Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.slovak-l
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:03:40 PST
From:         Joe Pannon <pannon@BCSFSE.BOEING.COM>
Subject:      Slovak-Hungarian Conflicts

Dear Marian:

You wrote to me:

>  I really enjoy the discussion with you.

You must be joking!  Or is it some sort of masochism? <grin>

>  The people like you and
>  me are often referred to as nationalists. I'm glad that we are able
>  to argue without raising voices. Here are another things I have to
>  take the stand against.

I don't mind if people call me nationalist for I don't believe that term
to be negative in itself, as some people might.  To me the word
"nationalistic" is neutral.  Of course, it can be negative if taken to
extreme, but then we are talking about AGGRESSIVE nationalism and that I
am not!

But before we get any further let me ask a personal question, if I may:
Your last name suggest that you are a woman, but I don't know if
"Marian" in Slovak is male or female name.  I know that in Polish it
would be a male name, and in Hungarian a female name.  Not that your
gender matters much, but I would feel better if I knew whom I write to.
As it is, I would put my money on what I guess from your last name.
(Sigh!)

>   I things that every country differs from another ones. You can't
>   aply any kind of approach to anything automaticaly. The answer to
>   your question would have been: Why can't Slovakia approach her
>   Hungarian minority issue the same way as Hungary approachs its
>   Slovak  minority? I hope you admit that these are wrong questions.

This is a fair point, however ...
As I pointed out in another message of mine recently, most Slovaks in
present day Hungary are relatively recent (as far as European history is
concerned) immigrant settlers in isolated pockets within ethnic Hungarian
population.  These Slovaks, since their settlement in the 18th century
have been pretty much cut off from the main Slovak homeland.  This in
turn accelerated their natural assimilation.  You have to remember, that
most of these people were simple peasants whose means and life styles
did not permit frequent travel and other means of communication between
their new homes and old homelands that would be essential in maintaining
their ethnic identities.  In more recent times this is more possible,
but by now most of the old family ties are gone and with their archaic
Slovak, thoroughly mixed with Hungarian words they probably feel more
strangers in Slovakia than at home. The post-WW II changes, forcing
many to travel to factory or other jobs in distant cities accelerated
assimilation even more and many of these ethnic Slovaks found their
future husbands or wives in other, mostly Hungarian ethnic groups.

Yes, you occasionally hear the statements of some self-appointed
spokespersons of Hungary's Slovaks sounding like Duray in reverse, but I
would almost bet, that there is no crowd behind these spokesmen.  What I
guess is happening here is this:

The Hungarian government allocates certain funds from its budget to
support various ethic groups and their activities.  In the knowledge
of this, suddenly all kinds of phantom ethnic organizations register
themselves in order to get a share of those government funds.  Then, the
self-appointed leaders of these phantom organizations, in order to
justify their existence, feel compelled to make as big noise as they
can.  Especially if they also try to appear more authentic
representatives of the etnic group, than other competing organizations.
(Gypsies are especially good at this.)
You see the same kind of thing in the US, and it's all about MONEY!
This is my own private opinion about it and I cannot prove any of this.
But I know enough (originally) ethnic Slovaks to be comfortable with my
opinion.  Most current generation of originally ethnic Slovaks would
consider their mother tongue to be Hungarian and are not interested in
being taught in the Slovak language.  I think a census would bear me out
on this.  If for nothing else, this is one reason why I can hardly wait
for the next general population census in Hungary which I hope includes
the question: "What do you consider to be your ethnicity?"  I seriously
doubt that there would be anything even close to 50,000 who would answer
that question with "Slovak".

Before you jump to the conclusion that you could describe the Hungarians
of Slovakia the same way as I just did with the Slovaks of Hungary,
consider this:

1) The majority of those Hungarians live in areas along the Hungarian
border, thus in one contiguous bloc with the main Hungarian homeland.
For this reason, it was easier to maintain their ethnic identity than
for Slovaks in Hungary.

2) Also for this reason, I belive there are genuine spokesmen for that
Hungarian minority of whom Duray is indeed an authentic one in my
opinion.  He proved it even when it was dangerous to do so.

3) They did not move there as immigrant settlers 250 years ago, but were
resident there ever since Hungarians moved into the Carpathian basin.
What moved was the border over their heads and without any plebiscite.

4) Arguments to the effect that Slovaks (Slavs, really!) were in the
area even before Arpad's Hungarians occupied the Carpathian basin are
nonstarters for me.  The fact is, that the Hungarian conquest of the
Carpathian basin at the end of 9th century AD was fair and square
according to the "rules" of that time which the historians call "The Age
of Invasions".  That conquest was in fact "legitimized" by the supreme
arbiter of Christian Europe of that time, the head of the Holy Roman
Empire, the Pope, when he sent the Holy Crown to King Stephen of Hungary
(the later Saint Stephen) -- in effect admitting him and his Hungarian
Kingdom into the community of Christian Europe.  It makes little sense to
judge past events with contemporary political correctness.

But let's go on to other issues ...

>   One of the reasons why variant C was chosen is that it doesn't
>  contradict the treaty and there is always possibility to swith from
>  it to the original G-N project.

Frankly, I don't have the text of the treaty to contradict you on that,
but even if I take your word for it, Variant C, just because it does not
contradict the original treaty would still call for Hungarian
concurrance by any reasonable international standard as it involves
diversion of the border river half of which Hungary is entitled to.

>   The treaty would aply to H and S only in case both of them consider
>   it to be valid. This is besides the natural condition upon the
>   Danube strong argument why the river had to be dammed before Jan.1.

But using that argument, the original treaty is already not valid,
because one of the parties already declared it so.  Again, you can't
have the cake and eat it, too!

