Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
HIX HUNGARY 186
Copyright (C) HIX
1995-01-06
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: *** HUNGARY *** #173; Biological relationship (mind)  18 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: URGENT FOLLOW-UP MESSAGE:::PLEASE READ (mind)  19 sor     (cikkei)
3 Re: *** HUNGARY *** #174 (mind)  7 sor     (cikkei)
4 Re: Communists vs. Anarchists (mind)  92 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: Capitalism's Virtues (mind)  90 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: Palacky (mind)  34 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: Palacky (mind)  62 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: Palacky (mind)  96 sor     (cikkei)
9 Re: *** HUNGARY *** #173; Biological relationship (mind)  17 sor     (cikkei)
10 Eugene P. Wigner, 1902-1995 (mind)  63 sor     (cikkei)
11 Re: Palacky (mind)  64 sor     (cikkei)
12 Re: Nitra principality (mind)  76 sor     (cikkei)
13 States & Empires & Stuff (mind)  74 sor     (cikkei)
14 Kerdes Pellionisz Andrastol (mind)  9 sor     (cikkei)
15 Re: Palacky (mind)  93 sor     (cikkei)
16 Re: Orange blood (mind)  64 sor     (cikkei)
17 fatherland and national pride (mind)  15 sor     (cikkei)
18 Re: fatherland and national pride (mind)  24 sor     (cikkei)
19 Re: fatherland and national pride (mind)  15 sor     (cikkei)
20 Re: fatherland and national pride (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)
21 Re: *** HUNGARY *** #173; Biological relationship (mind)  48 sor     (cikkei)
22 Re: Orange blood (mind)  19 sor     (cikkei)
23 Re: *** HUNGARY *** #173; Biological relationship (mind)  17 sor     (cikkei)
24 d. a. alias ibokor (mind)  29 sor     (cikkei)
25 RE d. a. alias ibokor (mind)  10 sor     (cikkei)
26 what is a typical Hungarian look like? (mind)  29 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Re: *** HUNGARY *** #173; Biological relationship (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Steven takes me to task for my naivete regarding the wide use of racial
categories in political discourse--

Well, I *am* naive, but I didn't think I was that naive.  My only point was
that educated persons, such as, presumably, those on this and similar lists,
would do better to avoid racial categories in talking about relevant peoples,
such as the Hungarians, and stick to what Steven recommends, and what is in-
deed true, cultural/linguistic categories.  We can perhaps do little to alter
the way in which the larger society conceptualizes and talks about these is-
sues, but I don't believe it is a good idea for us to join it in its ignor-
ance.  If *we* know that present-day peoples/nations/etc. are defined by
linguistic/cultural features, and not racial ones, then by all means let us
discuss them in those terms.  But I am heartened to see that so many of us
are on the same wavelength in this regard, differing primarily in how much
to accede to "reality" out there.

Cheers,
Be1la
+ - Re: URGENT FOLLOW-UP MESSAGE:::PLEASE READ (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

please avoid it in the future. internet is a delicate creature. I have
already informed postal authorities. There IS such a thing called postal
fraud. If you end up in trouble you have nobody to blame but yourself--
sincerely


On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, JC wrote:

> In regards to the mailing list solicitation posted during the last two days, 
I
> sincerely regret
> this embarrassing incident. As a new user, I had no idea of what the magnitud
e
> of negative
> reactions would be.  The posting was a pure hoax, not intended to be taken
> seriously.
> Please disregard it.  I sincerely regret any hostility that this may have
> caused.
>
+ - Re: *** HUNGARY *** #174 (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Stan Kelly wrote about throat singing.

An example of Hungarian throat singing can be found on "Makviragek"
from Makvirag egyuttes, Hungaroton SLPX 18137, side A track 2:
"Kellyetek fel bojerok". This is a Moldvai csango Newyears song.

Tineke
+ - Re: Communists vs. Anarchists (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

I send this correspondence as Glen has problems having his posts
distributed by the listserv and he thinks it is interesting enough...
Would someone advise him what could be wrong with his settings.


>
> On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, Eva Durant wrote:
>
> > Wasn't the case of the centralized "vanguard" party for the
> > period of the proletariat to gain power? I think when the
> > "prolatar-dictatorship" is achieved, the centralised nature
> > was not emphasised - and in practice in the different circumstances
> > of much more material wealth - even in Hungary - and no need
> > of " war-communism", the burocratic contra- revolution is not
> > a logical outcome?
> >     No, the "dictatorship of proletariat" under Marx was to last
> until the bourgeoisie (middle class) had been smashed with no possibility
> of re-establishment of capitalism as I read Marx.

Bourgeoisie is the lot who owns the means of production (Jeliko I
believe, a good example...)            not at all
the same as middle class. They own personal property, but that is not the
same. The statistics about what percent of population owns what percent of
shares or even wealth is in the favour of Marx still, I hope someone
will supply exact data.

>       The centralized nature was emphasized even more severely under
> Lenin than under Marx's somewhat SPD-ish idea of the transitional party.
> Thus Lenin joined Marx's ideas with those of Tkachev and Nachev and the
> savage effectiveness of the Bolshevik Party (CPSU) emerged.
>

You are not answering my question, as you are still refering to
the transitional case.


> > Don't you think that it is still not right to equate communism
> > or even socialism with the history of USSR and Eastern/central
> > Europe? In different circumstances - when wealth-production is
> > as developed as now - I can't see any reason why it shouldn't work
> > also, there are a little (and I mean little...) more democratic
> > experience.
> > Eva Durant
> >     An interesting thought, Eva.  Personally I would hope for a
> "convergence" a la Sakharov's ideas.  That is I hope for a "capitalism
> with a human face" in America someday and a "socialism with a human face"
> in Hungary and Europe.  After all, we have "state intervention" on a grand
> scale in the US even though Newt Gingrich doesn't like it unless it helps
> *his* constituents or himself.  And Hungary is privatizing many inefficient
> enterprises so that they can become profitable.
>       Thus "labels" don't interest me very much--people's lives do--and
> what one *calls* a system is less important than whether the economic and
> social and political system produces a humane and constructive life for the
> people--all the people.  And with 37,000,000 Americans without any kind of
> health insurance and middle class people losing real income over the past
> 20 years and with homeless people in every big city and or educational
> system and our health care system in crisis--we need some kind of
> Gorbachevian "Perestoika" ourselves in the US!
>

I thought the idea of social science was to define and analyse the way
society works, and influence it, so that it works better, your approach
of optimist hope - let's leave things to take their course and it will
be alright eventually - is not scientific or efficient.
State intervention is only possible in a capitalist system if there are
enough profits made for redistibrution to placate social unrest.
I think there is such a proposition,  as a  tendency for profits
to fall, especially in the directly productive industrial/agricultural
sphere, so the future for capitalism with a human face seems unlikely.
As systems elsewhere are also experiments in capitalism, the same
applies, with multiple problems of the absence of profits/capital
to start with.


        So let's compete in Europe and the US and Japan to see which system
> produces the best outcome for the population and borrow from one another
> those parts of each system which seem to work best, try them out and by trial
> and error develop a humane and effective system for our populatons.
>       I hope I don't sound too naive to you, Eva, but I have seen Communism
> in action--and also Naziism and Italian and Greek Fascism in action as well
> as US and post-war German capitalism in action.
>       All could stand a bit of "restructuring" or "perestroika".

> If you could post our dialogue to the Hungary-List I'd be interested in other
> members' reactions.  I can't get my posts accepted by the List,
> unfortunately.  Why I don't know but they're always returned unaswered.
> Glen


Glen, you are forgetful! You did not see communism in action.
Please, look at the definitions again, if you don't like labels, at
least don't use them wrongly.
+ - Re: Capitalism's Virtues (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Again, forwarded as requested by Glen, who's posts are bouncing.


> Glen D. Camp
> Professor of Political Science
> Bryant College
> 401-232-6246
> >
>
> On Wed, 4 Jan 1995, Eva Durant wrote:
>
> > I think the end of the message is missing.
> > I think capitalism is not developing the "means of production"
> > in a useful way anymore, it is as wasteful and mad, as the
> > burocratic regime of the USSR used to be. And it is certainly
> > not capable to stop arm-production/war/environmental doom.
>       I'm a "Fabian" by nature and intellect and I'm not sure that
> we can't develop a "capitalism" which *will* avoid waste and *not* be
> made--that's what all our environmental action groups in the US and
> Canada and Europe are all trying to do.

Could some economist please tell me, if capitalism is still viable if
a large proportion of profits have to be invested in environmental
protection work - an unprofitable expence.


>       Nor am I so sure that a human "capitalism with a human face"
> can't avoid "arms-production/war/environmental doom."  You seem a
> bit embedded in a somewhat outmoded dogma, Eva, if I understand you.
>       The real question is how much do you think Peter Lavrov's
> "critically thinking individuals" can do about social forces and I
> believe that such people *can* shape them quite remarkably.  For example
> why hasn't South Africa degenerated into a savage race war?  It's really
> amazing what a very few great leaders of the ANC and especially Nelson
> Mandela have done there!
>       And how could we in the US end legal segregation without 10 years
> by the efforts of courageous college kids--Black and White!  And so on.
>

I think in both cases the aim was to save the system from a savage
change and loss of property. I believe the progress is the same in
the US; build a strong black capitalist base, an ally to stop
further change. Unfortunately, the universal unprogressiveness
of it is much too visible (see Zimbabwe).


>
> > So don't you think, there is a need for a different idea to
> > inspire people to work for asap?
>       Yes I do but building upon the existing ideas and transcending them.
>
>
> > Dialectic materialism as applied to history still makes a lot of
> > sense to me. The first tries for capitalism (from feudalism) were
> > not successful immediately, in some cases it took more than a hundred
> > year to get there if at all. There were reasonable causes
> > for failure, and the conditions are different now.
> > Don't you think, that the logical conclusion to human development is
> > to get to know and control the laws of society?
>       I'm not sure there *are* any such *laws* in the way you and
> Marx developed them--as scientific as Newton's law of gravity  which
> Engels specifically mentioned somewhere as Marx's paradigm.
>

I think if you are not sure about these laws, you shoud tell me
why not.


        The "upward integration" you speak about, however, I think *is*
> happening in Europe (EU), South America (NAFTA and Merecul), etc.  Indeed,
> the INTERNET is a technological form of intergration as witness our dialogue.
>
>
> > I know it sounds like science fiction, but reality is already science
> > fiction...
>
> > What do you think?
> >     I agree and am proud to know you for sayaing so.  As Beethoven's
> theme from the Chrorale taken from Schiller's poem says:
>       Deine Zauber binder wieder      Thy magic binds anew
>       Was die Mode streng geteilt     What fashion has sharply separated
>       Alle Menschen werden Brueder    All men will become brothers
>       Wo dein sanfte Fluegel weilt.   Where thy gentle wings tarry.
>
>       How do you say, "Amen" in Hungarian?
>
>       Glen


(Amen)
+ - Re: Palacky (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Wed, 4 Jan 1995 16:51:34 GMT Tony Pace said:
>Charles writes:
>
>>--Recognition of a Slavonic liturgy by the Pope does not mean that there
>>was a modern nation-state called Slavonia.  I don't disagree with the
>
>Perhaps not in the sense of a 19th century nation-state, though in context
>of Church literature and poetry of the 15th century onward it was often
>referred to as Sclavonia.

