On Belarusian identity

[W. R.]

1. IF IFS AND ANS WERE POTS AND PANS

There are two kinds of nationalism: civic nationalism and ethnic nationalism. There are two kinds of nations: civic nations and ethnic nations. Membership in civic nations is voluntary and little depends from an ethnic background of a person. Members of an ethnic nation belong to it by blood and birth. “Civic” vision of nation was chosen in France after the Great French revolution. Germans are a classical example of a nation who chose “ethnic” vision of their nation. Ethnic nationalism has traditionally prevailed in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe as well.

At the end of XVIII century Poland could become an exception in Eastern Europe. At the end of the XVIII century this country was on the way of forming a civic nation, like France. That nation would have been Polish speaking but included also quite polonized but not Slavic speaking Lithuanians (doesn’t France have its Bretons?). Ukrainians and Belarusians would have preserved some ethnographic peculiarities of theirs though they would have been polonized more than Lithuanians (Provence and Occitanians could come as comparison).

2. THREE NATIONALISMS FOR BELARUSIANS

a) Polish nationalism

The formation of the greater Polish nation described above has never happened in reality: at the end of XVIII century Rzecz Pospolita was partitioned by Austria, Prussia and Russia. The formation wasn’t stopped at once: the Polish culture for several decades dominated on many territories which were not Polish in ethnic sense of this word (Belarus, Lithuania, some parts of the Ukraine). Great part of elites of these lands still felt being part of the Polish nation, despite the fact that there was no Poland anymore on the political map of Europe.

The Polish nationalism was the first nationalism to appear in our land (Belarus) and many chose this option. A Latin expression was coined to describe the national belonging of such people: “Gente Ruthenus, natione Polonus”, that means “Ruthenian by birth, Polish by nation”. Perfect examples are leader of the Polish national uprising Tadeusz Kościuszko (born in Belarus, near Kobryń) and prophet of Polish national awakening Adam Mickiewicz (born near Baranavičy).

And still there are lots of such people in Belarus: 400*000 “so-called Poles”. “So-called” because 1) mass migration from ethic Polish lands to Belarus has never taken place; 2) These “so-called Poles” do not differ in customs and in language from Belarusians among whom they live and it doesn’t surprise me at all that anthropometric studies show that 3) among all the ethnic minorities in Belarus the “so-called Poles” are anthropologically most similar to Belarusians. I know even why: because the only thing that makes them “Polish” is that they just believe they are Polish. This is matter of choice: acceptable for those who believe in civic nationalism and laughable for those who believe in ethnic nationalism.

b) Russian nationalism

Active russification of Belarus didn’t start immediately after Belarusian lands were annexed by Russia. More or less intensive it became after the uprising of 1830. The most important achievement of russification was beyond doubt the liquidation of the Uniate (aka Greek Catholic) Church and absorbing it by the Russian Orthodox Church (in year 1839). In that way majority of Belarusians joined the confession which was official and dominated in the Russian Empire.

Russian nationalism coined its own ideology in the Belarusian lands: “West-Russianism” (zapadnorussizm). It is simple and can be explained in several sentences: Belarusians have their own ethnographic peculiarities, these peculiarities can be interesting to study, but most probably these peculiarities are a consequence of polonization and contacts with Catholicism and Western culture in general; Belarusians are a part of the greater Russian nation which includes also Great Russians (proper Russians) and Little Russians (Ukrainians); Belarusians have ever dreamed to be a part of Russia, and at the end of XVIII century their dream came true; Orthodoxy rules, Catholicism sucks...

Initially West-Russianism excluded Catholic Belarusians from the “greater Russian nation”: only Orthodox people were allowed there. Catholic Belarusians were regarded as Poles. Later there were some changes: its ideologists came to the idea that since only the faith differed Catholic Belarusians from Orthodox Belarusians, then maybe Catholic Belarusians were “Russians too”, who could be urged to change their faith and become “normal” (Orthodox) Russians.

An example of a West-Russian could be academician Jaŭchim Karski, author of fundamental work “Belarusians”. The work didn’t make him a sympathizer of the Belarusian national awakening. He was loyal to tsarism and the idea of triple Russian nation despite the fact that he devoted all his life to studies of the Belarusian language and literature.

c) Belarusian nationalism

The Belarusian nationalism is the youngest of the three. And it is very late nationalism: the first “manifest” which declared Belarusians to be a separate nation on their own, equal to other nations was first published in 1891, as a foreword to poetry book “Dudka biełaruskaja” by Francišak Bahuševič. But real national work started even later: at the beginning of XX century. The laws of the Russian Empire became more loyal to publishing in Belarusian and in Ukrainian only in 1905 (these two languages were seen as especially dangerous because they “undermined” the unity of the triple Russian nation). That’s why “Dudka biełaruskaja” was published in Austrian Krakau.

Since its very coming into being the Belarusian nationalism had to rival with two other nationalisms for Belarusian souls.

3. XX CENTURY

a) Polish nationalism: it seems that after all it became “ethnic” not “civic”. From 1921 to 1939 Western Belarus was part of Poland, where the Polish nationalism had all the conditions needed to prosper. The aim of the policies of the Second Rzecz Pospolita was assimilation and polonization of the non-Polish minorities. About Belarusians Polish minister Skulski said that in 50 years it would be impossible to find one.

b) Russian nationalism: one may believe that the USSR was an international or antinational state. But in fact the USSR was a modified Russian Empire, where the Russian nation (Russian proletariat) was declared “leading”. There was a short period of liberal national policies (1922-1929) but after it the Russian nationalism became again a component of the state ideology. For Belarusians it meant reviving of the West-Russianism, with one difference: Belarusians were finally regarded as a separate nation. There were no other changes. When one reads Soviet textbooks of history, he sees the same anti-Catholicism, anti-Westernism, tales about the wish to reunification (had we ever been unified before?) with the Great Russian nation (velikiy russkiy narod – it was common then to use this expression with the pathetic adjective “velikiy”, now it sounds funny). :) But even the distorted history of Belarus was taught little in schools of the BSSR, the Belarusian language was gradually replaced by the Russian language, incomers in the BSSR were free not to have their children taught the Belarusian language at all.

c) Belarusian nationalism: as a late nationalism which had to rival with two other developed nationalisms it had little success. There was a short active period of national awakening before the First World War (1905-1914), national work was done during the German occupation. Between the two world wars Western Belarus was a part of the Polish state and was being polonized during that time. In Eastern Belarus (the BSSR) there was a short successful period of Belarusization (1922-1929) after which most its activists were repressed. Also the period of so-called “weissruthenisation” during the German occupation 1941-44 should be mentioned and also the period of Belarusization after the collapse of the USSR (1991-1994).

4. THE FAILS AND THE WINS OF THE THREE NATIONALISMS

a) Polish nationalism: win. Poland “od morza do morza” (from the sea to the sea) collapsed at the end of XVIII century and has never been revived again. But the Polish nationalism was successful: 400*000 native inhabitants of Belarus, who declare their “Polishness” are the best proof for that. And take into account that hundreds of thousands “so-called Poles” were allowed to leave the BSSR for Poland after the World War II. That makes together a really impressive number of Belarusian souls won by the Polish nationalism.

b) Russian nationalism: epic win. In fact Belarus is populated mostly by West-Russians. The West-Russians aren’t allergic to the red and green flag of the BSSR and call it national, the West-Russians don’t see anything abnormal in the fact that there is not a single national TV-channel in Belarusian, that there are no university which would teach its students in Belarusian. West-Russians feel no discomfort sending their children to Russian schools. West-Russians rarely can speak correct Belarusian and they don’t read books and newspapers in Belarusian. The majority of Belarusian souls was won by the Russian nationalism, it seems.

c) Belarusian nationalism: fail. Ukrainians have a saying about the two greatest national poets of theirs: “Taras Shevchenko created the Ukraine and Ivan Franko populated it with Ukrainians”. It seems that the Belarusian nationalism managed only to create Belarus but failed to populate it with Belarusians.

5. BELARUSIANS ARE LIKE KASHUBIANS

Because of the pitiful situation with the national language Belarusians often compare themselves to the Irish. But I think this comparison isn’t quite right. It makes more sense to compare the Belarusian situation with the situation of Kashubians. The Kashubians are an example of an ethnos which “shirked the possibility of embarking on its own national project” as Tomasz Kamusella put it. The following information I’ve taken from his book “The Triple Division of the Slavic Languages: A linguistic finding, a product of politics, or an accident?”

