Russian Imperialism - Tumblr Posts

I was scrolling Instagram Reels and everything was fine, until I saw a video of a Ukrainian girl dubbing anime.

Honestly, I forgot what a pleasure is communication with not all Russians

She’s a cool girl but why she doesn’t speak Russian?

Well, I don’t know. Because other languages exist? Oh, wait

And now write in a human language

Explanation: a human language is any other language that is not Ukrainian, cause you know, Ukrainian language is an animal language

The Ukrainian language is a rural Russian. That’s why a lot of people find it funny. We haven’t been to the village, haven’t heard «бурак» (a twisted Ukrainian word for beetroot) and «кавун» (a Ukrainian word for watermelon).

The good old Russian belief that Ukrainian is a language of uneducated people from the countryside

South Slavic forms of Russian are quite similar to each other, do you also laugh at Serbian language or South Western Czech language?

It seems this person was trying to talk some sense into the previous user but South Western Czech is a South Slavic form of Russian????

Actually, no politics or something, but Ukrainian sounds somehow, I don’t know, like a rural language

A few moments later

500k dead pigs. It’s not enough, we need more

What did happened to ‘no politics’?

It’s common for Russians to call Ukrainians pigs, by the way

The most useless dubbing

It’s useless because it’s Ukrainian. Nothing new

Who might find the rural language, which only makes you laugh and smile, useful? You, even the Ukrainians themselves, don’t speak it

There are only two types of Russians: who thinks that no people speak Ukrainian in Ukraine, and who thinks that evil people who speak Ukrainian violate rights of Russian speakers in Ukraine

Weird, I’m so accustomed to reading such comments for all these years that I don’t have any emotional response to the insults.

Brainrot is real. This generation of humanity really denying any reality because they are simply OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE REALITY. Yes, go and consume your favourite fandom content for next 10 years every day for 18 hours and see real life people through fictional characters and as fictional characters, then don't wonder why your mental health in deep ass and you can't functioneting as normal human being.

"I seriously wonder if people realize that the more they hate Lera due to her country of origin, the more they make her into Robin."

I seriously wonder if people realize that any comparison between reality and a fictional character renders their words meaningless.

I will not repeat the same thing a thousand times just because you people seem to have lost the ability to read or something. You can just come in and re-read some of my posts and the posts of other Ukrainians. Literally everything is clearly written there. But the fate of the "unfortunate" russians hurts you so much that you absolutely do not care about the opinion of Ukrainians. The line about the russians who went to the rally and supported Ukraine is especially funny. Ok, we are grateful to them, what next? Should I now close my eyes to everything and not highlight important issues that concern us? People, this is not an anime, we live in a country that is shelled and destroyed every day by the russians. Wake up and think about what you are writing.

russians: literally kill Ukrainians, want to destroy Ukraine and try to turn Ukrainians into russians.

Westerns 🥱😴.

Ukrainians: Asking the russians who living in the west for a clear position on the war. Asked Westerns not to spread the culture and influence of russia through the pop culture during the genocidal war. You can support the culture of countries that suffered from russian aggression: Syria, Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine.

Westerns: Oh my God, you are so aggressive and angry, you are xenophobes, putin was right.

Yes, literally this.

Westerners: A rich russian model who doesn't care about the war > Ukrainians who die in the war every day.

Я не думаю, що це захоплення Палестиною триватиме довго, вони від неї відмовляться так само, як і від нас. Коли кілька днів тому Росія зруйнувала Херсонес і побудувала на його місці театр, пости про це набрали лише 1000 нотаток. Пости з відвертою дезінформацією отримують тут 40000 поширень. Вони лише прикидаються, що піклуються про Газу, тому що це дає їм вплив. Незабаром кавуни в їхніх профілях будуть замінені чимось іншим.

felt like these tags are important

“The Holodomor wasn’t a genocide but Ukraine making Ukrainian the only official language of Ukraine after centuries of russification, while not banning the use of Russian, is absolutely a genocide” - opinion expressed by someone who is either a liar or an utter fool

“The Holodomor wasn’t a genocide but Ukraine making Ukrainian the only official language of Ukraine after centuries of russification, while not banning the use of Russian, is absolutely a genocide” - opinion expressed by someone who is either a liar or an utter fool

every single thing they talking about in this video

Another fact about annexation I want to share.

