COURAGE

łączymy kolekcje

Hristo Ganev (1924 - ) adopted the communist views at young age and became a member of the Labour Youth Union (LYU). During World War II he participated in the communist resistance movement and was the youngest partisan of the Chavdar Brigade. After the establishment of the new authorities, Hristo Ganev was among the young people who were sent to the Soviet Union for training in the field of cinema. In 1954 H. Ganev graduated in film dramaturgy from the All-Russian State University of Cinematography in Moscow. His graduation work as a script-writer was the biographical film about the life of Nikola Vaptsarov "Song of Man" (1954) (director Borislav Sharaliev). The movie was assigned, one of the first of the nationalized in 1948 cinematography. The aim was to create an epic and monumental idea about the poet – worker and communist. The film was screened though there were also negative reviews on the part of the censorial bodies: although the film was mainly made up to the standard of the aesthetics of the time, the script-writer and the director tried to present "the poet in more intimate and human light" (Станимирова 2012: 63).

The second half of the 1950s and the 1960s were a time when bright talents in every field of the culture were blooming; at the same time, the pressure of the authorities on the intellectuals was increasing. The movie "Life Flows Quietly By..." (1957) directed by Hristo Ganev's wife, Binka Zhelyazkova, was banned by a ministerial decree. The long story of the discussions of Hristo Ganev's script (initially called "Partisans" but later renamed "Life Flows Quietly By...") shows the mechanisms and institutions of censorship in socialist Bulgaria. The following joint films of the director Binka Zhelyazkova and the script-writer Hristo Ganev also posed inconvenient questions to the authorities about the moral crisis, the exchange of communist ideals for high party positions and everyday life comfort and criticized the search for enemy amidst your own ranks, the conformism, and the compromise.

In 1971, Hristo Ganev and the writers Blagoy Dimitrov, Valeri Petrov, Marko Ganchev and Gocho Gochev refused to uphold a telegram written by the Union of the Bulgarian Writers (UBW) stigmatizing the Nobel Committee for awarding the Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Because of their clear stand, the four members of the Bulgarian Communist Party were expelled from the party and the non-party Blagoy Dimitrov was expelled from the Writers' Union. They were all banned for five years from working; that was a period during which Hristo Ganev earned his living by shooting advertising productions for the television. Yet Hristo Ganev remained true to his ideals; his joint films with Binka Zhelyazkova ("Life Flows Quietly By...", "We Were Young", "The Swimming Pool", "The Big Night Bathe", "On the Roofs at Night") are steeped in faith in the idea to which they had devoted their youth and in sorrow for the idea having become mercenary. In their movies, the two artists clashed views and moral values and exposed the moral degradation of the system and the use of power for personal benefit. Their films are distinguished for vanguard directorial decisions as well as for dramaturgical construction with strong dramatic characters, bright and memorable situations, impressing details.

Hristo Ganev has rendered great services to the development of the animation cinema as an ideological and graphic paradigm. In his animation scripts, Ganev treated the "theme of the moral crisis and the maze in the time of the socialist imperative of the "active positive character". Using the symbolic language of the conditional, non-linear, fragmentary and suggestive building of the plot, absolutely free of ideological matrices he was able to express his view on the meaning of life, on the decline and betrayal against the ideals." (Матеева 2014) The expressive vision was mainly achieved with the help of the director Anri Kulev.

During the entire period of state socialism, Hristo Ganev was notable for his work as well as for his civil stand in defence of the freedom of speech and art; he publicly supported banned works from various spheres of the culture; he declared against the repressive measures against the intellectuals by directly accusing the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party.

After the political changes, Hristo Ganev continued to treat in his animation scripts themes that interpreted existential problems of the modern man: freedom and compromise; the damages caused by the consumption force, egoism and complacency eroding the value system; love and loneliness. Even today, Hristo Ganev's films find public response and win great recognition.

