Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Support PBS Shop PBS Search PBS
Face of Russia Forums

Forum: Face of Russia

Topic: Stolen History of Ukraine
Posted By: Rostyslav Tsapyak
Date: 06 Jun 1998 2:03 PM

As usual Russians are stealing history of Ukraine.
Responses:


Subject: shame upon you
From: Rostyslav
Date: 06 Jun 1998 2:05 PM

Your site does not even mention Ukraine.However you did not hesitate you use Kiev, present Kyiv, talking abouthistory of Russia.As usual Russians are stealing history of Ukraine.Disrespectfully, Rostyslav

Subject: forward message
From: Rostyslav
Date: 06 Jun 1998 2:04 PM

Peter & Olga wrote:(Excerpt from PBS site): ... If ever there were a golden age for all the Eastern Slavs, it was in Kiev in the eleventh century, the time of Yaroslav the Wise. Helies buried in the Cathedral of the Holy Wisdom (St.Sophia) which he built as a great imitation of the cathedral in Constantinople, inwhich the Eastern Slavs had first been dazzled by the beauty of the Eastern Orthodox worship. The first native bishop, or metropolitan, Ilarion of Kiev, described the transformed new city of Kiev as a city glistening with holypictures, fragrant with incense, resonating with the beautiful heavenly music and the sounds of praise. Inheriting Orthodoxy as afinished culture from Byzantium, the Eastern Slavs believed their task was now to beautify rather than to analyze the faith. The new Russian converts took special joy in developing a theology basically of pictures rather than of words as in WesternChristendom. Yaroslav s new cathedral in Kiev was filled with shimmering Byzantine type mosaics. ..... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------Incredibly, the history Russian of territories continues to to subsume the history of Ukrainian territories, eventhough the two areas are nowadays recognized as separate states. In the exampled excerpt from the PBSsite, the term "Eastern Slav" slides into being equated with the term "Russian". The real problem is that the terms Russia and Rus' are all too easily confused by non-students of the area. One analogy which may be drawn for this phenomenon is that Russophiles have taken the position ofEvolutionists (ie. regarding the development of Eastern Europe as a continuum), while Ukrainophiles takethe position of Creationists (ie. belief that first Kievan Rus' was created, then Muscovy was created, thenModern Ukraine came into existence).

Subject: Series is flawed
From: Andrew R Melnyk
Date: 06 Jun 1998 5:46 PM

I must add my expression of disappointment to the historical misrepresentation in your series "The Face of Russia".

For far too long, the American public has been ignorant of Eastern European history and particularly the history of the Slavic people. This ignorance leads to miscalculations such as President Bush in Kyiv on the eve of the vote for independence, urging the Ukrainians to remain part of the Soviet Union. And I need not remind you about the ethnic problems in the Balkans or Caucases.

So while I commend PBS on your attempt to educate the public about the Eastern Slavs, unfortunately the (Dr. Billington?) history you presented is flawed and undermines the effort. Your use of the "Great Russian interpretation" of history, that, for example, equates Kyivan Rus' (you even use the term "Kievan Russia") with Russia misinforms the public about historical and ethnic realities in that part of the world.

Since I am of Ukrainian descent, lest I be accused of bias, let me quote Thomas S. Noonan, Professor of History, University of Minnesota:

"In short, several generations of North Americans have been indoctrinated to believe that East Slavic history was, in fact, Great Russian history. Ukraine and Ukrainians as well as Belarus and Belarusians are all seen through a Great Russian filter that often renders them invisible.

"Some will no doubt ask, 'What's wrong with the Great Russian approach to East Slavic history? Isn't Ukrainian and Belarusian history really encompassed within Great Russian history?' As a graduate student and then a young teacher, I became increasingly aware of the parochial bias of the Great Russian approach and more and more dissatisfied with its shortcomings. Leaving aside all ethnic and nationalistic feelings, we do a great disservice to our students and to the public in Canada and the United States as long as we continue to repeat the Great Russian approach. The truth is that this approach is not inclusive and ignores or marginalizes so many of the peoples of what is now European Russia. Informed citizens in our countries must understand that what is commonly called Russia always was and always has been a multi-ethnic state. They must realize that since the fall of the Soviet Union, old ethnic and national identities have come into the open once again and have become one of the primary forces in shaping current events. In fact, as we have seen in Chechnia and elsewhere, ethnic politics are often the dominant force. Consequently, responsible teachers trying to educate the public about Eastern Europe must make their students aware of the multi-ethnic history of this region since the early Middle Ages. Our students and our voters will not be able to voice intelligent opinions about policy toward the countries of the former Soviet Union if we allow them to be indoctrinated into the narrow and self-serving Great Russian approach."

(Remarks at the launching of the English translation of M. Hrushevsky's "History of Ukraine-Rus'", 18 September, 1997, Edmonton, Canada)

I hope that PBS, in its mission to educate the public, corrects this misinformation on the history of East Slavs. Let me suggest that the editors and serious students read Volume 1 of Hrushevsky's history which deals with the period from prehistory to the 11th century of Kyivan Rus'.

http://www.utoronto.ca/c ius/hrush1.html

This is an exhaustive scholarly work and could be the basis of an interesting PBS program in itself.

For those interested in more readable English-language histories of Rus' and the Ukrainian people, let me recommend two recent books:

Subtelny's book is considered the definitive English-language history while Magoci's book has an excellent treatment of the various ethnic minorities in that region. You can find these and other history books as well as on line ordering information at:

http://www.inf oukes.com/bookstore/amazon/#history

Sincerely
Andrew R Melnyk



Subject: History
From: Karen Zill
Date: 06 Jun 1998 3:26 PM

Message:I would like to respond to those who have written about historical inaccuracies in The Face ofRussia television programs and Web site. The East Slavs who were Christianized in the 10thcentury A.D. were neither Russians, Ukrainians, nor Belarusans, but the common ancestors ofthose 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: Historical names
From: Andrei Kokov
Date: 07 Jul 1998 10:38 AM

Indeed, there is no clear name in English for the Eastern Slavs acting in the history some 1100-800 years ago. Definitely those were not Ukrainians nore Russians. Consider the people called Russ, Rusi (in English, 'Ruses') who had set up the dynasty of Rurikovich: those were not Slavs but "variagi", what comes from old Swedish name for the Viking warriors who made money as mercenaries (sounded somewhat like "vaerringar"). This explains the peculiarity of the word "russkii" (Russian), which is not a common substatntive form of nationality name used in Russia ("grek", "tatarin", "finn", "bolgarin", "armianin") but exists in mood of an adjective (the suffix "-skii" means 'which?', 'what kind of', 'where from?') and means better "belonging to Ruses" or "being a tax-payer of Ruses" than names the entity. Moreover, most of the modern Russians living to the north and east from Moscow descend from Slavonic interbreeding with various aboriginal people (Baltic, Finnish and Ugrian tribes) and closest neighbours (Tatars) - some of these nations are almost absorbed by now (as Veps or Permyaks), others are still existing as self-supporting (Mordva, Mari, Karelians) and even growing ethnic groups (Komi, Udmurts, Tatars). Anyways, all these nations together are still forming "Russians", especially in the eyes of western people, who probably still think Stalin (a Georgian) or Trotski (a Jew) to be typical Russians, while even Gorbachov, descendant from strongly tied with Ukraine cossack region in the south of Russia, didn't speak proper Russian, and that was one point why he wasn't accepted as "own man" on the territories from St.Petersburg to the edges of Siberia! :-) Furthermore, there were other ethnic groups influencing Russians during tsarist and soviet time - e.g. Jews, Germans, Ukrainians and various nations of Caucasis. That means, linguistically modern Russians are Slavs, but their genetical codes and behaviourist models vary considerabely within the nation and don't match any more with those ones of Ukrainians and other "more pure" Slavs. In that point of view, to get the idea more clear, think about Americans: speaking a version of English, are they an Anglo-Saxonic nation any more? Are they easily identified with modern Englishmen and Scotts? And it is not so long ago their ancestors left Britain! :-)

Subject: Response to Andrei Kokov's message
From: David
Date: 07 Jul 1998 5:13 AM

Certainly one of the best posts I've read so far. (It is so sad to see some Ukrainians, whose country was for so long denied its identity, now trying to do it to others.)

But! What does it mean "more pure Slavs"? Ukraine since ancient times has been populated by Tatars, Jews, Germans, Hungarians, Ruthenians, Poles, Russians, etc. If one looks into really ancient history, one finds Scythians, Ugro-Finish, Turkic, Sarmatian, possibly Indo-Iranian and finally Viking people all over the territory of modern Ukraine.

And why are genetical codes and behaviourist models so quickly dumped together? I hope you are not suggesting that these are related. Plus, Mordva, Mari, Karelians, Jews, Germans and others of Russia do not consider themselves Russian by nationality, even if Americans think they are. (Or if anyone ever tries, they will be quickly and rudely reminded.)

I think that in order to look at the behaviorist models of Russia one needs to look at its history and art. Which is what the series tries to do.

Best
David


Subject: Re: to David
From: Andrei Kokov
Date: 07 Jul 1998 3:02 AM

David, thank you for expertised reply. I quite agree with you - what was said of "more pure Slavs" I tried to refer to the Ukrainian claims that Russians are descending not from Rus' but some "nasty" Moscowites and various Finno-ugric tribes. As I am patriot of my native Vologda land (as old as Moscow and originally inhabited fith Finnish and Baltic people) and grew up in Soviet era but in a spirit of Novgorod-related tradition, I also would like to say that Moscowites are not representing Russia or it's face. But they still, in fact, are ruling Russia - and own 70% of all the money of the country, which is abnormal situation.If you are able to communicate in Russian, send me e-mail, so I can give you some interesting website addresses of Russian net.

