Hollosi Information eXchange /HIX/
HIX HUNGARY 896
Copyright (C) HIX
1997-01-26
Új cikk beküldése (a cikk tartalma az író felelőssége)
Megrendelés Lemondás
1 Re: Eva D's Ideals - was Galbraight and Soros (mind)  189 sor     (cikkei)
2 Re: Eva D's Ideals - was Galbraight and Soros (mind)  204 sor     (cikkei)
3 Small steps on the road to Save The Danube (mind)  80 sor     (cikkei)
4 Language (mind)  49 sor     (cikkei)
5 Re: Civil Wars and Tribal Squabbles (mind)  106 sor     (cikkei)
6 Re: Egy kis lecke a szabadsagrol (mind)  51 sor     (cikkei)
7 Re: Galbraight and Soros (mind)  173 sor     (cikkei)
8 Re: Egy kis lecke a szabadsagrol (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
9 Re: Language (mind)  17 sor     (cikkei)
10 Re: Language (mind)  9 sor     (cikkei)
11 Re: Eva D's Ideals - was Galbraight and Soros (mind)  34 sor     (cikkei)
12 Re: Eva D's Ideals - was Galbraight and Soros (mind)  27 sor     (cikkei)
13 FW: Re: Civil Wars and Tribal Squabbles (mind)  26 sor     (cikkei)
14 Re: Protecting the HUNGARY list (mind)  36 sor     (cikkei)
15 Re: Civil Wars and Tribal Squabbles (mind)  148 sor     (cikkei)
16 Egy kis lecke Szalai Jozsefnek (mind)  17 sor     (cikkei)
17 Re: Galbraight and Soros (mind)  22 sor     (cikkei)
18 [Homo]Sexuality and Politics (mind)  12 sor     (cikkei)
19 Re: Egy kis lecke Szalai Jozsefnek (mind)  11 sor     (cikkei)
20 Re: Civil Wars and Tribal Squabbles (mind)  113 sor     (cikkei)
21 Re: [Homo]Sexuality and Politics (mind)  50 sor     (cikkei)

+ - Re: Eva D's Ideals - was Galbraight and Soros (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hi Eva D -  At 12:20 AM 26/01/97 +0000, you wrote:
>Well, I think it would be  a bit difficult for the majority of the
>population to own a 3+ employee business... If you can arrange it,
>I am a convert for capitalism straightaway...
[...]
Brace yourself  Eva.  You might well have to eat your words in years to
come!  Continued giant leaps in technological advancements combined with
the requirement for global competitiveness are, and will continue to force
downsizing.  This in turn will continue to force continued growth of
private ownership.  Just another point of view, from your own.
>
>I still can't see where I advocated private ownership, sorry, but you
>did confuse sg. Private ownership means capitalism, and I try to
>avoid advocating that particular system....
[...]
Below are two of your sentences, that gave me the impression, that you are
advocating private ownership.  It is to these statements, that I addressed
my initial reply to you.>
>>"There is no individual freedom for the people who do not own private
>>property, and there is no chance of owning private property for the
>>majority of the people, however much right they have.
>>(I hope you are aware, that by private property I don't mean
>>personal property.)"
>>"You are free to own private property in capitalism, but only a minority
is able live with >>this freedom."
>
>Would you quote my stuff - what did you find outrageous?
>I don't remember attacking any individual "private owners" they
>are asmuch the slave of their circumstances, as everybody else.
[...]
Below are your quotes as requested.  It is these words, that lead me to
conclude that your knowledge of private ownership is didly squat while I
found them outrageous & upbraiding.
1.>>"They contribute to their own economic stability. They couldn't care
>>less about the country. The ones that count are international anyway
>>and shift their business wherever they can get the cheapest worker,
>>if it is a dictatorship, so much the better."
>
2.>>"Just what risk is a person with enough money to start of a business ,
>>is taking?  At most, the surplus money - he/she didn't need it to
>>survive, if it was there to invest.  Most of the time it is borrowed,
>>with personal property made safe. The more the money is to invest, the
>>less is the risk.   People loose far more, if they loose there job -
>>and they don't even have a choice. No, the heroic risktaking is rather
over->>rewarded at the expense of those, who are not at all rewarded for
hard and not >>enjoyable work."

>3.>>"Sorry, I cannot picture anyone drawing 10 times more than
>>an employee, a majestic and selfless  hero".

>I am ready to change my mind - I long for it (!!!) - I have
>only rational attachment to my ideas, unfortunately you haven't
>supplied any good reasons - statistical or otherwise -
>to convince me.
[...]
Forgive me Eva; but that is far from the impression you have given
throughout the past year.  Others, far more eloquent and knowledgeable than
I have tried to convince you until they were blue in the face - with no
avail.  Therefore, I conclude, that you really don't want to be convinced
of anything which conflicts with your ideals.  In fact, I see it more like
you enjoy tooting your ideals.  Truth be known, convincing you is not my
agenda.  That, I believe to be a personal right ... Sharing with you
information as I see it, regardless of the fact that it differs from yours
is.  Like I said prior.  I hope that you'll stop and consider, that there
are other points of view from your own, and that people are not just
generating fantasies at will, when sharing theirs with you.  Stats or not
there is an already existing gray area worthy of your consideration.
>>
>I explained my reasons, for not providing a blueprint, any person,
>who is serious about democratic conditions for change would
>understand. I have plenty ideas, no blueprint.
[...]
Any person serious about democratic conditions for change, with even a
minute sense of responsibility, would never begin to act on a theory,
without a clearly outlined blueprint of the proposed ideas.  That, to me is
the minimal requirement for any starting point.

>I am not complaining,
[...]
Really?  Care to read the statements as quoted above again?  Along with the
rest of your posts for the past year?  Then please tell me that you're not
complaining.

>I am pointing out major shortfalls in the economic and democratic
>departments of your favoured system.  You avoid even accepting them.
>[...]
Perhaps you do not realize, that despite the fact I have not verbalized, I
actually do realize and understand that there are far too many shortfalls
in the economic, democratic, moral, +++ departments of "my favored system".
 I also realize and understand the positive aspects of all in "my favored
system".  In addition, my past has granted me with the opportunity live in
both.   Above all, I also realize that I am not the chosen person to change
it all - as much as I would love to.  Instead, I have chosen to concentrate
on the positives - and accomplish what little I can in the process towards
a better tomorrow.  And I do just that.  Nothing grandious, that will make
headlines (many, anyways), but I do, and quite happy with the results.  I
don't believe that focusing on negatives on a continuous basis leads
towards any positive change.  Therefore, I conclude your statement "I avoid
accepting them" to be quite inaccurate with ease.

>I would be happy to hear your ideas/opinions on how these will be
>solved in the present framework of the market system.
[...]
No, Eva, you would not be happy to hear my ideas.  They are not quite so
universal as are yours.  I believe in the theory that in order to be
effective at all, one must find their *one* strength.  I do not have the
strength to change the political, the economical, the environment et al
levels of humanity.  Nor am I capable of concentrating on such a broad
spectrum.  Therefore, I concentrate on the one which I consicer to be
within my realm of abilities.  And hope like hell, that any little
impression, change I've imparted throughout my life will lead to a bigger
more positive one with the next generation.

