Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/50668
Type of publication: Straipsnis kitose duomenų bazėse / Article in other databases (S4)
Field of Science: Istorija ir archeologija / History and archaeology (H005)
Author(s): Aleksandravičius, Egidijus
Title: Deklaracja Niepodległości Litwy z 16 lutego 1918 roku i jej miejsce w litewskim dyskursie po 1990 roku
Other Title: The Declaration of Independence of Lithuania from 16 February 1918 and its place in the Lithuanian discourse after 1990
Is part of: Rocznik instytutu Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej. Lublin : Instytut Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, 2015, T. 13, nr. 3 : Polska – Litwa: stare i nowe problemy
Extent: p. 13-40
Date: 2015
Keywords: Lietuvos Nepriklausomybės deklaracija;Istoriografija;Istorinis pasakojimas;Istorinė reprezentacija;Declaration of Independence of Lithuania (16 February 1918);Historiography;Historical narrative;Historical representation
Abstract: The article attempts to reveal the changes in the discourse about the Lithuanian freedom and the independent state after 1990. The aim is to explain what narrative about history was demanded by the dream visions of the past and how much the new passion of freedom influenced the historical thought. In the 20th century, Lithuanians lost their freedom and regained their state many times and that is why as many as three national holidays are related to the beginnings of the statehood. Attempting to explain the current manner of the representation of the historical experience of Lithuania in the 19th century as an epoch of demise, national bondage and liberation, one has to understand that it is not only the quarter of the century which has passed since the new independence of Lithuania and since the year of the restoration of the independent state (the 1990s) and not only the current political problems that could influence the changes in the representation of history. The long 19th century crossed the dimension of the cognitive memory, usually related to the lasting of 3-4 generations. It is so remote that it has become part of the cultural, mainly written, kingdom of memory. Twenty five years of freedom have brought a lot of arguments suggesting that the national consciousness, tainted with national bondage and occupation, begins to excessively fetishise the state and the statehood itself. In this vision, man, his privacy, the quality of democracy, valuable principles and symptoms of the primacy of law are pushed to the background or at least no in-depth research is being carried out on these problems and no effort is made to include the issues related to the whole heritage of the past in the concept of memory. In such an atmosphere, even the question of what is more important – statehood or human rights? – arouses at least public irritation if not outrage
Internet: http://www.iesw.lublin.pl/rocznik/pliki/Rocznik_2015-224.pdf
http://www.iesw.lublin.pl/rocznik/pliki/Rocznik_2015-224.pdf
Affiliation(s): Humanitarinių mokslų fakultetas
Istorijos katedra
Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas
Appears in Collections:Universiteto mokslo publikacijos / University Research Publications

Files in This Item:
marc.xml8.65 kBXMLView/Open

MARC21 XML metadata

Show full item record

Page view(s)

142
checked on Jan 5, 2020

Download(s)

10
checked on Jan 5, 2020

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.