Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
Copyright (C) HIX
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: Massacres on all sides (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: "Szegyelem hogy magyar vagyok" (mind)  15 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: Clinton-Iliescu Meeting (mind)  15 sor     (cikkei)
4 Re: Clinton-Iliescu Meeting (mind)  22 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: ???!!! RE: Flag ban law passed (mind)  226 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Re: Massacres on all sides (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, Dan Pop > wrote:
>If you know _any_ valid reason for killing a 3 week old baby (other than
>being a Romanian baby, of course), please share it with us.

Of course I don't know of any!  But why don't you answer my question for 
specifics.  You're always asking for the same.  Are you trying to filibuster 
the answer?

+ - Re: "Szegyelem hogy magyar vagyok" (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Tulajdonke'ppen az az igazsa'g hogy legala'bb is itt az USA-ban 
(gondolom Kanada se ku:lo:nb) az embert ma'st se hall mint 
mindenfe'le agymoso' kampa'nyokat.   "Political correcteness", 
szeresd a feka'kat, a buzikat, sato:bbi, sato:bbi, ve'gela'thatatlanul,
s annak daca'ra hogy a saja't szemeddel la'thatod hogy az agymoso' 
pre'dika'cio'nak a fele se igaz.   'Too much bullshit', e's a ve'ge'n 
ma'r lassan azt se tudod hogy fiu vagy vagy la'ny.   A szocializmusnak
az volt a nagy "elo"nye" hogy az nem kellett tul sok e'sz hogy valaki
ra'jo:jjo:n arra hogy a komcsik hazudnak e's kibasznak a ne'ppel.  
Itt ugyyanez megy, csak sokkal finomabb mo'dszerekkel. 

Na mindegy, e'n nagyon sajna'lom azt hogy egyes emberek sze'gyenlik 
a hovatartoza'sukat -- e'n a magam re'sze'ro"l bu:szke vagyok arra 
hogy magyar vagyok e's a su:ket propaganda'k leperegnek ro'lam mint 
a falraha'nyt borso'.
+ - Re: Clinton-Iliescu Meeting (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dan Pop ) wrote:
: In >  () writes:

: >What's the gall about it?  If Dan could say attrocities in 44/45 may had
: >been rooted in 1940-44, why can the 1940-44 atrocities be also rooted in
: >1918-1938?  Do you think victims of those earlier attrocities could not
: >have held their grudges till 1940?  

: Could you, please, enlighten us about the "attrocities" which happened
: during the period 1918-1938?

	Romanians ruled over Hungarians.  Isn't that enough?  For Joe it 
sure is.

+ - Re: Clinton-Iliescu Meeting (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

: In article >,
: Alexander Bossy > wrote:
: >
: >: Many Hungarians, who suffered some kind of injustice from Romanians
: >: during the prior 20 years, saw it as an opportunity to settle their
: >: scores.  Because as you indicated earlier, previous wrongs done could
: >: not be ignored when judging a new wrong.  And the wrongs did not start
: >: in 1940.  They started in 1918.  (Just to stay within the span of one
: >: generation.)
: >
: >	Are you seriously claiming that the Hungarian life expectancy is only 22 
: >years????  It'll take more than circumstantial evidence to convince me of 
: >that.

: Good to see, Alexander, that your power of clear logical thinking hasn't
: left you since your valiant efforts at proving Daco-Roman continuity.

	Nor has yours, Joe.  Your "discuvery" that the Hungarian life-span 
is only 20 years is almost as creative as your historical theories.

+ - Re: ???!!! RE: Flag ban law passed (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In >  (5 ) writes:

>In article >,  (Dan Pop) writes:
>2. I knew a Hungarian officer in the Romanian army. He was a colonel. He seeme
>to come from a poor family and his only chance to study has been to join the 
>army and become a career officer. I talked to him several times. He never spok
>a word in Hungarian (I couldn't make him do so) while in a military environmen
>even if there was nobody around to hear (and feel offended). Also his wife
>was also a Hungarian he had to change his name from (let's say) Szabo to Sabo.
>He admitted that he would never be able to get a higher rank than colonel, 
>whatever he would do - because of being Hungarian.

Strangely enough, the general Keller didn't have to change his name to
Chelar, to become general in the Romanian army.
>Have you ever posted a source other than those of "I have a friend" type?
Do you have any doubts about my argument?  Do I have to post here the
jpeg facsimile of his birth certificate?
>No, the point is that your supposed friend has had a single Hungarian ancestor
Why "supposed"?  Are you accusing me of lying?

>but that has happend so far back on his genoaligical tree that he doesn't even
>know. Now, I knew my great-grandfather very well. He was born in the 1870's
>and died in the 1960's. This is three generations. I would say that most peopl
>at least know about their great-grandparents (who they were, where they came
>from...) This suggests that your "friends" Hungarian ancestor must have lived
>at least four generations earlyer, which was definitely before 1919 (unless yo
>friend is a couple of months old :-)). So again, if that ancestor was a 
>lived in a time when Transylvania was part of Hungary, why didn't his wife

Maybe because his family has been living for generations in the Galati area,
which was never part of Hungary, or even close to it?

>|> In my block, in my home town, Galati, there were (and still are) two mixed
>|> families, with a Hungarian husband and a Romanian wife.  The name of one
>|> of the families is Mezei (sp?) the other is Hortolanyi.  The names of 
>|> the children are Krisztina, Relly and Edmund.  Not exactly Romanian or
>|> "Romanianized" names.  And Galati is not exactly in Transylvania :-)
>I know several mixed marriages between Hunagrians and Romanians. The example y
>give has a comprmise taste. Krisztina/Cristina, are you sure about the spellin

Yes, I am.  We were classmates and I was very surprised when I saw the
spelling of her name for the first time (until then, I assumed it was

>Anyway, neither Relly (?), nor Edmund are Hungarian names.

