Tao Romevo

It might not be visible today, but Bulgaria was the first tobacco producer and exporter in the 1980s. Before that, tobacco cultivation in Bulgaria started in the 18th century when Bulgaria was still a part of the Ottoman Empire. Up until the Second World War, Bulgaria developed even more this cultivation for it to hold an important part in the country's economy. During communist Bulgaria, tobacco cultivation and exportation exploded to the point that “half the population smoked and a fourth worked in the tobacco industry” in 1982. Thus, tobacco is intrinsically linked to Bulgaria’s society, economy, and politics.  This article proposes a focus on the history of women, tobacco cultivation, and smoking in Bulgaria since the 19th century. It is based on the wonderful work of Mary C. Neuburger: Balkan Smoke: Tobacco and the Making of Modern Bulgaria, published in 2013 by Cornell University Press.  I. Women and Smoking in Bulgaria: from the 19th Century to Second World War A. Tobacco entering Bulgaria and women’s life Bulgaria, after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 and its partial liberation, was still de jure a part of the Ottoman Empire. It was nonetheless de facto already functioning independently after 1878 and even more after the Unification in 1885 until it declared its independence in 1908. Tobacco was introduced in the Ottoman Empire more than two centuries earlier, but it started to be more cultivated in Bulgaria in the 19th century. Smoking first started among Muslim men, then Muslim women in the 17th century, but not in public spaces. Women were gathering and smoking only “in the baths, at fashionable parties, or in the salons of elite Ottoman or foreign homes”. It then slowly entered Christians’ lives, both men and women, almost at the same time, for it to be common in the mid-19th century. But, as for Muslim women, smoking for Christian women was restricted to domestic space “behind closed doors or high garden walls”, while men were gathering and smoking in the kafene (coffeehouse) and the kruchma (tavern), places of socialization reserved to men.  A woman herself, though not Bulgarian, documented smoking among Bulgarian women in the 19th century: Fanny Blunt (1839-1926). She was a diplomat’s wife and spent years in the Ottoman Balkans where she observed and reported smoking among women. B. Emancipation and Female Figures Slowly and scarcely, a handful of women started smoking in public in the 19th century and a bit more until the Second World War. They even started entering the kafene and European-style cafés, but later, only after World War I. They were only a few because being a woman in a public space without being accompanied by a man was almost impossible in society at that time. Learning about their profile, one can see that they were all quite strong and independent. But it has to be mentioned that most of them could be allowed this behavior because they were part of the Westernized elites and were claiming, directly or indirectly more freedom and more modern values. Another type of women smoking in public were women of « questionable repute », such as prostitutes, and women dancing and singing. Among these women from intellectual and cultural elites, the most famous and noticeable ones are Baba Nedelya Petkova, Vela Blagoeva, and Raina Kostensteva.  Baba Nedeliya Petkova (1826-1894), an important figure of the Bulgarian National Revival and pioneer for girls’ education in the 19th century, “was known to have scandalized Bulgarian sensibilities with her public smoking habit”.  Vela Blagoeva (1858-1921), writer and founder of the women’s socialist movement, was the wife of Dimitur Blagoev, the founder of the Bulgarian socialist movement at the end of the 19th century. Vela « was a well-known smoker and one of Bulgaria’s first “modern girls” ». Raina Kostensteva (1885-1967) was a literary figure of the early 20th century and interwar period. She was often seen in the kafena and the kafene-sladkarnitsi (café-pastry shops). She also was the woman who wrote and denounced, even criticized, the situation of women and smoking in Bulgaria, as being slowed and limited because of the Orthodox Christian values.  II. Fallen Women and Abstinence A. Fallen Women As seen above, smoking women in public was extremely rare. They were either “westernized” or “women of questionable morals” (singers, dancers, prostitutes). In both cases, they were seen by the vast majority of society as morally compromised women acting against traditional values, impersonating the symptoms of moral decline and depravity. They represented social decay and were suspicious. They were seen and categorized as “fallen women”. But, from today’s point of view, they were a small expression of the changes happening more widely in society at that time: women getting a little bit more liberty and rights.  B. Abstinence In opposition to smoking in Bulgaria appeared abstinence movements. They were initially influenced by American Protestant missionaries who started their activity in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and led those campaigns at that time and during the interwar period. Their anti-smoking (and anti-alcohol) campaigns aimed at keeping traditional family values and targeted both men and women. Among the actors of those campaigns, we could find women, even women as leaders.  Vera Zlatareva (1905-1977) and Ianka Tosheva were such figures. But they were not against smoking in itself only regarding tobacco. They were writing (especially in Vestnik na zhenata, (“Journal of the Woman”) and fighting for more rights for all women, and wanted them to “become modern [women] only by being both abstinent and socially conscious”. In this way, they knew Bulgarian women had been emancipated in different ways in the last decades, but they had to keep being respectable and responsible, and off smoking in this regard.  III. Tobacco Work and Harvest and Women A. Workers and Wars The tobacco industry started to hold a major importance in Bulgaria’s economy in the early 20th century. Thousands of people were working in the cultivation and harvest of tobacco. Among those workers, women were far from absent in cultivating and processing the “gold of Bulgaria”. Their role and work were even more important during the Balkan Wars and the two World Wars. Men were fighting at the front and women had to keep running one of the country’s primary economic resources, replacing men. They also had to multiply the production and harvest for national consumption and expectation, especially in Germany.  Even if women had a major role in those times and this side of the economy, their conditions as workers did not improve nor were acknowledged. They had to work even harder to keep their families, the economy, and the country running. They were not thanked nor they hard work estimate.  B. Protestations Women in tobacco cultivation, in addition to their work, also called for peace in 1917, as was the case more generally in Europe. “By December, around ten thousand workers, many tobacco workers among them, swarmed the streets calling for peace and revolution. The upheavals rapidly snowballed into antiwar protests across the country and on the front and led to mass desertions”. These demonstrations highlighted women’s increasing assertiveness in public life, challenging both economic exploitation and societal norms. During interwar decades, tobacco workers were among the most vocal labour groups and were advocating for improved rights and conditions. Despite these efforts, the industry continued to rely on cheap female labour, perpetuating cycles of inequality. Changing was to happen after the Second World War.  