Reply #82: This is so much nationalist twaddle. [View All]

[Igel]

The western Ukrainians haven't been at ease with the eastern ones for a long time. Different histories (since being under Pol./Lith./catholic rule) for centuries, different dialect base, different allegiances, etc. Papering over these differences by taking a purely west Ukrainian point of view is valid, but is certainly one sided.

Millions died in the Ukraine from famine because they had a drought and Stalin forced both collectivization (restructuring farms on the urban model) and played to the KPSS's base, urban dwellers. The 1917 rev. was an urban one; city-dwellers were the good guys, to the extent Stalin trusted them. Whether good ol' Uncle Joe killed a greater percentage of Ukrainians or Russians, I don't know. But he was Georgian. Viewing all of this as primarly some sort of ethnic struggle is probably wrong. In later years, there was Russian domination; but to read all the gripes about how the Ivans couldn't get a fair shake after about 1960 is to realize the USSR also had their own version of ethnic-based affirmative action.

Some of what you say is equivalent to saying that we should punish Mexican immigrants if they don't learn Spanish--refusing to learn the language and culture of the country they move to. Diversity, multilingual societies, etc., are good for the US, Europe, etc. But not for the Ukraine! (Specifically referring to the area, not the country.) I suppose Rusyn should be wiped out, too (a Carpathian Slavic dialect trying to claim language-level status with limited success). If language shift happens, it happens. Land doesn't have a language or rights--it's dirt and rock; people have language and culture. Instead of railing against people because their allegiance is to a government on the other side of some arbitrary line, maybe Kiev should try to earn it? But no, that wouldn't be in the spirit of Pora's "jackboot crushing a bug" poster, would it? Sort of like some conservatives concerned that all the Mexicans in the SW have mixed allegiances.

I've been of two minds concerning the Baltics--what do you do to preserve a culture and language (Estonian, Latvian, etc.) when much of your population is monolingual Russian? While most were there as overseers, or in exile, or whatever (this is a generation or two ago) many weren't "settled" there decades ago, they immigrated, some for better pay, part because that's where they were assigned in the raspredelenie. Just like in Kazakhstan. Or Yakutia. In the case of the Baltics, the languages aren't robust enough to survive--you need a minimum number of speakers and it needs to have an institutional purpose, so I can understand pushing Latvian and Estonian, even if I'm unsure as to its morality. But Ukrainian is big and sufficiently well established to survive in a bilingual society. It's no longer a victim.

In most cases, the Russians living in the eastern part (and in Kiev--I know many Kievan Russian-speakers who have a poor grasp of Ukrainian) didn't move there. They were born there; in many cases, their parents were born there. I'm not even sure that the borders were drawn with ethnicity in mind, so their ancestors may have been there for many centuries, back to Kievan Rus'. You can't portray them all as carpetbaggers. "Learn the new national language or leave"? Punishing them because they're Russian ... gee, isn't that collective punishment? Soft ethnic cleansing? Racism? Ethnocentrism? Good, "progressive" values?

And, my final word: revolutions scare me. Some revolutions work out great, some so-so, and some are horrible. You can't always predict how they go, and any thuggery is a mistake. So the Belorussian's supporters are in power for another election cycle. Yippee.