In an election week like this, two topics with a nationalist tone and that have nothing to do with the political speeches of the extremist parties hardly made room (even by chance). The ultra-nationalism promoted by such parties is only manipulative and easily digestible by masses of voters hungry for sensationalism and buckets of sugar and oil. In the present case we are talking about two positions that work as an alarm signal that should at least make us think.
But, instead of a coalition, we manage, once again, to split. And yes, it's good that there are diverse, contradictory opinions, because that would mean debate, only we lack the debate. We do not argue but impose our opinion. We are bad at debates, but we are strong on positions. We don't like debate, we want the other's opinion to die. We are more in love with being right than with the truth. Our ankle game is really just messed up, sometimes right into ours. Bipolarity also leads to self-harm.
"La blouse romaine" continues an approach initiated a few years ago by which it asks fashion creators who are inspired by traditional Romanian garments to credit us as a country/region, etc. Don't ask for money, don't ask for fame, just ask for a little honesty and make arguments (I won't list them here, you can find them at them). Questioned on the topic, Maurice Munteanu opines: "Ia Romanian is not 100% Romanian. The Romanian side has some very clear sources of inspiration: they are Ukraine, Hungary and Russia. This thing also applies to gastronomy. The small, as we all know, is not a Romanian product. Or the cheese pie. Poalele-n brau, mămăliga, sarmalele, etc. This whole thing should be discussed much more seriously and, of course, in a much broader context and with much more detail and studies, etc." (quoted from hotnews.ro).
AAnd he wants me to explain to Maurice Munteanu that it's true that we didn't invent either linen or sewing, but that certain patterns formed by the premeditated juxtaposition of pixels made of colored threads are Romanian. Because they are different from other models of other nations. And there is nothing sewn with white thread here, unless the background is colored. I would like to explain to Maurice Munteanu that before talking about gastronomy, he should get his hands on specialist books more often than I browse Elle. To top it off, as I've been walking around hospitals quite frequently this year, I've been flipping through fashion magazines.
Look, he could read about the polenta The history of Mămăligii, the global story of a national dish, the volume by Alex Drace-Francis, about the history of the small could give click here where I explained in detail, about the history of Sarmals could read herei. Of course, but otherwise everything can be summed up in the manger of the world and any invention will be credited together with the wheel.
The second topic refers to the fact that the Republic of Moldova promotes certain varieties of grapes as autochthonous. Among them, Feteasca Regală, for example, whose traceability is clear and stops at Mediaș. On Monday, June 3, we also celebrated the International Day of the Royal Feast. The case was presented extensively in the spring by Cezar Ioan, and the other day by Marius Iliev in an interview also the magazine vinul.ro (an interview from which the scandal of the decade in the world of wine may be born) says, among other things, that:
"If from the point of view of national ideals I can understand the expression "Bessarabia is Romania", from the wine-growing point of view, Bessarabia is not Romania (...)
As long as the definition of the notion "autochthonous" is that "he was born, developed in the territory where he lives and now, he is originally from here", I think things are quite simple to evaluate. A professional bias leads me to explain with the help of set theory. I take the example of the Royal Feteasca: if she was born in Daneș and Daneș belongs to Transylvania, and Transylvania to Romania, and Romania to Europe, then the Royal Feteasca is autochthonous in any of these places. It cannot be autochthonous in Dobrogea, for example, since Dobrogea and Daneș, or Transylvania, are disjoint (they do not intersect). In the same way, she cannot be autochthonous from Mediaș, as Mediaș and Daneș are disjoint. Now, if the origin of these varieties is in Romania, and Romania is disjointed from the Republic of Moldova, then they cannot be autochthonous in the Republic of Moldova. Of course, the Moldovans cite the fact that at a given moment, from a territorial point of view, Moldova belonged to Romania or there was a larger Moldova (on both banks of the Prut) and that this gives them the right to claim the varieties as autochthonous. On the same criteria, Hungary could have claims on the royal Fetești, to give another example. But the definition of what Romania means today from a territorial point of view it does not allow these interpretations, as we cannot consider that the national territories of the three countries can be defined according to interests. They are de facto confirmed realities these days. Can we say that Hungary or the Republic of Moldova had some historical connections with the genesis or development of some of these varieties? Of course. Does that make them native to those countries? Not. I suspect that it is difficult for some to understand, but here we are not talking about the Romanian nation, but about the territory, that is, that area of land that over time has been "administratored" by different countries. So native has to do with birth, development and place and nothing to do with politics, sovereignty, administration etc as some try to propose".
Unfortunately, many of the comments at the bottom of the interview picked up and shared by many people in the industry I noticed another current of opinion. Iliev is not contradicted, instead he is accused of being envious of the success of others and that if we couldn't (I didn't understand exactly what we couldn't do with Feteasca Regală...) now we want the neighbor's goat to die too.
What may not have been understood (or did not want to be understood) from both examples is that no one forbids anyone anything: Luis Vuitton can also take inspiration from wherever he wants and Moldovan producers can make Fetească Regală wine, but let the designer say where to inspired, and the neighbors to mention the variety without claiming it. And one more thing: the next time you say that nothing is ours, maybe remember these two examples.
The fact that Shakespeare is translated, published and read in our country does not make him Romanian. The fact that Feteasca Regală is also cultivated in the Republic of Moldova does not mean that it is an autochthonous Bessarabian variety, the fact that other peoples also have blouses with traditional patterns does not transform the pattern from Marginimea Sibiului into a universal good without the right of regional identity. Just as this photo (which appears on many sites) is not of Romanian food, even though it looks like it. It is made at a feast in the Republic of Moldova.
photo credit: Photo 50575136 © Niromax | Dreamstime.com
English 
Romanian 