From: f33012l@puukko.hut.fi (Janne Kivel{)
Subject: Re: "democratic" Estonia
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 08:23:53 GMT

avg@rodan.UU.NET (Vadim Antonov) writes:

>>Nobody has claimed Finnish press is more unbiased than press in Russia.
>>You, on the other hand, boldly stated that "Russian media are generally
>>more unbiased than western media" in one of your postings. This claim
>>was based only on your observations and your feelings.
>
>As i already said i had a lot of chances to compare. Unlike you.

This argument is losing its meaning. You seem to be quite well aware
of my chances to compare different media.

>>Newspaper articles or TV reports rarely capture the whole story, but
>>Jarmo Ryyti provided some sources for his claims unlike you.
>
>My primary sources are my own observations. I trust my eyes more than
>all newspapers in the world. I do not own a TV set for i have no
>need to consume the pureed shit it offers.

However, don't expect everyone to trust your observations with 
the same faith as you.

>>Kazakhstan is heavily dependent on Russia in many ways. It's hardly 
>>surprising they don't try to aggravate Russians too much.
>
>Yuck. Russians ARE a majority in Kazakhstan. The poor guy did not
>his homework.

Really?

>It still does not make it less stupid to reject speaking English (or
>Russian).

I wouldn't blame the people who reject the language introduced by force,
would you? Even though the reason may be irrational. Of course, you
are a member of big nation, which might make it hard for you to understand.

>C'mon. Major European languages were taught in Russian schools for
>hundreds of years. Sez "start". Russian linguists have designed
>written languages for at least a dozen of small nations and taught them
>to write in their own language, FYI. The local broadcasting and newspapers
>in my native city always were in three languages (Russian, Kabardin and
>Balkar). The "suppression of the national cultures" is totally out
>of reality; though the suppression of the culture (and the Russian culture
>the first) by communist regime is a reality. In fact, local language
>cultures were less vulnerable simply because the cenzors were quite
>troubled to read in unfamiliar languages.

Then explain to me why so few of the Russians in Estonia speak Estonian
or know anything about Estonian culture and tradition.

>I'd say the learning of a particular language as a condition to
>obtaining citizenship (and as a cause for denying rights to posess 
>property) is totally outrageous and constitue a gross violation
>of basic human rights. Yes, someone needed to know Russian to be able
>to run an enterprise (as well as in the US you need to speak English to
>be able to get some something more well-paid than sweeping floors). But
>nobody is and was threatened to get expelled for failing to learn.

The language requirement, when enforced strictly, can be considered,
as you put it, a violation of human rights. I never said Estonian
government made a wise decision when passing such a law. And nobody is
threatened to be expelled, it's only a question of citizenship.

But seeing the situation only as "evil Estonians oppressing poor Russian
minority" is a gross exaggeration and simplification. If the conditions 
that led to the present situation are not taken into account, one may
be tempted to share the same opinion as you have.

>--vadim

Janne Kivela"