Dobry den Aleks.

You and Peteris have certainly covered alot of territory here and some of what I say may be repetitive, but nevertheless I will try and address some of your comments that were directed toward me in my own words.  You write, “But is it Mark Mardell that represents Russians, nay, non-citizens (there’s a big dif, you know), in this light, or they see themselves in that light?  As I mentioned, it’s a common idea among Russophone non-citizens.  As a reporter, why wouldn’t you report on that?”

Nothing wrong with a reporter interviewing people to find out what going on in their heads—their thoughts, opinions, that is the job of a reporter/journalist.  One would hope, however, that he would interview a cross section of people with varying, opposing views to get a more balanced picture.  And this is what many people, including myself, objected to.  The reporting was one-sided, and a pretty bad patch job at that, as someone already said.  Added to this were Mr. Mardell’s own personal comments which I found objectionable.  Not everything about history is subject to interpretation.  There is such a thing as “facts”, which you, yourself, attest to, Aleks, in regard to my remarks about Stalin.  I quote you,  “...It’s got nothing to do with Stalin.  No one here remembers Stalin on his birthday, for example.  These are just facts.”  It is a fact, not opinion, interpretation, that Latvia was occupied by the Soviets.  It is also a fact that there was massive damage incurred, physically, psychologically, emotionally.  These are truths and for Mardell to just brush them aside by his used of the words, “awkward’, “unfashionable” makes one wonder—is this man really that clueless or is he a Soviet apologist?  It would be like saying that the holocaust was merely an interpretation of history and yes, I’m well aware that there are those who deny that a holocaust ever took place.  Just an interpretation, huh??!!

You speak about Russians feeling betrayed by the Latvian government, thus their resentment, bitterness.  I read as much in Sergey’s comments, #73 and I thought he wrote a fine post, BTW.  I’ve heard enough about this betrayal to believe that it bears some credence, broken promises are not a good thing.  Yet on the subject of ‘nulles variants’, giving blanket citizenship to all—those who occupied Latvia, who have made no attempt to learn the language of the country where they live, who don’t think Latvia was occupied—would be akin to Latvians shooting themself in the foot and no, I can’t buy into that. 

But, let me back up here a bit and say that I do indeed have empathy for the Russian people.  It’s the Soviets that I detest, who destroyed everything that is fine and noble about a people, not only in Latvia, other countries, but in Russia as well.  Russians suffered and still suffer today.  Before the occupation, my mother was raised in a Russian household; this was her first language and she only learned to speak Latvian when my grandfather voluntarily transferred her from a Russian to a Latvian school, because he thought, that living in Latvia, she should learn to speak the language, learn about the culture,etc.  She still speaks Russian fluently and this is the language that she mostly communicates in with her relatives in Latvia.

In the years just before Independence I remember some of the sheer hatred on the faces of Latvians upon just hearing the Russian language spoken on the streets (we discussed this right here on LOL rather frequently) and for the first time in my life, I felt what it was like to be the target of ethnic discrimination.  So, yes, Russians weren’t treated too well, but Latvians too have suffered thier share and more from the Russians; it’s a two way street.  Alot has changed since those days, when if you dared ask someone a question in Russian, you’d be ignored.  Just recently my mother returned from Latvia and related a story about two women who got into a heated argument over their dogs (apparently, one was running around off leash).  Out of curiosity, I asked what language they were speaking and my mother said, Russian, although one of the ladies was a Latvian.  When I asked how she could tell, my mother said that she had a Latvian accent.  And speaking of yet another resentment, Latvians don’t seem (“seem” is a safe word:) to own anything in their own country.  We received a gift of ‘Latvijas sprotes, iepakots tik skaista iesainojuma’, packaged beautifully, just about the only export Latvia has and not a single word of Latvian to be found anywhere on the labels, box—all written in Russian.

Backtracking and getting back to what you said in one of your pots about Stalin, the celebrations at Uzvaras Parks, not being about Stalin, but rather to commemorate all the dead, those who died in/for the motherland.  I was reading a forum where a young Russian girl was talking about this very subject and getting alot of flack from most of the Latvian readers.  She kept insisting as you had said, that this day was a remembering of all those who had died and not at all political.  She managed to win over one of the Latvian girls and the two formed a friendship/bond at least for that time on that particular forum.  It was really quite touching, to see people setting aside politics and relating to one another on a human level.  And yet, I think she has no idea of what the implications are, the symbolism of Uzvaras Parks, how it’s like rubbing salt in an open wound, a place where occupiers congregate to celebrate their victory over the Latvians.

