Matyas  > wrote:
>
>Why me? I don't know about those percentages, unless I look them up somewhere.

Same here. But our encyclopedist, Tamas Kocsis has already shown some
that he must have had handy.  Midnight, when I usually get around doing
this, is not exactly a good time to chase down references.  On the other
hand, he did not cite his references either, so with that kind of
"authority" I, too, can give my answer about when Romanians were NOT a
majority in Transylvania.  They were not before the Ottoman invasion.

>Joe, I kind of feel honored to be mentioned/referred together with you ;-) )

Why thank you!  But I warn you: that will not earn you browny points on
s.c.r. . ;-)

|> 4. What happened with the difference between answer (2) and answer (3).
|> (the answer as I know it: they have been assimilated or physically
|> eliminated).

Physically eliminated?  That sounds pretty ominous.  Just whom you have
in mind?  (Let's not start with the Holocaust again, OK?)
What to make of mixed marriages which changed the identity of next
generation to Hungarian?  This process also happens in other countries, 
as we all know.
>
>There were some (e.g. in Hungary, certain areas decided to remain part of 
>Hungary,
>rather than become part of Austria). However your comparison shows that the 

Yes, it was the city of Sopron and the surrounding area.

Joe Pannon

Krisztian Balogh writes:

>This is in response to all articles about ERDELY (transylvania).
>The bottom line is that it belongs to HUNGARY!!! (that's it!!!!!!!!!)

What colour is the sky on your planet?  Did you ever look at a map printed
after 1918?

But maybe you meant Transylvania should belong to Hungary.  If this would
happen tomorrow, about 33% of Hungary's population would be Romanians.
It would be _very_ difficult for Hungary to avoid becoming a bilingual
country in such conditions.  I won't even mention the economic difficulties
of integrating Transylvania in Magyarorszag.

So, stop dreaming.  The "sad" truth is that Transylvania doesn't belong
to Hungary and this situation isn't likely to change anytime in the
foreseeable future.  The best you could do is dream at an independent
Transylvania, which belongs to neither Romania nor Hungary.  While this is
a tiny bit more realistic than a Hungarian Transylvania, it's still a dream.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email:  
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

In article > A. Sheppard,
 writes:
>I wonder if any readers know him ?] and would like to
>know if there is a Magyar version of either the Macintosh or
>Windows operating systems: if so would you recommend it or
>should he just stick to the English versions ? He is particularly
>concerned about being able to type the various accents used
>in the Hungarian language. Personally I would prefer him to buy
>a Macintosh, as this will be his first real experience of using
>a computer.

AFAIK, the newest Magyar Mac OS is version 7.1.
The only advantage of the English version, that the updates
come out earlier. 
I had the Magyar System (and Russian) once installed on my
machine but later I switched back to English system, but kept
the Fonts & Keyboard layouts.

I don't know anything about the Hungarian Windows OS, but the
Magyar Mac OS is around now for at least three years, which
means it is a well-tested & stable one.

Tamás

In > Tiberiu Murgoci > writes:

Tiberiu Murgoci seems to be a "reincarnation" of our old friend
Virgil Ardelean, another user of the anonymous forwarding service provided
by inforamp.net.  The name has changed, the ideas haven't.

 (Dan Pop) wrote:
>
>(snip) ...all the advocates of an independent
>>Transylvania are irresponsible.  They're mostly Hungarians from the USA,
>>BTW :-)
>
>It seamed to me (from discutions with Romanians in Romania) that,
>while they couldn't care less about unification with the Rep. of Moldova
>(some of them were even very much against it, due to official propaganda)

Not only due to official propaganda.  That region would bring no real
benefit to Romania, but will add a number of new problems, the heritage
of almost 50 years of soviet administration.  The situation is in no way
similar to that of 1918, when Bessarabia joined Romania, soon after leaving
Russia.

>the same Romanians would be very adamant against an indep=
>endent Transylvania (again due to the official propaganda). 

This time the official propaganda has nothing to do.  Name one country
of your choice which will agree without any kind of reserves if a
significant (or even insignificant) part of it would declare the
secession.

>Therefore I would argue that your repeated statements about 
>the absolute romanian majority in Transylvania not desiring 
>independance from Romania is only a matter of present government
>infuence.

Argue as much as you wish, but don't forget to bring some arguments in
the discussion.  I guess it was the present government infuence which
made them to vote for the unification with Romania in 1918 instead of
choosing to be the citizens of an independent state.  The same for
Bessarabia and Bucovina.

>Given the right momentum any national majority (or for that
>matter minority) would swing according to the views of 
>whoever would emerge as a charistmatic leader. Thus the great majority
>of Romanian Transilvanians could over night consider the
>rest of Romanians as their greatest ennemies.

And a huge meteorite or asteroid could hit the Earth and destroy the
civilization.  Many things can happen.  So what?

>I personally believe that in todays world, language, culture 
>and common territory are not - sine qua non - and that
>economics should prevail. Everything is secondary to food!

To you, maybe.  Ask Ilie Ilascu if he thinks the same way.

Anyway, this is a non-issue, because economically Transylvania is in no
way better off than the rest of Romania.  Arguably worse.

BTW, nothing in your SF scenario is specific to Transylvania, it could
happen to _any_ Romanian province, with the same probability.  As far as
I know them, the Romanians from Transylvania are in no way less Romanians
than the others.  The Romanian nationalism is thriving there more than in
any other part of Romania.

