Big party for a small country

Someone once said that understanding another person’s nationalism is almost impossible. This is especially true on national days, when the fireworks, parades and pomp all serve to make foreigners feel unwelcome.

This is because an event where a particular group celebrates its unique virtues and achievements is, in effect, telling outsiders to get lost. And because the outsider has few shared experiences with the revelers, he or she may wonder what all the fuss is about.

Others may even feel offended by all the jubilation—many Native Americans and Aboriginal Australians think the "discovery" of their countries by whites is something to cry, rather than sing, about.

Every Nov. 18, Latvians celebrate their independence day. Officially, this commemorates the occasion in 1918 when a group of patriots declared Latvia free of Russia after centuries of foreign domination. But foreign observers, and a few local skeptics, may wonder why this is relevant today. After all, Latvia is a small, almost unknown piece of real estate in an off-Broadway part of Europe. Most of its people struggle to get by, while the political elite seems more interested in making itself rich. With almost half its population composed of non-Latvians, it is uncertain that there will even be a Latvia in a few decades.

All of these criticisms are valid comments about a country with plenty of problems. However, scratching the surface a little reveals that there are good reasons for Latvians to give a rousing cheer on Nov. 18. And beyond the patriotic emotions that will stir in local hearts, the fact of this small nation being independent is something positive for the rest of the world as well.

For a start, some comparisons show that what appear to be problems today are actually vast improvements on how things were in the old days. Just 10 years ago, shops were empty, people were hungry and an air of gray depression permeated every corner of life. A system that punished truth-telling ensured that corruption and environmental devastation were hidden. And because lying was a requirement for living a peaceful life, many people ended up psychologically damaged.

Today, Latvia is a country with a functioning market economy, a free press and democratically elected political institutions. Unlike, for example, the former East Germany (or for that matter Western Europe which after World War II got billions of dollars in aid), Latvians have created their new society with only a modest amount of foreign help. The successes are mostly down to their own hard work and willingness to change.

Similarly, what appears to be a serious problem with its ethnic minorities is actually a triumph considering the difficulties that have been overcome. Ten years ago, with the population split almost 50-50 between Latvians and Russian speakers, with agonizing political and economic change looming, who would have imagined the peaceful co-existence that characterizes Latvia today?

Apart from Nov. 18, patriotic feelings are unleashed the most at the world ice hockey championships held every spring. This year, an inspired win over Russia by the Latvian team saw thousands of young people singing and dancing in the streets of Rīga, decked out in maroon and white scarves, jerseys and face paint. But while everyone enjoyed this victory over the "old enemy," the fans cheered just as hard for the team members who are of Russian or Ukrainian descent as they did for the Latvians. And plenty of ethnic minority members in Riga joined the celebrations, too.

And every Nov. 18, increasing numbers of Russian speakers gather to enjoy the big fireworks display over the Daugava River in Rīga. Increasingly, ethnic minorities are learning the Latvian language and feeling far more at home in, and loyal toward, Latvia, than to their original countries. Latvians who were antagonistic toward these minorities, who mostly settled during the Soviet occupation, have come to accept that they will not be leaving, and that constructive dialogue is the way forward.

To have achieved such peaceful cohabitation despite severe economic difficulties and rapid change is admirable. To nurture a sense of common nationhood between the various groups, something which seems to be slowly happening, is a great achievement that can serve as a lesson to the world.

Of course, Latvia is not an island either physically or politically. The next few years are going to see it surrender a lot of sovereignty, voluntarily this time, to the European Union and NATO. A shrinking world means that English is increasingly spoken, and Latvian teenagers know as many techno tunes as they do folk songs.

But in the midst of this, there is reason to be grateful that there are still small nations around. If biodiversity is the key to keeping the planet ecologically healthy, then cultural diversity is what keeps the human spirit alive—and makes life a lot more interesting.

The Latvian language is both ancient and beautiful, the tongue of one of the world’s richest folklore traditions. The architecture of Riga and other cities is a mixture of styles from a variety of nations and eras that is unique in Europe. In the years to come, Latvians are going to draw on deep traditions of folk art, and a highly developed aesthetic sense, to have a serious impact on world fashion, design and marketing.

All of this is worth preserving—and celebrating.

