During the discussion of race, ethnicity, mixed marriages, purity of race,
ethnic group, and so on and so forth, the words "race" and "ethnicity" were
used practically interchangeably. Race, as we know very well and dictionaries
attest to that fact, is often used rather sloppily, but to my mind one of the
many dictionary definitions, "a division of mankind possessing traits that
are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct
human type" is the only legitimate one. Modern usage adheres to this
definition. Every European nation is ethnically mixed, some more than others.
This mixture of ethnic groups will accelerate, in my opinion, in the future.
Interracial mixing until now has not been the rule in Europe, which is still
racially quite homogenous. My feeling is that this will also change in the
future with the influx of Blacks and Asians into England and the Continent.

Paul Gelencse1r is wrong when he thinks that one cannot convert to Judaism.
One certainly can. And indeed, a lot of Jews marry non-Jews here as well as
in Hungary. Jewish religious authorities don't look upon these mixed
marriages with favor. As far as I know rabbis (including Reform rabbis)
refuse to officiate mixed marriages unless the non-Jewish person converts. At
least friends of mine's son had to have a civil ceremony for that reason. Of
course, mixed marriages between Jews and Gentiles have been common for
centuries, but the religious law forbidding mixed marriages certainly helped
to save the Jewish people as a distinct group. Without it, I am sure they
would have disappeared from the face of the earth, like so many other people,
from Visigoths to the Huns and the Cumans.

I am not at all sure why Paul Gelencse1r finds uniculturalism a bad thing. I
think that the blurring of nations and nationalities and the formation of a
more pronounced European type would be a blessing for the Continent. Until
recently the United States was boasting that it was basically a melting pot
where the second- or third-generation immigrant was as American as the apple
pie. Some people may have regretted the loss of Polish, Hungarian, Italian,
whatever, culture but in the long run it created a fairly homogenous,
English-speaking population. As we know lately multiculturalism is in
fashion. Whether it is a good idea or not is certainly debatable. Eva Balogh

To the HUNGARY forum.

I teach English in a Hungarian town in southern Slovakia.  This
month I have been in New York State and am making preparations to
return.  Two years ago, I was involved in this discussion group,
while in America, but have drifted away.

On Saturday morning, August 20, I will arrive in Budapest on MALEV
airlines spending the day in town.  Could anyone in Budapest help me
while there get around and provide a secure place for my luggage.  I
do speak some Hungarian.

That afternoon I will take the train from Keleti pulyaudvar to
Satoraljauaujhely, but will have eight hours wait in Budapest for it.
If anyone can help me either showing me the town or providing me some
conversation, please e-mail me directly at >.  I
unfortunately do not follow this discussion group anymore since I'm
not in the U.S. often.

> ========================================================================
Richard Budd            | Richard Budd            | 
139 South Hamilton Str. | Kossutha 81             | +1 914 454 5803
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601  | 07701 Kral'ovsky Chlmec | +42 949 22607
USA                     | SLOVAKIA                |
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coordinates:   LAT 41d 41m 30s N  LONG 73d 56m 00s W  | Specialty: LANs
Node Location: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, New York | and Networking
> ========================================================================

Chilik,  I have to be at a dissertation defense in a few minutes.  I
shall be at ICAD in early- to mid-afternoon (2 or 2:30 probably).
Thanks,  Larry O'T

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurence J. O'Toole, Professor, Department of Political Science
Baldwin Hall, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA  30602  USA
Internet:       Bitnet: 
Phone: 1 706 542-2057                  Fax: 1 706 542-4421

Media watch

I have several interesting bits and pieces from *168 ora* which might help to
evaluate the state of certain segments of the Hungarian media. Here is the
first one.

