Talk:Polonization/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Old talk

Pilsudski Litwin? Kosciuszko Bialorusin? Wobec tego kazdy Polak ze wschodu nie byl Polakiem? Litwin Pilsudski odbil Wilno rodakom by podarowac Polsce... A Bialorusin Kosciuszko walczyl o odrodzenie silnej Rzplitej, by znow "polskie pany" panoszyly sie na Rusi...

Moja rodzina ze strony ojca pochodzi z Wilna, a matki z Lidy - czyli jestem "Litewskim-Bialorusinem" (szkoda, bo jako Polak zylo mi sie calkiem przyjemnie) :) Tak jak Gorale mowia o sobie ze sa Goralami, jak Slazacy ze sa Slazakami, jak Mazowszanie ze sa Mazowszanami itd, rowniez Polacy z Litwy (nie mowie o panstwie) nazywali (czasami) siebie samych Litwinami - co nie mialo nic wspolnego z narodem litewskim, a regionem w ktorym mieszkali i kochali. Kresowiacy byli szczegolnie przywiazani do swojej ziemi jak i rowniez wyrozniajacymi sie patriotami (dla wszelkich watpliwosci - polskimi), nazywanie ludzi jak Pilsudski i Kosciuszko "spolonizowanymi", graniczy z obraza--Emax 03:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

let me disagree with you, try not think of them as thought they lived nowadays. Calling them polonized is a historical truth, despite the fact it might be a bit dissapointing for our "nationality". Honestly most of great people of union times had their roots somewhere in Belarus or Lithuania and they conidered themselves to be rather lithuanian then polish. The point is, that they all had one sovereign who lived in polish land and was conidered to be polish king. Mostly it was the main reason why they felt polish (meaning inhabitants of union lands) as well as lithuanian - believe me or not but such a feeling can be often spotted nowadays, too. For example people from eastern Poland (mostly the old ones) may consider themselves to be lithuanian as well as polish - it looks the same in lithuania.

Tadas Kosciuška was Lithuanian. Read what he sayd about poles in: T. Korzon. Tadeusz Kosciuszko. You will be very surprised. Joseph Pilsudski was polonised Lithuanian (Samogitian). Zivinbudas 11:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The best solution would be to refrain from referencing confusing nationalities (mixing past with present), just write undisputable fact that 'xxx was a citizen of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.' --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


But III Lithuanian Statute of 1588 very clearly divides citizenship of Grand Duchy of Lithuania from the citizenship of Kingdom of Poland. So we have to state that there wasn't common citizenship in Confederation of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Zivinbudas 15:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, partially the GDL citizenship is defined as equal to the boyar state, which however never came fully into life as it was in conflict with the Union of Lublin (especially the most important part which forbade the acquisition of lands in the GDL by "foreigners"). Also, it did not define who these foreigners were and the distinction between Polish and Lithuanian gentry was not defined either. For instance there was no separate category for a huge group of Lithuanian gentry (that eventually became 99% of it) that was of Ruthenian or Lithuanian ancestry, but were adopted by the Polish szlachta after the Union of Lublin and shared the same rights as they had in Poland. So, all in all, it was not defined as clearly as you state. Also, the III Statute was in use in former GDL until 1840, that is long after the GDL ceased to exist. Do you suggest that Imperial Russia allowed for a different citizenship of part of its servants? If we have to state anything, it should be noted that the matter is much more complex than you describe it. Halibutt 19:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
As to Pilsudski, he clearly defined himself as Lithuanian, which on the other hand had nothing to do with the 20th century Lithuanian state. And he repeated that in the Polish parliament several times (just imagine the faces of the Polish nationalists when he underlined that :) ). Halibutt

Our nations lived in Confederal state - Republic of Both Nations long time. But in XXth century the ways separated. People (including gentry) went to different sides. The best example (just classical) is Narutavičius/Narutowicz family - one brother was a Signatory of Act of Independence of Lithuania of February 16, 1918, other brother was President of the Republic of Poland. Joseph Pilsudski is considered in Lithuania as a strayed son. Zivinbudas 21:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Some interwar polonization directed at Ukrainians (from Polonophobia)

Anyone care to POV and incorporate the following section?

The aftermath of the Polish-Ukrainian War (1918-19), the Polish-Soviet War (1919-21) and the Treaty of Riga (1921), coupled with Soviet propaganda, led to growing tensions between Poles and Ukrainians in eastern Poland.

However, this tensions grew in the context of hundreds of years of oppression that Ukrainian peasantry suffered earlier under the Polish rule between the 1569 Union of Lublin, when Ukrainian territories formerly controlled by largely Ruthenized Grand Duchy of Lithuania were absorbed into Poland, until the Third Partition of Poland (1795). Colonization of Ukraine [1] by the Polish nobility, persecution[2] and even an attempted ban[3] of the Eastern Orthodox Church in the Polish controlled territories following the unsuccessful attempt to convert even the Ukrainian peasantry[4] [5] into the catholicism, pressures of Polonization of Ukrainian nobility and cultural elite soured the Ukrainian-Polish relationships long before the rising of Second Polish Republic.

Following Ukrainian attempt for self-determination in Galicia and Volhynia being crushed by the Polish forces [6] (1918-19) and an unsuccessful Polish invasion into central Ukraine (1920) aimed at installing a pro-Polish government of Symon Petlura in Kiev as part of a Polish dominated "Federation", the 1921 Treaty of Riga gave to Poland much of the largely Ukrainian populated territories in Galicia, Volhynia, Podolia and Polesia. The nationalist policies in the inter-war Poland were directed towards the Polonization and cultural assimilation of ethnic minorities contrary to the international obligation Poland had to grant the autonomy to ethnic Ukrainian territories[7]. That time actions of Poland can best be characterized by the quote of Roman Dmowski a chief ideologue of the uniform catholic single nation state: "Wherever we can multiply our forces and our civilizational efforts, absorbing other elements, no law can prohibit us from doing so, as such actions are our duty." Hence, it was no surprise that significant tensions between Poles and Ukrainians could only increase in such climate.

Reichenbach 20:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What is needed to do

This article isgood, but it focus only on Polish-Ukrainian-Belorussian-Lithuanian aspect of Polonization. There isno mention about many other groups, that polonizedthemselfs without any agresive policies. What with peoples that arrived to Polish cities for centuries? Only from my own town (Poznań) there are many persons that chose Polish nationality, and defend them like Jan Baptysta Motty and his familly (with French roots), Jan Konstanty Żupański (Greek roots). Then, groups of colonist that arrived in XVI-XVIII century, like Bambrzy. In western Poland polonization of catholic Germans was also reaction on... Germanization, or more correctly on Kulturkampf (and connected with it Germanization). And what about "post world war II period"? This wad not only timeof "Wisła Operation". Poland gave shelter for other nationalities, like Greeks that had to leave their own country after civil war. Today their children has their share in Polish culture (like Eleni).

