paulo
Just born
Posts: 44
|
Post by paulo on Jul 5, 2009 15:06:52 GMT 1
"The Real Poland...An Anthology of Self-Perception," Edited by Alfred Bloch, Continuum Publishing, 1982
Couple things I gleaned from this book:
First off, A Disclaimer, of Sorts: I do know that people are individuals; and factors such as individual personality, character, and choice are the most vital things in determining who a person is. I would also add to that Family Background. Here, I am merely reflecting on some of the Outward circumstances that have helped shape Polish character, as much as that is possible.
Poland has cultivated a Resistance movement mentality for a long time. This has been brought about because often it could not, realistically, Revolt against its rulers. So Resistance became popular from the ground-up, helping form what is a more individualized group than many. That is, people are more encouraged to resist unjust authority by this historic background. If this is true, this helps make Poles more likable to me. They are more willing to be the boy who says, "But the emperor is not wearing any clothes!" [From the Hans Christian Andersen story.] This is much more satisfying to me than people who try to curry favor with authority, by simply saying what they think authority wants them to say. (Those folks drive me crazy. They give strength to the lie. They make me wonder if I'M the one who's crazy!)
The gentry has been romanticized in Polish history. This has probably helped Poles strive for excellence as individuals, more than many in the East (just like the above paragraph). After all, if you strive for excellence, maybe you can have a little estate of your own, too, someday!
Communication only takes place when the sender connects somewhere with the receiver. These are just a couple places where the sender connected with me. These are not meant to be exhaustive. However, I would appreciate input regarding how you feel Yesterday has helped form what is unique about the General Polish Character Today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Jul 5, 2009 22:41:07 GMT 1
Poland has cultivated a Resistance movement mentality for a long time. This has been brought about because often it could not, realistically, Revolt against its rulers. Poland`s history has such acts as revolts of Polish gentry and aristocrats against their own kings. These acts date back to times much earlier than the end of 18 century when Poland lost independence. E.g., Polish gentry betrayed their legally chosen king Jan Kazimierz and accepted the rule of a Swedish king who invaded Poland in 1955.
The Battle of Ujście was fought on July 24-July 25, 1655 between forces of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth commanded by Krzysztof Opaliński and Andrzej Grudziński on one side, and on the other Swedish forces commanded by Arvid Wittenberg. Krzysztof Opaliński and Bogusław Leszczyński, dissatisfied with policies of Jan Kazimierz, decided to become Swedish allies together with their pospolite ruszenie of Greater Poland to Charles X Gustav of Sweden.I would say that pronness to resistance to authority had always been present in the Polish character, it didn`t develop under foreign occupations. Exactly. Sometimes Polish resistance resembled boy`s actions, ie. infantile. It seems you like this feature in Poles. It is irresistible... ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Jul 6, 2009 20:53:43 GMT 1
Yes, it is a common trait in people. Reminds me Poland 200 years ago - Poles didn`t care much about their independence and when they lost it, all of a sudden one Rising for freedom followed another. I feel uneasy but I have to disagree once again today .   ;D ;D ;D ;D Come on, ease up on feeling uneasy! Take it easy! Loving is not enough. You have to take care of it. If you abuse your freedom, you often lose it. That`s what happened to Poles 200 years ago. Ruling class, aristocracy and gentry, making 10% of the population, abused their freedom at the cost of the rest of society. How about France?? The Revolution freed masses of peasants who joined the Great Army with which Napoleon conquered half Europe. If Polish noble class leaders had liberated peasants, those half-slaves constituting 80% population, Poland would be invincible. The fact that they didn`t know how to create proper defences for keeping the state alive proves they were very poor politicians. It is a general Polish deficiency - poor leaders. They were blind and deaf. They wouldn`t listen to warnings which had appeared as early as 200 years before partitions.  Skarga's Sermon, by Jan Matejko, 1862, oil on canvas, 224 x 397 cm., Royal Castle, Warsaw. Piotr Skarga (standing at right) preaches. King Sigismund III Vasa is seated in the first row, left of center.
