Strange to see Helēna reaching such new lows, but I guess the People’s Party can do that to a woman…
Peter C I find it so sexist for you to make such a stupid statement. I guess you have some male superiority problem but politics is not a gender problem except for you.

Sun Tzu said: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

Andrejs, all knowing

Into, thanks for reminding us that there is “choice.” “One thing that keeps on popping up in my head as I read the active threads here is “choice.”

I’m in total agreement with you. I think as a new arrival to a new country, it is a choice to arrive with a “willingness” to fit into one’s new country and a choice to reshape one’s identity to the needs of the new country. I’m taking this from the “Us and Them” article that says the immigrants to the United States arrive with a “willingness” to “fit into” and “to reshape” to the requirements of their chosen country, the United States: this is what Americans expect.  Should the Latvians, like the Americans, expect such accomodation from the immigrants who choose to live in Latvia?  Latvia’s post WW II ”unnaturally-large-and-sudden influx of ‘immigrants’ ” still has a choice to act towards Latvia as immigrants rather than occupants, right?  Is Latvia wrong in expecting its immigrants to choose to not act like occupants but rather to choose to fit into Latvia’s requirements, language and other, and “to reshape” their foreign identity to be Latvian?  You know the old saying: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” This is a choice in Latvia, right?

Courlander,

I know you have trouble keeping Potsdam and Yalta apart, not to mention profound difficulties with both Latvian and English—but what do you see as sexist in that sentence? If the Minister of Culture were a male intellectual, I would write “I guess the People’s Party can do that to a man…” Would that be sexist, too?

I have tremendous respect for Helēna Demakova. I’ve spoken with her a couple of times, and I find her a scintillating and erudite person. Anybody who has heard or read her in the last couple of years knows that she is increasingly partisan, however.

The reason for that, I assume, is that she is determined to get the New Three Brothers built and needs the backing. She plays hardball. Nothing really wrong with that—I am a strong supporter of building the National Library, too. 

Partisanship has its effect on how one thinks, though, particularly when that party is connected to a shady gentleman like Mr. Slice. I want a Library (and the Museum and the Concert Hall)—but that doesn’t mean that the massive amount of money we’ve spent on these projects, with nothing to show for it so far, isn’t something to be seriously concerned about. We already have “the world’s most expensive bridge,” you know…

Vysu lobu,
/P

One difference, Ambersun, is that they didn’t arrive in a new country—the new country came to them after they’d settled—or, as Into correctly observes, were settled here (jā, jā, the new, rejuvenated old country, whatever). Remember, too, that the original Republic, now restored, was based upon a certain form of, yes, multiculturalism. Was this in conflict with the aspirations of many Latvians for a national state? Definitely—that’s part of why democracy failed. At the extremes, you had German, Russian, and Polish imperialists and/or nationalists, Belarusian, Jewish and Latvian nationalists of different stripes, and Reds who found nationalism of any kind to be anathema. Some extremes were more extreme and had a greater following than others.

I, too, read the long Muller article, and I thought it very good, though there wasn’t much new in it. Thank you for posting it. Did you read the George Schöpflin article I linked to not long ago? The two go together in some ways, but the Schöpflin piece addresses our situation more specifically. For example:

All the major European models of identity politics relied heavily on the hegemony of the most numerous ethnic component in the state and imposed its own model of modernity on the rest. Taking this model over proved disastrous in Central Europe for a number of reasons. First, the numerical proportions were different, no dominant ethnic group enjoyed the overwhelming demographic superiority that characterised France, say, together with an effective state system that could provide citizenship in exchange for assimilation. Second, the dominant model was able to offer its citizens and subjects an acceptable share of prosperity, a fairly competent administration and relatively uncorrupt politics. In Central Europe, this was not the case. Third, the dominant model was misread, in as much as the hegemonic ethnic group had the self-confidence to redistribute power throughout society, albeit slowly at times; this was hardly true of Central Europe. Fourth, the French state offered the population a unique and uncontested model of modernity; the Central Europeans were dealing with ethnic groups that had begun to define their own models of modernity. 