Subject: HISTORY OF THE UKRAINE-RUSSIA RELATIONS
From: Eugenius
Date: 06 Jun 1998 4:41 PM

HISTORY OF THE UKRAINE-RUSSIA RELATIONS

The word UKRAINA (todaysname of the country) appeared in 12th century. The meaning of theword is "the-inner-country", and has described the inner territoriesof the Ukrainian empire Kyiv Rus ' (8th-13th century) withoutcolonies. One of the colonized territories was Moscovia. Moscow(Moskva) itself was founded in 12th century as one of the outwardposts of the empire deep in the forests occupied by nativeFinno-Ugric tribes, the ancestors of the most modern Russians (80%of the topographic names in the modern central Russia have theFinno-Ugric roots including the name of the Moskva-river that means"the dirty water"). After separation from Rus' in 13th century theterritory of Moscovia became a part of Tatar-Mongol empire - theGolden Horde.

Moscovia and Rus' were never identical (even in the medieval Moscowdocuments this difference was made) untill Tsar of Moscovia Peter Idecided to establish the empire and to redirect Moscovia expantion tothe West. He brought European manners to Moscovia by force andstarted an active Europe-oriented Moscow policy. He tried, as hecalled it, "to hack out the window to Europe" by conducting the GreatNorthern War (1700-1721) against Sweden and constructing the newcapital-city of the future empire - St.Petersburg (1703). But herealized that the "gate to Europe" for Moscovia is situated inUkraine that always was in the European political, cultural andeconomical development context. That is why Tsar Peter has chosen thepolicy of liquidation of Ukrainian independence. But not only that.He decided to take the history of old Ukrainian empire Kyiv Rus'which was famous in Europe. In 1721 Peter I gave the Moscovite statea new name: Rossiya (Engl. Russia), and proclaimed: "now theMoscovite people will be called the Russian people!" He proclaimedalso that Ukraine now is only a province of Moscovia. All theMoscovite rulers that came afterwards have repeated after himincluding Soviet official history and KGB. They also brought to lifean anti-scientific theory that Ukrainian language is nothing more buta dialect (!) of Russian, however about 70% of Ukrainian vocabularyand the pronunciation are different from Russian. One with theRussian native tongue can't understand Ukrainian.

Now as a result of Moscow propaganda the most of the Westernhistorians repeat this myth and the World thinks that there is andthere was no other peoples and states in Eastern Europe exceptRussian (Moscovite), however the facts are proving that this conceptis totally untrue...


Subject: Shame on PBS
From: Dan Korolyshyn
Date: 06 Jun 1998 6:46 PM

I am a strong supporter and sponsor of PBS and find it very odious that PBS did not do a better job of checking out the credibility and veracity of the material in the "Face of Russia" program. It is unconscionable that 7 years after Ukrainian independence PBS and unscrupulous scholars still attribute the medieval history of Ukraine to Ukraine's former colonial master, a master that committed one of the most heinous crimes against humanity against Ukraine's people in a Genocidal Famine during the early thirties. PBS and the authors of "Face of Russia" owe the Ukrainian nation an apology for acting as collaborators in the continued effort by Ukraine's former occupier in robbing Ukraine of her glorious history.Dan K.

Subject: Russia and Soviet Union
From: Vitaliy Tikhomirov
Date: 07 Jul 1999 10:57 PM

In the thirties Russia already did not exist, or existed as the Soviet Republic Russia, what is not the same as pre-Revolutionary Rossia or post-Communism Rossia. Don't cry. Nobody wants to conquer you. It looks like you want to make Ukrain a NATO's forpost against Russia. I very doubt that you will get significant money for that mission. Or, maybe, you make money in an American or Canadian university lying on Russia? I have met such "historians."

Subject: Ja ja ja
From: Srboslav
Date: 07 Jul 2002 6:17 PM

I love you all people!This is just like I'm reading comments on the news on some Serbian site.Same is going on between folks in former Yugoslavia.Just like woman said,to hell with it,who cares.Sure they gonna teach they kids what they wantand how they wont.First you win the war,than you write some history.Before you do so, rest of us will take name "Ukraine" for what it really is-outskirts of Russia.By the way if it wasn't for those "kid eating Russians" parts now knownas Ukraine would be something as Afghanistan is.Done by Turks,Mongolsand so on and than abounded by everyone.Maybe in that case, people over there would be dying from food overdose.Or again if Hitler took over, theywould serve Jews and Africans for dinner.You see,20 million Russians dieto make sure that don't happen.I'm not saying I would like to se them rule Serbia,but as a Slav can't deny,they are greatest of us all.

Subject: Germans in the Ukraine
From: Chris Kauhi
Date: 06 Jun 1998 10:16 PM

And then there were the Germans who settled the Ukraine, brought in by Catherine the Great in 1767. Starvation also decimated these people in the 1930's--Stalin's work again.