>I did not decline. I have outlined my ideas a few times - not a
>blueprint.
[...]
Sorry, to me, that is declining or if you prefer, a cop-out.  When I have a
clear idea of any change, I take the time to formulate that blueprint.
Until I can formulate it in a manner that others can clearly understand, it
remains a fantasy, a dream, a thought.  Take your pick.

>I explained, that I think it is practical to have a
>society, where not only the production, but the distribution is also
>democratically organised, so that human needs are in total syncron
>with production and distribution, with no waste of resourses.
>So that we can collectively control not only technology/science, that
>is the natural environment as far it is not doing any more damage,
>but also the social environment, avoiding all tho chaotic chance of
>crash, disaster and war, that is still probable now..... <snip>
[...]
Not good enough.  See above.  You are aiming to cover far too many grounds,
with general thoughts/ideals, for one to invision without that mighty
blueprint.  One must consider the implications caused by enaction of each
and every proposed idea along the way.  Because yours is so universal, is
precisely the reason why a blueprint is deemed imperative.

>So everything is beautiful, all those people who have to work
>long hours in souldestroying jobs for a bare living
[...]
I see, they no longer "not matter, since they're not international", and no
longer "don't care for their country, but only their own economic survival"
 etc....  Aren't you changing your tune here, just slightly even?  In
reality, we ought to ask them directly, since I cannot speak for them.

, when
>there is overproduction of everything,
[...]
First of all ... "overproduction of everything" would include, water, food,
energy, medicine, effluent waste along with erroneous luxuries..... if that
statement were to resemble any accuracy, your entire ideals along with mine
are for not.  "Overproduction in everything" is a lame statement, that says
nothing.

>between rich and poor to widen, constant threat of war, less and less
>resources for health and education, more and more for military
>hardware etc, etc is fine with you?  Sorry, I hope for something
>better for my children.
[...]
Eva, I hate to be the one breaking this newsflash ... all of us, who have
children, by nature hope for better for them.  But personally speaking ..
before I finally chose to have children, I seriously considered, not having
any.  The reasons are of course personal, but also a lot had to do with
taking the world's state and it's future at large into my decision.  Why,
would anyone bring a child to this world, which everyone considered doomed
and dead already in the late 70's  - about sums it up.  Then, I decided to
let go of everyone elses' opinion, and concluded, that the past generations
have done well, despite the horrors they were forced to endure; and bore
children by accident, rather than planning.  I also decided that having
children, does not bring with it a personal responsibility to change the
world for their sole benefit.   Instead, I tried really hard to raise my
children so that they can be open minded, self sufficient and strong, and
to believe in themselves and in the good around them.  Should I have
succeeded, with mine (time will tell), as I expect others to feel
similarly; reality is that in the long run, it really does not matter, what
we want for them.  They, alone, will decide what it is they want for
themselves and they, alone, will find a way to make it happen .... just
like you and I did.  Grant it, they will likely screw up as have we, along
with previous generations have along the way ... but the knowledge and
wisdom they carry forth,  is already way ahead of yours and mine, which
points to hope indeed.  And the cycle continues .... life goes on....All I
am hoping, is that at the least, I will have succeeded at having raised
loving, honest, responsible intelligent rational strong humans who are able
to make the necessary decisions as are required when the time comes to take
our worlds' progress to it's next stage - to their stage.
Aniko
Ps;  You suggested, that my pink glasses are blinding me.  So be it.  I'd
rather be blinded than live life through your black and white glasses.
Thus far, pink has made significant differences in quite a few lives it's
touched , a trend already set that I am hell bent on continuing....
+ - Re: Eva D's Ideals - was Galbraight and Soros (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

> Status:
>
> Hi Eva D -  At 12:20 AM 26/01/97 +0000, you wrote:
> >Well, I think it would be  a bit difficult for the majority of the
> >population to own a 3+ employee business... If you can arrange it,
> >I am a convert for capitalism straightaway...
> [...]
> Brace yourself  Eva.  You might well have to eat your words in years to
> come!  Continued giant leaps in technological advancements combined with
> the requirement for global competitiveness are, and will continue to force
> downsizing.  This in turn will continue to force continued growth of
> private ownership.  Just another point of view, from your own.
> >

Well, I would look at the mathematics of your statements. The chiefs
will run out of indians... You picture us all being one-man
businesses?  I think the technology you refer to needs more
integration, not less. Just because some software people manage to
make money for awhile being "small" doesn't mean your other examples
(miners etc. had anything they could do with modern technology.
The main developments in industry now - such as chip-manufacture need
enourmous investment, usually stacks of govt. assistance. Not a trend
towards the happy small business. Again, last time I've seen
statistics here in the UK, there were no steadiness, but rapidnew
business/bankrupcy scenario, with the balance towards bankrupcies.
The big fishes are still gobbling up the small ones...




> Below are two of your sentences, that gave me the impression, that you are
> advocating private ownership.  It is to these statements, that I addressed
> my initial reply to you.>
> >>"There is no individual freedom for the people who do not own private
> >>property, and there is no chance of owning private property for the
> >>majority of the people, however much right they have.
> >>(I hope you are aware, that by private property I don't mean
> >>personal property.)"
> >>"You are free to own private property in capitalism, but only a minority
> is able live with >>this freedom."
> >

Please read carefully - I am saying that it is impossible to achieve
private ownership to majority satisfaction. That doesn't mean I
advocate it.

> Below are your quotes as requested.  It is these words, that lead me to
> conclude that your knowledge of private ownership is didly squat while I
> found them outrageous & upbraiding.
> 1.>>"They contribute to their own economic stability. They couldn't care
> >>less about the country. The ones that count are international anyway
> >>and shift their business wherever they can get the cheapest worker,
> >>if it is a dictatorship, so much the better."
> >

Well, if facts can be outragous to you, sorry about that. Businesses
do relocate to find the cheapest labour, not worrying about the
destruction of all communities. Investment was for decades very happy
with South Africa, Hitler's Germany, at present Indonasia, Thailand
China etc. Are these not facts?


> 2.>>"Just what risk is a person with enough money to start of a business ,
> >>is taking?  At most, the surplus money - he/she didn't need it to
> >>survive, if it was there to invest.  Most of the time it is borrowed,
> >>with personal property made safe. The more the money is to invest, the
> >>less is the risk.   People loose far more, if they loose there job -
> >>and they don't even have a choice. No, the heroic risktaking is rather
> over->>rewarded at the expense of those, who are not at all rewarded for
> hard and not >>enjoyable work."
>

Again saying this is outragous is not a meaningful response.
Is it so, or isn't.


> >3.>>"Sorry, I cannot picture anyone drawing 10 times more than
> >>an employee, a majestic and selfless  hero".
>

> Forgive me Eva; but that is far from the impression you have given
> throughout the past year.  Others, far more eloquent and knowledgeable than
> I have tried to convince you until they were blue in the face - with no
> avail.

Well, remind me if I missed any points, but all I remember is:

- Undemocratic socialism was and is nasty.

which I agree with, but it doesn't prove, that democratic socialism
is nasty.

- Greedyness is in human nature and we cannot/should not do
  anything about it

Social darwinism is a discredited theory, there is a tendency in history for
 more
and more compassion and cooperation in the confines of the given
economic/social structure.

- markets are working very well, if they left alone, they solve all
our problems.

They didn't when there was no intervensionism, in past centuries,
regulation was introduced to save the market system.


I had no further points to reflect on these, so I had no
rational reason to change my mind - yet.

