Taming Nationalism? Political Community Building in the Post-Soviet Baltic States

Ethnopolitics in Central and Eastern Europe in a State of Flux

“…Hungary vis-àvis the ethnic Hungarian minorities in Romania, Slovakia and Serbia), (Auer, 2000;Szabo, 1994). This saw the gradual emergence of a quadratic nexus that consisted of: ethnic minorities; their external homelands (or kin states); the (frequently) nationalizing states where the minorities are based; and, later, the EU's soft power diplomacy as a fourth (both regulatory and normative) pillar (Brubaker, 1995;Bruszt & Stark, 2003;Budryte, 2005;Haughton, 2007;Pettai, 2006;Smith, 2002Smith, , 2003.…”

Decolonization of Trauma and Memory Politics: Insights from Eastern Europe

“…These Stalinist deportations from Estonia and Latvia to Siberia and immigration of Russian-speakers from other parts of the Soviet Union to Estonia and Latvia were described as unlawful practices by an occupying power, the colonizer. "Decolonization" implied that the creation of an ethnic democracy where the restoration of citizenship only to those who lived in Latvia and Estonia prior to the occupation by the Soviet Union and their descendants (mostly ethnic Balts) was portrayed as legitimate ( [34], p. 70). Due to the pressure from the European Union and other international organizations, the two Baltic states made their citizenship laws more inclusive and consistent with the relevant international norms; however, the use of discourse about traumas associated with colonialism was a powerful tool in the hands of ethnic entrepreneurs in the beginning stages of democratization, deepening the lines of ethnic divisions.…”

“…We will also find them engaged and concerned with maintaining and promoting active and visible social and political attention on their enterprise" ( [36], pp. [33][34]. Ene Kõresaar's work analyzes the life and work of one such memory entrepreneur.…”

As the Witnesses Fall Silent: 21st Century Holocaust Education in Curriculum, Policy and Practice

“…Dovilė Budrytė ( 2005 ) suggests that many local populations accepted European pressure to engage in Holocaust education because it was necessary for EU and NATO accession; thus, their "acceptance" of these policies did not signifi cantly infl uence the way they viewed the Holocaust. Lithuanians generally countenanced the policies on Holocaust education to achieve political ends, but few actually internalised the Holocaust as a nationally relevant event.…”