Great women

Good day, dear readers of my blog! Recently, the word perfectionist has begun to appear frequently in everyday life, and many are wondering - who is this? Today I will reveal in detail the definition of this word and talk about the positive and negative traits of this type of personality. In the article you will also see several photos that illustrate figuratively speaking “Hell” and “Heaven” for a perfectionist.

Cleopatra

Did you know that there were sixteen queens who proudly bore this name? But we are interested in Cleopatra the Seventh. A woman about whom countless films have been made. A woman whose name has become the definition of beauty and eternal youth. The love of Cleopatra's life was Mark Antony and, it seems, their romance is one of the most famous in world history. But this did not stop her from becoming Caesar's fatal lover. “The world's first celebrity” is what critic Harold Bloom called Cleopatra. After all, her whole story and life is a theater in which she had the opportunity to play countless roles. There are legends about the magical charms of this woman. But we don’t even know what she looked like. Ancient historians admire her charm - not her beauty. Her charms captivated her - it was some kind of extraordinary charm.

Cleopatra

Hidden signs of pride

If obvious signs of pride are easy to see and read in a person, then hidden signs of pride are often disguised under good intentions and “good deeds.” And they can be calculated only by the results of a person’s activities and his relationships with other people and the world as a whole.

Reluctance and inability to ask for help

The “I myself” program, when a person refuses help, does not accept it, avoids asking for help, justifying it by the fact that it’s easier and he/she can handle it just fine - a very cunning program.

In fact, behind it is: “I myself can do everything. I will do it better than others. I know what is better and more correct. I will do it faster and better.”

That is, a person does not trust others and prefers to follow the path of least resistance, without making extra efforts to come to an agreement with people - such a kind of spiritual laziness.

Lack of initiative

Those who avoid taking initiative are people who are afraid of responsibility, starting something new, making mistakes and are very dependent on other people's opinions.

They justify themselves by saying: “What if I make a mistake and it doesn’t work out for me, then it’s better not to take it at all.”

Principle of thinking: “If you need something, do it. Ask me, contact me. And I won’t make any effort to be the first to take the initiative and communicate with you and the like.”

Such behavior can be traced both in the professional sphere and in personal relationships, when a person avoids being the first to make peace after a quarrel, etc.

Hidden irresponsibility

Such people often portray vigorous activity, a lot of initiative and are bursting with ideas, but when it actually comes to action or the implementation of their plans, they step aside and pretend that this is how it happened.

Their principles: “My hut is on the edge - I don’t know anything. Why should I do this if..."

They never strive to prove themselves and take the chance to show their abilities. It’s easier for them to “sit out in the bushes.”

It turns out that such people try to implement their ideas with someone else’s hands and do not invest their own real strength and effort. This means that they do not realize their talents and abilities and refuse to develop.

Laziness and desire for freebies

Any laziness is a refusal of action and movement, and therefore of development and life. By avoiding making efforts, trying to get something for free, a person turns himself into “Oblomov” or Emelya.

If he follows the path of Emelya, he chooses the principle “let it happen on its own.” But it doesn’t happen like that, because if it’s done, it means someone is doing it. That is, it turns out that a person wants to achieve his goal at the expense of the work of others, but does not invest anything himself.

Or if he chooses the path of “Oblomov,” he degrades and very quickly loses his human appearance, turning into a half-corpse.

In each case, a person refuses to develop, does not make efforts, devalues the work of other people, believing that his own strengths are more expensive and more significant.

Victimhood and Rescuer Syndrome

Such people are driven by pity and a subconscious expectation that something bad will happen.

Principle of thinking: “I must / on everything and always. I will save everyone and everything. I will give advice, do good and tell you how to do it right. Only I have the strength and knowledge to help other people.”

Such a person usually devalues himself and his work for show, in order to later present the bill in the form of claims and demands for respect, attention and love. In fact, such a person considers his work so important that he allows himself to present the bill to others.

Often, behind the mask of sacrifice and imaginary care, excessive control of everything and everyone is hidden. Lack of trust in yourself, people, the world and God.

