Many thanks to Hugh Agnew for posting the Habsburg articles.  It was
refreshing to see a bit of rational discussion amid the lobotomy-induced
rantings of religious zealots that we had to endure lately.

Also many thanks to Jeliko for the 17th century quotes.  I too find the
literary style of 17th and 18th century Hungarian speech irresistible in
its conciseness, expressiveness, and incredibly solid feel.  I don't believe
the "language renewal" of the early 19th century had much to do with a lack
of expressive power in Hungarian (as Eva seems to think).  It was mainly an
attempt to find "authentically Hungarian" words to replace foreign borrowings,
as if some squeamish English-only nationalist wanted to rid the English
language of transparent borrowings such as pundit, slugfest, or pizza.
I don't think the English language would profit from such an enterprise;
nor do I think Hungarian was greatly improved by the 19th century
"nyelvujitasi mozgalom".

Here is my contribution to Jeliko's collection, to prove that flaming
was already a well-developed Hungarian art form 350 years ago.  This is
from Peter Pazmany, all-time champion flamer, defender of the faith against
Protestant interlopers, and a man who would feel right at home on the
Internet, writing in 1613:

  Szavahiheto es fullel hallottat beszelo emberektol ertettem, hogy Alvinczi
        Peter, sok mosdatlan szidalmi kozott, balvanyozast es hitszegest akart
        mireank merges beszedevel kenni.  Azert hivatalomnak tiszti szerent, sz
e
 mbe
        szallek a dicsoseges vitezzel es ot levelemben orcajara terite'm reank
        kerodott fecsegesit.  Noha pedig arra nem neztem, hogy egyfele allatra
        nem jo ha'jat kenni, hanem otet erdeme folott is mindenutt tisztessegge
l
        neveztem, tudvan, hogy a szep szonak szarnya nem szegik: de megis ... n
e
 m
        magara vete, hogy nyerset ett es meg nem emeszthette, hanem mosdatlan
        kezzel es ko~rmo~s ujjal kapa hozzam; cifra fortelyokkal es hajadon po'
r
        szitkokkal tamada ellenem.  De mivelhogy az agg szo szerint egyfele
        allatnak sem jo az elso kolyke, igen csekely tudomannyal, vekony ertele
m
 mel
        es gondolatlan csa'csogassal vive' veghez az Feleletet.  Es noha elsobe
n
        mohon nyula dolgahoz, azt allitvan, hogy lagy kortvelybe harap: de foga
        toresevel erezven, hogy barackmagra talalt, beket hagya az tobb Levelek
n
 ek;
        azaz megesme'rtete', hogy rossza pora volt, es nem mindjart buggyan mih
e
 nt
        parallik az Predikator Uraimek pattantyuja.

Jeliko adds a puzzle:

> Folotte igen kerlek fiam, hogy meglassad, hogy ifjusagnak vasottsaga es
> a birodalomnak szabadsaga felre ne ragadjon, es valamikeppen cegeres bunben
> ne essel. Mert nem azt kell hivni szabadosnak aki szabadsagban szulettetik,
> hanem aki szabadsagban hal meg."
> ( A special award to the one who knows where it was translated from!)

OK, I give up.  Szabad a gazda.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

Thanks Eva for correcting my gibberish.

You should not  mix Transylvania in the equation. My understanding is
that the overwhelming part of the nobility in the free Hungary was loyal
to Austria. And the revolt came only when Austria infringed on Hungarian
rights.


I am sorry for your low esteem for the 17 and 19 century Hungarian
culture but with an eye of an architect I disagree. One way to
understand is to have esthetic  sensibility and disregard the extremely
biased Hungarian Art historiography written by foreigners or for a
foreigh agenda.



Albert Albu



-----
Eva S. Balogh wrote:
>
> At 09:34 PM 10/9/96 -0500, Albert Albu wrote:
>
> >Back bone is what had and is what you are missing.
> >On the long run the first quality what of a group is what is called
> >loyalty what seems far from you. (i.e. it took 300 years to broke with
> >Austria)
>
>         At first glance this is pretty much just gibberish, but after closer
> study, I can translate it as follows: "The Hungarians of Horthy's time had
> backbone. I personally miss this backbone. The Hungarians are loyal by
> nature, and they remained loyal to the Germans, unlike our neighbors who
> have neither backbone or loyalty. I personally lack loyalty altogether. The
> Hungarians were so loyal that it took them three hundred years to break with
> Austria."
>
>         Well, I could call Hungarian behavior in the late 1930s and early
> 1940s something else: stupidity and cowardliness. And they paid for it
> dearly. As for the three hundred years which it took to break with Austria,
> may I remind Albert Albu that it wasn't for the lack of trying: Bocskai,
> Thokoly, Rakoczi, Kossuth. Shall we continue?
>
>         Eva Balogh

I am not ascribing new meanings to conservatism.  I was simply
describing my observations about the behavior of (many) conservatives.
You should not take any postings personally [unless someone specifically
addresses you].

You can't deny that a sizable political battle is on in the US.  The
conservative interests (the Christian Coalition, etc.) do not represent
your attitude.  They are very active to limit civil liberties.  I think
they cross the line when they want to force people to conform to their
ideologies.  It is one thing to condem abortions, for instance, and a
whole other thing to change the laws to eliminate other people's choice.

I believe both sides are trying to outdo each other.  Each side is
trying to counter the other by stepping a little farther out.

--Lajos

George Antony replied to my earlier posting on this topic with excerpts
from the news/interview sections of the Economist. Perhaps George you are
confusing mass opinion with demostrated facts.

Nevertheless, I do think that this toopic is quite germain toHungary, since
the tax rates the are choking the country. They are way too high and do not
permit the development of small and medium sized businesses.  What is the
country going to do when they run out of things to sell (privatize) and
people do not have enough money to pay taxes. That would force people
into a situation of being between a rock and a hard place( if the arent
quite there already).

The mass government spending MUST be reduced significantly in Hungary and
they have to convert over to a more capitalistic economy. Mind you that I
am not suggesting that they throw a switch, but one must have a rapid and
orderly plan to move in that direction.

