Census in Belarus: Statistical Background of National Drama

[W. R.]

Census in Belarus: Statistical Background of National Drama

Last week, official results of the last, 2009 national census were released. Population of Belarus decreased from 10 million (1999) to 9.5 million (5.4% during 10 years). It was caused by falling birth rates and population in general is getting ever older. Thus, average age of Belarusians increased from 37.1 to 39.5 years. Such trends are rather common for European countries.

Quite unexpectedly, the most sharp decline in numbers affected ethnic minorities. Number of Russians fell by a third, by 31.3% (from 1.1 million to 785 thousand), Polish – by 25.5% (from 396 to 295 thousand), Ukrainians – by 33% (from 237 to 159 thousand), Jewish – by 54.6% (from 28 to 13 thousand). Belarus is clearly becoming a monoethnic nation.

This process started in early 20th century and went on throughout the Soviet period. So, just a century ago in Belarus along the Belarusian ethnic majority lived many numerous minorities – most importantly Jews, but also Polish, Russian, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, and Germans. Recognizing this fact, the Belarus Soviet Socialistic Republic even declared and promoted in use in 1920s four official languages – Belarusian, Polish, Jewish (Jiddish) and Russian. But such multicultural coexistence ended with the changes in Soviet ethnic policies and Second World War. Unification of ethnic structure, nevertheless, did not cease and is apparently continuing.

Yet one of the most shocking findings concerns dramatic decrease in numbers of people claiming Belarusian language as a mother tongue. Among general population of the country this number fell from 73.6% in 1999 to 53.2% today. Among the ethnic Belarusians this number now amounts to 60%. However, it could probably be caused by reformulating the language question in the census questionnaires. While earlier it was just a question of mother (native) tongue, this time it was specified as a language learned by a person first in childhood.


Such change was a result of technical consultations provided by UN population experts to Belarusian government. Such definition is promoted universally by the UNESCO which apparently did not think of political implications it would have for standing of Belarusian language in the country. Since, after all, opponents of revival of Belarusian language – including current official leadership of the country – can now misuse these statistical data for their public rejection of the language.

SBSOURCE (http://belarusdigest.com/2010/09/17/census-in-belarus-statistical-background-of-national-drama/#more-3626)

Well, well, well...

...Quite unexpectedly, the most sharp decline in numbers affected ethnic minorities. [...] Belarus is clearly becoming a monoethnic nation...

DREIMAL HOCH!!! Let's celebrate it! :fest42:

...But such multicultural coexistence ended with the changes in Soviet ethnic policies and Second World War. Unification of ethnic structure, nevertheless, did not cease and is apparently continuing...

What a strange explanation. I believe Belarusians just assimilate ethnic minorities. For example a child who has one Ukrainian parent and knows next to nothing about the Ukraine most probably will feel and cosider himself/herself Belarusian. Besides since the fall of the Soviet Union other ethnicies from East and South haven't come to Belarus in large numbers.

...Yet one of the most shocking findings concerns dramatic decrease in numbers of people claiming Belarusian language as a mother tongue. Among general population of the country this number fell from 73.6% in 1999 to 53.2% today...

:icon_no:


:cry


:icon_mad:

[The Ripper]

Can you explain to the ignorant why the Belarusian language is apparently so weak among the ethnic Belarusians? :confused:

[W. R.]

Can you explain to the ignorant why the Belarusian language is apparently so weak among the ethnic Belarusians? :confused:For the same reason why the Kashubian language is so weak among Kashubians (lol, it isn’t the best way to start explaining the situation, but I have to remind myself that Belarusians are no unique outstanding exception).

At the moment there are two main reasons:

1. Belarusians already are pretty much russified linguistically, culturally and mentally. The cities haven’t been Belarusian speaking for God knows how many centuries. For the majority of them “Belarusian” means “local”, not “national”, and to go around speaking Belarusian is as “abnormal” as go around wearing folk costume instead of jeans and a T-shirt.

