 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Responses:
Subject: Novgorod was not always Russian
From: P. Skorupsky
Date: 07 Jul 1998 5:14 AM
REPLY TO SECOND CORRESPONDENT ON THIS FORUMI think it is important to mention that contrary to the posting of oneparticipant in this forum, who implied Novgorod was always Russian, thebelow excerpt from the 1962 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol.16, page 582, (I think) indicates contrariwise.First of all, it ought be made clear that neither Moscow in its presentname nor Russia existed prior to the year 1701 or the early 18thcentury. For a few centuries prior, Russia was known as the Principalityof Muscovy, and for centuries prior to any Principality of Muscovy allthere was were scattered tribes throughout territories to the north andnortheast of Kyiv and empire and lands of Ruce [Rus'] and which is theregion discussed, and the town "Moscow" was "Moskva" or"Muscovy", thepeople of both region and town were known as "Muscovites" not Russiansnor Rus'en. See the research papers posted here about "RussianInterpretation of Ukrainian Historical Sources", and "It wasRuce-Ukraine and not Russia which was Christianized in 988" also in this"Face of Russia" forum for correct understanding and furtherexplanation.Also, The same 1962 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica ought be read invol. 19 page 693, where it is made clear the Muscovian dukes start withAlexandr Nevsky in 1263 and Daniel, and that Muscovy's empire wasenlarged by purchase and violent invasion into Rus' (Ruce) among otherplaces; the article mistakenly uses "Russian" in trying to form thepossessive of "Rus'en". Consequently, territory and lands or the subjectcity of Novgorod the correspondent in this forum claims were alwaysRussian were not always so, but were later after their establishmentpurchased or more often violently invaded and taken. Such actions wouldnot be necessary were these lands already historically "Muscovian" or"Russian".One of the examples is that period in Rus'-Ukrainian history in themiddle of 17th century Ukraine, when (Hetman) Bohdan Chmelnyckyj inJanuary 1648 had started a revolution against Polish invaders andoppressors which annexed Western Ukraine (Halych or Galicia) andenslaved Rus'-Ukraine, and sought alliance with Muscovy against thePoles in 1654; the Poles allied themselves with the Tatars; and, alas,the Tatars destroyed everything in their path. Subsequently after thedeath of Chmelnyckyj in 1667, the Tsar--the Muscovites--decided to keeptheir army on Ukrainian territory -- not Russian territory -- as an armyof occupation demanding full lodging, feeding and support of theirarmies all over Ukraine--a situation which propelled Ukraine intoeconomic disaster, into serfdom and slavery at the hands of Muscovy andMuscovites. The English historian L.R. Levitter observed: "the treatmentmeted out to the civilian population of Ukraine by the Russian[Muscovite] army, with it daily routine of plunder, arson, murder andrape was more reminiscent of a punitive expedition than of allied troopsmovements." Hardly this treatment nor standing army would be usedagainst a land and people who were already Russian, which thecorrespondent suggests was the case, it was an army of occupation andbarbarian conquest.Meanwhile, back to the issue of Novgorod: comments I make are insertedin square brackets. Excerpt quotation is under Title 17 fair useprovisions. This article demonstrates that Novgorod was not always norindigenously part of "Russia" nor its predecessor "Principality ofMuscovy", nor Muscovite for that matter; if it were, then there wouldhave been no need to invade, sack and plunder it, and russify it bytransplanting 1000 wealthy families to Muscovy and other towns andmoving in a multitude of Muscovites into Novgorod--a technique ofcolonialization and russification for centuries thereafter to presentday Moldavia, Chechnya and Georgia, for example. When the correspondentin this forum questions who would question such things as the"Russianity" of Novgorod, the Encyclopedia Britannica is but one. It's ahistorical fact that Novgorod was not always Russian, nor Muscovite, forthat matter.On a related point, the same correspondent asks who would question theallegedly non-broken chain of lineage from Kyivan-Ruce to Muscovy as todukes and princes and