Lietuvių ir žydų santykiai visuomenės modernėjimo ir socialinės sferos politinio reguliavimo aspektais (XX a. pirmoji pusė)

LTĮ XX amžių lietuviai įėjo kaip iš esmės tradicinė daugiausia valstiečių visuomenė, krašte, kurio atsilikimas buvo akivaizdus tiek kaimynams, tiek ir jiems patiems. Lietuvių tautos Atgimimo žadintojai gerai suprato, kad lietuvių tautos ateities perspektyvos glaudžiai susijusios su visuomenės modernėjimu ir pilnos socialinės struktūros formavimusi. Susikūrusiai valstybei teko spręsti uždavinius, būdingus visoms praktiškai nuo nulio pradėjusioms valstybėms, bet buvo ir specifinis lietuvių iš praeities paveldėto ženklaus atsilikimo įveikimo uždavinys, kurio neteko spręsti nei latviams, nei estams, nei suomiams. Siekdama šio tikslo, Lietuvos valdžia iš esmės laviravo tarp netiesioginės žydų diskriminacijos ir pozityvaus lietuvių rėmimo. Tiek natūralūs modernizacijos procesai, tiek valdžios palaikymas gausino ne žemės ūkio sferose užimtų lietuvių sluoksnį ir, tuo pačiu, mažino žydų lyginamąjį svorį, nors jis iki pat nepriklausomo gyvenimo pabaigos išliko neproporcingai didelis. Būta radikalių visuomenės grupių, kurios reikalavo tiesioginės žydų diskriminacijos. Nors valdžia apskritai laikėsi nuosaikaus kurso, atsisakius demokratinės raidos kelio, nebeliko veiksnaus valdžios ir visuomenės dialogo. Tautininkų valdymo metais nebeliko realios lietuvių ir žydų politinių organizacijų sąveikos, būdingos demokratiniam laikotarpiui. Sumažėjus tarpusavio sąlyčio taškų ir paaštrėjus ūkinei bei socialinei konkurencijai, nuosaiki visuomenėje autoritetą prarandančių tautininkų laikysena pernelyg dažnai tik sustiprindavo antisemitines nuotaikas ir radikalų įsiūtį. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: "Tėvynės sargas"; Lituanizacija; Antisemitizmas; "Guardian of the Fatherland"; Lithuanization; Anti-semitism.

ENLithuanians entered the twenty-first century as an essentially traditional society composed of mostly peasants in a land, where the backwardness was obvious to both its neighbours and the inhabitants themselves. Those who began the rebirth of the Lithuanian nation well understood that the future perspectives of the Lithuanian nation were closely connected with the modernisation of the society and the creation of a complete social structure. Former peasants had to study in the school of capitalistic life, develop, start businesses, and move to the cities. The traditional attitudes were also obvious in the Lithuanian view of other nations. All foreigners were already suspect because they differed from the people, i.e. the Lithuanian peasants. And the more the way of life of another nation differed from that of Lithuania, the more suspiciously its members were viewed and the more hypercritically they were judged. Jews were no exception but essentially to only a certain degree. An analysis of the 1901–1903 publications of the Catholic ‘Tėvynės sargas’ [Guardian of the Fatherland] does not show that any special attitudes were maintained in respect to the Jews. Another thing was that claims put forward in respect to the Jews differed from those aimed at the Russians, Poles, or Latvians. In creating a new Lithuanian state the Lithuanians and Jews frequently stood together even though some were preoccupied with an ethnographic Lithuania and others essentially the entire territory of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In creating the state, they had to solve problems characteristic to practically all states that start from scratch. These included consolidating the independence they had won, developing education, modernising the economy, and accelerated development. There was also a specific problem of overcoming the marked backwardness Lithuanians inherited from the past, a problem which the Latvians, Estonians, and Finns did not have to solve.In pursuing this aim, the Lithuanian authorities essentially went back and forth between indirect discrimination against the Jews and positive support for the Lithuanians. The latter aspect of state policy essentially corresponds to the requirements raised for a modern nation state. In order to ensure uniform conditions for people of all nationalities, races, religions, and genders, a state sometimes employs special regulations or undertakes concrete measures so that any social inequality that has developed for one reason or another is overcome even despite the fact that one social group or another can view these regulations or measures as a particular form of discrimination or a violation of the principle of free competition and equal opportunity. Although the political government in the Lithuanian state belonged to the majority of Lithuanians, their social and economic backwardness, especially at the beginning of independence, was obvious. The government strove to modernise the country’s economy, reform the land ownership, and develop commerce and industry as well as other non-agricultural sectors. This was done by intensively using the state’s financial resources and protecting Lithuanian businessmen. Both the natural modernisation processes and the government’s support increased the number of Lithuanians in non-agricultural spheres and at the same time reduced the influence and comparative weight of the Jews, which, despite the big changes, remained very large until the end of independence.There were definitively radical groups in society who demanded outright discrimination against the Jews. The government itself was not free from anti-Semitism so that Jews in Lithuania experienced manifestations of indirect discrimination. The worst was that after rejecting the path of democratic development, no dialogue remained between a competent government and society. The nationalists, who held the actual reins of government, were moderate and their moderation in examining the development of Lithuanian – Jewish relations is in general assessed positively. But during the years of their rule no real interaction between Lithuanian and Jewish political organisations, which had been characteristic for the democratic period, actually remained. After the reduction in the number of points of contact between them and the increase in the economic and social competition, the moderate attitude of the nationalists, who were losing their authority in society, all too frequently only strengthened the anti-Semitic mood and the anger of the radicals. [From the publication]