I would appreciate your response to my post if it wasn’t so full of distortions and just crap. It seems thoughtful on the surface but jeez you just miss the whole boat about what I’m saying about “writing Latvian history.” Where to begin when what you’ve written has given me a migraine.

What is your agenda?  I just don’t see the your so-called Leitmotiv except as constant derision of things Latvian, finding the failure or the error, and feeling obligated to dwell on it out without giving the mitigating context.  A prime example is not fairly portraying Ulmanis as your former Latvian President with hardly the worst mortal failings of a head of state in a world of grotesque dictators such as Hitler and Stalin, but choosing instead to constantly advance your personal agenda of Ulmanis loathing.  Seeing Ulmanis through your hysterically limited view is not “writing Latvian history.” It’s like not having a perspective on Jefferson’s “shocking slaveholding,” Roosevelt’s “betrayal of Latvia,” and Kennedy’s “adulterous womanizing.” Most thoughtful people don’t unconditionally, blindly embrace any political leader.  We are forced to reconcile their flaws of greater or lesser magnitude.  Imagine if you had to to live with George Bush as your president, or even far worse, Vlad the Mad Putin, as your vadonis. Maybe it’s time to be really “way-futuristic,” beyond your attachment to any Vadonis-driven “multiculturalism” and “internationalism,” to embrace the “really radical” wisdom of “matriarchalism” and “nature reverence” (I hate to use the tainted word “paganism"). At the risk of really infuriating “real” conservative Latvians, maybe it’s time to clean the Latvian churches, temples, and golden domes of hypocrisy, discrimination, and using (any) god’s name to promote hatred.  Maybe the underlying problem for the whole concept-gone-wrong of “head of state,” “head of church” is the outdated “male head of family” notion.  Hierarchy in the home builds hierarchy in the church and state.  I have no illusions about the next batch of puffing, pontificating Vadoni so Ulmanis doesn’t hold my attention.  If you think yourself to be so “progressive,” why does your imagination and ancient history knowledge seem to fail you in thinking of a truly better world, one without false leaders and false gods.  The ancient Balts were matriarchal and nature-respecting.  Maybe it’s time for more women and fewer men like Bush, Putin, and Sarkozy, a delusionally ugly man who thinks his French charm alone won his Belle de Jour.  Unfortunately, women alone are not the answer, although I certainly am voting for stand-by-your-man Hillary Clinton, since moving forward to that truly cooperative, peace-loving, Vadoni-free world can only be done in baby steps when men like you dwell on life one vadonis at a time. 

Ivars Graudins did an excellent job of giving the speed-reading overview of Latvian history leading to the circumstances Latvia found itself in before WWII with Ulmanis at the helm of the ship of state.  Of course, Ulmanis alone did not save or destroy Latvia.  Graudins version of “Latvian history” is definitely on the right track of what Norman Davies is saying all nation’s write about themselves rather than your naked Ulmanis expose.  I don’t think Norman Davies looks to Howard Zinn’s “The People’s History of the United States.” It’s not the personal anecdotes of Legionnaires that conveys the important history of Latvia’s soldiers under German occupation.  The Vietnam War was a U.S. national tragedy but a greater tragedy was abandoning the U.S. soldiers who fought in a war that the U.S. “vadoni” led them to and the American nation “supported.” I hate war, don’t believe in solving conflicts by fighting wars, but if you ask your people to fight, then you don’t abandon them to your enemies history, like the Latvian nation has abandoned the Latvian Legionnaires to a German-occupier identity and Russian-propaganda name-calling and insults.  Not writing this history for the Latvian people and historians like Norman Davies is a cowardly blot on the Latvian nation. 

