#In article >,  says...
#>

#>but what citizenship he holds. In Switzerland, we are close to that
#>ideal state. People are simply Swiss regardless of whether they speak
##>five languages, three, two, or just one. Public servants have a legal
#>obligation to speak at least two national lanugages and the citizen
#>have right to speak their language for every official purpose.

        perhaps you might quote whether there are any swiss citizens
        going say to italy, or germany, for instructions how to act
        (against the interests of their country).
        alternately, whether the governments of those countries would
        have the bad taste to inerfere in matters ethnical in
        switzerland.   another detail that has escaped you is the fact
        that the respective ethnical groups live in areas close to 100%
        populated by those groups.   the people may have the right to
        speak their language, but nobody has the obligation to understand
        them.   at least i can hardly imagine any crowds
        speaking/understanding say retoromansch in zurich or lausanne.
        there is a big difference between a national state and a multi-
        ethnical one.   by the way, can you imagine a hungarian official
        (in hungary) speaking a language of any of the minorities hungary
        is composed of?   this question is just as a matter of test.
        any quantity of nonsense may be proposed, very little (if
        anything) can be realised.

 (DR. AIDS) wrote:
>
"But what about me than"?

You ask, dr. Doktor Aids?

Against my better judgement, while totally disregarding my values, so far
addressed to this group at large (sorry all - this deserves it)! I am
actually going to respond to this ONE. (For the ultimate of one time).
Especially since, he booked an emergency appointment, and never showed!
(what a waste of taxpayers' funds)!?

dr. Doktor Aids:

1)  It truly does, take a 'unique' person to write in Hungarian to a
group, when, fully understanding prior,that not *all* of the readers
understand, nor speak the language.  (Assessment? - An extremely misplaced
feeling of superiority).

2)  When considering, that any person would do this, while having a
relatively ok comprehension and writing ability in English...(Assessment?
-  beyond the rudest of rude) if not, the weakest of weak.  Most
specifically stated in English the cowardest of all cowards.

3)  When considering, the fact that dr. Dr. Aids takes extreme pains in
the Hungarian Language; to preach his *Christian values* to all; and
impress the Christian compassion and understanding for *all* human kind
accross, on other lists, (assessment? - Please don't anyone ask -  for I
could not bring myself to the level of having to explain - taxpayer's
funds wasted or not)... it would be a reply, depicting the belowest of the
belowest of the belowest.

4)  Please Laszlo!  Take some time, to read your posts to other
groups and most specifically, p l e a s e ... take some lessons from what
you preach.  One can never hide behind such a facade, which dr. Dr. Aids
so claims for long.  Eventually, believe it or not... what goes around,
really does, come around!  And God Bless YOU, when it does!

Aniko Dunford

Laszlo - If you respond to this with the hopes of achieving any further
reply from me, rest assured, that the delete button will be burned out
prior to you're gaining satisfaction from further discussion.  In closing,
I have to tell you:  Personally, never, have I ever been so disappointed
by any person, who claims all the rightousness of Christianity as I have
read by you.  And... that is extremely sad!  And... I could expound on
this... but, already I feel that I have violated my own beliefs enough...
and clearly, any more would serve to be nothing more than a total waste,
falling on deaf ears!  Wake Up!  Live as you Preach!

>
> Have I ever said anything about the "beautiful capitalist system?"

You declared your preference quite a few times actually


> you can't debate me on the merits of your own argument so you have to put
> words in my mouth. This is usually the way all the encounters between you
> and I turn out. I base my argument on specifics,


Such as "Marx was a lier" which turns out to be - a lie...


which you then ignore. I
> have asked you repeatedly in the past to explain why Marxist-Leninist
> governments in eastern Europe like Hungary's tried so hard to control the
> individual intellectual lives of the people they ruled. You dodge this by
> denying that Marxism-Leninism was ever tried in these nations.


And I explained carefully what were the reasons for the totalitarian
deformation of these systems, but you do not comprehend this,
as you did not respond to any of that, you just go back to repeat
the same stuff.


Yet you
> yourself worked for a propaganda arm of the Hungarian government back in
> the good old days before 1989. You've even written about your experiences
> here. If that government wasn't Marxist-Leninist in nature, what were you,
> a faithful Marxist, doing by working in a department dedicated to propping
> up the system? Let me guess -- you were a secret revolutionary working to
> overturn the existing system and impose real Marxism-Leninism.
> Sam Stowe

Now this is straight libel material, and if I had a vengeful
nature and if it wouldn't hurt the integrity of the internet
and the list-owner and would have money for a colicitor, I would.

Meantime, I want a separate e-mail of you retracting all this
rubbish.  What have I written??? What government department???
How can anyone just publish such lies about another human being???

If it is so painful, that you read a rubbish book about Marx,
just find a better researched one - this is not a normal
way to deal with being wrong.


I was just about type the eventful story of my life here -
but I stopped myself - I realised, that it is none of your
business. But than the list thinks - yes she got something to hide
so here it is in nutshell - I left Hungary when I was 21 (student:
maths/physics, ELTE) as I met an English chap and we fall in love;
We returned with the kids in 1983 as he was made redundant and
wanted the kids to be bilingual - we lived in Somogydorocske where
he farmed and I worked in Videoton as a "programme designer" but
mostly doing technical translations.  We left again in 1987, mostly
becouse my husband was fedup with the local burocracy and the
self-sufficiency wasn't very self-sufficient.  At no time I was
in any contact with any "government department".  You can check
it all out, if you so wish, everyone new us as the mad
"angolok" and the one article about us once in "Somogyi Neplap"
wasn't particularily complimentary...

