Estonians eager to help Russian-speakers learn Estonian

[Vladimir]

ELaimins wrote:
>
> Can you tell me how many Russians are there in Estonia? What percentage of the
> population is Russian there in Estonia?
>
> Eriks Laimins

As E. Holman intimated, there are regions (Narva, Kohtla-Järve, Sillamäe
etc.), where the percentage of ethnic Russians is about 97 %. In Tallinn
- underneath 40 %, I guess. In the countryside, it is almost nil. Thus,
Estonia has a "Kosovo" of her own in the North East.

_____
Igal talul oma tava.

[David McDuff]

On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:35:39 +0200, Vladimir <K...@snoe.Solnyshko>
wrote:

>Thus,
>Estonia has a "Kosovo" of her own in the North East.

I'm glad you put it in quotation marks. One might equally well say
that Estonia has a "Russia" of her own in the North East.

DM
_____________________
igal pool omad kombed

[Vladimir]

U kazhdogo kraya svoi obychai.

Okay, I do not intend to launch a discussion here, but I cannot avoid to
recall some figures. Serbia proper has about 10 million citizens, 20 %
thereof ethnic Albanians. All of Estonia has more than 20 % Russian
speaking inhabitants, but the part living in the North East maybe
constitute a similar alien element as Albanians do in Southern Serbia.
Due to the prudence of all involved, in Estonia did not happen clashes
similar to what we see every day from other parts of the world. We hope
the situation will improve, but the attempt to assimilate the Russian
native speakers in NE Estonia will be futile. Any reasonable solution
has to respect the linguistic compactness of the area.

--

Valel on lühikesed jalad.

[Claudio De Diana]

Vladimir <K...@snoe.Solnyshko> wrote:
[..]

>Okay, I do not intend to launch a discussion here, but I cannot avoid to
>recall some figures. Serbia proper has about 10 million citizens, 20 %
>thereof ethnic Albanians. All of Estonia has more than 20 % Russian
>speaking inhabitants, but the part living in the North East maybe
>constitute a similar alien element as Albanians do in Southern Serbia.
>Due to the prudence of all involved, in Estonia did not happen clashes
>similar to what we see every day from other parts of the world. We hope
>the situation will improve, but the attempt to assimilate the Russian
>native speakers in NE Estonia will be futile. Any reasonable solution

>has to respect the linguistic compactness of the area. =

But did anybody tried to propose officially bilinguism as it was done
in the Suedtirol-AltoAdige region and in Slovenia? Actually
the Slovenian are not very happy because they say that
in the part of Italy in which there are more Slavs the rules
were not reciprocated (I am Italian and agree with them, if you
are curious about this, not on all the point but on several),
but this is a good example
of how things go, basically lot of discussions about how well
the principle (bilinguism) is implemented, which is far better,
in my opinion, that exchanging accusation or trying to assimilate,
expel and so on.

>Valel on l=FChikesed jalad.
>
P.S> issues like bilinguism in the two areas of Italy quoted
usually degenerate in flames, my point is that it is important
to accept the principle (bilinguism) which is far better
to have a war or a riot in the long run.

-- sni...@tep.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de

[David McDuff]

On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:22:18 +0200, Vladimir <K...@snoe.Solnyshko>
wrote:

>. Any reasonable solution
>has to respect the linguistic compactness of the area.

Just as any reasonable solution also has to respect the fact that
Estonia is not Russia. I haven't used quotation marks.

_________________________
meest s6nast, ha"rga sarvist

[eso...@hotmail.com]

> On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:35:39 +0200, Vladimir <K...@snoe.Solnyshko>
> wrote:
>
> >Thus,
> >Estonia has a "Kosovo" of her own in the North East.
>
> I'm glad you put it in quotation marks. One might equally well say
> that Estonia has a "Russia" of her own in the North East.
>
> DM
>

I think Ulster would be even more appropriate, although Kosovo is a good
one too.

Eugene

[eso...@hotmail.com]

Eugene Holman wrote:

> In article <6i4l9i$hm6$2...@sparcserver.lrz-muenchen.de>, Claudio De Diana

> <beccat...@maledetto.spammer.com> wrote:
>
> > Vladimir <K...@snoe.Solnyshko> wrote:
> > [..]
> > >Okay, I do not intend to launch a discussion here, but I cannot avoid to
> > >recall some figures. Serbia proper has about 10 million citizens, 20 %
> > >thereof ethnic Albanians. All of Estonia has more than 20 % Russian
> > >speaking inhabitants, but the part living in the North East maybe
> > >constitute a similar alien element as Albanians do in Southern Serbia.
> > >Due to the prudence of all involved, in Estonia did not happen clashes
> > >similar to what we see every day from other parts of the world. We hope
> > >the situation will improve, but the attempt to assimilate the Russian
> > >native speakers in NE Estonia will be futile. Any reasonable solution
> > >has to respect the linguistic compactness of the area. =
> >
> > But did anybody tried to propose officially bilinguism as it was done
> > in the Suedtirol-AltoAdige region and in Slovenia?
>

> In Estonia the decision has been made that the country will not become
> officially bilingual, the primary justification being that it is just too
> small to be able to afford the 'luxury' of two communities, and that it
> lacks the resources. On the other hand, current practice gives wide de
> facto recognition to the linguistic realities in the north-eastern part of
> the country, and police, courts, etc. function quite well in Russian, nor
> is this situation likely to change in the near future. The central
> government sends out all of its information in Estonian, and a select
> subset of it in Russian. Thus, that part of the country will always need
> officials who are able to communicate in Estonian. Consumer protection
> laws require labels and instructions to be in Estonian, but not in Russian
> (although many companies provide such information), so self-interest will
> also promote a knowledge of Estonian. Finally, north-eastern Estonia is
> the least attractive and one of the economically most depressed areas of
> the country. Soviet-era lack of consideration for the environmental
> consequences of open-face oil-shale mining and a lack of demand for the
> products and theresultant downsizing or bankruptcy of the oversized
> industrial plants built back then have economic and other consequences
> that it will take a generation to rectify. Thus, an increasing number of
> young Russian speakers in that part of the country realizes that lack of
> competence in Estonian means a life of severely restricted social and
> economic mobility.

>
> > Actually
> > the Slovenian are not very happy because they say that
> > in the part of Italy in which there are more Slavs the rules
> > were not reciprocated (I am Italian and agree with them, if you
> > are curious about this, not on all the point but on several),
> > but this is a good example
> > of how things go, basically lot of discussions about how well
> > the principle (bilinguism) is implemented, which is far better,
> > in my opinion, that exchanging accusation or trying to assimilate,
> > expel and so on.
> >
> > >Valel on l=FChikesed jalad.
> > >
> > P.S> issues like bilinguism in the two areas of Italy quoted
> > usually degenerate in flames, my point is that it is important
> > to accept the principle (bilinguism) which is far better
> > to have a war or a riot in the long run.
> >
>

> From my informal discussions with younger Russian speakers from Narva I
> have gotten the impression that they have been made to understand how and
> why the large-scale introduction of Russian-speakers to Estonia was part
> of a long-term program to Russify the republic and its population. Even if

Do you have a proof of any sort, have you seen any real documents from that
russification program? Anything official? You say you participated in civil rights
movement but in the same time almost everything you said is a modern Nazi speak,
are you positive you are not a closeted Nazi? (nothing wrong with being a Nazi of
course. I like their uniforms at least ). You people whine over soft-ethnic
cleansing (?!!) and preach that the current system of vicious apartheid in Estonia
is a reasonable option for nation building, you believe that depriving
non-Estonians of their right to vote is a natural thing to do (as you, Eugene,
once said something like the Estonians are afraid of Russian vote, you know this
was exactly the case in the US, the southern whites were AFRAID of the black vote,
and if say you or I tried to argue that these folks should have the same rights
(at least in theory) as everybody else, the best that could have happened to us is
that we would had been called nigger-lovers. Why Austrian Styria, smaller than
Estonia, can be bilingual and say Estonia cannot. Where did you see that soft
ethnic cleansing? To any reasonable person, ethnic cleansing, whether gradual (like
in Ireland) or rapid (like in Rwanda) is when certain ethnic groups of population
are exterminated (can be a beneficial process to humanity overall) and replaced
with a different ethnic group. There was no soft or hard ethnic cleansing in
Estonia. Eugene, I respect you much, and I apologize in advance but what you said
on soft ethnic cleansing is ... foolish, migrants cannot cleanse population that is
already there by definition unless they kill them off.

The argument is as stupid as to say that the Irish and Italians have ethnically
cleansed WASPs from greater Boston area because they now constitute a substantially
higher percentage of population that they used to 100 years ago. What is ethnic
dilution? well ethnic dilution is when say somebody forced Estonians to marry
non-Estonians and dilute the ethnicity (I am telling you this is all Nazi stuff).
, I see no evidence of that.

Regards,

Eugene

> they don't apologize for their existence, they feel some kind of loyalty
> to the state that is their home, and they recognize that a knowledge of
> Estonian is an important part of how other Estonians evaluate their
> loyalty. The people I have spoken with are admittedly university students
> and other members of the 'intelligentsia'. I do not know the degree to
> which these ideas are held throughout the population. I do know that
> courses in Estonian given at the local State Language Center are extremely
> popular and well attended, and that several Narva-resident people with
> Russian names have published various types of textbooks and other teaching
> materials to upgrade knowledge of Estonian among the Russian-speaking
> population.
>
> Narva is a city beset by several difficulties: it has had to assume some
> of the financial burden of supplying its sister city on the Russian
> sidethe border Ivangorod with municipal services, since Ivangorod has not
> always been regular or punctual about paying for such things as the
> operation of the waterworks which both Narva and Ivangorod share. The city
> also now has an international border and customs controls separating the
> two sides, even though economic and personal relationships have
> traditionally not been limited by the existence of the Narva River flowing
> through what used to be the center of what was essentially a single town.
> Even if it's not a Berlin Wall type of situation, the collapse of the
> Soviet Union and the consequent presence of an international border in the
> center of what had been a single town for more than three centuries have
> meant considerable social and economic disruption in both Narva and
> Ivangorod.
>
> Best regards,
> Eugene Holman

[Eugene Holman]

In article <6i4l9i$hm6$2...@sparcserver.lrz-muenchen.de>, Claudio De Diana
<beccat...@maledetto.spammer.com> wrote:

> Vladimir <K...@snoe.Solnyshko> wrote:
> [..]
> >Okay, I do not intend to launch a discussion here, but I cannot avoid to
> >recall some figures. Serbia proper has about 10 million citizens, 20 %
> >thereof ethnic Albanians. All of Estonia has more than 20 % Russian
> >speaking inhabitants, but the part living in the North East maybe
> >constitute a similar alien element as Albanians do in Southern Serbia.
> >Due to the prudence of all involved, in Estonia did not happen clashes
> >similar to what we see every day from other parts of the world. We hope
> >the situation will improve, but the attempt to assimilate the Russian
> >native speakers in NE Estonia will be futile. Any reasonable solution
> >has to respect the linguistic compactness of the area. =

Estonian government policy has been one aiming at reconciliation and
integration rather than assimilation.

Reconciliation means that both sides accept that wrongs have been done in
the past, that it is necessary to live with most of their consequences,
and that the descendants of the wrong-doers constitute a different entity
from the wrong-doers themselves. Integration means that Estonian national
culture accepts the existence of several ethnic groups and subcultures
living within the country, but regards the Estonian language as a symbol
of loyalty to the state, the majority population of which speaks that
language. Note that Estonian ethnicity and Estonian-speaker are not
regarded as the same, nor is there legislation specifically aimed at
reducing the use of other languages.

Seen from here in Finland, it appears that the medium-term objective is to
have something similar to Finland: a relatively unified culture and sense
of national identity which recognize their debt to people from different
language groups, but which functions primarily in one and secondarily in
another language. Unlike Finland, however, Estonia will probably not feel
comfortable about granting Russian the status of a co-official language
with Estonian, even if Russian will continue to be used throughout the
country as one of the main language for trade, tourism, and possibly some
culture, commerce, and technology, and in the Russian-speaking part of the
country as the first public language. If the Russian-speaking groups
eventually consolidate into a distinct Estonian-Russian ethnicity there
might eventually be reason to reconsider the official or semi-official
status of Russian. On the other hand, given the attractions and
opportunities offered by Tallinn, the capital, and the small size of the
country otherwise, pressure to elevate Russian to some kind of co-official
status will probably never be as strong as the pressures which resulted in
Finland adapting Swedish as a co-official language of the country. The
eventual entrance of Estonia into the European Union, a distinct
possibility within the next six to ten years, will subject it to European
norms governing minorities and regional languages, so a reassessment of
the present policy might be necessary.

>
> But did anybody tried to propose officially bilinguism as it was done
> in the Suedtirol-AltoAdige region and in Slovenia?

In Estonia the decision has been made that the country will not become
officially bilingual, the primary justification being that it is just too

small to be able to afford the 'luxury' of being split into two possibly
antagonistic communities. On the other hand, current practice gives wide

de
facto recognition to the linguistic realities in the north-eastern part of
the country, and police, courts, etc. function quite well in Russian, nor
is this situation likely to change in the near future. The central
government sends out all of its information in Estonian, and a select
subset of it in Russian. Thus, that part of the country will always need
officials who are able to communicate in Estonian. Consumer protection
laws require labels and instructions to be in Estonian, but not in Russian
(although many companies provide such information), so self-interest will
also promote a knowledge of Estonian. Finally, north-eastern Estonia is
the least attractive and one of the economically most depressed areas of
the country. Soviet-era lack of consideration for the environmental
consequences of open-face oil-shale mining and a lack of demand for the
products and theresultant downsizing or bankruptcy of the oversized
industrial plants built back then have economic and other consequences
that it will take a generation to rectify. Thus, an increasing number of

young Russian speakers in the Russian-speaking north-east realizes that lack of

competence in Estonian means a life of severely restricted social and

economic mobility in a country that is exceptionally dynamic both socially
and economically.

> Actually
> the Slovenian are not very happy because they say that
> in the part of Italy in which there are more Slavs the rules
> were not reciprocated (I am Italian and agree with them, if you
> are curious about this, not on all the point but on several),
> but this is a good example
> of how things go, basically lot of discussions about how well
> the principle (bilinguism) is implemented, which is far better,
> in my opinion, that exchanging accusation or trying to assimilate,
> expel and so on.
>
> >Valel on l=FChikesed jalad.
> >
> P.S> issues like bilinguism in the two areas of Italy quoted
> usually degenerate in flames, my point is that it is important
> to accept the principle (bilinguism) which is far better
> to have a war or a riot in the long run.
>

From my informal discussions with younger Russian speakers from Narva I
have gotten the impression that they have been made to understand how and
why the large-scale introduction of Russian-speakers to Estonia was part
of a long-term program to Russify the republic and its population. Even if

[eso...@hotmail.com]

Eugene Holman wrote:

> might eventually be reason to reconsider the official or semi-official

> status of Russian. On the other hand, given the attractions and
> opportunities offered by Tallinn, the capital, and the small size of the
> country otherwise, pressure to elevate Russian to some kind of co-official
> status will probably never be as strong as the pressures which resulted in
> Finland adapting Swedish as a co-official language of the country. The
> eventual entrance of Estonia into the European Union, a distinct
> possibility within the next six to ten years, will subject it to European
> norms governing minorities and regional languages, so a reassessment of
> the present policy might be necessary.
>
> >
> > But did anybody tried to propose officially bilinguism as it was done
> > in the Suedtirol-AltoAdige region and in Slovenia?
>
> In Estonia the decision has been made that the country will not become
> officially bilingual, the primary justification being that it is just too
> small to be able to afford the 'luxury' of being split into two possibly
> antagonistic communities.

both communities are pretty antagonistic as things are now, one "community" would
love to deport the other but lacks the means and is afraid of swift punishment, the
other community lacks arms and live ammunition.

EU is quite ignorant of the whole situation, majority of EU citizens do not support
Estonia's entry into the union (I think support for Estonia is one of the lowest,
something Rumania ranks higher - not that public opinion matters in any fashion)..

If the EU will further proceed in getting Estonia in, Russia has the ultimate voice
in whether Estonia will be admitted or not, Estonian politicians have done
absolutely nothing in securing Russia's support for Estonia's EU entry.

Things look pretty bleak

[Eugene Holman]

In article <3545FEC8...@hotmail.com>, eso...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Eugene Holman wrote:
>> From my informal discussions with younger Russian speakers from Narva I
> have gotten the impression that they have been made to understand how and
> why the large-scale introduction of Russian-speakers to Estonia was part
> of a long-term program to Russify the republic and its population. Even if
>
> Do you have a proof of any sort, have you seen any real documents from that
> russification program? Anything official?

I doubt if a document that explicitly entitled 'Russification of Estonia:
Plan and implementation' exists, just as no single German document
containing a plan for the systematic the extermination of the Jews exists.
Just as is the case with the Holocaust, we have to determine whether such
a consistent policy existed by looking for chains of cause and effect, and
comparing the present situation with what it would have been had not some
type of radical external causative agent intervened.

I will list here several observations that seem to support my thesis of a
consistent Russification program. I'd like to point out two things here at
the start. First, unlike many member of this group, I insist on
maintaining a distinction between ethnocide and genocide. Ethnocide
involves marginalizing, demoralizing, and eventually extinguishing a
culture, but not the people who bore it, except by their assimilation into
some other culture. Genocide involves physically exterminating the bearers
of a culture along with their culture and language. One is psychological,
the other physical. The Ingrian Finns represent an archtypical example of
the final stages of ethnocide, and I would surmise that the fate of the
Crimean Goths, now extinct, is an example of a fully implemented
ethnocide, even if all of the details are not known. The Tasmanians,
hunted like Animals by English colonists in Australia, are archetypical
examples of genocide. Secondly, ethnocide can does not have to have
completely sinister motives. Many European countries have engaged in a
degree of ethnocide by forcing traditionally nomadic populations such as
the Gypsies and Lapps to abandon their way of life and establish fixed
residences. Others, have resorted to do social engineering in order to
bring what they regarded as a superior mainstream culture to areas where
strong but potenially disruptive minority cultures and languages had
prevailed. British policy in Cornwall, the Isle of Man, and sometimes in
Wales, as well as 'English only' programs in Spanish-speaking areas of the
United States can be understood as examples of this type of 'benevolent'
ethncide.

Unlike some members of this group, I do not see the Soviet Union as the
embodiment of evil, even if I am glad to see it gone. Soviet ethnic
policies from the Baltics to Siberia were inspired by, but largely
avoided, the genocidal excesses of the imposition of English on North
America during the 19th century. Instead of killing or museumizing
indigenous populations as had been the case in the United States, Soviet
policy aimed first at establishing Russian-native language proficiency,
and then, by force of a practical dynamic and efforts to reduce cultural
diversity, at eventually marginalizing indigenous languages for the one
that was *prima inter pares*, Russian - ves'sojuznyj jazyk soobshchenija.
From a purely practical perspective this makes good economic and cultural
sense. Even if no concrete plan existed for this to happen, the further
development of the USSR as a national state with *Soviet* as the primary
nationality would have made it inevitable; a concrete policy was not
needed. In actual fact, of course, Soviet policy in areas where Russian
was not indigenous went through several phases, some of them genocidal.

As far as Estonia is concerned:
1. The country was annexed to the USSR at gunpoint in 1940, and again in
1944. Both annexations were accompanied by mass executions reaching
genocidal proportions of thousands of members of the middle and upper
classes as well as of alleged 'enemies of the people' such as
collaborators and clergymen.
(1a. When Estonia was 'liberated' by the Germans in June, 1941, communists
and their sympathizers were executed, and most of the Jewish population
was exterminated. This was not the Soviets' fault, of course, but the
Estonian population was reduced by these measures as well.)
2. When Soviet power was re-established in 1944 Estonia was ethnically
almost 98% Estonian, the traditional pre-war minorities having been
repatriated (Germans, Swedes), self-assimilated into the Estonians
(Germans, Swedes, pre-war Russians, Jews), or killed (Jews).
3. The northeast part of the country, particularly Narva, was rebuilt by
Russians brought in from elsewhere. The surviving Estonian population of
the city was not allowed to return, but rather the Russians brought in to
rebuild it stayed on to form the nucleus of the city's new population.
4. Tens of thousands of Estonians - about a tenth of the population - many
of them the survivors of what remained of the pre-war middle and upper
classes, were deported between 1946 and 1949 to Siberia and elsewhere deep
inside the USSR. Their homes and property were taken over by people, most
of them Russians, introduced from elsewhere inside the USSR.
5. As conditions stabilized during the 1950s there was a steady stream of
Soviet citizens into Estonia to man the large industrial plants built in
Tallinn, Tartu, and the northeast to serve the Soviet economy. Those
Soviet migrants who did not already speak fluent Russian as well as the
indigenous Estonian population found themselves having to resort more and
more to Russian as their public language.
6. The planned economy did not allot resources for the publication of
teaching materials in Estonian. A period of almost thirty years elapsed
before the publication of a Russian-language textbook to teach Estonian as
a successor to Päll's 'Uchebnik čstonskogo jazyka' from 1952. Even if
Estonian-Russian bilingualism was the stated obective of educational
policy, virtually no resources were allotted for the teaching of Estonian
to the children of Russian-speaking migrants as a school subject until the
late 1980s. Thus, Estonian, and the culture which supported it, were the
objects of a policy of 'benign neglect'.
7. The planned economy *did* allot resources for the construction of
mammoth housing estates such as Lasnamäe to provide homes for the
increasing number of Russian-speaking migrants during the late 1970s and
1980s. Lasnamäe, a suburb for 200,000 people, is totally unsuitable for a
city the size of Tallinn, which had about 300,000 inhabtants at the time
it the decision to construct it, made in Moscow, not Tallinn, was made. It
was built despite local opposition which was unusually vocal in the Soviet
context. Originally built with few local jobs or services, the people
brought from elsewhere in Russia to live there worked and did their
shopping in central Tallinn, thus further russifying it.
8. Soviet population statistics show that by 1989 the demographic profile
of Estonia had changed radically since the permanent institution of Soviet
power in 1944. Estonians accounted for no more than 62% of the population,
Tallinn had a slight majority of Russian speakers, while the industrial
cities of Narva, Sillamäe (which was built as a closed, exclusively
Russian-speaking city during the 1950s), and Kohtla-Järve were virtually
100% Russian speaking.
9. No mater how how we feel as to whether the above events and policies
were random or coordinated, their final and, for the foreseable future,
probably irreversible result is that Russian is now the indigenous
language of a considerable area of north-eastern Estonia where it was
alien three generations ago. Additionally, it is spoken natively by
approximately 40% of the population of Tallinn, a city which never had an
appreciable Russian-speaking population until the 1950s.

> You say you participated in civil rights
> movement but in the same time almost everything you said is a modern
Nazi speak,
> are you positive you are not a closeted Nazi? (nothing wrong with being
a Nazi of
> course. I like their uniforms at least ).

Great marching music, too!

No, I'm not a Nazi. There is such a thing as ethnic dilution of a
conquered or colonized territory, and that is what was going in in Estonia
(and to with an even brisker dynamic, in Latvia).

> You people whine over soft-ethnic
> cleansing (?!!) and preach that the current system of vicious apartheid
in Estonia
> is a reasonable option for nation building,

No, I do not see it as a reasonable *permanent* option, but I firmly
believe that the Estonian deserved some breathing space after almost half
a century of unwanted Soviet rule. It is, after all, THEIR country. I am
happy to see that Estonia is now moving into a new stage, and that the
Russian-speaking population has been actively acquiring Estonian
citizenship, seeing the process not as an imposition but as a sign of
loyalty. Those Russian-speakers who decided that they could not live in an
independent Estonia have, for the most part, left (more than 100,000
people, most of them Russians, have left Estonia since the
re-establishment of independence). Those people who have remained in the
country have made the implicit decision to reconcile their differences and
try to live together in peace.

And 'vicious apartheid' is hardly a fair characterization of a country
that has acquired some 100,000 new citizens, and has established a
naturalization process which even most of the Russan-speakng population
regards as reasonable and non-vindictive against them as an ethnic group.
The suggestions being made by the representatives of the Russian-speaking
community, such as doing away with the Estonian language requirement for
applicants over 60 years of age, are both cosmetic and within reason.

> you believe that depriving
> non-Estonians of their right to vote is a natural thing to do...

Please: *non-Estonians are not 'deprived of the right to vote'*. People
who are *not Estonian citizens* (this is not the same thing a
'non-Estonians') are not allowed to vote in *national elections*. All
*legal permanent residents of Estonia*, no matter what their citizenship
or ethnicity, are allowed to vote in *local elections*, the elections
which make the most important policy decisions concerning the use of
public money. This is quite a normal pattern in northern Europe and is
precisely the same regime we have in Finland.

> (as you, Eugene,
> once said something like the Estonians are afraid of Russian vote,

Not 'are', but 'were'. This was back in 1991 - 92 when the situation was
much less stable and feelings were much more aggravated than they are now.
To use an analogy which has been used here before, your next-door neighbor
breaks into your house, ties you up, rapes you, and then invites his
friends to come and share your house with him. He eventually unties you,
but not before knocking out a few of your teeth. When he dies, his
children, including the one he had by you, treat you somewhat better, even
if they occasionally terrorize you and insist upon have the final say in
everything. Of course they insist that you learn their language - won't
speak a word of yours - and they keep inviting more and more of their
friends to come over and help themselves to anything they want. They even
do some remodeling, but of course they don't ask you if you like their
plans. They also sign over half of the back yard to the next-door
neighbor's widow. Somehow you are able to regain control of your house.
The children of neighbor and their friends now start to cry, saying that
mama, who lives alone in a ten-room house can't afford to feed them and
they have nowhere else to go. And, after all, they've just finished
painting your living room and the olympic-sized swimming pool they built
in what used to be the front yard their favorite shade of purple. You
yourself see that, unlike their father, they probably mean well, and also
feel some responsibility for them since they've lived with you all their
lives and it would feel strange if they weren't there. And the old widow
next door is so unpredictable, so nice one day, so abusive and petty the
next. You'd probably like some time to yourself before you decide how the
house is going to be run in the future, and how the responsibilities are
going to be delegated.

Those Russian speakers who think that they are the victims of 'vicious
apartheid' know what they have to do to achieve full voting rights.
Approximately 100,000 have already done so, and many more applications are
presently pending.

> you know this
> was exactly the case in the US, the southern whites were AFRAID of the
black vote,
> and if say you or I tried to argue that these folks should have the
same rights
> (at least in theory) as everybody else, the best that could have
happened to us is
> that we would had been called nigger-lovers.

Well, since I am African-American being called a 'nigger-lover' wouldn't
bother me a bit. The reason that the southern whites were afraid of the
black vote during the early 1960s was their insecurity: they knew that the
manner in which they were treating the black population was wrong, that it
gave them a disproportionate amount of public resouces and private
opportunity, and that eventual black power would serve them up a vote of
their own medicine. In Estonia, and even more so in Latvia, there was a
genuine fear that the Russian-speaking population could form such a
powerful block that it could effectively gain power legally and then
effectively vote to join the country with Russia or at leat make it a
pliant vassal. We must not forget that the overwhelming majority of the
Russian-speaking population in the Baltics is there as a consequence of a
demographic policy imposed on those countries by governments and economic
structures which were violently imposed on them between the two
generations between 1944 and 1991. The titular nations of the countries
have some right to determine their own destinies, and with whom and how
they will be sharing their countries in the future.

> Why Austrian Styria, smaller than
> Estonia, can be bilingual and say Estonia cannot. Where did you see that soft
> ethnic cleansing? To any reasonable person, ethnic cleansing, whether
gradual (like
> in Ireland) or rapid (like in Rwanda) is when certain ethnic groups of
population
> are exterminated (can be a beneficial process to humanity overall) and
replaced
> with a different ethnic group. There was no soft or hard ethnic cleansing in
> Estonia. Eugene, I respect you much, and I apologize in advance but
what you said
> on soft ethnic cleansing is ... foolish, migrants cannot cleanse
population that is
> already there by definition unless they kill them off.

The demographic facts speak against you. There is no other way you can
explain a change in demographics from 98 - 2 to 62 - 38 during two
generations of peace and plaguelessness.

The comparisons with Austria and Ireland also have another problem. The
Slovenian population of Styria is an old indigenous population left over
from the time when Austria and Slovenia were both parts of the same
country, and ethnic and territorial boundaries were not as sharply defined
as they are now. England, for its part, is densely populated and has had
periods in its history when it thought it needed land for its surplus
population. Hence one motivation for the English colonial expansion during
the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. Russi, in contrast, is by far the
BIGGEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, it has vast empty spaces. Why do the Baltic
countries, not exactly crowded, but certainly small, have to host large
Russian minorities that they have to keep happy when there is all that
empty space in Russia? This is not a very PC idea to express, but in all
three Baltic countries these ideaseventually come up in the conversations
of people who are otherwise well-disposed towards local Russian-speaking
populations. Certainly the fact that the Baltic countries have been the
objects of Russian or Soviet imperialist designs during the past century
also makes the titular populations of the Baltic countries jittery: Russia
would very much like to have better access to the sea, and the three
Baltic peoples are all that stand in the way. If they are russified or
marginialized by a faster-growing local Russian population, next time
around it might be possible to incorporate those much coveted lands into
Russia permanently. Such ideas have been stated publicly by Zhirinovsky;
people with more responsibility than Zhiri have given them serious thought
both in the Baltic capitals and in Russia.

>
> The argument is as stupid as to say that the Irish and Italians have
ethnically
> cleansed WASPs from greater Boston area because they now constitute a
substantially
> higher percentage of population that they used to 100 years ago. What is
ethnic
> dilution? well ethnic dilution is when say somebody forced Estonians to marry
> non-Estonians and dilute the ethnicity (I am telling you this is all
Nazi stuff).
> , I see no evidence of that.
>

No ethnic dilution, which is a concept in international law, is when a
conquering power introduces a population of foreign nationality to a
territory which it has taken over with the intention of radically changing
its demographic structure by marginalizing and eventually replacing the
older population with a newer one. Ethnic dilution is the process that
took place in Ingermanland after it was conquered from Sweden-Finland by
Peter the Great three hundred years ago: Russian population was
introduced, place names were changed, and the former Finnish-speaking
population, remnants of which still exist, was marginalized and culturally
demoralized. Although a vague feeling of Finnish identity still exists
among the Ingrian Finns, most of them now have Russian names, and speak a
Russified and grammatically restricted form of Finnish, and then only as a
private language and mostly only with their elderly relatives. For the
inhabitants of the Baltic states, who have witnessed similar processes in
their neighborhood all too often during the past three hundred years, this
is a sobering lesson.

> ethnic dilution is when say somebody forced Estonians to marry
> non-Estonians and dilute the ethnicity (I am telling you this is all
Nazi stuff).
> , I see no evidence of that.
>

Soviet policies also encouraged interethnic marriages in the name of
socialist internationalism, and the private language of such marriages
was, given the neglect of local language training, more often than not,
Russian. During the final years of Soviet power approximately 15% of the
marriages in Estonia were acrosss ethnic lines, this being a much higher
figure than has been traditional there. The language and culture of the
children of such marriages is usually determined by the mother, so,
insofar as she was a non-Estonian, this meant that the offpring of an
Estonian man in such a marriage would usually have become assimilated into
the Russian-speaking population. Even in families with an Estonian mother,
the language spoken at home, sometimes or always, might very well have
been Russian if the husband had never learned Estonian, or if *babushka*
had come to live with the family, as is common in Russian culture.
Marriage partners are a matter of free choice, but policies and attitudes
that produce situations encouraging members of small ethnic groups to have
children which will grow up and be educated as members of a larger one
are inimicable to the survival of the smaller group.

So summing up: Estonia never wanted to be part of the Soviet Union or to
have this Russian-speaking population, it is working very hard to
accommoate them and give them a fair break, something Estonia never got
during the Soviet period. This talk of 'vicious apartheid', or
'deprivation of the right to vote', and attempts to deny that Estonia,
like Latvia, was the object of a consistently implemented if not
explicitly stated policy of ethnic dilution with both ethnocidal and
genocidal aspects, show some serious misunderstanding of the present
situation, how it got to be that way, and what is being done to make it
fairer for all parties concerned.

Regards,
Eugnee Holman

[Michael Kagalenko]

My take on the situaton is that Russia should legalize posesion of firearms
by any of its citizens. Then Russians in Estonia and other Baltic republics
would be able to acquire arms and defend their property and lives
against ethnically-based policies that their governments implement.

[Igor Sagdeev]

mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:

This is the most constructive proposal I have ever seen on this n.g.!
I suggest awarding Comrade Kagalenko the Radovan Karadzic Order, Ist
Class.

One problem here, though, Comrade Kagalenko: most Russians in Estonia
and "other Baltic republics" are either stateless persons, or
citiezens of these republics. So you have to modify the proposed law
to allow any *non-citizens* of Russia to buy firearms as well, if you
want to have lots of fighting and fun.

Igor

[Michael Kagalenko]

Igor Sagdeev (sag...@mindspring.com) wrote in article <354647e1...@news.mindspring.com>

]mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
]
]>
]> My take on the situaton is that Russia should legalize posesion of firearms
]> by any of its citizens. Then Russians in Estonia and other Baltic republics
]> would be able to acquire arms and defend their property and lives
]> against ethnically-based policies that their governments implement.
]
]This is the most constructive proposal I have ever seen on this n.g.!
]I suggest awarding Comrade Kagalenko the Radovan Karadzic Order, Ist
]Class.

Please note, Mr.Sagdeev, that your comrades are just about done
eating the horse's corpse in the nearby ravine, and that I am not
among them. (Твои товарищи в овраге лошадь доедают, мудак)

On the more constructive note, I think that adopting American-
style (rather then Europian-style) firearms laws would further
the cause of freedom in Russia. I also think that discriminated
Russian speakers in Baltic republics should be able to defend
themselves.

]One problem here, though, Comrade Kagalenko: most Russians in Estonia

]and "other Baltic republics" are either stateless persons, or
]citiezens of these republics.

While a number of Russians in Estonia are indeed either stateless
or citizens of Estonia, many are not. In fact, since
Russia is legal successor to the Soviet Union, I believe that
those who are considered "stateles" by Baltic governments should have
all the rights of Russian citizen.

] So you have to modify the proposed law

]to allow any *non-citizens* of Russia to buy firearms as well, if you
]want to have lots of fighting and fun.

Nothing of the kind is necessary.

[Vladimir]

David McDuff wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 14:22:18 +0200, Vladimir <K...@snoe.Solnyshko>
> wrote:
>

> >. Any reasonable solution
> >has to respect the linguistic compactness of the area.
>

> Just as any reasonable solution also has to respect the fact that
> Estonia is not Russia. I haven't used quotation marks.
>
> _________________________

> meest sônast, härga sarvist

I am amused, it's a real study in contrastive rhetoric. To sum up: E.
Holman let us know that Estonia makes efforts to teach Russian speaking
non-citizens the Estonian language (?Estonians eager to help
Russian-speakers=). Another guy (Elaimins) asked, how much Russians
there are in Estonia. I explained that the overall percentage is not the
most important, because there is a county where Russians prevail at
about 97 %. This is similar to the ratio Serbs vs. Albanians in Southern
Serbia. Furthermore, it's useless to expect all of them will switch to
Estonian. In such a dense population of native speakers you will never
eradicate Russian as first language. Thus, a fair solution of the
problem has to take this into account.

Why are you so upset? Did I write anything about Russia, its alleged or
real pretensions? I think most of the people in Kohtla-Järve, Sillamäe
and Narva do not want to live in Russia or in material circumstances
similar to those in contemporary Russia. But they do not renounce their
mother tongue either. An Italian (Claudio de Diana) asked why it is not
possible to establish bilingualism at least in that particular area (not
to speak of Tallinn). You, Mr. McDuff, replied that the Estonian govt.
refused bilingual status to the whole country. Okay, we know that. Last
year, a Finn made the proposal of bilingual status to Estonia, not me. I
only recalled some figures, but I added that for the time being there
was no need for firearms in private possession (as M. Kagalenko in
Boston, Mass. proposed). I am firmly convinced that this would be the
silliest way to settle the question.

Hic sto, non possum aliter!
______________
***

[Tom]

In article <354647e1...@news.mindspring.com>#1/1,

sag...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
>
> >
> > My take on the situaton is that Russia should legalize posesion of firearms
> > by any of its citizens. Then Russians in Estonia and other Baltic republics
> > would be able to acquire arms and defend their property and lives
> > against ethnically-based policies that their governments implement.
>
> This is the most constructive proposal I have ever seen on this n.g.!
> I suggest awarding Comrade Kagalenko the Radovan Karadzic Order, Ist
> Class.
>

> One problem here, though, Comrade Kagalenko: most Russians in Estonia
> and "other Baltic republics" are either stateless persons, or

> citiezens of these republics. So you have to modify the proposed law

> to allow any *non-citizens* of Russia to buy firearms as well, if you
> want to have lots of fighting and fun.
>

> Igor
problems

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[Eugene Holman]

In article <6i5k0e$e...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu>, mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu
(Michael Kagalenko) wrote:

> Igor Sagdeev (sag...@mindspring.com) wrote in article
<354647e1...@news.mindspring.com>

> ]mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
> ]
> ]>
> ]> My take on the situaton is that Russia should legalize posesion of firearms
> ]> by any of its citizens. Then Russians in Estonia and other Baltic republics
> ]> would be able to acquire arms and defend their property and lives
> ]> against ethnically-based policies that their governments implement.

> ]

Name one ethnically based policy! Restrictions on citizenship in Estonia
and Latvia are NOT based on ethnicity, but are consequences of the fact
that during fifty years of Soviet occupation these countries were the
object of uncontrolled, ethnocidal migration. There are tens of thousands
of ethnic Russians who are or have become citizens of both countries, as
well as isolated instances of people belonging to the titular ethnicity
who do not qualify for citizenship because they are not descendants of
people who were citizens when the countries were annexed at gunpoint by
the USSR. 'Soviet' is not an ethnicity.

> ]One problem here, though, Comrade Kagalenko: most Russians in Estonia

> ]and "other Baltic republics" are either stateless persons, or
> ]citiezens of these republics.

They are also law-abiding people who do not find their present position
impossible to live with. Most importantly, they have enough confidence in
the existing forms of political representation and minority policies to be
willing to use them, rather than violence, to defend their interests. You
don't hear protests about discrimination against Estonia-resident Russians
from the tens of thousands of by now mostly bilingual Russian-speakers who
live in Tallinn and its surroundings, nor do you even hear them from the
inhabitants of the now almost exclusively Russian-speaking north-eastern
part of the country. To hear protests about discrimination against
Russians in Estonia you have to go to Moscow, Tomsk, and Vladivostok, and
talk to people who have never been to the Baltics and have a very
distorted view of the situation there.