At this point, one needs to decide whether the existence of more-or-less ethnic Latvians in this big world is important to support, whether the Latvian language as a viable language and the spoken state language of Latvia is important to support, and whether the Latvian culture is worth preserving and affirmatively promoting as the dominant culture in Latvia. My politics in the U.S. can afford to be free and unrestrained.  I can afford to experiment and be immature.  America won’t be harmed by my personal indulgence.  My politics in Latvia factor in the survival of the Latvian people, the Latvian language, and the Latvian culture.  The damage to Latvia and the Latvians during the half-century, multi-generational Soviet/Russian occupation can never be compensated.  It’s self-respect that demands admission of the moral wrong.  The interuption to a Latvian way of life, to a Latvian growth and progress may be fatal.  The deformation to the Latvian sense of self, to the valuing of the Latvian language, to the pride in the beauty of the Latvian culture, to the cherishing of the wisdom of the matriarchal dainas, to the beautiful Latvian environment - may just be too severe to undo.  Latvians have to believe in the world value of Latvians and Latvia, to be emotionally attached to Latvia and proud to be Latvian, like the French, Germans, and Russians.  Otherwise, there really is no reason for this tiny state and minor culture and barely-spoken language to survive if not for its own need.  The world won’t really miss Latvia but Latvians probably will when it’s too late.  Russia and Russians can hardly wait to have more space in which to live as Russians and speak their beloved Russian.

Peteris Cedrins - 05 February 2008 03:40 AM

I’m thinking of putting some of these “endorsements” in the corner of my blog—like “__ says Pēteris likes to quote inbred retarded neocons!” “__—Politruk!” “Anti-Lithuanian jihadista!” “__—Latvian Nazi!” “Pinko Petey—Kremlin agent!” ...so—many thanks, Ambersunīt, for revealing my latest sinister agenda! 

Dont forget “Scourge of misandrists” or more appropriate to this rather funny exchange, Peteris is the “chum widely scattered to feed the voracious collective guilt”.

Vidas

So anyway, did everybody donate to your latvian education establishment of choice?  If not, at least buy some non-banned books from Kristine Stivrina so the money can go to camp Saulaine.

Just one question: have you ever been to Latvia, ambersun?

Aleksej,
Are you serious or just trying to be sarcastic?  I realize you probably haven’t paid close attention to what I’ve written except as it has served your unfortunate, incorrect assumptions about who I am. Anyway, sorry that you missed the part where I first traveled to Soviet Latvia way back in 1972 (before you were born) and met my relatives for the very first time, including the Russian ones.  I have lived in free Latvia for months at a time in the last couple of years and intend to return to live in Latvia this summer.  Why?

Sveiki!

Ambersun wrote: “I have lived in free Latvia for months at a time in the last couple of years and intend to return to live in Latvia this summer. “

It’s great to hear that you’re moving to Latvia, and I, for one, would love to hear your impressions after you’ve lived there for a year or so, and how your convictions have changed or have been reinforced through your experiences in the quotidian life.

Laimīgi! : )

Elizabete

Ivars Graudiņš’s “radar like sympathies” once again lead him to Vadonis-knows-where. Pēteris chose to leave out —what? The relevant phrases were clearly linked to the full text, and people may judge for themselves how honest the memoir is.  Perhaps he could have identified which books we should read that support his claims. How many times would you like me to repeat it? I would think that people interested in a serious discussion about Ulmanis would get Dunsdorfs’ monumental biography of Ulmanis, in which there is an entire section entitled “Diktators,” wherein censorship and authoritarian ideology—and my claim regarding Draudzīgais aicinājums—is discussed. Or is Dunsdorfs “Red” or “Far Left” also? It is you, Ivar, who home in on whatever is “Red.” If you go back through this thread, you will find that I also link to Treijs. I will repeat the quote for you:

Vēstures avotu par cenzūru, tās darbības formām un metodēm Latvijā autoritārā režīma laikā (daļēji tas attiecas arī uz iepriekšējo periodu) ir maz. Tā kā presei šī tēma no 1934. līdz 1940.gadam saprotamu iemeslu dēļ bija absolūts tabu, zināmu ieskatu, tā teikt, cenzūras virtuvē, sniedz vienīgi Latvijas Valsts vēstures arhīva materiāli, kuri tomēr ir fragmentāri.