Right now the people that hurt in HU are those on fixed incomes and those
that work for the govt. That is too high a percentage of the overall
populace to ignore -- and to continue to have achokehold on.

Perhaps it is time fo r the govt to reorganize its poor taxation and
collection system. The underground economy has been estimated from a low
of 25% to the low 40% range! That is alot of money that avoids taxation
of any form. Moreover, there are lots of people and companies that manage
the cute trick of reducing their profits to below that taxation threshold.

Another example is that there is a now a25% VAT on even restaurants. The
John Q Public in HU has a real hard time lately in even going out to the
restaurant once a week! Many say that it was better under the commies --
this is one of the reasons the pinks still manage to stay in power.

It has therefore been clearly demonstrated in several countries that
lowering tax rates (not to zero) but to something way under current rates
will in the medium and long term increase the net income of govt.

Thank you.
Peter Soltesz

On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, Lajos Pelikan wrote:
<SNIP>
> conservative interests (the Christian Coalition, etc.) do not represent
> your attitude.  They are very active to limit civil liberties.  I think
> they cross the line when they want to force people to conform to their
> ideologies.  It is one thing to condem abortions, for instance, and a
> whole other thing to change the laws to eliminate other people's choice.
<<<<<<< That is a very interesting perception, cause  by the liberal media
bias. Please tell me where any of those Christian conservatives you claim
want to abridge your rights??? In fact the issue is very simple. Most
Christians as I understanding would object to abortion. However, if one
wishes to have one I will not prevent it forcibly. The issue is whether or
not the govt should pay for abortions or subsidize them with their or my
money.

Let us take this to the absurd.....if someone would try to kill you (let
us assume that you are already ex-womb) should someone come and try to
rescue you? Should someone say that it is OK to kill you because the govt
permits and subsidizes my gun, bullets, knife or whatever? Would someone
abridge the others right to kill you??? Where does it end?

Your generalization is incorrect, you understanding is wrong and you miss
the point.
Peter Soltesz

On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Louis Elteto wrote:

> Actually, the American government, local, state, and federal, does
> subsidize churches through the taxation system, by providing exemptions
> for the churches themselves, and a reduction in taxes for those who
> contribute to churches.
>
> Louis Elteto
Louis You are partially correct in that most states/countries have some form
of separation of church and state thereby subsidising them due to tax
exemption. However, the issue is that no-one in the USA govt pays any tax
based funding to ANY church period! Thus there is no support or official
endorsement of ANY religion in the USA.  Peter Soltesz

At 06:09 PM 10/8/96 -0400, Eva Balogh wrote:

<snip>
>        Joe Szalai simply shows his ignorance of Stalinism when he comments
>on my text in this manner.

This is very unkind of Eva Balogh but at least it's consistant with the way
she argues.  When she disagree with someone, she almost always proclaims
that the other person is ignorant of the topic.  Well, excuuuuse me!  I
learned about Stalinism from books.  How did she learn?  Was she a Gulag
groupie?  Was she there, or did she, like me, learn from books?  Perhaps
she's just saying that I can read, but since I disagree with her, I can't
comprehend.

>The Soviet Union in 1950 when Horn arrived in
>Rostov was worse off economically than Hungary ever was under Horthy's
>governorship. More important, Stalin's Russia was the most frightening
>totalitarian dictatorship which had ever existed on the face of the earth up
>to that point. It was the time of Gulag and other sweet and wonderful
>things.

I have no intention of defending Stalinism.  It is indefensible.  However, I
believe that she overstates her point when she says that Stalinism was "the
most frightening totalitarian dictatorship which had ever existed on the
face of the earth up to that point."  It's too bad we can't ask the tens of
millions, or perhaps the hundreds of millions, who were killed in the name
of Jesus, what the most frightening dictatorship was.

>You had to be blind and deaf not to realize that something was
>amiss. Four years spent in Stalin's Soviet Union should warn you that
>something is very wrong here. It is hard to imagine that with this kind of
>experience behind you you come back to your country and build socialism the
>Soviet way without at least questioning the premises.

Eva Balogh's hindsight is 20/20.  I doubt very much that Gyula Horn knew
about the Gulags in the early '50s.  I doubt if he knew anything about any
of the excesses of Stalinism.  More than likely, he was just one of many
thousands of students who were being trained in Marxism-Leninism and
probably had a sheltered view of what was happening in the USSR.

<snip>
>        Eva Balogh was not trained as a psychiatrist but a historian. She is
>not supposed to empathize but to analyze.

Eva Balogh misunderstands me, but then what else is new?  I was trying to
suggest, but to no avail as usual, that one can better understand someones
behaviour, or actions, if one understands the individuals motives.  Gyula
Horn was motivated by a Marxist ideology.  That ideology, whether you
believe in it or not, is a strong motivating force because it offers the
promise of a better world for the majority.  In that sense it's a bit like
Christianity.

As for the issue of empathy, I can only smile if Eva Balogh thinks that one
can be trained in it.

Joe Szalai

"What persuades men and women to mistake each other from time to time for
gods or vermin is ideology. One can understand well enough how human beings
may struggle and murder for good material reasons-reasons connected, for
instance, with their physical survival. It is much harder to grasp how they
may come to do so in the name of something as apparently abstract as ideas.
Yet ideas are what men and women live by, and will occasionally die for."
              Terry Eagleton

"Methods of thought which claim to give the lead to our world in the name of
revolution have become, in reality, ideologies of consent and not of rebellion.
"
              Albert Camus

At 03:50 PM 10/10/96 -0400, Zoltan Szekely wrote:

<snip>
>I still haven't had answers for some questions:
>1. Who said:
>   "God, as I believe, is the God of second chances."?
>2. Why did not Kadar Janos have any children?

You're scraping the bottom of your intellectual barrel, aren't you, Zoltan?
Or is this really the best you can do?  People have a million and one
reasons why they don't have children and if you're tryng to show something
about Kadar by his having, or not having children, then, quite simply,
you're out to lunch.

Allow me to indulge a bit and ask why your hero, Jesus, didn't have any
children.  He must have known about the comming horrors of christianity and
deceided that none of his offspring would suffer it.  Is this the kind of
stuff you're trying to say about Kadar?

Joe Szalai

Joe Szalai said to Zoltan:
then, quite simply,
you're out to lunch.
<<<< Joe this just shows that you have nothing to really contribute except
insults. It is perhaps you that is out to lunch that you have taken out of
a beer bottle! Peter

Good Morning Peter,

I just read your posting re: Lajos Pelikan's statements about the Christian
right and abortion.

I do not agree or like abortion, but this is a very personal decision that
should be made by involved individuals and I should shut up and stay out.

I agree with Mr. Pelikan:
Christian rightists do not just want to stop having to pay taxes to support
abortions, but they DO want to take the right to even chose away from others.
That's what is called "making abortion ILLEGAL!"  They do want to change laws
to eliminate another person's choice!

Just remember that the legalization of abortion had its reasons... and it was
not just for convenient (I wouldn't even call it that) contraception. Ireland
had its turmoil over this a few years ago, and we all remember how wonderful
Communist Romania was with its official policy of making abortions illegal.
Women's lives should also be respected... and not just those of the unborn.
In the case of late term abortions where the mother's life is endangered,
why is the unborn baby's life necessarily more important than the mother's?

Regarding your example of a person being murdered (and you even call this
example as taken to the absurd)....  I agree that is absurd and not worth
a comment.

I think Mr. Pelikan did see the point.
Thanks,
Mark

>On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Louis Elteto wrote:
>
>> Actually, the American government, local, state, and federal, does
>> subsidize churches through the taxation system, by providing exemptions
>> for the churches themselves, and a reduction in taxes for those who
>> contribute to churches.
>>
>> Louis Elteto
>Louis You are partially correct in that most states/countries have some form
>of separation of church and state thereby subsidising them due to tax
>exemption. However, the issue is that no-one in the USA govt pays any tax
>based funding to ANY church period! Thus there is no support or official
>endorsement of ANY religion in the USA.  Peter Soltesz

If by your statement you mean that there is no support or official
endorsement of any PARTICULAR religion in the USA, you are essentially
right, otherwise your paragraph contradicts itself. Even so: because of the
tax exemption, all taxpayers are in effect subsidizing ALL tax-exempt
organizations, including churches.

Louis Elteto

On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Louis Elteto wrote

  Even so: because of the
> tax exemption, all taxpayers are in effect subsidizing ALL tax-exempt
> organizations, including churches.
>
<<< You are Correct WE are subsidizing ALL non-profit groups! Peter

Louis Elteto:
>
> Actually, the American government, local, state, and federal, does
> subsidize churches through the taxation system, by providing exemptions
> for the churches themselves, and a reduction in taxes for those who
> contribute to churches.
>
Louis, you still don't get it!! The point is, that in the US
you support the church OF YOUR CHOICE, you support the
tv-preacher OF YOUR CHOICE and the crusader OF YOUR CHOICE.
It is the real freedom, not the 'free choice' to kill an
almost-baby or not.
                                                    Sz. Zoli

Let's see the answers for the questions:

> >1. Who said:
> >   "God, as I believe, is the God of second chances."?
Solution:
Bill Clinton, the president of the United States.
(Now, you call him a religious zealot... :-)

> >2. Why did not Kadar Janos have any children?
Kadar spent a couple of years in the prisons of the AVO
during Rakosi. That was the time when he lost his ability
to father any child.

One technique, the AVO used for achieving its goal:
a small glass tube was introduced into the organ of the
prisoner and then, by applying a rubber hammer, it was
broken into pieces -- inside. (It is the akin of the
'fire ant abortion', invented by GULAG guards in the
Soviet Union.) If the deliquent died, well, did not
happen too much: the communism forwarded one more step
into the bright future... :-(((

> >3. Whatever happened to the grizly abortion bill?
      (Bill !? ...)
Bill Clinton, the president of the United States vetoed
the bill!! What is the grizly abortion? Well, it is:
they blow a hole in the head of the fetus and then suck
the head content out. So the head collapses and the dead
almost-baby is easily removed. This kind of abortion is
still performed legally in the United States of America.

"Don't worry, be happy", etc.
                                                Sz. Zoli

Pelikan Lajos:

> America is amazing, but the more amazing things is how some people
> believe everything they see on TV or read in a paper.  I guess there are
> always suckers for every propaganda machine.
I could not agree more! What's more I dare to state, that the
media developed a huge mass of media-idiotic behavior in the
United States, who would believe everything if the media
repeats for them sufficiently long. My examples:

1. the hysterical attitude toward Saddam Hussein and Iraq
   just before the Gulf War
   (just for the record: I consider Saddam a stupid dictator,
   who represents the Middle Ages in the 20th century; but he
   does not qualify to be Mr. Evil Incarnated);

2. the public acceptance of the Waco flames by the American
   people (in which flames many children were burnt to death)
   as an appropriate solution "to save children from the
   abuses of David Koresh"
   (just for the record: I consider David Koresh a stupid
   sectarian who distorted the teachings of the Christianity,
   and represented the spiritual darkness of the Middle Ages
   in the 20th century; but "saving" children from alleged
   abuses by actually BURNING THEM is completely unacceptable
   for me).

> Religion may well be about God and Love, but churches appear to be more
> about power and control.
Not in the United States!! No church is in monopolistic
position here so that they could grab political power and
control. It is a very healthy situation and prevents any
church from being involved in high level political decisions.

On the other hand, this guarantee may make the COALITION of
churches politically more adequate as the separation of state
and church is not in danger.

> I believe that's the main reason Jesus was executed.
I like your note! It shows me teological interest in a more
detailed discussion of the role of Jesus Christ in the
salvation process. If you really mean that, and you want
this discussion, reaffirm me, please. (You know, some guys
just would choose lobotomy rather than endure this kind of
discussion on the list... :-(  )

> Closing word of advice, be always careful believing what people with
> titles -- like Rev., President, Senator, etc. -- claim to be true.
Another pearl of your thinking. Congratulations!
I completely agree with you.

> P.S.  I don't know where Zoltan gets these public school horror stories.
I repeat: It was recorded on a video and shown on the tv,
that a liberal looking, probably radical feminist woman in
leather jacket, tight pants (and a lot of make-up) explained
10-12 years old school girls how to perform oral sex. The
lady looked definitely aroused by her own explanation.

