Gustava Strengas raksts ¼ Satori.

Visu gaišu,
/P

Very Strengi…..........at least he admits that he doesn’t know what
he’s talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Reshideovich_Dyukov

Kas Tev nav skaidrs, vārdabrāl? Kā pats Gustavs mūļgrāmatā skribelē: «Ieklausījos tajā, ko teica Kaspars Zellis un nolēmu skaidri pateikt, ka ienaidnieki ir vajadzīgi.»

Visu labu,
/P

Strenga very tellingly writes:
Personīgi nepazīstu Bogovu, Gusevu vai Guščinu, nekad neesmu dzirdējis par šādiem vēsturniekiem un neesmu lasījis viņu pētījumus (ja viņiem tādi vispār ir)[5] un skaidri zinu, ka mūsu viedokļi, kas ir politiski brīva vēsture, atšķiras, bet arī mani kā vēsturnieku satrauc pats fakts, ka cilvēki, kas vismaz teorētiski ir mani amata brāļi , ir pasludināti par ienaidniekiem. Protams, es zinu, ka Aleksandra Djukova amata aprakstā drīzāk iederētos tādi vārdi kā: ‘profesionāls vēstures falsifikators’, ‘Kremļa vēsturnieks’, nevis vēstures mūzai Klio uzticīgs bruņnesis. Un tomēr, brīdis, kad vēsturnieks [????], vienalga, kādu politisku vai ideoloģisku pozīciju viņš pārstāv, kļūst par kādas valsts vai sabiedrības ienaidnieku, ir mulsinošs.
(my bold and ????)

Peteris C.,
Seems you and Gustavs Strenga have way too much time on your hands defending the right of hostile strangers from Russia to propagate untruths about Latvians and to broadcast these in the tongue of the Russians.  Foreign persons of unknown academic backgrounds wave the magician’s wand before your eyes to have you see “historians” rather than “charlatans” selling you the snake oil you are ready to buy as “history” with little regard that those who actually swallow it get poisoned, the target audience: “people of the Russian tongue” (which also includes your neighbors who voted - and will vote - in Latvia’s elections).  My gosh, earnest defenders of bad-player rooskies who don’t deserve your earnest and naive Lett-boy defense, the Profession of History has standards, and you really need to stop patronizing “people of the Russian tongue” like they can’t deal with real history, about themselves, about Latvia and Latvians.

That’s where the effort should be if you really want to take your precious time: promoting and supporting legitimate historical research and defending honest historians.  Help advance true historical knowledge in Latvia by ceasing with the fatiguing equivocation about real historical facts, like occupation, and defending honest scholarly effort, like that by vetted and deserving historians, rather than defending charlatans and snake oil medicine. It’s 2012 and Russia and Russsians deserve more than faux presidents and ersatz historians.  Latvia can hold itself to higher standards.  Besides, Peteris, you are not part of the profession of “historians” to have any skin in this game and really have little right to accept the claim of any embarrasing crazy to be a “historian” and jump on this bandwagon of support along with Strenge.  I dunno, maybe you and Strenga also go to those who claim that they are “doctors” and take their snake oil without question at every meal. Maybe even take the time to write articles on behalf of bad doctors and in support of the poison they dispense. I dunno.

I don’t know what reputation Strenge has among legitimate historians who have proven with their serious scholarship and high academic and analytical standards that they are entitled to the designation of “Historian,” but it appears that by accepting anyone who merely “theoretically” is his “amata bralis,” Strenga is devaluing himself as a legitmate “historian.”  That Strenga knows little (and nothing postive) about those he is ready to call his “amata brali,” does not feel responsible to examine the objective weight of any credentials these claimants to “historians” may hold before he leaps to defend, is not concerned that the material that they have generated is fundamentally propagandistic and harms any advance of true historical knowledge, makes Strenga seem like some lighweight looking to get publicity rather than some true historian concerned about supporting legitimate scholarship and advancing real historical knowledge.  It’s not like there isn’t real work to be done by “historian” Strenga to be taking time for this defense of mystery people from Russia who hardly need or deserve it.  “They” certainly will never promote Strenga in Russia and probably just confuse him with Snore. I wonder just who in Latvia does respect Strenga as a “historian.” 

«Vēsturnieks kā ienaidnieks» is just an inflammatory and misleading title choice by Strenga and the article such a disappointment in light of the harmful propaganda that Russian “historians” drag into Latvia.

I won’t bother answering this sort of diatribe, except to say that I have never, ever claimed to be a historian. In fact, I have explicitly & repeatedly pointed out that I am not. You’re not a historian, either. You’re not even a politician. Point being? I may not be a philosopher, but philosophers shape our world. I am not a politologs, but I have my views and vote. I am not an economist, but I have a wallet, empty or not. I am sick and tired of you. You have no stake in this country, really. You spend nearly all your time here doing nothing but Russkie-bashing. You “defend the language” you barely speak & worry about the loyalties (oops—I guess in yr world, they’re singular) of people in a country you won’t live in. What gives?