So, Mr Murgoci/Ardelean, try to come up with something more credible
next time (or in your next incarnation).

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email:  
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

: Vlad Romascanu wrote:
: >Don't forget, Canada is on another continent, it isn't in Europe. 
: >Mentalities are different. On the other hand, I am sure Canada had a     
: >moral debt towards the French 

Wally wrote: 
: Yes, Vlad? Are you sure? Were you in the back there also? Actually Canada
: had no moral debt. The fact that the French fact was "protected" in       
: Quebec had much more to do with pragmatism on the part of the British     
: colonizers. Quebec turned inward to its Catholicism, but when the "quiet  
: revolution" occurred in the 1960's the rest of Canada took notice. Canada 
: has been struggling with its constitutional structure ever since.

Vlad asks:
>British pragmatism? What were their interests in preserving French
>culture?

I quote from a quick and easy source: the Cdn Almanac

"In 1763 a Royal Proclamation was imposed by the British government on the
newly acquired territories of New France. The intent of this proclamation
was clear. By encouraging the establishment of protestant schools, by
promoting the Church of England, and by stipulating that an assembly be
elected, the proclamation aimed at Anglicization. This intent was most
visible in the matter of the assembly. Although the French inhabitants were
in the majority, under British law no Roman Catholic could hold office. If
an assembly were elected, a few hundred British settlers would control
about 65,000 Canadiens (French Canadians)."

"Fortunately for the French in Canada, James Murray, the governor of Quebec
from 1760 to 1768, felt that the loyalty of the French colonists could be
gained by fair treatment. Murray refused to call elections for the
assembly, and allowed French legal practices to continue. Murray's
sympathies provoked a storm of protest by the British colonists in Quebec
and he was recalled. But his successor, Guy Carleton, also realized that
the Royal Proclamation of 1763 would only alienate the recently-defeated
colonists. Carleton saw that even if the Anglicization were carried out,
few colonists from the Thirteen Colonies in America or immigrants from
Britain would be lured to the rugged colony of Quebec. Consequently,
Carleton advised the government in London to replace the Proclamation with
more liberal legislation."

"The result was the Quebec Act of 1774 which dropped the assembly in favour
of an appointed council on which Catholics might serve. As well, the French
system of civil law and the seigneurial system of land tenure were both
guaranteed. Finally, the Quebec Act expanded the borders of the colony to
include the rich lands of the Ohio Valley. The British had acted to win the
support of the Canadiens."

Is that pragmatic enough for you Vlad?
So give me your version of Canadian/Canadien history to disprove it?
I would think that the power and influence that Quebecers presently enjoy
is sufficient to prove that pragmatism was applied early in the game.

Bon soir Vlad.
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

Vlad wrote:
: >Wally, one can see you weren't born in Europe. 

Wally wrote:
: Whew! that's a relief.

Vlad wrote:
: >You think typically American (sorry for the insult...). 

Wally wrote:
: That's not an insult. You're silly or ignorant.

Vlad wrote:
>No. I'm European, and I'm proud of it.

Ok, so you are a silly or ignorant European.
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

: Vlad Romascanu wrote:
: >Be realistic, Wally, Europe is not America... Things are not resolved    
: >that esily. BTW, in Europe (still) logic is considered first,
: >political-correctness afterwards. 

Wally wrote: 
: Oh what a crock of shit you spilled onto the Usenet carpet! Europe: the
: continent that brought upon the world the two most violent wars in all of
: human history; Europe: the seedbed of communism; Europe: the home of
: monarchies, despots, dictatorshits, ad nauseum. Logic is first you say?   
: The current Bosnian conflagration is logical? 

Vlad wrote: 
|You come from Europe, Wally. You are no better. 

My parents came from Canada.
My grandparents came from Canada.
My great grandparents came from Canada
My great great grandparents came from Canada
My great great great grandparents came from . . . (I haven't ascertained
past this yet).
But at some point in time, yes, they came from Europe.

I reply to your subtle supremacy in your claim that "in Europe (still)
logic is considered first," I discredited that claim with very recent
history. I did a good job of discrediting it. As a people, it is true that
North Americans are no better than Europeans. North Americans can still
learn much from Europeans -- likewise, vice versa. You, in particular, are
obviously in need of learning a few things about democracy.

Vlad wrote:
|What happens in Bosnia is illogical? Yes, I grant you that. It even looks
|TOO illogical.

But you BOASTED that "in Europe (still) logic is considered first" You
implicitly BOAST that Europe was always (still) logical. Ha ha ha.

Vlad wrote:
>But what about the milicias in the logical New World? Are they logical? 
>No -- and if you allow me to open a paranthesis, they are the 
>consequences of too much democracy

I never made an idiotic claim that the New World was logical You have
nothing to discredit on that point, so shove it back into your silo Vlad.

Regarding the militias -- If there will be any faults, shortcomings,
errors, I would much prefer them to fall on the side of a system that has
"too much democracy" than a system that has "too little democracy."
Romania, past and present, is an example of the latter.
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

> I personally believe that in todays world, language, culture 
> and common territory are not - sine qua non - and that
> economics should prevail. Everything is secondary to food!
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I hope there is more to life than just planning your next meal.
I personally enjoy listening to music, and sometimes, gasp, even
reading a book.

