PDA

View Full Version : Belarus name dispute



Windischer
11-26-2013, 11:29 PM
Split from here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?50928-Is-Poland-Eastern-Europe&p=2147108#post2147108)
- mod


i see that hungarian state propaganda is powerful even after all those years :laugh:
almost on par with nazi & bolshevik

AND...



Belorussians

saying "belorussians" is chauvinistic. since the land is Belarus (White Ruthenia), a proper ethnonym and adjective in english should be Belarusian or Belarusyn (White Ruthenian).

Twistedmind
11-27-2013, 05:17 AM
i see that hungarian state propaganda is powerful even after all those years :laugh:
almost on par with nazi & bolshevik

AND...



saying "belorussians" is chauvinistic. since the land is Belarus (White Ruthenia), a proper ethnonym and adjective in english should be Belarusian or Belarusyn (White Ruthenian).

It is not chauvinistic, since it is still considered to be correct in English language, same case with German, Russian etc. Of course, Belarusians (other acceptable spellings: Belarussians, Byelorussians etc) want to show they distant idenity, and it should be respected. But:
1) Its not chauvinistic. In best case its confusion.
2) Russia is also derived from Rus' like Ruthenia.
3) Its more apropriate to write Belorussian than Byelarusyn, since they do have more in common with Russians (linguisticaly, culturaly, genneticaly etc) than with Rusyns.

inactive_member
11-27-2013, 07:12 AM
It is not chauvinistic, since it is still considered to be correct in English language, same case with German, Russian etc. Of course, Belarusians (other acceptable spellings: Belarussians, Byelorussians etc) want to show they distant idenity, and it should be respected. But:
1) Its not chauvinistic. In best case its confusion.
2) Russia is also derived from Rus' like Ruthenia.
3) Its more apropriate to write Belorussian than Byelarusyn, since they do have more in common with Russians (linguisticaly, culturaly, genneticaly etc) than with Rusyns.


Generally, the Russians don't have a problem spelling the term Belarus-ian. Some older Russian generation people still use the term Belorussia (Belorussija), while younger generation and media prefer the term 'Belarus'. Nowadays, Belarus is more common than Belorussia in Russia. Also, Belarus is a more beautiful as it's closer to the original name. Think of the differences between Rossija and Rus' and warm feelings the latter name may bring out of some Russians.

There're some chauvinists in Russia purposely misspelling the name Belarus, in which case the Belarusians are quickly to label the chauvinists as «rossijane» (term for all people of Russia than ethnic Russians) which causes butt-hurt among them.

As for the genetics.

There was a six generation Boyko guy on this forum. Genetically, he would not be very distant from Poles and SW Belarusians, while some Russians living in Archangel or Karelia maybe more similar to Finnic people than to the Belarusians. So,

Southern Russians have genetic affinity to Ukrainians.
Western Russians have genetic affinity to Belarusians.
Northern Russians have genetic affinity to Finns.
People living in other neighbouring countries have also genetic affinity to the Belarusians.

Windischer
11-27-2013, 03:48 PM
It is not chauvinistic, since it is still considered to be correct in English language, same case with German, Russian etc. Of course, Belarusians (other acceptable spellings: Belarussians, Byelorussians etc) want to show they distant idenity, and it should be respected. But:
1) Its not chauvinistic. In best case its confusion.
2) Russia is also derived from Rus' like Ruthenia.
3) Its more apropriate to write Belorussian than Byelarusyn, since they do have more in common with Russians (linguisticaly, culturaly, genneticaly etc) than with Rusyns.

i didnt mean its always accompanied by chauvinistic intent, but i think it has chauvinistic origins. rossiya (russia) is a hellenized form of rus. rusyn is an archaic personal noun, meaning "rus-person", a ruthenian (term "ruthenian" itself is a borrowing from old latin name for rutheni, a gaulish tribe living at pyrenees, rousillon region; later used for old rusyns in the wider sense). its not supposed to point at any connection to modern rusyns. the suffix -in in belarusyn has been dropping in belarusyn nouns like it did in most other slavic languages. a person from byelaya rus is therefore a byelorus (term rusyn was used in belarus as an ethnonym well into early modern era).

rendering this to english language from belarus (in this orthography), with respect to english language principles and grammar, yields a personal noun and an adjective in these forms:
1. Belarusyn and
2. Belarusian;
in the same way as adjective ruskyj yields rusyn in english.

belarusyn looks like the most correct form to me. hellenization to belarussian is completely out of place and speaks of russification.

Twistedmind
11-28-2013, 10:52 AM
Generally, the Russians don't have a problem spelling the term Belarus-ian.
Yes.



Some older Russian generation people still use the term Belorussia (Belorussija), while younger generation and media prefer the term 'Belarus'. Nowadays, Belarus is more common than Belorussia in Russia.

I had in mind more other languages. In most of European languages, there is equotation between second part of name of Belarus, and name of Russia. My point was it is legacy of old times, not Russian chauvinism in German, Serbian etc :)



Also, Belarus is a more beautiful as it's closer to the original name.

I agree.



Think of the differences between Rossija and Rus' and warm feelings the latter name may bring out of some Russians.
[/quote]
Well, in XVII century Russians accepted Greek spelling of their own country. Before that it was Rus' or Rusiya (like most of Slavs are today spelling). What I had in mind was both countries in name and rest bear legacy of all Principality of Rus'.



There're some chauvinists in Russia purposely misspelling the name Belarus, in which case the Belarusians are quickly to label the chauvinists as «rossijane» (term for all people of Russia than ethnic Russians) which causes butt-hurt among them.

Ok, but most people on TA are not Russians.




As for the genetics.

There was a six generation Boyko guy on this forum. Genetically, he would not be very distant from Poles and SW Belarusians, while some Russians living in Archangel or Karelia maybe more similar to Finnic people than to the Belarusians. So,

Southern Russians have genetic affinity to Ukrainians.
Western Russians have genetic affinity to Belarusians.
Northern Russians have genetic affinity to Finns.
People living in other neighbouring countries have also genetic affinity to the Belarusians.
Well, I was maybe somewhat generalizing, but in end I was right. If you compare Northern Russians, they will be still closer to Belarusians than Zakrpathian Rusyns. Anyway, culturaly, ethnolignguisticaly, there is no doubt, but I introduced it mainly to diferentiate Belarusians from Rusyns, same with Russians.


i didnt mean its always accompanied by chauvinistic intent,

It has chauvinistic context verry rarely, in Russian language. But I understand point when some people want to express their different identity.



but i think it has chauvinistic origins.

I highly doubt, especialy when we speak about English and German language.



rossiya (russia) is a hellenized form of rus.

Well Rossiya is. Russia is latinized, and acepted in English.



rusyn is an archaic personal noun, meaning "rus-person", a ruthenian (term "ruthenian" itself is a borrowing from old latin name for rutheni, a gaulish tribe living at pyrenees, rousillon region; later used for old rusyns in the wider sense). its not supposed to point at any connection to modern rusyns. the suffix -in in belarusyn has been dropping in belarusyn nouns like it did in most other slavic languages. a person from byelaya rus is therefore a byelorus (term rusyn was used in belarus as an ethnonym well into early modern era).

Well, you forget, in Archaic times Rusin could be Russian as well. In OCS most of names of ethnicites had suffix -in. Even in XX century there were Russians in Kazan, Kostroma etc who were calling themselves Rusin instead of Russkiy. Byelarusyn would be Belarusian in Polish, altough archaic. :)



rendering this to english language from belarus (in this orthography), with respect to english language principles and grammar, yields a personal noun and an adjective in these forms:
1. Belarusyn and
2. Belarusian;
in the same way as adjective ruskyj yields rusyn in english.

Rusyn is loanwoard. Not native English word.



belarusyn looks like the most correct form to me.
How, it could be most correct when nobody use it, since it is leftover of ancient layers of language. Especialy native people do not use it.


Finland also had autonomy like us,
Finland was seprate crown, technicaly speaking Russia and Finland were in Personal union. They had their own money, separte laws, franchise, separate army. You were just provinces, integral part of Russian Empire, with degree of self-governance. Also, people who had autonomy were German lords and pastors, not Estonian serfs



what's your point?
My point is teritory of modern Estonia was Russian province.



Western parts of the Russian Empire which were considerably more developed than Russia were never under direct Russian rule,
L00lz again. Western Parts of Russian Empire was what is today Poland. And it was not significantly more developed than Russia, both states were under serfdom, same case with Baltic provinces.





The reforms made in Russia by the czar, was actually done after Estonia and Livonia which had typically Western law systems, court systems and so on, being governed by Germans.

Hehe, Livonia acctually had part of Estonia within it. ;) Also there was no Estonia as entity, there were Curonia, Livonia etc. Besides, those Western laws were also feudal. Same with Russia, so you dont have point.




Russia was to some extent, Westernized, after the local laws in Estonia and Livonia.