rulers? The same 1962 edition of the encyclopediaasserts that the Muscovite dynasty started with Alexandr Nevsky (1203)and Daniel, and not earlier as has been claimed, incorporating thehistory and rulers of Kyivan-Ruce (Rus') as Russian or Muscovite. Forexample, Prince Askold, claimed to be Russian, was of Rus', not Russia(which did not even exist at the time) and was fighting at Byzantium andConstantinople, in 860 at a time when it has been claimed he would havebeen in the far northern or northeastern territories proximate toMuscovy setting up a Muscovite or "Russian" kingdom. He was not in twoplaces at the same time. So much for unbroken links as to connectingRucean [Rus'en] rulers starting with the 9th century onward withMuscovite rulers several centuries later.Incidently, there were a few Novgorods on the map between the 13th and19th centuries, among them a Novgorod, far north of Kyiv and northwestof Moskva (Muscovy or Moscow) and Nyzhny Novgorod was to the east ofMoskva and Suzdal, just to make some ancient locations clear, sinceNyzhny Novgorod (variant spelling from the article) is referenced alsoin the below article excerpt: Novgorod escaped the Mongol invasion of 1240-42, and repelled the attacks of the princes of Moscow [Muscovy] by whom the Mongols were supported. It also resisted the attacks of Tver. The first serious invasion, in 1332, was rolled back with the aid of the Lithuanians. But in 1456 the great prince of Moscow [Muscovy] imposed a heavy tribute. Ivan III of Moscow took possession of the colonies in the northern Dvina and the Perm regions, and began two bloody wars, during which Novgorod fought for its liberty under the leadership of Martha Boretskaya, the mayor. In 1475-78 Ivan III entered Novgorod, abolished its charters, and carried away 1,000 of the wealthier families, substituting for them families from Moscow; the old free city then recognized his sovereignty. A century later Ivan IV (the Terrible) abolished the last vestiges of the independence of the city. Having learned that a party favourable to Lithuania had been organized in Novgorod, he took the field in 1570 and entered the city (much weakened by the recent pestilences) without opposition. His followers killed the heads of the monasteries, the wealthier of the merchants and clergy, and burned and pillaged the city and villages. No fewer than 15,000 were massacred at Novgorod alone (60,000 according to some authorities). A famine ensued, and the district of Novgorod fell into utter desolation. Thousands of families were transported to Moscow [Muscovy], Nijni-Novgorod [literally "lower Novgorod" east of Muscovy and Suzdal and roughly southeast of Novgorod], and other towns of the principality of Moscow. In the beginning of the 17th century Novgorod was taken and held for seven years by the Swedes; and in the 18th century the founding of St. Petersburg (now Leningrad) [note that the name has been changed back since 1962] finally destroyed its trade. Its position on the water highway from the Volga to St. Petersburg and on the trunk road from Moscow to the capital, still gave it some commercial importance; but even this was destroyed by the opening of the Vishera canal, connecting the Msta with the Volkhov below the city, and by the construction of the railway from St. Petersburg to Moscow, which did not reach Novgorod.This certainly refutes the insistent notion of the respectivecorrespondent in this forum who would have us believe that Novgorod hasalways been Russian and "who would question that?". Novgorod has notalways been Russian, it even changed hands more than once.The critics who challenge the historical assertions of those who founderrors in the series ought do their research more carefully and dealwith facts rather than wishful thinking. I am disappointed with theseonline critics, not PBS who provides this forum for free inquiry andfurther exploration into the truth, for railing sharp diatribes andaccusations of paranoia against those who spotted errors of fact andvoiced their opinions on this electronic forum. I hope these samecritics rethink their position in light of the evidence of *facts*.
Subject: erratum
From: P. Skorupsky
Date: 07 Jul 1998 7:17 AM
In paragraph beginning "On a related point", the Nevsky date is a typo: 1203, it should be, as is quoted in previous paragraph(s) 1263, of course.
