Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
HIX HUNGARY 812
Copyright (C) HIX
1996-10-10
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: English in Hungary (mind)  36 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: Ten Untaught Lessons about Central Europe (mind)  111 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: Ten Untaught Lessons about Central Europe (mind)  53 sor     (cikkei)
4 Response: Ten Untaught Lessons on Central Europe (mind)  138 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: English in the Hungarian (mind)  7 sor     (cikkei)
6 Response (2): Ten Untaught Lessons about Central Europe (mind)  206 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: Amazing America (mind)  15 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: Homeless in Hungary (mind)  21 sor     (cikkei)
9 Re: Amazing America (mind)  132 sor     (cikkei)
10 Re: The Bible - (mind)  34 sor     (cikkei)
11 Re: English in Hungary (mind)  13 sor     (cikkei)
12 Re: English in Hungary (mind)  13 sor     (cikkei)
13 Re: P.Soltesz or Cermon from the mount (mind)  22 sor     (cikkei)
14 Re: Amazing Hungarians in the US (Was: Re: Amazing Amer (mind)  45 sor     (cikkei)
15 Re: English in the Hungarian (mind)  14 sor     (cikkei)
16 Re: Amazing America (mind)  20 sor     (cikkei)
17 Canada and the Hungarian Revolution: Conclusions (mind)  265 sor     (cikkei)
18 Re: The Bible - (mind)  20 sor     (cikkei)
19 Re: English in Hungary (mind)  8 sor     (cikkei)
20 Canada and the Hungarian Revolution; part 13. (mind)  168 sor     (cikkei)
21 Re: Amazing America (mind)  27 sor     (cikkei)
22 Re: English in Hungary (mind)  19 sor     (cikkei)
23 Re: Amazing America (mind)  26 sor     (cikkei)
24 Re: P.Soltesz or Cermon from the mount (mind)  13 sor     (cikkei)
25 Re: The Bible (mind)  16 sor     (cikkei)
26 Re: Erdo"s (mind)  6 sor     (cikkei)
27 Re: Amazing Hungarians in the US (Was: Re: Amazing Amer (mind)  103 sor     (cikkei)
28 Re: P.Soltesz or Cermon from the mount (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
29 Re: P.Soltesz or Sermon from the mount (mind)  31 sor     (cikkei)
30 Re: P.Soltesz or Cermon from the mount (mind)  14 sor     (cikkei)
31 valami mas (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)
32 Re: The Bible (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)
33 Re: The Bible (mind)  19 sor     (cikkei)
34 walruses and kings (mind)  21 sor     (cikkei)
35 Re: P.Soltesz or Sermon from the mount (mind)  36 sor     (cikkei)
36 Re: The straight poop on George Soros?? (mind)  21 sor     (cikkei)
37 Cermon to you too! (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
38 Re: The Bible (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)
39 Re: Jelikonak (mind)  27 sor     (cikkei)
40 Re: Cultural superiority (mind)  31 sor     (cikkei)
41 Re: Potpourri (2) (mind)  23 sor     (cikkei)
42 Re: The 1700s (mind)  142 sor     (cikkei)
43 Re: The Hungarian swimming team (mind)  29 sor     (cikkei)
44 Re: Cultural Superiority (mind)  58 sor     (cikkei)
45 Re: Suicide in Hungary - (mind)  38 sor     (cikkei)
46 Re: Suicide in Hungary - (mind)  27 sor     (cikkei)
47 Re: P.Soltesz or Cermon from the mount (mind)  20 sor     (cikkei)
48 Re: P.Soltesz or Sermon from the mount (mind)  9 sor     (cikkei)
49 Re: Amazing America (mind)  32 sor     (cikkei)
50 Re: valami mas (mind)  28 sor     (cikkei)
51 Re: Bosnia, Russia (mind)  11 sor     (cikkei)
52 Origins of Hungarians (mind)  13 sor     (cikkei)
53 Re: English in Hungary (mind)  6 sor     (cikkei)
54 Re: Walruses and kings (mind)  28 sor     (cikkei)
55 Re: The Bible - (mind)  40 sor     (cikkei)
56 Re: P.Soltesz or Cermon from the mount (mind)  15 sor     (cikkei)
57 Re: Ten Untaught Lessons about Central Europe (mind)  6 sor     (cikkei)
58 Re: Jelikonak (mind)  20 sor     (cikkei)
59 Re: English in Hungary (mind)  72 sor     (cikkei)
60 UJ HOLNAP (mind)  8 sor     (cikkei)
61 Bosnia, Russia (mind)  101 sor     (cikkei)
62 Re: Bosnia, Russia (mind)  201 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Re: English in Hungary (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In my experience, English has not been neglected in Hungary in the past decades
.
True, official education policy made Russian the compulsory first second
language up to the late 1980s, but it was also compulsory to learn another
second language from high school on.  For that, the popular choice was either
German or English: German with a declining popularity and English with
an increasing one.  There were plenty of night courses offered by various
organizations too, again mostly German and English.

Since the change of systems, the predominance of German and English (not
necessarily in that order, but very close) has be firmly established.
German has seen a revival, reflecting Hungary's renewed German orientation
after a hiatus of 45 years, but English is anything but neglected these
days.

As for the use of English words in Hungarian, it is hardly surprising given
the worldwide dominance of English in emerging fields of knowledge.
Naturally, the new terms are carried into other languages in their originals
and then either left unchanged or assimilated to a lesser or greater extent.
First it may be just a spelling change to comply with the host language's
rules (e.g., file changed into fa'jl in Hungarian) or even replaced with
a native word/expression (click the mouse replaced with ra'kattint az
ege'rrel).

In Hungary there has been much effort to create Hungarian alternatives for
English computer terminology.  I haven't got a copy of the Hungarian version
of Windows but I understand that its labels are mainly in Hungarian and it
contains cases of quite ingenious Hungarization of English terms, well
beyond slavish translations.

As for Peter Soltesz's latest list of words, the majority of them came to
Hungary from languages other than English.  It is a safe bet that those
of Latin origin came straight from Latin, the Greek ones through Latin,
while older technical terms as akkumulator and reflektor from German.

George Antony
+ - Re: Ten Untaught Lessons about Central Europe (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Just to keep up with the forwarded discussion of the "10 Untaught Lessons"
from the Habsburg list.

Hugh Agnew

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1996 11:31:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mills Kelly >

I want to begin my response by thanking Charlie Ingrao for providing such
a thought-provoking discussion piece and for providing me with an
excellent teaching tool for my course "The Life and Death of Yugoslavia."
Charlie's essay and Gale Stokes' and Istvan Deak's responses set off an
animated yet informed discussion in an already lively undergraduate
seminar.  My own contribution to the dialogue on the ten lessons Charlie
proposes falls into two categories:

I.    National Self-Identification and the Future Leaders of East Central
      Europe

As tempting as it may be to wish for a new multinational state in East
Central Europe, there is a more immediate problem that must be overcome.
Certainly one can make a case for a new, larger state in the region when
grand historical trends, great power relations or macroeconomic
indicators are the issues in question.  However, when we descend to the
level of the individual we find a much more intractable problem that must
be dealt with before any such entity can be considered.  That problem is
the question of national self-identification.

Whatever we might think of nationalism as an ideology, it is hard to deny
that the idea of the nation has been incredibly compelling.  When you
speak to people in the region it becomes abundantly clear that with few
exceptions they understand themselves to be members of a nation first, and
then only secondarily citizens of a state, adherants to a religion, or,
even less likely "Europeans."  This national self-identification is very
strong among the young people of East Central Europe.  While many hope
that their state will find a way to rise above the national tensions
created by minorities or border controversies, few question their
nationality.  It is simply part of who they are and unlike many of us in
the "West", they do not make the causal relationship between having a
strong sense of nation and unpleasant consequences.

I can offer a simple example of the pervasiveness of this way of thinking
from my own experience teaching in Slovakia.  During a course on
nationalism and politics that I taught at the university in Presov, I gave
a lecture about constitutional protections of minority rights in
post-communist states.  One student became particularly vehement on the
question of language rights.  "After all," she said, "This is _our_
country [meaning the Slovaks] and so if they [meaning the Hungarians] want
to live here, they should speak _our_ language."  Her arguments did not
bring any wagging of heads, or clucking of tongues by the other 40 or so
students there.  Instead, there was much appreciation for her stance among
this group of future government officials, teachers and leaders of Slovak
society, only a few of whom would admit to being "nationalists."

So long as the young people of East Central Europe feel strongly that
their countries are "ours" and not "all of ours" it seems unrealistic to
hope that in the near term some sort of multinational confederation will
be workable.  Instead of trying to convince these future leaders to be
less national or that they ought to work to resurrect the good parts of
what to them is the ancient past (today's first-year university students
were, after all, only 11 when the Communist system collapsed) we need to
work with them to devise new solutions that address their most pressing
concerns.


II.   The Problem of Security

In lesson 9 Charlie writes that "without justice there can be no long term
stability."  Unfortunately, large majorities in East Central Europe
believe that _both_ the past and the present teach them that the only way
they can be secure in their culture, their economic life, and their
physical beings is in their own national state.  Charlie is correct when
he writes elsewhere in his essay that nationally-minded historians and
politicians have served up a potent mix of fact and myth to convince their
people of this.  Sadly, there is much truth in what they teach.  After
all, for every positive example that one of us could cite of a beneficial
aspect of being part of the Habsburg Monarchy, we could also find at least
one, if not several negative examples to counterbalance each positive one.
Thus, the peoples of East Central Europe who found themselves as the
lesser partners in multinational or binational states have little to work
with in trying to convince themselves to return to such a state of
affairs.

For this reason I would argue that where we in the "West" might desire a
multinational entity constructed on logical, rational principles that
accord with our sense of order and citizenship, these wishes do not
correspond to the experience of the people we hope would benefit.  Charlie
writes that the decision of the Slovak political leaders to take their
state out of the Czechoslovak federation was "a supremely illogical
choice," but according to whom?  Not according to the Slovaks who see
their economy defying all predictions of its collapse after separation
from the more developed Czech lands.  Not according to Slovaks who no
longer have to confront the fact that while they learned Czech, few Czechs
bothered to learn Slovak.  Not according to Slovaks who, as much as they
lament the state of their political culture, know that it is _their_
political culture.  We look at a state with less than 6 million
inhabitants, a severe minority problem and a political system riven by
factionalism, patronage and the worst kind of dirty tricks and shake our
heads wondering how such a state can hope to survive in a dangerous world.
But the fact is that large segments of Slovak society feel more secure
living under a constitution that begins with the words _My, narod
slovensky_, even with all the challenges they face.  Thus, just as in my
first point, it seems that the challenge is to build solutions to the
problems of the region that accommodate, rather than attempt to minimize
the nationalism of the peoples of the region.  Only then do all of us have
a chance to arrive at a lasting solution.

Mills Kelly
Department of History
University of New Hampshire
+ - Re: Ten Untaught Lessons about Central Europe (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 14:26:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: GARY W. SHANAFELT >

I much enjoyed Solomon Wank's observations on the state of the Habsburg
Monarchy in its last decade of existence as well as Jeremy King's reply.
As far as Germans controlling Cisleithania, I have to agree with Wank
(though admittedly I enjoyed King's exposition so much I would like to
provoke him into providing some more!) While German control was never as
complete as that of the Magyars in Hungary, and German nationalists from
Schoenerer to the Nationalverband complained about their lack of
sufficient authority vis-a-vis the other Cisleithanian nationalities, it
seems to me the bottom line is that no regime in Vienna could govern very
long _against_ the Austrian Germans without risking a political debacle,
and few even tried.  The Badeni language ordinances ought to be a
sufficient case in point.  Czech or Italian or Slovene wishes might be
ignored without paying too high a political price, but not German.

   Imperial Germany certainly saw its Austrian ally as a German state; the
(East) German Historian Fritz Klein has done some interesting research on
how, when Austrian governments seemed interested in pursuing domestic
policies that were not sufficiently German-oriented, Berlin was ready to
intervene behind the scenes to pressure them to change their orientation.
That situation only increased during World War I, when Germany's leverage
on the Monarchy vastly expanded, further buttressing the German groups
within Cisleithania and their ability to block any changes that might
imperil their privileged position.  Indeed, by the end of the war, the
Vienna government had finally decided on splitting Bohemia into German and
Czech areas -- a longstanding German Austrian demand but one consistently
opposed by the Bohemian Czechs as violating the unity of the Bohemian
Crown (_Boehmisches Staatsrecht_).  Though German prominence wasn't
written into law, it was as central to the political character of
Cisleithania as a white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant character was to the
United States (at least until the election of a Catholic president in
1960).  [See Gary W. Shanafelt, _The Secret Enemy: Austria-Hungary and
the German Alliance, 1914-1918_ (Boulder: East European Monographs, 1985)
--Ed.]

  I would agree that German power in Cisleithania was certainly far less
than Magyar power in Hungary, and that some Cisleithanian nationalities
had more political clout than others -- particularly the Poles, who could
block governments almost as effectively as the Germans -- but when all is
said and done, the Germans were clearly number one; and if you wanted a
high position in the administration, army, or just about any position
beyond the local level, you had to be fluent in German and probably
possess many of the cultural values of the Germans as well.

  Finally, was the Monarchy dysfunctional, as Wank says?  I'm inclined to
say that it was until I look at our own political system -- at which point
dysfunctionality becomes a very relative term.

Gary Shanafelt
McMurry University
+ - Response: Ten Untaught Lessons on Central Europe (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Prof. Ingrao, the original author of the "10 Untaught Lessons", replied
to some of the discussion they provoked.  I'm forwarding it from the
Hasbsburg discussion list.

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 96 22:25:08 EST
From: Charles Ingrao >

I would like to thank Jim Niessen for the typically thorough job that he
did in laying the groundwork for the forum on the "Ten Untaught Lessons
about Central Europe: a Historical Perspective".  Much of the work that he
does for HABSBURG is not readily apparent to users, but it is quite
evident to those of us who work with him on a regular basis.  I would also
like to thank the numerous respondents, who include some of our field's
most eminent scholars, as well as several of the bright young minds that
have entered the field in recent years.

  One thing that has really surprised me about the responses has been the
significant number of misinterpretations of what I actually said in the
essay. This is especially unfortunate because some of the initial
responses appear to have influenced subsequent contributions from
individuals who may have not actually read the essay themselves.  Once I
have addressed these commentaries, I will turn to the many substantive
comments and criticisms that have been made in several of the responses.


A. MISINTERPRETATIIONS:

    1. I was really taken aback by Gale Stokes' lengthy critique
(subsequently echoed by Helen Liebel-Weckowicz) of my supposed

    contention that the West, particularly the United States, can somehow
    impose a multiethnic solution in Eastern Europe [which] not only flies
    in the face of the current fate of the Dayton Accords, but is inconsistent
    with the principles of democracy, freedom, and self-determination that he
    presumably favors.

Perhaps Professor Stokes would like to point to the place in the text
where I actually make such a statement.  In reality, the *only* thing that
I say that we should "impose" is the letter of the Dayton Accords, which
mandate the convening of war crimes trials and the right of refugees to
return to the homes from which they were expelled -- and the imposition of
economic sanctions on any state which fails to comply.  Far from
advocating American intervention, I state rather emphatically in Lesson #9
that we should,

   launch a public dialogue throughout the region, daring (but not compelling)
   its people both to rediscover the forgotten benefits of their multinational
   past and to confront what nationalism has cost them in external security,
   economic prosperity, and domestic peace.  At the very least, it would also
   reassure and reacquaint the Serbs of Bosnia and Croatia with their long
   history of ethnic coexistence and collaboration.  But such a discussion
   would also temper the misperceptions of past persecution that have so
   poisoned relations between the peoples of the entire region.

I am truly at a loss to see how Professor Stokes can construe my notion of
our "daring (but not compelling)" a "public dialogue" as the forceful
imposition of anything.  Perhaps he will reexamine the text and confirm
that I don't expect the USA to impose anything except the letter of Peace
Accords that we signed, but continue to ignore, despite massive violations
by the Serbs.

  Since Professor Stokes is under the mistaken impression that I advocate
US intervention, he spends considerable energy disputing "why the United
States, in particular, should be responsible for Central Europe." But,
once again, I never called for American or other outside imposition of a
multiethnic solution to the region's problems, just a "public dialogue"
that might counteract 75 years of strident nationalist rhetoric.


   2. I'm afraid that Professor Stokes also appears to have misunderstood
my position about the emerging European Union when he states that,

   a third problem with Ingrao's proposals -- they completely ignore the
   successful multinational community that actually exists in Europe today,
   the European Union.

Professor Stokes's remarks subsequently found an echo in Solomon Wank, who
erroneously claimed that "Ingrao does not mention the European Union...."
I would direct Professors Stokes and Wank to Lesson #9, in which I contend
that a multinational state,

   would also offer a realistic interim solution to the region's economic
   goals.  Few Central European leaders have publicly admitted that their
   economies are decades away from attaining full integration with the
   European Union.  Yet until they achieve that dream, their countries'
   exports will continue to be frustrated by trade barriers that the EU
   has routinely erected to protect its own producers.  The expanded free
   trade zone created by a multinational state could shorten the wait for
   admission by accelerating the commercial integration already begun by
   more modest intraregional consortia like the Visegrad Group and the
   Septagonale.

I would have hoped that Professors Stokes and Wank would have interpreted
my assertion that a multinational combination "could shorten the wait for
admission" to the EU as an indication that I, too, am an advocate of the
region's ultimate integration into the EU -- and that I advocate
multinational cooperation as an interim solution that might reduce the
wait for entry. Hence my disappointment that he ignores that and my
argument that, alas, entrance into the EU for several states (like
Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Albania and Macedonia) is presently a very long
way off.  Even a much more economically advanced country like Hungary has
just acknowledged that it will not be able to enter the EU before 2002!  I
would invite Professors Stokes and Wank to estimate how long it might take
for "backet cases" like Albania or Macedonia to join the EU under current
conditions; my contention is that a confederation with Bulgaria would
greatly reduce their isolation from international markets and afford them
the kind of commercial and investment opportunities that would shorten the
wait for EU membership.

   3. Another misinterpretation of the text of my essay comes from Claire
Nolte, Solomon Wank and Jelena Milojkovic-Djuric, who feel that little can
be learned from the Habsburg experience because the monarchy was a
supranational state based on dynasticism, rather than a multiethnic
dynamic.  I am not surprised that Professor Wank envisioned my essay as an
attempt to apply Habsburg political models, since this is the frame of
reference that he assumes in his forthcoming _AHY_ article, which
systematically assaults the flawed political structure of the Dual
Monarchy (1867-1918).  I totally agree with Professors Nolte, Wank and
Milojkovic-Djuric that there is literally nothing to be gained from
studying the supranational, dynastic ethic that drove the monarchy in its
last half-century.  But I am not suggesting that we study the monarchy's
dynastic superstructure or emulate the unfortunate resort to Dualism
(sorry Istvan!).  Rather, I'd like to see us learn from the Habsburg
experience by focusing our attention on the rich variety of experiences of
the Habsburg peoples at the local and regional level, where many priceless
lessons that can be drawn from the way people interacted within the
various matrices of bi- and multinational communities.  I am sure that
Professors Nolte, Wank and Milojkovic-Djuric would agree with me on that!

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

Tomorrow I will transmit the second part of my reply, which deals with several
excellent insights contributed by the respondents to my original essay.
+ - Re: English in the Hungarian (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear Janos (Zsargo):
My intent here was primarily to focus on fun.
Many Hungarians have no idea that they are in fact speaking
a forms of Aglocized Latin/German/etc. (after all English is quite
a mix). I was hoping to alert the Hungarians that they KNOW
more English than they think!
Peter Soltesz
+ - Response (2): Ten Untaught Lessons about Central Europe (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Again, a forward from the Habsburg discussion list.

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
This is the second part of Charlie Ingrao's response to the forum on his
essay "Ten Untaught Lessons about Central Europe."


Date: Fri, 04 Oct 1996 16:18:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Ingrao >


B. Substantive Insights

        1. The Chimera of Multinational Entities

Gale Stokes is quite correct when he writes that I put my "ideas forward
less as practical guide for public policy than as what [I hope] will be
the beginning of a public dialogue on the fate of Central Europe."  After
all, in politics there is always a gap between what is ideal and what is
possible. Thus, he grasps the very essence of the problem when he suggests
that I yearn that "somehow the Central European toothpaste can be squeezed
back into the Habsburg tube" and that, more specifically, "the time when a
multiethnic Bosnia can be sustained is over."  His pessimism was echoed by
several correspondents, including Istvan Deak ("the movement toward
national entities was and remains unstoppable"), Helen Liebel-Weckowicz
("Short of brutal conquests, hardly any of the Balkans peoples would
willingly accept another multi-national empire."), and T. Mills Kelly, who
vividly describes the much "more intractable problem" [of] national
self-identification" at the individual level, which leads the members of
dominant ethnic groups to adopt a proprietary perspective toward their
nation-states.

  Of course, I expressed the same pessimism when I wrote in my essay that,

    realistically speaking, the obstacles [against the creation of
    multinational states] are almost certainly insurmountable. Seventy-five
    years of state-building by the region's "successor states" and radical
    changes in its ethnic demography have created a seemingly irresistible
    momentum for the creation of nation-states like the *dozen* new entities
    of the past five years.

But I am not yet ready to say that it would be impossible.  Admittedly, my
rather muted optimism is informed by others more eminently qualified than
I (most notably C.A. Macartney, Misha Glenny, and State Department
officials who persist in their efforts to preserve a multiethnic Bosnia).
But it is also emboldened by my faith in the power of media to mold
popular culture.  The region's culture presently reflects monopolization
of all forms of media by the successor states of 1919 and 1989.  My
reading of the dynamics of political culture persuades me that at some
point, some of these peoples will feel sufficiently self-confident about
themselves and their nation that they will be able to reexamine their
multinational past without clinging to the myths of oppression and
conflict that are the common currency of in the legitimation strategies of
new nations.  Nancy Wingfield's commentary suggested that the Czechs are
already feeling sufficiently secure about themselves to venture into such
a discussion. I am suggesting that the West dare the region's leaders to
open a public dialogue *now* that dares them to recognize the essential
compatibility of multinationalism, not in order to recreate past, failed
regimes like Austria-Hungary, but to restore the socio-cultural ambience
that has enabled people to live peacefully in a multinational state as
late as 1989. If the Habsburg monarchy failed, it was largely because its
leaders never promoted a mass political culture based on the notion of a
multiethnic nation, thereby abandoning the field to the intrinsically
divisive forces of western-style nationalism; but obtuseness does not mean
that such an approach is impossible, only that it has never been given a
chance anywhere in Europe except Switzerland.  As my good friend Sol Wank
says, "nation-states are historically contingent phenomena; they will not
last forever."  As historians and social scientists, we can encourage our
leaders to help the process along.

  Before turning to the next substantive issue, let me dwell just a bit on
the two possibilities for multinational association that I proposed
though, admittedly, I did so partly to provoke and exercise my HABSBURG
colleagues.  A northern confederation of Bosnia, Croatia, Hungary,
Slovakia and Romania may not be politically feasible right now, given
Slovak and Romanian hostility toward Hungary, but recent developments
suggest that rapprochement is possible, especially once these nations have
had an opportunity to enjoy their newly found freedom and confront the
problems that come with Balkanization -- including Romania's and
Slovakia's likely long-term exclusion from the EU.  At the very least, a
confederation of Bosnia and Croatia would seem inevitable if the Bosnian
Serbs secede from the ungainly state that Dayton created; sadly, such a
confederation would be binational, rather than multinational.

  And please do let me say a few nice things about those unloved
"leftovers" -- Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania -- whom Istvan Deak
indelicately labels "Europe's three worst basket cases" (Really, Istvan!).
The fact that they *are* basket cases constitutes one of the very reasons
for bringing them together.  A tripartite confederation would offer
compelling advantages for all three.  Macedonia would finally gain
commercial access to the outside world; Macedonia and Albania would
acquire meaningful security against their hostile Greek and Yugoslav
neighbors; for the first time since the Roman era, Albania would have
meaningful commercial ties with the Balkan hinterland; in Albania the
"oppressed" Moslem minorities of Macedonia and Bulgaria would gain an
advocate; and Bulgaria would be able realize its century-long dream,
turned nightmare, of union with Macedonia.


        2. The Drawbacks of Multinational States

A central feature of the "Ten Untaught Lessons" is its faith in the
greater efficacy of multinational societies, especially when compared to
binational entities in which a dominant group practices the "tyranny of
the majority". I am disappointed that my faith has found no echo among the
correspondents.

  Nicholas Miller judges the advocacy of a balance of power that is
intrinsic to most multinational societies to be "a negative approach to
ending the rivalries of the region [which] does not work in the long run."
I don't deem the creation of such a balance to be a "negative" when it has
-- on balance -- a positive impact.  Perhaps it is the New Yorker in me,
but I have met too many denizens of multiethnic communities from around
the world to ignore the way in which such a balance liberates people from
fear and loathing.  Yes, even they are prone to some degree of ethnic bias
and will occasionally resort to ethnic slurs in characterizing their
neighbors, but this is a small price to pay when compared to the
alternative through which the region's peoples have suffered.

  Whereas I have cited ethnic interaction within the Habsburg monarchy as
evidence of the efficacy of multiethnicity, I have never suggested that
Austria-Hungary necessarily represented an ideal solution to the region's
multiethnic demography.  But I do maintain that the old monarchy "was far
from dysfunctional" -- meaning that it did offer many advantages to its
citizens -- in contrast to Sol Wank, who argues that it was, in fact,
dysfunctional. Surely Sol would agree that virtually *every* country is to
some extent both functional and dysfunctional; hence I take his assessment
to mean that he feels that its drawbacks outweighed its contributions to
the quality of life of its people.  But, since Sol and other respondents
choose to dwell on what is "possible" (and "impossible") in solving the
region's problems, I would invite them to tell me how any political entity
could have done a better job of it than the Habsburg monarchy.

  I must, in fact, disagree with T. Mills Kelly's claim that "for every
positive example that one of us could cite of a beneficial aspect of being
part of the Habsburg Monarchy, we could also find at least one, if not
several, negative examples to counterbalance each positive one."  When I
compare its achievements in providing relatively high levels of economic
growth, living standards, education, legal equality, public order, social
services, democratization, professionalization, and artistic culture with
the regions to the immediate north, south and east, I can only conclude
that the monarchy's peoples were better off for the experience.  The
balance of achievements was better in the Austrian half of the monarchy
because -- as Jeremy King points out in his retort to Sol Wank -- it was
*not* dominated by the Germans, but rather enjoyed a real balance of its
component ethnic groups.

  If the quality of life in Cisleithania was better than in Hungary, it
was also much, much, much better in Habsburg Bosnia than in any of the
Balkan nation states.  Jelena Milojkovic-Djuric's response focuses on the
failings of Habsburg rule in Bosnia, principally its unfortunate failure
to carry out land reform.  First of all, let me say that I am delighted to
have Dr. Milojkovic-Djuric as a member of the HABSBURG Discussion Group,
which enriches our discourse by including a colleague who was actually
born in Yugoslavia and educated in Belgrade.  But I must repeat my earlier
cautionary about judging any state by dwelling exclusively on its
shortcomings.  Whereas I don't doubt her claim that the Habsburgs raised
taxes (though they spent far more of the monarchy's money in Bosnia than
they raised there), spent a lot of it building a museum that "served as a
visible vehicle of propaganda" (together with other cultural and
educational institutions, many of which the Bosnian Serbs have since
destroyed), and suppressed the pro-Ottoman resistance in the years
immediately after its occupation, I share the more balanced judgment of
those recent scholarly works (books by Noel Malcolm, Mark Pinson, John
Fine Donia and Robert Donia, and an AHY article by M. Palairet) that judge
Habsburg rule to have been far more positive than negative.  As those
scholars point out, Bosnia's infrastructure, literacy levels, and standard
of living increased so dramatically after 1878 that they far exceeded
those of other Balkan countries, including Serbia and Montenegro.


        3. Misinformed Americans ?

I accept Istvan Deak's corrective that America's negotiators were fairly
well-informed when they headed to Paris in 1919 and that the trouble was that
they were rendered

    powerless by domestic considerations as well as by the selfishness,
    shortsightedness, and imperialistic ambitions of the French after the
    First World War, and the similar follies of the Soviet Union after
    the Second World War. Nor should we forget how the British and French
    political delegates and military commanders scuttled every move in
    recent times aimed at stopping Serbian aggression in Bosnia. At last,
    very late in the game, a US president had the political courage to
    order a few air attacks, which stopped the war, at least for the time
    being.

But, whereas Istvan is right about our top policy makers in 1919 and 1943, I
remain troubled by several episodes in the recent crisis, such as Bill
Clinton's announcement at a press conference that he finally understood what
was going on in Bosnia after having read Robert Kaplan's _Balkan Ghosts_; or
the American diplomats who congratulated Peter Sugar on a "brilliant" lecture
that had cast the Bosnian crisis in a new light (even though what he said has
been widely available in undergraduate textbooks for years); or the several
Congressmen who could not find Bosnia on a map of Europe (one of them claiming
that he didn't have his glasses with him); or in our leaders' pathetically
naive faith in the countless promises that Serb leaders have made, only to
break them at the first opportunity.


Charles Ingrao
Purdue University
+ - Re: Amazing America (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, S or G Farkas wrote:
<SNIP>. So what? What is
> the relationship between this and all the other stuff about the schools
> where they supposedly teach children to do this and that?
>
Well perhaps one should also look at what Dr. Elders (our disgraced
former official) was in school yesterday in Maryland (I think) still
being a public proponent of teaching masturbation and other sexual act to
ALL school children!   This is one example of the degenerate thinking that
can and does go on in schools and government!

If you bothered to listen...you may find many such atach=ks on the standards
by which most Americans live by and try to adhere to.

Peter Soltesz
+ - Re: Homeless in Hungary (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, S or G Farkas wrote:

> According to tomorrow's Nepszabadsag there are 30,000 homeless in Hungary.
> This corresponds 750,000 in the US (proportionally), a number close to the
> real numbers (according to some). Here is an area where, sadly, Hungary
> caught up with the US.
>
> Gabor D. Farkas
<<<<<<< It is probably significantly more than that! The last time I was
in BP and elsewhere in the country, I was quite amazed at the number of
homeless, beggars, and despondent people both on the street, in the
metro, etc.   It is a shame that democracy (and people in general) have
not found a good solution to this problem. Under the communists these
people were "hidden" away. One clear thing tough, in HU at least one
solution was to give these people a job, no matter how low level, that
still allowed them to maintain some form of self-esteem -- namely they
earned some money.  In the US the free dole causes people to lose all
self-esteem and develop an expectation, later a demand, later claim a
right to free dole! Both sides are wrong. There must be a better workable
solution!
Peter Soltesz>
+ - Re: Amazing America (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >,
 says...
>
>Yeah, America is amazing! And I just love it.
>
I am glad you have discovered America.  However, re the gulag, I strongly
recommend you read Alexander Solczenitsyn.  THe most interesting thing in
his books is that the people suffering in the gulags and stalinists
prisons are strongly believing in the communist ideology - to the end of
their life.  They think it is all a big mistake that they were arrested.
They think there are bad people, the the idea is great.

Agnes
>I sang the world famous American song, Amazing Grace, together with
thousands
>of people in the weekend. Everybody was so happy that it is hard to
express.
>This is the real American spirit, the spirit of freedom and love.In my
opinion
>this is the best American song ever written. (Everybody knows the musics
of
>this song in Hungary too, but they don't know the words. They don't
know, that
>it is a beautiful Christian song. Why? Because you sell them America
without
>the real content, without the real American spirit, which is so
intimately
>related with God through love.)
>
>  "I once was lost
>   Now am free,
>   Was blind
>   But, now I see."
>
>In his weekend sermon Father Kennedy spoke about the "new kind of men",
a
>fabrication of the communists by their utterly atheistic and antihuman
>philosophy. This kind of "new man" was completely revealed in the guards
of
>the GULAG. He spoke about the "unspeakable sufferings" e.g. woman
prisoners
>had to endure in GULAG at the hands of these guards. Their acts were the
acts
>of the cruelest kind of men in the history of the mankind. (You may also
read
>about this in the special report about the GULAG killing techniques of
the
>Beszelo, an SzDSz related organ, which appeared a couple of years ago.)
>
>Father Kennedy was completely right. This man knows what he is talking
about.
>You can not be renewed without God.
>
>Billy Graham had his Carolina crusades in Charlotte, NC. At the evening
I
>atteneded, I listened to him surrounded by a cheering crowd of 72,000
people.
>(Of course, you say, 72thousand 'extreme rightwinger fundamentalists'...
;-)
>Now, this was the famous American spirit!! That is why we call America
an
>amazing country! You have these guys as Billy Graham, and more like
that,
>people are busy listening to them.
>
>The Public Broadcasting System has a series about the political history
of
>the American evangelistic movement. It is aired in local tv's once a
week.
>You are too naiv if you think, Father Kennedy's qoute is untrue. From
the
>document series we may learn that as early as in 1972 some public
schools
>already tried to enforce some horrendous textbooks on the students and
their
>parents. It was the infamous West Virginia case,where in the elementary
school
>textbook the officials included an idealized "fantasy story" about
people
>making love in a public bus. In the story the passangers of the bus
stripped
>all their clothes off as the bus rode accross the city, and everybody
began to
>make love with one another.
>
>The outrage of the parents were tremendous. And it is a historical fact,
that
>it was the beginning of the fight for religious freedom.
>
>Now, the public education is infected by the same kind of liberal
behavior:
>some teachers try to enforce the dumbest doctrines on the students. The
NAE
>(National Association of Educators) has an extreme liberal POLITICAL
agenda
>and they force it without any regard of parental protest.
>
>School choice may be able to help the problem. Monopolized education
(and
>that is what you have in the public schools) is always dangerous.
>
>As a Catholic I can not agree with evangelicals in a couple of details,
but
>I have a high respect toward them, and their uncompromised zeal to
protest
>the atheistic excesses so provocatively exposed by liberals in the
society.
>
>Just yesterday evening Clinton tried to make a point that as a boy he
>attended a Catholic school. Sorry, Mr. President. The Catholic vote is
not
>this cheap. You can not buy it by fooling around. Whatever happened to
the
>grizly abortion bill, Mr. President... You vetoed it, and you still want
>Catholics to vote for you?! Funny, as it is.
>
>These are not my words. These are the words of my local Catholic priest.
>(Another 'right-winger', of course. ;-)))
>He did not shy away telling people the opinion of the Church about the
act
>of the President of the United States of America. What a nice music for
>our ears...
>
>I tell you, I just love America, the spirit of real freedom. Amazing
country.
>Amazing people. O boy, believe me. It is. Cheers,
>
>  It is the day,
>  That the Lord has made,
>  I will rejoice,
>  And be glad in it.
>                                                                Sz. Zoli
+ - Re: The Bible - (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >,
 says...
>
>On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Peter A. Soltesz wrote:
>
>>
>> <<<<< Mark, think of the bible as not only a historical document
>> describing many of the sins of the Jews, et al, but also as some of
the
>> inspired laws.  The ten commandments are just those...they are not the
>> ten suggestions!!!
>>
>  As far as I understand, no respectable Bible scholar accepts the
>  Bible as history or a historical document any more.
>>
Here I have to disagree.  Again, I can recommend you a book, written
about 30 years ago, by Werner Keller: "Und die Bible hat doch recht!" The
book is available in English translation: "The Bible as history".  Also,
I attended years ago a lecture here in Toronto by the late great israeli
archeologist and minister, Yigal Allon.  He demonstrated how they dug and
discovered Hazor.  This was the tunnel and water cyst story of which
James Michener incorporated in his book, "The Source".   He spent months
on this dig.  There were many more underground tunnels the israelis found
and used, using biblical descriptions.

Agnes
>> <<<<<< I am upset at liberals because most of the time they do not
want
>> to hear the truth aND HIDE BEHIND LABELS...SO i GIVE THEM SOME OF
THEIR
>> OWN MEDICINE!
>
>  This is nothing but a bunch of BS (not your degree),
>                                                       Amos
+ - Re: English in Hungary (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Peter,

I liked the list of English-based Hungarian words.

I've also heard "dieta'zok" instead of "fogyo'ku'ra'n vagyok." (I'm on a diet.)

Question:

1) Can you say 'erobikozom' to mean "sometimes I do aerobics"? If so, what is
   its correct spelling?

Szia,
Mark
+ - Re: English in Hungary (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 08:57 AM 10/9/96 EDT, Mark wrote:

>I've also heard "dieta'zok" instead of "fogyo'ku'ra'n vagyok." (I'm on a diet.
)

        I believe "die'ta" and "fogyo'ku'ra" mean two different things.
"Die'ta" is a restricted diet. For example, fat-free, sugar-free, etc. diet
because the patience's system, for one reason or other, can't cope with a
given substance. "Fogyo'ku'ra," on the other hand, means a diet aiming
weight reduction. Years ago, under the influence of English, I used "diet"
instead of "fogyo'ku'ra" and my friends found the mistake very funny.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: P.Soltesz or Cermon from the mount (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article
>, "Peter
A. Soltesz" > writes:

>On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, aheringer wrote:
>
>> >Who do you think you are - - who made you king, god, the messiah
>> >that you are "alerting" us to mend our ways.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter,
I am just now catching up with my mail.The above quote was written by me,
not Agnes.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I wish you would keep it to
yourself.
No one elected you judge (or executioner). You judge me, Aniko and
others on what basis? You do not know us from Adam, - as the saying goes.
Your preaching is unwelcome....If I may make a recommendation; you should
take a hiatus, figure out what ails you and get some help. We deserve a
rest too
from your cermons from the mount.

Marina
+ - Re: Amazing Hungarians in the US (Was: Re: Amazing Amer (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article
>, "Peter
A. Soltesz" > writes:

>Well to bad that you do not know what economics training and experience I
>have.

Well, since you don't offer a CV, it must not amount to much. Got to skin
to win, babe.

>However, let me say this: No two economists have the same views.

The first, and usually only, banality readily available to those who know
little about economics.

>
>Moreover, the fact is that EVERY time the US reduced taxes on the
>populace the income of the treasury GREW!!!!

Care to document that with some actual figures? You can confine yourself
to showing this iron link from 1960 to 1995. Why not post this data right
after your post telling us exactly which public schools in the U.S. are
teaching students suicide techniques? By the bye, if no two economists
have the same views, isn't this an indictment of the profession as a whole
when they still can't find agreement in the face of such a definitive
statistical correlation between lower taxes and rising treasury income?

So put that one under your hat
>with your liberal econmists -- here is the proof that basic economics
>DOES WORK!

With proof like yours, who needs facts? I doubt Keynes is spinning in his
grave.
Sam Stowe

>
>Peter>
>
>



"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, of course, it's too dark to read."
-- Groucho Marx
+ - Re: English in the Hungarian (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 07:58 AM 10/9/96 -0400, you wrote:

>Dear Janos (Zsargo):
>My intent here was primarily to focus on fun.
>Many Hungarians have no idea that they are in fact speaking
>a forms of Aglocized Latin/German/etc. (after all English is quite
>a mix). I was hoping to alert the Hungarians that they KNOW
>more English than they think!
>Peter Soltesz

And you know less about language than you think.  I thought I'd just alert
you to that fact.

Joe Szalai
+ - Re: Amazing America (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 08:03 AM 10/9/96 -0400, Peter Soltesz wrote:

<snip>
>Well perhaps one should also look at what Dr. Elders (our disgraced
>former official) was in school yesterday in Maryland (I think) still
>being a public proponent of teaching masturbation and other sexual act to
>ALL school children!   This is one example of the degenerate thinking that
>can and does go on in schools and government!

Why do you find this so troublesome?  It's not going to take a lot of money,
you know.  Teaching someone to masturbate is very cost-effective because
one lesson is usually enough.  Hell, most of us are self-taught but we must
recognize that some people need a helping hand.  That's what education, and
Christian charity, for that matter, is all about.

Joe Szalai

"Masturbation: the primary sexual activity of mankind. In the nineteenth
century, it was a disease; in the twentieth, it's a cure."
             Thomas Szasz
+ - Canada and the Hungarian Revolution: Conclusions (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Peter I. Hidas

Post Mortem

        After 4 November 1956 there was little anyone could do to save the
Hungarian revolution and to sustain the Nagy government. Hungary was
quickly occupied by the Red Army and Moscow installed loyal communists.
Refugees in the tens of thousands began crossing the border to Austria.

        More could have been done in the previous thirteen days. In the
opinion of  the Montreal LeDevoir, the presence of Western troops, that is
NATO units in Western Europe, including Canadians, could have provided arms
for the rebels. Instead, they attempted to resurrect the old Empire by the
invasion of Egypt.(1) Escott Reid came to similar conclusions when he wrote
that, in return for Russian withdrawal from Hungary, the West could "agree
to the withdrawal of western troops from Germany, thus creating a buffer
zone in Europe."(2) L=E9ger at External Affairs also believed that "some kin=
d
of political initiative and support would clearly have been of great moral
and political aid to the Hungarians."(3)

        After November 4 Canada politicians wanted to keep the spotlight of
world opinion on the issue without raising false hopes of liberation by
force.(4)  Segments of the public still demanded action. Fifteen hundred
Catholic students of the Cathedral High School of Hamilton(Ontario),
expressed surprise at the apparent complacency of the Western nations. In
their telegram to the prime minister they called for  action, not words.(5)
The Hungarian M. D. F. Udvardy, chairman of a protest meeting of several
hundred people claiming to represent a cross-section of British Columbia,
also urged the government to dispatch immediately United Nations forces to
restore freedom in Hungary. He reminded St Laurent of his alleged promise
made along these lines and accepted  in good faith by the Hungarians.(6)
Another telegram, this one from the Canadian branch of the  United
Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, demanded an end to
hostilities in the Middle East, an immediate cease-fire in Hungary and the
withdrawal of the Russians.(7)

        Not everyone supported such demands.The Montreal Star's editorial
writer  on November 5, a day after the invasion of Hungary, showed great
understanding of Soviet imperialism. "Moscow is prepared to work out new
and more liberal relations with its satellites. It is not, however,
prepared to stand by while an anti-Communist regime takes over. Hence, when
the anti-Red patriots took complete control of the  revolution and looked
to the equally vehement anti-Communist, Cardinal Mindszenty as their
leader, the Russians made up their minds." In the writer's view, Kadar was
not a Stalinist, but a Titoist and, in any case, he wrote, Nagy went too
far. On the same day The Winnipeg Free Press  declared that the United
Nations could not do anything for Hungary because of the risk of a hydrogen
bomb holocaust. "No generation has ever known so fearful a dilemma and no
man, surely, can be condemned for thinking twice before voting in his own
mind to save freedom in one country at risk of destroying the world." The
Catholic Women's League of Canada offered a conciliatory approach, and, at
the same time, a way out of the dilemma for Ottawa. The message to the
prime minister read: "On behalf of the 100,000 members of the Catholic
Women's League of Canada we wish to express our deep admiration for the
people of Hungary in their struggle for freedom against a foreign oppressor
and urge that every possible aid be given to alleviate their
sufferings."(8)    The League's views reflected mainstream Canadian
sentiments. Communist-persecuted white Christian European refugees were
the proper candidates for  integration into Canadian society.

        On 7 November 1956 the Cabinet met in Ottawa. The Acting Secretary
of State for External Affairs recommended that an offer of assistance of
one million dollars  should be made  through the Red Cross "for relief
purposes in Hungary or among Hungarians who had left their country since
the uprising began." During the discussion in cabinet it was made clear
that "it would be undesirable for any contribution to be made at this time
for relief purposes in Hungary itself."(9)  Aid to Hungary was opposed but
refugee support was approved.

