|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Oct 3, 2022 1:06:16 GMT
I will never ever understand why much of the hard left sympathises with an ultranationalist European country which has colonised Siberia and Muslim areas like Dagestan as well as the the Far East, and had previously colonised Central Asia and Central Europe and routinely attacks its neighbours. And instead in this instance criticises a very small democratic country where 3/4 of the resident ethnic Russians are citizens, all have freedom of speech, and those who aren't citizens have a clear pathway to citizenship. Because they are basically Stalinists in every sense of the word.
The other curious thing is why the only people on this Forum who are remotely sympathetic to the Russian 'cause' are on the right.This would never have been the case forty years ago.
For right-wing Westerners it's the same basic reason it was then. Putin has set himself up as the 'anti-West' by wrapping himself up in extremist beliefs, conspiracy theories, threats and racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic language. Some people share those beliefs and are so self-loathing or so ill informed, or simply stupid, that they go along with/buy the schtick. They're like Lenin's useful idiots, but right-wing. |
|
|
|
Post by ibfc on Oct 3, 2022 1:07:45 GMT
Well, since these were all former SSRs, maybe the situation should be the same. That's like saying all ex British colonies should have English enforced on them. It'll make sense for some, either as a main language (Carribean), or a common language (India), and not for others (Iraq). Well, if 20% of India in 1947 comprised of British people and their descendants who were deprived of citizenship due to not learning Hindi or any other Indian language; I am sure the Western world would have had a meltdown. Which is what makes me find the outrage on this board so funny. At a personal level, I am particularly interested in Latvian citizenship laws as it is a project I did on this subject in law school that played a huge role in turning me from a Baltic sympathiser to a Russophile. |
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Oct 3, 2022 7:21:25 GMT
That's like saying all ex British colonies should have English enforced on them. It'll make sense for some, either as a main language (Carribean), or a common language (India), and not for others (Iraq). Well, if 20% of India in 1947 comprised of British people and their descendants who were deprived of citizenship due to not learning Hindi or any other Indian language; I am sure the Western world would have had a meltdown. Which is what makes me find the outrage on this board so funny. At a personal level, I am particularly interested in Latvian citizenship laws as it is a project I did on this subject in law school that played a huge role in turning me from a Baltic sympathiser to a Russophile. Maybe in Britain and the anglosphere, but not elsewhere. Everyone being able to speak the national language is a fundamental element of the European nation state, and that concept was a lot stronger back in 1947. Europe has a long tradition of trying to suppress and assimilate linguistic minorities. |
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Oct 3, 2022 7:22:39 GMT
Because they are basically Stalinists in every sense of the word.
The other curious thing is why the only people on this Forum who are remotely sympathetic to the Russian 'cause' are on the right.This would never have been the case forty years ago.
For right-wing Westerners it's the same basic reason it was then. Putin has set himself up as the 'anti-West' by wrapping himself up in extremist beliefs, conspiracy theories, threats and racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic language. Some people share those beliefs and are so self-loathing or so ill informed, or simply stupid, that they go along with/buy the schtick. They're like Lenin's useful idiots, but right-wing. My “support for Russia” is much more of an opposition to Ukraine (for reasons I’ve already stated in the past) than actual support for Russia, a country that I’ve never viewed favourably. I used to be a Sinophile until a couple of years ago as I used to be an admirer of state capitalism (my older brother is still an admirer), but I’ve become more Democratic and less authoritarian in my outlook on society over the years and especially during the pandemic. |
|
|
|
Post by ibfc on Oct 3, 2022 7:58:35 GMT
Well, if 20% of India in 1947 comprised of British people and their descendants who were deprived of citizenship due to not learning Hindi or any other Indian language; I am sure the Western world would have had a meltdown. Which is what makes me find the outrage on this board so funny. At a personal level, I am particularly interested in Latvian citizenship laws as it is a project I did on this subject in law school that played a huge role in turning me from a Baltic sympathiser to a Russophile. Maybe in Britain and the anglosphere, but not elsewhere. Everyone being able to speak the national language is a fundamental element of the European nation state, and that concept was a lot stronger back in 1947. Europe has a long tradition of trying to suppress and assimilate linguistic minorities. Fair enough, that’s a perspective I can agree with it. But it’s funny coming from English speaking liberals who would be absolutely outraged at similar policies being adopted by even continental Europeans if the intended targets aren’t Russians. |
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Oct 3, 2022 8:10:10 GMT
