Russian Migrant Identity Struggle-‘I Don’t Want to Be Called Russian Anymore (multiculturalism, regime)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure, so I will ask again - why the first step of the new government was to strip Russian language of its official status, that it had along with Ukrainian all these years, since half of the country ( South East mostly) was traditionally speaking it?
What was it indicative of?
It was indicative of Ukraine having declared itself independent of the Soviet Union in 1990, with over 90% of all Ukrainians having voted for independence. The Soviet Union by the next year was dissolved. Ukraine established its own constitution, with Ukrainian eventually being recognized as the national language. This is no different from Russia having established that Russian is the only official language on the national level in Russia. FYI, Estonia and Latvia also chose not to have Russian as their nations' official language upon their gaining independence from the former Soviet Union, as was their prerogative.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 03-18-2022 at 09:10 PM..
The Ukrainian language was deemed to be the State language. This does not differ from many European countries which have established state languages -- including Russia. The speaking of Russian is not "prohibited" and Russian, along with some other languages, was granted minority status. More than a quarter of Ukraine's population speaks Russian.
It doubtless would have been better had Ukraine not taken nationalistic spirit so far, as to declare one and only one language to be formally legimate, to the detriment of Russian-speakers. Likewise in the Baltics. But even if we stipulate that such moves are unjust, unreasonable and discriminatory, is that grounds for invasion?
Let's recall how 30 years ago, South Africa was an international pariah, on account of its very real and very severe discriminatory policies. Though all sorts of nations condemned this discrimination, and rightly so, was there ever a serious impetus to invade South Africa, to offer relief to the persons bearing the brunt of discrimination?
One does not have to endorse or condone the policies of a nation, to nevertheless oppose a unilateral military "solution" to the injustice of said policies.
It doubtless would have been better had Ukraine not taken nationalistic spirit so far, as to declare one and only one language to be formally legimate, to the detriment of Russian-speakers. Likewise in the Baltics. But even if we stipulate that such moves are unjust, unreasonable and discriminatory, is that grounds for invasion?
Let's recall how 30 years ago, South Africa was an international pariah, on account of its very real and very severe discriminatory policies. Though all sorts of nations condemned this discrimination, and rightly so, was there ever a serious impetus to invade South Africa, to offer relief to the persons bearing the brunt of discrimination?
One does not have to endorse or condone the policies of a nation, to nevertheless oppose a unilateral military "solution" to the injustice of said policies.
You raise an interesting point with South Africa. South Africa was uniquely susceptible to sanctions and being an international pariah. It is a small enough factor in the world economy that countries could afford to truly strangle it. The world flatly cannot do without 25% of its oil and natural gas. The U.S. can forbear from purchasing Russian energy but it is meaningless. If Russia had no market for its oil it would buckle; that flatly cannot happen though. In the same way, Japan was quite susceptible to U.S. sanctions. U.S. soldiers, many from middle-class families, were simply being injured or dying at too fast a clip to let sanctions play out.
The language issue is an excuse; Russia as a nation always seeks to push its borders out far enough that its core or "Holy Russia" never has a border with the outside world. When the Former Soviet Union imploded, Yeltsin was forced to accept borders that amounted to those of "Holy Russia." Had the U.S. not had a compliant Bill Clinton as President, maybe Ukraine would not have been forced to shed its nukes, or all of them. Or maybe Russia would have been forced to invade immediately.
My own opinion (not the Great Debate topic) is that we should impose a no-fly zone. The nuclear threat does not work well for Russia. It does work well for the West. I would add the excellent analysis by Edward Luttwak in the August 1982 issue of Commentary Magazine (link). As Edward Luttwak explained in this article:
Quote:
In the absence of an offensive capacity by NATO and a lively willingness to preempt invasion, such protection can only be assured by nuclear weapons—or more precisely, by the architecture of nuclear deterrence which is now in place. If the Soviet Union does attack, its offensive would be met in the first instance by a non-nuclear defense of the forward areas close to the border. If NATO could not hold the front by non-nuclear combat, it would warn the Soviet Union that (small-yield) nuclear weapons would be used to strike at the invading Soviet forces. And then it would strike with such weapons if the warning went unheeded.