I already explained the situation here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15138) (first paragraph) and here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12091).

2. The Russian language has large mother Russia behind its back. I know only one satellite channel which broadcasts fully in Belarusian. There are two operational “national” channels but they broadcast largely in Russian, and they aren’t popular anyway: the population watch more high-grade Russian TV. Bookstores are full of books published in Russia, at best only a couple of shelves is left for books in Belarusian. The higher education is almost fully in Russian etc, etc, etc...

In other words the conditions of the competition for the Belarusian language are too hard.

Our beloved leaders could do something to support the Belarusian language but it seems at best they just don't care.

[Monolith]

What about your schools? Are Belarussian children educated in their native tongue?

[Agrippa]

After all, thinking small is not always better than thinking big and obviously, a dialect which less people understand is less appealing in a way in comparison to one of the world's more important standard languages.

And honestly, the differences between Belorussians and Russians are not comparable to f.e. Welsh and English, as minor as they might have become already, yet alone Bretonic and French or the like.

I found it always strange if people tried to make up, somewhat artificially, language borders between closely related people, sometimes even inventing terms to have a "national expression" for something the dialect had no alternative so far.

Moldovians and Romanians, Swiss-Austrians and Germans, Walloons and French are other examples in modern Europe, though those had even less of a difference to their mother group than Belarussians with the Baltic and historical influence.

[W. R.]

What about your schools? Are Belarussian children educated in their native tongue?For 18% of pupils in Belarus the Belarusian language is the main language of learning.

I myself went to a Belarusian class of a Russian language school in a thoroughly russified city, and to be honest I cannot understand why parents are so reluctant to send their children to Belarusian classes. I guess they picture their dear children being tortured with the dreadful Belarusian language by big bad teachers with long fangs. But I can't recall my classmates having language problems, despite the fact that they had grown in a Russian speaking city.

But it must be added that that was at the beginning of 1990s, when it seemed to our parents that the Belarusiannes was at the threshold of a new rebirth and had a future. Unfortunately the rebirth lasted only for some 5 years. I doubt that my school has now any Belarusian classes at all.

[Monolith]

For 18% of pupils in Belarus the Belarusian language is the main language of learning.

I thought your standard language is supposed to be compulsory in all public schools, but then again Russian is also an official language in Belarus.

[W. R.]

After all, thinking small is not always better than thinking big and obviously, a dialect which less people understand is less appealing in a way in comparison to one of the world's more important standard languages.

And honestly, the differences between Belorussians and Russians are not comparable to f.e. Welsh and English, as minor as they might have become already, yet alone Bretonic and French or the like.

I found it always strange if people tried to make up, somewhat artificially, language borders between closely related people, sometimes even inventing terms to have a "national expression" for something the dialect had no alternative so far.

Moldovians and Romanians, Swiss-Austrians and Germans, Walloons and French are other examples in modern Europe, though those had even less of a difference to their mother group than Belarussians with the Baltic and historical influence.The written tradition of the Belarusian language is as long as the one of the Russian language. By the very end of XVIII century the two peoples had been separated by state borders. It is only logical to presume that their language could not exist and develop as one whole.

I have no tinge of doubt that the Belarusian language is not a dialect of any other language. It is a system, an organism on its own. And this makes it worth preserving no matter what problems Belarusians have now with their national self-awareness.

[W. R.]

I thought your standard language is supposed to be compulsory in all public schools, but then again Russian is also an official language in Belarus.The Belarusian language (and Belarusian literature) are compulsory as subjects.

The history of Belarus and the geography of Belarus were once supposed to be taught in Belarusian too, even in Russian classes. But the new edition of the law about the languages cancelled that.

[Agrippa]

I hear your argument, yet can you tell me other reasons other than just keeping up the tradition?

I mean in many other cases the national aspect preserves also other aspects of the identity and character of a people from cultural traditions and identity, racial heritage and social structures etc.