IV. Smoking and Women during Communism A. Smoking expanding massively to women Communist Bulgaria (1944-1989) marked a significant shift in attitudes toward both women and smoking. The country developed tobacco cultivation, harvest, and export as one of its main economic fields and was under the monopoly of Bulgartabak. This importance can be seen: “Half the population smoked and a fourth worked in the tobacco industry” in 1982. Women working in the tobacco industry and smoking can be seen for the whole period as a growing phenomenon. This time, women were finally acknowledged and praised: “[T]oday tobacco is the gold of Bulgaria, and women are its creators”. Women even appeared on a map in the Balgarski Tiutiun (“Bulgarian Tobacco”) movie in 1979. Women consuming tobacco were more and more and “by the late 1970s and 1980s, [...] the number of women smokers skyrocketed”. The State relied on its exports of tobacco to the East Bloc and especially the USSR, but it also promoted national tobacco consumption. Through various campaigns, it promoted smoking as a modern way of life and of expression, including among women. Women's literature, ads, and brands were also created: the “Femina“ brand of cigarettes, for example, especially targeted women, playing on independence, progress, and sophistication to sell to this feminine public. Modern women and, even more, smoking women, embodied new society’s values and habits: “Women played important roles in the visible discarding of rural backwardness in favour of a modern material life”. B. Anti-Smoking and Women Despite all these progresses, movements and campaigns against smoking for women still exist. One of the mediums of such campaigns was the journal Trezvenost (“Sobernity”) in which one could see images of people, both men and women, smoking, and pictured in a bad way. Those campaigns in different layers of society asked women to stop smoking for two main reasons: for moral (sexual) aspects, and mainly for health aspects. The moral (sexual) aspects denounced and wanted to stop were motivated because women smoking were seen as manly, and the sexual (phallic) evocation of a cigarette in the mouth of women made them less desirable in bed. This second aspect is directly linked to one of the two health aspects: since less attractive, women were having fewer babies. In that sense, “[s]moking women [...] posed a concerted threat to the Bulgarian nation itself because of issues related to reproduction and child-rearing”. Those narratives were stronger in the late 1970s and the 1980s when traditional values made their comeback.  The State was thus torn between promoting smoking for women as a marker of emancipation, modernization, and equality, but also for them to buy and help the economy; and refraining women from smoking because it endangered the future of Bulgaria.  Conclusion The history of women, smoking, and tobacco in Bulgaria reflects the interplay of gender, culture, and politics. From private indulgences to public controversies, tobacco has served as both a tool of emancipation and a source of societal tension. Women’s roles in the tobacco industry and their evolving relationship with smoking offer valuable insights into Bulgaria’s and Bulgarian women’s journey through modernity, war, socialism, and global phenomena. 

Meeting with Angel Igov, The Meek, Rene Karabash, She Who Remains, and their translator Marie Vrinat-Nikolov, Lyon, France, March 28th 2024 This article summarizes the following Bulgarian literary meeting: "Two voices of contemporary Bulgarian literature". The two voices are those of Angel Igor for his historical novel The Meek and Rene Karabash for her fictive biography She Who Remains. There was a third voice, this of their French translator Marie Vrinat-Nikolov. Presentation of the meeting On Thursday, 28 March 2024, at 7 p.m., the Terre des Livre bookshop in Lyon hosted the literary event "Two Voices of Contemporary Bulgarian Literature". Hosted by their translator, Marie Vrinat-Nikolov, Angel Igov and Rene Karabash spoke about their novels. Around thirty people attended the one-hour-and-a-half event. That was more than expected! So, excellent news. This Bulgarian literature event featured the novels The Meek by Angel Igov and She Who Remains by Rene Karabash. Both authors were present. The Terre des Livres bookshop organized the meeting in partnership with the Bulgarian Cultural Institute of Paris. Another book presented (without its author) but linked to the theme of the evening was ViktorPaskov’s Germany obscene tale. Presentation of the books and the three speakers The historical novel The Meek is the fruit of extensive research. Its protagonist, the poet Emil Strezov, becomes one of the judges of People’s Court, set up in Bulgaria between 1944 and 1945. This court condemned thousands  of dissidents" and opponents to the new Soviet regime in power at the time, including death sentences. The story then follows the evolution of Strezov, whose power is going to his head. The novel is in Bulgarian and translated into German, Macedonian, and French. She Who Remains is a fictive biography by Rene Karabash. The story set in Albania is the monologue (stream of awareness) of Matia, formerly Bekia. On the eve of her wedding, Bekia is raped and decides to become a sworn virgin. She renounces her identity as a woman and takes on the status and role of a man under the name "Matia". It provoked her fiancé's honor and the kanun (a set of Albanian traditional laws), leading to a vendetta. The novel, written in Bulgarian, has been translated into Bosnian, Macedonian, French, Polish, and Arabic. Marie Vrinat-Nikolov moderated the meeting "Power and its abuses" as the central theme of the evening. The discussion revolved around History and how it interferes with everyone's personal (hi)story. Punctuated by readings of excerpts in Bulgarian and French, the talks between the three speakers revealed the authors’ inspirations and writing processes. The Meek, Angel Igov The author of The Meek shares the three main reasons that inspired him to write his novel. The first was a comment he heard one day from someone close to his father. This person mentioned his participation in the People’s Court as a young judge. He then insisted on convicting a defendant who, in the end, was not that guilty. The second reason is that Angel is very interested in this period of Bulgarian History. The third reason is that this moment in Bulgarian History, particularly 1944-1945, is crucial to study and speak about. The subjects of the People’s Court and the Communist period in Bulgaria have already been documented. However, they had yet to be a subject in literature or fiction. The author consulted many archives related to this court to write his novel. One of the primary sources he used was the newspapers of that time. Angel said, "Yesterday's newspapers are always more interesting than today's". This applies even more to research purposes. During his research, the rise of fascism and the cruelty of youth were what caught his attention the most. The majority of the tribunal's members were (very) young. Nevertheless, Angel emphasizes this several times: neither History nor human beings are black or white. Indeed, his book does not present a Manichean vision of events or characters. The figures, motivations, and motives of the members of this tribunal are diverse. Some took part out of opportunism, careerism, or a desire for revenge. Or for power, death, or a way to escape poverty. And sometimes for several reasons at once. This illustrates that History and individual stories bear several dimensions. History and stories are not abstract but very concrete. And The Meek shows that. She Who Remains, Rene Karabash Like Angel Igov, the author of She Who Remains, led much research over two years. She did it through books (including Broken April by Ismail Kadare) and rare interviews of sworn virgins. Rene wanted to travel to Albania, but it was difficult and risky. It didn't prevent her from writing a realistic book. Indeed, Albania's specialists at Sofia University believed she had gone there to document and conduct her research. Rene Karabash shares her inspirations and motivations with us. Through this book, she wanted to document