Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 16th, 2018, 02:49 AM   #81
Citizen
 
Joined: Jul 2014
From: Slovakia
Posts: 26

Quote:
Originally Posted by janossyjanos View Post
Wrong. There were no such decree or law which prohibited Slovak minority Grammar schools. Only the racist Matica Slovenska organization (which ran the Grammar schools) was banned. No other cultural organization were banned during the A-H-era. Because Germans Serbs Romanians were enough celever not to spread anti-Hungarian hate propganda and don't spread regular hate speech for students. But Matica Slovenska did not stop in hate speeches, they also printed their hate-speeches in schoolbooks, the books were collected and they were provided to the legal court. These books were the main cause of the sentence. Why did not you established other cultural organization and Grammar Schools, after your "cultural" organization was discredited with hate speech and racist agitation?

Hungarian language was not the only official language language in Kingdom of Hungary. In the countries of Western Europen powers there were only 1 official and educational language.

Lex Apponyi prescribed 2 hour Hungarian lessons in a typical 6 day school week.(That time students went to school even on Saturday too) However, it was not executed, because there were not enough teacher who could speak Hungarian in minority areas.
There were not violent Hungarianization. Do you think about the Černová massacre? "The 15 people were shot" by the order of the local Slovak origin Policestaff sergeant (Born as Ján Ladický) and local born Slovak policemen, when they were attacked by aggressive American-Slovak mob. They followed the strict police regulations. There were much more serious Police attacks against Hungarians in Budapest and the countryside, but according to your logic, the police was also anti-Hungarian because they killed Hungarians (worker protests) The contemporary Western Europe was also full with police attacks which resulted in tragedy.

"people were not allowed to be elected in votes" Than who elected the members of the parliament? How is it possible that ethnic nationalities had own parliamentary parties / fractions? In the Western World it was unimaginable.

"people could not work in offices if they did not speak magyar language" Like in all other Contemporary European countries, but there were a big difference: Hungarian laws forced the officials to know the language of local residents. (Because 80% of the minorities could not speak Hungarian.)
It was also unimaginable in the Western World, that overwhelming majority of the minorities could not speak the language of the majority at least on basic level.

I think the Slovak public opinion was deeply influenced by Czechoslovak propaganda, when the Czechoslovak leaders tried to explain that Why was so good to establish Czechoslovakia. Many generations of children were brainwashed in the Czechoslovak schools, which history teaching and history textbooks operated with enemy images and imagined enemies to create an artificial bond and cohesion in the young state. That is a so-called negative identity, which based on hatred.
Calling Matica Slovenska racist and political organization is ...I dunno. Do not even have words for that. No other cultural institutions were allowed to be created by officials!

So Lex Apponyi was not effort in order to magyarize minorities because there was not enough people to push it to practise? Excellent logic.

It does not matter who was police officer in Černová massacre. If you wanted to stay officer, you would do as it was expected from officials otherwise you would be fired from that position. It was question of living not ethnical question.The main point of Černová massacre is its cause. People of village made collection in order to build their own church. Once the church was built, they want their own cleric (who was local citizen, he was born there) to conduct sanctification fo church. Authorities did not allow him to sanctificate church.(argued he is revolting against hungarian nation) When other clerics came, people did not let them enter church. Police intervened and its result is 15 dead, 10 heavy and 60 lightly wounded. Many sentenced to prison. By what right did they intervene? It was eccelsiastical matter. Church was built by local peasants, it was their won church. It is ridiculous blaming peasants of some attack. Its like calling police because people did not let you inside their own homes.

Elections were public, as it was in town of Giraltovce for example. People had to speak out loud name of candidate. In case of Slovak candidates, it was often ridiculed, harrased, in many cases outright rewritten despite protest of local population. If Slovak candidate was leading in election, police came in and destroyed election books. Votes were repeated in 14 days as it was in case of Julius Markovič. If someone was agitating for slovak candidates, they ended up before trial and eventually condemned. In 1906, during election in town of Giraltovce, slovak candidate was shortly before elections banished from Šariš county for 10 years in order to make it impossible for him to candidate. There is hundreeds similar cases. Result of this oppression was that out of more than 400 members of parliament, only 7! members were of Slovak nationality in 1906. In 1910 only 3! members of parlaiment were of Slovak nationality. And you dare to talk about national politics and parties.

