Steagul secuiesc: invenţie, tradiţie sau cârpă?


Lupte de cocosi de ambele parti, manipulari grosolane in mass-media romaneasca, putine momente lucide*… Cu toate ca putini cunosc ce este acest steag, de unde a aparut, majoritatea se pronunta din instinct: “ősi jelkép” (simbol istoric), “carpa” / “asa-zisul steag al asa-zis-ului Tinut Secuiesc” …

Steagul Secuiesc

1. Da, steagul actual a fost “inventat” (blasfemie :-), sa zicem conceput) de Kónya Ádám pentru Consiliul National Secuiesc ca steag al secuilor, iar CNS l-a si adoptat in anul 2004. (Kónya Ádám a fost directorul Muzeului National Secuiesc din Sfintu Gheorghe)

2. Prima imagine a unui steag secuiesc pare sa fie una redesenata de Cserna Károly (alte grafici istorice),  din 4 cronici aflate la Dresda si a aparut in monografia “Erdélyi hadizászlók 1601-ből”  (“Steaguri de lupta ardelenesti din 1601″) a lui Mika Sándor in 1893.  Desenele originale din cronici apartin unui inginer militar saxon, Georg Puchner, si ele reprezintă cele 130 de drapele de lupta luate de Basta si Mihai dupa lupta de la Guruslău si duse la Praga impăratului Rudolf, apoi mutate la Viena. Unul dintre drapelele de cavalerie este al lui Székely Mózes, principele de origine secuiasca (drapelul cu monograma Z M):

Steaguri de la Guraslau

Alții spun ca ar fi fost luat la Selimbar, dar, in fine, distanta in timp nu este mare, secui au fost la ambele batalii.

Tot in aceste codexuri de la Dresda apare un steag de infanterie, tot presuspus a fi secuiesc:

Steag de infanterie

Si mai avem, in dreapta sus, un steag bisericesc cu semiluna si soarele, presupus a fi din Ciucul catolic:

Steaguri de la Guraslau - 2

Steaguri de la Guraslau – 2

Insa, daca avem dubii privind simbolurile si culorile, sa ne uitam la stemele comitatelor secuiesti: steaua, luna, albastrul apar in mai toate:

Alte versiuni ale steagurilor secuiesti in acest PDF creat de o echipă la cererea lui Borboly Csaba (presedintele CJ Harghita):

Concluzia mea: steagul a fost o recreare pe baza a multor exemple, dar totusi contine simboluri traditionale ale secuilor. Da, este asociat cu scopul autonomist, fara acest curent, probabil, nici nu ar fi aparut sau nici nu ar fi atat de cunoscut.

Un alt motiv pentru care a fost necesara crearea lui este legea romaneasca ce interzice arborarea in mod permanent a stegului maghiar (al Ungarieri), deci trebuia găsit un “loctiitor”.  Acest steag este, in sine, un compromis, deoarece încearcă sa ia in considerare sensibilitatile romanilor prin admiterea ca arborarea, in mod permanent al steagului maghiar ar fi ceva prea mult, dificil de aparat, dar totusi ofera o simbolistica regiunii.

Articol scris cu ajutorul colegului nostru, istoricul Szilárd Ferenczi, pe baza brosurii Comisiei pentru Cercetarea Simbolurilor Secuieşti și cu ajutor Google :-).

Vezi si pozitia oficiala MaghiaRomânia.

Update: este o parere destul de marcanta ca intentia buna a lui Kónya Ádám nu a fost ajutata si de cunostiinte heraldice, cum spune expertul Szekeres Attila István relativ la soarele si luna:

- soarele trebuie sa se sprijine pe o singura raza, nu doua

- luna ar trebui sa fie crescanda

Szekeres da o singura scuza: in stemele Ardealului au fost folosite ambele versiuni ale lunii, vezi 2-2 pe wiki, sau cum e in stema comitatului Odorhei si Trei Scaune de mai sus. Sau cum apare pe steagurile traditionale secuiesti in brosura creata la initiativa lui Borboly Csaba: luna este descrescatoare in cele mai multe, lucrare la care a participat si Szekeres…

_________________

*

Dacă ne puteţi oferi linkuri la articole scrise cu bun simt de ambele parti, ca sa ne maseze putin muschii super-incordati, v-am fi recunoscatori!

Înapoi

About these ads

231 thoughts on “Steagul secuiesc: invenţie, tradiţie sau cârpă?

  1. Lorand–“steagul a fost o recreare pe baza a multor exemple”

    A fost creat in 2004, nu “recreat”, fiindca nu exista vre-o dovada ca a existat vreodata.
    Creat bazat pe “mai multe exemple” care sunt trei la numar din care doua sunt “presuspus a fi secuiesc” si “presupus a fi din Ciucul catolic”.
    Cel presupus din “Ciucul catolic” nu pare sa aiba vre-o legatura, cu exceptia semilunii si Soarelui” (nu ‘steaua’ ci Soarele. “Semiluna si steaua” e un simbol islamic si gasea si atunci si acum pe drapele Islamice..Turcia, Pakistan etc.)

    Mai ramane cel a lui Székely Mózes. Din el lipseste chiar “semiluna si soarele”, simbolul secuiesc cel mai cunoscut ( e drept ca avand semiluna “invers”-crescatoare).
    La vremea respectiva secuii erau aliati cu Mihai Viteazul (si apoi cu Radu Serban) impotriva lui Bathory si apoi Mozes.
    Mozes moare in 1603 in batalia de la Brasov impotriva lui Radu Serban, batalie in care secuii din Ciuc si Trei-Scaune au luptat de partea lui Radu Serban si impotriva lui Mozes si a trupelor trucesti ce il sprijineau.

    • Mai uita-te si pe culorile si simbolistica stemelor comitatelor: albastru, auriu, soare, semiluna, prea multe coincidente sa spui ca nu are antecedente.

      Cum secui ai fost in batalia de la Guraslau, iar unul distre steaguri este al lui Székely Mózes (ZM), un alt steag foarte similar (de infanterie, albastru-argintiu-albastru cu semiluna, soarele) se poate spune cu mare probabilitate ca ar fi tot al secuilor.
      Si ce daca Székely Mózes a luptat importiva principelui Báthory, asta elimina steagul lui?

      Si daca turcii, persienii au avut si ei semiluna, ce cauta pe un steag catolic din Ciuc? Turci catolici, ei?

      • —Si ce daca Székely Mózes a luptat importiva principelui Báthory, asta elimina steagul lui ?

        Da, fiindca secuii in majoritatea lor nu s-au inrolat in armata lui Bathory sau Mozes ci a lui Mihai Viteazul, si apoi a lui Radu Serban.

        Bataliile din perioda aia 1599-1603 au fost punctul culminant al unui secol de persecutii a secuilor de catre maghiari.

        Intre 1519-1521 secuii au pus mana pe arme impotriva regelui Ioan I Zápolya, A urmat răscoala din 1562 din scaunul Odorhei iar regele Ioan al II-lea (Ioan Sigismund) a luat măsuri drastice care în memoria colectivă a secuilor s-au pastrat sub formula “pierderii libertăților secuiești”. Conducătorii Gyepesi Ambrus, Pálfalvi Nagy György, Bán András au fost executați prin tragere în țeapa (un fel de Horia, Closca si Crisan varianta secuiasca)
        A urmat rascoala inabușită în 1571 a secuilor din Gheorgheni, iar la inceputul anului 1596 au avut loc evenimentele cunoscute sub numele de “carnavalul sângeros” (véres farsang).
        A vorbi de “steagul lui Székely Mózes” in acest context e o gluma istorica.

        Concluzia e ca tat herladica steagului (macar sa fi pus semiluna invers/crescatoare corect, asa cum e reprezentat corect simbolul secuiesc pe stema Romaniei/stema Transilvaniei) cat si referinta la perioada istorica respectiva sunt o abureala. O mitologie, o mistificare a anului 2004.

      • Ovidiu: un istoric este co-autor (eu doar am compilat informatiile si am adunat imaginile), alt istoric a scris o monografie despre steaguri secuiesti (ardelene), si tu tei iei de toate. Asa nu ajungem niciodata aproape de intelegere.

        Cu cit il ataci (il ataca media si politicul roman), cu atit mai tare va deveni, si oameni cu atit mai mult vor tine la el…

      • @Lorand…”Cu cit il ataci (il ataca media si politicul roman), cu atit mai tare va deveni”

        Dupa cum stii il ataca si istoricii (de profesie nu amatori) maghiari

        „Acest așa-zis steag secuiesc este luat dintr-un model de broderie de pernă… … Această făcătura, în jurul căreia se face acum atâta tevatură, a ajuns să fie impațită peste tot, ca la talcioc, fără să fie întrebați specialiștii”

        http://maszol.ro/index.php/hatter/8433-szekely-szimbolumok-vannak-a-roman-cimerben

        Pasiunea din jurul lui nu va schimba vreodata aceste aspecte.
        —-

        Ramane deci aspectul “politic” al lui, exista o miscarea autonomista in randul maghiarilor din estul-transilvaniei. Asta e adevarat, prezent, si real.

      • Masele nu inteleg heraldica, cum nici la Cluj atasamentul romanilor nu va scadea fata de stema (chiciul?) desenata de o eleva…

      • Asa-i cu masele. Ele creaza, si se delecteaza, cu astfel de kitsch-uri ca steagul secuiesc sau stema funarista a Clujului. Se adreseaza nivelului lor de perceptie si intelgere, le “gadila placut urechile”-vorba lui Caragiale.

      • Am adaugat un update la post, cu unele mici precizari despre luna invers sau nu? La soare si mie mi se pare ciudat.

      • IMPERIUL HUNILOR RASARITENI A AVUT ACESTE SIMBOLURI TURCII SI UNGURII ERAU PARTE A IMPERIULUI

  2. Lorand si Ovidiu @Nu vreau sa va tulbur intimitatea – dar imi sar in ochi cateva lucruri strigatoare la cer:

    1. Nu stiu ce cauti tu Ovidiu la steagul secuilor: o remarca culta ajunge, dar dincolo de asta, daca ei ar alege un cearsaf de nunta drept steag si se bucura la el, este DREPTUL lor!

    2. Ce fac cu acest drept, este un punct separat, parerea mea este ca in mod normal trebuie mai intai decentralizate chestiunea identitara si mutata in Ardeal unde isi are locul,
    2.a Ca un fapt divers, in discutia despre steagul banatului, pe care Ovidiu a atasat-o, la inceputul anului 2012, deci un an inainte de scandalul actual, se spune clar ca in secuime se arboreaza steagurile Ungariei SI AL MONARHIEI, intr-o veselie.. Deci a ne spune noua ca este problema izolata a lui Mincheredi sau cum se numeste comuna, nu prinde! Iar daca mai este nevoie de o explicatie de ce steagul monarhiei, DESI nu este steagul vreunui stat actual, este mai rau decat atata, se poate recurge si la foste monarhii europene: Franta, Italia. In Franta si 200 de ani dupa revolutie nu prinde bine sa pui steagul monarhiei pe o primarie, in Italia cu Savoia, cam la fel. Si este vorba de propriile lor monarhii, la noi este in plus o monarhie straina. Deci cine vine cu argumente de genul “nu este problema, caci nu este steagul unui stat”, este un golan obraznic si merita chiar trebuie tratat ca atare, IN PRIMUL RAND DE PROPRIA COMUNITATE, caci dace este nevoie sa ii aduca aminte romanii, devine problema etnica, cand de fapt este o problema stricta de respect si de bunsimt.

    3. Sa nu uitam unde traim: Europa se grupeaza in criza pe blocuri de interese, se vorbeste de Europa de Sud si de Nord. Daca cea de est se freaca la steaguri, va lua pe romaneste spus muie de nu se vede! Este urgent de toate partile sa se inteleaga ca niste tari ca Romania, Ungaria, Polonia, dar si tari mai mici ca Cehia, Slovacia, Slovenia si Baltii – isi au locul intr-un bloc comun de interese si presiunile sunt prea mari pentru a nu coordona MARE parte din interesele comune, lasandu-se in inertia prostiilor anticate, care au singurul avantaj ca nu cer efort mental sau diplomatic – stim sa ne rafuim fara nici un efort. Este o aberatie. De aceea am pus un filmusor pe dincolo: Putin promite explicit “o oferta pe care nu o puteti refuza”, sa treaca gazul prin Romania in locul Ucrainei, ba chiar pe urma romania sa poate sa il vanda mai departe in Ucraina – adica sa se rafuiasca Romanii cu Ucrainenii, nu eu! Alte dimensiuni, si noi curatam steaguri, rusine! (Repet evident: nu ca as avea ceva impotriva steagurilor in afara faptului ca distrag atentia de la probleme reale, si de la altele care se pot aborda – vezi responsabilitatea mutata in Ardeal!)

    4. Chestiunea cu turci si crestini, cum o intelegem si unii si altii este un praf in ochii al secolului 19. Nu asa stateau lucrurile. Dovada? Domnii Cruciati, mai ales cei tarzii din care a provenit si familia de Anjou curvasareau IN TOATE PARTILE: s-au aliat cu turci impotriva arabilor, au participat la toate aliantele posibile din Levant, au fost aliati cu Mongolii urmasi ai lui Ghinghis Khan – dar o CONSTANTA au avut: au pradat Bizantul crestin! Ce crestini contra musulmani? In secolul 17 incep sa inteleg ca intr-adevar si Transilvania avea un statut ca celelalte tari romane – autnomie inclinata Portii. Si de facto nimeni nu se preocupa: Se aliau cu turcii unii impotriva altora, Behtlen s-a batut cu Austriecii, dec, caci tineau Coroana, apoi se gandea la aliante cu romanii impotriva Polonezilor crestini. Dar niciodata nu am citit de un plan serios de alianta crestina pentru a-i da mai la vale pe turci. De unde doamne atata de crestini oamenii aceia – faceau ce puteau in zi, cu perspective la fel de scurte ca si bancile de astazi, ca sa isi sporeasca faima si mosiile, sau sa isi apere izemenele. Ar fi bine sa incep sa acceptam si aceasta latura a istoriei!

    • MONOTEISMUL ADUS DE ASIATICI IN EUROPA ARE CATEVA FORME-IUDAISMUL, CRESTINISMUL ,CREDINTA LUI MOHAMED.

  3. secuiul si toporul

    Senatorul muresean Marius Pascan (PDL) a declarat, marti, ca pe primaria Sovata sta arborat un steag secuiesc si “un descreierat circula cu toporul si-l pazeste, sustinand ca oricine se atinge de el va avea de suferit. Acesta este chiar lider, este presedintele PPMT din Sovata si l-a amenintat pe primarul de acolo, Peter Ferencz, in mai multe randuri”

    http://www.ziare.com/pdl/stiri-pdl/senator-pdl-un-descreierat-maghiar-pazeste-cu-toporul-un-steag-secuiesc-in-sovata-1219543

    • Ovidiu: te credeam mai destept decit sa crezi o astfel de stire! Chiar crezi ca politistii nu l-ar salta in 2 clipe daca ar pazi steagul cu un topor? Nu cred ca toti politistii de la Sovata ar fi maghiari extremisti care ii aproba gestul si de asta nu intervin…
      Daca totusi dai crezare acestei stiri, da un telefon la comisar sef de politie POPA VASILE din Sovata http://ms.politiaromana.ro/structura/politii_orasenesti.html

      Este criminal ca apar astfel de stiri …

    • stirea e adevarata, e vorba de Toth Ferenc, fost profesor…a mai facut o faza similara in 2010, i s-a dat NUP (neurmarire penala) pentru ca e bolnav, dar asta se pare ca nu il impiedica sa fie lider PPMT in acelasi timp

      Subprefectul Barczi Gyozo a confirmat faptul că barbatul avea o secure şi a spus că nu se doreşte o acţiune în forţă pentru a nu se produce o tragedie. „ După informaţiile pe care le deţin este un individ acolo înarmat cu o secure care are probleme grave de sănătate şi stă acolo păzind steagul. S-au luat toate măsurile, toată lumea aşteaptă să se liniştească omul şi să se poată înlătura steagul respectiv. Vă daţi seama că o intervenţie în forţă mi se pare deplasată din moment ce acest om suferă de o anumită boală. Mi s-ar părea exagerat şi nu vrem să se întâmple o tragedie. Este un steag care nu ştiu dacă lezează simbolurile naţionale. Am înţeles că a şi agresat un poliţist care a încercat să dea steagul jos. Dar omul se va linişti, steagul se va îndepărta şi nu vom face o tragedie din asta”, a declarat subprefec

      • Ovidiu, Lorand @ Daca un paranoic se suie pe Intercontinental si ameninta ca se arunca daca nu se dubleaza pensiile la toti cetatenii tari, atunci este de asemenea luat cu manusi, caci oameni suntem. Dar stirea nu se inregistreaza la tema “probleme sociale ale pensionarilor”, ci la fapte diverse si cancane-tragedii. Aici in loc de pensii, vrea steag: este oare acesta un motiv suficient sa fie trecut de la cancan-tragedii la probleme etnice? Faptul divers ca este lider PPMT este un fapt picant, dar poate al unei sectii cu trei membrii, ceilalti doi nedorind sa il excite. Eu nu inteleg daca asta este grija noastra!

      • Ovidiu: scuzele mele, se pare ca A EXISTAT un astfel de timpit.

        Putin probabil sa se fi intimplat la fel azi ca si in 2010, si sa il lase la fel “sa apere” steagul. Eu sincer nu cred in asta.

        Cred mai degraba ca senatorul a simtit nevoia sa debiteze ceva mare si tare.

      • Cred ca si acum e vorba de acelasi individ din 2010, Toth Ferenc.

        –Tot nu inteleg de ce l-au lasat

        E liber si repeta faza, se pare ca e un fel de celebritate locala in Sovata.
        E un fel de “nebunul satului”.

      • Daca a fost asa, cu atit mai rau ca un senator PDL se ia de un om bolnav si manipuleaza ca uite ce fel de oameni sint maghiarii.

        Si inca o data IMI CER SCUZE ca am reactionat pripit.

      • –un senator PDL se ia de un om bolnav si manipuleaza ca uite ce fel de oameni sint maghiarii….

        Da, poti spune ca stirea e “politica”, e genul de stire care atrage atentia (topor, chestii) si care ii pune intr-o lumina negativa pe cei care ar vrea sa sustina steagul secuiesc…e un atac mediatic politic de fapt.

    • vezi ca e si un interviu cu Emil Imre pe EvZ

      —Cum te simţi după acest loc doi?

      Mă simt mândru. Nu, aşa, umflat! Adică nu mă umflu acum, după această performanţă, dar sunt mândru. Şi pentru mine, şi pentru România. Această performanţă înseamnă mult pentru shorttrack- ul românesc.

      –Ai concurat pentru România. Te deranjează?
      Păi, eu m-am născut în România. Sunt de etnie maghiară, dar sunt român.

      • Ovidiu, voi comenta in engleza acum, ca mi-e mai usor sa exprim aceste idei (si tu stii engleza foarte bine, dine cate am observat).

        I am glad that this athlete has called himself a Romanian, and I hope more ethnic Hungarians will do so in the future. What I’ve noticed though is that there’s a convenience factor to when people of other ethnicities are called Romanians. There’s usually an implied meaning of the term – it can refer to nationality or ethnicity. It’s my experience that many ethnic Romanians do not normally refer to ethnic Hungarians as “Romanians”, except in cases where Romania’s unity comes into question. The two notions of the word are almost inextricably confused by design, due to the nation-state legacy. I personally think that removing the nation state status of Romania would encourage more ethnic Hungarians to view and declare themselves as Romanians. The currently accepted term of “Romanian of Hungarian origin” puts nationality and ethnicity into rivalry while further contributing to the confusion of the two terms.

    • Scene de pomina: maghiari si romani nu se pot bucura in comun si liniste de succesul timidului si talentatului Imre – si sunt dezgustati cand vestea este anuntata de Ovidiu. La mine in mahala s-ar fi spus “sa te … pe tine de ras”, mare scortosenie! Eu ma bucur oricum pentru el, caci se pare ca a muncit mult si parintii lui se bucura tare.

  4. @gmaghera—

    —It’s my experience that many ethnic Romanians do not normally refer to ethnic Hungarians as “Romanians”..

    That’s wrong, the very opposite is the case. The ethnic Romanians living in Romania tend to refer to (to “see”) everybody who was born and/or has lived in Romania a long time as being “Romanian”. This is confirmed by the sociological studies : the ethnic Romanians living in Romania tend to use even about themselves(!) a “mixed” territorial-ethnic identity concept.

    It is also confirmed by the lack of interest, lukewarm attitude, of the Romanian state (and of the ethnic Romanians living in Romania) for their “ethnic kin”, for the ethnic-Romanians living in the surrounding other states (Ukraine, Bessarabia/Moldavia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary). They are perceived as being “less Romanian” because their lack of the state-territorial part of their identity.
    This lack of interest is noticed by the ethnic Hungarians living in Romania (even by those writing here as Lorand and Reccsman) with some sort of bewilderment. After all, there are more ethnic Romanians living outside Romania than ethnic Hungarians living outside Hungary yet there is no “Trianon-trauma” subject in the Romanian politics and no obsession with “saving” the “lost brothers” undergoing cultural and/or ethnic assimilation in the neighboring countries.

    What you say “do not normally refer to ethnic Hungarians as “Romanians” is a reaction, a reply, of the ethnic Romanians to the way the ethnic Hungarians living in Romania define themselves and their relation with the country. The Hungarians (not all, see Emil Imre- but most of them, perhaps 80%) don’t want to be regarded this way. They protest when the Romanians use it and assert that they are “Hungarians” first and foremost, they are a “political nation” not an ethnic-group which part of the Romanian nation. Romania is not their country (you see, they live in ‘Erdely’-alone), the Romania’s flag is not their flag, and Budapest is not their capital. And so on and so forth with “curing” Trianon, the Romanian “occupation” of Transylvania, etc.

    This hostility toward Romania, this lack of identification with the country of the Hungarians is known all to well by the Romanians (and asserted directly or implicitly daily by the Hungarian politicians and intellectuals, just in case the Romanians may forget) and the “reply” of the Romanians is one in kind : a hostility toward the Hungarians and toward anything-Hungarian in Romania.

    –The currently accepted term of “Romanian of Hungarian origin” puts nationality and ethnicity into rivalry while further contributing to the confusion of the two terms.

    No. It puts them into rivalry just as much as American-Jews, American-Polish

    Let me explain it to you in a way that you can understand.

    Let’s say a category of Americans, say the American-Muslims start define themselves as a being a “political nation” in US and start demanding “equality”.

    Equality with whom ? With the Americans !
    You see my friend, they are Muslims, they are part of the great political Muslim-nation-community (called “Ummah” in the Islamic theology) not to the American nation, their capital is Mecca-pest, and they want the Szekely-flag..I mean the flag of Islam ( which is green and with “Allah is great” written in Arabic on it) to be put on the White-House along with the US flag..otherwise it means that they are not respected, that their “rights” are not respected, that they are 2nd-hand citizens, and so on.

    • Ovidiu @ “there is no “Trianon-trauma” subject in the Romanian politics and no obsession with “saving” the “lost brothers” undergoing cultural and/or ethnic assimilation in the neighboring countries.” – To you and Lorand and Co, one should recall insistingly the fact that this apparent lack of interest has at least one very object reason. While Hungary has lost its territories and population 1) to quite small and not very important countries and 2) due to a specific treaty which was established with some good respect of international law, Romania has lost its territories to big USSR, as a consequence of the Hitler-Stalin pact, which was accepted passively by the allies, keeping a strict international CONSENSUS not to mention the fact: during post WWII era, not only was it impossible to discuss in the communist countries about Bessarabia and Bucovina, but also the Baltic States, etc. Even in the West the subject was quite tabu, in School in Zürich there was quite a silence when I mentioned it at history, etc. THEREFORE, Hungary started immediately after 1920 a statal policy of revendications and questioning the mentioned losses.

      On the other hand, in Rumania, we were living among refugees from Bessarabia and Bucovina, who were SCARED to mention their origins, relatives left in the USSR; etc, to say nothing of the complete tabu in press and education. I VEHEMENTLY disaprove the idea that there would be a popular lack of solidarity to those romanians. At least in my childhood, it was a frequent subject of discussion behind closed doors. But the long period of tabu-isation had a strong impact upon the issue. And the attitude is also very different from the attitude to romanians from south of the Danube, where the experience of their
      prosecution by the local governments – Greek, Bulgarian, Albanian, Serb, etc – always had a feed – back upon the romanian attitude. And there too, the communist period had a strong impact – selling schools and land belonging to the romanian state, for getting currencies, etc. So let us be fair!

