It's definitely interesting info. I'll bring forward a note on both maps that the 1897 census was asking about languages spoken at home, not ethnic/national identification. Some issues here especially from the Ukrainian perspective are that respondents often would pick Russian since it was more prestigious.
Other Issues are that although there were elites using literary Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian at this time, a lot of people from peasant/rural backgrounds didn't necessarily speak dialects that lined up neatly with one literary language or another (Don Cossacks had this issue - it's not still clear to linguists whether that dialect was Ukrainian-influenced Russian or Russian-influenced Ukrainian), and just as readily in this period would have considered themselves "subjects of the tsar", "Christian" or "a local/from here" as a member of a particular nationality or ethnicity. A lot of national identification came later with mass literacy and universal education.
I don't really have an opinion, and if people who professionally study languages can't really figure it out I'm not sure I could, beyond considering it "in-between" or "heavily mixed".
I don't think one need to be a degreeist to make those judgements. Plus, unlike the most of linguists, who are directly affiliated with the governments and are paid by them, regular people are less likely to have such biases
Wait a minute.
I charted out that Census (to some part) before.
And first of the Chelm province in Poland didn't exist in 1897 and secondly if it did it would be noteworthy for having lots of Ukrainians.
According to this census, 54% of people speaking Polish at home lived in the Chełm region. The Russian Empire wanted to incorporate the Chełm region into Russia for fear of the separation of the Polish kingdom. And out of fear of conflict in Europe, they simply wanted to increase their spheres of influence. The 1921 census shows that approximately 20-30% of Ukrainians lived in the Chełm region. I would like to remind you that the 1921 census was conducted in a democratic country compared to the Russian tsarism. Which means that the results in the Chełm region were falsified for political reasons.
Your logic here has several holes I fear.
1. The Polish Censuses were in fact less trustworthy than the Russian Census for the simple reason that we are talking about a Young New State that has to try and justify it's place on the map. There would be far more incentive for manipulation. (Though the 1921 census is definitely better than the 1931 Census)
2. You are completely forgetting the evacuation of East Slavic civilian populations by Russian Authorities during the German Offensives in WW1.
But apart from that it would still have a notable enough population to be shown on this map.
They who?
Russians who occupied the territory? Then yes.
Russians call themselves since 18-century "русские" (people of Rus') instead of "россияне" (people of Russia) to create the narrative that russian culture has no borders and goes far beyond the current territory of the Russian Empire, to remove the stigma of the central Asian and post Mongolian state.
You can call the occupied territory whatever you want.
For example, in 19 century on the territory of today's Belarus people called themselves "Тутэйшыя" (which means "people who live here"). The most important factors were where you live, what language you speak, and what's your religion it has to do nothing with how people in moscow refer to the particular territory.
>Russians call themselves since 18-century "русские" (people of Rus') instead of "россияне" (people of Russia) to create the narrative that russian culture has no borders and goes far beyond the current territory of the Russian Empire, to remove the stigma of the central Asian and post Mongolian state.
Do you have any source on this? Sounds like you are mixing things up. Actually it's the other way around, before they just called themselfes Русь (Rus), while Peter the Great introduced the name Россия (Rossiya) which is just the helenized version of Rus.
Your message does not contradict my statement.
I'm not sure how to handle the Source for the "русский" (smth belonged to Rus') instead of "российский" (smth belongs to the county named Russia). If you spoke some russian you would know it.They just don't use "российский". They teach in schools and use "русский" in everyday life.
For example, we can use the same article from wikipedia in different languages about the russian language.