Many of these 'Russians' (approx. one out of every five of the
Estonia-resident Russian-speaking population) about whom people in Nizhny
Bryatsk and Verkhny Blyatsk are so concerned are Russian speakers who are
not Russians, but rather representatives of other ex-Soviet nationalities
such as Azeris, Uzbeks, Mingrelians, Izhorians, Georgians, Chechens, Jews,
Armenians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Ingrian Finns, Ukrainians, even a few
Estonians. It is difficult to see why people in Starogryazinsk should be
so upset about the fact that these Russian-speaking former citizens of the
former USSR are not allowed to vote in Estonian national elections unless
they naturalize themselves as Estonian citizens.

>
> While a number of Russians in Estonia are indeed either stateless
> or citizens of Estonia, many are not. In fact, since
> Russia is legal successor to the Soviet Union, I believe that
> those who are considered "stateles" by Baltic governments should have
> all the rights of Russian citizen.

About 120,000 Estonia-resident Russians have taken Russian citizenship and
have 'all the rights of a Russian citizen', including the right to vote in
Russian elections, the right to enter Russia without a visa, and, in the
case of young males, the right to be eligible to be called up for service
in the Russian army, in addition to all the rights and responsibilities of
a permanent foreign resident of Estonia, including the right to vote in
Estonian local elections and liability to Estonian taxes. Thus, they have
more rights than Estonian citizens, who are only allowed to vote in
Estonian elections, need a visa to enter Russia, and lack the right to be
eligible to be called up for service in the Russian army.

The remaining Estonian-resident Russians and Russian speakers have either
become Estonian citizens (about 100,000 of them), and thus have all the
rights and responsibilities of an Estonian citizen, or they have
*themselves chosen to remain stateless*, which gives them the right to
have permanent resident status in Estonia, to hold an aliens' passport
issued by the Estonian authorities, and to participate in local Estonian
elections. It is quite obvious that they have no desire to have 'all the
rights of Russian citizen', some of which would be irrelevant in Estonia
which is, after all, not Russia.

Regards,
Eugene Holman

[David McDuff]

On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 00:10:35 +0200, Vladimir <K...@snoe.Solnyshko>
wrote:

>Why are you so upset?

Not upset at all, Vladimir. Just interested by some of the ideas,
attitudes and sentiments being expressed here, including your own, and
slightly concerned by a few of them which seem to indicate unwarranted
hostility towards Estonia, its people and state.

> You, Mr. McDuff, replied that the Estonian govt.
>refused bilingual status to the whole country

No, you are confused. Check the thread again - that was Mr Holman.

>Hic sto, non possum aliter!

Bravo!

[eso...@hotmail.com]

Michael Kagalenko wrote:

> Igor Sagdeev (sag...@mindspring.com) wrote in article <354647e1...@news.mindspring.com>
> ]mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
> ]
> ]>
> ]> My take on the situaton is that Russia should legalize posesion of firearms
> ]> by any of its citizens.

Getting any firearm in Russia, be that bazooka or automatic rifle, doesn't appear to be a major
problem - everyday we read exciting stories of gangsters killing each other with gunfire in the
streets of Moscow.

> Then Russians in Estonia and other Baltic republics
> ]> would be able to acquire arms and defend their property and lives

Even if all Russian citizens were allowed to own and carry firearms (as Americans are in many
states), this right doesn't travel well. Say my Rhode Island gun permit is worthless in
Massachusetts or Connecticut. Obtaining handgun permit in NYC is extremely difficult although
constitutionally anybody can have it. Russian citizens in Estonia, America or Ethiopia have to
live by local laws, so uncontrolled legalization of firearms ownership in Russia (if such a
disaster were ever to happen) would not affect Russians and other aliens living in Estonia.

> ]> against ethnically-based policies that their governments implement.
> ]

> ]This is the most constructive proposal I have ever seen on this n.g.!

> ]I suggest awarding Comrade Kagalenko the Radovan Karadzic Order, Ist
> ]Class.
>

> Please note, Mr.Sagdeev, that your comrades are just about done
> eating the horse's corpse in the nearby ravine, and that I am not
> among them. (Твои товарищи в овраге лошадь доедают, мудак)
>
> On the more constructive note, I think that adopting American-
> style (rather then Europian-style) firearms laws would further
> the cause of freedom in Russia. I also think that discriminated
> Russian speakers in Baltic republics should be able to defend
> themselves.
>

> ]One problem here, though, Comrade Kagalenko: most Russians in Estonia
> ]and "other Baltic republics" are either stateless persons, or
> ]citiezens of these republics.
>

> While a number of Russians in Estonia are indeed either stateless
> or citizens of Estonia, many are not. In fact, since
> Russia is legal successor to the Soviet Union, I believe that
> those who are considered "stateles" by Baltic governments should have
> all the rights of Russian citizen.

They have such a right, then can walk to the Russian Federation embassy and get new Russian
passport as now can anybody whose grandfather was born on the territory of Russia whether he or
she is ethnic Russian or not. These people have not done so, because they have nothing to do with
the Russian Federation.

>
>
> ] So you have to modify the proposed law

> ]to allow any *non-citizens* of Russia to buy firearms as well, if you
> ]want to have lots of fighting and fun.
>

[eso...@hotmail.com]

Eugene Holman wrote:

> In article <3545FEC8...@hotmail.com>, eso...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Eugene Holman wrote:
> >> From my informal discussions with younger Russian speakers from Narva I
> > have gotten the impression that they have been made to understand how and
> > why the large-scale introduction of Russian-speakers to Estonia was part
> > of a long-term program to Russify the republic and its population. Even if
> >
> > Do you have a proof of any sort, have you seen any real documents from that
> > russification program? Anything official?
>
> I doubt if a document that explicitly entitled 'Russification of Estonia:
> Plan and implementation' exists, just as no single German document
> containing a plan for the systematic the extermination of the Jews exists.

So they killed Jews with no plan whatsoever? Was it an improvisation of some sort?

>

Well, I would disagree with your notion that middle and upper class Estonians were
killed, deported or excelled because they were Estonians. Their guilt was their
association with propertied class of the Estonian republic. Soviets undertook a
massive extermination program of upper and middle class population in Russia as
well. Russia lost some 10 million people to emigration (mainly to the USA, Canada
and France) after WWI. Population of major Russian cities, such as Moscow or
St.Petersburg were replaced almost by 100% after WWI and the Bolshevik coup. It is
now probably easier to find a person whose great-grandfather was born in
St.Petersburg than in today's St.Petersburg.

yep, music is cool too

>
>
> No, I'm not a Nazi. There is such a thing as ethnic dilution of a
> conquered or colonized territory, and that is what was going in in Estonia
> (and to with an even brisker dynamic, in Latvia).
>
> > You people whine over soft-ethnic
> > cleansing (?!!) and preach that the current system of vicious apartheid
> in Estonia
> > is a reasonable option for nation building,
>
> No, I do not see it as a reasonable *permanent* option, but I firmly
> believe that the Estonian deserved some breathing space after almost half
> a century of unwanted Soviet rule. It is, after all, THEIR country. I am

I agree, forget everything I said, the Russians (Ukrainians, etc.) who now live in
Estonia have a place to go if something terrible happens. At least in theory they
have another country where they can enjoy civil rights and even get a normal travel
passport. Estonians don't have such a luxury, Estonia is the only country they have.
They have no other place to go. Their country is screwed up and it is not even their
fault. Things they are doing now can be described as damage control.

> happy to see that Estonia is now moving into a new stage, and that the
> Russian-speaking population has been actively acquiring Estonian
> citizenship, seeing the process not as an imposition but as a sign of
> loyalty. Those Russian-speakers who decided that they could not live in an
> independent Estonia have, for the most part, left (more than 100,000
> people, most of them Russians, have left Estonia since the
> re-establishment of independence). Those people who have remained in the
> country have made the implicit decision to reconcile their differences and
> try to live together in peace.
>
> And 'vicious apartheid' is hardly a fair characterization of a country

A mild exaggeration on my part

That's a fair analogy

Sorry, Eugene, I didn't know that - I can't see through my keyboard. I should have
been more careful with things I said -

well, I had to say something!

Agreed,

Eugene

[eso...@hotmail.com]

Eugene Holman wrote:

> In article <6i5k0e$e...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu>, mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu

> (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
>
> > Igor Sagdeev (sag...@mindspring.com) wrote in article
> <354647e1...@news.mindspring.com>
> > ]mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
> > ]
> > ]>
> > ]> My take on the situaton is that Russia should legalize posesion of firearms

> > ]> by any of its citizens. Then Russians in Estonia and other Baltic republics

> > ]> would be able to acquire arms and defend their property and lives

> > ]> against ethnically-based policies that their governments implement.
> > ]
>

> Name one ethnically based policy! Restrictions on citizenship in Estonia
> and Latvia are NOT based on ethnicity, but are consequences of the fact

We don't know that. I would be certain that what you say is true only if some public
study was carried out which would compare percentage base of ETHNIC Estonians in
upper government positions and management of largest state and publicly traded
companies with their actual share of the population. Assuming that non-Estonians are
equally qualified (biologically and otherwise), equally well or poorly educated, the
power share (government and major corporations) should be corresponding, more or
less, to the Estonian ethnic makeup.

I also think that a lot of earlier discrimination against non-Estonins had purely
economic motivation. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe non-Estonians
were not allowed to participate in industrial privatization (unless they paid cash,
no free shares or vouchers) and were banned from land ownership (very much like the
blacks have been in South Africa).

> that during fifty years of Soviet occupation these countries were the
> object of uncontrolled, ethnocidal migration. There are tens of thousands
> of ethnic Russians who are or have become citizens of both countries, as
> well as isolated instances of people belonging to the titular ethnicity
> who do not qualify for citizenship because they are not descendants of
> people who were citizens when the countries were annexed at gunpoint by
> the USSR. 'Soviet' is not an ethnicity.
>

> > ]One problem here, though, Comrade Kagalenko: most Russians in Estonia
> > ]and "other Baltic republics" are either stateless persons, or
> > ]citiezens of these republics.
>

> They are also law-abiding people who do not find their present position
> impossible to live with. Most importantly, they have enough confidence in
> the existing forms of political representation and minority policies to be
> willing to use them, rather than violence, to defend their interests. You
> don't hear protests about discrimination against Estonia-resident Russians
> from the tens of thousands of by now mostly bilingual Russian-speakers who
> live in Tallinn and its surroundings, nor do you even hear them from the
> inhabitants of the now almost exclusively Russian-speaking north-eastern
> part of the country. To hear protests about discrimination against
> Russians in Estonia you have to go to Moscow, Tomsk, and Vladivostok, and
> talk to people who have never been to the Baltics and have a very
> distorted view of the situation there.
>
> Many of these 'Russians' (approx. one out of every five of the
> Estonia-resident Russian-speaking population) about whom people in Nizhny
> Bryatsk and Verkhny Blyatsk are so concerned are Russian speakers who are
> not Russians, but rather representatives of other ex-Soviet nationalities
> such as Azeris, Uzbeks, Mingrelians, Izhorians, Georgians, Chechens, Jews,
> Armenians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Ingrian Finns, Ukrainians, even a few
> Estonians. It is difficult to see why people in Starogryazinsk should be
> so upset about the fact that these Russian-speaking former citizens of the
> former USSR are not allowed to vote in Estonian national elections unless
> they naturalize themselves as Estonian citizens.
>
> >

> > While a number of Russians in Estonia are indeed either stateless
> > or citizens of Estonia, many are not. In fact, since
> > Russia is legal successor to the Soviet Union, I believe that
> > those who are considered "stateles" by Baltic governments should have
> > all the rights of Russian citizen.
>

[Urmas Sepp]

eso...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Eugene Holman wrote:
>
> > In article <6i5k0e$e...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu>, mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu
> > (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
> >
> > > Igor Sagdeev (sag...@mindspring.com) wrote in article
> > <354647e1...@news.mindspring.com>
> > > ]mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
> > > ]
> > > ]>
> > > ]> My take on the situaton is that Russia should legalize posesion of firearms
> > > ]> by any of its citizens. Then Russians in Estonia and other Baltic republics
> > > ]> would be able to acquire arms and defend their property and lives
> > > ]> against ethnically-based policies that their governments implement.
> > > ]
> >
> > Name one ethnically based policy! Restrictions on citizenship in Estonia
> > and Latvia are NOT based on ethnicity, but are consequences of the fact
>
> We don't know that. I would be certain that what you say is true only if some public
> study was carried out which would compare percentage base of ETHNIC Estonians in
> upper government positions and management of largest state and publicly traded
> companies with their actual share of the population. Assuming that non-Estonians are
> equally qualified (biologically and otherwise), equally well or poorly educated, the
> power share (government and major corporations) should be corresponding, more or
> less, to the Estonian ethnic makeup.
>

I'm not saying anything about percentage of Estonians in management of
largest companies here, but when we're talking about upper government
positions then Estonians really do have an advantage here. People in
these positions in Estonia (I don't know how it is is other countries)
must be citizens and they must be able to speak Estonian. I'm afraid
Estonians are more qualified in that (I mean the language) than
non-Estonians.

Best wishes!
Urmas

[eso...@hotmail.com]

Urmas Sepp wrote:

> eso...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Eugene Holman wrote:
> >
> > > In article <6i5k0e$e...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu>, mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu
> > > (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Igor Sagdeev (sag...@mindspring.com) wrote in article
> > > <354647e1...@news.mindspring.com>
> > > > ]mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
> > > > ]
> > > > ]>
> > > > ]> My take on the situaton is that Russia should legalize posesion of firearms
> > > > ]> by any of its citizens. Then Russians in Estonia and other Baltic republics
> > > > ]> would be able to acquire arms and defend their property and lives
> > > > ]> against ethnically-based policies that their governments implement.
> > > > ]
> > >
> > > Name one ethnically based policy! Restrictions on citizenship in Estonia
> > > and Latvia are NOT based on ethnicity, but are consequences of the fact
> >
> > We don't know that. I would be certain that what you say is true only if some public
> > study was carried out which would compare percentage base of ETHNIC Estonians in
> > upper government positions and management of largest state and publicly traded
> > companies with their actual share of the population. Assuming that non-Estonians are
> > equally qualified (biologically and otherwise), equally well or poorly educated, the
> > power share (government and major corporations) should be corresponding, more or
> > less, to the Estonian ethnic makeup.
> >

> I'm not saying anything about percentage of Estonians in management of
> largest companies here, but when we're talking about upper government
> positions then Estonians really do have an advantage here. People in
> these positions in Estonia (I don't know how it is is other countries)
> must be citizens and they must be able to speak Estonian. I'm afraid
> Estonians are more qualified in that (I mean the language) than
> non-Estonians.

Obviously one must be a citizen to hold any ministerial position in any government, but
the question was not citizenship (as Eugene H. implies) but ethnic background. If
citizens of different ethnic backgrounds are equal, then it must be somehow reflected in
the structure of government, civil service and nation's corporate management, this is just
a logical assumption, then again i don't have any data, i am not trying to accuse anybody
of anything because I don't have any facts.

[Eugene Holman]

In article <3548e50f....@news.demon.co.uk>,
da...@halldor.demon.co.uk (David McDuff) wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 00:10:35 +0200, Vladimir <K...@snoe.Solnyshko>
> wrote:
>
> >Why are you so upset?
>
> Not upset at all, Vladimir. Just interested by some of the ideas,
> attitudes and sentiments being expressed here, including your own, and
> slightly concerned by a few of them which seem to indicate unwarranted
> hostility towards Estonia, its people and state.
>
>
> > You, Mr. McDuff, replied that the Estonian govt.
> >refused bilingual status to the whole country
>

The issue of a bilingual Estonia came up right after independence and was
rejected by a citizenry which, justly or unjustly, regarded Russian as a
symbol of fifty years of unwanted inclusion in the Soviet Union and the
suggestion that it be made a co-official language as somewhat insulting.
This does not mean that Russian lacks an officially recognized status in
Estonia.

According to the 'Law on Language' which was passed on 21 February and
proclaimed on 6 March 1995:

CHAP 1
§1 The status of the Estonian language

(1) The state language of Estonia shall be the Estonian language.
§2 A foreign language
(1) Every other language besides the Estonian language shall be a foreign
language in the context of the påresent Law.
(2) The language of a national minority shall be a foreign language which
Estonian citizens belonging to a national minority have historically used
in Estonia as their mother tongue.
*****
§8 Administration in a foreign language

Persons who do not have knowledge of the Estonian language may also use,
in their spoken communication with employees of state institutions and
local governments, a foreign language which the employees know, if there
is mutual agreement. If there is no mutual agreement, the communication
shall be conducted with the mediation of an interpreter, with the expenses
being borne by the person who lacks the knwledge of the Estonian language.

§10 The right to use the language of a national minority

(1) Everyone in a local government unit, where at least half of the
permanent residents are of a national minority, shall have the right to
receive replies in the language of this national minority, as well as in
the Estonian language, from the state instituion which operates on the
territory of the applicable local government unit, and from the applicable
local government, as well as from their officials.

(Source: M. Geistlinger and Aksel Kirch, 1995. "Estonia ­ A new framework for
the Estonian majority and the Russian minority" ( = Ethnos 45).
Braumüller, Vienna. pg. 139 ff.)

The suggestion that Estonia adapt Russian as a second official language,
following the model of Finland which has Swedish as a second official
language, was seriously proposed by the Finland-Swedish
Europarliamentarian Jörn Donner during a visit to Estonia last year.
Estonian Minister without Portfolio Andra Veidemann is quoted as having
reacted to Mr. Donner's proposal with a diplomatic: "We don't object ­ he
has a right to his opinion, just like we do."

In practice, language attitudes in Estonia are quite liberal, even if
Estonian is the only official state language. Legal documents can be drawn
up in Finnish, Russian, English, and other languages, as long as the
contracting parties are in agreement. The court system and government
services in the Russian-speaking part of the country function in Russian,
and there is a network of state-supported schools which provide primary
and secondary education in Russian. Russian language instruction at the
University of Tartu has been downsized, but not phased out altogether,
private Russian academies have been established, and universities in
Russia have made arrangements to provide correspondence courses and other
types of distance education.

The present Estonian government adheres to a minimalist philosophy, and
the state-supported school system is underfunded. Private Russian schools
and academies, on the other hand, are, as a rule, supported by Russian
interests with considerable financial resources. According to
conversations I have had with Russian-speaking acquaintances in the
teaching field, privately run Russian educational institutions in Estonia
tend to be better equipped and provide markedly better instruction than
their state-funded Estonian counterparts.

[Tom]

In article <3547169E...@hotmail.com>#1/6,

Zhrinovsky is stupid, why do you care what he think?

> > people with more responsibility than Zhiri have given them serious thought
> > both in the Baltic capitals and in Russia.

> z

> > >
> > > The argument is as stupid as to say that the Irish and Italians have
> > ethnically
> > > cleansed WASPs from greater Boston area because they now constitute a
> > substantially
> > > higher percentage of population that they used to 100 years ago. What is
> > ethnic
> > > dilution? well ethnic dilution is when say somebody forced Estonians to marry
> > > non-Estonians and dilute the ethnicity (I am

a

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

[Michael Kagalenko]

Eugene Holman (hol...@elo.helsinki.fi) wrote in article <holman-2904...@f24-134-6.pc.helsinki.fi>
]In article <6i5k0e$e...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu>, mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu

](Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
]
]> Igor Sagdeev (sag...@mindspring.com) wrote in article
]<354647e1...@news.mindspring.com>
]> ]mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
]> ]
]> ]>
]> ]> My take on the situaton is that Russia should legalize posesion of firearms
]> ]> by any of its citizens. Then Russians in Estonia and other Baltic republics
]> ]> would be able to acquire arms and defend their property and lives
]> ]> against ethnically-based policies that their governments implement.
]> ]
]
]Name one ethnically based policy! Restrictions on citizenship in Estonia
]and Latvia are NOT based on ethnicity, but are consequences of the fact

]that during fifty years of Soviet occupation these countries were the

]object of uncontrolled, ethnocidal migration.

No matter how often and viforously you will deny it, Mr.Holman,
the fact remains that Baltic citizenship policies are ethnically based.

}You
]don't hear protests about discrimination against Estonia-resident Russians
]from the tens of thousands of by now mostly bilingual Russian-speakers who
]live in Tallinn and its surroundings, nor do you even hear them from the
]inhabitants of the now almost exclusively Russian-speaking north-eastern
]part of the country. To hear protests about discrimination against
]Russians in Estonia you have to go to Moscow, Tomsk, and Vladivostok, and
]talk to people who have never been to the Baltics and have a very
]distorted view of the situation there.

That is a lie. Protests against policy of Baltic governments are
most certainly happening within those countries. I do not know
why Holman post things which are flatly contradicted by the reports from
a number of major agencies.

[Eugene Holman]

In article <35472B25...@hotmail.com>, eso...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Eugene Holman wrote:
>

> >
> > Name one ethnically based policy! Restrictions on citizenship in Estonia
> > and Latvia are NOT based on ethnicity, but are consequences of the fact
>
> We don't know that.

I can state confidently that we do. The texts of the Estonian laws
pertaining to minorities, citizenship, naturalization, and the rights of
resident aliens have been translated into English and other languages, and
made widely available, both on the Internet (try
http://www.ibs.ee/law/index.html) and elsewhere (e.g. M. Geistlinger &
Aksel Kirch. 1995. Estonia - A new framework for the Estonian majority and
the Russian minority. (= Ethnis 45). They have been reviewed by the CSCE
High Commissioner on National Minorities, Mr. Max van der Stoel, by the
Council of Europe, and by the United Nations, and found to be 'clean',
that is to say, free, with one possible exception (see below), of
practices aimed at favoring or descriminating against any specific ethnic
group.

It does, however, clearly discriminate against people whose presence in
the country is the consequence of events which can be traced to the
illegal occupation of the country by the USSR. Even if this legislation
imposes a burden on these people, Estonia clearly acted within the
framework of the norms of international law in drafting them. ** The
international community and the Estonian Government both agree that
Estonia, like Latvia and Lithuania, was occupied and illegally
incorporated into the USSR. This fact serves as the starting point for
developing further relationships between the citizens of the former
Republic of Estonia and their descendants, whatever their ethnicity, and
the people who entered Estonia during this occupation and their
descendants, whatever their ethnicity. ** The pairs of sets "Estonian" and
"Citizen of the pre-occupation Estonian Republic, or descendant", and
"Russian" and "Soviet-era migrant, or descendant", are not congruent:
approximately 12% of the population of the pre-occupation republic was
non-Estonian, including 92,656 (8.1%) Russians (1934); approximately
100,000 individuals with a Soviet-era migrant background representing
dozens of ethnicities, including a few 'displaced Estonians', have applied
for and received Estonian citizenship.

> I would be certain that what you say is true only if some public
> study was carried out which would compare percentage base of ETHNIC
Estonians in
> upper government positions and management of largest state and publicly traded
> companies with their actual share of the population. Assuming that
non-Estonians are
> equally qualified (biologically and otherwise), equally well or poorly
educated, the
> power share (government and major corporations) should be corresponding,
more or
> less, to the Estonian ethnic makeup.

Why? In most countries minorities are over-represented in certain fields,
and under-represented in others (when did you last see a Black hockey
player or a Chinese-American rock singer in the US?). Estonia-resident
Armenians own and supply most of the street kiosks in Tallinn, while many
Estonia-resident Uzbeks and Azeris are taxi drivers. The captains of the
steamships the sail between Estonia and Finland all seem to have Estonian
surnames, while the captains of the hydrofoils seem to have Russian
surnames. As far as political representation is concerned, the number of
representatives with Russian surnames in the Estonian parliament has been
increasing as more Russian-speakers acquire citizenship and increased
political power. In a small country like Estonia, though, it would be
incorrect to assume that a Russian surname necessarily implies a
representative of the interests of Russian speakers, or that an Estonian
surname necessarily implies that its bearer is opposed to these interests.

Russian-speaking Estonians are well represented in the top levels of
business, and it is well known that some of the richest and most
successful businesspersons in Estonia belong to the Russian-speaking
minority.

>
> I also think that a lot of earlier discrimination against non-Estonins
had purely
> economic motivation. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe
non-Estonians
> were not allowed to participate in industrial privatization (unless they
paid cash,
> no free shares or vouchers) and were banned from land ownership (very
much like the
> blacks have been in South Africa).

Nonsense. Any discrimination surrounding privatization was based on
citizenship, not ethnicity, and by the time industrial privatization was
in full swing tens of thousands of Russian speakers had already acquired
Estonian citizenship. Russian interests managed to buy up a sizable part
of Estonia's gas industry as well as some other choice pieces of
infrastructure. Do you know of any state that allowed non-citizens to
participate in privatization on precisely the same terms as citizens? In
any case, Estonia has actually been encouraging Russian interests to
invest in its economy, the idea being to make Russia have some stake in
insuring Estonian stability and prosperity.

Once again, "Estonian" does not mean "Estonian citizen": not every ethnic
Estonian is an Estonian citizen, and not every Estonian citizen is an
ethnic Estonian. Every country has laws that put its citizens at an
advantage over non-citizen residents.

The possible exception? Chapter II, Article 6, clause 1 of the Law on
Aliens establishes an annual immigration quota to Estonia of 0.1% of the
permanent population, that is to say, some 1,500 individuals. Clause 2
states that "Every Estonian shall have the right to settle in Estonia
outside of the immigration quota." Knowing that the Soviet occupation, the
war, the re-occupation, and subsequent mass deportations of Estonians to
Siberia resulted in an Estonian diaspora of considerable size for such a
small nationality, this does not seem unreasonable.

Regards,
Eugene Holman

--
Best Regards,
Eugene Holman

[eso...@hotmail.com]

Eugene Holman wrote:

Eugene, you are not serious, are you? We are not talking about certain fields, like
Hindu can drivers , Arab gas station owners or Chinese-Amercan rappers (no such
thing). I asked, with no evil intention, of how well minorities are represented in
the nation's power structure, not how well they are represented among hotdog stand
operators and taxi drivers. State ministers, appointed government employees (no, not
garbagemen) and upper managers of state-owned and major public companies. I don't
have any facts, so I don't know.

> Armenians own and supply most of the street kiosks in Tallinn, while many
> Estonia-resident Uzbeks and Azeris are taxi drivers. The captains of the
> steamships the sail between Estonia and Finland all seem to have Estonian
> surnames, while the captains of the hydrofoils seem to have Russian
> surnames. As far as political representation is concerned, the number of
> representatives with Russian surnames in the Estonian parliament has been
> increasing as more Russian-speakers acquire citizenship and increased
> political power. In a small country like Estonia, though, it would be
> incorrect to assume that a Russian surname necessarily implies a
> representative of the interests of Russian speakers, or that an Estonian
> surname necessarily implies that its bearer is opposed to these interests.

As it is the case in this newsgroup.I don't assume that interests of these two
groups (?) are inherently exclusive, are they?

>
>
> Russian-speaking Estonians are well represented in the top levels of
> business, and it is well known that some of the richest and most
> successful businesspersons in Estonia belong to the Russian-speaking
> minority.
>
> >
> > I also think that a lot of earlier discrimination against non-Estonins
> had purely
> > economic motivation. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe
> non-Estonians
> > were not allowed to participate in industrial privatization (unless they
> paid cash,
> > no free shares or vouchers) and were banned from land ownership (very
> much like the
> > blacks have been in South Africa).
>
> Nonsense.

That's my specialty.

> Any discrimination surrounding privatization was based on
> citizenship, not ethnicity, and by the time industrial privatization was

which is basically the same thing. Just please don't get upset, I am not trying to
offend anybody here.

> in full swing tens of thousands of Russian speakers had already acquired
> Estonian citizenship. Russian interests managed to buy up a sizable part
> of Estonia's gas industry as well as some other choice pieces of

They did so forhard cold cash, we were talking about privatization: taking a
(Soviet) state asset and transferring into private ownership (ethnicity determines
the final owner, right?)

> infrastructure. Do you know of any state that allowed non-citizens to

> participate in privatization on precisely the same terms as citizens? In

No I don't but overwhelming majority of companies privatized were built during
Soviet times, not in free Estonia (ports, warehouses, factories, etc. - whole
economy that was privatised.), these assets were often built by the migrants. This
was not a return of old property to the pre war owners, the way you explained it to
me this truly looks like a shameless robbery.

> any case, Estonia has actually been encouraging Russian interests to
> invest in its economy, the idea being to make Russia have some stake in
> insuring Estonian stability and prosperity.

A very close Estonian friend of mine visited me today complaining of Estonian visa
regulations (!), he works for a state institution here and has to invite some people
from Russia. Now he has not heard anything about tourist visa (that was mentioned
here), his opinion is that visa regulation is designed to prevent Russian nationals
from either traveling to Estonia or investing here. One of the most bizarre
features of Estonian visa procedure is that invitation must be written in Estonian
and the person inviting MUST be an Estonian citizen (so permanent residents cannot
theoretically invite anybody as they can in all other countries I know of), he must
provide his date of birth on the invitation form along with
citizenship/naturalization data. Concerning visa with latvia, yes everybody is
talking about it, I think Meri said that Estonia is ready to introduce visas for
Lithuania and Latvia if the EU asks for it. This is naturally stupid, as nobody
accepted Estonia into the EU yet, chances I think are rather slim (anybody can
prevent Estonia from joining - even Greece!) and integration with other Baltic
states (and building normal relations with Russia) are the only reasonable ways
Estonia can secure any future for itself. I think the present Estonian foreign
policy (has nothing to do the people of Estonia, regardless of ethnic background, be
these Estonians or Ukrainians or whatever) is SCANDALOUS.

>
>
> Once again, "Estonian" does not mean "Estonian citizen": not every ethnic
> Estonian is an Estonian citizen, and not every Estonian citizen is an
> ethnic Estonian. Every country has laws that put its citizens at an
> advantage over non-citizen residents.

That's was the point, Eugene, I asked whether a study was done on representation of
CITIZENS of different ethnic backgrounds in the government and state and public
corporate management, and whether privatization of SOVIET assets was fair.

[Eugene Holman]

In article <6i7qcl$f...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu>, mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu
(Michael Kagalenko) wrote:

> Eugene Holman (hol...@elo.helsinki.fi) wrote in article
<holman-2904...@f24-134-6.pc.helsinki.fi>
> ]In article <6i5k0e$e...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu>, mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu
> ](Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
> ]
> ]> Igor Sagdeev (sag...@mindspring.com) wrote in article
> ]<354647e1...@news.mindspring.com>
> ]> ]mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
> ]> ]
> ]> ]>
> ]> ]> My take on the situaton is that Russia should legalize posesion of
firearms
> ]> ]> by any of its citizens. Then Russians in Estonia and other Baltic
republics
> ]> ]> would be able to acquire arms and defend their property and lives
> ]> ]> against ethnically-based policies that their governments implement.
> ]> ]
> ]

> ]Name one ethnically based policy! Restrictions on citizenship in Estonia

> ]and Latvia are NOT based on ethnicity, but are consequences of the fact

> ]that during fifty years of Soviet occupation these countries were the
> ]object of uncontrolled, ethnocidal migration.
>
> No matter how often and viforously you will deny it, Mr.Holman,
> the fact remains that Baltic citizenship policies are ethnically based.
>

How?

Let's define the primary concepts in the claim you are making to make sure
that we are talking about the same thing.

Baltic citizenship policies = the citizenship policies of the three Baltic
states: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia,

Ethnically based citizenship policy: a citizenship policy that has as a
criterion that applicants demonstrate membership in a specific ethnicity
and/or non-membership in some other one in order to quality.

For a Baltic country to have an ethnically based citizenship policy it
would have to say that being an X is a necessary and sufficient criterion
for citizenship, while being a Y is a necessary and sufficient criterion
for excluding an applicant from citizenship.

I claim that no Baltic country has such a policy.

Case 1: Lithuania. Lithuania extended citizenship to all legal residents
when it regained independence. Conclusion: Lithuanian citizenship is not
ethnically based.

Case 2: Estonia. Estonia extended citizenship to the set of people who
could prove roots to the citizenry of the Republic of Estonia before it
was illegally annexed by the USSR. The Estonian census figures for 1934
show that 88% of these people were Estonians, 8% Russians, and 4% others.
It did not extend automatic ctizenship to people whose roots in Estonia
are the consequence of what appeared to be 'legal' migration and
colonization during the illegal occupation. Subsequently, approximately
100,000 such individuals representing dozens of nationalities, have
applied for and received Estonian citizenship. Conclusion: Estonian
citizenship is not ethnically based, but it does require affirmation of
loyalty to the Estonian state, one aspect of which is the ability to use
the State Language, which is Estonian.

Case 3: Latvia. Latvia extended citizenship to the set of people who could
prove roots to the citizenry of the Republic of Latvia before it was
illegally annexed by the USSR. The Latvian census figures for 1935 show
that 77% of these people were Latvians, 9% Russians, and 14% others. It
did not extend automatic ctizenship to people whose roots in Latvia are
the consequence of what appeared to be 'legal' migration and colonization
during the illegal occupation. Subsequently, approximately 6,000 such
individuals representing various nationalities, have applied for and
received Latvian citizenship. Conclusion: Latvian citizenship is not
ethnically based, but it does require affirmation of loyalty to the
Latvian state, one aspect of which is the ability to use the State
Language, which is Latvian.

The fact remains, Mr. Kagalenko, that *none* of these states has a
citizenship policy that uses ethnicity as a criterion for citizenship. Two
of them have a citizenship policy that requires an affirmation of loyalty
to the state and an ability to use the State Language, something which
anyone can aquire if they lack such knowledge and desire to become
citizens, as necessary requirements for citizenship.

Q.E.D.

> }You
> ]don't hear protests about discrimination against Estonia-resident Russians
> ]from the tens of thousands of by now mostly bilingual Russian-speakers who
> ]live in Tallinn and its surroundings, nor do you even hear them from the
> ]inhabitants of the now almost exclusively Russian-speaking north-eastern
> ]part of the country. To hear protests about discrimination against
> ]Russians in Estonia you have to go to Moscow, Tomsk, and Vladivostok, and
> ]talk to people who have never been to the Baltics and have a very
> ]distorted view of the situation there.
>
> That is a lie. Protests against policy of Baltic governments are
> most certainly happening within those countries.

I was writing about Estonia. We all know about the little old ladies of
Riga. There is obviously critical discussion in Estonia, and there have
been some unpleasant incidents, such as the expulsion from Estonia of
Zhirinovsky activist Pyotr Rozhok a few years ago, the removal from office
of a representative in Sillamäe who had an insufficient command of the
State Langauge, and the case of a Russian man (forget his name) who had
provided false information about his relationship with the Russian
military. For the most part, though, Estonia has evolved politically to
the stage where the Russian-speaking minority can protect its interests by
interacting with the government, they don't have to hurl bombs or take to
the streets.

If you have information to the contrary, please present it. Otherwise
admit that these little countries are doing the best they can to clean up
the horrific mess left over by fifty years of illegal occupation.

> I do not know
> why Holman post things which are flatly contradicted by the reports from
> a number of major agencies.

Please name even ONE such report (and we're talking *only* about Estonia,
Latvia is a different case, and news items from 'Zhironovosti' don't
count.)

[Maris Ozols]

"eso...@hotmail.com" <eso...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>Well, I would disagree with your notion that middle and upper class Estonians were
>killed, deported or excelled because they were Estonians. Their guilt was their
>association with propertied class of the Estonian republic.

There are times when I lean towards this viewpoint and times when I
lean right back again. However, would you suggest that Stalin's purges
of the late thirties were not directed against nationalities?

Maris Ozols

WARNING!!!
The return email address was altered to foil the bulk email
spammers. If you reply to this message, please manually remove
* from the end of the return address or it'll bounce. Thanks!

[Michael Kagalenko]

Eugene Holman (hol...@elo.helsinki.fi) wrote in article <holman-2904...@eng17.pc.helsinki.fi>
]In article <6i7qcl$f...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu>, mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu

No. "Ethnically-based citizenship policy" also means citizenship policy
which gives special advantage based on some criteria that correlates
very strongly with membership in specific ethnic group, with intention
to advantage this ethnic group.

]> }You

]> ]don't hear protests about discrimination against Estonia-resident Russians
]> ]from the tens of thousands of by now mostly bilingual Russian-speakers who
]> ]live in Tallinn and its surroundings, nor do you even hear them from the
]> ]inhabitants of the now almost exclusively Russian-speaking north-eastern
]> ]part of the country. To hear protests about discrimination against
]> ]Russians in Estonia you have to go to Moscow, Tomsk, and Vladivostok, and
]> ]talk to people who have never been to the Baltics and have a very
]> ]distorted view of the situation there.
]>
]> That is a lie. Protests against policy of Baltic governments are
]> most certainly happening within those countries.
]
]I was writing about Estonia.

It is a lie whether you were talking about Estonia or Latvia.

]> I do not know

]> why Holman post things which are flatly contradicted by the reports from
]> a number of major agencies.
]
]Please name even ONE such report (and we're talking *only* about Estonia,
]Latvia is a different case, and news items from 'Zhironovosti' don't
]count.)

=================================================================

TASS, August 12, 1997

HEADLINE: Ethnic Russians protest at actions by Estonian government

BYLINE: By Albert Maloveryan

DATELINE: TALLINN, August 12

BODY:

The refusal by the Estonian government to issue residence permits to
several former Russian servicemen "may bring Estonia to the brink
of a civil war," said leaders of the Estonian Union of Russian Citizens
Pyotr Rozhok and Oleg Morozov.

[.....]

=================================================================

Europe-Asia Studies, March 1997 v49 n2 p303(14)

The legal status of Russians in Estonian privatisation
legislation 1989-1995. Erik Andre Andersen.

Abstract: The Estonian privatization legislation during the period
1989-1995 was analyzed to determine the legal status of Russian
minority in terms of compensation value, land ownership, business and
labor conditions, citizenship, political rights and other aspects. Results
revealed that there is a prevailing discrimination against Russians as
evidenced by the legislation's systematic distortion. Furthermore, only
Estonians can take advantage of the fundamental redistribution of
values and restoration of properties.

================================================================

[Alo Merilo]

On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, eso...@hotmail.com wrote:

>[...]

> Eugene, you are not serious, are you? We are not talking about
> certain fields, like Hindu can drivers , Arab gas station owners or
> Chinese-Amercan rappers (no such thing). I asked, with no evil
> intention, of how well minorities are represented in the nation's

> power structure ...

