THE CONCEPT OF NATIONALISM IN ROMANIA

THE ROMANIAN NATIONALISM

At school I learned that the Romanian people are patriot, they love this country, they recognize the positive and negative aspects of the Romanian history and of the present, but they are trying to assure the progress of Romanian society. Now I am in the situation to present my country making an emphasis on their nationalism into European and Balkan context.

In Romania the concept of nationalism aroused at the end of 18th century thanks to the Ardelean School. The nationalist ideology struggled for the development of this nation. This movement created in 1859 a country in the South-East of Europe, Romania. The Romanian nationalism based upon the economic, politic, religious and especially developed on the cultural and ethnical context of this state. First, the nationalism expanded like romantic nationalism, characterised by the carefulness for recover the values of the past, by importance accorded to national history and by the promotion of national traditions. But later, on the end of the 19^th century, the concept of nationalism transformed in extremist nationalism characterised by racism and xenophobia.

I would like, and I hope to succeed in talking like a romantic nationalist. This is a good occasion to tell you many things about Romania and about Romanian people. At begin, I really would love to talk about historical personages who are very representative for Romanian nation. I will make a short discuss about they in a chronological order. We are very proud about our origins, the Dacians and the Romans and especially about Decebal (Dacian leader distinguished by courage and devotion for his country) and Traian (Roman leader very clever and bold). It is the first lesson in any historical textbook. In 101-106 the Dacians protected their territories against Roman Empire. After invasion of Dacia a part of Romans rested in this territory. The ethno-cultural symbiosis between Dacians and Romans finished in 6^th century. This battle between Dacian and Roman peoples and the sequels are the ancestral symbol of the Romanian nation rise. Important for our language is that though we are surrounded by Slavonic countries, Romania has still a Latin language.

More than one thousand years later other representative personage for our history was Stephan the Great (1457-1504). He was the voivode of Moldavia, one of the three principalities before the Romanias unification. He is the symbol of Romanian Christendom and for Romanian dignity. The Moldavian voivode struggled with ottomans while 47 years to maintain those territory and religion unmutilated. I think because of his courage to resist against Ottoman Empire, in the present we are still Christians. He was canonised and now, in the Romanian orthodox religion, Saint Stephan is celebrated each year 3^rd Christmas Day.

Whole last year, mass media made an opinion poll for the great Romanian all the time. It was just one question, without rules (like domain, dead or alive, man or woman), and the Romanians chose Stephan the Great.

Michael the Brave (15931601) is the first prince who politically unified in 1600 Walachia, Transylvania and Moldavia. This decision was very daring because the three principalities were under Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and Russian domination. This union broke up just after one year, because the prince was assassinated and the principalities were recovered by the Powers. For Romanians this situation was not a failure but one step to a real and solid unification.

Other very important leader who represents the Romanian nationalism was Alexander John Cuza (18591866). He succeeded to make a strong unification being elected price of both Moldavia and Walachia. Later the Ottoman Empire recognised him like prince of both states with a new name, Romania. More, Alexander John Cuza improved the educational system (free education for all, 4 obligatory classes, University of Iasi). In 1866 he was forced to abdicate and he went into exile to Heidelberg (Germany). For Romanian nationalism, Cuza is a very important figure because he is representative for people, he came from the people.

The founder of Romanian nationalism, Nicolae Balcesu (1819-1852) let us a law: The nation is more importantly than freedom. We can recover the loosed freedom, but a destroyed nation will disappear.. The Romanian nation suffered very much time under ottoman, hungarian and russian domination. This was not a obstacle, but a reason to keep the values of the nation making it stronger.

The domination of the Ottoman Empire and the integration of Romanian principalities into ottoman economy weakened the connections of the Romanian space with the Occident. But, these relations never broke. Immediate after the ottoman withdrawal, the French and German influences rapidly penetrated the Romanian society.

The nationalism in Romanian literature is present by Romanian poet Michael Eminescu (1850 - 1889). He was described as 'the national poet', 'the unmatched poet', 'the most important figure in Romanian culture', and 'the star of universal spirituality.'. For Constantin Ciopraga, Eminescu was the conscience of the nation of Romania, and Ilie Badescu observes in Eminescu's journalism an early articulation of sociological studies in that country. He is the poet who shared us that the nationalism is the conscience to belong to a nation. He showed us that it is normal to love your nation, the ancient ground, the history, the culture, the religion, the language and races. His poetries make us prudes about our nature, about our nationality. Like nationalist and like all Romanians, Eminescu tried to evoke our past and hi values especially to put in evidence the misery of his present. Actually, even now the Romanian people disagree the present with all their problems.

