Some time ago at class I spoke a little about "Ukraine" or "the Ukraine" question and the controversy it raises. Now I'd like to discuss it more deeply.
This problem was described in some periodicals during Euro 2012 and at the time of Euromaidan or Ukrainian crisis. For example, there is The Washington Post's article ""Ukraine" or "the Ukraine"? It's more controversial than you think" which was written just after the annexation of Crimea. It was the time when the name "Ukraine" often appeared in media, in political speeches and just in everyday conversation. The author of this article notices that even important political figures like President Obama or Mitt Romney used the construction "the Ukraine".
However, putting "the" before "Ukraine" isn't just a question of grammar. It has some political, historical and social background. Back in the Soviet Union it was a part of a big country. That's why "the " was placed before its name. Now Ukraine is independent and referring to it as "the Ukraine" whether it's accidentally or not, looks like treating my country as second-rate and inferior.
"I don’t want to say it's derogatory, but it’s putting it in a subordinate position," William B. Taylor Jr., the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009 commented on this issue. "When you talk about 'the Ukraine,' that suggests that you really don’t think that Ukraine is a sovereign independent country."
It may be just a detail, but it plays an important role in perception of my country by foreigners.
So, please, remember that it's "Ukraine". It's not a part of Soviet Union anymore, but it's sovereign, independent and united Ukraine.
Yes, even it's a school assignment. I realized it myself after attending Tiffany Debicka's writing seminar last week.
Surprisingly enough, writing of a big academic paper can be described by four simple words: exploring, planning, drafting and revising. The teacher introduced to us all these steps in a very simple way. Before the seminar the whole process of writing of a big paper was a great unknown for me. But thanks to Tiffany, it doesn't scare me anymore.
And would like to mention two things from the seminar that impressed me most.
The first one is freewriting. I totally liked it! Actually, I knew about this technique before, but for some reason I've never used it. But from now on, I surely will. Honestly, it's such a fun to put down everything that goes to your mind without revising it. By the way, recently, I read an interesting article about freewritng. It claimed that while writing we use to revise different ideas in our minds before putting it down. However, often we dismiss some brilliant thoughts just because at the first glance they looked inappropriate. So, all these good but unorganised ideas flee from our head and never came back. Freewritng can help us to avoid it.
And the second thing I particularly liked is the movies we discussed. Frankly speaking, I've never been much into the movie industry. I'm definitely "a book person". I prefer to create the images of settings and heroes by myself rather than give this privilege to filmmakers. So, from times to times during our classes I was like, "What they are talking about?" However, I must admit, that a lot of movies I heard about on this seminar sounded very interesting. So, I guess, I have to catch up :)
Two days
ago, on January 20th, Barack Obama gave his annual State of the Union Address
in which he announced his plans for his last two years in office. The president
discussed improved economic situation, talked about education and cyber safety
and proposed new taxations for Wall Street companies. Moreover, he discussed some important international conflicts and commented on the situation in Ukraine
in his speech.
"We’re
demonstrating the power of American strength and diplomacy.We’re upholding the principle that bigger
nations can’t bully the small -- by opposing Russian aggression, and supporting
Ukraine’s democracy, and reassuring our NATO allies", Obama said.
Also the president mentioned sanctions that were imposed on Russia by American and EU
governments in order to support Ukraine. He compared Russian and American
economic situation and their definitions of strength.
"Last
year, as we were doing the hard work of imposing sanctions along with our
allies, as we were reinforcing our presence with frontline states, Mr. Putin’s
aggression it was suggested was a masterful display of strategy and
strength.That's what I heard from some
folks.Well, today, it is America that
stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated with its
economy in tatters.That’s how America
leads -- not with bluster, but with persistent, steady resolve", President
added.
The speech showed that Obama believes in the
power of diplomacy and negotiations more than in weapon. He spoke about
withdrawal of the US troops in Afghanistan and reduction of armed
forces in Iraq as a great achievement. However, these words in a way disappointed
Ukrainians who waited for the US Army to interfere into the war on the East of
Ukraine.
American president tries to be a peacemaker
and I admire it. I really do. Nevertheless, day by day I hear
about more and more soldiers, civilians, women and children getting killed. At such
moments I and many other Ukrainians, so desperately wish American or NATO
forces to land in Eastern Ukraine and help us to win this war.
We believe in
peace. We proved it during our revolutions and Crimea crisis. But sometimes,
forgive me Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King for saying so, peace just doesn't
work.
I'm extremely happy to tell that after long search I finally found the last movie for my B.A. paper. It's going to be "The Orange Chronicles".
“The Orange
Chronicles” is a documentary made by Damian Kolodiy, an American filmmaker with
Ukrainian roots. He came to Ukraine as an ellection observer and got in the centre of civil movement. His documentary presents the beginning of the revolution which was caused by corruption and fraid at the presidential election, development of the protest and its result, a new elections. The movie shows Ukrainians who participated in the Orange Revolution and their non-violent fight for justice. Moreover, the documentary follows Damian's Eastern Ukraine tour and shows a perspective of those people who opposed the revolution.
