Rate your feelings towards Romanians and Romania

[CodreanuC]

Same.

I would rather nicely ask you to abstain from voting.
I don't think romanians need someone from a country with a SMS history length to give his opinion.

[dude]

I voted and I'm indifferent to Romanians. But I am commenting just because you said not to.

[wvwvw]

# 4 Indifferent leaning towards negative

[Nurzat]

at the moment:

40.63% positive
37.50% indifferent
21.88% negative

but... probably most of those opting for indifferent are rather negative about them, I would count it as:

~50% positive
~50% negative

it's still way better than what I was expecting

[Peikko]

I'm completely indifferent. I've never even met anyone from Romania.

[Nurzat]

Do you think we should depopulate it of men and go live in it with their women?

[Ars Moriendi]

Do you think we should depopulate it of men and go live in it with their women?

Velaxa says that some couples of Hungarian/Romanian parents, even when the Hungarian is the male spouse, tend to generate children that identify as Romanian. So, it could be a solution, as long as the Magyar identity is reaffirmed once more and Hungary is a proud strong State. It it's just to have your kid barely handling Hungarian and talking to you in Slavo-Vlach, while he goes on about how great it is to be Romanian, might as well not even try.

If it is to train children in the guise of Matthias Corvinus, that in spite of their Romanian blood give their best for Hungary and see themselves as Hungarians, then of course.

[Zmey Gorynych]

Velaxa says that some couples of Hungarian/Romanian parents, even when the Hungarian is the male spouse, tend to generate children that identify as Romanian. So, it could be a solution, as long as the Magyar identity is reaffirmed once more and Hungary is a proud strong State. It it's just to have your kid barely handling Hungarian and talking to you in Slavo-Vlach, while he goes on about how great it is to be Romanian, might as well not even try.

If it is to train children in the guise of Matthias Corvinus, that in spite of their Romanian blood give their best for Hungary and see themselves as Hungarians, then of course.

Gyomber is a romanian you south-american fool. You just got trolled. Speaking of romanians in Hungary, isn't it ironic that 2 of 3 greatest figures in hungarian history were romanians by blood (ok Matthias only half romanian), the other being a mix of almost every european ethnicity except hungarian.

[Ars Moriendi]

Gyomber is a romanian you south-american fool. You just got trolled. Speaking of romanians in Hungary, isn't it ironic that 2 of 3 greatest figures in hungarian history were romanians by blood (ok Matthias only half romanian), the other being a mix of almost every european ethnicity except hungarian.

Not really. The Carpathian bassin was always a crossroads of people. In terms of "blood" (would be more accurate to say ancestry), you can track Pannonians, Huns, Avars, Slavs of different kinds, some Romanians,some Cumans, some Germans, etc. That is secondary, the thing that does matter is that the State that developed the land from a wild backwater with few cities, to one of the oldest and most important kingdoms in European history, was created by the Magyars under the Árpád dinasty.

If other peoples that lived there before, or that came after spoused the Magyar identity, only proves the great value that the State has.

Pretty similar to all the old kingdoms of Europe, France being a great example (oldest State in Europe) of how the minority of Franks, managed to revamp the Gallo-Roman majority culture, blend with it, and afterwards assimilate more people into it, whether Scandinavian Normans, Celtic Bretons or North Italian Savoyans.

Similar cases can be found everywhere. Charles V was born in Flanders and his first language was probably Dutch, yet he spent the majority of his time in Spain, and referred to the Spanish language as "the only one I use to address God". His son, John of Austria, whose mother was either Bavarian or Ashkenazi, always served the Spanish Crown, he was referred to as "Juan" by most European courts, and his identity has been sealed in Spanish history as one of the greatest generals of the Spanish Empire, in spite of being Dutch/Germanic by ancestry. Similar case to the Cardenal Infante, victor of Nordlingen.

So, the case of Hunyadi and Corvinus isn't that strange really. People that chose to serve a greater interest and identity out of their free will+education. Hungarians recognize them for that reason, not because of an ill-conceived notion of purity, that is actually devoid of meaning both in Hungarian history and human demographics.

