Talk:History of Belarus

Rydel vs. Anon

I don't want to quarrel with anyone, especially that some of us are somehow touchy. However, in a recent tiny edit war Rydel changed back Old Slavonic language to Old Belarusian language. What was the difference between the two and which one of the two was actually used there? I was always taught that it was Old Ruthenian language rather than its archaic form (Old Slavonic) or Old Belarusian language (whatever that is, none of my books mentions such a language so I assume it must be some alternative name for Old Ruthenian used by Belarusians nowadays). [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 15:51, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

This was only one of the several words that anonymous Samogitian has changed. Of course the anonymous Samogitian used the word Old Slavonic language because that's what they call Old Belarusian in Lithuanian. I guess the reasons for that are obvious. The "linguistic nationalism" of Lithuania is really scared of the new Belarusian nationalism, because both peoples lived together in peace in a single state for 500 years, and both peoples called themselved "Lithuanians" in their own tongues, but then thanks to certain events Samogitian (modern Lithuanian) nation took 100% of the old Lithuanian heritage, without wanting to share it with the modern Belarusians who have exactly the same share in that old Lithuanian heritage (or perhaps even more than the modern "Lithuanians"). Anyway, I am drifting away from the topic. So Lithuanians, the modern ones, want to delete any mention of the Belarusian nation. One of the things they do in their high school history books, they never use the term Old Belarusian language, but they use the term "Old Slavonic language used purely for chancellory paper needs", something like that. And of course, using the term Old Slavonic language in English is even more incorrect, because that refers to a totally different language (click on the link). As for the differences between Old Ruthenian language and Old Belarusian language, there are none. This is a reference to the same thing. So in Belarus the latter term is used, and I guess in English the former one is more widely spread. I think either term is OK, but I like Old Belarusian better, because when we say Old Ruthenian (or, especially! Old Russian), most people think it has something to do with Russian, while in fact it has very little to do with modern-day Russian and modern-day Russians. This is some language that was used in Ruthenia. When Russian empire took us over, the written traditions were suppressed. There was a gap, a hiatus, so we can't say there was an uniterrupted flow of development from that language to modern-day Belarusian. That's one argument I see against using the term "Old Belarusian". The second reason not to use the term "Old Belarusian" is because some Ukrainians say that their language also had exactly the same language as a basis. So these are the two arguments against using "Old Belarusian", but both of them can be disproved. First, there is a direct and undeniable link between the language of Francis Skaryna's "Biblija Ruska" (Ruthenian (Old Belarusian) Bible) and the modern language of Belarus. And there are numerous treatises showing the direct connection. It's a long topic, and I just don't have time to write a Ph.D. here, but I guess you are getting my point: using "Old Slavonic" is simply wrong. Using "Old Ruthenian" and "Old Belarusian" is fine, and in my opinion "Old Belarusian" is a bit better, more appropriate and logical term to use. --rydel 23:19, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A point to add: it is simply ridiculous to say that some common "Old Ruthenian language" was spoken from Black to Baltic seas and from White to Mediterranean seas. Of course, the written variants were closer to each other, but it is simply because those who "wrote" learned to do this from a very limited set of texts. Written language was never driving force of vernacular at these times, unlike today, when kids learn to read earlier than to speak :-). (not to say baout TV) It was exactly vice versa at these old times. And it is only natural to say that in the relatively well-defined territory of Belarus there was "Old Belarussian language". And the languages of Moscow, Vladimir and Novgorod differed from each other as well. And only because of pre-conceived idea of a "common old Russian language" was the reason of confusion and fuss about the "real" (?) language of The Tale of Igor's Campaign, of Skaryna's Bible (who, by the way, called its language "russki"), or of some other manuscripts.

Thusly, IMO Old Ruthenian language is a linguistic abstraction, a step in the direction from "real" languages towards the "reconstructed" "proto-indo-european language". 00:59, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm a Slavic languages freak so you don't have to explain the basics to me. No need to write a PhD here :) Anyway, to me the name Old Belarussian language seems like a synonym to Old Ruthenian language coined by present-day Belarussians rather than a linguistic, commonly accepted term ("Belarussian linguistic nationalism", as you'd put it). It's not that those cruel Samogitians fail to accept a simple truth, it's that barely anyone accepts it ([1], [2]).

