-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Nemchinov13
Registered User
Mixed up the dates on Pereyaslavl' and the insurrection. For that I apologize. But they did feel themselves "Russian" and definitely not Moskovite. For reference: read "Taras Bulba" by Nikolai Gogol - you would see a lot of references of "Russian blood," "Russian people," although they obviously spoke Ukrainian. And I never confused Ukrainians with Russians.Archijerej said:Mister Nemchinov, Ukrainians didn't call themselves Moscovites (because I doubt the name Russians existed back then, XVII century ), and the Union of Pereyeslavl happened in 1654 not in 1648 when the Cossacs insurrected, when it became obvious that they couldn't manage a decisive win against Polish-Lithaunian state. So they turned to Aleksy Mikhailovich Romanov as their ally and protector. When you ask a question: were they closer culturally and politically to Moscov then to Warsaw and Vilnius? Yes, they were. But were they Moscovites or considered themselves Moscovites? No way. Don't let the rhetoric fool you. They needed tsar's help so they claimed themselves "brothers". Chmielnicky first wanted the same laws and profits for Cossacs (not Ukrainians in general) that Polish and Lithaunian nobility had. He wanted a Commonwealth of Three Nations istead of Two Nations (Pol-Lith). The, when he grown into power, when peasantry supported him and he kicked our butts couple of times, he wanted an independent Cossac state. He turned to tsar when the Poles began to, if not take advantage (Berestechko battle) than at least restore the balance of power.
So my advice, I would not try to convince the Ukrainians, especially the Western ones, that they are Russians or that their Republic is pathethic or should return under the wings of Sacred Rus' just like I wouldn't try to convince them that they are Poles (wich they ofcourse are not). Anyways, sorry mods for this historical-political rant. It won't happen again.
BTW Bruins Girl, you are my favorite Bruins fan I still remember this "przyjaciel". Sould I say "Szcze ne zmerla Ukraina" or maybe you're blue not orange?
. Oh wait, I see that you're not Ukrainian, anyways you have my invitations for my mom's pierogies, a common cultural treasure for three nations
Edit: My post was to prove that Ukrainians (at least the Eastern part and the Dnieper basin population) have joined the Moskovite state voluntarily. And your post just proved that.
Last edited:
Nemchinov13
Registered User
Exactly. Without Lukashenko there would be some political prostitute that would do anything told by Washington just to get the grants, credits, etc. Once this happens, same thing that happened in Russia will occur, with oligarchs and such (see Yeltsin's rule). Belarus does not have oligarchs. Instead, Belarus has a growing middle class (unlike Russia or any other former Soviet republic) and has a stable and steady economy. As far as "trampling all over ppl's rights" - that's just typical Western ********. I have a couple of friends in Belarus. Obviously they don't like Lukashenko, but they also know that there won't be any better.nik jr said:
Actually Ukrainians will be happy to assist USA if they would ever attack Russia. Americans would be able to use them as storm troopers. For reference, see the Bandera guerillas who happily assisted the Wehrmacht and the SS in rounding up and exterminating Jews and non-Ukrainians. As far as the nuclear arsenal is concerned, it is the only thing that is keeping Russia safe.
Archijerej
Registered User
Nemchinov13 said:
Taras Bulba was written in XIX century, so two ages later in the age of nationalism, when the ideas of "Greater Rus'" and "Small Rus'" (Ukraine) were "invented" and not by a historian. Gogol might have felt Russian, it was his right.
I didn't say they joined the Moscov state voluntarily, I said they were forced by political situation and it seemed like a good choice for them (the Cossacs). But it seems it wasn't. Peter the Great slaughtering Sich and Katherine the Great, although probably doing right from the Russian state point of view made them regret that they did it. And please note: It's not saying that they should remain in Polish-Lithaunian state, this is a complicated problem and I'm far from nationalistic demands and nationalistic nostalgia.
Anyways, I think that insrtead of ignoring aspirations and needs of former USSR nations and calling their states pathetic you should think why they're in such bad economical, social, political state. Maybe it's BECAUSE of Soviet system and not because of abandoning the Soviet system. As for Lukashenko, you're saying that isolating your country instead of going through a path that Poland, Chech Republic, Slovakia etc. went is a patriotism? Sure, transormation is a painfull process, but remaining a last Soviet republic in Europe, with soviet economy, secret police, IMO is acting against his nation, especially if this nation has no legal way to get rid of it's president. And it seems like more and more Belarussians are starting to realise that.