Kashubian is the Slavic ethnolect of the overwhelmingly Catholic ethnic group of Kashubs living around the city of Gdańsk (Danzig). The Kashubian national movement emerged at the beginning of the 20th century but was short-lived. After 1918 the areas inhabited by the Kashubs were divided between Poland and the Free City of Danzig. Warsaw claimed Kashubian to be a dialect of the Polish language and the Kashubs a regional group of the Polish nation. The serious process of standardizing Kashubian commenced only after the fall of communism (1989). Despite Warsaw’s tacit opposition, in the second half of the 1990s and at the beginning of the 21st century this led to the establishment of the modest network of Kashubian-language elementary and secondary education attended by several thousand students. Also some fortnightly radio and TV programs are broadcast in Kashubian, masses are celebrated in this language in a handful of Catholic churches, and the Chair in the Kashubian Language was established at the University of Gdańsk. Nowadays hardly any Polish politician or scholar claims Kashubian to be a Polish dialect.

The Kashubian-speaking population counts 150,000 persons. In the 2002 census only 6,000 of them declared themselves to be members of the Kashubian nation. The overwhelming majority of Kashubs feel to be part of the Polish nation despite the fact that they consider Kashubian to be a language on its own.

The last paragraph means: Kashubians have everything to be regarded a separate nation, everything but one thing: they don’t have national consciousness. Belarusians have even more than Kashubians: we have our own state and are recognized as a separate nation by the world, but we lack the same: the national consciousness. Kashubians will become a “normal” nation when they overcome their “Polishness”. West-Russians will become Belarusians when they overcome their “Russianness”.

6. LUKASHISM AND WEST-RUSSIANISM

Łukašenka is a perfect example of a West-Russian. He believes that at the beginning of his carrier he managed to outplay “nationalists” and sometimes speaking in the name of his enemies he switches to Belarusian. One who doesn’t know the Belarusian situation could be surprised to see the president so demonstratively drawing a line between him and “those Belarusian-speaking guys”. But such behaviour of Łukašenka’s is acceptable for his electorate of West-Russians.

West-Russians are the backbone of the regime. And the regime strives to preserve status quo. The independence creates natural conditions for the Belarusian nationalism to grow, but the Belarusian nationalism is seen by the present West-Russian regime as hostile and dangerous ideology. That’s why the regime strives to preserve West-Russianism, that’s why it cares so much about preserving Soviet heritage, cults, myths and customs.

7. WILL BELARUSIANS EVER BECOME A NORMAL NATION?

God knows. Maybe. The erosion of West-Russianism seems to be unavoidable after the fall of the regime. But the “erosion” can take a long time.

REPOSTED FROM HERE (http://forum.stirpes.net/222040-post18.html)

[Jarl]

a) Polish nationalism[/B]

The formation of the greater Polish nation described above has never happened in reality: at the end of XVIII century Rzecz Pospolita was partitioned by Austria, Prussia and Russia. The formation wasn’t stopped at once: the Polish culture for several decades dominated on many territories which were not Polish in ethnic sense of this word (Belarus, Lithuania, some parts of the Ukraine). Great part of elites of these lands still felt being part of the Polish nation, despite the fact that there was no Poland anymore on the political map of Europe.

The Polish nationalism was the first nationalism to appear in our land (Belarus) and many chose this option. A Latin expression was coined to describe the national belonging of such people: “Gente Ruthenus, natione Polonus”, that means “Ruthenian by birth, Polish by nation”. Perfect examples are leader of the Polish national uprising Tadeusz Kościuszko (born in Belarus, near Kobryń) and prophet of Polish national awakening Adam Mickiewicz (born near Baranavičy).

But I guess you are correct. Majority of Belarussian and Lithuanian Poles are polonised locals - particularly if they stem from peasantry.

And still there are lots of such people in Belarus: 400*000 “so-called Poles”. “So-called” because 1) mass migration from ethic Polish lands to Belarus has never taken place; 2) These “so-called Poles” do not differ in customs and in language from Belarusians among whom they live and it doesn’t surprise me at all that anthropometric studies show that 3) among all the ethnic minorities in Belarus the “so-called Poles” are anthropologically most similar to Belarusians. I know even why: because the only thing that makes them “Polish” is that they just believe they are Polish. This is matter of choice: acceptable for those who believe in civic nationalism and laughable for those who believe in ethnic nationalism.




To be honest. Polonisation of local szlachta and elites played a major role, but there still was a Polish colonisation of both Podlasie and Grodno. Vast majority of Polish settlers came from Mazovia and mixed with local Ruthenian and Yotvingian elements.

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialekt_p%C3%B3%C5%82nocnokresowy

This colonisation occured mostly after 1569. But it was mostly limited to burghers and petty szlachta. Peasantry spoke Ruthenian. Apparently, only after January Uprising and the end of serfdom in 1864, Belarussian and Lithuanian peasants underwent stronger polonisation. This became more pronounced during the 20-year interbellum period. Apparently many Belarussian Catholic Poles are descendants of ruthenised Yotcingians and Lithuanians that accepted Catholicism in 1387.

In Podlasie, there are many ethnically Belarusian and Orthodox people who nonetheless consider themselves Polish. Even though some still speak Belarussian (46 000 consider themselves Belarussian). I am not really certain if they can be called "so-called Polish". Its a bit like with Prussian Mazurians - most of them considered themselves German and left for Germany. Even though they were ethnically Polish.




a) Polish nationalism: win. Poland “od morza do morza” (from the sea to the sea) collapsed at the end of XVIII century and has never been revived again. But the Polish nationalism was successful: 400*000 native inhabitants of Belarus, who declare their “Polishness” are the best proof for that. And take into account that hundreds of thousands “so-called Poles” were allowed to leave the BSSR for Poland after the World War II. That makes together a really impressive number of Belarusian souls won by the Polish nationalism.

I am not really certain if we can call it a "win". From what I heard Belarusian authorities seem to be rather weary of "Zwiazek Polaków na Białej Rusi" and the demographic trends are rather negative, resulting in assimilation of these Belarusian Poles.

Just to be fair. Polonisation of Lithuania and Belarus was never enforced like in case of Prussian germanisation or Imperial Russian russification.



P.S.

Are there any Polish schools in Belarus?

[Jarl]

Another thing that strikes me about Poles in the East is the massive discrepancy in the estmiates.


For instance Belarusian authorities give 400 000 estimate. Polish estmiates range between 500 000 to 1 200 000 (!):

http://www.wspolnota-polska.org.pl/index.php?id=pwko01

Ukrainian authorities give 144 000. Polish estmiates vary from 400 000 to 900 000.

[W. R.]

To be honest. Polonisation of local szlachta and elites played a major role, but there still was a Polish colonisation of both Podlasie and Grodno. Vast majority of Polish settlers came from Mazovia and mixed with local Ruthenian and Yotvingian elements.

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialekt_p%C3%B3%C5%82nocnokresowy

This colonisation occured mostly after 1569. But it was mostly limited to burghers and petty szlachta.Even if it is so, such colonisation could hardly give such huge numbers of Poles "by blood".
Apparently many Belarussian Catholic Poles are descendants of ruthenised Yotcingians and Lithuanians that accepted Catholicism in 1387.Well... Now it becomes trendy to regard all Belarusians as "slavicised Balts", actually, so from this point of view Baltic blood wouldn't make this ethnographic group more alien to Belarusians - it makes no difference, when exactly the Balts accepted the [White]Ruthenian language... and who said we have stopped? Let's carry on slavicising every Balt we see! Our Drang nach Norden must go on! :p j/k
From what I heard Belarusian authorities seem to be rather weary of "Zwiazek Polaków na Białej Rusi" and the demographic trends are rather negative, resulting in assimilation of these Belarusian Poles.I'd say they just don't like to have something (and especially organisations) not under their control. Thus they created state-controlled ZBS, it is very much their fashion. And the Polish identity is still attractive for many (while the Belarusian identity is weak), it can brings some dividents ("A Pole's card", for example). You should be more optimistic. :)
P.S.

Are there any Polish schools in Belarus?Two. But don't let this number knock you down. As I wrote above, our "so-called Poles" don't speak Polish anyway, they don't "look" Polish, they just feel Polish. That's the problem for us, Belarusian chauvinists...
For instance Belarusian authorities give 400 000 estimate.Hm, "estimate"?.. We have census every 10 years. In year 1999 some 396 000 people called themselves Poles in Belarus. In year 1989 there were 417 720 of them.

