Can’t remember anymore where who wrote what on this topic so starting a new thread about Latvian identity.
I guess for me it all crystalized in the exchange between Aleks and Ambersun (aka Amber) where Aleks (aka Rooski scum) came out of the closet by writing that he didn’t really have much affinity or in common with Latvian “culture”. Ambersun saw this as definitive proof Aleksejs’ anti-Latvian and pro-Rooskie agenda. I don’t see it that way. Part of the problem that in all my years of reading and commenting on this topic I’ve yet to see anyone define a clear cut Latvian identity or what it means to be a Latvian. I’ve been pondering JKS original question for a while now and to make a long internal dialogue short, I’ve always felt like a Latvian regardless of where I’ve lived. And this eventhought I believe, and always believe, that quite a few Latvians will never ever under any circumstance will accept me as a Latvian. Due to my father’s Jewishness I will always be suspect if not down right a member of the Other.
The question is not whether or not someone is a Latvian, but what does it mean to be a Latvian. The problem I see with Ambersun’s definition of a Latvian and a Latvian nation is that it seems exceptionally narrow for me (and I know that she’ll probably write that I am painting a picture which she didn’t mean to paint). My definition of a Latvian nation is fairly simple. It will have a clear cut Latvian linguistic identity in which the Latvian language will always have a special and protected status. That’s it. I think that’s not only a healthy model, but also one which can realisticly be attained and sustained. And that is the policy which thus far Latvia has pursued. And the simple fact is that its working.
I think Ambersun is still stuck in the trimda mindset and the gaisma pils model. Most Latvians (and remember that the majority of Latvians actually live in Latvia and not in the Trimda) no longer care about the issues which seem to haunt her. That doesn’t mean that those aren’t valid issues, but the debate took years ago and just to repeat again, the Latvians won. Most of Latvia’s Latvians no longer care about whether or not Aleks knows the words to Kur tu teci gailit man or whether or not he owns a tautas terps. That’s not important to them.
But back to the whole what it means to be a Latvian. I remember being in Garezers in 1977 and feeling completely and utterly like a fish out of water. I spoke Latvian better than most. I knew a bit about the history. I knew some of the songs and dances and rotalas. You’d think we’d have a lot in common (since Garezers was all about being a Latvian), but I felt like a fish out of water. This is not meant as a criticism, I think the same would have been true for Aussie Latvian or a Brit. To the Latvians in Garezers being a Latvian often also meant a fondness for Pabst Blue Ribbon, quoting lines from Monthy Python and the Rocky Horror picture show, playing volleyball, rooting for the Cubs, etc., etc. Eventually I overcome (not in Garezers) those obstacles, but what it meant to them to be a Latvian wasn’t what it meant to me to be a Latvian. We had very little shared history at that point and its the shared history which defines who we are and what we belong to. Thus this mean that they or I are better Latvians? No. Simply means that its very dangerous to expect everyone to be mirrors of who they themselves are. The national indentity has to be far more flexible and inclusive. I think that’s why that exchange between Aleks and Ambersun struck home. Sorry, but I too don’t much care for tautas dziesmas and Latvian “culture”. That doesn’t mean I think its bad. Its just not what Latvian means to me. Latvian to me might mean a love of solyanka, pelmeni, sashlinks, Pauls, Popov, Briliantnaya ruka, Citiri Tankisti i Sabaka ...
To me, as long as Aleksejs respects the right of Latvians to be Latvian and doesn’t expect any special treatment (and he does and he does not) he will always be a member of the Latvian nation even if he never claims to be or desires to be a Latvian.

Andrejs

It is rather interesting, Andrej.

About 20 years ago, in time of “ the Latvian revival “ or Атмоda I communicated with Latvians in Moscow much. Here there were two big groups: those who for whatever reasons appeared here (work, study, marriage), and those who lived in Moscow, but ones who knew that they are Latvians. The first ones spoke Latvian among themselves, the second - spoke Russian. Certainly, they were at that time incorporated by one idea, therefore very intensively cultivated all Latvian in themselves. But in due course these meetings began to strain me. I have got into conversation with one Latvian (he was from Daugavpils and was absolute bilingual). He has told, that also tests complex feelings - he goes to Latvians to receive something Latvian, but in summary this all extends all Latvian from him. Such vampirism of identification.

It seems to me, it is a theme for antique drama. For example, why Godfather by Coppola is thegreat film? Not because fine actors, though also there play it too. The theme is the eternal conflict between individual, creative, personal against a clan, family, tribe, collective there is some complex of fault or obligations before this. And the clan always wins under laws of a genre.

Regards,

Juris

Thank you Andrej, for your candidness!  “...it’s very dangerous to expect everyone to be mirrors of who they themselves are."--well said and something worth remembering.

Irena

Juris - This truly is a gem of expression! 

...he goes to Latvians to receive something Latvian, but in summary this all extends all Latvian from him. Such vampirism of identification.

I will try to guard against my own “vampirism.”

Good day,
thank you for your very candid and open message...i think, that people in XXI century may think outside the...ethnic boundaries...To me, knowledge of Latvian history, culture, and language is very much clear definition of being Latvian...After all, we-The People of Trimda, after living for many years here, in the US-who are we-Latvians, Americans, Russians???

This is off topic, but I’m of the opinion that trimda no longer exists. It’s called a diaspora. Nothing prevents Latvians anywhere from returning to their country (other than, perhaps, muttsiness). But the question of identity is an interesting one.