By the way, what language of majority you speak of? Magyars were never (before magyarization) majority in Hungary. They were most populous, cuz slavic people were divided into smaller nations, but there was only 38% of magyars in Hungary in 1851 or so. For hundreeds of year, latin was official language (partially german), suddenly in 19th century, magyar language had to become lingua franca.

Ok this is last reply from me in this "discussion" because I am getting angry over this denial.
Hungarian and Magyar are two different things and Magyars could not understand that.
Every single citizen of hungary considered himself as Hungarian and Hungary as its homeland - patria. And so Slovaks (even national leaders) considered themselves to be Hungarians, Magyars considered themselves to be Hungarians as well as any member of other ethnic groups in Hungary. That is because it was supranational identity - Hungarian identity.
There was also national identity as well. Slovak national identity, Magyar national identity, Croatian, Serbian etc.
Problem was that Magyars equated hungarian with magyar which was never true. Whoever refused to be Magyar was seen as enemy of state, persecuted as panslavist. Eventually they tried to create one nation, one language and one country.
That is also reason why Slovaks as well as other non-magyar nations from former Hungary have two different terms, one for Magyars as nation and one for Hungary as kingdom. Hence we have Maďari as nation and Uhorsko as a country.(before1918) Magyarország does not equal Hungary (Hungarian kingdom).
Falat is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 16th, 2018, 11:31 AM   #82
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Győr
Posts: 472

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falat View Post
Calling Matica Slovenska racist and political organization is ...I dunno. Do not even have words for that.
Just because Matica Slovenska became "sacro-saint" in modern Slovak interpretation, it doesn't mean that it didn't use racial incitements for children during lessons and (it was a very silly step) even in their textbooks. That's what court record shows about their books too. Serbian, Romanian Croatian German cultural and educational institutions ( andgrammar schools) had not such problems like Matica Slovenska. What do you think, WHY? Because they did not printed books with racial incitements? Racial increments are very dangerous thing in a multi-ethnic society, no wonder that the laws were strict about any type of racial increments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falat View Post
No other cultural institutions were allowed to be created by officials!
Leaders of Matica Slovenska were sentenced because of racial increments, so their members appeared on criminal records, they were disqualified from their profession. Even today, the career of those who commit racial increment broke in most countries.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Falat View Post
So Lex Apponyi was not effort in order to magyarize minorities because there was not enough people to push it to practise? Excellent logic.
Crystal clear and excellent logic, as you said. If I have had wings, I would like to fly...but humans hadn't wings, therefore they are unable to fly. The Lex Apponyi did not meet with the reality, so it became an empty impotent law. It is so simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falat View Post
It does not matter who was police officer in Černová massacre. If you wanted to stay officer, you would do as it was expected from officials otherwise you would be fired from that position.
Wrong. The decision of the local officer was determinant. That time The mobil phones and CB radio did not exist, so they couldn' call any higher officer to ask what to do. The officer and the policemen were LOCAL Slovaks.
The angry mob started to throw stones, and one of the protester touched the rifle of a policemen, it was more than enough to open fire according to the contemporary police service regulations. The tragic clashes in the contemporary Western Europe and USA (like workers protests) often ended with such police shots. Similar to the Western European and American contemporary trends , the Hungarian police and gendarme made many much bigger massacres in Budapest and some larger Hungarian cities against Hungarians. But according to your weird logic, Hungarians hated the Hungarian, because Hungarian police shot Hungarian worker protest or protesting striking social democrat (or communist) mobs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falat View Post
It was question of living not ethnical question.The main point of Černová massacre is its cause. People of village made collection in order to build their own church. Once the church was built, they want their own cleric (who was local citizen, he was born there) to conduct sanctification fo church. Authorities did not allow him to sanctificate church.
Not the state Authorities, but the Catholic Church. That time, the Catholic Church and the Papacy recognized only 1 Church language in a country. Blame also the Policy of the contemporary Vatican for that, which made it impossible. There were many Slovak language Evangelic and protestant churches, where the Catholic clergy and the Papacy had no influence. To increase the controversy of the situation: Ironically, the Cardinal of the Hungarian Church was an ethnic Slovak that time (Born as: Ján Černoch) Isn't it strange?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falat View Post
(argued he is revolting against hungarian nation) When other clerics came, people did not let them enter church. By what right did they intervene? It was eccelsiastical matter. Church was built by local peasants, it was their won church. It is ridiculous blaming peasants of some attack. Its like calling police because people did not let you inside their own homes.
The clergymen of the Catholic churches were not elected by locals, but they were appointed by the bishops. You confused it with Protestant Churches, where people decide who will be their clergyman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falat View Post
Police intervened and its result is 15 dead, 10 heavy and 60 lightly wounded. Many sentenced to prison.
So Hungarian Police regulation were not different from the contemporary Western police regulations, which resulted in shots if they find any physical resistance. It is a sad story, but it was not very different from the behavior of the Western police forces. As I said: Were the Police shots to Hungarian worker class different? Not at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falat View Post
Elections were public, as it was in town of Giraltovce for example. People had to speak out loud name of candidate.
Yes, secret ballots existed in big cities only. In most American states and Western European countries the secret ballot system was not generally introduced that time. Next time learn more deeply about legal history, and historic electorial laws of various pre-WW1 era Western European and American states.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falat View Post
In case of Slovak candidates, it was often ridiculed, harrased, in many cases outright rewritten despite protest of local population. If Slovak candidate was leading in election, police came in and destroyed election books. Votes were repeated in 14 days as it was in case of Julius Markovič. If someone was agitating for slovak candidates, they ended up before trial and eventually condemned. In 1906, during election in town of Giraltovce, slovak candidate was shortly before elections banished from Šariš county for 10 years in order to make it impossible for him to candidate. There is hundreeds similar cases. Result of this oppression was that out of more than 400 members of parliament, only 7! members were of Slovak nationality in 1906. In 1910 only 3! members of parlaiment were of Slovak nationality. And you dare to talk about national politics and parties.

