the Ukraine and Crimea
Dragon Fly
>: KOPO...@newcom.kiae.su wrote:
>
>: > 2. there is no valid reason why should Russians in Crimea be
>: > forced to live under Turko-Okrainians, and not to execise
>: > the same right for self-determination which allowed Ukrainians
>: > to secceed from xUSSR (thus saving Russians from their presence).
>
> "Turko-Okrainians?" Could someone fill me in on the chapter of
> early ethnic history I'm missing? I mean, even "Turko-Ukrainian?"
Actually "ukrainian" is just a misspelling of Russian "okrainian"
(from "okraina" which means "outskirts", shithole in other words).
Russians in Kiev, Suzdal, Vladimir Rus[es] used to call "okrainians"
the nomadic Turkish tribes who settled on the territory of present-day
Okraina ("The Ukraine" in English) in 8-10th centuries. Most numerous
of those Turkish tribes were Khazars, Pechenegs, Polovets. You may check
the articles "Pechenegs" and "Khazars" in Encyclopedia Britannica.
Later those Turko-Okrainians were forcefully converted
to [Orthodox] Christianity by Russians (on the north and east)
and to Papism by Poles on the west. Later as well, Russian imperial
and even later - Soviet communist propaganda tried to make an air
that "ukrainians" are Slavic people close to Russians to justify
the "union" between Turko-Okraine and Russia. In fact,
"ukrainians" are Turks who are no closer to Russians then
Albanians.
Cordially,
Dragon
Dan K.
> >: > 2. there is no valid reason why should Russians in Crimea be
> >: > forced to live under Turko-Okrainians, and not to execise
> >: > the same right for self-determination which allowed Ukrainians
> >: > to secceed from xUSSR (thus saving Russians from their presence).
> > "Turko-Okrainians?" Could someone fill me in on the chapter of
> > early ethnic history I'm missing? I mean, even "Turko-Ukrainian?"
> Actually "ukrainian" is just a misspelling of Russian "okrainian"
>In fact, "ukrainians" are Turks who are no closer to Russians then
> Albanians. Cordially, Dragon
Michael,
If you have been reading the posts here you have noticed that the individual
who calls himself Dragon is dedicated to besmirch everything Ukrainian. What
he is right about is that Ukrainians and Russians are very different
ethnically. When Ukraine was known as Rus and was the center of the ancient
Slavic Empire known as Kyivan Rus, which today is acknowledged even by
scholars in the West as the first Ukrainian state, the people who populated
what is today Russia were various Finno-Ugric tribes interspersed with some
Slavic tribes and some, predominantly Swedish, Vikings known to the Slavs as
Variahs. The area around Kyiv was known as Rus and was the homeland of the
Slavic tribe Poliany. The vikings together with the Poliany created the
state of Kyivan Rus by conquering all of the tribes, primarily Slavic and
Finno-Ugric, on the territory in their domain. The Finno-Ugric tribes
together with the Slavic tribes of the area in what is now European Russia
became what is today the Russian nation under the Mongol Empire after the
fall of Kyivan Rus in 1240 AD. The Ukrainian nation grew out of the remnants
of the Poliany from Rus and the other indigenous tribes of the territory of
what is now called Ukraine. Much of the land in central Ukraine was
depopulated after the Mongol invasion and the majority of the Ukrainian
population was centered in the Western areas known as Halychyna and Volyn'.
The Belarusyns, to my knowledge, are the same indigenous Slavic people who
have always lived in the area known as Belarus. While the Russians and
Belarusyns can claim to have been influenced by Kyivan Rus when they were
under Kyiv's control. The Russians can no more claim the history of Kyivan
Rus for themselves than they can claim the history of the Mongols just
because they were under Mongol domination for hundreds of years and have a
good deal of Mongol culture and Mongol blood in their veins. It is time for
the Russians to seek the roots of their ethnicity and culture in their own
geographical area and cease from trying to claim the identities of their
neighbors.
Regards, Dan K.
H. M. Hubey
>of those Turkish tribes were Khazars, Pechenegs, Polovets. You may check
>the articles "Pechenegs" and "Khazars" in Encyclopedia Britannica.
>Later those Turko-Okrainians were forcefully converted
>to [Orthodox] Christianity by Russians (on the north and east)
Khazars were not converted to anything except Judaism.
Polovtsi/KUman/Kipchaks were both Christian and Muslim.
The Pechenegs were practically wiped out by the Byzantines in
concert with Bulgars.
--
Regards, Mark
Those who speak don't know. Those who know won't speak.
http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey hu...@pegasus.montclair.edu
dragon_fly
You betrayed yourself, you the Tchurka.
"Kyivan Rus" ceased to exist 200 years before the date you gave above.
What remained after disintegration of Kiev Rus (which happened in 11th
century, not in 13th as you thought) was a small and insignificant
principality at the mercy of more powerfull and prosperous Russian
princes of Novgorod, Suzdal and Vladimir.
You really amuse us with your ignorance.
Which shows you indeed are the Ukrainian.
Cordially,
Dragon
AM
Roman Voronka
>Dragon Fly wrote:
>
>> From: pei...@ac.wfu.edu (Michael Peil) :
>> >: KOPO...@newcom.kiae.su wrote:
>
>> >: > 2. there is no valid reason why should Russians in Crimea be
>> >: > forced to live under Turko-Okrainians, and not to execise
>> >: > the same right for self-determination which allowed Ukrainians
>> >: > to secceed from xUSSR (thus saving Russians from their presence).
I don't quite know why most people fail to understand the deep wisdom of
Dragon Fly's posts. Implicit in his statement (above) is
IN A REFERENDUM CONDUCTED SO AS TO ALLOW SELF-DETERMINATION,
52%
OF VOTERS IN KRYM, VOTED FOR INDEPENDENT UKRAINE
Eventually Krym may become an independent TATAR REPUBLIC. Kyiv is doing
much to help the Tatars return to their historical homeland.
yal...@ix.netcom.com
>Dragon Fly wrote:
>
>> From: pei...@ac.wfu.edu (Michael Peil) :
>> >: KOPO...@newcom.kiae.su wrote:
>> >: > 2. there is no valid reason why should Russians in Crimea be
>> >: > forced to live under Turko-Okrainians, and not to execise
>> >: > the same right for self-determination which allowed Ukrainians
>> >: > to secceed from xUSSR (thus saving Russians from their presence).
>> > "Turko-Okrainians?" Could someone fill me in on the chapter of
>> > early ethnic history I'm missing? I mean, even "Turko-Ukrainian?"
>> Actually "ukrainian" is just a misspelling of Russian "okrainian"
>>In fact, "ukrainians" are Turks who are no closer to Russians then
>> Albanians. Cordially, Dragon
>Michael,
>If you have been reading the posts here you have noticed that the individual
>who calls himself Dragon is dedicated to besmirch everything Ukrainian. What
>he is right about is that Ukrainians and Russians are very different
>ethnically. When Ukraine was known as Rus and was the center of the ancient
>Slavic Empire known as Kyivan Rus, which today is acknowledged even by
>scholars in the West as the first Ukrainian state, the people who populated
>what is today Russia were various Finno-Ugric tribes interspersed with some
>Slavic tribes and some, predominantly Swedish, Vikings known to the Slavs as
>Variahs. The area around Kyiv was known as Rus and was the homeland of the
>Slavic tribe Poliany. The vikings together with the Poliany created the
>state of Kyivan Rus by conquering all of the tribes, primarily Slavic and
>Finno-Ugric, on the territory in their domain. The Finno-Ugric tribes
>together with the Slavic tribes of the area in what is now European Russia
>became what is today the Russian nation under the Mongol Empire after the
>fall of Kyivan Rus in 1240 AD. The Ukrainian nation grew out of the remnants
>of the Poliany from Rus and the other indigenous tribes of the territory of
>what is now called Ukraine. Much of the land in central Ukraine was
>depopulated after the Mongol invasion and the majority of the Ukrainian
>population was centered in the Western areas known as Halychyna and Volyn'.
>The Belarusyns, to my knowledge, are the same indigenous Slavic people who
>have always lived in the area known as Belarus. While the Russians and
>Belarusyns can claim to have been influenced by Kyivan Rus when they were
>under Kyiv's control. The Russians can no more claim the history of Kyivan
>Rus for themselves than they can claim the history of the Mongols just
>because they were under Mongol domination for hundreds of years and have a
>good deal of Mongol culture and Mongol blood in their veins. It is time for
>the Russians to seek the roots of their ethnicity and culture in their own
>geographical area and cease from trying to claim the identities of their
>neighbors.
>Regards, Dan K.
>>>***Dan,my friend,you'll never learn that Crimea is and will be Russian,so all you nationalists can take your yellow-blue flag from it's territory and stick it where it belongs-your ass.
AM
>>>>***Dan,my friend,you'll never learn that Crimea is and will be Russian,so all you nationalists can take your yellow-blue flag fr=
om it's territory and stick it where it belongs-your ass. =
Take course in Geography, you son of a female dog (I did not want to offend poor
animal). Crimea IS Ukrainian.
Sincerly.
Dan K.
> Eventually Krym may become an independent TATAR REPUBLIC. Kyiv is doing
> much to help the Tatars return to their historical homeland.
Roman,
Personally I think that one of the few good things that the Russians did for
Ukraine under the Soviet Russian occupation was removing the Tatars out of
Crimea and sending that remnant of the Golden Horde that destryed Kyivan Rus
and wreaked such havoc in Ukraine during the 15th & 16th centuries back East
where they came from.
Rather than dragging the Tatars back they should settle the Ukrainians from
Chornobyl there and give them aid rather than that Mongol remnant.
Regards, Dan K.
GRycar
George
GRycar
Relative to the Tartars, I do not agree with you. What was
was and the forced evacuation by the Russians was not an admirable deed. I
am of the oppinion that Crimea is the Tartatrs homeland and that they have
a right to return to it.
Regards
George
Dan K.
> >Michael,
> >If you have been reading the posts here you have noticed that the individual who calls himself Dragon is dedicated to besmirch everything
Ukrainian. What
he is right about is that Ukrainians and Russians are very different
ethnically. When Ukraine was known as Rus and was the center of the ancient
Slavic Empire known as Kyivan Rus, which today is acknowledged even by
scholars in the West as the first Ukrainian state, the people who populated
what is today Russia were various Finno-Ugric tribes interspersed with some
Slavic tribes and some, predominantly Swedish, Vikings known to the Slavs as
Variahs. The area around Kyiv was known as Rus and was the homeland of the
Slavic tribe Poliany. The vikings together with the Poliany created the
state of Kyivan Rus by conquering all of the tribes, primarily Slavic and
Finno-Ugric, on the territory in their domain. The Finno-Ugric tribes
together with the Slavic tribes of the area in what is now European Russia
> >became what is today the Russian nation under the Mongol Empire after the
> >fall of Kyivan Rus in 1240 AD.
> You betrayed yourself, you the Tchurka.
> "Kyivan Rus" ceased to exist 200 years before the date you gave above. What remained after disintegration of Kiev Rus (which happened in 11th
century, not in 13th as you thought) was a small and insignificant
principality at the mercy of more powerfull and prosperous Russian
princes of Novgorod, Suzdal and Vladimir.
You really amuse us with your ignorance.
> Which shows you indeed are the Ukrainian.
> Cordially, Dragon
Yes, we know Dung Fly, you not only eat your own dung, you try to feed
it to others. Fortunately they see it for what it is and throw it
back in your dungy face.
Regards, Dan K.
Oscar Ugarriza
From all that I have read, Russia got the Crimea from the Crimean Tartars
and kept it until a few years ago when it was transferred to Ukraine.
It was never a part of Ukraine (even as part of the Tavrida gubernya, it
did not belong to a Ukraine that did not effectively become a nation
until the breakup of the USSR).
Oscar Ugarriza
leso...@gate.net
"KISS THE FROG, BABY!"
Ed Ponarin
> The Pechenegs were practically wiped out by the Byzantines in
> concert with Bulgars.
Pechenegs and other Oghuz people (who came to Desht-i-Qypchaq
before the Kipchak/Qypchaq people) were not completely wiped out.
Some of them survived on the right bank of the Dnieper River,
just to the south of Kiev. They are known in the Old Russian
chronicles as "Black Hats" ("Chernye klobuki"; cf. modern ethnonym
Qaraqalpaq), "Torki" (apparently, a Russian reflection of "TЭrk";
cf. Old Russian "Ozbjak" for Жzbek), and "Berendei". They were
traditional allies of the Kievan and, later, Galician princes. As
such, they were in constant warfare with the left-bank Chernigov
principality whose traditional nomadic allies were the Polovtsy
(Qypchaq people) who at some earlier point had pushed the Oghuz
people westward, beyond the Dnieper.
The data from the time immediately following the Mongol invasion
is very scarce. Yet it appears that the Qypchaq people, although
initially hostile to the Mongols, soon assimilated the invaders
and became the leading ethnic group (known as Tatars) in the Golden
Horde which was better known as the Qypchaq Khanate. Meanwhile,
the Oghuz people could no longer benefit from the alliance with
Galicia because the latter was forced to acknowledge the Mongol-
Qypchaq power and, later, became a Polish province. It is quite
possible that, as some people argue, they became "qazaq", belonging
neither to half-destroyed Russia, nor to the hostile Qypchaq
Khanate. Apparently Slavic Cossacks of Rjazan' are first mentioned
at 1446, and I believe Ukrainian Cossacks are known as a Slavic
group since the 16th century. But initially the Cossacks were
Turkic (probably Oghuz) people who were forced to "qazaqlamaq".
Some people also suggest that the modern Gagauz people living
in South-Western Ukraine and Moldova are the remnants of those
Pechenegs who were not Slavicized after the Mongol invasion. They
indeed spoke an Oghuz dialect which was closer to Osmanly Turkish
than to the numerous Tatar (Qypchaq) dialects.
--
Ed Ponarin -- Эдуард Понарин
e...@umich.edu
Don't even dare to think that my employer endorses these opinions!
KHYAZb TEMHOTbI.
yes yes yes yes yes yes absolutly right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
************************************************************************
VASSILI
KHYAZb TEMHOTbI
************************************************************************
---
<a href="mailto:vas...@bwalk.dm.com">KHYAZb TEMHOTbI.</a>
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Dan Korolev
>From: pei...@ac.wfu.edu (Michael Peil) :
>>: KOPO...@newcom.kiae.su wrote:
>>
>>: > 2. there is no valid reason why should Russians in Crimea be
>>: > forced to live under Turko-Okrainians, and not to execise
>>: > the same right for self-determination which allowed Ukrainians
>>: > to secceed from xUSSR (thus saving Russians from their presence).
>>
>> "Turko-Okrainians?" Could someone fill me in on the chapter of
>> early ethnic history I'm missing? I mean, even "Turko-Ukrainian?"
>Actually "ukrainian" is just a misspelling of Russian "okrainian"
>(from "okraina" which means "outskirts", shithole in other words).
>Russians in Kiev, Suzdal, Vladimir Rus[es] used to call "okrainians"
>the nomadic Turkish tribes who settled on the territory of present-day
>Okraina ("The Ukraine" in English) in 8-10th centuries. Most numerous
>of those Turkish tribes were Khazars, Pechenegs, Polovets. You may check
>the articles "Pechenegs" and "Khazars" in Encyclopedia Britannica.
>Later those Turko-Okrainians were forcefully converted
>to [Orthodox] Christianity by Russians (on the north and east)
>and to Papism by Poles on the west. Later as well, Russian imperial
>and even later - Soviet communist propaganda tried to make an air
>that "ukrainians" are Slavic people close to Russians to justify
>the "union" between Turko-Okraine and Russia. In fact,
>"ukrainians" are Turks who are no closer to Russians then
>Albanians.
Of course, an idiot like yourself would never ponder the question why the Ukrainian
language is almost identical to Russian and has no relation to either Turkish or Albanian
or Polovets, etc.
Dan Korolev
>Dragon Fly wrote:
>
>> From: pei...@ac.wfu.edu (Michael Peil) :
>> >: KOPO...@newcom.kiae.su wrote:
>> >: > 2. there is no valid reason why should Russians in Crimea be
>> >: > forced to live under Turko-Okrainians, and not to execise
>> >: > the same right for self-determination which allowed Ukrainians
>> >: > to secceed from xUSSR (thus saving Russians from their presence).
>> > "Turko-Okrainians?" Could someone fill me in on the chapter of
>> > early ethnic history I'm missing? I mean, even "Turko-Ukrainian?"
