No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 November 2018
The fate of Hungarian minorities in East Central Europe has been one of the most neglected subjects in the Western scholarly world. For the past fifty years the subject—at least prior to the late 1980s—was taboo in the successor states (except Yugoslavia), while in Hungary itself relatively few scholars dared to publish anything about this issue till the early 1980s. In the West, it was just not faddish, since most East European and Russian Area studies centers at American, French and English universities tended to think of the territorial status quo as “politically correct.” The Hungarian minorities, on the other hand, were a frustrating reminder that indeed the Entente after World War I, and the Allies after World War II, made major mistakes and significantly contributed to the pain and anguish of the peoples living in this region of the “shatter zone.”
1. The concept of “ethnic” is used in this context for the American reader. In the European context, the concept of “nationality” or “national community” would be preferable. Within the present collection of studies “ethnicity” and “nationality” is used interchangeably. However, I do wish to point out that it would be more precise to talk of Hungarian communities as “nationality communities.” Both nationality and ethnicity are culturally transmitted characteristics. Unlike racial features, ethnic and national commitments are learned rather than genetically passed from parents to offspring. Socialization inducts individuals into an ethnic or national community. The cultural characteristics that are acquired in this way are closely related to customs and behavior patterns as well as historical circumstances and linguistic or dialectical differences. Ethnic groups, however, tend to be less politicized than nations, but an ethnic group can become a nation over time if it feels threatened in its very existence, and, if it is not too dispersed, in a larger nation or ethnic group. While nations have pronounced cultural commitments, which create a bond of solidarity among those who consider themselves members of a nation, this bond is less developed among ethnic groups. Nations have a strong sense of common interests that predispose them to seek control of their own destiny via some measure of self-determination (e.g., Americans, Russians, Basques, Chechens, Kurds, Hungarians, Romanians). As opposed to this, ethnic groups will not seek political self-determination, either because of a less developed sense of common interests and lower level of self-awareness, or because of insignificant numbers and greater dispersal (e.g., Gypsies in any part of the world, Turkish guest workers in Germany, Italian-Americans, Brazilian Jews, Mexican-Americans).Google Scholar
You have
Access