Moravians And The Czech Republic; Rusyns And Ukraine
 Sunday, 08 May 2011 13:08
|
(
en) Leoš Tomíček I
An attempt at comparison. The post makes a mention of Silesians but they are less relevant to Czech reality since most of Silesia is now in Poland, and previously was part of Prussia and then Germany for rather long. Next year Ukraine will conduct yet another census of its population, and naturally concerned individuals again raise the issue of whether the Rusyns will have the choice to declare themselves as a separate nationality. Grigoriy Mironov in his recent article brings forth arguments in favour of recognising the Rusyns, many of which I have already mentioned here. These arguments aside, I am reminded of the words of Zoltan Lendel, the mayor of Mukachevo from the Party of Regions, according to whom nothing would happen if Ukraine recognised the Rusyns.
Remind you that Lendel defines himself as half-Rusyn, and considers Ukraine's non-recognition of the Rusyns a spit in the direction of Transcarpathia. One should point out that Rusynism, and the ideas associated with it, have a wider currency in the region, and are not limited to Rusyn activist groups such as the Soim.
Indeed little would happen if Ukraine recognised Rusyns, definitely not with 10,000 nationally conscious Rusyns in a population exceeding one million. That is if the figures Ukrainian government and Ukrainian pundits cite are true, which is highly suspect. But even if the number was far higher than this, little would happen if Ukraine recognised the Rusyns, and I will here attempt to illustrate that by comparing the treatment Moravians receive in the Czech Republic. I will cover the nuances of both cases in the latter part of the post.
The idea behind this article is not new to me, I had it for about a year. It originated about a year ago, when I read Natalya Belitser's essay: 'Political and Ethno-Cultural Aspects of the Rusyns' problem: A Ukrainian Perspective', there she makes a comparison of Czech attitudes towards the Moravian question, and the Ukrainian attitude towards the Rusyns.
The controversial case of Rusyn identity might in fact best be regarded as not unique but be considered in the broader context of a sharply increased interest in one’s own ethnocultural identity and ethnic belonging observed throughout the world as a response to the challenges of globalization. Such a trend is especially pronounced in post-communist Central and Eastern Europe, where “traditional” and “new’ minorities alike appear to be striving to establish or re-establish their group identity. Recall, for example, the heated debates on Silesians and Moravians as being separate from the Czechs. These claims produced either painful or indifferent reactions from the Czech government and mainstream society, thereby providing grounds for accusing the state authorities of pursuing a policy of “forced assimilation”, and of “unrecognizing (sic) of nationalities/ethnicities” and other sins. And recent developments show that the case is not yet closed. In December this year, for example, the Moravian Democratic Party of the Czech Republic announced its intention to take legal action against the governmental commissioner for human rights, Peter Uhl, who recommended to the Slovak Deputy Premier that since Moravians are not recognized by the Czech Republic as a separate nationality, no representative of the Moravian association of Slovakia should be included in the Slovak Council of Nationalities. Peter Uhl is also opposed to acknowledging that nationality as an option in the 2001 census. And indeed, according to the recent information from the Slovak Deputy Premier Pal Csaky, a forthcoming census will not have a separate entry for a “Moravian nationality”. (see pgs. 13-14)
Belitser's information is based, according to her footnotes, on a RFE/RL report, which does not indicate any serious investigation into the matter on her part. I will hereby attempt to correct her information by translating bits from the website of the Czech Bureau of Statistics, which is the body responsible for conducting population censuses in the Czech Republic, in order to illustrate the official attitudes.
The question about nationality (on the census questionnaire) is opened, and there are no examples to choose from. 'This is the only solution which does justice to all nationalities. If we mentioned three or four examples, immediately the representatives of other groups could voice their displeasure, and accuse us of discriminating against them, because they are not mentioned in the examples. We therefore do not offer categories to choose from, and everyone will write what he feels. This is a fair solution to everyone, and will lead to more correct results.' -says Stanislav Drápal, the vice-president of the Czech Bureau of Statistics.
Furthermore:
The Moravian nationality is considered to be a fully-fledged information, which the Czech Bureau of Statistics processes at every population census since 1991. During the entire history of Czechoslovakia, the Moravian and Silesian nationality was not even considered, and Moravians and Silesians were automatically written as Czechs.
