Visi latvieši kā viens ir laimes meklētāji, un katrs latvietis kādreiz savā dzīvē kļūst par “Sprīdīti”. Protams, kā kurš: daži paceļo pa Latviju, daži pa Baltiju, citi pa Eiropu un daži sadūšojas, un aizceļo pat vēl tālāk. Bet ne visi atgriežas no šiem laimes meklējumiem. Šeit arī rodas problēmas; dažādais skatījums par to, vai patiešām ir vajadzīgs aizbraukt un vai tad dzimtene nespēj dot tās cilvēkiem nepieciešamo. Šis veicina konfliktus ģimenēs, starp draugiem, politiķu vidū un valsts lokā, radot plaisas tautā.

Neviens jau neapgalvo, ka doties meklēt laimi, braukt un ceļot ir slikti, bet daudzi no šiem Sprīdīšiem neatgriežas un cilvēki šo uzskata par laika tērēšanu un dzīves atlikšanu un pat par Tēvzemes apvainošanu kādos ekstrēmākos gadījumos, jo Sprīdīša moto bija, ka nekur nav tik labi kā mājās. Tomēr iespējams, ka ne katrs ir Sprīdītis un moto” nekur nav tik labi kā mājās” ne vienmēr attiecas uz visiem. Ja tu izbrauc no Latvijas, vai tas tik tiešām nozīmē, ka tu arī aizbrauc un tu esi sarāvis visas saites ar Latviju?

Mans personīgais viedoklis par to, vai dzīve ārpus Latvijas nozīmē aizbraukšanu ir – nē tas to nenozīmē. Pati esmu aizbraucēja, tādēļ vēlos sacīt, ka neesmu pametusi savu Tēvzemi uz visiem laikiem, un gribētos domāt, ticēt, ka kādreiz dzīvē arī atgriezīšos Latvijā. Pārsvarā visi letiņi, ko pazīstu, kuri ir aizbraukuši vai arī plāno aizbraukt, ir vienādās domās ar mani – kādreiz būs jāatgriežas Latvijā. Kaut arī vairums no šiem aizbraucējiem vēlas atgriezties Latvijā, tas ne vienmēr nozīmē uz palikšanu, bet uz kādu laiciņu. Pati es nezinu, vai es vēlētos pārvākties pavisam uz Latviju. Vēlreiz sākt visu no sākuma būtu atkal grūti un maniem vecākiem neiespējami dažādu apstākļu dēļ. Pat, ja patstāvīga dzīve Latvijā manai ģimenei kopā nav iespējama, tas nenozīmē, ka mēs esam aizbraukuši pavisam. Četrus gadus dzīvojot ārpus “mājām”, tu patiešām saproti, kāpēc tu mīli šo zemi un kāpēc tev tā trūkst katru dienu. Galu galā tur ir mani radi, draugi, atmiņas, tā teikt, vecā dzīve. Šī tēma ir ļoti smaga visiem, kur ir kaut kādā veidā saistīti ar aizbraukšanu un dzīvi ārpus Latvijas, jo dzīve par pagriezties pa 180 ° jebkurå dienā un tu to vari apjēgt tikai pēc kāda laiciņa. Piemēram, vienā dienā tavi vecāki var paprasīt, vai tu nevēlies pārvākties uz kādu ļoti attālu vietu un neapjēdzot, ko tas īsti nozīmē, tu pasaki jā. Tad, kad tu saskaries ar kultūras šoku, tikai tad tu sāc apjēgt, ko tas īsti nozīmē – dzīves ārpus savas dzimtenes.