      • @Preda–I VEHEMENTLY disaprove

        You “vehemently disapprove” but you do not say anything which would disprove what I said. I take it that we agree on the facts.

        —THEREFORE, Hungary started immediately after 1920 a statal policy of revendications and questioning the mentioned losses…

        Yes and it has become part of how Hungarians define themselves, including those living in Romania.
        This won’t change, it is part of their “identity”. In towns like Miercurea Ciuc/ Csikszereda that lie deep in the Romanian mountains, nearly a thousand kilometres from Budapest, the Hungarians watch the evening news from Budapest, not from Bucharest.
        A powerful, if deeply ideological and largely fantastical, rejection of the world as it is.

      • Ovidiu: let’s not make Trianon issue out of everything. Hungarian people in Romania consume (this is the right word!) media IN HUNGARIAN (ie. not Hungarian media): they buy local newspapers in Hungarian, they listen to radio stations in Hungarian (and sometimes in Romanian: when I’m in Cluj, there is a good hard rock FM station!, would you believe it?), they watch “magyar adás” (programul in limba maghiara) on RTV, they use Internet sites from ALL OVER the world, and probably tune-in to romanian sports channel, or might watch a movie on Romanian channels. I do not know how much of them watch Romanian news vs Hungarian channel news.
        And yes, some of the channels they follow are broadcasted from Hungary. Key thing is: “IN HUNGARIAN”!

        Sorry to say, it is sick translating this into an example of “rejection of Trianon” or rejection of the world.

      • Ovidiu @ “You “vehemently disapprove” but you do not say anything which would disprove what I said. I take it that we agree on the facts.” – I bet you have not read what I explained (because with your level of knowledge, I hardly can believe that you have problems understanding what I referred to: a good part of the apparent lack of active interest of the Romanians in their brethrens is due to the incomparable ballance of power between us and post-war Russia: Hungary has never been occupied or under total dependencies of either Romania, Slovakia or Croatia, but Romania definitely was under those who did occupy part of the country indeed beyond any international law. So this is to me a part of the fact which cannot be semantically split apart from the “observables” that you talk about.

    • Ovidiu, aside from the extremist few, the reaction is to what they view as a state trying to dissolve their ethnic identity, blending it into the national one.

      Your comparison to the terms used in the U.S. is somewhat shaky. When someone says Romanian-American or Hungarian-American it is well known that they are expressing two different notions combined into one. American is not an ethnicity. Combining the two terms together pays equal respect to two different aspects of a person’s identity simultaneously. Compare that to saying X of origin Y (as the official term), which implies a transition from Y to X (assimilation).

      “Let’s say a category of Americans, say the American-Muslims start define themselves as a being a “political nation” in US and start demanding “equality”.
      Equality with whom ? With the Americans !”

      Americans are all equal. Muslim-Americans, Romanian-Americans, Hungarian-Americans, or whatever you will. They are all Americans. If a group in America felt they needed to construct a political nation to preserver their culture, that would mean that the fundamental values which make up America have been lost. Let me remind you that the American nation was founded by Europeans leaving their country of origin to get away from persecution based on ethnicity, religion, or political view. The trend continues today.

      My comment is turning into something about the U.S., which wasn’t my intention, but if you do want to compare the two the difference is huge. Cultural, ethnic, and religious diversity are at the very basis of the U.S. In the case of nation-states, diversity is more like a nuisance they just have to deal with.

      • — the reaction is to what they view as a state trying to dissolve their ethnic identity..

        their view is a phony rhetorical device meant to legitimize their drive to build a separate political nation. In the present day Romania there are no policies of assimilation and the state supports a whole network of educational and cultural institutions for the Hungarian minority.

        —in the case of nation-states, diversity is more like a nuisance

        it is not the ethnic diversity, the ethnic heterogeneity, which a nuisance for a nation state but the ethnonational hetereogeneity.

        Some ethnic/religious minority groups pursue this path of the politicization of the (ethnic) identity while others do not. In Romania the Hungarians do pursue this self-definition in “national-political” terms and they fight for its institutionalization, it is a not a mere ethnocultural definition,

        The Romanians correctly perceive their intentions and react to them. That’s the whole issue, the rest is demagogy.

    • Here’s a question to you, Ovidiu, and to everyone else. When someone declares themselves as Romanian, do you expect that to be their ethnicity or their nationality? What if someone who you haven’t met declared himself Romanian, then you met him later and found out the his ethnicity is not Romanian, and maybe he did not speak the language very well? Would you feel that he only told you part of the truth? That maybe he cheated a little in how he declared himself? Now what if this was a Roma person wanted by the Europol for some heinous crime? (admins, sorry about the use of a stereotype, but it was necessary for the example) I see people quickly drawing the line between ethnicity and nationality when it does not fit their agenda.

      • –do you expect that to be their ethnicity or their nationality ?

        I don’t expect that his ethnicity to be Hungarian (since I know how the Hungarians living in Romania think/behave, etc). ..but there are some rare exceptions as this Emil Imre so.. yes, I can get it wrong sometimes.

      • I’m asking more in general terms. We all have an assumption of what saying Romanian, Hungarian, or American (without any further qualifiers) means. In the U.S. it is assumed that you are referring to the nationality, in Hungary or Romania it is assumed to mean ethnicity. That’s one reason why not too many ethnic Hungarians don’t view themselves as Romanians, or why many Romanians dislike the term Moldovan preferred by some of their brethren from across the Prut.

      • Maghera @ Appologize me if I interfere, but I see a great danger that we start acting as if language could be a SUBSTITUTE for LIFE. It is not – so your questions have no answer, and if they had one, the answer would not be very relevant. A guy says he is Romanian and turns out to be a hungarian speaking poor Romanian – discovering this, you have the second act of the theater-play: he might be someone who is trying to be over nice, leaking self-confidence – you try to encourage him. He may be someone perfectly normal, who has made some simplifying choice about the statement of his identity: you may start to discover him, without worrying about his ehnicity or nationality (which we once discovered anyhow that it means different things in American and European tradition). Or he may be a gypsy searched by Interpol, and then you put your hand on his chest and challenge him to split up the money with you :-) Just joking.

        And the term “Moldovan” is hardly prefered by some of our brethren across the Prut, it is prefered by other people … don’t participate in the confusion. Sorry, I really believe that terminology becomes boring beyond a point. I will always be a german or swiss mathematician when I have nice results, and certainly a romanian if I cross the road at the wrong spot, or, God beware, do something worse, like solidarizing with a gypsy singing along the road in the city. And trying to change this here, there or anywhere, is quite absurd.

      • Preda, you’re not interfering, I welcome your comments always. I only emphasize terminology because I honestly believe that ethnic Hungarians would show more allegiance towards the Romanian state, if they did not feel like that comes the at expense of giving up their heritage.

        My comment about Romanian people of Moldovan citizenry wasn’t meant to be a low-blow (and I apologize if it felt that way), but if we’re going to define people by the state they belong to, we might want to be consistent. I’m just frustrated how the ethnic and national aspect of someone’s belonging are conveniently used this way or the other by some folks.

        “I will always be a german or swiss mathematician when I have nice results …” It’s funny you say that. Romanians are known as good mathematicians, here state-side. I was once asked by a professor (after impressing him with some solution) where I got my high-school education. When I told him it was Romania, he said “Ah, no wonder, Romania has one of the best math education systems in the world.” I felt very proud of Romania hearing him say that.

      • Maghera @ “if they did not feel like that comes the at expense of giving up their heritage.” – I think we are more bluntly reduced to crude facts and feelings like this, over here. That is that matter – nurturing the illusion that the challenge can be solved in language, is not a eastern european attitude, and also the individual who use political correctness to deal with the arab issue in France or turkish one in Germany, are not very convincing. I guess that what I am saying is that in the discourse about deonomination not much remains.

        Look, forget moldavians. Take someone over 40 who tells you “ich bin ein Berliner”. It very much matters, if he grew up in East or West Berlin, but his identity is of the half city in which he grew up, and which once and now again is a whole city. You will not ask him which “half of Berlin”? Right? And you will not develop a political correct addressing in order to let that piece of information come over automatically. You will RELATE TO A PERSON, and soon you will find out, without being too pushy. This is what I was trying to say when I claimed that the process of approaching and relation is what counts, and it cannot be solved by conventions alone. And sometimes conventions don really help. I do believe that in the more and more complex structure of identities we develop in Europe, you need to go beyond conventions to discover people. One can very well be today this and tomorrow that, to some extent, without being unfaithfull to any major law of life, which is what counts. And conversely, one will be perceived by others one way or another, quite independently of one’s one statements and selfdefinitions.

      • bravo tie! de acum poti sa mergi in us fara viza, pt ca asta era un deziderat pt orice maghiar (sau esti secui, ceea ce nu e acelasi lucru,nu?) traitor in transilvania? o romanca.

  5. acuma serios Ovidiu, dar nu cred că problema identitară la nivel profesionist va dezbate un copil de 16, care este și sportiv..să fim serioși…românul reprezintă un etnonin, și gata…dacă începem să ne luăm de steagul României și acolo am găsi chichițe, dragul meu…nici articolul nu este Ok, deoarece: 1. orice ce apare este o invenție umană 2. dacă invenția umană ține devine tradiție 3. tradiția poate să fie de lungă sau de scurtă durată….în momentul ăsta dacă te duci în Secuime și înyrebi, 9 din 10 oamenii recunosc drapelul…restul, cu specialiși este frecangeală, scuză-mă tipic balcanică

    • Nu inteleg ce vrei, Viking. Nu am afirmat ceva contrar la ce spui tu.
      Noi dezbatem, nu copiii de 16 ani, sau ‘masele’ cum zice Lorand. Ei adopta o pozitie sau alta dupa dupa cum sunt educati/socializati in familie, grup de prieteni, scoala, biserica.

      Cum gandeste Emil Imre mai sunt si altii. Nu e ceva surprinzator dar nu e nici regula in randul maghiarilor. Tu nu gandesti la fel, foarte bine dar eu nu incercam sa te conving pe tine sa gandesti altfel ci doar sa arat ca sunt mai multe feluri de a vedea lucrurile.

      –în momentul ăsta dacă te duci în Secuime și înyrebi, 9 din 10 oamenii recunosc drapelul…restul, cu specialiși este frecangeală, scuză-mă tipic balcanică…

      nu vad ce e “tipic-balcanic” in discutia despre heradica steagului. Tu cred ca ai idee fixa sa identifici ca “balcanic” orice nu iti convine in Romania. E o stereotipie des intalnita in discursul politic al minoritatii maghiare din RO.

      • Ovidiu @ “. E o stereotipie des intalnita in discursul politic al minoritatii maghiare din RO.” – ca sa fim sinceri, trebuie sa recunoastem ca sunt si nenumarati romani, care in nenumarate ocazii se lamenteaza de “balcanismul” statului nostru. Cand ei ajung sa exagereze (caci problemele revendicate sunt din pacate reale), atunci sunt “defetisti, fatalisti”, etc. Cand un maghiar o ia pe aceleasi cale, este etnic.

        Foaie verde de gulash, ne-ntelegem mintenash!

      • –Cand ei ajung sa exagereze .. atunci sunt “defetisti, fatalisti”

        Ai inteles gresit, Preda.

        Cand ei ajung sa exagereze, sa devina bizari (ca “Viking” mai sus ) atunci tu incepi sa te intrebi daca cumva sunt maghiari dat fiind faptul ca aceasta idee falsa care sustine ca minoritatea maghiara este “mai moderna” si “mai europeana” decit majoritatea romaneasca (care ar fi “balcanica”) e o tema/idee fixa a discursului maghiar.

      • Ovidiu @ “idee falsa care sustine ca minoritatea maghiara este “mai moderna” si “mai europeana” decit majoritatea romaneasca” – lumea este plina de idei false, dar exista unele comportamente care sugereaza “ceva”, unii le folosesc pentru a consolida prejudecati, altii, in mod mai elastic, ca un punct de plecare precaut, spre o intelegere, descoperire, etc. Exista unele traditii maghiare care cand sunt traite viu, pot foarte bine sugera – chiar pe buna dreptate – o latura mai moderna decat o “anumita” majoritate de romani. Teama imi este insa ca in acelasi timp, in ultima vreme, se dezvolta si o latura care – europeana, andina sau himalaiana, ce o fi – imi cam displace. O numesc Victimita fascizabila. Si are aspecte foarte europene, poate avea si balcanice – nu-mi place, period. Asa ca nici nu am inteles gresit, nici nu prea ma orientez in aceasta discutie, se pare ca am alte puncte cardinale?

  6. Maghera @ And one last thing – which may be the synthesis of what I said. You mention: “I’m just frustrated how the ethnic and national aspect of someone’s belonging are conveniently used this way or the other by some folks.” – well, REFUSE THEM THAT FRUSTRATION, that’s about the best thing you can do. Getting involved in changing is in general hopeless, and hoping that some regulation or grammar we exclude the phenomenon, is hilareous – just make the people writing the law or the grammar book a little richer. We should never forget that there is also a freedom of choice about getting mature …

    Sorry if it sounds a bit sad, it isn’t really. And by the way, you can always, for a change, strike one of them idiots by making good fun of him or her, or a serious sermon when he or she (how romantic, a woman – idiot, yet it happens too!) went too far. It helps, and they usually get impressed – but do not recall much of the meaning, which is the reason why insisting or trying to regulate is lost time.

    • I hear you, Preda. The phrase “beating on a dead horse” comes to mind when I look at how much we’ve talked about this. But still, if we’re going to try to objectively debate something, the terminology needs to be clear. At least at the official level. It’s hard to argue something if we arbitrarily change the meaning of terminology.

      I feel that my original message got lost in the back-and-forth comment exchange, so I’ll restate it. Disconnect ethnicity from nationality and you’ll gain a whole new gang of proud nationals. I think that many ethnic Hungarians would very much welcome the chance to have a closer tie to their country, even if they don’t express that now. It’s not just terminology, that’s only a tiny part of it. It is the mentality that needs to change (on both sides) – and that’s underway already.

      • Maghera @ The need of some simple unified language at official level – you beat me, that is indeed needed!

        When you ellaborate on the second idea – it becomes more interesting. I see the wish that identity – bound to an other language, customs etc – might be lived in peace with the human thrive to be faithful to the community at large. I think this is a very important things which is worth reminding even – no, especially! – when things go wrong, or stuttering, to say the least. The wish for faithfullness and living in harmony is there – see Imre for the first, see Csilla for the second. But along time to some more, to some less, a life experience may interfere which says this faithfullness is abused, the community towards which it is exerced is blind towards the important specificity of the individual, and that particular individual, endowed with a particular ethnicity, is not willing – for obvious reasons – to give it up. Now your formula is “Disconnect ethnicity from nationality and you’ll gain a whole new gang of proud nationals.” How is that going to happen? You end by recongnizing yourself, that it is a process – you say “the mentality that needs to change (on both sides)”. Indeed, change comes from within, as it is being said!

        I was talking yesterday to a catalan student of mine (the official dream of the Szeklers, isn’t it?) – touching many vicious aspects of modern world and state organization. Finances first of all – looking at the exorbitant abuses that have been done during the last 3-4 decades, worldwide, on the one side. And looking at the collective tough luck of the Eastern Europen countries, which emerged out of the darkness and entered Europe, long after the money was gone and only the need to build up markets was still there. There you would expect that all of these countries slowly melt together, in order to build up a common voice – like the southern countries currently do in order to attenuate the saving thrive of the north, which in their eyes only profits. But what happens is not this natural – but rational – step towards common selfdefense. Instead, there is an attraction towards what has been known for centuries: whining and seeing the enemy in the neighbout, the rest is too remote and abstract, so we do what we know to do :-) It is more than a joke. And puts the difficulties of the process on an other level.

        Which deserves consideration, because it is obvious to me, that if the countries – both, Romania and Hungary – were in an safe upside spiral, maybe like the western coutries in the 60-es – and there was a protected vision of a satisfied and plentyfull future … well my dear friend, then suddently thos positive thrives and apsects of personality would lead, without sensible obstacle. My opinion.

  7. Szanyi is a filthy communist and all his actions and affirmations prove this assertion. He has no respect for the Szeklers or the ethnic Hungarians in general, he perceives us and our strong Hungarian identity as some sort of danger to his liberal-communist ideology and grabs every opportunity to undermine our dignity. He often affirms that ethnic Hungarians are in fact Romanians, Slovaks, etc. In other word he denies our very existence as part of the Hungarian nation. The fact that he compares us to Gypsies from Hungary is just another act in his campaign against us, nothing more, nothing less.

  8. I’d also like to point out an essential flaw in Sanyi’s reasoning: even though a (small) part of the Szeklers have obtained Hungarian citizenship, they have still remained Romanian citizens as well. Hence, their relation with the Romanian state has not been altered. Furthermore, according to the current legislation they cannot lose or renounce their Romanian citizenship as long as they reside in Romania. Citizens with multiple citizenship who also possess Romanian citizenship are treated as Romanian citizens by Romanian law, regardless of what other citizenships they may hold. Thus the Szeklers, as Romanian citizens, have the same rights in Romania as they did before applying for dual citizenship.

    • Pedro @ Daca esti inca incalzit de intrigile curente, citeste mai mult aici in jur: nu dreptul la steag este problema, in perceptia celor care discuta aici cel putin! De aceea nu este nici necesar acest instinct de auto-injosire care face sa arati cu degetul te miri unde in lume. Nu este nevoie – poti avea incredere in drepturile tale neconditionate, sa fie sanatosi bascii cu Harry Batasuna si cu toate calitatile, viciile si omorurile lor.

  9. Aron @ “He has no respect for the Szeklers or the ethnic Hungarians in general, he perceives us and our strong Hungarian identity as some sort of danger to his liberal-communist ideology and grabs every opportunity to undermine our dignity. ” – I can understand your pain!

    Yet, since I dislike hypocrisy, I will not hide a feeling of stupefaction, this is why: During the last 3-4 decades, especialy abroad, we have (I also have, personally) been so often testimony of very astitute and quite vicious constructions made by hungarians to either compare romanian or even identify them to gypsy, to profit for instance of the impression that the several thousands which had been sent by Ceausescu abroad, in the late 1980’s made in the world, in order to encourage prejudice – and it was very simple and effective, since not much information about romanians was circulated after WWII and EVERYONE has his dark side, who enjoys malicious jokes and thoughts, especially when encouraged in that direction, and when feeling there is no counter-reaction to that. Even understanding the game, it was NOT NICE. So now that I see one Hungarian treating other Magyars like gypsies, there is a small laughter – just an other agenda, and here we got it, the trained tallent of denigration.

    Of course, turning back to a more serious argument, life is indeed a bitch! Because I could not have a real sense of satisfaction, unless exactly the same kind of people who acted instrumentally against the reputation of “romanians” as a whole, would be somehow the object of such public comparisons. But it seems that they are “protected”, whilst Szeklers who hardly have much with those activities, are the ones hurt. So believe me, I only laughed at the _possibility_, those who really deserved it, would be object of such attacks. It is not the case here :-(

    • Do you honestly think that the misidentification of Romanians as Gypsies, which can often be witnessed abroad, is due to Hungarian propaganda? I think it has more to do with the image Gypsies originating from Romania created about themselves through their unlawful behavior. It is no secret that many (if not all) of them went abroad to continue the same criminal activities they were already infamous for here in Romania. The negative image thus created was then generalized by foreigners and became a stereotype for all Romanian citizens.

  10. Aron @ I do not honestly believe something and say something else – or is this what you expect!? What you say is your deduction, and wrong one, from what I really said.

    Whad I did say is that there were, 20, 30 and more years ago – possibly there still are – hungarian pawns, effective in helping crystalize this and other prejudice: seeding is the art, the spreading takes care of itself. That is DEEPLY different from saying they are “the cause”. They are among the birth-helpers, you would not say birth helpers are the cause of a child; and, of course, every metaphor has its limitations. Anyhow, If it is your pleasure to misunderstand the difference, it can be mine to bid you farewell. I am so sorry to have such a vicious mind and experience and speak out among an army of shy innocents …

    • It is not my pleasure to misunderstand you but it seems to me that you tend to generalize based on personal experience. I do not deny that Hungarians often display disrespect towards Romanians, but it also happens the other way around. How often I have been called “bozgor” or been aggressed otherwise for speaking Hungarian in Timisoara (an otherwise quite tolerant city). I still do not go as far as to draw any serious conclusions from this. These attitudes manifest themselves at the individual level, you cannot generalize from such personal experiences.

      • Aron @ I thought that I should give you examples of what I mean, you might really not know. On the other hand, bringing examples which are quite irrefutable and speak for some clear asymmetry of efficiency, would only help create new waves of counter-attacks, breaking down to micro-detail in order to relativize a message, etc, etc.

        All I can tell you is this: there are good reasons why in the last 4-5 decades Hungarians have been much more influent in the world than Rumanians, who were not at all. I am not talking Timisoara or Miercurea Ciuc, Bucarest or Budapest – I am talking places of real influence on mass information and politics worldwide, places which are accessible nevertheless. And there were people who used this advantage working at the image level quite intensively. Tökes for example, appears to me as just one production of the project. I am not exagerating, I do not believe it is an almighty project, I do not know how far it is today, it may have gone through some defeats.

        But I am not talking about everyday Janos’s thoughts and manifestations versus Romanians, versus everyday Mitica vice-versa. I am talking about some quite cynical guys who are strongly convinced that thinking of the understanding of people is weakness and stupidity, and you must have a firm goal, and achieve it on a long term by all means. People who can use any discourse, because they are outside the discourse.

        For normal mortals, I incline to believe that the sum of everyday Mitica’s is a multiple of small viciousnesses. While the sum of average Janos maybe in some respects better.

        But the viciousness invested for helping the distortion of the image of Romania, is a reality. And in my opinion, although in a traditional understanding of strategy of the kind “use your ennemy’s weak points and moments”, it was the right thing to do, in was still a great
        stupidity. It was stupid by the way the question was posed to start with. And the consequences are felt also by the Hungarians in Romania, that is sad!

        If you know what I mean – and I do believe you should have some notion at least of this – then you may understand my point of view. I do not expect that you share it. And if you really do not know, and believe we are talking statistical averages, then it is quite a long discourse to make, I do not know if I am inclined for trying that now.

  11. Aron @ And one thing you can be sure – I am NOT speaking about personal bad experiences; I keep my childishness alive, but it is a long time since I am not a child any more! I can in general defend myself quite well against individuals who behave like wolves in a goat’s skin – no matter if the way is agressive or hypocritical.

    It is not about me – like your mentioning people calling you names – which is dislikeable. It is about the way international structures were “infiltrated” – maybe a too strong word – and used to the supposed advantage of Hungarians that “should” follow from the detriment of Rumanians. And for so much more it is not generalizing – I never said “the hungarians” do this or that. But I said there had been a very influential activity of some hungarians. Please notice the difference.

      • No Maghera, not at all. I am referring to an apparently loose network of monarachy nostalgics – which one could at first glance consider as harmles as their austrian counterparts. But they were there to “explain” Romania in press, in international organisms – money! – and had PACs in America. Paul Lendvai for instance talks like a moderate exponent: to them there is no doubt and thus no need of verification, that Hungary went through the most mischevious unjustice of modern history, and they are called to correct on that against the main perpetuators, by all means. I mean, this mentality is so wide spread, that you will not have problems recruiting people.

        And most of all I do not want to talk about them any more – they are disgusting, like arrogance and hypocrisy is. And I am afraid that they are not without influence in the WAY hungarians in Transylvania chose to yearn for their identity and ethnic rights. It is a natural thrive, but basically it can have many expressions – it went so far, that noone even ponders upon the possibility that an other approach might be better. I simply sense manipulation, irritating manipulation (the romanian is very transparent, yet irritating too!).

    • (had to keep the previous comment short, my boss walked by)

      I’m asking because I’m genuinely curios. The first time I heard the term Roma was long after I left Romania, and I wondered how those two names were so close and how come I haven’t heard that before. Later I heard of accusations of the denigration scheme of Soros (who’s highly reputed in the U.S., but the actual work of his foundation is not well known), but then I’ve also read reports of Roma having called themselves Rromani for a while.

