Existence of Latvia – existence of Latvian nation
(Seminar of Latvian youth in Valmiera)

Analytical article
By Sandis Reinvalds, BEd, MEd, Latvia

Saying – “Existence of Latvia, existence of Latvian nation”, in Latvia seems to be acceptable for both the right and the left wing political forces such as social democrats. But it is also known that there exist “human rights” organizations in Latvia, such as “Russian community in Latvia”, “Russian union in Latvia” etc. which still protect order of Russification initiated during soviet regime. Therefore we, Latvians, have to do everything possible to make this prophetic and eternal saying “Existence of Latvia, existence of Latvian nation” understandable also for the so-called ‘Russian minority’ in Latvia.

How to reduce the gap between Latvians and Russians, imported here through the process of Russification, as well as their children? To my mind, within the Latvian context what we really should speak about is the contempt of human rights of Latvians – not Russians since the ethnic fatherland of Latvians through centuries has been Latvia. One of the problems we face now is, for instance, pro-Russian local authorities in Latvia, which do not protect the rights of Latvian pupils – 569 Latvian pupils have to attend either Russian schools or Latvian schools in the territory of other pagasts (..). For instance, Cernoja pagasts local authority with impunity violates the rights of indigenous population. Latvians the proportion of which makes 41% of all the inhabitants of pagasts, live there as in a reserve. Even the name of this pagasts has been made Russian. Some time ago its name was more Latvian – Rezna pagasts (Luta, 2000).

The future of Latvia will be decided by youngsters who are brought up with the spirit of love for fatherland and patriotism. Where, how and in which way can the youngsters foster their Latvian spirit – nationalism? I am of opinion that the beginning of the ‘free thought’ is in the gathering of a group of persons, discussions, seminars and etc. I had an opportunity to participate in a work seminar of patriotic thinking youngsters (DVJ) from August 4-6, 2000 in Valmiera – Vidzemes High school, in which they expressed their wish to define the basic elements for determining the future of Latvia and Latvian nation.

As the green non-formalist of the Awakening times, I was especially pleased about a coppice planted by young vanadzeni (members of patriotic youth organization) in Rubene, Valmiera region. L.Kurpniece (in her lecture about Vanadzeni movement in Latvia) claimed: Each has his own planted tree”. A tree is the symbol of Eternity and strength of Latvian nation. Planting of trees – sticking to high moral and ethic ideals – this is what we lacked during the years of Russification and lack also now. Also the grave of fighters for freedom in Mazsalaca is “surrounded by oak trees: as many dead men, so many stately oaks” (Laure, 2000).

The issue – to be or not to be for Latvian nation within this context in the seminar obtained a clear reply: “Latvian nation should live!” – “It should be eternal” This was the task of the seminar – to ascertain its participants about the strength of Latvian self-conscience not only today but also within the frame of Eternity – with the view into Latvia’s future.

To speak correct Latvian- it also means to think Latvian.

DVJ working seminar in Valmiera lasted for two days and was held in an open and Latvian atmosphere. Approximately 30 youngsters from all around Latvia participated in it. Seminar started with church service and the Latvian anthem, and that gave to the seminar very friendly and Latvian atmosphere.

The main idea stressed in the pastor’s of Valmiera Simanis’ church V.Koralis lecture (on the theme – Latvianity and Christianity in a person) was that it is important to speak correct Latvian because Latvian way of thinking and behaving results from correct usage of the native language. The language is the very basis of cultural environment.

Two important elements to form cultural environment are the language as the primary element and Latvian peasantry – as second. Pastor V.Koralis asked a rhetorical question in his lecture: “ Will a Latvian farmer living on his father’s land, cultivating it, be one day able to understand the so-called nomadic people that live by driving cattle from one place to another?” And replied: “seems that no”. For instance, “in Vidzeme, Kurzeme and Zemgale there is even not accepted living in big villages which one can see in Latgale”. – “ Here in Vidzeme it seems to us absurd” – claimed pastor V.Koralis.

“Latvianity and Christianity in a person are based on cultural environment – also the religious one”- why, for instance, in Kurzeme the cross in the graveyard is put at the head of the buried person, while in Vidzeme – at its legs? Thus ”habits and traditions formed through centuries can be different from place to place, not even speaking about this within the context of different countries.” By studying and maintaining our cultural environment we learn also our Latvianity and Christianity. Thus, cultural environment is the very basis of Latvianity. 