--I did not intend to belittle the Slavs.  The issue had to do with
judging a tenth century conquest using twentieth century criteria.
It seems clear to me that the Magyar intrusion into Medieval Slavic
lands amounted to conquest.  My point was that this was not an
unusual event for the times.  The one saving grace, from one point
of view, is that the Magyars had been driven out of where they were
and were looking for a place to light.  Unlike the Danes or the
Normans, the Magyars did not have a secure geographical base, but
were on the prod for a place to call home.  One cannot compare
the Magyar conquest of the Pannonian Basin with Hitler's invasion
of Poland.  The Pannonian Basis was sparsely settled, and even if
one recogizes the existence of a Medieval kingdom there, it was
not a highly developed area and relatively easy to conquer.  So
the Magyars took advantage of the situation.  Who wouldn't have
under similar circumstances, particularly during the tenth century?
The morality of the conquest must be judged, seems to me, by
tenth century standards.  Then, we had no standards of international
conduct.  People took land when they could and held it if they were
able.  Had it been a Slav conquest of a Medieval Magyar kingdom, I
would argue exactly the same way.  Evaluate the events by the
moral and political standards of the time, not by the standards of
the present.

Charles
+ - Re: Palacky (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Wed, 4 Jan 1995 23:30:18 GMT > said:
>In article > Charles,
 writes:
>
>>--Seems to me that it is very difficult to talk of "states" before
>the
>>15th century.
>
>In article > Charles,
 writes:
>
>
>>But Greece wasn't really a nation, but a collection of what were
>called
>>city-states,
>
>you can't have it both ways without doing at least the english
>language a
>gross injustice!
>
--Please read more carefully.  In the first remark I said that it
seemed difficult to talk of states before the 15th century.
I did not say that it was impossible, but difficult.  Translanting
the Greek "polis" as state is done in order to make the term
intelligible to more modern readers.  Polis does not really mean
state in the sense in which this term is used in English, but
that's probably as good a translation as one could make.  It
is also very difficult, if not impossible, to think of ancient
Greece as a state--in the modern use of that term--because there
was no unity among the Greek cities.  Each polis was separate,
and they often fought each other.

>
>the notion of "state" is somewhat less ambiguous, referring to
>political
>organisation.
>
>so it is irrelevant to the question of the *existence* of states
>whether
>these were organised on urban, ethnic or imperial lines. these
>differences
>are only material to the question of *which* states existed when and
>where.
>
--Well, admittedly, there is a semantic problem.  But I think that
most historians get around the problem by referring to the rise of
"nation-states" to describe the emergence of England, France, Spain
and Portugal during the 16th century, generally calling these four
countries the first nations in the modern sense.  While there were
groups who are referred to as "nations" throughout history, they
were not the products of the political movement that we now call
"nationalism."

>as i have asserted before, my difficulty with many of the postings
>is the
>inconsistency regularly displayed by many contributors.
>
>the above is a prima facie example.

--Only if you enjoy nitpicking.
>
>Charles
+ - Re: Palacky (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Tony rehashes:
> Up to 894 AD, Svatopluk ruled G.M.Empire- see Conversio, Annales
Fuldenses,
> Porphyrogenet's Ruling of the Empire, et al.

Tony, as told before the "empire" is in your mind, the contemporary records
discuss a fief of Charlemagne's underlings.

> Have you read the Holy See's encyclicals Gloria In excelsis-altissimis
and
> Industriae tuae? How about the existence of Nitra as a bishophric from
880
> until 1995? That's 1115 years of continuous existance, older than
Hungary.

On the same basis one could claim contonuity on Aquincum for Buda. The
region was in continuous warfare between Svatopluk and his allies the
Hungarians, (rememeber the swearing on dogs and horses?) and then between
Svatopluk and Pribina and later everybody else. I know you claim those
killings and wars were peaceful, but you always mix snippets with your
interpretation. As a matter of fact the first mention of western
Christianity is in regard to the Avar tudun and not Svatopluk.

> Perhaps, however much of the terminology of Karl Robert's Court is in
common
> with remnants of old Slovak terminology dating back to the days of
G.M.Empire.
> However, by and large it is not shared with the Czech language. A noted
expert
> in linguistics V. Jagic (a Croat) declared that the literature of the
dialect
> spoken by the people of the 9th century Moravian Empire was to be
identified
> with the modern Slovak language of the late 19th/early 20th century.

Yeah, because he probably heard both. Pray tell how can one compare today
the "spoken" language of the IX century?

> Full feudalism, perhaps, however words like ispa'n (s'pa'n) megye (medza)
et.

Tony if you would read history from others also, you could find that the
term "shupan", "chupan"was a title of the Huns according to Chinese records
long before anybody wrote an iota about Slavs. You (and several others)
have very selective knowledge and even more selective interpretation of
history. Now should we assume that because the leader's title is from
another non-Slav language, that the leaders of the Slavs were other than
Slavs?


> al. were in common with Court terminology from the days of G.M.Empire

As stated numerous times to you before there was no "empire" and the term
you are claiming was lifted by the Slavs from others either Huns or Avars.

> Croats were converted prior to the Pannonian and Moravian Sloveni,
> however the Moravian Empire's Church jurisprudence emanated from Nitra,
> Breslavva (Bratislava) and Esztergom, with Esztergom eventually becoming
> the archbishophric in the early Hungarian kingdom. Remember that Croatia
> was a wholly independent country until 1089, thereafter annexed by
Ladislaus.