Russian *IS* an official language in Bishkek and Almaty and semi-official in Tashkent so by definition, they do speak the official language. It isn't in Riga and hasn't been for 3 decades so the situation isn't the same. And it is that decision which was not acceptable. Acceptable by whom? Latvia was an independent nation state (whose main historical ties are with Germany and Sweden, not Russia), it was occupied and oppressed by the Soviets, a big part of its native population was deported and perished, and they were replaced by Russian (and other Russophone) settlers. Then they finally manage to regain their independence. Why shouldn't they then have the right to de-Russify their country? If the Tibetans by some miracle manage to get free from China shouldn't they have the right to de-Siniticize their country? National independence isn't worth much if you're still beholden to your former masters and need to give special rights to their culture and language. If the Russians in Latvia didn't want to integrate in an independent Latvia they could have simply left and returned to the land of their ancestors. Why? They broke away precisely because they didn't want to be the same. Why should being a former anything mean standardisation of vastly culturally different societies? Should Algeria, Syria and Vietnam as former French colonies all follow each other? Latvian nationalism is an unpleasant beast....and they have the nerve to criticize the Russians The main reason why Latvian nationalism has "unpleasant" elements is that they've had the misfortune of living next to the Russians with all the nasty consequences that has entailed, without a constant existential threat to their nation it would have been a lot more mellow. |
|
Merseymike
Independent
Posts: 40,419
Member is Online
|
Post by Merseymike on Oct 3, 2022 8:56:03 GMT
You exemplify the sort of attitudes which have caused the problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Oct 3, 2022 9:58:57 GMT
That's like saying all ex British colonies should have English enforced on them. It'll make sense for some, either as a main language (Carribean), or a common language (India), and not for others (Iraq). Well, if 20% of India in 1947 comprised of British people and their descendants who were deprived of citizenship due to not learning Hindi or any other Indian language; I am sure the Western world would have had a meltdown. Which is what makes me find the outrage on this board so funny. At a personal level, I am particularly interested in Latvian citizenship laws as it is a project I did on this subject in law school that played a huge role in turning me from a Baltic sympathiser to a Russophile. Comparing chalk and cheese. India is a multilingual society so the use of English as a lingua franca in many cases is understandable as it doesn't favour one group. Hindi is also the 4th most-used language in the world. Speakers of smaller languages with fewer than 2 million speakers naturally tend to be more protective of their language, especially when the previous occupying power tried to displace it. |
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Oct 3, 2022 9:59:16 GMT
For right-wing Westerners it's the same basic reason it was then. Putin has set himself up as the 'anti-West' by wrapping himself up in extremist beliefs, conspiracy theories, threats and racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic language. Some people share those beliefs and are so self-loathing or so ill informed, or simply stupid, that they go along with/buy the schtick. They're like Lenin's useful idiots, but right-wing. My “support for Russia” is much more of an opposition to Ukraine (for reasons I’ve already stated in the past) than actual support for Russia, a country that I’ve never viewed favourably. I used to be a Sinophile until a couple of years ago as I used to be an admirer of state capitalism (my older brother is still an admirer), but I’ve become more Democratic and less authoritarian in my outlook on society over the years and especially during the pandemic. Don't worry, I didn't assume you were pro-Russian. I thought your anti-Ukraine stance was due to what happened in the Holocaust. I understand that reason, it would leave a scar that would not heal. However, that isn't Ukraine today. Ukraine is the victim of massacres, forced deportations and widespread pillaging. It also has a Jewish President resisting a country that seems to be going out of its way to invite Nazi comparisons. As for anti-democratic sentiment, I firmly believe that a state of freedom is the natural state of mankind. Therefore, I will always oppose autocracies and autocratic political movements because freedom isn't ours to give away. We in the free world have a responsibility to the trillions upon trillions not yet born to protect it and hand it on. |
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Oct 3, 2022 10:45:41 GMT
My “support for Russia” is much more of an opposition to Ukraine (for reasons I’ve already stated in the past) than actual support for Russia, a country that I’ve never viewed favourably. I used to be a Sinophile until a couple of years ago as I used to be an admirer of state capitalism (my older brother is still an admirer), but I’ve become more Democratic and less authoritarian in my outlook on society over the years and especially during the pandemic. Don't worry, I didn't assume you were pro-Russian. I thought your anti-Ukraine stance was due to what happened in the Holocaust. I understand that reason, it would leave a scar that would not heal. However, that isn't Ukraine today. Ukraine is the victim of massacres, forced deportations and widespread pillaging. It also has a Jewish President resisting a country that seems to be going out of its way to invite Nazi comparisons. As for anti-democratic sentiment, I firmly believe that a state of freedom is the natural state of mankind. Therefore, I will always oppose autocracies and autocratic political movements because freedom isn't ours to give away. We in the free world have a responsibility to the trillions upon trillions not yet born to protect it and hand it on. I would describe myself as a perfectly good democrat today (not necessarily a LibDem as I think that the definition of Civil and Human rights have become too broad), the same could have not been said when I was 18. Edit: Yes, my anti-Ukraine stance is mainly Holocaust related and their apparent love of old Nazis. I don’t think many Anti-Ukraine Atlanticists like myself exist lol |
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Oct 3, 2022 17:07:42 GMT
And it is that decision which was not acceptable. Acceptable by whom? Latvia was an independent nation state (whose main historical ties are with Germany and Sweden, not Russia), it was occupied and oppressed by the Soviets, a big part of its native population was deported and perished, and they were replaced by Russian (and other Russophone) settlers. Then they finally manage to regain their independence. Why shouldn't they then have the right to de-Russify their country? If the Tibetans by some miracle manage to get free from China shouldn't they have the right to de-Siniticize their country? National independence isn't worth much if you're still beholden to your former masters and need to give special rights to their culture and language. If the Russians in Latvia didn't want to integrate in an independent Latvia they could have simply left and returned to the land of their ancestors. Latvian nationalism is an unpleasant beast....and they have the nerve to criticize the Russians The main reason why Latvian nationalism has "unpleasant" elements is that they've had the misfortune of living next to the Russians with all the nasty consequences that has entailed, without a constant existential threat to their nation it would have been a lot more mellow. . I would recommend that anyone who visits Riga go to the Occupation Museum . After a visit there you can fully understand why the Latvians hate Russia. |
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Oct 4, 2022 10:49:59 GMT
Maybe in Britain and the anglosphere, but not elsewhere. Everyone being able to speak the national language is a fundamental element of the European nation state, and that concept was a lot stronger back in 1947. Europe has a long tradition of trying to suppress and assimilate linguistic minorities. Fair enough, that’s a perspective I can agree with it. But it’s funny coming from English speaking liberals who would be absolutely outraged at similar policies being adopted by even continental Europeans if the intended targets aren’t Russians. Forgive me, I didn't see this post originally. My reply would be that Russia gets different treatment because it is different. The Russian state looms over the continent menacing and threatening to murder the rest of us if it doesn't get what it wants, which relatively often is the freedom to rape, murder and colonise its neighbours. Then, when they're condemned for that decades long behaviour, they cry about "russophobia" and morph into the epitome of a "snowflake". That's why Russia and the Russian state is near universally despised in Europe, because it is different. Its values and behaviour is so out of line with the rest of the continent's. If they stopped that behaviour views would transform. Like with the Germans. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 4, 2022 10:55:50 GMT
I agree with all the negative comments about how Russia has treated its near neighbours historically, and how that mentality is still very much with us today as Ukraine shows. But there is also a bit of an elephant in the room that we are dancing around, isn't there? Which is how so many in the Baltic states particularly joined the Nazi cause in WW2, and not just reluctantly on a "lesser evil" basis but often with chilling enthusiasm - especially when it came to exterminating Jews. And this aspect of their history is today often whitewashed, and on occasion actually glorified.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Oct 4, 2022 11:06:15 GMT
I agree with all the negative comments about how Russia has treated its near neighbours historically, and how that mentality is still very much with us today as Ukraine shows. Bit there is also a bit of an elephant in the room that we are dancing around, isn't there? Which is how so many in the Baltic states particularly joined the Nazi cause in WW2, and not just reluctantly on a "lesser evil" basis but often with chilling enthusiasm - especially when it came to exterminating Jews. And this aspect of their history is today often whitewashed, and on occasion actually glorified. That was the case across much of the occupied continent though. Antisemitism was/is ancient and deep rooted in the European psyche, even among some here as the last few years showed, and it'll take a long time to excise that. Though, we are, thankfully, making progress. Moreover, the glorification point is simply one side of the argument. Those people, as wicked as some of their actions were, fought to liberate their country from outside occupation and colonisation. You cannot help but understand why they are remembered therefore. Similarly, we lionise Churchill as a national saint, rightly, but I dare say many of ibfc's countrymen would take a different view. Similarly, Indians admire Gandhi, yet many black South Africans understandably have a different view. A further example would be the Irgun at the end of the Second World War. Their crimes against British soldiers and civilians are still remembered here, but are they viewed as negatively in Israel? rcronald would be able to tell us, but I doubt it. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Oct 4, 2022 11:13:40 GMT
I've referred to Finland before. It was a part of the Russian empire, went through an appalling civil war after the Russian revolution, fought a war against the Soviet Union, first with limited support then in effective (but carefully limited) alliance with Germany.
