- Hello John, In your post you asked I would be grateful for guidance to any sources that have already tackled it. ie. citizenship vs ethnicity. Good luck inMessage 1 of 76 , Jan 27, 2013View SourceHello John,
In your post you asked " I would be grateful for guidance to any sources that have already tackled it." ie. citizenship vs ethnicity. Good luck in getting a definitive answer as it depends on the questions you pose regarding the cultural and political processes in a political territory, over time. There are a myriad of theories that you can choose from and the academic arguments continue but I use this definition to start with: ethnicity means the status of belonging to a particular group having a common cultural tradition - nationality means the status of being a citizen of a particular nation. I have found Timothy Snyder's 2003 book THE RECONSTRUCTION OF NATIONS: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus 1569-1999, published by Yale University Press, very helpful. I think it is out of print but I purchased my copy directly from Yale.
--- In Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com, John Halucha wrote:
> I wonder if terms might be contributing to a lot of confusion, and not just in this forum.
> Writing on a related topic here recently, I felt twisted into knots trying to distinguish between Polish (citizenship) and Polish (ethnicity). Now, I am starting to think it might help keep everything straight if we were to discard the "ethnicity" definition and use "Polish" to describe citizenship exclusively.
> All the people of the Kresy were Polish until late in 1945, when the puppets installed in Warsaw by Stalin signed over the lands and many of the people to the Soviets. When they came under Soviet occupation in September 1939 and some denounced their neighbours to the Soviets, it was a case of Poles denouncing Poles. These were Polish traitors and collaborators.
> If we allow them to be defined as non-Poles, but rather Ukrainians (no such country at the time), Belorussians (ditto) or Jews (ditto), then they and their heirs and apologists can argue that they were not traitors collaborating with an invading enemy but rather model citizens of an expanded Soviet Union even if that was not yet recognized by anyone but themselves, Stalin, Hitler and their henchmen. They can claim they were not sending their fellow Polish citizens to immediate or slow death and were not stealing from fellow Polish citizens, but rather acting as good new Soviet citizens helping round up people sympathetic to the "former" Polish regime who were enemies of the new overlords, and were simply appropriating just rewards by taking property that had belonged to those enemies.
> For some time I have been amazed at how strongly many people in the West, in addition to the Soviets, hang on to the mistaken notion that the Kresy became part of the USSR in 1939 and remained so until dissolution, except for a brief period of occupation by the Germans in 1941-44. The only reason I could think of was a sort of momentum among even some historians who were simply repeating what they had been taught by an earlier generation. The origin was clear, the Soviets seeking to make the world forget that the land grab was done in partnership with Hitler. The West eagerly fell in step and worked hard to hide the betrayal of an Ally at Teheran/Yalta by doing such things as adopting "Curzon Line" to describe the new border and hide that it was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Line as initialed by Hitler and Stalin and now approved by Churchill and Roosevelt. The distortions seemed to prove Goebbels correct in his assertion that a lie repeated long enough becomes
> Now, I wonder if the need to rehabilitate the Polish traitors who collaborated with the invading Soviets is an even stronger motivator. It is simplest to define them as non-Poles and claim that they were good Soviet citizens helping their own Soviet authorities with the denunciations and appropriations.
> If it is ever necessary at all to make distinctions (which seems doubtful), I wonder if that might be more appropriately done by referring to religion rather than "ethnicity" or mother tongue. While still a minefield, this at least would avoid the constant confusion about what is meant by Polish. Using this language we would talk about Roman Catholic Poles, Greek Catholic Poles, Orthodox Christian Poles, Jewish Poles, Moslem Poles and others, including people who did not identify with any religion at all but were simply Poles.
> Certainly, the invading Soviets preferred to divide the conquered population by "ethnicity". But Polish authorities continued to regard all residents of the Kresy as Polish, regardless of parentage or religion or language. Thus when the "amnesty" was granted in 1941, many of the Polish people who sought to exit the USSR were denied by the Soviets based on ethnic/religious background while Polish authorities insisted all those Kresy residents who had been uprooted from their homes were Polish. It is no surprise that the Soviets twisted it around and blamed their own restrictive definitions on the Polish authorities, but we know the Soviet distortions to be untrue - all manner of Poles escaped to Persia with the help of the Polish authorities, not just Roman Catholic Poles.
> Adopting correct terminology might help fight the canard still being advanced to this day, that the Kresy was not legitimately part of Poland because "Poles" were a minority in that territory. (Incidentally, even by that logic the Soviet claim to the territory would be overwhelmingly weaker than the Polish claim since there were virtually no Soviets or Russians in the lands while the "Poles" were the single largest minority - but that does not seem to occur to latter-day supporters of the USSR vs. Poland.)
> In fact, all the residents of the Kresy were made Polish in 1921 by the Treaty of Riga. They kept their various different religious affiliations and spoke their own languages at home, but they were all Polish and Poland's claim to the Kresy was totally legitimate.