As a matter of fact the language spoken "east of present-day Poland, west of present-day Russia" back in 10th to 16th centuries was spoken by more peoples than only the predecessors of modern Belarussians. That's exactly why there are so many similarities between modern Ukrainian and Belarussian languages, not only in grammar, but also in phonetics and even vocabulary. Following your logic we'd have to admit that large part of what is now Ukraine spoke Old Belarussian back then. That's why I prefer Old Ruthenian to Old Belarussian - it's simply much broader and at the same time much more precise. I also agree with you that the language used by Skaryna could be called Old Belarussian. But IMO the present Ukrainians have exactly the same right to call it Old Ukrainian. In terms of linguistic similarities one could also say that (G*d forgive me) it was Old Rusyn... Get the point?

As to the geographical dispersion of the language - of course you are right that the term "Old Ruthenian language" does not cover all "Eastern Slavic languages", but it was predecessor to more than one modern language and it had many dialects back then (as most languages on earth have), but these were more of dialects than separate languages. Similarly, back in the times of formation of GDL there was still little or no difference between Polish and Czech languages. Sometimes for simplicity's sake the language spoken around Poznan or Kraków in 10th century is referred to as Old Polish, but in fact the Old Polish language (Staropolszczyzna) was formed between 15th and 17th centuries.

As a side note, I have no idea why on earth Old Ruthenian language redirects to Old Russian language and not the other way around. All in all I'd propose a following solution:

• Move Old Russian language to Old Ruthenian language
• Place redirects from Old Russian language, Old Belarussian language, Old Ukrainian language and Late Old East Slavic language.
• Fix most of the related articles to point at Old Ruthenian language rather than to locally-used synonyms.

We had a huge, common linguistic family back then. Time to be proud of it and stop concealing it under artificial nationalist terms. Don't you think? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 02:10, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Mission accomplished. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 22:06, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I suppose "Old Slavonic language" is slightly more accurate alternative to "Old Belarusian language" - first, the term "Belarus" first appeared in late 19 century; second (and more important) the official written language of GDL wasn't always a dialect from nowadays Belarus - for instance, Vytautas (Vytovt) chancellery used rather "Ukrainian" dialect. I would go for "Old Slavonic", unless strong counter-arguments provided. User:mantas

Belarusian states - Novohradek

Please support your theory about Novohradek being the first capital city of GDL. Mindouh (Mindovg, Mindaugas) never had a capital city (at the time residence of a Duke wasn't stable); the 'capital' was first stabilised by Grand Duke (or Prince) Gedimin (Gediminas), and it wasnt Novohradek. Its of cause a historical dispute, but Novohradek teory has never been proved. user:mantas

It seems nobody can provide any evidence about Novohradek as capital of Lithuania, therefore I remove this part from the article as incorrect.Dirgela 18:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Russian Occupation

Is this a joke? This is history of Belarus not Poland. What's the point of even saying where did the other Polish areas went after the partition (and giving it more than 3/4 of the section), and the only other area was of course national uprisings. Independence and freedom? The uprisings were led by Poles not Belarussians. I am putting an NPOV on this article right now.Kuban kazak 23:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent source

Have a read here. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/arhiv/050513111111

Asking for a source

After Orthodox communities were disbanded by Polish administration, the use of Belarusian language was increasingly discouraged or suppressed. Please give an objective source-Commowealth was known for its religious tolerance. --Molobo 12:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Polish Empire was known to all the world outside Poland for its intolerance. Or do you think Bohdan rebelled because he had nothing else to do? Follow the link provided above and you will get a picture. Even the previous Polonophile version of the article admitted that Belarusian was replaced with Polish by 1696. --Ghirlandajo 12:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Even the previous Polonophile version of the article admitted that Belarusian was replaced with Polish by 1696. I am not asking about that.Even so in regards to language you would have to say if it was ordered, by cultural repression or natural process. --Molobo 13:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Latest edits, factual dispute and POV problems

