THE 2020 CONFERENCE
Opening address by Dr. Bohdan Vitvitsky, conference director
Following is the full text of the address delivered by Dr. Bohdan Vitvitsky, founder and current president of the Ukrainian American Professionals and Businesspersons Association of New York and New Jersey, at the opening of The 2020 Conference on October 10. (The speech is published in two parts; the conclusion will appear in next week's issue.)
PART I
Why The Year 2020 Conference, and why the set of themes and issues that we have chosen for discussion and analysis?
The year 2020 represents a generation from the present. The period between the present and the year 2020 is also the time during which a process that has begun over the last decade will reach its conclusion: the process of which I speak is the passing of the people who made up the third wave of immigrants - the people who came from Ukraine after World War II.
The stimulus for this conference was our association's realization that we as a community have no clear sense of what lies ahead of us. To the extent that one does occasionally hear bits and fragments of attitudes or ideas about our collective future, what one hears is usually one of the following.
First, there is the assumption that somehow things will continue to be the way they have always been, and that, therefore, there's no point in getting too exercised about the future. One can characterize this complacency as the "don't worry, we're on automatic pilot" attitude towards the community's future. Although I've never taken a survey, my suspicion is that a substantial segment of the community may simply assume that our community is on automatic pilot.
A different view that one sometimes hears, albeit perhaps a minority view, is that the whole point of maintaining a Ukrainian diaspora was the preservation of the concept of an independent Ukraine and, now that Ukraine exists, there's really no point in the diaspora's continuation. This might be characterized as the "only Ukraine matters" position.
A third view that has surfaced within the last several years is one that might be referred to as "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" idea about the diaspora. This is the view that everything in the diaspora is falling apart before our very eyes, and that we as a diaspora are doomed to a near immediate extinction.
I hope that most of you will not be terribly surprised when I tell you that I and some of my colleagues do not subscribe to any of these views. And, it is in part our disagreement with all of these views that has prompted us to organize this conference.
Let's briefly examine each of the three views I've mentioned. The "we're on automatic pilot" assumption about the state of the diaspora is simply blind to the realities of community life today. Perhaps the most important development our community is undergoing is the changeover from a community in which the majority of those who participated in community affairs were "involuntary ethnics," to those who are "voluntary ethnics." Involuntary ethnics are those who were born in and were partially, if not wholly, raised in Ukraine. These are our parents or grandparents who came to North America after World War II.
These people were involuntary ethnics in the sense that they viewed themselves - in terms of their self-perception, in terms of their values and attitudes, and in terms of their cultural and linguistic preferences - as Ukrainians who happened to be living in the U.S. or Canada. Many of them never lost their accents, and many of them, despite their deep patriotism toward their new homelands and their profound gratitude for having been accepted here after the war, never quite lost the feeling that, at least culturally, their new homeland was a strange place to which they would never become fully acclimated.
These involuntary ethnics joined the existing community organizations and institutions that had been created by the first and second waves of Ukrainian immigrants, and they also created or recreated a variety of new organizations and institutions. They attended Ukrainian churches, joined Ukrainian fraternals and credit unions, and sent their children to Plast, SUM or ODUM camps for the same reason that fish feel natural in water. And it is these involuntary ethnics who, along with some of the descendants of the first and second waves of immigration, have contributed most of the money and the manpower to support the various Ukrainian institutions and causes of the last half century.
Many of us are the children or grandchildren of these involuntary ethnics. We, however, are not ourselves involuntary ethnics. We were raised in the U.S. or Canada. We were educated here. We grew up listening to Motown or the Beatles or John Coltrane. Many of us care a great deal about who wins the Stanley Cup and the Super Bowl, and who is the NCAA champion in football and basketball. We don't have accents. And although many of us own names that seem somewhat exotic to our non-Ukrainian colleagues and friends, most or all of us are completely comfortable in the U.S. or Canada in a way that was not possible for our parents or grandparents.
Thus, whereas our parents or grandparents may have given unthinking allegiance to Ukrainian organizations and institutions because, to them, that was simply the natural thing to do, we, their children and grandchildren, have a choice. Most of us could easily blend into the general American or Canadian melting pot if we wanted to. If we affiliate with Ukrainian organizations and institutions, it is because we choose to do so. We are, therefore, voluntary ethnics.
