In search of lost time: Memory politics in Estonia, 1991-2011

Abstract

This article analyzes memory politics during the first 20 years of the newly independent Estonia. Memory politics is understood as a politics endeavoring to shape the society's collective memory and establish notions of what is and is not to be remembered of the past, employing to this end both legislative means and practical measures. The paper presents one possible scheme for analyzing Estonian memory politics and limits its treatment in two important ways. Firstly, the focus is on national memory politics, that is the decisions of the parliament, government, and president oriented toward shaping collective memory. And second, only internal memory politics is discussed; that is, bi-or multilateral memory-political relations with other states or political unions are not examined separately. The analysis is built on four interrelated dimensions of memory politics, which have played the most important roles in Estonia: the legal, institutional, commemorative, and monumental dimensions. Also, a general characterization and temporal articulation of memory politics in newly independent Estonia is proposed.

Rejecting, re-shaping, rearranging: Ways of negotiating the past in family narratives

“…The era of pre-war independence was depicted as the “golden age” disrupted by the Soviet occupation referred to as the “long night” (Jõesalu, 2010). This discourse constructs the nation via “martyrdom” and underlines the stubborn nature of the nation, which survived despite the tough times (Tamm, 2013). The central role in this narrative is taken by the deportations (1941 and 1949, Tamm, 2013), when approximately 30,000 people were deported from their homes to Siberia (Ennuste et al, 2005).…”

Revisiting the social organisation of national memory: A look at the calendars of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia

“…Most prominently, the proclamation of independence in 1918 was drawn upon when creating calendrical continuity. Marek Tamm (2013: 662) even observed that the decision surrounding the ‘upgrading’ of 20 August (1991) within the Estonian calendar in the 1990s was veiled in its perceived conflict with the above date of 24 February (1918) (see appendix 3). The Estonian parliament (Riigikogu) voiced concerns that the elevation of 20 August to a public holiday ‘would undermine the significance of 24 February and endanger the idea of legal continuity’ (Tamm, 2013: 662).…”

“…Marek Tamm (2013: 662) even observed that the decision surrounding the ‘upgrading’ of 20 August (1991) within the Estonian calendar in the 1990s was veiled in its perceived conflict with the above date of 24 February (1918) (see appendix 3). The Estonian parliament (Riigikogu) voiced concerns that the elevation of 20 August to a public holiday ‘would undermine the significance of 24 February and endanger the idea of legal continuity’ (Tamm, 2013: 662). While the two days coexist in the contemporary realm of public holidays in all three countries, the above considerations of the Estonian parliament underline Eva-Clarita Onken’s (2007) observation that since regaining independence, the idea of continuity of statehood has been ‘the central historical notion for Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians’ (p. 38).…”

“…Instead, scholars tend to focus on a single country, either by taking a top-down approach or devoting attention to the bottom-up reception of said calendars (e.g. Kõiva, 2013; Korolova et al, 2015; Kuznecovienė, 2008; Senvaitytė, 2015; Tamm, 2013; Zepa et al, 2008). Within this corpus of literature, analyses under the auspices of memory studies are just one piece of the disciplinary puzzle in the study of Baltic calendars.…”

“… 7. (International) Holocaust Remembrance Day is not legally stipulated in Estonia, but since 2003 it has been marked on 27 January (see Tamm, 2013: 665). …”