National Identity and the Teaching of History
CEU eTD Collection T HE R EFLECTION In partial fulfillment offulfillment the partial In N ATIONAL Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology Social and of Sociology Department
OF Supervisors: Professor, Dan Rabinowitz Dan Professor, Supervisors: L I ITHUANIA DENTITY P OLAND Central European University European Central ’ B requirements for the degree of Master of Artsof Master for the degree requirements
Irma Irma Budginaitė
S udapest, Hungaryudapest, IN AND 16 Professor, Prem Rajaram Prem Kumar Professor, Submitted to Submitted L ITHUANIAN TH 2010
-18 THE By T TH C EACHING ENTURIES
SCHOOLS C
OF OMMONWEALTH H ISTORY :
WITH
CEU eTD Collection include different accounts and if teachers are following thechanges. following teachers are accounts andif different include also textbooks recent the portrayed if analyze to interesting Polish-Lithuanian is it decade, or last the the in period Commonwealth revise dismissed to either attempts some was Witnessing it curricula. Lithuanian Thus in negatively character. multinational its of national because the in history elegantly fit to difficult was which the period, on Commonwealth focuses particularly Polish-Lithuanian thesis This classrooms. in observations and teachers history with interviews by complemented is analysis textbook Lithuania contemporary for while textbooks, of analysis an on premised is periods two first the on Data Lithuania. 1990) (post contemporary and period) Soviet (the 1945-1990 independence); (Lithuanian period interwar the periods: three approach. constructivist the from T Abstract his thesis thesis his focuses on how history is taught and learnt in contemporary Lithuania. It is written is It Lithuania. contemporary in learnt and taught is history how on focuses Lithuanian national history teaching is analyzed dividing it in it dividing analyzed is teaching history national Lithuanian ii
CEU eTD Collection ...... 3. The Legacy of Previous Periods and the First Attempts to Renegotiate the Commonwealth Period to the Commonwealth Renegotiate Attempts and Previous the First Periods Legacy The of 3. Principles Marxist-Leninist to History Lithuanian Rewriting According 2. in Early Century 20th Project the Nation-building the Lithuanian Legitimizing 1. of nation theLithuanian in narration Commonwealth the Polish-Lithuanian to attributed place The Methodology Review Literature Introduction of Contents Table Reference list Reference sources Primary Appendices Conclusions
3.4. Teaching Lithuanian national history in the post-1990 schools the in post-1990 national history Lithuanian Teaching 3.4. history official on changes curricula Politicalthe ofand Educational impact the The 3.3. Early 1990s the in Relationships Diplomaticof Polish-Lithuanian andHistoriography Regulation Lithuanian Revision of 3.2. System Educational Lithuanian Changes the in 3.1. History Lithuanian Version of Official 2.2. History Lithuanian Soviet and Teaching Learning 2.1. Schools National Lithuanian thein NewlyInstitutionalized Teaching History 1.2. National Lithuanian Schools thein Emerging Teaching History 1.1. Lithuania in Teaching Educationand History on Works Nationalism Lithuanian and Nation-building on Literature Case HistoryTheories inand Studies Teaching National Nations on and Nationalism Literature ...... iii ......
58 58 49 47 41 37 35 33 33 28 26 26 19 15 15 15 11 10
8 7 4 4 1 CEU eTD Collection Figure textbooks (2000) Brazauskas’s 5: Figure (1993) Butrimas 4: Figure textbooks (1962) 3: Figure History Lithuanian 2: Figure (1910) 1: Figure Figures of List 6:
Historical Periods and the Space Attributed to them in Attributed to andtheSpace Periods Historical Historical Periods and the Space Attributed to them in the history textbook written by written textbook history the in them to Attributed Space the and Periods Historical Historical Periods and the Space Attributed to them in Jurginis’s (1957) and Žiugžda’ and (1957) Jurginis’s in them to Attributed Space the and Periods Historical
Historical Periods and the Space Attributed to them in Šmulk in them to Attributed Space the and Periods Historical Historical Periods and the Space Attributed to them in Jakimavičius’s (1998) and (1998) Jakimavičius’s in them to Attributed Space the and Periods Historical itrcl Pros ad te Sae Atiue o te n Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė’s in them to Attributed Space the and Periods Historical ([1935]1938) iv Laužikas et al. al. et Laužikas štys’s štys’s The PathThe Lithuanian History Lithuanian (2008) s
CEU eTD Collection (Hobsbawm and Ranger, 1983), taught, learned (Gellner, 1996) and narrated (Bhabha, 1990) (Bhabha, narrated and invented 1996) (Gellner, (Anderson), learned taught, imagined 1983), Ranger, are and (Hobsbawm Nations critically. more particular in countries Soviet post- in nation-building and general in nationalism views that view of point a from written is 1997:51). (Calhoun, nation” conceptionthat hadany of they not or whether nation the of history the in events and “actors embed to tend historiographies national emerged newly These identity. and ideology nation’s the reflect that narratives historical As destinies rekindled now ancient, to awakenings national of embodiments as Informed repressed”. communism that interest Europe Eastern and Central in nationalism of revival a triggered history in Lithuania. Focusing on ways in which teachers accept, negotiate or modify official modify or negotiate accept, teachers which in ways on Focusing Lithuania. in history 2002). 2001, (Koulouri, Balkans the on focus that studies in example for evident is as right, own its in research of field a constituted teaching history national on research critical histories, national their rewrite to about were states and teaching established newly time the By 1987). Schissler, history and Berghahm (see arena research rich a found learning who scholars, Western inspired works Their interrelation. this discipline. separate a dormant a past. from simply emerge than rather New States turn to the past to justify their claims for self-determination, academics produce academics self-determination, for claims their justify to past the to turn States New f aaeis fo ait f dsilns disciplines of variety a from academics of h iitgain o utehi state multiethnic of disintegration The Informed by this new tendency, this thesis looks at the transmission of the national the of transmission the at looks thesis this tendency, new this by Informed as history national of constitution the with coincided nation-states the of emergence The T his thesis, which which thesis, his there is a a is there
Wallerstein (1972) (1972) Wallerstein by a primordial view of nationalism, new nations see their emerging states emerging their see nations new nationalism, of view primordial a by tendency in these countries to see national movements as “return of the of “return as movements national see to countries these in tendency focuses on how history is taught and learnt in contemporary Lithuania, in taught andlearnt contemporary history on is how focuses and Wolf (1982) were among the first ones to criticize to ones first the among were (1982) Wolf and Introduction 1 ht frel eogd t h oit bloc Soviet the to belonged formerly that s Buae, 19:) 1996:2). (Brubaker, attracts considerable attracts
(Budrytė, 2005:22) (Budrytė, ic h al of fall the Since .
CEU eTD Collection at modern nation and state building in Lithuania, facilitated partly by an authoritarian regime authoritarian an by partly facilitated Lithuania, in building state and nation modern at attempt first a saw period interwar The 1918. until jurisdiction Russian under remaining empire, Russian in the was incorporated Lithuania Duchyof theformer of Grand part main The Empire. Habsburgian and Prussia of Kingdom the Empire, Russian the between divided were it within and2). 1 Appendices in theCommonwealth of Maps (see thesis my of theepicenter in is theCommonwealth), herewith Lithuania, of Poland of andGrand Kingdom Duchy name: (full Commonwealth Polish-Lithuanian the labeled now unit, new The Lublin. of treaty the in signed Poland, of Kingdom the and Lithuania of Duchy Grand the even of an merging by the – 1569 bond in stronger followed was This Krewo. of Treaty the of signing the after Poland of 14 late the in Catholicism accepted and South, and East the towards territoriality expanded Duchy Grand The Lithuania. of Duchy Grand called mid-13 the by which duchies of set a suggest sources thenation. of narrations contemporary with easily periodsreconcilable of not classroom, the in and curricula in representation, the with is here preoccupation main my history, of versions utf h eiiain o ihain’ rgt t efdtriain ae ihain elites Lithuanian Later self-determination. to right Lithuanians’ of legitimation the justify to order in Lithuania of Duchy Grand the of past historical remote to back turned centuries, 19 late the in appeared which history, national Lithuanian write to attempts the joined Union.European Lithuania 2004 In integration. Western towards orientation redirect to tendency clear a with statehood, of models contemporary to according country the rebuild to attempt new and block Soviet the of collapse The years. fifty almost for 1941-1944) occupation German by (interrupted rule Communist under remaining Union, Soviet the into incorporated was Lithuania 1940 In 1926. in Party Nationalist the by headed ihainhsoyhistory Lithuanian These territories when 1795, in only exist to ceasing years, 226 lasted Commonwealth The changes were seminal to the writing and teaching of Lithuanian history. The first The history. Lithuanian of teaching and writing the to seminal were changes goes back to 1009. The earliest mentions of the country in written in country the of mentions earliest The 1009. to back goes 2 th century, through a Union with the Kingdom the with Union a through century, th century became amalgamated in the so- the in amalgamated became century Lithuanian independence in 1990 saw a saw 1990 in independence Lithuanian th and the early 20 early the and th
CEU eTD Collection in the last decade, it is interesting to analyze if the recent textbooks also include different include also textbooks recent thechanges. following are andif teachers accounts the if analyze to interesting is it decade, last the in (2009) Kuolys and (2007) Raila as scholars such by period Commonwealth Polish-Lithuanian the revise to attempts some Witnessing 2002). (Nikžentaitis, teaching history in attempts revisionist 21 early the in and appeared textbooks new first the after long not However 1930s. from textbooks the of editions new or period interwar from material the using taught mainly was history era: pre-war the back brought 1990 in Independence the of proclamation The time. this at only appeared textbooks first the and 1950s; late in only lines Marxist-Leninst to according rewritten was history Lithuanian Union: Soviet the in Lithuania of incorporation the after stopped temporary history Lithuanian of teaching and writing The 8). 2002:7- (Nikžentaitis, Poland of Kingdom the of province a only Lithuania of Duchy Grand the make to aspirations Polish of symbols became Lublin of Union and Krewo of Union Poland). of Kingdom the against (and statehood the for struggle continuous a as presented was history Lithuanian population. the homogenize and consciousness national the raise to means main the of one as system education the using curricula, school the in past heroic so-called the included Ltuna needne; 14-90 (h oit pro) ad cneprr ps 1990) (post contemporary and period) Soviet (the 1945-1990 independence); (Lithuanian theCommonwealth. neglect to is Lithuania in history teaching and writing of charge in those by adopted strategy overriding the (2) and transformations, historical all though observation of unit constant a as nation the see to tendency a is there (1) pronged: two is respect this in argument My it. do somehow to had past 20 history, of version nationalist the with easily not is union the of nature unequal the while And role. dominant the played Poland of Kingdom the equal, ostensibly were Poland and Lithuania Although teaching. and writing history Lithuanian aaye Ltuna ainl itr ecig i he eid: te itra period interwar the periods: three in teaching history national Lithuanian analyze I with is preoccupation main my indicated, As 3 th century attempts to narrate the nationalist the narrate to attempts century the portrayal of the Commonwealth in Commonwealth the of portrayal the th century one can even talk about talk even can one century
CEU eTD Collection of, the antiquity or modernity of, and the role of nations and nationalisms. Therefore even the even Therefore nationalisms. and nations of role the and of, modernity or antiquity the of, andorigin thenature such points as on several havedisagreed constantly Scholars contradictions. andsociologists. didactics) history specializedin have whom of (most historians by written Lithuania in teaching history on the works of account brief a give will I foreign addition, In nowadays. till analyzed was and it which from perspectives main Lithuanian the outlining authors, by nationalism Lithuanian on works the of discussion a to proceed main the of account brief nationalism a and nations to approaches giving After teaching. history of studies sociological of field for while textbooks, of teachers. history with by interviews complemented is analysis Lithuania textbook contemporary analysis an on premised is periods two first the on Data Lithuania. (2000:5-52). Also see Statkus (2004), Statkus Alsosee (2000:5-52). 1 their time. and in nations continuity the has of perennial, some are least nationalisms at that insisted perennialists meanwhile formation; approaches 2000:3). (Smith, predecessors perennialist – paradigms major four comparing reflected be can nationalism and nations on – themselves terms key A detailed account of the main arguments of primordialists and perenialists and the critique was provided by Smith by provided was critique the and perenialists and primordialists of arguments main the of account detailed A There is is There oenss stae hmevs i poiin t rmrait ad perennialist and primordalist to opposition in themselves situated Modernists many includes and complex is nationalism and nations on literature theoretical The , : primordialists perceived ethnicity as a fundamental element in national identity national in element fundamental a as ethnicity perceived primordialists : modernist, a large theoretical body of literature on nations and nationalism and emerging and nationalism and nations on literature of body theoretical large a n and nation Literature on Nations andN on Nations Literature tnsmoit – – ethnosymbolist and and Szakacs nationalism nationalism ( 2005). Literature R Literature and naming important studies on history teaching, I will I teaching, history on studies important naming and – are defined in different ways. The major debates major The ways. different in defined are – hc mre poig o mrvn their improving or opposing emerged which 4 eview 1 cuig tee these Accusing ationalism prahs fr being for approaches primordialist ,
CEU eTD Collection the nation-state and maintenance of the national identity: it stimulates cultural and linguistic and cultural stimulates it identity: national the of maintenance and nation-state the of creation the in role important an plays system educational the words, other In 1983:63-64). (Gellner, community” total the within sub-groups to loyalties factional by hampered be not will it within posts of occupancy whose society total the of members competent out and turn loyal worthy, “to crucial becomes it society industrial an in that stressed He schooling. mass the of development the encouraged also which industrialization, the with related directly is nations they and construct. historical an around, as nation way studied other the not nation, the before come state the and nationalism that 1983). Gellner, (see agents its by articulated is nationalism ways the role, to attention limited particular a paid played modernists intervention human which in paradigms, perrenialist and primordialist 18 argued the and in ideas only appeared of nationalisms spread the and media mass printing, of the invention as such developments communicative and industrial, historical, of constructs as nations nationalism, explore to tools not and itself’ nationalism of ‘expressions traditions and transforming the old symbols and sentiments of the political nation (of nobility) (of nation political the of sentiments and symbols old the transforming and inventedtraditions these of spreading the for tool as served system education secular that argued they ‘nation-building’, in history national mythologized and myths symbols, traditions, of importance the emphasizing While study. this for interesting particularly is (1983) tradition” of “invention on work Ranger’s and Hobsbawm’s states. the within nations creating in elites the of role the emphasized and boundaries, national and political the of coincidence the of need the expresses defined Hobsbawm Gellner, Like Hobsbawm. Eric understanding). aGellner’s in was must coincidence (this coincide to state the and nation the make to order in necessary is which homogenization, Later the modernist approach was developed by such scholars as Benedict Anderson and Anderson Benedict as scholars such by developed was approach modernist the Later For my research some modernists’ ideas are of particular interest, because they argued they because interest, particular of are ideas modernists’ some research my th
20 – Gellner th 5 etre centuries
argued that the emergence of nationalism and nationalism of emergence the that argued nationalism as a political doctrine, which doctrine, political a as nationalism Bdyė 051-7. Cnrr to Contrary 2005:16-17). (Budrytė, modernists ht ntos and nations that
perceived
CEU eTD Collection much weight to the differences between the traditional and modern societies, ethnosymbolists societies, modern and traditional the between differences the to weight much ethnosymbolism. – paradigm new of emergence the to led also stance critical The primordialists. as defined earlier scholars the were critics the Among systems. education secular of tasks major the of national one was past towards common the perspective of transmission different the because histories, a opened they so, doing By symbols. and values of set common a using 1983), (Gellner, nation the building or (1983) terms Hobsbawm’s it putting tradition, of invention the in elites to role important an attributed constructivists imagined geographies, and narrative historical new a reconstruct individuals events the ‘rediscovering’ by that Arguing artifacts. cultural constructed socially as nations perceived it because constructivist, as known is nationalism and nations on take This [1983]1999:21). (Anderson, communities” “imagined – nations of emergence the to influence direct a had diversity linguistic and printing capitalism, that argued He Anderson. by emphasized also was capitalism”, “printed – precise more be to capitalism, of importance The capitalism. modern the of needs the meet to order in invented or created are symbols and mythology history, nationalist The patriotism. mass the into Smith, 2000). Smith, 3 2 themselves, opposing. than rather compatible, two these are modernists, approaches towards remarks critical expressed approach this of representatives 2000:76) (Smith, nations” recent of marketing the in communities and categories ethnic of combinations novel of possibility the for and them between discontinuities historical for “allowing whole nations, modern to related were epochs pre-modern from identities which 18 the before nationalism the of roots the for look should one that and era previous the with ties the all break not did modernity that argued
Ethnosimbolists claimed to represent the middle way between modernism (constructivism) and primordialism (see primordialism and (constructivism) modernism between way middle the represent to claimed Ethnosimbolists Sometimes they refer to themselves as neo-perennialists (see Smith, 2000). Smith, (see asneo-perennialists to themselves they refer Sometimes Modernist approach was criticized for rationalism and (in many cases) instrumentalism. cases) many (in and rationalism for criticized was approach Modernist they only put the accents on the different elements elements thedifferent on theaccents put only they 6 th century. Ethnosymbolists pointed to ways in ways to pointed Ethnosymbolists century. 2 Criticizing the modernists for giving too giving for modernists the Criticizing s i a ttd b ethnosymbolists by stated was it As (Smith, 2000). (Smith, 3 . . Even though Even
CEU eTD Collection history wrong”. The national history writing or “narration of the nation”, putting it in Bhabha’s in it putting nation”, the of “narration or writing history national The wrong”. history perspective, nationality”. of] principle [the for danger a constitutes often studies historical in progress why is which nation, a of creation the in factor crucial a is error, historical say to as far nation?”([1882]2000): a is “What text famous his in Renan by reflected was history and nationalism between relationship complex and intimate The discipline. the discussing history of teaching. studies sociological of field emerging section, following the in directly more addressed be will history and building nation- the between relationship particular The legitimating nation. the as of construction particular the in in instruments teaching history and general in education to role important an attribute I constructs, as identities national the Perceiving ethnosymbolists. by stressed is which myths and symbols existing previously the of articulation cultural the of importance the with 4 but unities, isolated not as cultures and societies that emphasized (1972), Wallerstein Immanuel was it question to ones first the Among 2002:303-304). Schiller, Glick and (Wimmer right” own its in analysis an of object an them making or them problematizing without granted, for “taken 20 the through why reasons the of one was organization with projects nationalist and 2002:745). (Hearn, andpurpose coherence nations provides that history narratives-part of creation and are that divisions 1997:52); (Calhoun, erasing importance tremendous of of is forgetting of matter aspect the which a in unnerving, forgetfulness: of matter a becomes (1990), words Quoted from (2000). Quoted Bhabha eyn ntethe on Relying h The academic as history (national) inscribing with along went nation-state the of creation The nations, seeking to have a coherent narrative, are obliged to “forget” things and “get and things “forget” to obliged are narrative, coherent a have to seeking nations, ntttoaiain o h ainsae a h oiat mdl o political of model dominant the as nation-state the of institutionalization National History Teaching in Theories and Case S andCase inTheories Teaching National History modernists’ emphasis on the political instrumentalisation, I also agree also I instrumentalisation, political the on emphasis modernists’ 7 th century national histories were mostly were histories national century “ Forgetting, I would even go so go even would I Forgetting, tudies 4 From Renan’s From
