Who are Russians?
RafaelTrujillo61
by
Daniel Rancour-Laferriere
Daniel Rancour-Laferriere is Professor of Russian at the University of
California, Davis, and author of Russian Nationalism from an
Interdisciplinary Perspective: Imagining Russia (2000, available from
Mellenbooks.com).
Russia is the largest country in the world in terms of sheer geographic
space. But who are the people who live in this huge country? As it turns
out, the question is not an easy one to answer.
The citizens of Russia are termed Rossiiane. However, not all Russian
citizens are ethnic Russians - russkie. It is true that ethnic Russians
are in the majority, an estimated 82% of the population today. But there
are significant numbers of other ethnic or national groups in Russia too:
Tatars, Chechens, Kazakhs, Ukrainians, Armenians, Finns, Germans, Jews,
Buriats, Bashkirs, and many others. Currently there are over 100 different
ethnic or national groups in Russia. Russia is thus a land of great ethnic
diversity. Complicating matters further is the fact that, in past
generations, large numbers of people from these various minority groups
have assimilated, that is, they have taken on ethnic Russian identity. For
example, in late tsarist times it was possible for Jews to become ethnic
Russians by being baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church. Some
non-ethnic Russians married ethnic Russians and brought their children up
as ethnic Russians. Some non-ethnic Russians simply russified their names.
And so on. All this means that many people who call themselves ethnic
Russians today have mixed ethnic ancestry. As a southern Russian proverb
has it: Papa turok, Mama grek, a ia russkii chelovek (Papa is a Turk, Mama
is a Greek, but I'm a Russian).
Many famous Russians are of mixed ethnic background. Poet Aleksandr
Pushkin descended from a German on his father's side and an Ethiopian on
his mother's side. General Mikhail Kutuzov was of German ancestry.
Historian Nikolai Karamzin was of Tatar background. The Tatar connection
is especially frequent. "Scratch a Russian and you'll find a Tatar," says
the proverb. Consider some fairly well-known "Russian" names of
Tatar/Turkic origin: Arakcheev, Artsybashev, Berdiaev, Kochubei, Muratov,
Musin, Saltykov, Tiutchev, Sheremet'ev…. The list could be extended.
In Russia today there are some Russian nationalists who are disturbed by
the great ethnic diversity of their country. They proclaim slogans such as
"Russia for the Russians!" (Rossiia dlia russkikh!) or "Beat the Yids, Save
Russia!" (Bei zhidov, spasai Rossiiu!). There is a fear in some circles
that the ethnic Russians will become outnumbered by the "aliens"
(inorodtsy). Some of these people understand that ethnic Russians are not
defined "by blood," and they accept the fact that one can "become" a
Russian. They even encourage assimilation. Evgenii Troitskii writes, for
example: "Russians do not give birth much, one has to become one. A
Russian is one who loves the Fatherland and who really wishes for its
prosperity and glory."
Other nationalists, however, such as members of the Russian National Union
Party, insist that one is a Russian "by blood." They worry about
ethnically-mixed marriages, and they are concerned about "the purity of the
gene pool of the Russian Nation." However, there is no such thing as an
ethnic Russian "by blood," and Russians do not have any definable "purity
of the gene pool." Modern genetics has not found any gene or genes that
define Russians. In fact, no ethnic, national, or racial group on this
earth can be defined genetically. Genetic differences between individuals
tend to be much greater than genetic differences between psycho-socially
constructed ethnic, national, and racial groups. Racism is both morally
and biologically unfounded.
Who, then, are the Russians (in the ethnic sense of russkie)? Given the
history of assimilationism in Russia, and given the biological
impossibility of defining Russians, I would like to suggest an answer that
works in at least 99% of the cases: Russians are people who identify
themselves as Russians.
Oolii
"RafaelTrujillo61" <rafaeltr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021122180902...@mb-fh.aol.com...
> WHO ARE THE RUSSIANS?
I would like to suggest an answer that
> works in at least 99% of the cases: Russians are people who identify
> themselves as Russians.
So, you answered your own question; what more do you need?
Michael Petukhov
not a bad description by Daniel Rancour-Laferriere. But it is
true also for any nation in the world. Moreover there is a very
general theory of that process done by great russian historian
of last century, Lev Gumilev. It can be found in enough details
in English:
http://www.cossackweb.com/gumilev/contents.htm
There is one things I would add to above. The word "russian" in
Russian has meaning of being 'like rus'. So it is not rus but
'like rus'. The word of caurse has many century history but
important thing is at that times and now in order to become
russian blood was not important but russian bevaivior (or as we
call it now russian mentality) was. For instance Kossaks were
100% turks in 15 century but became russians now.
Michael
captain !
"Michael Petukhov" <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
news:a39cf3c3.02112...@posting.google.com...
> > Musin, Saltykov, Tiutchev, Sheremet'ev.. The list could be extended.
AV
> WHO ARE THE RUSSIANS?
> by
> Daniel Rancour-Laferriere
>
> Daniel Rancour-Laferriere is Professor of Russian at the University of
> California, Davis, and author of Russian Nationalism from an
> Interdisciplinary Perspective: Imagining Russia (2000, available from
> Mellenbooks.com).
>
>
> Russia is the largest country in the world in terms of sheer geographic
> space. But who are the people who live in this huge country? As it turns
> out, the question is not an easy one to answer.
>
>
> The citizens of Russia are termed Rossiiane. However, not all Russian
> citizens are ethnic Russians - russkie. It is true that ethnic Russians
> are in the majority, an estimated 82% of the population today. But there
> are significant numbers of other ethnic or national groups in Russia too:
> Tatars, Chechens, Kazakhs, Ukrainians, Armenians, Finns, Germans, Jews,
Chechens second in the list ? What's the idea ?
yp11
Petukhov) wrote:
>rafaeltr...@aol.com (RafaelTrujillo61) wrote in message news:<20021122180902...@mb-fh.aol.com>...
>
>not a bad description by Daniel Rancour-Laferriere. But it is
>true also for any nation in the world. Moreover there is a very
>general theory of that process done by great russian historian
>of last century, Lev Gumilev. It can be found in enough details
>in English:
>
>http://www.cossackweb.com/gumilev/contents.htm
>
>There is one things I would add to above. The word "russian" in
>Russian has meaning of being 'like rus'. So it is not rus but
>'like rus'. The word of caurse has many century history but
>important thing is at that times and now in order to become
>russian blood was not important but russian bevaivior (or as we
>call it now russian mentality) was. For instance Kossaks were
>100% turks in 15 century but became russians now.
>
>Michael
I like this definition of "Russian" as being "like Rus" rather than
"of Rus". The word Rus, of course, originates from Kievan Rus, which
is today Ukraine. I agree that the word Kozak comes from Turkish where
it meant "warrior", however, the first Cossacs outside of Turkey were
Ukrainian Zaporozhian Cossaks who were fighting against the Tatars and
Turks already in 1489. Thus, to say that 100% of Cossacs in the 15%
Century were Turks is clearly wrong. Later, there were Russian Don
Cossacs and they even fought against Peter the Great at one time.
When the Pereiaslav Agreement was signed between the Hetman of the
Ukrainian Zaporozhian Cossaks Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Tsar Alexis on
March 14, 1654, the Tsar was identified as the Tsar of Muscovy, not of
Russia. It was later, in 1708, that Peter the Great called his empire
"the Russian State". From then on it became officially "Russia".
I certainly don't deny today's Russians the right to call themselves
"Russians". They had the Russian empire which was strong enough to
adopt whatever name it wanted. The original people from the Kievan
Rus, now call themselves "Ukrainians". This is why it is, in fact,
rather difficult to define "Russian ethnicity".
Yuri
>> Musin, Saltykov, Tiutchev, Sheremet'ev?. The list could be extended.
captain !
"yp11" <yp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ejtvtugo9r4srg7id...@4ax.com...
> I like this definition of "Russian" as being "like Rus" rather than
> "of Rus". The word Rus, of course, originates from Kievan Rus, which
> is today Ukraine. I agree that the word Kozak comes from Turkish where
> it meant "warrior", however, the first Cossacs outside of Turkey were
> Ukrainian Zaporozhian Cossaks who were fighting against the Tatars and
> Turks already in 1489. Thus, to say that 100% of Cossacs in the 15%
> Century were Turks is clearly wrong. Later, there were Russian Don
> Cossacs and they even fought against Peter the Great at one time.
>
> When the Pereiaslav Agreement was signed between the Hetman of the
> Ukrainian Zaporozhian Cossaks Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Tsar Alexis on
> March 14, 1654, the Tsar was identified as the Tsar of Muscovy, not of
> Russia. It was later, in 1708, that Peter the Great called his empire
> "the Russian State". From then on it became officially "Russia".
>
> I certainly don't deny today's Russians the right to call themselves
> "Russians". They had the Russian empire which was strong enough to
> adopt whatever name it wanted. The original people from the Kievan
> Rus, now call themselves "Ukrainians". This is why it is, in fact,
> rather difficult to define "Russian ethnicity".
>
> Yuri
>
wow, you didn't say something stupid. not bad yuri, not bad at all.
Michael Petukhov
Do you suggest that ukranians took turk word
to describe themself? That's funny indeed. Before what you said
above there were turk cossaks who fought aginst russians
graduately mixed with them and became what you called
Zaporozhian Cossaks. It took some 200 years for russians to
finally subordinate them to russian law.
>
> When the Pereiaslav Agreement was signed between the Hetman of the
> Ukrainian Zaporozhian Cossaks Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Tsar Alexis on
> March 14, 1654, the Tsar was identified as the Tsar of Muscovy, not of
> Russia. It was later, in 1708, that Peter the Great called his empire
> "the Russian State". From then on it became officially "Russia".
So what? If you suggest that Ukraine is important part of
russia I totally aggree.
>
> I certainly don't deny today's Russians the right to call themselves
> "Russians".
Do you? Thank you very much!
>They had the Russian empire which was strong enough to
> adopt whatever name it wanted. The original people from the Kievan
> Rus, now call themselves "Ukrainians".
Bullshit again. So according to you Kievan russes somehow survived till now
but for some unclear purpose decided to name themselfs 'Ukranians'.
That's funny. To your information russes do not exists since
13 century approximately. Ukranians and Ukranian language are the
product of merge of several nations namely slaves (rus), khazars,
poles, litva (mostly ethnic belorussians) and particularly lots of
russians as a result of capture of weak and defenceless remains of west part
of Kievan rus which unfortunately was out of Moscow control for 300+
years and therefore was consequently captured by Khazar kingdom,
Poland, Rech Pospolita (Litva) and Russian empire (last 300 years).
Ukranians (in Russian and in Ukranian as well) means people living
at the border. The question is the border of what? West Ukranian
nationalists believe it is east border of west civilization. It is
understandable since people there have too much culture content from
catholic west. However Russians, majority of Ukranian population in
central and east Ukraine and even west european people including
its NATO leadership still prefer to assign them to the east border
of russia. At least for now. Nobody can predict future but
certainly russia will do its best to return Ukraine where it belongs
historically, mentally, culturally and economically, the russia.
> This is why it is, in fact, rather difficult to define "Russian ethnicity".
Very difficult for whom? for you?
Michael
Tomi
news:a39cf3c3.02112...@posting.google.com:
> To your information russes do not exists since
> 13 century approximately. Ukranians and Ukranian language are the
> product of merge of several nations namely slaves (rus),
Could somebody, please, explain where the word "Rus" is supposed to come
from. The "Germanic" origins from Roslagen in Sweden is not a particularly
popular over there, among the Russians themselves, I believe. So I'd guess
that the more recent etymology from the Finnish word "Ruotsi" in not
considered credible either (at least I have hard time understanding how it
could have been the original name). I remember reading that there was a
river called Rus somewhere near Novgorod (or was it Kiev) and Ruses
originated from there.
--
T: Tomi
yp11
>RafaelTrujillo61 wrote:
>> WHO ARE THE RUSSIANS?
>> by
>> Daniel Rancour-Laferriere
>>
>> Daniel Rancour-Laferriere is Professor of Russian at the University of
>> California, Davis, and author of Russian Nationalism from an
>> Interdisciplinary Perspective: Imagining Russia (2000, available from
>> Mellenbooks.com).
>>
>>
>> Russia is the largest country in the world in terms of sheer geographic
>> space. But who are the people who live in this huge country? As it turns
>> out, the question is not an easy one to answer.
>>
>>
>> The citizens of Russia are termed Rossiiane. However, not all Russian
>> citizens are ethnic Russians - russkie. It is true that ethnic Russians
>> are in the majority, an estimated 82% of the population today. But there
>> are significant numbers of other ethnic or national groups in Russia too:
>> Tatars, Chechens, Kazakhs, Ukrainians, Armenians, Finns, Germans, Jews,
>
>Chechens second in the list ? What's the idea ?
>
I guess with the war in Chechnya Daniel Rancour-Laferriere's mind was
on Chechens despite the fact that now there are fewer than 1 million
of them in the Russian Federation (after recent extermination of some
100,000 Chechens by the Russians in Chechnya).
I think that by far the largest minority in the Russian Federation are
the Ukrainians. Officially there are about 5 million of ethnic
Ukrainians living in the RF, however, in reality they are closer to 10
million. Despite this, there is not a single Ukrainian-language public
school in Russia, not even one Ukrainian-language theater can be found
in Russia, no Ukrainian libraries are to be found in Russia and not a
single periodical in Ukrainian language is published in Russia.
On the other hand, while Russians vehemently complain that Russian
language is being restricted in Ukraine, for a population of ethnic
Russians about equivalent to that of Ukrainians in Russia, there are
2,973 Russian-language public schools in Ukraine, 30 Russian-language
theaters exist in Ukraine, there are also 24,382 Russian-language
libraries in Ukraine and 1,172 periodicals are published in Russian in
Ukraine. (Source The Ukrainian Weekly of November 10, 2002).
So, to some extent, when Misha Kovalev recently pointed out to a study
showing that Ukrainians are not as smart as the Russians, I must agree
with him. If they were as smart as the Russians, they would restrict
the number of Russian-language institutions in Ukraine to the same
number as there are Ukrainian-language institutions in Russia, namely
zero. But the dumb Khakhly still bow before the Russians as if they
were still their masters.
Yuri
HWM
> Could somebody, please, explain where the word "Rus" is supposed to come
> from. The "Germanic" origins from Roslagen in Sweden is not a particularly
> popular over there, among the Russians themselves, I believe. So I'd guess
> that the more recent etymology from the Finnish word "Ruotsi" in not
> considered credible either (at least I have hard time understanding how it
> could have been the original name). I remember reading that there was a
> river called Rus somewhere near Novgorod (or was it Kiev) and Ruses
> originated from there.
I think you just have discussed the theories there are:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dml0www/origirus.html
--
Cheers, HWM
henry.w @ sanet.fi
Tomi
news:3DE0E397...@sanet.fi:
A quote from the page:
"However, there are some authors (e.g., Boris Rybakov) who argue the
opposite, that the word Rus' originally referred to a geographical area to
the West of R. Dnieper. (There is also a tribute of Dnieper named Ros'.)
Some indirect support for this theory is found in the fact that early Arab
sources mention the country before the Age of the Vikings."
If this is true, if "Rus" is an older term than "Viking" trips, then "Rus"
most likely has nothing to do with Roslagen.
Then again we know for certain that there lived people speaking a Finno-
Ugric language in Novgorod and carrying on business with the peoples in the
Baltic countries and Finland ... Could both "ryssä" and "ruotsi" be old FU
words meaning "naapuri" neighbor, as somebody has suggested? After all
AFAIK Karelians called their neighbors Finns and Tavastians by the name
"ruotsi" and so did Finns about Karelians (and later Russians) by the name
"ryssä". Beats me.
BTW does anybody know what are the corresponding names in Estonian?
--
T: Tomi
TheTwinkieGourmet
going.
"Tomi" <to...@invalid.inet.fi> wrote in message
news:Xns92EEACF...@192.89.123.233...
J. Anderson
> most likely has nothing to do with Roslagen.
>
> Then again we know for certain that there lived people speaking a Finno-
> Ugric language in Novgorod and carrying on business with the peoples in
the
> Baltic countries and Finland ... Could both "ryssä" and "ruotsi" be old FU
> words meaning "naapuri" neighbor, as somebody has suggested? After all
> AFAIK Karelians called their neighbors Finns and Tavastians by the name
> "ruotsi" and so did Finns about Karelians (and later Russians) by the name
> "ryssä". Beats me.
>
> BTW does anybody know what are the corresponding names in Estonian?
Hmm, interesting [taking a puff from an imagined pipe]. The Estonian words
are Rootsi(maa) and Vene(maa). So they use the same word as our 'official'
venäläinen for Russians. It would surprise me if our 'ryssä' isn't simply a
loan from the Swedish 'ryss'.
Digression: Did you know that all our Baltic friends have based their name
for Finland on 'Suomi'? It's Soome in Estonian, Somija (pronounced suomija)
in Latvian and Suomija in Lithuanian. How kind and considerate of them!
But the Latvian word for Russian is krievs, and the Lithuanian rusas. I was
trying to find out where this funny krievs comes from, but my etymological
expert in Riga wasn't home. I'll come back to that later. But what about
'vene' / 'venä'? Did they come by boat ('vene' meaning boat in Finnish)?
Or did we go to Venemaa by boat? Perhaps *we* were the Vikings ;~)
John
Eugene Holman
<to...@invalid.inet.fi> wrote:
> Then again we know for certain that there lived people speaking a Finno-
> Ugric language in Novgorod and carrying on business with the peoples in the
> Baltic countries and Finland ... Could both "ryssä" and "ruotsi" be old FU
> words meaning "naapuri" neighbor, as somebody has suggested? After all
> AFAIK Karelians called their neighbors Finns and Tavastians by the name
> "ruotsi" and so did Finns about Karelians (and later Russians) by the name
> "ryssä". Beats me.
The Ros/Roslagen [area where the law of the Ros tribe is valid] >
[rootsi] > Ruotsi connection has always made sense, since Finnish
traditionally names people for the area they inhabited which the Finns
first made contact with, cf. Viro "Estonia" (from Virumaa) and Saksa
"Germany" (Sachsen). Since Swedish Vikings from the Roslagen area
occupied large tracts of what are now Russia/Ukraine, including the
Dnieper River Valley far to the south of Kiev, and according to legend,
were even asked by the Slavic tribes living there to rule them and
thereby bring order to their society, I see nothing unusual about the
old Scandinavian tribal name Ros, which is older than the svea-/svensk-
name in north eastern Scandinavia, having been adapted as its own
ethnonym by some Eastern Slavic tribe which had a Scandinavian (Ros)
ruling elite. The modern Russian word for Russian exists in two
variants, russkiy (= rus [root] + skiy [adjective ending]) and
rossiskiy (= rossi [root] + skiy [adj. ending). The first word isa
older and more specific. It refers to anything that would be considered
to be of Russian ethnicity. The latter word is more general and means
anything pertaining to Russia, which is *Rossiya* in Russian.
We in the West tend to think of the Vikings as an Atlantic people, but
their eastern branch, the Varangians, controlled and colonized the
western and southern shores of Finland, the northern shore of Estonia,
the mouth and much of the valley of the River Neva, and an area of the
Dnieper and Volga River systems that was larger than the combined area
of southern Norway and Sweden combined. In addition to this they
controlled trading routes reaching as far south as Constantinople and
Sicily, and as far east as the Cspian Sea [see
http://infoweb.magi..com/~allan/vikhist.htm for a map and details].
They were the elite that supplied the ruling bloodlines in Russia until
the Mongol invasions of Ghengis Khan in the early 13th century.
>
> BTW does anybody know what are the corresponding names in Estonian?
Swede in Estonian is rootslane, Sweden is Rootsi.
Russian is venelane, Russia is Venemaa.
As you might expect, Estonian has numerous slang words for Russian,
including russ [with palatalized final s]. Unlike Finnish ryssä,
Estonian russ is semantically neutral, this neutrality being supported
by the academic word russist 'specialist in ERussian studies'.
According to Mari Loog's *Dictionary of Estonian Slang*
[http://www.eki.ee/cgi-bin/sl_dic/?19] current Estonian slang words for
Russian include: venkyu, idanaaber, internats, ivan, kultuuritooja,
ljohha, migrant, munn, siga, slaav, tibla, vanja, vant, vasja,
vennasrahvas, värdjas.
--
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
<ar...@iname.com> wrote:
> But the Latvian word for Russian is krievs, and the Lithuanian rusas. I was
> trying to find out where this funny krievs comes from, but my etymological
> expert in Riga wasn't home. I'll come back to that later. But what about
> 'vene' / 'venä'? Did they come by boat ('vene' meaning boat in Finnish)?
> Or did we go to Venemaa by boat? Perhaps *we* were the Vikings ;~)
The ven- root seems to be a general Germanic root used to refer to "the
Slavic people living to the East". It shows up in the traditional
German word for Sorbians (the Slavic minority living in former East
Germany in and around the city of Bautzen), Wenden, wendisch, besides
the more common Sorben, sorbisch.
--
Best,
Eugene Holman
AV
> On 23 Nov 2002 02:19:03 -0800, petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael
> Petukhov) wrote:
>
>
>>rafaeltr...@aol.com (RafaelTrujillo61) wrote in message news:<20021122180902...@mb-fh.aol.com>...
>>
>>not a bad description by Daniel Rancour-Laferriere. But it is
>>true also for any nation in the world. Moreover there is a very
>>general theory of that process done by great russian historian
>>of last century, Lev Gumilev. It can be found in enough details
>>in English:
>>
>>http://www.cossackweb.com/gumilev/contents.htm
>>
>>There is one things I would add to above. The word "russian" in
>>Russian has meaning of being 'like rus'. So it is not rus but
>>'like rus'. The word of caurse has many century history but
>>important thing is at that times and now in order to become
>>russian blood was not important but russian bevaivior (or as we
>>call it now russian mentality) was. For instance Kossaks were
>>100% turks in 15 century but became russians now.
>>
>>Michael
>
>
> I like this definition of "Russian" as being "like Rus" rather than
> "of Rus". The word Rus, of course, originates from Kievan Rus, which
> is today Ukraine.
Nope. See "Povest' vremennykh let" (The Rdzivil or Koenigsberg
manuscript), the most authoritative document on the history of Rus.
The word Rus originates from the tribe named Rus. Originally,
Kiev was populated by Polyans.
"?????? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????? ? ?????, ???????? ????? ???????
?????? ? ????????, ???????? ? ??????????, ????? ?????????? ? ????????
??????? ???????????? ?????" :). Among the tribes living in the region
were Polyane, Drevlane, Dregovichi, Polochane, Severyane, Krivichi,
Vyatichi, Slovyane (=Novgorodtsy =Slavs), Ves, Merya, ...
Some time later Polyans were subdued by Khazars. Another powerful tribe
of that time was Varyags(Rus) who ruled over Chud', Slovens, Mer',
Krivichi (= Pskovichi, Smolyane, Novgorodtsy .. )
After a series of fights between these tribes they decided to
invite a strong and just ruler so they went "to Varyags, Rus".
From the original text it follows that Rus populated Baltic sea,
but the source already distinguishes among the tribes that populated
northern seas: Rus, Sweeds, Normans, Lyakhs (poles), Angly (english)
Nemtsy (germaans), Fryagy (French)...
Many historians (Orbini, ..) noted that Varyags had COMMON with
slovyans "language, customs and religion". So they can't be related to
Finns. So Rus is a separate tribe originally living in the Baltic sea
area. "And from these Varyags takes its name the land of Rus".
The three brothers that came to rule slovyans settled in Novgorod,
Beloozero, Izborsk. It's only 20 years later, when Rurik died and
passed his power to Oleg that Kiev became the capital of 'Rus', that
is, slav tribes united by Rus. Temporarily. The center of power
of Rus later moved to Vladimir, Moscow, St.-Petersburg and
back to Moscow. So 'Rus' is actually the name of united state
of slav tribes. At one moment in its history the center of Rus was
in Kiev. That period of Russian history is called "Kievean Rus".
Andrei Suzdalski (Bogolyubski) in 1157 deliberately left Kiev,
which was tored apart by unstoppable fights and conquests,
overwhelmed with bloody events. He wanted peace and he found it in
Suzdal and Vladimir. In 1169 eleven Russian rulers united to
put an end to Mstislav's rule in Kiev. Since then Vladimir
became the capital of Rus and Kiev lost this title forever.
AV
There are 4,379,690 Ukraininans living in Russia.
57% of Ukrainians, living in Russia, consider Russian language their
'mother language'. 15% speak freely Ukraninan.
About 90 Ukraninan social-cultural societies exist in Russia, 4 in
Moscow alone. Financial and other support to these societies
comes from local as wellas Federal Russian budget.
The Program of Union of Ukraninans of Moscow for example,
takes part in developing state power orders concerning
Ukranina community, assistance to promoting Ukranina language
and Ukraninan culture, Ukranian national schools, libraries,
press, other mass media sources.
In Russia, the following papers are printed in Ukranian:
"Ukranina courier", "Ukranian choice", "Tyndy-Ryndy",
"Dnipro", "Promin", ... .. .. .. (15 titles) and more ...
Radio transmissions ... TV , ...
Ukranian Radio of Russia is to be openned ...
Ukranina Institute is opened, fininced from the Federal budget ...
On the other hand, some local authorities report that in
regions with compact Ukranian communities there were no
interest from Ukraninans themselves to open Ukranina schools.
Such attempt by Ministry of Education failed, for example, in Moscow.
They couldn't find enough people to open a single class.
"Ukranina choice" points out as a fact that there is actually no
inteerst to Ukraninan language in Russia. Most people can do well
without it not only in Russia but in Ukrain itself. General
public is not too interested in it, only nationalistically oriented
intelligencia.
Moscow city government helped to open Ukranian library in Moscow,
Ukranian music hall, Ukranian art gallery, Computer club. On one of the
most popular Moscow streets, Arbat, the newly reconstructed Ukranina
cultural center opened.
http://www.rusedina.org/?id=335
> So, to some extent, when Misha Kovalev recently pointed out to a study
> showing that Ukrainians are not as smart as the Russians, I must agree
> with him. If they were as smart as the Russians, they would restrict
> the number of Russian-language institutions in Ukraine to the same
> number as there are Ukrainian-language institutions in Russia, namely
> zero. But the dumb Khakhly still bow before the Russians as if they
> were still their masters.
Check sources before spreading lies.
>
> Yuri
J. Anderson
Eugene Holman <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:241120021945352053%hol...@elo.helsinki.fi...
> The Ros/Roslagen [area where the law of the Ros tribe is valid]
As soon as I reply to you on SCB, there is a new case waiting on SCN, and
vice versa! I'll have to get something to eat soon, so don't think I've
passed away if I disappear for a while...
But about Roslagen. This 'Ros' tribe is news to me. The traditional
explanation is that the area got its name from the rowing teams, ros-lag or
in the definite form ros-lagen, that this part of Sweden was obliged to
organize and support. The system was called 'leding' (or 'ledung'), and it
was fully implemented in Uppland, where, in the central parts, every
'hundare' (group of 100 families, cf. Finnish 'satakunta') was expected to
fit out four ships, whereas, in the coastal area, each hundare was
responsible for one ship and its 'roslag' - team of rowers.
Mahlzeit!
John
AV
1. "Finish term for Sweeds" ? Why would someone call THEMSELVES by
foreign term used to call them ?
2. The most ancient document describing the history of Rus (Koenigsberg
manuscript) clearly distinguishes Sweeds, Rus, Normans.
The most logical answer would be that Rus was one of the slav tribes
living close to Sweeds, Normans, etc. Finns also knew about them (knew
their name - Rus). Varyags=Rus are said to have common language, habits
and religion with other slavs.
AV
> Tomi <to...@invalid.inet.fi> wrote in message
> news:Xns92EEACF...@192.89.123.233...
>
>>If this is true, if "Rus" is an older term than "Viking" trips, then "Rus"
>>most likely has nothing to do with Roslagen.
>>
>>Then again we know for certain that there lived people speaking a Finno-
>>Ugric language in Novgorod and carrying on business with the peoples in
>
> the
>
>>Baltic countries and Finland ... Could both "ryssä" and "ruotsi" be old FU
>>words meaning "naapuri" neighbor, as somebody has suggested? After all
>>AFAIK Karelians called their neighbors Finns and Tavastians by the name
>>"ruotsi" and so did Finns about Karelians (and later Russians) by the name
>>"ryssä". Beats me.
>>
>>BTW does anybody know what are the corresponding names in Estonian?
>
>
>
> Hmm, interesting [taking a puff from an imagined pipe]. The Estonian words
> are Rootsi(maa) and Vene(maa). So they use the same word as our 'official'
> venäläinen for Russians. It would surprise me if our 'ryssä' isn't simply a
> loan from the Swedish 'ryss'.
>
> Digression: Did you know that all our Baltic friends have based their name
> for Finland on 'Suomi'? It's Soome in Estonian, Somija (pronounced suomija)
> in Latvian and Suomija in Lithuanian. How kind and considerate of them!
>
> But the Latvian word for Russian is krievs, and the Lithuanian rusas. I was
> trying to find out where this funny krievs comes from, but my etymological
> expert in Riga wasn't home.
Krivichi - a Russian (slav) tribe living around upper Volga, Dniper and
Dvina, their center is Smolensk. Severyans (North-eastern Ukraine) are
their derivative.
HWM
> kultuuritooja,
This is pretty good. I recognized a few as the same as used in Finland,
but this is good.
AV
> In article <Xns92EEACF...@192.89.123.233>, Tomi
> <to...@invalid.inet.fi> wrote:
>
>
>>Then again we know for certain that there lived people speaking a Finno-
>>Ugric language in Novgorod and carrying on business with the peoples in the
>>Baltic countries and Finland ... Could both "ryssä" and "ruotsi" be old FU
>>words meaning "naapuri" neighbor, as somebody has suggested? After all
>>AFAIK Karelians called their neighbors Finns and Tavastians by the name
>>"ruotsi" and so did Finns about Karelians (and later Russians) by the name
>>"ryssä". Beats me.
>
>
> The Ros/Roslagen [area where the law of the Ros tribe is valid] >
> [rootsi] > Ruotsi connection has always made sense, since Finnish
> traditionally names people for the area they inhabited which the Finns
> first made contact with, cf. Viro "Estonia" (from Virumaa) and Saksa
> "Germany" (Sachsen). Since Swedish Vikings from the Roslagen area
> occupied large tracts of what are now Russia/Ukraine, including the
> Dnieper River Valley far to the south of Kiev, and according to legend,
> were even asked by the Slavic tribes living there to rule them and
> thereby bring order to their society,
Makes no sense. Nobody would ask FOREIGNERS to become their rulers.
Historical evidence is that Varyags had spoken same language and shared
common religion and habits with other slav tribes.
> I see nothing unusual about the
> old Scandinavian tribal name Ros, which is older than the svea-/svensk-
> name in north eastern Scandinavia, having been adapted as its own
> ethnonym by some Eastern Slavic tribe which had a Scandinavian (Ros)
Historical documents distinguish: Sweeds, Rus, Normans, Lyakhs, Angly,
Nemtsy ...
> ruling elite. The modern Russian word for Russian exists in two
> variants, russkiy (= rus [root] + skiy [adjective ending]) and
> rossiskiy (= rossi [root] + skiy [adj. ending). The first word isa
> older and more specific. It refers to anything that would be considered
> to be of Russian ethnicity. The latter word is more general and means
> anything pertaining to Russia, which is *Rossiya* in Russian.
>
> We in the West tend to think of the Vikings as an Atlantic people, but
> their eastern branch, the Varangians, controlled and colonized the
> western and southern shores of Finland, the northern shore of Estonia,
> the mouth and much of the valley of the River Neva, and an area of the
> Dnieper and Volga River systems that was larger than the combined area
> of southern Norway and Sweden combined. In addition to this they
> controlled trading routes reaching as far south as Constantinople and
> Sicily, and as far east as the Cspian Sea [see
> http://infoweb.magi..com/~allan/vikhist.htm for a map and details].
> They were the elite that supplied the ruling bloodlines in Russia until
> the Mongol invasions of Ghengis Khan in the early 13th century.
They, who ? Varangyans ? Did they populated all of that region ?
Or were they simply a northern slav tribe (Rus) that formed together
with numerous other such tribes what is known as ancient Rus, then
Kievean Rus ?
HWM
> Makes no sense. Nobody would ask FOREIGNERS to become their rulers.
So whats this bullshit then about several countries wanting to join the
EU?
AV
> AV wrote:
>
>
>>Makes no sense. Nobody would ask FOREIGNERS to become their rulers.
>
>
> So whats this bullshit then about several countries wanting to join the
> EU?
>
That's not about, say, French inviting German to become their president.
Eugene Holman
> HWM wrote:
> > AV wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Makes no sense. Nobody would ask FOREIGNERS to become their rulers.
It happens all the time.
> > So whats this bullshit then about several countries wanting to join the
> > EU?
> >
>
> That's not about, say, French inviting German to become their president.
The Finns invited a German prince to become their king in 1918. The
Swedes invited a French officer to be their king in the early 19th
century. And Katherine the Great was a German...
--
Regards,
Eugene Holman
HWM
> That's not about, say, French inviting German to become their president.
At one time the rulers in europe were more related to each other than
the people they ruled. Depending on what the interests of the ruling
class of the novgorodians was, why not?
Eugene Holman
<ar...@iname.com> wrote:
> Eugene Holman <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
> news:241120021945352053%hol...@elo.helsinki.fi...
>
> > The Ros/Roslagen [area where the law of the Ros tribe is valid]
>
> As soon as I reply to you on SCB, there is a new case waiting on SCN, and
> vice versa!
Welcome to the Sunday afternoon club!
> I'll have to get something to eat soon, so don't think I've
> passed away if I disappear for a while...
>
> But about Roslagen. This 'Ros' tribe is news to me. The traditional
> explanation is that the area got its name from the rowing teams, ros-lag or
> in the definite form ros-lagen, that this part of Sweden was obliged to
> organize and support. The system was called 'leding' (or 'ledung'), and it
> was fully implemented in Uppland, where, in the central parts, every
> 'hundare' (group of 100 families, cf. Finnish 'satakunta') was expected to
> fit out four ships, whereas, in the coastal area, each hundare was
> responsible for one ship and its 'roslag' - team of rowers.
There's no contradiction. Finnish *satakuntalainen* is now the
designation of a local ethnicity.
--
Regards,
Eugene Holman
AV
> AV wrote:
>
>
>>That's not about, say, French inviting German to become their president.
>
>
> At one time the rulers in europe were more related to each other than
> the people they ruled. Depending on what the interests of the ruling
> class of the novgorodians was, why not?
>
Right, and that was my point. If a "foreign" ruler is in fact a very
close "relative" it's quite natural. But some theories insist Russian
tribes invited some "Swedish Vikings".
AV
Not quite similar time and circumstances.
"Since Swedish Vikings from the Roslagen area
occupied large tracts of what are now Russia/Ukraine, including the
Dnieper River Valley far to the south of Kiev"
I never heard of Swedish occupation of this whole area.
"and according to legend,
were even asked by the Slavic tribes living there to rule them and
thereby bring order to their society".
So, were they occupied or not? What is the sense in asking to rule
someone who already occupies you ?
The legend DOESN't say any Swedes were asked to rule. The varyags=Rus
were.
Eugene Holman
It's better founded than a "theory". Russian chronicles relate that a
Varangian, Rurik, was invited to settle in Novgorod, where he
established himslef as ruler. The dynasty which he founded lasted until
the death of the last Rurik king, Fyodor I, in 1598. See
http://mebers.vip.fi/~flax/history/russia/rurik/ for more details.
--
Regards,
Eugene Holman
AV
> who contributed immensely to the growth of Russian empire was
> Ekaterine II , 100% Polish girl (who had to murder her weak
> husband to do that :-))
>
> DK
Wasn't she a German Princess ?
She wasn't invited for her job, was she :) ?
>
>
Eugene Holman
> I never heard of Swedish occupation of this whole area.
>
> "and according to legend,
> were even asked by the Slavic tribes living there to rule them and
> thereby bring order to their society".
>
> So, were they occupied or not? What is the sense in asking to rule
> someone who already occupies you ?
It can make things a lot easier. If, as the chronicles state, the
locals were living in a state of anarchy and lawlessness, and they saw
that the incoming Varangians knew how to run an ordered society, why
should they not have accepted the Varangians as Kulturträger rather
than try to oppose them?
See the map and recapitulation of the history at
http://infoweb.magi.com/~allan/vikhist.htm.
