Ethnic Hungarians boo Romanian president

The "Native" Americans arrived in the Americas from Asia probably 25,000 - 40,000 years ago, whereas the Europeans began arriving sometime after 900 (Leaf Eriksson). How has that helped the former in their land claims? Such historical arguments are irrelevant. Treat the Hungarians as equal citizens in all respects and you should have no reason to fear losing Transylvania. Just don't respond with force if they should start an uprising!

The ancestors of the Hungarians came from Asia to Europe in the 9th century.

The ancestors of the Romanians, the Dacians, inhabited Transylvania long before the Hungarians came to the region from Asia.

Looks like Hungarians have a legitimate claim to equality when you see the likes of Mircea attempting to undervalue their existence.

Actually the scene was very funny at that summer school. He first said that there is need for greater autonomy for local entities in Romania and everybody applauded. He said: Don't applaude yet, the same greater autonomy in Odorheiul Secuiesc, Tulcea (East Ro) or Caracal (south). Then they started boo-ing.

I think though he was mistaken to meet with Orban Viktor.

Nenand, no worries, it's parents from Romania paying their children's mortgage on flats in Budapest not viceversa.
Though I would vote for any greater autonomy (not discriminatory as the Tokes Laszlo wants - no settlement in their area if you don't have their permission (Aland type - unconstitutional) and don't speak hungarian, I don't think that, hungarian communities that set on fire gypsy houses, as it recently happened, deserve anything.
I also think that Orban should receive a foot in his dorsal side and be sent home, because we do not want any antigypsy propaganda of his to be affecting our hungarians also.

Mircea,

It makes absolutely no difference who came first! We are taliking about events that took place centuries ago. I myself doubt that the Dacians survuived the Great Resettlement duruing the dark Ages. How do you think the Slavs, the Bulgarians, the Kumans, The Avars and the Hungarians and finally the Tatars passed through? Transit, without affecting the local population? There were of course pochets of Romanised people all over the Balkans, from Greece to Istria, to Moldova. Bu it was in the noman's land between the Hungarian and the Bulgarian Empires that the Romanized culture became predominent in the late Middle Ages. One has to addmit that the Hungarian rule over the Romanians in Transilvania until 1918 was at times harsh, erratic and insultive. But so was the Romainan rule over the Hungarians afterwards. It is a pity that in 1940 Romania and Hungary did not reach an agreement similar to the Romanian Bulgarian Craiova agreement for the return of Southern Dobrudja. The Vienna aAcord was in a seans fair, because the number of the Romanians left in Hungary was similar to the number of the Hungarians left in Romania. But since it was sponsored by Hitler and Mussiolini, it was compromised and did not last.

Hruz,

Can you please re-word the same essay to Serbian-Albanian problem? Because in some funny cases the Hungarians who write these essays do suffer from double standard.

What is true without much doubt: Romanians and Albanians managed to win a lot of territories using clever diplomacy and shifting their position according daily "reality on the ground". Somewhat neither Hungarians nor Serbs were good about lately.

And the stories about Dacian or Illyrian monkeys being the first who climbed down the trees in Transylvania or Kosova 6 million years ago are nothing more or less than efforts to justify the political game. And it's a cheap nationalistic food for the masses who are lazy to think.

Dear fearful friens.

It makes Hungarian smile if some groups try to invent their missing history that leads back to...Roman times :)

However hard I try, I cannot find a map of Europe prior to XIXth century where Romania is mentioned. Wonder why.

Thirdly, if echoes from the past haunts in Romania, i.e. to declare that "Romania is a national...state", I just feel pity.

Every pupil in primairy school learns that different peoples make up a nation. There is no nation that is homogenous,made up of only one nationality. Therefore, it is a said and pitiful try to declare it in a constitution, because:

A: it is not true and will not be true by keepin on repeating

B: without a nation, a country has no inhabitants.

so why to mention that ROmania is made up of a (or a single) nation, if not for provocative reasons, and for the possibility to deny the right of authonomy...

Keep on living a dream of onr great Daco ROmanian homogenous state, but be ready for rightful criticizm.

By the way, where do gypsies and burning houses come in the picture? Would this authorize a EU member country to ridicule XXI century European values?

Mircea, I think the point is that the Dacians may well be AN ancestor of the Romanians, but that the attempt to scour history for blood links to ages past is usually a pretty futile one, not least because you usually find that you're related to more peoples and cultures than you even conceived was possible.

