9787562341710 在线下载 pdf mobi 2025 epub 电子版

暂无相关简介，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关目录，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关内容，正在全力查找中

暂无出版社相关信息，正在全力查找中！

暂无相关书籍摘录，正在全力查找中！

在线阅读地址：9787562341710在线阅读

在线听书地址：9787562341710在线收听

在线购买地址：9787562341710在线购买

暂无原文赏析，正在全力查找中！

暂无其它内容！

• 作者：绍牧 发布时间：2013-04-09 21:18:38

  所有的技巧都是为了弥补词汇量不足，当然语感非常重要，先就这样吧

• 作者：第二星 发布时间：2022-01-03 08:45:27

  找到规律，人人皆可成为主播

• 作者：spark 发布时间：2023-09-07 00:14:58

  内容放在17年是很新颖的，但现在看来就没太大亮点，而且翻译很生硬

• 作者：赫克托尔 发布时间：2008-01-05 10:01:52

  姐姐买的.诡异犀利.

• 作者：tlina 发布时间：2007-09-07 18:51:25

  以故事为主

• 作者：vfhndr 发布时间：2020-07-02 14:30:26

  其中一半的干货内容可以。

• 作者：bobo_さん 发布时间：2022-02-12 17:24:45

  “真正好的教学不能降低到技术层面，真正好的教学来自教师的自身认同与完整。”相信读过《教学勇气——漫步教师心灵》这本书的朋友们都会被这句话所吸引，何其幸运我也是“教学勇气”的有缘人，能跟随帕尔默走一趟内在的心灵旅程。教学就是无止境的相遇，一切教学勇气来自于内心，我们要保持开放和悦纳的心态，去迎接新的相遇和机遇，去探讨我们的内心领域，去区分自身完整的人和自身不完整的人，努力寻找自己的那一份“教学勇气”，现将这一趟心灵旅程的所思所想总结如下，愿更多不愿意把自己的心肠变硬以及热爱学生、热爱学习和热爱教学生涯的教师们能有勇气保持自己心灵的开放，早日遇见自己的“教学勇气”。

  一、自我认同，启迪心灵

  “只有我们教师能够与自己的内心对话，我们才有资格说教师深入到学生的内心中。”在刚踏上讲台成为一名新教师时，我也和许多新教师一样，渴望能够在书中得到一些在日常教学中能够用到的，比较实际的教学窍门和技能。但帕尔默却用20多年的时间将他所坚持的理念践行于实践中，并证实了他的个人经验：方法固然重要，但无论我们做什么，最能获得实践效果的东西，是在操作中洞悉我们内心发生的事。越熟悉我们的内心领域，我们的教学就越稳健，我们的生活就越踏实。一切教学勇气皆来源于我们的内心，教师的内心是使我们的生命鲜活的核心，而使生命鲜活恰恰是真正的教育所强调和召唤的。作为教师，无论我们获得哪些有关自我认识和自我认同的知识，都有益于更好地服务于教学和教育。

  帕尔默在探索“教师的自我内部景观”时强调要把握三种重要通道，即智能的、情感的和精神的，这与孔夫子所倡导的“智仁勇”不谋而合。凭智能，是指我们思考教与学的方法。凭情感，是指在我们教与学时我们和学生感觉的方式。凭精神，是指我们对于心灵和芸芸生灵密切联系之渴求的多种响应，它一种对生命的爱与对工作的渴望，尤其是对教学工作的渴望。智能、情感和精神依赖于相互之间的整体性，它们应完美地交织在人的自我中。好的老师具有联合能力，但好老师形成的联合不在于他们的方法，而在于他们的心灵。艾伦和埃里克这两位教师的故事让我们深切体会到自我认同和完整的微妙，以心启心，以心换心，源自于教师的自我认同，只有当我们充分熟悉和洞悉我们的内心，保持心灵的开放，才能以我们的内心启迪学生的心灵。

  二、倾心教学，温恭求真

  “来自地狱的学生”不是天生就是那种样子的，而是被他或她所不能控制的环境造成的。在很多老师看来，课堂上沉默和表面忧郁的学生，看似很普通，不愿意发言。但他们的大脑不是死的，他们沉默的原因是来源于内心的恐惧，他们想要发出自己的声音但又害怕犯错，而作为老师，我们应该要尝试去理解学生的恐惧，体谅他们恐惧的心灵，倾心教学，让学生的心灵能够健康地成长。