Have a good life Tiberiu. I do not subscribe to your views on
the importance of food, wich by the way I do not completely dismiss.
As they say, one can not philosophize on an empty stomach.

> 
> Tiberiu Murgociu (Roman transilvanean)



-- 
Dorin Ungureanu

: >From Transilvania's history:
: >...For 165 years (106 - 271), Dacia's destiny (with a key position in    
: >the defense system of the [Roman] borders) remains tied to the Roman     
: >Empire 

Wally wrote: 
: A situation popularly decided on by the pre-Romanians? (Dacians are pre-
: Romanians aren't they? Or were they embryonic Romanians, that somehow
: escaped historical abortion?) Who decided they were going to be a "key
: position?" Was it done by plebecite or was it decided on by some monarch  
: or dictator somewhere?
 
Vlad Romascanu wrote:
>    Well, Wally, it looks like Fate decided so.

Not fate, the fiat of a foreign despot decided the fate of the Dacians.
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

Wally fantasized:
: Perhaps if there was a mass breeding program among
: the Magyars and Romanians in the Carpathian basin the result will be -- 
: Voila! -- Transylvanians; a society & culture distinct from the           
: motorcycle gang to the north and the shepherds to the south. 

Vlad wrote:
|    'Perhaps' is well chosen.
|    The Transilvanian society isn't distinct -- it is in the middle. 
|Why not separate the south from the north of Canada? Because the south 
|is just between the true Canadians and the American; they are 
|American-influenced Canadians -- why not give the southern Canadians a 
|chance, to grant them a distinct-society status and give them 
|independence?

What's a "true Canadian" Vlad?
Are you referring to the Inuit?
They are getting their autonomy in a couple years time.
What true Canadians are you fantasizing about Vlad?
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

Hi Gilles:
I posted the invitation below in soc.culture.romania, but just in case you
only enter this newsgroup rarely, I thought it best to post this open
invitation direct to your mail box so that you would be sure to see it.

######################################################################

Article #28599 (Thu Nov 16 1995):
From:  (Wally Keeler)
Subject: Gilles Renaud, Quebec & Alba Iulia

Article 56715 Mon, 13 Nov 1995 
From: ,hydro.qc.ca
Subject: Re: Quebec and/or Transylvania
Message-ID: >
Organization: Hydro-Quebec

>CHARLES VAMOSSY > wrote:
>>I can't help but reflect on the recent vote in Quebec and how a similar 
>>vote might have taken place in Transylvania.

,hydro.qc.ca wrote:
>A similar "vote" did take place in 1919 in Alba Iulia. For some reason, 
>Romanians living in Transylvania did not like to be part of Hungary. 
>
>Looks very similar to the situation in Quebec. It is difficult for a 
>national group to be part of a country where the central governement
>decides what national standards apply to education, culture, 
>telecommunications, etc.

I don't think there is any similary in the telecommunications situation in
Quebec to that in 1918 Alba Iulia.

Hydro-Quebec is one of the great success stories of Quebec. The power that
is produced is sufficient to satisfy Quebec's needs far into the next
century, and there is still enough left over to be a great export earner
for Quebec. This kind of infrastructure can make for a strong foundation on
which an independent nation could stand.

Gilles:
Would you mind fleshing out the dissatisfaction that Quebecers have with
education and culture viz-a-viz the central government of Canada? I'm sure
that soc.culture.romania would appreciate the opportunity to make a
comparative analysis with the situation in pre-Alba Iulia time. Your
contribution could be convincing to those ethnic Romanian-Canadians (aka
Romanian-Quebecers) currently residing in Quebec to vote OUI in the next
referendum. Some of them lurk in soc.culture.romanian. God knows the
sovereignist (aka seperatiste) Parti Quebecois has had profound
difficulties with the assorted "ethnic" communities in Quebec, at least
insofar as convincing them that life in an independent Quebec would be
better for them than life in Canada.

With the limited understanding that I have with the living conditions of
Romanians under the domination of the Hungarians at the turn of the
century, I would have certainly opted for seperation from Hungary and
unification with Romania. If the situation of Quebec within Canada is
similar, as you contend, then you have a fine opportunity to get some
etniques on side. I invite you to make your case, make your parallels.

I would like to point out to the lurkers of SCR that the founding leader of
the Parti Quebecois, and a great democrat, Rene Levesque, had once said
that Quebec was probably the "least ill-treated colony in the world."

I end this particular post with a most illuminating letter-to-the-editor
published in the November 14/95 The Toronto Star and written by Alice
Melton of Guelph, Ontario:

          Should anyone be surprised that Quebecers and other    
     francophones in Canada are frustrated by the unfair treatment 
     they have received from the rest of Canada?
          For almost all of the past 30 years, except for a few 
     glitches with Joe Clark, John Turner and Kim Campbell, Canada's 
     prime ministers and leaders of the Opposition all have come from
     Quebec.
          Today, the prime Minister is from Quebec, as are: the 
     leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Conservative party, 
     the finance    minister, the interprovincial minister, the minister 
     in charge of the discussions concerning the referendum and the        
     communications minister.
          The Speaker of the House of Commons is a francophone 
     Ontarian. The leader of our military is from Quebec. The head of 
     the RCMP is from Quebec. Our Governor-General is a francophone 
     from the Maritimes.
          While it would be unthinkable to send an English Canadian to
     France as ambassador, a French Canadian holds that position in the
     United States.
          One group of Quebecers is negotiating with another group of
     Quebecers to determine, on our behalf, how Quebec is again to be
     rewarded for saying No. Only in Canada, you say?
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