Nemchinov13
Registered User
The Zaporozh Cossacks have enjoyed autonomy in the Russian state until Getman Mazepa betrayed Peter I during the Northern war. Besides personal revenge on Mazepa's betrayal (there was absolutely no reason for Masepa to betray Peter - the Czar has given him many tokens of attention and appreciation), the Sech had to be eliminated because it became the nest and a safe haven for fugitives. By the way, the Cossacks (whether they were the Don, Kuban', Ural or any other) have always enjoyed a degree of autonomy in the Russian State and its armed forces. Also, you seem to forget the aspirations of the Orthodox peasants, and the religious persecution by the Catholic Poles and Lithuanians (especially considering that they were the ruling class) against the Orthodox peasants have always invoked the feeling of unity with the "proper," "God-fearing" Russian Czar and Russians.Archijerej said:
If you'd read more of Gogol', you'd see that in every of his stories and books there's a difference between a "proper Russian" (i.e. Ukrainian) and a Muscovite. He, himself, certainly knew his heritage. As far as the ideas of "Greater Rus," "Small Rus," "White Rus" - you're right - they're not invented by a historian. They were invented much earlier than that - during the rise of the Muscovian State, when the Grand Princes of Muscovy started the process of "collection" of Russian lands (the end of 14th and the beginning of 15th centuries). Russians always felt strongly about their "ancestral" lands, held by Lithuania and Poland. The Kiev, Chernigov, Galitchina, other now-Ukrainian lands (held by Poland at the time) became known as "Small Rus" and Minsk, Pinsk (can't remember the others) that were held by Lithuania became known as "White Rus" or Belarus.
BruinsGirl
Registered User
Shoalzie
Trust me!
Why do you guys have to suck the fun out of this by bringing in intelligent thoughts and ideas. Damn you!
I was thinking about the Czech/Slovakia reuinification team thing today myself. I'd pay money to watch them play a healthy Team Canada (with Niedermayer and Jovanovski) in a best-of-7. We wouldn't need the rest of the teams...they would clearly best two best teams in the Olympics. The rest can play it out for the bronze. I also thought about the reunification of the Soviet Union too...that would be a sick team as well. I miss communism...just kidding.
I was thinking about the Czech/Slovakia reuinification team thing today myself. I'd pay money to watch them play a healthy Team Canada (with Niedermayer and Jovanovski) in a best-of-7. We wouldn't need the rest of the teams...they would clearly best two best teams in the Olympics. The rest can play it out for the bronze. I also thought about the reunification of the Soviet Union too...that would be a sick team as well. I miss communism...just kidding.
Drudkh
Registered User
Thanks for the history lesson guys, that was an insightful read. I've read Gogol before, and that puts a new perspective on him for me.
And a Czech-Slovak game versus a Russian team with all their players would be a heck of a game to watch!
And a Czech-Slovak game versus a Russian team with all their players would be a heck of a game to watch!
Pepper said:Technically Finland and Russia have never been in the same country as Finland has always had a legislation & other national symbols (own post office, currency etc) of it's own.
Finland-Sweden used to be the same country for 800 years though, nowadays the hate-factor is way too high to even dream about a common team
Finland was a dominion of Russia, and in 1809 under the Treaty of Hamina, Czar Alexandegra granted Finns autonomy.
I am glad, though, Finland got its independence, you have escaped the fates of those who suffered under Lenin's and Stalin rule
VanIslander said:yeah, if only the Soviets forcibly still controlled two entirely different peoples
To you information
KIEV was CAPITAL of Russia long before Moscow. (Kievskaya Rus')
We are one people, but were separated due to politics.
P.S: Nemchinov: Great posts.
Why not unite the Scandinavians as well?
Naslund-Forsberg-Selanne
Modin-Sundin-Alfredsson
Lehtinen-Jokinen-Zetterberg
Sedin-Sedin-T.Ruutu
Ohlund-Timmonen
Lidstrom-Pitkannen
Norstrom-K.Johnsson
Kiprusoff
Lundqvist
Naslund-Forsberg-Selanne
Modin-Sundin-Alfredsson
Lehtinen-Jokinen-Zetterberg
Sedin-Sedin-T.Ruutu
Ohlund-Timmonen
Lidstrom-Pitkannen
Norstrom-K.Johnsson
Kiprusoff
Lundqvist
Silvercup Returns
King Karlsson
Archijerej
Registered User
Ok. I will probably be banned not only for making political rants but also lying that my first one was a last one. But some things need clearing and this will really be my last post on this subject. If you want to discuss this longer mr. Nemchinov we can contact via an e-mail.
First I think that there's some misunderstanding of a semantics between us. In Polish language a word "Rosjanin" means a Russian, an inhabitant of current Russia(not counting a non Slavic nations that are part of Federation) and historically a Moscovite, but there is also an old word "Rusin" wich means a Ruthenian, an inhabitant of the old medieval Kiev Rus' and later an inhabitant of those Rus' teritories that were part of Pol-Lith state and are now Belaruss and Ukraine. You admitted that Gogol was making a distinction between Moscovites and "proper Russians". And I think that saying "proper Russians" he meant Ruthenians (Rusini) not Russians (Rosjanie). Those parts of the old Rus' went through it's own path that accelerated during a Polish-Lith reign and isolation of the rest old Rus' territories. Then they created it's own language and it's own identity wich was in large part build on an opposition against the Poles and the Catholic religion (after the Union of Brest' ). But later another part of their identity was added. The tsar, not long ago a saviour, an ally and a brother in faith was much more effective in cutting Cossac autonomy than an decentralised and already anarchistic Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Frome that time, through the Soviet era and up to this day an opposition against the Russians and Moscov is a large part of national identity of the Ukrainians. Are they similar in language and religion? Yes. Do they have a large parts of common history? Yes. But at the same time they're very different. They are a nation.