Kā jau minēju, daudziem cilvēkiem, kuri ir saistīti ar dzīvi ārpus Latvijas, kā arī aizbraucējiem, šis jautājums par dzīvi ārpus Latvijas ir ļoti smags un tuvu pie sirds. Neiesaistītie cilvēki, kuri nevēlas aizbraukt un redz aizbraukšanu kā Tēvijas nodošanu, ne vienmēr saprot iemeslus, kāpēc cilvēki aizbrauc, un bieži šie aizbraucēji nav uzklausīti. Diezgan ironiski, ka demokrātiskā valstī cilvēku viedokļi ir apspiesti un neuzklausīti. No citu atbraucēju stāstiem var skaidri noprast to, ka tu vari censties paskaidrot savus iemeslus aizbraukšanai, bet nebūs kāds, kurš uzklausīs tavus iemeslus un spēs saprast tavu rīcību. Pēc aizbraucēju un medijos ziņotām sūdzībām var noprast, ka šie iemesli tiks tikai nosviesti zemē. Lieliem Latvijas patriotiem ir grūti saprast, ka ne vienmēr cilvēki ir apstākļu spiesti. Ir daudzi faktori, kas ietekmē šos aizbraucējus. Kā piemēram: mācību līmenis citās valstīs ir augstāks, darba trūkums, aukstā ziema, daudzo cilvēku augstprātība un spēcīgie viedokļi, izmaksas u.t.t. Ne visi cilvēki spēj dzīvot šādos apstākļos , kur nu vēl izsisties. Šiem neiesaistītiem cilvēkiem liekas, ja viņi var sadzīvot ar šiem ne tik nozīmīgajiem faktoriem, tad jebkurš cits var. Bet ļoti iespējams, ka šie aizbraucēji vēlas labāku nākotni sev un savai ģimenei.

Valss dažreiz nodara pāri tās iedzīvotājiem un daudzi cilvēki to ārzemēs neapzinās. Savstarpējās sarunās var saprast, ka ārzemēs dzīvojušajiem latviešiem, kuri vairs nav dzimuši Latvijā, ir ļoti noslēgts un pozitīvs, un dažreiz pat maldinošs skats uz Latviju. Ja kāds no Latvijas pārvācās prom no dzimtenes, šiem ārzemju latviešiem šķiet dīvaini, un viņi nevar saprast, kāpēc ir jābrauc prom no tik skaistas vietas, jo taču nekas nav labāks par mājām, pie tam ja tās vēl ir tik skaistas. Ārzemēs tās sliktās lietas, kas norisinās ir mazāk vai vairāk apslēptas, lai nākošās paaudzes vēlētos turpināt uzturēt savu latvietību un aizbraukt uz Latviju un redzēt, no kurienes nāk viņu senči, un varbūt pat pārvākties uz dzīvi Latvijā bez aizspriedumiem, kur var rasties, dzirdot negatīvas un pesimistiskas lietas. Dzīvojot aktīvā latviešu sabiedrībā, kurā šķiet, ka visi tevi pieņem, bet tomēr neīsti līdz galam saprot, ir interesanti dzirdēt dažādus viedokļus par zemi, kurā esi dzimis un uzaudzis. Iepriekš minēto iemeslu dēļ atbraucējs, nevar un nedrīkst teikt neko sliktu par savu tēvzemi, kur nu vēl, ka tā ir nodarījusi kādam pāri. Un, protams, ka ideāla Latvija, kas ir radīta latviešu kopienā spēj piesaistīt iebraucēju ar saviem ideāliem un latviskuma kvalitāti.

Uz to brīdi, kad šie cilvēki aizbrauc, viņi ir uzskatāmi par aizbraucēiem, jo viņiem nav atgriešanās biļetes. Katram cilvēkam bērnības mājas ir tuvas un svarīgas, lai arī kādas tās būtu, tāpec visus atvelk atpakaļ. Ja ne uz visu dzīvi un uzreiz, tad vismaz uz kādu laiku noteikti. Tu esi aizbraucējs un tu nevēlēsies atgriezties atpakaļ uzreiz pēc tam, kad esi pametis vai izbraucis no tās zemes, jo aizbraukšanaā ir ieguldīts liels darbs un pūles. Ir ļoti daudzi cilvēki aizbraukšanas procesā, kas saka, ka tev tas, ko esi iecerējis neizdosies un tev nāksies atgriezties atpakaļ, jo būs par grūtu. Kā jau katrs stūrgalvīgs latvietis, centīsies visiem cilvēkiem pierādīt pretēji. Tad, kad viela, tā teikt, nosēžas un ir radies stabils pamats palikšanai ārzemēs, tad cilvēki sāk apsvērt idejas par to, kā būtu, ja es šobrīd būtu mājās. Pēc tam, kad ir nostiprinātas šīs saknes cilvēks atkal ir gatavs pārmaiņām, jo ir iespēja, ja gadījumā kas aiziet ne tā, kā vēlējies, atgriezties pie vecā. Letiņi, kuri izbrauc no Latvijas bez atpakaļ biļetes, vienmēr kaut kur savā prātā domā par to, kā varētu šo atgriešanās biļeti iegūt.

