On May 6, 11:12=C2=A0pm, P=C4=93teris Cedri=C5=86=C5=A1 (Peteris Cedrins)
<cedr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On 7 Maijs, 07:09, ostap_bender_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 6, 9:34 am, P=C3=A7teris Cedri=C3=B2=C3=B0 (Peteris Cedrins)
>
> > <cedr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > The passage regards ethnic Russian soldiers, not ethnic Russians.
And
> > > again -- nationality is not ethnicity.
>
> > It isn't? Then why do you use the fact that 30% of Transdniestria are
> > ethnic Moldovans (who want Transdniestrian independence too, btw),
> > with the remaining 70% being Slavs as always, as your only reason why
> > you want Transdniestria to become part of the nation Romania and thus
> > Romanian nationals?
>
> > On Feb 4, 4:02 am, "Peteris Cedrin=C3=B0 (Peteris Cedrins)" wrote:
>
> > > On 3 Febr., 08:03, ostap_bender_1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > > > Peteris,
>
> > > > I was doing some google search, I came across your old post,
> > > > in which you wrote:
>
> > > > > Transnistria, Moldova, and Romania are essentially Romanian.
>
> > > > What is it, in your view, that makes the traditionally Ukrainian
lan=
d
> > > > Transdniestia "Romanian"?
>
> > > Wikipedia: "According to the 2004 Census in Transnistria, ethnic
> > > Moldovans compose the plurality with 31.9%, followed by ethnic
> > > Russians 30.4%, and Ukrainians 28.8%."
>
> > You and your Romanian facist friends are so into ethnicity-counting
> > that you even separate ethnic Russians and Ukrainians in ordser to
> > perpetrate "moldovan plurality", =C2=A0even though in Transdniestria,
th=
e
> > two are one and the same nation and culture and totally
> > indistinguishable except for an "ethnicity" entry in their old
> > outdated Soviet pass****ts. In fact, most ethnic Moldovans too are part
> > of that russo-beloruso-ukrainian (ancient and modern) Rus nation/
> > culture and want nothing to do with communist peasant Moldova, not to
> > mention natoist peasant Romania.
>
> > So, stop your demagoguery and hypocritical pretensions that you don't
> > pay attention to ethnicity. To you, ethnicity is the most im****tant
> > factor. In fact, the only factor, the decisive factor. To you, any
> > land that has a Moldovan minority, should be forced against its will
> > to subjugate itself to Romanian occupation. Just like Britain forced
> > Russia's ally Czechoslvakia, because of its German and tiny Polish and
> > Hungarian minorities, to be carved up and enslaved by Britain's best
> > friends: Nazi Germany, fascist Hungary and dictatorial Poland in 1938,
> > effectively starting WWII.
>
> Gee, here I was drowning in guilt over my forefathers' dastardly
> subjugation of Russia and Ukraine, but now I feel bad about my British
> allies' carving up Czechoslovakia, too... hey, where was that
> supremely effective League of Nations at the time?
>
> I would try to stifle any hypocritical pretensions about not paying
> attention to ethnicity -- except that I never said I don't pay
> attention to ethnicity. I think ethnicity is very im****tant.
> Nationality and ethnicity relate in complex ways, however, and it's
> often necessary to pay attention to the distinctions. Livs, for
> example, are ethnically quite different from Letts, but they're part
> of the Latvian nation. Many Poles, Jews, Ukrainians, and -- yes --
> Russians are, too. There are plenty of gray areas, including that vast
> gray area occupied by homo sovieticus.
>
> You just got done claiming that Ossetians wish to be part of Russia.
> Assuming that's true -- it makes Ossetians Russians by nationality,
> but not by ethnicity. As a matter of fact, Chechens are Russian
> nationals, too, albeit unwillingly so. Like the tsarist empire, the
> Russian Federation is multi-ethnic and even multinational in some
> ways. So are many other countries, in different degrees.
>
> How does this matter with regard to the Riflemen? Well, they were
> Russian nationals. There was no Latvian nation-state, and if you'll
> recall -- the Riflemen had just finished fighting for the Russian
> Empire, with remarkable valor and immense losses. Yes, they looked
> down on Russian soldiers and felt betrayed by the military leader****p
> -- I wonder why.
>
> Black Monk asked how I know what they thought -- well, different
> Riflemen thought differently, obviously, but one can read about that
> era (and I actually met a Riflemen, by the way -- the illustrious Lt.
> Col. Dardz=C4=81ns, who detested the Bolsheviks but was not an admirer
of
> the Russian nation, to put it mildly... it was Dardz=C4=81ns who led the
> Troitsk Regiment, which fought the Reds together with the Czech
> Legion, across Siberia and back to Latvia [whilst blaming foreigners,
> primarily Jews and Latvians, for imposing Bolshevism, many a Russian
> will then turn around to whine about _that_ foreign intervention...
> there were ca. 10 000 Letts in the White Guard]).
>
> Even among the Reds, the views they held depended on context and whom
> we are talking about. Jukums V=C4=81cietis, for example (the first
c-in-c
> of the Soviet military) wasn't a Party member -- and the German Consul
> who met with him in late 1918 came away calling him and his soldiers
> "Latvian nationalists." But, then, who describes what views? To the
> Germans (von der Goltz, for example), Ulmanis and anyone else opposing
> feudalism here was a "half-Bolshevik."
>
> My point, though, is that the primary strain of Red thought was
> obviously not about Latvia as a nation-state -- it was, at best, about
> a brotherly republic in a sea of revolution that would sweep across
> Europe. On the other side, the fact is that the concept of a sovereign
> Latvia developed late and rather suddenly. Choices were not clear cut,
> and I think it is crucial to look carefully at the strains of thought
> and how they twist, and into the chaos in which they grew (for
> example, remember that Latvia was occupied by Germany and a huge
> pro****tion of the population had been turned into refugees).
>
Why don't you address the issue why you consider Transdniestria to be
"essentially Rumanian"?
|