    • I am sorry, but all this sounds heavily paranoid and I find it difficult to take it seriously, let alone agree. I, as a Hungarian, do not observe this great international power you claim we have. On the other hand you seem to believe that everyone who fights for our rights (i.e. Tőkés) and dares to scratch the surface of the “Hungarians are treated exemplarily in Romania” propaganda and point out that it is not quite so, is considered by you an enemy of the “good image of Romania”. The problem here is that, in my view, this good image of Romania you so vehemently defend in but a mask, a cheap fake that has no grounds to exist. The truth is that we are by far not treated exemplarily, but rather as second rate citizens who can and will be harassed by the state on every given occasion for being and thinking differently than the Romanian majority. We still do not have the proper means to study in our mother tongue at the university level, we are always treated with suspicion when we celebrate our national holidays, we are denied the right to bring home and rebury the remains of our exiled ancestors (see the infamous Nyírő case), we are constantly offended in our dignity by being referred to as “Romanians of Hungarian origin” instead of the correct “Hungarians living in Romana” and the list could go on and on. So do not talk to me about the lack of the good image of Romania, because it has no grounds to exist.

      • Aron -Sorry, I meant “I am paraoid TO YOU”. And you may or may not farewell, but look that someone else could ask a question and he got an answer. You continue not to understand what I say, but feel free to judge. Not a way I appreciate, in all due respect!

  12. Maghera @ No, it is not about the confusion between Romani and Rumanians, that was a late and small side-show. It is about the whole. We talk people who had an agenda in “serving the base instincts” of westerners, the satisfaction to talk bad about someone – and used for this arguments going from KaKanic prejudices, to ideas like “Romania betrayed twice their allies in WWII”, and how many more. Lies that penetrated since there was no romanian voice around. The orgy happened when US was trying so support in Romania something like Solidarnosc in Poland; since the romanian resistance was less articulate, eventually someone suggested the “village distruction plan” as an “ethnic genocide”. The US decided that in lack of something else, this theme could be used for combating Ceausescu. And it gave the way open to anything that imagination could do, in terms of difamation which of course did not stop at the comunist regime, but hit the nation itself. All lies of course, since there hardly had been a village of ethnic hungarians physically destroyed. But this only some consciencious journalists discovered, when they could enter Romania in 1990 and were searching desparately for the traces of the “ethinc genocide” – there were no traces, since there had been nothing of the extent they had been trained to describe – they felt duped, but it was too late.

    Soros – I hardly believed he was directly involved. But of course, having hungarian origin, some people my have acted also under his umbrella. However I tend to believe that it is more stupid Romanians, who could not understand where from all this antagonism came, and saw and influential hungarian name: they spread the rumour “it’s him”. I don’t believe.

    If you ask me, how I know? Simple: because I was told by them. I reacted as an individual the little I could, got to know some people, got friends with a chief redactor at a major Zürcih newspaper who was of (jewish-slovak) hungarian origin. And as a friend he once told me straight: “Preda, we understood right away that it was not the fight and not the justice, but the diplomacy of Bratianu which made romania ‘win’ in 1920, and since then we leard to do better than him, to win back”. And he made no secret of acting in his position at the journal ALSO as a part of that “we”; combining with many other experiences, I know he did not lie about this. I was stonned, and stuttered something that this is not chess, there is also something like a right or wrong. But I was young and still under our romanian education of being reverentious to elder people – today I would argue better, but also without big impact.
    Why was he so sincere? I was probably something like a “house jew” to him, an exceptional romanian, harmless and proper, why hide away from him?

    Look what we see on this blog, the merry go round of people who essentially do want to get to terms with each others, but keep misunderstanding on either side! Why is it so? Because those people ahead on the stream of actions and ideas have chosen the wrong path, the easy path of nostalgia and benefiting of the temporary weakness of Romania. And created the false impression that rights come from radical, segregrational opposition. The common citizen has not the time to think things through, so it works in spite of his interests and maybe common sense. They spread the seeds, they created some firts line pawns like Tökes, they created the ideologies on which Orban nourishes currently, and they led thus the means to distract from the genuine problems and interests, by some emotional overdoing.

    Because we have only one Kalaci here who knows to be a proud hungarian and know he can very well be one and state at the same time “If the majority was led by a minority, I do not think there has been an unjustice”. We do not need much more – everyone can understand that there is sufference for the hungarians, that there is a harceling and a short sighted attitude of refusing minor things, thus keeping people irritated. But it is as well true, that it is impossible to know where the line is between a Borbely who says in this open “We have lost at 1241, we have lost at 1526 and at 1918, now we shall fight for our rights”. Thus basically putting the Romanians in line with tartars and turcs, and mentioning 1918 instead of 1948, when the issue was about the posessions nationalized by communists – an act which did not hit Hungarians in a preferential way. This is what I mean! I see that many hungarians developed and maintain an instinct of taking ANY historical precedent or analogy, disrespecting the context just to draw some conclusions about what they think is there own saga. I do not believe they are right doing so, I can understand their malaise, but they harm themselves and the others by this nombrilism.

    Why is it so difficult to be like Kalaci? Be proud, be beautiful and selfconfident of your culture and your past – but be human and do not fear to acknowledge the right and dignity of others, fearing maybe that this might diminish the untouchable rights of your own community! Try it, do it – for most romanians it works wonders, I grant it. And those to which it does not work are underdeveloped humanly, a cathegory which has not been invented by Romanians, it is well spread throughout the world – we all have to deal with them. What do we have instead? The endless dance between Lorand and Ovidiu. The first being sincerely depressed and convinced that “people do not understand” that we do not want harm, and what we want is only natural, etc. And in his conviction he shatters examples, as if this was the problem – but when you mention some equally real problem to him, which may put the “hungarian part” at stakes, he gets lost in ridiculously small arguments, evasive. He is scared to be simple and strait, Kalaci is not. Maybe the last gets more for his words, I believe. And on the other side, Ovidiu, whom I sense to get gut-nervous at this evasive attitudes, does not try either to raise the discoures to an other level – instead he just turns around the wheel of small arguments of deaf, and excites the legalist debate, as if anyone of us he or Lorand could have an impact on the way law is applied in Romania. We all know it is applied badly!

    One thing is certain: I gotta go. I do not know if I could make it more clear to you what I do talk about? :-) Best to you Maghera!

    • Preda, I fully respect you opinion and I appreciate your comment. There are some interesting things you say in this last posting – I wouldn’t mind some being discussed in more detail in a dedicated blog post here. While I might not fully agree to every claim you listed, I will be the first one to admit that exaggerations do exist on the Hungarian side. I’m not sure, however, that they are part of a systematic or centrally organized approach. Such exaggerations are often fueled by nationalism that is seen as justified by the (real or perceived) suppression of the minority by the state. My message of separating ethnicity from nationality is not just for Romanians, it is also for the Magyars in equal measure. When I commented about ethnic diversity being a nuisance to the nation-state, Ovidiu replied saying that’s not the problem, but “ethnonational heterogeneity” is. Ethnonational, as in defining a nation in terms of ethnicity… Hmm, does that sound familiar? My interpretation of what he said there was that some of the goals of the Hungarian minority are national goals disguised as ethnic issues. So we were both arguing the same general point, but I brought it up in the context of the nation-state, while his arguments were about political movements of the Magyar minority.

      • @gmaghra : “My interpretation of what he said there was that some of the goals of the Hungarian minority are national goals disguised as ethnic issues.”

        Yes, that was what I meant.

        Furthermore, this situation creates a dilemma for the state when it comes to granting new “minority rights” to the Hungarian minority since they can be , and have been, used for promoting further the nationalistic agenda. Granting them has not not solved anything, has not resulted in any change in attitude/mentality and political integration in the last 23 years simply because the problem is actually something else.

        And it creates a dilemma for the Romanian majority on how to relate to the Hungarian-Romanians, the result being distrust and adversity toward anything “Hungarian” in Romania. Skilfully, this adversity is then employed by the political leaders of the Hungarian minority as an argument for the legitimacy/necessity of a nationalistic agenda in order to solve… an ethnic-identity issue !…so, there we are, a lot the political debates are empty-talk since they do not debate the core issues but rather evade and fudge them.

        As for the future. Perhaps time itself will solve the problem as the number of the Hungarian-Romanians has decreased dramatically in the last 20 years due to out-migration toward Hungary and West-Europe and to the low birth-rates.
        This trend (an aging fast and rapidly shrinking population) will continue and when the number reaches a given threshold (which will happen sometime in the next 10-15 years) the whole nationalistic project will appear as unfeasible.The focus will shift from political goals toward genuinely cultural ones, and toward the preservation of ethnic-cultural identity rather than the institutionalization of it (as it happens nowdays).

        The result will not be that the ethnic diversity will disappear in Transylvania, there will always be Hungarians in Romania, but what will disappear will be the national-diversity, the politicization (nationalization) of ethnic-Hungarian identity.

      • Ovidiu – Maghera @ Here I think that my experience and point of view link into what Ovidiu says. People know they have a problem, they know they would like to feel their language and culture somehow respected, and to live in peace. THAT IS ALL. And, frankly, these dreams are 20% “ethnic” and 80% the eternal human plight for happiness. So there come “translators”, the ones who say they know how to make them happy.

        And there I see no other doctrine having arised, other kind of situating Hungary and hungarians among the nations, as the one whose lobby I was discussing previously. THIS IS THE DILEMMA, and some hungarians in Romania – no, many of them – should better face it because there is much positive that can be done. But not in this well manipulated whorl of escalation.

      • Ovidiu @ SUNT DISCRIMINAT! Bacsa imi scrie proverbe in ungureste pe care nu le inteleg, tu imi dai citate dintr-un Mr. Mignon care este atat de mignon ca imi vorbeste si acela tot in ungureste …. iar fiica-mea acasa isi bate joc de mine ca nu stiu decat cinci limbi sa vorbesc, si are dreptate caci maghiara nu este una dintre ele. O sa depun plangere la Luxemburg, vreau sa fiu un om modern si eu!

      • scuze dl Preda, am citat un pamfletist-scriitor-profesoruniversitar contemporan din Cluj numit Magyari Tivadar, a carui nume e simplu sa traduc (=Tivadar Magyari) insa textul citat ar fi mai dificil.
        Hai ca totus incerc pt dumneata:
        “Saritul (in sus? in ochi? poate mai bine tradus “bagatul in seama” sau “sa te dai tare”) nu-i metoda (valida) in lupta minoritara; lupta minoritara n-ar trebui continuata asa, ba intr-un mod ca ea sa nu fie nici macar observata de inamic.”
        E satiric deci spre -in parerea mea – amandoua “aripi” ai ‘luptatorilor minoritari” ai secuimii. La fel e ironic folosirea cuvintelor “lupta”, “inamic”.

        There you go, voilá, bitte schön, alstublieft. Prego, vale, etcetera.

      • Si eu am crezut ca mesajul in maghiara era o sugestie catre mine sa o las mai moale. Sau sint prea increzut? :-)

      • Daca avem in vedere faptul ca in chestiunea starii justitiei EU s-a aratat de ani in sir in mod cat se poate de explicit critica, mi se pare ca mesajul lui Mignon este ceva mai mult decat o “eschivare diplomatica”. Sunt 47 de tari – si stim si noi unele care fac parte din EU cu mult inaintea Romaniei, si unde nu se poate aplica mai nimic.

      • Nici nu ma mira ca un francez pune accent mult mai mult pe neaplicabilitatea acestor drepturi in unele tari :-)

      • Ovidiu,

        “Furthermore, this situation creates a dilemma for the state when it comes to granting new “minority rights” to the Hungarian minority since they can be , and have been, used for promoting further the nationalistic agenda. Granting them has not not solved anything, has not resulted in any change in attitude/mentality and political integration in the last 23 years simply because the problem is actually something else.

        “And it creates a dilemma for the Romanian majority on how to relate to the Hungarian-Romanians, the result being distrust and adversity toward anything “Hungarian” in Romania. ”

        Well, we’re in agreement again. :-) I don’t think the problem is entirely one of Hungarian nationalism, however.

        This integration that you say has been unsuccessful needs to be a two-way integration. Just like you claim that granting minority rights has not changed the Hungarian minority’s attitude or mentality, I also feel that there hasn’t been much headway made into making the majority more tolerant or accepting of the minority. Sometime the act of granting of these minority rights has actually made the majority populace actually less tolerant, alarmed that it is making Romania less Romanian. The norm on both sides is to expect the worse of the other’s intention due to our convoluted history and previous misunderstandings. There are ways for the state to promote acceptance and tolerance, and I’ve seen that work successfully here in the U.S. time and time again. For some, however, having the the two ethnicities ever apprehensive of the other is politically advantageous.

        I hope all this gets resolved in a way other than the sad but true trend you mention, of a dwindling population due to aging and immigration.

      • Maghera @ “I don’t think the problem is entirely one of Hungarian nationalism, however.” – In terms of real life, IT IS NOT, this is the tragedy!
        The matter is that starting from abroad some idiots created a line of thought among magyars of Transilvania which consists in fighting not for what their lives require, but for something which separates their whole existence from the one of the people in that country. And they made many people believe that “they should know”. Of course I could play around with words, and say, this IS of cours a problem created by hungarian nationalist thinking – I mean, look at it flourishing under Orban, look how they succeeded to break up even with Jews, who have been so long faithfull supporters, how even Lendvai got fed up, after having made hungarian propaganda in Vienna, free of charge, over more than four decades.

        But this would switch a bit the focus: because to me reality is stil there were the people live with their needs – and my intuition is that most hungarians in Romania have, on the one hand, still some open topics which deserve to be solved, and on the other hand would be more ponderate if it was not for ideologies at the back. But the existing combination make that their approach does appear like a neverending list of revendication, in which they do not give a damn on the situation of the country, on what romanians themselves endure and would like to see changed, they have a separated exsitence. And like Ovidiu says, they know very well how to create anger, and then point with the finger, when the anger becomes nasty. I cannot count who “they” are, but it is an influential few!

      • I think that the granting of rights of ethnic groups should be completely independent of history, rumors, accusations, or how ultra-nationalistic some of its members behave, etc.. It is not something that needs to be deserved, like a privilege. Perhaps this is what you describe as the realities of life. I think it’s comparable to the notion of freedom which is often misunderstood as people being free to do what they like as long as it does not conflict with the general consensus of what is “right”.

  13. I think I understand what you say, Preda, I just do not agree. It’s not quite the same thing. Feel free to believe what you wish, but I have the right to express that I don’t find it well founded. I still haven’t heard anything that would even distantly constitute a proof of your belief. Tőkés was the only name you mentioned among the denigrators of Romania, whom you keep speaking about. I replied with pointing out that Tőkés is not loved by Romanians because he dares to demask the official Romanian propaganda regarding the exemplary treatment of ethnic minorities and tries to draw public attention to the problems of the Hungarian minority. However, this does not make him an enemy of Romania, just an advocate of his own community, which is basically why he was elected. This is what Tőkés and any other Hungarian MP is bound to do: serve the interests of his elective community, the Szeklers and the Transylvanian Hungarians in general.

    • Aron @ Tökes is not a denigrator of Romania in what I said, he is a pawn of people with what one may well call an irredentist agenda – an elastic one, which may well deserve other names. But an agenda which takes several enormities for granted: there was an IMENSE injustice in the past that needs correction, and correction can only happen by opposition and pressure, there is no way for collaboration.

      I still do not believe you really understand what I mean. And it is maybe natural, you have your defenses. When Tökes was wyining in Geneva in front of a full auditory of press and politicians, claiming that Romania had been abusing Hungarians since ever, that Trianon was a complete lie and in fact way over 3 million Hungarians remained in Romania and all figures had been fake – I was in that room, and it was not challenging any officials. It was lying for captatio benevolentiae (I believe he had recieved the message which said “Romanians: liers, Trianon: abuse”, but got his figures mixed up. Not a good appearence for a priest and man of truth!)

      And the three years of “cultural genocide” which we endured in the late ’80-es in the press from Washington to Helsinki and from Barcelona to Athens, were not for confronting any official. It was a ticket to ride for anyone who wanted to exaggerate on the back of Romania, a free ticket. Even now I wonder how the world which is otherwise so sensible to the term holocaust indulged during years to such an exaggeration? Can you explain? This is part of what I talk. And I do not believe that this attitude built of a mixture of arrogance and elaborate wining serves the community. Not the Hungarian community in Romania – because we have an other kind of emotionality, we are strait, dumb or smart, angry or loving. And we lose patience in front of this merry go round. To say little of the exaggerations which may very well be resented as insults to us and many: 35% deported to Siberia in Lithuania, 20-25% in Estonia, Latvia, Bessarabia, Bucovina. In Greece, the Aromanians making up for well 7-8% of the population before the war, now close to NADA DE NADA. But the world had to be shocked by a cultural genocide in Romania, whose traces were very hard to detect – I mean to some extent that would approachingly deserve such a strong word. In fact shortly after, in France they started talking about Shoah … for obvious reasons.

      I consider there is some connection between that, the phobias of Orban and the way magyars are induced to believe that they should fight for their rights in Romania. And I consider it tragic, since the ideas are brought about by people who very well understood how the west and political influence functions, and could be very good guides in that realm, but had no slightest idea about Romania – which was in fact to them really the place of shameless farm workers who “stole” the country from its rightful place. The fact that the things are not as simple as that, had to be dealt with by the Hungarians in Romania. Some know this very well, some still mix up a lot of things that do not belong together.

    • Let me make something very clear related to Aron’s post with whom in *some* things i respectfully disagree.
      Tokes is respected widely for his activity in 1989 and a few years after (also by myself) but “his own community”is strongly reduced in numbers in 2013.
      The majority of hungarians (at least the majority of hungarians I know) agree that he should return to the church and leave the politics to someone less hot-blooded and more professional.
      Not that i could point my fingers to anyone as a valid replacement, of course :)

      • bacsa – Great, this is my PROBLEM with Tökes. I respected him greatly in 1989. In spring 1990 I saw him in Geneva acting like the puppet of some emigration-grofs, and delivering a speech in which the hero of the Revolution kept talking about the lies of Trianon and literally said that all the negociation had been a lie – claiming more than 3 million Hungarians had remained in Transylvania – and not the less than two million, which had been censed by Hungarians themselves. Only this subject went on and on during ten minutes – I was with five friends, Romanian and swiss and we were asking each other if we heard right, and we all heard the same thing!
        Then I heard from friends in Washington that a similar event happened there too. Briefly, short after being the hero of the Romanian revolution, Tökes was enrolled by a powerful network of international Hungarian lobbyists, shown to the world, and close to brain washed. I mean an adult living in Romania, must know that it was not possible to lie from one to half under those circumstances! And after that began his political career, in which connections in Bruxelles seemed always to have played an important role.

        What shall I say, Bacsa? In 1990 I was deluded, but it took me three years to decide that for me Tökes cannot be the man from 1989 any more. And every time I was in Bucharest and so him on TV I had the feeling that that initial “direction” was still active in his personality. I know it is a challenge to charismatic persons – we had also Calciu, who captured more than anyone respect of all Romanians, he was tempted to become a voice of decision to the point where quite a few said what you just said “He should return to church!”. One may say that fortunately, Romanians do not have such a lobby, and Calciu did return to church after ’90, and was a inspiring preacher even to many Americans.

        One could add more remarks, but this is to you and Aron too the reason why I nominally speak about Tökes, and of no other person I encountered. Also because Tökes was recognized and publicized as a symbol of The Revolution, not o Hungarian Revolution against Trianon, so in this respect Romanian had a right to expect not more than truth and faithfulness from him. That he follows primarily the interests of Hungarians is only natural – but that is not the point. And the delusion he produced was NOT because he challenges some politrucs, but for the reasons explained above. Mind you, I happened to live the situation at first hand, but certainly some similar event was eventually described in some emigration journal, and the notice made the round. I am certain that the delusion of most Romanians started there.

      • Preda: fara a-i lua apararea lui Tokes, oare el nu se referea atunci la cca 3mil de maghiari ramasi in toate tarile vecine, adica nu numai in Transilvania? Asta ar fi putin mai plauzibil (nu am verificat datele, am putine dubii si asa). Just a question. Si inca o data, nu-l apar, nici nu sint unul care viseaza Trianonul “corectat” :-)

      • “Not that i could point my fingers to anyone as a valid replacement, of course ” – this seems to be the crux of modern politics all over. Look at Berlusconi!

      • I am by far not a fan of Tőkés, but I consider that we need politicians of his temperament as a counterbalance for the lukewarm politics of UDMR, who tend to accept compromise too easily. Sometimes you need to protest vehemently in order to be observed.

      • Lorand @ Nu, am ascultat atenti cu totii – continua sa vorbeasca de statistici false si de maghiari in Romania. De aceea banuiala mea a fost ca i-au povestit prea repede ce are de spus, si preotul mai obisnuit cu emotii si idei decat cu cifre a confundat pesemne cele trei milioane ramase in afara Ungariei cu Transilvania singura. Ceea ce a produs acest rezultat. Si ceea ce ar indica si mai mult ca s-a bagat in lucruri pe care nu le intelege?

        Oricum, raspunderea ramane, din dublu motiv: 1) Pentru ca el reprezenta eroul revolutiei: putea sa se planga de conditiile recente ale magharilor sub Ceausescu, lucruri pentru care sta numele sau. 2) Dincolo de deceptia ratacirii in acuzatii fundamentale la adresa a jumatate din Europa, intervine si chestiunea morala: cand te aventurezi ca preot sa spui ca s-a mintit la Trianon, se minte de 80 de ani in masuri desantate, si nimeni nu si-a dat seama – nu este un semn bun.

  14. “az ugrálás nem módszer a kisebbségi harcban: a kisebbségi harcot nem így kell folytatni, hanem úgy, hogy lehetőleg az ellenfél azt ne is vegye észre.”
    (Magyari Tivadar)

    • Hei Bacsa – welcome! De ce esti asa de secretos cu noi astia mai munteni si necunoscatori de limbi :-) How’s life?

    • Kérdés, hogy ez megvalósítható-e. Én úgy látom, hogy a kis lépések politikája sokszor kontraproduktív, mivel egy apró előrelépést két hátralépéssel felérő kompromisszum árán tud csak elérni.

  15. Aron @ In conclusion to this round I would say: we may well continue the debate, if you are interested. Since you do not know me, I do not know you, and it is hard to “guess” each other’s background, there is risk of airy talk. I would kindly ask you to take my word, that I see that you hardly scratched the tip of the iceberg of what I am saying. Therefore, if we proceed – which may be useful in some unexpected way – it would be useful if you kindly take the time to repeat in your own words shortly what you understood from what I say. This is very helpful for staying on topic. And one more thing, I am sincere to you and talk from some experience, personal and less personal. But I am not here to PROVE anything to you or any other person. And I am not in the game of playing around with names, you will not have names from me – you will have facts, which anyone can know or verify.

    • That sounds reasonable, except that you didn’t give facts either. What I understand is that you consider that the Hungarian political elite is using its undeserved influence to undermine the credibility and question the good intentions of Romania with respect to the Hungarian minority in Transylvania. I consider that even if this were true, it would be their right to do so and use any influence they have to represent our interests and confront whomever displays an offensive attitude towards us.

      • Aron – forget you do not understand and you will probably never understand. And the reason seems to be that you are so programmed to think in antagonistic terms, that you do not capture someone else’s way of contemplating conflictual situations WITHOUT entering the game of antagonism. So you will continue to distort my messages, at the third, the fifth and 25-th attempt. Unless a black swan happens :-)

      • Aron @ “represent our interests” – if you believe that lying about Trianon and not accepting facts – the fact for instance that that peace which was so painful for you, was lead nevertheless by means of measure, Teleki could present arguments and maps during more than one year to prove presence of Hungarians and thus influence the borders, decided on base of the 50/50
        ethnic density principle. While WE, Romanians, lost about 4-5 millions to the Russians under not law at all. It is time to understand that your interests are BADLY represented that way, and you will hardly have a peaceful life with Romanians on base of this and similar desconsideration of their pleas, their lives and identity.

        NO Aron, there are many ways to challenge for rights, but egocentric lies about the past, hypocritic victimization are not among of them. And those who think that EVERYTHING is right, as long as it “defends” our rights, are the TRUE ENEMIES of the Magyars in Romania – in the sense that they generate a situation without way out. Where do you stand?

  16. Bacsa – Abea acum am vazut traducerea facuta extra pentru mine, sunt impresionat, multumesc. Si subscriu pe deplin preceptului acelui autor (bine inteles pana la ipoteza ca as face parte din “dumsman” :-) ) – aduce mai mult aminte de tatitudinea traditionala a aromanilor, pe care mai ca nu i vezi, dar are ceva bun pentru toti! Zi buna!

    • apropo de “dusmani”.
      inca un citat de dansul, de data asta pe subiectul al doilea zvon fals a moartei d-nei Marton Lili:
      “Lassan általánossá vált a vélekedés, hogy azok, akikkel egy házban lakik, talán albérlőként, nem szeretik, végét kívánják, nem engednek be hozzá senkit. Egyre gonoszabbak lettek ezek az ismeretlenek. Már-már románok kezdtek lenni, pedig magyarok voltak. ”

      “Incetu-cu-ncetu s-a generalizat ideea a acei cu care statea intr-o casa, poate subchiriasi, n-o plac, n-o iubesc, ii ureaza sfarsitul, nu lasa pe nimeni sa intre la ea. Deveneau din ce in ce mai cnunzi, acesti straini. Aproape ca incepeau sa fie romani, desi erau maghiari.”
      ;)

      • Bacsa – Cand eram copil bunica-meu repeta in tot felul de ocazii o fraza de tulburatoare profunzime, a lui Mehedinti, zicea el. “Doamne, doamne, mare lucru si dragostea intre oameni”. Cu putina zeflemea inocenta intr-adevar te misti mai bine prin viata. Sa traiesti!

      • Basca @ Asta-i farmecul limbii romane in care nici nu mai stii ce cuvinte de unde vin! Zeflemea este o alta vorba pentru bascalie, dar este cumva mai tandra decat bascalie. Poate incearca cineva sa explice mai pe intelete!

  17. Aron @ Let me not break up the way apparances would require. I will give it one more try, but please respect my wish not to be “put foreign words in my mouth” – I am ALLERGIC to that!

    “you consider that the Hungarian political elite is using its undeserved influence”

    I was not talking of any “political elite”, and even less of a “the”, like something unique. I was talking about a well connected network of oldminded people, throughout the world, LOBBYING. They ARE NOT AN ELITE to me – what do I know, Francois Fejtö for instance may be elite, he is not known to play such games, even Lendvai may be, at a lower level of intellectual penetration, an elite; he generously tollerated such games, like a sentimental gentleman, not more than that, to what I know.

    I talk lobby, and a lobby which is maybe far less powerful, than, say, the weapon lobby in the US – but compared to romanian measures, incredibly powerful: there is a fractal measure, everywhere! And finally, most of all, talking about lobby and not elites, I never would have used a judgement of the kind deserved/undeserved – already because it is very tricky to introduce a measure of deservedness in the activity of lobbying. So in one line you introduced three estraneous ideas, while pretending/believing to say in your words what I said.

    Now there is no contradiction whatsoever between my desilusion with Tökes, and your admiration for his way of being articulate. They just live on different planets. And I will make here a brief synthesis about my desillusion: Tökes started as a hero of the Romanian Revolution, if it was not for that, totally different measures might apply to him, and I might be in full agreement with you, as just an other politician, he might not be the worst.

    But as what he started, if he really was the man he appeared to be in December 1989, one might have expected him to be really intelligent, and confront the rich lobbyist of less insight, instead of accepting the position of a puppet to whom the ones who “know the world” show what to say in order to achieve …. what THEY believe that is good for the Hungarians in Romania. He might have said something like “I very much thank you for your advice and the connections you offer. Personally I am perceived as a figure of the Revolution of all people in Romania, and I intend to stand up to that image: I will thus not play the game of denigration of that country and its people, I will not enter into old feuds dear your hearts, I consider for our people it is and will be a sufficient advantage if one of the few most marcant figures of the Revolution IS hungarian, and I will know to make this a profit to our people ASIDE with all the Romanian for whom I reached this status of a symbol”. And it could have been done! By what he has done instead, I frankly tell you: it is not easy to resist the rumours who want it that he in fact NEVER has been a fighter, but had been put in place in due time and perfectly knew how his back was covered. I do not descend so low, but his human image dropped to a level of no interest to me – I do not follow in detail what he has done in the last 15 years, to be clear.

    To me, he missed a UNIQUE ocasion, which HE was the most entitled to grab by the horns. Instead he followed the technical prejudice of some shortsighted rich and backwards looking anyones, and opened the doors to separation of the ethnicies.

    So where are we now? We have been saying for 25 years, Europe is the future, it will attenuate differences and yield a good common frame. We finally realize that this does not come down out of the blues, it takes involvment. And in fact what we realize is that subgroups of Europe need to stand up together in order to build a ballanced political union – the “north” and the “south” start doing this. There is an East, to which the largest actors are Poland, Romania and Hungary: look for yourself in what directions they concentrate, when it would be more than ever needed that they present as a block of solidarious interests. Polish try this over and over again – what about the other two?

    There would be more to say, but let us first see what the impact is.

    • Preda, I understand what you say about Hungarian lobby. What I do not understand is what you would propose, how do you think we should better represent our interests. I completely agree with you that Tőkés often goes too far and I also think that we should try to exclude Trianon from our discourse and look forward. On the other hand, the autonomy proposed by our leaders is exactly this, a forward-looking solution. An acknowledgement of the fact that that there is no place for revisionist politics and that we wish to exist within the bounds of the Romanian state, but as a constituting entity. I think that the vehemency with which the Romanian elite and also common people protest against any notion of autonomy radicalizes us as well. While for us the existence of an autonomous Hungarian region would be the only means to slow down or possibly stop assimilation, the Romanian state would basically lose nothing except the illusion of being a nation state, which it never was, Transylvania being a multi-ethnic space since almost forever.

      • Aron @ “I think that the vehemency with which the Romanian elite and also common people protest against any notion of autonomy radicalizes us as well.” – I think that there are 20 years of accumulated dialogues of deaf, and who wants to go beyond, needs to understand that there are and will be “Doppler effects”. Meaning that while to some, the old themes have been left behind in all sincerety, there may still be reactions which assimilate them to past exaggerations. On the other hand if you left the past sincerely behind, you can gather the patience to explain.

        There are Doppler effects in the other way round to. I cannot agree with what you say about the Romanian “elites” (even the concept of elites is to me slightly outdated, but I do not enter in any detail). I see many reactions in Bucharest, of people who are in favor of an honest treatment of Magyars, are outspoken when there is some manipulation of the government trying to raise tensions. And you must understand that those people have also to fight, the mass has voted without their minds. They may appear few, but neglecting them you loose much!

        Let me give you an example which may be appropriate, since it has to do with autonomy. I have repeatedly insisted on this blog that comparing to God knows what spots in Europe will never bring much more acceptance for the concept than people may already have. And I recalled peacefully that one HAS to take specificities in consideration. And there are important specific issues: Only in the South-East of Europe do you encounter a situation in which ethnies are mixed over a very large area. All the other cases I know of, I mean all, have very well delimited border lines. There are 100 historical reasons for that, but it simply is a fact.

        How do you want to deal with this fact? By using the old concepts from areas were delimitation was so simple? Look at Yugoslavia, how states boil fractally down to smaller and smaller states, in the virtue of the same concept: if “justice and freedom” means to have an ethnical state or autnomy or …, then me inside yours, I want mine, smaller, and smaller and smaller … That means abdicating from the challenge of living together. Absurd. And I have been insisting that Transylvania should become an example of a new attitude to identity and ethny, which respects the culture and language, while peacefully developing an overall identity with which all can live well.

        There are enough smart people around to dream about it – but one should accept that it is not a Romanian’s way to say no, when one points out to these important specificity. Just that: acknowledge that, yes, indeed, there are issues which have been NEVER addressed, we are called to something new. People were very scared when I said things like that, I don’t know why.

    • Preda,
      “I do not follow in detail what he has done in the last 15 years, to be clear.”
      And yet, you are convinced he is a puppet of a lesser intelligence than the puppeteers you (seem to)know to exist behind him.

      What makes you think he is a puppet without his own mind made up about the world or how the world should be?

      I sincerely think you are horribly wrong here and there is no big conspiracy behind him- it’s just his impulsive, exaggerating way of acting, thinking, and you can see that back (in my oppinion, wrong -but Aron disagrees and that’s fine-) in his smaller actions e.g. the story-scandal of his son in the footbal team, or his very private life, ruined marriage etc.

      I am not saying there is nobody profiting from his actions, but i really strongly disagree that he is any puppet of anybody i.e. he is not being manipulated by any group, he is just conveniently does what he does for the advantage of some, and the disadvantage of many, many more. And i’m not so sure that these many, many more are the romanians- actually imo it consists mostly of hungarians.

      PS: being a puppeteer is not cool.
      (“Being John Malkovich”; Maxine and Craig in the bar scene)
      M: “Tell me a little about yourself”
      C: “Well, i’m a puppeteer…”
      M: “Check!”

  18. Am cateva nelamuriri pe care le-as dori clarificate. Am intrebat in stanga si-n dreapta oameni competenti si am primit raspunsuri diferite, asa cum ma asteptam: cat de reprezentativ este steagul secuiesc pentru maghiarii care nu locuiesc in secuime? De exemplu, ce semnificatie are acest steag pentru un maghiar nascut si trait in Cluj? Se identifica el cu cauza si simbolurile celor din secuime? Vibreaza el la vederea steagului secuiesc sau e legat mai degraba de simbolurile din heraldica legata de transilvania ca provincie mare? (corbul, soarele, luna, cele 7 cetati). Inteleg necesitatea unui simbol adus la zi pentru cauza autonomiei, nu am nimic impotriva, dar eu as fi optat pentru un steag cu simbolurile transilvane mentionate mai sus. Ar fi fost mult mai greu de combatut de romanii verzi – aceste simboluri apar si pe actuala stema a romaniei, in plus cred ca ar fi adus simpatie din partea multor romani care doresc sincer un grad de autonomie pentru Transilvania, nu doar pentru secuime.

    • Nu pot să îți dau un răspuns general, dar pot să îți prezint opinia personală și a unui cerc restrâns de prieteni. Pentru mine, ca și maghiar din Timișoara fără origini secuiești, steagul secuiesc reprezintă un simbol al autodeterminării secuilor, un simbol al luptei împotriva asimilării și un simbol al unei identități naționale și locale bine definite. Cu alte cuvinte există un respect față de acest steag ca și simbolul aceleiași lupte împotriva asimilării pe care o ducem și noi zi de zi.

    • Iar un raspuns de la un clujean cu 25% origini secuiesti (un bunic). Nu vibrez vazind steagul secuiesc, si mai rau, nici auzind imnul secuiesc. Vibrez insa la alt steag, la alt imn, ca sa fiu sincer.

      Insa cred ca ei au tot dreptul sa-si defineasca simbolurile cu care se mindresc. Si cred ca atacarea acestor simboluri atit de vehement, penalizarea lui, va crea “martiri” in ochi lor.
      Deja a aparut pe noi primarii, deja au fost ridicate 2 catarge pe care au pus DOAR steagul secuiesc, adica nu ca pina acum pe primarii: ALATURI de cel roman.

      Chiar cred ca compromisul ar fi: daca le place acel steag, ii lasam sa-l puna, dar sa fie alaturat linga cel roman. Cred ca daca se oficializeaza, intereseul fata de el va scadea, stim bine: ce e interzis, devine si mai pretios :-)

    • Uite atunci o parere de la un secui 100% dezamagitde politica/politicieni (100% secui si 100% dezamagit :) )
      In primul rand s-a descoperit ideea ca, 1. autonomie Transilvaniei e prea mare peste, nu se va realiza niciodata; 2. chiar daca-daca, sunt atatzia romani in Transilvania ca situatzia maghiarilor nu se va imbunatatzi considerabila – tot asa o minoritate ramanem si, romanii transilvaneni de aztazi nu sunt deloc mai etnotolerantzi decat cei din sud sau din est.
      Asa ca s-a trecut la ceva mai usor de imaginat: autonomie secuimii (observi diferentza intre” imaginat” si” realizat”) care, e pe o parte in principiu mai avantajos pt maghiarii din regiune iar pe de alta parte suna mai etnic, mai putzin tehnic si mai mult chestie de suflet, de constiintza, vine mai mult din inima.

      Toate simbolurile (imn, drapel, martiri, reinmormantari etc) sunt deci o metoda valida si potenta. Si, desigur, principiul de baza a universului ‘actiune-reactiune” se aplica si aici

      • bacsa – I hear you. Nu stiu ce sa spun, caci evident in spatele acestei alegeri sade concluzia “cu ei nu putem trai, avem undeva nevoie de spatiul nostru si numai al nostru”. Tara Romaneasca este intr-o stare politica de plans, oamenii care doresc o alta stare de fapt “have all the hands full of work to do”, nu stiu daca este o concluzie constructiva. Cu atat mai mult cu cat, avand in vedere ca excitatii si inflacaratii nu ii poti elimina din propriile randuri – si mai se adauga si cei de la Budapesta – rezultatul este ca si pentru cei care inteleg ca este absurd sa faci o problema de stat din orice fituica legala care se scrie in maghiara, sau alte nimicuri – au fost evenimente careau sadit neincrederea.

        Parerea mea, care stiu ca este dezagreata aici, este ca mai degraba se ajunge undeva cu o miscrare noua, tanara – cum au inceput verzii in Europa, acum 30 de ani – in care pot maghiari si romani sa atace probleme colective ale tarii, si impreuna si cele etnice. De ce? In primul rand ca adunarea fortelor pentru a limpezi statul de politruci este o necesitate, si in al doilea rand pentru ca solutii la chestiuni etnice care sunt mai intai negociate in mod colaborativ intr-o miscare care are teluri comune, au mult mai multe sanse sa poata fdi explicate bine si sa creeze incredere. De fapt vorba de baza asta este: incredere.

      • Merci pentru raspunsuri, cam astea le-am primit si din partea prietenilor mei. Inteleg strategia conform careia un teritoriu mai mic si dens populat e mai usor de pus in discutia autonomiei si cred ca e mai realista decat luarea in calcul a intregii Transilvanii, mai ales fara sprijinul populatiei romanesti. Din pacate nu exista maini intinse sincer intre romani si maghiari, comunitatile se autoizoleaza in mod nefericit. Mi-e dor de vremurile cand, intalnind un prieten maghiar, el incepea sa vorbeasca romaneste si eu ungureste – obicei pe care il consider si acum forma maxima de respect si prietenie…

      • Andrei @ “mai ales fara sprijinul populatiei romanesti. Din pacate nu exista maini intinse sincer intre romani si maghiari, comunitatile se autoizoleaza in mod nefericit. ” – Mi se pare o remarca fundamentala. Am impresia ca s-a ajuns intr-o situatie in care cetateanul este impins in umbra, se refugiaza in personal, lasand grijile in mainile unor “strategi”, care le simplifica tocmai in directia autozilarii reciproce. Si este binevenit sa se recunoasca de ambele parti masura in care se contribuie de ambele parti la aceasta autoizolare, si cat de mult se pierde pe acest drum! Cetateanul are nevoie sa recucereasca vocea colectiva – si asta este adevarat pe toate planurile. Nu exista o politica “indurata”. Daca nu corespunde, mai ales cat totusi nu mai este dictatura pura si neagra, omul poate porni de la sine spre ceilalti, intreband “ce ne lipseste”. Sper ca vocea ta sa fie auzita si de maghiarii care citesc aici!

  19. “It is time to understand that your interests are BADLY represented that way, and you will hardly have a peaceful life with Romanians on base of this and similar desconsideration of their pleas, their lives and identity.”

    This is what often bothers me. If we try to stand up for ourselves we are accused of being offensive and thus deserving any bad treatment we might experience in Romania. So to befit the common Romanian perception about good coexistence would basically mean that we must completely assimilate, cease to exist as a distinct non-Romanian community. If we dare to think differently, yet alone speak it out loud, we are automatically labeled as extremists.

    You are probably right: it is easier to assimilate and it will probably lead to a more peaceful life within Romania. “Ne szólj szám, nem fáj fejem”, as a HUngarian proverb says. On the other hand, this is exactly what we do not want and we accept that it is harder to keep our distinct identity and that it will often lead to conflicts with the Romanian population. Still, it is what defines us and most of us do not wish to give it up.

    • Aron: I will continue in Romanian, gmaghera understands it as well.

      Sint de acord cu Preda in privinta tonului folosit. Si in plus: mai sint si lucruri care nu trebuie zise, ca nu ajuta la nimic.

      De exemplu, a spune ca 1 decembrie este o zi de doliu pentru noi (pentru mine este una indiferenta), este o bita data in balta (belecsapni a lecsoba), fara nici o relevanta cu drepturile noastre, fara ca asta sa ne ajute in a atinge ceva (mai degraba este contraproductiv). Un politician BUN nu spune lucruri fara scop, doar asa sa zica si el si sa nu taca.
      Si nu zic sa nu fim fermi, sa nu ridicam vocea (eu rareori mi-o ridic, dar pot fi extrem de ferm si pe un ton calm), sa nu criticam, sa nu exprimam cerinte/doleante reale. Chiar daca unii ne jignesc, eu zic ca omul poate demonstra si mai tare cind isi pastreaza firea si stilul si in aceste cazuri.
      Si poti sa fii in dezacord leaderii care sint mai cautatori de compromis, dar de exemplu a spune ca “Ponta e mai rau ca Ceausecu ca ala macar ne-a lasat ceva autonomie” (Tokes iarasi) e bizar. Care autonomie ne-a lasat Ceasca? Judetele alea controlate strict? Chiar Ceasca a vrut sa desfiinteze aceste judete prin alipiri la altele, si un comunist maghiar (Fazekas Janos) a reusit sa manevreze la Bucuresti in stil bizantin/moscovit pina s-au facut aceste judete. Nu Europa Libera, nu Vocea Americii au evitat planul lui Ceasca, ci negocierile in partid ale lui Fazekas Janos ajutate de protestele neobisnuitr ale localnicilor. Asta a zis Kanyadi Sandor, si pe el nu-l putem chema fan al comunistilor.

      • “De exemplu, a spune ca 1 decembrie este o zi de doliu pentru noi (pentru mine este una indiferenta), este o bita data in balta (belecsapni a lecsoba), fara nici o relevanta cu drepturile noastre, fara ca asta sa ne ajute in a atinge ceva (mai degraba este contraproductiv).”

        Da, oarecum există un sâmbure de adevăr aici. Pe de altă parte: nu ar fi fost mult mai corect să se aleagă o zi națională de care se pot bucura toți cetățenii țării, indiferent de etnie, în loc de o asemenea dată care în mod evident nu are cum să binedispună maghiarii care au fost atunci rupți de patria-mamă? De ce nu se putea alege o dată care se leagă de un eveniment pozitiv dar fără substrat naționalist, de exemplu data izbucnirii revoluției din 1989 sau altul similar? În schimb încearcă să ne forțeze să dansăm hora unirii cu ei și să ne mai și prefacem că ne bucurăm. Oare este corect să fim forțați în astfel de situații schizofrenice?

        “Un politician BUN”

        Asta sună a oximoron :D

      • Politician bun = eficace, adica cu rezultate.
        Si cu 1 decembrie: asta e, si nu poti ataca tot: si vrei autonomie, si vrei schimbarea zilei nationale smad. Ziua nationala chiar asa te doare? Pe mine m-a durut doar in era Funar la Cluj. Acum ma lasa rece, si stiu ca daca vorbesc de rau de 1 decembrie inchid portile in alte negocieri.

      • Aron @ Cred ca vei incepe sa te simti mai bine cand deschizi ochii asupra faptului ca “ei” nu exista, “ei” sunt FOARTE diversi, la fel cum si maghiarii sunt foarte diversi – motiv pentru care am fost foarte atent in alegerea cuvintelor cand am relatat deziluzia mea cu Tökes. Cu 1 decembrie s-a mai disicutat aici, si s-a ajuns la concluzia ca desigur 21 Decembrie era sarbatoarea fireasca – dar “lor” le-a fost frica. Iar acesti “lor” NU sunt “Romanii”, sunt o ceata de mancurit si kriptocomunisti care amarasc viata la multi! Deci ce pot “Romanii” sa faca, ca masa indistincta -. sa scape de mancurti, vezi bine ce greu este!

        Cauta putin sa citesti presa romana, la Bucuresti – sa vezi cu cate teme cel putin la fel de dureroase ca alegerea zilei nationale, si dureroase pentru tot omul , se bat si romanii. Asta iti spuneam si mai inainte: descopera-i pe “ei” si vezi cat de multe teme poti sa ai si in comun, si teme care cer sa se combata, cel mai bine impreuna. Pentru asta nu trebuie decat sa te debarasezi de teama ca una ar exclude-o pe alta. Nu este cazul, identitatea ta nu ti-o poate lua nimeni – doar tu! Dar coborand bariera fata de ceilalti, poti descoperi drumuri noi pentru a o proteja.

      • aici sunt de acord cu Aron, alegerea de 1 dec oe foarte nenorocita si nu cred ca e total inocenta.
        Adica, cel mai mare haz e necazul vecinului?

        Probabil insa, toate posibilitatzile de zi natzionala cu un caracter politic au ceva contestabil (de ex “izbucnirea revolutziei din 89″ se pare unul OK, insa, atunci vine intrebarea: care data sa fie ea? Daca-i data actziunii din Timisoara, Bucurestiul si restul tarii se simte jenat ca ei au intarziat de la revolutzie. Daca-i alungarea dictatorului, atunci Timisorenii vor fi jignitzi ca tot ce au facut ei devine nesemnificativ intr-un deceniu sau doua)

        Insa, a dansa hora unirii se aplica fortzat numai la politicieni care oricum sunt prostituatele voluntare ale tzarii, deci eu zic: asa le trebuie.

    • Aron – My dear friend, I hear your being caught like in a catch 22. Believe me, I know the dilemma, I have been an emigrant for 40 years. And believe me I can feel with you at this point. But YOU are all you have to make the difference. There are the words “assimilation” and “integration”. Let me explain them my way (they sometimes get mixed up!). Some people are overwhelmed in the midth of majority, and desperately try to “assimilate”, behave like the others, so they be better accepted. They keep being unhappy. You can integrate yourself – in the sense of understanding the way of the others, their sensibilities, be functional in society as much as possible without clashing with the rules and people, BUT BE YOURSELF. It is hard, yes – but it starts by understanding that you are not to blame for being the way you are, nore for being born part of a minority in a country, but the others are not to blame either for being majority, having an other history and even temperaments. Once you get rid of this acid thing called blame, you may well start realizing that VERY MANY of the things that bother you are part of life and – as long as you put the etnical distinction asside and talk from human to human, in a peaceful manner (and to the right people, this you feel, to whom you can talk and who is blocked in prejudice!), you can talk about most things. And the burdon becomes much lighter – the few issues, which are
      collective – Romania is indeed a country in which many things can go better – can be slowly addressed in a matter of factual way.

      What stuns me is that many Hungarians seem sincerely not to be aware of the small things by which they – or others of their group – severely insult the others, and about the little it takes to make it perfectly clear that you disagree with such attitudes: THIS DOES NOT MEAN to give up your rights or your identity. You see, in our discussion I was extremely careful to make it clear of WHOM I speak. I cannot be more clear about that. But it seems to me that you may profit from developing a critical distance also from those who verbally defend your rights and appear to stand up for you. They may not always be so well intentioned, or they may have strategies in mind that cannot work, many things can happen. Just because of this, it never means that you are stuck between giving up yourself or otherwise distinguish the world you live in between hungarians and romanians, basta. No, there are plenty more distinctions. I will talk to 99 out of 100 hungarians with more pleasure than talk to some individuals like the politicians elected presently in that country, for instance. Hope this helps a drop!

      • I perfectly agree with you about what you say should happen on the individual level. I myself have many Romanian friends and have usually no prejudice against Romanian people on the person-to-person level. What I have problem with is state-level propaganda, manipulation and discriminative actions that target us as a community.

      • Aron @ “What I have problem with is state-level propaganda, manipulation and discriminative actions that target us as a community.” – You have all my understanding for that. I do wish that between you and so many like you, and the romanians who are definitely and badly unhappy with that and many other kinds of manipulations and propaganda, eventually some jump ahead may araise, Sometimes the difficult road becomes acceptable, when one has seen the ones of simpler appearance lead to nowhere.

  20. Bacsa @ Of course, you caught me once again – I delliberately have drawn sharp edges around Tökes. But take this “To me, he missed a UNIQUE ocasion, which HE was the most entitled to grab by the horns. Instead he followed the technical prejudice of some shortsighted rich and backwards looking anyones, and opened the doors to separation of the ethnicies. ” from all I said.

    This is it. I can accept it is hard, but I do believe that seggregation is not an outcome, being understandable makes it not viable. Europe did not bring it to us, we have to actively build our piece of Europe together – for the time being it goes backwards, but I am convinced that the yound want something different and I hope they will not be caught too easily in illusions.

    Now to Tökes, of course I exagerated by saying he is a puppet. But there remains a strong point of interogation: Here we have this man who has the guts to gather around him hungarians AND romanians, all who have some discontent and challenge the last days of dictatorship. A man born on Transylvanian soil, who is educated and certainly knows his history. And three months later, he is in a high society of impact, has some obvious preparatory discussions, and, while everybody – Swiss included – had come to hear from him about the unique expeirence during the Revolution, he ends up repeating some falsely understood figures which are used to blame not the dictatorship, but Romania as such, since itis beginnings. Was he a hypocrity when he allowed romanians to participate in his several important das’s movement? Or was he a hypocrite in Geneva and all the other places? Or was he a little weak and did not have the inspiration of going in the direction I mentioned above? (Of course, I know that it is easy for me to criticize and bring alternatives a posteriori, but what can I do?). So if you give me your piece of understanding for this dilemma, I think the rest is peanuts. He had the respect of ALL Romania! Sincere respect. Could have built other things on that, but maybe I am naive

  21. @Preda: Also, if you live abroad for 40 years it means that you must be much older than me. Our differences in opinion might partly be cause by the generation gap, thus seing some things differently is almost inevitable.

  22. Aron @ “the Romanian state would basically lose nothing except the illusion of being a nation state, which it never was, Transylvania being a multi-ethnic space since almost forever.” You hit the nail on the head: do you now understand why I say that it needs SOMETHING NEW? Because it has always been multiehnic, but it has never been perceived like that. The Habsburg did not respect the majority of the others, nore did the Hungarian Crown, and as we discuss, neither could the 20years of Romania plus 50 years of communism plus 23 years of postcommunism. And there is no model of a multiethnic space all around – don’t speak to me about America, please :-)

    As to the generation gap – yes, the one important thing is that the story I tell you, which happened when I was as young as you or just a bit older, were interpreted quite differently. And time showed me more and more the importance of the way ideas spread, media, and other ways of public pressure. Because influence is something very hard to perceive, and than it happens. And the distinctions of levels of action I make are also experience – and not sufficient experience to be able to be more clear for you. But one thing I think is great – Internet IS a great hinderance to manipulation!

  23. “And there is no model of a multiethnic space all around – don’t speak to me about America, please”

    I am not sure it is even possible. I think that in any such multiethnic space there will always be a local majority that will dominate and a local minority that will feel powerless and discriminated. Even on the person-to-person level I do not really believe it is viable. For example in a family where the mother tongues of the members are different, there will always be one dominant tongue they will use more often for communication. A Romanian-Hungarian mixed family will probably end up speaking Romanian between each other in Romania and Hungarian in Hungary. Or perhaps English, German or some other abroad. I have seen many such examples. This is why I do not believe true bilingualism really exists or that a truly multiethnic region could prosper without one etchnic group becoming dominant over time.

    • Aron @ We are in the core of the problem. And you are right, it boils down to families – my wife is not gifted for languages, we married late – we only speak swiss german, my daughter is so attracted when she hears me speak romanian and I have to build up a space for her to discover more of that world. But I know that she will do it by herself one day or an other, so I try to give as much as I can and keep a relaxed relation to that part of her she will still have to discover more about. But there are families who have a more equilibrated multilingual existence. It depends on many factors. And there are monolingual families where one side strongly dominates with its own character and views, and others which are more ballanced. So you see how easy it is to discover “Multiethnicity” as an important, possibly, but special case of a range of fundamental issues of coexistence. The burdon is there, but somehow less heavy, right?

      So once we are on the ground of reality which says that there is no “ideal” solution, we are there where questions and compromises can begin. The next thing to realise is that we cannot just “think away” the natural fear of losing identity, of giving up to much. But what we can do, is contemplate bravely the damage that can happen if we give in to that fear. One extreme is seggregation – it is an unstable solution, and will become more and more of that, as communication and travel is so much of an evidence. The other extreme is resignation – which is a danger in all kinds of issues. In betewen lays the discovery of the “outside”. The butterfly effect wants that the more empathy you find for the worthy side of “the others”, the more response you may receive to your problems. Asking for understanding is in this respect less efficient than giving understanding – while keeping the ballance.

      Another issue I think of sometimes is the following: while struggling for rights, it would slowly become very helpful for Magyars if they did develop their own community control of transgressions. In the sense that if a Romanian ends up pointing out that this or that gesture goes way too far, it comes always as an affront; even worse when some state official does it. However there simply are and will be transgressions. A responsible community should develop some own corrective instances which act in such situations – and should feel free to make it known. People would sense an increased reliability. At present time certain kind of transgressions are no man’s land. Romanian accept them in order to avoid perpetual conflict, and then suddenly there is either too much – or, as it now happens, a political agenda – and there is a wave of reactions which appear well to overdo the causes discussed.

      I give you to simple examples that come to mind:
      1. Several months ago we discussed here an article from Romania Libera. The author discovered a tourist guide which had been published in Satu Mare with money given by the EU for romanian tourism. Well the book was full of invectives against romanians, as you know them from the cacanian times. It was apparently written by some magyar of low culture, who felt the when adressing to foreigners, he may speak of romians as he apparently learned that his ancesters did 100 ago. The most important thing, the romanian author was obviously embarassed – he insisted over and over again: “I do not want people to come and say ‘the hungarians this and that’, it is only an incident – but someone should control that such incidents which stirr bad emotions better not happen”. Obviously it is a problem without addresse – and I think it is possible that the hungarian society have a bit more of selfcontrol in this respect, and it would pay back.

      2. We also discussed here that banner of the Hungraian Monarchy which appeared in a village, put by the mair. Unlike what is said, it is not a totally isolated fact. I read on a blog one year ago about “such things happening – meaning explicitly the banner of the monarchy”. Here too, the debate was ridiculously lead in the legalistic area – it is not the banner of an other state, so it is not against the law. Well I disagree – as long there is such a diffidence against Romanians, that people feel embarassed to recognize that obviously the negative message of the banner under which Romanians did suffer most in recent times (I don’t speak about Russia :-) is inappropriate, no matter if it is used by one of their own ethnicity, there is a feeling of village without a dog. I think along this direction there is some efficient work to do, and one would be surprized to see that in time it would have a strongly positive impact on negociations for Magyar revendications: because a good piece of trust would be reestablished.

      PS: Maghera, you owe a BEER – see how I end up speaking english to anyone, discovering then that romanian was also ok :-)

  24. @Aron– “the Romanian state would basically lose nothing except the illusion of being a nation state, which it never was, Transylvania being a multi-ethnic space since almost forever.”

    All country is multi-ethnic, not only Transylvania, and there are no illusions about it otherwise Romania won’t have the legal system for minority/identity protection which it has. There are some 18 ethnic minorities recognized and each has a representative in the Parliament, has the right to education in minority language, receives state support for its cultural institution and activities, so on.

    I suppose that you confuse ethnicity with nationality.
    Great Britain is a nation-state and has even more ethnic groups than Romania.

    • Great Britain is a “nation state” with autonomous regions like Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland + 3 Islands.
      “Countries within a country”, “Home nations”, 5 regional languages, parliaments, regional currencies…

      • Bun – se poate vorbi romaneste, totul a inceput pentru Maghera, dar el nu mai este pe fir. Va rog sa nu mai incepem aceeasi polologje neterminata, nu ati invatat inca nimic?

        Sa spunem pe sleau: Romania in anul 1920 a reusit sa indeplineasca un vechi vis si a strans pe toti Romanii pe unde erau majoritari pe pamantul unde traiau, s-a respectat in acest sens o lege internationala … si din motive istorice s-a trezit intr-adevar peste noapte ca este un stat multietnic, mai mult decat fusesera principatele inainte, unde deasemenea mai traiau bulgari, tatari, evrei, armeni samd. Pentru ca in modul acesta s-a intamplat si nu prin lupte de cucerire si dominatie de tip medieval este si va ramane pentru Romani un punct sensibil, peste care nu se trece, acela de a nu amesteca borcane facand pura contabilitate. Este un stat plurietnic din motive care ar trebui sa fie bine cunoscute, dar nu a fost niciodata regat sau imperiu care s-a intins peste alte natiuni in teritoriile unde ele erau acasa si majoritare. Traim in secolul 21, vom inventa noi moduri de convietuire, dar cat timp aceste diferente sunt inca sensibile – si in parte mai sunt – nimeni nu este servit incercand sa calce in picioare aceste diferente.

        Dincolo de asta sunt si eu de acord ca bate ceasul cand trebuie noi sa inventam o noua unitate de identitate in zone de interes Europene, alta decat natiunea clasica, caci aceea duce doar la diviziune neterminata.

      • you don’t get the point (on purpose of course), the nation-state is a political definition, it is not contradicted by the fact that there are more than one ethnic group within that country

        Romania is a nation-state because this is the definition which has been made constitutional. Being a nation-state simple means that is not a bi-, or multi-national.

      • Dragi comentatori, va multumesc pentru efort, dar va rog sa nu raspundeti in engleza numai de dragul meu. Mi-e mai usor mie sa scriu in limba engleza, atata. :-)

  25. @Preda –Bun – se poate vorbi romaneste, totul a inceput pentru Maghera, dar el nu mai este pe fir. Va rog sa nu mai incepem aceeasi polologje neterminata, nu ati invatat inca nimic ?

    Idea asta promovata de Aron e des intalnita si in discursul politicienilor maghiari.
    E o eroare de limbaj ce isi are originea in perioda comunista cand pentru “minoritate etnica” se folosea expresia “minoritate nationala” si care e speculata acum.
    Romania recunoaste diferentele etnice, e evident asta, dar nu le si transforma/legalizeaza in categorii politice.
    Si nici nu o sa o faca prea curand.

    • @preda–Dincolo de asta sunt si eu de acord ca bate ceasul cand trebuie noi sa inventam o noua unitate de identitate in zone de interes Europene…

      statele natiune sunt, si e presupus de toti analistii politici ca vor ramane si in viitor, principalii actori politici pe scena internationala

      Europe must evolve to “a federation of nation states”, José Manuel Barroso said in his annual “state of the union” address, as he pleaded for deeper integration among the EU’s 27 members

      • Ovidiu si Preda: cred ca sint interesante ideile ce incep sa iasa din UDMR privind amendarea constitutiei
        – “stat national” ramine, dar se adauga imediat urmator ceva “minoritatile national sint parte constituanta a statului”
        – eventual se introduce termenul de limba regionala
        – daca se face o regionalizare uniforma si acceptabila maghiarilor (de exemplu Secuimea + Bistrita)
        cred ca am atinge un nivel de “institutionalizare” care ar inchide aceasta discutie.
        Nu zic ca nu vor fi oameni care ar dori si mai mult, Tinutul Secuiesc in sine, mai special decit alte regiuni, dar majoritatea covirsitoare a maghiarilor vor zice ca am atins cam maximul, si chiar se vor mira ca l-am atins.

        Si cred ca romanii nu ar pierde nimic. Pacat ca este o utopie in acest moment.

      • Lorand – Ma vei ierta daca iti spun ca nu pot participa la discutie? Simt dorinta ta pentru un semn pozitiv, o speranta concreta. Si mi-ar place sa iti pot spune din toata inima: da, iata un lucru bun. Cum stii ca pot spune din toata inima: nu am intelegere pentru toate sicanele privitoare la ce formulare au voie sa fie scrise in maghiara si care nu, care magazine au voie sa scrie numele maghiar la stanga si care la dreapta celui in romaneste – la asta ma duce mintea.

        Dar la modificarea constitutiei – are atatea implicatii, ca trebuie sa pasez! Cu mintea mea o singura intrebare imi trece prin cap: nu se pune carul inaintea boilor? Daca e vorba de utopii, mie mi s-ar parea mai firesc mai intai sa se inmoaie controlul de la centru si sa se porneasca un “proiect pilot” ca sa vorbim tehnic, de autogerare a Ardealului pe tema etnica, o reducere a ierarhiei si strangere de experiente concrete. Apoi din ce se arata pozitiv in experienta, se poate mai bine imagina ce modificari sunt eventual bune de facut in Constitutie. Dar nu sunt expert!

      • Preda: momentul este acum in sensul ca USL vrea sa creeze o constitutie noua, vrea regionalizare. E si normal sa ne “dam si noi cu pareara” (ne – eu a mea, UDMR pe a lor, nu coincid neaparat).
        UDMR mai are si alte propuneri non-etnice (clarificarea responsabilitatilor camerei deputatilor si a senatului, restringerea dreptului de a folosi ordonante de urgenta) samd. Sounds reasonal to me.

        Si cred ca putini romani ar sari in aer daca s-ar introduce in constituie pe linga stat national si sintagma “minoritatile nationala sint parte constituante a statului”, si se clarifa statutul limbilor minoritare (ce inseamna 20%, unde se aplica – vezi si prefecturi?, limbile in administratie samd) aka limba regionala.
        Si daca se face o regionalizare egala, cu o regiune acceptabila pentru noi, atunci si dezideratul tau (si al meu!) de a descentraliza, si al nostru de a avea mail mult control in miinile noastre se realizeaza.
        Iar cine va sari totusi in aer, norocul nostru, am scapat de un balast :-)

        Si ai dreptate, niciodata nu am spus sa luam statutul Sud-Tirolului, sa dam un “replace all” in document la “italian” ->”roman”, “german”->”maghiar” si gata sintem. Da nici sa inventam apa calda nu trebe.

        Da ma opresc, ca vine Judit si imi spune iarasi ca visez :-)

    • Ovidiu @ In primul rand, inteleg ca Aron este ceva mai tanar – porneste de la constatari de viata. Si in acest mod i-am raspuns. Este adevarat ca Romania pentru un stat national are/avea relativ multe minoritati numeroase, si am explicat de ce acesta este un specific istoric est european pe care nu poti sa il intlanesti in Europa Occidentala. POate ai citit!?

      De aceea nu il inteleg pe Lorand care nu renunta nicioadata la exemplele sale si corectarile in egala masura formale si relativ straine de realitatea contextuala (Anglia are drepturi muzeale, cand problema a disparut – Wales – i s-a dat solutia. Cu Scotia se rafuiesc insa de sute de ani, va exista ev. ceva. Iar Irlandezii au pus bombe zeci de ani pana s-a miscat ceva, sorry nu sunt un model de invidiat, si au conditii financiare incomparabile, lucru care face mereu problemele mai usoare. Formal ai dreptate, Lorand – noi nu trai pro forma insa. Period) Dar revenind la noi, eu sunt de acord sa acceptam ca am mostenit de la imperiul habsburgic si apoi maghiar o problema: amestecul de etnii mai ales in Ardeal si in Bucovina – care dupa eliminarea evreilor (!) si plecarea in masa a germanilor, se reduce la maghiari (caci Bucovina insasi a plecat singura, eliminand a doua problema :-( ).

      Este o realitate care cere inovatii – stilul rigid de control de la centru poate folosi doar politrucilor, este strain de viata. Insa pentru a avansa in directia unei solutii trebuie conditii in care Ardealul sa preia raspunderea de detalii a reglarii relatiilor etnice, sa fie ierarhiile mai plate si mai maleabile – dar capabile de a replica la intrecerea masurii. Lasa-l pe Barosso, ca nu are el solutii ca pilula minune, bune pentru toata Europa, si nici nu pretinde acest lucru. Daca vrem pace in europa de est, si vrem sa ne putem prezenta si apara interesele comune in mod comun, este nevoie de ceva nou. Iar acum vezi foarte bine ca spre aliantele de interese se misca statele EU, dar la noi se fac divergente. Cum spui tu, trebuiesc doi pentru un dans, maghiarii daca se inchisteaza pe pozitiile lor formaliste si insista in a trece cu vederea tot ceea ce provoaca sau a provocat in ultimii ani reactii negative – si mai ales daca asteapta din senin, de la un stat care pentru Romani NU ESTE BUN, un tratament privilegiat, ca si cand acelasi stat ar putea pentru minoritati sa devina Finlanda, sau Italia, sau ce viseaza, in timp ce pentru restul oamenilor ramane controlat de kleptocrati, atunci perpetueaza problema. Romanii nu au adus comunismul in tara, kleptocratia este un produs al acelei vremi, sunt intr-adevar tot romani, dar nici nu reprezinta pe romani, si mai ales nu ii ajuta. Deci daca vor ceva, atunci si ceva efort comun este necesar – din pura logica.

      Decizia de a se uita intre ce oameni traiesc, de a incerca sa foloseasca constructiv faptul totusi ca si la Bucuresti cam toata “lumea bine” care nu accepta fentele politrucilor, este de cele mai multe ori in favoarea maghiarilor, si asta nu este o evidenta, dar nici aceia nu pot schimba tara dupa dorinta lor – daca fac deci acest pas de a iesi din ghetto mental, sansele sunt foarte bune, in timp.

      • –De aceea nu il inteleg pe Lorand care nu renunta nicioadata la exemplele sale si corectarile in egala masura formale si relativ straine de realitatea contextuala ..

        Nici eu nu il inteleg, parca ar fi un “reflex”.
        Am si scris ca el nu intelege-on purpose of course-

      • Simplu de inteles mesajul, daca vrei: nici constitutia nu este ceva scris pietrele pe care le-a primit Moise, nici “institutionalizarea” minoritatilor nationale nu este ceva nemaiauzit in univers, nici ceva venind de la Belzebub.

        Iar minoritatile nationale este un termen folosit chiar si de OSCE: “OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities Knut Vollebaek”.
        ““A minority is designated as national if it shares its cultural identity (culture, language) with a larger community that forms a national majority elsewhere, that is, one which makes up the majority of the population and forms its own nation state.”

      • Lorand – numai ca remarca: suntem out of sync, reflectia lui Ovidiu se refera la ceva dinainte de remarca ta despre Consitutie. La aceea ti-am raspuns ce puteam, mai sus.

      • Maghera – Iarta-ma, nu am inteles :-( Despre ce polilogie vorbesti, si despre care subiect neterminat?

      • “Preda PERMALINK
        februarie 28, 2013 21:40
        Bun – se poate vorbi romaneste, totul a inceput pentru Maghera, dar el nu mai este pe fir. Va rog sa nu mai incepem aceeasi polologje neterminata, nu ati invatat inca nimic?”

        N-am inteles eu ce ai vrut sa zici tu cu fraza de mai sus.

      • Mi s-a parut ca dai vina pe mine si limba engleza ca nu ajungem la o concluzie. Probabil ca am inteles eu gresit. Forget about it. :-)

      • Maghera @ “Mi s-a parut ca dai vina pe mine si limba engleza ca nu ajungem la o concluzie. Probabil ca am inteles eu gresit. Forget about it. :-)” – Doamne, ma cunosti. Nu, Aron a raspuns englezeste, pe urma eu am continuat la fel – si la un moment dat mi-am dat seama, ca de fapt eu te stiu probabil mai bine, si era rolul meu sa atrag atentia! Iarta-ma daca m-am exprimat ambiguu, nici o intentie – in plus a fost cumva interesant de urmarit masura in care dialogul in engleza are sau nu un impact asupra modului de discutie, poate chiar si al temelor. Stai linistit!

        Lorand @ Si nici la eternul conflict dintre tine si Ovidiu nu ma refeream. Minunat, cate sensibilitati poti atinge cu o vorba de saga. Faceam misto de mine insumi ca am intretinut un lung dialog cu Aron in engleza, el poate credea ca eu nu vorbesc romaneste, si tot asa. Hai sa fim seriosi!

      • @Lorand…”Cred ca se referea la vesnicul conflict intre mine si Ovidiu”

        chiar vesnic nu e, de 15 martie luam pauza, dar reluam a doua zi

  26. Lorand @ Am inteles, USL baga gaz, si trebuie sa urci in mers. Regret, sincer nu pot comenta la chestia asta, cunosc si eu motive pentru “restringerea dreptului de a folosi ordonante de urgenta”, evident. Sintagma cu “minoritatile sunt parte constituanta”, sigur ca nu ma deranjeaza – mi se pare ridicula: pai daca traiesc acolo de sute de ani, ce sa fie altceva. Dar stiu ca legea si cu bunul simt nu se intalnesc prea des – de aceea nici nu comentez.

    Este un mic pescuit in ape tulburi – sa dea Dumnezeu. Si ferice de tine ca Judit iti spune ca visezi – dar nu renunta pentru atata lucru la vise, doar intoarce-te pe pamant cand iti spune, caci ele simt momentul :-)

  27. @Lorand
    sint interesante ideile ce incep sa iasa din UDMR privind amendarea constitutiei

    – “stat national” ramine, dar se adauga imediat urmator ceva “minoritatile national sint parte constituanta a statului”

    Nu inteleg ce inseamna asta, un stat are parti constitutive- legislativul (parlament), executiv (guven), justitia, curtea constitutionala, administratiile locale, etc….dar ce poate sa insemne ca “minoritatile sunt parti ale statului” ?

    – eventual se introduce termenul de limba regionala

    limbile minoritare au deja statutul de oficial-regional (+20%), e un statut limitat cei drept dar nu neglijabil.. si aici trebuie clarificat ce intelegi de fapt prin limba regionala si care e relatia ei cu limba oficiala

    – daca se face o regionalizare uniforma si acceptabila maghiarilor (de exemplu Secuimea + Bistrita)

    Chiar n-am idee cum se va reusi regionalizarea, sau daca se va face pana la urma.
    Date fiind tensiunile in USL, tot mai evidente cu fiecare zi si eu devin tot mai sceptic cu fiecare zi.

    • Ovidiu @ “Date fiind tensiunile in USL, tot mai evidente cu fiecare zi si eu devin tot mai sceptic cu fiecare zi.” – poate sunt meschin (e tarziu), dar daca crapa alianta USL-ului pe problema regionalizarii – sau pe oricare alta – si intra guvernul in incapacitate de functionare, ce valuri de dragoste interesata :-) ar porni pentru maghiari. Banuiesc ca nu crapa asa usor.
      Noapte buna.

    • Ovidiu:
      1. “minoritati parti constituante” – nu stiu daca folosesc termeni corecti (juridic, romanesti). Sint doua lucruri ce le-ar rezolva:
      – unul simbolic: statul roman national “ridica” minoritatile
      – unul juridic: nu se mai poate argumenta contra unei propuneri de dreturi minoritare ca statul roman este un stat national si punct, inchidem discutia.

      2. limba regionala: ar insemna un statut special, cvasi egal limbii oficiale in anumite regiuni.
      Acum e doar in legea administratiei publice LOCALE, si nu se refera in sensul strict la prefecturi, la alte organizatii ale statului roman. Si mai sint lucruri de clarificat, inclusiv cum clarificam “posturi cu relatii cu publicul”.
      Si cu asta s-ar putea elimina si chestia ca sub 20% o localitate nu poate decide sa instituie “bilingualitatea”, ca limba oficiala e romana, si punct.
      Sau chiar in judetele HR, CV sa fie a doua “limba oficiala”.

      Da nu stiu daca va fi constitutie noua, nici regionalizare, de acord cu tine.

      Si vezi, despre acest gen de “institutionalizare” vorbesc EU.

  28. Isterie totala: ieri s-a pus steagul papal pe biserica Sf Mihail din Cluj, politia imediat a aparut si l-a tras la raspundere pe administratorul bisericii. Nu s-a ajuns mai departe din fericire.
    Acelasi steag apare insa frecvent si pe eparhia greco-catolica, dar si normal, nu sare nici un politist sa-l dea jos, cu toate ca este al unui alt stat :-)

    Biserica Sf Mihail: http://www.szabadsag.ro/szabadsag/upload/mainarticle/3699/3699.jpg

    Catedrala greco-catolica

    Ce sa-i faci, sintem privilegiati cind e vorba de actiunile autoritatilor, noroc ca ridem de ei.

