March 15, 2008
 |
| Ігор Чорновол |
1893 року під час Світової Колюмбової вистави в Чикаґо на з’їзді Американської історичної асоціяції тридцятидволітній асистент Вісконсинського університету Фредерик Джексон Тернер виступив із доповіддю «Значення кордону в історії США».
Історик стверджував, що американське суспільство сформували передовсім відкриті простори Дикого Заходу й саме Дикий Захід забезпечив державі демократичні принципи функціонування та розвинув американський індивідуалізм.
 |
 |
| Фредерік Джексон Тернер (1861-1932) |
 |
 |
Ihor Chornovol
(Ivan Krypjakevych Institute of Ukrainian Studies, Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences, senior research fellow, Lviv; 2007-2008 Fulbright visiting scholar, Harriman Institute, Columbia University)
Ukraine in the Light of Frederick Jackson Turner’s “Frontier Thesis”
The thirty-two-year old assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin Frederick Jackson Turner delivered his views at a meeting of the American Historical Association in 1893 during the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago. He stressed that “the existence of an area of free land, its continuous recession, and the advance of American settlement westward, explain American development”, and that this frontier underlay the American democracy and the American individualism as well .
At least, within the next three years Turner’s views lacked any considerable repercussion. By the way, during the congress preparation Turner offered to include the paper of his certain student in lieu of his own but the organizational committee declined that proposition. Some his biographers even assumed that at the meeting he might had spoken just a little part of his text because his name had been mentioned just at the end of the 1893 AHA congress’ program.
Tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis. By 1900 Turner’s “The Significance of the Frontier in American History” had been widely acclaimed. Furthermore, just as presidents Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) and Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) were professional historians and Turner’s supporters as well, so the “frontier thesis” also affected the USA government. Since 1910, when Turner assumed the presidency of the American Historical Association as well as a chair at Harvard, the “frontier thesis” occupied a dominant place in the American historiography.
At first sight it might seem incredible, but actually Turner’s modest heritage inspired such a long and heated discussion that he has remained one of the most influential of all American historians. Besides historians, also archeologists, anthropologists, climatologists, demographers, ecologists, ethnologists, ethnographers, geologists, geographers, philosophers, psychologists, sociologists dealt with the “frontier thesis”. Responding to the request to display information under the title “Frederick Jackson Turner”, “The World’s Largest Online Library “Questia” suggested reviewing 8792 books, 418 articles, 157 magazines articles, 57 newspaper articles, and 6 encyclopedia articles . Almost every college or university had offered courses in this field up to 1960 or, in words of Richard Hofstadter, at that time the American historical workshop had been transformed into “one large Turner-verein” .
Up to the Great Depression period the American historiography has circulated around the “Turner’s sun” but after his death in 1932 public opinion disliked him as a false prophet. After the World War II the public interest toward the “frontier thesis” was increasing gradually. The fall of the world colonial system in 1960 and aggravation of the interracial relations in the USA inspired a new critical approach to Turner’s thesis. At that time the “New Lefts” accused him as an inventor of the fundamental idea of white race ascendancy in America.
As a matter of fact, Turner had brought up and promoted many historians and, in turn, his grateful students have spread his ideas in many important American scientific centres. Just as these scholars also had their own students, so “Turnerians” controlled many chairs and largest fellowships in the USA up to 1980s, when a new generation inherited the supreme positions in the American historical workshop. In 1973 the Oxford University published apologetic Turner’s biography by Turner’s student Ray Allen Billington. Furthermore, Billington also wrote or inspired a lot of other books in the field of the “frontier studies”.
Since 1990 a next wave of Turner’s critics tried to dominate the American workshop, that of the “New Western History”. Except of racism, the “New Westerners” charged the historian with hiding of ecological disasters and sexism as well. But simultaneously they were incapable to move themselves beyond the frontier narrative. Despite its subjection to strong critique, the “frontier thesis” has remained a cornerstone of the American national mythology till our days as well as it has gained wide currency throughout the world. The coin of the critique also has the other side, i.e. indirect corroboration of its fundamental importance; as Patricia Limerick, the most extravagant representative of the “New Western History”, admitted: “Fighting this thesis was like fighting the Pillsbury Dough Boy; it bent momentarily to absorb challenges and then instantly resumed its previous shape … The New Western History’s campaign to declare Turner irrelevant revitalized Turner’s reputation ”.
