|| 80 sor
||Re: biological relationship (mind)
|| 37 sor
||Re: Orange blood (mind)
|| 23 sor
||Re: Honfoglalas--occupation (mind)
|| 59 sor
||Re: History of Slovakia (mind)
|| 17 sor
||Keseru Ifjusag (mind)
|| 20 sor
||A little known story (mind)
|| 22 sor
||Re: Palacky (mind)
|| 24 sor
|+ - ||Palacky (mind)
I agree that to judge the 10th century with the eyes of the 20th
is ahistorical and probably unlikely to get anyone very far. I
generally find arguments that depend on distant historical "rights"
whether by conquest or prior occupation not terribly useful in resolv-
ing current political problems, though it's certainly the stock-in-
trade of almost all kinds of nationalism.
Moved however by professional nit-picking reflexes, I thought I'd
give the chapter and verse of what Palacky (Frantisek, btw, not Jan)
said about the honfoglalas. This comes from his "History of the Czech
Nation in Bohemia and Moravia," book 3, chapter 1 (I'm translating
from the Czech version). To try to keep it a little shorter, I've
paraphrased a couple of Palacky's rolling periods within square brack-
ets. If any of you should not already know, Palacky was the greatest
nineteenth century historian of the Czechs, whose monumental history
began to appear in German in the 1830s and in Czech in 1848 (he actually
began to write it in German, but the final volumes were written in Czech
and translated into German, that's another story perhaps but says something
about the development of Czech nationalism, too).
"The invasion and settlement of Hungary by the Magyar nation
belongs among the most important facts of all history; even after
entire ages no more fateful calamity has befallen the Slavonic world.
In the ninth century the Slavs had spread their territory from the
borders of Holstein to the Peleponesus; and even though for their
ancient love of liberty they were divided from each other in many
ways, nevertheless they had everywhere proven themselves to be brave,
gentle, and diligent. In the middle of their extended band of ter-
ritory Rostislav and Svatopluk had begun to create a core whose suc-
cessful germination promised someday a pleasing flower of Christian
and national culture together; the favour which they should enjoy from
both Rome and Constantinople guaranteed them an almost unlimited suc-
cess. To that core would someday slowly have gathered all the Slavic
tribes, driven by internal and external forces; from it they would
have accepted with Christianity, if not a new political constitution,
then at least the new European and national enlightenment, knowledge
and industry, unity of language, letters and literature; just as in
the West, under Roman influences, the Frankish monarchy arose,
similarly in the East a great Slavic empire, not without influences of
the Byzantine spirit, would have grown up, and Eastern Europe would
have assumed over a thousand years a completely different complexion
from what actually happened. By the fact that the Magyars, having
driven into the very heart of a developing entity, wiped it out, such
expectations were destroyed forever. The members of this great body,
not yet having fully grown together, fell apart again as a foreign
substance established itself among them by force; caring only for
itself, not knowing a goal common to all, each element thereafter once
more looked after its own affairs, wasting its strength in petty quar-
rels with its neighbours, without any longer being able to stand
strongly against foreigners, united by a central force that was power-
ful since it was founded on their common good." [He then blames this
lack of unity, as well as their geographic position exposed to the
invading nomads from Asia, for the fact that some Slavic tribes have
died out altogether, and the others remain relatively backward com-
pared to the West.]
[He argues that the Slavs had absorbed previous Asiatic invaders,
without significantly changing their Slavic character and customs.]
"That the Magyars alone did not meet with the fate of all these their
predecessors, but rather that they preserved their nationality in the
midst of Slavdom, is certainly a memorable deed, whose causes must be
sought not only in their national strength, but in other unique cir-
cumstances. Emperor Leo the Wise, who had first summoned them into
the Danubian basin to fight the Bulgars, noted as a peculiarity of
their way of waging war, that it did not suffice them, as other
nations, to defeat, subject or drive off their enemy, but that
wherever they gained the victory they did not cease to assail him
until they had finally wiped him out. Thus their first attack was
even bloodier and more destructive than the Huns or Avars; and the
population of the lands that were once the Avars', still weak in num-
ber after the fall of their empire, were not subjugated by them, but
were forced to flee or completely annihilated. It also greatly aided
the Magyars' survival that they were the last marauders in Europe, who
having thrust themselves in just as the great wave of the wandering of
the peoples began to subside and the nations by accepting Christianity
began to create for themselves states, through their own rapid conver-
sion to Christianity ceased in time to their benefit to be a further
threat to their neighbours."
