Hugh Agnew writes
> I know there were some intriguing comments in Hobsbawm's book on Nations and
> Nationalism since 1780 regarding 19th century liberalism and its attitudes
> towards nationalism, especially what he called the "threshold principle",
> which means roughly that a people must have a certain numerical size and
> economic potential to qualify for "nation" status, otherwise, I suppose,
> they were doomed to be an "ethnic group" and eventually assimilated.
This principle is alive and well. Last summer I had some occassion to talk
to a high-ranking Eurocrat about their methods of allocating money to
cultural undertakings. He said that the current view was that below a
million people ther wasn't any sense in trying to set up universities and
such, since the population doesn't have the size to supply enough native
speaker faculty etc. High schools, yes, but college level education, no way.
A friend of mine is very active in helping the Canadian govt. to set up a
new university for a North-Canadian Indian tribe and he says the
difficulties are tremendous. See also the standard complaint of Hungarian
minorities in neighboring countries that there is no education for
"better jobs" in Hungarian. (A valid complaint, which I always felt
should be solved by sending the students to Hungary, which is something
that happens all too seldom.)

Andra1s Kornai

>
> 2) I don't think the chance for the UK to go socialist is rather remote,
> however just in case, I am sure as hell glad for 76, 17 that is.
>
> Jeliko.
Sorry, totally confused by 2). Eva Durant

>
> Eva Durant writes:
> > Its crisis, chaos, more crisis, war. The system only works if you
> > can make more profit, but with the size of investment necessary, profits
> > cannot grow any longer, or something like that. I know better the
> > symptoms, bad at quotes. (You have time + library and hopefully
> > not tied by the feudal themes of everyone should know
> > their place and we have here the best possible world) Eva Durant
>
> Gee, I always slept through these lectures, somebody apparently was
> fervently listening.
>
> Jeliko.
I do listen to things and than decide if they make sense. So far
the principles of socialism make more sense to me than the
principles (if any) of capitalism.  Eva Durant

>
> Andra1s,
>
> Give a man a fish, and you feed him for the day.
> Teach him to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
>
> If the side affect is no more beggers to subsidize, so much
> the better - call it enlightened self interest if you want, but
> it is the best for all involved.
>
> Paul Gelencser
It is more expensive to teach and provide the tackle in the
short term.  Market economics! Eva Durant

>
> This isn't my fight, but it looks like someone's got to jump in here.
>
> If the presence of Chinese is such a great threat to the Hungarian
> way of life, should we in America welcome so many Hungarians?  By the
> same logic, wouldn't they be a threat to the American way of life?
>
> Personally, I enjoy having so many internationals in this country,
> and don't see a problem.  Just wanted to comment on what seems to
> be a problem in logic.
I agree and would like to add, that Petofi wanted to fight for
"world freedom" (szent vilagszabadsag) forgotten by those who
remember heroism and patriotism of 1848. He would be arrested
with his mates for his deeds and ideals in most places East and
West - advocating change especially in the US as I see it, not in
fashion. Sorry, diverged. Eva Durant

Hugh Agnew wonders whether it is correct to say that the Hungarian Liberals
of the late 19th century (Szabadelvu Part) were "against nationalism":

> In the region, I can't think of too many examples of traditional
> liberal parties or thinkers who could be said to be against nationalism
> during that period, and it doesn't really match up with what I learned
> during my studies about the K. Tisza era:  in what sense would you see
> this classical form of liberalism being anti-nationalist?

The flippant answer is that of course they were anti-nationalist, otherwise
why would Laszlo Nemeth call them diluted Hungarians ("higmagyar")?
A serious answer is found in a fascinating digression within a recent
article by G. M. Tamas titled "Farewell to the Right".  TGM, as he is known,
constitutes a one-man Hungarian neoconservative movement, a role that is
very labor-intensive, implying as it does the need to publish voluminously
on most subjects under the sun.  This article appeared in the journal
Vilagossag.  The translation is mine.

 True, the Szabadelvu Part of 1867 used the electoral law to exclude the
 majority of the nation from political decisionmaking, because the majority
 of the nation -- especially the kuruc-protestant lower nobility and the
 declasse' gentrified "intelligentsia" which defined public opinion until
 1918 -- wanted national independence and sovereignty, not a federative
 Habsburg Empire.  The liberals then went to to use the tried and true
 Metternich recipe, and made a tacit alliance with the nationalities within
 Hungary, because the latter preferred the universalism of the Habsburgs to
 a unifying, dynamic and reformist Hungarian nation-state.  The liberal
 statesmen of the 19th century were paternalists on a civilizing mission.
 They had nothing but contempt for the exalted dreams of nationalists and
 democrats.