For instance, the idea of Hungarians as a cohesive, historical-cultural entity, has SOME basis in reality, but mostly it was invented by romantics and nationalists in the 18th and 19th centuries who proceeded to impose it on anyone and everyone possible. I call myself Hungarian, because I speak Hungarian and identify with other people who call themselves Hungarian. That doesn't change the fact that my grandfather was Romanian and my grandmother half-Slovak, who later embraced Hungarian culture and identity.

So, if you're going to justify modern claims on the basis of ancient links then you're standing on rather shaky grounds.

The ancestors of the Hungarians came from Asia to Europe in the 9th century.

(Mircea, 18 July 2009 16:02)

Maybe yes, maybe no. Some theories suggest, agglutinative-speaking tribes are autochon and their different groups came several times. Not that it really does matter.

-----------------


The ancestors of the Romanians, the Dacians, inhabited Transylvania long before the Hungarians came to the region from Asia.

(Mircea, 18 July 2009 16:02)

This is not regarded as mainstream outside of Romania, but it could be. Romanian-Dacian connection is much like Albanian-Illyrian. Maybe, sort of, who knows. And not sure, does it matter at all.

IMO, both are pointless to use for political debate. As for science - that is entirely different question. According some theories, the original area where the "Megyer" tribe (one, the chief tribe of ten) did came from is roughly Caucasian Albania (Subartu). Or maybe not. But it's not Asia. But some of ten tribes could be from Western China. Or maybe not.

-----------------


I also think that Orban should receive a foot in his dorsal side and be sent home, because we do not want any antigypsy propaganda of his to be affecting our hungarians also.

(adrian/bucharest, 18 July 2009 19:00)

Agree with above sentence 100% and of Nenand's post. Today Tökés and Orbán represent what Hungarians shouldn't be proud of. All this with due respect to Tökés for his role in 1989. But it's 2009, not 1989. Unlike Tökés, Orbán had no positive role ever in Central/East Europe. He is a disgrace.

Looks like Hungarians have a legitimate claim to equality when you see the likes of Mircea attempting to undervalue their existence.
(Art, 18 July 2009 19:29)

No problem this is just a residue of what once was like Serbs versus Albanians. Luckily it's mostly gone (except youtube, of course).

A lot of people shifted from one country to an other and than back in last 20 years - all according the job situation and taxes. Most of the time Hungary was better of economically. In recent few years RO strongly improved while "fat cats" messed up a lot in HU and much reversed.

Ataman,

I now understand that you Hungarians do not believe that the Dacians are the ancestors of the Romanians.

According to the Hungarians, who are the ancestors of the Romanians? Where did they come from?

Please explain to me what the Hungarian history books say about the origins of the Romanian people. Thank you.

Please explain to me what the Hungarian history books say about the origins of the Romanian people. Thank you.
(Mircea, 19 July 2009 14:53)

They merely say, that there is much controversy. Nothing is proven and the Daco-Roman theory the way it had to be preached under Ceausoglu (well, they "romanised" their family name to end with "escu" later) is not correct in that form.

Short collection on wiki "pro" or "contra" and all controversies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Romanians

Nothing more, nothing less. We are not going to solve it and Hungarian history books do not want to solve what scientists still can't agree on. What the Hungarian history books agree, ideas directly promoted by N. Ceaus(oglu)/escu and Elena have nothing to do with the science in that form.

Mircea: "... who are the ancestors of the Romanians? Where did they come from?"

All nations in South East Europe are of a mixed origin. ALL of THEM. Much like the Carabien islands wher on some English is spoken, on others French, or Spanish or Dutch. Yet they all look the same. I bet you would not be able to recognize only by photograph Romanians, Hungarians, Serbs, Bulgarians. Albanians etc. May be only the Montenegrians will stand out being taller:-)
here was a name ROMANIA on some old maps, but it referred to the land just north of Constantinopol, later called more often Rumelia. But there were Valach, Moldavian and Transilvanian principalities by the late Middle Ages. They spoke a Latin tongue, with many Slave words of courese. the name Mircea comes from Mircho Stari. Unike the Yugoslavian idea - to unite the South Slaves in one nation, the Romanian idea worked out, so if you exclude the some communist Moldavians there is a Romanian nation divided in two states.

nik, can you pls tell me, in your version of history, which is the explanation that romanian language is the only romance language that still has the ablative case of old latin and why it still has some dacic words in vocabulary? just for curiosity.

Hruz, of course it doesn't matter who was first and so on, that includes also the vacuum theory. Can you pls apply the same reasoning to today's Italy or Germany or even Austria, Hungary, or even Croatia and tell us the results.

Ataman, the result of yesterday is that Basescu got bood and that's exactly why he went there (to show how patriotic he is in front of the rest of the voters), Orban got to look like he is important and show how important he is in front of the voters for the upcoming elections and some naive locals spend some hours in the sun at 35 degrees serving the two. If Orban would win the elections in Hu, you won't find a happier person than Basescu.
As for the autonomy issue, I don't think that anybody bothered to read their stupid (not the idea, but the contents) proposals, because if some logical person would have done that, he/she would have realized that it actually condems almost 1 mil hungarians to isolation and lower living conditions than the rest, but of course served with large portions of political propaganda. Fortunately there are romanians and hungarians on the ground that know how to deal with these issues more wisely and in their common benefit.
As for Tokes, I really respect him (not always agree) also for 89, also for his later behaviour. At least, his not a millionaire like the rest of (the same in the last 18 yrs) leaders of UDMR and most of the rest of the romanian politicians. Maybe he should get back to his pastor job at the church though.

Yet they all look the same. I bet you would not be able to recognize only by photograph Romanians, Hungarians, Serbs, Bulgarians. Albanians etc. May be only the Montenegrians will stand out being taller:-)
(nik, 19 July 2009 16:25)

This is 100% correct. And once they immigrate to a well-known country on the other side of Atlantic and you look at their clinically overweight children, they too, look the same. :(

Mircea

It's difficult for any nation in the Balkans to try and claim a historical group, due to all the historical invasions over time. Initially, the lands now called Romania (including Moldova, where I believe it should rightfully be) were called Dacia and inhabited by the Dacians, but since then, Romans have settled there, Slavs have settled there, Magyars have settled there, Gaugaz have settled there (though I believe they do not mix with Romanians, you have to correct me on this) and Roma and Turks have settled there (though I know for a fact that Romanians do not mix with them ;)), so in a way, all Balkan states are related in some way or another, no matter what all the nationalists say.

Like Poland is considered a Slavic country, but it was historically inhabited by Celts, Goths, Vikings, Sarmatians as well as some old Baltic tribes at different times aside from the various Slavic tribes.

History of Europe is never black and white, only gray.

The ancestors of the Hungarians came from Asia to Europe in the 9th century.

The ancestors of the Romanians, the Dacians, inhabited Transylvania long before the Hungarians came to the region from Asia.

Actually the scene was very funny at that summer school. He first said that there is need for greater autonomy for local entities in Romania and everybody applauded. He said: Don't applaude yet, the same greater autonomy in Odorheiul Secuiesc, Tulcea (East Ro) or Caracal (south). Then they started boo-ing.

I think though he was mistaken to meet with Orban Viktor.

Nenand, no worries, it's parents from Romania paying their children's mortgage on flats in Budapest not viceversa.
Though I would vote for any greater autonomy (not discriminatory as the Tokes Laszlo wants - no settlement in their area if you don't have their permission (Aland type - unconstitutional) and don't speak hungarian, I don't think that, hungarian communities that set on fire gypsy houses, as it recently happened, deserve anything.
I also think that Orban should receive a foot in his dorsal side and be sent home, because we do not want any antigypsy propaganda of his to be affecting our hungarians also.

Looks like Hungarians have a legitimate claim to equality when you see the likes of Mircea attempting to undervalue their existence.

The "Native" Americans arrived in the Americas from Asia probably 25,000 - 40,000 years ago, whereas the Europeans began arriving sometime after 900 (Leaf Eriksson). How has that helped the former in their land claims? Such historical arguments are irrelevant. Treat the Hungarians as equal citizens in all respects and you should have no reason to fear losing Transylvania. Just don't respond with force if they should start an uprising!

Mircea,

It makes absolutely no difference who came first! We are taliking about events that took place centuries ago. I myself doubt that the Dacians survuived the Great Resettlement duruing the dark Ages. How do you think the Slavs, the Bulgarians, the Kumans, The Avars and the Hungarians and finally the Tatars passed through? Transit, without affecting the local population? There were of course pochets of Romanised people all over the Balkans, from Greece to Istria, to Moldova. Bu it was in the noman's land between the Hungarian and the Bulgarian Empires that the Romanized culture became predominent in the late Middle Ages. One has to addmit that the Hungarian rule over the Romanians in Transilvania until 1918 was at times harsh, erratic and insultive. But so was the Romainan rule over the Hungarians afterwards. It is a pity that in 1940 Romania and Hungary did not reach an agreement similar to the Romanian Bulgarian Craiova agreement for the return of Southern Dobrudja. The Vienna aAcord was in a seans fair, because the number of the Romanians left in Hungary was similar to the number of the Hungarians left in Romania. But since it was sponsored by Hitler and Mussiolini, it was compromised and did not last.

