LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (03/05/06)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

More on the UNA and its subsidiaries

Dear Editor:

With regard to a recent letter (February 12) to The Weekly attempting to refute the points I made in my letter published on February 5, kindly allow me to make some observations.

No, we will not atrophy and simply wait to die.

No, we will not chant the mantra of defeat.

No, I never suggested that if more Ukrainians spent a week at Soyuzivka it would be profitable.

Yes, however, that is actually a great idea.

Yes, that does show even a negative message can have a positive idea.

No, Soyuzivka will never be Park City, Utah.

No, Soyuzivka will never be Napa Valley, Calif.

Yes, the Napanoch Fire Department picnic business is welcome at Soyuzivka.

No, the Napanoch FD picnic will not save Soyuzivka (unless there's a fire).

Yes, Ukrainian Americans can save Soyuzivka.

Yes, Ukrainian Americans can save Svoboda and The Ukrainian Weekly.

Yes, the UNA can sell a competitive product.

Yes, we can convince our Napa Valley wine-tasting Ph.D.s that the 112-year-old UNA is worth more than a $400 investment. (What's a good bottle of Chardonnay go for?)

Yes, the UNA can be here 40 years from now, steadily paying out on its policies.

Yes, the whole can be greater than the sum of the parts.

Yes, after taking we can learn to give back. And that's the true meaning of community.

Respectfully and hopefully,

Zenon B. Masnyj
New York

Our metropolitans in the United States

Dear Editor:

In the profile of Bishop Emeritus Basil Losten (February 12), The Weekly reports that the bishop "was appointed auxiliary to Metropolitan-Archbishop Ambrose Senyshyn of Philadelphia [...] In this capacity Bishop Losten seemed to be in line to one day take over as the next metropolitan of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the United States, but since that time three other men have taken the helm of the Church in the U.S."

In fact, since that time there actually have been four men in that position: Joseph Schmondiuk, Myroslav Lubachivsky, Stephen Sulyk and Stefan Soroka.

Leo Iwaskiw
Philadelphia

Bibliographic notes were commendable

Dear Editor:

The thoughtful inclusion of bibliographic notes with Prof. Taras Hunczak's article about Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky (January 29) should be commended.

It transformed an interesting and informative essay into an authoritative one. Kudos to the editors of The Ukrainian Weekly.

George Thaddeus Saj, M.D.
Montclair, N.J.

MAUP deserves strong denunciation

Dear Editor:

I am responding to the newsbrief in your January 29 edition of The Ukrainian Weekly wherein Minister Borys Tarasyuk strongly condemned the anti-Semitism of the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management (known by its Ukrainian acronym as MAUP). I also note that President Viktor Yushchenko reportedly resigned from the board of that institution.

What is not clear from the article is how anti-Semitic the MAUP leadership appears to be. I refer you to a link that shows how white-supremacist David Duke is involved with this organization.

As a Canadian of Ukrainian descent, I am shocked and dismayed. This blatant anti-Semiticism must be publicized and denounced in no uncertain terms. Minister Tarasyuk must be supported in this.

Dr. Michael Szul
Toronto

Re: the meaning of "nationalism"

Dear Editor:

You are to be congratulated for the timely publication of letters concerning the meaning of "nationalism" in The Ukrainian Weekly (December 11, 2005, January 1, January 22 and February 5).

An excellent Oxford Reader on "Nationalism" (John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith, eds., 1994) states that "nationalism is one of the most powerful forces in the modern world, yet its study has until recently been relatively neglected. As an ideology and movement, nationalism exerted a strong influence in the American and French Revolutions."

Yet, it did not become the subject of thorough investigation by scholars from several disciplines until only since 1960s, after, as the publication claims, the spate of anti-colonial and ethnic nationalisms. As the editors further emphasize, "For a long time the study of ethnicity and nationalism has been treated with reserve, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world. But the situation is now being swiftly remedied, and we are witnessing a remarkable growth of rich and penetrating works on every aspect of ethnicity and nationalism in all parts of the world."

