A TALE OF TWO HISTORIES?

As discussed in Chapter 3, the theme of historical tension and antagonism has been much researched in the Baltic context between the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania on the one hand, and Russia on the other. For the Baltic states it is commonly accepted that between these three countries and Russia ‘two narratives of the recent past perennially conflict with one another’ (Kattago 2010: 383). According to the official Baltic narrative of the past, the Baltic states are portrayed as victims of merciless Soviet and Nazi occupations, each of which was equally horrific. The Soviet-Russian narrative rejects the label of occupation and instead highlights the heroic efforts of the Soviet Union in liberating Europe from the evils of fascism.

This chapter, however, argues for a more nuanced understanding of actual collective memories of Russian speakers in Latvia. Although existing data point to differing and distinct memory positions of the two constructed ‘Latvian’ and ‘Russian-speaking’ communities, it is argued that it is necessary to examine people's perspectives on history in much remember’. This chapter therefore challenges the commonly accepted view that the majority of Russian speakers in Latvia ‘have accepted the vision of history as cultivated by Russia as their own and take it as the basis for their historical vision of Latvia’ (Zelče 2009: 54).

While there can be little doubt that Russia plays a very significant role in the creation and perpetuation of collective memories for Latvia's Russian speakers, this assertion needs to be challenged on two counts: firstly, it smoothes out any differences that exist within the constructed group of Russian-speakers; secondly, it creates an overly simplified dichotomy between ‘Latvian’ and ‘Russian’ history with no democratic space between the two opposing poles. For example, the above quotation from Vita Zelče continues, ‘this is a crisis situation for efforts to achieve tolerance in regard to history and memory in Latvia.