Diaspora History’s of Ukraine
November 4, 2007 – 1:43 pmI recently spoke at a book launch of Professor Robet Magocsi’s just published Ukraine. An Illustrated History. As with his previous numerous books on Ukrainian history this was again published by the University of Toronto press.
The largely Canadian-Ukrainian diaspora audience at St.Volodymyr’s Institute still remains skeptical about Professor Magocsi since he became Chair of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Toronto in 1980. Their favourite candidate had always been Orest Subtelny; Magocsi had not applied for the position but was invited to apply by the University. The history department in the then pre-multicultural University of Toronto did not want the Chair of Ukrainian History, funds for which had been raised by the Canadian-Ukrainian diaspora.
Magocsi’s selection created resentment from Canadian-Ukrainians because their favourite candidate did not obtain the position and because he was accused of promoting ‘Rusynism’ as a fourth eastern Slavic nationality. The issue of whether Magocsi is the ‘father’ of the Rusyns (in the same way as Mykhailo Hrushevsky is the ‘father’ of Ukrainians) was debated at the April convention of the Association of Nationalities in New York’s Columbia University. Neither of the four debaters, including University of Alberta’s Professor John-Paul Himka or myself, agreed with the notion that Magocsi was following Hrushevsky as a ‘father’ of Rusyns.
As I pointed out in my presentation at St.Vladimir’s Institute, Magocsi’s record should be judged as a whole, and not selectively. In reality he is by far the most productive of Western historians who write on Ukraine. A number of Western historians of Ukrainian descent have never published any books; indeed, recently retired Professor Roman Szporluk never published a book on Ukraine when he was Hrushevsky Chair of Ukrainian History at Harvard University.
Professor Magocsi has no competition as to being the most prolific Western historian of Ukraine. The second runner up in any such competition would be very far behind in terms of the number of his or her published books.
Magocsi’s A History of Ukraine (also University of Toronto Press, 1996) was published this year in Ukrainian by Krytyka publishers with which Harvard University’s Dmytro Cyzevs’kyj Professor of Ukrainian Literature, Professor George G.Grabowicz, is credited. Magocsi’s just published Ukraine. An Illustrated History is planned to appear in Ukrainian and Turkish.
Moagocsi’s book publishing productivity, together with that of Professors Subtelny (York University, Toronto) and Serhy Yekelchyk (University of Victoria), place Canada in the lead in the West in the publication of history books on Ukraine. Subtelny’s Ukraine. A History (also University of Toronto Press) has been published in three editions in 1988, 1994 and 2000. Yekelchyk’s newly published history appeared with the equally prestigious Oxford University Press in 2007. The only other overall history of Ukraine was published by University College London’s Senior Lecturer Andrew Wilson The Ukrainians. Unexpected Nation (Yale University Press, 2000).
The United States has, for some reason, failed to add any history of Ukraine books published since Ukraine became an independent country to this impressive list of Canadian and British-based scholars. The two North American institutes of Ukrainian Studies (CIUS and HURI) have also not produced history’s of Ukraine in the last two decades.
It is not unusual for history and national identity to be inter-twinned, especially in post-Soviet countries such as Ukraine that are undergoing quadruple transitions of democratic and market economy, nation and state building (http://www.taraskuzio.net/journals/economics.shtml). Through translations of their works the impact of Western historians of Ukraine in this process is profound; in Ukraine Subtelny’s Ukraine. A History has been re-published in nearly a million copies in Ukrainian and Russian giving it readers that should be numbered in the millions.
History is alive in a way in Ukraine that it is not in the West. History impacts on presidential decrees, discussions in Kyiv about where to locate new hotels, media debates, school curriculums, election campaigns, political party competition and foreign relations. Recent topical historic issues revolve around the 1933 famine, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, a new statue to Tsarina Catherine in Odesa, the 1709 Battle of Poltava, a new statue to OUN-b leader Stepan Bandera in Lviv and the destruction of national symbols by Russian chauvinists on the Hoverla mountain.
Professor Magocsi’s history writing is not only prolific but his approach integrates the study of Ukrainian history within the European mainstream, thereby contributing one element to the on-going process of Ukraine’s Europeanisation. Professor Magocsi will therefore have influence in the manner in which Ukrainian history will be taught and socialized in Ukraine and the West.
Professor Magocsi pioneered the integration of Ukrainian history into the European mainstream by presenting history as an inclusive, territorial concept. As with British history that incorporates Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans, and others so Ukrainian history, Professor Magocsi believes, should focus primarily on Ukrainians while not neglecting other nationalities, from Scythians to Poles, Jews, Russians and others who have lived on Ukrainian territory since earliest times.
Such an approach to history is quintessentially both European and Western. It signifies that all of the events that have taken place on the territory internationally recognized as ‘Ukraine’ in December 1991 is a full part of ‘Ukrainian history’.
As I commented during my talk at St.Vladimir’s Institute, it will be a long time before a similar approach limits ‘Russian history’ to the territory of the Russian Federation. It will be an equally long time before such territorial books will be published in KGB.Inc, as Russia is now increasingly referred to, or in the West by historians of Russia. Ukraine is certainly not Russia as our wise Ukrainian leaders have written.