After the political changes, Hristo Ganev received a series of (state) awards (Award for Outstanding Contribution to the Bulgarian Cinema and Culture of the Ministry of Culture, 2007; Stara Planina Order, 2010; honorary diploma and the St. Paisii Hilendarski Annual State Award, 2011; Ivan Vazov Medal of the Union of the Bulgarian Writers, 2014). One could not forget Hristo Ganev's speech when receiving the Paisii Hilendarski Award: "My long and variegated life during monarchy, socialism and democracy taught me to meet punishments and awards with slightly skeptical distance. I know that often they were both undeserved." (by Дончева 2014: 37)

Filmography

-           Man's Song (1954), scriptwriter Hristo Ganev, directed by Borislav Sharaliev

-           Two Victories (1956), scriptwriter Hristo Ganev, directed by Borislav Sharaliev, Veselin Hanchev

-           Life Flows Quietly By.../ Partizans (1957), scriptwriter Hristo Ganev, directed by Binka Zhelyazkova

-           We Were Young (1961), scriptwriter Hristo Ganev, directed by Binka Zhelyazkova

-           Feast of Hope (1963) Documentary, directed by Hristo Ganev

-           Devil in the Church (1969) Animation, scriptwriter Hristo Ganev, directed by Ivan Veselinov

-           The Little Man (1976) Animation, scriptwriter Hristo Ganev, director Gencho Simeonov

-           Hypothesis (1976) Animation, scriptwriter Hristo Ganev, director Gencho Simeonov

-           The Swimming Pool (1977), scriptwriter Hristo Ganev, directed by Binka Zhelyazkova

-           The Big Night Bathe (1980), scriptwriter Hristo Ganev, directed by Binka Zhelyazkova

-           Bagpipes (Gayda) (1982) Animation, scriptwriter Hristo Ganev, directed by Anri Kulev and Nikolay Todorov

-           Safari (1984) Animation, scriptwriter Hristo Ganev, directed by Anri Kulev

-           The Merry Rascal (1987) Animation, scriptwriter Hristo Ganev, directed by Anri Kulev

-           Beggarly Trio (1988) Animation, scriptwriter Hristo Ganev

-           On the Roofs at Night (1988), scriptwriter Hristo Ganev, directed by Binka Zhelyazkova

-           The Tender Monster (1994) Animation, scriptwriter Hristo Ganev, directed by Anri Kulev

-           The Tenth Circle (1998) Animation, scriptwriter Hristo Ganev, directed by Anna Haralaptieva

-           The Slim Man (2001) Animation, scriptwriter Hristo Ganev, directed by Anri Kulev

-           Poet and Pegasus (2003) Animation, Hristo Ganev, directed by Anri Kulev

-           The Rag (2007) Animation, scriptwriter Hristo Ganev, directed by Anri Kulev

Virginijus Gasiliūnas is the head of the Manuscript Division of the Library of the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore. The Manuscript Division holds 90,000 document units (manuscripts and photographs). The manuscript collection has about 66,000 units, and is divided into 109 funds. Most of the manuscript collection is made up of the personal funds of Lithuanian national activists, writers and scholars. Gasiliūnas has been the head of the Manuscript Division since 2010. He is an expert on modern Lithuanian literature, and a co-founder and editor of the independent cultural-intellectual journal Sietynas (The Chandelier), established by a group of young Lithuanian activists in 1988.

Zina Genyk-Berezovska was a Czech literary scholar, linguist and translator, who was born in a village outside Prague in 1928 into a community of Ukrainian émigrés. She was an important figure in the Ukrainian community in Prague, and was also integrally involved in the sixtiers movement, underscoring its transnational character. Genyk-Berezovska communicated regularly with Ukrainian literary figures and human rights activists, often putting her own self at risk by transporting samizdat from Ukraine to Czechoslovakia.

In 1953, Genyk-Berezovska completed her studies at Charles University in Prague, where she had focused on Slavic and Germanic Philology. Her research specialized on Ukrainian and Czech literature and the links between them, which helps situate Ukrainian literature of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries firmly in the European tradition. She also translated many works of Ukrainian baroque literature into Czech, including texts by Hryoriy Skovoroda, Ivan Kotliarevsky, Taras Shevchenko, Lesya Ukrainka, Mykhailo Kotsiubynsky and others. Often speaking on Czech radio, Genyk-Berezovska also regularly contributed to Ukrainian émigré journals “Duklja” and “Slavia” in Czechoslovakia, while also maintaining close ties to both the T.H. Shevchenko Institute of Literature in Kyiv and the Slavic Department of Lviv University.