CEU eTD Collection histories increased gradually (Koulouri, 2001, 2002; Todorova, 2004; Richardson, 2004). Richardson, 2004; Todorova, 2002; 2001, (Koulouri, gradually increased histories national of of europeanisation the on studies the of area number the Balkans; the in rich flourished research particularly A visible. also are narrative nation-centered beyond go to attempts countries these of most in default” by “history history be to continues national The framework. nationalist the to according textbooks history their rewrite to about only were nation-states separate created newly a the as time this constituted By 2005:2). a (Schissler, discipline was research textbook school the and countries” Western the countries Western 2005). andSoysal, Schissler 1987; andSchissler, (Berghahn in teaching history on studies the of number increasing an also are there 2002; (Price, though historical a have to right the denied previously were 20 the of half second later the In histories”. were without “nations for floor works the opened who (1982), His Wolf Eric by incorporated analysis. world-systems for argued and context wider a to belonging tuge fr Ltuna ttho. Ntoait prpcie ws dvlpd frhr b exile by philologists further and developed historians was perspective Nationalist statehood. Lithuanian for struggle constant of expression an as it perceived who nationalist historians, Lithuanian amateur by on written were studies movement first The romantics. Polish the by shaped later and place period, interwar the reproductive-nationalistic as to referred was one first The period. pre-1990 of thought academic Lithuanian of traditions - perspectives two from analyzed In the late 20 late the In The so-called nationalistic so-called The 20 late the In Literature on Lithuanian Nationalism andN Nationalism on Lithuanian Literature
; the second was defined as defined as was thesecond ; th th was influenced by the German and romantic nationalist ideas in the first the in ideas nationalist romantic and German the by influenced was century historical accounts went beyond the national narrative in most of most in narrative national the beyond went accounts historical century th and the early 21 early the and century one can see not only the historical accounts of nations which nations of accounts historical the only not see can one century . aig it con ht that account into Taking
primordialism take on nations and nationalism, dominant in Lithuania during Lithuania in dominant nationalism, and nations on take st centuries Lithuanian nationalism and nation-building is nation-building and nationalism Lithuanian centuries and and 8 constructionist-critical constructivism rm 14 il 19 h intellectual the 1990 till 1940 from . They evolved from two different two from evolved They . even two decades later decades two even ation-building (Rindzevičiūtė, 2003:74). 2003:74). (Rindzevičiūtė, Swedenburg, 2003) Swedenburg, , but the but , ;
CEU eTD Collection century Lithuanian nationalism or on the Lithuanian nationalist movement in the late 20 late the in movement nationalist Lithuanian the on or nationalism Lithuanian century 19 late the on either focused them of most However, times. Soviet the during constituted were identity national Lithuanian the of aspects numerous that agreeing scholars there as approach, constructivist with coexist to started years following the predominant remained perspective This 2005:22). (Budrytė, the in 1992 from published articles of series the of authors the by shared was view similar A history. ‘true’ the to access the people giving times, Soviet the of restrictions the after reawakened was circles. intellectual in nationalism the back brought 1980s nationalist the in the Lithuania of in emergence movement the because Lithuania, in popularity gain not did perspective this However history. national of demystification the for argued and nationalism and nation terms the to connotations negative associated dissidents Lithuanian Western time, that the of to intellectuals Similarly understanding. primordial of criticism academic first the emerged 2003: (Rindzevičiūtė, identity” Lithuanian of bastion “last the of role a themselves attributed they approaches, Marxist-Leninist to confined was Lithuania in production ok nLtuna aeaentnmru.Ms fte r are them of Most numerous. not are case Lithuanian on works recent the particular, in periods historical uneasy of negotiation the Concerning 2002). Račevskis, 2006; 2004, Kelertas, (see perspective postcolonial the apply to possibility the questioned even (2005:48). states Baltic in root took and 1980” of movements nationalist the during revived was […] hero suffering and creating, “fighting, 20 late the of Lithuanian the analysis her in latter; the of of case the in historians the on focus particular with sentiment, national spreading the in intelligentsia Lithuanian the of role the explored (2005) Janužytė and (2009) Balkelis both theory; Gellner’s applying by nationalism Lithuanian early the explored (2002) Valantiejus approach, constructivist the on relying example, For century. Journal of Baltic Studies Baltic of Journal th century nationalist movement Budrytė argued that the idea of a nation as nation a of idea the that argued Budrytė movement nationalist century , who portrayed Lithuanian nationalism as “return of the repressed” the of “return as nationalism Lithuanian portrayed who , For example, Seen (1990) argued that that argued (1990) Seen example, For 9 In search of the new approach several authors several approach new the of search In primordialist in the beginning of the 1990s and in and 1990s the of beginning the in devoted to the Soviet period Soviet the to devoted approach to nation and nation to approach the sense of nationhood of sense the 76- 81). were more and more and more were th and the early 20 early the and
In the exile also exile the In th th
CEU eTD Collection content of newly issued history manuals (Bakonis, 1996; Šetkus, 1996, 2006) and the relationship the and 2006) 1996, Šetkus, 1996; (Bakonis, manuals history issued newly of content as such pedagogical journals, in publications several in addressed are period post-1990 in teaching history on debates the Meanwhile one. Soviet the opposed as far, so one covered most the remains period and (2004) Stašaitis by addressed was teaching the history meanwhile (2000); Šetkus and (2000), Kaubrys by analyzed was period interwar the of system education 18 the in didactics history The equal. not is periods different to attention the however, extent; certain a to Lithuania in covered the on focus inquiry. of field will period this extend theCommonwealth of teaching particular The periods. uneasy of negotiation – Lithuania in interest scholarly S 2006). Šutinienė, 2000; Berenis, 2000; Vaintraubas, (see Lithuania in Holocaust the of memories with dealing field separate a also is There 2003). Šutinienė, 2007; Čepaitienė, 2003; (Budrytė, not explain these findings. explainthese not 20 the and Lithuania of Duchy Ground the comparison, (for favorite their as period this mentioned pupils of percent 5 only research, Šetkus of results to According 2004). (Šetkus, history Lithuanian of periods different the of perceptions students’ the on data quantitative the is study this for relevant most The 1997). and 1996, 1994, (see Šutinienė by exclusively analyzed was sociological approach from teaching history Meanwhile Vilnius. over conflict the on article (2004) his ( is Vyšniauskas’s relevant most etc. 1996) didactics(Bumblauskas, andhistory discipline as academic history between ituating between the constructivist scholars, this work also inscribes in the emerging field of the of field emerging the in inscribes also work this scholars, constructivist the between ituating There are also few studies on history textbooks focused on the 20 the on focused textbooks history on studies few also are There are particular in teaching history the and general in system education the as topics Such th century were liked by more than 35 percent of students each). However, Šetkus does Šetkus However, each). students of percent than 35 by more liked were century Works on Education and History T andHistory Education on Works oyl Mokykla [ The School The 2002) 2002) hth and the 19 the and study of the image of Russia in history textbooks, as well as well as in textbooks, history imageRussia of study the of n and ] ilgsDialogas th centuries was analyzed by Lukšienė (1985); the (1985); Lukšienė by analyzed was centuries 10 [ The Dialogue The eaching inLithuaniaeaching ]. Most of them discuss the discuss them of Most ]. Šetkus (2008). Šetkus th century. Among the Among century. The interwar The
CEU eTD Collection post-1990 periods) for content analysis. content for periods) post-1990 teachers. with history and interviews textbooks history – sources major two on rely to chosen have I teachers, history by contested or appropriated is it much how and history national the of version official the explore to Intending the ways the Lithuania. teachingin analysis history for methods qualitative the applying by contribute also but topics, the of scope the widen only not will research This 20 the from events or (Russian) nations particular the of history on literature of body discussed previously the addition, In data. quantitative on based articleswere sociological few those andhistorians; didactics history of specialists the by analyzed mainly was it now until that say can one particular, in teaching Lithuania (8 Lithuania 6 his in source research. primary itasa who used (2004), Stašaitis secondary source the taken from was textbook 5 5 the only that fact the 5 the for textbooks the analyze 5 the for devoted were periods two first the from textbooks the that account into Taking (1962). Žiugžda and (1957) Jurginis – historians leading two by written textbooks the analyze to chosen have I period Soviet 2004:100) (Šetkus, period interwar the in manuals history solid as recognized were Daugirdaitės-Sruogienės’ Only accessibility. history Lithuanian and textbooks of number both by limited was Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė’s Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė’s Šmulkštys’ use will also I I have chosen 8 history textbooks (1 from 1918-1940, 2 from 1940 – 1990 and 5 from 5 and 1990 – 1940 from 2 1918-1940, from (1 textbooks history 8 chosen have I (1) explore to twofold: is Lithuania in teaching history the of analysis the of purpose The To conclude this discussion of the main works on the education in general and history and general in education the on works main the of discussion this conclude To th edition appeared in 1990). in appeared edition Lithuanian nation is narrated and (2) the Commonwealth period is portrayed. is period Commonwealth the (2) and narrated is nation Lithuanian ([1935]1938), which is chosen for analysis, and and analysis, for chosen is which ([1935]1938), Lithuanian history Lithuanian th s -6 th Lithuanian history Lithuanian grade is dedicated to the Lithuanian history, while the 6 the while history, Lithuanian the to dedicated is grade th grades and included the entire history of Lithuania, I have chosen to chosen have I Lithuania, of history entire the included and grades th grade from the post-1990 period. This choice can be justified by justified be can This choice period. post-1990 the from grade
was republished several times in exile (3-7 exile in times several republished was (1910) for the comparative purposes. The information about this about information The purposes. comparative the for (1910) 5 The choice of the textbooks from the interwar period interwar the from textbooks the of choice The Methodology 11 th century (such as conflict over Vilnius). over conflict as (such century teaching either focused on images on focused either teaching Šapokos th editions) and in independent in and editions) ’ ’ Lithuanian historyLithuanian . 6 From the From th grade is grade (1935)
CEU eTD Collection men (13 of 19) (see Appendix 5). 19) of (see (13 men than women socio-demographic more with 19) of of (10 40’s their terms in mainly were interviewed In teachers characteristics 4). Appendix in be interviewees will of pseudonyms list anonymous, (see remain used to occasionally teachers the of some of wish the Respecting names. first their using interviewees my to refer will I schools. Lithuanian various from teachers 3). Appendix the analyzing while applied was latter in guideline analysis Textbook (see period this of processes and The events various of interpretations periods. other the with compared as period, Commonwealth the to given attention of and quality level the demonstrate order to in useful was post-2004). and2 from from 1998-2003, 2 1992-1997, (1from reform education secondary the of stage each from textbook one least at took I changes, significant textbooks. on emphasis less with exam, history Lithuanian on 7 the In history. world for devoted 9 5 the dozen than for more Russian); (Polish, otherlanguages in published 8 on19 chapters the history follow onLithuanian chapters the 7 the take the to of willing persons Office 737 only the and by available positions 2007 953 in were there collected Unemployment, data the to According teachers. of lack constant from suffering are schools the addition, In %). (12.2 minority the a are clearly meanwhile 20’s their in 45, teachers than older are schools secondary in %) (45.6 teachers the of half almost by information supported the to be According can data. statistical it as and Dalia) Jurgita, with interviews (see interviewees my of some There were three reforms of secondary education: in 1992, in 1998, and in 2003. in and in 1998, 1992, in secondary education: of reforms were There three 7 the In From 1990 till 2008 there were more than 40 history textbooks published textbooks history 40 than more were there 2008 till 1990 From T This distribution represents the general tendencies in the teaching, as it was stated by stated was it as teaching, the in tendencies general the represents distribution This main second A th , 8 , he content analysis of the textbooks is both quantitative and qualitative. The former The qualitative. and quantitative both is textbooks the of analysis content he th , 9 , th and 10 and th 7 ; and the 11 the and ; grades students students grades source is information collected during the 19 interviews with history with interviews 19 the during collected information is source th th and the 12 the and , 8 , learn the world history and the Lithuanian history consecutively; that is that consecutively; history Lithuanian the and history world the learn th , 9 , 8 Presuming that since 1990 there might have been have might there 1990 since that Presuming th and 10 and published in 2008 by the Ministry of Education, of Ministry the by 2008 in published 12 th grades are designed for the preparation for the for preparation the for designed are grades th century world history world etc. century th grades students have only several chapters several only have students grades th grade. , not counting the history textbooks history the counting not , 9
CEU eTD Collection history teaching in Soviet period and (2) to compare the differences between the teachers’ the between history. Lithuanian towards attitudes differences the compare to (2) and period Soviet in teaching history of analysis my complete to (1) me allowed variety This 40-49). and 30-39 groups age (see period Soviet in years university independent their few) least at (or of all spend others The 6). system Appendix (see Lithuania education the of my products” “pure of are 3 30’s) only their and in period (all Soviet interviewees the during – teaching and education – both experienced them. between differences significant be might there so not, did others and period pre-1990 the before experience teaching had and period Soviet the least the (Medalinskas,2010). Lithuania in universities popular of one remains teachers, the of majority the prepares which University, Pedagogic Vilnius that mention to important is it addition, In difficulties. emotional the and payment, low the prestige, low the mentioned interviewees my some schools, in work to come not do people younger the why reasons the Among low. quite remains profession the of prestige general the but schools, in positions the for looking persons more were there rate the unemployment increasing of because years: two last the in changed situation This 2008:1). (ŠMM, work pedagogic population was constituted by other ethnic groups than Lithuanians. Lithuanians. than otherethnic groups by constituted was population 10 in teachers the of situation particular the teaching, history the on impacts its and system Soviet the from changes the about talking were They discussed. willingly and upon touched often is that topic a not and is Commonwealth the that notice to general me allowed particular in history in Lithuanian teaching history on discussion main general the The understand teachers. to history order the of in concerns period particular one in interest main my reveal not did I and Lithuanian in teaching history national on thesis MA an writing is who student a as myself presented I interviewees the For person. in know I that students former their through contacted (1). Kaunas and (1) region Vilnius (2), Vilnius in 2009 December Until the Second World War, Vilnius was a multinational and multi-linguistic city, where the majority of the of majority the where city, multi-linguistic and multinational a was Vilnius War, World Second the Until Interviews were made in two periods. 4 unstructured pilot interviews were made in made were interviews pilot unstructured 4 periods. two in made were Interviews during university attended interviewed I teachers the of some that note to important is It 13 Only less than a half of my interviewees my of half a than less Only 10 These interviewees were interviewees These
CEU eTD Collection prepared an interview guideline. The questions (or topics) were divided in 3 sections. The first The sections. 3 in divided were topics) (or questions The guideline. interview an prepared schoolthe of bodies administrative the through them contact to trying while common are which responses negative avoided and trust more gained directly I way this in teachers Contacting disciplines. other of teachers the through and contacts personal their Rietavas), in school high former my called region form teachers 2 of case the (in them with relationships personal my using contacted of were Samogitia) part are (which Rietavas and Kretinga Plunge, in teachers the of Some students. these of lives the about details asked or them with relationship my asked they cases most in because discussion, the of openers as served students former their of names the that noted be should It students. former their by given information the using contacted were Kaunas and Vilnius from others interviewees; these to me directed teachers interviewed previously the of Some 7). Appendix in Map (see Rietavas and Kretinga Plunge, Kaunas, region, Vilnius Vilnius, in the20 of talkedtheevents about mostly they history, Lithuanian of periods different the of teaching the about asked When etc. nowadays, also sent several electronic letters, presenting myself on behalf of their former students, but none of them replied. of them butnone former their students, onbehalf myself of presenting letters, several electronic sent also t addition, In schools. the 12 knowledge. with new teachers the engage which 11 this towards interest of lack general the account into Taking 8). Appendix in guideline Interview (see time this during happened that processes and events different of period, the of evaluation their period: Commonwealth the of perception their exploring to devoted was part important, most the and last, The periods. different towards attitudes students’ the of perception their and dislikes) and (likes periods historical different the of evaluation their history, national towards teachers history the of attitudes general the concerned second The any). (if period Soviet during experiences teaching their university), and school (high education teachers’ the concerned one In some cases the administrative personal refused to give the contact information even for the former students of students former the for even information contact the give to refused personal administrative the cases some In As noted by Richardson (2004:110), semi-structured interviews are the most successful way to disclose the ways in the to disclose way successful are most the interviews semi-structured Richardson (2004:110), by As noted During the month of April 2010, I conducted additional 15 semi-structured interviews semi-structured 15 additional conducted I 2010, April of month the During On the basis of acquired information during the unstructured interviews in December, I December, in interviews unstructured the during information acquired of basis the On 12 . he teachers agreed to be interviewed only in the cases when I contacted them by phone. I phone. by them contacted I when cases the in only interviewed be to agreed teachers he th century. 14 11
CEU eTD Collection crucial because the legacy of the national history teaching in between the wars can be still be can wars the nowadays. detected between in teaching history national the of legacy the because crucial is discussion This period. interwar the during schools Lithuanian in history of version official the and teaching history Lithuanian to attributed role the on focus will I Second, place. took 1918 after institutionalization its and school national Lithuanian of formation the which in context the discuss will I First, it. preceding changes and events of outline the without analyzed be cannot taught was it way the However, appeared. schools national Lithuanian first years those During 1. to attributed place The their perception. about insights get to order in questions additional ask to had often I period, particular 15 significant number. in should their havebeen units, administrative Kaunas 130 about were there 14 discussion.main 13 in history country’s and language Lithuanian the introduce to managed intelligentsia Lithuanian (2004:53) Stašaitis by noted As articulated. already was school national Seimas Great the During 1864. in introduced schools. of network secret a into grew it later but authorities, Tsarist by refused was initiative This 1864. National S Emerging inthe Lithuanian Teaching History 1.1.
