irst, there's the language. Both Romanian and French are Romance languages deriving from the Latin used by the Romans, who occupied the areas which later became France and Romania. Of course, both languages (and nations) have received contributions from other cultures, particularly the Germans for France and the Slavs for Romania. At their hearts, though, French and Romanian are Latin, not German or Slav! This is an important matter where nations and nationality are concerned.

econd, and partly deriving from this, is the common emphasis on pre-Roman antecedent civilizations: "Our ancestors, the Gauls" (France) and "Our ancestors, the Dacians" (Romania). Again, this is to distinguish the nation by placing its origins as far back as historically possible-- before the Germans, Slavs, or Hungarians, who by virtue of their later arrival don't quite share in the national (and territorial) heritage. In discussion of France, the term 'Gallic pride' is sometimes used. I'm not directly aware of any similar 'Dacian pride' phrase used to describe Romania, but apparently Ceausescu (and others?) made a big deal of writing about the Dacian origins of the population. The actual facts may be vague, but the important aspect is the 'unifying myth' which every country (even the U.S.) uses to justify its existence.

hird, there an emphasis on the importance of literature, philosophy, and the arts in general. These are seen as accomplishments of the national culture which demonstrate its uniqueness and inherent quality (as opposed to the culture of more industrial or military-minded neighbors). Books and newspapers are widely read. For instance, here in Iasi along with the kiosks selling cigarettes, liquor, cosmetics, and music cassettes are 'anticariat' stands selling used books (mostly in Piata Unirii, 'Union Plaza'), and they do pretty good business. There is also a 'cafe society,' placing importance of the company of friends, good food and drink, and meandering conversation. This was perhaps more obvious in fin-de-siecle Romania and the 'Jazz Age' of the 1920s, when Bucharest had the appellation 'Paris of the East.' But it is evident today as well. Deadlines and profit margins simply aren't as important here--at least, not more important than maintaining friendships.

ourth, there is a sense of historical continuity and destiny, again not something uncommon, but it is particularly important for France and Romania, dealing as they do with a diverse geographical and historical inheritance. The common nationality is stressed over any regional identity, and any diversion from this is seen as destabilizing and dangerous. In the French case, the kings had ample time to suppress provincial rivals and mold the French nation. For Romania, however, national unity had much more a spiritual and ethereal quality, with political independence not coming until the late 19th century. When the Romanian kingdom built its Arch of Triumph in Bucharest, it was less a tribute to France per se than to the qualities that France represented--national uniqueness, independence from external influence, and a sense of historical greatness. Romania can be seen as a younger sister to France--trying to achieve the same greatness but also prone to some of the same flaws, such as an isolationist 'fortress mentality' of going it alone, and rejecting foreign cultural influences.

hatever the benefits or drawbacks of these similarities, they are nonetheless interesting to notice. Being a flag hobbyist, I cannot help but notice the similarity between the two tricolors. The white in the French tricolor is replaced by yellow (or gold?) in the Romanian tricolor. There is an emotional attachment to the flag that Americans might be familiar with. Of course, since 1989 there is no longer a socialist emblem in the middle, and Romanian tricolors with holes cut in the middle can still be seen occasionally at student demonstrations, being perhaps the most powerful symbol of 1989. Indeed, the French tricolor was the symbol of the French revolution in 1789, replacing the royal 'fleur-de-lis.'

P.S. I hope you all weren't too bored with my philosophical musings this week. I'm resting up in preparation for my big circuit tour of Romania, starting next Monday, 20 November. I'll be traveling counter- clockwise in the following order: Suceava--Cluj--Oradea--Timisoara--Sibiu-- Brasov--Bucharest--Iasi. The formal reason is to meet with other geographers about my research. The informal reason is to see the country!

I'll be gone until 10 December. So unfortunately the reports won't appear for the next four weeks. But then there will be some reports on my trip once I get back!

Happy Thanksgiving and 'La Revedere'!