I don't want to start fight on it, but article needs this improvement. Thats why I do not start with edition but discusion. Radomil talk 08:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Miedzymorze

Piotrus, pls explain how this view of Pilsudski is relevant. Ukraine in Medzymorze was supposed to be, at leas formally, an independent state within federation, the state of the Ukrainian nation. What "minorities" are you talking about. --Irpen 02:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What about Ukrainians from Western Galicia? They would live in Poland one way or another. And I'd expect some Belarusians would, too. And of course Jews. Perhaps we should add something about Piłsudski's policies post-1926, i.e how his 'state assimilation' differed from endeks 'national assimilation' ([8] and other sources). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree. But this may be related to what P said or did towards the Ukrainians and Belarusians and Jews in the eastward eaxpanded Poland. His unrelated dispute regarding M is irrelevant. --Irpen 03:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
How so? Please elaborate. I think that Piłsudski plan, certainly an alternative to endecja polonization, deserves a mention here, especially as it was a major (if not the only) alternative to it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Pilsudski plan for federation with the rest of UA was irrelevant to what he and Dmowski agreed should be part of main Poland. If he had ideas on how to treat minorities within Poland itslef that were different from Dmowski's, this should be brought up instead. Unless we have a reason to beleive that Polonization was in the picture for the rest of Ukraine in hypothetical Medzymorze, what Pisludski thought of Medzymorze is unrelated. What's related is what he thought of minorities within Poland. --Irpen 03:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Poland was part of Międzymorze, and his idea of ethnic tolerance were applicable to the entire federation, the given sources are quite relevant.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
At least reformulate it so that it is clear what we are talking about. I can't see why you won't replace it with the sourced quote of P's attitude towards the minorities within Poland. --Irpen 04:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Or find a citation of Pilsudski's view towards the minorities treatment and I will try to correct this myself and you will check whether it's OK. --Irpen 04:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Brzeziński quote is quite good. If you recall we have a better quote, please add it. Perhaps from this: "[Piłsudski] had a friendlier attitude toward all minorities." Few other quotes: [9] Despite Piłsudski's desire to avoid antagonizing ethnic minorities... (also note that it notes that ABANDONED Orthodox churches were destroyed). This seems like a fairly detailed description. This is another one. And there are more sources we can look at, but I am too tired now to check all Google Books hits now (plus I feel this current revision not that bad, feel free to look for more details if you disagree). Regarding the king vs. state issue, it is actually quite important. In PLC the king did not equal state, as frequend rokoszes and confederations proved. Few magnates were loyal to the kings throughout all generations. Does your ref. state explicitly that Orthodox magnates were loyal to the Polish kings? On the other hand my change to state was probably as bad. I'd advocate adding some qualifiers to that statement - as a rule of thumb magnates where loyal to themselves first, and to king and state only when it was in their own interests (of course, there were exceptions, but...)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

My ref says that Konstantin Ostrozhsky was very loyal to the Polish king, despite O's being a strong supporter of Orthodoxy and Ruthenian way of life. It then discusses his son, called in PL K-W O., who was the last of the Mogicanes, so to speak. The book is the life story of the latter.

I can't see google books for some reason now, perhaps a glitch. Will try later. I don't object to the fact that P was more tolerant and to the article reflecting that. I just want this illustrated through his quotes related to the issue at hand, that is treatment of minorities within Poland, rather than to the vaguely related issue on whether to create a mega-state or concentrate on the local affairs. Later, --Irpen 05:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Piłsudzki i Dmowski were enemies, so only from a very long distance (Crimea ?) one cań write "Pilsudzki and Dmowski did". Xx236 07:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Still they could have similar views on something. For example they were both Cathlocis, they were both patriots of Poland (each an his own way), they both saw stealing wrong and they both viewed the historically and ethnically Ukrainian Eastern Galicia as rightful part of Poland. They differed too in many ways. --Irpen 07:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Piłsudski was not a very ardent Catholic, and for few years of his life he even became a Protestant (see pl:Kościół Ewangelicko-Augsburski w RP). I came across no records testifying to his strong religious beliefs, but many quotes of his very critical of religion. Balcer 10:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

For example they were both Cathlocis Dmowski was an atheist, who believed Catholicism is inferior to Protestantism. To him Catholicism was just a bond to tie the nation together, nothing more. He would much prefer Poles to be Protestant or Lutheran however. --Molobo 11:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you guys have any source, I think this would be a valuable addition to JP article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Back to the issue. Please do not use the Pilsidski's desire to create a Polish-dominated mega-state, a bullwork to hold the expansionist Russia at bay, as proof of his attitude towards non-Poles within Poland intsef. We have enough evidence that he was indeed less oppressive to minorities tha Dmowski and we should use this instead. The failed idea of 191Xs has no effect on what actually took place in mid-20s and 30s. Pilsudski attempted to moderate the policies, which is a fact. The article says so all right. If we can say so better, please do by all means. In no way the unrelated dispute on whether Poland should be left to itself (Dmowski) or "lead" others away from Russia (Pilsudski), is related to what to do within PL itself as the latter deals with internal "Polish" issues and not its "federation" with others. --Irpen 21:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why we should remove the small (one sentence) and well referenced (two refers) to Międzymorze, especially as both of the references mention his view on ethnic policies. I think the Międzymorze peferctly illustrates Piłsudski's stance on the polonization issue. Brzezinski put's it especially well in his quote, which is one of the references used for this part.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Piotus, again, Miedzymorze has nothing to do with Polish ethnic policies within Poland. It illustrates nothing on Pilsudski's stand on Polonization issues within Poland. Should the Polonization of Miedzymorze have been in the picture, this would have been relevant. What's relevant here is his stand on Polonization within Poland. I thought you would find the ref for that, but since you insist on this ref, fine. I included it in a reworked form. Also, I would like to see more respected refs than Brzezinski who is a "political scientist, geostrategist, and statesman" rather than a historian. --Irpen 07:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel we will have to agree to disagree on Międzymorze's relevance. Perhaps other editors would comment and tell us who's view has the majority support? I will see if I can find anything about Piłsudski and polonization. Btw, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former United States National Security Advisor, seems pretty respected to me, much more then, let's say, the virtually unknown, Mikhail Meltyukhov, who has been virtually unnoticed by the Western scholarly community.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Polonization and Catholicism

Right now the lead of the article seems to imply that one of the main aspects of Polonization was ... conversion of non-Catholics to Catholicism. This certainly needs to be explained better (otherwise one may conclude that for example the Aztecs of Mexico got Polonized by the Spanish). Just how exactly becoming a Catholic automatically made one into a Pole? Now don't misundersntand me, I am perfectly aware that in Ukraine there was a clear relationship between being Polish and Catholic, but an English reader unfamiliar with the region might not understand this correctly, from the current version of the article anyway. Balcer 22:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it an issue since the context is clear as this has nothing to do with Americas. If you see that this really is a problem, you may try rephrasing. --Irpen 07:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

pressures of what?

Also, pls note that "cultural pressure of Polish culture" is redundant and a tautology. It was of Poland of course and, despite the PLC, there was such thing as Poland, especially for Ruthenians, whose lands were transferred to a Polish crown. Ruthenians perceived those as Poles and the metropolia was perceived as Poland, not the "Commonwealth". This is exactly the reason why we have a partitions of Poland article rather than more correct but less reflecting of the perceptions the "Partitions of the PLC"--Irpen 07:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This likely should be rephrased, but it is important to note that unlike in the later era of nationalism, in the times of PLC any '-zation' occured more because of the attractivness of one's culture (which sometimes meant of course that if you didn't assimilate your career prospects were poorer, as other considered you a "barbarian") then because of any formal laws or state policies.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You are partly right. I added an extended quote from a PD text to the refs by Kostomarov. (Please no accusations of him in Russian Imperialism, anyone familiar with Russian historiography would just lauph such accusation off for a person exiled for views that differed from the imperial mainstread) He openly admits that Ruthenian upper class ended up finding the Polish ways of life attractive, which again proves his being objective. However, your replacement weaselizes the presentation. Of course it was of Poland: religion, culture, etc. These were not always imposed by brutal force but with bans on the OC, preferential taxation, etc. it by no means resembles the attractiveness of the enlightment. Read refs. More shortly. --Irpen 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Class

"Ruthenian nobility" was used in the same sentence twice and I replaced it with the "higher class" in the second instance. Besides, it is more inclusice as also reflecting the cultural and clerical elite, not all of which were nobles.--Irpen 07:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'd suggest adding the clerical part instead of going back to the class, as social class is a later invention. Or perhaps now that I see what you meant we can have both: higher class (nobility and clergy).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Social classes (like proletariat) is a later invention. Upper/lower class division is however old and such terminology was used (read the ref). Upper class included the entire elite, mostly nobility, but others too. --Irpen 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Poland's expansion

The context in which Poland gained the territories is important. In no way this can be in good faith read as Red Army stopping the Polish occupation as Piotus' edit summary may imply. --Irpen 07:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless how you phrased it - unintentially, I assume - made me and likely others fall under the mistaken impression that it was so. Red Army has as much interest in defending Ukraine's independance and Ukrainian culture as Dmowski&Grabski Co.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. The artilce speaks about the Red Army being able to partially deter the Polish expansion. Militarily, this is what happened. It does not mean that it was liberating the Ukrainians from the Polish rule. Liberate, in this context, is not accepted outside of the soviet historiography, unlike in "Liberation from nazism" in the WW2. I did not use it and did not imply that. --Irpen 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I plan on adding more sources. I can actually reference much more than currently if anyone's going to challenge that but I need some time, please be a little patient. --Irpen 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

persistence with Diatrics:Polonization of English?

On one more issue, the introduction of diatrics into English texts to the names of Polish places and people done by the Polonophile authors (like Davies) and some others but not the majority as not used in EB, for instance. I would like a section on that and invite my colleagues to give it a try. If no one is willing, I will give it a try myself. --Irpen 07:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Go right ahead.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Will try. --Irpen 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Contrary to what Irpen wrote above, I doubt there could be a worst example than Davies. In fact the guy barely ever uses diacritics and in his recent books (Rising 44 anyone) he even coined some nick-names for historical personalities in order to make them more familiar to an English or American ear. In that book he also translated street names, code names, Christian names and so on - so as to make them sound as English as it gets. So no, Davies was not the guy. On the other hand I wonder what author did Irpen mean..? :) //Halibutt 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked at Davies' God's playground before saying what's above. You are also right, that author too. But I think it matters less than diatrics making it to peer-reviewed publications than to Wikipedia. I will expand the article and will be adding sources. Please give me a day or two to gradually work things in. --Irpen 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I would not make too big a deal out of this. English language authors generally make a mess of naming East European localities. This is not due to efforts at Polonization, but simply incompetence or carelessness. Balcer 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Big deal or not, this is a curious aspect. Also, incompetence here is hard top define. Anglicising the Polish names by ridding them of diatrics, isn't "wrong" (it isn't right either). It is just a way most natural for the Enlgish lang authors and readers who don't need to be confused with unfamiliar letters. Similarly, the cyrillic names are transliterated to English alphabet rather than to Lacinka or Drahomanivka. OTOH, a strong perseption of the bilingual Polish-English authors that diatrics must be imposed on the English readership is a curious aspect and a noteworthy one. The WP:NC discussion showed that too

I am saddened by Balcer's revert. Ghirla's rever might have been overly critical to Molobo but on the merit, the change's lack of merit are explained above. Still reverted... Well, I guess I will have to spend a day on this article although I planned on writing for other stuff. --Irpen 19:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I simply do not like to see insults in edit comments. They contribute nothing to the discussion, and are really a way to intimidate other users. Quite simply, they are despicable. My revert was my attempt to show Ghirlandajo that such behavior of his is not without consequences. Edits with insulting comments can expect to be reverted, at least by me. Balcer 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I plan to add much to this article today. May I ask you to self-revert for now? Ghirla isn't here for the rest of the day (It's nighttime in RU). --Irpen 22:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think Piotrus' version is more sensible. For example, "influnce' seems to me better than "pressure". Why? Because pressure is an inherenetly negative word, hence POV. Since you plan to make major changes to the article today, perform the revert you think necessary yourself.
Let me ask also: why must Polonization be a negative phenomenon in all aspects, as the article tends to imply right now? At least for those Ukrainians and Lithuanians who switched to Polish culture of their own free will, it need not have been entirely negative.
After all, arguably the most successful and powerful nation on earth right now is the United States, of which almost the whole population has lost its ethnic roots and became Americanized. So, switching cultures cannot be all bad, if it is done freely.
For this article to achieve NPOV, positive aspects of Polonization (like better contact with Western culture, for example), should also be discussed. Balcer 22:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You rise a very interesting point. Especially the earlier polonization, a type of cultural assimilation, was certainly not entirely negative - after all, it was to some extent voluntarily (question is, to what extent?) and people don't voluntarily adopt something they view as negative. However as is usual with any cultural assimilation, this is a touchy issue, especially as it implies some superiority/inferiotity relations between various cultures. Hopefully we will find some academic references describing this issue.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
See a couple of sections above. --Irpen 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I was about to point out that Ghirla's version revert is justified not only because of his offensive summaries, but also because it reintroduced more POVed fragments, especially the one describing the PSW as 'the Soviet Russia dettering Polish expantion'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to translate for the ref a big chunk of Kostomarov (a PD anyway). He talks also about "positive" aspects, as Piotrus and Balcer call them. Anyway, I will expoand the article today or tomorrow and the current version, inlcuding the Molobo's irrelvant addition is out of order. I am not attacking Molobo. The paragraph he added doesn't belong here. Also, I pointed out to several points above, again to no avail. I will only start posting to the article when I am ready with more info. Too bad, it's again the same sides of the conflict with the same sets of users on each side. --Irpen 23:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Colonization

Also, "vast lands of UA" is misleading since it creates an impression of empty and unpopulated spaces being civilized by the settlement. The "comonization" here means enserfement of the peasentry that was there in the first place.

Also, the unintended consequence of a highly progressive Magdeburg law was that it became a Polonization instrument as these rights were given exclusively to towns settled by the Catholics (Germans and Jews too) who were freed from taxes the people in the Ruthenian settlements had to pay. I will work this into an article gradually. Please no hostile reverts. --Irpen 17:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Magdeburg law guarantee selfgoverment of towns. German minority of colonist (that usualy were group that organised town on new rules, as exemple lets take Poznań, one of the oldest and most important Polish town. In 1253 was located on Magdeburg law and it's zasadźca (person that "organised" located town, and later became mayor) was Tomasz of Gubin/Guben) and Polish majority lived as one community. That was very important factor of assimilation. Jews in Greater Poland since 1264 had guarantee their own selfgoverment, moreover this same document (Statut Kaliski of duke Boleslaus the Pius) excluded them from town jurisdiction keeping them under monarch's protection. This status of Jews was unchanged till end of 18th century. Those privilages let jewish minority to kept own juridicy, ducation, language and so on, which helped them to avoid integration with rest of society.

In fact I'd tried to describe polonization in autochtonic, Polish lands (or mayby more politicaly correct - "with Polish majority") like Greater Poland, Lesser Poland or Masovia. You should remember that polonization as process was't only referenced to lands between San/Bug and Dniepr Radomil talk 17:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Radomil, thanks! Thanks, I totally agree with you. What I was talking about is the usage of M.L. law in the Ruthenian lands as I added to the article. There is not cotradiction with what you are saying. Regards, --Irpen 18:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources

The current article uses a lot of sources from what i think is Nikolay Kostomarov(at least Babelfish gave that name when translating the cyrilic signs :/) Here is what it says about him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Kostomarov As a historian, Kostomarov's writings reflected the romantic trends of his time. He was an advocate of the use of ethnography and folksong by historians, and claimed to be able to discern the "spirit" of the people, including "national spirit", by this method. On the basis of their folksongs and history, he claimed that the peoples of what he called Northern or Great Rus' on one hand and Southern or Little Rus' on the other (today's Russians and Ukrainians, respectively) differed in character and formed two separate "nationalities". In his famous essay "Two Russian Nationalities" ("Две русские народности"), a landmark in the history of Ukrainian national thought, he propagated what some consider to be the stereotypes of Russians inclined towards autocracy, collectivism, and state-building, and Ukrainians inclined towards liberty, poetry, and individualism. In his various historical writings, Kostomarov was always very positive about Kievan Rus', about what he considered to be its veche system of popular assemblies, and the later Zaporozhian Cossack brotherhood, which he believed in part was an heir to this system. By contrast, he was always very critical of the old Muscovite autocracy and its leaders. In fact, he gained some popular notoriety in his day by doubting the story of Ivan Susanin, a legendary martyr hero viewed as a savior of Muscovy. He was a major personality in the Ukrainian national awakening, a friend of the Ukrainian poet Taras Shevchenko, a defender of the Ukrainian language in literature and in the schools, and a proponent of a democratic form of Pan-Slavism, a popular movement in a certain part of the intelligentsia of his time. In the 1840s he founded a secret political organization called the Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius in Kiev (for which he suffered arrest, imprisonment, and exile), and through the 1860s to the 1880s, he continued to promote the ideas of federalism and populism in Ukrainian and Russian historical thought.

While this source is interesting, it is from XIX century, and as seen quite an active politician, with ominous underlines, mainly Pan-Slavism, which as we know was extremely hateful towards Polish people. As such it can hardly be seen as objective and neutral source. I suggest a POV check for neutrality as a result. --Molobo 12:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Kostomarov was anything but an active politician. He was a Historian and was exiled for his views that contradicted the Imprerial Russian prevailing line of thought. He also hand anything but hostility towards the Polish people. It is useful Molobo to at least finish the reading. Article says: He was critical of Catholic and Polish influences on Ukraine throughout the centuries, but, nevertheless, was better informed and more open to Catholic culture than many of his Russian contemporaries, especially the conservative Moscow Slavophiles, and later, the members of the Slavic Benevolent Societies. As for being critical, every non-Polish historian is "critical" to the Polish rule of Ukraine as shown in the refs to EB and CE, for instance. --Irpen 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that he had certain politically motivated opinions. Obviously we can't used a person with agenda be used as objective source of information. I suggest we move these quotes to article on the author, or a special article that will cover most of his views. --Molobo 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What a new idea! No, Molobo! He is used as the source of facts and is relevant. --Irpen 18:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

However he can't be viewed as neutral. His views are interesting but should be in article that discusses him. Certainly he can't be viewed as neutral observer. --Molobo 19:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

History is a science of a sort and it does make some progress. So, it is better to cite the work of modern historians if it is available on a given subject. Citing 19th century historians really ought to be avoided, as that century came with its own set of prejudices no longer valid today. Balcer 18:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, Molobo, I can easily cite plenty of works of Ukrainian historians on the subject. Both the earlier ones from the first half of the 20th century (non-Soviet) like Polonska-Vasylenko and Hrushevsky or the modern writers of the history of UA, such as Subtelny, Hrytsak and others. I know Molobo considers himself a good friend of Ukraine and I will sure add this info. Something makes me certain that Molobo won't like those guys either. You see, historians of the countries who got Polonized shed light on some facts that are not paid much attention perhaps by Polish historians that Molobo seem to like. No offence to any of those. The good thing about international project is that it broadens our world-view. Besides, Subtelny works from Canada, Wilson is British (and not even an ethnic Ukrainian), etc. Finally, Britannica and Columbia, are hard to accuse of any anti-Polish bias and the citations are there too. Anyway, I will be adding more refs and info soon. Also, Kostomarov openly admits the attraction of the Polish ways of life for Ruthenian elite (see quotes). Hardly anyone biased against Poland would do that. --Irpen 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Something makes me certain that Molobo won't like those guys either
Irpen again you make your wrong attitude present in discussion. Wiki isn't about liking or not liking anybody and I actually view quite positively the author. However if we are to use sources we should present fair and objective ones. The author was an ideologist and activist(and also involved with the , I certainly would like an author more objective and neutral. --Molobo 20:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, were are talking about the mere facts here. Facts need to be referenced. They are. I will add more. I chose Kostomarov not because he is particularly critical of Poland (he isn't actually) but because I remember his works better and new exactly which chapters to look at. That said, I will add more info referenced to him and other authors. If I wanted to use authors with the particularly negative view of Poland, I would have used different ones but I won't because I am not using the article to grind any axe. I simply want the missing aspect of history presented at Wikipedia. I am glad that this is the subject I am familiar with, sources are available online (anyone can check) and, while the article is already big, I plan on adding much more to it. In no way this is a trheat. I am just filling gaps in Wikipedia, which is our primary job here. Ukrainization, another remotely related topic, is equally fascinating and I wrote most of it, equally well referenced, and plan to expand it. You may ask me, why I am not writing on the Russification. The answer is that I also will. Besides, I wrote for Rumanization too. So, no nit-picking from my end. --Irpen 20:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC) I seriously believe modern objective sources are of more value, especially if we are dealing with a person involved with ideas known for hostility for Poland. --Molobo 21:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Also, Balcer, thanks for your edit summary complements about Ukrainization article I wrote. However, I don't see it as much relevant as Russification here. Do you really see it that way? --Irpen 20:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. I think a link to Ukrainization is quite useful here. Note that the sentence says "often compared to" and does not necessarily imply equivalence or similarity. Personally, I think there was a lot of similarity, as both Poland and Ukraine (SSR) felt they were treated badly by history and that the range of their main language was smaller than it would have been if they had developed normally and existed as sovereign states. In that sense it seems to me Polonization in the 20th century was much more similar to Ukrainization, then to Russification or Germanization, as both of the latter were carried out by powerful states certainly not shortchanged by history. Besides, Ukrainization mentions Polonization in its lead, so it is quite reasonable to mention it here. Balcer 07:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Balancing? OK, I think this is acceptable in this case. Besides, it may bring more editors to Ukrainization that also needs work. Regards, --Irpen 15:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed categories irrelevant to main article

Neither History of Russia or of the East Slavic tribes is connected to polonisation so I removed those categories. --Molobo 15:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, the times when Polonization started, there were not yet separate Ukrainian, Russian and Belarusian nations. Hence East-Slavic is appropriate. If you doubt History of RU relevance, check your friends' using and adding strange names for such Russian cities like Smolensk and Bryansk. They did it for a reason. --Irpen 16:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, all of us want to convert Russians of Smolensk into faithful Catholic, pierogi-loving, heavy-smoking Poles. //Halibutt 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

To change the concept of westernization?

I greatly disagree with this:

"In the times of the Commonwealth, the Polish language drew to itself the upper classes of the Ruthenian (Belarusian and Ukrainian) or Lithuanian communities, enabling them to join the world of European artistocracy and participate fully in Western culture, but at the same time leading to those classes' lesser or greater alienation from their ethnic roots."

