A prevailing thought within Rusyn intellectual discussion is the desire to proclaim the uniqueness of our identity and culture. Given our recent history and the outcome from the previous century, it is an entirely understandable goal, and to have this thought at the forefront of one’s mind is vital for the continued existence of our national consciousness. However, one must not take this into absurdity unless they wish to abandon their connection with the reality of our history. Doing this erases the ability to even understand why we are distinct in the first place.

Time and again I have witnessed people reject our foundational ethnic background, particularly in relation to history before the modern era. Common statements such as that we are pure White Croats or have little in common with others descended from the Kievan Rus are laughable in merit, yet prove the desire to be different even in a fundamental misunderstanding of who we are as a people. Likewise, the claim that Russia had nothing to do with our ethnic formation and the Rusyn rejection of Ukrainianism is another flaw that is regularly touted. These things are so off the mark, yet pervasive in large swaths of the diaspora and even homeland.

Let us take a version of the first example and skewer it for a moment. It is often brought up that Carpathian Rus’ was not part of the Kievan Rus’, but a borderland that was eventually secured by Hungary. Because of this, we have supposedly little in common with others who had once been called Ruthenians, or at least such minor influence that it isn’t worth discussing. This division in a broad sense may be the case from a modern territorial perspective, but arguing from this point of view isn’t giving the full story. Frankly, it’s somewhat absurd. Just because the border of one polity ends does not mean its ethnic influence does not. As Professor Magosci so elegantly stated twenty-six years ago:

In the absence of any outside political control. Slavs from the north (Galicia) and east (who actually arrived from Podolia via the mountain passes of Transylvania) continued to settle in small numbers in various parts of the Carpathian borderland, which the Hungarians and other medieval writers referred to as the Marchia Ruthenorum – the Rus’ March. These new immigrants, from the north and east, like the Slavs already living in Carpathian Rus’, had by the eleventh century come to be known as the people of Rus’, or Rusyns.

Paul Robert Magocsi in the Carpatho-Rusyn American – Vol. XVIII, No. 4, Winter 1995

Furthermore, most of what we call our homeland today hadn’t even existed at the time of the original Kievan Rus’. Subcarpathia certainly was to some lesser extent, but our entire western half was little more than a few scattered settlements and forests among the mountains in comparison to what we have now.

It was only starting in the 1400s when the eventual Rus’ lands of Presov and Lemkovyna really began to be settled following the desire for Hungary to populate its borders. Some that did immigrate were of course Wallachians from the south, but more importantly Ruthenians from both Subcarpathia and just like in the previous centuries, Galicia and Podolia. Half our territory has only been around for six centuries or less, for which an unknowable but no doubt substantial part was likely colonized by immigrants from what was the land of Ruthenia. It is also important to remember that this large migration did not end until around the 17th century. This is not ancient history from a thousand years ago but in the literal late medieval period and even later. With this perspective in mind, what happened in the times of the Kievan Rus’ matters a lot less than the literal colonization of an entire region that now views itself as Carpatho-Rusyn.

Just because Carpathian Rus’ does not share direct lineage in the form of a principality does not negate this reality. Does anyone question Romania’s connection to the Roman Empire even though it too was a borderland? If even bringing this question up sounds absurd, then reflect it back onto our situation.

Acknowledging these facts of being connected to those in modern Ukraine and Belarus also does not dimmish our legitimacy as a distinct people, but further accentuates it. In the end, the westernmost lands of the Rus, so changed by romance speaking shepherds from the Balkans and isolated in the mountains far away from centralized power were the last to retain their original identity. Neither Galicians nor anyone else has all of these unique features. It is only with this understanding in our combination of attributes that Rusyn culture can be fully appreciated and show its true uniqueness. Shying away from it and acting as though we have no relation to this heritage because of some imbecilic nationalist’s take on history will only result in ethnic schizophrenia.

As for the second often incorrect conclusion, an answer to it can be formed in another uncomfortable question. Had Russophilia won out in what is now modern Ukraine, how likely is it that we would see ourselves as distinct people today? While the simple answer to the question is probably not, it doesn’t exactly answer why. What one must understand is that while of course Carpatho-Russian identity was based on the idealization of the Russian empire, it was also in itself a rejection of being Ukrainian. Rusyn national consciousness as it stands today simply did not exist in those times. From Dukhnovych to Dobriansky to Simeon Pzyh, all of these national figures of ours in a quite serious sense saw themselves as part of a greater Russia even if they adored their own local culture to varying degrees. It is not just possible, but probable that had this ideal not been so strong, Rusyns could have easily been swept up in Ukrainian identity as the former Russophiles in Galicia because of the delayed formation of identity compared to those around them. It was that uniting spark and support from a greater power in influence and wealth that made any movement at all a possibility. All of this is to say that it is not in spite of Russian influence that the Rusyn identity was formed, but the central reason it exists in the first place regardless of the outcome from the USSR period. We can move on from that idea today, but claiming it never existed or that it was a uniquely terrible position to hold again forgets how we got here in the first place.

The errors in knowledge above are just two of many that plague our community, but coming to grips with these questions and errors in thought is part of the path to forming a greater national consciousness. That is if one wishes for it to form. To this end, it is important to ask how far we wish this whole Rusyn identity thing to go. Will it stay a folk culture dragged forward by a team of competent activists, or will the majority choose to take a step forward into becoming part of a serious movement with an actual purpose? For it can be said that all these issues are symptoms of the greater disease at hand. Trying to only educate the random Rusyn will not solve this issue because it is not the root cause of why it exists. It is our historic unwillingness as an entire population to take these matters seriously that has led to these things which we encounter. It is the same mindset that led to our inability for unification after WWI, to gain political power, and to even fully understand who we are almost a century later. To become serious means that these symptoms will drain away as the underlying problem subsides. Without the desire to take that leap and accept its consequences however, the hamster wheel of mediocrity will continue.