Slovakia in fact recognises the Moravians as well. Notice in the link above, that the Czech Bureau of Statistics also recognises people identifying as Rusyns, and somehow managed to count more than 1000 of them.
Czechoslovak policy towards the Moravians up-to-1991 reminds one of what Ukraine is doing to the Rusyns today. Returning back to Belitser's essay above, what she is referring to is perhaps the general attitude ordinary Czechs, including your's truly, have towards the Moravian question. Much like Ukrainians consider Rusyns to be a subgroup of the Ukrainian nation, the Czechs feel the same way about Moravians. Whenever I meet my fellow compatriots abroad (where I mostly reside), and I hear them speak with a distinct Moravian accent, I ask them: 'Are you from Moravia?' as opposed to: 'Are you Moravian?' However that is my personal opinion, and it is subjective, much like the decision of anyone who wants do declare himself a Moravian.
I will here make a little diversion, and acquaint my readers with who the Moravians are, as I suspect many visitors have no relation to Czech issues, and limited knowledge of them. This shall hopefully lead us to identifying differences between the Moravian and Rusyn cases.
The ancestors of Moravians made their mark on history earlier than the ancestors of the Czechs. In the ninth century, the Great Moravia, was a large Central European state. It was here that the Apostles of the Slavs, Cyril and Methodius were dispatched by the Byzantine Emperor Michael III on the invitation of local ruler Prince Rastislav. Rastislav is revered as one of the saintly rulers of early Slavs, together with Olga and Vladimir of Rus', and Boris of Bulgaria. Today the name Moravia refers to the central lands of Great Moravia only. The state was destroyed by migrating Magyars.
The Bohemian principality, previously a subject of Great Moravia, and the earliest Czech state, survived and in turn gradually incorporated Moravia. Bohemian settlers colonised the place. Thus one can say that Moravia became a part of Czech lands, and Czech history, long before the geographic designation 'Ukraine' appeared, and long before the idea of Ukrainian ethnos, and nationhood, and based on this the Ukrainian state, emerged. This state, the Soviet Ukraine, incorporated Subcarpathian Rus (Transcarpathia) only after the Second World War.
Ukrainian nationalism was properly introduced in the area during the Czechoslovak rule. The Czech administrators did not differentiate much between Ukrainians and Russians. Many Russians and Ukrainians came to the region, fleeing the Bolshevik mayhem, or oppressive Polish rule in Western Ukraine, seeking better life under the liberal democratic regime of Czechoslovakia. Many of these arrivals were literate unlike most of the locals, and were assigned to educational positions. Educating the locals, the Ukrainophiles introduced the ideas of Ukrainian nationhood. These people had to however compete with the established Russophile activists, and the general apathy of the locals towards the nationality debate. Although the Communists were rather uncompromising promoters of Ukrainian identity, there is enough reason to believe that a large part of the population retained the Rusyn identification. This part of population has the right to be recognised.
Unlike the Rusyns, the Moravians do not show much of an activity towards establishing their own language from the diverse dialects they use. The Rusyns in Transcarpathia did codify their language recently, but what in fact they did was update a 1940's grammar book by Ivan Haraida. This suggests that the effort at language codification has a history there. For this reason the Rusyns demand to have their own language department in the university. Nothing like that can be observed with the Moravians, although I am sure there are people specialising in local dialects.
The Ukrainian pundits like to claim that Rusyns are a marginal group, with a not so properly developed identity. To their satisfaction, the Czech census shows a sharp decrease in the people who identify as Moravians, from more than a million in 1991 to little less than 400 thousand in 2001. If as they claim, the Rusyns number only 10,000, they should follow the example of Czech Republic which has no problem recognising 10,000 Silesians, nor 400 thousand Moravians.
As for separatism among the Moravians, what most of the separatist-minded individuals want is autonomy, or what they call self-rule. This has some historical precedents, but it was never granted to Moravia by post-Communist Prague. I do not think Ukraine has to grant Transcarpathia autonomy either, such a move would be against the standing Ukrainian constitution anyway, and that is rather difficult to change. That however does not mean that Rusyns cannot be recognised, and that their activities do not deserve support. Instead we see Ukrainian politicians and academics try very hard to stress that Rusyns are a subgroup of Ukrainians.