The Great Seimas of Vilnius was the first Lithuanian assembly. Lithuanian first the was of Vilnius Seimas The Great The analysis of textbooks and interviews was complemented by 3 observations, which are not included in the notin included which observations, are 3 by complemented was and textbooks interviews of The analysis According to Stašaitis (2004:40), the number of such secret teachers is unknown, but taking into account that account into taking but unknown, is teachers secret such of number the (2004:40), Stašaitis to According Legitimizing the Lithuanian Nation-building Project in the Early20 inthe Project Lithuanian Nation-building the Legitimizing Lithuanian nation Lithuanian The early 20 early The T 14 he first idea of Lithuanian national school was raised by Bishop Motiejus Valančius in Valančius Motiejus Bishop by raised was school national Lithuanian of idea first he Significant changes started after the abolishment of the press ban in 1904, which was which 1904, in ban press the of abolishment the after started changes Significant 13 secret teachers caught by the authorities of Russian Empire between 1883-1904 in Vilnius and Vilnius in 1883-1904 between Empire Russian of authorities the by caught teachers secret th century can be marked as the beginning of Lithuanian history teaching. history Lithuanian of beginning the as marked be can century h oihLtuna omnelh i h arto of narration the in Commonwealth Polish-Lithuanian the 15 [Parliament] of Vilnius of chools 15 in 1905, the idea of the of idea the 1905, in rmfrom th Century 1905 till 1914 till 1905
CEU eTD Collection textbook, written by Šmulkštys in 1910. in Šmulkštys by written textbook, history Lithuanian the in periods historical different the to attributed place the represents which Figure in visible is Lithuania of Duchy Grand the to given attention great The textbooks. history Lithuanian first the of characteristic remained descriptions Similar reality. and fantasy of mixture aas defined be and can figures mythical some included often They victories. their and battles their Lithuanians), as referred simply were (who dukes the of images detailed the included schools the in introduced were w past historical distant The linguists). and historians (amateur intelligentsia secular the of material generation first the the by on produced based was teaching the nation-state), Lithuanian of creation the (preceding schools. educationin of scope,because andwider in national systemized much more but population, the the of rise the school: of number small a national by read were which periodicals, illegal of matter a only not was Lithuanian consciousness of formation the as defined be can schools primary the taught to feel the spiritual unity with them. As can be seen, the critique was highly influenced by nationalist by influenced highly was critique the seen, be can As them. with framework. unity be should spiritual they the for but feel heroes, accused their to know taught only was not should textbooks) children that underlined history (1907) Kymantaitė-Čiurlionienė early other the as 18 17 Russian. of the authorities of jurisdiction the remainedunder gymnasiums ones; established programmes). teaching on (based grade 16 few in pages. only was discussed Commonwealth of period the that noteworthy is It revival. national so-called the of leaders the of presentation with ended-up and past medieval the of discussion the with started It 2004:51). (Stašaitis, 1569 in Lublinof Union the of signing the with stopped often ones which the earlier to contrary century, It was called P called was It 4 the from taught be to started history Lithuanian schools primary the in that emphasized (2004:51) Stašaitis The table of contents of of contents of table The ir romanticized historical accounts historical romanticized When Lithuanian language and Lithuanian history entered the schools for the first time first the for schools the entered history Lithuanian and language Lithuanian When radžiamokslis [Primers].radžiamokslis 16 , as well as to publish the first textbooks of Lithuanian history. This period This history. Lithuanian of textbooks first the publish to as well as , Šmulkštys ere supposed to legitimize legitimize to supposed ’s through the Lithuanian language classes. Teaching materials Teaching classes. language Lithuanian the through Lithuanian History was takken from Stašaitis (2004). This textbook (as well (as textbook This (2004). Stašaitis from takken was History Lithuanian However the changes touched only some primary schools, especially newly especially schools, primary some only touched changes the However , which were presented as presented were which , 18 This textbook included all the periods till the early 20 early the till periods the all included textbook This 16 Lithuania’s right Lithuania’s tr-eln y ter cneprre. Fr example, For contemporaries. their by story-telling proofs of the of proofs to self-determination to existence , at first at of the of 1 17 th th ,
CEU eTD Collection Duchy, which later led to the merging of the two political units by the Treaty of Liublin in Liublin of Treaty the by units political two the of merging the to led later which Duchy, the and Vytautas Duke Jogailaičiai of Grand power the increasing of death the marked it because historians, Lithuanian (in Lithuania wa of Lithuania) as Duchy referred Grand textbook the of description the of thirds two than more addition, In the textbook. of fourths three about in discussed was it - together taken it succeeding periods the poiin ws cuil pit o oh Pls n eegn) Ltuna itrorpis seily atr the This after Poland). especially of historiographies, king Lithuanian the (emerging) became 20 and 1385 Polish in both Krewo depth. in more be itwill later and discussed of Lithuania Independence of for Union point after crucial (who was Jogaila opposition duke the and Vytautas duke 19 king elected same the by ruled was it finally, and, Senat; and (Sejm) Parliament a common had it Treasuries; and Armies laws, separate kept which unities, political two from formed was it democracy: and monarchy electoral federation, to attributed are now that features the of was Commonwealth the because framework It nationalist the to Commonwealth. incorporate to difficult the of heritage common with rupture a represented time, in closer 19 the in nation Lithuanian 1569.
The king started to be elected from 1572 after the death of the last king from Jogailaičiai from Jogailaičiai lastking theof the death 1572 after to be from elected started Theking Lithuanian amateur historians looking for Lithuanians in history based their story on the opposition between the between opposition the on story their based history in Lithuanians for looking historians amateur Lithuanian 19 h mhss o h oncin ewe h eivl Gad Dcy ad the and Duchy Grand medieval the between connections the on emphasis The As can be seen, Grand Duchy of Lithuania gained considerably more attention than all than attention more considerably gained Lithuania of Duchy Grand seen, be can As Figure Figure 1:
Historical Periods and the Space Attributed to them in them to Attributed Space andthe Periods Historical Šmulkštys’s Šmulkštys’s th century, and not with the Commonwealth which was apparently was which Commonwealth the with not and century, [Jagiellon] s devoted to pre-1430 period. This date was significant for significant was date This period. pre-1430 to devoted s Lithuanian History Lithuanian dynasty (and the Kingdom of Poland) over Grand over Poland) of Kingdom the (and dynasty 17 (1910)
[Jagiellon] was a mixture a was dynasty.
20 , which ,
CEU eTD Collection were formed. Lithuanian historians described the close ties with Kingdom of Poland as historical as Poland of Kingdom with ties close the described historians Lithuanian formed. were histories national distinct two and emerged, identities. national Lithuanian and Polish – identities constructed newly two the between left were Commonwealth, Polonus natione Lithuanus gente 1996:229). Kulakauskas, and theearly20 in Consequently (Aleksandravičius equality” and reforms social democratic seeking outsiders social of “composed intelligentsia, national emerging by distrust and dislike with upon looked were They noblemen. speaking Polish – population the of part for significant left space more no was there was, nation Lithuanian the what of understanding new the Poland. of Kingdom and Lithuania of Duchy Grand fused which unions the negatively portray to and nobility Lithuanian Polonized so-called at negatively look to started They origin). by (peasants intelligentsia Lithuanian secular the among gradually grew rejected. was past Polish-Lithuanian common the why reason, only the not was it However Lithuania. of Duke Grand the also was historiographies. and 23 Lithuanian freedoms the Unlike new 2006:163). (Clark, elite gave PolishRussia. and cultures: educated dominant rejected gentry they and nobility and reforms professions upward the educational of rapid ranks experienced the and Many entering classes. mobility, social social lower Lithuanian-speaking by of proportion followed significant was a for serfdom lower opportunities of of activator possible first abolition was serfdom The of abolition classes. the all, of First Empire. Russian in changes important 22 Saint Petersburg. or Moscow duke in imperial in universities societies Polish adhered the student and diaries keeptheir languageto Polish using The history. Lithuanian of part 21 a as considered not and neglected intentionally was 1430 in Vytautas duke of death the after period the 1930s the until studies; historical of focus main a was Lithuania of Duchy Grand the 1920s – 1910s the in (2002:10), Nikžentaitis by stated Lithuania. of Duchy Grand the with alliance successful as period the described latter the domination; Polish and state Lithuanian medieval great the of decline the to led which mistake, were they by (2009), been showed Balkelis I because ithas identification, in shift their significant a was There The beginning of the Lithuanian national reawakening in the late 19 late the in reawakening national Lithuanian the of beginning The In Lithuanian historiography the Union with Poland started belatedly, in as opposed to Polish and Russian and Polish to opposed as in belatedly, started Poland with Union the historiography Lithuanian In In this context the vision of the two distinct nations (Polish and Lithuanian) gradually Lithuanian) and (Polish nations distinct two the of vision the context this In th century noblemen, who referred to themselves using Latinformula using to themselves who referred noblemen, century n ecie hmevs a iet scesr f the of successors direct as themselves perceived and The determination to cut the ties with the common past common the with ties the cut to determination The 23 , which dealt differently with their common past, common their with differently dealt which , 18 th century basically resulted from few from resulted basically century 21 This shows that according to according that shows This
As 22
CEU eTD Collection attempts to write and teach Lithuanian national history, which preceded the creation of the of Independence. of theproclamation after only institutionalized were nation-state, Lithuanian creation the preceded which history, national Lithuanian teach and write to attempts their to contrary 18 Commonwealth, the in predecessors the of not - Lithuania – nation their of patriots become 20 early the In consciousness. common and past common quot as and, territory, customs; culture, and shared religion, by language, ancestry, defined common was self-rule to right The was. nation Lithuanian the Lithuanian in or form, 1000. about reached 1916 andin the1904 in from number increased gradually which schools, to about was which historiography Lithuanian in either it for place defined historians amateur Lithuanian it. of traitors or defenders the become nation Lithuanian the of conception no had which figures traitor. as portrayed was latter the interests; national of defender as presented mainly was former The Poland. of king the became who [Jogiello], Jogaila duke to opposition in figures central the of one became historiography early in Vytautas World War the first Lithuanian pro-gymnasiums and gymnasiums were established, new textbooks published. new textbooks were established, gymnasiums and Lithuanian pro-gymnasiums the War first World 25 opinion. formed public onesthat not the works were these afterwards, noted he as But others. the among Ivinskis Zenonas and Lowmianski Henryk of works the distinguished He historiographies. 24 of names the addition, In language. Lithuanian of version standardized the of teaching the and teaching history Lithuanian on emphasis particular a was There 2005:17). (Janužytė, programs educational new of creation the for and University Vilnius of re-establishment the for argued 1910s. late E the in implementation their started and state the of creation before particular in NationalS Lithuanian Institutionalized Teaching Newly inthe History 1.2. As it was stated by Nikžientaitis (2002:11), there were some exceptions in both – Polish and Lithuanian – Lithuanian and Polish – both in exceptions some were there (2002:11), Nikžientaitis by stated was it As mphasizing that education is one of the main priorities of the newly created nation-state, they nation-state, created newly the of priorities main the of one is education that mphasizing In 1916 there were about 1000 Lithuanian primary schools, and under the German occupation during the First the during occupation German the under and schools, primary Lithuanian 1000 about were there 1916 In Lithuanian intelligentsia developed plans for the teaching in general and history teaching history and general in teaching the for plans developed intelligentsia Lithuanian what of understanding consensual partially a least at already was there 1910 year the By th century; and not Russian, as it was the case in the 19 the in case the was it as Russian, not and century; Polish element as alien to Lithuanian nation: there was no was there nation: Lithuanian to alien as element Polish 19 24 This is a good example, showing how the how showing example, good a is This th century pupils started to be taught to taught be to started pupils century ed by Janužytė (2005:68), a (2005:68), Janužytė by ed th century. The first The century. chools 25
CEU eTD Collection attempt to regulate the situation by signing the treaty of Suwalki, in the end of year 1920, Polish an 1920, year of end the in Suwalki, was of treaty the signing by situation there the regulate to attempt though Even hostility. as perceived immediately not was Lithuania, historical of part as considered territory, over control Polish this Russia, Soviet of army the with fighting also were time same the at troops Lithuanian that account into Taking 1919. since troops Polish the of control under kept was Lithuania) of capital historical so-called and Lithuania of capital 1910s. late the of actualities political by intensified particularly were tensions these addition, In above. discussed historiographies, Polish and Lithuanian between disagreement by created tensions the inherited level school the at teaching history Thus straightforward. quite was schools in teaching period. Commonwealth the from figures political the for place no was there Again, commemorated. be to needed and “found” already was past national The 2000:196). (Krapauskas, Vytautas duke the was figures popular most the among and built monuments various also were there streets; the naming for used were national rebirth Lithuanian of theleaders of names as well the dukes as the Appendix 9). There were no major shifts concerning the teaching hours after the power was power the after hours teaching the concerning shifts major no were There 9). Appendix (see studies country and studies homeland as such courses introductory the by preceded and 4 the in introduced was together) taught were (which geography and history of teaching The teaching. history national Lithuanian to attributed was place important an schools national Li In events. political these of context the in enacted were subject separate as teaching over dominate Lithuania. to seeking as portrayed predatory, were Poles) reduced to often was (Poland Poles period, that during published textbooks, the in historiography: Lithuanian in past common the of representation negative increased Vilnius over conflict This 1938. till jurisdiction its under remained and Poland in incorporated later was which Vilnius seized troops h eainhp bten Ltuna itrorpy ad Ltuna ainl history national Lithuanian and historiography Lithuanian between relationship The ntttoaiain o ihain ntoa col n ihain ntoa history national Lithuanian and schools national Lithuanian of Institutionalization actual the Vilnius, (including region Vilnius War, World First the of aftermath the In 20 thuanian th grade
CEU eTD Collection post-1430 period. post-1430 the to attributed attention more was there historiography: the in shift general the by explained be 1). Figure see comparison for 2; Figure (see different strikingly so not is periods other History Lithuanian account. into period interwar the of particularities these taking explored be should analysis the for chosen was hi Lithuanian Nik by noted As historiography. Lithuanian in shift the with andAppendix 11). Appendix 10 (see after 1935 discipline Tautininkai by seized Appendix 12). The transition from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the Polish-Lithuanian the to Lithuania of Duchy 26 Grand the from transition The 12). Appendix (see contents of table the in visible already is – Commonwealth the and Lithuania of Duchy Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė was Lithuanian historian. She also spent a significant period working in schools. in working period a She significant spent also Lithuanian historian. was Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė It is worth is It The differences between the meanings attributed to these two periods – the Grand the – periods two these to attributed meanings the between differences The Šmulkštys’ the to Contrary s Figure 2:Figure torians started to discuss the post-1430 period in their works. The textbook that textbook The works. their in period post-1430 the discuss to started torians ([1935]1938) the attention given to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the and Lithuania of Duchy Grand the to given attention the ([1935]1938) Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė’s Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė’s emphasizing that the distinction of the history as separate discipline coincided discipline separate as history the of distinction the that emphasizing [Nationalist Party] [Nationalist
Historical Periods and the Space Attributed to them in them to Attributed Space andthe Periods Historical itr etok (90, i Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė’s in (1910), textbook history s in 1926. However, history starts to be taught as a separate a as taught be to starts history However, 1926. in Lithuanian History Lithuanian 21 etii 20:0,(2002:10), žentaitis ([1935]1938)
in the 1930s the in 26 This can This
CEU eTD Collection The sub-chapter devoted to the Duke starts as following: “Vytautas was one of the most the of one was “Vytautas following: as starts Duke the to devoted sub-chapter The characteristics. personal andtheir features physical their of descriptions detailed mid-13 the from dukes the all of pictures only not includes author The ruler. by sub-divided is chapter each Lithuania, of Duchy Grand the of decades few the define to used is name whose Vytautas, Duke Grand the counting Not themselves. rulers the in personalized are periods The figures. nation. Lithuanian the of story the in elegantly fit not does it but aliens), the of (rule Empire Russian the as alien evidently as not is It Commonwealth). the of partitions the discussing while term this uses author (the appears state Lithuanian-Polish term the content of table the of middle the in somewhere However, 1918. in rebirth Lithuania’s in ended which Empire, Russian the by interrupted centuries, the through Lithuania of development continuous a as history the present to attempt visible a is There Lithuania. of decline the by succeeded is which independence”, Lithuanian save to “attempts as defined is textbook) the in used not term (a Commonwealth (2002). 27 the incarnate to figure useful particularly a was theVytautas (96-105). Samogitia brings the to he Christianity and 1410, in Knights) Teutonic the (meaning Germans obliterates he battles, wins he example, for figure: this to attributes she Duchy Lithuanian Grand the in changes the All left. his of image no is there and found never were Vytautas Duke the of remains the although portrait, his by accompanied is Vytautas Duke of description The strength”. and will strong his the indicated eyes wise wide his […] greatness of and full lively dynamic, remarkably but tall, not was to “Vytautas ones: personal the to related proceeds directly are which features physical his Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė of descriptions Later [1935]1938:94). world” (Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė, entire the of history the in also but history, Lithuanian in only not rulers remarkable The process of how this duke started to be referred to as Vytautas the Great was discussed by Nikžientaitis by discussed was Great the Vytautas as to referred be to started duke this how of process The th To give an example, it is worth looking closer to the rule of the Grand Duke Vytautas. Duke Grand the of rule the to closer looking worth is it example, an give To political the on focus its is textbook Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė’s of particularity more One century till the 1569 and some later rulers of the Commonwealth, but also provides also but Commonwealth, the of rulers later some and 1569 the till century 22 27
CEU eTD Collection presented as a gradual decline of the Lithuania (meaning the Grand Duchy of Lithuania). The Lithuania). of Duchy Grand the (meaning Lithuania the of decline gradual a as presented countries. surrounding with wars difficult in involved got dukes Lithuanian and diminished power Lithuanian Poland; gradually however, of Kingdom the of influence the of rid get to attempts several were there Vytautas, encounter would state Lithuanian strong the that problems following most Poland). against (and independence isthe tofor fight thing important the – message hidden the with but death, his of date exact the with only not are provided pupils the Interestingly, (105). Lithuania” to independence full the back bring to life: his of goal main the reach to manage not did He died. Vytautas old, 27 years 80 on being 1430, illness, October short a “After sentence: following the with ends duke this to devoted section The state. Lithuanian the for independence complete the seek to attempt an as portrayed easily be could Lithuania of Duchy Grand the over Poland of Kingdom of influence the minimize and Lithuania of King the become to attempts his because Polish, the against struggle Lithuanian also after the Union of Lublin in 1569 (Ritter, 2003). (Ritter, of1569 in Lublin Union the after also but 1385, after only independent remained and Lithuanian that argued historians Lithuanian Lithuania. of incorporation intensions bad having and 28 profit seeking as portrayed are Poland and Poles while situation; difficult the in help seeking innocent, as represented are Lithuania and Lithuanians Poland. and Poles – Poland of Kingdom the represent that figures two only are There Poles. and Lithuanians to often) more (even or Poland, and Lithuanian to reduced become Poland of Kingdom the and Lithuania of Duchy Grand the that remarkable is It (141). us” put to willing are Poles which into slavery, of shackles eternal the are terrible more even but heads, our above hanging enemy our of sword the is “Terrible textbook: Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė’s in quoted as grandee, Lithuanian of words the by illustrated be can Lublin of Union the to attributed meaning Polish historians denied that Lithuania remained independent after the Union of Lublin and presented it as it presented and Lublin of Union the after independent remained Lithuania that denied historians Polish With this in mind, it is not surprising that the following centuries (until 1795) are 1795) (until centuries following the that surprising not is it mind, in this With the Lithuania, of Duchy Grand the of period the of presentation the summarize To emphasis should be made: the Union of Krewo (1385) was the first sign of future of sign first the was (1385) Krewo of Union the made: be should emphasis 23 28 . After the death of Grand Duke Grand of death the After .
