Jump to content

Talk:Polish–Lithuanian identity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Józef Piłsudski, Adam Mickiewicz, Czesław Miłosz, and Gabriel Narutowicz as Polish-Lithuanians

[edit]

I cannot find that claim on p.163 of Lieven. Can somebody correct the page, and/or quote the relevant passages? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded

[edit]

I expanded the article, I hope it will now provide a good overview when linked from the articles of persons with a Polish-Lithuanian heritage. I would like to see the article expanded with more discussion on the appopriation of the shared culture and its transformation into non-shared "Polish-only" or "Lithuanian-only" by the nationalists (a word which I am not using in a derogatory sense, mind you)). For starters, I've added two excellent publications on how Mickiewicz was (ab)used in Poland and Lithuania. There should be more on others, plus some more generic treatment, I am sure. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

How about Polish-Lithuanian (nationality)? Adjective incorrectly suggests this is a grammar term, good for Wiktionary, but perhaps not encyclopedic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality is a term with several different meanings, nowadays in Western countries it usually means citizenship[citation needed], but since this article is mostly about historic meanings, OK by me. If you move it, please preserve a redirect, as it's present in several other articles, unless you plan to change them all. Novickas (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think Polish-Lithuanian (identity) or Polish-Lithuanian identity would be better. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the present title is misleading. What's worse, the whole article is also hopelessly one-sided and therefore lacks a neutral point of view. All individuals discussed here spoke and/or wrote Polish exclusively. There's no Lithuanian-speaking personalities here. The only title reflecting that fact would sound more like Polish-Lithuanian identity among Poles probably. Poeticbent talk 00:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the whole article is hopeless, however not because of being "one-sided", but a curiously intermingled original research, interspersed with sarmatism, medzymorze and whats not. The idea underlying the article is correct (about non-Pole identity of some people), but implementation is inadequate. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not done. While there is agreement that the title should be changed, there is no agreement about the change as proposed. Perhaps try another RM for a different name as suggested in a prior section on this talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC) ~Amatulić (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polish-Lithuanian (adjective) → Polish-Lithuanian (nationality) – It's not even an adjective and the article is not on a grammar term anyway. 20:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

B-class

[edit]

I have failed this article for B-class during WPPOLAND review, due to criticism raised above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian Roman theory

[edit]

The article mentions Sarmatism, but this theory was more popular in the Kingdom of Poland and some Ruthenian lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, while among Lithuanian nobles (esp. in Lithuania Proper), Palemonid legend was more widespread. This theory was supported by the highest nobles of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as well as by the early historians of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This theory is quite distinctive and part of the identity of the nobles of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the XVI-XVIII centuries. Žemėpatis (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More complex identity

[edit]

The identity was actually more complex than it is presented by the article currently. Piłsudski case or that of Stanisław Witkiewicz (Aušrinė Slavinskienė, Meninės idėjos ir nacionalumas XIX a. pabaigos–XX a. pradžios Lietuvos dailėje/Artistic idea and nationality in Lithuanian fine arts of the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries; 2008,ISSN:1822-4555,N:4,PG:81-87) is just one pole (πόλος) of the question when the person has already adopted Polish nationality "almost fully", but it could be mentioned different cases, where persons like Kazimieras Viktoras Justinas Marija Tiškevičius (Kazimierz Wiktor Justyn Maria Tyszkiewicz) joined Lithuanian army, Konstancja Skirmuntt from Polesia declared herself "Gente Lithuana, natione Lithuana" [Dariusz Szpoper "Gente Lithuana, Natione Lithuana. Myśl polityczna i działalność Konstancji Skirmuntt(1851-1934)" , Gdańsk 2009], Michał Pius Römer moved to Kaunas and started using Mykolas Römeris as his name (although this case is not full adaptation of Lithuanian nationality, more full would be Mečislovas Davainis-Silvestraitis or Gabrielius Landsbergis-Žemkalnis, Tadas Ivanauskas cases) and other cases. But even in these cases the choice is not "full" e.g. Antoni Wiwulski-Antanas Vivulskis.

It would be also a good thing to mention, that nobles sponsored printing, distributing of banned Lithuanian books and sponsored teaching. Also, so-called Lithuanian Samogitian Revival (Lithuanian: Žemaičių lietuviškasis sąjūdis), bilingual nobles like Grafas Jurgis Plateris (Jerzy hrabia Plater;1810–1831), Liudvikas Adomas Jucevičius, Dionizas Poška, Antanas Juška, Jonas Juška, Juozapas Arnulfas Giedraitis, Kajetonas Nezabitauskis, Karolina Praniauskaitė (Karolina Proniewska), Kazimieras Kontrimas (Kazimierz Kontrym; author of the project of Lithuanian language cathedral in the University of Vilnius and proponent of Lithuanian language), Laurynas Ivinskis and many more.

