ellauri051.html on line 392: Bring the old pageants--show the feudal world. vanhat torvikulkueet ja feodaalinen maailmas.
ellauri190.html on line 243: By the 11th century, Kyivan Rus was a huge European power. Kyiv was bigger than London or Paris. The city had numerous buildings made of brick, including churches. It also had many private and public bathhouses, like Constantinople (and unlike Western European cities of the time). The realm, stretching from the White Sea to the north to the Black Sea to the south and from the steppes of the Don to the east to what is now eastern Poland to the west, was divided into many feudal fiefs, but the authority of the monarch in Kyiv was nonetheless absolute.
ellauri190.html on line 267: In the 15th-16th centuries, most of what is now Ukraine belonged to the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth (“The Republic”), but the life of the people depended to a very large extent on their local feudal lords, the Knyazi (“Princes”). Most of these lords were related to the house of Gedimin, spoke a language close to modern Belarusian and Ukrainian, and were Eastern Orthodox Christians. Yet, beginning from ~1569 (the year of the so-called Lublin Unia), these princes also swore allegiance to the Polish king, and were his vassals and courtiers. They corresponded in Latin, Polish, or their native “Old Ukrainian / Old Belarusian” Slavic language. Among them, perhaps the mightiest ruler was Prince Konstayntyn Vasyl Ostrozky. He was nicknamed “the un-crowned King of Rus,” and was, actually, offered the Polish crown several times, but refused because the kings of Poland were, traditionally, Catholics – and Prince Ostrozky wanted to remain Orthodox. He is famous for printing the first Gospels in his native language, and founding the Academy of Ostroh, a university that functions to this day.
ellauri190.html on line 275: In 1648, a Kozak leader called Zinoviy Bohdan Khmelnytsky (Polish transliteration, Chmielnicki) started a war on the Polish crown. Initially, it was his own personal vendetta on a Polish landlord who stole his land, but very soon it grew into a colossal uprising of the Kozaks and Ukrainian peasants against their Polish landlords. The people fought (the way they knew how) against the feudal oppression, as well as against forced Catholicization and Polonization of Ukraine. Unfortunately, it turned into a fratricide. (Sorry Poles, of course we are on the same side now.) The main adversary of Khmelnytsky was Prince Yarema (Jeremiah) Korybut-Vyshnevetsky, a Rusyn-Ukrainian, a noble valiant knight and a great statesman who, nonetheless, kept his allegiance to the Polish king (whom he personally hated, but could not break his knight’s oath of loyalty). Both sides resorted to unspeakable cruelties. Most tragically, Khmelnysky, a brave warrior as he was, turned out to be a horribly short-sighted politician. In January 1654, he essentially surrendered Ukraine to Muscovy, approving what he thought was a temporary military union against the Republic but turned out to be the beginning of the “Russian” (actually Muscovite) occupation of Ukraine. It just goes to show: give a pinky finger to the Russkies and they take the whole hand.
ellauri190.html on line 283: But the nobility obtained legal ownership of vast expanses of land on the Dnipro from the Polish kings, and then attempted to impose feudal dependency on the local population. Landowners utilized the locals in war, by raising the Cossack registry in times of hostility, and then radically decreasing it and forcing the Cossacks back into serfdom in times of peace. This institutionalized method of control bred discontent among the Cossacks. By the end of the 16th century, they began to revolt, in the uprisings of Kryshtof Kosynsky (1591–1593), Severyn Nalyvaiko (1594–1596), Hryhorii Loboda (1596), Marko Zhmailo (1625), Taras Fedorovych (1630), Ivan Sulyma (1635), Pavlo Pavliuk and Dmytro Hunia (1637), and Yakiv Ostrianyn and Karpo Skydan (1638). All were brutally suppressed and ended by the Polish government.
ellauri275.html on line 442: Toinen nimekäs poliittinen vanki on oppositio­kanava Mtavarin omistaja Nika Gvaramia. Hänet on tuomittu korruptiosta. Mtavari (Georgian: მთავარი) was a feudal title in Georgia usually translated into English as Prince or Duke. In the 15th century the term mtavari was applied only to the five ruling princes of western Georgia (Samtskhe, Mingrelia, Guria, Svaneti, and Abkhazia), whose autonomous powers were finally eliminated under Imperialist Russia.
ellauri322.html on line 389: England and America owe their liberty to commerce, which created new species of power to undermine the feudal system. But let them beware of the consequence; the tyranny of wealth is still more galling and debasing than that of rank.
ellauri333.html on line 252: Tulsidas’ liberal view of a true Bhakt, however, expresses the feudal male view that the state and its laws, as they exist, are rational. So Ram, according to the laws, kills the Dalit Shambook for gobbling tapas (penance) and Bali for daring to take away his (presumed dead) brother’s wife, and exiles Sita, and the Bhakt accepts it. Valmiki’s Sita sees that masculine mores of male kings relate to a specific moral code that forgives Caesar but not his wife. That male power exists and sex equality does not.
xxx/ellauri068.html on line 64: A committee was set up in Baku to develop the new Turkic alphabet (the All-Union Committee for the Development of the New Turkic Alphabet, the CNTA, later transformed into the Committee of the New Alphabet), headed by S. A. Agamali-oglu. At its first meeting the theses of N. F. Yakovlev,Chair of the Commission, were adopted. The Commission declared the Cyrillic (Russian civilian) script a "relic of the 18th - 19th centuries, the script of Russian feudal landlords and the bourgeoisie, the script of autocratic oppression, missionary propaganda, great-power chauvinism. <...> it still binds the population that reads in Russian with the national-bourgeois traditions of Russian pre-revolutionary culture."
xxx/ellauri085.html on line 411: Um, no, no one is saying that. The idea is hilarious. This is where it goes wrong: Govt taking a little less from the rich than before is not a gift! It was THEIR money in the first place. How did we ever get to the place where people think that everything belongs to the govt like a king in feudal and ancient times, and we are all just subjects, serfs, and they will tell US how much of our own earnings we get to keep? Didn't we fight a revolution to abolish that nonsense?
10