Priorities of Estonian History (0)

01.12.14
The Priorities of Estonian Historical Research
As a result of multiple nations having ruled over Estonian lands, Estonian history has been written from multiple perspectives . Often, religion , politics, and personal motives have fashioned history into what its authors wanted it to be. People have written from a multiplicity of perspectives. It should be one Estonian historical research’s greatest priorities to distance itself from this, to seek after holistic, balanced accounts of the past.
Early chronicles of Estonian history illustrate this diversity of perspective. Johann Renner, a Baltic German , held his own people in high esteem , deeming them the people of God. He implied this when he wrote that God would save His people from the hand of Gog. He seems to indicate that Gog was the Muscovite people. Perhaps the Muscovite people truly were vicious towards Baltic peoples, but perhaps not. Whatever the case , his biases colored his writing, likely distorting the truth as to how things actually were and how events actually happened .1 The same can be said of chronicles written by German B. Russow , who praised Swedish rule , and D. Fabricius, a Catholic Pole who favored Polish rule and rendered a Polish perspective of history.
Russian history during the imperial period also shows such an ideological influence . Juri Fiodorovitsch Samanarin, for example, strove to explain to the Russians its mission and identity as the ruling people, not merely a minority, and to show to the native peoples that they were second rate citizens. Jefgraf Vassilievitsch Tscheshikhin also displayed such partiality when he wrote, “ There can be no place in Russia . . . for any patriotism other than Russian patriotism .”2 Their and other histories raised the place of Russians to that of victor and liberator, contrary to the truth that this was not always the case . This rewriting of history occurred again during the Soviet period, when de facto control of Estonia was in Russia ’s hands.
When Estonia became an independent nation in 1918 (1920 from the perspective of some people, such as Russians), and again in 1990 (1993 from the perspective of some people, such as Russians), Estonians had the opportunity to tell the story from their own perspective. Words such as “ pärisorjus ” (lit. true slavery) have entered Estonian historiography to describe the subjected state in which Estonians existed prior to the Revolution . Germans and Russians (at least in particular time periods) on the other hand would have chosen terms such as “serfdom,” “a fair economic system which benefits the strong and yet provides means of living for those are not as capable.” Perhaps serfdom truly was slavery, but what is the difference between the terms “serfdom” and “pärisorjus”? How should we view those German and Russian histories that look condescendingly on Estonians now that they have learned to read and run a nation, which some thought they could not do?
It is apparent that partiality has leaked into much historical writing over the centuries . Does that nullify the histories? Siobhan Kattago has advocated for pluralism in politics and historical interpretation. She wrote that mankind must recognize, tolerate, and even respect different understandings of history. We must find points of common interest, yet respect cultural differences . She suggested that it is possible for two or more right versions of history, multiple truths, to exist side by side, at least to the point that we can recognize them as valid viewpoints.3
In my opinion, attaining this evenhanded analysis of the past is one of the main priorities of Estonian historical research. Historians must take a balanced look at all the sources , considering others ’ points of view. Indeed, this is essential to historiography in general, that historians remove themselves from their own passions and narrow outlooks to see things the way his or her subjects saw them, consider what biases he or she was subject to, what his or her motivations and aims were.
In Estonian historiography, for example, records refer to Soviet control over Estonia as either “liberation” or occupation .” As historians, it is our imperative duty to consider both sides , and in our writing to refer to this Soviet control as just that, Soviet control. Such a term lacks negative or positive connotations. In fact, it lacks connotations entirely. Another way historians might address this issue would be to say or write something like, “In 1940, the Soviet Union took control of Estonian territory. Many Estonians and others viewed and view this event as illegal occupation, while many Russians and others viewed and view this event as an act of protecting, liberating, and rightfully claiming what is theirs.” Such treatment should strive for neutrality, impartiality, and objectivity. It should strive for the truth as accurately as possible, despite some arguments that truth is relative.
While depicting history completely correctly may be impossible, as innumerable moments , thoughts, and events make up history, there is still such a thing as being closer to the truth. Some history may be more false than others. The historian should judge this based on other evidence , explaining his or her reasoning for making this or that conclusion.
Estonian history, then, is in need of greater inclusion. Taking a look at Toivo Raun’s Estonia and the Estonians or Seppo Zetterberg’s Eesti Ajalugu, it is apparent that the authors leaned more towards using Estonian, German, Finnish , and English language sources, likely the sources with which they were more familiar or to which they had easier access . What about Russian language sources? If an author wrote about a subject, should not general historical works and historiography should include the author’s writings?
One of the challenges which confronts historians is a lack of access to sources, whether it be due to poor language skills or inaccessible archives. In order to read primary and secondary sources, Estonian historians must be adept in such languages as German, Russian, English. Some areas of research may even require Võro, Swedish, Polish, Latvian, Yiddish, Finnish, and more. Many sources pertaining to Estonian history are located in Latvia, Russia, Finland, Sweden , the U.S., and others. Even at the Estonian Historical Archive , where researchers have full access to the sources, only about 5 percent of the archive’s sources have been utilized in historical treatises, perhaps simply because there are so many and in multiple languages. How can historians write holistically with such a dizzying array of sources to consider? This can be overcome by learning languages; translating sources into a common language; making sources available online, in microfilm, or through interlibrary loan; opening archives; creating joint catalogs such as WorldCat and Jstor; and more. In a world where Skype enables immediate access to persons around the world, source accessibility should not be a problem. It is a problem we need to overcome in order to write unprejudiced histories.
Thus, one of the greatest priorities of Estonian historical research is, as Kattago wrote, pluralism, a respect for all historical sources pertaining to a particular subject. Throughout the centuries, historians and other authors have written with motives towards self or national aggrandizement. This should no longer be so. We should record history as a whole , not just a piece or two of a puzzle . We should take into account all the major points-of-view and strive for neutrality and equitability.
1 Johann Renner, “ Liivimaa ajalugu 1556 -1561” (Tallinn: Olion, 2006), 2-13.
2 Tiit Rosenberg, Vene balti ajaloo historiograafia XIX sajandi II poolel ja XX sajandi algul,” 1-2.
3 Siobhan Kattago, “Memory, Pluralism and the Agony of Politics,” Journal of Baltic Studies , vol. 41, no. 3 (2010).