The Varangians were evidently appreciated by the locals, and they
assimlated into them, rather like their western relatives, the Danes,
did in Normandy, rapidly become rulers who rapidly adapted the language
and culture of those they had invaded.
--
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Tomi
online.com:
> Perhaps *we* were the Vikings ;~)
Those rascals, hope not;-)
Anyway there is this puzzle that I don't understand. It's about
emalikoristeiset korut, enamelled jewellery and their spread from about 300
to 500. A.D. Apparently this jewellery was made by East-Goths somewhere by
the river of Dniepr. Now, Goths are supposed to come from Gotland or
southern Sweden. Mystery is why is this jewellery found only in the Baltic
countries, Prussia and Finland--mostly FU areas, that is--besides the
Dniepr area. Not a single one in Sweden. It's obvious that a lot of trading
was going on between the North and the later Rus-sian areas, but the Swedes
seem to have nothing to do with it. Of course these pre-Viking contacts
must have, or at least could have, influenced the names and what not in the
later Russian areas. For example some vene(boat)-related name for these
merchants is so obvious that I really do wonder ...
Besides the name Rus is originally a name from Turku. There's still
Ryssänmäki reminding of the ancient clan of the Ryssät.
--
T: Tomi
AV
Right, and this very chronicle I keep in my hands and quote in my
postings (not the original of course :)).
==
Year 862. Pushed Varyags away over the sea, refused to pay them tribute
and have become independent, and couldn't find agreement and started to
fight each other. And said to themselves "Let's find a Duke who could
be a just ruler". And went over the sea, to Varyags, to Rus. Those
Varyags were called Rus, just as others were called Swedes, and others
as Normany and Angly and yet others as Gotlands, so did these. [...]
And three Brothers were elected and they took along their relatives and
ALL Rus and came.
==
So, if one follows the chronical literally it says:
There were many Nordic tribes, among them Swedes, Rus, Normans, Angly,
etc .. When Northern slavic tribes ("Chud', Slovene, Krivichi and Ves'")
(In modern interpretation North-Western people - Pskovchane,
Novgorodtsy, Smolyane, Volozhane) asked Rus people to come and rule
them, three brothers have led ALL of their tribe 'Rus' to Novgorod,
Izborsk, Beloozero.
So, my personal version, but it follows directly from the chronicle,
as you can see, that Rus was a tribe (ethnically and culturally close to
other slavic tribes which follows from other sources) which has
originally populated Baltic region, perhaps on the territory of modern
Sweeden, and which later MOVED ENTIRELY into the North-Western part of
modern Russia. As people from this tribe brought certain order and
stability and united numerous other slavic tribes this whole community,
later state, acquired name Rus and all these tribes were called Rus or
Russians.
AV
> One can imagine they might have eventually settled in one of those
> places thay protected. You'd expect they'd become rulers there, right?
> "Asking them" to do so might have been a common face-saving
> propaganda journalism.
:)
Might be, we'll never know. All we can do is try to interpret
the original chronicles, compare them to other sources and
use common sense.
>
> DK
>
>
>
J. Anderson
> Anyway there is this puzzle that I don't understand. It's about
> emalikoristeiset korut, enamelled jewellery and their spread from about
300
> to 500. A.D.
Sorry, but I can't help you with this one. I know nothing about the Goths
and their products.
> Of course these pre-Viking contacts
> must have, or at least could have, influenced the names and what not in
the
> later Russian areas.
One Viking settlement near the mouth of the river Nemunas (probably in
today's Kaliningrad area) was called Viskiauten. It has always fascinated
me. There is also a place called Vilkaviskis in Lithuania. With all this
'viski', perhaps the Scottish Vikings were sailing up the Nemunas ;~)
For example some vene(boat)-related name for these
> merchants is so obvious that I really do wonder ...
The experts don't accept this boat interpretation of Venemaa, but I like it
more than the constructions around 'vendit' (venderna), which was the
Germanic name for the West-Slavs in northern Germany. Why the hell would the
Finns choose such a distant word to describe a neighbouring people that they
were in close trading contact with?
> Besides the name Rus is originally a name from Turku. There's still
> Ryssänmäki reminding of the ancient clan of the Ryssät.
Ever since the Turku University was placed on that hill, nobody has called
it Ryssänmäki. For some reason...
John
AV
> In article <arranp$4kc$1...@zware.space.ru>, AV <A...@nospam.ru> wrote:
>
>
>>I never heard of Swedish occupation of this whole area.
>>
>>"and according to legend,
>>were even asked by the Slavic tribes living there to rule them and
>>thereby bring order to their society".
>>
>>So, were they occupied or not? What is the sense in asking to rule
>>someone who already occupies you ?
>
>
> It can make things a lot easier. If, as the chronicles state, the
> locals were living in a state of anarchy and lawlessness, and they saw
> that the incoming Varangians knew how to run an ordered society, why
> should they not have accepted the Varangians as Kulturträger rather
> than try to oppose them?
Sorry, but that doesn't hold water. How could they see and what ?
At that time the state of anarchy and lawlessness (especially from our
point view) was universal. "The incoming varangians" ?
Read the chronicle. The sentence immediately preceding that telling
baout anarchy and lawlessness says that these stribes have pushed the
Varangians away over the sea and refused to pay them tribute.
>
> See the map and recapitulation of the history at
> http://infoweb.magi.com/~allan/vikhist.htm.
>
The above says:
"In the east the Swedish Vikings sailed their ships up the rivers of
northern Russia, reaching Kiev by 825. Along the way they established
settlements along the river routes. A major settlement was located at
Novgorod. The Swedish Viking, Rurik became its first ruler. This area
later became Moscow."
According to this, Swedish Vikings simply conquered the entire area,
settled Novgorod, set themselves as the rulers.
This contradicts the chronicle entirely, not to say about Novgorod later
becoming Moscow. The chronicle clearely states: Rus was a separate tribe
"as other tribes were called swedes, normans ... so did this ... [called
Rus]". Later it as clearly states that Rus tribe was INVITED to rule,
and that its rulers took ALL of their tribe "and CAME".
J. Anderson
AV <A...@nospam.ru> wrote in message news:arrb1t$4of$1...@zware.space.ru...
> > D.K. wrote:
> > Well, why would thet be unusual? One of the great Russian rulers
> > who contributed immensely to the growth of Russian empire was
> > Ekaterine II , 100% Polish girl (who had to murder her weak
> > husband to do that :-))
> Wasn't she a German Princess ?
> She wasn't invited for her job, was she :) ?
D.K. means Catherine I (not 'II'). Her original name was Martha
Skavronskaya, and she was obviously a peasant's daughter from Polish Livonia
(perhaps ethnically Latvian). She was married to a Swedish dragoon but was
kidnapped by the Russians and brought to Russia, where Peter (the Great)
fell in love with her and made her his spouse. Peter died (he wasn't
murdered) and Catherine became ruler. She died herself two years later.
Catherine II (the Great), originally Princess Sophia of Anhalt-Zerbst, was
the one who enlarged Russia and had her no-good husband killed.
John
Tomi
> For example some vene(boat)-related name for these
>> merchants is so obvious that I really do wonder ...
>
> The experts don't accept this boat interpretation of Venemaa, but I
> like it more than the constructions around 'vendit' (venderna), which
> was the Germanic name for the West-Slavs in northern Germany. Why the
> hell would the Finns choose such a distant word to describe a
> neighbouring people that they were in close trading contact with?
And where did these Wends, Vendis (and why not Fenns and Finns) and
whatever got their name? According to one theory they were the "same"
Venetian people that live nowadays in Venice. And what is Venice about if
not boats? And if you pronounce Phenician really fast it's exactly like
Finn(cians), another boat people. Perhaps this got a bit out of hands...
--
T: Tomi
HWM
> There's no contradiction. Finnish *satakuntalainen* is now the
> designation of a local ethnicity.
Are boatmen called boatmen because they use boats or are boats called
boats because boatmen use them... which was first, the hen or the egg?
AV
> See the map and recapitulation of the history at
> http://infoweb.magi.com/~allan/vikhist.htm.
And that's an interesting link for you (in Russian).
http://heathen.narod.ru/library/varyagy.htm
Michael Petukhov
> petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael Petukhov) wrote in
> news:a39cf3c3.02112...@posting.google.com:
>
> > To your information russes do not exists since
> > 13 century approximately. Ukranians and Ukranian language are the
> > product of merge of several nations namely slaves (rus),
>
> Could somebody, please, explain where the word "Rus" is supposed to come
> from. The "Germanic" origins from Roslagen in Sweden is not a particularly
> popular over there, among the Russians themselves, I believe. So I'd guess
> that the more recent etymology from the Finnish word "Ruotsi" in not
> considered credible either (at least I have hard time understanding how it
> could have been the original name). I remember reading that there was a
> river called Rus somewhere near Novgorod (or was it Kiev) and Ruses
> originated from there.
The problem is that different peoples used that or closely related
words to describe themselfs at different times. I think now it is
widely accepted among main stream historians that the oldest one was
relatively small tribe from modern Norway or Sweden which terrorised
slavic tribes living along Dnepr river in 8-9 century. This guys were
not nice at all and according to modern standards could be described
as bands of thugs having, unlike their grand-grand...sons living in
modern Scandinavia, no idea what so ever about human rights etc.
After long heavy fighting local slavic tribes were forced to
select these barbarians as their new rulers. Anyway after 2-3
generations they (scandinavian ruses) were complitely assimilated.
As a result of all this bloodshed the new enthic identity appeared
under the name russes. They had state under the title "Kiev rus"
which was destroyed by Mongol invasion in 13 century.
There is also a funny story of "russines" who pretend to be
survived kiev ruses, a small nation living in modern west ukraine who
speak a dealect of ukranian language. They had long and tragic history
of suppresed minority by any states they were living in like
Ausria-Hungury empire, Poland and of caurse Russian empire and USSR.
The funny side is that they relatively recently (some 100 years
ago or so) changed their name to Ukranians who at that time
were living in peace for centuries as a loyal citizens of russian
empire. To my knowledge it is the only such case in human history.
This would be funny only but it created confusion among many particularly
european liberals. Russines were suppresed due to their permanent
propensity to create unrest and uprising against any central authority
everythere they were living in. But now it sounds like suppresion of
ukranians who unlike their brothers, the russines never had any propensities
to be traublemakers.
Michael
AV
> Tomi <to...@invalid.inet.fi> wrote in message news:<Xns92EEA12...@192.89.123.233>...
>
>>petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael Petukhov) wrote in
>>news:a39cf3c3.02112...@posting.google.com:
>>
>>
>>>To your information russes do not exists since
>>>13 century approximately. Ukranians and Ukranian language are the
>>>product of merge of several nations namely slaves (rus),
>>
>>Could somebody, please, explain where the word "Rus" is supposed to come
>>from. The "Germanic" origins from Roslagen in Sweden is not a particularly
>>popular over there, among the Russians themselves, I believe. So I'd guess
>>that the more recent etymology from the Finnish word "Ruotsi" in not
>>considered credible either (at least I have hard time understanding how it
>>could have been the original name). I remember reading that there was a
>>river called Rus somewhere near Novgorod (or was it Kiev) and Ruses
>>originated from there.
>
>
> The problem is that different peoples used that or closely related
> words to describe themselfs at different times. I think now it is
> widely accepted among main stream historians that the oldest one was
> relatively small tribe from modern Norway or Sweden which terrorised
> slavic tribes living along Dnepr river in 8-9 century.
And they were actually another slavic tribe, the most western one.
> This guys were
> not nice at all and according to modern standards could be described
> as bands of thugs having, unlike their grand-grand...sons living in
> modern Scandinavia, no idea what so ever about human rights etc.
> After long heavy fighting local slavic tribes were forced to
> select these barbarians as their new rulers.
Completely wrong. According to the chronicle, they were set packing
home without tribute but later invited to come and rule.
A more detailed look reveals one interesting thing. Those who
were actually invited were not the ones who "terrorised slavic tribes".
Rurik, Sinelius and Truvor were the sons of the Duke of the (Slavic)
tribe Rus Gotleib, occupying southern Baltic shores. Because of their
small age at the time of his death, the power was transfered to their
uncles Trasik and Slavomir, (later to Godomysl and Tabemysl). Rurik had
to "look for a job overseas. So it was a deal, in Rurik other slavic
tribes saw a protection from Nordic tribes. And he hoped to use them
to return his legitimate power.
captain !
"AV" <A...@nospam.ru> wrote in message news:arr606$3fl$1...@zware.space.ru...
...........
........
...............
> .............Ukranian music hall, Ukranian art gallery, Computer club. On
one of the
> most popular Moscow streets, Arbat, the newly reconstructed Ukranina
> cultural center opened.
>
> http://www.rusedina.org/?id=335
>
you have taken much time and effort to show something we already know: yuri
speaks out of his ass!
> >
> > Yuri
>
yp11
>yp11 wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Nov 2002 21:19:01 +0300, AV <A...@nospam.ru> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>RafaelTrujillo61 wrote:
>>>
>>>>WHO ARE THE RUSSIANS?
>>>>by
>>>>Daniel Rancour-Laferriere
>>>>
>>>>Daniel Rancour-Laferriere is Professor of Russian at the University of
>>>>California, Davis, and author of Russian Nationalism from an
>>>>Interdisciplinary Perspective: Imagining Russia (2000, available from
>>>>Mellenbooks.com).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Russia is the largest country in the world in terms of sheer geographic
>>>>space. But who are the people who live in this huge country? As it turns
>>>>out, the question is not an easy one to answer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The citizens of Russia are termed Rossiiane. However, not all Russian
>>>>citizens are ethnic Russians - russkie. It is true that ethnic Russians
>>>>are in the majority, an estimated 82% of the population today. But there
>>>>are significant numbers of other ethnic or national groups in Russia too:
>>>>Tatars, Chechens, Kazakhs, Ukrainians, Armenians, Finns, Germans, Jews,
>>>
>>>Chechens second in the list ? What's the idea ?
>>>
>>
>> I guess with the war in Chechnya Daniel Rancour-Laferriere's mind was
>> on Chechens despite the fact that now there are fewer than 1 million
>> of them in the Russian Federation (after recent extermination of some
>> 100,000 Chechens by the Russians in Chechnya).
>>
>> I think that by far the largest minority in the Russian Federation are
>> the Ukrainians. Officially there are about 5 million of ethnic
>> Ukrainians living in the RF, however, in reality they are closer to 10
>> million. Despite this, there is not a single Ukrainian-language public
>> school in Russia, not even one Ukrainian-language theater can be found
>> in Russia, no Ukrainian libraries are to be found in Russia and not a
>> single periodical in Ukrainian language is published in Russia.
>>
>> On the other hand, while Russians vehemently complain that Russian
>> language is being restricted in Ukraine, for a population of ethnic
>> Russians about equivalent to that of Ukrainians in Russia, there are
>> 2,973 Russian-language public schools in Ukraine, 30 Russian-language
>> theaters exist in Ukraine, there are also 24,382 Russian-language
>> libraries in Ukraine and 1,172 periodicals are published in Russian in
>> Ukraine. (Source The Ukrainian Weekly of November 10, 2002).
>
>There are 4,379,690 Ukraininans living in Russia.
>57% of Ukrainians, living in Russia, consider Russian language their
>'mother language'. 15% speak freely Ukraninan.
This is the official figure. Most Ukrainians in Russia are calling
themselves Russians. The figure of people with Ukrainian roots is
closer to 10 million.
>
>About 90 Ukraninan social-cultural societies exist in Russia, 4 in
>Moscow alone. Financial and other support to these societies
>comes from local as wellas Federal Russian budget.
These are tiny little organizations. really insignificant compared to
the figures shown above for Russian-language organizations in Ukraine.
>
>The Program of Union of Ukraninans of Moscow for example,
>takes part in developing state power orders concerning
>Ukranina community, assistance to promoting Ukranina language
>and Ukraninan culture, Ukranian national schools, libraries,
>press, other mass media sources.
And they constantly complain that the Russian authorities don't want
to provide to them any financial assistance. They are getting it now
from Canadian and US sources.
>
>In Russia, the following papers are printed in Ukranian:
>"Ukranina courier", "Ukranian choice", "Tyndy-Ryndy",
>"Dnipro", "Promin", ... .. .. .. (15 titles) and more ...
None of these are regular daily newspapers.
>
>Radio transmissions ... TV , ...
>Ukranian Radio of Russia is to be openned ...
Promises, promises
>
>Ukranina Institute is opened, fininced from the Federal budget ...
Never heard of it. Bet you it is totally insignificant.
>
>On the other hand, some local authorities report that in
>regions with compact Ukranian communities there were no
>interest from Ukraninans themselves to open Ukranina schools.
>
>Such attempt by Ministry of Education failed, for example, in Moscow.
>They couldn't find enough people to open a single class.
Due to pressure from Russians and general Russification.
>
>
>"Ukranina choice" points out as a fact that there is actually no
>inteerst to Ukraninan language in Russia. Most people can do well
>without it not only in Russia but in Ukrain itself. General
>public is not too interested in it, only nationalistically oriented
>intelligencia.
This is pure Russian propaganda.
>
>Moscow city government helped to open Ukranian library in Moscow,
>Ukranian music hall, Ukranian art gallery, Computer club. On one of the
>most popular Moscow streets, Arbat, the newly reconstructed Ukranina
>cultural center opened.
>
>http://www.rusedina.org/?id=335
Compared to what is available in Ukraine for Russians, these are
peanuts and essentially insignificant. I gave my source, you gave
yours. But even if everything you stated above were correct, it is
still insignificant in comparison to what is available to Russians in
Ukraine.
>
>
>
>> So, to some extent, when Misha Kovalev recently pointed out to a study
>> showing that Ukrainians are not as smart as the Russians, I must agree
>> with him. If they were as smart as the Russians, they would restrict
>> the number of Russian-language institutions in Ukraine to the same
>> number as there are Ukrainian-language institutions in Russia, namely
>> zero. But the dumb Khakhly still bow before the Russians as if they
>> were still their masters.
>
>Check sources before spreading lies.
>
>>
>> Yuri
Kari Yli-Kuha
"J. Anderson" <ar...@iname.com> wrote in message news:arr289$b1e$05$1...@news.t-online.com...
> Hmm, interesting [taking a puff from an imagined pipe]. The Estonian words
> are Rootsi(maa) and Vene(maa). So they use the same word as our 'official'
> venäläinen for Russians. It would surprise me if our 'ryssä' isn't simply a
> loan from the Swedish 'ryss'.
