Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
Copyright (C) HIX
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: History Discussion on or off line? (mind)  6 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: Marx Meat (fwd) (mind)  159 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: Mi a bai a Gayekkel? (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
4 Re: ...not proud of my heritage (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: Marx meat (mind)  5 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: Marx meat (mind)  50 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: Mi a bai a Gayekkel? (mind)  15 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: ...not proud of my heritage (mind)  23 sor     (cikkei)
9 Historical discussion (mind)  18 sor     (cikkei)
10 Re: Correction and further clarification (mind)  49 sor     (cikkei)
11 Re: On the Habsburg Monarchy/and more (mind)  75 sor     (cikkei)
12 Re: Horn, Mrs. Kosa, and the MSZP (mind)  81 sor     (cikkei)
13 Re: Arab info on Hungarians (mind)  60 sor     (cikkei)
14 Re: SZABADSA'GHARC. A word in use in 1956 (samples) (mind)  29 sor     (cikkei)
15 Re: Marx meat (fwd) (mind)  14 sor     (cikkei)
16 Re: ...not proud of my heritage (mind)  13 sor     (cikkei)
17 Re: ...not proud of my heritage (mind)  39 sor     (cikkei)
18 Re: Marx meat (mind)  25 sor     (cikkei)
19 Re: Marx meat (mind)  29 sor     (cikkei)
20 Re: "Uncivil Warfare" in the HUNGARY group (and others) (mind)  41 sor     (cikkei)
21 Re: History Discussion on or off line? (mind)  14 sor     (cikkei)
22 Re: Szekelyek. (mind)  33 sor     (cikkei)
23 Re: Mi a bai a Gayekkel? (mind)  35 sor     (cikkei)
24 Re: Vamossy's Solution for "Faculty Club" name (mind)  29 sor     (cikkei)
25 Sympatico (mind)  22 sor     (cikkei)
26 Re: ...not proud of my heritage (mind)  33 sor     (cikkei)
27 Re: The 1700s (mind)  120 sor     (cikkei)
28 Re: History Discussion on or off line? (mind)  23 sor     (cikkei)
29 Re: % of Hungarian speakers in the USA (mind)  81 sor     (cikkei)
30 Hungarian book sources (mind)  27 sor     (cikkei)
31 Operencia (mind)  35 sor     (cikkei)
32 Re: Kalandozasok (mind)  14 sor     (cikkei)
33 Kalandozasok--more questions (mind)  28 sor     (cikkei)
34 Re: contracts law-- slovak style (mind)  58 sor     (cikkei)
35 Re: ...not proud of my heritage (mind)  50 sor     (cikkei)
36 Re: ...not proud of my heritage (mind)  83 sor     (cikkei)
37 Gay info - France (mind)  23 sor     (cikkei)
38 To Mr.(Dr.?) Elek (mind)  62 sor     (cikkei)
39 Teaching English in Hungary (fwd) (mind)  23 sor     (cikkei)
40 SZABADSA'GHARC. A word in use in 1956 (samples) (mind)  91 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Re: History Discussion on or off line? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)


My vote is, continue on line. I found it most interesting.

+ - Re: Marx Meat (fwd) (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I admit I didn't look up this meself... but that's what
all these people on the internet are for...
So dearest Sam - look for decent sources - better still;
look at what the person says, not who he/she is, even
if your dearest ideas are in question.

Eva Durant (evil as ever, but an evironmentally friendly, bearded
            goatish way)

> Here are some more specific notes on the actual quote you presented, from
> this book by Paul Johnson, "Intellectuals" -- I have never heard of it,
> The Johnson book reads:
> >This was the so-called `Inaugural Address' to the
> >International Working Men's Association, founded in September 1864. With
> >the object of stirring the English working class from its apathy, and
> >anxious therefore to prove that living standards were falling, he
> >deliberately falsified a sentence from W.E. Gladstone's Budget speech of
> >1863.
> First, the purposes was not to show "living standards were falling." Marx
> often argued against the "Iron Law of Wages" and that the absolute standard
> of living of the working class always falls. The point was to draw a
> contrast between the dizzy success of the capitalists and the famous "Blue
> Books" compiled by the London factory inspectors who were fanning out across
> the city. And Capital is loaded with material from those Blue Books.
> Anyway -- On April 16 1863, Gladstone presented the House with a budget
> speech. Here is how Marx quotes Gladstone in the Augural Address of the
> First International (1864):
>     "From 1842 to 1852, the taxable income of the country increased
>     by 6 per cent; in the eight years from 1853 to 1861, it has
>     increased from the basis taken in 1853, 20 per cent! The fact is
>     so astonishing to be almost incredible! ... This intoxicating
>     augmentation of wealth and power," adds Mr. Gladstone, "is entirely
>     confined to classes of property."
> This is how Paul Johnson says Gladstone really spoke:
> > What Gladstone said, commenting on the increase in national wealth,
> > was:
> >
> >     `I should look almost with apprehension and with pain upon this
> >     intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power if it were my
> >     belief that it was confined to the class who are in easy
> >     circumstances.'
> No source is provided by Johnson. Johnson continues:
> > Marx, in his address, has Gladstone say:
> >
> >     `This intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power is entirely
> >     confined to classes of property.'
> About this sentence, a German economist Lujo Brentano wrote a letter on
> March 7 1872 that claimed:
>     "Marx has added the sentence lyingly, both in form and in content."
> This is what started this "controversy." So Johnson writes:
> > Marx gave as his sources the Morning Star newspaper; but the Star,
> > along with the other newspapers and Hansard, gives Gladstone's words
> > correctly.
> Here is what the _Morning Star_ reported Gladstone saying, on April 17 1863:
>     "This augmentation" -- which had just been described as an
>     intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power -- "is an
>     augmentation entirely confined to the classes possessed of
>     property."
> Here, again, is Marx's quote from Gladstone's speech, as provided by Johnson
> himself:
> > `This intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power is entirely
> > confined to classes of property.'
> Here are some more newspaper reports on Gladstone's budget speech of 1863.
> _The Times_ (No. 24535, April 17, 1863), a pro-Gladstone paper, reported:
>     "The augmentation I have described" (namely as "this intoxicating
>     augmentation of wealth and power") "is an augmentation entirely
>     confined to classes of property."
> _The Morning Advertiser_ (April 17, 1863) quoted Gladstone thusly:
>     "The augmentation stated" -- an intoxicating augmentation of
>     wealth and power -- "is an augmentation entirely confined to the
>     classes possessed of property."
> Here's what the London financial community publication _The Theory of
> Exchanges. The Bank Charter Act of 1844_ (London, 1864) reported as the
> quote from Gladstone's speech:
>     "This intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power is entirely
>     confined to classes of property."
> The author of _The Theory of Exchanges_ (T. Cautley Newby), like Marx,
> apparently used as his sources the newspapers, rather than Hansard (the
> record of parliamentary debate, etc.). The anonymous writer (Brentano)
> apparently used only Hansard.
> Hansard, of course, can be changed by politicians. Politicians generally
> find newspapers are somewhat harder to go back and rewrite.
> Johnson, in his under-researched book, then notes:
> > Marx's misquotation was pointed out.
> Just a note...
> It was "pointed out" in a cowardly fashion that should be very familiar to
> those who regularly use the net -- _anonymously_. (The ability to post
> anonymously should be protected, however. That is a separate argument.
> However, it should be noted there was nothing remotely illegal about what
> Brentano was writing here. It was a straight academic question he was too
> cowardly to put his own name on.)
> The mechanism for the delivery of Brentano's anonymous letter was a little
> mag called _Concordia_ -- which billed itself as "Organ of the German
> Manufacturers' Association."
> Marx figured the anonymous person was just some pissed off manufacturer and
> wrote a reply on May 23 1872. So this anonymous writer wrote a reply to that
> reply, called "How Karl Marx Defends Himself" on July 4 1872. Marx again
> replied to the person in _Der Volkstaat_.
> It would later turn out the anonymous person was Lujo Brentano, a sort of
> precursor to social democratic style Keynesians. He didn't like the way this
> Marx fellow seemed to keep suggesting to the propertyless that no one has
> any inherent "right" to the means of social production.
> ("Who the hell says you own that property?" "My father gave it to me."
> "Where's he get it?" "His father gave it to him." "Where'd he get it?" "His
> father fought for it." "I see. Well, now I'm going to fight you for it.")
> > Nonetheless, he reproduced it in Capital, along with other
> > discrepencies, and when the falsification was again noticed and denounced,
> > he let out a huge discharge of obfuscating ink; he, Engels and later his
> > daughter Eleanor were involved in the row, attempting to defend the
> > indefensible, for twenty years. None of them would ever admit the
> > original, clear falsification and the result of the debate is that some
> > readers are left with the impression, as Marx intended, that there are tw
> > sides to the controversy. There are not. Marx knew Gladstone never said
> > any such thing and the cheat was deliberate. It was not unique. Marx
> > similarly falsified quotations from Adam Smith.
> After the above, it's hardly worthwhile to deal with any of this. The
> "cheat" is clear.
+ - Re: Mi a bai a Gayekkel? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

 (George Szaszvari) wrote:

>Hey Joe, excuse my naivete, but I don't get it. Don't bother to explain,
>though, because I'm expecting BBB (Bossy Boots Balogh) to give me (and
>everyone else) a patronizing lecture about what it means.