violence, one of the facets of a patriarchal society. Although extreme in this case, the author, who grew up in the Bulgarian countryside, comments that the background is the same whether you're in Albania, Bulgaria, or elsewhere. Society is violent, and patriarchal society is violent. This violence and the trauma it produces are very vivid in the narration of She Who Remains. The author describes her narration as "schizophrenic". Written without full stops or capitals, Matia’s stream of awareness/consciousness and words are punctuated only by commas. The protagonist opens up, tells his story, and tells what's inside of him and has to be told. And this is precisely what Rene warns us about: is the protagonist reliable? What is true in this stream of memories and thoughts? The comments Rene received for her novel are all robust, full of shock and pity. They evoke the violence of the subject and the traumas often shared. The author would have liked illiterate people who are frequently the victims of trauma and have less opportunity to talk about it to read her book. The aim would have been to see their reactions and feelings about the(ir) story. Voices: The translator Marie Vrinat-Nikolov Marie Vrinat-Nikolov, the foremost translator of Bulgarian literature into French, also reveals some aspects of her work regarding translating these two books and shares her concerns, questions, and difficulties. For The Meek in particular, but this applies to all translations, she stresses the importance of sound and sonority. She uses the announcement of the condemned death's sentence as an example. In Bulgarian, смърт (read "smurt" with a rolled R) sounds sharp and violent. Both "death" and "(la) mort" in French sound less sudden and tragic. However, using another translation for this word would have modified the wanted effect in Bulgarian, which is nonetheless conveyed in French. Of course, for She Who Remains, it was necessary to keep Matia's stream of consciousness and, therefore, of words. The character spits out his thoughts and overwhelms us with violent memories. The effect these memories have on the reader is multiplied by the words, which follow one another without a pause, moment to breathe, or even to catch a breath. Conclusion This Bulgarian literary meeting with Angel Igov and his novel The Meek and Karabash's She Who Remains marks the revival of the meetings organized by the bookshop Terre des Livres. From the number of interested participants present on Thursday evening, everyone could see that both Bulgarian literature AND events of this kind attract many people. The bookshop, the organizers, the speakers, the editors, and the public all deserve our thanks. We can only hope that others such event will happen in the future.

Presentation Language and Identity in the Balkans. Serbo-Croatian and its Disintegration is an book by Robert D. Greenberg, published in 2004 by Oxford University Press. Robert D. Greenberg is an academic specialised in Slavic Studies. This book is the result of several years' fieldworks and readings. The 190 pages (170 excluding the bibliography) of this work deal with Serbo-Croatian from its conception in the 19th century until the 4 languages that succeeded it after 1992 and their development up to 2004/2006: Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian. The author begins by looking at the history of the codification of a language common to Serbs and Croats despite their many dialects. He then looks at its existence, which has been punctuated by controversies. Finally, he looks at the codification after 1992 (when the collapse of socialist Yugoslavia began) of Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian, and the beginnings of Montenegrin. He organises his work into 7 parts (including an introduction and a conclusion), each divided into (sub-)sub-sections. Here they are summarised below with key points: I – Introduction Robert D. Greenberg begins his paper by presenting his inspiration, aim and method. The many works from different academic disciplines on the subject of Serbo-Croatian, its disintegration and the cultural and political issues of its successors often take sides. This is for this reason that he wants to publish a book that is not Serb-centric nor Croat-centric. He reminds us that in the 19th century, the romanticism, nationalism and independences achieved (or proclaimed) were to a very large extent led through language. Language proved to be a powerful symbol of identity, and this also affected the Balkans. Finally, using maps and clear explanations, the author explains the different dialects, pronunciations, similarities and combinations of Serbo-Croatian and the languages of the territories of the future South Slavic states. II – Serbo-Croatian: United or not, we fall This section provides an overview of the birth of Serbo-Croatian through 19th century. The author describes the literary and linguistic initiatives at the beginning of that century that later led to the codification of the language. The aim was to unify the peoples of the same region, despite their differences. This linguistic union was part of and also a starting point for a political union that would be realised through the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, just after the First World War. The author also presents Vuk Karadžić and Ljudevit Gaj, their grammar books and dictionaries and their efforts, challenges and choices that led to the codification of future Serbo-Croatian. It also details the three models of linguistic unity: centrally monitored unity, government-imposed unity, pluricentric unity. Serbo-Croatian went through the three of them in that order and followed the pluricentric unity model during socialist Yugoslavia (1944-1992). Finally, he quotes the linguist Bugarski, who defines Serbo-Croatian as having a weak internal identity within Yugoslavia. On the other hand, beyond the borders, this identity is strong and often claimed, because it shows the union of the different peoples and constituents of this State. This weakness can also be seen through the many controversies, tensions, the opposition and resistance that the language and its implementation have provoked, even before the socialist era. III – Serbian: Isn't my language yours too? This third section only deals with Serbian, i.e. the standard Serbian that replaced Serbo-Croatian from 1992 onwards in Serbia, and in Montenegro from 1992 to 2004. Robert D. Greenberg presents the two variants in use in these territories, and the beginnings of a voluntary distinction for a future Montenegrin. Once again, in both Serbia and Montenegro, debates between fractions of linguists, oppositions and controversies are numerous. They all are proof of the cultural, social, identity and political conflicts that contributed to the total disintegration of socialist Yugoslavia. One of the reasons for this is that Serbian speakers speak different variants and live in (at least) 3 different states: Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Serbian standard language is based on two dialects and two pronunciations and therefore it is more diverse as a standard language than standard Bosnian and Croatian. The author goes on to discuss the importance of institutions and academies in codifying and sanctioning the language. Writing, lexicon, orthography, pronunciation, religious and ethnic implications, among others, are examples of the responsibilities and guidelines of these Academies. IV – Montenegro: A mountain out of a molehill? In this fourth part, Robert D. Greenberg looks at Montenegrin and its slower development. Indeed, the ideas and desires to establish a standard Montenegrin language distinct from the others (Serbian and Croatian) do not date from the 1990s. Awareness of a different literature and language goes back much further in time. However, these ideas and desires were reinforced at a rather later moment, especially following the Croatian protest movements