>                          a study in population genetics claiming little
> actual difference in the genetic make-up of these groups/people/nations/
[...]
> 'We report no differences between Ugric speakers in Hungary and Slavic
> speakers to their north and south. This may be due to the assimilation of

        Hugh implied, very neatly, in another thread that while the ethnic
battles are being fought in the realm of cultural constructs, they employ
evidence as if it were stripped of its cultural guise. The following
quotation is from a book coming to slightly different conclusions from
the paper quoted above. But that is not the puropse of the following quote.
The book's (i.e. the following quotation's) last paragraph is an enlightened
example of a clear refusal to play this game, and of a contribution to
the construction of a culture which gives priority to appealing ethical
values, without dressing them up as self-evident or logical conclusions
derived from uninterpreted (historical, genetic...) facts.


Martin


-----------------


From:   A. Czeiczel, et al, (1991) Genetics of the Hungarian Population
        [...] Berlin: Springer.

p. 333: "7. The genetic distance between the Hungarian reference population
and the reference population of _Slav_ was the shortest. The data of genetic
markers was compiled from the Czechs, Polish and Russian studies. However,
the genetic distances are higher between Hungarina ethnic groups and Slavs
than between Germans and Slavs, except the Budapest inhabitants.

        "Unfortuantely, it was not possible to find enough genetic marker
data on other populations in neighboring countries (e.g. Rumanians). Hence,
it was impossible to make comprehensive studies.

        "It does not seem to be an exaggerated statement that now the
populations of Central Europe have very similar genetic make-up. The
study of ecogenetic traits [...] and of lactose digestion capacity [...]
also resulted in a data set which indicate[s] that the present Hungarian
population is similar to other Central-European populations not only
culturally but also genetically.

        "Our findings may engender some thoughts which are not necessarily
without political overtones. In the past, the historical events included
much hostility and many wars among nations and ethnic groups in Central
Europe. The genetic data indicate a strong kinship among the populations
of these nations and it may help us to establish a good 'phenotypic'
connection as well. It is now time to emphasize common roots, i.e. the
genetic unity in spite of national diversity and political differences
because it may strengthen the bonds of relationships between these
populations of Central Europe."

Hi, Everyone,

Could any of you help me out?  I am trying to locate a couple of lost
cousins in Canada.  The last time they lived in Mississauga.
Is there a bulletin e-mail address that you could provide in that region
or any other ideas to get me started?

Please use the direct e-mail address below for your reply.

Thanks for any help.

Martha  (c/o Stephen)

e-mail: 

Why don't you try Michener's The Bridge at Andau? It's supposed to
be pretty entertaining and good information for people who don't
know that much about Hungarian history.

>
> >"he who joyfully marches to music in rank and file
> >has already earned my contempt. he has been given
> >a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal
> >cord qould fully suffice. this disgrace to civilisation
> >should be done away with at once. heroism at command,
> >senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance,
> >how violently i hate all this..."
>

>         You do, however, profess that the quote expresses your own beliefs.
> Thus, I must ask you:  By hating your own country so greatly that you are
 blind
> to non-revisionistic history and you (perhaps unknowlingly) accept and
> propagate material which often fully coincides with the nationalistic drivel
> written by others, do you not violate your own beliefs?
>

The gist of the quote is NOT hating one's country (where does it say
that??) but hating the idea to be hero/murderer on command/soldier etc.
I don't comprehend the position of individualism when social
conscience is called for, and call of total loss of individuality
(military training) for some mystical national identity...

There are similar schizophen fenomenom in persons, who worry about
the life of embrios, but support speedy executions of all
non-desirables... 

What about eurasians? There is a big racial mixture in China - I
don't know how many different languages, same in India, with a
high variation of skincolour/languages/writing, you will have difficulty
in finding your typical ethnic representative.
I agree, that mixing did not go on in the past as much as elsewhere,
must be due to  strict cast-type systems, major brake on progress,
don't you think? 


