First, a comment Ron made in response to my question regarding the terms Polsch & Molosch (This is only one of many, many, comments I received, but it sums up the basic answer as to why I had never heard these terms before - they are of Holdeman invention, and are basically only used within that context.):
Mennonite HeterogeneityOne helpful point might be to understand that polsch/molosch distinction didn’t come into use until after 1875 and was only used by Holdemans (largely Volhynians and Kleine Gemeinde). So polsch/molosch terminology is only used from a Holdeman post-1875 perspective. Volhynian Holdemans were Polsch and other Mennonites (Alexanderwohl, for instance, was Molosch). It really is almost that simple. And all the native Kansans were English. That pretty much described their whole late 19th century world.
By Ron Ratzlaff
In Mennonite Genealogy & History (FaceBook group)
After long and sometimes confusing discussions last night about terms for divisions among Mennonites, I decided to start a new subject dealing with this. These are just thoughts of mine in order to get a discussion going – I’d love to hear some other perspectives.
Mennonites have certainly not been homogenous and anyone who thinks they are does not have a good grasp on the matter. But understand that this is not a commentary on religion but rather on culture. Nor am I making judgements on any of it, rather I’m just making observations.
One characteristic that has defined the larger Mennonite group is that of HETEROGENEITY. Anyone who thinks Mennonites are all one big homogenous group does not understand Mennonite history at all. In fact, this whole history/genealogy group should probably be disbanded into many smaller groups because of the diversity of history and opinions of those from different Mennonite groups.
Of course, we’re all aware of this characteristic. We all know about major, obvious, and recent divisions among the larger Mennonite group: Low German, Swiss, Mennonite Brethren, Amish, Holdeman, Pennsylvania Dutch. We’re all well aware of these divisions and we Mennonites, of course, would never confuse a Low German Mennonite for an Amishman (for instance), the way an Englishman might. When I tell my friends I’m Mennonite, I get questioned about why I don’t drive a buggy or why I’m not wearing homespun clothes. Of course we understand this difference but throughout Mennonite history there are a lot of nuances that might have been forgotten and if we revisit some of it, it'll help to understand your genealogical journey.
The illustration says roughly “she came to us from the other side (die andre kant)” and is found in the Przechowko churchbook (entry 982; Trincke Oden). Przechowko was a Groningen Old Flemish congregation and this description was defining the fact that Trincke had come from “the other side” – namely, a Frisian congregation. For Przechowko congregants in the late 18th century, this was absolutely a fact worth pointing out. Przechowko congregants were well aware that they adhered to the Groningen Old Flemish Society, while nearby Montau or Schonsee (the Large School at least) adhered to the Frisian sect. This would have been an unmistakable characteristic for these folks.
The Frisian/Flemish division was very old and dated back to the Dutch Lowlands in the 16th century. It’s actually quite complicated and I won’t try to define it any farther but BE AWARE OF YOUR ANCESTORS’ SECT. This will be very helpful in your genealogical journey. The Gross Werder was dominated by the Flemish while the Valley was dominated by the Frisians. The Flemish were likely more conservative while the Frisians were likely more liberal. The Flemish clung longer to Dutch language and were quicker to move into the Russian Empire. The Flemish formed the earliest settlements in Chortitza and Molotschna. But this division did not necessarily have anything to do with the geography of the Low Countries: the Flemish did not necessarily originate in Flanders nor did the Frisians originate in Frisia (and nor is the surname Friesen in any way connected to the term Frisian).
When these groups moved into Russia, the colonies there became a melting pot; eventually Flemish and Frisian intermarried or joined common congregations and this division faded away. However, one place this particular division may not have faded away, but rather just morphed into something somewhat different is Volhynia, and more on that later.
In the Russian colonies, new divisions developed such as the Kleine Gemeinde or the Mennonite Brethren. We’re more familiar with these divisions today and I’m not going to comment on this any further.
