Romania, II

...and Romania; Transylvania.

the professor's words linger in my mind, he having replied the best to the poignant question posed by one too naively believing the definitions give by this system-- definitions of 'nation-state,' 'national identity,' 'minority,' and so forth. the question was posed by a colleague of mine, 'what nation do you identify most strongly with?'
'yes, this is precisely it,' came the reply.
'no, you misunderstand my question. do you think of yourself as romanian or hungarian? or transylvanian?'
'yes.'
frustrated, my colleague attempts to explain again. the professor cuts him off,
'i understand your english. i am me-- i have a personality, and those types are the most difficult for a state to deal with. i am an individual. there are firstly hungarians, and there are those hungarians who live in romania. and there are transylvanians. and there are the issues of schooling in which language? and so on. the classes here (in a small romanian village) are all in hungarian. except 8th grade romanian history, of course.
'and the worst is if you, a hungarian transylvanian, speak romanian better than them. it does not matter i speak three languages. you do not insult a romanian by better knowing his own language.'
my colleague has of course sat down by this time. it is a funny situation with us americans in hungary; there is not enough money put into universities, into the intellects for the really good ones to stay within them. so, for instance, this professor teaches at CEU, the graduate university, three days a week, and returns to romania three days a week to this small village where most of the population does not go beyond fourth grade. 'the last day (of the week) you know is not mine.'
one of our directors (Antal Orkeny) in budapest is famous the country over as an sociologist. and then there's the soviet/ russian historian peter kenez published many times over who is based in santa cruz. and i look around the office in budapest and frown-- these two are horrible at the paperwork, nagging questions from foreign students which they have been delegated. they, sensitive to the hungarian-romanian ethnic conflict, cannot either convey to us the importance of this tension.
there are 'good' romanian villages and 'bad' ones, the distinction according to a fifty-year-old pillaging of hungarian villages when the people were forcibly moved according to the soviet plan. (the socialists wanted to create 'national identities,' you see, which requires that minorities be diffused and decentralized and regional autonomy broken down.) at markets today grandmothers still see their dowry chests, their childhood plates, their tables, being sold back to other hungarians... 'bad' villages are cut off from the local economy, a sour fate for a country whose GNI per person hovers around $5000 (a year). hungary is connected with the wealth of the eu, you see.
the embittered countries resume their fights of words, politics, policy. 'yes, to comment on the (Hungarian-slandering) remark by the romanian politician... when one runs out of policy issues, when one wants to remind the people of base and vulgar associations-- it is easiest to play to their identity by insulting the other. that is how to know who you are. it is a question of self-identity.'