You guys (and gals) are the most fun on the net!!! No kidding. Seriously.

Every time I want to remember back what it was like living in Hungary,
I come and read you all.

Thanks for the refreshment.

George Hollovary

>Tibor Benke writes:
>
>>  In fact, many Canadian provinces have laws restricting their right to buy
>>  land close to their colonies, because they are seen as competing "unfairly"
>>  with individual farmers.
>
>This is very interesting.  Can you name provinces and cite specific laws?
>
>--Greg

Yes, but it will take a trip to the library.  My mobility is a bit
restricted now, but I'll try to get to it as soon as possible.

Tibor

Eva Durant asked me to forward this, because she sent it to me directly in
reply to the copy of the last posting I sent to the list,

Sorry Eva!,

Tibor

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

>
> I've actually visited one of their colonies, and they seem to work fine.
> Infact, many Canadian provinces have laws restricting their right to buy
> land close to their colonies, because they are seen as competing "unfairly"
> with individual farmers.

I am amazed, I've never heard about them.

>
>
> Schumacher, _Small is Beautiful_).   I think the main problem is to figure
> out how to stop the capitalists without violence and make them get out of
> the way.   I guess until we figure that out, we just have to keep on
> keeping on.  Maybe we should also begin a camaign for the right to a
> livelyhood.  If personal income were guaranteed as a fixed proportion of
> the per capita GDP - say 25% (Financed by  a tax  on all
> non-wage/non-salary income)  it would be a good start.  That way, those who
> were willing to live simply or were unable to work for any reason whatever,
> would remain secure while the labour market would become a buyer's market
> rather then the seller's market it now is.
>

We've tried a little bit of "small is beautiful", and at the moment
from that experience it means long hours doing VERY boring manual
work. I think if progress for humans meant the development of
technology/science, it would be a shame to scrap it...
To scrap all boring mindblowing jobs, you need technology, if
we had a democratic socialism as I see it, the freed intellectual
capability of people would prevent further ruin of the environment.
I see integration an important progress too, with the speed of
information it could still maintained democratic - if once it
will turn democratic...
If you can convince the establishment by peaceful/democratic means
to cut their profits - thereby voluntarily bancrupting their own system
this time completely - to achieve the labour market as you say -
you have my support.
Eva D

Eva Durant replied to me:


TB>> Schumacher, _Small is Beautiful_).   I think the main problem is to
figure
TB>> out how to stop the capitalists without violence and make them get out
of
TB>> the way.   I guess until we figure that out, we just have to keep on
TB>> keeping on.  Maybe we should also begin a campaign for the right to a
TB>> livelyhood.  If personal income were guaranteed as a fixed proportion
of
TB>> the per capita GDP - say 25% (Financed by  a tax  on all
TB>> non-wage/non-salary income)  it would be a good start.  That way,
those who
TB>> were willing to live simply or were unable to work for any reason
whatever,
TB>> would remain secure while the labour market would become a seller's
market
TB>> rather then the  buyer's market it now is.


ED>We've tried a little bit of "small is beautiful", and at the moment
ED>from that experience it means long hours doing VERY boring manual
ED>work. I think if progress for humans meant the development of
ED>technology/science, it would be a shame to scrap it...
ED>To scrap all boring mindblowing jobs, you need technology, if
ED>we had a democratic socialism as I see it, the freed intellectual
ED>capability of people would prevent further ruin of the environment.
ED>I see integration an important progress too, with the speed of
ED>information it could still maintained democratic - if once it
ED>will turn democratic...
ED>If you can convince the establishment by peaceful/democratic means
ED>to cut their profits - thereby voluntarily bancrupting their own system
ED>this time completely - to achieve the labour market as you say -
ED>you have my support.
ED>Eva D


Thanks for the support. :-).   I don't really want to argue, especially not
with the only hopeful voice in this wilderness.  But you *do* tend to
overinterpret a bit.

