Education comprises one of the most important facets of every society. Universities and academies throughout the world seek to teach and promote not only secular education but also the ideals and pride of the nation in which they reside. The Kyiv-Mohyla Academy is the oldest university in the Ukraine. It was founded in 1632 and boasts of many prominent intellectual and political Ukrainian graduates. It was re-opened in 1991 after the fall of the USSR and functions similar to the University of Michigan. While only 3000 students currently attend the university, they offer academics in a similar fashion to what we are provided. Various majors and minors are offered in the different graduate and undergraduate programs. Students receive credits upon completing each class and a variety of extracurricular activities are available. Admissions and academics are highly competitive and difficult, as this school continues on its legacy of educating intellectually elite students.
While the subjects, history, and activities available at the university are interesting, I really became interested in the years under communist rule. The university had to be re-organized and re-established following the fall of the USSR. The education system in Ukraine was in a state of transition during the late 80s and 90s. As trite and obvious as it is, it really is astounding as to how important education is on a democratic and free-thinking society. Educational systems have forever been the launchpad for great thinkers and societal advancement. Under communist rule, Ukrainians were prohibited from contemplating, experiencing, and advancing their pride, history, and Ukrainian values that are so obviously valued. I just ask everyone to take a moment and consider the fortune we all have in experiencing a "western" education and how different situations in the world would be if education was more freely accessible to the public (i.e. middle east/Africa).
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Popular Culture of the Orange Revolution
"Razom nas bahato! Nas ne podolaty!" The rhythmic chant spread through the crowd of hundreds of thousands that filled Kiev's Independence Square on the evening of November 22. "Together, we are many! We cannot be defeated!" Emerging from a sea of orange, the mantra signaled the rise of a powerful civic movement, a skilled political opposition group, and a determined middle class that had come together to stop the ruling elite from falsifying an election and hijacking Ukraine's presidency.
Razom Nas Bahato, Nas Ne Podolaty is a hip-hop song by Green Jolly, which became the unofficial anthem of the Ukrainian Orange Revolution in 2004. The literal translation of the song title is "Together we are many! We cannot be defeated!". The lyrics of the song follow below:
Together we are many
We cannot be defeated.
Falsifications. No!
Machinations. No!'
Little Understandings'. No!No to lies!
Yushchenko, Yushchenko!is our President.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
Together we are many
We cannot be defeated.
We aren't beasts of burden.. We aren't goats.
We are of Ukrainesons and daughters
It's now or never
enough of waiting
Prior to the Orange Revolution, the people of Ukraine did not have much to rally together around. Overall, it is fair to generalize that national-democrat Yushchenko articulated a largely civic nationalism program which encouraged people to act collectively against the abuse of rights and freedoms and to the imperial influence of external forces. The civic nationalism motive of the protesters was symbolically represented by the most popular revolutionary song “Together we are many”, which encouraged people to imagine their larger community context and not to be afraid of supporting the democratic movement. Nationalism of Yushchenko supporters should largely be viewed in the sense of the imagined community.
With the help of the popular culture of the Orange Revolution, Ukraine was able to unite for one of the first times ever. GreenJolly helped the people unite through the chant “Together we are many. We cannot be defeated.” Besides helping the people of Ukraine tonight, the song brought attention to the situation from people abroad and which helped gain support for their cause. When else has popular culture been able to unite a country such as this has? Do you guys think that the revolution would have been as successful without the musicians and writers that helped make a little gathering into an international phenomenon? I am interested in your opinions…
Razom Nas Bahato, Nas Ne Podolaty is a hip-hop song by Green Jolly, which became the unofficial anthem of the Ukrainian Orange Revolution in 2004. The literal translation of the song title is "Together we are many! We cannot be defeated!". The lyrics of the song follow below:
Together we are many
We cannot be defeated.
Falsifications. No!
Machinations. No!'
Little Understandings'. No!No to lies!
Yushchenko, Yushchenko!is our President.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
Together we are many
We cannot be defeated.
We aren't beasts of burden.. We aren't goats.