Looking from afar, I get the distinct impression that alot of these Russian, non-citizens, really do not know any better because they’ve been brainwashed for so long.  And that those who do know better are often the ‘kuditaji’, instigators who enjoy stirring up the populace to serve their own ends.  (continued)

You mention that it’s perhaps from a sense of guilt, pride, bitterness.  But, regardless, how long can people choose to be victimized, to expect others to hold their hand.  There comes a time when people need to take responsibility for themselves, take some initiative.  As in making an attempt to learn speaking the language in the country where they live (not doing so, IMO, shows the deepest lack of disrespect, with the exception of the elderly) and at least taking an interest in acquiring some basic knowledge about the historical “facts”.  What Peteris talked about;  Sergey pointing out, that by not doing this, they are only hurting themselves.  I too am of the opinion, as you are, that they should get past this, move on and participate in society and the political process.

Irena

PS On a different note, I enjoyed your blog about Mr. Sleepytime Kalvities.

Sveiki!

I’m back under a Monday mountain of work, so won’t be able to respond to everything that was said. I’m more than delighted that Irēna’s back—hopefully this thread will get more input from others!

I’ll address only a small part of what you wrote for the moment, Aleksej, but I know you are busy also so you will probably be relieved!

It’s funny that you mention Estonia as having riots, but in Estonia, parties are not separated based on ethnic principles as they are here. There’s no Russian vote to be gained by creating a party stuffed with pro-Russian issues, such as the language or the citizenship laws. There are no ethno-centric parties there. And I think it’s much better. In a way, the riots served as a catharsis for unification. I think in spite of the April riots, Estonia is indeed far more advanced in its integration process than we are.

I am not sure that not having ethnic parties is an indication of integration—at any rate there are a lot of facets to that, I think. Most countries with minorities have ethnic parties, and some are in extremely successful societies (e.g., Finland’s, Germany’s), others not.

Many if not most Russians in Estonia vote for the Centre Party. It’s a populist grouping led by a murky Soviet, the Richard Nixon of Estonia, etc. ...I’ll spare you the epithets. It’s the party of the poor, the ignorant, the elderly, and the pro-Russian. The discontented, in other words. Amusingly, they paint the Estonian flag on their cheeks (waiting for Ushakov to do so…).    By the way, though it says “eesti keeles” when I open their site, I can’t find a way to switch to Russian, and a quick check would indicate that a few Estonian parties don’t offer a RU version.

The party is somewhat anti-European, has a special relationship to Putin’s United Russia party, is lukewarm towards NATO, etc. Okay, it’s not ethnocentric—but I think that after Savisaar’s pathetic performance during the riots, few patriotic Estonians would like to see it in the Government. It gets a lot of votes.

...just as SC does. SC is an alliance. Saying that Rubiks is not important because he’s banned from being elected (being a convicted traitorous criminal) is disingenuous. He’s the Deputy Chairman of SC! Look at their site—this is the page of their political leaders. Vidavsky, mentioned previously, is also a leader.

I put quotes around “Russian party” in reference to SC because it is neither Russian nor a party, really—their 4-party list consisted of 35 Russians, 26 Latvians, 3 Poles, 1 Ukrainian, 1 Belarusian, 1 Jew, 1 German, 1 Georgian, and a Karelian. (Anybody knowing anything about what the “German” or “Karelian” communities in Latvia are—i.e., close to zero and almost entirely Russified—could easily figure out what this spectrum really means). 

But okay—let’s call them integrated! Compared to other parties, they are, if we work from the idea that they don’t draw ethnic lines and have reps from most every ethnicity. They even balance extremes—they include bizinismeny and hardcore Communists.

But why don’t you look at the nitty-gritty? Watch Ushakov, young, liberal, and eloquent, squirm sardonically when asked about the occupation. What’s the program? In another debate, you tried to suggest that programs don’t matter, just like you try to write off the presence of Rubiks. Well, the SC program is rather explicitly, if deviously, ethnocentric, splitting Latvia along linguistic lines.

I think you’ve been missing some of what I’ve been trying to say, Aleksej. My attempt at a joke re Dubya and Spanish was meant this way—the “Latvian parties” ought to “reach out” by addressing Daugavpils in Russian, which they could do a lot better than Dubya can address Latin American immigrants (and/or illegals) in Spanish? Maybe so! But the use of Russian turns off Letts—it turns me off, too. For understandable reasons. Even if an event is Latvian, e.g. the opening of my wife’s show, the best that some people on the podium can do is say “sveiki” and switch to Russian, in front of the cameras. That’s the usual switch, and that’s considered “normal.”

...and that’s what SC would perpetuate. Ushakov (who seems a decent guy and is a politician I think many on the other side could deal with, did he not keep such company) brings up German schools in Denmark and Spanish schools in the US when discussing his desires for minorities in Latvia. Well, this is about as brilliant as the old and typical invocations by Russophones of Belgium and Canada (neither work—Belgium is so divided that it may soon be dissolved, and French is the official language in Québec). All of the Germans in Denmark are fluent in Danish! In the US, there are almost no state-supported schools in Spanish, and the encroachment of Spanish results in a backlash, for instance in California.

