Other unsurprising surprises for me came from the reactions of our historians as the interview ended . Arben Puto , after saying a few positive words for Clayer book published in English , linguistic lapse was taken to " a few days " and said that , apparently , historian knows not figure Ismail Kamal , implying that s ' worth you dealing with what she said . Then Paskal Milo answered and all the Tory rhetoric , according to which , we should not overestimate these foreigners should not have inferiority complex towards them , adding that we know our history better than they once we " have blood " it .February , the French historian , who has worked ten years to write a book like "Beginning of Albanian nationalism " , was introduced in a program where there was no right of reply and were swept in the style already familiar to " school " denigrating our dealing with the person , and not with the analysis of his arguments . And this , according to me , not because of lapse - that actually belonged to the journalist who had interviewed to clarify that during the interview - but using this artifact that , in my opinion , our historians would be were the first to understand , given the fact that only one study that has worked ten years on Albanian nationalism , can not know how long stood at the head of government Ismail Kamal . In fact , Clayer has written an entire text on the role of the figure of Ismail Kamal , entitled : " To rethink Balkan nationalism : - the case of the image of Ismail Kemal Bey and Albanian nationalism " , which treats all its activity before and after declaration of pavarësisë.1
The truth is that behind the lapse and its misuse , the problem of the show was that he was a confrontation dydiskursesh : that of the scientist and the historian to historian ideologjizues clear that appeared in an interview where Xhunga moment Clayer asked : " So , according to you will have to get rid of symbols and heroes in our history ? Paskemi not need them ? " . And Clayer replied that it is historians who attempt to write history or give an interpretation of it, to understand who are the actors who have acted and how they acted - implying that this function coincides with the intended use history and its protagonists as a tool for activism popular consciousness . And the attitude of our historians , particularly the expression of Milos , our history that we " have blood " , and thus , almost s'paskemi no need to learn it , not most of us learn to foreigners , was a illustration par excellence of what Serbian scholar , Slobodan Naumoviç , calls double insider syndrome ( syndrome double insiders ) . This syndrome is one historian , anthropologist , ethnologist , writer , intellectual who tends to ideologjizojë discourse after internal double : first , as regards the group that studies because it shares the same language , traditions , values, interests and , secondly, because it is part of a special subset of the social history of the nation-state building has traditionally been tasked to study , create , protect the " issue " of the group . This ideologjizim , says Naumoviç , may be conscious and unconscious , but both options do not exclude each other and bash their combination is typical for researchers ballkanas.2