Housden Martyn. Forgotten Pages in Baltic History: Diversity and Inclusion. (On the Boundary of Two Worlds: Identity, Freedom, and Moral Imagination in the Baltics) (ENG)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Andrejs Plakans

place of birth did not necessary mean the immediate abandonment of

personal or collective identification with a region; one in fact could say that

regional identity had become portable.

In the post-1991 decades two other “historic” collectivities vied with

Latgale for public attention. The territory assumed to have been populated by

the pre-Christian Selonians (Latv. sēļi) had strong proponents but remained

largely undefined.

The Livonians (Livs; Latv. lībji) had mostly latvianised

over the centuries, but their cultural legacy, based on their Finno-Ugric

language, had managed to retain an impressive presence through choral

groups and language programs (the latter being of great interest to Estonians

and Finns). Generally speaking, though, Latgale as a region has continued to

enjoy greater recognition among these competitors, especially in Latvia‟s

musical culture. Several recently formed popular singing groups explicitly

advertise themselves as coming from Latgale, and in their recordings almost

always include songs―sung in Latgalian―praising the beauty of the region

or expressing some form of nostalgia for it. Even the well-known composer

Raimonds Pauls authored music meant to please Latgalian ears. At the same

time, literary compositions in Latgalian and academic studies of Latgale have

increased in number and quality, the academic effort being recently crowned

perhaps by Pēteris Zeile‟s magisterial 750-page Latgales kultūras vēsture

(History of Latgalian Culture).

The puzzle of Latgale as a region has had no solution thus far.

The

complicated socio-cultural dynamics changing the eastern part of Latvia since

1991 continue, with the ultimate outcome unpredictable. Great effort has

been invested during the post-1991 decades to re-legitimize Latgale‟s

distinctiveness. The focus has been on the variant of Latvian spoken there,

the branch of Latvian literature written in Latgalian, the many-stranded

history of the region, and even the theoretically interesting phenomenon of a

“Latgalian ethnomentality”.

There have even been attempts at turning

necessity into virtue (probably for the eyes of western Europeans) through

descriptions of Latgale‟s ethnically differentiated population as an example

of highly desirable “ethnic diversity” and “multiculturalism” (year 2000

census: Latvians 43%, Russians 40.4%, Poles 7.2%, Belorussians 6.0%,

Ukrainians 1.5%, others 1.9%).

Yet the distinctiveness of Latgale no longer

presents itself even to sympathetic readers in as graphic a manner as it did,

say, after the new Latvian state was founded in 1918. Even seemingly

knowledgeable descriptions occasionally seem contradictory: for example, in

the same recent publication, one chapter reports that “approximate estimates

show that the Latgalian language is used as a daily means of communication

by about 150,000–200,000 people,” while another states that “the Latgalian

language is not used in many Latgalian families anymore.”

Almost a

century of dramatic changes have blurred not only the region‟s boundaries

but also its linguistic particularism; indeed, the characteristics of all “the

historic regions” of the country can be located on a continuum. The

Regional Identity in Latvia

absolutisation of physical characteristics has lost its ability to impress, and

place of birth does not appear to be as important a variable in everyday

human affairs as it once was. Recent (2004–05) survey data for Latgale show

that only about 42% of the current population, when asked about their “sense

of belonging” to their place of residence, select 5 (highest score) on a 1-to-5

scale; and in the same survey, only 45% of the region‟s population is reported

to have lived there since birth.

One reading of this situation suggests that descriptions of Latgale as a

distinctive region are slowly shifting their base: they are becoming less

expressive of a deep emotional attachment to an actual place and more to the

idea of a place. At the core of this idea stands the defence of Latgalian as a

legitimate variant of literary expressions: the Latvian language thus is to be

thought of as having two literary variants―Latgalian and what is sometimes

referred to as the “common” or “joint” variant (Latv. kopējā valoda) of

Latvian.

Proponents of such a two-variant Latvian language argue the point

strongly and logically, and they are talented and articulate defenders of their

position. At the same time, physical location in Latgale seems not to be a

prerequisite for this position, and the defenders of Latgale‟s identity as a

region often live somewhere else, where they become vulnerable to the

process of de-latgalisation. Resistance to this process requires extraordinary

commitment, as the experience of the post-1944 émigré Latvians has shown.