For more information about rescuer syndrome, see the article Victim is a tyrant as a relationship program

Hidden manipulation

Help, displays of attention and care, “love”, donations, good deeds, hints, instead of a direct request - are often hidden manipulation, behind which there is personal gain. The motivation for such cases is self-interest.

Including hidden manipulation, a person deceives himself and others, wrapping his own personal goals in a “beautiful wrapper” of good deeds, which he wants to achieve through the efforts of others.

Conceit

Manifestation 1: “I am my own king”

“I don’t care about all authorities and opinions. I myself know better how to..."

These symptoms most often affect teachers, doctors, healers, magicians and those who call themselves “sages”, “priests”, etc.

There are two main signs of falling into this conceit hook:

Denial of recognized authorities on the topic and their works.
The absence of a teacher and mentor in the person of a living person, and not “higher ones”.

Thinking: “I myself am so “cool”, knowledgeable, smart and experienced that the practice and experience of other people in this topic mean nothing and are not worth anything to me.”

Behind this lies a reluctance to adopt the experience and knowledge of other people, a lack of trust in them. And therefore, the opinion that my experience and knowledge is more valuable and significant than the experience and knowledge of other people on this topic.

Catherine II

One of the most famous women in Russian history. During the reign of the empress, 216 cities were built and the number of industrial enterprises doubled. She was interested in painting and literature, woke up at dawn, played billiards, and won wars. And, in between times, I changed my favorites. In St. Petersburg you can feel the royal atmosphere - especially if you visit the royal palaces. But you can get inspired in the northern capital by simply walking through the courtyards of St. Petersburg.

Catherine II

Maria Skłodowska-Curie

The woman who not only won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, but did it twice. She believed that money was needed only to satisfy simple needs. And she often refused medals and awards. Einstein was sure that Marie Curie was the only person whom fame and money would never spoil.

Maria Skłodowska-Curie

It's time to talk about your surroundings

If you don't control your environment, then your environment controls you. There is one wonderful metaphor: if you take a jar of pickles and put one fresh cucumber in it for a couple of days, do you know what will happen to it? Right! It will become salty too! Because it will begin to absorb brine. ⠀

Now think about what kind of “brine” you cook in every day? Who surrounds you? Are these positive and successful people? If not, immediately start changing your environment. Don’t call or come to meetings with those who don’t inspire you, and even worse, criticize or dump their problems and negativity on you. ⠀

No matter how rude it may sound, in order for a rocket to take off, it needs to drop a couple of unnecessary steps along the way. Don't be patient. If you see that a person continues to brazenly violate your personal boundaries, say goodbye to him. There's no point in wasting time. People don't change 90% of the time. They change only when they really want to. But often people sit in a swamp and surround themselves with “bummers” - people who pull them down.

The famous business coach Bodo Schaefer very clearly showed at one of his trainings how the environment influences life. Bodo climbed onto the table, asked his translator to come and pull him down by the hand. The translator began to drawl. And at this moment Bodo turns to the audience with the question: “Who will be easier now? Should the translator drag me down from the table? Or should I drag a translator onto the table? Who has it easier?

Of course, it’s easier for the one who drags down! If there is a swamp around you, if you are surrounded by negative people, then they can very easily drown all your dreams in this swamp. They will say that you won’t succeed, they will say: “Don’t interfere! Keep your head down! Why do you need that? You feel good as it is!”

When they decide for you, change your environment. Moreover, if these are not your close relatives, but just acquaintances or friends. Understand that time is the only irreplaceable resource. You can lose money, but earn it again, you can lose your health, and regain it again. But you can't lose time and get it back. Time will not be restored!

So please don't surround yourself with toxic people. Don't waste the best years of your life on those who don't appreciate it. Get rid of them right away.

Make a list.

Who surrounds me?
Who are these people?
Why are they around me and what are they telling me?

And if you find a person on the list who constantly humiliates you, devastates you or tells you that you won’t succeed, then think about why you are friends at all?

Coco Chanel

From cabaret singer to style icon and revolutionary woman. The one who gave society the little black dress and the legendary Chanel No. 5 fragrance. Coco Chanel's energy, determination and amazing taste changed the world. Almost a hundred years ago, the famous Coco wore a small black dress as a sign of grief for her deceased lover. The Frenchwoman's outfit made a real revolution in society. At first everyone laughed at Coco, and six months later the most fashionable women in France ordered the same dresses. Chanel never drew sketches - she did everything at once on the models. She believed that a dress could not be “lifeless.”

