I value local cultures, such as music, art and cuisine, but I do not
think, that means I have to support outdated structures of society,
which are only maintained by force. (or deception ; royals in UK)
E.g. Hungarian national costumes
are fine in museums and folk festivals, etc, but I am not upset about
them not being the everyday mode anynore. As I am certainly not sorry
for the monarchy being put to rest in Hungary - or should it been kept
as a typical tradition? Traditions do change, which ones you think are
those to "identify" a "people"? I think we should support groups
fighting against usually authoritarian outmoded rules, such as fundamen-
talism - muslim , jewish or christian, such as "an eye for an eye"
alive and well in the U.S. (premeditated murder sanctioned in a so called
civilised country - whipping next?).
You cannot install the habit of not marrying "others" in children,
without inplanting the feeling, that "others" are not good enough. Bad.
The all development of humans seem to be always towards more cooperation,
integration, not the other way. And we need it asap. Eva Durant
(Parts of arguments I think I am responding to follow:)
> What agreements, and what do they say? Do you believe in national
> and if not, why? How do you see the place of cultures in a world with smalle
> distinctions between people? If you think it's best to remove global
> do you also value cultures? If so, you have not thought your position throug
> very well, and you need to think about this issue before saying anything
> in the future. Removal of global boundaries WILL and MUST result in the loss
> of ethnic identity, and the disappearance of distinct cultures. You cannot
> one without the other!!
> because of hate. They truly do not want to corruptive influences of
> Western society. They have a point, and a right to isolate themselves from
> what they see as something undesireable. If you think broadcast pornography,
> and loosening of morally imposed limits on behavior is the way to go, fine,
> but you cannot take away the right of people to isolate themselves from it.
> The same with culture, though there is not moral argument for or against
> maintaining culture. It is purely a matter of personal identity and
> understanding, and the argument for its value is the same as the argument
> for the value of music or art. We could live a very nice mechanical
> existance without art and music, but we like these things - they give
> value to our lives. The same with culture. Please be more careful in the
> future about why and how you argue against folks you disagree with. Your
> view, believe it or not, is not the only valid one.
> should, and every American should. People talk about the prudish Puritan
> values of the US, well where do you think we go it from? Do you think maybe
> its worth understanding? As for the Africans, just as there were not
> Do you believe in the value of cultural identity? How can that survive if yo
> would remove national borders?
Songs, art etc yes, and they do survive if not actively supressed, (and
even then, and no borders necessary). Eating or worshipping people etc,
no thank you. Eva Durant
May I propose writing an e:mail message to Simon Geza of the Prime
Minister's information office and describe to him what this and possibly
<soc.culture.magyar> are about. In conjunction with that message, request
him that periodically they should post information of relevance to these
newsgroups. It may be worthwhile also to request a contact point for
various questions which may arise in the future, or even requesting their
participation on these newsgroups to get an idea, what is of concern for
the "scattered" Hungarians and other folks participating on these
It may be a good education for them also to listen in on the "Fifth
Magyar Narancs devoted a full foldout section (8 pages I think) to the
Hungarian (printed) media called "Szerepek e1s zavarok" which has, among
other goodies, a bunch of results from a new sociological survey of
journalists, a long article by Ja1nos Kenedi (this is actually not a goodie
but a baddie in the sense that I found it incredibly long and boring --
full of good will, but boring) and an interview with A. M. Rosenthal,
former editor of the New York Times. The reporter asks (the following
quote is from memory, but true to the gist of both Q and A):
MaNcs: A famous hungarian politician [Dea1k] once said that the law
governing journalism should only contain one sentence -- it is not
permitted to lie. What do you think of that?
Rosenthal: This is the most stupid thing I ever heard. Who decides what's
a lie and what isn't? Very often, this gets determined only long after
the fact, and if everything a journalist puts down to paper must be
guaranteed to be true, no important subject could ever be addressed.
I believe this is perfectly well illustrated by the 168 O1ra case. When
>"mi pedig ne1ha a1rnye1kra ugrunk."] In that case, it [the truth?] will be
>discovered only at the trial and then we will certainly return to the
>subject [this makes as much sense in Hungarian as it does in English!].
the way I understand this (actually, I didn't find it hard to understand
it from E1va's translation) Mester says: maybe this was a false alarm --
this will be determined at the trial. We'll keep our readers informed.
Whether they should excercise greater judgement in fact-checking I can't
say. Just as Mester says investigative journalism is not a well-established
genre in Hungary. The impulse is clearly to err on the side of excess (since
sensational pieces sells papers) and I don't in fact want them to always err
on the side of caution. What I want is a balanced track record, with the
occasional false alarm balanced by the occasional truly sensational coup.