Subject: Re: Trianon
From: paul, 
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 19:11:48 EST


d.a.>i also recall repeatedly asking if those who wish to "reclaim
lost
d.a.>territory" would accord others the same privileges and rights
and
d.a.>impose
d.a.>the same burdens on other countries.


p.g.>This is now beyond my understanding of Hungarian history, but
as a
p.g.>concept, ofcourse.  What I ask for myself I must offer to
others.
p.g.>If 2 people have the same claim on the same land, either the
true
p.g.>owner should be determined, or if the claims are equally valid a
p.g.>compromise must be reached.  but I would not expect some
benefit be
p.g.>offered to me without offering it to others as well.


my point was that i do not see how it is possible to determine the
"true owner" of hungary.

what criteria do you propose?

d.a.

Subject: Re: family pride
From: paul, 
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 17:52:02 EST
In article > paul,
 writes:
>Andra1s Kornai wrote:
>

>Ok.  Are people who go to World Cup Soccer games ridiculous for
cheering on
>the team from their home country, just because they are from the
same country?

yes.


>>Well, how about some broader European heratiage, largely coming
from the
>>Greeks and Romans? Or how about that old time religion -- that
doesn't

hungary'r forebears have little to do with that heritage, short of
adopting it
rather late in the day. what contact did the hungarian forebears
have with
ancient greece or rome?

d.a.

Subject: Name of GYULA or GYULAI ?
From: Gyulai, 
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 02:46:08 GMT
In article > Gyulai,  writes:
>       Does anyone have information about the name GYULA or GYULAI. I
>was told this is the name of a town and also the name of a sausage.
Also any
>information or contact with someone with the family name of GYULAI,
would
>be greatly appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>Ed Gyulai


there is a town in the east of hungary called gyula. it is to the
east of
bekescsaba (which, as far as i know, is also called csaba and which
is the
source of the name csabai for a sausage), near the border with
rumania.

d.a.

Date sent:  23-DEC-1994 21:16:32
>
>--Hold hard, here!  While I would not try to defend the John Wayne view
>of America as heaven on earth, I won't gratuitously trash the place either.
>If you judge America by Washington and New York, I think that you miss
>some things.  As for Europeans, we have a fair number here, of all places,
>and many have become citizens.
>>
I won't describe America as Hell on Earth, but that doesn't mean I don't
see serious problems.  You do have a point:  many Europeans have immigrated
here.  I'll backtrack and change my opinion (that's why it's an opinion and
not a conviction :).  Immigration may take standard of living and other
issues into account, but other factors also play an important role.
>
>>Maybe he's trying to change things. :)  Or maybe he likes the salary.  Just
>>because he's an optimist/opportunist (take your pick) doesn't mean he's
>>wrong.
>>
>--I think that it was a political statement.
>
Political statements require intent.  I was commenting on intent:  a faulty
interpretation of statistics does not necessarily imply that the statistics
are wrong.  In order to prove that, you need to find fault in the system
they are gathered in.


>
>  Not likely, but
>>not because things aren't going wrong in the US.  Might have something to
>>do with propaganda teaching generations of US schoolchildren that they in
>>the secular version of the Promised Land while denying them real education
>>about anything outside the continental US.
>
>--I really can't relate to that statement.  I was never taught that as a
>child, and if you will read up on the current literature in professional
>education, you will ecounter two interesting trends.  One is the
>critical multiculturalist line that trashes America from a Marxist
>viewpoint.  Don't know how much leaks through to the students.

Hopefully not much.  Cynicism learned through rote memorization and
indoctrination frightens me.  It doesn't supply those critical ability's
necessary to rationally decide to immigrate or not.

>The other
>is a more positive movement called "Global Education" which argues that
>the world is a very small place and that we all should know more about
>each other if we are to deal with global issues including population
>pressure, war, famine, as well as doing business, sharing information,
>and scientific knowledge.

Makes sense.  Maybe there is hope for future generations, but today's
adults are by and large ignorant when it comes to world issues, geography,
etc.  That explains the CURRENT low rate of emigration from America.

>Further, there is an extensive exchange
>student program at the high school and college level.  Even here in
>a small Southern town, we regularly exchange 20-30 high school students
>each year, and the benefits don't just accrue to those who are exchanged.
>
Another positive step.  Unfortunately, it affects many fellow students on a
very superficial level.  Once upon a time, I was a foriegn exchange
student...

>>Funny how we ended up on immigration again.
>>
>--Would you defend the proposition that the Hungarians on this list
>should have stayed in Hungary if they really knew what was good for
>them?  Or are they a bunch of greedy opportunists who have only
>come here to rape the land and exploit the inhabitants?  And will
>you be leaving soon for a more civilized and enlightened place?
>
Please don't put words into my mouth.  I'm all for legal immigration.  I
think it should be encouraged in all directions, both toward America and
out of America (or anywhere for that matter!).  If everyone had relatives
in other countries, maybe there would be fewer wars, less ethnic based
prejudice, etc.  Or maybe I'm just kidding myself.  I'm happy to welcome
all legal Hungarian, Bosnian, Mexican, or whatever immigrants.  And no, I
don't plan on leaving soon.  I have a sense of responsibility and a love
for my country.

>Charles
>Kook, First Class




                        Thomas Breed
                        

                "Follow the bouncing ball and sing along."

Greg is often right, but even when he is not it's fun to debate with him.
> The difference between square triangles and family pride is that one
> finds examples of the latter and not of the former.
Point granted. The concept is not impossible by virtue of logic, it is
impossible given a set of ethical assumptions one is actually quite free to
disobey. One finds people buying and selling babies for adoption, so the
concept is not illogical, in fact it's highly logical given some other
assumptions.

> (And green blood is a Star Trek reference, BTW; maybe orange is too?)
Sorry, I completeley missed the point -- I thought it was an allusion to
blue (aristocatic) blood or lack thereof. The problem is that I don't watch
TV, which often makes me weirder in the eyes of my fellow humans than green
or orange blood would.

> > (taking the dictionary definition) pride means "a feeling of honour and
> > self-respect; a sense of personal worth" and I don't see how those things
> > can stem from anything but personal accomplishment.
> My dictionary says "a reasonable or justifiable feeling of one's position".
For once, your dictionary is doing you a disservice. It's Christmastime
and I am way, way out on my credit cards. I think I have a reasonable and
quite justifiable feeling of my position, and it's not one of proudness
(I'm actually more anxious than ashamed but pride it ain't, believe me).

So your dictionary definition needs to be propped up: "a reasonable or
justifiable feeling of one's GOOD, HIGH, EXALTED position" would be closer
to what you want, right? Now, to be born into a rich family placed Henry
Ford 3rd in a good position, and it is reasonable for him to know that this
is indeed so. This warm feeling is even justifiable to the extent that
ceteris paribus *anybody* born into a rich family starts out life from a
better/higher position than the less fortunate. However, the real question
is not whether the feeling is justified but whether the position itself is
justified. When Edmund Hillary looked down from the top of the world no
doubt a great deal of pride swelled his bosom, and the help of the sherpas
notwithstanding he clearly had every reason to feel proud. If Henry Ford 3rd
pays enough for a helicopter to put him on the same spot, he has very little
to be proud of, even though the position is physically the same as that of
Hillary's. Morally he did nothing wrong, he paid good money that he
brilliantly earned (well, actually grandpa did, but we will ignore that),
so by your dictionary he should feel real proud, right?