We are of Ukrainesons and daughters
It's now or never
enough of waiting
Prior to the Orange Revolution, the people of Ukraine did not have much to rally together around. Overall, it is fair to generalize that national-democrat Yushchenko articulated a largely civic nationalism program which encouraged people to act collectively against the abuse of rights and freedoms and to the imperial influence of external forces. The civic nationalism motive of the protesters was symbolically represented by the most popular revolutionary song “Together we are many”, which encouraged people to imagine their larger community context and not to be afraid of supporting the democratic movement. Nationalism of Yushchenko supporters should largely be viewed in the sense of the imagined community.
With the help of the popular culture of the Orange Revolution, Ukraine was able to unite for one of the first times ever. GreenJolly helped the people unite through the chant “Together we are many. We cannot be defeated.” Besides helping the people of Ukraine tonight, the song brought attention to the situation from people abroad and which helped gain support for their cause. When else has popular culture been able to unite a country such as this has? Do you guys think that the revolution would have been as successful without the musicians and writers that helped make a little gathering into an international phenomenon? I am interested in your opinions…
http://orangeukraine.squarespace.com/journal/2004/11/29/razom-nas-bahato.html
http://www.wumag.kiev.ua/index2.php?param=pgs20052/98
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The Origins of the Kievan Rus'
I am wondering now if I am the first poster, or if I have simply not followed a thread and put this post in the wrong place. I hope I haven't made a mistake. Anyway....
As I listened to Roman Onufrijchuk’s televised lecture on Antiquity and the rise of the Kievan State, I was perplexed by one critical question, a question which even today cannot be definitively answered: Who exactly were the Kievan Rus’? From whom did they descend? And are they the single ethnic group to which one can refer to today in defining the familial and cultural heritage of the families in modern Ukraine? Although it is tempting to dismiss the controversy surrounding this question, which has never ceased to perplex historiographers, as an utterly moot point, I hold it to be of great importance; after all, in order to understand the ways in which any group of people is progressing, one must first understand where this group of people came from and how, from its inception, it has evolved to reach the present.
Having taken a history course offered by Professor Valerie Kivelson, I was familiar with the controversy presented by Onufrijchuk regarding whether the Kievans were an indigenous ethnic group, descended from an ancient society like the Trypillians, or rather descendants of the Varangians who came sailing down the Dnieper in search of trading goods, booty, and money to be extorted from natives in the name of a head tax. However, mere awareness of the debated origins of the Rus’- who would metamorphose over the ages into the Ukrainians, Russians, and Byelorussians of today- is not satisfying enough for me, and I doubt I am alone in this feeling.
Thus, I aim to present a few different ideas regarding the origins of the Kievan Rus’ in hopes of involving others in a discussion. For this purpose, I have consulted and will reference throughout a Wikipedia article which, to my great surprise, was the most comprehensive, definitive, and organized source that I was able to find on the topic. I will also include an excerpt from the Primary Chronicle, a written history of Kievan Rus’ which began in 850 AD and which is said to have been compiled in Kiev in the 1100’s AD by a monk and scribe named Nestor.
Nestor himself hints that the Rus’ are actually a specific tribe of the Varangians. After chasing out one gang of Varangian oppressors, who as mentioned before implemented a system of heavy and unjust taxation, the Slavs evidently experienced a total lack of social order and appealed to a new brand of Varangians, the Rus', for their assistance. The Primary Chronicle reads as follows:
“The four tribes who had been forced to pay tribute to the Varangians-Chuds, Slavs, Merians, and Krivichs drove the Varangians back beyond the sea, refused to pay them further tribute, and set out to govern themselves. But there was no law among them, and tribe rose against tribe. Discord thus ensued among them, and they began to war one against the other. They said to themselves, “Let us seek a prince who may rule over us, and judge us according to custom. Thus they went overseas to the Varangians, to the Rus. These particular Varangians were known as Rus, just as some are calld Swedes, and others Normans and Angles, and still others Gotlanders, for they were thus named. The Chuds, the Slavs, the Krivichs and the Veps then said to the Rus, “Our land is great and rich, but there is no order in it. Come reign as princes, rule over us.”