CEU eTD Collection their country and fighting for its freedom” (179). Meanwhile the Constitution of 3 May 1791 was 1791 May 3 of Constitution the Meanwhile (179). freedom” its for fighting and country their to devoted people many brought education this Lithuanian, not was instruction of language the although […] Polish only Latin, in taught longer no were subjects schools these “In following: itself. ones. Lithuanian as presented purely are achievements cultural the however, point, this At (148). countries European developed culturally most the to equal was ( Europe in education of centers important the of one became Lithuania that arguing achievements, black cultural the mentions briefly also author the descriptions, these their between In deeds. and battles main their characteristics, personal their describing Commonwealth, education/ rootsandbetter aristocratic 17 the in Commonwealth the of language official an as language Polish the of institutionalization the portrays Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė way the is This (143). it Polonize and Lithuania invade to started they Lublin of Union the after that informs textbook the addition, In state”). own their fit in to able not are (“they aims expansionist 30 early14 the 29 interpretation: the of account gravestone”. 3 the of laws The rebellion! a start will and angry nobility the make will they peasants about careful being by that afraid were the constitution the demonstrates of authors Constitution the Because “The nobility. the 1909: of selfishness in Šliūpas Jonas by given one the as dramatic less army, is account this However (179). Poland” government, of part a only become to rights, about was name, separate laws, its had which “Lithuania, negatively: exclusively evaluated rd It changed from old Belarusian which had been used as the court language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania since Lithuania of Duchy Grand the of language court as the used been had which Belarusian old from changed It
Quoted from Raila (2007:9). Raila from Quoted f My hc ee spoe o bcm h udmn f te cuty eae its became country, the of fundament the become to supposed were which May, of The changes in the language of instruction during the education reform were described as described were reform education the during instruction of language the in changes The An important aspect of the period of the Commonwealth was its attempts to reform to attempts its was Commonwealth the of period the of aspect important An n te floig tet ae agrat-roin it h ues o the of rulers the lists Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė pages twenty following the In th century. 30 The closing remark of the chapter on the Commonwealth provides a good a provides Commonwealth the on chapter the of remark closing The manners ( th 24 etr, wih sgiid te sca position, social the signified which century, Spires , 2001:55). , 29 147)
and it and
CEU eTD Collection against Polish cultural heritage. cultural Polish against also but empire, Russian of rule the against Lithuanian only not that themselves positioned fact figures nationalist the to related was neglect This neglected. was period Commonwealth this the while Lithuania) of Duchy Grand (the past heroic the to given was During attention main the period consciousness. Lithuanian of development the for used was history Lithuanian 19 the as early as traced be should which of beginnings (1905-1918), school national Lithuanian of formation the of period first the of end the signified was Empire too. hand Russian andon theother Poles, were enemies the hand one the On shifting. were alliances the how demonstrates quote This 90 h omnelh pro a nldd i h itrorpis n n te school the in and historiographies, Poland. against statehood Lithuanian for struggle constant a it as portraying textbooks the in included was period Commonwealth the 1930s the From 2005:63). (Janužytė, before was it as self-determination, of right historical the justifying for grounds theoretical and historical both provide to only not events, contemporary the explain to order in past Polish-Lithuanian common the used historians Lithuanian region. Vilnius the over Lithuania and Poland between conflict ongoing by influenced also was It analysis. of unit a as nation-state Lithuanian the took which historiography, national the in given interpretations The teaching of Lithuanian national history during the interwar period mirrored the mirrored period interwar the during history national Lithuanian of teaching The 1918 in Independence of proclamation the that underline to want I summarize, To – independence full the the destruction. Lithuania from to save not succeed did they reach felt to succeed they not did if they Unfortunately As Union. well. the of as rid Lithuania – ally its get to occasion single every down use to tried state of men Lithuanian approaching, pulled misfortune it and aliens of rule the under fell Poland nobility. ungovernable its with rundown, weakened, was It destruction. self- approached Lithuania sooner the Lithuania, in increased influence Polish faster The 25 th century. That was the first time first the was That century.
CEU eTD Collection in the classes, most of the teachers recollected “a small thin book”. They could not remember not could They book”. thin small “a recollected teachers the of most classes, the in used textbooks history the about asked When anything. memorize to sleepy too were came, who pupils, few those so hours, school of time official the before hour one started classes additional these that remembered Dalia example, For classes. history optional in only taught was history Lithuanian cases some In universities. and schools in history Lithuanian to attributed attention that 2.1 detail in more discuss will I Second, schooling. their about memories teachers’ on focus will I First, period. that during taught also ones older the 1990; before universities and schools attended them of most Thus 45. than more are schools Lithuanian contemporary in teachers the of most because Lithua Rewriting 2. “was never a secret” because her parents kept Šapoka’s book from interwar period in their in period interwar from book Šapoka’s kept parents her because secret” a never “was history Lithuanian Zita For about”. talk to issue an not was “it Siberia: in exile forced the about experiences; their family shared members all not However, 2010). Vaidas, with (Interview discussed fragments only were there school in because parents, by taught be to supposed was history” “real the that thing natural a seemed It history. Lithuanian of sources their were teachers cases rare in and books, parents, 2010 Irena, with (Interview rare in only cases appeared history andLithuanian period 1917 post- of history the on put was accent main the school in that emphasized teachers the of Some textbook. the of author(s) the or textbook this from taught were they which in grade the either . Learning and Teaching Soviet Lithuanian Soviet History Learning andTeaching . they had minimal knowledge of Lithuanian history before 1990. This was due to minimal to due was This 1990. before history Lithuanian of knowledge minimal had they Those, who argued that Lithuanian history was never a secret to them, indicated that indicated them, to secret a never was history Lithuanian that argued who Those, confessed and well very history Russian knew they that emphasized teachers Generally period, Soviet the during taught was history Lithuanian how analyze to important is It the historical narrative they were taught. narrativewere they the historical nian History According to Marxist-Leninist Principles Principles Marxist-Leninist to According History nian Dalia revealed memories about her father who did not talk not did who father her about memories revealed Dalia 26 ).
CEU eTD Collection some of the professors praised the Communist Party; others used “Aesop language” (talked in (talked language” “Aesop used others Party; Communist the praised professors the of some Vaidas, teacher to According education. higher the entering after maneuverings similar witnessed they that mentioned interviewees the of Most other”. the on degree certain a to protest secret own, one’s disguising and hand one the on think to incentive the students the giving between work at maneuvering “daily as (2005:142) Maeir by described dilemma teacher’s so-called the 2010 Laima, with (Interview hidden” is something that understand to students “allowed which questions, rhetorical raised often teachers that such mentioned give they but to examples, able not were interviewees of rest The 2009). Emilija, Soviet with the (Interview in Union” elections ‘fair’ the about talk to much too was “it her for because by themselves, textbook official the of chapters some read to students asked she sometimes that alleged period Soviet the during worked who Emilija, the interviewee, Other about republics. talking the of continue friendship will she come, will someone if that students her warned always she that doing before knees; her on book Šapoka’s with history Lithuanian about talked then Republics the of Friendship teacher her that remembered Nijolė example, libraries. semester, there was not many occasions to dothat. many occasions was there not semester, 32 with 2010). (Interview Emilija, house” Lithuanian’s in book ato havethis was must “it and republished was it 1980s late In teaching. history Lithuanian for used secretly was it period Soviet the During 1936. in published 31 Rima. by given was recent) (more interviewee.example Another the to meaning particular a had it that shows names the remembers and 1970s) the (from event the of details some mentions later Vaidas that fact The class”. the in rebellion organize to proposed sacristan, the of son Narmontas, repressions, Stalin’s about talking was Kiškienė teacher when remember “I Vaidas: by given was them of One interviews. the“truehistory”. about information thenecessary order to give in metaphors) Šapoka’s period. interwar the during historian Lithuanian prominent a was Šapoka Taking into account that Lithuanian history was taught not more than one year, more often – not more than one than more not – often more year, one than more not taught was history Lithuanian that account into Taking The examples of the resistance from the pupils’ side were also mentioned during the during mentioned also were side pupils’ the from resistance the of examples The 31 h aebo book same The .
As Nijolė recollected, teacher wrote the official title on the board and board the on title official the wrote teacher recollected, Nijolė As was also illegally used by the history students and teachers. For teachers. and students history the by used illegally also was
27 a ncag fteotoa orecle called course optional the of charge in was
She told that some pupils raised Lithuanian raised pupils some that told She ihain History Lithuanian 32 ). ). This illustrates This an armed an was The
CEU eTD Collection 2.2. Official Version of Lithuanian H of Version Official 2.2. anduniversities. schools in studying teachers were mostthe of dominant when was version what imagine to help can textbooks history Soviet the of analysis the Thus rule. a than exception an rather were framework dominant the resist to attempts and state; the by provided ones the than available interpretations other no almost had they that confessed interviewees Lithuanian dissidents. notthemselves call would andthey Elena, 2010) with (Interview hidden is something that feeling the only 2010); Dalia, with (Interview history Lithuanian about clue no had they that 2010); Nijolė, with (Interview table” the under flag the kept parents their from one “no that 2010); Irena, with (Interview education patriotic no and wrong” and right is what of understanding “no had they that confessed interviewees the of most However, fired. almost was teacher their that added she building; school the of roof the on 1988 or 1987 in flag national Žiugžda’s works. Consequently the content of these two textbooks differs remarkably, even remarkably, differs textbooks two these of content the Consequently works. Žiugžda’s in embedded history the of version Marxist the to alternative logical a construct to attempts his and history economic and political between way middle a find should one that declarations the called was Jurginis approach; Marxist-Leninist to the as to referred unofficially were the as historians known two these Švedas, Aurimas historian Lithuanian contemporary to According Jurginis. Juozas and Žiugžda Juozas – historians Lithuanian Soviet prominent two censorship and Lithuania of history of version Soviet the of publication belated The textbooks of Lithuanian history appeared only in the late 1950s, because of the of because 1950s, late the in only appeared history Lithuanian of textbooks The From the discussion above I would like to emphasize that during the Soviet period Soviet the during that emphasize to like would I above discussion the From (Vyšniauskas, 2004:83). The first two textbooks, published in 1957, were written by written were 1957, in published textbooks, two first The 2004:83). (Vyšniauskas, history was generally neglected, especially the history before 1917. Most of my of Most 1917. before history the especially neglected, generally was history ht hoilrchronicler White Black chronicler Black n h the and because of the black cover of the book he wrote and his loyalty his and wrote he book the of cover black the of because Black chronicler Black istory 28 (Čekutis and Žygelis, 2009). Žiugžda was Žiugžda 2009). Žygelis, and (Čekutis ht chronicler White long lasting procedure of procedure lasting long eas f hs public his of because
CEU eTD Collection required to present Lithuania as week and depended on the others, so Soviet Russia could be could Russia Soviet so others, the on depended and week policy as Lithuania Official present to historians. required Soviet for problems caused Lithuania of Duchy Grand powerful and theindependent of theexistence (2007:226), Jučas noted As by elite. on political focused less Appendix (see changes Lithuania of History history Lithuanian of periodisation from curricula school the in dominant remained were history Lithuanian of textbooks version Žiugžda’s his circulation. from withdrawn and 1961 in publications Jurginis’s in errors ideological the concerning resolutions passed Party Communist the of body governing central the until times 5 published was even and years several for ofcirculated textbook version Jurginis’s Marxist Interestingly, history. the Lithuanian of example remarkable a is (1962), edition subsequent its especially Lithuania of History Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė’s in embedded version history nationalist the from transition a represents entitled were them of both though eae te svor fo oih epnins. Te epai n te Pls domination Lublin of Polish Union the that the historians Soviet the on between agreement consolidated emphasis the represents The expansionism. Polish from saviour the Empire Russian became the textbook Jurginis’s in empire), (Russian power alien of domination the to leading to as negatively Contrary portrayed were interests. partitions the where national textbook, Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė’s Lithuanian of betrayal of manifestation a as served Poland with Union The time. first the for it following and preceding periods the between line dividing a became Lublin of Union The Lithuania. over domination Polish the on but independence, saviour. its as portrayed The only alternative, as it was mentioned before, was Jurginis textbook (1957). The (1957). textbook Jurginis was before, mentioned was it as alternative, only The ([1935]1938) and Šapoka’s Šapoka’s and ([1935]1938) [9513) ([1935]1938). 1962 till 1985 when new textbooks were about to be published. to about textbooks were when new 1985 till 1962 12). His description of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is less detailed and detailed less is Lithuania of Duchy Grand the of description His 12).
h mhss i o lne u n te cntn tuge for struggle constant the on put longer no is emphasis The Jurginis divided Lithuanian history according to the political the to according history Lithuanian divided Jurginis History of Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic Socialist Soviet Lithuanian of History n i, hwvr eebe oe Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė’s more resembled however, it, in Lithuanian history Lithuanian 29
(1938); Žiugžda’s textbook, and textbook, Žiugžda’s (1938); . Jurginis’s textbook Jurginis’s .
