MINNE OCH MANIPULATION - Centre for European Studies - Lunds ...

prejudices and to stop re-production of proved historic adulterations. Looked upon
in a broader socio-cultural context, the phenomenon shows characteristics of
ideological or political manipulation.
For reasons unknown - and absolutely irrational to me – authors of history
textbooks not only refuse to comment on the evidence of deception about
Bulgarian history, but are still consolidating the inertia in the interpretation of the
Ottoman period. They continue to depict Islamization in violent, emotional
accounts, adorned with tales of “terror and heroic resistance”. This is in its core a
repetition of cemented clichés, associated with the heroic-romantic period in the
development of Bulgarian historiography. This repetition illustrates a lack of effort
and courage to bring about a revision of history based on pure scholarly
verification. So it is no surprise that, as a whole, Bulgarian society’s reaction to the
“Regenerative Process” was a reaction of fear, apathy and lack of interest. Their
response is, in my opinion, a direct consequence of the immaturity of Bulgarian
historiography and its significant role in the public launching of delusions built
upon unacknowledged hoaxes.
I have recounted in brief the history of the social existence of the most
infamous falsification in Bulgarian historiography because of my desire to make
visible a very problematic line in modern humanities as well as to show its
function as an instrument of propaganda intended to sway public opinion. The
cases of adulteration of historic sources described above are proven by
contemporary scholarship. Amazing is the fact, however, that these hoaxes
continue to be reproduced and referred to as authentic documents by both
domestic and foreign experts of Bulgarian Studies. In spite of all the long and keen
debates that have taken place, these falsifications are still perceived as truths in
Bulgarian cultural and social space. It is evident that there is a persistent denial
among the wider public of the need to reconsider historical facts or to take into
account the possibilities of post-factum interpretations, fantasies, heroization and
mythologization of historical evidences.
Professional academic historians are to be blamed for this denial. In addition,
literature and the arts contribute a great deal to this profound misinterpretation of
history. Bulgaria’s short modern history with its many watershed events inevitably
brought tensions in historic interpretations. On many occasions real or supposed
historic evidence was used for reasoning, justification and even as inspiration for
political and ideological acts of political parties, or for the agenda of state politics
in general. Historiography was a most reliable and successful instrument of
Bulgarian nationalism and of building a Bulgarian cultural identity. The greatly
disappointing lack of critical thinking among the contemporary public is rooted in
the fact that it is almost mission impossible to overcome the inertia of the noncritical
acceptance of ideological and nationalistic clichés.
Let us recall the words of the Greek author Nikos Dimu in his essay “The
misfortune of being a Greek”, fragment 79:
101