Krisztian Balogh (cbalogh) wrote:
> Hello,
> This is in response to all articles about ERDELY (transylvania).
> The bottom line is that it belongs to HUNGARY!!! (that's it!!!!!!!!!)
> Krisztian

Scott Keith Laws wrote:
>Well you sure showed vlad!!!  With shch high reasoning as this 
>I dont see haw anyone could bye into vlads arguments >;)

Gee Scott, and I always thought you were everyone's straight man.
I guess you showed me, eh?
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

: Vlad Romascanu wrote:
: >because, actually, besides the rather few Louisians, the Quebecois are
: >about the only French on this continent. In EUROPE this is not the case.
: >It is not an excuse, though, but it explains the difference between
: >Canada's and Europe's attitudes.
: 
: In Europe, there are Germans, Poles, Italians, Spaniards, etc. In France
: there is the only French on the continent. In EUROPE it is the case.      
: What's the diff?

Vlad wrote:
|    The diff, Wally, is obvious: they are in France. They are in 
|THEIR independent country. And 
|{{Polish!=German!=Italian!=Spaniard}!={American}}!={French}

You said that the Quebecois are the only French on this continent.
I said that the France-French are the only French on Europe's continent.

Yes the French in Europe are in THEIR independent country.
And the French in North America want their independent country.

You claim that this explains the difference between Canada's and Europe's
attitudes. What attitudes are you talking about? And what difference? And
how does it explain it?
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

|: Wally Keeler wrote:
|:>It is a unitary state. Yes we know. By the will of the Romanian people,  
|:>or at least by the will of Romanian kings and dictators. In any event,   
|:>it was hardly a consequence of a enlightened democratic decision.
 
|: Vlad Romascanu wrote:
|:>Yes, Wally? Are you sure? I wouldn't, if I were in YOUR place. Were you 
|:>there?

|Wally Keeler ) wrote: 
|: I didn't see you there. Where were you? In the back row?

Vlad wrote: 
|So you WERE there. Interesting, very interesting. Did you reincarnate ?
|Wally, you are... stranger than I imagined.

You shouldn't degrade your ability to imagine with insults like that.
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

: Vlad Romascanu wrote:
: >And do you think any state in the world (besides Canada, of course)      
: >would allow the vote of a region to decide for the fate of the country?

Wally wrote: 
: The only state that would permit such a vote, would be one that was       
: totally committed to democracy. Regretably, there are all too few         
: countries in the world who hold democracy so dearly.

Vlad wrote: 
|Too much democracy may result in serious consequences. (Re)read 
|'The Republic'

Too little democracy invariably results in worse consequences.
(Re)read Ceauseascu's speeches
(Re)read Lenin's speeches
(Re)read Hitler's speeches
(Re)read Franco's speeches
(Re)read Musolini's speeches
(Re)read Rakosi's speeches
(Re)read . . . 

I would hope that your comment about "too much democracy" is not indicative
of the prevailing differences between European and North American attitudes
that you like to point out. 

I might point out that one of the main differences is that as a Canadian I
have been steeped in 128 years of UNINTERRUPTED democracy. As a Romanian,
you have been overwhelmingly steeped in the historical circumstance of
kings, ceasars, queens, dictatorshits from Dacian-Roman continuity. I would
suspect that with such minimal cultural experience in democracy, you might
shut the fuck up and pay attention to those cultures with democratic
experience. 

No wonder you're not a Canadian citizen.
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

Vlad wrote:
: >There are 8% Hungarians in Romania, not more. I am very curious: how you
: >are going to convince more than 42% of the romanian population (around
: >9.66 millions) to vote for separation ?

Wally wrote:
: As I said, I have no interest.

Vlad wrote:
|Then, Wally, why are you... so interested? Your posts make about 
|25% of the material on the subject.

And your long-winded posts make up another 45%
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

Radu Alexandru Damian  > wrote:
>We are not living in Romania, we already have different experiences, I 
>don't understand WHY, smart guys like Joe, Dan, Matyas, Liviu, Onu, 
>Alexander, Vamossy, etc., you can not try to find a common way of guiding 
>the discussion. What if you would setup a help program for the 
>highschools in Transylvania ? In terms of .....so many things the kids 
>need over there. Some guys already did it from California and Montreal 
>and it worked ! 

Joe Panonescu wrote:
|How do you know we are not doing something already? But I like the thrust
|of your article and I wish we could see more of it.

Radu wrote:
>BTW, if you really want some flames and endless discussions, insult me.

Joe wrote:
|I don't see who could insult you for that!?  On the other hand, not
|everything is a flame here that seems like it to the casual observer.
|I think most of it is just good old fashioned rivalry and "leg-pulling".

"Leg-pulling"???? That's the euphemism you and Dan call it?
I know you're well-Hungary, Joe
and that Dan Pop is often Hung out to dry
but, really, "leg-pulling" eh? Hmmmmm!
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

Vlad wrote:
: >You think that what people built and tried to build for centuries, one can
: >destroy because of some, may I say temporary, economical situation? How
: >else are you going to convince ethnical Romanians in order to add them up
: >with the Hungarians wanting secession, to create a more-than-50%
: >secessionist population? 

