Thread: Members of Ukrainian parliament fight over Russian language

Originally Posted by Crocodile

That being said, there are a number of organizations which would employ the Ukrainian origin. For example, https://www.ukrainiancu.com/UCU/ which offices are all over Canada would only accept members of the Ukrainian origin. E.g. I cannot become a member and get a credit from that union. Ukrainians are very proud of their origin I guess..

Any diaspora in any country is usually very serious about their traditions and their origin, sometimes more that those who were left behind in their native country. It's a natural desire to preserve what's left in a new and unfamiliar world. Ukrainian diaspora is well known for cherishing Ukrainian traditions and being as "Ukrainian" as possible (as well as Jews, for example).

Sometimes they try too hard, though. There was an incident last year or so. Some Canadian organization invited sick and orphaned children from Carpathian region of Ukraine for medical treatment and/or recreation, which was great and very generous of them. Except that there was one condition - no Russian speaking children. I guess they were in their right, but this kind of segregation still looked kind of bad.

especially if those countries are oriented towards European values, which arw`to

I just want to point out that modern "European values" includes respecting minority languages. All long time EU member states adhere to this - it's a big, big deal, for the precise reason that the effects of ignoring peoples' language preferences, or generally imposing a different language on people has caused so much problems and resentment in the past. If you move past that and let people choose for themselves, they will not feel pressured or resentful and they will end up with a lot more respect for a state that respects them. The Russian speakers might well choose to speak Ukrainian by their own device if they are let be rather than forced into it - which I believe would cause a backlash.

In Odessa, I saw some pro-Russian language provocative t-shirts and hats sold. There'd be no need for that in France, Spain, Italy, Finland where the minority languages are respected without throwing history etc in the face of people. They did not choose their mothertongue!

If you take Switzerland for example - because everyone's language is treated with respect, they usually end up bi or tri-lingual and feeling positive about all 3 languages. Same thing in Finland where the bilingual status is something most people are pleased and proud of.

For some reason Eastern Europe (not just the ex-USSR) doesn't seem to be interested in taking on these particular values. It is particularly clear when it comes to how Russian speakers are treated. Why the EU turns a blind eye to the situation in Latvia is an interesting question... Had something like this been going on in Germany, France or the UK it would be totally unacceptable to everyone involved. There are endless laws both at EU and state level to protect peoples right to use their local language in their local area.

I am not one to preach at others but I just don't get why it's such an issue to respect minority languages in Eastern Europe. Other countries in Europe take pride in it. For what it's worth - this seems to be a problem in several other parts of Eastern Europe, since plenty of people ended up on the "wrong" side of a border during the 20th century wars. These are not immigrants or occupiers - they were born there, and have always lived there.

I don't know to what degree the Russian Federation respects minority languages within its own borders, but I have a vague notion that it DOES in fact support a bilingual situation in areas that have another language.

Originally Posted by Hanna

For some reason Eastern Europe (not just the ex-USSR) doesn't seem to be interested in taking on these particular values.

because these nations are trying to establish themselves, or regain their footing, a process which Western Europe went through 100 some years ago
with these particular values Arabic has all the chances to soon become the second language in a number of Western European countries

Originally Posted by Hanna

It is particularly clear when it comes to how Russian speakers are treated.

what do you mean, Hanna?

Originally Posted by Hanna

I am not one to preach at others but I just don't get why it's such an issue to respect minority languages in Eastern Europe. Other countries in Europe take pride in it. For what it's worth - this seems to be a problem in several other parts of Eastern Europe, since plenty of people ended up on the "wrong" side of a border during the 20th century wars. These are not immigrants or occupiers - they were born there, and have always lived there.

exactly so they've had no problem in learning the local language, it's taught in schools

my mother tongue is Russian, but I don't need it to become the second state language, why? maybe because I know Ukrainian as well

in any event the constitution guarantees language rights to all

but in the Baltic states Russian population predominantly consists of occupiers and their descendants

Originally Posted by Hanna

I don't know to what degree the Russian Federation respects minority languages within its own borders, but I have a vague notion that it DOES in fact support a bilingual situation in areas that have another language.

Russian Federation is a federation therefore by its very design it must respect national languages of the federation members

Originally Posted by LXNDR

what do you mean, Hanna?

