||Hungarian girlfriend wanted (mind)
|| 5 sor
||Re: 1848, footnote, question to Janos Zsargo (mind)
|| 80 sor
||robust debate (mind)
|| 67 sor
||Fax to Bill Archer (HR 3161) (mind)
|| 86 sor
||Re: 1848, footnote, question to Janos Zsargo (mind)
|| 95 sor
||About the Infesuperiority complex of Hungariens. (mind)
|| 27 sor
||Re: 1848 (mind)
|| 69 sor
||Re: 1848, footnote, question to Janos Zsargo (mind)
|| 28 sor
||Re: Magyar Immigrants in US (mind)
|| 10 sor
||Re: About the Infesuperiority complex of Hungariens. (mind)
|| 74 sor
|+ - ||Hungarian girlfriend wanted (mind)
Hi, I am a 26 year old (younger looking) student at vienna university
of economics, I'm 175cm, 70kg, grey-blue eyes and have long brown-blond hair.
My Hobbies are: Books, Fitne_training, music and motorcycles
I am looking for a sporty hungarian-female for friendship.
Contact me at:
|+ - ||Re: 1848, footnote, question to Janos Zsargo (mind)
Kedves Eva and Listmembers!
At 10:13 03/05/96 -0700, Eva Balogh wrote:
On the other hand,
>during the years of graduate school and after, I developed a general point
>of view on Hungarian history, a kind of framework within which I try to
>operate and interpret historical events. One basic component of this
>overview is the total lack of nationalism in my interpretation and that's
>why I get so much abuse from the "patriots" of the Forum. The other
>overarching consideration is "backwardness," that is economic and therefore
>social backwardness of Hungary from the establishment of the state in the
>Danubian basin to our day. Third, because of this backwardness and because
>of the Turkish occupation of a third of Hungary and its resultant
>territorial devision into three parts (Royal Hungary, Hungarian territories
>as part of the Ottoman Empire and semi-autonomous Principality of
>Transylvania) Hungary remained a multinational state. (I am talking here
>about linquistic fragmentation.) Because of this multi-national character
>Hungary reached the age of nationalism totally unprepared and their
>political leaders blind to other linguistic groups' national aspirations. If
>the political leaders--as early as the 1830s--wanted to save the territorial
>integrity of the country, they had to do it within the Habsburg Empire.
> And by the way, newer history books in Hungary have abandoned the
>nationalistic and Hungaro-centric point of view which have been the trade
>mark of Hungarian history ever since the nineteenth century. They try to
>place Hungary into the mainstream of European civilization and call
>attention to Hungary's backwardness. I especially think that it is important
>for Hungarians to know about this comparative backwardness because it
>explains a lot about Hungarian society today. And, as I found out on this
>very list about two years ago, most Hungarians never heard of the growing
>backwardness of Europe from west to east. Surely, Hungarian high-school
>teaching left out a few important ingredients when trying to teach Hungarian
> Eva Balogh
Very interesting - It seems to me that you have grown up in a milieu where
it would seem that (excessive) nationalism caused the calamitous situation
in which your country found itself. The result is that you have developed an
ingrained distaste (bias?) for such nationalism. Yet, much as you decry
nationalism, and much as the rigid right-wingers do denounce you, you appear
to me to also be a Hungarian patriot, who just happens to have a different
philosophical slant and a different perception of what is in Hungary's best
But my next question is - how and why have you developed this belief in
Hungary's backwardness? Are you talking about the last forty years under
Communism, when perhaps the people were fed horse manure by the government
about how wonderful things were in the Worker's Paradise, only to have their
eyes opened when they were exposed to life in the West?
Because I think it is a mistake to define progress in terms of material
wealth, and wealthy as the North American countries are, I think they tend
to be spiritually bankrupt. The wealth is in the writings of the Founding
Fathers in the U.S. and the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment, but
young people today are not being educated about their heritage, and the
culture is being reduced to Sally Jessy Raphael, Jenny Jones, and their ilk
on daytime TV, not to mention the MTV and MuchMusic channels in the U.S. and
Canada. (Parents in the '50's feared the degenerative influence of rock and
roll - I think the fear is legitimate when one looks at today's music videos
with their expressions of hatred, violence, and nihilism.)