Wally wrote:
: I have no interest in convincing Romanians to seperate. BTW, what was built
: over centuries, as you put it, was largely destroyed by Ceausescu and his
: predecessors.
 
Vlad wrote:
>That's not a reason.

Didn't say it was.
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

In article >,  says...
>
>In article > Georg Fischer,
 writes:
>>Bizony ez sem stimmel. Az un. numerus clausus- mert igy hivtak a 
>>rendelekzest, CSAK az orvosi karra vonatkozott, ahova csak az osz-
>>letszam 20 %-a lehetett zsido a felvetelnel.
>
>Én bizony úgy emlékeztem, hogy a jogi kart, sőt a Müszaki Egyete-
>met is érintette. Köszi a korrekciót.
>
>Tamás

	Tamas, en valtozatlanul ugyemlekszem ( hogy foleg az orvosi kart  
erintette, de amennyiben a Muszaki Egyetemet es a jogi kart IS erintette, 
feltehetoen nem okozott a zsido jelentkezoknek problemat, mert aligha 
jelentkezett 20 % - ez volt a hatar- ennyi zsido lehetett egy evfolyamon.

On Sun, 19 Nov 1995, Wally Keeler wrote:

> I might point out that one of the main differences is that as a Canadian I
> have been steeped in 128 years of UNINTERRUPTED democracy. 

So what of it ?! Democracy as 'rule of the majority' can be as onerous as
any caesar ! Witness the recent opression of native americans by the great
Canadian democracy.

> As a Romanian, you have been overwhelmingly steeped in the historical 
> circumstance of kings, ceasars, queens, dictatorshits from Dacian-Roman 
> continuity. 

So have the Chinese, and yet they can probably rightfuly call us barbarians.

> I would suspect that with such minimal cultural experience in democracy, you 
> might shut the fuck up and pay attention to those cultures with democratic
> experience.

Ah, do I detect some jingoistic arrogance here ? It may be that the majority
in Romania and other parts of the world, may find democracy as you define 
it, and as Canadians practice it... disturbing, and not a model to be 
followed ad literam. 

m. cristian

Vlad wrote:
: >...The influence of the Roman civilisation also extends over the borders 
: >of the province [of Dacia] to the groups of free Daces from Northern
: >Transilvania, Central and Northern Moldova, Muntenia [or Wallachia]. 

Wally wrote:
: It was a Roman Empire, lead by undemocratic leadershit, ie. ceasars,
: monarchs, dictators...

Vlad wrote:
|    Yes, Wally, the same Roman Empire that ruled over your ancestors.

I wouldn't call my ancestors "free" in the same instance.

Wally wrote:
: Free Daces? Free? the shepherds, farmers, were not the subjects of any    
: kind of monarchy? They were free to elect their rulers and did so?

Vlad wrote:
|    They were just as free to elect a ruler as your ancestors were 
|during the same time period.

Which means they were not free at all, just as I originally contended.

Vlad wrote:
: >...After the retreat of the Roman army and administration by Emperor
: >Aurelian (271 A.D.), the aco-Roman population continues, uninterrupted,  
: >on the same lands, in difficult conditions, its agricultural and         
: >shepherd life. 

Wally wrote: 
: Ruled over once again by freely elected Emperors.So now there's no longer
: the Daco population -- there is the Daco-Roman population. Those Roman
: occupiers were fertile. So Romanians are half-breeds, not as pure as the
: Romans themselves who returned to Italy to build a Group-of-7 state. And
: don't forget it was the Romans who had walked out on the Dacians like the 
: studs they were and became deadbeat dads to Romanian society. This is why 
: so much of the rest of Europe has been calling the Romanians bastards?

Vlad wrote:
|    Yes, Wally, your ancestors are just as bastards and impure and 
|half-breeds, because the Romans retired from your ancestors' land, too. 
|Your ancestors also suffered the influence of those fertile Roman
|occupants.

I agree. Unlike your ancestors, my ancestors learned from the Roman Empire
and went out to establish an empire of their own that was bigger and better
and far more influential than the Roman empire.
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

Following the thread of this long discussion on Romanian continuity to
the North of the Danube, I decided to post a text I found in the 
Britanica Online Encyclopedia.

Britannica Online    Help

[... continued from]

Balkan States

[Table of Contents]

HISTORY

Antiquity.

The Dacians.

The [Index] Carpathian-Danube region in which the Romanian ethnic community
evolved was settled about 2000 BC by migratory Indo-Europeans who intermingled
with native Neolithic peoples to form the [Index] Thracians. When Ionians and
Dorians settled on the western shore of the Black Sea in the 7th century BC,
the Thracians' descendants came into contact with the [Index] Greek world. The
Greek historian [Index] Herodotus, writing in the 5th century BC, called these
people [Index] Getae (Getians). Together with kindred tribes, known later to
the Romans as Dacians, who lived in the mountains north of the Danubian Plain
and in the Transylvanian Basin, the Getae developed a distinct society and
culture by the second half of the 4th century BC.

The expansion of [Index] Rome into the Balkan Peninsula in the 3rd and 2nd
centuries BC decisively affected the evolution of the [Index] Geto-Dacians. To
oppose the Roman advance, they revived their old tribal union under the
leadership of Burebista (reigned 82-44 BC). From its centre in the southern
Carpathians, this union stretched from the Black Sea to the Adriatic and from
the Balkan Mountains to Bohemia. It posed such a threat to Rome's ascendancy in
the peninsula that Julius Caesar was preparing to undertake a major campaign
against the Geto-Dacians when he was assassinated in 44 BC. In the same year,
Burebista was also assassinated, by disgruntled tribal chiefs who opposed his
centralizing rule. His imposing tribal union disappeared with him.