Subject: History and Nationality
From: Nathaniel Knight
Date: 06 Jun 1998 12:42 AM

I would like to add a word of support to Karen Zill and the creators of Face of Russia. While there might have been some mention of Ukraine as the modern state occupying the territory of Kievan Rus' the notion that Russians are somehow "stealing" Ukrainian history is ludicrous. As Ms. Zill correctly points out, it is ahistorical to project modern-day nationhood back onto a state and society existing 1000 year ago--especially when this is done specifically to attach its history legacy to some nations and deny it to others. The most we can say is that the modern Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian peoples all have historical roots in the early medieval polity of Kievan Rus'. To those who would deny the historical connection between the Kievan and Muscovite state, I would make the following points: 1) Dynastic continuity. Can anyone deny that the dynasty that ruled Moscovy up until the end of the 16th century was made up of direct descendants of the princes of Kievan Rus'? There's a larger point here--when we talk about Kievan Rus' in the context of Russian history we are talking about Russia as a state--a multinational political entity--and not as an ethnic nation. The two are definitely not the same thing. 2) In the discussion in response to Faces of Russia, much has been said about Moscow and Kiev. But there is another city which is perhaps more relevant--Novgorod. If Kievan Rus' was an exclusively "Ukrainian" polity, what was Yaroslavl the Wise--arguably the greatest Ruler of the Kievan state doing ruling in Novgorod--a city that no one attempts to claim was Ukrainian? In fact the system of succession in Kievan Rus' required that Princes rule a variety of cities before attaining the highest position of Grand Prince. Therefore it would seem very unlikely that any notion existed of a discrete "Ukrainian" territory separate from the larger expanse of "russkaia zemlia". 3) Finally, there is the issue of religion and the role of the Orthodox Church. If there is anyone to blame for Russians "stealing" Ukrainian history is it the medieval monks who uniformly inserted the Kievan primary chronicle at the head of their local chronicles. Thus the notion of Kievan origins was an integral part of historical consciousness throughout the Eastern Slavic territory. Moreover, the common religious culture provided by orthodoxy was a far stronger unifying factor than any notions of primordial "Ukrainian" nationhood. In fact most historians would agree that nationhood in the sense that we know it now was a product of the 18th and early 19th century and attempts to project modern nationality back into earlier periods are almost uniformly tendentious and ahistorical.Nathaniel KnightPS. I'd very much like to visit Kiyv. It's on my list right after Fiorenzio, Roma, Munchen, Bruge and, of course, Moskva.

Subject: History and nationality
From: Peter Bejger
Date: 06 Jun 1998 12:00 PM

I absolutely agree with Nathaniel Knight when he states it is "uniformly tendentious and ahistorical to project nationality back into an earlier period." For this is exactly what most Russian historians have been doing for centuries when they appropriated the legacy of Kievan Rusfor their EXCLUSIVE use in the creation of the Russian national myth. Knight also dismisses the notion of a primordial (his quotes) "Ukrainian" nationhood. As an American who has lived for the past six years in Kyiv (the "politically correct" spelling now, by the way), I can confidently state that most thoughtful Ukrainians do not assert a selfish claim to the history of Kievan Rus. They very much challenge however any overbearing claims by their northern neighbors. Remember, Western European history is also very messy with ethnic nations merging and de-merging but objective scholars have nonetheless delineated the roles of dynastic continuity, religion, and culture. The English and the French, and the French and the Germans also for centuries shared amorphous political arrangements and cultural spheres. (Is Charlemagne French or German?) But at the end of the day three distinct primoridal nationhoods co-existed. And yes, it was a "primordial nationhood" stretching back to Kievan Rus that propelled over 90% of the Ukrainian electorate to vote for independence in 199l--despite centuries of efforts by Russian and Soviet authorities to liquidate Ukrainian consciousness. I remember the incredulous faces of Russian newscasters on Moscow television reading these results. They were shocked because their national myth had been shattered.The emergence of Ukraine nullified Russian pan-Slavic illusions and pretensions to a historical role of a "Third Rome." Russians are now struggling to create a new national myth not based on empire. American historians and television producers should do them a favor by not perpetuating outmoded historical models.

Subject: Novgorod
From: Rostyslav
Date: 06 Jun 1998 6:27 PM

> If Kievan Rus' was an exclusively "Ukrainian" polity,> what was
Yaroslavl the Wise--arguably the greatest Ruler of the Kievan state
doing ruling in Novgorod--a city> that no one attempts to claim was
Ukrainian? In fact the system of succession in Kievan Rus' required
that> Princes rule a variety of cities before attaining the highest
position of Grand Prince.This would explain massive massacre of
Novgorod citizens by Moscovy tsar Ivan the Terrible.


Subject: Kyiv-Moskva
From: Daryl Bullis
Date: 07 Jul 1998 11:49 AM

I will begin to write Kyiv for Kiev when the American media starts using Moskva for Moscow. What's fair is fair.

