|
Post by szorostalpu1 on May 26, 2009 17:54:41 GMT -5
lol.....The bit*ch thinks subjects about Dobrudzha and Erdely are "trolling topics" hahahaha whats wrong romanian? are these subjects taboo. Are you embarassed about the way you gypsies acquired these territories? More evidence to support the fact of what an insecure, backward, 3rd world and inferior country you are........
|
|
|
Post by lvl100 on May 27, 2009 0:57:12 GMT -5
Lets see the Dobrudja topic in a nutshell. Szorostampu : are you bothered by *****insert paprika snorting nationalist and gypsy fetishist remarks here***** User 1: no User 2: not really User 3 : actually it was a fair share User 4 : nope User 5 : hey why not drop this totally uninteresting subject and bash Anittas instead ?
|
|
|
Post by szorostalpu1 on May 27, 2009 5:22:20 GMT -5
"are you bothered by"
hahahaha......thats why you keep responding, all signs of a lonely, probably jobless, frustrated frustrated twerp
|
|
|
Post by lvl100 on May 27, 2009 7:02:11 GMT -5
thats why you keep responding, all signs of a lonely, probably jobless, frustrated frustrated twerp Oh yeah , the "loneliness" I guess my flashback of that failed topic when nobody wanted to take your side bitterly reminded you about this problem. Even your forum colleagues are keeping away from you. But dont worry i will be here. Even not near you, but on the other side of the fence , poking you with a stick and laughing while you , foaming at the mouth, bark your frustration in the same limited vocabulary of cussing and ethnic slurs. Have fun Cheeta
|
|
|
Post by szorostalpu1 on May 27, 2009 15:24:54 GMT -5
' take your side '
My side of what?....lol, the only sides are Facts, which I presented and which you gypsies deny and falsehoods which you cling to.
"In 1925, 47 years after Dobruja was incorporated into Romania, King Carol II of Romania gave the Aromanians land to settle in this region, which resulted in a significant migration of Aromanians into Romania, and the displacement of over 65000 Bulgarians.
hahahaha....yeah, the loneliness and frustration. I guess this is what you do all day......copy paste animals from your picture book. Unemployment is a bit*ch isn't it? you little faggit
|
|
|
Post by lvl100 on May 28, 2009 0:30:28 GMT -5
' take your side ' My side of what?....lol, the only sides are Facts, which I presented and which you gypsies deny and falsehoods which you cling to. And you didnt found nothing strange that those "facts" doesnt bother Bulgarians, and you were a lonely troll spitting his frustrations there ? Of course you didnt, after all thats what makes you "unique"The Bulgarian topic in a nutshell again, this time with pictures, maybe written language its to abstract for you.
|
|
wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on May 28, 2009 1:10:47 GMT -5
honestly lvl100, we did annex more of Romania's territory during ww1, the carpathian region of Moldavia region were Csango Hungarians are populated. Szorostalpu plz pay attention what i wrote. We do have claims on lands outside of Greater Hungary's borders, Csangofold (Csangoland) in Moldavia region which is populated by Csango Hungarians and Romanian catholics was part of Hungary's interest to incorporate those lands into Hungary, also we wanted actually annex whole of Romania really. Not to mention Constanta region were it is populated by Turks and Tatars who favoured of being part of Hungary, those minorities expected the Hungarian invasion on Romania proper. So really we were building a Hungarian version of Ottoman empire in the Balkans in which Hungary had to pay it's heavy price by losing original Hungarian lands too in Trianon treaty.
More like it yeah.
That's bs, Hungarians have nothing to do with those scumbag baltic people. Finnish and Estonians can kiss my Turk arse. If there is any connection of Hungarians with those 2 ethinic in Baltic area that would be the Turanian connection, nothing else. Hungarians have and always will be Turks, more commonly Turanians which is an Irano-Turkish linguistic hybrid. Hungarians decended from Scythian tribes which is also of Turkic origin influenced with ancient Iranian language and grammar.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on May 28, 2009 4:40:45 GMT -5
Well if there is any Uralic connection its thought to be so far back in the past (when Magyar people seperated from other Uralics and went their own way) like in BC times that its no wonder that Hungarians would feel little connection these days, despite some linguistic relationshipd that seem to show some type of very distant connection which is not easily explained but there are different theories.
Some type of Turanian influence is without question but again in this context Turanian can be a broad term, actually Turkics of the Steppe were very much influenced and intermixed with Iranians/Scythians and other groups anyways. Probably who is refered to as Turkics are those that retained the Altaic/Turkic languages but that doesnt mean they were pure Turkic either. The Turanian culture may well have originated more from the Scythian peoples whom were later probably absorbed by Turkics and various groups.
