Talk:History of Christianity in Ukraine/Archive 3

Religiousity and national self-identity connection

While I added this info to the article a while ago, I would like to, perhaps, clear up certain misunderstanding that I see in recent edits. The connection was very strong indeed but it belongs to a history rather than modernity. At the time of the Polish controle up to the 17th-18th century, being a Ukrainian largely meant being an Orthodox and converion to Catholicism meant usually a complete abandonment of Ukrainianness. Practically it was equivalent to becoming a Pole (see Polonization#Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Ostrozhsky section of Kostomarov's history.)

Another historic period where the connection was very strong is the interbellum where in the Polish control Western Ukraine, the Greek Catholic church, which under the previous century of the Austrian rule has attained a strong Ukrainian national character was a strong unifyinf force that prevented the Ukrainians from assimilation (see Polonization#Second Polish Republic and, eg. Snyder's "Reconstruction of Nations" ISBN 0-300-10586-X). However, in the modern times, the religion's role in the Ukrainian self-identity is not as significant. A significant portion of Ukrainians is non-religious and many have been attracted by the proseletysm of different Western Churches whose activity in the country is very significant in the last 20 years. Nevertheless, there is no indication that those people have lost their Ukrainian self-identification by being non-Orthodox and non-Greek Catholic. So, let's make sure that the article emphasizes the connection as the historical only rather than the modern. --Irpen 22:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Red Army Liberation" v. "Soviet Occupation"

After consideration, I do agree that my change from the former to the later was not a neutral or objective choice. However, as a great percentage of the population, including every single person I know who survived those years, felt more "occupied" than "liberated", I am wondering if it would be possible for us to agree upon some mutually-acceptable wording. Qe2 17:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You did mean that it was wrt 1941 German invasion...that the majority felt more occupied than liberated, instead of the sad shameful story of those who collaborated...--Kuban Cossack 00:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If anyone has any suggestions for neutral language, they would be greatly appreciated. Qe2 12:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)