        On November 9 Nehru made an unfriendly speech about the Hungarians.
Pearson sent a telegram to Reid. Pearson commended Reid's "...prompt and
effective efforts to bring to Mr. Nehru's attention the apparent
discrepancy between his attitude to the situation in the Middle East and
that in Hungary...we should not, I think, press further at the risk of
turning the Indians sour. You must protect your excellent position in Delhi
and not endanger it too much on the Hungarian question."(10)  On Tuesday,
13 November, Reid received another telegram from Pearson. By now the
minister considered it unwise to continue to campaign on the Hungarian
question any longer and instructed Reid not to take any further
initiatives.(11) In preparation for a speech on Hungary Pearson scribbled
for himself a few notes: "keep spotlight of world opinion on the issue; not
raising false hopes of liberation by force."(12)  At this point Canada's
foreign minister considered the Hungarian revolution a closed chapter in
history for which it would have been foolish to jeopardize Canada's good
relations with India or with any other Third World country.

        Reid, however, who did not share Pearson's realism,  continued to
plead with St Laurent for diplomatic action on behalf of Hungary.  St
Laurent replied on November 7 but the dispatch reached Reid only on the
ninth. "The message from St Laurent did express appreciation of the way the
Indian and Canadian delegations in New York had cooperated on the Suez
issue but the sole reference to Hungary was banal - that St Laurent had
read with great interest the references in your statement at the opening
session of UNESCO to the recent tragic events in Hungary."(13)  St Laurent
blamed both the Russians and the West for the Hungarian tragedy. In
November,  he said in Toronto: "It would be idle to deny that the Middle
East crisis did serve to obscure in the minds of many people around the
world and especially in the nations of Asia the enormity of the vicious
Soviet intervention in Hungary..."(14)  According to Reid, "If St Laurent
had had his way it is possible that Canada would not have applied a double
standard but would have publicly condemned both aggressions." (15)  St
Laurent did not agree with Pearson's stance on the two issues but was
"persuaded by Pearson and other members of the cabinet to tone down the
protest he wanted to send to Eden as soon as he heard of the British
aggression and he suppressed any public demonstration of his emotions until
the crisis was over."(16)  Prime Minister St Laurent's sympathies for the
insurrectionists is emphasized by Professor N.Dreisziger with the laconic
afterthought that he "could do nothing to help the people of Hungary in
their struggle for independence."(17)     The biographer of Louis St
Laurent, Professor Thompson, believes that the future behaviour of the
pro-British segment of the Canadian electorate, that is, the fear of losing
the next election to the Conservatives, which did indeed became a reality
in 1957, guided the prime minister's behaviour in late October and early
November.(18)  Professor Thompson also speaks of St Laurent's concern about
the fighting in Hungary and his frustration "at the inability of the
Western nations to come to the assistance of the insurrectionists."(19)
The partially quoted letter of St Laurent does not justify this description
of    the prime minister's views. True,  he did send a message to Premier
Bulganin in which he expressed Canada's 'horror' at the suffering of the
Hungarian people,(20)  but he also added to the same letter, originally
drafted by Lester B. Pearson, but not containing the soothing phrases, that
"It is not, however, my present purpose to attempt to pass judgement on
the actions that have been taken but to ask you in the name of humanity, to
use your influence to alleviate the sufferings..."(21) He ignored Pearson's
view that Canada should take advantage of the difficulties which the Soviet
Union was facing in its European empire.(22)

        In his New Years' Eve message Pearson said: "One thing in the
record of 1956 is clear. When the free governments failed to work together
we lost ground in our search for peace and stability and progress."(23)
Pearson never believed that the revolutionaries could succeed in Hungary.
He mused publicly on October 27: "It would be naive to imagine that the
Moscovite Empire is already crumbling..." Nagy said he is building national
communism. Can national communism and the Russians live side by side? We
can only hope that they will."  "What can we do in Canada, and in other
free countries; what should we do in such a situation?" "The force of world
opinion must be mobilized in favour of the forces of national freedom in
these countries and against foreign intervention, and foreign domination.
The United Nations is where this should be and can be done."(24)  He
suggested no independent role for Canada. It was through the United Nations
that he wished to act and to enhance the international role of his country.
Lack of imagination at first drifted him towards empty propaganda gestures
but he never felt comfortable with such a stance. His constructive thoughts
for Hungary came too late - on November 4th,  when the multiparty
government in Budapest was overthrown. "Yesterday my government proposed
the intervention of a United Nations force for peaceful purposes in the
Middle East..." "Why should we not now establish a United Nations mission
or United Nations supervisory machinery of an appropriate kind for the
situation in Hungary?"(25)  Years later when Pearson was writing his
memoirs he was still unable to correctly analyze the problems he had faced
in the autumn of 1956.  Then Suez was his main concern. "If  I had not been
so deeply involved in Suez, I would have been much tempted to see if we
could get a resolution to have UN Assembly Committee fly straight to
Budapest with the UN flag and some men in UN uniforms."(26)  Pearson as
Secretary for State of External Affairs would not have made such an
unrealistic proposal while in office. In 1957 he said: "The reason the
United Nations did not save Hungary was that it could not; not that it
would not." "If we had intervened in Hungary by force, the first victims
would have been the Hungarians themselves, and the rest of the world might
have followed into the abyss." If the UN pressure did not save Hungary "it
had some effect and what it had was good."(27)  He does not elaborate on
the positive. The straw enemy had been constructed and successfully
demolished. The constructive proposals of Jules L=E9ger and Escott Reid were
filed away and eventually put to rest  within the walls of the National
Archives of Canada.

        But there were results.  Afro-Asian members of the Commonwealth
outraged about the Suez affair mellowed once the U.S.S.R. invaded Hungary.
Canada had a role in the pacification of the third world members. In the
coming months Canada remained active in the United Nations in pressuring
Moscow to ease repression in Hungary. Pearson's people, however, stumbled
onto a new success story for Canadian external affairs; the sponsoring of
the Hungarian refugees who in droves, from November 4th, began to leave
Hungary in search of freedom abroad. Otherwise, in Ottawa, business was as
usual.

        On 13 November 1956 External Affairs  fired off the following
telegram to one of its European embassies:  "Would you please tell Swartz
[C.O.Swartz, of Northern Sales Limited, Winnipeg] and Mr. Barabas [of
Hungary] that we are still anxious to sell wheat to Hungary but that we
would prefer to delay for two or three weeks any negotiations (particularly
any involving credit) until the situation in Hungary is somewhat clearer.
If you are able to see Mr. Barabas we would be interested in knowing what
he has in mind concerning wheat purchases in Canada."(28)


NOTES



(1)6 November 1956.

(2)Reid, op.cit., 55.

(3)Jules L=E9ger's memorandum for the Minister; Situation in Hungary, 3
November 1956, NAC, RG 25, 86/87/360, Box 32, 8619-40 part 3: from November
1, 1956 to November 7, 1956.

(4)Speech notes, NAC, MG 26: L.B.Pearson, N9, Volume 11, file 1956
October-December.

(5)Telephone call to PM, 5 November 1956, NAC, RG 2 90-91/154 vol.108 H-17-1=
.

(6)Ibid.

(7)Telephone call to the Prime Minister, 6 November 1956, ibid.; Kanadai
Magyar Munk=E1s, 15 November 1956.

(8)6 November 1956, NAC, RG 2 90-91/154 vol.108 H-17-1.

(9)NAC, RG 2: Cabinet,  Volume  5775, file: 5 November 1956 to 19 December 1=
956.

(10)Reid, op.cit.,  77.

(11)Ibid.,  85-86.

(12)Speech notes, NAC, the Papers of L.B. Pearson, MG 26, N 9, Volume 11
file 1956 October-December.

(13)Reid., op.cit.,  70.

(14)Ibid.,  94.

(15)Ibid., 133-4.

(16)Ibid.

(17)N.F. Dreisziger, et.al. Struggle and Hope; The Hungarian-Canadian
Experience (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1982):  203.

(18)Dale C.Thompson, Louis St Laurent: Canadian (Toronto: Macmillan of
Canada, 1967):  477.

(19)Ibid., 482.

(20)Ibid.

(21)L.B.Pearson's memorandum for the Prime Minister, 5 November 1956, NAC,
RG 25,  86/87/360, Box 32, file 8619-40 part 3: Political Situation in
Hungary from November 1, 1956 to November 7, 1956.

(22)Ibid.

(23)Draft of L.B. Pearson's New Year's message for broadcast by CBC-IS, 22
December 1956, NAC, MG 26, N9, Volume 11, file 1956 October-December.

(24)L.B. Pearson's speech in Toronto, 27 October 1956,  NAC, RG 2,
90-91/154, Box 47 H-17-1 (b).

(25)L.B. Pearson's Statement in Special General Assembly, 4 November 1956,
NAC, RG 2, 90-91/154, Box 47 H-17-1 (b).

(26)Lester B. Pearson, Mike: The Memoirs of the Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson.
Vol.2: 1948-1957.  ed. John A. Munro and Alex. I. Inglis. (Toronto and
Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1973):  254.

(27)Lester B. Pearson, "The Present Position of the United Nations."
External Affairs 9, No.5 (May 1957):  182-186.

(28)Charles Ritchie to Rome [?; probably Paris], NAC, RG 25, 86-87/159,
Vol.45, File 9376-A-40: Commercial Agreement between Hungary and Canada -
Most Favoured Nation Treatment (post war), part 1.
+ - Re: The Bible - (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, aheringer wrote:

> In article >,
>  says...
> >
> >On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Peter A. Soltesz wrote:
<<SNIP>>
> Here I have to disagree.  Again, I can recommend you a book, written
> about 30 years ago, by Werner Keller: "Und die Bible hat doch recht!" The
> book is available in English translation: "The Bible as history".  Also,
> I attended years ago a lecture here in Toronto by the late great israeli
> archeologist and minister, Yigal Allon.  He demonstrated how they dug and
> discovered Hazor.  This was the tunnel and water cyst story of which
> James Michener incorporated in his book, "The Source".   He spent months
> on this dig.  There were many more underground tunnels the israelis found
> and used, using biblical descriptions.
<<<<<<<<<<<< The title actually says (my translation:) And the Bible has
it right! -- not as the supposed translation states.

Peter
+ - Re: English in Hungary (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, Mark Humphreys wrote:
--snip--
> 1) Can you say 'erobikozom' to mean "sometimes I do aerobics"? If so, what is
>    its correct spelling?
<<< I guess that would be good...it sounds like aero. But it could also
be ero:bikozom (as in ero: --strength) But I do not know. Anyone else have
observations on this topic??
Peter
+ - Canada and the Hungarian Revolution; part 13. (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Peter I. Hidas

DAY THIRTEEN

Sunday, 4 November 1956.
At 4:00 a.m. Soviet tank forces launched heavy assault on Budapest and
other rebel centres. Under threat of bombing Budapest, demanded surrender
of the Nagy government by noon. Set up puppet government under J=E1nos K=E1d=
=E1r
backed by several R=E1kosi associates. Hungarian people were informed of the
change via Radio Moscow. Nagy reported to have found refuge in Yugoslav
Embassy; Cardinal Mindszenty in United States  Legation. United Nations
called on Russia to withdraw troops...Armed uprisng crushed by overwhelming
odds except for a few pockets of resistance.
Calendar of Events in Hungary prepared by the staff of the Department of
External Affairs for use in connection with the Special Session of the
Canadian House of Commons: November 26, 1956.(1)

        Within five hours of the Soviet attack on Budapest, at 3 a.m. in
New York, the Security Council met. The General Assembly of the United
Nations was in session by 4 a.m. to  discuss Hungary. But Pearson's eyes
were rigidly focused on the Middle East even when the fate of the Nagy
government was fleetingly the centre of his attention. He wanted the West
and the unaligned countries to take a united stand against Russia on the
Hungarian question. He telegraphed Ottawa from New York: "There is no need
to underline the significance for the UN and for the relations between
western and Asian countries of this vote [concerning Hungary]."(2) Reid in
New Delhi understood Pearson's thinking. He pressured India without
specific instructions from his minister. At first Reid  tried to convince
the Indian government to issue a strong statement at the opening of the
UNESCO conference held in India. He sent a verbal message to Nehru asking
him not just to deprecate Soviet intervention in Hungary but, as the voice
of the conscience of mankind, to speak out at the UNESCO "against the
Russian martyrdom of the gallant Hungarian nation".(3)

        Pearson, to prevent the alienation of the Asian members of the
Commonwealth, refused either to approve or to condemn the
Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt, a Third World country whose
sovereignty was,  to India, more vital than that of Hungary's. A new
anti-imperialist propaganda campaign, in the absence of any hope for the
restoration of the Nagy government after November 4, remained a realistic
basis for international cooperation with India. If the Third World wanted
the West out of Suez, adopting a quasi-parallel treatments for East and
West could accelerate the process. The trick was to equate the remedy
without equating the phenomena. Pearson's approach fitted the bill ideally.


        The Hungarian case was brought to the UN assembly  where the
majority rule applied after the Russians, at an unprecedented pre-dawn
meeting of the Security Council, had vetoed a US proposal calling for an
end to the fighting in Hungary. Mid-afternoon on that day, 4 November 1956,
a second emergency special session of the General Assembly considered  the
United States resolution calling on the Soviet Union to desist from armed
attack on the people of Hungary and to withdraw Russian forces without
delay. The resolution also requested the Secretary-General to investigate
and to assess the need for medical and relief supplies and then report on
the situation. The Governments of Hungary and the U.S.S.R. were called on
to permit the United Nations observers to enter Hungary. The resolution
also asked all members of the United Nations, as well as humanitarian
organizations, to provide emergency relief to the Hungarian people.

