In the media of
the Federal Republic of Germany we continue to
read and hear about persons from east Europe
being called “of German extraction”. This is
actually a discriminating designation, because
all these people “of German extraction” are
actually considered Germans in those
east-European countries (even when they are
called nemec, német, neamt, which
translates as dumb, or without language). At the
same time, Germans from Russia are called
German-Russians1 over and over, but
Albanians from Yugoslavia are never called
Albanian-Yugoslavs or “of Albanian extraction”.
The media never
refer to the Jewish refugees as anything else
but Jews, knowing very well that the designation
Jewish-Russians would create outcries of
indignation. In the case of Magyars from Romania
or Slovakia there is never any talk about
Romanians or Slovaks “of Magyar descent”, but
always of Hungarians. But it is easy in Germany
to discriminate against people “of German
extraction”2 and nobody outside
Germany will get irritated! It is nevertheless
quite disturbing when not only in Germany in
general, but even in “Zeitschrift für
Siebenbürgische Landeskunde” and Munich’s
“Südostdeutsche Vierteljahresblätter” the
historic difference between Hungarian and Magyar
is disregarded.
The Germans of
Greater Hungary, who lost more than a million
members between 1880 and 1910 due to
Magyarisation (elmagyarositni) 3
could differentiate very well between “Magyar”
and “Hungarian”. The Magyarized Germans were
never called anything else but “Magyarones”;
there were no “Hungarones”.
The
Magyar-speaking Szeklers in Transylvania (called
“Zekel” in older German) are “Magyarized Onogur-Bulgarians”
and not “Hungarized Onogur-Bulgarians”, and the
Polowzen (as “palócok” a Magyar tribe to which
the Magyars from the Petschka/Arad region
belong) are only Magyarized Kumanen and not
Hungarized Kumanen (called Polowzen by the
Slavs). And if there are no Hungarized
Hungarones and no Hungarized Szekler and
Polowzen, but only Magyarized Magyarones,
Magyarized Szekler and Polowzen, then the
language they are all speaking cannot be called
Hungarian, but only Magyar.
In the
seventeenth, eighteenth, and most of the
nineteenth century little attention was paid to
the difference between the Hungarian and Magyar
languages, since the national concept was
subordinated to the class distinction. In 1778,
on the occasion of the incorporation of the
Temesch Banat into Hungary, speaking as
Hungarian queen, Maria Theresia could very well
say “I am a good Hungarian”, because she did not
say “I am a good Magyar”.
After 1867, with
the start of brutal Magyarization of the Germans
in Hungary (with the exception of the
Transylvania Saxons, who were well protected by
their national church) quite a few
Hungary-Germans came to the (late) realization
that they were not German-Hungarians but rather
Hungary-Germans. For many, this realization came
too late. Many Zips Saxons, a large part of the
urban middle class all over Hungary, and many
sons of rich farmers had already been Magyarized
– they used Magyar as their mother tongue.
We take pride in
recalling EDMUND STEINACKER, who in an article
entitled “Ungarisch – madjarisch, böhmisch –
tschechisch” [“Hungarian – Magyar, Bohemian –
Czech”] published in the “Groß-Kikindaer
Zeitung” on November 3, 1901, demonstrated that
there was no Hungarian language, but only a
Magyar language, as there was no American,
Swiss, or Austrian language4. He was
subsequently persecuted by the justice system as
a “Pan-German”, as were many “Pan-Germans” after
him, when they denounced Magyarization.
In the competent
southeast-German literature, Hungary
(Magyarország) is the country and Hungarians are
its citizens (regardless of their nationality),
but Magyars (magyarok) are the people of the
Magyar race. The mother tongue of the latter can
only be Magyar, not Hungarian. And in Romania
and Slovakia there are only Magyars with
Romanian or Slovakian citizenship, but no
Hungarians with Romanian or Slovakian
citizenship.
It is important to
mention here the “Decree of Interior Minister J.
Wlassics regarding the obligatory teaching of
the Magyar language in primary schools”
published in the “Pester Lloyd” on July 7, 1902,
in which the “Magyar language (of instruction)”
and “speaking Magyar” are mentioned about twenty
times, but the term “Hungarian language” appears
only once (probably an oversight).
As Dr. HANS
WERESCH6 wrote with such clarity:
“You cannot deny the Magyars the recognition
that they used great skill in the Magyarization
of the non-Magyar ethnic groups living in the
country … The Magyarized intelligentsia felt
that they … owed great thanks … to the Magyars.
The tree of German ethnicity was surprised that
it was sprouting Magyar blossoms”. One such
blossom showed up in spring 1919 in the Temeswar
newspaper “Der Morgen” [“The Morning”] (edited
by GÉZA RECH, a priest): “The Swabian is a
Swabian and not a German, as well as the Saxon
is not a Wallach”.7
With all these
explanations it should now be clear that one has
to be careful with these terms.
From: “Der
Donauschwabe“ dated August 30, 1998. Page 4.
Original title: "Ein Schwabe ist ein Schwabe".
1
See „Brandstifter von Rheine zu sieben Jahren
verurteilt“ in „Süddeutsche Zeitung“, Munich,
May 30/31 1998, page 16, upper right: „In the
death by fire of eight German-Russians in Rheine
(Westphalia) the district court of Münster on
Friday sentenced an 18-year old Kosovo-Albanian
to seven years in jail.“
2
During the Romanian revolution in December 1989
radio station “Deutsche Welle”/Köln repeatedly
mentioned “Romanians of German extraction” (from
Romania), but always “Hungarians” in Romania,
never “Romanians of Magyar or Hungarian
extraction” (in Romania). In an article entitled
“Sind wir ‘Deutschstämmig’?” [“Are we ‘of German
extraction’?”] Dr. Carl Göllner protested
against this usage in the January 12, 1990 issue
of the newspaper “Neuer Weg” then published in
Bucharest.
3
According to “Ungarn
in der Doppelmonarchie” [“Hungary in the Dual
Monarchy”] by Péter Hanák, page 284.
This figure was clearly
underestimated by Ingomar Senz in “Die nationale
Bewegung der ungarländischen Deutschen vor dem
Ersten Weltkrieg...“ [“The national
movement of Germans in Hungary before WWI…”]
(Munich 1977) in which he indicated that between
1880 and 1910 German losses to Magyarization
amounted to 450,000 to 500,000 persons.
4
See Viktor Orendi-Hommenau “Madjarisches –
Allzumadjarisches. Ein Beitrag zur
Minderheitenfrage in Ungarn“ [“Magyar –
All-too-Magyar. A contribution to the
question of minorities in Hungary“] 2nd edition,
Bucharest 1941, page 14. Also “Die katholischen
Donauschwaben in der Doppelmonarchie 1867-1918”
[“The Catholic Danube Swabians in the dual
monarchy 1867-1918”]. Stuttgart 1977, page 243.
5
See “Die katholischen Donauschwaben….” [The
Catholic Danube Swabians…] pages 552-554.
6
Hans Weresch “Banatia – Erlebnisse und
Erinnerungen” [„Banatia – Experiences and
Remembrances“] Commemorative speech at
Freiburg/Brsg. 1976 pp.17.
7
Michael Kausch: „Schicksalswende im Leben des
Banater deutschen Volkes...“ [A twist of fate in
the life of the Banat German people...]
Temeschburg 1939, page 97.
