3 definitions by Dhadi
A land with sad story.
First created by Romanian knights which came from Maramures and settled around the Moldova river. It grew in a few centuries by uniting all territories inhabitted by Romanian speakers between Pocutia & the Black Sea, between the Carpathians and the Nistru river (and further). It survived the Hungarian attachs from the West, Polish from the North, Tartars from the East and Turks from the South - quite bravely for hundreds of years.
Their greatest King was Stephen III of Moldavia (or Stephen the Great), good friend of Vlad III Dracula, the ruler of the sister land Wallachia.
The downfall of Moldavia started with the Austrian occupation of the northern part (Bukovina) in 1774. The '75 Austrian census showed 90% Romanians, 5% Polish and 5% Ruthenians & Hutsuls. As part of their "divide et impera" strategy, the Austirans encouraged a high influx of immigrants from Galicia: Germans, Poles, Jews, Hungarians, but mainly Ukrainians - which in 100 years managed to outnumber the Romanians. And later on they became Stalin's argument of occupying most of Bukovina. With most of the Romanians deported by him to Siberia or forcely assimilated, today they are barely a minority in a part of Ukraine where only 200 years ago lived only Romanians.
The second dark chapter of the downfall of Moldova was the Russian occupation in 1812 of the Eastern Moldova, named Bassarabia. Upon the occupation, Romanians were the vast majority in this area also. The Russian Census 5 years later, in 1817, still showed 86% Romanians in the area - but it cannot be known how objective the census was performed by the Russians, nor how many had fled the land after their occupation. Following the same "divide et impera" policy as the Austrians, in 100 years the Romanians were reduced from 90% to less than 50% in the area, replaced by immigrants of different origins: Ukrainians 20%, Jews 10%, Russians 10%, Bulgarians 5% and few other smaller minorities. In paralel with that, Russians did something Austrians did not lowered themselves to do: they started a brainwashing propaganda, trying to convince the inhabitants of Romanian origin, that they are not actually Romanian.
Following the French Revolution, the 1848 Revolution and due to their lands being shattered in pieces, the Romanians developed a national identity during the 19th century, and a desire of uniting all Romanian lands arose. What was left of Moldavia chose to unite with Wallachia in 1859, when both lands elected the same prince - Alexandru Ioan Cuza - as king. The union of the two lands became Romania. When Austria & Russia lost control of their occupied territories after WW1, Bukovina & Bassarabia reunited with Moldova, this time under Romania (land of all Romanians). Of course the Russians & Ukrainians protested, claiming territories none of their grandparents were born in.
The third, and maybe darkest chapter in the history of Moldavia, was Stalin's occupation after the WW2 of large parts of its territory: all Bassarabia, 60% of Bukovina, the Herta region (98% Romanians upon occupation), together with some islands on the Danube and in the Black Sea. But occupation was not all. The territory was chopped in pieces, some parts being given to Ukraine, and the rest forming nowaday's Republic of Moldova. And that was still not all. One third of the population was either killed or deported (most of which dying anyway later in Siberia). An organized famine killed even more. Romanian language was forbidden. Even claiming you are Romanian was forbidden (only the term "Moldavian" was allowed). Even more Russian & Ukrainian immigrands were brought. The brainwashing propaganda and school system that followed led to the situation today: although 65% of the population are "Romanians", less then a third of them are actually aware of that. Although their language differs only in accent to the one in other parts of Romania, they still believe what their Russian leaders tell them, and what they learned from the Soviet books in school: that the different accent is enough of a proof to call "Moldavian" a different language, which makes them a different nation.
What sealed the faith of this shattered land, was the Western Betrayal: the fact that the Western countries didn't lift a finger to protect Romania against the Russian invasion (which forced them to ally with Germany, to be able to get back the lost territories), and later on didn't lift a finger when Stalin shattered Moldova in pieces and put a Communist puppet Government at Bucharest, which didn't object to Russia's claims over more than half of Moldavia.
So the story of Moldavia is sad, because while other countries - like Germany, France, Italy, United States - managed to unite (even though the difference in dialects are way bigger from one corner of the country to another) as they realized together they can be stronger, the Romanians are still not united in one big country, nor do they seem to want when it comes to those from Moldavia.
- - -
First created by Romanian knights which came from Maramures and settled around the Moldova river. It grew in a few centuries by uniting all territories inhabitted by Romanian speakers between Pocutia & the Black Sea, between the Carpathians and the Nistru river (and further). It survived the Hungarian attachs from the West, Polish from the North, Tartars from the East and Turks from the South - quite bravely for hundreds of years.
Their greatest King was Stephen III of Moldavia (or Stephen the Great), good friend of Vlad III Dracula, the ruler of the sister land Wallachia.