Just for example, I would like to emphases with some fragments from his poetries.

I know, is a crime to cut a poetry, but if someone wants to read more poetries translated in English, I can recommend you this address:https://www.mihaieminescu.ro/en/literary_work.htm

The next important personage of Romanian history is Nicolae Ceausescu, the communist president of Romania between 1967 and 1989. Though I know that the communism is in the contrast with nationalism, I would like to say same words about this period because maybe this will emphasize the character of Romanian nationalism. While Ceausescus leadership, a lot of our values were censored: the true history was modified because the good relations with URSS (some parts was censored), also censored was the religion in the schools and the intellectuals who tried to oppose at communist regime. His despotism was absolute. The cult of personality was one of the important issues of Romanian communism. Anything could be more important than the image of president. The people was treated like animals, the fear overrun everywhere.

In the present, Romania has at governance is the National Liberal Party but their programme affirmed that they will not have any form of nationalism. Until now they respected this proposition. Actually, in the opposition is the Great Romania Party, an extremist nationalist party, lead by Corneliu Vadim Tudor. The policy of this party is based upon a lighted nationalism (strong, consequent). Really, nobody understands this program, all is just demagogy and all interventions of this party are just to generate conflict and controversies.

Now, Im trying to explain some quotations of the Romanian intellectuals, about the present Romanian nationalism. Are Romanians nationalists? Are they extremists when it comes to the feelings they have for their own country? What are the basic features of the Romanian Nationalism? These are only a few questions I tried to find an answer. I couldnt have done it, of course, without the help and the inspiration I got from some important figures in Romanian Politics and Political Science. My intention was to find more or less the same ideas in the works of a Romanian political philosopher, in those of a political journalist, in the writings of a political analyst, as well as in those of a political scientist.

The first interpretation of this topic is somewhat more personal and belongs to Horia Roman-Patapievici, Romanian philosopher. He discusses the issue of Romanian Nationalism in an article Why I dislike our form of nationalism? published in Politice in 1996. Horia Roman Patapievici considers himself as part of a people that expresses its national feelings entirely in a verbal form. His exact words are We Romanians have a problem with the love for our country. Whenever it comes into question, we burst into flames. Nothing makes us more zealous, than to demonstrate the love we have for the country and nation. Up to a certain point our attitude might seem natural, namely in the natural order of things. Something, however, is drawn here to our attention in an unpleasant way. Our nationalism is mostly verbal: with us, the love for the country is rather a test for ones rhetorical abilities, than a stubborn will to impose our point of view by legitimate means. In his opinion this fact was proved by the great indifference the Romanians has for three categories of facts: (1) the misery of the public life, (2) the arbitrary of the political life and (3) the tenacious support of our national interest. My intention is to present the authors analysis of each and every one of them, as well as my personal views on the matter.

We define gladly the national feeling by invocating the past. With Eminescu, in the famous lyrical invocation, Romania has a (great) past and (also, a great) future. We are not told what Romania has (or deserves) in the present. This lack is decisive and it marks the rigorously passive orientation of the Romanian nationalism. For us the present is nothing more than the object of the national feeling. But because everything that is done in this world has its roots in the present, our indifference towards it leaves the Romanian nationalism without any public and political effectiveness. In other words, our indifference towards the misery we live in is not metaphysical, but a sort of indulgence, something completely inadequate. The mechanism, through which the present-day misery is accepted in exchange to making a fetish out of a historical pantheon from yesterday and of a presumptive grandeur of tomorrow isnt in fact but a plain psychological compensation, typical to weak, nervy souls, incapable of looking the reality into face.

And, because the bigoted adoration of opera patriotism is a form of weakness, I dislike Romanian Nationalism. On the contrary, because I love strong, proud and realistic characters, I cannot agree but for a form of cruel, lucid, unforgiving patriotism, which is centred on the present and on political effectiveness. I have to agree with Horia Roman-Patapievici on this issue, since I, too, dislike the idea of supporting all our national feelings on a glorious past, and on even a more glorious future. Focusing patriotic actions on the present and on political effectiveness is the only way to ensure an improvement in all aspects of the Romanian society.

