Unfortunately, my notes about Hungary start in the 800 ADs, and then skip to World War I. My apologies for that. One of the many cool things about doing this whole “Country of the Week” thing is that I get to see what I don’t know, and the obvious gaps. I have no idea what Hungary was like in between the 10th century and the 20th century, and that’s a pretty huge freakin’ gap.
Here are a couple of general points about Hungary:
HUNGARY – PART II – CULTURE
It has always been more European than Eastern. This has to do partly with topography; the western side of Hungary is completely open to Europe, and has borders with Austria, it is a gateway to the West. Compare this with a country like Romania, or Bulgaria – which are completely blocked by mountains/forests into the Balkans, with borders with Russia or Turkey, and you will see what a huge difference geography has made.
Hungary had always been way more influenced by Habsburg Austria than by Ottoman Turkey.
Hungary has a large Calvinist population, mostly in the eastern part of the country. Hungary also has a large Catholic population. Robert Kaplan describes the interesting (and potentially volatile) relationship between these two faiths, and also how these faiths have manifested themselves in Hungary in areas like economic development:
“In the mid-sixteenth century Debrecen [a city in eastern Hungary] was a hotbed of the Reformation, and Catholics were forbidden to settle. Here, a Calvinist college was established and local Calvinists made a pact with the ruling Moslem Turks to provide for the town’s security. But the so-called Prussian work ethic did not invigorate the Calvinists of Debrecen. ‘In eastern Hungary, Calvinism has been mere conservatism and fatalism, yet another element of ethnicity surrounded by religious walls, proscribing innovation,’ Laszlo Csaba, a Hungarian economist and social critic, had told me in Budapest. It has always been the Catholic areas of Hungary that displayed economic dynamism. (Csaba had added that the ‘Prussian work ethic,’ based partly on Protestantism, was also misunderstood. ‘The Prussian work ethic was not entrepreneurial, but fitted to bureaucracy and mass industrialization. It functioned only if somebody else supplied the jobs and told people what to do. In a postindustrial entrepreneurial age,’ he continued, ‘don’t expect the formerly Prussian parts of Germany to be economically impressive. Budapest and the rest of Hungary are closer to Catholic Munich than to Prussian-Protestant Berlin, and in a new Europe of region-states, the region oriented toward Munich may be stronger.’)”
Now, this is just me personally, but a paragraph like that completely turns me on. I can read it 10 times in a row, and I have, and still feel like I have only scratched the surface of what is going on. I have my eye jammed up against a tiny hole in the wall, trying to see the whole world beyond. And I have only that paragraph to go on. It is just one man’s interpretation of events – but it provides me with avenues of inquiry, it tells me some of the right questions to ask.
In the next post, I’ll talk about Hungary’s role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Before the Berlin Wall ever came down, Hungarians were already dismantling the empire in their own country. In a very sneaky and entrepreneurial way. Very cool.
Hi Sheila,
I responded a while ago to an essay you had written about Uzbekistan. Well, Im back (with another long message unfortunately). I actually really appreciated your response to my commentsespecially when you pointed out that many Georgians are proud of the fact that Stalin was a Georgian, simply because the fact that one of their countrymen achieved universal recognition and historical fame (even if it was for deporting thousands of people to Siberia and Central Asia and massacring many others). I also was interested by your reference to Cromwell, who I didnt know much about. Actually, as soon as I read your reference to Georgia and Stalin, I thought of Eastward to Tartary. And since I have started to read your posts regularly (especially the Tolkein and Central Asia related ones!), I noticed that you used many quotes from Kaplan in this article. So even though this blog is devoted to your ramblings, and not necessarily those of others, I thought I might share my personal opinion of Kaplan and his unique worldview.
I can definitely appreciate why someone who loves to travel and is genuinely curious in learning about other societies may be attracted to Kaplans writing. At first, when I read Eastward to Tartary at the bookstore (over the course of several days, before I finally bought it), I was completely entranced by his descriptions of cities so ancient that they seemed to transcend geographylike Damascus, Antioch, and Tyrecities that clung to existence with the evolutionary tenacity of turtles or crocodiles, refusing to disappear even as their socio-political matrices and economic foundations shifted or collapsed. Most of all, I loved Kaplans descriptions of multicultural societiesboth in the ancient world and in the modern Soviet Union. I felt such simultaneous joy and sadness when reading about Baku, the capital of modern Azerbaijan, which at one time was probably one of the most culturally diverse cities in the world. And certain parts of the chapter on Lebanon represent Kaplan at his best (which means a lot, considering what Im about to write).