>> Actually "ukrainian" is just a misspelling of Russian "okrainian"
>>In fact, "ukrainians" are Turks who are no closer to Russians then
>> Albanians. Cordially, Dragon
>Michael,
>If you have been reading the posts here you have noticed that the individual
>who calls himself Dragon is dedicated to besmirch everything Ukrainian. What
>he is right about is that Ukrainians and Russians are very different
>ethnically. When Ukraine was known as Rus and was the center of the ancient
>Slavic Empire known as Kyivan Rus, which today is acknowledged even by
>scholars in the West as the first Ukrainian state, the people who populated
>what is today Russia were various Finno-Ugric tribes interspersed with some
>Slavic tribes and some, predominantly Swedish, Vikings known to the Slavs as
>Variahs. The area around Kyiv was known as Rus and was the homeland of the
>Slavic tribe Poliany. The vikings together with the Poliany created the
>state of Kyivan Rus by conquering all of the tribes, primarily Slavic and
>Finno-Ugric, on the territory in their domain. The Finno-Ugric tribes
>together with the Slavic tribes of the area in what is now European Russia
>became what is today the Russian nation under the Mongol Empire after the
>fall of Kyivan Rus in 1240 AD. The Ukrainian nation grew out of the remnants
>of the Poliany from Rus and the other indigenous tribes of the territory of
>what is now called Ukraine. Much of the land in central Ukraine was
>depopulated after the Mongol invasion and the majority of the Ukrainian
>population was centered in the Western areas known as Halychyna and Volyn'.
>The Belarusyns, to my knowledge, are the same indigenous Slavic people who
>have always lived in the area known as Belarus. While the Russians and
>Belarusyns can claim to have been influenced by Kyivan Rus when they were
>under Kyiv's control. The Russians can no more claim the history of Kyivan
>Rus for themselves than they can claim the history of the Mongols just
>because they were under Mongol domination for hundreds of years and have a
>good deal of Mongol culture and Mongol blood in their veins. It is time for
>the Russians to seek the roots of their ethnicity and culture in their own
>geographical area and cease from trying to claim the identities of their
>neighbors.
Well, maybe the Russians can find some solace in the fact that they have given the World
one of the greatest cultures on the planet, including Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Gogol, Chekhov,
Pasternak, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Rakhmaninov, Oistrakh, Koilmogorov, Mendeleev and
hundreds of other intellectual giants (some of whom were of Ukrainian origin but chose
Russian culture over Ukrainian)?
While Ukrainian culture can find solace in giving the world such famous people as.....
Ooops, the dumb me cannot think of a single famous Ukrainian-language person. The only name
that comes to mind is Shevchenko, but who in the World outside of Ukraine and
kind-hearted Russia, knows him?
What is wrong with me? How come I can spew out hundreds of names of world-renoun
representatives of this "inferior" Russian culture, while I cannot come up with a single
world-renoun name from this great Ukrainian culture of yours?
And how come when I think of bigots, your name immediately comes up to my mind along with
Dragon Fly's?
Dan Korolev
>Roman Voronka wrote:
>Roman,
// Sarcasm on
Oh, the good old Hitler's Lebensraum theory! "Remove infeior natives and replace them
with the Ubermenschen race". The only difference is that to Hitler, Ukrainians were those
"inferior natives" while to you - Tatars are.
So, dear Fuhrer, do you think that Stalin's method of "removing" Tatars (deporting them to
Southern Siberia) was the right one? You probably think that Stalin was too kind to tatars,
don't you? Afterall, only half of them died in the process, while the other half is still
alive and even wants to take Crimea back from your Ulkrainian "supermen". Would you have
rather seen the Tatars gassed in a concentration camp and then cremated?
And what do you and your friends from the Aryan Nation think we should do to Native Americans?
// Sarcasm off
But seriously, why don't you take yourself and your counterpart DragonFly to the neo-nazi
newsgroup and spare us all of your sickening misanthropic drivel!
Or start your own grour: soc.culture.stalin's-crimes-admirers.
Dan (ashamed of being your namesake) Korolev
Dan Korolev
>Dragon, Fly wrote:
>
>> In article <3127C4...@ezdial.com>, Dan K. <dkoro...@ezdial.com>
>>wrote:
>> >Michael,
>> >If you have been reading the posts here you have noticed that the individual who calls himself Dragon is dedicated to besmirch everything
>Ukrainian. What
>he is right about is that Ukrainians and Russians are very different
>ethnically. When Ukraine was known as Rus and was the center of the ancient
>Slavic Empire known as Kyivan Rus, which today is acknowledged even by
>scholars in the West as the first Ukrainian state, the people who populated
>what is today Russia were various Finno-Ugric tribes interspersed with some
>Slavic tribes and some, predominantly Swedish, Vikings known to the Slavs as
>Variahs. The area around Kyiv was known as Rus and was the homeland of the
>Slavic tribe Poliany. The vikings together with the Poliany created the
>state of Kyivan Rus by conquering all of the tribes, primarily Slavic and
>Finno-Ugric, on the territory in their domain. The Finno-Ugric tribes
>together with the Slavic tribes of the area in what is now European Russia
>> >became what is today the Russian nation under the Mongol Empire after the
>> >fall of Kyivan Rus in 1240 AD.
>> You betrayed yourself, you the Tchurka.
>> "Kyivan Rus" ceased to exist 200 years before the date you gave above. What remained after disintegration of Kiev Rus (which happened in 11th
> century, not in 13th as you thought) was a small and insignificant
> principality at the mercy of more powerfull and prosperous Russian
> princes of Novgorod, Suzdal and Vladimir.
> You really amuse us with your ignorance.
>> Which shows you indeed are the Ukrainian.
>> Cordially, Dragon
>Yes, we know Dung Fly, you not only eat your own dung, you try to feed
>it to others. Fortunately they see it for what it is and throw it
>back in your dungy face.
>Regards, Dan K.
Curious. Dragon made several factual challenges to your original statement, exposing you as
an ignoramus. We all expected you to defend yuor facts and your honor, but the best defense
you have managed to come up with is "eat your own dung". Looks like you have tacitly
admitted defeat but are not man enough to say it out loud.
dragon_fly
>
>Well, maybe the Russians can find some solace in the fact that they have given the World
>one of the greatest cultures on the planet, including Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Gogol, Chekhov,
>Pasternak, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Rakhmaninov, Oistrakh, Koilmogorov, Mendeleev and
>hundreds of other intellectual giants (some of whom were of Ukrainian origin but chose
>Russian culture over Ukrainian)?
Well, among those you mentioned only Gogol can be considered
somewhat "of Ukrainian origin", even though he openly laughed
at the Ukrainians.
>While Ukrainian culture can find solace in giving the world such famous people as.....
>Ooops, the dumb me cannot think of a single famous Ukrainian-language person. The only name
>that comes to mind is Shevchenko, but who in the World outside of Ukraine and
>kind-hearted Russia, knows him?
I don't think Shevchenko is known in Russia either,
but even then as only "some Ukrainian slave".
>What is wrong with me? How come I can spew out hundreds of names of world-renoun
>representatives of this "inferior" Russian culture, while I cannot come up with a single
>world-renoun name from this great Ukrainian culture of yours?
Ukrainian "culture"? What's that?
I bet it's limited to "varenyky" and "borsch".
Cordially,
Dragon
H. M. Hubey
>(a Gagaus) with whom I served in the military told me that in fact the
>name GAGAUS means TRAITOR. That, he explained, how the Moslem Ottoman
>Turks named their people for bertraying Mohammed. Yet, it is widely
Gagauz is either from Keykavuz or Gokoguz/Kokoguz and has nothing
to do with "treason". Keykavuz (Kaikavuz) is a proper name
from Farsi and I don't know what it means. Gok-Oguz is "blue
oguz"or "celestial oguz" as in "gokturk".
What part of Gagauz has any conection to "treason/traitor"?
michael & marika Grossman
<e...@umich.edu> writes:
skip
>Some people also suggest that the modern Gagauz people living
>in South-Western Ukraine and Moldova are the remnants of those
>Pechenegs who were not Slavicized after the Mongol invasion. They
>indeed spoke an Oghuz dialect which was closer to Osmanly Turkish
>than to the numerous Tatar (Qypchaq) dialects.
I was told by Gagauz people that they indeed are the Turks and the main
difference is their Orthodox faith. They claimed COMPLETE understanding
of Turkish and only when write use Cyrillic letters. One of my friends
(a Gagaus) with whom I served in the military told me that in fact the
name GAGAUS means TRAITOR. That, he explained, how the Moslem Ottoman
Turks named their people for bertraying Mohammed. Yet, it is widely
known that there was no way out of Islam and people, if found converted
to a different faith were indeed put to death....
Regards, Mike Grossman, E. Bridgewater, Mass.
michael & marika Grossman
>And how come when I think of bigots, your name (Dan K. that is)
immediately comes up to my mind along with
>Dragon Fly's?
Couse they are brothers and that has nothing to do with ethnic roots.
GRycar
I had the opportunity to read your post relative to
the great contributions that Russia made to world culture outside of
institutionolized slavery and murder on a vast scale. As to the people
that you mentioned a substantial number were Ukrainians who thru force
were not permitted to use their own language or to further the virtues of
their culture. Sevchenko who is the only voice of liberty and respect and
for the value of the individual is the only heroic person in 19th century
Russia who is both spiritualy and intelectualy over and above all that
Russia produced. That the world does not know this yet simply bears
further witness to the falsety and derivitavness of Russian 19th century
culture which in reality was not Russian. Please not with what ease it was
totaly eradicated bu Russians in the 20th century. Did the Ukrainians do
the same to theirs with substantialy more pressure to do so from your
countrymen?
Regards
George
Dan K.
> "Dan K." <dkoro...@ezdial.com> writes:
> >Michael,
> >If you have been reading the posts here you have noticed that the individual who calls himself Dragon is dedicated to besmirch everything
Ukrainian. What he is right about is that Ukrainians and Russians are very
different ethnically. When Ukraine was known as Rus and was the center of
the ancient Slavic Empire known as Kyivan Rus, which today is acknowledged
even by scholars in the West as the first Ukrainian state, the people who
populated what is today Russia were various Finno-Ugric tribes interspersed
with some Slavic tribes and some, predominantly Swedish, Vikings known to the
Slavs as Variahs. The area around Kyiv was known as Rus and was the homeland
of the Slavic tribe Poliany. The vikings together with the Poliany created
the state of Kyivan Rus by conquering all of the tribes, primarily Slavic and
Finno-Ugric, on the territory in their domain. The Finno-Ugric tribes
together with the Slavic tribes of the area in what is now European Russia
became what is today the Russian nation under the Mongol Empire after the
of the Poliany from Rus and the other indigenous tribes of the territory of
what is now called Ukraine. Much of the land in central Ukraine was
depopulated after the Mongol invasion and the majority of the Ukrainian
population was centered in the Western areas known as Halychyna and Volyn'.
The Belarusyns, to my knowledge, are the same indigenous Slavic people who
have always lived in the area known as Belarus. While the Russians and
Belarusyns can claim to have been influenced by Kyivan Rus when they were
under Kyiv's control. The Russians can no more claim the history of Kyivan
Rus for themselves than they can claim the history of the Mongols just
because they were under Mongol domination for hundreds of years and have a
good deal of Mongol culture and Mongol blood in their veins. It is time for
> >the Russians to seek the roots of their ethnicity and culture in their own
> >geographical area and cease from trying to claim the identities of their
> >neighbors.
>given the World one of the greatest cultures on the planet, including
>Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Gogol, Chekhov, Pasternak, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev,
>Rakhmaninov, Oistrakh, Koilmogorov, Mendeleev and hundreds of other
>intellectual giants (some of whom were of Ukrainian origin but chose
> Russian culture over Ukrainian)?
and don't forget Rasputin, and Cathryn the Great Whore, and Lazar Kaganovich
and Stalin and Beria and Krushchov and Andropov and multitude of greater and
lesser Czars and nobles of Russia and all of the Russian alchoholics in their
izbaz who know no other culture than to beat their wives and drown themselves
in Russian vodka the only Russian export of any reknown. What does Russia
produce that any civilized person in the world would want?
> While Ukrainian culture can find solace in giving the world such famous
>people as.....
Culture is not a person it is a style of life. The Freedom Loving Ukrainian
peasant and his traditions is something which no Russian can approach not
even the Czars.
> Ooops, the dumb me cannot think of a single famous Ukrainian-language
>person. The only name that comes to mind is Shevchenko, but who in the World
>outside of Ukraine and kind-hearted Russia, knows him?
Shevchenko did not create Ukrainian culture which is thousands of years older
than anything Russian because Russia is only a few hundred years old. Even
the "high" culture of Rus did not appreaciably affect Ukrainian culture
because the culture of Rus was primarily Byzantine in nature and affected
Ukrainian culture primarily in the area of religion. If you want to
understand culture you need to study both the folk culture of a nation and
the "high" culture or cosmopolitan culture. Ukrainian culture is folk in
nature and not cosmopolitan, likewise the Russian culture, ie. very few
Russians were touched by the culture of the Czars and his nobility or the
Russian writers since the Russian peasants and serfs could not read.
> What is wrong with me? How come I can spew out hundreds of names of
>world-renoun representatives of this "inferior" Russian culture, while I
>cannot come up with a single world-renoun name from this great Ukrainian
>culture of yours?
If Ukrainian culture and language are so inferior then why did the Russian
Czar have to declare an edict to prohibit anything to be written in this such
inferior languange? Is it because he had an inferiority complex? The truth
is, is that Russian "high" culture was all imported from abroad and the
Russian Czars and nobility hated everything truly Russian because it was
nothing more than a sloppy, dirty, flea and lice infested Russian peasant in
his rhubakha drowned in vodka and beating his fat overgrown wife.
> And how come when I think of bigots, your name immediately comes up to my mind along with Dragon Fly's?
Because you are not very intelligent!
Regards, Dan K.
Dan K.
> Ukrainian "culture"? What's that?
> I bet it's limited to "varenyky" and "borsch".
> Cordially, Dragon
Well Dung Fly, if that was all there was to it then why do the Russians hate
it so? Any way it is far better than Katsap culture which is a Katsap
dressed in his rubakha, full of lice and fleas and beating his wife because
he is full of vodka.
Regards, Dan K.
Ali B. Gunay
michael & marika Grossman <gro...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <4gi5r9$o...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu> Ed Ponarin
><e...@umich.edu> writes:
>I was told by Gagauz people that they indeed are the Turks and the main
>difference is their Orthodox faith. They claimed COMPLETE understanding
>of Turkish and only when write use Cyrillic letters. One of my friends
>(a Gagaus) with whom I served in the military told me that in fact the
>name GAGAUS means TRAITOR. That, he explained, how the Moslem Ottoman
>Turks named their people for bertraying Mohammed.
This is very odd. From what I know, the term "Gagauz" is a corrruption
of the term "Gokoguz", the name of one of the Turkic tribes at that time.
Sincerely,
Burak Gunay
Yet, it is widely
>known that there was no way out of Islam and people, if found converted
>to a different faith were indeed put to death....
>
GRycar
Hohol had no love for Russia. Was forced to write in Russian.
Needless to say would not have had much of a career if he insisted in
writing in Ukrainian, his Native language. But he paid the Russians back
and presented them as they were.
He wrote differently about his Ukrainians who were never as
benighted nor as despicable as the Russians and and their culture. He also
clearly communicated the price of betrayal to evil and Russian values.
Read A TerribleVengance or Bulba or other stories dealing with
Ukrainian subject matter as opposed to Russian. Hohol despised Russia and
all that it stood for but lacked the courage and moral fortitude of
Sevchenko.
Now when Ukraine is talking its place in the family of Europe it
will not be long when in death the father of Russian literature will be
freed from his enemies.
Regards
George
Patrick Bonacker
[snip]
>and don't forget... all of the Russian alchoholics in their
>izbaz who know no other culture than to beat their wives and drown themselves
^^^^^
>in Russian vodka the only Russian export of any reknown.
Но...
>The Freedom Loving Ukrainian
>peasant and his traditions is something which no Russian can approach not
^^^^^^^
>even the Czars.
Аааааа.... !!! Наконец-то я понял, что конечно-же
"Два тракториста" были украинцами:
"Один Jean-Paul Sartra лелеет в кармане
И этим сознанием горд,
Другой же играет порой на баяне
Santanu и Wheather Report."
:-)
Хотя...
>Ukrainian culture is folk in
>nature and not cosmopolitan, likewise the Russian culture...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So, this got me confused, again.
[...]
>> And how come when I think of bigots, your name immediately comes
>> up to my mind along with Dragon Fly's?
>
>Because you are not very intelligent!
>
>Regards, Dan K.
...you know, the very very very very intelligent one.
