From: tammet@cs.chalmers.se (Tanel Tammet)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,soc.culture.europe,talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re: Bilingualism - a good cause!
Date: 6 Jan 93 08:57:12 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS, Chalmers, Sweden

In article <1993Jan5.163658.1@cc.helsinki.fi> thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.135906.18631@cs.chalmers.se>, tammet@cs.chalmers.se (Tanel Tammet) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan2.130625.1@cc.helsinki.fi> thietaniemi@cc.helsinki.fi writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec31.161143.11815@cs.chalmers.se>, tammet@cs.chalmers.se 
>>>(Tanel Tammet) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>> Now, Finland is NOT an archetypical case of bilingualism, and
>> bringing Helsinki as an example/comparison is not especially
>> informative.
>
>
>No bilingual country is an "archetypical case of bilingualism", they
>have their own distinct features (Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, Finland).
>Helsinki is a very good example for Tallinn, at least (situated
>80 km southeast from Helsinki). The cities have quite a lot to
>learn from each other!
>
>> As for "any resident of bilingual country", just read
>> Sylvain's posting recalling that there is, for example,
>> bilingual Canada, pretty different from Finland.
>
>Exactly. There are differences. But where's the beef?

The beef: The linguistic and associated political situation in
Helsinki and Tallinn are too different to bring Helsinki up as
any kind of example.

>> In my understanding Swedish is one of the official languages
>> in Finland due to the following reasons (in the diminishing
>> order of importance). Of course, you know the real reasons
>> much better than me, so please correct if something is badly wrong:
>> 
>> 
>> 1) Historical reasons. Finland has been the area of Swedish
>> dominance for centuries. Swedish  used to be the language of
>> elite.
>
>
>Right. The language of cultural elite and education.
>
> 
>> In Estonia German stands up as analogy to Swedish in Finland.
>
>
>Did stand, until this century, or, perhaps until 1939, when the
>Fuehrer commanded the Germans "Heim ins Reich".

The status of German as the language of elite lost ground
earlier, and all during the independent Estonia German had no
"elite" status.

An interesting comparison: after the creation of independent Estonia
and the end of brief German occupation in WWI, local Germans lost
their political power, privileges, etc. Worse (now this is NOT
a part of comparison), the big land properties were nationalized
and distributed to peasants. As a consequence, local germans used
to have bitter feelings and complained actively that they were being
repressed, discriminated and generally treated unfairly. At the end
of WWI some military units formed of local germans (Landeswehr) fought
against estonian newborn army in the hope of replacing the newborn
independency by a german-dominated Baltic smth. This worsened
the attitude toward local Germans in twenties. 

>> 2) Political reasons. Finland wants to be in the group of
>> Scandinavian countries, both politically and economically
>> (and perhaps also culturally, to some extent). 
>
>> This is
>> simplified by accepting Swedish (the main Scandinavian language)
>> as one of the official languages.
>> 
>> IMHO, the question  which language has which status in some
>> country is NOT just a matter of convenience. Language is
>> clearly a vehicle for manifesting power. Say, accepting
>> German as one of the official languages in Estonia would,
>> after some time, have important political consequences.
>
>No one is suggesting German seriuously.

Of course not. This is an experimental suggestion to think about
the political consequences of giving official status to some languages. 

>> So would accepting Russian. 
>
>
>Estonia is also a part of the Imperium. You have many economic
>and cultural and political ties to Russian speaking Imperium.
>And - the struggle for Estonian independency and democracy in Russia
>are deeply tied together! That's why bilingualism should be supported.

In a sense Finland is (was until recently?) part of the Imperium (though
a different denotation of Imperium than you use), the ties personified
by the macho figure of Kekkonen. The ties (both political and economical)
were pretty strong. 

I know you have a different view on Kekkonen-related issues, so
please do not bother to reply to the lines above :-) 

In my opinion one of the primary tasks of Estonia is to minimize
the economic, cultural and political ties to Russian speaking
Imperium. Of course, this may lead to some immediate economic
losses (or maybe not?), but I consider the harm coming from
strong connections to Russia greater than the good. For example,
economic ties with Russia do export corruption and crime from
Russia to Estonia in a very noticeable degree. The trade with
metals is one example. Sure, I am against any prohibition of
trade with anybody: I just point out that trade with Russia
has specific bad points when compared to trade with other countries.


As for political and cultural ties: I do not think Estonia has
much influence to Russian politics, and I definitely think
that political ties with Russian politics are very unwelcome.

In this I probably disagree with your general attitude, as you
expressed yourself as a serious supporter of Kekkonen.