Dr. hab. Rihards Treijs, “Pie saknēm”

If you follow that link, you will find a few rich details, like these:

Preses un biedrību departamentā 30.gadu beigās strādāja ap 50 cilvēku, preses nodaļā - ap 15. Cenzoru - vecāko, parasto cenzoru un jaunāko - bija ap 10 - 12 ar atalgojumu Ls 70 - 145 mēnesī (tehnisko darbinieku alga - Ls 40, departamenta direktora - Ls 290). Viņi strādāja rīta laikrakstu redakcijās no pulksten 20 - 24, vakara laikrakstu redakcijās - no pulksten 8.30 - 12. Jāpiebilst, ka žurnālisti ar vārdu departamentā, nemaz nerunājot par cenzūru, nestrādāja. Tie bija tipiski iekārtai uzticami ierēdņi.

Charming, no? Or is Dr. hab. Treijs also a “Red”?

The point of the first phrases I cited ought to be obvious—looking to the Ulmanis era, and to many of those who emerged from it, one will learn few negatives about the regime; that’s because the regime controlled information.

With regard to Preses karalis, you might bring your reading up to date by a few decades and get the historian Laima Muktupāvela’s novel about the “Preses karaliene”:

Visvairāk nostiprinājies mīts par laimīgajiem Ulmaņlaikiem un gādīgo, stingro tautas vadoni. Dzirdu, kā rakstniece noskurinās pie sava telefona: «Par 30. gadiem un Kārli Ulmani man nav nekādu rozā briļļu. Viņš savu bija izdarījis 1905. un 1918. gadā, sevišķi pēdējā, kad būtībā tika atstāts vienatnē. Cepuri nost! Bet 30. gadu vidū, kad izdomāja kļūt par vadoni… Tas ir murgs! Kādā brīdī Ulmanis Benjamiņam saka: «Es esmu Latvija!», uz ko vecais kungs viņam ļoti pamatoti atjautā: «Un kas notiek, ja tevis nav?»

Latvijas Avīze

A debate from a prominent vēstkopa that el Subcommandante [sic] (surely a Red) has been kind enough to preserve at his site is worth reading.

Tomēr arī negribu piekrist apgalvojumiem par tautas vairākuma piekrišanu. Tāda vienkārši netika prasīta. Atkārtoju to vēl un vēlreiz. Arī par tautas mīlestību grūti runāt. Mīlestība bez izvēles, mīlestība spaidu kārtā caur vārda, pulcēšanās brīvības apspiešanu, mīlestība ar politpārvaldi, mīlestība ar regulāru smadzeņu skalošanu – vai to Jūs vēlaties saukt par mīlestību? Man uz mēles ir cits vārds šīs mīlestības apzīmēšanai. Protams, ka vispārējā valsts situācija Ulmaņlaikos joprojām atgādina brīniškīgu idilli – nekādu problēmu, nekādas netīrās veļas mazgāšana prese [sic] un valdīšanā. Tikai vienprātība, skaisti vārdi, vienojoši svētki un gaiša saule Vadoņa izskatā.

Jons Plunts

Vysu lobu,
/P

Ambersun—sorry, but you are making less and less sense.

A prime example is not fairly portraying Ulmanis as your former Latvian President with hardly the worst mortal failings of a head of state

He’s not my former President—he illegally usurped that post after Kviesis’ term expired. He was, in other words, a dictator who styled himself President. So let’s try that variation. My former dictator wasn’t the worst dictator?  Well, gee—I’d have to agree. So, by this logic, if the Latvian economy is screwy, I should incessantly compare it to Moldova’s? How very Russian of you, Ambersun! This is exactly what the Lucas book brings up with regard to what I call tu quoque in my review—whenever you talk about the genocide of indigenous Siberian peoples, for example, your typical Kremlin apologist will point to the fate of Native Americans. It strikes me as fantastically silly to say “he may have been a dictator oops I mean authoritarian leader but when compared to Hitler or Stalin” every time one discusses his dictatorship. Couldn’t you compare Latvia to slightly more pleasant countries, like Finland or even Estonia, or try—at least occasionally—to focus on Latvia without drawing comparisons to the bloodthirsty lielvalstis next door? As to Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Dubya—they happened to be elected, and they did not suspend the Constitution or work as hard as Ulmanis did to extinguish every freedom they could find a-flickerin’.

beyond your attachment to any Vadonis-driven “multiculturalism” and “internationalism,”

This is what I mean by making less sense—this is downright bizarre. Though I still have to figure out how you use quotation marks—how is “multiculturalism” “Vadonis-driven"… or “masculine”? If you mean Soviet “friendship between peoples,” which I’ve castigated numerous times, say so—and by the way also look at it a little more, because it ain’t that simple. But “multiculturalism” takes many, drastically different forms, and it was not “Vadonis-driven” at all in democratic Latvia; in fact, quite the opposite. It was Ulmanis as dictator who devoted himself (and yes himself—backsteps like “Ulmanis alone did not save or destroy Latvia” don’t really work because “Ulmanis was Latvia” and the slightest dissent was not tolerated—see correspondence with his close friend Valters after Valters realized that Ulmanis was taking Latvia to its grave) to squeezing the minorities, which according to Dunsdorfs had the opposite effect from that which one would desire and was perhaps rooted in Ulmanis’ own experiences under Czarist oppression.

How very irrational and rather Russian of you, Ambersun—this “ours.” Nashi! Quite a long time ago now, election posters in that dread empire to the east took lots of heads to suggest continuity—you know, Stalin, Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Putin. all nation’s [sic] write about themselves ? Oh but they do—it’s just that some of their leaders employ censors. Read some “Red” things—Cielēns or Kalniņš… both returned to Latvia when Ulmanis failed to stay in his place, and just like the gentleman I quoted to Ivars’ chagrin… they failed to see the impending tragedy. Worse, they saw the Ulmanis dictatorship as a tragedy, too.

But your sense of “ours” is not my sense of “ours,” Ambersun. one needs to decide whether the existence of more-or-less ethnic Latvians in this big world is important to support —my answer would actually be an emphatic no it is not. My beloved former President VVF said pretty much the same thing—drop the blood stuff; the cultural aureols is another thing. Latvia belongs to the people of Latvia, not Latvians, and I will never tire of repeating that. That’s the basis of this Republic, which was eminently, obviously and deeply multicultural, sans quotes—of necessity but also ideally, and I think the Republic of Latvia is a lot more important than feeding tribal gļuki.

Ivars Graudins did an excellent job of giving the speed-reading overview of Latvian history leading to the circumstances Latvia found itself in before WWII with Ulmanis at the helm of the ship of state.

No, he didn’t—not in my view. I would also recommend reading a bit about the accomplishments of Latvian democracy, like in Bastjānis’ books. As to the reasons why Kārlis took power—Ivars merely repeats Ulmanist propaganda, which is to my mind baseless.

But if one were to boil your sentiments down, Ambersun, I think the potion would be undrinkable—what you really seem to be saying is resolutely tribal and reminds one of the worst excesses of the Spanish Inquisition I mean of any half-baked ethnocracy not worth iodized salt. Ra ra Lettistan, ‘cause we’s Lettish! Don’t matter if Ulmanis did this or this, ‘cause he was a patriot and stoked blinkered nationalism! Let’s all gather for great choral karaoke!

Vysu lobu,
/P

One more comment on what Ambersun wrote, if I may.