If one deals with the Primary Chronicle at face value, the origin of the Rus’ is very clear: they are a tribe of Vikings, said to have been invited by the indigenous peoples of Ukraine to impose a system of rule. Due to the fact that the Rus’ implemented a governmental structure and created what was at least the predecessor of a quasi-unified Kievan State, historians tells us that all those who lived in this state (ie. The indigenous peoples) likely also acquired the name of Rus’.
But this is, of course, an oversimplification of a complex issue. First of all, the exact origins of the indigenous peoples inhabiting the Kievan State are not clear. In his lecture, Onufrijchuk defines the Slavs as a proto-Indo-European language group; the East Slavs inhabited what is now Ukraine, Byelorussia, and Russia. But it is not clear whether the Primary Chronicle refers to Slavs in the same way (ie. As one language group) with the Veps, Krivichs, and Medians being separate entities in terms of language and ethnicity, or whether all of these groups together spoke a common language and constituted what Onufrijchuk calls the East Slavs. Such problems of classification are of course inherent in interpreting any ancient text according to our present standards, but nevertheless such an investigation of the Primary Chronicle seems to open up a whole new can of worms.
Furthermore, the legend in which the Slavs and their neighbors nicely invited the gracious Rus’ to come rule over Kiev sounds to me a bit specious. I am more of the opinion that this is the “glossing over” of what was in reality a brutal conquest by the Rus’ of the territory that they molded into the Kievan State, incorporating its people literally and etymologically into the Rus‘ fold.
And finally, it is unreasonable to expect that the Varangian Rus’ and the Slavs remained culturally, linguistically, or ethnically separated. In such a situation, where the Rus’ inhabited the Slavs’ territory for a period of hundreds of years, it is quite likely that significant cultural diffusion occurred, along with linguistic developments like word-borrowings, and most importantly, intermarriages and the birth of ethnically mixed children. So while the Rus’ and the Slavs may have originally been separate peoples in every sense of the word, the etymological incorporation of the Slavs into the Rus’ was likely followed by a great deal of cultural, linguistic, and ethnic fusion as well.
This last point also leads me to wonder how other groups, first and foremost the Mongols, ethnically blended and culturally exchanged with the inhabitants of what we now call Ukraine. Perhaps this will inspire someone else to research the topic further. But I think that the idea of a unified Ukrainian people as an amalgam of various ethnicities and cultural influences dating back 1,000 years is an interesting one; although its origins are in an unfortunate situation, wherein Ukraine was repeatedly conquered by its various neighbors, such a situation ultimately led to a very rich heritage that Ukrainians still reference with pride today.
Any thoughts?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus%27) <--- The Wikipedia article for further reference.
As I listened to Roman Onufrijchuk’s televised lecture on Antiquity and the rise of the Kievan State, I was perplexed by one critical question, a question which even today cannot be definitively answered: Who exactly were the Kievan Rus’? From whom did they descend? And are they the single ethnic group to which one can refer to today in defining the familial and cultural heritage of the families in modern Ukraine? Although it is tempting to dismiss the controversy surrounding this question, which has never ceased to perplex historiographers, as an utterly moot point, I hold it to be of great importance; after all, in order to understand the ways in which any group of people is progressing, one must first understand where this group of people came from and how, from its inception, it has evolved to reach the present.
Having taken a history course offered by Professor Valerie Kivelson, I was familiar with the controversy presented by Onufrijchuk regarding whether the Kievans were an indigenous ethnic group, descended from an ancient society like the Trypillians, or rather descendants of the Varangians who came sailing down the Dnieper in search of trading goods, booty, and money to be extorted from natives in the name of a head tax. However, mere awareness of the debated origins of the Rus’- who would metamorphose over the ages into the Ukrainians, Russians, and Byelorussians of today- is not satisfying enough for me, and I doubt I am alone in this feeling.
