Latvians Reject Russian As Second Language

Nice try rick! Latvia is a sovereign state. New Mexico, Louisiana, California, etc. are not. The WHOLE US will not accept Spanish as a second language.

USa is a confederation,

where there is federal legislation

and one from each state that is in the confederation

So

depending on topics

those USA confederal states are sovereign like is Latvia


Among those topics

there is also the linguistic determination


As such those confederal states

can chose for having or not the death penalty

etc. etc. etc.


But here the point is not the law or sovereignty

it is the common sense!

Could you be a little more precise as to what exactly you mean by the "full story"?

Russians are not illegals in the country. They were born and lived all their lives in Latvia. So keep your illegal Mexicans analogy to yourself.

To WILL and ANONYMOUS from USA: I think, Will, that the Mexican analogy of the Anonymous is very revealing in the sense that it show the extent to which the kind of linguistic legislation existing in Latvia is INEFFICIENT and COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. So, you live in the US, you know better than anyone that no legislation has made and will never make the Mexicans living in California or Texas speak any language other than SPANISH. The same way - and this is obvious from a number of comments on this forum - no legislation has prevented the Russians living in Latvia stick to their native language. TO THE CONTRARY, the linguistic (and other form of persecution) on the part of the Latvian majority has brought about the POLITICAL CONSOLIDATION of the Russian-speaking minority in Latvia, which led to that in the last parl. elections (2011) the Russian party called "Harmony Center" has become the biggest political force in the Latvian parliament FOR THE FIRST TIME in the last 20 years.
The above shows that this kind of legislation - instead of promoting the Latvian language - makes ethno-linguistic minorities MORE ASSERTIVE in rejecting it, which is the contrary of what the legislation authors' inteded to achieve. Thus, the legislation is completely counterproductive. Wait for the next elections in Latvia and you will see the Russian-speakers enter the country's govt for the first time (after they have for the first time secured the control of the cityhall of the country's capital Riga a couple of years ago).

if you put a lion in a corner

it will jump over you

@ Will
Russians in Latvia ARE illegals as long as they do not have Latvian citizenship. They are SOVIET RUSSIANS who refuse to assimilate just like Muslims in Western Europe. Learning the language and culture of another country is often required to become a citizen. It might also be worth mentioning that Latvia is primarily a Lutheran country with historic ties to Germany. Only the Russians living there are Orthodox. It's more than just a language dispute, it's religious and cultural as well.

@Eugenio the Gringo Hater
You make it sound like Russian-speakers are going to overtake the country in the next election. They are a minority in a small country. This overwhelming rejection of the Russian language may be a bad sign for those at Riga city hall.

could be your future child illegal
if one day your government decides that ?

Could be illegal a Texan
if one day Texas will return under the jurisdiction of Mexico ?

You have to understand that something
is entering in a state as immigrant

other and very different
is always living in a region
that then , only then
become an independent state
in which the ethnic majority
(that was previously a minority)

decides that you are not citizen of that state!

This in south africa was called Hapartaid !


I had an uncle who was born in Dalmatia,
he has Venetian origins as many in Dalmatia.

He was born under the Austro-Hungarian Empire,
and also if was italian he serves army of Franz Joseph I von Österreich

then after WW I he became Italian

then after WW II he became Yugoslavian

then after 1990 he became Croatian

and finally before to die he was back to his Italian origin .

And never, ever anyone told him
that he was not a citizen of one of those 4 countries


So .... what we can understand by this history ?

For exemple that multi-ethnic state exist in 1800 / early 1900
when we thought that the principles of human rights were not respected

whereas now
In time in which we like to fill our mouths with principles and humans rights
really no one respects them
when is trying to create or defend
a new state
on a MONO-ethnic bases

(kosovo , bosnia , latvia , estonian , lithuanian ecc ecc )

So we are denying all those beautiful principles
of humanity and brotherhood
of tolerance and understanding between peoples

that we like so much to sing
but we don't like to respect !