Lietuvas latviešu tēls Lietuvas un Latvijas pierobežā

LTReikšminiai žodžiai: Lietuvių ir latvių santykiai; Lietuvių-latvių santykiai; Lietuvos ir Latvijos pasienis; Lietuvos latviai; Lietuvos-Latvijos pasienis; Latvians of Lithuania; Lithuanian Latvian relationships; Lithuanian-Latvian relationships; Lithuania–Latvia borderland.

ENThe object of the study was the opinion of Lithuanians living on the border area between Lithuania and Latvia (on the Lithuanian side) about Latvians. The aim of the study was to analyze what an image of Latvians is revealed in Lithuanian narratives of the Lithuanian and Latvian borderland. The objectives of the study were the following: 1) to analyze how Lithuanians living in the border area (in Palanga, Skuodas, Žeimelis and Biržai districts) characterize local Latvians; 2) to analyze features of Latvian otherness; 3) to discover what kind of reasons have influenced the opinion of Lithuanians on Latvians. The data were collected during field research conducted during 2011-2018; in-depth interview and free chat were used to gather data from 135 respondents (48 were Latvians and 87 Lithuanians. The following methods were applied in this work: descriptive case studies, interpretations, comparative research methods. On the Lithuanian-Latvian border (on the Lithuanian side) Lithuanian narratives reveal various Latvian images, both positive and negative, determined by various factors - socioeconomic and political factors, evaluation of otherness, place in the social hierarchy and processes of acculturation and assimilation. Most often, Latvians are described emphasizing their otherness and drawing ethnic boundaries. Because of the unusual cultural characteristics of Lithuanians, Latvians sometimes look stupid to them and have nicknames such skabputriai, skabdirsiai, zirga galva (horse head), and phraseology - stupid as a Latvian in the afternoon. On the other hand, Latvian otherness is treated as positive and is understood as an inherited part of the native culture.The main features of Latvian otherness, as well as the markers that make it possible to distinguish yourself and another as an ethnic group, are different language, religion, customs, festivities and rituals and different nourishments. However, the evaluation of these markers was significantly different in each field research area. It was noticed that some Lithuanians in Žeimelis and Biržai area were bilingual and the language was not an ethnic marker, only a tool of communication, but those Lithuanians who did not speak Latvian negatively evaluated Latvians who used Latvian in communication with Lithuanians. Latvians in Palanga and Skuodas area were interested in communicating in the Lithuanian language, and in those places the language does not appear as an important ethnic marker and the Lithuanian-speaking Latvians look like their own. For a long time, confessional differences were one of the most important, affecting the mixed Lithuanian Catholic and Latvian Evangelical Lutheran families. The clergy had the greatest influence on the appreciation of religious differences. For example, in Biržai, the Catholic clergy negatively evaluated the Latvian funeral customs, which the Lithuanians obeyed, and at the same time, the Latvians themselves. Žeimelis was greatly influenced by the Evangelical Lutheran priest Erikas Leijeris (1906-1949), who tried to establish friendly interethnic relations by his example, which is why in this area Lithuanian narratives mostly show positive attitude to Latvian Evangelical Lutherans. Although Lithuanian and Latvian festivals and rituals are similar, in which both ancient Baltic and Christian culture are blended, different traditions have evolved over time.The most pronounced example concerns funerals, where there is a very different attitude between these ethnic groups regarding the nature of death (a fun celebration for Latvians and a sad event for Lithuanians) and the judgment of the deceased (during the liminal period the deceased is the own for Lithuanians and the alien for Latvians). A popular Latvian summer dish called skābputra, which was unusual for some Lithuanians and used to make fun of Latvians, is related to different nourishments of Lithuanians and Latvians. The negative perception of this dish could be related to different eating habits - Lithuanians consumed more sweet milk more, but Latvians - soured milk. It is likely that skābputra had also a social and sometimes an ethnic link function. The research has revealed that in the Lithuanian and Latvian border area, in the Lithuanian narratives, the Latvian image of the past is more revealed, which mostly reflects the situation of the ethnic groups in the 20th century. However, nowadays it is difficult to talk about the image of Lithuanian Latvians, because some respondents, especially young people, have not even noticed that Latvians are living next to them, whose number in Lithuania has dropped significantly and who themselves sometimes do not want to be called as Latvians. [From the publication]