> >if one accepts that the erliest missionaries were Czech.  The best
solution

> Czech legends have it that Czechs learned religius writeing from Slovak
texts,
Now "legends" are good source for your history.

The
> >origin of the Slovaks is relevant, whether thei are Czechs that fell
under
> >Hungarian rule, or offspring of the White Croats.  If the latter, then
it is

> Actually neither, there was little differentiation amongst Slovaks and
Czechs,
> though Slovaks called themselves Sloveni until the XV century, and still
call
> their language the same as the Slovenes, both call their countries
Slovensko.
Tony, now you conveniently disregard the same records (Porphyrogenirus)
that you quote when it matches your dreams and substitute your opinions.

> The relevant aspect is that both the ancient Slovak Nitra principality
> and the Croatian principality were annexed at about the same time in 1089
> by king Ladislaus of Hungary, whereas the Moravian principality was
annexed
> into the early Premyslid Czech kingdom about 1000 AD.

You are again converting history to "his story". There was no Slovak (
or any other) Nitra principality after the Hungarian arrival.

Tony, history is not based on beliefs like a religion as you practice it.

Jeliko
+ - Re: *** HUNGARY *** #173; Biological relationship (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear fellow-listmembers,

I remember thinking about this when we were previously discussing the question
of whether there could be "typically" Magyar features (and, mutatis mutandis
anybody else) but I didn't get it posted.

If national identity is a cultural and linguistic, rather than a physical,
category, isn't it possible, though, that a generally-accepted stereotype of
just what "typical" physical characteristics are supposed to be can be
_part_ of that cultural construct, even if hardly anyone conforms to the
"typical" norm?  Just as generally-accepted untruths about the nation's
past may also be part of the cultural constructed identity?

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

+ - Eugene P. Wigner, 1902-1995 (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

One of the giants of 20th century physics, Eugene P. Wigner passed away
on January 1. The following are excerpts of the obituary of the Nobel
laureate as it appeared in the New York Times:

"Eugene Paul Wigner was born in Budapest on Nov 17, 1902, as the second
of three children. His father directed a leather factory, and his
parents put great emphasis on his education.

Budapest at the turn of the century had celebrated schools that produced
no fewer than seven of the 20th-century's leading scientists. In
addition to Dr. Wigner, they are Theodor von Karman, George de Hevesy,
Michael Polanyi, Leo Szilard, John von Neumann and Edward Teller. While
growing up in Budapest, Dr. Wigner befriended Dr. von Neumann as well as
others who became prominent scientists.

He developed a lifelong hatred of communism when revolutionaries took
over Hungary after World War I, forcing his family to flee their city
temporarily.

Graduating from high school in 1920, he studied chemical engineering
under Dr. Polanyi at the Berlin Institute of Technology; he received his
PhD in 1925 and got an appointment there soon afterward. In Berlin, he
met some compatriots from Hungary, Dr. Teller and Dr. Szilard, and
formed close friendships with them.

Dr. Wigner's pioneering ideas on group theory and quantum mechanics
appeared as a series of six papers published in 1927 and 1928, when he
worked at the Institute of Technology in Berlin. He wrote three of those
with Dr. von Neumann. His book, "Group Theory and Its Application to
Atomic Sprectra" originally published in German in 1931, remains a
scientific classic.

Dr. Wigner came to the United States in 1930 and took a post at
Princeton University, where he remained, except for short stints
elsewhere, until his retirement in 1971.

..In 1939, having glimsed the possibility of a nuclear reaction, Dr.
Wigner was one of three prominent scientists who persuaded Albert
Einstein to alert Franklinn D. Roosevelt that an atomic bomb was
probably feasible and that Hitler might build it first. Their warning led
the United States to start the Manhattan Project to build the atomic
bomb.

In 1942, he took leave from Princeton University to work at the
University of Chicago, where he made important contributions to the bomb
effort. He helped perfect the world's first nuclear reactor, which
marked the beginning of the nuclear era.

..Over his long career, Dr. Wigner collected many prizes and honors,
including the National Science Medal, the Albert Einstein Award and the
Max Planck Medal of the German Physical Society. He held honorary
degrees from Princeton and 26 other schools.

In 1990, after the fall of Communism in Hungary, Dr. Wigner accepted a
high prize in that country, the Order of the Banner of the Republic of
Hungary with Rubies. In 1994, he was given the country's highest
accolade, the Order of Merit, "as an acknowledgment of his scientific
career and his outstanding achievements in the enrichment of universal
human values."

______________________________

C.K. ZOLTANI
+ - Re: Palacky (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Jeliko,
(jeliko in old church slavonic appropriately enough means *where* rehashes:)

>> Up to 894 AD, Svatopluk ruled G.M.Empire- see Conversio, Annales Fuldenses,
>> Porphyrogenet's Ruling of the Empire, et al.
>as told before the "empire" is in your mind, the contemporary records
>discuss a fief of Charlemagne's underlings.

it had been written previously "Pardon my sayin' it, but Jeliko's relapse
into yet another historically-challeged episode is in evidence again :-)"

>> Have you read the Holy See's encyclicals Gloria In excelsis-altissimis
>>and
>> Industriae tuae? How about the existence of Nitra as a bishophric from
>>880
>> until 1995? That's 1115 years of continuous existance, older than
>>Hungary.
>
>On the same basis one could claim contonuity on Aquincum for Buda. The
>region was in continuous warfare between Svatopluk and his allies the

Actually Methodius was designated Archbishop for Pannonia by the Holy See.
The Holy See's letter naming Methodius as Archbishop for Pannonia was
addressed to Rastislav, Svatopluk and Kocel. Rastislav ruled the moravian
principality, Svatopluk (his heir apparent) ruled the Nitra principality,
and Kocel ruled in Pannonia, Kocel admittedly ruled on behalf of Franks.
Pope John VIII's encyclical 'Industriae tuae', issued in 880, not only

re-affirmed the Slavonic liturgy for Pannonia, but also took the GMEmpire
(consisting of the moravian and Nitra principalities) and its ruler under
Papal protection and established the first bishophric of St. Method in Nitra
thereby establishing an independent Church province (which was re-established
in 1977 by Pope Paul VI nearly 900 years later). Matter of fact a recent
VOA report mentioned the matter of Nitra in the IX century.

