Hungary's Orban Lead the Way?

I don't know about the Finnish half of the Finno-Ugric group, but the Magyars (aka Hungarians) are the largest of the three Ugric peoples. Their language is also classified as Ugric, which is a member of the Uralic family.

And never clink your beer glasses in Budapest!

 

Rubish, Hungarians look pretty white and European.



Have you seen Turks, Moi621? Let me show you some typical Turk.



Yes, they also have white and beautiful people... because stealing white flesh (i.e. kidnapping kids, maids) from the European Dhimmis was wide spread in the Islamic caliphate (aka the Ottoman empire).
To equate Turks and Hungarians is somewhat preposterous. But the main difference is of course culture/religion. Equateing Christianity with Islam is definitely preposterous.

 

The differences between the Hungarians and Turks would be much greater than say with the Germans or other Eastern European nations such as the Czechs because of their Roman Catholic heritage. I know though that the Greeks/Byzantines referred to all the Roman Catholics whether they were French, German or Italian as Franks except for the Huns. They were always called 'Ungarezi', which sounds very Italian to me.

In WWI the American school books referred to the Germans as Huns. The propaganda must have been insulting to the German soldiers who were fighting to keep their superior Western civilization from being overrun by the Eastern 'hoards' - meaning Russia of course.

Interesting!

 

That's a terrible picture of a Turk when good looking men are their greatest asset.

Anyway the Turks are freaking out. Pompeo recently sent a picture of the nations that back Guido in Venezuela with a split Turkey. Quite a big Kurdistan there.



And not to be outdone with the subtle threats to tow the line, the EU Commission sent a map of the Greek territorial waters:

 

You mean like this?



As I wrote, yes, there are some good looking Turks, but they are a product of stealing white flesh (Greek, Serbian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Italian, etc) from the "infidels (kafirs).

 

He's not bad looking, I mean he does have black eyes and black hair, although I have seen really gorgeous men. But the dark good looks are probably from the Syrians, Iraqis and Iranians mixed with Europeans.

Anyway the Turks are oriental. The darkness is from the Iranians and Arabs, both of which are nice looking - or at least when they're young. They age badly though, but it might be the character. It can form lines and deep shadows on a person's face.

As for the women, their looks are from the Circassians who were known for it in the Sultan's court, and the Slavic and Russian slaves.

 

Yeah? All those dudes look ugly to me. At least compared to Hungarians.
You amaze me, Jannette, I thought you were of Greek descent. Why do you defend those savages, who sucked the blood of your great nation? I go to Greece every year and I can still see that classical Greek beauty all over the place, even 2000 years after Ancient Greece.

Wrong, Iranians are Shia and Turks are Sunni, they don't mix. Turks despise Arabs too.

 

Even when Hungarians do it?

 

Yepp.
I know how Turkish and Hungarian languages sound like. They are very different.
I know what Turkish and Hungarian people look like. They are very different.
I know what Turkish and Hungarian culture feel like. They are very different.

https://www.quora.com/Are-Hungarians-Turkic

 

Yet there are references that say, YES!
And political actions too.

Altaic Language Group. Look it up.
I'm a cupa coffee short right now.

Language not Indo European
The Altaics were not one people.
Nor were Western Asiatic peoples who may have
shared a "banner".

 

It's those sneaky Canucks, ya know!

 

I just did some online research.
Our points are under debate today.
Have to steer around 19th Century relationships between the Hungarians & Ottomans
and that influence.

I did come across some 10th Century Arab chronicler about the Magyars being
a group of Turks.
Who can you trust?

BTW did you ever check out Altaic Language group.
And of course my greatest theory about its' development and what it represents?
#25

 

Indeed, I did. However, I fail to see Hungarian there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_languages

In fact, it is in the Uralic language group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralic_languages

 

And no connection between the Uralic and Altaic?
Granted there is none where Chinese is involved.
Where did I go so wrong, or did the nomenclature over time?
So old. So old.


Moi

Where Does Fit. eh​

 

@Canell
from your links.
I return any crow previously accepted

The term "Altaic", as applied to a language family, was introduced in 1844 by Matthias Castrén, a Finnish philologist who made contributions to the study of the Uralic languages. As originally formulated by Castrén, Altaic included not only Turkic, Mongolian, and Manchu-Tungus (=Tungusic), but also Finno-Ugric and Samoyed.[10]

The original Altaic family came to be known as the Ural–Altaic.[11] In the "Ural–Altaic" nomenclature, Finno-Ugric and Samoyedic are "Uralic", whereas Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic are "Altaic", as are Korean and Japanese if they are included at all.

