History of Ukraine, continued ...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
National historiography
The scholarly study of Ukraine's history emerged from romantic impulses in the late 19th century.
The outstanding leaders were Volodymyr Antonovych (1834–1908), based in Kyiv, and his student Mykhailo Hrushevsky (1866–1934).
For the first time full-scale scholarly studies based on archival sources, modern research techniques, and modern historical theories became possible.
However, the demands of government officials — Tsarist, to a lesser degree Austro-Hungarian and Polish, and later Soviet — made it difficult to disseminate ideas that ran counter to the central government.
Therefore, exile schools of historians emerged in central Europe and Canada after 1920.
Strikingly different interpretations of the medieval state of Kyivan Rus appear in the four schools of historiography within Ukraine: Russophile, Sovietophile, Eastern Slavic, and Ukrainophile.
The Russophile and Sovietophile schools have become marginalized in independent Ukraine, with the Ukrainophile school being dominant in the early 21st century.
The Ukrainophile school promotes an identity that is mutually exclusive of Russia.
It has come to dominate the nation's educational system, security forces, and national symbols and monuments, although it has been dismissed as nationalist by Western historians.
The East Slavic school, an eclectic compromise between Ukrainophiles and Russophilism, has a weaker ideological and symbolic base, although it is preferred by Ukraine's centrist former elites.
Many historians in recent years have sought alternatives to national histories, and Ukrainian history invited approaches that looked beyond a national paradigm.
Multiethnic history recognises the numerous peoples in Ukraine; transnational history portrays Ukraine as a border zone for various empires; and area studies categorises Ukraine as part of East-Central Europe or, less often, as part of Eurasia.
Serhii Plokhy argues that looking beyond the country's national history has made possible a richer understanding of Ukraine, its people, and the surrounding regions.
After 1991, historical memory was a powerful tool in the political mobilization and legitimation of the post-Soviet Ukrainian state, as well as the division of selectively used memory along the lines of the political division of Ukrainian society.
Ukraine did not experience the restorationist paradigm typical of some other post-Soviet nations, for example the three Baltic countries — Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, although the multifaceted history of independence, the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, Soviet-era repressions, mass famine, and World War II collaboration were used to provide a different constitutive frame for developing Ukrainian nationhood.
The politics of identity (which includes the production of history textbooks and the authorization of commemorative practices) has remained fragmented and tailored to reflect the ideological anxieties and concerns of individual regions of Ukraine.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
HISTORY OF UKRAINE
Re: HISTORY OF UKRAINE
History of Ukraine, continued ...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Canadian historiography on Ukraine
In Soviet Ukraine, twentieth-century historians were strictly limited in the range of models and topics they could cover, with Moscow insisting on an official Marxist approach.
However, émigré Ukrainians in Canada developed an independent scholarship that ignored Marxism, and shared the Western tendencies in historiography.
George W. Simpson and Orest Subtelny were leaders promoting Ukrainian studies in Canadian academe.
The lack of independence in Ukraine meant that traditional historiographical emphases on diplomacy and politics were handicapped.
The flourishing of social history after 1960 opened many new approaches for researchers in Canada; Subtelny used the modernization model.
Later historiographical trends were quickly adapted to the Ukrainian evidence, with special focus on Ukrainian nationalism.
The new cultural history, post-colonial studies, and the "linguistic turn" augmenting, if not replacing social history, allowed for multiple angles of approach.
By 1991, historians in Canada had freely explored a wide range of approaches regarding the emergence of a national identity.
After independence, a high priority in Canada was assisting in the freeing of Ukrainian scholarship from Soviet-Marxist orthodoxy — which downplayed Ukrainian nationalism and insisted that true Ukrainians were always trying to reunite with Russia.
Independence from Moscow meant freedom from an orthodoxy that was never well suited to Ukrainian developments.
Scholars in Ukraine welcomed the "national paradigm" that Canadian historians had helped develop.
Since 1991, the study of Ukrainian nation-building became an increasingly global and collaborative enterprise, with scholars from Ukraine studying and working in Canada, and with conferences on related topics attracting scholars from around the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ukraine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Canadian historiography on Ukraine
In Soviet Ukraine, twentieth-century historians were strictly limited in the range of models and topics they could cover, with Moscow insisting on an official Marxist approach.
However, émigré Ukrainians in Canada developed an independent scholarship that ignored Marxism, and shared the Western tendencies in historiography.
George W. Simpson and Orest Subtelny were leaders promoting Ukrainian studies in Canadian academe.
The lack of independence in Ukraine meant that traditional historiographical emphases on diplomacy and politics were handicapped.
The flourishing of social history after 1960 opened many new approaches for researchers in Canada; Subtelny used the modernization model.
Later historiographical trends were quickly adapted to the Ukrainian evidence, with special focus on Ukrainian nationalism.
The new cultural history, post-colonial studies, and the "linguistic turn" augmenting, if not replacing social history, allowed for multiple angles of approach.
By 1991, historians in Canada had freely explored a wide range of approaches regarding the emergence of a national identity.
After independence, a high priority in Canada was assisting in the freeing of Ukrainian scholarship from Soviet-Marxist orthodoxy — which downplayed Ukrainian nationalism and insisted that true Ukrainians were always trying to reunite with Russia.
Independence from Moscow meant freedom from an orthodoxy that was never well suited to Ukrainian developments.
Scholars in Ukraine welcomed the "national paradigm" that Canadian historians had helped develop.
Since 1991, the study of Ukrainian nation-building became an increasingly global and collaborative enterprise, with scholars from Ukraine studying and working in Canada, and with conferences on related topics attracting scholars from around the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ukraine