 Nationalism – the highest level of internationalism

Now, when in Latvia we have a parliamentary system and an outstanding  - patriotically thinking president Dr Vaira Vike-Freiberga somebody might think that everything generally has been reached. Prof. of Baltic languages at University of Bonn Austris Grasis (in his lecture – Rainis and the self-confidence of Latvian nation) with his speech clearly told that “no – there is still very much to do”.

In his lecture he mentioned that his strivings to create in Latvia own political party have ended without success because “three times such people were sent into it, which had nothing in common with what there had to be”. Besides he was also very much disappointed about the fact that his lecture in University of Latvia “Language as mirror of society” would be intentionally not announced and there would be only three students present to this lecture: “They did not forbid me to talk – but they did not announce” – sadly said Prof A.Grasis. 

            I have summarized the statements made by Prof. A.Grasis (Prof. of Baltic languages at University of Bonn) during his lecture in 5 theses: 

1)  In the ex-soviet union communism has violently wiped out more than 100 languages. 150 years were given to the Latvian language. Strategy of communists has been to permit Latvian language to dominate up to the level of higher educational establishments, but after that in every sphere – governing, household, science etc. should dominate Russian language.

2) He himself when learning at school has studied the German language five lessons a week, while in Latvia, according to him, there are schools where the native language is taught only 1-2 lessons a week – that is too few. Isn’t it again the implanted inferiority complex of Latvians about their own language, that there are so few lessons of Latvian language in the curricula of secondary schools?

3) Language is an ideology and it has to be fostered. For instance, in Hannover, Germany, “EXPO 2000”in Latvian exhibition hall, two ‘folk dance collectives’ have performed: Dancis and Gundega. The correct word would have been ‘dance group’, since ‘collective’ is a Russian word with the following ideology – when ‘everybody together’ is something (for instance, work collective). It is a huge difference, since the word ‘group’ means that people have gathered together voluntarily.

Error has been also the fact that during the “EXPO 2000”, group “Brainstorm” has not performed in Latvian, but only in English. The fact that the musicians have anglified their surnames also does not testify for anything good. We should free the Latvian language from not only Anglicisms but also Russicisms, such as ‘reiss’ (from Russian ‘рейс‘- run, trip), taksafons’ (from Russian ‘таксофон’ payphone), ‘oficiants’ (from Russian ‘официант’ -waiter), to whom in soviet times KGB has insured functions of eavesdropping;

4) Exactly the national values are those, which create the international ones, thus “European way is dangerous before we have not finished our Latvian way” (Grasis, 2000). Latvians have to join the nationalism definition as defined by the writer J.Rainis, which runs as follows: “Nationalism – the highest degree of internationalism”. The writer J.Rainis during all his lifetime spoke about his nation and its freedom exactly in this interpretation.

5) The decisive element is the maintaining of national cultural environment and taking care of it. (Here Prof Grasis makes a reference to Simanis’ church pastor V.Korals- S.R.) Christianity and Latvianity can be unified, since also ‘dievturiba’ (local pagan religion) is a religion. In case also in future we would like to speak about lete – ethnical Latvian, firstly we should take care of national cultural environment and regional traditions.

To maintain Latvian traditions practically, Prof A.Grasis has bought a country house “Genderti” in Valmiera region Skankalne pagasts with 60 hectares of land where he is going to organize studies center with a library as well as to celebrate in this house regularly Latvian annual traditions, inviting to them everybody that wishes to strengthen their Latvianity.

One should learn to estimate things from “Latvian’s point of view”

The largest part of seminar’s time was dedicated to youngsters’ lectures containing the following results of work and research made earlier:

1)    They have made original research, collected information – that was  interpreted interestingly. For instance, student J.Vigulis (lecture – Attitude of Latvian inhabitants towards the state joining NATO depending on their ethnic belonging) has found out the so called ‘ego involvement’ level: 90% of Latvians support accession to NATO while Russians – only 40% and another 20% are indifferent to this issue. I myself have collected original data and know that it takes much energy – yet there is reason to collecting original data

2)  Terms used in lectures were explained in terms to be clear also for non-specialist and were easy to perceive

3)   It was a good opportunity to compare problems in Latvia and abroad.

