Mohyla Academy National University hosted a presentation of the book Ukraine Incognita. Traditionally, it started with exchanging pleasantries, followed by a lively discussion of problems which Volodymyr Panchenko, Vice President of NaUKMA for teaching and one of the book’s compilers, summed it all up as one question: What is happening to us? And in fact our relationships with our history became the discussion’s cornerstone.
REANIMATING CURRENT REALITIES
Larysa IVSHYNA, Editor-in-Chief, The Day:>/B>
Why has The Day taken up history? It’s a natural question. There are many rich publications, but I haven’t seen any of them seriously address this subject. Our newspaper [Den’] is a daily and bilingual — the English digest comes out every Tuesday. It’s only thanks to the civic stand taken by my colleagues, our noted historians, and their support that we could begin this extremely important project. Why did our newspaper take up history? In 1999, after the presidential election results became public, we had our regular staff meeting. My colleagues were not in the best mood, of course, but I told them: “They have won, but we were still right.” Now we had to do something different from what we had done before, in the years of “ardent struggle,” for returning to lost opportunities made no sense. We proceeded from the assumption that the problem lies in our society. We had to solve it. On the one hand, it was a labor of Sisyphus, of course. On the other, we all should do what we really can. I believe in dedication. We visited the Mohyla Academy library today, and I saw large stacks of books ready for shipment to the Chornukhy library. This is a good example of an effort that makes sense. It is also evidence that our society is normal, that it is very much alive. It just takes pulling the right levers. Of course, we have sectors blocked with concrete, but we also have enough room to live.
Many factors make it imperative that we reassess ourselves and our system of coordinates. Once again, this cannot be accomplished without translating our historical criteria into modern realities. We did just that and seem to have done a good job. Ukraine Incognita appeared in print. 1,500 copies were quickly sold [and given as presents]. The publishers we knew said it was unprecedented. Now we have a handful of copies left, so we are preparing a second printing (I might as well point out that we are expecting business offers from bookstores). Yet the topic is far from exhausted. I visited Donetsk National University recently. The audience was very interesting. The students posed intelligent, well-formulated questions, although some made me wonder. I told them that we wanted to portray our positive and negative heroes; what issues should concern Ukrainians today, what concepts must be publicly discussed. A university official asked me, “Why should Ruslana Pysanka start her weather forecast from the West, not the East?” I knew I had to adhere to some protocol, being a guest and all, but I couldn’t help it. I told him that I had visited Strasbourg and pointed out that Euronews ended its forecasts with Warsaw. And guess what? We’ve wasted twelve years. If we keep asking such questions, people over there will soon forget about where the sun rises here, at the provincial level, in the West or East or who in politics is the champion, Shakhtar or Dynamo. This is irrelevant in a discussion at this level. It’s important for us to discuss what unites us, that the Ukrainian nation is still beset by problems and lacks a clear view of its future. Well, we navigated the reefs and went on to discuss more interesting topics. Although other questions were posed in the same vein, like “You talk about the Ukrainian Insurgent Army in your book, but they shot our soldiers in the back.” And this from university teachers! We hold heated changed, but there are regions still closed for this kind of discussion.
I suggested the certain criteria for our newspaper’s journalists. To a certain extent we are a bureau of weights and measures. The society that is taking shape often faced problems of criteria. We lack a common language not only in the sense that some speak Ukrainian and others Russian. The point is that we lack a commonly understood language. We say that there have to be certain standards. Even if someone says that a meter has 60 centimeters, we must understand that it’s really 100, and this has already been established. History is another way to introduce heroes into a system of coordinates. Why do we have the folk saying, “From Bohdan to Ivan, there was no Hetman?” Perhaps what it actually means is a certain system of coordinates where a certain figure is regarded as worthy of public recognition. Is there anything coincidental about Bohdan (Khmelnytsky) and Ivan (Mazepa) being well-educated? We must also impose certain requirements on our politicians. In order to make sense of current events, we enlist history as our ally.