 Along the lines of the "white man's burden" of the British and the "mission
 civilizatrice" of the French, the Liberal statesmen in Hungary believed
 they were performing good works when they promoted the political, civil
 and cultural assimilation of Jews and national minorities.  In hindsight,
 it is easy to see how much the Faustian spirit of 19th century liberalism
 was suffused with aristocratic and paternalistic pretensions.  Well-meaning
 civil servants, parliamentary deputies, bishops, priests and writers of
 political pamphlets have worked ceaselessly toward reform and national
 revival, without stopping to ponder why the reforms they considered the
 universal moral mission of a selfless and sensitive elite appeared to the
 democratic and nationalist camp as the unholy work of "Vienna" and the
 "aristocrats", or why the gutter press would call them "mameluks",
 "Burg-gendarmes" and "Jews".

 The doctrinaire liberal elite acted at home like the enlightened liberal
 British colonial administrators did in India.  When it turned out that the
 anti-capitalist "kuruc" lower nobility refused to play the role of the Whig
 middle class, they simply appointed the urban German-Jewish middle class to
 the role, by giving them titles of nobility and adding a "Von" to their name.
 When it turned out that the churches in Hungary were unable to play the
 civilizing "Church of England" role, the liberal elite simply executed a
 U-turn and switched to radical secularism.  And when it turned out that the
 "48-er" democratic and nationalist Left could not be domesticated, they
 simply bribed the center-left party, and used it to pick a series of
 puppet prime ministers.

 This liberal elite, free of illusions but full of conceit, has decided
 to civilize the peoples of Hungary through bribery and corruption.  The
 great Faustian plan, inspired by Szechenyi, was being carried out through
 swindles, graft and police terror.  The liberal elite forced the gentry of
 the "varmegye" to give up their political autonomy, and bribed them with
 administrative offices.  With this, the liberals forced the "48-er" party
 into a role of a narrow interest group defending past privileges, while
 masquerading in a democratic, pro-independence, "kuruc" garb.

[Note that when TGM uses the term "Faustian", he is not referring to a
"Faustian bargain".  He is thinking of Faust's project to build dikes and
push back the sea, a model of politically correct liberal thinking before
ecology was invented.]

-----
Gabor Fencsik

>
> >It seems that one group on the list sees "multiculturalism" as a threat
> >or *extinction* and the other sees it as progress or *evolution*. My
>
> If it is an evolutionary process, what is a Hungarian?  If we get too far fro
m
> the Magyar foundation, will we still call them Hungarians?
>
> Paul

I think this is a question of "national identity", puzzling for me.
I think whichever culture influenced one most at a particular time
in their life. I am still Hungarian, with a tendency to Englishness
due to larger daily influence of life here. But who cares? It is fas-
cinating, but the important bit is to be a decent human being. (To
hurt the fewest possible number of people?) Eva Durant

>
> Well, maybe if you know Marxism you can get the extra 20Ft. I wonder if the
> test is written or oral?
>
> Jeliko.
I seem to know more about capitalism (still not a lot)
than you about Marxism. Eva Durant

I would add, that in schools, there were all day celebrations/activities
on 15th March. Eva Durant

>
> Thank you Hugh for answering the question on 1848. A couple of additions, not
> historical, but about the ups-and-downs of the holiday in the last 50 years
> or so. Before 1949, March 15 was a holiday of great significance when
> everything was closed and everybody had a tricolor "koka1rda" (rosette) on
> the lapel, often with Peto3fi's picture in the middle. After the Communists
> took over three new holidays were introduced: April 4 (Day of Liberation;
> i.e., the day the last German soldier left Hungarian soil and the Soviet
> troops completely liberated the country), May 1, and November 7 (the most
> odious for the Hungarians), that is the anniversary of the Great October
> Revolution. With all these new holidays it was decided that March 15 would
> not be an official holiday, a decision which offended a lot of people. Since
> 1990 things have changed in the calendar: November 7 is no longer a holiday;
> instead, October 23 became one in commemoration of the 1956 events; after
> some discussion, May 1 remained a holiday, and March 15 was restored to its
> former status.
>
> Eva Balogh

I am not a "believer", just I couldn't find  - yet - a more
satisfactory explanation and idea for the future. And not as I
wasn't looking. I wish capitalism worked. Would make things much
simpler. Post private your proofs. 