Subject: Chmelnyckyj
From: Mike Davidchik
Date: 07 Jul 1998 12:01 AM
"One of the examples is that period in Rus'-Ukrainian history in the middle of 17th century Ukraine, when (Hetman) Bohdan Chmelnyckyj in January 1648 had started a revolution against Polish invaders and oppressors which annexed Western Ukraine (Halych or Galicia) and enslaved Rus'-Ukraine, and sought alliance with Muscovy against the Poles in 1654;"Hetman Bohdan Chmelnyckj (as you spell it) sold out the Ukraine and made it possible for the Russians to enslave the Ukraine much worse than the Poles ever did. You fail to mention that many Cossacks regretted his actions and later allied themselves with the Polish Commonwealth against Russia. Ukrainian nationalists also sometimes have a problem of omitting historical facts.Mike
Subject: Khmelnytsky
From: P. Skorupsky
Date: 07 Jul 1998 2:07 AM
I failed to mentioned the outcome? No so.
Ukraine was ravaged and enslaved. It was not a paper on theimplications of the defeat at the battle of Poltava, it was a briefparagraph in passing illustrating another point--which for itsintended use and context is entirely satisfactory. I did sayTatars destroyed everything in their path and the subsequent occupationled to economic disaster, serfdom and slavery. Now just what is it aboutthat which leaves you unsatisfied or is unclear?
Did you read that original writing carefully and cogitateappropriately and cogently and coherently? Apparently not.
The logical implication for thinking people might be that serfdom,slavery and economic disaster -- universal ruin generally -- is hardlyreason to rejoice. Come now, you are not saying anything new here,merely repeating the self-evident which attentive readers alreadyrealized, and anyone who cares to research further details of the mattercan discover readily for themselves in any reasonable history book onthe period or upon reflection of what was already written.
Yes, of course it is widely known by any student of east Europeanhistory, the Ukrainian Cossacks allied themselves withChmelnyckyj/Khmelnytsky or any other acceptable spelling (why attackthat, haven't you anything better to do when there are many acceptedstandards of transliteration--that you feel compelled to draws attentionto that, wherein there is no error?--or are you simply too young torecognize the former transliteration style?), and Ukrainians, of course,felt what anyone would feed when reduced to ruin, serfdom and slavery,as I said, which is what I said. Hardly can charges of omission be made,when what I said speaks for itself contextually and self-evidentconclusions follow.
Also, you seem to throw barbs and accusations against Ukrainiannationalists, of being dishonest and incomplete historians or reporters,which accusations you fail wholly to support with the least evidence. Ihave never seen evidence of Ukrainian nationalists who discuss thefailure of the war against the Poles and the subsequent subjugation byMuscovites "omit" the consequences, or suggest that Cossacks andUkrainians rejoiced at their slavery and ruin. You make a false,unsupported accusation. And by context, you would seem to be implyingthat while Ukrainian nationalists are untruthful historians and omit theobvious, being one is a shameful and dirty deed, and it is somehow abarb to throw at me--when you imply by context that I must be one. Asit happens I am not a Ukrainian nationalist at all, merely an historianand theologian.
Facts, my boy, facts. These don't seem important to you, do they,when you put your foot in your mouth in the attempt of criticizingsomeone? If you're going to make accusations as to character, whetherfalsely broad-brushing a nation or ethnic group, or characterizing orcriticizing an individual like myself, learn to either do sointelligently with substantive evidentiary basis. In absence of factualfoundation, your attempted criticism is abusive ad hominem, scurrilousand without merit, and contributes no understanding or illumination tothe discussion. If this were a moderated forum, you'd be escorted out ofthe premises.
Instead of repeating the obvious already implicit in what waswritten, perhaps you might muster competence to contribute somethingoriginal to the discussion?
Subject: reply to Davidchik, Mike
From: P. Skorupsky
Date: 07 Jul 1998 2:49 AM
My previous reply seemingly did not appear directed to Mr. Davidchik.
This reply is directed to him.Subject: Chmelnyckyj
Reply Posted by: Mike Davidchik (davidchik@oro. net )
Date Posted: Thu Jul 16 0:01:55 US/Eastern 1998
Message:One of the examples is that period in Rus'-Ukrainian history in the middle of 17th centuryUkraine, when (Hetman) Bohdan Chmelnyckyj in January 1648 had started a revolutionagainst Polish invaders and oppressors which annexed Western Ukraine (Halych or Galicia)and enslaved Rus'-Ukraine, and sought alliance with Muscovy against the Poles in 1654;"Hetman Bohdan Chmelnyckj (as you spell it) sold out the Ukraine and made it possible forthe Russians to enslave the Ukraine much worse than the Poles ever did. You fail tomention that many Cossacks regretted his actions and later allied themselves with thePolish Commonwealth against Russia. Ukrainian nationalists also sometimes have aproblem of omitting historical facts. MikeREPLY to Mike Davidchik
I failed to mentioned the outcome? No so.