My arguments however are very uncomplicated. Did Polish culture enable join the world of European artistocracy and participate fully in Western culture? Particularly that fully gets out of any logic, because Poland was never a land with purely Western European culture. Comparing parallel situations in Europe or elsewhere, we can see that this then joining of nations to larger units, whether of Ireland with Great Britain or Scotland with England within the Great Britain, or Finland with Sweden, might have a bit different reasons, than just participating in “fully Western culture”. Why Polish then, but not German or French? Well, Belaruses hadn't direct contacts with Germans, but Lithuanians had in any case. I think we should speak about advantages of Polish culture (especially for the purpose of joining), including bigger closeness to Western European culture as an advantage, but not as a single argument.

Yet i doubt about using the concept of Western culture in our case. Shouldn't we change it to Western European culture? Western culture seems to me too wide concept in this case, suggesting Eastern Europe to be a part of “Eastern culture”.

I'd intend to change it, but i should ask: Does anybody agree with such position in general? And what your suggestions of possible changes? Thanks. Linas Lituanus 12:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

P. S. Also a good copyediting is welcomed for my revisions there. Linas Lituanus

I have no fundamental objections to your arguments. When I wrote this, I simply attempted to point out that it was quite natural for a Catholic nobleman to have contacts and travel all over Europe ( or at least Catholic Europe) of that time, but for an Orthodox nobleman it would have been somewhat more difficult and unusual, though of course I will not claim that it never happened. Anyway, the lead of the article can certainly stand some improvement. Especially the emphasis on conversion to Catholicism needs to be reduced since, as you correctly pointed out, some people being Polonised were already Catholics long before. Balcer 12:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The argumentation must be more general then, mustn't it? That's because the case with Lithuanians differed from the case with orthodoxes both in general and geographically: Lithuanians were neighbors of Prussia and always had a choice between two cultures, not necessary pointing to the Polish. And, perhaps, less Western character of Poland (at least till the 17th century) was considered as an advantage by Lithuanians against Germans? (yes :)) I see few reasons of polonization however:

  1. Initially, Lithuanian culture was surrounded by Christian cultures and it needed some allies for self-defense. However there were no secure ally for Lithuanians. Cosmopolitanism became a policy of Lithuania as a mean of defense. But cosmopolitanism didn't appear a stable policy for centuries. Even now, we discuss national character of the GDL, with the idea that one of the nations could be defined as a proprietor of the GDL. That was real process in the late GDL (and in Ukraine), when earlier cosmopolitanism had been changing to national ideas. Lithuanians kept their initial policy longer than any of nations, refusing from it just in the end of the 19th century. Thus, nationalism taking the vacuum of the earlier cosmopolitanism with the subsequent leadership of Polish idea was the first reason of polonization. (in the GDL and Ukraine however).
  2. The next reason for polonization was the great but almost peaceful contest between Catholic and Orthodox churches. Big number of Slavic people, could consider themselves either Poles or Ruthenians, depending on their faith but not on their language. Features of Slavic languages changed gradually from the “true” Polish to the “true” Ruthenian in the space of the PLC. Lithuanian as a not Slavic drops out of the order in this case. People of the PLC often considered themselves according to their faith and this attention eventually contributed to spread of Polish language and specifically Polish customs. When the peaceful contest between the two churches ended in the early 19 th century with the end of the PLC, this not territorial polonization had been gradually changed to more territorial approach, typical to modern nationalism.
  3. the 16th to early 18th centuries are marked with spread of Polish culture in the whole Eastern Europe as more progressive and more dynamic than others. Western European influence might help making Polish culture more progressive or more dynamic, but that wasn't direct spread of western European culture and Western values there. Nor Polish culture was merged into Western European community. No one could use Polish language, for example, to communicate in Western European countries. On the other hand, Russian despotic nationalism stopped the spread of Polish culture using the argument of “breaking the window to Europe”, bypassing Polish mediators (and making Russia a strange cultural hybrid, remaining such till now). These processes weren't the polonization itself, but they contributed much.

But i'm afraid, that idea of transferring the Western European culture, as you gave it here, is slightly simplified vision of the then processes. We should agree that knowledge of Polish could hardly help a Ruthenian noble in, say, Italy. So, polonization may show values of Polish culture itself not of being a mediator culture only. (It's not an easy thing to be a mediator too, by the way, not everybody /every-nation/ can it).

Isn't too much on the one sentence, is it? :) Linas Lituanus 14:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to general remarks, what indeed help in joining the western culture were Christianity and the Union of Horodło. Prior to 1413 nobody would consider a Ruthenian boyar or even a member of the Lithuanian nobility equal to, say, French duke. Just like, sorry for the comparison, nobody in 18th century would consider a Zulu chief equal to the king of Prussia. //Halibutt 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Halibutt, comparing the relationship of early 15th century Rus'ia with early 15th century France to the relationship between 19th century (i presume you meant 19th century, as the Zulu kingdom didn't exist in the 18th century) Germans and Zulus is absolutely preposterous. There were no significant technological differences between the two former places, unlike the latter. Moreover, a boyar would not be equivalent to a French Duke because a French Duke was the equivalent of a Rus'ian Prince. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Calgacus, I believe we should leave Hali's remark as an apposite monument to his own ignorance. No need to enlighten him concerning Russian history, he wouldn't believe whatever you say and would still compare Russians to Hottentots to whom Zolkiewski, Pilsudski, etc tried to bring a ray of Papist/Latin civilization. --Ghirla -трёп- 05:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Calgacus, I know that, it was merely an example. And I did not mean Russians, I meant Lithuanian boyars of whatever cultural background. The west would not consider them equal to anyone as long as they were pagan (hint: christianisation). And the west would not consider them equal as long as they stayed outside of the chivalric code (hint:Horodło). Just like in 18th century (or 19th century) nobody in the west would consider an African chief of some tribe in the middle of nowhere equal to the "civilized" people. And, contrary to what Ghirlandajo suggests above, it had little to do with religion as Orthodox people were not considered pagans, at least not in 15th century. //Halibutt 07:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Somehow Kęstutis even taken prisoner was treated like Knight. Also all noble Lithuanians (even pagans) taken prisoners by Teutonic and Livonian orders were treated like equals. Halibutt, could you prove your point by examples? Or you do think that Lithuanian Dukes were only equal to African tribals?
And again what do you men by west? Holy Emperor isn't west enough? So why he would answer to letters of some tribal Mindaugas or Gediminas?--Lokyz 08:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Why did he respond? Probably for the same reason he responded to envoys sent by a heathen called Mieszko, yet did not consider him equal to a king. As to Pagan "prisoners of war", just read Wigand of Marburg or any other Reimchronik of the time and you'll have plenty of descriptions of slaughtering Lithuanian nobles in and after battles, often by simple soldiers of the Order rather than by knights. AFAIR it was also Wigand to describe that it was not considered honourable to fight a Lithuanian horseman in a duel during the battle. It's all there. BTW, I do not propose you to read Długosz as he was generally unsympathetic to Lithuanians, but there were lots of such stories in his chronicle as well.
Oh, besides, what I did not know was that Mindaugas was literate. //Halibutt 08:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone need to be literate to send a letter form his name. Btw Lithuanians also did slaughter German nobles, Ruthens and Poles also:) Happened these times... Although this does not explain an attidude towards Kęstutis (who has sworn by pagan ritual), Vytautas and other Lithuanian nobles in 14-th century. --Lokyz 09:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
No idea what was the case of Kęstutis, perhaps he was simply too valuable. At the same time Vytautas was treated well only because he was a potential ally - and a Christian. From the chronicles it seems that this was rather an exception than a rule and common nobles could not expect similar treatment. Note that even in 1410 the fact that Ulrich von Jungingen was killed in battle rather than taken prisoner was seen as something strange, while during the previous wars with Lithuania nobody had a problem with slaughtering Lithuanian nobles after the battle - contrary to Polish or German knights. //Halibutt 09:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems that you theory is built on somewhat shaky ground, especially when we know that christinisation of Poland didn't help it form aggression of Teutonic order, did it?--Lokyz 11:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It's neither a theory nor is it based on shaky ground. It's more or less what the chronicles say. Check for yourself.
Also, I did not write a single word about states, as states barely ever get polonized or lithuanized or anything. It's the people. And I was specifically referring to the status of nobles of Lithuania before and after the union of Horodło. The process of course did not happen instantly, but the union, along with its terms, did help the Lithuanian nobles (be them boyars or distant relatives of Gediminas) to become treated normally by the west, and not as heathens. Whether the TO stopped it's agression against Poland, Prussians or Lithuania is a completely different matter, as the states had little to do with how certain knight from England or France (and there were lots of them around back then) saw Lithuanian horsemen. //Halibutt 13:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What strikes me as amazing in the above "dialogue", more than anything else, is Halibutt's gracious (speaking of the Lithuanian language and culture), ...What I said is that it was a culture and language used by peasants, in the middle of nowhere. Delightful! Followed up with the even more telling (when speaking of Vilnius),...a city that became Lithuanian only in 1945 ("I know, I know, it was Lithuanian before as well"). Please don't accuse anyone later of putting words in your mouth. Really very nice of you! Very nice indeed! Keep up the good work. Dr. Dan 00:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


My remark to what User:Halibutt said above. I think we shouldn't take resentfully the words about Zulus because the author said sorry, evidently meaning it just an example. I see a mistake of his statement in some approach. Halibutt says: nobody, everybody considered etc. Who everybody? Does it mean, that Western Europeans thought that Eastern European nations were less noble than they? Or some objective observer is meant here, who decided which cultural groups were higher or which lower? In the first case, if it's true, we should suspect a phenomenon, that's very common among nations, when people of a nation think their culture is higher then others or the highest in the World. And the Western Europeans perhaps thought so (You think, Halibutt, just about “Ruthenian boyars or even members of the Lithuanian nobility”? I'm afraid that...). What concerns Eastern Europeans themselves, we can speak about some inferiority complex, but just pointing it to later times than the 15th century. While in the 15th century Eastern Europeans might think, that their life-style and values weren't worse than ones of the Western Europeans. - Now, if an objective observer is meant, then who is the observer? Who has the right to decide the question above? The God? Is it a holy prophecy, that the Western European nations were higher than the Eastern ones? I, myself, wouldn't know what to answer, if anybody argued, that it was the holy prophecy of the Western precedence, so that nobody has a right to see it in more objective light. - So we should judge more realistic all this. But, as I know, people in Western European countries have learned to look at this problem more relatively, than they looked at the times of colonialism. So, I see in Halibutt an Eastern European, a modern Eastern European, that's more conservative and more fundamentalist, than a counterpart in the Western Europe. And I enjoy seeing an Eastern European in him yet. We are still different and the Creative Nature haven't yet finished its creative job. - Isn't the controversy good enough to think about changing of the concept, like it's suggested by me? Linas Lituanus 10:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo says, that Poles promoted Papist culture. Perhaps their own culture along with the catholic religion. And yet. Russian elite spoke French in the beginning of the 19th century. But the French are catholics too. So, we can see great differentiating between catholics and catholics. Or when catholic Austria participated in the partitions of Poland? But i don't object, that one of crucial moments of polonization, was the struggle between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Catholicism. Just Poles never were alike crusaders. Linas Lituanus 10:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

And again I'd like to thank Linas for his comment. If only all of us could write with such clarity...
  1. Indeed, it was but an example. If anyone is offended by the comparison or finds it wrong, we could chose any other out of the club culture or people. From the perspective of the Christian west, pagan Lithuania was certainly out of our club. Not the same league on all possible levels, from personal contacts to inter-state agreements. Just like Poland was out of that "prestigious" club of Christian states some centuries before. I guess the Germans saw that barbaric Mestko (Mieszko, who was most probably a wealthy slave trader) in a similar way to how they saw Gediminas. Just imagine yourself in modern times seated next to a filthy, stinky mafioso with golden teeth and tattooed eyelids: would you consider him to be a part of your club and culture? I doubt it. Likewise, you wouldn't find much sympathy for the heathens in any mediaeval chronicle either and that seems pretty understandable - at least to me. Longinus even expressed his amazement by the fact that those pagan Lithuanians were able to subdue Orthodox Ruthenia. While for him the Orthodox were certainly not his club, it was at least the same league. Pagan Lithuanians were not.
  2. Indeed, this phenomenon was quite common in European history. And it was not a phenomenon on a national level (we the Germans vs. them the Bohemians), but rather on a religious and cultural levels. Pacts signed with a heathen were not binding. Pagans were but barbarians, you could use them, trade with them or even pact with them, but they were seen as inferior. I guess that's how Romans saw the Germanic tribes, that's how the Spaniards treated the rulers of Mexican cities, how the Christians treated the pagans (be them Slavic, Germanic, Hungarian or Baltic) and so on. Even after the baptism of Jagiełło, the Lithuanians were still new to the club. There were "us", the Christians with all our sacred duties, our heraldry, our god-given missions and our chivalric traditions, and there were "them", the newcomers, the half-a-heathens. That's certainly how the Teutons saw the Lithuanians after the conversion and I guess that must've been the case of many Polish nobles as well. After all that was the true reason behind the union of Horodło: to show everyone that the Lithuanian nobles are not only adopted by "our" Christian family, but also that they subscribed to our culture, with all those fancy coats of arms, signs, privileges and so on. To show everyone that they are now playing in our league.
  3. Of course I don't mean that any of the cultures/tribes/nations/groups I mention above was indeed inferior or superior. You got me wrong, I do not state that Lithuanians were indeed some darn barbarians. They were seen as such, which is a completely different matter and has little to do with actual "value" of any culture (how could one measure that anyway). I merely point to the meaning of Christianisation and "westernization" in mediaeval Europe. BTW, at the time Lithuania adopted Christianity from Poland, Kiev was several times bigger than Kraków and, frankly speaking, the latter was merely a grown-up village when compared to the city at the Dneper. During the Kiev Expedition of Boleslaus (1080!), one of the French knights noted that the city resembled Paris and Rome combined - that could not be said of Cracow at the time, not to mention my beloved Warsaw :) But the same applies to the times of the crusades: Cairo, Alexandria or Jerusalem were true centres of culture and science when compared to any European city of the time. If we treated the barbarity as a measurable and objective feature, it were the Christian knights who were true barbarians and not the Muslim defenders. Yet, the west (meaning the "Christian Europe") saw all heathens as inferior and that's a plain fact. Same situation applies also to the times of the Spanish conquest of Tenochtitlan. It was several times bigger than any contemporary European city (except perhaps for Constantinople), yet the cultural and clean tlatoani were not equal partners to the filthy, uneducated conquistadors with crosses in their hands.
In short, that's how I understand the concept of westernization. Oh, and when it comes to Poles taking part in the Crusades, I guess you know the story of Leszek the White who refused to take part in one of the crusades arguing that reaching the Holy Land is absolutely impossible since... they do not make beer there :) I guess the world would be much more happy if some of us followed the example of that great ruler and had a beer or two instead of waging pointless wars. //Halibutt 11:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

