Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
Copyright (C) HIX
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Bloodlines (mind)  13 sor     (cikkei)
2 Race vs Religion (mind)  43 sor     (cikkei)
3 Judaism (mind)  35 sor     (cikkei)
4 Re: Judaism (mind)  32 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: Bloodlines (mind)  28 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: multiculturalism (mind)  25 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: multiculturalism (mind)  31 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: Choosing your beggars (mind)  35 sor     (cikkei)
9 Re: Liberals in academia (mind)  4 sor     (cikkei)
10 Re: multiculturalism (mind)  122 sor     (cikkei)
11 Re: multiculturalism (mind)  27 sor     (cikkei)
12 Re: multiculturalism (mind)  9 sor     (cikkei)
13 Re: two termini (mind)  4 sor     (cikkei)

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

Paul Gelencse1r writes:
>Why?  I expect people to be angry at such a concept, but only as a
>response to the horrible things that have happened in the name of
>maintaining separate bloodlines.  If done in a peaceful and respectful
>way, what is wrong with the concept?  I submit that a reasonable and
>logical ed  explanation condemming it does not exist.
Have you seen the play "Romeo and Juliet" by that boring white male:-)?
I submit that maintaining pure bloodlines is possible only if there are
strongly enforced rules against intermarriage, and that such rules lead, by
their very nature, to incredible human tragedies. Bloodlines can only be
maintained by controlled mating -- fine for racehorses, methinks.

Andra1s Kornai
+ - Race vs Religion (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I'm absoultely fed up with this bloody confusion!

Judaism IS a religion, like Shintoism is another one.  Most of the religions
allow outsiders to join in.  Liberal religions permit members to leave the
faith if they wish to do so.

Jews are the followers of Judaism, the people who practise that religion, the
worshippers of Jahve.  Buddhists are the followers of Buddha.  Moslems worship
Allah.  Dietary restrictions are just a tiny part of the religious
prescriptions. Belief in being chosen by God is not a unique Jewish phenomenon.

Almost all religions face the problem with the "faith" of the babies.  Most of
them selfishly declare that the baby is a born follower of the parents' faith.
Grown up individuals can and often do change their mind and choose another
religion or none at all.

Race, for humans, is an ethnic category.  A baby has no choice with the race,
nor (s)he can change his/her mind later.  With religion, one can go in and out.

Jews are NOT members of a single race.  Nor Buddhists or Moslems.  People in
Malaysia are very different from tose in Pakistan, who again different from the
Sudanis.  All of these are(/can be) Moslims.  The Ethiopian Falasha has nothing
common with the Polish Ashkenazy, except the Jewish faith.  As I know, Sammy
Davis Jr was a Jew, very different from Isac Stern, as far as race is
concerned.  Both are/were Jews and American (as well as excellent musicians).

There might be ethnic characteristics that are (wrongly) taken as representativ
for a religoius group, probably because the majority of the race happens to
follow that religion and vice verse.  It would be wrong to say that Catholics
have flat, broad nose.  One could be certain, however, that in Mexico a person
with that nose is a Chatolic.  If Arafat dropped the kitchen towel off his head
and dressed as an European, outside of the Arab countries (and Israel) people
would recognise him as a Jew, albeit an exremely bad looking one.  There are a
huge number of Jews who can not be identified by racial signs - simply BECAUSE
they do not belong to the same ethnic group.  The Nazis had a serious problem
with that...

It would be beneficial for everybody, if we separate these two concepts.  Race
and religion are two, not necessarily overlapping categories.  The first is not
at all under the control of the individ, the other completely is.

Please, let me know if I'm totally or partly wrong.   Thank you!
Regards, Gabor
+ - Judaism (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Attila: Mixed marriages are not the same thing as conversion.  I
personally have know several converts to Judaism and have never
experienced the slightest discrimination against them.
Paul: I was raised an orthodox Jew, so that I know what it is all about
(it is no because of the restrictions that I became secular).  I have
already mentioned the dietary restrictions where three steps have to be
coordinated for food to be kosher: selection of the proper animal for
meat (which is not essentially exclusion of pork, this one is not given
more emphasis in the Bible than, say, camel), ritual slaughtering (which
at that time was the most humane method) and proper preparation
(separation of meatproducts from dairy products).  Believe me, that's a
lot of trouble.  A religious Jew is supposed to recite three groups of
prayers a day: morning, afternoon and evening, preferably in the company
of at least nine more males over the age of 13; the latter two may be
combined if scheduled at sunset.  That was a great deal of getting up
early in the morning to pray before work and careful scheduling for the
sunset period.  Sabbath is no much of a pleasure to those who are not
fanatic about it.  No work is allowed, in a very sense: no writing, no
use of machinery and electricity (no cars or streetcars, there is some
restriction on walking, but that can be circumvented).  Several fast
days. Being a religious Jew involves a large amount of knowledge of the
rules and regulations.  One has to memorize a large number of blessings
that must be uttered on all kinds of occasions, e.g. lightning.  I was no
more religious when I met the first "crowned head" of my life: Haile
Sellasie, so it did not matter I did not remember the blessing that must
be said on such an occasion.  I could continue.
        The fundamentalist view is basically that the Jewish people are
sort of guinea pigs [sorry!] of God's inscrutable design.  The only
privilege is that Jews automatically "have a share in the World-to-Come"
while Gentiles have to deserve it, but even that is not clearly defined.
        I appreciate your interested.  I am often amazed, even upset, but
the large amount of misinformation about Jews even among very
well-meaning people.  Please let me know if I can be of any help,
+ - Re: Judaism (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Wed, 10 Aug 1994, Robert Hetzron wrote:

