Thread: Regarding Russian in the Baltic States

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Minorities happen to become majorities, especially when treated like they never could.

Would you be able to be more specific with: "when treated like they never could?" What does it mean?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Would you be able to be more specific with: "when treated like they never could?" What does it mean?

When the minorities get enough rights to bring them upon the majorities, and make them losers in their own game, mainly.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

When the minorities get enough rights to bring them upon the majorities, and make them losers in their own game, mainly.

Do you have an example from the real life you might be referring to? I mean, a political example at least somewhat similar to the situation in context.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Do you have an example from the real life you might be referring to? I mean, a political example at least somewhat similar to the situation in context.

It's been happening all around, just give it a good look. I'd avoid talking about particular cases to maintain political correctness.

Originally Posted by Hanna

Call me a racist if you want, but yes - I would happily switch 1 Somali for 5 Russians in my country because the Russians could fit and have a lot more in common with the rest of the population and could contribute more to the economy. In fact, there are quite a lot of Russians around, judging from how oftern I hear it spoken in Stockholm. We are all Europeans, I don't see a problem, it's the same as with the intra EU migration.

As for people getting apartments from the queue, yes - I would get one in 7 years with my queue current position..... While the immigrants jump straight to the front of the queue, particularly if they have more children than they can afford... My grandparents worked to build up this system which now benefits mostly immigrants.
Oh well!!!! Fortunately I can afford to buy a flat soon, if I stay here, but not everyone is so lucky.

As for what happened or not after the 2nd world war - it is not for me to say.

Personally I think that the Red Army should have withdrawn from the Baltic States, or held a referendum to check what people wanted. But as we all know, referendums were neither recommended by the ideology.... neither was it Stalin's style.... And all this was 65 years ago. Time to move on....

Yes, why can't you criticize your own government? Sweden and other 'EU' countries are just as bad as the Soviet and post-Soviet. In fact, the policies of countries like Sweden are destroying their own countries in order to profit via banks and special interest groups.

At least, the Baltic countries and now Russians are protesting. Swedes an other EU citizens sit on their hands and do nothing.

Personally, I think the citizens of the Baltic citizens should direct any complaint against both governments since both want that friction and division. But, they are similar so any hostility is pointless unless directed towards the Governments who want the conflict.

Of course I critisize my useless government!!
Just not in a Russian forum, and normally mostly to my countrymen....

Originally Posted by Hanna

Of course I critisize my useless government!!
Just not in a Russian forum, and normally mostly to my countrymen....

Hanna I thought in Sweden people are more able to influence on the policy. Why the society wouldn't elect those who will first of all care about their own people instead of sheltering every other?

Originally Posted by Romik

Hanna I thought in Sweden people are more able to influence on the policy. Why the society wouldn't elect those who will first of all care about their own people instead of sheltering every other?

A common misconception. No society can elect a decent and honest leader. Any leader will be either inept or corrupt or both. This is universal.

Originally Posted by Romik

Hanna I thought in Sweden people are more able to influence on the policy. Why the society wouldn't

elect those who will first of all care about their own people instead of sheltering every other?

Rant warning! Don't ask me any more questions about this, I don't want to rant any more lol!!!

<Begin Rant>Actually, it's a very strange political phenomenon. All the "internationalism" and pro-immigration views started in the 1970s under a particular prime minister who was "internationalist" as an extension of his socialist views. He got everyone with him in the political climate of the time. Anyone escaping right wing dictatorships could come to Sweden... At the time, Sweden was very rich and needed workers, so it was not a problem. This was politically fashionable and uper-idealistic with lots of singing Kumbaya and internationale... Media was 100% for it and people thought that the foreigners were interesting. And they gave SO much in foreign aid, it's mind boggling to think about. All this just continued and still today, it's impossible to say anything serious against immigration or foreign aid- you'd be labelled an racist and ostracized. My view is that each nation is responsible for its own citizens and maybe helping out its neighbours. To allow people from all over the world to arrive and support them financially is just stupid.
<Rant++>We are giving foreign aid to China, the worlds 2nd biggest econonomy, and the Chinese are buying our factories. How insane is that???? First the state bails out these companies, then the Chinese buys them...! Apparently the idea of the foreign aid is to support democracy in China... I don't even care about that. This country is so retarded I am not sure I actually want to live here. There'll be nothing left for my grandchildren, we're just giving it away to Somalis, Afghanis and rich Chinese... <end Rant>

Originally Posted by Eric C.

It's been happening all around, just give it a good look. I'd avoid talking about particular cases to maintain political correctness.

Oh, come on! In politics, unless you have a sound case beefed up with some good examples, you would be named a populist or a demagogue, agree? Instilling concerns without proper justification supported by some convincing precedents is essentially obscuring the reality and is called mystification. A very well-known and time-proven technique practiced by Shamanism. And we're talking about a very noticeable slice of Latvian population. So noticeable, that we can't even agree if they are a minority or a majority.

After all, what does it mean 'an official language?' That means that should a citizen request a government service in either of the official languages, the government is obliged by law to provide that service to him or her. That is all to it. It does not mean all schools have to switch to Russian and forget about Latvian. Below please find a partial list of countries which had adopted several official languages. Please, notice that in neither of those countries there's a concern of going back to the Soviet times:

Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic (several municipalities have official bilingualism: Czech and Polish)
Kosovo
Luxembourg (three official languages)
Malta
Cameroon
Chad
Burundi
Kenya
Rwanda

In fact, in my opinion, adoption of Russian as a second official language and subsequently granting a citizenship status to the Russian-speaking community in Latvia has NOTHING TO DO with going back to the Soviet times. Unless, of course, nulle would finally wake up and clearly explain otherwise.

Having said that, I can definitely recognize there are cultural wars going on in Latvia. Not resurrection of the Soviet times, but purely cultural debate. And using political means in a cultural debate, in my opinion, is at the very least a dishonest practice. It's more or less like saying: "Oh, your favourite book is more popular than mine, so I'm going to call the publisher and blackmail him, so he would stop publishing your favourite book." Does it make sense?