Russia was westenized before even acquired Baltic provinces. :D

inactive_member
11-28-2013, 12:26 PM
I had in mind more other languages. In most of European languages, there is equotation between second part of name of Belarus, and name of Russia. My point was it is legacy of old times, not Russian chauvinism in German, Serbian etc :)


I have a strong suspision the English term 'Belorussia' is derived from 'Belorussija' (Белоруссия). The name 'Belorussija' (Белоруссия) was given to the republic by Soviet authorities in 1919 . The term Belaja Rus' or Belarus existed since the 13th century. There's also some confusion naming different ethnicities using a similar obsolete ethnonym. So, it makes sense to use the proper terms Belarus and Belarus-ian.



Well, in XVII century Russians accepted Greek spelling of their own country. Before that it was Rus' or Rusiya (like most of Slavs are today spelling). What I had in mind was both countries in name and rest bear legacy of all Principality of Rus'.

Different regions of Russia were known under different names in different periods of times. Officially, Russia was also known as Moscow principality in the past. The term 'Rus' is used in poems bringing warms or patriotic feelings among some people. There're Russians who dislike the term 'russkiy' used as ethnonym because it's in an adjective form created by a commie Yakov Sverdlov. The term 'Russkiy' was applied to the language in the past. Ethnic Russians were known as the Great-Russians (великорос или великорус) (see Lisa's profile for a reference). AFAIK Sverdolov considered it chauvinistic, so he changed it to Russkiy.


Well, I was maybe somewhat generalizing, but in end I was right. If you compare Northern Russians, they will be still closer to Belarusians than Zakrpathian Rusyns. Anyway, culturaly, ethnolignguisticaly, there is no doubt, but I introduced it mainly to diferentiate Belarusians from Rusyns, same with Russians.

The ethnography of the Russian North is containing many Finnic elements which are foreign in Belarus. Many of Belarusian ancestors were Greek Catholic in the past. Belarus has a strong presence of Catholicism in two ethnographic regions, which is non-existent in the Russian North. If I am not mistaken Rusyns are also Orthodox, Catholic and Greek Catholic.

inactive_member
11-28-2013, 01:12 PM
The north-western region of the Russian Empire, officially known as Severo-Zapadniy Kraj, was referred to former territories of the GDL. The north-western region included the present day territories of Belarus, Lithuania and eastern Latvia (Latgale) . The governates in the north-western region of Russian Empire were Vilno, Kovno, Grodno, Minsk, Mogilev and Vitebsk.

Poland was an autonomy having its own constitution, parliament, army till 1863 upraising. Finland was also an autonomous region in Russia known as the Great Duchy of Finland.

Latvia and Estonia

The governate of Estonia (northern & central Estonia)
The governate of Livia (southern Estonia and northern Latvia)
The governate of Courland (Latvia without territories of northern and eastern Latvia)

Did the governates existing on Latvian and Estonian territories have their own constitutions, parliaments, armies, customs borders as Poland and Finland?

Windischer
11-28-2013, 01:20 PM
what i meant is, that if rus -> rusyn, then belarus -> belarusyn. in english, that is. because, actual belorusyn ppl dont use english ethnonym, of course.
belarussian has, as ruhovit said, got to the west through russian. there comes the chauvinism.
same with translating the adjective ruskyj -> rusyn, belaruskyj -> belarusyn.

or belarusian. although both are undoubtedly correct, i personally prefer belarusyn because of the same compound and analogical translation.

Rudel
11-28-2013, 01:26 PM
what i meant is, that if rus -> rusyn, then belarus -> belarusyn. in english, that is. because, actual belorusyn ppl dont use english ethnonym, of course.
belarussian has, as ruhovit said, got to the west through russian. there comes the chauvinism.
same with translating the adjective ruskyj -> rusyn, belaruskyj -> belarusyn.

or belarusian. although both are undoubtedly correct, i personally prefer belarusyn because of the same compound and analogical translation.

In France the only official name, and the most used, is Biélorussie. Bélarus is not correct from the perspective of historical naming (it's never been called that in French), nor from the perspective of the French language itself. Foreign countries can't chose how we call them in our own language.

It's still better than Ruthénie blanche (White Ruthenia).

Twistedmind
11-28-2013, 01:38 PM
what i meant is, that if rus -> rusyn, then belarus -> belarusyn. in english, that is. because, actual belorusyn ppl dont use english ethnonym, of course.

But that change did not came after any Laws of English language. It got just as simple. Rusyn got in English when US officials asked Rusyns: What are you. And thats all mystery.



belarussian has, as ruhovit said, got to the west through russian.

It was official name of BSSR, and it came trough simple use/translation. After gaining of independence official name in Russian was changed to Беларус (and Belarusian as ethnonym is беларусец I think)




there comes the chauvinism.

More confusion



same with translating the adjective ruskyj -> rusyn, belaruskyj -> belarusyn.

But Belarusians do not call themselves Belarusyns, nor it is belaruskij, but bjelaruskij, and finaly, adjectiv Rusyn was just typical occurance in English, most ethnonym adjectives are same as nouns. Fe: Immanuel kant is ethnic German and German philosopher. Same way, Andy Warholl is ethnic Ruysin and Rusyn artist.
Or even more close to you: Българин (Balgarin)and български (Balgarski) are in English both translated as Bulgarian. So your analogy is false. Same as Rusyn (Русин) and Rusyn (русиньскый)



or belarusian. although both are undoubtedly correct, i personally prefer belarusyn because of the same compound and analogical translation.
Well, as I pointed out: its false analogy.

Twistedmind
11-28-2013, 01:50 PM
I have a strong suspision the English term 'Belorussia' is derived from 'Belorussija' (Белоруссия). The name 'Belorussija' (Белоруссия) was given to the republic by Soviet authorities in 1919 .
Its plausable, but again in 1919, Soviets were practicing policy of korenization.




The term Belaja Rus' or Belarus existed since the 13th century.

Well, ou would be surprised first use of Belaya Rus' was used for territory of Grand Principality of Moscow. There is lot of confusion in Eastern European geographic and ethnic terms. Also there were Chernaya, (Black) and Chervonaya Rus'



There's also some confusion naming different ethnicities using a similar obsolete ethnonym. So, it makes sense to use the proper terms Belarus and Belarus-ian.

Yes it makes sense. I am not negating it, just I dont see why people are chauvinists if they use name which is similar to those used in their native language. It is confusion, it has sometimes chauvinistc context, but again, its something which is problematic of Russian language, not English.



Different regions of Russia were known under different names in different periods of times. Officially, Russia was also known as Moscow principality in the past. The term 'Rus' is used in poems bringing warms or patriotic feelings among some people. There're Russians who dislike the term 'russkiy' used as ethnonym because it's in an adjective form created by a commie Yakov Sverdlov. The term 'Russkiy' was applied to the language in the past. Ethnic Russians were known as the Great-Russians (великорос или великорус) (see Lisa's profile for a reference). AFAIK Sverdolov considered it chauvinistic, so he changed it to Russkiy.

Yes, I think I pointed some examples of overlaping and confusing terms.



The ethnography of the Russian North is containing many Finnic elements which are foreign in Belarus.
And Rusyns were mixing with Vlachs, Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, South Slavs... Geneicaly they are surely far.



Many of Belarusian ancestors were Greek Catholic in the past

Well that is true. But it was forced conversion. And people were even forcefully oposing that conversions.



. Belarus has a strong presence of Catholicism in two ethnographic regions, which is non-existent in the Russian North.

Its non existant in Western Russia, which is without doubt culturaly and ethnographicaly closest population to Belarusians.



If I am not mistaken Rusyns are also Orthodox, Catholic and Greek Catholic.
Yes. But Greek Catholicism is for example, leading religion among Rusyns. Also, they have strong ties with Hungarians and Slovaks, culturaly, even with South Slavs and Czechs. Could same be applied to Belarusians? I doubt so.

Windischer
11-28-2013, 02:05 PM
its not a false analogy, because both words contain the same root which then should be treated the same way. of course personal adjectives are often the same as personal nouns in english, thats why i wrote that.
the russian name belorussiya comes from russification era and is an attempt to russify belarus.
belarusyns dont need to call themselves belarusyns as much as they dont call themselves belarusians nor belarussians nor rutheni albi nor whatever, because all these are renderings in foreign language.

Twistedmind
11-28-2013, 02:29 PM
its not a false analogy, because both words contain the same root which then should be treated the same way.
Well its not grammatical rule in English either way. There are many words from same root, which are in English translated/transliterated completly different. We here speak about two borowed words, and by fact they are borrowed they will be phonetic aproximation of correspondign word from original language.





the russian name belorussiya comes from russification era and is an attempt to russify belarus.

Well, here comes tricky part. As you probably know, two languages are pretty close. That close, that Белорусская Народная Республика and Беларуская Народная Рэспубліка sound same, regardless of which language. (Bjelaruskaja Narodnaja Respublika). In this case only difference was orthography. Of course, there are many more differences between languages, but tricky part, Belarus/Belorussia dilemma is mainly question of how Name of Belarus would be written in Russian language. a or o, double or one s, and finaly latin prefix or not. Even then, there is difference between Белоруссия and Рoссия, even phonetical one (Byelorusiya vs Rasiya). But, again, I understand Belarusians want to express their separate ethnic identity. So ok. Just please be carefull with labels.