One widely spread theory:
1) Finnish "ruotsi" comes from "Roslagen".
2) the Sámi adopted the word from Finnish in the form "ruossa", but in the meaning "Russian".
3) the word "ruossa" then drifted back to Finnish as "ryssä".
/C
Kari Yli-Kuha
> Eugene Holman wrote:
> Makes no sense. Nobody would ask FOREIGNERS to become their rulers.
> Historical evidence is that Varyags had spoken same language and shared
> common religion and habits with other slav tribes.
What about Friedrich Karl of Hessen, King of Finland? :)
http://www.kaltio.fi/arkisto/kunkku.htm
/C
Eugene Holman
> Eugene Holman wrote:
> > In article <arra9g$4jl$1...@zware.space.ru>, AV <A...@nospam.ru> wrote:
[deletions]
More probable would be that it was a Scandinavian tribe, some of whose
members migrated and, once settled, rapidly adapted Slavic culture.
First of all, there is no evidence of there ever having been a Slavic
presence on the territory of modern Sweden. Indeed, Slavs are relative
latecomers in this area of Europe, entering from the southeast.
Secondly, this type of behavior has an exact parallel in the case of
the Normans. Analogous to the Ros/Rus, who migrated eastwards, settled
among Eastern Slavic peoples, and assimilated into them, the Normans
settled in northwestern France, originally as invaders, but quickly
abandoned their own culture and language for those of the people they
had invaded.
There is no contradiction between a group of originally Scandinavian
origin retaining its traditional name after having become Slavicized.
Once again, France provides a parallel. The entire country is now known
by the name of an originally Germanic tribe, the Franks, the
westernmost arm of which became Gaullicized.
> As people from this tribe brought certain order and
> stability and united numerous other slavic tribes this whole community,
> later state, acquired name Rus and all these tribes were called Rus or
> Russians.
There is no contradiction between the above scenario and the Ros/Rus
tribe being of originally Scandinavian origin. East Slavic and
Scandinavian chronicals, archeology, and linguistics support this
viewpoint.
--
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
> Eugene Holman wrote:
> > In article <arra9g$4jl$1...@zware.space.ru>, AV <A...@nospam.ru> wrote:
[deletions]
More probable would be that it was a Scandinavian tribe, some of whose
members migrated and, once settled, rapidly adapted Slavic culture.
First of all, there is no evidence of there ever having been a Slavic
presence on the territory of modern Sweden. Indeed, Slavs are relative
latecomers in this area of Europe, entering from the southeast.
Secondly, this type of behavior has an exact parallel in the case of
the Normans. Analogous to the Ros/Rus, who migrated eastwards, settled
among Eastern Slavic peoples, and assimilated into them, the Normans
settled in northwestern France, originally as invaders, but quickly
abandoned their own culture and language for those of the people they
had invaded.
There is no contradiction between a group of originally Scandinavian
origin retaining its traditional name after having become Slavicized.
Once again, France provides a parallel. The entire country is now known
by the name of an originally Germanic tribe, the Franks, the
westernmost arm of which became Gaullicized.
> As people from this tribe brought certain order and
> stability and united numerous other slavic tribes this whole community,
> later state, acquired name Rus and all these tribes were called Rus or
> Russians.
There is no contradiction between the above scenario and the Ros/Rus
tribe being of originally Scandinavian origin. East Slavic and
Scandinavian chronicles, archeology, and linguistics support this
Michael Petukhov
> Michael Petukhov wrote:
> > Tomi <to...@invalid.inet.fi> wrote in message news:<Xns92EEA12...@192.89.123.233>...
> >
> >>petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael Petukhov) wrote in
> >>news:a39cf3c3.02112...@posting.google.com:
> >>
> >>
> >>>To your information russes do not exists since
> >>>13 century approximately. Ukranians and Ukranian language are the
> >>>product of merge of several nations namely slaves (rus),
> >>
> >>Could somebody, please, explain where the word "Rus" is supposed to come
> >>from. The "Germanic" origins from Roslagen in Sweden is not a particularly
> >>popular over there, among the Russians themselves, I believe. So I'd guess
> >>that the more recent etymology from the Finnish word "Ruotsi" in not
> >>considered credible either (at least I have hard time understanding how it
> >>could have been the original name). I remember reading that there was a
> >>river called Rus somewhere near Novgorod (or was it Kiev) and Ruses
> >>originated from there.
> >
> >
> > The problem is that different peoples used that or closely related
> > words to describe themselfs at different times. I think now it is
> > widely accepted among main stream historians that the oldest one was
> > relatively small tribe from modern Norway or Sweden which terrorised
> > slavic tribes living along Dnepr river in 8-9 century.
>
> And they were actually another slavic tribe, the most western one.
Maybe at the times Rurik and Oleg russes were already
assimilated by slavs. But as far as I understand there is
no any dispute that origin of ruses is in Scandinavia.
>
> > This guys were
> > not nice at all and according to modern standards could be described
> > as bands of thugs having, unlike their grand-grand...sons living in
> > modern Scandinavia, no idea what so ever about human rights etc.
> > After long heavy fighting local slavic tribes were forced to
> > select these barbarians as their new rulers.
>
> Completely wrong. According to the chronicle, they were set packing
> home without tribute but later invited to come and rule.
Not completely. The chronicles you seems to reference "povest
vremennyh let" according to some sources I saw is highly politized
and in inaccurate in many sensitive for Ruriks places. Which
is understandable given customs of that time. However all these
are fine details which does not change the main history direction.
I see no point to discuss such fine details here when even
profesional historians did not come to final conclusions on
that matters.
>
> A more detailed look reveals one interesting thing. Those who
> were actually invited were not the ones who "terrorised slavic tribes".
> Rurik, Sinelius and Truvor were the sons of the Duke of the (Slavic)
> tribe Rus Gotleib, occupying southern Baltic shores. Because of their
> small age at the time of his death, the power was transfered to their
> uncles Trasik and Slavomir, (later to Godomysl and Tabemysl). Rurik had
> to "look for a job overseas. So it was a deal, in Rurik other slavic
> tribes saw a protection from Nordic tribes. And he hoped to use them
> to return his legitimate power.
As I said it could be true or not depending on time were are talking.
It does not change the fact that russes did unit slavs, were assimilated
by them and gave their original name to the new ethnic identity.
Michael
Tomi
>> A more detailed look reveals one interesting thing. Those who
>> were actually invited were not the ones who "terrorised slavic tribes".
>> Rurik, Sinelius and Truvor were the sons of the Duke of the (Slavic)
>> tribe Rus Gotleib, occupying southern Baltic shores. Because of their
>> small age at the time of his death, the power was transfered to their
>> uncles Trasik and Slavomir, (later to Godomysl and Tabemysl). Rurik had
>> to "look for a job overseas. So it was a deal, in Rurik other slavic
>> tribes saw a protection from Nordic tribes. And he hoped to use them to
>> return his legitimate power.
>
> As I said it could be true or not depending on time were are talking.
> It does not change the fact that russes did unit slavs, were assimilated
> by them and gave their original name to the new ethnic identity.
I just remembered reading that somebody has proposed that the Rugi were
actually the Rus. Now, if I remember correctly Rugis were living by the
shoutern shores of the Baltic sea, somewhere around the estuary of Weichsel
or westwards??? That's where Goths had been living before they moved to
"Russia", if we are to believe Jordanes (which we perhaps shouldn't).
Anyway, aren't Rugis possibly a Slavic tirbe?
--
T: Tomi
AV
I know :). It's not ment to convince him of anything, it's for others
to see he's a liar.
>
>
>
>>>Yuri
>>
>
>
AV
So what ? It's their right. My father is Ukranian. But he lived almost
all of his life in Russia, married a Russian woman, speaks Russian.
He's Ukranian by passport would probably say he's Ukranian if asked
(never aksed him that question). But, effectively, he's become Russian,
his children occasionly visited Ukraine where most of their relatives
live but that's it. A typical case. Some of my Ukranian relatives have
left Ukraine in search of better job and since then live in Russia ...
And currently a lot of Ukranians work in Russia illegally (cause their
motherland instead of expected prosperity after gaining independence
found itself in the state of deep crisis).
> The figure of people with Ukrainian roots is
> closer to 10 million.
But not all people with Ukrainian roots still consider themselves
Ukrainian. For most people in USSR it didn't really matter wheather
you lived in Russian Federation or Ukraine, it was one country, and
Russian language was universal.
>>About 90 Ukraninan social-cultural societies exist in Russia, 4 in
>>Moscow alone. Financial and other support to these societies
>>comes from local as wellas Federal Russian budget.
>
>
> These are tiny little organizations. really insignificant compared to
> the figures shown above for Russian-language organizations in Ukraine.
So why don't they make their organization larger ? Or is it also the
responsibility of Russian / Moscow government ? Whereas in Ukraine,
especially western parts there are known facts of widespread obstacles
created to the free use of Russian language and culture.
>>The Program of Union of Ukraninans of Moscow for example,
>>takes part in developing state power orders concerning
>>Ukranina community, assistance to promoting Ukranina language
>>and Ukraninan culture, Ukranian national schools, libraries,
>>press, other mass media sources.
>
>
> And they constantly complain that the Russian authorities don't want
> to provide to them any financial assistance. They are getting it now
> from Canadian and US sources.
Not only them, finances are scarce ...
>
>>In Russia, the following papers are printed in Ukranian:
>>"Ukranina courier", "Ukranian choice", "Tyndy-Ryndy",
>>"Dnipro", "Promin", ... .. .. .. (15 titles) and more ...
>
>
> None of these are regular daily newspapers.
Because nobody would buy a daily newspaper in Ukranian.
I mean not millions of people.
>
>>Radio transmissions ... TV , ...
>>Ukranian Radio of Russia is to be openned ...
>
>
> Promises, promises
Many realized.
>
>>Ukranina Institute is opened, fininced from the Federal budget ...
>
>
> Never heard of it. Bet you it is totally insignificant.
Only Ukrainians themselves can make it significant.
>
>>On the other hand, some local authorities report that in
>>regions with compact Ukranian communities there were no
>>interest from Ukraninans themselves to open Ukranina schools.
>>
>>Such attempt by Ministry of Education failed, for example, in Moscow.
>>They couldn't find enough people to open a single class.
>
>
> Due to pressure from Russians and general Russification.
!?? C'mon, what a BS. Who would care for a single Ukranian class.
> >>"Ukranina choice" points out as a fact that there is actually no
>>inteerst to Ukraninan language in Russia. Most people can do well
>>without it not only in Russia but in Ukrain itself. General
>>public is not too interested in it, only nationalistically oriented
>>intelligencia.
>
>
> This is pure Russian propaganda.
I don't know. From what I know and see I'd rather incline to
admit it is not far from reality.
>
>>Moscow city government helped to open Ukranian library in Moscow,
>>Ukranian music hall, Ukranian art gallery, Computer club. On one of the
>>most popular Moscow streets, Arbat, the newly reconstructed Ukranina
>>cultural center opened.
>>
>>http://www.rusedina.org/?id=335
>
>
> Compared to what is available in Ukraine for Russians, these are
> peanuts and essentially insignificant. I gave my source, you gave
> yours. But even if everything you stated above were correct, it is
> still insignificant in comparison to what is available to Russians in
> Ukraine.
And you suggest all these significant facilities in Ukraine were created
and are supported and financed by Ukranian government?
AV
But in the context of our discussion I have ment something different.
During the time immediately preceding the arrival of Varyags, they
were said to be laying these very slavic tribes under tribute.
There seems to be no logic in sending envoys and inviting the rulers
from the foreign tribe who terrorized you, whom you paid tribute,
and whom you have just pushed back over the sea from you lands.
Tomi
> But in the context of our discussion I have ment something different.
> During the time immediately preceding the arrival of Varyags, they
> were said to be laying these very slavic tribes under tribute.
> There seems to be no logic in sending envoys and inviting the rulers
> from the foreign tribe who terrorized you, whom you paid tribute,
> and whom you have just pushed back over the sea from you lands.
Novgorod seems to have been divided in three villages or manors before the
Rus. So there were also three power centres which were probably competing
with each other more or less. This is an interpretation of archaeologists.
Now, it seems not impossible, actually it seems very possible, that one or
two manors joined forces with the Rus against the remaining manor or
manors. One of the manors was ethnically different, Finnic, from the rest
which were Slavic.If there is any credibility to the argument that "Rus" is
originally a Finnic word "ruotsi", it is possible, isn't it, that the
"betrayer" was the head of this Finnic village or manor. Furthermore they
had a good chance to plot with the Rus because they were most likely those
who carried on business with the people up north, Estonia, Finland,
Karelia, and why not Sweden. What's more natural than to walk up to some
Rus-sian trading partner and say: "Let's gang up and take over Novgorod"--
and then get betrayed by the Rus.
Of course this wouldn't be how it'd be then described in the "official"
annales.
--
T: Tomi
AV
And by Scandinavian you mean what ? From the modern territory of one
of Scandinavian states ?
>
> First of all, there is no evidence of there ever having been a Slavic
> presence on the territory of modern Sweden. Indeed, Slavs are relative
> latecomers in this area of Europe, entering from the southeast.
And I've just read about Slavs living at one time all over this
territory and later displaced by germanic tribes.
>
> Secondly, this type of behavior has an exact parallel in the case of
> the Normans. Analogous to the Ros/Rus, who migrated eastwards, settled
> among Eastern Slavic peoples, and assimilated into them, the Normans
> settled in northwestern France, originally as invaders, but quickly
> abandoned their own culture and language for those of the people they
> had invaded.
The story about three brothers called to rule is also suspisiously
typical. As one written chronicle tells Brits once called Sacks to
come and rule them. The latter send ships with three brothers ...
Actually, the more I read the more I'm lost in this subject which
is a hot point for historians for the last 250 years ...
>
> There is no contradiction between a group of originally Scandinavian
> origin retaining its traditional name after having become Slavicized.
> Once again, France provides a parallel. The entire country is now known
> by the name of an originally Germanic tribe, the Franks, the
> westernmost arm of which became Gaullicized.
>
>
>>As people from this tribe brought certain order and
>>stability and united numerous other slavic tribes this whole community,
>>later state, acquired name Rus and all these tribes were called Rus or
>>Russians.
>
>
> There is no contradiction between the above scenario and the Ros/Rus
> tribe being of originally Scandinavian origin. East Slavic and
> Scandinavian chronicles, archeology, and linguistics support this
> viewpoint.
As I have said, there is no single viewpoint. In fact, there are many
contradicting viewpoints, some of which are better founded and some
worse.
>
>
AV
There's a lot of versions. Some even claim Rus came from
Staraya Rusa, so no Baltic connection whatsoever. Some
insist Rus is a slavic tribe from the southern shores of the
Baltic sea. Some tell us that Rus was a divided tribe living
both in the north-western part of modern Russia and southern
part of modern Sweeden ...
>
>
>>>This guys were
>>>not nice at all and according to modern standards could be described
>>>as bands of thugs having, unlike their grand-grand...sons living in
>>>modern Scandinavia, no idea what so ever about human rights etc.
>>>After long heavy fighting local slavic tribes were forced to
>>>select these barbarians as their new rulers.
>>
>>Completely wrong. According to the chronicle, they were set packing
>>home without tribute but later invited to come and rule.
>
>
> Not completely. The chronicles you seems to reference "povest
> vremennyh let" according to some sources I saw is highly politized
> and in inaccurate in many sensitive for Ruriks places. Which
> is understandable given customs of that time. However all these
> are fine details which does not change the main history direction.
> I see no point to discuss such fine details here when even
> profesional historians did not come to final conclusions on
> that matters.
That's just an extremely entertaining subject. Any chronicle
can be partly politisized and inaccurate, one has to take this into
account. You probably mean the Fomenko view that it was completely
forged. The more or less correct picture can only be reconstructed by
examining all available data.
>>A more detailed look reveals one interesting thing. Those who
>>were actually invited were not the ones who "terrorised slavic tribes".
>>Rurik, Sinelius and Truvor were the sons of the Duke of the (Slavic)
>>tribe Rus Gotleib, occupying southern Baltic shores. Because of their
>>small age at the time of his death, the power was transfered to their
>>uncles Trasik and Slavomir, (later to Godomysl and Tabemysl). Rurik had
>>to "look for a job overseas. So it was a deal, in Rurik other slavic
>>tribes saw a protection from Nordic tribes. And he hoped to use them
>>to return his legitimate power.
>
>
> As I said it could be true or not depending on time were are talking.
> It does not change the fact that russes did unit slavs, were assimilated
> by them and gave their original name to the new ethnic identity.
Yes, the only question is who were these original Rus and where did they
cam from ...
>
> Michael
Bolshoy_Murza
> >>
> >>There are 4,379,690 Ukraininans living in Russia.
> >>57% of Ukrainians, living in Russia, consider Russian language their
> >>'mother language'. 15% speak freely Ukraninan.
> >
> >
> > This is the official figure. Most Ukrainians in Russia are calling
> > themselves Russians.
>
>
> So what ? It's their right. My father is Ukranian. But he lived almost
> all of his life in Russia, married a Russian woman, speaks Russian.
Yes. Russia is a melting pot to a large degree.
> He's Ukranian by passport would probably say he's Ukranian if asked
> (never aksed him that question).
-----
Slipping into ebonics? Do you also wear a lot of gold chains and
sport jumpsuits : ))?
> But, effectively, he's become Russian,
> his children occasionly visited Ukraine where most of their relatives
> live but that's it. A typical case. Some of my Ukranian relatives have
> left Ukraine in search of better job and since then live in Russia ...
> And currently a lot of Ukranians work in Russia illegally (cause their
> motherland instead of expected prosperity after gaining independence
> found itself in the state of deep crisis).
>
>
> > The figure of people with Ukrainian roots is
> > closer to 10 million.
>
> But not all people with Ukrainian roots still consider themselves
> Ukrainian. For most people in USSR it didn't really matter wheather
> you lived in Russian Federation or Ukraine, it was one country, and
> Russian language was universal.
>
> >>About 90 Ukraninan social-cultural societies exist in Russia, 4 in
> >>Moscow alone. Financial and other support to these societies
> >>comes from local as wellas Federal Russian budget.
> >
> >
> > These are tiny little organizations. really insignificant compared to
> > the figures shown above for Russian-language organizations in Ukraine.
