T. Kocsis  > wrote:
>I sketch the percentages in a table.
>
>Gypsies: 7 % (6-800 000)
>German: 2 % (200 000 ?)
>Slovak: 1 % (100 000 ?)
>Jewish: 1 % (100 000 ??)
>Romanian 0.3 % (30 000 ??)

I wonder about the Slovak figure.  What is it based on?  On
selfidentification, or on the estimates of some burocrats?

Joe Pannon

Percentages of various nationalities, other than Magyars, in Hungary
> >now.
> >(the answer as I know it: less than 2%).
> 
> You know it wrongly.
> 
> By far the largest Hungarian minority is the Gipsy. 
> I sketch the percentages in a table.
> 
> Gypsies: 7 % (6-800 000)
> German: 2 % (200 000 ?)
> Slovak: 1 % (100 000 ?)
> Jewish: 1 % (100 000 ??)
> Romanian 0.3 % (30 000 ??)
> Croatian: ???
> Serb: ???
> Sloven: ???
> Rusin?/Ruthen? : ???
> 
> x >= 10.3 %


What percentage of THESE minority's are millionaires in Hungary?
What percentage of THESE minority's own their own business in Hungary?
What percentage of THESE minority's run the country?
What percentage of THESE minority's do not consider themselves Hungarian?

Thank for an accurate response!

In >  (George Szaszvari) writes:

>BTW are there are any Hungarian locations left in Transylvania that
>escaped the Ceacescu policy of resettlement to artificially create
>Romanian majorities where they did not exist before?

Yep.  The regions that had Hungarian majorities before Ceausescu have them
today, as well (the counties of Covasna and Harghita).  So much for the
efficiency of Ceausescu's policy.  Nobody really forced a Hungarian to
migrate from his home town/village to another place.  At worst, a college
graduate had to spend 3 years somewhere else, regardless of his/her
nationality.  

I graduated during the worst days of Ceausescu's regime.  All my Hungarian
colleagues managed to get jobs in Transylvania, right after graduation,
even if not in their home towns (as engineers, they couldn't get jobs
in their home villages, anyway :-)

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

In article >,  says...


>Excuse me for butting in here, but I thought that you  might want to
>know that not all Hungarians were anti-semetic during the Second World
>War.  My father, now departed, was a soldier in the Hungarian Army (a
>draftee) during that time.  Near the end of the German occupation of
>Hungary, he was wounded and spent time recovering in a hospital in
>Budapest.  There he, along with the staff of the hospital as well as
>numerouse other wounded soldiers did everything they could to house,
>feed and hide many Jewish HUNGARIANS from the fascists.  So to those

....

  Noone ever denied, that there were some brave and fine
Hungarians, who hided and helped jews in other ways. Those people
were gambling with their own life to do so, they deserve all
honor. Unfortunately they were not only in minority, but just a few.
The majority just did nothing. You can say " the majority did not kill"
but it did not do anything against eighter. If the majority was for
or against the nazis, can be a matter of discussion, but their
passivity can't. Those who claim today their opposition against
fascism: why don't I see their point of view in the *MOKA* (jokes)
session, which is full with rassistic jokes filled with hatred?
Is fascism accepted if it's boundled with jokes?

>that blame Hungarians for mass deportations and murder of Jews, think
>again.. It was wartime, the nation was occupied by fascists and
>although many jews were deported, many more were not because of the
>efforts of ordinary Hungarians to save them.Remeber,  had they been

This is actually not true in general. The first Jew-law came
6 years before the German occupation, 1 year before the war begun.
Face facts.

Please do not ask for excuse, and do not thank for joining this
discussion. Everyone can have his own picture of this world. Somebody
even might be interrested of others then their own.

Regards:
//Laszlo

Scott Laws wrote:
>Not that I disagree with you main point that a seprat transylvania as
>Wally was referring to is unrealistic. But, I do disagree with this point. 

?????!!??????!?!??!?!!????!!!??!??!?!?
Ok so you don't disagree with the main point.
If the main point is that a seperate Transylvania is unrealistic, I have no 
disagreement with that either, however, it would be more accurate to
describe it as highly unlikely, rather than as unrealistic. This is the
current and foreseeable future status.

I have no idea what the hell point you are referring to that you do
disagree with?