Genyk-Berezovska was close to Lesya Ukrainka’s sister O. Kosach-Shymanovska, and also had friends and colleagues among the sixtiers movement, including Yevhen Sverstiuk, Ivan Svitlychny, Mykhailyna Khomivna Kotsiubynska and others. She played a crucial role in getting their materials published abroad in émigré journals, which allowed knowledge of the struggles of Ukrainian dissidents and human rights activists to circulate in the west. This Czech-Ukrainian corridor provides a unique window into the translational and multi-generational dimensions of cultural opposition to socialism in Ukraine and in Ukrainian émigré communities. It was thus fitting that the archive of Zina Genyk-Berezovska and her husband Kostiantyn Genyk-Berezovsky was transferred to the T.H. Shevchenko Institute of Literature in full in 2003, where it rests alongside the archives of her friends and fellow activists Vasyl Stus and Mykhailyna Khomivna Kotsiubynska.

Kostiantyn Genyk-Berezovsky was a Ukrainian philologist born near Ivano-Frankivsk in 1919. He went to study at Jagellonian University in Krakow in 1938, but shortly after the start of World War II moved to Prague, where he became a member of the anti-fascist movement. He was arrested in 1942 by the Gestapo and spent the remainder of the war in the concentration camp Flossenbürg. After World War II, he studied medicine (1946-1949) and philosophy (1949-1953) at Charles University in Prague, where he received his doctorate. From 1953-1979, he was a faculty member of the Slavic Department, where he taught Ukrainian. This institution became one of the major Ukrainian studies centres in Prague after World War II. He also taught Ukrainian language and literature at newly established Ukrainian schools in Prešov and Bardiyiv. Genyk-Berezovsky also wrote and edited Ukrainian textbooks for the community and also contributed to the Ukrainian-Czech and Czech-Ukrainian dictionaries.

The home of Kost and Zina Genyk-Berezovskykh became an unofficial center of Ukrainian life and community in Prague. It was a warm place where it was possible to look deep into the past, as observed by Mykhailyna Khomivna Kotsiubynska, who was responsible for bringing their personal archive to Kyiv in 2003. No one interested in Ukraine, or Ukrainian literature, who came through Prague missed an opportunity to visit their home and vast library and archive, which filled two rooms. People came to their home to connect, to discuss important matters of the day, to get help, and even to sing, as Kost’ knew many folk songs and loved to sing them. The home of the couple was a community centre in the truest sense, connecting two cultures and two worlds in one.

Nicolae Gheorghe was a Romanian sociologist and the most important activist for the rights of Roma people in Romania. He was born on 12 November 1946 in Roșiorii de Vede, Teleorman county in a mixed Roma family. His father was a Zlătar (“goldwasher”) and his mother belonged to a mixed family of Vătrași and Lăutari (settled Roma and musicians). Nicolae Gheorghe's parents tried to escape “the burden of ethnicity,” as his father worked as a driver and his mother made sure her son was clean and well-groomed and had no contacts with other Roma children. When Nicolae Gheorghe was nine years old, his family moved to Bucharest. In the Romanian capital, the Gheorghe family members left behind their Roma past to become a fully integrated into mainstream society. In particular, Nicolae Gheorghe made every effort to hide its ethnic origin and to suppress any remains of his Roma identity (Sandu 2012). He graduated from the Faculty of Sociology of the University of Bucharest and became a researcher at the Centre of Sociological Research in Bucharest. According to his testimony, he started reconsidering his ethnic identity as the Romanian regime moved towards a more nationalistic stance and by its policies started unofficially to emphasise the ethnic differences among its citizens (Rombase 2017). This influenced not only his behaviour but also his research agenda. One of his colleagues at the Centre of Sociological Research and an informer of the Romanian secret police, the Securitate, recorded how the rediscovery of ethnicity influenced Nicolae Gheorghe’s behaviour: “a year or two, Gheorghe Nicolae did not openly state that he was a Gypsy or that he was interested in the Gypsy problems.” But since 1982 he “has let his moustache grow, he often speaks Gypsy on the phone, and sometimes says he is dissatisfied with the way the Gypsies are treated” by the Romanian authorities (ANCSAS I 234356, f. 98 v).