The later national revival (the 2nd or the 3rd, if we count "Lithuanian Samogitian revival" and "Rennaisance Revival" (Mažvydas, Kulvietis, Rapalionis, Daukša,... the terms sometimes used by the historians)) was also met by Lithuanian-Polish nobility rather kindly, than hostile: Stasys Šilingas, Gabrielė Petkevičaitė-Bitė, Žemaitė, Donatas Malinauskas, Silvestras Žukauskas, Sofija Pšibiliauskienė, Marija Lastauskienė, Šatrijos Ragana, Vaclovas Biržiška, Vaclovas Biržiška, Felicija Bortkevičienė among others.

According to "The History of Lithuania" by Alfonsas Eidintas, Alfredas Bumblauskas, Antanas Kulakauskas, Mindaugas Tamošaitis, 2013 (available in six languages), already before the ban on Lithuanian language was lifted, 28% of the nobles (who constituted a little bit over 5% of the total population) in the 1897 census identified themselves as Lithuanians (this naturally increased after 1905 and later). It is worth mentioning, that this book uses "Narutavičius versus Narutowicz" surnames, while speaking about "the choice of the nations".

It is worth mentioning, that most of the nobility was fluent in many languages. Zygmunt Mineyko was fluent in Polish, Lithuanian, Russian, French, Turkish, Greek languages; Zachariasz Niemczewski was fluent in Lithuanian too and agitated to use it more wide and to publish science books in Lithuanian (Tomas Venclova. Vilniaus vardai. Vilnius, R. Paknio leidykla, 2006), Jan Kazimierz Wilczyński (actually probably Jonas Kazimieras Vilčinskis), according to the testimony of his nephew, historian Algirdas Vilčinskas, spoke Lithuanian at home (the article was printed in Lithuanian cultural and historical newspaper "Viltis": Viltis. 1908, spalio 22 dienos/ 1908, October 22; No. 123 (158)), et. cetera. Žemėpatis (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tadas Ivanauskas had two Polish and one Belarusian brother.Xx236 (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainians and Belarusians have a less favorable memory of the era

[edit]

