WHAT KIND OF HISTORY TEXTBOOKS
DO THE UKRAINIANS STUDY? Part II
In the reviewed textbook Russia embodies the example of the
age-old evil for every Ukrainian. Having filled the pupils’ hearts with the
pain for torments of their ancestors, authors, however, fail
to understand why the "Ukrainian territories" kept expanding further and
further. The textbook is composed of the wordings that would twist
the brain of any kid — who dared to comprehend the stated
facts — into the tight knot.
Other parts of the
cycle
The way Russia grabbed "the Ukrainian lands" from the
Crimean khan
Today we want to call your attention to another portion
of the historical investigations, conducted by the diligent Ukrainian
historians, including F. G. Turchenko — notable researcher
of the "Holodomors" who we’ve already been acquainted with. The textbook
has one peculiar feature: it is written in Russian and thus,
gets straight into the curiosities category. So we’re dealing with
"History of the Ukraine. End XVIII — beginning
of XIX century". F. G. Turchenko, V. N. Moroko, Kiev,
"Genesa", 2001.
Due to an accustomed tradition, while addressing the readers, authors
specify the objective guidelines, expressed in a quite graceful form.
For the Ukraine, the XIX century was signified by the fact that
"intimidated and illiterate Ukrainian population was turning into the Ukrainian
nation, having all the characteristic traits of other European
communities. Given the circumstances, it was happening when the Ukrainians
were forced to forget their roots and origins by all means, the time
when the very feeling of the ‘Ukrainity’ was etched from them".
First subject of study is entitled "Integration of the Ukrainian
territories into the Russian and the Austrian Empires". We would find out
that: "After the Russo-Turkish wars in the second half of the XVIII
century and three division of Poland, the Ukrainian territories turned out
to be parts of two states — the Russian and the Austrian
Empires. Left-bank Ukraine, Slobozhanschyna, Right-bank Ukraine and the
Southern (or Steppe Ukraine) belonged to Russia. Governments
of both empires — Russian and Austrian — strived to make
these lands their integral territories. On the view of that they’ve
attempted to eliminate the characteristic features of the political,
economic — and in the long run — cultural life of its local
residents. Final object of the integration policy, which Russian and
Austrian governments were bringing to life, was the elimination
of the national distinctiveness of the Ukrainian nation".
We have to denote the following once again: we’re having
an impression that the reviewed history textbooks represent the Ukraine
as an unprecedented formation of the world history that —
since the very creation of the world — had strict borders with the
Ukrainians who have firmly inhabited these lands and were rather distinctive
from the neighboring ethnos’. In the real world, however, the region that
the authors dub "Steppe Ukraine", belonged to the Crimean khanate before
the Russo-Turkish war of 1768-1774 and the conclusion of Küçük
Kaynarca peace treaty. I. e. Russia annexed the territories that have never
ever belonged to anything that had the name "Ukraine" on it.
List of the offences that Russia caused to the Ukraine in the
end of XVIII century is continued on the 6th page of the
textbook: "Part of the territories — compactly inhabited by the
Ukrainians — fetched itself outside of the borders of Ukrainian
provinces. Ukrainians made up the population of large areas
of Kuban, Voysko Donskoye, Voronezh, Kursk, Grodno, Mogilev regions and
part of Bessarabia. Thus, the administrative-territorial differentiation
in the Russian Empire didn’t take the national residence geography into
the consideration. That was the display of the imperial czarism policy
aimed at the consolidation of the police control over population and
the acceleration of Ukrainian0 russification".
Under the yoke of ferocious Muskovites
Authors, we have to admit, understand the terms "compactness" and
"the Ukrainian" in a rather weird way (in the described period
not a single resident of the Voysko Donskoye or Mogilev province
considered himself to be Ukrainian, as long as this
nationality hasn’t existed yet). However, we got the message: even the
Central Russian and Byelorussian territories got into the list of the
taken away Ukrainian lands. Having filled the pupils’ hearts with the pain for
torments of their ancestors and the loss of the fairly acquired
lands, authors, however, make an odd conclusion that is combined with
the "elimination of the Ukrainian national distinctiveness"
in an incredible way:
"Meanwhile, the territorial changes of the last decades of XVIII
century actually benefited the Ukrainians. The area of their residence
expanded for the account of the southern and south-eastern Black Sea
territories that were passed into the possession of the Russian Empire
after the Russo-Turkish wars and were inhabited mostly by the Ukrainians.
