Ukraine in the American press (10/06/33)

Stephen Shumeyko

UKRAINE IN THE AMERICAN PRESS

PREFACE

It is the purpose of this series of articles, which shall appear in this and subsequent issues of the UKRAINIAN WEEKLY, to present to its readers a digest of the leading American press comments upon the Ukrainian people and their affairs, from 1915 to the present time.

The motive which has inspired me to prepare these articles is to make the young American-Ukrainians realize that the Ukrainian people and their never ceasing struggles for freedom are not unknown among the American people, as some of our pessimists are inclined to believe at times. On the contrary, the Ukrainian cause has many sympathizers, particularly among the so-called Intelligentsia. This class of Americans is of great benefit to the Ukrainian people, for through the medium of their writings and oral comments, they help to sway public opinion, unwittingly at times perhaps, in a way that is advantageous to our people. The young American-Ukrainians can aid in the forming of American opinion concerning Ukraine by becoming acquainted with these thoughts and opinions on the subject of Ukraine of these pro-Ukrainian Americans and, at the proper time and place, by spreading these opinions and comments among other Americans. In order to aid such young American-Ukrainians who would desire to do this, these articles have been prepared.

As some of the readers may recall from reading my "Short History of Ukraine," the year 1915 was one of the darkest for the Ukrainian people in their entire history. They were subjected on all sides to the most inhuman prosecution, oppression, and to the most rigorous Russifying program ever attempted by Russia.

The August 21, 1915, issue of the "Literary Digest" (vol. 51, p. 344) contained an article entitled "THE FUTURE OF THE RUTHENIANS," which reviewed the comments of other periodicals concerning the determined efforts of the Ukrainian people to cast off their bondage. To quote the opening sentence:

"Oppresst nations have a habit of becoming inconveniently obtrusive, says a writer in the London 'British Review' and a time comes when their claims can no longer be ignored. Such moment, he thinks, has dawned for the Ruthenians or Ukrainians as they should be termed."

The article then refers to the recommendation of that writer to form and independent Ukraine under Russia's protection and the demands of the Ukrainian leaders as set out by Prof. Volkov.

Speaking of the Russian occupation of Eastern Galicia and the attempt to Russify the Ukrainians living there, the article quotes the "British Review" as stating that the "Ukrainian attitude today is one of undivided loyalty to Russia." To refute this the "Digest" publishes a pastoral letter to then Ukrainian Catholic Bishop of the United States - Mgr. Ortynsky:

"These letters are solely an expression of grief and repugnance to the Russian Church and Government, who are heralding to the world that they are saviors of the Slavonic nations and that they alone cherish a sincere love for every Slav. We say openly before the world: Lord! Spare us from such love as like the Russians showed to the Slavonic Ruthenians (Ukrainians), people in the Ukraine, and lately in Galicia, Bukowina, and Hungary!"

Meanwhile, the impetus of the events in Europe served to stimulate the Ukrainian immigrants in the United States to fresh endeavors in the field of Ukrainian patriotic labors. Some of this work found its echo on the pages of American periodicals. The November 6, 1915, issue of the "Survey" (vol. 35, p. 121) contained an article entitled "FIRST CONGRESS OF A SUBMERGED PEOPLE" which describes the Ukrainian convention of 507 delegates representing 410 societies, the purpose of which was "To demand the establishment of an independent Ukrainian state which should comprise the Ukrainians now inhabiting the countries of Eastern Europe." The convention was held in Cooper Union - New York City. The balance of the article is a general description of the congress, its speakers and their sayings.

The tremendous defeats suffered by the Russians during the second half of 1915 at the hands of Hindenburgh and Mackensen revealed to the astonished world all the age-long defects which Russia had throughout centuries been trying, more or less successfully, to cover up. Instead of the seemingly one mighty Russian nation composed of one homogeneous Russian people, the world now observed that Russia was composed of many subjugated races, all striving for freedom or at least autonomy.

The December 11, 1915, issue of the "New Republic" (vol. 5, p. 146) contained an article entitled "RUSSIA'S IRELAND," by Alvin S. Johnson. Allow me to quote his very pertinent remarks:

"To the medieval Turk, in his bigotry and benightedness, all Western Europeans were Franks. English, French, Spanish, and Italian seemed to him one language and a barbarous one... Let us not scoff at antique Turkish misconceptions for we cherish similar misconceptions ourselves. To us all Slavs are one, Great Russians, poles, Ruthenians (Ukrainians), Chechs, Slovaks, Craots, and Serbs... but the current of Slavic immigration to the United States promises to dispel our ignorance of the inner problems of Slavdom."

He then goes to mention a book which then appeared - "Ukraine's Claim To Freedom" which was published in 1915 in English by the UKRAINIAN NATIONAL ASSOCIATION and the Ruthenian National Union, and with which most of us are familiar. After distinguishing the Ukrainians from the Poles and Russians and citing the Ukrainian demands, the writer attacks the exploitation, the Russification and Polonization of our people as being against the cardinal principles of nationalism. He says:

"This is the essential meaning of nationalism: the conquest of all the strata of life, from the soil up, by a homogeneous population. Russianizing, Polonizing... are tendencies that masquerade under the lofty ideal of creating homogeneity in vast empires, In their antagonism to separatist nationalism the centralizers are animated by much less respectable motives. They wish to reserve for the ruling race the high places, the posts of ease. They are anti-democratic much more than anti-nationalistic. And with the progress of democracy, which neither war nor reaction can wholly check, the oppressed nations must eventually win the essentials of freedom."

The above article provoked an irritated reply by one Alexander S. Kaun which appeared in the same periodical (Jan. 8, 1916 - p. 250). This correspondent was manifestly a rabid follower of the pan-Russian doctrine, and in his communication to the "New Republic" condemns it for giving place to such "absurd interpretation" as he calls it, of the Ukrainian problem. He then goes into a exposition of the old and moth-eaten propaganda common to all Russians.

Naturally enough, such an obviously prejudiced and antagonistic letter had to have a reply. The same issue contained an answer by A. S. Johnson; parts of which I shall quote:

"What Mr. Kaun offers is the characteristic doctrine of the Great Russian and the Russified ruling and middle classes of the Ukraine... Mr. Kaun informs us that the words for "land" and "song" are the same or nearly the same for Great Russian and "Little Russian" (Ukrainian). The words "land" and "song" are also nearly the same for German and English... Mr. Kaun quibbles, too, when he produces isolated worlds, elementary proof of kinship of languages, as proof of identity of language. He is gambling on the chance that the reader will be inexpert in philological method...

"The real question at issue, however, is not linguistical but political and sociological. Is it desirable that the minority languages be obliterated, leaving a few great languages to divide the world among them? Bureaucratic imperialists are always inclined toward homogeneity of language. So also are the commercialized liberals, who see in diversity of speech only obstacles to trade. Men who believe in democracy, on the other hand, recognize in distinct languages, thoroughly dominant upon their natural soil, a defense against encroachment on the part of greater alien peoples. Men who regard the world's cultural stock as more important that its stock of exchangeable wealth are also inclined toward the preservation of minority languages."

| Home Page |