“Central Europe: Defining a Thought-Style”

To someone like Ernests Blanks, who coined the term “Awakening” in the sense it is used and upon whose work Stradiņš based his term “the Third Awakening,” the self-determination of Letts was in fundamental conflict with the self-determination of others… especially Jews and Russians, it seems, if you read Blanks.

NB the dominant model was misread, in as much as the hegemonic ethnic group had the self-confidence to redistribute power throughout society, albeit slowly at times; this was hardly true of Central Europe —that’s an interesting concept if applied to Latvia in the interbellum. Because the redistribution of power often involved taking away the power of others—as it did elsewhere in Central (using his term, which includes the Baltics) Europe.

The big losers were, of course, the “historical enemy” rarely mentioned in this forum, the Baltic Germans. Between the wars, Russkies really didn’t matter much—many were poor, illiterate, rural, and apathetic. There weren’t that many Krauts, but many were well-educated, wealthy, and politically active—by taking advantage of quirks in the electoral system (quirks which still exist and were exploited by another Kraut, Herr Siegerist, among others), they actually got more representation than reflected their numbers, whereas Russians were underrepresented.

Please remember that Latvia was born in a sea of blood and almost unbelievable devastation (the worst in Europe except perhaps for Belgium). Parts of Latvia were an empty wasteland. This was long one of the front lines in the Great War ("the war to end all wars,” y’know), and there are still trenches from that era near our dachas. You can read countless memoirs of just how unimaginable it was—the Latvian Army (in a supporting role—the Poles were the primary liberators of Daugavpils) entered this city to discover what was nearly a ghost town. The demographics shifted drastically everywhere in Latvia—Liepāja had 94 000 inhabitants in 1914, 45% of them ethnic Latvians; upon liberation it had 51 583 inhabitants and was 52% Latvian. Ca. 10 000 Lithuanians, 15 000 Latvians, 6000 Russians and 3000 Jews left or were forced to leave during the German occupation, which lasted almost five years. Few returned. You can say this about most any urban area in Latvia.

Seas of blood and attendant tragic events have profound effects on demographics—other than the Poles, with whom we get along marvelously, two of the minorities ethnic Letts had the most trouble with are just plain gone, except for a handful: the Germans and the Jews. They were slaughtered and expelled.

Latvia was reborn bloodlessly (not counting a few people killed by OMON, etc.). One of the things you almost never mention, Ambersun, is that a huge proportion of the Russians (not to mention others who were Russified, like most of the Poles) are not occupiers or colonists (and do please stop using “occupants,” it’s a pet peeve of mine). They are not immigrants. Most of the Russians (and/or Russophones) I know can trace some ancestry in Latvia back for generations, and sometimes for as long as the linguicidal and genocidal Melting Pot you live in has been in existence… which is actually to before “Latvians” came into existence as such.

[To be cont’d.]

Peteris,
I’m quite shocked by your language remark.  And to a Latvian.  Can we assume that in your non-partisan way you will also now comment on the inadequacy of her language skills in Latvian, English, and probably Russian to the Russian cashier at Maxima?  I thought that we Latvians weren’t to “harass” others on the language issue, haughtily correcting non-natives like the French in France, definitely verboten to embarrass Inese and her roller-blading children who don’t have time and money for language lessons.  Did I misunderstand and verboten harassment is only for Russians but not for Latvians?  But this would be a double-standard, yes?

Huh? Excuse me, but I have no idea what the mother tongue of our Herr Kurlander is, other than that of bigotry and hatred. His Latvian, from the samples I have seen, is wretched. Neither is his English too hot. He is not a her.

Vysu lobu,
/P

Ambersun, just for you: Es izmēģināt tulkot angliski un latviski . Liels paldie per palīgiem Leonards Inkins un Talivaldis Ligers—this person can understand a Latvian text? “Es izmēģināt”? And do you know who a. god. Leonards Inkins is?

Pirmā Pasaules Karš? Before accusing me of “sexist” language, the “Latvian” gentleman might learn gender and grammar, at least.

Regards,
/P

Peteris,
I see your new post but I have little time to respond right now except to say that the point of my “choice” post to Into, which you seem to have missed or ignored, is that all the people currently still choosing to live in Latvia, no matter what their ancient history may be, can choose to be Latvian.  Why is the buy-in to be Latvian seen as such a burden rather than a benefit.  It’s that willingness to fit into and to reshape to the requirements of the country that is now, the Latvian nation of Latvian-speaking Latvia, that is missing, and you keep on excusing and explaining its absence or advocating to change Latvia to accomodate the “late-comers” who have no good excuse to not accomodate Latvia’s requirements after all these years.  This isn’t about “harassing “ people into being Latvian in order to make their lives miserable but helping them to see the value and benefit of being Latvian.  That takes education, as is being done in every country that truly respects itself and works to impart a positive national identity.  It is a formidable and daunting task for Latvia but it takes unequivocal, untimid commitment.  I think the answer is in educating The People of Latvia to become responsible, loyal, Latvian-speaking Latvian People. This could happen much more easily if this were the requirement and expecation from Latvia and if all the agitation and propaganda from Moscow was missing.

(to be cont’d)

[Cont’d. ...well, not really; reacting to what Ambersun already got in.]

Why is the buy-in to be Latvian seen as such a burden rather than a benefit.

Because (1) there are few benefits, (2) it is not at all easy to buy in, as you yourself have shown us in some of your reactions to Aleksei; the bigotry of Latvians seems to be growing, not declining, and can work in racist rather than cultural-linguistic terms, and (3) identity in Latvia is not confined to ancient history; it remains current… and insofar as it is ancient, it’s deep. That is something Latvians ought to understand, and the ones I respect do understand—Latvians whined about mankurtization and their identity and language, and we have no right to screw with others’ mother tongues or cultures. Please don’t forget that there are individuals involved here, not just collectives imagined from where you are. (4) Perhaps most importantly, your definition of “Latvian” is an ethnic one, and even many Latvians are more interested in pelmeņi than they are in the Song Festival.

I find your rhetoric a bit slippery, Ambersun. You seem to want Russians to turn into Latvians, but then you say that they could then “reshape” what Latvia is; once they’re assimilated to your satisfaction (which I think would take science fiction), why and how would anything be reshaped?

I keep on excusing and explaining its absence or advocating to change Latvia to accomodate the “late-comers” who have no good excuse to not accomodate Latvia’s requirements after all these years?!?! No, sorry—I most often look at the reality of Latvia, and ideals, from different angles—as Wikipedia says, the term multiculturalism generally refers to a de facto state of both cultural and ethnic diversity within the demographics of a particular social space. Like all Latvians who learn what de jure means, Ambersun, I am sure you know what de facto means. We are trying to change Latvia, and Latvia has been changing—we are, in Dominique Arel’s terms on the same subject as this thread is on, using a barrage of legislation to effect change. The we is mostly Latvian—we’ve excluded non-citizens (now down to 18% or so of the population, but many more before) and the ethnic Russians and other Russophones have had almost no influence on these policies. Neither has Russia. And I hate to break it to you, but if you subtract the non-citizens—the percentage of minority voters is actually quite similar to what it was before the occupation, and unlike in the 1920s has been effectively locked out of decision-making.

I think Latvia needs to change… but so do most Russians, if you ask questions like “should everybody learn Latvian.” Almost everybody heartily agrees. What many don’t agree upon is stuff like “make everybody study in Latvian,” “blame all Russians for the occupation,” “force pensioners to pay for translators,” “don’t let people who pay taxes elect the city council unless the naturalize,” etc. But even in some of those cases—I again hate to break it to you, but many Latvians agree with the Russians.

Again to history—what I most want to emphasize is that your “when in Rome” idea and comparisons to America make absolutely no sense at all. This is not Rome, and language throughout most of history was local, not national. Modern nationalism is very modern—it didn’t get to Latvia until the 1850s. Latvians learned German to get ahead. In the German view, which is quite close to the truth, we were not a nation but a peasant class. Revolutionary ideas and social mobility changed this.

In this process, the language was of course central. But Latvian was the language of prestige here only briefly, and this was a multilingual country. People who go to the US learn English, despite the lack of an official language, because it is the language of prestige. Don’t speak it, and suffer (of course, there was also deliberate linguicide in many cases, as with the Native Americans, the Cajuns and the many German-speakers).

The process in Québec’s Quiet Revolution, with all its major differences, is a lot more akin to Latvia’s language history than the history of language in the US. But I would again urge you to try to learn a bit more about Europe, where our country is; after the Russians, Hungarians are the largest diaspora. You write about “education, as is being done in every country that truly respects itself and works to impart a positive national identity”—but that’s just hogwash. Insane, filthy, pathetic nationalists in Romania despise Hungarians, who look to Europe for their rights—it’s not about Romania “truly respecting itself” but about morons on the loose.

Again, these minorities are completely different in many ways. But nothing you say ever makes such distinctions. If we are to take this seriously, you would have to explain how the “old” is different from the “new.” In many cases in Latvia, they just aren’t—a Polish Russophone, an Old Believer, and even some Latvians who went to Soviet Russian schools take the same stance when confronted by idiotic Latvian nationalists, who are a santīms a dozen—and not a few of whom were happy Communists not so long ago.

And then there are the individuals, and that is what matters most. I know Russians and even Latvians who grow up with Russian folklore, Russian songs. It means as much to them as Latvian folklore does to you. That is their background, their roots, and those roots are in Latvia. They won’t turn into Latvians to please you, sorry. Nor should they. The whooping and hollering of narrow-minded bigots like Tabūns or Dobelis have the opposite effect… which might be intended.

Vysu lobu,
/P, always to be continued…

Sorry but the Greek Chorus just can’t resist.

Amebersun wrote:

“… is that all the people currently still choosing to live in Latvia, no matter what their ancient history may be, can choose to be Latvian. “

Really? Aleks chose to be a Latvian as you’ve just now defined it and yet you seem to think him a Latvian not so much.

Andrejs, a fellow butcherer of language

Cue chorus.
And ... fade.

WOW. I was wondering about the 6100+ people who have visited my website THIS YEAR and now I find that of the ones from Latvia was probably Peter C. I wish I could say something about his blog but I don’t want to waste my time with self centered people and I would have to visit the site.
Sorry Peter but I can not take credit for writing those words. It was written by an elderly Latvian gentleman who served in the Russian Army and resides in Rīga. I guess I will have to ask him to correct his language so you will not have anything to complain about.

Andrejs, happily singing for Aleksejs,
“Aleks chose to be a Latvian as you’ve just now defined it.”

It’s how LATVIA and the national state of Latvia defines what it means to be Latvian that is the buy-in issue here.  I think you misunderstood me.  I would hate to suggest that you misunderstood Aleksejs also.  But I can assure you that there is not a meeting of the “Latvian” minds here.

Okay, Peteris, granted I speedily read your lengthy post since I’m off to San Francisco to hear a lecture by Aigars Freimanis (I’m sure you have your opinion about him also), but I have to respond to you constantly explaining the Russian and Latvian-other side of life as though that were the issue, a lack of understanding for grievances and complaints.  I’d like to hear more about the positive attitude of your sorely agrieved “Latvians” and their contributions to the creation of a healthy Latvia.  Bigotry is growing all over the world, at break-neck speed in Russia, so stop constantly singling out your loathed-Latvian.  The way you argue by creating false primitive-patriot Latvian gargoyles and then give them your whining and chastising voice and arguments is alarming.  What is your agenda?  What is the point of distorting so that I don’t recognize anyone you are talking about, beginning with the poor Russians who weren’t the evil occupiers of Latvia - it was no one - or if there were any Russian participants, they died years ago- and the poor Russian pensioner heartlessly forced to pay for a translator.  What Latvia do you live in? I know some Russian “occupiers” and I know Latvian and Russian pensioners.  I’ve heard the arguments from all age groups about not having enough money and time to learn Latvian.  You sound like the script from the “Russian minority” propaganda playbook.  If the poor innocent Russian pensioner needs some help, give gran or gramps a hand.  Get the Russian Mafia to help.  Maybe Aleksejs Old Believers Church can start a soup kitchen and volunteer translation service for old pensioners.  I strongly encourage and support Russian, Latvian, Mafia, and other civic activity.  Maybe through civic cooperation, everyone in Latvia can get to know each other.  I don’t know Latvians to ever be as heartless as I have seen others be to them.  And I see the Latvian pensioners here in the U.S. worrying about the pensioners in Latvia and contributing money and resources to help. No one is asking for thanks but don’t bite the hand that helps you.  I don’t know your “primitive patriots, Peteris, “ who want to deny Russians their pelmeni and whatever else makes the Russian heart sing: all Latvians should be revolted by any attachment to a Russian-colonized Latvia, dreams of the restoration of the occupied and Russified Soviet Republic of the great U.S.S.R., and a longing for the old “glory” of Stalin and cultish support for Stalin’s KGB-Commie heir Putin. You act clueless about life in the U.S. where people willingly are Americans (even Blacks, Native Americans, and plenty of others with legitimate grievances), learn to speak English, and when they go home they can be anything they want to be, except maybe Muslim and homosexual, unless the doors are closed.  Americans eat pelmeni and pasta but they don’t openly worship Stalin or Putin, unless it’s in the privacy of their fellow-traveler lives. It’s not hip anyplace in the world to be unpatriotic, except in your Latvia.

ambersun - 01 March 2008 11:53 AM

Andrejs, happily singing for Aleksejs,
“Aleks chose to be a Latvian as you’ve just now defined it.”

It’s how LATVIA and the national state of Latvia defines what it means to be Latvian that is the buy-in issue here.  I think you misunderstood me.  I would hate to suggest that you misunderstood Aleksejs also.  But I can assure you that there is not a meeting of the “Latvian” minds here.

So, I went to the Russian book event this morning at Ķipsala. It was held as part of the larger book fair with publishers from three Baltic states and Russia. A group of writers from Moscow and Riga, who write in Russian, discussed the issues of the Russian national identity in the Baltics. The ironic thing was that unlike local Russian writers, Russian writers from Moscow actually get it - they get that Russians here ought to look for their own European identity, they realize that Russians here are different, far different from their Russian counterparts who reside in the big land to the east. They know that Russians here enjoy freedom and rule of law unlike in Russia.

A young man stood up and said the words I didn’t think I’d ever hear. “I’m an elementary teacher here. I teach at a Latvian school. I speak fluent Latvian. I consider myself a Latvian (that’s “latvietis” or латыш), whose native language happens to be Russian and who feels he is close to the Russian culture, literature and soul.” A few years ago, this kind of statement would have been considered a heresy among Russians and Russophones here. But the new generation gets it. It gets the need to speak the language (in fact, one person said that among the young people, she could no longer determine by their accent whether their native language was Russian or Latvian). And it understands the need to find its own national identity in the European context.

What it means to be a Latvian to you, ambersun, could be one thing. What it means to me is a completely different. I can be an ethnic Russian and still feel closeness to this country, not because of its lakes or climate, or whatever else, but because I was born here; because my roots go back 300 years here, because this is my home. Perhaps, it’s impossible to see from the hills of California, but Europe is becoming less and less ethno-centric in its identity. Many international marriages take place in Europe, especially now that the movement of goods, services and people is widely available. You have cases when a Greek would marry a Finn and give birth to a person whose national identity is both. It’ll happen here too. In fact, it’s been happening. I know of many non-Latvians who married Latvians whose children are trilingual from birth and whose national identity is determined by two parents from very different backgrounds. In today’s Europe, it’s practically impossible to hold on to the idea of cultural integration based on ethnicity. We’re all different with equal rights and what unites us are European values, not national.