(George Szaszvari) wrote:

>Before I forget, I'd like to mention a theory explaining that the
>Hungarian suicidal tendency is due to physical factors, an imbalance
>in the ionization (electrical fields) of the air; in other words, the
>weather has an adverse effect on people. The MIT Review (Dec 1972)
>published a paper connecting a *suicide belt* in Central Europe
>(encompassing Hungary) with a meteorological phenomenon known as the
>Foehn Wind. This phenomenon is not unique to Central Europe and plenty
>of other cases world-wide, along with detailed discussion of the nature
>of the Foehn Wind, are discussed in the book: *The Ion Effect* by Fred
>Soyka.

About 20 years ago, when I was studying migraine headaches, there were
many studies regarding these winds (Santa Ana in California, Chinook
in Canada, Shirav in Israel, Foehn in Central Europe) that were
charged with positive ions. They were supposed to be cause of many
ills (including migraines). To my mind, your idea is not far-fetched.

There is this story I have heard many, many years ago, about a song
that was played on radios in the 50s in Budapest. The title was (my
memory is not what it used to be) something like "Sad Sunday." The
story goes on to tell of dozens of Hungarians who committed suicide
the day when the song was played. I wonder if it's a true story or is
it one of those 'city myths."

As a behaviorist, I tend to reduce most behaviors to coping styles. As
such, suicide would be a lack of ability to cope. The lack of
resources, then, psychoanalytically, could be due to flawed ego
strength. We don't disagree here, either.

But a whole nation?

I think that here, in the States, Seattle has the highest suicide rate
among major cities (don't quote me on this). The pissy rain that has a
penchant of being one's constant companion there, would, then, have
something to do with the suicides.

Other than being constantly cold (and hungry), I don't remember much
else about the weather in Hungary. OK, in my case, Transylvania. It
would be interesting to get some stats on whether more Hungarians kill
themselves in Transylvania then, say, Romanians.

The psychiatrist who wrote to great extend about survival in
concentration camps was Victor E. Frankl. His book "Man's Search for
Meaning" (original title: "From Death-Camp to Existentialism") is THE
textbook on logotherapy. His wonderful thesis on how one could find
life worth preserving, even under those incredible circumstances,
ought to be required in all Hungarian schools. In the introduction,
Gordon Allport, probably Harvard's best-known psychologists, wrote:

"....for a writer who faces fully the ubiquity of suffering and the
forces of evil, he [Victor Frankl] takes a surprisingly hopeful view
of man's capacity to transcend his predicament and discover and
adequate guiding truth."

Thanks, George, for reminding me to re-read this stuff. It's
wonderful.

Bandi

P.S. I do have a negative-ion generating air cleaner in my home
office. :-)

can anyone help me I'am loking for a last name (MICKLETZ) or Michets this
might be wrong but close as I can get.This is my family name just looking
for leads to any relatives in Hungary.Thank You
Wayne Mickletz

Subject:
              The Romanians in Hungary (2)
        Date:
              Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:41:55 GMT
       From:
              Mihai Caragiu >
Organization:
              mathematics department WSU
 Newsgroups:
              soc.culture.romanian


The Lajos Kossuth moment (continued)


Bem followed up his victories by an attempt at civil administration,
and as his main principles were conciliation and amnesty, he at
once came into accute conflict with Kossuth, who now dominated the
Government in Pest and Debreczen, and his delegate Csanyi, who
declared Bem's amnesty to be invalid and set up military tribunals
to execute "traitors" and confiscate their property. Csanyi's
manifesto to the Romanians is a clssic revelation of the
Kossuthist mentality. It would deserve to be quoted in full,
but a few sentences must suffice. It begins at the top note: "You,
unhappy Wallachs, deceived and led into false paths by intrigues and
by Austrian officers. There is no trace in human memory or in the
pages of history of a free national life on your part. You were
slaves under the Romans, slaves under the migrant people,
slaves too in the last 1000 years, and only the Magyars have
extended to you also in the past year the dawn of liberty..." They have
given the peasant equal rights, but "indulgence has its limits" .
Kossuth's attitude towards the Saxons and the Romanians does not
stand alone. On the eve of the revolution he had in open Parliament
scoffed at Croatia as "so small that it is not enough for a breakfast".
He had met the demands of a Serbian deputation in the early summer
of 1848 with the fatal phrase "Then the sword will decide between us".
He had roused Serbian indignation still further  by his plan for
settling the Sze'kels in the Banat, and a year later he was writing
to Bem that "among the Serbs the only surety is to take the women,
children and priests as hostages". But worst of all was the terrorist
attitude towards his own people of origin, the Slovaks. Kossuth's
large measure of responsability for the racial war cannot
seriously be denied.

