Why Belarusians don't speak their own language?

[Sanyok]

Ancestors of Poles, Belarusians, Lithuanians and Ukrainians to some extent were historic allies, while Russia was the aggressor ravaging eastern cities of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth was formed to counter the aggression of Muscovy on eastern provinces of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania - what is present day eastern Belarus.

Why Russia was agressor when reconquering russian lands in XV-XVIII century, and the Lithuania was not agressor when invading Rus in XIII century?

Ancestors of Belarusians also fought wars during Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Napoleonic wars against the Russians. Not to mention two upraisings against Tsarist rule in the 19th century.

It's better not to mention, I agree. Because this uprisings were unsuccessful, were lead by polonized-aristocracy (shlyakhta) while local belorussian majority were passive.

Lithuania had a separate administration , separate courts, border customs, and constitutions written in Ruthenian (Old Belarusian).

"Ruthenian" is hear-canding for you, yet in slavic languages the word "Ruthenian" sounds as "Russin", "Russinskiy". This word was applied to medieval russians as well. By the way the authencity of Lithuanian constitution written in Russin is very doubtful.

You accurately digging and collecting every fact of Russian-Bielorussian hostility, each historical case you judge through the nationalist point of view.

The were innumerous cruel wars and conflicts among German states and principalities, but this didn't obstruct the formation of single German nation, and common language based on High-Saxon dialect. The France and Burgundy were bloody rivals, but now it is ne nation speaking one language. And your attemps to oppose the Belarus to Russia (due to your European aspirations) are ridiculous.

By the way! Yesterday one my friend flew to Sochi from St.Petersburg. He flew by the BelAir company via Minsk. The both planes were full of belarussians but everybody spoke russian. Only the greeting before the flights were made in belorssian (translated into english and russian). The impression is that state promotes using of belorussian language. Promotes, but not doesn't force. So, people naturally speak russian.

[Marusya]

I'm reading this book right now about Adam Kysil, Ukrainian Diplomat and Statesman: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25778373...n_tab_contents He was born in Volyn, Ukraine and died in Brest, Belarus. He was Orthodox when much of the Ruthenian nobility was converting to Catholicism.

Kysil, Adam [Кисіль, Адам; Kysil’], b 1600, d 3 May 1653 in Brest, Belarus. Ukrainian statesman and diplomat in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Kysil was born into a prominent Orthodox noble family in Volhynia. He was educated at the Zamostia Academy, where he befriended the famous Polish statesman Tomasz Zamoyski, who later helped him in his political and diplomatic career. From 1617 he served in the military, gaining prominence for his successes in the Polish wars with the Ottoman Empire, Muscovy, and Sweden. He also gained a reputation at the court as an effective negotiator. He was sent as the envoy of King Sigismund III Vasa to the Kyiv Church Synod of 1629, which had been convened to reconcile the Orthodox and Uniate churches. In local dietines (see Dietine) and in the Diet, he defended the interests and rights of the Orthodox church, although he was always able to maintain close contacts with Uniate and Roman Catholic leaders, despite the atmosphere of distrust that existed at the time. In 1637 he was sent to negotiate an end to the Cossack rebellion led by Pavlo Pavliuk, but Poland later reneged on the agreements and ruthlessly repressed the Cossacks. From 1649, he was one of the central figures in the negotiations to end the uprising led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky. He helped conclude the agreements reached in Pereiaslav (February 1649), Zboriv (August 1649; see Treaty of Zboriv), and Bila Tserkva (September 1651), and tried to find a compromise between the Poles and the Cossacks. Following the signing of the Treaty of Bila Tserkva, he was appointed voivode of Kyiv to supervise the implementation of the terms of the agreement. During his career, Kysil received many honors and was appointed to a variety of administrative posts: castellan of Chernihiv (1639), senator (1641), castellan of Kyiv voivodeship and Bratslav voivodeship (1646), and Kyivan voivode. He was able to use his positions to amass a great fortune and became one of the richest men in Ukraine with large estates in Volhynia voivodeship, Kyiv voivodeship, and Chernihiv voivodeship. He was buried in his family's church in Nyskynychi, Volhynia. A supporter of the political and social system of the Polish Commonwealth, Kysil strove unsuccessfully to find a compromise between the Orthodox and the Uniates, and between the Polish government and the Zaporozhian Host.