Porphyrogenit, Ibn Jakub, Ibn Rosteh, Gurdezi et. al. elaborated upon markets
and trade of the Pannonian Sloveni with Byzantium and recorded passages from
city to city, distances in days, and that they brought their goods
to Constantinople, as Porphyrogenit wrote "upon the dry as well as by water".

In 950/951 The Emporer of Byzantium, Constantine Porphyrogenet wrote
Ruling of the Empire, in which he referred to the Hungarian clans as Turks.
The chronicle was translated into Magyar by prof Gyula Moravcsik of Budapest
Uni. and it was published by the Pa1zma1ny Pe1te1r Tudoma1nyegyetemi Go3ro3g
Filolo1giai Inte1zet. For Jeliko's benefit(apologies to the rest for repeating)
a short excerpt of Chapter 38 "Of the genealogy of the nation of the Turks."
"Before this Arpad the Turks had never at any time had any other prince, and
so even to this day the prince of Turkey is from his family. Some years later
the Pechenegs fell upon the Turks and drove them out with their *prince Arpad*
The Turks in flight and seeking a land to dwell in, came and in their turn
expelled the inhabitants of Great Moravia and settled in their land, in which
the Turks now live to this day. And since that time the Turks have not
sustained any attack from the Pechenegs. But the Turks, expelled by the
Pechenegs, came and settled in the land in which they now dwell in.
In this place are various landmarks of the olden days: first there is the
bridge of the emporor Trajan, where Turkey begins; then a three days journey
from this same bridge, there is Belgrade, in which the tower of the holy and
noble Constantine, the emporor; then again, running back of the river,
is the renowned Sirmium (Sremska Mitrovica) by name, a journey of two days
from Belgrade; and beyond lies *Great Moravia*, which the Turks have completely
destroyed, but over which in former days *Svatopluk used to rule*."

'nough said.
Tony
+ - Re: Nitra principality (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Norb _misattributes_ and writes:

>        I thought you finally got off of this "Nitra principality" bit.
Please
>tell us, Tony, if this Nitra principality really existed, and played such an
>important role as the seat of the crown prince, why is there no historical
>record of it (except in the publications of Slovenska Matica)?  Second, why on

Are you disputing the frankish Conversione Bagoaorum et Carantanorum (871 AD)
(Conversion of Bavarians and Carinthians), re-published in 1871 in Hamburg
as Libellus Conversione Bagoariurum et Carantanorum? In Conversio (as its
commonly known), there is a reference to the Salzburg Archbishop Adalram
having consecrated a Church to the Bavarian saint Edelram for prince Pribina
in his own land locally called Nitra - "in sua proprietate loco vocato Nitrava
consecravit ecclesiam". The event is mentioned as having occurred in 830 AD.
Several aspects are apparent from "in sua proprietate loco vocato Nitrava".
The consecration of the church to a bavarian saint by a prominent member
of the Salzburg church hierarchy for Pribina in his own land called Nitra(va)
indicates that Nitra was oriented towards the West, as are numerous liturgical
words in the Slovak language, which were derived from the German language.
The importance of Pribina is attested to by a high church dignitary from
Salzburg consecrating the church in his "own land called Nitrava" according
to the Frankish account, which was published in Germany in the 19th century.

Another Frankish account is to be found in Annales Fuldenses, yet another
in Aventinus (Johan Thurmayer -bavarian historiographer of the XVI century),
and also referenced in Imago Antique Hungariae (Image of Ancient Hungary).

Imago Antique Hungariae was the standard geography and history reference text
in 18th century Austro-Hungarian schools. Imago presents a broad perspective
of Frankish accounts mentioned previously alongside other notable classical
sources. In chapter three, there is a reference to the last Moravian king
as having been buried at Zobor in the Nitra principality about 925 AD:
"The place upon which he had lived, immediately became a place of honouring
him and was generously visited by people, in worship. This mountain was once
known as Zobur, today it is known as Zobor." Another reference to Nitra is
to be found in L. Feje1rpataky's Ka1lma1n kira1ly oklevelei. E1rtekeze1sek
a to3rte1nelmi tudoma1nyok ko3re1bol XV, Budapest 1892, on pages 42-44
the Zobor Deed from the year 1111 and on p. 55-62 The Zobor Deed from 1113
are evidenced, the original of which was the basis for king Be1la IV's Bull
of 1249, which was the basis for king Zsigmund's Bull of 1410, then in 1592
and 1628 and is also mentioned in I. Szentpe1tery's Az A1rpa1d-ha1zi kira1yok
okleveleinek kritikai jegyze1ke I, Budapest 1923, and also in Istva1n Kniezsa's
A zobori apa1tsa1g 1111.e1s 1113.e1vi oklevei, mint neylvi (nyelvja1sa1si)
emle1kek. Debrecen 1949, page 52.

>earth would it be the seat of a Hungarian prince _prior_ to it being annexed
>by Hungary?