Lately Ghirlandajo and Kuban Kazak have completely rewritten parts of this article and I'm afraid part of the new version is a huge POV, intended to present the Polish rule in what is now Belarus in as bad light as possible, while at the same time claiming that Belarusians are in fact Russians. In particular, I see a problem with the following (see below)

Altogether, I believe the aproblems mentioned above need to be solved before we remove the dispute tag. BTW, I organized the list so that it was easier to respond below my comment. Halibutt 20:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope. The current version makes it clear that Belarusians are not Poles, that's all. The previous pro-Polish version, on the other hand, made no difference between the history of Poland and history of Belarus. There's no denying that. --Ghirlandajo 22:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ghirlando, your blatant revert of my edit is very discouraging. I have provided sources for my additions, but you delete this, along with useful interlinks I made, with a justification no different then a thinly veiled personal attack.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

All right.... I asked for your comments to be posted below mine. However, as someone decided to ignore my plea, I removed all the alien comments from mine and divided the discussion onto separate sections. That way we'll have less problems with following the discussion and who says what. I guess it was not his intention, but thanks to Ghirlandajo for some time all of my comments were subscribed under his name, as if he was agreeing with me. Anybody else finds it as funny as I do?

As to specific concerns - see below. Halibutt 00:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Piotr, originally it was you who blatantly reverted my step-by-step edits, although I had justified each minor edit in summaries which you apparently didn't care even to follow, let alone to answer. --Ghirlandajo 09:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, right, a u vas negrov ubyvayut... Anyway, instead of calling Poles with extremely offensive words in the edit histories you could take some time to reply to the questions raised. Or apologize to people you offend. Halibutt 09:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: 1

1. During the period of Polish rule (1569-1795), trade passed into the hands of Jews and Poles who settled primarily in the cities, while the rural population remained predominantly Ruthenian (Belarusian). - in fact the trade was a domain of Jews and Armenians even before, as hardly any noble, be it Polish szlachta or Ruthenian boyars, saw trade as something honourable. And most of the trade remained in Jewish or Armenian hands even afterwards, until 19th century. Halibutt

This phrase should be moved to the previous section on GDL, that's all. Ghirlandajo

Well, I believe it should be either explained or deleted. It was neither something typical for Poland or for Lithuania, it happened everywhere in Europe and there it should rather be explained as a migration, not the way you did it so as to suggest that someone gave the trade to Jews and took it from someone. Halibutt 23:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

So you think that the article on History of Belarus should omit the fact that Belarusians were banished by Poles and Jews to live in the fields? I have to disagree here. Jewish/Polish occupation of Belarusian cities is a key factor in national history, which explains glaring absence of Belarusian nobility, intelligentsia and freedom movement since the 17th century onward. Also, Belarusian Jews - such as Marc Chagall, not to mention all those Slutskers and Brodskys - played a vital part in the culture of Eastern (you prefer to call it Central) Europe. --Ghirlandajo 09:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: 2

1. Belarusian language was relegated to secondary positions - not really, although Polish was preferred by the Polish-speaking nobles, whatever their religion was. Also, we should rather be speaking of Ruthenian, which was in use back then, and not Belarusian, which was formed in its modern sense in 19th century. Halibutt

   This I quite agree with, being one of the initiators of this strange wikiterm - Ruthenian language. Other articles, however, - such as Francysk Skaryna - operate with the term "Belarusian language" or "Old Belarusian", and we can do little to mend this. --Ghirlandajo 22:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

So how about simply mentioning that Despite of the actual language of the population of the Commonwealth, in the GDL the chancery language was Old Ruthenian language, which is a predecessor of modern Belarusian and Ukrainian languages. In XXXX the official chancery language was replaced with Polish, more commonly spoken by the upper classes.? It would be more correct, less POV and definitely based on actual knowledge... Halibutt 00:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There's no denying that Belarusian has been dimissed as a dialect of peasants, whereas the Polish (and then Russian) was the language of education and government. There is no need to dissimulate the facts with pointless wordsmithship. --Ghirlandajo 09:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: 3