Because when we love our country, we take refuge in the past, we, the Romanians, have an inadequate conception of the public life in effect, namely of politics. According to the fetish and unrealistic model of medieval times, we believe that the greatness of Romania can be accomplished without politics, because we imagine that intellectuals didnt make politics that the people loved its rulers and everything went smoothly by itself. It is useless to say that this vision is childish and is neither connected to the reality of the present, nor to that of the past. All the Romanians forms of nationalism have seen the political life (parties, parliamentary etc.) as one of the causes for Romanias corruption. For this reason, the Romanian Nationalism, although very patriotic from a verbal point of view, has always been damaging to the real interests of Romania, which can be accomplished only through politics. All this contempt towards politics has always been our alibi for the accommodation with the forms of government that have altered our dignity. The fact that we have remained insensitive to the alteration of our present dignity is one of the consequences of the wrong attitude towards reality of the Romanian Nationalism. Because it couldnt care less about my individual and present beings dignity, I dislike Romanian Nationalism. I only love what could give me dignity, because I can only love what I respect and what could raise me to a higher level. [3]

Being turned to a past and bearing in mind a future that doesnt constrain us to any act of realism, our verbal form of nationalism gets along very well with the superficiality, the indolence and the indifference with which we follow our specific national interests. Being very sensitive to the purely verbal patriotism implied by a himerical threat from the Ardeal region after 1989, the public opinion regarded with a shocking indolence the evolution of the relations between the present Republic of Moldavia and Romania. Lets just say it is sufficient to mention the signing of the treaty with USSR (by which we accepted to tie our foreign policy to Moscows interests) and the missing out of the unification with Basarabia, after august 1991. A thing that needs to be underlined here is our disproportionate sensitivity for the hollowest nationalist slogans, in contrast to the indifference the Romanians show for the concrete aspects of patriotism which claim the following of tenacious and real long-term policies. Even though all Romanians verbally declare themselves to be nationalists, their indifference towards specific national matters is both shocking and obvious. The evil comes from our incapacity to identify the national ideal with the present and with skilful politics of backing up our punctual interests. On the contrary, the ritual formulas of what we call nationalism trigger invariably the passive-fatalist reaction, the safest way to miss out on almost everything.

Because it is incapable of supporting the concrete interests of Romania in the immediate political context, the only one out of which history and beliefs develop, I dislike Romanian Nationalism. I love the virility of those who know how to build their own destiny through will and courage, and dont trust things, which are obtained through hazard, humility and other peoples whims. Everything that is not obtained through skilful effort, intelligence, strong will or character is or will prove itself to be later on only a Greek gift.[4]

In order to become patriots, nationalists will have to stop defining themselves through ritual formulas (Motherland, Forefathers, State, Orthodox Church, Romanianism etc.), accepting at least two things: the present as a supreme national value, and the fact that all that can be accomplished in Romania can be done only through a tenacious, intelligent and calm support of some punctual political interests, that regard the everyday public and political activity. This is the only way for national ideals to be accomplished.

If Horia Roman-Patapievici, as political philosopher, speaks about Romanian Nationalism and its features, Cristian Tudor Popescu, as a political journalist, discusses the issue of the National Romanian. In his opinion, the nationalist extremism in Romania is growing. At the same time, the national feeling is decreasing in intensity, it dries out, and it cracks. The nationalist frenzy is the symptom of a nearby fainting fit, of losing national conscience. Voices blend, the confusion is growing, who dares to call him or herself a national person is immediately labelled as extremist by the fine internationalists, and any lucid opinion regarding the country or its inhabitants is anti-Romanian in the nationalist jargon.[5]

No one is born in a country. We are born in a family, in a household, in a village, in a town, on a street. The country reveals itself to us later on, to some of us never completely. The national feeling means the suspension of the fundamental selfishness of the human individual, a thing, which is even more difficult when it comes to peoples loved ones.

Nationalism means exactly the contrary: the incapacity of keeping inside ones soul the country as a whole. Nationalists have some kind of sect mentality, despite the fact that they speak constantly about their country: for them, there are good Romanians, and bad Romanians, non-Romanians, anti-Romanians, traitors etc. The people from the last category have to be, as soon as the opportunity arises, eliminated in a way, arrested, shot, deported. Nationalists love no one but themselves, experience self-love in groups, under the slogan of love for ones country. The people who are moved by the national feeling (nationalii), on the contrary, accept and understand the fact that the country is made up by all of us: philosophers and bandits, honest people, morons and geniuses, poor people and rich people alike. Therefore, the ones moved by the national feeling consider themselves responsible for everything that happens to all Romanians.

