Researching Belarusian history I was amazed at how many contradictory issues surround this country’s past. And while we can strongly assert that each single nation went through historical, political, cultural transformations Belarus stands out among them.
Among most burning was (still is) an issue whether Belarusian were more of a Polish, Russian or Baltic stock. It is not surprising since Belarus has “enjoyed” a status of the buffer zone between various powers and political interests. We went trough processes of Russificaton, Polonization and Sovietization and each single of them left its mark on us.
Not long ago, one Pole argued with me that Belarusians are…Poles. Another gentleman insisted that Belarusians are somewhat like Russians who speak funny dialect and so on and forth. Various reasons and facts were presented to support theories based on their modern-day perspectives.
It is fine, but what about opinions that existed in the past on this issue? Attempting to find the answer I stumbled upon two pieces written in 1918 and 1914.
On January 18, 1918, The New York Times published an article “Lithuania Declares its Independence. Not Only Russian Territory but Part of Prussia Including Koenigsberg Claimed for New State in Eastern Europe”. The article informs readers that Lithuania declared its Independence and presents historical information about the country. And while the main topic might not necessarily evolve around the issue of White Russia and its national background, I found some interesting moments that concern my topic.
In one instance, the newspaper mentions:
“From the tenth to the sixteenth century the Lithuanian principality extended from the Baltic to the Black Sea. In that territory were White Russians and Ukrainians or Little Russians. White Russians are mostly of Lithuanian stock, Russianized in earlier centuries. Whoever goes from Lithuania to White Russia soon notices that the same types, customs and festivities exist there. The language of White Russia is 25 per cent, Lithuanian, and the attitude of the people toward the Lithuanians is very friendly.”
(Dark shaded areas represent territory desired by Lithuanians for their new State. Note that it includes present day Belarusian town Grodno)
More developed thoughts on this subject can be found in an article that appeared in “Folklore” on March 31, 1914. The article is titled “White Ruthenian Folk Songs” and it split into two parts: “Notes on the people”(that is White Ruthenians) and analysis of local folk.
It starts out with passage:
“White Ruthenia covers approximately the south and east of Lithuania, which was originally inhabited by peoples of the Sarmatian stock, who were divided into two branches, Lithuanian and Slavonian. The former included the Lithuanian proper, Letts, Old Prussian, and Yarzwings (now extinct); the latter the Bohemians, Ukrainians, Poles, White Ruthenians, and many others.”
And while the passage is pretty typical “historic-like” introduction the following sentence adds a bit of “character”.
“The White Ruthenians of the present day contain, no doubt, some polish and Lithuanian blood, as well as blood from other surrounding races…. The White Ruthenians occupy the present governments of Vitepsk, West Polock, Minsk, Mohylev, Grodno, and Vilno….where they are energetically carrying out a nationalist revival, in order to differentiate themselves from Poles and Lithuanians on the one hand, and from Russians on the other, — a policy which no doubt the Russian government has encouraged.”
And in an original copy, the first sentence contains a reference on the bottom of the page:
“Sometimes called Byelorusses or White Russians, but incorrectly, since no White Ruthenian would ever alow himself to be called by a name which would imply that he was Russian.”
The authors (H. Iwanowska and H.Onslow) continue by saying about the White Ruthenian language:
“The language is Slavonic and totally unlike Lithuanian, (which is more closely allied to Sanskrit than any other European language), and, though unlike Polish, resembles it more than it does Russian.”
Related posts:
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
It was not Lithaunia that shown on your map. It was Grand Duchy of Lithuania, that was orgianlly inhabitated and governed by Litvins, who were nobody esle but belarusians. All goverment documents of that time is in old belarusian language…
This was a map that came with the newspaper article.
yeah, I understand…problem is that they are mixing Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Lithuania
here is a good article about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_Grand_Duchy
Hello Islander,
I’ll be damned but the hell knows where I’d been. It seems like my first visit to this web page! A very interesting read and nice prospects you offer!