George, if you don't get it, it's because you're just not interested, or,
you're hanging out at the wrong places.  I'm afraid that if you want any
more info on the matter I'm going to have to write in Latin as I wouldn't
want to offend some of the readers on this list.

Joe Szalai
+ - Re: ...not proud of my heritage (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 11:02 PM 5/15/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
>At 01:28 PM 5/14/96 PDT, Jeliko, responding to a post by Andy Kozma, wrote:
>Please correct me if
>I'm wrong, but wasn't one of Nicolae Ceausescu's great accomplisment the
>elimination of Romania's deficit?

Consider yourself corrected. Ceausescu  eliminated the foreign debt by
pre-paying off all loans. The size of deficit was not known since he very
cleverly "eliminated" the income tax (the income, also - almost).

Gabor D. Farkas
+ - Re: Marx meat (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I have the full quotes now for the correspondence
of Marx, Engels and Eleanor, with the newspaper
articles originals in this topic, if anyone really
wants to know. (Sam?)
Eva Durant
+ - Re: Marx meat (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

> >
> >Eva Durant (non-academic staff, not particularily proud of it)
> >
> Why are you not particularly proud that you're non-academic staff? There's
> not a darned thing wrong with that. You play an important role in making
> the place run.
I've been sarcastic. I think the "segregation" into intellectual,
and non-intellectual is totally artificial and has no useful
function whatsoever, but that is another topic.

> Confining your scope to Marx's work alone is a conscious decision on your
> part to avoid any kind of critical scrutiny by others of that work. If
> that's what you need to maintain the belief system you've built for
> yourself around his philosophy, well, it's a free country.

Back to the old personnal abuse job... When I have the time
besides work and family etc, I try to read extensively.
You brought up this topic, reading somebody else's gossip-
book on Marx, the person. Perhaps you should read the
original, and at last you'll be acquanted with the ideas.
Defining "Marxism" as the USSR et al and repeating this
trillion times, won't answer my points;

> I would be glad to post other excerpts from Johnson's
> work. Apparently the apple does not fall far from the tree when dealing
> with true believers in the Marxist religion.

The first was a failure, by all means, send the next one, I
have to admit, I am even more skeptical about the authenticity,
than I was first time - but as I said, even if it was all true,
(alas, it is not)
it has nothing to do with the philosophy.  Not all philosophers
are saints - except Christ ofcourse, but there are doubts about
his existense.

As for the rest of your post - it's the usual; nothing wrong with
the beautiful capitalist system, if the poor stopped multiplying
or - prefebly - just died, all would be fine  - ok, I was
paraphrasing, but as you are not giving any clue, what is your
solution, but going on about the stalinist stuff ad nauseam (sp?)
and not spelling out what you find objectionable about a proposed,
-democratic- socialist system or if you have better ideas,  - it
is pointless.

Eva Durant
+ - Re: Mi a bai a Gayekkel? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 01:18 AM 5/16/96 GMT, George Szaszvari, wrote:

>Gosh, Joe, don't corrupt me, man! Really, though, it was just a naughty
>bit of wishful dreaming: I just wanted to see Bossy Boots doing it (the
>explaining, I mean) :-) not that she'd take the bait now (pity, it would
>have been hilarious.) Smarting from a recent virtual hiding, BBB will
>hopefully be a bit more careful about getting too *personal* in future
>(for a while, anyway...those types are pretty incorrigible.)  ;-)

I couldn't possibly corrupt you, George.

Joe Szalai

There are no good girls gone wrong, just bad girls found out.
Mae West
+ - Re: ...not proud of my heritage (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 09:07 PM 5/15/96 -0700, Gabor D. Farkas, wrote:

>Consider yourself corrected. Ceausescu  eliminated the foreign debt by
>pre-paying off all loans. The size of deficit was not known since he very
>cleverly "eliminated" the income tax (the income, also - almost).

If he paid off the all the loans, there wouldn't be a deficit.  And yes, he
impoverished Romania.  The Western politicians who are doing everything to
pay off the deficit are doing the same to their country.  But don't get me
wrong.  I'm all in favour of paying off the debt and the deficit -- and then
taxing it back from the rich!  After all, the only one's who benefited from
the national debt or deficit were the rich who could afford to lend money to
the state.  It's interesting that in Saskatchewan, the social democratic
CCF/NDP geverned for 30 some years, provided a lot of social services, gave
Canada medicare, and never had a deficit.  They didn't like the bankers and
didn't borrow from them.  Eventually, they lost the election and the
Conservatives took power.  They ran up a large deficit.  Their rich friends,
who helped elect them, became even richer.  A couple of years ago, the NDP
was re-elected, and Saskatchewan became the first province in Canada to
eliminate the deficit.  But don't look to the media, who are controlled by
the wealthy, to praise the fiscal policies of the social democrats.

Joe Szalai
+ - Historical discussion (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear colleagues,
        I had suggested to our friend Jeliko that we might perhaps, continue ou
 historical discussion off list, and he made this suggestion plain.
        I assume I reflect his feelings too by expressing my amazement and than
 s for
 your interest in it, which I did not expect for such specialized stuff.
We will thus continue on list, and hopefully we will be joined by others who
 feel they can contribute something.
By the way, one of the Arab writers' information on the Magyars has been
 translated by Ilona Csegledy in Magyar Nyelv of 1989, (sorry I am writing from
This is for Ibn Hajjan, and I have not seen the text, but should be very very
 interesting, as that author appears to have had little treatment in European
+ - Re: Correction and further clarification (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I agree as far as one shouldn't let people get away with
being  even " a little bit racist",  which is now a trend,
if you listen into pub/train conversations here in the UK.
There was no chance of such atmosphere 10+ years ago
in my experience.
This brings me to the "square" and unshakable position
of Eva Balogh, that  market economy/the US way is the
Only True Way for Hungary.  I think this position could
do with a bit of revision ever so often, even talked over
with people - looking at fresh evidence - who think that
there are a few doubtful points about capitalism's progress
and  present trends do not promise solutions for the future:

People listen to racist (or fundamentalist/totalitarian)
propaganda, when the economy is
failing, material/personal security is disappearing
and there is no available option to do anything about it -
no feeling of democracy.

Eva Durant

>         Second, concerning the charge of being "confrontational" in my
> historical discussions on the Forum I would like to add the following. There
> is no *middle ground* between the position of, let's say, Peter Andras
> Nemenyi and my own. One cannot strike some kind of compromise: maybe only
> half of the ritual murders were committed by Jews, the other half were false
> accusations. Or, Szalasi was a racist but was a nice, reasonable, thoughtful
> racist. And after all, he had many followers, so his ideas must have been
> beneficial (position of Zoltan Noe). The same is applicable to today's
> politics and our positions concerning the future of Hungary. I stand
> squarely on the platform of joining NATO and the European Union. I stand
> squarely on building a Western-type democracy in Hungary. I stand squarely
> on building a market economy. I stand squarely against falling back on the
> dreadful practices of existing socialism. I cannot compromise on any of
> these basic tenents. I cannot agree with those whose who are antidemocratic.
> I cannot agree with those whose nationalistic passion drive Hungary away
> from Europe. I cannot agree with their xenophobia; I cannot agree with those
> demagogs, both right and left, who are making a real change in Hungary as
> hard as possible. There can be no compromise between my position and theirs.
> The Hungarian moderate right unfortunately refuses to turn against the
> extreme right and therefore, although by inclination I would belong there, I
> cannot join them. In the last two years, ever since I have been following
> Hungarian politics, this became crystal clear to me. The moderate right in
> Hungary either doesn't exist or if it does, it does not distance itself from
> Albert Szabo, Istvan Csurka, and, yes, Jozsef Torgyan. Therefore, however
> regretfully, I cannot join their ranks.
>         Eva Balogh
+ - Re: On the Habsburg Monarchy/and more (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Mr Decker, pleas read more carefully, before you respond;

> >
> >Now this is an understatement if there ever was one...
> >The trend is the unwelcome return of victorian poverty,
> >with the victorian so craved for "free market".
> >Look at the homelessness and tb figures, illiteracy, etc.
> >please in the UK, and the US, and the numbers for
> >the growth of the "underclass".  Eva, how can anyone
> >dismiss these insane facts, in societies that produce
> >so unimaginable amount of wealth??
> Are you truly claiming that the UK has returned to levels of Victorian
> poverty?  Please check some facts, such as comparisons of infantile death
> rate or average death rate before making such extraordinary claims.  The
> Victorians did NOT crave a 'free market', we pursued an aggressive policy of

As you can see, I talked about a -trend- : homelessness and
poverty is -growing-.
I meant Eva B. craving for free markets, not the victorians.
My sentence was not brilliant, but the sentiment is evident.

> Empire building that directly led to Britain totally controlling world market
> in most commodities mainly due to its control of most of the world's sea
> routes.  You must pay better regard to the history of the country you live
> in before making these inexplicable statements.  And give accurate comparitiv
> figures for homelessness, tb and illiteracy if you expect to have your
> arguments taken seriously.

... and read more carefully, before you give lessons and read
"the quality press" they do publish figures once in a while.
But, I'll try to dig them up just for you.

> Unions lost their members because they failed to keep in step with the needs
> of the people of a modern democracy.  They weren't 'defeated', their members
> decided that they were no longer serving their needs, so voted for the party
> that was committed to minimising their influence and power.  I do hope you
 are> not suggesting that that nice Mr Major is some kind of Demagogue or
> Most odd that you put both terms together, as they are mutually exclusive:
> The ancient Greek demagogue was, of course, a 'democratic orator'!

Unions were weakened because they lost an awful lot of their
menbers due to unemployment. The ones still at work decided to
keep a low profile, as activists are the first to be cut back
when there is a "downsizing".
As monaterism started with the labor goverments before the
tories, the people didn't bother to go to vote. The tories
never had more than the 45% of the vote of the cca 70% who
bothered to go to vote. So they are very much a minority
govt, if you ask me.
I hope you are not inviting me to call Mr Major names, I
don't happen to think that he is particularily nice, but
I did not infer to him as demagogue (not more than the
rest of the politicians) or fascist.
I have to inform you, that the meaning of the word demagogue has
changed since those times of the ancient greeks. Sorry!

> 'Just the facts, Ma'am'

- or your version of them, Sir, ...

Eva Durant
+ - Re: Horn, Mrs. Kosa, and the MSZP (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

(Mr Decker)
> I have the feeling that you have decided that you are right, and I don't feel
> the need to convince you otherwise with 'proof'.  But perhaps we should stop
> investing in schools, because it won't make them 'better'!

I was talking about industrial investment as the mean of prolonging
the survival of this sorry system.  You aware I hope that
"investment" and "market place" have no meaning in the
education, health - social sphere, where the destruction
of the "society doesn't exist" - tories was the most complete.

> The whole nature of work and job security has changed, and employment
> practices have changed at the same time to allow greater flexibility to both
> employer and employee.  Would you prefer to go back to the protectionalism of
> the past?  This simply leads to leaden economies dominated by inefficient
> industries.  Modern economies have to be able to react quickly to global
> conditions.  What is your alternative?

Yeah, profits were a bit down, but the standard of living
- including social provisions and social peace - were passable.
The alternative - in my opinion - is a much more democratic,
and socialist system, with a decent distribution of the vast
wealth produced.

> >The standard of living
> >is not getting better for those in jobs, unless you are earning
> >a fair bit more than the average.
> Extraordinary statement.  Especially as the 'average wage' continues to
> increase with greater prosperity.  Just in the last two years the average
> disposable UK income has risen by more than 20%, mainly due to the drop in
> interest rates.  What data do you base your statements on?

And what data you are basing yours? I am a skilled technician
near the top grade, but had never a chance to earn that
illustrous "average wage", I do wonder how it  is calculated.
But we know the track reckord of the tories counting the
number of unemployed, foe instance. The way to calculated was
changed 24 times just under Thatcher, I have the feeling our
Mr Nice is not upto these intricacies...

> As I said, I feel we have to agree to disagree, and terminate this discourse.
> Any Hungarian economist would leap at the chance to be in the UK's current
> economic position.  We have the lowest interest rates for thirty years,
> inflation of 2.5%, the lowest unemployment for five years (7.8%), an extremel

I hope they don't and have the analytic ability too see behind the
wellworked figures, e.g. the unemployment ones, as above.
(if you add those unemployed over 50, having a working partner,
been unemployed for more than a year, being between 16 and 18,
etc, etc, not allowed to claim, you get a figure over 4 million.
Remember the campaign againt labour? The number was around
a millionthan - still too much!)

> strong economy and healthy balance of payments.  These facts are not in
> dispute and I have to conclude that you must have an entirely different view
> of how a modern economy should work.  It would be more interesting to hear
> your view of how you feel Hungary will be best able to trade with the rest of
> the world, rather than for you to make statements regarding Britain that are
> simply not true.

The facts are disputed by the existance of councils around the UK with
NOT ONE tory councellors in quite a few cities such as Manchester
or Oxford. "Strong economy and healthy balance of payments"
seems to mean more money for those already rich, and less for
the poor.

We live in different worlds Mr. Decker, please pay attention
to mine, before it is too late.

Eva Durant
+ - Re: Arab info on Hungarians (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Cecilia F-B writes:
> Very good, but did you know the Arab awareness of Magyars goes back even
> further, to when they were part of the Khazar empire?  While parts (some of
> his conclusions and assertions) of Arthur Koestler's book _The Thirteenth
> Tribe_ are debatable, he does cite a lot of valid historical documentation.
> He mentions how the Arabs inherited (absorbed, acquired?) several, early
> Jewish accounts and even maps of the Khazar empire that go back as early as
> the 7th century.  In these accounts and maps, the different peoples of that
> empire were distinguished, and quite a number of towns in northern Russian
> were all called "Magyar-this or that," and inhabited by a distinct people.
> By the middle of the ninth century, the Arabs had quite a lot of detail
> about the tribes within the Khazar empire both in relationship to the
> empire, and a separate entities with separate dynasties, traditions,
> mythologies, etc..

Yes, I am aware that the Arabs were aware of the Khazars, because  the first
recoreded war between the Khazars and the Arabs was in 652. This first
recorded war ended with a Khazar victory. How much can be derived from the
the extant records and their translations is always bothering me. Even the
Arab writers used different place, river and population designations. What
the translators did, sometimes through two or three languages with the
original Arabic text made this even more difficult, Pauler had reproduced
some of the original Arabic also, but to my knowledge from successivly
recopied editions, as a matter of fact some of the writers I have cited were
also "recopied" and issued later, while the original writing predates the
Thus in many cases, the data can be taken as an indicator and become useful
when it is combined with other info.

>From what I know, the Hungarians at times were at war, at times closely
allied, at times somewhat of a competition with the Khazars. I do not believe
the Porphyrogenitus version of living together for 3 years, I think that is a
classical typo.

What fascinates me is how recent historians and linguists classify languages.
As an example, that the Khazars spoke the common (ko:z) Turkish language was
based on the words "Qazar" and the name of their later capital "Sarigsin".
Now what language would be ascribed to the Hungarians based on "Hungarian"
and "Buda"? About 95% of what we know about the Khazars is from others
writing about them. I am convinced that the Khazars were a mixed group also
and may have had even other Finnugor groups in their "empire".

But I do caution about making Hungarian words out of oft recopied and oft
translated (or transliterated) versions. It would be nice to collect up all
of the originals, and have direct translation into Hungarian and try to
compare the original sources and solve the puzzle of the different
designations even by them. Possibly the Persian, the Egyptian, the Bhagdad
dialects of the times in the written versions may explain some of the
discrepency, but when one works only from retranslations it is difficult to
get that precise. And please remember one more thing, most of these original
writers did not speak any of the local languages, they used local

Yes, every single datapoint is useful, but by itself can be very misleading.

I do like Arthur Koestler's writings very much, for the history part I prefer
to go back as far to the originals as possible.

+ - Re: SZABADSA'GHARC. A word in use in 1956 (samples) (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear Tibor,

        I am certain that you can find scores of texts in which the word
"szabadsagharc" appeared as early as the revolutionary days of 1956. But I
don't think that this is what Jeliko was speaking of. The original
discussion, as I mentioned earlier, ended on a note that in conversations we
normally don't use the word "szabadsagharc," referring to 1956.
Conversational Hungarian uses the word "forradalom." I think we can agree on
this. In writing--in book titles, names of the organizations mostly--the
word "szabadsagharc" are often coupled with "forradalom." Naturally, all
your quotations are from written sources and I am pretty certain that Jeliko
was not referring to written sources: as active participant, believe me, he
didn't have time to study the "daily press." From the context of his
contribution it is clear that he was talking about ordinary speech on the
streets. For example, he talks about being called "fiuk" [boys]. Surely,
this reference can refer to only everyday speech.

        A certain "Andras Szucs" tried to make a political issue of the use
of the word "forradalom" versus "szabadsagharc." In his distorted view of
the world those who emphasized the conversational use of "revolution" were
bad Hungarians while those who emphased  "szabadsagharc" were good Hungarians.

        Let's not dwell on this anymore. Let's not drag up texts from the
revolution because they don't really prove anything--they all come from
written texts. Let's not give Andras Szucs more ammunition for his crazy
ideas about politics and people. Jeliko and I just as good Hungarians as you
are although I at least am sticking with my original statement.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Marx meat (fwd) (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Another paragraph I'd found worth forwarding...