OK, i agree about the definition of “Trimda vs Diaspora”...Just few questions-are we talking about the Latvian people by ethnicity, or about Latvians by culture?  Lets take John Doe, his parents came from Latvia after the war, he lived all his life in Kansas-is he an American, or Latvian?  And what about somebody, whos family lived in Latvia for generations, that speak Latvian language, knows the history, culture etc, but left not Latvia, but USSR in 1980”, and belongs to different...ethic background-Russian, Jewish or Lithuanian?-is he a Latvian or not?  And about the returning to Latvia-unless the Government will decide on dual citizenship, there will be very few people, that even consider of doing that…

I met John, er, Jānis once. I worked at an Office Max store in the beautiful state of Michigan. He handed me his credit card and it said Janis on it. I asked him “Are you from Latvia?”

“No, my parents were,” he said. “But I don’t speak Latvian.”

To me, he’s an American.

I also dined with the first family to settle in northern Indiana in 1948, if I’m not mistake. Their daughter, now a woman of decent years, doesn’t speak the language, but understands it. To me, she’d be an American, more so than Latvian.

On the other hand, I correspond with a woman from Atlanta, who hasn’t been to Latvia in her entire life, she speaks the language. I’d say she’s more Latvian than American.

So, it seems I’m connecting the ability to speak the language with one’s ethnicity…

All right, so, if i can speak fluent latvian, i am considered ethnic Latvian?, in my opinion, we need to separate Latvian people from Latvians; for example, we all are Americans of different background…

Er, being Latvian is a rather vague term. I’d consider those who speak Latvia certainly closer to being an ethnic Latvian if their language skills are near- or native. But we cannot differentiate backgrounds here as you can in the US. The history is different. But it’s a bit like Mexicans going out to protest the immigration reform holding up the Mexican flag. That’s probably as close as un-American some immigrants came, which somewhat resembles what we have here (many Russians have Russian tricolor on their cars, etc.)

The Constitution says the power in the country is vested in the people of Latvia, i.e. citizens, regardless of their ethnicity. However, Latvia, as people here pointed out, is an ethnocentric nation-state. Latvians have no other home but the Republic of Latvia, although they seem to make a nice home in Ireland, even nicer in Kalamazoo. But regardless, they’re a titular nation. Peteris chants it like a mantra. All stats, opinions are somewhat divided between what Russians say and what Latvians say. In my view, it often drives a wedge between people here in Latvia – something that you wouldn’t have in the US. And unity of the people here takes some leadership. But because Latvia is deemed as an ethnocentric nation state, the president or what have you don’t mention minority issues any more. Partly, of course, because the economy took front and center. No one here calls anyone a Russian Latvian (meaning ethnicity). It’d be like what – krievu latvietis. There’s a term Latvijas krievs, which refers to a statehood more so than ethnicity.

I’m rambling on here – but we need to define what we mean when we throw terms like ethnicity, nationality, citizenship around. It often gets confusing and overlapping.  No cut and dry lines, no check lists to make one an ethnic Latvian.

You’re correct, no cut and dry...but there must be a clear definition of Latvijas Pilson’is and Latvietis...pec tautibas; one must remember, that “tautiba” is long gone in the big part of the world…

one must remember, that “tautiba” is long gone in the big part of the world…

What “big part of the world”? Haven’t seen it diminish at all, much less get gone—in the US, a humongous and imperialistic melting pot built on others’ land, perhaps… but even there, lately ethnicity screams more loudly than it has ever before, at least in my lifetime. Elsewhere—well, where are you looking?

I completely agree with Aleks in this (at least)—we need to define what we mean when we throw terms like ethnicity, nationality, citizenship around. In a so-called globalized world, we are more obviously interdependent than ever. But that does not necessarily correlate with something/anything happening to groups, ethnoi, nations, does it? 

Some people talk about the EU homogenizing Latvians, for example. But has the EU homogenized even the members who were in it a lot longer? Often, it’s quite the opposite—Britain has gotten into devolution (e.g., the parliaments in Scotland and Wales), Belgium is falling apart, Frisians now speak Frisian in the Netherlands, Catalonia is grabbing as much autonomy as it can get, etc.

If, by “tautība,” you mean plain old blood relationships—that’s pretty much a crock to begin with. Latvians are a very mixed people and always have been—ain’t nobody gonna separate the Fennic Ogres from the oh-so-pure Balts in Courland, the German blood from the Russian blood in Riga, etc. It would not only be impossible—the attempt would be inane and destructive.

So then, language and culture—also not at all monolithic. And again—how is it framed? There is no way to register as half Russian in Latvia. You can’t even register as Latgallian. So if you’re a Latgallian with a Russian father and a Polish mother --you have to choose, Latvian or Russian or Polish or, as they say in Germany, your great-grandfather’s German shepherd?

Regards,
/P

well, with all do respect-i grew up in Riga, in multi-lingual family; Russian-German-Latvian was spoken at the same time...my grand grand parents were all born and buried in Riga; so, does that makes me-or the person like me-Latvian?  I hope, that one day we will talk about “Latvijas Tauta”, that includes all the people, that feel close to that Land..It is an absurd to request-and to demand-for Russians and others to undermine that meaning-the choice is clear-if you wish to be part of Latvia, you must be a part of Latvijas Tauta…

Fine! But, then, please define the difference between Latvijas and latviešu tauta. It’s a meaningful difference, is it not?

/P

All right-Latviesu Tauta for me means ethnic Latvians, while Latvija Tauta-everybody, that lives in Latvia, respects its history, language, and feels that he or she are the part of that land; the same way we feel here, in the US, no matter, who we are-at the end we all are the American People....ta es jutu sava sirdi..

I believe a Latvian is as one’s soul dictates it. If you believe that you are a Latvian and you have Latvian ancestry you are a Latvian if you want to be one. Legal term are made by politicians and vary from year to year but the soul lives forever.