There is a traditional world-view based on the observation that people are
rich and poor, high and low in society, smart and stupid, and in almost
every respect unequally endowed. There are two logical steps that can be
taken from this starting point, and I take the first together with Paul, but
not the second.  The first step is that such divisions are pretty much
inevitable, and society must be operating in recognition of this. The second
step is that not only does the existence of these divisions stem from some
deeper principles (which is what makes them inevitable) but also the actual
distribution of individuals across the divisions is somehow dictated by
deeper principles: if you were born in a high family, well, this is by
itself sufficient reason to think that some form of divine justice placed
you there. See, if you were a bad person in your previous reincarnation you
would have been reincarnated as a beggar not as Henry Ford 3rd, so you must
have been a terrific person all along! Thus we see you as having broad
justification in your high position, and a feeling of pride on your part is
entirely appropriate.

> > Is your worthiness or
> > honour determined by the family you were born to, even partially,
> In the world as we might wish it?  Perhaps not.  In the world as
> we find it, yes it is, especially one's honor: "a good name or public
> esteem".
You are certainly right on that one: in the world as we find it your family
background matters enormously. I'm in favor of meritrocracy and absurdly
high estate taxes, so as to discourage the kind of nonsense Paul takes for
granted.

> > > That a member of a group feels good that another member has done
> > > well isn't so strange to me...merely, well, human.
> > Feel good *for* the other member, yes. Increasing your own sense of persona
l
> > worth, honour, and self-respect, I can't see how or why.
> Nevertheless, it happens.
Sure. It also happens that a group of young males gang-bangs a female,
and I'm sure there are deep reasons for it from a kind of social cohesion
back to primate behavior patterns deep in our genes. Nevertheless, it
should be discouraged.

> =======================================================
> Felado : 
>
> Ok.  Are people who go to World Cup Soccer games ridiculous for cheering on
> the team from their home country, just because they are from the same country
?
> Those guys in the stand sure are not making goals, and have no person
> stake in the outcome?
To cheer the team is yet anather form of creating social cohesion. To the
extent that it is neither rape nor pillage symbolic combat such as the World
Cup should definitely be encouraged over actual combat operations.  Since it
serves as a ritual outlet for certain tribal instincts, it should be
tolerated the same way as houses of ill repute are tolerated in most places
around the world. Do I think that people who visit the stadium or the
brothel are ridiculous? Not at all. But I don't think of them more highly
just because they do so.

And don't you think I have no experience in these matters:-). When I was a
teenager, some of my classmates insisted that I go, and I gave in to peer
pressure. We went to the sanctum sanctorum, Fradi Pa1lya A1llo1hely. It
created quite a stir when I asked the obvious questions, like why is this
guy passing the ball backwards? It had something to do with the possibility
of "les" (I don't quite understand it to this day, but I'm positive that the
surprise of those standing around couldn't have been greater if I cut myself
and my blood flowed green.) Anyway, great fun was had by all, and there
isn't the slightest doubt on my mind that soccer is exhilarating to play and
beutiful to watch.

> Ok, then.  The Japanese-Koreans are doing well.  Both have traditionally been
> closed societies.
No, this is a myth perpetrated by certain nationalist elements in Japanese
politics, not reality. The amount of factually untrue but generally believed
myths about Japanese society is staggering, and this "closedness" (never
seriously maintained about Korean society, BTW) is just one of them.

> There are 100 million people now, but there was a time when the gene pool was
> only a few thousand.
I doubt it. Tribes of a few thousand are extremely suspectible to famines,
contagious diseases, floods, and other catastrophies. Therefore the typical
social organization, even back in the stone age, was not the tribe but
looser federations of tribes, such as the famous seven Hun tribes, or the
Indian "nations" of North America. While for the most part the component
tribes have independent economies, intermarriage is common, and in case one
tribe falls prey to some natural catastrophy the others repopulate its area.
This loose mutual protective arrangement also extends to protection against
invasion, so the tribes tend to go to war together against outside enemies,
and have some peaceful means (council of the chieftains) to resolve conflicts
among the tribes composing the "nation".

Now for the shocking part (shocking to Paul, that is). It is quite common
for such nations to be composed of ethnically, genetically, and often
culturally unrelated tribes.  As a matter of fact, the ethnically
linguistically and culturally homogeneous "nation" is the exception, and
their very homogeneity is often their downfall. Hungarian society preserved
its multi-ethnic tribal roots long after it adopted Christianity: the Cumans
were not an afterthought, something artificially grafted on the society, but
an integral part of the structure. If Paul is so ready to celebrate and
preserve ethnic diversity, he should ponder how this ethnic diversity was
preserved for tens of thousands of years before the appearance of the modern
nation-state: it was preserved by a social organization that made room for
different ethnicities, languages, and cultures *within* the same nation, not
through some 18th century ideal of the ethnically, linguistically, and
culcurally cleansed nation-state.

> You can point to "European heritage" since you still draw a pretty clear
> boundry defining it.  In 100 years people will be making the same arguemnts
> you are against my point, when someone tries to defend "European heritage" in
> an age when, for example, large numbers of Europeans have migrated to Asia
> or Africa, and visa-versa.  Do you think the world will be a more interesting
> place when everyone from London to Bombay to Beijing is of the same
> ethnic mix?
Oh but of course what I referred to as "European heritage" is composed of
such factors as Greek culture, carried by migrants from Asia Minor and
beyond, the Roman Empire, which incorporated a great deal of Africa (just
read Martin Bernal's Black Athena if you want to get an idea how much impact
Africa had on everything Graeco-Roman), Judeo-Christian religious thought,
which cannot be cast as an Aryan invention even by the broadest sweep of the
imagination, and so forth. As for the ethnic mix in Beijing, I'm not
particularly worried -- are you aware that China is a single sociopolitical
entity but has hundreds of mutually unintelligible languages, and thousands
of completely different tribes? It's only to the untrained round-eye that
they look all alike.

> There are differences, and they are good!
Some are and some aren't.

Merry Christmas,

Andra1s Kornai

 wrote:
: To my statement

: >>To understand the magnitude of the tragedy that Trianon represents we have
: to
: >>remember that Hungary, whose borders had been practically unchanged (except
: >>for temporary occupation) for a thousand years,

: ibokor responded

: >i think you are mistaken on that point. when was the first hungarian border
: >drawn up? how long was there a turkish occupation? for how long wasthere a
: >separate kingdom of transylvania. from the time of the turkish occupation
: >until after world war i there was no sovereign separate hungary. that
: >alone takes care of a large chunk of the thousand years, and perhaps
: >pertinently, it takes care of all but seventy odd years of the last three or
: >four centuries.

: >i wonder if you are seriously proposing the redrawing of boundaries
: >upon the "traditional lines" of four centuries ago. or do you only
: >wish to do that in the special case of hungary?