Eva Durant

> Direct falsification of a quotation -- especially one so immediately
> disprovable as from a budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer -- is
> a very important issue of credibility. Sleight of hand flourishes to draw
> attention to another front, like magician Mumford the Magnificent, don't
> fool anyone and just makes the person doing it look as dishonest as the
> original quote falsifier.
> It's a tactic of fakers.
+ - Re: ...not proud of my heritage (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

> >Smile, it cannot be as bad as you stated, besides some of the differences
> >between Canada and Hungary are lessening, like the government deficits.

I thought the US has also problems with deficit, in
fact I can't think of any country that hasn't.
Capitalism cannot afford anymore a decent social provision
for those it cannot provide with decent means of living.
Let's change it to something better while the change can
be done peacefully, delibaretly and democratically.

Eva Durant
+ - Re: ...not proud of my heritage (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

You wrote:
>> >Smile, it cannot be as bad as you stated, besides some of the
>> >between Canada and Hungary are lessening, like the government
>I thought the US has also problems with deficit, in
>fact I can't think of any country that hasn't.
>Capitalism cannot afford anymore a decent social provision
>for those it cannot provide with decent means of living.
>Let's change it to something better while the change can
>be done peacefully, delibaretly and democratically.
>Eva Durant

We, in the US, are trying to do something about it.  A number of laws,
most importantly the line-item-veto and the balanced budget ammendment
propsal, all are aimed to restoring this country's fiscal and economic
health, which is prerequisite to a decent means of living and social
provisons.  You simply cannot spend what you don't have, so we need a
healthy economy to produce the surplusses to redistribute.

It's also pretty much useless, to my mind, to talk anymore of
"capitalism and socialism".  They are simply different models of the
economy, which works according to rules of its own.  Interference with
the model can produce results, most of them temporary, some good and
some disastrous.  Benign neglect should not be underestimated as a
vauable method.

At any rate, I think that most Americans, regardless of party
affiliation, would agree with Bill Clinton:  it's the economy, stupid!

Charlie Vamossy
+ - Re: Marx meat (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, Joe Szalai
> writes:

>I don't want to put you on the spot, Sam, but have you read *any* books
>Marx?  He wrote quite a few, you know.  And some are quite good.  I'm
>that they'll be 're-discovered' again and again.  If nothing else he's a
>damn good antidote to capitalist kaka.
>Joe Szalai

I read "Capital" in undergraduate school. It was like someone took Hegel
and made him really boring. I somehow doubt that a discredited political
philosophy cooked up by a liar will somehow be re-discovered over and over
again outside of a few humanities departments at North American
universities and the Durant home. The current emphasis on extreme
laissez-faire capitalism among self-styled "conservatives" in the West is
itself Marxist in nature if you think about it. Marx's religion elevates
man's role as a producer and consumer -- homo economicus -- above any
other aspect of his existence. The children of Uncle Miltie Friedman and
your good friend Hayek do the same thing.
Sam Stowe
+ - Re: Marx meat (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, Eva Durant
> writes:

>As for the rest of your post - it's the usual; nothing wrong with
>the beautiful capitalist system, if the poor stopped multiplying
>or - prefebly - just died, all would be fine  - ok, I was
>paraphrasing, but as you are not giving any clue, what is your
>solution, but going on about the stalinist stuff ad nauseam (sp?)
>and not spelling out what you find objectionable about a proposed,
>-democratic- socialist system or if you have better ideas,  - it
>is pointless.
>Eva Durant

Have I ever said anything about the "beautiful capitalist system?" No, but
you can't debate me on the merits of your own argument so you have to put
words in my mouth. This is usually the way all the encounters between you
and I turn out. I base my argument on specifics, which you then ignore. I
have asked you repeatedly in the past to explain why Marxist-Leninist
governments in eastern Europe like Hungary's tried so hard to control the
individual intellectual lives of the people they ruled. You dodge this by
denying that Marxism-Leninism was ever tried in these nations. Yet you
yourself worked for a propaganda arm of the Hungarian government back in
the good old days before 1989. You've even written about your experiences
here. If that government wasn't Marxist-Leninist in nature, what were you,
a faithful Marxist, doing by working in a department dedicated to propping
up the system? Let me guess -- you were a secret revolutionary working to
overturn the existing system and impose real Marxism-Leninism.
Sam Stowe
+ - Re: "Uncivil Warfare" in the HUNGARY group (and others) (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 18:48:56
>To: hungarian discussion list
>From: Aniko Dunford >
>Subject: Re: "Uncivil Warfare" in the HUNGARY group (and others)
>>To: Andy Kozma > (by way of Aniko Dunford
>>From: Aniko Dunford >
>>Subject: Re: "Uncivil Warfare" in the HUNGARY group (and others)
>>Quoting Andy Kozma:
>>>>Eva:I understand from the Forum,that you are a paid propagandist by the
>>>Governement of Hungary.Otherwise how could you have so much time to write in
>>>all the hungarian related threads.Good news eh?As we say in Canada.A.K.
>>Tsstsstts... well, well, well,  Ms. Balogh!  Shame on you!  And here we
thought, you were doing all this out of sheer interest and passion!  Not to
mention raking in all those bucks, while utilizing the freely given
references of all the distinguised contributors?  Not having disclosed
this... this crucial information to the newly formed "faculty club
management" (the one with no name - hint hint) could, you know, result in
your expulsion!!!  Unless of course, you might freely decide to donate some
or preferably all of your earned funds toward the construction costs of: the
pool, the bar (throw some champagne and muskotaly in while at it pleeezzee..
palinka, well just does not cut it for me), the s q u a s h court, the hot
tub, the workout room and the golf course (whoops, forgot the swimming pool
- sorry Sam).  Then, you realize, you must follow this up by flying us *all*
down for the grand opening ... say... two weeks? First class of course...
why... with all the money you are earning?  The interest alone, could cover
this... right?
>>PS - sorry gang!  I tried to slap my fingers - but virtual reality took over!
+ - Re: History Discussion on or off line? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 19:35:45
>To: Hungarian Discussion List >
>From: Aniko Dunford >
>Subject: Re: History Discussion on or off line?
Jeliko!  I really enjoy your posts on history, in fact I find it very
fascinating.  Although I am unable to participate, I am thoroughly enjoying
the learning.  I'm not sure at this point whether my reply ever reached the
group - just in case, we'll try once again... here goes.
+ - Re: Szekelyek. (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 20:42:18
>To: Hungarian Discussion List >
>From: Aniko Dunford >
>Subject: Re: Szekelyek.
>At 09:06 PM 5/14/96 -0500, you wrote:
>>Hello. Let me introduce myself. Dr. K-B or Colonel K-B.
>Hello, Dr/Colonel K-B - and Welcome to the Cyberworld of H U N G A R Y.
>I found your post intriguing.  A couple of questions:
>> I just recently studied the legend of
>> prince Csaba
>> I found it fascinating.
>Ok, please share... first, who is prince Csaba (consider that I regard my
knowledge of history next to nill). Next, I would like to know what it is
that you found fascinating.
>>Correct me if I am wrong, the fin-ugor origin of the Huns and Magyars
>>is a very old fashioned avid theory.
>Indeed this seems interesting.  Please enlighten me as to the similarities
between the Finn/Magyar languages - as one silly example, ve'r = ve'r in
both.  The similarities, have left me wondering for quite some time.
>Also, while I think of it; the legend of Hunor and Magyar; does anyone have
the author's name?  I have been looking for that for at least ten
years...with no success.
>Thanks and regards,
>Aniko Dunford
+ - Re: Mi a bai a Gayekkel? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 18:49:04
>To: DARREN E PURCELL > (by way of Aniko
Dunford >)
>From: Aniko Dunford >
>Subject: Re: Mi a bai a Gayekkel?
>At 03:39 PM 5/13/96 -0300, you wrote:
>Quoting Darren Purcell:
>>than my two cents worth. This kind of reaction makes MY stomach turn.
>I'll second that motion!!!  I have been around gays for as long as I can
remember.  It has been my experience, that they are as kind, as loving, as
open minded, as caring and as well balanced individuals with equal number of
bad qualities as us heterosexuals possess.
>I guess one answer to your question "mi a baj a gayekkel" (for our Anglos:
"What's wrong with gays?" might be: is that they are just like heterosexuals
*period* - if one can leave sexuality where it belongs - in the bedroom
(whoops..fav place?).  And the pea brains of the world get scared to death
by this thought!
>I mean really everbody!  How often do we find ourselves at a gathering when
one comes up to us and ask "Excuse me? But... could you enlighten me as to
whom you engage in sex with, where and how?"
>In general, I'll take an open, honest, caring, giving and well balanced
"individual" for a friend anyday - with their faults too; over the pea
brained variety - who's main concern is someones sexual orientation and or
activity - be them gay, or heterosexual.
>Aniko Dunford
>PS:  I think that, we should start a new thread - "what's wrong with
people, who cannot accept gays"!!.
+ - Re: Vamossy's Solution for "Faculty Club" name (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 18:49:24
>To: Hungarian Discussion List >
>From: Aniko Dunford >
>Subject: Re: Vamossy's Solution for "Faculty Club" name
>>I simply meant that the HUNGARY is not only for academic luminaries,
>>other folks like to participate, too.
>>Charlie Vamossy
>Hello Charlie;
>Thank you, that clarifies all.  And having said that, since I myself cannot
possibly ever fit the category of "academic luminaries', how about, the
question at hand?  I would l o v e to find a name for this 'club' - faculty
or not.  (perhaps my life is in need of a touch of 'fun' and sillyness')?
But, I stand by my words... again..
>' club' seems so very ordinary - lacking originality - and I still think
that we deserve(d) better.
>Note the (d)!  Although I have missed most all posts today, due to system
problems, I did get a chance to 'peek on the net' - ...  I was truly happier
with all of  us I must say two days ago.
+ - Sympatico (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 18:48:54
>To: hungarian discussion list
>From: Aniko Dunford >
>Subject: Sympatico
>Dear All:
>Sympatico (my server) has been down, since six pm May 13/96 - so we have
just discovered recently.  As such, my apologies to all of you ahead of time
in case of duplication(s) of postings (which sympatico has forecasted...
some as many as seven times).
>So... if you do receive up to seven of the same postings...? .... please
forgive sympatico, but most of all, myself.  I am assured that all attempts
are being made to remedy the situation as quickly as possible.
>Geeezzz ....  where is that engineer, when I most need him/her?
>Regards and apologies
>Aniko Dunford
+ - Re: ...not proud of my heritage (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 20:46:56
>To: Hungarian Discussion List >
>From: Aniko Dunford >
>Subject: Re: ...not proud of my heritage
>At 01:28 PM 5/14/96 PDT, you wrote:
>>> Andy Kozma > wrote:
>>> >
>>> This is the main reason I am greatfull to be
>>> > Canadian,and not very proud of my heritage.Sorry about that Eva,but
>>this is
>>> > my personal priviledge,
>>> > Regards:A.K.
>Quoting Jeliko:
>>Andy, you may be hurt by what I write, but that is not meant by me. I feel
>>sorry for you for what you have expressed
>etc, et al.....
>Dear Jeliko and Andy
>First of all; many thanks for the knowledge you both have imparted through
the past many postings.  I have enjoyed them all.  Secondly, many thanks
also, for echoeing my thoughts regarding Andy's feelings of Hungary.  I
respect both of your feelings highly; but this one, written by yourself
mirrors mine - in a most sensitive and rational fashion.
>Hope you keep them all coming!
>Best regards,
+ - Re: The 1700s (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I am answering Jeliko's writing on the Rakoczi Rebellion and the
question of "what if" somewhat belatedly. In this writing Jeliko argues that
if the Rakoczi Rebellion had been successful, the Hungarians would have been
able to absorb, to assimilate if you prefer, the nationalities much quicker
than otherwise. I somehow doubt it. Of course, we must realize that both of
us are simply guessing.