Sofia Kovalevskaya

To get an education, Sofya Kovalevskaya got married fictitiously and went to Germany to study. By the way, the fictitious husband soon truly fell in love with the girl. According to the rules of Berlin universities, women were not only not enrolled as students, but were not even allowed to be listeners at lectures. But the girl’s perseverance and intelligence are worthy of admiration - the teacher worked with her personally. But Sophia had a love for mathematics, but this did not stop her from becoming interested in Dostoevsky in her youth. Sophia is the first woman in Russia and Northern Europe to become a professor of mathematics.

A life without guilt is a life without regrets

You know who you are, what you want and why you want it. You do everything you can to achieve your dreams. It's not so much about the outcome as it is about your journey along the road of life.

However, there are some myths that may prevent you from living a guilt-free life.

Mini braids: quick simple hairstyles for a walk or remote work

The Central Bank named the regions of Russia with the most expensive and cheapest mortgages

Why did ancestors in the old days dream of good weather on Forgiveness Sunday?

Golda Meir

The story is about the Kyiv girl Golda Meir, who became the mother of Israel and the iron lady of the world. She stood at the origins of the independent state of Israel, which might not have appeared if Golda had not existed. Firstly, the country had no money, and secondly, the King of Jordan issued a threat that the Arabs wanted to destroy the Jews in Palestine. But Golda Meir brilliantly solved these problems: she met with the King of Jordan to prevent war. She dressed herself as an Arab woman and crossed the border.

Golda Meir's iron grip was legendary. Leadership qualities come from childhood. At the age of 11, Golda spoke decisively at a school meeting, and at the same time she managed to raise money for textbooks for the poor. She went from a laundress and a cashier to the second woman in the world. Politics has always been the prerogative of men. But Golda Meir boldly proved the opposite. Meir was a real mystery: despite the fact that she had only two dresses, she was called the most charming by both friends and opponents. She could be starving, but she also exuded incredible optimism.

The meaning of the word perfectionist

The word perfectionist comes from the English perfect, which means perfection. But since there are no perfect people, perfectionists simply strive for this.

Perfectionism can be either an adequate personality trait or a deviation from the norm; in this case, it is a neurosthenic form. In Tal Ben-Shahar's book “The Perfectionist Paradox,” these types are called adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism.

There are several types of perfectionism:

self-directed: the desire to be ideal;
directed towards others: high demands on others;
peace-oriented: the belief that the world should conform to certain rules and laws.

Some people believe that perfectionist and idealist are synonyms, but these are concepts from different areas and there is not much in common between them.

Margaret Thatcher

The only female Prime Minister of Great Britain. She held this post for three consecutive terms. And for good reason. Margaret managed to lead the country out of the economic crisis. And, moreover, to return Britain to the title of world power. By the way, a political career did not at all become an obstacle to a happy marriage.

Margaret Thatcher

Madeleine Albright

The first woman to serve as US Secretary of State. It was she who advocated for the United States to pursue an active offensive foreign policy. Madeleine Albright was the first to publicly declare the United States' commitment to global leadership. It was she who insisted on maintaining the sanctions regime in relation to Iraq. And only her “shuttle diplomacy” helped gather a majority of votes among UN members to extend these sanctions. Madeleine Albright is the woman who taught brooches to talk. Madeleine conveyed her mood and intention through bold jewelry. “Read my brooches,” Madeleine answered all questions jokingly. The media, frozen, waited for each appearance of the “lady with a brooch.” Vying with each other to guess what Madeleine Albright's next accessory means.

Madeleine Albright

Personal Boundary Technique #3 – “I See, I Feel, I Think”

This technique is suitable for your inner circle of friends. That is, for those people you are afraid of losing.

In the first part of “I See” you describe the current situation. You speak honestly about what is happening now, without getting personal.

In the second part of “I Feel,” you open up your emotions and feelings to show the person that this cannot be done with you. In this step, it is important to speak in I-messages (talk only about yourself and your feelings).