Ukraine was ravaged and enslaved. It was not a paper on theimplications of the defeat at the battle of Poltava, it was a briefparagraph in passing illustrating another point--which for itsintended use and context is entirely satisfactory. I did sayTatars destroyed everything in their path and the subsequent occupationled to economic disaster, serfdom and slavery. Now just what is it aboutthat which leaves you unsatisfied or is unclear?
Did you read that original writing carefully and cogitateappropriately and cogently and coherently? Apparently not.
The logical implication for thinking people might be that serfdom,slavery and economic disaster -- universal ruin generally -- is hardlyreason to rejoice. Come now, you are not saying anything new here,merely repeating the self-evident which attentive readers alreadyrealized, and anyone who cares to research further details of the mattercan discover readily for themselves in any reasonable history book onthe period or upon reflection of what was already written.
Yes, of course it is widely known by any student of East Europeanhistory, the Ukrainian Cossacks allied themselves withChmelnyckyj/Khmelnytsky or any other acceptable spelling (why attackthat, haven't you anything better to do when there are many acceptedstandards of transliteration--that you feel compelled to draws attentionto that, wherein there is no error?--or are you simply too young torecognize the former transliteration style?), and Ukrainians, of course,felt what anyone would feel when reduced to ruin, serfdom and slavery,as I said, which is what I said. Hardly can charges of omission be made,when what I said speaks for itself contextually and self-evidentconclusions follow.
Also, you seem to throw barbs and accusations against Ukrainiannationalists, of being dishonest and incomplete historians or reporters,which accusations you fail wholly to support with the least evidence. Ihave never seen evidence of Ukrainian nationalists who discuss thefailure of the war against the Poles and the subsequent subjugation byMuscovites "omit" the consequences, or suggest that Cossacks andUkrainians rejoiced at their slavery and ruin. You make a false,unsupported accusation. And by context, you would seem to be implyingthat while Ukrainian nationalists are untruthful historians and omit theobvious, being one is a shameful and dirty deed, and it is somehow abarb to throw at me--when you imply by context that I must be one. Just because your wording is tacitly oblique does not mean that your intent is obscured, it is quite evident; and your attribution and limitation as to "some" Ukrainian nationalists is insincere and no less ambiguous. Hiding behind ambiguity does not protect you, because if it were so ill-defined and ambiguous an issue to you, you would not have brought it up to make a point. Asit happens I am not a Ukrainian nationalist at all, merely an historianand theologian defending the truth.
Facts, my boy, facts. These don't seem important to you, do they,when you put your foot in your mouth in the attempt of criticizingsomeone? If you're going to make accusations as to character, whetherfalsely broad-brushing a nation or ethnic group, or characterizing orcriticizing an individual like myself, learn to do so intelligently withsubstantive evidentiary basis. In absence of factual foundation, yourattempted criticism is abusive ad hominem, scurrilous and withoutmerit, and contributes no understanding or illumination to thediscussion. If this were a moderated forum, you'd be escorted out of thepremises.
Instead of repeating the obvious already implicit in what waswritten, perhaps you might muster competence to contribute somethingoriginal to the discussion?