[Jarl]

I know you had a census. The thing is many Polish, and not only Polish institutions, doubt its credibility ;)

As for the language. Like I said. Most of these Poles are polonised Ruthenian peasants. Catholicism in Belarus is as old as in the rest of Grand Duchy of Lithuania. I think it helped in polonisation of some Ruthenians. I don't think there were mass conversions among Belarusian peasantry. It retained Orthodox faith even in Poland and longer than its Ruthenian language. Although majority speaks Belarusian at home, there are still some Polish-speaking communities. Two schools is not a lot. While "Karta Polaka" means nothing. Frankly, I cannot see how this Polish sense of nationality can survive long in such conditions.

[Jarl]

You should be more optimistic. :)

I am neither opti nor pesi, I just pointed to the fact that people who devoted their lives to maintaining Polish culture in Belarus are not optimistic:

http://www.wspolnota-polska.org.pl/index.php?id=pwko110

Anyway you write about optimism and then you write this:


As I wrote above, our "so-called Poles" don't speak Polish anyway, they don't "look" Polish, they just feel Polish. That's the problem for us, Belarusian chauvinists...

I don't think that it will present a major problem with the current trends.


Hm, "estimate"?.. We have census every 10 years. In year 1999 some 396 000 people called themselves Poles in Belarus. In year 1989 there were 417 720 of them.

First of all, you can see yourself the trend is negative. Secondly, whatever the real number is, these people canno't maintain their culture for long under current situation. 5% of these Poles speak Polish at home, while 20% regard Polish as their ancestral tongue.

But I agree that the census might be not far from the correct number. At least it does not really differ from the earlier Soviet consuses.



P.S.

So what do you think makes these "so called Poles" as you call them cling to the Polish national identity, despite the fact most of them speak Belarusian or Russian? Fashion? While I agree that polonisation brought a major contribution to boosting the numbers of Poles in Belarus, Im a bit concerned with you denial of Polish identity. You can't really call the descendants of polonised szlachta or Masovian burghers "so called Poles".

[nisse]

That was interesting. A lot of the same things are at work in Ukraine. However I do not feel that in the case of people from my region the idea of "malorussians" is entirely inappropriate.

Speaking excusively regarding the region I am from:
IMO the border between Russia and Ukraine is not entirely appropriate, there is (and always has been) a great degree of cultural (and genetic) continuity across it. That is not to say that Eastern Ukraine and Russian are exactly the same thing, but the regions immediately ajacent are very similar. Especially considering the size of Ukraine, we are a lot more similar to our russian neighbours then to western ukrainians.

I am curious as to the situation in Belorussia - the country is quite a bit smaller than Ukraine and shares a lot of its border with Russia and Ukraine - how much cultural continuity is there across those borders?
Separately, would you say that (discounting russification) belorussians are a homogeneous population or is there are west-east divide similar to that seen in Ukraine?

[W. R.]

First of all, you can see yourself the trend is negative. Secondly, whatever the real number is, these people canno't maintain their culture for long under current situation. 5% of these Poles speak Polish at home, while 20% regard Polish as their ancestral tongue.Well, only 5% of them speak Polish at home (and the percentage has been not much bigger for many decades), but they still regard themselves Polish! For me it is just amazing. A miracle of survivability of an identity.
P.S.

So what do you think makes these "so called Poles" as you call them cling to the Polish national identity, despite the fact most of them speak Belarusian or Russian? Fashion? While I agree that polonisation brought a major contribution to boosting the numbers of Poles in Belarus, Im a bit concerned with you denial of Polish identity. You can't really call the descendants of polonised szlachta or Masovian burghers "so called Poles".Look, I am chauvinist, but I am an honest chauvinist. :tongue Every person who can prove that 50% or more of his/her ancestors originated from the Polish ethnographic territory, will be regarded Polish by me. If not, then welcome to the Belarusian nation!

[Jarl]

I am curious as to the situation in Belorussia - the country is quite a bit smaller than Ukraine and shares a lot of its border with Russia and Ukraine - how much cultural continuity is there across those borders?
Separately, would you say that (discounting russification) belorussians are a homogeneous population or is there are west-east divide similar to that seen in Ukraine?

Belarus and Ukraine has since XIII-XIV century been the domain of Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Following the union of Poland and Lithuania and catholicisation of Lithuania, Polish elites dominated both countries and polonisation ensued. Ukraine was incorporated into Poland.

Since for most part of their history they were not associated with Muscovy and Russia, both of these countries managed to retain a different language and identity. Ukrainian nationalism, fuelled by opression from Polish szlachta and magnates found its roots in the Polish-Cossack wars and tensions in XIX-century Austrian Galicia.

On the other hand Belarus, much smaller and much less populated, has never undergone a period of national awakening. In XIXth and XXth century it quickly became russified. Ironically areas with strong Polish/Rzeczpospolita traditions were the birthplace of Belarusian nationalism. There was no Ukrainian or Belarusian nationalism in Soviet Union. There was no place for it. It could only happen in semi-liberal II Rzeczpospolita.

However, up until XXth century many Belarusians did not consider themselves "Belrausian". Rather "local" or "Ruthenian". Continuity existed. In Podlasie there is a spectrum of trasition Mazovian - Belarusian dialects. Similarly between Belarusians and Ukrainians there are Poleszuki. Poleszucy were a intermediate group between Ukrainians and Belarusian. Simple Ruthenian Orthodox peasants, they did not have any stronger sense of national identity. In most pre WWII censuses they considered themselves "local".

When asked about nationality they would answer: "Ja tutejszy" or "prawosławny" (Orthodox).

[Jarl]

The truth is that Belarusian national awakening started at the end of XIX century and was restricted mostly to Catholic and Polish-influences communities in the West. In the East, over 100 years of russification in Russian Empire, followed by russification in the Soviet Union successfully (and often physically) eradicated any attempts to establish Belarusian ethnicity/nationality. For Russian authorities, imperial or communist alike, Belarusians simply equalled Russians.


And indeed, poor, backward masses of peasantry adopted Russian sense of identity. This is still prevalent in modern Belarus and is the main reason for the split in Belarusian society. Belarusian identity survived mostly in Rzeczpospolita districts just like the polonised szlachta and gentry. But not for long. After 1917 and then after WW II it was expropriated and subjected to russification as well.


Now why did the Ukrainians manage to undergo national awakening, while Belrausian failed??? To make it short:


1. Belarus has always been the most backward, illiterate and sparsely populated, heavily forested area of both Ist and IInd Rzeczpospolita, with few cities and schools.

Illiteracy in II RP:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/HistPol-analfabetyzm1931.png/507px-HistPol-analfabetyzm1931.png

2. Belarus has always been subjected to serfdom. Its peasantry has never had any major degrees of autonomy like Ukrainian Cossacks, or Carpathian Ruthenians in Galicia had.

3. Local Belarusian elites became quickly and heavily polonised unlike Ukrainian/Cossack ones.

[Cail]

Bracia, lets not turn this thread into infighting.

[Cail]

Speaking about the future, i think Belorussia's case is way worse than Ukraine's :(. Even now, in an independent state, government still pursues Russification. I wonder, does not Luka understand that he could turn Belorussian nationalism into huge political dividends for himself?? Or is this Gypsy simply too stupid for that...

[W. R.]

I am curious as to the situation in Belorussia - the country is quite a bit smaller than Ukraine and shares a lot of its border with Russia and Ukraine - how much cultural continuity is there across those borders?The situation is similar to what you described. Until XX century huge parts of Smolens and Bryansk regions were even regarded Belarusian ethnographically (as well as parts of Brest and Homel regions were regarded Ukrainian). So the cultural continuity across the borders indeed exists. But the borders set in XX century already influenced the population so differences exist as well. For example quite bad Belarusian roads vs horrible Russian ones... :tongue


Separately, would you say that (discounting russification) belorussians are a homogeneous population or is there are west-east divide similar to that seen in Ukraine?Yes, the difference exists but it is not so strong as in case of Ukraine. For example, people in Western Belarus are significantly more religious, just because godless communism came here 20 years later. The mentality is also a bit different, but if I'm not mistaken Western Ukraine was separated from Great Ukraine for longer period thus the differences are bigger.

[nisse]

However, up until XXth century many Belarusians did not consider themselves "Belrausian". Rather "local" or "Ruthenian". Continuity existed. In Podlasie there is a spectrum of trasition Mazovian - Belarusian dialects. Similarly between Belarusians and Ukrainians there are Poleszuki. Poleszucy were a intermediate group between Ukrainians and Belarusian. Simple Ruthenian Orthodox peasants, they did not have any stronger sense of national identity. In most pre WWII censuses they considered themselves "local".