Father Kennedy added one single sentence as comment: "The
parents of the girls did not know anything about what kind of
education is given to their daughters."

I you call this a horror story, I'm fine with it. But it
would be very hard to prove that it's not a real one!

                                                     Sz. Zoli

Dear fellow-listmembers,

Welcome back aboard to Jeliko, and thanks for re-entering the discussion
about the language and the much more difficult question of "backwardness"
in Hungary in various periods.  Eva mentioned my work in the Czech national
renascence, where a linguistic revival was very much part of the picture.
My acquaintance with the Magyar language is very rudimentary still (it's
on the long list of "when I get time" things to work harder on), so I am
not really qualified to evaluate the relative qualities of seventeenth,
eighteenth or nineteenth century Hungarian as a linguist or literary
historian would.  My opinion on the larger question of relative "back-
wardness" is also only that: my own research doesn't deal with that
problem.

Nevertheless (you didn't think I was going to quit after only 20 lines
or so, did you?!), for what it's worth.  Most scholars, I think, see the
relative development of East Central Europe as equal to or only slightly
behind that of Western Europe at least until the sixteenth century, but
recognize that a tremendous gap had opened up by the mid-nineteenth
century.  The historical causes of that development may be debatable:
I personally don't think that the House of Habsburg bears the primary
responsibility.  Historians bring in the question of the (also debatable)
"second serfdom" and its social and economic consequences, resulting in
prevalence of extensive agricultural production, slowness to adapt to
the agrarian revolution, and consequent delay of industrialization.  The
economic histories of David F. Good and Richard Rudolph on the Habsburgs,
as well as the "anthropometric" study of nutrition and development in
the old monarchy by John Komlos, all deal with these issues.

I think that in addition to the question as a purely historical problem,
dealing with problems of what is/was the situation and reasons why it
might be so, there is also another question (which has a historical
dimension) and that is the question of _perceptions_ of backwardness, or
as Andrew Janos's book title has it (perhaps not in that meaning), the
"Politics of Backwardness."  Because as the engaging book by Larry Wolf
demonstrates, the view of Eastern Europe as "Eastern" (Asia begins at
the Landstrasse, said Metternich, right?) is a historical construct that
developed during a particular period for particular reasons, as did the
antipodal ideologies of Polish "Sarmatianism" or the Hungarian view summed
up in the tag: extra Hungariam non est vita, si est vita, non est ita.

So, when "the greatest Magyar" writes that he provoked a storm of wrath
on his head for declaring (in his work, _Hitel_) that "the Maygar is,
without exception, backward in everything" he was proclaiming in effect
a political program, not an understanding of history as a historian would
put it today.

Maybe the same could be said for those who (we have heard echoes recently
here) cling to a view of "Nation as Victim" which conveniently absolves
Hungary, or Slovakia, or the Czechs, or whomever, of responsibility for
their historic fates by crying "the Devil made us do it," in effect: it's
all the fault of the Great Powers, the Habsburgs, etc.

As far as the Czechs and Hungarians and their languages go:  my impression
is that at least the Czechs admired the Hungarians tremendously for their
political tenacity, and realized that with a fully-national noble class,
the position of the Hungarians politically and culturally was distinctly
different from theirs.  At the time of Leopold II's coronation in 1791 as
King of Bohemia (Joseph had refused coronation either in Bohemia or Hungary)
the Czech-language newspaper carried running reports from the Hungarian
diet that was meeting at about the same time, stressing their support for
the Hungarian language and summoning the (reluctant) Bohemian aristocrats
to take a similar position.  Linguistically, the purism (often inspired
by authors of the Baroque, but certainly continuing down into the 18th
century) that Gabor Fencsik mentions was definitely part of the Czech
movement.  I would guess that the evaluation of the literary products
of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in both languages is not
free from political factors as well: traditional Czech historiography
saw the Enlightenment as crucial to its revival, adopted the neoclassicist
aesthetic evalutions of its proponents, and not a little of their anti-
clericalism.  As a result, their view of literary works by devotional
poets whose rhetoric is heavily influenced by Baroque fancies, piling
metaphor upon metaphor, and in any case in service of the hated Counter-
Reformation, was overwhelmingly negative until the more positivistic
schools of historical and literary-historical interpretation of the late
nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  Could our view of Hungarian literature
in the analogous periods have suffered from analogous attitudes?

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

Mark:
1- Abortion used to be illegal once.
2- No the mother's life is NOT more important than the baby's.
3- If the REAL choice is between the mother or baby dying the answer
would be obvious.
4- The main issue I think is that abortion is being used for
contraception (real stupid!). It makes sense to teach parents
(it takes two to tango the last time I checked!) need to take
RESPONSIBILITY for their actions.
5- We could discuss when life begins (legally, morally, ethically,
regligiously) but that is a loooong discussion I do not wish to get into.
If I have a vote it is at conception.
6- There ARE many ways of contraception (including abstenance) that
people ought to practice BEFORE resorting to killing a life!

I believe that the Christians (I may be totally wrong about this)
want to prevent abortions (see point #6). No thinking person would really
argue against your cited mother vs. baby provided there is a justifyable
reason. -- Just like there is justifyable homicide.
Peter Soltesz

At 10:05 AM 10/11/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:

>I have no intention of defending Stalinism.  It is indefensible.  However, I
>believe that she overstates her point when she says that Stalinism was "the
>most frightening totalitarian dictatorship which had ever existed on the
>face of the earth up to that point."  It's too bad we can't ask the tens of
>millions, or perhaps the hundreds of millions, who were killed in the name
>of Jesus, what the most frightening dictatorship was.

        Please, read again what I said: "totalitarian" dictatorship. The
word "totalitarian" didn't even exist before 1926! Totalitarianism--as we
understand it--requires the technical means to control the individual
"totally."

>Eva Balogh's hindsight is 20/20

        concerning Stalinism.

        It isn't. Anybody who was reading the newspapers in the 1930s had a
fairly good idea what was going on in the Soviet Union. Moreover, we who
lived through it as teenagers also knew what was going on. As I said, you
had to be deaf and blind not to know.