Subject: historical truth is not a minor issue
From: P. Skorupsky
Date: 07 Jul 1998 5:16 AM
REPLY ONE TO ONE CORRESPONDENT HEREI have replies to two of the correspondents on this forum, but placethem together in a separate topic to save time, rather than searchingfor the original topics. Apologies, but I suffer from intractablepain and the additional time of searching through all the messages andtopics to locate the precise points of reply are too trying.This is a reply to one of the correspondents in this forum who dismissesissues of distortion or falsification of historical truth as "minorproblems". Because this is a complex subject, I will endeavor to bebrief; that necessarily requires frank expression. It is offered in thespirit of friendship and not hostility.When he, the subject correspdondent, subscribes "The goal of the programis to cover Russia (and its ancestor Kievan Rus') only, and art only",he raises precisely the point that troubles people of former captivenations, the point to which others here have objected. He brashlyincludes Kyivan Rus' when he has no historiographic right nor evidenceto do so. He exacerbates the problem by characterizing and dismissingobjections to fraudulent and falsified historical claims as "minorproblems."If the ancestry and claims of common origins of Russia as pertains toKyivan Ruce are untrue, then he has a heritage which ishistoriographically unsupportable fiction. He has a nation without anaccurately portrayed past, when its true origins are hidden ormisrepresented and another nation's history is appropriated as Russia'sown. That is not a matter of a minor problem, but a major problem ofwhence Russia came and serious matters of true origins, and an imprudentand inaccurate basis on which to claim artistic and culturalhistoricity, when Russia's ancestry claimed was not and could not havebeen Kyivan Ruce, particularly at the cultural peak of its medievalempire wherein its culture and art excelled that of all Europe at thetime.When people who know better, relying on the eyewitness testimony of theChronicles contemporaneous to Kyivan Ruce and its empire, hear someonecall their history Russian, rathern than "Rus'ean" or "Rus'en""Rucen" or"Rucean", it is no small matter. When a program dedicated to claimingartistic and cultural ancestry from Kyivan Ruce speaks in part about artand culture that was not Russian or its own but Rucen, it is no smallmatter, it is an error which ought be corrected and presentedaccurately. There is, I understand, a curriculum accompanying thisseries, "Face of Russia". Will it too promulgate the errors that pertainto a small section of the program, if it, like the documentary,appropriates Kyivan-Ruce' history as Russian, and the Millennium ofChristianity rightfully celebrated by Ukraine as Russian--when Russiadid not even exist as a Principality of Muscovy in the 10th century?Merely parroting what hundreds of tendentious historians, or historianswho have not made the effort to corroborate Russian claims of originsand ancestry, say does not make fiction true; making people assume astrue things that are merely repeated often enough by enough people isnot the scholastically objective way. Ad majorum or ad populum argumentsare not scholarly at all and prove nothing. If one studies the Russianhistorians' work objectively, one can even find admissions of the truthin their very own writings which contradict the popular line. Since thedocumentary program represents as Russian the grand and advancedmedieval culture of Kyivan Ruce, and that representation is untrue andwithout support of prime source materials, one ought not be surprisedthat those who know better would object -- particularly if they are theproper and bone fide heirs, culturally and historically, to the heritageand historicity of Kyivan-Ruce.There is no historical basis, in fact, for the claim that Russia has anancestry called Kyivan Rus'. If one reads the two research papers postedin this forum, he will learn that the Kyivan Rus', or Kyivan Ruce, has ahistory and origin which is distinct from what tribes and regions becameMuscovy and--out of thin air and massive revisionism steeped inbribes,-- Russia in the years 1701-1703 and following. While thetremendous cultural contributions of Russia ought not be overlooked, norher rich fascinating history, neither ought modern historians continueto appropriate a history from centuries ago which provably is notRussia's own. It is an unfortunate revisionism of the early 18thcentury, but surely Russia can now stand on its own and has no need tocontinue to claim a heritage and historicity to which they have noevidentiary claim, or rely on oversimplified arguments whichconveniently omit essential and troubling truths and questions--whichwould quickly complicate what is otherwise presented as astraightforward narrative of "Russian" history. Realize that there wasno Russia prior to the 18th