At that point the Soviet Union would realize that the alliance was standing up to the test, that it did have the will to defend itself in its moment of truth. One Soviet reaction might be to call off the war—a quite likely response if the invasion had been launched out of some hope of gain, but much less likely if it were the desperate last act of a crumbling empire.
The entire article is worthwhile and, if paywalled, DM me and I'll email you the entire PDF. My point being is to give Russia an array of unattractive choices.
Sure, so I will ask again - why the first step of the new government was to strip Russian language of its official status, that it had along with Ukrainian all these years, since half of the country ( South East mostly) was traditionally speaking it?
What was it indicative of?
I'm surprised at this question. As I'm sure you know, the former Baltic States did the same thing, and I assume the 'Stans did, too. This is what one would expect from territories that had been dominated by a "foreign" power against their will for decades, or generations. Russian as the official language was imposed on them. They changed the policy, because they were finally free to do so. Pretty simple and natural.
Maybe if things were to settle down eventually, and there was no more agitation and interference in their internal politics from Russia, they might someday find the magnanimity to declare Russian a second official language. But for now, they've had enough of Russian being a official language. Surely you can understand that. Maybe if there were ever someday, relationships of goodwill between Russia and its neighbors, genuine honest goodwill, it would be possible for there to be a dual-language policy.
I'm surprised at this question. As I'm sure you know, the former Baltic States did the same thing, and I assume the 'Stans did, too. This is what one would expect from territories that had been dominated by a "foreign" power against their will for decades, or generations. Russian as the official language was imposed on them. They changed the policy, because they were finally free to do so. Pretty simple and natural.
Maybe if things were to settle down eventually, and there was no more agitation and interference in their internal politics from Russia, they might someday find the magnanimity to declare Russian a second official language. But for now, they've had enough of Russian being a official language. Surely you can understand that. Maybe if there were ever someday, relationships of goodwill between Russia and its neighbors, genuine honest goodwill, it would be possible for there to be a dual-language policy.
Why is there a need for a divisive language policy at all? In the U.S., Britain and Australia English is not the official language. It is a commonly used "working language." Let people speak what they speak and provide services in commonly spoken languages where they are spoken. In the U.S. services are provided in Chinese in Chinatown, Spanish in appropriate areas, etc. Why enforce oppressive policies by including or excluding languages unless you are "fishing for a gas leak with a match"?
Hint, official bilingualism has caused far more language friction since 1968 than existed before then, when French could be used where justified.
Why is there a need for a divisive language policy at all? In the U.S., Britain and Australia English is not the official language. It is a commonly used "working language." Let people speak what they speak and provide services in commonly spoken languages where they are spoken. In the U.S. services are provided in Chinese in Chinatown, Spanish in appropriate areas, etc. Why enforce oppressive policies by including or excluding languages unless you are "fishing for a gas leak with a match"?
Hint, official bilingualism has caused far more language friction since 1968 than existed before then, when French could be used where justified.
An official language is the language used by a nation forgovernmental purposes, with the nation's constitution also written in its official language. This does not necessarily mean that citizens may not "speak what they speak and provide services in commonly spoken languages where they are spoken."
From your given examples above of countries without an official language, and unless I am mistaken, I believe what you wrote needs to be modified a bit: Great Britain does in fact have an official language, and that language is English. While it is true Australia does not have an official language and the U.S. has never declared an official language on the national level, nevertheless in the U.S. nearly two-thirds of our 50 states have determined that English is either the only official state language, or one of the official languages to be in use (Spanish being the language most commonly found alongside English).
People have historically put forth arguments claiming both advantages and disadvantages to having an official language, but the fact remains that the vast majority of nations throughout the world have elected to have at least one (sometimes more than one) official language for governmental purposes.
A sovereign nation has a right to self-identify as it chooses, even if that means having one or more official languages. I believe that Ruth4Truth (to whom you were responding) was talking about a nation having had a language imposed upon it by another, stronger and neighboring nation with whom it does not share friendly relations.