> Attila: Mixed marriages are not the same thing as conversion.

Sorry, if I was not clear enough. What I referred to was that in case of
a mixed marriage the child can became member of the faith (Again, I was
referring to the time when Judeism and Christianity separated). Since
most Greek of the ancient Syria wanted their child to follow Judeism,
there was a fear on the part of the Doctors (High-rabbis) that if mixed
marriages will continue at that rate, Judeism will not be a fate of the
Jews but a generic fate just like Buddism. Also that the Jewish people
will not be able to keep their identity. Once again all these covers the
are when Doctors claimed that Jewish are the chosen people.

> personally have know several converts to Judaism and have never
> experienced the slightest discrimination against them.

I do not a lot of them also and I know for fact that they cannot be
members of the Isreali Airforce or Mosssad or Amad etc. If and that is an
If they are allowed to serve in the Israeli military they are only
allowed to the infantry.

In most countries they are exculded from any Jewish para-military groups.

I could continue the list.


P.S. Nevertheless, I do thank you for all the feed back on the topic,
since I am not expert and the more I learn, the more I learn.
+ - Re: Bloodlines (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Andra1s Kornai writes:

>strongly enforced rules against intermarriage, and that such rules lead, by
>their very nature, to incredible human tragedies. Bloodlines can only be
>maintained by controlled mating -- fine for racehorses, methinks.

I think that has been the way commonly done, but I think it is not
necessarily the only way we humans can interact.  Just as when there
was a stigma against living together before marriage and out of
wedlock pregnancy, there can be a social practice or pressure against
it, which would no doubt include some family conflicts, but that is the
nature of social pressure.  As is the case today, if an interacial couple
marries, after some time there families will come to accept it, but the
overall affect would be to discourage it, while not forbidding it.  Such
things will happen, and there is nothing wrong with it on a small scale;
we all are certainly related is some remote way. Teu social pressures I
propose would influence behavior, which is something someone reccently
raised some concerns about, but as was also pointed out we all are influenced
in 1000 ways during our childhood - there was the example offered by you I thin
of having a thing about clean finger nails, which was a trait influenced on you
during childhood.  We also are taught to wear clothes when we leave the house,
and to say 'please' and 'thank you' when someone is nice to us - there is not
practical reason for these things, but we see social value in them.  Same goes
for ethnicity and race - there is no practical or purely logical rason to
value it, but we as humans just do.

+ - Re: multiculturalism (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Attila Gabor wrote:

>Furthermore, it is Japan's internal affair if they do not want to accept
 AAbsolutely not!!!  Was it South Africa's own internal affair if they wanted
to keep the races seperated by force?  Consistnacy would demand you say yes.
Is it Japan's internal affair that women are not allowed the same business
and professional opportunities, since Japanese men are not comfortable
working with women in power?

In general, I do agree with the notion of 'internal affairs' of a nation, and
have no problem with the situation of Japanese women, as long as the women
say they want to keep their culturally defined gender roles, and of the
races being kept appart in South Africa, as long as both sides want it that
way - if not, the answer would be to split the country to allow people the
opportunity to live with other groups or in isolation, as they choose.  My
concern is that such 'internal affairs' not be used to defend the oppression
of one group by another, and as long as what is considered 'internal affairs'
is defined uniformly for all countries.  Attila Gabor would allow Japan to
decline it's responsibilities to humanity, while demonstrating up-and-down
against the position of the German government, that immigration be severely
restricted (though refugees have been freely given entry).  All I expect
is the same standards be applied to all countries.

+ - Re: multiculturalism (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Greg wrote:

>> > Yes, Japan should be forced to accept refugees...
>> Furthermore, it is Japan's internal affair if they do not want to
>> accept refugees.
>This thread is now mixing the concepts of refugees/asylum seekers with
>general, run-of-the-mill immigrants.
>AFAIK, international law treats them quite differently.

