3 ms·

Tsar Alexander II had been killed by bomb thrown by Ignacy Hryniewiecki Polish person and part of Russian Narodnaya Vola conspiracy. Tsars bodyguard had been Po

by chewz 7y ago

Tsar Alexander II had been killed by bomb thrown by Ignacy Hryniewiecki Polish person and part of Russian Narodnaya Vola conspiracy. Tsars bodyguard had been Polish noble. I think people of XIX century would be laugh your narrow nationalistic schooling.

6d6b73 7y ago
History is complicated, I know. And I've never claimed that Alexander didn't abolish serfdom, or even that he was a bad ruler. All I'm trying to say is nobody should be surprised that his accomplishments are not part of the school curriculum as he was simply an occupier.
- chewz 7y ago
  That's exactly my point :-) History is complicated and we oversimplify it looking back through our modern lenses.
- jwieczorek 7y ago
  > he was simply an occupier That's not the history, as you just admitted yourself: he abolished serfdom and started a period of unprecedented prosperity in Polish history (when the Polish city Łódź had gone from a village to become one of the main industrial centers in the whole of Europe), among many other things. The list could go on but the point is this: you pick statements that suit your feelings and therefore are not even close to serve as an objective description of a historical figure. I would even argue, as a separate point, that he wasn't an “occupier” at all, much like Donald Trump is not an “occupier” of Native American lands. I think there are grounds to be surprised and dissatisfied when the school curriculum teaches kids shallow, anti-intellectual ressentiments, instead of actual history, with all its shades of gray. And when it does that, it's awful for their future. Indeed, as one great Polish historian once said, false history is a mistress of false politics. Mistress in the old Shakespearean sense. Although the modern alternate meaning of the word gives the saying quite an appropriate twist…
  - 6d6b73 7y ago
    "I would even argue, as a separate point, that he wasn't an occupier at all, much like Donald Trump is not an occupier of Native American lands." Alexanders policies against Poles were direct result of the January Uprising. Polish, Lithuanian, Ukrainina and Belarusian languages were banned, and many people were sent to Siberia. You're comparing this to current situation of Native Americans? That's a joke right? I know what your trying to say, but to my point - do we have any military insurrection of Native Americans going on right now? And I know you hate speculations but if in 200 years Native Americans regain their independence, do you think they will not think about every American president as an occupier?
    - jwieczorek 7y ago
      No, there's no insurrection of Native Americans going on. And they can, if they wish to, speak their indigenous languages, and are not being expelled to Alaska. Indeed, you properly identified the cause-and-effect relationship between imprudent and reckless insurrections, and the repressions that follow. That link is the reason why so many residents of the Kingdom of Poland were strongly against insurrections at the time when they were provoked. And it is the very same reason why there was no such thing in Finland, which was also part of the Russian Empire. Finland, in contrast to Poland, kept its autonomy the whole time, and patiently waited for the right moment to say “cards up” to try to separate from the Empire and have an independent state, which was at the end of World War I.
      - 6d6b73 7y ago
        And how do you know that the right moment will ever arrive? And when it arrives how would you know that it is the right time? If Poles waited until 1918, and gain their independence, but lost war of 1920 would you also claim that they simply made mistake - again? Maybe the repressions that we the result of insurrections where what solidified Polish nation, and helped us win independence in 1918. Are Kurds wrong trying to fight for their independence? Probably ,in your opinion they would be better of if they just "waited for the right time"?

by chewz 7y ago

6d6b73 7y ago

History is complicated, I know. And I've never claimed that Alexander didn't abolish serfdom, or even that he was a bad ruler. All I'm trying to say is nobody should be surprised that his accomplishments are not part of the school curriculum as he was simply an occupier.

chewz 7y ago
That's exactly my point :-) History is complicated and we oversimplify it looking back through our modern lenses.
jwieczorek 7y ago
> he was simply an occupier That's not the history, as you just admitted yourself: he abolished serfdom and started a period of unprecedented prosperity in Polish history (when the Polish city Łódź had gone from a village to become one of the main industrial centers in the whole of Europe), among many other things. The list could go on but the point is this: you pick statements that suit your feelings and therefore are not even close to serve as an objective description of a historical figure. I would even argue, as a separate point, that he wasn't an “occupier” at all, much like Donald Trump is not an “occupier” of Native American lands. I think there are grounds to be surprised and dissatisfied when the school curriculum teaches kids shallow, anti-intellectual ressentiments, instead of actual history, with all its shades of gray. And when it does that, it's awful for their future. Indeed, as one great Polish historian once said, false history is a mistress of false politics. Mistress in the old Shakespearean sense. Although the modern alternate meaning of the word gives the saying quite an appropriate twist…
- 6d6b73 7y ago
  "I would even argue, as a separate point, that he wasn't an occupier at all, much like Donald Trump is not an occupier of Native American lands." Alexanders policies against Poles were direct result of the January Uprising. Polish, Lithuanian, Ukrainina and Belarusian languages were banned, and many people were sent to Siberia. You're comparing this to current situation of Native Americans? That's a joke right? I know what your trying to say, but to my point - do we have any military insurrection of Native Americans going on right now? And I know you hate speculations but if in 200 years Native Americans regain their independence, do you think they will not think about every American president as an occupier?
  - jwieczorek 7y ago
    No, there's no insurrection of Native Americans going on. And they can, if they wish to, speak their indigenous languages, and are not being expelled to Alaska. Indeed, you properly identified the cause-and-effect relationship between imprudent and reckless insurrections, and the repressions that follow. That link is the reason why so many residents of the Kingdom of Poland were strongly against insurrections at the time when they were provoked. And it is the very same reason why there was no such thing in Finland, which was also part of the Russian Empire. Finland, in contrast to Poland, kept its autonomy the whole time, and patiently waited for the right moment to say “cards up” to try to separate from the Empire and have an independent state, which was at the end of World War I.
    - 6d6b73 7y ago
      And how do you know that the right moment will ever arrive? And when it arrives how would you know that it is the right time? If Poles waited until 1918, and gain their independence, but lost war of 1920 would you also claim that they simply made mistake - again? Maybe the repressions that we the result of insurrections where what solidified Polish nation, and helped us win independence in 1918. Are Kurds wrong trying to fight for their independence? Probably ,in your opinion they would be better of if they just "waited for the right time"?