Still, according to this publication, "Questions of definition have bedeviled our field of study, and there is no agreement among scholars about 'subjective' and 'objective' factors in the definition of nations ..."

Three classic statements are listed, which cover a wide spectrum - those of Renan, Stalin and Weber:

"Ernest Renan rejects the statist concept of the nation in order to identify the nation as a form of morality. It is a solidarity sustained by a distinctive historical consciousness. The nation, he declares, is a daily plebiscite.

"Stalin's definitions contain a mix of objective and subjective elements. Differentiating nations from races and tribes on the one hand, and imperial states on the other, he argues that a nation comes into existence only when several elements have come together, especially economic life, language and territory.

"Max Weber examines the nation as a 'prestige community,' endowed with a sense of cultural mission. What distinguishes the nations is a commitment to a political project."

Karl Deutsch's socio-demographic approach offers a functional definition of the nation. Deutsch argues that the objective of nationalist organizations is to strengthen and extend the channels of communication which can ensure a popular compliance with national symbols and norms.

From an anthropological perspective, Clifford Geertz indicates that there are two components - ethnic and civic - in the nationalism of post-colonial states. The ethnic dimension is portrayed as a commitment to "primordial" loyalties which endow individuals with a distinctive identity; the civic as a desire for citizenship in a modern state.

"In contrast," the editors stress, "Anthony Giddens presents an unambiguously statistic definition of the nation, described here as a 'bordered power container.' This and much else is the subject of critique by Walker Connor, who rejects tendencies to equate nation with state, and nationalism with state patriotism. Like Weber, he defines the nation as community of descent, but distinguishes it from ethnic communities by its degree of self-consciousness; whereas an ethnic group may be other defined, a nation must be self-defined."

According to Renan, "A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. One is in the past, the other is in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of remembrances; the other is the actual consent, the desire to live together, the will to continue to value the heritage which all hold in common."

Obviously, the above is intended to hint at the complexity of the idea of "nationalism," both as a theory and, much more importantly, as a reality. "It reminds one of another universalist ideology and movement - religion. It should be quite clear that "there are important differences in ways of defining the concept of nationalism, some equating it with national sentiment, others with nationalist ideology and language, others again with nationalist movements. There is also difference between those who stress the cultural rather than the political aspects of nationalism," according to the editors.

They also point out "a synthesis is possible, in that the ideology and movement incorporate political and cultural dimensions ... That, at any rate, is how the founding fathers - Rousseau, Herder, Fishte, Rorais and Mazzini - saw the ideological movement of nationalism."

In summary, according to Hutchinson, "Nationalism was, first of all, a doctrine of popular freedom and sovereignty. The people must be liberated - that is, free from any external constraint; they must determine their own destiny and be masters in their own house; they must control their own resources; they must obey only their own 'inner' voice. But that entailed fraternity. The people must be united; they must dissolve all internal divisions; they must be gathered together in a single historic territory, a homeland; and they must have legal equality and share a single public culture. But which culture and what territory? Only homeland that was 'theirs' by historic right, the land of their forebears; only a culture that was theirs as a heritage, passed down the generations, and therefore an expression of their authentic identity."

Nationalism is "a field which is both fundamental to our grasp of modern society and politics and rightly rewarding for a more profound understanding of humanity."

Ivan Hvozda
Syracuse, N.Y.

We welcome your opinion

The Ukrainian Weekly welcomes letters to the editor and commentaries on a variety of topics of concern to the Ukrainian American and Ukrainian Canadian communities. Opinions expressed by columnists, commentators and letter-writers are their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of either The Weekly editorial staff or its publisher, the Ukrainian National Association.

Letters should be typed and signed (anonymous letters are not published). Letters are accepted also via e-mail at [email protected]. The daytime phone number and address of the letter-writer must be given for verification purposes. Please note that a daytime phone number is essential in order for editors to contact letter-writers regarding clarifications or questions.

| Home Page |