Linguistic rights

This forum is the place to have more serious discussions about politics and religion, and your opinions thereof. Be courteous!

Moderator: Forum Administrators

Forum rules
When a registered user insults another person (user or not), nation, political group or religious group, s/he will be deprived of her/his permission to post in the forum. That user has the right to re-register one week after s/he has lost the permission. Further violations will result in longer prohibitions.

By default, you are automatically registered to post in this forum. However, users cannot post in the politics forum during the first week after registration. Users can also not make their very first post in the politics forum.
User avatar
Oleksij
Posts: 4762
Joined: 2005-06-28, 16:46
Real Name: Олексій Мірошниченко
Gender: male
Location: Nicosia
Country: CY Cyprus (Κύπρος / Kıbrıs)
Contact:

Re: Linguistic rights

Postby Oleksij » 2012-03-05, 23:53

Ludwig Whitby wrote:The only reason Latvia gets away with not respecting its ethnic minorities as much as it, as a European country, should is because that minority is the Russian one. Russians are the enemy, everyone knows that.

That's right. And deservedly so. I know you guys like 'Russia' and everything that seems to have to do with it, but believe me, that you will only do as long as you don't border them (and luckily for you, never will).
Moja ulica murem podzielona - świeci neonami prawa strona, lewa strona cała wygaszona, zza zasłony obserwuję obie strony.
My Youtube Channel
Last.fm

Sol Invictus
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 2987
Joined: 2007-01-04, 13:59
Gender: female
Location: Rīga
Country: LV Latvia (Latvija)

Re: Linguistic rights

Postby Sol Invictus » 2012-03-06, 6:09

Oleksij wrote:
Ludwig Whitby wrote:The only reason Latvia gets away with not respecting its ethnic minorities as much as it, as a European country, should is because that minority is the Russian one. Russians are the enemy, everyone knows that.

That's right. And deservedly so.

There is a difference between Russia and Russian speakers, you know.

I know you guys like 'Russia' and everything that seems to have to do with it, but believe me, that you will only do as long as you don't border them (and luckily for you, never will).

Didn't they almost get to that during Soviet era?

Ludwig Whitby
Posts: 3665
Joined: 2009-03-30, 13:44
Gender: male
Location: Belgrade
Country: RS Serbia (Србија)

Re: Linguistic rights

Postby Ludwig Whitby » 2012-03-06, 6:25

Oleksij wrote:
Ludwig Whitby wrote:The only reason Latvia gets away with not respecting its ethnic minorities as much as it, as a European country, should is because that minority is the Russian one. Russians are the enemy, everyone knows that.

That's right. And deservedly so. I know you guys like 'Russia' and everything that seems to have to do with it, but believe me, that you will only do as long as you don't border them (and luckily for you, never will).

I never said anything about emotions. I'm just stating facts.
Sol Invictus wrote:There is a difference between Russia and Russian speakers, you know.

There is, but don't Russian speakers everywhere get support from Russia as it is trying to expand it's political influence and power over neighbouring countries (such as Ukraine)?
Sol Invictus wrote:
I know you guys like 'Russia' and everything that seems to have to do with it, but believe me, that you will only do as long as you don't border them (and luckily for you, never will).

Didn't they almost get to that during Soviet era?

Tito was the only person who told Stalin to fuck off and lived to tell the tale. During the Cold War, most Yugoslavs would choose USA over USSR.

Sol Invictus
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 2987
Joined: 2007-01-04, 13:59
Gender: female
Location: Rīga
Country: LV Latvia (Latvija)

Re: Linguistic rights

Postby Sol Invictus » 2012-03-06, 6:55

Ludwig Whitby wrote:
Sol Invictus wrote:There is a difference between Russia and Russian speakers, you know.

There is, but don't Russian speakers everywhere get support from Russia as it is trying to expand it's political influence and power over neighbouring countries (such as Ukraine)?

But what makes you think Russian speakers everywhere support Russia?