Subject: Stolen History of Ukraine
From: Dan Korolyshyn
Date: 07 Jul 1998 12:32 PM

Nathaniel Knight's protestations notwithstanding, the hisory of Kyivan Rus belongs to Ukraine and not to Russia or Belarus, just as the history of the Roman Empire belongs primarily to Rome and Italy and not to Israel or Tunisia or Spain, nations and lands which the Romans ruled. Since independence Ukraine has begun to assert its claim as the sole successor state to Kyivan Rus just as Russia has asserted its claim to being the sole successor state to the Evil Empire. Since independence and the liberation of Kyiv from foreign domination, historians have begun to take a fresh look at the origins of Kyivan Rus and have begun to dispel some of the lies of past Russian regimes. Here is what some historians and reference sources have to say about the origins of the Russian people and about which nation is the primary heir to the history of Kyiv and Kyivan Rus.Some excerpts from Encarta 98: The new Encarta 98 Encyclopedia although still providing some confusion and old Russian chauvinistic influence (due primarily to reviewer Kurt E. Engelmann's, of the University of Washington, slanted reviewing of the entry on Russia) in that the entries on Kyivan Rus, are found in both thearticles in the Ukrainian and the Russian entries on history. Nevertheless, Kyivan Rus is no longer referred to as "Kievan Russia" and that is a small step forward. The articles also present a lot of good information orroborating that the ethnic roots of the Russian and Ukrainian people are very different indeed.Encarta clearly explains the great effect and importance that the Tatars had on the Russian psyche, culture, morals and society. Encarta states:"In addition to the havoc it created in Russia, the Mongol invasion was determinative in later Russian history. Tatar control destroyed the elements of self-government by representative assembly that had developed in some Russian cities, arrested the progress of industry and culture,and kept Russia more than two centuries behind the countries of western Europe. Tatar customs, law, and government made their influence felt."(This is exactly what the Russian historians Dmytryshyn and Florinsky have stated as well, see below.)"In 1246 Alexander succeeded his father as grand prince of Novgorod and in 1252 was invested by the khan as grand prince of Vladimir and Suzdal'. Most of the Russian princes followed Alexander's example, paying tribute and considering themselves vassals of the Tatar rule."Encarta continues that the population of Rus and Kyiv primarily moved WEST and not North at the time of the Mongol invasion of Rus as has been suggested by some chauvinistic Russian historians:"The region of Kiev was largely depopulated because of massacres and because much of the Russian (should of course say either Ukrainian or Rus) population had fled west to escape the Mongol advance."And Encarta continues, supporting the historical view that the Russians are a mix of Slavic and Finno-Ugric peoples, unlike the Ukrainians, who are a mix of various Slavic tribes as described in the Primary Chronicle."In northern Russia, the inhabitants became the principal group of Russian Slavs known as the Great Russians, modified principally by various branches of the Finno-Ugrian population." It should be noted that by far the largest component of the Russian people is Finno-Ugric and not Slavic as very clearly spelled out in the Primary Chronicle. Encarta later continues that as the Tatar rule collapsed, the Muscovites absorbed the Tatar lands and people and incorporated them into their country.The Russian want to continue this assimilation of Asian and Caucasian peoples despite the desire of these peoples to autonomy or outright independence as in the case of the Chechens.Although not a historian, Cardinal Liubachivsky is the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, a church which the Russian occupiers of Ukraine had claimed no longer existed. Prior to the celebration of the Christianization ofUkraine-Rus Cardinal Liubachivsky wrote a brief pamphlet refuting Moscow's shameless claim to Kyivan history and to the celebration of the millennium of Ukrainian Christianity in Moscow, a city which did not even exist in 988 AD.Liubachivsky wrote:"it is incorrect, on the grounds of similarity between the name Rus' and Russia to assume that the Kyivan Sate (Rus') was the birthplace of Russia. The Muscovite Principality (later Empire) entered the scene of East European history only in the 16th century. This young state was known as Muscovy, and its inhabitants as Muscovites - the real predecessors of today's Russia. They created the actual basis of the later Russian state. Racially, the Muscovites (later Russians), unlike the Rus'men (Ukrainians) are primarily from a Hungarian-Finnish descent with a strong mixture of Mongol blood. Moscow developed into a powerful political and military state and raised pretensions to hegemony in Eastern Europe. For this purpose, it came forward as the alleged "heir" of the old-Ukrainian Kyivan State, and accepted, in a changed form, the name Rus', which was still the official name of Ukraine."He later continues, "Throughout the centuries Russia has tried to make the world believe that Ukrainians are merely the "younger brothers" of the Russians, whose history and culture are simply a "marginal aspect" of Russian history and culture, by asserting itself as the "heir" of the Kyivan State and its Church. But, inspite of what the Russian Orthodox Church and the Soviet Russian authorities would have us believe, 1988 will see the Millennium of Christianity in Ukraine, and it is the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian Church (with its two denominations - the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church), the true descendants of Kyivan Rus' who will be celebrating this great event of monumental national and religious significance to which Russia has no rightful claim."The historian Florinsky writes on page 151 of his "Russia a History and an Interpretation", "Taken as a whole, the cultural achievements of Russia in the second half of the fifteenth century were humble even when measured by the standards of time. One must not forget that the unification of the country under the rule of Moscow took place almost 150 years after Dante wrote the Divine Comedy. The Mongol domination alone does not fully account for this unhappy state of affairs, although the generally disturbed conditions during this period hindered cultural progress. The chief educational agency was the