In my personal opinion, term Белoруссия came from analogy, not from some Russification, since in 1919, Soviets were not pursuing Russification.


belarusyns dont need to call themselves belarusyns as much as they dont call themselves belarusians nor belarussians nor rutheni albi nor whatever, because all these are renderings in foreign language.

Wel that is my point, its question of transliteration/translation not of chauvinism.

inactive_member
11-28-2013, 02:40 PM
Well, ou would be surprised first use of Belaya Rus' was used for territory of Grand Principality of Moscow. There is lot of confusion in Eastern European geographic and ethnic terms. Also there were Chernaya, (Black) and Chervonaya Rus'.

The wikipedia contains inaccurate information. There is a thesis for PhD on the subject and two editions of the book by the same author widely cited in academic literature. Belaja Rus' was falsely attributed to the territories of Moscow principality in most cases. However, the term was applied to the territories of Pskov or Novgorod in the 13th century. It was also applied to the territories of Smolensk, when the region of Smolensk was part of the GDL.



Yes it makes sense. I am not negating it, just I dont see why people are chauvinists if they use name which is similar to those used in their native language. It is confusion, it has sometimes chauvinistc context, but again, its something which is problematic of Russian language, not English.


The term is considered obsolete or chauvinistic among those who're purposely using it in the context of political discussions. Especially by those who know the differences, yet purposely choosing one term over the other. The name was invented by the Soviet authorities entering English which is neither accurate nor appealing. What's a purpose of using it? I am not talking about French or any other language in which it would be incorrect to name the country anything other what's accepted by the grammar rules of that language.






And Rusyns were mixing with Vlachs, Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, South Slavs... Geneicaly they are surely far.




I have the genetic profile of a Boyko guy whose ancestry hails from western Ukraine , Lviv region bordering Poland. He's more southern than the Belarusians. The northern Russians and western Ukrainians (I am thinking of Rusyns living in western Ukraine) are equally distant to the Belarusians according to MDLP calculator. Genetically, people of Archangel region are in the league of their own.



Well that is true. But it was forced conversion. And people were even forcefully oposing that conversions.

Orthodoxy was also forced in 10-11th centuries in many regions. The later generations weren't forcefully converted, as they were born into Catholic or Orthodox families.



Its non existant in Western Russia, which is without doubt culturaly and ethnographicaly closest population to Belarusians.

It would depend on the region of Belarus. Also, the region of western Russia ethnographically overlaping with Belarus doesn't have many people living in that region in comparison to the entire population of Russia. Your argument can similarly be applied to southern Russians and Ukrainians. There's a lot more to Russia than western Russia.

Szegedist
11-28-2013, 02:45 PM
So much arguing over Belarus vs Belaruss...

inactive_member
11-28-2013, 02:52 PM
So much arguing over Belarus vs Belaruss...

There's a difference between Belo-russian and Belarus-ian. Belo-russia derived from the term Belorussija possibly invented by the commies and Belarus that has origins from 13th century.

Twistedmind
11-28-2013, 03:37 PM
The wikipedia contains inaccurate information. Well, it is citing numerous sources. Alessandro Guanini, who explicitley calls Moscovia white Russia, Templars, who made deal with Novgorod etc.

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81% D1%8C#.D0.91.D0.B5.D0.BB.D0.B0.D1.8F_.D0.A0.D1.83. D1.81.D1.8C_.D0.BA.D0.B0.D0.BA_.D0.A1.D0.B5.D0.B2. D0.B5.D1.80.D0.BE-.D0.92.D0.BE.D1.81.D1.82.D0.BE.D1.87.D0.BD.D0.B0.D 1.8F_.D0.A0.D1.83.D1.81.D1.8C_.D0.B8_.D0.92.D0.B5. D0.BB.D0.B8.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.B5_.D0.9A.D0.BD.D1.8F.D 0.B6.D0.B5.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B2.D0.BE_.D0.9C.D0.BE.D1 .81.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.B2.D1.81.D0.BA.D0.BE.D0.B5



There is a thesis for PhD on the subject and two editions of the book by the same author widely cited in academic literature.

Could you provide book. :)


Belaja Rus' was falsely attributed to the territories of Moscow principality in most cases.
Moscovia Urbs Metropolis Totius Rusiae Albae. By Polish King. Ie Ruler of territory of Modern Belarus.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Polish_plan_of_Moscow_1610.PNG




However, the term was applied to the territories of Pskov or Novgorod in the 13th century. It was also applied to the territories of Smolensk, when the region of Smolensk was part of the GDL.

It was applied to Novgorod in Ruscelli's map, I think. He lived in XVI century.




The term is considered obsolete or chauvinistic among those who're purposely using it in the context of political discussions.

I know, it could be used in such way in Russian language discussions. Especialy, since Russian is de facto, major language in Belarus.



Especially by those who know the differences, yet purposely choosing one term over the other.

I allready said, Belarus is more prefrable since it does not hold negative conotation to Belarusian sensibilities.



The name was invented by the Soviet authorities entering English which is neither accurate nor appealing.

It was used in Polish held parts of Belarus, you cant say Inter-War Poland was insisting on russification. Anyway, my point was not to argue for form Belorussia, just to point out its not Russian chauvinism, except when Russian nationalist is using that term with purpose of undermining Belarusian people.




What's a purpose of using it?

Hm, habit?




I am not talking about French or any other language in which it would be incorrect to name the country anything other what's accepted by the grammar rules of that language.

But thing is its accepted in Grammar rules of English. But in last 20 years, there is movement to use Belarus, which is ok. But, you cant blame random people using in English Belorussia, since they are in 99,99% not Russian chauvinsts, nor know anything about Eastern Slavic peoples and their relations.





I have the genetic profile of a Boyko guy whose ancestry hails from western Ukraine , Lviv region bordering Poland. He's more southern than the Belarusians. The northern Russians and western Ukrainians (I am thinking of Rusyns living in western Ukraine) are equally distant to the Belarusians according to MDLP calculator. Genetically, people of Archangel region are in the league of their own.





Orthodoxy was also forced in 10-11th centuries in many regions.

Well, accounts of armed resistance to Christianisation of Rus' are coming from Northeastern and Eastern part of land. I am not saying there is no posibility for NorthWestern part, but I dont remember reading about it.




I have the genetic profile of a Boyko guy whose ancestry hails from western Ukraine , Lviv region bordering Poland. He's more southern than the Belarusians. The northern Russians and western Ukrainians (I am thinking of Rusyns living in western Ukraine) are equally distant to the Belarusians according to MDLP calculator. Genetically, people of Archangel region are in the league of their own.

Thats partialy true, except fact that Western Ukrainians =/= Rusyns. Of course, for many groups its verry good approximation. But you have Boykos, Hutsuls, Prashov Rusyns, etc. Anyway, gennetic wise, Poles are in same range of proximity to Belarusians as Russians. Rusyns are in somewhat different range, due their geographic isolation from rest fo East Slavs.


The later generations weren't forcefully converted, as they were born into Catholic or Orthodox families.

Ok, but point is that, majority of Belarusians are from Orthodox cultural background. Of people who identified as believers, 82% are Orthodox.




It would depend on the region of Belarus. Also, the region of western Russia ethnographically overlaping with Belarus doesn't have many people living in that region in comparison to the entire population of Russia. Your argument can similarly be applied to southern Russians and Ukrainians. There's a lot more to Russia than western Russia.
Yup, but generaly taken Russians are culturaly linguisticaly and geneticaly closer to Belarussans than Rusyns.

inactive_member
11-28-2013, 05:21 PM
Well, it is citing numerous sources. Alessandro Guanini, who explicitley calls Moscovia white Russia, Templars, who made deal with Novgorod etc.

