'The' Ukraine?

[Hrabia]

(2016 May 27 21:28)Godyfa Wrote:  I guess "Ukraine" sounds a bit more definite, more like a nation,

Well, they are a nation. Since, like, 9th century (making the story short).

(2016 May 27 21:42)Osweo Wrote:  I wonder if some other examples can shed any light on it? The Sudetenland. The Rhineland. The Ivory Coast. The Gold Coast, Mosquito Coast, Skeleton Coast... The Auvergne. The Alfold. The Middle East. The steppe. I think the common theme is that these are geographic expressions, rather than specifically "national".

Yes, these places are not independent countries but geographic regions. Except the Ivory Coast, where "the" would refer to "coast", while "ivory" is an adjective. For same reasons you will have "The Republic of Poland". I wonder, however, why "Czech Republic" is not "The Czech Republic"?

(2016 May 27 21:42)Osweo Wrote:  You've forgotten your old friend THE good old Soviet Union already?

Why a friend? Poland was not a part of it.

(2016 May 27 23:24)Temnozor Wrote:  the word 'Ukraine' as such refers to a geographic region, literally (the) 'borderland'.

Yes, and the name "Polska" is actually an adjective to "Rzeczpospolita", and is derived from "pole" which mean "field". Country's name comes from the tribe that conquered other Lechitic tribes - "Polanie" (Polyans), and their name was actually meaning that these guys are known for living on territory covered by fields, as far as I know. So what? Poland stops being a country because its name is connected with fields?

(2016 May 27 23:24)Temnozor Wrote:  Also, Ukrainians are the only Slavs besides Macedonians whose ethnonym ends with a –ci (Ukrainci, Makedonci) in Russian, indicating inhabitants of a certain region rather than a people.

And "Polacy" in Polish. What does it change?

(2016 May 27 23:24)Temnozor Wrote:  Ukrainian nationalists don't want people to say the Ukraine or na Ukraine simply because they live in a fantasy world.

Maybe because of how their language works.

[Temnozor]

(2016 May 27 23:45)Flavius Wrote:  It was a common tradition for Slavs to name themselves after the region they lived in. The Vistulans named themselves after the river, the Czechs called themselves Bohemians until only the 19th century. The Slavs in Macedonia named themselves Macedonians after the region.

First of all, being literally called 'borderland' carries much more implications than just a questionable nationhood. It demands an answer to the question whose borderland it is and the obvious answer in the case of Ukraine is – Greater Russia. Secondly, Macedonia is literally the worst example you could have come up with, because the region may have been called so for ages, but the ethnonym was made up only much later. Macedonians are a socially engineered people just like Ukrainians, both having their roots in nationality policies of the 20th century.

Quote:It doesn't mean they are not an ethnicity or a nation because they are otherwise they would not have strong feelings about it all!

Don't get me wrong, the people of the Ukraine certainly are not Russian by nationality. They do have a language, they do have unique local customs. But the Ukraine is only the region they inhabit. They themselves are Galicians, Wolynians, Malorossians, Dončane and all sorts of things, the Ukrainian cultural landscape is very complex and there is very little sense of belonging between all these various subgroups. I can testify to it, most of them fucking hate each other.

The Ukraine in its present form is an artificial construct like Belgium.

[Temnozor]

(2016 May 28 00:04)Hrabia Wrote:  (...)

Quote:Yes, and the name "Polska" is actually an adjective to "Rzeczpospolita", and is derived from "pole" which mean "field". Country's name comes from the tribe that conquered other Lechitic tribes - "Polanie" (Polyans), and their name was actually meaning that these guys are known for living on territory covered by fields, as far as I know. So what? Poland stops being a country because its name is connected with fields?

No, because of two things. The word "field" carries no inherent relation to anything else, so only because there is a "field" people there does not have to be a "mountain" people for example. While if there's a "border" people there should also logically be a "heartland" people.

The second thing is that the Polyane evidently were a Slavic tribe, while there never was a tribe of Ukrs or anything comparable. "Ukrainian" as an ethnonym is a very new term. Before, these peoples called themselves Rusyns or in other, similar fashions. And yes, a huge amount of people on the territory of the Ukraine are also simply Russians (Velikorosy) who've been there since the 18th century.

Quote:And "Polacy" in Polish. What does it change?

I admit, that example may only work for Russian, but I'm rather sure that the Ukrainian language works in the same way in this regard.

Quote:Maybe because of how their language works.

They only dropped the na very recently. They call all Ukrainian regions with na, just not the country itself – na Donchine, na Galichine etc.

