I think this [reports on Soros' remarks in Riga] and the article that Zalite posted on LOL shows that Latvians are still very bad in getting their message out to the world. In this regard I think Ojars Kalnins and others responsible for Latvia's image making can do a much better job. It always gets up to the same old saw about how Latvian language laws are discriminatory without putting things in context. The simple truth is that, language wise, a mono-lingual Russophone has a much easier time in Latvia than a mono-lingual Latvian speaker.
On telling the Latvians what they want to hear.
I don't know. I think that article was exactly what was needed. Since there are quite a few on LOL who keep pushing the image that all Russians are anti-Latvian by definition, it was nice to crack the stupidity of that image. And regardless of whether or not the author was pandering to the Latvian audience, most of what he wrote I agree with.
Andrejs
(Off to Michigan...)
----------
[Pet'ka responds:]
Labdien,
We had a snowfall last week -- it was lovely, actually, thick snow on the fall foliage -- but since then it's been rainy. I don't associate snow with cold -- snowy winters tend to be pleasant, it's the deathly cold ones I could do without.
Re: "making provisions for the babushki" -- what I mean is that one of PCTVL's things is allowing Russians to deal with the government in Russian, and the way that's presented is that it's rather cruel to force elderly monolingual folk to fill out documents in Latvian. All I'm saying is that I'm not aghast at the idea.
As to Mr. Soros -- I suspect that he knows quite a bit about ethnopolitics here and wouldn't be swayed by anything Ojars Kalnins or other p.r. men could come up with. There's no one truth to these issues, there are different models and varying opinions. Part of the Russian community and the bulk of the Latvian community are locked into their positions, and it so happens that the country is run by ethnic Latvians, and most Russian opinion is summarily dismissed as Soviet, anti-Latvian, or what have you. It's not surprising that the Russian position should harden -- in that study of language in QuĘbec schools, for instance, there was considerable growth in negative opinions by one group towards the other, especially by Anglos towards Francophones.
Regarding Shabanov -- I don't much like the musings of Letts on their slave mentality and inability to function, either, casting ashes upon one's head, etc. He's working with that iffy thing, "national characteristics", and I think he does it badly. Ironically, PCTVL is less of a "Russian party" than the parties in power are "Latvian parties". If you talk about _citizens_ -- no, they shouldn't be required to feel any guilt about their uncles and grandfathers, if guilt requirements are necessary to begin with. Only a very small part of the non-Latvian electorate consists of colonists by any definition. It is naturally not in their interest to support an ethnocracy. Many, quite understandably, want their children educated in their mother tongue. Jurkans wants to maintain Russian-language schools and teach good Latvian within that existing structure. In some instances, that has worked -- whether it will work for Russians who barely speak Latvian to teach math in Latvian to Russians who barely speak Latvian is another question.
The emphasis has been on the stick and not the carrot, and no one likes sticks. Just as there is often a Soviet and chauvinistic subtext to Russian demands, there's often an extremely nationalistic to Latvian demands. Most Russians -- the vast majority of Russians -- believe that they should know Latvian. Many feel that Latvians are attempting to erase Russian, however, and many see integration as code for assimilation, all the while realising that many Latvians would rather see them leave -- there's not much real support for integration among Letts, either.
As to their being Soviet -- what's Soviet about business people or students? If PCTVL is such a Soviet grouping -- why are a third of its candidates Latvians, and why do most* of those naturalised vote for the bees? Remember that the jaunpilsoni are better educated, happier and richer than the population at large, speak good Latvian and got off their asses to become citizens.
/P
* I'm basing that on the idea that at least half of those who wouldn't say who they voted for voted PCTVL, a fair assumption IMHO.
--------
Bad, Pecka, bad. Knowing that I am pressed for free time... offers up a such a tempting target... :-)
But first in no particular order...
On Soros,
The failure of Latvia to get their message out wasn't directed at Soros. Soros is Soros. He can afford to be and nothing he sez is done without some serious calculations behind it. The thing is Soros statements about Latvian policies wouldn't carry as much weight if Latvians were better at getting their side of the story out. Our window for continuing to implement linguistic policies is rapidly shrinking and it will shrink even faster if we don't get the message out that expecting Latvian to be the primary language of Latvian citizens is not discriminatory. This doesn't mean that there aren't quite a few Latvians whose sole desire is to rub the Russkies nose in it. It just means that while Latvian policies do "discriminate" that discrimination has more to do with preserving Latvian culture than depriving the Russians of theirs.