As far as spiritual wealth, or perhaps I should say richness of culture is
concerned, I think Hungarians have been historically blessed, although it
seems to me that they may not realize fully the richness, due to a national
inferiority complex, of which your words may be actually a manifestation.
What do you think?
Johanne L. Tournier
|+ - ||robust debate (mind)
Dear Professor Aycock,
The Supreme Court decided based on the freedom of expression clause
that political debate can not be regulated by the government.
Although, calling somebody
a nazi, or an idiot is considered to be libel per se, in case of a
political discussion it is viewed only as "robust debate".
Internet is an almost unregulated medium, but if we make a model,
Andras Pellionisz (a.k.a Andras Szucs) plays the role of a journalist
the HungaryList plays a role as a newspaper, and Eva plays the role of
a public figure. (Mr Pellionisz called me a criminal recently, also
a per se libel). Eva or me or you, should be considered as public figures
because we participating willfully in an open discussion in front of
hundreds of potential readers.
Pellionisz' motivation is purely political. Couple of years ago, I jokingly
mentioned to a neo-fascist emigre, that Mr Pellionisz did so much to
be member of their organization. I learned that Mr Pellionisz recently
joined this group.
If you accept my argument, you should stipulate that Pellionisz' language
can not be sanctioned by law, according to the Falwell decision of
the U.S.S.C. Even if you forget that, the plaintiff should prove actual
malice on the side of Mr Pellionisz, which is hard. Mr Pellionisz cites
his crap from disclosed or undisclosed sources, he invents some facts,
he invented his own vocabulary, but his main themes are borrowed from
other fascist pigs.
Before jumping to conclusion, I despise Mr Pellionisz more than any
other crawling creature on the surface of the Earth. Also, I do not
consider the U.S.Supreme Court as a medium between the ghosts of the
Founding Fathers and modern day America. With all the (actually really
high) respect, I do not even consider the Founding Fathers the popes
of Absolute Truth and Morality. In addition, I am an egg-head mathemati-
cian who could be dead wrong.
My point is that Mr Pellionisz' ass had the sufficient legal coverage.
I am not in the position to side with Mrs Bihari. Not that she is
wrong. Simply, I am a scoundrel not a hypocrite .
Nevertheless, I think Mrs Bihari is right.
The fact that one got the Second Amendment privilege to organize
an armed militia against say the Martians, does not mean that
I regard one single gun-crazy, racist nutcase as a living tribute to
the Great Thoughts of Our Founding Fathers.
Just because the U.S.S.C from some peculiar (and wise I must add)
reason distinguish between political speech and vivid description
of sexual intercourse, I should not regard robust debate and the
manifest use of the hacklers' veto as something really cute.
There are many layers of the society. In all these layers there
exists a continuous debate on significant and unsignificant issues.
And although Oliver Wendell Holmes initiated a unified look to
this debate from the government's point of view, it does not
mean the all layers of the society should regard the debate
as the government does. The communities have certain language and
behavioural codes, which can be enforced, as it happened in the
case of Mr Pellionisz. He did not make anything illegal, he will
not be prosecuted, he was disciplined by a private individual for
violating a community standard.
Gabor Elek (I skip my Ph.D because mine is irrelevant in this discussion)
|+ - ||Fax to Bill Archer (HR 3161) (mind)
In addition to writing to your own representatives as I have respectlully
asked you to do in my earlier letter, it is also desirable to write directly
to the three key players, who's e-mail (if exists) and fax addresses are
William Archer, Republican of Texas, fax: 202-225-4381
Philip M. Crane, Republican of Illinois, fax: 202-225-7830
Tom Lantos, Democrat of Californis: e-mail: , fax:
As Congressman Crane is from Illinois, I particularly ask our members from
that state to make sure that signatures are collected to the attached
letters after each mass tomorrow and faxed. I know you will do that.
Best regards: Bela Liptak
The Honorable Bill Archer, Chairman
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman,
I am a member of the Hungarian Lobby of the United States which has been
formed to provide a voice for the 1.58 million Hungarian-American voters.
I am writing in connection with the House bill, H.R. 3161, introduced by
Congressman Phil Crane of Illinois and Congressman Tom Lantos of California.
This bill would eliminate the yearly renewal of Romania's MFN status by
making that status permanent and unconditional. I strongly object to this
recommendation and strongly support Senator Dole's position, who said, that
curbing press freedoms, condoning extremist nationalism, refusing to return
church properties and denying cultural
autonomy to the Hungarian national community is not the way to gain permanent
I would like to note that the very purpose of the Trade Act of 1974 (the
Jackson-Vanik Ammendment, which established MFN) was: To assume the
continued dedication of the United States to fundamental human rights.. It
is that very purpose that would be compromised by the H.H. #3161 bill, by
the most important vehicle the United States has for the defense of human
rights. At a time when our European allies are setting up effective
mechanisms to protect human rights, the United States, the leader of the free
world, which originated the fight for human rights, should not give such a
sad example of unprincipled retreat on this front.
I would respectfully remind you Mr. Chairman, that while some states, such as
China can afford to disregard the human rights concerns of the United States,
Romania can not. I would also like to remind you that the beneficiary of the
Crane-Lantos bill would not be the Romanian people, as they already enjoy the
benefits of MFN. The only beneficiary would be Ion Iliescu who, being a
former Communist, who is running against a reform movement in this fall's
election, and would use the Crane-Lantos bill as an American endorsement of
Therefore I respectfully ask you to support Senator Dole's position and
vote on Romanian MFN until after the elections in Romania.
Your name, address, title or if this letter is signed by many, the list of
signatures collected at church or other events.
cc: Congressman Philip M. Crane
Congressman Tom Lantos
|+ - ||Re: 1848, footnote, question to Janos Zsargo (mind)
>Yet, much as you decry
>nationalism, and much as the rigid right-wingers do denounce you, you appear
>to me to also be a Hungarian patriot, who just happens to have a different
>philosophical slant and a different perception of what is in Hungary's best
I put the word patriot into quotation marks, indicating that I do
not consider them patriots. In fact, I am convinced that they bring shame to
Hungary and to the Hungarian nation. Here I am talking about the outright
nazis and, let's not mince words, these fellows--there are about half a
dozen of them in addition to Pellionisz and his aliases on the
Internet--espouse a Hungarian version of national socialism with all its
trappings. Pure and simple. Luckily, although they seem numerous in our
little Internet world, they constitute a relatively small portion of
Hungarian society. On May 1, one of these extreme right-wing groups managed
to get together only about 100 people to listen to their golden words,
including such demands as the re-nationalization of private property. Isn't
But I go further than that. I think that those who oppose European
integration in the name of Hungarian uniqueness are also misguided and most
likely, in spite of their fervent nationalism, are not acting in the best
interest of the nation. To demonstrate how far this so-called Hungarian
uniqueness argument can go here is an example from the FORUM: there was
serious discussion (without my participation) whether St. Stephen did the
right thing or not when he introduced Christianity into Hungary and called
in western advisors and settlers!!! As one of the critics of this
hairbrained idea said: if St. Stephen did what you guys suggest we wouldn't
be here to discuss the matter!
>But my next question is - how and why have you developed this belief in
>Hungary's backwardness? Are you talking about the last forty years under
>Communism, when perhaps the people were fed horse manure by the government
>about how wonderful things were in the Worker's Paradise, only to have their
>eyes opened when they were exposed to life in the West?