>
> Eva Durant is obviously a true believer. Jeliko might have slept through it
> but she didn't. I personally think that Marxism is a very seductive ideology
> especially when encountered at a certain age. Those people who received a
> good dosage of Marxism during their formative years, for example, those of us
> who grew up in the 1950s, were affected by it even if they thoroughly
> disliked the Rakosi regime. One could always say: well, this is a distortion
> of Marxism but the true ideology is different. Or, one could say: well, Marx
> didn't say much about the society of the future but he was sure right about
> the analysis of capitalism. Among the young students of 1956 the distrust of
> capitalism was very high and most people in their early twenties didn't want
> a return to a capitalistic society--which was considered to be heartless,
> ruthless and just plain wrong. I see that these anticapitalist sentiments are
> not at all dead today and are being fueled by the economic difficulties which
> the country is encountering. I, for one, learned Marxism-Lenism-Stalinism in
> Hungary and Marxism-Leninism in North America and eventually came to the
> conclusion that Marx was wrong not only in his predictions for the future but
> also in his analysis of the development of capitalism.
>
> Eva Balogh

Dear Readers,

Could anyone provide me with a definition about Hungarianness?
I would prefer a clean-cut set of criteria, that can be used in both ways.

Hopefully, I myself will fall in the box, despite being foreign citizen.  I'm
in daubt about my children's status.  I guess, the Chinese in Budapest, with
whom I have no problems at all, would fall outside the box.

Very probably there IS a definition at hand, maybe even an official one.
If the question is too complicated, could anybody give a similar definition for
other nations?  E.g. what criterias make somebody to an American, French,
Canadian, Australian, German?

Thank you in advance for your trouble!

Gabor

>Hold your horses. I wrote "permitting" not forcing. It is an option. There
>is also a big difference when one MOVES into another culture and when the
>borders move and a new culture is forced on the person. IMHO that is a
>major difference between US and per se Slovakia or Transylvania, Moldavia,
>etc. situation. I don't know what Bosnia has to do with the issue, they
>are, at least one side, trying to make it unicultural. I call that a
>sickness.
   I brought Bosnia in my reply because it's ultimately what will happen
when one whom seeks to preserve a certain culture without
interaction or integration with the nation that s/he is in.  I like to
live in the states!  I must say the Chineses are the hardest imigrant
to integrate, however I must also say the Hungarians(some) are also
part of the list.  In my opinion there is an extreme side to
unicultural (like Bosnia) and softer side (like the chinese, Hungarian
and most other ethnic clans.
Just another 50 cents of mine...
Ken


  o/    \  /    \ /     /      \o   |Life is made up of UPs and DOWNs
 /#      ##o     #     o##      #\  |You just have to know how to mana-
 / \    /  \    /o\    / |\    / \  |ge them... BTW, watch for the wall!
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
!!!!!  It's when things seem worst that you must not quit  !!!!!!!!
:-)8 *   <---  just my favorite smiley (there is only one like it..)

Readers of the Discussion List may be interested in an article written
by Norman Stone, Professor of Modern History at Oxford University,
titled " The Hungarians, History Makes a Comeback". It was published in
The National Interest, Number 36, Summer 1994. This journal is
a quarterly, with editorial offices in Washington DC. The advisory board
includes many who are prominent in American intellectual circles
including names such as Kissinger, Fukuyama and Kirkpatrick.

Also, the current issue of Daedalus, the Journal of the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences, is devoted to the topic "After Communism, What?"
There are several articles by Hungarians and references to issues
affecting Hungary.

Gabor writes:

>True, the Szabadelvu Part of 1867 used the electoral law to exclude the
> majority of the nation from political decisionmaking, because the majority
> of the nation -- especially the kuruc-protestant lower nobility and the
> declasse' gentrified "intelligentsia" which defined public opinion until
> 1918 -- wanted national independence and sovereignty, not a federative
> Habsburg Empire.  The liberals then went to to use the tried and true
> Metternich recipe, and made a tacit alliance with the nationalities within
> Hungary, because the latter preferred the universalism of the Habsburgs to
> a unifying, dynamic and reformist Hungarian nation-state.

Gabor, concerning your "tacit alliance" with the nationalities,
on the occasion of the 15th anniversary of the Tisza government,
deputy G. Beksics on January 10, 1890 evaluated the nationality
policy on the floor of the Parliament saying:
  "The effort to convert the multi-national Hungarian state into
a _monolothic_ __nation-state__ had long perdured in Magyar policy.
Tisza's regime (1875-1890) made special efforts and achieved
_special results_. Those who have doubts about it should but consider
the results of the census of 1880 which show great progress
in Magyarization. Let them also consider the census of the present
year (1890) which will be published in a short time. If anyone still
has doubts about the successes of the Tisza regime, I would ask him:
is it not true his government completely Magyarized the judiciary?
It is not true that Tisza's government closed the Slovak schools?"

Beksics's explicit admission of "The effort to convert the multi-
national Hungarian state into a _monolothic_ __nation-state__"
having "long perdured in Magyar policy" is inconsistent with your
characterization of such a policy as an "tacit alliance" with
the nationalities".

>Along the lines of the "white man's burden" of the British and the "mission
>civilizatrice" of the French, the Liberal statesmen in Hungary believed
>they were performing good works when they promoted the political, civil
>and cultural assimilation of Jews and national minorities.  In hindsight,
>it is easy to see how much the Faustian spirit of 19th century liberalism
>was suffused with aristocratic and paternalistic pretensions.  Well-meaning

The authorities of the Nograd county established the "Nemzeti Inte1zet" in
1831, whose established goal was the "widening of the Hungarian language
with _all possible means_", ("A honi nyelvnek minden alkalmatos mo1dokkal
valo1 terjeszte1se".) Gabor, care to elaborate upon how the "widening of
the Hungarian language with _all possible means_" in the political, civil
and cultural assimilation of Jews and national minorities could possibly
be considered as a liberal practice?

>civil servants, parliamentary deputies, bishops, priests and writers of
>political pamphlets have worked ceaselessly toward reform and national
>revival, without stopping to ponder why the reforms they considered the
>universal moral mission of a selfless and sensitive elite appeared to the

The Magyarization of instruction proceeded in the decades following:
In 1887, the "Felso-Nogradvar-megyi Magyar kozmivelodesi egyesulet" was
formed by the authorities in the Nograd county, similar actions took place
in other counties. The incentives rewarded teachers which Hungarized
their teachings to the extent that not a single word of the Slovak language
was utilized in instruction. The Nograd county authorities, on behalf of
the Hungarian minority, turned to the Parliament in 1893 to _eradicate_
Slovak as a spoken language, which is documented in No1gra1d Va1rmegye,
by Dr. Dobrovsky Samu on page. 564. The Nitra High Commisioner on May 14,
1893 sent a confidential report No. 55 to the ministry of the interior
in Budapest to the effect that he considered it his _primary duty_ to do
everything possible to Magyarize the Slovaks.

"The effort to convert the multi-national Hungarian state into
a Monolothic Nation-state had long perdured in Magyar policy" cannot
possibly be characterized as a "tacit alliance" with the nationalities,
a point which is perhaps best illustrated with The Protest of the Executive
Committee of the 1895 Congress of Non-Magyar Nationalities, 1898:
        Conditions in Hungary, created by the exploitation of state
        power to the advantage of one single race, have created
        such a degree of discontentment and bitterness among the mil-
        lions of Slavs and Romanians, that the Executive Committee of
        the Nationalities Congress of 1895 considers it its duty
        towards its fatherland and the Throne to call the attention of
        governing circles to these conditions, so detrimental to the
        good of the state, as well as to protest against the viola-
        tions that daily increase....  Having set out upon this
        path [of weakening the nationalities], the state power in
        Hungary reached the point where it wants to destroy everything
        that would be a reminder that there are any other nations in
        Hungary besides the ruling nation.  The Hungarian parliament,
        the chamber of representatives and the chamber of magnates,
        eagerly accepted the proposal of a law to Magyarize the names
        of villages.  This is  a further attack on the 10 million
        non-Magyars of Hungary, a new attack on the Nationalities
        Law [of 1868], on the equality of rights of all nationalities
        of the country.  Local names, which everyone knows from his
        childhood in his mother-tongue, are dearly loved by each.
        Linked with the national terms for the names of localities are
        many historical memories, which make up part of the history of
        the individual nationalities. The majority of local names are
        also a linguistic treasuretrove of the individual nationalities,
        they are so to speak its integrating factors, and therefore
        this suggestion is also an attack on the linguistic treasury
        of the individual non-Magyar nationalities.  The most intimate
        feelings of all non-Magyars are aroused against this attack.
        The graves of their ancestors, the bones of their dear ones
        are now supposed to lie in places whose names have become
        for them mere sounds.... [Adopted in Budapest, 10 January, 1898.]