Andrejs
-------------
Andrej, you put this forth perfectly, and ought to be given Ojars McKalnins' privileges immediately:
"Our window for continuing to implement linguistic policies is rapidly shrinking and it will shrink even faster if we don't get the message out that expecting Latvian to be the primary language of Latvian citizens is not discriminatory."
Rapidly shrinking, shrunken window, indeed. What does "primary language" mean?
"This doesn't mean that there aren't quite a few Latvians whose sole desire is to rub the Russkies nose in it."
Desire is one thing, acting upon that desire another. Are any noses getting rubbed in the ultralatvian dirt? Is that dirt fecund as compared to russochauvinist dirt? What does that have to do with a Russian-speaking child? Isn't the whole point of Latvian nationalism the idea that one can be what one what is, and exercise power over the precincts of that isness? What is it, then, to deprive a local Russian of his/her ability to have a kid grow up in Russian upon our territory? Do any decisions along these lines help the cause of a Latvian Latvia? How are these decisions perceived, when you take into account that about half of the Russian-speakers don't even have the vote?
"It just means that while Latvian policies do "discriminate" that discrimination has more to do with preserving Latvian culture than depriving the Russians of theirs."
But even Shabanov claims that they don't even have one.
/P
---------------
Just to start deconstructing your text, Andrej... :-)
Really, I don't mean to do that, and anyway I'm zooming on tylenol and codeine 'cuase I'm sick. Actually, I agree with _you_, but that's only 'cause I trust you, as I no longer trust the body politic et al. :-)
"Nothing more than 'primary language' in most of the world. Latvian should have the same status as German in Germany, French in France, McEnglish in McAmerica..."
Well, see, right there I have problems. McAmerican works in Canada also, and I've expressed myself on Canda and language. Germany, a recent nation (1870), is based upon an imperial nation, and in the 1500s there were 1500 countries where Germany is now, and dialects from village to village. German was nearly as murderous as Russian. France doesn't recognize minorities at all, in any fashion -- they don't exist, and France won't even sign the Convention much less ratify it... yet France contains 15 languages, currently, not counting Arabs, etc., and France has annihilated peoples from Corsica to the Celts.
And why should Latvia be a country in that sense? What is that sense? Is any country a country in that sense nowadays? I'm playing devil's advocate here, partly, but I'm also looking around and reacting to what I see with language and ethnicity and bigotry and politics.
What if you switched your examples... Latvia should be as Latvian as Luxembourg is... Letzeburgesch? As Belgium is Flemish? As Switzerland is?
The national identity of the above places isn't tied to language, though Belgium has had serious difficulties along language lines. The national identity of Ireland, which, like Latvia, suffered through romantic nationalism (and still suffers), is now divorced from language. There are some oldsters who speak Irish in the Gaeltachts, and a few intellectuals who support them.
The difference with Latvia is that Latvian is still viable. As you know, I support the language laws... maybe AK doesn't, as he brought up Richler anent Montreal?
But AK also brought in the arguments that Latvian is the Latvians' problem... one doesn't need a law to speak Latvian. If all Latvians spoke Latvian all of the time, the Russians would either put up or shut up, no?
I'm mostly concerned with the rights as such and little things, like what is the position of a Latvian-speaking non-Latvian in this society, and... well, my impression, and only my impression -- it ain't pretty.
My trouble with McKalnins is that -- judging from what he's written -- he wishes to deny that there's a problem. Look, just the figures I quoted about ethnicity in the parties show a problem. Lize saw a problem. I will contradict myself to death about said problem, but I shan't deny that there's a problem, which is that we have a deeply divided society, and the political divisions are a carnival mirror of the moral and linguistic differences.
Yes, my nationalism is not your nationalism, is not jingojonny's nationalism thank the gods. But -- what is the nationalism that makes this a nation at all? That's where the Russkies lose and lose badly, presently and previously. You can look at the numbers, or imagine other numbers, but the Latvian Republic exists because of Latvians. Now it exists, and then what. It -- we -- I -- haven't had consensus since, consensus being your favorite word. The very idea of consensus has been made ugly.
/P
---------------
I'll get you for this ... one of these days ... in for a penny.
Don't remember the exact quote, or by whom, but if nominated will not run, if elected will not serve, but hypothetically speaking, here's Andrejs as McKalnins:
>Rapidly shrinking, shrunken window, indeed. What >does "primary language" mean?