> Therefore, I conclude, that you really don't want to be convinced
> of anything which conflicts with your ideals.  In fact, I see it more like
> you enjoy tooting your ideals.  Truth be known, convincing you is not my
> agenda.  That, I believe to be a personal right ... Sharing with you
> information as I see it, regardless of the fact that it differs from yours
> is.  Like I said prior.  I hope that you'll stop and consider, that there
> are other points of view from your own, and that people are not just
> generating fantasies at will, when sharing theirs with you.  Stats or not
> there is an already existing gray area worthy of your consideration.
> >>

As you can see above, I considered the points put to me.
Now you show, that you did likewise with my points.

More people are familiar with your opinions, than mine,
yes, I do hope that I make people acquanted with a point of view they
had not much chance to see before.


> Any person serious about democratic conditions for change, with even a
> minute sense of responsibility, would never begin to act on a theory,
> without a clearly outlined blueprint of the proposed ideas.  That, to me is
> the minimal requirement for any starting point.
>

Funny you should say that. That would be rather dogmatic,
don't you think?


 ..
>Above all, I also realize that I am not the chosen person to change
> it all - as much as I would love to.  Instead, I have chosen to concentrate
> on the positives - and accomplish what little I can in the process towards
> a better tomorrow.  And I do just that.  Nothing grandious, that will make
> headlines (many, anyways), but I do, and quite happy with the results.  I
> don't believe that focusing on negatives on a continuous basis leads
> towards any positive change.  Therefore, I conclude your statement "I avoid
> accepting them" to be quite inaccurate with ease.
>

Well, perhaps I expect too much, but the trends I observed are
not satisfactory to me. I cannot enjoy my private happiness if
I know that a lot of people is desparately unhappy. I cannot see a
 decrease of their number, especially not globally.  I blame the
system for well established reasons I stated,
  and try to find the best ways to change it.


> >I would be happy to hear your ideas/opinions on how these will be
> >solved in the present framework of the market system.
> [...]
> No, Eva, you would not be happy to hear my ideas.  They are not quite so
> universal as are yours.  I believe in the theory that in order to be
> effective at all, one must find their *one* strength.  I do not have the
> strength to change the political, the economical, the environment et al
> levels of humanity.  Nor am I capable of concentrating on such a broad
> spectrum.  Therefore, I concentrate on the one which I consicer to be
> within my realm of abilities.  And hope like hell, that any little
> impression, change I've imparted throughout my life will lead to a bigger
> more positive one with the next generation.

So - sit back, give a coin to the begger and hope everything be
alright - I don't think you trust the "freedom" you so proud to have,
if you don't think you can affect the system more.




 ... cut long paragraph about child-upbringing....
The 70s were more optimistic times to start families.
I don't think I would start one now, times seem to be far more
risky/dangerous. I am very proud of my kids, too, being responsible,
caring and even far more clever than me. However, I am worried
for their future in a society that puts money value of achievement
only, cannot prevent random and idiotic violence, cannot finance
the most important health-research while still wasting enormous
amounts on insane industries, etc, etc.


> Aniko
> Ps;  You suggested, that my pink glasses are blinding me.  So be it.  I'd
> rather be blinded than live life through your black and white glasses.
> Thus far, pink has made significant differences in quite a few lives it's
> touched , a trend already set that I am hell bent on continuing....
>

Seeing in black and white is better that being blind, you don't have
painful pitfalls...

Eva

Reality is the thing that won't go away when you stop believeing in
it.

+ - Small steps on the road to Save The Danube (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear Colleagues,

Mark Schapiro of the magazin "The Nation" has just called, indicating, that
their next week's issue will carry a major article on the Danube and it will
come down squarely on the side of the international NGOs and will favor
international and American efforts to save the Szigetkoz. This will be the
first national magazin article on the Danube issue. It is that first step we
were all working and waiting for. It could ignite the interest of the media
and it is (also) up to us, to make sure, that it does.

I also received a request for an article from European, asking for data on
J.P. Morgan's involvement in helping the Slovak Construction Lobby to
confront the International Court of Justice with a fait accompli. If it does
get published, we will have taken an other small step.

I also received a report, that yesterday (Friday), the Danube issue, for the
first time, made the "Issues of Concern" list of the Vice President. Because
to make that list, took a lot of letters, I do thank all of you who wrote.
Yet, this is only the first step, much more is needed in the coming
days/weeks, before we reach our goal and Al Gore speaks up for the Szigetkoz,
or asks Secretary Albright to do so.

Therefore, please get everybody on your personal mailing list involved.
Believe me, it makes a difference, when we receive a personal letter from a
friend. Don't be shy, you are not doing anything in self-interest, you are
doing something for them and for all of us. Do ask your friends to contact
their friend. Ask them to send the attached form letter as a "chain letter,"
if they have no time to write their own, but please write and ask. Next week
will be a critical one. Please help.

Best regards: Bela Liptak

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Please send this or a similar letter TODAY!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The Honorable Al Gore
Vice President of the United States
(e-mail: )

RE: Please Help Save the Blue Danube

Dear Mr. Vice President,

I want to congratulate you on this day of your inauguration for a second
term. I would also likew to thank you for having spoken up for the Danube
River on August 21, 1993.

It seems to be time for you to speak up again, as mankind is approaching an
importanat precedent: The first international environmental lawsuit is coming
up in a few weeks at the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

The Court will decide on a case involving the Danube and the destruction of
its ancient wetland region, the Szigetkoz. (Szigetkoz, loosely translated,
means "The Region of a Thousand Islands," but today there is not a single
island left, as the water is gone.)

Still, the implications of this case go beyond the future of just one river
or just one wetland ecosystem. This lawsuit will set a precedent for the
whole planet and will decide on a much more basic question: "Do
national governments have the right to do as they please with the ecosystem
of this planet, or does mankind as a whole, have the right to protect her
natural
treasures?"

In 1995, nine international environmental NGOs have submitted a "Memorial" to
the Court, which its president, the Honorable Mohammed Bedjaoui has accepted.
Also submitted to the ICJ was a Compromise Plan, which would guarantee the
restoration of this ancient wetland region together with fulfilling the
water supply, energy and shipping needs of the region. For details of this
plan and for other aspects of the lawsuit, please visit the web-site at:
http://www.goodpoint.com/duna.htm

Dear Mr. Vice President. It is important that the first international
environmental lawsuit be given the attention it deserves by the media. A
statement by you, can guarantee that attention. Please make that statement.

Respectfully yours,

Your name, title, address
+ - Language (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Dear fellow-listmembers,

Just to clear up an implied point out of recent debates:

There is no "official state language" on Hungary list, and there are no
requirements (even a 20% of local population threshold) on the use of any
language for postings to the list.  The majority of the postings is of
course in English, but there is no restriction on postings in Hungarian
or indeed in any other language.

The people who do post in other languages than English must be conscious
of the fact that many of the subscribers will not be able to understand
their contributions, unless someone else is willing to summarize or
translate such contributions.  That usually happens sooner or later when
there is a posting in a language other than English, but it depends on
the goodwill of other listmembers--not necessarily a bad thing?

