Taimauts for some of my fave Sovlettish pop. Kalniņš is on the far right now, of course, and Čaklais is dead. And have any of you experienced a ķīvīte whilst making love in a meadow? If not, be deported.

/P

Dzeguzes balss

Starp mašīnām, motoriem, meitenēm
Uz ielu stūriem, kas salst;
Starp rēcieniem, rūcieniem, svilpieniem
Murgs vai sveiciens
Dzeguzes balss!

Ko tu, jocīgā, blandies pa pilsētu?
Basām kājām pa sniegu kas dzen?
Nē, tavs “ku-ku” par naivu šim gadsimtam,
Tāpēc mēs viņu atmetām sen!

Mēs to norakām bedrē, sirds stūrī,
Bet, kad mazliet atlaidās sals,
Tad kā naiva narcise izlīda -
Dzeguzes balss!

Mēs to atdevām vienai meitenei,
Viņa lika starp lapām, lai kalst;
Un tā vienmēr, ja nesalst starp sniegiem,
Tad starp lapām kalst
Dzeguzes balss!

Bet ja meitene paraustīs plecus,
Tad tu nepaliec ilgi vairs tur.
Nevar prasīt, lai visi to saprot,
Ko tev nozīmē naivais “ku-ku”!

Ej kā apmātais,
Tātad kā brīvais,
Garām uzrakstiem “tirgus” un “cirks”,
Hali-gali un šeika vietā
Vienu dzeguzes balsi pirkt!

Čaklais/Kalniņš—Dzeguzes balss

The translation is a pērle— Basām kājām pa sniegu kas dzen? = “Bass legs on snow what hammers in?” Bravo!

It’s that caurstaigājamā istaba to so many—to turn a Soviet (not even Russian, really) identity into a pseudo-European identity by walking through our admittedly weak identity is not a procession I can stomach very well… and eye’s a liberal!

I don’t know if you really have to. And I don’t know about the weakness of identity being much of a factor. We’ve survived a few centuries while many others dissapeared into the global melting pot. The question as always is integration or assimilation? Assimilation as I am sure you’d agree is never going to happen. Nor necessarily should it. My biggest problem with Ambersun’s clarion call is that she almost seems like someone who fell into a coma around 1992, came out of it about six months ago, and no one has had the heart to tell her that most of those issues which were life or death in 1992 are no longer all that relevant in 2008. And that Latvians won the majority of those battles.
There are citizenship requirements for the immigrants (aka colonists, occupants, Soviets or damn rooskies. I am comfortable with them being synonyms). The education reform is in place and working and no one (at least no one who matters that I am aware of) is talking about rolling it back any time soon. Those hardline babushkas and dedushki who worship at the altar of Stalin that Ambersun is warning us about remain marginalized on the Latvian political landscape. And other than being annoying do not present any real risk to the Latvian nation.
Being a simple and often simplistic man I’ll keep going back to its the economy, stupid. All of those Soviets (or insert synonym of choice) will integrate when its in their interest to integrate. There’s not much we can do about it. If Latvia builds relatively strong social and economic systems the Latvian nation will survive and thrive. If it does not, then not even the most of the ethnocentric will be able to save it. Not even if Aleksejs all of a sudden starts doing Sudmalinas on a daily basis on Vanshu tilts or yours truly develops a serious hankering for galerts and zutis. The identity might be “weak”, but increasingly all identities are becoming so. The freedom to move and the freedom to choose is becoming more of the norm than the exception. Not saying you should move or chose or that it is necessarily then one true path. Simply pointing out a fact.
It depends on how you want to define the common identity? To me it should be a linguistic one
I too look forward to hearing about Ambersun’s impressions of Latvia after a prolonged stay in the ethnocentric paradise. Most of the ethnocentrists, even some of the most rabid amongst them, I know in Latvia are far more concerned about the growing inflation rates and lack of good jobs and wages in the real world than they are of any potential danger those increasingly marginalized Soviets on Latvian soil pose to the Latvian nation.
Soon I will more than likely get to spend a few months working in Malaysia. Then hopefully a few months in Latvia. Then back to the States. Then perhaps back to Malaysia again. I am sure that the perception of my identity will change as I go through the locations. It doesn’t mean that the core identity is weak, but in America the Americans will see me as Latvian. In Malaysia probably an American. In Latvia, depends on who is doing the perceiving but I am betting I will be seen as either an American or a Jew. It all depends on the context. As long as in Latvia the national context will be linguistic I think we have a fairly good chance of surviving as a nation. We survived thus far. The moment it becomes some form of ethnocentrism, I don’t think we stand a chance. The deck is stacked against it. The odds are not good.