That’s how
the author himself comments on his documentary and his own experience of the
Orange Revolution:
“I went to
Ukraine knowing that the stakes were high, with a feeling that something there
was building, but never expected the joyous explosive expression for freedom
that resulted. I was amazed at the unification of people at that time, the
level of community that existed throughout, strangers looking out for
strangers, and that such huge mass mobilizations remained non-violent. For me,
it reaffirmed some really positive things about humanity that seemed to have
been forgotten.
Traveling
to russified eastern Ukraine was an eye opener; seeing the divisions in
interpretation of truth, the role that media plays in influencing perception,
and how easy it is for Russia to exploit divisions in Ukraine. Russia continues
to play the imperialistic aggressive neighbor, and do whatever it can to thwart
Ukraine's westward integration. I hope that the film serves as a reminder to
all of the power of people in pursuit of freedom.”
These
passages very clearly express the main idea of this movie.The documentary present Ukrainians as enthusiastic and freedom-loving people who are willing to struggle for a better future for their country.
I’d like to
add that I’m very happy that my paper will discuss such an amazing event in
Ukrainian history as the Orange Revolution. It was the time of unity and
dignity for our nation. And this event has a great meaning for me personally. I
was only nine when the revolution took place, but I remember so well all the feelings
I had about it. For the first time I realized that I am Ukrainian, I am the part of this great nation and I was so proud of it. And I still am.
Even though, President Yuschenko didn’t justify the confidence Ukrainian people
put in him and showed himself as a weak man, this revolution proved that
we, Ukrainians, are very strong nation.
“The Simpsons” is considered to be the
longest-running sitcom on American TV. It has been broadcast in
Ukraine for a very long time, too. Nevertheless, I had never watched a single
episode of this show thinking of it as foolish, before I found out that there
is an episode about Ukraine. And I just couldn’t pass it by.
In general,
this episode is not so much about Ukraine, but about our former President Victor
Yanukovych. He is depicted as a not very smart mafia boss (which is, by the
way, a true fact) from Kyiv, who kidnaps Homer and hide him in “Little Ukraine”,
a Springfield’s district where Ukrainian
diaspora lives.
All the
place names here have references to Ukrainian history. For example, there is a
“Tsarbucks” coffee shop, “Hot to Trotsky’s” ice skating ring, clothes shop
called “Cossacks Fifth Avenue” and mental health center “Insane in the
Ukraine”.
One more
interesting hero of this episode is Victor’s wife and our former first lady,
Lyudmyla. She appears on the screen only for a few seconds to hear from Victor
that she must stay in her room. This tiny episode shows that the screenwriter
has to know some details of Yanukovych’s family life. The thing is that Yanukovych
really tried to hide his wife from the press. The reason for it was the fact
that every time she appeared on public she made a fool of herself wearing
unsuitable clothes and talking a complete nonsense.
After
watching this episode I was amazed how familiar the screenwriter of the show is
with details of Ukrainian history and politics. Also, it is worth to mention
that the episode was released in 2011, just a year after Yanukovych became a
President and at that time he wasn’t criticised so much.
And, by the way, few days ago I read another
article describing how sitcom’s creators made fun of Putin and his imperial
ambitions in one of the latest episodes of “The Simpsons”. So, it looks like I
underestimated this show.
Few
weeks ago while doing my research I found out a very interesting research that
concerns the portrayal of Ukrainians in the US media. "56 years, 89 titles and a single story about Ukraine" is a collection of episodes from US movies
where words "Ukraine" or "Ukrainian" were mentioned. The
author of this research just tells that the image of Ukraine in American movies
is highly stereotyped, but he doesn't go into details. So, I did it. Using this
material, I tried to analyse these scenes in order to see what image of Ukraine
Hollywood propose to its viewer. So, here is what I found.
First of
all, American filmmakers associate Ukraine with corruption and gangsterism. In
these movies Ukrainians often are shown as ignorant criminals or prostitutes
who don’t respect law.
Heroes of
analysed movies often refer to Ukraine while making some negative comments or mockery
comparisons. For example, a sarcastic phrase said by the hero in the moment of
irritation "Where are we? In Ukraine!?"
Ukrainian
emigrant in America is usually depicted as a person who loves his or her
country, but had to leave it because there is no opportunity to make a decent
living. However, as movies show, life is not going to be easier in the USA.
Most of Ukrainians who had a good career back home, now have to work as maid, housekeeper,
cleaner, waiter or salesperson. Moreover, they often are humiliated and
are not held in respect by their boss.
Nevertheless,
there were also some positive stereotypes. For example, beautiful landscapes,
fertile land and people occupied in farming and agriculture.
Also I really
like the fact that a few movies emphasized the difference between Ukrainians
and Russians, telling that they are not the same, not even the similar people.