It is natural for people with choices to exercise them. Some of the children and/or grandchildren of involuntary ethnics have, for a variety of reasons, opted out of the community. That is and will be a fact of life. But what is most important for us is the need to recognize that over the next generation all of the involuntary ethnics in our community will pass away, and the community will consist exclusively of voluntary ethnics and, possibly, members of the so-called "Fourth Wave" of immigrants. That will represent a sea change in the community. And it is principally for this reason that what I've called the "we're on automatic pilot" assumption about the community is completely misguided.
What about the idea that since Ukraine is now independent, we might as well close the diaspora down? This view also is misguided, but for very different reasons. Let me suggest two.
First, Ukraine is not Sweden or Spain or even Poland. If it were, one might be justified in taking the position that since the mother country stands strongly on its own feet, a diaspora is pointless. Unfortunately, Ukraine is not yet a country with strong and stable institutions and traditions. It is not yet a country whose linguistic and cultural legacies are firmly entrenched. It is a country in which, for example, substantial segments of the population hold beliefs about economic affairs that are equivalent, in terms of basic misconceptions of reality, to the beliefs that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. Thus, even if one took the view that the diaspora existed solely to keep the flame of Ukraine alive, it makes no sense whatsoever to fold our tents now simply because there now exists a political entity named Ukraine.
Second, it's simply hard to believe that anyone with any ability to reflect on our community really thought that for the last 50 years, the diaspora existed solely for the sake of a future Ukraine. Even though the issue of Ukraine's independence was extremely important to many or most in the community, it is difficult to ignore the rather obvious evidence that the diaspora also existed to a significant extent because it satisfied a whole complex of social and psychological needs.
What about the third view mentioned earlier, the view that the diaspora is collapsing as we speak? To give the devil his due, we must acknowledge that this position is informed by a much stronger dose of reality than the first view we discussed earlier, namely, the "we're on automatic pilot" belief about the community. No one can deny that, for example, in the U.S., our Churches and fraternal organizations have been losing members for about two or three decades. Nonetheless, I would suggest to you that, ultimately, this third view is mistaken as well.
First, although our Churches and fraternals have experienced declines in membership, there are some Ukrainian institutions and organizations that have not. For example, our credit unions have steadily been increasing their membership over the last several decades. And, there are also other, smaller activist organizations that have in the last two or so decades experienced birth and expansion, each of which organization has already acquired a track record of noteworthy accomplishments. The kinds of organizations I am thinking of now include, for example, the Ukrainian American Bar Association, Americans for Human Rights in Ukraine, The Washington Group, the Children of Chornobyl Relief Fund and our own Ukrainian American Professionals and Businesspersons Association of New York and New Jersey. Two or three decades ago, none of these existed.
However, none of this is to deny that if we do not as a community arrive at an understanding of why what we have as a community is of great value, and an understanding of what we have to do in order to preserve it, it will disappear. But, I believe that there are still far too many of us who care about what we have inherited to allow it to disappear. In some sense, that is one of the principal reasons we have all gathered here for this conference.
This brings me to the central themes around which this conference was structured. Will there be a North American Ukrainian diaspora in the year 2020, and does it matter - to us, to our descendants or to Ukraine? Since I make no pretense about owning a crystal ball, let me begin with the second half of that question, insofar as that one is much easier to answer, and once we answer it, we may be in a better position to try and answer the first half of the question.
I submit to you that it does matter a great deal whether there is a diaspora in the year 2020, and the reasons it does are numerous. Let me suggest some of them to you. First, the Ukrainian diaspora is a transmission belt for a rich and distinctive cultural, religious and intellectual heritage created over centuries on two continents. It is that unique and wonderful cultural concoction consisting of the written words of Shevchenko, Franko, Hrushevsky and Stus, and it is icons, incense, church choirs, varenyky, kutia, pysanky, bandury, koliady and schedrivky. It is the shadows of our forgotten ancestors, and the shadows of our remembered ancestors.
If some people can become exercised about the potential extinction of one or another species of fish or fowl, how could we, the descendants of those who created this marvelous heritage, not become highly charged when we reflect upon the potential extinction of a species of culture that possesses such a wonderful array of riches?
A second reason it matters whether there is a community is because, for those of us who are parents, the existence of the community serves as at least a partial alternative and counterweight to the vulgarity and moral imbecility of so much of what passes for popular culture in North America today.