‘I Don’t Want to Be Called Russian Anymore’: Anxious Soviet Diaspora Rethinks Identity; (link), excerpts below:
I have never gotten this thing about hating emigres and their descendants for the horrors committed by their ancestors' rulers. It seems to me that most people emigrating from Eastern Europe or, for that matter China did so to escape the madhouses that those areas have historically been.
Speaking for myself, I am Jewish; half Slovak/Hungarian and half Russian, from modern Poland and Ukraine. I believe, unashamedly and unapologetically, in my Jewish and American heritage. I have no pride or longing for my European roots.
How do others feel?
It's common. Many years ago immigrants hid their Jewish roots. I have worked for many of them in the fabric industry; they hid their roots by naming their companies something less "Jewish sounding".
I met a man who was Iranian in the early 80's. He simply told me he was Persian.
If I were Russian and did not want to identify as Russian, I would tell people I was Estonian. The accents sound the same to most of us.
It's common. Many years ago immigrants hid their Jewish roots. I have worked for many of them in the fabric industry; they hid their roots by naming their companies something less "Jewish sounding".
I met a man who was Iranian in the early 80's. He simply told me he was Persian.
If I were Russian and did not want to identify as Russian, I would tell people I was Estonian. The accents sound the same to most of us.
While my heart goes out to all innocent Russians who have not taken part in the aggression against Ukraine, I do think that there is a difference between the reasons why some Russians may fear being identified as Russian, and why many Jews have historically feared being identified as Jews -- particularly when we have been accused of "killing Jesus," or accused of seeking out Christian children for use in blood rituals.
It may also be that the Iranian man you met who identified as being Persian did so not because of any shame regarding his origins, but because there are many former Iranian citizens today who proudly and defiantly identify as being Persian because they were against the Islamic Revolution back in the '70s when the Shah was overthrown.
There are also large communities of Persian Jews who immigrated to the U.S. during the Islamic Revolution and settled in Los Angeles and NYC. I have a very good friend, in fact, who happens to be a Persian Jew and who came to the U.S. at the age of 17 to escape the Islamic Revolution. You may also want to read Marjane Satrapi's compelling autobiography in graphic novel format, titled Persepolis, to get a better understanding as to why there are many former Iranians who insist on identifying as Persian today.
Why is there a need for a divisive language policy at all? In the U.S., Britain and Australia English is not the official language. It is a commonly used "working language." Let people speak what they speak and provide services in commonly spoken languages where they are spoken. In the U.S. services are provided in Chinese in Chinatown, Spanish in appropriate areas, etc. Why enforce oppressive policies by including or excluding languages unless you are "fishing for a gas leak with a match"?
Hint, official bilingualism has caused far more language friction since 1968 than existed before then, when French could be used where justified.
Why view it as divisive? Languages are being lost entirely, all over the world. In the former Soviet republics/Newly Independent States, a language foreign to them had been imposed for generations, to the point where some young people were losing their skills in their native language. The new governments want to support fluency in the majority's native language. They have some lost ground to recover, linguistically speaking. And all it means is, that government business will be done in that language, same as in most European countries, and the official language will be the medium of instruction in the schools. I don't see an issue.
Why view it as divisive? Languages are being lost entirely, all over the world. In the former Soviet republics/Newly Independent States, a language foreign to them had been imposed for generations, to the point where some young people were losing their skills in their native language. The new governments want to support fluency in the majority's native language. They have some lost ground to recover, linguistically speaking. And all it means is, that government business will be done in that language, same as in most European countries, and the official language will be the medium of instruction in the schools. I don't see an issue.
Indeed to the bold text above. Modern Hebrew, the official language of Israel, is a revival of ancient Hebrew that was all but lost as a spoken language by the time of the first couple of centuries C.E. (A.D.), having been gradually displaced by the Aramaic that was imposed on Jews during the Babylonian Captivity. Of course Biblical Hebrew was and continues to be used for religious purposes in Judaism today but, to the best of my knowledge, nobody today speaks Biblical Hebrew as their everyday spoken language.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