Lai arī kāda ir dzimtene un lai arī kādi ir bijuši iemesli aizbraukšanai, kādreiz dzīvē jebkurš latvietis atgriezīsies savā Tēvzemē. Nav iespējams neinteresēties par to, no kurienes tavi raduraksti ir nākuši, pat varētu teikt, kur tava nākotne ir sākusies. Pat aizbraucēji, kuri ikdienas dzīvē ir ļoti aizņemti un noslogoti ar savu patreizējo dzīvi, katru dienu ir kopā ar Latviju, pat ja tas nav fiziski. Vienalga, kādi iemesli ir bijuši aizbraukšanai – valsts nespēja kaut ko nodrošināt vai vienkārši laimes meklējumi – latvietis būs latvietis, un latvietis mūžam arī paliks tāds.

Šo domrakstu laikā no 2013. gada 2. līdz 19. janvārim radīja Annas Ziedares Vasaras vidusskolas 5. klases audzēkne Šarlote Jakse skolotāja Kārļa Rokpeļņa vadībā.

Australian Latvians braved the heat of the Australian summer and came out in droves to take part in the biennial Latvian culture festival in December, 2012. This is the traditional expression of Latvian identity that has been the stalwart of the community since 1951.

For the past 60 years the Australian Latvian Kultūras dienas has provided three generations of Australians of Latvian descent with an annual burst of cultural energy to sustain them for the coming year.

Latvians in Australia have, since their arrival as refugees in the late 1940s, prided themselves on their cultural heritage. Just as the Latvians in the United States and Canada have regular Song Festivals – Dziesmu svētki – which alternate between the major cities either on the west or east coast or in the midwest, the Latvians in Australia have alternated their festivals, or Kultūras dienas, as they are known in Australia, among the capital cities of all States of Australia. As decades have gone by and communities in the smaller cities have dwindled, the main three cities to host the festivals now are Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide.

What is the recipe to a successful Kultūras dienas? Is it a hefty dose of patriotic Latvian songs? Is it the vigorous dancing by the youth in the community at the folk dancing spectacular? Or the dancing at the traditional dance evening – danču vakars – that leaves you breathless but exhilarated? Is it the chance for Latvians of all ages to catch up with old friends and savour some Latvian culture at the same time? Or is it the strange sense of familiarity, maybe even belonging, that seems to overpower you as soon as you walk through the door at the Latvian House? I would dare to say – all of the above and more.

The first question that comes to mind is – why? This past decade Latvians have left their homeland in the tens of thousands for various reasons. A handful have also landed on Australian shores. Do the recent arrivals also take part in this decades-old tradition? A few do – and those active Latvians have brought fresh ideas and a different approach to their interpretation of the Latvian “way”. Yet many have not integrated with the older generation, even if they are of the same age group. A recent emigrant and a 3rd generation Australian-Latvian may find it a little strange to find a common language. Yet it is possible – and a successful marriage – at the Latvian Saturday schools. This is where the two worlds collide and Latvians who want to pass something of their language and cultural heritage on to their children gather under the same roof and strive for a common goal.

The culture days on Australian soil were held in Adelaide last December, just after Christmas. For six days until New Years’ Eve the Latvian language and music could be heard all around Adelaide. The older generation was happy to reconnect, while the younger crowd was happy to party together – Latvian style. This was most evident at the New Years’ Eve Ball at the National Wine Centre where the Latvian teenagers and twenty-somethings instantly flocked to the dance floor when the Latvian version of the popular Gangnam-style song by Psy started playing.

