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

National Prejudices, Mass Media and History Textbooks32 Cristian Tudor Popescu, “Câte istorii are România?” (How many historiesdoes Romania have?), Adevãrul (6 October 1999), p. 6.33 The national curriculum contains a case study called “Mass-Media AfterDecember 1989.” See The school curriculum approved by the ministerial orderNo. 3371 at March 2, 1999, XII Grade, Content of chapter 11: State and civilsociety after 1989; available from http://www.edu.ro/pist.htm; Internet;accessed 5 January 2000.34 Mitu et al., Istoria Românilor, p. 141.35 Popescu, “Câte istorii are România?” p. 2.36 It is about Anonymus, the notary of King Béla III, who wrote three centurieslater (c. 1210, Gesta Hungarorum) about the conquest of Transylvania by Hungarians.37 Popescu, “Câte istorii are România?” p. 2.38 Popescu, “Câte istorii are România?” p. 2. It is impressive how Popescu manipulatedthe term personaj (in English: character). Taking into consideration thedefinition given by The Explicative Dictionary of Romanian Language(Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic, 1996), personaj means “an important personof the political, social and cultural life, a personality”, and its second meaning“a hero of literarature, music, cinema, or fine arts.”39 Popescu, “Câte istorii are România?” p. 2.40 Popescu, “Câte istorii are România?” p. 2.41 Cristian Tudor Popescu, “Manualul de istorie antinaþionalã – crima cu premeditarea Ministerului Educaþiei Naþionale” (The anti-national history textbook– a premeditated crime of the Ministry of National Education), Adevãrul(8 October 1999), p. 2.42 Popescu, “Manualul de istorie antinaþionalã,” p. 2.43 Florin Þurcanu, “Domnul Popescu ºi istoria” (Mr. Popescu and history),Revista 22 41 (12-18 October 1999), p. 1, and Adrian Cioroianu, “ªo pã SorinMitu!” (Get Sorin Mitu!), Dilema 349 (15-21 October 1999), p. 5.44 Except for the two articles mentioned before, there are no other reactions toPopescu’s accusations.45 Cristian Tudor Popescu, “Omul nou” (The new man), Adevãrul (18 Octombrie1999), p. 1 and p. 16.46 Popescu, “Omul nou,” p. 1.47 Popescu, “Omul nou,” p. 1.48 Popescu, “Omul nou,” p. 1.49 Popescu, “Omul nou,” p. 16.50 Popescu, “Omul nou,” p. 16.51 Popescu, “Omul nou,” p. 16.52 Popescu, “Omul nou,” p. 16.53 “In the case of Romania, it is possible that the clash with the new man willmake sparks. The motive is very simple: in Romania there is no peace andprosperity. It is exactly the same motive for which the previous attempt of creatingthe new man, i.e., the communist one, failed. A country that suffers bypoverty and premature death is difficult to anaesthetize. She can desperatelyhold to such old ideas as country, nation, banner, church, history.” Popescu,“Omul nou,” p. 16.115