Show, Remind remember

"Firstly we would like to thank all our informants for their interesting stories and insights in the Latvian society. In the field we met very different people with overlapping as well contrasting opinions: From Latvian college students to museum coordinators, and from the Latvian minister of culture to a Russian politician. Precisely these perspectives helped us as anthropologists to give our most accurate answer to our research question: What influence does Russia and the Russian minority have on the Latvian national identity according to the Latvian citizens? . In this summary we will give a concise overview of our findings during our three months stay in Latvia, for our informants to read and maybe even reflect on. To portray the influence of Russia and Russian minorities on the Latvian national identity we first discussed the Latvian national identity and the position of Russians within Latvian society. We quickly learned Latvian national identity is related to the cultural customs of folk singing and dancing. Latvian symbols, relating to Latvia s pre-occupation times are associated with the Latvian national identity as well. The value of these identity constructions however are related to the historical past of Soviet oppression. Singing and dancing for example were used to un-violently demonstrate against the occupation, which is also apparent in many of the songs lyrics. Besides that, Latvian identity had to be reconstructed and carried out nationally after the independence in 1991 , since expressing Latvian culture (like the Latvian flag and symbols) was strictly forbidden during most of the Soviet times. From this moment on Latvian national identity has been in the making, while all the Russian memories had and have to be removed from public places. This de-russification process is also visible while looking at the position of ethnic Russians in the Latvian society. The Russian language has an inferior position in Latvian society and is even forbidden in some contexts. In some museums about for example Latvian history, a Russian translation of information is not present. Additionally the media has two major target audiences: one media outlet for the Russians and one for the Latvians. According to most informants the information given was often of a different as well as contrasting kind. We believe language and media play a role in constructing a noticeable line between self (the Latvians) and other (the Russian minority). In short the construction of the Latvian national identity, language and media all have some sort of de-russification on their agenda, which differentiates the two ethnic groups even more. Secondly we observed the Latvian collective memory and spaces of representation in Latvian society. As for the Latvian national identity, the collective memory of Latvians is as well intertwined with the Soviet occupation. The struggle already starts in the interpretation of history, since most Russians see the the Soviet-times in Latvia not as occupation, while Latvians do. Analysing the KGB Museum illustrates these different perspectives. Some Russians go to this museum and get angry because according to them, history is told incorrectly, while Latvians want to remember what according to them truly happened. The spaces of representation in Latvia also carry this heavy historical past. Even though some people think the Latvian national library is just big to show the rest of the world the Latvian economic progression, other vow for it to be a place of military action against the neighbouring country, Russia. In the conclusion of this thesis we stated that Latvian society is in almost all aspects influenced by the Soviet past. Latvia s agenda of de-russification however makes it hard for Russians and Latvians to live peacefully together. Collective memory also indirectly strengthens the separation between self and other. We believe collective memory could be used as a start of bringing the nation together. A more open-minded collective memory (through museums, education and spaces of representation) which includes both the Latvian and Russian perspective could mediate the differences. We understand however, that there are more factors playing a role and that the recent annexation of the Krimm invigorates the Latvian anxiety for Russia and Russians in Latvia. For that reason we ended this research with a recommendation of more and longer (anthropological) research in Latvia, that for example also analyses the Russian perspective on their position in society, Latvian national identity, collective memory and spaces of representation.