Dear fearful friens.

It makes Hungarian smile if some groups try to invent their missing history that leads back to...Roman times :)

However hard I try, I cannot find a map of Europe prior to XIXth century where Romania is mentioned. Wonder why.

Thirdly, if echoes from the past haunts in Romania, i.e. to declare that "Romania is a national...state", I just feel pity.

Every pupil in primairy school learns that different peoples make up a nation. There is no nation that is homogenous,made up of only one nationality. Therefore, it is a said and pitiful try to declare it in a constitution, because:

A: it is not true and will not be true by keepin on repeating

B: without a nation, a country has no inhabitants.

so why to mention that ROmania is made up of a (or a single) nation, if not for provocative reasons, and for the possibility to deny the right of authonomy...

Keep on living a dream of onr great Daco ROmanian homogenous state, but be ready for rightful criticizm.

By the way, where do gypsies and burning houses come in the picture? Would this authorize a EU member country to ridicule XXI century European values?

nik, can you pls tell me, in your version of history, which is the explanation that romanian language is the only romance language that still has the ablative case of old latin and why it still has some dacic words in vocabulary? just for curiosity.

Hruz, of course it doesn't matter who was first and so on, that includes also the vacuum theory. Can you pls apply the same reasoning to today's Italy or Germany or even Austria, Hungary, or even Croatia and tell us the results.

Ataman, the result of yesterday is that Basescu got bood and that's exactly why he went there (to show how patriotic he is in front of the rest of the voters), Orban got to look like he is important and show how important he is in front of the voters for the upcoming elections and some naive locals spend some hours in the sun at 35 degrees serving the two. If Orban would win the elections in Hu, you won't find a happier person than Basescu.
As for the autonomy issue, I don't think that anybody bothered to read their stupid (not the idea, but the contents) proposals, because if some logical person would have done that, he/she would have realized that it actually condems almost 1 mil hungarians to isolation and lower living conditions than the rest, but of course served with large portions of political propaganda. Fortunately there are romanians and hungarians on the ground that know how to deal with these issues more wisely and in their common benefit.
As for Tokes, I really respect him (not always agree) also for 89, also for his later behaviour. At least, his not a millionaire like the rest of (the same in the last 18 yrs) leaders of UDMR and most of the rest of the romanian politicians. Maybe he should get back to his pastor job at the church though.

The ancestors of the Hungarians came from Asia to Europe in the 9th century.

(Mircea, 18 July 2009 16:02)

Maybe yes, maybe no. Some theories suggest, agglutinative-speaking tribes are autochon and their different groups came several times. Not that it really does matter.

-----------------


The ancestors of the Romanians, the Dacians, inhabited Transylvania long before the Hungarians came to the region from Asia.

(Mircea, 18 July 2009 16:02)

This is not regarded as mainstream outside of Romania, but it could be. Romanian-Dacian connection is much like Albanian-Illyrian. Maybe, sort of, who knows. And not sure, does it matter at all.

IMO, both are pointless to use for political debate. As for science - that is entirely different question. According some theories, the original area where the "Megyer" tribe (one, the chief tribe of ten) did came from is roughly Caucasian Albania (Subartu). Or maybe not. But it's not Asia. But some of ten tribes could be from Western China. Or maybe not.

-----------------


I also think that Orban should receive a foot in his dorsal side and be sent home, because we do not want any antigypsy propaganda of his to be affecting our hungarians also.

(adrian/bucharest, 18 July 2009 19:00)

Agree with above sentence 100% and of Nenand's post. Today Tökés and Orbán represent what Hungarians shouldn't be proud of. All this with due respect to Tökés for his role in 1989. But it's 2009, not 1989. Unlike Tökés, Orbán had no positive role ever in Central/East Europe. He is a disgrace.

Looks like Hungarians have a legitimate claim to equality when you see the likes of Mircea attempting to undervalue their existence.
(Art, 18 July 2009 19:29)

No problem this is just a residue of what once was like Serbs versus Albanians. Luckily it's mostly gone (except youtube, of course).