I wanted to make this comment a little while ago, when there was
an argument in this group (s.c.b.) as to whether NE Estonia is more
like Ulster or Kosovo in the making. My point being that in those
two cases we are talking about historical minorities (which
unfortunately have a long history of mutual animosity with the
historical majority). On the other hand, half of the Russians in
Estonia are immigrants (born outside Estonia), and most of the rest
of them belong to the first generation of immigrants' descendants.
Which, on a good note, goes a long way to explain the absence of
interethnic violence in Estonia. Unlike Ulster and Kosovo, Estonia
does not have a burden of a centuries' long interethnic violence,
neither do Estonians blame the Stalinist terror on the immigrant
Russians.

One also ought to keep the nature of the Russian minority (primarily
immigrants) before starting to allege discrimination. Immigrants
are immigrants, and when, e.g. 400,000 Russian immigrants arrive in
the U.S.A. or in Germany or in Uzbekistan or in Estonia, their
rights ought to be pretty much the same in all these countries.
Just by the virtue of the fact that Estonia happens to be a smaller
country, and thus the immigrants constitute 30% of the population,
does not give the immigrants any more right to demand citizenship
without naturalisation, official status to their language, or
proportional representation in the "power structure". Once a few
generations pass Russians will (most likely) become a sizeable
_historical_ minority in Estonia, with all the ramifications and
rights of an historical minority following therefrom (right to a
proportional representation in power structures being one of them).
Best regards,

Alo Merilo

[Jarmo Ryyti]

In soc.culture.baltics Alo Merilo <am...@columbia.edu> wrote:
: On Wed, 29 Apr 1998, eso...@hotmail.com wrote:

Narva's situation is analogical to Haaparanta in Northern-Sweden.
Haaparanta is a border town on the Swedish-Finnish border.
Its inhabitants are predominantly Finnish speaking of whom
most have immigrated from Finland to Sweden and live on
the Swedish side.

Some time ago a Finnish speaking representant of a local social
democrats of Haaparanta made a proposal to the Town assembly
*in Finnish language*. It was *not accepted* by the town but
he had to write additionally one in Swedish.

When he wrote it in Finnish, it was considered *a provocation*
by the Swedish speaking people of the town. As the name of
the town refers,Haaparanta, the town has long Finnish
language tradition. It was establised after 1809 when
Sweden "lost" Finland to Russia. Stockholm established
Haaparanta to substitute Tornio which remained on
the Finnish side of the border.

Ever since and earlier, Stockholm has tried to root out
all what is Finnish language culture from the region.
Even speaking Finnish was forbidden in the schools not
to mention other measures made by Stockholm.

Well,what is the difference between Sweden and Estonia?

Sweden is a prosperous long lasting member of the international
commmunity who pays large sums to many international organizations.
Therefore Sweden can be in a peace and practise its language
policy as she likes. No one protests actually.

Estonia instead is a poor newly independent state. All those
who like to collect "points" from alleged "human rights
violations" travel to investigate Estonia.
Even Swedes are called to Estonia or Latvia to investigate situation .

People simply have not information, thus the public opinion
is led be mass media who has little interest on Sweden's
or Norway's lingual right situation. It is not trendy and
the mass media runs to the direction it is adviced to run.

Therefore Sweden and Norway are in a peace. Perhaps
the whales are protected in Norway but not for instance
the Kvens. Who are Kvens? Read more then you know:
http://kveeniland.com/english.htm

The point is: Sweden is also on the shore of Baltic Sea
as Estonia. Why the difference? Because Sweden is rich?

: I wanted to make this comment a little while ago, when there was

: an argument in this group (s.c.b.) as to whether NE Estonia is more
: like Ulster or Kosovo in the making. My point being that in those
: two cases we are talking about historical minorities (which
: unfortunately have a long history of mutual animosity with the
: historical majority). On the other hand, half of the Russians in
: Estonia are immigrants (born outside Estonia), and most of the rest
: of them belong to the first generation of immigrants' descendants.
: Which, on a good note, goes a long way to explain the absence of
: interethnic violence in Estonia. Unlike Ulster and Kosovo, Estonia
: does not have a burden of a centuries' long interethnic violence,
: neither do Estonians blame the Stalinist terror on the immigrant
: Russians.

The Finns have never terrorized Sweden. Still Sweden's policy
is strange towards the Finnish speaking population of Sweden.

jr

--
#In 1958,The Swedish School Administration repealed directives banning#
# the speaking of Finnish language in Sweden's schools.However,some #
# municipalities maintained restrictions until 1968 #

[Eugene Holman]

In article <6i8ecr$h...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu>, mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu
(Michael Kagalenko) wrote:

> ]>
> ]> No matter how often and viforously you will deny it, Mr.Holman,

> ]> the fact remains that Baltic citizenship policies are ethnically based.
> ]>
> ]
> ]How?
> ]
> ]Let's define the primary concepts in the claim you are making to make sure
> ]that we are talking about the same thing.
> ]
> ]Baltic citizenship policies = the citizenship policies of the three Baltic
> ]states: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia,
> ]
> ]Ethnically based citizenship policy: a citizenship policy that has as a
> ]criterion that applicants demonstrate membership in a specific ethnicity
> ]and/or non-membership in some other one in order to quality.
>

> No. "Ethnically-based citizenship policy" also means citizenship policy
> which gives special advantage based on some criteria that correlates
> very strongly with membership in specific ethnic group, with intention
> to advantage this ethnic group.

Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know Russia now offers its
citizenship immediately and with no naturalization procedure to anyone who
can prove that one of his/her grandparents was born on the territory of
the present Russian Federation, something which strongly correlates, but
is not congruent, with membership in the Russian ethnic group. OTHERWISE,
a person desiring to obtain Russian citizenship has to EITHER prove that
he/she was a former citizen of the former USSR, OR that he/she has been
living in Russia for a certain period, has a steady and legitimate source
of income, and can fulfill other requirements. Thus, if an indiviual is
eligible for immediate Russian citizenship but was never a citizen of the
former USSR, then there is a strong correlation that he/she is going to be
an ethnic Russian. I strongly suspect that the application forms are only
in Russian, and that even if not explicitly stated, that applicants are
assumed to know enough Russian to be able to fill in the application in
Russian and be interviewed by the relevant naturalization authorities in
that language. Insofar as the applicant in question has to swear an oath
of alleggiance and loyalty to the Russian state, I would assume that the
ritual will also be conducted in Russian. Russia being hundreds of times
larger and more ethnically complex than any Baltic state, the correlation
between being an ethnic Russian (russkij) and being a Russian citizen
(rossijanskij) is not going to be as high as between being a member of the
titular ethnicity and being a citizen of a Baltic state, but it is still
strong enough to be relevant.

The smaller countries in Europe have evolved around a specific ethnic
nucleus, and this is reflected in their citizenship policies. Thus,
Finnish citizenship policy gives special advantages correlating with
membership in the Finnish or Finland-Swedish ethnic groups, Netherlands
citizenship policy gives special privileges correlating with membership in
the Dutch and Frisian ethnic groups, and United Kingdom citizenship policy
gives special advantages correlating with membership in the English,
Scottish, Welsh, or Scoth-Irish ethnic groups, as well as, to a lesser
extent, with groups that were once colonized and acculturated by these
groups. None of them specifically excludes other groups, but all of them,
including Russian citizenship policy, require that a potential citizen
cross a higher hurdle if he or she does not have some concrete roots, by
descent (jus sanguini) or by birth (jus soli), to the titular ethnic
group(s) of the country. To be naturalized as a Finnish citizen an
individual must be able to demonstrate a practical command of Finnish or
Swedish, and must submit to an interview by the Finjish Security Police
(SUPO) conducted in one of these two languages.

Estonia, like many other countries in northern Europe, has a tradition of
citizenship being handed down by descent (jus sanguini). Thus, the fact
that a person has at least one parent who is an Estonian citizen, no
matter what the ethnicity of that parent or the citizenship or ethnicity
of the other parent, is a necessary and sufficient criterion for
entitlement to automatic Estonian citizenship. In this respect, children
one of whose parents is a Soviet-era migrants who have been naturalized as
Estonian citizens, no matter what their ethnicity, are also entitled to
automatic citizenship by the jus sanguini principle. Chidren born in
Estonia before it regained its independence in 1991, neither of whose
parents are Estonian citizens, are not automatically Estonian citizens,
even if a simplified procedure for naturalizing them exists. Once again,
this is different from Russian practice, but it is perfectly consistent
with Estonian traditions.

>
> ]> }You

> ]> ]don't hear protests about discrimination against Estonia-resident Russians
> ]> ]from the tens of thousands of by now mostly bilingual Russian-speakers who
> ]> ]live in Tallinn and its surroundings, nor do you even hear them from the
> ]> ]inhabitants of the now almost exclusively Russian-speaking north-eastern
> ]> ]part of the country. To hear protests about discrimination against
> ]> ]Russians in Estonia you have to go to Moscow, Tomsk, and Vladivostok, and
> ]> ]talk to people who have never been to the Baltics and have a very
> ]> ]distorted view of the situation there.
> ]>
> ]> That is a lie. Protests against policy of Baltic governments are
> ]> most certainly happening within those countries.
> ]
> ]I was writing about Estonia.
>

> It is a lie whether you were talking about Estonia or Latvia.
>

> ]> I do not know

> ]> why Holman post things which are flatly contradicted by the reports from
> ]> a number of major agencies.
> ]
> ]Please name even ONE such report (and we're talking *only* about Estonia,
> ]Latvia is a different case, and news items from 'Zhironovosti' don't
> ]count.)
>
>

> =================================================================
>
> TASS, August 12, 1997
>
> HEADLINE: Ethnic Russians protest at actions by Estonian government
>
> BYLINE: By Albert Maloveryan
>
> DATELINE: TALLINN, August 12
>
> BODY:
>
> The refusal by the Estonian government to issue residence permits to
> several former Russian servicemen "may bring Estonia to the brink
> of a civil war," said leaders of the Estonian Union of Russian Citizens
> Pyotr Rozhok and Oleg Morozov.
>

Why should the Estonian authorities be obligated to issue residence
permits to members of a former occupying power?

In actual fact, Estonia has been extraordinarily generous in allowing some
ten thousand former members of the Russian army to stay on after its
withdrawal from Estonia. To the credit of these soldiers, only a handful
of them have been caught engaging in activities which obviously endanger
Estonian national security. The issue of retired former Russian
servicement living in Estonia is a politically delicate one, and in the
few cases when the Estonian authorities have demanded deportation or
refused to renew residence permits, the case in question has automatically
been submitted to a CSCE monitor for reveiew, with the Estonian
authorities having accepted the obligation to abide by the decision made
by the CSCE monitor. How could the possible deportation of the handful of
retired Russian serviceman who have been caught engaging in espionage or
for having given false information about their reserve status be an issue
threatening to bring 'Estonia to the brink of a civil war'. In actual
fact, the few cases of this type that have come up have been a source of
great embarrassment to Estonian-resident Russians.

Pyotor Rozhok, who was deported from Estonia a few years ago for sedition,
but has evidently been allowed to return, and Oleg Morozov are notorious
loudmouths of the same stripe as Vladimir Zhironovsky. Their talk about
Estonia being on the bring of civil war should be taken about as seriously
as their mentor's talk about Russian soldiers washing their boots in the
Indian Ocean.

> [.....]
>
>
> =================================================================
>
> Europe-Asia Studies, March 1997 v49 n2 p303(14)
>
> The legal status of Russians in Estonian privatisation
> legislation 1989-1995. Erik Andre Andersen.
>
> Abstract: The Estonian privatization legislation during the period
> 1989-1995 was analyzed to determine the legal status of Russian
> minority in terms of compensation value, land ownership, business and
> labor conditions, citizenship, political rights and other aspects. Results
> revealed that there is a prevailing discrimination against Russians as
> evidenced by the legislation's systematic distortion. Furthermore, only
> Estonians can take advantage of the fundamental redistribution of
> values and restoration of properties.
>
> ================================================================

I shall have to dig this one out and study it. What you have given here is
an abstract in which terms such as 'Russian minority', 'Russians', and
'Estonians' are being used imprecisely. As we have seen many times in this
group, 'Estonians' is sometimes used to mean 'ethnic Estonians', sometimes
to mean 'Estonian citizenry'; 'Russians' sometimes to mean 'ethnic
Russians', sometimes to mean 'Soviet-era migrants', sometimes to mean
'Russian spakers'. Before we pass judgment, let's wee what is really being
talked about.

I appreciate your having gone to the effort to find and post these
articles. They provide a much firmer basis for discussion than accusations
and name-calling. I hope that we can continue to discuss these issues in a
more constructive manner in the future. I'm here to learn just like you
are.

With best regards,
Eugene Holman

[gin...@yahoo.com]

In article <6i7qcl$f...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu>,

mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
>
> Eugene Holman (hol...@elo.helsinki.fi) wrote in article
<holman-2904...@f24-134-6.pc.helsinki.fi>

> ]In article <6i5k0e$e...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu>, mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu
> ](Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
> ]

> ]> Igor Sagdeev (sag...@mindspring.com) wrote in article
> ]<354647e1...@news.mindspring.com>
> ]> ]mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
> ]> ]
> ]> ]>
> ]> ]> My take on the situaton is that Russia should legalize posesion of
firearms
> ]> ]> by any of its citizens. Then Russians in Estonia and other Baltic
republics
> ]> ]> would be able to acquire arms and defend their property and lives
> ]> ]> against ethnically-based policies that their governments implement.
> ]> ]
> ]
> ]Name one ethnically based policy! Restrictions on citizenship in Estonia
> ]and Latvia are NOT based on ethnicity, but are consequences of the fact
> ]that during fifty years of Soviet occupation these countries were the
> ]object of uncontrolled, ethnocidal migration.
>

> No matter how often and viforously you will deny it, Mr.Holman,
> the fact remains that Baltic citizenship policies are ethnically based.

It's a one of the biggest lie I ever heard. There are ~40-45% russians in the
police of Latvia. I'd like to say that it's too, too, too much.

>
> }You
> ]don't hear protests about discrimination against Estonia-resident Russians
> ]from the tens of thousands of by now mostly bilingual Russian-speakers who
> ]live in Tallinn and its surroundings, nor do you even hear them from the
> ]inhabitants of the now almost exclusively Russian-speaking north-eastern
> ]part of the country. To hear protests about discrimination against
> ]Russians in Estonia you have to go to Moscow, Tomsk, and Vladivostok, and
> ]talk to people who have never been to the Baltics and have a very
> ]distorted view of the situation there.
>
> That is a lie. Protests against policy of Baltic governments are

> most certainly happening within those countries. I do not know

> why Holman post things which are flatly contradicted by the reports from
> a number of major agencies.
>

Again lie. everyday protests some 20-30 professional demonstrators. In 9 may
or other similar fuckin' days protesters are ~1000-2000.
If you don't believe me come on to Latvia and see by your own eyes (only don't
drink too much - redoubling is hard thing).

Gints

[Eugene Holman]

In article <6i8ecr$h...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu>, mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu
(Michael Kagalenko) wrote:

> =================================================================
>
> Europe-Asia Studies, March 1997 v49 n2 p303(14)
>
> The legal status of Russians in Estonian privatisation
> legislation 1989-1995. Erik Andre Andersen.
>
> Abstract: The Estonian privatization legislation during the period
> 1989-1995 was analyzed to determine the legal status of Russian
> minority in terms of compensation value, land ownership, business and
> labor conditions, citizenship, political rights and other aspects. Results
> revealed that there is a prevailing discrimination against Russians as
> evidenced by the legislation's systematic distortion. Furthermore, only
> Estonians can take advantage of the fundamental redistribution of
> values and restoration of properties.
>
> ================================================================

I will not be able to obtain access to this article until Monday; if you
know of a URL where I can read it on the net I would appreciate it.

My reading of the summary and some other detective work make me think that
the study in question deals with the period between 1989-1995, and it uses
'Russians' as a synonym for 'non-citizens', and 'Estonians' as a synonym
for 'Estonian citizens'. If this is correct, your claim of it as a
demonstration of discrimination against Russians is invalid, since the
restrictions are based on citizenship, not ethnicity. Since 1995 Estonia
privatization legislation has been liberalized. The following excerpt is
from a document which appeared in mid-January, 1995:
(http://www.viabalt.ee/Eco/land.html):

************************************************
Buying land in Estonia to become simpler

Just before the end of last year, a law of considerable importance came
into force in Estonia - the law on amendments to legal acts connected with
the law of estate. This law provides prerequisites for important changes
to rules governing the purchase of land by legal entities, including firms
based on foreign capital.

The purchase of land by foreign citizens and foreign-owned firms was
previously allowed in Estonia, but only with the permission of national
and local governments. Since the procedure to obtain approval is ponderous
and
time-consuming, the right to purchase land was considerably restricted.
The new law gives the government the right to choose municipalities where
foreign-owned enterprises and other legal entities will not need permits
to purchase land,
with the exclusion of municipalities in border a nd coastal areas.

Any legal entity wishing to purchase land (including those owned by
foreign capital) must be entered in the Estonian register. At present,
this register is kept by local governments but in future it will be
located in designated courts
(according to the German example).

National security is probably one of the reasons border areas have been
restricted. The Estonian Parliament's Legal Commission Chairman Daimar
Liiv also mentioned Estonia's modest financial resources, which makes
competing with
buyers from Scandina via, Germany or Russia for potentially valuable
coastal land impossible. These restrictions may disappear as Estonia's
wealth increases and with its intended integration into the European
Union.
************************************************

Estonian legislation had and continues to have restrictions on the
ownership of property and land by non-citizens, but so does every other
country. It is wrong to equate this with 'discrimination against
Russians'. Russians, as well as anyone else, who acquire Estonian
citizenship, are, for the purposes of these restrictions 'Estonians'.

There is, however, another issue raised here which might at least
partially support your argument. Here too, however, discrimination is
directed specifically against non-citizen Soviet-era immigrants, not
against 'Russians' per se.

Soviet policy resulted in the construction of large industrial complexes
such as the Dvigatel' factory in Tallinn and the oil-shale based
extraction industry and power stations starting around Kohtla-Järve and
extending eastwards. The city of Narva was virtually destroyed in battles
between advancing Soviet and retreating German soldiers during the late
summer of 1944, and workers from elsewhere in the Soviet Union were
brought there to rebuild the city and stay on as the nucleus of its new
population. The surviving (ethnic) Estonian inhabitants of Narva, who had
made up about 75% of its population before the war, were not allowed to
return. Thus, the city became virtually 100% Russian/Ukrainian. Since the
inhabitants of this area have only recently begun to acquire Estonian
citizenship in large numbers, and, yes, they were put at a distinct
disadvantage by the older privatization legislation because the plants and
buildings which have been sold off are without a doubt the products of
their labor but could not be sold to them either because they were
non-citizens or because they were located in border areas and subject to
other types of security restrictions.

I'll have to do some more reading on this. Still, it seems to be the case
that if a Russian (or other Soviet-era migrant) considers himself to be an
object of discrimination in Estonia, in most cases the problem can be
solved by acquiring Estonian citizenship and becoming an 'Estonian'. The
process is straightforward, and approx. 100,000 'Russians' have
successfully completed it.

Regards,
Eugene Holman

[eso...@hotmail.com]

Maris Ozols wrote:

> "eso...@hotmail.com" <eso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Well, I would disagree with your notion that middle and upper class Estonians were
> >killed, deported or excelled because they were Estonians. Their guilt was their

ok, I should have said exciled, uncle Joe excelled in exciling (Estonians?), but can I
sleep well after having used excile as a verb?

> lean right back again. However, would you suggest that Stalin's purges
> of the late thirties were not directed against nationalities?
>
> Maris Ozols

Maris, this doesn't make Stalin's atrocities look any nicer or does it? I am not
familiar with the
particulars of Stalin's purges of different ethnic groups - Crimean Tatars, people in
Northern
Caucasus and all others whom the man cared to dislike. I wouldn't be surprised to learn
that these guys, very much like their Nazi buddies, slaughtered people for their
ethnicity. Who knows? Nothing would startle me, if you told me that Stalin is alive or
he had had an abortion, it won’t come as a shock. But I don't know whether he killed
people for their ethnicity or just for fun, because I don’t know anything I shouldn’t
say anything - that won't be the case though: I believe in all likelihood the
misfortunate ethnic groups were either labeled as some enemies of the people (whatever
that means) or whole deal was set up to look as if they were class enemies. I don't
think they killed people off just because they belonged to a certain ethnic group,
naturally the motive for the murder doesn't matter as much as the murder itself. We know
these WERE not unintentional homicides.

[eso...@hotmail.com]

Eugene Holman wrote:

It has been: after all prime assets were privatized - transferred from former Soviet
ownership to the private hands of descendants of pre-Soviet republic, almost all
ethnic Estonians.

Obviously the beneficiaries could get very rich (on Estonian scale of thing of
course) by selling assets they thieved to outside investors. This was a grand
larceny from the beginning to the end - at least that's how it looks like from your
description.

I wonder what was the ethnic background of immediate owners and majority
shareholders (as you say ethnicity is not the point, I believe it is not) of the
main cash making SOVIET assets (major hotels serving Finnish tourists, shipping
terminals, factories, department stores?) regardless of whether they kept their
share or had it sold out to outside interests.

If this is case, and in fact Soviet assets were transferred to the private ownership
using criteria of prewar citizenship, I doubt that such an injustice could have
been done, not in Estonia, then the legality of such a privatization is dubious.

[an_on...@hotmail.com]

In article <holman-2904...@eng17.pc.helsinki.fi>,

Agreed here.

> Case 2: Estonia. Estonia extended citizenship to the set of people who
> could prove roots to the citizenry of the Republic of Estonia before it
> was illegally annexed by the USSR. The Estonian census figures for 1934
> show that 88% of these people were Estonians, 8% Russians, and 4% others.
> It did not extend automatic ctizenship to people whose roots in Estonia
> are the consequence of what appeared to be 'legal' migration and
> colonization during the illegal occupation. Subsequently, approximately
> 100,000 such individuals representing dozens of nationalities, have
> applied for and received Estonian citizenship. Conclusion: Estonian
> citizenship is not ethnically based, but it does require affirmation of
> loyalty to the Estonian state, one aspect of which is the ability to use
> the State Language, which is Estonian.
>

This is not as easy as you make it seem, since there are many people
(especially older people) for whom it is difficult if not impossible to learn
a new language. (The U. S. does not require proof of English language
proficiency from older applicants.) Moreover, there is the case with Mr.
Bozhko, who was granted Estonian citizenship several years ago for fighting to
keep SillamÄe and Narva Estonian (thus proving his loyalty beyond all
reasonable doubt!..) only to be unceremoniously removed from his elected
position for his allegedly poor command of Estonian. Somehow, this makes him
a second-class citizen, don't you think? Then there are many cases such as
those with the residents of Paldiski, who are being penalized now for not
following Estonian registration laws at a time when Paldiski was not under
Estonian control and no mechanisms for following those regulations were
available...

Moreover, it is only recently that naturalization laws have been liberalized.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Estonia use restrictive naturalization
quotas, too? And wasn't their purpose, expressed or implied, exactly that--to
discourage the Russian speakers from becoming Estonian citizens?

One final note: Back in 1991, when both Russia and Estonia were Soviet
republics, an agreement was signed between the two whereby Estonia
essentially agreed to grant all residents Estonian citizenship upon
independence. Unlike Lithuania, Estonia conveniently forgot about this
agreement. On the contrary, Russia and specifically Yeltsin were the ones who
ensured Estonian independence.

> Case 3: Latvia. Latvia extended citizenship to the set of people who could
> prove roots to the citizenry of the Republic of Latvia before it was
> illegally annexed by the USSR. The Latvian census figures for 1935 show
> that 77% of these people were Latvians, 9% Russians, and 14% others. It
> did not extend automatic ctizenship to people whose roots in Latvia are
> the consequence of what appeared to be 'legal' migration and colonization
> during the illegal occupation. Subsequently, approximately 6,000 such
> individuals representing various nationalities, have applied for and
> received Latvian citizenship. Conclusion: Latvian citizenship is not
> ethnically based, but it does require affirmation of loyalty to the
> Latvian state, one aspect of which is the ability to use the State
> Language, which is Latvian.

The 6000 Russian speakers who were granted Latvian citizenship constitute
prima facie evidence of the restrictiveness of Latvia's policy, if you compare
this number to the number of Russian speakers who are resident in the country
(more than 700,000, IIRC). Even now, a quota system is in place making it
extremely difficult for people to be naturalized. On the other hand, a German
Neo-Nazi, Mr. Johann Siegerist, with no Latvian roots and no command of
Latvian whatsoever, not only had no trouble in acquiring the Latvian
citizensip but managed to get elected to the Latvian parliament (compare this
with Mr. Bozhko.)

In addition, every argument advanced in Estonia's case applies here as well,
*including* the pledge to extend citizenship to *all* residents upon
independence.

While Latvia is considering easing its requirements somewhat and abolishing
the quota system, they would never have done this without Russia's--and the
world's--pressure today. Consider the fact that they were planning on further
strengthening their language laws (which were already subject to criticism by
pretty much every European organization, and even Mr. Pauls, the former
culture minister and their author in the first place.) And they had
consistently refused every request from international bodies to ease the
naturalization requirements.

>
> The fact remains, Mr. Kagalenko, that *none* of these states has a
> citizenship policy that uses ethnicity as a criterion for citizenship. Two
> of them have a citizenship policy that requires an affirmation of loyalty
> to the state and an ability to use the State Language, something which
> anyone can aquire if they lack such knowledge and desire to become
> citizens, as necessary requirements for citizenship.
>
> Q.E.D.

On the contrary, except in Lithuania's case, there is ample evidence that such
a policy exists or has existed, de facto in some cases, de jure in others.
And, especially in Latvia's case, the affirmation of loyalty to the state and
the ability to use the state language are in no way sufficient even now...

[Eugene Holman]

If I steal a thousand dollars from you, invest the money in lotto tickets,
and win the jackpot, what happens to the money if I eventually get caught?

Estonia was violently incorporated into the USSR *twice*. Property was
confiscated and nationalized, people were executed and deported, bank
safety deposit boxes were raided. (I was deeply moved by Rein Taagepera's
account in his personal history of Estonia of how the Soviet authorities
confiscated the family silverware.) Nobody has ever returned the property
thieved from the Estonians when they were forced at gunpoin to join the
USSR. Nobody wants to give back the 5% of Estonian territory (Ivangorod,
and eastern suburbs, Pechory) thieved from Estonia by unilateral revisions
of the border made in Moscow in Russia's favor. Nobody has as much as
apologized for the invasion of a small, unthreatening country, the
liquidation of most of its middle and upper classes, and the confiscation
of many of its assets.

I have no difficulty admitting that Baltic independence has made the
Russian-speaking minorities of the Baltic states suffer because of acts
which they as individuals had little if any responsibility for. Long-time
readers of this newsgroup know that I have consistently spoken up for
them, and that I am one of the few people who has been willing to invest
time, money, and reputation in trying to do something concrete to improve
their situation. That does not, however, detract from the fact that the
titular populations of the Baltic countries, the people to whom the
countries 'belong', were dealt a much greater series of injustices during
the past sixty years, injustices which nobody wants to admit any
responsibility for.

Splitting up the assets, many of them of questionable value, acquired
during the Soviet period, among the titular citizenries of these small
countries is small compensation for what they were forced to suffer during
the past sixty years as unwilling participants in the magnificently failed
experiment known by its most fanatic proponents as the *soyuz nerushimy
respublikh svobodnykh*.

Regards,
Eugene Holman

[David McDuff]

On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:19:37 -0600, an_on...@hotmail.com wrote:

>Moreover, there is the case with Mr.
>Bozhko, who was granted Estonian citizenship several years ago for fighting to
>keep SillamÄe and Narva Estonian (thus proving his loyalty beyond all
>reasonable doubt!..) only to be unceremoniously removed from his elected
>position for his allegedly poor command of Estonian. Somehow, this makes him
>a second-class citizen, don't you think?

But Mr Bozhko's several rivals - also Russian-speakers - had a better
command of Estonian than he did. No one would be in a position to
remove them from office.

It's perhaps worth noting, by the way, that according to official
statistics, Sillama"e's Russian-language school sends a higher
proportion of students to university than any other school in the
country, and most of them go on to study in Estonian.

In the 'Guardian' report of last November where these matters were
raised, the journalist who wrote the article pointed out that younger
people have fewer problems with language than older people. He's
right, of course, but then the language requirements for older people
to obtain citizenship are even more lenient than the norm. It's
possible to verify this by referring to the relevant OSCE reports.

Regards,

David McDuff

[eso...@hotmail.com]

Eugene Holman wrote:

> If I steal a thousand dollars from you, invest the money in lotto tickets,
> and win the jackpot, what happens to the money if I eventually get caught?
>

Hi Eugene! Now really, what happens to the money if you steal a grand from me, buy
some lottery tickets and hit the jackpot?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never thought of it
- do I get just 1000 back? It is a very interesting, bizarre scenario (I don't
believe you would steal $1000 from me, would you? or that's what you normally do
over there in Helsinki, rob people and invest money in lottery tickets?), that's
really humorous. Actually I think it would make an exciting legal case: a thief
invests stolen cash in state lottery tickets, then wins the jackpot but he learns of
it from a newspaper while doing time in jail (and then dies from heart attack but
has a whole bunch of relatives coming after the cash).. Are they entitled to the
money? I think under twisted US law, the thief in question or his relatives would
lose all their cash if it is proven that the original investment was obtained
through drug trafficking. I would bet that in all other cases, the law is very
ambiguous.

However, if what you say is true about Estonian privatization, I think (just
think), whole scam can be successfully challenged either in European court of
justice or in any US court (of course US cannot force any changes in Estonian
privatization but the victims can be compensated from Estonian assets held in the
United States). We are talking about individuals being robbed, not an international
relations issue, either regular criminal or civil matter. This is not something
that i would advocate doing. Very much like you do I strongly believe that robbing
people is a fare game.

> Estonia was violently incorporated into the USSR *twice*. Property was
> confiscated and nationalized, people were executed and deported, bank
> safety deposit boxes were raided. (I was deeply moved by Rein Taagepera's
> account in his personal history of Estonia of how the Soviet authorities
> confiscated the family silverware.) Nobody has ever returned the property
> thieved from the Estonians when they were forced at gunpoin to join the

It was a turbulent time in history, Estonia was not the single country on the whole
continent to be invaded, and Rein Taagapera's family silver was not greatest loss
Europe has suffered during world war II. You are trivializing the issue, comparing
loss of cutlery to modern cash making assets. May be it is some kind of subtle joke,
my sense of humor is not so well developed, and if that it is the case, I am sorry
because I didn't get the joke. If you saying that the assets were transferred to
the Estonians because they are better people, biologically and otherwise, then I
agree.

> USSR. Nobody wants to give back the 5% of Estonian territory (Ivangorod,
> and eastern suburbs, Pechory) thieved from Estonia by unilateral revisions
> of the border made in Moscow in Russia's favor. Nobody has as much as
> apologized for the invasion of a small, unthreatening country, the

>

Again you are sticking to a technicality. Do we really want to base our view of the
world on an obscure treaty made by a gang Bolsheviks and unrecognized at the time by
anybody in the world? What happens if Russia denounces all Bolshevik treaties and
say we have nothing to do with them - like the Federal Republic has nothing to do
with whatever paper Hitler signed. What's next - just think, think, think. Sticking
to legalistic technicalities is a slippery slope. Not a smart idea.

> liquidation of most of its middle and upper classes, and the confiscation
> of many of its assets.

That was pretty much the case all over the place. Then, what assets?! Eugene, what
are you talking about? I think it was great that they managed to steal all the stuff
from those aliens. Poor idiots.

>
>
> I have no difficulty admitting that Baltic independence has made the
> Russian-speaking minorities of the Baltic states suffer because of acts

Who cares?!

> which they as individuals had little if any responsibility for. Long-time

That's absolutely true. You could also add that these people were basically imported
to build things in which they were then denied to own share by by the
current/earlier regime, but like you I believe it was a good thing to do. Why try to
share something that you can have all to yourself?

> readers of this newsgroup know that I have consistently spoken up for
> them, and that I am one of the few people who has been willing to invest
> time, money, and reputation in trying to do something concrete to improve
> their situation. That does not, however, detract from the fact that the

These people deserve to suffer - as you just said. I read your posts for a long
time (without posting anything myself - I happen to have quite a bit of free time on
my hands now) and it was obvious for a quite a while that you are a genuine crusader
for further erosion of civil rights in Estonia. I am on your side - I also believe
that minorities must be oppressed wherever possible. I thought of a few more ideas
of torturing the aliens but am afraid this forum might not be the most appropriate
one for expressing them because of a seizable German readership which may get quite
wrong impression from what I have to say.

> titular populations of the Baltic countries, the people to whom the
> countries 'belong', were dealt a much greater series of injustices during
> the past sixty years, injustices which nobody wants to admit any
> responsibility for.
>

Would it make you happier if I admit my personal responsibility and then publicly
accuse myself of all the crimes I might have had committed in Estonia? I cannot do
it the US because under US law you really cannot accuse yourself, but I think it is
fully OK in Estonia - at least that's what you asking - or I can go to Germany where
this self-accusation is the essence of mainstream expression.

> Splitting up the assets, many of them of questionable value, acquired
> during the Soviet period, among the titular citizenries of these small

You know what, I would rather take a major hotel in Tallinn than a box of spoons and
forks. Estonians did the right thing after all!

> countries is small compensation for what they were forced to suffer during
> the past sixty years as unwilling participants in the magnificently failed
> experiment known by its most fanatic proponents as the *soyuz nerushimy
> respublikh svobodnykh*.
>
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman
>

Eugene, please do not take seriously anything I have just said. Thanks for reading.

[eso...@hotmail.com]

Eugene Holman wrote:

A follow up on my previous post (in fact a second response to yours): as usual I
have said things I should not have said. But I just thought of something to add that
might please you. In my opinion, overwhelming majority of Estonians (Estonian
citizens that is) did not benefit from the early 1990s privatization - at least I
cannot see any benefits they could have possibly gotten. When assets were in fact
transferred, the main beneficiaries were Soviet managers, very much like in Russia
and in all other formerly Soviet republics. This was not a fair deal for anybody
except a tiny coterie of former Soviet managers, I assume the majority of them were
former card carrying members of the Communist party. This doesn't stand well with
your assertion of a fair bargain - prewar family silver for hotels and shipping
terminals. Neither the people got most from privatization had anything to do with
silverware in question, nor the people who lost. However, these group of Soviet
managers, willing and able servants of the system, have benefited immensely by
dividing the Soviet stuff and excluding all possible competition precisely on ethnic
grounds. Of course greed, not ethnnic hatred was the chief motive behind the whole
thing. Rules were conveniently changed and bent and it appears you have no problems
with that, I don't have any either.

> >
> > It has been: after all prime assets were privatized - transferred from
> former Soviet
> > ownership to the private hands of descendants of pre-Soviet republic,
> almost all
> > ethnic Estonians.
> >
> > Obviously the beneficiaries could get very rich (on Estonian scale of thing of
> > course) by selling assets they thieved to outside investors. This was a grand
> > larceny from the beginning to the end - at least that's how it looks
> like from your
> > description.
> >
> > I wonder what was the ethnic background of immediate owners and majority
> > shareholders (as you say ethnicity is not the point, I believe it is
> not) of the
> > main cash making SOVIET assets (major hotels serving Finnish tourists,
> shipping
> > terminals, factories, department stores?) regardless of whether they
> kept their
> > share or had it sold out to outside interests.
> >
> > If this is case, and in fact Soviet assets were transferred to the
> private ownership
> > using criteria of prewar citizenship, I doubt that such an injustice
> could have
> > been done, not in Estonia, then the legality of such a privatization is
> dubious.
>

> If I steal a thousand dollars from you, invest the money in lotto tickets,
> and win the jackpot, what happens to the money if I eventually get caught?
>

> Estonia was violently incorporated into the USSR *twice*. Property was
> confiscated and nationalized, people were executed and deported, bank
> safety deposit boxes were raided. (I was deeply moved by Rein Taagepera's
> account in his personal history of Estonia of how the Soviet authorities
> confiscated the family silverware.) Nobody has ever returned the property
> thieved from the Estonians when they were forced at gunpoin to join the

> USSR. Nobody wants to give back the 5% of Estonian territory (Ivangorod,
> and eastern suburbs, Pechory) thieved from Estonia by unilateral revisions
> of the border made in Moscow in Russia's favor. Nobody has as much as
> apologized for the invasion of a small, unthreatening country, the

> liquidation of most of its middle and upper classes, and the confiscation
> of many of its assets.
>

> I have no difficulty admitting that Baltic independence has made the
> Russian-speaking minorities of the Baltic states suffer because of acts

> which they as individuals had little if any responsibility for. Long-time

> readers of this newsgroup know that I have consistently spoken up for
> them, and that I am one of the few people who has been willing to invest
> time, money, and reputation in trying to do something concrete to improve
> their situation. That does not, however, detract from the fact that the

> titular populations of the Baltic countries, the people to whom the
> countries 'belong', were dealt a much greater series of injustices during
> the past sixty years, injustices which nobody wants to admit any
> responsibility for.
>

> Splitting up the assets, many of them of questionable value, acquired
> during the Soviet period, among the titular citizenries of these small

> countries is small compensation for what they were forced to suffer during
> the past sixty years as unwilling participants in the magnificently failed
> experiment known by its most fanatic proponents as the *soyuz nerushimy
> respublikh svobodnykh*.
>
> Regards,
> Eugene Holman
>

[Vladimir]

Alo Merilo wrote:
>
snip

>
> I wanted to make this comment a little while ago, when there was
> an argument in this group (s.c.b.) as to whether NE Estonia is more
> like Ulster or Kosovo in the making. My point being that in those
> two cases we are talking about historical minorities (which
> unfortunately have a long history of mutual animosity with the
> historical majority). On the other hand, half of the Russians in
> Estonia are immigrants (born outside Estonia), and most of the rest
> of them belong to the first generation of immigrants' descendants.
> Which, on a good note, goes a long way to explain the absence of
> interethnic violence in Estonia. Unlike Ulster and Kosovo, Estonia
> does not have a burden of a centuries' long interethnic violence,
> neither do Estonians blame the Stalinist terror on the immigrant
> Russians.
>

> One also ought to keep the nature of the Russian minority (primarily
> immigrants) before starting to allege discrimination. Immigrants
> are immigrants, and when, e.g. 400,000 Russian immigrants arrive in
> the U.S.A. or in Germany or in Uzbekistan or in Estonia, their
> rights ought to be pretty much the same in all these countries.

snip

> Best regards,
>
> Alo Merilo

Excuse me, you missed the point. Nobody has said that Ida-Viru is a
Kosovo or Ulster in the making. It's just a whole Russian-speaking
county. In other words, the Russian minority does not live scattered
among Estonians, but in whole towns of their own, where they constitute
the majority of about 97 %.

