Talk:Hungarians in Slovakia

This text is very biased by the magyar/hungarian point of view. The article is about "assimilation" of Hungarians by Slovaks, but only looks at the time between and after the WWs. On the other hand, Hungarians/Magyars tried to assimilate the Slovak (and other Slavic) nation since they came to Europe 1000 years ago. Before WW1, Slovaks were subject to magyarization - the process of converting Slovaks to Hungarians (often by violence). During WW2, Hungarians/Magyars occupied the southern parts of Slovakia and commited many crimes against Slovak people living there. After WW2, Czechoslovakia deported Magyars, who, in fact, were occupants of Slovakia/Czechoslovakia. It was a logical consequence of the occupation, but this article is written like the occupation never was.

The assimilation by Hungarians is treated on Magyarization. Nobody says that some Hungarians didn't commit any war crimes or didn't try to assimilate other peoples (you can't say actually that "Hungarians tried to assimilate the Slovak nation, that's reification, a fallacy). Furthermore, Hungarians are indigenous to (Southern) Slovakia, they have lived there since the Hungarian people moved to the Pannonian Basin in 896. And though I do not deny that the magyarization policies in the late 1800s were rather coercive, magyarization in the centuries before was merely voluntary, as the concept of nationalism was absent and language and religion were thus not seen in a nationalist context (language was only percieved as a means of communication, not as a means of national identification). If you really think that the deportation of Hungarians in Czechoslovakia afterw WWII was a good thing, it's time to put your blinders off. Maarten 14:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, my fault. "Magyars tired to assimilate the Slovak nation" -> "Magyar politics and aristocracy tried to erase the Slovak nation by assimilation". Is that OK for you? Magyarization before 1848 was not a problem. In fact, Slovaks tried to cooperate with Magyars, but were betrayed. Since then, Magyars (OK, OK, not all of them, just the important ones) systematically tried to damage the Slovak nation.

What I wanted to say is, that there were faults on both sides, but this article is written like "oh, the poor Magyars were hurt by the evil nationalistic Slovaks". The number of Slovaks oppressed by Magyars is much higher than the number of Magyars hurt/deported by (Czecho)Slovaks. But that is not important at this moment. All I want is unbiased information. This article is only one part of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.175.189.4 (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Magyar politics and aristocracy tried to erase the Slovak nation by assimilation" is also reification. Yes, there were faults on both sides, no one contends that, this is just not the article to describe magyarization. I also want unbiased information, and I provided some references to sustain some claims. Feel free to add some reliable sources to upgrade the quality of the article. Maarten (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Would "Magyar ruling authorities tried to ..." sound better to you? You are catching me by words, but I am sure, you know what I mean.

This is not the article to describe magyarization, but magyarization should be a subsection of this article, especially in the "Origins of the Hungarian minority in Czechoslovakia" section.

I am not a historian and I have no time for becoming one. Moreover, my english is not so good and if I would add parts of the article, you and other people would catch me by words and the real meaning would be lost. All I could do is starting this discussion and label the article as inaccurate.147.175.98.213 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not catching you by words, maybe you should read the reification article. Reification is when you represent an abstraction as a concrete, real event or physical entity. I'm not nitpicking but I am saying this to you because a fallacy (Logický klam in Slovak) sounds like a good argument, but on closer examination it becomes clear that it is not an argument. That is what is so dangerous about fallacies (don't take this as an offence; I regularly make use of fallacies too by accident). The "magyar aristocracy" or the "magyar politicians" are an abstraction, they are not beings with desires. The magyar aristocracy cannot act like a human being, instead it is composed of individuals who may think in a same way, but who are responsible for their own actions. This may all sound like nitpicking, but it is the same as saying that "the Muslims attacked the World Trade Centre", at first this may seem a correct statement because the attackers were all muslims, but is is in fact a reification because "Muslims" is an abstraction and is not capable to "act" itself. Maarten (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This way, you would not be able to use plural at all. "Magyar aristocracy" is not an abstraction. It is a set of people. The statement "Magyar aristocracy tried to erase Slovak nation" means, that this group of people, the sum of individuals (or at least the majority of them), had the common intention to do it. Maybe in English the meaning is different, but in Slovak language, it has this meaning.