>I doubt very much that Gyula Horn knew
>about the Gulags in the early '50s.

        As for Gulag, it just happened that Horn was having an affair with a
young married woman, whose husband was "the commander of the work camp in
Siberia" (p. 84). So I assume that he had *some idea* what a work camp in
Siberia was!

>Eva Balogh misunderstands me, but then what else is new?  I was trying to
>suggest, but to no avail as usual, that one can better understand someones
>behaviour, or actions, if one understands the individuals motives.  Gyula
>Horn was motivated by a Marxist ideology.  That ideology, whether you
>believe in it or not, is a strong motivating force because it offers the
>promise of a better world for the majority.  In that sense it's a bit like
>Christianity.

        Oh, I understand that Gyula Horn wasn't too keen on the Horthy
regime and that most likely through the influence of his father and his
older brother--whom he seemed to have adored--he believed in Marxism as "a
promise of a better world for the majority." In fact, I am angry with those
people on the Net, who don't seem to understand the lure of Marxism and who
deny that they had ever been influenced by its ideology although they spent
their teenage years in communist Hungary. In fact, I received a great deal
of criticism from the right-wingers when I dared to mention that all of us
who lived through it--even the Stalinist years--were influenced by Marxist
propaganda, especially when it came to the critique of capitalism. We
swallowed the whole primitive economic notions of labor and profit, just to
mention one of the tenents. In that sense, I can understand why Gyula Horn
ended up as an active member of the MKP (Magyar Kommunista Part). What I
find hard to understand is that after spending four years in Stalinist
Russia he still had no doubts. Or if he had, he certainly mentions nothing
of them in his autobiography. After his return, he spent two years in
Hungary before 1956 and he again has only one sentence to say about the
whole experience. These were turbulent times even within the MDP (Magyar
Dolgozok Partja) and thousands of former "true believers" started having
grave doubts about the whole system. We all knew about how many political
prisoners were in jails; we knew about how many thousand agents were spying
on us; we knew about Stalin's crimes; and so on and so forth. Everybody knew
about Rajk and his comrades and the trumped up charges. One could go on and
on. It is hard to believe that he knew nothing about all this. I am sure he
did. In fact, it is most likely that he was one of those who were willing
tools of an absolutely indefensible system. If he had nothing to hide he
would not simply glide through those years: he would express some opinion
about those two years between 1954 and 1956 when he was an employee of the
Ministry of Finance. He is silent and I bet with good reason.

        Eva Balogh

At 11:51 AM 10/8/96 EDT, Hugh forwarded a very interesting discussion on
Charles Ingrao's original piece. Of course I enjoyed Istvan Deak's
contribution very much and here are a couple of thoughts concerning it:

        Istvan Deak said:

>        I admire the argument, in Lesson #5, that the nation state was and
>is the problem, not the solution, in Central and Southeastern Europe, and
>that the multinational Habsburg Monarchy was far from dysfunctional.
>Surely, this Lesson will meet with many, perhaps even furious, objections.
>I doubt however that, had young Francis Joseph understood the call of the
>Zeitgeist, he would have experimented with real democracy in his realm
>thereby securing its future. As an old man, Francis Joseph did actually
>experiment with democracy when he allowed the introduction, in 1907, of
>universal adult male suffrage in the Cisleithanian half of the Monarchy.
>Yet the reform did not improve parliamentary conditions in Vienna and was
>thus even less efficient than the semi-liberal Ausgleich of 1867 which, at
>least, allowed the Monarchy to survive for another half a century. In
>general, the Habsburg tactic (the Habsburgs had no strategy) was to make
>so few concessions as possible to the prevailing political fashions; it is
>difficult to say whether any other policy than the one pursued would have
>been more successful. After all, as Ingrao himself writes, reform and the
>spread of education, fostered from above, allowed the diverse ethnic
>groups to prepare themselves for future independence.

        This is all very true, but at the same time we must appreciate the
impossibility of the situation. Surely, Franz Joseph's, just like all his
predecessors', aim was to keep the empire intact in an era of growing
nationalism. It is enough to look around in our region to see what an
impossible task this was. Could one have a "strategy" which would have
promised positive results? I doubt it. In fact, from the vantage point of
today--after the horrendous events which had taken place in our region since
the early 1930s--it is a miracle that the Habsburgs managed to keep their
empire intact as long as they did, including four years of a modern war for
which the Dual Monarchy was ill prepared. I am too lazy to look up how many
nationalities/nations comprised the monarchy, but many: Germans, Hungarians,
Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Ruthenians, Ukrainians, Slovenes, Croatians, Serbs,
Romanians, Albanians, Bosnians, Italians--just to speak of the larger ones.
Each with their own agenda. What kind of *strategy* could you devise to keep
them all in one country and all relatively happy? Those who tried to have a
strategy (Tito, for example with fewer nations involved) failed: it seems
that neither a centralized, nor a federalized solution was capable of
survival in the long run. As for the Habsburgs' fear of democracy, I am not
terribly surprised. They were afraid, just as the Hungarian governments
between the Ausgleich and 1918 were afraid, that democracy will bring even
greater nationalist strife. Leaving sleeping dogs lie seemed like the best
tactic.


>        Can there be any doubt that political independence was the final
>goal of the Hungarians, Czechs, Poles, and all the other peoples, or at
>least of their mostly self-appointed political leaders?  Even large
>segments of the German-Austrian middle class saw their future within a
>Greater Germany that would be free of the burden of Slavs and Hungarians.
>It is true that the immediate, verifiable cause of the Dual Monarchy's
>collapse was that Germany had lost the Great War, but it must also be
>acknowledged that the creation of nation states has been so much a part
>of modern European history as to allow us to call it inevitable.

        Unfortunately, Istvan Deak is right. It seems almost inevitable. The
problem is that the mix of people in our region doesn't really allow the
establishment of ethnically homogeneous nation states except the way the
Allies and Associated Powers managed to achieve it, more or less, in
Hungary: leave one-third of the Hungarian population on the other side of
the borders! Surely, not the best way.

