Occult Use of Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism

A Revolutionary Narrative of European History: Bonneville's <i>History of Modern Europe</i> (1789–1792)

Background: In 1924, the Department of Ethnology under the leadership of the Polish ethnologist, Professor Adam Fischer was established at Lviv University. The department was to specialize in Slavic issues. Thus, since the founding of the unit, Slav-ic ethnography has been one of the main topics in A. Fischer’s courses. However, until the early 1930s, these disciplines were concluded in areas of culture. A. Fischer began to implement another concept of lecture courses (by peoples or their groups) in the 1930s, after traveling to Central and Eastern Europe(travel geography included ethno-graphic centers of cities such as Prague, Brno, Martin, Bratislava, Vienna, Ljubljana, Zagreb, Belgrade, Budapest). It was then that the Lviv professor started the series “Slavic Ethnography”. It was to consist of a synthesis of “General Characteristics of Slavic Ethnography” and 11 parts of the complex characteristics of individual Slavic peoples (coverage of such issues as the boundaries of ethnic territory and ethnographic zoning, stages of ethnic history, dialectal and anthropological features, the history of ethnographic research, areas of folk culture). Purpose: The work is aimed to analyze the views of the Polish ethnologist of the interwar period Adam Fischer on the Western and Southern Slavs, in particular on the basis of the manuscripts of a professor from the Archives of the Polish Ethnological Society (Wrocław, Poland). Results: Among the West Slavic peoples, A. Fischer singled out the Polabians (German-assimilated Polabian tribes living in the area between the Elbe, the Oder and the Baltic Sea), Lusatians, Poles (the professor emphasized the population of Pomera-nia, in particular, the Kashubians, whose features against the background of the Polish people explained primarily by the Baltic influences), Czechs and Slovaks (in the series “Slavic Ethnography” two separate notebooks dedicated to these peoples were planned. Instead, in the Archives of the Polish Ethnological Society there is one manuscript of two parts – “Czechs” and “Slovaks”, respectively, which was obviously influenced by their stay in the interwar period within one state). In developing the general scheme of the series“Slavic Ethnography”, A. Fischer often used the principle of the existence of the state among the people (which is ethnologically incorrect).This can be seen primarily in the materials about the South Slavs: separate notebooks of the series were to be devoted only to such South Slavic peoples as Serbs and Croats (A. Fischer characterized them as separate peoples with one language), Slovenes, Bulgarians.In the manuscript “Ethnography of Bulgaria” the scholar paid special attention to the Macedonians, emphasizing that part of the then Bul-garian state was not Bulgarian ethnic territory.Instead, Montenegrins and Bosnians (A. Fisher used the term “Muslim Serbo-Croats”) were mentioned occasionally by the pro-fessor in the context of the characterization of the peoples of Yugoslavia.The lecture course “Balkan Peninsula” prepared by A. Fischer deserves special attention. Here, the scientist used the geographical factor to the grouping of the material. Key words: Adam Fischer, Lviv University, “Slavic Ethnography”, Western Slavs, Southern Slavs, Ethnic Processes, Folk Culture. Archives of New Files in Warsaw [unpublished sourse], Mf Nr. B 11453 (2442). (In Polish) Archives of Polish Ethnological Society [unpublished sourse], No. inv. 16, 22, 31, 64, 66, 73, 74, 76, 77, 81, 87, 123, 124, 136, 154, 280, 281. (In Polish) Burszta, J., 1971. Ethnography of Poland and the Western Territories. Lud, 55, pp.15–28. (In Polish) Falkowski, J., 1931. Fischer A. Slavic Ethnography. First issue: Polabian Slavs. Lviv-Warsaw 1932. Published by Książnica-Atlas. Page 40 + 1 map, with 18 engravings in the test. Price: 2.40 PLN. Lud, 