A lot of people shifted from one country to an other and than back in last 20 years - all according the job situation and taxes. Most of the time Hungary was better of economically. In recent few years RO strongly improved while "fat cats" messed up a lot in HU and much reversed.

Hruz,

Can you please re-word the same essay to Serbian-Albanian problem? Because in some funny cases the Hungarians who write these essays do suffer from double standard.

What is true without much doubt: Romanians and Albanians managed to win a lot of territories using clever diplomacy and shifting their position according daily "reality on the ground". Somewhat neither Hungarians nor Serbs were good about lately.

And the stories about Dacian or Illyrian monkeys being the first who climbed down the trees in Transylvania or Kosova 6 million years ago are nothing more or less than efforts to justify the political game. And it's a cheap nationalistic food for the masses who are lazy to think.

Ataman,

I now understand that you Hungarians do not believe that the Dacians are the ancestors of the Romanians.

According to the Hungarians, who are the ancestors of the Romanians? Where did they come from?

Please explain to me what the Hungarian history books say about the origins of the Romanian people. Thank you.

Mircea, I think the point is that the Dacians may well be AN ancestor of the Romanians, but that the attempt to scour history for blood links to ages past is usually a pretty futile one, not least because you usually find that you're related to more peoples and cultures than you even conceived was possible.

For instance, the idea of Hungarians as a cohesive, historical-cultural entity, has SOME basis in reality, but mostly it was invented by romantics and nationalists in the 18th and 19th centuries who proceeded to impose it on anyone and everyone possible. I call myself Hungarian, because I speak Hungarian and identify with other people who call themselves Hungarian. That doesn't change the fact that my grandfather was Romanian and my grandmother half-Slovak, who later embraced Hungarian culture and identity.

So, if you're going to justify modern claims on the basis of ancient links then you're standing on rather shaky grounds.

Please explain to me what the Hungarian history books say about the origins of the Romanian people. Thank you.
(Mircea, 19 July 2009 14:53)

They merely say, that there is much controversy. Nothing is proven and the Daco-Roman theory the way it had to be preached under Ceausoglu (well, they "romanised" their family name to end with "escu" later) is not correct in that form.

Short collection on wiki "pro" or "contra" and all controversies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlachs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Romanians

Nothing more, nothing less. We are not going to solve it and Hungarian history books do not want to solve what scientists still can't agree on. What the Hungarian history books agree, ideas directly promoted by N. Ceaus(oglu)/escu and Elena have nothing to do with the science in that form.

Mircea: "... who are the ancestors of the Romanians? Where did they come from?"

All nations in South East Europe are of a mixed origin. ALL of THEM. Much like the Carabien islands wher on some English is spoken, on others French, or Spanish or Dutch. Yet they all look the same. I bet you would not be able to recognize only by photograph Romanians, Hungarians, Serbs, Bulgarians. Albanians etc. May be only the Montenegrians will stand out being taller:-)
here was a name ROMANIA on some old maps, but it referred to the land just north of Constantinopol, later called more often Rumelia. But there were Valach, Moldavian and Transilvanian principalities by the late Middle Ages. They spoke a Latin tongue, with many Slave words of courese. the name Mircea comes from Mircho Stari. Unike the Yugoslavian idea - to unite the South Slaves in one nation, the Romanian idea worked out, so if you exclude the some communist Moldavians there is a Romanian nation divided in two states.

Yet they all look the same. I bet you would not be able to recognize only by photograph Romanians, Hungarians, Serbs, Bulgarians. Albanians etc. May be only the Montenegrians will stand out being taller:-)
(nik, 19 July 2009 16:25)

This is 100% correct. And once they immigrate to a well-known country on the other side of Atlantic and you look at their clinically overweight children, they too, look the same. :(

Mircea

It's difficult for any nation in the Balkans to try and claim a historical group, due to all the historical invasions over time. Initially, the lands now called Romania (including Moldova, where I believe it should rightfully be) were called Dacia and inhabited by the Dacians, but since then, Romans have settled there, Slavs have settled there, Magyars have settled there, Gaugaz have settled there (though I believe they do not mix with Romanians, you have to correct me on this) and Roma and Turks have settled there (though I know for a fact that Romanians do not mix with them ;)), so in a way, all Balkan states are related in some way or another, no matter what all the nationalists say.

Like Poland is considered a Slavic country, but it was historically inhabited by Celts, Goths, Vikings, Sarmatians as well as some old Baltic tribes at different times aside from the various Slavic tribes.

History of Europe is never black and white, only gray.