Did you see in the US a county, where live 97% immigrants? There are
Spanish speaking people in California, Arizona and Texas, okay. But they
are to a large extent indigenous, as the Red Indians. But 97 % of recent
immigrants? I think, this should be made clear to European onlookers of
this NG.

Kuula rohkem, räägi vähem.

[Michael Kagalenko]

(gin...@yahoo.com) wrote in article <6i9r93$p1u$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
]In article <6i7qcl$f...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu>,

] mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
]>
]> Eugene Holman (hol...@elo.helsinki.fi) wrote in article
]<holman-2904...@f24-134-6.pc.helsinki.fi>
]> ]In article <6i5k0e$e...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu>, mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu
]> ](Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
]> ]
]> ]> Igor Sagdeev (sag...@mindspring.com) wrote in article
]> ]<354647e1...@news.mindspring.com>
]> ]> ]mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
]> ]> ]
]> ]> ]>
]> ]> ]> My take on the situaton is that Russia should legalize posesion of
]firearms
]> ]> ]> by any of its citizens. Then Russians in Estonia and other Baltic
]republics
]> ]> ]> would be able to acquire arms and defend their property and lives
]> ]> ]> against ethnically-based policies that their governments implement.
]> ]> ]
]> ]
]> ]Name one ethnically based policy! Restrictions on citizenship in Estonia
]> ]and Latvia are NOT based on ethnicity, but are consequences of the fact
]> ]that during fifty years of Soviet occupation these countries were the
]> ]object of uncontrolled, ethnocidal migration.
]>
]> No matter how often and viforously you will deny it, Mr.Holman,
]> the fact remains that Baltic citizenship policies are ethnically based.

]
]It's a one of the biggest lie I ever heard. There are ~40-45% russians in the

]police of Latvia. I'd like to say that it's too, too, too much.

Police force of apartheid South Africa was to a large extent black. That
seems common nough trick of oppresive governments.

The fact that Estonian and Latvian
citizenship policies are ethnically based is readily obvious to anyone who
looked at the issue without prejudice.

]> }You

]> ]don't hear protests about discrimination against Estonia-resident Russians

]> ]from the tens of thousands of by now mostly bilingual Russian-speakers who

]> ]live in Tallinn and its surroundings, nor do you even hear them from the
]> ]inhabitants of the now almost exclusively Russian-speaking north-eastern
]> ]part of the country. To hear protests about discrimination against
]> ]Russians in Estonia you have to go to Moscow, Tomsk, and Vladivostok, and
]> ]talk to people who have never been to the Baltics and have a very
]> ]distorted view of the situation there.
]>
]> That is a lie. Protests against policy of Baltic governments are
]> most certainly happening within those countries. I do not know
]> why Holman post things which are flatly contradicted by the reports from
]> a number of major agencies.
]>
] Again lie. everyday protests some 20-30 professional demonstrators. In 9 may
]or other similar fuckin' days protesters are ~1000-2000.
]If you don't believe me come on to Latvia and see by your own eyes (only don't
]drink too much - redoubling is hard thing).

Let me get it straight, this Baltic nationalist calls my statement
that there are protests a lie, and then goes on to say that there are,
indeed, protests. Amazing. Just how demented nationalism can make a person ?

[Maris Ozols]

"eso...@hotmail.com" <eso...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>These people deserve to suffer - as you just said. I read your posts for a long
>time (without posting anything myself - I happen to have quite a bit of free time on
>my hands now)

Eugene, we can only assume that you are a guest at one of the
government's secure establishments. The question is which government.
I get the impression that you are resident in Estonia but anything is
possible. If you will forgive me me, I have to say that your constant
changes of tack have disorientated me and I am not sure what your true
beliefs are.

> and it was obvious for a quite a while that you are a genuine crusader
>for further erosion of civil rights in Estonia. I am on your side - I also believe
>that minorities must be oppressed wherever possible. I thought of a few more ideas
>of torturing the aliens but am afraid this forum might not be the most appropriate
>one for expressing them because of a seizable German readership which may get quite
>wrong impression from what I have to say.

How can you possibly know this? They seem to be 'lurkers'if they
really are there.

Maris Ozols

[Maris Ozols]

an_on...@hotmail.com wrote:

>
>One final note: Back in 1991, when both Russia and Estonia were Soviet
>republics, an agreement was signed between the two whereby Estonia
>essentially agreed to grant all residents Estonian citizenship upon
>independence. Unlike Lithuania, Estonia conveniently forgot about this
>agreement. On the contrary, Russia and specifically Yeltsin were the ones who
>ensured Estonian independence.

As long as we remember that Yeltsin's motives for agreeing to dissolve
the Soviet Union were that Gorbachev was left without a mandate and,
he, Yeltsin, usurped power.

>
>The 6000 Russian speakers who were granted Latvian citizenship constitute
>prima facie evidence of the restrictiveness of Latvia's policy, if you compare
>this number to the number of Russian speakers who are resident in the country
>(more than 700,000, IIRC). Even now, a quota system is in place making it
>extremely difficult for people to be naturalized. On the other hand, a German
>Neo-Nazi, Mr. Johann Siegerist, with no Latvian roots

This is not strictly correct. Mr Siegerist does have tentative Latvian
roots in Jelgava. He also knew how to manipulate the electorate,
bussing voters and feeding them with bananas back in the election of
1993.

>and no command of
>Latvian whatsoever, not only had no trouble in acquiring the Latvian
>citizensip but managed to get elected to the Latvian parliament (compare this
>with Mr. Bozhko.)

Life is just not fair!

>
>In addition, every argument advanced in Estonia's case applies here as well,
>*including* the pledge to extend citizenship to *all* residents upon
>independence.
>
>While Latvia is considering easing its requirements somewhat and abolishing
>the quota system, they would never have done this without Russia's--and the
>world's--pressure today.

The world's pressure maybe. Russia's pressure would not have been
considered for one second, being completely partisan (or at least
politically motivated since it has not real interest in Latvia's
non-citizens whatsover, except in so far as their cause can be
exploited for its own ends)..

> Consider the fact that they were planning on further
>strengthening their language laws (which were already subject to criticism by
>pretty much every European organization, and even Mr. Pauls, the former
>culture minister and their author in the first place.) And they had
>consistently refused every request from international bodies to ease the
>naturalization requirements.

How ironic, if that is the case, since only a short while ago,
Raimonds Pauls travelled to the US to give a concert specially to the
US Russians (and not for the US Latvians), who are his great fan base.

[Maris Ozols]

gin...@yahoo.com wrote:

>It's a one of the biggest lie I ever heard. There are ~40-45% russians in the
>police of Latvia. I'd like to say that it's too, too, too much.

I can't see how you can say that Gints. Surely, the employment of
policemen is dependent on their ability to do the job and if they're
willing to beat up old ladies so much the better!!
Seriously though, from 1991 to 1994, I drove to and in Latvia every
year and was intrigued by the fact that the likelihood of being
stopped by a Latvian cop to check documents (and sometimes it happened
3 times a day) increased with every year. I don't know what happened
to the Russian traffic cops. Perhaps they were moved over on to
different duties.

[Maris Ozols]

mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:

> The fact that Estonian and Latvian
> citizenship policies are ethnically based is readily obvious to anyone who
> looked at the issue without prejudice.

'
I would'nt place you in that category.

[Michael Kagalenko]

Eugene Holman (hol...@elo.helsinki.fi) wrote in article <holman-3004...@f24-116-13.pc.helsinki.fi>
]In article <6i8ecr$h...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu>, mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu

](Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
]
]
]> ]>
]> ]> No matter how often and viforously you will deny it, Mr.Holman,
]> ]> the fact remains that Baltic citizenship policies are ethnically based.
]> ]>
]> ]
]> ]How?
]> ]
]> ]Let's define the primary concepts in the claim you are making to make sure
]> ]that we are talking about the same thing.
]> ]
]> ]Baltic citizenship policies = the citizenship policies of the three Baltic
]> ]states: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia,
]> ]
]> ]Ethnically based citizenship policy: a citizenship policy that has as a
]> ]criterion that applicants demonstrate membership in a specific ethnicity
]> ]and/or non-membership in some other one in order to quality.
]>
]> No. "Ethnically-based citizenship policy" also means citizenship policy
]> which gives special advantage based on some criteria that correlates
]> very strongly with membership in specific ethnic group, with intention
]> to advantage this ethnic group.
]
]Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know Russia now offers its
]citizenship immediately and with no naturalization procedure to anyone who
]can prove that one of his/her grandparents was born on the territory of
]the present Russian Federation, something which strongly correlates, but
]is not congruent, with membership in the Russian ethnic group.

First of all, I am not sure what you mean by "Russian ethnic group."
Secondly, living on the territory of the Russian Federation is not
good predictor of belonging to any ethnic group.

But those are really asides. The crucial point is that Russia
grants citizenship to anybody who had residence there at the
time of SU breakup. Latvia and Estonia does not do so, thus
creating very large group of "second-class" residents. Moreover,
in justifying this policy, even on this very group,
proponents acknowledge that it is motivated by revenge.
And furthemore, excluding Russians, inducing them to emigrate
and suppressing Russian language in favour of "tradition" language
are stated goals of this policy.

]The smaller countries in Europe have evolved around a specific ethnic

]nucleus, and this is reflected in their citizenship policies.

Then you acknowledge that citizenship laws in Baltic countries are ethnically based.

]> ]> }You

You asserted that there is no protests by Russians in Estonia
and that generally everybody is happy and is getting along.

That is a lie and you know it.

]> =================================================================

]>
]> Europe-Asia Studies, March 1997 v49 n2 p303(14)
]>
]> The legal status of Russians in Estonian privatisation
]> legislation 1989-1995. Erik Andre Andersen.
]>
]> Abstract: The Estonian privatization legislation during the period
]> 1989-1995 was analyzed to determine the legal status of Russian
]> minority in terms of compensation value, land ownership, business and
]> labor conditions, citizenship, political rights and other aspects. Results
]> revealed that there is a prevailing discrimination against Russians as
]> evidenced by the legislation's systematic distortion. Furthermore, only
]> Estonians can take advantage of the fundamental redistribution of
]> values and restoration of properties.
]>
]> ================================================================
]
]I shall have to dig this one out and study it. What you have given here is
]an abstract in which terms such as 'Russian minority', 'Russians', and
]'Estonians' are being used imprecisely.

That is, you do not like it that author is not an apologist for
Estonian practices.

] I'm here to learn just like you
]are.

The record of your postings here does not bear that out. You are here
to post biased one-sided propaganda. When Latvia lionized SS veterans
and beat up Russian pensioners, the only thing Holman faulted
them for was bad public relations strategy.

[Alo Merilo]

On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Vladimir wrote:

> Alo Merilo wrote:
> >
> snip
> >
> > I wanted to make this comment a little while ago, when there was
> > an argument in this group (s.c.b.) as to whether NE Estonia is more
> > like Ulster or Kosovo in the making. My point being that in those
> > two cases we are talking about historical minorities (which
> > unfortunately have a long history of mutual animosity with the
> > historical majority). On the other hand, half of the Russians in
> > Estonia are immigrants (born outside Estonia), and most of the rest
> > of them belong to the first generation of immigrants' descendants.
> > Which, on a good note, goes a long way to explain the absence of
> > interethnic violence in Estonia. Unlike Ulster and Kosovo, Estonia
> > does not have a burden of a centuries' long interethnic violence,
> > neither do Estonians blame the Stalinist terror on the immigrant
> > Russians.
> >
> > One also ought to keep the nature of the Russian minority (primarily
> > immigrants) before starting to allege discrimination. Immigrants
> > are immigrants, and when, e.g. 400,000 Russian immigrants arrive in
> > the U.S.A. or in Germany or in Uzbekistan or in Estonia, their
> > rights ought to be pretty much the same in all these countries.
> snip
>

> Excuse me, you missed the point. Nobody has said that Ida-Viru is a
> Kosovo or Ulster in the making. It's just a whole Russian-speaking
> county.

Not exactly. According to the last (1989) census the ethnic
composition of the county of Ida-Virumaa (population 221,111) was:
Russians 70.0 %, Estonians 18.5%, others 11.5%.

Thus, although I hate the comparison, there are relatively more
Estonians in Ida-Virumaa than there are Serbs in Kosovo :-)

(See http://www.ciesin.ee/undp/iviru/table1.html for figures)

> In other words, the Russian minority does not live scattered
> among Estonians, but in whole towns of their own, where they constitute
> the majority of about 97 %.

Yes and no. In the two biggest towns, Narva (current population
75,000) and Kohtla-Ja"rve (53,000), Estonians constituted respectively
4.33% and 23.13% of the population in 1989. The rural areas of Ida-
Virumaa were 63.97% Estonian in 1989. Note that migratory trends
since 1989 have probably increased the share of Estonians a bit.

> Did you see in the US a county, where live 97% immigrants? There are
> Spanish speaking people in California, Arizona and Texas, okay. But they
> are to a large extent indigenous, as the Red Indians. But 97 % of recent
> immigrants? I think, this should be made clear to European onlookers of
> this NG.

Change table1.html to popu.html in the above URL, and you'll get
some interesting reading material about how all this happened.
Best regards,

Alo Merilo

[b...@bolton.ac.uk]

In article <35487696...@hotmail.com>#1/2,

I'm afraid that these were not generally "Soviet assets" in the sense of
Soviet "all union" assets. Under the constitution which existed prior to 1991,
Estonia had the status of a "Soviet Socialist Republic," a distict legal
entity with its own government and communist party. The government had (in
theory) a number of distinct powers, which it used under Gorbachev to obtain
as much economic autonomy that it could.
Consequently, economic and idustrial assets in Estonia were either "all
union" and subordinated to control by a Ministry from Moscow, or were state
companies. Other assets were the property of Municipal Soviets or Estonian
state organisations.The "all union" assets tended to belong to the
military-industrial complex (like Dvigital) or were engineering and extractive
industrial plant. They also employed (almost exclusively) Russian speakers.
Now for some concrete examples.
A decision was made by the Soviets to reorganise Aeroflot into ASDA, a
state company operating the majority of the international routes, and a series
of state companies in the republics. This is the origin of Estinian Air as a
state company of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic. It was thought that
this method would attract foreign investment, but little could be achieved
(unlike Lithuanian Airlines) before independence was reobtained in 1991.An
Estonian carrier called ELK was formed at this time under the supervision of
the new state company (which still had responsibility for all civil aviation
in Estonia), utilising surplus aircraft. It was mainly composed of Russian
speakers, and the first chairman was the local Soviet commander of air
defence! Estonian Air retained a shareholding in ELK for a number of years.
Similarly, the Estonian Shipping Company was an Estonian state company,
operating the Georg Ots, prior to 1991.
The majority of large hotels and sanatoria in Estonia were trade union
owned, but responsible to the Tourism Council of the Estonian trade union
organisation. After independence, the organisation retained control and there
were some instances of "nomenklatura privatisation." But after some lobbying
(particularly by the Parnu municipality), they were either placed in municipal
hands, or became the responsibility of the privatisation agency.
The rest were mainly municipal property.The hotels owned by the Tallinn
municipality, such as the Palace, were not sold off, but included in a
partnership with foreign investors, producing the "Finest" hotel chain, again
before 1991.The same thing (I think) later happened in Parnu. The Intourist
hotels, such as the Viru and the Olumpia, were the only ones that could be
considered "all union" assets and were notoriously difficult to privatise.
They could only be purchased by consortia.
As far as I can see, the privatisation policies may have favoured foreign
capital by the criteria that they used, but the regulations did not
discriminate between ethnic groups. It certainly does not stop Russian gas
companies buying shares in Estonian energy undertakings.
The Estonian branch of Intourist was more or less autonomous prior to
1991, with the rudiments of its own budget. It became a state enterprise with
the division of assets, and was not privatised until fairly recently.
Shops and restaurants were mainly municipal property and the easiest
thing to privatise. Some shop privatisation commenced before independence.
There were some staff buy-outs, but I would have thought that the same problem
affected both Estonian and Russian speakers - lack of cash.
I must conclude by a few words on the division of "all union" assets. In
the case of Eesti Raudtee, negotiations began long before August 1991. The
relations with the October Railway remain good, and the majority of freight
waggons, along with the other Baltic States, are still operated as a common
pool with it. I rather think that all the other common assets were freely
divided by negotiation, and I no of no instance where the new government
unilateraly siezed "Soviet Assets." However, there were some instances where
some former Soviet institutions did not return assets that were clearly
Estonian, such as archives and savings bank balances.
By the way, do beware of some of the material written in West European
publications, particularly that written by adherants to the "Chicago school"
on macroeconomic stabilisation - most of it is complete rubbish!

Regards,
Barry Worthington

[eso...@hotmail.com]

b...@bolton.ac.uk wrote:

Estonian authorities declared to the whole world that they have nothing to do with
the former Soviet Union (Russia should have done the same thing), so how then
citizens of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic did not have a voice in
privatization of the property of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, be this
all union or local Soviet. while people who said we have nothing to do with it
were put in charge of privatization? This is a bizarre situation.

Hi Barry, so the Chicago school is complete "rubbish", ok, whatever you say. I
have a thick book (paid 120 kroons), called Return to the Western World (?), the
book is lousy, edited by Marju Lauristin and is in fact all "rubbish". One good
thing about this book are comparative statistical charts and tables for all three
Baltic States (some for Russia and Scandinavia), so it is worth 120 kroons if you
don't care to read the text.

I am looking at an interesting chart from the world bank (1996 - I assume most
companies were privatized by then). You are correct, Estonia is the first among
all former Communist countries (from Mongolia to Hungary) where complete sale for
hard cash to outside investors was the dominant method of privatization - 64% of
all Estonian companies were sold/auctioned for cash (0% in Russia, 0% in Mongolia,
0% in Lithuania, 3% in Poland, 38% in Hungary and 32% in the Czech republic).

However Estonia is also the LEADER in privatizing companies to former Soviet
management - that's what we were debating with Eugene - although I think the main
point was fairness and presence/lack of any discrimination.

When sale/read give away of property to the Soviet management I see that only
Russia is worse, (why worse - because it is the worst method of privatization one
could think of)
.
30% of Estonian companies were privatized (transferred) to the ownership of former
Soviet management (which did not have any competition because as we now know their
Russian-speaking Communist colleagues could not participate on the grounds of
their wrong ethnicity or citizenship or whatever). This is a very high figure of
definitely corrupt (in additionally this case also ethnically biased)
privatization-

Russia is worse (55%)
Lithuania 5%
Mongolia 0%
Poland 14%
Hungary 7%
Czech Republic 0%
Estonia 30%

I cannot agree with earlier assertion that prices MUST increase as Estonian
economy develops. Say a bottle of beer costs $0.25 in America and it costs $0.70
in Estonia (case quantity purchase:) - now US is certainly not less developed than
is Estonia. I would think that the ideal way is for Latvia and Lithuania (and,
yes, Estonia) is to try becoming countries with high wages and low prices, not
with high prices and low pages as it is now the case.

Finnish tourist market is the one Estonians have to nurture and develop. I
strongly believe that Russian tourist market is not coming back or it is rather
going somewhere else - to Latvia and Finland, and there is nothing special about
Estonia that would make it attractive to an average EU or North American visitor,
it is not worth more than two hours of flying for the sake of two hours of
sightseeing. In the same time, if Estonians can maintain low prices and develop
its retail infrastructure, it may continue being a nice shopping suburb for
Helsinki and may be other areas of Finland. No possible EU tourist traffic can
replace Finnish shoppers.

[eso...@hotmail.com]

Vladimir wrote:

> Alo Merilo wrote:
> >
> snip
> >
> > I wanted to make this comment a little while ago, when there was
> > an argument in this group (s.c.b.) as to whether NE Estonia is more
> > like Ulster or Kosovo in the making. My point being that in those

it could as well be - it might be an ulster in the making - who knows. I
can't imagine how you can excactly replicate the Ulster situation in
northeastern Eastonia, because if the Estonians desperately wanted to turn
the area into some big and dangerous trouble zone or start an ethnic war of
some kind (which some of them would love to do), they'll have to bus
militant Estonians to the area as practically no Estonians live over there.

> > two cases we are talking about historical minorities (which
> > unfortunately have a long history of mutual animosity with the
> > historical majority). On the other hand, half of the Russians in
> > Estonia are immigrants (born outside Estonia), and most of the rest
> > of them belong to the first generation of immigrants' descendants.
> > Which, on a good note, goes a long way to explain the absence of
> > interethnic violence in Estonia. Unlike Ulster and Kosovo, Estonia
> > does not have a burden of a centuries' long interethnic violence,

Kosovo doesn't have any ancient traditions of interethnic violence, it is
pretty much an Albanian place as I understand it. Even Bosnia didn't have
any deeper history of ethnic conflict than does Estonia. The history of
some epic interethnic conflict and warrior serb nation was something that
the British and French diplomats made up to excuse from interfering into
the bloodbath. They didn't have to make up any excuses and spread myths of
course as that wasn't their business anyway. What does it all tell you,
well you can stage a nice conflict pretty much anywhere you want to
provided you really want it very much (i) and have sufficient resources to
commence the insurrection of the sort you wish to see (ii).

> > neither do Estonians blame the Stalinist terror on the immigrant
> > Russians.
> >
> > One also ought to keep the nature of the Russian minority (primarily
> > immigrants) before starting to allege discrimination. Immigrants
> > are immigrants, and when, e.g. 400,000 Russian immigrants arrive in

I agree with your point, these people arrived in Estonia very recently,
within just last two, or three years and they have to wait their turn for
being naturalized. It is unfair to ask from Estonian government to be more
lenient with recent immigrants than all other nations are.

> > the U.S.A. or in Germany or in Uzbekistan or in Estonia, their
> > rights ought to be pretty much the same in all these countries.
>
> snip
>

> > Best regards,
> >
> > Alo Merilo

>
> Excuse me, you missed the point. Nobody has said that Ida-Viru is a
> Kosovo or Ulster in the making. It's just a whole Russian-speaking

> county. In other words, the Russian minority does not live scattered

> among Estonians, but in whole towns of their own, where they constitute
> the majority of about 97 %.
>

> Did you see in the US a county, where live 97% immigrants? There are
> Spanish speaking people in California, Arizona and Texas, okay. But they
> are to a large extent indigenous, as the Red Indians. But 97 % of recent
> immigrants? I think, this should be made clear to European onlookers of
> this NG.

Yes, Vladimir certainly and it is a wide spread phenomena when people settle
in areas together with their former country. I believe it is very common in
both the US, Canada, Australia and may be even UK and France where certain
localities might have a very high percentage of recent newcomers.

For example, some areas of Providence, RI were English protestant about 150
years ago, then became Irish, then Italian and now Hispanic. Ethnic make up
changed four times. within some 150 years.

East Providence (that’s where normally I live, population 60,000) is very
different from Providence across the river, it used to be predominantly
English protestant town settled in the first half of 1600s, now it is
visibly catholic and Portuguese, the share of Portuguese immigrants from
Azores and the mainland Portugal, rose from some 2% to over 30% within last
25-40 years – after WWII, Portuguese is essentially the community's second
language, many stores have Portuguese signs, help wanted ads often require
fluency in Portuguese from perspective receptionists and so on. You don't
have to know Portuguese to live in East Providence, but you prefer to
conduct your daily business in portuguese, that would not be a problem in
the town. Providence airport (TF Green) has only one international service –
to Montreal and one international charter service – to Azores, Portugal.
This is a development of 25-30 years. The city is immaculately clean, safe
and you gets used to many Portuguese things you don't usually get in other
places in New England - like a choice of Portuguese cheeses and wines,
decent coffee shops, habit of barbecuing linguica sausage. So the town is
very European, we have portuguese language television channel on cable and I
think four portuguese radio stations. I haven't see any ethnic riots yet.
You can look up the statistical profiles of Rhode Island communities,
including race and ethnicity from the providence main daily paper’s web site
(Providence Journal), it is at www.providence.com, go real estate, homes and
select community profiles. I am positive there are localities in the United
States and possibly canada which have experienced either close to 90 or 100%
population change within 30, 40 years and we have towns which grew so
rapidly that original population descendants represent a miniscule
percentage of the original. .

>
>
> Kuula rohkem, räägi vähem.

[eso...@hotmail.com]

Maris Ozols wrote:

> "eso...@hotmail.com" <eso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >These people deserve to suffer - as you just said. I read your posts for a long
> >time (without posting anything myself - I happen to have quite a bit of free time on
> >my hands now)
>

> Eugene, we can only assume that you are a guest at one of the
> government's secure establishments. The question is which government.
> I get the impression that you are resident in Estonia but anything is
> possible. If you will forgive me me, I have to say that your constant

> changes of tack have disorientated me and I am not sure what your true
> beliefs are.

Nope. Maris, I work for a private company in Estonia for about eight months now and
should be going back to the US in a few weeks, certainly by the end of May. I own an
apartment in Tallinn (buying one is cheaper than renting - which I will either sell or
give away) My tactics cannot change because I am not engaged in any kind of warfare,
thus I do not have any tactics. As I once explained I do not have a clear opinion on
many issues: for some these issues may look straightforward, to me they are very
complicated. If you really read most of the things I wrote, you would have also noticed
that I am pretty consistent - I just write about different things.

>
>
> > and it was obvious for a quite a while that you are a genuine crusader
> >for further erosion of civil rights in Estonia. I am on your side - I also believe
> >that minorities must be oppressed wherever possible. I thought of a few more ideas
> >of torturing the aliens but am afraid this forum might not be the most appropriate
> >one for expressing them because of a seizable German readership which may get quite
> >wrong impression from what I have to say.
>

> How can you possibly know this? They seem to be 'lurkers'if they
> really are there.
>

[eso...@hotmail.com]

Maris Ozols wrote:

> gin...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >It's a one of the biggest lie I ever heard. There are ~40-45% russians in the
> >police of Latvia. I'd like to say that it's too, too, too much.
>
> I can't see how you can say that Gints. Surely, the employment of
> policemen is dependent on their ability to do the job and if they're
> willing to beat up old ladies so much the better!!
> Seriously though, from 1991 to 1994, I drove to and in Latvia every
> year and was intrigued by the fact that the likelihood of being
> stopped by a Latvian cop to check documents (and sometimes it happened
> 3 times a day) increased with every year. I don't know what happened
> to the Russian traffic cops. Perhaps they were moved over on to
> different duties.

... beating up old ladies

[Igor Sagdeev]

Maris Ozols wrote in message <35478995...@news.dircon.co.uk>...

>"eso...@hotmail.com" <eso...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Well, I would disagree with your notion that middle and upper class
Estonians were
>>killed, deported or excelled because they were Estonians. Their guilt was
their

>>association with propertied class of the Estonian republic.
>
>There are times when I lean towards this viewpoint and times when I

>lean right back again. However, would you suggest that Stalin's purges
>of the late thirties were not directed against nationalities?
>
>Maris Ozols

No, Maris, the Great Purge of 1937-1938 was not ethnic-based yet. About the
only difference it had from the earlier waves of terror was that it was the
first and only one to destroy a large number of orthodox Commies.

It is true that about the same time the first two ethnic groups, the Chinese
and the Koreans, were cleansed out of the Soviet Far East (ending up in
Kazakhstan), but it was still rather an exception.

The massive ethnic-based deportations would come in 1941 (Volga Germans),
1943-1944 (Caucasus
and Crimea) and after the war (the Greeks and the Meskhetian Turks).

Yours, Igor

[Eugene Holman]

In article <6iat0m$c...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu>, mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu
(Michael Kagalenko) wrote:

> First of all, I am not sure what you mean by "Russian ethnic group."

By "Russian ethnic group" I mean people who are 'russkij' as opposed to
'rossijane'. Leo Tolstoy, Aleksei Kosygin, Andrei Gromyko were 'russkie',
people like Anastas Mikoyan, Josip Dzhugashvili, and Boriss Pugo were not.
The Russian ethnic group, people who speak Russian, identify with Russian
culture, and would define themselves as 'russkij/russkaja' are the dominant
ethnic group within the Russian Federation. An acquaintaince of mine, let's

call him L.B., lives in the Russian Federation, speaks Russian as a second
language, carries a Russian passport, but is very proud of the fact that
he is a member of the Vepsian ethnic group. It would be very difficult for
him to live a normal life if he did not know Russian, but he is not a
member of the Russian ethnic group.

> Secondly, living on the territory of the Russian Federation is not
> good predictor of belonging to any ethnic group.
>

The overwhelming majority (82.6%) of the inhabitants of the Russian
Federation regard thesmselves as ethnic Russians and speak Russian as
their native language. Of the remaining 17.4% (Bashkirs, Tatars,
Ukrainians, Belarussians, Mordvinians, Jews, etc.), many regard Russian as
their native or first public language, even if they do not consider
themselves to be ethnic Russians. Consequently, living on the territory of
the Russian Federation is a better predictor of belonging to the Russian
ethnic group than living on the territory of Estonia, where only 65% of
the population is ethnically Estonian, is as a predictor of belonging to
the Estonian ethnic group.

> But those are really asides. The crucial point is that Russia
> grants citizenship to anybody who had residence there at the
> time of SU breakup.

It had a moral and legal obligation to do that. The Soviet Union was very
much a 'Russian thing'.

> Latvia and Estonia does not do so, thus
> creating very large group of "second-class" residents.

Sine they were illegally and violently an incorporated into the Soviet
Union, they had no moral or legal obligation to grant citizenhsip to
people who, from the standpoint of international law, are illegal
migrants and their descendants.

> Moreover,
> in justifying this policy, even on this very group,
> proponents acknowledge that it is motivated by revenge.

Quite the opposite. If the populations of the Baltic countries were
motivated solely by revenge, they could force those people whose presence
on their territories is a consequence of the Soviet occupation and
colonization policies to repatriate. None of the Baltic countries has done
anything remotely
approaching this, even if they could, if they were to really pursue the
case, find a legal basis for doing so.

Admit it, Mr. Kagalenko. The Baltic countries were royally (or
socialistically) SCREWED by the USSR. They have gone to considerable
efforts not to be vengeful and give Soviet-era migrants a fair deal. This
is much more than what the titular populations of the three countries were
dealt by the Soviet Union.

> And furthemore, excluding Russians, inducing them to emigrate
> and suppressing Russian language in favour of "tradition" language
> are stated goals of this policy.

So what. These are countries where Russian, which was imposed by a cynical
policy of migration and ethnic dilution, had a marginal presence until two
or three generations ago. It is not the official language of any of these
countries, and probably won't be in the foreseeable future either.
Immigrants usually learn the language of the country they move to, not the
other way around.

>
> ]The smaller countries in Europe have evolved around a specific ethnic
> ]nucleus, and this is reflected in their citizenship policies.
>
> Then you acknowledge that citizenship laws in Baltic countries are
ethnically based.

Not ethnically based, but rather have an ethnic dimension. If you desire
to become a citizen of some country you should have some kind of
connection with it. This need not be ethnic, but in most cases it is. I am
a black American, with known West African, Carib, Dutch, English,
Seminole, and Sephardic roots. If I decided that I wanted to become a
citizen of Russia, I would have to do a considerable amount of homework to
justify my decision. I couldn't just march into the nearest Russian embassy
and demand citizenship.

> ]
> ]Why should the Estonian authorities be obligated to issue residence
> ]permits to members of a former occupying power?
>
> You asserted that there is no protests by Russians in Estonia
> and that generally everybody is happy and is getting along.
>
> That is a lie and you know it.

Of course there is discussion, much of it critical, in the Russian-language
Estonian press about the status and fate of the Russian speaking minority.
But that is not the same as protest. I do not know Estonia well enough to
be aware of every protest or dissident opinion. I do know it well enough to
know that the Russian-speaking community has enough political power and
confidence in the ability of official bodies to deal fairly with its
problems that, on the whole, it does not regard street protests as the best
way to further its interests. More than one would expect, given the
starting point, I see nothing wrong in the charcaterization "generally
everybody is happy and is getting along". Provocateurs like Zhirninovsky
agent Pyotr Rozhok are not taken seriously by anyone. You weaken your own
case by referring to him as though he had anything relevant to say.

> ]
> ]I shall have to dig this one out and study it. What you have given here is
> ]an abstract in which terms such as 'Russian minority', 'Russians', and
> ]'Estonians' are being used imprecisely.
>
> That is, you do not like it that author is not an apologist for
> Estonian practices.
>

I did not say that. I said that I don't know how certain key terms are
being used in his study, for which I reason I am unable to tate a stand.

> ] I'm here to learn just like you
> ]are.
>
> The record of your postings here does not bear that out. You are here
> to post biased one-sided propaganda. When Latvia lionized SS veterans
> and beat up Russian pensioners, the only thing Holman faulted
> them for was bad public relations strategy.

The pensioners were demonstrating illegally, a substantial portion of the
Latvian police force consists of ethnic Russians, and nobody was seriously
injured. The Latvian SS veterans, who fought to prevent their country from
being illegally reabsorbed into the USSR, were within their rights when
they demonstrated, even if many people would have been happier if the
demonstration had been lower key. The Latvian government distanced itself
from the event, and disciplined those officials who made high-profile
appearances. In a country with freedom of speech it could not prohibit the
demonstration or prevent anyone who wanted to from attending it.

Bad public relations strategy made two trivial events look much more
serious than they actually were and propagated an unbalanced view of them
to the world.

THE BALTIC COUNTRIES WERE ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED AND ANNEXED BY THE SOVIET
UNION. THIS IS THE FUNDEAMENTAL FACT THAT WE HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IF WE ARE
TO HAVE A FRUITFUL DISCUSSION.

--
Best regards,
Eugene Holman

[Michael Kagalenko]

Eugene Holman (hol...@elo.helsinki.fi) wrote in article <holman-ya02408000...@news.helsinki.fi>
]> But those are really asides. The crucial point is that Russia

]> grants citizenship to anybody who had residence there at the
]> time of SU breakup.
]
]It had a moral and legal obligation to do that. The Soviet Union was very
]much a 'Russian thing'.

That is not true. In fact, SU persecuted Russian nationalists especially
vigorously. Lenin wrote at length about the dangers of "Grear
Russian chauvinism". Recent data shows that Russians were over-represented
in GULAG per capita, compared with other nations.

]> Latvia and Estonia does not do so, thus

]> creating very large group of "second-class" residents.
]
]Sine they were illegally and violently an incorporated into the Soviet
]Union, they had no moral or legal obligation to grant citizenhsip to
]people who, from the standpoint of international law, are illegal
]migrants and their descendants.

Evoltuion of countries is virtually always "illegal and violent".
Moreover, your asssertion that there is no moral or legal
obligation to grant full rights to people who were born and
lived their whole lives in newly-independent Baltic states is
plain nonsense.

]> Moreover,

]> in justifying this policy, even on this very group,
]> proponents acknowledge that it is motivated by revenge.
]
]Quite the opposite. If the populations of the Baltic countries were
]motivated solely by revenge, they could force those people whose presence
]on their territories is a consequence of the Soviet occupation and
]colonization policies to repatriate. None of the Baltic countries has done
]anything remotely
]approaching this, even if they could, if they were to really pursue the
]case, find a legal basis for doing so.

That is a lie, Mr.Holman. Baltic people did not force all Russians
to emigrate, but not for the lack of trying. They do not
attempt more outrageous measures solely due to the interanational
pressure.

]Admit it, Mr. Kagalenko. The Baltic countries were royally (or

]socialistically) SCREWED by the USSR. They have gone to considerable
]efforts not to be vengeful and give Soviet-era migrants a fair deal. This
]is much more than what the titular populations of the three countries were
]dealt by the Soviet Union.

Baltic countries were, indeed, "SCREWED" as you put it, by the USSR.
They are hardly unique, though. Russian people were, too, "SCREWED" by
the USSR. So were Ukrainians. So were a large number of other nationalities.

Latvia and Estonia have the dubious distinction of trying
to take revenge for this "SCREWING" on people who are not responsible for it.

]> And furthemore, excluding Russians, inducing them to emigrate

]> and suppressing Russian language in favour of "tradition" language
]> are stated goals of this policy.
]
]So what.

So then it follows that the policy is ethnically based. Case
closed.

No amount of your habitual double-talk is going to negate
this admission.

]These are countries where Russian, which was imposed by a cynical

]policy of migration and ethnic dilution, had a marginal presence until two
]or three generations ago. It is not the official language of any of these
]countries, and probably won't be in the foreseeable future either.
]Immigrants usually learn the language of the country they move to, not the
]other way around.

Nonsense. Russians in Baltic republics did not move into foreign country.
They moved into different part of the same country. When those parts
were given independence by Russia, many of those who advocated
independence for Baltic republics saw themselves officially ostracised
by ethnically-based language and citizenship laws. That is
called "deceit," Mr. Holman. Russians were deceived by Baltic
nationalist movements.

]> ]The smaller countries in Europe have evolved around a specific ethnic

]> ]nucleus, and this is reflected in their citizenship policies.
]>
]> Then you acknowledge that citizenship laws in Baltic countries are
]ethnically based.
]
]Not ethnically based, but rather have an ethnic dimension.

More double-talk, Mr.Holman.

] If you desire

]to become a citizen of some country you should have some kind of
]connection with it. This need not be ethnic, but in most cases it is. I am
]a black American, with known West African, Carib, Dutch, English,
]Seminole, and Sephardic roots. If I decided that I wanted to become a
]citizen of Russia, I would have to do a considerable amount of homework to
]justify my decision. I couldn't just march into the nearest Russian embassy
]and demand citizenship.

Again, you intentionally misprepresent the situation of Russian-speakers
in Baltic states. They did not move into foreign country.

]> ]
]> ]Why should the Estonian authorities be obligated to issue residence

]> ]permits to members of a former occupying power?
]>
]> You asserted that there is no protests by Russians in Estonia
]> and that generally everybody is happy and is getting along.
]>
]> That is a lie and you know it.
]
]Of course there is discussion, much of it critical, in the Russian-language
]Estonian press about the status and fate of the Russian speaking minority.
]But that is not the same as protest. I do not know Estonia well enough to
]be aware of every protest or dissident opinion. I do know it well enough to
]know that the Russian-speaking community has enough political power and
]confidence in the ability of official bodies to deal fairly with its
]problems that, on the whole, it does not regard street protests as the best
]way to further its interests.

That's a lie, as I demonstrated.