The True Ukrainian. With only ukrainian culture and
no "mongolian blood in his veins" (one can see it by his postings).
Very impressed ;-)
Patrick
Dan Korolev
OK, you have a point here: Russian culture has been home to people and rulers of all
nationalities
and ethnicities, from German princess " Cathryn the Great Whore" to a (Ukrainian?) Jew
Kaganovich, to more or less Russians Rasputin, Andropov, Khruschov, to Georgians Stalin and
Beria. Let me also add Brezhnev and Chernenko (both from Ukraine), many other Russian
Tsarinas (mostly from Germany and Northern Europe), Dzerzhinsky (from Poland), various
Mongol and Polish rulers that occupied Russia and Moscow in particular, as well as Napoleon
who did so, etc.
But, if anything, this is a sign of a great culture. The same "internationalization" of
rulers can be found in Germany, France, Austria, United States, England, et., etc. Have you
heard of Katherine Medici, for example?
Or is your point not that Russia was ruled by all kinds of international people, but rather
that the people whom you mentioned are "evil" to a degree unseen in cultured countries? If
so, I think we should delay our conversation until the time you graduate from your
kindergarten and start learning about European history.
First of all, I understand why you included Rasputin and Cathryn the Great in this list. I
also understand why you refer to her as a "Whore". Both of these are notorious among
teenage boys, people with penis envy, and National Enquirer readers for their presumably
superhuman sexual powers. However, neither one is known as a "brutal" ruler (Rasputin was
not even a ruler). Nothing compared to Peter the Great or Ivan the Terrible, for example.
In fact, Katherine was *not* a "whore*, as any historian will tell you. This German
princess craved *love* not sex, and the stories about horses etc are nothing more than wild
inventions of perverted french aristocrats who could not understand that Russians and
Germans were much more benign in their sexual mores.
Yes, the Georgian pair of Stalin and Beria are among the worst vilains in the world.
But Khruschov, the father of Russian thawing out, and Andropov, the mentor of Gorbachov and
father of Russian democratization? I would take them over your beloved Ukrainians Brezhnev
and Chernenko any day.
BTW, don't forget that the two people that you mentioned above, have done great deeds for
you personally. For example, just a couple of days ago, you expressed admiration for
Stalin's genocide against Tatars which allowed Ukraine to occupy Crimea. Of course,
Khruschov was the one who gave Crimea and (I think) Odessa as a "present" to Ukraine.
in any case, if you compare the brutality and the "uncouthness" of the people that you
mentioned with the same qualities of rulers of other great countries and cultures, I bet
"your list" will pale in comparison.
Take Germany. Without delving into the past, let me mention Hitler and leave it at that.
Take France. The French revolutionaries that terrorized the whole country and ended up
slaughtering each other exactly like the bolsheviks did in Russia. Marie Antuanette? The
burning of Joan D'Arq (done with British blessing). The French royalty and aristocrats who,
before they imported Medici, lived in their own shit. do you know why the french are so
good at making perfumes? Because their aristocrat ladies bathed only once every leap year
and needed perfumes to cover up their body stench.
How about Napoleon?
You want to talk about US Presidents, some of whom had HUMAN (!!!!) slaves? Slaves in 19th
century!
How about Roman empire and Caligula, Tiberius, etc?
And yet, all these cultures (German, Russian, French, Italian, Roman, American, British)
are considered great cultures, and have given the world hundreds of great people, along
with hundreds of vilains and clowns. That's the nature of great cultures: they produce the
best and the worst.
Unlike infertile, boring minor cultures that give the World nothing.
>and all of the Russian alchoholics in their
>izbaz who know no other culture than to beat their wives and drown themselves
>in Russian vodka the only Russian export of any reknown.
Dan, when was the last time you visited a Ukrainian izba in, say, Lugansk volost? And are
you sure that the alcohol consumption and wife beating and other lifestyle features there
are any different than in Russia?
>What does Russia >produce that any civilized person in the
>world would want?
Classical music, poetry, ballet, movies, paintings, diamonds, etc.
What does Ukraine produce? Let me see...
Beer. Ironically called "Russki beer"
Ukrainian restaurants in Little Ukraine in New York, ironically owned and staffed by Poles and
serving Polish food. Of low quality but cheap.
A friend of mine exports mens' underpants from a factory in Kiev.
Anything else that I forgot?
>
>> While Ukrainian culture can find solace in giving the world such famous
>>people as.....
>Culture is not a person it is a style of life. The Freedom Loving Ukrainian
>peasant and his traditions is something which no Russian can approach not
>even the Czars.
Your Freedom Loving Ukrainian peasant has voted for the Communist apparatchiks to rule
them, allowed ex-Communist mafia to rob him in ways that no Russian citizen would allow,
and he even wants to reunite with Russia. However, to you, who has never lived among
Ukrainian peasants (or peasants of any other nationality) and who has been raised on a
"lubok" picture that your parents have painted you about "the old country, where each man
is a poet and a composer and spends all his time reading Goethe rather than worrying where
his next meal will come from", this is of no concern. because it is not the *real*
Ukrainain people tha tyou are concerned about but your own fantasy world.
>> Ooops, the dumb me cannot think of a single famous
Ukrainian-language
>>person. The only name that comes to mind is Shevchenko, but who in the World
>>outside of Ukraine and kind-hearted Russia, knows him?
>Shevchenko did not create Ukrainian culture which is thousands of years older
>than anything Russian because Russia is only a few hundred years old. Even
>the "high" culture of Rus did not appreaciably affect Ukrainian culture
>because the culture of Rus was primarily Byzantine in nature and affected
>Ukrainian culture primarily in the area of religion. If you want to
>understand culture you need to study both the folk culture of a nation and
>the "high" culture or cosmopolitan culture. Ukrainian culture is folk in
>nature and not cosmopolitan, likewise the Russian culture, ie. very few
>Russians were touched by the culture of the Czars and his nobility or the
>Russian writers since the Russian peasants and serfs could not read.
As opposed to, say, French culture, where every peasant in the 18th century read Voltaire
and Dante. :-)
>
>> What is wrong with me? How come I can spew out hundreds of names of
>>world-renoun representatives of this "inferior" Russian culture, while I
>>cannot come up with a single world-renoun name from this great Ukrainian
>>culture of yours?
>If Ukrainian culture and language are so inferior then why did the Russian
>Czar have to declare an edict to prohibit anything to be written in this such
>inferior languange?
Ukrainian culture and language are not inferior. They are simply smaller than Russian
culture and have fewer great works of art in them.
As far as the Tzar is concerned, his restrictions on the use of Ukrainian and other
non-Russian languages were motivated not by the relative qualities of languages and
cultures but by adesire to rule his Empire with one iron fist and one language.
> Is it because he had an inferiority complex? The truth
>is, is that Russian "high" culture was all imported from abroad and the
>Russian Czars and nobility hated everything truly Russian because it was
>nothing more than a sloppy, dirty, flea and lice infested Russian peasant in
>his rhubakha drowned in vodka and beating his fat overgrown wife.
The "fat overgrown wife" remark will cost you dearly. Do you remember all those pictures of
fat middle aged Soviet women on the beaches of Crimea tha tthe US television was so fond of
showing? Well, the majority of those were from Ukraine.
Russian women in places like Moscow and St.Pete are the most beautiful ones in the world, a
sany foreign traveler will affirm. Of course, Ukrainian women are not too bad either.
>
>> And how come when I think of bigots, your name immediately comes up to my mind along with Dragon Fly's?
>Because you are not very intelligent!
No, because your love for Stalin's genocide of Tatars makes you into a Nazi in my book.
Dmitriy Rumynin
I dont care what you are talking about. But never ever touch the memory
of Konstantin Ustinovich by your dirty hands. He is not from Ukraine;
he had to spend some part of his great and challenging life there.
The great leader of Soviet people K.U.Chernenko was born in the village
Novoselovo in Krasnoyarskiy Kray in Siberia which is a part of modern
Russia and has nothing to do with Ukraine. The rapidly growing center
of KATEK Sharypovo was very proud to carry the name Chernenko before
the last revolution. Also people have to consider renaming of
Krasnoyarsk into Ust-Konstantinopol'.
Dmitriy
GRycar
Read your usual erudite post. Too many inacuracies,
however the Ukrainian restuarants are owned by Ukrainians. I know them all
and most of them are my clients. That many Poles work there is another
issue. Please do try to get your information correctly.
The issue with Russian culture is that it attracts
the criminal elements and what is worse, makes it possible for them to
further their criminality there with no opposition from the Russians.
Please note that the Russians permited the Communists and Stalin to
destroy them in substantial numbers, desecrate their Church, dismember
their society and perpetuate an even more oppresive tyrany than the czars
and the Russians did nothing. No they actualy admired Stalin and wept at
his passing. Some culture!
Regards
George
GRycar
D. Korolev. My post was in response to Korolevs post and not Gusevs.
Regards
George
Dan Korolyshyn
In article <kdaDnI...@netcom.com> Dan Korolev wrote:
>Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 20:37:34 GMT
>Dan Korolev wrote:
First of all, I understand why you included Rasputin and Cathryn
the Great in this list. I
>also understand why you refer to her as a "Whore". Both of these
are notorious among
>teenage boys, people with penis envy, and National Enquirer
readers.......MORE BS........
>.......Yes, the Georgian pair of Stalin and Beria are among the
worst vilains in the world.
>BTW, don't forget that the two people that you mentioned above,
have done great deeds for
>you personally.
Oh really, please name them. I do not recall having even met them,
although one of them had my uncle sentenced to 25 years in Vorkuta,
(Siberia) just for cursing out the Russian occupiers in Ukraine.
>For example, just a couple of days ago, you expressed admiration
>for Stalin's genocide against Tatars which allowed Ukraine to
>occupy Crimea.
Stalin, to my knowledge, did not commit genocide against the Tartars
as he did against the Ukrainians in the early thirties. He merely
deported them back to Asia from whence they came, BIG DIFFERENCE.
IMHO that is where they ought to stay!
>in any case, if you compare the brutality and the "uncouthness" of
the people that you
>mentioned with the same qualities of rulers of other great
countries and cultures, I bet
>"your list" will pale in comparison.
Compare, yes, Pale, no! Mass murder and genocide is the same
whether committed by Nazi beasts or Russian ones, it is just as EVIL
and inexcusable!
>And yet, all these cultures (German, Russian, French, Italian,
Roman, American, British)
>are considered great cultures, and have given the world hundreds of
great people, along
>with hundreds of vilains and clowns. That's the nature of great
cultures: they produce the
>best and the worst. Unlike infertile, boring minor cultures that
>give the World nothing.
Soviet Russian culture has given neither the world nor the Russian
people anything of value. It destroyed thousands of beautiful
churches and erected thousands of awful looking Soviet block houses
for their working Russian slaves. Some great culture. They lied to
their masses about everything, the living standards in the West,
the histories of the occupied peoples, God and religion and created
an immoral Sovok human who had to lie, steal and cheat to survive.
The economies, cultures and languages of the occupied countries were
exploited, twisted and repressed. These conditions were created
specifically to prevent any occupied nation from being able to
survive without the EVIL CENTER. That the Russians were successful
at what they did is evidenced by the difficulty which the Newly
Independent States are having in restructing their economies
and resurrecting their national cultures. And those cultures, INHO,
have a right to exist whether or not they are deemed superior or
inferior to the Russian one. JUST BECAUSE THE RUSSIANS CONSIDER
THEIR CULTURE SUPERIOR TO THAT OF THEIR NEIGHBORS DOES NOT GIVE THEM
THE RIGHT TO DESTROY THEIR NEIGHBOR'S CULTURE AND HERITAGE,
ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY CLAIM THEIR NEIGHBOR'S HERITAGE AS THE ROOT OF
THEIR OWN AND HAD TRIED UNSUCCESSFULLY TO ACCLAIM IT AS THEIR OWN!
>Dan, when was the last time you visited a Ukrainian izba in, say,
Lugansk volost? And are
>you sure that the alcohol consumption and wife beating and other
lifestyle features there
>are any different than in Russia?
Korolev, Ukrainians do not live in izbas, they live in khatas. What
is Lugansk volost? Do you mean in Luhansk oblast? Never been
there. Only been as far East as Kharkiv.
A few years ago I was at a Christmas party in Germany and at a table
next to mine an old German, who fought at the Eastern Front, was
telling another American how the Germans could tell that they had
crossed over from Ukraine into Russia. It was by the fleas and lice
infesting the peasants in Russia. This is the truth, I lie not. I
was amazed by his reminiscences of the war.
And everyone knows about the bestiality of the Russians when they
were retreating from Ukraine before the advancing Germans, except
Russians like Tereshchenko. The mass murders in Lviv, Ternopil, and
especially at Vynytsia perpetrated by the Russians will never be
forgotten and was the reason that the UPA was able to fight the
Russian occupiers right up until the 1950s, they had the people's
support.
I am going to let Korolev's running down Ukrainian culture stand as
a testimony of unabashed Russian chauvinism. Personally I have no
infatuation with anything in Russian culture but I acknowledge that
some people are and they have a right to be so. Unlike the Russian
chauvinists I believe that all nations have a right to create their
own culture and glory in it regardless of what others may think.
I think that Ukrainian folk culture is second to none and those who
have an opportunity to see the Veryovka Ukrainian cultural song and
dance troupe, currently on tour in the USA and Canada, will be able
to judge for themselves whether Ukrainian culture has anything
valuable to offer the world or not. I believe that no nation has a
right to outlaw another nation's cultural traditions or
language or arts as the Russians and Nazis have done. There is only
One who has Divine Right and His name is Jesus and He will destroy
some unGodly cultures when He returns to establish God's Kingdom on
Earth, but that is
His Right!
Dan K.
>> "Dan K." <dkoro...@ezdial.com> writes:
>>Michael,
>>If you have been reading the posts here you have noticed that the individual who calls himself >>Dragon is dedicated to besmirch everything
>>Ukrainian. What he is right about is that Ukrainians and Russians are very
>>different ethnically. When Ukraine was known as Rus and was the center ofthe ancient Slavic Empire known as Kyivan Rus, which today is acknowledged
First of all, I understand why you included Rasputin and Cathryn the Great
in this list. I
>also understand why you refer to her as a "Whore". Both of these are notorious among
>teenage boys, people with penis envy, and National Enquirer readers.......MORE BS........
>.......Yes, the Georgian pair of Stalin and Beria are among the worst
>vilains in the world. BTW, don't forget that the two people that you
>mentioned above, have done great deeds for you personally.
Oh really, please name them. I do not recall having even met them, although
one of them had my uncle sentenced to 25 years in Vorkuta, (Siberia) just
for cursing out the Russian occupiers in Ukraine.
>For example, just a couple of days ago, you expressed admiration for
>Stalin's genocide against Tatars which allowed Ukraine to occupy Crimea.
Stalin, to my knowledge, did not commit genocide against the Tartars as he
did against the Ukrainians in the early thirties. He merely deported them
back to Asia from whence they came, BIG DIFFERENCE.
IMHO that is where they ought to stay!
>in any case, if you compare the brutality and the "uncouthness" of the people that you
>mentioned with the same qualities of rulers of other great countries and cultures, I bet
>"your list" will pale in comparison.
Compare, yes, Pale, no! Mass murder and genocide is the same whether
committed by Nazi beasts or Russian ones, it is just as EVIL and inexcusable!
>And yet, all these cultures (German, Russian, French, Italian, Roman, American, British)
>are considered great cultures, and have given the world hundreds of great people, along
>with hundreds of vilains and clowns. That's the nature of great cultures: they produce the
>best and the worst. Unlike infertile, boring minor cultures that give the World nothing.
Soviet Russian culture has given neither the world nor the Russian people
anything of value. It destroyed thousands of beautiful churches and erected
thousands of awful looking Soviet block houses for their working Russian
slaves. Some great culture. They lied to their masses about everything, the
living standards in the West, the histories of the occupied peoples, God and
religion and created an immoral Sovok human who had to lie, steal and cheat
to survive. The economies, cultures and languages of the occupied countries
were exploited, twisted and repressed. These conditions were created
specifically to prevent any occupied nation from being able to survive
without the EVIL CENTER. That the Russians were successful at what they did
is evidenced by the difficulty which the Newly Independent States are having
in restructing their economies and resurrecting their national cultures. And
those cultures, INHO, have a right to exist whether or not they are deemed
superior or inferior to the Russian one. JUST BECAUSE THE RUSSIANS CONSIDER
THEIR CULTURE SUPERIOR TO THAT OF THEIR NEIGHBORS DOES NOT GIVE THEM THE
RIGHT TO DESTROY THEIR NEIGHBOR'S CULTURE AND HERITAGE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY
CLAIM THEIR NEIGHBOR'S HERITAGE AS THE ROOT OF THEIR OWN AND HAD TRIED
UNSUCCESSFULLY TO ACCLAIM IT AS THEIR OWN!