: Maybe ibokor didn't read my text carefully enough.  It said "(except for
: temporary occupation)".

the question is: how long is "temporary"? the turkish occupation lasted
over one-and-a-half centuries. the hapsburg monarchy's rule in hungary
lasted over two cebturies, with the k&k making up about the last fifty
of these. since the middel of the sixteenth century --- i.e. in
the last 450 or so years, hungary has been an "independent country"
for only the last seventy five, although the extent of its de facto
independence is a moot point for large parts of that. to me it seems
that it is the period *without* "foreign occupation" which qualify
as temporary.

: That should cover the Tartar, Turkish, Austrian,
: German, Soviet occupations.  None of those, nor the temporary loss of
: sovereignty, affected Hungary's actual borders

now we get to the point of my question. when were hungary's "borders"
drawn up and by whom"?

are you suggesting that the borders of hungary were unchanged in all the
years since the "honfoglalas"? if so, could you please the maps
on p.234 of the "grosses handlexikon in farbe" published by bertelsmann
in guetersloh in 1979 which depict germany and her neighbours at six
different times since te 10th/11yh century. in one of these maps hungary
embraces the adriatic coast down to dalmatia, in others it is landlocked,
in others there is no sovereign hungary. which of these --- if any ---
should i take to be definitive? why?

: I am at a loss reading ibokor's second quoted paragraphs.  Who is being
: quoted proposing border changes along *"traditional lines"*?  What are the
: quoted "traditional lines?  Does ibokor confuse me with someone else or are
: his anti-Hungarian biases getting the better of him to the point where he
: sees things that are just not there?

if you look again, you will note that the words "traditional lines" are
in inverted commas. i did that because the only borders an independent
state of hungary has had in the pa four centuries or so have been
the post-trianon ones, with the temporary additions between 1938 and 1945.
so my question is: on what basis would you draw up boundaries substantially
different from these and what reason do you have for rejecting competing
claims on the additional regions for the annexation of these regions?
i apologise if my carelessness offended you or if my intended question
was unclear.

while speaking of clarification, could you please state explicitly what
"anti-hungarian biases" you believe me to harbour, preferably indicating
reasons for your belief?

d.a.

Date sent:  23-DEC-1994 13:31:14

 By "scienific" I mean that te theory has (1) explanatory power
>and (2) it also has predictive power.  Thus astronomy is a "science" and
>can predict the arrival of Haley's Comet to the second.  It can "explain"
>why the comet appears (by calculating the parabola, etc.), and it can
>predict when it will appear very accurately.
>        Now Marx wanted to emulate Newton's "law" of gravitation and
>other "laws" which were regnant in the middle and late 19th century
>when he wrote "Das Kapital" and other major works.
>        He developed a complex theory which predicted that capitalism
>must fall and that the workers would take over from the capitalists in
>the most developed capitalist country (i.e., Germany or perhaps France).
>        Lenin refined the Marx's theory in his Imperialism: the highest
>Stage of Capitalism (1916).
>        The trouble is that capitalism is still very much alive while
>socialism (or communism) has largely been discredited in much of East
>Europe and the ex-USSR, while it's moribund in China, Cuba, North Korea
>etc.
>        In short, Marx's theory did *not* happen, it's *predictive*
>power as a theory was not entirely correct.  *Parts* of Marx's theory,
>especially the "boom and bust" business cycle of capitalist societies,
>however, *was* accurate so we can't say he was not a social science
>genius--because he was!
>        But we *can* say that Marxism-Leninism is not "scientific" *in
>the sense that Marx and Lenin believed it to be!*  And since Marx's
>theories were tied together into one "scientific socialism" package, if
>any part of the package failed, then one can only conclude that his
>theory was *not* scientific!
>        I've just reduced an entire library on Marxism-Leninism to a
>few paragraphs and I apologize if I did either man an injustice intel-
>lectually---but that's how I see their theory: brilliant, useful still,
>but as a "scientific law"--no.>
>--
>Glen D. Camp
>Professor of Political Science
>Bryant College
>401-232-6246
>
>

If I understand your arguement against Marxism (I'll leave the Leninism
out) you are stating that since history has yet to produce a result
identical to Marx's dialectic, then the whole theory fails as science?
Did Marx give any absolute dates for when the revolution would occur?
Maybe I missed something in my reading (in which case I apologize).  As far
as I understand it, the fact that the revolution hasn't occured yet is a
sign that capitalism has yet to mature fully.  Marx identified only two
classes, a division not recognized today (middle class, anyone?).  While
this might seem to contradict Marx's theory at first, it can also be
interpreted as a step in a process.  The shrinking of America's middle
class could be interpreted as the next step (something that is happening
even as I type).  Taken together, this could mean that the revolution has
yet to truly arrive.

I'm not supporting Marxism, however.  I agree with the posting above:  Marx
had a lot to contribute, but his theory was flawed.  I just don't agree
that the flaw lies in Prediction.

Sorry to keep you from finals, Glen. :)

                        Thomas Breed
                        

                "Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
                        In the midst of a free world"

RE: RFE/RL Daily Report 05 Dec 94

        Warning of Austrian Counterintelligence Service that the
        RIS (Romanian Intelligence Service) was plotting to kill
        Austrian lawyer Eva Maria Barki, a prominent advocate of
        minority rights in Romania.


It is an interesting coincidence that the yearly report of the RIS
to the Romanian Parliament prominently mentions Eva Maria Barki
and states in part that

        "she propagates hatred against the Romanian people and
        falsely portrays the situation of the minorities in
        Romania and thereby harms the foreign policy aims of
        the Romanian state .."

The report also deals with the efforts of the Romani (Gypsy) minority
for autonomy as well as issues related to the sizable Hungarian
minority. It portrays the "Dobruda Ethnic Model", also advocated by many
Romanian politicians, as the ideal solution to the ethnic problem in the
country. It should be noted that the Turks and the Bulgars, the former
majority inhabitants in Dobruda, are no longer in evidence there.

Certainly, the report helps to gauge the current political climate,
especially with regard to the policy on minorities, in Iliescu's Romania.


C.K. Zoltani

Date sent:  23-DEC-1994 13:07:59
>
>Imi Bokor asks:
>
>>why is turkish or german or russian conquest "occupation"
>>but "magyar" conquest "honfglalas"?
>
>
>I think these two things are entirely different. Hungary didn't become
>Turkish just because it was under Turkish occupation. The same is true about
>the Russian occupation in our own time. The Magyar conquest of the Pannonian
>basin resulted in a total transformation of the ethnic and linquistic
>composition of the area. And one more thing, the territory the Hungarians
>occupied in the ninth century had to be sparsely populated because if it had
>not been, the Hungarian language would not have survived. As a result of this
>conquest an entirely new country was born as opposed to invading armies which
>sooner or later left.
>
>Eva Balogh

What about Slovaks, Croats, etc. who continue speaking their own language
to this day, despite spending a long period of time under Hungarian rule.
There used to be more, but once upon a time there was this nasty policy
known as Magyarization...