My main point is that the two-way street we take ought not to lead to the sort of compromise that creates a Ruslatviya. Latvian is and ought to be the sole state language. Citizenship is and ought to be a privilege, and people voting for my government ought to know the language of the majority. SC is against that—those 55 and over should need no test; well, see my earlier age gap note… who is 55 now was 35 20 years ago… and anyway, I will go with a Fatherlander’s note re why is the lady who took the house decades ago and could never utter a sentence despite living here all her life to get an exemption?

To be really blunt—sorry, but Russophones have to do a lot more work to integrate. It’s not about meeting halfway. Belarus meets Russia halfway, and we refuse to do so.

It’s just so tempting that I cannot resist putting off my answer.

First of all, the easy one. To Bruno the Lett—no one’s denying these facts. I think even among Russophone non-citizens no one’s denying these facts.

Second of all, to Irena. While we agree that non-citizens ought to move on, they can’t for many reasons. One, of course, the neighboring Russia keeps them inside their own information space with everything that comes with it. Two, they have to explain to themselves what happened on that fine June day in 1940 and explain to themselves why the Soviet troops suddenly entered the Republic of Latvia. And it takes a lot of time and education. For someone who all their lives have been told again and again that Latvia joined the Soviet Union voluntarily, it’s hard to change their thinking. But it is also the government’s job to acknowledge made mistakes back in the early 1990s with regard to future non-citizens so the healing may begin. 

One would hope, however, that he would interview a cross section of people with varying, opposing views to get a more balanced picture.

Absolutely. Balanced that piece was not. But it’s not a news story per se. It’s not an article, it’s a blog entry. In my blogging I don’t tend to be impartial at all. In my articles, I am.

It is a fact, not opinion, interpretation, that Latvia was occupied by the Soviets.  It is also a fact that there was massive damage incurred, physically, psychologically, emotionally.

There’s a very big difference in historical interpretation of the Soviet occupation of the Baltics and, say, Peteris’ favorite German occupation of Poland. The Allies didn’t hesitate to negotiate with the Soviets. The Soviets were, so to speak, on the winning side. The question of the future of the Baltics was less important to those dealing with real politik than the future of Poland. Therefore, the Soviet Union came out as the winner, nor was it condemned by the international community for atrocities in Katzyn, or the occupation of three small Baltic republics. Stalin was good at doing what Russia is still doing on the international arena—playing one country against another to reach his goal. It’s done so in the European Union, for example. And now we’re thinking what would happen in case of the war. Is Nato really going to come to help? Is the “decadent” West going to stand up for these three little states, each the size of West Virginia?

But I digress.

Yet on the subject of ‘nulles variants’, giving blanket citizenship to all—those who occupied Latvia, who have made no attempt to learn the language of the country where they live, who don’t think Latvia was occupied—would be akin to Latvians shooting themself in the foot and no, I can’t buy into that.

Are you sure that those who naturalize today believe that Latvia was occupied? I’m not.

So, yes, Russians weren’t treated too well, but Latvians too have suffered thier share and more from the Russians; it’s a two way street.

And yet somehow you still try to justify it, which is still hurtful to some Russians here. You’re still saying, well, for everything that Russians – notice: Russians, not Soviets – have done to Latvians, it’s certainly can be understood why Latvians didn’t treat Russians too well in the early 1990s. It is a two-way street, but it’s also time to move on and separate the Soviets in 1989 and the Russians in 2007. That is the same way people try to justify the pogroms in Tallinn in April—well, it’s the government’s fault they crushed storefronts, they say, as if the so-called integration policy in Estonia is a good excuse for a bash in the city centre.

One of my friends, a naturalized citizen, still wonders why suddenly in the early 1990s her Lettish neighbors stopped talking to her. She says she’s not an okupants. I still wonder why an old Lettish woman yelled at me for addressing a Russian woman in Russian, even though all I was trying to do to address her in a language she had addressed me. 

In reference to Latvians not owning anything in this country, I’m not sure if it’s true. Back in Indiana, a local Meijer store sold sprats labeled “ražots Latvijā.” I still see many many labels in many different languages—including Latvian —here in Riga. A language on a label doesn’t mean ownership. Most label here are trilingual—Latvian, Estonian, and Lithuanian. Sometimes, Russian and English added for a good measure.

The fact that Latvian don’t own anything in this country is kind of the market realities. All but one bank are Scandinavian. And even the remaining bank’s owner is an ethnic Russian. We live in a single common market and thinking that one can keep foreign investors, buyers, etc., at the borders is foolish. We are going to interact. The language will be influenced by other languages—it used to be Russian, now it’s English that influences the purity of the Latvian language.