Besides Turner, Buffalo Bill also played his own “Wild West Show” at the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago. Just as Turner affected the historiography, founding the genre of “western”, Buffalo Bill influenced strongly the American popular culture. Turner, if not disdained, estimated Buffalo Bill’s “Wild West Shows” in very skeptical manner. On the other hand, Buffalo Bill had could never heard about the “frontier thesis”. But as a matter of fact, the “Wild West Show” contributed strongly in the process of Turner’s ideas spreading throughout the world.
Sub-culture of western had dominated Euro-Atlantic a
rea up to our days. Even during the “coldest” years of the “Cold War” Soviet cinemas as well as TV propagated romantic image of the “Wild West” due to broad acclamation of the German-Yugoslavian films featuring unforgettable Gojko Mitic’. So Soviet children liked to play, besides traditional “Cossacks-robbers”, also “cowboys-Indians”.
Comparing Turner’s writings with these of European creators of great national narratives, one could be disappointed. The former is not of such scientific quality like works of Pole Michal Bobrzyn’ski, Russian Siergiej Solovjov or Ukrainian Mykhajlo Hruszevsky, for example, not to mention German historians. In addition Turner was a perfectionist (who does not write because knows too much, not little). His entire legacy consists of, besides of doctoral thesis, two books and by 30 articles, reviews, and article-length publications (about the same bulk of his writings was not published). Generally Turner is a man of crystal reputation, whom the only Achilles heel was … his texts. Billington told such a story about Tuner. Once upon a time some public house asked the historian to write a book for children about Wild West. Having got an advance, a few years Turner has justified himself that he had not written the text because he had not yet reviewed all known sources. The professor never accomplished this work as well as other applications paid in advance .
While following his education Turner was a positivist-archivist, according to his Weltanschauung, he was neoromantic of the fin-de-siécle period who considered history like both art and science ( “I always wanted to be an artist tho’ truthful one”, Turner once asserted ). But at the process of writing these two essential features of his mind contradicted each other. Like every historian with prophetic ambitions, seeking the “truth”, Turner preferred generalizations but simultaneously his professional conscience did not allow him to make too hasty conclusions. When he came of forty, he scarcely was capable to finish any text. Then during his vacations Turner traveled to countryside (which resembled him “Wild West”), as a rule, pursuing the goal to write history. He was accompanied by a student, whom the professor dictated his thoughts. But Turner was not contented by his thoughts (in spite of a fact that all his contemporaries distinguished him as a very good orator), smoked much, fell in fury, stopped the job, went fishing (Turner was an ardent fisher) … and after a month of such a vacation turned back to Harvard without anything done.
Actually Turner did not assume his idea, that the Wild West generated self-rule automatically, for granted. Furthermore, adjacent Canada and Mexico provided other patterns of the frontier society. While the British imperial government implanted democracy in Canada, precarious character of the Spanish centralism and his ensuing breakdown as well caused permanent patrimonial anarchy in Mexico. Owing to his own perfectionism Turner was incapable to resolve such problems as well as many others. Turner presented, as one could say, rather a history for “domestic consumption”. Neither Turner nor plenty of his critics even were incapable to define the notion of the frontier! However, Turner inspired his students to compare Wild West with other frontiers, one from whom, Herbert Eugene Bolton, dealing with Latin America, founded his own “Californian Borderlands School” .