|+ - ||Re: biological relationship (mind)
On Thu, 29 Dec 1994 17:12:51 PST JELIKO said:
>In relation to the #1 discussion, while the US is high on greenhouse gas
>output,(in the neighborhood of 1,400 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon
>dioxide a year, by far the major portion in energy production), the only
>fair way to compare it is on industrial output basis and not on the basis
>of absolute values.
--Of course. I think it is also interesting to note that the industries
of the former Iron Curtain countries are much dirtier than ours. One would
think that the humane communists would have been the first to insist upon
clean industries, wouldn't one?
It could be cut by not burning fossil fuels, but you rarely see folks
>with a sign of a lump of coal or the gas flame crossed out in red (crimson
>for you) like they do for nuclear reactors.
--I have a friend who is a nuclear engineer. One of his constant
frustrations is the appalling fear that nuclear reactors create. When
he comes to visit, I turn off the lights to see if he glows in the dark.
>I do not know which is worse when some folks gather and publish information
>and they do not understand that it has to be in context or when they know,
>but publish it anyway. Of the three monkeys the ones who do not hear and do
>not see still have their mouths uncovered, so I should not be upset.
--Many of the things on the #1 list are true but lack any context. The
one about infant mortality, for example, is true, but I doubt if Clinton's
national health plan would affect it because the problem isn't entirely
because of money or access.
>Have a nice gin for New Year.
|+ - ||Re: Orange blood (mind)
Imi Bokor writes:
> at no stage did i ever dispute that family, local or national pride is
> prevalent. i only entered the discussion on whether such pride is
> warranted. the example of henry ford iii's pride in the achievements
> of his grandfather was an instance of this brought up by i forget
> who. i would say that henry ford iii is duly proud of any of his
> but not of those of his grandafther, whereas his grandfather is duly
> of the achievements of henry ford iii to the extent that he contributed
> directly or indirectly to them, by, for example, providing the
> laying the foundations, etc.
Now, it sounds much better, While in some cases there may be unwarranted
pride in ancestors or siblings, it should not be derided. IMHO, "pride" is
necessary for the improvement of society. Generally we are proud of the
good deeds and if we purvey that pride in good deeds to others also, then
there is more moral strength in good deeds. Soceity will improve by the sum
of small individual good deeds of which we all should be proud.
Happy New Year, Jeliko.
|+ - ||Re: Honfoglalas--occupation (mind)
Imi Bokor writes:
> if you wish, i can provide you with numerous other examples, but the
> invalidity of the argument will be neiother strengthened nor weakened
Yes, but that argument better stand up. Your case for the Boer does not. At
the time of the Dutch settlements that part of Africa was not the
presettled area that you presume. The Boers were migrating up from the
South and the Zulus down from the north to an area where in some areas the
actual aboriginies (pygmies) were in fact exterminated by both. In this
formative stage there was no "South Africa" as a nation or even as a
country. Even at the arrival of the Brits the area was populated in zones,
where the various folks were in linguistic unity. The British imperialism
during the Boer war "unified" the area in a somewhat similar manner to the
establishment of the Russian Empire. Such unity resulted first in English
being promulgated as the official language and the Brits certainly were not
in a majority, they just happened to be in power.Subsequently, the
populations were more mixed up and a lot of Bantus were moved or due to
labor opportunity moved themselves into new areas. Neither the Zulus or the
Bantus or the Boers or the Brits lost their language. There was an
"official" language first the English than later for a short time Boer (or
Africaan). While now and probably for a long time blacks were in majority,
but color is not a nation and does not denote a common language. In fact
there are a large number of non-European origin population languages in the
area. Which one will stay eventually an official language will be known
only later. The Union of South Africa is so unique and so recent an event
compared to other language area determinations that it would not be a good
example even if it matched your assumptions which it does not.
> i would also point out that hungarian has also been greatly influenced
> both in structure and vocabulary by other languages, usually those of
> it conquerors/occupiers.