>Dan, when was the last time you visited a Ukrainian izba in, say, Lugansk
>volost? And are you sure that the alcohol consumption and wife beating and
>other lifestyle features there are any different than in Russia?
Korolev, Ukrainians do not live in izbas, they live in khatas. What is
Regards, Dan K.
Dan Korolev
> Regards
> George
You mean, you will publicly burn all his books written in Russian? Will you call it your
own Krystallnacht?
Dan Korolev
>Dan Korolev wrote:
>>For example, just a couple of days ago, you expressed admiration for
>>Stalin's genocide against Tatars which allowed Ukraine to occupy Crimea.
>Stalin, to my knowledge, did not commit genocide against the Tartars as he
>did against the Ukrainians in the early thirties. He merely deported them
>back to Asia from whence they came, BIG DIFFERENCE.
>IMHO that is where they ought to stay!
And that's exactly why I have to compare you to a Nazi. "He merely deported
them".....!!!! Do you know how Stalin deported people? Like Hitler. Half of
them died on the train, as I recall. And then they were dumped in Siberia
with no places to live, no jobs, no food. Now, you probably don't know it,
but Siberia is hell, it's incredibly cold. The vast majority of those
people died in the first year.
And to you - this is no big deal. Why? Because you hate Tatars. "IMHO that
is where they ought to stay!"
I am sorry, but if your above statements is not nazism pure and simple, I
don't know what is.
BTW, do you know that Hitler's original plan was to deport Jews to
Palestine? Only the British insistence that no Jew be allowed into
Palestine lead to Hitler's next plan: extermination of Jews.
BTW, what's your view on Hitler's original plan? Do you approve of it?
>I am going to let Korolev's running down Ukrainian culture stand as a
>testimony of unabashed Russian chauvinism. Personally I have no infatuation
>with anything in Russian culture but I acknowledge that some people are and
>they have a right to be so. Unlike the Russian chauvinists I believe that
>all nations have a right to create their own culture and glory in it
>regardless of what others may think.
>I think that Ukrainian folk culture is second to none and those who have an
>opportunity to see the Veryovka Ukrainian cultural song and dance troupe,
>currently on tour in the USA and Canada, will be able to judge for themselves
>whether Ukrainian culture has anything valuable to offer the world or not.
>I believe that no nation has a right to outlaw another nation's cultural
>traditions or language or arts as the Russians and Nazis have done.
Of course, you do grant the rights to deport and exterminate Tatars and
other ethnic groups whom you don't like.
>There is
>only One who has Divine Right and His name is Jesus and He will destroy some
>unGodly cultures when He returns to establish God's Kingdom on Earth, but
>that is His Right!
:-) And, of course, to you - Jesus is a Polish Catholic, and any Ukrainian of
Orthodox faith and love for Russia is an enemy, right? You do want to put
them on trial for treason, don't you? Just like you want to put Tereschenko
on trial.
>Regards, Dan K.
No regards here.
Dan Korolev
Dan Korolyshyn
In article <V0oRJD...@bwalk.dm.com> KHYAZb TEMHOTbI. wrote:
>Oscar Ugarriza <leso...@gate.net> writes:
>> From all that I have read, Russia got the Crimea from the
> Crimean Tartars and kept it until a few years ago when it was
transferred to Ukraine.
>> It was never a part of Ukraine (even as part of the Tavrida
gubernya, it did not belong to a Ukraine that did not
effectively become a nation until the breakup of the USSR).
>> Oscar Ugarriza
>yes yes yes yes yes yes absolutly
> right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>**************************************************************
>**********
> VASSILI
> KHYAZb TEMHOTbI
Dear Oscar and Temniy Kniyaz'
If what you postulate is true, then why is the idiot Russian
politician Zyuganov running around Kyiv telling the people that
under the Soviet Russian occupation Ukraine had sovereignty and
was a free nation because it even was represented in the United
Nations? Can't you chauvinistic morons get your act together?
But as the referendum of Dec 1991, to the everlasting shame of
Russian lies and propaganda and Western ignorance, the Ukrainian
nation spoke out with one voice, including Crimea, and declared
that they want Ukraine to be a free and independent nation
without Russian interference in their internal affairs.
PLAIN ENOUGH, ISN'T IT?
Regards, Dan K.
Regards, Dan K.
Dan Korolyshyn
In article <4hsifp$4...@kirin.wwa.com> Henrietta Thomas wrote:
>Strongly suggest that you leave the KGB out of your arguments.
Also
>suggest you try to get some documentation of the charges you
>make against the Russian Orthodox Church.
>Henrietta
Dear Henrietta:
Can you please explain to me how it is that you, being an
"expert" on Russian history and things Soviet, do not understand
the close relationship which the KGB had with the Russian
Orthodox Church during the Soviet era.
Can you also explain to me why the Russians, Sovoks, as well as
yourself, have not condemned the state terrorism perpetrated by
the present "democratic" government of Russia against the
Chechen people? Many Russian newspapers and politicians have
come out against the continued barbarous behavior of the Russian
military in Chechnya yet the Sovoks and you who post here on scu
and other bulletin boards have failed to condemn this deplorable
Russian barbarism, why?
Why have you also not come out against the railings and jingoism
of those like Zhirinovsky and Zyuganov, etc.? Are you hoping to
become one of Zhirinovsky's "diyevochkas" should he into power?
What is your opinion concerning the 12 year old girl that was
recently raped by 3 American soldiers in Okinawa? Do you think
that the little girl was stupid and should not have been walking
around the streets alone on her island, buying school supplies,
by herself and that it was her fault for being raped? Do you
believe that the 3 Americans were perhaps lured by the girl into
having sex and then shouted rape. Is that what your views are
seeing that you are so eager to side with the rapists and
plunderers rather than with the victims of barbarity and
depraved behavior? Please let us know your views Henrietta, we
would all like to know just how sick you are?
Regards, Dan K.
F. Tereshchenko
Dan Korolyshyn <DKo...@gnn.com> wrote:
>
>Dear Oscar and Temniy Kniyaz'
>
>If what you postulate is true, then why is the idiot Russian
>politician Zyuganov running around Kyiv telling the people that
>under the Soviet Russian occupation Ukraine had sovereignty and
>was a free nation because it even was represented in the United
>Nations?
Even under the Soviets Ukraine lived much much better then now.
Ukrainians received their salary twice a month, this salary could by much
more then 2 kg of kovbasa, the currency was stabile and many of them had
the money to spend on vacation in Crimea. Now they have not, and Crimea is
primarily the resort for Russians. Thanks "pany nacionalisty" for this
beggar's freedom!
>But as the referendum of Dec 1991, to the everlasting shame of
>Russian lies and propaganda and Western ignorance, the Ukrainian
>nation spoke out with one voice, including Crimea, and declared
>that they want Ukraine to be a free and independent nation
>without Russian interference in their internal affairs.
>PLAIN ENOUGH, ISN'T IT?
There were two referendums in 1991. On the first one all Ukrainian
nation overhelmingly voted to remain the part of Soviet Union.
Yours,
Feodor Tereshchenko, Esq.
_____________________________________________________________________
Feodor Tereshchenko, Esq. | "Moecha, putida, redde codicillos
The University of Iowa | redde, putida moecha, codicillos."
fter...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu | Sed nil proficimus, nihil movetur.
| Mutanda est ratio modusque vobis,
| siquid proficere amplius potestis,
| "pudica et proba, redde codicillos."
|
| Gaius Valerius Catullus Veronensis
_______________________________________________________________________
Henrietta Thomas
: Dear Henrietta:
: Can you please explain to me how it is that you, being an
: "expert" on Russian history and things Soviet, do not understand
: the close relationship which the KGB had with the Russian
: Orthodox Church during the Soviet era.
I am not an "expert" on the history of any country in the world, not even
my own. Of course, there was a close relationship between the church and
the KGB during Soviet days. But you seem to blame everything on the
church, and I would not agree. It was a matter of survival. The Soviet
regime was not too fond of any kind of religion. And since the Russian
Orthodox Church was the largest church, it was a prime target of
anti-religious measures. During the course of Bolshevik rule, many
priests were killed and most churches were closed. Stalin relaxed the
restrictions during WWII, and the church was revived. Then Khrushchev
reversed the reforms, and many church leaders were jailed in the 1960s and
replaced by persons deemed to be loyal to the regime. I think these
people had no choice but to acquiesce; it was the only way that the
church could survive.
: Can you also explain to me why the Russians, Sovoks, as
: well as yourself, have not condemned the state terrorism perpetrated by
: the present "democratic" government of Russia against the
: Chechen people? Many Russian newspapers and politicians have
: come out against the continued barbarous behavior of the Russian
: military in Chechnya yet the Sovoks and you who post here on scu
: and other bulletin boards have failed to condemn this deplorable
: Russian barbarism, why?
Perhaps because you constantly use such loaded terms as "state
terrorism," "barbarous behavior," "barbarism," etc., and refer to
Russians as "Sovoks." I would not apply any of these terms to Russians or
Russian soldiers.
: Why have you also not come out against the railings and jingoism
: of those like Zhirinovsky and Zyuganov, etc.?
I haven't seen any "railings and jingoism" lately. All I have here is a
Newsweek report of an interview with Zyuganov about his plans should he
be successful in winning the presidency, and his remarks seemed quite
reasonable to me.
[snip]... irrelevant stuff deleted
GRycar
The issue is not the meager existance under Soviet
Russian rule, but freedom and its possibilities meathead! Under Russian
oppression the only possibility was slavery and death. What is it with
you? Why are concepts so difficult for you to comprehend? Do read some
Sevchenko. Try Dumy. Please note that Sevchenko will tell you that there
you will find a grey truth, a kind word, a sincere heart and mabe glory.
All of the above are attainable only in freedom by free men only.
Therefore if you are a slave, as you are, then your first responsibility
before all else is to become a free man.
The above dictum was the foundation of modern
Ukrainian Nationalism as formulated by the great Taras. Needless to say,
you know nothing about Ukrainan Nationalism or about Ukrainian
Nationalists except that somehow they are your enemies. Slaves, congenital
slaves always hate free men because the former bear witness to their
bondage.
Regards
George
F. Tereshchenko
>Dear Tereschenko;
> The issue is not the meager existance under Soviet
>Russian rule, but freedom and its possibilities meathead! Under Russian
>oppression the only possibility was slavery and death.
Again, you personal anti-Russian religion contradicts here with
historical facts. But, it seems, you do not care...
>What is it with
>you? Why are concepts so difficult for you to comprehend? Do read some
>Sevchenko. Try Dumy. Please note that Sevchenko will tell you that there
>you will find a grey truth, a kind word, a sincere heart and mabe glory.
I read a lot of Shevchenko. As I already said - he is just mediocre poet...
And I do not enjoy reading of a mediocre poetry in any language.
>All of the above are attainable only in freedom by free men only.
>Therefore if you are a slave, as you are, then your first responsibility
>before all else is to become a free man.
I think the first responsibility of Ukrainian nation now is not to die
from the disease called nationalism that already lead the Ukraine to all
today tortures.
> The above dictum was the foundation of modern
>Ukrainian Nationalism as formulated by the great Taras. Needless to say,
>you know nothing about Ukrainan Nationalism or about Ukrainian
>Nationalists except that somehow they are your enemies.
You seems to know a lot about Ukrainian nationalists, but quite little
about the Ukraine and Ukrainians. You even hate the words of Ukrainian
language (as one of your posts has shown).
And about slavery: I have never met a living slave, probably because I was
born more then a hundred years after abandonment of slavery. It seems
you've met a lot of them - how old are you? 150+?
Dan K.
> I think the first responsibility of Ukrainian nation now is not to die
> from the disease called nationalism that already lead the Ukraine to all
> today tortures.
> Yours, Feodor Tereshchenko, Esq.
What kind of delerium are you suffering from Tereshchenko?
Ukraine is a democratic country and there is no mention
of torture in the Ukrainina penal code, to my knowledge.
On the other hand your country Russia is not only torturing
the Chechen nation with cruel barbarity and indiscriminate
butchery of innocent women and children while collecting
international welfare payments and loans to pay the
soldiers perpetrating these crimes against humanity but
your politicians are planning to continue undermining the
sovereignty of Russia's neighbors and recreating the
collapsed Soviet Russian empire. They are not satisfied
with butchering thousands of Chechens, they are lusting
for the blood of millions again. That is what torture is
Tereshchenko! That is what Russian chauvinism is,
Ty tupolobiy durak!
Regards, Dan K.
Eugene *fraer*
>
> In article <4i5piv$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, GRycar <gry...@aol.com> wrote:
> >What is it with
> >you? Why are concepts so difficult for you to comprehend? Do read some
> >Sevchenko. Try Dumy. Please note that Sevchenko will tell you that there
> >you will find a grey truth, a kind word, a sincere heart and mabe glory.
>
> I read a lot of Shevchenko. As I already said - he is just mediocre poet...
> And I do not enjoy reading of a mediocre poetry in any language.
Of course there is now standard taste in poetry, but in my opinion the
fact that you do not appreciate Shevchenko shows that you don't have
full comprehension of Ukrainian language.
The poetry of Shevchenko is a the essence of Ukrainian poetic language
and specifically Ukrainian poetic comprehension of the world. To deny
him a talent is to deny existence of Ukrainian poetry at all. Could
you, Mr.. Tereshchenko, name me a Ukrainian poet that you value above
Shevchenko?
The same I would say to a person who would judge Pushkin to be a
mediocre interpreter of lord Byron - "You probably don't know Russian".
Of course not to command a foreign language is not a mortal sin, but it
is utter ignorance to judge the literature without full comprehension
of the language.
BTW I was astonished by Sorokin, who reposted in KOI complete nonsenses
about Shevchenko written by Uljanov. Probably the author intended this
misinformation toward people who never read Shevchenko, but Sorokin who
grow up in Ukraine definitely was forced to study this poetry at
school. So he at list could notice in this article obvious nonsenses
such as statements that Shevchenko did not write poetry against bondage
or that Shevchenko used the word "moskali" to name Russians (while in
fact he consistently used it to name soldiers, Russian and Ukrainian
alike). But Sorokin preferred to post this bullshit anyway.
> And about slavery: I have never met a living slave, probably because I was
> born more then a hundred years after abandonment of slavery. It seems
> you've met a lot of them - how old are you? 150+?
I saw some former slaves: Russian and Ukrainian peasants, who during
Stalin era was deprived of all property, forbidden to live their
villages, and forced to work in "kolhoz" without any appropriate
compensation. Actually their position was even worse then privately
held slaves of old time. Slaves were a valuable property for a
slaveholder who usually avoid to kill them without a reason, while
Stalinist government destroyed thousands of peasants without any cause.
--
***********************************************************************
* DISCLAIMER: Written above expresses opinions of the fraer only, *
* and even other fraers would not agree with this. *
***********************************************************************
Eugene *fraer*
>
> Eugene *fraer* <eug...@mit.edu> wrote:
> > So he at list could notice in this article obvious nonsenses
> >such as statements that Shevchenko did not write poetry against bondage
> >or that Shevchenko used the word "moskali" to name Russians (while in
> >fact he consistently used it to name soldiers, Russian and Ukrainian
> >alike). But Sorokin preferred to post this bullshit anyway.
>
> perevodjat', ta j to chort-zna po-jakomu. Natovkmachat' jakyx-
> s' "individualizmiv" toshcho, tak shcho azh jazyk oterpne, poky
> vymovysh. (Taras Shevchenko "Peredmova do druhoho viddannja
> Kobzarja," "Povne zibrannja tvoriv v desjaty tomax", t. 1, 1951,
> stor. 374.)
>
> So, you suggest to translate this as:
>
> "But why don't the SOLDIERS themselves write anything in their
> language, but only translate, and even that into devil knows what
> language..."
May be you get me. I am not familiar with Shevcheno articles, only with
his poetry and prose.
The above quotation doesn't make any sense to me anyway.
What is it: a denial of existence of Russian language? Then it is just a
joke.
Or may be he criticized only certain Russians?
May be he criticized Russian officials who write on bureaucratic language
instead of the real Russian?
> For most
> literary Ukrainians Russian was their native language while literary
> Ukrainian developed by Shevchenko and others remained foreign until
> the Revolution
And Kotljarevskyj and Kvitka-Osnovjanenko was of cause "illiterate"
Ukrainians.