In the 1930s Owen Lattimore, the other renowned American scholar, introduced his sweeping generalizations on the key role of the frontiers in history of China. O.Lattimore’s “thesis” was quite different toward that of F.Turner. While F.Turner focused on the frontiers of Anglo-Saxon settlements and paradigm “barbarism – civilization”, O.Lattimore focused on interaction between the northern steppe nomads and Chinese sedentary population, taking into consideration not only the Chinese “civilized” vision of the frontier but that of the nomads too. He stressed the significance of the frontier as a zone of exclusively intensive cultural and political interpenetration which occasionally accounted for the development of all Chinese empire. He also suggested his own theoretical structure of the frontier zone consisting of the proper frontier, “with a more or less differentiated population adhering to it even on the hither edge”; a zone populated by the “auxiliary tribes”, “the outer edge of whose territory was treated as an outerfrontier zone”; and beyond that “unregenerate barbarism” .
Now O.Lattimore is known, first, due to the term “satellite” which he suggested to use in the course of the Mongolian history in 1936, second, due to so called “Lattimore affair”. In 1950 senator McCartey accused him for the supposed cooperation with the Soviet security services in the time when President Roosevelt appointed him on the position of his adviser for the Chinese affairs and Chiang Kai-shek counselor as well; McCartey supporters would like to make O.Lattimore responsible for all failed course of the American policy in China, according to the terminology of the American press of that time, for the “loss” of China. Although neither FBI, nor administration of President Truman did support such accusations, the Senate commission directed O.Lattimore affair to the court. As it could be predicted, in the course of 5 years’ process (1950-1955) the jury refuted all accusations against O.Lattimore. But his academic career had been ruined, his seminar on the Chinese frontiers in John Hopkins University had been dispersed, and eventually in 1963 O.Lattimore migrated to Great Britain where he founded the department of the East Asian history in the University of Leeds. Because of this all Lattimore’s achievements in the field of the comparative frontiers studies were generally ignored for a long time in the USA .
Following Lattimore’s achievements Arnold Toynbee was the first historian who incorporated the “frontier thesis” into a grand narrative of world history and pointed out the significance of the frontier for rise of civilization. According to his views, frontier society is fated to exist in conditions of permanent danger of extermination. So if Doloris Sopitam recreant volnera viva animam (that is the epigraph for his “A Study of History”), such societies are more capable of progress than any other.
Walter Prescott Webb was a man, who, taking into consideration Western Europe, all America, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, launched the idea of “the Metropolis” and “Great Frontier” and simultaneously focused on the determined impact of the frontier peoples upon world economy, literature, science, and art .
At the same time, besides Australian , Canadian , Croatian , Latin American , Russian , South African , New Zealand historiography, even Finnish historians tried to apply Turner’s idea, interpreting their own country as “the periphery of an informal American centered economic and cultural core” in the Cold War period .
Comparative approach to the “frontier thesis” throve in 1975-1984, when the University of Oklahoma launched a long-termed project ensued from “the Great Frontier idea” and resulted in the recurrent transformation of the “frontier” concept into the one with more broad sense (As Ray Billington defined Turner’s “frontier”, it is “a geographic region adjacent to the unsettled portions of the continent in which a low man-land ratio and unusually abundant, unexploited, natural resources provide an exceptional opportunity for social and economic betterment to the small-propertied individual” ; as Annete Kolodny redefined it, the “liminal landscape of changing meanings on which distinct human cultures first encounter one another’s “otherness” and appropriate, accommodate, or domesticate it”) . But after 1984 the scientific interest toward the comparativ
e “frontier studies” faded away. A few years later the “New Westerners” started his boisterous thrust upon venerable thesis.
“The American Historical Review” decided to revitalize the comparative approach in 1999 when Jeremy Adelman and Stephen Aron launched a discussion on the “frontier matters”. They suggested focusing on a frontier as a ”land in between” contested by empires. So exemplifying the struggle of the American indigenous peoples for independence and observing how the frontiers were transformed into borderlands and borders as well, they uncovered connections between imperial competitions and intercultural relations. “Stated simply, where the former flourished, the latter more likely featured inclusive frontiers. Where European colonial domains brushed up against one another, Indian peoples deflected imperial powers from their original purposes and fashioned economic, diplomatic, and personal relations that rested, if not entirely on Indian ground, at least on more common ground” . So the historians suggested to come back to the old frame for analysis, that of paradigm “Empires – Frontiers”.
