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.

SB

SOURCE

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!

...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...

[The Ripper]

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

[W. R.]

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

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 (first paragraph) and here.

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