The process loosens ties between individual and place, even between

collectivity and place. Place―in this case Latgale―becomes increasingly a

location in memory, an object of nostalgic defence; its potency as a source of

identity diminishes, and continuing identification with it requires increasingly

more powerful and repeated acts of imagination. In time, such a troubled and

devitalised sense of identity becomes difficult to transmit to future

generations.

Andrejs Plakans

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the editors of this book for their comments, and Professor

Leonard Latkovski of Hood College for his comments and several important

bibliographical references.

1. That is, a deep horizontal comradeship of people who do not know and

will known most of their fellow members; Anderson, 1991, p. 6.

2. Studies of European regionalism are many; for an introduction to the

subject see Sorensen, 1995; Gastelaars and de Ruijter, 1998; Wagstaff, 1999;

Telò, 2001; Kaplan and Häkli, 2002; Adams, Alden, and Harris, 2006. For a

post-1991 look at the question among Latvian historians, see Misāns,

Oberlenders, and Straube, 1999, particularly the essay by Misāns, pp. 83–86.

3. Mūrniece, 2010; Hirša, 2010; “Latgaļu valodas”, 2010.

4. The 586 page review by the National Language Commission of its work

during the first fifteen years of renewed independence in implementing the

National Language Law devotes two paragraphs (pp. 88, 290) to Latgalian.

See Valsts Valodas Komisija, 2007.

5. Cibuļs, 2009, pp. 24–26.

6. Kursīte, 2005b, pp. 78–87. The exact meaning and origin of these two

words remains something of a mystery, though historical linguists believe

that neither much predates the twentieth century.

Čangaļi is a plural term that

is meant to refer to somewhat odd people who do things that are backward;

čiuļi refers to clumsy, boasting people who do not seem to fit in; see Kursīte

2007, pp. 58─60 for a full discussion. In contemporary Latvian usage,

however, these terms are more than likely to appear amidst good-natured

banter; and the Latgalian pop-music group Baltie lāči (White Bears) has

written a humorous song in which the origins of the term čangaļi is given a

totally absurd explanation.

7. For their views see Kemps, 1910, 1991; Trasūns, 1997.

8. Bukšs, 1957, pp. 119–58.

9. Zeile, 2006, pp. 399–409.

10. Skujeneeks, 1922, pp. 197, 207.

11. Skujeneeks, 1922, p.2 23; Strods, 1989.

12. Kursīte, 2005a, pp. 17–20. For a fine case study of interwar integration

policy see Purs, 2002.

13. Jēkabsons and Ščerbinskis, 2006, pp. 26–28; Šilde, 1976, pp. 386–419

14. Salceviča, 2005.

15. Dunsdorfs, 1991, p. 58.

16. Oļehnovičs, 2009.

17. Salceviča, 2005, pp. 111–41

18. Krišjāne and Bauls, 2006; Vītoliņš, 2006.

19. Stradiņš, 1999.

Regional Identity in Latvia

20. Zeile, 2006.

21. “Regional identity”, 2002.

22. Zeile, 2006, pp.285–98; Apine, 2002, pp. 22–31.

23. Peipiņa, 2002, p. 99.

24. First quotation from Soms and Ivanovs, 2002, p. 10; second quotation

from Leikuma, 2002, p.41.

25. Latvia. Human Development, 2004/2005, pp. 27, 34.

26. Stafecka, 2004; Leikuma, 2008. For a detailed review of the current role

of Latgalian in the systems of primary and secondary education, see Marten,

Šuplinska, and Lagzdiņa, 2009.

Bibliography

Adams, N., Alden, N. and Harris, N. (eds.) (2006), Regional Development

and Spatial Planning in an Enlarged European Union. Hampshire:

Ashgate.

Anderson, B. (1991), Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and

Spread of Nationalism. London and New York: Verso.

Apine, I. (2002), “The Ethnic Mentality of Latgalians”, Regional Identity of

Latgale. Humanities and Social Sciences. Latvia. 3, 22–31.

Bukšs, M. (1957), Latgaļu literaturas vēsture. Műnchen: Latgaļu

izdevneicība.

Cibuļs, J. (2006), Latgaliešu ābeces 1768–2008. Riga: Zinātne.

Dunsdorfs, E. (1991), Skaistā Latgale. Melbourne: Kārļa Zariņa fonds.

Gastelaars, M. and Ruijter, A.de (eds.) (1998), A United Europe: The Quest

for a Multifaceted Identity. Maastricht: Shaker Publishing.

Hirša, D. (2010), “„Trench Warfare‟ about Latgalian Written Language”,

Latvijas avīze, January 15.

Jēkabsons, Ē. and Ščerbinskis, V. comp. (2006), Latgaliešu politiķi un

politiskās partijas neatkarīgajā Latvijā. Riga: Jumava.

Kaplan, D. H.. and Hakli, J. (eds.) (2002), Boundaries and Place: European

Borderlands in Geographical Context. Lanham: Rowman and

Littlefield.

Andrejs Plakans

Kemps, F. (1910), Latgalieši: kultūrvēsturiska skice. Riga: D. Zeltiņš.

Kemps, F. (1991), Latgales likteņi. Riga: Avots. First edition 1938.

Krišjāne, Z. and Bauls, A. (2006), “Regional Features of Migration in Latvia”

in P. Zvidriņš (ed.), Demographic Situation: Present and Future.

Riga: Zinatne, pp. 134–53.

Kursīte, J. (2005a), ”Nomales identitāte un centra identitāte”, in Inese

Paklone, comp. Nomales identitāte. Riga: Madris, pp. 17–21.

Kursīte, J. (2005b), “Čiulis un čangalis: ikdienas stereotipi” in I. Paklone,

comp. Nomales identitāte. Riga: Madris, pp. 78–87.

Kursīte, J (2007), Neakademiskā latviešu valodas vārdnīca. Riga: Madris.

“Latgaļu valodas…” = “Latgaļu valodas stāvoklis mūsdienās.” Diena,

February 22, 2010.

Latvia: Human Development = Latvia. Human Development Report

2004/2005: Human Capability in the Regions, p. 27.

Leikuma, L. (2002), “Latgalian Writing: Origins, Development, Prospects.”

Regional Identity of Latgale. Humanities and Social Sciences. Latvia.

3, 32–43.

Leikuma, L. (2008), “The Beginnings of Written Latgalian.” Kristiina Ross

and Pēteris Vanags (eds.). Common Roots of the Latvian and Estonian

Literary Languages. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 211–33.

Marten, H. F, Šuplinska, I. and Lazdiņa. S. (2009), Latgalian: The Latgalian

Language in Education of Latvia. Leeuwarden: Mercators.

Mednis, I. (2007), Partiju laiki Latvijā: 1988–2002. Riga: Drukātava.

Misāns, I., Oberlenders, E. and Straube, G. (eds.) (1999), Kurzeme, Vidzeme,

Latgale: reģions un identitāte vēsturē. Riga: N.I.M.S.

Mūrniece, I. (2010), “Latviešu tautai―divas valodas?” Latvijas avīze,

January 1.

Regional Identity in Latvia

Oļehnovičs, D. (2009), “Ceļojumi pa Latgali: topohroniskais krustpunkts,” in

D. Hanovs (ed.), Atcerēties, aizmirst, izdomāt: kultūru un identitāšu

biogrāfijas 18.–21.gs. Latvijā. Riga: Dialogi.lv, pp. 104–15.

Peipiņa, O. (2002), “Changes in the Population and the Demographic

Structure of Latgale Between the National Censuses.” Regional

Identity of Latgale. Humanities and Social Sciences. Latvia. 3, 89–

104.

Purs, A. (2002), “The Price of Free Lunches: Making the Frontier Latvian in

the Interwar Years.” Global Review of Ethnopolitics, 1(4), 60–73.

“Regional Identity…” = “Regional Identity of Latgale.” Humanities and

Social Sciences. Latvia. No. 3(2002).

Salceviča, I. (2005), Gadsimts latgaliešu prozā un lugu rakstniecībā: 1904–

2005. Riga: Zinatne.

Šilde, Ā. (1976), Latvijas vēsture 1914–1940. Stockholm: Daugava.

Skujeneeks, M. (1922), Latvija: zeme un iedzīvotāji. Riga: Valsts statistiskā

pārvalde.

Soms, H. and Ivanovs, A. (2002), “Historical Peculiarities of Eastern Latvia

(Latgale): Their Origin and Investigation.” Regional Identity of

Latgale. Humanities and Social Sciences. Latvia. 3, 5–21.

Sorensen, N. A. (1995), European Identities: Cultural Diversity and

Integration in Europe since 1700. Odense: Odense University Press.

Stafecka, A. (2004), “Latgalian Written Language as a Symbol of Identity”,

Acta Baltico-Slavica. 28, 177–91.

Stradiņš, J. (1999), “Sēlijas problēma laikmetu skatijumā,” in A. Caune (ed.),

Latvijas zemju robežas 1000 gados. Riga: Latvijas Vēsures Institūta

Apgāds.

Strods, H. (1989), Latgales iezdzīvotāju etniskais sastāvs 1772.g.–1959.g.

Riga: P. Stučkas Latvijas Valsts universitāte.

Telò, M. (ed.) (2001), European Union and New Regionalism. Hampshire:

Ashgate.

Andrejs Plakans

Trasūns, F. (1997), Dzīve un darbi. Rēzekne: Latgales Kultūras Centra

Izdevnieciba. Volume 1. First edition 1938.

Vītoliņš, E. (2006), “Demogrāfiskās attīstības tendencies Latvijas reģionos,”

in Pēteris Zvidriņš, ed. Demogrāfiskā attīstība Latvija 21. gadsimta

sākumā. Riga: Zinatne, pp. 147–53.

Wagstaff, P. (ed.) (1999), Regionalism in the European Union. Exeter:

Intellect.

Valsts, V. K. (2007), Latviešu valoda 15 neatkarības gados. Riga: Zinātne.

Zeile, P. (2006), Latgales kultūras vēsture no akmens laikmeta līdz

mūsdienām. Rēzekne: Latgales Kulturas Centra Izdevnieciba.

The Dancing Conference of Bulduri:

A Clash of Alternative Regional Futures

Marko Lehti

Introduction

From today’s perspective, the Baltic conference of Baltic states

held at

Bulduri (Bilderlingshof)―a small spa town which is part of present-day

Jūrmala―in August 1920 looks marginal and undeserving of too much

attention. The Baltic states never managed to form any kind of alliance and

thus their efforts to co-operate are regarded as a failure, a side-track to inter-

war history. However, the idealism dominating the immediate post-First

World War years is too often judged from the perspective of the Second

World War, just as Realpolitik is accepted as a given norm of international

relations. This paper argues that the Bulduri conference’s significance lies not

in what happened afterwards, but in the way its participants thought about the

new bright future that was supposed to be under construction at the time.

Consequently Bulduri offers an opportunity to look at an alternative future,

and to point out that in the past there were different options and competing

visions available to historical actors.

The Bulduri conference was in many respects a benchmark in

multilateral co-operation and integrationist thinking. It was one of the first

attempts to realize a new vision of regional co-operation and sovereignty

through the integrationist ideal that prevailed in Europe immediately after the

First World War. Several visions of a Europe-wide league or union were

expressed by the likes of Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi and Aristide Briand,

and regional co-operation was organised among (for instance) the so-called

Little Entente countries and Balkan states. Nonetheless, the Bulduri

conference and the co-operation it entailed between the Baltic states, was a

pioneering event both in terms of timing and agenda. It represented an early

effort to implement integrationist and multilateral policy in practice and,

consequently, also highlights the difficulties encountered by such efforts. No

diplomatic experience or tradition provided a template for how to organize

this kind of meeting. Moreover, as the diplomats began their work, idealism

clashed with more nationalistic and exclusive points of view.

The Bulduri conference also has obvious relevance to the twenty first

century. The issues introduced at that multilateral conference, as well as the

far-reaching goal of creating an integrated Baltic area, are self-evident in

today’s European Union, but ninety years ago it required great courage and

far-sightedness to address such a program. Now, the Baltic Sea Area is once

again the focus of efforts to establish regional co-operation, and although

(once again) states have differing interests, there is also a prevailing and

similar optimism about building a common regional future.

Marko Lehti

Further, in 1920 one of the major driving forces for generating

regional co-operation was the absence of de jure recognition for the three

Baltic States. The Europe of today again has countries without de jure

recognition of their independence and thus there is a need to find alternative

ways of entering into international relations and arranging everyday

relationships. The Bulduri conference offers an interesting early example of

how this could be achieved. But first and foremost the Bulduri conference

offers an opportunity to juxtapose alternative regional futures as they were

available at the time. Its story deserves to be told because it helps break the

dominance of overly harmonious histories and challenges the idea that

history could only have happened in the way that it did.