Re: Uzvaras Parks. A historical note—Uzvaras Parks and Uzvaras bulvards have nothing to do with the Soviet uzvara in World War II. It traces back to 1710 when Peter the Russian beat Karl the Swede. Well, not the park itself, but this is the victory after which the park is named. The park was constructed in 1912 commemorating the 200th anniversary of the battle when the Tzarist Russia reached the Baltic shores and conquered Riga. The Vadonis had grand plans for the place and in the 1930s, the park became Uzvaras Laukums. Under the Soviets, the park was laconically named after the XXII Communist Party Congress.

But I digress. Again.

And yet, I think she has no idea of what the implications are, the symbolism of Uzvaras Parks, how it’s like rubbing salt in an open wound, a place where occupiers congregate to celebrate their victory over the Latvians.

I think neither party—no pun intended—is aware of implications. I think a Latvian saying his country was occupied following World War II doesn’t even think that in someone’s mind it may negate their grandfather’s, father’s, brother’s, uncle’s death in that awful, awful war. It makes their sacrifice obsolete, which is why number of people who come to the Victory Monument increases every year. Lest we forget is a powerful thing.

Now I need to answer to Peteris.

I put quotes around “Russian party” in reference to SC because it is neither Russian nor a party, really—their 4-party list consisted of 35 Russians, 26 Latvians, 3 Poles, 1 Ukrainian, 1 Belarusian, 1 Jew, 1 German, 1 Georgian, and a Karelian.

Well, the longer we continue to separate (or shall I use a more powerful word, segregate) people into nationalities, the longer we will have a divided Latvia with two, three, four different communities living separately. “This is my friend, Aleks. He’s a Russian,” is like bringing a black friend to a predominantly white church.

They even balance extremes—they include bizinismeny and hardcore Communists.

I wonder what “hardcore Communists” inside SC want. What does LSP want? Abolishment of private property? Closing of all businesses? I’d look in their program, but their web site hasn’t been updated in a while.

In another debate, you tried to suggest that programs don’t matter, just like you try to write off the presence of Rubiks. Well, the SC program is rather explicitly, if deviously, ethnocentric, splitting Latvia along linguistic lines.

You, Peteris, just split the party along the ethnic lines, so they obviously exist and you obviously know them and you obviously use them. You don’t see it as a Latvian party—you see as a Russian party, a pro-Russian party. You label it according to their stance, their nationality. Does it not split Latvia along linguistic lines?

Yes, I did suggest that program doesn’t matter because often it remains on the backburner as parties don’t deliver on their promises. The only reason I used the TP program is because you seem to suggest that one can judge by a party by its program.

To be really blunt—sorry, but Russophones have to do a lot more work to integrate. It’s not about meeting halfway. Belarus meets Russia halfway, and we refuse to do so.

Hang on a sec. Why invoke Russia? Russia uses Russophones here to get what it wants, meaning push the EU around on human rights. It doesn’t care about Russophones here because it knows full well that Russophones are better off in Latvia than they are in Russia. The resettlement program isn’t going to last very long, I suspect. I just remembered Zhirinovsky’s speech in the Duma when it ratified the border treaty. So let’s leave Russia out of it.

Yes, Russophones have to do some work, but has the Latvian government done everything it needed to do to welcome angry, bitter Russophones into their midst?

For the record, I’m not a supporter of SC. I told Peteris that who knows when the next election comes, I might vote for SC because they’ve been impressive as of late.

Two things I would “disagree” with Aleksej on. While its true that perception is reality, the occupation issue should be a nonstarter. It frankly doesn’t matter whether or not the average Russophone or Russian believes that the occupation happened or what the reasons are. There is a reason for everything under the sun. We can debate the technicalities until the blue cows come home and probably still not resolve a single thing. Ultimately, Latvia is a “Latvian” nation. From a Latvian perspective Latvia was most definitely occupied. To deny the occupation to me would be no different than your average Hoosier claiming that the Indians willingly entered into the Union of American States. Why else name a state Indiana? There might be a compling argument to prove it, but frankly I don’t see it doing that much good for either side.

Yes, Russophones have to do some work, but has the Latvian government done everything it needed to do to welcome angry, bitter Russophones into their midst?

The short answer is why should they? I wouldn’t expect the Latvian government to do everything it can to welcome angry, bitter Lettophones into their midst (the Garda’s et al) so why would anyone expect the same for the Russophones? I don’t think you build a center by pandering to the extremes. You build the center by pandering to the center.

Andrejs, the centrist half breed

Alekasejs et al.,

“First of all, the easy one. To Bruno the Lett—no one’s denying these facts. I think even among Russophone non-citizens no one’s denying these facts. “.

