Open letter to "The Guardian" regarding article "Goodbye, Golden Rose"

28 September 2011, 11:24 | Open theme | 1 |   | Code for Blog |  | 

Myroslav MARYNOVYCH

a former dissident and a prisoner of conscience (1977–1987)

Myroslav_Marynovych.jpgThe article “Goodbye, Golden Rose” published by Tom Cross in The Guardian, 2 September on the old synagogue in Lviv, Ukraine, has numerous errors. Some of them were noted by those who responded online. Here I want to draw attention to other mistakes and serious misinterpretations, which, to me, grossly distort the issue under discussion.

First and most important: nobody needs to say goodbye to the Golden Rose: its remnants remain untouched. A single call to a neutral observer would help your respectable newspaper to reveal the  real state of affairs.

Secondly, the article has strongly stereotyped Ukrainians; this is just as objectionable as stereotyping Jews.

I cannot speak in the name of all Ukrainians; still, for many of us who live in Lviv, the Golden Rose memorial is not any less dear and valuable as it is for the Jewish community: we see it as a part of our common historical heritage.

Thirdly, it is also irresponsible for a professional journalist to conclude that “there is no monument to the murdered Jews in Lviv’s old town” while “standing at what used to be the ghetto entrance” where a monument to the Jews murdered during the Holocaust has been standing for years!

It was heartbreaking to read the sentimental story about the “one of Lviv’s last Jews” written with Fenimore Cuper’s sensitivity. The truth is, however, that the author has ignored the two thousand member Jewish community now living in Lviv with the vibrant Jewish Home “Hesed-Arye”. To give only one example: it was necessary to rent one of the largest halls in Lviv to celebrate Purim with the local Jewish community in 2010. However, these facts apparently were ignored because they do not fit the gloomy picture by the author of the “last remains of this once flourishing Jewish community”.

Tom Cross has no right to blame Lviv city authorities for “cultural and historical crassness and illiteracy”; indeed many would accuse him of these traits, since the historical information he provides is strikingly incorrect. For example, Jewish people were never the majority of Lviv residents – neither in 1940, nor at any other time. From the end of the 18th century until  WWII, the majority were Poles (50-55%), and Jews were roughly a third of the population (30-35%), while Ukrainians were the minority (15-20%).

While rejecting the dark picture drawn by Tom Cross, I do not intend to replace it with a too optimistic one. Indeed, there are problems with the preservation of historical sites of the Jewish community, as well as those of Polish, Ukrainian, Armenian, and other cultures. We live in a country where ideological regulation of life was too often substituted with the power of money. We try to oppose these circumstances to the best of our abilities, but we also know the taste of defeat.

There is no doubt that we need assistance from developed democracies, including media like your newspaper. Alas, it seems like the article written by Tom Gross is counterproductive and does us an ill turn because it is based on groundless exaggerations and false information.

It would be fair if your newspaper could send another journalist to Lviv to state the obvious: “The Golden Rose still remains in Lviv!”

Система Orphus
Rating
0
0
1comments count

comments

add comments 
  • david penn | 24 October 2011, 22:39
    comment comment

    I also wrote (from England) to the Guardian as I was suprised to read the Golden Rose article having seen the site myself earlier in the year. I asked if they were aware of the City's architectural competition to preserve Jewish sites in Lviv but received no reply.

Answer
Coment
Name
Enter code

Expert thought

  • 12 July 2018, 08:21 | James Siemens' column | 

    The Fallacy and the Truth of Catholic Theology

    There can be no doubt that we stand at the threshold of a new world era. The antithesis seems to be settling into a new synthesis, and it is not one that promises an easy ride for the Church.

  • 29 June 2018, 11:59 | Analysis | 

    What’s in a Name?

    The Eastern Orthodox - that is, those Christians whose Orthodox traditions, theology, and spiritual practice are lived outside of communion with Rome, yet with communion amongst themselves and at least four ancient, apostolic sees - often suggest that it is not possible to be Orthodox in communion with Rome, as just being in communion with Rome nullifies any claim to Orthodoxy.

Last comments

  • В. Ясеневий | 18 July 2018, 21:49

    За словами відомого вчителя історі, УГКЦ сьогодні не зможе поєднати навіть вірних Західних областей України. НЕХАЙ покаже свою харизму і духовну силу, і поєднає хоч би лише вірних УПЦ КП і УАПЦ не

  • В. Ясеневий | 18 July 2018, 15:34

    Зупинити не можна! Та якби її найскоріше втілити!!!

  • В. Ясеневий | 18 July 2018, 14:58

    Державницька - цезаропапізм. А державотворча, це тільки Блаженійший знає, що це таке. Відгадую: це Церква, яка творить державу. А коли і яку державу творила УГКЦ? І якою тоді є УПЦ КП і УАПЦ??? А

  • Aquinatus | 18 July 2018, 11:46

    Церковь не должна обслуживать политику и идеологии. Она должна хранит своё единство, а государство должно опираться на Церковь, если хочет быть государством (государство от слова государь), а не

  • В. Ясеневий | 17 July 2018, 19:12

    Божа Мудрість завжди всепереможна. Та тільки б наша нещасна, так звана мудрість, була правдивою. не в очах єпископів,архієпископів, митрополитів і Патріяярхів, а в очах СПАСИТЕЛЯ. ... Божа сила і

Most Popular Articles month