This is my last response to  Sam S.'s. I mistakenly believed
that he is capable of a decent argument, he is not.
I had the opportunity to live for years - in more recent
times - in both sides of the fence. I have more valid
experience than he has in living/working with the
"working class".  All he can do is - premeditated, malicious
lying. Not my style. (But why and how can a human being
do this ???? I cannot comprehend.)

Eva Durant

I thought Reagan's main objective was to go back to good
housekeepings, just like Thatcher's. How long this
experiment supposed to last? I just wonder .. as in
the meantime the deficit quadrupled, and the distribution
of wealth became even more lopsided.

Eva Durant

>
> We, in the US, are trying to do something about it.  A number of laws,
> most importantly the line-item-veto and the balanced budget ammendment
> propsal, all are aimed to restoring this country's fiscal and economic
> health, which is prerequisite to a decent means of living and social
> provisons.  You simply cannot spend what you don't have, so we need a
> healthy economy to produce the surplusses to redistribute.
>
> It's also pretty much useless, to my mind, to talk anymore of
> "capitalism and socialism".  They are simply different models of the
> economy, which works according to rules of its own.  Interference with
> the model can produce results, most of them temporary, some good and
> some disastrous.  Benign neglect should not be underestimated as a
> vauable method.
>
> At any rate, I think that most Americans, regardless of party
> affiliation, would agree with Bill Clinton:  it's the economy, stupid!
>
>
>
> Charlie Vamossy

Okay, kids, let's take this a bit at a time. Eva offers what the Tom
Clancy crowd might call a target-rich environment, so I won't go to
Becker-like lengths of tedium responding to all of what she's posted.
Besides, if you've followed the argument this far, you've already probably
figured out on your own that she's not exactly Clarence Darrow. (That's
Rumpole of the Bailey for those of you playing the British home version of
our game)

In article >, Eva Durant
> writes:

>> First, the purposes was not to show "living standards were falling."
Marx
>> often argued against the "Iron Law of Wages" and that the absolute
standard
>> of living of the working class always falls. The point was to draw a
>> contrast between the dizzy success of the capitalists and the famous
"Blue
>> Books" compiled by the London factory inspectors who were fanning out
>across
>> the city. And Capital is loaded with material from those Blue Books.

Well, let's let Paul Johnson speak for himself about these Blue Books
(Paul Johnson. 1988. "Intellectuals", Harper & Row: New York; page 67):
"Marx's systematic misuse of sources attracted the attention of two
Cambridge scholars in the 1880s. Using the revised French edition of
Capital (1872-75), they produced a paper for the Cambridge Economic Club,
`Comments on the Use of the Blue Books by Karl Marx in Chapter XV of Le
Capital' (1885). (Sam note: If I'm reading Johnson's footnotes correctly,
he's drawn this from David F. Felix, "Marx as Politician", London: 1983,
page 46-49. I'll see if one of our local university libraries here in the
Triangle has a copy of it and confirm the citation.) They say they first
checked Marx's references `to derive fuller information on some points,'
but being struck by the `accumulating discrepancies' they decided to
examine the `scope and importance of the errors so plainly existing.' They
discovered that the differences between the Blue Book texts and Marx's
quotations from them were not the result solely of inaccuracy `but showed
signs of a distorting influence.' In one class of cases they found that
quotations had often been `conveniently shortened by the omission of
passages which would be likely to weigh against the conclusions which Marx
was trying to establish.' Another category `consists in piecing together
fictitious quotations out of isolated statements contained in different
parts of a Report. These are then foisted upon the readerin inverted
commas with all the authority of direct quotations from the Blue Books
themselves.' On one topic, the sewing machine, `he uses the Blue Books
with a recklessness which is appalling...to prove just the contrary of
what they really establish.' (Sam note: Is Johnson taking an ironic little
dig at the Master here by using ellipsis or is he just blissfully
unaware?) They concluded that their evidence might not be `sufficient to
sustain a charge of deliberate falsification' but certainly showed `an
almost criminal recklessness in the use of the authorities' and warranted
treating any `other parts of Marx's work with suspicion.'

Wheeee, this is a blast! Eva, why don't you check Johnson's book out of
your library and read it? If you have a sight problem or are physically
unable to get out of the house, let me know and I'll try to find it on
tape or make you a tape of that chapter and mail it to you. I'm going to
see if I can find Felix's book and read it. I will also try to track down
Mr. Johnson himself on-line and see if I can coax him into joining our
discussion. Perhaps he can even tell us where you cribbed the book review
that you quote from at length without offering us a citation.
Sam Stowe

Dear Ms Durant -- is it me who is caught in a time warp or could it be
that it is you who is ten to fifteen years behind the times?

Ronald Reagan, who is now sadly riding into the western sunlit haze of
Alzheimer's disease was president from 1981 to 1989 under totally
different circumstances when the principal goals of the US were to
restore the country's runaway economic mess (remember Jimmy Carter and
his 21% prime rate?) and then to defeat the "evil empire".  He
acomplished both.

Since the Gipper's time we had George Bush and Bill Clinton, and , more
significantly, Congressional elections in 1994, when, for the first
time since World War II, the Republicans received a majority in both
Houses of Congress, thus enabling them to pass legislation.  You see,
unlike the British parliamentary system, our system of "checks and
balances" frequently allows one party to occupy the execute branch
while another party rules the legislature, creating either legislative
deadlock.

