This isnā€™t atypical, professors email their students a lot and I personally donā€™t have a problem with it. The reason why Iā€™m writing here is because of the contents of said email. Donā€™t worry, itā€™s nothing illegal.

Some of you might remember me writing about a library display where some of the posters had the OUN flag. I went to two of my professors about it (history and political science) to see if they knew anything about the display itself and the flag. To make a long story short the answers I got were disappointing, they didnā€™t know anything. I went the slightest extra mile with my history professor as he actually looked up what the flag was during our meeting. I went to him the next day to push a bit more on how it might be inappropriate to display neo-Nazi images in our school. I donā€™t want to go over every detail but if you are new and want to know everything or just need a refresher here are the posts: Part 1 and Part 2

So, resuming after that, it has clearly been a little while since Iā€™ve had this conversation with my history professor and I honestly thought this would be the end of such a shitty saga, but yesterday he emailed me about it. At the end of our last meeting he claimed he wasnā€™t an expert on Ukraine so he is not the best authority to be asking, I brought up Ivan Katchanovski as an authority saying maybe Iā€™d just read his works. He was unfamiliar with Dr. Katchanovksi so I spelled out his name as my professor seemed curious (he even wrote it down) and in turn he told me to look into Timothy Snyder. Our chat ended there and I thought that was it, but it wasnā€™t.

When I looked at my school email yesterday I saw one from him (special notifications for my professors so I donā€™t miss anything important) and the subject line referenced Katchanovski and the red and black flag. I wont write the email verbatim but i will do my best to give an accurate retelling:

ā€œHello SpaceDogs,

Because of our last office hours together when you brought up issues about the red and black flag and Ivan Katchanovski, I wanted to take them to the head of the Ukrainian ā€œclub.ā€ I made sure not to out your name or class so you can be certain none of this will connect back to you. I directly pasted his thoughts below, and because I am not an expert on this topic I cannot help much but I encourage you to read far and wide and critically. Context is important. Scholars like William Risch have issues with Katchanovskiā€™s arguments. Of course, we should listen to fringe ideas, but one must be careful with them and consider differing perspectives.

Regards,

Professorā€

So Katchanvoski is fringe, huh? Well, as you can see this isnā€™t the greatest start and I was honestly shocked when I saw this email in my inbox, I donā€™t remember ever alluding to wanting him to investigate for me, but I guess my pathetic attitude made him pity me. I will be honest, when I read the subject line I was a little excited, thinking he had contacted Katchanovski for me, but when I read the full email I saw that wasnā€™t the case.

I am sure you are all curious about what the head of the ā€œclubā€ said. Again, I cannot write verbatim but I will summarize:

The head of the club has many issues with Katchanovksiā€™s perspective. He claims that Katchanovksi is very in line with the Russian governmentā€™s narrative and those on the academic left are eating it up. He (the head of the club) rejects both the idea that Ukraine is a proxy for NATO and that the US planned the Maidan coup. He says Katchanovskiā€™s sniper argument is interesting. But he has many issues with all of this stuff. He cites William Rischā€™s critique of Katchanovski and links it: https://commons.com.ua/en/rozstrili-na-majdani/

for a shorter piece he gives this one: https://kyivindependent.com/euromaidan-murders-case-why-is-the-verdict-criticized-and-why-is-it-about-russia/

This next part is difficult for me to write but he goes on to compliment Rischā€™s piece as it acknowledges that the whole ordeal was very complicated and messy, he even makes a little comment about Katchanovski making a big deal over one supposed sniper. Some state actors and academics are taking advantage of the situation to form their own narratives.

He asserts that other things Katchanovski has written about are completely wrong, especially when it comes to the Donbas: it wasnā€™t a civil war, they were Russian backed separatists who had so little public support that they only gained ground after Russian soldier boots hit the ground. He cites Serhy Yekelchyk for the Russian troops in Crimea and other parts of eastern Ukraine. There is no incident of Ukrainians ever wanting to separate and join Russia. He says it is more similar to Quebec and Albertaā€™s issues with the Canadian feds. There is a right wing presence in Ukraine but it is not that pervasive, especially not in the military and government. There are more far right wingers in Western Europe and North American than in Ukraine.

About the flag, he links this article: https://kyivindependent.com/everything-you-didnt-know-about-ukraines-flag/

He summarizes the article, how back then it had nothing to do with fascism and was more about resistance. Resistance to who? Itā€™s not clear as it was the 12th century and both Russian and Ukraine did not exist. It is correct that the UPA uses the flag, it is not intended to be fascist, although some divisions did fight alongside the Nazis. But they only did that because they wanted to be free from the Soviets (he then brings up the holodomor as a reason why). But they eventually turned away from the Nazis as they saw that they (Nazis) didnā€™t actually care about Ukraine. He doesnt know about any anti-Semitism from the group but cites Snyderā€™s Bloodlands as a piece to read. Some of the UPA were in line with the fascists but that did not last. Even with such a messy history it is safe to assume that those who wear the flag do not align with fascists and just want to express Ukrainian resistance to imperialism (which it has a long history of fighting against).

Thatā€™s it. Thatā€™s the email.

Iā€™m going to be completely honest with you all, this was the catalyst for me. This is what finally did me in and caused me to break down. I havenā€™t cried in so long but this is what did it. I couldnā€™t hold it in anymore and just let the tears and sobs out.

I know I sound pathetic and a passerby liberal or conservative will read this and look down on me, call me a psychotic tankie who canā€™t handle the truth. I get it, I do. But this moment just cemented the fact that I am in a horrible institution and am truly alone.

Iā€™m fringe, just like Katchanovski, and I have no one else here like me.

I donā€™t know why he would email me this. He had good intentions, I know, but god does it suck. I thought our conversation was done. I knew I was alone and I was the only person i could ever rely on, but this just for some reason made it worse. This is so much more than an uphill battle for me, Iā€™m practically scaling a steep cliff.

Rest assured I did not respond, and from what I can tell he sent it after our class. I wonder if he noticed how off Iā€™ve been this week. Who knowsā€¦

The last thing Iā€™ll do is drop out, so donā€™t worry about that, but this has just gotten a lot more complicatedā€¦

  • Kultronx@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    Ā·
    8 months ago

    Like others have said, your professor is a doofus. Contrary to what right-wing media says, comrades basically must assume that anyone involved in higher education in the west (or really any citizen in the west tbh) is a reactionary, whether they be liberal or fascist until proven otherwise.

    • SpaceDogs@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      Ā·
      8 months ago

      It honestly does boggle my mind when conservatives complain about ā€œMarxismā€ is academia and how they have to pretend to be liberals when studying. Hereā€™s the thing about that, theyā€™re more accepted than any communist and the only problems they will face as conservatives is push back against their racism and transphobia (and antivaxx sentiments), if they drop those attitudes then theyā€™ll get by easily.

      My political science professor told me that I would do well in academia because Marxism is very accepted, but he was so so wrongā€¦

      • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        Ā·
        8 months ago

        Bourgeois Marxism is accepted. But only if you strip out all the radicalism, dunk on AES, and use it as a framework to make impotent ā€˜intellectualā€™ critiques like all the ā€˜Marxistā€™ psychoanalysts. Basically you can freely be Zizek. The few real Marxists struggle and get disparaged every step of the way. Maybe it depends on the field. There is some hope, though, so donā€™t be put off!

        • sevenapples@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          Ā·
          8 months ago

          Adding to this:

          For many years Parenti taught political and social science at various institutions of higher learning. His most prominent academic position was at the University of Vermont where he taught from 1970 to 1972. During his time there he was one of the most published and well known scholars on campus, in part due to his active role in on and off campus activities against the Vietnam War. At the end of his two year contract the faculty voted to extend his position, but their decision was directly overturned by the Universityā€™s Board of Trustees. The trustees alleged that Parenti had violated the Universityā€™s professional conduct policy, citing as evidence his ā€œanti-businessā€ attitudes and not saying the pledge of allegiance when he was invited to speak at the Burlington Rotary Club.

          This is taken from a previous version of Parentiā€™s wikipedia page. I was trying to find it just now, and realized that a lot of stuff has been removed for referencing primary sources (lol, lmao even)