The number of ethnic Slovaks from Slovak majority territories were vared around 30-50 members, most of them were members of Hungarian parties.
The Slovak SNS party was not so popular among majority of Slovaks.

Read about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovak...ty_(historical)


Unlike in Hungarian elections, the participation of ethnic minority parties were impossible in the Western World. So it was an unique in the pre WW1 era.


Do you speak about the 1903 elections in Nitra? It was won by František Janits, a Slovak from Nyitra. A Slovak candidate outsmarted the other Slovaks Julius Markovič.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Falat View Post
By the way, what language of majority you speak of? Magyars were never (before magyarization) majority in Hungary. They were most populous, cuz slavic people were divided into smaller nations, but there was only 38% of magyars in Hungary in 1851 or so. For hundreeds of year, latin was official language (partially german), suddenly in 19th century, magyar language had to become lingua franca.
Wrong. Slovaks became majority in Upper Hungary only after the Ottoman war, because the Ottoman army appeared only in lowlands and valleys, their campaigns (and genocides and thrall-collects) concentrated there. Slovaks were mostly mountain shepherds and wood-cutters of mountainous areas, so they avoided the Ottoman attacks with great chance. 80% of present-day Hungarian territories were depopulated during the Ottoman wars, and present-day Transdanubia and Duna-Tisza valley were re-populated from Upper-Hungary, and Trans Tisza territory was mostly repopulated from Transylvania. It is well documented.

Before the Ottoman wars, In 1495 tax register, 80-85% of the population of Kingdom of Hungary was Hungarian, if we include Kingdom of Croatia , the ratio fall only 70%.

In Upper Hungary , the 1495 data shows 40% Hungarian names, 17% German names, the rest of the population (45%) is Slovak Rusyn and Polish (The last two had much greater number in medieval era Upper Hungary before they became Slovaks)
Slovak is a very young ethnic group, it appeared only in the 15th century (without own ethnonym we can not speak about ethnic group) It is mixture of many former ethnic group, it was emerged as a heavy mixture of local Slavs, Hungarians Germans Hussite Czechs, Poles and Rusyns in the 15th century. Even the Slovak language was unified only in the 19th century, and the unifies Slovak language was compulsory taught in Czechoslovak school system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falat View Post

Ok this is last reply from me in this "discussion" because I am getting angry over this denial.
Hungarian and Magyar are two different things and Magyars could not understand that. Every single citizen of hungary considered himself as Hungarian and Hungary as its homeland - patria. And so Slovaks (even national leaders) considered themselves to be Hungarians, Magyars considered themselves to be Hungarians as well as any member of other ethnic groups in Hungary. That is because it was supranational identity - Hungarian identity.
Of course we could not understand it, because these illogical phrases were invented by you in the 20th century. Hungarian is an endonym is Magyar, our exonym is Hungarian. Like endonym Deutsch, the exonym is German. IT is the same. Read about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Hungary

Are Deutsch people different form German people? Not.