In the past, with the Democrats ruling Congress, Republicans Presidents
like Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush, had an obviously
difficult time to pass laws.  The current situation of a Republican
Congress with a Democrat President also has its difficulties but at
least the Republicans control the legislative process, Clinton can only
veto.  With a surprisingly active (although for my taste a not always
attractive) Speaker of the House, the Republicans have a solid agenda
aimed at rolling back some of the excesses of the past.

Perhaps the most important result I am hoping for after all the dust
settles is the permanent imprint into the US legislative practice of
budget accountability.  Simply put, no spending laws should be passed
without funding.  (Currently legislatures can pass spending laws,
blithely ignoring their costs, which are often passed on to other
government entities, like states, counties, cities, etc.)  Coupled with
a requirement for a balanced budget ammendment to he Constitution, this
should put the US on more healthy fiscal diet.  Another important tool
to cut needless spending is the recently passed "line item veto" that
should effectively end the current congressional practice of adding all
kinds of expensive "ammendments" onto otherwise desirable bills.
Previously the President could veto the whole bill, which in many cases
he was reluctant to do so.  Now he can object to the offending item in
the bill.  Congress, of course, can override the President's veto with
a 2/3rd majority.

I've rambled a bit Ms Durant, so let me reply to your main point:

*  yes, our deficit is high, and we are trying to something about it.

*  admittedly we are spening more time on creating wealth than
distributing it...  but without wealth there ain't a whole lot to
distribute.  I think we compare favorably to our ex enemy and the
Marxist workers paradise of the ex-Soviet Union.


You wrote:
>
>I thought Reagan's main objective was to go back to good
>housekeepings, just like Thatcher's. How long this
>experiment supposed to last? I just wonder .. as in
>the meantime the deficit quadrupled, and the distribution
>of wealth became even more lopsided.
>
>Eva Durant
>
>>
>> We, in the US, are trying to do something about it.  A number of
laws,
>> most importantly the line-item-veto and the balanced budget
ammendment
>> propsal, all are aimed to restoring this country's fiscal and
economic
>> health, which is prerequisite to a decent means of living and social
>> provisons.  You simply cannot spend what you don't have, so we need
a
>> healthy economy to produce the surplusses to redistribute.
>>
>> It's also pretty much useless, to my mind, to talk anymore of
>> "capitalism and socialism".  They are simply different models of the
>> economy, which works according to rules of its own.  Interference
with
>> the model can produce results, most of them temporary, some good and
>> some disastrous.  Benign neglect should not be underestimated as a
>> vauable method.
>>
>> At any rate, I think that most Americans, regardless of party
>> affiliation, would agree with Bill Clinton:  it's the economy,
stupid!
>>
>>
>>
>> Charlie Vamossy
>

Eva Balogh writes:

>         Sorry about being a bit late asking this question but how many
> European cities were walled in the late 9th and 10th centuries? Because
if a
> city was walled I doubt that the Hungarian horsemen could take it very
> easily. Or even not so easily. I would say that walled cities would be
> unpenetrable to the kind of marauding horsemen as the Hungarians were
in
> those days.

As I have stated earlier, most of my books are still packed up, but let's
see what the few I have out says.
The nex sections are from Liudprand:
Norwhich translation, Everyman Library edition.Antapodosis, II Chapter 5.

"To glut their perfidious rage, they scoured the kingdoms of
Bavaria,Swabia, France and Saxony, burning everything as they went. No
one could withstand their onset, unless protected by the natural or
articial strength of fortifications, and for some years every one had to
pay them tribute."

Antapodosis II Chapter 15

"No one ventured to withstand their approach unless he was behind strong
city walls."

Antapodosis II Chapter 24
(Actually quoting a Hungarian war council, probably via a CNN report)
"Then if- as we do not expect- he (Henry son of Conrad) should try to get
an  army together, it will not be able to reach him in time either from
Lorraine or from France or from Swabia or from Bavaria. Moreover the land
of the Saxons and the Thuringians can be easily ravaged, inasmuch as it
has no mountain defenses, nor any of the protection that fortified towns
afford."

Antapodosis III, Chapter 4

"For though Pavia was burning in punishment for her sins, she was not
delivered into the hands of her enemies" (Hungarians under Salard).

I have only cited references in relation to the Hungarian forces. The
book has many references of the continuos internecine warfare between the
counts,kings, emperors and other sundry nachalniks may of which relate to
sieges of forts, walled cities, etc. The I visualize the situation that
similar to the later forts in Hungary, there was a fortress and/or a
church and some central area which was surrounded by walls, outside of it
some weaker defenses and then the folks with the mentality of the people
in the US who build in the floodplains or on the shoreline. But it does
appear that there were many places which would have required siege
equipment which was not carried by the Hungarian rapid reaction forces.

Regards,Jeliko.

Eva Balogh commenting on Dr Antonopoulos:


> > The late eminent
> >Hungarian byzantinist Gyula Moravcsik has rightly suggested that
> >a strong Bulgaria discourraged Magyar raids until 927, while I
> >would suggest, that no matter how strong the Pechenegs were,
> >crossing the Carpathians to the east might be hazardous for small
> >bands, and also an unworthy cause for profit.

>         I also gathered that the Hungarians had a healthy fear of the
> Bulgarians and the Pechenegs. However, it also makes sense that if your
> primary goal was booty you don't go to Pecheneg country or Bulgaria.
Somehow
> I don't think that it would be as profitable an adventure as a western
one.

I agree that the Hungarians were weary of the Pechenegs, particularly if
they were allied with Bulgaria. Although please remeber that some of
those alliances were oft swiching from one side to another and that the
Hungarians actually expelled the Bulgarians from southeastern Hungary in
the process of the honfoglalas.