and demands, more precisely since the 1970s. At the start of the disintegration of Yugoslavia and just before independence in 2006, the demands were more and more vivid. Debates, controversies and oppositions followed. This book is published in 2004, therefore the author evokes the future of a Montenegrin language distinct from Serbian that is not official yet. The birth of a language concretised after the referendum on independence scheduled for 2006. I must add that in 2007, the proclaimed independence and the Constitution marked the beginning of the existence of a Montenegrin language with its own characteristics (pronunciation, lexicon, alphabetical characters). Here again, language is very closely linked to identity. Here too the author discusses the many difficulties involved in establishing and codifying this successor language of Serbo-Croat and distinct of Serbian. Which dialect(s) should be chosen? What should be done with a (large) part of the population claiming to be Serbian and speaking Serbian? The author concludes this section by asserting that the existence of Montenegrin as a distinct language is the final step in the dissolution of Serbo-Croatian. V – Croatian: We are separate but equal twins In this section focusing on the Croatian language, Robert D. Greenberg looks back to the 19th century and then at the specific characteristics of the Croatian language, which does everything it can to differentiate itself from Serbian. This desire to be different (because it is impossible to fundamentally opposed them) does not date from the 1990s. Croats have always claimed their own history, identity, language and dialects. The author looks back at these claims, these differences, these debates and these struggles for the recognition and establishment of a language distinct from Serbian, since the mid-nineteenth century, despite the standardisation of Serbo-Croatian. This section therefore looks back at the genesis of this unified language bearing a unifying objective but from the Croatian point of view. It also shows the codification of Croatian from 1992 onwards. This is an interesting aspect because we can see the often expressed desire to clearly distinguish Croatian from Serbian and the Serbs, accused of being imperialist. This rejection is not the first in their relations since in the previous century efforts were made to counter the magyarisation and germanisation of Croatian society and language. To this end, after socialist Yugoslavia, the Croatian language was purified of “serbisms” and “internationalisms”, partly by removing Serbian terms and creating new words based on "uniquely" Croatian characteristics, or using again forgotten words in modern Croatian. Everyday attitudes are also one of the manifestations of this rejection, since speakers of Serbian or users of words considered to be “Serbian” are seen in a bad way. This mainly concerns the lexicon since the grammars are almost identical. Despite this, debates, controversies and hesitations mark this process as much as other successors of Serbo-Croatian. VI – Bosnian: A camel with three humps? This last part concerns Bosnian and “Bosniac”. These two terms misused or serving identity goals show all the complexity of the linguistic question in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In Bosnia-Herzegovina live Serbs, most of whom live in the Serbian entity Republika Srpska, and Croats, most of whom live in the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The country's third constituent group and also the majority are the Bosniacs. This term refers to Muslim Bosnians, as being distinct from Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats. In theory, all of them are Bosnians since they all are citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina (and not all of them have a faith or practice it). In reality, since the war, the three have become more and more separated. While the term “Bosniac” refers specifically to Muslim Bosnians (sometimes more generally  to Muslim Slav), the term “Bosnian” can refer to the citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina no matter their religion, and to the language of the country.  Serbs and Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina have languages and kin-states some tend to identify with: Serbia and Croatia. On the other hand, Bosniacs are attached to the term “bosanski”, “Bosnian”, for the language spoken by them and in the country in general because they feel attached to the region and this more global term. Bosnian Serbs can say they speak Serbian or Bosnian, and Bosnian Croats can say they speak Croatian or Bosnian. It usually depends on the identity, cultural, political implications the name of the language(s) bear. Some nationalists such as Serbs accuse Bosniacs of using the term “Bosnian” to deny the existence of Croats et Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina. But those nationalists also call the language “Bosniac” while they deny at the same time a language distinct from Serbian for Bosniacs. At the end of the day, the language is Bosnian and each one uses the name they want to use. Nonetheless, with time and the work of the Bosnian language’s codifiers since the 1990’s, Bosnian language tends to use more and more “Bosniac” elements. Understand: elements used especially by Bosniac and more linked to Muslim culture, as distinct form Serbian and Croatian. It means for example words borrowed from Ottoman Turkish and some pronunciation such as the use of the letter and sound “h”. Here once again we see that language is a strong marker of identity. VII – Conclusions This concluding section is much appreciated, as it sums up the most important points made throughout the book. The 19th century saw the codification of a unified language bearing a unifying purpose: Serbo-Croatian, or Croatian-Serbian, the language of the South Slavs who were united in 3 several states from 1918 to 1991 (and 2003 for Montenegro). As time went on each constituent republic and then state claimed its own uniqueness and distinction from its neighbours. This led in part to the disintegration of Yugoslavia and Serbo-Croatian. This language has 4 standard languages successors: Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin. Since language is a symbol and marker of identity it is easy to understand why it is at the heart of cultural and political demands. It is also understandable that it has provoked many long-lasting debates, controversies and oppositions. The name in itself of these languages is a delicate issue. Every people and every state wants (or would like) its own language, different from those of its neighbours. And the process in 2004 is not yet complete since Montenegrin is not yet official and Bosnian is still evolving. Concluding remarks and recommendations If you are interested in Serbo-Croatian or its successor languages, then Language and Identity in the Balkans. Serbo-Croatian and its Disintegration is for you. In just a few pages given the density of the subject, Robert D. Greenberg succeeded in summarising and presenting clearly the evolution, the issues and the complexity of linguistic and political questions in former Yugoslavia. The book is divided into sections of 2 to 5 pages making it very accessible whether you want to find out more about it, expand your knowledge or deepen it. Content is organised and this helps us to see things even more clearly and to grasp and assimilate the information more easily. What's more, the maps, quotes, language extracts, tables and chronological timelines make it even easier to understand. Finally, the many names cited (of linguists, for example) help to broaden horizons by providing references to check. This book provides an insight into the linguistic, social, cultural and political aspects of Serbo-Croatian, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin. If you are interested in “naški”, “our language”, language and identity: read it.