Latvians split on choice for president

Time was when a Latvian voting for president of the United States had a clear choice: pick the Republican. Not that everyone followed the party line, of course, but the post-World War II generation of Latvians in America generally have been a conservative group. And their conventional wisdom had been that the Republican candidate would be tougher on the Soviet Union.

But times have changed. Take the Nov. 7 election, which has left America in a quandary, awaiting vote recounts and the resolution of legal battles in Florida and several other states. We recently asked for a sampling of post-election opinion from some of our regular readers. What we learned surprised us.

Of those Latvian-Americans who voted for Republican candidate Gov. George W. Bush, many pointed to his party pedigree, his perceived honesty and his plans for Social Security as reasons they picked him over his main challenger. Meanwhile, those who favored Democratic candidate Vice President Al Gore cited his experience in Washington, D.C., his perceived intelligence and his stance on environmental and economic issues.

But although many of our respondents said their ethnic heritage is important, most said domestic U.S. issues outweighed concerns about the next president’s potential impact on Latvia.

Keep in mind that this is just a sampling of opinion, not a scientific survey. We received responses from 64 readers in the United States as well as a handful from other countries. Of U.S. readers, 30 supported Bush, 25 voted for Gore and nine cast ballots for Green Party candidate and consumer advocate Ralph Nader.

Why they voted for Bush

Ivars Ikstrums of Sammamish, Wash., was among those Latvian-Americans who voted for Bush. He cited several reasons for picking the Republican over the Democrat, including what he sees as the Clinton Adminstration’s lack of honesty and integrity.

“Clinton has introduced an ‘anything goes’ attitude into American society, the likes of which we’ve never seen before,” Ikstrums added. “Gore will continue that. This has got to be stopped.”

While Ikstrums pointed to his disagreement with what he expects would be Gore’s continuation of Clinton’s foreign policy, George Zuments of Arvada, Colo., found himself agreeing with Bush because of domestic issues.

“As a small company owner, several things were important,” Zuments said. “I did not want larger government programs and more entitlement programs.Tax cuts were important.

“The ‘surplus’ is a result of too much government income vs. expenditures,” Zuments added, noting the federal tax revenue that has increased in recent years during the country’s economic expansion.

Similarly, Eriks Lielbriedis of Grand Rapids, Mich., supported Bush because of his stand on issues such as limiting and decreasing taxes, decreasing the size of government and added accountability in public education.

For several respondents, the opportunity to change leadership in Washington was among the main factors influencing their vote for Bush. Said Hugh A. Kalns of Williamsburg, Va.: “We need someone with fresh blood that can restore America’s dignity in the world, someone that will make a good leader and someone that presents statesman-like appearance instead of preaching half-truth and jumping like a clown all over the stage.”

A resident of Richmond, Va., didn’t view Bush as the ideal candidate, but a far better choice than Gore.

“I cast my vote for George W. Bush because he is pro-free market,” said Eriks Gudvins, “whereas Gore wants nothing but the kind of nonsense that caused Latvia so much pain for so many years under Soviet occupation.

“I cannot comprehend why Americans are even tempted to vote for a man who so obviously is no friend to true freedom,” Gudvins continued. “Didn’t the pain and suffering of Eastern Europe, Russia and the rest of the world that was mutilated by communism show the pointlessness of any form of socialism or communism?”

It wasn’t Bush but his running mate, Dick Cheney, that swayed Ivars Bezdechi of San Diego, Calif.

“I grudgingly voted for George Bush because of his running Dick Cheney,” he said. “Dick Cheney understands military affairs and foreign affairs. He understands the reality that the ‘cold war’ is really not over and knows that Russia is not a friend of the world community.”

Why they voted for Gore

A psychologist in Quakertown, Pa., Aivars Straume was among those respondents who said they voted for Gore.

“He is intelligent, has a positive reputation with world leaders, I agree with his philosophies and proposals about health care, the budget surplus, taxes, Social Security and the environment,” Straume said of the Democractic candidate.

Bush, according to Zinta Aistars of Michigan, “is an intellectual lightweight like none I have seen in my lifetime.” Among key issues for her were the environment, Social Security and the death penalty.