>
> So why don't they make their organization larger ? Or is it also the
> responsibility of Russian / Moscow government ? Whereas in Ukraine,
> especially western parts there are known facts of widespread obstacles
> created to the free use of Russian language and culture.
???????????
>
> >>The Program of Union of Ukraninans of Moscow for example,
> >>takes part in developing state power orders concerning
> >>Ukranina community, assistance to promoting Ukranina language
> >>and Ukraninan culture, Ukranian national schools, libraries,
> >>press, other mass media sources.
> >
> >
> > And they constantly complain that the Russian authorities don't want
> > to provide to them any financial assistance. They are getting it now
> > from Canadian and US sources.
>
> Not only them, finances are scarce ...
I went to one of the meetings of the Union of Ukrainians in 2000. It
was a bit embarrassing. A representative from Luzhkov's government
showed up, so the chairman of the meeting addressed him in Russian.
As a result, the "Banderist" portion of the organization walked out in
protest - they didn't want to hear the Russian language. Etc. etc.
One of the speakers, an immigrant from western Ukraine who had lived
in Moscow for 20 years or so, said that funding for a modern school,
complete with computers, was there for the taking. However, because
the Ukrainians couldn't come up with a plan for the school (some
insisted it should be like our Ukrainian schools in the USA [St.
Nicholas in Chicago] where they have one class every day in Ukrainian
and the rest in the local language. Others insisted on
half-Ukrainian and half-Russian (do they do this in Alberta Canada?),
and still others wanted only one class in Russian. As a result of
their disagreements and inability to compromise - no regular school
(they do have Sunday or Saturday schools like in the US however).
There were some young Ukrainians sitting in the back during the
circus, with embarrassed smiles on their faces. I guess from the
times of the Rus' princes to the warring cossacks of the left and
right banks, to the various otamans in 1917-1921, to Banderivtsi vs.
Melnykivtsi, to even this silly group in Moscow, Ukrainians have been
hampered by infighting : (((
> >>In Russia, the following papers are printed in Ukranian:
> >>"Ukranina courier", "Ukranian choice", "Tyndy-Ryndy",
> >>"Dnipro", "Promin", ... .. .. .. (15 titles) and more ...
> >
> >
> > None of these are regular daily newspapers.
>
> Because nobody would buy a daily newspaper in Ukranian.
> I mean not millions of people.
There were 300,000 Ukrainians in Moscow in 1990; certainly there are
more now. If 15% are Ukrainian speaking (as the stats suggest) that
means 45,000 Ukrainian speakers. More than double that of Chicago in
the 1990 census. Surely there must be some sort of market...
...cut...
> >>
> >>Such attempt by Ministry of Education failed, for example, in Moscow.
> >>They couldn't find enough people to open a single class.
> >
> >
> > Due to pressure from Russians and general Russification.
>
> !?? C'mon, what a BS. Who would care for a single Ukranian class.
Bullshit. Places like Chicago with less Ukrainians support daily
Ukrainian schools. In Chicago the number of Ukrainian speakers in
1990 was less than 20,000 (many of whom were old). We in the USA have
received numerous requests for (financial) aid in setting up Ukrainian
schools, publishing, etc. in Russia.
Certainly russia is under no obligation to fund/support ukrainian
schools on its soil. But then, in that case, if it chooses not to,
Russia shouldn't expect Ukraine to fund _any_ Russian schools on its
territory, either.
Tit-for-tat.
> > >>"Ukranina choice" points out as a fact that there is actually no
> >>inteerst to Ukraninan language in Russia. Most people can do well
> >>without it not only in Russia but in Ukrain itself. General
> >>public is not too interested in it, only nationalistically oriented
> >>intelligencia.
> >
> >
> > This is pure Russian propaganda.
> I don't know. From what I know and see I'd rather incline to
> admit it is not far from reality.
>
> >
> >>Moscow city government helped to open Ukranian library in Moscow,
> >>Ukranian music hall, Ukranian art gallery, Computer club. On one of the
> >>most popular Moscow streets, Arbat, the newly reconstructed Ukranina
> >>cultural center opened.
> >>
> >>http://www.rusedina.org/?id=335
> >
> >
> > Compared to what is available in Ukraine for Russians, these are
> > peanuts and essentially insignificant. I gave my source, you gave
> > yours. But even if everything you stated above were correct, it is
> > still insignificant in comparison to what is available to Russians in
> > Ukraine.
>
> And you suggest all these significant facilities in Ukraine were created
> and are supported and financed by Ukranian government?
Probably, more of them are then Ukrainian ones are in Russia.
Bolshoy Murza
adrian
under the Kremlin of Russia's Viking past and also evidence that they
navigated Russian rivers to the the sea.
In England loads of places end in "BY" "THORPE" "THWAITE" etc these
being Viking Farmlands and can mostly be found North of the Dane line.
People in the Shetlands, Hebrides, Cumbria , Isle of Man and Dublin
are decended from the Nowegian Vikings. It seems very hard to separate
Danish, Norwegian , Angles and Jutes and Saxon DNA using the X
chromosone as a marker. People in the South of England have more
native British DNA eg Celtic but also have more Norman DNA as well.
In York Street names end in Gate being Norse for Garter or Street. We
still can friends Ducks from the old Norse Ducla meaning friends. Even
our week days are named after NORDIC gods i.e Tyr, Woden , Thor and
Frig.
yp11
>
>Could somebody, please, explain where the word "Rus" is supposed to come
>from. The "Germanic" origins from Roslagen in Sweden is not a particularly
>popular over there, among the Russians themselves, I believe. So I'd guess
>that the more recent etymology from the Finnish word "Ruotsi" in not
>considered credible either (at least I have hard time understanding how it
>could have been the original name). I remember reading that there was a
>river called Rus somewhere near Novgorod (or was it Kiev) and Ruses
>originated from there.
There are at least three different theories as to the origin of Rus:
1. The so called Normanist position according to which Rus has
Scandinavian roots and probably comes from "Ruotsi" the Finnish
designation for Sweden, especially the costal region inhabited by the
rospiggar (pronounced ruspiggar). This position according to which the
name was originally associated with Varangians in the Novgorod region
and other northern regions around Lake Ladoga was advanced in the 18th
century by German historians Gottlieb Bayer and Gerhard Mueller and
supported by their 19th century successors Schloezer, Kunik and
Thomsen as well as some Russian historians such as Karamzin, Pogodin,
Miliukov and Ukrainian historians Kostomarov, Kulish, Antonovich.
2. The anti-Normanist position according to which the name Rus is
associated not with Varangians and other northern tribes, but rather
with a tribe much further south, namely in the middle Dnieper region
where a Slavic tribe known as the Ros (rosi/rodi) lived in the valley
of the Ros River and the Ros united the surrounding Slavic peoples
into a tribal alliance in the sixth century. That union was
subsequently enlarged when the Ros merged with the Polianians of the
Kiev region as well as with the Severians of the Chernihiv region to
form a new tribal union along the middle Dnieper valley, called Rus.
This theory is supported by historians such as Mikhail Lomonosov,
Dmitrii Ilovaiski, Stepan Gedeonov, Mykhailo Hrushevski and others.
The anti-Normanists argue that no people known as Rus or a close
variant thereof was ever mentioned in old Scandinavian sources, while
some ninth-century Islamic writers speak of the Ruus as a tribe of
Slav living in that region.
3. A more recent theory comes from a Ukrainian-American historian
Omeljan Pritsak. He agrees with the Normanists that the Varangian Rus
comes from abroad, however, these early Varangian Rus people
represented no particular ethnic group, neither Scandinavian, nor
Slavic, nor Iranian (as historian Vernadsky believes). Rather they
were made up of various trading company people who plied the North Sea
and the Baltic (or Varangian) Sea. As for the word Rus, Pritsak
proposes that it is derived from Middle French Rusi, which in turn
refers to Rutenicis - a region in south-central France from which the
Rus trading company originated.
So, as you can see, there is no definitive answer as yet to the
question regarding the origin of Rus. However, it is clear that
without the Kievan Rus, which lasted several centuries and introduced
Christianity to the whole region, we would not even be discussing the
origin of the word Rus.
The main difference of opinion between Russians and Ukrainians, is
that according to Russians, "Rus" is the natural predecessor of
"Russia". On the other hand, according to Ukrainians, "Rus" is the
predecessor of Ukraine since it existed on Ukrainian lands. Tsar Peter
I (the Great) transformed the Tsardom of Muscovy into the "Russian
Empire" and officially adopted the word "Russia". The Ukrainians, some
of whom called themselves Rusyn, could hardly object, since they were
part of the Russian Empire at the time. So there you are: as most of
the things that are Russian, the name of their country "Russia" was in
fact stolen from others, in this case from Ukrainians.
Yuri
Michael Petukhov
> On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 13:51:47 GMT, Tomi <to...@invalid.inet.fi> wrote:
>
>
> The main difference of opinion between Russians and Ukrainians, is
> that according to Russians, "Rus" is the natural predecessor of
> "Russia". On the other hand, according to Ukrainians, "Rus" is the
> predecessor of Ukraine since it existed on Ukrainian lands.
false. Russians believe that "Rus" is the natural predecessor
of both Russians and Ukranians who are in fact the same people
speaking slightly different laguages. Even so called Galician
Rusynes (Ruthenians) during last period Habsburg monarchy (1848-1913)
belived in that when they first declared identity with the Ukrainians
under Russian rule. Now of caurse they believe they always were
europeans and poles, germans and hungarians are their best friends.
> Tsar Peter
> I (the Great) transformed the Tsardom of Muscovy into the "Russian
> Empire" and officially adopted the word "Russia".
And for the very good reason since at that time he united majority of
Russians and Ukaranian lands under his rule.
> The Ukrainians, some of whom called themselves Rusyn,
false again. in fact Rusynes populating Galicia change their
name to Ukranians only after 1848 (it was declared in separatist
Supreme Ruthenian Council) after Austrian revolution.
All this to separate from disintergrating Autrian empire and
join to strong Russian empire. They were russophiles at that time.
> could hardly
> object, since they were part of the Russian Empire at the time.
When Galicia was part of russian empire? after 1340 it was part
of Poland and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In 1772 it changed
hands to Austrian empire. It is difficult even to list
all hands it passed through between 1914-1920. But none of them
was Russian empire. 1920-1939 it was part of Poland again and
became part of USSR only in 1944.
> So there you are: as most of
> the things that are Russian, the name of their country "Russia" was in
> fact stolen from others, in this case from Ukrainians.
Are you OK? If so I must note that it is rare thing to see such a stupid
claim even in this NG. tell me how russians could steal the name Russia
from someone who according to you called themselfs Ukranians and
whose country name is Ukraine? Rusynes also never called their land
Russia. It was Galicia, was't it? And Kiev rus has disappeared
long before first rusyn speaking Ukranian dealect has appeared.
Michael
AV
Which proves they're wrong. Rus first existed with the center in
Novgorod, then Kiev, then Vladimir, then Moscow, ... What is important
is where the current center of political power is. Due to considerable
western influence Ukraine, especially western parts of it, can hardly
call Rus it's "predecessor".
> Tsar Peter
> I (the Great) transformed the Tsardom of Muscovy into the "Russian
> Empire" and officially adopted the word "Russia". The Ukrainians, some
> of whom called themselves Rusyn, could hardly object, since they were
> part of the Russian Empire at the time. So there you are: as most of
> the things that are Russian, the name of their country "Russia" was in
> fact stolen from others, in this case from Ukrainians.
This is the funniest stuff. Poor, pathetic rusyns whose name was stolen.
>
> Yuri
>
yp11
Petukhov) wrote:
>yp11 <yp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<cf78uug82sba7439c...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 13:51:47 GMT, Tomi <to...@invalid.inet.fi> wrote:
>>
>>
>> The main difference of opinion between Russians and Ukrainians, is
>> that according to Russians, "Rus" is the natural predecessor of
>> "Russia". On the other hand, according to Ukrainians, "Rus" is the
>> predecessor of Ukraine since it existed on Ukrainian lands.
>
>false. Russians believe that "Rus" is the natural predecessor
>of both Russians and Ukranians who are in fact the same people
>speaking slightly different laguages. Even so called Galician
>Rusynes (Ruthenians) during last period Habsburg monarchy (1848-1913)
>belived in that when they first declared identity with the Ukrainians
>under Russian rule. Now of caurse they believe they always were
>europeans and poles, germans and hungarians are their best friends.
Misha, Misha, I would not expect you or Russians generally to believe
otherwise. You are simply following what you have been thought by
Russian historians such as Karamzin, Soloviev and Kluchevski. On the
other hand, Ukrainian historians, such as Hrushevski, Doroshenko and
Lypynski come to an entirely different conclusion, namely that
Russians and Ukrainians come from two entirely different and distinct
ethnic groups.
>
>> Tsar Peter
>> I (the Great) transformed the Tsardom of Muscovy into the "Russian
>> Empire" and officially adopted the word "Russia".
>
>And for the very good reason since at that time he united majority of
>Russians and Ukaranian lands under his rule.
He didn't unite anything. Bohdan Khmelnitski joined Muscovy by
pledging allegiance to Peter's father Tsar Alexis. This was his big
mistake as later nicely pointed out by Taras Shevchenko in one of his
poems. Ivan Mazepa tried to correct this mistake and separate Ukraine
from Russia with the help of Charles XII, but unfortunately they lost
the battle at Poltava.
>
>> The Ukrainians, some of whom called themselves Rusyn,
>
>false again. in fact Rusynes populating Galicia change their
>name to Ukranians only after 1848 (it was declared in separatist
>Supreme Ruthenian Council) after Austrian revolution.
>All this to separate from disintergrating Autrian empire and
>join to strong Russian empire. They were russophiles at that time.
>
>> could hardly
>> object, since they were part of the Russian Empire at the time.
>
>When Galicia was part of russian empire? after 1340 it was part
>of Poland and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In 1772 it changed
>hands to Austrian empire. It is difficult even to list
>all hands it passed through between 1914-1920. But none of them
>was Russian empire. 1920-1939 it was part of Poland again and
>became part of USSR only in 1944.
>
Don't get too excited about Rusyny, there are some Ukrainians who call
themselves this way even now. It's not intended to mean "Russians".
>> So there you are: as most of
>> the things that are Russian, the name of their country "Russia" was in
>> fact stolen from others, in this case from Ukrainians.
>
>Are you OK? If so I must note that it is rare thing to see such a stupid
>claim even in this NG. tell me how russians could steal the name Russia
>from someone who according to you called themselfs Ukranians and
>whose country name is Ukraine? Rusynes also never called their land
>Russia. It was Galicia, was't it? And Kiev rus has disappeared
>long before first rusyn speaking Ukranian dealect has appeared.
>
>Michael
Facts are facts. The name "Russia" comes from "Rus", namely "Kievan
Rus", and this is confirmed even by most Russian historians. However,
if we remove the premise that the people who are the direct successors
of the Kievan Rus, namely the Ukrainians, are from the same pan-Slavic
ethnicity as the Russians (former Muscovites), then obviously the name
Russia was stolen by the latter. They had a perfectly good name "the
Tsardom of Muscovy" or simply "Muscovy", and Peter I who hated Moscow
as a city, decided to change it to "Russia" and pretend that Muscovy
was a direct successor of Kievan Rus.
But, you are welcome to the name "Russia" and "Russians" and no
Ukrainian worth his/her salt would want to use it. Over the last
couple of centuries, Russians have become one of the most hated people
on earth, mostly because they stole not only the name "Russia" but the
lands of many other nations, such as Chechnya, and have horribly
exploited these people. So, by all means, keep the name to yourselves,
but please don't come and tell Ukrainians that they are "the same
people" as you Russians. For Ukrainians this is the worst kind of
insult.
Yuri
Michael Petukhov
> On 27 Nov 2002 06:05:37 -0800, petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael
> Petukhov) wrote:
>
> >yp11 <yp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<cf78uug82sba7439c...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 13:51:47 GMT, Tomi <to...@invalid.inet.fi> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> The main difference of opinion between Russians and Ukrainians, is
> >> that according to Russians, "Rus" is the natural predecessor of
> >> "Russia". On the other hand, according to Ukrainians, "Rus" is the
> >> predecessor of Ukraine since it existed on Ukrainian lands.
> >
> >false. Russians believe that "Rus" is the natural predecessor
> >of both Russians and Ukranians who are in fact the same people
> >speaking slightly different laguages. Even so called Galician
> >Rusynes (Ruthenians) during last period Habsburg monarchy (1848-1913)
> >belived in that when they first declared identity with the Ukrainians
> >under Russian rule. Now of caurse they believe they always were
> >europeans and poles, germans and hungarians are their best friends.
>
> Misha, Misha, I would not expect you or Russians generally to believe
> otherwise. You are simply following what you have been thought by
> Russian historians such as Karamzin, Soloviev and Kluchevski. On the
> other hand, Ukrainian historians, such as Hrushevski, Doroshenko and
> Lypynski
To say the true I never heard about Hrushevski, Doroshenko and Lypynski.
But if I to believe you that they came to "entirely different conclusion"
it must be crap. At least Soloviev and Klucevskiy whcih I have read
are very serious scientists therefore if Hrushevski, Doroshenko and
Lypynski are as serious as those the conlusion can be only slightly
different. History is the objective science and not a field to
express groundless xenophobia.
> come to an entirely different conclusion, namely that
> Russians and Ukrainians come from two entirely different and distinct
> ethnic groups.
There are no "entirely different and distinct ethnic groups". All
modern nations are the mixture of other nations. Therefore neighbours,
I hope you will not deny we are neighbours with Ukranians
are close relatives.
> >
> >> Tsar Peter
> >> I (the Great) transformed the Tsardom of Muscovy into the "Russian
> >> Empire" and officially adopted the word "Russia".
> >
> >And for the very good reason since at that time he united majority of
> >Russians and Ukaranian lands under his rule.
>
> He didn't unite anything. Bohdan Khmelnitski joined Muscovy by
> pledging allegiance to Peter's father Tsar Alexis. This was his big
> mistake as later nicely pointed out by Taras Shevchenko in one of his
> poems. Ivan Mazepa tried to correct this mistake and separate Ukraine
> from Russia with the help of Charles XII, but unfortunately they lost
> the battle at Poltava.
So you admit you are wrong. As for Poltava. I find it is humilation
for both the ukranians that they still use swedish banner as a
state symbol. The use of the banner was allowed by Charles XII at
Poltava battle when rusynes fought against their brothers, russians
and were complterely destroyed. Why they would find something else
that russians at least would have a little respect?