When asked about nationality they would answer: "Ja tutejszy" or "prawosławny" (Orthodox).

I guess my question was "Is there a belorussian identity that belorussians could rally around?"...and apparently the answer is no. (I was hoping for a "yes" considering the smaller size of the country and all that :()

The reason I was asking is because there is no such thing in Ukraine, IMO. Easterners have no strong "feelings" about Poland/Grand Duchy of Lithania because we weren't part of either for a long time, and even when we were, we were on the (extreme) periphery. By contrast Westerners have a lot of historical and cultural ties with those countries. Ukrainian nationalism is just as learnt as russian nationalism in eastern/south eastern regions of Ukraine. Much like in Belorussia, everyone is "local" and (traditionally) doesn't really give a damn about anyone any appreciable distance away :|

[Jarl]

I think there is a disparity in both Ukraine and Belarus. One option is local, like you said. The other is Russian. And I think people do give a damn. Particularly the young educated ones.

[Cail]

I think there is a disparity in both Ukraine and Belarus. One option is local, like you said. The other is Russian. And I think people do give a damn. Particularly the young educated ones.

Yes, but in Ukraine, this "local" idea (Ukrainism) has

a)Much stronger political and popular support, partially because of much more clever leaders (their reasons are largely egoistic, of course, but their interests happen to coincide with Ukrainian ethnic interests), and partially because of -
b)Stronger roots. Ukrainian ethnic culture, from, i guess, Cossack times (XVI-XVIIc.) and later under "malorussian" label et cetera, was much stronger than Belorussian, which tended to conform to civic nationalism of, first, Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and then the Rzeczpospolita. Belorussians didn't have that romantic nationalism as Ukrainians did.

[nisse]

Speaking about the future, i think Belorussia's case is way worse than Ukraine's :(. Even now, in an independent state, government still pursues Russification. I wonder, does not Luka understand that he could he turn Belorussian nationalism into huge political dividends for himself?? Or is this Gypsy simply too stupid for that...

You mean like Timo(shenko) is doing? I don't think national costumes and hairstyles would make him look quite as cute as they make her look, so it might not pay off :P :D

IMO Ukraine should split up, but the parts should retain independence. The cultural differences between the east and the west are too great for any meaningful state-wide "nationalism".


Belorussians didn't have that romantic nationalism as Ukrainians did [and do].
Righ on! :D

[Cail]

You mean like Timo(shenko) is doing? I don't think national costumes and hairstyles would make him look quite as cute as they make her look, so it might not pay off :P :D
:D


IMO Ukraine should split up, but the parts should retain independence. The cultural differences between the east and the west are too great for any meaningful state-wide "nationalism".

Actually, i used to think so too, couple of years ago, but not anymore. I've been to Ukraine twice last year (not for long, alas, but still), and what i've seen is that East is slowly "Ukrainifying". I heard much more Ukrainian in the streets, and people i spoke to were more pro-Ukrainian. There still is a big pro-Russian sentiment, but the activists are now mainly old or from lowest social classes.

I hope, in some years, Ukraine will finally manage to fully complete it's transition to ethnic nation-state.

[nisse]

And I think people do give a damn. Particularly the young educated ones.
True, but they are educated in the ways of the West. They are the ones that want Ukraine to joing the EU and swoon over mullato M1 hosts :mad:


Actually, i used to think so too, couple of years ago, but not anymore. I've been to Ukraine twice last year (not for long, alas, but still), and what i've seen is that East is slowly "Ukrainifying". I heard much more Ukrainian in the streets, and people i spoke to were more pro-Ukrainian. There still is a big pro-Russian sentiment, but the activists are now mainly old or from lowest social classes.
I hope, in some years, Ukraine will finally manage to fully complete it's transition to ethnic nation-state.

I hope your hope doesn't come true :(
That would be denying the unique history and culture of the East, becasue no doubt the Western concept of what it means to be Ukrainian will be imposed on the whole country (since that is pretty much where it survived, and where it was defined).

I think that the revival of the language is very important, but the East has always spoken in a "surzik" of russian and ukrainian, where as the West had it's own mix of polish and ukrainian. Any form of convergence will only be detrimental to both , imo :(

[Cail]

I think that the revival of the language is very important, but the East has always spoken in a "surzik" of russian and ukrainian, where as the West had it's own mix of polish and ukrainian. Any form of convergence will only be detrimental to both , imo :(

Look at Italy, for example. Sicilian or Neapolitan language and culture differ a lot from Savoy or Milan, much more than intra-Ukrainian differences.

[nisse]

Look at Italy, for example. Sicilian or Neapolitan language and culture differ a lot from Savoy or Milan, much more than intra-Ukrainian differences.
Yes, but their cultures are a lot more "stable" than Ukrainian cultures. They are not going through a re-learning process the way Ukraine seems to be doing now. Because of its ties to Russia, I fear Eastern ukrainian culture will be marginalised on a national scale and will end up worse off than it is now.

Plus, I am not italian :ohwell:

[Jarl]

Ukrainian ethnic culture, from, i guess, Cossack times (XVI-XVIIc.) and later under "malorussian" label et cetera, was much stronger than Belorussian, which tended to conform to civic nationalism of, first, Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and then the Rzeczpospolita. Belorussians didn't have that romantic nationalism as Ukrainians did.

That is precisely what I wrote on page 1.

[Cail]

Yes, but their cultures are a lot more "stable" than Ukrainian cultures. They are not going through a re-learning process the way Ukraine seems to be doing now. Because of its ties to Russia, I fear Eastern ukrainian culture will be marginalised on a national scale and will end up worse off than it is now.

I, personally, would want one big confederation (Rzeczpospolita),from Czechia to western Russia. Internal divisions (subjects of the confederation) can be very autonomous culturally, every small ethnos (like Rusyns, Kashubs, Silesians, Latgales et cetera) can have their own canton.

[nisse]

That could certainly make more sense based on political/economic/military considerations. The question is always whether local autonomy will actually materialize or will the confederacy turn into Russia :(

I often consider an arrangment like that too (without thinking of which other countries might be involved) but being weary of big government in all forms (cultural trait :p) I tend to be against it.

[aherne]

There is no such thing as "Belarussian" (or "Ukrainian") people. You really are nothing but a subgroup of Greater Russian nation, who only got broken up linguistically during Polish-Lithuanian kingdom period. The most defining part of your history, that when Russian people was born, was well before the latter broke up into three entities. The very name of your people is RUSSIAN. Being part of Russia is not a matter of "nationalism", but one of patriotism. It is such a shame that the cradle of Russian nation, Ukraine, has succumbed to divisive propaganda and now believes itself to be a nation.

[W. R.]

There is no such thing as "Belarussian" (or "Ukrainian") people. You really are nothing but a subgroup of Greater Russian nation, who only got broken up linguistically during Polish-Lithuanian kingdom period. The most defining part of your history, that when Russian people was born, was well before the latter broke up into three entities. The very name of your people is RUSSIAN. Being part of Russia is not a matter of "nationalism", but one of patriotism. It is such a shame that the cradle of Russian nation, Ukraine, has succumbed to divisive propaganda and now believes itself to be a nation.I am planning to write another longer text for this thread where I would share what I know about the birth of the modern Belarusian identity and its roots. Unfortunately at the moment I have no time for this task.

For now I'll just say, that it may be that Kievan Rus didn't exist long enough to create a single nation out of the East Slavic tribes. We can try to estimate it: do you remember when exactly the Kriviches, Vyatiches, Radimiches etc. ceased to exist?

[Monolith]

There is no such thing as "Belarussian" (or "Ukrainian") people. You really are nothing but a subgroup of Greater Russian nation, who only got broken up linguistically during Polish-Lithuanian kingdom period. The most defining part of your history, that when Russian people was born, was well before the latter broke up into three entities. The very name of your people is RUSSIAN. Being part of Russia is not a matter of "nationalism", but one of patriotism. It is such a shame that the cradle of Russian nation, Ukraine, has succumbed to divisive propaganda and now believes itself to be a nation.
Yeah. We should all be just Slavs. What's the point in having separate cultures and traditions?

[Heretik]

Monolith, meet aherne the aryan. :laugh:

[Jarl]

There is no such thing as "Belarussian" (or "Ukrainian") people. You really are nothing but a subgroup of Greater Russian nation, who only got broken up linguistically during Polish-Lithuanian kingdom period. The most defining part of your history, that when Russian people was born, was well before the latter broke up into three entities. The very name of your people is RUSSIAN. Being part of Russia is not a matter of "nationalism", but one of patriotism. It is such a shame that the cradle of Russian nation, Ukraine, has succumbed to divisive propaganda and now believes itself to be a nation.