Bloody wars that have been devastating the Ukrainian lands for few centuries
running finally became the things of the past. Opportunities for saving
and developing the Ukrainian nation as a separate ethnic community
actually improved".
Don’t even try to understand how did the Ukrainians manage to inhabit
the lands where — just few paragraphs earlier — some other Ukrainians
with their own economy, politics and culture used to live. The textbook
is composed of the wordings that would twist the brain of any
kid — who dared to comprehend the stated facts — into the tight
knot. There’s a suspicion that this masterpiece was actually infiltrated
by some remains of the authors’ scientific honesty and their
previous — not yet brainwashed by the "independence guides" —
mental furniture.
In order for the pupil to make the necessary (from the national point
of view) conclusions, self-check questions in the end of the
section on page 10 look like that: "Compare the ethnic borders
of the Ukraine with the administrative borders of the Russian Empire
provinces. Make the conclusion".
It’s difficult to guess, what kind of answer the authors expect.
If the pupil doesn’t tend to spend his time
on reflections — the answer would be obvious, Russia has
offended us again. However, if you’d come across some mean boy
he would recollect the international scientific terms and ask
a counter-question: "What kind of thing are the ethnic borders
of the Ukraine’"? Given the approach like that, "ethnic borders"
of Israel, for example, would match the geometric borders of the
globe.
Bad Russia and good Austria-Hungary
Judging by the next passages, Russia made the first (probably the
trial) attempts to carry out the "genocide of the Ukrainians"
as far back as then: "By the end of XVIII century more than
10 million people lived in the Ukraine. Due to their population
and the territory they inhabited, Ukrainians were one of the biggest
nations in Europe. Whereas in the end of XVIII century
Ukrainians have made up 89% of the population at the Ukrainian
territories that belonged to Russia, hundred years after that the share
of Ukrainians dropped down to 72.6%. Anti-Ukrainian immigration
(resettling) policy of the Russian Empire was a reason for
that — it was aimed towards the consolidation of grip over the
Ukraine. Russians were resettled mostly to the cities".
Actually this process may be called by much more commonplace words
like "globalization" and "urbanization". It is only the independent
Ukraine where whole millions of Russians just vanish from the statistic
data, while the rest of them get straight into the insignificant national
minority groups and the curve of the "Ukrainity" keeps raising. The
thought that it probably was not the grain-growers along with the ox-cart
drivers, but rather the officials, administrative employees, proletariat,
engineers and merchants who lived in the cities is not even taken
into the consideration. Of course, they were Russians. There were plenty
of Germans and French among them as well.
There’s a moralizing explanation on the page 14: "In the
democratic states the multi-national composition of the society doesn’t
cause any troubles and contributes to the economic and cultural exchange
between the representatives of different ethnic groups, having improved
the living standards of each and every citizen. In conditions
of the imperial regime, however, the immigration policy is used
to sharpen the national strife, which allows the governing circles
to maintain the unfair statehood principles".
These are the wonderful words. We strongly recommend reading them aloud
to Vasyl Vovkun, Ukrainian Minister of Culture and Tourism, every
morning — he doesn’t use any other epithet for the Russian language
rather than the word "rubbish".
"Living conditions of the Ukrainian population was defined by the
policies of both empires — neither of them was interested
in satisfying the national and social needs of the Ukrainians.
In the Ukraine national policy of the Russian Empire was aimed
at accelerated conversion of the Ukrainians into the ‘truly Russian
citizens’. State functionaries were spreading the idea of superiority
of the so-called ‘Russian national spirit’. Ukrainians — who were
called in no other way but the ‘Little Russians’ — were deprived
of the right for education and their right to use their native
language was also limited (in the cities, they could have only use
it at home) — free development of the Ukrainian national
culture" was constrained.
So what attitude are we supposed to have towards the maniacal
idea of Yuschenko and his associates — the one expressed by the
same term "truly Ukrainian"? And what attitude are we expected
to have towards the bills obliging the teachers to speak exclusively
Ukrainian — even during the breaks and even in the rare schools where
Russian is the language of teaching?
Mind that we don’t even go deep into the history of the fact
that there was no united "Ukrainian" ethnos at the described period
of time and the population of different provinces didn’t have
a slightest idea that they’ve belonged to the united "Ukrainian
nation".