>
> China has 20% of the worlds population, and I'm not aware of an Chinese of
> African, Indian, or European descent.  Clearly Chinese, and Indians (anout
> another 20% of the world) are each of one racial group - I expect no one
> will claim that a Chinese or Indian/Pakistanie cannot with very high
> probability be identified by their physical characteristics.
> If 40% of the world's people can be defined by racial features, then
> racial features are a reasonable basis on which to discuss those, and other
> people.
>
> Paul

>
> On Thu, 5 Jan 1995 23:44:15 GMT > said:
> >
> >my opinion but not my words:
> >
> >"he who joyfully marches to music in rank and file
> >has already earned my contempt. he has been given
> >a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal
> >cord qould fully suffice. this disgrace to civilisation
> >should be done away with at once. heroism at command,
> >senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance,
> >how violently i hate all this..."
> >
> --Are we to take this as your opinion of the rest of us on this list?
>
> Charles

Akinek nem inge, ne vegye magara...
(If not your shirt, don't put it on)

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

>
> On Thu, 5 Jan 1995 18:49:32 EST paul said:
> >Imre wrote:
> >
> >>if we are to be proud of the achievements of our forebears, then we must
> >>also be ashamed of their misdeeds and accpet responsiblity for the
> >>mediate consequences of their actions. ancestors are a package deal.
> >>they come warts and all.
> >
> >>to select only parts of their legacy as legitimate and to disallow
> >>the rest is basking in reflected glory ad, as such, gross hypocrisy.
> >
> --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
> Joshua Loth Liebman wrote some years ago, "Love is not blind.  Love
> sees all.  But because it sees all, it is willing to see less."  None
> of our ancestors were perfect--and we ourselves may not be either.  I
> think you guys may expect too much of the human condition.
>
> Charles

On Fri, 6 Jan 1995 11:38:17 +0000 Eva Durant said:
>>
>Akinek nem inge, ne vegye magara...
>(If not your shirt, don't put it on)

--Welcome back from holiday, Dear Average Sister Eva!  I see that
you return filled with the vitriol--er, milk of human kindness and
at the top of your game.

Charles
Kook, First Class

On Thu, 5 Jan 1995 21:19:26 EST paul said:
>
  Clearly Chinese, and Indians (anout
>another 20% of the world) are each of one racial group - I expect no one
>will claim that a Chinese or Indian/Pakistanie cannot with very high
>probability be identified by their physical characteristics.

--Using only the old-fashioned Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negroid
categories, the Chinese would be considered Mongoloid and the
Indians and Pakistanis would be Caucasian.  But this isn't a very
sophisticated way to do it Paul, and I think that most anthropologists
would not want to defend it.  Within China, there are many ethnic
differences and I can remember a time when the Han Chinese were
somewhat disdainful of the Mongols.  Americans particularly are
infamous for their inability to distinguish between Chinese and
Japanese and this has caused a certain amount of annoyance for
these groups.

As for India, there are several ethnic and religious groupings not
caste-based (although those differences are there as Sister Eva
correctly points out), e.g., the Zoroastrians, who are historically
Indian, but consider themselves to be different because of their
religion.  I doubt if you could tell a Zoroastrian--who are Parsi--
from other residents of the country, but the Parsi consider the
difference important.

In short, I would respectfully question the use of "racial features"
as a useful way of discussing either the Chinese or the residents of
the Indian subcontinent.

Charles

>
> --Welcome back from holiday, Dear Average Sister Eva!  I see that
> you return filled with the vitriol--er, milk of human kindness and
> at the top of your game.
>
> Charles
> Kook, First Class

Average?????
Now say altogether: I am unique! (Monty Python)

> correctly points out), e.g., the Zoroastrians, who are historically
> Indian, but consider themselves to be different because of their
> religion.  I doubt if you could tell a Zoroastrian--who are Parsi--

I thought Zoroastrians were persian*, is that the same as parsi?
(*Gore Vidal: Creation)

On Fri, 6 Jan 1995 14:08:48 +0000 Eva Durant said:
>>
>
>Average?????
>Now say altogether: I am unique! (Monty Python)

--I used to refer to you as Beloved Sister Eva, but noted that this
made you sound like a nun.  You replied that you were only an average
sister, but would make a very poor nun.  Hence, I switched to Average
Sister Eva.  But I agree that you are unique.  Not many people who
live in the 20th century embrace 19th century worldviews so enthusiastically.
Perhaps I should call you Anachronistic Sister Eva.

Charles
Kook, First Class

On Fri, 6 Jan 1995 14:17:44 +0000 Eva Durant said:
>
>I thought Zoroastrians were persian*, is that the same as parsi?

