants not only to Siberia, but also to hard labor.
      1767 - peasants were strictly forbidden to file petitions (complaints) against their landlords personally to the empress or emperor.
      1783 - the spread of serfdom in left-bank Ukraine, etc.
      Learn mate part dear.
  11. Sars
    Sars 31 January 2014 10: 47
    +4
    The Germans - if the food is very tasty - you can spoil the air at the table - the hostess will be happy.
  12. dmb
    dmb 31 January 2014 11: 16
    +1
    And it was possible to prepare this quite interesting article without the first sentence. After all, his stupidity levels out all subsequent research. And what, "pro-Soviet and liberal historians" wrote a lie about the situation of the peasants in Russia; they are all these nonsense Radishchevs, Nekrasovs and Dostoevskys, and these peasants perpetrated riots because they were mad with fat?
  13. igordok
    igordok 31 January 2014 11: 20
    +5
    Walking small on the street, they still have a habit.

    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 31 January 2014 11: 44
      -1
      Quote: igordok
      Walking small on the street, they still have a habit.

      Sorry, but photos of women, you have the same "toilets". I would like to look at this wassat
      1. igordok
        igordok 31 January 2014 13: 25
        0
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Sorry, but photos of women, you have the same "toilets". I would like to look at this


        Unfortunately no. That is why, fighters for equality are not indignant, it is possible for men, but not for women. Where is the equality?
    2. just exp
      just exp 31 January 2014 12: 46
      0
      and by and large there are such photos?
      Well it is possible to urge.
  14. EvilLion
    EvilLion 31 January 2014 12: 50
    -4
    Yeah, and in Russia in those same years, peasants were simply sold like cattle. And no-one actually developed agricultural production, which later came back to life with constant hunger and revolutions.
  15. Stinger
    Stinger 31 January 2014 13: 36
    +2
    Let them say thanks that the Russians taught them how to wash the bath. And then they would still catch lice on clothes from Christia Dior.
  16. popandopulo
    popandopulo 31 January 2014 14: 05
    +3
    article-rare shit ..but like the site from which she was reposted.
  17. Platov
    Platov 31 January 2014 14: 11
    +2
    I somehow don’t understand how it can be washed twice a month, not a year, but for a lifetime. Not long ago, an Iranian was shown that he had not washed for 60 years, cutie brontosaurus. Cutie Sarkozy for help in difficult times Libya ruined and the head of the bandits to tear to pieces. Such a gangster civilization they have not washed.
  18. washi
    washi 31 January 2014 15: 41
    +3
    What has changed? After ours reached Paris and took Berlin three times, We taught them how to wash.
    Everything else remains.
    It's one thing with money for an excursion, and quite another in the province for work.
    Wretched, but were united by Catholicism. Now this is not there.
    And what did Peter 1 Christ seller, killer, etc. take? from Europe good, which was not with his father?
    Homosexuality, drunkenness, serfdom, which turned into slavery, the destruction of the population of Russia?
  19. sinukvl
    sinukvl 31 January 2014 16: 43
    +2
    All these words about the enlightened Europe, which is the lamp and the bearer of everything advanced, were actually invented in Europe, in order to throw dust in the eyes of the rest of the world, and for self-satisfaction. In fact, Europe has never been enlightened, either earlier or now.
  20. kaktus
    kaktus 31 January 2014 17: 14
    +1
    Not only Balzac, but also E. Zola "Earth" is the end of the 19th century, and the customs are monstrous. negative
  21. parus2nik
    parus2nik 31 January 2014 18: 55
    +6
    What is the difference between Europe and Russia? In Europe they don’t slap their ears on the cheeks .. A little act PR, mother don’t cry, the same French, yes we .. in the Second World War .. we are with de Gaulle .. Resistance, Mackey .. Normandy -Neman..And about the SS division they are silent, that the French factories, shipyards plowed with pleasure with silence in Germany..This is such a simple example .. And in Russia, clapping your ears on the cheeks, well, it's just national fun .. Again same .., now England, they have all the national heroes .. O. Cromwell- the British talk about him .. he laid the foundations of the state in which we live now .. About Nelson .. yes, he is not a gentleman, but made Britain mistress of the seas .. And with us .. today a hero, and tomorrow a terrorist ..
  22. mabuta
    mabuta 1 February 2014 00: 21
    0
    More such articles. And then all of us will teach the orphans. laughing laughing
  23. Volkhov
    Volkhov 1 February 2014 06: 20
    +2
    The article itself is dirty.
    Napoleon was in Russia in the 19th century, he was French, he had a bath with him, he bathed every day, even received urgent papers and visitors. But after every Frenchman they didn’t drag the bath - there was no way.
    In Russia, baths are only because of the low population density, a lot of forest and water. In the Sahara, the population density is low, but there is no water - they do not wash often. And the Chukchi do not wash - there is no firewood in the tundra, only enough to cook. If all the French began to wash, there would be no forest left in the Middle Ages, and it is needed for ships, houses, furniture, carts and carriages.
    As soon as coal mining in Europe developed in the 19th century, plumbing with bathtubs improved and now Russia bathhouse buys imported shocks and a jacuzzi. Ancient Rome was full of baths - but only because it was the capital of the empire, could use the resources of a large territory and heat there.
    In the Russian Federation, the most fooled and oppressed people and they tell him stories about the difficulties of the life of blacks in America against the backdrop of the Gulag, then about the unwashed Europe against the background of rising utility bills - a black and dirty PR in the article.
    1. cayman gene
      cayman gene 1 February 2014 11: 37
      +3
      right Volkhov. in Europe, in stupid agitation, they portray Russians as completely drunk with balalaikas embracing bears, but normal people should not stoop to primitive polemics with fools according to their stupid rules.
    2. pRofF
      pRofF 1 February 2014 13: 02
      0
      In the Russian Federation, the most duped and oppressed