However, as far as treasures are concerned, there may have as much in the
east as in the west. An example can be taken from Charlemagne's loot
taken from the Avars and from descriptions of the Arabic writings
and from Porphyrogenitus about the Pechenegs.

As an example
Gurdezi:

The Pechenegs are very wealthy people. They have horses, cattle, sheep in
great numbers, They also have gold and silver dishes.

Regards,Jeliko

Dear colleagues,
        Eva Balogh wondered as to how many towns were walled in the tenth centu
r
 y.
Well, my feeling is that quite a few of them were, because local seigneurs coul
d
 thus find a place of protection, and it is a time when serfs living in the
 country, are needed for various purposes and their protection has to be
 guarranteed within the wall
of a castle, or a town.
It is not really so important whether a place is fortified, but in what state
 its fortifications were.
With constant local quarels and the lack of a strong unified state in most part
s
 of western Europe during the early tenth century, it would not be so difficult
 for Magyar raiders to capture, or force to capitulation, a town or fortress.
        Also they certainly had a fear of Bulgaria so long as czar Symeon (893-
9
 27) was
 on the throne, but Bulgaria suffered a lot afterwards.
It is therefore more the lack of reason rather than fear that matters, since by
 the 930s a fear that applied in the 890s should be obsolete.
Now, as to the meeting of captives near Thessalonica which Liudprand refers to,
 Jeliko, you are perfectly justified in pointing to a different intention by
 "the good bishop".
However for the year 968, there is a letter by Emperor Nicephorus Phocas
 (963-969) to Czar Peter of Bulgaria protesting that the latter made no effort
 to stop Magyar incursions into Byzantine territory.
Now, let us not forget that it is after Lechfeld, and I have seen no record of 
a
 raid towards the west, when such raids were primarily directed towards the
 south-east.
        Jeliko, thank you for the titles.
I knew that people at Szeged are doing a lot (I have one of Makk's books donate
d
 by him, the only one to have appeared in English), but I find it very difficul
t
 to follow in time what's going on in Hungarian publishers.
So please do send the isbns and I shall certainly try to get them for our
 library.
I will continue at another opportunity.
                                Regards to all,
                                Panagiotis

Asztalos writes:
> Hi! It appered on the Hungary list:
> >To my knowledge, during the revolution in 56, nobody called us
> >"szabadsagharcos" in Hungary.
>            Your knowledge is simply wrong.

Perhaps the exception will make the rule. Please understand that it is easier
to refer to the event as "Szabadsagharc" than the term in Hungarian
"szabadsagharcos" as an individual, which is almost matching the term
"bekeharcos". As if our victory would have only depended on what word was
used. Maybe, if I was called "ellenszabadsagharcos" by the temporarily
winning side instead of "ellenforradalmar" I would be somebody else today.
Journalistic pathos aside, the 1956 revolution was NOT about this word
designation issue. For those on the other side of the Ocean, the Amerikai
Szabsagharc is called here the Revolutionary War.

Regards,Jeliko.

Thanks to our rapid response team the fate of the discussion about the
beginnings of Hungary in Europe had been decided in a positive direction,
and I am very thankful.This discussion is one of the few subjects on
HUNGARY worth reading

I am not sure who listed pertinent books (Hungarian) but I was missing from
the line up:
        Kristo Gyula: AZ AUGSBURGI CSATA, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest 1985.
It seemed to me a a very professional summary of our "Kalandozasok" era,
and it's dismal end.

One more thing, unrelated. I don't quite understand why people who are
ashamed of their heritage take the time to air their shameful wounds on the
net. Why don't they crawl into a very little hole and don't come up except
for their paychecks.

Respectfully

Karoly Csipkay

At 07:31 PM 5/13/96 +0200, Gyorgy Kadar wrote:

>        But the Habsburgs were (again natural from their point of view)
>the Emperors of a great European Empire, and the Hungarian case was a
>matter of periphery for them. Their attention was attracted more by the
>newly explored Eldorado to be plundered by the Spanish cousins, than by
>the swampy, belligerent Great Plain of those rebellious Hungarians, who
>always fought against those other oriental barbarians, the Turks.

        I have been reading an interesting book by Ferenc Szaka'ly on
Hungarian history of the period you are talking about. My impression is that
the military might of the Ottoman Empire was such at the time that no
country in Europe was strong enough to attack it with any hope of success.
Thus, perhaps the repeated signings of armistices between the Habsburgs and
the Ottoman Empire were not just signs of neglect of a semi-abandoned foster
child, Hungary, but the considerations of Ottoman might.


>        The problem with the Habsburgs after liberation from the Turks

        Here I just simply want to mention that the liberation from the
Turks was done by the Habsburg armies in case some of the readers of
"Hungary" would think differently.

> but the famous saying of
>Kolonits (if I am not mistaken): The Hungarians should be converted first
>into beggars, then Catholics and finally Germans. What? No attention when
>we were bleeding, and brutal colonialization when we start working? Such
>an idea, the idea of religious and linguistic homogenization came too late
>(the French kings were more clever and effective in this respect).

        I will have to do a little research on what Kolonits said but one
thing is certain: the catholic Habsburgs wanted to have a catholic Hungary.
Just as a catholic Poland wanted to have a catholic Ukraine. How much they
wanted it to be German? They really didn't care as long as they were loyal
subjects. But they didn't consider Hungary's nobles their loyal subjects.
And why should they have? Just think of all those rebellions against their
authority.