Skarga's Sermon was Matejko's first historical crowd composition. He drew his inspiration from Piotr Skarga's Seym Sermons, a volume of never delivered sermons in which the author condemned the licence of the gentry and the magnates, which he saw as the gravest danger to Poland. It was a warning that no one heeded.
Skarga is remembered by Poles as a vigorous early advocate of reforms to the Polish-Lithuanian polity and as a critic of the Commonwealth's governing classes. He advocated the strengthening of the monarch's power at the expense of Sejm, magnates and szlachta.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piotr_SkargaHaving impressions about the state is a very dangerous thing for that state. In case of Poland, because of impressions, it ended up in oblivion. But the ruling classes didn`t give more freedom to 90% population: peasants and town dwellers. That is why they finally lost and it didn`t help them they had started reforms. It was simply too late. Only radical moves could have saved Poland. But Poles in power were unable to take them. Again, foreign powers are to blame for all Polish misfortunes. ;D ;D ;D ;D The gentry has been romanticized in Polish history. Exactly. I am trying to break this foul myth. The gentry`s selfishness and ignorance greatly contributed to Poland`s fall. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Jul 6, 2009 22:25:12 GMT 1
i disagree too.. it was the szlachta that "sold" poland off.. what were people supposed to do? at least warsaw fought.. unlike those high brow krakowiaks.   Nope. Loco, you don`t know history. Oh, those American schools.... The truth is that Krakowiaks were first to fight and Warsaw followed. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ko%C5%9Bciuszko_Uprising
The Russian garrison of Kraków was ordered to leave the city and defeat the Polish forces. This left the city completely undefended.
On March 24, 1794, Tadeusz Kościuszko, a veteran of the American Revolutionary War, announced the general uprising and assumed the powers of the Commander in Chief of all of the Polish forces.
In order to strengthen the Polish forces, Kościuszko issued an act of mobilisation, requiring that every 5 houses in Lesser Poland delegate at least one able male soldier equipped with carbine, pike, or an axe.
To destroy the still weak opposition, the Russian tsar ordered the corps of Major General Fiodor Denisov to attack Kraków. On April 4 both armies met near the village of Racławice. In what became known as the Battle of Racławice Kościuszko's forces defeated the numerically and technically superior opponent. After the bloody battle the Russian forces withdrew from the battlefield.
 |
|
paulo
Just born
Posts: 44
|
Post by paulo on Jul 6, 2009 23:59:34 GMT 1
Regarding the Gentry:
I feel I misrepresented the book. They did say the gentry was romanticized but showed by many facts, such as you have shown, that their glory may have been undeserved. My mistake was this: I Assumed that, since the gentry was romanticized, there must have been some truth to its glory at some time in the past. The author never really said that. I was just operating on the thought that 'usually there is a nugget of truth behind such romantic notions; otherwise, how would they have ever started in the first place?'
I wish you all well.