The main example of this is the Baltic States where native Russian speakers are treated in a way that is totally unworthy of the EU, and nobody seems to care.
If you compare the situation there with the situation in Finland which is very close to the Baltic States, is a farily "new" country and has not really had an easy ride either.... yet they are handling the situation tremendously much better than the Baltics. In Finland, the bilingual situation is mostly considered to be something positive.

its aggressiveness Russian state has demonstrated in a recent armed conflict with Georgia

There are two sides to this story as you well know.

Originally Posted by Hanna

The main example of this is the Baltic States where native Russian speakers are treated in a way that is totally unworthy of the EU, and nobody seems to care.
If you compare the situation there with the situation in Finland which is very close to the Baltic States, is a farily "new" country and has not really had an easy ride either.... yet they are handling the situation tremendously much better than the Baltics. In Finland, the bilingual situation is mostly considered to be something positive.

Finland luckily escaped the grim prospect of becoming another republic of the USSR through annexation, therefore with different background they can afford a more relaxed attitude

Originally Posted by LXNDR

Finland luckily escaped the grim prospect of becoming another republic of the USSR through annexation, therefore with different background they can afford a more relaxed attitude

I don't see the logic in this reasoning. It is not Russian, but Swedish that is the second language. Sweden occupied Finland for quite a long time and did its best to switch languages in the country during this period. After that, Finland was again occupied, by Russia until 1917. Yet, the Finns can put their history aside and look at the present, not the past, and the benefits of being a bilingual country. I don't think the Winter War or the proximity to the ex USSR has anything to do with their choice when it comes to language policy. Just common sense!

but in the Baltic states Russian population predominantly consists of occupiers and their descendants

I think that is highly debatable!

From what I read, the Russians who moved to the Baltic states were workers who were told "There is a new factory, institute... whatever.... in Latvia (or wherever). You'll get this/that pay and a nice new flat - are you interested?" Understandably, some were.

And for all that they were aware, the USSR had liberated the Baltic states, nothing else. From their perspective, I doubt that they felt they were participating in any occupation.

I suppose some (a minority) were indeed occupiers, in that they were in the military. Most such people left there as soon as they could. I met a guy from this type of background in Belarus - his family essentially left everything behind and just cleared off to Minsk because they felt they were not welcome anymore. He felt a bit nostalgic about his lost childhood in Ventspils.

And finally - when I was in Daugavpils, I saw something that really p-d me off:
There was a huge EU sponsored project to restore an old fortress, which frankly seemed like nothing special to me. But right next to this fortress, in some apalling conditions, lived a pretty large community of ex Soviet military people. It was clear that they were totally impoverished, and likewise that the houses they lived in had not had any maintenance at all for the past 20 years. It was disgraceful! There is talk about how Belarus is a dictatorship and has no money - etc, etc - but I certainly saw nothing close to this in Belarus.

I feel strongly that the EU money should be used to renovate these people's houses, rather than rebuild a stupid fortress - surely that is a lower priority! Those children could catch dangerous illnesses living in such squalor.

And if Latvia or the EU won't step up to help these people, then frankly I think Russia has an obligation to do something - fix up their houses or offer them some kind of repatriation deal.

Again in Liepaja, I saw a similar situation - an ex-Soviet military town (called Karosta) which was in terrible state of repair. It was as if these people were simply abandoned by everyone and unable to sort something out themselves. To add to the farce, the whole place was touted as a tourist attraction to Germans and Scandis, on the grounds of having been a famous naval base of the USSR. But it was a complete dump, apart from a very quaint orthodox church.

Summary: The Russian speaking people in the Baltics, to a large extent are and were the lower strata of society - not conscious occupiers. IMHO!

Nevertheless you are right that the situations are not identical, and Latvia did at least go to the trouble of having a referendum about the matter (even if the outcome was rather predictable, in light of the balance between the groups).

But maybe a referendum might be something for the Ukraine to try, or what do you think?

Originally Posted by LXNDR

Finland luckily escaped the grim prospect of becoming another republic of the USSR through annexation, therefore with different background they can afford a more relaxed attitude

So that's how you justify the complete disregard of wishes and rights of at least 1/3 of Ukrainians? A so called "background" that gives someone right to treat people like second-grade citizens now since their mothers taught them the "wrong" language?

That's no way to build a democratic society. And since apparently EU silently approves it it's no wonder that many Ukrainians are very skeptical about democracy in general (too many double standards).

Originally Posted by Hanna

The main example of this is the Baltic States where native Russian speakers are treated in a way that is totally unworthy of the EU, and nobody seems to care.
If you compare the situation there with the situation in Finland which is very close to the Baltic States, is a farily "new" country and has not really had an easy ride either.... yet they are handling the situation tremendously much better than the Baltics. In Finland, the bilingual situation is mostly considered to be something positive.

There are two sides to this story as you well know.

Yes and ONE OTHER side of the story might be that Russia/Soviet never managed to conquer/occupy/rape Finland like they did almost all of those "other"Baltic states.

Those people have a VERY GOOD reason to treat "ethnic Russian speakers" differently - they are a legacy of illegal occupation of the Soviet.

When are you Russian's gonna get it? People do not forget the occupation and systematic raping of their country by the Soviet - and the imposition of the Russian language along with the commie dogma. Not for a long time to come.

The "Allies" (read that USA, UK, Canada, et al) left Europe after four years - the Russian's left after 50 years!

Why is it not a surprise for you that Baltic states like Lithuania, Estonia not only flock to the EU but treat their "indigenous Russian speakers" ill? It is because there were NO or very few"indigenous" Russian speakers until Stalin and Russia invaded and raped their country!

Of course - perhaps you have a different version of the "history"?

Was the Soviet occupation the responsibility of the Russian speakers who live in those countries today? Is it OK to oppress a minority just because they speak the same language as people who oppressed your parents and grandparents?

Linguistic chauvinism really is the most idiotic form of nationalism. Personally, I think the Baltic states should have had their membership of the EU suspended years ago.

Originally Posted by KLAPA

The "Allies" (read that USA, UK, Canada, et al) left Europe after four years

Really?!
American troups are still in Europe, their geographic distribution has broadened for the last 20 years. They even conduct wars in Europe (recall Yugoslavia) against those who refuse to place their troops on their land.

Originally Posted by KLAPA

The "Allies" (read that USA, UK, Canada, et al) left Europe after four years - the Russian's left after 50 years!

What do you mean? There are US military bases in Germany (unlike those of Russia) and all of Europe is in Nato. Also as many pointed out, you have to know English to get a good job. So it is doubtful that the Americans "left" whatever do you mean.

Originally Posted by LXNDR

Russian Federation is a federation therefore by its very design it must respect national languages of the federation members

That's the main fault of Russia. We just had to abandon the federation...
The alnguage policy is very tough in France as far as I know. They have practically destroyed other languages and dialects.

Originally Posted by Marcus

The alnguage policy is very tough in France as far as I know. They have practically destroyed other languages and dialects.

No, no - it's just English that the French hate (not all, but many). They just want to protect their language against English, so there are quotas about how much English songs can be played on the radio etc. Most young people totally ignore all this and absolutely nothing happens.

They have some LOCAL languages there, like Occitane and Basque. These are given plenty of support. There are also some people in France that actually have German as their mother tongue (Alsace - belonged to Germany earlier). This is no problem for France either. I know a person from this area and he is bilingual which means he was able to get a great job in Zurich.

That's the main fault of Russia. We just had to abandon the federation...

This almost deserves a separate thread, to hear your views on this.

Originally Posted by LXNDR

but in the Baltic states Russian population predominantly consists of occupiers and their descendants

I wonder how is it to be legally considered "occupier" in a country where you was born.

Originally Posted by Anixx

I wonder how is it to be legally considered "occupier" in a country where you was born.

Nil Ushakov, the mayor of Riga, puts it right:

Мы не уезжали со своей родины. У нас граница сдвинулась. Я родился в Латвии, в Риге. Я не родился в России. Я этнический русский, у меня родной язык русский. У меня родители родом отец из Кронштадта, мама из Красноярского края. Но я родился в Риге. Пока я жил, сменился строй, сменились государства. Не я эмигрировал, страна эмигрировала. Если так можно выразиться.

Russian is the state language of the Russian Federation. It is mother tongue of 90% of citizens. On regional level dozens of other languages are officially recognized and used alongside Russian.

I just can't agree with a principle that says:

"it's wrong to discriminate linguistic minorities*"
*Except if the minority happen to be Russians, then it's ok, because it's ok to discriminate against them since we did not like the USSR.

That seems to be what some of you are saying!

Or are you saying that it is ok in general, to discriminate against linguistic minorities?
I.e.

Forget the Welsh, the Frisians, the Basque, the German speakers in Italy, the Swedish speakers in Finland etc... and force them to speak the majority language using any means possible!

Because that seems to be what you are proposing in the case of the Baltic Russians, in particular.

I don't think even the USSR - which you say you dislike - would have supported such a policy, at least not post Stalin.