I wish I were such a clever person as to discover this theory. No,
it is almost a common place. I don't think that anyone came up with a
satisfactory answer why this is so but unfortunately it is. And this goes
back all the way to the Roman Empire. Hungary was, and still is, more
backward than the Austrian provinces, or Bohemia-Moravia;
Moldavia-Wallachia, Serbia, Bulgaria more backward than Hungary. Even within
Hungary, the farther east we go the less developed the country is. Even at
the height of Hungary's golden age--the second half of the fifteenth
century--Hungary was more backward than territories to the west. The last
forty years only widened the gap.
>Because I think it is a mistake to define progress in terms of material
>wealth, and wealthy as the North American countries are, I think they tend
>to be spiritually bankrupt. The wealth is in the writings of the Founding
>Fathers in the U.S. and the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment, but
>young people today are not being educated about their heritage, and the
>culture is being reduced to Sally Jessy Raphael, Jenny Jones, and their ilk
>on daytime TV, not to mention the MTV and MuchMusic channels in the U.S. and
>Canada. (Parents in the '50's feared the degenerative influence of rock and
>roll - I think the fear is legitimate when one looks at today's music videos
>with their expressions of hatred, violence, and nihilism.)
In philosophical terms you might be right but as far as society and
economy is concerned, I don't think that you are. With economic backwardness
comes lack of capital accumulation, lack of viable infrastructure, lack of a
robust middle class and its values. One can go on and on. (Actually it is
really a very complex problem which I can't begin to cover here.)
>As far as spiritual wealth, or perhaps I should say richness of culture is
>concerned, I think Hungarians have been historically blessed, although it
>seems to me that they may not realize fully the richness, due to a national
>inferiority complex, of which your words may be actually a manifestation.
Let's take this sentence apart. Richness of culture. (1) Well, if
one listens to the Petofi Radio, I don't see much difference between an
ordinary radio station here and there. (2) Yes, Hungary has a very large
intellectual class but I often wonder about their usefulness or the worth of
their ideas. As far as national inferiority complex is concerned, I see a
lot of signs of just the opposite. If you followed the debates on the
Hungarian-language list you would not be happy about tone concerning
Americans, Canadians, Chinese, or any other nation on earth. Gross
generalizations about the superiority of Hungarians over and above everybody
else. Especially the Americans are labeled as outright stupid and
uneducated, while they themselves are vastly superior in the brain
department and as well as in education. (After living on this continent for
almost forty years I feel personally insulted hearing these things.) Perhaps
this actually stems from an inferiority complex. I don't know. But if it
does, it still doesn't make it any easier to listen to it. And last but not
least: my words on backwardness as a possible manifestation of inferiority
complex. Because I am simply repeating a well known theory based on
observations of a vast array of historians from the west as well as the
east, it surely cannot signify an inferiority complex on my part.
I hope this answers your questions.
|+ - ||About the Infesuperiority complex of Hungariens. (mind)
E.Balogh writes in her answer to J.Tournier:
>Gross generalizations about the superiority of Hungarians over and above
Sorry to say this, but the above statement is simply not true. Nobody told
that the Hungarians are superior over EVERYBODY else (on the Forum). However
that is true that those guys do not have high opinion about the Americans
and Chinise. But they are mainly the same as those 'fascists'. Why do you
think they represent the average hungarian opinion in this question?
>Especially the Americans are labeled as outright stupid and
>uneducated, while they themselves are vastly superior in the brain
>department and as well as in education. (After living on this continent for
>almost forty years I feel personally insulted hearing these things.)
Well, as far as your (i.e american) high school system is concerned I am not
surprised on this kind of opinions.
Let me ask Eva, how many Japanese, German, French (I heard some lovely stories
about the French atitude toward American tourist) and Russians have you ever
spoken about this issue. Believe me, you would be surprised and you might
find the Hungarians very friendly to the Americans.
|+ - ||Re: 1848 (mind)
first here is my answer to your question:
> And one more thing, Janos. You didn't answer my question about our
>possible victory over the Austrians, if Austria did not receive any foreign
>help, in this case, Russian. I asked: What would we have done with a
>population whose absolute majority was non-Hungarian and who had similar
>nationalist aspiration to those the Hungarians had vis a vis Austria?