Anyway, from your text above I read out that you suggest
Estonia having strong economical, cultural and political ties
with Russia, and ESPECIALLY FOR THAT REASON you suggest
official bilingualism. Me, on the other hand, am against official
total bilingualism exactly for the reason to escape the sphere
of Russian dominance. I am not at all optimistic about keeping
close ties with Russia to gain something WITHOUT losing more
than the gain. It is very hard to keep the right balance.
Total official bilingualism would be absolutely off-balance,
losing much-much more than the gain. At least this is a
universally accepted truth in Estonian politics.

>I don't see clearly the danger of bilingualism, still! Bilingual
>bank notes and street signs would not do any harm, on the 
>contrary!

These two items would not make very much harm, I agree,
but the harm will be greater than gain.
 
>> If you believe that the politics of dominances is a 
>> thing of the past or that culture and language play
>> little role in that, I stress that I disagree. 
>
>
>It would be a lot of easier to educate a loyal, patriotic
>Russian speaking population in Estonia with more biligualism.

Not sure. Estonian and Russian communities and politics
are very separated. I do not expect at all that total bilingualism
would diminish that separation. I am pretty sure about the
contrary.

>> In the inner politics of Estonia acceptance of Russian as
>> an official language would among other things mean that
>> local russians orient seriously to Russia.
>
>
>Partly, and partly it might give a start for bilingual
>patriotism.

Again, I am absolutely sceptical about the optimistic
idea of bilingual patriotism.

>> I claim that the existing situation staisfies their needs (and I have
>> not heard about wide complaints). Russian speakers can use Russian
>> in ALMOST ALL situations. 
>
>
>The existing language law is progressive, indeed.
>
>
>> There are no attempts to "Estonize" 
>> russians, etc. The case that Russian is not one of the official
>> languages means a few specific things. Eg, passports are only
>> in Estonian (plus the translation to English), various other
>> documents (but not all!) are also only in Estonian. 
>
>
>Adding small cyrillic print would not do much damage to your
>independence.

The message it gives would do a lot of damage in a longer
time scan. 

>> Imagine
>> dropping Swedish from Finland and introducing Russian as
>> official language - no political consequences in the long run?
>
>Of course, but that would be unnecessary, since there are only
>8000 Russians in Finland, mostly, in Helsinki.

It would be necessary to get closer ties with Russia if you
somewhy want that :-) I bet you will have a little more than
8000 Russians after some time once Russian has been
introduced as an official language :-)
 
>I see. My opinion: Russian should have at least a semi-official
>status.

Well, I think it has already.

>> and that such ideas are unrealistic in the political
>> context of Estonia.
>
>You have convinced me that there exists psychological obstacles
>against such ideas.

Good!

>>>> There might be immediate bad effects on economy
>>>> also  - for example, if Estonian banknotes were to carry
>>>> a few Cyrillic letters, the public perception of Estonian currency
>>>> would gain sceptical attitudes, funny as it may seem. 
>>>
>>>
>>>You are right indeed, it sounds funny! Since very few people have even seen
>>>the Estonian bank notes, they do not affect much to the impression on
>>>Estonia. When we speak about economy and willingness to invest in Estonia,
>>>I am inclined to think that inner instability of Estonia is the main hinder 
>>>for foreign investments, not the possible cyrillic letters on your bank notes.
>> 
>> The "very few people" in your text includes all people living in Estonia.
>> To these people, the prime users of Estonian currency, even to
>> russian patriots among them, cyrillic letters on banknotes will lead
>> thoughts to the despised rouble and will generate ideas that
>> Estonian kroon is just another rouble-like currency. 
>
>
>Even cyrillic small print?

There is no difference between the effects produced by
"small" or "large" print. The message is the same.
>
>
>> Now this
>> means that ordinary folks will prefer to keep their money in
>> other currencies and avoid kroon. 
>
>
>Here, you can't be serious. People accept the money that is in
>circulation. The Russians have not abandoned their roubles only
>because there are Lenin and other silly things printed on them :-)

Of course I am overestimating. But I claim that there exist
such mechanisms and there would be a noticeable effect on the
trustworthiness of kroon. Exactly how strong this effect would be
is impossible to predict.

>> The street estimation of the
>> probability of devaluation has a strong effect on the actual
>> probability of devaluation. Kind of obvious.
>
>
>Totally over-exaggerated.

Sure. But some effect on public perception of kroon there would be.

Regards,
	Tanel Tammet
Xref: sparky soc.culture.soviet:11950 soc.culture.europe:11083 talk.politics.soviet:10314