Deputy Minister of Education and Science of Ukraine A.A.
Vitrenko announced that following the results of the work of the ministerial commission, which studied the programs for studying foreign literature, the history of Ukraine, world history and patriotic training (all at once), a radical decision was made: “We need to throw out everything that somehow connects us with the Russian Empire.
All works in which there is a mystical power of Russian weapons, some kind of mythical, all this must be thrown out.
Everything should be thrown away, as they say, the suffering of the Russian soul, such difficult works for Ukrainians - in general, we don’t need them. ”
In order to save Ukrainian children from other people's - and therefore completely unnecessary - suffering (especially since they have enough of their own suffering), it was decided to fuck up all Russian literature.
Pushkin (“Green oak near Lukomorye” - considerable suffering), Lermontov (“The lonely sail turns white”), Gogol (“The Nose” and “The Overcoat”), Tolstoy (“War and Peace” - everything is clear), Nekrasov (“Grandfather Mazai and hares"), Krylov's grandfather ("Dragonfly Jumper"), Chekhov ("Chameleon"), science fiction writer Belyaev ("Amphibian Man"), etc., etc. The list is immense and even includes epics Kyiv cycle about Prince Vladimir and the heroes.
Instead, they will study epics about Prince Richard and the hero Robin Hood.
In principle, if it is decided that all Russian literature is foreign, then censorship is understandable.
Even if you do not stay in a national-patriotic frenzy and highly value the friendship of peoples, a revision of the course of foreign literature is inevitable, because there are many classic works of world literature - from Dante to Dickens - and the training hours are not rubber.
Therefore, let "Harry Potter" be studied - not without reason A.A.
Navalny of all world literature knows only him, and instead of Pushkin, Heinrich Heine.
"Gentlemen without foreskin
He completely trusted
And entrusted the troops to them,
And finance."
Fresh and relevant.
But in a good way, such a radical revision of the program - even if it is justified three times - presupposes some qualification of the reviewer.
Both literary and methodological.
Not to mention the general cultural level.
But there is some reason for surprise here.
A.A.
Vitrenko, if he is a follower of Ushinsky and Pestalozzi, is unique.
According to his track record, he graduated from the Kyiv State Trade and Economic University with a degree in foreign economic activity management.
He defended his Ph.D. thesis on the topic "Advertising services market in a transformational economy" and his doctoral dissertation on the topic "The service sector in the context of post-industrial transformations."
Trade and the service sector are a useful business, and Vitrenko was engaged in this business not only theoretically, but also practically.
However, he had not previously touched on school pedagogy either directly or by road.
Complete tabula rasa.
The former head of the Office of the President of Ukraine A.I.
Bohdan generally believes that Vitrenko received the post of Deputy Minister, being a drinking companion of the artist from the "Quarter-95" Zhenya Koshevoy (call sign Lysy).
It’s hard to say something about the bald people, perhaps the demoted Bogdan is driven by resentment, so he is fronding, spreading fables.
But what definitely does not come from Bogdan is the cultural level of A.A.
Vitrenko.
The number of yellow-black badges and slogans "Glory to Ukraine!"
- and for any reason - exceeds all likelihood.
Even the mayor Klitschko I did not find such faith.
As if a Soviet official ended his message with the call “Glory to the CPSU!”
or - in earlier times - the slogan "Glory to the great Stalin!".
An outstanding force is a national drummer - which explains a lot in the reform of teaching literature in Ukrainian schools.
However, speak Vitrenko, speak Vitrenko.
About 15 years ago, when liberalists and even outright libertarians had much more weight in public education and were generally considered the masters of discourse, their speeches contained the same calls to throw Russian classics off the ship of modernity.
As outdated, incomprehensible and useless to anyone.
Moreover, unlike Svidomo Vitrenko, who has every right to appreciate Taras's nonsense more than lines from Alexander, these were people who at least formally belonged to Russians - and at the same time they were absolutely alien to Russian culture.
So what to demand from today's Kyiv Komsomol members?
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.