I have no wish to scrap technology.   Rather, I wish, we could design
apropriate technology for the application we intend.  Take transportation.
We have been told by the scientists who claim to know about these things
that as much as 30% or more of the current rate of air pollution could be
eliminated by getting rid of the gasoline powered internal combustion
driven automobile.  Doing this *is not* a technical problem, but a matter
of political will.  While it may be true that no vehicles with performance
characteristics equal to the automobile are available, there is no real
reason for not giving up some performance 'benefits' for cleaner air.  If
we could reorient the transportation infrastructure, (roads, traffic
patterns, traffic rules, etc.) to favour low powered light weight vehicles,
we could be using carriages with 15 horsepower alchohol fueled engines and
recumbent bicycles.

I am not suprised that your experiment with small scale technology was
overly labour intensive.  But there are technologies that are the right
scale and can be just as productive as mass production,  if the cost of
materials and the cost of waste disposal are not accounted for externally.
Especially with the judicious use of information and control technology, I
can concieve of creating an existence that is not only ecologically sound,
but almost work free, if we think of work in its present sense as something
one must do when one would rather be doing something else.  :-)  It is here
where the main problem that Uncle Karl raised, alienation, becomes the
greatest obstacle.   Production of commodities for sale instead of objects
for use obscures the functioning of technology and allows us to continue
driving cars even at the cost of war in the Gulf to assure a fuel supply
and the endangering  of the biosphere from the pollution - why?   Becouse
one out of seven people in North America is dependent on the automobile
industry for a livelyhood.

Finally, there is no other way of convincing the establishment but
peaceful.  Violent means  must fail inevitably.  To overthrow a system
violently, the people who make the revolution must beat the rulers at their
own game, they must be better at using force.  But, as I have pointed out
before, activity determines consciousness, and the revolution ends up
installing new tyrants for old.

Peace,

Tibor

>
> Eva, part of your problem is that you are ignorant of many facts and
> base your imprecise and sweeping generalizations on a mish-mash of
> facts, factoids and outright incorrect information.
>

I try to be short and to the point. So are you, thank you.
I gracefully accept all corrections, I hope we are all learning
something...

> In the above list, Suadi Arabia and Iran are hardly examples of
> capitalism as such: to a greater [S.A] or lesser [Iran] extent, they
> are feudal.

I thought in feudalism the more land you own, the more powerful
you are and serfdom exists with people tied to the land. I think (and
yes I don't know a lot about Saudi Arabia) the ruling families
probably own the land, but that power stems from the money generated
from oil, which is not a feudal mean of production? People
haven't got the freedom of movement in that respect it is feudal.
(But who are we criticising our noble allies?)
I travelled in Iran,
I don't think it is more feudal than India or China both of them
seeking the "underdeveloped capitalist country" status and
producing 1000 times more wealth/head than any feudalist
country ever did, most of it being industrial goods?

> Private property of the means of production is not
> an exclusive characteristic of capitalism: even your reading of
> Marx is patchy.
>

Where did I say that?


> Latin America is not a country, and not all Latin-American countries
> turned into dictatorships.
>

Quite a few did. I think
most readers would credit me with the knowledge, that Latin-America
is not a country, I am not an academic, I'm trying to be short...
But if you have the time, what about Indonesia, Malaysia, South-Korea,
more of prestigious treasures of democratic free market friends...

> You ignore that all *capitalist* *countries* in your above example
> righted themselves within the capitalist system and are parliamentary
> democracies now.
> You ignore the fact that one could assemble a much longer list of
> capitalist countries that did not turn into dictatorships, hence the
> demonstrative value of your statement above is more than negated.
>

And can you have as firm guarantee for them not turning into dictatorships
in the future, as you have about a rich country with democratic
structures  not turning into a democratic public property-based country?

(To help you with your answer, yesterday's Dispatches program on
Channel 4 filmed by hidden cameras electric torturing batons being
sold by well established companies with government knowledge/permit
to Iran, Saudi Arabia, China - after one year of Tiennan Square and
they make their own now - Turkey (an other pearl of democracy I forgot
to mention) etc. They have good business records selling same to
South Africa, not very long ago... the manufacturers' body has in it's
directorate representative from the UK police... But they cannot
possibly know about this...)

> As far as your preferred socio-economic system is concerned, however
> you may call it, EVERY attempt to introduce it resulted in a dictator-
> ship, typically with horrendous human costs, and their righting was not
> possible within the established socio-economic framework.
>

1. It happened mostly after destruction of all wealth
   in the place, in countries of weak democratic/industrial base
   where the old establishment collapsed and was too weak  to
   initiate reconstruction;
2. The USSR had the strength to press it's Stalinist system
   to those, who perhaps otherwise had more chance to choose
   differently.
3. I think without the "help" of capitalist world there can be
   a democratic political transformation to a democratic socialist
   system, just as the Stalinist structure of Hungary turned
   democratic (or so they tell me...)

   The initial revolution was bloodless frequently, the vicious
   defence of the old order initiated the bloody wars, con-
   tributing to the success of military totalitarism.
   (Let's see - how many army attacked the new soviets after
   a nearly bloodless taking power in 1917?)


> In the case of Marx, you claim that since he was correct in some of
> his points, we should accept his theory as having predictive powers.
> Given the track record of establishing socio-economic systems that had
> the achievement of communism as their goal, YOU must accept that strong
> empirical evidence supports the theory that such systems inevitably turn
> into dictatorships.
>

My argument was not at all on those lines, as I don't think
Marxism is a prediction, the intention was as I understand, to
show that the society which is a logical outcome, when capitalism
becomes a worrying brake on progress (indeed a danger to human
survival) is one based on the public, democratic ownership
of wealth.
I suppose it is a prediction so far as a weather forcast
is a prediction, you put the data in the computer, it tells
you where the cyclon will be in 24 hours - if nothing happens
to it. Meteorology is still an accepted  (if cursed) science,
just like Marxism...

> So far, you have completely failed to address this issue.

I think I repeated the theme above about 5 times now (I don't
mind if I have the time, at the end I will be really good at it!)
Please let me know what is wrong with it!!!!!!

Thanks for all of you not politely pointing out
that "panta rei" is greek, I think I said latin. Sorry.
I've just remembered that an ancient
greek said it. I still don't know if it is spelt right.

My daughter (18) would like to spend a year from next September
in Hungary before starting university the year after.

Her aim is refreshening/updating language and friendships,
learn responsibility and independence of fulltime work.
She needs to support herself and hopes to save some money
for the study years too, as she has small chance of support
from home unfortunately. She has option for accomodation
in Budapest, but willing to work anywhere in the country.

She is bilingual Hungarian/English, fluent in French and
remembers some Russian. She is computer-literate.
Her "A" level subjects are further maths, chemistry and french,
the official forcast is for "A" grades, she already has one "A"
grade in maths. She's been a member of M6 youth theatre for 4
years and has a wide range of knowledge/interests besides
literature/theatre.

Her part-time work experience includes secretarial work in the
Rochdale Chamber of Commerce, and in "Angels" pizzeria, Manchester.

She thinks she  could be language/maths assistant in a school or
interpreter/translater or secretary/receptionist.

Would you send information on any jobs suitable, or pass
this message on to persons who could help.

Thanks,


Eva Durant,  UMIST, Dept.of Paper Science,
             PO BOX 88
             Sackville Street,
             Manchester
telephone: (0044)61 236 3311 x2431
fax: (0044)61 200 3858
e-mail: 

Tony recites:
> Another interesting book is the standard 18th geography and history
reference
> text Imago Antique Hungariae, which referred to Legend of Maurus,
according
> to which St.Svorad-Andrej and St. Benedict had lived at the Zobor
monastery
> in Nitra and were buried in the church of St. Emeram in Nitra, which

Yeah, was that where Bishop Wiching was working against the Byzantin
influence. It became a bishopric again during Kalman's rule.

> the Carolingian chronicler of the X century mentioned as having been
Which specific Chronicler was Carolingian in the X Century?

> consecrated by Archbishop Adalram of Salzburg and in which the last
Moravian
> king had been buried. Legend of Maurus was written by Bishop Maurus (of
Pecs,
> cannonized a saint), who had lived at the Zobor monastery in Nitra.