My critical remarks would be as follows:

 1)   Students in their lectures very seldom referred to sources and did not mention authors of theory concepts; sometimes they presented ideas of cited authors as their own; audience had to ask additional questions regarding data of different sociological research. Are the percentages mentioned in Russian media so reliable? What is the reliability of ready research, such as carried out by “Baltijas datu nams”

Student A.Jansons (in his lecture – Ethno political tendencies in Latvia in second part of the 90-ties) mentioned September 1, 2004 as critical – in the schools the Russian language as the main teaching language will be fully replaced with the Latvian language and that Russian teachers will not be ready for that – there will be shortage of teaching aids etc. and added that, as to his information, 50% of Russian teachers and 64% of Russian pupils do not support this idea. At the same time there exist information that 74% of Russians speak Latvian and 4% feel liking towards this language.

In all cases where data are mentioned – eventual dates etc. one has to mention w h o and h o w has got them and also why exactly these data are taken.

2)  Only a few problems were evaluated from Latvian’s point of view.

Often, for instance, integration and two-communities country model were evaluated from a Russian minority’s or the current external policy’s point of view, especially in the terminology interpretation of community integration and two-communities state.

We should remember that democracy is not only giving account of policy of current government or opinions of the largest daily newspapers, let the government be as it is now - right wing center. Daugavas Vanagi historically can be proud about the fact that they have always evaluated everything from Latvians’ point of view, regardless of the political conjuncture of the respective time period.

The actual moment of these days have been expressed in radically conservative newspaper “Latvietis Latvijâ” (Latvian in Latvia – No 1) where they speak about promoting voluntarily repatriation of colonizers of Latvia by motivating it with international law: “ Russians and other citizens of ex-soviet union have arrived to Latvia and live here illegally (..): Convention of Geneva, Article 49, point 6 forbids to keep citizens of the country in the occupied territory.” (Muzikante, Krievina, Liepa, Nikitina, Apine, 2000). It is hard not to agree with the statement that “as long as in own home (in Russia- S.R.) there are many villages without inhabitants, it is unnatural, non-motivated and amoral act to leave hundreds of thousands Russians here” (Eglitis Alberts, 2000).

3) Non-critical acceptance of “Americanization as economization”. For instance, student M.Murnieks (in lecture – Latvia within the context of the global world processes) mentioned that company General Motor is as if richer than GNP of one European state and there exist 5-6 such American companies that ‘rule the world’ by forcing on it economical globalization.

It should be mentioned that there are in Europe many national countries that have as successful economics as America does, for instance, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden etc. without special intruding in economics of other countries with their daughter companies. To my mind, we can support ourselves here in Latvia without letting in American daughter companies, as well as I am sure that the ‘proof of cosmopoliticism’  - doll “Barbie” and McDonalds Latvians will never consider as own.

Americans like other nations evaluate things from their point of view and also Latvians should follow this sample. (Such a sample is Dr U.Germanis “Jaunie laiki un pagatnes enas” – New times and shadows of past, Memento&Zinatne, 1995, page 183). Depending on which way we will define our vision of Latvianity and attitude, such Latvia will be in future, since: “all education springs from images of the future and all education creates images of the future.

Thus all education, whether so intended or not, is a preparation for the future. Unless we understand the future for which we are preparing, we may do tragic damage to those we teach.  Unless we understand the powerful psychological role played by images of the future in motivating – or de-motivating – the learner, we cannot effectively overhaul our schools, colleges or universities, no matter what innovations we introduce.” (Tofflers, 1974, page 424). To support this thesis, editor Alvin Toffler, author of Future Shock, and eighteen leading psychologists, educators, futurists, social scientists, psychiatrists, and humanists, have joined to produce what is, in effect, a manifesto for the next wave of change in our educational institutions. Further on in the lectures of youngsters I would like to hear not so many how, where and when but motivation why we should have our own Latvian way in the 21^st century.

One should teach history with deepened studying of own region.

During DVJ working seminar in Valmiera I had an opportunity to talk to historians and authors of history books A.Tomasuns and R.Abelnieks.* At the beginning both historians were discussing their new history books – specially satisfied with the work done seemed Mr. Tomasuns , which is the author of the history book for secondary schools to be published in August this year – second part of it. It is a pity that the amount of the edition will be only half of the amount that is necessary for all the pupils’ of secondary schools in Latvia. During this negotiation we discussed also money and financing matters and they praised Unibanka, which has sponsored publishing of this book.

I started discussion on continuity of Latvia of 1918, Latvia of November 18. I claimed that we have to take as initial point Latvia of November 18, that of Citizens’ Congress, not that of May 4. By connecting this with teaching history I stressed that history of Latvia should be taught to the youngsters from national patriotic – love to Fatherland - point of view not from analytical –factological point of view. Those, to my mind, are two different concepts.