Church. It was the Church that introduced literacy, created the early Russian literature, assumed the task of instructing the nation in the principles of Christianity, contributed to the advancement of arts and sciences. These commendable endeavors, unfortunately, were not only conducted on a modest scale, for which the Church was not alone to be blamed, but they were also accompanied by policies that could not but hamper cultural progress. Intransigence and hostility to every manifestation of national genius the moment it infringed upon the sacrosanct orthodox tradition exercised their deadening effect in every field of artistic or literary activity. The mass of the lower clergy and the vast majority of the leaders of the Church were hardly qualified for the task that confronted them. The consequence was that five hundred years after its conversion to Christianity Russia remained illiterate almost to a man and, at heart, largely pagan. Golubinsky speaks of Russia's "tiny and peculiar culture (prosviashchenie)" on the eve of the Mongol invasion. In the next two hundred years the situation was not improved." On page 127 Florinsky writes, "Information as to the form that his missionary zeal took is scarce, but there is little doubt that methods other than those of persuasion were freely used. The effective preaching of the Christian doctrine was an impossibility not only because its dogma was beyond the grasp of the Russian masses but also for the reason that there was no one to explain the new creed to a bewildered population. All the higher clergy and, in the early days, some of the lower clergy were Greeks, and their command of the Russian language, if they knew it at all, was inadequate. The number of clergy, at the time the Christian religion was introduced, was far too small. The progress of Christianity was slow. Centuries passed before it reached the remote corners of the ever expanding realm, and the process has not been completed to this day. What Vladimir's missionaries could not achieve by persuasion and eloquence they succeeded in imposing by force, at least in the most important centers. The horrified Russians saw the effigies of their pagan gods pulled down and destroyed. There was much resistance, which sometimes, as in Novgorod, developed into uprisings against the crusaders. Some of the people accepted the new faith because they recognized its superiority, but there were many who merely bowed to the inevitable and became Christians in name, against their will and convictions. In Russia, as in so many other countries, the religion of brotherly love was imposed by fire and sword. The inevitable result was that in the early centuries Russia's conversion to Christianity was nominal. When in the eighties of the eleventh century the bishop of Novgorod, challenged by a pagan magician, asked the people to choose between their former gods and the religion of Christ, the good citizens of the "free city' went as one man to the magician's side, and only the prince and his immediate entourage took the side of the bishop. This revealing incident occurred in one of Russia's greatest commercial cities almost one hundred years after its official conversion to Christianity. Old beliefs and old religious loyalties were still very much alive behind the official acceptance of a faith the meaning of which only a few understood and which had been imposed by government fiat." The Rus may have built churches in Northern Rus, and they may have sent missionaries,but they apparently did not change their hearts. So we see that Kyiv did not have as muchinfluence on the people of Northern Rus as some Russians would like to believe.The Mongols arguably had more.Dmytryshyn on p. 123 in his book "A History of Russian" says the following:"Perhaps the most permanent legacy of Mongol domination was in language, for the Russians borrowed thousands of words from the Mongol and Turkic vocabulary. Another legacy, one that continued into early 18th century, was the style of clothing of the upper classes and the practice of secluding women in the terem.From the Mongol practices the Muscovites appropriated many features of government and justice, including the character of absolute government, the custom of prostration, servile submission, the liberal use of the death penalty, and unspeakable forms of torture. The Muscovites also patterned their armies after the Mongols, and adopted both their system of universal conscription and their fighting tactics."Most recently, Prof. John Haywood PhD, has just has his "Atlas of World History" published. This is a great book which shows how the various nations and peoples migrated during the course of time. It also very clearly shows where the Slavic people first originated and how they migrated out into the world. The Slavs sometimes displaced other nations, sometimes moved into desolate lands and sometimes merged with other nations as did the Russians. In fact the Russians are still trying to absorb the non-Russians nations in the Russian Federation, but somelike the Tatars and Chechens are strongly resisting either demanding autonomy or outright independence. So what we see here, is that although Rus had some influence on the people of its northern territories, in that they were introduced to Christianity and had a Slavic language imposed on them, the subsequent rule of the northern Rus territories under the Mongols had arguably a far greater effect on the cultural development of the Muscovite and Russian people. The Russian people not only have a different ethnic background than the Ukrainians but their cultural roots are also very different. For centuries the Russians have tried to impose on the Ukrainians the notion that they were the Ukrainians big brother, but it turns out in fact that if they were to be brothers, then the Russians would have to take their place as the little brother, but indeed history tells us that they are not brothers at all, they are not even distant cousins. It was for this reason that during the soviet Russian occupation of Ukraine Ukraine's historians were not published including the "Primary Chronicle" of Kyivan Rus. When I was in Ukraine during the occupation I tried very hard to find a copy of the "Primary Chronicle"and even had Ukrainian friends try to find it for me, to no avail. Today in Free Ukraine it is in print as is Hrushevsky and many other Ukrainian historians. Now that Ukraine is a free and independent nation once again, Ukraine slowly regaining its history, language and culture once so brutally suppressed by the past occupying Russian regimes.

