powers including at one time or another in their histories by Poland, Germany,
Sweden and Russia. All of these periods of occupation with practices of
genocide under the Nazis, massive exiles of the native populations and Russian
colonization during the Soviet period?
have left an indelible imprint on these nations.? Indigenous cultures that have survived or
preserved an identity have done so essentially?
as peasant cultures, very much distinct from the cultures of the
masters. In a curious way, the masters or ruling classes in the Baltics have
always been foreigners who preserved their own traditions and language over
centuries. In the present post Soviet?
period with the re-assertion of sovereignty and the rise of nationalism,
the question arises for the Baltics: ?How far can we assert our national
identities without violating basic rights of our ?immigrant? minority ethnic
groups??? David Miller for one has
argued for limiting rights our immigrant groups which threaten national
stability.? He writes: (In? the) circumstance where the immigrant group
is strong and cohesive enough to?????
constitute itself as an independent nation ..(perhaps as a result of )
having been expelled from some other place ? the receiving nation may have good
reason to guard itself against being turned into bi-national society,
particularily where it forces deep conflicts between the two people.[16]? In
defending cultural nationalism, we are not arguing against immigration, nor are
we arguing for a static ethnic sense of national identity into which the
immigrant must be assimilated with a total loss of his/her previous ethnic or
national identity. We are arguing for a gradual integration ?according to the
absorptive capacities of the nation in question?. The process of integrating
the immigrant is not a one-way street where the immigrant simply acquires a new
cultural identity, but a process where the national identity itself is in
constant but gradual flux.???? Nationalism
in a multicultural setting should present itself under icons or national
symbols that are not offensive to minorities and can be comprehensively adopted
by all members of the society.? National
identity must be defined as far as possible ?independent of group-specific
values?. Although complete cultural neutrality is not feasible in practice
since ?a national language is the bearer of the culture of the people whose
language it originally was?[17],
the nation should present itself in a way which is culturally innocuous to the
minorities. ?Remove the prejudice? which is inherent in an ethnic conception of
the nation, and ?ensure that each group is shown? equal respect and the reluctance to share in a common culture
will evaporate?[18] suggests
Miller. Let me
provide an account of the situation in?
Canada, which like the Baltics, has also encountered linguistic and
cultural barriers to forming a strong union. In Canada differences exist among
the founding peoples, the French and the English, the indigenous people and the
more recent immigrant communities. Canada in the recent past has striven to
present itself and its symbolic image of itself in culturally neutral terms,
incorporating or acknowledging the divergent cultural or ethnic entities that
constitute it. It acknowledges the roots of its founding people? –?
the French, the English, and of course, the Indigenous Peoples in the
phrase, ?the founding nations of Canada?.?
One step in creating an image of Canada around which nationhood or
nationality may be defined is in terms of its overt public symbols. Symbols
which may have stood for colonialism and repression in the past have been
replaced; e.g., the old Canadian flag (a version of the Union Jack) has been
replaced by the Maple Leaf flag which is neutral to all parties, the previous national
anthem ?God Save the King/Queen? by the unifying anthem ?O Canada?.? Our history, another factor on which a
nation can divide, in the past was presented in a light that saw the dominant
national group, the English, as the victors in a just struggle and the
minorities, the Native Peoples or the French Canadians were presented as the
vanquished peoples. It is unfortunate that in the past in Canada we operated
with at least two different histories, history?
as taught in French schools in the province of Quebec, and history as it
was taught in English Canada. Events in the 18thcentury such as the
conquests of Quebec and Louisbourg, the Expulsion of the Acadians etc., were
given their own particular slants.? John
Ralston Saul in Reflections of a Siamese Twin
has made a very valuable correction to?
such a divisive account of?
Canadian history. The image of the?
French Canadians as a vanquished or conquered people, a minority which
has been forced to succumb to the will of the masters has stood as a barrier to
the full acceptance of Canadians as one nation.? We recognize that much has been done to remedy the symbols that
define our nation in a way that emphasizes our shared identities; we have
become aggressive in our task of nation building according to principles which
can accommodate our complex history and its diverse cultures and languages. I
think it is, in part from such considerations that our past prime minister,
Pierre Trudeau introduced policies of bilingualism and multiculturalism to
provide for a country in which?? both
the French and English speakers fully belong and with which members of diverse
cultural backgrounds can fully identify. The
official Canadian policy of multiculturalism, although seen by many to be
destructive of an internal cohesiveness, a sense of shared identity,
nonetheless can also be seen as an element in forming a uniquely Canadian
consciousness. I think the Canadian experience, with some qualifications,
should be a model for nation building in the Baltics and elsewhere.? . The
overt symbols of a nation such as the national flag, the anthem, the official
or public history, language, culture that apply to nations with linguistically
and culturally diverse populations should not apply specifically to any one
ethnic group. It may seen that Latvia has failed to observe the need for
neutrality of the symbolic elements on which, in part, national solidarity may
be built. Can one
honestly argue that Latvia represents in a qualified way an acceptable form of
nationalism?? I must begin by confessing
that Latvian policy has not been wise in all its endeavour of nation building.