The downfall of Moldavia started with the Austrian occupation of the northern part (Bukovina) in 1774. The '75 Austrian census showed 90% Romanians, 5% Polish and 5% Ruthenians & Hutsuls. As part of their "divide et impera" strategy, the Austirans encouraged a high influx of immigrants from Galicia: Germans, Poles, Jews, Hungarians, but mainly Ukrainians - which in 100 years managed to outnumber the Romanians. And later on they became Stalin's argument of occupying most of Bukovina. With most of the Romanians deported by him to Siberia or forcely assimilated, today they are barely a minority in a part of Ukraine where only 200 years ago lived only Romanians.
The second dark chapter of the downfall of Moldova was the Russian occupation in 1812 of the Eastern Moldova, named Bassarabia. Upon the occupation, Romanians were the vast majority in this area also. The Russian Census 5 years later, in 1817, still showed 86% Romanians in the area - but it cannot be known how objective the census was performed by the Russians, nor how many had fled the land after their occupation. Following the same "divide et impera" policy as the Austrians, in 100 years the Romanians were reduced from 90% to less than 50% in the area, replaced by immigrants of different origins: Ukrainians 20%, Jews 10%, Russians 10%, Bulgarians 5% and few other smaller minorities. In paralel with that, Russians did something Austrians did not lowered themselves to do: they started a brainwashing propaganda, trying to convince the inhabitants of Romanian origin, that they are not actually Romanian.
Following the French Revolution, the 1848 Revolution and due to their lands being shattered in pieces, the Romanians developed a national identity during the 19th century, and a desire of uniting all Romanian lands arose. What was left of Moldavia chose to unite with Wallachia in 1859, when both lands elected the same prince - Alexandru Ioan Cuza - as king. The union of the two lands became Romania. When Austria & Russia lost control of their occupied territories after WW1, Bukovina & Bassarabia reunited with Moldova, this time under Romania (land of all Romanians). Of course the Russians & Ukrainians protested, claiming territories none of their grandparents were born in.
The third, and maybe darkest chapter in the history of Moldavia, was Stalin's occupation after the WW2 of large parts of its territory: all Bassarabia, 60% of Bukovina, the Herta region (98% Romanians upon occupation), together with some islands on the Danube and in the Black Sea. But occupation was not all. The territory was chopped in pieces, some parts being given to Ukraine, and the rest forming nowaday's Republic of Moldova. And that was still not all. One third of the population was either killed or deported (most of which dying anyway later in Siberia). An organized famine killed even more. Romanian language was forbidden. Even claiming you are Romanian was forbidden (only the term "Moldavian" was allowed). Even more Russian & Ukrainian immigrands were brought. The brainwashing propaganda and school system that followed led to the situation today: although 65% of the population are "Romanians", less then a third of them are actually aware of that. Although their language differs only in accent to the one in other parts of Romania, they still believe what their Russian leaders tell them, and what they learned from the Soviet books in school: that the different accent is enough of a proof to call "Moldavian" a different language, which makes them a different nation.
What sealed the faith of this shattered land, was the Western Betrayal: the fact that the Western countries didn't lift a finger to protect Romania against the Russian invasion (which forced them to ally with Germany, to be able to get back the lost territories), and later on didn't lift a finger when Stalin shattered Moldova in pieces and put a Communist puppet Government at Bucharest, which didn't object to Russia's claims over more than half of Moldavia.
So the story of Moldavia is sad, because while other countries - like Germany, France, Italy, United States - managed to unite (even though the difference in dialects are way bigger from one corner of the country to another) as they realized together they can be stronger, the Romanians are still not united in one big country, nor do they seem to want when it comes to those from Moldavia.
- - -
- Are you Romanian?
- No, Moldavian.
- What's the difference?
- We are people from the parts of Moldova taken by the Russians who, although speaking a language identical with Romanian, think we are a different nation, speaking a different language, because this is what we learn at school in the Soviet times and this is what our Communist leaders keep telling us. Which reminds me of another thing specific to us: although we are the poorest country in Europe, we still vote for the communists and reject Romania's help, because we like to suffer.
- No, Moldavian.
- What's the difference?
- We are people from the parts of Moldova taken by the Russians who, although speaking a language identical with Romanian, think we are a different nation, speaking a different language, because this is what we learn at school in the Soviet times and this is what our Communist leaders keep telling us. Which reminds me of another thing specific to us: although we are the poorest country in Europe, we still vote for the communists and reject Romania's help, because we like to suffer.
by Dhadi January 28, 2008
Moldava is a misspelling of Moldova (due to the fact that the territory/country's name in English is Moldavia).
To correct the information posted on this page by Tiverits, which is mostly false, here are some facts about Moldavia (Moldova in Romanian):
1. Firstly, the name refers to the historical territory of Moldova. To make the difference between the territory and the country, the latter is called the "Republic of Moldova", and represents only a bit more then a third of the historical Moldavian lands.