I think he actually resided in Pecs. He was trained in Pannonhalma and
probably met there Arnold, the writer of the St Emeram  biography . He
supposedly wrote the legend around 1070, some 175 years after the
"Occupation". The Zobor monastery St Ipoly (Hippolit? I am not catholic so
the plethora of saints gets me at times) was established around the end of
of the X century. The St Benedict who lived there was not THE St Benedict
because that one died in 821 (unless his ghost vacationed there), but one
of the lesser St Benedicts.

> The Legend of Maurus was well known throughout most of medieval Europe,

It was probably a standard text in every grade school.

> and was widely copied in the scriptorias of Benedictine monasteries
throughout
> Europe since the 11th century, particularly in the Zobor Benedictine
monastery

> of St. Hypolitus in Nitra, but also in a 15th century Kodex of Passau,
> which is presently in Munich, another in a monastery of the Rouge
Cloitre
> (Rubrae Vallis) near Brussels, from the late 15th century. Another from
> the 15th century is located in Korssendock near Maastrich in Belgium.
> From the XV century onward Maurus's Legend of St. Svorad-Andrej and
Benedict,
> belonged amongst often published medieval literary histories and is
included
> in the collection Legendae Sanctorum regni Hungariae (Legends of saints
> of the kingdom of Hungaria) published in Strassburg 1484 and 1486, also
> published in Venice 1488 and 1512.

> In 1511 it was also published in Dlugosz's edition of Polish, Czech,
Hungarian
> and other legends. In 1572 it was published in Vitae Sanctorum and a
critical
> edition of the legend appeared in Antwerp in 1725, another in Venice in
1748.
> The Jesuits of Trnava published it in 1745. Endlicher published it in
1849.
> R. Holinka published it in the magazine Bratislava in 1934. Slovak
translations
> of the Legend of Maurus appeared in the collection Legenda I. (Trnava
1879),

So what all this has to do with the subject? Are we in a "legend" reciting
or rather referencing mood?

Jeliko.

Date sent:  12-JAN-1995 09:58:17
>
>Finally, there is no other way of convincing the establishment but
>peaceful.  Violent means  must fail inevitably.  To overthrow a system
>violently, the people who make the revolution must beat the rulers at their
>own game, they must be better at using force.  But, as I have pointed out
>before, activity determines consciousness, and the revolution ends up
>installing new tyrants for old.

Part of the problem with the old "dictatorship of the proleteriat" is that
once members of the proleteriat stop working in their class capacity and
begin acting as bureaucrats, they are no longer members of the same class,
they will have new needs and desires (which may conflict with their former
fellow proleteriats), etc.  The only way a government could exist without
creating a new class would be in the case of anarchy or pure democracy
(non-representative).  The second seems more likely, though it has never
existed on a large scale.  Perhaps with computer technology it could be
possible...
This all seems rather distant from Marx, who I believe favored a violent
revolution.  It IS cheering to see people moving beyond him...proves what
Charles said (the Left is dead - rough quote) is wrong.  Several thoughts,
however.  First:  information (necessary for ANY revolution to occur) is
controlled and dispersed by people who have a stake in the existing system.
It costs money to publish, etc, so it is not terribly surprising that those
who publish usually have money and a natural desire to protect that money.
Secondly, not only is publishing restricted to the wealthier, but dispersal
is also restricted.  TV's, newspapers, etc. are not free:  in order to
receive the information that IS available, it demands money that the people
most likely to be interested in revolution hardly has to spare.  Another
example is the Internet.  If not associated with a university, it is rather
expensive to have access.  In America (where I live), university prices are
rising while financial aid is becoming more difficult to obtain.
Secondly, if Marx's dialectic is real (I've yet to be convinced), then
information should not matter.  If the economic situation detiorates to the
point where working people are willing to revolt (politically or actually),
they may express this at the ballot box.  It's an unfortunate human
characteristic, however, that, when a situatin deteriorates, people vote
for a conservative party, which promises a return to the "good old days."
Perhaps the recent election in America could be taken, perversely, as a
sign that Americans are ready for Socialism (though they don't know it).
This might be a sign that information available is of PRIME importance
(which contradicts Marx - but so what?)