In the third part, “I Think,” you show personal boundaries and set rules and consequences. You say what will happen next if the person tries to violate your boundary at least one more time.

The technique only works if all three steps are completed. The steps must not be mixed up. Everything works in exactly this order. In theory, of course, everything is simple. But to master this instrument perfectly, you need constant practice.

For example, your mother came to visit you. While you and your husband were not at home, your mother decided to clean your apartment. She cleaned out all your drawers and personal belongings. This is unpleasant for you, which means it’s time to set boundaries:

Mom, I see that you wanted to help me and cleaned up my personal things. Thank you!
I feel how uncomfortable I am now. I don't like it when other people, even if they are relatives and friends, touch my personal things without my permission. I am the mistress of this house and I like to clean things up myself. I don't like it when others do this.
I think next time you shouldn't clean my apartment without my consent (boundary). And if this happens again, then next time we will come to visit you, and not you to visit us (consequences).

If you speak in an I-message format, then people begin to respect your personal boundaries. It is impossible to offend anyone with such messages, because there is no personalization in them, which means the feelings of the interlocutor will not be hurt.

Oprah Winfrey

She is called the chief therapist of the USA and the best friend of all housewives. At age 17, she began an internship in television. The path to Olympus has been completed successfully. The most famous US TV presenter has a net worth of $3 billion. But the real story of Oprah Winfrey is worse than any fictional tragedy. If you lift the veil of Oprah's past, you will take your breath away in horror. The future TV star was accustomed to the kicks of fate since childhood - she was not a wanted child. Soon after giving birth, Oprah's young mother left to work, leaving her daughter with her grandmother. Thanks to her grandmother, the girl began to read and write at the age of two and a half. And her phenomenal public performance took place even earlier. Oprah read her Easter speech to church parishioners so movingly that they dubbed her “the little preacher.”

A little later, the mother will take her daughter to her city. And it seems that the story will have a happy ending, but no. At the age of 9, a series of brutal rapes began: first by cousins, then by his own uncle. At age 13, she became pregnant and tried to commit suicide. The child was born prematurely and died after his first breath. It sounds creepy, but from that moment on, the dark events in Oprah's life ended. She moved in with her father and started all over again. He constantly told her that she was much better than she thought. Young Oprah quickly made her way onto television - already at 19 she became an assistant news anchor. By the way, the first black girl in such a position. This was followed by rapid career growth, and already in 1986 “The Oprah Winfrey Show” appeared, which made her famous throughout the world.

Women experience incredible loss, pain, challenges, fight for power in the political ring and become world leaders. And who decided to call them the weaker sex?

By the way, we recommend watching the series about women “Why Women Kill”

. Men will like it too.

Racism? Or something different?

Chapter 1

Racism without theory, or Why do almost all people consider themselves better than others?

The great scientist Aristotle believed that democracy is the most wonderful form of government. There should be no question of any coercion of citizens! And everyone, even the poorest citizen, must have at least three slaves.

(Historical fact)

In order to consider oneself better and superior to others, in order to oppress and even eat foreigners, theory is completely unnecessary. Including racial theory. All primitive tribes, without any science, consider themselves not only “the best”, but the only people. Many tribes of hunters and fishermen call themselves very simply: “people.” They are people. And the rest is humanity?! Not people, of course.

There are many examples that for primitive people war is not a struggle with others like themselves, but a type of hunting. The face burns, excitement pumps adrenaline into the blood, and the prey is joyfully eaten.

If they call themselves not just “people”, but “real people”, then this is already progress! Still, the rest of humanity is already considered as some semblance of “real” human beings. This is precisely the meaning of the self-name of the Chukchi: “luoravetlan” - “real people”. For the Yana tribe living in the Amazon, you and I are not people at all. There is no difference between the author of this book and his cat. But for the Chukchi there is already a difference. For them, I am already somehow different from a cat, although I am immeasurably lower than the Chukchi.

In such “progressive” primitive tribes they can accept a foreigner, but then it is necessary to imitate his birth from “one’s own” woman. After all, “our own” are the descendants of one ancestor, and all of them are related to each other within the tribe. And all foreigners are not relatives. They are strangers. So that a foreigner can become “one of our own,” he is, as it were, given birth: the woman into whose family you are assigned, depicts your birth... and everything is fine, you are “one of our own.” You have a “father” and “mother”, brothers and “sisters”, the entire necessary set of relatives.

