This book explores anti-Jewish violence in Russian-ruled Lithuania. It begins by illustrating how widespread anti-Jewish feelings were among the Christian population in 19 th century, focusing on blood libel accusations as well as describing the role of modern antisemitism. Secondly, it tries to identify the structural preconditions as well as specific triggers that turned anti-Jewish feelings into collective violence and analyzes the nature of this violence. Lastly, pogroms in Lithuania are compared to anti-Jewish violence in other regions of the Russian Empire and East Galicia. This research is inspired by the cultural turn in social sciences, an approach that assumes that violence is filled with meaning, which is "culturally constructed, discursively mediated, symbolically saturated, and ritually regulated." The author argues that pogroms in Lithuania instead followed a communal pattern of ethnic violence and was very different from deadly pogroms in other parts of the Russian Empire
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Hybrid identities in the era of ethno-nationalism: The case of the krajowcy in LithuaniaThis article deals with the identification of the so-called krajowcy – a relatively small group of Polish-speaking activists in Lithuania and Belarus in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century who promoted an idea of the re-establishement of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This article claims that the krajowcy democrats (Michał Römer, Tadeusz Wróblewski, Konstancja Skirmuntt and others) were not nationally indifferent. On the contrary, they promoted a clearly formulated national identity ideology, different to the dominant (ethno-linguistic) one. First of all, the krajowcy were nationalists in a civic sense: they were Lithuanians, citizens of Lithuania within its historical boundaries. In addition, some of them, for example Wróblewski, suggested strengthening ethno-linguistic nationalism as well, otherwise his national personal autonomy concept would simply not have worked. Others, such as Konstancja Skirmuntt, Juozapas Albinas Herbačiauskas and Michał Römer, expressed a hybrid identification with several national cultures, and sometimes their self-identification was even reminiscent of identity ideologies that had dominated in earlier historical periods. Tożsamości hybrydowe w erze etnonacjonalizmu – "krajowcy" na LitwieArtykuł jest poświęcony identyfikacji tak zwanych krajowców, stosunkowo nielicznej grupy polskojęzycznych aktywistów działających na Litwie i Białorusi pod koniec XIX i na początku XX wieku, promujących ideę odtworzenia Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. Artykuł wykazuje, że reprezentanci demokratycznego skrzydła tego ruchu (Michał Römer, Tadeusz Wróblewski, Konstancja Skirmuntt i inni) nie byli narodowo obojętni. Wręcz przeciwnie, promowali jasno sformułowaną ideologię tożsamości, odmienną od dominującej wówczas narracji etnolingwistycznej. Byli przede wszystkim narodowcami w sensie obywatelskim – Litwinami, obywatelami Litwy w jej historycznych granicach. Co więcej, niektórzy z nich, na przykład T. Wróblewski, postulowali także wzmocnienie nacjonalizmu etnolingwistycznego, w przeciwnym bowiem razie proponowana koncepcja autonomii osobistej nie miałaby szans na zaistnienie. Inni działacze, tacy jak Konstancja Skirmuntt, Juozapas Albinas Herbačiauskas (Józef Albin Herbaczewski) i Michał Römer, identyfikowali się z wieloma kulturami narodowymi, a ich samoidentyfikacja przywodzi czasem na myśl ideologie tożsamości, dominujące we wcześniejszych epokach historycznych.
This article argues that apart from a couple of cases, there were no situations where the Russian imperial government would have supported Lithuanian national culture as a counterbalance against Poles, and more generally, that the policy of "divide and rule" was in principle not applied on the empire's western periphery regarding other non-dominant ethnic groups. A more general reason for not implementing such a policy was related to many officials' belief that the government should seek integration, acculturation, or even assimilation of non-Russian ethnicities. At the same time, on the Russian mental map, the Northwest Region was understood not just as part of the empire, but as part of Russian national territory. In such a territory, most of the government subscribed to a discourse of nationalism that permitted no means of support for the strengthening of non-Russian nationalisms. Finally, social radicalism of the Lithuanian, Latvian, or Estonian national movements was another obstacle for tsarist officials to support these "peasant" nationalities.