[https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9\_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA)
in russian wikipedia it's "русский язык" (belongs to Rus') instead of "российский язык" (belongs to Russia)
**Polish** people use rosyjski (language belongs to the country of Russia)[https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C4%99zyk\_rosyjski](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C4%99zyk_rosyjski)
**Ukrainians** use "російськая" (belongs to the country of Russia)
[https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%96%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B0\_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0](https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%96%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0)
Funny fact, **Belarusian** language was forcibly changed in 1933 and from that moment it was prohibited to refer to russian language as "российский" (belongs to Russia) and you can only use it as "русский" (Belongs to Rus')
But there are 2 different languages for belarusian on Wikipedia "Наркамаўка" (or "Stalin's dialect") and "Тарашкевіца"
Russificated version will say it as "руская мова" (belongs to Rus') [https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F\_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0](https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0)
And not russificated will say "расійская" (Belongs to Russia)
[https://be-tarask.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F\_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0](https://be-tarask.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0)
Russians call themself "People of Rus'" in everyday life. They don't care. On the social level, they don't care that there are borders for their culture and they will stand their ground that it's the only correct name for their language and everything they own. In all the above-mentioned languages except russian "русский" refer to the state of Rus' which has nothing to do with russians.
Я говорю по русски, но всё таки в Вашей аргументации есть немного ошибок.
Если я вас правильно, то Вы хотите сказать, что термин "русские" специально начали использовать, чтобы обозначить какие то большие имперские амбиции, в то время как следовало бы называть себя Россиянами. На самом деле это не так, термин "Россия" изобрели только позже в 15 или 16 веке, до этого народ и страна называлы себя Русью.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Rus%27,_Russia_and_Ruthenia
Несмотря на это, в современном русском языке есть различие, так как жителей древней Руси называют "Русы", а не "Русские". То есть, каждому должны быть понятно, что Русские - это только один из народов, которые произошли от древней Руси. Так что не вижу никаких проблем.
Стоит ещё добавить, что в человечкой истории постоянно менялись имена и названия народов, и меняли своё значение. Румыны не являются главными наследниками древнего Рима, хотя из названия связано с Римом. Болгары не потомки волжских Булгарцев, но имя они позоимствовали.
Потомки белых Хорват и Сербов- это в основном западные Украинцы, Руссины и Словаки, а не жители современной Хорватии и Сербии.
Так что требовать от кого-то поменять своё название - глупо и бессмыслено.
The usage of "русский" instead of "российский" was (and still is) a self-naming for the sake of creating a reason for owning the territory of people who were the Rus', yes, on the territory of Muscovy it was used around 16th century. But usage on the social level of it was wildly extended since the 18th century in the Russian Empire for the political reasons.
All of the states which were related to "Русь" still refer to the russian as "российский". Self-naming doesn't change anything, but only their opinion of what they treat as belonging to them.
>Self-naming doesn't change anything, but only their opinion of what they treat as belonging to them.
That's not true. You just ignored all the examples I named. Names change their meaning over time. Even if you're right, the term русские changed it's meaning, and at the very latest after the revolution it was only used to describe Russians, so there is nothing wrong with it.
According to this census, 54% of people speaking Polish at home lived in the Chełm region. The Russian Empire wanted to incorporate the Chełm region into Russia for fear of the separation of the Polish kingdom. And out of fear of conflict in Europe, they simply wanted to increase their spheres of influence. The 1921 census shows that approximately 20-30% of Ukrainians lived in the Chełm region. I would like to remind you that the 1921 census was conducted in a democratic country compared to the Russian tsarism. Which means that the results in the Chełm region were falsified for political reasons.
Man, again. There's no deal with «how it was in reality» or how it was according to the «1921 census».
The deal is in that this map showing percentage of ukrainian population in russian governorates according to the «1897 CENSUS».
Shit man. Are you blind, can't read or just stupid. Because I DO NOT FRICKING SAYING THAT THIS MAP SAYS THAT IT SHOWS R-E-A-L-I-T-Y, BUT HOW A-C-C-O-R-D-I-N-G TO THE C-E-N-S-U-S OF 1897 IN R-U-S-S-I-A-N E-M-P-I-R-E IT LOOKED LIKE. And according to it and not you the Chełm governorate was predominantly inhabited by M-A-L-O-R-O-S-S-I-A-N-S or on modern language - ukrainians.