century at all, there was a Principality ofMuscovy which arose from numerous indigenous tribes long after theKyivan Empire and Christianization of Kyivan Rus' already flourished forcenturies.Another fellow here attempted to counter the truth by suggestingunbroken links in a chain of evidence of Russian rulers and daringanyone to deny that tendentious "truth". All the irrefutable evidencepresented in the papers of Dr. Korchmaryk presented here elsewhereaside, consider:--But how was Prince Askold capable of paranormalbilocation, that is, fighting southward in Byzantium while at the sametime allegedly being present in northeastern territories helping foundMuscovy which later called itself Russia? I was not able to post mapshere (which will be available on my web site shortly), but theextensions into northern territories by the Kyivan-Ruce empire was oftenthe result of princes wanting to give their sons the prestige orwedding gift of land; there was no homesteading push northward buildinga Muscovy or "Russia" predecessor by Kyivan rulers. Muscovites did notcome from Kyivan Ruce, they left their northern and northeasternterritories and had to forcibly invade southward into the Kyivan empireto have any part of it. If the Principality of Muscovy is merely anoutgrowth of Kyivan Ruce, then one would have to be able to explain themilitary invasions southward into Kyivan Ruce by Muscovites which wereindigenous to and localized in what was later Muscovy and then Russia,and then further forcible and oppressive actions by Muscovy properagainst Ukraine, taking land and people by force, destroying in fact theKyivan-Rucen or Ukrainian institutions and culture and religion in orderto lay claim to the territories upon which they lay--if Kyivan Ruce andUkraine were already Muscovite ancestry and already their own.Before there even was a Principality of Muscovy, which preceded any talkof Russia, prior to the Mongol invasions, there were only barbaric,pagan scattered tribes indigenous to territories which later becameorganized as Muscovy; tribes which were not from Kyivan Ruce and did notinteract with Kyivan Ruce, nor share centuries of Christian faith withthem (while they remained pagan), nor culture, nor language, nor tradenor any contact of note for that matter. They had independentdevelopment and can make no claims to Kyivan Ruce--their existence andactivity and locations are documented by the old Chronicles, as are thelocations and activities and territories of Kyivan Ruce.I'll quote the Britannica, lest quoting more famous historians resultsin accusations of quoting biased or unimportant historians. EncyclopediaBritannica, 1962 edition, says Muscovite dukes, a lineage starting withAlexandr Nevsky in 1263 and Daniel in 1303, "involved the Tatars intheir feuds and brought punitive expeditions on Russia [meaning Ruce orRus', obviously there was no Russia then, what is being referencedclearly is Kyivan Rus' or Kyivan Ruce]. The khan's protection soon gavethe Muscovite dukes the upper hand over their enemies. They soonsucceeded in increasing their possessions. Ivan I extended his domains,by purchase and violence, over the whole province of Moscow [Muscovy].Demetrius (Dmitry) added to it the upper Volga region (excepting Tverand Yaroslavl), Tula and Kasimov; Basil (Vasily) I the remaining part ofOka and Suzdal, Vladimir, Murom and Nizhny-Novgorod; Basil II Elets inthe south, Vologda and Ustyug in the north . . . Accordingly, the granddukes of Moscow [Muscovy] added to their title: 'of all Russia [Rus].'"Now obviously, prior to that claim, however bogus, they by theself-admission of this act were NOT dukes of Rus' and only partly soafter these annexations of the 14th and 15th centuries. I will remindthe gentle reader that the 14th and 15th centuries are hundreds of yearsremoved from the founding of Kyiv, hundreds of years removed from theChristianization of Ukraine in 988, and hundreds of years removed fromthe lineage of Kyivan princes and rulers who today Russia attempts toappropriate as their own. The Britannica goes on to say that in 1382 orso Muscovy fell to the Mongols. Then it goes on to say a hundred yearslater: "While Moscow [Muscovy] was growing in importance in comparisonwith the rival dukedoms of Tver and Ryazan, the boyars and other "men ofservice" came in crowds to serve the grand duke of all Russia [Rus'].The institutions of Moscow [Muscovy], which up to then resembled verymuch those of a large private estate, began to evolve into a system ofstate administration." The Britannica adds, "Ivan III's acquisitions ofNovgorod [I will come back to Novgorod in my next reply to anothercorrespondent who claimed it was always Russian] and Tver (1471 and 1485)enlarged Russian [meaning Muscovite) territory up to the limits ofsettlement of the Great Russian branch [Rus' proper?] of the nation andbrought Russia [Muscovy and the Principality of Muscovy] into directcontact