After I had expressed such my statements, there was a hot discussion: historian A.Tomasuns was of opinion that declarations in history are not considered the most essential issue, yet historical – real process is what matters. He urged me to evaluate the events not from the point of view of what some politician has said and from a manifesto which a group of politicians have signed  - that is a declaration, but to do it taking into consideration the real historical progress of the respective time. Much is considered by chance and political luck. For instance, Popular Front had chosen the way – to cooperate with communistic party nomenclature, opposite to Citizens’ congress, yet it has been a historical luck that the Supreme Council of that time could pass Independence Declaration with communistic party’s nomenclatures collaborationistic Popular Front since it had the majority of votes.

I disagreed to this since later when Popular Front passed Independence Declaration that essentially differed from the basic ideas of Citizens’ congress, for instance, by letting the elite of the communist party of that time to continue ruling like they did during Russian times. Not to mention the so-called repatriation of Russian speaking occupants to their ethnical fatherland; besides Popular Front lost its   political significance in elections of 1993 not getting into the Saeima. Can we call Popular Front movement loved by the nation when the nation itself did not vote for it already in 1993? I was not surprised when reading in LSDSP AK “Briviba” the article by historian I.Ronis in which he claims that the newspaper of Popular Front “Atmoda” (Awakening) was led by KGB Department No 5. The radically conservative newspaper “Latvietis Latvijâ” (Latvian in Latvia) about the legitimating of pseudo Latvia reveals the tough reality: “(..) Sorry, to steal freedom from nation and demand for this thanks – isn’t it too much, misters communists? Nobody thanks for treason.”(Andresons. 2000)

For instance, what is the situation with demography and funding for education and science during the last 10 years in this state of May 4? Birth rate – minus 6% (ZvidrinsP., 1999); funding allocated by Latvian government to education – science according to my calculations is approx. 2-3 %. To compare, in the time period from 1920 to 1939 the founders of the Latvian state paid serious attention to education allocating to it 15% of the state budget; children aged 7 – 14 had to obligatory attend school which was free of charge, free of charge was also second breakfast at school. Regarding number of students, Latvia was in the 1^st place in Europe – 30 students to each 10,000 inhabitants. To each 1,000 inhabitants there were 4 elementary school teachers, thus Latvia was also within the first five leading European countries regarding number of teachers. To my mind, if we had renewed Latvia of November 18 of Citizens’ congress, economically we would be at least on the level of Estonia if not Czech republic. This means, here we should speak about chronic economic stagnation of the Republic of May 4.

Historian R.Abelnieks admits the positive fact that under the influence of Citizens’ congress much ‘stronger’ law on citizenship was passed than the so-called  “zero version” protected by pseudo Latvian A.Gorbunovs. Now they say that many participants of Citizens’ congress are the members of the party “For Fatherland and Freedom”.

When discussing teaching of Latvian history, Mr. Tomasuns more defends analytical – factological approach when pupils of secondary schools mostly have to analyze documents and in such a case the book by historian Dr U.Germanis “Latviesu Tautas piedzivojumi”(Adventures of Latvian nation) can be used only partially. Mr. Abelnieks, on his turn, is of opinion that this book could be used as basin teaching aid for teaching history on elementary school level. I made it clear that the real situation with the abovementioned book is that it has not been officially approved by Ministry of Education as a teaching aid – neither in elementary school nor secondary school but I do not doubt that it is used as additional teaching aid in history lessons.

Current minister of education – citizen of Valmiera K.Greiskalns has the historical opportunity “to put his seal of approval” in the first page of Dr U.Germanis book “Latviesu Tautas piedzivojumi”. I do not doubt – he will do it when feeling convincing support from teachers and society for such a step. I would advise to make a methodological material for teachers – how to work with this book. I remember when in 1996 I was in Stockholm Institute of Education, lecturer M.Larsson made me a gift – two studies books on environmental education – Viktig att Veta – orienteringsamnen; 154 and 188 pages to which one more was added – the third, consisting of 276 pages for teachers lararbook – methodological advice how to work with the first two.

Historian R.Abelnieks in his lecture (problems of teaching history of Latvia in Latvian schools: studies books, teachers’ qualification and studies programs) told the sad truth about his book “Latvia in the twentieth century”- it was ‘laying’ on the shelve in the Ministry of Education from 1993 (published in 1996, Zvaigzne ABC, 208 pages). There used to be an official named Treigute in the ministry, ex-communist, who repeatedly has insisted that the book is too nationalistically written and the author should ‘soften’ separate places again and again.