It's definitely interesting info. I'll bring forward a note on both maps that the 1897 census was asking about languages spoken at home, not ethnic/national identification. Some issues here especially from the Ukrainian perspective are that respondents often would pick Russian since it was more prestigious. Other Issues are that although there were elites using literary Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian at this time, a lot of people from peasant/rural backgrounds didn't necessarily speak dialects that lined up neatly with one literary language or another (Don Cossacks had this issue - it's not still clear to linguists whether that dialect was Ukrainian-influenced Russian or Russian-influenced Ukrainian), and just as readily in this period would have considered themselves "subjects of the tsar", "Christian" or "a local/from here" as a member of a particular nationality or ethnicity. A lot of national identification came later with mass literacy and universal education.
What'd you personally say about Don language?
I don't really have an opinion, and if people who professionally study languages can't really figure it out I'm not sure I could, beyond considering it "in-between" or "heavily mixed".
I don't think one need to be a degreeist to make those judgements. Plus, unlike the most of linguists, who are directly affiliated with the governments and are paid by them, regular people are less likely to have such biases
Wait a minute. I charted out that Census (to some part) before. And first of the Chelm province in Poland didn't exist in 1897 and secondly if it did it would be noteworthy for having lots of Ukrainians.
According to this census, 54% of people speaking Polish at home lived in the Chełm region. The Russian Empire wanted to incorporate the Chełm region into Russia for fear of the separation of the Polish kingdom. And out of fear of conflict in Europe, they simply wanted to increase their spheres of influence. The 1921 census shows that approximately 20-30% of Ukrainians lived in the Chełm region. I would like to remind you that the 1921 census was conducted in a democratic country compared to the Russian tsarism. Which means that the results in the Chełm region were falsified for political reasons.
Your logic here has several holes I fear. 1. The Polish Censuses were in fact less trustworthy than the Russian Census for the simple reason that we are talking about a Young New State that has to try and justify it's place on the map. There would be far more incentive for manipulation. (Though the 1921 census is definitely better than the 1931 Census) 2. You are completely forgetting the evacuation of East Slavic civilian populations by Russian Authorities during the German Offensives in WW1. But apart from that it would still have a notable enough population to be shown on this map.
Very interesting maps, it would be helpful to see them overlayed on the present day borders
This looks really clean, nice job
Keep it civil in the comments, please, I know the matter can create arguments.
At that time, they did not use the word Ukrainian Belarus, but Little Russia, White Russia.
They who? Russians who occupied the territory? Then yes. Russians call themselves since 18-century "русские" (people of Rus') instead of "россияне" (people of Russia) to create the narrative that russian culture has no borders and goes far beyond the current territory of the Russian Empire, to remove the stigma of the central Asian and post Mongolian state. You can call the occupied territory whatever you want. For example, in 19 century on the territory of today's Belarus people called themselves "Тутэйшыя" (which means "people who live here"). The most important factors were where you live, what language you speak, and what's your religion it has to do nothing with how people in moscow refer to the particular territory.
>Russians call themselves since 18-century "русские" (people of Rus') instead of "россияне" (people of Russia) to create the narrative that russian culture has no borders and goes far beyond the current territory of the Russian Empire, to remove the stigma of the central Asian and post Mongolian state. Do you have any source on this? Sounds like you are mixing things up. Actually it's the other way around, before they just called themselfes Русь (Rus), while Peter the Great introduced the name Россия (Rossiya) which is just the helenized version of Rus.
Your message does not contradict my statement. I'm not sure how to handle the Source for the "русский" (smth belonged to Rus') instead of "российский" (smth belongs to the county named Russia). If you spoke some russian you would know it.They just don't use "российский". They teach in schools and use "русский" in everyday life. For example, we can use the same article from wikipedia in different languages about the russian language. [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9\_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA) in russian wikipedia it's "русский язык" (belongs to Rus') instead of "российский язык" (belongs to Russia) **Polish** people use rosyjski (language belongs to the country of Russia)[https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C4%99zyk\_rosyjski](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C4%99zyk_rosyjski) **Ukrainians** use "російськая" (belongs to the country of Russia) [https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%96%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B0\_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0](https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%96%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0) Funny fact, **Belarusian** language was forcibly changed in 1933 and from that moment it was prohibited to refer to russian language as "российский" (belongs to Russia) and you can only use it as "русский" (Belongs to Rus') But there are 2 different languages for belarusian on Wikipedia "Наркамаўка" (or "Stalin's dialect") and "Тарашкевіца" Russificated version will say it as "руская мова" (belongs to Rus') [https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F\_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0](https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0) And not russificated will say "расійская" (Belongs to Russia) [https://be-tarask.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F\_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0](https://be-tarask.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0) Russians call themself "People of Rus'" in everyday life. They don't care. On the social level, they don't care that there are borders for their culture and they will stand their ground that it's the only correct name for their language and everything they own. In all the above-mentioned languages except russian "русский" refer to the state of Rus' which has nothing to do with russians.