But unfortunately, in the end, I was simply overwhelmed by Kaplans painfully bigoted view of culture and history. Pretty words and magical places couldnt erase the pain and humiliation I felt when reading statements such as the following: Israel will prosper, surrounded by weak Palestinian Bantustans that are kept quiescent by the thuggish tactics of its leaders (208). This statement represented Kaplans prediction for the future of that small, tense, deeply-divided regionand it was a statement completely divorced from an notion of equality or dignity, which isnt surprising since Kaplan earlier mentioned that politics shouldnt necessarily be viewed in moral terms (185). And while it may sound as if he is criticizing an inhumane future reality by using the term Bantustan, he was in actuality stating it as a fact of lifesimple and nonchalant, as if he was describing the cell phones and attaché cases and other signs of modernity that he was so impressed by in Turkey. Bantustanjust two syllables, summarizing decades of grief and loss, an entire history of marginalization.
This one sentence was the cause of my total loss of respect for Kaplan as a scholar and writer. I love words and usually spend hours looking through dictionaries, searching for the roots of words (such as paradise, which comes from the ancient Persian word for a walled garden). I was completely dumfounded when I read the word Bantustan. Ignoring the present conflict in the West Bank and Gaza and the state of the Palestinians, the word carries clear references to the oppression of Bantu-speaking ethnic groups in Apartheid-era South Africa (specifically, the Bantu Self-Government Act of 1959, which forced generations of black South Africans to live in reservations characterized by incredible squalor and founded upon an ideology of racial inferiority). Kaplans casual use of the wordthe easy way it slips into his optimistic description of Israels future, like a gentle kiss on a childs facetrivializes the suffering of both South Africans and Palestinians and leaves me feeling desperately helpless.
Kaplan may be an excellent travel writeradept at describing wind-swept deserts and golden Mediterranean vistasbut he has no credibility at all when discussing sensitive cultural issues. His nonexistent impartiality and tendency towards racist generalizations is best demonstrated by repeated references to the Oriental dictator. Throughout Eastward to Tartary, he constantly makes references to this concept, regardless of where he is: Hungary or Romania or Georgia. In the case of each country, he associates Oriental civilization with tyranny and totalitarianism. Describing the profoundly Eastern political culture of Stalins homeland, Georgia, he notes: In Georgia, it was the Persian clan system that proved more influential, and its remnants are visible today through the power of regional mafias and warlords (229).
Well, this attitude is very interesting for two reasons. Firstly, it ignores an intensely long legacy of autocratic rule and ruthless dictatorship in Western Europea legacy which included such memorable figures as the English Henry VIII, the French Maximilien Robespierre, the Corsican Napoleon Bonaparte, the Austrian Adolf Hitler, the Italian Benito Mussolini (and this is just a list of the Big Ones, ignoring lesser-known murderers and dictators such as Belgiums King Leopold II, who instituted forced labor in the Belgian Congo even as he claimed to extend the light of European civilization to Africa). Indeed, even a quick look at English history via the fascinating story of Mary, Queen of Scots, reveals the similarities between 16th century Europe and the modern Middle East (power hungry leaders, assassination attempts, suffering masses, and at least one bombing). Lastly, Kaplans identification of liberal democracy and civil society with the West creates another problem: how can a society rooted in Asia become modern without basically becoming Western. Why is it that democracy cant be a universal ambition, independent of cultural overtones?
My FUNDAMENTAL point is this: Kaplans division of human nature into Western and Eastern qualities is ridiculous. In every society on Earth, you will find people who are aggressive or murderous or fanatically intolerant, or simply want to take advantage of others for their own benefit (plenty of Americans fit into the final category, only their make six figure salaries and wear nice clothes and are either referred to as politicians or businessmen). But why do so many Middle Eastern and Asian nations have dictatorial nations when European nations do not? Is it because of poverty or oppression or lack of education? Yes, obviously. But India, the worlds largest democracy, has both poverty and oppressionnot so much in its prosperous, rapidly growing cities but definitely in its villages, where the traditional caste system still dominates the lives of thousands of Dalits (also known as Untouchables). So what keeps nations such as Syria, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan from becoming pluralistic, multifaceted democracies like other Asian nations (like Japan or South Korea)? It is FEAR. The fear to speak about politics in public, the fear to write political commentary for newspapers, the fear to point out human rights violations or government corruption. In a country like Iraq, people who criticized the previous regime ended up in an anonymous mass grave or in prison. The kind of mentality created by such a situation is not going to evaporate over the course of a few years, now that Saddam is finally gone. Middle Easterners have been cultivating a distrust of political leaders and a sense of helplessness for centuries. It is going to take time for that to change, and the kind of consistent-yet-nonviolent diplomatic pressure that the European Union often demonstrates. I wish Kaplan would have devoted less of his writing to the Oriental tendency to rule with an iron fist and more to the brave human rights advocates, lawyers, public health leaders, and opposition leaders in countries such as Iran and Bangladesh and India who want to create truly democratic, egalitarian societies. These people are my heroes, not Ataturk or any of the other figures that Kaplan praises so enthusiastically.