Andrejs, marginal Latvian

Interview of a minority Livu Latvian in Latvijas Avize, March 4, 2008

«Latvietis varētu būt unikāls»
Līvu tautības jaunietis DĀVIS STALTS audzis ģimenē, kur tēvs un māte (Helmi un Dainis Stalti) daudzus gadus abi bijuši deputāti Saeimā un Rīgas domē. Pats Dāvis dzied seno cīņu un folkloras kopā “Vilkači” un labprāt iesaistās sarunās par politiskām aktualitātēm.
– Kā ir dzīvot politiķu ģimenē?
– Visu mūžu nodzīvojot ģimenē, kurā viens no galvenajiem tematiem pie vakariņu galda ir Latvijas politiskās aktualitātes, protams, ir grūti izaugt par cilvēku, kuram nebūtu svarīgas šīs tēmas. Es ļoti priecājos, ka tā ir noticis, jo sekot līdzi politikai ir mana sirdslieta, un atšķirībā no citiem jauniešiem, kas uzskata, ka tā ir nepopulāra aizraušanās, man tas šķiet viens no interesantākajiem procesiem. Politiskā skatuve, politiskās spēles, it sevišķi tagad, kad ir vērojams politiskās kultūras maiņas vilnis, man šķiet ļoti interesantas.
– Cik lielu daļu ģimenes sarunās aizņem politika?
– Tas atkarīgs no tā, ko saucam par politiku. Arī latviešu nacionālo interešu aizstāvība ir politika, un šī tēma mūsu sarunās aizņem aptuveni 70 – 80%.
– Vai tu vienmēr esi bijis ar to mierā?
– Mūsu ģimenē katrs ir personība, un mēs vienmēr esam pārstāvējuši katrs savus individuālos uzskatus, līdz ar to sarunas nav bijušas vienmuļas, veidojušās interesantas diskusijas un arī politiskie strīdi. Protams, katram jaunietim ir trakie tīņa gadi, kad viņš nezina, kādu dzīves ceļu izvēlēties, par visu šaubās, rodas iekšējais protests. Jaunietis jūtas ļoti gudrs un pieredzējis, taču nenovērtēts, galvā notiek liela prāta vētra. Cik es atceros, tad 15, 16 gadu vecumā man nebija intereses nedz par politiku, nedz par latviešu kultūru.
– Kādēļ tu neturpināji mācības politologos?
– Tas nebija tas, ko es biju gaidījis. Man tomēr interesantāk šķiet studēt vēsturi. Ja arī tiem cilvēkiem, kas mācās un top par politologiem, sākumā ir nacionāla stāja vai konkrēta nostāja politiskajos jautājumos, ar laiku tā tiek padarīta visiem vienāda, proti, kosmopolītiska. Tas bija tas, ko es tur izjutu. Par tādām lietām kā stingra stāja, mugurkauls tur tikai vīpsnā vai vispār nerunā. Protams, tur var iemācīties daudzas lietas, kas var palīdzēt tālākajā politiskajā karjerā.
– Vai tavas domas par politiku vienmēr ir sakritušas ar vecāku uzskatiem?
– Ne vienmēr. Mana politiskās situācijas izpratne saistībā ar politisko spēku, kurā ir iesaistījusies daļa manas ģimenes, vienmēr ir bijusi kritiskāka. Es tā arī nekad neesmu iestājies apvienībā “Tēvzemei un Brīvībai"/LNNK, bet kaut kādā ziņā man ir bijusi iespēja šos politiskos procesus diezgan tuvu vērot. Tā kā neesmu “TB"/LNNK biedrs, varēju atļauties vairāk izteikt kritiku, jo man nebija emocionālās sasaistes ar šo spēku. Taču neapšaubāmi šajā partijā ir daudz cilvēku, kuri bija, ir un būs manas politiskās autoritāte s. Tajā skaitā mani vecāki. Es viņus uzskatu par kultūras cilvēkiem Latvijas politikā. Tā ir viena atsevišķa kategorija, kas darbojas, ievērojot kultūras laukā iegūtos principus, un tā stāja bieži vien ir pilnīgi citāda nekā daudziem politiķiem. Politika zināmā mērā ir viltus spēle, un, lai tas mainītos, jānomainās kādām divām paaudzēm.
– Kā tu vērtē šā brīža situāciju “TB"/LNNK?
– Situācija ir pārāk smaga un sarežģīta, lai es to plaši komentētu. Tas, kā katrs partijas biedrs rīkojas, ir viņa personīgā izvēle. Cilvēki, kas jūt, ka neko nevar mainīt sistēmā, šo sistēmu pamet, bet tie, kas vēlas un tic, ka var kaut ko mainīt, tie paliek. Es domāju, ka “TB"/LNNK ir iespējas mainīties uz labo pusi. Nav tāda brīža, kad nevarētu izlabot savas kļūdas. Jebkurā politiskajā spēkā. Ir daudzi veidi, kā var situāciju mainīt. Protams, cilvēki, kas ir vainīgi pie kļūdām, to nekad neatzīs, un, ja viņi paliks savās vietās, tad, manuprāt, šai partijai drīz būs beigas.
– Kāda ir tava attieksme pret naturalizāciju?
– Manuprāt, naturalizācija ir process, kas ir veikts, nebalstoties uz Latvijas pamattautas – latviešu – interesēm. Ļoti lielais nepilsoņu skaits ar vājām latviešu valodas zināšanām vieglā ceļā iegūst Latvijas pilsonību, un to skaits arvien palielinās, līdz ar to apdraudot Latvijas valstiskumu. Varbūt skan nedaudz radikāli, bet tas ir fakts. Pagaidām šie spēki ir samērā klusi, bet mēs jau redzējām, kas notika sakarā ar izglītības reformu. Vēl viens solis, un šie paši cilvēki varētu tikt provocēti uz kaut kāda veida pilsoņu kara darbību. Tās varbūt ir fantāzijas, bet es domāju, ka būtu ļoti labi, ja integrācijas ministra amatā būtu racionāli domājošs, patriotisks labējās partijas pārstāvis.
– Tu esi līvs un lepojies par savām saknēm, bet “Vilkačos” dziedi latviešu karavīru dziesmas. Kuras saknes sevī izjūti vairāk?
– Sevi vairāk izjūtu kā līvu, bet es nespēju morāli, sajūtu līmenī atšķirt šīs abas tautas. Manuprāt, līvi i r viens spēcīgs tautas atzars, kurš vēl spēj dīgt. Sajūtu līmenī tā nav atsevišķa tauta. Latvietis Latvijā ir tas pats, kas līvs Latvijā. Abiem tā ir dzimtene, abi par to ir karojuši, un galu galā katrā otrajā latvietī rit daļa līvu asins. Pārsvarā līvi un latgaļi ir tās pamattautas, kas veidojušas latviešu nāciju.