--Yes.  My memory is that Parsi is a Hindi derivative of Persian.  I
had a friend who grew up in India, and she referred to herself as a
Parsi.  You would like her.  She had a similar old-fashioned political
weltanschaung quite similar to yours.  Once, our shop had a pool of
money to use for salary rises.  I asked her if she was going to suggest
that the money go to each according to need.  Her reply is etched in
my memory:  "Hell, no!  I worked my arse off last year!  The raises
should be awarded on merit!"  This was an enlightening insight from
one who had been a socialist.

Charles
Kook, First Class

On Thu, 5 Jan 1995 20:31:00 GMT > said:
>>>
>>--Please read more carefully.  In the first remark I said that it
>>seemed difficult to talk of states before the 15th century.
>>I did not say that it was impossible, but difficult.
>
>what's difficult about it? we learnt about the greek city-states
>in history at high school. the notion of state is similar whether
>it applies to a natoinality or to an urban community. it has more
>to do with tha nature of the organisation of th polity than it
>does with the ethnic composition or geographic extent of its
>sovereignty.

--The key word in your comment is "similar."  A Greek city-state is
to a modern nation-state what a Model T Ford is to a 500 series
Mercedes.  It is difficult to compare a Model T to a Merc, but
they have similarities.  Further, the Greek city-states were not
uniform, were they?  Athens was supposedly a democracy, although of
its roughly 120,000 residents the only citizens were the 40,000
males.  Sparta was a monarchy or a military dictatorship, take
your choice.
>
>
>>Translanting the Greek "polis" as state is done in order to make
>the term
>>intelligible to more modern readers.
>
>how do you propose it be rendered more accurately? why?

--Not necessary.  This distinction is usually covered in intro
history courses and the easiest way to handle it is to use city-state--
which is admittedly close to being a non-sequitur--and nation-state.
>
>                                       Each polis was separate,
>>and they often fought each other.
>
>that is why they are called city-states.

--Because they fought each other?  I don't think that was why.  I
hate to be a nit-picker, but that is the correct response to your
sentence structure.

>sure! if anything, the rise of nationalism(s) is the consequence of
>people considering themselves bonded by nationality and seeking
>to organise statehood along national(ist) lines.
>
--By George, I think he's got it!
>>
>but if you consider my seeking consistency and accuracy to be
>nit-picking,
>i can bear the odium --- espeically after last night's verdicchio.
>
--Sorry, we only had jug plonk from the supermarket.

Charles

> Sister Eva.  But I agree that you are unique.  Not many people who
> live in the 20th century embrace 19th century worldviews so enthusiastically.

No, they mostly stick to ideas from just a bit before or after Christ...
So you see, I am about the most modern! By the way, if it works
I do not mind how old it is (ideas in this case, Charles!!).

> my memory:  "Hell, no!  I worked my arse off last year!  The raises
> should be awarded on merit!"  This was an enlightening insight from
> one who had been a socialist.
>
In lot of cases you have to work for a capitalist, even if your
philosophy is socialist. For the time being...
Remember, socialism is about selfishness, you act on your own in-
terest to take over democratically the economy. I told, you,
it is not about good heart and changed human nature. You never
listen...

Date sent:  6-JAN-1995 11:37:05
Hello to everyone whose missed me (and even those that didn't).  My
apologies for not responding to anything for quite some time now:  I have
been ill.  But I'm back home now, and happy (if overwhelmed) to see my
account full to overflowing with interesting things.

On a less cheerfull note, I was very unhappy to read one of Eva Balogh's
postings.  This one was particularly in response to my last posting on the
question of the establishment of Hungary, etc.

I had thought that I was engaging in a friendly debate.  I will refrain
from answering the body of the letter (for reasons I will explain below)
and deal with the ending:

>Once I read your letter more thoroughly I became quite angry, mostly
>because I don't think you know what you are talking about but you say all
>this with such authority.
>
>Eva Balogh

I engaged in this debate, as I engage in most of my debates, with a desire
to both share my learning and learn.  If my analysis ever appears faulty to
anyone, I DEPEND on them to show me why.  It's a learning experience.
Likewise, when I find fault in another person's analysis, I try and explain
why.  I present my arguements in a confident tone.  Should I use a meek and
deferential tone instead?  If I don't have a right to use an authoritative
tone (by Eva's judgement) what right does she have to use a sarcastic tone?
Her letter was laden with "For Pete sakes" and other rude comments.