Subject:
              The Romanians in Hungary (1)
        Date:
              Mon, 21 Oct 1996 21:41:35 GMT
       From:
              Mihai Caragiu >
Organization:
              mathematics department WSU
 Newsgroups:
              soc.culture.romanian
  References:
              1 , 2


Crelu wrote:

> - The Romanian population was deemed and treated as second class by means
> of discriminatory laws, forced name changes,( and religion ), lack of
> schools in their language, etc.

Well, maybe the following passages from  "A history of the Roumanians,
from Roman times to the completion of unity" by the British historian
R.W. Seton-Watson, would fill in a few gaps in the presentation of Mr.
Malczanek, isn't it. So... here we go again folks.

Mihai Caragiu

==


The Lajos Kossuth moment

Step by step the Magyar nationalists wrung fresh legislative
concessions from the crown: and in 1843 Parliament introduced
Magyar as the exclusive language of the legislature, the
Government and official business, and also, in theory, of public
instruction, though this latter decision was left to be worked
out in detail and was therefore still hanging over the non-Magyar
races as a sword of Damocles, when the supreme crisis of 1848
arrived. Popular enthusiasm for the "national language", as Magyar
was now habitually called in this most polyglot of European states,
was fanned to fever by Louis Kossuth - himself the son of a Magyarised
Slovak "gentry" family. The mad illusion that Hungary could be
Magyarised at a stroke of a pen - a proposition which at that
time was equivalent to every two Magyars in existence securing
three renegade recruits for their nation - revealed itself in the
repressive measures of the fourties against Slovak nationalism,
in systematic attempts to use churches as instruments of the Magyar
propaganda, and abova all in the Parliament's attitude
towards Croatia

In the autumn of 1846 the Transylvanian Diet again met, and in the
following July introduced and adopted a comprehensive Language Law,
by which the Magyar became the language for the Gubernium, the Diet,
the law-courts, and for the entire administration in the teritory of
the Magyar and Sze'kely nations.

May 29, 1848 - the diet opened at Cluj (Kolozsvar). The Romanian
majority was not represented, and the tiny remnant of twenty-two saxons
were terrorised into compliance, though reserving their their existing
traditional and linguistic rights and municipal institutions.

August 24, 1848: Baron Wessele'nyi pleaded the Romanian cause in a
memorable speech. Unhappily the effect of this noble appeal was
destroyed by Wessele'nyi's former ally Kossuth, who spoke of the
Romanians as "the spirit of conspiracy against Hungary", and refused
to recognise the special existence of Serb, Wallach or Slovak,
still less to fill official posts on a basis of nationality,
since that would be an attack upon "the unitary state".

The general attitude of the Romanians to the trial of strength
between Hungary and Austria, of which their question was as yet
but a fragment, was a logical sequence from their earlier
attitude under Joseph and Leopold. They looked above all to
the dinasty for equality and justice, openly repudiating
the accusations of reactionary leanings and declaring their belief in a
constitutional monarchy, in which all the nations had they share.

At 05:11 PM 10/21/96 -0400, Amos wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Oct 1996, Eva S. Balogh wrote:
>
>>         Surely, Jeliko has a very strong anti-Habsburg bias. It is hard to
>> believe that the Habsburgs wanted to rule over a poverty-stricken realm and
>> they in fact kept Hungary back from advancement for that reason.
>>
>  I really must say something here. If Jeliko has an anti-Habsburg bias,
>  then you have a pro-Habsburg bias, Eva. I am not a historian and don't
>  claim to be one, but anything  I have studied indicated that they have
>  strongly discouraged industrial development in Hungary. Where does the
>  expression "the bread-basket of Europe" come from?  It comes  from the
>  Habsburgs's intention to keep Hungary agricultural.

        I don't know whether you can call it pro-Habsburg bias but I
maintain that the Habsburgs didn't keep down Hungary economically because
they either disliked the Hungarians or because they wanted Hungary to supply
the rest of the empire with agricultural goods. As we know very well,
Hungary even today is quite capable of not only to feed its own population
but also there is plenty for exports. That was the case in the past as well.
All visitors from the earliest times till the nineteenth century remarked on
the excellent quality of the soil. Travelers even right after the Rakoczi
Rebellion when the country was about as devastated and poor as it ever was
remarked that although the people were in rags and lived in huts, they had
plenty to eat. Thus, the establishment of manufacturing industry wouldn't
have interfered with Hungarian exports.

