History, conflicting collective memories, and national identities: how Latvia's Russian-speakers are learning to remember

Abstract

The literature on collective memories in the Baltic states often stresses the irreconcilable division between Russian and Baltic official interpretations of the Second World War. This paper seeks to challenge this popular notion of two polemic collective memories – “Latvian” and “Russian”. While there is evidence that Latvia's Russian-speakers are heavily influenced by Russian cultural and political discourses, I will argue that the actual positions taken up by Russian-speakers are more nuanced than a crude Latvian–Russian dichotomy would suggest.

Based on survey data collected at the site of the 2011 Victory Day celebrations in Riga, this paper points to the germane existence of a partial “democratization of history” among Latvia's Russian-speakers, typified by an increasing willingness to countenance and take stock of alternative views of history. Through an examination of the data it will be argued that such tentative steps towards a democratization of history are most visible among the younger cohort of Russian-speakers, whose collective memory-myths have been tempered by their dual habitation of the Latvian, as well as Russian, mythscapes. In order to more fully understand this process both bottom-up and top-down pressures will be examined.

Keywords:

• Russian-speakers
• national identity
• collective memory
• Latvia
• history

Notes

In this study I have chosen to use the broader term “Russian-speakers” in preference to “Russians”. In recent years this term has become increasingly used to construct a homogonous group with shared values and characteristics out of a diverse selection of heterogeneous groups and individuals (see Cheskin, “The Discursive Construction”). In its popular usage the term covers any person whose native language is Russian, which in Latvia often serves to unite a number of (also constructed) ethnic groups such as Russians, Belarusians, Jews, Ukrainians, and Poles.

Admittedly, following pressure from a number of international organizations the parliament recalled this appeal in 2005 with the “Declaration of Condemnation of the Totalitarian Communist Occupation Regime Implemented in Latvia by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”. Nevertheless, the new declaration again emphasized Latvia's unambiguous position regarding the occupation.

The topic of Latvians' participation in the Waffen SS legions is extremely complicated and controversial. While some Latvian soldiers volunteered, others were forcibly conscripted. For an interesting, yet one-sided defence of the legionnaires see Rislakki (127–42). For an interesting, yet one-sided condemnation of the legionnaires see Chernov and Shlyakhtunov.

I shall admit, however, that we do not know what percentage of these children would identify themselves as Latvian or Russian. It may be that there are a number of pupils in “Latvian” schools who would identify themselves as Russian-speakers.

This quotation was used as the template for question 4. 82% of respondents agreed with this sentiment (see Appendix).