>First the economic and social commentary. Yes, Hungary was at a different
>level "culturally" than several of the western European nations. What is
>the significance of this difference, Who knows?

        I don't think that the cultural aspect was that important. Hungary
was on a very different economic and therefore social level from Jeliko's
example of France. The difference was always great but the seventeenth
century's devastations (especially the Fifteen-Year's War) made the country
extremely backward. According to some demographic research, about one-third
of all villages simply disappeared during this century. The population was
also extremely thin. During the same century, there were also serious
economic problems: the price of beef went down considerably and raising of
cattle was the mainstay of Hungarian agriculture. The nobility was
economically devastated and since there was no capital accumulation they
tried to keep their heads above water by insisting on their privileges. The
roads were practically impassable, urbanization nonexistent. Under these
circumstances it is hard to imagine a kind of assimilation process we are
talking about. For that you need some mobility, some urbanization, some
reasonable level of economic prosperity. None of these was present in
Hungary at the end of the seventeenth century.

>I do not think that the incorporation of the Languedoc, the Provencal, the
>Savoyard, the Alsacian or Norman folks into France took place because of
>the fairly good university in Paris. I do not think that the French clergy
>switched the sermon to French from Latin a little earlier than the Vatican
>dictum required it. The whole thing happened because there was a central
>power that was capable of holding it together for its own interest.

        Of course, it wasn't the existence of the University of Paris which
was responsible for making France French. Certainly the existence of central
royal power helped. But I think the most important consideration was the
relative economic development. Take a look at the map of seventeenth-century
France, the size of its cities, the number and quality of its roads, and a
vrey impressive capital accumulation. Compare the French nobility's wealth
to the poverty-stricken Hungarian nobility whose houses could hardly be
distinguished from peasant huts.

>imagine what would have happened in France if the English won a little more
>often than they did. Possibly the same thing that happened in Hungary,
>there would be a rump French speaking area and many of the "minorities"
>could  have maintained or developed their own culture, because the two pole
>power would not have been culturally strong enough to generate the
>assimilation that a single power can generate. The development of France
>was also iffy at times, not as bad as that of Hungary but not smooth
>sailing either.

        I don't believe in this. If the English occupied France they would
have most likely disappeared in the sea of French speakers--like the way the
French disappeared in England after William the Conqueror's conquest of England

>But lets say that in spite of himself, Rakoczi succeded and a long term
>permanent independence could have been achieved for the area. The following
>significant events could have developed, a much better integration of
>Transylvania into the rest of the country, the elimination of the
>continuous "minority card" by the Habsburgs, the repopulation of some of
>the devastated areas by people others than new German migrants.

        Let's separate the two issues. (1) Integration of Transylvania. Yes,
I am sure that would have helped but you must keep in mind that by the end
of the seventeenth century the number of Romanians have grown to over
one-third of Transylvanian's population. A steady stream of immigrants
arrived daily from the east. I very much doubt that given Hungary's
backwardness the central authorities could have actually put an end to this
immigration. Moreover, I doubt that they would have even considered it
necessary. (2) Yes, Hungary was a demographic disaster and if the central
authorities considered immigration necessary, where would this new Hungarian
government get their immigrants, if not from the Germanies. Actually I don't
see anything wrong with this German immigration. As the matter of fact, I
think that the German immigrants posed the least danger to Hungary. Besides
these immigrants had the skills Hungary needed. Surely, you didn't want to
have more Serbs, or more Romanians with no more sills than the Hungarian
peasants. Or less.

>cooperation with Croatia, more direct commercial contacts with neighbors.

        I don't know what the situation was in Croatia at the time, but I am
somewhat baffled by "more direct commercial contacts with neighbors." Which
neighbors do you have in mind? The neighbors, with the possible exception of
Poland, were even more backward than we were.

>Faster development of the country by lessening or redistributing some of
>the land of the oligarchs on the loosing side. (Please note that Rakoczi
>had a significant middle nobility and freeman following, who probably would
>have expected to be rewarded.)

        I am not even sure whether economically that would have made more
sense than having large estates.

>It was also the last anti Habsburg uprising
>that did not polarize the minorities against the Hungarians and quite
>possible a much better minority relationship would have arisen.

        No, it didn't because modern nationalism hadn't hit Eastern Europe
yet. Although I read an article some years ago by a Hungarian specialist of
the seventeenth century according to whom there were already signs of
national separation during the Thokoly Rebellion. Slovaks were reluctant to
join. They didn't consider it their struggle.

        And finally, one important consideration which you may not have
considered: a strong central power. France did have such a strong royal
authority. In Hungary, the nobility fought continuously against such strong
center and most of the time they were victorious. With the possible
exception of Matthias Corvinus I cannot think of one strong king after his
reign, whether it was Habsburg or otherwise. The Hungarian nobility had its
way against a strong royal power without which I don't think that the kind
of development you are talking about could have taken place.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: History Discussion on or off line? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Ciao Cecilia
At 05:00 PM 5/15/96 -0600, you wrote:

>You will even find disagreement, which may or may not be rational, over what
>incidents or periods of history are relevant to modern situations or not.
>Now to anyone who majored in or taught history, the answer is all situations
>and periods are still relevant, but not all people (actually darned few)
>have that background on this group.   Good luck with your survey! ;-)

I for one, do not have *that background* on this group.  But it certainly
does not minimize my interest.  Nor, do I feel, that in order to benefit
from the readings, one necessarily *has* to have *that background*.  In
addition, I certainly do not find it necessary to participate in the
discussions regarding the topic; instead, I am finding the writings
extremely fascinating, and am grateful for the opportunity to be learning
from them.  I have to agree with you!  Jeliko, good luck with your survey!
As for 'darn few'? - no comment.


+ - Re: % of Hungarian speakers in the USA (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Charles Vamossy wrote:

>Although it is second hand information, I am told that in the US,
>approximately 1.58 million people identified themselves as being of
>Hungarian origin.  Of these, 70% speak Hungarian poorly or not at all,
>20% speak it passably, and 10% speak it at the native level.  The above
>figure seem to confirm that, although 148,000 is slightly less than
>Now you see the root of the problem Hungarian-American organizations
>are wrestling with.  Our choices are:

This doesn't surprise me one bit. I wish you could break that 10%, or less,
down to different age levels, and then you'd get better idea of how many speak
native Hungarian.