Alessandro Guanini wrote contradicting statements in his "Sarmatiae Europeae descriptio". He stated that White Rus' is bordering Moscow principality and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania which makes sense, as White Rus was historically applied to Viciebsk, northern Mahilou and neighbouring Smolensk regions. He also stated that white Ruthenians and Moscouvites seeded fields later than Poles, Lithuanians and Black Ruthenians (Black Ruthenians lived around Lviv according to him). It's known that Alessandro Guanini stole some works from a Polish chronist Sryikowski when Alessandro Guanini lived in Viciebsk. Stryikowski complained to the King of Poland asking to acknowledge his authority which the King of Poland did. I very much doubt that Guanini knew the regions well he was describing using the works of Stryikowski


A historian Aleh Latyshenak wrote (translation from Belarusian)


Алег Латышонак. Нацыянальнасьць – Беларус. 2009.стр.162 – 163
Название "Белая Русь''и" белые русины "для обозначения восточных территорий Речи Посполитой и иx жителей распространил в Европе итальянец Александр Гваньини, который в 1578 г. опубликовал в Кракове произведение Sarmatiae Europeae descriptio. Произведение приобрело большой резонанс и многократно перепечатывалось во многих европейских городах. Один из разделов этого произведения носит название "Способ пахоты и сева на Белой Руси, которая граничит с Москвой, а также в Великом Княжестве Литовском (Arandi seminandique modus in Russia Alba Moschoviae confini, et in Magno Ducatu Lituanie)". Гваньини сообщает в ней, что "белые русины" и "московиты"(Rutenos albos et Moschouitas)сеют позже, чем поляки, литовцы и "черные русины" (Ruteni nigri). "Черных русинов" он локализует точно, утверждая, что их метрополией является Львов. Также он еще раз упоминает о"белых русинах и московцах"(Rutheni Albi Moschovitaeque)"88. Как следует из приведенных примеров, "Белая Русь" Гваньини - это край, который граничит с Москвой и отдельный от Великого Княжества Литовского. To же самое можно сказать о его "белых русинов" в отношении московитов и литовцев. Однако Гваньини не до конца последователен, так как использует название "Белая Русь" также и для определения Московского государства. О Москве он пишет, что это "столица и метрополия всей Белой Руси (caput et metropolis totius Russiae albae)"89. Это -реминисценциязападноевропейской литературной традиции, сторонниками которой были также Целек и Ласки.
Общеевропейской признание, которым пользовался Гваньини, было незаслуженным, так как он не был автором "Хроники Европейской Сарматии», по крайней мере, не он создал основной каркас этого произведения. Когда он служил ротмистром в Витебске именно на Белой Руси, то украл рукопись у своего подчиненного, поляка Мацея Стрыйковского. Стрыйковский горячо запротестовал и обратился к королю с просьбой признать его авторство, ссылаясь на свидетелей - Станислава Паца и литовское рыцарство. Король признал авторство Стрыйковского в привилегии от 14 июля 1580 г. Несмотря на это, произведение не только восстанавливали под фамилией итальянца, но и издали в 1611 г. в Кракове его перевод на польском языке 90.
В этих обстоятельствах Стрыйковский написал на польском языке новое произведение, которое обеспечило ему вечную славу: «Хроника польская, литовская, Жемойтская и всей Руси" изданную в Каралявцы в 1582 г.91. В Хронике Стрыйковский много раз упоминает о "Белой Руси", но явно он не имел четкой терминалогичной концепции и в зависимости от источников, которыми пользовался, придавал этому названию и ее производным различное значение.
Когда он пишет про "белорусскую" монархию, то всегда имеет в виду Москву: "Ивана Даниловича [Калиту], бело-русского князя" 92, "князей великих московских предков белорусской монархии, Юрия и Василия" 93. В этом значении он пишет также: "Москва, сегодняшней Белой Руси народ" 94. В то же время, называя Одоевского "князьями Белой Руси", делает он это, пожалуй, ошибочно95.

88.Guagnini A. Sarmatiae Europeae descriptio, quae Regnum Poloniae, Lithuaniam, Samogitiam, Russiam, Massouiam, Prussiam, Pomeraniam, Livoniam et Moschouiae, Tartariaeque partem comlecitur. Spirae, 1581. K. 62.
89.Тамсама. К. 78v.
90.Stryjkowski M. O początkach, dzielnościach, sprawach rycerskich i domowych sławnego narodu litewskiego, żemojdzkiego i ruskiego, przedtym nigdy od żadnego ani kuszone, ani opisane, z natchnienia Bożego a uprzejmie pilnego doświadczenia / Oprać. H. Radziszewska. Warszawa, 1978. S. 6.
91.Stryjkowski M. Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmodzka i wszystkiej Rusi. Królewiec, 1582/Wyd. M. Malinowski. Warszawa, 1846.
92.Тамсама. T. l.S. 126.
93.Stryjkowski M. Kronika... T. 2. S. 10.
94.Тамсама. Т. 1. S. 91.
95.Тамсама. Т. 2. S. 168; Белы A. Хроніка... С. 148—149.






Could you provide book. :)

Белы Алесь. Хроніка Белай Русі (2013) 2nd edition: http://knihi.by/knihi/biely-ales-chronika-bielaj-rusi

He wrote a thesis on the subject. He authored state funded encyclopedia of the GDL on the subject.



Moscovia Urbs Metropolis Totius Rusiae Albae. By Polish King. Ie Ruler of territory of Modern Belarus.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Polish_plan_of_Moscow_1610.PNG


Okay! There're far more instances that White Rus was referred to northern Belarus in many chronicles beginning from 14th century. The region of northern Belarus wasn't under control of Muscovites. The region of northern Belarus became synonymous with white Rus for a good reason. There're also many mistakes in the chronicles, maps and inaccurate conclusions in the works of earlier historians discussed in thesis and the aforementioned book.



It was applied to Novgorod in Ruscelli's map, I think. He lived in XVI century.

An american researcher found the first mentioning of White Rus in Dublin chronicle in 1979. Catholic missionaries visited the Baltic region in the 13th century. Ales Bely is placing the region of White Rus described in Dublin chronicle to Pskov or Novgord


I know, it could be used in such way in Russian language discussions. Especialy, since Russian is de facto, major language in Belarus.

Although, Russian is used in Belarus and 'Belorussija' is an acceptable form in Russian language, there are few if any Russian speakers in Belaurs using the term Belorussija. The name is also becoming obsolete in Russia. It's used in old literature and among older generation.


It was used in Polish held parts of Belarus, you cant say Inter-War Poland was insisting on russification. Anyway, my point was not to argue for form Belorussia, just to point out its not Russian chauvinism, except when Russian nationalist is using that term with purpose of undermining Belarusian people.

I know better about the Russian chauvinists who're using various terms to offend people who're generally friendly to them than most people including yourself. There re a lot of them living in Russia.



But thing is its accepted in Grammar rules of English. But in last 20 years, there is movement to use Belarus, which is ok. But, you cant blame random people using in English Belorussia, since they are in 99,99% not Russian chauvinsts, nor know anything about Eastern Slavic peoples and their relations.

The spelling Belarus is in all official documents written in English. Spell checkers highlight Belorussia showing spelling mistake as one types it , even on this forum, while Belarus is grammatically correct. :)

I've seen on this forum some highlighting in bald the word russian in the term Belorussians a few times. I don't have a problem with people who're making genuine mistakes or they don't know.. It's the chauvinists that I met in the past made me aware of the spelling sometime overreacting.




Well, accounts of armed resistance to Christianisation of Rus' are coming from Northeastern and Eastern part of land. I am not saying there is no posibility for NorthWestern part, but I dont remember reading about it.


Christianity was established in the main centres in the beginning. The Belarusians were described as very pagan people particular those living in the north country who didn't baptise till 13th-14th century. Of course they resisted Christianity.

Lemon Kush
11-30-2013, 07:23 AM
Russia and Belarus come from the Rus tribe. They both share their legacy.

inactive_member
11-30-2013, 07:38 AM
Russia and Belarus come from the Rus tribe. They both share their legacy.

That statement sounds as ridiculous as "Kazan' Tatars and Bulgarians came from the Bulgar tribe sharing the same legacy".

Lemon Kush
11-30-2013, 07:44 AM
That statement sounds as ridiculous as "Kazan' Tatars and Bulgarians came from the Bulgar tribe sharing the same legacy".

I'm speaking about the name only. Maybe I should of worded it better. But do you think the Rus left any genetics behind? I mean they were probably Slavs too.

inactive_member
11-30-2013, 07:50 AM
I'm speaking about the name only. Maybe I should of worded it better. But do you think the Rus left any genetics behind? I mean they were probably Slavs too.

Rus' was a ruling class and military leaving virtually no genetic influence on the people living in vast territories.

Loki
11-30-2013, 07:58 AM
Rus' was a ruling class and military leaving virtually no genetic influence on the people living in vast territories.

Do you think the Rus' came from Sweden?

inactive_member
11-30-2013, 08:02 AM
Do you think the Rus' came from Sweden?

Yes, I do. They were likely from the territories of modern day Sweden.

sevruk
11-30-2013, 08:08 AM
Yes, I do. They were likely from the territories of modern day Sweden.

There is no proof of this. Only sick imagination Belorussian chauvinist

inactive_member
11-30-2013, 08:12 AM
There is no proof of this. Only sick imagination Belorussian chauvinist

Here's a good example of a homosoveticus weirdo of which Russia is never short.

sevruk
11-30-2013, 08:16 AM
Here's a good example of a homosoveticus weirdo of which Russia is never short.

so, I'm waiting for proof that Rus came from Sweden.
But I think you have no proof, as well as you have no proof of another your nonsense

blogen
11-30-2013, 08:18 AM
There is no proof of this. Only sick imagination Belorussian chauvinist

The Varangian ancestry is denied nowhere apart from Russia.

sevruk
11-30-2013, 08:22 AM
The Varangian ancestry is denied nowhere apart from Russia.

But Varangians and Rus two concepts.
Eastern Slavs did not have a Scandinavian ancestry except maybe some north-western regions.

Lemon Kush
11-30-2013, 08:25 AM
so, I'm waiting for proof that Rus came from Sweden.
But I think you have no proof, as well as you have no proof of another your nonsense

Rus were Slavs imo

blogen
11-30-2013, 08:26 AM
But Varangians and Rus two concepts.
Eastern Slavs did not have a Scandinavian ancestry except maybe some north-western regions.