TWO HISTORIES
Yuri SHAPOVAL, Ph.D. in history:
The Day must be a unique newspaper in its own way, because it is the only one to have a regular history column. It not only responds to historical or historical-political conjunctures, as is the case with 1943 events in Volyn, but also regularly includes life stories, broaching what is probably best described as purely historical subjects, being of interest primarily to professional historians or researchers. I think that this is very important, because at the current stage of my life and research effort I have become very pessimistic. In previous years it seemed that we were opening archives to learn something entirely and excitingly new, that this would somehow influence the public’s conscience and help form what is called the culture of memory. I thought that the process would be simpler and quicker. This never happened and I try to write about this as often as I can. Last year, for example, I wrote about the Solovetski Islands mass executions, that the authorities seem to have forgotten all about, although it was the 65th anniversary of the tragedy (of November 7, 1937, when the Stalinist NKVD celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the October Revolution by executing thousands of political prisoners, including outstanding representatives of the Ukrainian intelligentsia — Ed.), the negative consequences of which have assumed colossal scope. Therefore I consider The Day’s effort in that direction a very important part of my own work as a historian. Professional historians are emphasizing what might be described as a second round of a professional discussion of how we should write history — or whether we can write it at all. Some are of the opinion (it has survived to this day and you all know it only too well) that we must write history the way it really was. Leopold von Ranke defined it very clearly. There is also the postmodernist view that history is a land of our fantasy; we instill in it our sentiments and illusions, and we should not be afraid to do so or ashamed of it. It’s how we have to do it. An interesting trend emerged in the course of that discussion. Many professional historians maintain now that we must divide history in two halves, figuratively speaking. One is what Natalia Yakovenko described (quite aptly, I think) as the truths of our hearts. In fact, it’s what we call historical memory: the myths that create a nation, the historical consciousness that must exist in society. The other one is scholarly research, during which historians have to call everything into question, rather than unquestioningly accept some assumptions or other, even those previously or even now taken as axioms. This book deals, of course, with the truths of our hearts. It is a popularization of a number of events and stories about of this book in print is an important event, for we have nothing else like it on our intellectual horizons. It seems to me that its main importance is that this information makes the reader think. I see in this a great point in its favor. I can only hope that the sequel will be as interesting.
NOT RESTORATION BUT INTERPRETATION
Volodymyr PANCHENKO, Kiev-Mohyla Academy vice president for teaching:
History sometimes makes its appearance in other periodicals, but I think that they present it in as purely entertainment, as if to say, look at this interesting page from history. When it comes to historical problems, The Day presents historical issues in all their contemporary political, psychological, and moral aspects. I believe this approach is very productive. It’s not just restoring history but rendering it in a comprehensive and comprehensible manner, including it into the process of our society’s current thinking. And this process is very interesting.
COMPROMISES AND CHANCES
Tetiana ADAMUS, freshman, College of the Humanities, Kyiv-Mohyla Academy:
Does Ukraine in this time of rampant Russification through the mass media and authorities have a real chance of national revival?
Larysa IVSHYNA:
There is a chance, but your question implies that the problem has become quite serious. Otherwise why pose such a question in a country that has existed for twelve years and which we all wanted to build?
A certain dose of radicalism is necessary to establish certain underlying principles. Yes, there are compromises that are absolutely necessary. But there are also other compromises. For example, we have Our Ukraine and Communists marching in the same column. This is a complicated mixture. I understand that maybe it’s the current political situation. But these compromises are not unacceptable for the normal development of Ukraine. We must determine what we stand for, we are really worth as Ukrainians, and what we really want. We have to make it clear where we stand. For example, we needn’t fight the Russian language as such; we should assert the Ukrainian language and Ukrainian values, as we feel, and understand them.
Real competitive talent needs an environment, not nepotism. This isn’t what sets the priorities in the modern world. Competition is based on the principle of may the best man win. This would have helped us assert and revive Ukraine and not only in the political sense. Yes, there is a chance, but we have to use it.
RUSSIAN-SPEAKING UKRAINIANS AND PROFESSIONAL PATRIOTS
Ivan DUDKA and Olha CHEPA, Kyiv-Mohyla College:
Your newspaper is published in Russian and Ukrainian. How would you explain the need to publish it in Russian? Is it an example of an acceptable compromise, making Ukrainian history accessible in a language understandable to a great many people and thereby getting them interested in that history, so that later they might become interested in the language as well?