P.S: I'm going to make a separate thread for this.

[Flavius]

(2016 May 28 00:12)Temnozor Wrote:  First of all, being literally called 'borderland' carries much more implications than just a questionable nationhood. It demands an answer to the question whose borderland it is and the obvious answer in the case of Ukraine is – Greater Russia. Secondly, Macedonia is literally the worst example you could have come up with, because the region may have been called so for ages, but the ethnonym was made up only much later. Macedonians are a socially engineered people just like Ukrainians, both having their roots in nationality policies of the 20th century.

It could mean anything, like being a borderland of Slavic peoples because of how many Turkic invaders resided in Ukraine at the time. The Ukrainians are obviously descendants of the Kievan Rus civilization and the preceding Slavic tribes.

The Russian nation was also socially engineered at one point. A bunch of Slavic tribes coming together eventually forming the Russian nation, so what? You've proved nothing.

Quote:Don't get me wrong, the people of the Ukraine certainly are not Russian by nationality. They do have a language, they do have unique local customs. But the Ukraine is only the region they inhabit. They themselves are Galicians, Wolynians, Malorossians, Dončane and all sorts of things, the Ukrainian cultural landscape is very complex and there is very little sense of belonging between all these various subgroups. I can testify to it, most of them fucking hate each other.

The Ukraine in its present form is an artificial construct like Belgium.

Regional feuds exist in a large country like Ukraine, why am I not surprised? Strong regional identities also exist in Germany, Italy and France.

[Temnozor]

(2016 May 28 00:28)Flavius Wrote:  It could mean anything, like being a borderland of Slavic peoples because of how many Turkic invaders resided in Ukraine at the time. The Ukrainians are obviously descendants of the Kievan Rus civilization and the preceding Slavic tribes.

No, it is not. You are contradicting your own thesis. During the time you are talking about, Kiev was the epicentre of the Kievan Rus, home to the Grand Prince of Kiev, primus inter pares among all Russian princes of the Rurikid dynasty. That's not what you call a borderland.

Quote:The Russian nation was also socially engineered at one point. A bunch of Slavic tribes coming together eventually forming the Russian nation, so what? You've proved nothing.

That's called ethnogenesis, social engineering happens when the nation building process is carried out either from above or from outside. In case of the Ukraine, it was massively sponsored by the Austrians. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Uk...ussophiles

(2016 May 28 00:28)Flavius Wrote:  Regional feuds exist in a large country like Ukraine, why am I not surprised? Strong regional identities also exist in Germany, Italy and France.

Well, I've met Kievans who refuse to use the state language out of spite, say Ukraine has no history and hope to be annexed by Russia. Anything similar in the countries you've named?

[Hrabia]

(2016 May 28 00:24)Temnozor Wrote:  The second thing is that the Polyane evidently were a Slavic tribe, while there never was a tribe of Ukrs or anything comparable. "Ukrainian" as an ethnonyme is a very new term. Before, these peoples called themselves Rusyns or in other, similar fashions. And yes, a huge of people on the territory of the Ukraine are also simply Russians (Velikorosy) who've been there since the 18th century.

Yes, it is a name of a current nation.

Basically they were calling themselves as "Rusowie" or "Rusini" (in Polish language), basically Ruthenians. They were a nation who had a country called Kievan Rus. Not only they can look for their roots out there, of course - but they were one of currently existing nation which can. As you know, I guess, Kievan Rus was conquered by Lithuania and Poland, which later created Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. But Ruthenians lived there and were always aware of who they are, that they are not Poles and Lithuanians. During January Uprising against Russian Empire, Adam Czartoryski offered an option to create Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth, if they will get independence, and someone have proposed adding archangel Michael to the Coat of Arms, alongside with the Eagle and Pahonia.

But the name "Ukraina" was known in the Middle Ages. Officially however, to describe certain area, it was used in 16th century as a referrence to "Dnieper Ukraine". As a name of an independent country it was obviously used in 20th century, after the World War I.

So people, who were taught they live in Ukraine and they are Ukrainians simply could have stopped to use the term "Ruthenians" as Ruthenians is a term a bit broader and can refer to various nations. If they would call themselves Ruthenians and Ukraine would have a name Ruthenia instead of Ukraine, I guess some other nations would have problems with that, similar to these which Greeks have with Macedonians.

Quote:I admit, that example may only work for Russian, but I'm rather sure that the Ukrainian language works in the same way in this regard.

They have two more among Slavic nations (with countries), for Slovenes and Montenegrins. But yes, it all depends on a language.