As for Hungarians there is only a little more than 300 oddd words of Turkic derivation. These are thought to be loan words and interestingly they are thought to have been adopted into the language at different points in time and also from different Turkic groups for example some or many of them are Bulgar Turkic words others arefor example from Khazar Turk and other groups. This implies Hungarians were living nearby and perhaps assimilating some different Turkic groups at different times. Iranian derived words also exist in Hungarian and show influence and connection with Iranian peoples. As for cultural influences it is believed that the Hungarians at time of conquest followed a similiar tribal political structure to the Khazars.
In any case Hungarian is not a Turkic language and this is one of the Turkologists biggest hurdles, to describe the Hungarians or more so the early Hungarians as Turks is a difficult ambition to take on any serious or academic basis although there have been some Hungarian writers that have gone that route see (Vambery). Despite the fact some non Hungarian thistorical scribes did describe them as Turks this does not mean it was an overall accurate portrayal on an ethnic basis.
It should be noted that there was and probably is amongst some a belief in Hungary that Hungarians originated from the Huns. I wouldnt be suprised if there was some type of tenuous connection to this legend but again Huns was sometimes a fairly broad term that could include a wide rage of peoples as there were white Huns and different groups of peoples that joined the Huns and hence were called Huns but probably spoke different languages and were from different tribes. Szekely believe they are descendants of Attila' Huns.
In any case the Hungarians seemingly were and seemingly are and seeemingly destined to be a group of their own , they didnt appear to have or maintain a Turkic self consciousness they called themselves Magyars first and foremost and their language is unintelligable to Turkic , however some type of historical affiliation with Turanianess is evident it is not evident that this affiliation is a result of ethnic origin or rather some cultural influences, some assimilations and result of geographical habitat which most interestingly in the end didnt result in them speaking Turkic.
Hungarians are Hungarians,they have their own very unique language and ethnogenesis.
|
|
wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on May 28, 2009 9:01:09 GMT -5
WBB: Oszkar plz, i dont wanna argue with you, actually im not arguing with you but just trying to explain the basic comment for you.[ Oszkar :I not arguing either.
WBB:Personally i understand your point of view which is fine by me, in which i have no problem with that, but seriously i do really get sick of listening to this Estonian-Finnish theory cowcrap, because personally i have nothing to do with them neither does my family, i never been in contact with those 2 ethnic in Baltic region and never will and i hope i wont.
Oszkar: thats fine but I didnt say Hungarians are related to Finns or Estonians however some theorists make a tenuous linguistic historical relationship. But why you feel hostility towards them , finns and estonians are ok.
WBB:I have my oppinion on Hungarians as being part of Turk race cause of my muslim religion, i recon you have read about this before...Kabars, Bulgars, Khazars, rest of those muslim tribes that join the Magyar confederacy.
Oszkar :Im not certain that all of those Turkics that assimilated were Muslims perhaps some were but it didnt seem to make much impact on the Conquest Hungarians as a whole.
WBB : And because im a muslim i feel rather associated with those Turkic muslim tribes rather than my Arab ancestry which is only 9% so i trace my roots as Turk race rather than semetic race. If i gonna have kids, i would tell them the most simple thing that my Hungarian root decended from the Kabars which Turks so Hungarians are decended from Turks, nothing more complicated or debated issue than that. I think that the best for me to prevent any unnecessary confusion among my kids.
Oszkar: just point out to them if they speak Hungarian to Turkish people that Turkish people wont understand them, this may confuse them considering you intend telling them they are Turks.
WBB: quote]Another thing, (dont tell me you never heard of Noah?) but anyway one of Noah's son...Japhet is "known as the father of Turks" another name for this race is Japhetic, now the most widely accepted theory on Hungarians for their race is Japhetic race which basically overally...Turk. If we gonna mention any further comment like Turanians, Ural-Altaic, etc etc that is still in the end the answer is Turk.
Oszkar :I think this is more of subjective and controversial view but you are entitled to your oppinion.
WBB: Im not a Turkologist or Turkist or a hardliner of Turkism, but i do strongly oppose those Hungarians that practices their anti-Turk sentiment or rejecting anything that having the word starting with....Turk. But yes im quite aware of many Hungarians being brainwashed by Armenians or even supporting the Armenian theory because the Armenians historically was being finger-pointed for starting the anti-Turk sentiment which is commonly very true and if the Armenians would comment about the Turkish people starting the Armenian genocide, that is also unfortunately true. So overally im not anti-armenian, i follow both side of stories. And yep dont surprised yourself but Armenians are also Turks with Irano-Turkish genetics but orthodox religion even if they reject this remark.
Oszkar: I am not anti Turk either I just have in my oppinion a balanced view and I think Hungarian ethnogenesis is more complicated than a simple Turkic origin point of view. But again you are entitled to your oppinion. Im not sure Armenians started an overall anti Turk view they have their own issues but many of the Christian groups of Anatolia had some issues with Turks post ww1 era and same for the Balkans.