CEU eTD Collection the Russian empire decreases significantly. As Figure 3 illustrates, he clearly focuses on the on focuses Lithuania. of Socialist Republic theSoviet of building clearly he illustrates, 3 Figure As significantly. decreases empire Russian the territory Lithuanian chapter this called (Jurginis Republic Socialist Soviet Lithuanian of territory the in lived ancestors their that fact the to introduced is reader the pages opening the From 12). the until capitalism of age the by followed is feudalism 2007:231). (Jučas, interests and religious cultural political, Polish the to it subordinated and state that of development natural the stopped state to Soviet one. to state 33 (Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė, chapter separate in before discussed was which Lublin, of Union of consolidation the and (1962:22). serfdom decline economic the of reason main a as Union the portrays He development. socio-economic the discusses Žiugžda period, this to devoted pages few those In Figure Figure
Lithuanian historiography was directly subordinated to the Russian historiography, which appropriated Lithuanian appropriated which historiography, Russian the to subordinated directly was historiography Lithuanian As demonstrated above, the space attributed to the Commonwealth changes significantly. changes theCommonwealth to attributed thespace above, demonstrated As of age the history: national Lithuanian of version revised completely a provided Žiugžda 3:
Historical Periods and the Space Attributed to them in Two History Textbooks History inTwo them Spaceto andthe Attributed Periods Historical Lithuanian SSRHistory Lithuanian ). In Žiugžda’s textbook the attention given to the periods before inclusion into inclusion before periods the to given attention the textbook Žiugžda’s In ). The attention attributed to the main events and processes differs as well. The well. as differs processes and events main the to attributed attention The Jurginis 1957 33 30 age of socialism comes (see Appendix (see comes socialism of age Lithuanian SSRHistory Žiugžda 1962 The first first The inhabitants in inhabitants
CEU eTD Collection incorporation to Russian empire saved Lithuania from Polish domination and extinction in extinction and domination Polish from Lithuania saved empire Russian to incorporation autonomy. Lithuanian remaining the of elimination the than rather domination, Polish from liberation as represented is dimension struggle. anti-Polish class by the complemented thus – feudals” Lithuanian “polonized become Lithuanians” “Polonized feudals/noblemen. Polish and feudals/noblemen Lithuanian as categories such by them replace exclusively but Poles, and Lithuanians as them to refers longer no (1962) Žiugžda and (1957) Jurginis Both Lublin. of Union the of signing the in actors main the of descriptions country. the of advancement social the stopped and nobility the of privileges the consolidated Union is this it that cases emphasized both In (1957:43). state” Lithuanian the of burial the “as and people” Lithuanian latter the while (1962:22); decline” political and economic the The textbooks. – (1957) Jurginis’s and (1962) Žiugžda’s (1962:22). Žiugžda 1957 (Jurginis, section separate in and [1935]1938:140-144) culture started to decline. He argues that “from the 17 the “from that argues He decline. Lithuanian to why started culture reasons the of one as Poland with Union the perceives Jurginis Meanwhile (1962:32). culture” he folk the why, persecuted and is stigmatized always this church and stupid”; “feudals proceeds, and the arrogant mocked money-grubbing, always as and them clergy presented and the noblemen “sneered it that arguing people Lithuanian of folk culture the praises Žiugžda culture. and identity national Lithuanian saved they and Lithuanian peasants discuss authors both general. In between the signing of the Union of Lublin and the partitions of the Commonwealth the of partitions the and Lublin of Union the of signing the between In – both in negatively portrayed is Lublin of Union the differences, these Despite
and counter-position them to feudals; they argue that peasants always were consciously were always peasants that argue they feudals; to them counter-position and the socio-economic development. They both attribute an important role to role important an attribute both They development. socio-economic the ohBoth uhr ocue epaiig ta attos laig t the to leading partitions that emphasizing conclude authors infcn hne i lo eiet we oprn the comparing when evident also is change significant A In both textbooks the partitions of the Commonwealth are Commonwealth the of partitions the textbooks both In 31 former presents it as the “beginning of “beginning the as it presents former th century in printed books Lithuanian books printed in century :41-43) , is reduced to 3 paragraphs by paragraphs 3 to reduced is eit t a dssru to “disastrous as it depicts
CEU eTD Collection present Russian Empire as its saviour. So the collapse of the Commonwealth and its inclusion its and Commonwealth the of collapse the So saviour. its The as Empire Russian to terms. present light this negative in and in enemies Lithuanian portrayed as Poles is present to it used does, was period it Commonwealth when and ones other the than attention less gets period Commonwealth Polish-Lithuanian the Second, framework. the Marxist-Leninist follow and history Lithuanian neglect to tendency general a is there First, drawn. be can theconstitution”in “ that emphasized the in that fact the Const on put is accent main The negatively. rather and paragraph one in May 3 of Constitution the presented Jurginis and Žiugžda Both Commonwealth. the of partitions Russia from ideas (1962:34). revolutionary spreading of result a as literature Lithuanian emerging the 20 early the until codified not was language Lithuanian that fact the neglecting followed”, not were rules grammatical the and barbarisms by polluted was language Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in governing bodies is underlined. is governingbodies in Duchy Grand of Lithuania the and of Poland Kingdom 34 their in interpretations. stillextant are representations soviet isthat possible it history, of versions alternative the to access no had them of most and period Soviet the during were educated teachers the of majority that account cultural into and Taking one. linguistic political a than rather as community presented are Lithuanians that visible is it Finally, assimilation. cultural and Polonization stopped it positive: exclusively as presented is empire Russian into
None of them included the amendments adjusted in October 1791, where the equal representation of the of representation equal the where 1791, October in adjusted amendments the included them of None tto ihai s nt mnind a eaae ui f te Cmowat. They Commonwealth. the of unit separate as mentioned not is Lithuania itution From the comparison of of comparison the From the before implemented were which reforms the to given attention less is there Similarly, Lithuania (Jurginis, 1957:56; Žiugžda, 1962:26) Žiugžda, 1957:56; (Jurginis, was an integral part of Poland and even its name was not mentioned not was name its even and Poland of part integral an was the two textbooks from the Soviet period, several implications several period, Soviet the from textbooks two the 32 . 34 th century. Žiugžda presents Žiugžda century.
CEU eTD Collection words, who graduated already in the independent Lithuania: theindependent in already who graduated words, S Lithuanian ChangesEducational inthe 3.1. period. Commonwealth on the particular focus a with nowadays, history national Lithuanian of version official modify or negotiate accept, teachers, which in ways the demonstrate will I Finally, curricula. official the in reflected were they how analyze will I Second, sphere. political and historiography Lithuanian in changes as well as period), transition the (including system educational in changes the discuss will I First, Lithuania. contemporary in T 3. told them not to use “Russian books”. At this moment the old history textbooks were replaced were textbooks history old the moment this At books”. “Russian use to not them told parents their that pretending it open to refused Students are. sources historical what illustrate to order in students her to writings Lenin’s gave she once that said 1988, in teacher a as work to started who Elena, 2010). Vilija, with (Interview materials teaching Soviet use to appropriate when 2010). Vaidas, 1988, until start not did changes with (Interview opened was teaching creative for space the and abolished finally were restrictions real The schooling. communist good a provide teachers that ensure to schools the in surveillance intensified authorities Soviet the 1980s, the Lithuania of Movement Reform the of formation the and demonstrations nationalist ongoing Commonwealth Period Commonwealth e Lgc f Peiu eid n h is teps t eeoit the Renegotiate to Attempts First the and Periods Previous of Legacy he In this this In The repainting of “red walls” was not an easy task for history teachers. Due to the to Due teachers. history for task easy an not was walls” “red of repainting The yellow- flag: national Lithuanian of colors 2009). Jurgita, with (Interview ordercolors of the up mixed she Pity, green-red. the in became wall Lithuania the When repainted it. on she leaders independent, party Communist the of portraits read in the class kept the of and wall back the paint to used teacher history my period Soviet the In Jurgita’s by illustrated be can period transition during affiliations teachers’ of shift The By the late 1980s Lithuanian national history “came in fashion” and it was no longer no was it and fashion” in “came history national Lithuanian 1980s late the By section I will focus on the ways Lithuanian national history is taught and learned and taught is history national Lithuanian ways the on focus will I section 33 ystem in
CEU eTD Collection th memory. thecultural sustaining importancein its of because schools”, into history back to “bring need the also emphasized group the of members [1988]2000). (Lukšienė, national” be to has school the – clear is thing One margins. the on remains culture our but language, our have the we – schools consolidate in culture and national the of legitimize presence to supposed are we survive, to want we “if that claimed She culture. national the to role main the attributed group, the of figure leading the Lukšienė, Meilė ( autonomy cultural achieve and matters educational in sovereignty gain to aimed they beginning the In schooling. Soviet the to alternative an as school national Party. theCommunist of instructions following blindly for famous was who Žiugžda, professor by given classes the to coming stopped students that remembered Vaidas writings: Lenin’s and textbooks old the with together dismissed were professors Old ([ Vijūkas-Kojelavičius by written books history re-published newly universities, from notes newspapers, from articles by 35 history exams. future and material methodical no had teachers notices, Vaidas as However, week. per classes history world two and history national Lithuanian five were there noted, Vilija As significantly. increased was classes history of number the purpose this For 1993). (Jackūnas, state Lithuanian and society, nation, family, to loyalty encourage to and person, open-minded they addition, In education. Lithuanian of principles main the as revival and nationalism democracy, humanism, distinguished strategy education new the of authors The approved. were programs teaching new and education Lithuanian of strategy new a later year one and passed was law education the 1991 In 2000:171). (Lukšienė, society” new The exam was oral and it was organized in local level, not national until 1996. until not national locallevel, in oral organized was it and Theexam e education reform in Lithuania, and and Lithuania, in reform education e During the first years of independence the same intellectuals became the key-figures of key-figures the became intellectuals same the independence of years first the During members several 1988 In 35 Thus the way pupils were taught exclusively depended on theteacher. depended exclusively way taught were pupils Thus the 1656 ]1988), Šapoka ([1936]1989), Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė ([1935]1991). Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė ([1936]1989), Šapoka ]1988), of the Reform Movement of Lithuania proposed a model of model a proposed Lithuania of Movement Reform the of claimed that they were “about to create a new state and state new a create to “about were they that claimed 34 articulated two aims: to educate an educate to aims: two articulated Bruzgelevičienė, 2007 Bruzgelevičienė, no clear guidelines for the for guidelines clear no :93). The
CEU eTD Collection exam. The exam program, by some of my interviewees referred to as the “teachers Bible”, to “teachers attention the parallel, In 2009). Jūratė, with the (Interview teachers for guideline main the became as to referred interviewees my of some by program, exam The exam. the passing for requirements the standardized it because teaching, history on impact significant a had change This quiz. national a became exam history the 1992 from (2000:319), Vyšniauskas Union. European the of requirements the to according re-structured was system school Lithuanian that shows this (2007:103) Bruzgelevičienė to According facts. historical pure them give than rather students of competences develop to encouragement the with hand in hand went identification linguistic and ethnic their of independently citizens all include to need articulated clearly This by reform be can illustrated accentsthe of main The nation. 36 He Gudavičius. Edvardas historian Lithuanian of works the Venclova’s in echoed history. were Lithuanian ideas revisionist in civilization Polish of role the about stereotypes negative the liquidating encouraged He Venclova. Tomas dissident Lithuanian by 1980s late the in already Rev 3.2. the5 of anexception with history, world into incorporated was history national Lithuanian and decreased significantly history Lithuanian For detailed explanation see explanation detailed For Diplomatic Relationships in the Early1990s in the Relationships Diplomatic The new program of education also included reorganized exam system. As underlined by underlined As system. exam reorganized included also education of program new The The The nation to Lithuanian belong orientation cultural-linguistic clearly program and origins ethnic new their of independently state Lithuanian of The citizens the all that indicates […] nation. cultural of concept the complement to need the w Now civic the of importance the emphasized already (1997) reform educational second The so f Ltuna itrorpy ad Rglto f Polish-Lithuanian of Regulation and Historiography Lithuanian of ision need to revise the interpretations of Polish-Lithuanian common past was articulated was past common Polish-Lithuanian of interpretations the revise to need hen Lithuania is independent again and starts to be consolidated as a state, we feel we state, a as be consolidated to and starts again independent is Lithuania hen
Methodology . th grade programs (Interview with Vilija, 2010). with (Interview grade programs 35 Jackūnas’s words: Jackūnas’s (Jackūnas 1998:3). (Jackūnas 36
CEU eTD Collection coe, fre iitr o h oeg far ers Viikns epaie ht this that emphasized Vaitiekūnas Petras Affairs Foreign the of Minister former October, of list the in included were 20 of commemoration the during given speech, official the In – Lithuania. in days commemorative October 20 – amendments its of day the and – May 3 – day Constitution the 2007 in Moreover, 2009). Kuolys, 2007; Raila, (see civilization Western the into enter to opportunity of window a as portrayed were language and culture Polish and dismissed longer no was heritage common the historiography Lithuanian the In well. as one Lithuanian a as but phenomenon, Polish a only as presented longer no was 1791 May 3 of Constitution the the addition, In Commonwealth. the in incorporation its after autonomous remained Lithuania of Duchy Grand the that recognized was It past. common Polish-Lithuanian the rehabilitated Lithuania. of strategic partner main Poland as the portray cooperation: bilateral of agreement the signed countries both 1997 In neighborhood. good relations, and cooperation friendly of agreements the signed Lithuania and Poland 1994 In changes. political civilization. European of arena the into surviveandto enter to Lithuania to given chance anultimate Poland as theUnion with portrayed period. Commonwealth the of reinterpretation the for impulse important an gave they demonstrated, curricula. official on impact an had sphere diplomatic and historioprahy Lithuanian also be should Union past. common the of revision the encouraged which European factor a as considered the to integration mind in this With 2008). (Vaitiekūnas, tradition federalist this prolonged Union European the in countries both of membership the and Poland modern and Lithuania modern of formation the for foundations the laid it minister, the 18 the for ideas progressive remarkably a represents Constitution Lithuanian and Polish historians also opened a new page in their relationships and relationships their in page new a opened also historians Polish and Lithuanian
Poland renounced all the territorial claims and Lithuanian politicians started to started politicians Lithuanian and claims territorial the all renounced Poland The revision of common past coincided with important with coincided past common of revision The 36 th century Europe. According Europe. century These changes in the in changes These As it will be will it As
CEU eTD Collection interwar period. This can be explained by both the aim to restore the history which was which history the restore to national of pride. feeling a andtheneedtoaim period create duringtheSoviet forgotten the both by explained be can This period. interwar the to similarly Lithuania, of Duchy Grand the to attention more gives Butrimas shows, 4 Figure 18 1795. in empire Russian into incorporation the before period the to devoted exclusively were them of some Moreover, history. national Lithuanian to on changes PoliticalandEducational the of impact The 3.3. new form of state, which has not exited before” (1993:210). Butrimas does not present the present not does Butrimas (1993:210). before” exited not has which state, of form new a was it state; Polish more no and state Lithuanian more no was “it hybrid: as Commonwealth 20 state prove Lithuanian that order to in history political to priority gives and rulers the to according them of each subdivides He periods. th th century century. He no longer refers to the subordination of Lithuania to Poland. He defines the defines He Poland. to Lithuania of subordination the to refers longer no He century. The history textbooks history The Butrimas clearly revises the interpretations which were dominant in the beginning of the of beginning the in dominant were which interpretations the revises clearly Butrimas the structures Butrimas way the in visible also is textbooks interwar with similarity The , written by historian Adomas Butrimas (1993), clearly illustrates this tendency. As tendency. this illustrates clearly (1993), Butrimas Adomas historian by written , Figure Figure 4: the history textbook written by Butrimas (1993) writtenby historytextbook the
Historical Periods and the Space Attributed to them in them to Attributed Space andthe Periods Historical published during the first years of independence gave high priority high gave independence of years first the during published continues in time (see Appendix 13). Appendix in (see time continues 37 History of Lithuania: from ancient times to the to times ancient from Lithuania: of History the official historycurricula official the
CEU eTD Collection praises the common heritage with Poland because it “brought the culture from the West” the from culture the “brought it because Poland with heritage common the praises example, even is Europe to proximity cultural the are Poles allies. as Lithuanian portrayed light this In that (1993:190-193). outline centuries for to enemies section were entire Russians and an Lithuanians devotes Butrimas appears. – clearly Russia the – thus enemy the powers, articulated foreign that of states intervention the Butrimas of (175). because people” collapsed Commonwealth and homeland noblemen Lithuanian their some for that underlines, themselves he “sacrificed hand other the On (207). states other to loyalty their and (210-211) noblemen of groups Butrimas different between fights internal hand, the emphasizes one the On balanced. more is nobility Lithuanian of image religion” The and (1993:220). language their “brought land, sought who Lithuania of colonizers called even (1993:214). negative are Poles example, exclusively For visible. still are Poles as to attributed characteristics negative the Poles However, and Lithuanians between longer ties no close and the (1993:213) portrays nobility Lithuanian upon forced exclusively as Lublin of Union state. For the first time in the textbooks the Union is presented as reinforcing and not as not and reinforcing as presented is Union the textbooks the in time first the For state. of form new as and independence of period a as presented is Commonwealth 19 the textbooks the on Brazauskas periods Lithuania; different of Duchy the Grand on the focus on (Jakimavičius they though even textbooks, their in Commonwealth the to space of amount same the attribute Jakimavičius and Brazauskas both presents, 5 Figure As (2000:64). thenation of attribute themain languageis language, because Lithuanian using not for ashamed to be needed nobility the that He stresses culture. Western the of bearer a as Poland portray not does and reserved more remains – later years two (2000) textbook history published who Brazauskas, Juozas – teacher history Another nobility. Lithuanian by appropriated were they – Lithuanian upon forced not were culture and language Polish Jakimavičius, For (1998:99). Butrimas also highlights that Lithuania was part of Europe (1993:195). The emphasis on emphasis The (1993:195). Europe of part was Lithuania that highlights also Butrimas aiecuty–LtunaLithuania – country Native (1997)
more visible in the textbooks published after 1997. For 1997. after published textbooks the in visible more , written by history teacher Viktoras Jakimavičius, Viktoras teacher history by written 38 th century). In both In century).