But the ” russian speaking” russians the occupants, are denying that Latvia was occupied, and claim that it voluntary, together with Estonia and Lithuania,  gave up its independence.  According to a friend of mine, I do not read russian,  the russian news media in Latvia agrees with Putin that Abrene, to you Pitalova, is Russias to keep, and it reflects the attide of latvian russians in general..  This is a good test about the occupation question.

By the way, do you agree with Putin that Abrene is rightly Russias to Keep ?  How about you Roberts the Misguided ?

Visu Labu,

Ultimately, Latvia is a “Latvian” nation. And therein lies the problem, if you mean ethnically Latvian. This statement, to me, underscores the denial that Latvia is a multi-cultural country. The Constitution says that the power in Latvia belongs to Latvian, er, Latvijas, people. It’s not based on ethnicity. Legally, Latvia is not a latviešu nation. Why separate people according to their nationality? We joked about it, remember. A token Russian? A token Jew? Why the hell should it matter if you carry the passport of Latvijas Republika?

To Bruno—honestly, I see no reason to rewrite the borders because it may set a bad precedent. Why wouldn’t Finland demand back Karelia? Why wouldn’t Poland demand back Western Belarus and Ukraine? The borders are the borders.

Also, I somewhat resent this statement, “To you, it’s Pytalovo!” It is called Pytalovo on any map printed anywhere in the world, except for maps printed in Latvia in the early 1990s. Why should, to me, it be Pytalovo? And to you, it’s Abrene? Also, if this is the test of what one thinks about occupation, I’m afraid our foreign minister Artis Pabriks failed it miserably because he wants to ratify the treaty with Russia, and then amend the local laws if the court rules against the treaty. Looks like he has given up on Pytalovo.

As far as Russian media goes, it’s inherently biased and I try to avoid like a plague. And I don’t think the media reflects the attitude of Latvia’s Russians. Russian media here—Russian journalism in general—is full of sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek comments. Does it mean that Russians themselves are sarcastic? Probably not.

If Russian media reflect the attitude of Russians here in general, which news outlet reflects the attitude of ethnic Latvians? Is it ubernationalist Latvijas Avize? Is it pro-Lembergs NRA? Or inherently anti-government Diena? You can’t judge an attitude of a national minority (or majority) by the attitude reflected in the newspapers, especially in Russian newspapers!

More scattered musings.

Well, the longer we continue to separate (or shall I use a more powerful word, segregate) people into nationalities, the longer we will have a divided Latvia with two, three, four different communities living separately.

Nationalities, or ethnicities? What is the difference here, if there is one? The two blur in some aspects but don’t in others, whether we sometimes get sloppy with them or not. For example, about a third of the ethnic Russians in Estonia have taken Russian citizenship. They’re Russian nationals. I think you can probably forget about integrating them, and this is an example of why I doubt that integration is further advanced in Estonia—in some aspects it is, in others it isn’t, and I can’t help but repeat that none of the ethnic/national groups in the Baltics are monolithic. I know I often generalize, but I do try not to lose sight of that fact. I don’t go out of my way to avoid generalizations in order to be politically correct.

What a lot of we are discussing boils down to is “what’s integration and/or assimilation, what’s multiculturalism, what’s multi- or bilingualism,” etc., and this gets quite complex. A melting pot we are not. I don’t think most here want a melting pot—because we still think in terms of the ethnic nation, and this applies to Russians and other minorities as well as Latvians. When VVF floated the idea that maybe we should call everybody here “Latvian” in the sense that everyone from France is “French,” whether they’re Arabs or Bretons or whatever, the outcry from Russians was at least as loud as that of the Letts. We’ve played with terms like latvijieši, but that hasn’t taken off. Even if it did take off, it would just be a euphemism for nelatvieši, non-Latvians, because Latvians obviously will continue to think of themselves as Latvians, which they are. So we have other terms, like Latvijas krievi, vietējie krievi, cittautieši, each with a resonance that is not always clear to the user/hearer.

Yes, the Latvian Constitution says that power is vested in “the people of Latvia” rather than “the Latvian people,” something I also never tire of pointing out. This was something Valters, intellectual revolutionary extraordinaire and one of the fathers of our nation-state, imported from the West—and Valters himself later took it back, by the way, because he didn’t think it worked… like many Letts, he thought the ideal failed in practice.

It’s hard to think clearly about what happened in the 1930s because of… well, because of what happened in the 1930s. All of the concepts we have to consider are loaded. If we talk about ethnicity, not a few people will immediately conjure up images of storm troopers and blood. If we talk about nationality, those images still come up for many—“nationalism” is a dirty word for most these days, and anybody not deluded or willfully blind realizes that nationalism is indeed almost always accompanied by ugliness. There’s a difference in degree, of course—no matter how hideous the Ulmanis régime was, it wasn’t murderous, and that matters a lot.

