Date sent:  10-JAN-1995 00:42:57
>
>Tom Breed says:
>
>>If I understand the gist of Jeliko's "Great as in Moravia" message, he is
><saying that the name "Great Moravia" is a misnomer.  What is the point?
>
>Oh, but one cannot be cavalier with historical facts! Of course, it is
>terribly important to know what "great" in this context meant.

Why?  Is it important that the Holy Roman Empire did not at all times
include Rome?  The name "Great Moravian Empire" is used by scholars pretty
much everywhere, whether a misnomer or not, and arguing against it is just
plain nitpicky.

 Jeliko,
>instead of an engineer and businessman, should have been a historian because
>there is strong evidence that he is right.

He does seem to have an amazing knack for history, whether he is right on this
issue or not.

 Unfortunately, I can't think of
>the name of the American-Hungarian scholar who wrote a very interesting book
>about Cyrill and Methodius and the "great" Moravian empire about 20 years
>ago. (Hugh, would you remember the name?) If I recall his contention was that
>Cyrill and Methodius actually were working in the Balkans, around the Morava
>River and not what we consider today Moravia or Slovakia. I don't know enough
>about the period to argue with him or support him. But Jeliko might want to
>read the book.

A lot of other books have been published since then by respected Historians
that have placed it in Slovakia, Moravia, Hungary, etc.  Archaelogy
supports it.  Besides, why on earth would Wichen have gone all the way down
to the Balkans, and how did the GME (for lack of a better name :) absorb
Bohemia from so far away?

>
>The second problem with the misnomer that it is so pretentious and modern
>nationalists can hang on to the notion of a Great Moravian Empire and have
>all sorts of unfounded claims. Maybe Tom you don't understand yet the
>extravagant claims of Central European nationalists. You better start
>learning.

Eva, don't patronize me.  I'm not an idiot.  Yes, some nationalists claim
wild things about the Great Moravian Empire.  Others take part in Slav
bashing.  Neither group should rely influence how we label an area
historically.  If they do (if we reject the name GME on the grounds that it
supports nationalist viewpoints alone) thdealing with propaganda, not
history.
>
>Tom says,
>
>>All of Northern Europe, from Kent to Krakow, was pretty damn barbaric
>>during the 9th century.
>
>Yes, looking at it from today's point of view.

Also from the viewpoint of Byzantium or Rome, which is what I was basing it
on.

 However, there were
>differences. There was no Hungarian or Slav Boewulf at the end of the 10th
>century. The closest, Song of Igor (of Kiev) was late 12th century. The easter
>n part of Europe was always more backward then the western

And until th5th Century, Southern Europe was far more civilized than the
North.  That was the whole point.  But if you want to be technical,
different parts of Eastern and Western Europe were at different cultural
levels.  Neither East nor West were monolithic.  Paris may have had a
university earlier than Prague, but Prague had one earlier than Glasgow.
Of course, this is getting away from the Middle Ages, but you did say
"always."

Historically speaking, the Great Moravian Empire was a blip.  I don't
support those peoplet.  But I also don't agree with the attitude that has
been taken toward examining the issue.  It looks more like battle lines
than a search for Truth.


                        Thomas Breed
                        

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

Date sent:  10-JAN-1995 01:14:35

>Tom Breed writes:>

What I have read has led me to the conclusion that the Habsburg solution
>(Germanization and Magyarization) was IMHO immoral
>
>First  of all, I wouldn't use the word immoral. It is loaded. I guess if you
>are a firm believer in nation states (which in the East-Central European
>situation is an impossibility) you may express yourself in such terms.

How about the firm belief that people should be allowed to speak what they
wish, and should a Spanish speaker in California go into a government
building, they should be able to find someone who speaks Spanish.
Linguistic divirsity does not have to rip apart nations.  Look at
Switzerland.

 Do you
>really think that the collapse of the Habsburg Empire satisfied the national
>aspiration of these people? No, it didn't. Just look around what's going on
>in the area today.

I never claimed to be a believer in ethnic nationalism.  I won't defend
what has happened in Yugoslavia (though Serbia has had imperial ambitions
for quite a while).  Slovakia and Romania are neither my favorites.  I sort
of like the Czech Republic (despite its flaws), as well as Hungary.
Slovenia has been acting too badly either.
>
>Second, as far as I know, the Habsburgs didn't try to Germanize the empire's
>inhabitants. (Possible exception of Hungary after 1849.) They got rid of the
>Bohemian nobility which revolted against them at the Battle of White Mountain,
> but the decision had nothing to do with nationalism or language.

Linguistic or ethnic nationalism didn't really exist at the time.  Some
Czech nobility did remain, though the quickly Germanized themselves.  That
was a natural process, and it pretty much eliminated the Czech speaking
educated classes.  During the 19th Century, however, some people (Palacky
amoung them) began a Czech language revival.  In the aftermath of 1848, the
Czech language was actively suppressed.  You have, of course, heard of the
Bach system.

>(I, as a
>Hungarian, often wished that the Habsburgs had been strong enough to do the
>same to the Hungarian nobility! In the 20th century the Czech political
>leaders came from the middle class because there was no Czech nobility to
>speak of, while in Hungary, unfortunately, it was the Hungarian nobility
>which remained the political elite all along.)
>
I agree on this count!  The same problem plagued Poland during the
inter-war period.  Unfortunatly, the Hungarian nobles were more numerous,
etc. than the Bohemian nobility.  This strength saved the nobles lives,
hurt Hungary in the long run, but also was part of the reason that Hungary
got the nice deal it did under the Dual Monarchy.  Of course, why would the
Habsburgs have executed the Hungarian nobles?  They weren't heretics AND
rebels.

>Admittedly, the language of the k. und k. army was German, and the recruits
>had to learn enough German to understand their officers. And so what? Wasn't
>it nice that practically all peasant boys who served in the common army (as
>opposed to the home army of Hungary) learned some German?

The army makes sense.  Bureacrats make a little less sense, but can still
be understood.  Banning education in anything but German, though, seems
immoral.

>You say:
>
>>I know it is reading History backwards to judge these policies immoral.
>
>Well, if that is the case, don't hold such views.

Like I said in my original post (though you thoughtfully deleted it), I
wouldn't write anything formal on the issue of whether Magyarization or
Germanization was moral, but I don't see any point in denying my personal
opinions.  All historians have them (even you, I'm sure).  We all read
history backwards, from our perspective, even while we try and stay aloof
and impartial.  The trick is to keep personal opinions and formal work
seperate.  This discussion is not formal, so I can state my beliefs to my
heart's content and STILL be a good historian.
>
>You continue:
>
>>Several times I have noticed you implying that the French Revolution was the
>>birth of Linguistic Nationalism.
>
>First of all, I don't think I used the word "linguistic." Second, this is a
>common place, nothing terribly original with me.

Fine, other people have been in error as well.
>
>As for your contention that
>
>>France did not to my knowledge pursue the Francification of the population
>>(who belonged to many different linguistic groups:  Bretons, Langue d'Oc,
>>not to mention a wholemess of Italians and Germans).
>
>is blatantly untrue. But it was done earlier, before modern nationalism hit
>the world. France began as a small area called the Ile de France and slowly
>but surely took in and assimilated all others around it until modern France
>emerged.

There are still people in Brittany who speak Breton.  There are still
people who speak Langue d'Oc.  In the South, some people say "si" for yes.
If the assimilation was all so successfull, why are they still around?

Secondly, I stated that the French Revolutionary government did not seek to
Francify the population.  While people did assimilate, it was through
natural processes rather than government policy.

Thirdly, my arguement dealt exclusively with Revolutionary France, and the
process of kingdom building and all earlier history is irrelevant.  For
your knowledge, however, the Ile de France did not absorb those areas
surrounding it.  If the French King's personal land had absorbed the lands
he politically had influence over, France would have been a patrimony like
Muscovy, and there would not have developed those important seperations
between public and private sphere.  While some populations near the Ile de
France did assimilate, a glance at a linguistic map of France quickly
reveals that many areas did not.

>That was a normal development, but not in East-Central Europe.

Don't forget that the Wendic lands also fall with East-Central Europe.  The
local Slavic population either died during the crusades, or later
assimilated.  Likewise, several areas in what is now Austria were
originally Slavic, but after the Holy Roman Empire expanded, the local
populations assimilated.

>Reasons are manifold and too complicated to list all. In Hungary's case, the
>Turkish occupation is certainly one factor. Second, Hungary's association
>with the Habsburg Empire and hence the lack of a national king. Third,
>economic backwardness. I am sure there are many others.
>
It's doubtfull whether economic backwardness played a role as long as the
the initial cultural group was more economically backward.  The
assimilation of the Meria in Northern Russia is a perfect example.


                        Thomas Breed
                        

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

( Posted by the sender, not the author, who is local politico, not )
( computer programmer, from the aftersaid Birmingham.  From its tone, )
( I believ that Ujva'gi meant to post it, not by email send me it. I wish, )
( though, that I knew of this ere this Christmas, not after it all is over. )

A Magyar christmas custom, the exact version of which is no longer played
in Hungary is still alive and well in our Hungarian American neighborhood
in Toledo Ohio. Here it is called a " Betlehem Jatek."

For over 100 years ( except for a few years during WWII) this play has
been performed, originally house to house in the neighborhood, and today
at Midnight Mass at St. Stephen's Catholic Church.

The play is a short morality or mystery play that depicts the story of the
angels informing the shepherds that the Christ child has been born and
inviting them to adore the child.

One of the shephards " the Oreg" is  a pagan and at first refuses to pray
to Jesus.

The entire performance is in Hungarian, and all of it, including the songs
have been passed down orally from father to son in our community. The
music for the
songs have never been written down!

The jatek originally came from Abauj Megye. But is no longer performed
there.

Some years ago, with a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts we
produced a 16 mm film about the play entitled: Abauj Betlehem: From Father
to Son, An Ethnic Christmas Folkplay.

The film, on video, might be available from your library. The Toledo
Public Library
and The University of Toledo Library have copies.

If anyone is interested I know where you can order reproductions.

There is some great dialogue in the play.

One of the lines by the Oreg ( the pagan) starts as follows:

       Kolbaszos jo estet kivanok kedves gyeremekeim.
       Tik csak isztok, esztek, bagoztok ! S' az oreg apatokra
       nem is gondolkoztok.........

One of the songs begins with:

       Betlehembe jer paytas, jer paytas
       ott majd lesz egy jo lakas, jo lakas.
       Ottan nem kel kapalni, kapalni
       Meg is fogunk bort inni, bort inni.

There are even some religious songs in the play:

       Pasztorok keljunk fel,
       hamar unduljunk el,
       Az angyalok hirdetik,
       A meszias szuletik,
       Keljunk fel,
       Menyunk el.

The idea behind the play was to " instruct the faithful."

The costumes are unique and many of them have also been passed down from
generations in our community.

The Hungarian neighborhood in Toledo, by the way is called " Birmingham",
but than that's another story.

PS Ujvagi

Just to reaffirm: capitalism is an older idea than socialism;
The ancient varieties of it (see Thatcherism) are still fashionable
in some circles - well represented on this list, have a go at them
Charles! 

>
> Proudhon was not MY anarchist, but isn't it true that he and Marx
> split over the issue?  Proudhon seem to have a very idealistic view
> of the human condition and believed in laissez-faire in the extreme.
> He also seems to have believed in the perfectibility of people.

So why do you claim Marxists to hold Proudhonist views? They did
split, I agree... 

> >> >Remember, socialism is about selfishness, you act on your own in-
> >> >terest to take over democratically the economy.
>
> --I think you are confusing socialism with Proudhon's anarchism.
> Whatever socialism is, it involves centralized economic planning and
> public ownership of the basic means of production.

In what way your description opposes mine (above)?
For your interest, more successful multinationals now do
more planning, than the Stalinist stases did. Neither is workable
ofcourse, as the planning is/was not done democratically by the
wider strata of workers/consumers. (the multinationals can work
better as they use computer technology for their planning)

excuse me eva, imi, greg, chuck and bill!

what! are you all discussing here? is it the enigmatic essence of neo-Haps-
burgs or Nagy Imre? I am sincerely lost in this thread!

recently some of you disliked my butting-in to a private little chat, i even
caught a personal admonition from Paul about "netiquette" cause' i failed to
add relevance to a discussion, some of you also criquetted me for suggesting
that you take personal stuff away from here (as though i don't know the
difference!)

all i'm asking is for clarification about why you are arguing about being
irritating to each other? Seems to me that a language which has NO WORD for
"explain" has many other deep problems than to get sucked into minor
historical debated about anti's or pro's. History, ala Popper clearly reveals
the cultural dilemmas endured & linguistic development/changes demonstrates
that these cultural changes where less engineered than serindipitously (sp?)
generated by their own cultural times. So what's the heat about eva being
written in lower case?

let's give each other a little breathing room. invite new people into your
circle of discussion about hungarian history... you might even coalesce to
argue against a non encyclopedic sra'c who still believes in the teachings of
the piarists about how this all happened... but never if you keep you doors
slammed and pitifully argue to put each other down... that's all...

udv emil


 wrote:
: Yes, Imi, I do find you irritating and not because you kept writing my name
: in lower case. I don't like your style: your incessant repetitions, your
: ridiculing people with whom you disagree, your contrariness, and, yes, your
: vicious anti-Hungarian pronuncements. The fact is that all nations,
: especially in our area, have done things to their neighbors at times which
: were not exactly honorable. But, believe me, the non-Hungarians were not a
: whit better than the Hungarians. Your always taking the other side is doing
: a disservice to historical truth.