Now just for a personal opinion:  Hungary list )
is not in the business of "representing" anything.  If the Hungarian
state, or government, or any group of Hungarians abroad need an official
English-language "representation" let them create it.  Hungary list
exists because someone many years ago (I usually credit Eric Dahlin at
UCSB since he preceded me as listowner) cared enough in the prospect
that computer links could allow people with shared interests in matters
Hungarian to communicate rapidly and freely with each other to convince
his university's computer center to devote the resources necessary to
creating it and maintaining it.  And that purpose, for the exchange of
opinion and information among a community of people with an interest in
matters Hungarian, is still all this list is about.

The "image" of Hungary and Hungarians that this list presents is largely
in the eye of the beholder, and the words and style of the contributer,
and the only two times I have exercised what I choose to consider my
plenitudo potestatis as listowner to remove a subscriber, I still think
my actions _improved_ that image.

Personally I prefer a more "civilized" form of debate, but having been
instructed numerous times on the Hungarian penchant for what were once
called "frank and comradely exchanges of opinion" ;-) I try to let the
list itself find its equillibrium, intervening as little as possible.

One final thought: isn't it wonderful, in this world of internet anarchy,
that the self-appointed censors of the "image" of this -- or any other
-- list, can actually do little except rant & rave?

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

+ - Re: Civil Wars and Tribal Squabbles (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Haliho, Gabor!

At 00:45 24/01/97 PST, you wrote:

<snip Magyarody's comment>

>Whether you care or not is up to you, but saying you don't care does
>not make the issue "totally irrelevant".  I think it is important to
>figure out whether the events of 1848-49 were a civil war or not.  The
>way one answers this question will color one's view of what has happened
>since, and what is happening now. <snip>

>Think of a present-day southerner contemplating the destruction of Atlanta
>or the sacking of Richmond by Sherman's troops during the Civil War in
>the U.S.  (The Confederate troops did their share of destruction there,
>but we'll lay that aside for the moment.)  In our southerner's eyes
>these were terrible atrocities perpetrated by a vengeful army upon a
>defenseless population.  But because the descendants of northerners and
>southerners look upon those long-ago events as part of a civil war,
>i.e., a struggle of brother against brother over issues that are dead
>and gone, our southerner can sublimate his sense of having been wronged
>into other things, such as sports rivalries and New Yorker jokes.  The
>tribal rage and the cry for vengeance are gone.  The awareness and pain
>of past historical injustices are still there, but they do not cripple
>or blind people any more.

Well, I am sure Sam can comment on this quite knowledgeably. Maybe the
tribal rage and cries of anguish are gone - but maybe that is more a
function of America's tendency to forget everything about its past. I can
certainly remember my childhood growing up in Pennsylvania in the 50's and
60's in Pennsylvania, I was quite aware of the rage and pain caused by the
Civil War, which many Southerners at that point at least had not gotten
over. Maybe part of the reconciliation which has occorred is a result of the
increasing prosperity of the New South, combined with the circulation of
people from other parts of the country to the South and of Southerners to
other parts of the country. Because I would say that the experience of the
Civil War was emotionally far more painful for the U.S. than WWI and WWII at
least. So, I don't think there is any benefit to be gained from saying to
yourselves that the war of 1848-1849 was actually a civil war.

Now, there is another matter which comes to mind. That is - and admittedly
not being an expert on this era, as I am not in so many other matters having
to do with Hungary - that nothing is all black or all white in any case. The
blacks and whites eventually merge into various shades of gray. In this
case, what I know of that era suggests that it was primarily a war of
independence against the Habsburgs, and that Kossuth, so currently
unfashionable in some quarters, was an exemplar of 19th. century democratic
liberalism, the reason he was so warmly received in other countries, such as
the U.S. He was (rightly) considered a champion of liberty. And, although
the results of that struggle may have been failure, the tide of events was
actually moving in favor of movements like Kossuth's; consider for example,
the struggle to see Italy freed of Austrian rule and united.

Thus, I would say that though there may have been incidents which one could
characterize as evidence of civil war, this is typical of a rebellion which
still held the loyalty of a good portion of the Hungarian population
(minority and majority alike). In this sense it can be compared to the
American Revolution, which certainly had elements that one could
characterize as *civil war*. What was the percentage of Tories, the American
Loyalists who fled the U.S. for Canada, Britain, and other parts of the
Empire? Seems to me that it was said to be about 1/3 of the total population
in the U.S. Surely there were many incidents of these populations fighting
against the revolutionaries, yet this war is not characterized as a *civil
war.* Perhaps part of the difference is the fact that the revolutionaries in
the U.S. won, and were thus able to write the history books. Just as the
American Revolutionary War was fought *primarily* against the British, the
1848-49 revolution was fought *primarily* against the Habsburgs.

BTW, I have gained the impression from various things that have been said
that the Habsburgs exploited the minority populations in the struggle
against the upstart Hungarians, and I know they moved colonies of these
minorities to various locations to serve their purposes - thus there is at
least one Serbian village in Hungary today. Eva Balogh, for one, seems to
blame the Kossuth faction (the nationalists) for the later problems with the
minorities in Hungary. But, it seems to me that one factor may well be the
exploitation of the minorities by the Habsburgs. Is there any evidence that
the Kossuth faction, if it had succeeded, might have been more liberally
inclined to the minorities? And is it possible that the Magyar nationalists
developed the policies of magyarization at least partly as a reaction to the
stirring up of the minorities in 1848-1849?

Why?  Because the narrative passed down to us
>describes these events as a civil war, i.e., a war of brother against
>brother.  It was sharp and bloody, but one fine day it was over --
>"with malice toward none, with charity for all".  Both sides know, both
>sides remember, but the wounds are healed.  The dead are mourned, and
>the living take care of the living.  A pretty reasonable program for
>Hungary and its neighbors, don't you think?

I think that is probably a good idea for Hungary at this point in its
history - not to brood excessively about things that can't be changed. On
the other hand, I don't think there is any magic in calling the conflict a
civil war that will make it easier to relegate it to the past. Nor do I
think that calling it a civil war is more factually accurate than calling it
a revolution.

Nagyon tisztelettel,

Johanne/Janka
>-----
>Gabor Fencsik

>
>
Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 
+ - Re: Egy kis lecke a szabadsagrol (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 08:17 PM 1/25/97 -0500, Ferenc Novak wrote:

>Eva, I am sorry your condition has once again overcome your judgement.

        If you live in the United States, judgment is spelled without an
"e." Normally I don't correct people's English but considering that you told
the audience of FORUM, most of whom are unable to verify it, that I make
griveous errors (o:ko:rhiba'k) in English, I decided to make an exception.

>I have no idea what "illustrious friend" you have in mind in the
>above paragraph,

        Please, don't play dumb. But, of course, it is always possible that
you are really and truly stupid. Given that possibility, I am willing to
give you a few hints. The person's favorite passtime is to make personal
attacks on others, especially women and especially me. The one who said that
those who think differently from him should be "eliminated." The one who
said that the HUNGARY list is anti-Hungarian and its existence shouldn't be
tolerated. The one whose writing about the anti-Hungarian nature of HUNGARY
you liked so much that you immediately wrote a letter supporting everything
he said, including that the HUNGARY list is anti-Hungarian. The one who was
so delighted that he found a kindred soul in you that he wrote:

>Az,hogy Novak Ferenc a mai Forumban mas szavakkal
>de lenyegeben ugyanazokat emlitette kirivosagok gya-
>nant a Balogh fele megallapitasokkal kapcsolatban,
>ami az egyre szakszerubbe valo FORUM es a letopron-
>gyosodo HUNGARYT illeti igen kellemesen lepett meg.

