President Toomas Hendrik Ilves has hit the headlines in the Estonian and international press for his views on speaking Russian.Interviewed by an 'old friend', BBC journalist and Russophile Tim Whewell, and asked why he doesn't speak the language spoken by more than a quarter of Estonia's population, Ilves was quoted/misquoted/taken out of context as saying that speaking Russian would be like giving the nod to 50 years of brutal suppression. This inflammatory soundbite was quickly taken up by the local Russian press, with headlines along the lines of 'president refuses to speak language of occupiers', and also made it into the foreign media.
An opinion piece written by one Laur Viirand appeared on Delfi today in response to the controversy, extracts of which I have translated hereunder. Healthy debate of contentious issues is encouraged.
It's perfectly understandable that Ilves as an individual may not necessarily like the idea of studying and speaking Russian. To foreign Estonians the language perhaps symbolises their being forced to flee from occupation and the loss of their homeland. Unfortunately, things aren't quite so black and white when it's the president we're talking about. Such an inflexible position is not becoming of the office of president, whose primary role should be to mitigate conflict in society.
A foreign Estonian president taking up Russian lessons would be a magnanimous gesture, something the undercurrent of tension in the country needs. It would by no means be a sign of weakness, the imminent arrival of a second national language or some kind of white flag — rather it would be an indication of strength and the overcoming of complexes.
It would also be a sign of the maturity of the country. A decision by the president to learn Russian would not only be welcomed by the local Russian-speaking population, but it would also show solidarity with the majority of the Estonian-speaking population — most of whom were once forced to learn the language themselves.
4 comments:
Hm, I fail to come up with a context it was supposedly taken out of that would allow for any different interpretation other than the popular one, assuming the wording wasn't entirely made up by the interviewer.
Couldn't care less about Ilves' linguistic skills (contrary to what most comments on Delfi seem to imply), but his argumentation stinks.
The relevant part of the transcript.
Perhaps somewhat childish in terms of unforgiving, etc., but ultimately I think the impact will be that intended, national pride, and not international outrage.
Seems to me that Estonians are proud to be Estonian simply because they're not something else. This gives them a real, concrete reason to be proud. Their leader kicking the class bully in the nuts.
It's likely just political spin. He never learned Russian at Columbia. Why not? Why would he? Rather than a president saying he never got around to it, like he never got around to fixing the inflation problem, or that he's just too old to start learning another foreign language in earnest (to a level that would avoid the ich-bin-ein-berliner problem), he would just mask the real reason and say he chooses not to. How convenient. And I agree with Anonymous above that it is a great source of patriotism in the process.
Tommy Fox. Sounds like a metal singer.
Post a Comment