So as for the Baltics: Now they are in the European UNION instead, where they have to learn English instead of Russian... Many cannot get a job and emigrate, many live in poverty and they had a currency crisis and big unemployment. Their countries are used as a location for cheap manufacturing within the borders of the EU.

It's nice that they are happy with the current situation, I hope things will improve fast and I am glad to have them in the EU, but if you look at it objectively there are some big parallells between then and now.. The Baltic states were definitely not rolling in any wealth prior to the War and Soviet annexation - it was a similar situation to Finland. With this I am not saying I approve of the Soviet annexation, I don't. But there are two sides to this and I always disliked a one sided super-biaised view of things.

In the case of Finland - they had an absolute crap time of it until about 1980s. I wouldn't say it was much better than the Baltics. Whole villages and large parts of society were forced to emigrate to support themselves, this never happened in the Baltics, until recently. The situation in Finland had nothing to do with the USSR, they were just poor, with no major natural resources etc in a neglected and unglamorous part of Europe. Luckily things have improved a lot during the last 25 years.

I know this sounds terrible but I wish the Baltic people would stop their victim mentality and look to the future. If they want to be Europeans in the EU, then behave like it! Leave the past where it belongs and move on! What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Being bilingual with Russian will eventually turn out to be a huge advantage - if they don't take it someone else will.

Originally Posted by Hanna

It's nice that they are happy with the current situation, I hope things will improve fast and I am glad to have them in the EU, but if you look at it objectively there are some big parallells between then and now.. The Baltic states were definitely not rolling in any wealth prior to the War and Soviet annexation - it was a similar situation to Finland. With this I am not saying I approve of the Soviet annexation, I don't. But there are two sides to this and I always disliked a one sided super-biaised view of things.

In the case of Finland - they had an absolute crap time of it until about 1980s. I wouldn't say it was much better than the Baltics. Whole villages and large parts of society were forced to emigrate to support themselves, this never happened in the Baltics. The situation in Finland had nothing to do with the USSR, they were just poor, with no major natural resources etc in a neglected and unglamorous part of Europe. Luckily things have improved a lot during the last 25 years.

you cannot know how it would pan out for them economically and progress wise in general had they not been annexed by the USSR, and your example of Finland only goes to show that they could have been better off staying independent, plus their national pride wouldn't have been hurt which is an important thing to consider evaluating relative happiness

Originally Posted by Hanna

Leave the past where it belongs and move on! What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Being bilingual with Russian will eventually turn out to be a huge advantage - if they don't take it someone else will.

they can't leave the past behind them while former occupants and their descendants stir up language controversy looking up to their metropole which is Russia
why not just learn the local language?

Let me be blatant on this one, the idea of multi-culti is bollocks, we're witnessing what this policy has brought about in Western European countries with large Muslim immigrant population. Maybe you like the tendencies, i don't
It doesn't mean that ethnic minorities should be oppressed, but at the same time they should not dictate national policy or try to sway it in their favor, that's treacherous, they MUST integrate if they like to be integral part of society, that in particular means knowing local language
In Latvia one of the goals of the referendum was making Russian another language used in the sessions of the Seim. Why on earth is this important if the members of the parliament have to know the official language in the first place?

as far as Russian speaking population is concerned, i think that unfortunately its large part represents mentality alien and at times hostile to the Western world, therefore for a society which associates itself with this world it poses considerable hindrance.

Originally Posted by LXNDR

as far as Russian speaking population is concerned, i think that unfortunately its large part represents mentality alien and at times hostile to the Western world, therefore for a society which associates itself with this world it poses considerable hindrance.

This resembles to me the infamous "totalitarian genes" theory that alleged that Russians, Serbs, Belorussians had genes favoring totalitarianism, so to protect democracy those people should be prosecuted and/or eliminated.

Originally Posted by Anixx

This resembles to me the infamous "totalitarian genes" theory that alleged that Russians, Serbs, Belorussians had genes favoring totalitarianism, so to protect democracy those people should be prosecuted and/or eliminated.

no, they should not be allowed to determine national policy, that's all
not sure what Belorussians and Serbs have to do with the content of any of my posts, no need to multiply entities

Originally Posted by Anixx

I wonder how is it to be legally considered "occupier" in a country where you was born.

please do not wrench my words, why do you do this?

i said

Originally Posted by LXNDR

occupiers and their descendants

ok? see the distinction?

discussion with such attitude as you demonstrate is usually not productive