Ludwig Whitby
Posts: 3665
Joined: 2009-03-30, 13:44
Gender: male
Location: Belgrade
Country: RS Serbia (Србија)

Re: Linguistic rights

Postby Ludwig Whitby » 2012-03-06, 11:59

Sol Invictus wrote:
Ludwig Whitby wrote:
Sol Invictus wrote:There is a difference between Russia and Russian speakers, you know.

There is, but don't Russian speakers everywhere get support from Russia as it is trying to expand it's political influence and power over neighbouring countries (such as Ukraine)?

But what makes you think Russian speakers everywhere support Russia?

It's my assumption based on the politics of the countries where Russian is either an official language or holds at least some official status and is seen as a prestigious and respected language. What I have in mind is Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Transnistria, South Ossetia and the rest of the CIS countries including Ukraine.

I assumed the same could be applied to the Baltic states, but I might be wrong. How do the Russians there feel about Russia? Wouldn't they prefer being in Eurasian Union and having closer ties to Russia to being in the EU?

User avatar
Oleksij
Posts: 4762
Joined: 2005-06-28, 16:46
Real Name: Олексій Мірошниченко
Gender: male
Location: Nicosia
Country: CY Cyprus (Κύπρος / Kıbrıs)
Contact:

Re: Linguistic rights

Postby Oleksij » 2012-03-06, 15:56

Ludwig Whitby wrote:
Sol Invictus wrote:
Ludwig Whitby wrote:
Sol Invictus wrote:There is a difference between Russia and Russian speakers, you know.

There is, but don't Russian speakers everywhere get support from Russia as it is trying to expand it's political influence and power over neighbouring countries (such as Ukraine)?

But what makes you think Russian speakers everywhere support Russia?

It's my assumption based on the politics of the countries where Russian is either an official language or holds at least some official status and is seen as a prestigious and respected language. What I have in mind is Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Transnistria, South Ossetia and the rest of the CIS countries including Ukraine.

I assumed the same could be applied to the Baltic states, but I might be wrong. How do the Russians there feel about Russia? Wouldn't they prefer being in Eurasian Union and having closer ties to Russia to being in the EU?

I can speak for Ukraine, but I am guessing it is also valid for several European former Soviet states, like the Baltics and Georgia, and that is, (1) emotions do play a role, because Russia constantly stirrs them, (2) Ethnic Russians is by far not equal to actual Russian-speaking populance, which is much larger than the ethnic Russian population (3) most Russian-speakers (including some ethnic Russians) understand the geopolitical situation very well and therefore would never support any official status for Russian.

Don't get the false impression that just because someone's dominant/native language is Russian, they automatically love 'the Motherland' and want to jump back into the eternal suffocating brotherly hold of the 'gaol of nations', as Russia is satirically called in the former Soviet Union.
Moja ulica murem podzielona - świeci neonami prawa strona, lewa strona cała wygaszona, zza zasłony obserwuję obie strony.
My Youtube Channel
Last.fm

Sol Invictus
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 2987
Joined: 2007-01-04, 13:59
Gender: female
Location: Rīga
Country: LV Latvia (Latvija)

Re: Linguistic rights

Postby Sol Invictus » 2012-03-06, 16:52

Oleksij wrote:
Ludwig Whitby wrote:
Sol Invictus wrote:
Ludwig Whitby wrote:
Sol Invictus wrote:There is a difference between Russia and Russian speakers, you know.

There is, but don't Russian speakers everywhere get support from Russia as it is trying to expand it's political influence and power over neighbouring countries (such as Ukraine)?

But what makes you think Russian speakers everywhere support Russia?

It's my assumption based on the politics of the countries where Russian is either an official language or holds at least some official status and is seen as a prestigious and respected language. What I have in mind is Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Transnistria, South Ossetia and the rest of the CIS countries including Ukraine.

I assumed the same could be applied to the Baltic states, but I might be wrong. How do the Russians there feel about Russia? Wouldn't they prefer being in Eurasian Union and having closer ties to Russia to being in the EU?