Because the administration of the Nitra principality largely remained as
during the G.M.Empire as the Hungarian kingdom slowly emerged in its place,
from which derives a substantive portion of the administrative terminology.
The Nitra principality had been a vested principality to the heir apparent
of the Great Moravian Empire since 836. Considering the succeeding Arpa1d
dynasty as Ge1za laid the foundations for the Hungarian kingdom (972-997)
Ge1za's brother Michael became the duke of the Nitra principality.
Michael was succeeded by Ge1za son Stephan I as the duke of the vested
Nitra principality. After Stephan I was crowned king in Esztergom in 1001,
his son Imre became the duke of the vested principality. Imre passed away
unexpectadly in 1031. After Stephan I's passing away in 1038, a war of
succession erupted for the throne, without a clear successor.
In 1046 Andrew I became the king and his brother Be'la I was vested as
the heir apparent and became the duke of Nitra principality.
In 1060 Be1la I became king and his son Ge1za became the duke of Nitra
principality. Up to this time all of the Uhor kings had previously been
dukes of the vested Nitra principality prior to taking the throne.
After Be1la I's passing away in 1063, Ge1za remained the ruler of
the western part of the Nitra principality, his brother Ladislaus
ruled the eastern part of the Nitra principality, meanwhile Andrew I's
son Solomon took the throne(1063-1074). In 1074, Solomon was deposed
from the throne by Ge1za and Ladislav. Solomon went into exile,
Ge1za became king, and Ladislav became the designated heir to the throne,
and the duke of the vested Nitra principality. Upon Ladislaus's becoming
king in 1089, the Nitra principality was annexed by Ladislaus to Hungary.

Tony
+ - States & Empires & Stuff (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear fellow-listmembers,

There are now so many snippets flying around that to try to respond to each
individually is probably not possible, let alone setting up a freezing of the
list (which, fyi, happens anytime list traffic exceeds 50 messages in any
calendar day).  So I hope this sort of collective grab-bag of things will
not be taken amiss.

I am in agreement with Charles on the necessity of seeing things in context,
in history, as I said at the beginning of my posting of Palacky's (in)famous
passage about the arrival of the Magyars.  I'm also happy to accept the
clarification introduced by the distinction between saying "state" and
"modern nation-state" -- it would be difficult to write the history of most
of Europe before the 15th century without using the term state at least in
some meaning (which is also why I added "whatever that may mean in the tenth
century"). I think such a distinction also needs to be made when using the word
"nation", for that is a term that has had many different nuances of meaning
over the centuries, let alone the all-too-common American habit of using it as
an exact synonym for "state".  "Modern" nations, in the sense of "nation-state"
nations, are not the same thing as what, say, a medieval chronicler or jurist
meant when using the term.  There's a fascinating book, btw, by the late
Frantisek Graus, called _Die Nationenwerdung bei den Westslawen im Mittel-
alter_ (forgive me if that's not an exact rendering of the title, it's my
unreliable memory), in which he discusses things related to this issue.  I
can't remember if he includes any comparative comments about the Hungarian
developments, but I know he talks about Bohemia and Poland.

Some quarrels over terminology have more a symbolic value than anything else.
I don't care if it's called Great Moravian Empire or simply Morava (as I
understand it, it was Constantine Porphyrogenitos who called it "Great
Moravia" but that was probably in the sense of "further Moravia" or "upper
Moravia", since Constantine was acquainted also with the Bulgars in the Morava
valley in the Balkans). As state organizations go, it was probably less
"organized" than the Frankish Empire to its West, and certainly than the
Eastern Roman Empire--but it certainly had some sort of structure, going
at least some measure beyond the kind of "empire for one lifetime" that the
other proto-states (not only in this region, though the realm of Samo is one
example) seemed to have.  Though to be sure it declined after Svatopluk--not
for nothing is the Aesopian tale of the man with many sons and the sheaf of
sticks retold in a Slavic version about Svatopluk and his three sons.  And the
spread of its authority up to the Lusatian Slavs in the North and down into
Pannonia in the South was probably more tenuous than the rule over the
heartland (which was not the lands of the present day Czechs, but basically
the southern part of present-day Moravia and parts of present-day Slovakia).

I don't think the acceptance of Christianity and the role of the Church
should be short-changed in looking at the development of medieval realms
(see, Charles, I didn't use the "s" word!:-).  First of all, being Christian
stopped you from being exterminated by your Christian neighbours (the
Baltic Prussians didn't, the Lithuanians did, and so did the slavs and the
Hungarians).  Secondly, accepting Christianity gave you a culture, and
literacy.  Then, it also gave you an organizational model.  Sure, the
Western and Eastern Churches both claimed to be universal, but in effect
they both (in different ways) contributed greatly to the crystallization
of identity for the peoples who accepted them.  Getting yourself a bishop,
or more than one, and then an archibishop--or how about a papal crown?
all this could really help stablize a state-structure, including frontiers
(boundaries of episcopal sees and frontiers of realms could be made co-
terminous).  And, of course, churchmen could administer your realm for you,
too (the Ottonians really made a business out of that, isn't that the source
of the investiture controversy?).

And, of course, these early realms didn't demand the kind of homogeneity
that a "modern nation-state" seems to want.  Which is why reading back
into the past the sort of exclusivist nationalism of the later nineteenth
and unhappy twentieth centuries seems to me (here agreeing heartily with
Eva Balogh!) such a useless and damaging thing.  And Eva's also probably right
that it's not an easy reflex to overcome.  All the more worthy, then, to
strive for it.

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

+ - Kerdes Pellionisz Andrastol (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Pellionisz Andras "A konzervativ hatalomatvetel pontos leirasa" c. irasaban
talaltam ezt a mondatot

>O"sneokonzervativ libik jobbra-balra el [Becsbe/New Yorkba], kifosztott
magyar marad.