A third reason it matters is that, until the situation of Ukraine and that of Ukrainian culture in Ukraine become normalized - and that may take decades - it is, unfortunately, necessary to think of the Ukrainian ethos as an endangered species. Ukrainian language and culture have been suppressed for centuries. Knowledge of Ukrainian history among many has been obliterated; comprehension of Ukrainian history has been twisted and distorted in ways numerous and grotesque. That is in large part because, as Prof. Yaroslaw Bilinsky has correctly argued, in the 20th century Ukraine has been the object of a campaign of genocide. The definition of genocide that Bilinsky relies upon was one originally set forth by Raphael Lemkin in 1944; as cited by Bilinsky, Lemkin explained that:
"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity but as members of the national group." (Yaroslaw Bilinsky, "Foreign Policy of Ukraine," in S.F. Starr "The Legacy of History in Russia and the New States of Eurasia." [1994: Armonk and London, M.E. Sharpe], at fn. 16.)
If we look back upon the last seventy or so years, it is clear that Ukraine has been the object of a plan to cause the disintegration of its political and social institutions, and of culture, language, national feelings, religion, the economic existence of peasants and the personal security and dignity of persons who simply wished to maintain their identification as Ukrainians. Neither we nor the people of Ukraine have begun the long process of understanding and coming to grips with the genocidal campaign against Ukraine and Ukrainians. But now is not the time to give up before we've even started.
A fourth reason it matters is that Ukraine needs a lot of help. Let me mention some random, but important, examples. The isolation and marginalization imposed upon it by the empire based in Moscow have helped spawn confusion and misunderstanding as regards matters of basic economics, even among its elites. Furthermore, as regards coming to grips with its recent past, Ukraine has not even evolved to the point at which a country such as South Africa finds itself. In South Africa, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has successfully brought to light the various crimes committed by the previous police forces. In Ukraine, the relatives of Volodymyr Ivasiuk still cannot get a straight answer from anyone about the circumstances of the popular singer's death.
And, the various fifth columns that have historically plagued Ukraine like locusts are still doing their work. In Ukraine's capital you can walk into the Pecherska Lavra and be confronted with the extraordinary spectacle of a Russian Orthodox priest selling literature promoting a return to Russian tsarism who, even if you ask him politely whether he has any Ukrainian-language calendars or postcards, will snarl at you as if you had just spoken an obscenity. And, most recently, you can pick up The Ukrainian Weekly and learn that the current chairman of Ukraine's Parliament says things that in many other countries would be unthinkable.
What does the fact that Ukraine needs much help have to do with us? Well, it seems to me that if some or many of us members of the diaspora spent years talking about how we care about Ukraine, it is incomprehensible that we should turn our backs on her simply because now she is independent.
So as to pre-empt any possible misunderstanding about what we can offer, let me make clear that we members of the diaspora as individuals are not any smarter or more capable than people in Ukraine. What we can do, most importantly, is help further encourage our American and Canadian governments to help Ukraine help itself. In addition, what we also have and what we can offer to share with Ukraine is the various benefits we have accumulated both because we carry some remnants of pre-Soviet Ukrainian culture, traditions and world views with us as well as because we are the products of North American societies in which the practice and culture of rule of law have been evolving for some 800 years. We are also fluent in, and thus can help transmit, various potentially important concepts, such as affirmative action, reparations, due process and others from which Ukraine might benefit.
A fifth reason why it matters whether the diaspora survives and thrives is what I'll call the "footnote 16 reason." A half year ago I was reading a fascinating article about the campaign of terror that the Soviets launched against the Ukrainian population in Halychyna at the end of World War ll. One of the footnotes in that article, footnote 16, told a story about a small contingent of UPA [Ukrainian Insurgent Army] fighters in 1954. In that year, four members of the UPA unit were betrayed by a fifth. The four, three men and a woman, came under siege while in a hideout on the ridge of a cliff overlooking a river in the Carpathian mountains. The four held out for more than a month, and then chose to commit suicide rather than surrender.
This story has stayed with me ever since I came across it. As many of you know, by 1954 most of the UPA had been crushed, and it was clear beyond any hope or illusion that the West was not going to go to war against the Soviets in order to liberate Eastern Europe. So, to begin with, I'm amazed that there were still people willing to fight and die for what they must have realized was a near-hopeless cause. Then, it's difficult to imagine surviving for more than a month in a small earthen hideout, without fresh water or food, without any normal sanitary conditions, and without any hope of escape. But they were still there in 1954, they were still fighting and dying under the most difficult of circumstances. And they were willing to sacrifice everything for Ukraine.