Thus, I aim to present a few different ideas regarding the origins of the Kievan Rus’ in hopes of involving others in a discussion. For this purpose, I have consulted and will reference throughout a Wikipedia article which, to my great surprise, was the most comprehensive, definitive, and organized source that I was able to find on the topic. I will also include an excerpt from the Primary Chronicle, a written history of Kievan Rus’ which began in 850 AD and which is said to have been compiled in Kiev in the 1100’s AD by a monk and scribe named Nestor.
Nestor himself hints that the Rus’ are actually a specific tribe of the Varangians. After chasing out one gang of Varangian oppressors, who as mentioned before implemented a system of heavy and unjust taxation, the Slavs evidently experienced a total lack of social order and appealed to a new brand of Varangians, the Rus', for their assistance. The Primary Chronicle reads as follows:
“The four tribes who had been forced to pay tribute to the Varangians-Chuds, Slavs, Merians, and Krivichs drove the Varangians back beyond the sea, refused to pay them further tribute, and set out to govern themselves. But there was no law among them, and tribe rose against tribe. Discord thus ensued among them, and they began to war one against the other. They said to themselves, “Let us seek a prince who may rule over us, and judge us according to custom. Thus they went overseas to the Varangians, to the Rus. These particular Varangians were known as Rus, just as some are calld Swedes, and others Normans and Angles, and still others Gotlanders, for they were thus named. The Chuds, the Slavs, the Krivichs and the Veps then said to the Rus, “Our land is great and rich, but there is no order in it. Come reign as princes, rule over us.”
If one deals with the Primary Chronicle at face value, the origin of the Rus’ is very clear: they are a tribe of Vikings, said to have been invited by the indigenous peoples of Ukraine to impose a system of rule. Due to the fact that the Rus’ implemented a governmental structure and created what was at least the predecessor of a quasi-unified Kievan State, historians tells us that all those who lived in this state (ie. The indigenous peoples) likely also acquired the name of Rus’.
But this is, of course, an oversimplification of a complex issue. First of all, the exact origins of the indigenous peoples inhabiting the Kievan State are not clear. In his lecture, Onufrijchuk defines the Slavs as a proto-Indo-European language group; the East Slavs inhabited what is now Ukraine, Byelorussia, and Russia. But it is not clear whether the Primary Chronicle refers to Slavs in the same way (ie. As one language group) with the Veps, Krivichs, and Medians being separate entities in terms of language and ethnicity, or whether all of these groups together spoke a common language and constituted what Onufrijchuk calls the East Slavs. Such problems of classification are of course inherent in interpreting any ancient text according to our present standards, but nevertheless such an investigation of the Primary Chronicle seems to open up a whole new can of worms.
Furthermore, the legend in which the Slavs and their neighbors nicely invited the gracious Rus’ to come rule over Kiev sounds to me a bit specious. I am more of the opinion that this is the “glossing over” of what was in reality a brutal conquest by the Rus’ of the territory that they molded into the Kievan State, incorporating its people literally and etymologically into the Rus‘ fold.
And finally, it is unreasonable to expect that the Varangian Rus’ and the Slavs remained culturally, linguistically, or ethnically separated. In such a situation, where the Rus’ inhabited the Slavs’ territory for a period of hundreds of years, it is quite likely that significant cultural diffusion occurred, along with linguistic developments like word-borrowings, and most importantly, intermarriages and the birth of ethnically mixed children. So while the Rus’ and the Slavs may have originally been separate peoples in every sense of the word, the etymological incorporation of the Slavs into the Rus’ was likely followed by a great deal of cultural, linguistic, and ethnic fusion as well.
This last point also leads me to wonder how other groups, first and foremost the Mongols, ethnically blended and culturally exchanged with the inhabitants of what we now call Ukraine. Perhaps this will inspire someone else to research the topic further. But I think that the idea of a unified Ukrainian people as an amalgam of various ethnicities and cultural influences dating back 1,000 years is an interesting one; although its origins are in an unfortunate situation, wherein Ukraine was repeatedly conquered by its various neighbors, such a situation ultimately led to a very rich heritage that Ukrainians still reference with pride today.
Any thoughts?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus%27) <--- The Wikipedia article for further reference.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)