The eastern Slavs did not have Scandinavian heritage, but for the nobility of the early Rus (Rus peoples) yes.

inactive_member
11-30-2013, 08:27 AM
so, I'm waiting for proof that Rus came from Sweden.
But I think you have no proof, as well as you have no proof of another your nonsense

There were Viking settlements in Staraja Ladoga and Gnyozdovo. Gnyozdovo was one of the biggest Vikingg settlements in Europe : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnezdovo

There are numerous accounts in chronicles and Viking's sagas of Vikings penetrating the waterways of eastern Europe. There're several academic theories of the Rus' origin one of which they were Vikings from the territories of present day Sweden.

sevruk
11-30-2013, 08:30 AM
Tbut for the nobility of the early Rus (Rus peoples) yes.

no proof.

sevruk
11-30-2013, 08:33 AM
There were Viking settlements in Staraja Ladoga and Gnyozdovo. Gnyozdovo was one of the biggest Vikingg settlements in Europe : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnezdovo

There are numerous accounts in chronicles and Viking's sagas of Vikings penetrating the waterways of eastern Europe. There're several academic theories of the Rus' origin one of which they were Vikings from the territories of present day Sweden.

Until now, there is no reason to equate Rus (East Slavic dynasty) and Varangians (hired soldiers and traders)

Sarmatian
11-30-2013, 08:36 AM
The title of tzar Peter I was like that:

'Божиею милостию мы, пресветлейший и державнейший великий государь и великий князь Петр Алексеевич всея Великия и Малыя и Белыя России самодержец'

The highlighted part referring to Belarus as was called in 17th century which is literally 'White Russia'. Belarus have nothing to do with Rusyns.


As for talks about Varangian ruling elite in early Rus state it's all nonsense. Early Rus states had no elites because it was democratic state with Veche ruling over all internal affairs. Learn about Novgorod Republic.

blogen
11-30-2013, 08:41 AM
no proof.

Sorry, but the territory of the early Rus is full of Varangian artifacts (http://www.gnezdovo.com/uploads/documents/Puskina%20T.A.%20Scandinavian%20finds%20from%20Old %20Russia....pdf) and the contemporary sources supported the Scandinavian origin. They were merchants and conquerors who founded kingdoms everywhere in Europe, the Rus is one of them.

sevruk
11-30-2013, 08:44 AM
Sorry, but the territory of the early Rus is full of Varangian artifacts (http://www.gnezdovo.com/uploads/documents/Puskina%20T.A.%20Scandinavian%20finds%20from%20Old %20Russia....pdf) and the contemporary sources supported the Scandinavian origin. They were merchants and conquerors who founded kingdoms everywhere in Europe, the Rus is one of them.

still no proof :bored:

inactive_member
11-30-2013, 09:02 AM
The title of tzar Peter I was like that:

'Божиею милостию мы, пресветлейший и державнейший великий государь и великий князь Петр Алексеевич всея Великия и Малыя и Белыя России самодержец'

The highlighted part referring to Belarus as was called in 17th century which is literally 'White Russia'. Belarus have nothing to do with Rusyns.


As for talks about Varangian ruling elite in early Rus state it's all nonsense. Early Rus states had no elites because it was democratic state with Veche ruling over all internal affairs. Learn about Novgorod Republic.

The Russians emperors saw themselves as the gatherer's of ancient Rus' land.

Великая Россия (Great Russia ) - present day Russia
Малыя Россия (Small Russia ) - Ukraine
Белыя Россия (White Russia) - Belarus

The Russians were known as great-Russians till October Revolution. Communist Yakov Sverdlov changed the name to Russkiy (the adjective) which many people don't like. If Sverdlov was a linguist or consulted linguists he would have chosen Rus instead for the Russian ethnicities. Belorussija name was also given by the commies in 1919.

Who cares what Tsarist administration considered pursuing political goals? Tsarist administration even called a non Slavic ethnicity Russians in one particular instance.


As for talks about Varangian ruling elite in early Rus state it's all nonsense. Early Rus states had no elites because it was democratic state with Veche ruling over all internal affairs. Learn about Novgorod Republic.

The norman theory is still the dominant theory in academia after centuries of debate.

Matt5898
11-30-2013, 10:16 AM
Ругевит, а каково правильное написание этнонимов? "Беларусь", "белорусы" и "белорусский"? При написании "беларус" и "беларусский" любой браузер подчеркивает эти слова как ошибку. В принципе по всем правилам русского (русского, а не белорусского) языка соединительная гласная между корнями это -о. Мне это видится немного искусственным когда название страны и её жителей пишется через разную букву.
Кстати, как по-белорусски великороссы и малороссы? Случайно тоже не через -а ?

sevruk
11-30-2013, 10:26 AM
Communist Yakov Sverdlov changed the name to Russkiy (the adjective) which many people don't like.

Absolute nonsense.

«Мы — русские! С нами Бог!» (с)


Ругевит, а каково правильное написание этнонимов? "Беларусь", "белорусы" и "белорусский"? При написании "беларус" и "беларусский" любой браузер подчеркивает эти слова как ошибку. В принципе по всем правилам русского (русского, а не белорусского) языка соединительная гласная между корнями это -о. Мне это видится немного искусственным когда название страны и её жителей пишется через разную букву.
Кстати, как по-белорусски великороссы и малороссы? Случайно тоже не через -а ?

Большая проблема как правильно писать "беларуский" или "беларусский". даже беларусы еще не определились.

inactive_member
11-30-2013, 10:56 AM
Ругевит, а каково правильное написание этнонимов? "Беларусь", "белорусы" и "белорусский"? При написании "беларус" и "беларусский" любой браузер подчеркивает эти слова как ошибку. В принципе по всем правилам русского (русского, а не белорусского) языка соединительная гласная между корнями это -о. Мне это видится немного искусственным когда название страны и её жителей пишется через разную букву.

Правописание названий в русском языке должно соответствовать правилам русского языка. Принципом современной орфографии русского языка является морфологический.

Беларусь, Белоруссия
белорус
белорусский.

В современном русском языке название Беларусь вытесняет старое название Белоруссия.

В орфографии белорусского языка преобладает фонетический принцип. Названия пишут так, как произносят.

Беларусь
беларус
беларускі, беларуская

Русский и белорусский языки «акающие», поэтому различий в произношении этнонима «белорус» нет. Многим белорусам слух режет название «Белоруссия». Это название некрасивое, я бы даже сказал очень советское.



Кстати, как по-белорусски великороссы и малороссы? Случайно тоже не через -а ?

великороссы — вялiкаросы
малороссы — маларосы.

Matt5898
11-30-2013, 11:13 AM
Правописание названий в русском языке должно соответствовать правилам русского языка. Принципом современной орфографии русского языка является морфологический.

Беларусь, Белоруссия
белорус
белорусский.

В современном русском языке название Беларусь вытесняет старое название Белоруссия.

В орфографии белорусского языка преобладает фонетический принцип. Названия пишут так, как произносят.

Беларусь
беларус
беларускі, беларуская

Русский и белорусский языки «акающие», поэтому различий в произношении этнонима «белорус» нет. Многим белорусам слух режет название «Белоруссия». Это название некрасивое, я бы даже сказал очень советское.




великороссы — вялiкаросы
малороссы — маларосы.

Ну через параллель с велико- и малороссами теперь более менее понятно. "Белоруссия" как по мне это устаревший пережиток прошлого, но и "Беларусь" это определенно стороннее заимствование. В английском оно прижилось без проблем, ибо для них что одно что другое заимствованны, но очень неоднозначно использовать "Беларусь" в русском языке.
Странно, что после развала совка не пытались приспособить нейтральное "Белорусь", судя по информации в сети оно какое-то время употреблялось.

inactive_member
11-30-2013, 11:26 AM
Ну через параллель с велико- и малороссами теперь более менее понятно. "Белоруссия" как по мне это устаревший пережиток прошлого, но и "Беларусь" это определенно стороннее заимствование. В английском оно прижилось без проблем, ибо для них что одно что другое заимствованны, но очень неоднозначно использовать "Беларусь" в русском языке.
Странно, что после развала совка не пытались приспособить нейтральное "Белорусь", судя по информации в сети оно какое-то время употреблялось.

В каком смысле заимствование? Это как раз такие самоназвание которое ближе к письменному оригинальному названию. Название 'Белорусси'я было дано советами республике в 1919г. Belorussia или даже Beylo-Russia - скорее всего заимствование из советского варианта, а Belarus-ian - нет . В английском языке Belarusian произноситс 'беларус-иан т.е. житель Беларуси, а не беларашн.

Twistedmind
11-30-2013, 11:29 AM
That statement sounds as ridiculous as "Kazan' Tatars and Bulgarians came from the Bulgar tribe sharing the same legacy".