Adam Sztankay published a piece of investigative journalism in *168 ora* the
title of which was "The Technomark Scandal" (July 26, 1994, pp. 6-9). It
covers the case of a certain Tibor To1th, founder of Technomark, who,
according to the journalist, established a company which enjoyed tax exempt
status for five years. Meanwhile, for reasons which are not clear, the
company's transactions were all fictitious but still he is charged with tax
fraud. (It does not make much sense to me personally how you would own taxes
on fictitious transanctions, but this is beside the point.) The journalist
claims that Tibor To1th had enjoyed the protection of "the highest circles,"
i.e., the Antall government.

For proof the following is offered. Ga1bor Boross, son of the then minister
of interior, was handling the administrative affairs of Technomark's
export-import transactions. Ga1bor Boross was questioned by the police but
the journalist admits that Pe1ter Boross's son involvement in the case is
"only an unfortunate coincidence," and in fact he had no knowledge of the
nature of these transactions. (The headline simply says, "Boross was
questioned as witness," without making clear that it was not the minister of
interior but his son.)

Another piece of evidence, a letter written to "Tibor from Ge1za," is offered
next, in facsimile form. "Ge1za" tells Tibor that if he needs more
information than offered in a study accompanying the letter, he will be in
his office until June 14, 1990 after which he will be on vacation. On the
basis of this letter, the journalist writes: "As Toth's business affairs
multiplied, so did his contacts. The `flirt' between Geza Jeszenszky and
Tibor To1th cannot be, as in the Boross case, a coincidence. The letter at
first glance sounds official but the good wishes, and the P.S. in which
Jeszenszky informs To1th of his vacation plans, show warm and friendly
relations. Did these two meet during the hot summer of 1990 during the
foreign minister's vacation? By the way, the letter is a cover letter to a
study in which the foreign minister explains to To1th how he could be
honorary consul, a position to which To1th very much coveted."

The third piece of evidence is a loan given by To1th to the Lakitelek
Foundation. According to the journalist, the loan was repaid by the
Foundation. Again, the journalist is unable to come up with proof that there
was any illegality committed or that there was any hanky-panky between Ferenc
Kulin and Tibor To1th.

The fourth piece of evidence is a letter from Istvan Balsai, minister of
justice. To1th's lawyer apparently wrote to Balsai, calling his attention to
"certain anomalies," concerning his client's case. Balsai's letter is simply
a polite answer to the lawyer's letter, expressing his hope that To1th's
disappointment in the Hungarian judicial system is not justified. The
journalist admits that "it is impossible to know whether Dr. Balsai assisted
To1th or not."

Well, all this is pretty flimsy but then came the bombshell in the next
issue, buried on p. 35 (*168 ora,* August 2, 1994) among the letters to the
editor. The famous letter "from Ge1za to Tibor," has absolutely nothing to do
with Ge1za Jeszenszky. Tibor To1th wrote a lengthy letter to the editor in
which, among other things, claimed that Ge1za was a very good friend of his
but that he personally never talked to the foreign minister or corresponded
with him. At this point *168 ora* felt compelled to check the handwriting of
this mysterious Ge1za. They got a document bearing Jeszenszky's signature and
the editorial board admited that "one didn't need to be a handwriting expert
to realize that the letter we had published in our last issue had not
originated from the ex-foreign minister."

I don't think that I have to add anything whatsoever to this one. Eva Balogh

In the July 26, 1994 issue of *168 ora* there was a photo montage on the
triumphant takeover of the newsroom at the Hungarian TV on July 21, at 4:20
p.m. The new crew, accompanied by a documentary film maker ready to
immortalize the moment, arrived at 9 a.m. and was waiting for the word which
would allow them to take over the newsroom and the evening news. The title of
the photo montage is "End Game and Prelude at the MTV." There are several
objectionable passages but which struck me most was this: "Liebmann Katalin,
akinek pofika1ja emblematikusan ke1pviselt egy leja1rt korszakot a
televi1zio-hi1rado1ban, elsza1ntan elindul, hogy elo3adja hattyu1dala1t."
("Katalin Liebmann, [the anchor woman], whose kisser emblematically
characterized an epoch which just came to an end, resolutely moves forward in
order to present her swan-song.") What made me stop especially was the word
"pofika" for which the best but not perfect English translation is "kisser."
"Kisser" can mean either mouth or face while "pofika" can only mean face.
Moreover, "pofika" can be used only when one is talking about either a child
or a young pretty woman. "Pofika" has the connotation of "cuteness" or
perhaps even a slight resonance of the English "dumb blond."

