Norwegian state broadcaster NRK insulted the entire nation of Latvia this weekend. The Latvians are hosting this year's Eurovision Song Contest, and in the Norwegian national finale NRK decided to pay a tribute to Latvian culture. So they dressed up a Norwegian comedy band in traditional Latvian costumes, and had them perform old Norwegian Eurovision entries in a traditional Latvian fashion, with Latvian instruments, and surrounded by Latvian symbols.

Oops. Make that Russian costumes, Russian instruments and Russian symbols. I was a bit surprised to learn that balalaikas, cossacks and matryoshka dolls are part of Latvian culture. The Latvians themselves were even more surprised! They're not happy about the mixup at all, and there's talk about starting a boycot of Norwegian products, of voting down the Norwegian Eurovision entry, (sung by a second cousin of mine, btw), referring to Norway's capital as Stockholm in the finale in May, and other mean acts of retribution.

Foreign news editor at the Latvian newspaper Diena, Juris Tihonovs:

People are really pissed off. This might be funny for Norwegians, but this is comparable to us making a humoristic act with a Norwegian group we call "Quisling", singing in German.

Some took it worse than others. Oslo correspondent for Diena, Burkovska Jacobsen:

I cried when I saw the act. My mother, who was on a visit from Latvia, had to take pills for her nerves after seeing it. Latvians are poor people, and they feel insulted. I'm surprised to get this from Norway. We thought we were close neighbours. What have we done to deserve this? Nothing!

On the positive side, it was a good act. I guess you have to be Norwegian to understand why people dressed up as cossacks, singing "Lo-loli-lolololo-lo-loli-lolo", and "Mile After Mile", is so damn funny, but it's all part of our kitschy Eurovision traditions. The Latvian flop is only the latest chapter in our long book of Eurovision embarassments, and it's not in any way the worst.

The Norwegians are beginning to resemble Americans more and more. I'd say that the Norwegian act sounds like something out of Saturday Night Live...

It was a crass move, though, to pick on the Latvians. But haven't Europeans complained about American media practising that kind of humor for years?

Incidentally, check out this article on "The Unloved American" in The New Yorker magazine. The Norwegian Knut Hamsun is cited several times:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030310fa_fact

You're missing the point: The insult was unintentional. "Latvia, Russia - hey, what's the difference? They were both in the Soviet Union, right?"

I stand corrected; I thought that given the comedy band, there was some parody involved.

But Americans are derided for their constant confusion of national distinctions in Europe. It does seem fitting that Norway experiences the same kind of backlash...

It is better to be pissed off than pissed on. In the total scheme of things it rates a .00015.

Suvivors of a friend from my much, much younger days have the ultimate gripe. He is the kid, who taught me the names of Amercan League baseball teams, so I could pick a team. He was killed in the Battle of the Bulge.

Now we find his memeory being dumped on by the Europeans. Such a wasteful death. William Nixon rest in peace. We have not forgotten!

Considering the number of Americans killed fighting Europe's madmen, his death only rates a .0315.

If Norway doesn't pipe down, the Baltics are going to send it a shipment of Riga Black Balsam liquor. You will never survive.
Fear the Latvians.

Fairly embarassing mistake, although I'm sure it was unintentional.

Certainly many Americans get confused about various European countries. Definitely embarassing as well. Of course, I find that most Europeans do a poor job of distinguishing between US states, many of which cover the same amount of area as European countries. Perhaps in the future of the EU Europeans will have less license to complain in that area, if most European countries are reduced the equivalent of US states.

With this entry you are more dangerously close to the 'Sissel' subject than you've ever been on your own.

If you want Eurovision meltdown, Poland's entry this year is "Keine Grenze" (no borders) sung in a mixture of German, Russian and Polish by the most popular group in Poland Ich Troje (the three of them).

The song itself is a melody-less, hookless vile piece of preachy puffery and should set back international relations many, many years.

God, I love Eurovision.

Just a helpful note to the Latvians - the name Quisling was taken by former Human Shield Ben Granby. Their bizarre website is here:
http://www.devo.com/quisling/history.html

As creepy as Bjorn's Stalinist page (well, not quite).
Eurovision: I'm quite surprised no US cable station has bought the rights to televise this trainwreck. Seriously, with all the stories about US antipathy towards Europe, you'd think some enterprising soul would televise the contest as an evening-long exercise in schadenfreude.

"Eurovision: I'm quite surprised no US cable station has bought the rights to televise this trainwreck."