  墨顿曾经说过：“我们现在最重要的任务之一是‘倾听人们说话’。”是的，我们的学生在沉默和恐惧的背后，是想去发出自己的声音，是想让人们听见他们的声音，他们所缺乏的恰是一个被倾听的机会。一个好的老师能够看懂学生恐惧的内心，愿意倾听甚至尚未发出的声音，只有这样，我们的学生才能在未来的某一天真实而自信地表达自己。要相信，当他们真正开始掌握发言的主动权时，他们就能够发现自己的声音，说出自己的真心话，这难道不是我们教书育人的真正意义所在吗？

  三、面向整体，把握张力

  “好的教学来自自身认同而不是教学技术”，但完整的技巧能够帮助我们更充分地表达自身认同。我们都知道，智力工作常伴随着情感同时存在，要开启学生的思想，必须同时开启他们的情感。一个人是健康完整的，他的头脑和心灵是一个整体，并非相互分离的，这启发我们在教学实践中，应该面向整体，把我们的学生和我们自己的心灵与思想视为一个整体，只有在教学中尊重这种对立的统一才可能促使我们更完整。

  初读潜藏的整体——教与学的悖论这一章时，我感到晦涩难懂，反复读了几遍，如醍醐灌顶。回想起初为人师的自己，踏上三尺讲台的每一节课，都会紧张不已，自我怀疑。但经历了两年多的教学紧张状态后，我发现现在的自己能比当时更自信地理解怎样把握悖论的张力，更从容地面向整体。只有经历过紧张，才能努力在紧张中寻找消除紧张的办法，把握住对立的张力，向着新的可能性开放自己，吸引学生进入一个我们能共同学习的领域。

  四、同事切磋，共享智慧

  “学习，共同学习，是最适合我们所有人的。”在《永恒的国王》诗文中，梅林在治疗即将成为国王的亚瑟时，谈到“伤心最大的益处，是从中学到一些东西......只有学习能令你的思维永不枯竭，永不孤立，永不受折磨，永不恐惧或怀疑，以及永不会起后悔的念头。学习这东西最适合你。”这一诗文值得我们反复细读，因为所有了解教师生活的人都会熟悉它所谈及的病态，而治疗这种病态的方法与教育的使命恰巧吻合。如果我们每一位为人师表的教师都能用心去领悟其中的道理，那么，所有与教育有关的人，无论是管理者、教师还是学生，都会有痊愈和新生的机会。

  要知道，世界上没有优质教学的公式，即使是专家的指导也只能是杯水车薪。要想在实践中得到切实的成长，一是要探究自己的内心世界，不自我蒙蔽和故步自封，二是要由教师同行组成的共同体，与同事相互切磋，共同对话，互相听评课，共享智慧。在我们平时的教学过程中，都少不了听评课的活动，无论是对听评课老师还是上课老师而言，都是有交流与收获、有思想碰撞与启发的切磋机会。但除了互听评课以外，还可以通过建立持久不断的教学对话来好好利用同事共同体中所蕴藏的丰富资源。帕尔默的研究给我们打开了新思路：可以尝试展开关于优质教学的真诚对话来提高我们的专业实践，从而提高自我认识！他从三个要素层面来探讨真诚对话，一是主题要素，即带领我们超越技术层面进入教学基本议题的主题；二是规则要素，即在深入话题之前防止我们击败自己的基本规则；三是领导要素，即期待邀请我们参加对话的领导者。这样的对话共同体为我们教师打开了崭新开阔的成长空间，但要建立这样的共同体着实不易，需要我们强大的勇气去直面心灵和未来的挑战，我想，这就是“教学勇气”吧！

  “好的教学有很多形式，好的老师教给我们的知识会淡忘，但对好老师本身却长久铭记。”希望我们都能成为自我认同、启迪和引领学生心灵，倾听学生内心，教人求真求知，联合自我内心和学生的思想与心灵，面向教与学的共同体，并懂得与同事切磋交流，共享教育智慧的好老师。有梦想、有追求、有播种，才会有收获，愿我们在追逐教育梦想的过程中，能够洞悉自己的内心，找到自己的生长点，并为之努力奋斗，最终收获属于自己的那份“教学勇气”。

• The brutal Russification of Ukrainian Kuban: from Zaporizhian Sich to the Kuban Cossack Host

  作者：Fal Conde 发布时间：2024-02-29 22:36:13

  

  Detail of the monument to Empress Catherine II of Russia – first three otamans of the Black Sea Cossack Host and a blind kobzar (itinerant U

  On August 3, 1775, Catherine II of Russia issued the manifesto “On the liquidation of Zaporizhzhian Sich and annexation thereof to the Novorossiya Governate”. The Zaporizhzhian Sich was razed to the ground. Some Zaporozhian Cossacks were able to flee and travel to the Danube Delta, where they formed a new Danube Sich, as a protectorate of the Ottoman Empire.

