History – is an ideological discipline.

Ignoring attempts by historians to rid her of ideological bias, history remains receptive to ideologies of her time. Not surprisingly, after all, history bestows legitimacy of states and nations; it lies at the foundation of a national identity as well as at the core of numerous conflicts.

History – are concentrated scholarly arranged memories of communities.

Today in Ukraine, three conceptions of history are fighting for the right to be “the one.”

Imperial Russia History

In a nutshell, it claims that a brotherly cradle of peoples existed one thousand years ago. Throughout the centuries others tried to separate the cradle brothers, but failed and younger siblings were “reunited” with the older brother; this restored centuries of common history and prevented the collapse of Slavic civilization.

The essential concepts are “Russian Greatness,” grand history, culture, and bad neighbors (Poles, Germans, Catholics and others), which broke up the “great state” that needs to be restored – preferably with original borders. Ukrainian language and culture, according to this approach, “did not exist and cannot exist.”

The Soviet History

Here we are told that for the first time in history people became free…freed from nationalistic and societal constraints. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was born.

It was the Soviet Union that made Ukraine the great industrial and scientific country; it was the Soviet Union which united the peoples, stopped exploitation of an individual by another; it was for the USSR that millions of Soviet (Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians, representatives of other nationalities) citizens died and Stepan Bandera followers shot them in the back.

The “great state” fell apart, between 1988 and 1992, due to the greed of some communist party members, criminal elements and Banderivtsi. Ever since World War II, there were never pressures against any nations, and people lived peacefully, well, internationally and – the bottom line - happily.

Ukrainian History

From the time of Kyiv Rus and across centuries, Ukrainian people strived to create their sovereign country. Unsuccessful tries by Zaporizhzhya Cossacks and later an attempt during the 1917-1921 to create an independent state doomed Ukraine to serve as a colony and buffer territory for various foreign states throughout centuries.

This also caused poor cultural development in Ukrainian society as the best minds were drawn to metropolises – Warsaw, Moscow, St. Petersburg – while Ukrainian high culture such as national ballet, opera and drama, own universities and civic institutions did not evolve.

The Ukrainian language had a low status and/or was proscribed in society’s selected spheres. Both Imperial Russia and the USSR practiced the policy of Russification. The fight for ecology, for conservation of ancient sites and for protection of the Ukrainian language were the three pillars upon which began the struggle for Ukraine’s independence at the end of 1980s.

Each of the three conceptions looks differently at the history of Ukrainian ethnicity and consequently at the history of status and standing of the Ukrainian language.

The Imperial Russia interpretation denies any status to the Ukrainian language as separate and unique, instead seeing it as “little Russian accretion.”

The Soviet interpretation recognized that some times under Tsars the Ukrainian language suffered suppression, but afterwards – never.

And only Ukrainian History’s views, more or less accurately, the struggle for Ukraine’s independence as the struggle for preservation of Ukrainian culture and Ukrainian identity.

Apparently, elimination of subjectivity is not viable. We will therefore allow ourselves to take the side of the third interpretation. According to Ukrainian History, Ukraine had a colonial status during the times of Imperial Russian and the USSR. One of the aspects of colonialism was suppression of the language spoken by ethnic Ukrainians on their territory, segregation of its usage from elite and prestigious societal spheres, and its marginalization and gradual adulteration.

The right to choose?

The postulate where a state officially recognizes two languages ideally claims equal access to all societal benefits and products using both languages. So what are the basic characteristics from which the speaking population of Ukraine can choose presently in order to fulfill its linguistic wants and needs.

Russian is the language of cities, broad prospects and of fast paced life; it is the language of those who earn decent salaries. Ukrainian is the language of villages and small towns - of ruins, little chance of advancement and for lower classes.

The Russian language is the language of contemporary music and literature, bestsellers and popular magazines; it is the language of business and science. The Ukrainian language is the language of provinces, marginal modern literature, contra-cultural music, as well as of the silk sharovar-wearing, salo-eating, and horilka-drinking society. It is the mandatory lingua of bureaucracy.

The Russian language is the carrier of pioneering trends in the world; the best world classics and modern popular writers, practically all western movies, and large number of television production are done in Russian. The Ukrainian language is the language of a limited amount of aesthetic films; she is the out-of-place "subtitles" on television screens and of tiresome, eye-hurting, poorly made advertising.

Russian is used to search the vast resources of internet for literature and cinema. Ukrainian internet-space is merely a small corner within the cosmos of webs.

To a degree, the western Ukraine is an exception: here status of the Ukrainian language is more elevated. Yet, if quantity is factored, many spheres (publishing and cinema industries) do not produce even 25% in Ukrainian language products.

Well, which language do you choose? Ukrainian...really? It's uncomfortable. Why wear the only pair of old boots, if for your services is available a large selection of various cozy sandals, elegant shoes, and fashionable sneakers?

