 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Responses:
Subject: Slander created, even though possibly not intended ...
From: Max Pyziur
Date: 06 Jun 1998 3:06 PM
Greetings editors and producers at PBS,In making the following statement ..."The history of the icon paintings tells the story of the Russian people and their search for and adoption of religion. The story begins long ago under the reign of Vladimir, Prince of Kiev, A.D. 988. ..."... you've grossly erred in conveying a factual presentation of history.Kiev at the time was not Russian but Kievan Rus'.Russia, in name and in substance - basic criteria to be treated as an object of history - , didn't come along until much later - the 17th century to be exact - a direct descendent not of Kievan Rus, but of Muscovy. By making this sort of statement ("a personalinterpretation ... by one of America’s pre-eminent [sic] Russian scholars, James H. Billington", notwithstanding) you not only err but effectively categorically slander and demean others. I'd suggest a retraction, correction, and apology, if not a more strongly worded disclaimer.Respectfully yours, Max Pyziur
Subject: History
From: Karen Zill
Date: 06 Jun 1998 10:21 AM
I would like to respond to those who have written about historical inaccuracies in TheFace of Russia television programs and Web site. The East Slavs who were Christianized in the10th century A.D. were neither Russians, Ukrainians, nor Belarusans, but the commonancestors of those three modern peoples. The state they lived in is usually called (in English)"Kievan Rus", but unfortunately there is no good, accepted English word to refer to thosepre-Russian/pre-Ukrainian/pre-Belarusan Eastern Slavs. An ideal word for them in Englishwould be "Rusians", with the "u" pronounced "oo", but this word has never caught on inEnglish. The culture of Kievan Rus' is the predecessor of the national cultures of the modernRussian, Ukrainian, and Belarusan peoples. As in any historical topic, there are differences ofopinion and interpretation of historical facts. Since The Face of Russia is presented as Dr. JamesBillington's own view of the development of Russia, presumably he is entitled to present thoseviews. Incidents that occurred later in history, including but not limited to the Soviet era, do notchange the facts (or Dr. Billington's interpretation) of historical, cultural, artistic, and linguisticdevelopments in Kievan Rus' and its successor states and peoples. Your messages here in thisForum help to make us all aware that Ukraine has a separate and distinct history and nationalidentity. As television producers, we are limited in how much we can fit into one program andwe therefore must make choices. We hope that our viewers will use The Face of Russia as astarting point and take the opportunity to learn more about all of the peoples who produced theoutstanding art featured in the series.
Subject: Rus History
From: Mike Davidchik
Date: 06 Jun 1998 4:01 PM
Dr. Billington has a pretty casual or simplistic knowledge of the Rus and the Orthodox Church. The histories of Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine have not been changed because of nationalism today. It is just that we are no longer taking the official Tsarist and Soviet histories of Eastern Europe any longer in the West. Unfortunately, the history of the Rus and Orthodoxy taught in U.S. universities was based upon what was provided by the Russians from the 19th Century onward. The North American diaspora and new nationalists are trying to get the real history into the U.S. mainstream. I am glad that you realize that Rus does not mean Russian and that Belarus and Ukraine are just as much descendents of the Rus as Russia (if not more). Most of your replies have been from persons of Ukrainian ancestry. I would like to add that a person aware of the history of the Bela Rus would be critical as well. Belarusans were not called White Russians until the late 18th Century after the Tsarists got control of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Rus and Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth. Peter the Great and others justified their conquest of these areas by saying that they was liberating them and restoring the old Rus Empire. This is mostly a myth to justify agression. What constitutes the modern country of Belarus was never under the permanent control of Moscovy until the end of the 17th or beginning of 18th Centuries. Previously, they called thmselves Litvini or Kryvichi and had their own independent branches of Orthodoxy and Eastern Rite Catholicism (prior to Russian control, the majority were Uniates.) The Ukrainian and Belarusan Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholic Churches were forcibly absorbed into the Russian Orthodox Church. Icons were never unique to the Russian Orthodox Church. They are Byzantine and used by several denominations. The pagan references to things in the icons are inaccurate. It is true that there were still pagans in these areas until the end of the 14th Century, butyour symbolism is wrong. The Byzantines had a great devotion to the Blessed Virgin (Theotokis) in the early centuries (just as great as Latin Catholics) and to say that she was symbolic of anything else is offensive to the Byzantine Rite.The Kievy Rus never controlled all of the Rus Principalities. It was a loose confederation through inter-marriage and military alliances and sometimes they fought among themselves. Moscovy didn't even get Novgorod until the 16th Century. Moscovy fought wars for two hundred years to get most of the Ukraine and Belarus. If Moscovy (the predecessor of the Tsarist Russian Empire) took so long to get all of the former Rus Principalities, why do they claim to be the main inheritors of the Rus culture, language, andreligion?Mike Davidchik
Subject: Reply to Mike Davidchik
From: David
Date: 07 Jul 1998 6:24 AM
All correct, but I'd like to add a few words in defence of the program.
The program is on Russia. I am sure if it were on Ukraine, there would be just as much exploration into the Kievan Rus'. But it is on Russia only. And I think one should talk of Kievan Rus' when talking about Russia. "Moscovy" might not be the "Main inheritor" (whatever that means) of the Rus, but it is an inheritor.
Best,
David