Well, this is a very fictious question, so I can give only my opinion that can
be wrong. I think the Habsburg Empire would have fallen apart first of all
(separate Austria, Czech rep.,etc, maybe even Croatia). There might have been
civil war in Hungary (between the nationalities and Hungarians), but I think
the Hungarians would have stabilized the country (maybe except Croatia) by
force or compromises or a combination of these. Despite their inferiority in
number the Hungarians (I mean the nobles now in the first place) has the
control over economics, politics, military, etc.
About your citations from Istvan Deak's book. The first one (revolution vs
'lawful revolution') is irrelevant in our debate, so I will not respond to it.
I have my opinion about it and if you want we can discuss it later.
About those discribing the controversity and confusion in the April Laws. They
show that it was not clear which direction would Hungary proceed. Of course
the Habsburgs (I mean the 'kamarilla' not the Emperor himself) could consider
it as an instability factor and a possible threat on the unity of the empire
(not an immediate one, however!). I have never told that separatism had never
existed on the Hungarian side. Furthermore the citations from your books show
that there were willingness (at some degree) for compromises on our side, but
say nothing about the Habsburg side.
How much flexibility could be expected from such an imperial council:
>Franz I (II), chaired by Archduke Ludwig (often called the least intelligent
of>all Franz's brothers), with Metternich and Franz Anton Kolowrat-Liebsteinsk
How can you prove that this council did not simply fooled the Hungarians with
seemingly accept the April Laws and establish the order in the other revolting
part of the Empire (Vienna, Italy, etc) and later on come back to this issue.
What moves they made to find the compromise with the Hungarians? I know none.
And what supports the idea of 'fooling the Hungarians':
The Habsburgs made the first attack (Jelasic) against Hungary having no army
at that time (just 'nepfolkelok' and 'nemzetorok') and which accepted the
Habsburgs as royal family for another half year yet.
The hungarian generals were hesitating to step on Austrian ground (to help
the second revolution in Vienna), and let the Emperor stabilized his rule
The first Hungarian Prime Minister (grof Batthyany if I am correct) stayed
Pest-Buda (and not Budapest as in your citations as it did not exist at
that time) in December 1848 when the Austrian army captured it, still believing
a possible compromise with the Habsburgs. He was executed shorthly after his
surrender. This does not sound too much compromise-like to me.
Note to those who are not familiar with the Hungarian History:
Next year 1849 spring the Hungarians recaptured Pest-Buda defeating
the Austrian army several times and chasing them beyond the borders. Shortly
after this the Emperor ask help from the Russian Zcar.
After the Austrian victory there was a very taugh retaliation (hundreds of
people was executed) with Haynau, and also a further Habsburg thrick i.e
they did not fullfill their promises to the nationalities that they made in
order to get their support during 1848-49. 'A nemzetisegek azt kaptak jutalmul
,amit a magyarok buntetesul'. Isn't it a kind example of the cooperative
So eventually what does your book say about these? I do not think those
citation would support your idea about the primarily hungarian responsibility
for the hostilities.
|+ - ||Re: 1848, footnote, question to Janos Zsargo (mind)
>And a footnote to the footnote: there's at least one quite reasonably-well
>respected British historian who wrote a specialized monograph on Radetzky's
>victory over the Italians in Italy, who maintains that the eventual Austrian
>victory over the Hungarian revolution in 1849 was ensured by the defeat of
>Charles Albert and the Piedmontese, in the long run, whether the Russians
>had intervened or not. He is Alan Sked, and the thesis is argued in his
>book on the Habsburg monarchy whose exact title I can't remember at this
Well, what is sure, that the Hungarians were in winning position in 1849
despite what were their chances in long run. Also, I do not think the
Habsburgs asked for Russian help just for maintain good relation with the
Zcar. Even if the numbers were support the Austrians it does not mean they
would automatically win. I still think we had nothing to afraid of against
>The emperor who as legitimately crowned King of Hungary signed the March
>(April) Laws was Ferdinand, I as Emperor of Austria, V as Czech King, and
>I don't know what his number was as King of Hungary. He was Franz Joseph's
>uncle, not his father.