WBB: Oszkar i hope you understand me positively that yes i am Hungarian (magyar is what i prefared to called rather than Hungarian) and proud to be till death, but if people would ask me what type of people Hungarians are, i would also consider proudly that Hungarians are Turks.
Oszkar :Hungarians assimilated some Turkic tribes but in the end the Turkic connection didnt result in Hungarians adopting a Turkic language, so what does this say about any Turkic self identity or consciousness.
WBB:Im afraid that Hungarians are not unique cause if they were unique then they wouldnt be related to those every countless nations, tribes and peoples with all sort of identities and historical heritage.
Oszkar :in the big picture we are supposedly all realated but yes they are unique in their language and their ethnogenesis and the fact that they were the most succesful amongst all of the eastern groups that had come in various times to the Carpathian basin.
I did think I was replying WBB but accidently I was editing sorry about this. If its possible to make your original post retrievable I will.
|
|
|
Post by lvl100 on May 28, 2009 15:27:41 GMT -5
Although overall Oszkar is right , i think wbb put it nicely also. A clearly subjective point of view, nevertheless well written.
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on May 29, 2009 7:50:34 GMT -5
Although Im not hungarian..I have taken an interest w/ hungary since Im half polish... ;D "Lengyel, magyar két jó barát, együtt harcol s issza borát" After reading info on hungrians...mostly wikipedia and some youtube, i came to the conclusion that maybe there isnt a turanian connection between you and turks ( sorry wbb ). I read a study about recent genetical information showing that hungarians are very europeanized ppl with very little asian connection to the magyars themselves. Now, i am very sceptical about these genetical tests because they have been used against greeks for propaganda purposes. So I dont want to do the same to the hungarians for the same reason....however I dont see any physical connection to you and turanian ppl at all. The tests also say that Poles and Hungarians share the highest frequency of the R1a Y gene in Europe en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HungariansAnyway, Do you guys think wiki is a good source for this type of info ?
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on May 30, 2009 6:04:06 GMT -5
Yes Chalkedon Poles and Hungarians historically have always been good friends. The Poles also adopted the Hungarian Huszar light cavalry tradition and were very good at it,produced very good Huszar'sz. The 1956 Hungarian revolution was a follow on from Polish anti Communists protests, the Huns in solidarity protested on behalf of Poles and themselves which resulted in Hungarian revolution.
This is because the highest consistant percentage of physical genetic type in Hungary is 35 % Neo-Danubian, various other types make up the rest , I think still its considered there is a 20% or 25% Turanian element. But I think the commonality between the Hungarians and the Poles is the Neo-Danubian and possibly includes other elements too. Im not sure if those R1aY gene is same thing as Neo Danubian or maybe a more specific trait.
]
As long as the studies can be traced and are consistant with other legitimate and accepted studies that show same results then yes.
I think Hungarians are a combination of their distant past and their more recent past, I mean we are legitimatly Magyars by identity and language and historical inheritance etc but equally we are Europeans also. I dont think its one without the other.
|
|
wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on May 30, 2009 8:41:13 GMT -5
I hope you not going to regard the most hungarians as slavs cause we are not slavs, if we were slavs then why hungary didnt join this bumhole yugo-chit? We intermarries with slavs but that it's still not enough for hungarians to be slavs.
hungarians are scythian-hunnic-avaric turks, not european. i spit on every european, hungarians have their own advanced civilisation for over 40,000 years while those europeans in europe were still monkeys picking ants on the trees.
Hungarians being regard as "European" identity is a new diseases of idealism promoted and encourage by this rubbish European Union, i hope Hungary will leave the garbage EU community, Hungary should be independently neutral like Switzerland. It's the time that all hungarians should learn their lesson to stop kissing the stupid european monkey arse and bring back the traditional hungarian value and eliminate the euorpean value. Hungarians are not equelly european, hungarians are magyars before anything else then turks, then huns, then avars then iranians then finally european is in the garbage bin. Why so many hungarians intermarries with gypsies today? you know why? because hungarians want to maintain their oriental heritage because gypsies never want to adopt the european value and i agree with that. Hungarians can learn from the gypsies to stay hungarian and spit on european culture and enjoy our sexy belly dance with sexy cigany girl's belly.
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on May 30, 2009 9:21:18 GMT -5
hungary is very european... to say it is not european is very false. Its also a very christian country..maybe you being muslim is one of the reasons you feel " close " to the east.
No one said hungarians are slavic...I dont believe so either, although they may have some slavic genes just from being close to slavs in the region. That goes for half of europe...
I think its like bulgarian example, the name and identity is bulgar...but they are mostly thracian w/ slav element.
|
|
wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on May 30, 2009 10:54:48 GMT -5
hungary is european since it is in europe, hungarians (magyars) are not europeans. They are Magyars. And christianity originated from the middle east (Palestine). So Christian religion is not really european are they? The Romans stole that religion from the middle east and adopt Christianity as the official religion of Roman Empire before the religion started to spread in europe. The Greeks done similar things like the Romans. nah not really, because most hungarian muslims (i meant magyar muslims) like me believes that it was the Turkic muslim tribes that founded the Magyar confederacy but of course hungarian christians opposed it cause they feel very christianized and they make up some excuse like: "We failed to research this and that, so we dont know". But according to most sources, Hungarian history was written mostly by the enemies and by Arab muslim scholars at that time. So therefore im not european cause im hungarian, if i have to reply about the racial genetic i prefared to be called "a Turk" rather than european. And that "Turk" race is very increasingly common now cause of large Turk diaspora in Germany and elsewhere, and they reject being a european race, they are turk race.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on May 30, 2009 20:25:24 GMT -5
As I have said before, I purely regard Hungarians as Hungarians I am not the type of person who regard them as Slavs or Turks or Arabs or Finss because they are none of those ethnicities, they are Hungarians its not any simpler than this. They didnt join Yugo nor Finland nor Turkey nor Arabia.
well Hungarians have both an eastern and european past and this is equally undeniable. To state one without the other is pure ignorance.
[/quote]
Well WBB you have as long as I can remember always had this anti european condition and really who knows why, but its not a result of you being Hungarian because in reality Hungarians are not typically anti European. Of course in the very least Hungarians are equally european and only ignorant people could ever deny that.
Gypsy people are Indo European anyway but Im not aware of their being particuliarly high proportion of intermarriage.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on May 30, 2009 20:40:58 GMT -5
of course it is ignorant to deny that Hungary is a European country, if somebody believes that then maybe they never been in Hungary.
Probably but they may have assimilated some Baltic/Slavic peoples even before they entered Carpathians I only mention this because some ethnologists eg Coons believes they had a significant Neo Danubian presentation even when they entered basin. Im not saying it was exactly the case but its not impossible as they are described as being involved in selling Slav slaves North of Black sea before their journey to Carpathian Basin.
Not really the Bulgarians took their ethnic name from the Bulgars but the inhabitants of the region converted the Bulgars into adopting Slavic language. So the Bulgars joined them. In Hungary any inhabitants converted to the language and identity to the Magyars and so did the newcomer immigrants that arrived in Hungary over time from both east and west. Hungary always was a place of much immigration even from very early times and right throughout her history.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on May 30, 2009 21:39:57 GMT -5
they living in Europe more than 1000 years how you can deny they are at least equally European is a bit strange.
what does it matter where it originate from for example Turks or Indonesians are not originally from Middeeast but many of them are Muslims before that Turks were Tengrists.
there is no historical evidence of any significant or dominant Muslim identification amongst the Conquest Hungarian tribes. There is information about Hungarians having their own religion which was neither Christian nor Muslim. The Hungarian high priests were not called Sheiks were they.
and the Muslims didnt join with them or vice versa and why not because probably they saw the Hungarians were not Muslims. Hungarians were at a time in some type of alliance with the Khazars and another time lived nearby the Bulgars for this reason the Arab chroniclers lumped them in with the Turks this doesnt mean they were ethnically Turks. The Byzantine nor the Armenian chronicles reported anything about Hungarians being Muslims either.
|
|
wbb
Moderator
Posts: 733
|
Post by wbb on Jun 1, 2009 3:26:37 GMT -5
loool yes there was and still is, yes christian hungarians dont want to know about it, oh poor thing. ok let's face the fact. Arpad was originally muslim, he named one of his kids...Zoltan. Zoltan is a magyar version of muslim name which is popular even today use by non-muslim hungarians. It's so interesting that Hungarians are denying that Magyars werent muslims in big number and that we didnt have any muslim identification but yet magyars had their monotheistic religion and they used a muslim name for their kids, it's very bloody interesting. hehehehe!!!! ;D
Umm we dont have to call a high priest using arab or persian words, we got a hungarian word for that, fomufti hahaha.
|
|
|
Post by lvl100 on Jun 1, 2009 11:02:01 GMT -5
...Zoltan. Zoltan is a magyar version of muslim name which is popular even today use by non-muslim hungarians. . An interesting thing that i found. I`m no expert in this matter by any means ,so this its not an argument, but rather a question, what do you say wbb, is this definition correct : ZOLTÁN
Gender: Masculine
Usage: Hungarian Possibly related to the Turkish title sultan meaning "king, sultan". This was the name of a 10th-century ruler of Hungary, also known as Zsolt.www.behindthename.com/name/zolta10n
|
|