From allies to enemies, the two states eventually reconciled. Context My aim here is to summarize the history and chronology of general Bulgarian-Serbian relations from the beginning of the 19th century. It is then a chronological overview. Why this period? It’s a very interesting period because in the span of 200 years, new states emerged with a lot of new expectations and ambitions. It is marked by cooperation, rivalry, betrayal, alliances, enmities, and reconciliation. This period is easier to study  and grasp those centuries since they are closer to us and more documented. Disclaimer: this article doesn’t claim to rival the works already done on this subject that I used and will be referencing. Introduction Bulgarian-Serbian relations do not date back to 1800, but almost 1000 years before that. They have always been turbulent, since the states have been neighbours and have had territorial, political and cultural claims that have opposed them. Since 1800, Bulgaria and Serbia, under their different names and political statuses (and there have been many!), have gone from being sisters united in the fight against the Ottoman Empire to enemies. Since the communist period, they added some water to their wine and now maintain cordial relations based on understanding and cooperation. The resistance and struggle of Bulgaria and Serbia against the Ottoman Empire: 19th century The Ottoman Empire was present in the territories of present-day Bulgaria from 1396 to 1878, i.e. for 500 years. For Serbia, between almost 500 years in the south and 150 years in the north, in Vojvodina. It was from the eighteenth century onwards and especially in the nineteenth century that Bulgarians and Serbs forged a national, cultural, linguistic and ethnic consciousness. The two peoples are Slav and Orthodox neighbours and speak two languages of the same family. And they were both under Ottoman rule (the "Ottoman yoke" as it is often referred in these territories). The Serbs rebelled against Ottoman rule on several occasions in the early 19th century. Bulgarians helped in the Serbian uprisings of 1804 and 1815. In the following decades, the Serbs then came to help the Bulgarians. They welcomed the Bulgarian rebels, offering them asylum, training and military support. Some of them, Bulgarian and Serbian, even had the idea of creating a common Balkan state, bringing together at least Serbia and Bulgaria. Liberation of the Balkans: 1877-1879 The Balkans were partially liberated and freed from Ottoman rule in 1877-1878. Serbs, Montenegrins, Bulgarians, Romanians, Macedonians, Greeks and Russians all took part in the liberation of the region. As everyone had their own territorial claims, it was impossible to satisfy everyone. In 1878, the Treaty of San Stefano pleased many of them, especially Bulgaria, but not the Western powers. They signed the Treaty of Berlin a few months later. It canceled the formation of new autonomous Balkan states, such as Bulgaria, and cut back on those that had been newly formed, such as Serbia. It frustrated many and nourished feelings of revenge. The Principality of Serbia and the new Principality of Bulgaria gained their independence. The province of Eastern Rumelia (in the south of present-day Bulgaria) gained autonomy within the Ottoman Empire. Few were satisfied. Some had territorial ambitions, like Bulgaria and Serbia over the region of Macedonia. And territorial claims were and always would be a cause of tension and conflict between Bulgaria and Serbia. The end of the Bulgarian-Serbian entente in 1878 In the aftermath of the Treaty of Berlin, relations between Serbia and Bulgaria deteriorated as a result of a number of disputes. First of all, there was the question of Macedonia (today's North Macedonia): to whom did it "belong"? To the Serbs? Not to mention the Greeks, who were also eyeing this territory. Then, in 1882, the Principality of Serbia became the Kingdom of Serbia. In 1885, the Principality of Bulgaria and the province of Eastern Rumelia united to form the Principality of Bulgaria. In response to the reunification of the two Bulgarian entities, the Kingdom of Serbia declared war on the new Bulgarian Principality. This was the Serbo-Bulgarian War, which lasted from November 1885 to March 1886 and was won by the Bulgarians. It was seen on both sides of the border as "a stab in the back" and marked the end of almost a century of fraternal relations. Balkan Wars, 1912-1913: Bulgaria and Serbia allies, then enemies As often the case, military and political alliances changed according to the aspirations and interests of each side. And the question of Macedonia was always at the centre of the Balkan Wars. The territory of present-day North Macedonia was still part of the Ottoman Empire in 1912. Serbs, Bulgarians and Greeks wanted a piece of it (or all of it). They all add arguments to justify their ambitions and future actions: Greece the argument of ancient history; Bulgaria the arguments of language, ethnicity and history; Serbia the argument of history. Following the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary in 1908, the Balkan neighbours felt that it would be a good idea to join forces against the big neighbouring empires. And also that it was time to put an end to the Ottoman presence in the Balkans, after more than 500 years. To do so, Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria and Greece united against the Ottoman Empire. It was also an opportunity for Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece to take parts of Macedonia, in addition to other territorial conquests. The war ended in 1913 with the Treaty of London which satisfied no-one, especially in regards of the borders. Tensions centred on Macedonia, of course. Everyone waited, and eventually it was Bulgaria that attacked Serbia and started the Second Balkan War. Bulgaria accused Serbia of not respecting the border divisions agreed between the two states before the war. Serbia occupied more than it had been promised. Yesterday's friends became today's enemies for Bulgaria. Serbia, Montenegro, Greece, the Ottoman Empire and a newcomer, Romania, went to war against Bulgaria. Bulgaria lost the conflict and some of the territories it had acquired a few months earlier. The 1913 Treaty of Bucharest divided Macedonia between Serbia and Greece. It also marked the end of the Russo-Bulgarian alliance and made Serbia being the last Russia’s ally in the Balkans and during First World War. First World War Bulgaria's defeat, frustrations and desire for revenge partly led it to side with the Entente in 1915, after the Second Balkan War and the end of the alliance with Russia. Bulgaria claimed territories from Serbia, Greece and Romania. Serbia, as we know, was at war with Austria-Hungary and was an ally of Russia. Serbia and Bulgaria were once again on opposite sides, with Bulgaria on the side that lost the war. Second World War Once again, Bulgaria and Serbia followed opposite paths in this war, although they were less visible. Yugoslavia, the new South Slavic state whose Serbia was a constituent part, was invaded and then dismantled in 1941 by the Axis, including Bulgaria that just sided with Germany. However, Yugoslav Partisans of all nationalities