More complicated - some Belarusians cultivate their Lithuanian traditions, eg. Battle of Grunwald. Xx236 (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Ruthenian language evolved to Belarusian and Ukrainian.Xx236 (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ke an: This is part of the reason why I added the WikiProject Belarus and Ukraine tags to the top of the talk page. A more important reason is that the scope is defined by the (cited) lede of the article: "The Polish-Lithuanian identity describes individuals and groups with histories in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or with close connections to its culture. ... The term Polish-Lithuanian has been used to describe various groups residing in the Commonwealth, including those that did not share the Polish or Lithuanian ethnicity nor their pre-dominant Roman Catholic faith". Ukrainians and Belarusians certainly have histories in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the second sentence I quoted explicitly says that the word "Polish-Lithuanian" can describe those who are neither Poles nor Lithuanians in the ethnic sense. Given this, it is completely unsurprising that they are mentioned at various points in the article, as are the Germans in Royal Prussia. Especially Belarusian ethnicity was present in the same region in which the Polish and Lithuanian national movements were in conflict, and it had its own national movement active in the area too (e.g. Tadas Ivanauskas had two Polish and one Belarusian brother, as Xx236 notes above. Reliable sources (e.g. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330097038_Hybrid_identities_in_the_era_of_ethno-nationalism_The_case_of_the_krajowcy_in_Lithuania) do not neglect the role of Belarusian ethnicity when discussing the hybrid identities in the historical lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. As a compromise I have added back the WP Belarus tag, but not the WP Ukraine one, since the article is mostly about such hybrid identities in the GDL, which after 1569 did not include Ukrainian lands. Double sharp (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: The sentence "The Polish-Lithuanian identity describes individuals and groups with histories in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or with close connections to its culture. ... The term Polish-Lithuanian has been used to describe various groups residing in the Commonwealth, including those that did not share the Polish or Lithuanian ethnicity nor their pre-dominant Roman Catholic faith" is simply not correct or too loose or ambiguous at least. Polish-Lithuanian is not a universal term to name everything which was on Polish-Lithuanian territory or who lived in it. Ruthenians who lived in GDL used word "Ruthenians" to name themselves. Jews who lived in historic Lithuania were named and used a word Litvak for self referencing. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was established in 1569 after Union of Lublin since then Lithuanian and Polish states and cultures started to merge. After 1918, Spring of Nations, Lithuanians and Poles started to define themselves by language and ethnicity and established ethnostates. It was a reason for Polish–Lithuanian War. Belorussian identity is not part of a Polish-Lithuanian identity theme. By definition it should be discussed in the article Polish-Belorusian identity or Belorusian-Lithuanian identity. For example such figures as Konstanty Kalinowski --Ke an (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]
@Ke an: I just looked up the references listed for the second sentence I quoted; I now agree with you that it is too loose a statement, because it does not make it clear that this is a different use of the word "Polish-Lithuanian" from what the article goes on to talk about later. For example, the first of these references (Wandycz) uses the adjective "Polish-Lithuanian" rarely (six times), of which five are in the phrases "Polish-Lithuanian Union", "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth", and "Polish-Lithuanian state". The one exception is in the phrase "the subsequent Polish-Lithuanian struggle against Russia", which pretty clearly is also referring to the PLC as a state; so I don't think this reference actually verifies the statement it's citing, which is about groups in the PLC, not the PLC itself. The next two references are quoted as referring to "Polish-Lithuanian Tatars" and "Polish-Lithuanian Jewry", which at least is more relevant to the statement being cited, but again because of what you mention about Jews in historical Lithuania I suspect this is again using "Polish-Lithuanian" as an adjective referring to the Polish-Lithuanian state. So what the phrase "Polish-Lithuanian Jewry" really means is not "Jews who shared the Polish-language culture prevalent among the GDL gentry", because they did not identify with it, but rather "Jews who happened to live in the lands that were part of the PLC". And that, I suspect, is not quite on topic for an article that is titled "Polish-Lithuanian identity", because while those Jews were "Polish-Lithuanian" by geographical location, their identity was surely not that of Mickiewicz, for instance. Thank you for bringing this up and pointing out that my initial addition of the WP Belarus and Ukraine tags was based on conflating "Polish-Lithuanian" as a state adjective with "Polish-Lithuanian" as an identity! (Now I think the article should be rewritten to make it more clear that the two are different, though.)
Having said that, I still think there is some logic to discussing the Belarusian revival along with the Lithuanian revival, because it made reference to the GDL and the PLC as well; Kalinowski considered the GDL to be his fatherland, too (Snyder, The Reconstruction of Nations, p. 49), and 19th-century Belarusian activists supported a revived PLC (p. 53). I guess because of this a title along those lines for a separate article would have to be "Polish-Belarusian-Lithuanian identity". Alternatively, we could incorporate the good material from this article into a new one titled something like "History of national identity in the lands of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania", which would be able to include all cases with varying amounts of "Polish", "Belarusian", and "Lithuanian" in them. Double sharp (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: Thank yo for your reply. Yes, exactly, Polish-Lithuanian is being used to define a state and statesman - for example some Radvilos family members could be defined as Polish-Lithuanian statesman as they were active in both Poland and Lithuania. It was not used to define ethnic groups as name. For example, Jews who lived in Grand Duchy of Lithuania called themselves Litvak (from the name Lithuania), the same with Tatars - they called themselves Lipka (Lithuanian) Tatars. But that didn't mean they possesed a national (in 19th century terms) Lithuanian identity. It's a definition by place, and partially by citizenship. But it essentialy defines the Jewish and Tatar identity and their differences from those Jews and Tatars living outside of former Grand Duchy of Lithuania. At least I don't know if it were a strong Polish Jews identity comparable to Litvak Jews. For the same reason as Jews and Tatars, Ruthenians were also called Litvins (for example by Muscovites), because they belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Therefore Polish-Lithuanian doesn't suit well as universal identity marker - it is too wide and too technical and territorial. Regarding the Polish-Lithuanian identity and Poles and Lithuanians - I think main reason for the article is that two nations which merged into one Commonwealth in 16th century, splitted apart in 20th century and that created many tensions and required conscious self-determination. Formula used by some nobleman - gente lituanus, natione polonus didn't work anymore. I doubt about the meaning of "Polish-Belarusian-Lithuanian identity". Does it have an historic evidence? I think it is just a synonym for Krajowcy - who didn't want ethnic determination and cherished all multicultural parts of their identity. -- Ke an (talk)
@Ke an: Yes, sorry, I was speaking imprecisely when I said "Polish-Belarusian-Lithuanian identity"; I basically confused myself again with the meaning of Kalinowski considering the GDL his fatherland. The double meaning of "Lithuanian" as meaning both "relating to the GDL as a state" and "relating to the ethnic group of Lithuanians" is very confusing indeed – especially when both meanings were used historically at the same time by the same person. Belarusian Wikipedia notes for example that Kalinowski used both meanings: he referred to the Belarusian land and people as "Lithuanian" in an unpublished issue of his newspaper (Зямля наша зь вякоў вечных называецца літоўская, а мы то называемся літоўцы), but in his "Letters from beneath the gallows" he specifically refers to Polish, Lithuanian, and Belarusian languages (гдзе ніколі не пачуеш і слова па-польску, па-літоўску да і па-беларуску). So in the first he seems to have been trying to encourage state consciousness of the memory of the GDL, and thus used the state-based meaning of "Lithuanian" (in which case Belarusians are correctly included – this should be something like what you mention about the term "Litvin"), but in the second case he was obviously referring to linguistic matters, in which case "Lithuanian" and "Belarusian" are obviously different and thus he lists them separately. I guess this makes perfect sense if, as I quoted from Snyder above, the early Belarusian activists were aiming for a revived PLC; then they could very well call themselves "Lithuanians" by place and calling back to the time those lands were part of the GDL, while of course agreeing that they were not "Lithuanians" in the sense of the ethnic group. A more modern example of using the same word with two meanings (this one even better, as it's in the same paragraph): Snyder's The Reconstruction of Nations (p. 26) says "Mickiewicz ... was born on Christmas Eve, three years after the final partition of the Commonwealth, in Nowogródek, a Yiddish- and Polish-speaking town. The local Lithuanian Tatars had just built a new mosque. Although there were Lithuanian villages nearby, most local peasants spoke Belarusian." (There surely wasn't anything like a clear border between generally Lithuanian-speaking and Belarusian-speaking areas.) So I guess Polish-Belarusian is a better term for people like Kalinowski after all, even if I am still wracking my brains a bit to try to figure out a way to make it explicit that until 1914, no one was thinking about an independent Belarusian nation-state (Snyder p. 54), but that the early Belarusian activists were considering themselves also to be heirs of the GDL even as they supported its connexion with Poland (p. 53). Double sharp (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: Regarding the Ukrainian sentiments - to be precise they have a negative view towards the Polish domination, therefore Bohdan Khmelnytsky is a hero. But Vytautas the Great and pre Lublin Union (pre-Polish) era when Ukraine belonged to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is commemorated as flourishing. Grand Duchy of Lithuania was viewed as defender from Mongols, Tatars and Muscovites - e.g. Battle of Blue Waters. Although it was an occupying force it didn't change the religion and life norms - e.g. Lithuanian rulers in Ukrainian lands converted to Orthodox belief. e.g. - Vytautas the Great has a status of a national hero in Ukraine and considered "ours" like Alexander the Great in his conquered territories.