1. Eastern Orthodox peasantry was converted to Uniatism against their will. complete rubbish, probably backed by Great Soviet Encyclopedia or some Russian 19th centurish source. Contrary to 19th century Russia, nobody forcibly converted anyone in PLC (perhaps apart from isolated cases where a local gentry member was strongly against the Orthodox faith. However, it wasn't until 19th century that any church was forbidden on these lands - and it was the Uniate church, not Orthodoxy (strongly supported by Russia). Halibutt

   This i'm not in position to comment upon, as the phrase was not added by me. As best I understand, however, it was impossible to make a successful career in the PLC or to get a government appointment, if you were not a Roman Catholic. There are innumerable monographs on these religious issues, both pro-Catholic and pro-Orthodox, which interested parties may cite in the article. --Ghirlandajo 22:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

   Source http://www.pravoslavie.ru/arhiv/050513111111 - Kuban kazak 22:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

   Although I have no sources for this ATM, from what I read this was very rare, if happened at all (Jarema Wiśniowiecki actions?). Szlachta usually left peasants to their own doings, this is why after Raskol Russian religious minorities esacaped to Poland. Would you have any sources about religious persecutions of Ruthenian peasnaty? What Ghirlandajo writes about career is true when reffering to the 17th century, where due to Zygmunt III Waza obsession with Catholicism the Warsaw Compact was seriously undermind (for example, he gave official titles only to the Catholics). Also, Union of Brest was his idea, and although there were no violent persecutions, for example Catholics (and Unionists) got more prominent places for their churches and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

EB is not the source like the chronicles are but it is peer reviewed to conform the mainstream historiographic view. From EB's history of Belarus:

Although [after Lublin] Lithuania retained the title of grand duchy and its code of laws, its western province Podlasia, which had been heavily settled by Polish colonists, was ceded to Poland, as were the steppe lands and Kiev. Among the Belarusian population a mainly Polish-speaking Roman Catholic aristocracy developed, but the peasantry on the whole remained Orthodox. In 1596 the Union of Brest-Litovsk signaled an attempt to unify the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches in the Polish-Lithuanian state [..] The rule of the Polish landowners was often heavy and unpopular, and many Belarusians (especially those opposed to joining the Eastern-rite church) fled to the steppe lands that were home to the Cossacks. Large-scale Cossack-led revolts occurred in 1648–54, but the Belarusian lands remained under Poland until the reign of Catherine II (the Great) of Russia (1762–96). Economic development was slow, especially in the extensive Pripet Marshes. The Belarusian population was almost entirely engaged in agriculture, while trade lay in the hands of Poles and Jews.

From EB's history of UA

"...Ukraine was “colonized” by both Polish and Ukrainian great nobles. Most of the latter gradually abandoned Orthodoxy to become Roman Catholic and Polish. These “little kings” of Ukraine controlled hundreds of thousands of “subjects”... The new Eastern-rite church became a hierarchy without followers while the forbidden Eastern Orthodox church was driven underground. Wladyslaw's recognition of the latter's existence in 1632 may have come too late. The Orthodox masses—deprived of their native protectors, who had become Polonized and Catholic—turned to the Cossacks. [...] The heavy-handed behaviour of the “little kings,”... was resented even by small nobles and burghers. Growing socioeconomic antagonisms combined with religious tensions."

So much about "equality" of Orthodoxy with Catholicism. What surprizes me is that this discussion pops up from talk page to talk page with not just Britannica, but some historians sited too, and then we get this all over again about the myth on the religious freedom and equality in PLC as well as about the Warsaw compact, indeed an amazing document for its time, being realized in full on the ground (which it wasn't). --Irpen 00:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I agree with almost all of the above, especially when speaking about the times of the Vasas, which were surely the worst kings we ever had (even Stanisław August was better). However, who converted the Orthodox people by force? When? How? And if the Orthodox church was illegal, then why where there Orthodox churches built? Halibutt 00:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Are sure they were built in the first decades of the 17th century? Examples, please. --Ghirlandajo 09:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I would need to look for the quotes, but from what I remember, it wasn't always illegal but it was always obstructed to different degrees. And yes, at times it was illegal. As for the times were Orthodoxy was allowed but suppresses, at some point, non-Roman churches were taxed, while the Roman ones were not. Also the permits to build new churches were denied. Besides, the church buildings were forcibly locked and the peasant had to pay a fee to obtain a key to baptized a child. Since the local managers, who kept the keys were often Jews, the idea of being forced to pay to a Jew to get a child baptized added to certain sentiments among Ukrainians and during the later revolts the Jews were slaughtered en masse together with the Poles. Of course most of the people slaughtered had nothing to do with the oppression and the Jews were largely oppressed themselves, but didn't have their own "Cossacks" to turn for protection. --Irpen 01:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