(cont’d)

(cont’d)

– Vai saskati būtiskas atšķirības starp līviem un latviešiem?
– Jā. Līvi ir kašķīgāka tauta. Līvi ir arī atturīgi ļaudis, un tas varbūt viņus paglāba, jo viņi tik brīvi neļāva ģimenēs ieprecēties latviešiem. Zinām, ka arī kurzemnieki ir atturīgi, turpretī latgaļi – atvērti un viesmīlīgi. Tad līvi ir divtik atturīgi kā kurzemnieki. Protams, laipni un viesmīlīgi, bet nelaiž svešos pārāk tuvu sev klāt.
Uzskatu, ka līvu vēsture ir unikāla pieredze, no kuras latvieši varētu mācīties, kā saglabāt savu identitāti cauri gadsimtiem un kā nekļūt skaitliski tik mazai tautai. Šobrīd galvenā problēma, kas mums jāapzinās, ir nacionālās identitātes pazaudēšana. Apdraudošais faktors ir globalizācija un masu kultūras ietekme. Pārējais nav tik apdraudošs.
– Ko latvietis varētu mācīties no līviem?
– To, cik svarīgi ir saglabāt savu valodu, jo tas ir viens no galvenajiem nacionālās identitātes balstiem. Valoda un tās tīrība. Angļu un krievu vārdi aizvien vairāk uzslāņojas, un veidojas nevis latviešu, bet “latvijiešu” valoda, un tas ir ceļš uz tautas sarukšanu. Tāpēc latviešiem vajadzētu ņemt piemēru no līviem tradicionālās kultūras un valodas kopšanā. Protams, līviem šobrīd stāvoklis ir visnotaļ smags, un tāds tas ir izveidojies padomju varas rīcības dēļ.
– Cik cilvēki Latvijā prot līvu valodu?
– Šis skaitlis palielinās ar katru gadu, jo aizvien vairāk jauniešu apzinājušies sevī līvu asinis un sākuši mācīties šo valodu. Šobrīd ir 30 – 50 cilvēki, kas zina šo valodu. Perfekti zina varbūt kādi 15 – 20, kas var brīvi sarunāties. Dzimtā valoda tā ir kādiem pieciem cilvēkiem. Es varu sarunāties, bet līdz labam līmenim m an vēl daudz jāpraktizējas.
– Kāda ir tava attieksme pret leģionāriem un 16. martu?
– Vienmēr esmu leģionārus cienījis, esmu piedalījies viņu gājienos, esmu centies katru gadu braukt uz Lesteni. Uzskatu, ka katram sevi cienošam latvietim nebūtu jākaunas godināt leģionārus kā Latvijas brīvības cīnītājus, jo viņu primārais uzdevums bija cīņa pret komunismu, nekas cits. Man nepatīk, ka pēdējos gados šajos gājienos ir sākuši piedalīties daudzi provokatīvi spēki, piemēram, tādi jaunieši, kuriem gājiena mērķis ir pilnīgi svešs. Viņus interesē vienīgi konfliktsituācija un agresijas radīšana. Vai arī viņi cenšas izrādīt savu nacionālsociālistisko vai fašistisko pārliecību, kas grauj mūsu iespēju svinēt šos svētkus brīvi.
– Kā atšķirt jauniešus, kas godina leģionārus, no tiem, kas pārstāv kroplās nacionālsociālisma idejas?
– Ja mums Latvijā būtu normālas drošības iestādes, tās ļoti viegli spētu viņus atšķirt. Diemžēl viņu līdzšinējās veiktās darbības īsti līdz g alam nav saprotamas. Žogs ap Brīvības pieminekli bija fakts, kura dēļ es kļuvu pavisam zvēriski nikns, jo es redzēju leģionāru, kurš bija viens pats atbraucis, gāja salīcis pie pieminekļa un vēlējās vienkārši nolikt puķīti. Viņš žogu no tālienes nemaz nebija pamanījis un bija ļoti pārsteigts, kad pret to atdūrās. Skats bija graujošs.
Domāju, ka jauniešiem vajadzētu pacensties aizbraukt tieši uz Lesteni, jo tur mēs redzam, kam patiešām rūp leģionāru gods. Jautājums, vai jaunieši, kas nekad nav bijuši Lestenē, tiešām iet gājienos, no sirds atbalstot leģionārus. Un cik no viņiem ir kaut vai vienkārši aprunājušies ar leģionāriem?
– Kāda ir tava attieksme pret Helovīnu, Valentīndienu, 8. martu un tamlīdzīgām dienām?
– Mēs neizbēgami esam pasaules kultūras sastāvdaļa, un globālo kultūru lielā mērā ietekmē Amerika ar savu popkultūras vilni. Latviešu jauniešiem vēl nav pienācis tas brīdis, kad viņi izteikti lepotos ar savām latviskajām tradīcijām, kas mums ir unikālas . Padomju gadu pelēcīgā vienveidība ir tik ļoti ietekmējusi cilvēku apziņu, ka viņi ir gatavi ņemt pretī pilnīgi visu, kas nāk iekšā. Ka tikai nebūtu šis pelēcīgais, šis ikdienišķais, šis strādnieciskais! Piecdesmit okupācijas gados ir ieaudzināts uzskats, ka mūsu pašu bāleliņu, pastaliņu tēls ir smieklīgs.
Runājot par konkrētiem svētkiem, Helovīnu es atzīstu vismazāk. Kam svinēt Helovīnu, ja mums pašiem ir kas līdzīgs – ķekatās iešana. To visi zina, un šo tradīciju, manuprāt, būtu samērā viegli popularizēt arī kā masu kultūras pasākumu.
Valentīndienu nekad neesmu svinējis, man ir pilnīgi vienaldzīga šādu svētku esamība.
Meitenēm patīk, ja viņām uzdāvina puķītes. To nav grūti izdarīt, jautājums tikai – vai tas jādara vienreiz gadā, ja to var darīt katru dienu? Latvietis šajā ziņā varētu būt unikāls un dāvināt savai meitenei puķīti katru dienu, un tad būtu pavisam jauki.
Par “vīriešu dienu” – tas man šķiet galīgs absurds, ka pēkšņi atkal ir parādījies uzsvars uz šo dienu, kas Padomju Savienības laikā ir bijusi armijas diena. Tad tikpat labi mēs varam visi sadoties rokās un dziedāt Jāņu dziesmas pie Uzvaras pieminekļa.
Es gan domāju, ka mans viedoklis jauniešu vidū nav dominējošais.
– Kā tu vērtē angļu sociologa pētījuma secinājumus, ka latvieši ir vienaldzīga tauta un ka tūristiem šeit nav ko meklēt?
– Tas ir saistīts ar atteikšanos no savām saknēm, no tradicionālās kultūras, no tā, kas tieši varētu šķist tūristiem interesants. Godīgi sakot, ja es būtu tūrists, es arī nezinātu, ko šeit meklēt. Visi uztraucas, ka pie mums attīstās sekstūrisms, bet ko tūristiem citu piedāvāt? Jāliek kaut kas vietā. Labi, var uzkāpt vienā baznīcā, otrā, bet to var izdarīt visā Eiropā. Diemžēl mums trūkst oriģinalitātes.
– Kas tev liek ticēt, ka latviešu tautu nepiemeklēs līvu liktenis?
– Es vienkārši to zinu.