The final showdown between Rome and the Geto-Dacians came at the beginning of
the 2nd century AD. By that time the Geto-Dacians had reconstituted a powerful
state that, under their resourceful ruler, [Index] Decebalus, threatened Rome's
Danubian frontier. Geto-Dacian civilization was at its height, but its
flourishing economy, prosperous cities, and bustling trade throughout
southeastern Europe posed as great a challenge as its army to Rome's ambitions
in the region. To end the danger, the emperor [Index] Trajan mounted two
campaigns between AD 101 and 106 to force Decebalus into submission. The Romans
triumphed, and, with his state in ruin, Decebalus committed suicide.

For more than a century and a half the Transylvanian Basin and the plain to the
south constituted the Roman province of [Index] Dacia. Officials, soldiers, and
merchants from all over the Roman world settled down alongside the native
Dacians. Although the population was ethnically diverse, Roman administration,
numerous cities, and the Latin language brought about intense Romanization and
rapid integration into the empire. Dacia, in turn, supplied the empire with
grain and precious metals.

The constant pressure of migratory peoples on the long, exposed boundaries of
Dacia led the emperor Aurelian to withdraw the Roman army and administration in
271-275. The upper classes and many urban dwellers followed, but the majority
of the population, who lived in the countryside and were engaged in
agriculture, stayed behind. Once again, the Danube became the frontier of the
empire, although written and archaeological evidence points to continued trade
and to the maintenance of military bases on the north bank of the river until
the 6th century. In addition, during this period there was an intensified
propagation of Christianity, which had been only sporadically present in old
Dacia.

The fate of the Romanized, or Daco-Roman, population north of the Danube after
Aurelian's withdrawal has been a subject of great controversy. Many scholars,
especially Hungarians, argue that Romanization in Dacia was, in fact, modest
and that the later Romanian population living north of the Carpathians was not
native to the region but migrated there from south of the Danube. Other
scholars, including the majority of Romanians, insist that a substantial
Romanized population maintained itself continuously in old Dacia and that the
ethnogenesis of the Romanian people occurred precisely there. The account that
follows expands upon the latter interpretation.
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Slavs.

For [Index] nearly eight centuries after the withdrawal of the Roman
administration and army, Dacia was overrun by a series of migratory peoples.
The earliest of them--the Visigoths (275-376), the Huns (end of the 4th century
to 454), and the Germanic [Index] Gepidae (454-567)--had little impact on the
Daco-Roman population. But the [Index] Avars' defeat of the Gepidae in 567
opened the way for a massive advance of Slavs into Dacia. Together with the
Avars, the Slavs then broke through the Danube frontier of the Byzantine Empire
in 602 and occupied much of the Balkan Peninsula. Now, for the first time since
Trajan's conquest, Dacia was cut off from the Roman (Byzantine) world.

The Slavs achieved political and social preeminence in Dacia in the 8th
century, but even then they were already undergoing assimilation by the more
numerous Daco-Romans. Their position was enhanced in the 9th century when the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^       
rulers of the first [Index] Bulgarian empire extended their control over Dacia
following Charlemagne's crushing defeat of the Avars in 791-796. Local Slav
chiefs apparently entered into a vassal relationship with the Bulgarian tsars,
who, after the conversion of Boris I to Christianity in 864, served as
religious and cultural intermediaries between Dacia and the Byzantine Empire.

Romanians and Hungarians.

The ethnogenesis of the [Index] Romanian people was probably completed by the
10th century. The first stage--the Romanization of the Geto-Dacians--had now
been followed by the second--the assimilation of the Slavs by the Daco-Romans.

Between the 10th and 14th centuries new political formations emerged in the
Carpathian-Danube region. The [Index] Hungarians, who had settled in Pannonia
at the end of the 9th century and who entered Dacia in the 10th century,
overwhelmed the Slavic-Romanian duchies, or " voivodates," that they
encountered there. In the 11th century they made the territory north of the
Carpathians, which was to become known as Transylvania, a part of the Hungarian
kingdom. [Index] To the south by 1330 a number of small voivodates coalesced
into the independent Romanian principality of Walachia, and to the east a
second principality, Moldavia, achieved independence in 1359.

[continued ...  ]

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Copyright (c) 1995 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All Rights Reserved

You will notice that although britanica mentions both schools of thought
on this issue, they only expand on the theory which holds true the fact
that the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people occurred in Dacia, and that
this process was finished by the time the Hungarians showed up in Transylvania.

Also the assimilation of slavic people  is mentioned in this text. That explain
s
the existence of slavic words in the Romanian language.

-- 
Dorin Ungureanu

Is Romania a bilingual country ? How does one deffine a 
billingual country ?

-- 
Dorin Ungureanu

 wrote:
: In article >, Alexander Bossy > wrote
:
: >:  Besides, what was it they wrote that is not in line with what 
: >: other Hungarians write?
: >
: >	For example, they do not argue your Out-of-Illyria theory.  And, 
: >that is a major difference.  Attacking our origins is as serious a denial 
: >of our legitimate right to live in Transylvania as ethnic Romanians as 
: >banning the Hungarian flag and anthem are to the legitimate right of 
: >Hungarians to live in Transylvania as ethnic Hungarians.