And what about this Shevchenko verse addressed to the literary Ukrainians:
"...toj bat'ko
Ostannju korovu
Zhydam prodav poky vyvchyv
Moskovs'koji movy"
Isn't it a little inflated price (a cow) to learn the Russian language
(their native as you say)?
> The story about "moskali=soldiers" comes from the teachers of
> Ukrainian literature in high schools who followed the "official"
> interpretation of the word.
I don't need "official interpretation" of the book that I can understand
myself.
For example:
"A ja pishov u moskali..." -
a poem about the Ukrainian who signed in as a soldier because of unhappy
love.
"Moskaleva Krynycja" -
a poem about the Ukrainian (former soldier) who built a well for the
benefit of his fellow villagers.
Even the quotation that was used by Ul'janov:
"Kohajtesja chornobryvi ta ne z moskaljamy..." -
the whole poem is about an officer who deceived a girl. The context
clearly shows that the discussed word pointed to the occupation not to his
national origin. May be he was a German baron as many officers in Russian
army - the poem does not give us any indication. Ul'janov clearly tries to
misled the reader pointing to this line as the example of the nationalism.
> In certain contexts, it might be
> interpreted this way, indeed. But usually, it means "Muscovites".
> I encourage you to read more of Shevchenko
As my book of Shevchenko contains only poetry I encourage you to pint me
to a POEM where the word "moskal'" should NOT be translated as a soldier
(of the Russian Army) or a Russian official.
> As for his talent, I tend to agree with you that he was talented.
> Although I don't like him in general, I do enjoy some of his
> verses. However, I would not inflate his talent to the level of
> a genius as many Ukrainians do. His talent was very one-sided;
> like that of Nekrasov, its expression was mostly in wailing.
> Shevchenko's wailing was over a child's sweet fairy-tale (Ukrainian
> Cossack democratic republic) which never was a part of reality.
I generally agree that Shevchenko was no intellectual. Nor he was an
internationalist (also we wrote some poetry about international
friendship). And, yes, Shevchenko romanticized genocide and anarchy in
Gaydamaky as later did Babel in Konarmija. His historical poetry no more
can be used as a textbook in Ukrainian history then poetry by Zhukovskij
or A.K. Tolstoj about Russian past. And of cause not all his poems are
equally strong (who wrote only masterpieces anyway?).
The point that I insist on: the person who does not enjoy Shevchenko
poetry does not know Ukrainian well enough to appreciate any of Ukrainian
literature. As for Shevchenko political views, it is not necessary to
share them in order to enjoy his literature.
B.COPOKIH
>BTW I was astonished by Sorokin, who reposted in KOI complete nonsenses
>about Shevchenko written by Uljanov. Probably the author intended this
>misinformation toward people who never read Shevchenko, but Sorokin who
>grow up in Ukraine definitely was forced to study this poetry at
>school. So he at list could notice in this article obvious nonsenses
>such as statements that Shevchenko did not write poetry against bondage
>or that Shevchenko used the word "moskali" to name Russians (while in
>fact he consistently used it to name soldiers, Russian and Ukrainian
>alike). But Sorokin preferred to post this bullshit anyway.
I only partially agree with Kagalenko that "fraer" should
be translated in English as a "dweeb". I think it should
be translated as a "not very smart dweeb". Moskali -
soldiers - is a way to hide from those who unaware the
true nature of Shevchenko, as well editing out his use
of racist slurs like "ZHYD" in Soveit times and the
current attempts of lovers of Shevchenko to legitimize
the word ZHYD in modern Ukrainian.
--
To get help with Cyrillic you might need to visit (WWW):
http://solar.rtd.utk.edu/friends/cyrillic/cyrillic.html
http://www.osc.edu/ukraine.html
http://www.cs.umd.edu/ftp/pub/cyrillic/
http://iaiwww.uni-muenster.de/cgi-bin/simplex/lat/lit.html
These views might be different from other views in my Univers(e/ity)
mailto:vso...@pop.uky.edu
Ed Ponarin
>BTW I was astonished by Sorokin, who reposted in KOI complete nonsenses
>about Shevchenko written by Uljanov. Probably the author intended this
>misinformation toward people who never read Shevchenko, but Sorokin who
>grow up in Ukraine definitely was forced to study this poetry at
>school. So he at list could notice in this article obvious nonsenses
>such as statements that Shevchenko did not write poetry against bondage
>or that Shevchenko used the word "moskali" to name Russians (while in
>fact he consistently used it to name soldiers, Russian and Ukrainian
>alike). But Sorokin preferred to post this bullshit anyway.
A chom moskali sami nichoho ne pyshut' po-svojemu, a til'ky
perevodjat', ta j to chort-zna po-jakomu. Natovkmachat' jakyx-
s' "individualizmiv" toshcho, tak shcho azh jazyk oterpne, poky
vymovysh. (Taras Shevchenko "Peredmova do druhoho viddannja
Kobzarja," "Povne zibrannja tvoriv v desjaty tomax", t. 1, 1951,
stor. 374.)
So, you suggest to translate this as:
"But why don't the SOLDIERS themselves write anything in their
language, but only translate, and even that into devil knows what
language..."
Shevchenko in that part of his preface encourages his reader to write
in Ukrainian. Anticipating the reader's natural reaction (for most
literary Ukrainians Russian was their native language while literary
Ukrainian developed by Shevchenko and others remained foreign until
the Revolution), he says that the Muscovites (moskali) do not write
in their own language, either, but rather put in "jakys' inividualizmi
toshcho"; so, why won't Ukrainian literati switch to a language
without such complex words so that Shevchenko's tongue would not
hurt.
The story about "moskali=soldiers" comes from the teachers of
Ukrainian literature in high schools who followed the "official"
interpretation of the word. In certain contexts, it might be
interpreted this way, indeed. But usually, it means "Muscovites".
I encourage you to read more of Shevchenko in order to appreciate
his nationalism described by Ul'janov.
As for his talent, I tend to agree with you that he was talented.
Although I don't like him in general, I do enjoy some of his
verses. However, I would not inflate his talent to the level of
a genius as many Ukrainians do. His talent was very one-sided;
like that of Nekrasov, its expression was mostly in wailing.
Shevchenko's wailing was over a child's sweet fairy-tale (Ukrainian
Cossack democratic republic) which never was a part of reality.
Here is what F. Sologub had to say about him:
Shevchenko byl xam i nevjezhda. Grubyj chelovjek. Vsje
ego satiry tuskly, ne jazvitel'ny, dlinny. Chelovjecheskoj
dushi on ne znal. Ne ponimal ni sebja, ni ljudej, ni
prirody... Shevchenko ne umjel smotrjet', nichego ne vidjel,
no -- on umjel pjet'. Nevjezhda, xam, no -- divnyj
muzykal'nyj instrument.
(K. Chukovskij "Dnjevnik" M 1991, s. 336)
--
Ed Ponarin -- Эдуард Понарин
e...@umich.edu
Don't even dare to think that my employer endorses these opinions!
B.COPOKIH
> B.COPOKIH wrote:
> > Moskali -
> > soldiers - is a way to hide from those who unaware the
> > true nature of Shevchenko,
> It is not necessary to reserve to falsifications in order to prove that
> Shevchenko was indeed a nationalist. The quotation from Kateryna used
> by Uljanov as the sample of Shevchenko national bigotry is clear
> falsification. In this quotation and in the poem as a whole the word
> "moskali" used to describe soldiers. Ponarin BTW found much better
> quotation. The fact that Uljanov used the inaccurate translation of
> Shevchenko shows that this author is unscrupulous.
Do you mean that there are no other words in Ukrainian to
describe soldiers? Or, perhaps, moskal' is a special type
of a soldier - a Russian soldier - and Shevchenko specifially
warned againt loving RUSSIAN soldiets while loving Ukrainian
soldiers - is OK?
> > as well editing out his use
> > of racist slurs like "ZHYD" in Soveit times and the
> > current attempts of lovers of Shevchenko to legitimize
> > the word ZHYD in modern Ukrainian.
> Again it is not necessary to reserve to falsifications in order to show
> Shevchenko prejudices against Jews. There was no "more neutral" word
> other then "zhid" at Shevchenko's time to name a Jew, so it in no way
> could be consider "the use of racist slurs" by him as you claim.
Do you mean that in Shevchenko times there was no word
by which Jews prefered to call themselves? If so, this means that
in Shevchenko times Ukrainian Jews were much more dumb (or much
less smart, whatever you prefer :-)) than they are now.
> But it is enough to read the poem Gajdamaky were he justifies and
> glorifies ethical massacre when 160,000 Jews were killed to understand
> that there was no love lost between him and Jews. The same way he
> justified killings of Ukrainian landlords along with their families in
> Varnak:
> "Ja rizav vse scho panom zvalos' bez sozhalenija i zla".
Ed Ponarin
>> A chom moskali sami nichoho ne pyshut' po-svojemu, a til'ky
>> perevodjat', ta j to chort-zna po-jakomu. Natovkmachat' jakyx-
>> s' "individualizmiv" toshcho, tak shcho azh jazyk oterpne, poky
>> vymovysh. (Taras Shevchenko "Peredmova do druhoho viddannja
>> Kobzarja," "Povne zibrannja tvoriv v desjaty tomax", t. 1, 1951,
>> stor. 374.)
> May be you get me. I am not familiar with Shevcheno articles, only with
> his poetry and prose.
> The above quotation doesn't make any sense to me anyway.
> What is it: a denial of existence of Russian language? Then it is just a
> joke.
> Or may be he criticized only certain Russians?
> May be he criticized Russian officials who write on bureaucratic language
> instead of the real Russian?
I think I quite clearly explained in my previous articles the meaning
of this phrase. Shevchenko offers his Ukrainian audience to use Ukrainian
as a literary language. For literate Ukrainians that was an innovation.
Anticipating his readers' reaction, Shevchenko tries to persuade his
readers that Russians do not use their own language, either. It is quite
a clumsy attempt on the part of Shevchenko, to be sure.
,,,,
>> For most
>> literary Ukrainians Russian was their native language while literary
>> Ukrainian developed by Shevchenko and others remained foreign until
>> the Revolution
> And Kotljarevskyj and Kvitka-Osnovjanenko was of cause "illiterate"
> Ukrainians.
Please, notice the word "MOST" in my phrase. The few people who developed
modern Ukrainian language did not make majority of Ukrainian literati.
> And what about this Shevchenko verse addressed to the literary Ukrainians:
> "...toj bat'ko
> Ostannju korovu
> Zhydam prodav poky vyvchyv
> Moskovs'koji movy"
>Isn't it a little inflated price (a cow) to learn the Russian language
>(their native as you say)?
A Pskov moujik's effort to master Standard Russian would not significantly
differ from that of a Poltava moujik's.
>> The story about "moskali=soldiers" comes from the teachers of
>> Ukrainian literature in high schools who followed the "official"
>> interpretation of the word.
> I don't need "official interpretation" of the book that I can understand
> myself.
I am afraid your understanding is not correct, at least in some cases.
> For example:
> "A ja pishov u moskali..." -
> a poem about the Ukrainian who signed in as a soldier because of unhappy
> love.
This is one of the cases where it can be argued indeed that moskali
might refer to soldiers. However, even here it may be argued otherwise:
a soldier will join Moscow's army, will be assimilated into that culture,
and will lose some salient Ukrainian features.
> Even the quotation that was used by Ul'janov:
> "Kohajtesja chornobryvi ta ne z moskaljamy..." -
> the whole poem is about an officer who deceived a girl. The context
> clearly shows that the discussed word pointed to the occupation not to his
> national origin.
Why then Kateryna asks people where is the "shljax na Moskovshchynu?"
> The point that I insist on: the person who does not enjoy Shevchenko
> poetry does not know Ukrainian well enough to appreciate any of Ukrainian
> literature.
I don't think I tried to argue with this point.
> As for Shevchenko political views, it is not necessary to
> share them in order to enjoy his literature.
Oftentimes it is awfully hard to divorce the two, like in the same
"Kateryna."
F. Tereshchenko
>F. Tereshchenko wrote:
>>
>Of course there is now standard taste in poetry, but in my opinion the
>fact that you do not appreciate Shevchenko shows that you don't have
>full comprehension of Ukrainian language.
I think I have.
>The poetry of Shevchenko is a the essence of Ukrainian poetic language
>and specifically Ukrainian poetic comprehension of the world. To deny
>him a talent is to deny existence of Ukrainian poetry at all. Could
>you, Mr.. Tereshchenko, name me a Ukrainian poet that you value above
>Shevchenko?
LESIA UKRAJINKA - better language, interesting themes, no anger or
hatred.
>The same I would say to a person who would judge Pushkin to be a
>mediocre interpreter of lord Byron - "You probably don't know Russian".
>Of course not to command a foreign language is not a mortal sin, but it
>is utter ignorance to judge the literature without full comprehension
>of the language.
Here I agree with you -- poetry must be read in original language only.
>BTW I was astonished by Sorokin, who reposted in KOI complete nonsenses
>about Shevchenko written by Uljanov. Probably the author intended this
>misinformation toward people who never read Shevchenko, but Sorokin who
>grow up in Ukraine definitely was forced to study this poetry at
>school. So he at list could notice in this article obvious nonsenses
>such as statements that Shevchenko did not write poetry against bondage
>or that Shevchenko used the word "moskali" to name Russians (while in
>fact he consistently used it to name soldiers, Russian and Ukrainian
>alike). But Sorokin preferred to post this bullshit anyway.
Sorry, I did not read it.
Yours,
Feodor Tereshchenko, Esq
Eugene *fraer*
> Moskali -
> soldiers - is a way to hide from those who unaware the
> true nature of Shevchenko,
It is not necessary to reserve to falsifications in order to prove that
Shevchenko was indeed a nationalist. The quotation from Kateryna used
by Uljanov as the sample of Shevchenko national bigotry is clear
falsification. In this quotation and in the poem as a whole the word
"moskali" used to describe soldiers. Ponarin BTW found much better
quotation. The fact that Uljanov used the inaccurate translation of
Shevchenko shows that this author is unscrupulous.
> as well editing out his use
> of racist slurs like "ZHYD" in Soveit times and the
> current attempts of lovers of Shevchenko to legitimize
> the word ZHYD in modern Ukrainian.
Again it is not necessary to reserve to falsifications in order to show
Shevchenko prejudices against Jews. There was no "more neutral" word
other then "zhid" at Shevchenko's time to name a Jew, so it in no way
could be consider "the use of racist slurs" by him as you claim.
But it is enough to read the poem Gajdamaky were he justifies and
glorifies ethical massacre when 160,000 Jews were killed to understand
that there was no love lost between him and Jews. The same way he
justified killings of Ukrainian landlords along with their families in
Varnak:
"Ja rizav vse scho panom zvalos' bez sozhalenija i zla".
--
Rostyk Lewyckyj
F. Tereshchenko <fter...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
|In article <4i5piv$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, GRycar <gry...@aol.com> wrote:
|> The issue is not the meager existance under Soviet
|>Russian rule, but freedom and its possibilities meathead! Under Russian
|>oppression the only possibility was slavery and death.
|
|> ............................................
|
|And about slavery: I have never met a living slave, probably because I was
|born more then a hundred years after abandonment of slavery. It seems
|you've met a lot of them - how old are you? 150+?
|
|
Dear Mr. FT Esq.
In Ukrainian the word for slavery is 'nevol'a' and for slave 'nevil'nyk',
i.e. no freedom, and one who is not free. In light of this literal
translation of the Ukrainian words into English, do you still maintain
that you have never met any slaves?
I claim that subjugated to Russia, Ukraine and its people were not free,
neither in the Tsarist nor the Soviet empires.
--Rostyk
Vladimir Smirnov
> > current attempts of lovers of Shevchenko to legitimize
> > the word ZHYD in modern Ukrainian.
>
> Again it is not necessary to reserve to falsifications in order to show
> Shevchenko prejudices against Jews. There was no "more neutral" word
> other then "zhid" at Shevchenko's time to name a Jew, so it in no way
> could be consider "the use of racist slurs" by him as you claim.
Note that Pushkin also used the word "zhid" in his works
(see "Skupoj Rycar'") without any anti-semitic meaning.
Maybe in these times, the word was no so offensive as it is now.
- Smirnov
--
Home page: http://128.100.80.13/vladimir/
DISCLAIMER: My opinion does not represent the opinion of
my employer or my Internet provider.
B.COPOKIH
) Are there any
> monuments to Russian poets in the US, btw?
How else True Ukrainians in US can show to the world
that their culture has something more than folk dances
and songs?
Jurassic
[...]