Labrīt,

Some thoughts on some of Andrejs’ thoughts.

The question as always is integration or assimilation? Assimilation as I am sure you’d agree is never going to happen. Nor necessarily should it.

If you mean “we won’t assimilate all of the Russians,” sure. But assimilation is happening, and it happens all the time. Arel wrote of multinational societies having a possibility of stability when they “reverse assimilatory trends”—and they’ve been reversed here. Many Russians send their children to Latvian schools. The rates of inter-ethnic marriage remain very high, and couples in which one parent is Latvian tend to send their children to Latvian schools. There is still assimilation to Russian, too—Ukrainians, Belarusians, and (to a lesser degree) Poles continue to be Russified.

Zhdanok/Ždanoka can complain about “coercive assimilation” all she likes (complaining about “apartheid” at the same time, which is the opposite), but the point Demakova makes about the possibility of becoming Latvian is an important one. She sees multiculturalism—or a certain type of multiculturalism—as a barrier to assimilation. I think it’s important to leave multiple spaces open, and to a degree we do that—schools offer different curricula, from total immersion to near-total Russianness up to the secondary school level.

Like “nationalism,” “assimilation” shouldn’t be dangled as a bogeyman; even in darkest Dvinsk, I’ve met young people who are genuinely happy to identify themselves as “Latvian” though they’re not ethnically Latvian. They’re few and far between, and Latvians are unlikely to see them as Latvian—though support for Loskutovs (I believe he used “assimilated” to describe himself, interestingly) cut across ethnic lines even as far as Visvaldis Lācis, which is a good sign.

To identity and your “it’s the economy, stupid” mantra—again… definitions, definitions. Identity is complex, and you know that. It’s civic, political, and cultural, not just linguistic (and I mean cultural in the broad sense, including everything from eating lamprey [and I hope the border guard is informed of your culinary habits and doesn’t let you in, you eel-denigrating other!] to helping old ladies cross the street).

Alvis Hermanis, who is one of the most intelligent voices we have of late, observed that we will likely reach European standards of living sooner rather than later… but that this won’t make us “European.” [A]ll of those Soviets (or insert synonym of choice) will integrate when its in their interest to integrate —I don’t think it’s that simple, Andrej (and again—definitions, definitions). Nations, peoples and people aren’t purely rational. In fact, the irrational is very important, perhaps especially to Russians; there’s a strange equation of misery with spirituality that Aleksei and I talked about. The head of a major Russian organization put it quite plainly in advance of the EU referendum—they know in their bones that Europe is against them. In the same way, most Latvians feel that Latvia belongs in the West… though our “European identity” is weak, too.

The weakness of civil society and the low level of political culture in Latvia matters a lot. If “viens likums visiem” really applied, integration would be a lot easier. Latvians’ attachment to the Republic is partly irrational, sentimental, “natural,” and historical; most Russians (and Russians more so than other minorities) don’t share that attachment. To many, it’s a Latvian thing—‘cause in many ways it is. And it should be, in the sense that we’re not going to spend a lot of tax money on supporting Russian culture, for example; Russia stretches across eleven time zones and will soon be one of the world’s largest economies. Latvia can barely afford to sustain its own culture, and that is a very real thing—we can’t have a movie industry or literary publishing without state support, for example. Minor languages cost more money per capita.

The idea that only a few babushki and grizzled veterans worship Stalin is overplayed—not to revert to “the incessant discourse of loyalty and disloyalty,” but we’ve raised a new generation that has better Latvian skills… yet does not identify with the Republic. There are exceptions, and it’s vital to note that Latvians are also not fond of our institutions (’cause there’s little to be fond of). But—is this surprising? They live, and will continue to live, in another media space—one that is rehabilitating the Soviet Empire and the Russian Empire in a poisonous anti-Western cocktail. If you go through studies of Québec, where there is a strong civil society, a strong identity, more favorable demographics, and a deep democratic tradition—you will still find that even after a much longer period with language legislation that is in some ways more strict, many Anglophones still live in their own world. It doesn’t matter as much for the same reason the Polish-Lithuanian conflict is passé—the ROC is not anti-democratic. It’s not led by a proud Chekist passing part of the mantle to his protégé.

[To be cont’d.]

Today’s Diena published an interesting article about Russia and Latvia, Lucas and the new Cold War. I’d like to quote the last section (I’m sure with all cutting and pasting no one will mind).

Kamēr politiķi Rīgā šādus pieņēmumus noraida, E.Lūkass arī pauž uzskatu, ka Latvija līdz ar tādām valstīm kā Bulgārija ir svārstīgās valstis, kurās aukstais karš jau tiek zaudēts. “Latvijai būtu jābūt satrauktai, jo tā ir salikta kopā ar valstīm, kas ilgtermiņā ir veidojušas ciešas saites ar Krieviju un atbalstījušas tās intereses,” Dienai saka augsti stāvošs citas ES dalībvalsts diplomāts.

Viens no izskaidrojumiem, kādēļ rodas šādi pieņēmumi par Latviju, pēc diplomāta domām, ir Krievijas lielā ietekme tās ekonomikā, kā, piemēram, kaimiņvalstī Igaunijā nav. Tāpat Latvijā ir vājas valdības, kam nav stabila parlamenta atbalsta un tādēļ arī stingru politisko apņemšanos. J.Sarušs Voļskis uzskata, ka viens no pārbaudījumiem Latvijai būs arī tās galīgā nostāja gāzesvada Nordstream jautājumā, jo atšķirībā no citām reģiona valstīm tā runājusi par iespēju projektā iesaistīties.

Also, dear ambersun, consider watching last night’s Kas Notiek Latvija on the internet. Te highly-esteemed Kalvitis said many interesting things about oil, gas, Russia and Latvia relations.... Also, note how many people voted in the survey…

And let’s repeat for ambersun important questions for Latvia’s relationship with Russia:

What’s Latvian government’s position on the Nord Stream gas pipeline? What’s Latvia’s position on the EU efforts to liberalize the energy market in Europe?  What is Latvia’s opinion on the concluded presidential elections in Russia?

[Cont’d.]

The education reform is in place and working and no one (at least no one who matters that I am aware of) is talking about rolling it back any time soon.

Both SC and PCTVL would effectively roll it back—and SC definitely matters; it was briefly the most popular party in Latvia last year, and however the Soviets (insert synonym) reconfigure themselves, the future almost definitely involves some Russkies pie šprices at some point. What that will actually mean is impossible to predict—bringing a “moderate” “Russian party” into government in a way that does not allow them to affect language, citizenship, or foreign policy would probably be a good thing. JL and SC found common ground in defending rule of law during our polite little Umbrella Revolution. That’s nice—but SC is still scary as hell with regard to “national questions.”

Sākotnēji SC vēlas atgriezties pie izglītības sistēmas segregācijas vidusskolās, kā arī, līdzīgi PCTVL, atjaunot krievu valodas mācību plūsmas valsts finansētajās augstskolās. Vēl vairāk, papildus segregācijai izglītībā SC plāno arī nošķirtas valsts pārvaldes sistēmas ieviešanu, nostiprinot “krievu valodas statusu [..] likumdošanā”, lai to varētu izmantot “saskarsmē ar varas pārstāvjiem, presi, publiskajā informācijas telpā”. Kas tad nodrošinās šo saskarsmi? Acīmredzot, ierēdņi, kurus uz vienlīdzības pamata rekrutēs no “krievvalodīgo Latvijas iedzīvotāju, kas nav etniskie latvieši”, vidus. Ja atceramies PCTVL programmā lietoto jēdzienu “lingvistiskā kopiena”, tad saprotam, ka šo kategoriju veidos visu Latvijas minoritāšu pārstāvji, kas SC uzlabotajā izglītības sistēmā būs apguvuši krievu valodu. Tādējādi turpmāk valsts iestādēs etniskos latviešus apkalpos ierēdņi – etniskie latvieši, bet “krievvalodīgos Latvijas iedzīvotājus, kas nav etniskie latvieši” – piemēram, kāds lībietis, kurš pārzina ES pamatvalodu.

“Saskaņas centrs: (ne)parastā krievu partija”

Politically, the future looks pretty bleak, Andrej. Even many on the right admitted that the Dome in Rīga may not see a center-right government again—and the Dome is quite significant in this centralized country.

One way or another (echoes of Blondie), the ethnocracy will come to an end, which you’ve suggested before; the Right can whine about naturalization, as the Liv in Ambersun’s latest pasting does, but having a large number of non-citizens was not and is not really an option, either (and the situation in Estonia, where about a third of the Russians hold Russian citizenship, is even more dangerous).

Most of the ethnocentrists, even some of the most rabid amongst them, I know in Latvia are far more concerned about the growing inflation rates and lack of good jobs and wages in the real world than they are of any potential danger those increasingly marginalized Soviets on Latvian soil pose to the Latvian nation.