] More than one would expect, given the

]starting point, I see nothing wrong in the charcaterization "generally
]everybody is happy and is getting along". Provocateurs like Zhirninovsky
]agent Pyotr Rozhok are not taken seriously by anyone. You weaken your own
]case by referring to him as though he had anything relevant to say.

Russians in Latvia and Estonia are subjected to systematic discrimination.
Your attempts to put a favourable spin on this fact do not speak well
of you as a person.

]> ]I shall have to dig this one out and study it. What you have given here is

]> ]an abstract in which terms such as 'Russian minority', 'Russians', and
]> ]'Estonians' are being used imprecisely.
]>
]> That is, you do not like it that author is not an apologist for
]> Estonian practices.
]>
]
]I did not say that.

But that is where it's really at, isn't it.

] I said that I don't know how certain key terms are

]being used in his study, for which I reason I am unable to tate a stand.
]
]> ] I'm here to learn just like you
]> ]are.
]>
]> The record of your postings here does not bear that out. You are here
]> to post biased one-sided propaganda. When Latvia lionized SS veterans
]> and beat up Russian pensioners, the only thing Holman faulted
]> them for was bad public relations strategy.
]
]The pensioners were demonstrating illegally,

And therefore beating of them is justified. Right.

And by the way, why they demonstrated "illegally," - wasn't
that because they were denyed permit (while SS veterans marched
protected by the police, with government figures cheering them on) ?

] a substantial portion of the

]Latvian police force consists of ethnic Russians,

A substantial portion of apartheid South African police force was
black. According to your logic, that proves that there were no
discrimination against blacks in South Africa.

] and nobody was seriously

]injured. The Latvian SS veterans, who fought to prevent their country from
]being illegally reabsorbed into the USSR, were within their rights when
]they demonstrated, even if many people would have been happier if the
]demonstration had been lower key. The Latvian government distanced itself
]from the event, and disciplined those officials who made high-profile
]appearances. In a country with freedom of speech it could not prohibit the
]demonstration or prevent anyone who wanted to from attending it.

Why did they beat up pensioners, then ? Weren't they exercising their
freedom of speech ?

How about repeated vandalism of synagogues and graves of Russian soldiers ?
Have any of these been solved ? Are those cases even pursued, is the better
question, I guess.

]Bad public relations strategy made two trivial events look much more

]serious than they actually were and propagated an unbalanced view of them
]to the world.

The events seem trivial to you because it's not you, or people
you are likely to be acquainted with, who have been beaten,
denyed political and economical rights and slandered in the
world press as "occupiers," "agents of foreign power," and
so on.

]THE BALTIC COUNTRIES WERE ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED AND ANNEXED BY THE SOVIET

]UNION. THIS IS THE FUNDEAMENTAL FACT THAT WE HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IF WE ARE
]TO HAVE A FRUITFUL DISCUSSION.

I do not accept revenge as sound basis for government policy. We will
not have fruitful discussion until you acknowledge that premise.

[Eugene Holman]

In article <6iiv7t$p...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu>, mkag...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu
(Michael Kagalenko) wrote:

> Eugene Holman (hol...@elo.helsinki.fi) wrote in article
<holman-ya02408000...@news.helsinki.fi>
> ]> But those are really asides. The crucial point is that Russia
> ]> grants citizenship to anybody who had residence there at the
> ]> time of SU breakup.
> ]
> ]It had a moral and legal obligation to do that. The Soviet Union was very
> ]much a 'Russian thing'.
>
> That is not true. In fact, SU persecuted Russian nationalists especially
> vigorously. Lenin wrote at length about the dangers of "Grear
> Russian chauvinism". Recent data shows that Russians were over-represented
> in GULAG per capita, compared with other nations.

The Soviet Union arose as a consequence of a revolution which took place
in St. Petersburg, capital of the Russian Empire. Seminal events included
the storming of the Winter Palace and the establishment of a temporray
government of Russia, factionalism between two Russian political parties,
the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, and the eventual establishment of a
country which bore the name Soviet Russia. As these events were going on,
the indigenous populations of areas which had recently (within the past
two centuries) come under Russian control one way or another, were using
the window of opportunity the disorder in Russia > Soviet Russia > Soviet
Union, afforded them to establish their own, non-communist nation states,
even if many of them were beset be by internal strife, some of it
initiated by restorationist Russian officials and military still loayl to
the Russian Empire, other initiated by Russian and local revolutionaries
eager to use the opportunity to create a universal Bolshevist state.

The three Baltic countries were able to extricate from this mess by 1920.
As far as Estonia is concerned, Soviet Russia signed a treaty in which it
renounced all interests in Estonia for all time. It only took 20 years for
this treaty to be violated, and the Estonians, like their two southern
neighbors, incorporated at gunpoint and against all international laws and
conventions into the Soviet Union. The Soviet soldiers spoke Russian, and
imposed Russian language and culture on these countries. Ecen if these
countries managed to liberate themselves from Soviet control in 1941, only
to become German protectorates, they were violently reincorporated into
the Russian-speaking, Russian-dominated USSR in 1944. A substantial
element of their populations was summarily executed by Soviet authorities,
almost all of them Russian, large segments of the population were exiled
to Russia, and the homes and property of the local population killed or
exiled by the Soviet authorities was subsequently parcelled out to
migrants, most (between 80 and 90%) of them Ethnic Russians, and all of
them Russian speaking, brought in to colonize these areas by the Moscow
government (Moscow enjoys a strong symbolic function as the historical
capital of Russia).

Even if the Soviet Union was a multinational state which persecuted
Russians more than any other nationality (although I think nations like
the Crimean Tartars, the Volga Germans, the Jews, and the Ukrainians might
like to contest that claim), it was still linguistically, culturally, and
real-politically essentially a Russian state. The fact that there were
large numbers of Russians in the gulag is unfortunate; but it is an issue
of a totally different kind from the fact that hundreds of thousands of
citizens from the Baltic countries which were illegally annexed and
colonized by the USSR were imprisoned there as well. These are evils on
two quite different levels.

>
> ]> Latvia and Estonia does not do so, thus
> ]> creating very large group of "second-class" residents.
> ]
> ]Sine they were illegally and violently an incorporated into the Soviet
> ]Union, they had no moral or legal obligation to grant citizenhsip to
> ]people who, from the standpoint of international law, are illegal
> ]migrants and their descendants.
>
> Evoltuion of countries is virtually always "illegal and violent".
> Moreover, your asssertion that there is no moral or legal
> obligation to grant full rights to people who were born and
> lived their whole lives in newly-independent Baltic states is
> plain nonsense.
>

There are countries, Germany and Finland, for example, that do not extend
their citizenship to people just because they were born and raised there.
The principle of citizenship by 'jus sanguinis' - descent from a citizen -
is old and well established. It is wrong for a country to take over
another one, flood it with its own people, and then, after that country
re-establishes its independence, demand that they change their laws to
accommodate the colonists.

Both Estonia and Latvia qualify as objects of illegal annexation and
subsequent ethnocidal colonization. As countries which had laws of
citizenship based on the *jus sanguinis* principle, they have no LEGAL
obligation to accept such colonists and their descendants as citizens or
permanent residents. On the other hand they do have certain degree of
MORAL right to do so. We both agree that a substantial portion of the
people concerned did not know that their presence in the countries rested
on illegal premises, nor did they actively participate in persecuting the
local population. At a time when these countries were too weak to defend
themselves and had no international organizations to speak up for them
they were taken advantage of. And they have to live with the consequences
of that fact.

> ]> Moreover,
> ]> in justifying this policy, even on this very group,
> ]> proponents acknowledge that it is motivated by revenge.
> ]
> ]Quite the opposite. If the populations of the Baltic countries were
> ]motivated solely by revenge, they could force those people whose presence
> ]on their territories is a consequence of the Soviet occupation and
> ]colonization policies to repatriate. None of the Baltic countries has done
> ]anything remotely
> ]approaching this, even if they could, if they were to really pursue the
> ]case, find a legal basis for doing so.
>
> That is a lie, Mr.Holman. Baltic people did not force all Russians
> to emigrate, but not for the lack of trying. They do not
> attempt more outrageous measures solely due to the interanational
> pressure.

There is a wide spectrum of feeling in the Baltic countries concerning the
events since 1940, and you are certainly right that there were some people
who were bent on revenge. In the same manner, there are some members of
the local Russian speaking minorities, Pyotr Rozhok in Estonia, for
example, who have publicly stated that they would like to see the
countries re-incorporated into a new, leaner, and meaner USSR. Luckily,
the groups representing these types of thoughts belong to the lunatic
fringes in both countries. Partially due to international pressure,
partially due to an understanding of the complex moral and ethnical issues
involves, but mainly because of a strong desire among Russian speakers and
members of the indigenous populations to put the horrors of the past 60
years behind them, reconcile differences, and get on with building (or
rebuilding) the countries, this desire for revenge has been replaced by a
desire for reconciliation. The three countries have taken different paths,
but common to all of them has been the desire to have all inhabitants of
the country concerned recognize that the ability to speak the local State
Language and a knowledge of local history and customs of the titular
minorities are essential symbols of loyalty to the states which, in a very
real sense, were all established as homelands to protect and foster small
and vulnerable local cultures.

As far as Estonia is concerned, about 100,000 members of the
Russian-apeaking population decided that they could NOT live in a country
in which the titular population dminated and in which Estonian was the
State Language. Between 1991 and 1995 they emigrated. The overwhelming
majority of the remaining Russian-speaking population in Estonia has shown
by its deeds and actions that it regards existing citizenship and language
policies to be reasonable, and that it is willing to fulfill the
conditions set down by the authorities.

I regret that the same can't be said for Latvia, but the Latvians have
monitoring the Estonian situation, and they are gradually shifting towards
a similar model.

>
> ]Admit it, Mr. Kagalenko. The Baltic countries were royally (or
> ]socialistically) SCREWED by the USSR. They have gone to considerable
> ]efforts not to be vengeful and give Soviet-era migrants a fair deal. This
> ]is much more than what the titular populations of the three countries were
> ]dealt by the Soviet Union.
>
> Baltic countries were, indeed, "SCREWED" as you put it, by the USSR.
> They are hardly unique, though. Russian people were, too, "SCREWED" by
> the USSR. So were Ukrainians. So were a large number of other nationalities.

Yes, and each of them is sorting out its problems in its own way. The
Baltic states are unique in the sense that all three of them were
independent countries; their illegal annexation to the USSR was
accompanied by such unpleasant acts as the arrest and summary execution of
many of their top political and military leaders. Former Estonian
president Konstantin Päts was stripped of his national symbols (which have
never been returned) by the Soviet Army, arrested, and eventually
committed to an insane asylum, where he died. Don't think that
humiliations of this magnitude do not generate a desire on the part of the
people who witnessed them, and their descendants, for revenge. Baltic
societies are smaller and less anonymous than Soviet or Russian society;
everybody knows somewhat who witnessed this spectacle of national
humiliation. Everyone know someone who was killed, had property
confiscated, was forced into exile, or was deported to Siberia. Today's
generation of local Russian-speakers has little to do with these crimes,
but they cannot avoid serving as symbols of both the crimes themselves and
of the national impotence that allowed them to take place.

>
> Latvia and Estonia have the dubious distinction of trying
> to take revenge for this "SCREWING" on people who are not responsible for it.

You can't discount the strong feelings that many Latvians, Estonians, and
Litnuanians as well have about the past sixty years. For the most part,
though, they have shown a commendable desire to live and let live.

> ]> And furthemore, excluding Russians, inducing them to emigrate
> ]> and suppressing Russian language in favour of "tradition" language
> ]> are stated goals of this policy.
> ]
> ]So what.
>
> So then it follows that the policy is ethnically based. Case
> closed.
>
> No amount of your habitual double-talk is going to negate
> this admission.

Immigrants and settlers have an obligation to learn the state or official
language of the country in which they have chosen to live. Nobody has
phased Russian out in the Baltic states, and, in the cities at least, you
can use it in more or less the manner as you could during the Soviet
period. On the other hand, traditional languages, which were well on the
way to being relegated to the status of private languages used only at
home and among friends, have re-established the status they had before the
illegal Soviet occupations of 1940 and 1944.

>
> ]These are countries where Russian, which was imposed by a cynical
> ]policy of migration and ethnic dilution, had a marginal presence until two
> ]or three generations ago. It is not the official language of any of these
> ]countries, and probably won't be in the foreseeable future either.
> ]Immigrants usually learn the language of the country they move to, not the
> ]other way around.
>
> Nonsense. Russians in Baltic republics did not move into foreign country.
> They moved into different part of the same country.

This the crux of the dilemma: they were immigrating 'legally' into
territory which as illegally being occupied. Baltic governments have
acknowledged the practical legality of what in fact was illegal by not
calling on any international organ to support the deportation of these
people and their descendants. In the same manner, they have not declared
marriages, professional quanilifiactions, or driver's licenses acquired
during the illegal occupation of their countries to be illegal, even if it
could probably be argued that they are.

> When those parts
> were given independence by Russia, many of those who advocated
> independence for Baltic republics saw themselves officially ostracised
> by ethnically-based language and citizenship laws. That is
> called "deceit," Mr. Holman. Russians were deceived by Baltic
> nationalist movements.

Look. I agree with you that the Russian-speaking population othe Baltics
has had to suffer unjustly for actions committed by the Soviet government.
I also agree with you that they have been shafted (although not without
some elements of masochistic self-shafting) in the sense that seven years
after the re-establishment of independence so many of them are still
stateless. On the other hand, the consequences of almost half a century of
Soviet rule in the Baltics were so great that it has taken a lot of time
and effort by all parties concerned to sort them out in a mutually
satisfactory manner. All members of the titular populations of the three
countries do not want to let bygones be bygones, and all members of the
Russian-speaking population do not see the importance of learning the
local language if they are to be fully accepted by local populations.
Greater efforts could be made to teach local languages and cultures, and
greater efforts could be made to learn them. Some of the bureaucracy
connected with acquiring citizenship could be simplified or abolished
altogether, and some of the people who are still waiting around hoping
that some day in the future all legal residents will be declared citizens
can get up off their *lenivaja zhopa* and start the application process.

>
> ]> ]The smaller countries in Europe have evolved around a specific ethnic
> ]> ]nucleus, and this is reflected in their citizenship policies.
> ]>
> ]> Then you acknowledge that citizenship laws in Baltic countries are
> ]ethnically based.
> ]
> ]Not ethnically based, but rather have an ethnic dimension.
>
> More double-talk, Mr.Holman.
>
> ] If you desire
> ]to become a citizen of some country you should have some kind of
> ]connection with it. This need not be ethnic, but in most cases it is. I am
> ]a black American, with known West African, Carib, Dutch, English,
> ]Seminole, and Sephardic roots. If I decided that I wanted to become a
> ]citizen of Russia, I would have to do a considerable amount of homework to
> ]justify my decision. I couldn't just march into the nearest Russian embassy
> ]and demand citizenship.
>
> Again, you intentionally misprepresent the situation of Russian-speakers
> in Baltic states. They did not move into foreign country.

They moved to foreign countries which, unbeknownst to them, were being
illegally occupied by the USSR. This was admitted by Mikhael Gorbachev
during the last years of Soviet rule. The moved legally into territory
which was illegally being held: the annexation of the three Baltic states
by the USSR was never recognized de jure by the international community.
They maintained skeleton embassies and diplomatic services all through the
occupation.

So, I do not misrepresent the situation of the Russian-speakers in the
Baltic states: I see them as victims, just as the Baltic populations are
victims. In the present circumstances, these two sets of vicitms have many
moral and legal obligations towards one another.

**********************************************

> ]THE BALTIC COUNTRIES WERE ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED AND ANNEXED BY THE SOVIET
> ]UNION. THIS IS THE FUNDEAMENTAL FACT THAT WE HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IF WE ARE
> ]TO HAVE A FRUITFUL DISCUSSION.
>
> I do not accept revenge as sound basis for government policy. We will
> not have fruitful discussion until you acknowledge that premise.

Revenge is NOT a sound basis for government policy. The desire shown by
young Estonians to go to the areas of the country where Estonian is hardly
spoken in the cities any more to help upgrade instruction in the State
Language to smooth the passage to citizenship for Russian speakers is a
demonstration of this premise.

When you are dealing with events as complex as those in the Baltics you
are going to have a range of feelings; if the government is democratic,
some of its policies are going to have to reflect feelings which, as we
both agree, are unacceptable as a basis, sound or otherwise, for
government policies. Sometimes it takes people a while to learn this.
Feelings of vengence also have a basis, and those are the victims of such
feelings don't do anybody a favor by merely crying 'foul'. Even if they
themselves are being made to suffer without justification, they owe it to
themselves to investigate the basis of the feelings and the policies
reflecting them to see if there is anything they can do to show that they
are groundless.

Best regards,
Eugene Holman

[AHetzer]

Eugene Holman wrote:
>

snip

>
> There are countries, Germany and Finland, for example, that do not extend
> their citizenship to people just because they were born and raised there.
> The principle of citizenship by 'jus sanguinis' - descent from a citizen -
> is old and well established. It is wrong for a country to take over
> another one, flood it with its own people, and then, after that country
> re-establishes its independence, demand that they change their laws to
> accommodate the colonists.

This is not the point, Mr. Holman! Those Russians who in 1991 voted for
the independence of Estonia had no idea that thereafter they would be
beggars in their native country. If the ethnic Russians had known the
principle ius sanguinis before the referendum, the result would have
been less clear-cut than it was in reality.

I recognize the efforts made by the Estonian govt. to integrate the
ethnic Russians, but living on a five-year residence permit was not the
bright future Russian nationals dreamt of in 1991, when voting for
independence! They wanted to get rid of the Soviet regime, but they
awoke between hammer and anvil (the RF consulate and the Estonian
bureaucracy). Only then hostile feelings to their new "host country"
have grown.

BTW on this board people speak of immigration. Okay, I know why. But in
historical reality the ethnic Russians were labor migrants, no
IMmigrants. It's a semantic shade, but an important one. Psychologically
they felt at home, and now they are deprived of any possibility of
identification with their native land. They are expected to be loyal,
but they feel cheated.

To sum up, any juridical approach inevitably misses the point. We have
to take into account psychological factors too.

snip

> Best regards,
> Eugene Holman

--
Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Bremen
Dr. Armin Hetzer, Referat Handschriften/Rara

[Eugene Holman]

In article <354DAE...@uni-bremen.de>, AHetzer <hetz...@uni-bremen.de>
wrote:

> Eugene Holman wrote:
> >
>
> snip

>
> >
> > There are countries, Germany and Finland, for example, that do not extend
> > their citizenship to people just because they were born and raised there.
> > The principle of citizenship by 'jus sanguinis' - descent from a citizen -
> > is old and well established. It is wrong for a country to take over
> > another one, flood it with its own people, and then, after that country
> > re-establishes its independence, demand that they change their laws to
> > accommodate the colonists.
>

> This is not the point, Mr. Holman! Those Russians who in 1991 voted for
> the independence of Estonia had no idea that thereafter they would be
> beggars in their native country. If the ethnic Russians had known the
> principle ius sanguinis before the referendum, the result would have
> been less clear-cut than it was in reality.

It is precisely the point, since independence for the three Baltic
countries effectively ended five decades during which the titular
populations had been reduced to the status of disempowered beggars in what
were still, legally, their native countries. This is why the whole
situation is fraught with so much tragedy and dilemma. Not too many of us
have experience with countries once thought killed being resurrected frem
the dead, but international law knows this eventuality, and it was in
accordance with the precepts set down in international law that Estonia and
Latvia acted.

>
> I recognize the efforts made by the Estonian govt. to integrate the
> ethnic Russians, but living on a five-year residence permit was not the
> bright future Russian nationals dreamt of in 1991, when voting for
> independence!

Those who have not taken Estonian citizenship are virtually guaranteed
permanent resident status. People are not being deported or uprooted from
their homes, and any cases that would lead to a possible deportation are
automatically subject to review by international non-governmental
organizations, with the Estonians having obligated themselves to be bound
by such decisions. Once again, they key to altering the situation lies with
the people most affected by it: acquiring local citizenship has been the
path taken by approx. 100,000 members of the Soviet-era migrant community.

> They wanted to get rid of the Soviet regime, but they
> awoke between hammer and anvil (the RF consulate and the Estonian
> bureaucracy). Only then hostile feelings to their new "host country"
> have grown.

For some, not for others. And remember that about 20% of the
Russian-speaking Soviet era population of Estonia is not ethnic Russian,
thus they would have little reason to turn to the RF consulate for help.

>
> BTW on this board people speak of immigration. Okay, I know why. But in
> historical reality the ethnic Russians were labor migrants, no
> IMmigrants. It's a semantic shade, but an important one. Psychologically
> they felt at home, and now they are deprived of any possibility of
> identification with their native land. They are expected to be loyal,
> but they feel cheated.

I think you are painting the picture in terms that are too bleak. The
Russian- speaking population is neither shunned nor disempowered in
Estonia. They have their own representatives in Parliament as well as
Estonians in several parties who are committed to looking out for their
interests (remember that many Estonians are bound to the Russian-speaking
population by ties of marriage, family relationships, and friendships). Few
have difficulties with the idea of their children attending schools where
Estonian is the primary medium of instruction or having the present
youngest generation of Russian speakers grow up bilingually and
biculturally. The problems are sorting themselves out. This is in
everybody's interests. Estonians themselves know that their country hardly
has a chance of being accepted into the EU if the issue of the ex-Soviet
minority has not been solved. And despite the bitter legacy, there is
surprisingly little ill will within either of the two communities if we
ignore people with a Zhirinovskian view of the world such as Pyotr Rozhok.

> To sum up, any juridical approach inevitably misses the point. We have
> to take into account psychological factors too.
>

Agreed. But both sides can only reconcile their differences if they take
the other's feelings into account. Many Russian speakers understand, even
if they don't necessarily approve of, why the Estonian authorities have
made the decisions that they did. Many Estonians understand, even if they
don't particularly love the idea, that the Russian-speaking community is
now a minority with many legitimate rights in Estonia. The proper
combination of juridical practice and psychotherapy can only come from a
mutual desire to reconcile differences and move onwards.

[David McDuff]

On Mon, 04 May 1998 14:03:34 +0200, AHetzer <hetz...@uni-bremen.de>
wrote:

>I recognize the efforts made by the Estonian govt. to integrate the
>ethnic Russians, but living on a five-year residence permit was not the
>bright future Russian nationals dreamt of in 1991, when voting for

>independence! They wanted to get rid of the Soviet regime

But the Soviet regime had already been got rid of in the August coup.
Perhaps a few passages from Anatol Lieven's 'The Baltic Revolution'
may help to clarify the point:

'In early summer 1991, it seemed as if Soviet attempts to separate
Russian-speaking north-eastern Estonia were moving towards a critical
point... Savisaar decided to try to divide the Russians, and win over
the moderate elements, by offering the status of a free-trade zone to
the town of Narva. This was very much less than the full autonomy the
hardline Soviet loyalists had demanded, but it provoked a furious
response among Estonian nationalists, who accused Savisaar of
preparing to surrender Estonian territory... The achievement of
independence, without bloodshed, boosted Savisaar's popularity. His
power however never really recovered from the defeat of his Narva
policy, and there were increasing calls from all sides for a
government of national unity... (Savisaar's) position was... damaged
by his covert attempts to help create a moderate Russian political
force in Estonia, the Russian Democratic Movement, formed soon after
the coup. If most Estonians had been prepared to compromise with the
Russians over citizenship and language questions, this moderate
movement might have developed into a valuable group of interlocuteurs
valables. As it was, it was soon forced into opposition and by the
following year had formed an alliance with the old hardline Communists
forming together the 'Estonian Assembly of Russian-Speakers'. As the
Estonian position hardened, even Savisaar's Minister for Ethnic
Relations, Dr Artur Kuznetsov, was dismissed and forced into
opposition. There was then no Russian on the Estonian side of politics
for whom local Russians felt any trust. When the new Centre-Right
government of Mart Laar took power a year later, no non-Estonians were
included, and the Ministry for Ethnic Relations was abolished,
although in other ways this government has sought good relations with
the local Russians.' (pp. 280-281)

Thus, it seems that Estonia's Russians only 'voted for independence'
*after* the August coup, and that the 'Estonian Assembly of
Russian-Speakers' , the supposedly 'moderate' organization
masterminded by Savisaar, was - justifiably, one may suppose - an
object of suspicion for most Estonians.

This is somewhat different from the picture of Estonian
Russian-speakers eagerly casting their votes for Estonian
independence, only to be deceived by the decision of 6 November 1992,
which restored the 1938 Estonian citizenship law. The realization by
Estonian voters that their government was dependent on Russian votes
was surely one of the principal reasons for Savisaar's defeat, and
the reinstatement of the 1938 provisions.

Regards,

David McDuff

[Igor Sagdeev]

mkag...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:

> That is not true. In fact, SU persecuted Russian nationalists especially
> vigorously. Lenin wrote at length about the dangers of "Grear
> Russian chauvinism". Recent data shows that Russians were over-represented
> in GULAG per capita, compared with other nations.

Could you please share with us the source of the data? I'm genuinely
interested in that, not picking at you (this time).

> Latvia and Estonia have the dubious distinction of trying
> to take revenge for this "SCREWING" on people who are not responsible for it.

Mr. Kagalenko, I keep wondering why you repetedly bundle Estonia and
Latvia. The citizenship legislation in Estonia is as follows:

1. Everyone resident for 2 years had a right to apply for
naturalization (now it's 4 years, so fa as I remember, which is still
no too long)

2. The application is processed for 1 year.

3. About the only "hurdle" is a 1,500 word (or so) language exam.

4. Even this exam was waived for the people who had registered as
citizenship seekers before the Soviet break-up (i.e., had demonstrated
unequivocal loyalty)

5. Non-citizen residents have almost exactly the same rights as
citizens, including the right to vote in local elections (how many
countries allow this?)

Please, let us know, point by point, which of this is revenge?
Or, maybe there is something I don't know?

The Latvian situation *is* different (the "naturalization windows"),
and it seems unfair to me, but even that will be [hopefully] changed
now. Not that you help these changes to happen.

> More double-talk, Mr.Holman.
[...]

> That's a lie, as I demonstrated.

[...]

> The events seem trivial to you because it's not you, or people
> you are likely to be acquainted with, who have been beaten,
> denyed political and economical rights and slandered in the
> world press as "occupiers," "agents of foreign power," and
> so on.

Poor Eugene Holman. Looks like he gets hit from both sides.

>]THE BALTIC COUNTRIES WERE ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED AND ANNEXED BY THE SOVIET
>]UNION. THIS IS THE FUNDEAMENTAL FACT THAT WE HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IF WE ARE
>]TO HAVE A FRUITFUL DISCUSSION.
>
> I do not accept revenge as sound basis for government policy. We will
> not have fruitful discussion until you acknowledge that premise.

Are these acknowledgements mutually exclusive?

Igor

[halm...@msn.com]

In article <354DAE...@uni-bremen.de>#1/1,

AHetzer <hetz...@uni-bremen.de> wrote:
>
> Eugene Holman wrote:

> > =
>
> snip
>
> > =
>
> > There are countries, Germany and Finland, for example, that do not exte=
> nd
> > their citizenship to people just because they were born and raised ther=
> e.
> > The principle of citizenship by 'jus sanguinis' - descent from a citize=

> n -
> > is old and well established. It is wrong for a country to take over

> > another one, flood it with its own people, and then, after that country=

>
> > re-establishes its independence, demand that they change their laws to
> > accommodate the colonists.
>

> This is not the point, Mr. Holman! Those Russians who in 1991 voted for
> the independence of Estonia had no idea that thereafter they would be
> beggars in their native country. If the ethnic Russians had known the
> principle ius sanguinis before the referendum, the result would have

> been less clear-cut than it was in reality. =

>
> I recognize the efforts made by the Estonian govt. to integrate the
> ethnic Russians, but living on a five-year residence permit was not the
> bright future Russian nationals dreamt of in 1991, when voting for

> independence! They wanted to get rid of the Soviet regime, but they

> awoke between hammer and anvil (the RF consulate and the Estonian
> bureaucracy). Only then hostile feelings to their new "host country"

> have grown. =

>
> BTW on this board people speak of immigration. Okay, I know why. But in
> historical reality the ethnic Russians were labor migrants, no
> IMmigrants. It's a semantic shade, but an important one. Psychologically
> they felt at home, and now they are deprived of any possibility of
> identification with their native land. They are expected to be loyal,
> but they feel cheated.
>

> To sum up, any juridical approach inevitably misses the point. We have

> to take into account psychological factors too. =
>
Herr Doktor:
I saw a rather interesting proposal in another N.G. lately. In that this
whole mess started with an agreement between Germany and Russia (wearing
slightly different uniforms at that time)have Germany extend an invitation
to all of the Russians living in the Baltic republics.
Best - - Henry

[eso...@hotmail.com]

Eugene Holman wrote:

> THE BALTIC COUNTRIES WERE ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED AND ANNEXED BY THE SOVIET
> UNION. THIS IS THE FUNDEAMENTAL FACT THAT WE HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IF WE ARE
> TO HAVE A FRUITFUL DISCUSSION.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Eugene Holman

Eugene, I am not hearing impaired. I believe everything that had happened to the
Baltics was horrible. This is my opinion. However, I do not see why is your
*demand* for acknowledgment of illegality of Baltic States occupation must be
the prerequisite for ANY fruitful discussion. I realize that you are being
emotional, that's all fine with me, but I also think that your demand is
irrational and unfair - it is a claim invalidating anybody else's opinion if it
does not confirm to your own beliefs which you know are not universally shared
(most of the world, contrary to your claims, actually recognized annexation of
the baltics - for example. Russia does not officially recognize Estonia's
annexation but does fully recognize Estonia's independence. The world looks
differently to different people, so screaming and being overly emotional is
pretty much pointless.

Reading the 1996 US state department human rights report on Estonia, I made a
fascinating observation - a great example of gross intentional bias and
incredible dishonesty (proving my point that on paper even one can turn any issue
upside down, make war look like peace or poverty like wealth and so on). In the
same time, seriously, I approve of US policies toward the Baltics as I like all
US measures against Cuba. I was impressed by the report authors skill of deceit
while I admit that if I was hired to write a US report on Estonia, I would
certainly do the same thing - although I am not sure I could have arrived at the
same brilliant idea of explaining problem of stateless persons in Estonia to the
American public. You see the US acknowledged actual existence of the Estonian
Soviet Socialist Republic but it didn't recognize LEGALITY of Soviet Union's
annexation of the Estonian Republic. So US acknowledged the validity of Estonian
SSRs citizenship as well. It is impossible to explain an American or anybody else
that an individual who was a citizen of a state for 50 years would loose
citizenship because he or she or his/her ancestors were not under jurisdiction of
a regime that lasted for 20 between the world wars. I understand you are very
emotional (and perhaps that makes you take certain liberties with truth all the
time) but to a rational observer whole preposition seems to be absurd. As
apparently it looks to the state department as well. So what did the authors of
the report do to make this outrageous situation kosher. Well, they (DoS!) CLAIM
that ALL citizens of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic have automatically
received Estonian citizenship, and people who were not qualified for automatic
citizenship - have never been citizens of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic,
they were permanent residents, and so all Estonian citizenship policies are
unique in their generosity because Estonia tries to naturalize individuals or
issue them with residency permits who had never had any citizenship whatsoever.
Is it brilliant or what?! Here is an excerpt (Department of State, Human Rights
Report, Estonia, 1996) from the original text
- "The majority of noncitizens are ethnic Russians. The law provided a 1-year
period during which noncitizens who came to Estonia prior to July 1, 1990, and
were PERMANENT RESIDENTS of the former Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, could
apply for
temporary residence permits. They could also apply for permanent residence at the
same time." and so on and on.
Eugene, did you give these people the idea?

By the way, the UN resolution on stateless persons was mentioned in the NG a
while ago. The question was whether it was directed against Estonia and Latvia
(and it I think David posted a statement from the Estonian foreign ministry). Now
I was just reading about that resolution. It was openly directed against Estonia
and Latvia, but in the same time, it was a bitter pill for the state department.
You see when Russia passed that resolution in the UN, they simultaneously killed
a resolution condemning Cuba on human rights issues. Russian spokesman said (I'll
dig up whole article) that Russia went along with the USA on all Cuban
resolutions for the last seven years, now they intend to sabotage any anti Cuban
motion until US would change its stance on Estonia and Latvia, and if it does
so, then Russia will rejoin the US in torturing Cuba. Sounds as these people are
ready to die for their principles.

Eugene

[AHetzer]

When I read these lines, I must think at what Christian Democrats told
Germans for about 40 years: untouchable frontiers, borderlines of 1938
and so on. We had to learn all that humbug in school. And the end: they
signed in 1990, what they could have signed in 1950.

I repeat that a stubborn juridical point of view is not realistic. On
the same grounds, Estonian maps show Yamburg/Ivangorod as part of
Estonia (and Setumaa, of course, too).

>
> >
> > I recognize the efforts made by the Estonian govt. to integrate the
> > ethnic Russians, but living on a five-year residence permit was not the
> > bright future Russian nationals dreamt of in 1991, when voting for
> > independence!
>
> Those who have not taken Estonian citizenship are virtually guaranteed
> permanent resident status. People are not being deported or uprooted from
> their homes, and any cases that would lead to a possible deportation are
> automatically subject to review by international non-governmental
> organizations, with the Estonians having obligated themselves to be bound
> by such decisions. Once again, they key to altering the situation lies with
> the people most affected by it: acquiring local citizenship has been the
> path taken by approx. 100,000 members of the Soviet-era migrant community.
>

"virtually" is not the appropriate word, if my knowledge of English is
sufficient. I repeat, for holder of RF passports, residence permit is
issued for five years (and can be prolonged, I hope so).

People who want to get Estonian citizenship must make an exam, where the
frontiers of 1939 are part of the subjects. In other words, the language
is only one aspect; national history, national geography etc. are
subjects too. And I know ethnic Russians who refuse to feign consent.
They feel like brain-washed.

> > They wanted to get rid of the Soviet regime, but they
> > awoke between hammer and anvil (the RF consulate and the Estonian
> > bureaucracy). Only then hostile feelings to their new "host country"
> > have grown.
>
> For some, not for others. And remember that about 20% of the
> Russian-speaking Soviet era population of Estonia is not ethnic Russian,
> thus they would have little reason to turn to the RF consulate for help.
>

O yes, the famous 20% of non-Russian Russian speakers! For them the
situation is even worse. In "Russkaja Germanija" (Berlin) I read that
someone tried to call up the Ukrainian Embassy 438 times - all in vain.
At last they apply for "grey" passports.

> >
> > BTW on this board people speak of immigration. Okay, I know why. But in
> > historical reality the ethnic Russians were labor migrants, no
> > IMmigrants. It's a semantic shade, but an important one. Psychologically
> > they felt at home, and now they are deprived of any possibility of
> > identification with their native land. They are expected to be loyal,
> > but they feel cheated.
>
> I think you are painting the picture in terms that are too bleak. The
> Russian- speaking population is neither shunned nor disempowered in
> Estonia.

Obviously, it is my mood to see things too bleak. I repeat, ethnic
Russians feel cheated - BECAUSE they are not immigrants. Real immigrants
would support all that, as Russian speaking people in Germany do. But
Estonia is their native country! When I tell them, that in Germany there
are maybe special classes for immigrants, but no Russian schools, they
answer: So what?! In Estonia they have had always Russian schools, why
to take them?

snip

>
> > To sum up, any juridical approach inevitably misses the point. We have
> > to take into account psychological factors too.
> >
>
> Agreed. But both sides can only reconcile their differences if they take
> the other's feelings into account. Many Russian speakers understand, even
> if they don't necessarily approve of, why the Estonian authorities have
> made the decisions that they did. Many Estonians understand, even if they
> don't particularly love the idea, that the Russian-speaking community is
> now a minority with many legitimate rights in Estonia. The proper
> combination of juridical practice and psychotherapy can only come from a
> mutual desire to reconcile differences and move onwards.

You misunderstood me. I did not talk of psychotherapy. I meant a mere
juridical approach is misleading (and erroneous), since nobody can turn
history back to 1939. What I meant by "psychological factors" is the
feeling of disappointment.

BTW we have similar problems too (in former GDR). Yesterday I visited a
little town in Thuringia, and on the market place was going on a meeting
of PDS (former SED). Ironically speaking one could say they accuse the
govt. even for bad weather. However, the mayor of that town is now a
member of that ex-communist party. Six years ago, you would not have
imagined that revival. Do you mean we can send 15 millions to
psychiatric treatment?

>
> --
> Best regards,
> Eugene Holman

All the best

Armin Hetzer

[Vladimir]

David McDuff wrote:
>
> On Mon, 04 May 1998 14:03:34 +0200, AHetzer <hetz...@uni-bremen.de>
> wrote:
>

> >I recognize the efforts made by the Estonian govt. to integrate the
> >ethnic Russians, but living on a five-year residence permit was not the
> >bright future Russian nationals dreamt of in 1991, when voting for

Was it so late, friend, ere you went to bed, That you do lie so late?
Macbeth 2.3

[Michael Kagalenko]

Eugene Holman (hol...@elo.helsinki.fi) wrote in article <holman-0405...@f24-116-6.pc.helsinki.fi>
]In article <6iiv7t$p...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu>, mkag...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu

](Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
]
]> Eugene Holman (hol...@elo.helsinki.fi) wrote in article
]<holman-ya02408000...@news.helsinki.fi>
]> ]> But those are really asides. The crucial point is that Russia
]> ]> grants citizenship to anybody who had residence there at the
]> ]> time of SU breakup.
]> ]
]> ]It had a moral and legal obligation to do that. The Soviet Union was very
]> ]much a 'Russian thing'.
]>
]> That is not true. In fact, SU persecuted Russian nationalists especially
]> vigorously. Lenin wrote at length about the dangers of "Grear
]> Russian chauvinism". Recent data shows that Russians were over-represented
]> in GULAG per capita, compared with other nations.
]
]The Soviet Union arose as a consequence of a revolution which took place
]in St. Petersburg, capital of the Russian Empire.

It was assited by a number of minorities, notably Latvian rifleman.
Incidentally, Baltic statehood also arouse as a result
of the revolution.

[lots of irrelevant stuff snipped]

] The fact that there were

]large numbers of Russians in the gulag is unfortunate; but it is an issue
]of a totally different kind from the fact that hundreds of thousands of
]citizens from the Baltic countries which were illegally annexed and
]colonized by the USSR were imprisoned there as well. These are evils on
]two quite different levels.

You seem to be saying that killing Russians is more acceptable.