> >
> >> The Ukrainians, some of whom called themselves Rusyn,
> >
> >false again. in fact Rusynes populating Galicia change their
> >name to Ukranians only after 1848 (it was declared in separatist
> >Supreme Ruthenian Council) after Austrian revolution.
> >All this to separate from disintergrating Autrian empire and
> >join to strong Russian empire. They were russophiles at that time.
> >
> >> could hardly
> >> object, since they were part of the Russian Empire at the time.
> >
> >When Galicia was part of russian empire? after 1340 it was part
> >of Poland and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In 1772 it changed
> >hands to Austrian empire. It is difficult even to list
> >all hands it passed through between 1914-1920. But none of them
> >was Russian empire. 1920-1939 it was part of Poland again and
> >became part of USSR only in 1944.
> >
> Don't get too excited about Rusyny, there are some Ukrainians who call
> themselves this way even now. It's not intended to mean "Russians".
To say the true I do not care about rusynes. When we will reunite
with our brothers Ukranians I, as well as majority of russians
will vote to exclude galicia from the list of our lands and
keep these scums out of our state. Forever.
>
> >> So there you are: as most of
> >> the things that are Russian, the name of their country "Russia" was in
> >> fact stolen from others, in this case from Ukrainians.
> >
> >Are you OK? If so I must note that it is rare thing to see such a stupid
> >claim even in this NG. tell me how russians could steal the name Russia
> >from someone who according to you called themselfs Ukranians and
> >whose country name is Ukraine? Rusynes also never called their land
> >Russia. It was Galicia, was't it? And Kiev rus has disappeared
> >long before first rusyn speaking Ukranian dealect has appeared.
> >
> >Michael
>
> Facts are facts. The name "Russia" comes from "Rus", namely "Kievan
> Rus", and this is confirmed even by most Russian historians. However,
> if we remove the premise that the people who are the direct successors
> of the Kievan Rus, namely the Ukrainians, are from the same pan-Slavic
> ethnicity as the Russians (former Muscovites), then obviously the name
> Russia was stolen by the latter. They had a perfectly good name "the
> Tsardom of Muscovy" or simply "Muscovy", and Peter I who hated Moscow
> as a city, decided to change it to "Russia" and pretend that Muscovy
> was a direct successor of Kievan Rus.
Of caurse it was. However it is not an answer. Ukranians do not
use (actualy never used) the word rus to describe themselfs.
Rusynes did use. But they decided to change it for Ukranians
at the end of 19 century. How we could stole this name from
any of them?
>
> But, you are welcome to the name "Russia" and "Russians" and no
> Ukrainian worth his/her salt would want to use it. Over the last
> couple of centuries, Russians have become one of the most hated people
> on earth,
false. I lived in many counties and never heard that someone
hate russians. Many were affraid of USSR. That's true.
However it is also true those who served to help SS to exterminate
their brothers Ukranians and Russians in WWII do hate russans as
nation who did not allowed that to happend. By the way why would
Galicia not to use SS banner. This would have a perfect sense.
At least Germans were not that bad in the battle field.
> mostly because they stole not only the name "Russia" but the
> lands of many other nations, such as Chechnya, and have horribly
> exploited these people.
That's funny. Cite any case when russians use chechens as
slaves or took chechens as a hostages to exchange for money.
While there are 1000s cases when chechens did that with
russians, nonerussians and even chechens themselfs.
in USSR (and russia) chechens as everybody else including
ukranians have all rights as russians themself have. That's
why different nations easy merge with russians and Russian became
biggest country in the world.
As for rusynes well tell me is there any nations that rusynes do
not hate? When they were in Poland they hated poles, when they were
in Austria they hated Slovaks, Poles, now they say in WWII they
hated Germans despite they served in SS. They hate jews even more
than they hate russians. Just curiosity is there anyone they do
not hate?
> So, by all means, keep the name to yourselves,
> but please don't come and tell Ukrainians that they are "the same
> people" as you Russians. For Ukrainians this is the worst kind of
> insult.
Sure. We are the same with Ukranians but not so with rusynes.
Thus based on their behaivior we do believe that rusynes are not
Ukranians. And we do not care if it is insult for them or not.
Michael
ruskgb
Tomi
news:Xns92EFC88...@192.89.123.233:
> Novgorod seems to have been divided in three villages or manors before
> the Rus. So there were also three power centres which were probably
> competing with each other more or less. This is an interpretation of
> archaeologists. Now, it seems not impossible, actually it seems very
> possible, that one or two manors joined forces with the Rus against the
> remaining manor or manors. One of the manors was ethnically different,
> Finnic, from the rest which were Slavic.If there is any credibility to
> the argument that "Rus" is originally a Finnic word "ruotsi", it is
> possible, isn't it, that the "betrayer" was the head of this Finnic
> village or manor. Furthermore they had a good chance to plot with the
> Rus because they were most likely those who carried on business with
> the people up north, Estonia, Finland, Karelia, and why not Sweden.
> What's more natural than to walk up to some Rus-sian trading partner
> and say: "Let's gang up and take over Novgorod"-- and then get betrayed
> by the Rus.
>
> Of course this wouldn't be how it'd be then described in the "official"
> annales.
Here's a quote from the text everybodys referring to (the Chuds is a Finno-
Uric tribe, but who are Krivichians?)
"6370 (862 BCE) ...Discord thus ensued among them, and they began to war
one against another. They said to themselves, 'Let us seek a prince who may
rule over us, and judge us according to the law.' They accordingly went
overseas to the Varangian Rus: these particular Varangians were known as
Rus, just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans, Angles, and Goths,
for they were thus named. The Chuds, the Slavs, and the Krivichians then
said to the people of Rus: 'Our whole land is great and rich, but there is
nor order in it. Come to rule and reign over us.' They thus selected three
brothers, with their kinfolk, who took with them all the Rus, and migrated.
The oldest, Rurik, located himself in Novgorod; the second, Sinaeus, in
Beloozero; and the third, Truvor, in Izborsk. On account of these
Varangians, the district of Novgorod became known as Russian (Rus) land.
The present inhabitants of Novgorod are descended from the Varangian race,
but aforetime they were Slavs." (Russian Primary Chronicle)
--
T: Tomi
Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj
Master Petukhov. You are not serious are you?
> > come to an entirely different conclusion, namely that
> > Russians and Ukrainians come from two entirely different and distinct
> > ethnic groups.
>
> There are no "entirely different and distinct ethnic groups". All
> modern nations are the mixture of other nations. Therefore neighbours,
> I hope you will not deny we are neighbours with Ukranians,
> are close relatives.
As close as Russians and Chechens?
As close as Russians and Chinese?
As close as Russians and Gruzins?
As close as Russians and Mongols, Tatars?
Tomi
news:Xns92F2A73...@192.89.123.233:
> ...these particular Varangians were known
> as Rus, just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans, Angles, and
> Goths, for they were thus named.
There's a new Finnish translation of this Chronicle of Nestor which is
based on the studies of academician Dmitri Lihatshov. According to him,
apparently, the text above should be (a free tarnslation of mine):
"...those Varangians were called Rus, although others call them
Svea(landers), and still others Norrmen or Anglo-Saxons, and some even
Gotlanders."
("Noita varjageja nimitettiin russeiksi, vaikka jotkut nimittivätkin
heitä sveanmaalaisiksi, toiset taas normanneiksi tai anglosakseiksi ja
jotkut jopa gotlantilaisiksi.")
I'd say that according to Nestor the Rus could not be from Roslagen because
Roslagen is supposed to have been on the Svean ground at the time--but then
again there is dispute whether Uppland really was Svea or was Svea south of
it ...
--
T: Tomi
Bolshoy_Murza
> >
> > Misha, Misha, I would not expect you or Russians generally to believe
> > otherwise. You are simply following what you have been thought by
> > Russian historians such as Karamzin, Soloviev and Kluchevski. On the
> > other hand, Ukrainian historians, such as Hrushevski, Doroshenko and
> > Lypynski
>
> To say the true I never heard about Hrushevski, Doroshenko and Lypynski.
> But if I to believe you that they came to "entirely different conclusion"
> it must be crap. At least Soloviev and Klucevskiy whcih I have read
> are very serious scientists therefore if Hrushevski, Doroshenko and
> Lypynski are as serious as those the conlusion can be only slightly
> different. History is the objective science and not a field to
> express groundless xenophobia.
Hrushevski was referenced positively by Vernadsky. He's considered
legit by most professional historians. I'm not familiar with
Doroshenko however, and Lypynski was more a philospoher of history I
think.
> > come to an entirely different conclusion, namely that
> > Russians and Ukrainians come from two entirely different and distinct
> > ethnic groups.
>
> There are no "entirely different and distinct ethnic groups". All
> modern nations are the mixture of other nations.
They can still be different and distinct. Russians are a mixture of
Slavs, Finno-Ugrics and Asians. They are thus as distinct from
Ukrainians as Mexicans - a mixture of Spaniards and Indians - are from
Spaniards. Russians are a young, Eurasian nation that is different
and distinct from Rus/Ukraine.
> Therefore neighbours, I hope you will not deny we are neighbours with > Ukranians are close relatives.
Sure. Nobody can deny this. Half-brothers are close relatives.
> > >
> > >> Tsar Peter
> > >> I (the Great) transformed the Tsardom of Muscovy into the "Russian
> > >> Empire" and officially adopted the word "Russia".
> > >
> > >And for the very good reason since at that time he united majority of
> > >Russians and Ukaranian lands under his rule.
> >
> > He didn't unite anything. Bohdan Khmelnitski joined Muscovy by
> > pledging allegiance to Peter's father Tsar Alexis. This was his big
> > mistake as later nicely pointed out by Taras Shevchenko in one of his
> > poems. Ivan Mazepa tried to correct this mistake and separate Ukraine
> > from Russia with the help of Charles XII, but unfortunately they lost
> > the battle at Poltava.
>
> So you admit you are wrong. As for Poltava. I find it is humilation
> for both the ukranians that they still use swedish banner as a
> state symbol.
Those colors were also used by the princes of Halych.
> The use of the banner was allowed by Charles XII at
> Poltava battle when rusynes fought against their brothers, russians
> and were complterely destroyed. Why they would find something else
> that russians at least would have a little respect?
Would you suggest the red-and-black banderivtsi flag?
> > >> The Ukrainians, some of whom called themselves Rusyn,
> > >
> > >false again. in fact Rusynes populating Galicia change their
> > >name to Ukranians only after 1848 (it was declared in separatist
> > >Supreme Ruthenian Council) after Austrian revolution.
> > >All this to separate from disintergrating Autrian empire and
> > >join to strong Russian empire. They were russophiles at that time.
Wrong. Most Rusyns were pro-Polish. They considered themselves to be
the Rusyn part of the Polish nation. The pro-Russian party was never
very big, and virtually disappeared by the 19th century.
> > Don't get too excited about Rusyny, there are some Ukrainians who call
> > themselves this way even now. It's not intended to mean "Russians".
>
> To say the true I do not care about rusynes. When we will reunite
> with our brothers Ukranians I, as well as majority of russians
> will vote to exclude galicia from the list of our lands and
> keep these scums out of our state. Forever.
You'll have to keep Kyiv's residents out, too. All polls show them to
be almost as nationalistic as Galicians.
> >
> > Facts are facts. The name "Russia" comes from "Rus", namely "Kievan
> > Rus", and this is confirmed even by most Russian historians. However,
> > if we remove the premise that the people who are the direct successors
> > of the Kievan Rus, namely the Ukrainians, are from the same pan-Slavic
> > ethnicity as the Russians (former Muscovites), then obviously the name
> > Russia was stolen by the latter. They had a perfectly good name "the
> > Tsardom of Muscovy" or simply "Muscovy", and Peter I who hated Moscow
> > as a city, decided to change it to "Russia" and pretend that Muscovy
> > was a direct successor of Kievan Rus.
>
> Of caurse it was. However it is not an answer. Ukranians do not
> use (actualy never used) the word rus to describe themselfs.
Wrong. In Romania, on the Danube delta, live about 20,000 descendents
of Zaporizhian cossacks, who exiled themselves there in the 18th
century (others ended up in Kuban). They call themselves "Rusnaks".
> Rusynes did use. But they decided to change it for Ukranians
> at the end of 19 century. How we could stole this name from
> any of them?
Rusky - belonging to Rus. The origin would be, those who paid tribute
to Rus'. Rusyn, malorys, rusnak - a "Rus'. Interesting how the
Russians do not call themselves Rus' but use a *possessive* word. A
Frenchman, for example, would not be called a "Frantsuzky". This
shows that Ruski could not have been Rus' - they belonged to Rus'.
Rusyns, or Rusnaks, or even Malorusy, on the other hand, *were* Rus'.
This was told to me by a profressor of history from ukraine, a few
years ago. It makes sense. Any counter-arguments?
> > But, you are welcome to the name "Russia" and "Russians" and no
> > Ukrainian worth his/her salt would want to use it. Over the last
> > couple of centuries, Russians have become one of the most hated people
> > on earth,
>
> false. I lived in many counties and never heard that someone
> hate russians.
You were never in the Baltics or Poland or western Ukraine, or
Czechoslovakia, etc. My grandparents were in Prague once, where the
staff refused to serve then at a restaurant. After sitting at the
table for a long time with no service, my grandmothers asked the staff
in Polish why they weren't getting menus or food. They apologised,
mistaking my grandparents' Ukrainian language for that of the "filthy
Russians".
Bolshoy Murza
J. Anderson
> (the Chuds is a Finno-Uric tribe, but who are Krivichians?)
The Latvian word for Russians is 'krievi', and I was told somewhere else in
this thread the it comes from the tribe of Krivichians, who obviously were
the first 'Russians' that the Latvians had contact with.
John
AV
> Tomi <to...@invalid.inet.fi> wrote in
> news:Xns92EFC88...@192.89.123.233:
>
>
>>Novgorod seems to have been divided in three villages or manors before
>>the Rus. So there were also three power centres which were probably
>>competing with each other more or less. This is an interpretation of
>>archaeologists. Now, it seems not impossible, actually it seems very
>>possible, that one or two manors joined forces with the Rus against the
>>remaining manor or manors. One of the manors was ethnically different,
>>Finnic, from the rest which were Slavic.If there is any credibility to
>>the argument that "Rus" is originally a Finnic word "ruotsi", it is
>>possible, isn't it, that the "betrayer" was the head of this Finnic
>>village or manor. Furthermore they had a good chance to plot with the
>>Rus because they were most likely those who carried on business with
>>the people up north, Estonia, Finland, Karelia, and why not Sweden.
>>What's more natural than to walk up to some Rus-sian trading partner
>>and say: "Let's gang up and take over Novgorod"-- and then get betrayed
>>by the Rus.
>>
>>Of course this wouldn't be how it'd be then described in the "official"
>>annales.
>
>
> Here's a quote from the text everybodys referring to (the Chuds is a Finno-
> Uric tribe, but who are Krivichians?)
A tribe on the river Polot (Pola ?) - polochane, from these descended
krivichi, sitting nea uppr Volga, Dvina, Dnepere, their center -
Smolensk. From them ... - severyane.
So krivichi are so to say 'smolyane'.
yp11
You mean Rus was like a bunch of travelling salesmen, going from one
place to another? Come-on, this theory of shifting political power
centers has now been completely discredited (except perhaps by the
Russians who want to stick to it). Ruses (now Ukrainians) were in the
south and Muscovites in the north. Kievan Rus was a fully autonomous
state with its government, territory and life stile, and people who
were completely different from the Moscovites in the north who were
much more aggressive and warring in character.
So, Ukraine is clearly the sole true successor of the Kievan Rus, but
if Russia also wants to consider itselt a successor, so be it.
Imitation is the ultimate flattery.
Michael Petukhov
Is that important to the matters discussed.
>
> > > come to an entirely different conclusion, namely that
> > > Russians and Ukrainians come from two entirely different and distinct
> > > ethnic groups.
> >
> > There are no "entirely different and distinct ethnic groups". All
> > modern nations are the mixture of other nations. Therefore neighbours,
> > I hope you will not deny we are neighbours with Ukranians,
> > are close relatives.
>
> As close as Russians and Chechens?
Sure. do you know that Basaev himself is originated from
the tribe of russians who lived in Chechenia mounting since
18 century. Many chechens do not consider him as Chechen man.
And many other believed his russian spy working for FSB.
> As close as Russians and Chinese?
Not yet but in the future wgy not?
> As close as Russians and Gruzins?
> As close as Russians and Mongols, Tatars?
Oh yes these three are particularly related with russians.
In fact they plus losts of slavs created the new identity
the russians.
Michael
J. Anderson
Michael Petukhov <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
news:a39cf3c3.02112...@posting.google.com...
> > As close as Russians and Gruzins?
> > As close as Russians and Mongols, Tatars?
>
> Oh yes these three are particularly related with russians.
> In fact they plus losts of slavs created the new identity
> the russians.
I can understand that the Mongols and the Tatars participated in shaping the
new Russian identity. But the Georgians?
Of course there was one particular Georgian, who decisively influenced the
Soviet identity...
John
Michael Petukhov
> petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message news:<a39cf3c3.02112...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > modern nations are the mixture of other nations.
>
> They can still be different and distinct. Russians are a mixture of
> Slavs, Finno-Ugrics and Asians. They are thus as distinct from
> Ukrainians as Mexicans - a mixture of Spaniards and Indians - are from
> Spaniards. Russians are a young, Eurasian nation that is different
> and distinct from Rus/Ukraine.
Well the father of my grandfather was peasand who moved to Sybiria
in 1860s. The brother of my wife is married to Ukranian gearl and
is living in Tiraspol. Maybe before the Russia/Ukraine union 300
years ago it wer distict nations. But after 300 years of
mutual assimilation I just do not see how and why it can be separated.
Rusynes of certainly is competely different story.
>
> > Therefore neighbours, I hope you will not deny we are neighbours with > Ukranians are close relatives.
>
> Sure. Nobody can deny this. Half-brothers are close relatives.
>
> > > >
> > > >> Tsar Peter
> > > >> I (the Great) transformed the Tsardom of Muscovy into the "Russian
> > > >> Empire" and officially adopted the word "Russia".
> > > >
> > > >And for the very good reason since at that time he united majority of
> > > >Russians and Ukaranian lands under his rule.