That's not even the close approximation. There are hardly any connection between Bulgarians and Tatars, countrary, Belrarusians and Russians share a lot. I am not negating distinct ethnic charachter of Belarusians, but lol, again there is no paralel between Volga and Dabube Bulgars.

inactive_member
11-30-2013, 11:34 AM
That's not even the close approximation. There are hardly any connection between Bulgarians and Tatars, countrary, Belrarusians and Russians share a lot. I am not negating distinct ethnic charachter of Belarusians, but lol, again there is no paralel between Volga and Dabube Bulgars.

They share but not through "the tribe Rus'" as suggested by the poster.

Twistedmind
11-30-2013, 11:42 AM
They share but not through "the tribe Rus'" as suggested by the poster.

I think he chose wrong word to describe it. Rus' was tribal confederation which evovled in medieval Grand Duchy.

Hercus Monte
11-30-2013, 11:46 AM
L00lz again. Western Parts of Russian Empire was what is today Poland. And it was not significantly more developed than Russia, both states were under serfdom, same case with Baltic provinces.

Both Poland and the Baltic were significantly more industrialized.
Vilnius, used to be the 3rd largest city of that empire, this should tell you allot about their economy.

sevruk
11-30-2013, 11:46 AM
They share but not through "the tribe Rus'" as suggested by the poster.

Definitely through "the tribe Rus". Various Slavic culture replaced general culture of Anvient Rus or Kievan Rus.

inactive_member
11-30-2013, 11:51 AM
Definitely through "the tribe Rus". Various Slavic culture replaced general culture of Anvient Rus or Kievan Rus.

The Belarusian ethnicity was formed in 14-16th century which was in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The prevailing majority of Belarusian ancestors in Polish-Lithuanian commowealth were already Greek Catholic or Catholic. There were different ethnicities living Polish-Lithuanian Commowealth and Russia. Most commonalities Russians and Belarus share come from the living in the common state in the last 200 years.

Lemon Kush
11-30-2013, 11:52 AM
"Rus" means light complexioned or fair haired in Slavic languages. Lets start from there. What does it mean in Swedish???

Twistedmind
11-30-2013, 11:54 AM
Both Poland and the Baltic were significantly more industrialized.
I am affriad its not really the case. Poland was highly agricultural, like Russia proper. Biggest centers of industrialization in Empire lied in Russia proper.



Vilnius, used to be the 3rd largest city of that empire, this should tell you allot about their economy.
I am not sure Vilnus/Wilno/Vilna as it was know then, was among 10 biggest cities. And, it was certainly not among most importnant ecconomic or industry centers.


The Belarusian ethnicity was formed in 14-16th century which was in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The prevailing majority of Belarusian ancestors in Polish-Lithuanian commowealth were already Greek Catholic or Catholic.
In period of XIV-XVI century, they couldnt be since Union was signed in 1596, and it took almost century to make majority of people adhearing it. And Uniate period is verry short, given the fact in XVIII and XIX they switched back to Orthodoxy.

Lemon Kush
11-30-2013, 11:55 AM
The Belarusian ethnicity was formed in 14-16th century which was in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The prevailing majority of Belarusian ancestors in Polish-Lithuanian commowealth were already Greek Catholic or Catholic. There were different ethnicities living Polish-Lithuanian Commowealth and Russia. Most commonalities Russians and Belarus share come from the living in the common state in the last 200 years.

So are Belarussians closer to Poles/Lithuanians or Russians?

sevruk
11-30-2013, 12:00 PM
The prevailing majority of Belarusian ancestors in Polish-Lithuanian commowealth were already Greek Catholic or Catholic.

Catholics were ones who oppressed Orthodox Eastern Slavs.


Most commonalities Russians and Belarus share come from the living in the common state in the last 200 years.
cultural commonality associated with culture of ancient Rus = Slavic paganism + Orthodoxy. genetically and anthropologically commonality associated with migration of Slavic tribes.

inactive_member
11-30-2013, 12:01 PM
Vilnius, used to be the 3rd largest city of that empire, this should tell you allot about their economy.

Maybe the citiy was the 3rd largest at some point. It wasn't in 1897.


Top 15 largest cities in the Russian empire as per census in 1897 (in thousands)

Sankt-Petersburg — 1265
Moscow — 1039
Warsaw — 626
Odessa — 404
Lodz — 314
Riga — 282
Kiev — 248
Kharkov — 174
Tiflis (Tbilisi) — 160
Tashkent — 156
Vilna — 155
Saratov — 137
Kazan — 130
Rostov -on -Don — 120
Tula — 115

The domography of Vilna Governate in 1897

In 1834, the Vilnius Governorate had about 789,000 inhabitants; by 1897, the population had grown to about 1,591,000 residents (37 per square kilometer) The population was 56.1 percent Belarusians, 17.6 percentLithuanian, 12.7 percentethnic Jewishand 8.2 percentPolish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilna_Governorate

The demography of Vilnius city in 1897

During the second half of 19th and the beginning of 20th century Vilnius also became one of the centers of Jewish, Polish, Lithuanian andBelarusiannational rebirths. By 1897 the population was 40% Jewish, 31% Polish, 20% Russian, 4.2% Belorussian and 2.1% Lithuanian : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Vilnius



That's the borders of Vilna governate in Russian empire


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Lithuania-1867-1914-EN.svg

inactive_member
11-30-2013, 12:10 PM
Catholics were ones who oppressed Orthodox Eastern Slavs.


cultural commonality associated with culture of ancient Rus = Slavic paganism + Orthodoxy. genetically and anthropologically commonality associated with migration of Slavic tribes.

The ethnogenesis of the Belarusians took place in 14-16th centuries in the GDL after Orthodoxy and Rus state'. It doesn't matter how Catholicism came about to Belarusian ancestors in Polish-Lithuanian state. Orthodoxy conversion wasn't all that peaceful in Rus either. It's a fact that at some point in time the majority of Belarusian ancestors weren't Orthodox. Belarusians were converted to orthodoxy in Tsarist Russian once again. The origins of Orthodoxy is in Byzantium which all people of Orthodox faith share.

Anthropology provides little evidence about common origins. If you want to use Anthropology, then it's only western Russians who will. overlap with the Belarusians. Similar anthropology between western Russians and Belarusians is not due to the existence of Rus' state either bur rather due common origin of tribes living in western Russia and Belarus.

sevruk
11-30-2013, 12:18 PM
Belarusians were converted to orthodoxy in Tsarist Russian once again.


Lol what? Ты исторический ревизиционист

Windischer
11-30-2013, 12:20 PM
"Rus" means light complexioned or fair haired in Slavic languages. Lets start from there. What does it mean in Swedish???

in which ones? ;)

Twistedmind
11-30-2013, 12:29 PM
in which ones? ;)

Russian (dirty blond), Bulgarian, Serbian (red haired), Croatian, Slovene...

inactive_member
11-30-2013, 12:29 PM
Lol what? Ты исторический ревизиционист

You constantly get on the wrong side with people from different Slavic countries. What's your problem, man?