EB seems to be quite correct here and we may want to incorporate some of their statements into our text. As I wrote, there might have been - there probably were - incident involving forced convertions, but they were rare. While Warsaw Compact promised religious tolerance, it was often abused, nonetheless the religious tolerance of the PLC was unprecedented for its time - which doesn't say it was as good as what we recognize as a standard today. In addition, if we are talking about religious tolerance and how Catholic Church was bullying the Orthodox (and Protestants) in the PLC, we should perhaps remmember how it was solved in the Muscovy: Russia simply banned Catholic Church. Anyway, the quite here is disputed because it implies that ALL Orthodox peasantry was forcibly converted (or at least it was a common happening) - which was not the case (feel free to provide sources indicating otherwise, or even documenting exeptions).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Russia simply banned Catholic Church? If you followed a link supplied by Kuban Kazak, you would learn that there were periods when Russian adminsitration funded Polish ksiadzs at the expense of Russian Orthodox clergy. --Ghirlandajo 09:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

So much about "equality" of Orthodoxy with Catholicism. The article don't say about repression, persecution only about "heavy handness", even colonisation is in the brackets. The articles seem to say that due to alienation of nobility from peasants problems developed not that the nobles persecuted the peasents as the current version tries to allege. --Molobo 01:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:4

1. Despite severe repressions vibrant Belarusian culture flourished in the Orthodox communities of major Belarusian cities - this seems unsourced as well, not to mention the fact that it limits the Belarusian culture to Orthodox minority only and speaks not a word of the Uniate majority... or the Catholics, who also constituted a large part of what is now the Belarusian culture, be it material or spiritual. Also, a mention of Jews, Tatars and Armenians would be a good thing here IMO. Halibutt

   I know nothing about Armenian or Tatar culture in Belarus, so you are welcome to add data on these communities, if you think they were vitally important for Belarus. --Ghirlandajo 22:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

   Memo to self: translate pl:Tatarzy w Polsce.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

   You may also want to translate en:Lipka Tatars :-) mikka (t) 22:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

   Tnx for that one, I didn't try this name (I did try Lipkowie, Polish Tatars and Tatars in Poland. I am going to create some redirects and interwiki links, of course - those article talk (mostly) of the same people.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This definitely needs to be added to the article. In the article on History of Poland the ethnic and cultural mixture is well-described. So is the case with History of Lithuania. Why not insert it here, in an article about one of the most culturally-diverse regions of the Commonwealth? Halibutt 00:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:5

1. After Belarusian peasantry volunteered to take part in the anti-Polish movement led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky, deputations from several Belarusian towns arrived to Moscow, asking the tsar for interference on their part - which also needs some source. And even if it was true, we should also mention thousands of people of Belarus who fought on the side of the Commonwealth against the rioters. Halibutt

1. I provided a link to the GSE, which BTW is a perfectly valid source of historical data. As valid as scores of obscure Polish hack writers you regularly intoxicate your brains with. --Ghirlandajo 22:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, please watch your language. There's a serious problem to be solved and suggesting that some sources intoxicate while others don't won't help us here.