  The tsarist government decided to subjugate the remaining troops. After using the remaining Zaporizhzhian Cossacks in the Russo-Turkish War (1787-1792), the Russian government began resettling them on the territories recaptured from the Turks – between the Kuban River and the Sea of Azov, where the Nogai Tatars, who had been exterminated by Russian troops, had previously roamed. On July 2, 1792, Empress Catherine II of Russia issued a decree on the resettlement of Ukrainian Cossacks in this region.

  

  Monument to the Zaporizhzhian Cossacks in the village of Taman, the first settlement of Ukrainian Cossacks in the Kuban in the late 18th cen

  The new land of the Ukrainian Cossacks

  Thousands of Ukrainian Cossacks and their families moved to the Kuban region. They formed 40 kurins (units of Zaporizhzhian Cossacks) that were immediately included into the

  Black Sea Army

  . Ukrainian Cossacks were well-known for their riotous behaviour and disregard for orders, so the Russian government was more than eager to absorb them into the Black Sea Army as quickly as possible. Their main mission was to protect the borders and frontier regions. The Black Sea Cossack Host also took part in Russian military operations.

  The settlers were given a plot of land on 30,000 square kilometres stretching between the Kuban and Yeya Rivers. The main headquarters of the Black Sea Army was located in

  Katerinodar

  , founded in 1793 (today’s Krasnodar in the Russian Federation).

  

  Map of Ukraine published in Paris, 1919. Image: unr.memory.gov.org

  The ranks of the Black Sea Cossacks were replenished mainly by Ukrainian Cossacks from Chernihiv and Poltava provinces, Sloboda Cossacks from Kharkiv province, as well as troops from various Ukrainian Cossack Hosts that had been previously abolished, such as the Ust-Dunai, Azov, Buz units and others. The resettlement campaigns took place in 1808–1811, 1820–1821, 1832, and 1848–1849.

  The Ukrainian Cossacks of the Kuban lived under difficult conditions. Mortality was high; in order to survive, they were forced to tame the harsh environment of the Kuban region, and their settlements were constantly attacked by the Adyghe, Turks and other Caucasian peoples.

  Planned resettlement and incorporation of the Zaporizhzhian Cossacks into the Black Sea Army initiated the first stage of Russification. The next stage came about in 1860, when the Black Sea Cossack Army was integrated into the western divisions of the Caucasus Line Cossack Host, created in 1832, which consisted mainly of Russian soldiers whose mission was to conquer and pacify the Northern Caucasus. This combined army was called the

  Kuban Cossack Host (Кубанское казачье войско)

  ; formed in 1860, this administrative and military unit composed of Kuban Cossacks existed formally until 1918.

  

  Monument to Russian Empress Catherine II in Krasnodar. It was inaugurated in 1907, destroyed by the Bolsheviks in 1920, and rebuilt in 2006.

  

  Detail of the monument to Empress Catherine II of Russia – the first three otamans of the Black Sea Cossack Army Antin Holovaty, Sydir Bily

  

  Detail of the monument to Empress Catherine II of Russia – a blind kobzar with his young guide, Krasnodar, Kuban, RF. Photo: Otzovik

  Despite targeted Russification of these settlements, many facets of Ukrainian Cossack customs and culture were preserved in the Kuban region. Writer, historian, ethnographer and appointed Otaman of the Black Sea Army

  Yakiv Kukharenko

  (1800-1862) vividly described the daily life of the Black Sea Cossacks. In his popular play/operetta –

  Chornomorsky Pobyt (Black Sea Life)

  – he chronicles the life of Kuban Cossacks at the end of the 18th century and during their settlement in the Kuban region. In 1878, the operetta was adapted to the stage by Mykhailo Starytsky and presented as

  Chornomortsi

  , with music by Mykola Lysenko. Kukharenko also corresponded with many Ukrainian cultural and literary personalities, in particular with Taras Shevchenko.