        Nationalist historians normally mention the introduction of an
internal customs barrier between Hungary and the rest of the empire (1754)
as proof that Hungary was kept in a colonial status. However, one must find
out why the central government decided to introduce such measure. The cause
was the Hungarian nobility's total tax exemption as opposed to the nobles in
the rest of the empire. Maria Theresa found this situation intolerable.
Maria Theresa tried at the Diet of 1751 to get war taxes raised, the Diet
refused. The queen answered with a customs reform which was indeed
disadvantageous to Hungary. The hope was that such stringent measures would
change the mind of the Diet. They were mistaken. The Diet of 1764 also
refused to raise war taxes. Vienna reacted again by raising customs duties:
further protectionist measures in favor of Austria and Bohemia. After that
Maria Theresa simply didn't call the Diet into session.

        But the Habsburgs' severe economic policies were not the only factor
inhibiting economic development in Hungary in the eighteenth century.
Although some pro-Habsburg magnates had invested their own funds in the
1720s and and 1730s in cloth manufacture, they were unsuccessful for several
reasons: Hungary lacked the needed capital, a problem aggravated by the
backward credit structure of the country. It also lacked technical
expertise. The nobility didn't understand the principles of mercantilism,
and without a strong, enterprising bourgeoisie, the country had no
entrepreneurs. Furthermore, roads and other transport facilities were poor;
weights and measures were not uniform; the home market was limited; there
were neither large cities nor a burgher element with buying power. Thus the
internal customs barrier only aggravated an already difficult situation. As
it turned out these policies also hurt the empire as a whole. Thus, it was
simply a wrong economic decision brought about by Vienna's dissatisfaction
with the Hungarian nobles' tax exemption. By the way, I relied for the above
on Horst Haselsteiner's article on "Cooperation and Confrontation between
Rulers and the Noble Estates, 1711-1790," Sugar-Hanak-Frank, A History of
Hungary. Bloomington, Indiana University, 1994. But two historians whose
opinions on underdevelopment prior to the sixteenth century are closer to
Jeliko's (Ivan Bertenyi and Gabor Gyapay) than to mine (I think, of course,
mistakenly) say the following: "Ezt a kettos vamrendszert mar a 18. szazad
vegenek magyar politikusai kezdtek ugy minositeni, hogy a magyar gazdasagot
... `gyarmati' helyzetbe hozta. Ezt a felfogast karolta fel a 19. szazad
elso felenek reformellenzeke, majd szamos torteneszunk is atvette, igy az
elmult evtizedek tortenetirasa--nemi politikai felhangokkal--szivesen
fejtegette, hogy Ausztria a 18. szazadeban gyarmati vagy felgyarmati sorba
szoritotta hazankat. E nezet hirdetoi abbol a teves felfogasbol indultak ki,
hogy Magyarorszag, illetve az orokos tartomanyok ipari fejlodese a 18.
szazad elejen meg azonos szinten allt, azaz a Monarchia ket felenek
szinvonala csak az 1754-es vamrendelet utan mutatott elterest. Ketsegtelen,
hogy az 1754-ben bevezetett vamrendszer nem kedvezett a magyar iparnak....
Az csak torteneti ferditessel lehet a magyar ipar elmaradottsagat az 1754-es
vamrendszernek tulajdonitani." [Briefly in English: Some peoople already at
the end of the eighteenth-century looked upon this customs barrier as means
by which Vienna kept Hungary in colonial or semi-colonial status. The
nineteenth-century "reform generation" also adhered to this view. In the
last few decades historians, not without political overtones, claimed the
same. However, the fact was the Hungary was behind the rest Austria,
Bohemia, Moravia well before 1754.]


>> already made up his mind about Hungary's development a long time ago and
>> every historian who doesn't seem to agree with him [which means practically
>> everyone when it comes to economic development] is simply careless, biased,
>> dogmatic, or simply ignorant.

>  Don't you think this is uncalled for?  He has never  pretended to be a
>  a historian and  I wasn't aware of  the prohibition  of non-historians
>  expressing their views on history. You may have said he is uninformed,
>  but you clearly wanted to insult him and call him ignorant. He may not
>  take exception,but I do. What is even more distressing is the fact you
>  have done this after he has left.  Whatever happened to civilized dis-
>  cussion, addressing the subject at hand?