Then, where is the link you posted? It's definitely not here nor can I see it in the article

Last but not least, the Great Soviet Encyclopedia is not considered a credible source even by Wikipedia, not to mention modern historians. Could you please try to use some modern sources? Halibutt 00:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You should read the article more carefully or ask Piotrus who left the links in the text during his previous revert. If you assert that GSE is "not considered a credible source even by Wikipedia", you are bound to provide a link to appropriate section of Wikipedia Guidelines and then I will not quote it any more. On the other hand, if this statement is a personal opinion of Halibutt, Molobo, Rydel, and Co, you may continue gaping at your cheap propaganda booklets about alleged Russian massacres, which I daresay are "not considered a credible source even by Wikipedia" as well. --Ghirlandajo 09:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The quote above from Britannica may help sort this out. --Irpen 00:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure. But I still believe we should mention the other side of the story, not only the one presented in the current version. Halibutt 00:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:6

after Orthodox communities were disbanded by Polish administration - seems yet another absurd... Any proof of that? Which communities? Where? Why? When? Halibutt 00:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why my link to bratstvo was deleted, but your complete ignorance of the phenomenon clearly indicates that Eastern Orthodoxy in Polish-occupied territories is still a closed book to you. The article about Bratski Monastery in Kiev has long been on my to-do list, but unfriendly developments in the ua segment of this project would probably prevent me from enlarging on this important issue in the nearest future. --Ghirlandajo 22:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

bratstvo is a red link - could you elaborate on this? Does it have to to with Union of Brest? I plead ignorance in this case, and would be happy to learn more if you can provide some sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the idea of bratstvo is obscure to me, though your accusations of ignorance are hardly an argument in our discussion. Please, stick to facts and not to offences. Ok? Halibutt 00:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Once again, check the links provided by me in the text of the article before crying murder. --Ghirlandajo 09:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:7

1. By the 18th century the rapacity of Polish nobles plunged the country into anarchy, making the once powerful empire vulnerable to foreign influence. Eventually Poland was partitioned by its neighbors, which meant that Belarusians were reunited with majority of their Orthodox East Slavic brethren. - now that is entirely a Russian POV, with unification of all Slavic brethren sounding like a perfect example of 19th century pan-Slavist propaganda and trying to blame Poland herself for the imperial politics of Russia or Prussia is what Russian historians were trying to do throughout the 19th century. It seems especially disturbing that a perfectly valid paragraph was replaced with this text. Before the latest changes it went like this: The independence of the Commonwealth ended in a series of partitions (1772, 1793 and 1795) undertaken by Russia, Prussia and Austria, with Russia gaining most of the Commonwealth's territory including nearly all of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania (except Podlachia and lands West from Niemen river), Volhynia and Ukraine. (...) The last heroic attempt to save the state's independence was a Polish-Belarusian-Lithuanian national uprising (1794) led by Tadevus Kasciuska, however it was eventually quenched.. While not perfect, it was definitely less one-sided. Halibutt

   As was pointed out by other editors before, this passage belongs to History of Poland rather than to History of Belarus. It is irrelevant to the article on Belarus which provinces of Poland were taken by Prussia and which by Austria. Halibutt, we are all aware of your sado-masochistic pleasure at endlessly repeating how innocent Poles were abused and "massacred" by bad guys from Russia and Germany, but the article on Belarusian history is definitely a wrong place to indulge in this kind of guilty pleasures. --Ghirlandajo 22:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

   It's pleasant to see you in the same league with Molobo once again, joining Molobish hysterical fears of "19th-century pan-Slavist propaganda". It's a pity, however, that the great pan-Slavists - Safarik, Kostomarov - cannot respond to these slurs. Rephrasing your own words, the whole polish segment of en.wiki is an ongoing attempt to blame Russia and Germany for all the crap proliferating in Poland. Anyway, you should be aware that editors of other nationalities are not bound to tolerate Polish hysterics. Perhaps it's time to review tons of russophobic bullshit that were spawned by you, Molobo, Emax, Cadet, and Co here in the previous years. --Ghirlandajo 22:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

   You fail to provide any arguments but assume bad faith and make personal attacks. Please, back up your claims with sources or aplogize for your accusations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, some apologies would be in place. And again, Ghirlandajo, I ask you to reply to my questions, not to what you think of me personally or of my nationality. Stick to the topic and we'll end this matter quickly. As to the main topic: indeed, the previous version was not perfect as it was too long and could be shortened to mention only the parts grabbed by Russia. However, I still fail to understand how the current passage is better. Halibutt 00:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: 9