>The very nature of eastern europe and europe as a whole is one of
>sepratism. 

If you want to say that "europe as a whole", which would include, by
definition, eastern europe, then it is obviously redundant to mention
eastern europe again, or were you just thinking and typing on the fly?

>America was populated by so many ethnic groups that the lines dividing
>them blended and a new culture was born.  

It may come as a surprise to you as an USAmerican that the same phenomenon
occurred in Canada. It is not a surprise to Canadians that Americans in
general are abysmally ignorant of their largest trading partner, their
next-door neighbour, their staunchest ally, etc., etc. You are obviously not
exceptional.

By the way, "blended" is an interesting way of putting it. Coercion and
excessive violence was an integral part of the birthing process of
USAmerica's "new culture." Canadians did much less blending, and
consequently our new culture is distinct from USAmerica. The USA was born out
of revolution whereas Canada was born out of evolution. 

>In europe a German moving into a difrent country will live with Germans
>there and in 100 years their children will still be looked at by them
>selves and others around them as german. The same is true of almost any
>culture in europe.  

It is largely the same around the world. It is not unique to Europe.

>I would say that the sepritism in canada is not a result of american
>culture but of european culture that is trying stay european.

Sometimes the ignorance/arrogance of USAmericans is breathtaking. Scott, you
are free to "say" as you please, just as I am free to not take your comment
seriously. Ha ha ha. I don't. Ha ha ha.

"sepritism in canada is not a result of americaca culture"
Who would have thought!!!! . . .

WE INTERRUPT THIS POST FOR AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Americrap cultshur is nott a rsult of seperatism inn Canadada

We repeet:

Amercrud cultshit isnnt a rresult fo sepritiiism on Can a data


WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR POPULARLY SCHEDULED POST ALREADY IN PROGRESS...



Oh say can't you see?
The true north, strong and free?
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

Sonar5 I've got news for you:  !Y!o!u!'r!e the immigrant/alien whose 
status should be in doubt!  The people who come north are people who 
belong here:  They're right when they say that Aztlan is mostly a symbol
because this Whole Continent is our home and no one can rightfully deter 
the peaceful migration of its indigenous population.

In >  () writes:

>Vlad ROMASCANU  > wrote:
>>	You didn't understand. One company had the authorisation, the other 
>>didn't. And, of course, both 'struggle' for clients. You understand that 
>>company #1 (the one with the authorisation) saw an opportunity in the #2 
>>company's not having the authorisation to try to take the program (Duna TV ?)
 
>>off the #2 company's cable program and to 'force' the hungarian Duna-TV-
>>watcher clients of company #2 to subscribe to #1.
>
>This does not sound plausible in light of the fact that the original
>protest came from the Hungarians in Transylvania in the first place!

It could have come from the customers of the affected cable network, for
all we know.  Do you know for sure that nobody in Transylvania could
receive Duna TV via cable?

>Why would they raise such an international alarm over what you describe
>is a local technicality?
>
>>	I thought you knew some economics.
>
>This is the first time I've heard your version of the story.
>It needs a bit of corraboration before I take it more seriously than the
>complaints of the Hungarians affected by the cable signal cut-off.

OTOH, you don't need any kind of corroboration when the Hungarians are
complaining about something.  Good old double standards.

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

In >  (George Szaszvari) writes:

>Okay, but the subject matter is really about Romanian speakers who were 
>deliberately resettled in places with Hungarian speaking majorities in 
>order to dilute those majorities.

Do you have any proofs that this actually happened?  Apart from the fact
that some towns with a Hungarian majority now have a Romanian majority
because they grew by absorbing people from the neighbouring villages
which were populated mostly by Romanians?

What makes you think that a Romanian is so eager to be resettled?
Especially when he has to move to a region with a Hungarian majority.

As far as I know, in 1918 Transylvania had a proportion of about 25%
Hungarians.  The same proportion can be found today.  If I am wrong and
someone has more accurate data, I'd like to see it.

Try to forget the propaganda which was used to wash your brain and think
for yourself.

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

 (George Szaszvari) writes:
>BTW are there are any Hungarian locations left in Transylvania that
>escaped the Ceacescu policy of resettlement to artificially create
>Romanian majorities where they did not exist before?