    • – ieri s-a pus steagul papal pe biserica Sf Mihail din Cluj, politia imediat a aparut si l-a tras la raspundere pe administratorul bisericii…

      Nu ma mira, toata lumea e nervoasa acum cu steagurile.
      Trebuiau sa-l puna si pe cel al Romaniei ca “semnaleze” ca nu vor sa provoace autoritatile ci doar sa marcheze un eveniment catolic (banuiesc ca e vorba de asta cu papa)

    • Lorand – Cand ai ales intre scoala si politie doar pe cea de – a doua, se poate ajunge la asta. Nu degeaba bancurile cu militienii erau depasite numeric doar de cele cu Bula :-) Si totusi am un bun prieten din copilarie, baiat foarte istet in plus, care era fiu de militian – nici o generalizare fara exceptii …
      Ovidiu @ De acord cu toata lumea este nervoasa. De acord insa si cu faptul ca exista limite cat de departe mergi cu intampinarea prostiei – acel “trebuia sa” al tau, a posteriori imi apare din categoria romaneasca a lui “dupa razboi multi voinici se-arata”. La fel de bine as putea spune “trebuia sa stea o jumatate de ora in rugaciune sa ceara indrumare de la Sfantul Duh in ce mod sa procedeze, ca sa nu iasa neintelegeri” – au pierdut contactul cu Sfantul Duh, ei sunt de vina. Comentarii, cam de prisos. Esentialul este ca macar prostia asta nu s-a escalat.

    • O mica diferenta : pe catedrala greco – catolica era si steagul Romaniei. Pe catedrala Sf Mihail steagul Romaniei lipseste. Asta ca sa nu vorbim decat despre steaguri si nu de simbolistica transmisa, asa, ”cu manta”.

      • Atol @ Te-ai gandit ca trece excitatie si, fereasca Sfantul, ramane o atmosfera ca in replica ta, in care trebuie tot omul sa isi buna bandiere tricolore de urechi, ca sa fie linistiti cei care se tem ca sunt provocati de niste rautaciosi secuii fiorosi? Si toate bisericile l-ar imbraca pe Christos in tricolor, etc … nu e bine asa, atol, zau nu – ce sa caute tricolorul pe biserica?

      • atol: si ce simbolistica transmite steagul papal? Vaticanul fura Ardealul?

        Cei drept, macar atunci ar fi in Schengen :-)

  29. Maghera @ “I think that the granting of rights of ethnic groups should be completely independent of history,” – We perfectly agree on this, in fact I repeated at various occasions here that the rights of the Hungarians are untouchable and unconditional. But I do believe that what we speak here is not a matter of principle but one of measure!

    What I see is something like a Romania “at two speeds”: on the one hand the country could not get rid yet of the post-communist lineage that started with Iliescu, a bunch of corrupt and cynical politrucs who could not care less about the “nation” or the wealth of the country – and thus a mighty precious bunch of very ethnical Romanians who have continued to do their best to oppose, to reduce the negative impact, etc. On the other hand, an opaque Hungarian community, concerned only with iots rights, who dreams only of the best and expects the most fancy models of organizations and distribution to be implemented in their case. But who hardly discuss any other issue of the coutry, who hardly are willing to reach out the hand for changing the country in common. On the contrary: when you speak of the specific conditions – not only economic, but fundamental: the unique distribution and mixture of ethnical presence, which asks for new ideas – the reaction is agressively reluctant, and seems to shout “excuses, we want Catalanioa, we want Scotia, we want this and that”. No affinitiy to reality. And when you humbly propose that in time, the strategy of building up alliances with some new and young Romanian movement (yet to emerge, helas), and change the country INCLUDING the ethnic rights together, it is total perplexity: we do not have time to wwait, we are extinguishing, I don’t know what.

    If talking of “rumours”, you also think of my episode on Tökes, it is first hand experience, as all the rest I said – I have been exposed to too many different kinds of rumours to indulge in this. And I would be sincerely interested in your opinion about my conclusion which was exposed above in more detail. Essentially that when Tökes aligned with the propaganda of backwards looking irredemptists in the West, he missed an enormous occacion: because he had been a symbol and a point of reference to ALL people in Romania, and if he had been halfwise faithful to that image he might have achieved much more for the Hungarians then by aligning with some grand lobby structures and their ideology.

    Because, I am sorry to say – this morning I was reflecting again about that: there is an IMENSE hyatus between the genuine needs, and the strategies associated to them. The needs, you hear time and time again when someone has a sincere burst of pain and passion: we want to keep our identity, we feel like being guilty for being different, we are under the permanent stress of maintaining our dignity and identity or “assimilating” – understood probably as giving up one self, which is of course impossible. I have a lot of compassion for these genuine question and problems of life.
    But on the other hands, when it comes to practice, how can we protect this identity, you see a closed mentality based on antagonism – it “us” getting specific, solely ethnic based rights from “them”; no place for togetherness!
    And this is stupid, and it was put as a reflex in their minds by some few who have chosen this doctrine – because people in real life have little time to ponder on collective attitudes and policies!

    Take an example: Octavian Goga – he faught for Romanians and against the Hungarian opression, he was sentenced to death during the war. But he obviously did not have Hungarians all in a basket! He is known for having been one of the most faithful friends of Ady Endre, which indicates that he had a preoccupation to look for people of a common, higher vision, no matter the ethicity. Can one say something like this of the present leaders? And none was sentenced to death in Romania!. What Hungarians know is that Goga was responsible for the antisemitic laws from 1938, a government of six weeks, and it is enough for them to align him along with people like Nyirö or Wass. Well, I don’t know how he came to that, and it is a shame indeed. But I know that he died in the same year, so he did not have the time to change attitude, like many major intellectuals of that time did, before the war had started: Cioran, Eliade, they realized that it was a murderous way with nothing of the spirit they tried to infuse into it. Nyirö, Wass, they stayed on the boat until it sank – how dares one compare? As to the antisemitic laws, in Hungary they had been imposed by Teleki already in 1923! And unlike Goga, Teleki had the time to realize where the train is going, and by commiting suicide in 1941 when realizing what was going on, he became a tragical figure of history. Wass, Nyirö did not even do that – but some fony guys want to propose them as heroes and figures to follow, not to their own children, but to the Hungarians of Romania.

    You see, there is plenty more to say, but I am interested to see more of your reaction already to this part. Have a good day!

    .

    • I wasn’t referring to your experience with Tökes directly, Preda, but that is part of it. Using the term “rumors” was a poor choice on my end, I should have said anecdotal evidence. I take you for your word. What I envision is a population that is politically mature enough to where it does not have a knee-jerk reaction when a few voices makes a sensational claim. Of course, the flip-side to this is what you mention, giving up the use of nationalistic means for obtaining ethnic rights for the minority. Do you ever feel that a lot of the problems in this domain end up in a hopelessly deadlocked blame-game, each side feeling justified to turn the heat up just a little bit in their riposte because they are dead convinced the other side had started it? I know I do. It’s similar to what my kids often do. I believe the state should play the role of the cool-headed parent impervious to the flaring of nationalistic emotions. Does Hungary do this well? Fuck No! Does Hungary need to do this well in order for Romania to do it well? Hell No! (pardon my French)

      “Take an example: Octavian Goga – he faught for Romanians and against the Hungarian opression, he was sentenced to death during the war. But he obviously did not have Hungarians all in a basket! He is known for having been one of the most faithful friends of Ady Endre, which indicates that he had a preoccupation to look for people of a common, higher vision, no matter the ethicity. Can one say something like this of the present leaders?”

      In the spirit of humor I can’t help but say: How about Basescu and Orban? :-)

      Joking aside, that’s an interesting tidbit. I was unaware of the friendship you mention. It is interesting how many such relations have existed in our common history, but they are largely avoided in history books (at least the ones I studied in the 80s). I think historians should put more focus on exploring these alliances and friendships. We have so much common history, but like you say, matters are too often dissected into mutually exclusive aspects of “us” and “them”.

      • Maghera @ “It’s similar to what my kids often do.” – exactly, only kids seem to have a marvelous gift, to know to change wave length unexpectedly; but they can be very mean too. The grown ups have lost that gift. And they know to simultate better reason, to themselves and the others. I think I get to like more and more the kind of ideas of Kahleman, showing with well chosen experiments how strong the capacity of your brain is, to fill in the dots – you don’t even realize when you do it! So while a hungarian is badly beating on a romanian’s wounds, he thinks he is just being rational – but when the other is doing something ‘similar’ (it is never exactly the same stile), he feels the pain or anger, but never comes to the idea that it might go two ways. And vice versa. This is why I prefer approaches which break the rithm, take an other perspective, higher, or slightly lateral – it relaxes and may, just may help people see better. After all, you do not look in the sun either, so see it better – why do this with conflict – fuel?

      • Maghera @ “I think historians should put more focus on exploring these alliances and friendships. ” – funny synchronicity, I had done in the last two evenings a lot of thinking on this lines. I wanted to suggest the young to study the long forgotten history, before hungarians for unio trio and romanians just the serves and orthodox paria – and to imagine the fights and the attractions, the forbidden loves, imagine Romeo and Julia of Hungarian and Romanian side, how would have been like at the year 1000, at 1200, 400 and up to the present. This kind of things – for which, the more you start imagining, the more you feel compelled to know more precise facts about the storry, because the fights and conquerors and legislators are so boring, when it comes to how and why people lived. A lot of things like that I was thinking, and now you come with a very similar remark.

        Yes we can also imagine Basescu and Orban, but even better Orban and Ponta. There is on one Pester Lloyd even a very strong picture of the two, with Ponta holding his hands hanging in front, like a shy one hiding his sex as if he was naked – and Orban full of dynamics, as if trying to tell him “don’t be so shy, I show you how to dance”. They also comment it a bit in that direction.

    • Ovidiu, I’ve been wondering something for a while that I haven’t asked before because it’s a bit personal. So please ignore my question if you feel it’s too intrusive. Do you know Hungarian? You’ve posted references to numerous articles in Hungarian, which I guess could be translated by tools available on the internet, but I’ve also seen you post references to Hungarian videos which could only be understood by someone who understands the language. I’m just curious.

      • Maghera, Aron @ This interview. quite long, tells you among the lines about some of the things that I was referring to above. From the mouth of an American. And in cold matter of factual way – if you have the time, follow!

      • I’ve watched a little bit of it, enough to get me interested to watch the rest over the weekend. I agree with some of what he says in there, but there’s also some info that seems a little far-fetched, like a war brewing in Transylvania in 1993. Larry Watts seems a little like the typical intelligence guy, trying to see the worst in situations. As a former consultant for the Romanian intelligence service, he’s not exactly unbiased either. And looking at this angle from a high-level, it seems no different than what some call the self-victimization some Hungarians are accused of, based on their view of the events from WW1 and after.

        While I find this interesting, this is a historical discussion, with little bearing on the right of minorities. I also have to ask myself why Romania would choose to deny rights to minorities (I’m talking about the communist period mainly) when it perceived these attacks on itself, such as the ones described by Larry Watts. It seems to me that exemplary treatment of minorities would have been the best way to counter.

      • Maghera – Do not forget that Larry Watts is a RAND corporation advisor, a long term advisor of the CIA for the area and has access to documents you never will hear about. How much did you hear about the Russian plan of invading Romania in 1968 and even worse, that it lasted for several years, how much did you hear about the fact that ceasca had taken measures by getting his backup from Tito and China in that event? All I remember – I was a teenager at that time – is that there were vague rumours of troups at the border with Bessarabia, but we liked to consider them rumours.

        So in this case too, on a normal citizen’s base I incline to agree with you. But then again, it is true that Targu Mures was a fake, and yet people died there – conflicts can be planed up to some point. So – if you allow me to smile back to Lorand – just as ceasca had terrible plans of which we do not know and have not seen anything come true, because there has been a strong – I would say demesurated – reaction, also for those possible plans in 1993, some reaction may have made them impossible, obsolete or too risky. Bela Kun also had the plan to occupy Transilvania and get the help from the russians – we have not seen anything of that, I had not known something explicite in that direction, just vague dangers mentioned by the old – but there are documents, Watts has consulted them. I do not believe that in his position you can play around with information – you lose your credibility, and then your job and bread!

        As to your questions on “Romania” in communist times: WHEN WILL YOU ALL UNDERSTAND – it was a time of idiotic paranoic rule, I do not call it Romania, it was not romanian rule for the romanians, it was a sickeness from which – considering camps, persecutions, distruction of the own history if you so will – romanians had a lot to suffer. And most of all, since you refer specifically to the time under ceasca – well he took the fruit of a secular policy of Romania, lead them to the point where Carter offered himin 1978 to be treated better than Yugoslavia, to enter with massive help the free world. And what did he do? He said NICEVO, you become better socialist. He was nuts, and he gave up the chance of the whole nation, for his idiocy, and instead brought hunger and cold over the country. Now I ask you: does your question make any sense under these circumstances? Who are you talking about at all when you say “Romania”. Am I not entitled to expect from people who know these things, who have lived there, to realize the difference and stop looking at one and the only isolated issue which concerns the? Romanians lost their good part due to that ceasca, it was not their choice, like the whole communism was not. How can you take these issues so easily? And how long with that time which was in fact one of common suffering weigh on us as a matter of division. Now, this is not a matter of necessity, it has become one of choice.

      • Preda, I’m not arguing with what he says there, or his expertise. There might be other experts, who are just as qualified with a different opinion. I just have a general mistrust of American intelligence and military officers who go on to become consultants after retiring from their duty. Their motivation shifts from duty to money at that point. That’s just my general view.

        “As to your questions on “Romania” in communist times: WHEN WILL YOU ALL UNDERSTAND – it was a time of idiotic paranoic rule, I do not call it Romania, it was not romanian rule for the romanians, it was a sickeness from which – considering camps, persecutions, distruction of the own history if you so will – romanians had a lot to suffer.”

        I’m well aware of this. What’s unfortunate is that some elements of that still remain today. That sick and paranoid state had left its influence on generations to come through its officially promoted values and education.

  30. Maghera @ “I wasn’t referring to your experience with Tökes directly, Preda,” – I realize that it helped getting rid of it :-) Because after having left the anger out, the recallection was much more clear and stronger: there has been a time were I felt just respect and honoured Tökes, and this was shared among romanians, in a wide extent, and that could have been a terrific base. It is certainly that contrast, that feeling of loss which makes me be in a different way sad or bitter when I think of him than when I think of, what do I know, Borbely (of whom I have read some really exaltated speach pieces), or someone else.

    Asi es la vida, mi amigo, buenas noches!

  31. Larry Watts: “With friends like this” (Fereste-ne doamne de prieteni). http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/mediterranean_quarterly/summary/v022/22.3.giannakos.html
    O carte de care am aflat acuma, scrisa de un expert militar american care studiaza Romania de mai multe decenii. Nu se gaseste in Amazon – straniu ca a fost publicata doar in Romania. Din recenzii pare fascinanta, si neindoielnic atinge si teme deseori discutate aici.
    Trebuie sa mai intind urechile, sa vad daca nu este cumva o carte cumparata/comandata – ceea insa m-ar surprinde destul de mult in acest caz.

  32. Preda,
    Imi place ca ai dileme.
    O carte este o carte,important este ceea ce informatii transmite.
    Ai dreptate este o carte cumparata/comandata care spune, printre altele, ca sub anticeasismul guvernantilor din minunata Ungarie se ascundeau cu totul alte interese decat cele declarate.
    Acum ce sa facem? Incepand Anonimus romanii au cumparata/comandata o groaza de carti …. !! ??

    • Atol @ Iarta-ma, cinismul tau nu stiu sa-l descriu altfel decat ca “tampit”. Eu existat sub Ceausescu carti cumparate – si cunoscand pe urma mai multe despre persoanele respective, am inteles ca asta este. Despre Larry Watts am auzit ieri prima data. Dar am studiat tot ce-am gasit in internet, am urmarit interviul, si deja afirm ca pentru mine Watts este deasupra oricarui dubiu. Daca nu ar ajunge senzatia pe care o da intr-o ora de interviu (si in lucruri atat de importante, nu ajunge!), ajunge insa ca l-am vazut la Cioranescu in casa, si stiu omul, si mai ales relateaza intalniri cu Coposu si am cunoscut omul – oricat de izolat era Coposu, nu se lasa inselat de un occidental vag. Deci dilema intre timp s-a rezolvat pentru mine – “argumentul” tau m-ar fi facut cel mult suspicios.

      De ce exista un moment de dubiu: trebuie sa fii roman sau tembel sa publici asa o carte la editura militara, sa fie inaccesibila pe internet si de mai bine de doi ani sa nu apara la o editura internationala, neutra, sa fie accesibila prin Amazon si Kindle in lumea intreaga. Este cel mai important document despre Romania pe care l-am vazut in zeci de ani, si nu cunoaste raspandire! In interviu spune cu toata dragostea si pe sleau Watts: dupa 90 sunt valabile alte reguli, cine stie sa se vanda, sa isi faca propaganda si lobby. El ne ofera aur, si noi il ascundem sub saltea. Sper sa se trezeasca repede cineva si sa se ocupe serios cum se face profesional de difuzarea mondiala a acestei carti – caci desi este atemporara, totuis impactul cu timpul va scadea.

      OLAHUS, LORAND @ Din acest motiv sustin cu insistenta sa fie discutat interviul lui Watts si cartea in mod separat intr-un thread pe acest blog. Clarifica cu surse studiate la un nivel la care nici unul din noi nu vom ajunge, o sumedenie de topicuri care au fost prilej de dezbateri intense si intre noi. In graba cateva exemple:

      1. S-a afirmat de mai multe ori ca Romania a atacat Ungaria in 1919 in mod violent si rautacios, etc. Iata ca istoricul militar american ne confirma si intareste ce se stia din batrani intre romani. Bela Kuhn avea promisiuni cu Rusii sa ocupe Transilvania si sa se intalneasca cu rusii in Bucovina. Si pentru acest lucru il iubea nu numai putini stangisti maghiari, ci si o buna patura de burghezia, caci vedeau in el singura sansa de a recupera parte din teritoriu – fie si cu pretul de a deveni republica sovietica. O spune nu un roman, si Watts, bazat pe documente. In aceste conditii oare minteau batranii cand ne invatau ca eram amenintati de Kuhn, si in plus au fost salvatii de comunism gratie romanilor toti maghiarii, macar pentru 25 de ani? Nu mintreau. Acum nu ma mira ca aceste adevaruri nu sunt cunoscute ca atare in Ungaria – cum si la noi s-a trecut prea mult sub tacere, spre exemplu despre Transnistria. Dar este momentul sa ne confruntam cu adevarul, caci adevarul ne poate singur inalta deasupra conflictelor prost intelese si digerate.

      2. In interviu Watts vorbeste cu ironie nedisimulate despre “genocidul cultural”, ca exemplu cras al campaniei de denigrare a Romaniei – cand vorbeam de acest lucru, am fost tratat de Aron mai intai de paranoic – apoi a revenit. Nu o amintesc, Aron, cu rautate, ci pentru a sublinia nestiinta.

      3. Si cel mai important, interviul se termina cu fraza scurta: “Si acum ?” – “Acum merge mai departe denigrarea, caci oamenii esentialmente sunt din aceleasi gasti, interesele geopolitice au supravietuit intotdeauna schimbarilor de regimuri, si mai ales voi sunteti in continuare lipsiti de un suficient lobby!” (Ma rog, redau in vorbele mele ce a spus el!)

      • Preda: un thread separat se poate face, scrii articolul si “il submiti” lui Olahus si discutati mai departe.

        Nu stiu daca un maghiar batrin maghiar spunea cindva ca romanii l-au salvat de Kun…

        “Watts vorbeste cu ironie nedisimulate despre “genocidul cultural”, ca exemplu cras al campaniei de denigrare a Romaniei”: scuze, dar mi se pare ca aici vorbeste aiurea, a venit, nu a vorbit cu reprezentanti ai maghiarilor (lucrind intr-un Cluj cu cca 25% maghiari pe atunci…) doar cu al romanilor si are pretentii sa cunoasca adevarul. Nu cred ca este o exagerare masiva acest termen cind vorbesti de anii 1984-89:
        – cind in 1989 s-a ajuns in scoala mea din Cluj sa nu se mai vorbeasca in limba maghiara la festivitatea de inchidere a anului scolar. Cind se restringeau DRASTIC clasele maghiare
        – cind panourile/tablourile cu fostele clase au fost scoase de pe peretii scolii mele iar noi nici macar panou bilingv nu aveam voie, asa ca nu am facut…
        – cind nu mai aveai voie sa scrii in public toponimiile maghiare (numele de orase in ziarele maghiare samd)
        – cind in teatre si opera maghiara piesele autorilor maghiari erau o raritate. Cind afisul teatrului si operei maghiare de la Cluj s-a tranformat intr-o bilingualitate ciudata: romana cu litere mari, maghiara cu mici. Evident numele teatrului in maghiara era “Cluj Napoca-i Állami Magyar Színház”, adica nu “Kolozsvári …”
        samd.
        Daca ai fi trait atunci ca maghiar in Ardeal nu credeai ca acest termen este o exagerare! Nu cred ca era o “denigrare” fara o baza substantiala – daca consideri denigrare prezentarea situatiei de mai sus amintita.

  33. Kalaci @ Referitorul la filmul pe care l-ai pus mai de mult la dispozitie, cu interviul lui Stanculescu: ma intreb daca Watts, care este plin de dezvaluiri zbuciumatoare, care merg mai departe chiar decat am stiut si eu vreodata, daca are ceva de spus despre Tökes, direct sau macar voalat. Colaborarea Ruso-Ungara impotriva Romaniei, care a inceput cu Stalin, care a favorizat prezenta oamenilor lui Horty in Ardeal, care a fost intrerupta in anii 50 din motive binecunoscute, dar care a fost reluata apoi, este prezentat in mod nevoalat, la fel ca si anumite interventii coordonate, inaintea si in timpul Revolutiei – asta doar din intreviu si mai multe prezentari ale cartii, pe care le-am gasit pe net. Astept sa imi procur cartea! Aviz amatorilor – citez din ce am citit si auzit de la Watts, nu enunt pareri proprii.

  34. Lorand @ “cind panourile/tablourile cu fostele clase au fost scoase de pe peretii scolii mele iar noi nici macar panou bilingv nu aveam voie, asa ca nu am facut…
    – cind nu mai aveai voie sa scrii in public toponimiile maghiare (numele de orase in ziarele maghiare samd)” – acesta este genocid deci. Bine draga Lorand ca am aflat in sfarsit ce inseamna genocid. Pentru mine genocid insemna cand se omoara oamenii unei etnii cu scopul explicit de a elimina insasi etnia.

    Iarta-ma Lorand, nu doresc polemici pe aceasta tema si am tot respectul pentru faptul ca nebunia anilor 80 se exprima impotriva maghiarilor cu o anumita fobie a limbii si semnelor nationale. In acelas timp, la Bucuresti s-au daramat biserici splendide, ceasca era paranoic in ultimul grad si intreaga populatie resimtea acest lucur. Mi mi se pare ca tu ai trait in Romania, cunosti masura lucrurilor, si alegerea cuvintelor ti se pare un fapt intamplator – “noua ni se faceau nenumarate sicane, lumea a ‘ales’ acest cuvant, eu stiu ce descria, unde-i problema?”. Problema este, Lorand, ca tot occidental receptiona din vorbe asociatia pe care – in mod firesc – o avea el la vorba ‘genocid': isi inchipuia ca Romanii persecuta pana la elminarea fizica pe maghiari, in masa – iar ei sunt protejati, ca este DOAR o chestie nationala. Asa s-a facut propaganda, si asa s-a receptionat. Cu urmari devastatoare pentru Romanii din exil, si pentru imaginea Romaniei in mod durabil. Pe baza de minciuni – Watts da si exemple de minciuni. Sau ce vrei mai mare minciuna decat idea de daramarea satelor, care a fost colportata ca un mijloc tot de a “elimina” pe maghiari, cand de fapt s-au daramat cateva sate Romanesti si mai ales Bucurestiul.