Yes, but Japan fails on all accounts - they do not allow refugees or immigrants
but they will allow laborers with the understanding that they leave, which
the government makes sure does happen.  Again, this is why Vietnamese immigrant
who call themselves "refugees" try to go to Germany specifically and Europe in
general, and the US, rather than trying to go to Japan.  The Japanese have made
clear that the Vietnamese or any others will not be welcome.  I haven't heard
about South Korea, being another relatively wealthy Asian country, as far as
allowing immigrants or refugees, but I suppose if they did allow it, there woul
be something on the news about large numbers of people traveling to South Korea
as there is when waves of people go to Europe.  Remember, that Korea is closer
to Vietnam than the US or Europe, and still people do not go there in large
numbers.  Kinda makes you wonder why Asia does not take care of its
own migrant people.

+ - Re: Choosing your beggars (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I'm just getting to some old
stuff - I will only comment on things worth discussing further, so as
not to fill up peoples mail unnecessarily :-)

Eva Durant wrote:
>(I've only written the bottom bit) If I am wrong, why is it not
>done? (The teaching and the providing the tackle.) Eva Durant
>> > It is more expensive to teach and provide the tackle in the
>> > short term.  Market economics! Eva Durant
>> Obviously you did not do as well in market economics.
>> Regards, Jeliko.

(some stuff deleted)

It is done by private groups.  You may remember the controversy a few years
back of US groups asking for donations for a specific child in a poor
country, but actually pooling the money given by doners to a specific
child, and using the pooled resources to build a deep well, or to
cultivate fields, or build shelter.  The government said it was 'false
advertising' since they money was not actually given to the child in
the advertisement, but was used collectively.  governments for some
reason I cannot begin to understand, still like to do 'Somalias', give
people a few bags of grain, then leave, rather than to teach them to raise
their own grain.

>> > It is more expensive to teach and provide the tackle in the
>> > short term.  Market economics! Eva Durant

Companies call this an investment.  Money must be spent by Ford to make
a plant BEFORE it can make a single new car.  The government must spend
money to build an airport BEFORE a single area hotel or merchant can gain

+ - Re: Liberals in academia (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Charles, please do not apologize for entering the discussion.  You are
welcome to say anything you like, so long as you agree with me :-)

Paul Gelencser
+ - Re: multiculturalism (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)


Your insults are really funny and entertaining, but the idiot is the
one who says things are the way they are just, well, because.

>Sorry, I can't control myself. It's 1994, Paul, not 1934. Your assertions
>about America, Europe, and Australia for that matter are sheer idiocy. Your
>assessment of the state of the world is clearly at odds with current reality.
>Are you living in a hospital? If so, tell the nurse to change the medication.
> :-/

And those who favored liberation of the American slaves in the 1850s were then
also out of touch with reallity, right?  Get real!  Your arrogance and ignoranc
shows when you accept the change you agree with, and insult the change you
disagree with.  Make a point against my agrument, agree with me, or shut-up!!

>Rejection of immigration is *not* a fundamental right of every country,
>according to the signers of several international treaties guaranteeing that

What agreements, and what do they say?  Do you believe in national sovereignty,
and if not, why?  How do you see the place of cultures in a world with smaller
distinctions between people?  If you think it's best to remove global
do you also value cultures?  If so, you have not thought your position through
very well, and you need to think about this issue before saying anything stupid
in the future.  Removal of global boundaries WILL and MUST result in the loss
of ethnic identity, and the disappearance of distinct cultures.  You cannot hav
one without the other!!

>I'm sure the North Koeans could find you a nice apartment in Pyongyang,
>because that is about the only place where those ideas would be welcome.

You're not paying attention, are you?  North Korean philosophy is not
based on cultural identity, but rather on power, pure and simple.  They are
and have been aggressive towards South Korea and have dealt in weapons with
terrorists for profit.  The only good thing to say about them is that they
have limited outside influence, but based on hate and war, not on respect
of others as well as of themselves.  The Muslim countries are a little better
example of choosing to keep some influences out because of idiology, not
because of hate.  They truly do not want to corruptive influences of
Western society.  They have a point, and a right to isolate themselves from
what they see as something undesireable.  If you think broadcast pornography,
people not assamed to argue in favor of legalizing drugs and prostitution,
and loosening of morally imposed limits on behavior is the way to go, fine,
but you cannot take away the right of people to isolate themselves from it.
The same with culture, though there is not moral argument for or against
maintaining culture.  It is purely a matter of personal identity and
understanding, and the argument for its value is the same as the argument
for the value of music or art.  We could live a very nice mechanical
existance without art and music, but we like these things - they give
value to our lives.  The same with culture.  Please be more careful in the
future about why and how you argue against folks you disagree with.  Your
view, believe it or not, is not the only valid one.