30, pp.239–240. (In Polish) Fischer, A., 1932. Slavic Ethnography. First issue: Polabians. Lviv, Warsaw: Książni-ca-Atlas. (In Polish) Fischer, A., 1932. Slavic Ethnography. Second issue: Lusatians. Lviv, Warsaw: Książnica-Atlas. (In Polish) Fischer, A., 1934. Slavic Ethnography. Third issue: Poles. Lviv, Warsaw: Książnica-Atlas. (In Polish) Fischer, A., 1937. Trees in the beliefs and rituals of the Polish people, Lud, 35, pp.60–76. (In Polish) Kaminśkyj, W., 1927. Adam Fischer. Polish People. The Polish textbook, prepared with the allowance of the Ministry of Religious Denominations and Public Education. With 3 maps and 58 fig. in text. Lviv – Warsaw – Kraków 1926. S. IV + 240. Lud, 26, pp.104–106. (In Polish) Kujawska, M., Łuczaj, Ł., Sosnowska, J. and Klepacki, P., 2016. Plants in folk beliefs and customs – Adam Fischer’s Dictionary. Wrocław: PTL. (In Polish) Lorentz, F., Lehr-Spławiński, T. and Fischer, A., 1934. Kashubians: folk culture and language. Toruń: In-t Bałtycki. (In Polish) Program of lectures for the summer semester of 1910/1911 academic year. Emperor Francis I University in Lviv, 1911. Lviv: First Union Printing House. (In Polish) Program of lectures in the 1st and 2nd trimester of the 1921/1922 academic year. Jan Kazimierz University in Lviv, 1921. Lviv: First Union Printing House. (In Polish) Program of lectures in the 3rd trimester of the 1921–1922 academic year. Jan Kazim-ierz University in Lviv, 1922. Lviv: First Union Printing House. (In Polish) Program of lectures in the 1st and 2nd trimester of the 1922/1923 academic year. Jan Kazimierz University in Lviv, 1922. Lviv: First Union Printing House. (In Polish) Program of lectures in the 1924/1925 academic year. Jan Kazimierz University in Lviv, 1924. Lviv: First Union Printing House. (In Polish) Program of lectures in the 1925/1926 academic year. Jan Kazimierz University in Lviv, 1925. Lviv: First Union Printing House. (In Polish) Program of lectures in the 1926/1927 academic year. Jan Kazimierz University in Lviv, 1926. Lviv: First Union Printing House. (In Polish) Program of lectures in the 1927/1928 academic year. Jan Kazimierz University in Lviv, 1927. Lviv: First Union Printing House. (In Polish) Program of lectures in the 1929/1930 academic year. Jan Kazimierz University in Lviv, 1929. Lviv: First Union Printing House. (In Polish) Program of lectures in the 1930/1931 academic year. Jan Kazimierz University in Lviv, 1930. Lviv: First Union Printing House. (In Polish) Program of lectures in the 1931/1932 academic year and the staff of the University in the 1930/1931 and 1931/1932 academic years. Jan Kazimierz University in Lviv, 1931. Lviv: Scientific printing house. (In Polish) Program of lectures and the staff of the University in the 1932/1933 academic year. Jan Kazimierz University in Lviv, 1932. Lviv: Scientific printing house. (In Polish) Program of lectures in the 1933/1934 academic year. Jan Kazimierz University in Lviv, 1933. Lviv: Scientific printing house. (In Polish) Program of lectures in the 1934/1935 academic year. Jan Kazimierz University in Lviv, 1934. Lviv: Scientific printing house. (In Polish) Program of lectures in the 1935/1936 academic year. Jan Kazimierz University in Lviv, 1935. Lviv: Scientific printing house. (In Polish) Program of lectures in the 1937/1938 academic year. Jan Kazimierz University in Lviv, 1937. Lviv: Scientific printing house. (In Polish) Program of lectures in the 1938/1939 academic year. Jan Kazimierz University in Lviv, 1938. Lviv: Scientific printing house. (In Polish) State Archives of Lviv Region, [unpublished sourse], f. 26, 2, 543; 5, 1956. (In Polish) Staff of the University and the lecture program for the summer semester of 1900/1901 academic year. Emperor Francis I University in Lviv, 1901. Lviv: First Union Printing House. (In Polish) Staff of the University and the lecture program for the winter semester of 1901/1902 academic year. Emperor Francis I University in Lviv, 1901. Lviv: First Union Printing House. (In Polish)

Almost two decades ago, in a conference paper entitled “Location in space and time,” the German historian Matthias Springer asked rhetorically how many people in his day were able to distinguish between Slovenia, Slovakia and Slavonia. 1 His was a tongue-in-cheek remark about the then American President George W. Bush, who, in 1999, had told a Slovak reporter that he had learned about his country from its foreign minister visiting Texas. It turned out that that minister, however, was from Slovenia, not Slovakia. At the beginning of the second millennium, this was a politician’s gaffe de jour. Aware of that, Springer’s audience may have nodded and smiled approvingly. No record exists of the reaction that either the German historian or his audience had to the publication of a map just a few years later in a much used and praised handbook of Byzantine Studies. The map purports to show the Empire’s northern neighbors, and has Slovaks placed next to Avars, Pechenegs and Khazars. 2 Meanwhile, prominent scholars write nonchalantly about the “Slavlands” being one of the vast and dynamic areas of Europe “whose transformations owed and brought so much to early medieval civilization.” 3 The same scholars explain that by the time Charlemagne was born, the “eastern reaches of the Frankish territory” were separated from Byzantium by the “dreaded Avars” and, beyond them, by the “Protobulgarian Empire, then expanding over a great swath [sic] of central Europe, from roughly the modern-day Republic of Moldova down into Greece.” 4 Others dread the migration of the (early) Slavs, who “broke the unity of the continuity of the continent” or, alternately, the Mongols, who “were almost entirely a negative force, with their tendency to mass killing and brutal exploitation.” 5 At least the Slavs receive occasional kudos: “they may have lacked circuses, togas, Latin poetry and central heating, but the Slavs were as successful in imposing a new social order across central and Eastern Europe as the Roman had been to the west and south.” 6 By contrast, the “pony-riding Avars” had only “aggressive impulses.” 7 Like them, several other “central Asian peoples entered Europe before the age of the barbarian invasions was over,” with the Bulgars and the Magyars at the head of the list. 8 Both groups came from “the grasslands where Europe meets Asia.” 9 The Magyars at least played “a significant role in western Europe’s eastern frontier,” while the Bulgar(ian)s could consider themselves lucky to have such a charismatic leader as “Boris the Bogomil.” 10 Under the pressure of the Bulgars and the Moravians from the south and from the east (!), the Poles had to embrace Catholicism. 11 However, it took Emperor Otto II [sic] to establish the archdiocese of Gniezno “on the frontiers of the known world.” 12 2Being left out of history was not the only problem of Eastern Europe. In the 860s, the first wave of Viking invaders crossed the Baltic Sea “to what are now the Baltic states.” 13 When they got to Russia, they found there the Varangians, who are “another Slavic people.” 14 Like the Bulgarians, the Rus’ got lucky, though. First, they were able to overcome, albeit only gradually, “many of the Slavic, Lithuanian, Finnish and Magyar peoples who were then living on the steppe.” 15 Second, having tapped onto the resources of Russia, the Rus’ began to trade with their neighbors. That much results from “the presence of Iranian coins in eastern Europe.” 16 Moreover, since the Byzantines paid in cash, “Kiev had much more of a money economy than did western Europe in the ninth and tenth centuries.” 17 Third, Cyril and Methodius knew Slavic, and the alphabet called Glagolitic “later developed into Church Slavonic.” 18 Even the Euchologion of Sinai was “composed in Glagolitic.” 19 Unfortunately, “successive Germanic and Scandinavian attacks threatened the survival of the principalities of Vladimir and Novgorod” after 1240. 20

Background: Slavic idea, which was based on the idea of the ethnic, linguistic-cultural and historical affinity of the Slavs, was intensified at the beginning of the twentieth century in conditions of political enslavement of the majority of Slavic peoples. It became an integral part of such concepts as Austro-Slavism, Illirism-Yugoslavism, Russian imperial Pan-Slavism, and neo-Slavism. In the interwar period, the ideas of Slavic unity aroused interest in almost all Slavic states and became the subject of discussion on the pages of the special periodicals. The Ukrainian intellectual O. Bochkovskii outlined his point of view. Purpose: The purpose of the article is to analyze the interpretation of O. Bochkovsky (in 1916, investigating so-called non-historical nations, distinguishing three phases in the process of their national revival: national awakening, economic emancipation, politicization of the movement), the idea of Slavic unity in all its manifestations at various stages of historical development . Results: O. Bochkowski believed that in the process of national revival, the desire of small Slavic peoples to rally on the grounds of belonging to the Slavs played a positive role: in uniting, the peoples hoped to stand in the struggle for their own existence, seeking support from the most numerous and strongest people. Therefore, among the Balkan and Austrian Slavs, Slavophilism was often identified with Russophilism. O. Bochkovsky criticized the philosophy of Slavophilism for lack of concrete measures in the program to solve the most important - the national problem in Russia. In Pan-Slavophilism, he identified two opposite directions: Pan-Russianism and Austro-Slavism. Pan-Russianism (Russian political Pan-Slavism) was used by the official Russian authorities outside the Russian Empire (in Austria-Hungary, the Balkans) to mask their imperialist goals. Austro-Slavism regarded as a typical manifestation of the Slavophilism of the enslaved Slavic peoples, who began on the path of rebirth. O. Bochkovsky considered contradictory statements of the new course of Neo-Slavism: taking the principle of national self-determination and independence of the Slavic peoples, Neo-Slavism neglected the national movement of the Ukrainian people. Scientist called the First World War, which actualized the national question, a signal for the enslaved peoples, a process that initiated the formation of future interethnic relations. Evaluating the difficulties of the process of national consolidation of Yugoslavia after the end of the World War, the scientist assessed Illrimism as a consonant ideology, believing that Serbo-Croatian dualism was primarily due to cultural differences. He positively appreciated the formation of the "Kingdom of Serbia, Croats and Slovenes" and expressed regret over the degeneration of Illirism-Yugo-Slavism in Pan-Serbian central-ism. The scholar explained the formation and effective functioning of the Czechoslovak state in the absence of the Czech-Slovak antagonism. O. Bochkovsky assessed negatively appearance in the 1920-th a new Russian ideology – Eurasianism. O. Bochkovsky acknowledged for every nation the right to independence and the formation of their own state. He considered Pan-Slavism to be utopia, since after the First World War, there was an urgent need to protect the Slavs, and the isolation of a single Slavic people, which could have become a leader for the whole of the Slavic region, would constitute a threat to the independence of the weak Slavic peoples . More he considered the creation of political unions within continents, such as Pan-Europe, Pan-Asia, Pan-Africa, Pan-Amerika. Key words: Austro-Slavism, O. Bochkovsky, illirism, Eurasianism, neoslavism, Pan-Slavism, slavophilia, Yugoslavism.

BackgroundDuring the conservative period in Hungary between the two world wars, three unusual young women, Erzsébet Árvay, Judit Kárász, and Viola Tomori, joined a vanguard of youth who claimed to lead a new generation of Hungarians. As members of the Szeged Youth, they took up the cause of the peasantry of the Great Hungarian Plain, an isolated and neglected population presumed to bear “original Hungarian characteristics.” Until recently, the relationship between gender and nationalism in studies on Eastern Europe has been neglected. Current developments in post-communist societies have sharpened our realization that historical periods are experienced differently and have different implications when seen from the vantage point of women rather than men. Intriguing questions are raised concerning these women's participation in the Szeged Youth Movement and their active role with the peasantry. In a society often characterized as restrictive and limiting, what was the experience of the young woman activist? Was she accepted by her peers as their intellectual equal? How did she feel about her final place in national affairs? These questions are elusive and complex, yet the example of the Szeged Youth Movement in the 1920s and 1930s provides a compelling study of the intersection of gender and national identity in the Hungarian context.During the interwar period in Hungary, the question of the fate of the Hungarian “nation”—which included the Hungarian population in the territories lost after World War I—took precedence over all others. This was true in respect to women's issues as well. The peace settlement was viewed as a national tragedy, reviving fears that the Hungarians or magyarsag would disappear, swallowed up by the surrounding Germanic and Slavic peoples. Virtually the whole population believed that the Treaty of Trianon of 1920, which had reduced the Hungarian state to two-thirds of its former size, leaving 33.5% of the ethnic Hungarian inhabitants outside the borders, had been unjust and should be revised. The government under Prime Minister István Bethlen struggled to restore economic stability and to regain acceptance by the Western powers, on whom revision of the treaty depended. Certain moderate reforms were introduced, including the extension of the franchise to women and the broadening of educational opportunities. Yet, social insurance reforms for the urban populations were not extended to the masses of peasantry and rural proletariat, which still constituted over half of the population. In fact, the need to maintain the support of the large landowners precluded any extensive land reform, and Hungary remained a country of large estates.

In the history of the continent, the idea of Eastern Europe had been evolving, while for defining its boundaries different criteria (geographical, cultural and political) were applied. Geographical approach allows for placement the countries, located within the East European Plain within the framework of the Eastern Europe. This approach highlights cultural division between Latin and Byzantine civilization. Gradually, the concept of Eastern Europe gained a broader meaning due to the development of Slavic studies, taking into account not only the political criterion (borders), but also ethno-linguistic issues (territories inhabited by Slav peoples). During inter-war period, Eastern Europe was seen as a buffer zone between Germany and Bolshevik Russia, while the ‘cold war’ demarcated a new dividing line on the western (democratic) and eastern (communist) part of the European continent. The collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the Soviet Union led to subsequent changes in the perception of Eastern Europe. Today, it is defined as the area between Russia and the West, which is also the subject of two competing centers of influence.

We investigate how cause lawyers articulate their demands in court. We do so by examining feminist legal briefs submitted in US Supreme Court cases from 1970 to the present, specifically focusing on the use of race–gender analogical legal framing. We explore the frequency and trends in the use of such arguments as well as the forms these arguments take, including how race–gender analogies parallel frame bridging and transformation. Additionally, we also investigate why activists choose to deploy race–gender analogies in their legal framing and discern that different political, legal, and social contexts can produce different uses of the race–gender analogy.

Hans Rothe Breaking through History. Genius and Literature among Slavs without a State in the 19th Century Within a broad comparative framework, the Author analyzes some of the main patterns of the development of national self-consciousness and identity among the peoples of Eastern Europe between the 1830s and 1850s. He discusses the general assumption that the French Revolution played a major role in the awakening of national consciousness in the Slavic (and the Hungarian) cultures, and that an important part of the longing for self-determination was connected with the idea that Slavs where understood as a united family of peoples or even as one nation. The Author then addresses three main topics. It is generally accepted that in some countries it was primarily poetic geniuses who brought about a dramatic breakthrough in national consciousness thanks to the fact that their works were written in their own language (examples include Mickiewicz, Puskin, Sevcenko, Preseren and others). Nonetheless, the importance of learning, academic training, gathering historical knowledge and folk tradition as primary sources of national consciousness should not be underestimated. These elements, the Author maintains, are connected rather with traditional ideas and mentality (and with Herder’s way of thinking), than with ‘revolutionary’ innovation. Unlike the French model of development that followed the 1789 revolution and largely identified nation with revolution, Slav peoples were confronted with their belonging to multiethnic and plurilingual political structures: they were either dominant powers (such as Russia, which dominated many other peoples) or were dominated by ‘others’. From several points of view, Herder’s idea of Slav unity was often more of a hindrance than a way out for the definition of national unity. This was true for the dominated peoples, but for Russians too, although, politically speaking, they were effectively the only real state and a ‘dominant’ people. Later the Author discusses the many different ways in which a feeling of national identity grew up among the numerous peoples living in Eastern Europe as a whole, from the Balkans to the Baltic. At the end of his paper he presents the troublesome and puzzling issue of national poets using not only the language of their own people, but several other languages too – including the language of the dominant empire – when writing some of their more important works, beginning with the most intimate expression of thoughts and feelings in diaries and letters.

Background: Variants in recombination-activating genes (RAG) are common genetic causes of autosomal recessive forms of combined immunodeficiencies (CID) ranging from severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), Omenn syndrome (OS), leaky SCID, and CID with granulomas and/or autoimmunity (CID-G/AI), and even milder presentation with antibody deficiency.Objective: We aim to estimate the incidence, clinical presentation, genetic variability, and treatment outcome with geographic distribution of patients with the RAG defects in populations inhabiting South, West, and East Slavic countries.Methods: Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected from RAG-deficient patients of Slavic origin via chart review, retrospectively. Recombinase activity was determined in vitro by flow cytometry-based assay.Results: Based on the clinical and immunologic phenotype, our cohort of 82 patients from 68 families represented a wide spectrum of RAG deficiencies, including SCID (n = 20), OS (n = 37), and LS/CID (n = 25) phenotypes. Sixty-seven (81.7%) patients carried RAG1 and 15 patients (18.3%) carried RAG2 biallelic variants. We estimate that the minimal annual incidence of RAG deficiency in Slavic countries varies between 1 in 180,000 and 1 in 300,000 live births, and it may vary secondary to health care disparities in these regions. In our cohort, 70% (n = 47) of patients with RAG1 variants carried p.K86Vfs*33 (c.256_257delAA) allele, either in homozygous (n = 18, 27%) or in compound heterozygous (n = 29, 43%) form. The majority (77%) of patients with homozygous RAG1 p.K86Vfs*33 variant originated from Vistula watershed area in Central and Eastern Poland, and compound heterozygote cases were distributed among all Slavic countries except Bulgaria. Clinical and immunological presentation of homozygous RAG1 p.K86Vfs*33 cases was highly diverse (SCID, OS, and AS/CID) suggestive of strong influence of additional genetic and/or epigenetic factors in shaping the final phenotype.Conclusion: We propose that RAG1 p.K86Vfs*33 is a founder variant originating from the Vistula watershed region in Poland, which may explain a high proportion of homozygous cases from Central and Eastern Poland and the presence of the variant in all Slavs. Our studies in this cohort of RAG1 founder variants confirm that clinical and immunological phenotypes only partially depend on the underlying genetic defect. As access to HSCT is improving among RAG-deficient patients in Eastern Europe, we anticipate improvements in survival.