>        The population of Hungary, which had been so many times abandoned,
>still (relatively) educated, was too much aware of its history, of its
>values. Then the Hungarian nation (then it meant nobility) was fairly
>competitive with, in some respects even better than any nation of the
>Empire including the Austrian. That is why this nobility-nation insisted
>that its right vis-a-vis the King of the country should be based upon
>traditional Hungarian laws and accords (e.g. Corpus Juris, Golden Boule).

        I am sure that Gyorgy Kadar wrote all this as a counterpoint to my
description of Hungarian backwardness. Unfortunately, the Hungarian nobility
very often acted out of its selfish interest--which was not necessarily the
interest of the country as a whole. They often appealed to the Golden Bull
but the Golden Bull had darn little to do with Hungary of the eighteenth
century.

>        And more unfortunately the "unifying force" of such
>contrapositions always diverted our attention from our own contemporary
>economic and social problems. The problem of "our rights", of "our
>independence" was always considered more important than our economy and
>society for the best of the nation, and many times the dream of
>independence could almost be reached.

        So, what you are actually saying is the following: we were always so
preoccupied with our own relations with Vienna that we neglected our
economic well being. I certainly agree with the national preoccupations and
I am afraid some of these preoccupations actually harmed the country. But at
the same time preoccupation with national matters doesn't necessarily
preclude economic growth. See especially the period after 1867 when,
unfortunately, a large segment of Hungary's population and many of its
politicians were dissatisfied with the extent of home rule. Yet, there was
spectacular economic growth.

>        And most unfortunately there came always some "muscovite-leaders"
>(muszka-vezetok) from the worst of the nation, who helped the  Austrians,
>the Germans, the Russians to pretend that their brutality - in treading on
>our rights and uprisings - could be justified and legalized as a way of
>consolidation.  And the nation as a whole usually retreated into passive
>resistance.

        Austrians were not as brutal as you try to depict them here. As the
matter of fact practically all Hungarian uprisings--lead by the
nobility--ended in some kind of compromise from Bocskai on. Even after the
failure of the Rakoczi rebellion everybody received amnesty. As they say it
in Hungarin: "a hajuk sza'la sem go:rbu"lt meg." Yes, the Habsburgs were
absolutely brutal when it came to the Bohemian (Czech and German) nobility
after the Battle of White Mountain. They wiped them out and those who were
not wiped out emigrated. In Bohemia-Moravia the Habsburgs really ruled as
absolute monarchs. But not in Hungary: time and time again they were forced
to compromise with a very strong Hungarian nobility.

        One can actually, with hindsight, say that however painful from the
national point of view the elimination of a Czech nobility was in the short
run, in the long run, it was actually beneficial to the country. It allowed
the development of a strong middle class. It also allowed economic growth
until the second half of the nineteenth century Bohemia-Moravia was the most
economically developed area of the whole monarchy. In Hungary, however, a
strong noble class kept politics in their own hands all through, including
the interwar period of this century. That strong noble class's presence
retarded the growth of a strong middle class and the middle class which did
come into being instead of acting as middle class people do elsewhere,
desperately tried to imitate the ways of the Hungarian nobility.


>        Rights and independence - these have been for centuries the main
>goals to achive for the Hungarian "nationalists". When six years ago
>these goals were (or at least seemed to be) again at reachable distance,
>it proved to be too late (by about 300 years, but at least 45). The elite
>of the nation was too much accustomed to licking hinds, to sitting in soft
>positions instead of working hard, and the nation as a whole was too much
>accustomed to passive resistance.

        Well, I don't quite understand--passive resistance today? Things are
not going well because we are playing the game of passive resistance?


>In this game the
>"nationalistic" political right (lacking practice) is much less effective
>than those who are familiar (say, by family traditions) with position
>oriented leftist methods.

      As far as I see it, inexperience is not the problem. The trouble lies
somewhere else. The political right didn't, when they were in power, had a
firm grasp of Hungarian reality TODAY! Not fifty years ago, but today! Now
the "nationalists" are in opposition, but their way of looking at things and
their way of saying things simply baffle me: they sound like, with few
exceptions, the far left of the Kadar regime. Most of the time it is hard to
distinguish them from the politicians of the Munkaspart (the real communist
party of Hungary). The articles written by right-wing newspapermen sound
primitive to me. They seem to lack sophistication. They often make personal
attacks on people. They often call people names. To me they sound like a
sorry lot. Whether it is because they lack experience, or because they are
floundering without a firm political guide post, I am not sure. But, please,
don't blame it on history. As far as family connections are concerned this
is true about any country. Surely, for a Bush boy to become governor of
Texas is much easier than for someone else. A new Hungarian elite had
developed in the last fifty years and their sons and daughters had certain
privileges which others perhaps didn't have. It would be unrealistic to
think that that well educated segment of society can be kept away from
politics, business, the legal profession, just to name a few. Of course not.
But I think it would be an exaggeration to say that the "nationalistic"
political right is coming out of nowhere. The people of the right were also
in fairly important positions in the old regime. Show me just one of them
who was actually a janitor in some big factory, especially for political
reasons.

>This lesson seems to be common for all countries
>of the Eastern Central European region, where Great Empires have trained
>the people to be position-oriented instead of performance-oriented.

        What about Czehoslovkia. And I just read an interesting article
about Poland. Both countries are doing just fine--performing much much
better than Hungary although their histories are analogous.