In greatly simplified English, given the flowery nature of the person's
Hungarian: [I was delighted to see that Ferenc Novak in today's FORUM
mentioned, in essence, the same flagrancies in the Balogh-like statements
concerning the FORUM, which is getting to be more and more professional and
the ever increasingly tattered HUNGARY.]

        To which I answered:


>        Minden zsak megtalalja a maga foltjat.

According to Mr. Orszagh, the dictionary maker: Every Jack will meet his
Jill. Although I think this must be English-English because I have never
heard it on this continent.

        So, I do hope now you know whom I am talking about!!

>but I find your ravings rather pathetic.

        I will be kind enough to let that pass!

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Galbraight and Soros (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, Durant
> writes:

>
>But you didn't get the idea - capitalism is not immune from
>undemocratic deformations, fascism, apartheid, Somoza,
>Papa Doc, just to list some of the most obvious ones.

I do get that idea. I happen to be pretty consistent in my criticism of
Marxism-Leninism and laissez-faire capitalism alike. You'd know that if
you ever took the time to read what I write. Somoza and Duvalier pere and
fils, by the by, were much less products of aberrent capitalism than they
were merely living up to entrenched social and cultural traditions within
their respective societies.

>
>You seem to think that democratic capitalism is great.
>I think, that democratic socialism has a good chance to be greater.
>Your point, that all the structures of socialism were so far
undemocratic,
>doesn't mean that there couldn't be a different version put in
>practice.   Your argument would have meant, that liberal versions
>of capitalism  should not exist, because before  there were
>only non-liberal types of capitalism. Socialism is still to evolve to
>its most practical form.

The next to the last sentence is a non-sequitur. The last one is mere
bluff.

>> >I AGREE, THAT TOTALITARIAN SOCIALISM IS AND WAS
>> >BAD.  When did I last dispute this?  However,  totalitarian capitalism
is
>> >bad.


>>
>> Totalitarianism means the political system is structured to admit no
>> opposition. That's a far cry from the position of most Western European
>> and North American nations, although the influence of money on politics
is
>> a worrisome factor in those nations. Your statement shows absolute
>> ignorance: a) of the political system you live in and b) why you can't
get
>> many people to take your political views seriously.
>>
>
>Have you any guarantee against a deformation into totalitarianism?
>It happend in Spain, Greece not so long ago, not to mention Hitler,
>and these just in Europe.

Darling, Hitler was a socialist. A national socialist. He even put it in
the name of the party he ran -- National Socialist German Workers Party.
He was extremely distrustful of capitalism and capitalists. Franco never
wasted much time on promoting or defending capitalism, which is why Spain
has spent most of the last twenty years catching up economically to the
rest of western Europe. He was much more interested in protecting the
interests of far rightwing nationalism and Roman Catholicism than he was
in economic issues.Your premise seems to be that if they ain't spouting
Marx and Lenin, then they must be capitalists.

>UK wasn't far from it a few times. And as I described earlier,
>having an opposition that doesn't pose an alternative in any way
>is nearly as democratic, as not having an opposition at all.
>All of these "democratic" states have a few nasty episodes of shooting
>at democratically/peacefully protesting citizens on the rare occasion
>when these were anti-status-quo.
>Labour/liberal in the UK won't change an iota the way the country is
>run, same in the US, Clinton couldn't even deliver the
>health-reforms, on which platform he was elected originally.
>Having an inadequate government, that hasn't even got the power to
>govern and has been elected by a minority is not my idea of
>democracy, I think we could do much better.


>>
>>                                   A democratic version of socialism?
>Doesn't
>> "democratic" imply a political system where decision-making is devolved
as
>> much as possible to the individual level?
>
>Well, yes! Shaw me any sign of this in a capitalist country.
>What political decisions are you allowed - besides the meaningless
>election exercise?  Even personal freedom is conditional on your
>material standing, less money, less freedom - even to accomplish
>the meaning of life - to be a consumer with free choice.

Shaw me any sign of this in a so-called socialist country. Are you trying
to claim that Marxist-Leninist governments are superior because they make
no pretense at protecting individual rights? Or are you turning into a
libertarian? And exactly how is personal freedom conditional on material
standing? I don't know about the U.K., but here in the States, there are
no property qualifications for holding public office. And accomplishing
the search for the meaning of life is something intensely personal, is it
not? How does socialist politics promote this? By bludgeoning everyone
into accepting the same meaning of life? This is the problem with
socialism -- it sees every human need as ameliorable through political
means. Laissez-faire capitalism sees every human need as ameliorable
through economic means. They're both wrong. We are neither purely homo
politicus or homo economicus.
>
>>                                      The point is that any ideology
>> driven to even its logical extremes, be it "socialist" or "capitalist,"
>> can be a powerful engine for individual human misery.
>
>Here we agree, Soros said in his essay for the "open society",
>that nobody should claim  to own The Truth, everyone should admit to
>be fallable.

Please read Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies." He was never
advocating empirical or ethical relativism. Since I haven't read the
complete text of Soros' essay, I can't judge accurately the context in
which he uses the term "open society." Why has it taken you so long to
acknowledge that you agree with me on the above point? It's what I've
advocated every time we clash.
>
>
>>The difference is
>> that most of us have been convinced of this for Marxism-Leninism
because
>> of empirical experience. Given that, I wouldn't brag about having lived
in
>> such a society if I were you, because it's apparent that you didn't
notice
>> the barbarities it was inflicting on everyone around you.
>
>I only had a chance to live in a deformed Marxist-Leninism.
>Marx's definition of socialism is, that it is more democratic, than
>any other society before, including capitalism. Even Lenin
>re-iterates these themes in the April Thesis.
>I am sorry to say, but I experienced as much barbarity in the UK,
>as I had in Hungary, first hand.  I've grown up in the sixties, when the
>worst
>excesses of stalinism were over in Hungary.

You may be in for a long, long wait. I still don't think you will ever see
an "undeformed" and successful Marxist-Leninist state. I just don't think
the ideology bears any rational resemblance to human nature as it truly
is.

>
>> It will become
>> very apparent sooner rather than later to most everyone that
laissez-faire
>> capitalism is no better in this regard. You will still, however, be
>> thoroughly dissatisfied with what takes its place.
>> Darth Vader
>>
>
>Not, if it will be an advancement on the present primitive, chaotic
>economic and political structure. If it provides more meaningful
>democracy, it cannot be anything else but improvement.
>I would be most surprised if it happens based on the "market
>economy", but, as I admit to be fallable, I would welcome it.
>
>Unfortunately, I cannot see the signs of any such developments,
>I wish I did, It is much more comfortable to conform to the
>majority view, I am getting too old to be a revolutionary, it's
>bloody tiring.


The point is that revolution isn't the answer to the problem. The partial,
unsatisfying answer -- which is one Joe Szalai will sneer at -- is
incremental change, careful experimentation and an extreme skepticism of
any ideology which claims to have all the solutions. I see grounds for
cautious optimism. But I also understand that, all other things being
equal, human nature will always mitigate against -- indeed, thwart --
utopia.
Sam Stowe

"Those who serve the revolution
plow the sea..."
-- Simon Bolivar
+ - Re: Egy kis lecke a szabadsagrol (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, "Eva S.
Balogh" > writes:

>  Please, don't play dumb. But, of course, it is always possible that
>you are really and truly stupid.