Hello from North Carolina to, well, whoever you are. Are you in the states?
Great blogging! Keep it up!
As for the subject matter, if we had to abandon the name “Belarus,” I’d campaign for Lithuania-rooted variants. Maybe Great-Lithuanians
“All goverment documents of that time is in old belarusian language…”
Yes. But, more precisely, ethnically Lithuanian elites who initially governed the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, ruthenized and began to speak Old Belarussian.
Hi there!
By the way, Endrus, you got a very nice blog! I think it would be a good idea to exchange links to broaden media-front against Luka:)
We are from New York. “We” are the few khlopcau from Minsk
Let me know
Best Regards
Islander
> Not long ago, one Pole argued with me that Belarusians
> are…Poles.
I’m not going to justify him but I think I can explain why he insisted on that. Perhaps this will help you forgive him
.
Polish people grow up on reading Polish 19.-century romantic poetry at school, and their views on history (I mean ordinary people who are not particularly interested in history) are strongly influenced by the ideas of the literature of that time. But, as they understand it rather superficially, they have a big problem in seeing the difference between how the term ‘nation’ was used 200 years ago (or earlier) and now.
In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (the federation of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) the word ‘nation’ had a very broad meaning: in meant ‘the citizens of the Commonwealth’. In this sense one could say that his nationality is Polish, being at the same time e.g. ethnically Ruthenian: “gente Ruthenus, natione Polonus”. Such meaning of the word ‘Polish’ was used in the 19.-century literature. Of course, all this have very little to do with the nowadays’ meaning of the term ‘Polish nation’.
And that’s why Polish high school students sometimes get confused and ask: “So, who was Mickiewicz?? Polish, Lithuanian, or Belarussian?”. Because he was born in Belarus, wrote poems in Polish, and his most famous poem begins with: “Lithuania, my homeland!”.
Thanks for info! Indeed, the whole thing is confusing…Now, I am reading two books about Belarus, one written by Vakar and another Yan Zaprudnik, and both of authors have pretty contradictory opinions on the described above issue…
interesting input, Anuszka, indeed this whole story about who is who is a bit confusing.
Yet I, personally, believe Mickiewicz was a kind of ‘citizen of the Europe’(if not world)
> Mickiewicz was a kind of ‘citizen of the Europe’
> (if not world)
AFAIK, Mickiewicz never left Europe.
well, you don’t have to leave Europe to be citizen of the world…I guess it’s more like state of mind… anyway, I guess you’re right
Islander, I have another book for you, by a Russian author. It mostly concentrated on the orthodox religion and Russians, but it’s still a good read since it shows how different nationalities were created, moved, and died in that region.
For example, I never knew that Russians actually don’t exist anymore, at least according to this book. Slavs who lived in that region inherited the name from the dying nationality.
Way to go Skorik!!! Long time no see, where have you been?
Please do not mix Russia and Rus, Russians and Rusyns(Ruthenians) ! If you do it shows only your ignorance! Lithuanians, Poles and Rusyns were once constitutive nations of Polish – Lithuanian Duchiny. Russians were not.
I personally totally agree with you. However, one should bear in mind that while you might see the difference between White Ruthenians and Russians, some might argue otherwise. I have heard theories, coming primarily from Russian historians, that “White Ruthenians” is an imaginary concept originated by nationalist movements to gain political leverage. Now, do I agree with it? Not at all, but the “Russian” stigma will be there for a very long time, if not forever.