But then your real parents, brothers and sisters are no longer related to you. If there is war, you must kill them with a fearless hand. I mean, hunt them just like any other prey.

All folklore of the world has a plot: enemies attack a camp, exterminate all enemies, down to the baby in the cradle. But a young woman runs away with a child in her arms. In another version of the plot, a pregnant woman runs away. Sometimes one of the enemies deliberately spares her and “misses” when shooting from a bow. The child grows up to be a hero, he takes revenge with dignity, exterminating yesterday's winners - also down to the baby in the cradle. Including the man who spared him, his children and grandchildren. The moral is clear: kill everyone, do not spare a pregnant woman or an infant - it’s more expensive for yourself.

And there is another twist to the same old plot... even darker. In this version, someone spared a baby in a cradle or a tiny child. The child grew up considering his adoptive parents to be his real mom and dad. And then an old woman let slip: you are not ours! You are a foster child captured in a destroyed camp. And then the adult hero kills his adoptive parents and all the people of his kind-tribe: everyone he managed to do.

A gloomy story evokes the same gloomy satisfaction among people of tribal society: for them, everything in it is “right.” “Ours” are “ours” by blood. Those who killed them are mortal “blood enemies” and must be exterminated. That they raised you is many times less important than “blood feud.” The guy must avenge “his own” and kill his “enemies”.

Not only primitive tribes treated “their own” and saw “enemies” in the same way. The ancient Egyptians called Asians “sons of the devil”, “cursed”. Eating with them was “an abomination to the Egyptians” (Gen. 43.32).[18] The word "man" in ancient Egyptian was equivalent to the word "Egyptian".

The Assyrians skinned living enemies and covered the walls of captured fortresses with this skin. They impaled their enemies on stakes, gouged out their eyes, cut off their limbs, and often entrusted this “work” to boys of 13–14 years old - so that they could learn inhumane attitudes towards humans.

The peoples who later built their civilizations started from about the same place. “Slovenians”, “Slavs” means nothing more than “those who have the word”, who speak.

What about everyone else? They are “Germans”, that is, dumb, non-speaking.

The Germans are no better. The self-name “Deutschen” goes back to the ancient German word for “people”. The Goths called themselves “tuzhen” - that’s roughly how they pronounced the word. And from him the Slavs derived the word “alien.”[19]

The attitude of the Slavs towards foreigners? It is well demonstrated by the revenge of Princess Olga, when the Drevlyan ambassadors are buried alive and burned in a bathhouse, the Drevlyan cities are set on fire, and tiny Svyatoslav dips the palms of his children’s hands in blood and shows them to the sun: “I, too, take revenge for dad!”

The Polyana chronicler calls himself a Christian and rejoices at the correction of morals among the Slavs who converted to Christianity. But he openly glorifies Princess Olga for her terrible revenge. Good princess: with the hands of the “good” glades she slaughtered the “bad” Drevlyans. A good woman: she remained forever faithful to her late husband, took revenge for him until the end of her days, and taught her son to do the same.

All modern civilization begins with the Greeks and Romans. And the Romans and Greeks called everyone “not their own” barbarians, that is, muttering “bar-bar-bar”, “not speaking.” Only Latin and Greek were recognized as human speech. Aristotle seriously wrote that barbarians were born to be slaves. Their essence is this. The Latin word "sclavum", or "slavum", meant both "slave" and "Slav". The attitude towards the slave for a long time was so terrible that it is simply difficult to talk about him. Suffice it to say that the Greeks simply threw a sick or old slave into the street. It was not aesthetically pleasing, and it littered the city: the patient carried infection, the corpse stank.

Therefore, the Romans, as in many other things, improved the Greeks: they took a sick or old slave to an island at the mouth of the Tiber River. This island was specially set aside as a dump for slaves: let him die away from the sacred hills of the City. By the way, that’s what they called Rome - Urbe, that is, City with a capital letter. The only “real” city, and all the others seem to be not cities.