Your analysis works for me. How about the rest of our loyal readers?
Sam Stowe

"Those who serve the revolution
plow the sea..."
-- Simon Bolivar
+ - Re: Language (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, Hugh Agnew
> writes:

>One final thought: isn't it wonderful, in this world of internet anarchy,
>that the self-appointed censors of the "image" of this -- or any other
>-- list, can actually do little except rant & rave?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Hugh Agnew

Tell it, Brother Agnew! And expose themselves in the process.
Sam Stowe

"Those who serve the revolution
plow the sea..."
-- Simon Bolivar
+ - Re: Language (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 08:54 AM 1/26/97 EDT, Hugh Agnew wrote:

>One final thought: isn't it wonderful, in this world of internet anarchy,
>that the self-appointed censors of the "image" of this -- or any other
>-- list, can actually do little except rant & rave?

It is, indeed.

Gabor D. Farkas
+ - Re: Eva D's Ideals - was Galbraight and Soros (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 02:09 AM 1/26/97 -0400, Aniko Dunford wrote:

<snip>
>Brace yourself  Eva.  You might well have to eat your words in years to
>come!  Continued giant leaps in technological advancements combined with
>the requirement for global competitiveness are, and will continue to force
>downsizing.  This in turn will continue to force continued growth of
>private ownership.  Just another point of view, from your own.

Oh, come on, Aniko.  I'm not ready to accept that technological advancements
and global competitiveness are outside human control.  If we want, we can
control them.  As for "downsizing", do you really believe that we can
downsize to greatness?  Has that been your experience?  If it has, then why
don't you beat all of us to greatness and get rid of everyone and rely only
on yourself.  Why do you balk at the suggestion?  If what you say about
downsizing is true, you'll be a winner.

<snip>
>Any person serious about democratic conditions for change, with even a
>minute sense of responsibility, would never begin to act on a theory,
>without a clearly outlined blueprint of the proposed ideas.  That, to me is
>the minimal requirement for any starting point.

How about the bible as your blueprint?  I say that only half jokingly
because as you know, or perhaps not, social democracy in Canada got it's
birth from the social gospel.

Joe (downsize "this"!) Szalai

"It wasn't idealism that made me, from the beginning, want a more secure and
rational society. It was an intellectual judgement, to which I still hold.
When I was young its name was socialism. We can be deflected by names. But
the need was absolute, and is still absolute."
           Raymond Williams
+ - Re: Eva D's Ideals - was Galbraight and Soros (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Hi Eva:

Actually I did read your words carefully.  Where I let us down is by
assuming ... sorry about that.   But mostly I keyed into the lack of gray
area in your initial statement, along with it's absoluteness.

In summary, what you see as a minority, I see as a growing trend.  What you
consider to be exploitation, I am not entirely convinced that it is.  You
seem to have a vision of a system, that has all the answers.  I don't see
it working with humans - until you genetically alter them.  Our opinions
and visions of private enterprise are at two extreme ends.  As are most of
our opinions, approaches visions and beliefs.  In other words, I can
picture us going back and forth for eternity without any purpose.  Instead,
I wish you great luck with your plans for a better tomorrow, and I will
continue to make my difference as before, one step, one project at a time.
But if you ever figure out that blueprint:-) be sure to let me in on it!

Btw - this is something that I found today in the paper.  It has just been
disclosed, that a private business man over the past few years, has donated
over 600 million dollars to various public entities and private businesses.
 He succeeded at keeping himself totally anonymous while doing so.  His
story and identity came out as a result of selling his chain of duty free
stores accross Canada.   He stated that since he has earned far more money
than he will ever use, he chose to give it away for others to benefit also.

Regards,
Aniko
+ - FW: Re: Civil Wars and Tribal Squabbles (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

Haliho, Gabor!

At 00:45 24/01/97 PST, you wrote:

<






Johanne/Janka ( Le Tournier ( forgive me for the "e" )) you wrote Jan.25,97 :

I think that is probably a good idea for Hungary at this point in its
history - not to brood excessively about things that can't be changed. On
the other hand, I don't think there is any magic in calling the conflict a
civil war that will make it easier to relegate it to the past.

Yes. Amen. There is so much to be done. But not back there...( though nothing
against the ART ( Eva Balogh reminded me of that ) of history and  lessons we
might learn there...)
Kezcsokom.
Miklos
>
Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 
+ - Re: Protecting the HUNGARY list (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Eva S. Balogh wrote:
>         I would like to second this request. I remember rather vividly
> almost three years ago that there was a discussion on whether HUNGARY should
> be open to the "public," so to speak. Most of the discussion at this point
> went above my head, but I do remember there were several people on the list
> who were not in favor opening the gateways to bit.listserv.hungary and
> soc.culture.magyar. I am almost certain that the arrival of a maniac
> prompted everybody to send so many messages that the whole system got
> clogged up. There is no benefit really in these discussions whatsoever.
 This latter statement I wholeheartedly agree with (although the clogging
had much more serious main reason in computer malfunctions at GWU). This
however does not relate much with the question whether having b.l.h is a
good thing. My recollection of that old discussion is that there was
barely any, and in particular the little objection we heard was rather
muted. In any event, this should be a separate issue from the list being
"public", ie. submissions not restricted to subscribers only: in theory
(althought, for the time being, apparently not in practice ;-() the
subscribers-only setting (which incidentally came into being a long time
after the b.l.h gatewaying) should not be effected.

>         Maybe we should reexamine the state of the list.
 Two remarks, if I may: one, while such re-examination may be done of
course, make sure you're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater -
b.l.h could serve useful purpose (especially if it's pathetic propagation
improved).  Secondly, the person you objected to was a subscriber I
believe (or could be, anyways) - so again, this issue is unrelated to
being "public" or not, since this was not coming by way of b.l.h, after
all.

--
 Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!

 Visit 'Boycott Internet Spam' <http://www.vix.com/spam/>;
+ - Re: Civil Wars and Tribal Squabbles (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 12:26 PM 1/26/97 -0400, Johanne wrote:
>In this
>case, what I know of that era suggests that it was primarily a war of
>independence against the Habsburgs, and that Kossuth, so currently
>unfashionable in some quarters, was an exemplar of 19th. century democratic
>liberalism, the reason he was so warmly received in other countries, such as
>the U.S. He was (rightly) considered a champion of liberty.

        So far, so good. But most foreigners didn't realize that Hungary's
ethnic map was extremely varied and that the political elite was exclusively
Hungarian while the majority of the country's population was non-Magyar. And
that political elite recognized only one "nation in this country"--to quote
Kossuth's speech at the Diet from 1847--and that was the Hungarian nation.

>And, although
>the results of that struggle may have been failure, the tide of events was
>actually moving in favor of movements like Kossuth's; consider for example,
>the struggle to see Italy freed of Austrian rule and united.

        And here you get into a little trouble. Italy was Italian, Hungary
was not Hungarian! Hungary was a multi-national state and so was the whole
empire.

>Thus, I would say that though there may have been incidents which one could
>characterize as evidence of civil war, this is typical of a rebellion which
>still held the loyalty of a good portion of the Hungarian population
>(minority and majority alike).