MAybe you confused the Hungarian ethnic identity with nobility identity: Natio Hungarica.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Falat View Post
There was also national identity as well. Slovak national identity, Magyar national identity, Croatian, Serbian etc.
Problem was that Magyars equated hungarian with magyar which was never true. Whoever refused to be Magyar was seen as enemy of state, persecuted as panslavist. Eventually they tried to create one nation, one language and one country.
IT is funny to hear it from Slovakia, because Slovakia is the only Central European country, where the UN observers, American and Western European social scientists describe as a so-called "ethnic democracy". More than 4500 results on Google books from UN reports and researches from Western European and American universities about the Slovak society and politics regarding to their ethnic democracy:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22e...=1920&bih=1012

Hungary can be called as illiberal democracy (since Orban hold the power) but never ethnic democracy.
Being an ethnic democracy is a shame in the 21th century.

Last edited by janossyjanos; June 16th, 2018 at 12:17 PM.
janossyjanos is offline  
Old June 16th, 2018, 12:16 PM   #83
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Győr
Posts: 472

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shtajerc View Post
I don't quite agree with that. The biggest magyarisation occured when they settled in Panonia. Sure it was nothing like later planned magyarisation, but they assimilated the Carantanians and other Slavs in Lower Panonia and elsewhere very effectively as they aren't around anymore (except for small remnants like the Hungarian Slovenes and others).
Funny terms in medieval era: magyarization. There were no any -zations in medieval Europe, because even the nationalism did not exist, and there were no such political efforts. You confuse it with natural assimilation. How many natives dissapeared, before slavic minority ancestors of Slovenians arrived to the territory of Slovenia? Can we call it Slovenianization in medieval era? Can you see how ridiculous can this be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shtajerc View Post
In the 19th century they pressured everyone except for the Croats.
After ww1 they weren't exactly generous to the remaining minorities either, I think.
Fairly tales. The Hungarians became majority with Jewish assimilation, and the Creation of Budapest, a large multi-ethnic city + many minorities migrated to the USA for better living standards. The territorial distribution of the ethnic map did not really changed since the end of Ottoman wars.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Shtajerc View Post
During ww2 even less. Perhaps they often weren't as cruel as the Germans or even Italians, but (I'm using Slovenes as an example because I know this part od history best) while the Liberation Front organized armed resistance in all Slovene regions, be it those that were under Italy and Austria since 1920 or those or those parted between Germany and Italy in 1940. Only in Prekmurje, which was occupied by Hungary, there was basically no resistance.

I'm glad that today they don't preassure minorities anymore. Our two countries actually have very good relations in this matter since we both have each other's ethnic minority (although they're both declining due to fewer and fewer young people and the older generations dying off).
Polish people were not much more numerous than ethnic Hungarians in the WW1 era, and their average population growth was nearly the same as the European average, while Hungarian birth rates became slower due to Trianon and its effect, the Slovakization Romanianization Yugoslavization. Now Poland have 40 million population (with average European population growth), what a huge difference within 100 years.

Of course, you consider the unbelievable fast and drastic 20th century shrinking of Hungarians in the area good, (because we are not "Slavic race brothers") and the increase of others are "good".

Next time I hope you won't have so strong and obvious double standards towards Hungarians.
janossyjanos is offline  
Old June 16th, 2018, 12:48 PM   #84
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: May 2018
From: Poland
Posts: 233

Quote:
Originally Posted by janossyjanos View Post
Polish people were not much more numerous than ethnic Hungarians in the WW1 era
I think you vastly miscalculated. There were at least 20 million Polish people in year 1900, including 2 million Polish-Americans.

