Case study: Exploring key ethnic groups in Poland and the impact of historical memories on current lives and times
Hranush Kharatyan is a Scientific Researcher at the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, in the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia. In the summer of 2019 she spent three months in Poland, based at the International Center for Dialogue, an NGO in Kransnogruda village, near the town of Sejny in the region of Podlyansk Voyevodstvo. Here, she discusses some of her observations and research findings on the ethnic history of the region, and its ongoing impact on relationships in an ethnically diverse population.
The International Centre of Dialogue, in the Krasnogruda manor house
My time at the International Center for Dialogue was both fruitful and enjoyable. Myself and my colleagues (also from the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia) were provided with everything we needed - both personally and professionally - for which I’m sincerely grateful. There were many opportunities to engage in a wide range of research activities, including desk research in the excellent on-site library; visits to various other NGOs and universities to meet and interview local researchers; and observation of, and participation in, multiple events, consultations, discussions, presentations, performances and exhibitions. I was also able to share my own work, including at a lecture I delivered on the Republic of Armenia as an entirely bordered country, and with 80 percent of its borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan closed for more than 20 years. As a result, the country’s only ground link to the outside world is through the Republic of Georgia from the North and the Islamic Republic of Iran from the South. Given that under the Soviets, all communication borders with the outside world were closed for the republics, the net result is that the border with Turkey has been closed for more than a hundred years.
We also had the opportunity to spend time with colleagues on the DisTerrMem project from other countries and institutions, whose visits to Poland overlapped with our own. I enjoyed many discussions with David Clarke from the UK’s University of Bath, as well as being able to read a number of his and his colleagues’ articles. In June, David, my colleague Ruzanna Tsaturyan and I took a three-day trip to Kaunas and Vilnius in Lithuania to learn about Lithuanian interpretations of the discussions, conversations and perceptions prevailing in Sejny.
The International Centre for Dialogue
The International Centre for Dialogue is run by Fundacja Pogranicze (Borderland Foundation), one of the DisTerrMem project’s six partner organisations. Founded in 1990 and based in Sejny, Borderland is an independent, non-governmental organisation that seeks to develop and share new forms of cultural, educational and artistic practice to promote the co-existence of people living with strong cultural, ethnic, generational, ideological and other types of diversity. The Foundation also runs The Borderland Cultures Documentation Centre in Sejny. Research activity explores themes of social engagement in art, education in multicultural contexts, and social and cultural transformations in Central Europe in the twentieth century.
Sejny’s ethically diverse population can be traced back to the Russian Empire
In the late nineteenth century, during Russian rule in Poland, Russia introduced favorable customs and conditions in Poland’s Suwalki region (in Polish, Suwałki, in Lithuanian Suvalkai, in German Suwalken). This was probably the reason for the migration of Russian Jews to Suwalki, including to the town of Sejny in the 1880s.
According to 1899 data, the Suwalki Gubernia (a ‘Gubernia’ was an administrative subdivision of the Russian Empire) had a population of 738,362, of which 389,424 were local Lithuanians, 159,497 Poles (mostly from the Masurian sub-group), 118,712 Jews, 39,107 Germans and 31,026 Russians. This ethnic mosaic of Suwalki was also reflected in Sejny itself.
The Polish–Lithuanian War
Sejny during the Polish-Lithuanian war
In 1918-1920, in the aftermath of World War I and following the Bolshevik revolution and the collapse of the Russian Empire, Poland and Lithuania - now newly independent - engaged in armed conflict. The Polish–Lithuanian War primarily concerned territorial control of the Vilnius Region, including Vilnius itself, and the Suwałki Region, including the towns of Suwałki, Augustów, and Sejny. There are major differences in Polish and Lithuanian historiography regarding treatment of the war, and the town of Sejny, which is 12-15 km from the current border with Lithuania (Poles call the town Sejny, Lithuanians Seinai), became a particular centre of conflict. There were serious battles for the town in the 1920s and it was taken over some 11 times by one or the other side. This is regarded as one of the most painful chapters in Polish-Lithuanian memory; the events of this period are considered a part of the traumatic memory of both Poles and Lithuanians.
Post-World War II
In 1939, when Poland was divided between the USSR and Germany, Suwalki mostly went to Germany (until 1944). During the War and the Holocaust the town of Sejny was emptied of its main ethnic group; Jewish people had constituted at least 60 percent of its population, and today the synagogue of Sejny remains as a monument to Jewish presence in the past.
The town and its surrounding villages were also emptied of Lithuanians and Russians. In 1940-42, in the USSR-controlled section, Soviet authorities started deportation of Poles, Lithuanians, Belarussians and Russian Old Believers to the USSR.
In Socialist Poland it was forbidden to talk about these events of the recent past. In fact, the whole issue of ‘allowed’ versus ‘not allowed’ topics of memory were selected and managed. The Polish-Lithuanian conflict and the USSR deportations were ‘not allowed’ to be remembered, while the Jews taken by Germans could be ‘partially remembered’.
