aaronssongs;47460 wrote:Wow. For one who wears his diploma on his sleeve, at all times, you seem to be either incredibly naive, or totally ignorant of European history.
Try reading "Russka", by Edward Rutherfurd, which gives a comprehensive view of Russia from it's beginnings to its' fall.
Russia, itself, was an oppressed homeland...so the Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, were not any more "oppressed" than the whole of Russia, of which they were an integral part for the bulk of their individual histories. And as you "incorrectly stated", they were not ancillary states to the Polish, Lithuanian and Russian Empires....While in Latvia and most of Estonia Livonian Confederation was established, Lithuania established its own state as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania some time before 1252. It later was a major political power of the region. It was, in fact, it's own empire. After Livonian War in 16th century Confederation ceased to exist and its lands were incorporated into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In 1621 most of Duchy of Livonia was incorporated into Swedish empire. During the Great Northern War the Dominions of Sweden of Swedish Estonia and Swedish Livonia were conquered by Russia and then ceded by Sweden in the Treaty of Nystad in 1721. Russian Empire gained control of most of present day Baltic states in the 18th century when the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was partitioned in three stages by Russian Empire (under Catherine the Great), Kingdom of Prussia, and the Habsburg Monarchy, while western parts of Lithuania were incoroporated into Prussia.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania became sovereign nations in the aftermath of World War I.
Given your prior racists remarks, I can easily understand you writing, "... It makes sense that a people who have been put down and oppressed throughout the entirety of their history would seek to establish a state strictly for themselves. I say good for them." Ethnic cleansing, so to speak...right up your alley. History may not have been your forte, but it was, and is mine.
Besides, when I was living in Chicago, I was very good friends with a Polish-American, who worked for the Secret Service, during WWII...who gave me the inner scoops on Eastern European history and culture. Say what? Talk about what you know about.
Aaron, you just justified my assertion. Latvia and Estonia have, historically, been ancillary states to the Polish, Russian, and LITHUANIAN Empires, I never said Lithuania was historically weak, but as per usual, you've decided to attack my intellect and claim that I support racism, baby-killing, punching the elderly, and NASCAR, you know, all the worst parts of the Bible.
The degree of autonomy a people seek is directly related to their historical sovereignty, look at Ukraine as an example. The Orange Revolution and the support for Yushenko was a total rejection of Russian influence, and ethnic Ukrainian is the primary language spoken in parliamentary proceedings, as well as domestic business. All of the former USSR with the exceptions of Kazakhstan (though they have revived their language) and Belarus have instituted extremely nationalistic regimes within their governments and societies, and the Baltics, who never really felt at home with the Soviets anyway, are an exceptionally strong case.
I suggest you read Alexnader Chubarov's
Russia's Bitter Path to Modernity: A History of Soviet and Post-Soviet Eras, as he discusses in detail the secession of the Baltic states, their moves towards the West, and tensions between ethnic Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians and non-Baltic peoples.
I just wrote a paper intended for publication (one of my old professors is putting a journal together, I asked if I could chip in) examining Russian opposition to US hegemony in which resurgent nationalism is explored as one of the root motivations for Russian obstinacy concerning US global policy initiatives. Nationalism is a MAJOR FACTOR among oppressed people or people who feel disenchanted with multi-cultural society, and whether you like it or not, history has demonstrated that monoethnic societies tend to be more stable than multi-ethnic ones. Compare Ukraine to Rwanda, and you'll note that despite INCREDIBLE differentiation between Ukraine's Western and Eastern provinces concerning alignment (with the West favoring the EU, and the East favoring the CIS), due to a common nationality, the Orange Revolution was able to commence without major bloodshed.
Rwanda by contrast was mutli-ethnic, and despite democratic reforms, national feuds ultimately overshadowed substantive progress, and the world saw what happened. In nascent states, nationalism is IMPORTANT because it removes one less agitant from the myriad already on the table.
Do states comprised of a singular ethnicity always succeed? Absolutely not, Tajikistan is embroiled in a civil war presently and Turkmenistan is on the verge of economic collapse. I am merely saying that newly formed states, which the Baltic states are (not nations, STATES) tend to succeed more often than not when a singular ethnicity binds state actors. Once stability and governance are in place within a country, other ethnicities are generally included in government, though not always painlessly (see US, France, Britain, Spain, Italy.....you get the idea).
There, I was calm, respectful, and addressed your points. Please afford me the same courtesy and refrain from attacking me personally.
:thumbup:
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace