May 15

Romanian Parliament: “Vlachs Are Romanians, Not Vlachs” by A. Gica (HabAr Society Farsarotul newsletter)

Catégorie : HabariEditeur @ 8:29 am

In April 2005, the Arumanian Community in Romania (ACR) started the procedure for obtaining the status of a national minority for the Arumanians in Romania. After three years of administrative red tape, the ACR decided to file suit against the Romanian Government for cancelling parts of Government Resolution no. 589/2001 concerning the founding of the Council of National Minorities in Romania.

According to article no. 2 of this Resolution, the Council of National Minorities is composed of three members of each organization of a national minority that is represented in the Romanian Parliament. But to have a representative in Parliament, a minority group should be a member of the Council of National Minorities. It therefore seems impossible for any group, other than those 18 national minorities currently represented in the Romanian Parliament, to acquire the status of national minority. This year – five years later – this trial between the ACR and the Romanian government will be judged in The European Court of Human Rights. The motivation cited by the ACR for filing its lawsuit is to try to “ensure protection measures for the Arumanian ethnic group.”

On October, 23, 2007 the Romanian Parliament adopted Law no. 299/2007 to support Romanians living outside Romania (formally known as “Romanians from Everywhere”). It was a harsh debate for an amendment that stated that the Arumanians should be included in the category of “Romanians from Everywhere.” We had the weird situation of some Arumanians lobbying for the Arumanians to be considered “Romanians from Everywhere” while other Arumanians were lobbying for the opposite. The amendment was at first adopted but a technical error was invoked, and the voting procedure was repeated. The amendment was rejected the second time, but with a balanced vote. Six years later, on May 8, 2013, the Chamber of Deputies voted on Law no. 176/2013, which completes Law no. 299/2007 by specifying what “Romanians from Everywhere” means. Among others in this category, the law included “Armani, Armanji, Aromani, Cutovlahi, Farseroti, Macedoromani, Macedo-Romani, Macedo-Armanji.” This time the vote was very unbalanced (293 voted for the law, 2 voted against it, and there were 5 abstentions). The ACR lobbied against the law before the vote and strongly protested the law when it was passed.

Even if it seems at first sight that there is no connection with the two events described above, we want to note here that the last national census in Romania (held in October 2011; the final results were published in 2013) counted the Arumanians as Romanians and, what’s more, the number of the Arumanians was not even published; therefore the only information available is from the 2002 census, which counted 25,053 Aromanians and 1,334 Macedo-Romanians. For purposes of comparison, the ACR has around 7,000 members.

On August 9, 2013 the ACR called a meeting before Romanian government headquarters to commemorate the centenary of the Treaty of Bucharest, which ended the Second Balkan War on August 10, 1913. Around 200 people gathered for this meeting (we should add that it was a very hot day in the middle of the holiday season). Among other banners (to preserve the Arumanian language, to follow the European Parliament’s Recommendation 1.333 [1]) was one that was against the passage of Law no. 299: “We want to remain Arumanians!”

What did the politicians in the Romanian Parliament who voted in favor of Law 176/2013 (which states that Arumanians are “Romanians from Everywhere”) have in mind? It is only a matter of national pride? Or it is a sign that Romania will be involved again in the Arumanian Question in the Balkans? It is possible that this law will create difficulties for Romania’s relations with other Balkan countries – in fact, the Romanian Minister of Foreign Affairs, aware of the problems that could arise, did not support this law.

The Arumanians are usually very loyal towards the country in which they live. This is the first time we have seen an Arumanian organization in a trial against the Government of the host country (we should add here that the members of the ACR consistently speak of their loyalty to and love for Romania).
[1] On June 24th 1997, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe voted Recommendation 1333 (1997) on Aromanian culture and language, the most important achievement for the Aromanians ever, which included the following language:

“The Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers:
i) encourage Balkan states which comprise Aromanian communities to sign, ratify and implement the European Charter of regional or Minority languages and invite them to support the Aromanians, particularly in the following fields:
a) education in their mother tongue;
b) religious services in Aromanian in their churches;
c) newspapers, magazines and radio and television programmes in Aromanian;
d) support for their cultural associations;
invite the other member states to support the Aromanian language, for instance by creating    university professorships in the subject and disseminating the most interesting products of Aromanian culture throughout Europe by means of translations, anthologies, courses, exhibitions and theatrical productions.”

What is also remarkable here is the great split between Arumanians who consider themselves Romanians and Arumanians who consider themselves a different ethnic group, and the quarrel over which side is more numerous. Again, the data we have is not definitive.

The break between the two sides seems to be very serious. The biggest challenge for the future may be to find a project that all Arumanians in Romania can support.