In the reviewed textbook Russia embodies the example of the age-old
evil for every Ukrainian. Meanwhile, Austria-Hungary is depicted
in a much more attractive way. Hrushevski quotation — who was
one of the main ideologists of the Russophobia and "Ukrainity"
in the beginning of XX century — is given
as a "documentary proof" and it is followed by the
control question: "But the life of Ukrainians didn’t become any better
when the territories that used to be Polish came into the Russian
possession. Quite the contrary, steady hand of a new Russian command
gave more confidence and strength to the Polish landowners — the
strength and confidence that they have never had during the reign of weak
and slackened Polish state. Now on, however, being guarded by the
Russian warriors, they didn’t afraid anything and were able to suck the
peasants dry if they wanted to...
Question: using the given excerpt from Mikhaylo Hrushevski book tell about the
living conditions of the Ukrainians. When (being the part of which
empire?) was it worse and why?"
The pupil allegedly has to answer that it was worse during the time
of the Austrian-Hungarian rule, as long as there were
no Polish landowners at all (he’d be wrong at that, but who
is to correct him anyways?) Nobody would also explain the kids why
does the modern Ukrainian still have the Polish forms of address like
"pan" and "pani" (pan Yuschenko, pani Timoshenko).
What is Napoleon to blame for?
We’d also be able to discover plenty interesting facts in the
section with the epic title "Trans-Dnieper Ukraine in the system
of international relations in the end of the XVIII — first
half of the XIX century". According to the authors,
Russo-Turkish war was developing in a following way: "For a long
time warfare were developing at the territories, inhabited by the
Ukrainians, on the south-east of today’s Odessa oblast. Fights for
the Izmail fortress were particularly fierce. Ukrainian provinces were burdened
with the obligation to provide the Russian army, fighting
in Bessarabia, with all the necessary goods. In May of 1812
Bucharest Peace Treaty was signed. Russia got Bessarabia — Ukrainians used
to live in three of its districts. Russian victory became the
lesser evil for the Ukraine".
Thank God! Let it be the evil, but it is the lesser one,
at least. Though, the "heavy burden" is present as well. During
the narration about the Patriotic War of 1812 it is the Napoleon
himself who is exposed. "Concerning the revival of the Ukrainian
statehood — well, Frenchmen didn’t really care about it" — that
was enough to hold up the "emperor of all the French"
to shame forever!
Besides that, they have yet another savory moment there. "Napoleon was going
to divide the most part of the Ukraine into three military
administrative provinces, the so-called ‘Napoleonides’. I’ve honestly rummaged
through all kinds of dictionaries and reference books that were
in my disposal. Until the very moment historians have always been
using the term ‘Napoleonides’ in order to name the brothers and
sisters of Napoleon I (and their descendants as well), rulers
of other states appointed by Napoleon, that became dependant from
France or were connected to it somehow."
Status of the Ukrainians, deprived of all the rights, was described
in brighter and brighter colors. "Russian government started to form
the home guard in order to reinforce the regular army and Ukrainians
actively participated in it. Everyone who survived the war had been
brought back home, deprived of any privileges. Serf peasants remained surf
and every single one of them received 2 rubles of reward for
their service".
Let us add that during the time of Alexander II rule good
milking cow cost right about 2 rubles. Calculating this amount
in today’s money it would be worth about 5-7 thousand
dollars.
Key role of the "Trans-Dnieper Ukraine" in the world politics
is gradually revealing on the page 21, during the narration
about the Russo-Turkish war of 1828-1829. As the saying goes, nothing
to add, nothing to deny. "The events of another Russo-Turkish
war (the one of 1828-1829) were characterized by a rather
peculiar attitude in the Ukraine. Unlike the previous ones, this war
didn’t touch the Ukrainian territories. But as long as the warfare
were set up in close proximity to the Ukrainian borders, the
Russian Empire used up the material and human resources of the
Ukraine down to the limit". The word "peculiar" is very proper
in this context, though it should have been used to describe the
logic of the textbook authors’ team.
If you don’t mind, I’d cite some more excerpts; they worth it: "The
results of these wars were rather contradictive for the Ukraine. From one
hand, the wars undermined the economic potential of the Ukraine; the
Ukrainians themselves were forced to fight and to die for the
interests of alien empire. From the other hand, during the Russo-Turkish
war, other Ukrainian territories in the mouth of Danube — that
used to be parts of Turkey once — were annexed
to Russia. And though one kind of national oppression was replaced
by another one — Russians came instead of Turks — these
wars had the consequences that were unfavorable for Russia: Ukrainians living
at the annexed territories were getting closer with the Trans-Dnieper
Ukrainians, the general ‘Ukrainity’ potential and its stand against the
imperial yoke was raising again".
And here it is again — prior to appearance of the
blissful memories of Mikhaylo Hrushevski and other functionaries
of that sort, general public of Trans-Dnieper and all the other
"Ukraines" was unaware of the "Ukrainity" phenomenon. Considering the rest
part of the quote...Can you imagine the Madrid history textbook saying
that "Wars of the Roman Empire were undermining the economic potential
of Spain, having forced its citizens to die for the alien imperial
interests"?
Czech writer Karel Havlíček Borovský prophesied: "Until the unfairness towards
the Ukrainians would remain, real international quiet
is impossible".
We may confidently say that during the analysis of the history
textbook for the 9th grade we’ve discovered the favorite author of the
Ukrainian ex-President. "I’m sure that Europe would be imperfect without
the Ukraine" — used to say Viktor Andreevich Yuschenko during the
best days of his. We’re gradually reaching the subject of the XIX
century industrial revolution. Its economic preconditions are explained
in the usual, clear and quite unpretentious way on the page 25: "But
in the end of XVIII — first half of the XIX century the
situation suddenly changed. Life started to demand far more money from the
landowner".
New crimes of the Muskovites: they’ve founded Odessa,
Nicolayev and Kherson
In order to keep our readers interested, let’s hasten up our
review a bit — just about every single page of the reviewed book
is full of such howlers. The Donets coal Basin is described, for
example. And it is Russia to be blamed again. "In the
first half of the XIX century coal industry of the Donets Basin
emerged and started to develop rapidly. By the middle of the XIX
century it placed second due to the amount of the mined coal,
having yielded the first place of the imperial coal-working industry just
to Silesia (Poland). Ukrainian industry that was developing in the
first half of the XIX century has been diversified. But even then, quite
a number of important manufactures — textile and metal working,
particularly — were concentrated mostly in the Central Russia, having
the active support of the czar government. Artificial obstacles for the
intensive development of these industries were created in the
Ukraine".
Pay your attention — it has just "emerged" by itself. Such
"self-emergence" makes sense if you’d recollect that the first state
expedition to prospect the mineral resources of the Donets Basin was
organized in 1721 due to Peter I order. It was headed
by minor official Grigory Kapustin. Peter I issued an order:
"Send the express couriers from Berg-board to Don, Cossacks towns,
to Cervine Mountains, Voronezh province and the Belogorye village
to prospect coal and iron, that the minor official Kapustin had
discovered. Whereas there would be coal and ore wealth three
sazhens1 and deeper, dig about five
poods2 and bring it back to the
Berg-board to research it. And send the conforming order for the sake
of rendering help and cooperation in prospecting the ore and coal
to governor Izmaylov".
Southern cities of Russia... I beg your pardon, southern cities
of Ukraine continued to spring up. "Rapid growth of the
urban population in the southern Ukrainian provinces was caused
by the intensive construction of the sea ports there — the
latter ones (Odessa, Nicolayev, Kherson) had the pan-imperial meaning. Policy
of Russian czarism regarding the Ukraine called forth the settlement
of the Ukrainian cities mostly by the immigrants. Thus, there was
a paradoxical situation — in the Ukrainian cities native
residents were turning into the national minority. Shevchenko’s words ‘At our
native, yet, not ours, land...’ make the best possible display of that
fact".
In our gloomy anti-Ukrainian world Odessa — primordially inhabited
by the native Ukrainians — was founded due to Empress Catherine
II rescript dated the 27th of May, 1794 at the place of the
former Turkish settlement Hacıbey. Nicolayev was founded in 1789
by Duke Grigory Potemkin as a fleet and shipwright city. The
city was build according to the plan that was specially designed
by Ivan Starov — featuring the straight streets and the regularly
shaped districts. On the 18th of June, 1778 Catherine II signed
the decree to found the fortress and the shipyard and on the 19th
of October, 1778, the foundation of the fortress, shipyard and the
city was laid — the city was named Kherson, honoring the ancient Khersones
(Kherson). And once again it was G. A. Potemkin who founded the
city.