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com...CKysilAdam.htm

[Rugevit]

Why Russia was agressor when reconquering russian lands in XV-XVIII century, and the Lithuania was not agressor when invading Rus in XIII century?

Many Ruthenian boyars welcomed Lithuanian dukes who provided the defence against the Tatars in early periods of history. Few hundred years later ancestors of Ukrainians and Belarusians lived in another state known as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Later in Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, while Russian ancestors lived in Moscow principality. It's during those time the ethnogenesis of peoples took place in different states. You can think of Lithuania being an aggressor, while other see Moscow principality being an aggressor who also ravaged Novgorod Republic, Tver principality in coalition with Tatars, eastern provinces Lithuania and many other regions around Moscow. Look at the size of Russia today. But more importantly, people in two different states were quite hostile towards each other never considering Muscovites allies or their brothers.

It's better not to mention, I agree. Because this uprisings were unsuccessful, were lead by polonized-aristocracy (shlyakhta) while local belorussian majority were passive.

How do you imagine a tiny minority of polonised nobility responsible for the upraising? The well known revolutionary Kalinovski was a Belarusian . Poles were responsible for upraising in Poland, Baltic Lithuanians - in Lithuania. Ancestors of Ukrainians -- in Volyn. Ancestors of Belarusians in Belarus. The fact that Belararusian and Belarusian languages was banned by Tsarist authority is further evidence that Belarusians were against Tsarist rule. Even there was a small number of polonised nobility they were still ancestors of Belarusians, as they were native to Belarus speaking Belarusian and ethnographically Belarusian adopting Polish ethnic identity because of Roman Catholic religion. Here is a good example how a Belarusian speaking woman living on territories of present day Belarus identify herself recorded by an ethnographer in the 19th century

Спросите вы, напримѣръ, какую нибудь мѣщанку, кто она такая? – Polka, отвѣтитъ она вамъ. – Откуда родомъ? – Z Litwy. – Какъ говорятъ дома? – Po litewsku. Между тѣмъ, по наведеніи болѣе точныхъ справокъ оказывается, что ни сама она, ни ея родные ни слова не понимаютъ по-литовски, а исключительно говорятъ по-бѣлорусски.
— Н. Янчукъ ”По Минской губерніи (замѣтки изъ поѣздки въ 1886 году)” Москва, 1889


There is also a lot of Russian propaganda about oppression of passive Ukrainians and Belarusians by Polish nobility . That's just propaganda being far from the truth. Read history critically evaluation the fact presented to you rather than re-iterating the propaganda.

"Ruthenian" is hear-canding for you, yet in slavic languages the word "Ruthenian" sounds as "Russin", "Russinskiy". This word was applied to medieval russians as well. By the way the authencity of Lithuanian constitution written in Russin is very doubtful.

You accurately digging and collecting every fact of Russian-Bielorussian hostility, each historical case you judge through the nationalist point of view.

The were innumerous cruel wars and conflicts among German states and principalities, but this didn't obstruct the formation of single German nation, and common language based on High-Saxon dialect. The France and Burgundy were bloody rivals, but now it is ne nation speaking one language. And your attemps to oppose the Belarus to Russia (due to your European aspirations) are ridiculous.

By the way! Yesterday one my friend flew to Sochi from St.Petersburg. He flew by the BelAir company via Minsk. The both planes were full of belarussians but everybody spoke russian. Only the greeting before the flights were made in belorssian (translated into english and russian). The impression is that state promotes using of belorussian language. Promotes, but not doesn't force. So, people naturally speak russian.

Russians and Ukrainians are at war today, who don't consider you a brotherly nation. Neither do the Belarusian despite what Lukashenko says each time he needs cheap oil from Russia. Russian ancestors were known as Moscuvites or Russians, while Belarusian and Ukrainians ancestors are known as Ruthenians in literature for a reason. And the reason is those people were not the same. One can come up with any ethnic identification, but it won't change the fact that Russians are a separate group of people with different history being hostile doing towards their neighbours.