]> ]> Latvia and Estonia does not do so, thus

]> ]> creating very large group of "second-class" residents.
]> ]
]> ]Sine they were illegally and violently an incorporated into the Soviet
]> ]Union, they had no moral or legal obligation to grant citizenhsip to
]> ]people who, from the standpoint of international law, are illegal
]> ]migrants and their descendants.
]>
]> Evoltuion of countries is virtually always "illegal and violent".
]> Moreover, your asssertion that there is no moral or legal
]> obligation to grant full rights to people who were born and
]> lived their whole lives in newly-independent Baltic states is
]> plain nonsense.
]>
]
]There are countries, Germany and Finland, for example, that do not extend
]their citizenship to people just because they were born and raised there.
]The principle of citizenship by 'jus sanguinis' - descent from a citizen -
]is old and well established. It is wrong for a country to take over
]another one, flood it with its own people, and then, after that country
]re-establishes its independence, demand that they change their laws to
]accommodate the colonists.

Newly independent Baltic states are not the countries that SU absorbed.
Contrary claim is fiction advanced with explicit goal to discriminate
against Russians.

]Both Estonia and Latvia qualify as objects of illegal annexation and
]subsequent ethnocidal colonization.

much like every other country, in fact

(more propaganda snipped)

]> ]> Moreover,

]> ]> in justifying this policy, even on this very group,
]> ]> proponents acknowledge that it is motivated by revenge.
]> ]
]> ]Quite the opposite. If the populations of the Baltic countries were
]> ]motivated solely by revenge, they could force those people whose presence
]> ]on their territories is a consequence of the Soviet occupation and
]> ]colonization policies to repatriate. None of the Baltic countries has done
]> ]anything remotely
]> ]approaching this, even if they could, if they were to really pursue the
]> ]case, find a legal basis for doing so.
]>
]> That is a lie, Mr.Holman. Baltic people did not force all Russians
]> to emigrate, but not for the lack of trying. They do not
]> attempt more outrageous measures solely due to the interanational
]> pressure.
]
]There is a wide spectrum of feeling in the Baltic countries concerning the
]events since 1940, and you are certainly right that there were some people
]who were bent on revenge.

Those happened to be the people who got to be in charge of citizenship
and language policy.

(some more propaganda snipped)

]As far as Estonia is concerned, about 100,000 members of the

]Russian-apeaking population decided that they could NOT live in a country
]in which the titular population dminated and in which Estonian was the
]State Language. Between 1991 and 1995 they emigrated. The overwhelming
]majority of the remaining Russian-speaking population in Estonia has shown
]by its deeds and actions that it regards existing citizenship and language
]policies to be reasonable, and that it is willing to fulfill the
]conditions set down by the authorities.

That is a lie, as I have demonstrated.

]>
]> ]Admit it, Mr. Kagalenko. The Baltic countries were royally (or

]> ]socialistically) SCREWED by the USSR. They have gone to considerable
]> ]efforts not to be vengeful and give Soviet-era migrants a fair deal. This
]> ]is much more than what the titular populations of the three countries were
]> ]dealt by the Soviet Union.
]>
]> Baltic countries were, indeed, "SCREWED" as you put it, by the USSR.
]> They are hardly unique, though. Russian people were, too, "SCREWED" by
]> the USSR. So were Ukrainians. So were a large number of other nationalities.
]
]Yes, and each of them is sorting out its problems in its own way. The
]Baltic states are unique in the sense that all three of them were
]independent countries; their illegal annexation to the USSR was
]accompanied by such unpleasant acts as the arrest and summary execution of
]many of their top political and military leaders. Former Estonian
]president Konstantin Päts was stripped of his national symbols (which have
]never been returned) by the Soviet Army, arrested, and eventually
]committed to an insane asylum, where he died. Don't think that
]humiliations of this magnitude do not generate a desire on the part of the
]people who witnessed them, and their descendants, for revenge. Baltic
]societies are smaller and less anonymous than Soviet or Russian society;
]everybody knows somewhat who witnessed this spectacle of national
]humiliation. Everyone know someone who was killed, had property
]confiscated, was forced into exile, or was deported to Siberia.

That is most telling example of your ignorance and prejudice, Mr.Holman.
Russian society is not "anonymous," and recollections of
Soviet repression are no less common there.

] Today's

]generation of local Russian-speakers has little to do with these crimes,
]but they cannot avoid serving as symbols of both the crimes themselves and
]of the national impotence that allowed them to take place.

In other words, you justify policy of taking revenge on them. I do not
think that reasonable dialogue with you is possible.

]> Latvia and Estonia have the dubious distinction of trying

]> to take revenge for this "SCREWING" on people who are not responsible for it.
]
]You can't discount the strong feelings that many Latvians, Estonians, and
]Litnuanians as well have about the past sixty years. For the most part,
]though, they have shown a commendable desire to live and let live.

That is a lie. Reality of Russians in Latvia and Estonia is daily
discrimination.

]> ]> And furthemore, excluding Russians, inducing them to emigrate

]> ]> and suppressing Russian language in favour of "tradition" language
]> ]> are stated goals of this policy.
]> ]
]> ]So what.
]>
]> So then it follows that the policy is ethnically based. Case
]> closed.
]>
]> No amount of your habitual double-talk is going to negate
]> this admission.
]
]Immigrants and settlers have an obligation to learn the state or official
]language of the country in which they have chosen to live.

But Russians in Baltic states are not immigrants.

] Nobody has

]phased Russian out in the Baltic states,

That is a lie. Baltic states have policy aimed at suppression of russian
language.

] and, in the cities at least, you

]can use it in more or less the manner as you could during the Soviet
]period. On the other hand, traditional languages, which were well on the
]way to being relegated to the status of private languages used only at
]home and among friends, have re-established the status they had before the
]illegal Soviet occupations of 1940 and 1944.
]
]>
]> ]These are countries where Russian, which was imposed by a cynical
]> ]policy of migration and ethnic dilution, had a marginal presence until two
]> ]or three generations ago. It is not the official language of any of these
]> ]countries, and probably won't be in the foreseeable future either.
]> ]Immigrants usually learn the language of the country they move to, not the
]> ]other way around.
]>
]> Nonsense. Russians in Baltic republics did not move into foreign country.
]> They moved into different part of the same country.
]
]This the crux of the dilemma: they were immigrating 'legally' into
]territory which as illegally being occupied. Baltic governments have
]acknowledged the practical legality of what in fact was illegal by not
]calling on any international organ to support the deportation of these
]people and their descendants.

That can not be used as proof of their goodwill. No international
court is going to sanction mass deportations of the kind Stalin practiced
and Baltic nationalists desire.

] In the same manner, they have not declared

]marriages, professional quanilifiactions, or driver's licenses acquired
]during the illegal occupation of their countries to be illegal, even if it
]could probably be argued that they are.
]
]> When those parts
]> were given independence by Russia, many of those who advocated
]> independence for Baltic republics saw themselves officially ostracised
]> by ethnically-based language and citizenship laws. That is
]> called "deceit," Mr. Holman. Russians were deceived by Baltic
]> nationalist movements.
]
]Look. I agree with you that the Russian-speaking population othe Baltics
]has had to suffer unjustly for actions committed by the Soviet government.

But elsewhere, you seek to justify discrimination of Russians, so
your alleged agreement rings hollow.

]I also agree with you that they have been shafted (although not without

]some elements of masochistic self-shafting) in the sense that seven years
]after the re-establishment of independence so many of them are still
]stateless. On the other hand, the consequences of almost half a century of
]Soviet rule in the Baltics were so great that it has taken a lot of time
]and effort by all parties concerned to sort them out in a mutually
]satisfactory manner. All members of the titular populations of the three
]countries do not want to let bygones be bygones,

Note that your bias is showing. Nobody is granted "titular"
rights to the country. Every country was stablished by force.

] and all members of the

]Russian-speaking population do not see the importance of learning the
]local language if they are to be fully accepted by local populations.

Learning of language should not be prerequisite for returning
to Russians what is rightfully theirs - full civil rights.

]Greater efforts could be made to teach local languages and cultures, and

However, USA recognized Baltic republics as part of the USSR.

]They maintained skeleton embassies and diplomatic services all through the

]occupation.
]
]So, I do not misrepresent the situation of the Russian-speakers in the
]Baltic states: I see them as victims, just as the Baltic populations are
]victims. In the present circumstances, these two sets of vicitms have many
]moral and legal obligations towards one another.
]
]**********************************************
]
]> ]THE BALTIC COUNTRIES WERE ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED AND ANNEXED BY THE SOVIET
]> ]UNION. THIS IS THE FUNDEAMENTAL FACT THAT WE HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IF WE ARE
]> ]TO HAVE A FRUITFUL DISCUSSION.
]>
]> I do not accept revenge as sound basis for government policy. We will
]> not have fruitful discussion until you acknowledge that premise.
]
]Revenge is NOT a sound basis for government policy.

You argue otherwise elsewhere in your post.

] The desire shown by

]young Estonians to go to the areas of the country where Estonian is hardly
]spoken in the cities any more to help upgrade instruction in the State
]Language to smooth the passage to citizenship for Russian speakers is a
]demonstration of this premise.

No, it merely demonstrates desire of Estonians to suippress Russian
language.

]When you are dealing with events as complex as those in the Baltics you

]are going to have a range of feelings; if the government is democratic,
]some of its policies are going to have to reflect feelings which, as we
]both agree, are unacceptable as a basis, sound or otherwise, for
]government policies.

Eslonian and Latvian governments can not be fully term "dmocratic,"
since large proportion of populace had no opportunity to vote
for them.

] Sometimes it takes people a while to learn this.

]Feelings of vengence also have a basis, and those are the victims of such
]feelings don't do anybody a favor by merely crying 'foul'. Even if they
]themselves are being made to suffer without justification, they owe it to
]themselves to investigate the basis of the feelings and the policies
]reflecting them to see if there is anything they can do to show that they
]are groundless.

Discrimination is not the fault of the victim of it. It is
the reponsibility of those who discriminate to stop violating
human rights of the minority.

[Alo Merilo]

On Mon, 4 May 1998, AHetzer wrote:

> When I read these lines, I must think at what Christian Democrats told
> Germans for about 40 years: untouchable frontiers, borderlines of 1938
> and so on. We had to learn all that humbug in school. And the end: they
> signed in 1990, what they could have signed in 1950.
>
> I repeat that a stubborn juridical point of view is not realistic. On
> the same grounds, Estonian maps show Yamburg/Ivangorod as part of
> Estonia (and Setumaa, of course, too).

Yamburg (Kingissepp) is 15 kms east of the pre-war, and 20 kms east
of the current border, thus no maps show it as part of Estonia. While
official Estonia is stubborn about the fact that it was illegally
occupied, there is no stubbornness on the border issue. Neither the
government nor the public opinion in Estonia is in favour of claiming
the lost territory east of Narva and Petseri. The Estonian-Russian
border treaty officially recognising the current de facto boundaries
has been all but completed and has been on the table for more than a
year, and it is the Russian side who is looking for different
technicalities as excuses for postponing its signature. And not
surprisingly so, since Russia has far more political vested interest
in keeping the border dispute unsolved than Estonia.

> I recognize the efforts made by the Estonian govt. to integrate the
> ethnic Russians, but living on a five-year residence permit was not the
> bright future Russian nationals dreamt of in 1991, when voting for
> independence!

Of course, it is a secret who voted how in the referendum, but in
my humble intuition, there is a high correlation between the votes
cast then, and who is citizen now. In other words, most of the 40%
or so of the Russians who voted for independence were either
Estonian citizens by birth, or applied for citizenship through
Estonian Citizens' Committees in 1989-91, thus receiving citizenship
automatically after Estonia regained independence, or have become
citizens through naturalisation by now. On the other hand, those
60% or so of Russians who either voted against or did not take
part in the referendum probably hung on to their Soviet passports
even after Estonia became fully independent in August 1991, lost
their Soviet citizenship some time later when USSR ceased to exist
(December 1991), and are now most probably either citizens of
Russia or stateless.

> People who want to get Estonian citizenship must make an exam,
> where the frontiers of 1939 are part of the subjects.

Are you sure? Besides, nobody would call them "frontiers of 1939"
in Estonia anyway. You are using German parlance here:-) In Estonia,
they would be either "borders of the 1920 Tartu peace treaty" or
"borders before 1940 Soviet occupation".

> Obviously, it is my mood to see things too bleak. I repeat, ethnic
> Russians feel cheated - BECAUSE they are not immigrants.

What's your definition of an immigrant? More than half of the
Russians living in Estonia at the time of the last census (1989)
were not born in Estonia.
Best regards,

Alo Merilo

[AHetzer]

Alo Merilo wrote:
>

snip

>
> > People who want to get Estonian citizenship must make an exam,
> > where the frontiers of 1939 are part of the subjects.
>

> Are you sure? Besides, nobody would call them "frontiers of 1939"
> in Estonia anyway. You are using German parlance here:-) In Estonia,
> they would be either "borders of the 1920 Tartu peace treaty" or
> "borders before 1940 Soviet occupation".
>

I refer to the book:

Tooni Kasesalu:
Eesti keel tulevasele kodanikule. Tallinn, Valgus, 1995

Therein is a map showing Jaanilinn and Petseri within the Estonian
borderlines. Moreover, the book contains the bilingual chapter ESTICA,
which is felt as brain-washing by ethnic Russians. Thereafter follows
another chapter EKSAMIST, which contains i. a. extracts of the
constitution and the citizenship regulations (kodakondsuse seadus).

We all know that an exam depends not only on the examinee, but on the
good will of the examiner too. Of course, if the examinee will overtly
state that Estonian is talundi keel, he will not succeed. It would not
be wise to utter such a deep-rooted conviction in the target language,
but that is the psychological barrier to overcome.

>
> Alo Merilo

[AHetzer]

Alo Merilo wrote:
>

snip

>
> > People who want to get Estonian citizenship must make an exam,
> > where the frontiers of 1939 are part of the subjects.
>

> Are you sure? Besides, nobody would call them "frontiers of 1939"
> in Estonia anyway. You are using German parlance here:-) In Estonia,
> they would be either "borders of the 1920 Tartu peace treaty" or
> "borders before 1940 Soviet occupation".
>

I refer to the book:

Tooni Kasesalu:
Eesti keel tulevasele kodanikule. Tallinn, Valgus, 1995

Therein is a map showing Jaanilinn and Petseri within the Estonian
borderlines. Moreover, the book contains the bilingual chapter ESTICA,
which is felt as brain-washing by ethnic Russians. Thereafter follows
another chapter EKSAMIST, which contains i. a. extracts of the
constitution and the citizenship regulations (kodakondsuse seadus).

We all know that an exam depends not only on the examinee, but on the
good will of the examiner too. Of course, if the examinee will overtly
state that Estonian is talundi keel, he will not succeed. It would not

be wise to express such a deep-rooted conviction in the target language,

[Eugene Holman]

In article <6ili3v$9...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu>, mkag...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu
(Michael Kagalenko) wrote:

> Eugene Holman (hol...@elo.helsinki.fi) wrote in article

<holman-0405...@f24-116-6.pc.helsinki.fi>

>
> ] The fact that there were
> ]large numbers of Russians in the gulag is unfortunate; but it is an issue
> ]of a totally different kind from the fact that hundreds of thousands of
> ]citizens from the Baltic countries which were illegally annexed and
> ]colonized by the USSR were imprisoned there as well. These are evils on
> ]two quite different levels.
>
> You seem to be saying that killing Russians is more acceptable.
>

If Russia becomes the Soviet Union and then some Russians start to
imprison and kill other Russians it is unfortunate, but still essentially
an internal Russian matter. If, on the other hand, the Soviet Union
attacks and annexes its neighbors, and Soviets (or Russians) start
imprisoning and killing local populations, it is no more an internal
matter and thus less 'acceptable'.

>
> Newly independent Baltic states are not the countries that SU absorbed.

There are no 'newly independent' Baltic states. There are three Baltic
states whose independence has been restored after a half century of
horrors that began with their forced annexation by the USSR in 1940.

There are some differences, though:

1) Unilateral revisions of the borders made by Moscow have resulted in
Estonia and Latvia being somewhat smaller than they were before the war.
The pushing of Poland westward, and the incorporation of formerly German
territory into Lithuania (Klapaida) have made Lithuania somewhat larger
than it was before the war and given it a different capital city.

2) Soviet-era deportations and summary executions of certain segments of
the local citizenry depleted the traditional populations of each of these
three countries. The shortfall was covered with Russian-speaking
officials, colonists, and migrant workforce.

> Contrary claim is fiction advanced with explicit goal to discriminate
> against Russians.
>

If it's a fiction, tell me how Narva, which was a city some 20 km. from
the Estonian-USSR border in 1940, and which had a population which was
overwhelmingly (between 75 and 80%) Estonian, was, fifteen years later, a
town, the eastern suburb of which (Jaanilinn/Ivangorod) was part of the
RSFSR, and the population of which was virtually 100% Russian.

> ]> ]If the populations of the Baltic countries were

> ]> ]motivated solely by revenge, they could force those people whose presence
> ]> ]on their territories is a consequence of the Soviet occupation and
> ]> ]colonization policies to repatriate. None of the Baltic countries has done
> ]> ]anything remotely
> ]> ]approaching this, even if they could, if they were to really pursue the
> ]> ]case, find a legal basis for doing so.
> ]>
> ]> That is a lie, Mr.Holman. Baltic people did not force all Russians
> ]> to emigrate, but not for the lack of trying. They do not
> ]> attempt more outrageous measures solely due to the interanational
> ]> pressure.
> ]
> ]There is a wide spectrum of feeling in the Baltic countries concerning the
> ]events since 1940, and you are certainly right that there were some people
> ]who were bent on revenge.
>
> Those happened to be the people who got to be in charge of citizenship
> and language policy.
>

You are being imprecise.
1. Lithuania used a 'zero option' and declared all legal residents
citizens upon the restoration of independence. For the purposes of our
discussion there is no discriminatory Lithuanian citizenship or language
policy.

2. Estonia established a policy which has been characterized as 'strict
but fair' by international observers and many Russian-speakers themselves.
The rate of first time success in the language examination has been
approximately 85%, and candidates who fail the first time are given
individual tutoring. Citizenship has been taken by approximately 100,000
people, with many more applications pending. Both language tests and
citizenship decisions are subject to review by international
non-government organizations.

3. Latvia established a policy which has widely been criticized as being
too strict and unfair, a quota system makes it difficult to become a
citizen even if all the requirements have been met, and the sheer size of
the Russian-speaking minority there (42% of population) makes local
citizenship a less attractive option than it is in Estonia or Latvia.

You could make a good case for Latvian citizenship and language policy
containing some elements which seem to be vengeful, even if efforts are
presently being made to revise them. Lithuania, on the other hand cannot
be said to have a vengeful language and citizenship policy, while
Estonia's policy is essentially legalistic, as is otherwise common in that
culture.

>
> ]As far as Estonia is concerned, about 100,000 members of the
> ]Russian-apeaking population decided that they could NOT live in a country
> ]in which the titular population dminated and in which Estonian was the
> ]State Language. Between 1991 and 1995 they emigrated. The overwhelming
> ]majority of the remaining Russian-speaking population in Estonia has shown
> ]by its deeds and actions that it regards existing citizenship and language
> ]policies to be reasonable, and that it is willing to fulfill the
> ]conditions set down by the authorities.
>
> That is a lie, as I have demonstrated.

Quoting nonsense spouted by Zhirinovsky wannabie Pyotr Rozhok doesn't
demonstrate a thing. The overbooked classes in Estonian at the Narva
Language Center, the positive responses of both Estonians and Russian
speakers to efforts to improve instruction in the State Language and use
programs such as home stays and summer camps to develop friendships across
ethnic lines, and the efforts made by the Russian-speaking community to
adapt to its new situation are consistent with what we would expect from a
community which regarded the regulations and norms it is being asked to
conform to as reasonable and acceptable.

> ]Yes, and each of them is sorting out its problems in its own way. The
> ]Baltic states are unique in the sense that all three of them were
> ]independent countries; their illegal annexation to the USSR was
> ]accompanied by such unpleasant acts as the arrest and summary execution of
> ]many of their top political and military leaders. Former Estonian
> ]president Konstantin Päts was stripped of his national symbols (which have
> ]never been returned) by the Soviet Army, arrested, and eventually
> ]committed to an insane asylum, where he died. Don't think that
> ]humiliations of this magnitude do not generate a desire on the part of the
> ]people who witnessed them, and their descendants, for revenge. Baltic
> ]societies are smaller and less anonymous than Soviet or Russian society;
> ]everybody knows somewhat who witnessed this spectacle of national
> ]humiliation. Everyone know someone who was killed, had property
> ]confiscated, was forced into exile, or was deported to Siberia.
>
> That is most telling example of your ignorance and prejudice, Mr.Holman.
> Russian society is not "anonymous," and recollections of
> Soviet repression are no less common there.
>

I have spent enough time in Soviet/Russian society to have some idea of
what I am talking about. Just because of their huge size St. Petersburg,
Moscow, the countryside or the taiga all offer a degree of anonymity and
opportunities to forget or cover up actions that you could never have in a
small city like Tallinn.

>
> ] Today's
> ]generation of local Russian-speakers has little to do with these crimes,
> ]but they cannot avoid serving as symbols of both the crimes themselves and
> ]of the national impotence that allowed them to take place.
>
> In other words, you justify policy of taking revenge on them. I do not
> think that reasonable dialogue with you is possible.
>

I hope that I have made it clear here that I am personally very much
against revenge, and that my concrete involvement in Baltic issues, which
includes being cofounder of one of the few companies which specifically
produces material to help Russian speakers adjust to the present
linguistic and cultural situation, has been to foster *mutual*
understanding and respect.

On the other hand, one cannot deny that a layer of ill feelings, including
elements of resentfulness and vengefulness, exists among certain people in
the Baltic countries in the trditional and Russian-speaking communities.
It would be naive to assume otherwise. The fact that such feelings can be
found does not mean that they dominate attitudes in politics or in
everyday life.

> ]> Latvia and Estonia have the dubious distinction of trying
> ]> to take revenge for this "SCREWING" on people who are not
responsible for it.
> ]
> ]You can't discount the strong feelings that many Latvians, Estonians, and
> ]Litnuanians as well have about the past sixty years. For the most part,
> ]though, they have shown a commendable desire to live and let live.
>
> That is a lie. Reality of Russians in Latvia and Estonia is daily
> discrimination.
>

That's not what my Russian and Russian-speaking friends and acquaintances
in Tallinn tell me. That's not what the Estonia media tell me. That's not
what study of Estonian citizenship statistics or observation of the
position Russian-speakers have established for themselves in Estonian
politics and business tell me.

>
> ]>
> ]> ]These are countries where Russian, which was imposed by a cynical
> ]> ]policy of migration and ethnic dilution, had a marginal presence until two
> ]> ]or three generations ago. It is not the official language of any of these
> ]> ]countries, and probably won't be in the foreseeable future either.
> ]> ]Immigrants usually learn the language of the country they move to, not the
> ]> ]other way around.
> ]>
> ]> Nonsense. Russians in Baltic republics did not move into foreign country.
> ]> They moved into different part of the same country.
> ]
> ]This the crux of the dilemma: they were immigrating 'legally' into
> ]territory which as illegally being occupied. Baltic governments have
> ]acknowledged the practical legality of what in fact was illegal by not
> ]calling on any international organ to support the deportation of these
> ]people and their descendants.
>
> That can not be used as proof of their goodwill. No international
> court is going to sanction mass deportations of the kind Stalin practiced
> and Baltic nationalists desire.

Nobody would sanction mass deportations, the stupidest possible means for
dealing with minority problems. Quite a different thing, though, is to
demonsrate to the world community that these three countries were the
objects of genocidal actions, deportations, and ethnocidal population
dilution. There has not been much publicly expressed desire in the Baltic
countries to pursue this line of strategy; there would be much more if the
governments were primarily interested in revenge and spitefulness rather
than in working for national conciliation.

> ]
> ]Look. I agree with you that the Russian-speaking population othe Baltics
> ]has had to suffer unjustly for actions committed by the Soviet government.
>
> But elsewhere, you seek to justify discrimination of Russians, so
> your alleged agreement rings hollow.
>
> ]I also agree with you that they have been shafted (although not without
> ]some elements of masochistic self-shafting) in the sense that seven years
> ]after the re-establishment of independence so many of them are still
> ]stateless. On the other hand, the consequences of almost half a century of
> ]Soviet rule in the Baltics were so great that it has taken a lot of time
> ]and effort by all parties concerned to sort them out in a mutually
> ]satisfactory manner. All members of the titular populations of the three
> ]countries do not want to let bygones be bygones,
>
> Note that your bias is showing. Nobody is granted "titular"
> rights to the country. Every country was stablished by force.

The earlier forms of the languages and cultures of the present Baltic
countries have been indigenous to the area for more than 2,000 years. The
present populations are the result of various waves of invasion and
conquest, but their ethnic nucleus has also been present in the area
thousands of years. Estonia and much of what is now Lithuania represent
some of the areas of Europe which have the longest history of an unbroken
linguistic and cultural tradition. In this sense it is quite reasonable to
speak of 'titular populations'.

>

> ]> ] If you desire
> ]> ]to become a citizen of some country you should have some kind of
> ]> ]connection with it. This need not be ethnic, but in most cases it is. I am
> ]> ]a black American, with known West African, Carib, Dutch, English,
> ]> ]Seminole, and Sephardic roots. If I decided that I wanted to become a
> ]> ]citizen of Russia, I would have to do a considerable amount of homework to
> ]> ]justify my decision. I couldn't just march into the nearest Russian
embassy
> ]> ]and demand citizenship.
> ]>
> ]> Again, you intentionally misprepresent the situation of Russian-speakers
> ]> in Baltic states. They did not move into foreign country.

They moved, unknowingly, into foreign contries. One of my friends in
Tallinn was actually brought there during the mid 1970s for the purpose of
doing research on why Estonians were so bad at learning Russian, and to
develop more effective ways of teaching Russian to Estonian school
children. Only after doing some research along lines that were
ideologically risky (i.e. talking honestly to people) did he realize that
the Estonians' allegedly inferior language skills were actually a form of
passive resistance. Only after gaining the confidence of his Estonian
friends were they willing to talk openly about the occupation of their
country by the Soviet Union. This information was not to be found in any
books that were available at the time, and a person could be arrested for
talking about the issue in public. But the fact that the system of
oppression prevented the facts of the matter from being printed and
stifled public discussion did not weaken the knowledge of the average
Estonian that their country was being illegally occupied. So-called
'forest brothers', nationalist-minded terrorists according to the official
Soviet viewpoint, were still conducting raids against Soviet power in the
Baltic countries during the mid 1950s, although this never reported in the
meida. I was among the first Western tourists to visit Estonia, back in
1966. Our Intourist guide, an Estonian, took some risks to make it clear
to us that we were visiting an illegally occupied country.

> ]
> ]They moved to foreign countries which, unbeknownst to them, were being
> ]illegally occupied by the USSR. This was admitted by Mikhael Gorbachev
> ]during the last years of Soviet rule. The moved legally into territory
> ]which was illegally being held: the annexation of the three Baltic states
> ]by the USSR was never recognized de jure by the international community.
>
> However, USA recognized Baltic republics as part of the USSR.

This is not strictly true. Baltic embassies functioned during the entire
occupation in Washington, D.C. and the Estonian ambassador was even the
doyen of the Washington diplomatic corps there for a while. The State
Department did not, as a rule, encourage American diplomats stationed in
the USSR to visit the Baltic countries. American ships bringing wheat to
the USSR pointedly avoided Baltic ports and used already overcrowded
Leningrad.

Baltic-American communities made quite a stink during the mid 1980s over
the case of Karl Linnas. Mr. Linnas had evidently been left 'holding the
bag' when the Tartu Concentration Camp was abandoned by the Nazis in 1944.
Hardly older than 20 years old, he was the highest ranking officer and
thus nominally in charge of and responsible for the camp when it was
surrendered to allied forces. Mr. Linnas eventually made it to a displaced
persons' camp and, by concealing his connection with the Tartu camp,
succeeded in settling in the US and acquiring US citizenship. During the
mid 1980s, when relations between the USA and USSR were beginning to be
redefined, the USSR submitted a request to the USA that Mr. Linnas,
described as a 'mass murderer', be deported so that he could be tried in
the USSR as a war criminal. The US authorities then discovered that he had
obtained his under false pretenses and used this as a grounds for
stripping him of his US citizenship and having him deported. Although I
don't remember all the details, one of the important issues was whether he
could be deported to the USSR, a country of which he claimed never to have
been a citizen for crimes allegedly committed in Estonia, which the US
government at time still did not recognize as *de jure* part of the USSR.
Mr. Linnas was eventually deported, and he died in a Soviet hospital,
allegedly of a heart attack, before standing trial. In any case, the
entire affair was an important one, since it forced the US to publicly
recognixzze the Soviet presence in the Baltics *de facto*, even if it
insisted that it did not recognize it *de jure*.

>
> ]They maintained skeleton embassies and diplomatic services all through the
> ]occupation.
> ]
> ]So, I do not misrepresent the situation of the Russian-speakers in the
> ]Baltic states: I see them as victims, just as the Baltic populations are
> ]victims. In the present circumstances, these two sets of vicitms have many
> ]moral and legal obligations towards one another.
> ]
> ]**********************************************
> ]
> ]> ]THE BALTIC COUNTRIES WERE ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED AND ANNEXED BY THE SOVIET
> ]> ]UNION. THIS IS THE FUNDEAMENTAL FACT THAT WE HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IF WE ARE
> ]> ]TO HAVE A FRUITFUL DISCUSSION.
> ]>
> ]> I do not accept revenge as sound basis for government policy. We will
> ]> not have fruitful discussion until you acknowledge that premise.
> ]
> ]Revenge is NOT a sound basis for government policy.
>
> You argue otherwise elsewhere in your post.

No. I recognize it as an element of the feelings certain people in the
Baltic countries have for the Russian-speaking population. I don't approve
of it, and I have done concrete work to help people overcome it. This does
not mean that I don't understand the basis for these feelings.

>
> ] The desire shown by
> ]young Estonians to go to the areas of the country where Estonian is hardly
> ]spoken in the cities any more to help upgrade instruction in the State
> ]Language to smooth the passage to citizenship for Russian speakers is a
> ]demonstration of this premise.
>
> No, it merely demonstrates desire of Estonians to suippress Russian
> language.

Have it your way. Russian has actually begun to gain in popularity in
Estonia, and it is widely recognized that a loyal Russian-speaking
minority which is bilingual and bicultural is an important intellectual
and economic resource for the country's future.

>
> ]When you are dealing with events as complex as those in the Baltics you
> ]are going to have a range of feelings; if the government is democratic,
> ]some of its policies are going to have to reflect feelings which, as we
> ]both agree, are unacceptable as a basis, sound or otherwise, for
> ]government policies.
>
> Eslonian and Latvian governments can not be fully term "dmocratic,"
> since large proportion of populace had no opportunity to vote
> for them.
>
> ] Sometimes it takes people a while to learn this.
> ]Feelings of vengence also have a basis, and those are the victims of such
> ]feelings don't do anybody a favor by merely crying 'foul'. Even if they
> ]themselves are being made to suffer without justification, they owe it to
> ]themselves to investigate the basis of the feelings and the policies
> ]reflecting them to see if there is anything they can do to show that they
> ]are groundless.
>
> Discrimination is not the fault of the victim of it. It is
> the reponsibility of those who discriminate to stop violating
> human rights of the minority.

On the first point I am fully in agreement.

On the second point, though, I have to add that discriminatory practices
often have a historical basis. Whether we like it or not, the citizenship
practices in the two Baltic countries we are talking about were put into
force, among other reasons, to protect the traditional populations of
those countries from what they considered to be a threat. We can differ as
to whether we think the measures were justified, or whether the 'threat'
was real, imagined, or a demonstration of revenge. As more and more
Russian speakers gain political power and demonstrate loyalty to their new
homelands, they will be perceived as a 'threat' by a smaller and smaller
proportion of the electorate and the discriminatory practices will be
dismantled and done away with. That's the way things work in democracies.
I hope this is sooner rather than later, particularly since the presence
of a large body of non-citizens will be difficult to justify to the EU
when the final stages of negotions for membership get under way.

Now, do you have any suggestions as to what the Estonian authorities
should do in order to locate the presidential symbols confiscated from
former Estonian President Konstantin Päts when he was arrested by the
Soviet Army in 1940?

Best regards,
Eugene Holman

[David McDuff]

On Tue, 05 May 1998 10:16:00 +0200, AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de>
wrote:

>I refer to the book:
>
>Tooni Kasesalu:
>Eesti keel tulevasele kodanikule. Tallinn, Valgus, 1995
>
>Therein is a map showing Jaanilinn and Petseri within the Estonian
>borderlines. Moreover, the book contains the bilingual chapter ESTICA,
>which is felt as brain-washing by ethnic Russians. Thereafter follows
>another chapter EKSAMIST, which contains i. a. extracts of the
>constitution and the citizenship regulations (kodakondsuse seadus).

I have a copy of this book (Tooni Kasesalu, Eesti keel tulevasele
kodanikule/ Estonskii yazyk dlya budushchikh grazhdan, Tallinn,
'Valgus', 1995, ISBN 5 - 440 - 01387 - 3). The only map it contains
is on page 57, and it shows the Estonian maakonnad (county districts).
Neither Ivangorod (Jaanilinn) or Pechory (Petseri) are shown on the
map, and the Russian-Estonian border is shown in its present position.

There is no chapter entitled ESTICA. Nor is there one entitled
EKSAMIST.

The content list of chapter headings, on page 5, is as follows:

SISUKORD

Autorilt 5
N6uded eesti keele eksami sooritajale 7
I. Minu pere ja sugulased 9
II Minu to"o" ja to"o"kohad 16
III Vaba aja veetmine koos perega. Meie huvid ja harrastused. 23
IV Sisseostud toidupoes, turul. 38
V Eesti haldussu"steem, suuremad linnad, ja"rved, j6ed ja saared.
Lemmikpaik Eestimaal. 55
VI Eesti ajaloo ta"htsamad su"ndmused. 75
VII Eesti rahvussu"mboolika (rahvuslind, rahvuslill, rahvuskivi,
hu"mn, lipp, vapp). 100
VIII Eesti kultuuriasutused (teatrid, muuseumid, k6rgkoolid) 106
IX Eesti kultuuritegelane (kirjanik, kunstnik, muusik, na"itleja,
teadlane, sportlane) 111
X Eesti Vabariigi riigipu"had ja riiklikud ta"htpa"evad 120

Kordamisku"simu"sed 123
Kirjalikud to"o"d 130
Kasutatud kirjandus 144

On which pages do the extracts from the constitution and citizenship
regulations appear? I don't see them, but perhaps you can direct me
to them.

Regards,

David McDuff

[AHetzer]

My book has the ISBN 5-440-01411-X. The map is on a loose leaf 29,5 x 20
cm. On one side Eesti vapp ja lipp, on the reverse a map 1:1 000 000
from Saaremaa to Pihkva.

The chapter ESTICA on pp. 106 - 180, EKSAMIST pp. 182-228. The rest is a
concise grammar with exercises.

Obviously, we are not talking about the same edition. Ask the editor
"Valdus", what's the matter.

[b...@bolton.ac.uk]

In article <3549DA57...@hotmail.com>#1/3,
eso...@hotmail.com wrote:

> b...@bolton.ac.uk wrote:
>
> > In article <35487696...@hotmail.com>#1/2,
> > eso...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > Eugene Holman wrote:

> > > > In article <6i8ecr$h...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu>,
mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu
> > > > (Michael Kagalenko) wrote

If you are talking about "nomenklatura privatisation," then this is a
phenomenon common to all former communist economies, though I would have
thought it less prevalent in Estonia than in Russia. Both the old Soviet
Republic and the independent state exercised fairly tight control over the
assets that they controled, together with the municipalities (and all
responsible to the electorate).

I am not just speaking for myself, of course. There is a growing body of
economists and researchers (including the so-called "Vienna School") who think
that the prevailing orthodoxy of neo-classical economics and its theory of
"macroeconomic stabilisation" is fundamentally unsound.

I
> have a thick book (paid 120 kroons), called Return to the Western World (?),
the
> book is lousy, edited by Marju Lauristin

The spokesperson for the Estonian social democrats, I think.

and is in fact all "rubbish". One
good
> thing about this book are comparative statistical charts and tables for all
three
> Baltic States (some for Russia and Scandinavia), so it is worth 120 kroons
if you
> don't care to read the text.
>
> I am looking at an interesting chart from the world bank (1996 - I assume
most
> companies were privatized by then).

Not so! Estonian privatisation still has way to go.

You are correct, Estonia is the first
among
> all former Communist countries (from Mongolia to Hungary) where complete
sale for
> hard cash to outside investors was the dominant method of privatization -
64% of
> all Estonian companies were sold/auctioned for cash (0% in Russia, 0% in
Mongolia,
> 0% in Lithuania, 3% in Poland, 38% in Hungary and 32% in the Czech
republic).

This is because the original intention was to follow the practice of the
German "Treuhand." It was considered that the most responsible thing to do was
to sell an enterprise to a single bidder who could produce a feasible business
plan that included a long term investment programme to finance the necessary
restructuring. This policy inevitably favoured foreign investors.

The municipalities and the original small business privatisation agency
were quite happy to sell enterprises to their staff or management. Most of
these enterprises were in the service sector, and involved shops, restaurants
etc. As far as I know, these sales were open to anyone regardless of ethnic
origin who lived in Estonia at the time. Of course, there were many instances
where the former employees went into partnership with or fronted for foreign
investors (mainly Finns and Swedes). The privatisdation statistics are
natueally biased at the moment in favour of the developments in the small
enterprise sector, as the privatisation of large industrial enterprises and
infrastructure continues.

> I cannot agree with earlier assertion that prices MUST increase as Estonian
> economy develops. Say a bottle of beer costs $0.25 in America and it costs
$0.70
> in Estonia (case quantity purchase:) - now US is certainly not less
developed than
> is Estonia. I would think that the ideal way is for Latvia and Lithuania
(and,
> yes, Estonia) is to try becoming countries with high wages and low prices,
not
> with high prices and low pages as it is now the case.

Apart from the certainty of death and taxes, it is inevitable that prices
and wages will rise over the next decade as the economy develops and trade
increases. This happened in Spain. It will happen in the Baltics.

>
> Finnish tourist market is the one Estonians have to nurture and develop.

Not in its present daytripper form!