: Eva Balogh

Dear Fellow-listmembers,

Thomas Breed suggests linguistic nationalism wasn't characteristic of the
French Revolution.  I agree that the Jacobins didn't dress up their project
in the sort of Romantic Herderian pathos that the next generation (especially
in Germany and elsewhere in CEEur) did when they practiced linguistic
nationalism, but indeed, indeed it was _very_ much a characteristic of the
French Revolution (at least in its Jacobin version) that it vigorously
promoted French against the patios and other languages of the citizens of
France.  That they, and their successors whether Bourbon, Orleanist,
Bonapartist or Republican had hard going of it (see Eugen Weber's _Peasants
into Frenchmen_) doesn't mean that it wasn't part of their ideology that
good citoyens spoke French, and only counterrevolutionaries used Breton,
Occitan, etc.

The now-superseded but pioneering historian of nationalism, Carleton Hayes,
even included a category of "Jacobin" nationalism in his still-influential
typology.

The "French" version of nationalism started with a well-defined state,
in which the nation then had to be created (by this process, pursued with
vigor by the Jacobins, of making "Frenchmen" out of peasants); in the "German"
version before a state could be created and centralized, the "nation" had
to be homogenized (Kedourie's book goes into some of the intellectual
genealogy of this process).

One of my former students once suggested that the Hungarian case combines
some aspects  of both:  a state existed, in which, however, the Hungarian
political class applied "imported" German linguistic nationalism to try
to assimilate the linguistic minorities ("national" minorities, if you
prefer, though that terminology shift was only then occurring, and maybe is
itself part of the whole story).  Though (espcially after 1867, at least for
a while) some attempt was made to create state legitimacy through the French
style "civic equality" before the law, nevertheless the feudal social
structure was to a great extent preserved, together with the political
power of the traditional ruling groups.  Meanwhile the minority elites (intel-
ligentsia) adopted the same "German" style program of linguistic mobilization
to "homogenize" their own nations and "awaken" them to the principle that
they had a right to self-determination in a state of their own (breaking up
the state unity of the old Hungary).

I recently read what I thought was an excellent article by David Daniel on
the Slovak situation at the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century,
in which he argued about the policies of linguistic assimilation, not
using the term "immoral" but asserting that they were stupid and in the end
a failure, contributing eventually to the breakup of the state they were
supposed to homogenize.  Meanwhile, other policies followed by the Hungarian
governments in the later decades of the old and the first years of the new
century were in fact hastening the development of the Slovak nation (he takes
gentle issue, btw, with Seton-Watson's contention that the number of
nationally conscious Slovaks in 1914 amounted to only a few hundred --certainly
a wonderful, pathetic image for a particular type of nationlist ideology, but,
he says, strongly exaggerated).

There was an interesting commentary in today's _Lidove noviny_ by the Czech
medieval specialist Dusan Trestik on the celebration by Cardinal Archbishop
Vlk of a special commemorative mass in Bavarian Regensburg on the anniversary
1150 years ago of the conversion of 14 "dukes" of the Czechs to Christianity
at the court of Ludwig the German.  He had a few things to say about the kind
of perception of identity and understanding of history that such events
reflect, that were not entirely irrelevant to what has been going on in this
thread here...

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

I only noticed an objective and at time skeptical stance, I
thought both traits positive for any discussion.



>
> Yes, Imi, I do find you irritating and not because you kept writing my name
> in lower case. I don't like your style: your incessant repetitions, your
> ridiculing people with whom you disagree, your contrariness, and, yes, your
> vicious anti-Hungarian pronuncements. The fact is that all nations,
> especially in our area, have done things to their neighbors at times which
> were not exactly honorable. But, believe me, the non-Hungarians were not a
> whit better than the Hungarians. Your always taking the other side is doing a
> disservice to historical truth.
>
> Eva Balogh

On Monday, January 9, Charles wrote:

{deleted}

Ch> but I do believe that the
Ch>Left has very little to offer and is stuck in the 19th century.  When
Ch>someone, usually a West European Social Democrat, drags his or her
Ch>party, kicking and screaming, into the 20th century, the rest of the
Ch>Left screams "Revisionist!"  I think that there is a responsible
Ch>conservatism that is not anti-democratic or anti-human.  But this
Ch>is too long, so I'll quit.


     I consider myself of the left, but I rely on neither Proudhon nor Marx
except the way people 'rely' on Adam Smith or Ricardo or Malthus or Hobbes
or Mill or Hayeck.   C. Wright Mills is probably the closest of the people
whom I consider an important  influence and who relies on Proudhon or Marx
a bit. What is nineteenth century about Noam Chomsky (_The Engineering of
Consent_), for example, or Eric Wolf (_Europe and the People Without
History_) or Peter Worsley  (_Three Worlds_), or Emanuel Wallerstein (World
Systems), to name a couple more?

      I respect Marx for being one of the three founders (with Max Weber
and Emile Durkheim) of the scientific study of society.   Of course, his
conception of 'science' was not the same as the French Positivists', whose
perspective came to dominate 'actually existing socialism' (a term coined
by Rudolf Bahro, a philosopher from the former DDR).  Marx's concept of
'science' had two elements which makes it still attractive to me.  1)  It
was more in tune with the German concept of "Wissenschaft" which
acknowledges systematic thought about history, language and philosophy as
capable of being 'scientific'  2)  science does not consist of the body of
true facts, but on the contrary, is a process of ascertaining reality by
constant trial and error through practice informed by theory - PRAXIS.  (I
heard they tought this in the party schools, but until Gorbachev, no one
seems to have thought to apply it).  Thus those who complain that his
"prophecies" failed to come true, either deliberately or out of ignorance
misunderstand him.  His position was amazingly close to American Pragmatism
in being dynamic (that is viewing the world in terms of organic process and
not mechanistically) and in being results oriented ("Philosophers have
explained the world in various ways, the point, however, is to change it!")
 As for his predictions, it seems to me, we will have to wait to see what
the capitalists will do when the next crisis hits after they disassemble
the social safety net everywhere claiming that it is too expensive  (cuts
into profits, that is while the falling rate is still in effect).  Of
course, general ecological collapse may come first, but he couldn't have
anticipated that.

But _it is_ the eve of the Twenty-first Century and we do need new ideas.
While the jury is out about Marx's critique of political economy, it is
clear that command economies work even less well then market economies.
IMHO, Market economies don't work either, else the state would have never
arisen independently in so many different places (Mesopotamia, Egypt,
China, India, South East Asia, Central America, etc).  Free markets never
existed and cannot exist in principle because some rules must exist to make
a market possible and whatever rules are adopted always disadvantege some
players  (see Aesop's fable of the Fox and the Stork).  For this reason
states always arise where market specialization creates enough surpluss to
make banditry profitable, and states always interfere with market
functioning to the benefit of some at the expense of others.