Dan Pop wrote:
>Yep. The regions that had Hungarian majorities before Ceausescu have them
>today, as well (the counties of Covasna and Harghita). So much for the
>efficiency of Ceausescu's policy. Nobody really forced a Hungarian to
>migrate from his home town/village to another place. At worst, a college
>graduate had to spend 3 years somewhere else, regardless of his/her
>nationality.  
>
>I graduated during the worst days of Ceausescu's regime. All my Hungarian
>colleagues managed to get jobs in Transylvania, right after graduation,
>even if not in their home towns (as engineers, they couldn't get jobs in
>their home villages, anyway :-)

##########################################################################
Release No. 101, Hungarian Press of Transylvania, Cluj, September 2, 1987: 
źp|On 4August 31, a train carrying 1000 forced labour conscripts to the
construction of the atomic power plant at Cernavoda, left the central
railroad station of Kolozsvar (Cluj). The unit that was put together by
issuing military draft notices, was 85 percent Hungarian, while the other
15 percent were individuals of various ethnicity, recently released from
prisons.

At Cernavoda members of the labor battalion, between the ages of 18 and 55,
whose heads were shaved upon arrival, were moved to sheet-metal barracks,
with neither electric lighting nor heat, and cold running water only
provided twice a week. They work 10-12 hours daily in excavation labor. The
individuals themselves must pay for the maintenance of the camps, and so,
cannot send their earnings home. In order to make up for their loss of
income, families left behind receive an allowance for children and for the
elderly, and those living in Kolosvar receive an additional gas-consumption
allowance. However, the average size of the allowances cannot exceed 1800
lei, a figure which barely provides basic subsistence for large families.

According to our information, in addition to those who have already been
taken away, thoughout Transylvania, some 3000 individuals -- mostly ethnic
Hungarians -- received their draft notices for similar labor service.
Originally they were to report by the end of August, but because of the
agricultural harvest, they were given a two-month extension.

*                              *                             *

Release 106, Hungarian Press of Transylvania, Sfintul Gheorghe, Sept 31/87

Between September 25 and 27, the personnel supervisor of the Cernavoda
power plant and several of his colleagues, visited several Transylvanian
cities. Their official purpose was to recruit workers for the power plant
project, placed under military supervision.

The committee acted "according to needs" in selecting experienced workers,
who usually receive better, at times even outstanding wages, and whose
names the plants prepared in advance. In Sfintiul Gheorghe they selected at
least 750 from the (IMASA) machinery plant, more than 220 at the factory
that produces railroad construction elements (IPCCF), and about 550 from
the tractor factory (ITC) of Miercurea Ciuc. These individuals were
immediately discharged simultaneously offered positions in Cernavoda. The
workers were told that since they could not find jobs in their native
villages and neighbouring counties, they had to begin working at their new
jobs within five days, or would be charged with parasitism, and convicted
by state courts. Despite these threats, several workers tried to find work
in the regions agrarian collectives, but learned that their workbooks had
already been forwarded by the authorities to Cernavoda: thus they could not
be hired anywhere else.

Of course, such measures are widespread: several hundred workers of Plant
No. 2 in Brasov were transferred to Cernavoda under similar circumstances
and conditions; 300 workers of the iron foundry at Vlahita were transferred
to the foundry trust of Galati, in Old Romania.

The workers were told to take their families with them, since this would
probably be the "final solution" of their labor assignment. Already worker-
transports were on their way, carrying laborers from Old Romania, to fill
their places.
##########################################################################

Well, Dan, I guess you and your "Hungarian colleagues" must have belonged to a
privileged class during the worst days of Ceausescu's regime. :^)
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

On 15 Nov 1995, Krisztian Balogh 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

Kedves Krisztian ur,

You are not being very perceptive today ! The bottom line resides
somewhere else entirely. I am at a loss that you are unable to grasp
the basic truth !
It is clear to most, that beginning smack in the middle ages, right
when Janos Huniady took the Hungarian crown, things changed forever.
HUNGARY BELONGS TO TRANSYLVANIA ! It was the Austrian usurpers that
pried Hungary off the hallow body of Transylvania.
Thus in modern times, since Transylvanian in their majority have chosen
to be joined with Romania, Hungarians should find humility and obedience
in their harts, and rejoin with Transylvania and Romania. 
I am sure that even Mr. Funar could be persuaded that some form of local 
authonomy for the future Hungarian province is in order. 
And think of the economic miracle that could be bestowed upon poor, debt
ridden Hungary. Think what even a little Oltenian entrepreneurship could
do for the stagnant economies of cities like Budapest ! 

m. cristian

Wally Keeler ) wrote:
: 
: From:  (Vlad Romascanu)
: Subject: This should settle it. Was: Re: Dan Pop & Quebec & Transylvania
: 
: >In the attention of Panonescu, Wally Keeler, "professor" Bela Liptak
: 
: >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 
: 
: 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?
: 
	Well, Wally, it looks like Fate decided so.

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

	Yes, Wally, the same Roman Empire that ruled over your ancestors.

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

: >...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. 
: 
: Ruled over once again by freely elected Emperors. So now there is 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 the
y
: were and became deadbeat dads to Romanian society. This is why so much of the
: rest of Europe has been calling the Romanians bastards?
: 
	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.

: >It survived the succession of migratory waves.
: >...The first Romanian feudal formations are mentioned in the X century in
: >the intercarpatic space, having as leaders the voivods Gelu, Glad and
: >Menumorut......
: 
: Migratory waves? No coupling with them? Or they were permitted only to spill
: their seed on anal ground?

	Your ancestors too were subject to invasions of migratory people 
from north who went south then again a little to the north.

: 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. 
: 
	'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 ?

: >At the end of the IX century the hungarians settle in
: >Pannonia which, stopped in their expansion towards the Occident, orient
: >their conquerant tendencies towards East. During the XI - XIII centuries
: >they vanquish the resistance of the Romanian statal formations, annexing
: >Transilvania as an autonomous 'voievodat'. 
: 
: Autonomy? In name only perhaps? You mean the popularly elected Hungarian
: monarchs decreed autonomy?
: 
	That's what history says, Wally. You are not in position to 
change history, Wally.

: >Under Magyar domination until 1541, Transilvania will keep, as a
: >'voievodat', a pronounced autonomy.  
: 
: Ah, domination, now that's more like it.
: 
	Yes, Wally, please check the dictionary and you'll discover that 
a province, be it 'autonomous', but part of an Empire, IS dominated. 

: >In oder to consolidate its control in Transilvania, and for the defense of
: >its borders, the Hungarian Crown will colonize in XII - XIII century
: >Transilvania with 'sasi' and 'secui' (Szekeli)...
: >Mihai ['Viteazul' = 'the Brave'] unifies under his authority all three 
: >Romanian states. 
: 
: Murder, pillage, rape, -- ah those were days.
: 
	But you don't know anything about those particular days in that 
particular corner of Europe, do you, Wally ? That particular corner of 
Europe was not Shakespearian England, Wally. Am I right, Wally ?

: >In October 1599 he penetrates in Transilvania : 
: As Paul Bernardo penetrated his girls.
: 
	Wally, I definitely recommend you a dictionary.

: >and removes Andrei Bathory [...], 
: 
: So that's where he was hiding.
: 
	Hiding, indeed. Hiding from you, Wally ? Or from who ?

: >realizing, for the first time, the political unity of the Romanian
: >countries in a single state. [...] 
: 
: How many countries? Do you not mean nations? Were these nations autonomous?
: Was this a federation of nations/countries? The state was elected by whom?
: The state was a monarch aka dictator?
: 
	The states were 3. The nations were 3. The 3 nations had too much in 
common not to form a single nation. This was not a federation: the 
province Dacia wasn't the Federative Province of Dacia, either. He was no 
diktator; he was a good ruler; his only support was in the Army; not in 
the Army rulers, but in the soldiers, who were mainly THE people. They 
served him well; that means he was appreciated -- and that's probably one 
of the reasons for which he was assasinated (at the Turks' orders ?).

: >His unifying act maintained for centuries its value of symbol of the
: >struggle of Romanians for national unity, and the idea of the latin
: >ascendence of the Romanian gains large European recognition. During the
: >XVII cent., with temporary results, [...] others - Radu Serban, Gabriel
: >Bethlen, Matei Basarab, Constantin Serban, Serban Cantacuzino - will try
: >to resume Mihai's political program.
: 
: A program that was popularly elected on by the people. Or once again a
: program in which people were pawns and subjects of royal whims?
: 
	Yes, it seems that the (romanian) people of the 3 unified provinces 
welcame Mihai's program.