As it turned out, a new blow had especially strong repercussions in the Russian history. By the way, Turner opposed the idea to implement his thesis into the European history. As he once mentioned, “The American Frontier is sharply distinguished from the European frontier – a fortified boundary line running through dense populations. The most significant thing about the American frontier is that it lies at the hither edge of free land. In the census report it is treated as the margin of that settlement which has a density of two or more to the square miles”. But later he conceded that “Russia must have her own frontier interpretation” .
As late as in 1992 “World Policy Journal” suggested selling Siberia to the US. In such a manner the USA would strengthen its democratic frontier spirit, while Russia would get money necessary for the implementation of the economic and educational reforms.
Michael Khodarkovsy published his book in 2001 . Two years later the current issue of the monthly “Ab-Imperio” brought the most sophisticated vision of the Russian frontier. The first important article of the issue is by professor of the Central European University in Budapest Alfred Rieber. Taking into consideration the general concept of boundaries and dealing with the abundant data and historiography Rieber distinguished its three groups: consolidated state frontier (the “Jacobian model”), dynamic frontiers of advancing settlements, symbolic frontiers (West-East, Western Europe – Eastern Europe, for example). “Turner’s concept”, Rieber asserted, “of the frontier as dividing “savagery from civilization or alternatively as a forward movement into “empty lands” has yielded, under the influence of anthropologists, to the idea of the frontier as a zone of interaction involving two or more previously distinct societies which engaged in a variety of cultural and commercial ”frontier exchanges” between Native Americans and colonists or settlers” . In this essay, that one could treat as some kind of introduction to the volume, professor A.Rieber mentioned the frontiers of Mesopotamia, the Roman, Sasanian, Byzantine Empires and frontiers in Australia, Canada, India as well, focused on cases of the Ottomans, relations between medieval European states and tribes, American history, American-Southafrican comparison, Russian and Chinese frontiers. In his another article professor Rieber added to his broad view the Habsburgian Military Border in Croatia (Triplex Confinium), Ukraine, Caucasus, frontiers between Ottomans and Safavids, Mongolia.
Dealing exclusively with the Russian case, professor Andreas Kappeler elaborated four approaches to the frontier phenomenon: as a geographic frontier between distinct climatic and vegetative zones, between forests and steppe in the Russian case; as a social frontier between distinct styles of life as well as systems of values, especially between sedentary population, on the one hand, and nomads or hunters, on the other; as a military frontier; as a religious and cultural frontier between distinct traditions of values and culture. Following this outline, he distinguished military frontier, extractive frontier, and settlement frontier. According to Kappeler, “frontier is a transitional zone not integrated into any state creatures which has dynamic character” . Now it seems to be the most updated vision of the frontier phenomenon.
Now the idea to approach Russia in the light of Turner’s thesis is most welcome in the milieu of Siberian historians. Since 1996 Siberian universities hosted common conferences of the Russian and American scholars dealing with the frontier approach to the Siberian history. Two monographs were published, at least, in this field after 2000.
So comparative approach resulted in important amendments of Turner’s thesis. In spite of plenty of interpretations, generally the scholars rejected his idea that the frontiers, promoting the self-ruled cells, generated democracy automatically. The patterns of Central and Eastern Europe also corroborated this last conclusion.
The modern state of Ukraine bears the notion of “frontier” in its name. The irony, however, lies in the fact that “Ukraine” as a nation-name is rather of late origin being a product of the late nineteenth century when the actual frontier had disappeared from the map of Eastern Europe (it is noteworthy, at the same time, when Turner was announcing “the frontier’s end”). “Ukraine” as a name for a country and a nation was picked up by the Ukrainian intelligentsia as a part of the so-called “Cossack myth”, which expressed the Ukrainian past as a predominantly Cossack experience and the Ukrainian nation as cemented by its Cossack history. The phenomenon of Cossacks in its various manifestations, including that of a semi-state of the seventeenth and major part of the eighteenth centuries, was typical to one region of what now constitutes Ukraine. Gradually, however, this image has been extended upon other parts of what was conceived during the nineteenth century as Ukraine, covering such diverse historical provinces as Galicia, Volhynia, Bukovyna etc.