    Iarta-ma, dar mesajul este acut: s-au facut pe spinarea voastra niste masinatii ingrozitoare, cu scopuri cu totul altele decat binemeritata imbunatatire a sortii reale a maghiarilor din Romania. Si acest proces este continuu! De ce repet si ma las eu injurat tot timpul aici: emancipati-va de exil si de Budapesta lui Orban si formulati independent problemele si revendicarile, si mai ales puneti in clar trecutul in care ati fost folositi in acest mod – pentru ca aceste abuzuri sunt cele care au ramas in memoria romanilor, si care trezesc asociatii! Insistenta in a spune si azi “nu credeai ca acest termen este o exagerare” arata o grava indiferenta si atata tot. Era grav. In Tarile Baltice, Basarabia, s-ai deportat intre 25-25% din populatie in Siberia pe criterii etnice, erai deportat pana in anii 80 daca recitai o poezii romaneasca sau te miri ce i se parea poltaiului ca este “nationalist”. Ati trait asa ceva voi? NU – si acolo totusi nu s-a vorbit de “genocid”, s-au descris faptele la rece, crud cum au fost, fara calificative care sa trezeasca asociatiile de care am vorbit. Indulgenta Occidentului cu acest abuz este pur si simplu inexplicabila, cand stii cum s-a folosit pana atunci termenul de genocid, si discutiile lungi pana cand s-a acceptat ca acest termen se potriveste si la ce s-a facut cu Armenii in Turcia. In cazul vostru nu a existat nici o dezbatere, a cazut din senin, si lumea a zis “Ah da?”. Zau nu te costa nimic sa intelegi – nu inseamna ca bagatelizezi problemele care existau atunci pentru voi, dimpotriva le dai justa lor masura!

    Despre Bela Kun nu stiu ce ai inteles, dar nu ce am spus eu. Nu pe el l-au salvat romanii desigur, ci Ungaria de soarta de a deveni republica sovietica, soarta care era parafata in contractul militar cu rusii, din care isi sperau Transilvania. Iar in masura in care erau cunoscute planurile comune cu rusii, in masura in care Basarabia era deja unita cu Romania, iar Basarabenii stiau deja bine ce este rusia, in masura in care Romania primise zeci de mii de refugiati rusi si deci si pe calea aceasta stia, este un act evident de legitima aparare sa previi o ocupatia ruso-ungara. Iar ca efect colateral, Ungaria nu a devenit republica sovietica. Daca ne gandim mai bine, aici a fost o oarecare paralela cu revolutia lui Kossuth, cand alianta cu rusii impotriva romanilor a functionat – deci s-a mai si invatat din istorie!

    Priveste lucrurile cum sunt Lorand, pentru numele lui Dumnezeu, va fi mai usor pentru tine si pentru toti. Ai intrebat “ce putem face pentru ca romanii sa inteleaga ca nu suntem o primejdie, etc?” – accepta raspunusul. Faceti si voi temele de-acasa, incepeti prin a accepta faptele trecute intr-o lumina mai realista, momentele – care de fapt continua pana astazi – cand s-au facut rele! Incepeti putin si la voi! Nu cercetarea tuturor modelelor de autonomie locala din lume este ce lipseste la acest capitol – ci transparenta cu privire la trecutul recent si mai putin recent, ca minima moralia.

    Despre carte – sunt convins ca este una care intereseaza pe toti, eu inca nici nu mi-am procurat-o, pot sa mai scrie si altii daca o au. Daca nu se misca nimica, dupa ce o procur si citesc, cand am timp voi scrie eu in masura in care nimeni nu a facut-o pana atunci.

    • Preda: eu practic nu am auzit termenul de genocid cultural folosit de maghiari, nici nu stiu cum l-as traduce. Nici in engleza. Am auzit insa etnikai tisztogatas/ etnic cleansing cea ce cu sigur a fost/s-a incercat. Nu ca in fosta Yugoslavie, doar cu masurile dure administrative si politienesti. Si sa nu crezi ca in Ardeal Ceasca nu a avut planuri de distrugeri, dar cu propaganda asta l-au putut opri, plus ca nici timp nu prea a mai avut (planul lui era din 1988, protestele contra au inceput vara si toamna lui 1988).

      Hai sa nu aruncam vina pe maghiari care au denuntat practicile existente din anii 80, continuate in anumite locuri si la inceputul 90.

  35. Lorand @ Tu practic nu ai auzit, pentru ca traiai in Romania. In engleza se practica “cultural genocide”, in germana “Kulturgenocid”, era in toate ziarele. Iar daca ai fi stiut de asta, remarcai cum eu am remarcat atunci cand acel jurnal al lui Wass din America a circulat aici pe blog – undeva aparea si acolo “cultural genocide”. Nu degeaba vorbeam cu ca unele lucruri au venit din exil/lobby peste Ungaria sau direct in Transilvania, Si oameni au intrat inocenti in hora. Uite vine Larry Watts si va spune acelas lucru – la un moment exista o alegere: crezi ca toti romanii va vor raul si “inventeaza”, sau accepti ca au existat lucruri vehiculate pe spinarea voastra, cum se spune, si care au creat o indreptatita nemultumire intre romani,

    De aceea nu imi veni te rog cu fraze deplasate ca aceasta “Hai sa nu aruncam vina pe maghiari care au denuntat practicile existente din anii 80, continuate in anumite locuri si la inceputul 90.”. Cine da vina si pe ce maghiari? Eu nu am dat vina pe “maghiari”, am relatat o practica extrem de raspandita in Occidentul celei de-a doua jumatati a anilor ’80 de a denunta aceste practici sub un nume total deplasat – acela de “genocid cultural”. Si am aratat ca aceasta practica – caci era de asemenea o practica – era pornita din lobbyul maghiar foarte puternic in comparatie cu cel romanesc, care era de facto inexistent. Si afirmand acest lucru, este si clar ca nu am “dat vina pe Maghiari” in general, ci pe o anumita fractiune a emigratiei care avea anumite practici de lobby.

    Eu m-am plicitisit de intorsaturile astea: continui sa crezi ca tocmai vorba de “genocid” impreuna cu asociatiile pe care in modul cel mai real le-a trezit in opinia publica occidentala (asociatii de exterminare a unei minoritati, in timp ce majoritatea traieste fara probleme), era termenul potrivit pentru “a denunta practicile”, ori esti de acord ca aici a fost o mica mare scapare?

    Sa amintim ca in aceeasi perioada Bulgarii au expulzat cam 350000 de turci, aceia intr-adevar erau sub interdictie totala de a vorbi turceste, etc, si desi nici turci nu duc lipsa de lobby, acolo nu s-a auzit altceva decat fapte seci, fara “genocid” si alte barbarisme. Basca ca s-a discutat MULT mai in treacat decat “genocidul din Romania”. Si motivul este cunoscut, si asta a mentionat Larry in interviu: Americanii nu gaseau alt mijloc pentru a-l destabiliza pe Ceausescu, si au marsat la aceasta sugestie maghiara-rusa (fara a sti ca in spate sade ceva mai mult decat niste nobili maghiari batrani din Washington). Este istorie recenta, sunt lucruri pe care le-am trait, si dezbatut chiar si cu priteni maghiari, deschide putin ochii! De asta vorbim.

    La fel si cu Bela Kun, Evident ca maghiarul de rand a luat la cunostinta armate romane in Budapesta, si la tot necazul si suferinta in care se afla, a ramas cu impresii ,,, apasatoare. Dar au trecut 90 de ani – daca Romanii in decizie au stiut de la inceput ca de fapt lupta pentru a sparge o alianta deja stabilita, care avea ca scop ocuparea ardealului de catre unguri cu ajutorul rusilor, atunci stiau si UNII maghiari acest lucru! De acord? Nu ar fi cinstit sa se invete aceste lucruri la istorie, in loc sa se lase sa dainuie mai departe imaginea romanilor care au pradat Budapesta cu rautate, imagine care a aparut si aici de doua ori? Lucruri de acestea consider eu sa fie home-work minimal de partea maghiarilor, daca vor cu adevarat intelegere si drepturi. Si intamplarea face ca cei mai interesati in aceasta sunt cei din Ardeal.

    • Preda: sa luam un document oficial din acele vremuri care vorbeste despre genocid cultural, sa intelegem termenul
      “1994/45. Draft United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples:
      http://www.un-documents.net/c4s29445.htm
      “Article 7 Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right not to be subjected to ethnocide and cultural genocide, including prevention of and redress for:
      a. Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities; …
      d. Any form of assimilation or integration by other cultures or ways of life imposed on them by legislative, administrative or other measures;

      Eu sustin ca este este aplicabil anilor 80 din Romania, si in unele locuri si anilor 90 (Funar la Cluj).

      (Nota: ai dreptate insa, in varianta din 2007 s-a scos acest termen dar au ramas aproape aceleasi paragrafe: http://www.galdu.org/web/index.php?sladja=50&vuolitsladja=89&giella1=eng, sper ca azi nu-l mai folosesc oamenii, “asimilarea fortata” este de ajuns :-) (care nu prea mai exista ca politica de stat in Romania).

      • Lorand – in 1994 termenul de genocid cultural devenise tocmai apa de ploaie, iar evreii de aceea fara comentarii au recurs la “Shaoh”. Ia mai slabeste-ma te rog cu incercarile astea disperate. Eu vreau sa iti deschid ochii sa intelegi niste lucruri care te ating si la care poate nu te-ai gandit.Dar nu trebuie sa accepti. Eu insa nu am timp de munca de convingere, am trecut prin asta, scuza-ma te rog. Tu nu vezi ca aceste paragrafe nu mai sunt decat apa de ploaie, depinde de cine se plange si cui se plange? Genocid pana in 1985 insemna ceva unic, extraordinar de grav – se vorbea de genocidul nazist, cel turcesc, si poate Pol Pot, cam atata. Si oamenii inca cu acea imagine traiesc, chiar daca s-a diluat termenul.

  36. ”Nu degeaba vorbeam cu ca unele lucruri au venit din exil/lobby peste Ungaria sau direct in Transilvania, Si oameni au intrat inocenti in hora”
    Preda ,vrei să zici că era raiul pentru maghiari,dar noi n-am dat seama și am crezut ce zic răii de afară. Bine ,genocid n-a fost ,în adevăratu sens al cuvântului ,putem să spunem că s-a petrecut un genocid general în toată țara.(parcă și în procesul lui cescu e folosit termenul).Pe genocidul asta general s-a suprapus și demersurile făcute pentru asimilare,blocare accesului la cultura proprie,de asta ne-a fost mai greu.Trebuie să ne crezi ,am simțit pe pielea noastră,nu vorbim din auzite.
    ”Manualele de istorie au fost treptat rescrise pentru a se concentra exclusiv pe contribuţia românească la
    istoria Transilvaniei, excluzând cu desăvârşire maghiarii (Pilon, 1992:63, 64).”
    „nu putem înfiinţa instituţii speciale de fizică, chimie sau alte
    specializări pentru tinerii care nu cunosc limba română“ (Deletant, 1998:182).”
    ”Regimurile comuniste, cel al lui Ceauşescu în special, au acţionat în vederea distrugerii identităţii
    independente a maghiarilor şi a altor minorităţi din ţară ”(http://www.edrc.ro/docs/docs/Maghiarii_din_Romania.pdf)

    • Kalaci @ “noi n-am dat seama și am crezut ce zic răii de afară” – stii bine ca nu asta spun!
      Spun ca “raii” de afara au prezentat ceea ce voi stiati ca se intampla, si ceea ce nu am zis niciodata ca a fost frumos sau placut, intr-un mod atat de exagerat, incat au lasat urme.
      Aici nu e nimeni nebun: voi nu aveati doar nevoie sa “va luati dupa aia din afara”. Dar in lipsa de atitudine, cumva ati fost asimilati cu cei care ar afirma despre ei insisi ca au traversat un “genocid cultural” – or asa ceva nu se face, asa nu se vorbeste. Nu are rost sa ne intoarcem in jurul cozii – in mod evident nu cele prin care ati trecut voi sutn puse in discutie, si modul in care au fost prezentate opiniei publice internationale. Daca nu acceptati ca vorbesc de ASTA si nu de CEALALTA, riscam sa vorbim la nesfarsit. De aceea am spus ca s-au trezit inocenti in hora. Lorand sustine (ma mira, dar il cred) ca el pana astazi nici nu a auzit nici nu ar fi folosti termenul de “genocid cultural”. Este o acuzatii al naibii de grea, la care tot omul deduce ca intreaga populatie a participat zglobie. Uita-te ce citate imi dai (nu vreau sa discut persoana doamnei Pilon) si uita-te ce inseamna genocid: oricat de rau ar fi fost, ti se pare tie ca se potrivesc faptele cu vorbele?

  37. Lorand et al @ Uite eu am un sfat constructiv pentru voi toti care stiti cat ati suferit sub ceasca dar sunteti nedumeriti ce termen e potrivit. Stiti romaneste, va luati doua saptamani de vacanta si va duceti in Basarabia, cel mai bine cu un prieten roman impreuna, si cautati contacte cu oamenii – basarabenii sunt trecuti prin multe si trebuie mai intai sparta gheata. Si ii ascultati sa va povesteasca cum a fost cu foametea, cum a fost cu deportarile, cate rude au in Siberia si cum merg la nunti romanesti in Siberia, cum era la scoala cand vorbeau romaneste si ii bateau copii de rusi si nu puteau face nimic, cati oameni au fost luati de pe strada si deportati doar pentru ca i s-a parut tovarasului ca recitau “versuri nationaliste”, cum li s-a creat o “identitate” si o “limba” care nu exista. Ascultati, si va aduceti aminte de cate lucruri similare sau mai putin similare ati trait. Si va decideti asupra masurii.

    Vezi tu, una este pe auzitelea si alta este pe traitelea. Si trebuie intr-o zi sa intelegeti ca este o asociatie absolut fireasca pe care o au romanii, cand va aud vorbind de patimile voastre sa compare cu ceea ce cunoaste, ca mai tot omul a avut o ruda in Basarabia sau Bucovina, sau a auzit de la apropiati. Si cand compara cum a fost, dar de la voi aude “genocid cultural”, sau “cea mai mare nedreptate in afara impartirii Poloniei”, despre ceilalti insa mai nimica – numai dispret se poate culege. Si asta nu cum pretinzi tu si chiar si Ovidiu, pentru ca romanii nu lupta pentru neamurile lor – ci pentru ca una este ca opresia sa vina de la rusi, si alta de la niste romani fara pondere pe plan international. ASTA ESTE!

    Faceti acest drum si va veti simti mai liberi! Pentru ca veti descoperi termeni de comparatie, veti gasi un limbaj mai adecvat pentru a va descrie probelemele care in sine sunt absolut reale si demne de consideratie. Dar tonul face muzica, iar pentru romani aceste exagerari sunt o insulta cumplita, care se soldeaza din pacate cu indurirea inimii chiar si la multi care sunt foarte dispusi sa va ajute. In cel mai bun caz se spune “da, ei nu au masura, si se gandesc doar la ei, dar in sine au dreptate”. Este oare necesar sa treziti aceasta impresie? Si este oare atat de greu sa intelegeti acest mesaj .- ca de fiecare data cand il incerc, reactia este ca si cand as pune in dubiu insasi faptele neplacute prin care ati trecut – si ma intreb cum se poate sa fie atat de greu de inteles ca de altceva este vorba?

    • Știi cum e cum e cu comparația?Dacă mă tai pe mână,degeaba compar cu unu care s-a tăiat mai rău,n-o să-mi doare mai puțin:)Pe Tine te deranjează mai mult soarta românilor din Basarabia,Bucovina,Harghita,Covasna.Accept și înțeleg,dar pe mine mă deranjează mai mult soarta ceangăilor ,maghiarilor din diasporă,maghiarilor din Slovacia etc.Parcă-i logic.
      Tu militezi pentru drepturile românilor discriminați,eu pentru maghiarii mei.Asta nu înseamnă că suntem opozanți. Dacă primește cineva ceva,nu neapărat înseamnă că altcineva a fost păgubit de acel ceva.(mă gândesc la chestii legate de manifestarea identității,culturii,învățământului).
      Dar ar trebuii să fim finlandezi și suedezi ca să ne rezolvăm lucrurile fără conflicte:)

    • Preda: sa vezi, nici mie nu-mi place termenul de genocid cultural, si sint sigur ca printre cei care l-au folosit s-au gasit si cei cu “Vesszen Trianon”/”Mindent vissza” (jos trianon, vrem totul inapoi). Eu gasesc formula “politica dura de asimilare fortata la nivel de stat” mai adecvata.
      Dar iarasi repet: acestia doar s-au folosit de timpenia regimului, el le-a creat credibilitate in presa occidentala ca exista mult adevar in exemplele prezentate de ei. Si in anii 90 era foarte usor sa “denigrezi” Romania doar prin finger-pointing la declaratiile funarului sau ale lui CVTudor.

      Si sa vezi ca ne putem delimita: chiar organizatorii meetingului pro-autonomie de la Tg Mures de pe 10 martie spun ca nu au nevoie de garda maghiara si alti extremisti.

      • Lorand – asa, vezi ca ne apropiem. Chiar din aceia au fost, si au avut o oarecare influenta din pacate, pe plan international, mondial. S-a mai intamplat insa ceva care nici macar ei singuri nu puteau sa realizeze – cumva ca produs al dezinformarii rusesti inceputa de la 1968 (uciderea imaginii unei Romanii care danseaza in afara randurilor), a naivitatii si de fapt dezinteresului Americanilor, si necesitatea de a actiona care a reiesit din perestroika si proiectul care cred ca era deja comun, de a opri incet motoarele blocului de est, la Polonezi era Solidarnosc, la Romani nu era nimic in ce se puteau ancora dnii americani. Si asa acei domni de care vorbesti au fost luati in brate. Eu asa imi explic, si vezi ca nu este un dat cu vina, este un concurs de circumstante complicat – dar cert este ca noi atunci am iesit f…i bine, circumstante in sus sau in jos. Iar toti romanii la disperare – caci fiecare avea familie in tara si stia cat de greu o trag sub ceasca, desigur, cu privirea la fel de larga – ziceau “uite ungurii cum numai de ei vorbesc, si de noi a uitat toata lumea”. Eu atunci Lorand, sa stii, le argumentam cam cum zici “fiti bucurosi ca asa macar se mai vorbeste, putem si noi adauga o vorba indicand ca mai exista si romani in tara, mura in gura nu pot toate sa iti cada”. Deci stiu sa cant si la vioara asta, si pe publicul adecvat, era vioara principala. Aici insa gasesc indicat sa aduc aminte ca au existat acele exagerari, si ele au lasat urme. Ce inseamna urme? Nu neaparat ca oamenii nu iarta si nu uita – dar mai degraba, fiecare nou eveniment legat de maghiari, aduce aminte si este digerat cumva altfel de atunci. De aceea parerea mea este ca serveste sa inelegem unele momente cheie – nu sa le judecam.

        “Si sa vezi ca ne putem delimita: chiar organizatorii meetingului pro-autonomie de la Tg Mures de pe 10 martie spun ca nu au nevoie de garda maghiara si alti extremisti.” – foarte bine, nu se poate sa nu se inteleaga la un moment dat ca aceste lucruri sunt cutite cu doua taisuri!

  38. Maghera @ Let me first make it clear that I have all understanding for caution when it comes to intelligence, no matter where it comes from. Personally I started with caution, you saw Atol moking me on that. Then I realized that guy has talked to Coposu repeatedly and Coposu trusted him – a man who has been beaten down by securitate as he has, and who has been an official in war times, with his life experience, could have sensed something going wrong. Then I asked several questions to my friends in the US and it turns out that Watts – actually it is written on his blog, a very long biography – got involved with Romania since his thirties. So “There might be other experts, who are just as qualified with a different opinion. I just have a general mistrust of American intelligence and military officers who go on to become consultants after retiring from their duty.” retiring from duty certainly does not apply to him. As to opinion – well there is little place for opinion when it comes to documents, there is some, but a document which says there have been plans, says just that. Like the possible plans for destroying “all the hungarian” villages, on which the “cultural genocide” mythification was built. Strangely, nobody ever displayed those plans a posteriori, but Watts quotes his sources in a very research like manner. There is place left for interpretation when it comes to know what the plans exactly were, who made them, etc – for this we have to read the book. But I am certain that he does not exagerate – and in fact he did not speak about that moment as big danger (something like a genocide, sorry for using the ball at the net!), so it sounded very much like “there might have been, but it did not go too far”. Like Bethlem, I recently read, had negociations with the romanian voevods to receive possible support in view of a possible attack against Poland. But that never went too far, for various reasons. The thing in 1993, even in Watts’s words, never got too far, it was never red allert, so to speak. So let us not overdo that.

    Beyond, I am perfectly relaxed with all kinds of attitudes and emotions when it comes to intelligence revelations. Because it is true that those guys live in an other world! But given the fact that that world has a mighty impact on ours, I tend to try to get as accurate an image as my personal experience and discrenmnet allows for … and then forget all I could not really sort out. If it is important for me, it will pop up in an other occasion in a way which is maybe more understandable to me! And if I act like that, I can understand that others do the same way. I only wanted to mention that there seems to be non-trivial information out there – and I did my own research to know how much I can trust the guy, and for myself he has a good trust in advance – but I am not into convincing others to trust me or my research. For the rest, gotta read the book.

    As to “What’s unfortunate is that some elements of that still remain today. That sick and paranoid state had left its influence on generations to come through its officially promoted values and education.” – I perfectly agree with that, of course. My point was exactly this: it would make dialogue more efficient to realize the extent to which the people in power represent or opress wishes and needs of the majority itself. My reply started from your well intentioned remark “wouldn’t it have been more logical to give a good treatment to minorities, etc”. And my reply said “What in heavens was logical to that guy? Wouldn’t it have been logical, for the good of all citizens of the country, to accept Carter’s offer?” It would, but he was not. And many reminiscences are still around – this is why I keep telling Lorand, “sorry, there are fundamental and untouchable rights which you DESERVE. But in order to get from here to there, I see no other way that putting things in common with so many Romanians who want to have a better state.” He is impatient – however continuously quesioning the state with all of its diseaesae, leaving the impression that it is the romanian’s wish and fault, ends by being destructive with respect exactly to the few or many who are, for different reasons, at least as disatisfied. This is my point, nothing too sophisticated.

    • Yes, you’re right about logic not having much to do with what our “beloved leader” was doing, especially in his later years. I actually thought of that as I was making that remark you replied to – and it’s fair you called me on it. And I do like your call to align some of the demands of the minority with that of the majority, but I just don’t see that happening in today’s world (sadly). As soon as one side introduces nationalism to the dialog (and that is the usual tactic of a few), the two groups almost immediately become polarized. I see exceptions to that more often today than before, but that’s the hurdle we gotta get past. Similar to what Kalaci’s metaphor was saying about being like Finns and Swedes for a more productive dialogue.

      • Maghera @ “I just don’t see that happening in today’s world (sadly)” – I think very much of what is going on here has to do with this. Sometimes I get myself in the whorl, sometimes I see like people under a spell – “something” has torn them apart, and they would like that to disappear, but it is hard to grab it. There was recently a Romanian who said very nicely “I am longing for the times when I was encountaring a hungarian friend and I greeted him in hungarian, but he greeted me in romanian – what a nice sign of respect and attention”.

        I would go further and say that the “something” whatever you call it, has introduced a very poisonous feeling of antagonism – and you see that all the contributions which are not plain declarations of love and comiseration are very easily misunderstood and pushed on the territory of antagonism.

        Personally I was close to giving up more than once, because of the feeling I could approach no sensible point – and what shall we discuss, if we avoid the sensible spots? – without being misunderstood, simplificated, overheard. I think we try to fight against this poison, I hope.

  39. Kalaci @ Ce spui tu despre comparatii este indiscutabil. “Asta nu înseamnă că suntem opozanți. ” – daca ai urmarit putin de-a lungul timpului reactiile mele la ce spui, stii de ce tu nu esti pe lista celor invitati in Basarabia. Caci pe tine te-am vazut de fiecare data oprindu-te unde se cuvine, si ti-am gustat din inima numeroase interventii.