I
> strongly believe that Russian tourist market is not coming back or it is
rather
> going somewhere else - to Latvia and Finland, and there is nothing special
about
> Estonia that would make it attractive to an average EU or North American
visitor,

I really don't understand how you can make these blanket statements!
Estonia's tourism product consists of heritage, countryside, and shopping. If
we leave out the latter, there is enough to build on for the future.And I
would have thought that you had realised that the American market is of a
growing importance to Estonia and the other Baltic States.

> it is not worth more than two hours of flying for the sake of two hours of
> sightseeing. In the same time, if Estonians can maintain low prices and
develop
> its retail infrastructure, it may continue being a nice shopping suburb for
> Helsinki and may be other areas of Finland. No possible EU tourist traffic
can
> replace Finnish shoppers.

Look, you can't buck the market - these conditions will not last. Which is
why Estonian tourism must diversify.
>
>

Regards,
Barry Worthington

[David McDuff]

On Tue, 05 May 1998 12:37:10 +0200, AHetzer <hetz...@uni-bremen.de>
wrote:

I think it's interesting that there should be two editions. It
suggests that the book's author and/or editor took account of
criticism, and modified the book accordingly. Perhaps there may even
be more than two editions? It would probably not be surprising in a
publication of this kind.

Regards,

David McDuff

[AHetzer]

David McDuff wrote:
>
> On Tue, 05 May 1998 12:37:10 +0200, AHetzer <hetz...@uni-bremen.de>
> wrote:
>
> >David McDuff wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 05 May 1998 10:16:00 +0200, AHetzer <het...@uni-bremen.de>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I refer to the book:
> >> >
> >> >Tooni Kasesalu:
> >> >Eesti keel tulevasele kodanikule. Tallinn, Valgus, 1995
> >> >

snip

> >> On which pages do the extracts from the constitution and citizenship
> >> regulations appear? I don't see them, but perhaps you can direct me
> >> to them.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> David McDuff
> >
> >
> >
> >My book has the ISBN 5-440-01411-X. The map is on a loose leaf 29,5 x 20
> >cm. On one side Eesti vapp ja lipp, on the reverse a map 1:1 000 000
> >from Saaremaa to Pihkva.
> >
> >The chapter ESTICA on pp. 106 - 180, EKSAMIST pp. 182-228. The rest is a
> >concise grammar with exercises.
> >
> >Obviously, we are not talking about the same edition. Ask the editor

> >"Valgus", what's the matter.

>
> I think it's interesting that there should be two editions. It
> suggests that the book's author and/or editor took account of
> criticism, and modified the book accordingly. Perhaps there may even
> be more than two editions? It would probably not be surprising in a
> publication of this kind.
>
> Regards,
>
> David McDuff

Without any polemics: I have a whole collection of such manuals "for
future citizens", two of them by Kasesalu. I do not think, that this is
result of criticism as to the contents; maybe for pedagogical reasons.

Last year I wrote an article and I recommended the shorter one by
Kasesalu, whereas the larger edition is not recommendable for use
abroad. (i) There are no vocabulary lists covering all words (without a
fair dictionary, e. g. Saagpakk, you will not manage the matter), (ii)
it starts with stuff like "When are you born?" And the answer requests
inflected data (e. g. January 3, 1952, in Estonian). For people living
in Estonia and applying for citizenship, this is essential. But students
abroad should not be deterred from the Estonian language by inflected
numerals in the very first lesson.

However, as a reader for intermediary study, I would recommend this book
to those who have a fair command of Russian. I think there is no
parallel English edition, because they do not need that approach.

BTW I do not feel scandalized by ESTICA or EKSAMIST, but I quoted that
material as possible subject of so-called language exams. This is much
more than mere grammar and practical language command.

Kind regards

--
Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Bremen
Dr. Armin Hetzer, Referat Handschriften/Rara

http://alf.zfn.uni-bremen.de/~hetzer

[eso...@hotmail.com]

b...@bolton.ac.uk wrote:
If you are talking about "nomenklatura privatisation," then this is a

> phenomenon common to all former communist economies, though I would have
> thought it less prevalent in Estonia than in Russia. Both the old Soviet
> Republic and the independent state exercised fairly tight control over the
> assets that they controled, together with the municipalities (and all
> responsible to the electorate).

What is your point?! I don't care where nomenclatura privatization or outright
theft were more prevalent in Estonia or Mongolia, the whole discussion was about
linkage between old Estonian citizenship and both managerial buy-out and voucher
privatization which official Estonian sources claim was restricted to the Estonian
citizens.

> > I am not just speaking for myself, of course.

I didn't know that - "of course" - I am not elected to represent any nation or
organization, so, unfortunately, I can only speak for myself.

> This is because the original intention was to follow the practice of the
> German "Treuhand." It was considered that the most responsible thing to do was
> to sell an enterprise to a single bidder who could produce a feasible business
> plan that included a long term investment programme to finance the necessary
> restructuring. This policy inevitably favoured foreign investors.
>

I know that and in fact I said that, in my humble opinion, *speaking strictly for
myself,* I believe this method of privatization in former eastern bloc countries
to be most efficient as besides bringing in some capital, it also brings in needed
management and marketing skills, makes isolated formerly Soviet companies a part
of larger multinational corporate network - it truly changes the industry. A
Soviet managerial buy-out doesn't accomplish this, it just transfers property from
the state to often corrupt private hands. In any case, we were speaking about
something entirely different: how justified was the decision to deny certain
citizens of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic their right to participate on
equal terms in management/employee buyout and voucher privatization of Estonian
Soviet Socialist Republic's property because they were not citizens or were not
related to citizens of the state that existed on the territory of today's Estonian
Republic for 20 years between two world wars.

>
>
> The municipalities and the original small business privatisation agency
> were quite happy to sell enterprises to their staff or management. Most of
> these enterprises were in the service sector, and involved shops, restaurants
> etc. As far as I know, these sales were open to anyone regardless of ethnic
> origin who lived in Estonia at the time. Of course, there were many instances
> where the former employees went into partnership with or fronted for foreign
> investors (mainly Finns and Swedes). The privatisdation statistics are
> natueally biased at the moment in favour of the developments in the small
> enterprise sector, as the privatisation of large industrial enterprises and
> infrastructure continues.

The buy-out and voucher privatization of these companies were only opened to
people with new Estonian citizenship, as you well noted some of them quickly
enriched themselves by getting in foreign partners or selling the whole thing
outright for cash

>
>
> > I cannot agree with earlier assertion that prices MUST increase as Estonian
> > economy develops. Say a bottle of beer costs $0.25 in America and it costs
> $0.70
> > in Estonia (case quantity purchase:) - now US is certainly not less
> developed than
> > is Estonia. I would think that the ideal way is for Latvia and Lithuania
> (and,
> > yes, Estonia) is to try becoming countries with high wages and low prices,
> not
> > with high prices and low pages as it is now the case.
>
> Apart from the certainty of death and taxes, it is inevitable that prices
> and wages will rise over the next decade as the economy develops and trade
> increases. This happened in Spain. It will happen in the Baltics.
>
> >
> > Finnish tourist market is the one Estonians have to nurture and develop.
>
> Not in its present daytripper form!
>
> I
> > strongly believe that Russian tourist market is not coming back or it is
> rather
> > going somewhere else - to Latvia and Finland, and there is nothing special
> about
> > Estonia that would make it attractive to an average EU or North American
> visitor,
>
> I really don't understand how you can make these blanket statements!

No, I cannot figure out why you can make these blanket statements with no proof of
any kind besides what your own opinions.

> Estonia's tourism product consists of heritage, countryside, and shopping. If
> we leave out the latter, there is enough to build on for the future.And I
> would have thought that you had realised that the American market is of a
> growing importance to Estonia and the other Baltic States.

Estonian tourism sector competes in a wide open marketplace and cities like
Tallinn, Tartu or Narva compete, for European leisure travelers' money, with
cities like Venice, Florence, Salzburg, Lyon, Edinburgh and so on. Estonian
countryside competes with the French, Austrian and Swiss countryside. Your point
was that EU and North American (I exclude Russians as they are not coming back)
visitors may replace Finnish shoppers in their importance. I was telling you that
I see no way this can possibly happen.

>
>
> > it is not worth more than two hours of flying for the sake of two hours of
> > sightseeing. In the same time, if Estonians can maintain low prices and
> develop
> > its retail infrastructure, it may continue being a nice shopping suburb for
> > Helsinki and may be other areas of Finland. No possible EU tourist traffic
> can
> > replace Finnish shoppers.

> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[Gustav Akk]

In article <6ili3v$9...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu>,
Michael Kagalenko <mkag...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
>Eugene Holman (hol...@elo.helsinki.fi) wrote in article <holman-0405...@f24-116-6.pc.helsinki.fi>

omigod, Kagalenko, you are still here. Generations of Balts
(it started way before me) have tried to explain you the
history of Estonia and Soviet Union but you still don't get
it. I am not sure whether to admire or pity this stubbornness.

Gustav

[Michael Kagalenko]

Eugene Holman (hol...@elo.helsinki.fi) wrote in article <holman-0505...@f24-116-14.pc.helsinki.fi>
]In article <6ili3v$9...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu>, mkag...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu

](Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
]
]> Eugene Holman (hol...@elo.helsinki.fi) wrote in article
]<holman-0405...@f24-116-6.pc.helsinki.fi>
]>
]> ] The fact that there were
]> ]large numbers of Russians in the gulag is unfortunate; but it is an issue
]> ]of a totally different kind from the fact that hundreds of thousands of
]> ]citizens from the Baltic countries which were illegally annexed and
]> ]colonized by the USSR were imprisoned there as well. These are evils on
]> ]two quite different levels.
]>
]> You seem to be saying that killing Russians is more acceptable.
]>
]
]If Russia becomes the Soviet Union and then some Russians start to
]imprison and kill other Russians it is unfortunate, but still essentially
]an internal Russian matter.

Russia did not become Soviet Union. Russian empire did, with active
help from a number of minorities, more prominently, Latvians.
It was not "russians" who were killing russians and people of
other nationalities - it were officers of Stalin's
secret police, who were not exclusively Russian.

Your contention that killing Latvians is more of a crime then Russians
is appaling. I would not shake you hand if I ever meet you.

] If, on the other hand, the Soviet Union

]attacks and annexes its neighbors, and Soviets (or Russians) start
]imprisoning and killing local populations, it is no more an internal
]matter and thus less 'acceptable'.
]
]
]> Newly independent Baltic states are not the countries that SU absorbed.
]
]There are no 'newly independent' Baltic states.

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were the republics of the Soviet Union.
The territory of the SU was internationally recoognized, therefore
there is no legal basis to deny citizenship to Russian-speakers.

Those republics became independent because Russia granted them
their independence.

] There are three Baltic

]states whose independence has been restored after a half century of
]horrors that began with their forced annexation by the USSR in 1940.

Those Baltic states for all practical purposes
disappeared when they were absorbed by the SU. Maintaining otherwise is
fiction propagated with the goal to deny Russsian residents
their civil rights.

]There are some differences, though:

]
]1) Unilateral revisions of the borders made by Moscow have resulted in
]Estonia and Latvia being somewhat smaller than they were before the war.
]The pushing of Poland westward, and the incorporation of formerly German
]territory into Lithuania (Klapaida) have made Lithuania somewhat larger
]than it was before the war and given it a different capital city.

Which confirms my point that those countries are not pre-war
Latvia , Estonia and Lithuania.

]2) Soviet-era deportations and summary executions of certain segments of

]the local citizenry depleted the traditional populations of each of these
]three countries. The shortfall was covered with Russian-speaking
]officials, colonists, and migrant workforce.

That is not correct way to describe the situation. The population
was depleted by repressions across the whole territory of
the Soviet Union. Baltic republics were not targeted more
then any other nationality. Migration of the workforce within
Soviet Union occured routinely when new large industrial
enterprises were started. Therefore, there is no basis for any
special pleading by Latvia and Estonia.

]> Contrary claim is fiction advanced with explicit goal to discriminate

]> against Russians.
]>
]
]If it's a fiction, tell me how Narva, which was a city some 20 km. from
]the Estonian-USSR border in 1940, and which had a population which was
]overwhelmingly (between 75 and 80%) Estonian, was, fifteen years later, a
]town, the eastern suburb of which (Jaanilinn/Ivangorod) was part of the
]RSFSR, and the population of which was virtually 100% Russian.

See above.

]> ]> ]If the populations of the Baltic countries were

]> ]> ]motivated solely by revenge, they could force those people whose presence
]> ]> ]on their territories is a consequence of the Soviet occupation and
]> ]> ]colonization policies to repatriate. None of the Baltic countries has done
]> ]> ]anything remotely
]> ]> ]approaching this, even if they could, if they were to really pursue the
]> ]> ]case, find a legal basis for doing so.
]> ]>
]> ]> That is a lie, Mr.Holman. Baltic people did not force all Russians
]> ]> to emigrate, but not for the lack of trying. They do not
]> ]> attempt more outrageous measures solely due to the interanational
]> ]> pressure.
]> ]
]> ]There is a wide spectrum of feeling in the Baltic countries concerning the
]> ]events since 1940, and you are certainly right that there were some people
]> ]who were bent on revenge.
]>
]> Those happened to be the people who got to be in charge of citizenship
]> and language policy.
]>
]
]You are being imprecise.
]1. Lithuania used a 'zero option' and declared all legal residents
]citizens upon the restoration of independence. For the purposes of our
]discussion there is no discriminatory Lithuanian citizenship or language
]policy.
]
]2. Estonia established a policy which has been characterized as 'strict
]but fair' by international observers and many Russian-speakers themselves.

Any policy that denied citizenship during the crucial period of
privatisation and formation of state institutions to about 40%
of its population can not be deemed fair.

]The rate of first time success in the language examination has been

]approximately 85%, and candidates who fail the first time are given
]individual tutoring. Citizenship has been taken by approximately 100,000
]people, with many more applications pending. Both language tests and
]citizenship decisions are subject to review by international
]non-government organizations.

The number of Estonian residents who chose Russian citizenship is close
to 100,000 as well. Therefore, your assertion that all is well strikes me
as obvious lie.

]3. Latvia established a policy which has widely been criticized as being

]too strict and unfair, a quota system makes it difficult to become a
]citizen even if all the requirements have been met, and the sheer size of
]the Russian-speaking minority there (42% of population) makes local
]citizenship a less attractive option than it is in Estonia or Latvia.
]
]You could make a good case for Latvian citizenship and language policy
]containing some elements which seem to be vengeful, even if efforts are
]presently being made to revise them. Lithuania, on the other hand cannot
]be said to have a vengeful language and citizenship policy, while
]Estonia's policy is essentially legalistic, as is otherwise common in that
]culture.

Estonian and Lithuanian language and citizenship policies are discriminatory.

]> ]As far as Estonia is concerned, about 100,000 members of the

]> ]Russian-apeaking population decided that they could NOT live in a country
]> ]in which the titular population dminated and in which Estonian was the
]> ]State Language. Between 1991 and 1995 they emigrated. The overwhelming
]> ]majority of the remaining Russian-speaking population in Estonia has shown
]> ]by its deeds and actions that it regards existing citizenship and language
]> ]policies to be reasonable, and that it is willing to fulfill the
]> ]conditions set down by the authorities.
]>
]> That is a lie, as I have demonstrated.
]
]Quoting nonsense spouted by Zhirinovsky wannabie Pyotr Rozhok doesn't
]demonstrate a thing.

Dismissing people who fight for the rights of oppressed Russian minority
as "Zhirinovsky wannabies" shows that you are not objective.

] The overbooked classes in Estonian at the Narva

]Language Center, the positive responses of both Estonians and Russian
]speakers to efforts to improve instruction in the State Language and use
]programs such as home stays and summer camps to develop friendships across
]ethnic lines, and the efforts made by the Russian-speaking community to
]adapt to its new situation are consistent with what we would expect from a
]community which regarded the regulations and norms it is being asked to
]conform to as reasonable and acceptable.

No, rather, it reflect natural reaction of oppressed minority to try to
appease the authorities. I believe that is not the right course, but
I can not blame russian-speakers, because their situation is rather dire.

]> ]Yes, and each of them is sorting out its problems in its own way. The

]> ]Baltic states are unique in the sense that all three of them were
]> ]independent countries; their illegal annexation to the USSR was
]> ]accompanied by such unpleasant acts as the arrest and summary execution of
]> ]many of their top political and military leaders. Former Estonian
]> ]president Konstantin Päts was stripped of his national symbols (which have
]> ]never been returned) by the Soviet Army, arrested, and eventually
]> ]committed to an insane asylum, where he died. Don't think that
]> ]humiliations of this magnitude do not generate a desire on the part of the
]> ]people who witnessed them, and their descendants, for revenge. Baltic
]> ]societies are smaller and less anonymous than Soviet or Russian society;
]> ]everybody knows somewhat who witnessed this spectacle of national
]> ]humiliation. Everyone know someone who was killed, had property
]> ]confiscated, was forced into exile, or was deported to Siberia.
]>
]> That is most telling example of your ignorance and prejudice, Mr.Holman.
]> Russian society is not "anonymous," and recollections of
]> Soviet repression are no less common there.
]>
]
]I have spent enough time in Soviet/Russian society to have some idea of
]what I am talking about.

Clearly, that is not true.

] Just because of their huge size St. Petersburg,

]Moscow, the countryside or the taiga all offer a degree of anonymity and
]opportunities to forget or cover up actions that you could never have in a
]small city like Tallinn.

Again, you betray your ignorance of Russia and anti-Russian bias.

]>
]> ] Today's

]> ]generation of local Russian-speakers has little to do with these crimes,
]> ]but they cannot avoid serving as symbols of both the crimes themselves and
]> ]of the national impotence that allowed them to take place.
]>
]> In other words, you justify policy of taking revenge on them. I do not
]> think that reasonable dialogue with you is possible.
]>
]
]I hope that I have made it clear here that I am personally very much
]against revenge,

No. You made clear that you are willing to look very hard for excuses to
justify the policy of discrimination that based on the feelings of
revenge.

]and that my concrete involvement in Baltic issues, which

]includes being cofounder of one of the few companies which specifically
]produces material to help Russian speakers adjust to the present
]linguistic and cultural situation, has been to foster *mutual*
]understanding and respect.
]
]On the other hand, one cannot deny that a layer of ill feelings, including
]elements of resentfulness and vengefulness, exists among certain people in
]the Baltic countries in the trditional and Russian-speaking communities.
]It would be naive to assume otherwise. The fact that such feelings can be
]found does not mean that they dominate attitudes in politics or in
]everyday life.

The fact is that citizenship and language policies in Lithuania and Estonia
are charted based on the vengeful feeling towards people who
are not responsible for the Soviet Union's policies.

]> ]> Latvia and Estonia have the dubious distinction of trying

]> ]> to take revenge for this "SCREWING" on people who are not
]responsible for it.
]> ]
]> ]You can't discount the strong feelings that many Latvians, Estonians, and
]> ]Litnuanians as well have about the past sixty years. For the most part,
]> ]though, they have shown a commendable desire to live and let live.
]>
]> That is a lie. Reality of Russians in Latvia and Estonia is daily
]> discrimination.
]>
]
]That's not what my Russian and Russian-speaking friends and acquaintances
]in Tallinn tell me.

Well, based on your attitude towards Russia and Russians I would be
surprised if any decent russian would so much as speak to you.

] That's not what the Estonia media tell me.

I am sure that is correct, just like I am sure that Pravda on 1940
reported how happy Balts are to be incorporated in the SU.

] That's not

]what study of Estonian citizenship statistics or observation of the
]position Russian-speakers have established for themselves in Estonian
]politics and business tell me.

The study which I posted contradicts your assertion.

]>
]> ]>

]> ]> ]These are countries where Russian, which was imposed by a cynical
]> ]> ]policy of migration and ethnic dilution, had a marginal presence until two
]> ]> ]or three generations ago. It is not the official language of any of these
]> ]> ]countries, and probably won't be in the foreseeable future either.
]> ]> ]Immigrants usually learn the language of the country they move to, not the
]> ]> ]other way around.
]> ]>
]> ]> Nonsense. Russians in Baltic republics did not move into foreign country.
]> ]> They moved into different part of the same country.
]> ]
]> ]This the crux of the dilemma: they were immigrating 'legally' into
]> ]territory which as illegally being occupied. Baltic governments have
]> ]acknowledged the practical legality of what in fact was illegal by not
]> ]calling on any international organ to support the deportation of these
]> ]people and their descendants.
]>
]> That can not be used as proof of their goodwill. No international
]> court is going to sanction mass deportations of the kind Stalin practiced
]> and Baltic nationalists desire.
]
]Nobody would sanction mass deportations, the stupidest possible means for
]dealing with minority problems. Quite a different thing, though, is to
]demonsrate to the world community that these three countries were the
]objects of genocidal actions, deportations, and ethnocidal population
]dilution. There has not been much publicly expressed desire in the Baltic
]countries to pursue this line of strategy; there would be much more if the
]governments were primarily interested in revenge and spitefulness rather
]than in working for national conciliation.

As I said, lack of interest is due to the realization that trying to heap
the blame on Russian-speakers for the policy of the Soviet Union would not get
Baltic states anywhere in the international court. Rather, if they were
stupid enough to do this, europeans would have noticed the reality
of the ethnically-based citizenship and language policies
much earlier.

It is still welcome decision to delay Latvain admission into EU until it stops
its neo-fascist policies, but it should have come about earlier.

]> ]Look. I agree with you that the Russian-speaking population othe Baltics

]> ]has had to suffer unjustly for actions committed by the Soviet government.
]>
]> But elsewhere, you seek to justify discrimination of Russians, so
]> your alleged agreement rings hollow.
]>
]> ]I also agree with you that they have been shafted (although not without
]> ]some elements of masochistic self-shafting) in the sense that seven years
]> ]after the re-establishment of independence so many of them are still
]> ]stateless. On the other hand, the consequences of almost half a century of
]> ]Soviet rule in the Baltics were so great that it has taken a lot of time
]> ]and effort by all parties concerned to sort them out in a mutually
]> ]satisfactory manner. All members of the titular populations of the three
]> ]countries do not want to let bygones be bygones,
]>
]> Note that your bias is showing. Nobody is granted "titular"
]> rights to the country. Every country was stablished by force.
]
]The earlier forms of the languages and cultures of the present Baltic
]countries have been indigenous to the area for more than 2,000 years.

So was the presence of Russians.

] The

That does not change the fact that Russians werw within
internationally recognized border of the Soviet Union.

]> ]They moved to foreign countries which, unbeknownst to them, were being

]> ]illegally occupied by the USSR. This was admitted by Mikhael Gorbachev
]> ]during the last years of Soviet rule. The moved legally into territory
]> ]which was illegally being held: the annexation of the three Baltic states
]> ]by the USSR was never recognized de jure by the international community.
]>
]> However, USA recognized Baltic republics as part of the USSR.
]
]This is not strictly true.

No, that is strictly true. There are international treaties
acknowledging international borders in Europe that US signed.

] Baltic embassies functioned during the entire

]occupation in Washington, D.C. and the Estonian ambassador was even the
]doyen of the Washington diplomatic corps there for a while.

That is an example of symbolic posturing that was typical
for he both sides of the Cold war.

] The State

The record of your postings on this newsgroup tells me otherwise.

]>
]> ] The desire shown by

]> ]young Estonians to go to the areas of the country where Estonian is hardly
]> ]spoken in the cities any more to help upgrade instruction in the State
]> ]Language to smooth the passage to citizenship for Russian speakers is a
]> ]demonstration of this premise.
]>
]> No, it merely demonstrates desire of Estonians to suippress Russian
]> language.
]
]Have it your way. Russian has actually begun to gain in popularity in
]Estonia, and it is widely recognized that a loyal Russian-speaking
]minority which is bilingual and bicultural is an important intellectual
]and economic resource for the country's future.

In other words, Estonians are not willing to acknowlede Russian language
and Russian culture as of the equal status. Otherwise, monolingual
Russians would have the same acceptance.

]>
]> ]When you are dealing with events as complex as those in the Baltics you

]> ]are going to have a range of feelings; if the government is democratic,
]> ]some of its policies are going to have to reflect feelings which, as we
]> ]both agree, are unacceptable as a basis, sound or otherwise, for
]> ]government policies.
]>
]> Eslonian and Latvian governments can not be fully term "dmocratic,"
]> since large proportion of populace had no opportunity to vote
]> for them.
]>
]> ] Sometimes it takes people a while to learn this.
]> ]Feelings of vengence also have a basis, and those are the victims of such
]> ]feelings don't do anybody a favor by merely crying 'foul'. Even if they
]> ]themselves are being made to suffer without justification, they owe it to
]> ]themselves to investigate the basis of the feelings and the policies
]> ]reflecting them to see if there is anything they can do to show that they
]> ]are groundless.
]>
]> Discrimination is not the fault of the victim of it. It is
]> the reponsibility of those who discriminate to stop violating
]> human rights of the minority.
]
]On the first point I am fully in agreement.
]
]On the second point, though, I have to add that discriminatory practices
]often have a historical basis.

That does not change anything. Southern slavery in the USA had
"historical basis."

] Whether we like it or not, the citizenship
]practices in the two Baltic countries we are talking about were put into
]force, among other reasons, to protect the traditional populations of
]those countries from what they considered to be a threat.

Estonia and Latvia can not be considered democracies until
they grant full civil and economic rights to all residents.

] We can differ as

]to whether we think the measures were justified, or whether the 'threat'
]was real, imagined, or a demonstration of revenge. As more and more
]Russian speakers gain political power and demonstrate loyalty to their new
]homelands, they will be perceived as a 'threat' by a smaller and smaller
]proportion of the electorate and the discriminatory practices will be
]dismantled and done away with.

Russian-speakers should not be obligated to demonstrate loyalty
to the discriminatory government in order to get discrimination to
stop. It is not the responsibility of oppressed group to stop the oppression.

]That's the way things work in democracies.

Estonai and Latvia are not democracies, since very large proportion of
their population do not participate in elections and have limitied
civil rights.

]I hope this is sooner rather than later, particularly since the presence

]of a large body of non-citizens will be difficult to justify to the EU
]when the final stages of negotions for membership get under way.

It is my opinion that Russia should not sign and ratify border and
other treaties with Estonia and Latvia until they stop practicing
discrimination against the Russian-speakers. I will vote
for the Duma representative only if he is unambiguous on this point,
and will encourage my friends to do likewise.

]Now, do you have any suggestions as to what the Estonian authorities

]should do in order to locate the presidential symbols confiscated from
]former Estonian President Konstantin Päts when he was arrested by the
]Soviet Army in 1940?

I consider the fate of the trinkets incomparably trivial next to
the plight of hundreds of thousands of people.

[Urmas Sepp]

Calling Pyotr Rozhok a "Zhirinovsky wannabie" is very much objective
because that's exactly what he is.

2000 years of the presence of Russians in Baltic countries!!! Mr
Kagalenko, do you know anything at all about the history of those
countries?

Pardon me for being little ironic here, but it seems to me that the main
point mr Kagalenko is making is that whatever Balts do is wrong and
discriminative towards Russian speaking population. I think if one day
Estonia would decide to use a 'zero option' to solve the citizenship
problems then he would find something very discriminative about that as
well.

This whole discussion reminds me of an old joke (I don't really mind if
you consider this to be hostile towards Russians because it is). In that
joke somebody (don't ask me who - I don't remember) was having a dispute
with a Russian about something (don't ask me what). On every argument
the Russian answered 'Nu i shto?' (So what?). (I think the joke was
inspired by a cartoon.)

Best wishes!
Urmas
--
Maier's Law:
If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.

[an_on...@hotmail.com]

In article <35502B...@fv.aetec.ee>#1/8,
Urmas Sepp <se...@fv.aetec.ee> wrote:
>
> Michael Kagalenko wrote:
> [snip]

>
> Pardon me for being little ironic here, but it seems to me that the main
> point mr Kagalenko is making is that whatever Balts do is wrong and
> discriminative towards Russian speaking population. I think if one day
> Estonia would decide to use a 'zero option' to solve the citizenship
> problems then he would find something very discriminative about that as
> well.
>

Lithuania has tried the zero option, and has had no problems with Russia since
then. Why don't Estonia and Latvia try this? Besides, we'll see if you're
right!.. :)

> This whole discussion reminds me of an old joke (I don't really mind if
> you consider this to be hostile towards Russians because it is). In that
> joke somebody (don't ask me who - I don't remember) was having a dispute
> with a Russian about something (don't ask me what). On every argument
> the Russian answered 'Nu i shto?' (So what?). (I think the joke was
> inspired by a cartoon.)

My impression is that this joke (not that I found it particularly funny,
but maybe that's just me) is much more applicable to the attitude of most
Western countries to Estonian and Latvian policies since independence.

>
> Best wishes!
> Urmas
> --
> Maier's Law:
> If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.
>

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

[b...@bolton.ac.uk]

In article <354F1E64...@hotmail.com>#1/2,

eso...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> b...@bolton.ac.uk wrote:
> If you are talking about "nomenklatura privatisation," then this is a
>
> > phenomenon common to all former communist economies, though I would have
> > thought it less prevalent in Estonia than in Russia. Both the old Soviet
> > Republic and the independent state exercised fairly tight control over the
> > assets that they controled, together with the municipalities (and all
> > responsible to the electorate).
>
> What is your point?! I don't care where nomenclatura privatization or
outright
> theft were more prevalent in Estonia or Mongolia, the whole discussion was
about
> linkage between old Estonian citizenship and both managerial buy-out and
voucher
> privatization which official Estonian sources claim was restricted to the
Estonian
> citizens.

In one of your original postings, you seemed to lump together all cases
where ownership of the business passed into the hands of the previous
management. We are arguing, I think, about the first signifivant wave of
privatisation in the Estonian economy - the privatisation of small businesses.
These were largely in the service sector, and comprised shops, restaurants,
small hotels, garages etc. This form of privatisation is now largely
concluded.
Now there were some cases of "nomenklatura" privatisation, where the
management purcheased (or sometimes sold or leased) the enterprise illegaly.
But in the majority of cases, the enterprises were sold by the municipality or
privatisation agency in a perfectly legal way. I understand that the usual
practice was to offer the existing management and staff "first refusal." If
they could not raise the purchase price (or find a suitable foreign partner),
then the business was usually sold by public auction. So all "management
buy-outs" cannot be branded as "theft of Soviet assets." But as I have tried
to demonstrate in previous postings, this concept does not hold water.

> > > I am not just speaking for myself, of course.
>
> I didn't know that - "of course" - I am not elected to represent any nation
or
> organization, so, unfortunately, I can only speak for myself.

I seem to have this unusual knack of causing you offence. You did not seem
to like the idea that I was making personal assertions about economics in my
last posting. So I stated that a number of people held similar views. How can
you possibly take offence at this simple staement of fact?

We return to the nub of the original arguement. I think that this question
hinges on the purchase of property. Some of the small scale privatisation that
we were discussing involved the purchase of land - other instances did not.
The municipality of Tallinn is still the largest property owner in the city,
and the shops, bars, and restaurants that operate under a municipal lease
would have been treated in a different category under the old privatisation
law than freehold property. Believe me, if a Swede or a Finn could open a shop
in Tallinn before 1995, then I don't see why a Russian speaker who was not an
Estonian citizen could not. Now the old law relating to the ownership of
property by non-citizens was not disimilar to its Russian counterpart.

>
> >
> >
> > The municipalities and the original small business privatisation agency
> > were quite happy to sell enterprises to their staff or management. Most of
> > these enterprises were in the service sector, and involved shops,
restaurants
> > etc. As far as I know, these sales were open to anyone regardless of
ethnic
> > origin who lived in Estonia at the time. Of course, there were many
instances
> > where the former employees went into partnership with or fronted for
foreign
> > investors (mainly Finns and Swedes). The privatisdation statistics are
> > natueally biased at the moment in favour of the developments in the small
> > enterprise sector, as the privatisation of large industrial enterprises
and
> > infrastructure continues.
>
> The buy-out and voucher privatization of these companies were only opened to
> people with new Estonian citizenship, as you well noted some of them quickly
> enriched themselves by getting in foreign partners or selling the whole
thing
> outright for cash

Again, I think that this is a very simplistic view.

Look, I think that every time that I answer you, I provide factual
information as evidence.

>
> > Estonia's tourism product consists of heritage, countryside, and shopping.
If
> > we leave out the latter, there is enough to build on for the future.And I
> > would have thought that you had realised that the American market is of a
> > growing importance to Estonia and the other Baltic States.
>
> Estonian tourism sector competes in a wide open marketplace and cities like
> Tallinn, Tartu or Narva compete, for European leisure travelers' money, with
> cities like Venice, Florence, Salzburg, Lyon, Edinburgh and so on. Estonian
> countryside competes with the French, Austrian and Swiss countryside. Your
point
> was that EU and North American (I exclude Russians as they are not coming
back)
> visitors may replace Finnish shoppers in their importance. I was telling you
that
> I see no way this can possibly happen.

You are looking at tourism as a kind of blanket phenomenon. Each country
caters for particular kinds of market segments. Let me list some of the people
that Estonia can or should appeal to.
City short break participants. Antiquarians.
Pan Baltic Tour participants. Folk enthusiasts.
Nature lovers. Beer lovers
Small boat owners. Estonian expatriates (of several
Music lovers. generations) etc. etc. etc.

>
> >
> >
> > > it is not worth more than two hours of flying for the sake of two hours
of
> > > sightseeing. In the same time, if Estonians can maintain low prices and
> > develop
> > > its retail infrastructure, it may continue being a nice shopping suburb
for
> > > Helsinki and may be other areas of Finland. No possible EU tourist
traffic
> > can
> > > replace Finnish shoppers.
>
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

Tourists will travel to Estonia for a city break or a particular type of
holiday. But the majority, I suspect, will pass through in consequence of a
Pan Baltic tour or en route to or from Russia.

Regards,
Barry.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----

[Eugene Holman]

In article <6ipm2a$ile$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, an_on...@hotmail.com wrote:

> In article <35502B...@fv.aetec.ee>#1/8,
> Urmas Sepp <se...@fv.aetec.ee> wrote:
> >
> > Michael Kagalenko wrote:
> > [snip]
> >

> > Pardon me for being little ironic here, but it seems to me that the main
> > point mr Kagalenko is making is that whatever Balts do is wrong and
> > discriminative towards Russian speaking population. I think if one day
> > Estonia would decide to use a 'zero option' to solve the citizenship
> > problems then he would find something very discriminative about that as
> > well.
> >
>

> Lithuania has tried the zero option, and has had no problems with Russia since
> then. Why don't Estonia and Latvia try this? Besides, we'll see if you're
> right!.. :)

Lithuania at the re-establishment of independence had a Russian-speaking
population of only 9%, and most of them were able to speak Lithuanian.
Lithuania has had trouble with Russia due to the anomaly of the
Kaliningrad enclave. There have been irregularities with the bureaucracy
connected with train transports between Belarus and Kaliningrad, which
have to cross Lithuania as well as numerous instances of air-space
violations. The existence of a vidsa regime between Kaliningrad and
Lithuania also makes life difficult for Russians on both sides of what is
now a relatively difficult border to cross where none existed ten years
ago. More ominously, the suggestion has been made, only half seriously for
the time being, in the Russian Duma that Klapeida, which Lithuania
acquired as a consequence of unilateral border adjustments (it was
originally Memel in East Prussia, territory lost by Germany at the end of
the war), should be given back to Russia.

Latvia and Estonia didn't try the zero option for the simple reason that
the Russian-speaking population was so large (38% in Estonia, 48% in
Latvia) when independence was re-established that the traditional
populations of those countries feared, with considerable justification,
becoming a minority in what they considered to be their own countries, and
that a large, politically powerful Russian-speaking population could even
maneuver to have the countries re-absorbed into Russia, or acquire enough
influence to make the countries into pliant vassal states like Belarus has
become (albeit for different reasons). There are elements within the
Russian-speaking population, notably Pyotr Rozhok, deported from Estonia
for sedition, who have publicly stated goals of this type. They are a
small but vocal minority, and their ranting and antics keep alive visceral
fears of Russia and Russians that almost come with being born a Balt.

--
Best Regards,
Eugene Holman

[Igor Sagdeev]

hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:

>Lithuania at the re-establishment of independence had a Russian-speaking
>population of only 9%, and most of them were able to speak Lithuanian.

The latter is somehwat an exaggeration.

>Lithuania has had trouble with Russia due to the anomaly of the
>Kaliningrad enclave. There have been irregularities with the bureaucracy
>connected with train transports between Belarus and Kaliningrad, which
>have to cross Lithuania as well as numerous instances of air-space
>violations. The existence of a vidsa regime between Kaliningrad and
>Lithuania also makes life difficult for Russians on both sides of what is
>now a relatively difficult border to cross where none existed ten years
>ago. More ominously, the suggestion has been made, only half seriously for

From what I have heard, travel between Kaliningrad and Lithuania is
currently visa-free. It is the Russians from the "mainland" Russia
that need visas to go to Lithuania (likewise, Lithuanian citizens need
visas to go to "mainland" Russia.

>the time being, in the Russian Duma that Klapeida, which Lithuania
>acquired as a consequence of unilateral border adjustments (it was
>originally Memel in East Prussia, territory lost by Germany at the end of
>the war), should be given back to Russia.

Memel/Klaipeda was part of E. Prussia and thus Germany until the end
of WWI. The Versailles Treaty gave it a status somewhat similar to
that of Danzig, putting it under temporary French (?) administration.
Lithuania annexed it in the early 1920ies. In March 1939, Hitler
presented Lithuania with an ultimatum, demanding the territory, and
got it. After WWII, the Allies returned it to Lithuania. Russia
never owned it.

Yours, Igor

[halm...@msn.com]

In article <6ipm2a$ile$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1,

an_on...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <35502B...@fv.aetec.ee>#1/8,
> Urmas Sepp <se...@fv.aetec.ee> wrote:
> >
> > Michael Kagalenko wrote:
> > [snip]
> >

> > Pardon me for being little ironic here, but it seems to me that the main
> > point mr Kagalenko is making is that whatever Balts do is wrong and
> > discriminative towards Russian speaking population. I think if one day
> > Estonia would decide to use a 'zero option' to solve the citizenship
> > problems then he would find something very discriminative about that as
> > well.
> >
>

> Lithuania has tried the zero option, and has had no problems with Russia
since
> then. Why don't Estonia and Latvia try this? Besides, we'll see if you're
> right!.. :)
>

> > This whole discussion reminds me of an old joke (I don't really mind if
> > you consider this to be hostile towards Russians because it is). In that
> > joke somebody (don't ask me who - I don't remember) was having a dispute
> > with a Russian about something (don't ask me what). On every argument
> > the Russian answered 'Nu i shto?' (So what?). (I think the joke was
> > inspired by a cartoon.)
>

> My impression is that this joke (not that I found it particularly funny,
> but maybe that's just me) is much more applicable to the attitude of most
> Western countries to Estonian and Latvian policies since independence.
>
> >

> > Best wishes!
> > Urmas
> > --
> > Maier's Law:
> > If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.

Well now, happy onlooker, does the Russian stupidity excuse the western
stupidity or does it work the other way around?

Best - Henry

[eso...@hotmail.com]

b...@bolton.ac.uk wrote:

> You are looking at tourism as a kind of blanket phenomenon. Each country
> caters for particular kinds of market segments. Let me list some of the people
> that Estonia can or should appeal to.
> City short break participants.

Yes, from neighboring countries (excluding Russia as these folks cannot really get
in)

> Antiquarians.

I smuggled quite a lot of old books from Estonia or may be I didn't? - Estonian
customs pamphlet I have says books of Estonian origin published prior to 1940
cannot be taken out of the country, so I assume everything printed from early 1700
to 1918-20 is of Russian origin and can be freely taken out if you hide it well
enough (they are too lazy to check your luggage anyway)

> Pan Baltic Tour participants.

how numerous are these people?

> Folk enthusiasts.

?

> Nature lovers.

Yes, if they are coming from places with no nature to speak of, from the Moon for
example, then Estonia is a charming place

>

> Beer lovers

Yes, you can buy decent German beer and Tallinn's Stockmann has a small selection
of "boutique" German, Czech, Belgian and French beers. No American microbrews yet.
All good stuff is very expensive and why would you go to Estonia just to drink
beer is beyond me.you want decent beer - go to Belgium or Germany - why estonia
for that matter, why not Ivory Coast or Mongolia?

>

> Small boat owners.

as far as I know Tallinn has just one real marina, Estonian coastline is
undeveloped, only truly suicidal persons would seriously consider pleasure
boating off estonian coast. You cannot hide anywhere in case of a storm. You die.

> Estonian expatriates (of several Music lovers.
> generations) etc. etc. etc.

ok, Barry, that's ok - whatever you say - I give up. I don't think we can argue
indefinitely over this trivia. You won.

[ja...@webtv.net]

In article <holman-ya02408000...@news.helsinki.fi>#1/2,

hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
>
> In article <354DAE...@uni-bremen.de>, AHetzer <hetz...@uni-bremen.de>
> wrote:
>
> > Eugene Holman wrote:
> > >
> >
> > snip
> >
> > >

> > > There are countries, Germany and Finland, for example, that do not extend
> > > their citizenship to people just because they were born and raised there.
> > > The principle of citizenship by 'jus sanguinis' - descent from a citizen -
> > > is old and well established. It is wrong for a country to take over
> > > another one, flood it with its own people, and then, after that country
> > > re-establishes its independence, demand that they change their laws to
> > > accommodate the colonists.
> >

> > This is not the point, Mr. Holman! Those Russians who in 1991 voted for
> > the independence of Estonia had no idea that thereafter they would be
> > beggars in their native country. If the ethnic Russians had known the
> > principle ius sanguinis before the referendum, the result would have
> > been less clear-cut than it was in reality.
>
> It is precisely the point, since independence for the three Baltic
> countries effectively ended five decades during which the titular
> populations had been reduced to the status of disempowered beggars in what
> were still, legally, their native countries.

How far back in history do you want to extend legality? Only after WWII?
Maybe just the recognized nations of the 20thC? What is an illegal
occupation. Many nations recognized the incorporation of these states into
the USSR. Who is right and who is wrong? Was the pre-Bolshevik Russian rule
in Estonia illegal? Maybe the whole Bolshevik revolution was illegal by the
laws of the Russian Empire, therefore the government of Estonia signed a
treaty recognizing its Independence with an "illegal" entity This is all
fairly crazy and nuts, but it is nomore than the actions of Estonia and
Latvia. These two nations must not be allowed to set this precedent in
Europe, because if they do, it will allow similar claims to be made all over
Europe. The Serbs could claim that Kosovo is their original homeland, and
those nasty Albanian immigrants who came in under the "illegal" Turkish
occupation should be denied equal rights. This is kinda happening, and the
West seems not to amused, yet they continue to court the Baltics. Just
another example of Western hypocrisy!

This is why the whole
> situation is fraught with so much tragedy and dilemma. Not too many of us
> have experience with countries once thought killed being resurrected frem
> the dead, but international law knows this eventuality, and it was in
> accordance with the precepts set down in international law that Estonia and
> Latvia acted.
>
> >

> > I recognize the efforts made by the Estonian govt. to integrate the
> > ethnic Russians, but living on a five-year residence permit was not the
> > bright future Russian nationals dreamt of in 1991, when voting for
> > independence!
>

> Those who have not taken Estonian citizenship are virtually guaranteed
> permanent resident status. People are not being deported or uprooted from
> their homes, and any cases that would lead to a possible deportation are
> automatically subject to review by international non-governmental
> organizations, with the Estonians having obligated themselves to be bound
> by such decisions. Once again, they key to altering the situation lies with
> the people most affected by it: acquiring local citizenship has been the
> path taken by approx. 100,000 members of the Soviet-era migrant community.
>

> > They wanted to get rid of the Soviet regime, but they
> > awoke between hammer and anvil (the RF consulate and the Estonian
> > bureaucracy). Only then hostile feelings to their new "host country"
> > have grown.
>
> For some, not for others. And remember that about 20% of the
> Russian-speaking Soviet era population of Estonia is not ethnic Russian,
> thus they would have little reason to turn to the RF consulate for help.
>
> >

> > BTW on this board people speak of immigration. Okay, I know why. But in
> > historical reality the ethnic Russians were labor migrants, no
> > IMmigrants. It's a semantic shade, but an important one. Psychologically
> > they felt at home, and now they are deprived of any possibility of
> > identification with their native land. They are expected to be loyal,
> > but they feel cheated.
>
> I think you are painting the picture in terms that are too bleak. The
> Russian- speaking population is neither shunned nor disempowered in

> Estonia. They have their own representatives in Parliament as well as
> Estonians in several parties who are committed to looking out for their
> interests (remember that many Estonians are bound to the Russian-speaking
> population by ties of marriage, family relationships, and friendships). Few
> have difficulties with the idea of their children attending schools where
> Estonian is the primary medium of instruction or having the present
> youngest generation of Russian speakers grow up bilingually and
> biculturally. The problems are sorting themselves out. This is in
> everybody's interests. Estonians themselves know that their country hardly
> has a chance of being accepted into the EU if the issue of the ex-Soviet
> minority has not been solved. And despite the bitter legacy, there is
> surprisingly little ill will within either of the two communities if we
> ignore people with a Zhirinovskian view of the world such as Pyotr Rozhok.

>
> > To sum up, any juridical approach inevitably misses the point. We have
> > to take into account psychological factors too.
> >
>
> Agreed. But both sides can only reconcile their differences if they take
> the other's feelings into account. Many Russian speakers understand, even
> if they don't necessarily approve of, why the Estonian authorities have
> made the decisions that they did. Many Estonians understand, even if they
> don't particularly love the idea, that the Russian-speaking community is
> now a minority with many legitimate rights in Estonia. The proper
> combination of juridical practice and psychotherapy can only come from a
> mutual desire to reconcile differences and move onwards.
>

> --
> Best regards,
> Eugene Holman
>

[ja...@webtv.net]

How does the reprensentation in Parliment compare to the overall population?

as well as
> Estonians in several parties who are committed to looking out for their
> interests (remember that many Estonians are bound to the Russian-speaking
> population by ties of marriage, family relationships, and friendships). Few
> have difficulties with the idea of their children attending schools where
> Estonian is the primary medium of instruction or having the present
> youngest generation of Russian speakers grow up bilingually and
> biculturally.

Russians should learn the language, but exemptions should be made for those
who are elderly. Restrictive and discriminatory laws only cause resistence in
the long run. A more gradual process should have been proposed.

[Alo Merilo]

On Tue, 5 May 1998, AHetzer wrote:

> I refer to the book:
>
> Tooni Kasesalu:
> Eesti keel tulevasele kodanikule. Tallinn, Valgus, 1995
>

> Therein is a map showing Jaanilinn and Petseri within the Estonian
> borderlines. Moreover, the book contains the bilingual chapter ESTICA,
> which is felt as brain-washing by ethnic Russians. Thereafter follows

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

However, how do you clean the brainwashed mind so that it does
not feel like brainwashing? :-)

> another chapter EKSAMIST, which contains i. a. extracts of the
> constitution and the citizenship regulations (kodakondsuse seadus).
>

> We all know that an exam depends not only on the examinee, but on the
> good will of the examiner too. Of course, if the examinee will overtly

> state that Estonian is talundi keel, he will not succeed.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just like Yamburg has never belonged to Estonia, there is no such
thing as "talundi keel" ("farm language") in Estonian parlance. The
two words separately have a meaning, but it would be hard to understand
(especially without context) what one would want to say by using them
in such combination. This is the first time I ever heard about "talundi
keel", and I guess the aforementioned examiner would be quite puzzled.

> It would not
> be wise to utter such a deep-rooted conviction in the target language,

> but that is the psychological barrier to overcome.

Long story short. Russians have been brainwashed a lot. Many of them
sincerely believed (and some still do) that, e.g., Estonia was not
occupied and that before the arrival of "the superior Soviet/Russian
culture" in 1940 the majority of Estonians were illiterate peasants.
I understand that there is a psychological barrier to learning the
somewhat less "pleasant" (from the Russian perspective) objective
facts, but what can you do. I have noticed that not only the Russians
in Estonia have hard time believing that by the end of the 19th century
Estonians (farmers or not) were 90+% literate (i.e., subscribed to
newspapers, read books, and understood the contracts they signed),
while the literacy rate amongst Russians at the time was below 25%.
The majority of Russian peasants, in particular, were illiterate,
and their understanding of what was going on in the rest of the world
outside their village was thus based on hearsay only. This, by the
way, is not some Estonian national romanticist fantasy, and any
unbelieving Thomas is kindly referred to Imperial Russian census
data.

Best regards,
Alo Merilo

P.S. As to "uttering deep-rooted conviction": one of my distant
relatives (an Estonian emigre, previously citizen of Canada)
became a naturalised US citizen lately. She said that the only
thing she was afraid of being asked in the naturalisation exam
was "What do you think of the American judicial system?". To
put it diplomatically, in her (as well as my) opinion it is
not as 'perfect' and 'best in the world' as the official America
would want one to believe. Fortunately for her, that question
was not asked, so she did not have to lie...

[Alo Merilo]

On Wed, 6 May 1998 ja...@webtv.net wrote:

> How far back in history do you want to extend legality? Only after WWII?
> Maybe just the recognized nations of the 20thC? What is an illegal
> occupation. Many nations recognized the incorporation of these states into
> the USSR. Who is right and who is wrong? Was the pre-Bolshevik Russian
> rule in Estonia illegal? Maybe the whole Bolshevik revolution was

> illegal by the laws of the Russian Empire ...
> etc. etc.

In my humble opinion, a legality definitely extends over a period
of human lifetime, but thereafter not much further. The occupation
of Baltic countries in 1940 (and in 1944) is not some obscure
historical factoid, but something a lot of people lived through
and still remember very vividly. However, counting legal continuity,
or claiming that something illegal from pre-Bolshevik era should
have consequences for the present time is far more iffy, because
very few of us lived back then.

I am willing to bet that people who lived in 1940 and consider
Soviet occupation illegal outnumber people who lived in 1918 and
consider Estonia's independence from Tsarist Russia illegal
by the ratio of 1000:1

Maybe it is not the best possible comparison, but: one would have
a stronger claim to property that was illegally stolen from him,
regardless of whether it happened 5 weeks or 50 years ago, than to
property that was stolen from his grandfather 100 years ago.
Of course, my other, typically legalistic Estonian side, based on
the German-Roman tradition of civil law, tells me that there should
be no difference: stolen property has to be returned to rightful
owners, regardless of how much time has passed, or how many "users
in good faith" that property has passed through meanwhile.

But in that mood, we can continue ad infinitum. You say that the
Bolshevik Revolution and the recognition of Estonia's independence
in 1920 was illegal. OK, let's assume so. But was Russian conquest
of the Baltic provinces of Sweden in 1700-1710 (1721) legal? Any
lawyer worth his money can prove that it was not. And how Sweden
got control of Estonia before that certainly had some legal weak
spots as well. And, as far as my understanding goes, the German and
Danish crusaders did not hold a fair and internationally monitored
referendum on Estonia's status in the early 1200s either.

Best regards,
Alo Merilo

[Eugene Holman]

In article <35509990...@news.mindspring.com>, sag...@mindspring.com
wrote:

> hol...@elo.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:
>
> >Lithuania at the re-establishment of independence had a Russian-speaking
> >population of only 9%, and most of them were able to speak Lithuanian.
>
> The latter is somehwat an exaggeration.

According to Y. V. Arutyunan (ed.) 1992. *Russkie. etno-sotsiologicheskie
ockerki.* Moscow: Nauka, Lithuania was the former Soviet republic with the
highest percentage (33.4%) of Russians who regarded themselves as fluent in
the republican language (cf. 21.1% for Latvia, 13.7% for Estonia; figures
based on information collected in conjunction with the 1989 census). Given
that Lithuanian had a relatively strong position as a school subject in
Soviet Lithuania, one can assume an even more widespread basic competence
in Lithuanian among local Russian speakers, even if they would not
characterize themselves as fluent speakers and don't necessarily use
Lithuanian as a public language. This is in sharp contrast to the
situtation among many Russian speakers in north-eastern Estonia before the
re-establishment of independence. There Estonian was neither spoken in the
cities nor taught as a school subject, even if it was still the language of
the surrounding countryside. It was possible to live in a place like Narva or
Sillamäe for twenty years and never be in a situation where it was necessary
to speak Estonian. This is the source of some of the resentment felt by some
Russian speakers at the requirement that they learn Estonian, as well as
the bitterness many Estonians feel about Russian speakers living in the
country all their lives and never bothering to learn a word of the local
language.

>
> >Lithuania has had trouble with Russia due to the anomaly of the
> >Kaliningrad enclave. There have been irregularities with the bureaucracy
> >connected with train transports between Belarus and Kaliningrad, which
> >have to cross Lithuania as well as numerous instances of air-space
> >violations. The existence of a vidsa regime between Kaliningrad and
> >Lithuania also makes life difficult for Russians on both sides of what is
> >now a relatively difficult border to cross where none existed ten years
> >ago. More ominously, the suggestion has been made, only half seriously for
>
> From what I have heard, travel between Kaliningrad and Lithuania is
> currently visa-free. It is the Russians from the "mainland" Russia
> that need visas to go to Lithuania (likewise, Lithuanian citizens need
> visas to go to "mainland" Russia.
>

*****************************************************************
Source: http://www.inyourpocket.com/visas.htm#Russia
(For Kaliningrad)

Who needs a visa?

Everyone! - except citizens from the following countries who do not need a
visa to enter Russia:

Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Cuba, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Georgia,
Kazakhstan, Korea, Kyrgystan, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia,
Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

Note: Lithuanians are entitled to 30 days visa-free travel in the
Kaliningrad Region; they still need a visa for the rest of Russia though.

Remember, if you plan to travel the entire length of the Baltics taking in
the Kaliningrad Region from Lithuania, and St Petersburg from Estonia, you
need
a multiple-entry Russian visa. Even if you only plan to transit Russia, you
still need a Russian visa.
*****************************************************************

One of the factors that has made Baltic-resident Russians hesitate to apply
for local citizenship is the visa regime. Baltic-resident Russian citizens
can enter Russia, including Kaliningrad, almost as easily as during the
Soviet period when there were no borders at all. Those with local
citizenship are subject to the 30-day rule (Lithuanian citizens going to
Kaliningrad) or have to endure all the bureaucracy that other Estonian and
Latvian citizens have to endure to obtain Russian visas. This is very
inconvenient if babushka in Novgorod suddenly falls ill, or Sasha in
Kaliningrad throws an improvised engagement party.

> >the time being, in the Russian Duma that Klapeida, which Lithuania
> >acquired as a consequence of unilateral border adjustments (it was
> >originally Memel in East Prussia, territory lost by Germany at the end of
> >the war), should be given back to Russia.
>
> Memel/Klaipeda was part of E. Prussia and thus Germany until the end
> of WWI. The Versailles Treaty gave it a status somewhat similar to
> that of Danzig, putting it under temporary French (?) administration.
> Lithuania annexed it in the early 1920ies. In March 1939, Hitler
> presented Lithuania with an ultimatum, demanding the territory, and
> got it. After WWII, the Allies returned it to Lithuania. Russia
> never owned it.

Right you are. But Russia tries to follow a 'What's mine is mine, what's
yours is negotiable' policy with respect to strategic real estate:

*****************************************************************
DUMA OPPOSES HASTY SIGNING OF BORDER TREATY WITH LITHUANIA.., ITAR-TASS,
09-26-1997.

MOSCOW, September 26 (Itar-Tass) - The State Duma, lower house of
parliament, has opposed "hasty" signing of a treaty on the
Russian-Lithuanian state border.

A Duma resolution proposes to the President Boris Yeltsin to agree on a
common stand with the lower house which would correspond to Russia's
interests.

Lawmakers believe that hasty signing of the disputable treaty will signify
"the Russian loss of legal rights to the Memel (Klaipeda) territory and
deteriorate position of the Kaliningrad region which does not have a land
corridor to territory of Russia. What is more, the treaty will be viewed by
NATO as elimination of one of the remaining obstacles on the way of
Lithuanian joining of the Alliance."

Political consequences of Russian refusal from its rights to the Klaipeda
territory are comparable to consequences of the transfer of Kurile islands
to Japan, which is being discussed, the resolution says.

The deputies called for discussing an agreement on transit of Russian
passengers, including servicemen and cargo, to the Kaliningrad region via
Lithuanian territory. The Duma thinks these two issues should be united
into a single package.

Assignment of a free zone in the Klaipeda port to Russia could also become
a topic for discussion. The Duma will take into account the aforesaid
circumstances in case the border treaty is submitted to the lower house.

(Copyright 1997 ITAR-TASS (via Comtex). All rights reserved
*****************************************************************

The logic is that since Lithuania required Klaipeda when it was, according
to its logic, illegally a part of the USSR, Klaipeda was acquired illegally
and should revert to Russia, which has declared itself to be the primary
successor state to the USSR.

[rei...@tkb.lv]

> > > Pardon me for being little ironic here, but it seems to me that the main
> > > point mr Kagalenko is making is that whatever Balts do is wrong and
> > > discriminative towards Russian speaking population. I think if one day
> > > Estonia would decide to use a 'zero option' to solve the citizenship
> > > problems then he would find something very discriminative about that as
> > > well.

Not so long time ago in Riga Russian-speaking
politicans/representatives/whatever discussed integration, citizenship and
other issues. Head of one Russian organization told that if Latvia will grant
its citizenship automaticly to all Russians he will not take it because there
for sure will be something underground to hurt Russians.

Reinis

[Eugene Holman]

In article <6irc7n$7fe$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ja...@webtv.net wrote:

> How far back in history do you want to extend legality? Only after WWII?
> Maybe just the recognized nations of the 20thC? What is an illegal
> occupation. Many nations recognized the incorporation of these states into
> the USSR. Who is right and who is wrong? Was the pre-Bolshevik Russian rule
> in Estonia illegal? Maybe the whole Bolshevik revolution was illegal by the
> laws of the Russian Empire, therefore the government of Estonia signed a
> treaty recognizing its Independence with an "illegal" entity This is all
> fairly crazy and nuts, but it is nomore than the actions of Estonia and
> Latvia.
>

You raise an important issue and I have no difficulty accepting the point
you are raising. If you go back far enough we are all living on territory
snatched from someone else in states, the establishment of which was an
illegal act from somebody's standpoint. The United States, established by
acts that were treasonous by any standard on territory acquired by
physically exterminating most of its former inhabitants, being a case study
of your point.

The incorporation of the three pre-war Baltic countries into the USSR was,
by any standards, an act of extreme illegality and cynicism, even by the
(admittedly low) standards of the 20th century. I don't think that I am
overstating the case if I claim that there is no peacetime parallel to it
in 20th century European history or even in the world. Only the Chinese
occupation of Tibet and, perhaps, the Russian occupation of Chechnya offer
remote parallels

>
> These two nations must not be allowed to set this precedent in Europe,
> because if they do, it will allow similar claims to be made all over Europe.
> The Serbs could claim that Kosovo is their original homeland, and those nasty
> Albanian immigrants who came in under the "illegal" Turkish occupation should
> be denied equal rights. This is kinda happening, and the West seems not to
> amused, yet they continue to court the Baltics. Just another example of
> Western hypocrisy!
>

It's admittedly a can of worms that is best left unopened. However, both
Albanians and Serbs have extensive territories which they can still call
their own. With the Baltics we have a David vs. Goliath situation: these
small countries have been forced to share their extremely small ethnic
territories with people who are mostly from the country that has more
ethnic territory, much of it virtually empty, by far than any other one in
the world. And the nations in the Baltics, remembering extinct former
neighboring Finno-Ugric and Baltic peoples that once lived to the east such
as the Vodians, Meryas, Murom, Meshcher, Galindians, Selonians, Curonians,
and Semigallians, but have subsequently been absorbed, for the most part,
into the Belarussians and Russians know the lessons of history (for an
informed if Baltocentric historical overview of the ethnodynamics of the
region read "The Baltics: Nationalities and Other Problems" at:
http://www.ibs.ee/history/baltics.html)

> > I think you are painting the picture in terms that are too bleak. The
> > Russian- speaking population is neither shunned nor disempowered in
> > Estonia. They have their own representatives in Parliament
>
> How does the reprensentation in Parliment compare to the overall population?
>

We'll have to have readers in Estonia answer that question. Estonian
parliamentarians Sergei Ivanov and Igor Gräzin are influential members of
the Russian-speaking community whose names are often in the Estonian news,
but usually for issues having nothing to do with interethnic relations. The
divisions in Estonian politics do not accord so strongly with ethnic lines
that one could automatically assume that a person with a Russian name is
necessarily going to be a spokesman for the interests of the Russian
speaking community, or that a person with an Estonian name is necessarily
opposed to these interests.

> as well as
> > Estonians in several parties who are committed to looking out for their
> > interests (remember that many Estonians are bound to the Russian-speaking
> > population by ties of marriage, family relationships, and friendships). Few
> > have difficulties with the idea of their children attending schools where
> > Estonian is the primary medium of instruction or having the present
> > youngest generation of Russian speakers grow up bilingually and
> > biculturally.
>
> Russians should learn the language, but exemptions should be made for those
> who are elderly. Restrictive and discriminatory laws only cause resistence in
> the long run. A more gradual process should have been proposed.
>

I tend to agree with you. The proposal has been made by the so-called
'Russian fraction' of the Riigikogu that the language requirement be waived
for people over the age of 60. For the time being no decision to implement
such a change has been made. After seven years of independence it is quite
clear who has decided to remain in Estonia; concrete efforts should be made
by both sides to resolve remaining problems as soon as possible. There is
just that lingering conflict between the perception of Estonians, who like
to think of themselves as the landlords, and members of the
Russian-speaking community, who like to think of themselves as more than
just tenants...

At present the law states:

[BEGIN QUOTE]
1.3. Law on Estonian Language Requirements for Applicants for Citizenship
(in force from February 25, 1993)
...
Article 3. Assessment of Estonian Language Knowledge
...
(3) The Government of the Republic may establish simpified Estonian
language examination requirements for persons born before January 1, 1930,
as well as for category I invalids and those category II invalids, who are
considered to be permanent invalids and who are unable to complete the
examination in accordance with the general requiremnts due to the state of
their health.
[END QUOTE]

[Vladimir]

Alo Merilo wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 May 1998, AHetzer wrote:
>
>

snip

The problem is not illiteracy. I've just read Harald Haarmann's preface
to the reprint of Hornung's Grammatica Esthonica (1693, 1977). It reads
(p. 9): [...] the teaching in the peasant schools aimed at little more
than making the children learn by heart the basic dogmas of religion and
scarcely approached the problem ot teaching them to read. Unquote.
(Nirk, Estonian Literature, Tallinn 1970, p. 39 sq.). In the last third
of the 19th c. the situation changed rapidly, of course. But until that
time religious booklets prevailed.

So what? You are right, that in Russia much more people were illiterate,
but they had a nobility, Estonians did not. That's the difference. The
so-called classical literature of Russians was something for the élite,
only in the 20th c. it became possession of the masses. Standards of
Russian noblemen became standards of the middle class, as far as the
Soviet system allowed so. This is trivial, the same happened in many
nations, Poles, Hungarians etc. Now, even the most miserable Russian
feels as an heir of Pushkin, Lermontov and Tolstoi. And Estonia?
Russians living there associate all remnants of noble civilization with
either Germans or Russians, e. g. the estate of Benckendorff in Keila,
Kadriorg, Czar Peter's hut, Orlov's estate at Tallinn's seaside (above
the Rusalka monument) etc.

Do you understand? I do not intend to hurt anyone's feelings. But it is
really difficult to tell the Russians, that the castles in Haapsalu or
Rakvere, the estates in Palmse and Keila and the university of Tartu
have anything to do with Estonian ethnic history. That's why they feel
brainwashed, when reading about 5,000 years of Estonian civilization.

--

Meest sônast, härga sarvist.

[Eugene Holman]

In article <35518D...@snoe.Solnyshko>, Vladimir <K...@snoe.Solnyshko> wrote:

> The problem is not illiteracy. I've just read Harald Haarmann's preface
> to the reprint of Hornung's Grammatica Esthonica (1693, 1977). It reads
> (p. 9): [...] the teaching in the peasant schools aimed at little more
> than making the children learn by heart the basic dogmas of religion and
> scarcely approached the problem ot teaching them to read. Unquote.
> (Nirk, Estonian Literature, Tallinn 1970, p. 39 sq.). In the last third
> of the 19th c. the situation changed rapidly, of course. But until that
> time religious booklets prevailed.

You can't walk until you've learned to crawl.

>
> So what? You are right, that in Russia much more people were illiterate,
> but they had a nobility, Estonians did not. That's the difference. The
> so-called classical literature of Russians was something for the élite,
> only in the 20th c. it became possession of the masses. Standards of
> Russian noblemen became standards of the middle class, as far as the
> Soviet system allowed so. This is trivial, the same happened in many
> nations, Poles, Hungarians etc. Now, even the most miserable Russian
> feels as an heir of Pushkin, Lermontov and Tolstoi. And Estonia?
> Russians living there associate all remnants of noble civilization with
> either Germans or Russians, e. g. the estate of Benckendorff in Keila,
> Kadriorg, Czar Peter's hut, Orlov's estate at Tallinn's seaside (above
> the Rusalka monument) etc.
>
> Do you understand? I do not intend to hurt anyone's feelings. But it is
> really difficult to tell the Russians, that the castles in Haapsalu or
> Rakvere, the estates in Palmse and Keila and the university of Tartu
> have anything to do with Estonian ethnic history. That's why they feel
> brainwashed, when reading about 5,000 years of Estonian civilization.

Cultre and civilization are terms that can be interpreted in different
ways. Estonian, Latvian, and Finnish civilizations are all low key compared
to their German, Russian, or even Swedish counterparts. What they have
succeeded in doing is developing and maintaining a sense of identity and
continuity which has survived in an extremely dangerous neighborhood
despite incredible odds. The great architectural monuments you speak of
were planned and designed by however happened to be in charge at the time,
but the work and financing was exacted from the local peasantry. And the
University of Tartu was the place where German, Swedish, and Russian
intellectuals eventually discovered that the folk wisdom, oral literature,
and everyday, practical culture of the Estonian peasant were also worth
being regarded as serious objects of scientific research.

The folk poems that served as the basis for 'Kalevipoeg' go back many
centuries, and they are repositories of human experience which are
different but every bit as rich and worthy of study as a Tolstoy novel.

[Vladimir]

Eugene Holman wrote:
>
>
snip

> Cultre and civilization are terms that can be interpreted in different
> ways. Estonian, Latvian, and Finnish civilizations are all low key compared
> to their German, Russian, or even Swedish counterparts. What they have
> succeeded in doing is developing and maintaining a sense of identity and
> continuity which has survived in an extremely dangerous neighborhood
> despite incredible odds. The great architectural monuments you speak of
> were planned and designed by however happened to be in charge at the time,
> but the work and financing was exacted from the local peasantry. And the
> University of Tartu was the place where German, Swedish, and Russian
> intellectuals eventually discovered that the folk wisdom, oral literature,
> and everyday, practical culture of the Estonian peasant were also worth
> being regarded as serious objects of scientific research.
>
> The folk poems that served as the basis for 'Kalevipoeg' go back many
> centuries, and they are repositories of human experience which are
> different but every bit as rich and worthy of study as a Tolstoy novel.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Eugene Holman

Whom do you want to convince, Mr. Holman?

--
Igal pool omad kombed.

[David McDuff]

On Thu, 07 May 1998 12:30:57 +0200, Vladimir <K...@snoe.Solnyshko>
wrote:

>So what? You are right, that in Russia much more people were illiterate,
>but they had a nobility, Estonians did not.

One might perhaps reflect that Estonians were right to steer clear of
a 'nobility' such as the one that developed in Russia. After all,
under Alexander III and Nicholas II, the function of the imperial
government administered by the Russian civil service and military
authorities - dominated by the 'nobility' - was not merely to
strengthen Russian influence on the so-called Baltic 'provinces',
including Estonia, but to completely Russify them, removing their
autonomous institutions and taking over their school systems. Until
the late 19th century, the numbers of Russians in Estonia were really
very small, and only began to increase when the Baltic shipyards began
to attract large numbers of migrant Russian peasants - a circumstance
that was exploited by the Russian authorities for their own political
ends.

To figures such as Kreutzwald and Faehlmann, and later to the Estonian
nationalist intelligentsia as a whole, the issue of education in the
Estonian language was the most important one, and it came to represent
the focus of resistance to Russian rule. The Estonian national
revolution, as elsewhere in the Baltic states, was primarily a
cultural, not a political one. And, as in Finland, it was led by the
most highly-educated groups in society, who opposed the attempts at
Russification - even though many Estonian national leaders were still
willing to consider a solution consisting of full autonomy within a
democratic Russian federation. By 1917, however, 'nobility', Russian
or otherwise, played no part in this.

>The so-called classical literature of Russians was something for the élite,
>only in the 20th c. it became possession of the masses. Standards of
>Russian noblemen became standards of the middle class, as far as the
>Soviet system allowed so.

I don't see how it's possible to talk of a Soviet middle class -
nomenklatura, bureaucracy, intelligentsia, perhaps - but not a middle
class. Also, the use and exploitation of 19th century Russian
classical literature for Soviet ideological purposes, which was begun
by Maxim Gorky and the Writers' Union he headed, can't, in my humble
opinion, be legitimately seen as a granting of 'possession' of that
literature to the 'masses' - that is simply to accept the Soviet
interpretation. No, it represented a highjacking of the 19th century
classical tradition, and a betrayal and falsification of its ethical
content.

>But it is
>really difficult to tell the Russians, that the castles in Haapsalu or
>Rakvere, the estates in Palmse and Keila and the university of Tartu
>have anything to do with Estonian ethnic history. That's why they feel
>brainwashed, when reading about 5,000 years of Estonian civilization.

The point is, surely, that Russians - like Germans - are indeed a part
of Estonian ethnic history, though the part they have played in it has
not always been a very positive one. In the Estonian context, Russian
civilisation needs to be measured against Estonian civilisation, and
assessed according to the benefit or otherwise that it has brought to
the Estonian people.

Regards,

David McDuff
.

[Jarmo Ryyti]

In soc.culture.baltics Eugene Holman <hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote:

: In article <6irc7n$7fe$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ja...@webtv.net wrote:

: > How far back in history do you want to extend legality? Only after WWII?

No-no-to the times when the land was exposed from under the ice in
Norhtern-Europe. Who else there were but natives of present Russia,
the Uralic peoples -now called Fenno-Ugrians. (Maris,Hantis,Mansis,
Komis,Komi-Permjaks,Veps,Votians,Izhorians,Saamis...you name them...:-^

An analogy from Northern-Europe to Northern-America is clear.

: > Maybe just the recognized nations of the 20thC? What is an illegal

: > occupation. Many nations recognized the incorporation of these states into
: > the USSR. Who is right and who is wrong? Was the pre-Bolshevik Russian rule
: > in Estonia illegal? Maybe the whole Bolshevik revolution was illegal by the
: > laws of the Russian Empire, therefore the government of Estonia signed a
: > treaty recognizing its Independence with an "illegal" entity This is all
: > fairly crazy and nuts, but it is nomore than the actions of Estonia and
: > Latvia.

Let us go long time enough backwards in the history...:-^

Northern-Europe was populated first by the Uralic peoples those
are the grandgrand...grandfathers etc of the Finns and other
Fenno-Ugrians.

The Russians are a quite new (historially) phenomena in Northern-
Europe exactly same way as the Indo-Europeans in Northern-America.
If the Russians behave well,they can stay further:-^
Some are unfortunatelly nasty but behave rude. Bad manners simply.

: You raise an important issue and I have no difficulty accepting the point

: you are raising. If you go back far enough we are all living on territory
: snatched from someone else in states, the establishment of which was an
: illegal act from somebody's standpoint.

Who were natives of Northern-Europe but Fenno-Ugrians:-^

: The United States, established by

: acts that were treasonous by any standard on territory acquired by
: physically exterminating most of its former inhabitants, being a case study
: of your point.

An analogy to Northern-Europe is existing.
jami
a native of Northern-Europe who expects
good behaviour from the Russian and other Indo-European guests.
--
#In 1958,The Swedish School Administration repealed directives banning#
# the speaking of Finnish language in Sweden's schools.However,some #
# municipalities maintained restrictions until 1968 #

[Alo Merilo]

On Thu, 7 May 1998, Eugene Holman wrote:

>In article <35518D...@snoe.Solnyshko>, Vladimir <K...@snoe.Solnyshko> wrote:
>>
>> So what? You are right, that in Russia much more people were illiterate,

>> but they had a nobility, Estonians did not. That's the difference.

Estonians had their nobility. Estonia before the national awakening of
the 19th century (and all the myths of history created in that process,
e.g. tracing one's ancestry by language only) was a society where one's
social status determined the language(s) spoken. Just because the upper
classes used to speak Low German and later High German, do not make them
any less part of Estonian history or cultural heritage. Modern Estonians
descend both from peasants and from the upper classes, just like modern
Russians, Englishmen, etc. descend from both peasants and upper classes.

>> Do you understand? I do not intend to hurt anyone's feelings. But it is

>> really difficult to tell the Russians, that the castles in Haapsalu or
>> Rakvere, the estates in Palmse and Keila and the university of Tartu
>> have anything to do with Estonian ethnic history. That's why they feel
>> brainwashed, when reading about 5,000 years of Estonian civilization.

Even a most ardent Estonian nationalist would not claim that the people
who were in charge of building the Haapsalu or Rakvere castles spoke
Estonian (because they spoke Low German). But that's not the point --
most of the descendants of both those who were in charge and those who
put in most of the manual labour when those castles were built are to be
found in today's Estonia (and not in Germany), and thus these castles
are very much part of 'Estonian civilisation', if you will.

If you really want to apply the strict language criterion to 'ethnic
history', then I guess, all the castles that were built in England by
people who spoke Norman French are not part of English civilisation
and where Swedish-speakers were in charge in Finland, or German- or
French-speakers were in charge in Russia, are not part of Finnish and
Russian civilisations, respectively. Which is a little absurd.

On the other hand, even if you want to apply the language criterion
to history, do it properly. Modern Estonians would understand more words
of Low German (language spoken by builders-in-charge of the Haapsalu and
Rakvere castles) than modern Germans (High German speakers), even if the
latter were descendants of Baltic German nobility.

> Culture and civilization are terms that can be interpreted in different

> ways. Estonian, Latvian, and Finnish civilizations are all low key compared
> to their German, Russian, or even Swedish counterparts. What they have
> succeeded in doing is developing and maintaining a sense of identity and
> continuity which has survived in an extremely dangerous neighborhood
> despite incredible odds. The great architectural monuments you speak of
> were planned and designed by however happened to be in charge at the time,
> but the work and financing was exacted from the local peasantry. And the

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So what? Why should Estonians identify themselves with the peasantry only?
One of my great-grandfathers was a "Baltic German" (i.e., German-speaking
Estonian, if you will) and not a peasant. Any Estonian tracing back
his/her ancestors a little further in the past will find out soon enough
that not all of them are necessarily Estonian-speaking peasants.

> University of Tartu was the place where German, Swedish, and Russian
> intellectuals eventually discovered that the folk wisdom, oral literature,
> and everyday, practical culture of the Estonian peasant were also worth
> being regarded as serious objects of scientific research.
>
> The folk poems that served as the basis for 'Kalevipoeg' go back many
> centuries, and they are repositories of human experience which are
> different but every bit as rich and worthy of study as a Tolstoy novel.

Kalevipoeg-Schmalevipoeg (Sorry, fellow Estonian nationalists!). In all
honesty, Estonian language and culture owes by an order of magnitude
more to the local German-speaking upper class and intelligentsia and their
human experience than to any human experience reposited in 'Kalevipoeg'.
The latter, of course, let credit be given where it is due, was a good
myth-maker for purposes of national awakening of the 19th century and
did a good job in labelling German-speaking upper classes "them"
(exercisers of the 700-year 'German yoke') and Estonian-speaking lower
and middle classes "us" (sufferers from that "yoke").

Also:

Alo Merilo wrote:
>> Coming back to your question, yes, Latvia and Lithuania existed as
>> an independent state appr. 1500-1560, and it was called the
>> Livonian Order (after the Teutonic Order, which it used to be
>> part of, lost its possessions elsewhere).

To which Evaldas Zvinys responded:
>You are talking about a relatively short period during which
>non-local nobility dominated.
^^^^^^^^^

Sorry, Evaldas, but this is exactly the type of linguistic-ethnic bias
in interpeting history that I am talking about. The point is that the
nobilty was as local as it could get. The fact that they spoke Low German
makes them no less local than if they had spoken Estonian. Some ancestors
of that nobility arrived in Estonia already 300 years earlier, while
others were there even before that. (Note that immediately after the
conquest by the Crusaders, at least 20% of the local feudals were ethnic
Estonian elders and chieftains, who in a few generations switched to Low
German, as their social status required).

Best regards,
Alo Merilo