        Eva Balogh

Isn't it amazing how something which begins as a discussion about
economic development ends up on the "expressiveness" of the Hungarian
language in the seventeenth century (yes, the 1600s we are talking about!).
I have never doubted the expressiveness of ordinary Hungarian in any
century: there are hundreds of wonderful letters from that century, for
example. Or one can savor the religious debates between Protestants and
Catholics. Both Jeliko's and Gabor Fencsik's examples are good ones. But
this is not what we are talking about. Or, at least, this is not what I
wasn't talking about.

        On the language front, it wasn't the question of "expressiveness,"
but lack of certain vocabulary: technical, philosophical, economic, and so
on. That's why the Hungarian intelligentsia in the first decades of the
nineteenth century felt that it was necessary to get Hungarian equivalents
of modern terms, missing from the language for the very reasons I outlined
in my earlier postings.

        My general impression is that Jeliko is unwilling to see the whole
picture. He is talking about some *individual* achievement. Yes, there was a
man called Janos Apaczai Csere who wrote an encyclopedia before the French
"philosophes," but that doesn't mean that Hungary therefore was ahead, or
equal of France in economic, social, or technical development. First of all,
encyclopedias were already known in antiquity, and both the Middle Ages and
the Renaissance could boast several encyclopedias. As far as "modern"
encyclopedias are concerned, there were several from the beginning of the
seventeenth century: Italian, French, English, German. Some in the
vernaculars and some in Latin. The French *Encyclope'die* of Diderot and
D'Alambert is famous not because it was an early one but because it became
the intellectual storehouse of the ideas of the Enlightenment.

        And yes, many future Transylvanian ministers studied in the
Netherlands because of the Calvinist connection but that again doesn't mean
that Hungary was anywhere close to the economic, financial, technological,
and yes, artistic achievement of the Dutch. The difference between the two
countries is starkly described in the extant writings of those Transylvanian
students who studied in Holland. Think of Miklos Misztotfalusi Kiss, for
example.

        There is no way that I will accept Jeliko's proposition that Hungary
was not behind the West in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Or for
that matter in the nineteenth century or today, at the end of the twentieth.
Even if he brings up the names of all those excellent twentieth-century
physicists and mathematicians (including Pal Erdos) who were largely
responsible for the computer age it still doesn't prove a *general*
development (economic, technical, social) equal to that of Western Europe.

        Eva Balogh

Sz. Zoli    -       At 02:23 PM 11/10/96 -0400, you wrote:

>Pelikan Lajos:
>
>> America is amazing, but the more amazing things is how some people
>> believe everything they see on TV or read in a paper.  I guess there are
>> always suckers for every propaganda machine.

Sz. Zoli
>I could not agree more!

Me:
For a starters, Zolika, draga, digest your above written five words...then,
if you are capable, try to really understand that it was "you" who wrote
them.  If you should get this far, *please* go back and read all that you
have written along with all that has been said, since your conception of
what I consider to be a bizzare conversation, even at the worst of times ...
and, especially in retrospect....

If by chance, you should have gotten this far, you will, I am convinced,
with all likelyhood discover that,  you have just totally contradicted your
initial posting ...   And, perhaps, by the long shot of your actual
acceptance of such a discovery; you might like to consider: (Here, in this
paragraph, I have given you undue credit; simply for being Hungarian - in
case you missed the inuendoes).

A)      Extending that long overdue apology to Amos Danube
B)      Supplying factual substantiation for your inital claims re school in
question
C)      Extending that equally long overdue apology for "Dumping on the
hand,                    which feeds you"
D)      Answering my question, as to who is actually financing your *visit*
to                      America - prior to demanding answers to quizzes of
your own?

And, since this is the way I see it, the rest of your reply to Mr. Pelikan -
unfortunately becomes irrelevant, if not total jibberish.

That's all for now.
Aniko
>

In article
>,
 says...
>
>2- No the mother's life is NOT more important than the baby's.
>3- If the REAL choice is between the mother or baby dying the answer
>would be obvious.
>
>6). No thinking person would really
>argue against your cited mother vs. baby provided there is a justifyable
>reason. -- Just like there is justifyable homicide.
>Peter Soltesz

Unfortunately, you are wrong about this, Peter.  According to Roman
Catholic dogma, you ought to let the mother die in order to save the
baby.

Agnes

In a message dated 96-10-09 14:19:57 EDT,  (Aniko
Dunford) writes:

<< I am of the opinion that a hiatus might not be enough at this point.
 Perhaps combining it with a couple of sessions with Dr. Elders might help to
 ease his ailments?

 Take care,
 Aniko >>

Hi there,  - what a mahveles idea! Do you really think though that a couple
of
sessions will do it? I mean, I think he needs some remedial work.

Marina

In a message dated 96-10-10 11:41:06 EDT,  (Peter A.
Soltesz) writes:

 On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, Mark Humphreys wrote:

 <SNIP>
 > I find the bible sad when it mentions that you commit a sin even by
 > thinking about doing a sin!  Options in life always involve making choices
 > to do or not to do something. I personally have *respect* for someone who
 > sees the bad and chooses to be strong enough and do good.

 <<<<<<<< Well I suppose if one thinks about that, God is perfect -
 wherein sin NEVER enters the mind. Would it not be great if we could all
 be like that?
 Peter >>
And have no fun at all?

Eva S. Balogh wrote:
>
> At 11:51 AM 10/8/96 EDT, Hugh forwarded a very interesting discussion on
> Charles Ingrao's original piece. Of course I enjoyed Istvan Deak's
> contribution very much and here are a couple of thoughts concerning it:
>
>         Istvan Deak said:
>
> >        I admire the argument, in Lesson #5, that the nation state was
and.......

>  I am too lazy to look up how many
> nationalities/nations comprised the monarchy, but many: Germans, Hungarians,
> Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Ruthenians, Ukrainians, Slovenes, Croatians, Serbs,
> Romanians, Albanians, Bosnians, Italians--just to speak of the larger ones.
> Each with their own agenda. What kind of *strategy* could you devise to keep
> them all in one country and all relatively happy? Those who tried to have a
> strategy (Tito, for example with fewer nations involved) failed: it seems
> that neither a centralized, nor a federalized solution was capable of
> survival in the long run. As for the Habsburgs' fear of democracy, I am not
> terribly surprised. They were afraid, just as the Hungarian governments
> between the Ausgleich and 1918 were afraid, that democracy will bring even
> greater nationalist strife. Leaving sleeping dogs lie seemed like the best
> tactic.
>




---




I had an interesting idea. To keep empires/entities together you need
ultimately
power. It is to note that along a 1000 year the power of a few was
sufficient to
keep realm. Relative to the number of the total population armies were
extremely
small up to the 19 century. This because the weapons of war were not
mass produced.