So am I. Before I saw my first Eurovision I saw the odd reference to it and had some vague idea of what it was. Then I saw it and the reality surpassed my wildest imaginings.
It could easily get a following in the US based on Euro-nostalgia among Europeans in the US and former expats and anyone who loves trainwreck culture.

That sort of confusion of nationalities and historical ignorance is really unforgiveable coming from Norwegians, especially after they ruined the previously highly-regarded and sophisticated Eurovision Song Contest with Abba's "Dancing Queen" in 1971.

Clem Snide:
"That sort of confusion of nationalities and historical ignorance is really unforgiveable coming from Norwegians, especially after they ruined the previously highly-regarded and sophisticated Eurovision Song Contest with Abba's "Dancing Queen" in 1971."

That would be a good point, except that ABBA is an Australian group that happened to be representing Denmark when they won with "Chiquiquita" (sung in Spanish) in 1979. Try to get your facts straight.

ABBA, correct me if I'm wrong, is (was) a Swedish group.

ct, no cal :
"ABBA, correct me if I'm wrong, is (was) a Swedish group."

You're wrong. They're as Australian as can be, except that one of them is actually from New Zealand. You're welcome.

Michael Farris,
what are you talking about?

ABBA most definitely was a Swedish group.
After reading your wrong-sounding comments,
I searched on google for info,
found www.abbasite.com, and found that the
members of ABBA were
Anni-Frid Lyngstad,
Bjorn Ulvaeus,
Benny Andersson,
and Agnetha Faltskogf.

Three of them were born and raised in Sweden,
one was born in Norway but moved as a baby to
Sweden and grew up there.

"You're welcome"

If 'Dancing Queen' hadn't been referenced I would consider that Michael Farris was talking about another group, but this is obviously a case of a person not only being mistaken but being belligerently mistaken.

(I've never been belligerently mistaken about anything ever...)

OK, once I was belligerently mistaken in arguing, on a dark night by a river with other idiots, that the planet Venus was not actually the planet Venus but was obviously a *star* because it was just sooo bright. "You idiot, planets don't give off their OWN light! That's a STAR!!"

Now...I'm more well-versed in astrological facts...

Perhaps Michael Farris is thinking about the Bee Gees?

I know. He was thinking of AC/DC. They're Australian, the four letters 'ACDC' look similar to 'ABBA', and they dress up in funny outfits. At least the lead guitarist does. Maybe instead of 'Dancing Queen' they performed 'The Girl's Got Rhythm'...

...or possibly he was joking? I thought it was funny, especially coming w/Clem Snide's post. Btw, that one was a joke too!

Have these guys ever been on Eurovision?

http://www.nme.com/news/104435.htm

Joke...? Well....... Jokes aren't usually petulantly defended in follow-ups and in the context of correcting someone...

Anybody can claim 'joke' after the fact of their own missteps though... It can be a tactic of emotional types who argue things of which they know not...

(Now tell me I'm 'humorless'...)

Marc Webster wrote:

"or possibly he (me: maf) was joking? I thought it was funny, especially coming w/Clem Snide's post. Btw, that one was a joke too!"

Finally, the Farristani jury awards
Twelve points to Websteronia!

Hilarious. More!

My joke: the Rolling Stones are Latvian. Get it? L-a-t-v-i-a-n. The drummer is from Bulgaria, though. (That's part of the joke.) Now... Don't say they're from England, dang it!

You're all humorless. No ct awards for you...

Judging by this guy -

http://www.fredriknorman.com/norway.php

and Bjorn, Norwegians are smart. (I may be making the same kind of mistake, though, that the writer of the L. A. Times article Frederik is critiquing makes.)

Norwegians named Bjorn and Frederik - in my limited experience - are really smart...

Not that I agree with every thought and word and idea they express... Personally I would like to see them turn their rhetorical attention on the Church of Norway and turn that into a center-of-gravity for a northern revival of faith and European strength and creativity...

ct: Believe me, you don't want the State Churches to get involved (note: there is no separation of church and state in Scandinavia, as there is in the US). They are completely morally confused. All they know and care about is protecting their position and prerogatives in Scandinavian society, including the right to tax.

They take a lot after their Social Democratic brethren in government and academia...

ct, no cal wrote:
"You're all humorless. No ct awards for you..."

Hey, you care where ABBA is from ... wait, you're right that _is_ funnier than anything I could come up with.

1. Talking about things you don't know anything about (as if you do know about them) whether small, inconsequential things or not is a form of lying that will keep you stupid for life.