Yes you are right. I did not remember correctly. Sorry. I made another
mistake, too. The general who was hesitating to attack in 1848 was Moga
(I hope I am not mistaken again) and not Mora.
|+ - ||Re: Magyar Immigrants in US (mind)
Hello to all...I have been folowing SCM,SCR and the BLH groups for
some time now....this is my first post into this group and it is to
ask a favor...a short while ago there was a posting here in the group
that was an account by someone regarding I believe his/her
grandfathers recollections about being a Magyar minority member in the
states from the late 1800's etc on...there where some references to
the term "bohunk" etc. and it seems to me that there was also mention
of the Toledo,Ohio area...I was in a rush and didn't mark or save the
post...and now I can't find it..if anyone recalls it or can point me
towards it I would appreciatte it....kusz. Feri
|+ - ||Re: About the Infesuperiority complex of Hungariens. (mind)
Janos Zsargo, quoting me first:
>>Gross generalizations about the superiority of Hungarians over and above
>Sorry to say this, but the above statement is simply not true. Nobody told
>that the Hungarians are superior over EVERYBODY else (on the Forum). However
>that is true that those guys do not have high opinion about the Americans
I have been on the Forum a little longer than Janos, and believe me
there is an overwhelming sense of superiority, even when not specifically
>But they are mainly the same as those 'fascists'.
Not just those "fascists," but very nice guys from Budapest, openly
and in private letters, who told me about all those stupid Americans who
work for foreign companies in Budapest. And also, why are you putting those
"fascists" in quotation marks? In the first place I don't think I used the
term "fascist," because lately I am extremely careful about word usage in
this case. Our Hungarian "fascists" don't like the terms "nazi" or
"fascists," they prefer "hungarists" and I certainly don't want to offend
their sensibilities!! Second, does your quotation marks indicate that those
guys are "fascists" only in my distorted world view?
>Why do you
>think they represent the average hungarian opinion in this question?
Because I know my own kind. I used to have a feeling of superiority
too when Canadians were unable to name the capital of Hungary.
>>Especially the Americans are labeled as outright stupid and
>>uneducated, while they themselves are vastly superior in the brain
>>department and as well as in education. (After living on this continent for
>>almost forty years I feel personally insulted hearing these things.)
>Well, as far as your (i.e american) high school system is concerned I am not
>surprised on this kind of opinions.
Nobody says that the average American/Canadian education is good.
Most of it isn't. But there are some excellent schools in this country and
some brilliant people and who, even if they didn't get the best high school
education, they are smart and are capable of performing well in any
university and later in life. I have met many of them. Education in almost
all countries has its problems, including Hungary. There are more and more
articles about the declining levels of education, teachers who are not
really qualified, and high school graduates who have problems reading and
writing. (As the matter of fact, almost all of us who are no longer in our
twenties and who have been living abroad for considerable amounts of time,
are surprised to see that a lot of younger people are unable to spell--and
Hungarian is an easy language as far as spelling goes.) I greatly miss
sociological studies describing the levels of general knowledge in Hungary
not of highly qualified university graduates (and don't forget the
percentage of university graduates is very small in Hungary in comparison to
western Europea and the United States) but of ordinary folks, the kind who
finish eight grades and go to trade school afterward. I would be surprised
if there was a great deal of difference between the two countries. (I still
recall that in my first or second year at the University of Budapest,
someone gave us a test concerning current events. About 80 percent of the
class thought that New York was the capital of the United States! So, let's
not be so full of ourselves.
>Let me ask Eva, how many Japanese, German, French (I heard some lovely stories
>about the French atitude toward American tourist) and Russians have you ever
>spoken about this issue.
I am not saying that Hungarians are the only ones. European
superiority does, in general, get on my nerves because it is so unfair.