>Again it is not necessary to reserve to falsifications in order to show
>Shevchenko prejudices against Jews. There was no "more neutral" word
>other then "zhid" at Shevchenko's time to name a Jew, so it in no way
>could be consider "the use of racist slurs" by him as you claim.
>
>glorifies ethical massacre when 160,000 Jews were killed to understand
>that there was no love lost between him and Jews. The same way he
>justified killings of Ukrainian landlords along with their families in
>Varnak:
> "Ja rizav vse scho panom zvalos' bez sozhalenija i zla".
It is quite important to highlight the point that all these massacres
that happened during Gaidamachchyna were of social rather than racial
nature. Bloody uprisings of the poor against the rich happened all
over the Europe; in Ukraine the poor and the rich happened to be ethnically
stratified. In particular, most of the nobelty and property owners
were Poles and Jews were customarily hired as administrators of the
property. Jews also were major merchands and traders. Shevchenko
viewed these uprisings as welcome signs of the thrust of 'simple
people' for freedom, hence his glorification of the bloodshed and hate
for 'gnobyteli'. The latter included ethnic Ukrainians who were exploiting
their 'brothers', as you correctly noted. This was in fact widely promulgated
by communists as an evidence that Shevchenko was 'revolutionary' and
'proletarian', so it is quite surprising that our fellows from ex-UkrSSR
prefer to ignore this well-known stuff.
--
Jurassic
F. Tereshchenko
Rostyk Lewyckyj <urj...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu> wrote:
>Dear Mr. FT Esq.
>In Ukrainian the word for slavery is 'nevol'a' and for slave 'nevil'nyk',
>i.e. no freedom, and one who is not free. In light of this literal
>translation of the Ukrainian words into English, do you still maintain
>that you have never met any slaves?
According to your etymology modern time slaves are those guys in prison?
Fortunately, I have never been there. I have never meat anyone
"pozbavlenogo voli".
>I claim that subjugated to Russia, Ukraine and its people were not free,
>neither in the Tsarist nor the Soviet empires.
Yes, before 1861 Ukrainian and Russian serfs were not free. But I did not
live in that time. What is "Soviet empire". This country never existed.
USSR was a communist state, so it cannot be an empire by definition.
Yours,
Feodor Tereshchenko, Esq.
Eugene *fraer*
>
> Eugene *fraer* wrote:
> > B.COPOKIH wrote:
>
> > > Moskali -
> > > soldiers - is a way to hide from those who unaware the
> > > true nature of Shevchenko,
>
> > It is not necessary to reserve to falsifications in order to prove that
> > Shevchenko was indeed a nationalist. The quotation from Kateryna used
> > by Uljanov as the sample of Shevchenko national bigotry is clear
> > falsification. In this quotation and in the poem as a whole the word
> > "moskali" used to describe soldiers. Ponarin BTW found much better
> > quotation. The fact that Uljanov used the inaccurate translation of
> > Shevchenko shows that this author is unscrupulous.
>
> describe soldiers? Or, perhaps, moskal' is a special type
> of a soldier - a Russian soldier - and Shevchenko specifially
> warned againt loving RUSSIAN soldiets while loving Ukrainian
> soldiers - is OK?
As I already illustrated, Shevchenko used this word toward the Ukrainian
soldiers too. For example in the poem Moskaleva Krynycja he speaks about
the Ukrainian who returned from Russian Army and Shevchenko gave him many
praises for his steady habits.
Because Shevchenko used spoken language in his poetry, he can not use any
other word because this is the only word that his readers used toward the
Russian soldiers. Polish Army soldiers BTW was named by the different
word:
"A za naju dva zhovnira z golymy shabljamy"
> Do you mean that in Shevchenko times there was no word
> by which Jews prefered to call themselves? If so, this means that
> in Shevchenko times Ukrainian Jews were much more dumb (or much
> less smart, whatever you prefer :-)) than they are now.
As the word "zhid" was not derogatory at that time, they had no reason to
complain. But language changing, you know. My point is that word "evrej"
came to Russian and Ukrainian later then Shevchenko started to write.
Then, please, prove me wrong:
Quote who and when first used any different word for Jews either in
Ukrainian or in Russian literature.
Rostyk Lewyckyj
F. Tereshchenko <fter...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
|In article <4if5qa$e...@newz.oit.unc.edu>,
|Rostyk Lewyckyj <urj...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu> wrote:
|
|>Dear Mr. FT Esq.
|>In Ukrainian the word for slavery is 'nevol'a' and for slave 'nevil'nyk',
|>i.e. no freedom, and one who is not free. In light of this literal
|>translation of the Ukrainian words into English, do you still maintain
|>that you have never met any slaves?
|
|According to your etymology modern time slaves are those guys in prison?
|Fortunately, I have never been there. I have never meat anyone
|"pozbavlenogo voli".
According to my etymology, prison = "vjaznyts'a" and prisoner = "vjazen'"
These are different from nevol'a and nevil'nyk.
|
|>I claim that subjugated to Russia, Ukraine and its people were not free,
|>neither in the Tsarist nor the Soviet empires.
|
|Yes, before 1861 Ukrainian and Russian serfs were not free. But I did not
|live in that time. What is "Soviet empire". This country never existed.
|USSR was a communist state, so it cannot be an empire by definition.
I seem to remember the word for serf as being "kripak", I think it's
"krepak" in the Russian (dialect :) ).
And as to the Russian Soviet empire not having existed, well just continue
in your state of denial :)
|
|Yours,
|
|Feodor Tereshchenko, Esq.
|
--Rostyk
Alexander Luchin
Zhydam, bratam svoim horoshym
Ostanni viddaiut' stany.
Taras Shevchenko.
maznev
>As the word "zhid" was not derogatory at that time, they had no reason to
>complain. But language changing, you know. My point is that word "evrej"
>came to Russian and Ukrainian later then Shevchenko started to write.
>
>Then, please, prove me wrong:
>Quote who and when first used any different word for Jews either in
>Ukrainian or in Russian literature.
>
Даже у Куприна, например, есть рассказ "Жидовка",
и никакого оскорбительного смысла там нет.
Eugene *fraer*
Eugene *fraer* <eug...@mit.edu> wrote:
> >The poetry of Shevchenko is a the essence of Ukrainian poetic language
> >and specifically Ukrainian poetic comprehension of the world. To deny
> >him a talent is to deny existence of Ukrainian poetry at all. Could
> >you, Mr.. Tereshchenko, name me a Ukrainian poet that you value above
> >Shevchenko?
>
> LESIA UKRAJINKA - better language, interesting themes, no anger or
> hatred.
Lesja Ukrainka was real intellectual writer of European scale. I love her
plays such as Kaminnyj Gospodar and Lisova Pisnja. But her poetry is just
rimed prose. She did not use the Ukrainian language as a musical
instrument like Shevchenko did. What of her poems could you thing? What
would you like know by hart? In this respect she did not reach even level
of other "nationalistic extremist" - Ivan Franko.
I can name only one of her poem that is really close to the Shevchenko
level - Bez Nadii Spodivajus'.
From the other hand her literature could be easily translated to a foreign
language. Even most folklore of her pieces - Lisova Pisnja contains
enough descriptive information to be translated and understood by a
foreigner or a person who knows Ukrainian as a second language.
From the other hand to translate Shevchenko you need a real genius. You
have to reinterpret his poetry like Marshak did with Robert Burns.
BTW it is interesting that so far all participants of the discussion about
Shevchenko that I try to initiate are kind of Russian-oriented (including
myself). None of our self-styled Ukrainian patriots found a word to say
about Ukrainian genius. I suspect that all their patriotism is just
Muscovite-bashing. As for Ukrainian culture - they don't care. This is a
way of all nationalistic vulgarians.
Vladimir Smirnov
>
> As the word "zhid" was not derogatory at that time, they had no reason to
> complain. But language changing, you know. My point is that word "evrej"
> came to Russian and Ukrainian later then Shevchenko started to write.
>
> Then, please, prove me wrong:
> Quote who and when first used any different word for Jews either in
> Ukrainian or in Russian literature.
A.S.Pushkin, "Gavriiliada", 1818(?). The very first line of it.
I don't know who used the word "evrej" in Russian literature first,
but the above is an example of its usage before Shevchenko started
to write. As I already pointed out, the word "zhid" was also used
by Pushkin, and also without derogatory meaning.
F. Tereshchenko
>> live in that time. What is "Soviet empire". This country never existed.
>> USSR was a communist state, so it cannot be an empire by definition.
>Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
> empire n --
>a (1): a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a
> number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign
> authority; esp: one having an emperor as chief of state
> (2): the territory of such a political unit
>b: something resembling a political empire; esp: an extensive territory
>or enterprise under single domination or control
>
>As anybody can see the Soviet Union can probably fell under definition a(1)
>and definitely under definition b.
I understand empire as a state under Emperor. B-meaning is only a figural
form.
>As for the serfs you, Fedor, did not answer my statement:
>At the Soviet times from 1930th to 1950th villagers did not have right to
>quit kolhoz and to live their village. They were forced to work on the
>fields without right to negotiate a compensation. Even produce from their
>own gardens and livestock can be expropriated without compensation as
>"natural tax". So their position was similar or even worse that one of
>serfs before 1861. And you probably met some of these people.
Yes I met those people. They never considered themselves serfs.
Yours,
Feodor Tereshchenko
Eugene *fraer*
>
> Yes, before 1861 Ukrainian and Russian serfs were not free. But I did not
> live in that time. What is "Soviet empire". This country never existed.
> USSR was a communist state, so it cannot be an empire by definition.
Speaking about definitions:
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
empire n --
a (1): a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a
number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign
authority; esp: one having an emperor as chief of state
(2): the territory of such a political unit
b: something resembling a political empire; esp: an extensive territory
or enterprise under single domination or control
As anybody can see the Soviet Union can probably fell under definition a(1)
and definitely under definition b.
As for the serfs you, Fedor, did not answer my statement:
At the Soviet times from 1930th to 1950th villagers did not have right to
quit kolhoz and to live their village. They were forced to work on the
fields without right to negotiate a compensation. Even produce from their
own gardens and livestock can be expropriated without compensation as
"natural tax". So their position was similar or even worse that one of
serfs before 1861. And you probably met some of these people.
***********************************************************************
Eugene *fraer*
#
#In article <314E71...@mit.edu>, Eugene *fraer* <eug...@mit.edu> wrote:
#>Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
#> empire n --
#>a (1): a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a
#> number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign
#> authority; esp: one having an emperor as chief of state
#> (2): the territory of such a political unit
#>b: something resembling a political empire; esp: an extensive territory
#>or enterprise under single domination or control
#
#I understand empire as a state under Emperor.
Does it mean that you consider yourself the higher authority in English than
authors of the Merriam-Webster?
As you can see, they explicitly say that to name the chief of state an
emperor is not necessary in order to fell under the definition of empire.
#
#>As for the serfs you, Fedor, did not answer my statement:
#>At the Soviet times from 1930th to 1950th villagers did not have right to
#>quit kolhoz and to live their village. They were forced to work on the
#>fields without right to negotiate a compensation. Even produce from their
#>own gardens and livestock can be expropriated without compensation as
#>"natural tax". So their position was similar or even worse that one of
#>serfs before 1861. And you probably met some of these people.
#
#Yes I met those people. They never considered themselves serfs.
Again why do you think that to be a slave one should consider himself a
slave?
How convenient:
name a chief of state "The Secretary General" instead of "The Emperor"
name bonded peasants "kolhozniks" instead of "slaves"
and voila
you have neither empire nor slaves.
This trick was described very well by George Orwell in "1984" and called
the New Speech.
--
Rostyk Lewyckyj
F. Tereshchenko <fter...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
|In article <314E71...@mit.edu>, Eugene *fraer* <eug...@mit.edu> wrote:
|>>
|>> Yes, before 1861 Ukrainian and Russian serfs were not free. But I did not
|>> live in that time. What is "Soviet empire". This country never existed.
|>> USSR was a communist state, so it cannot be an empire by definition.
|>Speaking about definitions:
|>Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
|> empire n --
|>
|>and definitely under definition b.
|
|form.
So if the title used for the ruler is not "Emperor" or perhaps "Imperator"
then the entity is not an empire. :-) :-) :-) he, he,he,he ROFL.
Therefore there never was an English empire, German empire etc. etc.
Amazing.
|>As for the serfs you, Fedor, did not answer my statement:
|>At the Soviet times from 1930th to 1950th villagers did not have right to
|>quit kolhoz and to live their village. They were forced to work on the
|>fields without right to negotiate a compensation. Even produce from their
|>own gardens and livestock can be expropriated without compensation as
|>"natural tax". So their position was similar or even worse that one of
|>serfs before 1861. And you probably met some of these people.
|
|Yes I met those people. They never considered themselves serfs.
Again amazing. Unbelievable, unless one were to wonder what was being left
unsaid. Perhaps it's just a matter of wording. Just which of those people
did Mr. FT Esq. meet, perhaps only those born into those conditions in the
later 1940's. In which case they were just little snots before the 1950s
and did not face the question of whether they were serfs. Or perhaps any
older people just did not use the word "serf" specifically to describe
their condition, and therefore Mr. FT Esq. feels free to make his claim.
|
|Yours,
|
|Feodor Tereshchenko
|
--Rostyk
Roman Voronka
> Eugene *fraer* <eug...@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> [....deteted...]
>
>BTW it is interesting that so far all participants of the discussion about
>Shevchenko that I try to initiate are kind of Russian-oriented (including
>myself). None of our self-styled Ukrainian patriots found a word to say
>about Ukrainian genius. I suspect that all their patriotism is just
>Muscovite-bashing. As for Ukrainian culture - they don't care. This is a
>way of all nationalistic vulgarians.
>
An absurd accusation! But you are correct in your choice of words which I
will rephrase. At least I'm not interested in discussing Taras Shevchenko
with chauvinistic Russian vulgarians. The posts about him were mostly of
deragatory nature made by boors who are not capable of appreciating the
meaning of Shevchenko. Why get involved in discussions with people who
do not even know that the Ukrainian word for Jew is Zhyd and for
Hebrew is Yevrej? With those who have difficulty understanding the
usage of the word "moskal'"? How can anyone whose knowledge of
Shevchenko stems exclusively from "Soviet" literature (which did
proscribe some of Shevchenko's poety) be capable of an unbiased
discussion?
RV
Henrietta Thomas
: In article <4imj8m$n...@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
: F. Tereshchenko <fter...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
: |In article <314E71...@mit.edu>, Eugene *fraer* <eug...@mit.edu> wrote:
: |>As for the serfs you, Fedor, did not answer my statement:
: |>At the Soviet times from 1930th to 1950th villagers did not have right to
: |>quit kolhoz and to live their village. They were forced to work on the
: |>fields without right to negotiate a compensation. Even produce from their
: |>own gardens and livestock can be expropriated without compensation as
: |>"natural tax". So their position was similar or even worse that one of
: |>serfs before 1861. And you probably met some of these people.
: |
: |Yes I met those people. They never considered themselves serfs.
: Again amazing. Unbelievable, unless one were to wonder what was being left
: unsaid. Perhaps it's just a matter of wording. Just which of those people
: did Mr. FT Esq. meet, perhaps only those born into those conditions in the
: later 1940's. In which case they were just little snots before the 1950s
: and did not face the question of whether they were serfs. Or perhaps any
: older people just did not use the word "serf" specifically to describe
: their condition, and therefore Mr. FT Esq. feels free to make his claim.
Not wishing to get too deeply involved in this argument, I would point
out that slavery and serfdom are distinguished from other types of
involuntary servitude by the fact that the slaves/serfs are considered to be
the private property of their owners, and (a) may be bought and sold in the
marketplace as well as (b) inherited by right when their master dies.
Henrietta
F. Tereshchenko
>F. Tereshchenko wrote:
>#
>#In article <314E71...@mit.edu>, Eugene *fraer* <eug...@mit.edu> wrote:
>#>Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
>#> empire n --
>#> number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign
>#> authority; esp: one having an emperor as chief of state
>#> (2): the territory of such a political unit
>#>b: something resembling a political empire; esp: an extensive territory
>#>or enterprise under single domination or control
>#
>#I understand empire as a state under Emperor.
>Does it mean that you consider yourself the higher authority in English than
>authors of the Merriam-Webster?
>As you can see, they explicitly say that to name the chief of state an
>emperor is not necessary in order to fell under the definition of empire.
No I do not, in contrast to Mr. Korolyshyn or Ukrainian government. I
said there "I understand" not "in English language word empire means...".
