Talk:Kuban Cossacks/Archive 1

Origin
In 2005 a genetic study was published and revealed even more astonishing details that the Kuban territories' gene pool was by far the purest of all the Russian samples. ... which proves that ethnically, Russians are of Ukrainian origin. I'm just joking - of course it's not true. ;-)--Lysy (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well actually specify what you mean by Ukrainian origin. If you mean Rus'ski as in origin of the great Rus then yes, if you mean the modern ethnic Ukrainians ie Malorossians (please let no one be insulted by this term, I just want to destinguish them from Ukarainians as in citizens of Ukraine) then there are quite several differences in the gene pool, particularly the Galician Ukrainians which the study shows are actually closer to...Tatars. Kuban kazak 23:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is the text: http://www.newsru.com/russia/28sep2005/russians.html http://www.kommersant.ru/k-vlast/get_page.asp?page_id=20053854-16.htm

Indeed, I meant Rus'ski origin and I thought this was the origin of modern ethnic Ukrainians. Thanks for the pointers. --Lysy (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well its an origin for Belarussians, Cossacks, Pomorians, Russians, Ruthenians and Ukrainians (in no particular order) Kuban kazak 01:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

On "Kubanization" by Kuban Kazak
Dear Kazache, Huculs from Karpaty believe that Jesus was also a Hucul. I’m sure they can prove it using a couple of publications from “reputable” newspapers or by organizing voting in the region. Your favorite article or its original and this type of citations of results of Kuban census: “''in 2002 the Russian census finally allowed the Cossacks to be declared as a separate group, with an ability to specify it as ethnicity. The "Ukrainian" box received 0.0% ticks.''” that you readily insert in all appropriate and not appropriate places all over WP have equal credibility. I do not want to analyze the “article” from professional point of view (though I am of appropriate qualification to make such analysis). I will just cite most “notable” phrases from the above named source that do not require special training to understand (Sorry, it will be in the original language):

“…с точки зрения повышения производительности труда выгоднее размещать тонкие высокотехнологичные сборочные производства на юге России, где пальцы населения наиболее приспособлены для сборки микропроцессоров, а горячие и не требующие тонкой моторики кистей рук производства (сталелитейные и подобного типа) -- на севере.” Till now I was convinced that microprocessors are assembled by robots.

“…''после тысяч совмещений с полученных фотографий эталонных Жака и Марианны смотрели серые безликие овалы лиц. Такая картина даже у самых далеких от антропологии французов могла вызвать ненужный вопрос: а есть ли вообще французская нация?''” Yes! French are not a nation! Vse kazly! Uraaa!! Za Rodinu!!!! And so do Ukrainians!

“…украинцы из левобережной Украины генетически так же близки к русским, как коми-зыряне, мордва и марийцы”. Ukrainians from Livoberezhzhya=Russians, Mordva=Russians -> Ukrainians from Livoberezhzhya=Mordva. And so on. We all are brothers after all… Except those tatars from Lvov (prokljati banderivci): “…между украинцами из Львова и татарами генетическое расстояние составляет всего 10 единиц.” And why not to use such a nice opportunity to involve here some politics: “Можно как угодно реагировать на эти строго научные факты, показывающие природную сущность эталонных электоратов Виктора Ющенко и Виктора Януковича”

Good enough for people to understand what was the purpose of this “article”. But not for Kazak who uses it for supporting his “original” ideas: “…the Kuban territories' gene pool was by far the purest of all the Russian samples.” ; “My opinion: the followng people Velikorossians, Malorossians, Belorossians, Pomorians, Carpathian Ruthenians and Cossacks are just the different variations of the Russian slavic group.”

There is simple definition for such type of sources and claims: “yellow press” and “chauvinism”. And this why all civilized scientific community agreed long time ago not to conduct such type of research or not to present it in this way (but something like this ). This is why “…часть исследования из-за недостатка государственного финансирования ученым пришлось выполнять совместно с зарубежными коллегами, которые на многие результаты наложили мораторий до выхода совместных публикаций в научной прессе.” Because even if this true statement and this publication will ever see the light in a reputable edition – it will have much different claims. And it will take even much more time and many more articles on the subject for historians to use these data in support of their new theories.