According to Paul, of course, it HAD to fail, since the people were not
intially Hungarian.  Of course, their descendents speak Hungarian, act
Hungarian, etc.  Maybe even some of Paul's relatives fall into this
catagory...

When we talk about Magyar, which of the original ten tribes are we talking
about?  The Magyar speakers, the Turkish speakers (there were a few of
those, weren't there), or both?  How far does Paul want to trace back?

This all reminds me of a German friend of mine (we'll call her "X").  X was
visiting me in America, and we meant some other Americans who asked her
where she was from.  When told that she was German, they replied "we're
German too!"  X tried to speak German to them.  "We don't speak it," they
replied, "our ancestors were from there."  "Well," said X, "my ancestors
are from Croatia and Hungary."

On the subject of family pride:
        Let's say a boy was adopted as a child.  His parents hide this from
him until his 18th birthday.  Meanwhile, the child becomes proud of the
accomplishments of his father and mother, grandfather and grandmother.
Then his parents tell him the truth.  Should he not feel proud?

        A thought:  I'm of Hungarian, English, Polish, American Indian
(Menomenee for those who care), African, German, and Danish descent.
Anybody know what the hell I am?  I call myself American...but while in
Europe, everyone told me I looked Ukrainian (one of the few things I'm
NOT).

        Back to the issue of borders:  I agree that Hungary got a raw deal.
 Getting raw deals, however, is part of having a history.  Hungary also got
a lot of nice deals:  consider the relationship between Hungarians and the
Habsburgs under the Dual Monarchy in comparison with the Slavs (who
outnumbered te Hungarians in the Empire).  Everyone has lost something at
some point or another:  the sign of maturity is an ability to put injustice
behind oneself and face the future.  The alternative is Bosnia.


                        Thomas Breed
                        

                "Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
                        In the midst of a free world"

After reading all the dirt that can be compiled about my country, I felt this
vignette may help.

Today everyone brought in a dish of their favorit food. There was Ethiopian,
Eritrean,Vietnamese, Chinese, Serbian, Hungarian, German, English, American
food piled high on tables on the factory floor. The soft drink machines were
open and all were eating and exchanging stories. Engineers, scientists,
electricians, welders, admin folks and plain shop workers were mingling and
eating, complimenting each other on the food. Some of the family members who
did not work elsewhere also showed up and it was like an old fashioned
picknick. It is unseasonally warm so no snow fights this year. A few brave
soles go back to their desks to answer phone calls, apparently not everyone
is ready to celebrate. A last truck pulls in for the final pick-up of the
week, some plates are put down and many pitch in to send the truck on its
way.

I am watching an Eritrean and a Vietnamese in deep discussion about their
customs. The Vietnamese is Catholic, the Eritrean is Coptic, Christmas
customs are different even for similar religions.
All these people get along well, they all work together, that maybe the
secret. They respect each other for what they can do and not for who they
are.

Last year was pretty good as years go. Another pair of emplyees got married,
several had children (even a new Hungarian one), several had bought or built
new homes, several children got through college and one of the guys recovered
from a long illness. Eighty percent of those married now have their own
homes. The low interest rates early in the year enticed even some of the
singles to have their own house. Three of the employees are going to
university part time, while working full time, they all do very well. The
company pays full tuiton and books for A grade, 75% for B grade and 50% for C
grade, attendance time has to be made up to bring the weekly work time to 37
1/2 hours. There is reasonable contribution to the profit sharing fund and
the 401K retirement funds, all non-management personnel got a 5% raise,
management got nothing (Eva Durant please note!).
The company got a "Seven Wonders of Engineering in 1994" award and the South
Carolina governor's "1994 Pollution Prevention Award" for some of its new
pollution control equipment and all emplyees know that they are part of these
accomplishments.

As the feasting is winding down, plans are being made by various folks to get
together during the holidays, assignmnet swaps are being made for time by
those traveling to far away places. Leftover food is being traded. Lots of
cheer and lots of laughter as slowly everyone is heading for home or for last
minute shopping, wishing each other as I do to you a Merry Christmas.
I would not want to be anywhere else.
Regards,Jeliko.

Imi Bokor writes:
 >thousands of years of changes. I am not in favor of either, but
> certainly
> >you cannot claim that the desire exists only in some Hungarians.
> >
> >Jeliko

> i am not aware of ever claiming that only hungarians had aspirations
> to
> reclaim "their" land. quite the contary, i have pointed to the
> belligerent
> consequences of competing "traditional" claims on the same
> geographic
> region.

> i also recall repeatedly asking if those who wish to "reclaim lost
> territory" would accord others the same privileges and rights and
> impose
> the same burdens on other countries.

> i have yet to receive a reply to these pertinent questions.

> d.a.
Please reread your posting, you were writing "specificly" about Hungary.
Jeliko.

I read in Mozaik the following RFE news item:

COMMITTEE INVESTIGATING RECENT HUNGARIAN HISTORY ABOLISHED.
According to Radio Budapest on 22 December, the Historical
Investigation Committee, established by the previous Hungarian
government to examine the country's recent history, has been
abolished by the present socialist-liberal government. The head of
the committee, Frigyes Kahler, learned from the media that all
investigations were to be stopped. The role of the committee was
considered very important because of the blatant omissions in
history books written under communism. The investigations,
however, may have proved uncomfortable for some politicians who
were returned to power in the spring 1994 elections. Judith
Pataki, RFE/RL, Inc.

[As of 12:00 CET]

(Compiled by Penny Morvant and Jan Cleave)
Copyright 1994, RFE/RL, Inc. All rights reserved.

*****************************************************************

Well, this is bad enough but I think there is also some bad news concerning
lustration. A couple of weeks ago the current chairman of the lustration
committee (it is a rotating chairmanship), Jo1zsef Eigner, announced that the
committee found a former agent among those who, by law, must be investigated
concerning any past association with the secret service. Eigner didn't
mention names but there was a huge, negative reaction both sides of the isle.
I wasn't quite sure why everybody was so upset; after all, the committee is
supposed to report sooner or later on their findings. Moreover, Eigner didn't
mention any names. It seems that Eigner is in big trouble. *168 ora* put
together a so-called "documentary feature" on Jozsef Eigner's past. He was
apparently a low-level judge (jarasi biro) in 1956 and 1957. Dr. Eigner
apparently never denied his past but he claims that he was fired from his job
in later 1957 because he was giving too light sentences in political cases,
of which there were of course many in 1957. I wonder who wants to get rid of
Eigner and why. Somebody surely wants to sabotage the lustration law. I
didn't have yet time to read the "documentary feature article" to report on
it fully but after the holidays I will.

Until then, I am wishing everybody a wonderful holiday season

Eva Balogh

The name Gyula originally meant "chief shaman" but soon it became a given
name and later a place name. There are several geographic names where at
least part of the whole is called Gyula. The largest place name is the town
of Gyula in the Great Plains, close to the Romanian border.