Nationalism, in contrast, constantly cuts borders among the Romanians, who inhabit the entire territory of the country, and, moreover, it establishes borders inside their souls, out of which all things, that are not clearly Romanianshould be removed.

The man ruled by national feelings considers the national interest being of the outmost importance. His personal honour is of no concern to him: he is willing to humiliate himself, crawl, break his word, prostitute himself if that is in the interest of the country. The nationalist, on the contrary, abandons the national interest to his own whimsical fixations.

As a political scientist and professor of Political Science, Cristian Preda has his own opinions about the concept of nationalism applied to the Romanian case. They are clearly expressed in chapter five of the book entitled Transition, Liberalism and Nation.

In Cristian Predas opinion the ideas that accompany the nationalist feelings and the words that express them are so ridiculous, that they make you believe that all those that state them are living in centuries long gone. Indeed, to speak nowadays about the brothers from the other side of the Prut river or about the Hungarian menace means to position oneself in a time one doesnt belong to anymore. It means a refusal to live in the present. In other words, no one knows anymore, in the realm of civilization, such a dialect of pure or impure nation, of brotherhood or of national danger. That is why, to dialogize with nationalists means to accept a discussion with beings that have died a long time ago. [6]

If feelings are decisive in defining the profile of nationalistic politics, weighing more than ideas, than to discredit them in the face seems almost impossible. Indeed, who believes that nationalism is a bad thing can oppose to the nationalists either the feeling contrary to the one that animates them (the love for the Hungarians to the hatred towards them) or, on the contrary he or she can oppose an idea to the feeling in questionfeelings against feelings or ideas against feelings.

There is an idea that can be opposed to nationalistic feelings. It is the European idea of eliminating the borders. The free circulation of people, assets and goods, this is probably the only way to ensure the unification not only with Basarabia, but also with Hungary. Only in this way an authoritarian and collectivist policy can be replaced, a policy that needs strictly defined territories and extremist withdraws in the face of any foreigner, with liberal and individualistic policies, with politics fit for an opened society. Finally, only in this way people will stop seeing, instead of peoples, people and instead of subjects of states, individuals.

For Cristian Preda politics is understood in two fundamentally different ways: either as a translation of feelings and passions, either on the contrary as an action based on ideas, on programs and doctrines, which suppose an organization of the relationship between individuals, especially of the couple rulers ruled. Nationalistic politics are a part of the first category because it is dominated by passions like hatred (for the neighbours across the borders) or love (for those inside the borders, or those left across the borders). The idea that there is, or that there has ever been a sort of neutral nationalism from an emotional point of view, is highly improbable.

On the other hand nationalists believe that the feelings that drive them are generous, beautiful, noble etc. that they are connected to a national destiny, to a certain spirit of the place and other hilarious ideas of the same kind borrowed from the dusty archives of the last few centuries. The affirmation of radicalism and of the ridiculous represents an effect of assuming the immoral fiction, which is the national state. Radical and ridiculous peoples are interprets of Romanian nationalism.

The conclusion that Cristian Preda draws in his book is the following: The present-day nationalism is born particularly from the refusal of taking into consideration the anarchical state of affairs produced by the individual selfishness. Nationalists would rather not see what is obvious to the naked eye: the absence of a social bond. They postulate, in exchange, a fundamental unity of the political body, with roots in the past (in History) and with a secure future. The nation state, a formula at hand, becomes, therefore, a purpose.[7]

The last figure I chose to consider the opinions of regarding Romanian nationalism is the political analist Alina Mungiu-Pippidi. She wrote an article in number 97-98 of The Sphere of Politics that is called From National Identity to Nationalism the long road to European identity, where she presents the results of some surveys and research done regarding this particular issue. In this article nationalism is taken into consideration according to Ernest Gellners paradigm. It is seen as a political ideology that promotes the perfect compatibility between the political unity (state) and the national unity (ethnical unity).

New Democracies Barometer revealed in post-communist Europe a low identification with the concept of nation: Even though most states are national states, a great number of central and east-Europeans have multiple and diverse identities. 30 per cent of the citizens from central and east-European countries rank their state-national identity on the first position, than a local or regional identification, and 21 per cent rank their options the other way round. Nevertheless, one fifth expresses their preference for local identity or is even parochial, identifying themselves only with the town or the region they live in.

Nationalism seems to be positively associated with the self-declared interest for politics and with discussing political issues in the circle of friends and with family members and negatively with reading political articles in newspapers. In other words, nationalism complies with a brief interest in politics, that doesnt go as far as reading the newspapers, but is sufficient enough to make politics a subject of discussion in a certain group. Nationalistic attitudes are built and maintained in small groups, such as family, friends, and co-workers. Nationalism is also positively correlated with the distrust regarding international organizations.

