Language and history are complicated they often address either adequately or inadequately culturally loaded and culturally sensitive issues.  Bulgaria is an old country with a tumultuous history.  The history is marked by the Thracians, the first Bulgarian state, Byzantine rule, the second Bulgarian state, five centuries of Ottoman rule, a third Bulgarian state, Communist rule and then after 1989 we find ourselves in the present day.

On March 3rd, Bulgaria celebrated their Day of Independence (maybe better called <a href="http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=101653" target="_blank">National Liberation Day</a> thanks Sofia News Agency).  Given their history, it's important to note that they are celebrating independence from the Ottomans Empire--Turkey--and that this independence was brokered by Russia.  Bulgaria gained it's independence with the Treaty of San Stefano--a treaty signed on March 3, 1878 by Russia and the Ottoman Empire at the end of the <span class="mw-redirect">Russo-Turkish War</span>.

Thus, it's been 131 years since Bulgaria gained independence from the Ottoman Empire after five centuries of foreign rule. <!--more-->Yesterday, many different countries congratulated  Bulgaria on her independence including both <a href="http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=101666" target="_blank">Russia</a> (thanks, Putin but I am not sure that this makes up for the gas crisis in January) and <a href="http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=101652" target="_blank">England</a> (thanks to you too, Queen Elizabeth).

Bulgarians are very proud of their country and their people.  For good reason, this a physically beautiful country and for the most part the people are incredibly kind.  Their leaders don't always make the best choices when it comes to politics and alliances but really, no country is perfect.  (And who am I to judge? My country legalized slavery, killed hundreds of thousands of Native Americans, interned Japanese during WWII, and my country is currently trampling my First Amendment rights in order to fight a nebulous "war on terrorism.")

As a foreigner (and an English major), what's interesting to me is the way that Bulgarians talk about the Ottoman rule.  Often people refer to it as the Ottoman yoke (one of the great Bulgarian novels by Ivan Vazov is aptly titled: <a href="http://www.bgbook.dir.bg/book.php?ID=18873" target="_blank">Under the Yoke</a>)  or I've heard the era referred to as Ottoman domination as well.

The question this kind of language elicits is how should we talk about our past? How should we discuss and interpret our history? And who is responsible for this?

Wikipedia serves as an interesting example of these questions.  This first quote is from the Wikipedia entry <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria" target="_blank">"Bulgaria:"</a>
<ul>
	<li>The Ottomans decimated the Bulgarian population, which lost most of its cultural relics. Turkish authorities destroyed most of the medieval Bulgarian fortresses in order to prevent rebellions. Large towns and the areas where Ottoman power predominated remained severely depopulated until the nineteenth century."</li>
</ul>
And the second quote is from from the Wikipedia entry on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_Bulgaria#Settlement_of_Turks_in_Bulgaria_During_the_pre-Ottoman_Period" target="_blank">"Turks in Bulgaria:" </a>
<ul>
	<li>The Ottoman Empire used colonization as a very effective method to consolidate their position and power in the Balkans. The colonizers that were brought to the Balkans consisted of diverse elements, including soldiers, nomads, farmers, artisans and merchants, dervishes, preachers and other religious functionaries, and administrative personnel.</li>
</ul>
But Wikipedia makes it clear that information and points of view in both of these sections are currently under dispute.  The discussion sections in both of these Wikipedia articles is worth checking out.  In the case of the "Bulgaria" entry, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bulgaria" target="_blank">discussion section</a> is longer than the actual Wikipedia article. What are people debating? Well, history, content, language, tone, usage and even the appropriateness/correctness of translations from Bulgarian into English.

In other words, everything seems to be in question.  It seems to beg the question, where does the truth rest? and it returns me to my previous series of questions regarding how we should talk about the pastm, our shared history and our relationship to it now.

Given the level of debate that this issue can raise even on Wikipedia, it's clear that these aren't questions that we can answer easily or quickly.  These are it seems questions that will be worked out throughout this next generation and maybe the one that follows it.  Plainly, how we talk, think about and discuss this history will also shape how people use it in the future.  At stake right now, Turkey, EU membership and the Bulgarian nationalist party <a href="http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=101662" target="_blank">Ataka</a> which opposes Turkey's accession to the EU.