                        Thomas Breed
                        

                "Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
                        In the midst of a free world"

Benko Tibor has some interesting ideas about equalizing wealth. Let me try
a specific example. Tibor, I think you are a student at Simon Fraser. lets
take 22% of your grades and distribute them among those who did not study
as well. Maybe a doctor who would not pass otherwise can be your personal
healthcare specialist in the future because you shared grades with him. I
am sure you would take great pride in having contributed.
Now it is also possible that after the 22% reduction you would not pass
either, but I am not going to get into that version.
Jeliko.

> Does anyone know if there is a Magyar community in the
> Austin, texas area?  I may have a job interview there, and
> the job would be more appealing if I didn't have to stop
> my Magyar language studies.

> Thanks,
>         Paul

So what's wrong with learning Hungarian with a Paloc accent?

Regards,Jeliko

----
US COMPANY CANCELS HUNGARIAN HOTEL PURCHASE. A
multimillion dollar deal fell through on 11 January when
the Dallas-based American General Hospitality withdrew a
bid to buy 51% of the shares in 14 Hungarian hotels, MTI
reports. The State Property Agency accepted the AGH's bid
last month to buy the chain for $57.5 million, but it
raised the price to $67 million shortly thereafter, under
the orders of Prime Minister Gyula Horn. The premier
intervened because he deemed the price too low. AGH
representatives said the company's offer was "favorable and
fair" and would not be modified. The hotel deal was widely
seen by economists as a litmus test of the Horn
government's intentions on privatization. It is likely to
send negative signals to foreign investors at a time when
Hungary badly needs foreign capital. -- Edith Oltay, OMRI,
Inc.
----

This is great!  The state will gain $9.5 million more when it
sells the hotels.

--Greg

In article > Norb the Hungarian
> writes:
>Date: Mon, 9 Jan 1995 19:30:40 -0600
>From: Norb the Hungarian >
>Subject: Re: Zoroastrians

>Someone wrote (sorry, your name did not show up in this editory 8-( ):
>>>        Yes, Zoroastrianism started in Persia, and quite a few of the world'
>>>Zoaroasters still live in Iran.  There is quite a large community in India
>as
>>>well--I might be totally wrong on this one, but I think they are referred
>>>to as Pharsees (Pharisees?).

>>No. Pharisees were a sect of Judaism that started around 200 BC (I think
>>that's fairly accurate, but that's not what's in question here) and
>>basically existed till the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by Titus
>>in AD 70.

>        I know that, but either that same term, or one very similar to it, is
>used to describe Indian Zoroasters.

>        Norb

I think you're looking for "Parsee."
The Romans used to get call the same group "Parthains" and "Parsees," at
least in some of their writings (as I remember from Latin in High School).

> ------------------------------------------------
"Thank you for your cooperation and vice versa."
   --Eugene Ormandy |  
> ------------------------------------------------

Date sent:  12-JAN-1995 13:14:08
>
>Benko Tibor has some interesting ideas about equalizing wealth. Let me try
>a specific example. Tibor, I think you are a student at Simon Fraser. lets
>take 22% of your grades and distribute them among those who did not study
>as well. Maybe a doctor who would not pass otherwise can be your personal
>healthcare specialist in the future because you shared grades with him. I
>am sure you would take great pride in having contributed.
>Now it is also possible that after the 22% reduction you would not pass
>either, but I am not going to get into that version.
>Jeliko.

Bad analogy:  first, income has no upper limit, but grades do.  Using the
American system, you can't earn more than a 4.00.  Yet income can extend
indefinately upwards.  If it was impossible to earn more than...say...1,000
USD a year, then your arguement might have some validity.
        Secondly, it has been well established that Capitalism is not
meritocratic.  Most of the people who are part of the Upper Class also had
parents who were also Upper Class.  Sure, there is the rare exception where
a lucky person or two have managed to build their own fortunes, and there
is also the occasional bumbling fool who squanders his inheritance, but
they are EXCEPTIONS.  Businesses tend to remain in family member hands
generation after generation: long after the initial meritocratic work was
accomplished.
        The reasons for this are simple:  access to better education, the
ability to attend school without the distraction of work, and often
influential family friends.


                        Thomas Breed
                        

                "Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
                        In the midst of a free world"

Thomas Breed writes:

>          Secondly, it has been well established that Capitalism is not
>  meritocratic.

