Thesis .Pdf (468.77
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MAINTAINING THE BORDERLAND: NEGOTIATING UKRAINIAN IDENTITY AND COLLECTIVE MEMORY IN OHIO by Anna Leatherwood ______________ APPROVED: This thesis has been approved by the Honors Tutorial College and the Anthropology Department. Diane Ciekawy, Ph.D Diane Ciekawy, Associate Professor of Anthropology Thesis Advisor Matthew Rosen Matthew Rosen, PhD Director of Studies, Anthropology Maintaining the Borderland: Negotiating Ukrainian Identity and Collective Memory in Ohio ________________________________________ A Thesis Presented to The Honors Tutorial College Ohio University ________________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for Graduation with the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology ________________________________________ By Anna J. Leatherwood May 2021 Acknowledgements Conducting a thesis project is always a monumental undertaking for those involved, but in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, this project was particularly challenging. Without the support of everyone who helped me on this journey, finishing this venture would have been impossible. I would like to express my gratitude to everyone who participated in my study, and their enthusiasm in helping me complete this project, as well as Dr. Rosen who gave me much appreciated advice and flexibility when I needed it the most, and Dr. Musaraj, who was instrumental in guiding me through the process of discovering a topic I could pursue with passion. We spent many hours together in her office designing the beginnings of this project, I could never have started this thesis without her. The research for this study was originally supposed to occur the summer after my junior year, but it ended it up encompassing the entirety of my senior year. In the context of social distancing, online classes, and work from home, this was an unusual undertaking to say the least. I owe much of my success to the support of my family, friends, and loved ones, who encouraged me throughout this process. In particular I would like to thank my parents, Sophia Abukamail, Shruthi Kandalai, Laurel Bayless, Alex Armstrong, Sofia Biegeleisen, Adele Purdy, and Isaac Stern- Thanks guys, I couldn’t have done it without you. Most of all I would like to thank Dr. Ciekawy who traveled with me every step of the way during this project and was always positive in the face of obstacles. Her commitment and guidance always motivated me to strive for my absolute best effort, and without whom this project could have never been completed. i Abstract Within the United States, Ohio has the fifth largest population of Ukrainian Americans in the country (DADS, 2010). Ukrainian Americans and immigrants living in Ohio show evidence of active community and identity engagement, through their maintenance of several historically significant community organizations. They participate in many dedicated cultural associations, community organizations, and churches which have exhibited an increase in internal diaspora networking and public events in recent years. In particular, The Ukrainian Cultural Association of Ohio displays a noticeable revitalization of culture and nationalism. This increased and revitalized interest in Ukrainian culture and nationalism appears to indicate a shift in collective identity construction and a restructuring of historical memory. This study, conducted from November 2020 through March 2021, explores the ways in which Ukrainians in Ohio negotiate their identities in relation to current events in Ukraine. Using literature on identity formation, nation states, and collective historical memory, this study analyzed semi structured interview data to examine Ukrainian immigrants’ conceptualizations of identity. Specifically, it analyses how conceptualizations of identity have changed in the seven years since the Revolution of Dignity and the annexation of Crimea, and how those events affect Ukrainian immigrants in Ukraine. ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………...………..i Abstract………………………………………………………………………..…………ii Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………..iii Chapter One: Introduction……………………………………...………………………1 Aim and Scope…………………………………………………………………….4 Project Background……………………………………………………..…………5 Project Methodology…………………………………………..…………………..9 Chapter Overviews……………………………………………………………….15 Chapter Two: Literature Review…………………………………………………...…17 Nationalism & Transnationalism………….……………………………………..17 Identity, Narrative, and Mythico-History………………………………………..21 Chapter Three: Background: Origins, Waves, and Ukrainian History…..……….. 30 Kievan Rus……………………………………………………….………………30 The First and Second Wave………………………………...……………………32 The Third Wave……………………………………………...…………………..36 The Fourth Wave……………………………………………..