LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (09/11/05)

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

HURI and Columbia both meet our needs

Dear Editor:

Taras Kuzio and Orest Deychakiwsky have preformed a valuable service for American readers by summarizing the main players in the greater Washington, D.C., metro area when it comes to our understanding of Ukraine (see "A guide to who's who in D.C's Ukraine-related activities," August 7).

Certainly the Orange Revolution and the subsequent visit to the United States of President Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine remind us that we need to have a much clearer view of who, exactly, has contributed and continues to contribute to Ukrainian studies in this country. Especially since, as the authors remind us, the United States now is Ukraine's most important support in the West and a fair portion of Ukraine's success and/or failure to move forward with its political, economic and social development will depend on continued attention in America to developments under the Yushchenko regime.

Unfortunately, on one point, Dr. Kuzio and Mr. Deychakiwsky are wrong in this writer's view or, at best, misleading: their comparison of Columbia University and the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute (HURI). In essence, the authors suggest that Columbia University does a better job than HURI of helping Americans comprehend Ukraine because HURI continues to view Ukrainian studies primarily through the prism of history and culture, whereas Columbia takes a more contemporary (i.e., political) approach. Is this true? I think not.

First of all - and here I speak from direct experience dating back to 1994, when I was a Mid-Career Fellow at HURI - Harvard has always brought in speakers to talk about current issues and themes. During the summer school, for example, students from Ukraine and other countries listen to a kaleidoscope of speakers on many issues, including civil society in Ukraine, American foreign policy toward Ukraine and Ukraine's economic problems.

During the regular academic year, monthly and semi-monthly noontime and afternoon talks take place at HURI, which focus on current challenges and realities, including (in recent years) corruption and the Gongadze scandal, academic exchanges between our two countries, and the reconstruction of the Jewish community across Ukraine.

Taken together, these programs hardly represent a retreat from the contemporary world; to the contrary, HURI has gone forward across the years to help the greater community understand a land that for many Americans, at least, has seemed well nigh invisible.

Secondly, I do not wish to denigrate Columbia - not in the least. I have a great deal of respect for Columbia's leadership in addressing many concerns of international import, Ukraine among them. I do believe, however, that these kinds of institutional comparisons, however well-intentioned, are in the end beside the point simply because individual institutions can from time to time move back and forth on specific points.

It may very well be true that, as Dr. Kuzio and Mr. Deychakiwsky note, "during and after Ukraine's 2004 election, Columbia hosted panels dealing with this historic event." My response is - great! But it is misleading to jump from that one instance to the general conclusion that somehow one university (Columbia) is doing a "better" job of promoting American understanding of Ukraine than another university (Harvard). Better to say what is clearly the case: that Columbia had a series of panels on Ukraine's election whereas HURI's approach to the story of the Orange Revolution has been attentive as well, albeit in a different and more extended format.

In the end, the simple truth is that the needs of the Ukrainian American community, not to mention all Americans with a growing interest in Ukraine, are being met by two fine universities, each in its own way, and each effectively.

Dr. William Gleason
Arlington, Va.

The letter-writer is chair of Advanced Ukrainian Area Studies and coordinator of Eurasian Area Studies at the Foreign Service Institute, U.S. Department of State.

The "big picture" and Ukraine

Dear Editor:

I like Prof. Alexander Motyl's optimism in "Reassessing Ukraine and why the big picture matters" (August 14). It reminds of Marlon Brando's rendition of "Luck Be a Lady Tonight" in the movie "A Streetcar Named Desire."

Luck is something that Ukraine will need, as well as steady hands and some honest answers from its leaders, in addition to the conventional dos and don'ts. Even then, the capacity to mess up will remain at least as credible as favorable prognoses.

The comparison of the Orange Revolution with the American experience of the 1960s (the anti-war era) is very valid, in my view, although it is probably shocking to our immobile community pillars. As for the young generation's forward motion in Ukraine, it cannot be entirely frictionless.

An old truism says that the more things change the more they stay the same. For instance, after the fresh air of the post-Vietnam euphoria, we got President George W. Bush and his wars, blessed by pseudo-religious jingoism. After the Orange Revolution, in the blink of an eye, bringing home the bacon is back in style.

Seemingly minor mistakes can be costly. A company is likely to fold if it loses money on many small items sold and expects to make it up by the economy of scale ("the big picture").

Ukraine is facing huge challenges. Finding its own identity, employment for workers within its borders, and paying for imported oil and gas are the first that come to mind. Somehow, the far-out diaspora activists do not always get the picture. And some are struggling with their own narcissistic images.

The failure to connect with things sensibly specific is illustrated by advocacy on the part of the Ukrainian World Congress (in Kharkiv this time) to grant Ukrainian citizenship to any ethnic Ukrainian living abroad. The recommended method of proving ethnicity is another doozy. The idea ranks somewhere between the bizarre and mindless.

Boris Danik
North Caldwell, N.J.