 

Well I think I was saying that Canadians (well being honest, one Canadian Jew who thought Toronto was the finest city in the world) think that in Canada your original ethnicity and community is protected more than in the USA, and yet this doesn't diminish your Canadianness. I think it is difficult to judge that as there are plenty of immigrant communities in the USA (Irish, Italian etc.) with strong multi-generational identities, even to the extent where those identities become identities in themselves (I go to an Italian American restaurant in Hong kong which is just that - it is far removed from being an Italian, Italian...that's what makes it great - big positions of superb chicken parmigiana, to die for New York cheesecake and New York attitude from the waiting staff. And yet the pasta with butter and white truffle will have transport you the Dolomites looking down on the spangled lakes beneath).

I suppose the point being made was that it should not be a melting pot, although even this phrase is problematic. I think the differences between Britons, angles, saxons, jutes, Vikings, and all the different ethnicities of Romans have melted together in England. So perhaps the discussion should be about "how quickly" and how the immigrant culture can enrich the host culture in the optimum way.

I agree with you Talon, but I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with you against a straw man or against a real opposing ideology (tribalism). I am a liberal, but I am suspicious of the way "identity politics" becomes more presbyterian-style tub thumping. Even so I'm not sure you would get anyone raising a banner to tribalism. It may come out like that but that's not the objective.

I get you now. I think she is talking in broadly similar terms to you.

No of course I don't believe this, nor did I say it. Wires crossed somewhere. Merkel has seen Europe's responsibility to give aid to refugees. As she is a centre right conservative this is electorally dangerous for her. But in historical terms Germany, as the richest nation in Europe, leading the humanitarian effort in this way, is a courageous transformation of Germany's historic role in Europe. She has paid the price too.

Global politics is interesting and connects us all. I welcome your clearheadedness.

I think she is saying that immigrants have not been assimilated. You know in Germany, the children of Turkish immigrants, brought in to help the German economy, are not afforded citizenship even though they are born in Germany and live their whole lives there. It is therefore not surprising. She is calling on all of Europe to take in refugees and to do so without creating tribalism. The picture in Europe is actually very much as you would expect. Some immigrants are very well integrated and some are not. Mostly (to my mind) it depends on socio-economic factors. Where immigrants escape poverty, they enrich, contribute and develop the societies they join. Where they get stuck in a ghetto they do not.

Actually Talon I agree with you to an extent. If everything would be about balance and degrees and "how much?" then there would be no call for "Manichean" (thanks - new word) thinking. Of course there is both polemic and serious argument. They take different forms. I cannot help thinking however that we live in an age of crises. What makes me so pessimistic is not the United States and Europe (these are two regions which from time to time will ebb and flow) but the rise of authoritarianism in China, Russia and India. For me the "hope of all mankind" (to quote Thomas Paine), is America, or more specifically the values on which America is founded. Like Paine, I see these are the ancient values of the freeborn Englishman, reflected by the European Enlightenment, the Reformation and English Radicals like Lilburne.

Though not a courtier will talk of the curfew-bell, not a village in England has forgotten it.

In that sense I am an American (or anglo-saxon more precisely) Exceptionalist. But if the hope of all mankind (liberal democracies) are drunk and hungover, how will it turn out?

We need a liberal democratic China, grown prosperous and free on capitalism and progress. Without that what world will we have? Because it will be Chinese and it will be Indian, because sooner or later those two nations that are half the world will come to dominate, economically, militarily and culturally, whatever the second amendment says. How much can we keep these nations down by protectionism? Or even war? That is like sticking a finger in the dyke. This indeed makes me a globalist. I don't see any other alternative. These nations need to be brought into the liberal democratic family, and their citizens afforded the "universal" natural rights that their leaders explicitly deny them now. Because one day these nations will be the leading nations of our world. The days of one nation, with only five per cent of the global population, dominating global affairs to the extent the USA does, are simply unsustainable in the long run.

An exceptionalism that is inward looking, self-indulgent, and ultimately lazy, will destroy itself by handing the world to Chinese, Indian or Russian exceptionalism. An exceptionalism that "takes blind shelter across the sea" to quote Reagan "rushing to respond only after freedom is lost" is very unexceptional. But Reagan was only talking about democracies helping each other there. I am talking about democracies taking the lead. Like in the Cold War where oppressed peoples dreamed of living in the "West". We have a moral obligation, an almost providential imperative, to lead the world to the next epoch or die. That exceptionalism is frightening I admit. And the world is going in the opposite direction now. But what other choice do we really have?