Europeans noticed with horror that the Indians of South America could walk past a dying person in the forest without providing him with any help. A European can do the same, but he himself understands that he is committing a crime, and others will not forgive him.

Article 125 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation punishes “the deliberate abandonment without help of a person who is in a condition dangerous to life or health and is deprived of the opportunity to take measures for self-preservation due to childhood, old age, illness or due to his helplessness.”

All Criminal Codes of the world have similar articles and, as a rule, in a stricter version. Article 125 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is almost completely reproduced from part 2 of Article 127 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1960, but according to it, a new article of the new Russian state, liability occurs only “in cases where the perpetrator had the opportunity to assist this person and was obliged to take care of him or he himself put him in a condition dangerous to life or health.”

What if the culprit was not obliged to “take care” and did not “put” the person “in a condition dangerous to life and health”? The Samaritan was not obliged to take care of the Jew he saved and did not himself put him in the condition of one dying in the desert.

It turns out that modern laws of the Russian Federation allow you to pass by a dying person... not necessarily in the desert, right? You can also pass by a dying person in the forest or in the tundra, for example.

And in the USSR, Article 127 also had Part 1, which stated “on liability for failure to provide assistance to a person in a life-threatening condition and in need of immediate assistance, which could be provided without harm to third parties.”

Provided that “the life-threatening or health-threatening condition in which the victim found himself was known to the accused.”[20]

Nowadays, the same laws apply in all somewhat civilized countries: in a version more similar to the Soviet one than to the post-Soviet Russian one. Both in the East and in the West, the law directly requires helping someone in trouble - regardless of whether you are connected with this person or not, whether you know him or not, or whether you speak the same language as him or not. The division into “us” and “strangers” is abolished by law. But it is in vain to look for the same articles of law in the legislative acts of the entire Ancient East, and in Roman law.

Both according to written laws and according to the morality of the Old Testament, a Samaritan should not at all save a foreigner - a Jew. And the Jew should not save the Samaritan either. The “friend” will pass by the “stranger” without feeling any guilt at all, no one will even think of judging him. Everything is fine, everyone did what they should.

Only Christianity established a different morality, and the Gospels included the parable of Christ about the Good Samaritan, who saved a Jew dying in the desert. It is no coincidence that this parable emphasizes that a foreigner saved a foreigner.

It is not the wisest Plato or Seneca with his complex and deep ethics, but the apostles, rude to the Romans, and poorly educated, who assert that in Christ there is neither a Greek, nor a Jew, nor a barbarian, nor a Scythian.

The Church still stands on these principles, categorically opposing the inequality of peoples and races.[21] The Orthodox Church too.[22]

Racism? Or something different?

Primitive tribes and ancient peoples were not racists at all. Of course, they all knew very well what “their own” people looked like. After all, for a long time all “their own” lived and multiplied in complete isolation from the “others”. In some villages, everyone was even somewhat similar in appearance to everyone else. Others rarely appeared.

Only about two millennia before the birth of Christ, and not everywhere, did what some scientists call an “explosion of ethnicity” occur: people appear in burials who do not look similar to each other. This means that marriages began between people living in places remote from each other. Maybe people realized the harm of crossing close relatives with each other - but in order to realize this, they had to have a choice, they already had to compare the consequences of “close” and “distant” marriages.

In any case, such an “opening of the ethnic group” has occurred, and among some peoples it has even become prestigious to marry those who live far away. It’s not for nothing that the word “bride” appeared - that is, “taken from God knows where.” Among the ancient Slavs, the more distant the bride was brought, the more honor the groom received.

Of course, even after the “explosion of the ethnic group,” the idea of the limits within which the appearance of “one’s own” person can fluctuate remains. In the 1980s, a rather interesting experiment was conducted: Russian young men in different cities, from Smolensk to Vladivostok, were given the same pack of photographs of 100 girls. It was necessary to spread out the pack, putting aside the “typically Russian” faces separately.

So, the number of “typically Russian” girls increased from Smolensk to Vladivostok from 35 to 65 out of 100. And the stack of photographs is the same... It’s just that the more east the young men lived, the more often they considered partially Mongoloid faces “typically Russian”.