        It is one thing of being supportive of the main aims of the
revolution--abolition of serfdom, representative government, free
acquisition of land by the peasants, freedom of speech and press, and other
democratic achievements--and it is an entirely different matter of feeling
thwarted in their national aspirations. What the Hungarians failed to
realize was that they were not the only ones who had such aspirations. And
their aspirations couldn't be satisfied without satisfying the aspirations
of others.

>In this sense it can be compared to the
>American Revolution, which certainly had elements that one could
>characterize as *civil war*.

        I think it is dangerous to compare the Hungarian situation to the
American. In the American Revolution the "civil war" wasn't a war among
ethnic groups but between those who wished to be independent of Great
Britain and those who remained loyal to the mother country.

>Just as the
>American Revolutionary War was fought *primarily* against the British, the
>1848-49 revolution was fought *primarily* against the Habsburgs.

        But, you see, the Hungarians didn't seem to realize that
independence and the territorial integrity of the country were two mutually
exclusive propostions. And that is what Kossuth and his followers envisaged.

>BTW, I have gained the impression from various things that have been said
>that the Habsburgs exploited the minority populations in the struggle
>against the upstart Hungarians, and I know they moved colonies of these
>minorities to various locations to serve their purposes - thus there is at
>least one Serbian village in Hungary today.

        That is a bit of exaggeration. It almost sounds like Stalin and the
Crimean Tatars!! As far as Hungary's ethnic map is concerned it was always
multinational: the Hungarians occupied a central position of the country,
flanked by Germans, Slovaks, Ruthenians, Romanians, Serbs, and Croatians. As
time went on the Hungarians gained ground simply by having a central
government which was, by and large, Hungarian. Thus, the non-Magyar nobility
had become assimilated. The cities which had been originally almost entirely
German became more and more Hungarian. This changed with the Turkish
occupation of a third of the country. The Turks occupied mostly territories
which had been populated mostly by Hungarians. The nobles of the occupied
territories escaped and so did many ordinary folks. Royal Hungary, held by
the Habsburgs, was situated mostly in today's Slovakia. No warfare affected
that area and therefore the Slovaks gained while the Hungarian population
under Turkish rule lost ground. When the Turks withdrew, 150 years later,
the place was desolate. At this point, the Habsburg kings did encourage
immigration from Western Europe: mostly from the German states. (That's when
my ancestors on my mother's side arrived in Hungary and settled in
Pecs/Funfkirchen which, by the way, at the middle of the nineteenth-century
was solidly German-speaking.) Whole of Transdanubia (Duna'ntu'l) was
sprinkled with German villages. The same was true about the Banat-Bacska
(Vojvodina) region with the complication that there a large Serbian
contingent (something like 200,000 people) asked for asylum from the
Hungarian king to settle there after a failed uprising against the Turks.
Thus in Vojvodina the ethnic map was truly amazing: every third village was
Hungarian, German, or Serb.

        Now, with this rather lengthy introduction here is my real answer: I
very much doubt that the Habsburgs at the end of the seventeenth century
settled these people with some kind of Machiavellian purpose in mind.

>Eva Balogh, for one, seems to
>blame the Kossuth faction (the nationalists) for the later problems with the
>minorities in Hungary. But, it seems to me that one factor may well be the
>exploitation of the minorities by the Habsburgs.

        But the situation was a given. Exploitation came only as a result of
that given.

>Is there any evidence that
>the Kossuth faction, if it had succeeded, might have been more liberally
>inclined to the minorities?

        Oh, no. Just the opposite. The Party of Independence (I'm talking
here about the post-1867 period) was a great deal less tolerant than the
Szabadelvu Part (Liberal Party) which for all practical purposes was always
the government party. And, by the way, the Party of Independence was the
party whose favorite expression was: Nem adunk a 48-bol!! I.e., they were
clinging to the unaltered April Laws of 1848.

>And is it possible that the Magyar nationalists
>developed the policies of magyarization at least partly as a reaction to the
>stirring up of the minorities in 1848-1849?

        Well, the lessons of 1848-49 and the nationalities' behavior were
not lost completely on the Hungarians. The Nationality Law of 1868 tried to
remedy the situation but the nationalities from the first moment refused to
recognize it as valid or satisfactory. The nationality parties actually
boycotted the parliament for years to come.

        Then Johanne quotes Gabor Fencsik:

>        Why?  Because the narrative passed down to us
>describes these events as a civil war, i.e., a war of brother against
>brother.  It was sharp and bloody, but one fine day it was over --
>"with malice toward none, with charity for all".  Both sides know, both
>sides remember, but the wounds are healed.  The dead are mourned, and
>the living take care of the living.  A pretty reasonable program for
>Hungary and its neighbors, don't you think?

        And adds:

>I think that is probably a good idea for Hungary at this point in its
>history - not to brood excessively about things that can't be changed. On
>the other hand, I don't think there is any magic in calling the conflict a
>civil war that will make it easier to relegate it to the past. Nor do I
>think that calling it a civil war is more factually accurate than calling it
>a revolution.

        I think that you misunderstand Gabor. What Gabor is saying is a very
important point, applicable both to Hungarians and their neighbors. Slovaks,
Romanians, Serbs of Vojvodina, Croats, and Hungarians, all lived in one
country for centuries and centuries. Let's look upon our past fights as a
civil war, i.e., "a war of brother against brother" as opposed to alien and
hated enemies. If we can do that then we could also again live together in a
larger united Europe. Unfortunately, we are not there yet but that is the
only reasonable way to go.

        Eva Balogh
+ - Egy kis lecke Szalai Jozsefnek (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

 on Sat Jan 25 19:39:14 EST 1997 in HUNGARY
#895:

>And why would you libel a community (homosexuals in this case) when you just
>don't like the idea of "homosexuality".  And do you think it is fair,
>proper, even intelligent to level vile accusations at an entire group of
>which you yourself are, apparently, not a member?

Joe,

Please re-read my posts.  You will not find any that libels homosexuals.  As
I have stated before, I have no hate or fear, or guilt towards non-natural
(or "alternative"lifestiles.  I merely have an aversion to the idea, to which
I believe I have a right.  By the way, I don't hate blind people either; I
just don't think that theirs is a normal condition.

Ferenc
+ - Re: Galbraight and Soros (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 04:07 PM 1/26/97 GMT, Sam Stowe wrote:

<snip>
>The point is that revolution isn't the answer to the problem. The partial,
>unsatisfying answer -- which is one Joe Szalai will sneer at -- is
>incremental change, careful experimentation and an extreme skepticism of
>any ideology which claims to have all the solutions. I see grounds for
>cautious optimism. But I also understand that, all other things being
>equal, human nature will always mitigate against -- indeed, thwart --
>utopia.

I won't sneer at your answer, Sam.  I'm just puzzled that you're content to
accept a "partial" and "unsatisfying" answer.  The answer, your answer, can
be made full and satisfying.  It's up to you.  But rather than take your
answer to heart, you continue, and I can only conclude that you prefer to
continue, to fight phantoms.

Joe Szalai

"History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political
freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition."
            Milton Friedman
+ - [Homo]Sexuality and Politics (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

 on Sat Jan 25 00:06:25 EST 1997 in HUNGARY
#895:

>You've got a nice political philosophy there, mister.  Besides
>homosexuality, what else would you like to suppress?
>
>Joe Szalai

You must be mistaken, Joe.  It must be someone else you have discussed
suppression of homosexuals.  Please check your correspondence again.