How come they are a subgroup of Greater Russians if for some 750 years they formed a separate political entity? Russia stems from Vladimir-Suzdal, one of the many splinters of Kievan Rus. If anything the Belarussians and Ukrainians are as rightful descendants of Rus as the Greater Russians.

[poiuytrewq0987]

To my understanding, the Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians are all part of the Rus people which was broken up into three groups.

[aherne]

If anything the Belarussians and Ukrainians are as rightful descendants of Rus as the Greater Russians.

Absolutely. The historical subordination of White and Little Russians to Great Russians is simply a matter of politics and was not my intent to sanction it as legitimate. Russians, though the greatest people of Europe in numbers and territory, are actually quite homogenous, much more so than Italians (which is nothing more than a geographic term for Romance speakers of geographic Italy). Apart of language, faces, folk costumes, music, traditions, are still very similar. All demonstrate that despite dialectal differences, themselves very easy to deal with minimal training, Russians are still one people.

Of all the three groups, Great Russians are heavily mixed with forest Finnic groups (hence many holding Uralic phenotypes), whereas White Russians and Little Russians are relatively pure Slavs.

The only exception are Carpathian Russians, who have transitional Balkan-Slavic features (almost equally divided), probably due to a Thracian-Slavic mix. Good example (Russians from Maramures region, who look totally Romanian):
http://dorinstef.blog.com/files/2010/11/Mos-Craciun-la-Ludoteca-GP13.jpg

[W. R.]

If anything the Belarussians and Ukrainians are as rightful descendants of Rus as the Greater Russians.The legacy of Kievan Rus:

Ukrainians lay their grabby hands on the main part (Kiev!).
Belarusians cheerfully run away with their principality of Polotsk.
Russians take the rest.

[Jarl]

The legacy of Kievan Rus:

Ukrainians lay their grabby hands on the main part (Kiev!).
Belarusians cheerfully run away with their principality of Polotsk.
Russians take the rest.

All to be overrun by Mongols. The first two bits were later conquered by Poland and Lithuania. The Northern bits became dominated by Muscovy and gave rise to modern Russia. In fact, Kasimir the Great of Poland inherited Rus Halicko-Wlodzimierska legally but had to fight off the Lithuanians who claimed all of Rus.



Absolutely. The historical subordination of White and Little Russians to Great Russians is simply a matter of politics and was not my intent to sanction it as legitimate. Russians, though the greatest people of Europe in numbers and territory, are actually quite homogenous, much more so than Italians (which is nothing more than a geographic term for Romance speakers of geographic Italy). Apart of language, faces, folk costumes, music, traditions, are still very similar. All demonstrate that despite dialectal differences, themselves very easy to deal with minimal training, Russians are still one people.

Of all the three groups, Great Russians are heavily mixed with forest Finnic groups (hence many holding Uralic phenotypes), whereas White Russians and Little Russians are relatively pure Slavs.

The only exception are Carpathian Russians, who have transitional Balkan-Slavic features (almost equally divided), probably due to a Thracian-Slavic mix. Good example (Russians from Maramures region, who look totally Romanian):
http://dorinstef.blog.com/files/2010/11/Mos-Craciun-la-Ludoteca-GP13.jpg


In fact the deeper you cut the less obvious all of it becomes. Bear in mind that Rus was a feudal state created by force by foreign, as it appeares, elites who subdued and coerced some of the local Slavic tribes - one by one. It was a political entity and not exactly corresponding to the ethnic borders and genuine affinity. But as it all happens political borders bind people together and establish new ethnicities, in the long run.


You should read Nestor's "Powiest wriemiennych let". Wiatycze and Radymicze were originally Lechitic tribes according to the chronicle - like Poles and Polabians. Also there have been hypotheses of West Slavic character of the Slovenes but with no written source to back that.


Wiatycze and Radymicze gave rise to Homel, Starodub, Suzdal and Chernigov and... Moscow. Pretty much the core of what later was to become "Great Russia". If so then due to isolation and different political history, they evolved their own dialect, quite distinct owing to its peripheral character and interactions with non-Slavic background. It is also interesting that tribes inhabiting Southern Poland like Croats were not really Lechitic and more related to Czechs, Slovaks or Polanie Dulebowie. So more less all the tribes who inhabited the Prague culture zone.

Goleszyce - a Silesian tribe, became split into two domains subordinated to the Polish and Czech monarchs as early as XI-XII century. Few centuries afterwards the political border became the ethnic and linguistic border as well, and continues to be up until present.


So... political unity and ethnic affinity is not always the same. Still, the differences in dialects are quite formidable. And a Russian will struggle to understand a true original Rusyn from Uzhorod or a Belarusian from Bialowieza or Brest. Phonetically I don't think Western Rusyn or Ukrainian is much more closer to Russian than to Polish. Phonetically yes, but at least not lexically. As for cultural differences there are many too although the religion is certainly a strong biding factor. In fact Brest dialects are probably much better understood on the Polish side than by Muscovites, or used to, before they invented TV, radio and communism.

[W. R.]

All to be overrun by Mongols.Polotsk too? Ffffuuuu... For how long?
The first two bits were later conquered by Poland and Lithuania.Polotsk principality conquered by Poland? That didn't happen, did it?

[aherne]

Still, the differences in dialects are quite formidable. And a Russian will struggle to understand a true original Rusyn from Uzhorod or a Belarusian from Bialowieza or Brest.
Yet consider that in other dialect continuum zones, differences are even greater. A Bavarian dialect speaker will understand next to nothing from Netherlandic, even though these dialects share an unbroken continuum zones. Yet at the same time it is clearly impossible to DIVIDE continuum zones on ethnolinguistic faults, which is why it's best to take them as a whole (treat Russians as ONE group, treat Germans as ONE group, treat Continental Scandinavians as ONE group).


In fact Brest dialects are probably much better understood on the Polish side than by Muscovites, or used to, before they invented TV, radio and communism.
That's only because on the Polish side of the border, people are also of White Russian origin.

[W. R.]

Yet consider that in other dialect continuum zones, differences are even greater. A Bavarian dialect speaker will understand next to nothing from Netherlandic, even though these dialects share an unbroken continuum zones. Yet at the same time it is clearly impossible to DIVIDE continuum zones on ethnolinguistic faults, which is why it's best to take them as a whole (treat Russians as ONE group, treat Germans as ONE group, treat Continental Scandinavians as ONE group).Technically there are two unbroken continuum zones of Slavic: from Prague to Vladivostok and from Ljubljana to Sofia.

But again: within them there exist clusters of isoglosses (isoglosses - mapped borders of language facts), that serve as blurred borders of dialect groups and national languages.
Yeah. We should all be just Slavs. What's the point in having separate cultures and traditions?Not "just Slavs" but "just Northern Slavs" and "just Southern Slavs". Two dialect continua, remember? :coffee:

[Jarl]

Polotsk too? Ffffuuuu... For how long?Polotsk principality conquered by Poland? That didn't happen, did it?

Apparently Polotsk was not subjugated by Mognols, however conquered/inherited by some Lithuanian chieftain named Towtill, in XIIIth century. Interestingly Polotsk had some rights of its own and a degree of autonomy within Kievan Rus.



That's only because on the Polish side of the border, people are also of White Russian origin.

No, no. I am perfectly aware of that, but I am also aware of what I said. And I meant it. Eastern Masovian dialects are close to the Brest dialect of Belarusian (or Ukrainian as some would like to have it). In fact the two blend together across villages. Thus, there is a transition of dialects. But in terms of standard literature language ovarall the East Slavic languages are most similar to each other.

I believe, lexically Ukrainian is closest to Polish out of all East Slavic languages.

[aherne]

Technically there are two unbroken continuum zones of Slavic: from Prague to Vladivostok and from Ljubljana to Sofia.

I've never heard of a dialect continuum from Prague to Vladivostok.

As far as linguists say, Russian dialects from Transcarpatia are mutually unintelligible to East Slovak dialects. Of course, that whole area used to be extremely mixed, so it is not impossible for some Slovakized Ruthenian villages (the opposite never happened) develop something like a compromize between East SLovak and East Ruthenian. Overall, all Russian dialects display typical Russian features set up during Rus unity.