Then in the 19 Century the weapons relatively were suddenly
mass-produced. At
this point the power relied in the masses you could mobilize.

Well, looks like we are back to the old equation, the one before the 19
century.
Again a relatively small army could dominate grace to a reemerged
technological
gap. Note, that the technology was not there until he 19 century, but
that
technology favored the mas component of the power equation.

Are we entering again an era were a few (Habsburgs) could dominate the
millions?

Albert Albu

In article >, 
says...
<snip>..
>> >2. Why did not Kadar Janos have any children?
>Kadar spent a couple of years in the prisons of the AVO
>during Rakosi. That was the time when he lost his ability
>to father any child.
>
>One technique, the AVO used for achieving its goal:
>a small glass tube was introduced into the organ of the
>prisoner and then, by applying a rubber hammer, it was
>broken into pieces -- inside. (It is the akin of the
>'fire ant abortion', invented by GULAG guards in the
>Soviet Union.) If the deliquent died, well, did not
>happen too much: the communism forwarded one more step
>into the bright future... :-(((

I knew a couple of '56 refugees who survived this specific torture,
amongst others, as part of their *interrogation* by the AVO and,
apparently, it wasn't always a rubber hammer that was used in
the smashing process...one of those victims, Geza, lost most of
his genitalia due to the zeal of his own particular AVO *attendant*.
I have never ceased to be amazed at how Geza retained his sanity
after such horrible mutilations...even the Spanish Inquisition
forbade attacking the eyes and genitalia of their victims...

--
George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy ** Commodore=64...ICPUG ** NW London CC

Dear fellow-listmembers,

This appeared also in the Habsburg list, and I thought it might interest
some people reading this list, not only informatively, but perhaps even
spark a response?

Sincerely,
Hugh Agnew


----------------------------Original message----------------------------
This notice was submitted by _Replika_ editor Miklos Voros-- JPN.

Date: Fri, 11 Oct 96 9:28:40 CDT
From: Miklos Voros >

"Colonization or Partnership?":  Replika in English

The first English language special issue of _Replika_, the Hungarian
social science quarterly, bears the title _Colonization or Partnership?
Eastern Europe and Western Social Sciences_.  The volume is edited by
Miklos Hadas and Miklos Voros.  It contains 16 essays, written by
East-Central European and American scholars, which all address the same
set of questions:  How has "western" social scientific research influenced
the development of Eastern European social sciences after the political
changes, to what extent have "western" paradigms, research concerns, and
theoretical fashions changed the social scientific thinking in the region,
and what are the sociocultural and intellectual reasons for rejecting
their accomodation to local traditions and research agendas.

The essays are separated into four thematic sections:  the first traces
the sociogenesis of the categorical division between East and West in
academic and political discourses, and addresses the possibility of
conceptualizing a "Central Europe" in the current historical trends of
intellectual and political "Westernization".  This part of the volume
contains three articles: "The Cognitive Chance of Central European
Sociology" by Anna Wessely, "What Stalin and Reagan Told Us to Think" by
Deborah Cahalen, and "What's in A Name?" by David Kideckel.

The second section contains three essays on different historical aspects
of paradigm-construction in East European social sciences:  "Economic
Sociology in Central Europe" by Gyorgy Lengyel, "The Split Sociological
Mind in East European Societies" by Tibor Kuczi, and "Bartok, the
Scientist" by Miklos Hadas.

The third thematic section investigates the reception of Western feminist
discourses and theories by East European women and men, and explores their
adaptations to "Eastern" practices -- be it in the arena of family life,
social politics, or cultural critique.  The five essays included here are
"Feminism and Civil Society" by Susan Gal, "The Social Construction of
Women's Roles in Hungary" by Maria Nemenyi, "Different Region, Different
Women: Why Feminism Isn't Successful in the Czech Republic" by Jirina
Siklova, "On the Road: Smuggling Feminism across the Post-Iron Curtain" by
Jirina Smejkalova, and "Utopian Desires and Western Representations of
Femininity" by Madalina Nicolaescu.

The last section is organized around a provocative article written by
Gyorgy Csepeli, Antal Orkeny, and Kim Lane Scheppele (also published in
the Summer 1996 issue of Social Research), which claims that social
scientific research in Eastern Europe is now almost solely conducted by
American researchers and from American grants, and that East European
social scientists are employed by these projects only as apprentices or
informants.  The essay, titled "AIDS in Social Science in Eastern Europe"
is followed by three critical responses, "The Uses of International
Cooperation in the Social Sciences" by Rudolf Andorka, "The Immune
Deficiency -- Acquired or Inherited?" by Suzana Kusa, and "Whose Social
Science Is Colonized?" by Alaina Lemon and David Altshuler.  The section
and the volume ends with the closing response of the authors of the
debate-provoking first article.

Miklos Voros
Editor of Replika
Department of Anthropology
University of Chicago

Dear fellow-listmembers,

There must be some way of turning the discussion on religion and
the position of the church(es) and the state towards Hungarian
topics!  In any case, the logic of taking a general and
unverified statment about the schools and extrapolating from it a
blanket condemnation of public education in the United States,
teachers, the National Education Association, etc. completely
escapes me.  On the other hand, just because the radio news this
morning on my way to work included a story about a local case of
sexual abuse by a priest of a young man in his parish, I don't
see why that would logically lead me to a blanket condemnation of
the Catholic Church, teaching orders, and priests in general.
But I was never very good at maths.

And as far as sex, lies and videotape go...  The people of
Britain were recently treated also to a nice, titillating,
salacious video.  Too bad it was a fake.  But that's what the
demand for details, supporting evidence, factual documentation,
and so on is all about.  And why even a videotaped performance
remains unconvincing in the absence of any sort of corroboration.