My politics in the U.S. can afford to be free and unrestrained.  I can afford to experiment and be immature.  America won’t be harmed by my personal indulgence.  My politics in Latvia factor in the survival of the Latvian people, the Latvian language, and the Latvian culture.

What you are actually doing is opposing freedom to tribal survival, and you seem to assume that oppression is good for Latvia and Latvians, just as you assume that Ulmanis’ abrogation of freedom was somehow necessary or healthy.

This just doesn’t work, and Latvians have already voted—especially with their feet.

/P

ambersun - 05 February 2008 11:04 PM

Aleksej,
Are you serious or just trying to be sarcastic?  I realize you probably haven’t paid close attention to what I’ve written except as it has served your unfortunate, incorrect assumptions about who I am. Anyway, sorry that you missed the part where I first traveled to Soviet Latvia way back in 1972 (before you were born) and met my relatives for the very first time, including the Russian ones.  I have lived in free Latvia for months at a time in the last couple of years and intend to return to live in Latvia this summer.  Why?

Sorry, ambersun. Not much time left today to respond extensively to your original posts. So, I’ll put my answer succinctly.

Your ideas of Latvia is more of an academic exercise, which has nothing to do with reality on the ground. Certain realities ought to considered when talking about Latvia’s future, past and present. One such reality is that Latvia is a member of the European Union, a country that no longer can and should support any notion of Latvia for Latvians (Latvija latviešiem). The EU laws call for recognition and protection of national minorities and that goes for the local Russians as well.

This is why I asked the question that I did.

On another note, your comments could really upset someone like me, this time as a Russian, so much so that they would have destroyed any desire of learning Latvian or being close the country where my ancestors lived for generations because regardless of what I will do, this will always be a country where the titular nation takes the priority of this government and I – or at least the Russian me – will always feel like a guest, as if I don’t belong here.

I bet no new immigrant no matter whence he came feels the same way when they naturalize in the United States.

Rereading the whole thread, I would like to award the Order of a Million Stars to Ivars.

Democracy is nice to have when you don’t have the forces working against you.

That’s just brill.

/P

I’ve been thinking about what Aleks said in one of his posts: “I don’t understand the glorification of that regime by people who put on rose-colored glasses when it comes to Ulmanis.” And I recall, Lauris, saying that many people had/have many different opinions of Ulmanis.  That may be, perhaps I wasn’t paying much attention, being more concerned with my social life at the time.  But strictly from my own personal experiences, I have come across mainly two distinct and diametrically opposed camps--either pro or con Ulmanis (mostly the former) with each usually going beserk at each other to the point where no reasonable diaglogue could ensue, be had.  That’s why I’ve welcomed this thread (and I know, I know, --I really should take the initiative, get out there, get some books, read...).  It shouldn’t come as some great revelation, people erupting over politics, how emotional they (I) can become.  But, it did hit home especially this week during the up and coming presidential elections, when suddenly I found people of the same family/friends not speaking to each other anymore.  So, it seems with the subject of Ulmanis--a hotbed of contention, emotions.

As I related before my mother’s recollections of that period were good ones, albeit she was quite young at the time.  She recalls being particularly impressed with one of Ulmanis’ speeches, where he said something to the effect of all people, regardless of ethnicity, belonging, being an important, integral part of Latvia; this was something that has always stayed with her, especially because she is not considered a quote, “ethnic” Latvian.  She also spoke about young people coming together, planting trees (an earth/arbor day?), making an effort to spruce up their homes, plant flowers to beautify the countryside, surroundings.  It sounds as if people had a sense of pride, order after so many years of chaos.  In essence, people prospered, life was good until tragedy struck, obliterating everything which once was good.  So, it’s no wonder that people would want to cherish these times, hold on to them as something sacred and God forbid those who would try and trample on this sacred ground.  That’s the emotional, sentimental aspect.  But I think what it really boils down to is that old adage of hey, “it’s the economy stuipid”!  And that many then as now were more concerned with their own daily lives, having a chicken in every pot, rather than with government, politics, realpolitk. Whether rightly or wrongly people often associate the good times or bad times with whoever happens to be in power, behind the helm at the time.  And then there’s this concept of “order” which sticks in my mind, sounds so German-like, but IMO, order, structure in people’s lives are very important, whether or not they deny it or are not consciously cognizant of it, especially after turmoil, chaos. 

