LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (06/15/03)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Diaspora's support is not unconditional

Dear Editor:

I read with great interest the recent article by Yuri Shevchuk "Small solution, not grand illusions: Harvard symposium focuses on diaspora-Ukraine relationship" (May 25). After 12 years of independence the relations between the diaspora and Ukraine are indeed changing, and to a much greater degree than academicians at the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute (HURI) realize.

The uncritical and unconditional support of the diaspora for the Ukrainian government is no longer there. This fact is fully realized by the authorities (vlasti) in Ukraine. Recently, they have initiated a number of PR campaigns, so far unsuccessful, to improve their image. The newest propaganda, the so called "News from Ukraine," is being issued by the presidential administration and may be read on Brama website. So far, it does not cut the mustard.

Wider circles of the informed diaspora have realized for some time that there are two distinct and different concepts of Ukraine: the concept of Ukraine as the Ukrainian people, and the concept of Ukraine as the Ukrainian authorities or government. These concepts represent not the same reality, but vastly different societal structures. And those differences should be recognized in all discussions related to Ukraine. I have not seen this recognition yet in the pronouncements by the professional academic gurus who occupy so much printed space.

On the other hand, I recently had an opportunity to observe the changing attitudes of the much broader spectrum of diaspora society towards Ukraine while attending a reunion of former students of the Berchtesgaden gymnasium. The discussions at the reunion, not surprisingly, also dealt with diaspora-Ukraine relations. The recognition of the stratification of Ukrainian society into the people and "vlasti" segments was there - and to a much greater degree than is recognized in the academic circles.

There was also a much more hard-nosed attitude toward the recent developments in Ukraine, such as the increasing tempo of Russification and the continual slide into the abyss of authoritarianism. The bottom line is that, unless Ukraine's backsliding into abyss of totalitarianism is arrested and the "vlasti" finally recognize the importance of the rule of law and freedom of speech, and the overriding importance of civil rights - and rigorously protect them - they should not count on unconditional support from the diaspora.

Ihor Lysyj
Austin, Texas

Weekly disseminates facts about Famine

Dear Editor:

Thanks to The Weekly's editorial staff for an excellent work of journalism in promulgating the facts surrounding the falsification of truth in reference to the Soviet government's engineered famine in Ukraine.

With today's global media capabilities, our Ukrainian cause for ultimate justice can be heard around the world loud and clear.

Alexander Balaban
Roselle Park, N.J.

The letter writer is an elected official of the Roselle Park Board of Education.

History Channel's "Land of the Tsars"

Dear Editor:

On Monday and Tuesday, May 26 and 27, the History Channel presented a two-part documentary: "Russia: Land of the Tsars," which I am sure many of our readers watched.

In Part I the commentator constantly confused Kyivan Rus' with Russia, and called Prince "Vladimir" (Volodymyr) a Russian prince and "the most powerful man of Rus'." According to The History Channel, Russia's history began in the late 10th century in Kyivan Rus' and "Russia was never a single country - the Russian people were never a single race but a nation of many nations."

"The natives called the Vikings Rus' " and "the land of Rus' was Russia." While nothing was mentioned about Prince Volodymyr's other accomplishments, it was said that "he met with Jews, Muslims and Catholics to find one true faith." He and his people converted to the Orthodox faith, which "united Russia with religion."

The program then spent considerable time describing the squabble between various princes, resulting in the horrible death of Borys and "Gleb" (Hlib) at the hands of their brother Sviatopolk. After the invasion of the Mongols, and the destruction and division of Rus', the documentary continues about an "isolated river outpost founded in the 12th century, Moscow." The film describes the cruel reign of Russia's tsars - Ivan I, Grand Prince Dimitri, Ivan III, Ivan the Terrible, etc., etc., ending the bloody reign with the Romanov dynasty.

The Ukrainian city of Poltava was mentioned only in connection with the Battle of Poltava (1709) between Swedish King Charles XII and Peter the Great. What happened to Hetman Ivan Mazepa who fought Peter the Great on the side of King Charles? What happened to Kyivan Rus' between the Mongol invasion (1240) and the Battle of Poltava (1709)?

Throughout the film there are commentaries by the following historians: Simon Franklin (Clare College, Cambridge University), Dominic Lieven (London School of Economics), James Heingen (Rowan University), Lawrence Langer (University of Connecticut), Richard Hellie (University of Chicago), Jennifer Ryan Tischier (Dartmouth College), John T. Alexander (University of Kansas), Cynthia Whittaker (Baruch College-CCNY) and Lindsay Hughes (University College-London).

I feel that this documentary is full of historical errors and that a correction made by our historians and scholars, as well as viewers, addressed to The History Channel would be most beneficial. More information about this program is available at www.historychannel.com. Readers may also write to The History Channel's parent company: Arts & Entertainment Network, 235 E. 45th St., New York, NY 10017; telephone, (212) 210-1400.

Oksana Kuzyszyn
Fords, N.J.

The Ukrainian Weekly welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typed (double-spaced) and signed; they must be originals, not photocopies.

The daytime phone number and address of the letter-writer must be given for verification purposes.

| Home Page |