> > >
> > > He didn't unite anything. Bohdan Khmelnitski joined Muscovy by
> > > pledging allegiance to Peter's father Tsar Alexis. This was his big
> > > mistake as later nicely pointed out by Taras Shevchenko in one of his
> > > poems. Ivan Mazepa tried to correct this mistake and separate Ukraine
> > > from Russia with the help of Charles XII, but unfortunately they lost
> > > the battle at Poltava.
> >
> > So you admit you are wrong. As for Poltava. I find it is humilation
> > for both the ukranians that they still use swedish banner as a
> > state symbol.
>
> Those colors were also used by the princes of Halych.
>
> > The use of the banner was allowed by Charles XII at
> > Poltava battle when rusynes fought against their brothers, russians
> > and were complterely destroyed. Why they would find something else
> > that russians at least would have a little respect?
>
> Would you suggest the red-and-black banderivtsi flag?
This would be fair at least. SS banner is another alternative.
>
> > > >> The Ukrainians, some of whom called themselves Rusyn,
> > > >
> > > >false again. in fact Rusynes populating Galicia change their
> > > >name to Ukranians only after 1848 (it was declared in separatist
> > > >Supreme Ruthenian Council) after Austrian revolution.
> > > >All this to separate from disintergrating Autrian empire and
> > > >join to strong Russian empire. They were russophiles at that time.
>
> Wrong. Most Rusyns were pro-Polish.
!!!??? you must be joking.
> They considered themselves to be
> the Rusyn part of the Polish nation. The pro-Russian party was never
> very big, and virtually disappeared by the 19th century.
Sure because they all 100% pretend to be ukranians which by
definition was pro-Russian party at that times.
>
> > > Don't get too excited about Rusyny, there are some Ukrainians who call
> > > themselves this way even now. It's not intended to mean "Russians".
> >
> > To say the true I do not care about rusynes. When we will reunite
> > with our brothers Ukranians I, as well as majority of russians
> > will vote to exclude galicia from the list of our lands and
> > keep these scums out of our state. Forever.
>
> You'll have to keep Kyiv's residents out, too. All polls show them to
> be almost as nationalistic as Galicians.
I doubt that. Are they antirussians? I do not think so.
I many times was visiting Kiev in soviet times and never
ever saw any antirussian feelings of the local
population. Adn also on the several general elections
Ukraine people voted for some one who offered pro-russian
line. The promise which was never fulfilled.
Is not very convincing. In what terms ruskie was belonging to
rus? Rus at that times were not strong enough in order others (tatars,
ugro-fins etc) would belong to this politicaly or economically.
I have an other explanation. Russky is the answer onto the question
"what kind of" in terms of religion, culture, behaivoir or mentality.
Therefore cristian tatars or turks can be described as russky.
As for counter-arguments of caurse I have one. Noone could stole
(as was claimed) word rus from ukranians because dispite of a few
minor examples generaly they (Ukrranians) did not use it to identify
themself. And also many real russes were converted into russky
as well. I think >50% of fomer ruses were finaly converted into
russkies. I do not think anyone can dispute that simple
fact.
>
> > > But, you are welcome to the name "Russia" and "Russians" and no
> > > Ukrainian worth his/her salt would want to use it. Over the last
> > > couple of centuries, Russians have become one of the most hated people
> > > on earth,
> >
> > false. I lived in many counties and never heard that someone
> > hate russians.
>
> You were never in the Baltics or Poland or western Ukraine, or
> Czechoslovakia, etc. My grandparents were in Prague once, where the
> staff refused to serve then at a restaurant. After sitting at the
> table for a long time with no service, my grandmothers asked the staff
> in Polish why they weren't getting menus or food. They apologised,
> mistaking my grandparents' Ukrainian language for that of the "filthy
> Russians".
Well I was in all baltic republics many times as well as
in west Ukrain. I never visited Poland of Cheho-Slovakia but
I spend one month in hungary in 85. And there were no problem
what so ever in soviet times they were exteremely polite.
Michael
Michael Petukhov
words, words. lots of empty words.
> Ruses (now Ukrainians) were in the
> south and Muscovites in the north. Kievan Rus was a fully autonomous
> state with its government, territory and life stile, and people who
> were completely different from the Moscovites
Competely different in terms of what? Did they (ruses) have no
two hands, two foots and one head? No they had all these.
Did they had common language, common religion or common culture?
Yes they had all this in common in 13-14 century.
> in the north who were
> much more aggressive and warring in character.
Sure. That's why one side became velikorusses and other
one declined and became almost unknown Rusynes.
traublemakes for all their neighbours.
Strong, aggresive and powerful always dominate over weak
declining ones. This is the way of history till today.
>
> So, Ukraine is clearly the sole true successor of the Kievan Rus, but
> if Russia also wants to consider itselt a successor, so be it.
Thank you for invitation. Although we do not need one.
Russians as one of true successors of the Kievan Rus
(which was one small country among many in Europe) became
was one of two or three most influense nations of 19-20
century. They first attempted to build social society, they
build a biggest country in human history and send first human
in space. They created culture and science which are ones of
best in the world. Doing that they did many mistakes and crimes
but that was maybe their most important contribution to
human experience for all other nations who learned lots from
all that. etc. etc.
Only that is enough that all true ruses would be proud of
they grand...grand sons achivements
> Imitation is the ultimate flattery.
Ok. tell me what are the achiments of rusynes?
Who in world even heard of them and their minor problems?
They are known only for they xenophobia and connection
to NAZI crimes during last big war. That's all they
are known of in the world.
Michael
>
usertx
> > south and Muscovites in the north.
LOL
Moscow has been founded in late 14 century and up to Ivan Kalita if not Ivan
the Great (III) it was small insignificant town. So who the hell were 13th
century Moscovites?
"Michael Petukhov" <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
news:a39cf3c3.0211...@posting.google.com...
Bolshoy_Murza
> > > There are no "entirely different and distinct ethnic groups". All
> > > modern nations are the mixture of other nations.
> >
> > They can still be different and distinct. Russians are a mixture of
> > Slavs, Finno-Ugrics and Asians. They are thus as distinct from
> > Ukrainians as Mexicans - a mixture of Spaniards and Indians - are from
> > Spaniards. Russians are a young, Eurasian nation that is different
> > and distinct from Rus/Ukraine.
>
> Well the father of my grandfather was peasand who moved to Sybiria
> in 1860s. The brother of my wife is married to Ukranian gearl and
> is living in Tiraspol.
And Portuguese continue emigrating to Brazil...
> Maybe before the Russia/Ukraine union 300 years ago it wer distict nations. > But after 300 years of mutual assimilation I just do not see how and why it > can be separated.
Mexico annd Spain were also politically united for about 300 years.
Many Mexicans, particulalry of the upper classes, can trace their
descent to Spain. So what? They are still different and distinct
nations.
> Rusynes of certainly is competely different story.
Why? Merely because they have not been as Russified? Keep in mind
that, for example, during Khmelnytsky's uprising a large portion of
his troops were from Galicia. Your seperation of these two groups of
Ukrainians is artificial.
...cut...
> >
> > > > >> The Ukrainians, some of whom called themselves Rusyn,
> > > > >
> > > > >false again. in fact Rusynes populating Galicia change their
> > > > >name to Ukranians only after 1848 (it was declared in separatist
> > > > >Supreme Ruthenian Council) after Austrian revolution.
> > > > >All this to separate from disintergrating Autrian empire and
> > > > >join to strong Russian empire. They were russophiles at that time.
> >
> > Wrong. Most Rusyns were pro-Polish.
>
> !!!??? you must be joking.
When Polish army occupied Lviv in 1918, they shut down the Ukrainian
studies department at the University and renamed it the Ruthenian
studies. Poles tried to create a "Ruthenian" nationality which they
considered an eastern branch of Poland. Those Ukrainians who were
pro-Polish adopted this view.
Obviously, this attitude basically died after the Poles lost Galicia.
But examples of rusin = a type of Pole can be seen on this newsgroup:
Written by Piotr Glownia:
" I got some kinsmen from my grandmother side, Polish of course
living near Lviv. They decided to be Rusian rather then Ukrainian.
hehehe!
Well, their Polish ethnicity allowes them to be whom ever they want to
be today, because as you say Rus is Rus and Rus can name himself to
be Ukrainian, be Rusian, or be Polish... The last of course only if
he's
lucky to be born in Red Rus, but still an option to name oneself, when
being a Rus.
Red Lehs... you mean the Red Rusin Lehian tribe Lendiny? To
these
Lehs you do refer Redrusins, NOT Redlehs hehehe...
Now Red Rus' is a Rus' of Redrusin tribes (both Lehian and
Rusin),
who are legitimate Polish. They can give up their Polish ethnicity if
they
want to. They have that option, but will they give up their Redrusin
families
and their Polish clans too, just because Red Rus is today under
Ukrainian
administration today? I know many Ukrainians in West Ukraina rather
would make that final cut, but Red Rus is not fatherland of Poliany
tribe
to allow them make this decision on their own without original ethnic
population of Red Rus, the Rusin Polish (Tyverti-Halyh), Lehian Polish
(Lendiny-Vladimir) and something between Polish (Lemko-Lviv)"
> > They considered themselves to be
> > the Rusyn part of the Polish nation. The pro-Russian party was never
> > very big, and virtually disappeared by the 19th century.
>
> Sure because they all 100% pretend to be ukranians which by
> definition was pro-Russian party at that times.
Wrong. Those pro-Ukrainians were inspired by Shevchenko and numerous
exiles from Russian-occupied Ukraine who found fertile soil for their
ideas in tolerant Lviv (Lemberg). They could hardly be considered a
"pro-Russian" party.
> > > To say the true I do not care about rusynes. When we will reunite
> > > with our brothers Ukranians I, as well as majority of russians
> > > will vote to exclude galicia from the list of our lands and
> > > keep these scums out of our state. Forever.
> >
> > You'll have to keep Kyiv's residents out, too. All polls show them to
> > be almost as nationalistic as Galicians.
>
> I doubt that. Are they antirussians? I do not think so.
Why do you equate nationalism with being anti-Russian? Why do you
think that wanting one's nation to be independnt is the same as hating
Russia? Does a Dane "hate" Germany because he doesn't want his nation
to be the northern province of a German reich? Do you consider an
Austrian "anti-German" because he doesn't support an anschluss?
The point is that the majority of Kyiv's residents consistently show a
strong pro-independance position.
> I many times was visiting Kiev in soviet times and never ever saw any > antirussian feelings of the local population.
Understandable.
> Adn also on the several general elections Ukraine people voted for some one > who offered pro-russian line. The promise which was never fulfilled.
Pro-Russian parties got less than 2% in the last election.
> > > Of caurse it was. However it is not an answer. Ukranians do not
> > > use (actualy never used) the word rus to describe themselfs.
> >
> > Wrong. In Romania, on the Danube delta, live about 20,000 descendents
> > of Zaporizhian cossacks, who exiled themselves there in the 18th
> > century (others ended up in Kuban). They call themselves "Rusnaks".
I will also add that in some documents Bohdan Khmelnitsky referred to
himself as "Hetman of Rus".
> > > Rusynes did use. But they decided to change it for Ukranians
> > > at the end of 19 century. How we could stole this name from
> > > any of them?
> >
> > Rusky - belonging to Rus. The origin would be, those who paid tribute
> > to Rus'. Rusyn, malorys, rusnak - a "Rus'. Interesting how the
> > Russians do not call themselves Rus' but use a *possessive* word. A
> > Frenchman, for example, would not be called a "Frantsuzky". This
> > shows that Ruski could not have been Rus' - they belonged to Rus'.
> > Rusyns, or Rusnaks, or even Malorusy, on the other hand, *were* Rus'.
> >
> > This was told to me by a profressor of history from ukraine, a few
> > years ago. It makes sense. Any counter-arguments?
>
> Is not very convincing. In what terms ruskie was belonging to
> rus?
They has to pay tribute to Rus'.
> Rus at that times were not strong enough in order others (tatars,
> ugro-fins etc) would belong to this politicaly or economically.
Rus smashed the Pechenegs, destroyed the Khazars, mounted an
unsuccessful but massive invasion of Constantinople, etc. etc. They
could, and did, easily subjugate the Ugro-finnic tribes to the north
and northwest.
> I have an other explanation. Russky is the answer onto the question
> "what kind of" in terms of religion, culture, behaivoir or mentality.
Maybe. Except religion was pravolsavny...and I somehow doubt that
peasants or forestdwellers thought in categories of "culture,
behavior, or mentality".
> Therefore cristian tatars or turks can be described as russky.
Are they? Did they call themselves such?
> As for counter-arguments of caurse I have one. Noone could stole
> (as was claimed) word rus from ukranians because dispite of a few
> minor examples generaly they (Ukrranians) did not use it to identify
> themself.
I don't think that it would be correct to say that Russians "stole"
the term Rus from Ukrainians. After, Romanians did not "steal" the
name of their nation from the people of Italy. I'm just saying that
it would be incorrect to equate Rus and Russia, and that despite the
fact that, obviously, Russia has been a world power, has contributed
more to world literature than any other nation, etc. etc. that does
not make it the principle heir of Rus', the remnants of whose culture
lie principally in Ukraine.
Bolshoy Murza
Bolshoy_Murza
>
> > Ruses (now Ukrainians) were in the
> > south and Muscovites in the north. Kievan Rus was a fully autonomous
> > state with its government, territory and life stile, and people who
> > were completely different from the Moscovites
>
> Competely different in terms of what? Did they (ruses) have no
> two hands, two foots and one head? No they had all these.
> Did they had common language, common religion or common culture?
As for the first two - Mexico and Spain also have this. As for
culture - that's a different story.
> Yes they had all this in common in 13-14 century.
Wrong. By that time there were three cultures in the decentralized
Rus: a nobility-dominated, western European one in Halych (Daniel even
received the tital of "king" and a crwon from the Pope), a democratic
trade-oriented one in Novgorod, and an asian despotic one in Suzdal (I
do not mean for this to sound offensive, it's a mere description).
Novogord and its culture, as we know, were completely destroyed by
Ivan the Terrible. He literally slaughtered all of the inhabitants.
> > in the north who were
> > much more aggressive and warring in character.
>
> Sure. That's why one side became velikorusses and other
> one declined and became almost unknown Rusynes.
> traublemakes for all their neighbours.
> Strong, aggresive and powerful always dominate over weak
> declining ones. This is the way of history till today.
>
> >
> > So, Ukraine is clearly the sole true successor of the Kievan Rus, but
> > if Russia also wants to consider itselt a successor, so be it.
>
> Thank you for invitation. Although we do not need one.
> Russians as one of true successors of the Kievan Rus
> (which was one small country among many in Europe) became
> was one of two or three most influense nations of 19-20
> century.
True. But what does this have to do with being a successor of Kyivan
Rus? Should France, a mixture of LAtins, Celts and Germans consider
itself a "Successor" of ancient Rome even if Napoleon had himself
crowned "Emperor"?
> They first attempted to build social society, they
> build a biggest country in human history and send first human
> in space. They created culture and science which are ones of
> best in the world.
Nobody can doubt Russian achievements. Yet those achievements don't
make Russia Rus'.
> Doing that they did many mistakes and crimes
> but that was maybe their most important contribution to
> human experience for all other nations who learned lots from
> all that. etc. etc.
>
> Only that is enough that all true ruses would be proud of
> they grand...grand sons achivements
Rus' was a civilized European nation. The Rus'ka Pravda, for example,
banned capital punishement. It was also a democracy, and the
Russian-ukrainian historian Vernadsky rightly stated that the
democratic system of the Zaporozhian Sich was a cultural descendant of
old Rus'. How different was despotic Muscovy!
One line of my family descends from "Vladimir" Monomakh. When the
Russians came to Galicia in 1944 they confiscated their estate, and
those who did not escape were exiled to Kazakhstan and never heard
from again. Yes, they must be proud.
Bolshoy Murza
AV
Read history.
> Come-on, this theory of shifting political power
> centers has now been completely discredited (except perhaps by the
> Russians who want to stick to it). Ruses (now Ukrainians) were in the
> south and Muscovites in the north. Kievan Rus was a fully autonomous
> state with its government, territory and life stile, and people who
> were completely different from the Moscovites in the north who were
> much more aggressive and warring in character.
:)
Aggressive and warring were the most valuable and respected features at
that time. Necessary for survival in aggressive and warring surrounding.
Kievan Rus Was ... who argues ! It was, indeed was once the center of
great power. But ceased to be. Egipt was once center of civilization,
Greece ..., Portugal, ... Krakov was Polish capital ..
>
> So, Ukraine is clearly the sole true successor of the Kievan Rus, but
> if Russia also wants to consider itselt a successor, so be it.
> Imitation is the ultimate flattery.
Yeah, of course :), and Turkey is the sole successor of Bysantine empire.
AV
And my from Adam ...
Michael Petukhov
> Michael Petukhov <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
> news:a39cf3c3.02112...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > As close as Russians and Gruzins?
> > > As close as Russians and Mongols, Tatars?
> >
> > Oh yes these three are particularly related with russians.
> > In fact they plus losts of slavs created the new identity
> > the russians.
>
>
> I can understand that the Mongols and the Tatars participated in shaping the
> new Russian identity. But the Georgians?
Why not? georgia was very inteconnected with russian culturaly and
economicaly for ages. the majority of georgians live in Russia and
not in georgia wondering of Schewarnadze policies. Money they send to
their relatives is the major part of the country income. All they
can sell goes to russia all they can afford (not to much) goes
from Russia. there is no doubts if this old and sick guy would go
today all his antirussian policies will be reversed tommorow.
Along with georians themselfs there are many ethnicities
of approximately the same size like abhazs, osetins, turks (adjars),
armenians etc. living in georgia. Funny thing is that all are (including
muslim abhazs and adjars) are strongy prorussian. The relations
between them is a very complex matter. Imagine for intance Shewardnadze
official representative tried to shoot adjar leader Abashidze in his
study just a few years ago. Schewardanze is terrorist himeslf
deserved to be jailed for the rest of his shitty life. Many in Georgia
beleive that only Russian rule can guarantee normal and relatively
secure life for all the nations of Georgia as it was for centuries
of russian empire and USSR. Population of at least two georgian areas
(abhazia and osetia) 10 years ago has won full independence from
Schewardnadze. the majority of their populations has already received
russian citizenship. Russian army guards their border with central
georgia. In central georgia itself we have military bases which
will never be removed. Putin said yesterday on other subject "... we have
give up too much during last 10 years. from now onwards we will take
only...". And under such conditions Schewardandze applies for NATO
membership! he is definetly sick.