“Bush’s approach is very cavalier and calloused,” Aistars said of the last issue. “Too many innocent people have been put to death, yet he treats this with a smirk. Which brings up his lack of respect to minorities—racial concerns, gays, etc. Oh, I could go on forever…”

Silvija Vecrumba of New York City also noted several issues with which she found agreement with Gore, although she said the vice president wasn’t a particularly strong candidate.

“Gore takes a strong stand on something that is one of my pet peeves—the American drug companies,” Vecrumba said. “Pharmaceutical companies have the highest profit margin of any other company in the U.S., yet they whine about the costs of research and development and lobby to have patents extended to keep costs high for consumers.”

Juris Odiņš of Denver, Colo., also was not 100 percent in the Gore camp.

“I voted for Al Gore not out of real enthusiasm, but primarily because George Bush is completely unsuited to be president,” he said. “Gore has solid governing and political experience, breadth of knowledge and intelligence. Bush gets by on personality, family contacts and monied supporters.”

Odiņš, however, did agree that Gore would do a better job of paying down the national debt and strengthening Medicare and Social Security.

In Grand Prairie, Texas, among those voters who did not help Bush carry his home state was Gay Gaisma and her husband. Gaisma found disagreement with the native son on several issues, including his stand on offering vouchers for parents wishing to send their children to private schools.

“Teachers’ salaries in Texas are amongst the lowest in the country,” she said. “Bush’s voucher plan and support for private schools would further erode the public education system. Comparing education achievements of the two (systems) is like comparing apples to oranges. Public schools have to accommodate every child while private schools pick and choose from wealthy and high-scoring academic enrollees.”

Why they voted for Nader

Many political observers have called them spoilers: those who voted for Nader and supposedly “stole” votes from Gore, potentially costing the vice president the election.

“I voted for Ralph Nader because I could not bring myself to play the ‘lesser of two evils’ game,” observed Silvija Klaviņš-Barshney of Chicago. “I consider both Bush and Gore horrible candidates, although Bush is worse. I was hoping that Nader would get 5 percent of the vote, so that he could run a real campaign in four years.”

Others, too, voted for Nader to give the third-party candidate a better chance in the future, although Kaspars Zeltkalns of Michigan also flaunted his “spoiler” privileges. “I felt that a Nader vote would at least help Bush, because I did not want Gore at all,” he said.

At least a few Latvian-Americans, however, supported the Green Party nominee because of genuine interest in his platform.

“The other candidates did not offer me a real choice,” said Dace Zoltners of Wisconsin. “Neither Gore nor Bush have a stellar record. Ralph Nader has been a proponent for the citizens of this country since the late sixties.”

NATO mostly a non-issue

A number of Baltic-American organizations have focused part of their lobbying efforts on convincing the U.S. government that it should support expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to include Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. In the runup to the Nov. 7 election, they also tried to promote NATO expansion as an issue to watch in the presidential campaigns.

Our readers generally consider NATO expansion an important cause, but remained unconvinced that it was an overriding consideration in deciding whom to support for president. Said Bush supporter Valdis Siliņš of Minneapolis: “I cannot nor will I ever expect America’s leadership to actively promote Latvia’s NATO membership if it is not perceived as being in America’s best interests.”

Violeta Byrum of Coopersburg, Pa., agreed: “Issues affecting everyday life are going to have a higher priority even though I am passionate about the Baltic States being able to become members of NATO.”

And one reader in Washington state criticized Baltic-American organizations in their efforts to influence voters.

“I don’t trust the Russian Federation and think security for the Baltics and other ex-republics is important,” she said. “But I was really insulted by e-mails that suggest that because I am a Latvian-American that I have to vote for certain candidates and not others based solely on the issue of NATO enlargement.”

However, a minority of respondents suggested that the issue of NATO expansion played a strong role in their choice for president.

“This is extremely important to me and further supported my argument for Gore,” said Diana Robeznieks of Cleveland, who went on to compare the politics of the Republican candidate and his father, the ex-president. “I never cared for George Sr.‘s take on the Baltic States and I am fairly confident that George W. would end up being another Republican isolationist.”

Bush supporter Aldis Puriņš of Grand Rapids, Mich., saw danger in Gore’s policies and their potential impact on NATO.

“I truly believe that Gore would weaken our military even more, which translates to a weaker NATO,” he said. “I’m not sure that NATO can continue to exist without a strong U.S. presence.”

(Editor’s note: This article originally appeared on SVEIKS.com.)

Andris Straumanis is a special correspondent for and a co-founder of Latvians Online. From 2000–2012 he was editor of the website.

Pop compilations beg for history lesson

The thought of buying a compilation album featuring songs from a selection of artists usually leaves me feeling cheap in a K-tel kind of way. So when Rīga-based MICREC late last year released its Non Stop Ballīte collection of 18 pop tunes, I was dubious about the album’s value.

With the release a few months ago of Non Stop Ballīte 2: Vecie labie…, this time focusing on songs that were popular a generation ago, I am gradually being swayed to accept that these albums are interesting additions to one’s collection of Latvian music. However, both albums could have been much better vehicles for showcasing the development and influences on Latvian pop.

Both albums operate under a simple idea: Put into one recording a good number of popular songs, stringing them together without breaks (hence the “nonstop” adjective). The transitions between most songs generally work well, but in a few parts are noticeably forced. Both albums would be nicer to listen to without this annoyance.

The first Non Stop Ballīte collection features 18 songs that have been made popular by Latvian performers in roughly the past decade. A treat for fans of the satirical Labvelīgais tips is the German version of the hit tune, “Aluminijas cūka.” Andris Freidenfelds’ rendition of “Aluminium Schwein” is followed immediately by “Meitene, zeltene,” one of the best-loved tunes by rock group Līvi.

Anyone who has listened to Latvian radio or purchased tapes or compact discs since the country regained its independence will recognize many of the other songs in this collection. There’s “Viss ir tieši tā kā Tu vēlies” by the pop-rock stars Prāta Vētra, “Meitene” by the Latvian “country” crooner Gunārs Meijers, “Aka aka” by joker Roberts Gobziņš and the techno-driven, twisted folk song “Rikšiem bērīt” by the short-lived Saule project.

For me, the prize on this album was one of my favorite songs, “Manas mīļakas puķes” by Zodiaks, with vocals by Maija Lūsēna.

A couple of songs seem ill-suited for this collection: the downright weird “Disnejlenda” by Credo and the irritating schlager hit “Zvaigznīte, zvaigznīte” by Fiska. The album also is ruined by the rude and unnecessary closing track, “Nobeigums.”

My major criticism of the album is that it could have been aided by fuller liner notes, briefing the listener on the history of the songs and the performers. MICREC let a wonderful opportunity slip by, especially for listeners from outside of Latvia who may not be familiar with some of these artists.

This becomes particularly clear with the second compilation, Non Stop Ballīte 2: Vecie labie…, which features 25 songs from the 1970s. Sure, we’ve all heard of composer Raimonds Pauls, who continues to produce new material. But what of singers such as Viktors Lapčēnoks, Nora Bumbiere, Ojārs Grīnbergs, Žoržs Siksna and the late Edgars Liepiņš? Outside of Latvia, some of these names may still be recognized: Lapčēnoks’ star seems to be rising again; Liepiņš once toured Latvian centers in North America. To know more about these performers and the songs they sing would have been wonderful.

Like the first Non Stop album, Vecie labie… suffers from the “nonstop” concept. Some transitions are forced, others are not clear. I even missed the transition between the first two songs, “Salds italiešu kino” and “Tā diena.”

Vecie labie… presents a taste of “estrādes mūzika” from the 1970s. MICREC, in its promotional material for the album, characterized these songs as the music that the parents of today’s youth listened to. If that’s so, the historical context becomes even more necessary, both for those of us in the West and for those of today’s Latvian youth who may be wondering about the 1970s. Certainly, those of us who grew up in the West, inundated by the “star-making machinery” of commercialized pop and rock, can only sit and wonder at how much the music of occupied Latvia differed from what we were hearing on our turntables and the FM radio.

While for younger listeners the first Non Stop may readily bring back memories of when the song made the moment, Vecie labie… could well hold the same magic for the youth of the 1970s. For those of us who grew up outside of Latvia, there might only be glimmers of recognition. Despite their failings, we can only hope that MICREC doesn’t stop with just these two recordings.

Details

Non Stop Ballīte 2: Vecie labie

Various artists

MICREC,  2000

Andris Straumanis is a special correspondent for and a co-founder of Latvians Online. From 2000–2012 he was editor of the website.