Subject: 77
From: A. Sh.
Date: 06 Jun 1998 5:41 PM

EURASIAN PROJECT Among political elite there are two clear orientatoins in Ukraine today - Western (Atlantic) and Eastern (Moscow-Asian). We propose a newvector - eurasian. The crash of communism, the dissolution of the Soviet Empire, the unification of Germany6 neo-glofalist policy of the USA, EEC, Japan, "the beltof instability" from the Pacific Ouan to the atlantic make us to revise Eurasian importance and role in a new world order organisation in the 21stcentury. Eurasia historically and geographically includes: the Balkans, Middle-East, Ukraine, Belarus, Asia Minor, the Don, the North Caucasusand Iran. Eurasian Community is the unique formation, the first attempi to organice different forms of national sovereignty and consolidation ofcultural traditions. The Eurasian military-political and economic alliance within the Federative Republic of Jugoslevia, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Georgia,Azerbaijan, Iran, the Chechen Repulic of Ichkeria is already being a reality now. In the piture - Rumania6 Turkey, Greece, Albania, Belarus,Armenia, Thus, in the 21st century there could appear a new community on the political world policy. Today, the political and scientific elite of Russia takes desperate steps to elaberate a political, economic and political claims in new enviroment.Their attempt to represent Moscow-Asian Power as eurasian one, dies not bear any criticism. Even some lesders of the Turkic Lanquages organisations heirs of the Turki Cahanate which celebrates 1500 jears of its formation this year. We procud from the unity of Eurasian peoples wnich are able to coexist and understand each other. The geopolitical component of the idea isbased on a world polycentrism and integrity of Eurasia. The Eurasian idea is considered to be perspective and able to unite Eurasian peoles in asingle whole National traditions, inner wealth and using of the world economic experience make up the foundation of the Eurasian economy. Thebase of the national conscieusness are the orthodoxy and islam wnich have kept their originality and spiritual traditions in the region. The EurasianCommunity cannot exist as a saerce of raw materials and a market of law-quality goods for a long time. The Eurasian countries should changetheir economic strueture for the benefit of modern seience-intensive industries, social sphere, competitive environmeent in economy; create amodern model of personal and social consumption. In the 21st century, the policy comerning technical progress and technologies must be orientedto the man`s needs. The Eurasian Community should carry out a new approach as for technology deveelopment. Besidees it, the question is about takes en ecologyfield. It`s neussary to put in raw material takes, imluding energy supply sources taxees, in order to inerease them that will result in saving naturalresourees. We propose: 1. The goverments of Eurasian countries to enter into the economic, political, military alliance. 2. The goverments of Eurasian countries, political organisations, including informal, commercial, financiul structures, scientists to think of the petureof Eurasian Project. 3. To establish new forms of administration, to open in Kyiv, Ankara, Teheeran Eurasian political universities for training political elites. 4. To hold regular meetings of the Heads of the States, the Governments, political leaders, scienticts of Eurasia on problem solving. Kyiv.

Subject: Face of Russia as a misrepresentation of history
From: Prof. Volodymyr IVANENKO
Date: 07 Jul 1998 12:50 PM

The Face of Russia is a great example of how some "experts" misrepresent history. The author does not even understand that he mixes very different notions [categories]: [Kyivan]Rus' (a.k.a. Ukraina) and Russia, Rus'ky (a.k.a. Ukrainian) and Russian. There was no thename Russia until the 18th century. Before the 18th century there was a nation known as theMoscovites. Transformation of the Moscovites into Russians began under the Mongols whowithin more than 250 years cardinally changed the Moscovites - by intergrating themselves foralmost fifteen generations with the Moscovites, the Mongols started in Eastern Europe a newnation in essence: such as a Slavic language speaking population with the Mongol mentality.Along with Moscow's expanding power came the need to rationalize it. Because of endemicinternal conflicts within the Mongols' empire, predominance of the Slavic language population,and the Orthodox Christian orientation in religion (the Mongols' language and faith policy wastolerant enough not to destroy the language and religiousness of the Moscovites) the GoldenHorde's doctrine was unacceptable any longer. Therefore, the so-called Third Rome doctrinewas formulated. It proclaimed that Moscow was destined to be the third permanent, holy anduniversal empire with orientation on the West. That is why tsar Ivan III of Moscow began to titlehimself as "sovereign of all Rus'" and to claim that all the lands that were once of Kyivan Rus'should now belong to Moscow. That idea came into being 250 years later - in the 18th century:during the reign of Pyotr [Peter] I Moscow completed in general the annexation of new territoriesto the Moscovite kingdom and proclaimed existance of the so-called Russian Empire. After thatthe Russians went to the East and South to "voluntarily" annex new and new territories. In thenext more than 250 years this empire (a.k.a. the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation in the20th century) became the most powerful in the world: even now without many of its formersatellites and political strength, the Russian Empire still remains very strong thanks its emperialmentality. It was tsar Pyotr [Peter] I of Moscow who created these artificial names: Russia andRussians. It was tsar Pyotr [Peter] I of Moscow who misappropriated to the Russian Empire andRussians the history that belongs to the very different nation - Kyivan Rus' (now known asUkraina)etc. The Ukrainian history was proclaimed as a fundamental part of Russian history.That is why it is historically incorrect to use notions (categories) Russia and Russians in writingof Eastern European history before 18th century. Unfortunately, non-Russian historians followthe Russian concept step by step. They say that it is more convenient for them. They do not careabout the History. It is time to change their mind. Sincerely, Prof. Volodymyr IVANENKO.Graduated from Moscow State University, Russia (1970). Professor at Kyiv State University,Ukraina (1974 - 1991). Expert in Ethnopsychology and the Ukrainian studies.