> All that being said, I am not sure how to reconcile this approach with pride in my ancestors who held on to their self-definition as Polish through the 123 years of partition when there was no Poland on the map of Europe. Yes, immigration authorities often labelled them Austrian, Russian or Prussian depending on their place of departure, but they resolutely thought of themselves as Polish. Is there a parallel pride for people who thought of themselves as Ukrainian or Belorussian or Jewish even though they were Polish citizens?
> This concept of citizenship and religion (rather than ethnicity or language) in the Kresy is new to me, and I advance it here only as a notion, a sort of work in progress that needs a lot more thought and analysis. I would be grateful for guidance to any sources that have already tackled it.
> One thing that I am very confident about is the central theme of Stefan's message: people are people in every community or group, no matter how you choose to define it. There are heroic ones and there are monsters in every population, and most of us fit somewhere nearer the middle of that spectrum. Trying to define any group by its heroes or monsters would be a monumental mistake and I'm heartened that no one here has moved in that direction.
> John Halucha
> Sault Ste Marie, Canada
- Akcja Wisla uprooted ALL Greek Catholics, not just Lemkos. ... From: Zenon Kuzik To: Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:54 AMMessage 76 of 76 , Jan 29, 2013View SourceAkcja Wisla uprooted ALL Greek Catholics, not just Lemkos.----- Original Message -----From: Zenon KuzikSent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:54 AMSubject: Re: [www.Kresy-Siberia.org] Ethnicity vs. citizenshipDear Basia,Point taken about language being organic, but the man in Wroclaw was quite adamant that Polish as spoken in present-day Poland has been bastardised: his subjective opinion.I think that if the Lithuanian lady had a painful experience, she probably allowed that to cloud her judgment regarding the past: subjective emotion distorting objective facts/reality. I am not necessarily condemning her because of this, as we can all be guilty of doing the same - the present writer included!You mentioned the Bieszczady region and the ethnic cleansing that took place there. This was part of what is known as Akcja Wisla which uprooted Lemkos and other Ruthenians/Ukrainians from their ancestral lands. Remember, of course, that this took place during the Communist era, at the behest of Moscow.Interestingly, I knew some Lemko folk who were victims of this tragedy. Yet they did not become anti-Polish as a result. They were aware of the circumstances behind their painful experience and were very friendly towards the Poles they came across in their new land of Australia, and were happy to speak in (non-bastardised!) Polish. I think they could have taught that Lithuanian lady a thing or two! By the way, as those native to Bieszczady were mostly Greek Catholics, and not Orthodox, it would seem more likely that the service you witnessed was led by GC and RC clergy.Your contributions are much appreciated.Zenon KuzikNew Zealand
From: Basia <basia@...>
Sent: Tuesday, 29 January 2013 9:10 PM
Subject: [www.Kresy-Siberia.org] Ethnicity vs. citizenshipDear ZenonLanguage is very "organic" it changes! There are many factors which affect that.In my humble opinion, it is not that language is/was better, just different, evolved,and many factors affect that.Just consider the variants in English around the world.That is a fact, and we tend to cling to what is familiar to us.That too is understandable.The difference in language is significantly noticeable when I speak to younger generation Poles (I am mother in law to a gorgeous "real" Pole, 10 years out of Poland).I speak very reasonable Polish (apparently) and I do hear the "difference" in the younger generation.As for the lady from LithuaniaHer experience is obviously painful, her memories are based on her personal experiences and stories.This why I embrace, to the best of my ability (not always successfully) an openness to learn about/from other cultures before forming cautious opinions.I was in the Bieszczady region of Poland a few years ago, I don't exactly know the facts between the changing borders, but I was, for the first time, seeing evidence of ethnic cleansing, by Poles, which caused me terrible pain.There was an extraordinary process of reconciliation happening when I was (purely by fluke) there. A marvellous service, in a church rebuilt from rubble, officiated at by Roman Catholic and Orthodox priests (bishops or even higher I think) One of the most moving days in my life.It filled me with hope for the human race.Basia Zielinska (Sydney)From: Zenon Kuzik <zenon.kuzik@...>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:16:19 -0800 (PST)
To: "Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com" <Kresy-Siberia@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [www.Kresy-Siberia.org] Ethnicity vs. citizenshipDear Basia,What a great reply - thank you! Stanislaw from Moscow's contribution certainly gave food for thought as well.Another aspect that "distances" me from modern Poland is that I have come across recent immigrants from that country who are not at all interested in connecting with the older Poles of my parents' generation. They seem to regard them as foreigners! Anyhow, I was heartened when a man in Wroclaw, whose family was originally from Volhynia, said that my father spoke much better Polish than most people in present-day Poland. We multi-ethnics from the former Eastern Poland are the true heirs of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. What a shame that the Lithuanian lady referred to by Dan Ford in his recent post has such a narrow (blinkered?) view of the past.Gratefully,Zenon KuzikAcross the Ditch from Sydney