User:Kazimier Lachnovič
| Babel user information | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||
| Users by language |
Старонка ўдзельніка (разьдзел Вікіпэдыі на беларускай мове клясычным правапісам): Kazimier Lachnovič
Пры выкарыстаньні загружаных мною выяваў вельмі прашу спасылацца не на абстрактавую Вікімэдыю (WIKIMEDIA.ORG) або Вікіпэдыю (WIKIPEDIA.ORG), а на Беларускую Вікіпэдыю клясычным правапісам (BE-TARASK.WIKIPEDIA.ORG). Такім чынам вы дапаможаце папулярызаваць адзіную вольную энцыкляпэдыю, дзе нашчадкі гістарычных ліцьвінаў — беларусы — могуць вольна ўжываць свае традыцыйныя гістарычныя непалітызаваныя назвы (не спаскуджаныя расейскімі ўладамі дзеля маскалізацыі і калянізацыі Беларусі) і распрацаваны беларусамі для беларусаў свой традыцыйны клясычны правапіс (шырэй — норму беларускай мовы) без якіх-кольвек гвалтоўных сталінскіх палітычных перакручваньняў-спаскуджваньняў дзеля штучнага набліжэньня да расейскай мовы з мэтай далейшага зьнішчэньня беларускай мовы і асыміляцыі беларусаў
Some quotes by Dr. Prof. Timothy D. Snyder from The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999, Yale University Press, 2003.
During the period of dynastic union with Poland, Lithuania became an East Slavic realm in which the gentry enjoyed rights relative to the sovereign (p. 22).
Before 1863, the most common self-appellation of the largest group in Russia’s Northwest Territory — Belarusian-speaking peasants — was apparently “Lithuanian” (p. 49).
By removing the historical sense of the term “Lithuanian” in the popular mind, Russian power cleared the way for a modern, ethnic definition of Lithuania, and simplified the task of Lithuanian activists (p. 50).
The conflation of an old politonym with a new ethnonym (“Lithuania”) prevented non-Belarusians from seeing the connection between modern Belarus and the early modern Grand Duchy of Lithuania (p. 81).
As we have seen, the traditions of the Grand Duchy were altered beyond recognition by Lithuanian and Polish national movements, as well as Russian imperial and Soviet states. They have changed least perhaps in the lands we now call Belarus (p. 281).
Some quotes from The History of the Belarusan Nation and State, 2005[1] by the following composite authors: Michaś Bič — Doctor of Historical Studies; Natalla Hardzijenka — candidate of Historical Studies; Radzim Harecki — academician of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, ex-President of the International Public Society Belarusans'
World Association Baćkaŭščyna (Homeland); Uładzimir Konan — Doctor of Philosophy; Arsień Lis — Doctor of Philology; Leanid Łojka — candidate of Historical Studies; Adam Maldzis — Doctor of Philology; Uładzimir Marchiel — candidate of Philology; Alena Makoŭskaja — Chairperson of the Council of the IPS BWA Baćkaŭščyna; Aleś Pietraškievič — candidate of Historical Studies; Anatol Sabaleŭski — Doctor of Art Criticism; Lidzija Savik — candidate of Philology; Viktar Skorabahataŭ — Honoured Artist of Belarus; Hanna Surmač — ex-Chairperson of the IPS BWA Baćkaŭščyna; Barys Stuk — Vice-Chairperson of the Council of the IPS BWA Baćkaŭščyna; Halina Siarhiejeva — candidate of Historical Studies; Aleh Trusaŭ — candidate of Historical Studies; Hieorhij Štychaŭ — Doctor of Historical Studies; Jazep Jucho — Doctor of Law.