>#>As for the serfs you, Fedor, did not answer my statement:
>#>At the Soviet times from 1930th to 1950th villagers did not have right to
>#>quit kolhoz and to live their village. They were forced to work on the
>#>fields without right to negotiate a compensation. Even produce from their
>#>own gardens and livestock can be expropriated without compensation as
>#>"natural tax". So their position was similar or even worse that one of
>#>serfs before 1861. And you probably met some of these people.
>#
>#Yes I met those people. They never considered themselves serfs.
>
>Again why do you think that to be a slave one should consider himself a
>slave?
An interesting question. BTW, could you quote the "slave" entries from
the dictionary?
>How convenient:
> name a chief of state "The Secretary General" instead of "The Emperor"
> name bonded peasants "kolhozniks" instead of "slaves"
>and voila
> you have neither empire nor slaves.
There is a big difference between Secretary General and Emperor. If you
consider who grants the power to the former and Who grants it to the
latter. If you rename Secretary General into Emperor he will not become
an Emperor. The same with new Autocephaly Orthodox Church: they may call
themselves an "Orthodox Church" but it is not enough to be the church.
You can rename a 'car' into a 'chariot', but it will not convert it into
the chariot. Slaves: slaves are the property of an owner. Kolkhozniks were
not a property of anybody. If one TREETS somebody as a property it does
not transform the subject to the property of the owner.
Yours,
Feodor Tereshchenko, Esq.
F. Tereshchenko
Rostyk Lewyckyj <urj...@gibbs.oit.unc.edu> wrote:
>In article <4imj8m$n...@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
>F. Tereshchenko <fter...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>|>>
>|>> Yes, before 1861 Ukrainian and Russian serfs were not free. But I did not
>|>> live in that time. What is "Soviet empire". This country never existed.
>|>> USSR was a communist state, so it cannot be an empire by definition.
>|>Speaking about definitions:
>|>Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
>|> empire n --
>|>
>|>and definitely under definition b.
>|
>|I understand empire as a state under Emperor. B-meaning is only a figural
>|form.
>
> So if the title used for the ruler is not "Emperor" or perhaps "Imperator"
> then the entity is not an empire.
If the head of state IS a Emperor - the state is called Empire.
"Imperator" is just Russian word for Emperor, as well as "Mikado" is
Japanese and "Keiser" is German.
> :-) :-) :-) he, he,he,he ROFL.
You have a good smile....
> Therefore there never was an English empire, German empire etc. etc.
> Amazing.
If you recall the title of George VI or Wilhelm you will understand that
both British and German empires existed. BTW, it was BRITISH Empire.
>|>As for the serfs you, Fedor, did not answer my statement:
>|>At the Soviet times from 1930th to 1950th villagers did not have right to
>|>quit kolhoz and to live their village. They were forced to work on the
>|>fields without right to negotiate a compensation. Even produce from their
>|>own gardens and livestock can be expropriated without compensation as
>|>"natural tax". So their position was similar or even worse that one of
>|>serfs before 1861. And you probably met some of these people.
>|
>|Yes I met those people. They never considered themselves serfs.
>
>Again amazing. Unbelievable, unless one were to wonder what was being left
>unsaid. Perhaps it's just a matter of wording. Just which of those people
>did Mr. FT Esq. meet, perhaps only those born into those conditions in the
>later 1940's. In which case they were just little snots before the 1950s
>and did not face the question of whether they were serfs. Or perhaps any
>older people just did not use the word "serf" specifically to describe
>their condition, and therefore Mr. FT Esq. feels free to make his claim.
My dacha neighbour is the Ukrainian guy who guarded Emperor palace in
SPb. He does not considers himself a slave. BTW, do not convert my claim
"the people whom I met did not considered themselves serfs" into
statement "all Ukrainian and/or Russian and/or Byelorussian and/or etc.
people do not consider themselves serfs".
Yours,
Feodor Tereshchenko, Esq.
Dan K.
> >As for the serfs you, Fedor, did not answer my statement:
> >At the Soviet times from 1930th to 1950th villagers did not have right to
> >quit kolhoz and to live their village. They were forced to work on the
> >fields without right to negotiate a compensation. Even produce from their
> >own gardens and livestock can be expropriated without compensation as
> >"natural tax". So their position was similar or even worse that one of
> >serfs before 1861. And you probably met some of these people.
> Yes I met those people. They never considered themselves serfs.
> Yours, Feodor Tereshchenko
Yes, Tereshchenko, I am sure that Stalin and Kaganovich who murdered
between six and ten million Ukrainian farmers who did not want to
give up their farms to Soviet Russian collectivization would agree
with you.
The Ukrainian nation, however, chose to get out of that worker's
paradise and so today Ukraine is a free nation and Ukrainians are
working on obtaining the fruits of their liberty.
The Ukrainian students can now go abroad to study,
Ukrainians can participate in all
kinds of world forums as free people instead of Russian puppets,
Ukrainian athletes can now represent their own country instead
of the occupying foreign power, the Ukrainian churches are no
longer repressed and Ukrainins can belong to whatever Christian
denomination they choose, Ukrainian is now the official language
in Ukraine istead of some foreign language that sounds like someone
puking and farting at the same time, Ukrainian history and culture
are no longer repressed and the Ukrainian people can now learn
in school what before they could only learn at home in great fear
of being found out. Yes the economy has a way to go to catch up
to other European countries, but Ukrainians no longer have to
die fighting Russian wars of "liberation" and murdering innocent
women and children as we see young Russian soldiers doing in
Chechnya. Yes freedom is sweet and we thank God for liberating
Ukraine.
Regards, Dan K.
Dan K.
> Not wishing to get too deeply involved in this argument, I would point
> out that slavery and serfdom are distinguished from other types of
> involuntary servitude by the fact that the slaves/serfs are considered to be
> the private property of their owners, and (a) may be bought and sold in the
> marketplace as well as (b) inherited by right when their master dies.
> Henrietta
Oh Henrietta you are so brilliant! Yes, the Soviet serfs were defacto
property of the state. The state decided who could study and who could
work where. One had to join the Communist Party to get a decent job and
one could not move and relocate one's residence as one chose. Everything
had to be approved by the state. One could not just get a passport and
travel abroad, one could not just emmigrate because one did not like
living in the workers paradise. The sovoks who post here have already
forgotten how "good" life was in the old Evil Empire. And all of those
who post here who are living and studying in the States would not be here
right now polluting the net with their electronic pollution, back in the
old workers paradise they surely would not have had internet access just
as the Chinese students in the remaining People's Workers Paradise do not.
Regards, Dan K.
Eugene *fraer*
> I don't know who used the word "evrej" in Russian literature first,
> but the above is an example of its usage before Shevchenko started
> to write. As I already pointed out, the word "zhid" was also used
> by Pushkin, and also without derogatory meaning.
You are right, I expressed myself incorrectly.
I wanted to know who first used this too words in two different
meanings?
As for Pushkin, he used them absolutely interchangably.
For example he used evrej in deragotory meaning, like in parody Shal':
"Kogda mne javilsja prezrennyj evrej".
--
Yaroslav Zolotaryuk
>
> In article <3146E8...@mit.edu>, Eugene *fraer* <eug...@mit.edu> wrote:
> >F. Tereshchenko wrote:
> >>
> >fact that you do not appreciate Shevchenko shows that you don't have
> >full comprehension of Ukrainian language.
>
> I think I have.
>
> >and specifically Ukrainian poetic comprehension of the world. To deny
> >him a talent is to deny existence of Ukrainian poetry at all. Could
> >you, Mr.. Tereshchenko, name me a Ukrainian poet that you value above
> >Shevchenko?
>
> LESIA UKRAJINKA - better language, interesting themes, no anger or
> hatred.
I think you do not have a "full comprehension of Ukrainian language"
as Fraer said
otherwise you would not compare Lesia Ukrainaka`s realism and
Shevchenko's romanticism. Shevchenko could be compared to Pamteleimon
Kulish who maybe was as talented as Shevchenko. But still he did not have
something what Shevchenko had.
[...]
>
> Yours,
>
> Feodor Tereshchenko, Esq
--
YZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
################################################################################
I kozhen ranok ja vykhodzhu na balkon, I кожен ранок я виходжу на балкон,
Jakis' byky mishajut' dlya budovy beton, Якiсь бики мiшають для будови бетон,
A ja sobi stoju v svojikh zelenykh trusakh, А я собi стою в своiх зелених трусах,
Zakhochete distaty - ja zalizu na dakh... Захочете дiстати - я залiзу на дах...
"Skryabin" "Скрябiн"
#################################################################################
GRycar
Remarkable! Sevchenko i great, that you cannot comprehend
him is another matter but non the less he is great. Personaly I have
little love for poetry, however it is Sevchenkos ideology that I love. He
is a great thinker and seer. All that he said came to pass and his advice
stands the proof of time. Your dislike of him is presicely because he was
rigth and your heroes wrong.
Lets try again, only in freedom will you find the gray
truth and a kind word, also there you will find a sincear heart and maby
glory. What this means is that the above is only possible in freedom and
can only be found through reason. Powerfull ideas not available at all in
Russia. If you read the entire poem then you will also learn that evil
lulls one to sleep and that untill you are an orphan-a slave reason will
die. Medeocre! But then again you are Soviet educated and as you well
know, Soviet education specialized in teaching their students to be stupid
and love dependancy.
Regards
George
GRycar
Sevchenko is the greatest Ukraines greatest metapheician. It is
Sevchenko that again resurects the ancient Greek avresion to the evils of
empires and the onthological basis of its evils. It is Sevchenko and only
Sevchenko that understands that human freedom and as such human creativity
cannot fullfill itselfe except
F. Tereshchenko
>Tereshenko;
> Remarkable! Sevchenko i great, that you cannot comprehend
So, who is great you or Shevchenko?
>him is another matter but non the less he is great. Personaly I have
>little love for poetry, however it is Sevchenkos ideology that I love. He
At last. You look for ideology in poetry, but I like POETRY in poetry.
This is what Shevchenko lacks.
Yours,
Feodor Tereshchenko, Esq.
Eugene *fraer*
>GRycar <gry...@aol.com> wrote:
> >him is another matter but non the less he is great. Personaly I have
> >little love for poetry, however it is Sevchenkos ideology that I love.
>
> This is what Shevchenko lacks.
Shame on you both.
"A plague a both the Houses."
If both of you can not comprehend the poetry of Shevchenko (probably
because of your poor command of literary Ukrainian) then at list refrain
from judgments. Definitely I am not an authority in this matter either,
but read at list opinions of people who "make culture" -- Ukrainian and
Russian poets and writers.
Or if you do understand Ukrainian, then read Shevchenko again.
Take his classical lines:
Reve ta stogne Dnipr shyrokyj
Serdytyj viter zavyva
Do dolu verby gne vysoki
Do gory hvyli pidijma.
Read it aloud with the proper Ukrainian pronunciation.
Listen to it:
In the first line e-e (not Russian and not English - Ukrainian "e") -
this is a low tone of the Dniper waves.
Now in the second line y-i-y - this is a higher tone of the wind blowing.
Is it the ideology, Mr.. Rycar?
Is it "no poetry" Mr.. Tereschenko?
But this is the lines for which Shevchenko is precious to millions of
real Ukrainians (not nationalistic scams).
Any person who sees in Shevchenko only ideology is like a burglar who got
a precious diamond in his hand, but see it only as the tool to cut glass
in somebody's window.
Y. Perkhounkov
On Fri, 22 Mar 1996, Eugene *fraer* wrote:
> Or if you do understand Ukrainian, then read Shevchenko again.
> Take his classical lines:
> Reve ta stogne Dnipr shyrokyj
> Serdytyj viter zavyva
> Do dolu verby gne vysoki
> Do gory hvyli pidijma.
>
> Read it aloud with the proper Ukrainian pronunciation.
Don't read it aloud! Sing it! Sing it with an angel's voice! Cry about
it--your tears will be your indulgence from your sins.
Yelena.
> Listen to it:
> In the first line e-e (not Russian and not English - Ukrainian "e") -
> this is a low tone of the Dniper waves.
> Now in the second line y-i-y - this is a higher tone of the wind blowing.
>
>
>
>
LEVCHENKO Vladimir
On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Dan K. wrote:
> F. Tereshchenko wrote:
>
> > >As for the serfs you, Fedor, did not answer my statement:
> > >At the Soviet times from 1930th to 1950th villagers did not have right to
> > >quit kolhoz and to live their village. They were forced to work on the
> > >fields without right to negotiate a compensation. Even produce from their
> > >own gardens and livestock can be expropriated without compensation as
> > >"natural tax". So their position was similar or even worse that one of
> > >serfs before 1861. And you probably met some of these people.
> > Yes I met those people. They never considered themselves serfs.
> > Yours, Feodor Tereshchenko
>
>
> Yes, Tereshchenko, I am sure that Stalin and Kaganovich who murdered
> between six and ten million Ukrainian farmers who did not want to
I bet, they didn't do it themselves. It was Red Army troops who carried
out the action. And I also bet, there were a lot of Ukranians in this
army, who readily obeyed the orders.
> The Ukrainian nation, however, chose to get out of that worker's
> paradise and so today Ukraine is a free nation and Ukrainians are
Not choose to get out, but LET out, mind this.
>
All the rest is cut as a total bullshit, not worth reading.
> Regards, Dan K.
>
>
Regards, Vlad.
Dan K.
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Dan K. wrote:
> > Yes, Tereshchenko, I am sure that Stalin and Kaganovich who murdered
> > between six and ten million Ukrainian farmers who did not want to
> I bet, they didn't do it themselves. It was Red Army troops who carried
> out the action. And I also bet, there were a lot of Ukranians in this
> army, who readily obeyed the orders.
Just as Hitler himself did not actually dirty his hands with any Jewish
blood but had his German SS do his dirty work for him. And who knows
there may have been some Jews hiding in that German army.
> > The Ukrainian nation, however, chose to get out of that worker's
> > paradise and so today Ukraine is a free nation and Ukrainians are
> Not choose to get out, but LET out, mind this.
> Regards, Vlad.
I was under the distinct impression that there was a referendum
in Dec, 1991 in which the Ukrainian people voted to leave the
Soviet Union, despite the wishes of George Bush, Gorbachev,
and most Western leaders. If you recollect, Russia at that time
was in total disarray and today Russia can not even keep Chechnya
inside of Russia without totally destroying Chechnya, which is
what Russia doing and still not succeeding!
> > Regards, Dan K.
p o l u b o g
Dan K." <dkoro...@ezdial.com> says:
>
>I was under the distinct impression that there was a referendum
>in Dec, 1991 in which the Ukrainian people voted to leave the
>Soviet Union, despite the wishes of George Bush, Gorbachev,
>and most Western leaders. If you recollect, Russia at that time
>was in total disarray and today Russia can not even keep Chechnya
>inside of Russia without totally destroying Chechnya, which is
>what Russia doing and still not succeeding!
>
>> > Regards, Dan K.
Dan, according to the facts, Tchurkian Okraina (former Ukraine),
presumably had independence since its creation (between 70-80 yrs.ago),
so why did IT have to leave again, and WHERE TO?
Please, be so kind to answer a couple of question,
Polubog.
GRycar
Remarkable logic! You are a true Russian.
The problem in Ukraine is not Ukrainian Nationalism which
actively supports market reforms, private property and free trade but with
yout type of ilk that is for dependancy, controled economics and tyrany.
It is unfortunate that many Ukrainians are still so dumfounded from their
oppresion by you countrymen that they are unable to understand that indeed
their destiny is finaly in their own hands and that they do have the kind
of government that they deserve but which they can change. In other words
the problem is not the Ukrainian Nationalists but the inabilty of the
people to heed what the Ukrainan Nationalists won for them, namely freedom
and opportunity.
As to Sevchenko, He is a great thinker and metaphycisian
unmatched by any Russian. That you are incapable of understanding him is
obvious and derivative of the virtue that you pursue. More specificaly, to
you Sevchenko does not speak. While you are orphans and I will die here.
More simply stated, while you are dependants the idea of freedom will die
and with it all possibilites of human glory.
Regards
George.
GRycar
What is it with you Russians and duplicity not to say
outright lies. Moskali the word, refers to Russians. Needless to say you
know this to be so but non the less you insist on saying otherwise, why?
What kind of person are you and how were you raised to respond as you do?
As stated previously, Sevchenko was a great thinker-
intelectual and because you can not understand him does not prove
otherwise. Internationalism is not the great arbitor but the opposit. It
was Sevchenko who made lucid the ancient Greek concept that the ideal
world must consist of a family of independant states. More specificaly,
liberty and individual pursuit of happiness cannot develpoe under empires
which must neccesarily be built on tyrrany and dependancy. Sevchenko
insisted that freedom and individual pursuit of happinees can only take
place through the vehicle of an independant sovereighn state responsive to
its people. He also insisted that if you are a slave then your first
responsibility is to become a free man. That it is only in freedom that
you can arrive at reason and fulfill your destiny as a man.