I respected and still respect her historical knowledge and insight.  I
disagree with some, but I still respect it.  She obviously doesn't respect
me, so I don't see any point in even attempting to answer the letter this
was excerpted from.

                Without the least touch of anger,

                        Thomas Breed
                        

On Fri, 6 Jan 1995 15:40:08 +0000 Eva Durant said:
>No, they mostly stick to ideas from just a bit before or after Christ...

                                         By the way, if it works
>I do not mind how old it is (ideas in this case, Charles!!).

--For shame, Sister Eva. This kind of remark belongs on alt.sex.wierd.

Charles
Kook, First Class

Sziastok,
        I recently picked up a book at 1/2 price books in Houston,
and I would like to confer with the professional historians on the
list as to its "scholarly legitimacy."  The book is called
_National Minorities in Romania: Change in Transylvania_ by
Illye:s Eleme:r.  It is part of the East European Monographs
series from Boulder, which was/is distributed by Columbia
University Press, 1982. I've read about 30 pages so far and it
seems fairly reasonable.   I would appreciate a few "minimally
biased" evaluations of the book, so as to gauge its scholarly
utility for my own purposes.  Ko"szi sze:pen.
Sziastok.
        Chuck

On Fri, 6 Jan 1995 15:49:14 +0000 Eva Durant said:

>Remember, socialism is about selfishness, you act on your own in-
>terest to take over democratically the economy. I told, you,
>it is not about good heart and changed human nature. You never
>listen...

--Actually, this sounds more like Proudhon than Marx.  Marx believed
in government and he and Proudhon split over the issue because Proudhon
didn't.  But Proudhon essentiall followed Christian ethics.  Does this
mean that your conversion is immanent?

Charles
Kook, First Class (I may quit writing this.  Everyone knows it now.)

Eva Durant orites:
>> correctly points out), e.g., the Zoroastrians, who are historically
>> Indian, but consider themselves to be different because of their
>> religion.  I doubt if you could tell a Zoroastrian--who are Parsi--

>I thought Zoroastrians were persian*...
>(*Gore Vidal: Creation)

        Yes, Zoroastrianism started in Persia, and quite a few of the world's
Zoaroasters still live in Iran.  There is quite a large community in India as
well--I might be totally wrong on this one, but I think they are referred to as
Pharsees (Pharisees?).

>...is that the same as parsi?

        I think you mean Farsi.  If I'm not mistaken, Farsi only refers to the
most widely spoken Persian dialect, and not to the people themselves.

        Norb

Dear Norb,

Of course, I will be glad to correspond with your friend's wife. Yes, I don't
think that she would enjoy Eva Durant very much. Unless, of course, she was a
utopian socialist! And there are few of those, nowadays.

Imi Bokor is a very irritating fellow. I admire Charles for his patience. As
you can see, I am not as patient as he is. Normally, I try to be polite to
fellow netters but with him, I just can't help myself.

Udv, Eva

Eva Balogh writes:

>  Imi Bokor is a very irritating fellow.

You must train yourself to delete unread messages from such folks.
Otherwise you may give up on the whole list, or take it out on
the less deserving, etc.

IMHO, deleting like this is no worse than not reading every last word in the
Sunday paper.

If he ever has anything important or original to say, it'll show up
in other folks' repsonses.

--Greg

E1va Durant writes:
> Glen, you are forgetful! You did not see communism in action.
> Please, look at the definitions again, if you don't like labels, at
> least don't use them wrongly.

This definition business always struck me as particularly orwellian: the
true believer reserves the word communism for an ideal state of affairs, and
has to either appropriate the word socialism (used by social democrats the
world over to mean something very different) or use a clumsy circumlocution
"existing socialism" to name the only thing that was ever brought into being
by communists. My last exposure to "scientific socialism" was almost twenty
years ago, but this piece of language manipulation still annoys me. E1va,
just as a favor to me, couldn't you switch to definitions that make it easy
to express what *is* and require a more complex expression to describe what
*might one day perhaps come*?

I suggest we use the term "communism" to name the social order that appeared
in its purest form in the Soviet Union under Stalin and the term "socialism"
to name the social order we see in Scandinavia and elsewhere. This usage
will at least accord with ordinary English, where a statement such as
"Castro turned Cuba communist" means that Castro installed in Cuba a social
system resembling that of the SU under Stalin, not that Castro created a
workers' paradise fulfilling the high expectations of Karl Marx. As for
"communism" in the sense you prefer to use it, it is not at all clear that
such a thing can possibly exist -- the more honest, better thought through,
and in general more appealing social ideal expressed in "Thy Kingdom Come"
has at least been carefully hedged by theologians.