|
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Jul 7, 2009 10:29:36 GMT 1
Yes you are right. Gentry's ignorance, kind-of racism- towards the non-gentry, political short-sight and ineptness greatly contributed to Rzeczpospolita's fall. The rule of gentry showed all the bad traits of a democratic system. And they were not balanced by the votes from non-haves as is modern democracies. I fully understand and respect your motivation behind your criticism. The great question is whether the myth you are trying to break actually exists among the Poles. 1.The knowledge about the misdeeds and critical judgement of szlachta is widespread both in Poland and abroad. Since The First Rzeczpospolita fell, and she was a state of noblemen's democracy, it is obvious that it is szlachta, which was the ruling class who is to blame for that. Applying all the attention to Rzeczpospolita's mistakes and ommitting the external aggression does not clear the image. It just strenghtens the myths created by partitioning powers, especially by the contemporary Russian historians and followed by the modern ones. The myth basically said the partitions were justified. It was perpetuated all around the world and also in subjugated Poland through many years when the voice of real Poland was silenced (1775-1918, 1939-1989). In Poland under commnunists any trial of a balanced approach, to see both the mistakes of Rzeczpospolita and the external aggression, all such trials were either labelled as nationalism, or as anti-ploretarian views (I have received my first E note in my life for that). Altrenatively they were ridiculed as, at best, a romantisized vision of Polish history. Underneath this official or quasi-official stance run the current of putting all the blame on the occupants. True. This current was started as long ago as at the beginning of 19th centrury by our forefathers who had to somehow come to terms with what they have done. In short – both untrue visions have found way to contemporary times a. Rzeczpospolita is not to blame, it was all due to foreign aggressions b. Rzeczpospolita (szlachta) is to blame, partitions were justified Pushing one untrue vision to eradicate the other does not make sense. Even if done out of good will in order to improve political capablities of ordinary Poles. It is detrimental. The fundament on which vision a. grew is no longer there. Poland is independent again, has enough success for the Poles to feel proud of her todays's 'performance'. The Poles do not live in a 'historical stress' anymore, so they easily admit the past mistakes and have no need to look for the successes only in the past, no need to idealise the past. The fundament on which vision b.grew is still there. It is the Russian inability to come to terms with her history. Which is a function of many factors, talking about which does not belong to our newly burst this particular discussion. 2.It is only since some 200 years that we know that the increasing weakness of Rzeczpospolita actually led to a disaster. The citizens of First Rzeczpospolita had no idea that it is possible - removing of a historical state in Europe, Europe which just a while ago was still Civitas Christians, kind of union, a loosely unified power. As one of the historians said Rzezpospolita was vivisected, amputated, defragmentated in cold blood and the only justification was that the patient did not feel very well. However such a periods of weak health did happen to other historical nations in Europe, and although the neighbours 'kindly' used these opportunities as much as they could , they have never ever gone as far as the cold blood murder. Many states were occasionally weak, it was nothing extraordinary in Europe. One example - in 1762 Prussia was pennyless and totally deafeated, Berlin was occupied by Russians. Prussia was saved by the sudden death of Elizabeth the Empress of Russia. Not by the reform, but by pure luck. When she died Russian throne was taken by Peter III of Russia, born Karl Peter Ulrich von Holstein if I recall correctly. And Holstein he loved... Russia to which he arrived some 10 years earlier only he despiced. And with great and sincere reciprocation. He has abruptly withrdrawn Russian forces from the war which was already completely won! No, the partitions were not obvious outcome of the increasing and indeed shameful weaknes of the state, not at all. We shouldn't use today's perspective in assessing the past, this is a grave mistake.And we shouldn't blame Rzeczpospolita for not applying the draconian ways of dealing with opposition, the way it was done win Russia where opponents of absolutist rule were simply killed. It was her merit not the shortcoming To sum up – young Poles have every reason to be proud of First Rzeczpospolita, of her tolerance, of her ways and traditions, of her being in a way ahead of her time. Just as they have every reason to learn from her mistakes in order that they will never be repeated. Again, the murdered is to blame for being murdered instead. Poland is to blame for every aggression on her instead?? To stop the pendulum just stop it, not put push it to the other extreme.... as it will come back again, and again ;D ;D ;D --- To all interested, a short (8 minutes) lecture about Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. A must see for those starting their adventure with Polish history. |
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Jul 7, 2009 10:37:01 GMT 1