Now to turn to church and state: I think most of the Central
and Eastern European states basically went at least part way to
creating state supervision if not control over the churches after
1918 if not before.  Of course under communism it was even more
direct, since the state consciously tried to propagate a
"scientific" world view.  The church as an institution survived,
though, at varying costs to its position.  Usually it could be
generalized that the Catholic church remained institutionally
more resilient, though brave clergymen with the courage of their
convictions existed in all denominations.

What's happening now?  What percentage of the Hungarian people
reported their religious convictions on the last census?  I don't
remember seeing the results, but I know that for instance (don't
wince, George A.!:-) in the Czech lands the single largest group
of the population is the group that reports "no religious
affiliation," with Roman Catholics only in second place, and the
various Protestant denominations bringing up the rear.

I have now seen the non-traditional sects and denominations
there, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, the Krishna
Consciousness movement, and many versions of evangelical and
pentacostal Protestantism.  Are these movements also present in
Hungary?  What do most people think about them?  Do reactions to
them get involved in identity politics?  (I mean, would people
consider a Hungarian Mormon a RealHungarian (tm) or does that
matter?).

What about the question of restitution?  If Church and State are
to be separated, then -- so at least the Catholic Church in the
Czech lands argues --  the Church needs to have back the means
of making themselves financially independent.  It's debatable
there, I assume it's debatable in Hungary too.  Maybe somebody
can enlighten me?  And what about religion and education?  Is
religion a subject in public/state schools?  Are private
religious schools permitted?  How are they accredited or are
they?  I'd be interested to know.

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

>Louis Elteto:
>>
>> Actually, the American government, local, state, and federal, does
>> subsidize churches through the taxation system, by providing exemptions
>> for the churches themselves, and a reduction in taxes for those who
>> contribute to churches.
>>
>Louis, you still don't get it!! The point is, that in the US
>you support the church OF YOUR CHOICE <<<< don't shout, please!, you
support the

How can you tell the government which church to support from your taxes?

>tv-preacher OF YOUR CHOICE and the crusader OF YOUR CHOICE.

Excude me! Is it 16th century or 17th already?

>It is the real freedom,

Your free choice to pay taxes? :-)

 not the 'free choice' to kill an
>almost-baby or not.
>                                                    Sz. Zoli
>

Zoli, it's too bad you born so late: you could be an excellent
party-ideologist. In the early 50s. And avoid being upset with America,
internet discussion groups, etc.

L. M.

>Pelikan Lajos:
>
>> America is amazing, but the more amazing things is how some people
>> believe everything they see on TV or read in a paper.  I guess there are
>> always suckers for every propaganda machine.
>I could not agree more! What's more I dare to state, that the
>media developed a huge mass of media-idiotic behavior in the
>United States, who would believe everything if the media
>repeats for them sufficiently long. My examples:
>
>1. the hysterical attitude toward Saddam Hussein and Iraq
>   just before the Gulf War
>   (just for the record: I consider Saddam a stupid dictator,
>   who represents the Middle Ages in the 20th century; but he
>   does not qualify to be Mr. Evil Incarnated);
>
>2. the public acceptance of the Waco flames by the American
>   people (in which flames many children were burnt to death)
>   as an appropriate solution "to save children from the
>   abuses of David Koresh"
>   (just for the record: I consider David Koresh a stupid
>   sectarian who distorted the teachings of the Christianity,
>   and represented the spiritual darkness of the Middle Ages
>   in the 20th century; but "saving" children from alleged
>   abuses by actually BURNING THEM is completely unacceptable
>   for me).
>
>> Religion may well be about God and Love, but churches appear to be more
>> about power and control.
>Not in the United States!! No church is in monopolistic
>position here so that they could grab political power and
>control. It is a very healthy situation and prevents any
>church from being involved in high level political decisions.
>
>On the other hand, this guarantee may make the COALITION of
>churches politically more adequate as the separation of state
>and church is not in danger.
>
>> I believe that's the main reason Jesus was executed.
>I like your note! It shows me teological interest in a more
>detailed discussion of the role of Jesus Christ in the
>salvation process. If you really mean that, and you want
>this discussion, reaffirm me, please. (You know, some guys
>just would choose lobotomy rather than endure this kind of
>discussion on the list... :-(  )
>
>> Closing word of advice, be always careful believing what people with
>> titles -- like Rev., President, Senator, etc. -- claim to be true.
>Another pearl of your thinking. Congratulations!
>I completely agree with you.
>
>> P.S.  I don't know where Zoltan gets these public school horror stories.
>I repeat: It was recorded on a video and shown on the tv,
>that a liberal looking, probably radical feminist woman in
>leather jacket, tight pants (and a lot of make-up) explained
>10-12 years old school girls how to perform oral sex. The
>lady looked definitely aroused by her own explanation.
>
>Father Kennedy added one single sentence as comment: "The
>parents of the girls did not know anything about what kind of
>education is given to their daughters."
>

Some quotes from Zoltan's answer to Lajos Pelikan (from *this* letter):

quote starts

>> Closing word of advice, be always careful believing what people with
>> titles -- like Rev., President, Senator, etc. -- claim to be true.
>Another pearl of your thinking. Congratulations!
>I completely agree with you.

quote ends

>I you call this a horror story, I'm fine with it. But it
>would be very hard to prove that it's not a real one!

quote starts

>Pelikan Lajos:
>
>> America is amazing, but the more amazing things is how some people
>> believe everything they see on TV or read in a paper.  I guess there are
>> always suckers for every propaganda machine.
>I could not agree more! What's more I dare to state, that the
>media developed a huge mass of media-idiotic behavior in the
>United States, who would believe everything if the media
>repeats for them sufficiently long.
>                                                     Sz. Zoli
>
quote ends

q.e.d

Zoltan, see a doctor! Tthis seems to be a kind of amnesia. And in a very
advanced state! Seriously!

And a question: how one can be "liberal looking"? Is there anything like
conservative looking, communist looking, christian looking, and other "way
of thinking" looking? Maybe that feminist was a christian crusader in
camouflage ?:-)

L. Monoki