G. Beksics's statement in Parliament of January 10, 1890 to the effect that
"The effort to convert the multi-national Hungarian state into a Monolothic
Nation-State had long perdured in Magyar policy" is irreconcilable with
"The liberals then ...  made a tacit alliance with the nationalities ."

Tony

Could someone please explain, how I can subscribe to some of the old HIX
publications (ie. TIPP, MOKA etc.), provided that they still exist.

Thanks,
Andras.

On immigration:
   Surely 1/10% or 1% group of new immigrants, does not cause a serious
problem. But but it is also obvious, that at a certain point, it will cause
problem. I feel that there are two criteria, for controlling immigration:
 1. It should not put a burden on the economy.
 2. It should not create race problems in the future.

I feel that the western democracies failed in the above points.

When the Germany brought in the turkish guest workers, it was good for the
 economy. But it is not good now, and race problems exists.
 In Canada, which was always a gentle nation, my wife who just returned from
Nova Scotia, says that the underlying racial hatred against newcomers is worse
than in the USA.
 I do not know, that should we allow hungarians into the USA, but I know that
 there
is a very strong sentiment against the influx of mexicans in California.

 So without splitting hair on percentages, though some immigration is good for
the country, it is smart to keep it very low.
 PS. I worry more of loosing the hungarian culture to western, (American)
 influence, than to the chinese immigrants.

 On nationalism:
  I am surely a nationalist, and against internationalists. Even in the USA
it is considered, that nationalism is heathy, if it is love of ones own nation,
not the hate of another. But heathy national policy, understands that every
 nation
look out for ones own interest first, while trying to maintain good
 relationships
with others. Any of the big powers, including the USA do this. This means, that
if a nation tries to be the nice guy, (like Hungary in the last 4 years) withou
t
standing up for its right when it should, it can only loose. The hard question
is how much can one push, and how much can one let go. The last goverment was
nationalist only in appearence, not in deed. It appears, that this one might be
better, except maybe in foreign policy.

 Note: Most successfull countries have, or used to have, strong national
 identities:
USA, Japan, Germany, China, England.
 And most countries which have growing problems, are loosing it:
England, Canada.

 There are people, who fight for saving a subspecies of bird, but do not feel
 sorrow
if a national culture disappears. Yes I am a hungarian nationalist. And a
 Scotish
 nationalist, Irish nationalist, Welsh nationalist etc..
I want all this groups to preserve there language, and culture. Our world would
 be
more beutifull because of it.
 We first learn to love our family, then our nations and than the world. I feel
 that
all three loves are important for most people, and an internationalist is
 missing out
if he/she ignores the second.

                           Sandor Lengyel

> I think it was Andras Kornai who wrote earlier (3-4 months ago) that
> 3 HUF = 1 KC. I still do not see the exchange rate posted anywhere.
> Does any one know something on that topic.


>                                                         Attila
Every monday the Wall Street Journal has all of the exchange rates listed.
The other issues have only partial listings.

Regards,Jeliko.

Joe writes:
> Jeliko wrote:

> >There is an interesting point made [in The World and I] also about a
Horn
> >termination of an interview

> I've never heard of this magazine before and nor have the two large local
news
> stand attendants.  Who publishes it and what is its orientation?

> Joe
It is a monthly, the subtitle is "A chronicle of our times". It is a
publication of The Washington Times Corporation.
Currently they are running a promo for a $60 per year subscription, or
$126 for 3 year. The individual issue price is $10.
Address
The World & I
2800 New York Ave., NE
Washington, D C 20002.

