Posted by Mikle on October 15, 1999 at 21:41:05:
In Reply to: Re: Are Ukrainians Tatars? Q: to Hanya posted by hanya on October 15, 1999 at 09:10:35:
: : If Ukrainians are not Russians, as explained by Hanya, perhaps, they are Tatars. Isn't it true that Chingeez Khan occupied Kyjev's Russia for 300 yr.?
: According to your interpretation of the paradigm, Ukrainians must be "occupying" Russian lands. Is that the way you see it? And how can 300 years of occupation outweigh 1000+ years of exsistence? Or did you mean that the Russians are Tatars? Now there's an argument that might be made.
: FYI, it was Kyievan Rus', not "Kyjev's Russia" as you stated. There was no "Russia" (Rossiya) at the time of Genghis Khan's occupation, only "Muscovy". In fact, it was under the occupation of the Golden Horde that Muscovy came to power -- the Moscow princes paid homage to the invaders and power was their reward.
:Thanks for your illuminating response. What I gathered from your brief history lesson is that Kyievan Rus was a common state for current Russians and Ukrainians. The latter ones remained in Kyievan Rus territory while Moscovy corrupted by power of Khans (the Golden Horde)later developed into Russian state. When did the word Russia emerge and when did the word Ukraine begin to be used? Of course, I did not mean at all that the Russians and Ukrainians are related genetically to Tatars. Sequencing of the human genome is ongoing and it is questionable whether it can tell something about different ethnic groups. However, what do you mean "...an argument that might be made."? Are you saying that Russians were more corrupted by Khans than Ukrainians? I have two additional questions and would appreciate your response, namely:(a) Wasn't it the leader of the emerging Ukrainian state Boghdan Khmelnickij who united Ukraine with Russia?
(b)Isn't the Ukrainian National Anthem states that "...we brothers are of Cossacks kin."? Thanks again for responding to my questions. Mikle