2. When the Roman administration withdrew from Dacia in 275, the local population was already in an advanced process of Romanization, partly because of all the settled Romans or mixed couples after almost 200 years of Roman administration, and partly because of the more advanced status of the Roman culture & language. Most of them kept identifying themselves with their Roman origin (hence the names Romania/Romanian today), however - throughout the course of history - some of them chose to identify themselves with the territory they were living in. One example is Moldova - which took the name of the Moldova River (area around which the Land of Moldova started to develop - today in North-Eastern part of Romania).
So the land was never called Tivertsi as the user Tiverits (I think the name says all about his "objectivity"). Tivertsi where actually a short-lived Slavic tribe. The very scarce information that exists on them goes only as far as 863 the earliest and 944 the latest. And they are said to have actually lived in Western Ukraine, and only *possibly* in some parts of Transnistria and Moldova (however there is no hard evidence for that). So this tribe could not have possibly had any major influence in the history of Moldova, nor are the Moldavians a result of a Dacian-Tiverian mix. The Dacians did not even exist anymore in the 10th century. The Daco-Roman mix took place between the 1st and 5th century A.D., before the Slavish invasions. Regardless of that though, it's absurd to even claim that a tribe with such a short existence which lived in the area, could have led to the creation of a nation (again, proof of them living also in Moldova, does not really exist).
3. The user Tiverits is however right about something: "It is wrong to consider Moldavians as brothers of Romanians". That's like saying that Bavarians are brothers of Germans, Sicilians are brothers of Italians or Hollanders are brothers of Netherlanders. All absurd statements, as Moldavians ARE Romanians, same as Bavarians are Germans, Sicilians are Italians or Hollanders are Netherlanders. They are inhabitants of the Moldavian territory, sharing the Romanian language and culture with the inhabitants of the the other Romanian territories. Actually while Bavarians or Sicilians do speak a dielect quite different from the standard German or Italian, Moldavians don't even speak a different dialect, but the very same one (just difference of accent). Wiki or other neutral sources can be consulted for confirmation.
The rest is just politics. The concept of a different "identity" for Moldavians is of Stalinistic origin, and the result of a 50 years brainwashing Soviet oppressive regime (on the background of the already anti-Romanian policies in occupied Bessarabia the previous century). The bolshevics did their best do destroy the national identity of the Romanians in the Eastern Moldova, and we see today their methods were unfortunately quite efficient.
To correct the information posted on this page by Tiverits, which is mostly false, here are some facts about Moldavia (Moldova in Romanian):
1. Firstly, the name refers to the historical territory of Moldova. To make the difference between the territory and the country, the latter is called the "Republic of Moldova", and represents only a bit more then a third of the historical Moldavian lands.
2. When the Roman administration withdrew from Dacia in 275, the local population was already in an advanced process of Romanization, partly because of all the settled Romans or mixed couples after almost 200 years of Roman administration, and partly because of the more advanced status of the Roman culture & language. Most of them kept identifying themselves with their Roman origin (hence the names Romania/Romanian today), however - throughout the course of history - some of them chose to identify themselves with the territory they were living in. One example is Moldova - which took the name of the Moldova River (area around which the Land of Moldova started to develop - today in North-Eastern part of Romania).
So the land was never called Tivertsi as the user Tiverits (I think the name says all about his "objectivity"). Tivertsi where actually a short-lived Slavic tribe. The very scarce information that exists on them goes only as far as 863 the earliest and 944 the latest. And they are said to have actually lived in Western Ukraine, and only *possibly* in some parts of Transnistria and Moldova (however there is no hard evidence for that). So this tribe could not have possibly had any major influence in the history of Moldova, nor are the Moldavians a result of a Dacian-Tiverian mix. The Dacians did not even exist anymore in the 10th century. The Daco-Roman mix took place between the 1st and 5th century A.D., before the Slavish invasions. Regardless of that though, it's absurd to even claim that a tribe with such a short existence which lived in the area, could have led to the creation of a nation (again, proof of them living also in Moldova, does not really exist).
3. The user Tiverits is however right about something: "It is wrong to consider Moldavians as brothers of Romanians". That's like saying that Bavarians are brothers of Germans, Sicilians are brothers of Italians or Hollanders are brothers of Netherlanders. All absurd statements, as Moldavians ARE Romanians, same as Bavarians are Germans, Sicilians are Italians or Hollanders are Netherlanders. They are inhabitants of the Moldavian territory, sharing the Romanian language and culture with the inhabitants of the the other Romanian territories. Actually while Bavarians or Sicilians do speak a dielect quite different from the standard German or Italian, Moldavians don't even speak a different dialect, but the very same one (just difference of accent). Wiki or other neutral sources can be consulted for confirmation.