Once again, sorry for the length of this message. And thanks for providing an unlikely forum for my random voice. Keep up the good job.
Sina Yousefi
PS: For anyone interested, there are two amazing NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC articles about Indias Dalits and 21st Century Slaves (June and September 2003 respectively). I highly recommend them to all who take an interest in World history, Asian culture and international politics (especially the slavery one, which is truly one of those works that completely changes your view of the world!). Both are difficult to read, but provide much-needed recognition to the brave souls who work to change this world one painful day at a time.
Sina -
You deserve a longer reply but I just want to say that I read the 21st Century Slaves piece – and yes, it was difficult – almost un-readable at parts – overall, it made me feel helpless and pissed off – but it was a window into an entire world which I knew, in my mind, existed – but find it difficult to fathom on a gut level.
Kaplan is, undoubtedly, a pessimist. I think anyone who is primarily interested in historical antiquity will probably be a pessimist. It’s the same old story, over and over and over. It is a broad brush, most definitely, and he makes no pretense of his biases. As a matter of fact, his outlook is, on the whole, too pessimistic and frightening for me – but I still like his writing style.
I suppose what I like about his stuff is the style of his writing, and the people he introduces me to.
And it is undoubtedly true that he admires strength, and power. He looks at countries ravaged by Communism and can actually find people who miss the “order”. He sees that only chaos has reigned since democracy came along.
He’s not a big democrat. There;s too much pessimissm (I would call it pragmatism, maybe) there.
One cannot expect a society to do in even a couple of generations what it has taken other societies centuries to achieve.
And your one comment on Americans: You fall into the trap of associating wealth with most of America. I have met people who also are fanatically intolerant – and aggressive, etc. – but I would disagree that “in America they have 6 figure salaries”. that is a stereotype unworthy of your intelligent comments. People who are ignorant and intolerant and stupid and insane come from all classes, all races, all socio-economic structures.
I’m sure there are rich people in India who make 6 figure salaries who also complete and utter morons.
America doesn’t corner the market in that.
I want to reassure you that I am not an entirely credulous reader. I am actually quite discerning. I take nothing I read as truth – and it is obvious to me when something is opinion, as opposed to truth. I read the newspapers today and I see opinion being masqueraded as news. I do not take Robert Kaplan’s word as Gospel. I just like the people he introduces me to. I am willing to have other guides take me through those realms.
Thanks as always for writing.
Oh, and one other thing:
Your description of what first entranced you with Kaplan’s writing: the description of the ancient cities, cities which were once centers of commerce, the cosmopolitan centers of the world … which are still inhabited today, and which still carry a whiff of those old old stories. Exactly. And it wasn’t just the HISTORY that he wrote of – which, for me, is interesting – but not as interesting as the sensory details, the feeling that you are actually there. The smell in the air, the kind of wine they drink, the feel in the streets …
Additionally – Baku fascinates me to no end. My first encounter with it, as something to be passionate about, was in Ryzsard Kapucinski’s great book Imperium.
Hi Sheila,
I just wanted to say that you are right about the fact that not all wealthy people who make “six figure salaries” are bad people. Many certainly do more to improve society than I have ever done, that is for certain. Likewise, not all businessmen and politicians are corrupt or exclusively self-interested. Thank you for that “reality check” :). I tend to get a bit careless with my writing at times, at least when I’m truly passionate about the subject, and end up making statements without thinking about them properly. Like you point outed, I kind of fell into a Kaplan-esque trap of my creation by stating such a huge generalization. So I guess there is a certain amount of pessimism in me as well. However, I definitely wasn’t trying to imply that you are the type of reader who accepts everything you read, from all sources. On the contrary, I’m amazed that you have read as much as you have, considering that your essays and comments are always packed with quotes from so many different authors. That is definitely the sign of a curious, independent mind. Congrats on yet another interesting/thought-provoking “”nation of the week” series.
Sina -
Comments such as yours are why I love to blog. It’s like my mind expands.
Thank you!
Oh, and about being careless with words when passionate – there have been times when I have been reduced to saying to someone (not on my blog, but out in the world), “You are such a stupid bonehead!!” because I can’t think of any other words. I’m sure I could come up with a better insult, and not revert to being 11 years old!