Timothy Snyder, The Making of Modern Ukraine, Lecture #2: The Genesis of Nations
For those who are unfamiliar with Timothy Snyder, he is a Yale historian whose focus is on Central and Eastern Europe. His book, “Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin,” is not only meticulously researched, it is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the post-WWII world. (We can’t understand where we are until we figure out how we got here.)
I’ve undertaken to summarize Timothy Snyder’s lectures for his course, The Making of Modern Ukraine. His course, which has been generously shared on Youtube, is only one of two courses on Ukrainian history given in the United States. (The other course — at Harvard, which Snyder jokingly refers to as a “provincial” university — is being given by Ukrainian historian Serhii Plokhy.)
Like all historians, Snyder tends to digress. And while his digressions are fascinating, they can distract listeners from the main points of the lecture. My summaries are only meant to be a guide, not a substitution for Timothy Snyder’s informative lectures. I’ve taken the liberty of adding my own comments in parentheses. (Like all historians, I tend to digress.)
You can watch the second lecture for The Making of Modern Ukraine here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LaEmaMAkpM
The syllabus for the course is here: https://snyder.substack.com/p/syllabus-of-my-ukraine-lecture-class
You can read my summary of Timothy Snyder’s first lecture here: Timothy Snyder, The Making of Modern Ukraine, Lecture #1: Ukrainian Questions Posed by Russian Invasion
Timothy Snyder’s second lecture is called “The Genesis of Nations.” How nations begin is an important topic when discussing the history of modern Ukraine, because there has been a great deal of debate over what makes Ukraine a nation. (Putin denies that Ukraine is a nation, despite the fact that “Russia,” as defined by Putin, hardly qualifies. In no sense, except that of imperial conquest, can Central Asia be thought of as “Russian.” But I digress…)
Nation is an abstract concept. It is not defined by geography or even ethnicity, much less history. (A case in point is the US, whose boundaries have changed a great deal over time and whose ethnicities are multiple.) The nation-state, according to various social scientists, evolved from industrialization, which created a whole new class of people concentrated in cities. The Enlightenment, which coincided with the Industrial Revolution, introduced the idea of individual rights, along with the concept of The People. (“We, the people…”)
Professor Snyder describes the process of nation formation as the conscious process of recreating history — essentially through a three-part myth. The myth is that “once we were great, then something happened to destroy our greatness, but now we are becoming great again.” (Snyder uses the word “innocent,” rather than “great.”) This national myth is indeed Genesis — and it is completely erroneous, because the nation, as a concept, is not old, but very young. (The US was probably the first modern nation to come into existence, and we are still having problems identifying ourselves as such. The continual call for “unity” is simply an effort to get us to act as one national people. Good luck with that. But I digress…)
One effort to define Ukraine as a nation has drawn upon ethnicity, i.e. Ukrainians have their own language, customs, and culture. However, Ukraine has an assortment of languages and customs deriving from a long history of associations with surrounding empires. Which one is to be designated as “purely Ukrainian”?
Another way of thinking defines Ukraine as the product of modernity. This falls into line with the idea that the concept of nation evolved out of the industrial revolution. Yet, this definition too has its drawbacks. Ukraine celebrates its national status with symbols that are distinctly ancient — stemming from agricultural traditions. (This tendency to romanticize farming traditions in order to solidify a national concept appears fairly frequently in nation-building mythology. The Nazis eulogized German farmers, even though they stiffed the farmers they were euologizing. The same is true in this country. Witness the lack of resources given to rural areas even while praising farmers. But I digress…)
In the end, Snyder says that Ivan Rudnytsky, a Ukrainian historian and founder of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, wins the argument. Rudnytsky defines a nation as “a political act directed towards the future.” In other words, a nation is not who we have been, but who we want to be. Indeed, history tells us that nation-states are universally directed toward the future, even while employing a mythology of the past.
Where does this leave Ukraine? Right now, Ukrainians are furiously trying to hold on to their future despite Putin’s efforts to prevent any kind of future for them at all. In the face of Putin’s aggressive imperial ambitions and open genocidal policies, it is impossible not to cheer Ukrainians on.
Erica Verrillo is the author of three MG fantasies (Random House). Her short work has appeared in over a dozen publications. She is also the author of the definitive reference guide for treating myalgic encephalomyelitis, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Treatment Guide, now in its second edition (first edition, St. Martin’s). She holds degrees from Tufts University (BA — History) and Syracuse University (MA — Linguistics) as well as doctoral work in Anthropology and Speech Communication. Her professional life includes working as Spanish language editor for Mesoamerica, linguistics instructor (Dartmouth), classical musician (Oxford Symphony Orchestra), director of a non-profit NGO for Mayan refugees, and Mayan linguist (SUNY Albany). She is the president of the American Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Society, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to to serving the needs of patients and caregivers through support, advocacy, and education. Her blog, Publishing … and Other Forms of Insanity has received nearly 8 million page views. You are all welcome to visit.