2. When you find yourself in a hole the first rule is to stop digging.

3. Pride can be a good servant but is always a poor master.

I didn't know that the church in Scandinavia was actually a part of the government. That explains alot (yet the various clerics of different denominations in the U.S. are just as morally confused - not all of course - and they've managed to get that way being separate from the government, so there's more going on than just that aspect).

I knew, though, that the church in Norway was the usual confused and idiotic as, for instance, the current Archbishop of Canterbury or any number of left-wing Catholic priests, and I meant that people who have a clue should take it over. Maybe not young atheists or Randists, necessarily... The first step would be to just ignore any state-run church and begin a real church (if that's illegal in Norway then you have a real sick environment). Of course I know that modern day Norwegians are not renowned for their understanding of faith and their connection to the Christian faith. I just have been being amused lately at the reaction to muslims that Norwegians display. You will be rubes and easy targets for those devils as long as you ignore the faith that is at the foundation of your people (the Christian foundation that is even prior to any history you know about)...

Jesus K. Rist, I leave this place for a week and it turns into .. um, something. Whatever, but stop the bickering. Won't somebody please think of the children?

ct: Norway has independent churches, (I grew up in one), and they tend to be more alive and somewhat more conservative than the state church. On Iraq there's pretty much a consensus,
though, with the exception of the pro-Israel wing. And they're wacky for a whole lot of other
reasons. (They seem more Jewish than the Jews, most of the time. They'll be urging Israel on to conquer the entire Middle East long after Israelis and Palestinians have become friends.)

Christianity was a source of our culture, but I don't see it as a basic pillar. Many Christian countries turned out allright, but then again many others didn't. I suppose it's more compatible with freedom and democracy than many other religions, (including Islam), but for every Christian who tells me about my God-given individual rights, there seems to be three who wants to relieve me of those same rights. Let me know when you make up your mind.

This is the main juvenile lacuna in your education Bjorn. You'll never attain the level of Machiavellian Philosopher-King, Poet, Lover, Warrior, Creator, Inventor, Lute-Player, Discoverer, Longsuffering though Lovable Patriarch, World Conqueror, and Empire Builder until you get some understanding in this area.

Saying Christianity is not a basic pillar of Norwegian culture is just a case of being so used to your own smell that you don't know your own smell. Christianity is at the most basic foundation stones of Norwegian and all European culture and civilization.

ct - this argument is something that pops up every now and then, and one email debate i had on the subject spun out of control and into 5000+ word emails, so i'm not exactly thrilled about getting into one again.

Nevertheless, christianity is NOT the most basic foundation stone of european culture and civilization. That smell you talk of is not the smell of INRI worshipping. First of all, christianity was formed and shaped by europe, not the other way around.

Western civilization is successful not because of christianity, which it had for over a millennium, while sinking into a chaotic quagmire called the dark ages, but because of the humanist movement coinciding with the development of movable type printing.

The humanist movement did not arise from christianity, it rebelled against it, drawing from classical greco-roman civilization. And that greco-roman past is, much more so than christianity ever has been, a foundation stone european culture.

Would man have gone to the moon in the 20th century without Archimedes, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle? Would man have developed capitalist democracies by the 18th century without those men and the cultures they came from?

Not bloody likely.

Now, how about if christianity never existed, and europe had worshipped the sun instead? I really don't see that religion makes that big a difference. Christianity is an effect, not the cause. The cause is inherent in man, and the earliest sign of it prevailing is what happened in Ancient Greece - philosophy separated from religion, and reasoning based on empirical evidence became a tool, a tool that made the Greek civilization stand above all others.

And that happened again during the reformation - an invention took away power from the church, leading to Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Tsiolkovsky, Einstein, and beyond.

"European culture and civilization". Okay, which part? Art? Only started ascending to great heights when religion wasn't the only allowed subject anymore(please point out the religious content in the Mona Lisa). Modern democracy? Nope, founded by deist humanists. Literature? Well, if burning half the good ones counts, then sure. Techonological advancement? Please. Science? Creationism!