They aren't Romanian names, either.
>|> Why?  If the Hungarians were oppressed, they would have fled. 
>Where? You mean 1.6 or 1.7 (whatever) million people should leave their

I don't think there were that many Hungarians in 1918, when the Romanian
"oppression" ("cultural genocide", whatever) began.  

>leave behind everything they and their ancestors have built and start a
>new life in a strange world. 

This is precisely what all Hungarians did, some 1000 years ago, didn't they?

>You'd like to see that, wouldn't you. 

Cheap and unwarranted shot.  No, I wouldn't like to see that.  My country
would be poorer without them.  It _is_ poorer without the Jews and Saxons
who already left.  This might surprise you, but not all Romanians think
like Funar and WC Tudor.

I'd like to see less nationalistic politicians on _both_ sides.  This would
help a lot.

>But why
>didn't Romanians fled Transylvania while part of Hungary if they were opressed

Some of them did.  Virtually all the Romanians who emigrated to the USA
before 1918 were Transylvanians.

>On the contrary their number grew (at an unnatural rate, i.e. more by migratio
>than by birth) both as an absolute value and as proportion steadily in the las
>two centuries.

Ah, this migration theory, so dear to the Hungarians.  Never mind they
can't prove it.
> If they were
>|> submitted to a forced "Romanianization" process they wouldn't be Hungarians
>|> today.
>Bad logic (see above).

I couldn't see anything of relevance above.

>  Neither of these match the hard facts: the Hungarian population
>|> of Romania has been constantly increasing.
>In numbe, but not in proportion of the whole population.

Why should it have grown in proportion, since its proportion has been
decreasing for centuries?  If there was any kind of logic here, I definitely
missed it.

>  Contrast this with the 
>|> Romanian population in Hungary, which is nowadays virtually extinct.
>The two things can't even be compared from any point of view. 

You "forgot" to explain us why.

>You'd rather
>as one of the few Romanians in Hungary whether they'd like to move "back" to

This "argument" works both ways.  The Transylvanian Hungarians didn't want
to move back to Hungary either.
>|> There are many explanations for a greater growth rate of the Romanian
>|> population in Transylvania.  Hungarians migrated to all the other
>|> corners of Romania (see my two neighbours)
>Interesting (new) theory. Yes Hungarians migrated to all other corners of 
>1. This was not typical - a very low perectage left their home regions on thei
>own will. The only exception was Bucharest, which after all was the capital of
>the country and as such the only oportunity for certain careers.

All the corners of Romania were good opportunities for certain careers.
For example, most skilled workers at the Calarasi steel plant came from
Hunedoara and Galati, because Calarasi offered much better promotion
opportunities.  Mr. Mezei (my neighbour) was engineer at the Galati
steel plant, which was built during the early sixties.  I guess he came
to Galati to improve his career.
>2. Almost all of those who migrated were university graduates and did so becau
>they were distributed to jobs (repartizati) after graduation and they had to
>take those jobs. 

They didn't have to keep them for too long, however.  And they haven't
kept them, unless they really wanted.

>To make sure that as many Hunagrian graduates are moved far 
>from the regions inhabited by Hungarians, at least two rules were introduced:
>	- 1981 - some of the towns of the country were declared "closed" (orase
>	mari), that is no jobs were offered there for fresh graduates (except
>	for the "sons" and "nefiews". Although the criterion for seecting the
>	towns seemed to be their size there were some strange situations such
>	as that of Marosvasarhely/Tg. Mures being "closed" while cities
>	bigger that it were left open (ever wonder why?)

Marosvasarhely is one of the largest towns in Transylvania.  But you 
forgot to provide names of bigger towns which were left open.
>	- 1983 - each department had assigned several counties where their 
>	graduates had to go. By some strange logic, the departments in Cluj,
>	where the bulk of Hungarian students did their studies, got almost
>	exclusively counties in Moldova (the couple of exceptions being southern
>	Muntenia and Oltenia).

Again, they didn't have to spend there more than three years, in many cases
not even this long.  My father has been given a job to Cluj, after graduating,
but he came back to his home town (Galati) after a couple of months.

It took me a little bit longer to get rid of my job at Calarasi (late
eighties were tougher than late fifties), but I didn't spend there a
day more than I had to.  Your argument is broken, sir.
>So the Hunagrians migrated into Romania.

This was my point, too.  Except that I claim that they weren't forced
to migrate.  Those who did it, were willing to migrate, for personal
>, while Romanians migrated to
>|> Transylvania.
>Why did they do it? To be opressed? (Kind of masochism?)

You hoped that the context of my sentence was far away, hidden by your
smoke.  I was _obviously_ talking about the migration _after_ 1918, because
the discussion was about the change in proportion _after_ Transylvania
became part of Romania.
>  Even pre-1918, the growth rate of Romanians in
>|> Transylvania was higher than the growth rate of Hungarians, and you
>|> could hardly blame Bucharest (or the Hungarian administration of
>|> Transylvania) for this.
>I could possibly blame the Hungarian administration for their mild immigration
>laws ;-), I mean that they let it happen.

Maybe, maybe not.  Romania's population growth rate is (and has always 
been) positive.  Hungary's is (or, at least, it was a few years ago)

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