       Again, I am not sure what you are getting at, but if you mean that
some Hungarians are unable to find their footing in the new world--sure,
that is expected. But it is going to0 far to blame all this on five hundred
years of Great Power dominance. Sure, in the last forty odd years there was
no opportunity to live in a country with a free market economy and that
makes a difference today. But this doesn't explain everything. I already
mentioned that both Poland and the Czech Republic are doing better than
Hungary and they were even more trampled on, politically and economically,
than Hungary was.

        Why doesn't Hungary find a firm footing in this new world while
other East European countries do? Because there is no real *resolve.* There
was no resolve during the Antall government and there is no resolve now! In
a way, I can understand why there is a "lack of resolve" today Because the
leadership of the MSZP is not really prepared to lay the foundations of real
capitalism and real democracy. What I understand less: why wasn't the Antall
government ready to do so?

       In the power-grabbing game of the "elite" the hunt for positions
>renders tacitly acceptable more and more ways which are touching (or going
>beyond) the limits of illegality.

        Illegality will come to an end, I hope, when proper laws are in place.

>In the same time the value of
>professional excellence can be illustrated by the well known fact, that
>any janitor of a Budapest Bank (sorry: bank) is better paid than a
>university docent.

        I understand that you as a professional, most likely employed by
either a university or a research center, are not making very much money.
University professors are not making very much money around here either. If
you want to be rich, either in this country or in Western Europe, you don't
become a university professor. You become a university professor because you
love your subject and couldn't live without doing the research and teaching
you do. Unfortunately, this will be true in Eastern Europe too.

        Eva Balogh

P.S. I saw that Gyorgy Kadar wrote another follow-up piece but because I was
late with this reply, our writings crossed each other. I will try to answer
his second piece more promptly. ESB

Dear Jancsi,

       This is the  second time  Jancsi Czifra has  complained about
    the lack of committment on the part of the Hungarians in general
    and the New Brunswick, NJ,  Hungarians specifically.  He is also
    having  problems with  the Cserkeszek  (Boyscouts)  and the HAAC
    (Hungarian-American Athletic Club). Jancsi is also making fun of
    of the upcoming Hungarian Festival in New Brunswick, NJ. Accord-
    in to him, there is not much more there than food and some silly
    stuff done by  some non-Hungarians.  People go there  to eat and
    then leave,  don't hang around.  This is all true,  as far as it
    goes.  I know,  I was very  active way before  he was even born.
    But ...
       My problem with all this is that  he seems to blame everybody
    else for all this.  Why do you  want to make  others responsible
    for catering to your needs? Others supposed to save your culture
    and just give it to you? No my friend,you should make the effort
    to do all this for yourself.It is true that it is very difficult
    to preserve a minority culture,  but it is your duty to do it if
    it is really important to you. Don't blame others if you are not
    willing to do your part.  If you need the company of others then
    find people with  the same need,  but don't expect  everybody to
    have the same need.
       I feel the same way Jeloko does. I am an American first,  but
    I am very proud of my heritage. And I am preserving that culture
    and everything that goes with it in my own way. I am not waiting
    for others to do it for me. Yes,  I go for my  langos and leave,
    but I go.
       I hope you take this message in the spirit it was written, in
    friendship.
       Regards,
                Amos

Karoly Csipkay writes:

> Thanks to our rapid response team the fate of the discussion about the
> beginnings of Hungary in Europe had been decided in a positive direction,
> and I am very thankful.This discussion is one of the few subjects on
> HUNGARY worth reading

Thanks, but do not expect continuous posting by me. I will participate as
much as I can.

> I am not sure who listed pertinent books (Hungarian) but I was missing
from
> the line up:
>         Kristo Gyula: AZ AUGSBURGI CSATA, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest 1985.
> It seemed to me a a very professional summary of our "Kalandozasok" era,
> and it's dismal end.

It was me with initial list, which is by no means encompassing. I thought
that I give a list periodically. I would recommend almost everything Kristo
wrote to those who are interseted in the early days. Now a few more:

Reprint of Pauler Gyula es Szilagyi Sandor "A magyar honfoglalas kutfoi"
Original issue 1900. This reprint 1995. ISBN 963 8116 04 8. Nap Kiado BT.
 Note, a good part  for western sources in Latin only!
Slav, Byzantine and Arab sources in Hungarian also.

Kristo Gyula " Levedi torzsszovetsegetol Szent Istvan allamaig." 1980

Vaczy Peter " A magyar tortenelem korai szazadaibol" 1994

Moravcsik Gyula " A magyar tortenet bizanci forrasai" 1984

Gyorffy Gyorgy  " A magyarok elodeirol es a honfoglalasrol" 1986

Kiraly Peter " A magyarok emlitese a Konstantin es Metod legendaban" 1974

Just in case anyone has non-Arabic translations of Hadud al alam's work
from 982 or Marvazi's work from 1100. I would greatly appreciate getting
info.
PC note, I have nothing against Arabic except that I do not know Arabic.
And those who do not speak arabusul can not read arabusul either.
(Maybe Amos can assist? Hint, hint.)

Generic note! Please understand that I am often expressing my opinions
relating to the events. I do not consider this as a scientific work, it
just so happens that this is my hobby for which, unfortunately, I do not
have enough time.

Regards,Jeliko.

Igor Gazdik writes:

>         perhaps you might quote whether there are any swiss citizens
>         going say to italy, or germany, for instructions how to act
>         (against the interests of their country).
And can you quote the same for Slovakia?


>         alternately, whether the governments of those countries would
>         have the bad taste to inerfere in matters ethnical in
>         switzerland.
Why should they? Switzerland is not trying to establish ludicrous laws like
some proponents in Slovakia.