The old language border between Polish and Russian people corresponds entirely to the political border between Old Poland and Kievan Rus around 1000 AD:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Dzia%C5%82ania_podczas_wojny_polsko_niemieckiej_10 02-1005.png
http://rpmedia.ask.com/ts?u=/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Polish_language1880.png/180px-Polish_language1880.png
The only difference are Lemks who later populated the uninhabited Carpatian highlands within Polish and Slovak ethnic territories. In Podlassia, on both sides of the old ethnic border, high ethnic admixture may have produced a mixed dialect, but Polish and White Russian are too different for a real link of dialect continuum to occur.

As for the differences between Yugoslavian and Bulgarian, Torlakian dialect does connect the two, hovering more towards Bulgarian. However, the ethnocultural difference between the two peoples is very strong, so Yugoslavians and Bulgarians cannot be one people.

[W. R.]

I've never heard of a dialect continuum from Prague to Vladivostok.
As far as linguists say, Russian dialects from Transcarpatia are mutually unintelligible to East Slovak dialects.This topic was already discussed once (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10951).

Don't skip this (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=141766&postcount=2), this (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=141925&postcount=5) and this (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=142532&postcount=22) post.
Overall, all Russian dialects display typical Russian features set up during Rus unity.This sounds improbable to me. I doubt that existence of Kievan Rus could influence spoken dialects that much. How would it be possible? It's more modern thing when children are taught a literary standard at school.

[Comte Arnau]

Does anybody know about any study on language distance between Russian, Belarussian and Ukrainian?

[W. R.]

Does anybody know about any study on language distance between Russian, Belarussian and Ukrainian?Different studies - different numbers. Rule with no exceptions.

[Comte Arnau]

Different studies - different numbers. Rule with no exceptions.

Thank you. Slavic languages are certainly close among each other, I'm surprised. Many of them look almost as close as Spanish and Portuguese.

Belarussian and Ukrainian, as well as Czech and Slovakian, could almost be considered the same language. I guess that they must be more different from a morphosyntactical point of view, though.

[aherne]

Different studies - different numbers. Rule with no exceptions.

This graph clearly shows that the three main Russian dialect groups form a whole and they are much closer to each other than to West Slavic groups. Even though White Russian and Little Russian form a cluster, the former is heavily Polonized (real Poles have always lived there as well), whereas the latter has preserved many old Russian features lost in Great Russian (Polish influence is merely lexical). Example: glávnyj vs. holóvnyj (here the Little Russian word preserves a Russian morphology, whereas the Great Russian word clearly comes from non-Russian speakers, that is Old Bulgarians).

Here is a typical Russian characteristic for the old word that means Romanian:
- vlah (Early Slavic) >> voloh (Old Russian)
The earliest attestation of Romanians in Moldavia (the only area of contact between Russian and Romanian) were the Bolohoveni tribe (which simply means Romanians, according to Russian sound rules). By contrast, an area in Southern Romania is called Vlashka (which has same meaning, but morphed by Bulgarian sound rules).

[W. R.]

This graph clearly shows that the three main Russian dialect groups form a whole and they are much closer to each other than to West Slavic groups.The graph (if we are going to accept this data as the ultimate truth) shows that the distance of 86 % between Slavic languages is not something unusual but common. And that there is no impenetrable Great Wall of China between West Slavic languages and East Slavic languages: that would be the Northern continuum we talked about.

Yes, some isoglosses would group East Slavic languages together and separate them from the West Slavic languages, and the full vocalisation you wrote about is the most prominent feature of the former. But at the same time, say, the isoglosse of dziekannie/ciekannie would group the Belarusian language with the Lechitic languages and separate it from the Russian and Ukrainian languages; the isoglosse of ikavism would separate the Ukrainian language from the neigbours etc. Many isoglosses form clusters, and these constitute natural borders between languages. The nature of the border between the Ukrainian dialects and the Belarusian dialects is the same as the nature of the border between, say, the Belarusian dialects and the Polish dialects. No difference.
Belarussian and Ukrainian, as well as Czech and Slovakian, could almost be considered the same language. I guess that they must be more different from a morphosyntactical point of view, though.It seems also that the difference between the phonemic systems of Belarusian and Ukrainian is bigger than the difference between the phonemic systems of Czech and Slovakian.

[aherne]

The graph (if we are going to accept this data as the ultimate truth) shows that the distance of 86 % between Slavic languages is not something unusual but common.

But with Polish and Slovak, distance is significantly greater. Those extra ten percent of distance between East and West Slavic matter a lot: to give you a perspective, Latin and Gothic had 36% lexical similarity. Lexical similarity between German and Danish is 60% (as between Old Romanian, before the french-ification of 1800s and Italian), yet considering 40% of basic vocabulary is not shared plus words that are shared have switched meanings, plus strongly diverging phonology and grammar. It was impossible for a Roman to understand Gothic, even for a German to understand Danish. At 70% lexical distance, some intelligibility is possible, but even the simplest of phrases contain words you have to learn. Even at 86% distance, as between Belarussian-Ukrainian and Russian or Castilian and Portuguese, intelligibility is not complete. At 92%, as between Belarussian and Ukrainian or Czech and Slovak, speakers can communicate with each other in their native tongue.

Just like German dialects cluster into Nieder-Deutsch (basis for Dutch) and Ober-Deutsch (basis for German), so are Russian dialects clustering into Western and Eastern variants, each similarily divided into many of dialects and subdialects. This clustering coincides with isoglosses, but not entirely in either case. Belarussian and Ukrainian have each features shared with Russian, but not with eachother, yet on an average scale the clustering is relatively correct. Some dialects even have features shared with foreign languages (Netherlandic dialect shares features with Frisian, which is not a German dialect, so are Western Belarussian dialects sharing features with Polish, which is not a Russian dialect). This aspect by no means make either less German or Russian.

White Russians, unlike Little Russians, weren't just subjects of Poles, they were colonized by Poles (in North) and many converted to Catholicism and became Polish speakers. Many Poles have White Russian names (ending in -owich, -evich), whereas very few White Russians have Polish names (ending in -owsky, -ak, -ek). Little Russian were far less eager to assimilate and always had hostile relationships with Poles, hence few Poles with Little Russian last names (ending in -yuk, -co), and even fewer Polish names for Little Russian subjects.

[Monolith]

However, the ethnocultural difference between the two peoples is very strong, so Yugoslavians and Bulgarians cannot be one people.
Considering the inhabitants of former Yugoslavia are as heterogeneous as they come, I tend to think it is rather superfluous to compare them to (considerably more homogeneous) Bulgarians. Even Croats exhibit huge regional differences, to the point where I struggle to understand the language of a fisherman from Komiža or a farmer from Bednja. On the other hand, I don't think it would be unreasonable to compare Bulgarians with Serbs, with whom they share a linguistic bridge of sorts, as well as certain cultural peculiarities and Orthodox religion.

But at the same time, say, the isoglosse of dziekannie/ciekannie would group the Belarusian language with the Lechitic languages and separate it from the Russian and Ukrainian languages; the isoglosse of ikavism would separate the Ukrainian language from the neigbours etc..
Curiously enough, this yat reflex connects them with a large number of Croats, who also exhibit this trait. ;)

[aherne]

Considering the inhabitants of former Yugoslavia are as heterogeneous as they come, I tend to think it is rather superfluous to compare them to (considerably more homogeneous) Bulgarians. Even Croats exhibit huge regional differences, to the point where I struggle to understand the language of a fisherman from Komiža or a farmer from Bednja.

What is a "Croat" except a Catholic Yugoslav? Please give me an objective deffinition (since RELIGION has nothing to do with ethnicity, language has). Most Croats speak the same DIALECT (not to say the same language) as Serbs (Shtokavian). This is official language in Croatia. Kajkavian dialect is indeed difficult for you because it is closer to Slovene than to Shtokavian. Yet you consider these people Croatian, while you consider Serbs foreign. How is that?

[Heretik]

What is aherne other than an idiot? Please give me his diagnosis.

[Monolith]

What is a "Croat" except a Catholic Yugoslav? Please give me an objective deffinition (since RELIGION has nothing to do with ethnicity, language has).
Objective? Try with tradition, history, culture, collective memory etc. Language is only secondary, although we take great pride in our linguistic heterogeneity due to our large and rich corpus of literature in all dialects (especially in čakavian), which other South Slavic peoples lack because of their history.


Kajkavian dialect is indeed difficult for you because it is closer to Slovene than to Shtokavian.
It's closer to Slovene and to čakavian, although Croatian variants of štokavian exhibit some kajkavian and cakavian elements. I'm a native kajkavian speaker, but I find kajkavian variant from Bednja quite difficult to understand.