1. Following the French emperor Napoleon I's defeat of Prussia, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was again set up under French tutelage. Belarusian peasants, however, fiercely resisted the renewed Polish ascendancy. - I beg your pardon? The French recreated the GDL? Any sources for that? Apart from that, we should also mention the Belarusians that fought against the Russian yoke side by side with Poles and Napoleon. Otherwise we'd have only one side of the story mentioned. Halibutt

I don't care who added this idiotic passage to the article. Check the history. I'm not aware of any Belarusians fighting against what you call the Russian yoke, however. On the other hand, Poniatowski's army was full of Polish nobles who deplored the loss of their estates and peasants in Belarus, but these were Poles not Belarusians.--Ghirlandajo 22:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

So, this could be deleted, right?

As to your comments - I seriously doubt it. In fact by then hardly any noble lost a single serf or village in the east. Instead, the Polish magnates even strengthened their rule over the peasants as in Russia they had even more rights than in PLC or Poland. That's why the pro-Napoleonic uprising in Lithuania was much weaker and mostly popular, contrary to what Mickiewicz suggests. Simply the upper classes had little interest in supporting the French, contrary to the peasants and burghers. Halibutt 00:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: 10

They were active in guerilla movement against Napoleon's occupation and did their best to annihilate the remains of the Grande Armée when it crossed the Berezina River in November 1812. - Battle of Berezina was not carried out by guerillas but by regular Russian army under Kutuzov Halibutt

So now you deny that there was a Belarusian guerilla movement against Napoleon's invasion? Probably Polish books are silent about that.--Ghirlandajo 22:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Please re-read my question above and try to reply to what is written there, not to what you have in mind. Halibutt 00:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: 11

Although under Nicholas I and Alexander III the national cultures were repressed in attempt to "de-polonise" [3] the population which included the return of the population to Orthodoxy, - and why not to mention the fact that the Russians delegalized the Uniate church and forcibly converted all Uniates to Orthodoxy? Also, the mention of the November Uprising and January Uprising, both the most active in modern lands of Belarus, was erased by someone. Why? I guess it was removed because it doesn't fit the scheme of happy loyal Russian subjects and the angry Polish pans persecuting their slaves, though I admit there might've been some other reason. Halibutt

We've seen for so many months how you imagine the Belarusian history should look like: perfect equality of "Ruthenians" with Poles in the PLC, rapturous mass conversions of Belarusians to Uniatism and Papism, the so-called Deluge which claimed the lives of every 3rd citizen of the Commonwealth, and three glorious rebellions. Sorry, all this doesn't belong to the article on Belarus. Belarusians were peasants, and quite indifferent to all three rebellions too. The history of Poland and BElarus is not the same, and you have to live with it. It is really disturbing that you Poles still treat Belarus as it were still your colony, just like 250 years ago.--Ghirlandajo 22:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You're more than one? I thought you were a single Ghirlandajo, and not multiple people... Anyway, you did not reply to my suggestions. And please do not offend me. This article is about the place in the world called Belarus, not on the History of Belarusians. Hence it should include the histories of all the peoples living there together with the East Slavs. Yes, including the Poles. And again, if you see the conversion to Uniate rite which took 300 years as forcible, then why don't you see re-conversion of the entire nation to Orthodoxy as equally forcible, eventhough it took 10 minutes (a single ukaz)? Halibutt 00:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: 12

Belarusian economy was booming, particularly after the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. Peasants sought a better lot in large industrial centres, with some 1,500,000 people leaving Belarus in half a century preceding the Russian Revolution of 1917. - again, if a 4th part of the local population leaves for Poland, Germany or America, then perhaps the economy was not as booming as someone portrays it here. Halibutt