If I say “democracy failed,” I’d have to qualify that by saying that democracy was a difficult adolescent and may have grown up into a talented and hard-working adult had it not been destroyed. I’m not trying to rekindle the wearisome “was the Vadonis good or bad” debate—I’m trying to suggest that we look at some of the problems without the view being blocked by Ulmanis, Stalin, Hitler, and their broad-shouldered minions.

The Republic of Latvia is the result of complex forces, one of the primary ones being self-determination for the Latvian people. At heart, that’s the Latvian cause and not necessarily the cause of the people of Latvia. Many non-Latvians joined this cause. As John put it over at s.c.b.—without Latvians, there wouldn’t be a Latvia. This is as true today as it was in 1918—even in a fantasy world in which all of the Russkies yearned for a democracy, there would be no reason at all for many of them to work for Latvian democracy. They could just work on a USSR “with a human face.” Many trusted the Latvians, however, and joined them on the barricades. After all, they knew how civilized Letts are, Latvia having had a short but exceedingly meaningful experience of democracy, and—as even the popa admits—there’s really not much painful division here at a social level. As many have suggested, this isn’t the former Yugoslavia because we get along quite well—Ushakov also points to the exogamy.

One of the things politicians I will never vote for tend to emphasize is their idea that the separation between Latvians and Russians (or Russophones and Lettophones) is therefore artificial. LPP started a Russian division in which Gavrilov, the former beer salesman, says exactly that. This is quite a common concept even among many Latvians—hey, we all get along, few of us mind switching to Russian, so davai. That nasty, distant political elite ensconced in the Saeima is the only obstacle to friendship between peoples!

[To be continued…]

While I have a moment to spare….

What a lot of we are discussing boils down to is “what’s integration and/or assimilation, what’s multiculturalism, what’s multi- or bilingualism,” etc., and this gets quite complex.

Exactly right. And if a small country like Latvia with its population of 2.3 million people cannot integrate/assimilate all of them into one society, what’s there a hope for the 27-nation European Union? I realize we’re not discussing EU here, but issues remain somewhat similar. In a way, Latvian residents have a two-tier assimilation—on one hand, Russians and Latvians here, but on the other hand, both Russians and Latvians into the united Europe with all its multi-nation, multi-ethnic groupings.

If the idea of united Latvia where you’re a Latvian regardless of your ethnicity and nationality is an idealist piped dream, then I suggest to you that an idea of united Europe for the sake of peace is nothing but a piped dream of some heavily drug-induced Frenchman. If we can’t muster unity here, we certainly can’t muster it in Europe. I suspect once we get a flood of people different than us, say Arabs, blacks, etc., it’ll be a whole another integration.

Just one thought on the subject. Sorry.

You label it according to their stance, their nationality.

Yes, absolutely. I think you really mean “ethnicity” here—but I also think this is something of a Freudian slip. To try to put it simply, if you are trying to say that I am suspicious of SC because they’re “Russian,” yes I am—but it’s a matter of stance and nationality (as opposed to ethnicity), not “fcuking Ivan, he’d better prove to me that he’s a real Latvian by glorifying Legionnaires or trying to reclaim Pytalovo!”

It’s an old adage that racists say “some of my best friends are blacks” and ‘I’m not a racist”—upon analysis, they tend to misunderstand what racism is. Personally, I have Russian chauvinist friends (they’re a kopeck a dozen here in Dvinsk) and I won’t try to tell you that I’m not a Russophobe, not in this context. But stance is very different from ethnicity in this sense—I can get along quite well with somebody who has drastically different political views, and whether that person’s a Russian, a Jew, or an Udmurt really doesn’t matter much to me. I assume, though, that a Russian is likely to disagree with my views—sure, because that comes of experience. So I stereotype. I think we all do. I hope, however, that I listen to somebody telling me that he’s concerned about his child’s education—I judge whether that concern is genuine or not, sure, because I know it is sometimes not, again through experience. I have heard again and again the line “I love Latvian” from Russophones—but I’ve often heard it from Russophones who can’t speak Latvian. It often differs little from the “let them jump over their bonfires in their pretty peasant culture, doesn’t bother me, who has Pushkin” philosophy, a philosophy even Zhirinovsky espouses.

In my experience, most Lettophones are quite welcoming to those Russophones who’ve learned Latvian and have some sympathy for the Latvian cause. Okay, there are some people who won’t like a Russian no matter what he or she does, because of the accent or because he or she just doesn’t think the Legion was as glorious as the Red Army. Tough—but not nearly as tough as skin color among racists. you can’t change your skin color. You can learn the language of the people around you. Human nature on both sides—a lot of Latvians are used to the fact that most Russians don’t speak Latvian, and most Latvians know Russian. Then there’s half a century of being told to speak Russian (or “speak human”). Then there’s just a fact of life—Russian big, Latvian small.