: >    on 17 may/8 june, with the crowning of the emperor of Austria,
: >    Francisc Iosif I, as king of Hungary, the law regarding the 
: >    incorporation of Transilvania to Hungary was approved (sanctioned).  
: 
: Once again the monarchy decides...
: 
	Yes. That was Europe, Wally.

: >1918:18 november/1 december, in the Great National Assembly of Alba 
: >    Iuluia the Unification of Transilvania and Romania was voted, 
: >    sanctioned (approved) by King Ferdinand the Ist's decree of 11/24 
: >    december 1918.
: 
: By decree of the monarchy...
: 
	Voted, Wally, voted and sanctioned.

: >    Now, I don't wish to hear any more crap about 'forced 
: >colonisation' by the Romanians in order to diminish the Magyar 
: >population, or about 'autonomy granted to Transilvania', its only 
: >autonomy being of the same kind as that granted by The Gate to Wallachia 
: >(political, but with control on the ruler), which was anyways rejected in 
: >1867 by Francisc Iosif. I don't wish to read any more unfounded remarks 
: >about dictators deciding the Union, and so on.
: >    Respectfully yours, Vlad.
: 
: Crap, crap, crap, crap. A thousand years of democracy in action by all
: sides. Crap, crap crap, crap. Your litany contained no democratically elected
: leaders. Crap, crap, crap. So I don't wish to read any more unfounded remarks
: about democrats deciding the union, and so on.
: 
	If people didn't held a referendum to decide a thing doesn't mean 
the thing wasn't democraticly decided. If people agree to do and do that 
thing is more democratic than any referendum.

	And, BTW, read Plato's Republic and see which society is closer 
to utopia: Canadian (American) democracy, or a society with a wise and 
capable ruler who doesn't need a referendum in order to do a good and 
wise thing, without being a diktator ? The second type of society I doubt 
appeared more than 10 times in history, and it certainly lasted for an
extremely short time. But, however, maybe Mihai's reign falls in that 
category.

: >PPS: Sorry for eventual typos, vocabulary errors, etc, I did this in a 
: >hurry. Have a nice day.
: 
: It would seem that most of the recent legislation of Romania was made with
: similar haste. If more time and energy were devoted to strengthening democrac
y
: and the free market, and less time devoted to the repression and/or
: restriction of non-Romanian cultural expressions, Romania could become a
: regional leader.
: 
	Yes, it could. How unfortunate, though, that time can't stop 
while the legislation is done. You see ? You can't function with the 
wrong legislation for years while waiting for the perfect one. It would 
be good, indeed, if time could stop -- but it can't be stopped. I agree, 
reform was made with haste, but it probably was one of the better solutions.

: Oh and by the way... I want a reply to your piss-me-off post below:
: 
: Article #28347 (Sun Nov 12 1995):
:  (Wally Keeler) wrote:
: >Transylvanians would consider themselves as
: >bilingual and bicultural society that could share the best features of
: >each other and in turn exploit good neighbourly relations with Hungary and
: >Romania as an equal state. It may be worth encouraging.
: 
: >Vlad Romascanu wrote:
: |yeah, yeah, blah, blah... Bilingual society. Of course, how beautiful.
: 
: If the thought of a bilingual society is so repugnant to you, then why the
: hell are you living in Beautiful Bilingual Montreal? Or Beautiful Bilingual
: Canada for that matter? What's your problem? Couldn't stand living in your
: monolingual, monocultural Romania?
:
	The thought of bilingual society isn't repugnant. Not at all. But 
I look in Canada and I see that it is impracticable. It brings too much 
tensions. The notable exception would be Switzerland.
	Waly, look at France, at Alsace & Lorraine. They are just like 
Transilvania. Switched several times between two powers and cultures. 
However, France doesn't recognise German as an official language. Nor 
does Germany in the case of French. Does anybody stop anybody form 
speaking both French and German in those two provinces ? Now think about 
a bilingual France. And about a bilingual Romania/Transilvania. Can you 
imagine how many elements will rise from dust to make themselves a 
political future and a good economical situation by taking advantage of 
the tensions ŕ la Quebec-Canada ? Can you imagine how many such elements 
would be just pleased to see Transilvania an independent country ? Or 
Quebec ? A new presidential chair would be available. More blood to suck. 
Some more ministers... etc etc.
: 
: Are you Canadian at all or just over here to suck a bit of good economy
: because your original Romanian mothers milk is too sour? Huh?