Protection from the Ukrainian language?

What will happen when Russian attains the status of the second official language? Remember the shoes analogy:

Russian will be cemented in certain areas of the country while Ukrainian will remain foreign, incomprehensible and superfluous. Any areas with weak or non-existent Ukrainian usage will be quickly filled with Russian language material.

Other alternative ethnic communities will be dissolved in the Russian sea since the only possible transnational space will be Russian.

The Ukrainian language will not be allowed in the cities of central and southern Ukraine.

The Ukrainian language will become "uncomfortable" for communication in the majority of public spheres: from governmental agencies to business sector and ending with village markets.

Russian speakers (includes ethnic Ukrainians and representatives of national minorities) are not going to be learning the Ukrainian language; in turn, their identity will continue to thin out.

Those who identify themselves as ethnic Russians or "the Soviet people" will not be learning the Ukrainian language under any circumstances.

The Ukrainian language will not become the language of transnational communication within Ukraine. Furthermore, by using Ukrainian it will not be possible to adequately connect with the world; the language's future is still foggy and the world's interest in it is tepid at best. The speakers of the Ukrainian language awaits the fate of the Russian-Ukrainian language amalgamation known as Surzhyk.

The proponents of Russian will strengthen their already dominating position in the country and will continue to hold Ukraine within the cultural field of the Russian Federation. On the other hand, Ukrainians will remain economically and culturally a struggling minority on the brink of extinction.

Thus in effect, Ukraine's recognition of Russian as the second official language will 1) preserve and 2) expand the dominant area where Russian is spoken while Ukrainian will become extinct or at best marginalized. An official recognition will ensure that the Russian language will never leave its occupied spheres in society.

"Ukrainianization:" an identical twin of Russification?

Outlaw publication of all books and newspapers in Russian?

Absolutely prohibit Russian songs and films on television?

Vandalize and destroy all statues in honor of Russians, close their churches, and rename all streets and cities?

Proscribe any usage of Russian on the streets and offices under the threats of fines and jails?

Deny career opportunities to Russian speakers, fire those who speak the lingua non grata , and discriminate against any usage of the Russian language?

It appears the opponents of Ukrainianization may wish to give the above characteristics to the concept. If the ABOVE defines Ukrainianization then indeed it should be fought. Were one to examine history -- something similar has already occurred.

Ukrainian History describes this process as "Russification:" the above methods were employed by Imperial Russia and later by the USSR against the national community of Ukrainians.

What can be done in such a situation? Perhaps, in this case the most effective method would be "Pro-Ukraine" politics. At the strategical level, a selection of five "Ukrainian-culture" approaches should be made and applied to the five primary groups of Ukrainians:

- First, ethnic Ukrainians who communicate in the Ukrainian language: create a viable sphere of cultural life; remove or equalize the post-colonial imbalance; give the ability to create a Ukrainian city and a modern cultural sector.

- Second, ethnic Ukrainians who communicate in the Russian language: give the ability to learn the Ukrainian language and consequently take part in a modern Ukrainian life.

- Third, ethnic Russians: practice politics of "positive discrimination," which will result in a decrease of Russification; leave this group to exist within their own cultural sphere without interference.

- Fourth, other ethnic minorities: also give opportunities to freely develop their cultures and ways to learn the Ukrainian language.

- Fifth, "the Soviet people:" allow for their selection of a certain nationality and also recruit to learn the Ukrainian language.

Note

Unfortunately, the Russian language was the preferred method of imperial influence upon Ukrainians -- and the fault in this historical injustice lies on Russian imperialism. This is why even today Russian has a post-colonial role in Ukrainian society.

Learning a new language does not necessitate abrogation of the old one(s); to learn Ukrainian does not require abandonment of Russian.

Existence of opportunity does not mean that it should be mandated; at the same time and especially in certain spheres (e.g. state matters or the court system), regulation should be instituted in order to represent Ukrainian interests.

How can this practically be achieved? One way is perhaps the usage of quotas in areas of "over-Russification:" a minimum 50% of dubbed films to be translated in Ukrainian, the same goes for television programming (and not simply to include Ukrainian subtitles); half of all newspapers, journals and books should be done in Ukrainian as well.

Likewise, populism with the slogan "protect the Russian language" should be avoided and the proposition advocating two official languages should be seen for what it is: protection of Russian speaking hegemony in Ukraine and prevention of a Ukrainian "come back."

The talking points of populism are simply banal left-overs from Imperial Russia times.

The moment, when a Ukrainian speaking Ukrainian will be able to feel not as a national minority in his or her own state, will become the moment for cultural freedom for other nationalities as well.

If "second official" (Russian) is recognized or if nothing changes - the Ukrainian language will become not the second, but "the third" (after English) state language. Dayosh?