Regarding the Gentry: I feel I misrepresented the book. They did say the gentry was romanticized but showed by many facts, such as you have shown, that their glory may have been undeserved. My mistake was this: I Assumed that, since the gentry was romanticized, there must have been some truth to its glory at some time in the past. The author never really said that. I was just operating on the thought that 'usually there is a nugget of truth behind such romantic notions; otherwise, how would they have ever started in the first place?' I wish you all well. Yes Paul, gentry was romantisized. Today Pole's generally wish to live like the gentry did, Polish savoir-vivre, civil honour, attitude to wards the women, tolerance to other faiths, Polish culture in short, is in large part based on the ways of Polish gentry - szlachta. There's a stong snobism and many people who were never gentry try to find the noble roots. This does not mean gentry were some ideal people, they were just people whoo live in a given times and gioven circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by locopolaco on Jul 7, 2009 20:50:35 GMT 1
i disagree too.. it was the szlachta that "sold" poland off.. what were people supposed to do? at least warsaw fought.. unlike those high brow krakowiaks. Nope. Loco, you don`t know history. Oh, those American schools.... The truth is that Krakowiaks were first to fight and Warsaw followed. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ko%C5%9Bciuszko_Uprisingok once. waraoviaks fought multiple times until they gained som independence.. may it's you that needs a refresher. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Jul 7, 2009 21:49:43 GMT 1
Yes Paul, gentry was romantisized. Today Pole's generally wish to live like the gentry did, Polish savoir-vivre, civil honour, attitude to wards the women, tolerance to other faiths, Polish culture in short, is in large part based on the ways of Polish gentry - szlachta. There's a stong snobism and many people who were never gentry try to find the noble roots. This does not mean gentry were some ideal people, they were just people whoo live in a given times and gioven circumstances. Tufta, you seem to be under a great influence of the romantic myth of the Polish nobility/gentry/szlachta etc. You have read too many books by Sienkiewicz and watched too many films by Jerzy Hoffman!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I never wanted to live like gentry. Why? Because I read books which provided true info about the class. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D E.g., Today`s romantic vision www.andersa4siemiatycze.pl/images2/hussar5.jpgPast reality Drunks:  Traitors - here, selling Poland to Russia for power and money.  Troublemakes and squabblers - here, planning an attack on another nobleman`s house.  Poor soldiers - here, taken prisoner by better Russian troops.  Boors When a gentryman offered a lady some wine and she turned it down, he poured the wine over her, saying: If you don`t want to drink it, it is OK, but at least your lovely tits will cool a bit.  etc etc etc ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Jul 7, 2009 21:56:47 GMT 1
ok once. waraoviaks fought multiple times until they gained som independence.. may it's you that needs a refresher. Yes, they fought, but always lost. Too hot-tempered. Independence came from Krakow again - from cool guys. Again, I must propose you take up reading Polish history. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Or, a better idea- don`t read Polish history, just stay tuned to the forum, sooner or later you will know it all. ;D ;D D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D E.g., first enlightenment: After 123 years of non-existence of their state, guys from Krakow decided that it was high time to bring Poland back to life. A few hundred crossed the Austrian-Russian border (in short, Krakow- Warsaw border) and started the fight for freedom. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Cadre_Company
First Cadre Company (Polish: Pierwsza Kompania Kadrowa) was a military formation created by Józef Piłsudski at the outbreak of World War I, on August 3, 1914 in Kraków, from members of the Riflemen's Association and the Polish Rifle Squads. The company numbered 144 soldiers under command of Tadeusz Kasprzycki. The formation departed for combat on August 6, the day Austro-Hungarian Empire declared war on Russian Empire. It took Miechów and Michałowice, and a major town of Kielce (on 12 August), but failed to break through the Russians lines and liberate the pre-partition Polish capital of Warsaw. By the end of August it joined main Austrian forces, and became the foundation of the Polish Legions in World War I.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Legions_in_World_War_IPolish Legions (Polish Legiony Polskie) was the name of Polish armed forces created in August 1914 in Galicia. Thanks to the efforts of KSSN and the Polish members of the Austrian parliament, the unit became an independent formation of the Austro-Hungarian Army. They were composed mostly of former members of various scouting organisations, including Drużyny Strzeleckie and Związek Strzelecki, as well as volunteers from all around the empire.
The Legions took part in many battles against the forces of Imperial Russia, both in Galicia and in the Carpathian Mountains. Initially both the number of troops and the composition of units were changing rapidly.
