Yes, I even participated in that thread, saying almost the same thing that I have been saying on here. It’s not about the language, for chances of such a referendum to succeed are none, as you have pointed out here and as Ushakov repeated in his op-ed piece. I for one wholeheartedly support Latvian as the only state language in Latvia.

Also, one must keep in mind how this signature drive come about. VL! launched a signature drive for support of a law that would allow the State to fund public schools where only Latvian is the language of instruction. The organizers of the second state language signature drive didn’t hide the fact that their initiative is in direct response to the Lettish nationalists’ push. Then, the Linderman and Company bickered over when to submit the signatures and decided to wait until after the parliamentary election. Ultimately, it was the right decision as I suspect many will protest against the way the predominantly Russian party was treated during the coalition talks. Urbanovics in the interview to Radio Baltcom a while ago said that their goal is to compromise on everything with the Lettish parties, so that they would have the “moral right” to blame the other parties for what is happening.

PS This morning I read an editorial in the Russian-language newspaper Segodnya, published on Nov. 18, 1925, the 7th independence anniversary. Some of what it said back then is very much applicable today. Maybe I will get around to translating it for the independence day.

Vakara intervija ar Marinu Kostoņecku

gudrie kalevi….............

Šī lapa izdrukāta no DELFI portāla
Adrese: http://www.delfi.lv/archive/print.php?id=41628777
Eiropas Padomes komiteja iesaka Igaunijai mīkstināt valodas politiku
(27)
09. novembris 2011 12:22
Eiropas Padomes komiteja iesaka Igaunijai mīkstināt valodas politiku
Foto: DELFI
Eiropas Padomes Ietvara konvencijas Konsultatīvā komiteja nacionālo minoritāšu tiesību jautājumos ierosinājusi Tallinai mīkstināt valodas politiku, konkrēti, likvidēt Valodas inspekciju, trešdien informē aģentūra “RIA Novosti”.

Komiteja uzrauga konvencijas izpildi dalībvalstīs un sagatavo ziņojumu pēc valstu apmeklējuma un to iesniegto dokumentu izpētes par nacionālo minoritāšu stāvokli.

Lielākā uzmanība komitejas atzinumā veltīta valodas politikai. Igaunijas valdību aicina atcelt naudassodu piemērošanu par Valodas likuma pārkāpumiem un likvidēt Valodas inspekciju.

“Ievērojot izmaiņas, kas ļāvušas Igaunijai nostiprināties kā suverēnai un mūsdienīgai valstij ar etniski atšķirīgu iedzīvotāju sastāvu, Konsultatīvā komiteja uzskata, ka Valodas inspekcija, kuras izveidei bija vēsturiski priekšnosacījumi, tagad vairs nav vajadzīga,” teikts komitejas ziņojumā.

Tiek norādīts, ka “pastāvīgā stingrība no inspekcijas puses valodas sfērā var apdraudēt Igaunijas integrācijas stratēģiju, jo atsvešina ievērojamu iedzīvotāju daļu”.

Pastāvīgām pārbaudēm tiekot pakļauti krievu skolu skolotāji, kurus sūtot uz atkārtotiem valodas eksāmeniem un sodot. Tas radot skolās negatīvu atmosfēru un pakļauj skolotājus stresam, mazinot viņu darba kvalitāti.

Tāpat Komiteja vēlas, lai Igaunija atsakās no pārejas laika valodas politikas un kļūst “nobriedušāka”. Komitejas locekļus, piemēram, izbrīnījusi situācija Narvā, kur 96 % iedzīvotāju ir krievvalodīgie, neesot redzamas izkārtnes krievu valodā.

Eirooas Padomes nostādnes atbalstot arī citas cilvēktiesību organizācijas. Tā “Amnesty International” pāstāvji pēc Igaunijas apmeklēšanas atzinuši, ka Valodas inspekcija esot “represīvs orgāns”.
Stingri aizliegts DELFI publicētos materiālus izmantot citos interneta portālos, masu informācijas līdzekļos vai jebkur citur, kā arī jebkādā veidā izplatīt, tulkot, kopēt, reproducēt vai kā citādi rīkoties ar DELFI publicētajiem materiāliem bez rakstiskas DELFI atļaujas saņemšanas, bet, ja atļauja ir saņemta, DELFI ir jānorāda kā publicētā materiāla avots.

Aleksejs et al.,
“PS This morning I read an editorial in the Russian-language newspaper Segodnya, published on Nov. 18, 1925, the 7th independence anniversary. Some of what it said back then is very much applicable today. Maybe I will get around to translating it for the independence day.”.

Also in 1925 Abrene , your Pitalova, was still part of Latvia.

Visu labu,

Imants Kalniņš, proposes radical new approaches>>>
//la.lv/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=333272:kalni-grib-prom-no-eiropas-savienbas&Itemid=113

a new term is now being used in place of Latvia’s russian-speakers. t.i. Latzemietis

Bruno the Lett - 09 November 2011 11:23 AM

Aleksejs et al.,
“PS This morning I read an editorial in the Russian-language newspaper Segodnya, published on Nov. 18, 1925, the 7th independence anniversary. Some of what it said back then is very much applicable today. Maybe I will get around to translating it for the independence day.”.