I will give you an example, don't take it as an offense, just as an example. Let's take your statement: "Muslims attacked the World Trade Centre". So how should we write it? For example: "The people who attacked WTC were Muslims"? But this would also be fallacy in your eyes, because there were several attacks. OK, so "The people who attacked WTC on 11.Sep.2001 were Muslims"? No, no, this is fallacy. There are more buildings with the name WTC. So "The people who attacked the WTC in NY on 11.Sep.2001 were Muslims"? No, no. Fallacy. There were several people, who attacked it only by words, saying something like "I don't like the WTC". So we could try "The people who attacked the WTC in NY on 11.Sep.2001 by hitting it by aircrafts were Muslims". Ad absurdum, I could continue for a long time.

What I want to say by this is, that you can sometimes use generalization and other language concepts without specifying all the details. Otherwise, you would not be able to say a simple statement like "The weather is beautiful", because it is a fallacy.

Are you aware, that the discussion about Magyar minority changed to discussion about language? That is exactly what I tried to avoid.147.175.98.213 (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can write "the people who attacked the WTC were Muslims", because you then acknowledge that individuals attacked the World Trade Center. These individuals were muslims. "Muslims" can't attack because "muslims" is not a being that can act. And yes, there were several attacks in the past on the (New York) World Trade Center, but referring to the attacks as the attacks on the WTC and referring to the New York WTC as "the WTC" is not a fallacy, it is "totum pro parte", a synecdoche (a figure of speech). It is totally unharmful as everybody knows that with the WTC (in this context) the WTC in New York is meant and with "the attacks" the attacks on Sept 11, 2001. A fallacy is not unharmful because, like I said earlier, a fallacy sounds like a good argument, but on closer examination it becomes clear that it is not an argument at all. Maarten (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So you say, that "It is totally unharmful as everybody knows that ...". OK, when I wrote "Hungarians", you understood it as every single Hungarian? If yes, you could help me to reformulate it instead of just saying "no" to all my attempts. It would cost less time (for both of us) and would avoid emotions.

But this is really a language discussion and I am not sure, that it belongs here.147.175.98.213 (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Link to Magyarization

Moved this discussion from my personal discussion page:

So far you really brought no arguments except "You cannot deny, that part of Hungarians in Slovakia are the result of magyarisation". Thats quite absurd given the long time passed since magyarisation but let's assume for a minute that you are right. Should we then add Slovakization to every possible article about Slovakia, Slovaks, Slovak language? as "You cannot deny, that part of Slovaks are the result of slovakization as they are Slovakized Germans, Rusyns, Hungarians, Jews and others". Can you deny that the percantage of Hungarians due to mass deportations, brutal oppression and rutheless slovakization went from 30% in 1910 to 10% today? I don't think that slovakization should be added to every article just because "some of the Slovaks are result of Slovakization" to use your words. Hobartimus (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

These numbers 30% to 10% are very misleading. I will quite from [1]: "Between 1850 and 1910 the ethnic Hungarian population increased by 106.7%, while the increase of other ethnic groups was far slower: Serbians and Croatians 38.2%, Romanians 31.4% and Slovaks 10.7%. Not because Slovaks had ten times less children (!!!), this is absolutely impossible, but due to strong Hungarization". There is no other explanation. And this is exactly the year 1910 that is mentioned in the main article, where this important fact was deleted. --Wikista (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This argument is substantial. Between 1880 and 1910, the number of Magyars in Slovakia was increased from 22% to 30%. And there was also some increase before. Look at the census data. This cannot be explained by natural migration or by population explosion. These number mean, that almost 1/3 of Magyars in Slovakia have slovak origin (and are the result of brutal oppression and ruthless magyarization).

One section of this article has the name "Origins of the Hungarian minority in Czechoslovakia". As 1/3 of Magyars are the result of magyarization, it is relevant to add the reference to magyarization. Or do you think, that the history of Slovakia begins in 1918?