The name Gyulai most likely derives from the place name; that is, meaning "of
Gyula." There were several Gyulais and Gyulays of prominence. There are
several Gyulais who were titled (counts), but also some who belonged to the
lower nobility as well as commoners. Our correspondent whose name is Gyulai
should not have any difficulty in completing a family tree. A good place to
start is Nagy Ivan's well-known book entitled *Magyar nemes csaladok,*
[Hungarian noble families] which should be available in any large library.

Eva Balogh

Imi Bokor writes:
> why is turkish or german or russian conquest "occupation"
> but "magyar" conquest "honfglalas"?

> why is it that when the "magyars" are the perpetrators, there were
> no victims, the conquered and banished have no legitimate claim, but
> when the "magyars" are the vanquished, then it is illegitimate and
> reprehensible?

Neither the Turkish occupation of 1526 and thereafter, the Rumanian
occupation of 1919, the German occupation of 1944 or the Russian occupation
of 1945 consisted of people moving with all their belongings into a new
area. It was a military occupation quite different from the events related
to the Hungarian or other nations "honfoglalas". You just can't stand if
all bad things that happened in central Europe for one reason or another
cannot be unloaded on Hungarians.
You are not looking at even handedness in any issue relating to Hungary, as
I stated before, Hungary and Hungarian bashing by you is no different from
Mihai Dima's or Tony Pacek's.
Have a Merry Christmas.
Jeliko.

paul ) wrote:
: >>wha? take it to alt.conspiracy guys! Eva'n'Paul get it rite pleeze!
: >>emil

: >I am not sure whether "Emil" thinks that he is funny or not but I can assure
: >him that I don't find him funny.
: >Eva Balogh

: Yeah, I didn't get what he meant, so I just ignored it.  It didn't seem to be
: anything offensive, but still, what was the point?

: Paul

Paul has it right! Greg has it ok! Eva, you are weigh tooo sensitive!
All i waz saying iz nyugi... nygugi! Nem e'rtem ezt a szo'-....a'st...!
Lighten up guys! I luv to ponder and lurk but when it gets too heavy, i think
the route of e-mail is better than posting here...

iv'e been busy in my own lyfe or i would respond more refined to all of this,
till things change i'll just read'n'react if it's ok with you all! Eva...
sincerely, back-off cause i really don't know enuff to be funny (or cute)...
ok... i'm a newbie but luv the thought good discussions about magyar matters...

now about Horthy, Nagy's statue, Trianon and Erde'ly, at least Mihai has
been silent for awhile... or am i again missing something?

boldog kara'csonyt e's u'j e'vet kiva'nok!
emil

paul ) wrote:
: Eva Balogh wrote:

: >the Russian occupation in our own time. The Magyar conquest of the Pannonian
: >basin resulted in a total transformation of the ethnic and linquistic
: >composition of the area. And one more thing, the territory the Hungarians

: What do you mean by 'ethnic composition of the area'?  That the culture was
: lost, or is it more than that?

: Paul

cultures are NEVER lost... they get changed, which (methinks) was Eva's point
regarding dynamic aculturation... atop all of this, please keep in mind the
resistance to loan-words betwixt non ural-altaic to indo-european languages...
these intrinsically think differently... see Whorf, Chomsky, and even Strauss
about cultural/linguistic adaptation-assimilation... the concept of
honfoglala's is one of reclamation, regretfully similar in some aspects to the
rejuvination movements of native americans, but nonetheless a very distinct
and culturally valid aspiration.

emil

It seems all down to maths, you said 1/8th Hungarianness
still qualifies, what about 1/16th? 1/32?



>
> Eva D. wrote:
>
> >> 1/2 Magyar and 1/2 Slav, is our common Magyar 1/2.  That is what we have i
n
> >> common, and that is part of what bind us together.
>
> >wants to be identified as a Hungarian, I think. Also people with not
> >a drop of the elusive Hungarian DNA can claim to be Hungarians, if
> >they were bought up as such/lived in the company of such or just
>
>
> I guess we have fundamentally different perspectives on this.  I see your
 point,
> and agree that it is a reasonable position to take - I just think mine it
>  better.
>
> I don't think we`ll come to an agreement on this.
>
> Paul

> road.  Defeat the capitalist pigs with their own money, see?
>
..you mean at their own game? That's what your career socialists

on about. I am smarter...

> >
> --Don't both deplore the materialistic aspects of life and argue for
> a more elemental, devoted existence?
>
No elemental or devoted existence for your average folk in Marxism;
everyone' supposed to act in their own material interest. Why do you
think I find it logical?           Shouldn't
you do a bit of reading on this? Perhaps you listened to some funny
interpretations, not getting down to the original stuff.
There are a few heroes who give up their own private life to convince
people about the practical necessity of it, unfortunately not many
can be that unselfish (says she in selfdisgust).

>
> --I've never seen it quiet.  Are you sure that you didn't stumble into
> the bar parlor upstairs where the yuppies meet?
>
No, I wasn't even aware of the existance of upstairs...
Yuppies probably wouldn't let people in who use an old Lada...

You may recall Lenin's ideas of "Democratic Centralism," but in
fact it was always Centralism but never Democratic, i.e., rule by the
people (the literal meaning of the Greek word, "Demo+Kratos".
        Ever since Lenin wrote Sto Delat' (What is To Be Done) he insisted
fiercely upon a professional conspiratorial underground party owing to the
conditions of Czarist autocracy.  Thus he was never able to accept Sergei
Martov's German-SPD-style of relatively open proletarian party.  Stalin
took over via the Orgburo after Lenin's death and proceeded to destroy all
opposition within the CPSU, first destroying the left opposition (Trotsky,
Kamenev, and Zinoviev) then the right opposition (Tomsky and Rykov).
        Trotsky in 1904 had predicted what would happen: The party will
replace the proletariat, the Central Committee will replace the party,
and finally the dicatator will replace the Central Committee.  That's
exactly what happened from Lenin's death in 1924 to Stalin's complete
triumph in the Congress of Victors (of the CPSU) in 1937.
        Thus it was *NOT* "deformation" of socialism which occurred in
Russia in my view, but the victory of Russian autocratic political culture
over the Zapadniki (the Westernizers) in the CPSU such as Lenin, Trotsky,
and the other left and right oppositionists.  Stalin represented the victory
(inevitable in my view) of the "bureaucrats" (Apparatchiki) in the Soviet
system.
        It was the same in Hungary with the liquidation of the "domestisizers"
by the "Muscovites".
        If you're interested in the Hungary story, I'll be glad to supply it
later.
        Glen
--
Glen D. Camp
Professor of Political Science
Bryant College
401-232-6246
>

On Thu, 22 Dec 1994, Eva Durant wrote:

> > cannot be communists since the latter despise centralized government.
> > Indeed one could argue that Newt Gingrich is a kind of US anarchist in
> > this sense of despising centralized government (in Washington).
> >
> >
> If you are talking about theory - and you must if you are comparing
> communism with anarchism - than you are wrong, communism is not at
> all for centralised government. Your "existed" communists were
> not the ones Marx or even Lenin envisaged. (Lenin's democratic
> centralism was to be built from grassroots, controlling the
> structure from the bottom with instant recall of officials
> and rotation of jobs to stop burocracy to develop).
> But you've read all this, and you have better arguments than
> "it can't work, stupid"  I hope, as you know, better then me,
> the layperson, the reasons why it deformed in Russia at an early
> stage... and why the deformed type was copied thereafter...
> 
>

> >.  And be warned,
> > if I get to Britain next summer, I'm going to try to find you.  My
> > wife and I would certainly want to take you our for a slap-up
> > capitalist dinner.  Manchester is not far from our home base in
> > Nottingham.
>
> Beware Charles, I think she lives in the forest nearby. :-)
>

...now this is the image I want to cultivate...

