Page 194 - Russian History Viewed through Distorted Mirrors, Vol. 1

Nicolai Levashov. Russian History Viewed through Distorted Mirrors. Vol. 1

good years the increase of population, in most cases, was greater than natural losses.
Therefore, sooner or later, the question of overpopulation arose and people solved it
in different ways, but the essence remained the same — “unnecessary” eaters must
die. One people created customs which required that elderly and sick people who
were unable to lead an active life must abandon the tribe or family in order to die in
the “embraces” of nature. Often these customs took the form of beautiful legends to
calm the conscience. Customs and traditions dangerous to life were invented so that
far from everyone could pass them, like, for example, a test for young fellows to be
called men and to have the right to have their own family. Some of these customs and
traditions, independent of the “beauty” of the legends, were not only immoral but also
went beyond the limits of common sense and “reasonable” cruelty. However, some of
them, although quite pitiless, in the end were advantageous for a family, community
or tribe. For example, only the strongest, toughest and healthiest young men could

pass the tests for the right to be called man, which, certainly, had an enormous value
in the initial phases of evolution.
Often these customs and traditions did not necessarily demand of a young man
resistance to a predator or natural phenomena. Some tribes used “small” wars be-
tween clans and tribes not for the sake of lands, not for the sake of food and even not
for the sake of women, but exclusively for the sake of military boldness. In this case
the murder of a human being for the sake of self-affirmation was not only cruel, but
unnatural. There are no living organisms in nature which would kill the members of
their own species intentionally except for some rare exceptions which confirms the
rule. It is true, there is the third “way” of maintaining the natural balance — a com-
plete extermination of neighbours, capturing their territories. However, in using such
a “humane” method for saving the harmony of nature, nobody sends their old and
sick people to die all alone, nobody makes their sons and daughters die in the process
of severe trials; “only” those pitiful and useless neighbours who idle their life away,
“deserve” death. Regrettably, the latter “method” of ensuring the natural balance be-
came very widely used, especially among nomadic tribes: however this did not create
the conditions required for the development of civilization. And now let us come
back to the analysis of the settled way of life.

The formation of joint family or communal settlements became, not only possi-
ble, when cultivated lands, vegetable gardens, domestic animals etc. appeared, it be-
came necessary. The coexistence of many families helped to cope with both four-
legged and two-legged predators more efficiently. Not only the gangs of derelicts, but
also the closest, and far from kind and neighbourly nomadic tribes, could attack the
settlement. Often, the settled neighbours attacked too, coveting goods or better lands.
One way or another, joint settlements were the only way which facilitated holding out
against unwelcome guests. One family, even being quite numerous, had almost no
chance of withstanding even a small band of derelicts, not to mention the neighbours’
plundering raids. Living in a secluded place, it could also become easy prey for a
horde of hungry wolves in a severe winter. These and many other reasons urged peo-
ple to settle close to each other.

I would like to draw your attention to the economic and evolutional acquisitions

Back to contents 194