For more than 500 years of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) existence, a distinctive ethnic community, the Litvins (Lićvins, Lithuanians), formed on the territory of the future Belarus. They numbered the bulk of the Duchy’s population and lived on the main territory of the country from Harodnia to Vilnia, from Połacak, Mścisłaŭ, Homiel to Turaŭ, Pinsk and Bieraście. The name Litvins became the Belarusans’ historical ethnicon. On the periphery of the GDL there were other nations that kept their ethnic distinctness, among them the Baltic peoples (Žamojts (Samogitians) and Aŭkštajts) who were the ancestors of the present nation known as the Lithuanians. (pp. 5—6)
The czarist authorities implemented the Russification policy in Belarus. The very name “Litvins” passed gradually out of use. Being merged in the Empire, our lands acquired a new name, Biełaja Ruś (White Russia, Byelorussia) or Biełaruś (Belarus), that had only been used before regarding the eastern part of our country where the Orthodox population was called the Rusins (Russians). This name was not germane to the present Russia’s lands known under the name of Muscovy at that time. (p. 6)
Thus, the Litvins-Belarusans as if stopped their existence as a separate nation in the Russia’s official life, but in reality they kept preserving their national traditions, culture and language. (p. 6)
However, we shall remember that we are heirs and continuers of the Litvins’ patriotic acts (p. 17)
Some quotes by British historian Dr. Andrew Wilson from Belarus: The Last European Dictatorship, Yale University Press, 2012.
The entity referred to as medieval ‘Lithuania’ in fact had the full name of ‘Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Samogitia’. Its short name was ‘Litva’. This is not the same thing as ‘Lithuania’. In the modern Lithuanian language, the word for ‘Lithuania’ is Lietuva (p. 21—22).
Most of what is now Belarus was part of ‘Litva’ proper. (p. 33).
The Litvin tradition was still dominant in the early nineteenth century, and still capable of developing as a joint national idea for those who eventually chose a different path as Belarusians and Lithuanians. (p. 67)
After the 1863–4 Rebellion, the tsarist authorities were therefore keen to establish the ‘ancient’ Russian identity of what they now called the Severozapadnyi krai (the ‘North-western territory’). As it hadn’t ever really been contemporary ‘Russia’, this meant going back to the old ‘Rus’, ‘Ruthenian’ or parochial east Slavic traditions of the region. <...> The west-Russians wanted to suppress the idea of a country called Litva and a people called the Litvins in fundamental existential conflict with Moscow for the control of Eastern Europe. The west-Russians, rather than the Belarusian nationalists who came later, were therefore responsible for popularising the terms ‘Belarus’ and ‘Belarusian’ as a safer alternative. (p. 71)
One explanation is that: ‘having conquered Belarus, the Muscovites realized that it was not in their favour to call Belarusians the ‘Litsviny’ (i.e. their second original name, along with the ‘Kryvichy’ one) as it would always remind our people about the times when our ancestors happened to constantly fight against Moscow. Therefore, the Muscovites applied the term of ‘Belarusians’ to our people while the name of ‘Litsviny’ was attributed to the Lithuanians; at the same time the propaganda publications tried to propagate the idea that the Grand Duchy of Litwa was [a] Lithuanian state, i.e. it was a foreign country that did not have any close ties with Moscow’ (p. 135)
According to Smalianchuk, ‘the idea of the statehood of historical Litva dominated in the Belarusian movement west of the front line [in the First World War] through to 1917. Only at the start of 1918 were the Belarusians finally forced to reject it’ (p. 80)
And as well as the Poles, the Belarusians faced an extra rival in the Lithuanian national movement, which targeted Vilna (to them, Vilnius), though not quite all of historical Litva. (p. 90)
There is even a Litvin revival movement. In May 2000 it solemnly passed an ‘Act of Proclamation of the Revival of the Litvin Nation’ (see www.litvania.org), which it argues was formed from the union of the Kryvichy and the Baltic Yatvingian tribe with the ‘Liutichi’, who were Polabian Slavs, driven east from their original homeland on the river Elbe by German tribes between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries ad (with, apparently, some splitting off to move south to what is now Bohemia). (p. 126)