[ЛыSSый]

who deleting my posts?

[glass]

who deleting my posts?

Look at your own signature
"Only butthurted clowns minuses my posts"

[Sanyok]

Many Ruthenian boyars welcomed Lithuanian dukes who provided the defence against the Tatars in early periods of history. Few hundred years later ancestors of Ukrainians and Belarusians lived in another state known as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Later in Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, while Russian ancestors lived in Moscow principality. It's during those time the ethnogenesis of peoples took place in different states. You can think of Lithuania being an aggressor, while other see Moscow principality being an aggressor who also ravaged Novgorod Republic, Tver principality in coalition with Tatars, eastern provinces Lithuania and many other regions around Moscow. Look at the size of Russia today. But more importantly, people in two different states were quite hostile towards each other never considering Muscovites allies or their brothers.

Russians had never applied to themselves the term of "Mosocvites". The term "Muscovites", not Russians, used by Polish-Lithunian nobility to prevent the natural simpathy of their Russian. The used by you term "Ruthenian" in slavic languages sounds "Russin". Moscow at first was just a tiny and poor principality.
"Ravaged" Novgorod, Tver, Ryazan etc. were part of Rus. Unlike the Germans and Italians, Russians overpassed the period of feudal fragmentation. So this lands were united again, naturaly they tried to unite all the Rus, that is the reason of special interess towards Rus lands of Lithuania. Smolensk was under Lithuanian government as long as Kiev, but nobody states now that it is foreign to Russia.
The Tartars sometimes were in coalition with Moscow, sometimes with Lithuania, there is still unassimilated Tartar diaspora in modern Lithuania.

How do you imagine a tiny minority of polonised nobility responsible for the upraising? The well known revolutionary Kalinovski was a Belarusian .

Polonized belaruusian, which lead unsuccesfull uprising.
While city dwellers could determine themselves as Poles or Lithunians, the peasant majority had Russian (White-Russian) self-identfication.

Russians and Ukrainians are at war today, who don't consider you a brotherly nation.

Still spreading this fairy-tail about Russian-Ukrainian war? Russia is not a part of the conflict. There is a civil war in Ukraine, mainly expressed in ukrainian bombings and shellings of Donbass.
If there were a war between our countries it would hadbeen finished in a week. Instead of this Russia continues supply Ukraine with energy sources and Ukraine as always asks for cheapper price. Is it possible between two warring countries? Is it possible that an "agressor" country recieves a lot of refugees from "victim" country?

who deleting my posts?

I guess they are deleted by european-minded democratic supporter of speech freedom.

[Guapo]

who deleting my posts?

Not me

[Shkembe Chorba]

who deleting my posts?

Ме.

[Guapo]

Ме.

I hate you, whenever I see your name I get hungry and a bit horny

[Sarmatian]

There are no twisting of the facts. There are only facts.

Oh really? Lets see..

Between the time Oleg captured Kiev and disintegration of Rus at the times of Yaroslav the wise was just little over 200 years. During those times there was no unified ethnicity in Kievan Rus. There were different Slavic tribes living in Rus speaking different dialects described by Nestor .

You are omitting the fact that in these 200 years all the Slavic tribes populating territories of Rus principalities were converted into Orthodoxy which together with linguistic similarity served as the foundation of Rus/Russian continuum. All variations were built later on this foundation.

The ethnogenesis of Belarusians , Russians and Ukrainians occurred later in different states.

That is true hence why they even called different names. But that fact on its own still cannot serve as sufficient reason to claim they are totally different entities. There are way too many similarities.

PLC did not take over anything. There was an agreement in Lubin in 1569 between Lithuania (90% Slavic at the time) and Poland to resist Muscovites ravaging eastern provinces of the GDL . That's how PLC was formed.

Well that's true, it was GDL that captured territories of Rus principality. What difference does it make in context of our argument? The point still stands - Rus lands were captured by culturally alien entity with following cultural transformation of local population. Yet that transformation didn't turn local population into culturally alien towards rest of Rus, only altered it a bit. Which is the prime reason Belarusians have no problem using Russian language - it's not alien to them.

There is no such thing as unified Russian nation. Ancestors of Belarusians and Ukrainians are described as Ruthenians, because they were different from the Russians living in another state.