I'm sure ethnic Hungarians were not even half of that number. How numerous were they?
Lech Wielkopolski is offline  
Old June 16th, 2018, 01:02 PM   #85

Shtajerc's Avatar
last real Windischer
 
Joined: Jul 2014
From: Lower Styria, Slovenia
Posts: 5,833

Quote:
Originally Posted by janossyjanos View Post
Funny terms in medieval era: magyarization. There were no any -zations in medieval Europe, because even the nationalism did not exist, and there were no such political efforts. You confuse it with natural assimilation. How many natives dissapeared, before slavic minority ancestors of Slovenians arrived to the territory of Slovenia? Can we call it Slovenianization in medieval era? Can you see how ridiculous can this be?



Fairly tales. The Hungarians became majority with Jewish assimilation, and the Creation of Budapest, a large multi-ethnic city + many minorities migrated to the USA for better living standards. The territorial distribution of the ethnic map did not really changed since the end of Ottoman wars.




Polish people were not much more numerous than ethnic Hungarians in the WW1 era, and their average population growth was nearly the same as the European average, while Hungarian birth rates became slower due to Trianon and its effect, the Slovakization Romanianization Yugoslavization. Now Poland have 40 million population (with average European population growth), what a huge difference within 100 years.

Of course, you consider the unbelievable fast and drastic 20th century shrinking of Hungarians in the area good, (because we are not "Slavic race brothers") and the increase of others are "good".

Next time I hope you won't have so strong and obvious double standards towards Hungarians.
Come on, what double standards? Don't pretend like there was no Magyarization at any point in history whatsoever, you aren't saints. The members of every nation (mine is no exception) have at some time some sort of opression or assimilation to another group and so have the Hungarians. I'm not saying the Hungarians of today are therefor bad or that all Hungarians in history were bad people. I don't look at history and people as good or evil. What happened happened and if pointing that out is double standards to you, then in your place I'd think about being blinded by your bias. Having an objective distance on a subject can be difficult when your own nation is involved. I'm not trying to paint the Hungarians as devils of any sort but if anything but praise and glorifying is received like this, well ... thank you very much.
Shtajerc is offline  
Old June 16th, 2018, 01:17 PM   #86

deaf tuner's Avatar
hier is da feestje !!!
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: Europe
Posts: 11,845
Blog Entries: 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by janossyjanos View Post
...
Polish people were not much more numerous than ethnic Hungarians in the WW1 era, and their average population growth was nearly the same as the European average, while Hungarian birth rates became slower due to Trianon and its effect, the Slovakization Romanianization Yugoslavization....

I would like to know what they put into that Trianon that diminished Hungarian birth rate ...

Anyway, if we agree with You that Hungarian birth rate was smaller than other's, it's a bit difficult to talk about "Romanianization" "Yugoslavization" (now, what's Yugoslavitation ... never heard about that language or ethnicity ... nevermind):

Evolution of Hungarian minority in Serbia:

1921 365,982 6.46%
1931 413,000 7.27%
1948 433,701 6.64%
1953 441,907 6.33%
1961 449,587 5.88%
1971 430,314 5.09%
1981 390,468 4.19%
1991 343,942 4.24%
2002 293,299 3.91%
2011 253,899 3.53%
(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians_in_Serbia)


Evolution of Hungarian minority in Romania:

1930 1 425 507 - 7,9 %
1948 1 499 851 - 9,4 %
1956 1 587 675 - 9,1 %
1966 1 619 592 - 8,5 %
1977 1 713 928 - 7,9 %
1992 1 624 959 - 7,1 %
2002 1 431 807 - 6,6 %
2011 1 227 623 - 6,5 %
(source: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hongrois_de_Roumanie)
deaf tuner is offline  
Old June 16th, 2018, 01:18 PM   #87
Historian
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Western Eurasia
Posts: 3,532

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lech Wielkopolski View Post
I think you vastly miscalculated. There were at least 20 million Polish people in year 1900, including 2 million Polish-Americans.

I'm sure ethnic Hungarians were not even half of that number. How numerous were they?

from the summary of the 1900 Hungarian census' results
https://library.hungaricana.hu/hu/vi...pg=93&layout=s


Click the image to open in full size.