Nicolae Gheorghe’s entire research activity focused on Roma people in various Romanian counties. He became particularly interested in the community of Roma tent-dwellers in Sibiu County who managed both to preserve their traditions intact and to integrate into Romanian society. During his fieldwork, Nicolae Gheorghe met Ion Cioabă, the traditional leader or the bulibașa of Roma people in Sibiu. From Ion Cioabă and his family, he learned the Romani language, he learned about Roma culture and the pride of being a Roma and living according to Roma traditions. Also, due to their close relations, Ion Cioabă offered Nicolae Gheorghe financial and moral support for his research in the Roma communities in the country in the early 1980s (ACNSAS, I 234356, ff. 40–41 f–v, 42, 46–47 f–v, 48, 98 f–v).

The results of Nicolae Gheorghe’s research revealed that Roma people lagged behind Romanians and other minorities from a social, cultural, economic, and even political point of view. That was because their collective access to “the resources of socialist development and modernisation (education, training, positions in organisations, housing, social participation)” was unequal in comparison to other ethnic groups. Apart from increasing the opportunities of Roma people to get access to education, professional training, and programmes for social integration, Nicolae Gheorghe pleaded for their official recognition as a “co-inhabiting nationality,” the term used by the communist regime to label the national minorities in Romania. This was meant not only to raise the awareness of the authorities about the disadvantaged situation of the Roma people and to force them act accordingly, but also to ensure their recognition as a distinct ethic group whose cultural specificity, including the use of the Romani language in education and printed culture, and political representation should have been protected. In short, the Romanian sociologist insisted that the best solution to solving the difficult situation in which Roma people found themselves was their integration as a distinct minority group in Romanian society (ACNSAS D 144 vol. 15, ff. 67–73).

Nicolae Gheorghe devised a strategy that would bring sufficient arguments for the recognition of Roma people as a “co-inhabiting nationality.” In various contexts, including his contacts with foreign researchers, he repeatedly mentioned that there were more Roma than population censuses recorded, and he used his fieldwork to support this statement. Apart from the numeric argument, Gheorghe also strove to demonstrate that Rome people had their own culture and that they preserved their ethnic identity through language, traditions, and customs. And finally, he authored alone or together with Ion Cioabă documents that were sent to the Romanian authorities and in which he described the difficulties facing Roma people and the possible means of solving their problems (Marin 2017, 44–47).

Nicolae Gheorghe’s endeavours conflicted with the Romanian authorities’ point of view on solving the “Roma question.” The census of 1977 revealed an increase of over 80% in the number of Roma in comparison to the previous count of the population in 1966. The growth triggered several studies about the living conditions of Roma people. The results confirmed that “Roma question” was foremost a “social problem” as extreme poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, and poor health and hygiene were still part of the Roma’s everyday life. The studies also identified the main cause of the Roma’s difficult situation in their preservation of their traditional nomadic and seminomadic way of life (Marin 2017, 25–29, 38). Thus, instead of granting them the status of a “co-inhabiting nationality” and admitting the possibility of their integration into Romanian society, the authorities decided that the best way to solve the problems of Roma people was the levelling of their ethnic and cultural particularities through forced assimilation.

The plans for forced assimilation and the increased discrimination that Roma people were subjected to by the Romanian authorities, especially by the communist Militia, were denounced by Nicolae Gheorghe in an article published in Le Matin on 30 March 1982 (ACNSAS, I 234356, ff. 230 f–v, 231). The article, written under the pseudonym “Danciu Alexandru,” was read during one of the broadcasts of Radio Free Europe. It was a reply to a piece written by the French journalist Bernard Poulet, who had told the readers of Le Matin how was attacked and badly beaten when he tried to contact the Romanian dissident Vasile Paraschiv. The official explanation that Poulet got from the authorities was that he had been attacked by a group of “Gypsies.” Nicolae Gheorghe rebuked the conclusion of the investigation by showing that Roma people were usually blamed for everything that went wrong in Romania, and denounced the violence used against them by the Militia and the refusal of the Romanian authorities to grant them the status of a “co-inhabiting nationality” (ACNSAS, D 144, vol. 15, ff. 315–317 f–v, 318). Suspecting that Nicolae Gheorghe was the author of the article read at Radio Free Europe, the Romanian secret police intensified their informative surveillance of him. At that time the Securitate had already opened an informative surveillance file (dosar de urmărire informativă) against his name due to his frequent contacts with foreign academics and his “Gypsy nationalism,” as the secret police had labelled his interventions in favour of Roma people’s rights.