        In a statement supporting the resolution,  Pearson, as Chairman of
the Canadian Delegation, portrayed the armed intervention in Hungary as
"one of the greatest and grimmest betrayals in history." He contrasted the
Soviet action, in contravention of the principles and ideals of the United
Nations, with the decision of the United Kingdom and France to hand over
their police role in Egypt to a United Nations force, and he appealed for
the admission of the United Nations' observers into Hungary and for freedom
for the Hungarian people to choose their own form of government. The United
States resolution was adopted by a majority of 50 in favour (including
Canada), 8 against (the Soviet bloc, except Hungary, whose representative
was absent), with 15 absentions. Many of the Asian and Arab countries
abstained, but, as a result of international pressure, certain Asian
nations such as Indonesia, India and Ceylon took a firm stand against
Soviet intervention in Hungary.(4)

        The Hungarian community in Canada despaired as the news of the
Russian invasion of Hungary reached them. Five hundred signatures were
attached to a telegram addressed to Prime Minister Louis St Laurent:

In the name of Hungarian citizens and people of Hungarian descent living in
Edmonton Alberta and district we implore you to do everything within your
power to aid our countrymen who at this time are being attacked by Russian
forces in Hungary. Hungarians throughout Canada and the world will be
grateful to you and your government as long as they live for any help you
may give to our homeland which is dying. Long live freedom!(5)

Canadian citizens of Lithuanian origin in Toronto also appealed on behalf
of Hungary against Soviet brutality to the prime minister.  They asked the
government to support and help the Nagy regime. The Canadian Hungarian
=46ederation,  on this day of reckoning, would not make a strong stand. They
pledged to support the prime minister on  whatever measures he thought
would be required to serve the cause of freedom and peace. On Sunday, over
two thousand representatives, former citizens of the Soviet Union now
living in Canada, held a demonstration of protest in a Montreal sports
arena. The clapping, sobbing participants stood in deafening ovation at the
Palais des Sports when they were told  a possible solution for the present
strife in their homeland lay in the hands of the United Nations. "...If
only one United Nations soldier were sent, there would be possibility of
success," said Dr. George Lengv=E1ry, the president of the Canadian Hungaria=
n
=46ederation's Quebec branch. He informed the prime minister's office that
the people at the gathering indentifed themselves with the Hungarian cause
and declared their readiness to serve it with all appropriate means within
their power. The Montreal police did not share their enthusiasm. They
refused permission for a torch march that evening. The Canadian Hungarians
in Port Colborne (Ontario)  also held a protest meeting and sent a message
to Ottawa. In their telegram to the prime minister they thanked the
government for condemning Russian aggression in Hungary and urged St
Laurent to instruct Mr. Pearson to press for United Nations action to bring
about immediate withdrawal of Russian forces from Hungary.  In Regina
(Saskatchewan), where the local Hungarian Grand Committee called a meeting
for Sunday only 60 people attended.(6) Suspicion concerning the nature of
the revolution lingered on; the Montreal police suspected communists among
the Canadian-Hungarians, while some Canadian-Hungarians worried about Imre
Nagy's communist past.

        In the evening on that fateful day for Hungary,  Canada's prime
minister delivered a televised post mortem speech to the Canadian people:

Our aim is that the people of Eastern Europe should be free to choose their
own form of government, a basic human right they have not enjoyed for
years. The Soviet Union's resort to military force against a neighbouring
nation is a most serious threat to the peace which we have solemnly pledged
ourselves to preserve and defend in signing the Charter of the United
Nations.(7)

The prime minister tried to soothe the ruffled feelings of
Canadian-Hungarians and to explain Pearson's conduct at the United Nations.
The public's concern was not so much the defeat of the  "gallant and
unarmed people of Hungary" but Pearson's independent anti-British and
anti-French stance on Suez.(8)

        Pearson's pledge to separate Canada's Russian foreign policy from
useless anti-Soviet propaganda remained unfulfilled. The proposals of Reid
and L=E9ger were ignored.



NOTES

(1) NAC, RG 2, 90-91/154, Box 47, File H-17-1 (b).

(2) L.B. Pearson from New York to External Affairs, 4 November 1956, NAC,
RG 25,
        86-87/360, Box 32, file 8619-40, pt.3; from November 1, 1956 to
November  7,
            1956.

(3) Reid, op.cit.,  54-55.

(4)April 23, 1957, NAC, RG 25, 86/87/336, vol.152, file 5475-dw-51-40,
vol.1.; L.B. Pearson's Statement in Special General Assembly, Prime
Minister's address to the Nation [see Middle East Collection], 4 November
1956, NAC, RG 2, 90-91/154, Box 47, H-17-1 (b); The Globe and Mail, 5
November 1956.

(5)Telegrams to PM, 4 November 1956, NAC, RG 2, 90-91/154, vol.108 H-17-1.

(6)Ibid.; The Montreal Star, 5 November 1956; Kanadai Magyar Ujs=E1g
[Canadian Hungarian News, Winnipeg, Man.], 6 November 1956.

(7)Extracts of the Address by St Laurent on the CBC, November 4, 1956,
Arthur E. Blanchette, ed. Canadian Foreign Policy 1955-1965; Selected
Speeches and Documents. (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1977): 18.

(8)Dale C.Thompson, Louis St Laurent: Canadian (Toronto: Macmillan of
Canada, 1967):  477-478.
+ - Re: Amazing America (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, aheringer wrote:

> In article >,
>  says...
> >
> >Yeah, America is amazing! And I just love it.
> >
> I am glad you have discovered America.  However, re the gulag, I strongly
> recommend you read Alexander Solczenitsyn.  THe most interesting thing in
> his books is that the people suffering in the gulags and stalinists
> prisons are strongly believing in the communist ideology - to the end of
> their life.  They think it is all a big mistake that they were arrested.
> They think there are bad people, the the idea is great.
>
<<SNIP>>

I guess this cleary shows that the communists have a warped mind!
In spite of the facts they continue to think that they have got it!
It was been demostrated (to my satisfaction at least) that communism
has failed -- why, because of the basic tennets of the system which was
overlooked:  GREED, POWER, and EVIL that controls all who practice communism.

Pitty those poor peasants who actually believe that communism is the way
(as I saw in India and other places) yet they do not know what it does to
them AFTER they take over.

Peter Soltesz
+ - Re: English in Hungary (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, Eva S. Balogh wrote:

> At 08:57 AM 10/9/96 EDT, Mark wrote:
>
> >I've also heard "dieta'zok" instead of "fogyo'ku'ra'n vagyok." (I'm on a
 diet.)
>
>         I believe "die'ta" and "fogyo'ku'ra" mean two different things.
> "Die'ta" is a restricted diet. For example, fat-free, sugar-free, etc. diet
> because the patience's system, for one reason or other, can't cope with a
> given substance. "Fogyo'ku'ra," on the other hand, means a diet aiming
> weight reduction. Years ago, under the influence of English, I used "diet"
> instead of "fogyo'ku'ra" and my friends found the mistake very funny.
>
>         Eva Balogh
>
<<<< Eva, you are correct in the strict definition of the words. However,
I have heard both being used to imply a diet for weight loss as well.
Peter
+ - Re: Amazing America (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, Joe Szalai wrote:

> At 08:03 AM 10/9/96 -0400, Peter Soltesz wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >Well perhaps one should also look at what Dr. Elders (our disgraced
> >former official) was in school yesterday in Maryland (I think) still
> >being a public proponent of teaching masturbation and other sexual act to
> >ALL school children!   This is one example of the degenerate thinking that
> >can and does go on in schools and government!
>
> Why do you find this so troublesome?  It's not going to take a lot of money,
> you know.  Teaching someone to masturbate is very cost-effective because
> one lesson is usually enough.  Hell, most of us are self-taught but we must
> recognize that some people need a helping hand.  That's what education, and
> Christian charity, for that matter, is all about.
>
> Joe Szalai
>
> "Masturbation: the primary sexual activity of mankind. In the nineteenth
> century, it was a disease; in the twentieth, it's a cure."
>              Thomas Szasz
>
Dear Joe:
I guess one can take your reply two ways, one very funny and the other as
a way liberals think. I will assume the former. Peter.
+ - Re: P.Soltesz or Cermon from the mount (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear Marina:
I do not know what CERMON is . Perhaps you mean Sermon.
The latter I did not do, butjust wanted to alert you all that there are
some problems. Of course the ones that do not want to hear anything about
it are the ones that need it the most.
<snip>

Moreover, I have stated that it is according to the bible that you are
what you are, not according to me exactly -- so if you do not like what I
say, then just read the bible and have someone else say it...if that
makes you any more comfortable!  Sorry that I got some of you upset, but
I guess that goes with the territory!
Regards, Peter
+ - Re: The Bible (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear interested ones, First of all I resent the statement that the Bible
describes the "sins of the Jews". "Sins and virtue" would be better and
all historical accounts should include negative features. And the Bibke is
a JEWISH documents. Self-criticism was not invented by the Communists and
should not be used against those who practice it.
        A philological details: "ten commandments" is a mistranslation.
The original words may be translated as the "ten declarations" and
"decrees" is a later interpretation. The first one is not even an order,
but strictly a declaration of the fact that the two divine names refer to
the same God.
        The inadequacy of the Bible as a historical source has been
discarded, archeology confirmed a great deal; Richard Elliott Friedman is
one of the excellent representatives of this school. I cannot remember who
wrote the book "The first historians" refering the the chroniclers of the
Bible. Of course, the Bible not a homogeneous book, especially the Genesis
contains myths as well.                                         Robert
+ - Re: Erdo"s (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Did you know that in mathematical circles - they often have a good sense
of humor - they invented the concept of "Erdos numbers". E.n. 1 went to
someone who co-authored a paper with Erdos. No. 2 went the someone who
co-authored a paper with someone who co-authored a paper with Erdos, and
so on. Einstein only got No.2. (I read this in the article about him in
the Atlantic Monthly a number of years back.                    Robert
+ - Re: Amazing Hungarians in the US (Was: Re: Amazing Amer (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, Stowewrite wrote:

> In article
> >, "Peter
> A. Soltesz" > writes:
>
> >Well to bad that you do not know what economics training and experience I
> >have.
>
> Well, since you don't offer a CV, it must not amount to much. Got to skin
> to win, babe.
<<< It is good thing that I am not a braggart and all I am going to say
that I will match my certificates and qualifications to you any time.

But nevertheless here is the information you asked for [following]

Peter Soltesz
<<<SNIP>>>>
> >
> >Moreover, the fact is that EVERY time the US reduced taxes on the
> >populace the income of the treasury GREW!!!!
>
> Care to document that with some actual figures? You can confine yourself
> to showing this iron link from 1960 to 1995. Why not post this data right
> after your post telling us exactly which public schools in the U.S. are
> teaching students suicide techniques? By the bye, if no two economists
> have the same views, isn't this an indictment of the profession as a whole
> when they still can't find agreement in the face of such a definitive
> statistical correlation between lower taxes and rising treasury income?
>
> Sam Stowe
 Here is is SAM!

CUT TAXES TO RAISE GOVERNMENT REVENUES

    excerpted from the National Center for Policy Analysis' Daily Policy
                                   Digest

    Study after study arrives to reinforce the evidence that lower tax rates
    mean greater economic growth, leading to increased government
revenues. But
    those who apparently enjoy the status quo and want it to continue keep
    deriding the concept as "supply-side alchemy" and charge that a flat tax
    will give the wealthy a free ride. Not true, say many analysts who have
studied the question. They note:

    Tax rate reductions in the 1920s, 1960s and 1980s resulted in
increases in
    government revenue, while taxes paid by the wealthy rose.

    Tax rate increases in the 1930s prolonged the Great Depression, and
    inflation-induced bracket creep in the 1970s and early 1980s hindered
    economic growth in the 1973-82 period.

    Looking at the 1920s:

     * In the first half of that decade, the top tax rate was slashed
       from 73 percent to 25 percent.
     * Tax revenues surged from $719 million in 1921 to $1.16 billion by
       1928.
     * The share of the tax burden paid by the rich -- $50,000 and up in
       those days -- rose to 78 percent in 1928 from 44 percent in 1921.

    Now consider what happened in the 1960s.
The top tax rate was reduced from 91 percent in 1963 to 70 percent by
    1965.

      Tax revenues climbed more than 16 percent between 1963 and 1966.

      Tax collections from those making more than $50,000 a year climbed 57
    percent during that period, but grew just 11 percent for those making
less.

      Those in the upper income brackets saw their portion of the income tax
    burden increase to 15 percent from 12 percent.

   Then there were the 1980s:

     * Between 1980 and 1988, the top tax rate was reduced from 70
       percent to 28 percent.
     * Revenue surged from 1983 to 1989, increasing by more than 54
       percent (or an inflation-adjusted 28 percent).
     * The top 1 percent of earners saw their share of the income tax
       bill rise from 18 percent in 1981 to 28 percent by 1988.
During the current decade:

     * Taxes were increased in 1990 and 1993.
     * The result was that taxes paid by those earning above $200,000
       fell 6.1 percent in 1991, while taxes paid by those with lower
       earnings rose 1 percent.
     * Between 1992 and 1993, taxable income among those with earnings of
       less than $200,000 climbed 3.3 percent, while it declined 2.3
       percent for those making more.

   Proponents of cutting tax rates are convinced these findings will
   silence those who sing the Sirens' song of class warfare.

   Source: Daniel J. Mitchell (Heritage Foundation), "Supply-Side
   'Alchemy' at Work," Wall Street Journal, January 17, 1996.


I certainly hope that this is sufficient proof for you too Sam!
Peter Soltesz
+ - Re: P.Soltesz or Cermon from the mount (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 04:28 AM 10/9/96 -0400, you wrote:
> We deserve a
>rest too
>from your cermons from the mount.
>
>Marina
>
>

It's nice to know even God can't spell.

Charlie Vamossy
+ - Re: P.Soltesz or Sermon from the mount (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Peter,

Thanks for the Hungarian suggestions.

You recently told Marina that 'she is what she is according to the Bible.'
But, if there is this god, It is the judge and NOT any human. The Bible could
be used as a guideline, but that does not mean it can be used as judgement.
Those 10 important game rules are called The Commandments, not The Judgements!
 There is a difference.  Anyway, according to the bible, I am sure that most
of us would probably have already been stoned to death for some reason or
other.

I find the bible sad when it mentions that you commit a sin even by
thinking about doing a sin!  Options in life always involve making choices
to do or not to do something. I personally have *respect* for someone who
sees the bad and chooses to be strong enough and do good.

I feel that whether or not the bible is historically accurate still does not
 have too much to do with its relevance to today's conditions, standards, needs
and values.

I am confused again.  When George Antony (I think) mentioned the degraded role
 of women in Biblical society, you agreed.  Therefore, when you talk about the
exemplary model of living in biblical style, what do you decide to pick and
choose??

Re: Hungarian   I thought your connection of erobikozni to ero: (strength) as
                a very interesting point.

Ciao,
Mark
+ - Re: P.Soltesz or Cermon from the mount (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hi Marina!

Enthusiastically second your following words written to Peter ...
.
">Your preaching is unwelcome....If I may make a recommendation; you should
take a hiatus, figure out what ails you and get some help. We deserve a rest
too from your cermons from the mount".
>
I am of the opinion that a hiatus might not be enough at this point.
Perhaps combining it with a couple of sessions with Dr. Elders might help to
ease his ailments?

Take care,
Aniko
+ - valami mas (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Kedves Lista Tagok!

Tud valaki valamit az Amerikai Magyar Muzeumrol(Passaic, NJ)? Tortenelme,
alapitasa, anyaga, "charter", vezetoseg, stb. erdekelne.

Az informaciot elore is koszonom.