If christianity has advanced western culture, it has done it through its attempts to keep progress at bay, making great minds strive more to prove what they know is right. It's the most unintrusive monotheistic religion now, but this is because western civilization molded it into what it is today, not because it's inherently so benevolent.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, London, Washington. These represent the influence of God on this planet. Christianity didn't begin with the Advent of Christ. Look up the term 'General Revelation'. Look for it, its meaning, in Romans, maybe. It took awhile for the Christian faith to transform what you think of as Europe. Obviously the center-of-gravity of Christianity was not Europe in what you call the dark ages. And the Roman Catholic Church is hardly 'Christianity'. The Body of Christ is Christianity. The Word of God is Christianity. Reality is Christianity. The flowering of Europe and the west in science and technology and literature and etc., etc. was done on the foundation of Europe's Christian faith. You're naive (as are most who have a juvenile understanding of Christianity) regarding influences. Christianity drew from the tradition of the cities mentioned above because the general Revelation of God was contained in the influences from those cultures and civilizations. I sympathize, I suppose, that you've spent so many words on some other forum arguing a juvenile position on this subject, but that doesn't mean those words had any worth...

Regarding your last five paragraphs you, at this stage of your development, are not worth trading alot of words with, so spare me any more juvenile responses. I'll go to any number of atheism 101 forums if I desire more of what you have to offer.

``Reality is Christianity.'' Well, if everything is Christianity then atheism is Christianity.

Sam, it has been argued (I forget by whom) that the scientific method cannot arise under polytheism. If your experiment failed, try praying to a different god - unless there are no (other) gods. Incidentally Socrates was a monotheist.

ct: Throwing out inflammable statements you're not prepared to defend is bad form, and justifying the refusal to discuss it with a personal insult is worse. If atheism is juvenile, then you should expect juvenility in this blog. And no matter what you think about people who disagree with you, you don't have the right to chase them away from _my_ website. You're _all_ guests here, remember that.

In other words, if you can't talk about religion without playing the "just trust me, I'm wiser than you" card, then don't talk about religion here.

My intention wasn't to run anybody off your blog. If that's how it came across I apologise to you and your guest. My intention was to avoid the very thing the person responding to me had said himself, i.e. "5000+ word emails" arguing the subject back and forth. If, on the other hand, what I say about atheism stings you then so be it.

As for indefensible statements, if you think saying Christianity is at the foundation of European culture and civilization is an indefensible statement you need to hang out in more mixed company. You show signs of 'echo chamber damage'...

ct: I didn't call anything indefensible. I grew up a Christian. My whole family is Christian. My father is a Lutheran minister, and I respect him as a reasonable, very intelligent person who has chosen to walk on a very different path than I have. So I respect your views, it's your attitude I have a problem with. Stick to the subject and avoid personal attacks, and you can claim that the moon is flat for all I care.

I've hardly expressed any kind of attitude that is egregious one way or another. You don't like having atheism called 'juvenile'. As I said, if it stings then so be it. That's your problem.

"Sam, it has been argued (I forget by whom) that the scientific method cannot arise under polytheism. If your experiment failed, try praying to a different god - unless there are no (other) gods."

Actually, I've never understood why Christians claim to be monotheists (or why Jews do either, for that matter). This was even before I learned that the earliest section of the Bible refered to God in the plural! You have the 'good' God, the 'bad' God, the son of the good God, the 'holy spirit', the various Arch-Angels, etc. Looks like a pantheon to me.

I don't really care much one way or the other, but it just never has made any sense.

In the language of the Bible the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the Godhead. In the traditional language of theology it is the Trinity. The Trinity is high mystery, yet it is made manifestly clear in the Word of God that there is one God. If the theologian's explanations (or explanations in the Word of God itself) mean nothing to you think in terms of scale. There's an old saying: not even God can beat a full house with two-of-a-kink. In other words, the universe is held together by laws that God Himself created. The universe in structure is a hierarchy and for the Source to reach the ends and outer limits that Source has to use a means of communicating (just as your brain communicates with your hand using intermediary elements). The Son and the Holy Spirit are God, yet they are God manifesting and acting throughout Creation far away from the point of Source (which is God as well).

The Trinity confuses muslims and is one of their main targets when they attempt to convert people from or away from Christianity, and it was C. S. Lewis that pointed out, regarding this subject: "If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How Could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about." -Quote from 'Mere Christianity'.

'two of a kink'... I've pondered it. Not a meaningful typo. A middle-finger left hand right hand thing. Symbolically, though, anyway, 'two of a kink' of anything can't beat a 'full house' (something that is complete, and plain (Biblical meaning) and perfect (Biblical meaning). Anyone who wants to willfully associate 'kink' with God, though, that's your call...

I'm studying Norway for a school project and i picked norway because i'm norwegian! I think that the Norwegian's are very interesting and wouldnt' want to do anything to hurt anyone!

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/65