/P

Monsieur l’abbé, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire.

You are not Evelyn…................., but keep trying.

p.s. It’s strange for Stranga to claim that he doesn’t know these P.N.G’s.

Could some here please (a) not confuse Strenga with Stranga, extremely different historians & (b) spell correctly in the language they choose to use? Who is Strenge? Is that like Kantore?

/P, who noticed that Ed Lucas actually used the term “occupant”—sheesh, does sympathy for Balts extend to bad English?

Strengi is Peebay’s pun on the word “strange.”

Ambi also brought up some Strenge. Though she appears to be editing her post, at least one remains.

And (c) could we cut the bad puns?

/P

Peteris Cedrins - 07 March 2012 11:38 AM

And (c) could we cut the bad puns?

Aww, crap, and I was just thinking of a good one with “Strenga, der Historiker” and “der strenge Historiker”, since the young man seems to be doing graduate work in Freiburg. His one published work so far can be found here:

http://uni-freiburg.academia.edu/GustavsStrenga/Papers/651702/Piemina_un_atmina_divas_paradibas_velo_viduslaiku_Livonijas_religiskaja_un_laicigaja_dzive_Remembrance_and_Memory_Two_Phenomena_in_the_Sacral_and_Profane_Life_of_the_Late_Medieval_Livonia_

Peteris C.,
Yup, tried to edit all the strange Strenges into Strenga who is not Stranga.  Call me persona non grata and banish me rather than Dyukov.  Banish you for catching but one strange Strenge for Strenga when two strange remain.  If you’re going to flip out over such unintentional minor errors, think how I must feel every time you purposely misidentify and misspell occupants with occupiers. 

Now, about Strenga and where he stands in comparison to other Intellectual Luminaries, if not all historians, on Padomju Stasts and the remarkable Edvins Snore: http://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padomju_stāsts (if this link fails, enter “padomju stasts” in the box provided)
With so many positive and glowing reviews from the majority of Latvia’s intelligence and other world eminences, virtually alone stands the pan from Communist Zhdanoka, the just arbiter of “propaganda.” 

First, Strenga being his usual strange. 

Vēsturnieks Gustavs Strenga: “Padomju stāsts” ļoti efektīgi parāda padomju noziegumus un patiešām, tur nav ko pielikt vai atņemt, bet filma lieto tieši tādas paša propagandas klišejas kā tās nosodītais padomju režīms un mūsdienu Krievijas politiskā propaganda. Mats matā. Padomju stāsts šokē skatītāju ar boļševiku noziegumu brutalitāti un nežēlību, bet neļauj skatītājam domāt pašam. Filmas pirmā daļa (apmēram līdz 55 minūtei) ir vēstures propaganda, austrumeiropiešu vēstures skatījuma propaganda, bet tomēr propaganda. Tas nebūtu nekas, ja filmas autors to pats atzītu, sakot, jā, vajadzēja radīt diskusiju un es to provokatīvi arī izdarīju. Bet nē, Edvīns Šnore savu filmu neatzīst par propagandu”[12].

[Still from vikipedia, about the strange review of Strenga] Strengas paustā filmas kritika izsauca plašu rezonansi Latvijas sabiedrībā. Elita Veidemane, kas atzinīgi novērtēja filmu,[13] rakstīja: “Atklāti sakot, neizprotu, ko Strenga domāja ar vēstures vērtēšanu pašam. Šnore kārtīgi un rūpīgi mums priekšā nolika šokējošus faktus un patiešām ļāva mums pašiem (!) izvilkt kopsakarības. Ja Strengas kungs to neprata, laikam viņam jāizsaka līdzjūtība.”[bold mine] [14]

I would suggest reading the entire link and the many positive reviews and comments from so many Latvians and others who seem to have no problem discerning and judging historical truth for themselves, unlike what Strenga “neprata.”

A few notes on looking at Strenga’s post. First, if he’s been studying in England and Germany, and concentrates on the late medieval period, he may well not know all the names of historians of the 20th century.  I do like his overriding point, though, that a free give-and-take of ideas (including obnoxious ones) makes us stronger and not weaker: in his words, iekšēja pretestība rada attīstību.

In a way it reminds me of the late Cold War years, when pessimists in the West mistook Soviet academic “Gleichschaltung” for a strength:  no anarchists, druggies, hippies, sex maniacs or other deviants turning the academy into a joke over there! Now it turns out that decadent, weak-willed Sweden can weather a crisis better than almost any state on earth. Iekšēja pretestība rada attīstību.

And one of the best things about Latvian society in my book is that regular people can and do argue close historical points, whether they’re titled historians or not!  I imagine the Kremlin’s pet historians have a whole slew of credentials, but there isn’t a one-to-one correlation between credentials and merit.  The 19th-century German historians—a better-prepared and vetted group of professionals than them had never before existed—were shocked that the superior historical writings produced by British historians came from non-academics like Gibbon and Grote. Even now, I’m reading a history of the papacy by Norwich, whose value isn’t lessened by the fact that he didn’t go to grad school. The game of whom we will and whom we won’t allow to call themselves historians is a dead end. Worse, it’s boring.