In the next year after the annexation started, we received forms in school where we could choose to study Ukrainian and/or Crimean Tatar languages as a extracurricular activities. But, at the next day, the kids that had chosen to study them got yelled by our homeroom teacher and were forced to refill them. She explained it by the fact that we wouldn't go there anyway and our parents would be forced to pay the salary to the teacher because the government wouldn't if there weren't any classes. (And it sounds so stupid, )

Looking back, it was such a shitty excuse. They basically pretended to give us an option, while throwing it out the moment we had choose option that was 'wrong'

Russian imperialism in literature: Bulgakov's case

One can argue that language influences human cognition. It is becoming more difficult to disagree with the idea that information is a tool which shapes people’s worldviews. And that information is expressed and absorbed through language. Sentences in front of a person can become their thoughts. This notion highlights the importance of text analysis.

Ukrainians are often saying that Russian literature is imperialistic, and consists of harmful ideas therefore it should be cancelled. I believe in the idea that it is impossible to cross out the whole layer of culture: a lot of things are mutually interconnected, and one cannot be understood without the other. What is more, we (I let myself use a personal pronoun here as I am a Ukrainian) will not escape the situations when we need to discuss Russian literature with others, and `it is imperialistic` would not be enough. However, I do believe in the idea of creating a Ukrainian perspective and making it valuable during the analysis of Russian texts. It is not productive to state that something is bad without a strong theoretical background.

The idea came to me after I had finished reading The White Guard written by Bulgakov who is considered to be Ukrainephobic, but I wanted to form an opinion on my own. I was quite stunned by reviews on Goodreads: there were several Russian comments about this book being full of anti-Ukrainian sentiments and zero comments in English about the book’s problematics. It was the first time I had thought about probable semantic nuances lost in the translation and a lack of general knowledge about Russia.

It is my attempt to provide the basic analysis of specific moments in The White Guard which can cause the distortion of meaning due to the reasons mentioned above.

The word самодержавие is translated as the Monarchy. The Monarchy is монархия in Russian while самодержавие is a special concept which has a direct translation Tsarist autocracy. Autocracy is a specific form of rulership. A monarch can be an autocrat but not every autocrat is a monarch. The source text presents to a reader the glorification of Russia together with autocracy which disappears in the translation.

The author used emotive language as scoundrel and bandit to describe Petliura whom Ukrainians and Russians know as a person who was fighting for independent Ukraine. The usage of such strong words evokes unpleasant associations with criminality and aims to make readers disgusted with the following person.

Also, Bulgakov created a contextual opposition of German as being better, and Ukrainian as being worse `I can’t imagine how they could ever come to terms with him for one moment`. Germans cannot let something that they perceive as criminal (Ukrainian) coexist with them.

One of the characters says that Germans are not so ideal as he thinks `I saw a drunken German sergeant with a peasant woman`. The events of the book take place in Kyiv, Ukraine therefore they are talking about a Ukrainian peasant woman. Alexei replies that `there may be cases of demoralization even in the German army`. The word разложение in the original (which is demoralization in translation) means decomposition, decay or corruption. Following the main theme of this conversation, being seen with a Ukrainian peasant woman means moral corruption for a German.

Мать городов русских - the Mother of Russian Cities is a famous allusion to Kyiv. The translator did not provide any explanations of this fact therefore it is difficult to understand how people perceive this part. What is more, it is written гибнущей матери городов русских, specific adjective гибнущей which means dying or collapsing. It is omitted in the translation, however, contextually it is crucial. Dying Kyiv for Russian characters means pro-Ukrainian Kyiv, Kyiv which is in the power of forces eager to build an independent Ukrainian state.

The phrase the Mother of Russian Cities is interesting on its own. Ukraine is represented as a younger sister or younger brother nation of Russians in the Russian worldview. But at the same time, Russians use a phrase that denotes the capital of the same younger country (Ukraine) to be a mother of cities in an older country (Russia). This can be further logically developed into the idea that Russia cannot frame itself existentially without Ukraine. It’s difficult to exist in the paradigm of Rus’ with its main cultural centre in Kyiv and does not have it included in Russian territories.

Despite the fact that Hetman is known for being loyal to Russian non-Soviet forces, one can see how Bulgakov (a famous imperialist himself) wrote about Ukrainian attempts to build a country `a stupid, squalid little comic opera affair`. The usage of such vocabulary makes a reader think that Ukraine is some kind of theatrical joke and should not be taken seriously.

The main importance of this part is in the word sharovary. The translator explained it in the text before `broad, baggy Ukrainian trousers called sharovary`. The author used sharovary as metonymy. The author meant Ukrainians which is immediately understandable for Russians. The thing is, that it can be seen as a deliberate act of dehumanization minding the tone of the book. Ukrainians are reduced to the material object; Ukrainian humanity is taken away. Ukrainians are not people, they are a thing.

Moreover, Bulgakov used the word guests to describe Ukrainians which has clear connotations. Ukrainians are supposed not to see Ukraine as their home.

Russian is a fusional language. It is almost impossible for people who do not speak Russian to understand how suffixes influence meaning. Book is книга in Russian, but книжонка is a more derogatory term which is similar to trashy book. This disparaging term is used to describe Ukrainian grammar to create an image of it as something not valuable. Also, it is highlighted by adjectives `a thin text-book printed on cheap gray paper` which evokes an unpleasant vision.

What is interesting, this extract undermines Russian propaganda about the Ukrainian language as a creation of Lenin/Soviets or a dialect. Ukraine became officially a part of the USSR in 1922, the events described in the book took place in 1918. Russian author presented in his own book the evidence of the Ukrainian language with its own rules debunking the Russian myth.

I was most interested in this part of the book as it represents a very difficult fragment for translation. ‘он же сам не говорит на этом языке’ is translated as `he can’t speak Ukrainian properly himself’. First of all, there are no adverbials of manner in the original. Secondly, the character does not say Ukrainian language, he says этом языке - that language as all characters and readers know what language they are talking about disapprovingly.

The sentence `Был Курицкий, а стал Курицький…` - `He was Kuritsky and became Kurytskyi` has its specific connotation which was lost in translation `Changed his name, too, to make it sound Ukrainian…`. It can be distinguished as the Russian form Курицкий - Kuritsky and Ukrainian Курицький - Kurytskyi. However, the translator did not give any historical explanation here. A reader who is not familiar with the specifics of Russian assimilation policies would probably assume that changing your surname is something weird. It was a common practice to change Ukrainian (not only Ukrainian) names and surnames so they sounded more Russian during the time of the Russian Empire and USSR. It was a huge part of Russification. Changing your surname back to its Ukrainian form is an act of restoration of your identity: was Kuritsky - was Russian, became Kurytskyi – became Ukrainian. One can see a tone of condemnation of Russian characters on this matter.

`Так вот спрашиваю: как по-украински «кот»? Он отвечает «кит». Спрашиваю: «А как кит?»`

`Well, so I asked him - what’s the Ukrainian for “cat” ? “Kit” he said. All

right, I said, so what’s the Ukrainian for “kit”?`

This dialogue requires some linguistic expertise. Russian кот is a cat in English and кіт (kit) in Ukrainian. When one looks at the original, it is written «кит» not кіт. It is what Bulgakov did throughout the whole text: all Ukrainian words are presented through bad and twisted Russian transliteration. In Russian кит kit (which sounds similar to cat in Ukrainian) means whale. Therefore he asks what’s the Ukrainian for “kit (whale)”. The Russian character uses interlingual homophones (Ukrainian кіт kit for a cat and Russian кит kit for a whale) to humiliate a Ukrainian who is in the  process of getting his cultural autonomy back. By the way, a whale in Ukrainian is кит kyt which is interlingual homograph (Ukrainian кит kyt for a whale and Russian кит kit for a whale). It demonstrates how Bulgakov masterfully played with his Russian audience on a linguistic level.

`Слова «кит» у них не может быть, потому что на Украине не водятся киты, а в России всего много. В Белом море киты есть…`

This remark is completely omitted in the translation. It goes after `Nikolka roared with laughter` and before `Мобилизация`  - `Mobilisation`.

They can’t have the word «кит (whale)» because there are no whales in Ukraine, and Russia has a lot of everything. There are whales in the White Sea...

The author presents Ukraine as not as rich and big as Russia and consequently Ukrainian language lacks words. This is a deliberate act of Russian linguistic chauvinism to show the inferiority of the Ukrainian language.

