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

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.

By: xela

xela — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 13:25:27 +0000

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

By: anuszka

anuszka — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 10:46:53 +0000

> Mickiewicz was a kind of ‘citizen of the Europe’
> (if not world)

AFAIK, Mickiewicz never left Europe.

By: xela

xela — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:23:32 +0000

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)

By: Islander

Islander — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:06:47 +0000

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…

By: anuszka

anuszka — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:46:15 +0000

> 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!”.

By: Islander

Islander — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:41:13 +0000

Hi there!
We are from New York. “We” are the few khlopcau from Minsk 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:)
Let me know
Best Regards
Islander