For decades
Hollywood has been using the stereotypical image of Ukraine as a country of
Chornobyl, a land of corruption and crime, a place with no opportunities and no
future. And I’m not saying that all
these things are not true. Yes, we do have a lot of problems and some of them
are mentioned in these movies. But the thing is that these problems do not
define us. Ukraine is such a big, beautiful and diverse country. It is much
more than all these stereotypes and clichés.
The author
of this collection ends his work with a very good question asking "Maybe
it is just the right time to rethink Ukraine?" Well, I think the answer is
obvious.
Three days ago, on Friday, November 21st Ukraine commemorated the one year anniversary of Euromaidan. At that day BBC Ukraine published a list of the documentaries about the Revolution of Dignity. And I was really surprised to find out that one of these movies was made by Americans.
"Maidan Massacre" is a documentary directed by John Hoffmann. It is an investigation of the shootings that took place on 20th of February in Kyiv in result of which near 100 people died. So, I started to watch this documentary, full of expectations that if it is made by Americans, it must be good. I hoped that the movie will be direct and will show all the crimes of President Yanukovych and his people.
On the very first seconds of the movie, when the map of Ukraine appeared, I started doubting the objective views of John Hofmann. The thing is that the map lacked Crimea which is de jure Ukrainian land. However, for some reason Hoffmann chose to join the peninsula to Russia.
Second thing that compels my attention was the episode from Russian news. Why the director decided to place it in the film? Can't he pick some episodes made by European or American journalists who are definitely more trustworthy than their Russian colleagues?
What's more, while showing the beginning of the protest the author doesn't tell a word about events of the 30th of November. At that night many innocent unarmed students were brutally beaten on the Independence Square, also called Maidan. It was a turning point in the development of Revolution. Tens, and then hundreds thousands of people came on the Maidan not because of the EU integration, but because they wanted to show their protest against the arbitrariness of the government.
Also, the movie pays no attention to all the crimes of Yanukovych government. Instead, it tells how more and more aggressive protestors became without mentioning the reasons for such behaviour. So, it creates the impression that demonstrators were some frivolous people who just didn't like their President anymore and decided to organise a political upheaval.
Moreover, John Hoffmann claims that protestors were well-armed. If "well-armed" means wooden shields and sticks, stones and Molotov cocktails, than he is right. But how these can be compared to the professional weapon policemen had? Of course, "Maidan Massacre" promotes a message that policeman didn't have firearms, that they would not have shot unless there was a threat to their life, that their commander would dismiss them for using arms. However, former Minister of Internal Affairs Vitaliy Zakcharchenko admitted that policemen were allowed to use weapon against the protesters. And they definitely used it.
Nevertheless, it's the soldiers who were under the pressure, as the movie says. During one of the episodes Ben Tisa, an express witness consultant and law enforcement instructor, gives his arguments in support of policemen. He claims that policemen's task is to protect people, not to kill them. It is a correct statement, but unfortunately it doesn't appeal to the Ukrainian reality. There are a lot of videos
and photographs that shows how officers shot at protesters
and beat them with sticks. Policemen even shot at journalists and medical workers and eventually killed at least 2 of them. These facts are known to the Western press, but for some reason the author of the movie didn't include it in his documentary.
The movie mentions that on both sides were dead people, but doesn't give precise numbers. Maybe, they decided not to mention it because there were almost 100 protesters killed and 16 policemen. It doesn't look logical to me that demonstrators (who as the documentary says, could be the one to blame in shootings) would accidentally kill so many of their people.
The
documentary ends with a speech of Victoria Nuland, the US Assistant Secretary
of State for European Affairs. She expresses the US support for Ukrainian
people and their disgust for the actions of Ukrainian government. Victoria Nuland adds that she witnessed
how the government used bulldozers and tear gas against the people who were holding
each other’s hands and together prayed for peace. These last minutes of "Maidan
Massacre" are very ironic because the speech that praises Ukrainian people
and their peaceful fight for freedom is accompanied by the video fragments of
aggressive behaviour of the protestors against policemen.
Taking all these into consideration, I can say that either John Hoffmann knows close to nothing about real events that happened on Maidan or he has read too much of the Russian propagandistic press. Or maybe he wanted to express his dissatisfaction with American government and its action in support of Ukrainian demonstrators.
Frankly
speaking, I had to watch the movie twice because after the first viewing I was
very indignant over the way the documentary presents such a tragic day in my
country's history. So, next day I watched it one more time doing my best to be
objective. However, hard as I try I could never agree to the author position. I
feel very sorry that many foreigners have already watched "Maidan
Massacre" and got the wrong impression of these events.
So, just in
case you are interested in the subject of Euromaidan and want to know more
about it I'd like to recommend you a few documentaries made by Ukrainian
filmmakers. These films are in Ukrainian, but all of them have English
subtitles:
"The Celestial Hundred. The winter, that changed us" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_je1B9s4H4
"The Female Faces of Revolution" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2liRXURTrYg
.jpg)