Cf. : Volume XXVI, Issues 1 & 2  (Fall 2011/Spring 2012)  & Volume XXVII, Issues 1 & 2  (Fall 2012/Spring 2013)–combined : http://www.farsarotul.org/nl32_2.htm

3 réponses à “Romanian Parliament: “Vlachs Are Romanians, Not Vlachs” by A. Gica (HabAr Society Farsarotul newsletter)”

  1. Deus Carmo a dit :

    Todo que se considere minoria em determinado país ou comunidade deve ser respeitado. Lutar por sua assimilação ou integração pura e simplesmente, é, a nosso ver, contrário à livre expressão dos povos. Foi assim que se destruiu os indígenas das Amêricas.

  2. Deus Carmo a dit :

    Todo povo que se considere minoria em determinado país ou comunidade deve ser respeitado. Lutar por sua assimilação ou integração pura e simplesmente, é, a nosso ver, contrário à livre expressão dos povos. Foi assim que se destruiu os indígenas das Américas

    Trad. nt : Tout peuple qui se considère comme étant une minorité dans un pays donné ou dans une communauté, doit être respecté. Lutter pour son assimilation ou son intégration pure et simple est, à nos yeux, contraire à la libre expression des peuples. C’est ainsi que les indigènes des Amériques ont été détruits.