As a result they lost part of their country which remains in Russia. They've managed not to reflect these traumas much in their current politics and navigated their relationship with the USSR then Russia carefully. They don't have a Russian minority which makes it easier (but they have other minorities recognised in their politics).
|
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Oct 4, 2022 11:22:04 GMT
I agree with all the negative comments about how Russia has treated its near neighbours historically, and how that mentality is still very much with us today as Ukraine shows. Bit there is also a bit of an elephant in the room that we are dancing around, isn't there? Which is how so many in the Baltic states particularly joined the Nazi cause in WW2, and not just reluctantly on a "lesser evil" basis but often with chilling enthusiasm - especially when it came to exterminating Jews. And this aspect of their history is today often whitewashed, and on occasion actually glorified. The collaborators are all dead now. That being the case, I see it as more historical than an elephant. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Oct 4, 2022 11:27:39 GMT
I think we can all umderstand how the Baltic states in general, and Latvia in particular, have suffered under German and Russian colonialism. But this is neither here nor there. You have to start from where you are now. Yes lots of Russians moved to Estonia and Latvia during Soviet times (and indeed earlier), but they are there now, and it's their home, and they have to be accommodated. It's not their fault after all. Of course, as in other post Soviet states, there is a push to ensure that everyone can speak the national language. No-one is objecting to that. It's the deprivation of basic civil rights that sticks in my craw.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 4, 2022 11:49:22 GMT
As said above, I can understand the "lesser evil" part. The "at times being so enthusiastic about killing Jews that even some Nazis were shocked" bit, not so much. |
|
|
|
Post by ibfc on Oct 4, 2022 12:17:51 GMT
Fair enough, that’s a perspective I can agree with it. But it’s funny coming from English speaking liberals who would be absolutely outraged at similar policies being adopted by even continental Europeans if the intended targets aren’t Russians. Forgive me, I didn't see this post originally. My reply would be that Russia gets different treatment because it is different. The Russian state looms over the continent menacing and threatening to murder the rest of us if it doesn't get what it wants, which relatively often is the freedom to rape, murder and colonise its neighbours. Then, when they're condemned for that decades long behaviour, they cry about "russophobia" and morph into the epitome of a "snowflake". That's why Russia and the Russian state is near universally despised in Europe, because it is different. Its values and behaviour is so out of line with the rest of the continent's. If they stopped that behaviour views would transform. Like with the Germans. My limited point is that treating Russia differently is arguably fine but treating Russians as some sort of outgroup deserving of collective punishment is not something that would’ve generally passed muster anywhere else in 1991. Also the Germans lost a war so badly that Berlin was occupied. Russia didn’t. Expecting Russians post 1991 to behave like Germans post 1945 is unrealistic. |
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Oct 4, 2022 12:30:11 GMT
I think we can all umderstand how the Baltic states in general, and Latvia in particular, have suffered under German and Russian colonialism. But this is neither here nor there. You have to start from where you are now. Yes lots of Russians moved to Estonia and Latvia during Soviet times (and indeed earlier), but they are there now, and it's their home, and they have to be accommodated. It's not their fault after all. Of course, as in other post Soviet states, there is a push to ensure that everyone can speak the national language. No-one is objecting to that. It's the deprivation of basic civil rights that sticks in my craw. What deprivation of basic civil rights? There is no right to vote without citizenship. Same as the uk. There is no jus soli citizenship. Same as the UK. There is only citizenship with local language skills. Same as the UK. |
|