In the case of the Belarussians, we obviously deal with a people which are very close to the Russian Slavic brothers so to say, I'm just asking whether there is something like a higher order reasoning and special identity-mythology-mentality or whatever aspect, which goes beyond the "we were people apart for a certain time, have specific Western-Baltic influences and our language is different, we should keep it that way, even if being otherwise really close (obviously)."

Ah and I would like to know how you think about Russian-Belarussian relations in general :)

[Osweo]

WR, if you care so much, why don't you go along to your old school and offer to teach classes of the language, in evenings or whenever, for a minor wage or for free? None of us can change what happens in our countries as a whole, but we can at least have some impact on a handful of people who we are brought in contact with in our daily lives, especially in a teaching environment.

Also, have you written those Рассказы Дзядьи Станкевича yet? ;) The kids are waiting... :D

But ekh, ya ne znayu... You know I'm broadly sympathetic and have little but good to say of your folk from my work contacts with them and other links, but you saw how I - a poor Russian speaker - can near enough read your language, like with that story you posted. I fail to see how its difference from Russian is any greater than that of the old Lancashire dialect from Standard English. Lancastrian is near enough dead now (though the accent remains, but it was inevitable it would die. The people themselves killed it, just as yours are doing now. THere's a lot more of you, but the position is fairly similar, having an all too similar huge powerful political centre breathing down your neck, no?

[W. R.]

But ekh, ya ne znayu... You know I'm broadly sympathetic and have little but good to say of your folk from my work contacts with them and other links, but you saw how I - a poor Russian speaker - can near enough read your language, like with that story you posted. I fail to see how its difference from Russian is any greater than that of the old Lancashire dialect from Standard English. Lancastrian is near enough dead now (though the accent remains, but it was inevitable it would die. The people themselves killed it, just as yours are doing now. THere's a lot more of you, but the position is fairly similar, having an all too similar huge powerful political centre breathing down your neck, no?Hm. Well, here are results of a poll (it was carried out in Belarus at the end of the last year):

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)

So, well, I congratulate you: you certainly wouldn’t be in the fourth group. :)

I don’t think that the death of the language is inevitable. As I said I went to a Belarusian class and learned there for 9 years. It was probably the first Belarusian class in that school during all its history (even the Soviet Union existed yet at that time I believe), but still it must have been something in the air that made parents to send their children to that class. “The wind of changes”, as Scorpions sang. Later that “something” disappeared, but who knows if forever... The salvation must begin from changing of the attitude of the people, and that can be done.

Alas, I am no expert on English dialects, and can’t say if your comparison is correct, but I don’t think that if a language X is similar to a language Y, one of them is a dialect of the other. I have noticed that on the internetz it is not considered impolite to write in Ukrainian to a Belarusian or in Belarusian to a Ukrainian, for example. It is generally believed that Ukrainians have no problems in understanding Belarusians and vice versa. But you could expect “LOL WUT?” if you suggested that the Belarusian language is a dialect of Ukrainian on other way round. I remember my Polish teacher said once that for Poles the Slovak language sounds like a baby talk. There could be more such examples, I believe.

It’s not about similarities. I often repeat “the organism of the language”, “the system of the language” like some incantations, but I’d probably fail if I tried to explain in English what I mean. I have no doubts that the Belarusian language with all its dialects constitutes a system on its own, with its own regularities, structures etc. This is what is crucial. How similar is the system to other such systems is irrelevant.

Here is a fragment of Jury Paciupa’s article (as you remember “there is no other Grammar Fuehrer but Dr. Jan Stankievič, and Jury Paciupa is His Prophet”). He gives an example how the same words in Russian and Belarusian have different syntactic compatibility. I’m not sure that it can “prove” anything, but I think it can illustrate the idea of a “separate system” (that it is not just about some words and some accent):... страшней назіраць разбурэньне арганізму мовы. На жаль, пераважная частка «сьведамых» носьбітаў мовы ёсьць насамрэч расейскамоўнымі людзьмі, [Карэктней было б сказаць «расейскадумнымі», гэта значыць, беларускай мовай яны карыстаюцца часта, а мо' й штодзённа, але так, як замежнай, хоць і ўважаюць за сваю.] якія, трэба аддаць належнае, ад шчырых патрыятычных пачуцьцяў карыстаюцца невялікай колькасьцю беларускіх слоў. Рэшта лексыкону — гэта расейская лексыка, «абутая» ў беларускую фанэтыку.

Усіх казусаў у адным палемічным артыкуле не апішаш, дык прапаную пытаньне «на засыпку»… Як перакласьці на беларускую мову расейскае слова осматриваться? Б’юся аб заклад, што бальшыня ня ведае. Вы думаеце «аглядацца»? Не! А можа, «азірацца»? Таксама не!!! І «аглядаюцца» і «азіраюцца» толькі назад, а нам трэба — вакол. Па-беларуску гэта будзе — разглядацца, і ніяк інакш. А хто ня верыць — хай пачытае нашых старых пісьменьнікаў. Цяпер удакладнім заданьне, вось вы прыехалі ў незнаёмую мясцовасьць і сталі, што называецца па-расейску, осматриваться по сторонам, як гэтае словазлучэньне выбудаваць па-беларуску? У асноўнай сваёй масе адэпты і «наркамаўкі» і «тарашкевіцы» будуць адказваць аднолькава несамавіта. Ну, першыя, мабыць, прапануюць «аглядацца па баках», другія — «азірацца па бакох». З грунту ж, розьніца невялікая, і тая, і другая фраза — скалькаваныя з расейскае мовы. А ў жывой беларускай гаворцы аналягічнае словазлучэньне мусіць чытацца так: разглядацца на бакі. Але гэта яшчэ ня ўсё...

Вось вы ўбачылі нейкую будыніну, аточаную прыбудовамі, пра якія па-расейску можна сказаць, што яны стаяць — по бокам. А па-беларуску? Ізноў жа — не «па баках» і не «па бакох»! І ўжо, натуральна, не «на бакі». Цяпер пра тыя прыбудовы трэба казаць так: яны стаяць — з бакоў. Але ўрэшце, вы надумаліся заняцца сабою. Як даехалі? Ці не пакамячылася на вас вопратка, ці яна не запэцкалася? І па-расейску свае дзеяньні, вы таксама, перадасьцё дзеясловам осматриваться. У нашай жа мове добра ўжытым дзеясловам будзе — не аглядацца ці азірацца, бо гэта — назад, не разглядацца, бо гэта — вакол і вонкі, а менавіта — абглядацца. Сябе вы акурат — абглядаеце, абглядваеце, і менавіта — з бакоў (у люстэрку — разглядваеце). А далей, едучы коньмі ў брычцы, ды па гразкай дарозе, вы абпырскаліся, натуральна, з бакоў. І вось пасьля ўсяго, як толькі разгледзеліся на мясцовасьці ды абгледзеліся самыя, вы бачыце: вада ў вас цячэ — па бакох, у каня авадні ды бонкі поўзаюць — таксама — па бакох. Тут і спатрэбілася забракаванае на пачатку слова*спалучэньне! Гэткая розьніца ў беларускім і расейскім сынтаксе ды словаўжываньні, відаць, невыпадковая. Калі ў расейскай мове тарнуюцца два розныя словы сторона й бок, дык у беларускай — маем пераважна адно: бок. Слова старана ўзьнікае спарадычна, часьцяком як дыялектнае. А нястача — кампэнсуецца сынтаксычнай шматстайнасьцю: разглядацца вакол на бакі, абглядацца з усіх бакоў, аглядацца назад, поўзаць па бакох... І, калі вы ўжо добра разабраліся, дзе трэба — разглядацца, дзе — аглядацца ды азірацца, а дзе — абглядацца, калі ведаеце, дзе ўжыць — на бакі, дзе — з бакоў, а дзе — па бакох, дык ня надта й страшна будзе, як раптам напішаце «па баках». Абы не наадварот — усюды зухавата крэмзаць «па бакох», а рэшты ня ведаць. <...>