After the war the officers of the Polish Legions became the backbone of the Polish Army.
|
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Jul 7, 2009 21:57:27 GMT 1
;D ;D ;D Not at all Bo, I am as sober as a Pole can be about szlachta's virtues and downfalls, you may believe me!!
|
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Jul 7, 2009 22:00:48 GMT 1
ok once. waraoviaks fought multiple times until they gained som independence.. may it's you that needs a refresher. Yes, they fought, but always lost. Too hot-tempered. Independence came from Krakow again - from cool guys. Again, I must propose you take up reading Polish history. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Or, a better idea- don`t read Polish history, just stay tuned to the forum, sooner or later you will know it all. ;D ;D D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Loco, please forgive Bo  He's in an awkard position, ya know. He'd like to be like a Varsovian but - what can he do? ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Jul 7, 2009 22:04:02 GMT 1
Loco, please forgive Bo He's in an awkard position, ya know. He'd like to be like a Varsovian but - what can he do? ;D ;D ;D ;D I got infected with the virus of Polish romaticism. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Jul 7, 2009 22:14:01 GMT 1
Loco, please forgive Bo He's in an awkard position, ya know. He'd like to be like a Varsovian but - what can he do? ;D ;D ;D ;D I got infected with the virus of Polish romaticism. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I know you are... |
|
|
|
Post by locopolaco on Jul 7, 2009 23:29:44 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Oct 10, 2009 20:48:09 GMT 1
History as Crucible
by Gregory Slysz
22 September 2009
Poland's fixation with the past is inevitable in a country that has had to forge its identity over centuries of being torn to pieces.
Poland’s political arena is frequently dominated by historical issues that in the West would receive fleeting attention from politicians or be relegated to university seminar rooms and late-night news review shows. Currently debates are raging, initiated by the conservative Law and Justice Party, over whether or not 17 September 1939, the date of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Poland, should be added to the country’s official commemoration calendar and whether the Katyn massacre should be officially termed genocide or merely a war crime. Long-standing Russo-Polish historical controversies, going back to the early 17th century, are particularly able to stir up emotions.
For instance, in response to continued Russian historical revisionism, from a recent cinematic treatment of Nikolai Gogol’s Taras Bulba to responsibility for the Katyn massacre, Poland’s National Security Bureau released this month a dossier of documents that outlined the pernicious nature of Russia’s anti-Polish propaganda from 2004 to 2009, claiming that Russia is “creating a biased picture of the past, based on fiction and a manipulation of historical facts.” Even the more liberal Civic Platform, usually more cautious in entering historical controversy, has, on occasion, fiercely defended Poland’s historical ethos. When a Russian television channel recently aired a documentary that partly blamed Poland for causing World War II, Poland’s Foreign Ministry issued an official protest to the Russian government. Looking in the other direction, Warsaw agreed to the creation in Berlin of a “center against expulsions” – to chronicle the experience of displaced Europeans in the 20th century, especially Germans evicted from neighboring lands after World War II – only after Chancellor Angela Merkel assured Poland’s government that the museum would not be triumphalist or try to equate German wartime suffering to that of Poland.
The past few months have also witnessed several important commemorations of events in the country’s recent history, most notably the 65th anniversary of the start of the Warsaw Uprising and the 70th anniversary of the start of World War II. Poland’s culture is more replete with commemorations and historical festivals than any other in Europe. They not only emphasize the country’s great accomplishments but also its heroic failures. Among them: 966 (Poland’s Christianization) , 1410 (the Battle of Grunwald), 1569 (the Union of Lublin), 1683 (Battle of Vienna), 1772 (the First Partition), 1830-31 and 1863 (national risings against the occupiers), 1918 (the restoration of the Polish state), 1920 (the Miracle on the Vistula, 1940 (the Katyn Massacre) 1956, 1968, 1970, 1981, and 1989 (risings against communist forces). What’s astonishing and frequently incomprehensible to outsiders is that the failures are honored more passionately than the successes. This is not only because history has offered Poland few opportunities for success (at least not of the kind afforded to the great imperial powers of the West) but because the failures, like the Warsaw Uprising, have been so spectacular that the line between what is conventionally viewed as success and failure has become blurred.
Many, however, have begun to view such a fixation on history as an obstacle not only to Poland’s modern cultural development but also to its ability to relate to other countries, either because it persists in keeping old wounds open or because other countries simply find it difficult to relate to Poland’s excessive “history worship.” Is this a fair assessment or is Poland simply affording the numerous historical traumas that have shaped its national identity proper and dignified recognition?