fought against the occupiers and liberated the Yugoslav territories. Bulgaria, which had joined the Axis a few weeks before the invasion of Yugoslavia (and Greece), helped to dismember the Yugoslav Kingdom. In this process, it annexed almost all of Macedonia (and Dobrudja from Romania, Thrace and part of Greek Macedonia from Greece). It also occupied a large part of Serbia in the south. But for the third time in a row, Bulgaria was on the side that lost the war. The Red Army invaded Bulgaria which then declared war on the Axis, while the Partisans liberated Serbia from the occupying forces. This difference is an important point that would shape the post-war period. The post-war period and the opposite trajectories of Bulgaria and Serbia At the Moscow Conference in 1944 and the Yalta Conference in 1945, zones of influence were defined. Yugoslavia received half Western influence and half Soviet influence, while Bulgaria received respectively 1/4 and 3/4. Moreover, Josip Broz Tito, the leader of Socialist Yugoslavia, refused Yugoslavia's demands for obedience to the USSR and Stalin. In 1948, ties were cut between the two. The USSR excluded Yugoslavia from the Kominform and Tito turned towards the West, while maintaining a socialist regime in Yugoslavia. Bulgaria, which had been invaded and liberated by the Red Army in 1944, was ruled by a Soviet government from 1944 to 1945. In 1946, the monarchy was officially abolished and Bulgaria became the People's Republic of Bulgaria, a communist state and regime. Bulgaria and Yugoslavia were then following opposite paths: Bulgaria turned towards the USSR and a strict communist regime, while Yugoslavia turned towards the West (even though it was a Non-Aligned country) while maintaining a relatively open communist regime. Cold War, communist Bulgaria and Serbia One was oriented towards the USSR, the other towards the West, and both were communist. One represses more than the other. Both were led by a man who remained in power for 35 years: Todor Zhivkov from 1954 to 1989 in Bulgaria, and Josip Broz Tito from 1944 to 1980. During these 50 years of socialism, the two states maintained limited relations due to their different ideologies and spheres of influence. However, they cooperated on cultural and scientific levels. Tito and Dimitrov, the first leader of the People's Republic of Bulgaria, signed the Bled agreements in 1947. These agreements envisaged the creation of a Balkan Federation, including Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. However, once again, the Macedonian question was the main reason for abandoning this project. Yugoslav wars, 1990s Bulgaria has been a capitalist, parliamentary republic since 1989. Yugoslavia remained communist for two more years. When Yugoslavia collapsed in 1991, Bulgaria supported the independence of Slovenia and Croatia. Macedonia declared independence the same year, and Bulgaria was, despite everything and their history, the first state to recognise it. With the fall of communism in the Balkans, relations between Bulgaria and Serbia remained at odds as a result of the reversal of their international orientation. Serbia turned towards Russia, while Bulgaria turned towards the West. Kosovo 1998-1999, 2008 During the Kosovo-Serbian conflict, Bulgaria opened its airspace to NATO operations and bombing raids on Serbia. Bulgaria, or at least its government, did not support Serbia. Popular opinion in Bulgaria was less unanimous. Part of the population supported the Serbs, who was also of Orthodox faith. Another part of the popular opinion, pro-EU and pro-NATO, supported NATO and the West against Serbia. Kosovo declared its independence in 2008. Bulgaria recognised it, which strained tensions between Bulgaria and Serbia. At the time, relations between the two states were once again tense. Despite this, the two countries have been free of tension and conflict for many years. And what is the current state of relations between Bulgaria and Serbia? During my visits to Bulgaria and Serbia, in conversations with Serbs and Bulgarians, I observed a number of things. I have to say that, as I don't frequent the far right (nor the far left), I don't know what their supporters think. What I often hear is: "Yes, we're not the same, but we're still similar". In other words: Balkan, South Slav, Orthodox. Despite 150 years of tension and conflict, neither people nourish feelings of hatred, revenge or even straight negativity towards the other. Jokes are more often told with a "funny" tone, even if they may bear a bit of personal opinion for some of them. The most common joke, from both the Bulgarian and Serbian sides, was that "the other one stabbed us in the back", even though they were friends. This refers to the war of 1885-1886, the Second Balkan War and to the two world wars. And even to the 1990s and 2008. I more often hear worse comments or even hatred speech between Serbs and Croats, Bulgarians and Macedonians, Macedonians and Greeks, Turks and Greeks, than between Bulgarians and Serbs. The populations of both countries are divided: one part is pro-Western, the other pro-Russian, to put it (very) simply (and reductive). But I think that, basically, although their international situation is not similar, Bulgarians and Serbs share at least this: their countries are not considered free enough politically-wise and both have negative demographic growth rates and are losing population. Oh, and Bulgaria and Serbia also share this: a population that is more welcoming, more open and warmer than it is often portrayed, with rich history and nature. And plenty of surprises if you learn to discover and explore them. Conclusion Bulgarian-Serbian relations have always been turbulent and complex. From 1800 until 1878, they were very good because the two peoples were united in the fight against the Ottoman Empire. From 1878 onwards, following independence and because of the Macedonian question, foreign influences and the aspirations of both countries, relations became very tense and were punctuated by wars. For almost 100 years, despite numerous reversals of alliances and influences, Bulgaria and Serbia followed different paths. At every major event in the Balkans, they were opposite. But all is better now, and over the last 2-3 decades the two states have reconciled to the point where there are no longer any disputes troubling their relations. The two countries cooperate on the economy, trade, energy, culture and science. Summary in dates:  1800-1877: joint struggle and mutual support in the liberation of the Balkans from Ottoman rule. 1877-1878: armed struggle, Balkan and Russian coalition against the Ottoman Empire. (Partial) liberation of the Balkans. Treaty of San Stefano and Berlin Conference: disappointments, the Serbs feel betrayed by the Russian Empire, while the Bulgarians see it as their liberator. 1885-1886: reunification of the Principality of Bulgaria with the province of Eastern Rumelia. Serbo-Bulgarian war, Bulgarian victory. 1912-1913: First Balkan War. Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece push the Ottoman Empire back to Istanbul. Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece take territories from Macedonia. The Treaty of London’s partition satisfies no-one. 1913: Second Balkan War. Serbia, Greece, the Ottoman Empire, Montenegro and Romania join forces against Bulgaria, which has attacked its neighbours. Bulgaria loses the war and new borders are drawn. First World War: Serbia is on the side of the Entente while Bulgaria is part of the Alliance. Second World War: Bulgaria, though reluctant, is on the side of the Axis, while Yugoslavia/Serbia is on the side of the Allies. 1945-1991: Cold War, Serbia/Yugoslavia and Bulgaria are communist states. Bulgaria was the "16th Soviet Republic" and turned towards the USSR, while Yugoslavia/Serbia went its own way and opened up to the West. Cooperation. 1990s and the Yugoslav wars: the new Republic of Bulgaria gradually turns towards the West, while Serbia closes itself and turns towards Russia. 1998-2008: Kosovo. Bulgaria does not support Serbia in its conflict with Kosovo. NATO cooperates with Bulgaria against Serbia. Bulgaria recognises Kosovo's independence, proclaimed in 2008. European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation: Bulgaria joined NATO in 2003 and the EU in 2007. Serbia is not a member of either of them, but applied for EU membership in 2009. Since 2008: no major conflicts. Bulgaria and Serbia have normalised and calmed their relations. Cooperation. Bibliography CASTELLAN, Georges, Histoire des Balkans, XIXe-XXe siècle, Paris, Fayard, 1999 [1991]. CASTELLAN, Georges, VRINAT-NIKOLOV, Marie, Histoire de la Bulgarie : au pays des roses, Brest, Armeline, 2008. COX, Harold E., HUPCHICK, Dennis P., Les Balkans : atlas historique, economica, Paris, translated from English by Philippe RICALENS, 2001. МАНЧЕВ, Кръстьо, Сърбия и сръбско-българските отношения 1804-2010, Парадигма, 2014. MONOVA-GALTIER, Miladina, " Euro-atlantisme ou bon voisinage ; l'opinion publique bulgare face à la guerre de Kosovo ", in Les médias créateurs de leur image dans le Sud-est européen : la presse, Études Balkaniques, Éditions Association Pierre Belon, 2001, pp. 135-160. Article available on Cairn: https://www.cairn.info/revue-etudes-balkaniques-cahiers-pierre-belon-2001-1-page-135.htm?contenu=resume. PAPADRIANOS, Ioannis, "The First Balkan Alliance (1860-1868) and the Bulgarians", Balkan Studies, 42 (2001), pp. 15-20. Article available here: https://ojs.lib.uom.gr/index.php/BalkanStudies/article/view/3306. STOJANCEVIĆ, Vladimir, "Les relations entre la Serbie et la Bulgarie du traité de San-Stefano au traité de Berlin. Problèmes, controverses, prétentions réciproques", Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine, tome 27 N°1, January-March 1980. Aspects de la crise d'Orient 1875-1878. pp. 60-67. Article available on Persée: https://www.persee.fr/doc/rhmc_0048-8003_1980_num_27_1_1079. VALTCHINOVA, Galia, "Guerre et paix - construction de la démocratie en 'pays de l'Est'. Leçons bulgares en marge de la guerre de Kosovo", in Les médias créateurs de leur image dans le Sud-est européen : la presse, Études Balkaniques, Éditions Association Pierre Belon, 2001, pp. 115-134. Article available on Cairn: https://www.cairn.info/revue-etudes-balkaniques-cahiers-pierre-belon-2001-1-page-115.htm?contenu=resume. ВОЙНИКОВ, Живко, Сръбско-българският антагонизъм 1878-1945, Еделвайс, 2020. VRINAT-NIKOLOV, Marie, "Bulgarie", Europe - Histoire, Nations, Identités, ed. Francine Rouby, Paris, Ellipses, 2013, pp. 507-529. Assessing the Perspectives of Bulgarian - Serbian Relations, Institute for Regional and International Studies, 2003. Article in English available here : http://pdc.ceu.hu/archive/00002439/.

Titostalgia. A Study of Nostalgia for Josip Broz, Mitja Velikonja, Mirovni Institut, Ljubljana, 2008. Available for free download and to buy here. Titostalgia. A Study of Nostalgia for Josip Broz is a book by Mitja Velikonja, a Slovenian academic working on memory, subcultures, and South-Eastern Europe. Published in 2008 by the Institute for Peace in Ljubljana, it only addresses what concerns the subject up to that year. Of about 150 pages, 120 excluding the bibliography, it deals with titostalgia, a contraction of the terms "nostalgia" and "Tito." Josip Broz, known as "Tito", was the leader of socialist Yugoslavia from 1944 until his death in 1980. Before that, during the Second World War, he led the Partisans who liberated pre-war and post-war Yugoslavia entities. He was, therefore, an important figure – the most important in socialist Yugoslavia, and is inherently associated with it even today. What Titostalgia addresses is nostalgia for Tito: How is he remembered today? How does the memory for Tito manifest? Where? In what objects? Moreover, what does it show about society? Mitja Velikonja has organized his work on titostalgia into three parts, plus an introduction and a conclusion. The following is a review of his study. Introduction The introduction shortly explains the notions that will be developed further: nostalgia, nostalgia for Tito, and yugonostalgia, nostalgia for socialist Yugoslavia. The two go together since Tito was a socialist Yugoslavia, and a socialist Yugoslavia would never have existed without him. We regret one while regretting the other. However, one of the two, titostalgia, is expressed more concretely and efficiently, since it concerns someone. This someone can be represented in objects, celebrated in places and events. Thus, we show what he embodied. However, firstly, a political figure, he is now (partly) a commercial tool. Nostalgia and Memory This part explains the notions of memory and nostalgia. Memory is formed during a given period – in this case, Tito's socialist Yugoslavia for titostalgia (1944-1980). It can also be formed after this period through more or less realistic memories and by the presence of this period in daily life under different forms. Nostalgic memories are proof of dissatisfaction in the present, disappointment with unmet promises, and the impossibility of projecting oneself into the future. In reaction, we turn to the past, which we know and idealize. There are two types of nostalgia: direct nostalgia, that is to say, nostalgia for a period that the individual has experienced, and indirect nostalgia, which is transmitted to an individual who did not experience this era. Nostalgia is, therefore, a regret for the past that we want for our future because we are unhappy with the present. Unfortunately, we know that this wish is unreachable, so we lose hope. The past no longer exists, and the future does not exist either. Nostalgia is a feeling, but it can also be used for commercial purposes, for example. The nostalgic feeling is cultivated by objects we purchase or get and by events in which we participate to remind us of the past and give ourselves a moment of enjoyment. The author Mitja Velikonja presents this to us here: titostalgia is used for commercial and tourist purposes. He describes how he proceeded to study this nostalgia. He noted the representations of Tito, their places, objects, their creators, and users/consumers. The Culture of Titostalgia In this part, Mitja examines the objects, places, and events where titostalgia is present. It can be found in all spheres: public and private spaces, hotels and restaurants, urban spaces, etc. Consumers good Here are some of the objects