Subject: you're kidding. Right? Since when was Kiev
From: mamus
Date: 12 Dec 1999 11:36 PM

I was quite displeased and disgusted looking at the interactive timeline. When I was a child,I learned all about the early history of Ukraine. It made me quite proud.It is as if everything I learned was rewritten. A shame. I wish there would some resolutionto this Ukraine/Russian dilemma once and for all. It is Ukrainian history, correct?jm

Subject: Oh no! Ukrainian shauvinism. Again...
From: Victor
Date: 09 Sep 2001 3:45 PM

I'm bored of ukrainian shauvinism.Ukrainians and Russians have united history.Difference between Ukr. and Rus. :Ukr. were under strong influence of Poland and Lithuania

Subject: You are a ****
From: Max
Date: 05 May 2002 9:09 PM

My English not so good, I just moved to USA two month ago.I am only 18 and already know more about Ukrainian and Russian history then most of you. I am very embarrassed and disappointed of how primitively you all think and accept information. You cannot understand movie from watching last few minutes of it. You must go to the ruts, to the beginning, to the end of the last ice age. Take a good look at the old bible, preferably written in the Middle Ages or at least before 1915 (do not interpret it words in words) Look at the first nations and their names! Fined out who where Aries (Not the nazi ideology), and what a great impact they had on the world and mainly our ancient Ukrainian ruts, look at Schoomers, Gothy, Tripoly, Sckifs and more, more and more. Also look at Ancient Egypt and Rome as we have connection to it, especially Russians. Fined out about Arian Belt. Pay attention to ancient wars but try to look on them from different perspective, (forget about gold and rewords in those times)I know and learned so many things that just impossible to fined in books. Just ask and search! Forget about the information on the net as 98% of it is all just a s***. My biggest source of information on Ukraine and Russian and the world in all comes from Tibet, as information there was untouched for hundreds of years and uncorrupt by “Evil”. Information there was written by clean souls and minds that were uninfluenced by dark world out side. My quest started when I got my hands on ancient Tibetan scrolls about Skiffs, and THE Scroll that described pilgrimage, yes pilgrimage of Tibetan priests to a place where today’s city Kiev stands! My first question was “What the f*** Tibetan priests were doing on our territory?” I returned this scrolls to their rightful place, and by today I already visited Tibet 7 times and was in 2onasteries that no other man from our world visited, I learned so many that it still hard for me to comprehend it all. It is amazing that many Tibet priests in those monasteries speak perfect Ukrainian even better then I do. No wonder they call Ukraine “Pearl of the ancient world”. I hope this will make you look in another way then the traditional. “I'm bored of ukrainian shauvinism. Ukrainians and Russians have united history. Difference between Ukr. and Rus. : Ukr. were under strong influence of Poland and Lithuania” Victor you are a fucking idiot that’s all I have to say.It hearts me a lot to see how few people realize the entire picture and importance of the people that lived on today’s Ukrainian territory.

Subject: What up
From: Srboslav
Date: 07 Jul 2002 6:12 PM

I love you all people!This is just like I'm reading comments on the news on some Serbian site.Same is going on between folks in former Yugoslavia.Just like woman said,to hell with it,who cares.Sure they gonna teach they kids what they wantand how they wont.First you win the war,than you write some history.Before you do so, rest of us will take name "Ukraine" for what it really is-outskirts of Russia.By the way if it wasn't for those "kid eating Russians" parts now knownas Ukraine would be something as Afghanistan is.Done by Turks,Mongolsand so on and than abounded by everyone.Maybe in that case, people over there would be dying from food overdose.Or again if Hitler took over, theywould serve Jews and Africans for dinner.You see,20 million Russians dieto make sure that don't happen.I'm not saying I would like to se them rule Serbia,but as a Slav can't deny,they are greatest of us all.

Subject: oh no
From: Ryan
Date: 11 Nov 2002 10:11 AM

get a life