Bohdan Khmelnytsky is a traitor, Pereyaslav Rada
is an evil day for the Ukraine
Great attention was paid to the, so to say, intellectual
elite anxiety concerning the national sorrows. About three fourths of the
textbook were designated for that. The description of their expectancies
and aspiration is rich with the spectacular passages like: "But relegating
to the oblivion, Cossacks’ educated elite made itself known at the
top of its lungs, having issued literary belles-lettres and historical
treatises. As a candle-end, it blazed up brightly before
finally going out. This flash gave Ukrainians the ‘Rus history’ authored
by Grigory Poletika".
We are talking about a pseudo-historian paper here, the one that
is considered to be sacral among some nationalists, although the
rest of historians — even the hundred-percent Little Russian
Kostomarov — regarded it to be a mere "pamphlet". For
example the Pereyaslav Rada is represented as the most evil day
of the Ukrainian history there and Bohdan Khmelnytsky —
as a traitor. However, it wasn’t told from the first person but
rather via the quotations from the forged documents describing the Cossacks’
grumbles during the days of Pereyaslav Rada and their complaints about
hetman who was dubbed "Zdrajca3", traitor.
He was allegedly bribed by the Moscow ambassadors and was reproached
with "sacrificing many thousands of his brothers-in-arms who have fought
to the bitter end for the sake of their Motherland independence" and
who were "spontaneously selling themselves out to the slavery again".
"We should have better" — say the Cossacks "kept the constant fights
for the independence rather than putting on another chains of slavery
and bondage again".
Author makes out some sort of an "ultimatum" that Poland, Turkey and
Crimea declared, demanding to start a war against Moscow from
Khmelnytsky — he was to capture Astrakhan. This allegedly forced
hetman to start the negotiations with Russia. This "ultimatum"
is used as the grounds for the historical research methodology
of contemporary "orange" historians who feel that it’s impossible
to explain the annexation just with the Khmelnytsky’s betrayal. It’s not
even worth mentioning that no one had ever produced either this ultimatum
or any other sources, cited in the "Rus History" to review
them.
Forming the "prospective orientation"
No matter how hard did the czarist satraps try to break the
Ukrainian economy, but "after the reform of the 1861, trans-Dnieper
Ukraine was going through the period of a booming economic growth.
This growth was regulated by the czarist economic policy. Russian
government was developing the non-Russian regions of the empire (including
the Ukraine), having grounded exclusively on the imperial interests. Such
distribution of the labor bound the Ukraine to the centre and made
its economics extremely vulnerable". In case you didn’t get it, we’re
talking about the economics that emerged in the Ukraine thanks
to this very empire. "Genius, paradox’s fellow-traveler", you see.
On the page 226 the textbook authors quite simple-mindedly explain, why
they agreed to set about this thankless task.
"In the second half of the 60s of the XIX century the
‘Moscow-philia’ tendency emerged. Its followers were attracted by the
ethnic intimacy of the Ukrainians and the Russians; they didn’t admit the
existence of the separate Ukrainian nation and its language. Such trend
was very suitable for Russia, so it even secretly rendered generous
financial and organizational aid to the ‘Moscow-philiacs’. The majority
of the old-school Ukrainian intellectuals also switched their positions
to the ‘Moscow-philious’ ones. However, the popularity of this trend
didn’t last long. Orientation towards Moscow didn’t have any prospects".
It wouldn’t be tough to guess what kind
of orientation is, on the contrary, prospective, according
to the textbook authors’ opinion and what they are ready
to do for it.
As a result, on the output we have a traditional
ideological product that was made up from the shuffling and clearly morbid
ideas like obliging Napoleon to restore the Ukrainian statehood. Just
as the previous textbook, the historical structure of today’s
Ukrainian territories’ history cannot stand up to any criticism
at all. Russia is deliberately dissociated with everything positive,
and if it turns out that the situation was unshakably and
indisputably improved — like the extension of the Ukrainian
territory — the authors used the swindles and tricks again, claiming that
this result was gained in defiance of the preliminary plan. Excerpt
from the page 265 may be used as a resume of the whole
textbook — the one clearly demonstrating the defectiveness of such
approach, non-viability of its very concept and complete lack of the
logical structure of historical material.
"Despite the state policy of violations, the Ukrainian dramaturgy and
theatre have raised to a completely new level".
Well, dramaturgy and theatre, if not the rest, have really improved.
Though, sometimes we’d rather want to claim the opposite.
By Andrey Polevoy
To be continued
1 Old
Russian measure of length ≈ 2.34 meters.
2 Old Russian measure of weight ≈
16.8 kilograms.
3 Traitor (Pol.).
|