These recollections are purely anecdotal of course, not something from history books; and not to diminish the importance of books, but sometimes learning from people who actually lived during a certain time period can be more insightful,give you more of a flavor of those times, than reading about a lot of events,followed by dates, followed by more events, dates,etc. which can become a meaningless jumble after a while.  I should also add, to be fair, not one-sided, that at one point, my grandmother fervently urged my grandfather to change his politcal affililiation--he was a social democrat and she was afraid that that might not go over too well with the current administration. 

That said and done, I hope that people will be more interested in finding out the truth, even if it isn’t always pleasant, doesn’t fit in with how they think/wish things to be.

Irena

Aleksejs attempts to consider his perceptions of reality:

Aleksejs - 06 February 2008 08:40 AM

Certain realities ought to considered when talking about Latvia’s future, past and present. One such reality is that Latvia is a member of the European Union, a country that no longer can and should support any notion of Latvia for Latvians (Latvija latviešiem). The EU laws call for recognition and protection of national minorities and that goes for the local Russians as well.

These “realities” which are invoked when speaking of Latvia’s “Future, past and present” are indeed fantastic creatures conjured by Alex’s serpentine percipience.  “Latvia for Latvians” is a notion that should no longer be supported?  Bollocks.  After all of the suffering inflicted upon the Latvian people, the purges, the genocide, the Russification—after all of that, for someone to suggest that the restoration and rehabilitation of Latvian language and culture should not be supported by the people and the government of Latvia is absolute horseshit.  The restoration of Latvian independence is an accomplished fact.  The surrender of sovereignty to an occidental dominion notwithstanding, the Latvian culture is free to grow again, as the Latvian people are now once again masters of their own homeland.  The bureaucrats of Brussels may well call for motions to recognize “minorities,” but there are limits.  Those folks who do not wish to make allegiance to the Latvian state really can’t be considered a minority.  Non-citizens aren’t really a minority, they are an ethnic group.  “Protections” of such an order really should not apply to migrants and squatters.

Let’s put this into more pragmatic terms, shall we?  Under the Occupation, the Soviet Union was a signatory to such documents as the UN Fundamental Declaration of Human Rights and the Helsinki Accords, which, among other things, ostensibly provided the Latvian people with human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief and equal rights and self-determination.  We all know how well that arrangement worked out.  Let’s just say, Aleksej, that the shoe is on the other foot now.  This is a “future, past and present” reality of Latvia that you should most carefully consider.  The Latvian people with alacrity and due diligence will certainly give your minority status the “recognition” and “protection” it so richly deserves, Aleksej.

As for the rest of your reply to darling Sunny Bernstein:

Aleksejs - 06 February 2008 08:40 AM

On another note, your comments could really upset someone like me, this time as a Russian, so much so that they would have destroyed any desire of learning Latvian or being close the country where my ancestors lived for generations because regardless of what I will do, this will always be a country where the titular nation takes the priority of this government and I – or at least the Russian me – will always feel like a guest, as if I don’t belong here.

I bet no new immigrant no matter whence he came feels the same way when they naturalize in the United States.

Again with the comparisons to the US of A.  You love it when it suits you, then you hate it.  But first—this revulsion you have against learning the Latvian language and adapting to its culture.  WTF?!  If you have no desire to learn the language or “being close to the country,” what are you still doing there?  Is it really that difficult to get an exit visa and go someplace you might feel more at home, more welcome?  It might be a matter of complacency.  Like a slacker, you are too darn comfortable where you are at.  You complain you are made to feel like a guest, but your “hosts” aren’t exactly making you pack your things and taking you to the bus station, are they?  What are you doing besides living in a home and showing contempt for the homeowner? 