I raised my eyebrows. Is it acceptable to talk about women, professional
women, in such manner in Hungary? Doesn't anyone object. Or I am just too
sensitive to such name calling because I have lived through the feminine
consciousness raising of the 1970s. Well, the answer came in the next issue
in which Flo1ra Fencsik wrote an editorial entitled "Pofika." The answer is
that obviously Hungarian women are also unhappy about people talking about
their "kissers/pofika1k." Fencsik talks about journalists' practice of name
calling. A woman, who was working for the Hungarian Radio, was called a
"stupid goose" in print. A journalist in *Magyar Narancs* called a 56-er, a
right-wing member of parliament, former head of a workers council, "a poor
fool." And now "pofika." She asks journalists to mind their styles. Eva
Balogh

I would like to report on an interview with Gyula Horn which appeared in the
August 2, 1994 issue of *168 o1ra* (pp. 6-8). The interviewer is Eszter
Ra1dai. I have not read many interviews with Horn and therefore I am not
familiar with his normal style but I must say that the style he uses in this
interview is extremely self-confident, perhaps even arrogant. After a warm-up
session on his exercise regimen and how he is planning to read all the papers
himself instead of prepared synopses, we get into the meat of the interview.
The very first substantive question centers around the appointment of the
media chiefs.

Q: What most people criticize about the activities of this government, is
perhaps more than just a small mistake [baki]. There are some who accuse you
of dictatorial methods. All political analysts, independent intellectuals,
and the not outright right-wing papers, all agree that the activities of the
government cannot be said to be democratic. What kind of grade would you give
the government in the subject of democracy?

A: I don't pay attention to such things. You have to realize that the
elections ended on May 29 and a few days later we sent the coalition
proposals to the SZDSZ. Then we began the negotiatons about the coalition. I
spent 12-14 hours a day working. These were very difficult days, weeks. No
wonder that some mistakes were made but then one must ask for forgiveness and
must correct the problem. I asked for forgiveness and even now I don't want
to shirk from responsibility. But even today I think that the situation in
the media didn't allow postponment. So, when I put the proposals to the
president, I think even today, I did the right thing. . . . If one waited for
the results of meeting of the representatives of the six parties, we would
never have any results.

Q: The former coalition said the same thing. And the opposition, including
the Socialist Party, then loudly protested on every possible forum.

A: In June 1991 there was a six-party discussion on Andra1ssy Street at which
we suggested that the government should consult with the opposition on all
strategically important questions. Then, the powers to be then categorically
refused this suggestion. . . .

Q: Returning to the criticism of the coalition, here is, for example, the
question of the president of the National Bank [who has a six-year term and
refuses to step down while the government at the moment doesn't have the
power to remove him] . . . aren't you afraid that the coalition might build
up the stage set of democracy . . . while all decisions are arrived on the
basis of sheer power. In other words, one can talk, one can voice contrary
opinion, there are all sorts of guarantees of that but no one has the right
to say anything when it comes to decision. Because there is a majority . . .

A (interrupting): Seventy-two percent majority to be precise.

Q: Yes, but this majority does not represent 72 percent of the population.

A: I don't want to calculate what percentage the majority represents. The
fact is that the coalition has a 72 percent majority. . . . So, what is the
situation with the president of the National Bank? I am not at all interested
how, under what circumstances did A1kos Pe1ter Bod come to head the National
Bank. I am much more interested in the fact that some of the leaders of the
National Bank follow a certain economic policy which we don't agree with. . .

test

On Thu, 11 Aug 1994, Somosvari Bela wrote:

> test > TEST
TEST