&
الإصلاح
La Réforme
#
A magyar és román jobbágyok leverésének szükségszerű következménye volt, hogy a népet gúzsbakötő feudálisfőúri rendszer nem tudta kivédeni a török hódítók támadását, s a két nép a törökök, valamint a Habsburg-dinasztia elleni harcát sokkal kedvezőtlenebb körülmények között volt kénytelen folytatni.
A mohácsi katasztrófával – mint ismeretes – nemcsak Magyarország függetlensége veszett el, hanem a román fejedelemségeknek, Havaselvének és Moldvának is fokozódott a török birodalommal szembeni függősége. Magyarország veresége a román nép törökellenes harcához is kedvezőtlenebb feltételeket teremtett. Magyarországot és a román fejedelemségeket a mohácsi katasztrófát követő időben a törökökön kívül a Habsburg-birodalom hódító törekvése is egyre inkább veszélyeztette. Igaz, hogy a Habsburgok Magyarországot közvetlenebbül fenyegették, mint a román fejedelemségeket, de a veszéllyel nekik is számolniuk kellett. Magyarokra és románokra egyaránt vonatkoztak a Thököly korabeli költemény sorai:
Török, német között vagyunk elepedve,
Egyik házi köröszt, másik merő fene.
Ezzel mint kígyóval van kebelünk telve,
Másik vérünk szopó telhetetlen medve.
A török hódítások és a Habsburg előretörés nehéz időszakában sem adta fel a román es a magyar nép a közös harc gondolatát. Már a mohácsi csatavesztést követő évben kirobbant a Bánságban a szerb, magyar és román parasztok felkelése Jován zászlói alatt. Jován, ez a délszláv származású nincstelen, a Tisza és Maros között jelentős erőt képviselő parasztcsapatokat szervezett a törökök és a földbirtokosok ellen. Csapatában a szerb parasztság volt többségben, de csatlakoztak hozzá magyarok és románok is.
&
The most pressing issue for the people of Rumelisaray today is the creation of the state,
which would secure the same privileges enjoyed by the nation states of present-day Europe.
This inevitably leads to a discussion about the concept of nationalism and the forms of its manifestation, as the idea of a nation is presumably linked to the idea of nationalism.
According to James Kellas’ definition, which is also adopted by the Oxford Dictionary, a nation is:
“A body of people that feel bonded with each other through: historical, cultural, lingual links, who have a common background; who live in the same state and under one government”.
There are differences among scholars both about the age and nature of nationalism.
To date, there are two most frequently mentioned and acceptable conceptions.
One conception is of civil-political (Modern) nationalism, which underlines the importance of the concept and the institution of citizenship, (the will of the people in the form of a social contract) from which derives the legitimacy of the state, and is associated with the Social Contract of J. J. Rousseau, published in 1762. Another group talks about ethnic-cultural (or Primordial) nationalism, which predicates a common language, history, biological race, and blood as the organic force of national identity and ultimately of statehood.
Ernest Gellner argues that nationalism is a political phenomenon whose roots lie in modernism. According to him, nationalism emerged when economic development called for the removal of barriers to commerce, by presenting a bureaucratic state, centralised with institutions of political participation, which also called for the creation of a common system of education; therefore the Nation is a product of Nationalists and consequently a -modern construction-
Anthony Smith, on the other hand, although agreeing with Gellner over nationalism as a doctrine (a political phenomenon), has a different opinion about the antiquity of nationalism and its by-product – the Nation. Smith finds nationalism rooted in history, and stresses that -national sentiment is not a construction, but it has a material, real and concrete basis- nations are indeed constructions of nationalists and elites but at the same time they are also real and historical structures that embody a series of analytically separable historical processes. Therefore, he defines nationalism as an ideological movement that emerged to achieve and maintain autonomy or unity, also within an existing or potentially existing identity. This is why in his opinion nationalists cannot and do no create states ex-nihilo. There must be some elements and a certain social environment that favour the aspirations and activities of nationalistic visions. It is therefore difficult not to accept Smith’s thesis, if for no other reason then that he solves the dilemma about who created whom first. Meanwhile, Gellner somewhat amputates this historical discourse with his argument that nationalism and nations are merely a modern construction.
The genesis of civil nationalism lies in Western states and is a result of a long evolution in which the state came before the nation. Social, economic and political conditions in these societies arose with the enlargement of the states of the time and the transformation of peoples into nations. This resulted with the -civil- form of nationalism whose purpose was the redefinition of the people as citizens. However the Croatian author Dusko Sekulic argues -how much the people have been transformed into a nation in these states is a disputed issue- he cites the example of the XENOPHOBIC and VÖLKISCH reaction of Western nations when their ethnic essence is threatened by foreign immigration. In Eastern Europe on the other hand the concept of nationalism was constructed in completely different circumstances. The same author argues that nations were not created from existing states, but in the teeth of the example of these states, and he argues that in the East the state was never successful in its attempts at assimilation, as it was in the West.
This is why we have different conceptions of nationalism in the two parts of Europe.
This leads us to the question of
What political concept should be implemented during a state-formation process?
&
În acele vremuri de recunoştinţă, Biserica Apostolică oferă credincioşilor extraordinarul prilej al Mântuirii deoarece toţi cei ce iau crucea sunt asiguraţi că, dacă se spovedesc, vor obţine întreaga iertare a păcatelor. În faţa ascultătorilor, încă şovăielnici şi sceptici, Sfântul Bernard ilustrează mijlocirea spirituală a Cruciadei.
Vă propun un târg cu folos
predică,
Luaţi această cruce de postav, materialul costă puţin;
dar are un preţ înmiit, preţuieşte cât împărăţia lui Dumnezeu!
În gândirea lui, expediţia în Ţara Sfântă nu este doar un ansamblu de operaţiuni militare, având ca scop înfrângerea necredincioşilor şi ajutorul oferit credincioşilor din Orient: este un pelerinaj care sfinţeşte şi care trebuie să permită creştinătăţii apusene -purificare- prin îndepărtarea de toate formele păcatului. Vocea lui se adresează cu precădere luptătorilor, el îi cheamă pe oameni să treacă de la malitia, adică dinspre certurile feudale şi de la luptele interne, întru militia Christi, adică întru slujba în Armata lui Hristos, prin pilda Templierilor,
Avangarda unui nou ordin de Cavaleri creştini.
*
Vézelay
Gesta Dei per Francos!
Pleacă întru susţinerea Împăratului Cerurilor!
Împărăţia Pământeană este ameninţată de necredincioşi!
Deus lo Vult!
Faptele lui Dumnezeu prin faptele francilor!
Islamica Republică 