But is this racism? Here we can talk about “xenophobia”, that is, rejection of “strangers”, fear and hostility towards all “not our own”. This word comes from the Greek roots Xenos (xenos) - alien and Phobos (phobos) - fear.

This mood can also be called “ethnocentrism”: from the Greek ethnos (people, tribe) and the Latin centrum (center of the circle, focus). The term was introduced at the beginning of the 20th century by the American W. Sumner.[23] Ethnocentrism is a prejudiced distrust of “not our own”, an assessment of all people from the position of familiar norms and ideas.

Our ancestors and ourselves, too, were often xenophobes and ethnocentrists, but they were almost never racists.

The Greeks and Romans were also not racist at all: they did not at all consider that people of different skin colors were somehow “worse” than themselves. “Worse” for them were those who lived in a different culture.

Heraclitus wrote that the world is divided into three parts: Europe, Asia and Africa. In Africa they live in tribes. In Asia they live in despotic states. (Asians may be wonderful people, but they are slaves by nature. But in Europe there are citizens.

Free citizens form a polis, that is, an association of armed free people who have chosen for themselves a “polity” - general rules of life.

These citizens value their state of being free above all else. That is why, in the words of Heraclitus, they “fight for the law as for their fortress walls.” The fortress walls can be surrendered, but the community of citizens does not disappear from this.

After the Third Messenian War, the citizens of Messina lost to their predatory neighbors: the polis of Sparta. Some of the Messenians left for Sicily. Those who remained in their homeland turned into state slaves - helots.

In Sicily, the Messenian citizens were well received by the tyrant of Regius, Anaxilaus. He suggested to them: he has a long-standing enmity with the citizens of the city of Zankla - let the Messenians capture this city, Anaxilaus will help them. The operation was carried out, the city of Zankle was captured around 489 BC and renamed Messene. It is still called that way.

After the Third Messenian War, a new strong revolt of the Messenian helots in 464–455 BC, the rebels held out on Mount Itoma for 10 years. The Spartans were forced to give the rebels a free exit from Messenia. They, with the help of Athens, settled in the city of Naupactus on the northern coast of the Peloponnese.[24]

And then the Boeotian commander Epimanondas stood up for the Messenians. Sparta also attacked Boeotia, but Epimanondas, the inventor of a new battle formation, the “oblique formation,” defeated the Spartans over and over again. Having defeated them several times in 369, 367 and 362 BC, Epimanondas cleared Boeotia of the Spartans and demanded that their country be returned to the Messenians. And they returned it. In just 85 days, the Messenians built a new capital - Messenia. It also still stands today.[25]

And this, and a great many other examples, shows that citizens were united by politics, and not by community of origin. Aristotle directly wrote that man is a political animal. But not every person, you understand. Barbarians are not political. They willingly become slaves as long as someone takes care of them and gives them food and protection.

Therefore, citizens care about the happiness and well-being of the weak of this world: animals, children, women, slaves. Their own happiness and well-being are not particularly important for them - freedom and dignity are more important.

...At the same time, the race of a slave, a citizen, an Asian, and an African does not matter at all.

Notes:

Large illustrated encyclopedic dictionary (authorized translation of Philip's Millenium Encyclopedia). M.: Astrel, 2003.

https://www. un. org/russian/question/r2142. pdf

Old Testament. Kemerovo: Kemerovo Book Publishing House, 1991.

Spivak D. L. Metaphysics of St. Petersburg: The German Spirit. St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2003.

Issues of criminal law and procedure. M., 1980. P. 181.

Racism before the court of Christianity \\ Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate 1962. No. 3.

Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov. Racism and Christianity \\ Christianity and the Jewish Question. YMCA-Press. Paris, 1991.

The essence of ethnocentrism and its role in ICC // Grushevitz-Kaya T. G., Popkov V. D., Sadokhin A. P. Fundamentals of intercultural communication: A textbook for universities (Ed. A. P. Sadokhin). M.: UNITY-DANA, 2 002 352 p.

Berger A., Social movements in Ancient Sparta. M., 1936.

Pausanias. Description of Hellas IV 1, 1–2. M.: ACT, Ladomir, 2002.

Table of contents