Udvozlettel,
            Katalin
            
+ - Re: The Bible (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, Robert Hetzron wrote:

<SNIP>
Of course, the Bible not a homogeneous book, especially the Genesis
contains myths as well.
<<<<<<< Yes of course...ttranslation of the opening is also apparently
wrong...
it can be translated as: as it was going on.....
instead of the big bang theory!
Peter
+ - Re: The Bible (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, Robert Hetzron wrote:

> Dear interested ones, First of all I resent the statement that the Bible
> describes the "sins of the Jews". "Sins and virtue" would be better and
> all historical accounts should include negative features. And the Bibke is
> a JEWISH documents. Self-criticism was not invented by the Communists and
> should not be used against those who practice it.

<<<<<< OK then let us call it the sins & virtues of the Jews

>         A philological details: "ten commandments" is a mistranslation.
> The original words may be translated as the "ten declarations" and
> "decrees" is a later interpretation. The first one is not even an order,
> but strictly a declaration of the fact that the two divine names refer to
> the same God.

<<<<< Perhaps you wish to explain to us what it does mean....they
certainly arent the ten suggestions! To me even decrees are orders!
Peter
+ - walruses and kings (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Aniko,
for some reason your comments on my posting appeared only this morning
in my copy of HUNGARY. Thanks, and I am happy with your reaction, but
on this issue I am, unfortunately, agreeing with Agnes.  It is wrong
of me to spread gloom and doom in this world, and the best thing for
me to do is to keep my mouth shut.  Optimists are very much like true
believers. A person who is saved from a disaster (in my opinion, by
good luck, or coincidence) promptly believes that there is  a God, and
God loves him. It never occurs to him, that there is nothing in him
for God to love.  An optimist often will think that he was saved,
because he has a positive attitude. It still was luck and coincidence,
though. However, I cannot argue with the mystical power of an inner
conviction that everything will work out. With people, who are
basically, one could nearly say genetically, fortunate, who win at
lotteries, constantly win in poker, do not meet disasters, my view is,
that their luck never ran out. Never say never, and there is only one
rule in this world, that there is no rule (except scientifically). So,
just as I said that it is no business of mine to destroy somebody's
faith, it's no business of mine to destroy somebody's optimism.

Karoly
+ - Re: P.Soltesz or Sermon from the mount (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>Peter,
>
>Thanks for the Hungarian suggestions.
>
>You recently told Marina that 'she is what she is according to the Bible.'
>But, if there is this god, It is the judge and NOT any human. The Bible could
>be used as a guideline, but that does not mean it can be used as judgement.
>Those 10 important game rules are called The Commandments, not The Judgements!
> There is a difference.  Anyway, according to the bible, I am sure that most
>of us would probably have already been stoned to death for some reason or
>other.
>
>I find the bible sad when it mentions that you commit a sin even by
>thinking about doing a sin!  Options in life always involve making choices
>to do or not to do something. I personally have *respect* for someone who
>sees the bad and chooses to be strong enough and do good.
>
>I feel that whether or not the bible is historically accurate still does not
> have too much to do with its relevance to today's conditions, standards, need
s
>and value
s.
_Clarification:_->Me think it was me who brought this subject to the
attention to Peter.Andy K.
>I am confused again.  When George Antony (I think) mentioned the degraded role
> of women in Biblical society, you agreed.  Therefore, when you talk about the
>exemplary model of living in biblical style, what do you decide to pick and
>choose??
>
>Re: Hungarian   I thought your connection of erobikozni to ero: (strength) as
>                a very interesting point.
>
>Ciao,
>Mark
>
>
+ - Re: The straight poop on George Soros?? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

There's another interesting article about Soros in the November 1996 issue
of WORTH magazine.  It's not specifically about Soros, but about how the
superrich give/don't give to charitable causes.  Soros, in fact, is on the
cover of the magazine--a painting, not a photo.

BTW, on a personal note, the all-encompassing aphorisms that sometimes
appear at the bottom of messages invariably fail to take in every human
situation.   They seem kind of smug to me, reassuring the person offering
them, while casting a blind eye at *specific* situations.  (New Age
journals do this quite a lot.)  This latest example: Pain is inevitable,
suffering is optional.  Let's take, as one example, a mother in a poor
country whose child starved to death--or going back, was napalmed to
death.  Does she really have a choice in her suffering?  There are
millions more examples all over the world.  This isn't to say that we
shouldn't try to manage our pain if we can, so that we don't suffer from
it.  But in more than one case, the pain simply isn't manageable, through
no fault of her own.  Let's turn our focus from all-encompassing aphorisms
to individuals, one by one by one.  (And any charity that did that would
indeed be a charity.)

Burian
+ - Cermon to you too! (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, Aniko Dunford wrote:
<SNIP>
> I am of the opinion that a hiatus might not be enough at this point.
> Perhaps combining it with a couple of sessions with Dr. Elders might help to
> ease his ailments?
>
> Take care,
> Aniko
>
<<< Well ANIKO this lcearly shows that oyur mind is in the gutter and
that I was right about you!
Peter
+ - Re: The Bible (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 02:08 PM 10/9/96 -0400, Peter A. Soltesz wrote:

<snip>
><<<<< Perhaps you wish to explain to us what it does mean....they
>certainly arent the ten suggestions! To me even decrees are orders!
>Peter                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yeah, I know.  What will you brag about next?  Your new kneepads?

Joe Szalai
+ - Re: Jelikonak (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Although I know that Jeliko will be away for a while but I still feel that I
have to correct some of his statements about historical facts.

At 09:38 AM 9/30/96 PDT, Jeliko wrote:

>It should also be remembered
>that after WW I parts of the AU monarchy and after WW II parts of the
>little antant countries which were as guilty as for example Hungary in
>their participation in the war were treated differently. Yugoslavia became
>a winner even though Croatia was allied with the Germany and Czechoslovakia
>also became a winner even though Solvakia per se was a looser.
>Unfortunately, there is no specific cure for political schysophrenia.

        The above statement should be qualified. Yes, it is true that
Croatia became a German puppet state but there was a genuine partisan
movement in Serbia under Tito's command. They fought the Germans ferociously
all through the war. In addition there was a Yugoslav government-in-exile,
headed by the young king Peter. Yes, Slovakia was also on the German side
but the Czechoslovak government was smart enough to establish a
government-in-exile which took upon itself of representing Czechoslovakia as
a whole, including Slovakia. And one more thing, although it is true that it
was in the last minute but the Slovaks rose against the Germans. The
Hungarians did nothing. They didn't have the will when the time came to
establish a government-in-exile and when the call came to rise up against
the Germans the population remained inactive.

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

At 11:47 AM 9/30/96 -0400, Peter Hidas wrote:

>Hungary introduced anti-Semitic laws well before Hitler came to power.  The
>three so-called Jewish Laws were passed in the late 1930s and early 1940s
>in order to pacify  the large consituency of Hungarian pro-Nazi extremists
>as well as for ther purpose to obtain Hitler's support for the revision of
>the Treaty of Trianon.

        This is exactly what the apologists of Hungarian foreign policy in
the 1930s-early 1940s, seem to forget. You cannot blame everything on the
Germans and the German occupation. There were several anti-Jewish laws
introduced from the spring of 1938 on, that is, well before the March 19,
1944 German occupation. In May 1939 there were new elections, based on a
new, more liberal, electoral law, and the extreme right-wing parties won 49
seats (as opposed to 13 before) in a 260-seat parliament. But the strength
of the extreme right was much more important than the number of
parliamentary seats would indicate. Because of the peculiarities of
Hungarian electoral law the number of voters voting for the extreme
right-wing parties was much larger than their 18-19 percent share in
parliamentary seats. One million votes stood behind these results! Although
I can't lay my hands on the numbers of all eligible voters but I wouldn't be
surprised that if the extreme right managed to get the allegiance of more
than 30 percent of all eligible voters. These extreme right-wing parties
were openly antisemitic. Thus, there was a considerable segment of society
(including workers, by the way), who sympathized with German national
socialism and what it stood for, including its antisemitic program. I am not
saying that the people who voted for these parties actually wanted to
physically exterminate the Jewish population of Hungary but they would have
been quite happy to see them disappear from Hungarian national life.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Potpourri (2) (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 11:50 PM 9/29/96 GMT, Agnes wrote in connection with the Nepszava article
on the anti-smoking law:

>Eva, I agree that the guy who wrote the article is a complete idiot.
>However, I disagree that there was no change in Hungarians re: smoking.
>When I visited Hungary in 1989, all friends and relatives offered us a
>cigarette immediately upon entering their homes.  My husband stopped
>smoking in 1982.  I never smoked and developed an allergy to smoke.  When
>people got together in our honour, and started to smoke, I coughed my
>lungs out.  So the filtered out one by one to the kitchen for a smoke,
>until I, the guest of honour, remained solo in the living room....
>
>In 1995, the situation was drastically different.  Many people stopped
>smoking and those who did smoke, automatically went out when they wanted
>to smoke.  We took a bus trip to Transylvania and there was absolutely no
>smoking allowed on the bus.

        Agnes, I think that your friends and relatives were just nice to you
personally. They remembered that a few years earlier you had problems with
smoke. Somehow I don't think that attitudes in general changed very much.
And by the way, I don't think that you could smoke on buses even before.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: The 1700s (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Again, here is something from Jeliko.

At 02:37 PM 9/30/96 PDT, Jeliko wrote:
>Eva Balogh writes:
>
>>         Why are you so surprised? The Hungarians themselves didn't know
>the
>> origin of their own language until the end of the eighteenth century;
>i.e.,
>> after the publication of the famous Encyclopedia of Diderot.
>
>Hmmm, We got to apples from oranges. What are you implying, that it was the
>French encyclopedists who told the Hungarians what is the origin of the
>their language? What does the origin of the language has to do with the
>developmental opportunities for the 1700s ?

        Either I didn't express myself correctly or Jeliko misunderstood
what I was saying. Jeliko expected the French encyclopedists to know the
linguistic affiliation of the Hungarian language when it wasn't known until
about forty years later. So, he demanded a knowledge they couldn't possibly
possess.

>As an example we still do not
>know the origin of the dual crown, does this mean that we did not have
>kings? What I was showing that the French encyclopedists did not know the
>relationship or differences between the various languages cied. I f you
>read the tomes you can also find out that they palced Hungary in Asia also.

        What this shows is not the total ignorance of the French but the
remoteness of Hungary from the center of Western European intellectual life.

>> >At least the Hungarian encyclopedia from 1699 is more factual in its
>> >description of France.

>Well, at least in my field whenwriting a tome about the state of the art on
>anything (which an encyclopedia is suppose to be), one does review of what
>was written by others, instead of inventing the sections when the writer
>does not have the expertise on the subject. Not being a historian, I am not
>familiar what the practice is in that field. The first Hungarian
>Encyclopedia was written and published in 1653 by Apaczai Csere, so there
>was a possibility for the good French encuclopedists to read something
>about it.

        First of all, Janos Apaczai Csere wrote his encyclopedia in Utrecht
and in Hungarian. Thus, he was studying and working in the Netherlands and
therefore he had all the necessary then modern reference books at his
disposal about western European countries, including France and in different
widely used languages, Latin, French, German, Dutch, whatever. Second, since
Apaczai Csere opted to write his *Magyar Encyclopaedia* in Hungarian this
particular source on his own fatherland surely wasn't available to the
French encyclopedists. Unless, of course, Jeliko now also demands a
knowledge of Hungarian from the good-old French *philosophes."

>I disagree with you on the number of visitors also. The armies
>fighting the Turks, had many west Europeans also. There were ambassadors
>floating around in relation to the west European wars and the Turkish wars.
>Please remember also the "French connection" of Rakoczi's wars.

        I am sorry to be sarcastic but I can't help it when I read this kind
of stuff. Oh, yes, there was tourism between Hungary and the rest of the
world. The Balkans, not very far from Hungary, was hardly ever visited
before the First World War. And even then it was like making a trip to
Mongolia today.

>The two above quotes cover a 100 years or so. The misinformation in both
>cases started in Vienna.

        Ah, ha! Those awful Austrians were spreading rumors about our poor
country.

>Well, at least you are consistent in not being familiar with some of the
>issues. Please look at the Erdelyi Magyar Szotar which for most wrds gives
>extant Hungarian usage from the XV through the XVII centuries. The
>Hungarian of those days was perfectly capable for expressing more
>sophisticated dissues than discussed here in this newsgroup. There were
>Hungarian publications written in perfectly readable and expressing even
>abstract ideas. Have you read any book from the XVII to XVIII century? Do
>you feel that there is any problem with the language?

        Considering that my original field was old Hungarian literature, I
sure did read quite a few books from this period. In fact, I was pretty well
picked as a university student before 1956 to be the eventual editor of
Janos Kemeny's autobiography, which for obvious reasons was not edited by me
but appeared in a modern edition in 1959. Janos Kemeny (1607-1662) was
prince of Transylvania and I can assure all the readers of this list that
the text was crawling with Latin and German expressions. Moreover, if the
Hungarian language was in such a splendid shape why was it necessary to have
a "language reform" in the 1830s? Absolutely thousands and thousands of
"artifically" created words came into the vocabulary as a result. Or, please
give me a few Hungarian Shakespeares from the same period. Let's be
realistic. Ko:deve's--a good Hungarian word, meaning fog-eating literally, a
dreamer--is a Hungarian disease.

>A language is always growing, there are generally few words that are
>invented before their time. But the so called language reform created a lot
>of new words, for which already perfectly good words existed, except the
>new word creators did not know it.

        What do you mean? These poor slobs didn't know their language well
enough to know that there were perfectly good Hungarian words for this or
that. These well educated Magyar-speakers didn't know half of the vocabulary
of their own mother tongue?

>You must have read
>Balint Balassi, do you have any problems with his expressiveness? I do not.

        Jeliko with whom I often agree and whom I consider to be a decent
man got terribly offended by questioning the equality of Hungarian
economic/social/cultural development with countries of Western Europe. The
sentence "you must have read Balint Balassi," is kind of an insult. It is as
if you told a well educated Englishman: "You must have read Shakespeare..."

>You got back to apples again, please remeber that we were not discussing
>comparative oppression. Where, in this discssion was this claim made? It is
>your introduction that brought it up. I repeat the issue was whether
>Hungary would have developed faster if Rakoczi won and the development
>could have continued in Hungary without the commensurate dependent
>status and the following several hundred years of Habsburgh oppression
>would not have occured.

        Well, considering that the Turks didn't clear out of Hungary until
1690 when someone says that Hungary was better off in the seventeenth
century than in the eighteenth century, I must conclude that that person
thinks that the seventeenth-century situation, when the Turks occupied one
third of the country, was preferable to the eighteenth century when the
whole country was free of the 150-year-old "Turkish yoke" and Hungary at
last could join "Europe" again.