This article is devoted to the question of Vilnius as the capital of a modern Lithuanian nation-state in the Lithuanian national movement in the late imperial period. In this article, the author attempts to reveal the reasons behind such a decision, to identify the problems that Lithuanian nationalists faced in seeking to implement this goal, and to answer the question of how the leaders of the Lithuanian National Movement hoped to implement the goal. It is claimed that despite the very unfavorable ethnodemographic situation of Lithuanians in the city and disapproval among other nationalities, Vilnius was proclaimed the future national capital of Lithuanians/Lithuania not only in order to claim historical rights for an independent state but also because this city was the most important religious and official center of the region, and finally because of the need to nationalize the population of the Vilnius region. Lithuanian political forces tried to find allies among the movements that opposed the Russian Empire, but their search produced no results. Some of the Lithuanian leaders, particularly from the right, hoped for the support of the imperial government, but the latter was not ready to agree to the territorialization of ethnicity, and thus to the autonomy of ethnographic Lithuania with Vilnius.
В статье рассказывается об обосновании выбора Вильнюса в качестве будущего литовского национального государства литовским национальным движением в позднеимперский период. Автор исследует аргументы в пользу выбора именно Вильнюса, а также проблемы, с которыми столкнулись националисты, претворяя в жизнь свои планы, и способы решения этих проблем. Несмотря на крайне незначительную долю литовцев среди жителей Вильнюса (всего несколько процентов) и возражения со стороны других национальных групп, Вильнюс был объявлен столицей будущего литовского государства. Это было сделано не только для подтверждения исторических прав нового независимого государства, но и потому, что Вильнюс являлся главным религиозным и административным центром региона. Провозглашение Вильнюса литовской столицей должно было способствовать национализации населения. Литовские политические силы безрезультатно пытались найти поддержку своим планам среди других движений, оппозиционных по отношению к имперским властям. Некоторые литовские лидеры, прежде всего с правого фланга, возлагали надежду на имперское правительство, но оно не было готово к признанию территориализации этничности, а значит, и к автономии этнографической Литвы с центром в Вильнюсе.
SUMMARY: Принято считать, что империя Романовых не практиковала территоризацию этничности – иными словами, имперские власти не были заинтересованы в том, чтобы административные границы совпадали с этническими территориями. Такой принцип административного деления в полной мере реализовался лишь в Советском Союзе. Однако в настоящей статье этот общепринятый взгляд пересматривается на примере проектов учреждения "этнической" Сувалкской губернии в рамках Королевства Польского. В этой губернии большинство населения составляли литовцы. Время от времени российские чиновники рассматривали возможность объединить все населенные литовцами территории в общую административную единицу. В статье анализируются причины, в силу которых подобные проекты возникали, а также причины их провала на практике.
After the suppression of the 1863 Uprising, the 'Russification of the region' became an inseparable and very important part of the normative language moulding the Russian Empire's national policy in the Western Region. At the same time the officials, unlike the publicists, avoided characterising the official policy as 'Russification' of other nations, since this term, like, e. g., Polonization in the Russian national discourse, had negative connotations. According to the predominant historical canon, this region was Russian from both the historical and ethnic perspective, and therefore the bureaucracy was inclined to characterise its policy as the restoration of historical veracity. In other words, in order to ascertain the aims of the national policy in this region, analysis of the official and public discourses alone is not enough. Nevertheless, the use of the term 'Russification' in public discourse and in part also in official correspondence allows its meaning to be revealed. 'Russification' at that time could be understood in a variety of ways: as assimilation, acculturation, or integration. This term frequently had different meanings regarding various minor ethnic groups of the Northwestern Region: in the case of the Belarussians it frequently meant assimilation; regarding Jews, acculturation and integration; in case the Poles, first of all political integration; but the Russification of Lithuanians or Latvians is rarely mentioned.
After the suppression of the 1863 Uprising, the 'Russification of the region' became an inseparable and very important part of the normative language moulding the Russian Empire's national policy in the Western Region. At the same time the officials, unlike the publicists, avoided characterising the official policy as 'Russification' of other nations, since this term, like, e. g., Polonization in the Russian national discourse, had negative connotations. According to the predominant historical canon, this region was Russian from both the historical and ethnic perspective, and therefore the bureaucracy was inclined to characterise its policy as the restoration of historical veracity. In other words, in order to ascertain the aims of the national policy in this region, analysis of the official and public discourses alone is not enough. Nevertheless, the use of the term 'Russification' in public discourse and in part also in official correspondence allows its meaning to be revealed. 'Russification' at that time could be understood in a variety of ways: as assimilation, acculturation, or integration. This term frequently had different meanings regarding various minor ethnic groups of the Northwestern Region: in the case of the Belarussians it frequently meant assimilation; regarding Jews, acculturation and integration; in case the Poles, first of all political integration; but the Russification of Lithuanians or Latvians is rarely mentioned.