Nothing more than "primary language" in most of the world. Latvian should have the same status as German in Germany, French in France, McEnglish in McAmerica, or Tagalog (and yes, I do know that you are just as likely to hear Spanish and English there as you are Tagalog) in the Phillipes. Each situation is unique, each nation deals with it differently. Primary doesn't mean supreme nor does it exclude other languages or their speakers from the body politic. The primacy of the Latvian language in Latvia does not mean that other languages cannot thrive or that other nationalities cannot prosper while maintaining their identity. It simply means, that if any mono-lingualism gets precedence and preferential treatment, it should be Latvian and only Latvian. Let me stress that this does not mean that Latvia should be mono-lingual or mono-ethnic. It simply means that Latvian should be the spine that holds up the Latvian nation.
>Desire is one thing, acting upon that desire another.
And has anyone outside Jingo Jonnies fevered imagination acted on it? Moscow and the Sorii keep acting as if that is the case. Garda went boom in the polls. Not even LaPen or Heider numbers. Couldn't have had a better counterpoint.
>Are any noses getting rubbed in the ultralatvian dirt?
No. Unless you consider extremists.
>Is that dert fecund as compared to russochauvinist dirt?
No. Unless you consider extremists.
>What does that have to do with a Russian-speaking child?
Nothing, but as important of a question as to what to do with that Russian speaking child, and in quite a few cases that Child is as Latvian as Jingo Jonny, is how did we get to a position where finding a mono-lingual Latvian child speaking Russian isn't all that unusual.
Isn't the whole point of Latvian nationalism the idea that one can be what one what is, and exercise power over the precincts of that isness?
Yes and no. My Latvian nationalism differs from your Latvian nationalism which differs from Jingo Jon's Latvian nationalism which differs from AK's Latvian nationalism, which differs from Ilzes, which differs from Irena's, etc. The definition of nationalism isn't as important as the definition of Latvian. If we define Latvian in it's narrowest sphere, then, yes, nationalism and our ability to practice it is a bad thing. If we define Latvianess at it's broadest, then, no it is not.
>What is it, then, to deprive a local Russian of his/her >ability to have a kid grow up in Russian upon our >territory?
That's a myth. We are mostly immigrants here. We have not been deprived of our Latvianess by adopting to the norms of our respective lands. Russians are free to grow up Russians. Latvians managed to grow up Latvian under the Soviets and the SU's linguistic policies, while maybe not on paper, were considerably more draconian than present day Latvian policies. What Russians are not free to have is the expectation that Latvians will continue to accomodate them as in the previous 50 years of occupation.
>Do any decisions along these lines help the cause of a >Latvian Latvia? How are these decisions perceived, when >you take into account that about half of the Russian->speakers don't even have the vote?
If you look at Latvia's history under the occupation, then yes, those decisions do help the cause of a Latvian Latvia, if for no other reason than part of the occupation was devoted to creating a non-Latvian Latvia.
As to Russian-speakers not having the right to vote. Most nations have some rules as to who gets to be a citizen. Latvia's are heavily focused on language and identity. If you compare those policies to those of the West they seem discriminatory. If you put them in the context of why and how they came about they seem no different than similar policies of others who emerged from under imperialism and occupation.
>But even Shabanov claims that they don't even have one.
I don't think he claims that. I think he claims that we all have a bit of Soviet culture instilled in us. No one disputes that we should eradicate most of what that culture left us with. The question is what do we replace it with?
Andrejs
--------------------
As long as I can excuse myself with medication -- in re Shabanov:
"I don't think he claims that. I think he claims that we all have a bit of Soviet culture instilled in us. No one disputes that we should eradicate most of what that culture left us with."
Um, I dispute that, in a small way, at least, and my automatic reaction to such a statement is to say, well, look at East Germany, which had oodles of money and a nation to come back to, and where at least half the inhabitants are unhappy with the West. Because they were in the same boat and now feel like they have no boat, even if they had a leaky boat, because...
Well, you know how I hate to be a heretic :-) -- to be brutally honest, an awful lot of people were quite happy under the Soviets, Latvians included. I meet an awful lot of people in my wanderings and drinkings and workings and beings, and I really think that the main problem Latvians had with the USSR was the oppression of national identity (their being Latvians) and other symptoms of oppression in general. What was the USSR without oppression? Well... maybe nothing.
But the attitude of being against the system (oppression) very definitely translates directly into being against the system (eurowhoring nationalism or whatever this is). That's the real deficit here.
To be against anything is much easier than being constructive, obviously. But even with kids here, I don't see much that it is constructive even now... the personal is never constructive in a national sense, every bright girl or boy will leave the country, etc. Or at best join the cynical elite. Or just be a zabaks.