>Who cares if there's no Patel or Szabo or Kim signers of the Declaration of
>Independence. There are no Africans either. Can you guess why? As for the

As a matter of identity and understanding American society, you should, and I
should, and every American should.  People talk about the prudish Puritan
values of the US, well where do you think we go it from?  Do you think maybe
its worth understanding?  As for the Africans, just as there were not
Szabo slaves in the US, there WERE African slaves.  There is certainly
a difference between the reasons why neither group is represented by
a signer to the American Declaration of Independence; there were no
Hungarians in North America, and the Africans got screwed! Africans
are a special case in this sense, and are certainly among the
founders of the US.

>As for the judge who administered the oath of citizenship in Spanish,
>well, it was a curious gesture, but only for practical reasons.

And you  would call me rude if I walked into a store in Mexico and
expected to be served in English - some consistancy PLEASE!!  Have
you heard of the stereeotype of the 'Ugly American'?  It came from
Americans going abroad and expecting people to be like them, and from
being shocked when someone in France could not speak English.  The same
should apply to people coming here.  It is more than a practical
matter, it is a matter of respect for the country and society that
has opened it's arms to you.  Actually, it is not even a practical
matter, as to become an AMerican citizen you are supposed to know
English reasonably well.  This does not actually happen,

>but I attach no moral superiority to any language,

So them you don't see anything wrong with an AMerican going to
France or China and expecting to be addressed in English?  How

>and I certainly wouldn't strip him of his judgeship. Promoting
>treason? Get a life, Paul.

I went to high school in a school  which was 60%black and
30% Hispanic.  Of the Hispanics I came across, many considered
themselves not to be Americans though they were born here, but
ofcourse had no intension of returning to they country od
their ancestors.  They called hte whites 'gringos'.  Can you
imagine, they were born here and preferred a foreign culture.
Today, this attitude has grown into Hispancs exerting pressure
on the larger society to adapt tp them - can you imagine!!
I even know a case where a light skinned friend of mine from
Africa, walked into a Hispanic owned store, and was promptly
balled-out for not speaking Spanish!!  It wasn't that they
thought he was Hispanic and should know his own language.  They
called him a foreigner, due to his poor English, and expexted
him to learn Spanish rather then or in addition to English.
This hostile and belligerent attitude to the society they
encounter here is cause for alarm, for sure.

>By the way, Hungary is almost entirely made up of people from somewhere else;
>or is the Great Migration merely a myth. Sheesh!

My understanding is that the Great Migration was of Magyar people
only.  The others did not migrate from too far - mostly neighboring
countries.  Hense, Hungary consists of Slavs, Germans, and Magyars.

Comments, Marc?

+ - Re: multiculturalism (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)


>Yes, Japan should be forced to accept refugees. Any yes, everyone knows about
>the attitudes of some Japanese, but not everyone over there is a racist.

I never, ever, ever, say EVERYONE from a group posesses a given trait.  It is
enough that most do.  Remember the resent pop culture smash hit in Japan, or
.  The black American, Sambo like cartoon figure?  It was a real hit, since
everyone in Japan knows how dumb African Americans are, right?  That doesn't
fly, Marc.  Immigration is a filtering mechanism; the Japanese who leave are
not likely the ones who have the prejudiced attitudes, but most of the country
does not leave.

>But being an American, I am faced with the paradox whose
>solution is elusive: how to reconcile traditional ethnic responsibilities with
>the demands of modern life in America. I confess I have no answers. I suppose
>ne could live like the Amish or Hasidic Jews, but that was unpalatable to me.
>Everyone in America must look at that paradox and answer it for themselves.

One this we agree.  i am glad to see that you do recognize 'traditional
ethnic responsibilities'.  We do agree on the need to assimilate into
a larger American society.  That is how I was raised.  Only resently have I
taken an interest in Hungary and things Hungarian.  I am without a doubt
American first, whether I like it or not, and I do like it.  My Hungarian-nes
is something I need to cultivate, since I was not raised Hungarian.

+ - Re: multiculturalism (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)


>Internal affairs? Oh, I suppose one could make that argument. That is, if
>one believed in national borders, which I kind of don't. :-)

Do you believe in the value of cultural identity?  How can that survive if you
would remove national borders?

+ - Re: two termini (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>I remember we also ended with a invitation to you to respond to the
>Fencsik/Kornai evaluation.
 Did we?!
Zoli  "Do Not Believe All Headers You See"