my grandparents were from white russia. they always considered themselves a form of russian, never polish or lithuanian. they came from a village n.e. of lida call dukadovo which i believe today is dakudava. he was a carpenter and worked for the orthodox church there till it burned down ; then he came to america for work. he had several sisters all with russian names ( belorussian i guess) who satyed there. in america they lived in jersey city where downtown were polish , russian ,& ruthenian. they belonged to the russian orthodox church, he was a member of the council. they were always russian americans, then asked what kind ,white russian. we always knew polish people were different from us, we were russian american. my fathers people came from a town which is in poland today, ksiezpol. they considered themselves russian also but on some of their papers it said ruthenian. they s[oke a dialect close to ukranian but would say we are not ukranian, we are russian. they had belonged to the russian greek catholic church but when the congregation split they went to the russian orthodox, both sides considered themselves of russian descent , not polish, not ukranian or lithuanian?
my great grandfather was a well known carpenter in belarus and owned 100 acre farm till the soviets siezed half the land, they spoke russian, i never knew otherwise but noe of the granchildren could speak or understand.
0one must remember that kievan rus and novgorod rus were the same places. later when one of the princes rebelled he sacked kiev and made vladimir in suzdal (n.e.) the new capital of all rus. each region was ruled by a family member but owned alligiance to the head of the family, the grand prince. there was no king, no emperor or czar at that time. each province developed its own subculture and customs. when the mongols invaded they broke the power of the state of rus (not ruthenia) it disintegrated into smaller states. some accepted mongol overlordship such as moscow, otherwise, they would be destroyed. the southern and western provinces joined as the state of “great litva” which was belarussian in character with modern lithuanians. the remained orthodox until the union of lublin and poland took the provinces from lithuania and started to force the people to go under the pope, hence greek catholic, or they were persecuted by the roman catholic church. many priests accepted and were allowed to keep the same services and customs. the polish replaced rus nobles with polish , sometimes through marriage and the rus people were made peasants. the term russian is nowadays associated with moscow but the rus were all the peoples . think of italy, each region has differant customs and even dialects but all are italian. even sicily which some believe is not. hence all the slavic peoples living in the region of kievan rus 1090 a.d. should be considered russian not ukranian or ruthenian. these are later terms given by the west (catholic) to divide the people. the problem was that the moscow state became autocratic and the czar was all powerfulf which was a concept foreign to the rus. their way was sharing and more democratic but aside from turks, tatars and hungarians in these regions thay all all a form of rus.
My grandfather lived in Jersey City and went to the russian orthodox church and came from the same area in what is now Belarus and he too called himself Russian.I believe he spoke formal russian since a he went to high school over there.I’m sure they spoke other languages since they were in a politically volatile area.As each empire came and gone each group influenced the region and left and influence .The large number of orthodox Christians in Belarus in modern times must be a factor separating the people from the western groups such as most poles and lithuanians.Also isn’t belarussian language part of the Russian language group like ukranian as opposed to Polish and Lithuania.
i agree with craig, both sides of my family never considered themselves polish or lithuanian. they were orthodox not catholic. rus gets its name from rurik, the leader of a viking tribe that was invited to rule in novgorod in 862 a.d. later they conquered kiev and made it the capital. the rus were the rulers but gradually mixed with the slavic peoples and formed a confederacy called rus. the area expanded to the border with poland where today there is still a large minority of rus living in the lublin province and in the carpathian mts. . ruthenia was the name given by the catholic west, not by the native people , ukranian means people living at the border or borderland. these were not the original names and really should not be used today. if one looks at the map of rus about 1100 a.d. one can see that both belarus and the ukrane were part of the same state. why do people try to make them separate??? yes, they were ruled by poland and lithuania for 300 hundred years and so there are differences, perhaps even intermarriages and some are catholic today but they still are the rus people and most write cyrillic and are a form of orthodox.
i would like to add one more comment. moscow was known as muscovy in the 1500s later when they gradually took over other russian states they took the name russia to represent all the russian peoples. the mongols had broken down the state for over two hundred years and each province considered itself a country. later the t’sars called themselves rulers of all the russias and drove the polish armies out that were trying to conquer moscow and finally reclaimed all the ancient land of rus. however, three hundred years of polish, austrian and mongol rule changed each region somewhat and i think that is where we find confusion, even among the people who live there.