Quote:Maybe because of how their language works.

They only dropped the na very recently. They call all Ukrainian regions with na, just not the country itself – na Donchine, na Galichine etc.
[/quote]

Because it may have some "double conotations". Well, it is their business. Here, "na" will remain I guess, in context of Ukraine and some other countries.

[W. R.]

(2016 May 28 00:48)Hrabia Wrote:  Basically they were calling themselves as "Rusowie" or "Rusini" (in Polish language), basically Ruthenians. They were a nation who had a country called Kievan Rus. Not only they can look for their roots out there, of course - but they were one of currently existing nation which can.

Good summary. To people who are used to the traditional Russian historical narrative (on this forum it would be yours truly, Osweo and Temnozor) that tells how Kievan Rus evolved into Russia, Ukrainians' wish to be associated with Kievan Rus may be seen as outright stealing.

But if you look at it from a different angle, it suddenly makes a lot of sense. Who were the direct ancestors of Ukrainians? The Rusins of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, weren't they? And they were aware, that their roots were in Kievan Rus. If Rusins could see the princes of Kievan Rus as theirs, why can't today's Ukrainians do the same and, for example, draw the princes (as well as prominent Rusins) on banknotes?

And it's not like Ukrainians are oblivious to the fact, that the Ukrainian ethnonym is quite recent:
http://ukrainianweek.com/History/51842

(2016 May 27 22:45)Phlegethon Wrote:  Die Ukraine, die Krim, der Tschad, der Sudan, die Wallachei, die Tschechei, die Mongolei etc. pp.

I read somewhere, that Ukraine kept the because the word came to the English language through German: die Ukraine → the Ukraine.

[Godyfa]

So the term "Ukraine" was originally a generic Slavic term meaning "borderland", then it became the name of a region, then, in the 20th century, it became the name of a nation, since 1991, a nation state.

The people now known as Ukrainians have not been known as Ukrainians for very long ; beforehand they were known as Ruthenians, Rusyns, Little Russians, etc. But just because they did not have the name Ukrainian doesn't mean they didn't yet exist as an ethnic group.

Regarding the use of "the", it may have been correct when Ukraine was still a region, but since the 20th century and certainly 1991 there has been a nation state whose proper name is Ukraine.

[Temnozor]

(2016 May 28 07:02)W. R. Wrote:  Good summary. To people who are used to the traditional Russian historical narrative (on this forum it would be yours truly, Osweo and Temnozor) that tells how Kievan Rus evolved into Russia, Ukrainians' wish to be associated with Kievan Rus may be seen as outright stealing.

But if you look at it from a different angle, it suddenly makes a lot of sense. Who were the direct ancestors of Ukrainians? The Rusins of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, weren't they? And they were aware, that their roots were in Kievan Rus. If Rusins could see the princes of Kievan Rus as theirs, why can't today's Ukrainians do the same and, for example, draw the princes (as well as prominent Rusins) on banknotes?

Woah, wait a minute, who in the world could reasonably argue that Ukrainians have no claim on the Kievan Rus? Of course they do, that's their origin! I only see a problem if they don't do it, for example by not using a proper Rus ethnonym like all other East Slavs do or by cosplaying special snowflakes in general.

(2016 May 28 07:02)W. R. Wrote:  And it's not like Ukrainians are oblivious to the fact, that the Ukrainian ethnonym is quite recent: http://ukrainianweek.com/History/51842

I've skipped through it only briefly, but this article seems to be very common sense. If it would be representative for all the Ukrainian pseudo-nationalist craze, I would be rather fine with it. What I don't like is the rewriting of history that happens on the Ukraine, the artificial nation building and cutting of their actual historical ties, for example by renouncing the authority of the Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus, which the unrecognized national church of Ukraine does only for superficial reasons.

[Temnozor]

(2016 May 28 11:39)Godyfa Wrote:  The people now known as Ukrainians have not been known as Ukrainians for very long ; beforehand they were known as Ruthenians, Rusyns, Little Russians, etc. But just because they did not have the name Ukrainian doesn't mean they didn't yet exist as an ethnic group.

They are more of a cultural and linguistic than an ethnic group. All East Slavs share the same ethnogenetic origin.

(2016 May 28 11:39)Godyfa Wrote:  Regarding the use of "the", it may have been correct when Ukraine was still a region, but since the 20th century and certainly 1991 there has been a nation state whose proper name is Ukraine.

State, yes, "nation state" only if Belgium is a nation state too. I don't consider Russia a nation state either, by the way.