I criticized Mr. Abelnieks that there is no answer to the question in the history book why Citizens’ congress during the years of the Third Awakening lost in the political fight of the time. He admitted this fact himself in a private conversation with me. After his lecture it became clear to me that the Ministry of Education has not fully got rid of the influence and routine of soviet times. Will it happen only after the generation shift?

Here I would like to stress some thoughts of historians from the seminar that seemed fascinating to me:

Historian Mr. Tomasuns (in his lecture Problems of teaching history of Latvia in Latvian schools and national minorities schools. Problems and solutions) made statements, which I have grouped in four theses:

1)    Nationality is written in passports here in Latvia and we often do not know that there are very many people of different nationalities – knowledge cannot be evaluated as of nationality; each nationality is unique;

2)    We should do everything for more countries to recognize independence of Latvia of November 18- continuation of independence of the Baltic States from prewar times. For instance, Sweden, Russia, China, (also Austria and Switzerland – S.R.) consider Latvia a new country; also “Egypt, India, Japan do not consider this the continuation of independence”. (Lebers, 2000).

3)     In case somebody wishes to call himself a patriot of Latvia, he should involve in public events also his children that have always been and will be the future of Latvia;

4)     Gradual Latvianizing of Latvia takes place; although we do not feel this in daily life, for instance, Russian schools are being closed one by one; Russians talk the Latvian language better and better, also the ethnic composition of Latvians is improving: for instance, in Yelgava there are approx.55% Latvians. This statement coincides with the thought of poet A.Eglitis: “ We anyway are approaching a new day, although sometimes without feeling it”(Eglitis, 2000).

I have grouped theses of historian R.Abelnieks like this:

1)    History of Latvia in twentieth century has to be taught ¾ of the time allocated to teaching of Latvian history, the rest of the time should be spent on medieval ages and even earlier centuries.

2)     There is impossible to have one “right” history book on Latvia – “it is impossible since one and the same theme can be discussed in different books with different depth and precision”;

3)    Grades 4 - 5 should be taught history of their region more detailed – for them to feel the place historically and to understand also present time better;

4)      May 4, 1990 is only a “chronological border” of Latvian independence since until 1995 in Latvia still were troops of a foreign country – Russia – and it could not be considered free. (Can we call it a free country when there still are the 5^th column of the Russian army – officers and the so-called “imported Russians” for Russification? - S.R.)  

By evaluating motifs of “Savâ Zemç”(In own country) by Aistars  

Being the former teacher of Latvian gymnasium in Minster (Germany), Mr. I.Balodis in our conversation stress**: ”It is important to let youngsters to participate in studies groups – discussions, let them lead discussions. Then later in their lives they will be ready to protect their opinions”. This means- maximum activity on youngsters’ part, not passive writing or listening.

“We are the generation of November 18.We have graduated during the First Independent Latvia Republic and have been brought up patriotically. Such should be also today’s youngsters – patriots of their nation and self-assured about their Latvian truth.” said Mr. Balodis. I added on my part that “As Davis Aistars in his “Savâ Zemç”, who in Baltic institute of teachers said: “I cannot let somebody to remake me into a Russian”.

I warned Mr. Balodis that a state school in any situation mainly would be mirror of the corresponding ruling government. It can turn out that there are organizations that ‘do not suit’ in political nomenclature, especially with regards to such national patriotic organization as Daugavas vanagi.  I am of opinion that it could be decisive factor whether there are supporters of Daugavas vanagi in the Latvia Republic Ministry of Education.

  During the years of Third Awakening when we were choosing ‘third way’ elements in politics, Club of Environmental Protection provided us with Latvian and mental light. Now, when the Greens of Latvia are political party – in 1998 they were in coalition with the very left wing labour party, trying to copy Western green party with their left-wing and even red approach – to my mind Daugavas vanagi are those who fill the gap of Latvian and patriotic education like during the Third awakening it was with Club of Environmental Protection, which was like Trojan Horse – externally green motivated internationalism but inside they were undoubtedly Latvian and national patriotic.

  I told Mr. I.Balodis that right now Latvians need national Unit –Unit of Latvia of November 18. Unit of making new Latvia. For us to be able to feel when rising every morning that we are Latvians and work for o u r country and for our fatherland as much as we all can. Right now I have a feeling that in this republic of May 4 we lack these Latvian – national and patriotic sparkles for building a new Latvia. It is as motivation why youngsters in future have to support and participate in activities of national patriotic organizations as Daugavas vanagi and others. Mr. I.Balodis agreed to this statement.