I can speak for Ukraine, but I am guessing it is also valid for several European former Soviet states, like the Baltics and Georgia, and that is, (1) emotions do play a role, because Russia constantly stirrs them, (2) Ethnic Russians is by far not equal to actual Russian-speaking populance, which is much larger than the ethnic Russian population (3) most Russian-speakers (including some ethnic Russians) understand the geopolitical situation very well and therefore would never support any official status for Russian.

Don't get the false impression that just because someone's dominant/native language is Russian, they automatically love 'the Motherland' and want to jump back into the eternal suffocating brotherly hold of the 'gaol of nations', as Russia is satirically called in the former Soviet Union.

Well, exactly. There are plenty of people who like Russia or think that dissolution of USSR was bad idea, but that doesn't mean all of them do (frankly I think the sentiment is more alive in older generation). Why would Russian speakers, not all of whom even are Russians, support a country that is trying to use them as political tool in a way that might even spark ethnic hatred towards them? But the way Russia puts it Russian speaking=Native Russian speaking=Russian=Not a citizen=Likes Russia (90%=40%=27%=14%=5%), thus everyone is member of endangered species, which needs protecting from the evil oppressive government

User avatar
Ariki
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2004-10-01, 14:53
Real Name: Tāne
Gender: male
Country: NZ New Zealand (New Zealand / Aotearoa)

Re: Linguistic rights

Postby Ariki » 2012-04-16, 7:04

Talib wrote:Here's a thought experiment. Let's say we have Language Group A and Language Group B. These two groups of speakers coexist in the same territory peacefully for centuries, until one day Group A gains power and implements policies intended to marginalize Group B's language and drives it almost to extinction. Later, this regime is dissolved and Group B begins to recover their former prestige. Laws are enacted making both languages official, and both are used in education and the media. Seems fair, right?

But that's not the end of it. Some of the more militant members of Group B feel these efforts don't go far enough, and demand recompense. They insist that their language be the sole official one in areas where they form the majority, although there is a quite a large number of Group A speakers there as well. In effect, they want to deny the same rights to Group A that were previously denied to them. Their justification is their past persecution and what they claim is the need to save their language from extinction.


Wouldn't happen in New Zealand however I can see a good argument as to why New Zealand Maori should be the primary official language in certain areas primarily because those areas are 99% ethnically Maori. However, English should be available in those areas, but only on request.

What I want to know is, do you find this justified? Is it morally defensible to deny certain people their rights if it leads to a rebirth of your own culture? Or is this merely a case of two wrongs not making a right?

Some obvious historical parallels include the treatment of Russians in Latvia, Anglophones in Quebec and Italians in Libya.


English, Russian and Italian aren't going anywhere any time soon. Two of the three are world languages and Italian is learnt as a second language by many as well. Quebcois though has the strength of European French to rely on, but I'm sure speakers of both variants of French may not be happy with such a statement.
Linguicide IS genocide. :)

He ingoa ōpaki a Riki; he ingoa ōkawa a Ariki.

Riki is an informal name; Ariki is a formal name.

johnH

Re: Linguistic rights

Postby johnH » 2012-07-06, 9:13

Sol Invictus wrote:
Talib wrote:(Since when were Livonian or Latgalian ever on equal terms in speakers with Latvian, by the way?)

What you mean?
No, it probably will just screw up situation even more. It may be just, though, to force both groups to learn each others language, as seems to be the case in some European countries which have two official languages, one of which is spoken only by a small minority.
Such as?

Ireland for sure, suspect some other countries, but Wikipedia's down, so hard to do a proper research :ohwell:


Not a great example but the concept of bring forced to learn Irish is no more true than being forced to learn English everywhere... We're more fooled into learning it at a young age so we don't regret it later that is the theory :whistle: in practice in many parts their isn't the opportunity to learn it because their isn't good education and it begins to late.


Return to “Politics and Religion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest