Search results

Ten years after independence, an interesting debate by historians in Estonia over their handling of Estonian history is beginning. Their reflection refers as much to the historiographic heritage from the period between wars, the time of the first independence, as it does to the time of the first Soviet occupation. Additionally, a new contemplation of the future is required in order for it to be incorporated, finally, into the international research landscape. Core problems of the discussion are bound with the question of whether Estonian history is to be understood as the history of the people or as the history of the land, or more specifically the state. In addition, one circles again & again around the topic of the historic role of the victim as moralistic legitimation for one's own independence. More quickly than with its southern neighbors, however, a position critical of myth appears to have been established in Estonia, at least with the professional historians. That this will not always be publicly accepted was demonstrated at the embittered 1999 discussion of the contacts of Estonian national president Konstantin Pats to the USSR. This article offers an overview of the tendencies of 1990s Estonian historiography against the backdrop of the current debate. 58 References. C. Houle

This article argues that Estonian song festivals were a powerful ritual of political mobilisation. Throughout their history, however, they had to be accommodated to narratives of ruling regimes. Taking Patrick Hutton's concept of such events as a 'moment of memory' with which images of the past are being reconstructed in a selective way, song festivals are on each occasion made to suit present needs. During the history of Estonian nationhood, these needs have been guided first and foremost by forms of political authority: during years of independence, the festivals were to serve different purposes than under imperial or Soviet Russian rule. Thus, the concept of 'singing oneself into a nation', popular in Estonian history textbooks, is only partly true. Although the performance of the festival changes only slightly through the years, its political significance changes enormously. Adapted from the source document.

On 2 Sept 2004, youth in Lihula, Estonia, threw stones at police protecting a crane sent by the Ministry of the Interior to remove a monument honoring Estonian solders who had fought with the Germans against the Red Army in WWII. Much the same thing took place three years later in Tallin, except that the monument removed honored fallen Soviet soldiers. Both events electrified the country, whose population includes an ethnic Russian minority, & had international ramifications. Historical memory generally helps create a shared past & a perception of present unity, but not in Estonia, where these monuments provoke opposing sentiments. This paper examines Estonian history during WWII, after which its population was 90+% ethnically Estonia; throughout the Soviet occupation, when the influx of a mainly Russian workforce brought a decline of the Estonian majority to 62%; & since Estonian independence, when the ethnic Estonian population regained control. At present, instead of shared memories of war, Estonia has a "war of memories." It is concluded that John R. Gillis's (1994) concept of a "democratization of memory" offers a possible solution for Estonia's discursive ethnic confrontation. References. S. Stanton