Такіх прыкладаў процьма, на кожным кроку. Якая граматыка іх апіша! І дзе тут лексыка, дзе сынтакс, а дзе сэмантыка — адказаць няпроста. Часамі можна пачуць меркаваньне, быццам лексыка — лухта, галоўнае — сынтакс. Але дзе сканчаецца лексыка й пачынаецца сынтакс? Скажам, старабеларускім словам выступнік, выступак адпавядала словазлучэньне выступіць з права, а расейскім словам преступник, преступление, адпавядае — преступить закон. Тут, як бачым, структура сынтагмы й структура лексэмы цесна карэлююцца. Усё гэта й ёсьць сыстэмнасьць мовы. Гэта й ёсьць тое моўнае бачаньне, якое ўсмоктваецца з малаком маці або... набываецца страшэннымі высілкамі ўсяе нацыі, а ня проста вывучваецца як правапісныя нормы.
I hear your argument, yet can you tell me other reasons other than just keeping up the tradition?

I mean in many other cases the national aspect preserves also other aspects of the identity and character of a people from cultural traditions and identity, racial heritage and social structures etc.

In the case of the Belarussians, we obviously deal with a people which are very close to the Russian Slavic brothers so to say, I'm just asking whether there is something like a higher order reasoning and special identity-mythology-mentality or whatever aspect, which goes beyond the "we were people apart for a certain time, have specific Western-Baltic influences and our language is different, we should keep it that way, even if being otherwise really close (obviously)."First of all I believe in what Dr. Jan Stankievič said: that our language is a precious treasure, a creation of the soul of the nation, more valuable than any gems. And I am no materialist, so take the word “soul” literally.

There exists a stereotype that once upon a time Belarusians and Russians constituted one entity, but were separated and different influences made us different. Actually I am not sure that before XVIII century such an entity ever existed. We can ask Osweo, he will know. I know that Belarusians probably constituted such an entity with Ukrainians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenians) for a certain period, but with Muscovites? I could share my thoughts on why the Russification (as accepting the West-Russian identity) was so successful in XIX century, but I doubt if anyone is interested.

I am a bit puzzled by your question, to be honest. For me (maybe because I was brought up that way) everything is simple: we are Belarusians, they are Russians, our fatherland is Belarus, and their fatherland is Russia. We have different history, different mentalities and... What else is needed? Oh, and I am a bit prejudiced against “that terrible Russia, where anything can happen to you”. :)
Ah and I would like to know how you think about Russian-Belarussian relations in general :)¯\(°_o)/¯ I dunno lol. I love Ukrainians more. :) I have nothing against cooperation in some areas or trade, but the border must be guarded as well as the border with the EU.
WR, if you care so much, why don't you go along to your old school and offer to teach classes of the language, in evenings or whenever, for a minor wage or for free? None of us can change what happens in our countries as a whole, but we can at least have some impact on a handful of people who we are brought in contact with in our daily lives, especially in a teaching environment.I think I couldn’t do it in our school system. Besides it is possible that they have such facultative classes there (that a teacher who is in need of additional money organizes it).

I am thinking of becoming a professional Grammar Nazi, like Dr. Jan Stankievič and Jury Paciupa (it means some years of additional studies). At the moment those who care so much can do little to prevent “quantitative losses” but a lot to prevent “qualitative losses”. Also I am trying to become a translator, although the fail with Dontsov’s “Nationalism” discouraged me a bit. Why nobody wants to publish that fascistoid masterpiece? :mad:
Also, have you written those Рассказы Дзядьи Станкевича yet? ;) The kids are waiting... :D No, sir. Not yet. :(