Yet you consider these people Croatian, while you consider Serbs foreign. How is that?
In a nutshell, because we traditionally call ourselves Croats and are connected to our ancestral homeland. There doesn't exist such a connection with Serbs and Serbia.

[Rosenrot]

delet please

[Monolith]

Oh, aherne, please try not to insult people by putting their ethnonym in brackets. Whiteruthenian, sorry for hijacking your thread. I urge the mods to move the unrelated part elsewhere.

[aherne]

What is aherne other than an idiot? Please give me his diagnosis.

Why are you trying to prove you have no ability to read and understand. My contribution to this forum is second to none (except perhaps Agrippa). Perhaps you should read a little...

[aherne]

In a nutshell, because we traditionally call ourselves Croats and are connected to our ancestral homeland.

Ethnicity is not about feelings. You can consider yourself "Croats", "Serbs", "Bosniaks" as much as you want, you can hate each other as much as you want, but OBJECTIVELY you are one people. One thing you are right (although it has nothing to do with ethnicity) is that West South Slav people has always been divided on tribal ("collective memory" as you call it) criteria. Unlike Romanians, for example, or Russians, or Germans, it never had a name for itself and never had a conscience of its unity. In 19th century, when the unity of West South Slavs was posited, various names were attempted to have them united within a single concept (Illyrian, Yugoslav), none withstanding the test of time. Governments during royal and communist era have never attempted to break these IMAGINARY barriers and create a nation: moreover, they played on tribal animus to further their personal agendas. Events of 1990s followed as a natural consequence of this irresponsible government...

[W. R.]

Aherne, you must contribute to this thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26945). I think some people would like to have a look at an ethnic map of Europe made by you, me included.

[W. R.]

For now I'll just say, that it may be that Kievan Rus didn't exist long enough to create a single nation out of the East Slavic tribes. We can try to estimate it: do you remember when exactly the Kriviches, Vyatiches, Radimiches etc. ceased to exist?According to Wikipedia the Eastern Slavic tribes of Radimichs, Dregovichs, Krivichs still existed in the XII century. The gradual disintegration of the Kievan Rus' began in the XI century. How come? Was the Rus ethnicity emerging while the state was disintegrating? :chin:

[aherne]

Aherne, you must contribute to this thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26945). I think some people would like to have a look at an ethnic map of Europe made by you, me included.

The odd thing is that I used to make ethnic maps. You will have not one, but more maps, where ethnic boundaries are simplified to follow geographic borders as much as possible (one cca 3500 BC, before Aryan invasion, other cca 500 BC, other cca 1500 BC, other cca 2000AD). I continue to research this topic, so these maps (done a couple of years ago) no longer coincide with what I have discovered eversince. So I will upload these maps today (with comments if necessary).

[Heretik]

Why are you trying to prove you have no ability to read and understand.

When I read your posts I sometimes really wish I wasn't able to read.


My contribution to this forum is second to none (except perhaps Agrippa). Perhaps you should read a little...

:rofl: :rofl:

Agrippa usually contributes with interesting articles, you contribute with insane ramblings on aryanism and alike. Do not even put yourself and Agrippa in the same sentence.

[Monolith]

Ethnicity is not about feelings.
I don't intend to argue about the meaning of that term. Any dictionary should be more than enough to clear that up, I suppose.

[Mordid]

Belarusian are Belarusian, really. Btw, Belarusian language sound like a mixture of Polish and Russian.

[W. R.]

Belarusian are Belarusian, really. Btw, Belarusian language sound like a mixture of Polish and Russian.Probably because some traits the Belarusian language shares with Polish and some with Russian.

My Polish teacher said once that the Russian language seemed to her easier than Belarusian, though. :chin:

[Mordid]

Probably because some traits the Belarusian language shares with Polish and some with Russian.

My Polish teacher said once that the Russian language seemed to her easier than Belarusian, though. :chin:

True true. Well, I'm Polish and it's hard for me to learn Russian because of Russian grammar and Alphabet. I guess she probably have more knowledge in Russian more than Belarusian which is why the Russian language seemed to easier than Belarusian.

[Mordid]

Belarusian identity
GV2PV99WnQI

The guy in the video seem to speaking in Polish. :confused:

[aherne]

Very very similar to Russian (more so than ukrainian, because they dont say H instead of G)... Different language? Give me a break! The first guy seems to speak Polish (and also look Polish).

Always a pleasure to look at pure Aryan people at 2:21...

[W. R.]

Very very similar to Russian (more so than ukrainian, because they dont say H instead of G)...I am not able to watch the video right now.

Don't they say H instead of G? That would be strange, because the G sound is rare in Belarusian. Maybe they speak just Russian? :rolleyes: Do you speak Russian, aherne?
Different language? Give me a break!I'm afraid so.

[Sarmata]

Belarusian identity
GV2PV99WnQI

The guy in the video seem to speaking in Polish. :confused:

At begining of this video the guy speaks in Polish...Belarussian language sounds for me like mix of Russian with Polish,( more Russian in fact). BTW I saw yesterday on TV how Belarussian police(militia) beats up old guy he was probably beaten to death I can't believe it could happened only few hundreds of kilometers from my home(I mean Poland). Militia acted like f***ing communists almost 30(!:eek:) years ago in Poland.

[poiuytrewq0987]

At begining of this video the guy speaks in Polish...Belarussian language sounds for me like mix of Russian with Polish,( more Russian in fact). BTW I saw yesterday on TV how Belarussian police(militia) beats up old guy he was probably beaten to death I can't believe it could happened only few hundreds of kilometers from my home(I mean Poland). Militia acted like f***ing communists almost 30(!:eek:) years ago in Poland.

Belarus today is a democratic communist country i.e. you get all of the freedoms as long as you follow the state's hardline stance.

[Guapo]

Bela Russians = Western Russians when in the old Slavoid days where white meant west, red meant south etc.. "Beli Svet" =the western world.

[Guapo]

Belarus today is a democratic communist country i.e. you get all of the freedoms as long as you follow the state's hardline stance.

Like Estonia.

[W. R.]

Bela Russians = Western Russians when in the old Slavoid days where white meant west, red meant south etc.. "Beli Svet" =the western world.Doubtful. It looks like the name "White Rus" is not native. Initially it appeared in Western sources and only later was accepted by Belarusians as their national name. Just like the word "Rus" itself is not native for Eastern Slavia, but came here with Vikings and might be related to the Finnish word "Ruotsi".

[Guapo]

Just like the word "Rus" itself is not native for Eastern Slavia, but came here with Vikings and might be related to the Finnish word "Ruotsi".

No, it's from the Sarmatian tribe Roxolani(light/red haired), not Swedes or finns or any other western bullshit source :rolleyes:

[aherne]

Do you speak Russian, aherne?

I understand the basics, based on Yugoslavian and Slavic words present in Romanian and also linguistic knowledge of transitional rules between Russian and Slavic parent. But I don't base my thinking on that. The language of this documentary is not Russian, but a closely related dialect (accent is like in Little Russian). Even I can understand parts of it (without looking into English subtitles). If all White Russians speak like that, I don't think a Russian would have any difficulty understanding. Because you are an active speaker of both dialects, perhaps you can give a more informed opinion.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Doubtful. It looks like the name "White Rus" is not native. Initially it appeared in Western sources and only later was accepted by Belarusians as their national name. Just like the word "Rus" itself is not native for Eastern Slavia, but came here with Vikings and might be related to the Finnish word "Ruotsi".

If that is true then what did the Belarusian call themselves before your current name came into common use?

[Hussar]

Ethnicity is not about feelings. You can consider yourself "Croats", "Serbs", "Bosniaks" as much as you want, you can hate each other as much as you want, but OBJECTIVELY you are one people.


Comparatively, italians are more different. Heterogeneity.






Governments during royal and communist era have never attempted to break these IMAGINARY barriers and create a nation: moreover, they played on tribal animus to further their personal agendas. Events of 1990s followed as a natural consequence of this irresponsible government...


No. It's not completely exact.

I give an example ; in ITALY, since the national unity the politic of the government (Kingdom of Italy) was completely different and opposite from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia : italian politic elite tried to ERASE completely any remembrance of the divisions of the centuries before. The word "ethnicity" was forbidden in regard to the national italian population. Officially there was just 1 italian people. 1 single ethnicity (although the thing is more complex since, the word "ethnicity" is an alien concept in the romance civilisation model, so the italian national state, like the french one is more based on the virtual absence of ethnicity, rather than on the presence of a specific one (even if single an comprising 99% of population).