The fostering of a sense of? national
identity? with which the Russian and
other minorities can readily identify seemingly has not been done. However,
viewed against the historical background of mass deportations and an aggressive
policy of Russification during the occupation period? there is, I think, some understanding and even justification of? the cultural and linguistic policies
followed by the government of Latvia, especially when these policies are seen
as arising through a democratic process, and preserving in general individual
human rights and basic freedoms including a free press and hence ?providing the
conditions under which debate can continue.?[19]
The Russian press in Latvia is very vocal in expressing its grievances in a
public forum, and debate is lively in both formal and informal settings. There
remain, however, divergent readings of past history, particularly as it applies
to WW II.? Latvia does not, and cannot,
subscribe to the Russian view that the forceful incorporation of Latvia into
the Soviet Union was an act of liberation?
since in the case of Latvia and the other Baltic nations the war did not
end in liberation but in replacing one type of enslavement (that of the Nazis)
by that of another (that of the Soviets).?
However, Latvia is very clear in its policy of divorcing itself from
any? aims of the previously occupying? powers. ?Another aspect that should be borne in mind
is that in the case of Latvia it is the Latvian majority which is, in a sense,
the vanquished people who have suffered occupiers for 800 years and whose
culture and language are very much under threat of disappearance. Latvian
speakers total only some 0.5% nearly overwhelmed by its Russia speaking
neighbours. Latvia is preserving a culture which is very much under threat,
whereas the Russians in Latvia have no such fears. They can draw, and indeed do
draw, upon the huge cultural wealth of Russia in the form of newspapers, journals,
books, TV, radio, all of which is available to Russian speakers in Latvia.? Russian is spoken by virtually all residents
of Latvia, in practice, but not in law.?
Latvia is fully bilingual? and
the Russian speaker can be at home any where in the country.? Wherever I have travelled in Latvia I have
not found one incidence where Latvians refused to speak Russian when addressed
by Russian speakers. Indeed, anecdotally, when Russians have approached me and
spoken to me in Russian and I have replied in Latvian (as I do not speak
Russian), they have been very much mystified and somewhat angered by my
response. ?I have attempted to show that there is a
defensible version of nationalism which?
occupies the ground between the ethnic and civic conceptions of the nation.
Our middle ground lies between the one hand, a national identity based on a
(presumed) common ethnicity, culture or ?blood?, and on the other hand, a
national identity based on ?the daily plebiscite?, i. e., on the voluntary
choice of individual men and women to form a union under some doctrine of human
rights and constitutional process.? We
have suggested that there is a basic human need to have an identity within a
cultural milieu, to be identified with a culture and a tradition in which the
sense of self emerges and is reinforced.?
Cultural nationalism represents a social ideal which is consistent with
basic democratic political institutions and a doctrine of human rights. When we
confront an actual historical situation of a particular state, it becomes
manifest that its history will bear upon the form of nationalism which is
appropriate to it and whatever limits need to be imposed on the appropriate
model.? In the case of Canada, the form
of nationalism that we find recognizes the historical reality of its ?founding
nations?, the Indigenous People, the French, and the English, as well as the
diverse groups of immigrants which make up the country.? I have suggested that this form of
nationalism is, and could be, a model for other states.? In the Baltics the situation has been
somewhat different.? They have suffered
through a tumultuous history in the 20th century involving periods
of military occupation, large scale deportations, forced colonization etc .? The form of nationalism that is found there reflects
those historical contingencies. It is with respect to such historical
contingencies that Latvia and the other Baltic states represent in a qualified
form the ideal of cultural nationalism.?
Nootens[20], drawing
upon the work of Will Kymlicka and others, helps us see that problems such as
those that face the Baltics require over and above a purely philosophical
analysis also a disinterested historical context. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?Cornelius Kampe ????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?Acadia University (The paper appears in Social
Philosophy Today, Vol. 16,?
pp.66-81) [1]? David Miller, On Nationality (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1995), 5. [2]? Ibid., 4. [3] Jocelyne Couture, Kai Nielsen and Michel Seymour, Rethinking Nationalism (Calgary,
University of Calgary Press, 1998) [4] Ibid., 7 [5] Andre Van de Putte, ?Democracy and Nationalism? in Rethinking Nationalism, eds. Jocelyne
Couture, Kai Nielsen and Michel Seymour, (Calgary: University of Calgary Press,
1998), 161-195. [6] Ibid., 167. [7] Frans De Wachter, ?In Search of a Post-National Identity: Who are
my People?? Couture, Nielsen and?
Seymour, 197-217. [8] Ibid., 214 [9] Yael Tamir, ?Theoretical Difficulties in the Study of Nationalism?
in Couture, Nielsen and? Seymour, 65-92 [10] Martha Nussbaum, ?Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism? in ed. Joshua
Cohen,? For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of? Patriotism?? (Boston:
Beacon Press, 1996). [11] Miller, 129 [12] Ibid., 129-30. [13] Ibid., 132. [14] Michael Walzer, On Toleration
(New Haven, Yale University Press, 1997), 2-3. [15] Charles Taylor, Multiculturalism
and the ?Politics of Recognition??
ed. Amy Gutmann (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1992), 34. [16] Miller, 129. [17] Ibid., 137. [18] Ibid., 138. [19] Ibid., 128. [20] Genevieve Nootens, ?Liberal Restrictions on Public Arguments: Can
Nationalist Claims be Moral Reasons
in Liberal Discourse?? in Couture, Nielsen and?
Seymour, 237-260. ?
37b