Nobody is obliged to recognize his real roots or nationality, nobody is prevented from creating his own myths about his origins, transform his identity, create his own ideology. This is all acceptable, but only in those cases, when such ideas are not imposed on others, or does not harm them in any way.

In case of WP remember (your own words and one of the correct arguments of local guru Irpen) – this is an encyclopedia, where credible information is extracted from reputable sources, compiled and organized to form and encyclopedic style article, but NOT and original research.

This will be my arguments for removing your “Kubanization” in WP.

Yours--Bryndza 22:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * See your talk page, would you like the results of 2002 census? Or the appendix of 1926 (find it in any library). Or original manuscripts dating to Zaporozhian times. Face it. When Khmelnitskiy signed the Pereyaslavl agreement he meant it. When we moved to the Kuban we were NOT evicted (some remained and became petty peasents), but our lifestyle was the most important fact in here. We still live under the oath of Pereyaslavl. Since the end of the Sech Ukraine has changed, Cossacks have changed. Our common history splintered, sure there is more things that unite us slavs that separate, but its like telling the Irish they are English. Our culture, tongue, traditions, religion (Greco-Catholic in the west of Ukraine, one of the original sworn opponents of Cossacks) etc. went and still going in different paths of development. -- Kuban kazak 22:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Kuban Cossack identity
With all due respect Mr. Kuban Cossack what do you mean by "completely out of any consideration" ? There are some people of Kuban Cossack heritage who "never agreed to identify themselves as ethnically Russian or Ukrainian" but there are many others who today identify themselves as Russians, or as a mixture of Russian and Ukrainian ethnicities. Fisenko 03:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Census data of Krasnodar Krai:

Russians:4436272 Cossacks:17542 Ukrainians:131774

Cossacks in the census are given as a subgroup of Russians, nothing about the Ukrainians. Statistically more than 50% of the Ukrainians were not born in Krasnodar Krai. (I mean there are gastarbaiters on my roof right now, from Ukraine) the other half mostly lives in Urban areas. As for the rest...my wife is from Rivne, so I cannot really say anything about that. In reality all rural places in Krasnodar Krai show some Cossack descent.

Genetically speaking, giving the amount of interhost marriages and warbrides, Cossacks never would fall for being a ethnically pure race. (For the record out all my great great....great grandmothers there will be Serbians, Bulgarians, Romanians, Turkish, Circassians and who knows who else.) However in our culture and in our way of style it is what makes us Cossacks, and what makes us Russian. As for our Zaporozhian ancestry... hey term Ukrainian did not exist then as to describe ethnicity, and we were certainly not Malorossian peasents. Finally please respect the naming convenstion Kazak or Cossack. Not Koza or Kozel-k, that we reserve for laughing at people like these--Kuban Cossack 03:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

''Look into the 2002 census and find the minute percentage of Ukrainian Gasterarbaiters there. All Rural Kuban is Russian, some chose to be called Cossakcs, but as a Russian subgroup'' - Kuban Cossack

This was not my point. My point was not all people of Kuban Cossack heritage consider themselves to be a "separate Ruthenian subgroup" in the sense of claiming a separate ethnic identity. There are also people of Kuban/Don/Terek etc. Cossack heritage who identifies themselves as Russians (or people of Zaporozhian heritage who identify themselves as Ukrainians) and view Cossack idenitity as a sosloviye i.e. "class" much like kupechesto or dvoryanstvo. I wasn't claiming Kuban Cossacks to be Ukrainian. Recpectefully. Fisenko 03:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There are also people of Kuban/Don/Terek etc. Cossack heritage who identifies themselves as Russians Do you want census data for Rostov or Dagestan regions? Zaporozhian heritage who identify themselves as Ukrainians - but not in the Kuban, what the figures and statistics prove, and what I can safetely say as being a Kuban Cossack. In terms of class, our way of lifestyle is sacred to us, but yes I suppose you are right it is class. Actually Cossack is really a homograph. A person of non-Cossack heritage would have been registered a Cossack had he been in active service upon census taking. A Cossack with Cossack heritage and not having been in active survice would not have been registered (the most common category - all registered as Russian(!) ) Finally, the majority of the 140028 Cossacks who came up on the cesus would have been those who were in active service, and who Cossack heritage, too registered as Russian, because to be a Cossack, one has to be of patriotic Russian spirit. Like Pushkin, despite his ancestry he remains a Russian poet. Obrussevshiy, it is called. --Kuban Cossack 04:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree on you on everything you said. However, the sentense :