Jol ertem, hogy az o"sneokonzervativ libik nem magyarok?

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

Subject: Re: Palacky
From: Charles, 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 05:27:20 CST
In article > Charles,
 writes:
>On Wed, 4 Jan 1995 23:30:18 GMT > said:
>>In article > Charles,
 writes:
>>
>>>--Seems to me that it is very difficult to talk of "states" before
>>the
>>>15th century.
>>
>>In article > Charles,
 writes:
>>
>>
>>>But Greece wasn't really a nation, but a collection of what were
>>called
>>>city-states,
>>
>>you can't have it both ways without doing at least the english
>>language a
>>gross injustice!
>>
>--Please read more carefully.  In the first remark I said that it
>seemed difficult to talk of states before the 15th century.
>I did not say that it was impossible, but difficult.

what's difficult about it? we learnt about the greek city-states
in history at high school. the notion of state is similar whether
it applies to a natoinality or to an urban community. it has more
to do with tha nature of the organisation of th polity than it
does with the ethnic composition or geographic extent of its
sovereignty.


>Translanting the Greek "polis" as state is done in order to make
the term
>intelligible to more modern readers.

how do you propose it be rendered more accurately? why?

>Polis does not really mean
>state in the sense in which this term is used in English, but
>that's probably as good a translation as one could make.  It
>is also very difficult, if not impossible, to think of ancient
>Greece as a state--in the modern use of that term--because there
>was no unity among the Greek cities.  Each polis was separate,
>and they often fought each other.

that is why they are called city-states. mind you there have been
enough
civil wars in history to justify considering the occurrence of even
persistent war almost irrelevant to whether a given society forms a
"state".

[snip]

>--Well, admittedly, there is a semantic problem.  But I think that
>most historians get around the problem by referring to the rise of
>"nation-states" to describe the emergence of England, France, Spain
>and Portugal during the 16th century, generally calling these four
>countries the first nations in the modern sense.  While there were
>groups who are referred to as "nations" throughout history, they
>were not the products of the political movement that we now call
>"nationalism."

sure! if anything, the rise of nationalism(s) is the consequence of
people considering themselves bonded by nationality and seeking
to organise statehood along national(ist) lines.


>
>>as i have asserted before, my difficulty with many of the postings
>>is the
>>inconsistency regularly displayed by many contributors.
>>
>>the above is a prima facie example.
>
>--Only if you enjoy nitpicking.

since we have been engaged in several threads her which depend upon
meanings and translations, and since my quest has been to find
consistent,
coherent and cogent grounds for geographical claims, such apparent
consistency surely invites explication.

but if you consider my seeking consistency and accuracy to be
nit-picking,
i can bear the odium --- espeically after last night's verdicchio.

d.a.
+ - Re: Orange blood (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Imre wrote:

>if we are to be proud of the achievements of our forebears, then we must
>also be ashamed of their misdeeds and accpet responsiblity for the
>mediate consequences of their actions. ancestors are a package deal.
>they come warts and all.

>to select only parts of their legacy as legitimate and to disallow
>the rest is basking in reflected glory ad, as such, gross hypocrisy.

Excellent point!  I agree and my initial opinion is that we should all
live by this.  However, just as there would be situation where one
group benefits from their heritage over all other groups (Portugese
for their exploration, and the English for their evolution of
the legal concept of individual rights as seen in the Magna Carta), groups
would have to make restitution for the misdeads of their ancestors, and that
is a difficult thing to measure and implement, though I think it would be
desireable.  For example, as far as I'm aware, the Japanese have never made
reasonable restitution to the Chinese for the invasions of the early 20th
century, and earlier.  In the case of the Germans, the children of those
in power during Worl War II were expected to make restitution up to the
end of this century.  They paid the agreed dept by 1971, but that was 20
years ahead of schedule.  The question is, was that right, or should the
German dept been structured in such as way that when the next generation
came of age, they would not be liable.  If the manner in which Germany
was treated is just, then maybe we already implement the model Imre
mentioned above, but not consistantly.  We already agree internationally
that countries are liable for their dept for as long as it takes to
pay it off (unless they get their dept cancelled, which is a common
practice).  This certainly means that the children of those who made
stupid financial decisions are expected to pay it off - how else could it
be done?

How far to carry this?  Well, Charles made a good point that "time matter"
in determining what was exceptable behavior or "the rules of the games" of
the day.  Charles wrote:

>before it gets totally lost, was whether or not the Magyars had a
>"right" to the territory.  My point was that they had whatever right
>that they could enforce--and this is perfectly consistent with the
>rules of the game in the 10th century.  Some have argued, or I have

It seems these two concepts can easily be combined, but it may not be
easy to determine "the rules of the games" at the time of each conflict
that any group/people might want to raise - as in raise it before some
international court.  Also, it would take a great amount of resources
to carry this out, and at least at present I don't think hte will of
the people of at least the western countries is there - though they
could be educated to accept this concept, just as they have been
educated about environmental issues and civil rights.  AT least at
present I don't think to many people outside of HUngary, for example,
would be willing to work for the return of Erdely to Hungary - it's
just not important enough internationally.  Would would fight for the
rights of American Indians for vastly more land, or for Eskimos for
the return of Alaska?  But if we expect debter countries to pay their
debts over several generations, why are cannot these other issues be
settled by righting historical wrongs which are generations old?  I think
the answer is expediency and practicality - international justice and
policy is set by expediency and not true justice.

I really have not formed an opinion on this, but these are the issues as
I see them.