>   To refresh the question of the validity: the treaty was
>   conciped as "unquitable" (Sorry I don't know exact expression for
>   it in lawier's english)

I don't know the legal terms either, but I think I understand what you
meant:  that the treaty could not be cancelled.  That is an interesting
concept and I never heard it mentioned in the Hungarian press.  So I
leave it at that.  I think the final word on that will be said by the
international court, or the appointed EC community.

>   The Hungarians treat their right of selfdetermination in Hungary.
>   Slovaks and Czechs will treat it in Slovak republic and in Czech re-
>   public respectively.

So that's that?  You make it sound as if there were only Slovaks in
Slovakia who alone are entitled for selfdetermination.  BTW, when is the
next Slovakian national census due?  That should show pretty much how
many non-Slovaks there are.

>   I wonder if Slovaks in CR (X00 000 estimated)
>   will enjoy higher privileges than Hungarians in SR.

I am reasonably sure that they will to the degree they want it.

>   I have poor knowledge about those issues so that take my comments
>   here as one-old-man-said ones. The trial held against f.Tiso was
>   not usual one. I have doubt about the justice in this case. Please,
>   don't understand it as my faith in Tiso's innocence in moral aspect.
>   I just thing that he didn't deserve the death sentence. May be he
>   was just man forced to choose the smaller evil from bigger ones.
>   But it may sound like hypocricy and I hope that no Hungary nor
>   Slovakia sticks to their dark past.

I would not have brought this up if somebody didn't try to make
Hungary of those years look worse than it was.  I also realize that the
post-WW II "People's tribunals" were'nt exactly fair and probably Tiso
did not deserve the death penalty.  Many of those small countries
between the German and Soviet giants had very limited choices
and it wasn't as easy to see the optimal choices than as it's now with
our historical hindsights.  And I certainly can see how many Slovaks
would have accepted help from even the devil himself to realize their
age-long aspirations for independence.  So when Hitler offered it, they
took it.  However, I would also expect some recognition from the Slovaks
what it must have meant for Hungarians to lose over 2/3 of their former
territory after WW I.  Especially because it was all done in the
highminded name of "selfdetermination", yet no one was asked what
country they wanted to belong to.  Because if the Great Powers have
based the new borders on some kind of plebiscite, most Hungarians after
a while would have accepted it as inevitable and went after their
business.  But because so many fellow Hungarians found themselves in
hostile neighbor countries, though in contiguous areas with their old
homeland, the Trianon issue is still a burning one in the Hungarian
national psyche.  Though most Hungarians gave up hope of any territorial
adjustments to the Trianon borders (in the hope that the significance of
borders becomes less and less with time), they haven't given up on
helping their kins to maintain their national identity to the degree
it is desired by them).

>   Oh please!  Where in Slovakia Slovaks cut the throats of Hungarians
>   and vice versa.
>   I also think that those institutions were able to stop what is going
>   on now in Y if only Y turn to them instead of turning ane against
>   another.

What I meant by the Yugoslav example was that most international
institutions don't like to be drawn into disputes until it's too late.
Besides, while there are clear standards for human and individual
rights, there are no uniformly accepted ones for ethnic rights.  Ethnic
right is more than just the sum of human and individual rights of
members! (But please, don't ask me to define them.  Slovaks of all
people should be experts on this issue due to their prior experience in
the Czech-dominated Czechoslovakia.)

> > Well, Meciar sounds like one of those people, but HE IS the government!
> > BTW, what was Meciar during the communist era?  Wasn't he also some kind
> > of communist official?
>
>   I just wanted to say that no man from HZDS, SNS, SDL,... speaks the
>   way about the Jews, for instance, as Mr. Csurka (the second man
>   of Magyar Democratic Forum- the larger party in Hungary) did.

Now, why do you want to drag that extraneous issue into this discussion?
I doubt you've read his controversial writings, or are familiar enough
with the Hungarian domestic scene to pass judgement on that.  Much of
what got out of Hungary about Csurka's writings is through channels
controlled by the government opposition and thus politically motivated.
Besides, Csurka is NOT the second man in MDF; just one of the six vice
presidents.

>   I heard enough of Mr. Duray. But I hear no one things that have to
>   be proved to be true or not from him.

Well, if you simply dismiss Duray's complaints as lies, than there is
not much pont in arguing between us, either.  After all, I can't
possibly know the Slovak situation as much as he does.

On the other hand, I am still curious in Mr. Meciar's pre-89
background.

>   Don't forget that Slovaks were also Hungarians. The whole trouble
>   was that some polititians started to think that Slovaks are
>   Magyars in 18 century.

Oh, I don't know.  I still think that it's everybody's own right to
identify with any national group he/she wants.  So if Be'l Matyas
(not a politician!) believes himself to be Hungarian, that's what he is.
But if Palacky believed himself to be Slovak, that's what he was.
On the other hand, it's true, that before modern nationalism came to the
scene, people generally identified themselves by the country they lived
in, so a Slovak in the KIngdom of Hungary would also consider himself a
Hungarian.  But even then, if the person didn't speak or write Slovak,
and there is no record that he considered himself as such, can he still
be made into a Slovak by historians?

A case in point is -- who I understand is your national hero -- Mate(j?)
Cak.  In Hungarian history he is known as Csak Mate' and as far as I
understand his ancestors can be traced back directly to the original
Hungarian conquerors of the Carpathian basin.  So, what is the basis for
him being declared now a Slovak national hero?  Just because he ran his
own little renegade "kingdom" opposing the central authority of the
Hungarian king?  Since he was not a positive figure in Hungarian
history, you can have him, but I've been always curious about this.

Well, that's about it for now.

Regards,
Joe Pannon