Regards
George
GRycar
There is no poetry without ideas. The basis for poetry are
ideas!. I also note that if Sevchenko attempted to polemisize about what
he wrote in his poetry them I trust that your countrymen would have killed
him.
What is wrong with Ukrainian Nationalists. Whom have they
harmed? What is wrong with defending your country and culture against
tyrany and death?
Why is it that when you offer nothing but duplicity resulting,
as it must, in death for the sake of some idiotic ideal of internationalsm
that is good but when people object to this and resist then this is bad.
To resist deat is not wrong but instead proper.
Regards
George
Eugene *fraer*
Lets continue our interesting vocabulary discussion:
I wrote:
> >As for the serfs you, Fedor, did not answer my statement:
> >At the Soviet times from 1930th to 1950th villagers did not have right to
> >quit kolhoz and to live their village.
<..>
> >So their position was similar or even worse that one of
> >serfs before 1861. And you probably met some of these people.
> >
> >>Yes I met those people. They never considered themselves serfs.
> >
> >Again why do you think that to be a slave one should consider himself a
> >slave?
>
> An interesting question. BTW, could you quote the "slave" entries from
> the dictionary?
As you see, I switched from word "slave" to word "serf" to be more precise.
Encyclopedia Britannica put them in the same category in article:
[Social immobility: slavery, serfdom, and forced labour]
The dictionaries also list concepts "slavery", "serfdom" and "forced labour"
as synonymies in their second meaning (in figural form). The same is true
for the Russian language: the word "rab" - slave are frequently used for
"krepostnoj" - serf and for imprisoned laborer:
For example:
"Tam roj zadavlennyh, zamuchennyh rabov
Zavidoval zhitju poslednih barskih psov"
or
"Etu vest' peredal mne bezhavshij galernyj rab".
From the other hand there is important difference in legal terms between
"slave" and "serf". Let me quote Britannica on this:
Whether the term serfdom appropriately describes the condition of the
peasantry in other contexts is a matter of vigorous contention. Be
that as it may, the serf was also distinguished from the slave by the
fact that he was usually the subject of the law--i.e., he had some
rights, whereas the slave, the object of the law, had significantly
fewer rights. The serf, moreover, was usually bound to the land (the
most significant exception was the Russian serf between about 1700
and 1861) whereas the slave was always bound to his owner; i.e., he
had to live where his owner told him to, and he often could be sold
by his owner at any time. The serf usually owned his means of
production (grain, livestock, implements) except the land, whereas
the slave owned nothing, often not even the clothes on his back. The
serf's right to marry off his lord's estate often was restricted, but
the master's interference in his reproductive and family life
ordinarily was much less than was the case for the slave. Serfs could
be called upon by the state to pay taxes, to perform corvŽe labour on
roads, and to serve in the army, but slaves usually were exempt from
all of those obligations. <...>
Serfs were often harshly treated and had little legal redress against
the actions of their lords.
So as you see, the word slave could be used toward the soviet peasant only
in figural meaning (in this you are correct), but the word serf is
applicable to them directly.
To show this I take the definition given by Britannica point by point and
answer yes or no in connection to the Soviet Kolhoznik at Stalin's time :
- Lived from land but did not owned the land - yes
- Bound to the land, could not live it without a permission - yes
- Could not change the occupation without a permission - yes
- Could not buy or sell property without a permission - yes
- Obligated to work for the owner of the land - yes
- Have restrictions in marriage - no
- Could be transferred without their consent - yes
- Were often harshly treated and had little legal redress - yes
As you see they satisfy almost all criteria. The only difference with
middle ages was that in the Middle Ages majority of serfs belonged to the
individual lords, while in Soviet time all belonged to the state. But even
in medieval time there was a large number of state serfs, especially in
Russia.
> >How convenient:
> > name a chief of state "The Secretary General" instead of
> > "The Emperor"
> > name bonded peasants "kolhozniks" instead of "slaves"
> >and voila
> > you have neither empire nor slaves.
>
> There is a big difference between Secretary General and Emperor. If you
> consider who grants the power to the former and Who grants it to the
> latter. If you rename Secretary General into Emperor he will not become
> an Emperor.
I will tell you who grants the power to the Emperor - the Pretorian Guards
(in Soviet case - the GPU/KGB) and the army. If you don't beleive me - read
the history of the Roman Empire.
--
H. M. Hubey
>So as you see, the word slave could be used toward the soviet peasant only
>in figural meaning (in this you are correct), but the word serf is
>applicable to them directly.
The brutalized American Negro slave is not the only kind of
slave. OTher forms of slavery whose conditions were better than
that of serfs, and had more rights have existed.
--
Regards, Mark
Those who speak don't know. Those who know won't speak.
http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey hu...@pegasus.montclair.edu
GRycar
Your erudition is remarkable, then again you are Soviet
educated and as such great care was devoted to make you stupid. Non the
less, slaves true slaves do not consider themselves slaves because
awareness of same is the first step to freedom. I bring to your attention
that the ancient Greeks considered themselves the only free men for
presisely this reason. Specificaly, they understood the value of freedom
and its responsibilities that the barbarians did not..
The Soviet slaves, among whom you are one, if they
clearly understood their condition then they would never agree to it as
made lucid by Ukrainians ans Ukrainian Nationalists specificaly.Again read
Sevchenko on this subject the medeocre poet, as you refer to him, and see
what the realization of his bondage did for him. It is also the reason
that Soviet schools specialized in teaching their students to be stupid so
that they could not learn to see as you cannot. And you say that the
slaves of that quagmire of evil did not consider themselves to be slaves!
Of course not! that is presisely why they were slaves in the truest sense
of the word! And this is the base of your argument that for you
establishes that the Soviets were not slaves? You are a great thinker and
a true representative of Soviet reason.
Regards
George
p o l u b o g
Fraer, while one can trust all the definitions, you've brought-up in
order to explain the meanings of the words, you forgot to mention one
fact, that for as long as an individual knew one's rights, one could
be on the par with anyone else in former Russian Empire and all the
post-monarchial period, ie. during the soviet system, right off 1905.
Your perverse nature, berhaviour and thinking, as usual, betrays you as
soon as you open your mouth. The onlly thing that distinguished a peasant
from a serf was a passport, which was one appliccation form away and
it was up to that individual to obtain. Once with the passport, one
could leave one's village any time to one's own choice of residence.
Its your type of individuals, who mislead the readers, hooked
on your "confidence" of knowing the "facts". You are also taking
advantage of occasional ignorance of your readers.
Polubog.
F. Tereshchenko
>F. Tereshchenko wrote:
>>
[Good but a bit long argument about slavery deleted. You persuaded me]
>> There is a big difference between Secretary General and Emperor. If you
>> consider who grants the power to the former and Who grants it to the
>> latter. If you rename Secretary General into Emperor he will not become
>> an Emperor.
>
>I will tell you who grants the power to the Emperor - the Pretorian Guards
>(in Soviet case - the GPU/KGB) and the army. If you don't beleive me - read
>the history of the Roman Empire.
The Latin word imperator was different from the modern meaning of the
word Emperor. It seems we both like Webster's. Voila:
emperor 1. the sovereign or supreme monarch of an empire
2. commander, imperator
3. the largest size of handmade paper, commonly 48x72"
4. emperor butterfly
5. emperor moth
As I understand we speak here not about large sheets of paper, nor about
butterflies, but about meaning number 1. Could you recall any 1-Emperor
whom power was granted by KGB?
BTW, speaking about Romans: it was not necessary Pretorian Guard who
granted the title "imĻperator". Recall Vespasianus.
Yours,
Feodor
Dmitry Gryaznov
> fact, that for as long as an individual knew one's rights, one could
> be on the par with anyone else in former Russian Empire and all the
> post-monarchial period, ie. during the soviet system, right off 1905.
Definitely not with "anyone else" - neither in Russian Empire nor in the
USSR. Many of those who knew there rights (as "guaranteed" by Soviet
Constitution and laws) and tried to exercise them ended up you know
where.
> soon as you open your mouth. The onlly thing that distinguished a peasant
> from a serf was a passport, which was one appliccation form away and
> it was up to that individual to obtain.
While not arguing whether Soviet kolkhozniks were serfs or not, I must
say it was not just "one application form away" for a kolkhoznik to get a
passport until about mid-1960s. Not only under Stalin's dictatorship but
even in much milder Khruschev's "thaw" times it was an extremely
non-trivial (to be mild) thing for a kolkhoznik to get a passport - far
from merely filling up an application form.
> Once with the passport, one
> could leave one's village any time to one's own choice of residence.
Even with the passport, definitely not "to one's own choice of
residence"! Have you forgotten the Soviet "propiska" (residence permit)?
Even today it is not easy at all to get a residence permit in cities like
Moscow, St.Petersburg and some resort areas in Southern Russia. I mean,
to get it -legally-, that is. One with a fat enough wallet can bribe his
way to anything and anywhere in ourdays Russia and other former Soviet
republics (and, although to a lesser extend, could in Brezhnev's USSR as
well) :-((
--
Sincerely, | VirusLab, S & S International PLC.
Dmitry O. Gryaznov | Alton House, Office Park, Gatehouse Way,
Senior Virus Research Analyst | Aylesbury, Bucks HP19 3XU, United Kingdom
E-mail: gr...@dial.pipex.com | Tel: +44 (0)1296 318700
WWW: http://www.drsolomon.com | Fax: +44 (0)1296 318734
F. Tereshchenko
>Tereschenko;
> Your erudition is remarkable,
I agree, Mr. Grycar. It indeed is....
>then again you are Soviet
>educated and as such great care was devoted to make you stupid.
Contradicts to your above statement.
>Non the
>less, slaves true slaves do not consider themselves slaves because
>awareness of same is the first step to freedom.
Wrong. Read Roman history.
>I bring to your attention
>that the ancient Greeks considered themselves the only free men for
>presisely this reason. Specificaly, they understood the value of freedom
>and its responsibilities that the barbarians did not..
> The Soviet slaves, among whom you are one, if they
I was never a slave.
>clearly understood their condition then they would never agree to it as
>made lucid by Ukrainians ans Ukrainian Nationalists specificaly.Again read
>Sevchenko on this subject the medeocre poet, as you refer to him, and see
>what the realization of his bondage did for him.
It made him more angry and more russophobic.
>It is also the reason
>that Soviet schools specialized in teaching their students to be stupid so
I see it more in American schools....
>that they could not learn to see as you cannot. And you say that the
>slaves of that quagmire of evil did not consider themselves to be slaves!
>Of course not! that is presisely why they were slaves in the truest sense
>of the word! And this is the base of your argument that for you
>establishes that the Soviets were not slaves?
>You are a great thinker and a true representative of Soviet reason.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thank you again. I would say I represent anti-Soviet reason. And I
represented it in Soviet times too. This is why my CPSU-history and
Marxism teachers disliked me so much. If I were born 20 years earlier I
woud definitively end up in Siberia.
Yours,
Feodor Tereshchenko, Esq.
_____________________________________________________________________
Feodor Tereshchenko, Esq. | "Moecha, putida, redde codicillos
The University of Iowa | redde, putida moecha, codicillos."
fter...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu | Sed nil proficimus, nihil movetur.
| Mutanda est ratio modusque vobis,
| siquid proficere amplius potestis,
| "pudica et proba, redde codicillos."
|
| Gaius Valerius Catullus Veronensis
_______________________________________________________________________
Eugene *fraer*
>
> Eugene *fraer* <eug...@mit.edu> writes:
>
> >So as you see, the word slave could be used toward the soviet peasant only
> >in figural meaning (in this you are correct), but the word serf is
> >applicable to them directly.
>
> slave. OTher forms of slavery whose conditions were better than
> that of serfs, and had more rights have existed.
Mark, did you read all my post or only one paragraph?
I quoted a definition from Brittanica and then applied it to prove my point.
Ifthe you disagree with definition or with my interpretetion of it, you
should point to it.
As for the conditions in general, they are not directly relevant to the
question. One could say:
There were some slaves who lived better then some free citizens
of the [put here your faivorite country for bashing} -
can be right.
Yury Mukharsky
<but read at list opinions of people who "make culture" -- Ukrainian and
<Russian poets and writers.
Brodsky did not like him.
I, myself rather like him. He is simple enough for me. Of course, I am no
expert in poetry neither great convoiseure or however it spells.
Yury
Dima Volodin
>Definitely not with "anyone else" - neither in Russian Empire nor in the
>USSR. Many of those who knew there rights (as "guaranteed" by Soviet
>Constitution and laws) and tried to exercise them ended up you know
>where.
Huh, "as guaranteed by the Soviet Constitution and laws" is the key
here. What they guaranteed had little to do with the real life. The
point is "you were OK if you knew your _real_ rights etc etc etc".
> Dmitry O. Gryaznov | Alton House, Office Park, Gatehouse Way,
Dima
LEVCHENKO Vladimir
On 28 Mar 1996, F. Tereshchenko wrote:
> In article <4jd58d$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, GRycar <gry...@aol.com> wrote:
.... goes the argument with GRycar
>
> Feodor Tereshchenko, Esq.
>
Don't argue with him Feodor. He's a looser, and as a weak character is
hating those whom he is loosing to.
VL
Dmitry Gryaznov
>
> Dmitry Gryaznov <er...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> >Definitely not with "anyone else" - neither in Russian Empire nor in the
> >USSR. Many of those who knew there rights (as "guaranteed" by Soviet
> >Constitution and laws) and tried to exercise them ended up you know
> >where.
>
> Huh, "as guaranteed by the Soviet Constitution and laws" is the key
> here. What they guaranteed had little to do with the real life. The
That's why I put "guaranteed" in quotes.
> point is "you were OK if you knew your _real_ rights etc etc etc".
Yep. But your -real- rights in no way put you "on-par with ANYONE else",
did they?
--
Sincerely, | VirusLab, S & S International PLC.
Dmitry O. Gryaznov | Alton House, Office Park, Gatehouse Way,
F. Tereshchenko
I am not arguing with him, because there is nothing to argue with. I am just
having fun.
Feodor
p o l u b o g
>
>p o l u b o g wrote:
>
>> fact, that for as long as an individual knew one's rights, one could
>> be on the par with anyone else in former Russian Empire and all the
>> post-monarchial period, ie. during the soviet system, right off 1905.
>
Gryaznov <er...@dial.pipex.com> says:
>Many of those who knew there rights (as "guaranteed" by Soviet
>Constitution and laws) and tried to exercise them ended up you know
>where.
>
>> The onlly thing that distinguished a peasant
>> from a serf was a passport, which was one appliccation form away and
>> it was up to that individual to obtain.
>
>While not arguing whether Soviet kolkhozniks were serfs or not,
While the call of original post was a dicussion of exactly for the
meaning and application of it, I do not have any arguments against
your suggestion, Dima. Odnako ty strelyaew' mimo.
I must
>say it was not just "one application form away" for a kolkhoznik to get a
>passport until about mid-1960s. Not only under Stalin's dictatorship but
>even in much milder Khruschev's "thaw" times it was an extremely
>non-trivial (to be mild) thing for a kolkhoznik to get a passport - far
>from merely filling up an application form.
>
>> Once with the passport, one
>> could leave one's village any time to one's own choice of residence.
>
>Even with the passport, definitely not "to one's own choice of
>residence"! Have you forgotten the Soviet "propiska" (residence permit)?
>Even today it is not easy at all to get a residence permit in cities like
>Moscow, St.Petersburg and some resort areas in Southern Russia. I mean,
>to get it -legally-, that is. One with a fat enough wallet can bribe his
>way to anything and anywhere in ourdays Russia and other former Soviet
>republics (and, although to a lesser extend, could in Brezhnev's USSR as
>well) :-((
>
>--
>Sincerely, | VirusLab, S & S International PLC.
> Dmitry O. Gryaznov | Alton House, Office Park, Gatehouse Way,
>Senior Virus Research Analyst | Aylesbury, Bucks HP19 3XU, United Kingdom
>E-mail: gr...@dial.pipex.com | Tel: +44 (0)1296 318700
>WWW: http://www.drsolomon.com | Fax: +44 (0)1296 318734
Dima, next time please try to pick to the root of the subject, not how
the law was learned, interpreted and applyed to the real environment.
Your suggestion, although very important, is totally unrelated to the
arguments which were brought-up in relation to the meaning of the law,
rather than difficulty fo it's application.
Polubog.