The future in unity

The first conference of Baltic states was held at Helsinki in January 1920. It

involved Finns, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians and Poles.

Soon after

Helsinki, the Latvians started preparations for the next conference and a

special committee was appointed.

In contrast to Helsinki, several issues that

concerned everyday relations between states were included in the preliminary

conference agenda and the idea of integration was emphasized. In February,

the Latvians listed the issues to be discussed under the rubric of Baltic co-

operation: the arbitration of border conflicts, the role of the court of

arbitration in their relations, the arrangement of copyright and inheritance

legislation, the campaign against infectious diseases,

the outline of the

principles of a common social policy, the co-ordination of railway and

maritime communications, the organisation of postal and telegram

communications, the regulation of customs duties and trade links, and,

finally, the drafting of treaties on military and cultural issues.

At the start of

July, the Latvian government finally invited the other Baltic states to gather

in Riga on 20 July. The Finns and Estonians were immediately ready to take

part, but the Lithuanians and Poles hesitated. After a couple of days, the latter

also communicated their acceptance, but the Poles wanted to change the date

of the conference to the beginning of August.

The Bulduri conference was called as a meeting of ―Baltic states‖ (des

États Baltiques) and the term referred to the whole Baltic Sea area. The

Scandinavian countries were also invited to the conference. In Scandinavia,

however, a negative attitude was taken towards this initiative and the

Swedish foreign minister, Erik Palmstierna, regarded the idea as ridiculous.

Finally the Swedish, Danish and Norwegian foreign ministers rejected the

invitation at their meeting in Kristiania, Oslo in May 1920. Still, on the eve

of the conference, the Latvians waited and hoped that the Scandinavians

would take part in the Bulduri conference after all―but they hoped in vain.

Bulduri remained a final effort to bind the states on the western shore of the

Baltic Sea into Baltic co-operation.

The Dancing Conference of Bulduri

Instead of coming from the West, the states which were interested in

taking part in the conference came from the East. On 20 August, with the

event already underway, Belarus and Ukraine asked permission to join the

conference. Only the application of the latter was accepted, the main reason

for this being the close Ukrainian relationship with Poland. Ukraine had, in

practice, already been conquered by the Bolsheviks and the Ukrainian

government was without a territory of its own.

The Ukrainian application

was not accepted unanimously, with the Estonians stressing that Ukraine was

not a Baltic Sea country at all and its participation would change the Bulduri

conference from being a Baltic conference into a conference of Russian

border states.

On 6 August 1920, the delegations of Estonia, Latvia, Finland,

Lithuania and Poland gathered and a conference, which lasted the whole

month, began. In his opening speech, the Latvian prime minister, Kārlis

Ulmanis painted a picture in which questions of a military alliance and even

security policy were not to be distinguished especially from several other

matters requiring Baltic co-operation.

―Ces questions, vous les connaissez déjà. Elles touchent a

toutes les formes de notre existence, a l'amelioration de nos

finances, de notre industrie, de notre commerce, de nos voies

de communication, aux relations entre nos états, a la

sauvegarde des droits d'auteur et des droits d'héritage, a la

commune défense de l'independance de nos pays, comme au

developpement de notre culture litteraire, scientifique et

artistique, condition primordiale de toute ascension et de tout

progrès.‖

When the goals of the conference were being specified, political and military

issues were held to be in harmony with economic and cultural questions as

well as with issues concerning everyday relations. The final programme

included almost a hundred different items which were divided into ten main

topics: the organization of the conference, a military defensive alliance, an

economic treaty, a political treaty concerning mutual relations, a political

treaty concerning foreign relations, a legal treaty, a cultural treaty, a health

treaty, a social treaty and propaganda.

―The formation of a league between the states we represent, which

will ensure the economic development of our people and their external

security‖ was the goal of the conference according to the Latvian president,

Jānis Čakste. In the papers which the Latvians drew up, three different

French terms on the proposed league of the Baltic states were used: l'Union

des États Baltiques

, la Ligue Baltique,

and l'Entente des États Baltiques.

Through terms like Union or League, reference was made to connections

between the states than went beyond those of a traditional alliance. A military