Whether or not Capitalism is meritocratic, it would be helpful to know
if Thomas Breed believes in meritocracy.

If not, then the lack of it in Capitalism shouldn't bother; if so it's
hard to see much meritocratic in handing out 25% of GDP on demand to
everybody with a warm body.

--Greg

>Date sent:  11-JAN-1995 21:40:24
>>
>>On Fri, 6 Jan 1995 13:51:12 -0800 > said:
>>>Eva Balogh writes:
>>>
>>>>  Imi Bokor is a very irritating fellow.
>>>
>>>You must train yourself to delete unread messages from such folks.
>>>Otherwise you may give up on the whole list, or take it out on
>>>the less deserving, etc.
>>>
>>>--Greg
>>
>>
>>Imi has valid and reasonable opinions on many things, and the only
>>way to reevaluate your own ideas is to compare them against differing
>>ideas of others.  If you never reevaluate your own opinions, you never
>>learn and grow.
>>
>>Paul

>I absolutely agree.  I may not agree with everything Imi Bokor writes (I
>don't entirely agree with ANYONE on this List), but he usually is at least
>reasonable.  I'm also impressed in his restraint in the wake of so many
>personal attacks upon him.


>                        Thomas Breed
>                        

>                "Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
>                        In the midst of a free world"

>  hard to see much meritocratic in handing out 25% of GDP on demand to
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, make that 25% of per capita GDP.

--Greg

What I have seen of communism has not impressed me.  In theory, everything
sounds great:
capitalism, socialism and even communism.  But the reality is that they are not
great in
actual practice.  Communism degenerates into dictatorship, capitalism
degenerates into
monopolies and socialism just degenerates.  Of course, this is a sweeping
generalization,
however, it points to the fact that something other than these wonderful
systems needs to be
implemented.  I am happy with the "Canadian Way" which essentially is a  Mixed
Economy.  It
is not perfect, but it is better in practice than what the other big three
"systems" have proven
themselves to be.  The lesson to be learned here is that both Capitalism and
Communism can
teach us about the "right way" of doing things but only if one considers them
in their
ideal rather than in practice.

This isn't a terribly academic reply, but it's my $0.02

Regards,
Charles Gal
University of Alberta

Thomas wrote:

>>at my university).  The likelyhood is still overwhelming that two people
>>who meet in France come from such a long French line.

>Which French?  Breton speakers?  German speakers?  While many French
>speakers may have families that have dwellt within France for a long time,
>that does not mean they are pure ethnic French.  I saw a rather ridicuolous

>Apparently, some Hunnic tribes remained in the French Alps after Atilla's
>fall, and came to contribute to the genetic makeup of the population.  Of

In all the responses in opposition to my view, the common theme has been to
offer several counter examples to ethnic and cultural identity, and to
concluded that therefore there is no homogeneity in the ethnic group
under discussion.  Given that the bounderies that divide ethnic groups
are somewhat blurred rather than being strictly and clearly identifiable,
there still is nevertheless noticeable diversity among the peoples of Europe,
Asia, and elsewhere.  To say that it is not noticeable that an overwhelming
percent of Spaniards are dark haired and dark complexioned, while an
overwhelming percent of Swedes are blond and fair skinned, is to say that
you are blind.  Can anyone really argue that the typical Ethiopean is
indistinguishable from the typical Chinese?  To deny this shows a
complete lack of honesty.

Now, if someone wants to argue that ethnic/racial identity is of no
importance, than make that arguement, but please do not deny that
differences exist.  I acknowledge and appreciate the points made by
several knowledgeable people, that most/all countries have several
ethnic groups and cultural groups within their borders, and that no
ehnic group is completely unmixed with another.  But what that demonstrates
is that the lines between those groups is blurred, and not clear and sharp.
But there still exists some level of ethnic diversity, even if each group
is no longer of one ancestry, but of several.