Note: I'm not disputing tsars or Russian or Soviet policy in Cossac Sich and later Ukraine. I'm trying to discuss the facts and not who was right and who was wrong. From a state, Machiavellian point of view there were good reasons to subordinate the Viking society that Cossacs were, and the Poles tried to do the same earlier, and I admitted it. My point is that the Ukrainians have heck of a lot differences from Russians beginning from language and ending on a hostility toward them wich (maybe unfortunately) is a great factor in defining or rather selfdefining of a nation.
You're right when it comes to origins of those "White Rus'", "Red Rus'", "Black Rus' " things. Already in XIV century polish king Kazimir the Great inherited "Red Rus' " areas. But the term "Little Rus' " was invented by the XIX century Russian historiography (nationalistic like probably all historiographies of that time), and it meant "yeah, those Ukrainians are little different than us but it's because they're Little Rusians that were long opressed by the catholic Poles and we are Great Russians, that helped them to liberate nad return to us and the only true Orthodox faith, the thruth is we're all Russians reunited again".
First I think that there's some misunderstanding of a semantics between us. In Polish language a word "Rosjanin" means a Russian, an inhabitant of current Russia(not counting a non Slavic nations that are part of Federation) and historically a Moscovite, but there is also an old word "Rusin" wich means a Ruthenian, an inhabitant of the old medieval Kiev Rus' and later an inhabitant of those Rus' teritories that were part of Pol-Lith state and are now Belaruss and Ukraine. You admitted that Gogol was making a distinction between Moscovites and "proper Russians". And I think that saying "proper Russians" he meant Ruthenians (Rusini) not Russians (Rosjanie). Those parts of the old Rus' went through it's own path that accelerated during a Polish-Lith reign and isolation of the rest old Rus' territories. Then they created it's own language and it's own identity wich was in large part build on an opposition against the Poles and the Catholic religion (after the Union of Brest' ). But later another part of their identity was added. The tsar, not long ago a saviour, an ally and a brother in faith was much more effective in cutting Cossac autonomy than an decentralised and already anarchistic Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Frome that time, through the Soviet era and up to this day an opposition against the Russians and Moscov is a large part of national identity of the Ukrainians. Are they similar in language and religion? Yes. Do they have a large parts of common history? Yes. But at the same time they're very different. They are a nation.
Note: I'm not disputing tsars or Russian or Soviet policy in Cossac Sich and later Ukraine. I'm trying to discuss the facts and not who was right and who was wrong. From a state, Machiavellian point of view there were good reasons to subordinate the Viking society that Cossacs were, and the Poles tried to do the same earlier, and I admitted it. My point is that the Ukrainians have heck of a lot differences from Russians beginning from language and ending on a hostility toward them wich (maybe unfortunately) is a great factor in defining or rather selfdefining of a nation.
You're right when it comes to origins of those "White Rus'", "Red Rus'", "Black Rus' " things. Already in XIV century polish king Kazimir the Great inherited "Red Rus' " areas. But the term "Little Rus' " was invented by the XIX century Russian historiography (nationalistic like probably all historiographies of that time), and it meant "yeah, those Ukrainians are little different than us but it's because they're Little Rusians that were long opressed by the catholic Poles and we are Great Russians, that helped them to liberate nad return to us and the only true Orthodox faith, the thruth is we're all Russians reunited again".
Last edited:
Nemchinov13
Registered User
I'm not disputing the fact that Ukrainians are a completely different nation from Russians. I agree, Ukrainians have their own language and their own culture. What I am disputing is that people (especially North Americans) have a notion that Ukrainians were forced into Russian Empire/Soviet Union. While it is true that there was no referendum taken among all of Ukrainian peasants (it was the 17th century), but overall, while the Cossacks lost, the peasantry won. Simple as that. And again, it was only the Zaporosh Sech that has lost. The other Cossack populations (Don, Kuban', Ural, etc) had quite an autonomy from the central government - they did not pay taxes, they were not serfs... All they had to do was to serve in the Imperial Armed forces and they had a distinguished status at that as well. You mentioned Catherine the Great. That's when first Ukrainians have reached the top levels of the Imperial govenment (and they continued to achieve successes during the later Emperors' administrations). Chancellor Bezborodko comes to mind (there's another Ukrainian that I can't remember).
I just want to kill the notion once and for all that Ukrainians were forced into the Russian state. It was a historical process inevitable in its own right, and by no means a forcible action on behalf of Muscovy. I believe I have brought up enough facts to prove my point. I'll PM you my email.
I just want to kill the notion once and for all that Ukrainians were forced into the Russian state. It was a historical process inevitable in its own right, and by no means a forcible action on behalf of Muscovy. I believe I have brought up enough facts to prove my point. I'll PM you my email.
- Status