Suvalski Voyevodstvo
In 1975, a separate administrative unit, Suvalski Voyevodstvo, was created (in Polish województwo suwalskie) in Socialist Poland, which included Sejny. It existed until the 1998 administrative reforms, when most of the Suvalski Voyevodstvo was transferred to Podlyansk Voyevodstvo and the remaining smaller part went to Varminsko-Mazursk Voyevodstvo. At the time of its dissolution in 1998, Suvalski Voyevodstvo had a territory of 10,490 km² with a population of 489,200. In the colloquial language of Sejny and its surroundings, people still refer to Suwalki as the place they belong to. The area is still scarcely populated and very wooded.
Poland’s current Lithuanian population
Very few Lithuanians remain in Poland as a whole. Those present live predominantly in 23 settlements of the Suwalki and Dzukia regions, but are mostly concentrated in Sejny, Krasnogruda, Ogrodniki, Krasnovo, and Lumbe. Apart from the town of Sejny, all of these are small villages where Lithuanians are mixed with Poles. According to 2002 Census data, the total number of Lithuanians in Poland was then 5,846. According to the same Census, 21.2 % of Sejny’s population was ethnically Lithuanian, of which 75.5% from the Punsk community, 18.52% from Sejny’s rural community, 7.8% Sejny’s urban community, etc. There are schools teaching Lithuanian in Punsk and Sejny. However, the issue of organizing teaching in Lithuanian in schools is a topic of serious discussion between Poland and Lithuania, including the issue of textbooks (the textbooks of which country should be used?), the content of teaching, etc. The same issue also exists for people with Polish identity in Lithuania.
According to Poland’s later 2011 Census, the number of Lithuanians in Poland had apparently grown to nearly eight thousand (specifically 7,863). However this larger number was probably the result of a re-evaluation of stated identity. The 2011 Census gave people a new opportunity for expressing their ethnic identity: they had an option to choose a second identity. Of the total 7,863 Lithuanians in Poland, 2,264 indicated Polish identity as a second choice, while 4,830 did not indicate any second identity. Some also indicated Polish ethnic identity as their first choice and Lithuanian as a second identity.
Sejny’s Catholic basilica
Looking specifically at Sejny, Census data (from 2004) numbers the entire population of Sejny town at 4,111 people, while according to the local population the number is nearer 6,000. The official Census suggests that only 7.8% of this number is Lithuanian (i.e. around 500 people). However, during my conversations with the people residing in Sejny and neighboring villages, it became clear that in their view, one-third of Sejny’s population is Lithuanian (i.e. around 2,000 people). Perhaps this is partially due to the existing active conversation on the ‘Lithuanian’ topic in Sejny, including Lithuanian culture, schools and education in Lithuanian, the presence of Lithuanian music, etc. In addition there is a Lithuanian Consulate and a Lithuanian House of Culture in Sejny, tasked with the organization of Lithuanian socio-cultural life. In general, Sejny is perceived as a center of Lithuanian culture and ‘the Lithuanian topic’. The main monument of Sejny is an 18th century Catholic basilica.
The Lithuanian poet, linguist, and Catholic theologian Antanas Baranauskas is buried next to the church (1835-1902). Baranauskas was Sejny’s Bishop in 1897 – 1902. He died and was buried in Sejny. Many Lithuanian tourists visit the Church and Baranauskas’s monument.
Managing memories in modern Sejny
Modern Sejny is a wonderful small town, with a relatively slow pace of life and a rich ‘memory landscape’. The conflicts of the twentieth century are still very much active in that memory landscape: the consequences of Polish-Lithuanian inter-ethnic conflict at the end of the First World War, anti-Jewish and anti-Polish actions at the beginning of the Second World War, and various other migrations are all still an active part of the social and collective memory of the local population.
Following the defeat of the Communist regime in Poland, the memories that had been silenced by the Communists could then become ‘active’ – and potentially actively conflicting. Most of the work carried out by the International Center for Dialogue is therefore aimed at preventing this memory from becoming an actively conflicting one. Through different events, the organization seeks to minimize or neutralize potential pro-conflict moods resulting from negative memories among the north-eastern borderline population of Poland.
One could speak for hours about the many excellent projects that are being constantly implemented to ensure the active provision of information on Lithuanian culture and the Jewish past. The Center offers many insights into the former Jewish population, through various exhibitions, performances, concerts and other events, many of which take place at Sejny’s synagogue. The Center equally organizes and hosts a wide range of events on Lithuanian culture, such as literature readings, concerts and exhibitions. Thus, neither the ‘history’ of Jews, nor the deportation of Lithuanians, Belarussians and Old Believers are a part of the ‘traumatic’ memory of the local Polish population, as a result of being included in the Center’s tolerance building projects and programmes.