147.175.98.213 (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So you mean it increased from 22% to 30%, but you forget to write how much is it today? It's 10% as a result of brutal oppression and ruthless slovakization, therefore Slovaks are a result of slovakization as you put it so you should put links to all the articles about slovaks to Slovakization. I will check you if you placed those links first then we will allow the link here. Just look at the numbers from 30% to 10% is extremely brutal sharp decline its 1/3 of the original percentage. Slovaks were 9% of the population in Hungary, they were 15% in Czechoslovakia, just imagine for a second if the same would have happened to them it would be 3% and 5% respectively, which is not enough for much in any country. Now you can see how brutal that decline in percentage really is. Hobartimus (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add the reference to slovakization into every article speaking about "origin of Slovaks". I am not going to do it instead of you.

The "they were 15% in Czechoslovakia" is not true. Where did you find this number?

You argue that "slovakization was brutal" etc... But that is irrelevant (btw. also POV) for the discussion about magyarization. The fact (from a census made and accepted by Magyars) is, that 1/3 of Magyars in Slovakia are of slovak origin as the result of magyarization. Or do you want to deny this?

An article speaking about "Origins of the Hungarian minority in Czechoslovakia" should contain the reference to magyarization.147.175.98.213 (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is irrelevant (I wonder what you would call 30%->10% decline to 1/3th) but it was you who started arguments about percentages saying 22->30, but not mentioning how much is it today. I found the 15% in a Wikipedia article I think but I wrote it from memory so I could be 1 or 2 percent off, but I know that Germans were the 2nd biggest nation in Czechoslovakia after Czechs, and Slovaks the 3rd largest group had no autonomy at all (all of this in the early days of CZ). Hobartimus (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I used percentages for a good reason. It is about the origins of Magyars in Slovakia.

Please reconsider. If your version (your last edit) were to be accepted it would be possible to write sentences like this, "out of 5,5 million people living in slovakia 4,6 million of them are slovaks (altough large percentage of them are the result of Slovakization)". Do you see how these types of sentences can be considered offensive? Hobartimus (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's offensive. In fact, it's just plain nationalist rhetoric. And it is irrelevant in this discussion. As if a Slovak Hungarian who has ethnic Slovak ancestors 100 or 500 years ago is less Hungarian than "100% pure" ethnic Hungarians in Slovakia or Hungary. I find such an assumption sickening, it reminds me of blood and soil nationalism that I thought had been abandoned by all people suited with some brains and reason. Maarten (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You should not separate this. It is not "100 or 500 years ago". The article starts with year 1919, which is the date, when the main wave of magyarization ended. It is not about "100 years ago", it is about "yesterday". The main wave of magyarization is dated between 1848 and 1918.

The article writes "the territory included a sizable German and Hungarian population as well". These people lived during magyarization and germanization, they remembered it and were affected by it.

So I can change what You wrote into: 'As if a Slovak Hungarian who has ethnic Slovak ancestors 5 years ago is less Hungarian than "100% pure" ethnic Hungarians in Slovakia or Hungary.'

147.175.98.213 (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

In the article about United States, you can find a sentence: "In 2005, the U.S. population included an estimated 4.5 million people with some Native American or Alaskan native ancestry." Do you also think, that it is offensive and nationalistic rhetoric? How does it differ from "In 1918, the Hungarian population included people with Slovak ancestry", except that there is no exact number?

147.175.98.213 (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that no government should ever try to impose an ethnic identity on people by force, so I disagree with both magyarization and slovakization. Furthermore, people that were direct victims of magyarization could easily "change" their ethnicity after 1918; people who felt uncomfortable with their Hungarian identity and rather declared themselves Slovak, or German, or Czech were no longer restricted to do so. But there are a lot of magyarized families that identified themselves as Hungarians and felt Hungarians. Even if your father himself was a magyarized Slovak and you were the first generation of the family to be brought up in Hungarian, why should you be forced to "Slovakize" after that. You may find it sad that magyarization happened, but that doesn't mean that you should impose a Slovak national identity on a person -- whose family is magyarized -- that really identifies with Hungary. My problem was with the word "although", because that sort of implies that magyarized people have less reason to identify themselves with the Hungarian language, Hungarians and Hungary. Maarten (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with you in this.