CEU eTD Collection evident in the textbooks published after the last educational reform and Lithuania’s entrance to entrance Lithuania’s and reform educational last the after published textbooks the in evident (2000:58). together enemies their fought states both that notes Brazauskas while (1998:99); years 200 than more for Russia resist to states both helped Union that argues Jakimavičius Lithuania: weakening ivniė atiue ny fw prgah o te Gad Dcy o ihai n the and Lithuania of Duchy Grand the to paragraphs few only attributes Litvinaitė 20 the on mainly focuses She (2007:26). minorities national the to Homeland” Second the “Lithuania: section 19 the in only emerged nation “Lithuanian Appendix 14). themes(see different structures Litvinaitė authors, previous the as periodisation similar use who (2008), al. et Laužikas to Contrary significant. are them between differences the that noteworthy is It nowadays. schools Lithuanian in pupils by used are textbooks Both European Figure 5: Figure The attempts to revise the old representations of the Commonwealth are even more even are Commonwealth the of representations old the revise to attempts The Litvinaitė uses the nation as main unit of analysis, however, she clearly recognizes that recognizes clearly she however, analysis, of unit main as nation the uses Litvinaitė Union: Jūratė Litvinaitė’s Litvinaitė’s Jūratė Union: Native country - LithuaniaNative country
Historical Periods and the Space Attributed to them in Two History TwoHistory Textbooks in to them Attributed the Space and Periods Historical Jakimavičius th century and only briefly outlines the events preceding it. Consequently it. preceding events the outlines briefly only and century 1998 Lithuanian History Lithuanian th century” (2007:23). Moreover she devotes an entire an devotes she Moreover (2007:23). century” 39 (2007) and Laužikas et al. al. et Laužikas and (2007) ihainHsoyHistory Lithuanian History ofHistory Lithuania Brazauskas 2000 (2007) according (2007) The Path The (2008).
CEU eTD Collection (2007), but it remained faithful to the chronological structuralizing, as can be seen in Figure 6. Figure6. in be can seen as structuralizing, thechronological to itfaithful but remained (2007), (2007:24). fashion” into came clothes customs, language, “Polish Polonization: term the use with not does Union Litvinaitė Poland, of the Kingdom after impact cultural the about talking While (1998:47). disputes old forgot 20 early the in once only Lithuanians with disagreed they Litvinaitė, to According forever”. “friends as portrayed be to start Poles and Poland Thus (2007:44). enemy an as named clear one only the is Russia Britain); Great and USA (distinguishes countries Western and sisters”) (“Baltic Estonia and Latvia with Commonwealth 37 (2007:31). Sea” Black the to Sea Baltic the “from territories united it that and Europe” in state biggest the was “Lithuania It The Union of Lublin and the partitions are discussed one paragraph each. one are and discussed partitions the of Lublin TheUnion clearly focuses on the so-called “times of national heroes”; the authors emphasize that emphasize authors the heroes”; national of “times so-called the on focuses clearly Figure The publication of the textbook textbook the of publication The 6: Historical Periods and the Space Attributed to them in them Spaceto andthe Attributed Periods Historical 37 . Nevertheless she explicitly names Lithuanian friends such as Poland together Poland as such friends Lithuanian names explicitly she Nevertheless . th century (because of Vilnius); but after 1990 both nations already nations both 1990 after but Vilnius); of (because century The Path The Path (2008) 40 (2008) succeeded Litvinaitė’s Litvinaitė’s succeeded (2008) Laužikas et al. al. Laužikas et Lithuanian History Lithuanian The
CEU eTD Collection ihain hsoy d o e ufcet atnin oe o nevees nmd the named interviewees of none attention, sufficient get in periods not which do asked, When history Lithuania”. Lithuanian in happened which revolts, major the know even not do students French because revolution, French the discussing time much so spend not should students “Lithuanian opinion: general echoes argument Vilija’s sufficient. not is history Teaching3.4. the1990s. of Lithuanian historiography therevisionist of impact emphasisthe shows This Europe. to in constitution written ones first the first was 1791 May the 3 the of of Constitution the one that underline is it reason: more one for particular is textbook This (70). Poland to themselves dedicated and (80) Polish spoke and customs Polish imitated feelings, patriotic lacked nobles him, to According process. forced as it portray not of does period but (66), as Polonization known is period this that mention also al. et Laužikas (2008:64-65). prospered nations two of republic was it that recognizes Darius contributes adding that “this period is closer to me, because I knew Lithuanian Dukes Lithuanian knew I because me, to closer is period “this that adding contributes Darius most the and important most period” significant the was “it former, the while 2010); Laima, with (Interview importance and 2010) Gediminas, with (Interview proximity its of because liked mostly is latter 20 the and Lithuania of Duchy Grand the of period the – them of mentioned two exclusively Interviewees history. Lithuanian from periods historical favorite their discussing while visible more became covered insufficiently as period this distinguished them of none why the reasons The opposite. the quite is It that sufficient. is period Commonwealth the to given is attention prove not does this However, Laima). Darius, (Dalia, resistance armed and and Soviet) Nazi (Soviet, occupations period, interwar the mentioned they period, Commonwealth h uhr f te txbo o nt dn h ls eainhp wt oad and Poland with relationship close the deny not do textbook the of authors The The majority of my interviewees emphasized that the attention given to the national the to given attention the that emphasized interviewees my of majority The Lithuanian national history in the post-1990 schools post-1990 inthe national history Lithuanian
(Interview with Laima, 2010). As Vaidas expresses, “everything was clearer”. was “everything expresses, Vaidas As 2010). Laima, with (Interview 41 (2008:62); that in the Commonwealth culture Commonwealth the in that (2008:62); th century. The century.
CEU eTD Collection Vacys – had the most negative perception of the Commonwealth: theCommonwealth: of perception negative –hadthemost Vacys – interviewee oldest The period. this to attributed he/she features negative more the teacher, the older the age, the Concerning location. geographical and age teacher’s to according varied Vacys). with (Interview period” Lithuanian not Polish, was “it 2010), Irena, with (Interview Polonization” of period was “that 2010), Vytautas, with (Interview wars” of period difficult “a 2010), Elena, with (Interview important” so is it think not do just “I 2010), Vacys, with (Interview failures” was of period period a was “it numerous: were Commonwealth this explaining reasons the the and disliked most the definitely Consequently 2010). Vaidas, with (Interview period this of history cultural the only likes he that specified he However, favorite. his as Commonwealth of kindergarten” the in already was the one who worked for the welfare of the noblemen” (Interview with Vacys, 2010). He also He 2010). Vacys, with (Interview noblemen” the of the welfare for worked who one the was peasant Lithuanian that show not do “we peasants: towards friendliness expressed and country the in disorder the nobility, the of lawlessness the emphasized He serfdom. the the of discuss flourishing to time of amount significant attributed and feudalism of Age period this called he interpretations, Soviet the Following classes. his during portrayed is Commonwealth the how imagine can one information, necessary the all with students provides he because textbooks, the use to not prefers he that confessed teacher that account into Taking peace”. in us leave never n for ot having patriotic feelings. For him, the Union of Krewo was “the first sign that Poles will Poles that sign first “the was Krewo of Union the him, For feelings. patriotic having ot He defined it as “decadence”, “non-Lithuanian” and accused the Polish speaking nobility speaking Polish the accused and “non-Lithuanian” “decadence”, as it defined He of interpretations the that noteworthy is It if they were there, we would have never signed such Union with Poles (Interview with (Interview Poles 2010). Vacys, with Union such signed never have would we there, were they if Kęstutis; Duke Vytautas, Duke as patriots such no were There […] patriotism lacked and powers foreign with affiliated were noblemen our of because all was It power. its lose to started state our because negatively, exclusively evaluated be should Lublin of Union The (Interview with Darius, 2010). Darius, with (Interview 42 the Commonwealth period in particular often particular in period Commonwealth the Only one teacher labeled the period the labeled teacher one Only
CEU eTD Collection in the Soviet period and she is still trying to turn everything upside down. It is also worth also is It down. upside everything turn to trying still is she and period Soviet the in formed already were interpretations her all mentioned, Laima As changes. to resistant more are interpretations Teachers’ days”. our in historians prominent such lack “we that arguing (1957) textbook Jurginis to referring often is he that emphasized Vytautas example, For 50’s. and 40’s interpretations. thenew with coping problems similar have schools in years 30 than more worked who teachers other the of most that predict can one but examples, two these from generalize to difficult is it though Even rule”. his during legalized was serfdom “the things: bad some did also Vytautas Duke that agree least at can she now days of couple for this about thought she after that added she interview the during However things?”. such write to dears someone “how repulsive: was reaction first her that confessed Teacher criticized. strongly was he which in Vytautas, Duke about article an read she ago days few that recollected she interview the During history. Lithuanian revise to attempts the with contact in came recently only school, the in years 30 than more worked who – Zita – teacher Another period. interwar the during educated were pupils Lithuanian ways the towards admiration an expressed and schools contemporary in education patriotic of lack the underlined that even in the university professors did not pay much attention to it. much pay attention did not professors theuniversity in even that mentioned also Rasa while period; Elena this about studies and interesting read not Laima have they Both that confessed existence. Commonwealth the indicating dates the confused Rima and rulers, the of order chronological the mixed-up Laima Commonwealth, the of rulers the name barely can she that confessed Elena period, this evaluate to asked When competences. of lack they and period this about talking while fell teachers that shows This particular). in Laima made (Rasa, say to what also thinking more once question my repeated or (Nijolė) answering before pauses they Rima); Vytautas, Emilija, (particularly, period Commonwealth in interested particularly am I that heard after breath deep a took teachers these of some that mentioning Legacy of the Soviet period was also visible from the interviews with the teachers in their in teachers the with interviews the from visible also was period Soviet the of Legacy 43
CEU eTD Collection movement excluded this category, and most of the teachers continue to do so. so. do to continue teachers the of most and category, this excluded movement national Lithuanian the of leaders the community, linguistic as Lithuanians Defining noblemen. Lithuanian speaking Polish the to refer to category to special the invent loyal to need the shows and Poland undecided as nobility speaking Polish the demonstrate to tendency the (2009), the (Emilija, Poles as noblemen as them defined or Vilija), (Dalia, feelings patriotic lacked they that emphasized Elena), speaking Vytautas, Polish to referred teachers Similarly, 2010). Nijolė, with (Interview Polish” nor Lithuanian “neither called be cannot which state, of form different was it that noted few only Lithuanian”; not “Polish, as Commonwealth the to referred often 2010). that argued some but Rima, with Interview 2010; Dalia, inevitable, with (Interview earlier Union the left as have could Lithuanians Union the perceived majority the the Commonwealth, of collapse the and formation the Commonwealth. both, influenced that factors different listed just they Commonly, partitions. the and Lublin of Union the on exclusively focus to tended teachers commemorated it Lithuania. The majority of the interviewees expressed that Lithuanians have Lithuanians that expressed interviewees the of majority The Lithuania. it commemorated be not should day this that conviction the by followed is it However, Europe. written in first constitution the having of proud be to tendency a is There 1791. May 3 of Constitution the in culture Lithuania. European spread the of the for the gates it that opened emphasized Nijolė and only thishimself; topic And brought Vaidas positively. only it evaluated teachers same the influence, cultural Polish about asked when Interestingly, 2010). Vytautas, with (Interview were they who forget to Lithuanians made have which Russian the not and language Polish was it so-called that argued them towards of some or russification attitude with it equated negative teachers the of the Some polonisation. with hand in hand went often culture national the ones who “have not known who they were” (Laima, Rasa). As noted by Aleksandravičius by noted As Rasa). (Laima, were” they who known not “have who ones Most of the teachers teachers the of Most When asked, how then they teach it themselves and what things they emphasize in class, in emphasize they things what and themselves it teach they then how asked, When Another particularly particularly Another E autn h no f Lbi, wih la o te ceto f the of creation the to lead which Lublin, of Union the valuating useful example to reveal teachers’ attitudes was the discussion about discussion the was attitudes teachers’ reveal to example useful barely recognized the hybrid character of the Commonwealth: they Commonwealth: the of character hybrid the recognized barely 44 The stress upon stress The
CEU eTD Collection referred to the Commonwealth as “Polish state, not Lithuanian” and claimed that Lithuanians that claimed and Darius Lithuanian” not example, state, “Polish For as Commonwealth ones. the to older referred the as opinions similar shared have 20’s their in teachers the of other Meanwhile, Lithuania. of Duchy Grand the of praising portrayal the criticized he history, Lithuanian romantic nationalist towards critical most the was who Nijolė, to Similarly commemoration. of day official an as proclaimed already is May 3 of Constitution the signing of date the that knew who one only the was He terms. positive in it discussed and Commonwealth the of nature hybrid the acknowledged Gediminas Only it. supported fewer even and attempts andbetrayingnational interests. to Poland faithful as being figures therevisionist accused even Vacys 2010). Emilija, with (Interview attention more get should it that think not do they and it worth not is period this that replied teachers history national revise to the attempts about think they do what asked, When Nijolė). (Laima, Lithuanian is it that denying Poles, by appropriated is constitution this that argue who teachers some are There framework. national the beyond think to difficulties have teachers that shows commemorating worth not is it why explaining argumentation The it. celebrate to supposed not is one thus Constitution, Lithuanian purely not was it that emphasized others one; this include to already commemorate to days many too Poles. In addition, teachers in Samogitia emphasized the role of their region in Lithuanian other all and Order in Teutonic the fought Samogitia Ages Middle region in that underlined They history. their of role the emphasized Samogitia in teachers addition, In Poles. towards feelings bad have not do and Vilnius from not are they that emphasized always capital in work who teachers Meanwhile, Poles. about stereotypes more have inhabitants its and period” interwar the during occupation Polish under was region “this because region, Vilnius and Vilnius in past Polish-Lithuanian common the teach to problematic more probably is it that underlined 19 patriotism. lacking and undecided as nobility speaking Polish defined he Consequently, May. of 3 of Constitution the with do to nothing have th century and romantic version of national of history. version andromantic century Concerning the regional differences, differences, regional the Concerning revisionist the of aware were generation younger of teachers the all not Interestingly, teachers from Samogitia region and from Kaunas from and region Samogitia from teachers Meanwhile, Rasa expressed her admiration for the for admiration her expressed Rasa Meanwhile, 45
CEU eTD Collection culture andlanguage. culture Lithuanian of protectors best the as region this of the inhabitants present to tend Samogitia from teachers the differences, regional the concerning addition, In community. cultural and linguistic the to faithful remained them of Most framework. nationalist languageandculture. Lithuanian havenot saved inhabitants its if polonized completely been have would Lithuania that and Samogitia from originated revival 19 the in that it; invade to tried that powers foreign To summarize, not counting not summarize, To few exceptions, teachers were incapable to go beyond the beyond go to incapable were teachers exceptions, few 46 th century the first leaders of the national the of leaders first the century understanding of Lithuania as Lithuania of understanding
CEU eTD Collection the Soviet period. It allowed Soviet Lithuanian historians to present Russian Empire as the as Empire Russian present to historians Lithuanian Soviet allowed It period. Soviet the aims. expansionist had and Lithuanians history dominate to sought always national Polish that proof Lithuanian a as served it into however, teaching, period Commonwealth the of inclusion by were strengthened Poles and Lithuanians between relationships antagonistic the Thus sides. two between disagreement the strengthened Poland, into incorporated was which Vilnius, over conflict the schools. national Lithuanian and historiography Lithuanian the in past the for place no and life, political the in elite Lithuanian speaking 20 19 i Thus community. linguistic as exclusively nation Lithuanian and defined polonization the of half second the in started which revival, national building. nation-state Lithuanian and teaching history national Lithuanian between Polish speaking nobility is recognized. What is more the Constitution of 3 May 1791 serves as a as serves 1791 May 3 of Constitution the more is What recognized. is nobility speaking Polish the of role the and positively presented is Commonwealth the addition, In recognized. is history 19 the in only emerged nation Lithuanian that recognized the is it and curricula general, official the in In history particular. in national period Lithuanian Commonwealth of revision the for basis a formed Union and Poland European the to between accession Lithuania’s and system educational the of “Westernisation” Lithuania, relationships improving the state, nation Lithuanian of consolidation The terms. negative in Commonwealth the presented and heroes national the the of of times called re-establishment the After so- the to back turned feudals. authors textbook history and historians 1990s Polish early the in independence the of domination the from saviour th etr hnLtuna ainsaewscetdcreated was nation-state Lithuanian when century The significance of this research is twofold. First, it demonstrates the close relationship close the demonstrates it First, twofold. is research this of significance The The tendency to portray Poland as an eternal enemy also remained during remained also enemy eternal an as Poland portray to tendency The th century and the role of the other ethnic groups in Lithuanian in groups ethnic other the of role the and century Conclusions 47 there was no place left for old Polish old for left place no was there th century, was directed against directed was century, common Polish-Lithuanian common After the First World War World First the After Lithuanian n the early the n
CEU eTD Collection centuries. Second, there is a propensity to portray the Commonwealth as a time of decadence of time a as Commonwealth the portray to propensity a is there Second, centuries. 19 late the originates which narrative the Lithuania, of Duchy Grand the with t First, so. do to willing not are or interpretations latest the with Teachers’ history. national Lithuanian of versions several of mixture a are interpretations teachers’ their terms), positive the in presented Commonwealth the (with history national Lithuanian of version revised the with textbooks the using already are they though Even pupils. to directly transmitted t Thus, interpretations. teachers’ the and curricula official cultural and political the duringthis period. achievements on based pride national the encouraged to the and of nation part Lithuanian integral as elite speaking Polish the perceive the to of allowed revision period The Commonwealth allies. always were and enemy Russian common together fought Poles and Lithuanians that culture, Western the of bearer a was pupilsPoland that taught be should officially Lithuanian contemporary and curricula official the in incorporated be to started past Polish-Lithuanian common the of version revised The ideas. European progressive the of proof differences between teachers’ interpretations show that the nation-state did not succeed in succeed andteaching. thinking of pattern one not create anddid interpretations thehistorical not unifying did nation-state the that show interpretations teachers’ regional the between addition, differences In interpretations. old the of persistence the shows teachers younger the of interpretations the in even visible is period Soviet and interwar the of legacy the that fact, The rule). Soviet the during strengthened was and period interwar the in started tendency (this Second, the results of this research prove that there is a significant gap between the between gap significant a is there that prove research this of results the Second, evaluation of the Commonwealth period illustrates that not all of them are catching up catching are them of all not that illustrates period Commonwealth the of evaluation 48 he official curriculum is not always not is curriculum official he here is a a is here persistent identification persistent th – early 20 early – th
CEU eTD Collection h teto a trbtd t oh te sae atiue o te Polish-Lithuanian the to and events particular attributed of period, the space of evaluation the the and textbooks both the in Commonwealth to attributed was attention The Source: 38 processes. The guideline was prepared relying on Pingel’s relyingonPingel’s prepared was Theguideline 3. 2. 1. Appendix 1: Polish-Lithuanian 1: Appendix Chapter devoted to the Commonwealth period: theCommonwealth devotedto Chapter titles contents:periodisation, of Table pages. of per period:number allotted Space Snyder (2003). Snyder 38 d. c. b. a. e. Commonwealth, 1569 Commonwealth, Cultural sphere: actors, achievements sphere: actors, Cultural outcomes actors, reasons, theCommonwealth: of partitions The outcomes actors, reasons, Lublin: of theUnion of signing The negative,neutral) (positive, characteristics their actors, Main positive/negative/neutral evaluation: General Appendix 3: Textbook analysis guideline 3:analysis Appendix Textbook Guidebook on Research and Textbook Revision Textbook and on Research Guidebook Appendic 49 es Appendix 2: Eastern Europe, 1999 Europe, 2:Appendix Eastern (1999).