/P
---------------------
But -- the main question, Andrej -- what is "Soviet culture"?
/P
------------------
Well, at least I am exacting some small measure of revenge by keeping you awake. Luckily, I have no such problem, got almost 12 hrs of sleep. Now if I could only get my co-workers to stop asking me, "Are you busy?" every fifteen minutes. Getting pretty good at toggling between the Internet Explorer screen and work related stuff...
The hell with it, this is more important and fun. I forgive you. Besides you will crash and fall asleep soon and I can catch my breath.
>Well, see, right there I have problems....
McKalnins:
That's not really the issue. Each nation follows a model that is best suited for itself. Most of the strong nations on this planet, whether their identities are endangered or not or whether they have any McEthnos, have skeletons in their closets. Why should it be Anglo-Saxon? Let the Anglos have their corner and the Saxons theirs? Nation rise and nations fall. Cultures disappear of the face of the earth, new ones take their place. Languages adopt new words and identities get new markers.
Both the Serbs and the Croats speak Serbo-Croatian, yet it is not a unifying force.
The Irish no longer speak gaelic, but it has not made them love the Brits any.
The Indians speak hundreds of dialects, but they chose the language of their occupiers as a unifying force.
>And why should Latvia be a country in that sense? What is >that sense? Is any country a country in that sense >nowadays? I'm playing devil's advocate here, partly, but >I'm also looking around and reacting to what I see with >language and ethnicity and bigotry and politics.
McKalnins:
If you believe in social Darwinism, then yes, smaller nations are doomed, and even the large ones are only jockying for position until one culture and one identity looms supreme. Evolution leads us towards a global identity. Maybe it's inevitable. However, we are not at that stage just yet and since national identities are still, for the most part, amalgamates of language, ethnicity and cultural identity, Latvia deserves the same rights as most nations. Maybe even more so, since Latvian identity threatens no one. We are too small and too insignificant on the global stage. Have neither an imperialist past nor one in any forseeable future.
>What if you switched your examples... Latvia should be as >Latvian as Luxembourg is... Letzeburgesch? As Belgium is >Flemish? As Switzerland is?...
I wouldn't switch my examples. It doesn't matter what happened elsewhere. It matters what happened here.
>The difference with Latvia is that Latvian is still >viable. As you know, I support the language laws... maybe >AK doesn't, as he brought up Richler anent Montreal?
No. The difference, to me, is that without language Latvia will not go the way of the Irish. The Irish, regardless of which language they speak, identify themselves as the Irish. If Latvian disappears, do you think anyone outside of a few ethnographers would refer to anyone in that region as Latvian? And those who identify themselves as "Latvian", will they last longer than two generations?
>But AK also brought in the arguments that Latvian is the >Latvians' problem... one doesn't need a law to speak >Latvian. If all Latvians spoke Latvian all of the time, >the Russians would either put up or shut up, no?
Yes and no. Latvian is the Latvians' problem. However, the question is also, should Russian be the Latvians' problem as well? Why should we be expected to be bi-lingual? Shouldn't, instead, Latvian be the problem of all Latvian citizens? Regardless of ethnicity? Once again, the question is not whose problem it is, but why, if we are going to protect the rights of mono-lingualists that language be Russian and not Latvian?
>I'm mostly concerned with the rights as such and little >things, like what is the position of a Latvian-speaking >non-Latvian in this society, and... well, my impression, >and only my impression -- it ain't pretty.
Very true. There is no way to hide or sweep this under the carpet. Latvians do hate the Russians and there is a very xenophobic subtext to even some of the most benign language policies. However, just because Jingo Jonny and Jonny on the Corner get a hard-on because of some of the negative aspects, doesn't mean that some of these things aren't necessary. The biggest mistake that our "patriots" make is that each time someone raises this ugly possibility, they just dig a deeper hole, but claiming that it doesn't exist or that "Here's the reasons why this is the right thing to do".
Honestly, I guess I am just as guilty of that.
And you are right on the money about me and concensus. The problem, as I see it, is that where Latvians have failed, McKalnins et al., is in building concensus. Not concensus for the sake of agrement, but there seems to be no center in Latvia. They just keep bouncing between poles. The choice seems to be either to let in none or all. What McKalnins should be doing is building the center instead of answering either the left or the right. Give the Latvians, non-Latvians, in betweeners, hanger-ons, malamutes and dalmatians, a broader range of choices. Most people are not that jingoistic. I think most Russians would not begruge Latvians their little corner of the world. Most Latvians don't get their shorts in a knot hearing Russian spoken on the streets. And yet, 10 years later, it still seems to be about all or nothing.