For more than 50 years Jerzy Giedroyc has been the head of Culture, a magazine that played a historical role in shaping the views of Polish emigration (at least part of it), but also of the emigration of Ukrainian, Byelorussian, Russian, other Slavic and not only Slavic peoples - and not just their emigration. Giedroyc was the author of the concept of solidarity cooperation between representatives of Eastern European emigration - as a prototype of future coexistence and political and cultural dialogue freed from the totalitarianism of the peoples of Central and Eastern Europe. This concept was also created by other prominent Polish personalities who were brought together and inspired by Giedroyc. Because the concept was based on a pressing historical need: to abandon long-standing mutual claims and antagonisms, to agree on reasonable compromises for the sake of a common neighborly future, it was confronted with the deaf or outright resistance of the conservative part of each of the diasporas. In this context, Jerzy Giedroyc attached particular importance to the Polish-Ukrainian understanding that he regarded as a fundamental prerequisite for the stability and development of the whole of Central and Eastern Europe. From the 20’s to 30’s, Giedroyc maintained contacts with a wide and diverse circle of Ukrainian figures, including Bishop Hryhori Khomyshyn, the leaders of the UNDO, Dilo editor Ivan Kedrin-Rudnytsky, nationalist ideologist Dmitry Dontsov and the emigrant from “Greater Ukraine” poet Yevgeny Malaniuk. Such prominent Ukrainian intellectuals as Ivan Lysyak-Rudnitsky, Yuri Sherekh (Shevelyov), Igor Kostetsky were associated with Culture. In France, Jerzy Giedroyc, according to his testimony, had contacts with the publisher of the Ukrainian encyclopedia Volodymyr Kubiyovych. Boris Levitsky and the extremely active Bogdan Osadchuk also cooperated with the circle of “Culture”.

The status and image of minorities often depends not on their self-perceptions, but on the official stance taken by the state in which they live. While identity is commonly recognized as malleable and personal, the official status of minorities is couched in stiff scientific language claiming to be authoritative. But as polities change, these supposedly scientific categorizations of minorities also change. Based on academic reports and parliamentary decisions, in Hungary today the Catholic South Slavs known as Bunjevci are officially regarded as an obscure branch of the Croatian nation. This has not always been the case. Early records of the Bunjevci categorized them in a variety of ways, most commonly as Catholic Serbs, Dalmatians, and Illyrians. In the nineteenth century Bunjevac elites were able to project to the Hungarian public a mythological positive historical image of the Bunjevci, delineating them from the negative stereotypes of other South Slavs. This positive image, fixed in encyclopaedias and maintained until the Second World War, represented the Bunjevci as Catholic Serbs who (unlike Croats or Orthodox Serbs) were constantly faithful to the Hungarian state and eager to assimilate. In the 1920s and 1930s traditional Hungarian stereotypes of Bunjevci protected them from abuses suffered by other South Slavs. As political relations transformed, official views of the Bunjevci also changed. With the massive upheaval during and after the Second World War, there was a change in accounts of who the Bunjevci were. The transformation from communism and the break-up of Yugoslavia have also evoked demands for changes in identity from some Bunjevci, and brought new impositions of identity upon them.

T HE vast area between the Rhine, the Bosporus, and the Ural Mountains includes two of the world's largest nations-Russia and Germany-and a multitude of smaller peoples including the bulk of the Slavic race. The economies of the peoples living in central, eastern, and Balkan Europe are complementary. Yet geographical, cultural, and racial differences, political aspirations, and diversity of historical traditions and social structures have pitted these peoples against one another in endless struggles.

