Clashing Narratives, Flourished Nationalisms, Early Encounters

When the successor states of the Soviet Union embarked on their paths to independence, they were not alone in their pursuit of national sovereignty. As the central authority of the Union began to loosen at the periphery, signs of potential conflicts became more apparent. Those who sought independence, whether titular nations or minorities, went through their state- and nation-building processes in tandem as they strove to assert their national sovereignty. This process involved more than just rebuilding their national identities; it also required the (re)construction of the identities of those perceived as a threat to their nationhood and land. The Georgian national identity and collective memory similarly place great emphasis on the theme of survival against perceived enemies. These enemies can be both external and internal in nature. During the early 1990s, the popular ethnocentric rhetoric was about how Georgia had faced challenges not only from external aggressors such as the Turks, Iranians, and Russians but also from within its own borders in the form of so-called traitors. Specifically, Abkhazians and Ossetians were viewed as collaborators with Bolshevik forces during the late 1910s and early 1920s, leading them, particularly Ossetians, to be labeled as “ungrateful guests” who had betrayed the trust of the Georgian people (Sammut and Cvetkovski 1996: 7; Chikovani 2008: 802). Occasionally, even “the Western World,” which Georgians consider themselves part of, is seen as a challenge to the essence of the Georgian identity. This perception mainly stems from the conservative wing, which views Western influence as interference in Georgia’s cultural and religious traditions and values. (Batiashvili 2012: 195). This rhetoric aligns with Eric Hobsbawm’s assessment of the Soviet Union’s collapse. He posited that the downfall of the Soviet regime could prove disastrous for the successor states, as it would remove the “scapegoat” that had previously been used to harness the idea of nationalism. That is why he argued that many post-Soviet nations began searching for “other(s)” to blame for their “predicament” after the dissolution (Hobsbawm 1992: 174). Indeed, for many post-Soviet titular nations, it is the ethnic minorities that assume the role of the “other” or “the scapegoat,” and conversely, for many ethnic minorities, this label is affixed to the titular nations themselves. Thus, I believe it is essential to hone in on the specific periods that influenced national narratives and the historiographies of Georgians, Abkhazians, and South Ossetians to fully comprehend the present state of the frozen conflicts.