Over the past decade the cultural festival has had to rethink its future and slowly reinvent itself. If twenty, thirty years ago the festival could draw crowds of various thousands and singers in the choir and folk dancers could be counted in the hundreds, today the organisers have had to face reality and realise the numbers will never rival those of days gone by. But this does not mean the end of the event, just the dawn of a new more compact, dare I say more, cosy and welcoming festival. With smaller participant and audience numbers, the events have to be held at smaller venues (often the Latvian House) and the model has to be tweaked to get maximum interest from both the singers/dancers as well as the audience.

And so new events have been included, some even based on succesful counterparts in Latvia, such as the new “Lai dzied ģimenes” afternoon (based on Dziedošās ģimenes on Latvian TV) at the Adelaide festival. A well-attended event was the Family Fun Day with an Art and Crafts Market. These events cater for various generations and are relatively informal while at the same time they showcase various aspects of a uniquely Latvian frame of mind. The Latvian girl making Jāņu vaiņagi, inviting you to come and learn how to make one yourself was a good example of this. At the same time a crowd of children was trying out their skills on the basketball court, taking part in Latvian dancing games – rotaļas – and being whizzed around on an “ice sled”. The photo booth was also a great idea for friends and family to crowd together and have some fun.

Guest performers from Latvia are always a drawcard and the two groups from the homeland that came to enrich the festival were well received. Trio Šmite Kārkle Cinkuss and ansamblis Mūza showed their talents in various genres. While the former had a more traditional, even ancient, flavour to their music, albeit with a modern twist, the latter ensemble – Mūza – excelled in their performance of works by classical Latvian composers.

The old favourites – the folk dancing and choral concert – were both organised by the “younger generation” – (35-50 age bracket) and a breath of fresh air could be felt in both. The dance concert predominantly featured dances choreographed by Latvians living outside Latvia, a number of them Kultūras dienu participants themselves. The live music at the the dance concert provided by a group of Australian Latvian twenty-somethings, titled Vepons ov Rok proved that not only does the younger generation have musical talent but also a joie de vivre that spills over into the audience!

The joint choir concert was a success as many of the songs in the repertoire were well-known and favourites – and songs that will be sung in the Dziesmu svētki in Rīga this year. A good turnout of choristers, the ranks of which were replenished in the second half of the concert with the Adelaide Philharmonic Choir, all added to the quality of the choir and did not disappoint the audience which had surprised the organisers and filled the Latvian House to bursting point.

One positive feature of the new collaboration between the Latvian government and the diaspora is the interest that politicians and high-ranking government officials have shown in the cultural festivals in the diaspora. The US-Latvian Dziesmu svētki in Milwaukee was attended by the Minister of Culture, Žaneta Jaunzeme-Grende in July, 2012 and the Australian-Latvian equivalent was also on the Culture Minister’s agenda. As the Latvian government has placed emphasis on the ever-growing diaspora worldwide this would seem a natural place for the Minister to visit and see first-hand how the Australian Latvians celebrate the culture of their heritage. Jaunzeme-Grende attended most events and could frequently be seen networking with the local Latvian community members. The Minister also spoke at the opening ceremony and later at an information session where outlined the Latvian government’s new directions in the area of culture.

It is impossible to list the numerous different events that made these culture days a success. And it’s not really necessary as every person who took part – either in the audience or on stage – will have their own memories. It is these individual memories that all join together to form the collective memory of the intangible – the words “Kultūras dienas” seem to take on their own meaning in each of our minds. The memory of youth, of concerts from years ago, the memory of a first love, a night to remember, a feeling of Latvianness (latvietība). It is for this reason that the organisers are prepared to put in various years of hard work, why the participants are happy to attend rehearsals for weeks on end and why Latvians around Australia are still glad to gather in one place every two years to celebrate their heritage and their culture. May our community have the wisdom to continue evolving with the times to continue this tradition for many more decades!

If the leaders of the European Union had any honor, they would have to decline the Nobel Peace Prize. In doing so they would pay tribute the memory of at least 300 thousand citizens killed quite recently in European wars. Less than 20 years ago, ethnic cleansing, mass murder, unbridled rape and other war atrocities took place right under the noses of the indecisive and cowardly population of Europe and its cynical leaders. And what did Europeans do about it? There were endless meetings, but when the horror erupted, we were told to put down our weapons and simply turn our backs.

And has this cowardly cynicism ended? No. The leading nations of Europe continue to enrich themselves by collaborating with undemocratic regimes. In the event, accepting the Peace Prize devalues the Nobel name and insults those who have in the past received the Prize for genuine courage and self-sacrifice.

A hypocritical bargain between the Peace Prize Committee and the EU

The flattering pleasantries exchanged between the Nobel Peace Prize Committee and the leaders of the EU amount to bargaining in grotesque hypocrisy. In a joint announcement, the presidents of the Council of Europe the European Commission congratulated themselves: “This Prize is the strongest possible recognition of the deep political motives behind our Union: the unique effort by ever more European states to overcome war and divisions and to jointly shape a continent of peace and prosperity.”  The Norwegian Nobel Committee chimed in, emphasizing – “EU’s contribution for over six decades to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.” (1)

The Nobel Committee’s shameful case of amnesia

A glance at very recent history suffices to give the gentlemen the lie. What “six decades” are they talking about? The Nobel Committee could not have forgotten the terribly destructive wars, not one, not two, but five wars altogether, that took place in the territory of former Yugoslavia from 1991 until as recently as 1999. The European Union proved itself utterly impotent, unable to prevent them. In some cases the actions of the European nations were pathetic to the point of being criminal. In 1990, just before the bloody conflict erupted, the United States urged the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to place the growing threat of danger on its summit meeting agenda. French president Francois Mitterrand chided the Americans for “overly dramatizing” the situation and rejected the idea. A short time later the situation literally exploded, initiating one of the longest and bloodiest conflicts in Europe’s recent history. It is estimated that as many as 300 thousand people were killed, and millions were driven into exile.

France is also culpable for one of the most horrific episodes in this conflict. French general Bernard Janvier, the commander of the UN military contingent in Bosnia, ordered a ban on air attacks on Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica. His decision was soon followed by the most horrendous mass murder in Europe since the Second World War.

British historian Tony Judt writes: “… Encouraged by the cowardice of the West, Bosnian Serb forces under the leadership of Ratko Mladic on June 11 (1995) moved into one of the so-called ‘secure zones’ – the eastern Bosnian city of Srebrenica, which at the time was crowded with frightened moslem refugees. Srebrenica was officially ‘protected’ by a UN mandate and by a contingent of 400 Dutch peacekeepers. However, upon the arrival of Mladic’s soldiers, the Dutch battalion lay down their arms without resistance, whereupon the Serbs systematically separated men and boys from the rest of the moslem population. The very next day, after having given his “officer’s word of honor” that they would not be harmed, his soldiers led the men, including boys aged 13 and older, out of the city into the countryside, and, over the following four days, slaughtered most of them – 7400 people. The Dutch soldiers returned home to Holland.” (2) This was made possible by the government of Holland, which vetoed any sort of attack on Serb strongholds until all Dutch soldiers were safely removed from danger.

Was it Europeans who put an end to these death orgies? No. Only seven weeks later, when the Serbs had attacked a market in Sarajevo, killing tens of people, mostly children, the US government headed by president Bill Clinton sanctioned the bombing of the aggressor. For a time this did force the Serbian paramilitary groups to take cover. Sadly, however, it was not the end. The conflict continued to smolder and occasionally flared up again. Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, taking advantage of the helplessness of European diplomats and the unwillingness of the Americans to get involved in European affairs, continued his aggressive policies. This led to a string of merciless mass murders in Kosovo in the spring of 1999.

Again – it took the active initiative of the US and NATO to put a stop to it. The slaughter in Kosovo ended only after a prolonged bombing of Serbian forces by NATO. The holocaust in former Yugoslavia ended on July 9, 1999, when the government in Belgrade agreed to remove its forces from Kosovo. The European Union’s role in the resolution of the conflict was nothing but dithering impotence. For eight long years, literally a couple of hundred kilometers from Vienna, the Balkan wars raged in indescribably merciless and bloody conflicts in which people were indiscriminately raped, flayed alive and slaughtered, including women and children. Has the Nobel Committee forgotten this, or has it simply decided to ignore the recent past?

