This book achieves its intention of being a brief introduction to Romanian history and culture but is coated in Boia’s ideology and by omission fails to capture Romania outside of mere historical fact while avoiding the same when they evidence claims unpopular to the ‘Europeanists’
From the outset, Boia presents himself as a balanced and professional historian, giving both sides to cultural disputes and a voice even to the historical enemies of Romania. He is, allegedly, a champion in the fight against nationalistic pseudo-history (promoted especially by Ceaușescu). Still, as ancient history gives way to that of his own lifetime, he devolves into a snarky pro-western agitator. Of Ceausescu, for instance: “Clearly, he had never heard of ecology.” (138) On occasion he’ll throw a bone so as to keep up the pretension to some kind of objectivity. In fairness to Boia, let us note that he does admit to his own bias, “what can I do myself but select and interpret in the light of my own opinions… what follows then does not pretend to present Romania in all its aspects: it is a personal interpretation, my Romania.” (10)
Still, self awareness doesn’t absolve him of deceptive and ideologically motivated retelling of history:
Moreover, his discussion of Romanians in Romania (on 220-225) has implications without substantiation that Romanian philosophy concerning national ethos is predicated on some psychological pathology, attempting to justify Romanian shortcomings or simply as a political project. He simply sweeps Noica and Blaga away without serious engagement because Westerners find their ideas disagreeable.
It may be worth noting that Boia was awarded the Hungarian order of merit for his work as a historian. This, in itself, is not a problem, but it would be ridiculous to assume the innocuousness of this association, discarding the fact that such an award is hardly apolitical and reflects approval from an intellectual culture with clear antipathies towards Romanian historiography.