Kuban Cossacks never agreed to identify themselves as ethnically Russian or Ukrainian but rather claimed to be a separate Ruthenian subgroup.

will give many people a wrong impression. This phrase will gave impression to many people that all Kuban Cossacks consider themselves something like Rusyns - its own separate East Slavic/Ruthenian ethnic group with its own culture and language or dialect and a distinct ethnic identity, rather than a sub-group or soslovye within the Russian people. (they are in reality something much more like a cross between a cultural sub-group like the Russian Pomors and purely historic/political warrior class like Serbian Chetniks) Fisenko 17:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC) (The proud descendant of Malorussian peasants ;))


 * That is where the western and Russian nomenclature comes into conflict: Muscouvy in all Russian publication this point in history is always referred to as Moskovian Ruthenia, and the dwellers of that place were Ruthenians. When Ivan the III changed Ruthenia to Russia. Dwellers of Russia became Russians which consisted of Ruthenians, Tatars etc. (read Gumelyov about this, he seems to have a very intersting theory about how subethnical groups merge into a larger one and etc) Now after Russia regained all of the lands of Kievan Ruthenia, dwellers of those lands became Little and White Ruthenians, whilst dwellers of original northeastern Ruthenia became Great Ruthenians.
 * However all would have been good had the name confusion in the late 19th/early 20th centuryies not happened when Great Ruthenians became Ruthenians; Little Ruthenians became Edge-dwellers (nothing offensive; I am just sticking to original terminology here); White Ruthenians remained White Ruthenians. Now this is how the problem with original terminology looks in Russian, derictely translated into English. Now turining it into common accepted words: Russians, Ukrainians Belarusians.
 * WRT to Carpathian Ruthenians - they always called themselves Rusyns as did Galicians before Austrains began to de Russophile them in their power struggle for the rule of the Balkan Slavs (re: Masscre of Talergoff). Finally for the Trancartpathia Rusyns managed to preserve their lifestyle until in 1945 Soviet authorities re-wrote everybody there as Ukrainian.
 * Anyway I see what you are trying to say, feel free to add that into the article (I am currentely overoccupied with trollish behaivour on Kiev Metro and Lviv.)

--Kuban Cossack 17:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Caucasian ... Circassian?
I gather that in 1914, the Cossack hosts were divided broadly into Steppe Cossacks (7 hosts), and a 2-host group (Kuban and Terek hosts) with broadly different uniforms. In his World War One Sourcebook, Haythornwaite refers to the latter group as "Caucasian Cossacks". I have seen them refered to elsewhere as "Circassian Cossacks". Is either of these terms considered more accurate? Boris B 05:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well essentially all Cossacks are steppe Cossacks, but Kuban and Terek, due to the proximity of the Caucasus mountains were influenced in local traditions e.g. Lezginka dance, Cherkesska overcoat and the like. Essentially the Caucasus peoples of the Kuban were known as Circassians, before the 20th century in English, in Russia they were called Cherkessy, but later upon more anthropological evidence these were devided into Kabardins, modern Cherkess and Adygeyans. --Kuban Cossack 12:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Most or a few
Faustian have a read of WP:POINT. The Subletny source is just one of many. First of all in 1792 there were 25 thousand Black Sea Cossacks that traveled to the Kuban, whilst in 1828, a generation later, there were only 500 Cossacks that left the Danube for the Azov and with it the Danubian Sich was gone. I think the correct formulation would be most for those that stayed were in most considering that all of the starshinas and the kosh ataman chose to stay. Last but not least they were exiled to Solovki not Siberia, where living conditions were so harsh that the kosh ataman managed to live to an age of 112 years --Kuban Cossack 14:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: Часть запорожских казаков (около 5 тыс. человек) отправилась на земли, подвластные турецкому султану и в дельте Дуная основала Задунайскую Сечь. Но 12 тысяч запорожцев вынуждены были покориться и остались в подданстве Российской империи. So Faustian 30% is not most. Nor is it un-notable, hence my neutral small, yet notable text. --Kuban Cossack 14:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a legitimate historical source (rather than rely on the "United Rus" website you quoted earlier). The historian Subtelny stated that "most" went to Turkey; he said that 5,000 did so but did not provide a number for those who chose not to go to Turkey. I will write the quote for you (I am now at work) later, if I have time. Subtelny stated that at the time of the Sich's destruction most of the Cossacks had not yet returned to the Sich from the campaign against Crimea, and perhaps he was speaking of either most of those in the Sich or most of those who had not yet returned to it. At any rate, thirty percent is not "small" - it is "many" although not most. I will change the article accordingly, and may edit again based on rereading Subtelny's text. warmly Faustian 15:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Instead of using Subletny diverge on your sources, historians make mistakes, like one here User:Alex Kov based on his uk userpage he is one, and yet by reading the last section on his talk page... I pity men boys like him. Last but not least this should go firstly into the article on Danubian Sich and on Zaporozhian Host, not here, where should be only skeletal.--Kuban Cossack 15:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know about Alex Kot - Subtleny is a respected historian at a major university. He is not infallible.  I agree that these details need to be brief, but on the other hand they should be precise.  The article should reflect the historical ambivalence in the relationship between the Zaporozhian/Kuban cossacks and Russia.  warmlyFaustian 15:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well the fæces that you will find in his comments merit him, I do not now about how Subletny is or not respected, but in the end all historians have opinions. (Nothing wrong with that, but all within constraints, unlike Mr.Kov). So limiting ourselves to one historian is certainly not suitable, particularly in light of other sources available. I will see what I can dig up as well. Here is a BSE Сечь Задунайская and Сечь Запорожская. Do add the host to your bookmarks/favourites. Anyway I have listed the article for DYK. --Kuban Cossack 15:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a wiki page about Orest Subtelny that you may be interested in reading. Incidentally, Subtelny wrote the entry on "Cossacks" in the World Book Encyclopedia.