Nationalism is a sort of substitute for the ideology, a distinct form of political identity with very little or without any connection whatsoever with national identity, as opposed to the parochial identity. In a country like Romania, where social uniformity reached its highest peak in 1989, the traditional ideology has no meaning for the most part of the population. Nationalism is a means of political affirmation for those uninformed and frustrated, popular because it blames foreigners and obscure groups , reactive because it is born out of the real frustration generated by the transition process and real for the Hungarian minority and its very distinct form of political affirmation.

The trust in the outside world is mainly determined by the political competence (reading political articles in newspapers) and subjective welfare. Therefore, the frustration caused by the living conditions and the low political competence are the causes of distrust regarding the outside world. In turn the latter leads to the trust in nationalist leaders, and, as a consequence, in nationalism. It is highly improbable that people, who find ideology irrelevant, and who are frustrated by the quality of their own lives, to be democrats.

Identification either with the nation or with a certain community is a feature of post-communism and a consequence of Romanias unfinished modernization.

Post-communist nationalism is associated with political fatalism, distrust for the outside world, frustration regarding the transition process, and lack of trust in politics. The communist form of socialization makes up the features of the present Romanian nationalism, with emphasis on the evil west-European conspiracies, the homogenous political culture and its strong suspicions regarding different points of view. Nationalism is a general orientation towards paranoid distrust, which includes the neighbouring countries, a variety of national minorities, the outside world, the Romanian Parliament, and the beneficiaries of the transition (even though some of these actors are fellow-countrymen). The target of post-communist nationalism is connected to and satisfies only the need to blame somebody. The leaders are of little importance, or of no importance whatsoever. Nationalism is not induced by the elites; it is only used and nourished by nationalist leaders.

Though we have many problems with leaders and the political context, we are still proud about our nature. No many countries of this world can be glad with such relief like in Romania. The Black Sea is splendid in the summer. A lot of foreigners arrive in Romania to have a beautiful holiday.

Romanian plain is very rich. In the last time the rural tourism surprisingly developed. The countrymen offer pensions at high standards in beautiful natural environments. The tourists are warmly waited.

The Romanian Carpats are beautiful. The scenery exposed is extraordinary in entire year. In the winter you can practice all winter sports, but in the other seasons you can enjoy to the clear air, richness of colour and forms.

Other issue about nationalism is the ethnic problem. The tradition of nationalism in Romania and nationalist objectives by political elites has led to assimilationist policies regarding minority groups, including the Roma. Despite these efforts, the Roma have failed to assimilate and thus, remain targets of violence, committed mostly by ethnic Romanians.

A presentation of National Institute of Statistics exposes a very suggestive draw about the evolution of ethnics in Romania.

Evolution of the mains ethnics in Romania,

(Percentage confronted by 1930)

romani = Romanians ; maghiari = Hungarians ; rromi = Roma; germani = germans

In this graphic is easy to see that while, the communism period, the Germans from Romania came back into their country. Very interesting is the evolution of Roma peoples rapidly increased. Conclusion: most of they are more integrated than any other ethnic nation. It is true that we have some problems with them, but they adopted well Romanian style of life. We can see also the Hungarians who kept all their number.

In this moment the Hungarian party (Ungarian Democrat Magyar Party) is, together with Liberal National Party, at Romanias governance. The only claim of this party is to obtain the autonomy for some regions from Transylvania. Of course, the conflict is not so huge like in Kosovo. All Hungarian people are many relations with Romanians. Human rights are respected, also about their tradition and culture. In Transylvania we have many Hungarian schools where it is teaching in Hungarian language. For the students from that region, Romania has a university, Babes Bolyai University, where it is teaching in Hungarian language.

To understand the soul of a people, you must know their myths. Though the myths are weakly present at character of contemporary persons, the essay of intellectuals still try to explain, by simple symbols, for everybody, a national, a collective existence. The Romanian fairy tale is also very productive and synthesises almost all the big universal themes The Romanian spirit is dominated by four fundamental myths:

1. the ethno-genetic myth (Traian and Dochia);

2. the myth of creation by sacrifice (The Master Manole);

3. the erotic myth (Zburatorul The Flyer, the evil spirit);

4. the syncretic myth of Romanian spirituality (Mioritza The Ewe)

1. The legend of Traian and Dochia (Trojan and Dacia) is a myth which symbolizes the creation of the Romanian people. Traian was the Roman leader who conquered the lands of Dacians. Dochia was the Decebals daughter (Decebal made a suicide). Traian fell in love with her, but Dochia dont accepted and she made ones escape in the mountains. The Roman leader pursued her and Dochia begged help from God because she wanted not be dishonoured. She was transformed in a crag. The choice of the girl emphasizes the pride of Romanian ancestors who prefers to die than to be slaves.

2. The motif of the creation by sacrifice or build-in bride is present also in all Balkan countries. We can find Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian variations for this myth, but most important for me is to try to explain Romanian legend which has Master Manole as its central hero. He is one out of the men building a castle to the Black King. However, the building collapses every night. Manole has a dream, that if the first wife bringing lunch to her husband at the noon is built inside the construction, the construction remains solid. They agree not to tell about this to their wives. But the other men cheat, and tell their wife not to come to the construction the following day, only Manole keeps his word. His wife comes; she is captured and built in after some struggle. The wife tells Manole, that she is pregnant, and that the baby is crying of pain inside her. This does not stop the building process. After all, the Black King is happy to see the wall ready after all. He asks the men if they could have built even a better wall, the men reply that they could have. This answer makes the King annoyed: Why did they not build a better wall, if they could have? The King makes the men run on the roof of the building, but Manole tries to escape with wooden wings. However he falls into the ground and dies, but a spring appears on that place .

This myth wants to show us that human sacrifice can assure the eternity of constructing into the culture space. The legend emphasizes a fact with an important spiritual signification. For Manole the existence is a permanent desire to superiority, to elevation and to extra-human powers. Inside him soul and mind is a conflict between submission to ethic laws and submission to earthly laws where the daemon of creations is. Manole is a tragic hero; he is damned to kill his love and his future for the eternity of his creation.

In the archaic mentality the love is considered an immense power. This idea was synthesised in a fundamental Romanian myth, the erotic myth. In the conception of critics, ethnologists and folklorists, the Flyer is an evil spirit like a daemon or a dragon who change his aspect in a hansom guy and he appears in the dreams of the girls. He produces in their souls a strange sentiment called dor. It is a combination of gladness, love, missing and suffering, a kind of oxymoron continuously varied by the poets like Michael Eminescu, John Heliade Radulescu, etc. We are a people with Latin blood and in Romania the love is a very important topic for all of us.

4. Mioritza (The Ewe) is the central Romanian myth and it offers a good occasion to understand the Romanian soul and feeling. This is the oldest myth about a young shepherd who heard from his ewe that other 2 shepherds made a plot. They planed to kill him because he has many sheeps. The shepherd knows that he will die but he is not afraid and this unfair death dont revolt him. The demise is accepted like natural integration in Universe. The moment of the massacre is not a tragic obsession but it is like a bridge from the normal existence with temporary happiness (the life) to total and permanent exultation (the life after the death). He knows that his soul, the creation of God, will survive. Though the potential crime normally can disturb the universal order and the assassin can produce terror and to disorganise the values, the attitude of shepherd, this accept of destiny make the victim more powerful than the killer. The boy know where is his place and the going out from the scene of life is made worthily. The crime will be transformed in sacrifice especially for the salvation of killers soul. The model is Jesus Christ himself who knew he will die. He assumed the human condition to save our souls by him sacrifice.

The Romanian ballads are very complex and someone, a poet I think, called them the piers of Romanian culture.

An injected myth from outside is the myth of Dracula. Everybody knows them. He is like a vampire who gain the young women and who suck their blood. It is just a story, a fiction which started from a Romanian prince, Vlad Tepes, the voivode of Walachia (not at all of Transylvania) while 1456-1462. The true part is that this prince was very cruel. All prisoners (Turks from Ottoman Empire) and all peoples who infringed were pricked with big stakes. The historians say that in that period the Romanians were not political, economical or social problems. The writers are saying about that period like about a perfect period in our history. Many nationalists evoked and they still evoke the period of Vlad Tepes to emphasize the bad order from Romania in our times.

As a conclusion I would like to say that all these different people seem to agree that the Romanian form of nationalism is neither realistic, nor beneficial for Romania and for its people. What can be done? In my opinion the issue of revising Romanian nationalism should remain an open question for all of us. A solution needs to be found indeed, before our own form of nationalism turns into an extremist movement, like in the case of other nations, but what that solution will be still remains to be seen.