: I haven't heard them supporting it either.  From the fact that they find
: it advisable to hide their identity, it's not hard to imagine why they
: would not want to rub it in to you as freely as for instance I am.

	I see, silence means assent to your views.  No wonder you don't 
realize how isolated you are whenever you keep shouting "Out-of-Illyria! 
Out-of-Illyria!"

: >	No.  How could minority rights be secure in a non-democratic 
: >state, especially when the government has already shown a willingless to 
: >use ethnic hatreds to cling onto power.  Basic democratic norms will 

: That's too bad, but to me minority rights are part of democratic rights
: and you can't fight for one without the other.

	Let me give you just one example.  In the Revolutionary War, the 
United States faught for democratic rights.  It was only a hundred years 
later that the Civil War was faught to give blacks the most basic of 
human rights.  And it was only in the 1950's and 1960's that blacks 
finally good full civil rights.

:  It's too bad that the
: Romanian public can be manipulated with the issue as you suggest.

	Too bad, certainly, but hardly unique.

: But for Hungarians waiting for their rights until Romania might one day
: become democratic is not acceptable, I think.

	Do you think that it is any more acceptable for  ethnic Romanians 
waiting for their rights?

:  By the time that
: democracy "happens",

	Democracy doesn't "happen".  It is won at the risk of life and 
limb from men who have power and do not want to give it up.  And 
Romanians will do what is required just as their grandparents did what 
was required to unite their partitioned country.

: Romanians might get so used to the idea of
: Hungarians giving in on every issue of contention,

	You were complaining about straw men in another thread.  Don't 
you realize that you've just posted one of your very own?

: that they find it
: just as hard to loosen up as now. Anyway, at least that's my reading on
: it.

	You do know what democracy is, don;t you?  Now, re-read your 
post.  what you've just said is that if Romanians don't behave 
democratically, then they aren't democrats.  Sure, who disagrees with 
that?  The whole point is that democracy has to be faught for, and it is 
a lot easier to fight for it if both ethnic Hungarians and ethnic 
Romanians unite for the common interest of establishing a democratic society.

:  In the final analysis, it will be people like Matyas and Lehel, who
: decide what they want to do.  What ever it will be, they will be
: supported by Hungarians at large.  That I am pretty sure of.

	Given that they are so much more moderate than all too many 
Hungarians at large, I can only hope so.

	Alexander

Grigore Dumitrescu fishes for more compliments.
Grigore Dumitrescu catches one.

|> Grigore Dumitrescu wrote:
|> >'Things used to be different, but now they're the same'. 
|> >Grigore
|
|Wally Keeler wrote:
|> Very good post Grigore.
|> A very Grigood post.
|
Grigore Dumitrescu wrote:
|Thanks, but did you notice the great play on words in the original title:
|
|Manifest DENSITY 
|Cha...! Sometimes I even surprise myself.

No I didn't. I do now.
Obviously I manifested some density myself.

Manifest Density is even better.
Very great line Grigore
A very Grigreat line.

That one's a gem.


If your head bursts,
I'm not responsible for the mess, ok?
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

Internacia konkurso por plenag^uloj
 ===================================

 ILEI  (Internacia  Ligo  de Esperanto-Instruistoj) organizas internacian
 konkurson.  Ekzistas  apartaj kategorioj por lernejanoj (komencantoj kaj
 progresantoj) - kaj aparte por plenag^uloj.

 La task-folioj aperas en la gazeto Eventoj. Oni povas iam ajn komenci la
 solvadon  de  la taskoj (ne nur jarkomence), kaj povas resendi   partan
 respondon  (ne  nepre  vi  devas  respondi  al  c^iuj demandoj). Detalan
 regularon (se vi interesig^as) oni povas trovi en 1/au~gusto de Eventoj.

 3-a taskfolieto
 ===============


 1. Faru almenau~ 12 vortojn el "vagabondeto"!               (3 poentoj)

 2. Kiel aspektas homo tre kontenta?                         (2 poentoj)

 3. Faru almenau~ ses vortojn uzante "sen" prefikse!         (3 poentoj)

 4. Finu la Zamenhofan proverbon:

    "Al c^ielo donacita oni ..."                             (2 poentoj)

 5. Starigu demandojn!                                       (3 poentoj)

    ... ? Supre. / ... ? Supren. / ... ? De supre.

 6. Korektu la erarojn!                                      (2 poentoj)

    "Oni log^as jam de pluraj jaroj tre kontente sur la tria etag^o."

 7. Divenu! Kiu "medio" gajigas, amuzas, ridigas homojn?     (2 poentoj)

 8. Nomu almenau~ ses poetojn esperantistajn!                (3 poentoj)

 La solvojn sendu g^is 11.12.1995 al:

 Gimnazio Thuri Gyorgy
 Szent Imre u. 9, H-8100 Varpalota, Hungario

In >  () writes:

>In article >, Dan Pop > wrote:
>>
>>Alexander already proved you wrong.  Yet another cheap shot a la Joe
>>Pannon.
>
>He did?  When?  I must have missed it.  Or just fallen asleep?