I'll stop now 'cause I'm getting depressed.

Cheers,

Tibor

On Mon, 9 Jan 1995 19:30:40 -0600 Norb the Hungarian said:
>
>>No. Pharisees were a sect of Judaism that started around 200 BC (I think
>>that's fairly accurate, but that's not what's in question here) and
>>basically existed till the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by Titus
>>in AD 70.
>
>        I know that, but either that same term, or one very similar to it, is
>used to describe Indian Zoroasters.
>
To Norb:  The Zoroastrians in India refer to themselves as Parsi.  The
language of Iran is called Farsi.  Confusing, but there it is.

Charles

>
> But _it is_ the eve of the Twenty-first Century and we do need new ideas.
> While the jury is out about Marx's critique of political economy, it is
> clear that command economies work even less well then market economies.

I cannot see why do you think command economy is the only alternative,
especially when the wealth produced now is 100 times at least of
what was produced in most places say in 1917, even in the 3d world.
Nice and instructive piece otherwise, thank you...




> IMHO, Market economies don't work either, else the state would have never
> arisen independently in so many different places (Mesopotamia, Egypt,
> China, India, South East Asia, Central America, etc).  Free markets never
> existed and cannot exist in principle because some rules must exist to make
> a market possible and whatever rules are adopted always disadvantege some
> players  (see Aesop's fable of the Fox and the Stork).  For this reason
> states always arise where market specialization creates enough surpluss to
> make banditry profitable, and states always interfere with market
> functioning to the benefit of some at the expense of others.
>
> I'll stop now 'cause I'm getting depressed.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tibor

On January 9, >Charles ) wrote about Proudhon:


Ch>I suspect that if he were alive today, he would join what we call here
Ch>in America the Libertarian Party.  This is a group that wants to
Ch>abolish most of the government and legalize nearly everything that is
Ch>currently illegal, e.g., drugs.

Methinks you are a bit off track.  Wasn't this the man who observed (or
stated the analytic truism) "Property is theft"?   Proudhon advocated
"Mutualism", the idea that associations of workers should own the factories
they work in and (con-) federate.  Not a half bad idea.  While if he were
alive now, he might agree that drugs should be legal (why not, color tv is)
he definitely would not endorse the unlimited greed based "Fountainhead"
style libertarianism of the Libertarian Party.


Tibor

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this so please pardon me if
this message is inappropriate here.  I am trying to identify a Hungarian
military medal.  The top is an enamel representation of a red ribbon with
the words "KIVALO DOLGOZO" written in silver.  The A and O in the first
word have vertical marks above them.  The last O in the second word also has
a vertical mark.  Connected to this bar by two gold chains is a red plastic
star set on a gold background.  Centered on this star is a gold wreath topped
by a red star.  Centered in this wreath is a shield in the colors of the
Hungarian flag (a red stripe on top, white in the middle and green on the
bottom).  Can anyone translate the words to English or identify the purpose
of this medal?  Thanks.

                        Jon Paul Olivier
                        

>Concerning Ho1man-Szekfu3 and the poor soil of parts of the Great Plains, I
>am afraid I am going to stick to my old guns.
Good for you I would have expect nothing less.....<g>
                                                                   >The
Turkish armies didn't ruin
>the soil. In most of the area the Turks simply collected taxes; the Hungarian
>nobles, for the most part, left, but the peasants stayed. The poor soil of an

Eva could you please address for me the *well known* practice of stealing the
children and forcing captured men into the Turkish ranks and making Janisaries
of the taken children.

I don't believe the soil was spoiled by the Turks either.  I do believe the
people
of the time believed the Turks had spoiled the soil and they thought that for
goods reason, even if mistaken.  Correct me if I'm wrong but it's pretty
hard to
til the soil when dead or missing or even wounded......<G>  It's also pretty
hard
to reap when you could not sow.   It's even harder to eat the food the Turks
took
to feed their army.   I'm not aware of the existance of any grocery list of
that
time that would demonstrate the Turkish army shopping at home.   I believe the
idea of the Turkish muscle flexing of that time was to feed the empire,
plain and
simple.....

>area cannot be blamed on invading armies. The Great Plains of Hungary
>couldn't have been a heavily forested Canaan in 1526 and a hundred years
>later, a desert full of sand. You can blame a lot of things on the Turks but
>not that.
I can see where people would have thought it.  Remember they did not have
the luxury of our hindsight.  As a consiquence this belief has worked it's way
down through the ages and it surfaces from time to time as with Holman
Szekfu.  But would you not agree that aside from the example you posted
they were as good as any and considering all the revisionist/politicaly
motivated
texts released over the years they were better than lots.

>r chronology, I was speaking before and after the Turkish occupation.
>
>Quoting me,
>>>most important thing is to be objective and not to put your own nation
>above
>>>others. It is that kind of nationalism which I find abhorrent.
>
>Pali claims that we, in fact, must not be objective. We have to put our

No.....!    I don't disagree with objectivity.    I disagree with your idea of
objectivity.   Your objectivity has an agenda of not putting you and yours
before them and theirs.  It's not that it wouldn't be nice.  It's just that you
r
agenda is bankrupt and unworkable when dealing in the real world.....
How would NOT putting a nation first help fend off the 14th century
Turks...?
Your objectivity is pretty and  comes in a shiney wrapper but it melts when
you touch it and rots your teeth.  I'm talking about survival and getting it
done.

Tell me how being objective PLUS not putting you nation above others would
help save a nation from invasion.  How would it feed it's children and protect
it's property.

If you realy want to talk about objective then drop your agenda...!!!

The most important thing IS to be objective and take care of you and yours
so you can live and be strong and as a result helpful to those less fortunate.
The grave yards are full of good intentions.  It's impossible to count the
numbers
of people good intentioned to death by people who knew better.  I see it as a m
y
responsability to take care of me  first so I can be strong and healthy and
help
those that can't help themselves.  Good intentions are just NOT enough.