You are using Latinized term to justify divide in Rus continuum. Why? Are you that stupid or you intentionally want to split culturally similar entity? What is your motivation here?

Ruthenian is Latinized term used in Western countries to describe entire Kievan Rus at first and only since 16th century was applied towards Ukrainians and Belarusians exclusively. No East Slavs ever used this term as self name. They always called themselves Rusyns or Ruski. Read about Galician resistance in Austro-Hungarian empire who were executed and sent to concentration camps in the beginning of 20th century for calling themselves Russki and keeping Orthodox faith. That is after centuries of being separated from most of Russians.

Not some. Lots of Belarusians' ancestors fought wars against ancestors of Russians. See the number of wars between Lithuania and Muscow principality/Russia . Belarusians were well represented in the Lithuanian army. Ancestors of Belarusians also fought wars during Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Napoleonic wars against the Russians. Not to mention two upraisings against Tsarist rule in the 19th century. Belarusians never allied with the Russians except possibly during WWII. Russian historians call the numerous wars between Lithuania and Moscow principality as a great stand-off in eastern Europe during which Slavs were killing other Slavs.

Slavs killing Slavs, Germans killing Germans, Chinese killing Chinese... It's been like that for centuries. What's new about it? How does that fact supposed to prove they belong to different cultural entities?

Nonsense. Most Belarusians were Greek Catholic, who essentially follow Orthodox relegious traditions. Nobility converted to Roman Catholicism voluntary to enjoy certain priviledges. The main difference between Orthodoxy and Greek Catholicism is that the latter is under authority of Pope. To ordinary people the conversion did not mean thing in most cases. You should read how Russians butchered whole villages for refusal to convert from Greek Catholicism to Orthodoxy, and allowing to convert to another religion from Orthodoxy.

Fact twisting again. You are trying to undermine the difference between Orthodoxy and Greek Catholicism when in fact at the time the difference was significant enough for people to die for it. That's the main difference between me and you. I know both sides were pursuing their imperial ambitions and were quite brutal at that. While you are trying to claim that only one side was pure evil imperialist and implying the other side was benevolent and life of Orthodoxes under Catholic rule was just fine. Well, it was not. They were used and abused, raped and slaughtered left and right. When empires are clashing simple folk is inevitably suffering. And you have no ground to blame one empire for all the suffering, both empires are equally guilty. Thus if you position yourself as descendant of PLC go cry about your Szlachta for dragging your folk into all that mess.

When reading passage like yours everyone around sees how backward is Russian mentality. Such attitudes and behaviours is exactly the reason why every neighbouring nation of Russia in eastern Europe is hoping the backward empire (it is still an empire without a monarch) would collapse one day.

Are you autistic or something? Can you recognize the grades of emotions? Where did you see me saying that is exactly what I want to happen? All I said is when dealing with 'smart' idiots (which doesn't happen often) sometimes I feel (which is contrary to persistent everyday mentality) like Russian empire was too soft on some ethnic idiots and should've adopted 'progressive' ways of British empire (imagine that, if we compare atrocities of both, Russians end up looking like naïve little kids). Can you tell the difference between a moment of emotional outrage caused by stupidity of a third part and persistent mentality driving decisions and actions in everyday life and subsequently on large scale shaping global national policies?

Belarus was part of Lithuania in Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. Lithuania had a separate administration , separate courts, border customs, and constitutions written in Ruthenian (Old Belarusian). Many magnates and most great hetmans (commanders) of Lithuania and great chancellors of Lithuania were natives to territories of present day Belarus. See the article on ethnic composition of the ruling class in Lithuania during PLC I posted above.

Thanks, Captain Obvious, but where do you see me denying all that? And how does your passage meant to explain the question about language we discussing here? Can you specify what language was used in Belarus under Lithuanian authority in official documents - Belarusian or Lithuanian? Or maybe both? Than in which cases and at what proportions?

Also, if you know bits and pieces about history, then you have no idea about the language . Absolutely no idea what you are talking about the language.

Can you give me a link on article in Physics in Belarusian? I want to see how many authentic Belarusian scientific terms there are in it.