What I really want to point out is the extreme Mennonite heterogeneity in Kansas and a lot of people here with Mennonite roots might not be aware of all this. You have to understand that, in Kansas, a Mennonite is NOT simply a Mennonite. If you don’t understand this, you’re going to have a hard time really wrapping your head around your family history and why it developed the way it did.
In central Kansas, we have more than 10 different types of Mennonites all settling in their own communities. And I should note that these communities extend into Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota, Minnesota, Oklahoma, etc. These divisions are generalities and come from Haury’s “Prairie People” with some of my own modifications:
1. In Halstead were the South Germans (think Summerfelders including those leaders like Christian Krehbiel).
2. By Hillsboro and Whitewater were the Prussians (Obernessau folk by Hillsboro, Heubuden folk by Whitewater – these came directly from Prussian without ever going to Russian Empire, probably Frisian).
3. By Goessel were the Molotschna folk (most notably characterized by the Alexanderwohl group which itself was a diverse group splintering into Hoffnungsau and Hebron divisions (Flemish v Frisian), and too many nuances to list including Berdjansk connections, Leonard Suderman/Whitewater, Tragheimerweide folk, etc).
4. By Moundridge were the Swiss Volhynians (via Kutosowka and Neumanowka near Zhytomyr).
5. Near Hillsboro were the Masovians (think descendants of Deutsch Wymysle folk).
6. Near Whitewater were the Michaliners (similar but distinct from the Low German Volhynians. These were Frisian and Deutsch Michalin was never included in Volyn Governorate thus cannot be included with Masovians nor with Volhynians).
7. By Canton and Pawnee Rock were the Low German Volhynians (Ostrogers who largely developed into Holdemans – more below).
8. The Galicians by Pretty Prairie and Buhler (closely related to Swiss Volhyians).
9. Mennonite Brethren south of Hillsboro.
10. Crimeans south of Hillsboro or near Inman.
11. Others including Swiss near Whitewater, Pennsylvania Dutch at Hesston, or Amish at Yoder.
Note that 3 of these essentially spring from Przechowko (groups 3, 5, and 7). Groups 3 and 7 were by far the most numerous of these groups and this underscores Przechowko’s importance to central Kansas. Included is also a “congregational tree” showing the vast array of Przechowko daughter communities.
Special notes on the Low German Volhynians. Usually lumped together as homogenous but we actually have a fair amount of diversity within this group too. The group was almost entirely Old Flemish (Przechowko-derived) but there were also some Frisians included. This group also had special ties with Alexanderwohl (in more ways than one) and was heavily influenced by Lutherans. Further, this group was culturally impacted by a century’s proximity to Poles, Ukrainians, and Jews, in ways Molotschna Mennonites were not. Finally, understand that this group is different to the Swiss Volhynians who probably did not speak Low German. Karolswalde/Heinrichsdorf people were just a little different than Antonowka people and we see this play out in the American settlement patterns. Karolswalders and Heinrichdorfers went more to Pawnee Rock and Dakota (although a small minority did go to Canton) while Antonowka folks – the Vaderland group – went to Canton; first forming the Emmanuel congregation, then a majority establishing Lone Tree. And here we have the introduction of the Holdeman group.
And here we also have the introduction of the last division terminology I’ll use: Polsch vs Molosch. Understand that this is terminology used by Holdemans post-1875 – and the terminology must be viewed from that perspective or else it doesn’t really work. The Lone Tree folk – who, generally speaking were the Vaderland group – who again generally were the Antonowka people – largely descending from Jeziorki and Przechowko (catch your breath now) … in their own eyes they were the Polsch. They were Polish because they were from Volyn (part of Russian Empire but heavy in Polish culture) and descended from Polish-named Przechowko. As opposed to Polsch in the central Kansas world was Molosch, a term describing the Alexanderwohl folk (with whom the Polsch were oftentimes at odds) And if I understand it right, Molosch also described the Kleine Gemeinde folk who may have joined the Holdeman church. Of course, anyone outside this Mennonite world was, in their view, an English.-/quote]
