0
On Belarusian identity
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
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Whiteruthenian
j/k
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!
Bookmarks