E.D.

Hi,

        I'm a collector of military items from current and former
Communist nations.  If any of you have anything to sell or could give me
an idea about where to look, I'd appreciate it.  I especially like
uniforms and medals but I collect just about everything.

        Thanks,

        Jon Eckel

Hello everyone...

I've been reading the hix areas for quite some time now but this is my first
post to here .
I seem to be having trouble PIONTING here and niether gopher nor any other
searcher
seems to find hix and I don't know why.  For a long time I was using gopher
from FreeNet
to call here and pick up on the latest chatter but I need help getting here
from my own
internet location.

I know I can subscribe and the news will be sent to my location but I would
prefer to
Pick up the news a little less frequently calling hix would be the better optio
n
any help is apreciated...:^)

                                Gyoni Pali......
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pal Gyoni  (  )
\/\/arm Seasons Greetz Everyone.......
Kellemes Karacsonyi Unnepeket
es Boldog Uj Evet Kivanbok
_________________________________
Lost somewhere on the InterNet.......
If you should find me, tell me....hehe....
_________________________________

Does anyone know what Paripa's and Cservenka are known as today?

Norb

Paul--

Regarding free trade vs. movement of peoples...

All things being equal, people don't really move. The furthering of open
borders and free trade--and hopefully the equalization of economies a little
farther down the road--may contributing to people *not* moving, since most
populations move because of economic circumstances (but let us not leave out
movement as a result of war, etc.). You try to facilitate improvement in the
economies of developing countries, they don't come crashing your borders
(see Haiti). But then, I think if borders could become more porous while
economies slowly equalize, people will likely choose to settle among those of
common language, etc.

--Marc Nasdor

Best wishes to everyone on the HUNGARY list for the Holiday Season and
into the New Year!!

        I have noticed a reference on both the soc.culture.mongolian and
alt.culture.tuva newsgroups regarding the ancient art of throat singing.
It was mentioned by Ahmet Toprak on these news groups that a Hungarian
person had mentioned something about throat singing being a Hungarian
tradition also.  Does anyone know about this tradition, where it would be
practiced in Hungary and if they have ever heard of a recording of
Hungarian throat singing.  Any information along these lines would be most
appreciated.

Thanks
Stan

>
> --Quite accurate, I think.  The problem seems to be that it has
> been impossible to translate this idyllic vision into practical
> reality.  In theory, if you had people who had no self-interest
> you could have a communist society.  The naivete in communism is
> that it assumes that people will voluntarily give up all self-
> interest for the greater good.
>
There was no idillic vision, just an interpolation from the
situation when most means of production is used democratically
in the interests of all, as defined again - democratically.
Your self interest is important: you have to realise this way
you will be much better off.

> --To give equal time, the "free market" is an equally naive idea

It was not an idea, it just happened. It has been recreated
by Friedman I think, and Thatcher and similar folk liked it a lot.
The idea was to put back the workers to their place where they've
been before their unions gained any share in welfare.

>
> --Pure communism hasn't been tried.  Average Sister Eva is correct.

No type of conmmunism has been tried. Not even socialism.
What the eck is pure communism?

> But neither has a pure free market ever been tried.  The British
> came close in the late 19th century, but not that close, because
> they used the army and the navy to exploit colonies who clearly
> were not treated as equal partners.  Both ideas are the dreams
> of professors and haven't much to do with a messy, irregular
> reality in which people operate with mixed motives, not all of
> which are pure and few of which are rational.
>

I do not think any professor defined any such item as pure
market economy neither.


> --And why the deformed type of either the free market or pure
> communism will remain the dream of professors?
>
 the end of poverty/starving/wars/fear/guilt
is not the dream of professors (but I do hope some of them share
it even if retired...)

I  sign off the list now for a week or so - go on private by all means.

To everyone, (I really mean it):

A very merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Sandor

Imi Bokor writes and quotes Joe.

> >: Is the Danube less of a Danube down at the Iron Gate than up at
Passau?
> >: In that span more water flowed into it from other rivers than it
carried
> >: at the German-Austrian border.
> >: Danubius
> >bulgarian and rumanian water as well. in short it has become a mongrel
of
> >a river.
> >d.a.
Pray tell which river flows into the Danube between Passau and the Iron
Gates from Bulgaria. Does it flow by the Andrassy ut or Manhattan also
along the way?
Jeliko

--
Glen D. Camp
Professor of Political Science
Bryant College
401-232-6246
>

> > > If I understand your arguement against Marxism (I'll leave the Leninism
> > > out) you are stating that since history has yet to produce a result
> > > identical to Marx's dialectic, then the whole theory fails as science?
> >
> >     It is quite possible to argue that Marxism's predictions have
> > simply not come true yet, for he was careful not to put time limits on
> > events as you correctly note.
>
> >     But we *can* say that many of his predictions in fact have not
> > yet occurred, e.g., withering away of the state, the overthrow of
> > capitalism in developed capitalist countries such as Germany and France,
> > etc.
> >     But as time goes on it becomes increasingly difficult to justify
> > Marx's predictions, especially when the *opposite* seems to occur!
> >     Moreover if you read Marx (and espcecially Lenin) carefully,
> > you will find that they *insist* that Marxism is "scientific" and thus
> > *no* element in their theory can be at all wrong.  If *any* link in their
> > scientific chain of prediction is wrong or doesn't occur, then *the whole
> > theory is invalidated!
> >     And I contend that *many* links in their chain are either demon-
> > strably false or at best very, very dubious.
> >     It is possible to argue that the moon is made of green cheese, but
> > it becomes progressively more difficult to do so as science "zeros" in on
> > the moon and we humans visit it.  The same is true of Marxist theory--it
> > becomes more difficult to justify it as a holistic scientific truth as
> > so many of its predictions fail to materialize.
> >     Finally, if you go back to Marx's time, you will find that "iron
> > laws" were all the rage--Ricardo had an "iron law of wages" etc.  Marx
> > was I believe, simply a child of the Victorian era, albeit a brilliant
> > genius of a child.
> >     And if you consider him as an ethicist, as a moralist, I think
> > you must agree that he was right.   For as Schumpeter specifically notes
> > in CAPITALISM, SOCIALISM, AND DEMOCRACY; while economically the labor
> > theory of value is *incorrect*, in ethical terms it *is* correct because
> > Marx *was right*--all value *ethically* comes from labor only!
> >     I hope this post elucidates my view a bit better.
> > Glen
> >
> >

On Fri, 23 Dec 1994 08:56:39 +0000 Eva Durant said:
>>
>No elemental or devoted existence for your average folk in Marxism;
>everyone' supposed to act in their own material interest.