I am getting it for about the last 5 years. major essays about issues. It
is about 450 pages per issue. The publication is well balanced and for
conroversial issues there are at least two articles describing the opposing
viewpoints.
I have seen the publication in major bookshops, I do not recall seeing it
at newsstands.
The sections are;
Current Issues
The Arts
Life
Natural Science
Culture
Book World
Life and Ideals
Currents in Modern Thought.
It is the only magazine I save. It is NOT extremist on either side.

Regards,Jeliko.

In the last mail Frenyo, Andras said:
>
> Could someone please explain, how I can subscribe to some of the old HIX
> publications (ie. TIPP, MOKA etc.), provided that they still exist.
>
> Thanks,
> Andras.
>


--
Nigel Swain: 
Tel: +44 (0)51 794 2422; Fax: +44 (0)51 794 2423
Centre for Central and Eastern European Studies, University of Liverpool
11 Abercromby Square, P.O. Box 147, Liverpool, L69 3BX, UK

Imi Bokor writes:
> Paul Gelencser writes:
> > Give a man a fish, and you feed him for the day.
> > Teach him to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

> where i live there is only a small creek and it runs dry every year.
> if you could teach me to fish out of this creek to feed me for a
> lifetime, you're sure to get a nobel prize.

> d.a.
Ok, Step 1. Fill the creek with water. :-)

Regards,Jeliko.

Andras > writes:
> Could someone please explain, how I can subscribe to some of the old HIX
> publications (ie. TIPP, MOKA etc.), provided that they still exist.

You can get the full description of the services of HIX by sending a mail to
>. To subscribe to everything, send mail to >.

Jozsef

Dear Sandor,
>   Surely 1/10% or 1% group of new immigrants, does not cause a serious
> problem. But but it is also obvious, that at a certain point, it will cause
> problem.
 But surely it is not obvious how it will cause problem, or else my
repeated basic questions on this wouldn't have gone unanswered ;-(. Since
you are, just like Paul, referring to some trends, let's look at a
numerical example. Let's assume that the immigration rate is going to be
sustained at a level of say 1% in every 5yrs; to round out the doomsday
scenario (and simplify the 'rithmetic) let's also assume a negative
growth for the home-bred Hungarian stock of -1%/5yrs. Then 100 yrs down
the line in the worst case we'll have about 8 million
'real-biological-cultural' Hungarians and 2 million presumably
unassimilated 'alien elements'. Where exactly the alleged threat to our
culture is coming from, and what is getting lost?

 Bringing in, unanalyzed, the troubles of the West (perceived or real),
won't help a bit understanding the problems our country has to face
(although it may make for mindboggling intellectual play, especially the
day after featuring Missisipi burning on USA TV ;-<), since the
situations are so much different. The tiny group of Chinese (mostly
Hong-Kongian I bet) businessmen is clearly a red herring - they are not
the boat people the USA deals with but relatively wealthy people coming
to do business bringing capital with them (and thus contributing to the
prosperity of the host country). So
> 1. It should not put a burden on the economy.
does not apply here. The real problem would be 'economical refuges',
feared to come from the collapsing Russian empire - but they have not,
maybe not yet, showed up in significant masses (nor is their accomodation
on the agenda of those blamed for too lenient minority policy or
whatever). Clearly Hungary is not so rich a country as to act like a
'welfare magnet' some Western countries may. In any case, the criterion
>  2. It should not create race problems in the future.
requires you to define what "race problems" mean; better yet, define
"race", by which you apparently did not mean our _homo sapiens_.

-- Zoli

> >
> > 2) I don't think the chance for the UK to go socialist is rather remote,
> > however just in case, I am sure as hell glad for 76, 17 that is.
> >
> > Jeliko.
> Sorry, totally confused by 2). Eva Durant

1776.

Jeliko

>
>> Joe
>It is a monthly, the subtitle is "A chronicle of our times". It is a
>publication of The Washington Times Corporation.
>Currently they are running a promo for a $60 per year subscription, or
>$126 for 3 year. The individual issue price is $10.
>Address
>The World & I
>2800 New York Ave., NE
>Washington, D C 20002.
>
--The Washington Times is owned by the Rev. Moon's church, isn't it?

Charles Atherton

Attila Gabor ) wrote:
: I think some list members (Zoli) are not clear on the definition of
: assimilation within the frame work of social studies, so for the sake
: to clear my earlier letter, let me write it down.

: "Assimiliation; The merging of cultural traits from previously distinct
: cultural groups, not involving biological amalgamation."