with other countries."Note the multiplicity of changing meanings and plays on the word"Russia", referring to different nations, territories and peoplesinterchangeably and inaccurately. This is typical of the confusion PeterI intended when he renamed the Principality of Muscovy as Russia andMuscovites as Russian, to appropriate the distinct heritage of the Rus'based in Kyiv, not Muscovy.At a time when the Kyivan-Rus' empire had already flourished forcenturies before being overrun by the Golden Horde and had an organized"state" with full diplomatic relations with other European countriessuch as France, only in the 15th-16th centuries did Muscovy begin tofunction as a governmental nation, and according to the Britannica,establish wide-ranging normal diplomatic relations. Clearly if thePrincipality of Muscovy was successor to Kyivan-Ruce, it would not bebeginning to function as a nation-state so late in history beginning alineage of dukes with Nevsky in the 14th century, after there wasalready an empire of high-culture and diplomacy functioning centuriesbefore. Muscovy /Russia and Kyivan-Ruce are not the same entitygeopolitically nor culturally. Only the play on the spelling of "Rus'"remains similar and confusing by intent.Moreover, after Ivan Mazeppa tried to free Ukraine from Russia(Muscovites), he was defeated in 1709. His followers were cruellypersecuted and his resident city Baturyn was destroyed with shockingbrutality on the orders of Peter I, not even small children were spared.The same edition of Britannica, vol. 17, p. 639 further asserts of theTsar: "There are deeds of his which make humanity shudder, and no manequally great has ever descended to such depths of cruelty andtreachery." If Russia (here Muscovy which under Peter I changed the nameto Russia) was the same as Ukraine and came from Rus'-Ukraine, why thewar and the rank brutality? He was not fighting or persecuting his own,but an independent, distinct nation and people.That the formation of the Russian Orthodox church in later centurieslong after the founding and Christianization of Kyivan-Ruce-Ukraine, wasnot an outgrowth of Kyivan Ruce but instead an instrument used to commitethnocide and destroy Ukrainian churches, culture and people presentsthose who claim Rus'-Ukrainian ancestry for Russia with a dilemma as tohow Muscovy was an outgrowth of Kyivan Ruce when even the RussianOrthodox Church destroyed churches and monasteries, and subjugated thevery peoples from which it claims common origin, in order to forge apolitical and geographic connection and maintain Russian rule. In the20th century, the ROC continued to be a tool of russification. I referthe interested reader to search an issue of the 1986 CongressionalRecord (USA) wherein the 1986 report authored by the FBI admitted andexposed the role of the KGB in controlling the Russian Orthodox Church,and named ranking ROC heads and officials as KGB agents, used toundermine and control captive peoples and nations--don't debate thiswith me, these are not my accusations but official FBI findings.Hopefully all this has changed in the present decade, and is no longerthe case and the ROC in the CIS has joined her people in enjoyingfreedom to worship freely and preserve each host nation's ethnicity,language and culture.These peoples and tribes which became the Principality of Muscovy andlater Russia, and those of Kyivan Ruce which became Ukraine are bothdemonstrably distinct and separate from each other. What became thePrincipality of Muscovy and eventually Russia has no claim to KyivanRuce as a common cradle of Slavic brethren, three brotherly nations,ethnicity, origin or much else.So, while one correspondent here sees origins as a "minor problem", andanother gentlemen here calls it unfounded paranoia and invents straw-manarguments of global paranoia to ridicule objectors to falsehood withoutbeing able to argue facts, the fact remains that what a correspondenthere admits was a significant component of the documentary -- the artand culture of Kyivan Ruce -- in fact is as relevant to a program onRussian history and culture as is claiming Armenian or Georgian historyfor itself, or French or British for that matter. It's not a matter tobe dismissed as a political or sociocultural issue; the truthfulhistoricity of Kyivan Ruce which was represented as Russian, and theusurpation of another nation's and people's history as Russia is a veryserious issue indeed--undermining the foundation of claims andrepresentations the documentary makes.Now it is understandable that modern pro-Russian scholars wouldpropagate known errors, despite that matters of origins has already beenexplored by many historians including Drs. Chirovsky and Korchmaryk andtheir works are published. It is understandable that earnest educatorsand documentary producers might fall into error by reliance upon popularand most vocal historical sources and experts at diverse