Read


12 февраля 1839 года в Полоцке собрался собор во главе с греко-католическими епископами Иосифом Семашко, Антонием Зубко и Василием Лужинским. Собор постановил признать присоединение белорусских епархий к православной церкви. К обращению к императору об этом были приложены подписи 1305 человек белого духовенства и монашествующих. По этому случаю была выбита медаль, на которой было написано, что отторгнутые силой были присоединены любовью. Тем не менее в историю уничтожения Униатской церкви вошел Церковлянский протест 111 униатских священников Белорусской епархии, которые на своем несанкционированном съезде 16 сентября 1838 года в местечке Церковляны Дисенского уезда подписали петицию и направили к царю своих представителей с просьбой освободить их от власти церковного начальства и оставить в унии.[5]. Но их запретили в священнослужении и перевели на должности пономарей, а наиболее упорствующих выслали в Сибирь административным порядком.[4] По этому поводу Александр Герцен опубликовал в своем лондонском «Колоколе» статью «Секущее православие», где Иосифа Семашко называл «во Иуде предатель, палач, заслуживший европейскую известность»[6]. В статье, в частности писалось следующее:
« Со стороны гражданского начальства истязанием заведовал окружной Новицкий. Этот полицейский апостол сек людей до тех пор, пока человек не соглашался принять причастие от православного попа. Один четырнадцатилетний мальчик после двухсот розг отказался от такого общения с Христом. Его снова начали сечь, и только тогда, уступая страшной боли, он согласился. Православная церковь восторжествовала![6] »
На небольшой территории современной Белоруссии — недалеко от Гродно, в Сапоцкинском крае, который до 1915 года находился в Царстве Польском, униатство просуществовало до 1875 года, когда была ликвидирована уния в Холмской епархии. В православие насильно были обращены не менее 7,5 тыс. белорусскіх униатов из 7 приходов Сапоцкинского края.[7]
Иосиф Семашко в 1852 году лично наблюдал за сожжением 1295 книг, найденных в бывших униатских храмах. В своих «Записках» он сообщал, что за следующие три года по его приказу сожгли ещё две тысячи томов.[8]
В 1905 году после указа императора Николая II об утверждении начал веротерпимости, часть белорусов перешла в католицизм; однако из-за препятствий для грекокатоликов, чинимых правительством, большая их часть приняла латинский обряд. В Сапоцкинском крае практически 100 % насильно переведенных в православие бывших униатов стали римо-католиками.
В январе 1923 года митрополит Андрей Шептицкий временно подчинил грекокатоликов восточной Белоруссии экзарху Русского экзархата восточного обряда Леониду Фёдорову.[9]
После Первой мировой войны Западная Белоруссия была включена в состав польского государства. Некоторые белорусские грекокатолики из восточной Белоруссии и России, опасаясь теперь уже репрессий атеистического государства, эмигрировали в Польшу. Кроме того часть православных верующих и отдельных приходов в Западной Белоруссии вновь подтвердили своё единство с Римом. В 1931 году для этих белорусских грекокатоликов в Польше был назначен апостольский визитатор.
В 1939 году западная Белоруссия была присоединена к Советскому Союзу. В этой новой ситуации митрополит Андрей Шептицкий в силу своих полномочий, полученных от папы, осенью 1939 года учредил Белорусский экзархат грекокатолической церкви и назначил временно исполнять обязанности экзарха украинского епископа Николая Чернецкого. 17 октября 1940 года Белорусским экзархом грекокатолической церкви был назначен иезуит о. Антоний Неманцевич, белорус. Полномочия о. А. Неманцевича как экзарха и решение об учреждении Белорусского экзархата ГКЦ получили официальное подтверждение Апостольской Столицы 22 ноября 1941 года, а экзархат получил статус апостольского[10]. Белорусский экзарх ГКЦ был арестован гестапо 4 июля 1942 года за свою активную миссионерскую деятельность. 6 января 1943 года о. Антоний Неманцевич, как исповедник, умер в тюрьме СД в Минске (в настоящее время готовятся документы для начала его беатификационного процесса). После его ареста деятельность структур Белорусского грекокатолического экзархата практически была прекращена, за исключением пастырской опеки верующих в уцелевших сельских приходах.
После Львовского собора 1946 года приходы Белорусской грекокатолической церкви, как и Украинской грекокатолической церкви, были ликвидированы, деятельность Церкви полностью запрещена, священники репрессированы, умерли или эмигрировали, а верующие формально присоединены к РПЦ. Однако часть верующих продолжали вплоть до возрождения Церкви в 1990-е считать себя униатами: некоторые из них молились в православных церквах, другие молились у римокатоликов, в том числе несколько грекокатолических монахинь в Пинске, а некоторые, считая себя верными униатами и не имея возможности ходить в католический храм, молились дома. В Гродно тайно вёл миссионерскую работу о. Виктор Данилов, рукоположенный в 1976 году Главой УГКЦ в подполье архиепископом Владимиром Стернюком.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D 0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0 %BA%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%8 1%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%BE %D0%B2%D1%8C

Windischer
11-30-2013, 12:37 PM
Russian (dirty blond), Bulgarian, Serbian (red haired), Croatian, Slovene...

its an archaic term for red; the problem is, dp93 cant speak any slavic language and tends to believe all sorts of things ;)

inactive_member
11-30-2013, 12:39 PM
In period of XIV-XVI century, they couldnt be since Union was signed in 1596, and it took almost century to make majority of people adhearing it. And Uniate period is verry short, given the fact in XVIII and XIX they switched back to Orthodoxy.

I didn't mean Belarusian ancestors were Greek catholic between 14-16th centuries. I was referring to the fact that ethnogensis of the Belarusian ethnicity took place in the period of 14-16th century in another state. A hostile state to Moscow principality at that time. The conversion to Catholicism of upper class began after Lublin Union. The Conversion to Greek Catholicism began after Brest Union.

sevruk
11-30-2013, 12:39 PM
You constantly get on the wrong side with people from different Slavic countries. What's your problem, man?

Read

Ты дурак? Я говорил о Католицизме, а не о Греко-католицизме. Но ваши метания показывают что вы народ с гнильцой

Twistedmind
11-30-2013, 12:40 PM
You constantly get on the wrong side with people from different Slavic countries. What's your problem, man?

Read

Yes, thats true. But in same time:


Большая часть епископов Киевской митрополии во главе с митрополитом Михаилом Рогозой поддержали Брестскую унию, в результате чего митрополия была переподчинена папе римскому, сумев сохранить все епархии в своём составе. В то же время противниками унии была сохранена и православная церковная организация, что обусловило параллельное существование двух Киевских митрополий: грекокатолической и православной. Протесты православных против перевода церквей и монастырей в унию выражались в форме литературной полемики, дебатов на сеймах, братского движения, а также открытых выступлений вплоть до восстаний, среди которых выделяют Могилёвское 1618 года и Витебское 1623 года. В свою очередь униаты для увеличения влияния среди населения создали собственную систему учебных заведений и церковных братств, активно участвовали в литературной полемике, занимались книгоизданием, но при этом перевод населения в унию сохранял насильственный характер



Витебское восстание 1623 года началось 12 ноября под руководством витебчанина Степана Пасиора, полочанина Петра Васильевича, его сына Василия и других. В восстании участвовали также жители Полоцка, Могилёва, Орши, Вильны и деревень Витебского воеводства. По сигналу колоколов ратуши и православных храмов несколько тысяч православных направилсись к резиденции Кунцевича, где убили его и, протащив тело по улицам города, сбросили его в Западную Двину. Вместе с Кунцевичем было убито ещё несколько униатских священников, уничтожен архив архиепископа, разграблено его имущество.



Могилёвское восстание 1618 года — восстание горожан Могилёва против посещения города униатским архимандритом Иософатом Кунцевичем, который являлся активным поборником унии.

Осенью 1618 года Кунцевич захотел посетить Могилёв, однако жители города при его приближении со свитой 9 октября стали бить тревогу в вечевой колокол. Были закрыты все городские ворота, на стенах и валах были расставлены вооружённые люди. После этого власти города вместе с толпами народа с хоругвями в руках вышли навстречу Кунцевичу, начали проклинать его как вероотступника и даже угрожали убить, если он не удалится от Могилёва. Восстание возглавлял бурмистр Могилёва, Богдан (Мирон) Соболь, отец печатника и просветителя Спиридона Соболя

Lemon Kush
11-30-2013, 12:40 PM
its an archaic term for red; the problem is, dp93 cant speak any slavic language and tends to believe all sorts of things ;)

It just means light haired

inactive_member
11-30-2013, 12:48 PM
Ты дурак? Я говорил о Католицизме, а не о Греко-католицизме. Но ваши метания показывают что вы народ с гнильцой

пошел прочь. в игнор.

sevruk
11-30-2013, 12:50 PM
Yes, thats true. But in same time:

насильственное обращение в Католичество и Греко-Католичество - это хорошо. Обратное возвращение в Православие - это плохо. Логика украинских и белорусских националистов.

Windischer
11-30-2013, 12:52 PM
It just means light haired

light haired: plavi, plavý, polovyj
red haired: rusi, rusý, rusyj

rus/ros was also name of a scandinavian tribe (finnish term for swedes is still ruotsi) and also an antique gaulish tribe in what is now rousillon in southern france.

sevruk
11-30-2013, 12:52 PM
пошел прочь. в игнор.

типичное поведение свидомита. Я же говорю что вы народ с гнильцой, хотя не такой гнилой как украинцы.

inactive_member
11-30-2013, 12:55 PM
Yes, thats true. But in same time:

I am very well aware of discrimination against Orthodoxy in the GDL. There was a strong sentiment among people of Orthodox faith particularly in Mahilou, which was a large trading centre linking west to Russia, before Russia had access to the Baltic shore.

Twistedmind
11-30-2013, 01:05 PM
I am very well aware of discrimination against Orthodoxy in the GDL. There was a strong sentiment among people of Orthodox faith particularly in Mahilou, which was a large trading centre linking west to Russia, before Russia had access to the Baltic shore.
Well, we could speak about few periods. Before GDL converted to Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy enjoyed full freedom (before 1382). From 1382 till 1596, there was ambigious situation, Orthodox people enjoyed freedom, but they were sometimes discriminated. After Union of brest was signed 1596, Orthodoxy faced outright discrimination. Majority of people addmited union after 1700 adn 1703, when last Orthodox bishops addmited Union. Russian empire did used force to convert Greek Catholics to union, but they were led in Union in pretty much the same meassure. That was my point apropo religion of GDL. In 1795 75%-80% of population of Belarus were Greek Catholics. Population was re-converted in Orthodoxy in few vawes, and sometimes force was applied, but there were voluntary cases, same goes for Union of Brest 1596. Interesting is that in bot cases, 1596 and 1839 bishops were those who switched Churchs, and state (which belonged to side where bishiops converted), mad sure all believers follow them. But in end, Orthodoxy is for sure more deeply rooted.

inactive_member
11-30-2013, 01:29 PM
In 1795 75%-80% of population of Belarus were Greek Catholics. Population was re-converted in Orthodoxy in few vawes, and sometimes force was applied, but there were voluntary cases, same goes for Union of Brest 1596. Interesting is that in bot cases, 1596 and 1839 bishops were those who switched Churchs, and state (which belonged to side where bishiops converted), mad sure all believers follow them. But in end, Orthodoxy is for sure more deeply rooted.