4 Responses to “Diaspora History’s of Ukraine”
TTaras,
The unification of Rusyns into a modern independent Ruthenian state known as Ukraine was relatively late relative to the birth of many other European nations. It maybe be argued that a ‘Ukrainian identity’ is a relatively modern concept and not fully adopted by many of the Ukrainians. It may be further argued that the Transcarpathian region (Zakarpatska Oblast / Zakarpattia) due to it’s geographical location evolved differently relatively to other Rusyn lands and may indeed have morphed into a 4th distinct Slavic group. There is plenty of historical information which could potentially support this hypothesis. There is just as much, if not more information which support the equally ‘uniqueness’ of other Rusyn groups such as the Bukovynians, Galicians, and others who have also had mixed identities. Let’s not forget that Pope John Paul’s mother who was born well east of Drohobych referred to herself as a Rusyn when she emigrated to Krakow during the World War One era.
Perhaps what irks most Ukrainian nationalists is not that some people refer to themselves as Rusyn, or perhaps as he claims have a ‘unique 4th Slavic identity’, but two other issues including the historical accuracy (integrity) of his works, and Prof. Magosci’s political activism which no matter what is said are plain old ‘separatism’.
First, in his Ukrainian history books he promotes a Ukrainian nationalist version of Carpatho-Rus history, but in his Rusyn History book, the tone of the content is decisively anti-Ukrainian nationalist. In fact, Magosci (an ethnic Hungarian-Canadian) co-authored his Rusyn History book with a Prof. Ivan Pop who is a Russian from Moscow. Not surprisingly, the tone of the book is Magyarophilic, Russophillic, and definitely anti-Ukrainian nationalist.
Second, Prof. Magosci’s recent actions in the Transcarpathian region go far beyond writing history books. Magosci has bee extremely active in establishing, nurturing, and externally promoting the idea of a Rusyn nationality different than that of the rest of Ukraine. His political activities in Ukraine have been most definitely ‘separatist’ in nature. Although he himself is ever careful not to publicly cross the line and openly advocate independence for the Transcarpathian region, all of his ‘hanger-ons’ do, including many US citizens whose ancestors immigrated to this nation several generations ago. Richard Custer who heads a Carpatho-Rusyn ethnic association here in the USA would be a prime example. Mr Custer is a rabid anti-Ukrainian nationalist who was raised in the Byzantine American Church (formerly the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church) and does not speak any Slavic languages.
Although I appreciate your analysis of Prof. Magosci, I would urge you to read a little more and ask him to explain the points I have made above.
Michael Brytan
PS: Z Sumivskym pryvitom z New Yorku – Hartuish !
PPS: I liked your picture of Bohdan Gogush at Verkhovyna (Quebec) last summer.
By Michael Brytan on Nov 21, 2007
Having read Robet Magocsi’s History of Ukraine I will not be rushing out to buy his illustrated book. Whilst I found some of the events written in his history book of interst there was much missing. Which is not surprising given the extent of history of Ukrainian region. As I progressed though the book there were more gaps ad question left unanswered. His coverage of the battle of Poltava was very light indeed. If anything I found his book to be more about the history of the Ukrainian language the the history of Ukraine. Ukraine is a very diverse country and is home to a many ethic linguistic communities. It is this diversity that makes Ukraine what it is today. Hungarians, Roma, Jewish, Hutzals, Russians, Tartas, Polish, German and Swedish communities exist within its boarders. Nationalism is good for developing ad preserving cultural history but Nationalism as a political tool is very dangerous indeed. Ukraine must embrace its diversity and stop dividing this new nation along ethic-geopolitical lines.
By Nestor on Mar 22, 2008
Taras,
You should change “History’s” to “Histories” in this blog’s title. “History’s” is the singular possessive form.
Roman
By Roman Senkus on May 8, 2008
This is in response to Michael Brytans entry above. You can find Dr. Kuzio’s cogent analysis of the Rusyn question right here on his websight by looking up the article “Rusyns in Ukraine: Sorting Out Fact From Fiction (Publications;Journals) In it, Kuzio immediately calls into question Magocsi’s “uneven analyses of sources” that always seem to underscore Rusyn distinctiveness.
By analyzing the social, historical, language and artistic traditions of the inhabitants of the westernmost part of Ukraine & the bordering regions, one can see that these people do indeed belong to the Ukrainian nation. Magocsi has failed to show how these Rusyns are entitled to their own separate nationality, whereas the Rusyns in neighboring Bukovina, Galicia & Volhynia all belong to the Ukrainian nation. Actually, Kuzio’s & Magocsi’s opinions on the timing of the transformation of Rusyns into Ukrainians in these regions coincides; Sometime after the incorporation of these lands into the Soviet Ukraine. So the question that now needs to be answered by Magocsi is why is he trying to recreate a contrevercy that was settled more than a half century ago?
By Anatol on Feb 26, 2009