  Another prominent figure from the Kuban was

  Fedir Shcherbyna

  (1849–1936). He was an eminent statistician, economist, sociologist and historian of the Kuban region, whose scholarly works were highly valued in tsarist Russia. In 1904, he became a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. From 1917 to 1920, Shcherbyna, despite his advanced age, was an active participant of the Ukrainian movement in the Kuban.

  

  Fedir Shcherbina (1849–1936) – Ukrainian statistician, economist, sociologist, public figure and historian. Photo: Wikipedia

  In 1920, Shcherbyna emigrated to Prague, where he took part in diverse activities of Ukrainian academic and scientific institutions. He worked as professor at the Ukrainian Academy of Economics in Podebrady and the Ukrainian Free University. In 1924 he became full member of the Shevchenko Scientific Society.

  Fedir Shcherbyna also wrote some epic poems, namely

  Chornomorets

  (1919) and

  Bohdan Khmelnytsky

  (1929). He was buried in Prague. However, in 2008, with complete disregard for his last wishes to be buried in the Kuban and without his family’s permission, Shcherbyna’s ashes were re-buried in Krasnodar, RF with the support of Russian diplomats and the pro-Russian Orthodox Church of the Czech and Slovak Lands. Once again, a famous Ukrainian personality – Fedir Shcherbyna – was appropriated by the Kremlin, thus spreading and enhancing the myth of the “Russkiy mir” (Russian world).

  

  Monument to Fedir Shcherbina (1849–1936) – Ukrainian statistician, economist, sociologist, public figure and historian, Krasnodar, Kuban, RF

  The Kuban Cossacks continued the traditions of the Zaporizhzhian Cossacks, spoke Ukrainian and, accordingly, identified themselves as Ukrainians. According to the census conducted in tsarist Russia in 1897, more than 900,000 Ukrainians lived in the Kuban region, accounting for 47.4% of the population. It was the largest ethnic group in the region. In some districts of the Kuban region (Katerynodarsky, Yeisky and Temriutsky), Ukrainians made up the majority of the population.

  Rebellion in the Kuban

  

  Official stamp of arms of the Kuban People’s Republic. Image: gal.info.com.ua

  

  Coat of arms of the Kuban People’s Republic. Image: I.lb.ua

  Following the 1917 February Revolution in Petrograd and World War I, the Russian Empire began to disintegrate. As the Cossack Hosts were basically loyal to the emperor rather than to Russia, the end of the monarchy in March 1917 meant that many Cossacks felt they no longer needed to remain loyal to Russia. When Tsar Nicholas II abdicated, bringing an end to the Romanov dynasty, the Kuban governing council, the Kuban Rada (parliament) in March 1917 proclaimed itself the sole administrative body of the region.

  On February 16, 1918, the Kuban Rada proclaimed the independence of the Kuban People’s Republic from Bolshevik Russia. On December 4, 1918, the government changed the name of the region to Kubansky Krai; its territory included Kuban Oblast, the Black Sea and Stavropol provinces, as well as Terek Oblast.

  

  Chairman of the Kuban Legislative Council, Mykola Riabovil. Photo: Wikipedia

  A few days later, the members of the Council voted a resolution to join Ukraine as a federal structure. A delegation from the Kuban, headed by the chairman of its Legislative Council,

  Mykola Riabovil

  (1883–1919), visited Kyiv and was received by

  Hetman of Ukraine Pavlo Skoropadsky

  . Diplomatic ties were thereby announced between the Kuban People’s Republic and the Ukrainian People’s Republic.

  For his part, Hetman Skoropadsky provided some assistance and support to the Cossacks, including weapons and ammunition. However, it was not enough to save the Kuban from the Bolsheviks. Unfortunately, this region was cleared of the Bolsheviks not by the Ukrainian army, but by

  Anton Denikin’s

  anti-Bolshevik Volunteer Army, which fought for a “united and indivisible” Russia. During the Russian Civil War, the White Army achieved an important victory despite being numerically inferior in manpower and artillery. It resulted in the capture of Katerinodar and Novorossiysk in August 1918 and the conquest of the western part of the Kuban by the White armies. Later in 1918 they took Maykop, Armavir and Stavropol, and extended their authority over the entire Kuban region.