>1.  Keep speaking Hungarian only at meetings, programs, events.

Unfortunately, there are few meetings, programs, or events. If there are
events, not many know or not many bother anymore. There will be a "Hungarian
Festival" (as held for the last 20 years) in New Brunswick soon. The Magyar
contigent dwindles every year. It more or less is becoming a reason to throw a
block party for the city, rather than Hungarians getting together and
displaying pride for their Hungarian heritage or an excuse for Hungarians to
pick up some langos, pecsenye, kolbasz, toltet kaposzta, for take out and not
staying to talk to other Hungarians. It's a real joke. It's the same thing
every year. The same speeches, the same displays, the same song and dance, the
same litle kid on stage in the dance troupe screaming his tiny lungs out some
Hungarian folk song because everyone is drinking and not paying attention. Next
year they should take the "Hungarian" moniker off and just call it "Festival"
it would be more accurate. The other nice thing, but is a huge slap in the face
for Hungarians at the Festival is watching non-Hungarian kids from St.
Ladislaus School recite poems to Hungarians. I get a great chuckle from this
because their children or grandchildren aren't up there because they can't
speak a lick of Hungarian to them or they've become too Americanized and here
are these Asian, Afro-American, & Hispanic kids up there spouting out Petofi
like it was going out of style. I love it!!!!

There's also a lack of Hungarian Radio programs in the NY/NJ area. Sure there's
Kalman Laszlo, Koreh Ferenc (actually he's deported isn't he??), Apattini
Gyula, and Szabo Istvan (Rutgers Univ.), but they are only 30min to 1 hour long
a piece on weekends.  Also there are a lack of Hungarian owned businesses (at
least here in New Brunswick, NJ area). There's not even a Hungarian bar
anymore. It least when you had a bar owned, run, and frequented by Hungarians,
you had some sort of communication with other Hungarians. Now the average
Hungarian has to rely on the fossils, who think everythings all fine and dandy
in the Hungarian community, at the HAAC (Hungarian American Athletic Club) to
come up with some events. HA!!! There are more events held there for Latinos
than for Hungarians, now. It's the only way the Athletic Club can make money
and keep that building. If I was more in tune to my Puerto Rican half I'd go to
all the Salsa and Meringue nights there. The  There are 2 bars in New Brunswick
(The Budapest Inn & The Duna Bar) and neither are Hungarian owned anymore. Plus
add to it the numbers of Hungarians who moved away from the area in the last 30

As I've said all along, the Hungarian community is not tight one. The language
barrier within our community is the fault of 1.) Assimilation into American
society, which as a result you'll not find many 2-3rd generation Hungarian kids
speaking or have any interest in speaking Hungarian. 2.) Lack of unity in the
Hungarian community itself. Those who don't belong to the HAAC and their puppet
projects such as the Cserkesz and their dance troupes, are usually frowned
upon. It's been that way for years and these same ideas are instilled in the
youth who do belong. I'm 26 and I can remember many a time I'd try and
associate with those kids whose parents were in the HAAC and they'd ask "Are
you a member?". I'd answer no and I'd get the cold shoulder. I spoke the la
nguage, knew the history, current events, and so on, but I guess I wasn't
"Hungarian"enough for them because my dad busted his ass, since the day he
arrived in the States in 1967 to put food on the table and couldn't take me to
be a Cserkesz or be in the folk dance squad or even teach me Hungarian, but
decided it was better for me to learn about my heritage and language by sending
me to Hungary for the whole summers insted.

In 1988 these HAAC Elders & Jugend were nowhere to be found on that bus down to
D.C. to protest Ceaucescu. I skipped my high school graduation for that day
expecting hordes of Cserkesz there...NOPE!!!. So, that's just a mere scratch of
what the Hungarian community in New Brunswick is about and why the language is
dying here in the States.

Czifra Jancsi
john_czifra @ shi.com
+ - Hungarian book sources (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

For those who are interested in recent books regarding early Hungarian
history (and can read Hungarian I can recommend the series being published by
the Szegedi Kozepkortorteneti Konyvtar:

Kristo Gyula: Kozepkori Historiak Oklevelekben

Makk Ferenc: Magyar Kulpolitika (896-1196)

Kristo Gyula: A Karpat Medence es  a Magyarsag Regmultja (1301 ig)

Kristo Gyula: Kun Laszlo Emlekezete 1994

Blazovich Laszlo: Szent Istvantol Mohacsig

Ludovicus Tubero: Kortorteneti Feljegyzesek 1994 (Hungarian reprint and

There maybe more books issued in this series, I have not been in Hungary for
several years.

The publisher is the Szegedi Kozepkorasz Muhely.

When I dig them out of the boxes, I will try to get ISBN numbers, if anyone
neds them. Typically they print only 800 copies, so there is not much
interest in them.

+ - Operencia (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 07:07 PM 5/10/96 PDT, Jeliko wrote:
quoting me,

>> around 910 the Hungarians had to give up
>> a territory called Ober-Enns (that is the territory around the nothern
>> of the Enns river). From this designation came the word "Operencia" of
>> tales we all heard when we were children. "Hol volt, hol nem volt, az
>> Operencias tengeren is tul."
>Maybe the Enns was a bigger river those days, I often wondered how it became
>an ocean. As discussed above, in my opinion, the folks were more
>sophisticated than to assume that everything between the ocean and the Enns
>was merged into a single place.

        I think Homan is misleading here about Ober Enns and Operencia
because when you are reading him you have the impression that Hungarian folk
memory goes back to these raids of the 10th century. The Magyar Ertelmezo
Szotar thinks differently. First of all, the first time there is any
reference to "Operencia" is in the 18th century and although they also think
that "Operencia" has something to do with Ober Enns, the editors think that
it goes back only to Habsburg time (seventeenth, eighteenth century) and
Hungarian recruits talking about the province of Ober Enns. As for the
"ocean, sea," it is only folkloric embelishment.
        By the way, your calling attention to the size of the Enns river,
reminded me of a sign along some road near Mohacs. There was a tiny, tiny,
little brook, perhaps a couple meters in diameter and right next to it on a
tiny, tiny little bridge, there was a sign: This is where Louis II, King of
Hungary, drowned after fleeing the lost Battle of Mohacs. The stream's depth
today maybe 10-15 centimeters. There are two possibilities: (1) either the
brook was a large river in those days or (2) Louis in his heavy armor
couldn't swim.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Kalandozasok (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)


>Well, in my opinion these early blitzkriegs, were not very efffective against
>the walled cities, thus there was probably little of the bookburning

        Sorry about being a bit late asking this question but how many
European cities were walled in the late 9th and 10th centuries? Because if a
city was walled I doubt that the Hungarian horsemen could take it very
easily. Or even not so easily. I would say that walled cities would be
unpenetrable to the kind of marauding horsemen as the Hungarians were in
those days.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Kalandozasok--more questions (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Professor Antonopoulos writes:

>Coming to this point true, Magyar bands would not need to
>travel as far as Spain to acquire wealth, but geographical
>distance is one relative factor.  The other is the feasibility of
>the project.  If nearby German towns looked stronger at the time,
>and a "kind prince" would instigate the Magyars come far afield
>to pick their lot, then conditions favour such an adventurous

        I asked Jeliko a minute ago about the question of walled cities. Is
it possible that some German cities were already walled by then while some
cities farther away, like in Spain, were not?

> The late eminent
>Hungarian byzantinist Gyula Moravcsik has rightly suggested that
>a strong Bulgaria discourraged Magyar raids until 927, while I
>would suggest, that no matter how strong the Pechenegs were,
>crossing the Carpathians to the east might be hazardous for small
>bands, and also an unworthy cause for profit.

        I also gathered that the Hungarians had a healthy fear of the
Bulgarians and the Pechenegs. However, it also makes sense that if your
primary goal was booty you don't go to Pecheneg country or Bulgaria. Somehow
I don't think that it would be as profitable an adventure as a western one.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: contracts law-- slovak style (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 11:12 PM 5/12/96 +0200, Roman Kanala wrote:

>Seems I did not express it very well. The difference between collective
>and individual rights is that the individual ones are of a higher order
>than the collective ones. There is a difference when one has to say
>something like, we the people, or, I the citizen.
>Individual rights automatically mean the respect of all the rights
>that can be granted by collective approach. They go even further, as
>to grant rights to individuals regardless of being backed by a group
>of people with similar attributes.