where we find Tito and which, therefore, illustrate and cultivate the titostalgic feeling: pens, cups, notebooks, clothes, accessories, statues, and statuettes. These everyday objects can be found and purchased and are sold everywhere, both in the countries of former Yugoslavia and beyond their borders, such as Germany, Russia, and China. Some of these objects have been produced since he died in 1980 and the breakup of socialist Yugoslavia in 1991 to use his image to sell more. Another part of these objects dates from when he ruled the State and continues circulating: stamps, cards, and medals. Other elements that cause and cultivate titostalgia are food, but especially drink: sandwiches, mineral water, and alcohol. Literature also fosters this nostalgia with realistic or sensational writings by authors who knew him. What are they talking about? They are talking about his diet, private life, and everything. Another field in which titostalgia manifests itself is tourism. Many places, hotels, restaurants, and cafes brag that Tito was once there to attract customers and tourists. However, his name is also in every day and non-commercial places: parks, squares, streets, schools, and factories. Places Therefore, places are full of elements that cultivate Tito's nostalgia. In his birthplace, Krumovec, in Croatia, a memorial and a park with his name have been erected. The village is even a pilgrimage site. At the House of Flowers, in Belgrade, Serbia, lies his tomb in the Museum of Yugoslavia History, which is, therefore, (and perhaps even above all) a Tito museum. Finally, events, culture, and the arts are also vectors of titostalgia: events, sports, movies, exhibitions, music groups, books, etc. The image and figure of Tito are, therefore, present in all areas and forms: in the public, in the private, in the collective, in the official, and in the individual spheres. Many of these elements are produced for commercial purposes by using his image to attract and sell. Titostalgic Culture Here, the author does not deal with "where" Tito is present but with "how" he is represented and what he embodies. This concerns both the elements mentioned in the above section and others. His portrait, evocation, and memory are comforting since they remind us of a time when "everything was better and easier." It also serves as a historical marker: "during Tito's time," "after Tito." Titostalgia is explained and justified: "We miss him, we love him. He was a humble man, close to the people, he beamed. He made Yugoslavia famous and respected globally and guaranteed security, prosperity, and progress." Therefore, His image is positive, reassuring, comforting, and representative of an era when everything was fine. Limits, Clarifications, and State of Society Mitja Velikonja presents and rejects this section's arguments about the material and immaterial titostalgia. He goes beyond received discourses and ideas, delving into them and sometimes debunking them. Moreover, he does so in 13 points: Tito's use 1– Tito's "return" is the consequence of the catastrophic events that followed his death (wars, crises, economic and political stagnation). It is logical because, in his time, everything was fine, and since then, everything has gone wrong. That is why we want him back with us. 2 and 3– Those who are nostalgic may sometimes be more nostalgic about their youth and the good old days than about Tito. For young people who did not even know Tito and Yugoslavia, their nostalgia is a kind of "neostalgia." Their nostalgia is transmitted by their environment, both alive and material, then internalized and "experienced." 4– Tito is a hero who defeated and outlasted all the villains of the 20th century. He was close to the people. However, (point 10), he led a luxurious life, met the jet set, and traveled a lot. 5– Of course, he was an original political figure. However, he carried on the pan-Yugoslavism that had already existed with the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, and pre-war Yugoslavia. So, he did not invent Yugoslavia, as many people think. 6– Tito sells well. He is deliberately used to increase sales and the number of visitors, even if sometimes the product has nothing to do with him at all. State of the society 7– The "rehabilitation" of Tito after his death is a concrete expression of regret for the past. It is only one among many. However, this one is easier to express because the man is not that far away in time, and he is someone, something tangible. These elements partly explain why he is the figure chosen to express and use one of the different nostalgias. 8– Titostalgia and its positive image exist among left-wingers, nationalists, and others. Some also fight and accuse each other of using Tito, while others would not be against returning to Yugoslavia (point 11). 9– Despite everything, not everyone is nostalgic or even blind. Some think this nostalgia is ridiculous and retrograde, trapping people and the country in a sort of inertia, feeding constant dissatisfaction and despair, and preventing or slowing down society's progress. It shows the condition of society, which lives in the past and is unable to project itself into the future because it is disappointed in the present. 12– So, overall, the image of Yugoslavia and Tito is (very) good. Moreover, the image of this socialist period is better in Yugoslavia than in other communist/socialist countries. This is partly due to the anti-propaganda in socialist Yugoslavia, which presented the country as much better and more open than other eastern countries. 13– Titostalgia is a rejection of the current political situation, which provokes discontent and despair. It is an indirect critique of the present, rejecting unfair globalization, capitalism, US/EU/NATO unilateralism, and militarization. Conclusion: "We are Tito's; Tito is ours." This concludes Mitja's study of titostalgia, which is part of yugonostalgia. It comes in different forms and different areas. As a whole, Tito's image is positive. Titostalgia concentrates on expressing feelings about today's society, which we would like to be closer to a socialist Yugoslavia. However, as nostalgically remembered and presented, this Yugoslavia and this Tito never existed: they are imagined and idealized, partly as some would have liked them to be or as the future they would have liked to see. On the one hand, this titostalgia can be found in everyday life and public places, for commercial purposes; on the other hand, it can be found at an individual level, as each person makes it their own. Concluding remarks Titostalgia. A Study of Nostalgia for Josip Broz by Mitja Velikonja is the perfect book if you want to learn about Tito's nostalgia 30 years after his death and 20 years after the breakup of socialist Yugoslavia. This study is evident and accessible, full of examples and images. Moreover, it includes a touch of humor and makes a difference between the modern countries of former Yugoslavia. Last but not least, it can be accessed for free online. It would be interesting to study titostalgia again, but the one from 2024, i.e., 15 years after Mitja. Where is it now? Is titostalgia less or more vivid? What does it show about society? Have things changed?