Since we agreed that Stalin’s crimes are not as known in the West as Hitler’s are—though I would say they’re merely not as notorious—let’s look at dirty “nationalism” again to ask how dirty “internationalism” is. I’m intentionally using phrases like “friendship between peoples” now and then because they stink of what Soviet internationalism was. According to Putin and many a Russian in Latvia, everything was fine as far as “nationalities” went. This why Shtab stole the “my mother tongue” song by the Līvi—hey, even under the Soviets, Letts got to study in Latvian, and now the Letts would deprive us of education in our native language.

It’s a point, in some ways a valid point—except that language doesn’t work that way, and again you have to see this from various perspectives and notice different layers. A main point for Latvians was that Latvian was dying. If you put ten Letts in a room and a Russian walked in, the lingua franca turned to Russian. This was called “politesse.” Is that what it was?

You say you’re not an SC guy, and okay, but yet you say you’d be happy if SC joined the Govt. and that this might increase naturalization. But why is naturalization desirable in of itself? Answer—because we’ll have less people in limbo and Russia will be less likely to get the West to join the whining chorus about “apartheid.” In reality, though—what’s happening with naturalization? We’re adding people who do not share our vision to the voters’ rolls. And don’t tell me that the vision is a narrow one based on one interpretation of history, etc. That’s just not true—I know a lot of patriots of differing ethnic backgrounds who interpret history very differently.

What’s the SC program? Hand out passports to those over 55 and those “born in Latvia” for free and without them knowing Latvian, make sure all Latvians learn Russian, let schools (with parents and boards and councils) decide to opt out of education reform, recognize the Latgallian dialect as a language, welcome Russophone immigrants from Belarus, do not build the National Library (and this before the current economic crisis), give non-citizens the vote in local elections, “legalize the existing situation in Daugavpils and Rēzekne,” etc.

Get real, I say—what all of this adds up to is a more Russian Latvia. And well I agree that these are not the worst guys—like I said, Ushakov is somebody many could work with. Personally, I think putting him in a debate with Dobelis proved that Latvian far-right “nationalists” need psychiatric care and Ushakov is a pretty reasonable dude.

Still, if you gave me two choices, TB/LNNK ir SC—guess which I’d choose? Would you put that past me? If TB has Dobelis, SC has Rubiks. It’s actually the very reasonableness of SC that most disturbs me, unfortunately. It tries to gloss over basic facts, and I won’t go for it. This is not so simple—though Ushakov evades answering “was Latvia occupied” point blank, he does say incorporation was violent and unconstitutional. So Bruno’s complaint would seem to be out the window. Even Ushakov is not claiming that it was “voluntary.”

[To be continued, heh…]

You wrote that “This is my friend, Aleks. He’s a Russian,” is like bringing a black friend to a predominantly white church. I can’t even comment upon that, Aleks. I’ve done that as a joke with you,  and I don’t think I’ve introduced you to anybody who bore any ill will toward you for being Russian.

The metaphor fails. I’ve often quoted Dreifelds re every ethnicity/community in Latvia feeling like a minority,and I think that’s true—but ask Andrejs, a Latvian Jew in America who is an Israeli citizen—he once said, and I quote, “Russians aren’t a minority,” meaning the same thing.

So who’s the “black” here? Even now, here in the apartheid state practicing Fascist coercive assimilation on every corner, more people speak Russian than speak Latvian. My Russian sucks shit—but I shop in Russian! Is that politesse?

To his credit, Ushakov says everyone must learn Latvian. But let me tell you a story. Someone here proposed that Dvinsk be made officially bilingual. This was cheered by the attendant geriatric crowd. Someone rose and said yes, but being bilingual would still mean that you ought to learn Latvian. Do I have to tell you about the suddenly sour faces?

Almost all Russians in Latvia agree that they ought to learn Latvian—great! See it in practice, though. Again—who’s the “black”?

The “internationalist” would say it doesn’t matter—Rubiks of SC said he can’t imagine a day when the citizens of Rīga shan’t know Russian. But you see it does matter—most Latvians think Latvian should be the sole official language, most Russians think Russian should be a second official language.

The status of the language was and is important to most Latvians—the name of the country isn’t Indiana, it’s still full of Latvians, and most still speak the indigenous tongue. We’ve had huge experience of what faux bilingualism means, have we not?

I draw red lines, and I think my red lines are reasonable. Ushakov says that he thinks the division of the people here into citizens and non-citizens was the biggest mistake Latvia ever made. I think rebuilding Latvia is based upon the idea of a citizenship, which as you well know had nothing to do with ethnicity. Pabriks, back when he was a relative unknown participating in fora, said that if it hadn’t been done—we wouldn’t be where we are. I strongly agree. Look at the EU referendum. Though not along ethnic lines, it was rather a watershed—even in Latgallia, most Russians and the Russified were against, most Latvians for. Latgallia was against, as a whole.

