INTERPRETACJE PRZESZŁOŚCI Litewskie, polskie i białoruskie mapy historyczne

Apply

INTERPRETACJE PRZESZŁOŚCI Litewskie, polskie i białoruskie mapy historyczne

Journal Title: Przegląd Wschodni - Year 2014, Vol 13, Issue 51

Abstract

Is it possible to paint a historical atlas which might be considered the common property of Lithuanians, Belarusians and Poles? Can the historical region of Lithuania be objectively shown, or in such a way as to correspond to the national narratives of all these nations on this map? What should the first capital city of the Grand Duchy be known as – Navahrudak (in Belarusian), Kernavė, or simply “place unknown” (the Lithuanian interpretation)? How should the country’s creation in the 13th century– its roots – be described? Should only the Lithuanian lands be distinguished? Or the Belarusian-Lithuanian land? What should be done with the times of Vytautus the Great and Jagiełło (14th-15th centuries)? After the Union of Krewa, should Lithuania be solely shown as the partner of Poland (the Polish interpretation) or as an independent country without any indication of its partnership with its eastern neighbour (the Polish interpretation)? How should the Union of Lublin of 1569 be interpreted on maps? As a real union, when Lithuania became a part of the Rzeczpospolita, whose capital, as well as political and cultural centres, was located in Krakow and Warsaw, or as a state, curtailed by the “aggressive” Poles, but with their political, cultural and economic sovereignty intact and statehood rescued (the Lithuanian, and to some degree Belarusian interpretation)? How should this objective map reconcile the Lithuanian position (and the not so radical Belarusian position), which refuses to show Poland – a “foreign” country – on the same map as Lithuania in the 15th-18th centuries, with the Polish interpretation, which treats Lithuania as its “own” province? Speaking of the 20th century, is it possible to “objectively” and impartially show the conflict over Vilnius on a map which would be acceptable to all three sides? How can the multi-national character of the region be shown, when each national narrative treats these lands as an essential element of their cultural and political future? It is a fact that the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is so variously interpreted, that it allows better understanding of the nation. Different interpretations of historical maps also speak multitudes on contemporary nations and their behaviour in relation to their neighbours. It is obvious that Poland continues to act in the role of regional leader, adding the whole heritage of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to its own legacy. This interpretation is rooted in the modern day Constitution of Poland (1997). In the last 500 years, Lithuania and Belarus have taken a defensive position – a weaker one. Lithuanians traditionally feel antagonism towards Poland and defend the Grand Duchy against any and all grievances from its neighbours. Within the historical narrative, it is still possible to view attempts at reducing the role of Poland in the history of Lithuania. From this angle, the Polish viewpoint can be called “dominating, universalistic and integrating”, while the Lithuanian – “defensive, particularistic and divisive”. Lithuanians do not see a continuation between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the 20th century Republic of Lithuania. Nonetheless, such a continuation does exist between the Grand Duchy and the Republic of Lithuania. At the end of the 20th century, the newly created state of Belarus began to search for its roots in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Today, this is the cause of conflict in Belarusian-Lithuanian relations, where Lithuania as a state, prevails over the Grand Duchy’s past, much like Poland prevails over the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth’s past.

Authors and Affiliations

Rūstis Kamuntavičius

Keywords

mapa Litwa Rzeczypospolita

Trójjedyny naród ruski czy odrębne wspólnoty narodowe?

during the last few centuries, the Eastern slavs developed a feeling of belonging to a common tri-party, all-russia community – often referred to as “nation”. simultaneously not only the russians, but already in the 19th...

Raj zbudowany na ziemi, czyli koniec utopii i początek antyutopii. Totalitarny paradoks w antyutopii rosyjskiej (Jewgenij Zamiatin, Władymir Wojnowicz, Władymir Sorokin)

The subject of this article is Russian 20th century literature. The author focusses on three authors belonging to different generations: Yevgeny Zamyatin (1884-1937), Vladimir Voinovich (1932) Vladimir Sorokin (1955). Th...

EP ID EP326145
DOI -
Views 77
Downloads 0