To understand Poland’s somewhat quirky national culture it is essential to consult the nation’s history. The historian Andrzej Walicki aptly noted that Poland “is a country where everything has a historical dimension.” Central to Poland’s nationhood – and this is something that may appear extreme to many in the West – is a clear differentiation between the concepts of nation and state. Whereas in the West the concepts are virtually indistinguishable, fused into one entity, the idea of the modern nation-state in Poland has much weaker foundations. The main cause of this historical anomaly was a widespread suspicion and cynicism toward state authorities, an understandable attitude given that statehood was so often associated with either foreign domination or incompetent native rule. National subjugation in turn generated frequent, almost ritualistic revolts, as well as passive resistance against state authorities that was manifested in the formation of an underground state, overseen by the Catholic Church and dissident groups. With the disappearance of the Polish state in the late 18th century, Polish culture became inward-looking, which, although incompatible with developments in Western Europe, was the only alternative to enforced Germanization and Russification.
Adversity, in effect failure in the conventional sense, became a source of great strength for Poles. Conditions were ripe for a national cult of martyrdom to develop. By utilizing traditional cultural traits Poland’s intellectuals, notably its national bard, Adam Mickiewicz, managed to foster an enduring allegoric archetype of a martyred Poland, a “Christ of nations,” having endured crucifixion and burial, in readiness for a glorious resurrection.
The enduring side effect of Poland’s subjugation to the imperial rule of its erstwhile enemies was a national bonding, which though not exactly abrogating Poland’s class divisions, nevertheless transcended them much more so than in countries where such conditions were absent. The partitioning powers, Russia, Prussia, and Austria, were to create the conditions for nationalism where none had existed before. And the harsher the repression of national sentiment, the greater sense of national exclusivity it generated among Poles. The cultural arena offered an escape from the oppressive climate of partition. It is to this period that Poland owes some of its greatest cultural accomplishments. Krasicki, Slowacki, Chopin, Sienkiewicz, Matejko, Mickiewicz were all products of the partition who established the unique link between national adversity and outstanding cultural achievement. “The heart began to rule the mind,” the historian Adam Zamoyski wrote, engendering a religiously inspired romantic nationalism that provided the basis for the revival of the Polish state in 1918.
NEW THREATS?
History has certainly steered Poland onto a particular path of cultural development from which it has found it difficult to deviate. So dominated was Poland’s history by the cause of national survival that exploration of other cultural avenues became extraneous. The decades of partition, the bleakness of the war years and the grim reality of socialist rule made for little experimentation with cosmopolitanism. However, since the fall of the Soviet bloc and the growth of globalization, Poland’s traditional national identity may have taken somewhat of a knock. During the Soviet period, as in the past, the presence in Warsaw of a foreign-backed regime served to strengthen the feeling of nationhood. But with the disappearance of these unique circumstances cultural homogeneity was no longer politically essential nor for many Poles, particularly the young, socially desirable. As Poland increasingly opened up to external influences cultural heterogeneity became increasingly widespread, evidenced, for instance, by the adoption by many Poles, especially the young, of multiple identities, rooted to external modern influences. Yet underpinning much of Poland’s flirtation with globalization was not primarily a desire to expose the country to cosmopolitanism but rather to safeguard national independence against real or perceived threats, particularly from a resurgent imperialist Russia. Indeed, as successive opinion polls demonstrated, a considerable degree of Russophobia, as well as other nation-centric motives, were largely responsible for the enthusiasm behind Poland’s membership of the EU and NATO. The EU is well aware of the dangers of embarking on an explicit “post-modernist” cultural crusade in Poland and has been careful about opening up a Pandora’s box over such issues as abortion and gay rights.