  Many Kuban Cossacks served in this army, in particular under

  General Andriy Shkuro

  , who was from a Ukrainian Kuban Cossack family. After officially joining Denikin’s White Army, he was appointed commander of the Kuban Cossack Brigade. Shkuro led the Kuban Cossacks to Moscow to liberate Russia from the Bolsheviks, but the Cossack Host suffered many losses and casualties during this campaign. In the meantime, the leadership of Denikin’s Volunteer Army hunted down and persecuted Ukrainian activists in the Kuban. In June 1919, Mykola Ryabovil, one of the main political leaders of the Ukrainian Kuban community, was assassinated by agents of the Volunteer Army. Riabovil’s politically-motivated assassination had great resonance; political organizations and parties rose up in protest, and the Kuban Cossacks began to desert more massively from Denikin’s army.

  

  General Andriy Shkuro. Photo: Wikipedia

  Denikin’s Volunteer Army, whose leadership was trying to restore the old order – a single and undivided tsarist Russia – eventually lost support and was defeated by the Bolsheviks. In the spring of 1920, the Kuban fell to the Bolsheviks, and the Kuban People’s Republic with its pro-Ukrainian orientation ceased to exist. The Host was finally dissolved by the Bolsheviks, and many Cossacks emigrated to Western Europe, where its leaders hoped to continue their fight for freedom and find support for their cause among foreign leaders.

  Ukrainization in Kuban (1923-1933)

  From 1923 to 1933, in order to enhance party institutions and legitimize Soviet rule in Ukraine, the Communist Party brought in a series of measures favouring the Ukrainian language, as well as Ukrainian literature and culture. This period is commonly referred to as the era of “Ukrainization”.

  Of course, the Bolshevik regime was opposed to the Kuban becoming part of Soviet Ukraine, but it was forced to agree to Ukrainization in order to stabilize its rule and placate the Ukrainian peasants. According to the 1926 census, Ukrainians made up 66.58% of the population of the Kuban. In total, there were more than 3,100,000 Ukrainians residing in the Kuban region (45.48% of the total population).

  

  Map of Ukrainian Lands (in grey). New Ukrainian School Publishing House, Lviv, 1928

  In 1923, two Ukrainian schools were opened in Krasnodar. Over time, schools in the villages and towns of the region, even some technical schools and institutes, began to switch to Ukrainian. Ukrainian textbooks were published in Krasnodar in 1926, and most institutes of higher learning changed the language of instruction to Ukrainian. Ukrainian-language newspapers, journals and radio broadcasts appeared. Administrations switched to Ukrainian and Ukrainian cultural life flourished and spread across the region.

  

  Ukrainian school textbook, Ukrainian Kuban Society for Education. Krasnodar, 1918.Image: this.all.lo.ua

  However, the Ukrainization policies of the Kuban were abruptly reversed at the end of 1932. Moscow included the Kuban in the North Caucasus Krai, which made possible the further Russification of the Kuban Cossacks, and the Ukrainian language lost its official status.

  The December 14, 1932 publication of the grain procurement resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Council of People’s Commissars demanded that all official paperwork and publications of the “ukrainized” districts of Kuban be immediately translated into Russian, as the Russian language was

  “more intelligible for the people of the Kuban”

  . These measures were followed by Stalin’s man-made famine – the 1933 Holodomor. At the same time, advocates of Ukrainization were persecuted, imprisoned or sent into exile. Schools, offices and administrations were forced to work in Russian. Ukrainian-language press and radio disappeared. Russians from the northern regions were encouraged to settle in depopulated areas of the region. Kuban Ukrainians were henceforth registered as Russians. The local Ukrainian dialect was mocked and labelled as “Cossack chitchat”, just a lesser dialect of the Russian language.

  

  Overview map of Ukrainian Lands, published in Vienna circa 1917. Image: unr.memory.gov.org

  World War II and the years thereafter…

  Anti-Bolshevik sentiments persisted and the Kuban continued to resist Soviet rule. As a result, during World War II, many Kuban Ukrainians fought against the Soviets, either integrating the Ukrainian Insurgent Army or the ranks of the German Wehrmacht.

  Partisan units continued their struggle for freedom well into the 1940s and 1950s, when the

  Cossack Insurgent Army (Козача повстанська армія or КОПА)

  – an analogue to the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) – fought against the Bolshevik army and the Nazi occupation forces.

