History / Poland and Lithuania [161]

The "target" is shorthand for the system upon which a civilization converges over time. The "target" of Western civilization is the modern, liberal, free-market democracy (LFMD). Read The End of History by Fukuyama or The Clash of Civilizations by Huntington. Just as you can analyze Western history and observe the overall trend toward LFMD, you can analyze CW's history between 1384-1795 and observe the overall drift towards Polish culture and state, away from others.

No one made the claim that there was a deliberate plan made by Polish monarchs to that effect. These are your words. Similarly, neither Pericles, nor de Toqueville, nor Adam Smith, nor anyone else who contributed to the development of LFMD over centuries can be said to have had LFMD as a specific, defined goal in their minds. Yet when you analyze history in hindsight, the existence of "targets" such as LFMD becomes obvious. They exist regardless of whether people who live within that civilization are conscious of them or not.

Our Lithuanian friend was quite right when he said above that if it hadn't been for Partitions, he'd be speaking Polish today. That's exactly what would have happened, if CW had been left alone. He seems to have no trouble grasping the concept of the historical "target" towards which CW was headed.



Since when do rulers write constitutions? That's not a constitution, that's a decree ("rule of law issued by a head of state") or an edict ("an announcement of a law, often associated with monarchism"), akin to the Code of Hammurabi. We're talking about democratic constitutions, passed by elected representatives of a nation, such as the Continental Congress in the US in 1787 or the Sejm of the CW in 1791. If Hitler issued a decree in 1943 and called it "The Great and Fair Constitution of Happy German People", that wouldn't qualify it as one, despite its lovely name. Again: can you name a democratic constitution in Europe prior to 1791?


What's with all these ad hominem? Are you able to engage in a sensible, civilized discussion? Calm down, take a nap if you need to, and if you have something constructive left to say afterwards, say it.

History / Poland and Lithuania [161]


As of right now, Belarusians live in a semi-communist dictatorship and they've got more pressing problems on their hand than historical self-reflection. You can bet your 5 litai that if Belarus becomes a free, independent country, Belarusians will be much more vocal about reclaiming GDL (*).


Is this your first time online? In case you haven't noticed: the anonymity of the Internet brings out the mean streak in most people, because there are no penalties that curb such behavior in real life. Aggressive voices are overrepresented in all online discussions, but they don't reflect real life. Just disregard them and concentrate on those who engage in rational debate.


Can you please save the puzzle games for your kids' after-school program? People have busy lives and have no time to figure out someone else's obtuse hints. If there's something on your mind, spell it out in clear, plain English, so that it can be discussed.


False analogy. PL/Commonwealth (CW) and modern Lithuania/GDL are not equivalent. Poland's case as the heir to CW is much stronger, because of the historical convergence towards Polish culture and language in the CW, away from other ethnic components. It was the non-Polish nobles in the Commonwealth who went through a widespread and willing process of Polonization, not the other way around. The cases of Polish nobles becoming "Lithuanized" or "Ruthenized" are non-existent. In GDL, the historical development over time points in precisely the opposite direction: away from its Baltic origins, almost down to the point of extinction. For this reason, Poland can be seen as the "target" towards which CW was converging over time. Lithuania cannot be seen as the "target" towards which GDL was converging over time. Quite the opposite.


What drives Polish people crazy are real estate prices and the antics of Polish politicians, not what Lithuanians think. You're severely overestimating Polish interest in Lithuania.


You're quite right and notice the word "adoption" in your own wording. The Sejm MPs from both the Crown and the ex-GDL freely accepted the 3rd May Constitution, without any need for Crown troops to march into the ex-GDL to enforce this arrangement. You, as a modern nationalist Lithuanian may not like it, but that's exactly how things played out.


Which constitution in Europe preceded 3rd May, 1791? Please give a specific example.

========

(*) Another misnomer is to call the historical Ruthenians ( "Rusini" ) "Belorusians" or "Ukrainians". The modern nations of Belarus and Ukraine didn't exist during CW's era and their formation was a 2-3 centuries off into the future. Any Eastern Slav within the boundaries of the CW was simply a Ruthenian ( "Rusin" ). Any Eastern Slav outside the CW was a Moscovian ( "Moskal" ). If you travelled back in time and stepped into a tavern in the 17th CW and introduced yourself as a "Belorusian" or an "Ukrainian", noone would have the slightest idea what you're talking about. The historical Ruthenians evolved into many ethnic groups: Belorusians, Ukrainians, Rusyns, Boikos, Lemkos, etc. The modern-day Belorusians are probably the closest thing there is as far as descendands of the Ruthenians, but they're not the same. There's a similar disparity betwen modern-day Ukrainians and the historical Cossacks. It's true that most descendants of Cossacks live in modern day Ukraine. But the historical Cossacks had no modern-day "Ukrainian" agenda. They had a class agenda related to their marginalized social status in the CW. They were an ethnic mixture of disenfranchised peasants, mercenaries, nomads, outlaws, etc, not a Petri dish proto-"Ukrainian" nation.

History / Poland and Lithuania [161]

It's a big mistake to equate the historical Lithuania ( "Litwa" ), or the Grand Duchy (GDL), with the modern, small, ethnic country called Lithuania. They are different animals, which happen to share the same name. As GDL expanded out from its core Baltic territory (14th cent onwards), the ethnic Baltic component dropped down to 50% and, by the 17th century, sunk all the way down to 10%. The vast majority of GDL's inhabitants were Ruthenians: Eastern Slavs, the ancestors of modern-day Belarusians (and to a smaller degree Ukrainians). The official acts in the historic Lithuania were issued in Ruthenian to make it understandable to the population. The upper class consisted of Lithuanian, Polish and Ruthenian nobles. The non-Polish nobles frequently Polonized over the course of time.

Most historical characters who called themselves Litwin ( "Lithuanian" ) or hailed from Litwa ( "Lithuania"), were not ethnic Lithuanians, there were Ruthenian by ancestry ( "Rusini" ). The attempt to make Mickiewicz a modern-day "Lithuanian" is an example of this blunder. Mickiewicz's distant ancestry was Ruthenian, or Eastern Slavic, with other small admixtures (possibly Tatar and Jewish). "Mickiewicz" derives from the Ruthenian form "son of Micko", where "Micko" is a diminutive for "Michailo" ( Michael ), akin to Hrycko - Hrihory ( Gregory ), Petko - Piotr ( Peter ), etc. He was a Polonized noble with Ruthenian ancestry, not a Lithuanian in the modern sense. In his famous verse, he proclaimed his love for the historical, multi-ethnic province of Lithuania, not the modern-day, ethnic Lithuanian state. Mickiewicz native language was Polish (obviously, given his mastery of it), but he spoke a bit of Lithuanian, Ruthenian and Russian.