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

RÃZVAN PÂRÂIANUeign state and the unjustifiability of external intervention. These themesevoked certain elements of the public discourse under the former communistregime. 31 In the following, I refer to four articles written by Popescu inAdevãrul, identifying his arguments against the textbook, the Ministry ofNational Education and what he perceived to be an “anti-national” reformof education. The first article appeared on the very day of the outburst of thescandal, 6 October. It was entitled “How many histories does Romaniahave?” 32 Popescu raised five problems he considered important at first sight.One concerned the fact that he was included in the textbook. 33 He indeedappeared in the textbook, together with other journalists, being referred toas the “tough guy” of Romanian mass media: “His merciless stance towardsvarious politicians was very popular and brought him recognition.” 34He expressed his puzzlement about this, claiming that the textbook isdesigned to contain factual information on the past. He asked in his article:“Did I die and do not know of it?” Next, he went further in identifying otherproblems, all of them related to some important moments of Romanian history.They are significant in order to understand not only Popescu’s personalhistorical horizons, but that of a large segment of the society, partially ofhis readers, sharing the same historical “vulgata.”The first problem concerns the Romanian ethno-genesis. The relativismof Mitu’s interpretation of the Romanian ethno-genesis provokedPopescu’s “national sensibility.” The immanent substance that transgressestime and space in order to unite all Romanians was in danger and, therefore,even the personal identity of Popescu was threatened: “It is said thatwe can presuppose the formation of Romanian nation around a Dacian-Roman nucleus. You start to ask yourself if you, the Romanian Popescu,exist at all, and, if the answer is yes, if you are not Costoboc, Iazig, Marcomanor Hun.” 35The second problem is how this textbook depicts the first Romanianvoivods. Again, Mitu’s version seems to relativize the roots of statehood. Thisissue is rooted in the discomfort concerning the genesis of the Romanianstates. Obviously, there is an intimate relation between national identity andstatehood. In Popescu’s next articles, this etatist identity became even moreevident. The other element is the persistent conviction that the History of theRomanians has to counterweigh the History of the Hungarians. The fear ofHungarian revisionism is a serious element of Romanian public discourse andit can also be found to some extent in academic writings. Ironically, the deepdistrust in Hungarian history and historians has to face an embarrassing fact,namely that the only source for the Romanian state-formation in the earlymedievalperiod is a Hungarian chronicle. Therefore, in spite of any normalcaution concerning this kind of history-writing, this chronicle has to be true:106