Anyanyelv=Mother tongue
Magyar=Hungarian
Német=German
Tót=Slovak
Oláh=Romanian
Ruthén=Ruthenian/Rusyn
Horvát=Croatian
Szerb=Serbian
Egyéb és ismeretlen=Other and unknown
Összesen=Total

Magyarország=Hungary (the historical borders as of 1900, not the present one)
Horvát-Szlavonországok=Croatia-Slavonia
Magyarbirodalom="Hungarian Empire", that is Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia combined
Abszolut számokban (in absolute numbers)
%-ok=percentages

Now i'm not sure about the current total number of people with Hungarian mother tongue within the Carpathian basin (the comparable area of the 1900 census), lazy to check up all the different census datas but it is i think around 13 million.
Tulun is offline  
Old June 16th, 2018, 01:19 PM   #88
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: May 2018
From: Poland
Posts: 233

Number of ethnic Poles in year 1900:

1. Russian Empire: ca. 9.9 million

Within present-day Poland: 7.4 million
In the rest of the Empire: 2.5 million

2. German Empire: ca. 4.0 million

Within present-day Poland: 3.6 million
Diaspora in West Germany: 0.4 million

3. Austro-Hungarian Empire: ca. 3.8 million

Within present-day Poland: 2.8 million
In the rest of the Empire: 1.0 million

4. The United States: ca. 1.9 million
5. South America: ca. 0.1 million
6. Rest of the world: at least 0.3 million

TOTAL: at least 20 million ethnic Poles in 1900.

Including ca. 14 million in present-day Poland.

Last edited by Lech Wielkopolski; June 16th, 2018 at 01:29 PM.
Lech Wielkopolski is offline  
Old June 16th, 2018, 01:29 PM   #89
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Győr
Posts: 472

Quote:
Originally Posted by decebalus View Post
Well, even though the Hungarians controlled this territories for 1000 years, there haven't been put too much effort into the assimilation/magyarization process up until the 19th century. This idea appeared during the Age of Enlightment and as a result in many regions of the continent have been made efforts to impose cultural and linguistic homogeneousness.

I will try to present as best I can the history and evolution of the magyarization atempts and I will use Transylvania as case study:
And I will fix your text, and correct it with much more details.
Quote:
Originally Posted by decebalus View Post
1291-1366 in this period the organisational system in Transylvania was based on 4 privileged estates (Universitas in Latin) determined by ethnic criteria:noblemen(mostly hungarian ethnic), Saxons, Szeklers and Romanian which participated together in Transylvanian assemblies. They all benefited from autonomy and were judged by their own laws.
Wrong. You interpret the medieval situation in the modern-day ethnic nation criteria of national awakening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unio_Trium_Nationum

Unio Trium Nationum (Latin for "Union of the Three Nations") was a pact of mutual aid codified in 1438 by three Estates of Transylvania: the (largely Hungarian) nobility, the Saxon (German) patrician class, and the free military Székelys.[1] The union was directed against the whole peasantry - regardless of ethnicity - as a reaction to the Transylvanian peasant revolt.[1] In this feudal estate parliament, the peasants (let they be Hungarian, Saxon, Székely or Romanian origin) were not represented and did not benefit from their acts, because the peasantry, the commoners simply did not belong to these feudal "nations".[2]


Click the image to open in full size.
-oldest attested document mentioning Romanian attendance at Transylvanian assemblies

Quote:
Originally Posted by decebalus View Post
In 1366 the Decree of Turda linked the nobility to the Roman Catholic faith bringing an end to "schismatics" privileges, basically all ethnic Romanians. Many Romanian nobleman converted to Catholicism and magyarized their names so they could keep their status.
Hungarians allowed the existence of Orthodoxy, despite Orthdoxy was considered as "national security risk" by the the kings. In other countries, which were close to the Orthodox people, (like Poles before their religious freedom act) it was not allowed in such degree.


Quote:
Originally Posted by decebalus View Post
Click the image to open in full size.
-son of a wallachian nobleman John Hunyadi managed to reach the zenith of Transylvanian aristocracy.