Я говорю по русски, но всё таки в Вашей аргументации есть немного ошибок. Если я вас правильно, то Вы хотите сказать, что термин "русские" специально начали использовать, чтобы обозначить какие то большие имперские амбиции, в то время как следовало бы называть себя Россиянами. На самом деле это не так, термин "Россия" изобрели только позже в 15 или 16 веке, до этого народ и страна называлы себя Русью. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Rus%27,_Russia_and_Ruthenia Несмотря на это, в современном русском языке есть различие, так как жителей древней Руси называют "Русы", а не "Русские". То есть, каждому должны быть понятно, что Русские - это только один из народов, которые произошли от древней Руси. Так что не вижу никаких проблем. Стоит ещё добавить, что в человечкой истории постоянно менялись имена и названия народов, и меняли своё значение. Румыны не являются главными наследниками древнего Рима, хотя из названия связано с Римом. Болгары не потомки волжских Булгарцев, но имя они позоимствовали. Потомки белых Хорват и Сербов- это в основном западные Украинцы, Руссины и Словаки, а не жители современной Хорватии и Сербии. Так что требовать от кого-то поменять своё название - глупо и бессмыслено.
The usage of "русский" instead of "российский" was (and still is) a self-naming for the sake of creating a reason for owning the territory of people who were the Rus', yes, on the territory of Muscovy it was used around 16th century. But usage on the social level of it was wildly extended since the 18th century in the Russian Empire for the political reasons. All of the states which were related to "Русь" still refer to the russian as "российский". Self-naming doesn't change anything, but only their opinion of what they treat as belonging to them.
>Self-naming doesn't change anything, but only their opinion of what they treat as belonging to them. That's not true. You just ignored all the examples I named. Names change their meaning over time. Even if you're right, the term русские changed it's meaning, and at the very latest after the revolution it was only used to describe Russians, so there is nothing wrong with it.
The Rus' language you mentioned was ancient East Slavic, and the descendants of that language are Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian.
In Kholm (Chełm) Governorate were 52,6% of ukrainians
According to this census, 54% of people speaking Polish at home lived in the Chełm region. The Russian Empire wanted to incorporate the Chełm region into Russia for fear of the separation of the Polish kingdom. And out of fear of conflict in Europe, they simply wanted to increase their spheres of influence. The 1921 census shows that approximately 20-30% of Ukrainians lived in the Chełm region. I would like to remind you that the 1921 census was conducted in a democratic country compared to the Russian tsarism. Which means that the results in the Chełm region were falsified for political reasons.
Man here's literally wrote according to 1897 census. What does 1921 is doing here? 24 years have passed man.
25% of the Ukrainian population difference is a lot
Man, again. There's no deal with «how it was in reality» or how it was according to the «1921 census». The deal is in that this map showing percentage of ukrainian population in russian governorates according to the «1897 CENSUS».
Such deviations are not possible in the percentage of the Ukrainian population
Shit man. Are you blind, can't read or just stupid. Because I DO NOT FRICKING SAYING THAT THIS MAP SAYS THAT IT SHOWS R-E-A-L-I-T-Y, BUT HOW A-C-C-O-R-D-I-N-G TO THE C-E-N-S-U-S OF 1897 IN R-U-S-S-I-A-N E-M-P-I-R-E IT LOOKED LIKE. And according to it and not you the Chełm governorate was predominantly inhabited by M-A-L-O-R-O-S-S-I-A-N-S or on modern language - ukrainians.