Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberSEO
The Ukraine means outskirts in Russian language - a territory at the border of the Empire.
Look at the map above. The orange one is what you call the Ukraine was before 1654. Everything around it was Russia. The Russian Empire. From 1654 to 1917 the Ukraine was called Malorrossia (Small Russia) and it is colored by orange and yellow. After 1917 if was called the Soviet Ukrainian Republic and was expanded by Stalin (mainly with annexed Polish territories), by Lenin and by Khrushchev with the territories from the Soviet Russian Republic.
So in fact, the Ukraine has always been a part of Russia. A part of Russian Empire and later a part of the Soviet Union. |
But you yourself are only quoting a short period in history - less than half a millennium. So, isn't it false to say "always"? And what of the time when Russia was part of Ukraine? How does that fit into your worldview? I don't in any way deny what you said regarding the time period of the 17th century to end of 20th. In fact, I included that in my response, so you're redundant to repeat it. What irks me is that you readily dismiss all previous history because it doesn't fit into your opinion. It further is frustrating that it seems you consider that therefore Ukies should be subservient and less human than you are, which is some fucked up shit if that is true. It'd be the same as saying "All Americans are less human than British because the territory was a British colony".
I normally stay out of all such discussions, and actually am strongly against a lot of the radical shit going on in Ukraine now, with western Ukrainian neo-nazis having so much power and doing idiotic, dangerous and outright terroristic shit. This doesn't justify a worldview that belittles an entire nation. Nothing does. This also applies to all the posts here belittling Russians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by celandina
If Wikipedia is all the source you quote then you have a few thing to learn  But lets do not split hair here. It is more to the point what was the situation 2 to 3 hundred years back to the recent history, not what may have happened 1200 years ago. h |
Wikipedia is all the source I care to site for the benefit of this thread. I'm not entirely clueless about history, but I'm not going to the library and checking out books to site sources in order to contribute to this thread. Please explain to me how history is more important depending on how recent it is. It's still history. Past events that influence us today, yes, but that don't determine our future. We can froth at the mouth discussing which is more important - the source of civilization in an area or who conquered/had power over it afterward. But in the long run - that is still history and will not determine how things develop from here on.