Try to avoid falling asleep while surfing s.c.r :-)  Alexander posted
a quote from a certain Macartney who didn't seem to be a Romanian
emigre.  Ergo, he was not looking for Romanian authors/references.

>Dan, you're such a sour-puss

Name calling doesn't do very well to your already heavily stained reputation.

>that you can't even tell the difference
>between leg-pulling and cheap shot.  Oh, well ...

In this particular case there was absolutely no difference.

>>>Like that guy who wrote that tract on Tokes?
>>>
>>The references about Tokes' dissidence posted by Liviu Iordache pointed
>>to Romanian authors, too.  Shall we dismiss them, for this reason?
>
>Sure, but those Romanians did not do the routine "Romanian thing",
>badmouthing everything Hungarian.  Ergo, they were instantly credible.

"Pulling my leg", again?

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email:  
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

In >  () writes:
>So why shouldn't they keep to themselves if they want to?  Why should
>they even be forced to learn Romanian (however advisable that might be)?

Dan Pop replies:
|In many bilingual countries, everybody is forced to learn the other
|language and nobody feels oppressed for this reason.

Everybody is forced?
Nobody feels oppressed?

Everybody is forced
BUT
Nobody feels oppressed

Everybody
BUTT
Nobody

Returned to single cell thinking again Dan?
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

>: Vlad Romascanu wrote:
>: >Be realistic, Wally, Europe is not America... Things are not resolved    
>: >that esily. BTW, in Europe (still) logic is considered first,
>: >political-correctness afterwards. 

Vlad, I have a feeling Europe is not as European as you think.  I have a 
sneaking suspicion that the European Parliament as well as the 
governments of Germany, France, UK, Spain, Holland, Denmark, Belgium, 
Norway, Sweden, Finland, Portugal, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, 
Luxembourg, to mention just a few, would find the logic of the Romanian 
Parliament and the President Iliescu very different from their own.

Maybe its logic, maybe it's P.C., or maybe it's just civilised thinking, 
but none of these countries would pass a law banning the display of each 
others' national flag or the singing of each other's national anthem and 
make such an offense punishable by up to 3 years of prison -- as Romania 
did recently.

Perhaps it is Europe that is out of step with true logic -- and the 
Romanians are the true font of all knowledge, as we are reminded by them 
all too frequently.  Would you enlighten us?

BTW, don't write this law off as an abberation of some zealot official.  
As far as I understand, in a democratic country laws are introduced to 
all members of the legislature, they debate it and a majority vote passes 
it, before the head of state signs it.  

The Romanian Flag/Anthem Law was, therefore, well undestood and supported 
by the majority of the Romanian Parliament and by President Iliescu 
himself.

One more thought:  although I would strenuously object if my country 
would pass a similar law, because it is stupid, but I wonder if the 
majority of the Romanian Parliament and President Iliescu would consider 
it fair if we would pass a reciprocal law (after all, fair is fair) and 
as a result ban flying the Romanian flag or singing the Romanian National 
Anthem, including at the upcoming Atlanta Olympic Games? It would be 
logical, wouldn't it?  Maybe being politically correct -- of just plain 
civilised -- has it's advantages, after all...

Regards,


Charlie Vamossy

I must correct, the sender was not Janos JANI, but me, 
George Kadar, who subscribed the posting.	
I must apologize with Janos JANI, whose dedicated computer was used by me 
(not having a dedicated computer yet) for sending a posting to SCM and 
SCR. It was a technical fault, I do not have an idea, how to send 
postings to SCR by e-mail, therefore I used the automatic way offered by 
the newsgroup page.
	May rest Corneliu Coposu in peace.
			George Kadar >

In article >,  says...
>
>1.A book proving that soon or later the Hapsburg Empire had to 
>desintegrate:
>
>"Austria-Hungary and the Origins of the First World War", by Samuel R. 
>Williamson, Jr. Macmillan, 1992 (in the series "The Making of the 20th 
>Century"
>

Hi Florenta:

In a historical perspective, multiethnic empires had a finite lifecycle, 
so the statement "proved" _a_posteriori_ in your reference is hardly 
arguable. All I wanted to say is that immediately before WWI, together 
with all its internal tensions, Austria-Hungary did _not_ look set to 
fall apart. More precisely I claim that the will of the majority of its 
peoples was evolutionary change towards a more democratic political 
system with autonomy for the ethnic minorities rather than secession.

>2. And a question: how many referanda have been held in Europe before 
and 
>immediately after WWI?
>

I completely agree that a referendum about the unification of parts of 
Hungary with the Kingdom of Romania before WWI would have been a 
political nonsense (if this is your point). There was at least one 
referendum after WWI to decide about the border between Austria and 
Hungary (two losers). One cna only be sorry that no similar referenda 
have been held on other border issues. 


>3. Another quetion: Was the abolition of the Principality of 
Transilvania 
> the result of a referendum?
>
>F.B.
>

If I understand right, by 'abolition' you mean the incorporation of 
Transylvania in the Habsburg empire. I could say it was so because it 
happened in the 17th instead of the 20th century. 

The idea that Transylvania is a land of the Hungarian crown has never 
been challenged during the existence of the Principality. (Quite the 
contrary: It was confirmed by the princepses again and again in various 
treaties.) What was at the very origin of the birth of the Transylvanian 
principality is that Janos Szapolyai challenged the Habsburg claim on the 
Hungarian crown. 


Cheers

	Gyorgy