Andra1s Kornai

"And the lion shall lie down with the lamb, but only the lion will sleep well"

Paul argues that 40% of the world (Chinese and [South Asian?] Indians) can be
defined by racial features--

Clealy, Paul and I must inhabit different universes, since neither Chinese nor
Indians "are each of one racial group."  Indians, to start there, are divided
linguistically, but also physically, into *at least* two "racial groups"--
Aryans, who invaded in prehistorical times from elsewhere, and Dravidians, who
appear to have been the indigenous inhabitants.  But that is not even the tip
 ofthe iceberg.

How do you account for the descendants of the Muslim [Mughul] conquerors, who
clearly came from elsewhere and stemmed from a different "racial" group?
What about the tribal peoples in the northeast [Assamese, etc.], clearly of a
different group yet again.  What about the Parsees [as in Zubin Mehta's group],
from Iran?  But why go on?  This is plain silly.

Be1la

Norb speculates on the linguistic connection between Parsi/ee and Pharisee--
there is none, so far as I know, since the term Pharisee is a Gospel (pre-
sumably Greek) term referring to one particular religious grouping in late
2nd temple Palestine, whom the Jews regard as "the rabbis".  I do think that
the term Parsi/ee is an Indian term for those from Persia.  I don't know about
the connection to Farsi, the language, although it should be noted that both
Farsi and many (not all) Indian languages belong the same Indo-Iranian sub-
family of Indo-European languages.  So who knows?

Cheers,
Be1la

Subject: Re: fatherland and national pride
From: paul, 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 21:09:47 EST
In article > paul,
 writes:
> d.a. wrote :
>
> > my opinion but not my words:
> > "he who joyfully marches to music in rank and file
>  >has already earned my contempt. he has been given
> > ...
>
> Who wrote this?
>
> Paul


why does it matter?

d.a.

Subject: Re: fatherland and national pride
From: Norb the Hungarian, 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 19:48:20 -0600
In article > Norb the Hungarian,
 writes:
>Imi Bokor writes:


> "he who joyfully marches to music in rank and file
> >has already earned my contempt. he has been given
> > a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal
> > cord qould fully suffice. this disgrace to civilisation
> > should be done away with at once. heroism at command,
> > senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance,
> > how violently i hate all this..."
>
>        I would prefer to debate what's said in the above quote,
but since you
> didn't say it I guess I shouldn't.


the name of the author is irrelevant. the words are not precisely
the
ones i would choose, but the overall opinion: the implacable
opposition to
nationalism and blind obedience, is one i certainly share.


> But, I will say that love of country does
>not necessarily lead to "heroism at command" or "brutality."
>        You do, however, profess that the quote expresses your own
beliefs.
>Thus, I must ask you:  By hating your own country

i do not hate "my" or any other country. i "hate" the deplorable
love-of-country stance".

>so greatly that you are blind to non-revisionistic history and you
>(perhaps unknowlingly) accept and propagate material which often
fully
>coincides with the nationalistic drivel written by others, do you
not
>violate your own beliefs?

could  you provide an instance of where i have done that?

d.a.

Subject: Re: fatherland and national pride
From: Charles, 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 20:30:09 CST
In article > Charles,
 writes:
>On Thu, 5 Jan 1995 23:44:15 GMT > said:
>>
>>my opinion but not my words:
>>
>>"he who joyfully marches to music in rank and file
>>has already earned my contempt. he has been given
>>a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal
>>cord qould fully suffice. this disgrace to civilisation
>>should be done away with at once. heroism at command,
>>senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance,
>>how violently i hate all this..."
>>
>--Are we to take this as your opinion of the rest of us on this
list?
>
>Charles


numerous contributors to this list have frequently read far
more into my postings than have been there.

it has been a source of consternation to have views and
statements attributed to me which are the opposite of my own
on the basis of unsuccessful attempts to "read between the lines"
and successful attempts to false adduce opinions on the basis of
the actual text.

in short, read into what is there as you will at your own peril.
but i do not accept any responsiblity for any conclusions you may
draw through such endeavour, nor for any opinions you may mistakenly
impute me to hold.

i hope i ahve been sufficiently pompous and clear.

d.a.