“Ir valsts svētku laiks. Laiks, kurā ne tikai svinam Latvijas dzimšanas dienu, bet arī atceramies, cik smagā cīņā valsts iegūta, cik sviedriem un asinīm par viņu maksāts.

Ir arī laiks, kad bieži runā par dialogu un tā trūkumu latviešu un citu tautību iedzīvotāju starpā.”

Raivis Dzintars: Vēstule Latvijas krieviem, baltkrieviem, ukraiņiem, poļiem, ebrejiem, lietuviešiem un ikvienam citam Latvijas iedzīvotājam, kura dzimtā valoda nav latviešu.

http://www.delfi.lv/news/comment/comment/raivis-dzintars-vestule-latvijas-krieviem-baltkrieviem-ukrainiem.d?id=41794721

I was recently going through some college papers that I hadn’t pitched for whatever reason.  One was from an undergrad English class that included some class time spent learning about logical fallacies and rhetorical devices.  In retrospect, one of the most useful classes I ever had.  Anyway, for the final for that portion of the semester we were given a manufactured op-ed piece and we had to name and identify as many fallacies as we could, and that was the paper I found.  As I refiled this paper I remember thinking what horribly blatant silliness it was, how easy it was to identify the fallacies, and how could ANYONE not see how ridiculous it was.  (Granted that was before Tea Party rhetoric swept away so many.  But that’s definitely a digression.)

That paper came to mind after my first read of this piece.  This offering sounded wonderful at a cursory read.  Nothing wrong with it.  How forgiving, how sane, how kind, but yet how patriotic and firm.  But keeping that class in mind, I reread.

I encourage that kind of attention.  This is the upper-level version of the exam.

To help:  http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

Anita,
What an awesome and remarkable response to “dialogue!”  Your sincerely helpful contribution can only serve to further internationalist understanding among all the people in Latvia who did not benefit like you did from the instruction, guidance, and goodwill of your patriotic trimda teachers at Garezers.  The torch is passed!  If only I had attended Garezers and been enriched as you have with a love of things Latvian that you share at every opportunity for meaningful dialogue and that serves as a real inspiration to those non-Latvians in Latvia who did not have the opportunity because of war and their occupation to know the real Latvians you did.

What an awesome and remarkable response to “dialogue!”  Your sincerely helpful contribution can only serve to further internationalist understanding among all the people in Latvia who did not benefit like you did from the instruction, guidance, and goodwill of your patriotic trimda teachers at Garezers.  The torch is passed!  If only I had attended Garezers and been enriched as you have with a love of things Latvian that you share at every opportunity for meaningful dialogue and that serves as a real inspiration to those non-Latvians in Latvia who did not have the opportunity because of war and their occupation to know the real Latvians you did.

Why thank you, ambersun.  I too wish you had partaken of the opportunities to be educated in things Latvian - but it’s never too late!  As to “real Latvians” and “patriotic Latvians” - you have been asked many, many times to please define your terms - yet you never do.  Hmmm, here’s an idea.  How about if I make a donation to Garezers if you finally do?  Even in your name!  Even if you have contradicted that definition in the past!  How’s that for a way to make an actual difference in the Latvian community?  Just make a good-faith attempt to finally define the term you’ve bandied about for years now.

As to the article, there really WAS no dialogue, was there?  Just a seemingly calm, a seemingly rational, voice - saying we’re misunderstood, good, strong people, perhaps even… heroes.  And we have nothing in common with THEM.  And then veered off into straw man territory.  All in good (beautiful, even) Latvian, all from one living there, all from one wanting the best for his kids.  Infinitely more scary than your sentences (if not as interesting to diagram).

Anita et al.,
““Ir valsts svētku laiks. Laiks, kurā ne tikai svinam Latvijas dzimšanas dienu, bet arī atceramies, cik smagā cīņā valsts iegūta, cik sviedriem un asinīm par viņu maksāts.”

What is wrong with what above was posted by ambersun. ?  Do you disagree with what she said ?

A leader of the party that is supported by people like Dr. Aivars Slucis wants to have a dialogue? Do you negotiate with terrorists? :)

Rīgas domes priekšsēdētājs Nils Ušakovs (SC) otrdien kopā ar partijas biedru Rīgas domes deputātu Maksimu Tolstoju (SC) nodibinājis sabiedrisku organizāciju “Latvija - mana dzimtene”. Biedrības mērķis ir veidot saliedētu sabiedrību, kurā krieviski runājošie Latvijas iedzīvotāji, kas šeit dzīvo, justos piederīgi Latvijai un vienotai sabiedrībai, aģentūrai LETA stāstīja Ušakovs.
“Tā ir sabiedriska organizācija, ko esmu izveidojis atkal kā Latvijas pilsonis,” teica Ušakovs.

So both parties say they are willing to have a dialogue, yet their actions say something completely different.

the russians just want a dialogue with anybody,in russian, Grazhdanyn?