http://global.truelithuania.com/lithuanian-castles-in-ukraine-2015/ -- Ke an (talk)

Józef Mackiewicz

[edit]

Józef Mackiewicz should be probably mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lonnie Johnson statement

[edit]

What is the purpose of the following Lonnie Johnson statement "Ukrainians and Belarusians have a less favorable memory of the era."? What is that based on? Were there conducted specific polls? What is the purpose of this statement? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lonnie Johnson has not a single clue about national policy of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to come with such chauvinistic and absolute statement to generalize that Ukrainians and Belarusians have a less favorable memory. If that was really the case there would not be Union of Brest, Treaty of Hadiach, Treaty of Warsaw. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing the attitude of the ruling elites and the majority of population. Please keep in mind that Ukr and Bel (I will commonly call them, "ruthenian" ('ziemie ruskie')) came into the Commonwealth mainly from GDL. The elites of GDL were eager to Polonize themselves, seeing Poland as a more progressive and stronger part of the Commonwealth. There was a massive "adoption" of the nobility of GDL into Polish clans (especially of the ruthenian one). All these unions are to defend against common enemies, be it Germans, Russian Tsardom, or Bolsheviks. I will not go into detail of each treaty, all had their political reasons. However the ruthenians' vast majority were peasantry, which saw none of the perks.
The phrase you questioned is a conclusion of a paragraph not seen in the snapshot, but you may guess the content of this preceding paragraph by the ending phrase at the top of the snapshot: "...later obscured the Polish lords' additudes towards their non-Polish subjects." I agree that this sentence requires corroboration, but this may be found in Wikipedia elsewhere (I mean refs, I know WP is not a RS :-), starting with the article Polonization. Briefly:
  • disparaging attitude of Polish landlords to lowly ruthenian peasantry ("psia krew" ["dogs' blood"]) and feudal abuse (I am not saying that Russian peasantry fared better; in fact worse)
  • Polonization
    • Suppression of ruthenian languages (in schools and in administration)
    • Suppression of the Orthodox Church
I am not going to work on this article, just giving some pointers. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Polish–Lithuanian_identity&oldid=1249952687"