CEU eTD Collection 20. 19. 18. 17. 16. 15. 14. 13. 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Nr * P * seudonyms are used. seudonyms Vytautas* Elena* Vacys* Laima* Darius* Rasa* Nijolė* Zita* Gediminas* Vaidas Rima* Irena* Dalia * Vilija Emilija* Juratė* Jūratė* Linas* Virga* Emilija* Interviewee g. f. oih sekn ihain nblt: PlsLtunasnihr Pls nor Poles Lithuanians Poles/Lithuanians/neither nobility: Lithuanian speaking Polish forced/appropriated Polonization: Secondary m Gymnasiu school Secondary school Secondary m Gymnasiu m Gymnasiu m Gymnasiu school Secondary m Gymnasiu school Secondary m Gymnasiu school Secondary school Secondary school Secondary school Secondary School school Secondary school Secondary school Technology m Gymnasiu school** Secondary school
Appendix 4: ListInterviewees of 4: Appendix Plungė Plungė Plungė Vilnius Vilnius district Vilnius Vilnius Kaunas Vilnius Plungė Rietavas Rietavas Kretinga Rietavas district Vilnius Vilnius Vilnius Kaunas Kaunas district Vilnius City
Female Female Male Female Female Gender Male Female Male Female Male Female Female Female Male Male Female Female Female Female Female 50 40 42 50 38 52 Age 47 45 63 39 25 29 45 62 27 47 42 43 43 42 52 early 1990’s early in Graduated 1990’s early in Graduated mid-1980’s in Graduated 1990’s early in Graduated –1978 1973 period Studying 1981 –1986 1981 – 1988 1983 – 1971 1966 – 1995 1989 – 2008 2004 – 2006 2000 –1988 1983 –1975 1969 - 2008 2002 - 1986 1981 - 2000 1996 - 1989 1984 - 1993 1988 - 1988 1983 –1978 1973
1990 working Started 1986 1988 1971 1988 2009 2006 1990 1980 2008 1986 1996 1989 1993 1988 1990 - - - -
VPU VPU) (herewith, University Pedagogic Vilnius VU VU VU) (herewith, University Vilnius of education Institution VPU VPU VPU VPU VPU VPU VPU VPU VU VU VPU VPU VU VPU VU
CEU eTD Collection pensioners from 60 years, men – from 62.5. –from men 60 from years, pensioners 39 The teachers who belong to this age group are pensioners according Lithuanian laws: women are considered are women laws: Lithuanian according pensioners are group age this to belong who teachers The Appendix 6: Socio 6: Appendix Appendix 5: Socio-demographic characteristics of the interviewees (age) interviewees the of characteristics 5:Appendix Socio-demographic 60 6960 – 5950 – 4940 – 3930 – 2920 – Total: group interviews I had Cities, where Age
Appendix 7 Appendix -demographic characteristics of the interviewees (education) of interviewees the characteristics -demographic g group (years) Age interviewees Number of Number
60 – 69 60 50 – 59 50 – 49 40 – 39 30 – 29 20 10 19 Total: 2 2 2 3 : Geographical distribution of the interviewees the of distribution : Geographical 39
before 1990 before
Attended school Men Number of interviewees ofNumber 10 16 2 2 0 2 51 6 1 1 2 0 2
Women before 1990 before 13 university 1 1 8 2 1 Attended 14 2 9 1 0 2 Total 10
19
2 2 2 3 before 1990 before Worked in Worked school 2 4 0 0 8 2
CEU eTD Collection towards different periods. periods. different towards attitudes thestudents’ of perception andtheir anddislikes) (likes historical periods different the T 2: Part any). (if period 1: Part events and processes that happened during this time duringthis happened and processes that events 3: Part national history in context of the world history and his/hers evaluation of the current the of evaluation his/hers and history world teaching. national history in changes the of Lithuanian of context place in the history of perception national teachers’ about learn to me allow questions These • • • • • • Lithuania times. Soviet to independent from thetransition connected to be can they questions; initial good are these background: teacher’s the to refer questions These • • • • • Teachers’ education (high school and university), their teaching experiences duringSoviet experiences their teaching (high anduniversity), school education Teachers’ The perception of the Commonwealth period: their evaluation of the period, of different of theperiod, of evaluation period:their Commonwealth the of perception The think they like/dislike those particular those ones? like/dislike they think you do Why like/dislike? they periods What classes? your in most students interest What Why? a whilebeing teacher)? student, a were you (while likemost periodsyou did Which attention? enough too much/not get sometheperiods of that dothink, you How empire, 1 Russian Commonwealth, Lithuanian Polish- Duchy, (Grand questions? history exam the and Lithuanian curricula history of the time periods over changed different to given attention the of amount the did How changes?Positive/neutral/negative? these find to you How questions? history world and history Lithuanian exam the and curricula history to the in period Independence the during time given over changed attention the of amount the did How overcareer? your changed teaching requirements has How havetaught? you places are the What start you teaching? did When or teachers, did andwhen? you graduated University Which particular matter, subject (The teaching? history else) something to you drew What age? is your What he general attitudes of the history teachers towards national history, their evaluation of evaluation their national history, teachers towards thehistory of attitudes general he Appendix 8: Interview guideline 8: Appendix 52 st Independence etc.). Independence
CEU eTD Collection I state that I am particularly interested in the in the interested am particularly I state that I Gymnastics Gymnastics craft Needlework/work psalms Songs, calligraphy and Graphics Arithmetics historyand Geography studies Nature studies Country studies Homeland tongueMother Religion Disciplines and his/hers evaluation of it. of evaluation and his/hers period Commonwealth the of perception teachers’ about learn to me allow questions These • • • • • • • • • • • Appendix Why do you think it is celebrated in Poland? is celebrated dothinkit you Why in Lithuania? be commemorated worth this to day Is curricula? May nowadays in 3 Constitutionof to the importancegiven enough Is 3 of May? theConstitution theclass in whilepresenting doemphasize you What main the were what and Union this encouraged theCommonwealth? of thefailure of reasons which reasons, main the are What events? these importanceof the wouldevaluate you How Lithuanian history? to Commonwealth the of partitions three the and (1791) 3 May of Constitution the (1569), Lublin of Union the as events such class the in presenting while emphasize you do What curricula? theschool in attention enough this get period Does this of period? achievements thecultural doevaluate you How this period? whileteaching doemphasize you What this of to period Lithuania? is theimportance What
9: The number of the classes attributed to the different disciplines in disciplines different the to attributed classes the of 9: number The Lithuanian and non-Lithuanian primary schools Lithuanian andnon-Lithuanianprimary - 2 4 6 - - - - 10 2 Lit. 1 st grade Lit. Non- - 10 2 2 4 6 - Polish-Lithuanian CommonwealthPolish-Lithuanian 53 2 2 4 6 - - - 5 9 2 Lit. 2 During the breaks During the nd grade Lit. Non- 2 2 3 4 - 4 7 2 Lit. 2 2 4 6 - 4 4 - 6 2 3 rd grade Lit. Non- 2 2 4 4 - 3 4 - 6 2 period. it. L 2 2 4 6 4 3 3 - 4 2 4 th Lit. Non- grade 2 2 4 4 3 3 - 4 2 4
CEU eTD Collection Source: Stašaitis ( Stašaitis Source: sciences Nature andgeography History studies Homeland Disciplines Šetkus (2000:Source: language Lithuanian Source: Stašaitis ( Stašaitis Source: (countryside) sciences Nature (city) sciences Nature Geography History studies Homeland Total: Appendix Appendix Disciplines 10: The number of the classes attributed to the different disciplines in disciplines different the to attributed classes the of number The 10: 11: The number of the classes attributed to the different disciplines in disciplines different the to attributed classes the number The of 11: 2004:62). 2004:63). Lithuanian and non-Lithuanian primary schools (1935) primaryschools andnon-Lithuanian Lithuanian (1925) primaryschools andnon-Lithuanian Lithuanian 25). - - - - - de gra 1 grade 1 st st
- - - - 24 - - - - - de gra 2 nd Lithuanian schoolsLithuanian Lithuanian schoolsLithuanian
grade 2 nd
3 3 - - 4 de gra 3 - - - rd
The number of classes duringtheweek classes of number The The number of classes during the week classesduringthe of number The 24 3 3 2 3 - de gra 4 grade 3 th rd
4 4 - 54 5 3 2 3 - de gra 5 30 th
grade 4 th
4 3 3 5 3 2 3 - de gra 6 th
30 6 - - - - - de gra 1 grade 1 st st
- - - Non-Lithuanian schoolsNon-Lithuanian Non-Lithuanian schoolsNon-Lithuanian - - - - - de gra 2 30 nd
grade 2 nd
3 3 - - 4 de gra 3 - - - rd 33
6 3 3 2 3 - de gra 4 grade 3 th rd
4 4 - 30 5 3 2 3 - de gra 5 th
grade 4 th
4 4 3 5 3 2 3 - de gra 6 34 th 6
CEU eTD Collection Mid-13 Polish-Lithuanian Before statehood Before Grand Duchy ofDuchy Grand Soviet Commonwealth Before the 13 the Before Under RussianUnder Independent 1918 – 1940 1918 – 1918 1795 – 1795 1569 1940-1990 Lithuania Lithuania Empire century Appendix Appendix 1569 th Lithuania century – century th
12: The Periodisation The 12: Reborn independent Lithuania Reborn Increasing power of power Increasing Collapse of Lithuanian-PolishCollapse of Epoch of Vytautas the Great the ofVytautas Epoch Late 13Late Attempts to save Lithuanian save to Attempts Creation of Lithuanian state of CreationLithuanian Lithuania ruled by by ruledaliens Lithuania Late 14 Late The first inhabitants ininhabitants The first Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė Decline Decline of Lithuania Lithuanian Lithuanian territory History of Lithuania of History Mid-13 Independence th 1587 – 1763 1587 – 1586 1440 – late 14– late [1935]1938 1795-1918 1764-1795 1918-1926 th century 1440 – century State State th century th centuries Lithuania of Lithuanian National History inThreeHistory History Lithuanian National of
Textbooks
state 55 The formation ofLithuanian formation The Lithuania ruled by by ruledbourgeois Lithuania Lithuania in Lithuania Russian in Empire October Revolution and the Revolution and October Lithuania – Soviet – Socialist Soviet Lithuania Lithuanian working peopleLithuanian working fighting for a socialistfor state a fighting Lithuania in one state with state Lithuania one in History of Lithuanian Soviet of HistoryLithuanian Mid-13 The first inhabitants ininhabitants The first bunching , and its existence before and existence its , Lithuanian Lithuanian territory Socialist Republic Socialist 1940-1956 1918-1940 1795-1918 1569-1795 th Republic Jurginis century – 1569 century Poland 1957 with Poland with
The Age of of AgeCapitalism The The Age of of AgeFeudalismThe system the insystem territory fighting for a socialistfor a fighting Soviet Socialist Republic Socialist Soviet Primitive communal Primitive October Revolution October History of Lithuanian of History and the Lithuanian and the Min-13 of the Lithuanian ofthe Age of of AgeSocialism working Soviet SocialistSoviet 1940-1961 1917-1940 1863-1918 Republic Republic Žiugžda 1962 1863 state th century – century people
CEU eTD Collection Grand Duchy of Lithuania Duchyof Grand Mid-13 Before mid-13 Before Under Russian EmpireUnder Russian Independent Lithuania Independent Lithuania Independent Appendix Appendix Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Polish-Lithuanian Polish-Lithuanian Before statehood Before Soviet Commonwealth Appendix Appendix 1990-present Grand Duchy of Lithuania Duchyof Grand 1940-1990 1918-1940 1795-1918 1569-1795 th Mid-13 Before the13 Before century –1569 century Lithuania Before statehood Before 14: The 14: 1569 –1795 1569 th th 13: The Periodisation The 13: century century –1569 century
Periodisation of Lithuanian of Periodisation th century The Grand Duchy of Lithuania in Lithuania Duchyof Grand The Pre-historical times (of Lithuania) (of times Pre-historical Creation of the Lithuanian state theLithuanian of Creation The Grand Duchy of Lithuania of GrandThe Duchy Late 13 Late Commonwealth (1569-1795) Commonwealth Lithuania in the20 Lithuania in the19 Lithuania in Early 14Early Native country - LithuaniaNative country history textbook (1993) textbook history the Polish-Lithuanian th of Lithuanian of – early 14 –early Jakimavičius Textbooks Early Middle Ages ( Ages Middle Early Lithuania during the rule of nobility(1572-1795) of duringtherule Lithuania th The Grand Duchy of Lithuania (1430 –1569) (1430 Lithuania Duchyof Grand The century –1569 century 1998 56 Middle Ages (Late 14 Ages Middle th th th centuries century century National History in Two History inTwo National History National History inButrimas’s History National
Late 13 Antiquity
Decades of occupations and occupations of Decades th th (Mid-13 Pre-historical times and times Pre-historical century –1430) century antiquity (of Lithuania) (of antiquity Independent Lithuania Lithuanian state Lithuanian –late14 creation to collapse to collapse creation Loss sovereignty of re-establishment of re-establishment History of Lithuania of History independence (1918-1940) (1795-1918) Brazauskas th century-1795) 2000 th centuries) : from:
CEU eTD Collection Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Polish-Lithuanian Appendix Grand Duchy of Lithuania of Grand Duchy Mid-13 Before mid-13 Before Under Russian EmpireUnder Russian Independent Lithuania Independent Lithuania Independent Before statehood Before Soviet 1990-present
16: The 16: 1940-1990 1918-1940 1795-1918 1569-1795 th century –1569 century Lithuania Appendix Appendix Periodisation of Lithuanian of Periodisation th century 15: Chapters in Litvinaitė’s history textbook (2007) historytextbook inLitvinaitė’s Chapters 15: V: Culture and science in Lithuania andscience Culture V: IV: Everyday life Lithuania in Everyday IV: II: Lithuania andneighborsII: VI: For spirit andbody... spirit For VI: Lithuania, Lithuanians... Lithuania, III: Wo III: Path In between two wars: years of creativity andloss years creativity of twowars: between In rks in Lithuania in rks Kingdom (2008) 57 National History in Laužikas et al. al. inLaužikaset History National The path to theindependence path The When there was no literacy… was there When of Lithuania and the Grand Duchy Lithuania of andthe Mid-13 A periphery of big state A big of periphery Period of occupations of Period Together with Poland with Together 1990-present 1940-1990 1918-1940 1795-1918 1569-1795 th century –1569 century The
CEU eTD Collection Žiugžda, Juozas. 1962. Lietuvos TSR istorija/History of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic. Socialist Soviet Lithuanian the of istorija/History TSR Lietuvos 1962. Juozas. Žiugžda, 2007. Jūratė. Litvinaitė, 2008. al. et Laužikas the of mokykloms/History vidurinėms vadovėlis istorija: TSR Lietuvos 1957. Juozas. Jurginis, 1998. Viktoras. Jakimavičius, mokyklos pradžios šeštam ir penktam vadovėlis: Istorijos 1938. Vanda. Daugirdaitė-Sruogienė, 1993. Adomas. Butrimas, 2000. Juozas. Brazauskas, Balkelis, Tomas. 2009. 2009. Tomas. Balkelis, Evaldas. Bakonis, 1987. Hanna. Schissler, and R. Volker Berghahm, 1991. Benedict. Anderson, 2009. Egidijus. Aleksandravičius, Antanas. Kulakauskas, and Egidijus Aleksandravičius, Egidijus andKulakauskas Aleksandravičius, skyriui/ 18 timescentury. to Lithuania: ancient from on Britain, Germany, and the United States. States. United Germany,the Britain, and on Verso. London: modernios tautos.” leidykla. literatūros pedagoginės Valstybinė Kaunas: Lithuania (5 leidykla.pedagoginė literatūros Valstybinė Kaunas: schools. secondary for textbook Republic: Socialist Soviet Lithuanian Littera. Alma Vilnius: History textbook for the 5th and 6th grades of the primary school. of primary the 6thgrades 5thand the textbookfor History th 1996. “Istorijos mokytojo drama”. drama”. mokytojo “Istorijos 1996. grade). Vilnius: Briedis. grade). Kelias. Lietuvos istorijos vadovėlis (5 klasei)/ The klasei)/ (5 vadovėlis istorijos Lietuvos Kelias. The Making of Modern Lithuania of Making The Lietuvos istorija (5kl.) /Lithuanian (5kl.) istorija Lietuvos Mokykla. Mokykla. Lietuvos istorija (5 kl.) / istorija (5 Lietuvos Lietuvos istorija: Nuo seniausių laikų iki 18 amžiaus pabaigos/ History of History pabaigos/ amžiaus 18 iki laikų seniausių Nuo istorija: Lietuvos Imagined Communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism of spread and origin the on reflections Communities: Imagined Gimtoji šalis Lietuva (5kl.) / Native country - Lithuania (5th grade). (5th Lithuania - country Native / (5kl.) Lietuva šalis Gimtoji Lietuvos tapsmas Lietuvos 3 (4). P. 20. (4).P. 3 Primary sourcesPrimary Reference list Reference , Antanas. Antanas. , Vilnius: Pradai Vilnius: Oxford : Berg. Oxford 58
. History of Lithuania. of History http://www.tvdu.lt/node/14
Perceptions of history : international textbook research textbook international : history of Perceptions . New York: Routledge. New York: . Mokykla, Mokykla, 1996. 1996. history history 92 Leua XX ažue link amžiuje: XIX “Lietuva 1992. Carų valdžioje Carų 7. Pp. 5-8. Pp. 7. (5th grade). (5th Path. Textbook of history of history of Textbook Path. Kaunas: Šviesa. Kaunas: Kaunas: Sakalas. Kaunas: . Vilnius: Baltos lankos. Baltos . Vilnius: Kaunas: Šviesa. Kaunas: . .