        Roman and I mused over this question some time ago. Historically
speaking I found the situation rather interesting. In the second half of the
nineteenth century and until 1918 ,to be precise, the nationalities living
in Hungary and their western supporters (like Robert Seton-Watson) demanded
autonomous, territorial rights to their peoples. That is, carving out little
Slovakias, and little Romanias, and little Ruthenias out of the lands of St.
Stephen, which the Hungarians considered indivisible. The Hungarians argued
that collective (territorial) rights are inferior to individual rights and
they claimed that that kind of individual right did already exist in the
Kingdom of Hungary. At least on paper, that was definitely the case. In
practice, not always. Even the most sympathetic (that is toward the
nationalities) writers/politicians (the only one who comes to mind is Oszkar
Jaszi) didn't advocate the granting of territorial rights to Hungary's
nationalities. Jaszi, if you read his book carefully, simply says, stick to
the written laws of the nationality law of 1868 and that is the fairest of
all the solutions. (Mind you, he pretty well suggests to Austria to give
territories to their own nationalities!)
        But all the nationalities demanded territorial right, including
their Western supporters. (Mind you, autonomous regions, fairly drawn, would
have been extremely difficult to establish, as it would be today as well.)
So, when the situation was utterly desperate and the remedy too late, the
Karolyi government decided to appoint a minister of nationalities (Jaszi)
and began working out laws concerning territorial rights. The Romanians by
that time had no interest in any kind of rights given by Hungary and told
Jaszi accordingly. The Slovaks' fate was also decided abroad. But Hungary
went about creating an autonomous region of Ruthenia. The Bela Kun regime
simply accepted an entity called Ruthenian autonomous region but in Paris
the entente powers decided the fate of the Ruthenian region differently: it
was given the Czechoslovakia for safe-keeping.

        In any case, what I find amusing is the reversed roles. Now, it is
the Hungarians who demand territorial autonomy both in Slovakia and
Romania--territorial autonomy they themselves didn't want to grant before
1918. At the same time, the Slovaks and the Romanians who were telling the
whole world at the end of the nineteenth century that they were secondary
citizens because they didn't have territorial rights, now say exactly the
same Hungary said some eighty years ago: no way, we are giving you
territorial rights--they would mean the collapse of a nation state as we
know it.

        Who is right? I think the ones who advocate individual rights as
Hungary did in the nineteenth century. The problem was that they didn't
stick to the letter of the law.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: ...not proud of my heritage (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 07:25 AM 5/16/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:

>If he [Ceausescu] paid off the all the loans, there wouldn't be a deficit.

What I meant by deficit is budget deficit (the government spends more than
it takes in and he difference is covered by borrowing).

> And yes, he
>impoverished Romania.

Yes he did.

>  The Western politicians who are doing everything to
>pay off the deficit are doing the same to their country.

There is a major difference: they are elected and thus enjoy the endorsement
of the majority.

> But don't get me
>wrong.  I'm all in favour of paying off the debt and the deficit -- and then
>taxing it back from the rich!  After all, the only one's who benefited from
>the national debt or deficit were the rich who could afford to lend money to
>the state.

Maybe you consider the poor old widow whose pension money is invested in
government bonds "the rich". I disagree.

>  It's interesting that in Saskatchewan, the social democratic
>CCF/NDP geverned for 30 some years, provided a lot of social services, gave
>Canada medicare, and never had a deficit.  They didn't like the bankers and
>didn't borrow from them.  Eventually, they lost the election and the
>Conservatives took power.

It is interesting, indeed. Why did they loose after 30 some years?

>  They ran up a large deficit.  Their rich friends,
>who helped elect them, became even richer.  A couple of years ago, the NDP
>was re-elected, and Saskatchewan became the first province in Canada to
>eliminate the deficit.

How did they do it? Did they raise taxes or eliminated expenses? Or both?

> But don't look to the media, who are controlled by
>the wealthy, to praise the fiscal policies of the social democrats.

This is a nice sentence (not that I agree with it) after all the references
on the Forum to the press being controlled by the

Gabor D. Farkas
+ - Re: ...not proud of my heritage (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 07:07 PM 5/16/96 -0700, you wrote:
>At 07:25 AM 5/16/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
Quoting Szalai
>> But don't get me
>>wrong.  I'm all in favour of paying off the debt and the deficit -- and then
>>taxing it back from the rich!  After all, the only one's who benefited from
>>the national debt or deficit were the rich who could afford to lend money to
>>the state.
Joe, first (when have there been 'states' in Canada)?  Second, you're way
off track here, if you don't mind my saying so.  Canada's deficit began and
has been ongoing; with the Quebec situation and Bill 22.  Have you any idea,
what it cost this country to 'go bilingual'?  Enough so, that it actually
spurred on the deficit problems. And then some more!   As for 'taxing it
back to the rich'  - Joe, I once wrote on taxes on this group; which grant
it, never made it to the group - due to technical stuff, along with my
stupidities.  In Canada, the average individual has absolutely no concept of
'taxes' that are being paid by the 'so called rich'.  Get real. Research a
bit!  Most business owners are considered 'rich' while they have their great
great grandchildren's great great grandchildren, financed to the banks -
quite largely, due to the taxes they must endure!  Again, I say, get real
with your statements, look deeper prior to making such statements - and
while doing so, research the differences between the Canadian and the
American structures.  After having done so, I'll be really surprised, if you
don't make an extremely fast exit south of our border!
Szalai again:
>> It's interesting that in Saskatchewan, the social democratic
>>CCF/NDP geverned for 30 some years, provided a lot of social services, gave
>>Canada medicare, and never had a deficit.  They didn't like the bankers and
>>didn't borrow from them.  Eventually, they lost the election and the
>>Conservatives took power.
Me again:
Joe: I could be wrong here, and I'll eat the consequences.  But are you
sure, that you are *not* confusing Sask with Alberta?  I am under the
impression that indeed you might well be... (go ahead, correct me I don't
mind being wrong!  - But please.. leave by "being intact"?

Farkas, again:>
>It is interesting, indeed. Why did they loose after 30 some years?
Szalai again:
>>  They ran up a large deficit.  Their rich friends,

Geez Joe! Whose rich friends?  the NDP's - come on!  Aren't they the ones,
who sacrifice all... for the benefit of all?   How in heck, can those who
claim such, ever end up being rich?  (unless of course you mean, through
government financed subsidies, directly derived from tax payer funds, for
which we all end up paying for big time in the end - through being taxed
than before)?

>>who helped elect them, became even richer.  A couple of years ago, the NDP
>>was re-elected, and Saskatchewan became the first province in Canada to
>>eliminate the deficit.

This is, me:
I still think you;re confusing Alta with Saksk here  Joe!  Ima gonna check
this one out, big time!

>How did they do it? Did they raise taxes or eliminated expenses? Or both?

>> But don't look to the media, who are controlled by
>>the wealthy, to praise the fiscal policies of the social democrats.

>This is a nice sentence (not that I agree with it) after all the references
>on the Forum to the press being controlled by the

Since I don't know the meaning of 'freemason' - could I assume the big "n"?
and if so, I especially agree with Farkas.  And if not, ditto.


PS:  This three dimensional chess game is getting serious!!!!
+ - Gay info - France (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Here is the newest twist: the French railway company has just agreed to
give a family discount - 25 % off for both - to gay couples who travel on
the same itinerary.  (They will be issued a pass with photos of both

Please don't ask me how the railways verify if they belong to each other;
according to the news, they need to prove concubinage with a certificate.

(Perhaps they need proof of address - same name can't possibly be a


Below is my source in French.
> -----------------------------------------------------
Revue de presse RFI du mardi 14/05/96

Les  chemins  de  fer   francais   reconnaissent   officiellement
l'homosexualite.  La SNCF va en effet accorder aux homosexuels la
carte couple a des conjoints du meme sexe sur  presentation  d'un
certificat  de concubinage. La carte couple permet aux deux bene-
ficiaires d'obtenir 25% de reduction. Cet avantage etait  reclame
depuis longtemps par les associations.
+ - To Mr.(Dr.?) Elek (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear Gabor,

I was puzzled by your most recent posting on hungary, where I (think I)
found several statements which could spearhead a protracted, viscious
argument.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

> The following letter was published in the FORUM. I think Eva had this piece
> in mind. I am reluctant to translate it into English. The author is an
> employee of the Argonne National Laboratory and on the payroll on either
> the Department of Energy or the University of Chicago. As you will see
> he is not paid for nothing :-(((((. (For "only English" readers, this
> text is manifest blood-accusation.
> It is against a 1952 statute of Illinois but the law is moot.
[A long excerpt follows, in Hungarian, quoting from Peter Nemenyi's
FORUM article.]