L.I.: Yes, to a certain extent it is compromise and a justified one. After all, we do have such things as Russian-speaking Ukrainian nationalists (Dmytro Dontsov, the paragon of Ukrainian integral nationalism, grew up speaking Russian and wound up teaching Russian at the University of Toronto — Ed.). It’s a phenomenon one has to keep in mind. We mustn’t distance ourselves from such people, we must get them involved. Our proadjective professional with a dose of irony, but not to cause mortal offense) have since 1991 been trying to force everybody to speak and write Ukrainian, profess the Prosvita ideals, and so on. That’s tactics, but you have to be liked by those you want to speak your language. We had a pretty large part of our society that didn’t accept the Ukrainian language, hadn’t been raised with it, didn’t live with it, and didn’t like it. Let me give you an example. I visited Lviv with a good friend of mine, during Soviet times, and she told me in Russian: “How strange! Well-dressed people speaking Ukrainian...” What I mean is that not much has changed since then. But it’s also true that we’ve done little to change this. A language spoken by poor people will never have a strong position. There is always a legion of those who are always ready to go whichever way the wind blows in terms of language and national identity. We have this in our society. Apart from the language issue, we must have strong positions in other spheres: in politics and the economy. Those who ride in their Mercedes are not friendly to the Ukrainian language...
Many say that Ukraine has a bad image abroad. But nobody has actually done anything about it. We must do everything we can to accomplish what we have to. And we will. Resorting to any kinds of compromises under the circumstances would be insane. Why should we publish a Russian version of our newspaper in a country where everybody understands and likes Ukrainian? Do you know how much it takes in terms of time and money? It actually means putting out two newspapers every day.
Also, I would place the main emphasis on quality, for this is where you have to compete. Of course, it’s extremely important to use Ukrainian, but we must use it convey messages and portray things we wouldn’t feel ashamed of afterward. Then choosing between Russian and Ukrainian wouldn’t be such a conflict-laden issue.
WORKING ON ALTERNATIVES
Leonid BAHLIS, head of the National Parliamentary Library of Ukraine:
Does the editorial office of The Day see it’s job as showing the more or less educated and intellectuals some political and cultural perspective?
L.I.: I think I have already answered this question (perhaps a little pedantically). I said that a newspaper is where the nation can communicate with itself. We have for a number of years held public forums and ours is perhaps the only periodical that carries letters to the editor. This might be yet another form of self-realization. Some people at times simply have to get it off their chests. Under the Soviets, there were always people everybody could listen to and ask questions. They might be bad lecturers, propagandists, but then, years later, people would be glued to their television sets, waiting to finally hear explained what was really happening in their country themselves to the new environment. They got no explanations. Everybody was dividing up the property. And those who waited for such explanations found themselves in the corresponding financial situation.
I am not infected with the missionary complex, and I don’t think that our newspaper can show you the light or tell you where you ought to go. I just think that we all must augment the alternatives, make every effort to make the choice richer so that there is a better chance to create a decent environment for people. We have a generation coming up that thinks. And we also have an older generation with people who think. It seems to me that the thesis that things will automatically improve with the change of generations is false. Very often one comes across individuals of the younger generation, of whom one thinks: God forbid that they every come to power; they are cynics, people without any education. Being rich doesn’t mean that somebody has virtue. By the way, Serhiy Krymsky told me something that has since helped me understand many of our problems. He said that Ukraine has plenty of ideas, but that it lacks quality. We are all exposed to some factors or other, we are doing something or doing nothing at all. Those doing something stand a chance; they seem to be saying: You can disagree with me about everything, but you must go on from this and do something better. The same is true of the electorate. Perhaps our society is in a no-win situation, but the people must have to know that they have had an opportunity and missed it. They must appreciate that opportunity and say they were stupid to have missed it. And next time they’ll know better.
Natalia SHUMKOVA, Kiev-Mohyla Academy vice president for development:
How do you see the younger generation? Particularly college and university graduates? What do you expect from them, as an employer, citizen, and an educated person?
L.I.: I expect them to be more educated than we were. We used to have a narrow system of education and our choice was artificial. I also expect that our current students will live in a way that will help them evolve as more active members of the community. This was an exception to the rule during Soviet times, when one could just hope to slip through the grindstone and not become another cog in the machine, avoid being brainwashed, not lose the ability to see and analyze things independently. Now there are colossal opportunities to develop oneself. All one needs is the potential and, of course, the will. I expect from our rising generation a greater inner freedom and thirst for self-perfection. A lot of work must be done now. To make Ukraine strong and competitive will require sniffing out now those with great ambitions. And for this reason, ambition is also something I’d like to see in our young.
