“Ukraine’s glory has not yet died, nor her freedom has” (to the question of the Ukrainian statehood “renaissance”)

N. Kryvda
{"title":"“Ukraine’s glory has not yet died, nor her freedom has” (to the question of the Ukrainian statehood “renaissance”)","authors":"N. Kryvda","doi":"10.15407/fd2021.03.079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The problem of the \"revival\" (renaissance) of the Ukrainian statehood has been the focus of attention for centuries. On the other hand, Ukrainian intellectual discourse has not been able formulate an integral and consolidated image of the past. A significant obstacle on this path was the state policy of memory of an ad hoc nature, which was built through a combination of Soviet and Ukrainian approaches to the interpretation of the past. The lack of a unifying historical narrative, the regionalization of history interpretations of Ukraine have fueled interpersonal and interregional hostility within Ukrainian society for decades. It has become a fertile ground for the humanitarian aggression of neighboring countries, aimed at desubjectivation of Ukraine through destruction of historical foundations of statehood in public consciousness of the Ukrainians themselves. The points of their spokesmen are reinforced by arguments of the conservative pro-Ukrainian historians, who, trying to consider the history of Ukrainian statehood in the context of general civilization development, have developed the thesis of “non-historical” Ukrainian nation due to interruption of national existence in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. This approach, as shown in the article, was important for raising attention of global community to the Ukrainian issue in the second half of the twentieth century, even though it did not reflect the real case. After all, even at the time of strengthening of assimilation policy on the part of neighboring states, Ukrainians did not have the interruption of national existence and continued to cultivate diverse ideas of \"revival\" and development of their own statehood. Such desire was especially evident in the seventeenth century due to active position of the Cossacks, who managed to wield influence on all segments of Ukrainian population, raising it to an armed struggle for their own freedom and statehood. The inability of the Cossacks to fully implement the tasks gave rise to notes of pessimism in the minds of Ukrainians, whose faith in the revival of their own statehood faded away, but never waned at all. Cherishing the former Cossack greatness, Ukrainians, contrary to the assimilationist policy of the ruling nations or stratums, have always found the strength to speak out reminding themselves and the world that “Ukraine`s glory has not died, nor her freedom”, and therefore they will defend their own statehood.","PeriodicalId":315902,"journal":{"name":"Filosofska dumka (Philosophical Thought)","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Filosofska dumka (Philosophical Thought)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15407/fd2021.03.079","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The problem of the "revival" (renaissance) of the Ukrainian statehood has been the focus of attention for centuries. On the other hand, Ukrainian intellectual discourse has not been able formulate an integral and consolidated image of the past. A significant obstacle on this path was the state policy of memory of an ad hoc nature, which was built through a combination of Soviet and Ukrainian approaches to the interpretation of the past. The lack of a unifying historical narrative, the regionalization of history interpretations of Ukraine have fueled interpersonal and interregional hostility within Ukrainian society for decades. It has become a fertile ground for the humanitarian aggression of neighboring countries, aimed at desubjectivation of Ukraine through destruction of historical foundations of statehood in public consciousness of the Ukrainians themselves. The points of their spokesmen are reinforced by arguments of the conservative pro-Ukrainian historians, who, trying to consider the history of Ukrainian statehood in the context of general civilization development, have developed the thesis of “non-historical” Ukrainian nation due to interruption of national existence in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. This approach, as shown in the article, was important for raising attention of global community to the Ukrainian issue in the second half of the twentieth century, even though it did not reflect the real case. After all, even at the time of strengthening of assimilation policy on the part of neighboring states, Ukrainians did not have the interruption of national existence and continued to cultivate diverse ideas of "revival" and development of their own statehood. Such desire was especially evident in the seventeenth century due to active position of the Cossacks, who managed to wield influence on all segments of Ukrainian population, raising it to an armed struggle for their own freedom and statehood. The inability of the Cossacks to fully implement the tasks gave rise to notes of pessimism in the minds of Ukrainians, whose faith in the revival of their own statehood faded away, but never waned at all. Cherishing the former Cossack greatness, Ukrainians, contrary to the assimilationist policy of the ruling nations or stratums, have always found the strength to speak out reminding themselves and the world that “Ukraine`s glory has not died, nor her freedom”, and therefore they will defend their own statehood.
“乌克兰的荣耀还没有逝去,她的自由也没有逝去”(对于乌克兰国家“复兴”的问题)
几个世纪以来,乌克兰国家地位的“复兴”问题一直是人们关注的焦点。另一方面,乌克兰知识分子的话语还没有能够形成一个完整和巩固的过去的形象。这条道路上的一个重大障碍是临时性质的国家记忆政策,这是通过苏联和乌克兰对过去的解释方法的结合而建立起来的。几十年来,由于缺乏统一的历史叙述,乌克兰历史解释的区域化助长了乌克兰社会内部的人际和地区间敌意。它已成为邻国人道主义侵略的肥沃土壤,其目的是通过破坏乌克兰人自己的公共意识中国家地位的历史基础,使乌克兰去主体化。保守的亲乌克兰历史学家的论点加强了他们发言人的观点,他们试图在一般文明发展的背景下考虑乌克兰国家的历史,由于民族存在在16世纪和18世纪的中断,他们提出了“非历史的”乌克兰民族的论点。正如文章所示,这种方法对于提高国际社会对二十世纪下半叶乌克兰问题的注意是重要的,尽管它并没有反映真实情况。毕竟,即使在邻国加强同化政策的时候,乌克兰人也没有中断民族的存在,继续培养各种“复兴”和发展自己国家的思想。这种渴望在17世纪尤其明显,因为哥萨克人的积极地位,他们设法对乌克兰人口的各个部分施加影响,将其提升到为自己的自由和国家地位而进行的武装斗争。哥萨克人无法完全完成任务,这在乌克兰人心中引起了悲观情绪,他们对自己国家复兴的信心逐渐消退,但从未减弱过。乌克兰人珍视前哥萨克的伟大,与统治国家或阶层的同化政策相反,他们总能找到说话的力量,提醒自己和世界“乌克兰的荣耀和自由并没有消失”,因此他们将捍卫自己的国家地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信