Search

This article studies how and why the policies of the Bulgarian and Romanian states towards Muslim/Turkish minorities differed widely from each other between 1923 and 1936. Minority policies in Bulgaria shifted from tolerance during the Agrarian People's Union government in 1919, to assimilation and repression in the 1930s. In contrast, the Romanian state tolerated and favourably treated Muslim minorities throughout the interwar period. In order to account for this difference, we highlight the influence of Turkey's diplomatic relations on Bulgarian and Romanian state policies towards minorities and the responses of the latter. While Turkish-Bulgarian relations see-sawed, Turkish-Romanian relations constantly improved from the 1920s to 1930s. We argue that, whenever Turkey's diplomatic relations with Bulgaria and Romania ameliorated, Bulgaria's and Romania's minority policies improved. Yet, whenever diplomatic relations deteriorated, so did the minority policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Library & Information Science Research / Studii de Biblioteconomie si stiinta informarii is the property of Library & Information Science Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper examines the debates around the "miracle of Maglavit", a shepherd's vision of God that took place in 1935 in Romania and attracted much contemporary popular and intellectual interest. The debates drew in arguments from doctors and theologians, who discussed the psychology of divine revelation and tried to elaborate the implications that such an event could have for the life of the Romanian nation. The paper places these debates in the context of wider contemporary discussions about psychology and religion. I argue that what Maglavit shows is that, in Romania at least, public debates about visionary experience in the 1930s were not only debates about its psychology, but of a psychology thoroughly imbricated with political concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]