EU Big Four – When money is to be made, democracy is second fiddle

Has anything changed in Europe since? Undeniably, the European Union is trying gradually to become a more serious organization. But old habits are still strong. The leading nations of the EU still talk the talk, but deep down they are just as cynical and duplicitous as ever. The Nobel Committee was unable to bring itself to notice a recent scandal in Sweden. Only half a year after taking office, Swedish defense minister Sten Tolgfors was forced to resign when it turned out that, under his leadership, negotiations were underway with Saudi Arabia for construction of facilities to repair and modernize antitank weapons. More recently, Sweden has lifted its ban on arms sales to nations led by undemocratic regimes. (3)

The Swedes were outdone many times over by the Germans and the Brits. It is well known that the mightiest of member states of the European Union – Germany, has been supporting, directly and over a long period of time, the regime of Europe’ s last dictator Alexander Lukashenko, president of Belarus. This support has been of a most cynical sort – German police have been involved in training his secret police, trading secrets and sharing experience. This was going on as recently as 2011, ignoring the fact that Belarusian forces in 2010 had brutally suppressed opposition protests, entailing more than 500 casualties. As reported by the German periodical “Der Spiegel”, representatives of the German security services had actively been involved in training these forces. (4) It is hard to imagine the feelings of the Belarusian citizens opposed to their regime, imprisoned and beaten with “German experience”, upon hearing the Nobel Committee’s fine words about “EU’s contribution for over six decades to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.”

In Great Britain, the money of dictators does not stink

The goings-on in Belarusian prisons are well known in another EU superpower – Great Britain. Its Foreign Ministry has reported that it has received credible testimony about torture and mistreatment imprisoned members of the opposition in those prisons. It has never been a secret to the EU and to Great Britain that Lukashenko is no “last Santa Claus of Europe”, but rather he is its last dictator. However, as reported by British TV Channel 4, this has not hindered Great Britain from selling him military arms worth 3 million pounds sterling. These arms deals were stopped only after the imposition of an embargo in July of 2011. (5)

However, this did not put a stop to all opportunities for the Brits to enrich themselves in Belarus. Great Britain has become the second biggest foreign investor in Belarus. British TV Channel 4 reports that British exports to Belarus have doubled in the last five years – from 67 million pounds sterling in 2007 to 125 million in 2011. The trend continues – in the last five months these exports were worth 77 million pounds. Of course the Brits try counter criticism by saying that business is business, and that they try to avoid dealing with Belarusian state authorities. They seem not to understand the meaning of the word “dictatorship”.

In that case, the Nobel Committee might as well invite Lukashenka, the president of Belarus, as guest of honor, personally to deliver the Peace Prize to the representatives of the leading nations of the EU, Germany and Great Britain. And if Milosevic had not passed away prematurely in his prison cell, then he might have been invited to shake hands with the French and Dutch representative. But maybe the leaders of the EU might yet manage to be sufficiently self-critical to realize, that the Prize is not deserved, at least out of respect for the victims of the Balkan holocaust, the political prisoners of Belarus, and other true idealists willing to sacrifice themselves in the long, hard struggle for world-wide peace and democracy.

Translated into English by Juris Žagariņš.

Sources:
1. 2012. gada Nobela Miera prēmija piešķirta Eiropas Savienībai – 12/10/2012 http://ec.europa.eu/news/eu_explained/121012_lv.htm
2. Tony Judt. “Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945”
3. Diena.lv – Ieroču skandāla dēļ atkāpjas Zviedrijas aizsardzības ministrs http://www.diena.lv/pasaule/ierocu-skandala-del-atkapjas-zviedrijas-aizsardzibas-ministrs-13939410
4. „Der Spiegel” – Minsk lobt Polizei-Hilfe aus Deutschland http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/weissrussland-bestreitet-schlagstock-lieferung-aus-deutschland-a-852806.html
5. „Channel 4 News” – How the UK props up Europe’s ‘last dictatorship’ http://www.channel4.com/news/how-the-uk-props-up-europes-last-dictatorship