  3. Albanofil a dit :

    Demonstration that Aromanians are NO Romanians and that Aromanian language exists and it is no dialect of Romanian:
    Ce este aromana? Limba sau dialect? Asa-zisii lingvisti romani sustin ca este un dialect al romanei comune, numita si proto-romana si stra-romana, pretinzand ca aromana este un dialect, eventual o limba mai noua, desprinsa din “proto-romana” si, deci, ca aromanii, daca sunt intr-adevar un popor (sic), sunt un popor mai recent, la origine ei fiind, chipurile, tot romani. Din aceasta “proto-romana” ar fi rezultat 4 limbi: romana, aromana, “megleno-romana” si “istro-romana”. Fals: in primul rand se poate pune intrebarea: de ce nu ar fi romana un dialect al “proto-aromanei”? In al doilea rand faptul ca etnonimul/cuvantul “ruman” pare a fi mai vechi, dpdv lingvistic decat cel de “arman”/”raman” sau “rumer” nu are nicio relevanta pentru denumirea proto-limbii comune, deoarece in aromana exista alte cuvinte, care sunt mai vechi decat cuvintele omoloage din romana, adica sunt mai apropiate cronologic de etimoanele lor latinesti, decat cele din romana. De exemplu aromanul “oclju” pastreaza “-l”-ul latinesc din “ocuLus”, intr-o forma palatala, in timp ce corespondentul romanesc, “ochi” este mai recent, aparut dupa pierderea “l”-ului muiat din aromana. Aici se poate adauga ca si cuvantul/etnonim “roman” din asa-zisa “daco-romana” este mult mai recent decat forma initiala, “ruman”, deci cuvantul aromanesc “arman”/”raman” este mai vechi decat cel “roman” (“ruman” este un arhaism in “daco-romana”). Situatia celor 4 limbi romanice: romana, aromana, megleno-vlaha si istro-vlaha (cum ar trebui corect numite “megleno-romana” si, respectiv, “istro-romana”) este perfect analoaga cu cea dintre RUSa, belaRUSa/bieloRUSa, RUSyna si ucraineana, cele 4 limbi slave de est. 3 dintre ele pastreaza glotonimul “rus-“, la fel cum 2 dintre limbile romanice de est pastreaza amintirea cuvantului latin “Romanus” in numele lor: aromana si romana. Asta nu inseamna insa ca rusa ar fi un dialect belarus/rusyn, nici macar un dialect al belarusei/rusynei vechi, nici ca belarusa ar fi un dialect rus/rusyn, nici ca rusyna ar fi un dialect rus/belarus. Toate provin din slava veche de est. Belarusa e o limba destul de diferita de rusa, fiind mult mai apropiata de ucraineana decat de rusa. Cat despre rusyna, este foarte diferita de rusa, unii lingvisti considerand-o dialect al limbii slovace sau dialect de tranzitie slovac-ucrainean (in afara de cei care o considera dialect ucrainean sau limba de sine statatoare), deci dialect al unei limbi vest-slave (slovaca). Este ca si cum ai zice ca fosta limba dalmata era un dialect romanesc, dalmata si romana facand parte din grupe diferite de limbi romanice. De mentionat ca si ucraineana este foarte diferita de rusa, mai diferita decat este aromana de romana, dar mai asemanatoare decat este romana cu istro-vlaha. Desigur ca se poate obiecta ca limba belarusa exista dar poporul belarus nu, deoarece belarusii se considera rusi. Acest lucru e partial adevarat, aproape toti belarusii se considera rusi iar, actualmente, limba lor materna nu mai este belarusa, ci rusa, unii avand doar cunostinte de belarusa ca limba straina, altii deloc. Exista insa si belarusi care au limba materna belarusa si se considera diferiti etnic de rusi. In plus, mult mai multi rusyni (procentual) se considera diferiti etnic atat de rusi, cat si de ucraineni. Un alt argument este ca exista limbi mult mai asemanatoare intre ele decat romana cu aromana care nu sunt considerate de nimeni a fi una dialectul alteia, de exemplu: ceha si slovaca, ucraineana si belarusa, norvegiana/daneza si suedeza (ca sa nu mai vorbim ca norvegiana este extrem de apropiata de daneza, cam ca portugheza de galiciana, o limba pe care unii o considera dialect portughez; intr-adevar pana in urma cu vreo 70-80 de ani norvegiana era considerata dialect danez). Aromana este deci diferita de romana, fiind o limba distincta atat dpdv istoric, diacronic, cat si sincronic, dpdv al criteriului asemanarii actuale cu romana, criteriul inteligibilitatii mutuale. Aromana si romana sunt la fel de asemanatoare ca portugheza cu spaniola, poate doar cu putin mai asemanatoare. Ramane doar chestiunea stabilirii unui nume pentru proto-limba comuna din care au rezultat aromana, romana, megleno-vlaha si istro-vlaha, deoarece niciuna dintre denumirile care sugereaza o prioritate temporala a “daco-romanei” nu e corecta. Exista mai multe variante: romana (nu româna!) est-balcanica (pe modelul reto-romanei, pe care nimeni nu o numeste reto-română), proto-romana est-balcanica, romanica est-balcanica si proto-romanica est-balcanica. Este adevarat ca istro-vlaha se vorbeste actualmente in vestul Peninsulei Balcanice, dar nu acesta este arealul ei initial. Atributul de “est-balcanica” este necesar pentru a evita confuzia cu dalmata. Ramane de asemenea de gasit un nume adecvat pentru “istro-romana” si “megleno-romana”, deoarece nici glotonimele “istro-vlaha” si, respectiv, “megleno-vlaha” nu sunt prea potrivite, fiindca “vlahi” sunt numiti si românii (vorbitorii de asa-zisa “daco-română”) din Valea Timocului (in Serbia si Bulgaria), desi, din cate stiu eu, si vorbitorii de dalmata erau numiti vlahi de catre popoarele invecinate. Pentru incorectul “macedo-romani” (care sugereaza ca ar fi vorba despre românii din Macedonia si nu despre un popor diferit) exista cuvantul romanesc “aromani”, ce evita confuziile. “Megleno-vlah”/”Istro-vlah” nu ar elimina confuziile, intrucat ar sugera ca este vorba despre acelasi tip de vlahi ca cei din Valea Timocului, care locuiesc in regiunea Meglenului si, respectiv, a Istriei. Cuvantul meglenit pentru megleno-vlah este “vla” (fara “-h”) sau “vlau̯”, dar nu se poate zice “limba vlaă/vlaiă/vlaie. S-ar putea folosi “limba meglenita” si “poporul meglenit”. Cat despre istro-vlahi s-ar putea folosi “poporul jeianean” si “limba jeianeana”, desi acesta este numele doar al unei parti ai istro-vlahilor, ceilalti auto-denumindu-se vlahi. Avand insa in vedere ca si unii, si ceilalti vorbesc aceeasi limba, se poate extinde endonimul de jeianeni si asupra celorlalti. Pentru vlahii din Valea Timocului ar fi mai corecta utilizarea numelui de “valahi”, care aminteste de Valahia (Tara Romaneasca = Muntenia + Oltenia), deoarece ei vorbesc româna, asa-zisul “dialect daco-român al limbii române”). O ultima precizare: cand am spus ca “ruman” este un cuvant mai vechi decat “arman/raman”, dpdv al legilor fonetice care au guvernat transformarea cuvintelor latinesti in romanesti/aromanesti, eu doar am presupus acest lucru, neavand cunostinte atat de vaste de fonetica istorica romaneasca/aromana. Asa cum am demonstrat mai sus, un singur cuvant, fie el si etnonim, nu poate servi ca baza pentru afirmatia ca aromana ar fi un dialect al romanei, deoarece exista cuvinte in aromana mai vechi ca omoloagele lor din romana, ceea ce ar insemna ca si romana este un dialect al aromanei. De fapt, ambele limbi provin dintr-o limba-mama pe care e incorect sa o numim atat “proto-romana”, cat si “proto-aromana”.

Laisser une réponse