  Meanwhile, the Soviet regime pretended that everything was fine and dandy in the Kuban. In 1949, one of the first Soviet colour films,

  The Kuban Cossacks

  , shot at the Mosfilm studio, enjoyed great popularity. It depicts the happy life of people working on collective farms in the Kuban. Record harvests are gathered in the fields, collective farmers are awarded orders and medals, and the tables of Kuban families are laden with food and drink. The Kuban Cossacks, who once fought against the Soviet government, are now peaceful collective farmers working for the good of their socialist homeland. And, of course, they all speak Russian.

  It was during those difficult years, from 1927 to 1949, that

  Ivan Piddubny

  (1871–1949), a prominent Ukrainian strongman, lived in the Kuban city of Yeisk. He corrected his nationality in his passport, crossing out “Russian” and writing “Ukrainian”. Despite the fact that Piddubny was of Ukrainian origin and considered himself Ukrainian, the Russians tried and are still trying to present him as a “Russian strongman”. Ivan Piddubny died from a heart attack, but undefeated, on August 8, 1949, in the town of Yeisk, Kuban Oblast, RF. He was buried in Yeisk in a park outside the city. A plaque with the following tribute was erected near his grave –

  “Here lies the Russian bogatyr!”

  … although Ivan always proclaimed that he was Ukrainian.

  

  Strongman (bohatyr), six-time champion in Greco-Roman wrestling Ivan Piddubny (1871–1949)

  Despite strong Russification of the region, the Kuban population managed to preserve and foster the Ukrainian language and traditions. The

  Kuban Cossack Chorus

  , which has existed since 1811 and is the oldest choir in Russia, has grown to become one of the leading concert ensembles in Russia. It regularly tours abroad and has appeared in dozens of foreign countries. A significant part of the songs in its repertoire is in Ukrainian.

  

  Strongman (bohatyr), six-time champion in Greco-Roman wrestling Ivan Piddubny (1871–1949)

  It is interesting to note that the Krasnodar Philharmonic is named in honour of

  Ukrainian composer Hryhoriy Ponomarenko

  , who was born in the village of Morivsk, Chernihiv Oblast, Ukraine in 1921. It was only in 1972 that he moved to the Kuban, where he lived and composed until his death in 1996.

  After the fall – 1991

  The modern Kuban Cossack Host was re-established after the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991. There were several attempts to create an autonomous republic in the Kuban, but they were unsuccessful. However, in the early 1990s, Ukrainian life, traditions and culture grew and spread across the region, although officially Ukrainians made up a little more than one percent of the population in the region. Ukrainian newspapers, publications and public organizations appeared in the Kuban. Some schools began offering optional courses in the local “lingo”, for which the Ukrainian-language textbook

  Kozak Mamai

  was used.

  

  Monument to Taras Shevchenko erected in 1980, Krasnodar, Kuban. Photo: Wikipedia

  Unfortunately, this Ukrainian movement was not strong enough to impact daily life and resist Moscow’s authoritarian directives. Since the late 1990s, Moscow has carefully controlled the so-called “Cossack revival” in the Kuban and has hastened to impose stereotypes of the “Russkiy mir” on Kuban residents. On its part, Ukraine has done little to support and encourage the declining Ukrainian Diaspora in the region.

  Not surprisingly, in 2014, when Russia occupied Crimea and launched the war in the Donbas, many so-called “Kuban Cossacks” went to the Ukrainian Donbas to support the Russian-controlled militants. There were isolated protests against the Russian authorities in the Kuban at that time, and the Kuban People’s Republic was momentarily declared, but it was quickly quashed by the Kremlin.

  The history of the Kuban of the 20th century illustrates the tragic history of the ethnocide of a large part of the Ukrainian nation, people who were aware of their Ukrainian identity, but who were brutally Russified and continue to be Russified. As

  political analyst Paul Goble

  so aptly says:

  “This history does not mean that the Kuban should be annexed to Ukraine any more than the ethnic resettlements, which Stalin sponsored after the Holodomor in the Donbas, mean that that region should be detached from Ukraine. But, what it does mean is that Ukrainian arguments should be taken seriously rather than dismissed out of hand as they all too often are.”

  原文链接：

  https://euromaidanpress.com/2020/11/19/the-brutal-russification-of-ukrainian-kuban-from-zaporizhian-sich-to-the-kuban-cossack-host/