No doubt due to millions of reasons united Georgia can exist
within russian borders only.
>
> Of course there was one particular Georgian, who decisively influenced the
> Soviet identity...
Sure. By the way this particular georgian many times expressed
opinion that he is russian rather than georgian. I fully
understand him.
Michael
yp11
I read and still read a lot of history, but unlike you, I read history
from many sources, rather than from a single Russian source. But even
some Russian historians, such as Alexander Presniakov (1918) and
Matvei Liubavski (1929) have rejected the "shifting power" theory and
began to seek the origins of the Muscovite Russian state not in Kiev,
but in the northeastern lands of Rostov, Suzdal and Vladimir.
>> Come-on, this theory of shifting political power
>> centers has now been completely discredited (except perhaps by the
>> Russians who want to stick to it). Ruses (now Ukrainians) were in the
>> south and Muscovites in the north. Kievan Rus was a fully autonomous
>> state with its government, territory and life stile, and people who
>> were completely different from the Moscovites in the north who were
>> much more aggressive and warring in character.
>
>:)
>
>Aggressive and warring were the most valuable and respected features at
>that time. Necessary for survival in aggressive and warring surrounding.
>Kievan Rus Was ... who argues ! It was, indeed was once the center of
>great power. But ceased to be. Egipt was once center of civilization,
>Greece ..., Portugal, ... Krakov was Polish capital ..
>
I have never said that Kievan Rus should be considered as glorious
today as it was before. But just as Egypt still exists, as Greece
still exists and Portugal, so does Kievan Rus, except that it is now
named Ukraine.
>>
>> So, Ukraine is clearly the sole true successor of the Kievan Rus, but
>> if Russia also wants to consider itselt a successor, so be it.
>> Imitation is the ultimate flattery.
>
>Yeah, of course :), and Turkey is the sole successor of Bysantine empire.
>
It's a bad example. Kiev is still in the same place where it was 1500
years ago. It was conquered many times by many foreign powers. Today
it is again the capital of its rightful owners, the Ukrainians. The
true successors of the Kievan Rus. What has this to do with Turkey?
Obviously we won't agree on much, but I am sure that eventually truth
will prevail, even in history.
Bolshoy_Murza
> yp11 wrote:
>> >
> > So, Ukraine is clearly the sole true successor of the Kievan Rus, but
> > if Russia also wants to consider itselt a successor, so be it.
> > Imitation is the ultimate flattery.
>
> Yeah, of course :), and Turkey is the sole successor of Bysantine empire.
Ever hear of physical anthropology? You know, analysis of racial
subtypes (dynaric, lappanoid, etc.)? In the 1950's and 1960's in
ukraine they did a lot of analyses of the skulls from 12th century
Kyiv, comparing them to those found in cossack graves and ultimately
to modern Ukrainians. They found a significant increase in Asian
features in cossack and modern Ukraine versus 12th century Rus (a 20%
difference). Which is understandable, given Turkish and Tatar
(involuntary) contributions to the gene pool, as well as mixing with
Russians.
HOWEVER....Among Russians in Moscow and in other Russian cities
(sorry, I read this years ago and I've forgotten where else - I think
it was a couple of Golden Ring cities) the racial subtypes were
COMPLETELY different than in both modern and 12th century Kiev. The
logical conclusion, obviously, is that Russians are indeed a quite
different people than the people of 12th century Kyiv, while modern
Ukrainians, who are 80% similar, are the genetic descendents.
I.e., not only common sense but also physical evidence show that
Ukraine and not Russia is the true remnant of old Rus.
Bolshoy Murza
Bolshoy Murza
captain !
k maslom
D.K. <d...@no.email.thankstospam.net> wrote in message
news:as93l9$e82$3...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
> In article <as83vh$27m$1...@news.tamu.edu>, "usertx" <use...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >Moscow has been founded in late 14 century
>
>
> DK
k maslom
Bolshoy_Murza <bolsho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:49ad8e07.0211...@posting.google.com...
> petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message
news:<a39cf3c3.0211...@posting.google.com>...
> One line of my family descends from "Vladimir" Monomakh.
How is Monomakh hat? Not too heavy?
BTW, have you meet Amigocabal when you fought for Kostushko?
TML
"Michael Petukhov" <petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru> wrote in message
news:a39cf3c3.02112...@posting.google.com...
news:<49ad8e07.02112...@posting.google.com>...
> > petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message
news:<a39cf3c3.02112...@posting.google.com>...
> > > >
>
> > > There are no "entirely different and distinct ethnic groups". All
> > > modern nations are the mixture of other nations.
> >
> > They can still be different and distinct. Russians are a mixture of
> > Slavs, Finno-Ugrics and Asians. They are thus as distinct from
> > Ukrainians as Mexicans - a mixture of Spaniards and Indians - are from
> > Spaniards. Russians are a young, Eurasian nation that is different
> > and distinct from Rus/Ukraine.
>
> Well the father of my grandfather was peasand who moved to Sybiria
> in 1860s. The brother of my wife is married to Ukranian gearl and
> is living in Tiraspol. Maybe before the Russia/Ukraine union 300
> years ago it wer distict nations. But after 300 years of
> mutual assimilation I just do not see how and why it can be separated.
Well, it's the reality. They are separated.
> Rusynes of certainly is competely different story.
Too bad "Rusynes" are an integral part of Ukrainian nation.
> > > > >> The Ukrainians, some of whom called themselves Rusyn,
> > > > >
> > > > >false again. in fact Rusynes populating Galicia change their
> > > > >name to Ukranians only after 1848 (it was declared in separatist
> > > > >Supreme Ruthenian Council) after Austrian revolution.
> > > > >All this to separate from disintergrating Autrian empire and
> > > > >join to strong Russian empire. They were russophiles at that time.
There were some, but to generalize in such way is simply false. There were
just as many if not more "ukrainophiles".
> >
> > Wrong. Most Rusyns were pro-Polish.
>
> !!!??? you must be joking.
>
> > They considered themselves to be
> > the Rusyn part of the Polish nation. The pro-Russian party was never
> > very big, and virtually disappeared by the 19th century.
>
> Sure because they all 100% pretend to be ukranians which by
> definition was pro-Russian party at that times.
Just because they called themselves "Rus'ki"? So what, so did the Cossacks,
differentiating quite clearly between themselves and the Muscovites.
>
> >
> > > > Don't get too excited about Rusyny, there are some Ukrainians who
call
> > > > themselves this way even now. It's not intended to mean "Russians".
> > >
> > > To say the true I do not care about rusynes. When we will reunite
> > > with our brothers Ukranians I, as well as majority of russians
> > > will vote to exclude galicia from the list of our lands and
> > > keep these scums out of our state. Forever.
> >
> > You'll have to keep Kyiv's residents out, too. All polls show them to
> > be almost as nationalistic as Galicians.
>
> I doubt that. Are they antirussians?
Who says nationalism is "anti-Russian"? Only you perhaps.
?? The lands on which Muscovy originated were a part of Kievan Rus.
>
> I have an other explanation. Russky is the answer onto the question
> "what kind of" in terms of religion, culture, behaivoir or mentality.
> Therefore cristian tatars or turks can be described as russky.
>
> As for counter-arguments of caurse I have one. Noone could stole
> (as was claimed) word rus from ukranians because dispite of a few
> minor examples generaly they (Ukrranians) did not use it to identify
> themself.
That's not true. "Rus'ki" is in fact what Ukrainians called themselves. It
is widely reflected in poems and prose of that time.
TML
Quite frankly, your example sucks. Modern Russian nation, due to the fact it
was formed by a merger of the aboriginal tribes and the Slavic occupants, is
less Slavic than Ukrainians and Belarusians, whose origins are on
exclusively Slavic lands. So if anyone, Russia would be more similar to
Turkey in your example, not really culturally or religiously, but
ethnically.
TML
That's when the languages started to separate. And the culture was not
common anymore.
>
> > in the north who were
> > much more aggressive and warring in character.
>
> Sure. That's why one side became velikorusses and other
> one declined and became almost unknown Rusynes.
> traublemakes for all their neighbours.
> Strong, aggresive and powerful always dominate over weak
> declining ones. This is the way of history till today.
>
> >
> > So, Ukraine is clearly the sole true successor of the Kievan Rus, but
> > if Russia also wants to consider itselt a successor, so be it.
>
> Thank you for invitation. Although we do not need one.
> Russians as one of true successors of the Kievan Rus
> (which was one small country among many in Europe)
You're kidding, right? "One small country among many"? Look at a map of
Kievan Rus and see the size of it.
> became
> was one of two or three most influense nations of 19-20
> century. They first attempted to build social society,
Bullshit. Even in the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was a socially
and politically backward country.
> they
> build a biggest country in human history and send first human
> in space. They created culture and science which are ones of
> best in the world. Doing that they did many mistakes and crimes
> but that was maybe their most important contribution to
> human experience for all other nations who learned lots from
> all that. etc. etc.
>
> Only that is enough that all true ruses would be proud of
> they grand...grand sons achivements
>
> > Imitation is the ultimate flattery.
>
> Ok. tell me what are the achiments of rusynes?
> Who in world even heard of them and their minor problems?
> They are known only for they xenophobia and connection
> to NAZI crimes during last big war. That's all they
> are known of in the world.
You disconnect "Rusynes" (whomever you mean by that, I'm guessing the
population of western Ukraine) from the rest of the Ukrainian nation. Don't.
There's no point. It's like separating the St. Petersburg natives from the
Muscovites. No matter how you slice 'em, they're still one.
Pan Piotr Glownia
>On 27 Nov 2002 06:05:37 -0800, petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael
>Petukhov) wrote:
>
>Ukrainian worth his/her salt would want to use it. Over the last
>couple of centuries, Russians have become one of the most hated people
>lands of many other nations, such as Chechnya, and have horribly
>exploited these people. So, by all means, keep the name to yourselves,
>but please don't come and tell Ukrainians that they are "the same
>people" as you Russians. For Ukrainians this is the worst kind of
>insult.
>
>Yuri
So it's fine then if I came to you and call you The Pesky Iranian
Ukrainians?
Piotr
Pan Piotr Glownia
>Wrong. Most Rusyns were pro-Polish. They considered themselves to be
>the Rusyn part of the Polish nation. The pro-Russian party was never
>very big, and virtually disappeared by the 19th century.
True, but please don't forget that most Lechs also consider themselves
to be the Lech part of the Polish nation too.
Wernyhora was Polish or Ukrainian then... sure as hell he wasn't
member of Polish nation.
Piotr
Pan Piotr Glownia
Well, it was surely fun as long as it lasted. I mean, when Moscovy and
Halychy came down on thet Kievian Rus' and kicked these pesky vermin
Vikings serving under the ruler of Kiev.... how you call these Vikings?
Cutlanders (Ukrainians)?
Piotr
Pan Piotr Glownia
>
>Well I was in all baltic republics many times as well as
>in west Ukrain. I never visited Poland of Cheho-Slovakia but
>I spend one month in hungary in 85. And there were no problem
>what so ever in soviet times they were exteremely polite.
>
>Michael
Now I like how it sounds: Poland of Cheho-Slovakia. I just wonder if
it will be possible... It was close 700 years ago... can it be bow too?
Sure they were polite... what do you expected some Iranian UPA???
Piotr
Pan Piotr Glownia
>>> Ruses (now Ukrainians) were in the
>> > south and Muscovites in the north.
>
>LOL
>
>Moscow has been founded in late 14 century and up to Ivan Kalita if not Ivan
>the Great (III) it was small insignificant town. So who the hell were 13th
>century Moscovites?
There was that one tiny principality loving to kill Rusiny all the
way to Kievian Viking settlement of... Kiev. They were called Eastern Slavs
from Vladimir-XXX principality... Now they are calling themselves Rusians.
BTW. Russians, good job on leveling that pesky Viking Kiev city... God
ridans I say there with all these pesky Iranian HALFBLOODS and pesky NORDICS.
Piotr
Pan Piotr Glownia
>Why? Merely because they have not been as Russified? Keep in mind
>that, for example, during Khmelnytsky's uprising a large portion of
>his troops were from Galicia. Your seperation of these two groups of
>Ukrainians is artificial.
>
Now somebody is calling Polish nobility... ehem... Ukrainians. Well
why not use word Sarmats, whom we Polish are bloodrelated(We are related
with you Ukrainians, ay)? Hurts the memory that Ukrainians ARENOT Slavs?
>Wrong. Those pro-Ukrainians were inspired by Shevchenko and numerous
>exiles from Russian-occupied Ukraine who found fertile soil for their
>ideas in tolerant Lviv (Lemberg). They could hardly be considered a
>"pro-Russian" party.
Well, We Gl'ownie were part of Polish administration in Lviv/Lemberg
too, so tell everybody how Ukrainins payed back for our brotherly tolerance
from these HALFBLOODS from Kiev.
>Why do you equate nationalism with being anti-Russian? Why do you
>think that wanting one's nation to be independnt is the same as hating
>Russia? Does a Dane "hate" Germany because he doesn't want his nation
>to be the northern province of a German reich? Do you consider an
>Austrian "anti-German" because he doesn't support an anschluss?
Nationalism is anti-Slavonic, so why not anti-Rusian? Can anyone trust
Russians? Nooooo, so what's the big deal to hate 'em a little. It surely won't
hurt and teach small children, our best hope for better future to NEVER TRUST
A RUSSIAN.
>I will also add that in some documents Bohdan Khmelnitsky referred to
>himself as "Hetman of Rus".
Wasn't He? I know he wasn't Hetman of Galicien. Whatsoever lands of
Poland Crown werent considered any longer Czech, Belarusian, Litvin or Rusin,
but Polish. There's just that funny thing about todays Litvins... many of them
actually think themselves Polish like that one Ukrainian long time ago namned
Wernyhora, who together with Nostradamus forseen the war between Arabs/Turks
and West Europe. At least the forseen future will give us Polish some
vengeance to the east, west, north and south.
Piotr
>> Is not very convincing. In what terms ruskie was belonging to
>> rus?
>
>They has to pay tribute to Rus'.
Now I understand why Halychy and Moscovity were/are/will be so excited
in beeing Ukrainians. Is solid bullet-iron good currency to Ukrainians, these
Iranian pesky HALFBLOODS with name stolen from PESKY NORDICS, who served
under the Kievian ruler.
>Rus smashed the Pechenegs, destroyed the Khazars, mounted an
>unsuccessful but massive invasion of Constantinople, etc. etc. They
>could, and did, easily subjugate the Ugro-finnic tribes to the north
>and northwest.
You mean Hungarians?
>Maybe. Except religion was pravolsavny...and I somehow doubt that
>peasants or forestdwellers thought in categories of "culture,
>behavior, or mentality".
Hehehe
>> Therefore cristian tatars or turks can be described as russky.
>
>Are they? Did they call themselves such?
I know Germans who call themselves Polish... our former feudal
peasantry in Poland. Not blood ralated with Slavs at all!
>I don't think that it would be correct to say that Russians "stole"
>the term Rus from Ukrainians. After, Romanians did not "steal" the
>name of their nation from the people of Italy. I'm just saying that
>it would be incorrect to equate Rus and Russia, and that despite the
>fact that, obviously, Russia has been a world power, has contributed
>more to world literature than any other nation, etc. etc. that does
>not make it the principle heir of Rus', the remnants of whose culture
>lie principally in Ukraine.
>
>Bolshoy Murza
Why not? Ukrainians stole word "Ukrainian" from Vikings, so why
couldn't Russians steal word "Rusian" from Kievians?
Piotr
Pan Piotr Glownia
>petu...@bpc.spbstu.ru (Michael Petukhov) wrote in message
> news:<a39cf3c3.0211...@posting.google.com>...
>> but that was maybe their most important contribution to
>> human experience for all other nations who learned lots from
>> all that. etc. etc.
>>
>> Only that is enough that all true ruses would be proud of
>> they grand...grand sons achivements
>
>Rus' was a civilized European nation. The Rus'ka Pravda, for example,
>banned capital punishement. It was also a democracy, and the
>Russian-ukrainian historian Vernadsky rightly stated that the
>democratic system of the Zaporozhian Sich was a cultural descendant of
>old Rus'. How different was despotic Muscovy!
>
>One line of my family descends from "Vladimir" Monomakh. When the
>Russians came to Galicia in 1944 they confiscated their estate, and
>those who did not escape were exiled to Kazakhstan and never heard
>from again. Yes, they must be proud.
Sure they are... enemies.
Piotr
Pan Piotr Glownia
>Aggressive and warring were the most valuable and respected features at
>that time. Necessary for survival in aggressive and warring surrounding.
>Kievan Rus Was ... who argues ! It was, indeed was once the center of
>great power. But ceased to be. Egipt was once center of civilization,
>Greece ..., Portugal, ... Krakov was Polish capital ..
Krakow wasnt first Polish capital and it was a capital city before it
become Polish capital city... You ppl ever heard that Roman story about
Vistulan Country in the East of Europe?
>Yeah, of course :), and Turkey is the sole successor of Bysantine empire.
Ukrainians are "sole successors" of Eastern Slavs... so why not in
that Iranian UPA brain would be untrue? Surely Turcks MUST be rightfull Roman
owners of Istambul for Ukrainians. World would be so much different for these
HALFBLOODS if that truth didn't work.
Piotr
Pan Piotr Glownia
>I have never said that Kievan Rus should be considered as glorious
>today as it was before. But just as Egypt still exists, as Greece
>still exists and Portugal, so does Kievan Rus, except that it is now
>named Ukraine.
Huh? Still exist? It was maked to exist so it is. There is no other
explainations for these lands of Western Ukraina actually in Ukraina.
Empire of Chingis Khan and Alexander Macedonian was big too and
created also in the same manner as Kievian Rus'. Nobody cries in night after
them. After all things will be MADE back to normal, nobody will cry in Lviv
after Ukraina.
>It's a bad example. Kiev is still in the same place where it was 1500
>years ago. It was conquered many times by many foreign powers. Today
>it is again the capital of its rightful owners, the Ukrainians. The
>true successors of the Kievan Rus. What has this to do with Turkey?
>Obviously we won't agree on much, but I am sure that eventually truth
>will prevail, even in history.
Nobody today even want to touch that Kiev. Kievian Rus' got itself
what every EVIL EMPIRE gets.... swift and crushing justice.
Piotr