...Yes, there was the phenomenon of "Westerner's" thinking they were better than those who came from the East. To the intelligent and the perceptive, this is well known. Nothing new said here. Even amongst the Jewish people (a very cohesive group), there was a perception amongst German Jews, that they were better than Polish Jews in the past. What troubles me is when this chauvinistic mentality creeps up in the 21st century on the talk pages and in the articles of WK, like in the pecking order of chickens and other birds. Because it does. Dr. Dan 21:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately I don't see much of such idiocies in the wiki nowadays, fortunately the times of Zivinbudas and Nico are over. As to the Jews, same happened here in Poland as there was lots of animosity between the "civilized" Jews of Poland and the newly-arrived Litvaks, who spoke only Yiddish or Russian and were usually much poorer and less educated. It reminds me of Kipling's The Man Who Would Be King, with Dravot's trip up the river, where each and every village was upset by the villagers living upstream who piss in the water every time those down the river do their laundry... //Halibutt 22:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the Kipling work is magnificent (and the film isn't bad either). During my stay in Wroclaw, I met many displaced Poles from the East, who told me how as they traveled westward on trains after WWII, they were told by their fellow countrymen (like in Krakow and Katowice), keep going and "don't even dream of getting off the train and eating our bread". I heard it many times and hope it's one of those exaggerated old wives tales, heard and repeated over and over again. Now back to the subject at hand. Polonization as a coercive entity most definitely existed, just like Germanization or Russification, and we should not downplay this aspect of it, or whitewash it either. So if the idea is that Poland was Polonizing it's weaker non-Polish minorities in order to bring them a more Western and thereby better living standard, it sounds like Bismarck or Alexander III telling the same nonsense to the Poles. Dr. Dan 00:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
That's not what I said. Certainly, the process did take place at various stages in time. Interestingly, even as lately as 1980s people in the east (but also in Hungary) did learn Polish, particularly because of the fact that the Polish radio played lots of western music, practically unavailable in other countries of the Bloc. I've met lots of people in western Ukraine who told me they learnt Polish specifically to listen to Polish radio. There was also a notion to learn Polish because, despite all the censorship and all, the availability of foreign books was relatively good in Poland. We had the Literatura na świecie monthly, which for many of the EE intellectuals was the only source of foreign literature and so on.
So, the process did exist indeed. However, one should not confuse Polonization with "westernization" or "Christianization" in general. Also, one should not confuse voluntary adoption of Polish language or culture with forced Polonization (as was the case of thousands of Ukrainians, Lemkos and Boikos resettled after 1945 to all parts of Poland, not more than 5% in each commune). //Halibutt 07:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I think, the three points by Halibutt show more general position now, than mere pointing polonization as some kind of westernization of the Eastern Europe. Lithuania isn't a direct subject of the article, but perhaps some reservations, concerning Lithuania, will be interesting here too.
So Lithuanian and Ruthenian elite in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania had to know this relativism of cultural self-estimating as well as we do now. Moments of this knowledge can be noticed in the Letters of Gediminas. But not mere this. The most evident prove of it is the known cultural and political situation around the Byzantine Empire. It's known fact, how contemptuously Byzantine elite looked at other nations, including Western Europeans. This fact could not remain unknown for the elite of Lithuania just before christianization of the end of the 14th century, especially when the Byzantine Empire was the only ally for then Lithuania. But, from the other side, Western Europeans looked at pagan nations with the same contempt and the Byzantine Empire was declining speedily at the time. It's almost impossible to think about anything but cultural relativism in such a situation. Not mere Lithuanians did. It wasn't impossible for Polish nobles too, to elect the King from Lithuania preferring him to Western European candidates. (Although historians depicted this choice as a great donation by Poland later, we shouldn't be deluded by this. Politicians don't make donations). - Yet one conclusion from that situation is almost natural. Lithuania was loosing the only ally with the decline of Byzantine Empire. The changing of geopolitical situation prompted Lithuanians to change their policy too. We even can imagine, although not knowing exactly, that Lithuanian-Ruthenian elite hadn't an evident opinion how to do this. And the inner wars of the 9th decade of the 14th century had been raised as a consequence. Then, Poland showed its initiative, proposing a solution, that became a crucial point in the future development. - But there no any cultural considerations in this. And this would be not the only event in the history, when decision to join or to reject a club of states was taken considering other arguments rather than the strategic cultural.
These notes concerning Lithuania may be useful here, because the later polonization took place just in the same area of the Grand Duchy, that was opened to Poles by the geopolitical changes then. If we use the term club for describing that situation, perhaps it is worth to notice, that Poland joined the club of Lithuanians and Ruthenians then (Mazovians, that were autonomous part of Poland kingdom, had participated it yet before - Masovia article yet leaks this very interesting point of Polish history). Also the interesting question is, why they got so privileged position in that club, and this question may be answered (at least partially) using arguments proposed by Halibutt. Linas Lituanus 09:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is wildly OT. Equalizing Polonization to the Westernization is like equalizing the Genetics to Eugenics. The Westernization is a very minor aspect of Polonization, and very little to do with the most of it.

I wrote most of this article and this is largely about the policies directed towards population of what's now UA and BE. While other aspects of P. are undeniable, it is the policies in these territories that gained most prominence and most coverage in literature under the P. term.

Lithuanian nobels, before they got Polonized, where largely Ruthenized (and Christianized). The Lithuanian conquest of Ruthenian lands even remotely did not resemble the later stages of Polish colonization. Lithuanian nobels became the princes and magnates of their Ruthenian subjects but the Lithuanian rule was unprecendently tolerant to the local tradition and no Lithuanization of Ruthenia took place whatsoever. To the contrary, the GDL became largely Ruthenized itself, drew heavily on the cultural and legal traditions of Rus', its elite where unquestionably Christian (and Orthodox) and thus connected with their subjects.

OTOH, later Polish expansion into Ukraine was drawing heavily on forcing Papism on it (and in no way the cultural influence of France in 19th century Russia was related to Catholicization in any way). I wrote on this in the article extensively and with references.

As for the "tolerant" policies of the interwar Poland, this was widely discussed in the literature and in Wikipedia. --Irpen 06:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As to your remarks above, Irpen. You are correct, as you usually are. Dr. Dan 14:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course Irpen is right, but his point is completely different from what I understood from the original questions. IMHO we should differentiate between polonization as such, and mere "westernization" (for lack of a better term), that could result in polonization, but also in ruthenization of GDL's nobles, bohemization of the burghers of Lwów (really!) or germanization of the burghers of Mazovia (again, a fact!). While polonization and westernization are not synonyms, nobody here is claiming they are or were. //Halibutt 15:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we're looking for what moments can be added in the explaining, conerning what reasons of polonization were the most essential.
What concerns question if Lithuanian elite was rhutenized and how much, my examples concerned the period, when the duality was still seen. One example: Jogaila remained pagan, evidently against his mother's will, after the death of Algirdas. Later, Jogaila became Catholic, despite of an orthodox part of his family, of orthodox part of Lithuanian elite and of orthodox part of the Grand Duchy (they evidently didn't welcome his step and many of them joined opposition to Jogaila led by Vytautas, i. e. by their former opponent in the inner struggles.) We can see two moments here (1) ethnically Lithuanian elite was still strong and influential at that period (2) Later opposition to the leadership of Poland contributed to further rhutenization of Lithuania Propria.
And a dispute on how much Lithuania Propria was rhutenized has three different aspects for what we discuss here. (1) When we say, that he area of the Grand Duchy was opened for Poles and, subsequently, for polonization, it's no matter what it was, more Ruthenian or more Lithuanian. (2) When we speak about participating of Poles in the club of the later Commonwealth, the duality of the Grand Duchy appeared to be a great advantage for Poles, which might mediate between Lithuanian and Ruthenian interests, finding this way political niche for their participation. (3) when we speak about later polonization in Lithuania Propria, previous rhutenization seems to have much contributed to it, because both mixed Slavic Lithuanian areas and Belarusian areas were more inclined to polonization than areas where people communicated mostly in Lithuanian. Also Polszczizna litewska has many similarities with the Belarusian language, particularly it's demotic variant.Linas Lituanus 10:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
As a sidenote to Jagiello and your mention of him above, take note that for the supporters of Vytautas and then Svitrygaila (sp?), the line of division went along the religious rather than cultural borders. It was "us the Orthodox vs you the Catholic elite" rather than "Us Ruthenians vs. you the Poles or Lithuanians". Bah, Svitrygaila and Vytautas were Lithuanians themselves, and back then the Lithuanian nobility was by no means Catholic in its entirety. //Halibutt 06:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead changes

