In the news, stolen artifacts have resurfaced in auction houses since 1999. Furthermore, a Spanish linguist, Carme Jimenez Huertas, thinks that “Protochronists” are correct. I was then going to look into Dan Alexe’s analysis of Vasile Parvan’s “Getica” (caba-parv) and I kept procrastinating, because as silly and illogical Alexe’s lucubrations are, it still takes time to go through and debunk’em.
It makes more sense to try to understand what determines Alexe’s destructive obsession. It seems to me that he is driven by a desire to exalt his own penis (linguistic, historical and even physical).
And that is why I was so surprised to discover that both Lorena Lupu on Facebook (llfb-fngsui) and possibly in a pseudo-interview (ll-femdac), together with Marius Chivu in Dilema Veche (dv-pt), accuse Dan Alexe of “self-fellatio”. Which, let’s face it, is a performance many men attempt but few succeed – they are the bosses.
In all fairness, Marius Chivu has previously “half”-recommended Lupu’s book (dv-nurec) yet he does not seem to like Doina Rusti, the winner of a Romanian Academy prize for a book about a 14 year old prostitute (dr-lznc), even though Lupu interviewed her (tr-cbv).
LE: He (Marius Chivu) also spoke up against the perception that book publishers (or self-published authors) pay to have their books critiqued even though this is the normal and accepted practice in the West (mc-cg).
What is quite entertaining (in a tabloid manner), is the “conversation” LL and DA have on Facebook (llfb-fngsui). It is everything I don’t like about interpersonal relationships in Romania – people just being dicks to one another for no particular reason, publicly, while others crowd around and cheer (galerie). And, since a man is being badgered by a woman, this double-standard is even more entertaining to the public. It also turns out that Dan Alexe got so pathetic as to court LL (llfb-photo) – the same LL I first recommended on this blog, only to be turned off by her indiscriminate vulgarity and remarkably short fuse. 
I find it incredible that a man of his age does not know that you cannot talk, debate or reason with someone like Lorena Lupu. She has only two modes: f u up or f u good and a propensity for negativity, so if you fall on the lower level, you can never get back on top.
I can only recall one instance where I had to “fight” (i.e., be beaten in this manner, with no real or ethically-acceptable possibility to hit back) in this way, but I did not really have a choice and I ended it as soon as I could. He either lacks the ability to understand what is going on, he has serious issues walking away, he’s been on a very long sex-fasting or he is a masochist.
Sources / More info: caba-parv, caba-tl, dv-pt, dv-nurec, ll-femdac, llfb-fngsui, dr-lznc, tr-cbv, tr-casn, llfb-photo, mc-cg
The Lorena Lupu debate is of no interest to me (and I don't think it should be of interest to anyone who has a minimum amount of history knowledge - I wonder why Dan Alexe gave into it...).
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, you did pose a very interesting question. What drives this destructive tendency towards national history? I had it too for a while (I searched for every bit of detail which could demolish the established historical landmarks), but after a while, I decided to try and compile as much "believable" information as I could. Most of the time, I (and many others like me) have been fueled by the aggression of the communist protochronism and its follw-up, the modern day "dacopathy". Its supporters were mainly people who believed in the supernatural and had a tendency to go for conspiracy theories. People who are neither too informed, nor to intelligent or prone to intelligent debate.
For example, I like the idea that the Dacians were not "a single people" and that the tribes near Decebal's center of power might have had Celtic origins. I like it, but that doesn't mean it's been validated. However, even if it were, I don't think it would invalidate us as a people, because I firmly belive that modern day Romanians have extremly little (or nothing) to do with the ancient Dacians. It's part of our country's history, but it's pretty far from our "people's history". I wish more was written on our Slavic influence.
Lorena Lupu and debate don't really belong in a sentence. Alexe was in it body and soul for one of the reasons listed in the last sentence. I think it's a combination of the last two.
ReplyDeleteI think what drives this self-destructive chorus (would Ana Birchall call it "historical fariseism"?) really is an affirmation of the ego at the expense of the "collective good"/"the commons" (see my articles "Hurmuzii de la Favorit"), re-enforced by the "communism baaaaad, anything opposite goooood" leitmotiv. Pretty much like building churches - Ceausescu demolished them, henceforth building churches is universally good (see "Religion and choice").
Yes, maybe some of those who exalt the "Dacian past" may not be very capable to hold a conversation on the topic, but the same goes with atheism vs religious indoctrination: just because some very religious people are not excellent debaters, the atheist thesis is not automatically valid.
I do not know how strong the Dacian influence is - and I think nobody really does. But it stands to reason that Dacians influenced the formation of the Romanian language even if you reject the protochronist ideas. And though Sapir-Whorf is merely a hypothesis (see Academicianul Cur III), it is embraced by entire linguistics departments at some Universities, especially in Western Europe.
The Slavic influence in the Romanian language is obvious and easily quantifiable / identifiable. The mystery, roman(i)ce and challenge is ID-ing the Dacian stuff :)
The Slavic influence was incredibly strong until the 19th century when a strong "re-Latinization'' of the language started to occur (it was mainly influenced by the German nationalism). However, even during our "Slavic apogee" the spoken language still had strong Latin influences and maybe Dacian ones (there's a host of words with unknown etymology which we presume to be Dacian).
ReplyDeleteIndeed, the manicheistic approach does not work on most debates, even if one side is inherently wrong. It's simply the idea of not admitting doubt to your theory which is both unscientific and unproductive.
It seems to me that the Slavic influence was strongest in the East and not so strong in the rest of what is today Romania. Also, I'm not sure if it was just the German nationalism - that century every European nation was going nationalist. Romanian nationalism was at least jump-started by some Italians.
ReplyDeleteNot admitting doubt is indeed unscientific, unacademic and unproductive, unless you are trying to come across as a macho man, quite possibly due to approaching andropause or simply due to living in an excessively macho society.
Even our Christianity is Slavic by definition. However, many such "Slavic elements" have been integrated mainly due to geographical vicinities and political influences, not necessarily due to a shift in the local population.
ReplyDeleteP.S: Most Hungarians will never admit that, at a basic level, the Panonic population is pretty much the same with the one in Romania :)
Let me approach a bit this "communism baaaaad, anything opposite goooood" leitmotiv. We are in a way, already abroad, sort of speak. What I think is that on my side of town, diaspora could mean people who due to persecutions had to take the exile path. Then I have in mind 'what I live shapes how I think'. And thus I come to see a religious diaspora and an economic diaspora with the 2 of them overlapping in most cases.
ReplyDeleteI'm usually varza at communication, see my previous posts re. Tibu case, but I hope my viewpoint is out in the dscussion without hurting anyone's perspective and more clarifying as well: what may be mainstream in a country, may very well not be mainstream outside of it. Good night all! :)
What do you mean by "basic level"? They speak completely different languages..
ReplyDeleteSo what's your side of town?
ReplyDeleteObviously, the part that says 'communism is baaaaad for you'.
ReplyDeleteA genetic level: http://utopiabalcanica.net/2013/03/24/popoarele-ca-o-saorma-cu-de-toate/
ReplyDeleteAre you making a connection between political persecutions and religion in your comment? I don't get what you're trying to say. More precisely, how do you go from persecutions to 2 diasporas?
ReplyDeleteAs I was saying in my 2010 article http://asa.zamo.ca/2010/09/haploid-m170-r1a-si-originea-genetica.html I don't consider genetics relevant in that regard, language is far more so. But I do like UBs attempt to explain it so that everybody gets it. :)
ReplyDeleteI was referring to the election circumstances.
ReplyDeleteWell, the thing is that, after their defeat at the hands of Otto II, The Hungarians were in no condition to completely conquer and settle such a large space. So, it's somewhat understandable that they used the same tactics other Asian tribes used: established a central command center which ruled through military threat and tried to "Hungarize" the existing population (a population which was not too different from what you could find on the Romanian territory - it was not a single ethnic entitity, mind you). Until it got Christianed, Hungary was more of a tribal union, rather than an ethnically united people.
ReplyDeleteThe "Hungarization" and adoption of Christianity were some of the best tricks the Hungarian rulers employed in over to turn a bunch of peoples into "a single people". Other similar tribes (The Gepids, The Avars) had similar mechanisms of control and ruled over important parts of Romania and Hungary, but never quite went after the "ruling from a central point" part of the program :)
P.S: I knew about your article, but couldn't find it :))
So Stalin was Attila reborn? :)
ReplyDeleteBy instinct and observation.
ReplyDeleteAnd not only... according to some conspiracy theory psychos!
ReplyDelete'Are you making a connection between political persecutions and religion in your comment?'
ReplyDeleteYes.
'I don't get what you're trying to say'.
I'm saying that there are people who fled Romania prior to '89, then that there are people who left Romania after '89, and even others who flew recently across the ocean. :)
'More precisely, how do you go from persecutions to 2 diasporas?'
I have defined 2 because for culturally different people the same word has different connotations, therefore different impact. (Sorry, if it looks like a textbook answer, the intent was honest at heart!)
BLEGOO (zbierînd): "BARZĂ-BRÎNZĂ-VIEZURE-MÎNZ!"
ReplyDeleteGraiul dacic, nenorocitule, il graiesti? :D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPpdSzyDtL0
ReplyDelete:-)))) ...
ReplyDeleteAsta a fost bună!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy-XhkXMXGw
a clip with dan alexe young? :)
ReplyDelete