P.S.
Later on the rest. I am getting mega dirty looks from people. Good thing the boss is in Arizona.
--------------------------
Hey, Andrej, okay, all for tonight, you're keeping me awake. :-) And I must insist that it be completely illegal to write Jingo Johnny, as I coined the name and I is proud, and the whole point was not using capitals 'cause he didn't use 'em for people he didn't like, like "russians", and he's jingo jonny, and really he was jonhill and doesn't like himself, and actually I like him, which is beside the point.
We really don't have an argument, Andrej, as I guess you know -- I am well aware that we are not the Irish, I believe in language laws (really I believe in something more along the lines of Loi 101, and will have fun attacking AK anent that at a later date), my problem is with focus and how the lwas are implemented. That is a serious concern here, and I could go on and on with examples, including stuff like a language inspector ushering her victims into her husband's classes for profit, etc.
I very much believe that the key to integration is making Latvian the staff of life and so on... but, see, that hasn't been the case. If you want it to be the staff of life, you have to drop the other shit and actually teach it. Even when one is going to use it as a whip, and whips are quite effective with homines sovietici, one should use it well -- and that hasn't been the case. That is, of course, IMHO, in my experience.
Now, if you took your beliefs and my beliefs and even a simple curiosity about where these things go, where would this go? Nowhere at all, most likely, and being the sort of creature I am I tend to interview people who won't use Latvian, and the answers I get are nonsensical and ugly.
I've had a full-fledged conflict exactly once, when I decided to stand my ground on a refund for a Latvian-American friend at the train station, using Russian to the best of my ability, which is damnably bad, and the result was pleas from the manager to not expose the lack of Latvian among his employees, please, and an invitation to meet the bodybuilder husband of the employee involved in the conflict personally.
Otherwise, life is sweet even in Dvinsk. Everyone speaks everything. My mother-in-law, after I pointed out that she speaks Russian everywhere, has decided upon a nationalistic approach to shopping, which involves outspoken bigotry, like "tomati ir japerk tikai no latviesiem" at the top of her lungs. This made my buddy Uldis cry. Makes me cry, too, actually, with all due respect for my beloved m-in-l.
What one notices as a result is an extreme tension. I by the way use Russian in my shopping, except in national chains like Rimi, etc. If someone offers Latvian -- and they do -- I use Latvian. I cannot be implicated in any plots because I am not of local origin and am learning.
My sense is that people have local perceptions. Latvians do not love the state. Russians love the state even less. This is a Russian-speaking city, no matter how you slice it. Today, at Beta, I got a "paldies par pirkumu" and a full-fledged Lettish shopping experience, which knocked my socks off. All it takes is a smile. Not too difficult.
Reduce this to individuals and individual tongues. Everyone here speaks Russian. People are learning Latvian. It helps them if you use Latvian. A great many people hate the idea of using Latvian, however. Why? Ask them. Consider the idea that they do not identify in any way with your idea of a Latvia. Not to be Zagarins, but the state belongs to the people and not the other way around. Is Latvian cool? Yeah, it can be. Works in Riga, pretty much. Could even work here. Not without a smile.
Someone reacting to Shabanov's article suggested that we should chuck the term "krieviski runajosie" in favor of "latviski nerunajosie". A dying breed, thank the gods. I have no problem with killing off that breed, something accomplished by teaching Latvian, using Latvian, not attacking Russian.
But... we are getting new hybrids of that breed, helped along by Latvian bigotry, pliko balinu patriotisms, etc. Two years ago people started noticing that some Russians who spoke perfectly adequate Latvian were suddenly refusing to use it. This is more and more common. My wife has noticed that even some young children give her dirty looks if she switches to Lettish. Perhaps this is a symptom of the return of Russian to its place as a major language spoken here? The pains of its loss of status as conquerors' tongue. Perhaps not.
One thing to consider is the inviolability of identity, or its eternally virgin state as an item? Someone like Uldis does not want to perpetrate upon others what was done to the Latvians. So, about that education. Is it really fair to force a Russian kid to study math in Latvian? That can be rephrased, and made to look good, and maybe it's necessary. But look at everything from other perspectives -- here we are, 90% of Daugavpils and 70% of Riga are not native Latvian speakers -- I'm being rough with the stats, here, but that's 'cause the stats have adjusted to the new reality, but those are the basic percentages, and the TB/LNNK I know would sign under them, not to mention the Bees. Almost every urban environment in Latvia is Russian.
At a personal perspective -- there's your kid. Latvian is very necessary. What if your kid doesn't cut it? What if the Latvians disparage whatever Latvian he/she happens to learn? That's not unusual. A lot of Lettish teens I know don't like having Russians in their classes 'cause they hold the class back. What if you deprive that child of a chance to be Russian by throwing it into a confusing nationalistic education? If you think there's no such thing -- sorry, there is, and in my recent interviews I came across kids who told me about how their teachers wouldn't talk to them after they made their politics known. If you can fuck with a Russian's being Russian, can't you fuck with a Latvian's being Latvian?
If it's a simple matter of making sure that everybody speaks the official language, none of this applies. It's not a simple matter, and no matter what teacher says, kid is in the real world, very likely more attached to Moscow TV than he is to the Messiah Repse and memories of Ulmanis.
/P
-----------------------
Hey, P.,
Watch the @
It is spinning...
you are getting very sleepy...
very...
I think we are both playing a bit of the devil's advocate. S'aright. More fun than the usual: you don't hate what I hate as much as I do therefore you love everything I hate of LOL.
And I see AK has more sense and tact than I do for diplomatic withdrawals.
First thing first, I owe you a definition of Soviet culture. Simple and complicated. I know what it is when I see it, but I don't know if I can explain it in words. Its more of a gestalt thing.
Homo Sovieticus is the ultimate hard luck loser. He lived in a system which told him that it stood for the underdog. He knew that he was an underdog and that any system that stands for the underdog is good. The problem was that the system answer was just to creat more and more underdogs, which is not quite what he had in mind. He wanted to be a topdog, but there could only be so many topdogs, so within that system of underdogs grew little clans of middledogs. The middledogs differentiated themselves in little ways. They were in the pioneers. They carried all the right pictures at all the right rallies. They were the ones who kept an eye out so that the neighbor across the street would do his comunal duty on time, they'd be the one's to report the huligans and make sure that the stairwell is swept. They'd be the one's in the front of the line for the yearly trip to the kolhoz and the first to volunteer for lectures about better living through communism and extra duties at work. I think you get the picture. Deep down they knew it was all a lie, they knew that no matter what they did they were still underdogs, but little lies are exactly what it sometimes takes to get through life, so they lied to themselves. For a long time.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, most of them, denounced the lies, denounced the system. Here was another system that, hey this is the real one for the underdog, promised them what they wanted to hear, but all they've learned under the Soviets was that little lies are good. Little lies are better than confronting the truth. Little lies are better than work. So they'll use what they get. If they succeed being middle dogs in this new system, they buy into it lock, stock and barrell. Big cars, big houses and everyone for himself. If they fail, then they wax nostalgic for the days of their middledoghood.
But most of them are just plain tired. They don't believe anyone or anything outside of the little lies that get all of us through the day.
Don't know if that made sense, but it kind of does to me.
Andrejs
---------------
Okay, last one for me too.
On this whole, "but here are the people who fall through the cracks."
My turn to be heretic. People will always fall through the cracks. Tough. You will never develop a system which will bring benefit to all of the people, or maybe even most of the people, and this I think has been the problem of the past ten years. While the forces on the right and left wrangle over what is the best way to integrate, assimilate, differentiate, "us" or "them", "we" or "they" or whatever term is in vogue at the moment, time marches on.
I think part of the problem is that the longer this wrangling goes on the more people get marginalized. There is plenty of fault to go around. The right for claiming this is about language then spitting at the face of those who have made the effort and adding more and more hoops for them to jump through. The left for making discrimination an issue, when it should never have been one in the first place and all of us in between who have allowed this to happen.
Your kid who has to learn math in Latvian breaks my heart. Honest. No sarcasm. The problem is that just like jingo johnny might use the Shabanov article as proof of his vision, so does the left claim that this is what Latvian language policies are all about. Depriving poor Russian kids from learning their multiplication tables. Its not about that. In either case.
But what is the solution? You and I both know that people are people. They're not going to do things they don't have to. This doesn't make them bad people. They are no different from anyone else. I am that way.
Latvia's policies will always "discriminate". Its up to us and Latvia to find policies that discriminate against the smallest number of people and to make sure that those who do abide by those policies are not discriminated against any further.
But it should not be up to us to find policies that do not "discriminate". It's not possible.
Andrejs
P.S. I mean left and right as political entities. I do not mean it as right (Latvian), left (Russians).
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
Offline 
Send Email