:                                                         Attila

: P.S. Zoli, it's not that absurd anymore, right.

as ever the shorter oxford dictionary of 1980 p.119:
"assimilate: 1. to cause to resemble... 2. to be or become like
..3. to adapt to ....
II To absorb and incorporate ...2. to become absorbed or incorporated into
the system. Also fig."

what you have in mind seems closer to the notion of "integration".

i, for one, strenuously resist assimilation while striving for integration.

d.a.

So, the World and I is published by the Washington Times. That's the Moonie
paper, isn't it?

Regards,

Marc

Andras Kornai writes:

> "better jobs" in Hungarian. (A valid complaint, which I always felt
> should be solved by sending the students to Hungary, which is something
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> that happens all too seldom.)



In principle, I agree, that rather than spending funds for vocalizing about
the problem scholarships should be made available. However, where university
level education is funded by all the taxpayers, the sending of Hungarian
students from outside to Hungary, would in fact subsidize the native
majoritiy's education because the parents would still pay taxes for it in
their home country.

Again, I repeat, I do believe that not being bilingual (native + official)
any place (including the US) is extremly stupid.

Regards,Jeliko.

Jeliko mentions The World and I, a monthly publication of the Washington
Times Corporation.  I have never seen this one, and I suppose I'll take
Jeliko's word that it is "well-balanced".  Personally, I'd rather not take
my news from the Moonies, thank you.  I know I should be open-minded
about these things, but I still have just the tiniest suspicion that
they *might* have a hidden agenda somewhere.

-----
Gabor Fencsik

On Mon, 18 Jul 1994, JELIKO wrote:

> > I think it was Andras Kornai who wrote earlier (3-4 months ago) that
> > 3 HUF = 1 KC. I still do not see the exchange rate posted anywhere.
> > Does any one know something on that topic.
>
>
> >                                                         Attila
> Every monday the Wall Street Journal has all of the exchange rates listed.
> The other issues have only partial listings.

Sorry, was not specific enough. I ment to ask about listing in Hungary or
Czech Republic



                                                        Attila

> --The Washington Times is owned by the Rev. Moon's church, isn't it?
 Why, that's the last refuge of non-extremists in these tough days - whom
would you trust not to become lefties, when even one-time stalwarts like
Goldwater seem to turn pinko ;-)...

-- Zoli

On Mon, 18 Jul 1994, Imi Bokor wrote:

> Attila Gabor ) wrote:
> : I think some list members (Zoli) are not clear on the definition of
> : assimilation within the frame work of social studies, so for the sake
> : to clear my earlier letter, let me write it down.
>
> : "Assimiliation; The merging of cultural traits from previously distinct
> : cultural groups, not involving biological amalgamation."
>
>
> as ever the shorter oxford dictionary of 1980 p.119:
> "assimilate: 1. to cause to resemble... 2. to be or become like
> ...3. to adapt to ....
> II To absorb and incorporate ...2. to become absorbed or incorporated into
> the system. Also fig."
>
> what you have in mind seems closer to the notion of "integration".
>
> i, for one, strenuously resist assimilation while striving for integration.

Please, keep in mind that we were talking about social science, hence the
specific definition.

Eva Durant writes:
> I do listen to things and than decide if they make sense. So far
> the principles of socialism make more sense to me than the
> principles (if any) of capitalism.  Eva Durant

Good, I hope you got a good grade. However, I can't think of many well paying
jobs, where the knowledge of Marx is that important.

Regards,Jeliko.

Eva Durant writes:
> >
> > Give a man a fish, and you feed him for the day.
> > Teach him to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
> >
> > If the side affect is no more beggers to subsidize, so much
> > the better - call it enlightened self interest if you want, but
> > it is the best for all involved.
> >
> > Paul Gelencser
> It is more expensive to teach and provide the tackle in the
> short term.  Market economics! Eva Durant

Obviously you did not do as well in market economics.

Regards, Jeliko.

Eva Durant writes:
me logic, wouldn't they be a threat to the American way of life?
> >
> > Personally, I enjoy having so many internationals in this country,
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think he was referring to the US here. ESPECIALLY

> > and don't see a problem.  Just wanted to comment on what seems to
> > be a problem in logic.