>Eva Balogh


Pal Gyoni
#########################################
         Pal Gyoni  (  )
                 \/\/arm Greetz Everyone.......
*****************************************
            Lost somewhere on the InterNet.......
         If you should find me, tell me....hehe....
#########################################
       _/ _/ _/   _/          _/       _/   _/    _/ _/
      _/      _/ _/_/        _/       _/  _/   _/     _/
    _/ _/ _/   _/  _/      _/       _/_/     _/     _/
. _/           _/_/ _/    _/    _/ _/  _/   _/     _/
_/           _/       _/ _/ _/ _/ _/    _/   _/_/

In the last mail Jon Paul Olivier said:
>
> I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this so please pardon me if
> this message is inappropriate here.  I am trying to identify a Hungarian
> military medal.  The top is an enamel representation of a red ribbon with
> the words "KIVALO DOLGOZO" written in silver.  The A and O in the first
> word have vertical marks above them.  The last O in the second word also has
> a vertical mark.  Connected to this bar by two gold chains is a red plastic
> star set on a gold background.  Centered on this star is a gold wreath topped
> by a red star.  Centered in this wreath is a shield in the colors of the
> Hungarian flag (a red stripe on top, white in the middle and green on the
> bottom).  Can anyone translate the words to English or identify the purpose
> of this medal?  Thanks.
>
>                         Jon Paul Olivier
>                         
>
Let me be the first to answer.  Kivalo dolgozo means 'excellent worker'.
It is not a military medal but a medal for success in labour competition.

--
Nigel Swain: 
Tel: +44 (0)151 794 2422; Fax: +44 (0)151 794 2423
Centre for Central and Eastern European Studies, University of Liverpool
11 Abercromby Square, P.O. Box 147, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK

emilwrites:

>  excuse me eva, imi, greg, chuck and bill!

idontknowwhymynameispartoftheabovelistbutletmeputmytwocentsinforstandardenglish

--Greg

Eva Durant writes:
>I only noticed an objective and at time skeptical stance [from Imi Bokor], I
>thought both traits positive for any discussion.

        Are those qualities that you find in yourself as well?

        Norb

Charles writes:
>To Norb:  The Zoroastrians in India refer to themselves as Parsi.  The
>language of Iran is called Farsi.  Confusing, but there it is.

        Ah, ok.  Thanks!  I had Farsi down, but I didn't remember Parsi.

        Norb

Bob writes:

>>the name of the American-Hungarian scholar who wrote a very
>>interesting book about Cyrill and methodius and the "great" Moravian
>>nnempire...
>
>it was Imre Boba: Moravia's history reconsidered; a reinterpretation
>of medieval sources. The Hague, Nijhoff, 1971. A very interesting book
>indeed.

Another interesting book is the standard 18th geography and history reference
text Imago Antique Hungariae, which referred to Legend of Maurus, according
to which St.Svorad-Andrej and St. Benedict had lived at the Zobor monastery
in Nitra and were buried in the church of St. Emeram in Nitra, which
the Carolingian chronicler of the X century mentioned as having been
consecrated by Archbishop Adalram of Salzburg and in which the last Moravian
king had been buried. Legend of Maurus was written by Bishop Maurus (of Pecs,
cannonized a saint), who had lived at the Zobor monastery in Nitra.

The Legend of Maurus was well known throughout most of medieval Europe,
and was widely copied in the scriptorias of Benedictine monasteries throughout
Europe since the 11th century, particularly in the Zobor Benedictine monastery
of St. Hypolitus in Nitra, but also in a 15th century Kodex of Passau,
which is presently in Munich, another in a monastery of the Rouge Cloitre
(Rubrae Vallis) near Brussels, from the late 15th century. Another from
the 15th century is located in Korssendock near Maastrich in Belgium.
>From the XV century onward Maurus's Legend of St. Svorad-Andrej and Benedict,
belonged amongst often published medieval literary histories and is included
in the collection Legendae Sanctorum regni Hungariae (Legends of saints
of the kingdom of Hungaria) published in Strassburg 1484 and 1486, also
published in Venice 1488 and 1512.

In 1511 it was also published in Dlugosz's edition of Polish, Czech, Hungarian
and other legends. In 1572 it was published in Vitae Sanctorum and a critical
edition of the legend appeared in Antwerp in 1725, another in Venice in 1748.
The Jesuits of Trnava published it in 1745. Endlicher published it in 1849.
R. Holinka published it in the magazine Bratislava in 1934. Slovak translations
of the Legend of Maurus appeared in the collection Legenda I. (Trnava 1879),

Tony

Hugh Agnew writes:

>There was an interesting commentary in today's _Lidove noviny_ by the Czech
>medieval specialist Dusan Trestik on the celebration by Cardinal Archbishop
>Vlk of a special commemorative mass in Bavarian Regensburg on the anniversary
>1150 years ago of the conversion of 14 "dukes" of the Czechs to Christianity
>at the court of Ludwig the German.  He had a few things to say about the kind
>of perception of identity and understanding of history that such events
>reflect, that were not entirely irrelevant to what has been going on in this
>thread here...

Hugh, would you care to elaborate a bit on the article?

Tony

Charles in response to Greg:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 1995 09:39:09 -0800 > said:
> >
> >Or "classic liberal".
> >
> --That, too.  Right.

> Charles
I guess the "classical democrat" was an Athenian slave owner,
a "classical liberal" the French noblemen who did not know enough about
farming, and then a "classical socialist" is Jesus Christ", the first ape
that had tools was a "classical capitalist", and the first ape that used
the other guy's tools was the "classical communist". and the "classical
conservative" was the the whatever on the evolutionary ladder that
claimed that each should make their own tools.
(Imi, please do not correct on the basis of what is in the Britannica!)
and just for our "special friend" the "first Hungarian" was a Slovak.
Back to work,
Regards,Jeliko.

Tony writes:   (most deleted)
> The Nograd county authorities in 1831 established the "Nemzeti
Inte1zet",
> whose established goal was the "widening of the Hungarian language with
> *ALL POSSIBLE MEANS*" ("A honi nyelvnek minden alkalmatos mo1dokkal
valo1
> terjeszte1se").

Was this the Hungarian Matica?

Jeliko.

Jeliko writes:

>Now Tony, there is no original of that Holy See letter, is there? There is a
>letter claimed in the Vitae but there is no original. Beside which by the

Interesting that you'd choose to dispute the Vitae as well. Whether its
original or had been drafted from the original is difficult to ascertain,
however the Cyrilo-Methodian tradition transcends the letter itself.

>time of the letter Rastislav was turned over by Svatopluk to the Franks and
>the Bishop in Nitra was Wiching the Swabian.

The aristocracy was trying to germanize as fast as they could and a Swabian
was therefore quite acceptable to the ruling circles, however Wiching was
named as a suphragan bishop to the Archbishop Methodius.

>In his "On the breakdown of the Carolingian Empire" for the year 890,
>he jotted:
>"In the year of the incarnation of the Lord 890, King Arnulf handed the duchy
>of the Bohemians to Zwentibold, the king of the Moravian Slavs (I hope you

The existance of Moravia is not dependent upon having the Bohemian duchy
pay tribute to "king of the Moravian Slavs". Rastislav, Svatopluk and Kocel
sent legates to Byzantium in 862 saying "we Sloveni". It was in answer to
Rastislav's Svatopluk and Kocel's request that the Cyrilo-Methodian mission
was undertaken in 863, so the accession of the duchy in 890 was not the
key factor to putting Moravia on the map of the IX century.

>know who this Zwentibold is, his other alias was Svatopluk, the guy who
>captured and turned over Rastislav to  King Louis II of the East Franks in
>870 and submitted himself as fief in 874) The Bohemians had heretofore had a

Rastislav meant to depose Svatopluk as heir, because Svatopluk allied Nitra
with the Franks, but Svatopluk learned of the plan and managed to preemt it,
thereby gaining favor with the Franks, who were in any case contesting
the Holy See's influence (re-affirmation of the Slavonic liturgy for Pannonia,
taking GMEmpire and its ruler under Papal protection and the establishment of
the first bishophric (of St. Method in Nitra) with Wiching as a suphragan.

>prince of their our kindred and tribe and had maintained a fealty they had
>promised to the kings of the Franks without violating that agreement. Arnulf
>did this because, even before he was raised to the summit of the realm, he
>had been joined with Zwentibold in intimate friendship. In point of fact,
>Zwentibold lifted the son. whom Arnulf received from a mistress, out of the
>sacred font and had him called by his own name Zwentibold. The elevation of
>Zwentibold, however, provided considerable stimulus for discords and
>defection. For the Bohemians, on the one hand, abandoned the fealty they had
>kept so long, and Zwentibold, on the other believing he had gained much
>strength by the addition of another kingdom, puffed out with conceit and

In effect, King Arnulf handed the duchy of the Bohemians to Svatopluk in 890,
the Bohemians payed tribute to Svatopluk, who however refrained from paying
tribute to Arnulf, who sought to collect it, etc ...Not mentioned is the fact
that the Eastern Franks sought independence from the Holy Roman Empire, in
which Svatopluk actively supported them with considerable success.
Later when HREmpire prevailed over the Eastern Franks, Svatopluk took in
the frankish dissidents thereby gaining disfavor with Arnulf, etc..

>pride, rebelled against Arnulf. (So the start of ...GME can be
>approximated as 890, when Zwentibold rebells against the boss previous to
>that date from the Forchheim treaty in 874, he was fief of the East Franks)

The existance of GME is not dependent on when the Bohemians started paying
tribute to Svatopluk, rather most historians depict the joining of the
Morava and Nitra principalities in 836 under Mojmir, who was Rastislav's
predecessor. Rastislav maintained independence of the Eastern Franks for
years only to see Svatopluk (his heir apparent in Nitra) form an alliance
with the Franks, so he tried to sack him, but in any event the question of
the Bohemian duchy coming into Svatopluks domain in 890 is irrelevant
to the formation of Great Moravian Empire in 833-836.

Tony

>  I guess the "classical democrat" was an Athenian slave owner,
>  a "classical liberal" the French noblemen who did not know enough about
>  farming,

I suppose you're joking, or playing literalist word games.  "Classic
liberal" does mean something different from liberal and conservative,
at least the way we use (in USA) those terms today.

--Greg


In the 1956 preface to Road to Serfdom FA Hayek wrote:
----
   I use throughout the term "liberal" in the original, 19th-century sense
in which it is still current in Britain.  In current American usage it often
means very nearly the opposite of this.  It has been part of the camouflage of
leftish movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who
really believe in liberty, that "liberal" has come to mean the advocacy of
almost every kind of government control.  I am still puzzled why those in the
United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the
left to appropriate this almost indispensable term but should even have
assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium.  This seems
to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendancies of many
true liberals to describe themselves as conservatives.

   ...True liberalism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is danger
in the two being confused.  Conservatism, though a necessary element in any
stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic,
and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than [to] true
liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often
mystical propensities it will never, except in brief periods of disil-
lusionment, appeal to the young and to all those others who believe that some
changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place.

A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of
established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection
of privilege.

The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege,
if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state
granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms
to others.

Norb the Hungarian writes:
>
> Jan George Frajkor writes:
> >   In case you have not looked at any maps recently, or at least since
> >not since before 1918, quite a few of the occupied did try to
> >resurrect their occupied states, (1848 et seq are the most obvious
> >dates that come to mind) but they also succeeded (1918, 1945 come to
> >mind).
> >  They are called Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Romania, Slovakia and once
> >upon a time even Ruthenia or Carpatho-Rusynia.
>
>   History according to a journalist (IOW, from the same people who
have brought us the 1000-year-old-ethnic-conflict theory of
the present Southern Slav conflict....).....
>
   Please cite when I have mentioned this theory, or for that matter,
when I have discussed the Southern Slav conflict or associated myself
with those who discuss it.

> >   See also Komornik's history on the Slovakia Document Store re the
> >cyrillo-methodic collective memory.
>
>         History according to a mathematician....

        Hofer worked as a longshoreman but is world-renowned as a
philosopher and social critic.  George Washington and Thomas Jefferson
were farm managers and Benjamin Franklin was a printer, but their
contributions to the world were not in those fields.

      Rhetoricians would describe your rebuttal as 'ad hominem' which
means an attack on the person to avoid an attack on the principles.

   The question is not who said it, but whether what they said is
right.



    Jan George Frajkor                      _!_
 School of Journalism, Carleton Univ.      --!--
 1125 Colonel By Drive                       |
 Ottawa, Ontario                            /^\
 Canada K1S 5B6                         /^\     /^\
       /   
  o: 613 788-7404   fax: 613 788-6690  h: 613 563-4534

Tony ), once again shared with this
Discussion Group his impressive laundry list of the alleged sins of the
Magyars with respect to minorities living in Hungary in times past.
Based on the "data" presented, one would be tempted to conclude that
those Magyars were a bad, intolerant bunch.  Still, before passing
judgement, the accuracy and validity, if any, of the presented
"evidence" needs to be scrutinized. Statements like "Certain teacher in
1910, when ...." can hardly, even under the most liberal
interpretation,  be taken as anything but handwaving. Where can the
"confidential report No. 55" of the Nyitra (note spelling!) High
Commissioner be found? In short, Mr. Pace's allegations would be helped
if he cited complete (!) references, including document/archive numbers,
publishers and where these references can be accessed. Without such
underpinnings, the quoted texts are little more than hearsay, and can
not be taken as serious scholarship.

Also, how credible was G. Beksics and the other cited "authorities"?
Based on our current experience with politicians, some scepticism is in
order. Politicians, especially of the nationalist variety, are not known
for accuracy or balanced points of view.

When the alleged "victims" take charge, do they behave better than their
alleged former victimizers?  Who is entitled to the moral high ground?
The Benes Decrees and the deportations in Slovakia, the ethnic
cleansing  of the Hungarian population in Voivodina after the Second
World War with an estimated 40,000 Hungarian civilians murdered, as well
as the atrocities of Manescu in Transylvania are constant reminders that
ethnic intolerance is neither temporally nor ethnically circumscribed.
Tony Pace may want to comment on the current practice of the successor
states to the Austro-Hungarian Empire and their policy with respect to
minorities. Are the policies in force in 1995 in Slovakia, Rumania and
Serbia more humane, human-rights oriented and tolerant toward minorities
than the ones practiced by the Austrians in the A-H Monarchy, or the
Hungarians after the Compromise of 1867?