In fact, there is one thing I find much more interesting that you might have noticed:

- Old countries with proud histories (France, Hungary, Spain, even England): Their accomplishment and heroes are numerous and they are recognized for factual victories and service to the country, regardless of their ethnic origin and personal circumstances.
- New countries, created from the XIX Century onwards: Little accomplishments to show for, and that void is in turn filled with rewriting of history. FYROM is the best example of this, tying themselves to Alexander the Great with ancestry as sole vector, in order to fill an otherwise short and uninspiring history.

[Zmey Gorynych]

Not really. The Carpathian bassin was always a crossroads of people. In terms of "blood" (would be more accurate to say ancestry), you can track Pannonians, Huns, Avars, Slavs of different kinds, some Romanians,some Cumans, some Germans, etc. That is secondary, the thing that does matter is that the State that developed the land from a wild backwater with few cities, to one of the oldest and most important kingdoms in European history, was created by the Magyars under the Árpád dinasty.

Again with the Carpathian basin? You're repeating like a parrot what blogen or some other hunagrian told you. There's no Carpathian basin but there is a Pannonian basin which does not include Transylvania. You can bow to the state as much as you like but it is men (great men) that build cities, win wars, reform the society and not the empty structure called state. If I take a look at the history of a people and their country and see that most of their achievements were made by representants of minorities it tells me something (actually a lot) about that nation.

If other peoples that lived there before, or that came after spoused the Magyar identity, only proves the great value that the State has.

Do you hear yourself: state, state, state? Do you at least understand that your ardent statism is in direct contradiction with your declared anti-globalist views. Or are you simply being a hypocrite and in fact want everyone's lives to be succumbed to the government just not the one which is taking control right now. Another major flaw (or maybe it's not flaw at all but another sample of hypocrisy) in your thinking is that despite your statist outlook you opportunistically support a nationalist movement in what you regard as an enemy state. How about some consistency !?

Pretty similar to all the old kingdoms of Europe, France being a great example (oldest State in Europe) of how the minority of Franks, managed to revamp the Gallo-Roman majority culture, blend with it, and afterwards assimilate more people into it, whether Scandinavian Normans, Celtic Bretons or North Italian Savoyans.

Similar cases can be found everywhere. Charles V was born in Flanders and his first language was probably Dutch, yet he spent the majority of his time in Spain, and referred to the Spanish language as "the only one I use to address God". His son, John of Austria, whose mother was either Bavarian or Ashkenazi, always served the Spanish Crown, he was referred to as "Juan" by most European courts, and his identity has been sealed in Spanish history as one of the greatest generals of the Spanish Empire, in spite of being Dutch/Germanic by ancestry. Similar case to the Cardenal Infante, victor of Nordlingen.

Yeah I know, the STATE, right?

So, the case of Hunyadi and Corvinus isn't that strange really. People that chose to serve a greater interest and identity out of their free will+education. Hungarians recognize them for that reason, not because of an ill-conceived notion of purity, that is actually devoid of meaning both in Hungarian history and human demographics.

Nobody said it's strange. The notion that you speak of has great importance in hungarian history because if it didn't they would have no problem recognizing Hunedoara's romanian origin.

In fact, there is one thing I find much more interesting that you might have noticed:

- Old countries with proud histories (France, Hungary, Spain, even England): Their accomplishment and heroes are numerous and they are recognized for factual victories and service to the country, regardless of their ethnic origin and personal circumstances.
- New countries, created from the XIX Century onwards: Little accomplishments to show for, and that void is in turn filled with rewriting of history. FYROM is the best example of this, tying themselves to Alexander the Great with ancestry as sole vector, in order to fill an otherwise short and uninspiring history.

I did notice it but I'm a little surprised that you included Hungary in the first category. Aren't the hungarians champions at tying themselves to various ancient peoples: huns, sarmatians, sumerians (insert any group you like here). Does this strike you as a mark of a nation with proud history or is it a symptom of a confused nation, a nation in search for its identity?