        Thus, Jeliko's and my sense of Hungarian history is drastically and
radically different. Jeliko might know all the sources of our earliest
European history better than I do but, I am afraid, he is way off when it
comes to more modern times. And when it comes to the Habsburgs he takes a
totally Hungaro-centric position. The kind we were all taught in Hungarian
high schools: "four hundred years of Habsburg oppression" and all sorts of
other nonsense. Yes, the Habsburg kings between 1526 and 1848 wanted to rule
the country in an absolutist manner but that doesn't mean that they were
anti-Hungarian, or they exploited Hungary to benefit the crown lands, or in
any way embarked on a systematic exploitation of the country. They had a
fundamental argument with the Hungarian nobility on the issue of the
latter's role in governing the country. That was all.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: The Hungarian swimming team (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 10:09 PM 10/7/96 -0400, Aniko wrote:

>So, for anyone to state, that "no one cared" leaves me greatly bothered.  I
>am sure, that for one, the Olympic Association cares.  But even more
>important than that are the ones who were left behind.

        Let me explain the situation in a bit more detail. The non-existent
pre-trial's story leaked out before the Olympic games, sometime in June and
a newspaper called *Mai Nap* published an investigative piece. Not on the
front page, I understand, but on page 5 or 6. Although the piece was
published, there was absolutely no reaction in Hungary either in government
circles or in sport circles. No indignant letters to the editors of the
paper. Just silence. Surely, thousands of people must have read the article;
yet, nobody was upset enough to make an issue out of it. The story received
big-time coverage only when *Nepszava,* a daily with a larger circulation
whose editor is a personal foe of Tamas Gyarfas, president of the swimming
association, brought up the issue, this time on the front page and with
oversized headlines.

>Never, have I heard such ludicrous a comment within the realm of high
>performance sports, that any sport body would even as much as consider
>sending their team to an Olympic event for "international experience".
>
>Reading that, was when I lost it ...

        Oh, yes. Also something about "kegyes csalas," so one ought not to
be too upset about it. I fear these people's morals are close to nonexistent.

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

At 04:10 PM 9/27/96 -0700, Lajos Pelikan wrote:
>When it comes to the basic four-year B.S. or B.A., the US is
>still behind.  Now I am basing my statement on an average institution
>and not schools like Stanford, Berkeley, etc.  I finished a B.S. in
>Aviation Administration at SJSU in California last year.  Throughout my
>studies I was appalled that the level of math, physics, and literature
>courses was hardly at par with a Hungarian high school education.  When
>it came to literature, my 7th and 8th grade (Hungarian) literature
>classes were more serious than all the English classes I had to take to
>satisfy the B.S. requirement.

        Of course, Lajos is right in the sense that there are great
differences between universities and universities. I went to an average
Canadian university, where the admission requirements were very low: C
average in high school, or something like that. However, by the end of the
first year about 50 percent of those originally enrolled flunked out. Those
of us who remained received an excellent education in all fields. I was
getting an honors B.A. in History but I had to fulfill all sorts of
requirements outside of my chosen field, in social sciences, natural
sciences, languages, and English. The courses I had to take were the very
same offered to future majors. My Introduction of Biology was exactly the
same awful (as far as I was concerned because I didn't take it willingly but
under duress) course which future biology majors had to take. English
Literature from Chaucer to Eliot was exactly the same future English majors
took and believe me it bore no resemblance to my 7th and 8th grade Hungarian
classes in elementary school.

>I think what's great at the university level in the States is the
>freedom to tailor your degree to your own interest.

        There is another huge difference. In Hungary they put far too much
emphasis on simply amassing facts. Somehow university administrations think
that you have to cover everything from A to Z when you are studying, for
example, literature (I picked literature because I am most familiar with
that in the Hungarian context) both in Hungarian literature and in world
literature, in addition to a full load of Finno-Ugric linguistics. Of
course, this is an impossibility and one ends up with a fleeting knowledge,
hardly more than a name from Roman literature to American. A few names here
and a few names there, a few pages of biographical data, and some excerpts
from the works of authors. Oh, yes, as a result, a Hungarian university
graduate, unlike his American counterpart, will be familiar with names like
Goethe, Schiller, Herder, Thackeray, etc. but will know little more than a
name and a couple of titles. I guess, this is all right as far as coctail
parties are concerned but not for much more.

        Although I wasn't a history major in Hungary but I had enough
friends who were that I also know something about the teaching of history.
It went, at least in my days, exactly the same way as the teaching of
literature. One had to cover world history as well as Hungarian history
before graduation, again from A to Z. Latin America, Asia, Africa, Europe,
and all ages. Surely, it is an impossibility. People spent most of their
times in lecture halls and for the exam they studied the lecture notes and
the published version of the professor's lectures. There was simply no time
to read deeply in one area, follow historical controversies between this or
that historical school on one particular topic. It would have been better to
offer less but with less emphasis on factual material.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Suicide in Hungary - (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

God, I'm a male of Hungarian-Lithuanian ancestry, so where does this leave
me!

Yes, I've had suicidal tendencies too over the years, but I've overcome
them by focusing on my life, not my death.  To do this, I've had to take
responsibility for my life.  It's up to me to bring it to its rightful
fruition, not to abort it.

Anyway, a couple of observations garnered from experience.

Regarding those suicides caused by depression (aren't most?), and assuming
the depression is psychological rather than a chemical imbalance--I'll
state the obvious: the mood is simply, "What's the use?"  The person can
see no hope of things getting better.

Two approaches, then: either the person must be helped to a more realistic
view of life (i.e. different from the view he now has which can't be
fulfilled), *or* the person needs to understand that if his view of life
*must* be fulfilled or else death, then he simply must use his own powers
to fulfill it, rather than expecting the world to accommodate him.  He
must, if necessary, go against the world.  (No, I'm not justifying
Hitlers--using your own powers to fulfill your life automatically excludes
usurping another's own powers in order to use yours--the one would negate
the other.)  It isn't easy to do this, but that's how life works:
creativeness is required for any change.

Hungarians have, thanks to history, little experience in realistic (by
this I mean healthy) views of life, and I doubt they have much faith in
their own powers.  Who can blame them, especially today?

But these, I believe, are the only possibilities for getting Hungary lower
on the list.

(But note, the exceptions are cases of extreme suffering, for which even
these principles are not guaranteed--as I wrote in an aside to my Soros
posting.)

Burian
+ - Re: Suicide in Hungary - (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 11:14 AM 10/8/96 -0400, Darren wrote:

>at the risk of sounding relativistic, why do we use the term backwardness?
>I mean, wen we blanket whole countries like that, we don't really paint a
>realistic picture. Hungary was peripheral to the industrial revolution and
>thus many areas of so called "modern" europe were bacwards for centuries
>as well (See Sweden as a prime example). Perhaps I really don't like that
>damning phrase since I hail from a state that is often labled as such.

        Well, we certainly can use some other, euphemistic phrase, instead
of backwardness, but in the historical literature the phrase "economic
backwardness" stuck when one talks about the sliding scale of economic
development in Europe. Sure, Hungary was less backward (or more developed,
if you prefer) than Bulgaria or Serbia, Turkey, or Russia, but was less
developed than Bohemia-Moravia, parts of Austria, the German states, France,
or England. Occasionally we go to extremes not to offend national
sensibilities. This is, for example, how we ended up with such meaningless
phrases as "developing countries." The word "underdeveloped" was considered
to be offensive. Well, one must call a spade a spade and since an excellent
book was written about the politics of economic backwardness with the same
title, for the time being I am sticking with it. Moreover, I would like to
see my fellow Hungarians to face facts instead of talking about Renaissance
architecture, medieval gold mines and tolerable hotel accommodation in
Petervarasd as examples of economic development en par with England and
Western Europe.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: P.Soltesz or Cermon from the mount (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 01:25 PM 10/9/96 -0400, Aniko Dunford wrote:

>Hi Marina!
>
>Enthusiastically second your following words written to Peter ...
>.
>">Your preaching is unwelcome....If I may make a recommendation; you should
>take a hiatus, figure out what ails you and get some help. We deserve a rest
>too from your cermons from the mount".
>>
>I am of the opinion that a hiatus might not be enough at this point.
>Perhaps combining it with a couple of sessions with Dr. Elders might help to
>ease his ailments?
>
>Take care,
>Aniko

What a good idea, Aniko!  I'll help pay for any costs that might be involved.

Joe Szalai
+ - Re: P.Soltesz or Sermon from the mount (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Re: my earlier posting today

Andy,

I appreciate the the clarification. I couldn't remember if the subject was
brought up by you or Mr. Antony.

Thanks,
Mark
+ - Re: Amazing America (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Louis Elteto:

> The "world famous American song" is a church hymn,  not American, but
> British, written by John Newton, Anglican vicar,  in 1779
Thank you very much for the additional information.

> it has nothing
> to do with the American "spirit of freedom" Zoltan Szekely sees in it
Why not? Salvation gives you freedom. Actually, it is the
real one, not what is given by money.

> The first two
> lines of the hymn, which Szekely does not quote:
>
> Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
> That saved a wretch like me!

Thanks, Louis, it is nice that you continue my qouting of
the song. Is it not a beautiful song?

And you can see, that American people are humble. (I mean
the majority, i.e. the good Chritian folks.) It is a
revolutionarily new idea for Hungarians, because they don't
know this side of the coin. (They know on the other side
the "nagypofa, bekepzelt amerikai".) What they get from
America are mainly the usual liberal junk and slanders
spread by the media. It is too bad, that this mailing list
is not always better than those any bit.
                                                 Sz. Zoli

P.S.: Now, something from a big repenter(who is this guy??):
      "God for me is the God of second chances."
+ - Re: valami mas (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Wed, 9 Oct 1996, harkanyi k wrote:

> Kedves Lista Tagok!
>
> Tud valaki valamit az Amerikai Magyar Muzeumrol(Passaic, NJ)? Tortenelme,
> alapitasa, anyaga, "charter", vezetoseg, stb. erdekelne.
>
> Az informaciot elore is koszonom.
>
> Udvozlettel,
>             Katalin
>             
>
Hungarian_Name: Amerikai Magyar Mzeum
English_Name: American Hungarian Museum
Street_Address: P.O.Box 2049
City: Passaic
State: NJ
Zip: 07055
Country: USA
Phone: 908 573 7371
Head_of_Org: Magyar, Klmn
Contact_Person: Magyar, Judit
Code: Media

   1995.05.20.

Greetings from Peter Soltesz
+ - Re: Bosnia, Russia (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 07:00 PM 10/9/96 +0100, Janos Zsargo wrote:

>Well, let me ask some questions. Do you know who are the Chechens, what
>are their goals, tactics, etc. Can you find Chechenia on the map? (Don't
>take it personally, I myself would not find it. Ok, maybe if I have time
>to look for Groznij.)

        Chechnia is between the Caspian and the Black Seas, closer to the
Caspian. Straight up north of Tbilisi.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Origins of Hungarians (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I was impressed with Eva Balogh/s Historical knowledge. Perhaps she and
others may be able to shed more light on the Origins of the Hungarians.

I do understand that there are relatively recent explorations/discoveries
of the Hungarian origins.  This includes comments that Koreans are
somehow related, as w ell as, a more recent findings that somewhere in the
Tibetian section they found some residents that have very much linguistic
roots very similar to Hungarians.

Any comments or new knowledge on this topic would be appreciated.
Thanks,

Peter Soltesz
+ - Re: English in Hungary (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Language changes constantly with new concepts.
I have to share a new Hungarian expression I learned this summer.
@ = kukac

Eva
Eva Kende B.Sc. author of "Eva's Hungarian Kitchen".
+ - Re: Walruses and kings (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >,
 says...
>
>Agnes - At 04:03 PM 08/10/96 GMT, you wrote:
>
>>You are an optimist, Aniko.  Unfortunately, history of humankind
teaches
>>us the otherway.
>>Agnes
>
>Hi there!
>
>You're bang on with your observation.
>
>I believe that the key word above is "history".  I choose to continue my
>blind hope aiming to that of "tomorrow".  Whenever that tomorrow may
come, I
>hope that the upcoming generations will continue to learn from history
in
>order to keep up the progess  ... little by little ... to the point when
>humankind will have something truly worthwhile to share with, and, brag
>about to their great-grand-children:).
>
>Best regards,
>Aniko


Amen.  Agnes
+ - Re: The Bible - (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article
>,
 says...
>
>On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, aheringer wrote:
>
>> In article
>,
>>  says...
>> >
>> >On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Peter A. Soltesz wrote:
><<SNIP>>
>> Here I have to disagree.  Again, I can recommend you a book, written
>> about 30 years ago, by Werner Keller: "Und die Bible hat doch recht!"
The
>> book is available in English translation: "The Bible as history".
Also,
>> I attended years ago a lecture here in Toronto by the late great
israeli
>> archeologist and minister, Yigal Allon.  He demonstrated how they dug
and
>> discovered Hazor.  This was the tunnel and water cyst story of which
>> James Michener incorporated in his book, "The Source".   He spent
months
>> on this dig.  There were many more underground tunnels the israelis
found
>> and used, using biblical descriptions.
><<<<<<<<<<<< The title actually says (my translation:) And the Bible has
>it right! -- not as the supposed translation states.
>
>Peter

Sorry, Peter, but the English version of the book is not the literal
translation of the title.  The title is: The Bible as History.
Incidentally, by the same author: Und wurden zerstreut unter alle
Voelker.  English version of the book: The Diaspora.  It is the history
of the Jews from Roman times to the seventies - when the book was
published.  It is excellent.

Agnes
+ - Re: P.Soltesz or Cermon from the mount (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hi Joe:
>
>What a good idea, Aniko!  I'll help pay for any costs that might be involved.
Glad you liked it.  But am afraid, I can't take credit for it alone.  Your
post this morning was the catalyst:)  Thanks for the chuckle it provided.
You're definately on a roll.  This is the second one, in less than three days!

Re the costs involved, I was thinking - how about we ask Dr. Elders, to
consider donating his time instead, say for a charitable cause?  Aid in
preserving the sanity of newsgroup members could possibly qualify for
charity, couldn't it?  If not, I'll definately take you up on your generous
offer.

See ya:-)!
Aniko
+ - Re: Ten Untaught Lessons about Central Europe (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Than you Hugh Agnuew for the fascinating cross postings from the
Habsburg. It is the a subject worth wile to the name
bit.litserv.hungary. Please let us snow ho we should participate.