The discussion concerning the religion began with the assertion that Russian and Belarusian ancestors didn't share the same religion continuously throughout the history. It's well known in Belarus we had many Catholic people living till early 20th centuries. I don't know what were the numbers. Most but all commonalities we share today come from the living within the same political borders in the last 200 years. I will leave the discussion which ruling government was more or less fair to Christian faiths for another time.

Hercus Monte
11-30-2013, 06:46 PM
I am not sure Vilnus/Wilno/Vilna as it was know then, was among 10 biggest cities. And, it was certainly not among most importnant ecconomic or industry centers.


at the end of the 18th century and before the Napoleon wars, Vilnius with 56 000 inhabitants entered the Russian Empire as its 3rd largest city.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilnius#In_the_Russian_Empire

Hweinlant
12-01-2013, 08:39 AM
There are numerous accounts in chronicles and Viking's sagas of Vikings penetrating the waterways of eastern Europe. There're several academic theories of the Rus' origin one of which they were Vikings from the territories of present day Sweden.

Rus' were from lake Ladoga, in some Arabic contemporary sources they are even labelled as al-Lawdugana (aka The Ladogans).

"The Rus consist of many peoples, who fall into different categories. Among them are a species called al-Lawdugana, and they are the most numerous."
-Al-Masudi circa 947 AD.

Windischer
12-01-2013, 09:35 AM
it simply states that ladogans are the most numerous and very important (due to significant trade probably).

Hweinlant
12-01-2013, 09:45 AM
it simply states that ladogans are the most numerous and very important (due to significant trade probably).

Yes, it's a reference to Aldeigjuborg. Thats where the Rus' originated from. Thats where they expanded to Kiev etc.

Twistedmind
12-01-2013, 11:32 AM
Rus' were from lake Ladoga, in some Arabic contemporary sources they are even labelled as al-Lawdugana (aka The Ladogans).

"The Rus consist of many peoples, who fall into different categories. Among them are a species called al-Lawdugana, and they are the most numerous."
-Al-Masudi circa 947 AD.
He just said there are many groups of Rus' people and one was called (l.w.dh.‘.n.ah) and that group was carryng trade with Al-Andalus. He probably had in mind city of Novgorod which was close to Ladoga, but its nealry impossible to exactly know what he had in mind under lwdhnah

Lemon Kush
12-01-2013, 11:37 AM
I wonder if the Rus were R1a or I1

Twistedmind
12-01-2013, 11:40 AM
I wonder if the Rus were R1a or I1

Rurikids were N1c1, but of subclade charachteristic for Sweden. Their far agnatic cousins were found in Central Sweden. Also, Gedeminids belogned to same haplogroup, but of different subclade.

Hweinlant
12-01-2013, 09:01 PM
He just said there are many groups of Rus' people and one was called (l.w.dh.‘.n.ah) and that group was carryng trade with Al-Andalus.


Rus' was originally a trading guild and a town, southeast shore of lake Ladoga. Bad, old translation was corrected by Håkon Stang:
http://i39.tinypic.com/28b5f84.png

see full paper: http://idrisi.narod.ru/stang.pdf (over 300 pages study)



He probably had in mind city of Novgorod which was close to Ladoga, but its nealry impossible to exactly know what he had in mind under lwdhnah

Most likely not. Al-Masudi was writing his book in early 900's AD. Novgorod city phenomenom starter really in late 900's AD. Obviously "Novgorod zemlya" could not have existed before the city itself. Around early 900's AD there were simply 3 villages, which united to form the proto-Novgorod city. These villages remained as district names of Novgorod city. Villages were Slovenskii (Slavno), Nerevskii (Nereva) and Liudin. Liudin simply means the "folk" (compare to Livvik Karelians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livvi-Karelian_language)). Slavno is easy, as it cleary points to tribe of Slovenians, Nereva most likely points to Meryans, and or Vepsians. Those villages ("Gorod") shared common market place, which became the famous city of Novgorod and later on Novgorod Zemlya.

Novgorod itself most likely did not exist in 900+ AD when Al-Masudi was writing (and correcting + fixing) his famous book. The tradehub and nest of the Rus' was at the lake Ladoga at that time. That town, the home of Al-Lawdugane Rus' was slightly more north, of future Novgorod, called Aldeigjuborg or Staraya Ladoga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staraya_Ladoga) today.

So when Al-Masudi was referring the Rus' as the Ladogan, Novgorod as entity did not exist, it was still proto-Novgorod, the few villages and their market site.

Twistedmind
12-02-2013, 03:05 PM
Rus' was originally a trading guild and a town, southeast shore of lake Ladoga.
Nope, they were asked to come and rule city on Ilymen or Ladoga, where lived Slavs and Chud and Merva arround city.




Bad, old translation was corrected by Håkon Stang:
http://i39.tinypic.com/28b5f84.png

Its not "translation" but rather questioning what was written in Arabic acctually, Arabic alphabet is abugid, ie, there is no vowels, hence confusion.

https://www.academia.edu/4094697/Rus_in_Arabic_Sources_Cultural_Contacts_and_Identi ty_PhD_dissertation_




see full paper: http://idrisi.narod.ru/stang.pdf (over 300 pages study)

That studi mentions every possible theory about origin fo Rus. Its not study, but rather presentation of all theories.
Here is Russian text which mentions all readings proposed:
http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Russ/X/Garkavi_mus_pis/frame11.htm
And here is PhD thesis again from Scandinavia, which is neutral on topic of which place was acctaually mentioned by Al Masudi. https://www.academia.edu/4094697/Rus_in_Arabic_Sources_Cultural_Contacts_and_Identi ty_PhD_dissertation_




Most likely not. Al-Masudi was writing his book in early 900's AD.

He must be wunderkind if he was writting with 4 yers and managed to visit many places in World :D Not to mention he was writting from secundary sources.



Novgorod city phenomenom starter really in late 900's AD. Obviously "Novgorod zemlya" could not have existed before the city itself. Around early 900's AD there were simply 3 villages, which united to form the proto-Novgorod city.

[QUOTE=Hweinlant;2153425]

These villages remained as district names of Novgorod city.
Nope entirely true. Those quarters did exist but there were 3 more. Detinec (Citadel), Zagorodskiy konec, (literary below city end), Slavyanskiy konec, Nervskiy konec, Plotnickiy konec, and of corse Lyudin konec




Villages were Slovenskii (Slavno), Nerevskii (Nereva) and Liudin. Liudin simply means the "folk" (compare to Livvik Karelians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livvi-Karelian_language)).

Lyudi means people, and its common Slavic root. Old Church Slavonic людиє, Serbian људи, Slovak ljudjȇ, Czech lide...
Shame for Livvik Karelians tough :D



Slavno is easy, as it cleary points to tribe of Slovenians,

It was not Slavno, there is no proof that in any point it was called like it. There was village Slavna before, and it was latter caled Словенской конец



Nereva most likely points to Meryans, and or Vepsians.

Yes thats verry convining theory :D It probably got name after other Finnic tribe Nereva, same tribe which gave name to Narva. Nereva-> Nervskiy is more convincing than Merya->Nervskiy konec.




Those villages ("Gorod") shared common market place, which became the famous city of Novgorod and later on Novgorod Zemlya.

Gorod is city, village is derevnya or just selo. Just city was called gorod.



Novgorod itself most likely did not exist in 900+ AD when Al-Masudi was writing (and correcting + fixing) his famous book.

Loolz. He was writing 50 years latter. :D Unless you, of course want to suggest he was 4-14 year old in time of writting it. :D




The tradehub and nest of the Rus' was at the lake Ladoga at that time.
In time of Al-Masudi center of Rus', was Kiev. Trading, military, monetary etc. Thats time of Olga and Svyatoslav.





That town, the home of Al-Lawdugane Rus' was slightly more north, of future Novgorod, called Aldeigjuborg or Staraya Ladoga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staraya_Ladoga) today.

Old Ladoga, was place where Rurik was prince according to Hypatian codex from 1425. But it also mentions capital was changed to Novgord 2 years latter. Altough, Novgorod from primary chronicle was not modern Novgorod, but place few kilometers on south, called Rurikovo Gorodische. Anyway, like I said previously, there is no any proof Al Masudi had in mind Ladoga.




So when Al-Masudi was referring the Rus' as the Ladogan, Novgorod as entity did not exist, it was still proto-Novgorod, the few villages and their market site.
Novgorod is mentioned under its name by Emperor Constantine VII Porfiroegenet 949, exactly in same time when Al-Masudi was writting arround 947. :D You saimply have no point.

Hevo
12-02-2013, 03:11 PM
So are Belarussians closer to Poles/Lithuanians or Russians?

West-Russians/North Ukrainians and Lithuanians as well.

sevruk
12-02-2013, 03:18 PM
http://www.prof-press.by/i/photo/domracheva-1.jpg

belorusneft ;)