You write that you wonder about genocide because Russians were also deported and killed—look, first of all, the Nazis killed maybe 30 000 Latvians, but that doesn’t keep us from talking about the Nazi genocide against the Jews of Latvia. What was the proportion of Latvians vs. Russians vs. Jews in the deportations? Answer—not so many Russians were deported, even as a percentage of the Russian community. Jews more than Latvians. This can be explained in the way you suggest—the Soviets went after the rich, the powerful, and the anti-Soviet.

Almost all of the people murdered here were Latvian citizens, whether Latvian or Russian or Jewish or whatever. So again you are dividing nationality and ethnicity in a very strange way? Wherefore, how and why? Shouldn’t part of the point be that Latvia even as a dictatorship didn’t snuff anybody? That many of the Russians killed were major participants in the Latvian state?

Again self-determination—Latvian and Lithuanian Jews were instrumental to Israel, beyond their numbers. The basis of Israel is born of the same ideas, if you take the long view. A minority with interests became a nation with a nation-state, and Latvia put no obstacle in the way—quite the opposite.

Vysu lobu,
/P

While I have another minute to spare…

You say you’re not an SC guy, and okay, but yet you say you’d be happy if SC joined the Govt. and that this might increase naturalization. But why is naturalization desirable in of itself? Answer—because we’ll have less people in limbo and Russia will be less likely to get the West to join the whining chorus about “apartheid.” In reality, though—what’s happening with naturalization? We’re adding people who do not share our vision to the voters’ rolls. And don’t tell me that the vision is a narrow one based on one interpretation of history, etc. That’s just not true—I know a lot of patriots of differing ethnic backgrounds who interpret history very differently.

I’ve mentioned it earlier—there’s no way to test if a newly naturalized citizen shares in Latvian vision and in the Latvian cause. You can test their history knowledge and if they studied history specifically for this test, they’ll pass it with flying colors. They’ll tell you that the Soviets occupied Latvia in 1940. And again in 1944. They know all this stuff. However, much like studying all night to pass an exam, once the exam is over, so is the knowledge. So out come new Latvian citizens who do not share in the Latvian cause, who believe that Latvian ruling elite is against them, don’t like them, or don’t care too much for them.

Why then naturalize? Like it or not, Latvia is still under international pressure to speed up the naturalization process, to solve this non-citizen problem. The EU has already allowed non-citizens to have almost as equal rights in their mobility within the Union as Latvian citizens. Even though the laws have passed the international mustard, the pressure will remain there. And Russia will use it to its advantage, of course.

Look, I’m not saying that I subscribe to these ideas—I’m just trying to explain. I don’t see myself belonging to any other country, other than Latvia. It’s my home – and by the way – am trying to improve on my Latvian by reading more poetry as you recommended. And rarely now, I find a Latvian who switches to Russian because of the Loskutovs accent.

“fcuking Ivan, he’d better prove to me that he’s a real Latvian by glorifying Legionnaires or trying to reclaim Pytalovo!”

I think that was Bruno the Lett’s test, no?

I’m intentionally using phrases like “friendship between peoples” now and then because they stink of what Soviet internationalism was. According to Putin and many a Russian in Latvia, everything was fine as far as “nationalities” went.

Absolutely. It comes from the lack of exposure and international intermingling, i.e. having friends who are of other persuasion. I mean, you and I, it seems, make friends with people who think differently than we are. I like that because I always want to take a look at the world from another point of view. I mean, this is why I joined SCB and this is why I’m on here too. Other people are not like me. They are naturally drawn to people who share their values, and their language. So if a Russophone looks at the Soviet past and sees state-funded Latvian schools, song festivals every so often in Mezaparks, Latvian culture, he thinks those people had it good. But what he doesn’t realize that experts suggested in the 1980s that Latvian would disappear. That it was a dying language.

I’m not trying to justify it, but rather explain it.

No more until tonight.

Just putting in my two-cents (CAD) worth:

... a lot of Latvians are used to the fact that most Russians don’t speak Latvian, and most Latvians know Russian. Then there’s half a century of being told to speak Russian (or “speak human”).

This sounds so ... “Canadian”. For many years, the Québecois were told to “speak white!”

If you put ten Letts in a room and a Russian walked in, the lingua franca turned to Russian.

That too sounds too familiar - I lived through similar circumstances many times working for the Canadian government in Ottawa. Although I suspect that under occupation this must have had a lot more sting. Another related anectdote - I once wrote a 20-page technical report in English, with a covering memo written in French. One anglophone, who was collecting his “bilingual bonus” by the way, sent back a tersely-worded memo saying he wanted an English version of the report, i.e., he hadn’t even bothered to turn over the memo.

Pierre