      Yeah. So you, dear, great enlightener and liberator? Nu-nu.
      But let's get to the point. That. that Enlightened Europe in fact was not exactly that - it has been known for a long time. By the way, Anna Yaroslavovna, who was married to the king of France, wrote about this. Actually, even the Europeans themselves know about this and sometimes they joke about it - there was once such a wonderful film "Aliens" with Jean Reno - when two poor fellows were thrown from the Middle Ages to modern France. So there, when they were offered to wash, they said in all seriousness that they had washed a month ago. No, of course, this is a movie, but - just how themselves the French imagine the life of their ancestors wink
      As for Rome ... You, my dear, something would have read in ancient Roman history smile In any small town with a population of more than 2-3 thousand inhabitants - there were thermal baths, that is, baths) I will not mention the various estates and plots that belonged to wealthy colonists (in the countryside). Bath - was an integral attribute of the Empire - like legions, "testudos" and roads. So it's not about the size of the Eternal City.
      Further. In some ways, your thesis about the scarcity of resources in Europe is correct. Yes, in general, the low estates like the same peasants could hardly afford to constantly heat the bathhouse - however, again, not a fact: the then population of Europe was not large enough to cut down all the trees. Explosive growth began just when the word "hygiene" returned to the understanding of Europeans. But here people of a higher class origin - they could afford water procedures - and often - there weren't so many of them - relative to the total mass of the population. But for some reason they did not want to wash. And we, then, are barbarians, savages, oppressed in the GULAG ... (Well, I don't even want to disassemble the GULAG, this topic has already set everyone sore on edge. I will only say one thing - you read less than Solzhenitsyn, there will be more sense).
      Therefore, I do not agree with you - the article is good, it's a pity that only the language is lame - but, how does the author of the book = Frenchman?

      Sincerely, Egor.
      1. Panikovsky
        Panikovsky 1 February 2014 18: 16
        0
        and you, your cleverness Egor, what do you want to say? Mr. Volkhov is understandable, your rassusyvaniya-systematized nonsense that is being studied in psychiatry. without respect, but with compassion, doctor Mikhail Yuryevich.
        1. pRofF
          pRofF 1 February 2014 22: 53
          0
          Hmm. I would like to know what is so incomprehensible to you in "my systematized delirium"? And why exactly "delirium", moreover - "systematized"? what
          In my opinion, I have quite clearly stated the thoughts on which I disagreed with Mr. Volkhov.

          Ps A simple respect to show is worth it - you are a well-bred person. Moreover, a doctor. hi

          Sincerely, Egor.
  24. Sugar Honeyovich
    Sugar Honeyovich 10 February 2014 09: 46
    0
    Those arriving in the 18th century. to France, foreigners compared local peasants with cattle not only in material and cultural level, but also in their groveling before the nobles. This is a word about "Russian servitude".