Paul
+ - fatherland and national pride (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

we have been discussing pride in one's forebears, pride
in one's fatherland and the "right" quantum of nationalism.

my opinion but not my words:

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


d.a.
+ - Re: fatherland and national pride (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Imi Bokor writes:
>we have been discussing pride in one's forebears, pride
>in one's fatherland and the "right" quantum of nationalism.

>my opinion but not my words:

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

        I would prefer to debate what's said in the above quote, but since you
didn't say it I guess I shouldn't.  But, I will say that love of country does
not necessarily lead to "heroism at command" or "brutality."
        You do, however, profess that the quote expresses your own beliefs.
Thus, I must ask you:  By hating your own country so greatly that you are blind
to non-revisionistic history and you (perhaps unknowlingly) accept and
propagate material which often fully coincides with the nationalistic drivel
written by others, do you not violate your own beliefs?

        Norb
+ - Re: fatherland and national pride (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

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

Charles
+ - Re: fatherland and national pride (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

d.a. wrote :

>my opinion but not my words:
>"he who joyfully marches to music in rank and file
>has already earned my contempt. he has been given
>...

Who wrote this?

Paul
+ - Re: *** HUNGARY *** #173; Biological relationship (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Subject: Re: *** HUNGARY *** #173; Biological relationship
From: Hugh Agnew, 
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 10:59:17 EDT
In article > Hugh Agnew,
 writes:
>Dear fellow-listmembers,
>
>I remember thinking about this when we were previously discussing
the question
>of whether there could be "typically" Magyar features (and, mutatis
mutandis
>anybody else) but I didn't get it posted.
>
>If national identity is a cultural and linguistic, rather than a
physical,
>category, isn't it possible, though, that a generally-accepted
stereotype of
>just what "typical" physical characteristics are supposed to be can
be
>_part_ of that cultural construct, even if hardly anyone conforms
to the
>"typical" norm?  Just as generally-accepted untruths about the
nation's
>past may also be part of the cultural constructed identity?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Hugh Agnew


certain physical features may well be more common for cultural rather
than genetic reasons -- without lapsing into nay cryptic form of
lamarckism. in a country such as australia at a time when the
depletion
of the ozone layer was not recognised to be a problem, the vast
majority
of australians lived in coastal areas and even those who did not
enjoyed
"outdoor living". hence australians were "typically" tanned,
especially
in summer. that is an obvious physical characteristic which is
culturally
determined.

your comments remind me of someone i know who claims to be a great
sportsman; he watches every sport programme on television.

d.a.
+ - Re: Orange blood (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

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

Charles
+ - Re: *** HUNGARY *** #173; Biological relationship (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Be1la wrote:

>ance.  If *we* know that present-day peoples/nations/etc. are defined by
                ^^^^
>linguistic/cultural features, and not racial ones, then by all means let us
>discuss them in those terms.  But I am heartened to see that so many of us

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

Paul
+ - d. a. alias ibokor (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In Hungary #184 d. a. alias ibokor said:

> why? by then roman and greek civilisations had been long gone.
> in any event, where they did land was an area of roman settlement
> in part.
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> d.a.


What gives, d.a.?  Was the Roman civilization gone or did the Hungarians
finish them off in Pannonia?  It seems to me that you so love to debate that
logic - let alone common sense - is left by the wayside.  In any event, in
spite of your Hungarian pseudonym you seem to delight in denigrating anything
Hungarian regardless how ignorant some of your arguments make you appear.

As to the vulgar expression you used -- in Hungarian, presumably to spare the
sensibilities of those who don't speak the language -- you finally lived down
to my expectations, and perhaps to others' as well.  You should know that
using such unwashed language demeans only the speaker.  (As a side point, you
didn't even quote that vulgar proverb correctly.)

Let's have more real exchange of views instead of the puerile antics we have
seen so much of lately!

(I wish I had Charles' patience and erudition, so I could express my
objections less emotionally.  Thank God for having him on this list.)

Ferenc
+ - RE d. a. alias ibokor (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

>(I wish I had Charles' patience and erudition, so I could express my
>objections less emotionally.  Thank God for having him on this list.)

>Ferenc


I second - Charles For King, Charles For King, ...


Paul :-)
+ - what is a typical Hungarian look like? (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

There has recently been a substantial amount of energy spent on discussion
about the looks, arrival, etc. etc. of different inhabitants and invaders of
the Carpathian Basin and its surroundings, both here and on soc.culture.
magyar . May I add that much of that energy generated mostly heat and less
light?
In an earlier posting I cited a study in population genetics claiming little
actual difference in the genetic make-up of these groups/people/nations/
minorities. Somebody doubted the validity of this. So here is the source:
Sokal, R.R., Oden, N.L., Legendre, P., Fortin, M-J., Kim, J., Thomson, B.A.,
Vaudor, A., Harding, R.M., Barbujani, G. 1990. Genetics and language in
European populations. American Naturalist 135 (2), 157-175.
It makes very interesting reading. Among others:
'A striking feature .. is the absence of significant gene-frequency
differences for the various language families in the Balkans and Hungary.
The boundary between Romance speakers in Romania and South Slavic speakers
in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria is not reflected in gene-frequency differences...
The extensive migration and admixture of these populations throughout their
history may well be responsible for the lack of present differences...' (p.
167). 'We report no differences between Ugric speakers in Hungary and Slavic
speakers to their north and south. This may be due to the assimilation of
substantial numbers of Slavic speakers who lived in modern Hungary before
the Magyar land-taking and also due to the subsequent diffusions of Magyar
speakers into modern Slovakia and Croatia.' (p. 168).
I would also appreciate if people expressing opinions as facts or stating
supposed facts would go to the trouble to name their sources, at least part
of the time.
Regards to all
Gabor Lovei


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