The heck with this Gus. No only he mistakes two agitprops for
historians, he dissed the Riga Christmas tree story. Boooooooooooooo!

Peter K.,
Hello! Sweden is not Latvia and we’ve got a totally different fact situation in two-parallel universes Latvia. And these Moscow-mouthpieces coming into Latvia are not your Latvia-local problem “druggies, hippies, sex maniacs… .”  Get real with your unreal description of “Latvian society” where “regular people can and do [????] argue close historical points…”  You’re in denial about two-worlds Latvia where people of the Russian tongue are getting a Moscow-altered reality, ersatz news, and read “history” contrived by not “titled historians” but grads of Agent University who knowingly and intentionally falsify history to help entrench, increase the destructive division in Latvia.  Too bad you don’t take the time to know more about the “history” people of the Russian tongue get from these “fackers” to dispell your illusions about there being some legitimate, “free give-and-take of ideas (including obnoxious ones).”  Make up your mind: at one point you have “Latvian society”  arguing “close historical points” (such as , for example?) and then “ideas…including obnoxious ones” (like what’s “obnoxious”?).  Actually, neither is done with any frequency worth mentioning between Russian-speakers and Latvian-speakers and there is nothing “close” about “occupation” and “liberation” and it’s certainly beyond “obnoxious” to be debating this in 2012 Latvia.

These fake historians are not people whose agitprop (agitation and propaganda) freedom and right to bolster/recruit a fifth column in Latvia you need to protect but a purposeful infiltration into Latvia’s internal affairs with the intention to undermine the cohesion of “Latvian society” you need to expose.  Wake up!  If you don’t know anything about these charlatans coming into Latvia to spread false information they name “history,” take the time first to familiarize yourself with just whose right you think you are so honorably defending.  These are not people you or Strenga can handle since you both are just too naive and not the equals of Moscow agents with more tricks up their sleeves than your Sweden-naivete can ever imagine. Strenga writes a confused and confusing article, on the one hand defending “historians” while on the other describing these people as anything but, identifying them as history falsifiers and Moscow-inspired.  These foreign “historians” coming into Latvia around March 16 are not going to make “Latvian societies” “stronger and not weaker” for the richness of the “obnoxious…ideas” they bring.

From Strenga: “Tāpat Djukovs iepriekš ir bijis skandalozi pazīstams kā Edvīna Šņores un viņa filmas “Padomju stāsts” ass kritiķis, kurš pat atzinās vēlmē Šņori nogalināt.[4]
Personīgi nepazīstu Bogovu, Gusevu vai Guščinu, nekad neesmu dzirdējis par šādiem vēsturniekiem un neesmu lasījis viņu pētījumus (ja viņiem tādi vispār ir)[5] un skaidri zinu, ka mūsu viedokļi, kas ir politiski brīva vēsture, atšķiras, bet arī mani kā vēsturnieku satrauc pats fakts, ka cilvēki, kas vismaz teorētiski ir mani amata brāļi, ir pasludināti par ienaidniekiem. Protams, es zinu, ka Aleksandra Djukova amata aprakstā drīzāk iederētos tādi vārdi kā: ‘profesionāls vēstures falsifikators’, ‘Kremļa vēsturnieks’... .[bold mine]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Reshideovich_Dyukov

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Reshideovich_Dyukov
/.../
Aleksandr Dyukov graduated from the Russian State University for the Humanities[3] in 2004.
/.../
In a 2007 interview with Russia’s REGNUM News Agency Dyukov claimed that some Estonian historians were repeating false claims by the Nazi propaganda and said: Another example of unfair approach Estonian official historians is that in describing the deportation of 14 June 1941, they always mention that the deportees were transported in stock cars, with each car stuffed to 40-50 people, including women, children and the elderly. Therefore, they say, this deportation caused massive mortality. However, if we turn to the NKVD documents, a fair amount of which has already been published, one finds that, firstly, the transportation of deportees was carried out in passenger cars “equipped for summer human traffic.” Secondly, each railroad car carried not 40-50, but about 30 deportees. Third, according to railroad documents, mass death was impossible. It can’t be ruled out that during this deportation, not a single person died. Estonian historians, by the way, somehow forget that in every echelon of deportees there was an ambulance railroad car, which was accompanied by a doctor, paramedic and two nurses. [12] In reaction to Dyukov’s book, the newspaper Eesti Ekspress in Estonia denounced him as a revisionist historian who paints a picture of Soviet political repressions as “little worse than a family picnic”. [bold mine][13]

Irina Pavlova, a historian of the Soviet system under Lenin and Stalin,[14][15] has commented that Dyukov promotes “a new prison guard’s concept of Soviet history” based on his “blind faith in the documents provided by the FSB archives”.[16]
[edit]
/... ./