http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2007/10/stateless.html

Vysu lobu,
/P

‘Slikta dusa paliek lasot.’..to put it mildly!  I still can’t get past those who will not acknowledge or cannot fathom that Latvia, indeed WAS occupied.  Glad to see your rebuttal, though, Peter, which was excellent as usual and to see that most of the commentators did not buy into this kind of crud.

Irena

Irena - 04 October 2007 09:36 AM

‘Slikta dusa paliek lasot.’..to put it mildly!  I still can’t get past those who will not acknowledge or cannot fathom that Latvia, indeed WAS occupied.  Glad to see your rebuttal, though, Peter, which was excellent as usual and to see that most of the commentators did not buy into this kind of crud.

Irena

Like it or not, but those Russians present a common view about occupation and life in the Soviet Union among Latvia’s largest minority, especially people their age.

Aleks

I re-read this article again in case I missed something.  While it’s bad enough that this Mark Mardell presents Russians as victims of language, citizenship discrimination by Latvians, some of the terms he bandies about are absurd!  “Awkward” or “unfashionable views” (that last one really takes the cake) to describe someone’s view (lie) that the Soviet Union did no damage to Latvian Society.  And no, Latvia wasn’t really occupied, we were liberated.  And truth/untruths are mere whimsy, subject to fashion and I guess someone just happebed to make a bad fashion statement!!

Re: your comment, Aleks:

“Like it or not, but those Russians present a common view about occupation and life in the Soviet Union…”

Well, I guess I shouldn’t really be surpised.  In the not too long ago, my aunt in Latvia told us that many people in the Russian community regarded Stalin as the great liberator of mankind; suddenly, he’s popular again—in fashion.

Irena

Irena - 06 October 2007 11:40 AM

I re-read this article again in case I missed something.  While it’s bad enough that this Mark Mardell presents Russians as victims of language, citizenship discrimination by Latvians, some of the terms he bandies about are absurd!  “Awkward” or “unfashionable views” (that last one really takes the cake) to describe someone’s view (lie) that the Soviet Union did no damage to Latvian Society.  And no, Latvia wasn’t really occupied, we were liberated.  And truth/untruths are mere whimsy, subject to fashion and I guess someone just happebed to make a bad fashion statement!!

But is it Mark Mardell that represents Russians, nay, non-citizens (there’s a big diff, 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?

Irena - 06 October 2007 11:40 AM

Re: your comment, Aleks:

“Like it or not, but those Russians present a common view about occupation and life in the Soviet Union…”

Well, I guess I shouldn’t really be surpised.  In the not too long ago, my aunt in Latvia told us that many people in the Russian community regarded Stalin as the great liberator of mankind; suddenly, he’s popular again—in fashion.

Irena

Not that simple. Russian-speaking non-citizens have felt this way since the law on citizenship as adopted back in 1993-94. They felt betrayed by the Latvian government at the time and now they’re bitter toward the Latvian state as a whole. It’s got nothing to do with Stalin. No one here remembers Stalin on his birthday, for example. These are just facts.

Now my opinion is that they should get passed it, get naturalized and participate in the political process.

Hei!  That was quick!  I thought you were off for the weekend.  What—are you somewhere around the corner??!!  Only kidding…but, I must go now and tend to domestic chores.

Catch you later!

Irena

Not that simple. Russian-speaking non-citizens have felt this way since the law on citizenship as adopted back in 1993-94. They felt betrayed by the Latvian government at the time and now they’re bitter toward the Latvian state as a whole. It’s got nothing to do with Stalin. No one here remembers Stalin on his birthday, for example.

It’s not that simple—but it’s that simple?

They’re that monolithic? The 120 000 + who naturalized are as bitter as those who still slink about stateless, maybe? The primary bitterness came from this sense of betrayal? At least half of them opposed the existence of Latvia, so I hardly think those could have been betrayed by it—how can you be betrayed by something to which you have no relationship?

Though not many remember Stalin on his birthday, it has an awful lot to do with Stalin, sorry—hey, about four out of five Russians in Latvia (those who are Latvian citizens included) deny the occupation. Non-citizens are here because of the occupation, no?

How can you tell where bitterness towards the state begins and bitterness towards nationhood leaves off? I know a lot of non-citizens, and to be quite honest—there are very few that I know that I’d like to share my body politic with. Their bitterness about the law on citizenship is a very minor aspect of why.

I think Irēna is quite on target to focus on the language the gentleman from the BBC uses—I wonder what the reaction would be if he used similar language (about fashion, say) when talking about the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia, for example.

Vsego khoroshego,
/P

P.S. Here’s a study of attitudes towards naturalization from a decade ago, so whilst the bitterness was yet fresher—

http://lv.lv/index.php?menu_body=DOC&id=47751&menu_left=LAIDIENS&PHPSESSID=70be8d576c90

Peteris,

There you go with Nazi parallels again. ;)

At least half of them opposed the existence of Latvia, so I hardly think those could have been betrayed by it—how can you be betrayed by something to which you have no relationship?

I think 17 years later, people who opposed the independence have come to terms with the Latvian state. And I disagree with you on the numbers. I think less than a half of future non-citizens opposed Latvia’s independence in 1991 and a vast majority of whom left this country being unable to accept a state with which they had no relationship with.

But the other half—that supported Latvia’s independence in 1991—stayed. They’re the ones who are bitter because LTF leadership promised the so-called zero variant. They’re the ones feeling betrayed by the state whose independence they supported.

Peteri, my original comment about Stalin was in response to this:
Stalin as the great liberator of mankind; suddenly, he’s popular again—in fashion

Stalin as a leader, as a political personality, doesn’t play into this at all. The fact that Russophones gather each year on May 9 to commemorate the end of the war as they perceive it has nothing to do with Stalin as the Great Leader of the People and the Victor over the Nazi Germany. It has to do with those who died—who died defending their motherland—in probably the most violent and brutal conflict on the European continent. It has to do with their memories. And memories of the dead are powerful thing. But it doesn’t have to do with Stalin as an individual.

Yes, the majority of the Russophones deny the occupation for whatever reasons—national guilt, national pride, etc. They’ve got a long ways to go. And it won’t happen overnight particularly because there’s the Baltic First Channel to tell us that there was no such thing as occupation of the Baltics.

However, the BBC blog entry raises an interesting question: should all new citizens subscribe to the same interpretation of history as the state in a democratic pluralistic society?

Labrīt!

There you go with Nazi parallels again. ;)

Pravda can make them for me, in the book you’ve borrowed. Writing of the Anschluss—“To occupy militarily a country, impose a satrap viceroy, police and gendarmery, introduce an occupation army 300,000 men strong, and then arrange for ‘a free declaration of will’... is indeed a most ignominious comedy.” Similar sentiments were expressed with regard to Italy’s invasion of Albania.

My point is that almost no one would dare call the occupation of Czechoslovakia or Denmark a fashionable interpretation of fact, though neither country resisted—certainly a BBC journo wouldn’t. 

I think 17 years later, people who opposed the independence have come to terms with the Latvian state. And I disagree with you on the numbers.

Here is my reckoning of the numbers, from a debate with you almost three years ago—

http://groups.google.lv/group/soc.culture.baltics/msg/27dadd7c5b979ef1

I sincerely doubt that those who were in favor of independence stayed and those who were opposed all departed—staying or going was very often dictated primarily by practical circumstances.

Some, maybe even many—have come to terms with the Latvian state, sure. But with what kind of state? If that bitterness is so pronounced, for example, is that coming to terms with it in the sense of being held down and crying uncle? Doesn’t coming to terms include doing something—for instance, learning the language? A person who’s thirty years old now was only an adolescent when the language law took effect. Wouldn’t coming to terms also mean having some understanding of history and the language policies?

However, the BBC blog entry raises an interesting question: should all new citizens subscribe to the same interpretation of history as the state in a democratic pluralistic society?

I think it’s less about subscribing to a single interpretation than it is about not subscribing to the Soviet interpretation, which is not a valid interpretation. Latvia was occupied by the Soviet Union. These people were Soviet citizens. They are asking to become citizens of the Republic, which is a privilege and not a right. If one denies the very basis for the Republic, why should he or she be granted a share in it?

Mardell’s article lets one of his interlocutors say this without challenge: Yevgeni Drobot would be excluded from Latvian political life even if he took and passed the test. That’s because he was a member of Latvia’s Soviet-era parliament, and so can’t stand for the new, post-independence parliament. Bull.

If one writes about language and history, one ought to give at least a little bit of background. Since this article is focused on Daugavpils, I think one ought to explain something about the linguistic environment here—not just in the past but also in the present; it’s still more difficult to get by as a Lettophone than it is as a Russophone, sixteen years after the restoration of independence. One might also give a better picture of the different groups here—the Polish community, for example, is once again flourishing.

One could pause for some political background, too—the Vidavsky administration in Daugavpils was removed because it had supported the hardliners, for example. Vidavsky crept back through a hole made especially for him by Latvia’s Way, and nowadays is one of the leaders of the ostensibly “moderate” Harmony Center—along with Rubiks, who headed the Salvation Committee that usurped power when people were being murdered in January 1991, rescinded the 4 May Declaration and worked to destroy the democratically elected government.

“Interpretation” and a “democratic pluralistic society” came up against OMON and the Interfront—that’s hardly like the choice between Democrats and Republicans.

Here’s some charming “interpretation” from Gospozha Zhdanok, for example, the sole ethnic Russian in the European Parliament (oddly enough elected from this diabolical “apartheid state”!): “The applicant [Ždanoka] contested the Government’s version, stating that the Soviet army’s aggression against the Lithuanian Government and the Lithuanian people was not a proven fact; in this connection, she submitted a copy of a Russian newspaper article which alleged that it had been the Lithuanian independence supporters themselves who fired into the crowd with the aim of discrediting the Soviet army.” Yeah, and most of the Balts killed in January 1991 died in traffic accidents!

From the decision of the Grand Chamber, which ruled in favor of Latvia: “While such a measure may scarcely be considered acceptable in the context of one political system, for example in a country which has an established framework of democratic institutions going back many decades or centuries, it may nonetheless be considered acceptable in Latvia in view of the historico-political context which led to its adoption and given the threat to the new democratic order posed by the resurgence of ideas which, if allowed to gain ground, might appear capable of restoring the former regime.”

Judge Boštjan Zupančič dissented, but his dissent contains some insightful observations: “Suddenly, the former occupiers whose very existence on Latvian territory had originated in illegal occupation, claimed to be victims of human rights violations. Had the very rule of law and democracy for which the Latvians had fought and which for decades had been denied to them by the Communist rulers of the Soviet Union now become the weapon to be turned against the Latvians themselves? This historical paradox which they faced is an existentially absurd one, reflecting an internal clivage to which there can be no immediate solution.”

http://tinyurl.com/2ctuj5

Vysu lobu,
/P

Peteri,

I’ll avoid discussing Rubiks, Zdanoka, and Saskanas Centrs because—well, you and I have discussed it enough.

My point is that almost no one would dare call the occupation of Czechoslovakia or Denmark a fashionable interpretation of fact, though neither country resisted—certainly a BBC journo wouldn’t.

Nazi crimes have received enough condemnation by the international community, including the Soviet Union, ironically enough. The Soviet crimes—most of which were committed on the eastern side of the continent—appear to be alien to the western side. Have the communist crimes received as equal acknowledgment as the Nazi? No.

As our discussions at SCB three years ago point out, Latvijas Tautas Fronte would not have gained so many seats in the Supreme Soviet of Latvian SSR had it not been for the non-Latvian voters. Therefore, a non-Latvian vote was crucial for restoration of Latvia’s independence in 1991.

But with what kind of state? If that bitterness is so pronounced, for example, is that coming to terms with it in the sense of being held down and crying uncle? Doesn’t coming to terms include doing something—for instance, learning the language? A person who’s thirty years old now was only an adolescent when the language law took effect. Wouldn’t coming to terms also mean having some understanding of history and the language policies?

It’s a two-way street. How often do we hear from our high-ranking officials that Latvia is a multi-ethnic country in which all ethnicities are important? Considering that it’s such an important topic, shouldn’t they be out there every day declaring it again and again, instead of times when PACE chief arrives with a pro-Russian stance? How many ministers, first secretaries, bureaucrats in the current government are representatives of a minority? If Latvia is not just for ethnic Latvians alone, where are those people representing national minorities so vital for this country? How much crap Loskutovs had to endure from Fatherlanders before he was appointed as the head of KNAB on issues not particularly related to the post he sought, eg. interpretation of history, merely because he’s an ethnic Russian?

For non-citizens—and even for citizens who are ethnic Russians—it’s a question of “do people like me matter for this country?” And most of them, I suspect, would say no.

I think it’s less about subscribing to a single interpretation than it is about not subscribing to the Soviet interpretation, which is not a valid interpretation.

Who gets to decide what interpretation is valid and what isn’t, especially considering that history as a subject is a matter of interpretation? The government, no?  What does Latvian government believe happened on June 17, 1940 is one thing. To answer ‘what do you believe happened on that day’ and expecting an answer “The Soviet occupation” is, well, foolish. If one lives in a democracy, one is allowed, nay, encouraged to have one’s own opinions on everything, including history.

If one denies the very basis for the Republic, why should he or she be granted a share in it?

In other words, only those who have the correct interpretation of events can be part of it, right? Well, you can’t check that with a test because Russians are used to saying what others want to hear. They may learn the language, they may learn the government’s interpretation of history, but they don’t believe in it. You cannot test what a person believes.

This is probably why those new citizens do vote for SC and PCTVL (more the former rather than the latter). And this is probably why as numbers of naturalized citizens increase, SC will gain more and more power. Why would representative of a national minority vote for other parties? What have other parties done to reach out to minorities? LPP has tried, but it’s rather unpopular at the moment. Why should ethnic Russians, who became citizens, vote for Tautas Partija, for example?

Visu labu,

Aleks

The Soviet crimes—most of which were committed on the eastern side of the continent—appear to be alien to the western side.

That’s only partly true—there’s also considerable denial involved. Part of the left looked to the USSR—the editor of the Guardian comment pages until this March was formerly the business manager of Straight Left, for example, which was published by a hardline Communist group that supported the Soviets and even the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. Sartre and de Beauvoir vacationed in occupied Lithuania. George Galloway only avoids calling himself a Stalinist because it’s… unfashionable, it seems. Even that part of the left that was or became anti-Soviet mostly gasps at any comparisons between Hitler and Stalin.

There’s really no excuse for ignorance, esp. on the part of someone writing about Latvia—and Mardell doesn’t seem ignorant. His phrase anent Yevgeny Drobot: His is an unfashionable view and one that ignores occupation and oppression. Mardell’s not denying occupation or oppression here—but he uses this offensive word, “unfashionable,” as though the difference in views were only a matter of fashion. Like I suggested, I doubt that he would dare to use this word if neo-Nazism was the subject.

Like Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, Toomas Hendrik Ilves minces no words: “From the Estonian viewpoint, there is no difference between Nazis and Communists. Both acted brutally and repressed Estonians. Neither the Nazis nor the Communists tolerated democracy, and that’s a fact any Estonian knows.” Any Balt, also—but how many Baltic Russians?

Therefore, a non-Latvian vote was crucial for restoration of Latvia’s independence in 1991.

True. There was, however, strong and anti-democratic opposition to independence, too, and that was primarily non-Latvian, just as the support for independence was primarily Latvian. Notably, support even differed between the Russian and non-Russian minorities (just as nearly twice the number of people from non-Russian minorities acknowledge the occupation now). I’m not trying to deny the valor of those Russians who struggled for freedom—they’re more remarkable than the Latvians in a way, and Latvia screwed those among them who registered for citizenship. Bad, bad, bad, and they have a right to be bitter. I do, however, think that there’s this warped picture some have about all the Letts and Russkies standing together on the barricades and then them Fascist Letts turning against their idealistic brethren to oppress them as soon as they weren’t needed anymore. There was a strong opposition, too, and it was anti-democratic. Here in Daugavpils, people were long afraid of demonstrating their desire for independence—of flying the flag, for example. The tables set up by the Citizens’ Congress were overturned by thugs. In the Supreme Soviet, those who voted for the 4 May Declaration were Latvian, Polish, Jewish and Ukrainian… not Russian. Granted, many Russians voted for the LTF candidates. But many did not, and passing over that is to distort recent history that has bearing upon what happened later.

It’s a two-way street. How often do we hear from our high-ranking officials that Latvia is a multi-ethnic country in which all ethnicities are important?

Constantly! One hears about how welcome non-Latvians are so often that it starts to make many a right-winger want to puke.

You make some important points in this passage and the rest of your post that are definitely disturbing and worthy of attention, but I’d love to see you try to answer your own questions! 

Here are some musings. First off—I won’t deny that there’s bigotry in Latvia and plenty of it. There are a lot of people who just won’t vote for a Russian—probably many more Letts that won’t do so than there are Russkies that won’t vote for a Lett. Is this so unusual, though? Count the Arabs in govt. in Israel, the Turks in govt. in Germany, etc. Each situation is unique, of course; Turks are a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers of Russians here, Turkey never occupied Germany, Turks were invited, Russians are not Muslims, etc.—the point is that there are aspects that can be compared in these situations and there are incomparable aspects. We could look at successfully integrated societies like Switzerland’s, too—a very different history. At Belgium—falling apart… and how many Walloons get elected in Flanders?

What have other parties done to reach out to minorities? LPP has tried, but it’s rather unpopular at the moment. But what do you mean by “reaching out”? Finding token Russians? Speaking in, er, Spanish, like Dubya? As I suggested in another debate elsewhere, one of the problems is that the pool is actually very small. In my estimation, less than a third of the Russians here are fluent in Latvian (there are different stats and different measures of fluency, but probably less than a quarter actually use Latvian frequently, and not using a language is detrimental to one’s skills in it). So on that score—this explains some of the disproportion in the bigotry, even; almost all non-Russians in Daugavpils are mellifluously fluent in Russian, for example, and use Russian a lot. The call-in shows in which one talks about one’s garbage pick-up problems and such with the City Council are almost entirely in Russian. The Mayor, an ethnic Latvian despite the demographics here, doesn’t provoke those famous sensitivities about the heroes of the Great Patriotic War, either—you probably read the interview with her, in Russian, about how one couldn’t move a monument whilst the veterans are against it. In short, there’s just no reason for Russians not to vote for her.

[To be continued…]

You mention LPP. It’s actually quite popular down here—if I recall correctly, Daugavpils rajons was the only rajons it got a plurality in, and I know it did quite well in town. It’s a slick populist party with ties to a pathetic Russian Charismatic cult. Ledyaev, a monolingual gay-bashing Russophone from Kazakhstan, says it’s his party for an interesting reason—these are the men who realize that we have to throw the history books away!

For years, some people I know were fascinated by Estonia’s progress with regard to “Russian parties” going splat against the barrier and integration making incredible progress—their language legislation is more liberal, they allow non-citizens to vote in local elections, etc. Though I think of Estonia as more advanced in certain respects (because it is, grin), I was always skeptical about this vaunted pragmatism. In some sense, I think it a reflection of demographics—Lithuania was most liberal because it could afford to be (handing out passports), Estonia second (less colonists and mostly geographically concentrated), Latvia least—most Russified, weakest identity, etc. Again, there are a lot of facets here—Latvia also has a much larger traditional Russian minority, for example.

But it’s Estonia that is now target #1 of Russian imperialism. Some other especial factors—class, quite different among colonists in Estonia (Latvia, with a lot of high-tech industry, got a lot of engineers and administrators, Estonia oil shale workers), the Border Agreement (we caved, Tallinn didn’t), language (theirs is a lot more difficult to learn), statues (bound by the agreement to get the troops out, we can’t tear down the Victory Monument), etc. ...still, Nashi is asking for their heads (spillover here—how many Russians can tell the Baltics apart) and the riots were in Estonia, not Latvia.

But even fairly smoothly functioning multinational societies have ethnic parties! The Finland Swedes. The PQ. And that’s what we used to base this society on, in reality, no? Russian parties, Jewish parties, farmers’ parties, workers’ parties… We’re on the brink of a possible test, as it is—the stinking coalition is possibly gonna throw the Fatherlanders out in favor of your beloved (grin) Harmony Center. In some sense that would be as “normal” as breaking down the barriers of the parties themselves.

Except that it is not, in my view. Harmony Center drops leaflets in my mailbox with Rubiks’ purns and red flags rampant—then it calls itself “moderate.” Here’s one of my fave analyses of SC, which you may have seen me post elsewhere—

http://www.politika.lv/index.php?id=11447

So, back to the beginning. What “the West” thinks of Latvia is one thing—and anyway those that matter in the West are mostly understanding. What we think and do here matters a lot more. I don’t bring up ķoķa Taņa as a demon—though she is the particular demon chosen by Latvia’s Russophones to represent them in Europe, in some sense. I brought her stuff up to show why I couldn’t possibly countenance a coalition with SC or PCTVL, and I don’t think they’re that different. I invoke her to illustrate the fact that this isn’t a problem of “interpretation”—hey, she can “interpret” the attacks by Soviet armed forces on innocent civilians as an attack by those innocents on the beautiful USSR all she wants, but it’ll have all the weight of Hitler’s “interpretation” that Poland attacked Germany.

In other words, only those who have the correct interpretation of events can be part of it, right? Everybody with citizenship is part of it. The question is one of how one becomes a part of it, and naturalization is a form of adoption, in my view. For some reason, most Russians in Latvia love to bang their heads against the wall with regard to non-citizens, language, and lies about history. Some are doubtless as tired of these subjects as you and I are. But the sad fact is that a supposedly “moderate” “Russian party” feels the need to lure voters by dropping pics of Rubiks in my mailbox. Tell me how a party would do something similar in any “normal” system. Do you think a candidate in Dixie would pass out flyers with the Imperial Wizard of the KKK on them? If it did (and it did happen in the past), wouldn’t a mainstream party distance itself?

It’s a two-way street, yes indeedy, and I certainly agree that many Latvians don’t act that way. This is a big problem. I would, however, suggest that two-way streets bear all sorts of traffic and go to all sorts of places. Most of us really do not want to go to Ruslatviya, and if “reaching out to minorities” means catering to those who refuse to even acknowledge the factors involved—no go. And by the way, I’ve almost never had many differences with those from non-Russian minorities in Latvia, unless they were almost entirely Russified. The BBC guy could have visited the Poles. Like Letts, they’re a minority in Daugavpils.

Vysu lobu,
/P

So much stuff, so little time, Peteri.

There’s really no excuse for ignorance, esp. on the part of someone writing about Latvia—and Mardell doesn’t seem ignorant.

To defend “the BBC guy”, I’d have to say that he has written a blog entry based on what people have told him. Russians are indeed the largest minority in Latvia and Daugavpils, as a stronghold of the local Russians here, is a perfect city for such an interview. Having said that, I am however hoping that future posts would offer a counterbalance addressing the official line of thinking on integration and citizenship laws.

Any Balt, also—but how many Baltic Russians?

Baltic Russians too suffered at the hands of Hitler-Stalin.  Ethnic Russians were among those deported to Siberia in those grueling days of 1940 and 1941, which is why I hesitate to call it genocide. For the Soviets were not interested in Latvians because they were Latvians. They were interested in preserving power and getting rid of anyone who may lay claim on this power. This is why those who were deported were cream of the crop, the wealthy, the educated, the best of what society had to offer.

An ethnic Russian, Vasily Emelyanov, the owner of a movie theater in the Latvian capital, for example, is a perfect illustration for Latvia’s history of that period. An immigrant to Latvia from St. Pete following the October revolution, he founded his business in the Baltics, opening the first movie theater in Riga, the Splendid Palace, now the cinema Rīga. He expanded and grew his business and even lasted the first year of the Soviet invasion. On June 14, 1941, he was ordered a deportation for serving in the White Army and his overall unfriendliness to the Soviets. He was sent to labor camps where he died in 1949.

I do, however, think that there’s this warped picture some have about all the Letts and Russkies standing together on the barricades and then them Fascist Letts turning against their idealistic brethren to oppress them as soon as they weren’t needed anymore. There was a strong opposition, too, and it was anti-democratic.

That’s not exactly what I’m saying. I do think that the first citizenship law that was eventually re-written was discriminatory against non-Letts, and targeted at Russians in particular. There was not a strong opposition in the sense of numbers, I think. The Russian-language newspaper SM-Segodnya, formerly known as Sovetskaya Molodezh, became one of the organs against the establishment at the time, against the likes of Rubiks and Zdanoka. And for a newspaper like that to exist, there had to be an audience. This is why I hesitate to say that the opposition was strong and that vast majorities of the russkies in Latvia at the time opposed Latvia’s move toward independence.

I’d love to see you try to answer your own questions!

But what do you mean by “reaching out”? Finding token Russians?

Alright, I’ll take the ruling Tautas partija. Its web site, for example, offers nothing in the Russian language, the language of the largest national minority here and who also go to vote. Or Polish. Or Ukrainian. Or Lithuanian. Thus, their votes are not TP’s audience. In its program, TP states:

Mēs esam par latvisku Latviju, par latvisko kā kopjamu, saudzējamu un no paaudzes paaudzē nododamu vērtību kultūrā, mākslā, sadzīvē un dzīvesziņā. Mēs mīlam mūsu valsti un uzskatam, ka patriotisms ir audzināms, kopjams un attīstāms kā svarīgs morāles balsts.

Mēs esam par toleranci starp latviešiem un citām Latvijā dzīvojošām etniskajām grupām un to kultūru tradīcijām. Mēs krasi nostājamies pret rasismu, pret profesiju aizliegumiem atkarībā no tautības. Mēs esam pret antisemītismu un genocīdu jebkurā tā izpausmē.

Notice, upbringing in the spirit of patriotism is important for ethnic Latvians, not so much other nationalities. And it’s also important to be tolerant toward other ethnic groups. What does it mean? Other nationalities are to be tolerated, they’re not a norm, but e have to tolerate it. It certainly means that representatives of national minorities are not the target audience of that passage. But rather Letts are. Therefore, TP isn’t reaching out to national minorities. 

I think we can look at other societies for an answer, but I think ultimately we will find it in our own backyard, in our own hearts and in our own history.

