President of the Republic on the Opening of the 9th International Congress of Finno-Ugric Studies on August 7, 2000, in Tartu
07.08.2000

Mr. Chairman,
Mr. Rector,
Ladies and gentlemen!

It was thirty years ago that I addressed you for the first time, and five years ago that I last had this opportunity. This morning, I went through the speech I had held at Jyväskylä on August 10, 1995, and found that it would be possible for me to use the same text also today. Especially the part where I recalled with gratitude the contribution of my close friends Academician Kustaa Vilkuna and Academician Paul Ariste to the restoration of this friendly forum at those cruel times when the iron curtain tried to divide in two not only the world, but also thoughts, words, and human relationships. Each one of us in this hall, in this country and in this world owes more to these great men than we can express or could ever conceive.

It is not a task for the Head of State to list the accomplishments of the Finno-Ugric studies, or future problems, but as a politician, I would still like to point out two facts.

First, is there a Finno-Ugric literature, and accordingly, is there such a thing as Finno-Ugric literary research? At first sight, the answer is undoubtedly no. In the opposite case, we should also presume the existence of Indo-European literary research. Yet, I recommend to leave this question open and not to rush with the final and negative reply. Let us recall, for instance, the conversation between Castrén and the Ostyak-Tartar chief about national identity, which I dare to juxtapose with my personal memories. When I was deported, at the time of World War II, I met not a single Mari-Cheremissian who would have been aware of the fact that our languages are related. Only twenty-five years later, filming in the same region, I could not find a single Mari-Cheremissian village without at least one person well aware of the language bonds between the Estonians and the Maris. In order to understand this change, we should remember that against the background of the world or even against the background of Europe, all Finno-Ugric peoples, including Hungarians, Finns and Estonians, are small nations, subconsciously or consciously trying to protect their identity, their small island in the vast ocean of the Indo-European languages. And if this is so - I am asking you, not answering the question - we might find in our literatures the intersection that is common to them all and would consequently allow us to speak of the Finno-Ugric literature.

My other comment does not proceed from the first one. It is related to our uncertainty concerning globalisation. I think these fears and apprehensions stem from our insufficient knowledge of the past. Cultural history is a study of the openness of the world. This turn of the century has given us historical genetics and several possibilities to determine, with much greater exactness, the relations of time, space, and cultures. The world has always been global, and if anything is surprising here, it is the amazingly uniform development of humankind during the history of Homo sapiens sapiens till today. The cultural anthropological differences between a present-day Tasmanian, Bamanguata Bushman, or Estonian have developed during the last two hundredths of the history of the human species.

I presume that this entirely optimistic note is appropriate for me to wish strength and stamina to the beginning world congress of Finno-Ugric studies!