-1437- the joint Hungarian-Romanian peasants revolt marked the beginning of Romanians persecution as they were denied owning urban property, being segregated to villages and condemned to peasantry and being serfs, and the right to equal justice.
The situation was much better than in Wallachia and Moldova, where the Peasants had semi-villain semi- antique (Greco-Roman era) thrall status. In Wallachia and Moldavia every kenez nobleman had right to sentence to death their peasants (it is a very brutal and dangerous right in the hands odf so many people), while in Hungary only Voivodes and bans (roughly viceroys) had such right (in Hungarian Pallósjog) mostly in wartime. In Hungary there were two levels of legal courts for peasants, and in important events (even a dispute between a peasant and noblemen) the legal courts made the decisions with Ius appellate. In Hungary the maximum taxes were described by laws, unlike in medieval wallachia and Moldavia, where the kenéz nobleman determined the tax ratio himself. (It is also made the life of the romanian shepherds and peasants miserable in Wallachia and Moldavia.

No wonder that many Wallachians migrated to Transylvania, to improve their social status and lifestyle.

Romania was one of the last country which abolished the serfdom of peasantry in Europe. (it was not possible earlier, because of the resistance of Romanian Kenez nobility)

Quote:
Originally Posted by decebalus View Post
Click the image to open in full size.
-they were also denied building stone churches.
MEdieval stone Orthodox churches in Transylvania, stone churches were very expensive thing for the non-greek origin Orthodox European people.
Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.
Click the image to open in full size.


In your dreams. Unlike the Western civilization (Catholic protestant countries) the Orthodox European countries were simply not on that socio economical level to build stone and brick churches in villages and small towns. That's why you can see so few medieval stone and brick churches in orthodox countries, most of stone churches related to large cities or very rare and very important religious centers. (the only exception were the Greeks who had uncountable stone/brick structures since byzantine era) The overwhelming majority of the Orthodox churches were wooden churches. It had economic reasons, and they had very few people who know about masonic technology, but they could built wooden churches which were cheaper and many common people could understand how to build them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by decebalus View Post
-1784- a Romanian revolt emerged in the Apuseni Mountains in the former county of John Hunyadi demanding equal rights for Romanians and an end to serfdom.The revolt was crushed in 1785 and the leaders publicly executed.

Do you think about the shameful revolt of Revolt of Horea, Cloșca and Crișan, which ended up in masscares, where they killed 4000 Hungarian commoners?
The saddest chapters of the revolution were the massacres of the people of Nagy- enyed, Arudbanya, Verespatak and Gyulafehervar.
https://books.google.com/books?id=L_...W4BFMQ6AEIKDAA

It was caused by Empress Maria Theresa. Maria Theresa decreased the taxes of the peasantry in some territory, but it was introduced only in the small Transdanubian part of Kingdom of Hungary. that caused killer-jealousy in Romanian peasants. Interestingly it did not caused jealousy for the most of the Hungarians who did not lived in the small Transdanubian part of Hungary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by decebalus View Post
-1791-1792-Two petitions called Supplex Libellus Valachorum Transsilvaniae were written and sent to the Imperial Court of Leopold the II by the most influential Romanians from Transylvania adherents to the Greek Catholic Church. This petitions were influenced by the French Revolution and demanding equal rights for Romanians in Transylvania and proportional representation in the local governing body the Transylvanian Diet. Both petitions were rejected.
This petitions were not universal, they demanded brutal nobility-like privileges (like total tax exemption) only for their Romanian peasants. If it had fulfilled , than the only taxpayers and serfs would be the Hungarian and Saxon peasants in Transylvania. It shows well the chauvinistic way of thinking of the Romanian intelligentsia.

For a comparison: Hungarian Jacobin societies wanted universal freedom for every inhabitant of the kingdom, regardless ethnicity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ign%C3%A1c_Martinovics

What a huge difference!