>  another detail that has escaped you is the fact
>         that the respective ethnical groups live in areas close to 100%
>         populated by those groups.   the people may have the right to
>         speak their language, but nobody has the obligation to understand
>         them.
Well, I think most of the Hungarians live in Slovakia close to 100%
Hungarian populated areas i.e Hungary. Is anybody asking Slovakians to
learn Hungarian in Slovakia?


  at least i can hardly imagine any crowds
>         speaking/understanding say retoromansch in zurich or lausanne.
>         there is a big difference between a national state and a multi-
>         ethnical one.   by the way, can you imagine a hungarian official
>         (in hungary) speaking a language of any of the minorities hungary
>         is composed of?
Oh we are back to that, the terrible exploitation of the minorities in
Hungary. It was hash when it was stated by others, this is only rehash. And
yes, I have talked to leaders of villages in Slovakian populated villages
who spoke only broken Hungarian and were at ease only with Slovak

>         this question is just as a matter of test.
>         any quantity of nonsense may be proposed, very little (if
>         anything) can be realised.

Ah, any answer is nonsense, spoken like a true democrat!

Jeliko.

This list seemed to be, where English is the only language. I was surprised to
see my own article in Hungarian, borrowed by Eva Balogh.
Besides the fact, that Eva's move was a sucker punch, a  questionable act,  It
broke the English only rule.
If that is the case, then I can post an article in Hungarian. Can't I ?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Miutan Balogh Eva az angol nyelvu vitaban a neki nem tetszo vitapartneret annak
angol mondatszerkesztesi es nyelvtani hibain keresztul tamadja, figyelmen kivul
hagyvan a vita eredo mondanivalojat,  igy termeszetes,  hogy miutan O  magyarul
idezett egy korabbi mas forumon megjelent irasomat, igy kaput nyitott, hogy ve-
dekezesemet tamadasara magyarul vezethessem le.

Az idezett cikk egy regebben mas altal felvetett vita folytatasa volt, ami  azt
hivatott eredetileg erzekeltetni, hogy a hivatalos sztigma egesz nepcsoportokat
tehet felelose, szuk fanatikus csoportok tetteiert is, ami sajnalatos.

Az idezett esetek mind hivatalos publikaciok resze volt, koztuk a Jewish Encyc-
lopediae is. Kerdesem az, hogy miutan komoly informacios bazisom van pl. a zsi-
do forrasokbol, azokat Balogh megengedi nekem idezni, vagy azok kozul is csak a
neki megfelelot szabad publikalnom?

Az adott vita termeszetesen a magyar tiszaeszlari ugyre terelodott, ahol vita-
partnerjaim a hazai publikaciot ismerve csak (Eotvos, etc.) ellenpublikacioja-
bol ideztek vitaikban, ugy terelven a diskurzust, hogy az az en sajat minden
zsido emberre kiterjedo uszitasomnak tunjon mindaz amit leirtam.

Kivancsi lennek, hogy Balogh Eva altal idezett eredeti magyarul irt cikkembol,
leforditana irasom utolso sorait, ami igy szolt ?:

"Ez a temakor kimerithetetlen, de teljesen felesleges esetek halmazat felemli-
teni, mert nem atruhazhato a zsido tomegekre. A tortenelem viszont nem  ilyen
liberalisan tekintette meg az eseti gyilkossagokat sem, hanem ugyanolyan sztig-
matikaval, mint mondjuk az "utolso csatlos" szloganja. A vervadak nem  voltak
alaptalanok, de az is igaz, hogy pl. Goebbels azokat eltulozvan sajat haszna-
latra hasznalta fel olyan artatlan emberek ellen  akiknek fogalmuk sem  volt
egynemely vallasi fanatikus tetteit illetoleg."

Biztos nem, hiszen ez nem hangzik elegge antiszemitanak, pedig Eva Balogh ezt
szeretne bebizonyitani. De Eva nem mindig velekedett igy, hiszen volt olyan
ido, amikor bevallotta, hogy az ugyrol nem sokat tud, es hogy a zsido torte-
netirasban van bizonyos tendencia, hogy a zsidokat mindig ugy  mutatjak  be
mint teljesen artatlan aldozatokat. A baj a zsido tortenetirassal altalaban,
hogy mindossze zsido torteneszek foglalkoznak zsido temakkal, legalabb is a
19-ik szazad eleje ota."

Akkor Evanak meg ez baj volt. Ma mar nem! Sot...minden bizonnyal az sem tet-
szik neki, hogy a vitatemahoz pont a per fobirajanak abbol a konyvebol idez-
tem (Bary - Tiszeszlari Bunper) amit a meghasonlott biro csaladja publikalt
annak halala utan es csak par peldany letezik mugyujtok  kezen.  A konyv  a
szabad Magyarorszagon a mai napi  tiltott  konyvnek tunik, hiszen mig  ebbol
egy sincs a polcokon, addig az ellenmuvekbol konyvtol, filmig megjelent eleg
anyag.