The set of measures designed by the Securitate to neutralise the allegedly negative consequences of Gheorghe’s “Gypsy nationalism” resulted in three main directions of actions. First, the Romanian authorities did not grant him an exit visa for his journeys abroad in 1983, not even for a Fulbright Scholarship, on the ground that his research topic could raise some “problems that can be speculated abroad about so-called racial discrimination.” Moreover, his connections with foreign researchers were cut off as the Securitate intercepted and confiscated the correspondence between them (ACNSAS, I 234356, ff. 148–150, 174–175 f–v). Second, taking advantage of a personal conflict between Ion Cioabă and Nicolae Gheorghe, the Securitate managed to break up the collaboration between the two and thus, undermine any further common actions in favour of the recognition of the Roma as a “co-inhabiting nationality” (ACNSAS, I 234356, ff. 255 v, 257 f–v, 172057 vol. 2, f. 30 f; D 8685, ff. 119 f–v–120). Lastly, the secret police resorted to one of its preventive measures, so-called “positive influencing measures” (măsuri de influențare pozitivă). These measures generally used the network of informers, family members, and educational agents to protect the person in question from allegedly negative influences that might lead to his or her taking part in “anti-social and potentially harmful actions” (Burlacu 2009, 64). Consequently, the secret police used two persons close to Nicolae Gheorghe, namely his line manager at the Centre of Sociological Research and also his godfather. The first deterred Gheorghe’s attention from the “Roma question” by involving him in other research projects that gradually monopolised a significant part of his working time (ACNSAS, I 234356, ff. 263, 273–274 f-v). His godfather, identified under the pseudonym “Ionescu Vasile,” constantly showed him that his obsession with the study of Roma issues had led (“through repeated absences from home and lack of interest in problems of practical life”) to the dissolution of the family and represented a step back in his career as a sociologist. Moreover, he also tried to demonstrate the futility of Gheorghe’s support for the integration of Roma people into Romanian society by showing that their assimilation was the only possible means for their transformation into “normal citizens, useful to society” (ACNSAS I 234356, ff. 262, 275 f–v). The cumulative result of his isolation from Ion Cioabă, the breakup of his marriage, and the “positive influencing measures” taken by the Securitate was that Nicolae Gheorghe abandoned his studies regarding Roma people and his actions in favour of their recognition as a “co-inhabiting nationality.” Consequently, in April 1989 the secret police decided to close their informative surveillance of him and even considered recruiting him as an informer (ACNSAS, I 234356, ff. 320 f–v, 321).

After the fall of the communist regime, Nicolae Gheorghe rebuilt from scratch the civic movement for the rights of Roma people in Romania. In 1993, he founded The Roma Centre for Social Intervention and Studies (Romani Criss), which in the following years would become one of the most important nongovernmental organisations for the defence of Roma rights in Romania and indeed in Europe. He also made an important contribution to the creation of the first political organisation of Roma people in Romania and in uniting the many Roma organisations for the purpose of creating a national strategy for dealing with the problems of this minority (Rădulescu 2013). Nicolae Gheorghe also distinguished himself as an internationally known Roma activist. He was one of the vice-presidents of the International Roma Union between 1991 and 1993. In collaboration with the International Federation on Human Rights, he authored a document about Human Rights Protection of the Roma, which was accepted into Resolution 65/1993 by the UN Commission on Human Rights. As an NGO representative, Nicolae Gheorghe acted as an official observer at the meetings of the European Council’s group of specialists on issues affecting the Roma and also the Sinti. From 1999 he was advisor for Roma and Sinti issues at the Contact Point for Roma and Sinti Issues created by the OSCE at the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights in Warsaw. He received human rights awards from the French state in 1992 and five years later from the European Union (Rombase 2017; V. Ionescu 2013).