 * On another matter, I've written a wiki page about Western Ukrainian Russophiles. I welcome your contributions (but please, stay away from nationalist websites as sources).  best, Faustian 20:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No need, I let User:Russianname know of this, you should see the extensive amount of articles he wrote on this in ru-wiki, and all are very well refrenced.--Kuban Cossack 23:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirect from Black Sea Cossack Host
Because essentially the history of the Kuban Cossack Host and the Black Sea Cossack Host are interchangible then I chose to unify the articles and redirected the Black Sea Cossack Host to the subsection that I wrote here. The other article was but a petty stub, nothing else. --Kuban Cossack 11:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sech or Sich?
Addressed mostly to Kuban Kazak. Because Zaporizhian Sich/Sech was in what is now Ukraine and populated more by Ruthenians than by Russians, do you feel that it would not be more appropriate to use the Little Russian/Ukrainian term for this word rather than the Russian translation? Do you have an argument why the Russian word should be preserved? warmly Faustian 13:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that sech is more appropriate in the same way Lvov is appropriate to use for articles such as Lvov-Sandomierz Offensive, whereas it is still suitable to refer to it as Lviv or Lwow in other cases. The question is does it really matter? What is this about, improving the article or sorting such a petty detail. Regards. --Kuban Cossack 22:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a big deal; I noticed that you had taken the time to revert someone who had changed it to Sich by changing it back to Sech and was wondering about your reason for doing so. The comparison to Lvov-Sandomierz Offensive is inappropriate.  The former is the term used in most books to refer to that offensive.  In contrast, most English-language books refer to Zaporozhian Sich rather than Sech.  A quick google search shows 3,000+ references to Zaporozhian Sich  and only about 400 to "Zaporozhian Sech." (indeed, the wiki article is titled Zaporozhian Sich).  Similarly, googlebooks shows over 200 books using Zaporozhian Sich and only 25 using Zaporozhian Sech .  So the appropriate name is Sich rather than Sech for wiki purposes.Faustian 20:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is suitable in the same way Belarusian articles about history refer to Vilnius as Vilnia, even though officially it was never known as such. --Kuban Cossack 22:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sech in Russian means Urine. The word they should use is Sich. It is more appropriate. --Bandurist 07:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sech means Urine in Old Russian (южн. зап.  - southwesten - according to Vladimir Dal). In modern Russian we have Сечь, e is pronounced as in fetch.--Vihljun 12:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)