I think we owe it to that small contingent - and to all of the millions upon millions of other Ukrainians, whether in the 1940s and 1950s or in the 1910s and 1920s, who fought and died to preserve that which was handed down to us - to stay the course and keep our blood-and tear-soaked heritage and traditions alive both for our children and grandchildren.
What will determine whether or not the diaspora survives and thrives for one and more generations? Three things come to mind: awareness, commitment and investment. Most importantly, the diaspora's future depends upon whether enough of us realize that our community, whatever its shortcomings and inadequacies, is a precious asset whose disintegration would be a tremendous loss to us, to our descendants and to the land of our forefathers. No one in his/her right mind allows something that is precious to waste away from neglect. So the first thing that is necessary is a collective realization that if we do not care enough about the diaspora's future, it will eventually wither away and disappear.
Once we come to that realization, we must collectively commit ourselves to the community's continuity. And that commitment must translate into our investment into that community, by which I mean investment of time, imagination and money.
Does the existence of an independent Ukraine enrich and invigorate the diaspora, or undermine its reason for being? An independent Ukraine is both good and bad for us in the diaspora, but the positive effects far, far outweigh the negative. The negative effects are that sometimes we focus all of our communal attention on Ukraine to the detriment of our own diaspora's needs and concerns, and that there are some people in the diaspora who seem to think that the diaspora might as well close up shop because, now that there's an independent Ukraine, there is no reason for a diaspora.
But the benefits of the existence of an independent Ukraine are far more numerous. Most importantly, an independent Ukraine melts away much of the remoteness that those of us who did not have first-hand experience with Ukraine felt. Now we and our children can visit, see, smell and touch a Ukraine that actually exists! Its existence also plays a major role in rebutting the age-old negation of us as Ukrainians in North American newspapers, schools and society. Now we can stick a map of Europe in front of the most benighted professor or newspaper editor and tell him, "This is where my parents/grandparents are from, and this is the country of which Kyiv is capital," and so on.
Only an independent Ukraine could have provided my diaspora family with the unique experience of watching Ukraine play a World Cup qualifying-round soccer game in a stadium in which some 50,000 people, including, among others, Ukraine's president and the chairman of Rukh, were waving blue-and-yellow flags.
Ukrainian independence has also had the salutary effect of forcing us to realize, at long last, that there really are no substantive political differences among us in the diaspora as regards Ukraine. Is there anyone in the diaspora who wants for Ukraine something other than that it be a democratic state with a real market economy? Is there anyone who wants something other than that Ukrainian language and culture have the same natural place and power that the Polish language and culture have in Poland, the Russian language and culture have in Russia, the Swedish language and culture have in Sweden? Obviously not. Is there anyone in the diaspora who does not want Ukraine to find a way to control official corruption and bribery? Or is there anyone who does not want Ukraine to develop its own class of legitimate entrepreneurs, reduce taxes so that they do not choke off all free enterprise, and eliminate the layers upon layers of parasitic bureaucrats? Obviously not.
An independent Ukraine should also help us become more comfortable with being a diaspora. Before there was a Ukraine, many in the diaspora thought that the community's only task was the preservation of a language and culture that was undergoing extinction on its home territory. For many, the community's entire focus was on this task of preservation and nothing else. Although this was understandable, this exclusive focus was also in some respects unhealthy for the diaspora and for its prospects for the future. Put another way, perhaps the existence of an independent Ukraine will allow us to complete the evolution from an émigré community to a diaspora.
Lastly, an independent Ukraine provides us with a mission. Although Ukraine is independent, it has a long way to go. When I try to explain Ukraine to some of my non-Ukrainian friends, I tell them that today's Ukraine is like a deep lake in which millions upon millions of the largest and best fish were slaughtered and into which, for 70-some years, certain neighbors and their local representatives dumped millions upon millions of gallons of the most poisonous toxins imaginable, and that those toxins included Soviet morality, Soviet culture, Soviet economics, Soviet totalitarianism and Russification. And during the 200 years preceding that catastrophe, other, only slightly less harmful, but still highly poisonous toxins were dumped into that same lake; those toxins included serfdom and colonialism. Then, seven years ago, the polluting stopped - but, the lake remains devastated. It now has to undergo the long and laborious process of cleansing and regeneration.
We in the diaspora must continue to search for ways to make some small contribution to this process. It's a marvelous opportunity for a wonderful mission. And, the stronger our North American diasporas are and become, the greater our chances of doing something useful for Ukraine.
Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, October 25, 1998, No. 43, Vol. LXVI
| Home Page |