Quote:
Originally Posted by decebalus View Post
-1848-1849-The Romanian Diet at Blaj denounced the union with Hungary and called for proportional representation of Romanians in the Transylvanian Diet and an end to social and ethnic oppression.
The end of oppression was to join the liberal revolutionary Hungary of 1848-1849, which introduced the first British-type democratic suffrage in the Whole Central and Eastern European region. That's why liberal and progressive forces of the transylvanian Diet joined to Hungary. After the russian-Austrian forces crushed the Hungarian liberal revolution, the political rights and the civic rights and democratic elections were also collapsed under the Habsburg neo-absolutism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by decebalus View Post
The Romanians led by Avram Iancu fought alongside Imperial forces and as a result they were acknowledged in the new organization of Transylvania and the former serfs received small plots of land.
Habsburgs were generally considered the enemy of liberalism and democracy, in the whole free and democratic world, like the USA Britain and France. So Avran Iancu joined to the absolutist tyrans of the era: The russian Czar and neo-absolutist Franz Joseph.... That's about the democratic values, he made alliance with the ancien regime )))
[/QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by decebalus View Post
-1867-this year marked both the Ausgleich and the beginning of the 51 years of intensive linguistic and cultural assimilation of minorities, the The Hungarian Nationalities Law acknowledge only one nation, Hungarian. Minorities languages disappeared from education, administration, judicial system and basically everywhere outside of the lower marginalized classes. In the years to follow places names were magyarized and also there was a push for surname magyarization culminated with the apparition of the Central Society for Name Magyarization.
Yes, the Hungarian was a political nation, it is based on Western liberal civic nationalism, like in France and United Kingdom, where the only nation were built up from simple citizens / citoyens. However, Hungary provided minority rights, which did not exist in Western European powers.
I rest my case here [/QUOTE]

Just look the contemporary pre WW1-era Europe:
Magyarization was not so harsh as the contemporary western European situation, because the minorities were defended by minority rights and laws. Contemporary Western European legal systems did not know the minority rights, therefore they covered up their minorities.Just a short comparison between Hungary and pre-WW1 Western European states: 1.Were there state sponsored minority schools in Western European countries? NO. 2. How many official languages existed in Western-European states? Only 1 official language! 3. Could minorities use their languages in the offices of public administration in self-governments , in tribunals in Western Europe?No, they couldn't. 4. Did the minorities have own fractions and political parties in the western European parliaments ? No, no they hadn't. 5. What about newspapers of ethnic minorities in Western Europe? They did not exist in the West.... We can continue these things to the infinity.

Last edited by janossyjanos; June 16th, 2018 at 02:08 PM.
janossyjanos is offline  
Old June 16th, 2018, 01:30 PM   #90
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: May 2018
From: Poland
Posts: 233

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulun View Post
from the summary of the 1900 Hungarian census' results
https://library.hungaricana.hu/hu/vi...pg=93&layout=s


Click the image to open in full size.

Anyanyelv=Mother tongue
Magyar=Hungarian
Német=German
Tót=Slovak
Oláh=Romanian
Ruthén=Ruthenian/Rusyn
Horvát=Croatian
Szerb=Serbian
Egyéb és ismeretlen=Other and unknown
Összesen=Total

Magyarország=Hungary (the historical borders as of 1900, not the present one)
Horvát-Szlavonországok=Croatia-Slavonia
Magyarbirodalom="Hungarian Empire", that is Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia combined
Abszolut számokban (in absolute numbers)
%-ok=percentages

Now i'm not sure about the current total number of people with Hungarian mother tongue within the Carpathian basin (the comparable area of the 1900 census), lazy to check up all the different census datas but it is i think around 13 million.
Thanks. So Hungarians were 13 million in 1900?

This means that Poles were still much more numerous, even when you exclude Diaspora and include only Poland and its vicinity (former Kresy etc.).

Today Poles including Diaspora around the whole world are estimated as up to 60 million, including 10 million Polish-Americans:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._ethnic_groups

But in the 1980 census only 1/3 of Polish-Americans declared fully Polish ancestry, and 2/3 declared Polish mixed with other.

Canada also has a numerous Polish community:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish...and_Canada.png

Click the image to open in full size.

Last edited by Lech Wielkopolski; June 16th, 2018 at 01:35 PM.
Lech Wielkopolski is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
fail, hungary, magyarize, nonhungarian, territories



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cut-off territories EmperorTigerstar European History 5 July 8th, 2015 10:41 AM
Lincoln and the Territories diddyriddick American History 12 February 5th, 2012 07:42 AM
Are these reservation territories? DeliciousTomatoesYay American History 3 September 23rd, 2011 05:54 PM
Expansion of slavery to the territories. Mike McClure American History 21 January 10th, 2011 07:09 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.