Albert Albu
+ - Re: Jelikonak (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Eva S. Balogh wrote:
>
. And one more thing, although it is true that it
> was in the last minute but the Slovaks rose against the Germans. The
> Hungarians did nothing. They didn't have the will when the time came to
> establish a government-in-exile and when the call came to rise up against
> the Germans the population remained inactive.
>
>         Eva Balogh




Back bone is what had and is what you are missing.
On the long run the first quality what of a group is what is called
loyalty what seems far from you. (i.e. it took 300 years to broke with
Austria)


Albert Ablu
+ - Re: English in Hungary (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>Here are a few more:
>kardigan -cardigan
>pulover - pull over
>trafik - (traffic) for tobacconists, etc.
>telefon -- telephone
>televizio - television
>manadzser - manager
>dzsungel - jungle
>kapacitor - capacitor
>komputer - computer
>frekvencia - frequency
>platform - ditto
>lift - ditto
>ultra - ditto
>reflektor - reflector
>disk - ditto
>akkumlator - accumulator (as in battery)
>strategia - strategy
>analizis - analysis
>intelligens - intelligent
>programm - ditto
>szoftver - software
>hardvare - hardware
>modositas - modification (mod)
>informatika - informatics
>trendek - trends
>projekt - project
>civil - ditto
>informalis - informal
>deconcentralt - deconcentrated
>koordinacio - coordination
>integracio - integration
>ombudsmanok - ombudsmen
>formalis - formal
>szfera - sphere
>cetralizas - centralize
>totalis - total
>koncepcio - concept
>autonom - autonomy
>liberalis - liberal
>konkret - concrete
>program - ditto
>szuper - super
>szia - see ya!
> (except in this case they got it backwards)
>problema - problem
>radikalis - radical
>pszeudo - pseudo
>privatizacio - privatization
>regionalizmus - regional
>koalicio - coalition
>
>I guess this ought to give you some examples of Hungarians using English!
>Peter Soltesz
>

And examples of English using Latin and Greek!



******************************
*       Lajos Monoki         *
*  NCR Hungary - CSS Szeged  *
* e-mail: *
*  Tel/Fax: +36-62-434101    *
*    Mobil: +36-30-584523    *
******************************


"Is all that we see or seem
But a dream within a dream?"
           Edgar Allan Poe
+ - UJ HOLNAP (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Szives  figyelmukbe ajanlom a kethavonta megjelelno irodalmi tarsadalmi
folyoiratunkat. A teljes szam garfikai melleklettel, a regebbi
szamok archivuma, elerheto az alabbi cimen:


http://swvi.szkp.uni-miskolc.hu/VOLVASO/ujholnap/archiv.htm

SB
+ - Bosnia, Russia (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Kedves Jeliko, you wrote:

>baggage attached to it. I also stress that the Russian support is twofold,
>part from the new Russian religio-nationalists and part from simple Russian
>geopolitical aspects. The latter is not as strong at the present time as
>the former. Note even the settle difference between Russian support to the
>remnant Yugoslavia and the Serbs in Bosnia/Herzegovina.  However, the
>Russian govt. is willing to score coups, when it can get away with it. It
>is important to them that some folks look upon them as "protectors" and are
>willing to meddle as long as they can get away with it without any serious
>involvement. The religio-nationalist support while getting more publicity
>is really not the policy of the Yeltsin govt. even if at time they kowtow
>to it for home political reasons.

Sounds resonable. You are right, I may be a little bit paranoic about Russia
(so does a lots of Hungarian). She probable represents much less danger than
it used to.

>The Russian soldiers are far less effective today than they were any times
>since the Polish war. Thus expeditionary activity is an empty threat and a
>known danger to the Russian leadership from the Afganistan days.

Where did you take this from? Do you know any russian leader who lost his
power because of Afganistan ?!?

>danger to the Russian leadership from the Afganistan days. The sorry
>effectiveness demonstrated by them in Chechenia is only one aspect of their
>near demoralization. There are Russian soldiers leased out to private

Well, let me ask some questions. Do you know who are the Chechens, what
are their goals, tactics, etc. Can you find Chechenia on the map? (Don't
take it personally, I myself would not find it. Ok, maybe if I have time
to look for Groznij.) Do you know what kind of war is that? If not why
do you jump in such conclusions. If one country is big and an other is
small it does not necessary mean the bigger one can easily supress the
smaller. I guess you can find suitable example in your own History,too.

>Their food and lodging are miserable

Can you tell me any period when it was not?  :-) Have you ever seen an
average soviet military base?

>and the generals are jockeying for political status. They are in fact not a
>serious threat to any West European action if it was undertaken in Bosnia,
>even now under the NATO aegis there is no mention of counteracting the
>a western activities through other geopolitical means.

Well, I suggest you not to underestimate them despite their internal problems.
I know about some European powers (very powerful in their own time) who
estimated the russians' power, tried it and had a sad surprise.(ie. Hitler
and Napoleon) Of course you can say, they defended their own home that time,
but still one should be more cautious with such statements.
(Maybe my paranoia again. :-))

However if only the Europian 'wannabes' (I guess the 'usedtobes' or
'wannabeagains' would be more appropriate) engaged in war with the Serbs
with Russian support (I don't mean direct invtervention, but rather
economical support, like weapons, oil or even only by breaking the
UN 'boycott') they could easily have their own 'Chechenia'. And soon or
later the US would have to help them out of the shit because if its NATO
obligations.
I think there would have been an easy solution as well, arm the muslims (or
rather disarm the Serb by bombardments) and let them do the job. This
pinpoint the greatest problem of Bosnia in my opinion. The Europians
don't have a clear idea about their goals ( nor does the US but she has
no real interest in Bosnia). They don't want to support
the Serbs but they don't want to assist to the birth of a possible
 fundamentalist muslim state in Europe either. They didn't know how to
solve this problem and the longer they waited the Bosnians became more
 fundamentalist and the bigger the problem got. Indeed this is still a real
 danger (the fundamentalism) despite any peace-process. I am afraid the
 peace-process did not solve anything only suppressed the tensions for a
 while. The only thing that stopped the fightings is the plain military
power of the NATO (or rather the US).

>the basic questions: Why should my son be killed for Bosnian peace, when
>other European fathers are not willing to expose their children to that
>risk? And why should the US taxpayer finance the stabilization of the
>eventual better market conditions in a country that was made by the
>European powers, for other European countries?

I do not understand this. There are approximatelly as many (or more)
 europian soldier, mainly British and French, in Bosnia as american
(~20,000). Bosnia is devided into 3 regions a British, a French and an
 American . Also there are soldiers from other Europian countries like
Holland, Czech Rep.,Russia, even from Hungary (~600). So don't worry
not only americans can die there. In fact most of the IFOR casulties
up to date is Europian as those French and British troops have been
there for years (they simple change their UN blue helmet to the NATO
green). As far as the money concerned you are right the US should not
pay for this.

One more thing about the possible casulties. You should not worry, there
won't be too many, at least not IFOR casulties. If the situation gets
very hot in Bosnia, everybody will leave in a hurry. I think nobody is
willing to have high casulties for Bosnia. This is just a personal
opinion and I hope I am wrong.

J.Zs

P.S: if you want we can send this to the HUNGARY as well.
+ - Re: Bosnia, Russia (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I have got the following message from Jeliko:

--------------------------Forwarded message----------------------------

Janos Zsargo answering my post:


> >baggage attached to it. I also stress that the Russian support is
twofold,
> >part from the new Russian religio-nationalists and part from simple
Russian
> >geopolitical aspects. The latter is not as strong at the present time as
> >the former. Note even the settle difference between Russian support to
the
> >remnant Yugoslavia and the Serbs in Bosnia/Herzegovina.  However, the
> >Russian govt. is willing to score coups, when it can get away with it.
It
> >is important to them that some folks look upon them as "protectors" and
are
> >willing to meddle as long as they can get away with it without any
serious
> >involvement. The religio-nationalist support while getting more
publicity
> >is really not the policy of the Yeltsin govt. even if at time they
kowtow
> >to it for home political reasons.

> Sounds resonable. You are right, I may be a little bit paranoic about
Russia
> (so does a lots of Hungarian). She probable represents much less danger
than
> it used to.

I can understand the paranoia in that part of the world, but I also expect
an understanding of the changes. Having better information about what is
real threat and what is partly passe is important for any country.

> >The Russian soldiers are far less effective today than they were any
times
> >since the Polish war. Thus expeditionary activity is an empty threat and
a
> >known danger to the Russian leadership from the Afganistan days.

> Where did you take this from? Do you know any russian leader who lost his
> power because of Afganistan ?!?

One of the contribiting factors of the collapse of the Sovietunion was
their involvement in Afghanistan. While the Soviet activity there cost much
less than the US involvement in Vietnam, the Sovietunion could not afford
even that limited cost. The stress on maintaining their military complex
assisted in the extensive deterioration of the rest of their civilian
economy. While not only for that reason the Afghan failure contributed to
Gorbachov's downfall together with that of the Sovietunion.


> >danger to the Russian leadership from the Afganistan days. The sorry
> >effectiveness demonstrated by them in Chechenia is only one aspect of
their
> >near demoralization. There are Russian soldiers leased out to private

> Well, let me ask some questions. Do you know who are the Chechens, what
> are their goals, tactics, etc. Can you find Chechenia on the map? (Don't
> take it personally, I myself would not find it. Ok, maybe if I have time
> to look for Groznij.) Do you know what kind of war is that? If not why
> do you jump in such conclusions. If one country is big and an other is
> small it does not necessary mean the bigger one can easily supress the
> smaller. I guess you can find suitable example in your own History,too.

Yes, I know who the Chechens are. This is not the first time that they are
giving fits to the Russians. The Russians had a major war there at the end
of the last century. At that time there was some tacit assistance from
Britain, but then there was a British sphere of interest on the other side
of the Caucasian mtns.


> >Their food and lodging are miserable

> Can you tell me any period when it was not?  :-) Have you ever seen an
> average soviet military base?

I am talking about right now. Yes, I have seen Russian military bases and
weapon complexes. The last personal complain to me about not being paid
occurred only last month.

> >and the generals are jockeying for political status. They are in fact
not a
> >serious threat to any West European action if it was undertaken in
Bosnia,
> >even now under the NATO aegis there is no mention of counteracting the
> >a western activities through other geopolitical means.

> Well, I suggest you not to underestimate them despite their internal
problems.

I am not, but that does not mean that overestimation is a preferred stance.

> I know about some European powers (very powerful in their own time) who
> estimated the russians' power, tried it and had a sad surprise.(ie.
Hitler
> and Napoleon) Of course you can say, they defended their own home that
time,
> but still one should be more cautious with such statements.
> (Maybe my paranoia again. :-))

While we all have to know more about our past, and learn from it, nobody
should be basking only in the glories of the past. Remember that at one
time all of Western Europe dreaded the word "Hungarian" it is not much help
now.

> However if only the Europian 'wannabes' (I guess the 'usedtobes' or
> 'wannabeagains' would be more appropriate) engaged in war with the Serbs
> with Russian support (I don't mean direct invtervention, but rather
> economical support, like weapons, oil or even only by breaking the
> UN 'boycott') they could easily have their own 'Chechenia'. And soon or
> later the US would have to help them out of the shit because if its NATO
> obligations.

I disagree with the above. The beginning of the Bosnian affair was stupid
from all sides, including the Bosnian. It could have been handled much
better. The "military might" of the Bosnian Serbs lasted only as long as
they could use up the supplies of the ex-Yugoslavian military. Serbia and
Montenegro, by siding with the Bosnian Serbs set themselves back also by at
least one generation. While Hungary had seen only hard refugees from the
affair, most of the - at least the technical and scientific elite - has
left the current Yugoslavia.

> I think there would have been an easy solution as well, arm the muslims
(or
> rather disarm the Serb by bombardments) and let them do the job. This
> pinpoint the greatest problem of Bosnia in my opinion.

I am in agreement with you on this. If the countries recognized Bosnia as a
legitimate state and member of the UN, than they should not declare weapons
embargo on it.

> The Europians
> don't have a clear idea about their goals ( nor does the US but she has
> no real interest in Bosnia). They don't want to support
> the Serbs but they don't want to assist to the birth of a possible
> fundamentalist muslim state in Europe either. They didn't know how to
> solve this problem and the longer they waited the Bosnians became more
> fundamentalist and the bigger the problem got. Indeed this is still a
> real danger (the fundamentalism) despite any peace-process. I am afraid
> the
>  peace-process did not solve anything only suppressed the tensions for a
>  while. The only thing that stopped the fightings is the plain military
> power of the NATO (or rather the US).

I am sorry, but the percieved "fundamentalist" threat is a weapon of the
Serbs, and it obviously works. At best, it can be like "gulyas communism"
except here it is "slivovic fundamentalism".

> >the basic questions: Why should my son be killed for Bosnian peace, when
> >other European fathers are not willing to expose their children to that
> >risk? And why should the US taxpayer finance the stabilization of the
> >eventual better market conditions in a country that was made by the
> >European powers, for other European countries?

> I do not understand this. There are approximatelly as many (or more)
>  europian soldier, mainly British and French, in Bosnia as american
> (~20,000). Bosnia is devided into 3 regions a British, a French and an
>  American . Also there are soldiers from other Europian countries like
> Holland, Czech Rep.,Russia, even from Hungary (~600). So don't worry
> not only americans can die there. In fact most of the IFOR casulties
> up to date is Europian as those French and British troops have been
> there for years (they simple change their UN blue helmet to the NATO
> green). As far as the money concerned you are right the US should not
> pay for this.

There should not be any American troops in there. As I have stated
earlier, Yugoslavia was created by France and Britain, to further their
geopolitical interests, not by America. The causalties occurred while the
whole mess was under UN control and there was no US land force
participation.

> One more thing about the possible casulties. You should not worry, there
> won't be too many, at least not IFOR casulties. If the situation gets
> very hot in Bosnia, everybody will leave in a hurry. I think nobody is
> willing to have high casulties for Bosnia. This is just a personal
> opinion and I hope I am wrong.

I do not understand what gives anyone the idea that the Bosnian Serbs could
make anything "very hot" in Bosnia. If they could not finish off an ill
armed dissenting non Serb Bosnia, how would they be capable of facing up to
well organized military forces. It is different to slaughter surrendered
forces and civilians in Srebrenica than to stand up and fight a real war
without supplies. I do not think that the NATO forces would have to leave
because of Serbian attacks. There maybe Serbian attacks if they leave, but
not while they are there.



> P.S: if you want we can send this to the HUNGARY as well.

Go ahead, but please copy me also, as I was informed today, this email will
be open until the 14th. By then I should have a new civilian email address.

Regards,Jeliko.

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

AGYKONTROLL ALLAT AUTO AZSIA BUDAPEST CODER DOSZ FELVIDEK FILM FILOZOFIA FORUM GURU HANG HIPHOP HIRDETES HIRMONDO HIXDVD HUDOM HUNGARY JATEK KEP KONYHA KONYV KORNYESZ KUKKER KULTURA LINUX MAGELLAN MAHAL MOBIL MOKA MOZAIK NARANCS NARANCS1 NY NYELV OTTHON OTTHONKA PARA RANDI REJTVENY SCM SPORT SZABAD SZALON TANC TIPP TUDOMANY UK UTAZAS UTLEVEL VITA WEBMESTER WINDOWS