It’s also interesting and I think you mentioned it earlier that the Latvian institute, an organization representing Latvia to foreigners, has no ethnic Russians on its staff. Why? If I’m wrong, I’ll take it back, but I’m afraid I’m not. 

(to be continued)

LPP has other problems which would repel a Russian. For example, it’s pseudo-unity with religious movements, such as the New Generation church. Or its involvement of God onto the local political scene as if this is the boonies of Arkansas rather than Riga, Latvia.

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 do hope there will be a day when SC becomes part of the government. Maybe then, the number of naturalized citizens will start to increase again. And I think you and I have debated the Rubiks factor you oppose so much and I don’t see the need to do it on here.

But the sad fact is that a supposedly “moderate” “Russian party” feels the need to lure voters by dropping pics of Rubiks in my mailbox. Tell me how a party would do something similar in any “normal” system. Do you think a candidate in Dixie would pass out flyers with the Imperial Wizard of the KKK on them? If it did (and it did happen in the past), wouldn’t a mainstream party distance itself?

It’s pure marketing, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere. They didn’t drop the face of Rubiks into your mailbox, but rather in mailboxes of a rather Russified town, where this face would get people to vote. That is all.

And you’re overlooking the fact that Rubiks cannot run, he cannot hold a post, he cannot be a member of parliament. He’s nothing but the face that gains the Russian votes, especially among the elderly, who are likely to vote. SC has been in the Parliament for some time, what bills can you name that prove that the party is a Rubiks party?

Ar cienu,

Aleks

More on Sovetskaya Molodezh, I mentioned ealier

  Press. The Russophone media were underdeveloped in Soviet Latvia. Sovetskaya molodezh, owned by Komsomol, and Sovetskaya Latvia, owned by the Communist party, were the two main dailies in 1989. During the late perestroika the latter has assumed explicitly procommunist position and it was banned after the demise of the USSR in 1991. Later the newspaper reappeared under the title Panorama Latvii and had kept the same staff and style of writing. It criticises Latvian policy from the point of view of its target audience - poor elderly population.

  Sovetskaya molodezh stood on democratic positions by promoting diversity of opinions and lifestyles. In fact it was among the first Soviet prototabloids. Readership all over the USSR was attracted by articles on the secrets of Soviet history, UFOs, parapsychology, prostitution, sexuality, nude photo competition, etc. The mixture of serious political and tabloid journalism allowed it to improve financially and to provide Soviet readers with insider’s information about ‘singing revolutions’ in the Baltics.

  The political discourse of Russian-language media dealt with democratisation and decentralisation. It treated the three Baltic republics as a subregion in the post-Soviet confederation or as an independent Baltic Confederation with the Russian language as the natural lingua franca, and regional Baltic identity as opposed to the ethnic one. The trend is reflected in the titles of the newspapers: Baltiiskaya Gazeta (1990-5), Nezavisimaya Baltiiskaya Gazeta (1990-2), Business & Baltia (1991-), Baltiiskoye Vremya (1989-92).4

  The bilingual national daily Diena (founded in 1990) promoted the idea of the Second Republic, it was critical of the Latvian nationalist discourse.

  The projects on Baltic identity and multicultural Latvia vanished by 1992, when the governing political élite embraced the ideology of ethnic nationalism. Being excluded from the formal democracy, virtually the non-indigenous population was excluded from the public sphere. The social activity of individuals could be channeled only into business, relatively free of ideological constraints, but economically inaffordable for majority of population.

Circulation is important too, in thousands:

                          1989     1991
Sovetskaya Molodezh / SM 326   300
Sovetskaya Latvia / PL   85   16

So yes, in a way, Russians expected their language to be lingua franca among the Baltic states, however they were not supporting the likes of Zdanoka and Rubiks.

But then again, Diena got it wrong too. This is no Second Republic.

Source: here

Aleksejs et al.,

Latvia gained independence in 1918.  In 1990 independence was regained or restored.

Visu labu,