In 1955 Alexander Ohloblyn, a prominent Ukrainian historian, published a text “The American Revolution and Ukrainian National Movement at the Eve of the Eighteenth Century”. Ohloblyn pursued a goal to present the influence of the American Revolution on the Ukrainian society. Although at this point his thoughts seem to be exaggerated, generally he was right. As Larry Wolff once pointed out, ”there is a very interesting sort of grand history of the late eighteenth century, called by Franco Venturi “the first crisis of the ancien regime”, in which the period leading up to the American revolution in 1776 is understood in the context of things that are happening in the periphery of Europe, namely the Confederation of Bar of 1768, rising in Corsica, rising in the Greek Peloponnesus of 1770 … Issues of national self-assertion in which the American context should neither be understood as the model what had been happening in Europe nor as a consequence of what had happened in Europe but as part of a world-wide western upheaval that goes, let us say, from Boston to Bar””.
One could consider Reverend Ahapius Hončarenko (1832-1916), an Orthodox priest, revolutionary, and political refugee from Eastern Ukraine, as to some extent Turner’s Ukrainian predecessor. Hončarenko treated the American “Wild West” as a genuine “land of Cossacks” . Furthermore, according to him, liberty had to reach the Russian Empire through Alaska and Siberia. In his opinion, the inhabitants of Siberia should welcome the republican ideas even more quickly than European Russia . In 1868
Hončarenko pointed out in his newspaper “Alaska Herald”: “America and Siberia are two great powers, facing away from each other, each toward his own purpose. The time has now arrived that these two powers must face each other and understand by working and cooperating with each other toward a common goal. Our interests began in the River Amur, through the peninsula of Kamchatka and now with the purchase of Alaska” . At the same time he also developed a plan of preventive war against Russia to protect Alaska from the Russian expansion eastward. Honcharenko suggested incorporating Alaska and Siberia into a free state, “Pacific Ukraine”, which was to be established under the protection of the United States. In his opinion, only Cossacks of Ukrainian descent, which populated both Alaska and Siberia, would create a good frontier guard itself against the further expansion of the Russian Empire. Certainly, the American government did not adopt such a utopian project.
William Hardy McNeill, an eminent American historian from Chicago, was a founder of the comparative approach to the Ukrainian history in the light of the “frontier studies”. Updating the views of Turner and Webb, he extended the “Great Frontier” idea onto the Great Eurasian Plain and focused upon the Euro-Ottoman frontier.
Ivan Lysiak-Rydnycky was the first Ukrainian (or rather Canadian historian of Ukrainian descent) who considered Ukrainian history in the light of Turner’s frontier thesis. Inspired by McNeill’s idea about “Europe’s Steppe Frontier”, I.Lysiak-Rydnycky stressed that while the pioneer and cowboy represented the early modern American history (“Wild West”), at the same manner the Cossack represented the Ukrainian one (“Wild Field”). In addition Tartar cultural heritage influenced strongly European colonists, and later these specific European warriors in the Tartar habits created their own state extending their own ideals upon all lands inhabited by Orthodox Christians in the Kingdom of Poland. So in this manner the “Ukraine” as a frontier turned into “Ukraine” as a country gradually giving up the previous name “Ruś” for the new one. Simultaneously comparing the cases of America and Ukraine he pointed out that the movement of Ukrainian colonists southward had rather a defensive character than an offensive one. Indeed, Tartars were the best warriors of Eastern Europe, so this struggle devastated almost all Ukrainian lands since the sixteenth century many times. In consequence it hampered the development of civilization very strongly . It is noteworthy, Stefan Kieniewicz, a prominent Polish historian, appreciated deeply these opinions and extended them upon all the Polish Commonwealth . In 1992 John Armstrong repeated these thoughts even in a more sophisticated manner, although he did not mention either Lysiak-Rudnyc’ky’s or Kieniewicz’s names.
