Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Questions on ch.5

Expand Messages
  • Martin Votruba
    ... A well phrased argument. ... Check the chapter we re reading and discussing, please. The number of Jews was negligible in the sum total of the Slovak
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 3, 2007
      > Slovakian consciousness in 1600 is a joke.

      A well phrased argument.

      > I also can not agree, that Slovaks as being farmers were no
      > different than other ethnicities;Jews were not farmers, Roma
      > were not farmers.

      Check the chapter we're reading and discussing, please. The number of
      Jews was negligible in the sum total of the Slovak majority areas and
      I explicitly excluded the Gypsies, Croats, Rusyns. I was talking
      about the Slovaks, Germans, Hungarians.

      > however he counts, he can not find
      > more than 50 distinguished and active patriots.

      That is the root of the problem. Ethnic pride, patriotism based on
      ethnicity are modern things in Central Europe that began to emerge
      200-250 years ago. No one was an active _ethnic_ patriot earlier.
      There were country patriots, for the Kingdom of Hungary in this
      instance, of many ethnicities including the Slovaks. When some people
      imagine that there was no Slovak consciousness 250+ years ago, they
      mean there were no Slovaks who demanded self-government, wrote poems
      about their ethnic past, etc. That's perfectly true for the Slovaks,
      Hungarians, Moravians, Poles, etc. It does not make any of the groups
      different from the others.

      But the "Slavic speakers" in Trencin County were called Slovaks just
      like the the "Slavic speakers" in Spis County were, and the "Hungarian
      speakers" from Novohrad County were called Hungarians just like the
      "Hungarian speakers" from Baranya Country although their respective
      dialects differed quite a bit. On the other hand the "Slavic
      speakers" of Saris Country were clearly differentiated into Slovaks
      and Rusyns although they both spoke "Slavic" and therefore, according
      to those who say there was no Slovak awareness, only Slavic, these
      Slavs and their languages should not be differentiated. Contrary to
      claims that there was none, that people thought of themselves as
      "Slavs," there was a well-documented differentiation and awareness of
      belonging to the sets of inhabitants called "Slovaks," or "Rusyns," or
      "Poles," or "Hungarians," etc.

      > Bratislava, if I am not mistaking, there were only about
      > 19 % Slovaks, many of them servants/maids.
      > Look at the cemetery names of Kosice.

      This may partly be a misunderstanding caused by the words I used.
      When I said "burghers," I meant the people who lived in towns in
      whatever capacity and for whatever reason, the councilors and servants
      alike. And 19% is plenty by comparison to the claims that there were
      none. But mainly, I meant the towns in the Slovak majority areas
      (both Bratislava and Kosice were in the Slovak/non-Slovak borderlands,
      additionally, the names in the Kosice cemetery partly reflect the
      results of 100 years of Hungarianization in the 19th century). Those
      towns were "towns" by the local standards in the the chapter we're
      reading now, no matter how much or little resemblance they bore to
      towns like Kosice and Bratislava.

      So let me clarify -- during the period discussed in the chapter we're
      reading now, there were plenty (15%-95%) Slovak inhabitants in towns
      in the Slovak majority areas -- plenty by contrasts to claims that
      there were none or barely any -- and there was so much intermarriage
      between the Slovaks and Germans that large farming areas that used to
      be almost exclusively German had significant Slovak minorities, or
      Slovak majorities by the 19th century. The same applied to the
      inhabitants of towns.

      This is as much as I'll have to say on this. I'm reluctant to mix
      "jokes" with factual discussion.

    • Ron Matviyak
      For a view of the current attitudes and German-American interpretation of the history of Germans in Slovakia, it may be good to start with several pages and
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 3, 2007
        For a view of the current attitudes and German-American interpretation
        of the history of Germans in Slovakia, it may be good to start with
        several pages and some writings by one of S-W contributors, Thomas
        and perhaps two variations on the same web page,

        I say German-American much the same as I would say Slovak-American.
        Our American view is not necessarily the same as the home-grown Slovak
        view. There is a lot on politics and not so much on life style and
        culture over the centuries. The writing harks back to the old style
        before the more modern histories and writings started to appear in the
        1990's. Much like the Hungarian writing of the old era the history is
        presented as that of Germans to the point of neglecting other ethnic
        groups (and the Hungarians!) and presenting most all location names in
        German only, making it difficult to follow with modern maps and names.
        Including modern place names in parentheses would be a great help and
        service a broader audience. Recent Hungarian histories seem to have
        overcome these boundaries.


        --- In Slovak-World@yahoogroups.com, "Helen Fedor" <hfed@...> wrote:
        > Ther Germans and Slovaks seemed to be two groups living side by side
        in Slovakia. Was there much contact/mixing/intermarriage was there
        between the two? Did they consider themselves separate social
        classes, seeing that the Germans were concentrated in the cities and
        mining operations while the Slovaks were mainly farmers?
        > Spiesz mentions the Catholic institutions of higher learning, as
        well as the Protestant lyceum in Pres~ov. Given that the Lutherans
        placed great importance on people reading the Bible for themselves,
        were lower-level Lutheran schools established at this time? Were
        girls also included among the pupils? Were the other lower-level
        schools at that time run mainly by the Catholic Church or the state?
        > H
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.