When new immigrants come to “naturalize” in the United States, they work hard to be productive members of society, to learn the language, to learn about its history and culture, to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic and its ideals.  It’s too bad that non-citizens, migrants and squatters do not show the same regard or respect for the Latvian republic.  If they did, maybe they would feel a little more welcome.

You seem to be having some tough luck with countries there, Aleksej.  America is certainly not to your liking, and you don’t feel like you belong in Latvia.  Maybe the West just isn’t for you.  If you like being close to Europe, Kaliningrad or Minsk might be the place.  Also, there is always the welcoming arms of the Rodina.

/R

It sounds as if people had a sense of pride, order after so many years of chaos.

Irena, that is exactly what most Russians say about their brief, flawed democracy—i.e., they blame Yeltsin for chaos and poverty, and they praise Putin for “restoring order” and putting a chicken in every pot. (As if the putrid command economy under seventy-odd years of Bolshevism had nothing to do with economic collapse and as though high prices for oil have nothing to do with the freshly sprouted skyscrapers in Moscow now.) Further—this is exactly what “the people loved” about Hitler and Mussolini, isn’t it? And this is, at least in Russia’s case, a myth.

It’s the Ulmanist myth also—and as in Russia’s case, it’s a regime-fed, propaganda-fueled myth. One of the differences is that Latvians were a lot more successful with their democracy prior to the coup. The Great Depression was nasty, but it wasn’t Latvia’s, Latvians’ or democracy’s fault, and Ulmanis did not cure it; the economy was recovering before he wrecked the system—his own popularity was falling. And though Latvia may have seemed to be doing well under the regime, what with those chickens in their pots, it wasn’t—his command economy was headed for a horrible crash, corruption was rampant, foreign investment was driven away, and the last days of the dictatorship are indicators of where it was headed; he was planning another agrarian reform to deprive successful Latvians of their farms (to rob Pēteris to pay Pāvels, in essence).

I have a higher opinion of our ability to rule ourselves. Yes indeed, everybody wants honey on their bread—but štrunts par bitēm, ka tik medus? There are plenty of people who still wax rhapsodic about Ulmaņlaiki—but the rhapsody was orchestrated, and it continues to echo so much because of what came after, which was of course immeasurably worse. I think it is important to realize that the Ulmanis regime consciously brainwashed people into identifying democracy with chaos and the Ulmanis cult with stability. Not that people don’t have the tendency to wash their own brains with this pablum.

Since people so resent comparisons of Kārlītis to the great tyrants (it’s difficult to think about Soviets or Nazis without the millions of corpses they’re responsible for, and Ulmanis didn’t kill anybody), I’ll compare him to Lukashenka in that regard—there’s a quarter-chicken in every hand-me-down pot, most of the music on the radio is Belarusian by law, and stability is guaranteed to a degree our Cūkmens could never dream of. Anybody who’s against this is a freak or a foreign agent.

Democracy was definitely imperfect, as it is and will be, but it’s like in the famous Churchill quote. The constant resort to the same tired formulations is galling—“authoritarianism was in fashion”; well, drugs are popular with the young, as Plunts says… that means we don’t react to pushers? What about countries that didn’t succumb to that mode—are we worse than Finns, by nature? Not being fond of the Vadonis is not “anti-Latvian”—I think it’s the other way around. Parroting the cult, as in mouthing the old rationalizations for the coup when we know they were false, is spitting at those Letts who stayed true to the Republic.

Vysu lobu,
/P

It saddens me to recommend the demotion of Ivars’ grade in the Order of a Million Stars to Second Class. First Class clearly belongs to Roberts.

Non-citizens aren’t really a minority, they are an ethnic group.