Ferenc
+ - Re: Egy kis lecke Szalai Jozsefnek (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 05:03 PM 1/26/97 -0500, Ferenc Novak wrote:

>Please re-read my posts.  You will not find any that libels homosexuals.  As
>I have stated before, I have no hate or fear, or guilt towards non-natural
>(or "alternative"lifestiles.  I merely have an aversion to the idea, to which
>I believe I have a right.  By the way, I don't hate blind people either; I
>just don't think that theirs is a normal condition.

        So, you have an "aversion" to blind people also?

        Eva Balogh
+ - Re: Civil Wars and Tribal Squabbles (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

In article >, "Johanne L. Tournier"
> writes:

>Well, I am sure Sam can comment on this quite knowledgeably. Maybe the
>tribal rage and cries of anguish are gone - but maybe that is more a
>function of America's tendency to forget everything about its past. I can
>certainly remember my childhood growing up in Pennsylvania in the 50's
and
>60's in Pennsylvania, I was quite aware of the rage and pain caused by
the
>Civil War, which many Southerners at that point at least had not gotten
>over. Maybe part of the reconciliation which has occorred is a result of
the
>increasing prosperity of the New South, combined with the circulation of
>people from other parts of the country to the South and of Southerners to
>other parts of the country. Because I would say that the experience of
the
>Civil War was emotionally far more painful for the U.S. than WWI and WWII
at
>least. So, I don't think there is any benefit to be gained from saying to
>yourselves that the war of 1848-1849 was actually a civil war.
>
>

Jo, I'm going to have to either be really brief or cut this into several
different posts. Maybe the best thing to do is to address your comments
about the American Civil War here and post a separate response to your
comments about Kossuth and the Revolution of 1848-49. I didn't see either
Mr. Magyarody's original post or Gabor's response because the AOL server,
as usual, is on one of its finicky streaks.

First of all, it's useful, particulary in a Hungarian context, to remember
that history often consists of the historical event itself and
re-interpretations of that event by later generations. The
re-interpretations often provide very clarifying insight into the
socio-historical context of the generation undertaking that
re-interpretation. That said, the renewal of interest in the American
Civil War, from a Southern point of view, is a relatively recent
phenomenon and one which, I think I'm safe in saying, is grounded in the
changes which have swept Southern society since the late 1940s.

It is a mistake to believe that Southerners have been brooding over the
war since it ended in 1865. I've read newspaper descriptions of elderly
Confederate veterans marching in Veteran's Day parades just prior to the
First World War which are, alternately, patronizing and emptily
reverential in the exact same tones newspapers use today in describing a
gathering of World War II veterans. The war was clearly seen as an
irrelevancy in the region's past, something people weren't willing to
invest the time and energy in resurrecting and re-examining. That changed
with the advent of the civil rights movement and it's only natural that it
did. Profound social change inevitably leads those who are living through
it to wonder how they got to that point in the first place. The pictures
of blacks being attacked by Bull Conner's police dogs in Birmingham, the
murders of white and black civil rights workers alike in Mississippi by
hard segregationist whites, the disruption of previous patterns of
interaction between the two races led both alike to reconsider the
historical context in which those patterns of interaction were originally
established.

For Southern blacks, that act of reconsideration really focused on the
Reconstruction and the decades which followed it, when the few gains they
actually realized under the Reconstruction were reversed by aggressively
prejudicial law set by whites. For Southern whites, however, the turmoil
of the civil rights struggle led to a renewed interest in the Civil War
which broke the previous patterns of existence (not only between blacks
and whites, but all over the social scale) and established the existing,
patently unsatisfactory arrangement. If you were a segregationist, the
Civil War offered the historical basis for a commitment to states' rights
which, not coincidentally, included the right of self-determination to
officially sanction segregation. South Carolina's current flap over
whether or not the Confederate flag should fly over its State House would
have been unimaginable before about 1950, primarly because before that it
would have been seen by almost all whites as an almost kitschy
incongruity. The flag, in fact, was only added to the State House around
the time Kennedy took office. If you were an anti-segregationist white,
the Civil War became a cautionary tale of what happens when political
differences and social injustice spiral out of control. It is no
coincidence that the best history of the Civil War was composed by a
Southern white (Shelby Foote) during the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.

It would also be a mistake to credit the South's current racial
amicability (relative to the fundamental confrontational stance between
the two races up north) to any recent northern influence. Non-Southern
whites in America love to pat themselves on the back about their lack of
racist animosity toward blacks. But we have a lot of blacks who left North
Carolina in the 40s and 50s for economic opportunities up north who are
returning to live here because the tensions between the races which are so
palpable for them in northern cities are much reduced here. Things aren't
perfect down here in the South; they never will be. But we have found some
degree of racial reconciliation because, increasingly, we've accepted that
Southern whites and blacks alike have suffered historically and we're
willing to make as much of a clean break as possible with that past.
That's not an easy process, as the sharp debate in South Carolina right
now shows.

Southerners and Hungarians are very much alike temperamentally as it is.
They also share a similar history. We argue here about 1848-49, World War
I and 1956 because those events are still very much in play with regards
to the ways in which we interpret them. I think Hungarians now are living
through the same kind of break with the past which the civil rights
movement occasioned for the white and black Southerners of my generation
and my parents'. How both groups eventually interpret their respective
pasts holds important clues to their futures. That's why it's so important
to choose wisely, less our interpretation, to quote Gabor, blind or
cripple us morally.
Sam Stowe

P.S. -- And upon further reflection, burning Atlanta every now and then
certainly doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

"Those who serve the revolution
plow the sea..."
-- Simon Bolivar
+ - Re: [Homo]Sexuality and Politics (mind) VÁLASZ  Feladó: (cikkei)

At 05:03 PM 1/26/97 -0500, Ferenc Novak wrote:

 on Sat Jan 25 00:06:25 EST 1997 in HUNGARY
>#895:
>
>>You've got a nice political philosophy there, mister.  Besides
>>homosexuality, what else would you like to suppress?
>>
>>Joe Szalai
>
>You must be mistaken, Joe.  It must be someone else you have discussed
>suppression of homosexuals.  Please check your correspondence again.

No, Ferenc, I'm not mistaken.  The dictionary gives this definition of
"suppress".

1. To put an end to forcibly; subdue.
2. To curtail or prohibit the activities of.
3. To keep from being revealed, published, or circulated.
4. To deliberately exclude (unacceptable desires or thoughts) from the
      mind.
5. To inhibit the expression of (an impulse, for example); check:
suppress a smile.
6. To reduce the incidence or severity of (a hemorrhage or a cough, for
example); arrest.

At 02:37 AM 1/24/97 -0500, you wrote:

<snip>
>What is this about "you all"?  Speaking for me personally, I have no
>feelings of guilt, fear or shame or hatred, for that matter.  I just find
>homosexuality disgusting.  Please don't take it personally.  I believe we
>should still be able to maintain a civilized discourse on other, more
>important topics.

You want to suppress discussion of homosexuality and talk about more
"important" topics.  This is suppression.

>Can't we just practice "don't ask, don't tell" as in the (US) army?
>
>Ferenc

"Don't ask, don't tell" may very well be the American army's policy toward
gays, but it is also suppression of homosexuality.

For your contrition I strongly recommend that you visit MA'SOK, the
Hungarian Gay page, and learn something about homosexuals.  Their address
is:    http://www.datanet.hu/masok/

Joe Szalai

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