12.07.2015 Views

Nation-Building and Contested Identities: Romanian & Hungarian ...

Nation-Building and Contested Identities: Romanian & Hungarian ...

Nation-Building and Contested Identities: Romanian & Hungarian ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Nation</strong>al Prejudices, Mass Media <strong>and</strong> History TextbooksThe second feature is a centralizing narrative of history. The holistic perspectiveon the nation, “closely united around the flag,” contains a strongcentralizing element of identification, making a sharp distinction betweenus <strong>and</strong> them. The third feature, <strong>and</strong> maybe the most important, is the largepotential of this type of history to be instrumentalized as a tool for a personalitycult. The long row of national heroes ending with Ceauºescu washard to explain with the classical model of class-struggle or other Marxistconcepts.As the communist regime of Ceauºescu reoriented its rhetoric alongnationalist lines, national history became a matter of the Party’s concern,a process that culminated in the party program of 1974. Outside the politicalestablishment, convergent processes occurred. There was a kind ofsocial enthusiasm in favor of the communist regime that became morenationalist <strong>and</strong> less communist in appearance. Many people, true believersor opportunists, were engaged in public projects for supporting theregime. The ideological reinterpretation that offered a new perspective onreality in which nation equaled society, state, <strong>and</strong> party. Precisely in theperiod of this transformation, Nicolaescu established his authority in historicaliconography. His case exemplified a new fashion of “doing,” <strong>and</strong>not writing, history outside of the academic scene.In the following, I turn to two case studies illustrative of the role thenational communist canon came to play in contemporary public discourse.My first subject is Adrian Nãstase, vice-president of PDSR at the momentof the debate, Prime Minister of Romania from 2001 onwards. Among allarticles <strong>and</strong> interviews related to the public debate on education <strong>and</strong> thenew history textbooks, his opinions were particularly revealing. Nãstasehas had an impressive public career after 1989, based on his achievementsunder the communist regime. His biography is very telling in this respect.He graduated from the Faculty of Law in 1973, Sociology in 1978, <strong>and</strong>received his Ph.D. in 1987. His career has been related to important academicinstitutions in the country <strong>and</strong> some respectable ones abroad,including membership in many national <strong>and</strong> international boards, committees,<strong>and</strong> clubs. 20Yet, his interview shows another side of his personality: a markedlynationalistic inclination. Some of his assertions are quite radical for a persontrained in diplomacy where each word has its importance. His interviewcould be considered an accident, or an attempt to gain popularity onthe eve of the elections. However, revisiting some of his recent activities,the defense of the nation seems to be a constant preoccupation for him.He signed the preface of a book, edited by Zeno Millea, 1989-1998:A <strong>Hungarian</strong>-<strong>Hungarian</strong> History in Documents, 21 an attack against HDUR<strong>and</strong> its relations with Hungary. There, Nãstase wrote:101

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!