OK Imi, please list the words that came from Mongol, Turk, Rumanian, Serb
in the post Honfoglalas time. To my knowledge Hungarian has many words from
old Iranian, old Turkish (eastern), old Slavic, non of which were
conquerors of the Carpathian basin. I have many Hungarian texts from the XV
and XVI century and the difference between current Hungarian and of those
days is much less than between English from the XV century and today's
English (this in spite of Hungarian not even being "official" language in
those days). Granted many new words describing new items were "made" later
and used some other language sources, but that happened in all languages
and had nothing to do with conquest. As far as structure is concerned, yes
there are Germanisms in some of the details, but the basic grammar is very
similar to what it was for a long time.
Imi, you have a tendency to express opinions as facts. You are often
incorrect, the incorrectness always leans toward belittling the little that
Hungary or Hungarians have as a national heritage. That tendency is
irritating to me at least. Naturally you have the right to express whatever
you want to, but whenever I have the time, I will argue the points I
disagree with and as you being one of those that I mostly disagree with, it
will continue for some time.
Happy New Year (that being a non-Hungarian invention, should not offend
|+ - ||Re: History of Slovakia (mind)
Several respondents, including Thomas Breed
and Norb )
have alluded to a history of Slovakia available on the net with
many references to Hungary and Hungarians.
The file, containing 1639 lines, can be easily accessed via the WWW
Virtual Library under Russian and East European Studies, National
Homepages in the Slovak Document Store, page 2. The Home Page
attractively presents facts about Slovakia and includes the file "History
of Slovakia" by Prof RNDr. Jozef Komornik, DrSc. Regrettably, the
"history", in fractured English, is a crude attempt at chauvinistic myth
making, contains unsubstantiated assertions, omissions and
distortions. One can only hope that the author's math (he is called
in the preface to the file one of the best Slovak scholars in applied
mathematics) is better than his knowledge of history.
|+ - ||Keseru Ifjusag (mind)
> Julia Pirbus >
> Brock University, St. Catharines Ontario
> Re: "Keseru Ifjusag"
The book in question, part I of the author's reminiscences
of his imprisonment in Siberia, has been published as:
Gyula Borbandi Verlag
The book may be available from Puski Corvin in New York.
Their phone number is 212 879-8893, fax: 212 734-3848.
|+ - ||A little known story (mind)
An unsavory aspect of the action of all armies in the field is
the fact that some elements always succumb to the temptation to loot.
It was no different with the 42nd Inf. Divivsion in Salzburg following
the Second World War.
Their story is of some interest to this Discussion Group, since the
soldiers of the 42nd were tasked with the guarding of the "gold train",
containing valuables taken from Hungarians by the Nazis, loaded onto a
train and with the advance of the Red Army, taken west. The train,
contained jewelry, artworks, furniture, silverware valued in excess of
$200M. Maj. Gen. Harry J. Collins, commander of the 42nd, was one of the
first to furnish his office with choice selections from the hoard. His
soldiers also helped themselves generously to what they were supposed to
have kept safe. Their story is told in several chapters of the book:
Alford, K.D., Spoils of World War II.
Birch Lane Press, 1994
It is a sordid story, but one which needed to be told.
|+ - ||Re: Palacky (mind)
On Fri, 30 Dec 1994 03:07:30 EDT Hugh Agnew said:
> "The invasion and settlement of Hungary by the Magyar nation
>belongs among the most important facts of all history; even after
>entire ages no more fateful calamity has befallen the Slavonic world.
--Hugh, all history is to some extent revisionist, and I know about
the post-modernist use of the term "claim" which is usually used to
describe the history written by non-post-modernists. And clearly,
the statement--was it Nietsche's--that history is written by the
victors is simply absolute nonsense. At the same time, after this
first sentence I really didn't expect any attempt at objective
writing. I am not influenced by any Hungarian background. I have
none. But I suspected that what would follow would be extremely
nationalistic and I wasn't disappointed. Did you intend this to
be an example of that kind of history?
By the fact that the Magyars, having
>driven into the very heart of a developing entity, wiped it out, such
>expectations were destroyed forever.
--No mention of the Magyars being driven out of where they were?