Data on booming economy is taken from Britannica 2004, but you are free to prove that the economy of late 19th-century Belarussia was in fact as stagnant as that of 18th-century Polish Lithuania. The facts show, however, that Polish economy had never been more prosperous in any other period of its history than at the turn of the 20th century. --Ghirlandajo 22:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't have the EB04 at hand. Anyone care to provide the relevant part? As to Polish economy blooming in early 20th century - I seriously doubt it. Of course, there was a period of fast industrialization, but overall Poland was one of the poorest lands in Europe back then. It would be hard to decide whether the ever-starving Galicia and Lodomeria was poorer than rural and unindustrialized Belarus back then, though I doubt such a choice is to be made here. Anyway, you still did not reply to my question: if the economy was so blooming, then why the hell some 25% of the entire land left for other places? Perhaps they were not happy with the joyful rule of the tsar? Or perhaps they felt the factories are too loud? Halibutt 00:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, honestly, your ignorance is startling. Have you ever heard about Industrial Revolution? Have you ever heard that it was accompanied by wide-scale migration of rural population to the urban industrial centres? Have you ever heard about Lodz becoming the textile capital of Europe during the Russian rule? --Ghirlandajo 09:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Pan-Slavism as justification for Russification of other nations by Russian Empire

It's pleasant to see you in the same league with Molobo once again, joining Molobish hysterical fears of "19th-century pan-Slavist propaganda". It's a pity, however, that the great pan-Slavists - Safarik, Kostomarov - cannot respond to these slurs.

They don't have to:

http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/panslavism/panslavism.pdf During the Congress which had started at the end of May, Vladimir Ivanovich Lamansky pointed out that the invitation of the non-Russian Slays — which he called a great historic event —fitted nicely into the framework of the ethnographic exhibition, there by proving that Russia did not intend to deprive the various Slavic peoples of their different ethnographic characters, but magnanimously recognized the historical rights of the weaker Slavic brethren, thereby acquiring a strong position of moral leadership. In the same speech he demanded that Russian be the official language of all Slavs, and this proposal was greeted with thunderous applause by his Russian audience. The non-Russian guests gradually came to the conclusion that by PanSlavism their Russian hosts meant “Pan-Russianism,” which would include the general acceptance of the Russian language and the Orthodox faith by all other Slavs; in other words, a Russification of the Austro-Hungarian and Balkan Slavs, similar to that of the Poles and Ukrainians within the Russian borders.

PAN- SLAVISM by Sándor Kostya --Molobo 22:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What other common language would you propose? Sorbian? And what is wrong with common language? Shandor K is very smart with putting accents and tearing out a quotation out of context. Of course, there were different panSlavists. Some of them sought spreading the domination of Russia. Some were truly bothered by annihilation of lesser Slavs. Are you aware that Czech language was extinct and was artificially restored just like Ivrit? And Belarusian language was destroyed not by Russkies My grandfather used to tell me funny stories how he was forced to learn by heart "lovil Janek do poludnia majonc pruzhnon hrapken" (He wrote it thus in forbidden Cyrillic letters to memorize). mikka (t) 22:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"Some were truly bothered by annihilation of lesser Slavs." Didn't Russia occupy some of the countries of these "lesser Slavs" ? And what does lesser mean ? Is one nation belonging to the Slavic language group greater then the other in some unexplained way ? Didn't Russian Empire try to annihilated unique Polish, Belarussian, Ukrainian cultures itself by Russification ? http://www.taraskuzio.net/academic/history.pdf When nation building was encouraged, as it was in Austrian-ruled western Ukraine between the late eighteenth century and 1918, it led to the development of a central European, in contrast to pan eastern Slavic identity.71 Paul Magosci points out that ‘While Ukrainianism was being suppressed in the Russian Empire, all the fundamentals that make possible a viable national life—history, ideology, language, literature, cultural organisation, education, religion and politics—were being formally established in Austrian Galicia’.72 "Are you aware that Czech language was extinct " I am aware of this, however it was Czechs achievement that it was restored .Are you aware that Czech national leaders distanced themselfs soon from Pan-Slavism which they said was in fact Pan-Russianism ? Are you aware that Russian Empires policy was to make many other Slavic languages extinct using the very argument of Pan-Slavism ? In fact it didn't shy from cooperation with non-Slavic groups in persecuting those "slavic" nations that it couldnt' russify(for example with Bismarck against Poland). --Molobo 22:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)