The rest is just politics. The concept of a different "identity" for Moldavians is of Stalinistic origin, and the result of a 50 years brainwashing Soviet oppressive regime (on the background of the already anti-Romanian policies in occupied Bessarabia the previous century). The bolshevics did their best do destroy the national identity of the Romanians in the Eastern Moldova, and we see today their methods were unfortunately quite efficient.
Apart from the language, maybe one of the most symbolic proofs that Moldavians and Wallachians are one nation (aka. Romanians), is the acts of 5 & 24 January 1859. Till 1859 the stronger powers around (and occupiers of) the Romanian lands, never let them unite, out of fear of getting another regional power in the area. In 1859 however, Moldava and Wallachia - 2 of the 3 major Romanian lands (the other being Transylvania) - were allowed for the first time to ellect their ruler. And both nominated and finally ELLECTED, the very same person as Prince and ruler - Alexandru Ioan Cuza. After this move which showed the will of the people in the two Romanian lands, the world powers had to give in and eventually recognized the union of the two under the name Romania.
by Dhadi January 2, 2008
In public, a good girl:
- behaves like the sweet innocent girl her father wants her to be
- is smart but polite, like her mother wants her to be
- is decently sexy, like her bf/hubby wants her to be
- is waring tiny strings or goes commando (whatever idea drives him more crazy while in public)
- if situation allows, occasionally gives him blowjobs under restaurant tables, on the back row at cinema, in the middle of a forest, etc.
In private, a good girl:
- looses the skirt/trousers, and walks around the house commando or in tiny g-strings (shirt allowed if a bit chilly)
- wears French maid outfit when cleaning around the house
- serves bf/hubby with nice food but also reveales her breasts, so he can have an alternative if not hungry and in need of appetizer
- once a week rents a porn for him to watch it together
- twice a week gives him a blowjob while he watches other TV or plays computer games
- one blowjob out of two she swallows; the other she takes it in the face, boobs or again mouth, but then plays with it
- wakes up bf/hubby every morning with blowjob, ball licking, rimming, nipple/toe sucking or lubed handjob, so he has a good day at work
- douches and wears butt-plugs every couple of days, because no hole should be offered less frequent then the other - especially the tightest and most pleasurable
- on birthdays and special occasions surprises him with the hottest of the hottest ATM practice
- gradually improves her deeptroat skills and whatever other skills she knows he might appreciate
- does not mind a slap on the bum at any time, and in the heat of the moment other gentle/rough slappings can be a big turn on for her
- in general has a clean body and a dirty mind - and offers him whatever he feels like. Because feelings are important for her and she wouldn't want to hurt his.
At ALL times:
- a good girl is completely SHAVED. It's what brings her beauty to perfection. If any of the men out there says they are ok with body hair on a girl, they either lie or should be educated.
- behaves like the sweet innocent girl her father wants her to be
- is smart but polite, like her mother wants her to be
- is decently sexy, like her bf/hubby wants her to be
- is waring tiny strings or goes commando (whatever idea drives him more crazy while in public)
- if situation allows, occasionally gives him blowjobs under restaurant tables, on the back row at cinema, in the middle of a forest, etc.
In private, a good girl:
- looses the skirt/trousers, and walks around the house commando or in tiny g-strings (shirt allowed if a bit chilly)
- wears French maid outfit when cleaning around the house
- serves bf/hubby with nice food but also reveales her breasts, so he can have an alternative if not hungry and in need of appetizer
- once a week rents a porn for him to watch it together
- twice a week gives him a blowjob while he watches other TV or plays computer games
- one blowjob out of two she swallows; the other she takes it in the face, boobs or again mouth, but then plays with it
- wakes up bf/hubby every morning with blowjob, ball licking, rimming, nipple/toe sucking or lubed handjob, so he has a good day at work
- douches and wears butt-plugs every couple of days, because no hole should be offered less frequent then the other - especially the tightest and most pleasurable
- on birthdays and special occasions surprises him with the hottest of the hottest ATM practice
- gradually improves her deeptroat skills and whatever other skills she knows he might appreciate
- does not mind a slap on the bum at any time, and in the heat of the moment other gentle/rough slappings can be a big turn on for her
- in general has a clean body and a dirty mind - and offers him whatever he feels like. Because feelings are important for her and she wouldn't want to hurt his.
At ALL times:
- a good girl is completely SHAVED. It's what brings her beauty to perfection. If any of the men out there says they are ok with body hair on a girl, they either lie or should be educated.
Note: A bad girl is a girl who consciously refuses to perform one of the "good girl" duties above, but only because she wants to be punished.
by Dhadi January 16, 2008