I see there is a renewed interest in reformulating the lead. Very well, I have nothing against that, since obviously it is not perfect, and could be formulated better. But let's make sure a few points are clear. First, while "Polishness" was imposed on some people, other people adopted it of their own free will (yes, I know that this is a galling thought to some). Second, let's try to add the reasons why many nobles of the Commonwealth underwent Polonization. Obviously it was not because the Polish language is superior to any other, but because adopting it (and Catholicism) offered many advantages at the time, such as participating in the European (i.e. Western) mainstream. Balcer 15:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, I agree with the first idea that some Polonized themselves volunteerly. In fact my ref extensively elaborates on that and I translated a significant chunk into English. As for the second point, I disagree it is leadworthy. It is no more that the attraction of the provincial elite to the Metropilia, a standard and universal phenomenon. Perhaps they were attracted by the glamour they saw in Poland. Tyring to present this as enablement "to participate in Western culture" is rather POV. Also note, that by most scholars, Russia and Ukraine are also part of the Western culture. I know it may sound puzzling for some in Poland, expecially if they read modern textbooks. I can only imagine what one can find there.
Anyway, to avoid this dispute I moved the issue from the lead to the text right next to the Polish freedom for magnates, a truly main reason that appeal to the Ruthenian nobilty. --Irpen 16:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I am not going to insist on Westernization in the lead, since that can be a controversial idea. Nevertheless, considering Russia part of Western culture is of course perfectly valid after Peter the Great, but for earlier times making such an inclusion greatly oversimplifies matters. It ignores strong isolationist tendencies present in Russia at the time. Those isolationist tendencies (which carried over to some Orthodox faithful outside Russia) made it more difficult for the Orthodox to participate fully in Western culture. (The last is only my opinion).
Still, trying to include at least some mention of why Polonization occured in the Commonwealth might be a good idea. After all, the lead is supposed to give a clear, concise formulation of the whole issue, so that someone with no time to read the whole article can understand the basics. Including possible reasons for Polonization would help that. Balcer 16:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes Balcer, I want to get back to your Druskininkai edit on my talk page soon. As to the word "assumption" in the lead of Polonization, it smacks of pure bias. Would you stand for a substitution of "imagined by Poles" or "assumption" in the Germanization or Russification articles. I doubt it. Wanted to discuss this with you first, before I remove it again. Much too POV. Dr. Dan 01:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Millions of Poles became Germans, Russians or Americans of their own free will, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. My own ancestors came from Czech lands of their own free will, settled in Poland and became Polonized. Nobody forced this on them. It is quite common for humans to move from one culture to another without outside coercion. Surely you, living in America where millions of immigrants became Americans, must understand this. If we only leave "imposition" in the lead, this implies that people became Poles solely by being forced. Please try to understand how offensive this idea is to any Pole. If you don't like the word "assumption", please suggest another one, but leaving only "imposition" there is just not acceptable. Alternatively, please explain why Polonization should be defined as "imposition" only, and in that case, what do we call the process of becoming a Pole of one's own volition? Balcer 02:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Polish - Lithuanian commonwealth

"In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth the minorities (especially Ruthenian and Lithuanian) found themselves under strong cultural and religious pressure of Poland."

  • Is minorities a good term? Lithuanians and Ruthenians were founders of the GDL, although they were lesser nations than Poles.
  • under strong cultural ... pressure? Was it strong indeed? Ruthenian remained official language of the Grand Duchy till the end of the 17th century , while Poles remained minority in the GDL. But it was an inner problem instead of it. One was required to be Catholic to make career in official structures of the Duchy, so many noble Ruthenians joined catholic society making it more and more Polish (it were very easy for a Ruthenian to became Pole in Lithuania. Has has do almost nothing but change orthography to Latin, differently from Lithuanians that had to became proper Catholics and to learn Polish language. That was a process, which gradually made Lithuania region with three nations instead of the two.
  • In contrary to that religiuos pressure was evident. When Catholicism had priority in the Grand Duchy, the Ruthenian language as official could be seen as a compensation (from what Lithuanians got nothing - it appeared later, that it was a false compensation). I like to discuss hypothesies why did Lithuanian side accepted this false compensation initially, but perhaps it's out of the topic a bit. But even this compensation went under doubt when the Eastern Rite Catholic church was created.

I don't revise here yet, because the text seems like a citation, but it's up to your attention. Linas Lituanus 18:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Minority: a sociological group that does not constitute a politically dominant plurality of the total population of a given society - that seems like a reasonable definition. Note that I would never call them 'lesser nations' - but less numerous (which is I expect what you intended?). What would you suggest instead?
  • As for the culture vs. religious issue, I think you make some interesting points, but we need more citations to back up any version (and the current version needs references, too). Consider this ref, which notes that the reason for polonization was not some pressure, but the will of Lithuanian nobles to get the priviliges enjoyed by the Polish nobility. Carrot was at much more prominent then the stick.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, were the Poles also a minority of the PLC then ? I guess so ? --Lysytalk 21:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
As to the process of two nations becoming three, in the case of towns the process did take months rather than centuries. Take the case of Vilna: I read somewhere (could dig up the source) that the locals became primarily Poles, Jews and Ruthenians not because of some processes, but because of the Tatar looting, a fire and then a plague that had left the city completely depopulated. //Halibutt 06:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually less numerous. I fully agree with your explaining of minority, but perhaps the best known connatation is of ethnic minority in a state. Shouldn't we change minority taking to account that?
  • i personally disagree with the argumentation of privileges too :)But this theory is very popular and it should be mentioned anyway.
Well, Halibutt, a using of language still not mean a nation. Polish mentality couldn't be installed "in months" as You say. I don't know, why Poles and Belaruses often like a bit irreal theories how Vilnius region (or the city) became Slavic. The process was gradual, and it was gradual very naturally. Irish people communicate mostly in English now, but their own language was widely spoken few hundreds years before. So, it's a good example, that's better documented than the ours (and, differently from Lithuanians, Irishmen were quite literate nation then). Our case is less documented, but it has some data however.A number of priests , that could preach in Lithuanian in Vilnius, which number constantly decreased, can serve as example. Linas Lituanus 17:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

Please add a redirect to this article so a user who types Polanization will end up here. I am a new user so I do not know how to set up redirects. I typed Polanization because I thought first of "Poland" (with an "A"). But I did not find this page first, and I had to make some searches to get here. I know that this is an error but I am sure that I am not the only one who makes it. Well, keep up the good work. Bye. - Jallor 22:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/l/Talk%7EPolonization_Archive_9d84.html"