Comments on: Polish, Russian, Lithuanian? Or maybe White Ruthenian?

By: michael proch

michael proch — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 04:54:29 +0000

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.

By: michael proch

michael proch — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 04:46:09 +0000

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.

By: Craig Sabre

Craig Sabre — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 17:45:38 +0000

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.

By: michael proch

michael proch — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 03:36:34 +0000

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.

By: michael proch

michael proch — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 01:34:59 +0000

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.

By: michael proch

michael proch — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 01:31:17 +0000

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?

By: Islander

Islander — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:08:39 +0000

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.

By: Slavko

Slavko — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:59:13 +0000

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.

By: Islander

Islander — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:52:32 +0000

Way to go Skorik!!! Long time no see, where have you been?

By: Scorik

Scorik — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:19:09 +0000

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.