universities,the powerful Russian diaspora having invested heavily in promotingRussian studies. But once error and falsehood is discovered and moreoverproven, continuing to repeat the error is improper and not, in myopinion, the academically objective or moral course. Rather thanbringing such error into the classroom and to massive audiencesworld-wide, matters of due apology aside, there ought be a loyalty tohistorical and scholastic truth. The documentary ought be re-edited toclarify the truth or erroneous material discarded entirely otherwise.From this, the correspondents should be able to understand why somepeople either found offense or grave objection to the falsification ofthe truth and their legitimate heritage. To them, it was no "minorproblem", and it is certainly relevant to the issue and program content,for the correspondent himself admits that the purpose of the programincluded coverage of art and culture of Kyivan Ruce. The catch is, ofcourse, that Kyivan Ruce is demonstrably not, as claimed, an ancestor orprecursor to the Russian nation or people but comprised an ancestry ofmodern-day Ukraine, separate and distinct from that actually belongingto Muscovy, later renamed Russia--a deliberately flawed and misleadingplay on the name "Rus'" or "Ruce", intended by Peter I to confuse peoplewith the name, and appropriate wholesale an alien ancestry andethnicity. Since it became a massive orchestrated activity to writehistorical texts to reinforce the fiction as true, even to the extent ofrevising modern literature (Chaucer's recent reprints no longer use"Muscovy" as it appeared in his original work but "Russia", as anexample -- and Dr. Korchmaryk gave the example of the history of CharlesXII wherein subsequent editions changed all instances of Muscovy andreplaced these occurrences with "Russia". Curiously, the Britannicacensored much of the information presented in its 1962 edition insubsequent editions.It's not, as has been painted in this PBS electronic forum, a warsetting Russians and Ukrainians at each other as enemies. It ought beentirely a simple matter of all good men seeking and honoring thetruth--where ever it leads--and embracing and proclaiming it boldly andsteadfastly. It is a matter of what is right, not who is right. To manywho commented here negatively against the programme, it was not a matterof hostility, but genuine concern for the truth at a dangerous time inhistory when it seems truth does not seem to matter as much as it oncedid, even for the ancient Greeks or Hebrews. Can the correspondentsunderstand better now the concerns of some of those who have authoredobjections to the documentary as aired in this forum?If not, please read the two referenced research papers posted here, andpossibly available on the history page at http://pluto.njcc.com/~maxAs you can see, the history is a more complex matter than commonlyassumed, relatively few modern sources are accurate and to check these,one has to exercise commitment and check modern claims against the mostancient Chronicles -- the letopisy -- to make determinations independentof any funny business (itself documented) in the early 18th century andsubsequently. Even the Chronicles have been redacted and it is importantto go to the most ancient and unadulterated. Since two centuries ofrevisionism have become entrenched as academic truth, it is notsurprising that confusion exists even between scholars, and certainlyfor those who have not investigated for themselves and attempted toverify modern claims against the prime source materials, against whichthere is no refutation and which render any claims to the contrary ofwhat they record as literally unsubstantiated speculation and wishfulthinking -- and no more.----
Subject: Kievan Rus
From: Shelly Hewitt
Date: 03 Mar 1999 8:50 PM
I was overwhelmed by your comments on the misappropriation of Kievan Rus history by the Russian state. You have provoked some serious thinking on my part and a desire to go back and read over again what I have previously learned to be the beginnings of the Russian state. I am impressed by your scholarship, and even if you are ultimately proved to be wrong, I commend you for your strong stance based not on opinion or wishful thinking, but hard research. What you have to say about Kievan Rus piques my interest for personal reasons. All four of my grandparents emigrated to the U.S. from "Russia," precisely where I regret exceedingly that I do not know, except that my maternal grandmother was supposed to be from Kiev. When speaking of my ancestry with a professor of Russian history at the University of Pennsylvania, he gently informed me that my grandparents were not Russian at all, but Jewish. And so, naturally, my thoughts turn to, Who am I? What am I? I would be interested in any comments you might wish to make about this, as well as any further remarks on Ukraine's history and any readings you might suggest.