Still optimistic about Ukraine

Dear Editor:

It is hard to argue with Zenon Zawada's piece on Ukraine's 14th birthday and Viktor Yushchenko's eight months as president (August 21), but being true to my moniker as a "pathological optimist on Ukraine," I have to suggest that a similar compilation of "tut, tut..." quotes from experts could be gathered about, say, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany, a country that has been independent for nearly 60 years.

To his credit, Mr. Zawada did bring in the views of Prof. Michael McFaul on Ukraine. But - 61 inches into the story? You wisely picked up on Prof. McFaul's comments in the editorial.

One small point: the brilliant political analyst Kost Bondarenko, quoted by Mr. Zawada, heads the Institute of National Strategy, a Kyiv affiliate of a Moscow organization, not the other way around - "an organization with a Moscow affiliate."

On the other hand, I found myself going over the multi-page paid ad of the Pastuch family five or six times. It was a fascinating family album ending with Buddy Max of Cowboy Junction, Fla. There's definitely a story there and I hope someone writes it for The Weekly readers - at least for this one.

Meanwhile, after another couple of weeks "in the old country," I'm rushing back to Ukraine with all its "widespread disappointment ... among intellectuals and common Ukrainians alike." And I happen to know that Mr. Zawada enjoys living there, too.

R.L. Chomiak
Washington

Re: 1986 curriculum on Ukraine's Famine

Dear Editor:

The editorial of August 14 titled "Famine-Genocide curriculum" gave extensive information about the new curriculum guide on the Famine-Genocide of 1932-1933 which was prepared by Dr. Myron Kuropas and has now been made available by the Ukrainian National Association.

The list of what was done so far to "educate the educators" about the Famine-Genocide includes many events that took place thanks to the involvement of Dr. Kuropas.

With no intent to diminish the excellent work that is being done by Dr. Kuropas, I would like bring to the attention of your readers one example from the past of a successful community initiative whose results continue to be felt today.

In 1986 the State Education Department of New York prepared and published three volumes of a teaching guide about the Holocaust and Genocide. One volume of the series was devoted to the Famine-Genocide of 1933 in Ukraine. The publication of this volume was the result of the political action of the Ukrainian American community of the state of New York and other states.

The lobbying efforts for the inclusion of the Famine-Genocide into the Holocaust/Genocide program was spearheaded by the Ad Hoc Committee on Education About the Famine-Genocide in Ukraine formed by educators and community activists of the Capital District of New York. The committee received full support from the entire the Ukrainian American community, including the Ukrainian National Association - the most generous financial supporter of the committee's actions.

Under political pressure, the New York State Education Department decided to include the material on the Famine-Genocide into the program. It approached Walter Litynsky, a high school teacher, to prepare the volume, and he wrote an excellent teachers' guide. The book was reviewed by the 13 members of the review committee, which included Drs. James E. Mace, Jurij Darewych, Taras Hunczak, George Slusarczuk, Roman Trach, Bohdan Vitvitsky and others.

The publication of the third volume of "Teaching of the Holocaust-Genocide Series" culminated with a reception at the State Capitol organized by the Ad Hoc Committee. It was attended by New York State politicians, Department of Education officials, members of the Executive Committee of the Ukrainian National Association (John O. Flis, Ulana Diachuk, Walter Sochan) and by other leaders of the Ukrainian community. Also present were representatives of the Polish, Armenian, Lithuanian and Hungarian communities.

The publication of the 21,000 copies of the volume on Famine-Genocide was entirely financed by the New York State Education Department. It was distributed to every school district in the state, and it is still available for distribution to the general public at a nominal cost.

The purpose of writing about an event that took place almost two decades ago is to help those who are now trying to include in their school curricula information about the Famine-Genocide. It would easier to persuade the school officials of other states to do so if the curriculum guide prepared by Dr. Kuropas were accompanied by the curriculum guide published by the New York State Education Department. After all, the state of New York is considered by many to be a leader in the field of education.

The publication titled "Case Studies: Persecution/Genocide; The Human Rights Series, Volume III" can be purchased by writing to: The New York State Education Department, Publications Sales Desk, Education Building - Third Floor, Albany, NY 12234. The price: $4 per copy, plus $3 for shipping and handling (the $3 charge covers shipping of up to five copies).

Michael Heretz
Rutherford, N.J.

The letter-writer is former chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Education About the Famine-Genocide in Ukraine.

We welcome your opinion

The Ukrainian Weekly welcomes letters to the editor and commentaries on a variety of topics of concern to the Ukrainian American and Ukrainian Canadian communities. Opinions expressed by columnists, commentators and letter-writers are their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of either The Weekly editorial staff or its publisher, the Ukrainian National Association.

Letters should be typed and signed (anonymous letters are not published). Letters are accepted also via e-mail at staff@ukrweekly.com. The daytime phone number and address of the letter-writer must be given for verification purposes. Please note that a daytime phone number is essential in order for editors to contact letter-writers regarding clarifications or questions.

| Home Page |