Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Renfrew
What do you claim I'm saying regarding Ruthenia in the 19th century?:) Your source is practically proving my point, being a reflection of 19th-century Austrian propaganda. It divided "Ruthenians" into "theirs" and "Russian". As for the languages and dialects, you can define Alabamian and Newyorkish while at it. Here is your Ruthenia, both in the original 10th century meaning and geographic form.
208 posted on 01/24/2022 5:57:52 PM PST by NorseViking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies ]


To: NorseViking

You are aware that parts of Ukraine was controlled by Austro-Hungary at that point? It makes perfect sense to say that some Ukrainians lived in that Empire while most lived in the Russian Empire.

You original quote:

“Review the forms filled by people from the area who immigrated to the US in the early 1900s. There was no such thing as Ukrainian at the time.”

This claim is absolutely wrong, and I have proven it as so. Plenty of folk checked off Ruthenian for their language, which was what Americans referred to as Ukrainian.

For the final death blow to your original claim. Here is a note from the 1930 census when Ukrainian was added:

“Ukrainian has been differentiated from Ruthenian although the distinction is more a matter of country of birth than of language.”

https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/16440598v2ch08.pdf

There you have it. Your 1939 map shows the post-independence situation. Ukrainian had become the name used for folk from Ukraine while Ruthenian remained in use for the small Ukrainian speaking population across the border.


209 posted on 01/24/2022 7:02:17 PM PST by Renfrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson