Talk:Michał Pius Römer

Untitled

Although it still needs expansion on Vilnius times, and Krajowcy activity.--Lokyz 20:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Römer or Romeris

Umm, if he himself preferred Lithuanian name, shouldn't this be moved to Mykolas Römeris? Honestly I don't those naming issues sometimes, obvious is not-obvious, and vice-versa...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Careful, Römer is very special. He used Römer name until 1920, and then he would use both Römer and Römeris. A very interesting biography of a person torn between Poland and Lithuania, who suddenly was forced to make difficult choices. --Lysy^talk 00:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me make an easy choice, so long! Dr. Dan 05:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

why sould not considering the moving to Riomeris? ;) The only problem is that there is no ö in Lithuanian, as well as in Polish whatsoever Iulius 18:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

He was a Pole, who, when forced to make a choice, decided to be loyal to Lithuania. He's also a symbol of the difficult Polish-Lithuanian history of the interbellum. There are more arguments of course, if you feel not convinced. But better stop for a while and think a minute about this :-) --Lysy^talk 20:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

He was a Polonised German Lithuanian to be more exact. First and the most significant - he was a most prominent lawyer of Lithuania of interbellum that even one of the Universities is named after him in Lithuania. I cannot see any reason to leave the Polish variant as the main - the same as with T. Ivanauskas. He even used his lithuanian name mostly. Just take a look at Google: 36.700 hits for Mykolas and just 81 for Michal ;-) doesn't it mean something? Iulius 06:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh ? Mykolas Riomeris - 317 hits, Michał Römer - 8,220,000 hits. --Lysy^talk 06:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Should try Romeris ;) He wins clearly. You should always use brackets, as there are many more Michals Romers and only a single Mykolas. 8 million hits?? :-D is he Madonna or something? Iulius 06:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but event with "Romeris" I'm still getting similar results: [1]. --Lysy^talk 06:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That page seems stupid :-D Just look whose the man [2] Better try the real Google search. Iulius 07:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, isn't it somehow similar to Jogaila/Jagiełło problem ? He was born Jogaila but then assumed Jagiełło name. --Lysy^talk 06:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I'd better compare him with Antanas Baranauskas, Mikalojus Konstantinas Čiurlionis, Vincas Kudirka, Tadas Ivanauskas, Stanislovas Narutavičius and many others. Iulius 07:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

While to me this case is a bit similar to Valdemaras Adamkevičius and Valdas Adamkus. his choice, which was made due to surrounding circumstances, is respected even till present day. Romeris also made a decision. M.K. 09:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeeed the main issue here is - did Romeris use his Polish name in official writings in his late years (after 1920)? Iulius 11:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No, this is completely different. Ivanauskas, although born Polish (or Belarusian), considered himself Lithuanian. Römer (born Polish of German descent) considered himself Polish, loyal to Lithuania. --Lysy^talk 07:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you reference this? Iulius 07:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Which part needs it ? --Lysy^talk 13:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

All parts of your statement, if you oppose changing the name of the article Iulius 17:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you're trying to make this difficult, right ? ;-) (as if you did not know that Ivanauskas felt Lithuanian or Römer felt Polish).

OK, my primary source for this would probably be the book by Solak (mentioned in the article) as I have it at hand. It is in Polish. Would you prefer me to quote it in Polish or try to translate into English ? (I'm not trying to be arrogant by suggesting that every Lithuanian understands Polish, but I know that many do for various reasons) --Lysy^talk 18:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

For me its ok as I know a little Polish (for some reasons) also it would be best to have a qoute of Romeris himself. Iulius 18:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really, as we should not be doing any original research here but rather rely on secondary sources instead. But probably his diaries (written in Polish as I'm sure you know) would give an answer as well. Anyway, here it goes, after Zbigniew Solak (a biography or Römer, the book mentioned in the article's references section), page 447, exact quote, bolding mine:

Fakt, że ruch ten separował się od Polski, a wyznacznikiem przynależności etnicznej uczynił kryterium języka, wymusił niejako na nim określenie się jako Polaka. To różniło go od takich działaczy polskiego pochodzenia jak Jerzy Dowiatt, Tadeusz Dowgird, Tadeusz Iwanowski (Tadas Ivanauskas) czy nawet Stanisław Naruszewicz, którzy od początku związali się z litewskim ruchem narodowym i określali się jako Litwini.

Feel free to ask for explanation if something (or individual words) is unclear. The book is a rather good and pretty neutral monographic biography of Römer (and I can usually make the difference between neutral and nationalistic books and would not quote the latter ones without an appropriate comment). I have not objected to renaming of Tadeusz Iwanowski article, and I agree that it should be Tadas Ivanauskas but I'm much more reluctant here and it seems that some Lithuanians share the same objection, too. [3] --Lysy^talk 19:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've found another one, by a Lithuanian historian: Rimmantas Miknys, "Problem kształtowania się nowoczesnego narodu Polaków litewskich w pierwszej połowie XX wieku", Biuletyn historii pogranicza, vol 1, Białystok 2000, p. 21–31. He writes that Römer considered himself to be a "Lithuanian Pole". Also, take a look at the Krajowcy article. --Lysy^talk 06:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Romeris was a very clever person indeed. Here is one citation of his, I completely agree with:

The Psyche of the Lithuanian Poles was formed on a common ethnic background with the Lithuanians, that contrasts them from the ethnic Poles. At the same time, several centuries of Polish cultural assimilation produced deep ties with Polish national culture, politics and statehood, generating notable psychological transformations which differ them from ethnic type of the Lithuanians. In result, the Poles in Lithuania constitute a distinct psychological type, and a social community, one of the indigenous peoples.

Iulius 06:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the conclusion but would not agree with presenting the "centuries of Polish national culture" in opposition to Lithuanian culture. The culture for centuries was common and it was a mixture of both Polish and Lithuanian influences (and others as well of course). Indeed, it was dominated by Polish language but nevertheless the culture was common. Today's Polish nation is not the only successor of this common cultural heritage. I understand the reasons why Lithuanians had to distance themselves from it in 20th century, but I think this is no longer needed now. --Lysy^talk 07:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe Romeris had Polish-Lithuanian (PLC) culture in mind writing Polish. All in all, in addition we need a thorough and well referenced article on Vilnian tutejsi to end all national or ethnic speculations

Iulius 07:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe he had the PLC culture in mind as well, but our perspective today is different than his. As for tutejsi, it's not only a Vilnian issue, as there are tutejsi in Belarus and in Eastern Poland as well. This may be quite a POV-dependent issue, BTW. --Lysy^talk 07:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be great to include them all in one! However, Vilnian tutejsi are different from others as they have the Lithuanian background, as Romeris said. Should we be scared off by POV dependant topics? Iulius 07:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, but I know some editors think that difficult/controversial topics are better avoided. And this, mostly based on opinions or political theories, not research, is certainly not going to be an easy one. --Lysy^talk 13:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

This article is in dire need of a good copy-edit. It needs first of all to become more "encyclopedic" (right now it's far from it). Then it needs to get a good "anglicization" (sic), with more facts and less opinions. Anybody ready, willing, and able other than myself? Dr. Dan 03:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No, go ahead, you are the copy-editor here. --Lysy^talk 11:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)