In 1973 Olena Hikavy Saciuk earned her PhD at the University of Illinois for her dissertation entitled “A Comparative Study of Cowboy, Gaucho, and Cozack as Protagonists in Selected Novels”.
I have to mention also the book of the Polish scholar Janusz Tazbir “Gentry and Conquistadors. Polish Opinion towards Spanish Conquest of America”. Giving mostly unexpected focus of the Great Geographic Discoveries perception in the early modern Polish literature, J.Tazbir concluded the chapter “Indian Treasures and Wild Fields” with these words: “If we should consider the Wild Fields separately, we could compare them with the western part of the USA”. Americans treated their frontier as sparsely inhabited lands without any forms of feudal servitude “where struggle against nature, Indians, and often against their own neighbor or even an ordinary bandit inspired very specific manners of life. If we substituted Indians for Tartars, we would have the same situation on our Wild Fields under the rule of Wazas’ dynasty. The same moving frontier of settlements, reached to the center of state, as well as moved in different directions, had existed either in North America or in the seventeenth century’s Polish Commonwealth”.
But, as it turned out, Natalia Polonska-Vasylenko was the only Ukrainian historian who used the Turnerian approach in a work of a monograph length, although F.Turner’s ideas might not be known for her. Contrary to the conventional focus of the Ukrainian historians on the warfare, forms of administration, and genesis of the Ukrainian national movement, she focused on the problem of the gradual repopulation of the Ukrainian steppe through the eighteenth century. Such was a topic of her doctoral dissertation defended in Moscow in 1940. She published this text in New York in 1955.
Linda Gordon, a scholar from Boston, was the other historian who, dealing with the Ukrainian past, applied the Turner’s and NcNeills’ ideas into monograph. “Cossacks”, she asserted, “were first evident to observers as frontier fighters. In this role they are somewhat analogous to the US “cowboys”, “pioneers’, and adventurers who opened the Western lands of North America to Europeans. In all this language, as that of Cossacks “defending” or “reclaiming” the Ukrainian lands, there are hidden ethnocentric notions of “manifest destiny”.
But generally idea to approach Ukrainian history in the light of Turner’s “frontier thesis” is neither well known nor popular.
Of course, taking into consideration also the issue of scientific fashion, one could agree that Turner’s ideas seem to be outdated. As he once mentioned, “Each age tries to form its own conception of the past. Each age writes the history of the past anew with reference to the conditions uppermost in its own time” . But comparing his legacy with those of Marx, Popper, Weber or any other distinguished historians, one could say the same. What I plan to do is to evaluate the historiography of comparative frontier studies and eventually, if it would be appropriate, following Lattimore’s, McNiell’s, Rieber’s, and Kappeler’s schemes, to elaborate the cohesive view of world history based on the comparative frontiers.
Література:
*This text is the improved version published earlier in “Krytyka”: І.Чорновол, “Дикий Захід” і “Дике Поле”: Україна в світлі тези Тернера”, Критика, 2006, no.6, с.26-28.
Frederick J. Turner, “The Significance of the Frontier in American History”, in: The Frontier in American History, by Frederick J. Turner (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1931), p.1-38.
Data for February 11, 2008.
Richard Hofstadter, The Progressive Historians. Turner, Beard, Parrington (New York: Vitgage Books, A Division of Random House, 1970), p.83.
The best Turner’s biographies are: Ray Allen Billington, Frederick Jackson Turner. Historian, Scholar, Teacher (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973); Wilbur R. Jacobs, On Turner’s Trail. 100 Years of Writing Western History (University Press of Kansas, 1994).
Patricia Nelson Limerick, “Turnerians All: The Dream of a Helpful History in an Intelligible World”, in: The American Historical Review, vol.100 (1995), p.698.
Billington, R., op.cit., p.205-206.
Ibidem, p.426. “Like the frontiersman being so much admired, Turner saw things not as they were, but as they should be… His reason told him now and then these were pipe dreams, but reason was brushed aside as too unpleasent a companion. Turner saw the world through rose-tinted glasses, and a happy world it was”. Ibidem, p.424.
David J. Weber, “Turner, the Boltonians, and the Borderlands”, in The American Historical Review 91 (1986), p.66-81.
Owen Lattimore, Inner Asian Frontiers of China, Boston: Beacon Press, 1962 (first edition 1940), p.246; O.Lattimore, Studies in Frontier History. Collected Papers. 1928-1958, Paris: Mouton and Co L
a Haye, 1962 (Ecole Practique des hautes Etudes – Sorbonne, Sixiem Section: Sciences Economiques et Sociales, vol.6).
James Cotton, Asian Frontier Nationalism: Owen Lattimore and the American Policy Debate (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanity Press International, Inc, 1989); Robert Newman, Owen Lattimore and the “Loss” of China (Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: University of California Press 1992).
Walter Prescott Webb, The Great Frontier. Introduction of Arnold J. Toynbee (Austin: University of Texas Press 1964, 1-st edition – 1951).
H.C.Allen, Bush and Backwoods. A Comparison of the Frontier in Australia and the United States (Sidney, London, Wellington, Melbourne: Angus & Robertson, Michigan State University Press 1959).
Paul R. Sharp, “Three Frontiers: Some Comparative Studies of Canadian, American, and Australian Settlement”, in: Pacific Historical Review no.4, (1955), p.369-378; Рамсей Кук, Граница и метрополия: опыт Канады (Москва: издательство “Наука”, Главная редакция восточной литературы 1970).
Guenter Rothenberg, The Austrian Military Border in Croatia: 1520-1747, Urbana, Illinois 1960; ejusd, The Military Border in Croatia. 1740-1881 (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1966).
David J. Weber, “Turner, the Boltonians, and the Borderlands”, in: The American Historical Review, vol.91 (1986), p.66-81.
Lobanov-Rostovsky, A., “Russian Expansion in the Far East in the Light of the Turner Hypothesis”, in: The Frontier in Perspective, ed. by Walker Wyman and Clifton B.Kroeber (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1965); Joseph L. Wieczynski, The Russian Frontier. The Impact of Borderlands upon the Course of Early Russian History (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976); Mark Bassin, “Turner, Solov’ev and the “Frontier Hypothesis”: The Nationalist Signification of Open Spaces”, The Journal of Modern History, vol.65 (1993), p.471-511.
Frontier in History. North America and Southern Africa Compared, ed. by Howard Lamar and Leonard Thompson (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1981).
Peter J. Colenon, “The New Zealand and the Turner Thesis”, in: Pacific Historical Review, vol.27, (1958), p.369-378; A.L.Burt, “If Turner Had Looked at Canada, Australia, and New Zealand When He Wrote about the West”, The Frontier in Perspective, p.59-78.
Michael Berry, “The Limits of Community Finland as a Symbol of Frontier-Infused Liberalism”, in: Michael Berry, Georg Mand, Jerry Schuchalter, Frontiers of American Political Experience (Turku: Turun Yliopisto, 1990), p.31-85.
William W. Savage, Jr., Stephen Thompson, “The Comparative Study of the Frontier: An Introduction”, The Frontier. Comparative Studies, vol.2, ed. William W. Savage, Jr., Stephen Thompson (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1977), p.6.
Kervin Lee Klein, Frontiers of Historical Imagination. Narrating the European Conquest of Native America. 1890-1990 (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1997), p.210.
Jeremy Adelman and Stephen Aron, “From Borderlands to Borders: Empires, Nation-States, and the Peoples in Between in North American History”, in The American Historical Review, vol.104, no.3 (1999), p.838.
F.J Turner, op. cit., p.3.
Ray Billington, Frederick Jackson Turner, p.459.
Walter Russel Mead, “More Stars on Our Flag: A Modest Proposal for US Policy after the Cold War”, World Policy Journal, vol. IX (Fall-Winter, 1992), p.581-598.
Michael Khodarkovsky, Russia’s Steppe Frontier: the Making of a Colonial Empire, 1500-1800 (Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 2001).
Alfred Rieber, “Changing Concepts and Constructions of Frontiers: A Comparative Approach”, in: Ab-Imperio. Theory and History of Nationalism and Empire in the Post-Soviet Space, no.1 (2003), p.37.
Ejusd, “The Comparative Ecology of Complex Frontiers”, in: Imperial Rule, ed. by Alexei Miller and Alfred Rieber (Budapest, New York, 2003), p.177-207.
Андреас Каппелер, “Южный и восточный фронтир России в XVI-XVIII веках”, in: Ab-Imperio, no.1 (2003), p.47-49.
Александр Агеев, Сибирь и американский Запад: движение фронтиров (Иркутск, 2002) http://www.ino-center.ru/press-center/publication/ageev.html; Михаил Шиловский, Дмитрий Резун, Сибирь, конец XVI – начало XX века: фронтир в контексте этносоциальных и этнокультурних процессов (Новосибирск, 2005) http://hum.sbras.ru/kapital/project/frontier/; Ігор Чорновол, “Фронтири Росії”, Критика, 2007, N6. http://www.krytyka.kiev.ua/articles/s.6_6_2007.html.
I am indebted for this thought to Dr. Oleksij Tolochko from the Institute of History of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences.
Олександр Оглоблин, “Американська революція та український національний рух кінця 18-го сторіччя”, in Вісник. Суспільно-політичний місячник. Орган Організації Оборони Чотирьох Свобід України 9, no. 7-8 (81-82) (New York, 1955), p.11-16.
Larry Wolff, “Inventing Galicia: Habsburg Imperial Ideology in the Age of Joseph II”. Seminar in Ukrainian Studies, Ukrainian Research Institute, October 18, 2004. Audio-cassette tapes, Ukrainian Research Institute Library, Harvard University.
Гончаренко, А., “Країна козаків в Північній Америці, або Аляска”, Народ (Львів, 1894), no. 1, p.19-20.
Михайло Павлик, “Україна” в Америці”, ibid., no. 19-20, p.229-232.
Wasyl Luciv, Theodore Luciv, Ahapius Honсharenko and the Alaska Herald. The Editors Life and an Analysis of his Newspapers (Toronto: Slavia Library, 1963), p.68.
Ibid., p.65.
William H. McNeill, Europe’s Steppe Frontier. 1500-1800 (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1964); ejusd, The Great Frontier. Freedom and Hierarchy in Modern Times (Princeton, NJ, 1983).
Іван Лисяк-Рудницький, “Україна між Заходом і Сходом”, in Іван Лисяк-Рудницький, Історичні есе (Київ, 1994), p.1-9. See also its original publication in English: “The Ukraine between East and West”, in Das östliche MittelEuropa in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Acta Congressus historiae Slavicae Salisburgensis in memoriam SS Cyrilli et Methodii anno 1963 celebrati (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasimovitz, 1966), p.163-169.
Stefan Kieniewicz, “Rudnytsky’s Eassays in Modern History in the Eyes of a Polish Historian”, Harvard Ukrainian Studies, v.11, no. 3-4 (1987), p.522-523.
John A. Armstrong, “Myth and History in the Evolution of Ukrainian Consciousness”, in Peter J. Potichnyj, Marc Raeff, Jaroslav Pelenskyj, Gleb N. Žekulin, eds., Ukraine and Russia in Their Historical Encounter (Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press, 1992), p.132.
Janusz Tazbir, Szlachta a konkwistadorzy. Opinia staropolska wobec podboju Ameryki przez Hiszpanię (Warszawa: Polska Akademia Nauk, 1969), p.89.
Natalia Polonska-Vasylenko, The Settlement of the Southern Ukraine 1750-1775 (New York, 1955, The Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the US, vol.IV-V, Summer – Fall, 1955).
Linda Gordon, Cossack Rebellions. Social Turmoil in the Sixteenth Century Ukraine (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983).
Turner, F.J., “The Significance of History”, in Rereading Frederick Jackson Turner. “The Significance of the Frontier in American History” and Other Essays. With Commentary by John Ma
ck Faragher (New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1994), p.18.