Talk:Konstanty Kalinowski

Untitled

Initially I planned to add him to both Category:Belarusian people, Category:Polish people and perhaps to Category:Lithuanian people. However, after some time I decided that such a categorisation would be misleading and listed him simply under Category:Slavic people. I believe that Kalinoǔski/Kalinowski/Kalinauskas would oppose such categorisations himself - and that's exactly why I consider him one of my idols. Halibutt 18:30, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

>>He also referred to the good traditions of democracy, tolerance and freedom of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, as opposed to national oppression of cultures dominated by Imperial Russia.

Doesn't this have to be qualified somehow? As we all know tolerance (for sure) and freedom (to a lesser extent) in PLC was largly over after Counterreformation. The tone here is that Polonization of Belarusians is better than Rusification. I understand that you are saying "referred to", but I would still prefer to see something like "His ideal was the good traditions of democracy, tolerance and freedom of the early Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, as opposed to national oppression of cultures dominated by Imperial Russia." Gaidash.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaidash (talk • contribs) 17:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Seems fair to me. Be bold in updating pages! :) Halibutt 20:48, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Rejected Jabbi (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Konstanty Kalinowski → Kastuś KalinoŭskiKastuś Kalinoŭski – This is how he is refered to in Belarusian, or Kastuś Kalinoŭski when Anglisized. Same with German, French and Swedish. However, Italian and Polish use Konstanty. Although a Google search for "Konstanty Kalinowski" yields 85k results against 6.4 k for "Kastus Kalinowski", searching for "Касту́сь Каліно́ўскі", Cyrillic version yields 150k results. A 1965 academic article on the subject, published in English, is simply named "Kastus Kalinouski" (doi:10.30965/20526512-00101005).

Further clarification. It's my understanding that Konstanty is the "Polish version" and that Kastus is the Belarusian one and that both national narratives make a claim to him. However, at the time of his birth, his birthplace was part of the Russian Empire and Kastus is seen as a key figure in Belarusian history although Mostowlany is part of Poland today. Jabbi (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• comment . I am afraid it is a common misunderstanding of google search. The actual number of unique pages is 290 for "Кастусь Каліноўскі", 307 for "Кастусь Калиновский", 290 for "Konstanty Kalinowski", 265 for "Kastus Kalinowski" . While this supports your opinion, I' would not say it is an verwhelmingly decisive result. Myself, I am indecisive. I know the the belasusian name was popularized by Soviet historians. More research is required in scholarly english-language sources. But I'd rather prefer working on improving the article than squabbling about the title. Lembit Staan (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Subject is a heroic national figure in the histories of Belarus, Poland as well as Lithuania. He wrote in the Polish language and also in the Belarusian language, but the Belarusian writings were in the Belarusian Latin alphabet, that was primarily based upon Polish transliteration forms, rather than in Belarus' Cyrillic alphabet. His family's ancestry had its origins in the Polish region of Mazowsze and their heraldic design was likewise Polish. The lead paragraph describes him as "a 19th-century Belarusian writer, journalist, lawyer and revolutionary", but should more-precisely describe as "a 19th-century Polish-Belarusian writer, journalist, lawyer and revolutionary". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Roman Spinner and WP:COMMONNAME in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thoughts on nationality

Just jotting down some thoughts on the muddled issue of nationalism for the peoples of this area. I want to declare that I am not taking any ideological sides and apologise for any potential offence caused, I am merely trying to analyse objectively historical facts about these important historical figures.

• Joseph Conrad, was born in (present day) Ukraine to Polish parents, grew up mostly in Ukraine but is said to be a Polish-British writer. Why? Because he became a naturalised British citizen in 1886 and almost only wrote in English. Why is he not Russian, since he was born in what what then part of the Russian Empire? (He was not fond of it, although he probably despised it less than his father) Is he Polish because his parents were? His father was of the minor Polish nobility, Szlachta and suffered greatly for partaking in the failed January Uprising.
• Adam Mickiewicz, considered the national poet of Poland, yet he was born in present day Belarus and, confusingly, the first line of Pan Tadeusz, his most celebrated (and therefore Poland's most celebrated) poem reads "O Lithuania, my homeland! thou art like health;". It was written in Polish, first published 1834 and Mickiewicz uses the term Lithiania because "the 19th-century concept of nationality had not yet been geopoliticized. The term "Lithuania" used by Mickiewicz refers to a geographical region of Grand Duchy of Lithuania within the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth." (see in Pan Tadeusz) But why is he Polish then, rather than, say Belarusian, or Lithuanian? Is it because he wrote in Polish?
• Konstanty Kalinowski, was born in present day Poland and is known for publishing in Belarusian, and in fact is seen by Belarusian historians as a key figure in the creation of a Belarusian nationalist movement. Roman Spinner claims that "He wrote in the Polish language and also in the Belarusian language, but the Belarusian writings were in the Belarusian Latin alphabet, that was primarily based upon Polish transliteration forms, rather than in Belarus' Cyrillic alphabet." That may be as it is, it seems to me that the distinction between writing in Belarusian latin alphabet or cyrillic is not important. Or, in any even, it is still Belarusian. What of his Polish writings? I don't know about them. Roman also points out that Kalinowski's ancestry is Polish. But by that same measure, would Mickiewicz be considered Belarusian?

Polish-Lithuanian-Belarusian historical figures matrix

Name	Birth year	Birthplace then	Birthplace present day	Wrote in	Nationality
Joseph Conrad	1837	Russian Empire	Ukraine	English	Polish-British (British naturalised citizen 1886)
Adam Mickiewicz	1798	Russian Empire	Belarus	Polish	Polish
Konstanty Kalinowski	1838	Russian Empire	Poland	Belarusian	Belarusian?

--Jabbi (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Jabbi To put it mildly, I will demolish the false claim that "the 19th-century concept of nationality had not yet been geopoliticized. The term "Lithuania" used by Mickiewicz refers to a geographical region of Grand Duchy of Lithuania within the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth." It is a very misleading statement that disregards facts. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was more than just a "region", because mere regions do not possess: a separate army with its own parallel leadership, its own separate officials, an independent legal system, an independent immigration policy (see the Lithuanian Statutes, which clearly state that no Polish noblemen could buy land in Lithuania), its own currency and state treasury. Sure, Lithuania and Crown of the Kingdom of Poland were constituent parts of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but calling them regions is a distortion.

As for nationality, the Lithuanian identity was geopoliticized and always anti-Russia, regardless of the century. There is no denying that the Lithuanian nobility felt intense solidarity with the Polish nobility, but it is overkill to pretend that the Lithuanian nobility forgot that it was distinct from the Polish one. Even the 20th-century Józef Piłsudski knew of the distinction. Ergo, there was a concept of Lithuania, which had more meaning than just a defined piece of land.

Moreover, Konstanty Kalinowski and Adam Mickiewicz were born in the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania and their lives were much intertwined with Lithuania proper, where contact with the Lithuanian language and Lithuanians was inevitable. To classify the Polish language, a regional lingua franca, as a determinant of nationality by itself is unreasonable, as such a view is NEVER applied when evaluating a person's ethnicity in other cases e.g. speaking Latin or French language or West African Pidgin English most of the time doesn't make a person part of the Roman people or French people, etc.

To call both of the individuals as Belarusian is false because Belarus didn't exist until 1918, unlike Lithuania, which existed at least from the 12th century until 1795, from where it suffered a century of Russian occupation. As Konstanty Kalinowski and Adam Mickiewicz identified themselves with the political Lithuanian nation (which is certain from their actions), albeit in close relation with the Polish, it would be most wise to classify them as Slavicized Lithuanians. --Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting argument, but that's not generally what most sources do. Anyway, I'd suggest doing a lit review on what is he called in English. I certainly agree he had a complicated ethnic nationality, but Davies called him a Polish nobleman here. Of course, Polish is often an imprecise shorthand for Polish-Lithuanian identity... this could be one of those rare cases where we may be best NOT putting any nationality in the lead. I'll ping User:Chubbles with whom I was recently discussing this on an arguably less controversial case. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

After the Union of Lublin in 1569, Lithuanian nobles gradually became naturalized into Polish culture. Of course, they did not forget that they were from Lithuania, but they also belonged to the Polish political nation and called themselves Poles. Adam Mickiewicz explains this clearly in Księgi narodu polskiego i pielgrzymstwa polskiego (“Books of the Polish Nation and of the Polish Pilgrimage”) — even the title is telling:

“Litwin i Mazur bracia są; czyż kłócą się bracia o to, iż jednemu na imię Władysław, drugiemu Witold? — nazwisko ich jedne jest, nazwisko Polaków.”

Translation: “A Lithuanian and a Mazovian are brothers; do brothers quarrel because one is named Władysław and the other Witold? Their common surname is ‘Poles’.”

So, Mickiewicz literally wrote that Lithuanians are Poles and compared them to Mazurs (“Mazury” is one of the regions of Poland, like Wielkopolska or Pomorze). Moreover, during his lectures in France he publicly said the following:

“Lud litewski… nie ma on swojej narodowości, nie ma on bytu narodowego, nie myśli nawet dopominać się o to; wyrazy naród, ojczyzna nie znajdują się w jego języku.”

Translation: “The Lithuanian people… have no nationality of their own, no national existence, and do not even think of claiming it; the words nation, fatherland are not found in their language.”

alinowski is a similar case. In his writings he referred to the January Uprising as the “Polish uprising” and “the Polish cause.” One issue of Mużyckaja prauda even says: “trudno powiedzieć, jak długo jeszcze odrabialibyśmy pańszczyznę, gdyby nie powstanie polskie” (“it is hard to say how long we would still be doing corvée if not for the Polish uprising”). Ultimately, he gave his life for that Polish cause; calling him “not Polish” is therefore absurd. Emmaduranki (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)