………………….37 The Revolution of Dignity……………………………………………………….41 Chapter Four: Ukrainian Narratives: Interpreting Thematic Conceptualizations 46 Russian Aggression……………………………………………………..………..46 Corruption………………………………………………………………………..51 Ukrainian Identity……………………………………………….……………….59 Chapter Five: Conclusion…………………………………………………...………….67 References…………………………………………………………………………….…71 iii Chapter 1 Introduction Over a year ago as I contemplated the title for this thesis, I chose the title, Maintaining the Borderland: Negotiating Ukrainian Identity and Collective Memory in Ohio. The title is a play on words, for the word Ukraine literally translates to “borderland,” and at the time it seemed fitting that a study examining identity politics would have a title referring to an identity that maintained reference to the margins. But I did not realize just how well this title characterized the focus of this study until recently, when I happened upon the following passage: Unlike Russian, in Ukrainian ‘kraina’ means ‘country, land.’ The Slavic word ‘u’ means ‘in’ or ‘within,’ so when properly adapted to English, “Ukraina” means “in the heartland.” In most Slavic languages, the word krajina (kraj-edge) is a toponym that translates as ‘frontier’ or ‘march.’ In Russian ‘okraina’ refers to ‘periphery’ while ‘krai’ is a term denoting border, area, or an administrative territory of Russia (Musliu, 2019, p. 638). When I encountered this, I couldn’t help but laugh. The terminology that I and many other academic scholars have used in our titles and conceptualizations of marginality and borders had been altered - either through a collectivized narrative process, or simply through the fact that much of the literature on Ukraine originates from larger dominant powers - perhaps we misunderstood all along, or simply weren’t listening. I want to introduce my topic through this example, by way of a reminder that our knowledge about the world and its history is often shaped by larger forces, and that through the process of narrativization, and its ethnographic observation, we can begin to understand how those processes can counter and subvert existing narratives. 1 Nearly a month ago, at the end of March, I was conducting a final interview for this study. What I didn’t know when I started my day, was that nearly 60,000 Russian troops had just arrived on the Eastern and Southern borders of Ukraine and were practicing invasion drills as a form of performance driven brinkmanship (The New York Times, 2021). During the interview, I had asked if we could take a pause so I could get some water, and on my way back into my office to continue the interview, my roommate asked, “Anna, my mom heard about the troops on the border, she’s asking if your relatives are okay.” The rest of that interview was spent searching the internet as we tried to figure out what had happened. The demonstration of force by the Russian government brought echoes to us as we remembered how the last time the Russian government has made such a display; Crimea was annexed, and a war began that continues to this day in Eastern Ukraine. These events are still being actively negotiated on the global stage as I write. To the best of my ability, I will provide additional context an understanding about how and why this occurred. The Donbas war in Eastern Ukraine has been ongoing since 2014, and while there have been several short-lived ceasefires, the conflict signs no signs of ending in the near future. On March 30th, 2021, the leaders of Germany and France agreed to initiate a Normandy Four formatted conference with Russia, excluding Ukraine from the peace negotiations (Ukrinform, 2021). This outraged the Ukrainian government, as it could condone no decisions made about Ukraine, without Ukraine. There are several reasons France and Germany might favor the Russian government, including a gas pipeline (Politico, 2021). The talks continued as scheduled despite the exclusion of Ukraine. 2 It was over this weekend that Russia began amassing troops on the Ukrainian border in numbers larger than those that preceded the annexation of Crimea (U.S. News, 2021). This performance of brinkmanship was directed towards NATO, the United States, and the Ukrainian government (BBC News, 2021). In response, President Biden and NATO declared their intent to send warships to the Black Sea, only to be warned to stay away by Putin “for their own good” (CBS news, 2021). The warships were called off, Ukraine was invited to a Normandy four meeting without Russia, and the United States Secretary of State visited Ukraine after the G7 summit in a show of support (VOA, 2021). When I was combing through online news articles to understand the timeline of these events, only once did I see an article that discussed how Ukrainian citizens felt about their government’s