CEU eTD Collection Čepaitienė, Rasa. 2003. “Sovietmetis Lietuvos kultūros istorijos šviesoje: projekto bandymas.” projekto šviesoje: istorijos kultūros Lietuvos “Sovietmetis 2003. Rasa. Čepaitienė, 2009. Dalius. Žygelis, and Ričardas Čekutis, —. užmarštys.” Lenkijos ir Lietuvos Konstitucija: dienos 3 “Gegužės 2006. Alfredas. Bumblauskas, 2005. —. “ 2003. Dovile. Budryte, 1996. Rogers. Brubaker, 2007. Ramutė. Bruzgelevičienė, Homi 1990. B. Bhabha, Vytautas. Berenis, Janužytė, Audronė. 2005. 2005. Audronė. Janužytė, In kryptis”. reformos turinio ugdymo “Pagrindinės 1993. al. et Juozas Žibartas Jackūnas, benrųjų pristatant Pasisakymai mokyklai. amžiaus “XXI 1998. al. et Juozas Žibartas Jackūnas, 1992. Terence. Ranger, and Eric Hobsbawm, National of Construction Social the On Mood: and Agency, “Narrative, 2002. Jonathan. Hearn, 1983. Ernest. Gellner, 1996. “Akademinės istorijos ir istorijos didaktikos sankirta”. sankirta”. didaktikos ir istorijos istorijos “Akademinės 1996. Baltic States.” Baltic States.” Press. University Cambridge Vilnius. edukologija. mokslai, Socialiniai Daktaro disertacija, 1922 23. 3- Pp. institutas. Pedagoginkos Vilnius: XXV. klausimai, auklėjimo ir Mokymo Lekevičius, leidinį.” programų Press. University Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: inHistory Scotland.” Menotyra. istorija Lietuvos prievartaujama medžiaga ir minėjimo konferencijos metiniųSąjungą iškilmingo In Limited. Publishing Ashgate 1791 metų gegužės 3 dienos konstitucijos ir trečiųjų Lietuvos ir Lenkijos valstybių įstojimo į Europos į įstojimo valstybių Lenkijos ir Lietuvos trečiųjų ir konstitucijos dienos 3 gegužės metų 1791 . Tampere: University of Tampere. of University . Tampere: Taming nationalism? Political community building in the Post-Soviet Baltic States Baltic Post-Soviet the in building community Political nationalism? Taming 31 ( 2000. 2000. 2). Pp. 74-80. Pp. 2). I n Nations andNations nationalism 3rd EUSTORY Conference 3rd Nation and narration and Nation “Holokaustas ir lietuvių istorinė sąmonė.” istorinė ir lietuvių “Holokaustas Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the national question in the New Europe. New the in question national the and Nationhood Reframed: Nationalism Integration or Exclusion? Historical Memory and State Building in the in Building State and Memory Historical Exclusion? or Integration Dialogas Historians as nation-state builders: The formation of Lithuanian university 1904- university Lithuanian of formation The builders: nation-state as Historians Comparative StudiesSocietyHistory in and Comparative Lietuvos švietimo reforma ugdymo paradigmų kaitos aspektu (1988-1997) aspektu kaitos paradigmų ugdymo reforma švietimo Lietuvos , 4. P. 3. 4. P. , ”. ”. Bernardinai.lt . London: Routledge. London: . Oxford: Blackwell. Oxford: . 59 . Budapest. .
“ asė ržeė. Ki oitei buvo sovietmečiu Kaip kryžkelės. Laisvės . 19 January, 2009.. 19 h neto f taiin tradition. of Invention The
Pp. 1-5 Pp. . Vilnius. 79-99. Pp. . Mokykla . 44 (4). Pp. 745-769. (4).Pp. . 44 Politologija . , 7. Pp. 1-4. Pp. , 7. 3 (19):3 - 24. - 3 (19):3 . Hampshire: . Cambridge .
CEU eTD Collection ušeė el.18.1985. Meilė. Lukšienė, [1998]2000. Meilė. Lukšienė, Chri Koulouri, I “Introduction”. 2002. Christina. Koulouri, Bendrija. Kunigaikštystės Lituana: Res 2009. Darius. Kuolys, 2000. Virgil. Krapauskas, Violeta. Kelertienė, In Critics”. its and Postcolonialism “Baltic 2006. Violeta. Kelertas, 2002. Saulius. Kaubrys, 2007. Mečislovas. Jučas, Račevskis, Kārlis. 2002. “Toward a postcolonial perspective on the Baltic states”. states”. Baltic the on perspective postcolonial a “Toward 2002. Kārlis. Račevskis, Chicago People. American African an of Visions Historical the First-Time: 2002. Richard. Price, Eckert Georg Revision. Textbook and Research on Guidebook UNESCO 1999. Falk. Pingel, 2002. Alvydas. Nikžentaitis, geru mokytoju”. tapti “Kaip 2010. Alvydas. Medalinskas, Robert. Maeir, Historicism 1-9. Pp. Kelertas. Violeta 236. Studies Press. Chicago of University and London: Hahn. Hannover: Textbook Research. International for Institute 138-163. Pp. Books. York: Berghahn New andYasemin Soysal. Hanna Schissler, In Russia”. in Mokslas. Vilnius: konferencijoj Europe. in Southeast andReconciliation Democracy Ballidis & Co. Petros Th. Thessalonki: Koulouri. by C. Education, edited Institutas. Tautosakos , 33(1). Pp. 37-56. Pp. 33(1). , 2005. “Learning about Europe and the World”: Schools, Teachers and Textbooks and Teachers Schools, World”: the and Europe about “Learning 2005. stina. 2001. stina. . New York: Columbia University Press. Press. Columbia University New York: . e. Jungtys. Vilnius: Alma littera. Alma Jungtys.Vilnius: e. 2004. “Postkolonijinis žmogus”. Baltos lankos, 18/19. Pp. 50-72. Pp. 18/19. lankos, Baltos “Postkolonijinisžmogus”. 2004. h ain uoeadteWrd etok n urcl nTasto,Transition, in Curricula and Textbooks World: the and Europe Nation, The National Minorities in Lithuania: in anoutline Minorities National Demokratinė ugdymo mintis Lietuvoje, XVIII a. antroji - XIX a. pirmoji pusė. pirmoji a. XIX - antroji a. XVIII Lietuvoje, mintis ugdymo Demokratinė “Minuotojas klysta tik vieną kartą”. kartą”. vieną tik klysta “Minuotojas Nationalism and Historiography: The case of Nineteenth-Century Lithuanian Nineteenth-Century of case The Historiography: and Nationalism
Teaching the history of Southeastern Europe. Southeastern of history the Teaching Vytauto ir Jogailos įvaizdis Lietuvos ir Lenkijos visuomenėse Lietuvos Lenkijos ir irVytauto įvaizdis Jogailos ūųbadsptirnms patrikrinimas. brandos Mūsų lo i h akn: Te Pltc f History of Politics The Balkans: the in Clio n 60 Lietuvos žiniosLietuvos Pranešimas Lietuvos Švietimo darbuotokų Švietimo Lietuvos Pranešimas Naujasis židinys-aidai Naujasis . Vilnius: Vaga. . Vilnius: Vilnius: Lietuvių Literatūros ir Literatūros Lietuvių Vilnius: Baltic Postcolonialism, Postcolonialism, Baltic
. 3 March,2010. . Thessaloniki : Center for Center : Thessaloniki . Vilnius: Aidai.. Vilnius: , 5 (6). Pp. 226- Pp. (6). 5 , Journal of Baltic of Journal edited by edited by
CEU eTD Collection wdnug e. 20. Mmre f Rvl: 13-99 Rblo n te Plsiin Past. Palestinian the in Rebelion 1936-1939 Revolt: of Memories 2003. Ted. Swedenburg, 2003. Nortautas. Statkus, reinterpretation”. A 1850-1900: Lithuania, in shift “Language 2001. Scott. Spires, 2003. Timoty. Snyder, 2000. D. Anthony Smith, 1990. Alfred Erich. Senn, an Hanna Schissler, 2007. Egidijus. Raila, 2003. Eglė. Rindzevičiūtė, Tan Richardson, — 2004. —. metais. 1918-1940 Lietuvoje mokykla mažumų “Tautinių 2000. —. Benediktas. Šetkus, “Now 2005. Simona. Szakacs, 2004. Stanislovas. Stašaitis, . 2008 . Curricula in Transition in Curricula national identity”, Verlag. LIT Münster: Haukanes. Kaneff,andH. D. F. Pine, edited by Families." and Schools in mokyklų mokslo darbai mokslo mokyklų 61:65-68 Research Papers Universities' 2000. universitetas, Budapest. University, European Central Anthropology, Social and Sociology study”, comparative A Textbooks. University The Fayetteville: Studies 1999) England. New of Press University Hanover:
“ Gyvenamosios vietovės istorijos mokymas penktoje klasėje penktoje mokymas istorijos vietovės Gyvenamosios . New Haven [Conn.]: Yale University Press. University [Conn.]:Yale New Haven . “ , 32 (1). Pp. 44-61. Pp. 32 (1). , soia bnrj aiio mkkoe” Hsoy olcin o Lithuanian of Collection A History. mokyklose.” lavinimo bendrojo Istorija ya. 2004. "Disciplining the Past in Post-Soviet Lithuania: Memory and History and Memory Lithuania: Post-Soviet in Past the "Disciplining 2004. ya. 1996. “Koks turėtų būti istorijos vadovėlis?” vadovėlis?” būti istorijos “Koks turėtų 1996. aei osl 05 2005. Soysal. Yasemin d Apie 1791 Gegužės 3-iosios Konstituciją Gegužės 1791 Apie The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, (1569 - (1569 Belarus, Lithuania, Ukraine, Poland, Nations: of Reconstruction The Journal of Baltic Studies Baltic of Journal Etniškumas irEtniškumas Nacionalizmas Lithuania AwakeningLithuania . New York: Berghahn Books. York: Berghahn . New , 69. 53-60. Pp. , The Nation in History: Historical Debates about Ethnicity and Nationalism and Ethnicity about Debates Historical History: in Nation The Istorija Lietuvos mokykloje Istorija “Nation and Europe: Re-approaching the debates about Lithuanian about debates the Re-approaching Europe: and “Nation and then: National Identity Construction in Romanian History Romanian in Construction Identity National then: and I n n of Arkansas Press. Arkansas of Memory, Politics and Religion: The Past Meets the Present in Europe in Present the Meets Past The Religion: and Politics Memory, . . 34 (1). Pp. 74-91. Pp. 34 (1). . . Berkley, California: University of California of Press. University California: . Berkley, 61 The Nation, Europe and the World: Textbooks and Textbooks World: the and Europe Nation, The . Vilnius: VPU Istorijos didaktikos katedra. Istorijos didaktikos VPU . Vilnius: . Vilnius: Vilniaus Universiteto Leidykla. VilniausUniversiteto . Vilnius: . Vilnius: Aidai.. Vilnius: Mokykla, ” Diss., Vilniaus pedagoginis Vilniaus Diss., ”. ”. Istorija. Lietuvos aukštųjų Lietuvos Istorija. 7. Pp. 12-16. Pp. 7.
Pp. 109 109 Pp. Journal of Baltic of Journal – 132 . . ,
CEU eTD Collection Valantiejus, Algis. 2002. “ 2002. Algis. Valantiejus, “ 2008. Petras. Vaitiekūnas, 2002. Saliamonas. Vaintraubas, 2004. Maria. Todorova, ir “Jaunimas istorija.” 1997. —. sąmonę.” istorinę moksleivių “Apie 1996. —. —. “ 2003. Irena. Šutinienė, Švietimo mokyklą?”. palikti ar amžius: pensinis “Mokytojų 2008. ministerija. mokslo ir Švietimo Wolf, Eric R. [1982]1990. [1982]1990. R. Eric Wolf, beyond: and nationalism “Methodological 2002. Nina. Glick, Schiller, and Andreas Wimmer, 1974. Immanuel. Wallerstein, konfli Lenkijos ir “Lietuvos 2004. —. — Vyšniauskas . 2002. “Rusijos įvaizdis lietuviškuose istorijos vadovėliuose.” istorijos vadovėliuose.” lietuviškuose įvaizdis “Rusijos 2002. . 1994. “Apie istoriją ir istorijos pamokas.” istorijos pamokas.” ir istoriją “Apie 1994. 203 leidykla. universiteto pedagoginio Vilniaus Vilnius: Mačiukas. Ž. and Senkus, V. Norvegija”. Lietuva, Latvija, analizė,3.1-8. Pp. problemos Press. 304. sciences.” social the and migration building, nation-state Century in sixteenth the European World-Economy analyzė.” Aidai Shifting of Boundaries.” an Enviroment http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/pvaitiekunas-geguzes-3- iosios-konstitucijos-principai-gyvuoja-ir-siandien.d?id=18947340 2008. October, 10 bendruomenė. Press. . , 6. Pp, 6. 319-324. , Arūnas. 2000. Arūnas. , Istorija. Lietuvos aukštųjų mokyklų mokslo darbai mokslo mokyklų aukštųjų Lietuvos Istorija. Jaunimo regioninio identito konstravimo ypatumai lyginamuoju aspekt lyginamuoju ypatumai konstravimo identito regioninio Jaunimo Balkan Identities: Nation and Memory and Nation Identities: Balkan Early Lithuanian Nationalism: Sources of Its Legitimate Meanings in Meanings Legitimate Its of Sources Nationalism: Lithuanian Early Europe and the people without history without people the and Europe
Gegužės 3-iosios Konstitucijos principai gyvuoja ir šiandien. ir gyvuoja principai Konstitucijos 3-iosios Gegužės “ Istorijos egzaminas: lenkai pasielgė išmintingiau pasielgė lenkai egzaminas: Istorijos The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the of Origins the and Agriculture Capitalist World-System: Modern The Mokykla, uluk ia, agmna, polemika argumentai, mitai, Subliuškę
I n Lietuvos lokalinių tyrimų padėtis, edited by A. Ragauskas, A. by edited padėtis, tyrimų lokalinių Lietuvos n ktas dėl Vilniaus: tarybinio laikotarpio istorijos vadovėlių istorijos laikotarpio tarybinio Vilniaus: dėl ktas 7. Pp. 17 - 20. 17 Pp. - 7. Mokykla, Mokykla Nations and Nationalism and Nations 62 . New York: Academic Press. York: Academic . New , 7. Pp. 9 - 12. 7.9 - Pp. , 8. P. 28. P. 8. , 62. Pp. Pp. , 62. . . . Berkeley: University of California of University Berkeley: . New York : New York University York New : York New Politologija, Global Networks Global 82-89. , 8 inu: Leuo žydų Lietuvos Vilnius: . . Pp. Pp. . 2. Pp. 1-26. Pp. 2. 315 - 333.315 ” . . . 4 (2). Pp. 303- Pp. (2). 4 . Naujasis židinys- Naujasis
Pp. 193 193 Pp. ” ” Delfi. u: –