We have to learn to define our – “Latvian way”

This DVJ working seminar in Valmiera was a sample in methodology of organizational structuring – beginning with getting acquaintaned, lectures, studies – by including brainstorming (Amer. it means also ‘bright idea’) on the theme “Friendship” – lead by student J. Vaivars and discussions. Everybody could define his or her own formula of the Latvian way. Positive evaluation of things – opposite to negations – is the thought that one should remember and stress positive experience in history teaching and learning process.

Positive sample from my experience is a church service for the Baltic sea in 1989 organized by Club of Environmental Protection in Ainazi, Latvia. The sea can be perceived not only as an ecologic system and church service as religious symbol but also within the historical environmental context – for instance, Ainazi nautical school is the strengthening of historical conscience for us, Latvians. The unification of social matters should not be separated – one matter with another in the environment are so tightly connected in Unit that we cannot even imagine this.

Much of DVJ organizational issues could be as a sample for LNNK & Tevzemei youngsters and patriotic group of youngsters – Klubs 415 (Club 415) the activities of which are interesting yet there are too few opportunities for the youngsters to express their attitude and they lack studies circles with brainstorming. One should learn to define the Latvian way.

During the seminar I expressed proposals for activities of DVJ youngsters in future and said that there is necessity to carry out detailed analyses of two issues: 1) how the accession of Latvia to the EU (European Union) would influence the statehood of Latvia of November 18; 2) what is the model of Latvian Folk High school in the eyes of youngsters – is it the type of the Dane N.F.S Grundtvig or Dr Z.Maurina, or there exists some other model of Latvian Folk High school? Only we ourselves can define our Latvian way.

Remarks

(1)         Current government and the Saeima do not recognize the newspaper “Latvietis Latvijâ” (Latvian in Latvia) because of its radical trend. To my mind this newspaper proves that the free press starts to strengthen its positions in Latvia, besides according to Western standards this newspaper is not more radical than those of social democrats in other countries.

(2)         This statement should not be perceived so that all 100% of Russian schools in Latvia will be closed – also in Europe and America there are Jewish, Ukrainian, Lithuanian and other national minorities schools.

             references

            Andersons U. (2000) Kas vainigs? Latvietis Latvijâ, No 58, page 1.

EGLITIS ALBERTS. (2000). Ogles kvçlo pelnos tâlâk... Latvietis Latvijâ, No 57, page 1-2.

EGLÎTIS ANDREJS. (2000) Andrejs Eglîtis: “Ja zaudçsim zemniekus, zaudçsim paði sevi”, Lauku Avîze, May 25, 2000, page 5 (in the interview to I.Murniece)

GRASIS A. (2000) Trîs reiz trîs (3x3) camp in Rauna. (Accounted in article Ten years of Trîs reiz trîs (3x3) camps in Latvia). Brîvâ Latvija.No 666, pages 3-5.

LAURE L. (2000) Tçvijai, nâkotnei, jaunatnei. Liesma, No 125, page 7.

LEBERS D. (1999) From lecture on consequences of Molotov – Ribbentrop pact in Lithuania; accounted in article by I.Kazocins “Baltic states and stability of Europe” (1st publication in magazine Lithuanian Foreign Policy Review), No 4, 1999, Briva Latvija, No 667, pages 3-7

LUTA V. (2000) Liedz mâcîties latviski. Lauku Avîze, No 39, page 6.

MUZIKANTE l, KRIEVINA L., LIEPA I., NIKITINA V., APINE L. (2000) Aicinâjums Latvijas kolonistiem. Latvietis Latvijâ, No 58, page 3.

TOFFLERS A. (1997) Learning for tomorrow. (The Role of the Future in Education). (New York, Vintage Books: A Division of Random House)

*My private conversation with historians A.Tomasuns and R.Abelnieks was held in Restaurant room of Vidzeme regional court – in Valmiera, August 5, 2000.

* My private conversation with the teacher and manager of seminar I.Balodis was held in Fireplace room of Vidzeme higher educational establishment – in Valmiera, August 5, 2000.

Sandis Reinvalds
13 Beates Street, flat 33
Valmiera, LV 4201
Latvia
Telephone 00 371 42 25494
E-mail me at: sandisreinvalds@hotmail.com

May 27, 2001