Just to explain. One of reasons to use this formulation was, that in the 1910 census (and also in "normal" life), many Slovaks said, that they have Hungarian nationality, just because they feared, that they will be persecuted if they don't. Therefore, at the end of WWI, many people with the official Hungarian nationality were Slovaks.

You say, that people could easily change their nationality. In fact, that is exactly what they did and this article calls it "slovakization" (to be exact, it is part of slovakization). Therefore, the percentage of Magyars in Slovakia after WWI decreased drastically. There are probably other reasons too, but this is one of them. And this is basically why I tried to add the link to magyarization.

By occupation (written on your talk page), I mean the occupation during WWII above all (see Slovak-Hungarian War), not only the dissolution of Great Moravia.

I disagree with magyarization, slovakization and other "-izations". Maybe I look like a big nationalist to you, but I am not. And by this, I would like to apology to everyone, I might offend. I didn't mean to.

147.175.98.213 (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian government link

Every year, the Hungarian government provides a status report on Hungarians living outside of Hungary, and includes some historical basis. It would be an excellent reference for this article, and for other articles on Hungarian minorities. I read the year-2004 version that was available in 2005 (English translation), and noted that there were documents for other years. I assume that there are now more current versions.

I lost the link, and came here hoping to find it, without success. Searching the Hungarian government's website would not be easy for one who doesn't speak the language, so I'm hoping that someone more capable than myself will take the initiative to look it up (and will be able to use it as a reference in the main article). I can then come to the main article and find the link.

Some additional information: it discusses the Hungarian minorities in states bordering Hungary in separate documents, and then has another separate document that covers all others (in the US, Canada, etc). It is written diplomatically (the initial paragraphs of each page are a bit tedious for that reason, I think), it leaves no question as to the views of the Hungarian government, and I think it is perhaps the best presentation of information that I've seen in regard to this emotional issue.

Regards, 24.178.228.14 (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You are probably looking for this website. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Gerrymandering

I removed the "gerrymandering" part. It claims, that there were 2 regions (of 17 total) with hungarian majority before 1996 and none after. This is, however, nonsense, as there were no regions recognised before 1996. Last time, when Slovakia had 17 regions, was in the 13th century. See http://www.infostat.sk/vdc/pdf/slavikdoc.pdf - for people who don't speak slovak, it is the table 1 (tabulka 1), the slovak word for "region" is "kraj", plural "kraje", table columns macro-regions ("makroregiony") and mezo-regions ("mezoregiony")

The claim was challenged since august 2008 and nobody backed it up with a reference since then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.175.158.196 (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Warning

I am shocked after reading this article. Not only has this article - obviously - not been edited by any local Slovak or Hungarian having the slightest idea of the topic, but also it would be considered an article written by (at best) the Jobbik in Hungary. Even if I close all my eyes, I can only recommend everybody not to believe any single word of the text. Thank you. Szabó2 (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Objectivity concerns

I express serious concerns about objectivity of this article. According to my knowledge it contains false arguments and misinterpretations. I request flagging this article as an article with disputed objectivity. --Eminencia (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Efffect of Slovak language laws on billingualism

The articles presents as fact that most Hungarians in Slovakia are bilingual with Slovak because of Slovak language laws (I'm not sure if the person writing this therefore resents the laws or thinks they are good for that reason).

I suspect the language laws are not the prime reason for bilingualism, merely that if someone wants success in careers, a full-choice of serivces (including privately supplied ones), and to be able to follow the politics of the state they live in then they want to learn the state language.

I'm going to take it out in the future, so if anyone wants to keep it, it would be useful to post in this discussion a comparison with other minorities of around 10 percent in relatively small countries, but without the language laws, or to compare the situation now with the situation before the language laws.