|
|
Post by Hrast on Jan 30, 2005 19:48:18 GMT -5
This all seems odd to me, I always thought that the Germans WERE the Huns.....? ? ? Germans were called Huns in WWI by British Propaganda (perhaps also by soldiers, I don`t recall anymore). This comes from a speech of this German general to his troops (I think it was in one of China`s war in late 19th century) in which he said that they need to rampage and be as cruel as Huns and the Atila and stuff like that. |
|
|
|
Post by White Cossack on Jan 30, 2005 20:52:27 GMT -5
Instead of getting pointlessly angry over this, you should do something about it! That site didn't seem like it was racist and/or nationalist, what you should do is write them a polite and well worded e-mail explaining that you found their description to be racist and offensive. I think generally speaking if you throw those words around most webmasters will take down the comments. If you'd like I'm sure people on this forum can help you draft the letter and it will be a good thing, one small piece of Slavophobia removed off the net! That is a good idea. If you want any help with the letter, I can help. |
|
dar
Mladshiy Serdzhant
Posts: 15
|
Post by dar on Jan 30, 2005 20:55:46 GMT -5
The Huns were a variety of different tribes: www.imninalu.net/Huns.htmThat's a nice link,but who knows what actually happened?History is made by those who write it...  |
|
|
|
Post by slavorad on Jan 31, 2005 5:13:02 GMT -5
Maby we should come up with an e-mail sent by all members of the forum. That way it will gain "some" weight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danik on Jan 31, 2005 18:22:19 GMT -5
Or someone writes one letter and all others just signe if they agree.  |
|
Koslov
Praporshchik
Posts: 112
|
Post by Koslov on Jan 31, 2005 21:57:30 GMT -5
Isn't it interesting that the 'racial materialists' who call themselves 'Aryan' are completely clueless about genetics, tribal migration patterns, and language NOT being indicative of 'race'? An example is their little polemic against the Khazars being some sort of 'Mongolian' tribe, when they are clearly described by everyone who came into contact with them as 'blue eyed, blond and red haired'....much like the 'Franks'. But, because many Askenazi Jews are descended from them and have obviously mixed with other elements over time, these 'Khazars' are suddenly 'Asians'. The same goes for 'Huns', 'Magyars', 'Ugyars', Moors' and so on. Just because a people migrates from, say, 'Asia' and speak an 'Asian' language does not make them racially 'Asian' or 'Mongolian'.
|
|
dar
Mladshiy Serdzhant
Posts: 15
|
Post by dar on Jan 31, 2005 22:38:50 GMT -5
Of course.Most Europeans came from Central Asia,what is now Russia,so genes are very,very mixed...
|
|
|
|
Post by TsarSamuil on Feb 1, 2005 5:43:10 GMT -5
Isn't it interesting that the 'racial materialists' who call themselves 'Aryan' are completely clueless about genetics, tribal migration patterns, and language NOT being indicative of 'race'? An example is their little polemic against the Khazars being some sort of 'Mongolian' tribe, when they are clearly described by everyone who came into contact with them as 'blue eyed, blond and red haired'....much like the 'Franks'. But, because many Askenazi Jews are descended from them and have obviously mixed with other elements over time, these 'Khazars' are suddenly 'Asians'. The same goes for 'Huns', 'Magyars', 'Ugyars', Moors' and so on. Just because a people migrates from, say, 'Asia' and speak an 'Asian' language does not make them racially 'Asian' or 'Mongolian'. It's the same way people today believe that the proto-Bulgarians were non-whites, which just isn't true, they were a white pamirian peoples, culturally related to the persian-aryan world. |
|
|
|
Post by White Cossack on Feb 1, 2005 14:39:54 GMT -5
I agree, but language sure is an indicator.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slavictorious on Feb 1, 2005 21:20:30 GMT -5
Sounds good, ruski, I think I will....
|
|
|
|
Post by russkiivoin on Feb 4, 2005 18:34:34 GMT -5
Sounds good, ruski, I think I will.... Post it here and we can all contribute. |
|
joko
Mladshiy Leytenant
Posts: 205
|
Post by joko on Oct 11, 2007 14:09:53 GMT -5
Huns and Slavs might have actually been allies against the Romans and Germanics who were getting the shit kicked out of them. I've read some source a while back that was stating that many of the Slavs rode into Europe with the Huns. I don't know how accurate that is, but if anyone in Europe can claim Huns as ancestors it's probably Maygars and some Slavs.
|
|
|
|
Post by soldier7799 on Jan 11, 2008 5:07:19 GMT -5
Is it Hungary slavic country or not?Are hungarians brainwashed people who were beeing under magyar slavery so long that they forgot their origins?What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexandrus on Jan 11, 2008 5:15:37 GMT -5
Hungarians are loosely related to the central asian maygars, but i doubt that they are slavs.
|
|
TheGoddess
Podpolkovnik
One day you shall awake.
Posts: 870
|
Post by TheGoddess on Jan 11, 2008 6:15:31 GMT -5
Officially, they (old Magyars) are/were not Slavs, they were Asians, slaves of Khazars or whatever tribe it was. Old Magyars per se do not exist any more. They intermixed with a lot of the Slavic and possibly old Bulgar and Romanian population. To me Hungarians are not Slavs even if some of them might have Slavic blood intermixed. They proclaim themselves Magyar and renounce Slavicness, and oppressed my people for centuries. And that is enough for me.
Worst problem is the original Slavic population in Southern parts which was so oppressed they had to change their official ethnicity to Magyar (see Magyarisation) and accept this fake identity to survive even if they never mixed with them. Most of them are our "Hungarians" in Southern Slovakia.
|
|