In the broad historical context, and the practices in Europe of that
time, the era of A-H "oppression" doesn't look so bad after all.


C.K. ZOLTANI

On Tue, 10 Jan 1995 17:15:15 +0000 Dr. N.J. Swain said:
>>
>Let me be the first to answer.  Kivalo dolgozo means 'excellent worker'.
>It is not a military medal but a medal for success in labour competition.
>
>--
>Nigel Swain: 

--I will apologize in advance, but I must tell this story.  Some years
ago, the wife of a diplomat bought a medal in a flea market.  It was
large and bronze and had Chinese writing on it.  It was such an attractive
piece, the woman had it made into a pendant and wore it as costume jewelry
for several years.  One night at a diplomatic reception, she asked a
Chinese diplomat if he could tell her what the characters meant.

"I hate to refuse a request from such a charming lady," he said, "but
please permit me to do so this time."

The lady persisted and finally, in her most charming way, insisted on
a translation.  Reluctantly, the diplomat said:

"Well, all right.  It says 'Licensed Prostitute, City of Shanghai.'"

I know it's not Hungarian, but I just couldn't resist telling it.

Charles

Jeliko writes:

>> The Nograd county authorities in 1831 established the "Nemzeti
>>Inte1zet",
>> whose established goal was the "widening of the Hungarian language with
>> *ALL POSSIBLE MEANS*" ("A honi nyelvnek minden alkalmatos mo1dokkal
>>valo1 terjeszte1se").

>Was this the Hungarian Matica?

Perhaps the Constitution for the Nationalities would be more appropriate.

Tony

On Tue, 10 Jan 1995 09:24:01 -0800 > said:
>emilwrites:
>
>>  excuse me eva, imi, greg, chuck and bill!
>
>idontknowwhymynameispartoftheabovelistbutletmeputmytwocentsinforstandardenglis
h
>
>--Greg

--Amen, Brother Grose.  On this we can easily agree.  Chuck?  Aaaaargh!

Charles

On Tue, 10 Jan 1995 14:41:54 PST JELIKO said:
>
>> Charles
>I guess the "classical democrat" was an Athenian slave owner,

--I think that this is probably a fair statement.

>a "classical liberal" the French noblemen who did not know enough about
>farming,

--And this isn't too far off, either.

 and then a "classical socialist" is Jesus Christ", the first ape

--Whoops!  You've left off preaching and gone to meddling!  I don't
read scripture as an endorsement of socialism.

>that had tools was a "classical capitalist", and the first ape that used
>the other guy's tools was the "classical communist".

--Now you're back on track.

 and the "classical
>conservative" was the the whatever on the evolutionary ladder that
>claimed that each should make their own tools.

--Sounds correct to me.

--Jeliko, I'm not sure that you have enough to do to keep you out of
mischief.

Charles

On January 10 Eve Durant asked:

TB>> But _it is_ the eve of the Twenty-first Century and we do need new
ideas.
TB>> While the jury is out about Marx's critique of political economy, it
is
TB>> clear that command economies work even less well then market
economies.
>
ED>I cannot see why do you think command economy is the only alternative,
ED>especially when the wealth produced now is 100 times at least of
ED>what was produced in most places say in 1917, even in the 3d world.

I didn't say that I thought command economies were the only alternative to
market economies.  The most successful actually existing communist
economies, for example, are Hutterite colonies.  These folks were part of
the Anabaptist (rebaptizing) movement of the reformation:  Christians who
took the verses 32 to 35 of the fourth chapter of the Book of Acts
seriously:

"Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no
one said that any of the things which he posessed was his own, but they had
everything in common...[etc.]"

I've actually visited one of their colonies, and they seem to work fine.
Infact, many Canadian provinces have laws restricting their right to buy
land close to their colonies, because they are seen as competing "unfairly"
with individual farmers.   Only goes to show that free enterprisers believe
in competition only when they are winning.  Other examples of successful
alternatives include the co-operatives in northern Spain that the
anarchists founded and are still manufacturing refrigerators and kitchen
ranges and such, The Farm where Steve Gaskin's merry band of hippies
retreated to when the slime took over Haight-Ashbury, Salt Spring Island in
B.C. which has a community of independent crafts people, and I could think
of other examples  given time.  In general, though, co-operative
alternatives work when they operate on a small (human?) scale (Cf:
Schumacher, _Small is Beautiful_).   I think the main problem is to figure
out how to stop the capitalists without violence and make them get out of
the way.   I guess until we figure that out, we just have to keep on
keeping on.  Maybe we should also begin a camaign for the right to a
livelyhood.  If personal income were guaranteed as a fixed proportion of
the per capita GDP - say 25% (Financed by  a tax  on all
non-wage/non-salary income)  it would be a good start.  That way, those who
were willing to live simply or were unable to work for any reason whatever,
would remain secure while the labour market would become a buyer's market
rather then the seller's market it now is.

Dream on ! Sigh :-)

Tibor

Tibor Benke writes:

>  In fact, many Canadian provinces have laws restricting their right to buy
>  land close to their colonies, because they are seen as competing "unfairly"
>  with individual farmers.

This is very interesting.  Can you name provinces and cite specific laws?

--Greg

Tony Pacek wrote a very long piece on the nationality issue before 1867.
First of all, I was talking about the nationality law of 1868. Second, as I
told Tony a long time ago, those "laws" he quotes from the late eighteenth
century were no more than pieces of paper. The Diet passed all sorts of
extravagant, romantic stuff about the great Hungarian language but nothing
was really done about it. As for the period between 1849 and 1861-62 Hungarian
 was under direct Austrian control and no Magyarization effort took place.
Also, Tony should keep in mind that I didn't claim that the provisions of the
nationality law were adhered to. In fact, I explain that as time went on, the
law was violated all the time.

Eva Balogh

Imi Bokor writes:

> in the case of "conquest" and "invasion", there seems to have been
> little change in the meaning since at least biblical times. we still
> refer to the conquest of palestine when speaking of events related
> in the old testament. that was the jewish peoples' "honfoglalas",
> which predates that of hungary's by several centuries. is the use of
> the word "conquest" illegitimate in that context as well?

I wonder what is the word used in the oldest extant text?
Jeliko

Eva Balogh writes:

>. The Turkish armies didn't ruin
> the soil. In most of the area the Turks simply collected taxes; the
Hungarian
> nobles, for the most part, left, but the peasants stayed. The poor soil
of an
> area cannot be blamed on invading armies. The Great Plains of Hungary
> couldn't have been a heavily forested Canaan in 1526 and a hundred years
> later, a desert full of sand.