Also in 1925 Abrene , your Pitalova, was still part of Latvia.

Visu labu,

My Pitalova [sic]? I don’t claim to own any land anywhere. And to be fair to our Lithuanian friends, in 1925, Wilno was part of Poland, which also bordered Latvia. But what that has to do with the price of rice in China remains a mystery to me…

Aleksejs et al.,
“My Pitalova [sic]? I don’t claim to own any land anywhere. And to be fair to our Lithuanian friends, in 1925, Wilno was part of Poland, which also bordered Latvia. But what that has to do with the price of rice in China remains a mystery to me… “

You brought up 1925.  Ušakovs should urge his “russian only”  speakers to move to Abrene,your russian Pitalova.  There in the land that once was part of Latvia, is the proper place for the homeland of occupiers and their descendants living in todays Latvia. There they can speak their russian “valsts’ language.  In 1925 Segodna was not the paper of the russian occupiers and their descendants.  Abrene, your russian Pitalova”
aand, the occupiers and their descendants today go together.  Why can you not understand that.

Visu labu,

I was about to write on the odd ways Urbanovics and Co. seem to be trying to prove their suitability to be in a ruling coalition given the three big stumbling blocks: (a) SC’s ties to the power structures of Putin’s Russia; (b) the question of the Soviet occupation and its flipside, the legitimacy of Latvian independence; (c) the push, which ebbs and flows but never disappears, to restore Russian as an official language. And this year red flags have gone up on all three issues: (a) the formal ties to United Russia; (b) Urbanovics’ co-authorship of Nakotnes Melnraksti, which not only argues against the idea of occupation, but also pushes the idea that 1940-41 was an improvement over the terrible Ulmanis years; (c) a ‘protest’ petition that, if successful, would have much more serious results than ‘protest’—and whose backers would be happy to see it succeed at much more than a symbolic level. That, from the fellow who said there would be a Bishkek if SC didn’t get what they wanted, adds up to a great way to keep SC out of any non-oligarchic coalition permanently.

But then I came across the toothless tough talk about the ‘proper place for the homeland of occupiers and their descendents’, and the wind went out of my sails.

It did make me think, though, about the fact that by 1914 the territory of Latvia had had such a volume of in-migration from the rest of the Russian Empire that Latvians only made up 60% of the population.  Yet I don’t recall coming across any Latvian writers of the early 20th century, or the 1905 revolutionaries, making an issue of demographic swamping. The only ethnic group that the Latvians were happy to encourage to leave were the Baltic Germans, and that was for their clinging to old privileges.

Peteris Kalniņs et al.,
“It did make me think, though, about the fact that by 1914 the territory of Latvia had had such a volume of in-migration from the rest of the Russian Empire that Latvians only made up 60% of the population.”

In general, the conept of latvians was realized when Latvia as a nation was established   Before that it was kurzemnieki, vidzemnieki, etc. It, tautiba, was largely based on territorial description.  At the time when independence was gained anyone in the territory could call himself “latvietis” with no questions asked, provided he did not insist that he is not ( the same idea is behind “tautiba” in the passport).  During the “atmodas laikmeta” there is the anecdotal reference of the germans:  there is no educated latvian, an educated latvian is a german.

Visu labu,

Nils Ušakovs: Par referendumu – tēmas turpinājums

Ushak knows how to be a schlemiel, when he has to. Other than that,

zomzing kaput mitt his kopf, but don’t tell him,
for there is no cure for it…...............LOL

Ušakovs says all the right things, and his appeal to the vecticībnieki and their deportations in 1941 and 1949 is so completely different from what his party’s priekšsēdētājs says, that it’s a shame they have to be in the same party.  Is there a party for Russian speakers who want to distance themselves from Soviet nostalgia and other red-flag issues? It would be hard to keep such a party frozen out.

As obnoxious as VL is (I didn’t vote for them), there’s no question of their being proxies for corrupt billionaire oil interests, or serving as “good cop” partners for a party in Russia whose leaders’ critics have often been murdered. Those issues are a serious danger to independence and democracy, which thanks to Latvian politicians’ own corruption and bungling are now in fragile condition.

And, on that other topic, by 1905 the Latvians definitely knew, unmistakably, that they were Latvian.

Peteris Kalniņs et al.,
“And, on that other topic, by 1905 the Latvians definitely knew, unmistakably, that they were Latvian”

Unfortunately in 1905 there was no Latvia.

Visu labu,

The point was that, according to the Russian census counts up to 1914, in the territory that became Latvia the population was only 60% Latvian.  And by then people, including the tsarist government officials, were using nationality as a basis for (self-) identification, and this percentage is cited fairly commonly.

Peteris Kalniņs et al.,
“The point was that, according to the Russian census counts up to 1914, in the territory that became Latvia the population was only 60% Latvian”

The census counts relied on self identification.  There were incentives to indentify with the ruling germans and russians rather than the letts.

Visu labu,