LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (03/17/96)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Yevtushenko is back as a college professor

Dear Editor:

The New York Times of February 7 reported that Russian poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko has been named distinguished professor of Russian literature at Queens College in New York. Posturing before the reporter as a true Russian democrat and egalitarian, and evidently overdoing it a bit, Prof. Yevtushenko "brimmed with manic excitement" about the "ethnic mix" in Queens.

He also availed himself of the reporter's eager ear to recall how in the 1960s, while receiving an honorary degree from the same college, he had been "jumped" by "angry Ukrainian nationalists." The rest of the passage merits quotation: "'They were the sons of people who collaborated many years ago with the fascists,' said the poet, whose 'Babi Yar' decried the slaughter of Jews in Ukraine. 'They tore off my gown. Here in Queens.'"

Somewhat later in that news item, the distinguished professor went on to explain his rather unusual teaching method: after boasting that he is neither qualified nor academically prepared to teach Pushkin, he assured the reporter that "I love Pushkin, and I teach love."

I should state, to begin with, that I do not favor any type of political demonstration that ends in violence, even in such a mild form as putting a rent in Prof. Yevtushenko's (presumably academic) gown. I should nevertheless remind him that Queens does not lie in a country where children are responsible for their parents' political indiscretions.

And, much more important, I should point out that his suggestion to the effect that the young demonstrators acted because of their "social origin" is a preposterous lie. I have no doubt that among them were sons and daughters of Ukrainians who had suffered at the hands of the Nazis, be it as slave laborers in Germany, inmates of concentration camps, or insurgent fighters against the Nazis in the Ukrainian underground. But, be that as it may, all this had absolutely nothing to do with their anger.

Perhaps we should remind our younger readers of Prof. Yevtushenko's role in the 1960s, and of the possible reasons that the "nationalists" chose him as the target of their ire. The young demonstrators, Americans of Ukrainian background, felt morally bound to draw the West's attention to the violent (far more so than a tear in a gown) persecution of the Ukrainian language, culture and intellectuals, which Moscow began to renew at that time. Among its victims were poets - some infinitely more talented than Prof. Yevtushenko - who eventually died or were permanently crippled in Russian concentration camps. It was at that time that real Russian dissidents, like Andrei Sakharov and Yelena Bonner, vehemently protested such fascist imperialism, to end up, not much later, in de-humanizing banishment. And it was around that time that truly gifted Russian poets were tried for vagrancy and hounded in similar humiliating ways.

While the wave of such fascist persecutions was beginning to crest in the Soviet Union, Mr. Yevtushenko, New York's darling dissident, was busy parading his "Russian soul" and "democratic views" around the United States, and receiving honorary degrees from tax-supported American universities. I should emphasize that he disported himself abroad with the obvious support of his fascist government. Using some of his early anti-Stalinist verses and his outspoken autobiography as a lure, the Soviet government permitted, and probably even encouraged, Prof. Yevtushenko to play the role of a token dissident ("we, too, have freedom of speech!"), reading verses against the oppression of blacks in the United States and against American "provocations" in Cuba to gullible Western audiences.

Let us take a cursory look at what real Russian and Ukrainian dissidents thought of Prof. Yevtushenko's "anti-government" activities. The Russian dissident Ludmilla Alexeyeva, in her seminal study "Soviet Dissent," states that Yevtushenko enjoyed official approval (p. 13). The Ukrainian political dissident Leonid Plyushch, who spent years as a political prisoner in a Soviet insane asylum, writes in his autobiography "History's Carnival," that "Yevtushenko lost his sincerety . . . when he became an officially recognized 'oppositionist' who traveled abroad and helped the KGB demonstrate its liberality" (p. 47).

It seems to me that Prof. Yevtushenko was in all respects an ideal symbolic object of protest against the crimes of the government that he unofficially represented. Incidentally, the very style and tone of his insult, as quoted by The New York Times, does not augur a successful "reconstruction" of the man.

Well, Prof. Yevtushenko is back. It is symptomatic that he has begun his academic career at a public American university by fabricating a pack of lies, intended to malign an honest and hard-working American ethnic group. I have no doubt that he is fully aware of the possible repercussions: to compromise the Ukrainian American community as an influential Western spokesman for Ukraine, to pour salt on the mutually painful wounds in the torturous history of Jewish-Ukrainian relations (the obviously irrelevant reference to Babyn Yar, supplied either by the professor himself or by the reporter, is a particularly masterful touch); to put his two cents' worth into the already strained dialogue between Ukraine and Russia; to attempt to antagonize ethnic minorities in Ukraine, and ultimately to compromise Ukraine as an independent nation at a difficult moment of its development. This is Prof. Yevtushenko's kind of love.

As a not-so-distinguished, although professional, teacher of literature, I would like to suggest to Prof. Yevtushenko that, instead of forcing down his American students' throats the noxious brew of love and lies - a cynically hypocritical mixture, known only too well from the annals of the Russian empire - he serve his patrons more honestly by attempting to competently teach the truth. Wherever the truth might take him. After all, this is how we do it "here in Queens."

Bohdan Rubchak
Chicago

The writer is professor of Slavic literatures at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Veryovka's repertoire: Russian or Ukrainian?

Dear Editor:

Here are my comments on the article "Russian or Ukrainian?" by Helen Smindak (February 18).

Yevhen Hrebinka had written "Black Eyes" (Chernye Ochy) in Russian (1843). He was a Ukrainian, but as many Ukrainian writers of that period he wrote some of his works in Ukrainian and some in Russian (e.g., the novel "Chaikovsky").

Therefore the poem "Black Eyes" has a Ukrainian connection because its author was a Ukrainian. On the other hand, as literary work is concerned, it definitely belongs to Russian literature and not Ukrainian as it was written in Russian.

Thomas Moore (1779-1852) had written "Those Evening Bells" and it appeared in his collection "National Airs" (Melodies from other Nations, 1818-1827), Russian chapter. A Russian translation of "Those Evening Bells" was made by poet Ivan Kozlov (1779-1840).

Therefore Thomas Moore knew the melody of this song and gave it an English text. As his Russian chapter included songs of the Russian empire, Ukrainian melodies were not distinguished from Russian ones. I do not have Z. Lysko's "Ukrainian Folk Melodies," but if his text of "Vechernyi Dzvin" is similar to T. Moore's, then probably the Ukrainian text was taken from T. Moore or from its Russian translation by I. Kozlov. If the text is different, that would indicate an original Ukrainian song.

Andrij D. Solczanyk
Media, Pa.

Ukrainian Canadians have right to speak

Dear Editor:

D.H. Struk in his letter (February 11) advises Ukrainians to "remain neutral" on the current Quebec debate, if they are unable to "empathize with Quebecers."

Many Ukrainians, as Prof. Struk knows, also define themselves as Canadians and have the same rights as other Canadians to participate in a pressing debate in which the future of the country will be decided. It would be erroneous to see this as an altercation between the Anglo-Saxons and the French, although often the rhetoric seems to illustrate this view.

If part of what motivates Prof. Struk is a repugnance for anti-French sentiment, he is to be lauded. Ukrainians have long been caricatured, stereotyped and subject to bigotry and thus should not subject any other race to this kind of treatment. My experience here in Quebec, however, leads me to be rather proud of Ukrainians. I don't know any Ukrainians who are not fluent in French, or who do not understand the struggle of the Quebecois for the preservation of their culture. Even the older people, who were not born here, speak French, and though it may be broken, as is their English, their effort is a testament of respect. As Ukrainians it would seem logical that we should be sensitive to the Quebec dilemma. However, it would be inaccurate not to recognize historical differences between Ukraine and Canada.

It is indeed true that in the past the Catholic Church in Quebec, local elites and an Anglo Establishment arrogance rendered the Quebecois people mute. But the Quiet Revolution of the past 35 years has been a resounding success. Quebecers are not oppressed today in 1996.

There are no longer wage disparities between Francophones and Anglophones living in the province. The majority of managerial positions, and almost all civil service posts, are held by Francophones, who make up 83 percent of the population of Quebec. Francophones very often outshine other Canadians in the arts and sports, and in many other fields, and intellectual life in Quebec is sophisticated and stimulating. (I do not know if the situation of "Ukrainians in Halychyna under Poland" was ever comparable to this.)

But the important point is that advocating a federalist position does not preclude recognizing that Quebecers are a nation, or that they deserve empathy. Half of the citizens of Quebec, if not more, are federalists, as the recent results have shown. Perhaps the demands of Quebecers can be met by further decentralization of some portfolios, opening up the Constitution is another alternative, and some have suggested special status for Quebec. Canada is a country that has more than one nation living in it. The problem is that a solution will require the cooperation of all Canadians.

But any honest discussion of Quebec separatism and empathy for Quebecers must raise the issue of the native nations that have lived here for over 10 centuries. The Cree of Northern Quebec recently held their own referendum and overwhelmingly voted to remain a part of Canada if Quebecers voted "yes" to separation in the next referendum, which will probably take place in a year or two.

Because they are not wealthy and powerful, the natives and their genuine grievances are too often swept to the margins. Yet, here we see real dispossession, urgency and great disparity compared to the rest of the population.

The situation in Quebec is not simple; three groups are essentially claiming the same territory: the natives, the separatists and the federalists. Separation from Canada may invite the partition of Quebec. It will be hard not to give sympathy to the aboriginal nations of Northern Quebec, and to give it only to the Quebecois.

It is a pity that the Canadian ideals of bilingualism and multiculturalism and tolerance for minorities have been so steadily assaulted by some narrow-minded Canadians who have no patience for French, who see bilingualism as a waste of money, and who want English only in their part of Canada, and separatists on the other side, whose goal is to create a unilingual French state that does not really accord much place to a multicultural dimension. Don't we all get so much less in this scenario?

Roy Romanow, the premier of Saskatchewan, summarized it best in a talk with Bernard Landry of the Parti Quebecois on October 30, 1995, when he said: "I'm a good Saskatchewanian, a good Canadian and a good Ukrainian. All at the same time. And there is no conflict."

It is precisely the possibility for this kind of cosmopolitan identity and multilingual daily experience that makes me so proud to be a Quebecer, a Canadian and a Ukrainian. It would be a great disappointment if the Canadian experiment should fail. We would all lose. Surely, it should be possible for a diverse Canada to continue existing and flourishing.

Ukrainians should not remain neutral. They should actively debate this issue amongst themselves in forums and seminars. This issue needs the input of all Canadians. And Ukrainians should take their rightful place in Canada and contribute at a very crucial historical moment.

Fran Ponomarenko
Montreal

| Home Page |