	This reminds me the question "Are you a true American ? On which side 
are you ?". Were your colonizing ancestors true Canadians ? Did they come 
here because they were willing to become Canadians ? No, Wally, they didn't.
	No, Wally, I am now both Canadian and Romanian, even if I don't 
have the citizenship yet. Legally, I am not Canadian, but now I am both 
of them. Now what about 'hungarians' actually BORN in Romania, who are not 
Romanians ? Who don't want to be Romanians ?

	And to answer your question, YES, I did come here for a beter 
economical situation, and not because 'of the War [in Romania]', or 
because of 'religious conflicts which tear all the Eastern Europe', or 
other reasons. Oh, yes. People ask me: 'Why did you come here ? Because 
of the War ?'. And in the philosophy book, under a nice picture of a 
demolished library in Sarajevo, it is written "...religious wars that 
tear all the Eastern Europe'. Yes, Wally. Your ancestors came to Canada
for a better (economical) life, or just to change it. So did I. So did 
the Irish. And so did the French.
-- 
--

Vlad Romascanu                                      
         '

In article > , 
writes:
>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,

....because I don't have any. I wrote the numbers from memory, and where
I was not sure in them I put question-marks. I've thought someone will
come up with hard data and complete the tabelle.

Tamás

Wally, 
I have to admit I am upset, because you stamped me as unsincere and bigot.
It's very easy for you to do this, instead of trying to believe everything I
said was completely sincere. Yes, I blame the lack of understanding and the
bias, but I also want from all my heart the full integration of Romania and
its people being recognized as normal, reasonable, honest and decent people.
By whom ? By the "West". You didn't have the "chance" to live there and to
have this hope for a large part of your life - now, when this dream seems
closer, a lot of walls and 
barriers are put, just enough to make it un-achievable -. Who sets these walls
? Here we can discuss a lot.(Don't worry, I don't start giving examples now).

Still, in all this dispute, I see we have a hope for positiveness.

Before flaming, let me tell you why :

- I do not blame only "others" for Romania's situation. Romania has to clear
its position in regards to internal policies and real commitment to democracy
and market reform and also, on minority issues. A lot of compromise, change of
mentality has to be done, a lot of risks (yes, risks!) have to be assumed.
- The "others" have to trust more and not to bite at any occasion, be it a
real or a false problem. The bias still exists in some international cercles
(you want or not to acknowledge). I'd like to see the criticism on real
problems instead of making rushed and un-reasonable demands and condemnations
on "etnic genocides", minority persecutions - more than for older western
european democracies -. No, there is no contradiction with my previous
statement ! The chriticism do not have to go so far and destroy any chance of
this people, trashing the nature of the people itself.
- No, isolation is not good. It brings involution. What can be done? Learn
from successful democracies - yes, and Canada should be the first on the list
-. Do you still disbelieve me if I tell you I think Canada (not only yours)
has the best democracy that I know?
- Romanians are still sensitive to the others' "anti" attitudes. They can do
better when trated with objectivity and even better, when there is a good
will. I agree, they have to become "cooler", without losing site of what the
others are saying or what actions are taken in regards to them. 
- Do romanians and Romania (as a state) have to change and to evolve? Yes, of
course. 
- Do they have the potential and deserve better ? Here, we might be on a
different stand. Because for me, it is a whole-heartedly YES !
Regards    Zamolxe

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

Now that you put it this way, I stand beside you.

I apologize for my rude knee-jerk response to your initial post.

Thank you!
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

> Wally Keeler > wrote:
> >Only curious -- were they invited in? I recall one Hungarian posting a   
> >line about the Hungarians charging into Europe on horseback and how the
> >inhabitants were scared shitless. It was a well crafted line. At any   
> >rate, Atilla is highly regarded among Hungarians. He was a winner. I     
> >understand the dynamic. Nevertheless, there is the equally valid         
> >viewpoint that the Hungarians came in uninvited and took over the plains
> >by means of murder.

 writes: 
> Gee, Wally!  Should they have waited for the decision of the UN
> Security Council?  How did the Normanns get into England?
> That's how things were done in those times: by conquest.  
> Call it "manifest destiny", if you will.
> Joe

Grigore Dumitrescu wrote:
>This term was desingned back in the 19th century to explain the settling
>of the American west, and the near total destruction of native culture and
>societies.
>
>But then equally valid is Sitting Bulls famous statement that was never 
>translated properly to his white audience at the time, that:
>
>"all white men are liars and thieves". 
>
>As far as Transylvania is concerned, historical destiny goes in swings, 
>roundabouts, and some points inbetween. 
>
>Numerous Attilas have been and gone in Europe, but the more indigenous
>peoples have always been around. Whether we recall Radu the Black, Mihai
>Viteazul, or go back even further to the disputed Gelu or Glad, manifest
>destiny works both ways. Call it the Latin element, call it what you like. 
>
>We could conclude with 'whats good for the goose is good for the gander',
>but why not for today, change it to:
>
>'Things used to be different, but now they're the same'. 
>--
>Grigore

Very good post Grigore.
A very Grigood post.
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

In >  () writes:

>Not that I disagree with you main point that a seprat transylvania as Wally 
>was referring to is unrealistic.  But, I do disagree with this point.  The 
>very nature of eastern europe and europe as a whole is one of sepratism.  

Of Europe as a continent, yes.  Of most European countries, definitely not.
The only countries that fell apart were the two federal states with a
multinational structure in Eastern Europe (I'm omitting the USSR, which was
an empire, not a country).  The internal cohesion of the other European
countries is as good as anywhere else, even in multinational countries
where the various nations aren't on very good terms, like Belgium or,
to a smaller extent, Switzerland.

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

Matyas ) wrote:
: Hi Alexander!

Alexander Bossy wrote:
>     Hi Matyas:
>     The books that I have at home don't quite answer your
>detailed question.  But Macartney did give a partial answer, and so I quote
>him:
>     "The Alba Julia meeting seems to have been a clear enough expression of
>the will of the Roumanians of Transylvania.  Its representative character is
>not seriously questioned.  Of the other nationalities, the Magyars seem to
>have been opposed, almost to a man, to the union with Roumania.  There was
>not even the bait of superior social conditions which attracted some peasants
>and workers to Austria and Czechoslovakia, while the old hatred between
>Magyar and Roumanian played its part....
>     "The Saxons had formed a national Council of their own at the same time
>as the Roumanians, but did no more at first than raise a civil guard, keep
>order in their own districts,and watch the situation.  they saw, quite
>correctly, that they would be unable to influence the course of events, and
>as they have never
>tought very much about any one but themselves, their obvious course was to
>wait and see which way the cat would jump.  They soon perceived that the
>animal in question was leaping eastwards (It is said that one of their
>leaders was shown the draft peace terms in Paris) and their leaders favoured
>joining Roumania at
>once, on the best trms obtainable.  In private negotiation, the Roumanians
>promissed them complete national autonomy, with minority rights where they
>formed 20 per cent of the population.  On the strength of this they decided,
>by a majority, to join Roumania, but a delay was cuased by their very prudent
>desire to get the promises put into writing.  The Roumanian leaders put them
>off with vague words, and at last said that the Alba Julia Resolutions were
>so generous as to make further promises unnecessary.  On January 21st, 1919,
>the Saxons accordingly voted for union with Roumania on the basis of the Alba
>Julia Resolutions.
>     "No other group of the population seems to have expressed an opinion. 
>The Suabians of the Banat, as we have said, also waited to see how the
>situation would develop, being in fact, not at all anxious to leave Hungary,
>but unwilling to antagonize their new masters, whoever those should prove to
>be.  The Roumanian
>Delegation to the Peace Conference produced a manifesto from the Suabians to
>say that if there must be any change, they would prefer the Roumanians to the
>Serbs.  The sentiment does not sound enthusiastic, and I am informed that the
>manifesto was not authorative (although it may well have expressed popular
>opinion).
>     "In terms of voting, then, one may say that the Roumanians (roughly 55
>per cent. of the total) was actively in favour of the union; the Magyars (25
>per cent.) actively against, while the remaining 20 per cent. was unwilling
>to commit itself either way, although given a straight plebiscite under
>normal conditions the majority would probably have voted for Hungary, giving
>to Roumania roughtly 60 per cent. of the total votes."
>    I would like to add two caveats to the above quote.  Macartney is
>pro-Hungarian, and it does show in this statement.  In fact, much of the
>non-Romanian and non-Magyar population did actively prefer Romanian rule
>because of the forced Magyarization policies carried on between 1867-1918.    
  