Amos, Amos,

        Would you read the above again! I didn't call Jeliko ignorant.
Jeliko called practically all historians "simply careless, biased, dogmatic,
or simply ignorant." And, I'm afraid, this is what he said and repeatedly.
He knows better than those careless, biased historians whose works he no
longer reads are useless. He goes straight to the original sources. Sorry,
you can't do history like that.
        Let me repeat it. You don't have to have a Ph.D. in history to write
history BUT you have to follow the usual methodology of the discipline. And
again, this is not terribly difficult. There are many books on the subject.
Twenty years ago, I normally asked my students to read Jacques Barzun's book
on how to write history. Today, thanks to computers and electronic
bibliographies and note taking it is much easier but the methods are still
the same. Jeliko, if he weren't bias against the whole profession, could go
to a good university library or bookstore and find half a dozen books on how
to become a historian. That would be my suggestion.

        Eva Balogh

At 12:07 AM 10/22/96 GMT, Bandi Rozsa wrote:

>It
>would be interesting to get some stats on whether more Hungarians kill
>themselves in Transylvania then, say, Romanians.

        As far as I know, yes. In fact, the Hungarian statistics in Romania
seem to be about as high as in Hungary proper.

        Eva Balogh

At 12:59 AM 10/22/96 GMT, Liviu wrote:

>>Why do I go back to original records as much as possible? Because I do not
>>need a "designated thinker" for me, particularly when comparison of original
>>data with the conclusion of the designated thinker is not clear.
>
>The premise is OK, but, as I have often observed, in many instances
>you seem completely unaware of the scholarly work of other historians,
>especially those from the West, that have started exactly from the
>same original records.

        I'm glad that Liviu wrote becaue during his historical discussion
with Jeliko I also had the nagging feeling that Jeliko is simply not
familiar enough with the secondary sources. I would go even further than
Liviu and say that "the premise" of ignoring secondary sources is not OK
because it deprives the person from engaging in a dialogue with others
working on his subject. Others for whom history is not a hobby but a way of
making a living. And this dialogue is part and parcel of the discipline.

        Eva Balogh

>At 04:49 PM 10/21/96 -0400, Andy Kozma wrote:
>
><snip>
>> Joe:I have read this article.What aggraveted me was the Toronto Star puts
>>it on its first page.
>>The Paper had a crusade against the canadain army,since the Somalia
>>incident,and grabed this uncofirmed story,to further,in my oppinion,there
>>degrading the army.
>>I do not have any connection to the army,but I think there are in evry bunch
>>a few bad apples.
>>Andy K.
>
>The news now says that the Canadian soldiers were not charged.  Hungarian
>officials are saying that the original story was exaggerated.  It just goes
>to show you that fresh news is no news.
>
>Joe Szalai
>
Yes Joe I agree.But the Star put yesterda the news on there front page,and
today only on the second.This I feel shows there hunger to blacken the
Canadian soldiers,as I mentioned above.
I don't know what they want to achive with this,but it is neither patriotic,nor
worthy of thus Paper.
Andy K.

22 October 1956

At the Bellye castle in Yugoslavia the Hungarian delegation concludes its
mission. A statement on the discussions is prepared by the two parties for
publication the following day.

Students are at public rallies in Budapest, Szeged, Miskolc, Pecs and
Sopron. They all decide to join MEFESZ. At the Engineering Faculty the
students are discussing their demands. They formulate 16 points. They
demand the democratization of the communist party, the formation of a new
government under the premiership of Imre Nagy, the establishment of a
multi-party system, economic reforms, the reform of the judiciary, the
restoration of national holidays and symbols, freedom of information and
public trials for the Hungarian Stalinist leaders. A street demonstration
is planned for the next day, 23 October 1956.

The executive of the Petofi Circle suggests a meeting of the Central
Committee of the communist party to expell Rakosi and to include Imre Nagy
among its members.

At Diosgyor at the DIMAVAG factory 2,000 workers submit a written demand
for an open party debate on the problems of the day.

At 01:37 PM 10/22/96 -0400, Andy Kozma wrote:

<snip>
>Yes Joe I agree.But the Star put yesterda the news on there front page,and
>today only on the second.This I feel shows there hunger to blacken the
>Canadian soldiers,as I mentioned above.
>I don't know what they want to achive with this,but it is neither patriotic,no
r
>worthy of thus Paper.
>Andy K.