BUT.....although that, today in Italy we have a separatist/federalist party that gains regularly 12-14% of votes (25-30% in the northern regions).

The integrationist politic of the official national state didn't erased the disgregationists feelings

[aherne]

I give an example ; in ITALY, since the national unity the politic of the government (Kingdom of Italy) was completely different and opposite from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia : italian politic elite tried to ERASE completely any remembrance of the divisions of the centuries before. The word "ethnicity" was forbidden in regard to the national italian population. Officially there was just 1 italian people. 1 single ethnicity (although the thing is more complex since, the word "ethnicity" is an alien concept in the romance civilisation model, so the italian national state, like the french one is more based on the virtual absence of ethnicity, rather than on the presence of a specific one (even if single an comprising 99% of population).

Very interesting comment... The fact that the French never had a FEELING of ethnicity doesn't mean they weren't an ethnicity. Ethnicity is about facts, not feelings. Also, you can't compare situation in Italy and Yugoslavia. In Yugoslavia, excluding large Bulgarian and Albanian minorities and minor Romanian and Hungarian, there was one ethnicity divided on a tribal basis. Italians are a conglomerate of Romance ethnicities based on cultural and geographical unity.

[W. R.]

Because you are an active speaker of both dialects, perhaps you can give a more informed opinion.To call any literary standards "dialects" is a factual error.

Here is a more informed opinion. At the end of year 2009 people in Belarus said that:
31,6% of respondents said they could fluently speak and write in Belarusian;
42,7% said they could read Belarusian, understand the language but had difficulty in speaking Belarusian;
22% said they could understand Belarusian but had difficulty in reading Belarusian;
2,3% said they didn’t understand Belarusian at all.
SOURCE 1 (http://news.date.bs/politics_135804.html) and SOURCE 2 (http://www.euramost.org/index.php?artc=12950&lang=1&print=1)It's difficult for me to guess, what results such a poll among Russians would have.
If that is true then what did the Belarusian call themselves before your current name came into common use?I think Krivichs, Dregovichs, Radimichs etc. initially, later when sharing identity with Ukrainians - Rusins.
No, it's from the Sarmatian tribe Roxolani(light/red haired), not Swedes or finns or any other western bullshit source :rolleyes:This would not explain why the name Rus was accepted by Eastern Slavs. One can presume that the name was taken from the ruling dynasties of Eastern Slavic tribes. The dinasties - Rus/Ruotsi - were of Viking origin.

[Cail]

If that is true then what did the Belarusian call themselves before your current name came into common use?

"Litwiny" actually, same as Lithuanians did. That was a national (not ethnic identity) common to citizens of Grand Duchy of Lithuania (both Slavic and Baltic-speaking), and survived its incorporation into Rzeczpospolita and even much later - to the times of Russian Empire, up to XIX century. "White Russia/Ruthenia" (Belaja Rus') was originally a purely geographical designation. There are also "Black Russia" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Russia), "Red Russia" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Ruthenia) et cetera.

[Svanhild]

Maybe a little bit OT but I like that patriotic piece of music. Didn't make it to the Eurovision finals but should've been among the Top3. imho.

9T2d_woxdLQ

[Monolith]

Ethnicity is not about feelings. You can consider yourself "Croats", "Serbs", "Bosniaks" as much as you want, you can hate each other as much as you want, but OBJECTIVELY you are one people.
I started a new thread about Croatian ethnicity and identity, so I won't spam this thread anymore. It is found here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28156).

I have a question related to this thread though. I remember reading somewhere that a considerable proportion of Belarusians descend from Slavicised Balts. Is that true? If it is, there must surely exist some cultural and linguistic legacy of these Balts among the contemporary Belarusian folk, like family names, parts of folklore and lexicon?

[W. R.]

I have a question related to this thread though. I remember reading somewhere that a considerable proportion of Belarusians descend from Slavicised Balts. Is that true? If it is, there must surely exist some cultural and linguistic legacy of these Balts among the contemporary Belarusian folk, like family names, parts of folklore and lexicon?Unfortunately I have no idea whether it is true or not. I am not too much into such things, and the publications I happen to read from time to time give different numbers: some say that the Balts didn't contribute much to the Belarusian gene pool, other say that Belarusian are in fact Balts, just Slavic speaking.

The problem is that the same facts can be interpreted differently, for example the name Dregovichs (Dryhavičy) can be related to Belarusian dryhva (bog, slough), but some say that the word can be related to Lithuanian drekti (to get moist) or the Baltic stem drig-/drug– (light, bright).

Most of Belarusian family names are not 'talking' either and it is difficult to say are they Slavic or Baltic. What does Marzaluk (http://www.manarchija.org/dziermant_litviny#srcannot_11) mean? There is no such word. But to me it sounds related to Belarusian/Slavic maroz (frost) while the other guy says that it might be related to Lithuanian murzius, murza (dirty person). Who is right? God knows. :shrug:

The same about the facts of the Belarusian language. We have only a handful of Baltic loanwords as well as affixes (http://iling.spb.ru/pdf/des/127lau.pdf) while speaking obviously Slavic language, but I have met, for example, interpretations of akanje (when unstressed o and e are pronounced as a) as an influence of the Baltic substratum. Is it true? I don't know. :shrug:

At school they say that Slavs came and intermixed with Balts but who knows the percentages? This "Baltic" part doesn't play a big role in the national ideology and identity, although there exist a group of people, for whom the Baltic identity is crucial. They issue their almanac Druvis and publish there researches on the Belarusian folklore, prehistory of Belarus etc. You can even turn a couple of pages here (http://kryuja.org/vydaviectva/druvis/druvis2.html) with your mouse.

I suspect, the root of the Baltophilia is a mutation of the traditional nationalist view of Polish and Russian neighbours as 'unfriendly' peoples. Thus if they are Slavs, we should try not to be ones. :rolleyes: On the other hand the people around Druvis aren't just freaks, they have academic degrees, publications and stuff, and teach at universities, there are even music bands (http://kryuja.org/muzyka/essa/) inspired by this traditionalist ideology and the Baltic identity...

To put it shortly: shame on me, I really don't know how Baltic Belarusians are. Sorry, comrade. But does a good bourgeois nationalist really need this knowledge? We are Belarusians now, our language is Belarusian and Slavic, for me it's enough.

[Mordid]

Belarusian are Slavicised Balt.

:thumb001:

[W. R.]

:thumb001:Oh, come on, I didn't say that, did I? :rolleyes:

[Mordid]

Oh, come on, I didn't say that, did I? :rolleyes:

I know. I'm just kidding.

[Kosovo je Sjrbia]

Belarus is probably the saddest country of Europe.

[Mordid]

Belarus is probably the saddest country of Europe.

And why is that ?

[Kosovo je Sjrbia]

And why is that ?

Because Chernobyl which is in Ukraine but damaged particularly Belarusians.

[Hess]

Belarus is probably the saddest country of Europe.

http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/sad_clown.jpg

[Lisa]

Previously the name of the White Russian belonged to Moscow and Novgorod land . All Krivichs , Slovens Novgorodian , Vyatichs, Radimichs, Chuds , Vods, Vepsians , Karelians , Setus , Mescheras, Meryas , Muromas , Golads and other. They all formed a Union of peoples white the name of White Russians . In the 13 century Lithuanians occupied Polotsk ( city of Krivichs , today Vitebsk region of Belarus ). I think that the Russians of Polotsk circulated name White Russian on land Dregovichs ( South West of Belarus) .

[W. R.]

Previously the name of the White Russian belonged to Moscow and Novgorod land . All Krivichs , Slovens Novgorodian , Vyatichs, Radimichs, Chuds , Vods, Vepsians , Karelians , Setus , Mescheras, Meryas , Muromas , Golads and other. They all formed a Union of peoples white the name of White Russians .It's true that the term changed its meaning throughout history before becoming our national name, although the earliest use (1250s-1260s) of the term White Rus (Alba Ruscia) was found in Descripciones Terrarum (now in the library of Trinity College, Dublin), and it is probable that the name was applied to the territory of present Eastern Belarus, approximately between Turau and Pskov.

In general the earliest appearances of the name are found in western sources, that makes it possible to assume that the name is not native but came from the West.

[W. R.]

The Belarusian nationalist mythology history of Belarus in a nutshell (budźma = let us be ≠ so be it):


ZXlagbg9qkM