This paradox makes it difficult to gauge the effects of globalization on Poland’s national identity. The loosening of traditional cultural ties happened once before in Poland in living memory. The new cultural avenues that were opened after Poland regained its independence in 1918 likewise pointed westward. Freed from the duties of strict national service, the cultural intelligentsia ventured to experiment with avant-gardism. The West’s influence over Polish culture was so great that it was perhaps inevitable that Poland would experience an internal reaction from many quarters against the high level of cultural import that was to re-create the 19th-century polemic between Slavophiles and Westerners, the former regarding the West as a permissive influence over Poland’s cultural purity, the latter considering interaction with the West as essential to avoid cultural introversion. It was a polemic that came to dominate Polish politics, fought out bitterly during the 1920s and 1930s between the Slavophile National Democrat Roman Dmowski and his “Westerner” adversary, Jozef Pilsudski. From the mid-1940s onward, Russia’s coercion of Poland resolved the conflict outright, ensuring the ascendancy of the Slavophile pole, albeit one interpreted almost exclusively by Moscow. Only after the collapse of the Soviet order did the pendulum swing in the other direction, but in spite of recent political developments, it is still very much in motion. Recent election results clearly demonstrate the continued presence of this phenomenon, repeatedly reflecting a national divide between the east, which consistently expresses a more conservative position, and the west. This division in turn is broadly reflected in Poland’s parliament between the liberal conservative Civic Platform, the present governing party, and the social conservative Law and Justice Party, lead party in government from 2005 to 2007.
Party political initiatives in Poland, therefore, must not be seen as mere political opportunism. When President Lech Kaczynski, a co-founder of Law and Justice, declared at the commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the start of World War II that the Soviets had “stabbed Poland in the back” by invading it, he was speaking not merely to his political constituency but to an audience that had personal experience of the traumas that ensued. Those who a few days later assembled to remember the invasion were certainly in no doubt, reports the Polish newspaper **Nasz Dziennik,** that the “long-standing enemy had attacked Poland without a declaration of war, obliterated its independence, and broken all international laws.” Evidence of the full scope of the subsequent atrocities, it adds, “is still hidden in the Moscow archives.”
Is it fair to demand of the political class to downplay such commemorations for the sake of better relations with a country that not only refuses to fully acknowledge its guilt but also blatantly fabricates history? A Western journalist, Seumas Milne, writing in the Guardian, may feel justified in siding with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s denouncement of attempts to equate Nazism with Soviet Communism, but those countless millions who endured the latter’s actions during, before, and after the war surely are fully entitled to have their voices heard. We should be loath to forget that the Nazi-Soviet pact was not an act of defense on the part of the Soviet Union but a deliberate act of wanton aggression and savagery that also allowed Hitler to wage war in the West with impunity; the consequences of the pact are still very much with us, particularly with those who continue to endure them personally.
Polish national identity may be fraying around the edges somewhat but its essential features remain intact. Many Poles have indeed adopted multiple identities but there is little evidence to suggest that any new loyalties have superseded old ones. Of course historical commemorations and festivals should not be allowed to jeopardize national development but equally they should not be relegated to society’s fringe. Because Poland has been at the center of so much of history and so frequently been its victim, to escape its past it would have to deny its present.
Gregory Slysz is head of history at DLD Independent College in London.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Oct 26, 2009 22:07:08 GMT 1
Life is so ironic....
Shipyard workers who freed Poland now jobless
by Megan K. Stack
Los Angeles Times
Oct. 23, 2009
GDYNIA, Poland - This shipyard is orphaned now, closed off from the world, storied old walls smeared with graffiti, cranes frozen over the Baltic Sea tides. It is for sale, but nobody offers to buy.
The shipyards scattered along Poland's northern coast linger at the base of the country's view of itself. The labor union of shipbuilders and technicians first cracked, then slowly eroded, communism's grip on Poland and, by extension, the rest of Eastern Europe. Workers struck, organized and made demands; they stuck to their fight even in the face of bloody repression and martial law.
Through everything that came later - the rise from communism and reinvention through privatization, capitalism and European Union membership - the shipyards remained a touchstone of Poland's national identity.