Reviewed by: Mothers of the Nation: Women, Families, and Nationalism in Twentieth-Century Europe Jill Massino Mothers of the Nation: Women, Families, and Nationalism in Twentieth-Century Europe. By Patrizia Albanese. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006. Pp. 224. $58.00 (cloth). In this book Patrizia Albanese uses gender relations and family policies in select countries in twentieth-century Europe as lenses through which to rethink and resolve debates regarding nationalism, modernity, and citizenship. Her overarching aim is to test "whether nationalism intends to modernize or archaize gender and family relations" (21) and evaluate the degree to which it succeeds in doing so. To this end, she takes a comparative historical approach, focusing on Germany, Italy, Russia, and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia/Croatia during the interwar and post-1989 periods. This is a lot of ground to cover in a short amount of space, and in the end the book sacrifices depth and nuance for breadth. While Albanese claims to examine "the virtually unpublicized side of nationalist traditionalism, xenophobia, and misogyny: what nationalist regimes do to and for their own women when the rest of the world is looking, but not seeing" (3), a good portion of the book synthesizes existing scholarship on gender in twentieth-century Germany, Italy, and Russia. Moreover, while Albanese aptly illustrates the negative impact of nationalist policies on women, she does not examine the diverse ways in which women were affected by and responded to these policies. Nonetheless, by revisiting women's historically complex relationship to nationalism in the European context, the book reminds us that nationalism is not simply something that happens in "distant lands with alien customs," it also exists in societies closer to home. The first two sections of the book sketch the general political, economic, and social contexts in each country, outlining governmental attitudes, policies, and practices as they related to women and the family. The third and final section compares the demographic outcomes of nationalist policies, [End Page 382] evaluating them according to governmental models (the welfare state vs. neoliberalism) and notions of civic and social rights. In section 1 Albanese compares the nationalist states of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy to the nonnationalist states of Yugoslavia and revolutionary Russia during the interwar period, while in section 2 she compares the nonnationalist states of Germany and Italy to Croatia and Russia during the post-1989 period. According to Albanese, this comparative two-by-two model is designed to control for the impact of overall changes in the position of women in modern society as well as nation-specific trends and global events, such as recessions. Albanese's choice to focus on revolutionary Russia and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia as her nonnationalist case studies for the interwar period is both curious and problematic. Far from being nonnationalist, Yugoslavia was a hotbed of nationalist tension during the interwar period, especially between Croatia and Serbia. Albanese claims that, as a result of industrialization, traditional family forms were gradually being replaced by nuclear households and that over two hundred feminist groups existed in Yugoslavia by 1921; however, it is unclear what the overall impact of these processes was on women's status and roles, since she offers no information on women's political, legal, and economic status during this period. Instead she notes that marriage and family life was regulated by local, ethnic, and religious groups and that women were subject to "private patriarchy," a situation that, while not nationalist, was presumably considerably restricting for women. Meanwhile, by limiting her analysis to revolutionary Russia, she downplays the significance of nationalist tendencies and some of the conservative gender policies that characterized the majority of the interwar period under Stalin. Like nationalism, Stalinism was, in certain respects, a reaction to modernizing trends. For example, during the 1930s women lost the right to legal abortion and to file paternity suits and found it increasingly difficult to obtain a divorce. Albanese concludes that in all four nationalist regimes "a nationalist leader's rise to power was accompanied by changes to family policies, from relatively less to more traditional and patriarchal ones" (161). Accordingly, birthrates rose in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany during the 1930s (a time when they...

In the 1930s, a political activist of Austrian origin attempted to unify people of German nationality under the banner of National Socialism. Invoking the ‘Volksgemeinschaft’, this self-proclaimed leader stressed the need to overcome class and political divisions. His party played on social resentments while also heightening the racial danger posed by Slavs and Jews. Above all, this movement touted its ability to transcend regional infighting by welding the nation together. This party for National Socialism, however, ultimately failed to become the one party to encompass all Germans living in the state. The party was the Young German Party for Poland, and its leader was the engineer Rudolf Wiesner.

This chapter focuses on how the concept of folk music played out more specifically in Eastern Europe. Most studies of European musics posit three basic categories of music: folk, popular, and classical. The musical sounds of folk music were always of interest, however, and the ethnographic study of the music was greatly enhanced by the invention of sound-recording technologies in the 1880s. The chapter mentions a few song collectors who contributed to the understanding of what constitutes folk music in Eastern Europe. Ethnomusicological and musical-folklore literatures offer many overviews of folk-music sound in Eastern Europe. The chapter sketches some organizing structures such as religion, life ways, musical instruments and song forms of ethnographic fact. Folk music generated different meanings and served different ideologies in Eastern Europe from other parts of Europe. This may have been particularly true among the Slavic peoples.