Balogh Evat tiszteltem, de egy pont utan (MDF hanyatlasa) sajat  nezeteinek
fittyethanyva liberalisabb kivant lenni a liberalisnal, amerikaibb az ameri-
kainal es kritikusabb sajat nepevel szemben, mint annak ellensegei.
Micsoda valtozas Holgyeim es Uraim. Ma mar minden forditva van nala. Ma Eva
forgatja ki 56-ot! Embereket hiv szeniliseknek, holott Onmaga kreal erthetet-
len kepet onmagarol:

A HVG. magyar ujsagot mint csalhatatlan forrast dicseri nap, mint nap, amely
az 56-ot "szabadsagharcnak" irja le mikozben maga azt tagadta.
Ugyanigy a zsido forrasokat is csalhatatlannak tartja, de csak addig amig en
nem idezek azokbol. (Jewish Encyclopedia.
Puski hazaspart szelsosegesnek tartja, holott azok a mersekletessegukrol is-
mert koztiszteletben allo emberek a nep koreben.  Miutan  Soros Gyorgy  is
rendszeresen meghivta Puskieket a hazahoz New York-ban, igy talan Eva Sorost
is szelsosegesnek tartja ? Erdekes lenne ez a koncepcio az asszociacio fugg-
venyeben.

Koszonom a Hungary - lista turelmet.

Nemenyi Peter Andras.

At 12:20 PM 5/17/96 -0600, Karoly Csipkay wrote:

>One more thing, unrelated. I don't quite understand why people who are
>ashamed of their heritage take the time to air their shameful wounds on the
>net.

        First, one cannot be "blanket" proud of being a Hungarian. Sometimes
yes, sometimes no. For example, when DR. AIDS poured his venom on this list,
I was deeply ashamed that this fellow is a fellow Hungarian. On the other
hand, when we have a very high level discussion on a certain topic, I can be
proud of our collective wisdom or collective knowledge. Or, I cannot be
terribly proud when I read some contributions on the Forum. I would like to
proud of Hungary's present economic and political achievements but
unfortunately the only thing I see is that we are falling behind some of the
neighboring countries.

>Why don't they crawl into a very little hole and don't come up except
>for their paychecks.

        I am not quite sure what this means.

        Eva Balogh

P.S. And although I agree with you that the discussion on the Hungarian
raids is extremely interesting but by saying that it is the only one worth
reading on this list what you are saying is that all other contributors'
writings are worth nothing. And that is not true.

Lectoris Salutem!
        The "sense" of my last posting, dear Madame Durant, might be seen
better outlined if related to the postings of Jeliko and Eva Balogh on
Rakoczi's  possible role in a "what-if"-like, imaginary independent
development of Hungary.
        As you might remember, my words were very much in line with
Jeliko's opinion. Certainly the economic factors, emphasized by Eva
Balogh, are also important. My humble person wanted to add some factors of
"mass-psychology". I try to summarize in a one-sentence nut-shell what I
wrote: cooperation is a matter of equal respect of (not necessarily
symphathy towards) each other, and the post-1526 Habsburg kings for at
least 300 years did not want to cooperate with the culturally
not-inferior-at-all Hungarian nation.
        To Eva Balogh's arguments:
EB>France did have ... a strong royal authority. In Hungary, the nobility
EB>fought continuously against such strong center and most of the time
EB>they were victorious. With the possible exception of Matthias Corvinus
EB>I cannot think of one strong king after his reign, whether it was
EB>Habsburg or otherwise. The Hungarian nobility had its way against a
EB>strong royal power...
        These lines - kind-of - illustrate my above thesis. My explanation
reads: The French Kings respected and cooperated with their nobility, thus
they were able to build strong ECONOMY and strong royal authority. The
Hungarian great Kings with strong royal authority had lived all before
Matthias Corvinus (Arpad's, Anjou's, Zsigmond), had respected (partly
liked, partly hated, but respected) their nobility and had looked for
their better destiny on the soil of Hungary.
        The Habsburgs for 300 years (up to the "Reform" period) only
wanted to look down on Hungary, did not take care of their property and
subjects. We do not have to be surprised, that those subjects "had their
way against (Habsburg) strong royal power". Rakoczi, whose destiny
strongly depended on the destiny of the country, as a Hungarian King could
have converted this psychology of obstruction into constructive national
cooperation, --> economic development.
        To illustrate the last sentence I quote again:
Jeliko referred to "middle nobility and freeman following (Rakoczi) ...to
be rewarded", and here is the quotation:
BE>I am not even sure whether economically that would have made more sense
BE>than having large estates.
        Recently I found some data about the history of the localities of
Heves county. In the last decade of the 1600s many villages on the south
slope of the Matra hills, whose name had been known in royal and religious
documents since the 1200s, were empty, abandoned or destroyed. After long
debates and judicial procedures around 1710 the Almasy family could get
to the full possession of the area (several villages near Gyongyos).
Within a century the empty villages became populated to a size of about
1000 persons each, and a flourishing agriculture (...quite famous
vines...) was developed. This I would call a local cooperation of a good
local master with the people of his "sphere of influence".
        ...and it started with "no more sense than having a large estate".
        Jozsef Bajza, Imre and Sandor Vachott were born in that region to
mention some cultural points too.
        With Kings, like the Habsburgs in Hungary in the 16-19. centuries,
a Kingdom (generally speaking) is unable to develop economically, but in
my opinion the "sin and error" is more than economical, it is moral and
psychological:
        The leading political elite of the nation becomes accustomed to
hind-licking, instead of hard-working. Position-oriented instead of
performance-oriented.
And now such an elite, which was so much obsessed with the marxist ideas
for 45 years, will establish a new legal, economic, social and cultural
"order" in Eastern Central Europe. Somebody of the western press called
them: cleptocracy. Rightfully.
        The "sense" of my last posting consisted of such things, dear
Madame Durant. And I was writing about Eastern Central Europe, not about
Burma.  I do believe that history - magistra vitae - may explain even
strange-looking phenomena, that are hard to understand from the distance,
without emphathy, behaving like a foreigner.
        We can have only one real, and no imaginary history? I know.
        May God bless us all...                 kadargyorgy