I read Dzintars’ article, and don’t mean to be disingenuous, but which logical fallacies or straw-man arguments is he guilty of here? I looked for them and didn’t find them.

I can understand objections if his words here are belied by illiberal statements or actions elsewhere, and this article is certainly nationalistic, but it’s not terroristic.  Latvia’s government has been described as fascist more or less constantly (by a variety of politicians or media sources) since 1991, but without any murders or forced deportations on ethnic grounds in 20 years, that seems a bit off.  And if Slucis is the worst exhibit of fascist terror—and I don’t defend his insulting, unconstructive, tribalist statements—then, well, that’s pretty feeble terror.  “Būs Biškeka”: that at least gives people a clear idea of what they can fear, especially when its author’s sponsors have the resources to make good on the threat.

I continue to hold to the idea that Latvians (in Latvia and elsewhere) have the opportunity to turn the country around if they choose to do so, and that our problems are our problems, not to be pinned on the Soviet era in-migrants and their descendants (however depraved they may be [insert ironic smiley here]). And I admit freely that I’m not doing much of anything myself to improve things.

And if we want to find enemies of the tauta, then our bought-and-paid-for politicians are right in front of our noses.

Anita,
Excuse me, Missy self-loathing Lett, but just why did you bother getting all that super-Lett education you probably now consider patriotic propaganda from Garezers and elsewhere?  Maybe your current obvious contempt for anything suggesting tribal allegiance or patriotic attachment is your childish rebellion against too much Latvianism.  Too many (disparaged) “right-wingers” at an early age seem to have made the Latvian Juliet seek romance with the dangerous Red Romeo.  This helps explain much.  There were many of us Latvians who came to “things Latvian” and other wonderful Latvian friends by other routes.  I saw the logical fallacies in both right and left romances without the help of your instruction.

You keep up your “giving back” to “your Latvian community” in the way that makes you feel best.  Keep that money flowing to Garezers - along with all the other patriotic, dare I say, “nationalists.” Contribute all the money you can to the “national” library, certainly the Museum of the Occupations along with, dare I say, the likes of “nationalists” like Raivis Dzintars, Ojars Celle, Valters Nollendorfs, utt since I doubt Nil Ushakov, the Rubik guys, or anyone from SC will.  May I suggest that you worry less about my giving to Garezers or other Latvian organizations and just trust my love for Latvia and great tribal survival instincts.  Rather, may I suggest that you coax some big bills from Wahabist, Aleksejs, etc.  Unlike me, I believe they are probably in arrears and getting a free ride here as “contributors.”

ambersun - 19 November 2011 08:08 AM

Maybe your current obvious contempt for anything suggesting tribal allegiance or patriotic attachment is your childish rebellion against too much Latvianism. 

Or an understandable reaction to unbalanced, ad hominem attacks on people judged to be insufficiently patriotic.

No point going into the crude mischaracterization of Anita’s views.

That’s right, Mister Knight.  Anita writes only nice, positive, and kind things and gives meaning to the lives of knights like you who obviously have to defend this defenseless innocence.

Furthermore, Mister Defender of your Chosen Defenseless, you obviously have your very own special version of “democracy” for Latvia.  Yes, you really wrote:

“I continue to hold to the idea that Latvians (in Latvia and elsewhere) have the opportunity to turn the country around if they choose to do so, and that our problems are our problems, not to be pinned on the Soviet era in-migrants and their descendants (however depraved they may be [insert ironic smiley here]). And I admit freely that I’m not doing much of anything myself to improve things.

And if we want to find enemies of the tauta, then our bought-and-paid-for politicians are right in front of our noses.”

Would you please clarify this version of democracy where “the Latvians” control everyone in Latvia and are the only citizens with power and responsibility “to turn the country around.”  How would a “turned around” Latvia by “Latvians” look?  You also write that “our problems are our problems.”  Just who are these people of your written “our” and what are these problems that you refer to as “our problems?” Would you also speak more about those “Soviet era in-migrants and their descendants (however depraved they may be…)?”  Are they Latvian citizens and included now in the democracy as participants to “turn the country around if they choose to do so?”  Are they democratic co-equals who share in your notion of “our” as in “our problems are our problems?”  If “our problems” are really “our problems” but you don’t think they should be pinned on “Soviet era in-migrants.” then what is their share of the burden/benefit of your democracy in Latvia?  If they are not citizens, why not?  Are you pinning all “our” problems on “Latvians?”  Would you clarify “depraved” in reference to “Soviet era descendants” since I don’t really see the ironic and smiley but only the real and depressing.  How does this “depravity” manifest itself in your democracy in Latvia and is this “their” or “our” problem?”  Do your “Latvians” have responsibility to solve this if this is “our” and “their” problem in our/their democracy?  I know you said you are not doing much to help but please at least firm this up to do less harm.  Finally, just who is your “tauta” in this democracy and are not your “depraved” also contributing to “our [there you go again] bought-and-paid-for politicians…right in front of our [again] noses?”

