What is a "Sich"? & "History of Ukraine"?

[Djordjevic01]

I have been reading about Ukraine recently because my family/ethnic background tracks across its territory. I have come across the term "Sich" in association with certain military and/or administrative organizations and in town names. Can someone enlighten me as to the meaning?

Also, I would be interested in feedback on the book "A History of Ukraine" by Paul Robert Magocsi ...

[NORRYM]

Sich and Magocsi - two interesting topics. Briefly, in recent history, Sich were the volunteer detachments, formed in Halychyna in the afermath of the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In actuality, the Austro-Hungary, being a benevolent empire, abandoned Halychyna {Galicien} in 1917 to the chief minorities, inhabiting then that territory. The chief minorities, in contention for Halychyna, were Poles and Ukrainians. On November 1, 1917, the Ukrainian Sich Riflemen {USR}, as they were formally known, occupied Lviv, the main city in Halychyna {also the capital of West Ukraine}. Within a month, after intense street fighting, Lviv was lost to the Poles. Polish nation then enjoyed a political and material support of the Entente {Western Allies}, and that swung the victory in their direction.

The 'Sich' name itself goes back in history to the Zaporozhian Cossacks {Zaporoz'ki Kozaky} , whose fortress was knwn as Sich. The USR reappeared on the history pages in 1938 during the formation of Carpatho-Ukraine {Zakarpats'ka Ukrayina}, with Uzhhorod as the capital.

I will return to Magocsi on another occasion.

emkay/02/15/01

[Edited by NORRYM on 16th February 2001 at 09:22]

[Djordjevic01]

Based on NORRYM's response, then, can I take it that places like Sich and Nova Sich which are on some historic maps of S. Uraine, at least, near the Black Sea, were references to military detachments and/or defensive/fort-like sites?

[NORRYM]

The USR was formed in the WWI period, in Halychyna {West Ukraine}. The name Sich was assumed to honor the Cossack heritage from the middle ages. Cossacks were the horsemen warriors in the steppes of South Ukraine. Consequently, the sites in South Ukraine, associated with Sich mame, are directly descendent from those historical times.

The bottom line is - Ukrainians of West Ukraine revered then and revere now the times of Kozachchyna {Cossack Period}, as a jewel of Ukraine History. The Ukrainians of Velyka Ukrayina, encompassing East and South, know little, or nothing at all, about the Sich in West Ukraine. They learned contemporary history of Ukraine from the books sanctioned only by the Moscow-directed Communist Party. Those books suppressed any mention of the USR, which in 1917 was engaged in a struggle for Ukraine, free of any 'big brother boots', Polish or Russian. In the ten years of independence, the old textbooks still prevail. Realizing that, it can be easily deduced that the Sich-associated sites in South Ukraine cannot relate to the USR. What remains, was already indicated above - the South Ukraine sites are mere remnants of Kozachchyna.

A meaningful study of history cannot be divorced from politics. Once political angle is introduced, the objectivity becomes suspect. In this instance, to answer your questions equitably and comprehrensively, I was compelled to refer to political aspects of the times.

Magocsi remains deferred again - he was not forgotten. [NORRYM on 18th February 2001 at 05:32]

[Edited by NORRYM on 18th February 2001 at 05:37]

[Rusnak]

I am now reading my newly purchased Norman Davies book on Ukraine, but a friend has a book by Paul Magosci, which I have read. He seems to be the leader of the ⌠Carpatho-Rusyns■ that I wrote about on my recent ill-conceived Ukrainian/Russian thread.

Magosci is a well-respected scholar in Toronto who has convinced a large number of American and Canadian Ukrainians that they are a completely separate people. They even have their own flag! See here:

http://www.unpo.org/member/rusyn/rusyn.html

and

http://feefhs.org/rusyn/frg-crs.html

In fact, I hold him partly to blame for my own incomplete understanding of the region being discussed here.

-Rusnak

[NORRYM]

Jumping over, by Rusnak, to Djordjevic01's THREAD, was a brilliant move. Getting the book, EUROPE, was another one. Now the Magocsi query may be addressed to an audience of TWO.

On the whole, I consider Magocsi's, A HISTORY OF UKRAINE, book a daring and refreshing treatment of the subject matter. Since Hrushevskiy first introduced a comprehensive and complete history of Ukraine in 1920's, no other native histarian made a bigger splash, in my opinion. Pritzak, a student of Hrushevskiy, may have been the other one but, unfortunately, I have not read his version. My judgment is based on style, academic approach and content, not necessarily in that order. All other native historians, of note, made it a habit to copy Hrushevskiy, with some abridgment plus some addition of contemporary topics. Their style and approach, in most cases, tends to surpass Hrushevskiy's in coloring the facts and ignoring the uncomfortable events. Hrushevskiy may have been justified, to an extent, in stretching some facts, for he was pioneering the awesome task of generating an, academically serious yet cohesive, history of Ukraine. Personally, I avoid the historians who perennially treat the dark or self-condemning pages of our history by conveniently excluding them or camouflaging over them.

Magocsi's, A HISTORY OF UKRAINE, is a solid work deserving serious consideration. Not all history books warrant such attention. When it first appeared, as could have been expected, it stirred up a considerable controversy in Ukrainian academic circles. Mostly, it {the controversy} evolved around some dark pages, from our recent past, which Magocsi dared to include in his book. This was precisely what drew my attention, at the time, and the book was added to my references. Magotcsi since has been marginalized by the mainstream of the Ukrainian Diaspora. He paid a popularity price to the hollow majority, which discriminates only by the super-patriotic, blind instincts.

Now comes Rusnak with his, not so complementary, findings about the book. As with any effort, and Magocsi's book is no exception, one can always find some bad apples in a barrel of honest endeavor. The 'bad apples' relate directly to a topic in this discussion - THE ORIGIN OF THE MINORITY, RUSYNY, from a historical perspective. Had the rabidly patriotic Academe exhibited some integrity, in place of the myopic offense at the public airing of some dark pages by the book, they could have attacked Magocsi's handling of THE TRANSCARPATHIAN RUSYNY QUESTION. Apparently, imbued by his partially Hungarian heritage {just a guess}, Magocsi made a HUNGARIAN GOULASZ out of the RUSYNY QUANDARY. He made RUSYNY into a SEPARATE ETHNIC ENTITY, by ignorimg completely the attendant cultural/political evolution, I touched upon in my preceding posts.

emkay/02/18/01

[NORRYM]

In the preceding post, the Ukrainian Academe escaped a more outspoken criticism for its silence on the fallacious treatment of the RUSUN ISSUE, by Magocsi. While the Ukrainian Academe, originally, failed to pick up and debate the issue, a segment of ill-informed Rusyn emigres in the diaspora turned Magocsi's book, A HISTORY OF UKRAINE, as a platform for supporting their misconceived idea of separateness. The demage done - by the rabidly-patriotic segment of the Academe, in not rising to the occasion by formally rejecting Magocsi's view on the issue, as deviant and incorrect - exhibits lasting effects to this day. The chracterization, 'rabidly-patriotic', is used here to underscore the Academe's misdirected attention to the 'dark pages' in Magocsi's book, rather than to correcting a historical error in the book - the error being: Claiming the RUSYNY to be a separate ethnic entity. It was, on the basis of the 'dark pages, that Magocsi was ostracized, and not for opening a crack through which alienation of the Transcarpathian Rusyny could flow out.

emkay/02/20/01

[Edited by NORRYM on 22nd February 2001 at 06:06]