> I agree and would like to add, that Petofi wanted to fight for
> "world freedom" (szent vilagszabadsag) forgotten by those who
> remember heroism and patriotism of 1848. He would be arrested
> with his mates for his deeds and ideals in most places East and
> West - advocating change especially in the US as I see it, not in
> fashion. Sorry, diverged. Eva Durant

What the hell has vilagszabadsag to do with the issue?

Jeliko.

Eva Durant writes;
> >
> > Well, maybe if you know Marxism you can get the extra 20Ft. I wonder if
the
> > test is written or oral?
> >
> > Jeliko.
> I seem to know more about capitalism (still not a lot)
> than you about Marxism. Eva Durant

Well the first part is not necessarily capitalism even if it may be good
business for you.
For the latter I only wish that one day you may live where it is practiced,
then we can talk about it again.

Jeliko.

Eva Durant writes:

> I think this is a question of "national identity", puzzling for me.
> I think whichever culture influenced one most at a particular time
> in their life. I am still Hungarian, with a tendency to Englishness
> due to larger daily influence of life here. But who cares? It is fas-
> cinating, but the important bit is to be a decent human being. (To
> hurt the fewest possible number of people?) Eva Durant

Well, I think getting 50 Ft for a bottle instead of 30Ft hurts all the people
who now will get that much less for their welfare.
But for most marxists business is business.

Jeliko.

On Mon, 18 Jul 1994, Gabor Ellmann wrote:

> Dear Readers,
>
> Could anyone provide me with a definition about Hungarianness?
> I would prefer a clean-cut set of criteria, that can be used in both ways.
>
> Hopefully, I myself will fall in the box, despite being foreign citizen.  I'm
> in daubt about my children's status.  I guess, the Chinese in Budapest, with
> whom I have no problems at all, would fall outside the box.
>
> Very probably there IS a definition at hand, maybe even an official one.
> If the question is too complicated, could anybody give a similar definition
 for
> other nations?  E.g. what criterias make somebody to an American, French,
> Canadian, Australian, German?
>
> Thank you in advance for your trouble!
>
> Gabor
>
Gabor, first you have to define your terms. It is unclear what you meant
by a definition that "can be used both ways." If you are talking about who
is "officially", i.e. legally, entitled to Hungarian citizenship, or who
has certain rights in the matter of acquiring Hungarian citizenship: the
best one can do is to state that if you are of Hungarian ancestry, you
may have certain rights at law, the datails of which you should clarify
through official channels. The broader question: who is what depends, in
general, on two principles recognized by the laws of various countries:
ius sanguinis, or right by blood, inheritance, based on ancestry; and ius
soli, or right by place of birth. American statutes recognize the latter:
anyone born here is an American citizen; on the other hand, the child of
American citizens born abroad is American on the basis of ius sanguinis.
Most countries do not grant citizenship on the basis of ius soli; yet
even in such cases, in effect, proof the ius sanguinis de facto implies
ulitmately that, at some point, an ancestor was a subject, or citizen, on
the basis of having had his birth registered in the given jurisdiction,
which gets us back to ius soli. If that is unclear, let me be specific:
Hungarian public law XLIV of 1868 declared all citizens of Hungary to be
equal members of "the one and indivisible Magyar Nation, without regard
to ethnic origin"; and from that point on, ius soli cuts in. If your
ancestry includes a person or persons who, on the basis of that law, were
Hungarians, you have, or may have, certain claims to Hungarian citizenship;
get the details, or hire a lawyer... I would not rule out a petition by
someone whose ancestors left Hungary before 1868, for that matter. The
problem becomes nasty with those whose ancestors did not leave Hungary,
but who were cut off from Hungary after WWI or WWII. For various reasons,
among them Communist Hungary's refusal to recognize possible claims to
dual citizenship, descendants of former Hungarian citizens in Romania,
for instance, were classified, and treated as Romanians; *in practice*,
however, such people were given Hungarian citizenship if they made it to
Hungary, were willing and able to stay there, and applied for such status.

The Chinese in Budapest would, indeed, fall "outside the box"; their only
recourse is to apply for immigration, then, after the requisite waiting
period, for citizenship. Whether their application for immigration would
be granted is an open question; the principles are, however, precisely
the same as applying for immigrant status in the U.S.

Since you mention your children, I assume your question is not academic;
the best advice then, if I am right, is for you to contact the competent
authorities, or to find a Hungarian lawyer who is knowledgeable in such
matters. And - gather all the documentation you can find.

L. Elteto
Portland State University