Reading this, numerous things come to mind, let me try to itemize:

a.  It is my understanding that this list is English only.  Hungarian
    text cannot be published "wholesale" (i.e. extended pieces); in
    rare and exceptional cases, however, this is accepted, in which case,
    a translation is expected.  Your letter seems to violate this rule,
    and being "reluctant" does not relieve you of respecting those who
    may not have a (perfect) command of the Hungarian language.

b.  In my opinion it is highly undesirable to write to this (or any other)
    list about people on other lists (e.g. FORUM) who may not read it and
    thus may not be able to defend themselves.  Not to mention that the
    FORUM is even in a different language and our English speaking
    audience has no way of confirming these accusations.

c.  What does someone's workplace or payroll have to do with his/her
    message?  Such "investigations" can quickly backfire.  "Let the
    innocent cast the first stone..."

d.  I did not find "manifest blood-accusation" in your attachment.  Should
    you decide to read it more carefully, towards the end, for example,
    you will find a statement to the effect: "such cases should certainly
    not be generalized to the Jewish masses."

e.  I am not familiar with statutes in the state of Illinois.  Could
    you please elaborate on your last sentence.  In any case, I sincerely
    hope that Illinois also obeys the Constitution of the United States,
    especially as far as freedom of speech is concerned.

f.  Being a long time resident of the US, any sort of "reporting" or
    "spying" is totally foreign to me, and I would hope that you share
    this value.  Your short piece above reminded me of practices
    characteristic of dictatorships.  Again, correct me if I misread you.

A general comment.  I personally feel that there is an abundant pool of
topics of much higher importance, relevance and interest, than to conduct
viscious smear-campaigns against participants on another list, by using
various untranslated quotes, or "short summaries" of questionable
impartiality.  Instead, I very much welcome true political discussions
based on facts, and free of personal attacks or claims of professional
qualifications in defense of an argument (I would like to read more
history by Jeliko, for example).


Barna Bihari
+ - Teaching English in Hungary (fwd) (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Is there anyone who would care to reply to this person?  (Privately, of
course, as she cannot post on this list without subscribing.)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 14:20:08 -0400
From: Katherine F Brentzel >
To: Multiple recipients of list TESLJB-L >
Subject: Teaching English in Hungary

Hi everybody,

I'm interested in hearing from anyone who has had experience teaching in
Hungary. I am planning to teach there this coming year through an
organization called Central European Teaching Program.

Any hints, ideas, suggestions, etc. on teaching there or just on Hungary
in general would be MUCH appreciated!


+ - SZABADSA'GHARC. A word in use in 1956 (samples) (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hi! It appered on the Hungary list:
>To my knowledge, during the revolution in 56, nobody called us
>"szabadsagharcos" in Hungary.
           Your knowledge is simply wrong.

At home I studied a little bit several newspapers from Oct. 1956.
I succeded to find some interesting articels:
> -------------------------------------------------------------
   A short remark for those who can't read Hungarian:
   Use your word processor to find "szabadsa'gharc" which means "fight for
> -------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCE: Magyar Nemzet Oct. 26. rendki'vu~li sza'm 3.
TITLE: A magyar ne'p ko~vetele'sei:
Az ege'sz magyar nemzet a magyar ifju'sa'g mo~go~tt a'll, e's teljesse'ggel
maga'e'va' teszi a MEFESZ tizeno~t pontja't. ... A magyar nemzet ...
ku~lo~no~sen megbe'lyegzi Gero" Erno"nek a ra'dio'ban 1956. okto'ber 23.-a'n
mondott besze'de't, amely a magyar ne'p szabadsa'gharca't ellenforradalmi
akcio'nak nevezte, ... ala'i'ra's: Magyar Ifju'sa'g
TITLE: Felhi'va's:
Ma'rti'rjaink holtteste felett teszu~nk esku~t, hogy a magyar fu~ggetlense'g
e's szabadsa'g u~gye't ve'gke'pp diadalra jutatjuk.
SOURCE: Veszpre'm Megyei Ne'pu'jsa'g 1956. Oct. 28.
 ... Me'lyse'ges fa'jdalmunk, hogy haza'nk fo"va'rosa'ban ve'r folyik
szabadsa'gunke'rt. O"szinte'n reme'lju~k, hogy a szabadsa'gharcosok
igazsa'ga ro~vid ido"n belu~l elismere'st nyer, befrejezo"dik a tragikus
ve'ronta's s a szabadsa'g kivi'va'sa'val egyidaju"leg helyrea'll a be'ke e's
a rend is, mert hiszen be'ke e's rend ne'lku~l szabadsa'gro'l nem lehet
besze'lni. ala'i'rta: A Veszpre'm Megyei Forradalmi Tana'cs
SOURCE: Egyetemi Ifju'sa'g az Eo~tvo~s Lo'ra'nd Tudoma'nyegyetem Lapja 1956.
okto'ber 28. TITLE: A Magyar E'rtelmise'g Forradalmi Bizottsa'ga'nak
felhi'va'sa az orsza'g lakossa'ga'hoz:
 ... A magyar ne'p ho"si szabadsa'gharca kivi'vta elso" gyo"zelme't. ...
Dicso"se'g a szabdsa'gharc elo"deihez me'lto' magyar ifju'sa'gnak. ...
Bu~szke'n a'llhatunk isme't a vila'g ele'. Elsza'nt szabadsa'gharcunkkal
kivi'vtuk az ege'sz vila'g halado' ko~zve'leme'nye'nek rokonszenve't e's
ta'mogata'sa't. ...
Sok ala'i'ro' van, u'gymint: Pozsa'r Istva'n, Erdei Sa'ndor, Haraszti
Sa'ndor, Va'sa'rhelyi Miklo's, Boldizsa'r Iva'n, Ta'nczos Ga'bor stb.
SOURCE: Ne'pszava Oct.  29.
1956.-ban u'j szabadsa'gharc robbant ki Magyarorsza'gon, aka'rcsak 108
esztendo"vel ezelo"tt.  (Horva'th Zolta'n)
Majd: A vila'gsajto' a magyar szabadsa'gharcro'l ci'mmel belu~l lapszemle.
SOURCE: Fu~ggetlense'g Oct.  30. AUTHOR: Duda's Jo'zsef:
A nemzeti szabadsa'gharc teljesen sponta'n, minden szerveze's ne'lku~l
robbant ki, ...
U. ott Csillag Lajos: TITLE: MAGYAR NE'P!
 ... Elzavartuk azokat, akik tova'bba' is a magyar ne'p lelku~lete't, a
szabadsa'gharcos szellemet meg akarta'k me'telyezni. ...
Ugyanott belu~l: Komoly Pe'ter: ... A me'sszel o~nto~tt holttestek, a me'g
mindig fu~sto~lgo" roncsok, a port ko~dlo" romok ko~zo~tt pedig ott vannak-
jo'l felfegyverezve, bizakodo'n, nagyon nyugodtan e's halk szo'val: a
szabadsa'gharcosok, az u'gynavazett felkelo"k.
SOURCE: IGAZSA'G Oct. 30. TITLE: Fu~ggetlense'g! Szabadsa'g!
 ... (a) harc, a magyar fu~ggetlense'g, a magyar szabadsa'g kivi'va'sa'e'rt
folytatott ne'pi ha'boru', szabadsa'gharc egy ne'pelnyomo', antidemokratikus
rendszer megsemmisi'te'se'e'rt e's e rendszer ku~lso" ta'masza'nak, a
szovjet megysza'llo' egse'geinek elta'voli'ta'sa'e'rt. ... Bocskai, Bethle,
Ra'ko'czi, Kossuth csoda'latos ... a'ldozatai uta'n ele'rkezett ahhoz az
a'lloma'shoz, hogy a magyar ne'p inka'bb va'llalja a teljes pusztula'st,
mint a rabszolgasa'got e's a gyarmati sorsot.
Male'ter Pa'lt a hadsereg legfelso"bb vezete'se'be!
 ...Ko~vetelju~k, hogy a hadsereg legfelso"bb vezete'se'be halade'ktalanul
kapcsolja'k be MALE'TER PA'L bajta'rsat, a ho"s szabadsa'gharcost!
SOURCE: Ne'pszava Oct. 31. Lapszemle, melynek ci'me: Gyo"zo~tt a
tisztalalku"ek zendu~le'se, alci'me pedig, a vila'gsajto' a magyar
SOURCE: Magyar Nemzet 1956. Oct. 31.
A Magyar Ta'virati Iroda Ko~zli: Okto'ber 30.-a'n de'luta'n 6 o'rakor
ta'rgyala'sok indultak Nagy Imre m.e. e's a felkelo" szabadsa'gharcos ero"k
ke'pviselo"i ... ko~zo~tt.
SOURCE: Magyar Fu~ggetlense'g Oct. 31. TITLE: Felhi'va's az o~sszes

A list of persons who used the phrase "szabadsagharc" or "szabadsagharcos":
1.) Pa'lo'czi Horva'th Gyo~rgy: remarkable person in the Organisation of
Hungarian writers.
2.) Ne'meth La'szlo': famous Hungarian writer
3.) Duda's Jo'zsef: fighter, later executed under the Kadar-regime
4.) Male'ter Pa'l: colonel, later marthir minister, executed together with
the prime minister Nagy Imre
5.) Mindszenthy Jo'zsef: archbishop of Hungary
6.) Kova'cs Be'la politician
7.) Kopa'csi Sa'ndor chief of the Budapest Police in 1956
8.) Others, such as writers, artists, organizations of different
And so on. I have 60 more lines of text. Several names are in that part.

Tibor Asztalos SZEGED