In another, related post, Thomas wrote:

 >Chinese and Indians belong to different racial groups, and in this case
you are right.  Hungarians, however, are not so different, however from
Caucasians to be a seperate racial group.  There are groups within the
Chinese and the Indians who are just as different from the fellow racial
members as the Hungarians are from other Europeans.  One might be able to
tell Asians apart from Africans or Europeans, but within racial groups,
things are more mixed.
>

OK, some ageement, at last!  I maintain that at least these racial
differences are valueable, and I'd hope that the supporters of
multiculturalism would support this too.  Now, the ethnic distinctions
among the peoples of a given race may be harder to identify, and they
may be blurred, but they are there (ie brunette Spaniards and blond
Swedes).  Again, my point is to point out that as the world get smaller,
we should realize what diversity exists among the people of the world,
and if we do nothing to preserve it, this diversity surely will
disappear.  What to do?  Well, strict limits to migration.  That
will certainly not be a popular proposal among those who will read
this, but I hope the value of ethnic/racial diversity will at least
be examined.  If the consensus is that open borders are more important,
than so be it, but I think the issue is important enough that it should
be discussed.

In another post, Thomas wrote:
>I don't think your prejudiced.  I admire your intentions, but I think
reality hasn't supported what you have been arguing.

Thanks for realizing this - I understand that this is a sensitive
subject, but an important one.  One of my fundamental beliefs is that
all ethnic/racial groups are valueable and important, and that is why
I feel strongly that they should be preserved.  Your point that
'reality hasn't supported what (I) have been arguing' is for sure
true, given political conditions being what they are.  But the threat
to divesity has also never been as great.  There is a scientific
principle called entropy, which says roughly, that all systems
tend towards disorder, meaning that, if you throw one handful of
blue marbles into the air, and one handfull of green marbles, they
will not land one the ground according to color, but is will take
energy to seperate them once they have fallen.  The natural state of
things is to become less uniform, unless energy is used up to maintain
order.  My question is, is it worth it to exert the energy to maintain
the current order.

I guess enough has been written about this topic.  I just wanted to have
people think about it.

Now, on to something new.

Paul

emil wrote:

>Seems to me that a language which has NO WORD for
>"explain" has many other deep problems than to get sucked into minor

Doesn't 'megmagyarazni' mean to explain?

Paul

Eva B. wrote:

> in lower case. I don't like your style: your incessant repetitions, your
>..
>your vicious anti-Hungarian pronuncements.
>..
>Your always taking the other side is doing a disservice to historical truth.

This was about Imi.  Are the Historical points Imi mentioned incorrect/distorte
d
or plain wrong?  If not, I say, thanks Imi for 'taking the other side'.
If everyone on the list has the same view, folks who wnat to learn about
Hungarian history never see the other points of view.

>The fact is that all nations,especially in our area, have done things
>to their neighbors at times which were not exactly honorable.
>But, believe me, the non-Hungarians were not a  bit better than the Hungarians
.

If Imi had not instigated, this point never would have come out.  I am
 definately
pro-Hungary, but I want to argue in the future from a position of balanced
knowledge, not from a point of view of one sided propoganda.  I think Hungary
has been given a raw deal over the years, but no one is only a victim, and
we all should know the arguements others have against us before we try to
defend ourselves in a debate if someone tries to tell any of us about
how horrible Hungary has been.  Eva and company know both sides, and they
can teach the rest of us about history, but it must be balanced, so, thanks
Imi.

Paul

No, I don't want to add to the already numerous postings on the topic of
"Fatherland and national pride".  Discussion has already veered far afield of
the original premise anyway.  I wish to take issue with the usage of the very
word "fatherland" in this forum.  "Fatherland", as is widely known, is used
by Germans when referring to their country.

I think using this term may convey the impression of teutonic, almost
Nazi-like fanatic nationalistic thinking on the part of those who use it
trying to express patriotic sentiments.  This is unfortunate, since the
Hungarian language does not have this word, nor anything resembling it.  The
word used for the land of Hungary is "haza", or "hon" (as in honfoglalas),
loosely translatable as "home", "homeland"," home country".  In the case of
Hungarians living outside of Hungary's borders, especially in neighboring
countries, the term is "anyaorszag", literally "mother country".

As an interesting aside, "anyafold" -- ("mother earth") is a term to fondly
refer to the soil, especially as a final resting place.

Ferenc

Bravo to Paul for proposing that we value our differences and respect each
other.  We are agreed again!

Udv.,