    Indiscutabil: La dragostea pentru ai tai, militarea pentru ai tai mai mult decat pentru oricine altul – nu exista limita! Eu vorbeam de tonul care face muzica – nu trebuie sa te doara mai tare durerea mai mare a altuia. In masura in care nu o insulti indirect prin lamentari exagerate. NU ESTE CAZUL TAU … dar exista cazuri :-) Deci noi doi daca ne-am lovi de asemenea chitibusuri, ne-am vinde reciproc castraveti la gradinar :-)

    La fel de evident este acest lucru frumos, elementar pe care il spui “Dacă primește cineva ceva,nu neapărat înseamnă că altcineva a fost păgubit de acel ceva.” – in toata viata am fost surprins cat de raspandita este aceasta teama ca ar exista un fel de zero win game, binele si bucuria unuia se aduna cu necazul si pierderea altuia, ca sa dea zero. Din pacate exista multi oameni care SIMT asa, nu zic gandesc, caci dar ar realiza ca frica ii face nelogici, poate ar reactiona. Si asta nu numai in domeniul drepturilor minoritatilor, in orice domeniu care implica decizii, evolutie, miscare.

    Oricum, tu pe mine nu cred ca m-ai vazut punand in chestiune drepturile sau dorind sa le limitez in mod meschin. Chestiunea mea este mereu, in statul roman real si nenorocit actual, in plus cu zgandarile lui Orban/Köves nu tocmai reductibile la “doesn’t matter at all”, cum se ajunge in mod eficace la acele drepturi? Pentru ca iti dai seama, in mod egoist si pentru mine ca roman, un stat care stie sa respecte onest si echilibrat pe maghiari, este in acelas timp un stat mai bun pentru romani. Cam asta trebuie sa ne aducem mereu aminte.

    Poate insa mi-au scapat afirmatii care puteau fi prost intelese, in acest sens? Atunci te rog spune-mi, caci este adevarat ca sunt vorbaret, si poate spun lucruri care le gandesc intr-un fel si nu toti le citesc cum le-am gandit …

  40. ”un stat care stie sa respecte onest si echilibrat pe maghiari, este in acelas timp un stat mai bun pentru romani”
    Foarte frumos. Vorbim pe același limbă.De asta citesc postările tale ”fluviu”,ce câteodată aduce și adevărate perle .Să dea D-zeu maturitatea necesară,ca să ne putem înțelege și să găsim perlele în apele învolburate ale prezentului.

    • Kalaci – Multumesc, de la tine fac cald la inima aceste vorbe! Uite ma gandeam la ce i-am spus lui Maghera si la faptul ca intr-un fel mi se pare ca cei care din cand in cand evoca faptul ca le este dor de o vreme cand era mai buna intelegere si mai mult respect, spun mai pe sleau ce se cauta aici decat multe discutii, care isi au si ele rostul lor. Si cand vezi la lucru reflexe dobandite care fac ca oamenii iute sa presimta antagonism, nevoia sau datoria de a replica in contradictoriu, unde ea este sau nu este, vezi otrava aceea pentru care se cauta antidotul. Si de fiecare data ma gandesc – dar ce ce, de ce noi asa sa gandim, de ce noi asa sa ne idoim? De ce-urile asta trec prin straturi si straturi de ratiuni si cauze, unele banale, altele mai profunde, foarte putine care sa zici ca nu le poti clinti, si mai departe: de ce? Atuncea vezi ca de fapt antidotul, leacul acela ce se cauta nici nu este o penicilina inca nemaintalnita, are un nume de mii de ani si i se zice: pocainta, iertare si impacare, si nimeni nu poate spune ca nu l-a auzit, sau nu se propavaduieste si la noi si la voi, duminica de duminica si cine are timp si gand de inchinat si mai des.

      Dar aceste vorbe simple mai stim noi cum sa le regasim harul? Cautam insa silitori, ca niste oameni care cata sa fie moderni, impovarati cumva de “realism” si de ratiune, cauta sa reajunga la acel dar, ca o stiu constient sau nu.

      Dar uite ca vorbele astea au un gust. Am mai povestit odata mai demult, dar iti respun scurt cum l-am intalnit odata acest gust, la Berna. Era pe la sfarsitul lui 1988, de doi ani buni povestea cu satele si genocidul bantuia presa, nu mai era roman care sa nu fi citit si el odata, simtindu-se furat de o atentie care socotea ca se cuveneste si neamurilor lui care sufera in aceea tara, si care parea ca dispare sub tenorul dominant ca este vorba de o problema nationala sub ceasca – basca, cati stangisti se bucurau ca spunand problemei “national-comunism” nu trebuiau sa spuna scurt “comunism”. Oricum, in acele zile vine prietenul meu Csaba, care la randul lui ma ajuta cand aveam eu demonstratii, si imi anunta ca va fi o mare intrunire la Berna in piata federala – daramarea satelor! Si imi inmaneaza mapa de presa, 40 de pagini – evident ca o invitatie. Cand m-am uitat in mapa, am inlemnit – noi ne intelegeam foarte bine si nu aveam nici o jena in a numi buba mare de la originea celorlalte bube, asta ne apropia! Dar cine facuse mapa o lua de la ’20 incoace, si de romania vorbea, dar doar de ce iti inchipui, o vorba nu era despre ce a insemnat comunismul pentru toata tara. M-am speriat, caci daca iesea prost, eu eram responsabil. Dar daca le spuneam la romani ce am citit, ori nu veneau, ori mai rau, veneau gata de incaierare. Daca nu le spuneam, si iesea cu cuvantari dupa tonul mapei, imi sareau pe urma in cap ca i-am pus pe drumuri sa auda tot ce citesc in ziare. Drepta care nu am spus la nimeni nimic – nici la romani care este situatia, nici lui Csaba ca am unele obiectii la mapa: am intrebat daca poate sa ia cuvantul si cineva dintre noi, in spiritul care il aveam comun. Da – si am tocmit un batranel vioi si tare iubitor de cuvantari, “seful” fostilor detinuti politici.
      In ziua cea mare erau 1500 de secui, maghiari, din tara si din Ungaria, si 30 de romani. Batranul care nu se astepta sa fie probleme a vorbit natural cum vorbea el si intre romani: cum a fost, Stalin, inchisori, distrus omenia – tot ce stim si nimic mai mult, nimic iesit din comun. Cand se termina cuvantaril, cei 1000 de secui si maghiari din romania erau palcuri palcuri, sa ne pipaie si sa ne intrebe “Da de unde vii? Da cum traiesti aicea? Da, stii ce m-a apucat plans de cate mi-am adus aminte! Da, vai ce bine a vorbit domnul, asa este ca si voi ati suferit in tara aia ca nu a fost pentru nimeni bine”, si tot asa. Momente de impacare colectiva, imposibil de simulat, nu am mai trait decat in cele doua saptamani de la Revolutie pana la 10 Ianuarie!

      Ce vreau sa spun aici este ca se poate uneori, cand nu faci decat sa juxtapui imagini, fara comentarii, fara comparatii sau masuratori, fara nici macar incercarea de a le pune in relatie, ci doar asa cum sunt – se poate sa se nasca efectul de rezonanta care naste impacare. Mitica spune “asa si asa a fost” si Janos spune “si asa si asa a mai fost”, spun pe ale lor, dar se apropie, daca nu vor sa se masoare! Cam la asa ceva ma gandeam si cand am facut propunerea cu Basarabia, dar pesemne ca am fost prea putin explicit. E buna si ratiunea, si masuratoarea pentru gospodareala, dar uneori poate sa fie insasi iarba dracului – si atunci te gandesti ca “Si vorbele voastre sa fie ‘da-da’ si ‘nu-nu’, caci restul este dela dracul”, ce cunostinta cutremuratoare contin!

      Ei ce sa spun Kalaci, mai multe nu stiu – uite iti dau si tie o muzica africana la palatul republicii http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=924nfz7E-Tc

  41. Al treilea catarg cu steag de dimensiuni mari a fost inaltat saptamina asta la Baraolt / Barót (dupa Miercurea Ciuc / Csíkszereda, si Sintimbru/Csíkszentimre). Toate trei in centru si DOAR cu steagul secuiesc.
    Intre timp prefectul Covasnei a somat 9 primarii sa scoata steagul secuiec aflat LINGA cel roman si a anuntat ca ii va da in judecata daca nu se conforma.

    Nu vi se pare ca dintr-o situatie posibila de compromis (“LINGA”) se ajunge la una mai rea pentru Romania (“DOAR”)?

    • Lorand @ “Nu vi se pare ca dintr-o situatie posibila de compromis (“LINGA”) se ajunge la una mai rea pentru Romania (“DOAR”)?” – Ba ni se pare! AI PERFECTA DREPTATE!

      Si noi, cu totii aici, ce sa facem? Sa ne excitam impreuna cu ei, foloseste la ceva? Sau sa aprovizionam mai degraba pompierii cu apa, pentru orice eventualitate, mai degraba?
      Sufletul un e de carpa!

      Steagurile falfaie in vantul policrom,
      Fudulii se-nalta, mai sus de orice pom!
      Apoi cand se pravale, scrantesc cate-un picior,
      Vezi oamenii cum plang: “de ce am fost eu chior?”

      Din ciclul “foaie verde bandiera”, poezii de la lume adunate. (Bardul popular vorbeste de ORICE falfaila, Nota redactiei :-) )

      • Preda: intrebarea mea era retorica, in mod evident, si nu doresc ca nimeni de aici sa striga “huoo”, nici sa-si arunce scrum pe cap ca penitentie.

        Mi se pare un drum absolut gresit, in loc sa cautam compromisuri in care ne calcam pe bataturi (vorba lui Teleki despre UNELE incercari de a acorda concesii facute in anii 1910 romanilor) in cit mai putin ocazii, se inrautateste situatia: daca tu asa, atunci eu si-mai-si. Cerc vicios.

      • Lorand @ Si tu cred ca ai inteles ca mesajul meu era “Masina a intrat in superturatie, ‘noi’ nu insemnam nimic pe moment, evolutia a parasit mult terenul aproximativ logic, nu ramane decat apa si pompierii, si asteptam sa treaca valul” Speram sa iti fi placut poezica mea :-)

      • Preda: poezica, am inteles mesajul, dar trebuie sa admit ca subtilitatile imi scapa, sint doar un biet maghiar care nu a invatat romana dupa metoda speciala :-)

      • Lorand @ Nu cauta mai mult decat este intr-o glumita :-) Mesajul era “cool down”, ca intr-un traffic jam pe autostrada in care esti blocat sase ore si nu mergi nici inainte nici inapoi. Unii injura, cauta vinovati si vin cu idei revolutionare, altii sad si beau un ceai, asculta muzica sau citesc ceva. Si unii si altii sunt blocati sase ore. Cand se excita lumea asa, se reduce totul la niste sarmane aparente, nu are rost sa discuti – stai sase ore pana se descongestioneaza!

  42. Kalaci si Lorand @ “Manualele de istorie au fost treptat rescrise pentru a se concentra exclusiv pe contribuţia românească la istoria Transilvaniei, excluzând cu desăvârşire maghiarii (Pilon, 1992:63, 64).” Foarte adevarat!

    DRAGUTA de doamna Pilon insa nu va mentiona niciodata cum au fost rescrise manualele de istorie in anii ’50-’60 cand dragutii dansei parinti ai ei erau la decizie. Si cand eu am copilarit cu aceeasi mantra cu care ati trait voi in anii 1980: “au distrus istoria, au facut din rau bine si din bine rau si au denaturat intreaga istorie a Romaniei”. Toata copllaria mea asta auzeam in casa, la prieteni ai parintilor care veneau in vizita. Oare ei inventau, sau spuneau asta ca o premonitie doar a ce va fi in anii ’80? Nu cred!

    De aceea, fara a nega in nici un chip ce scrie mai sus, ce spune Lorand, sau faptul ca era o a doua denaturare a istoriei, tendentioasa de data asta in mod particular impotriva maghiarilor – au am suras molcom si nu sunt cutremurat in nici un fel! De ce? Pentre ca pentru mine istoria – sau ma rog, evolutia unei istorii cat de cat chibzuite si cu respect al datelor – se terminase in 1947 deja, nu ma va atinge nimeni spunandu-mi “Istoria romaniei”, gandindu-se la propaganda comunista. Ne-au distrus istoria noastra inainte de a voastra, Si astazi inca oamenii se duc la Cluj cumparand un bilet de Cluj-Napoca!

    Si pentru a nu sta ca prostii sa ne tanguim sau masuram in ce riscam sa nu ne intelegem sau sa cream sange rau, eu mai spun alt lucru. Mai ales in ceea ce priveste Transilvania, eu AFIRM aici mai mult: ISTORIA TRANSILVANIEI NU EXISTA! Ea nu s-a scris inca. Exista NISTE istorii ale Transilvaniei – maghiare radicale, maghiare ponderate, romanesti ceausiste, romanesti ponderate, si la romani mai de curand se mai adauga si categoria “romanesti defetiste”, la modul “recunoastem, am fost ultimii oameni”.. Dar tocmai de aceea nu exista istoria Transilvaniei de loc.

    Ea se va naste in timp, cand va fi existat o bucata de vreme o cultura a dialogului si intelectual, relaxata, elastica in descoperirea de noi perspective. O cultura care in timp va da nastere la o istorie in acord cu faptele cunoscute, si care inca trebuiesc relevate, si mai ales in acord cu oamenii, dandu-le suficient spatiu de dreptate la unii si la altii, CEEA CE SE POATE, dar nu exista inca!

    Au existat la inceputul anilor 2000 comitete internationale de alcatuirea manualelor scolare in Balcani – si au fost in parte deosebit de fructuoase, deoarece oamenii au descoperit intr-adevar cu surpriza, cum se vedeau aceleasi evenimente in diverse tari. In privinta Transilvaniei, desigur asemenea incercari ar fi bine venite, dar eu afirm ca nu se va produce nici cu asemenea proiecte peste noapte mare lucru, caci va incepe printr-un joc scremut de concesii in cel mai bun caz reciproce, care nu poate produce pamant solid de cunoastere: sunt prea multe de repus pe picioare sanatoas pentru a le rezolva in iuteala! Vor mai exista fluctuatii pana se ajunge la ceva in care se pot recunoaste in acelasi timp si unii sl altii, si in plus sa mai respecte si sursele si ce se poate intelege din realitate.

    In jurul acestei teme pesemne ca o sa mai scriu printe picaturi in saptamanile si lunile care urmeaza, nu se poate totul de odata.

  43. Ovidiu: inca nu cumpar vinul respectiv, mai astept un pic ce va fi, am auzit io multe (vezi si Zgonea cu steagurile judetene pe parlament, prefectul saptamina trecuta avertizind cu procese).

    Insa o supriza de la Ponta, ma tem insa ca iarasi a zis-o asa sa-si aeriseasca putin gura: (Sublinierile imi apartin)
    “eu cred că pe instituţiile reprezentând Guvernul central şi autorităţile centrale , indiferent că ele se află la Miercurea Ciuc sau la Târgu Jiu, trebuie să fie arborat doar steagul României şi al Uniunii Europene. În rest, dacă găsim o soluţie în care fiecare autoritate locală vrea să aibă un însemn local – că are şi Botoşaniul, şi Teleormanul, şi Harghita – şi îl foloseşte pe plan local pentru autorităţi locale, eu nu văd o mare problemă”

    http://www.mediafax.ro/politic/ponta-pe-institutii-trebuie-arborat-steagul-romaniei-dar-nu-vad-o-problema-si-pentru-un-insemn-local-10658380

    Adica consiliu judetean, primarie da, prefectura/politie/armate/finante ba… Ar suna un compromis acceptabil pentru mine.

  44. ovidiu@Lorand–”steagul a fost o recreare pe baza a multor exemple”
    A fost creat in 2004, nu “recreat”, fiindca nu exista vre-o dovada ca a existat vreodata

    Perfect corect insa cum s-a creat aproape peste noapte o natiune trebuia creat si un steag nu? Iar inafara de faptul ca un drapel ca atare sau macar asemanator nu a existat niciodata nici macar simbolurile de pe el nu sint specific unguresti , semiluna si soarele fiind simboluri indo-europene , exist si pe drapelul Moldovei Voievodale , probabil au fost devenit relevante pentru populatie in urma perioadei venirii popoarelor migratoare si astfel au fost adaugate alaturi de bourul lui Dragos Voda pe steag.

    • Solovastru: am dat imagini cu steagurile de la Guraslau (Szekely Mozes, cel de infanterie). A spune ca nu existat steag macar asemanator arata ca ceva te orbeste…
      Iar argumentul cu 2004 nu are relevanta: Sud-Tirolul are stema si steag aprobat din 1983…

    • –” Sud-Tirolul are stema si steag ”

      Steagul Sud-Tirolui e o varianta a steagului Austriei iar stema este simbolul cunoscut al popoarelor germanice, e si pe stema Austriei si Germaniei. Adica e clar pentru toata lumea despre ce vorbim
      Cei din Sud-Tirol nu s-au apucat (ca si Consiliul “National” Secuiesc in 2004 la noi) sa inventeze simboluri si steaguri (“facaturi” cum le zicea un istoric) si apoi sa pretinda ca au existat dintodeauna.

      Dar crearea, acum in sec.21, a unei noi natiuni, “natiunea secuiasca”, cum incearca cei de la CNS e ceva fortat, artificial. Daca secuii erau sa aiba o identitate etno-nationala trebuiau sa actioneze diferit in sec.19, si la momentul decisiv care a fost anul 1848.
      Dar ei nu s-au “trezit” ci s-au alaturat ideii “maghiare”, s-au raliat sub steagul maghiar, si astfel au inchis drumul spre o asemenea evolutie etno-politica (de altfel scaunele secuiesti au fost desfiintate in 1876 fara vre-o opozitie semnificativa din partea “secuilor”).

      In sfarsit, nu e nici imposibil sa inceapa acum o evolutie catre o “constiinta” etnica, identitara, distincta de cea a maghiarilor…dar va mai dura, si va crea ea insasi alte conflicte.

      • Adica ar fi fost mai bine sa foloseasca simbolurile maghiare (rosu alb verde) si stema Ungariei putin modificata ca germanii di sud -tirol? Mare balamuc ar fi fost , si mai mare ca acum…
        Iar simbolurile (luna, soarele) ii reprezinta pe secui in steam Ardealului, atit de inventie..

      • Adica ar fi fost mai bine…

        Adica, pe moment, e o constructie ideologica artificiala, ceva gen “limba moldoveneasca”, dar ramane de vazut cum va evolua.

      • Exact Ovidiu, pina cind nu va mai reactiona din instinct media. Si pragul romanilor va evolua si el vazind ca nu se darima lumea, cum nu s-a darimat din februarie 1990 pina acum cu inscriptia bilingva pe statiile cfr din Gheorgheni si M-Ciuc, din martie 1990 cu inscriptiile bilingve pe farmacii…

      • @Lorand..”Si pragul romanilor va evolua si el”

        desigur, si al maghiarilor in paralel, vezi ultimele alegeri unde 1 din 5 maghiari a votat “ne-etnic”. Alti factori sunt imbatranirea populatiei (tinerii sunt mai amatori de conflicte decat cei mai in varsta) , evolutia europeana, problematica social economica, etc…toate pot duce la scaderea interesului pentru etno-natioanalism si autonomism.

    • ”cum s-a creat aproape peste noapte o natiune trebuia creat si un steag nu?”
      Peste noapte?Aproape o mie de ani de istorie înseamnă peste noapte?No comment! ”Primele izvoare scrise privitoare la secui datează din anul 1116, când au fost menționați, alături de pecenegi, ca alcătuind avangarda cavaleriei ungare.”http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secui

      • –Aproape o mie de ani de istorie înseamnă peste noapte ?

        Kalaci

        Iarasi cazi in a proiecta ordinea politica “post revolutia franceza” (nationalismul) inapoi in timp in Evul Mediu.
        In evul mediu nu exista “natiunea politica maghiara” (si nici cea romana, evident). Nu se lupta nimeni pentru “scoli in limba maghiara” si universitate de medicina separata etnic la Targu Mures. Limba oficiala a regatului era Latina nu maghiara, legitimitatea si identitatea politica era data de monarhie si religie.

        Politizarea etnicitatii (“natiunea”) are doar vre-o 200 de ani vechime. In cazul secuillor ea nu exista, ei fiind inglobati in natiunea maghiara de la inceputul procesului de nationalizare si exprimata ca atare la 1848.

        Poate de acum incolo se va forma, cu steag-cu manuale de istorie a secuimii nu a maghiarimii, etc..

  45. Da,națiunea a însemnat altceva în evul mediu,dar secui tot au existat ca entitate diferită de ceilalți,s-au diferențiat prin statut ,obiceiuri,port.Tot greșeală e să afirmi că n-au existat și că au fost inventați.

    • Kalaci–“Tot greșeală e să afirmi că n-au existat și că au fost inventați…”

      Nu e absolut nici-o greseala daca recitesti ce a scris Solovastru “cum s-a creat aproape peste noapte o natiune trebuia creat si un steag nu ?” —
      E corect faptul ca secuii au existat ca grup, chiar etnic distinct de maghiari conform documentelor medievale, dar asta nu inseamna natiune politica.
      Magistratii (judecatori, grefieri, procurori) formeaza un grup (profesional) distinct in Romania de azi si au si privilegii speciale (legale!) fata de restul populatiei (salarizare, legea pensiei, etc) dar nu formeza o natiune politica ci doar un grup de interese particulare asimilat natiunii politice romane.

      E corect ca nu au existat niciodata o natiune politica secuiasca, iar incercare de acum a unora (CNS, PPMT) de le construi o istorie politica mitologica (vezi manualul de “Istorie a secuilor”) e ceva TIPIC proceselor de nationalizare.
      Maghiarii se “identifica” cu Matei Corvin sau Sf.Stefan desi nu putem vorbi de etno-politica in acele perioade. Dar o fac fiindca asa li se sugereaza (in cartile de istorie, scoala, comunitate) ca fost.
      E o indoctrinare nationalist-ideologica bazata pe fals/mitologie si retro-proiectie a situatiei de acum/prezenta in trecutul medieval. Se sugereaza ca prezentul e “etern”, ca a existat din totdeauna si, indirect, ca e de asteptat sa fie perpetuat in viitor (“metinerea identitatii”).

      La fel fac si romanii de exemplu cu Mihai Viteazul, desi nu de etnicitatea romana s-a preocupat Mihai Viteazul cand a intrat in Ardeal. Singurele lui acte despre care am putea spune ca au avut o legatura cu romanii au fost cele de ridicare a statutului Bisericii Ortodoxe (dar asta fiindca religia era intradevar un subiect, era politizata atunci, nu din cauza etnicitatii).

      Asa si cu secuii.
      Pe moment ce fac sunt “facturi” ca asta cu steagul …pe moment e ceva destul de ridicol, amatoricesc, dar in principiu e posibil ca in viitor sa reuseasca transforme o identitate, o diferentiere, regional geografica intr-o identitate politic-nationala

      • Propun o scurta pauza de citeva zile in disputa asta pe timpul sarbatorilor de Paste ortodox. Sarbatori fericite! Hristos a inviat!

      • Tot de Paste tin sa imi exprim deplina intelegere pentru Kalaci – regret, Ovidiu! Daca eu sunt un secui mandru si imi stiu neamul, dar vine la mine un bozgor de Roman si imi spune ca pana acum 200 de ani nu exista acest neam, pentru ca nu exista nici un neam ci doar niste bogatani care se fandoseau pe latina – eu tot asa i-as spune “domnul roman, cat vei fi tu de bozgor, uite ca eu pe ai mei ii stiu si mai de mult, si poti dumneata sa fii fericit cu latina dumitale”. Lucrurile nu sunt alb/negru cum ti se pare, si cand spui ca “s-a inventat o natiune” trebuie sa fii constient cum se poate interprete. Nici mie nu-mi place cand vine un bozgor grec si imi spune ca s-a inventat o natiune aromaneasca.

        Paste Fericit tuturor … si Christos va invia, taman taman!

      • – regret, Ovidiu ..si Christos va invia

        sigur, si istoria se va schimba pentru a fi pe placul tuturor

      • Ovidiu – Ia nu mai bodogani (Trio Natiorum – pe latineste, le numea natiuni …) Lasa, Chrsitos A – nviat!

      • Ovidiu – este adevarat ca astea au fost vorbe rostite de Christos. Dar Tu ce vrei sa spui mai frate, ca parca ai alunecat pe sinele discursului propriu, si nu te mai uiti cu cine vorbesti, si de ce? Spune-i tu lucrurile astea lui de-a dura, si alti fruntasi, da mai lasa oameni ce vor pace si in pace, zau, nu pacatuiesti facand-o!

    • Cei care se războiesc să aducă pace, cei care se urăsc să ştie să iubească.Christos a înviat,Paște fericit!

Comentariile nu sunt permise.