--But that's capitalism!  Adam Smith, von Hayek, and Friedman have
all argued for that.

>you do a bit of reading on this? Perhaps you listened to some funny
>interpretations, not getting down to the original stuff.

--Oh, God.  I haven't read Marx in years.  I suppose I'll have to.  I
gave most of my political science stuff to the library when I retired
this year, and Marx and Engels were among the discards.  I'll have to
borrow them back, I guess.
>>
>> --I've never seen it quiet.  Are you sure that you didn't stumble into
>> the bar parlor upstairs where the yuppies meet?
>>
>No, I wasn't even aware of the existance of upstairs...
>Yuppies probably wouldn't let people in who use an old Lada...

--Oh, they couldn't see through the sandstone walls to know what
you are driving.  But it is three-piece suit country.  Very
interesting clientele that place has--bikers and accountants.

Charles,
Kook, First Class

On Fri, 23 Dec 1994 09:25:52 +0000 Eva Durant said:
>>
>There was no idillic vision, just an interpolation from the
>situation when most means of production is used democratically
>in the interests of all, as defined again - democratically.
>Your self interest is important: you have to realise this way
>you will be much better off.

--Then, it is your claim that Marxism is primarily enlightened
self-interest?  Again, doesn't that require a level of selflessness
that only a saint can reach?  I still believe that you are expecting
more rationality and objectivity than is typical of the human
condition.
>
>
>It was not an idea, it just happened.

--But it never happened.  There never was a pure free market.  It
has always been a theoretical model against which actual conditions
could be compared.

>The idea was to put back the workers to their place where they've
>been before their unions gained any share in welfare.
>
--The rise of unionism has been a constraint on the free market,
true.  But so is governmental regulation and taxation.  Even in
the late 19th century when, Carleton J. H. Hayes argues, government
primarily favored the business class, there was a contradiction in
the laisser-faire position, and the same governments engaged in
social legislation.  Hungary seems to have been an exception to the
general rule, since the government restricted the vote to only
about 5% of the population.  Even then, there were attempts to
extend education to the public and some of the worst abuses in
the feudal agricultural system were reformed.

>
>No type of conmmunism has been tried. Not even socialism.

--Which suggests that two possible answers are that 1) neither is
workable or 2) humans just aren't able to act in the coordinated
fashion required.

>What the eck is pure communism?
>
--Good question.

>I do not think any professor defined any such item as pure
>market economy neither.
>
--Well, Adam Smith sure tried.  As did von Hayek.

> the end of poverty/starving/wars/fear/guilt
>is not the dream of professors (but I do hope some of them share
>it even if retired...)

--Sure, but it won't come about because of Marxism--nor a free market,
either.  The trick is to get the balance right between the market and
sensible governmental regulation--largely a matter of practical politics,
which, too, may be too difficult for humans.
>
>I  sign off the list now for a week or so - go on private by all means.

--Right.  At the same address, I assume?

Charles

On Fri, 23 Dec 1994 13:30:20 -0600 > said:
>
>        Back to the issue of borders:  I agree that Hungary got a raw deal.
> Getting raw deals, however, is part of having a history.  Hungary also got
>a lot of nice deals:  consider the relationship between Hungarians and the
>Habsburgs under the Dual Monarchy in comparison with the Slavs (who
>outnumbered te Hungarians in the Empire).  Everyone has lost something at
>some point or another:  the sign of maturity is an ability to put injustice
>behind oneself and face the future.  The alternative is Bosnia.
>
--This is an eminently reasonable position and makes a lot of sense.  I
predict that you will be flamed, badgered, and pilloried for it.  You
might even be called a crank or a kook!

Charles

Eva Durant writes:
> It is not described exactly as this is supposed to be a scientific
> analysis and not a utopia. For this stage to be reached resources
> should not be scarce. (In my opinion we have this condition fulfilled,
> there could be enough food/goods produced on Earth for everybody at
> this very moment - I've seen such data) Don't you think the system
> sucks if inspite of this people daily dye of hunger/desease?
OK, so here I am in the terrible (according to your ilk) US where food is
approx half price or lower compared to most places. We would dearly love to
sell more at these prices, all you have to do is buy it. The most
complaints I read relate to the cheap US products "undercutting" local old
fashioned production method food production. Now you have to make up your
mind whether you accept the most efficient US food production system or go
back to primitive agriculture. Under the latter you will not feed
everybody, and if we go back to the hunt/gather mode, the majority of the
folks would be hunting each other. You keep harping against a system that
as an example in the US makes available to its population food and clothing
at the lowest possible prices and is capable of making self correction ast
an albeit slow but more democratic way than elsewhere. You keep asking for
proof while ignoring the daily evidence, while offering only your ideas
without any proof whatsoever.

> I am not a true believer in anything, I am a skeptic. Until this is
> your reasonable argument (Jeliko) I have no choice but to stick to
> what I think is a reasonable explanation. I have to repeat some
> of the points, as they are never answered, such as: why do you
> think that a system of common ownership based on DEMOCRATIC control
> shouldn't work? (I answered the "human nature" crap already...).

Well one of the basic principles of scientific thinking is to apply the
same scepticism to your own ideas as you apply to others'. When you do that
we may get to a more reasonable discussion, rather than the current
diatribes. I am not aware of any DEMOCRATIC control that would lead to
"common ownership". And no you have not answered the "human nature crap"
as a matter of fact you are demonstrating it.

Jeliko.

Eva Durant writes:
ave a strange desire to be such...
>  (the worst cosmopolitan type Hungarian...,
>                                 no DNA, lots of cheekbone...)

Bone also? :-)
Jeliko.

Eva Durant writes:
> all for centralised government. Your "existed" communists were
> not the ones Marx or even Lenin envisaged. (Lenin's democratic
> centralism was to be built from grassroots, controlling the
> structure from the bottom with instant recall of officials
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah, I guess Dzherzhinski was in charge of that department.

> and rotation of jobs to stop burocracy to develop).
You know Eva if you have studied other things besides M/L ism, you may be
aware of systems tried before. In the Ragusa Republic the Grand Council
membership was 30 days. That did not work either.

> But you've read all this, and you have better arguments than
> "it can't work, stupid"  I hope, as you know, better then me,
> the layperson, the reasons why it deformed in Russia at an early
> stage... and why the deformed type was copied thereafter...

Maybe that "human nature crap" had something to do with it.

Jeliko.

Imi Bokor writes:

> i am sure i could find 200 or even 2,000 americans or britons who
> are just as needy.

> d.a.

You are correct, I keep reading from one in the UK on this group.

Jeliko.

Eva Durant writes:
> >
> >         Despite Marx's and Lenin's fondest dreams, there seems nothing
very
> > "scientific" about their "scientific socialism."

> Could you be specific please? What don't you find scientific in their
> analysis? As you are into politics/philosophy, I am really ready
> to be shown a logical argument...  
> I don't like to be called religious, now that is the most
> offensive I've been told (and Jeliko IS offensive) on this list. Not
> even a secular one.