Seriously Ambersun ?

What is there to do after running through yet another one of your breathless, stream of consciousness rants other than shake my head and roll my eyes ? Your lectures from occupied Injun Territory are mind boggling and vacuous.

Have some hot tea or something.

Another unbalanced, ad hominem attack from ambersun. Imagine my surprise. And the usual list of demands for explanation that took two minutes to write but would require hours to address in detail. And ascribing nonexistent things to other people, such as a “special version of democracy” which I don’t have but must defend. Oh, and insulting remarks about other people’s personal lives and histories. What a crock. 

Latvians voted for Andris Bērziņš, who used his bank job and political influence to become a millionaire. Hundreds of thousands in EU funds ended up in his account in a way he can’t really explain, poisoning the image of Latvia internationally.  No wonder his November 18th “uzruna” sounded like something he wished he didn’t have to read. He’s our boy.

Latvians also voted in Ainars Šlesers, who, if I remember the newspaper article accurately, said that he was most proud of pushing for the legislation allowing foreigners to buy permanent residency rights by investing in Latvia (i.e. buying up the place).  People like Bērziņš and Šlesers are killing Latvia, whether they are whores for Lukoil or for Swedish banks, making sure people in Latvia get no relief from debt slavery. They’re our curse. Not the jerks walking around Riga in “CCCP” t-shirts.

Here’s what I mean by saying that we who call ourselves Latvians have our national survival in our hands. We’re free to move to Latvia to tip the demographic balance. We’re free to invest our capital there and buy property so it isn’t all bought up by Germans, Swedes, Russians, etc., and so jobs might be created for people there. We’re free to have more children, or to help young Latvian families materially, or to help teach other people’s children the language, music and culture.  We’re also free not to do these things (and I’m addicted to that freedom myself—tauta nav Dievs, after all) but the long-term consequence is that if trends of the last 20 years continue, there won’t be a viable independent Latvia, no matter how fierce and proud and sassy and patriotic we feel.

I’d like to endorse Pēteris Kalniņš‘s views (though one could quibble with “Latvians voted for Andris Bērziņš”... we don’t elect the president directly, and I have not yet met a soul who is fond of the current creep). I won’t bother battling with the unchanging Ambersun over in occupied Injun territory, but I wanted to quickly summarize some recent observations. I left Daugavpils in January, after (too) many years, lived in Riga until August, and have since been living in Roja civil parish, on the Gulf. This is an exceedingly Latvian area, ethnically—pretty much the opposite of darkest Dvinsk. Views on the language issue here vary—with not a few Latvians I’ve spoken to so liberal (and sometimes even rather russophilic) on the issue that Ambersun would likely suicide over dinner conversations; several expressed their chagrin at many younger Latvians not knowing Russian, for example. Nostalgia for the Soviet period is unusually high; I’ve heard a number of people refer to the occupation as labie laiki. This is because of the death, or murder, of most industry in the region, the fraying of the social safety net, the decline of the education system, the vast gap between the rich and the impoverished middle class, the incompetence and corruption of successive Latvian governments… and a host of other reasons. There are also not a few nationalists of various stripes, of course, but I find those who are further to the right to be frighteningly illogical much of the time—they very often simply do not look at the negative trends Pēteris refers to, believing that Latvia will prosper… miraculously, simply because mēs esam sīksta tauta. Meanwhile, most young people are departing in droves. The child next door has to be taken 6 km away to find a playmate. There is no longer bus service between this village and Roja in the mornings; even if one does find work, it is often impossible to get to the job. There is no work if there are no fish, and then there are no wages, there being practically no protection for workers… and the pitifully low wages are anyhow often paid late. One alternative is to get bussed to Riga by another fish company, meaning people sometimes do not see their spouses between Monday and Friday. Land prices here are astronomical, and many foreigners as well as the wealthy from the capital have summer homes here. Many locals have health problems and get little support from the state. Disabled children suffer in the school system. There are many unemployed people, and the simtlatnieki have had their payments reduced to Ls 80 a month. There are, of course, people who are doing well, running guest houses, etc. There is, however, an unbearably heavy tax burden. There is also the need for bribery. All of this in what is beyond doubt the most beautiful place I have ever lived. People are wonderfully welcoming, friendly, and intelligent—I had a superb dinner on the 18th, and those attending were deeply patriotic despite not being blind. They could give another reason for Ambersun to despair in speaking of their distinctly low opinion of the Latvian diaspora, by the way. But one thing is clear: the vast majority has far more pressing concerns than wallowing in tiresome ethnopolitical culs-de-sac.

Visu gaišu,
/P

D Pils to Roja! what change of venue….......................
i believe that in Soviet occupation days that
was the forbidden zone…...........well, all the
way to Palanga and beyond.

Yes. Anything beyond Mērsrags required permission. Lielās Tēvijas svētā robežzona…

/P