It seems clear that the Center’s work is supported by Sejny’s local official policy. This policy serves to ‘counterbalance’ Lithuania’s passive protection policy towards its own large Polish community. At the same time it is used to ‘numb’ the social memory of Suwalki as their homeland among those originating from Suwalki and now living in Lithuania as Lithuanians. I visited the open-air ethnographic museum in Kaunas, Lithuania, where the regional cultural groups of Dzukia and Suwalki (the latter being currently part of Poland) are presented separately.
It is hard to quantify what the ultimate outcomes of the International Center for Dialogue’s projects will be. Both in Poland and Lithuania there is an ongoing strengthening of Polish and Lithuanian identities respectively, as well as a revision of common Polish-Lithuanian (sometimes contradictory) history. On the surface, it seems that there are no conflicting moods as yet, but my impression is that there is equally little confidence in its absence.
A visit to Krakow and some thoughts on Silesia and the ‘Silesian minority’
It seems to me that ‘Lithuanian anxiety’ in Poland is potentially less of a concern than ‘Silesian anxiety’. Silesia is a historical region of Central Europe that is now mostly in Poland, with small parts in the Czech Republic and in Germany. I became more familiar with this region and its issues during a visit to Krakow, notably through a number of NGOs dealing with ethnic minorities, and via researchers at Jagiellonian University. Many are familiar with the history of Silesian identity, disputed for centuries in Central Europe. In 1919 Upper Silesia (Śląsk in Polish, Slezsko in Czech, Schlesien in German, and Schläsing in Silesian German) went to the newly reformed Poland, while Lower Silesia remained within Germany.
Silesia in modern Poland
At the end of the Second World War, when part of the Silesian territory was given to Poland, there was already an accumulated hatred towards Silesians in Poland. It was well known that a proportion of Polish Silesians sympathised with Germany and felt a partial German identity, and also collaborated with Wehrmacht (the unified armed forces of Nazi Germany); moreover, the infamous Auschwitz concentration camp was located there. In 1944 the population of Silesia, especially the central city Breslau (currently Wroclaw), actively resisted Soviet troops in the city.
At the same time, there was no shortage of hatred towards Poles by the German Silesians. The years between 1945 and the 1950s were very difficult ones for both Germans and Silesians in Poland. One might even say that they were ‘surrendered’ to Polish revenge. Many died, many were deprived of property and many were expelled, mostly to Germany. Their property was handed over to Poles, and today the majority of the population in the Polish part of Silesia is Polish. In general, this was part of the Second World War process, during which Eastern European countries were seeking to expel national minorities from their territories. However, a number of Silesians did remain in Polish Silesia.
Of course, in Communist Poland the German-Silesian population remaining in Silesia was silent and obedient. They did not voice identity claims and lived in comparatively difficult conditions of psychological and economic ‘alienation’. In Post-Communist Poland too, Silesians were not seeking out attention. However, more recently they have started to liven up, voicing their identity.
Professor Maria Szmeja
Professor Maria Szmeja from Krakow’s Jagiellonian University is the main scholar in Polish academia writing about Polish Silesians. According to her fieldwork, the language used by the Silesians can be considered a Polish dialect with a sizable German/Swabian influence. She reports that these are the only people speaking this language, which has become a key part of their unique identity and self-perception. After Poland’s ratification of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages of the Council of Europe, the Silesians proposed that their language be officially recognized not as a dialect but as a language in its own right, so that it would be protected under the Charter. According to the Charter, Poland protects languages that have been used on its territory for more than a hundred years. In those parts of the country where the speakers of a regional or minority language constitute 20% or more, these languages can be used equally with Polish, i.e. in administration (written and oral communication), local place names, etc. However, since Silesian is not yet officially recognized as a language, Silesians cannot benefit from this opportunity. At the same time, some Silesian activists regularly speak up and demand to recognize their language as German and to revive the teaching of German.
Based on my conversations with several professors at Krakow University, it would seem that Silesians remember their German past with some longing. Scholars believe this is due to their continuing inner, private, family narratives and conversations. However, Professor Maria Szmeja believes that in Germany too, Silesians are disconnected from their homeland and culture; they are dispersed, with no communication with each other, and their younger generation does not know the Silesian language, hence they do not retain their Silesian identity.
In the 2001 Polish Census, 529,377 people indicated Silesian as their language, of which 126,506 stated it was their only language. However, according to Professor Szmeja, some 800,000 people consider Silesian as their language, and 400,000 cite it as their only language.
The issue of the Silesian minority is raised in the Polish media from time to time. Divided between the Czech Republic, Germany and Poland, Silesian region could potentially become a very interesting research topic. In this area, political borders do not isolate the population from each other. People could, in theory, communicate, establish structures and organizations, and implement projects regardless of physical borders. The area thus has the potential to explore and demonstrate new possibilities in the ethnic and civic identity of a borderline population.
Hranush Kharatyan, an Armenian ethnographer, is Leading Scientific Researcher at the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, within the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia . She was appointed head of the Department of National Minorities and Religious Affairs in the Armenian Government in 2004, a position she held until 2008. Discover more at www.disterrmem.eu/national-academy-of-sciences