The original text presents the toponym Малороссия (Malorossiya) more known to the Western audience as Little Russia, however, the translation goes with ‘Ukraine’. But the term Malorossiya (Little Russia) always goes in opposition to Великороссия Velikorossiya or Great Russia. Great Russia is Russia, Little Russia is Ukraine. Malorossiya is a pejorative exonym used and spread as a result of Russian colonial and imperialistic policies. On a linguistic level, this shapes the idea of Ukraine being little, small, less and inferior while Russia is better and greater. The translator omitted that term which would show chauvinistic and colonial views of Russian characters.

Meanwhile translator used ‘the Ukraine’. One can argue that translation was done during the Soviet time when Ukraine was a Republic. The usage of the article was dropped by now, however, there is a question: Russia and Belarus, for instance, also were Republics but article the was not used with the country names. Is it proof of how easily the Western world accepted Russian colonial view on Ukraine?

First of all, the translated omitted adjective торжественно as the character says solemnly laid Ukraine at the feet of His Majesty the Emperor Nicholas II.

Secondly, there are no words about the allegiance. It is clearly stated that Ukraine as a country with its people would have laid at the feet of His Majesty the Emperor Nicholas II.

He refers to this as the plan. Whose plan? It seems as if everybody agreed to give up Ukraine to the Russian Monarchy.

Thirdly, at the feet of His Majesty the Emperor Nicholas II is a hyperbolization of the Russian Emperor as a person who is above countries and nations (metaphorically and physically), while Ukraine is contextually diminished as being at the feet of someone therefore being in powerless position, not equal, lower or on the knees.

Moreover, Ukraine as a country with its people is presented as passive and inactive, voiceless, as something that should be taken and governed.

This is a case of substitution of concepts. The original text says Русь - Rus`, not Россия - Russia. This change omits the Russian imperialistic worldview because the medieval state of Rus` is not the same as Russia or the Russian Empire. Using Rus` (which was a historical period for several countries) as metonymy in the meaning of Russia justifies imperialism and frames the opinion that all other countries are supposed to be ruled by the Russian rulership of Tsarist autocracy and, what is more, can be ruled only by the autocracy. This is lost in the translation.

There is a clear juxtaposition of two countries Poland and Germany. Poland which was a part of Russian colonial politics described as turbulent, insecure, what sort of place this new country which evokes negative associations, while Germany is that great nation of honest Teutons which should evoke admiration. It can be further developed into the idea of how Russians talk about nations which they see as equal and nations which are minor to them.

The English text does not include невсамделишным царством which can be translated as invalid kingdom.

The Ukrainian state is described as curious, a ludicrous operetta and a failed state which aims to make reader despise and laugh at it, however, at the same time Russians are happy to use it for their own needs.

This part shows Russians, who found shelter in Ukraine (which was opposing Bolsheviks), and their attitude towards Ukrainians. It is clearly stated that they hated it with all their heart and soul.

To the atrocities committed by Germans, they react as Ukrainians deserve them and Russians would punish Ukrainians even harder for wishing to be free “didn’t want their own masters, so now they can have a taste of another”.

Who are Ukrainians according to Russians? `Ведь это такие мерзавцы. Это же совершенно дикие звери.’ Bulgakov used это it or these instead of the personal pronoun they meaning Ukrainians (translator used they) and took Ukrainian humanity once more calling them animals `These are completely wild animals`.

An educated man and a gentleman cannot be on Petliura’s side according to the text, therefore logically following that statement, no educated man can stand for an independent Ukraine. This presupposes subconscious assumption and comparison that uneducated and brute would be pro-Ukrainian.

The original line `Ну, что вы, в самом деле. Что мы, папуасы какие-нибудь?`  turned out to be `What’s the matter with you? We’re not cannibals, you know - we won’t eat you!`  However, there are no mentions of cannibals. There is litotes `Что мы, папуасы какие-нибудь?` -  `We’re are not Papuans`. This implies the following we are not Papuans therefore we are civilized.

The world cannot continue with blind admiration of Russian culture. I hope that this will help people to understand that imperialism and chauvinism in Russian literature should be addressed. Russian colonialism and imperialism are not different from Western colonialism and imperialism. It is time for it to become a topic of discussion.

Side notes: I used screenshots to be clear that I didn’t create everything out of spite. There are 3 translations. I used one that I managed to find.

Mikhail Bulgakov The White Guard. Translated from the Russian by Michael Glenny. Collins and Harvill Press London. 1971