>
>    Nevertheless, whether we chose to accept his numbers or not, it is clear
>that a substantial majority of the Transylvanian population favored union
>with the Kingdom of Romania.  And, that is of far greater importance than the
>precise percentage of the population we feel would have voted for or against
>union.
>    Hope that this helps....
>    Alexander

I don't know about Matyas or Dan-Razvan or others, but this sure helped me.
Thanks.
I am not steeped in this particular historical event so I can only respond
that your posting "smelled" realistic -- ie. without mascara. 
Thanks again.
-- 
Wally Keeler					Poetry
Creative Intelligence Agency			is
Peoples Republic of Poetry			Poetency

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

Alexander Bossy wrote:
>>    I would like to add two caveats to the above quote.  Macartney is
>>pro-Hungarian, and it does show in this statement.


Despite my very careful reading, I hardly found anything but
impartiality in  Macartney's  text.  There is one more reason  why you
shouldn't  accuse Macartney of pro-Hungarian bias. He is one of those
Western scholars  that have supported, based on Gesta  of Anonymus
Belae Regis, the Vlach (i.e., Romanian) presence in Transylvania prior
to the Magyars' arrival (see Macartney, C.A., 1968, The Magyars in the
Ninth Century, Cambridge University Press.)  

Liviu Iordache

In article >,  says...

[...]

Citing Macartney's book about Romania:

>     "In terms of voting, then, one may say that the Roumanians
>(roughly 55 per cent. of the total) was actively in favour of the
>union; the Magyars (25 per cent.) actively against, while the
>remaining 20 per cent. was unwilling to commit itself either way,
>although given a straight plebiscite under normal conditions the
>majority would probably have voted for Hungary, giving to
>Roumania roughtly 60 per cent. of the total votes."
>
>        I would like to add two caveats to the above quote.  Macartney is 
>pro-Hungarian, and it does show in this statement.  In fact, much of the 
>non-Romanian and non-Magyar population did actively prefer Romanian rule 
>because of the forced Magyarization policies carried on between 1867-1918. 
 
>        Nevertheless, whether we chose to accept his numbers or not, it is 
>clear that a substantial majority of the Transylvanian population 
>favored union with the Kingdom of Romania.  And, that is of far greater 
>importance than the precise percentage of the population we feel would 
>have voted for or against union.
>
>        Hope that this helps....
>        Alexander



 
Hi Alexander:


I suspect your 'fact' about the preferences of non-Hungarian, non-Romanian 
citizens of Hungary is your personal impression only. (How could 
they prefer that empire of evil to the Kingdom of Romania?) Although I'm 
aware of the imperfections of Austria-Hungary, I am curious why you believe 
that the Kingdom of Romania of the same period looked more attractive  for 
non-Romanians. 

Economic arguments were clearly in favor of staying in Austria-Hungary.  The 
Hungarian economy was more developed than the Romanian, and the 
Transylvanian economy relied heavily on the historical links with the rest 
of Hungary and the rest of the empire.

As far as political arguments are concerned, I have to admit that I don't 
know much of the 19th-century Kingdom of Romania. From that little I know, 
my general impression is that it showed even less traces of democracy than 
Austria-Hungary did.

From the little I know about Romanian political streams in pre-WWI Hungary, 
it is clear that Romanians in Hungary were far from 100% irredentist. Many 
of them saw the existence of Austria-Hungary, a great power in Central 
Europe, as their best security guarantee. Given also the about 50% 
statistical weight they had in Transylvania, I am convinced that a pre-WWI 
referendum would _not_ have resulted in a union of Transylvania with 
Romania. But this is again speculation. The fact is that there has never 
been a referendum or any kind of democratic vote on this issue. It was WWI 
and not the political will of its peoples that made Austria-Hungary fall 
apart.

	Gyorgy