Well, several of the old sources refer to the area as "deserts of the"
whoever was there at the time. That does not indicate to me that it was a
rain forrest. IMHO, in those days "reforrestation" was probably not a
major environmental concern. Thus, I would expect the area to be not too
different before and after the Turkish visit. Also, if it is permitted
these days to be logical in history, non-cultivation (which probably
occurred during the Turkish wars) does not lead to worsening but recovery
of the soil. Of course, when "new" folks were settled, they did not get
the best yielding areas either, and no wonder why the Cumans, etc., were
told that this is the best we have for your settlements. This also
explains why the Hungarian tribes settled near the rivers  and
in the surrounding hill areas originally, and why I am suspicious when
"some" current historians claim that the original settlement was only in
the "Puszta". While, we should not always apply current methodology to
those days, it does not mean that we should assume that the folks in those
days had no common sense.
Regards,JLK.

Eva Balogh quotes and writes:

> Tom Breed says:

> >If I understand the gist of Jeliko's "Great as in Moravia" message, he
is
> <saying that the name "Great Moravia" is a misnomer.  What is the point?

> Oh, but one cannot be cavalier with historical facts! Of course, it is
> terribly important to know what "great" in this context meant. Jeliko,
> instead of an engineer and businessman, should have been a historian
because
> there is strong evidence that he is right.
Sorry, but I am quite happy doing what I am doing. BUT that does not mean
that a careful review of all past work and the evaluation of circumstances
as it is generally done in engineering, should not be also applied to the
"softer" (:-)) sciences like history also.


>Unfortunately, I can't think of
> the name of the American-Hungarian scholar who wrote a very interesting
book
> about Cyrill and Methodius and the "great" Moravian empire about 20
years
> ago. (Hugh, would you remember the name?) If I recall his contention was
that
> Cyrill and Methodius actually were working in the Balkans, around the
Morava
> River and not what we consider today Moravia or Slovakia. I don't know
enough
> about the period to argue with him or support him. But Jeliko might want
to
> read the book.
I have heard about it but never had enough definition to get hold of it.
Of course, the reference of Porphyrogenitus that Moravia was SOUTH of the
Turks is an interesting starting point. Nobody should go very far with a
single reference, whether it is pro or con one's pet theory.

> The second problem with the misnomer that it is so pretentious and
modern
> nationalists can hang on to the notion of a Great Moravian Empire and
have
> all sorts of unfounded claims. Maybe Tom you don't understand yet the
> extravagant claims of Central European nationalists. You better start
> learning.

> Tom says,

> >All of Northern Europe, from Kent to Krakow, was pretty damn barbaric
> >during the 9th century.

> Yes, looking at it from today's point of view. However, there were
> differences. There was no Hungarian or Slav Boewulf at the end of the
10th
> century. The closest, Song of Igor (of Kiev) was late 12th century. The
easter
> n part of Europe was always more backward then the west.

I beg to disagree with our resident historian, because I do not think that
the southern part of Europe or specifically the western was that different
from the rest. From Gregory of Tours description of the early days of the
Frankish domains the turmoils in the three major penninsulas were still
going on and besides the Hungarians, there were Norman and Danish and
other tourists combing the region. Just see the treatment meted out
shortly before to the Saxons by Charlemagne. Some of them, like the
Byzantines and the Franks even kept record of their own fun and games in
exterminating each other. Often, we assume that more stone or brick
buildings were an indication of higher "civilization" but it was also more
difficult to run away and hide from a walled city under siege. So if it
held it was OK, if it failed your goose was cooked and there was always
more possible loot in a city than in the countryside. The same for some
infectious disease breaking out, cities were not fun places to be.
So maybe there were sagas all over the place, where one could brag, it is
a typical behavior of all folks to sit around the fire and recite old lies
with morsels of truth. It is more often by chance that a particurlar
vellum survived with the written version of the stories than by location
of higher culture. Sure, the localization of people started earlier in
some areas than others, but it was probably caused by the loss of freedom
of the workers building the edifices. IMHO, most of them were not
"contract" workers sent out by Manpower Inc. I think it is enough to say
that it was the Middle Ages, maybe a nice place to visit, if one can get
back to the 20th century in a hurry. I am not sure whether I would have
been happier as a peon or plebe rather than a roaming pastor. But I am
straying from the subject.

Regards,Jeliko.

Eva Durant objects to be called a utopian. But what on earth can one call her
when she keeps talking about an ideal communist state still to come a la Marx
and Engels. The only problem with true believers that they can be dangerous.
Lenin and company when they found that "the time was not ripe" got a little
impatient. And you see what happened.

Eva Balogh

Does anyone know if there is a Magyar community in the
Austin, texas area?  I may have a job interview there, and
the job would be more appealing if I didn't have to stop
my Magyar language studies.

Thanks,
        Paul

Eva D. wrote:

>The question was not how much you love your country/folk,
>but if you have reason to think that you are special/chosen/better
>because of them... wasn't it?
>Eva.Durant

>> --Oh, I dunno.  Now that I am older, I respect the good things about
>> my father and prefer to overlook the less attractive features.  Rabbi
>...
>> Charles

Eva, no one said that being proud of your country/folk meant you
think that you are special/chosen/better because of them.  I
actually have gone out of my way to make that point by stating it
in several posting, just so no one got the wrong idea.  My point
was that it is natural and reasonable to take pride in your
family/clan heritage, and to resist mixing with other ethnic groups
if you felt strongly that you want to maintain the uniqueness of
your heritage.  If a Frenchman wants to marry only another ethnic
frenchman, since he wants to raise a French family, that it reasonable
and proper, and there is nothing prejudist about it.  There is a
great difference between wanting to preserve your heritage,
and looking down an another ethnic/racial group.  This seems to me
to be the proper implementation of multiculturalism, since it allows
for a multiculturalism world to continue, rather than the slow
decay of ethnic/cultural/racial distinctions.

It seems to me that people resist this option since they interpret it
to imply some dislike of those not like oneself.  This is completely
incorrect.  What I propose is to respect and/or appreciate other
ethnic/cultural groups, while maintaning your own.  If we learn to
accept and respect others, while maintaining our own heritage, all
cultures and ethnic groups can thrive.  What I oppose is a world-wide
melting pot, to use the American expression, where everything is mixed
and everything is lost.  The concept I advocate has the advantage of
being stable, without the threat of creating one, single, worldwide
culture and ethnic group.  Do we have to lose our cultural identity
in order for groups to avoid killing each other?  I hope not.

Paul

to nferenc..... answering ibokor's ... alias d.a's snipings is a waste of
valuable time and space. I know from experience that the insistent barking of
a lapdog could at times be annoying, but if one ignores the little pests,
they eventually go away.