Some quotes from Historical dictionary of Belarus (a part of Historical Dictionaries series) by Dr. Jan Zaprudnik (1998 edition), an American historian of Belarusan descent:
In some cases the entire area of contemporary Belarus was referred to as Litva (Lithuania), because it had been part of the territorial core of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the Belarusians were known as lićviny, litovtsy, litvaki, litwaks. (p. 31)
Belarusian historians stress the economic potential of Belarus within the GDL and the state's cultural aspects, that is, the fact that Belarusian was the official language of the duchy and that Belarusian culture flourished in it, especially during the 16th century <...> One should also keep in mind the terminological specifity: the meaning of such terms as “Rus”, “Belarus”, and “Litva” (Lithuania) were quite different in past centuries from today. (p. 139)
Some quotes from Litva: The Rise and Fall of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (2013) by Welsh-Polish historian with special interest in Central and Eastern Europe Dr. Prof. Norman Davies, Professor at the Jagiellonian University, professor emeritus at University College London, a visiting professor at the Collège d'Europe, and an honorary fellow at St Antony's College, Oxford:
In its modern spelling, written as Lietuva, it is the modern Lithuanian name for Lithuania. According to scholars of the Belarusian persuasion, however, Litva was originally the homeland of a Slavic tribe, and had no connection with the Balts until the Balts moved south, absorbed the Slavic tribe and purloined its name.
The Metryka Litevska or ‘Lithuanian Register’ is the commonest collective name for the original indexes/archival inventories of the grand duchy’s central chancery. <...> The principal languages employed are ruski (Old Belarusian), Latin and Polish.
Quote from Belarus: A Denationalized Nation (2013, Routledge) by Canadian historian Dr. Prof. David R. Marples, Distinguished University Professor at the Department of History & Classics at the University of Alberta, who specializes in history and contemporary politics of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine:
Belarusian territory became a part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with the capital at Vilna (Vilnius), a state in which Slavs heavily outnumbered the Lithuanians, retaining privileges, and in which state business was conducted in the Belarusian language. (p. 1)
Quote from Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia (2011, ABC-Clio) by American anthropologist Dr. Prof. Jeffrey Cole, who is an expert on race and ethnicity in Europe, and Dr. Prof. Stephan E. Nikolov, a Senior Fellow researcher at the Bulgarian Academy of Science, Institute of Sociology and Associated Professor at the Neofit Rilski Southwestern University Blagoevgrad:
During the Middle Ages Belarusians were identified as Rusyns or Ruthenians as well as “Litviny” (Litvins, or Lithuanians). This later term refers to the state of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Litva, Great Litva), part of which was White Ruthenian lands after the 13th to 14th centuries. The Ruthenian language, which later evolved into modern Belarusian, was the official language there. For this reason many historians argue that the medieval Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the first Belarusian nation state. (p. 43)
Some quotes from The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906–1931 (2015, University of Pittsburgh Press) by Swedish-American historian Dr. Prof. Per Anders Rudling, specializing in the areas of nationalism:
Lithuania — or Letuva, Litva, Litwa, Lietuva, or Lite, as it was called in the five local languages — was commonly not thought of in the same terms as it is today, as an ethnic nation-state of the Lithuanian people. <...> In the early nineteenth century, “Belarusian” or “Lithuanian” did not yet denote any particular ethnic belonging. <...> As a state symbol, the BNR adopted the Pahonia, "the chase", a stylized image of an armed knight on a white stallion against a red background. This symbol had deep roots, going back to the fourteenth century. <...> ...the Pahonia was nearly identical to the coat of arms of the newly proclaimed Lithuanian state; <...> The Belarusian People's Republic had established a three-band white-red-white flag, and a modified version of the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
- ↑ The History of the Belarusan Nation and State = Гістарычны шлях беларускай нацыі і дзяржавы / Second Enlarged Edition; M. Bič, R. Harecki, U. Konan et al. — Minsk: IPS BWA Baćkaŭščyna, PE Zmicier Kołas, 2005. — 440 p. ISBN 985-6793-06-2 Invalid ISBN.