> > nothing very "scientific" about capitalism either.  Both seem to me to
be
> > secular religions and to argue without reference to reality is to argue
> > "leider auch Theologie" (unfortunately also theology) as Faust suggests
in
> > the beginning of Part I.
I am glad that you are realizing it, even if the credit is given in
postings to other's writing. However most doctrin spouting without logic is
in the purview of other fields than science. I can almost see a house altar
with a Marx statue and some capitalists smoldering at the base.
Jeliko.

On Fri, 23 Dec 1994 21:40:58 -0600 > said:
>>>
>>--I think that it was a political statement.
>>
>Political statements require intent.  I was commenting on intent:  a faulty
>interpretation of statistics does not necessarily imply that the statistics
>are wrong.  In order to prove that, you need to find fault in the system
>they are gathered in.
>
--I meant that Reich was making a political statement.  And it was
written prior to the Clinton election, too, wasn't it?

>Makes sense.  Maybe there is hope for future generations, but today's
>adults are by and large ignorant when it comes to world issues, geography,
>etc.  That explains the CURRENT low rate of emigration from America.
>
--I think that your argument is a non-sequitur.  Is it your argument
that if we knew more about world issues, more of us would emigrate?  I
don't think that conclusion follows.   One thing.  When I was a child,
we studied geography as a subject in school.  We had geography books
with maps, information about the climate, peoples, products, and
organization of the countries of the world.  We studied geography,
with increasing levels of sophistication, from about second through
maybe eighth grade.  In  high school, a course in World History was
required of all students.  Sometime after the Second World War, the
public school curriculum changed.  Geography and history got combined
into social science which incorporated a big dose of sociology, but
got away from learning about where countries were, what they did
there and what those countries histories were.  That stuff was
considered irrelevant.  You will recall that a frequent cry on
college campuses was for education that was currently relevant.
The chattering classes of the day didn't want any old stuff.  My
thesis is that, ironically, it was the radicals themselves that
turned students away from a world-conscious education!  People
of my generation know where the Iberian Peninsula is, and what
the Pripet Marshes are.  And can usually locate them on a map.
People who came to consciousness after, say, 1950, give or take
a few years, really got a different kind of education.

>Another positive step.  Unfortunately, it affects many fellow students on a
>very superficial level.  Once upon a time, I was a foriegn exchange
>student...

--Well, no program ever achieves all it's objectives.  I'm sorry that
you had a bad experience.  For others, it is quite positive.
>
>>>
>>--Would you defend the proposition that the Hungarians on this list
>>should have stayed in Hungary if they really knew what was good for
>>them?  Or are they a bunch of greedy opportunists who have only
>>come here to rape the land and exploit the inhabitants?  And will
>>you be leaving soon for a more civilized and enlightened place?
>>
>Please don't put words into my mouth.

--I didn't mean to.  I was asking the typical debater's rhetorical
question.  As I recall, it was occasioned by your position that
if people knew more about other places, more of them would leave
America.  Many of the Hungarians on this list are recent immigrants.
I didn't believe that you meant to say that they had made a foolish
decision, but I think that your argument was moving in that direction.
Are you not the one who argued that recent immigration to this country
was from third-world countries, not from industrialized and, presumably
more civilized places?  If that was someone else's statement that
got worked into the thread, then I apologize to you.

  I'm all for legal immigration.  I
>think it should be encouraged in all directions, both toward America and
>out of America (or anywhere for that matter!).

--I wouldn't disagree.  The fight seems to start over the way that
legal immigration is defined.  We have immigration laws, but they
clearly still favor Europeans.

  If everyone had relatives
>in other countries, maybe there would be fewer wars, less ethnic based
>prejudice, etc.  Or maybe I'm just kidding myself.

--No, it's a nice idea.  Of course, some of us have been here so long
we don't know who our relatives are in other places.  And, you will
recall, Americans fought two wars against the British at a time when
people had relatives on both sides.  As far as I am able to determine,
the Athertons were Tories and moved west rather than remain under
American rule after 1776.  Eventually, of course, the expansion under
Manifest Destiny--and the passage of time--has allowed us to make
peace with the current government!
                                                                 And no, I
>don't plan on leaving soon.  I have a sense of responsibility and a love
>for my country.

--Again, my question was rhetorical and somewhat whimsical.  But you
were taking a pretty extreme position on the evils of Amerika, weren't
you?  Of course this country is imperfect.  It is still an experiment.
Ever read any Louis Adamic?  His general position was that America
is unfinished, and depends upon the contributions of may ethnic groups.
This position was behind the Intercultural Education movement of the
1930s.  The movement foundered on the nationalism exhibited in the
Second World War.  It was a scary time for ethnics in this country.
In my small town in Illinois, we had a dentist whose parents were
from Germany.  Doc was a ham radio operator--yes, we had such things
in the 1930s--and there were people who thought he was transmitting
vital information to Hitler!  From a town of 1200 that was 2000
miles inland and whose only industry was a tombstone factory employing
six people?

Cheers!  Or if you prefer, Minden jot!

Charles
Kook, First Class
>
>>Charles
>>Kook, First Class
>
>
>
>
>                        Thomas Breed
>                        
>
>                "Follow the bouncing ball and sing along."

On Fri, 23 Dec 1994 13:47:44 PST JELIKO said:
>After reading all the dirt that can be compiled about my country, I felt this
>vignette may help.
>
--It may not help, but it is a beautiful story, and I enjoyed reading it.

>All these people get along well, they all work together, that maybe the
>secret. They respect each other for what they can do and not for who they
>are.
>
--And to quote Lance Morrow's paraphrase of Martin Luther King in the
5 August issue of Time magazine, "It is time to regress to Martin
Luther King's ideal.  The content of one's character, not the color
of one's skin, is the sole decent American criterion."

            There is reasonable contribution to the profit sharing fund and
>the 401K retirement funds, all non-management personnel got a 5% raise,
>management got nothing (Eva Durant please note!).

--Oh, she'll note it all right.  But what she'll make of it, I've no idea.
Could she be one who vizet predikat es bort iszik?  Sorry, I can't do the
diacriticical marks on my software.

>I would not want to be anywhere else.

--Then you are in the right place.  Thank you for posting this.

Peace,

Charles

>>Andra1s Kornai wrote:
>>
>
>>Ok.  Are people who go to World Cup Soccer games ridiculous for
>cheering on
>>the team from their home country, just because they are from the
>same country?
>
--Imi Bokor replied:

>yes.
>
--And I say, Imi, I bet you really are a lot of fun on a date,
aren't you?

Jeliko,

   Thanks a lot for sharing this story with us. This kind of
celebration goes on all over the country, and one of the problem
is that we take them for granted. And this happens because we
know what the reality is, we don't have to rely on propaganda
for our information. But perhaps we should brag more about these
things, especially because others don't know about them.

   But no matter what some people say about this country, I am
damned proud to be American, just like I am proud of my origin.
And no bad mouthing can take either away.

   I could have sent you this post privately, of course, but I
wanted others to see it also.

   Good cheers,

                 Amos