Andy, maybe the Toronto Star doesn't want to be accused of covering up the
story.  Lets face it, the Canadian military has had a lot of very negative,
self-induced, publicity in the last couple of years and every newspaper in
Canada is going to cover every story about them.

For those readers who didn't read today's paper, here's the article from the
Record.
-------------------------

Budapest
Soldier attack exaggerated, military says

Reports of Canadian soldiers attacking a Hungarian civilian and his
girlfriend were exaggerated, Hungarian journalists and the Canadian military
now say.

Information now indicates a Canadian was himself beaten in a street fight.

Ferenc Kosegi, editor of Budapest's largest daily newspaper, Mai Nap, said
Monday the story his paper published on the weekend was not entirely
accurate.  The newspaper had reported a group of drunken Candian soldiers on
recreational leave from duty in Bosnia stopped a civilian car in Budapest
Friday night, dragged the driver from the car, beat him and assaulted the
female passenger.

But after an investigation by Hungarian police, it appears the incident was
not so one-sided.  Accoridng to Kosegi, words were exchanged between the
driver and one of the soldiers.  The Hungarian driver got out of the car and
beat up the soldier.

"He was a very big man, over 100 kilograms (220 pounds)," Kosegi said of the
Hungarian civilian, adding that the Canadian got the worst of it.  "His body
had marks on it."  Kosegi said he does not know if a woman was involved.

Budapest police were not planning to lay charges against the Canadians or
the Hungarian civilians, he added.

Canadian forces spokesman Capt. Chris Lemay confirmed Monday the early
reports were wrong and the soldiers face no criminal charges.  He criticized
the media for not verifying the story before publication.

The soldiers were not guilty of criminal wrongdoing but they could face
disiplinary action.
---------------------------

Yesterday's story was on page 2 of the first section of the paper and today
it was on the back page of the first section.

Joe Szalai

>At 2:39 PM 10/20/96, Zoltan Szekely wrote:
>>As I promised I show a sermon, given by the Rev. Joe Wright, pastor
>>of a Wichita church in Kansas (Bob Dole's home state!!). It was
>>given as an opening prayer for the work day of Congress members in
>>the Kansas state legislation at the state capitol.
>>
>>The sermon has a strong social message, which makes the brains of
>>most liberals blow up.
>>
>>Enjoy it!                                                Sz. Zoli
>>
>> -------------------- -------------------- --------------------
>>
>>Heavenly Father,
>>
>>we came before You today to ask your forgiveness and seek your
>>direction and guidance. We know your word says: 'Woe to those
>>who call evil good,' but that's exactly what we've done. We have
>>lost our spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values.
>>
>>We confess that we have ridiculed the absolute truth of your word
>>and called it moral pluralism. We have worshipped other gods and
>>called it multiculturalism. We have endorsed perversion and called
>>it an alternative lifestyle.
>>
>>We have exploited the poor and called it lottery. We have
>>neglegted the needy and called it self-preservation. We have
>>rewarded laziness and called it welfare.
>>
>>We heve killed our unborn and called it a choice. We have shot
>>abortionists and called it justifiable.
>>
>>We have neglected to discipline our children and called it
>>building esteem. We have abused power and called it political
>>savvy. We have coveted our neighbor' possessions and called it
>>ambition.  We have polluted the air with profanity and
>>pornography and called it freedom of expression.
>
>Now if you make a few substitutions the whole passage would become familiar
>to Hungarians.
>
>Comrade Stalin,
>
>we came before You today to ask your forgiveness and seek your
>direction and guidance. We know your word says: 'Woe to those
>who call evil good,' but that's exactly what we've done. We have
>lost our spiritual equilibrium [Leninism] and inverted our values [to
>Trotskyism].
>
>We confess [self-criticism] that we have ridiculed the absolute truth of
>your word
>and called it moral pluralism [democracy]...
>
>Comrade Rakosi
>
> I leave the rest to your fertile imagination...
>
>God save us from the good pastor's imaginary America.
>
>Peter I. Hidas
>

Congratulations Peter! I think there is no big difference between religions
and communism - communism is a religion: same dogmas, same saints (call them
Apostols,  or Marx-Engels-Lenin triumvirate). And both mainly about power
and mind-control.

BTW, I wonder how tovarish Szekely will react.

L. Monoki

If in the Catholic religion God can do anything, then
can God create a weight that God cannot lift?