I find it difficult to separate these things out—the need for immigrants, for instance, is an economic matter… but most of the immigrants are and will be Russophones. Wages rose by about a third last year—more than anywhere in Europe. Inflation is high, but we are probably looking at a soft landing. One way or another, perhaps with frightening landings in between, we are obviously headed to a much higher standard of living. We are already ahead of both Poland and Lithuania.

The problem with the ethnocentric is bigotry. Healthy, liberal nationalism—and even what’s called “ethnic democracy” (not the same as ethnocracy)—are fine, and necessary. What’s not fine is what leads to the sorry stuff Anita posted (hey, we really must be unmoderated now!). This epopeja with the schoolgirl didn’t surprise me at all—time and again, Latgallians have told me that the establishment in Rīga is increasingly repulsive. It is about a certain type of Latvian ("same cigarettes as me"), and not only Russians but also Latgallians are not welcome.

I will again insist that all bigotry is closely related, though some here didn’t like that suggestion. Bash Russians, bash Jews, bash blacks, bash gays—it’s mostly about bashing, not about the target group. It’s about insecure thugs walloping “the other,” basically, and Latvians possess that strain at least as much as any other Eastern European people does. I grew up being taught that we did not—that all minorities lived here quite happily. I was taught wrong.

Mēs gribam būt kungi mūsu dzimtajā zemē,
Mēs gribam nu paši sev likumus lemt:
Tā zeme ir mūsu, tās pilsētas mūsu, –
Mēs negribam lūgt to, kas mūsu, bet ņemt!

Plūdons’ ditty is dangerous. It is quite understandable in its context, and that context is still around—ethnic Letts have arguably less economic power in today’s Latvia than we did in the latter days of the Russian Empire. But once you get a nation-state—you get a nation-state, distinct from a tribal reservation.

The “political nation” of the Sorosistas is seen as shallow. But it is especially shallow if this so-called “political nation” is weak.

I won’t agree with you, Andrej, re identity might be “weak”, but increasingly all identities are becoming so—it depends on what’s meant by “weakness,” of course… but there’s considerable reaction to the mumbo-jumbo of certain supposedly transcendent identities. There are aspects of “European identity” that are no better than the imperial identities nationalism threw off.

Shalom,
/P

Posted by Peteris, who hit the complexity-of-identity nail on the head in his inimitable “schizophrenic-Latvian” way, writing to Andrejs, the self-identified “marginal Latvian” passing through Malaysia, the States, and Latvia;
re-posted by your nationalist nightmare ambersun, cutting-and-pasting for Aleksejs, the culturally Russian, ocassionally-Latvian-speaking, pelmeni-eating “European in Latvia,” for whom Latvian culture is “tautas dziesmas and folk dances” -

To identity and your [Andrejs] “it’s the economy, stupid” mantra—again… definitions, definitions… Identity is complex, and you know that. It’s civic, political, and cultural, not just linguistic (and I mean cultural in the broad sense, including everything from eating lamprey [and I hope the border guard is informed of your culinary habits and doesn’t let you in, you eel-denigrating other!] to helping old ladies cross the street).

To Andrejs, the self-identified “simple man” simplifying identity with his “ ‘it’s the economy, stupid’ mantra” (per Peteris),
who has a passle-of-passports but only a “marginal Latvian” identity,
“clarion call” that identity is not simple (!!!):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02jewishness-t.html?ei=5070&en=31f10e728a11bafa&ex=1205470800&emc=eta1

How Do You Prove You’re a Jew?
By GERSHOM GORENBERG
Published: March 2, 2008
One day last fall, a young Israeli woman named Sharon went with her fiancé to the Tel Aviv Rabbinate to register to marry. They are not religious, but there is no civil marriage in Israel. The rabbinate, a government bureaucracy, has a monopoly on tying the knot between Jews. The last thing Sharon expected to be told that morning was that she would have to prove — before a rabbinic court, no less — that she was Jewish. It made as much sense as someone doubting she was Sharon, telling her that the name written in her blue government-issue ID card was irrelevant, asking her to prove that she was she.
[...]

“What’s Latvian government’s position on the Nord Stream gas pipeline? What’s Latvia’s position on the EU efforts to liberalize the energy market in Europe?  What is Latvia’s opinion on the concluded presidential elections in Russia?”

I was wondering myself if Ambersun was actually going to address any direct question posed to her.

I imagine she’s still consulting with Youtube while hopefully placing flowers and notes of praise at the base of her shrine to the Great Lucas Entity. From such deep prayers may arise a cut and paste opportunity !

Vidas

Vidas, doesn’t Lithuania’s fifth column need your help? Why would I share Latvian state secrets with you?  Do your own web-surfing and YouTubing to find the answers to Latvia’s state secrets.