But sometimes the agents of change live long enough to become its victims. Today, the same shipyard workers who mounted the electrifying Solidarity labor union strikes find themselves unemployed. The fate of the yards themselves hangs like a politically laden albatross from the government's neck.
The shipyards have stayed vital for decades because of government subsidies; but the European Union is forcing Poland to privatize the yards - or sell the parts for scrap and close them for good.
"We knew it. Deep in our hearts, we expected it," said Bogdan Smokinski, who worked in the shipyard for 43 years.
He was laid off in late May and is studying computers in hopes of finding another job.
In the iconic strikes of 1980, Smokinski was a newlywed who left his pregnant wife at home to hole up in the shipyard with the other striking workers. He still brags about the glory days of Polish ship manufacturing, when "people knew Poland for our ships."
He thought he'd work here for the rest of his life. Like other workers, he is bitter over the government's failure to preserve the shipyards.
"The reality is very brutal," he said. "On our backs there's a group of people who made their careers."
It was here, in industrial cities strung along the Baltic coast, that Poland's battle against communism was waged and won. It was in Gdansk that an electrical technician named Lech Walesa hopped over a shipyard wall to take charge of a strike. Walesa would later win the Nobel Peace Prize and become Poland's first post-communist president.
Mindful of their history and a general sense of social gratitude - not to mention the political weight of the workers and their outspoken union - the government has propped up the shipyards for years with billions of dollars in subsidies.
The European Union, however, concluded that the subsidies had given the Polish shipbuilders an unfair edge over competition in the rest of Europe. The shipyard in Gdansk was sold in 2007 to a Ukrainian industrial conglomerate. The other two - one in Szczecin and the other in Gdynia - were closed amid fruitless attempts to sell them to a private investor.
A frustrated Polish prime minister threatened to sack his treasury minister if the shipyards weren't sold off by the end of this summer. And for a flash, it looked as if a buyer had emerged - an anonymous figure working through a Qatari investment bank offered about $159 million for the two shipyards at auction.
But the midnight deadline to deposit the down payment rolled around in August, and the shadowy investor failed to deliver. The shipyards were thrown back into limbo.
The treasury minister kept his job, and the government took out another round of advertisements, hoping to unload the shipyards.
These days, it seems as if the only thing still working is the Solidarity office. Men shuffle in to drink cups of overcooked coffee and trade complaints about the difficulty of the computer courses for retraining.
"It's ironic. We fought for human rights and democracy," said Roman Kuzimski, a Solidarity organizer. "Now we have to accept the rules of the global market."
Kuzimski wears black. He is 52 years old; his hair has gone white.
"My problem is, I can't imagine this," he said. "The shipyard and Solidarity, this is my whole adult life."
Five-thousand workers have been laid off at this shipyard, thousands more at nearby Gdansk, and 4,000 at Szczecin to the west, the union says.
"From my kitchen window I see the shipyard and my heart aches because there is no sign of work," said Maria Rasiewicz, 51, a former shipyard worker. "There used to be the signals, the signs of ships coming in and out. Now, it's all still. It's a sad view."
"We don't want to stand on a monument and have special treatment. We don't want privileges," Rasiewicz said. "On the other hand -" She trailed off and frowned.
Government critics say the prized political position of the shipyards, in the end, did the workers no favors. As the government heavily subsidized the ship construction, the technology slipped far behind international competition.
"The main product of the shipyards was not ships, but political activism," said Grzegorz Landowski, the publisher of Nasze Morze (Our Sea) shipping magazine. "This was the birthplace of Solidarity. It is a part of history. But shipbuilding is primarily an economic issue, and there's no room for any other political or historical questions.
"It's just the past," Landowski said. "It's not important now."
And from Landowski's perspective, the future is marching along.
The shipyard at Gdansk has been restructured by its new owners so that the construction of ships will constitute less than a third of the business.
Most of the plant will be used to produce wind farm equipment, and the rest for steel works. The move toward wind farms is profitable; it's the future.
|
|
He's in an awkard position, ya know. He'd like to be like a Varsovian but - what can he do? ;D ;D ;D ;D