PS Email Edward Lucas directly with your concerns about his book. I didn’t write it, I merely read it - and you obviously didn’t.

Individual identity is complex. Group identity not as much. As I’d define Latvian national identity (not an ethnic Latvian identity) it would be primarily linguistic. I stay away from defining a cultural identity simply because I believe cultural identity is not stagnant. Its constantly evolving. Part of the problem for me is that trimda Latvians defining what it means to be a Latvian are defining it as it existed 50 years ago. Good or bad, Latvia has changed, so has Latvian “culture”. Which is more of a Latvian restaurant, Vincents or Lido? Is the Borowa MC Letgalian, Latvian or a hip hop wanna be?
I would characterize your assimilation as what I would call integration, but its just semantics. I think we both agree that assimilation should be a choice. Not policy. You know me well enough to know that if I choose I can easily change my last name back to Kalnins, elongate a few of my vowels and I’d disappear into the Latviesu katls with none the wiser. I can assimilate with the best of them, but that’s not what we are talking about. Its not about how I perceive myself. Its about how the group perceives me and if you (universal pronoun) define the group in the narrowest sense then frankly it doesn’t matter if I speak unaccented Latvian, was born in Latvia, and consider myself a Latvian. I will be the other with no chance of assimilating.
As to Latvians ever being European? What’s European? The gotan project is a bunch of French guys filtering Argentine music through synthesizers. Is a Royal with cheese a whopper? Gonzo keeps talking about the Latvian tumsoniba, I am sure you’d find tumsoniba in quite a few of Munich’s hippest neighberhoods. Civil society takes a long time to build. It wasn’t that long ago historically speaking that the Belge thought the Tutsi should rule the Congo because they had more pleasing features than the Hutu. Father time in a limited sense, etc.
As to identifying with the Republic. We don’t disagree. Hence my comment about the gulf between the middle roads. What happened in Estonia didn’t much surprise me. What surprised me is that it didn’t happen in Latvia. And sooner.
I disagree on the need for immigrants, but I don’t think you meant it that way. Its about cheap labor and as long as existing citizens have opportunities for higher wages elsewhere it will continue being a factor. The solution there doesn’t seem to me to have much to do with building a stronger identity.
Don’t mean to gush greek chorusly, but you hit it on the nail about bigotry. Hope Ambersun won’t mind.

Es maz maz maz maz maz maz maz maz maz maz mazdēls,
Es rakstu dziesmas un krauju tās čupā.
Nebraucu uz Vāciju, nebraucu uz Dāniju,
Nav man draugos ne ungārs, ne īrs.
Lai ko es dziedu, runāju, vienmēr baigās piebilstu -
Eiropa mūs nesapratīs.

Andrejs, the marginalized

I havent laughed this hard in a long time. Dearest Ambersun in your steadfastness to avoid answering questions sez:

“Vidas, doesn’t Lithuania’s fifth column need your help? Why would I share Latvian state secrets with you?  Do your own web-surfing and YouTubing to find the answers to Latvia’s state secrets.”

“PS Email Edward Lucas directly with your concerns about his book. I didn’t write it, I merely read it - and you obviously didn’t. “

Well Ambersun, I’m as attached to the Lithuanian fifth column as you are the established guardian of Latvian state secrets in the Bay area of California. Peteris, Aleks, Andrejs and myself have all asked you to respond to specific points. You ignore every single one.

Let me repost my two questions. Aleks, Peteris and Andrejs are more than capable of showing how you fail to respond to their questions. Again and again....

How about this - let me be so presumptuous to ask you Ambersun - to define for me what a good relationship with Russia is ?  From a Baltic Unity Today viewpoint.

So what do you want to do to resolve this Ambersun ? Form a pan-diaspora army and invade ?

Or how about your point on wanting to see political consistency ? What does that mean ? Who’s being inconsistent ?

Vidas

ps. I have Lucas’ book and I really dont see how you dream that Lucas writes in support of your position. Reread the introduction to his book. He has plenty of criticism for all sides.

Vidas, I’m almost flattered that you care so much about my personal political opinions, but you’re also making me feel just a bit uncomfortable - like I’m being pursued by a stalker.  If I felt you really cared what I think about the political haps in Latvia and Lithuania, and thought you really would pay attention to what I say and ponder the wisdom of my wisdom - I’d still not break my silence to the fifth column. You just may have to learn Latvian (and we’re used to waiting for that to happen) and immerse yourself in Latvian culture (dancing sudmalinas repeatedly) to read through the “visu labu” and “sveiki” code.

PS Can you give me an update about Russia’s response to Lithuania’s demand for acknowledgment of the occupation of Lithuania? Any mention of Estonia and Latvia?