Szittyakürt, 1979 (18. évfolyam, 2-12. szám)
1979-12-01 / 12. szám
FEBRUARY, 1979 ?!£#!¥* Page 3 tion, could raise conflict between the Transylvanian Rumanians and Hungarians. This was augmented by the unfortunate and evil escapade associated with the inglorious name of Hatvan. The honest and wellmeaning Lieutenant-Colonel Csutak, along with Commander of the Army Avram Jancu, started negotiating with the head of the Rumanian legions and with the mediation of Janos Dragos, Rumanian represhould strive for a cease-fire with the Rumanians. ” He did all he could. He arrives at the home of Jancu at the end of July in 1849, taking with him the “Plan for Peace,” upon which he and Count Kazmér Batthány collaborated and which Balcescu and Boliac had signed, in the names of the Governor of Hungary, Lajos Kossuth, and the Rumanian national emmigration. “I come from Kossuth . . . You can imagine my joy ZIARUL ROMAN ESC America S«ond Cl«»« Po'iagt Paid at C lorland, Ohio ROMANIAN NEWS THK LEADING ROMANIAN NEWSPAPER IN L'.S.A. AND CANADA Organul Oficial al tniunii si I.igii Nodeläjilor Romane Americane Official Organ of The Union and league of Romanian Societies of America AM I. 72. NO. 23 < EE\ El \\l>. OHIO. DECEMBER 7. I')7K VOL 72. NO. 23 DelaNistru pan’laTisa 7 DEC EMBRIE. 1978 AMERICA S a spus, si nu fárá drepiate. cá istoria poporului nostm romá nesc esie enigma si miracol Intr adevár. faptul cá ne am pás trat imtreagä fiinta $i limba inire nápásiuirile prin care am trecut. dovedeste o putere de viatä pe care un istoriograf sträin, de talia §i competenta lui Seton Watson, o considera vecmá cu miraco lul " Dar neamul nostru a fácut mai mult sá supravietuiascá. in impre jurán larási neinchipuit de vitrege a crescut, s'a intárit sí a ajuns sá si strángá fiii risipiti sub atátea domnii stráine in hotarele Daciei strábune, in tara sa liberá si inde pendentá. Anul 1918 a fost sorocul mari lor implinirt. In primávará. Basa rabia, rápitá de Muscali, a revenit la sánul Máméi sale; la 28 Noém brie, Congresul General al Buco vinei, a reclamat unirea cu Rega túl román, iar la 1 Decembrie. "Márila Adunare Nalionalä formata din repre/enlantii indrepiátiti ai liituror Romänilor din (Continuare in Pagina 2l Desteaptä-te Romane! (Continuare din Pagina H vesticá, cát fi drepturile largi de care se bucurá minoritájile care tráiesc pe teritoriul Romäniei. Din qrupul de distinfi profesori de istorie romám, fac parte urmátorii: Prof $t. Pascu; Prof. Cornelia Bodea; Prof. Ludovic Banyai; Prof. Liviu Maior; Prof. Vasile Vesea; Prof. Lucian Rofu fi Prof. Virgil Cán dea. La fiecare universitate americaná la care distinfii intelectuali romám isi prezintá comumcárile. se adaugá fi profesori universitari din Statele Unite (in cadrul programului de schimburi culturale incheiat intre guvernele american fi román). De exemplu. la simpzionul dela Kent State University, l am remarcat pe Prof. Glee E. Wilson, coordonatorul programúiul de studii romänefti dela aceastá universitate; Prof. Sherman Spector, dela Russell Sage College din Troy. N.V.: Prof. Lawrence Kaplan fi Prof. James Gidney dela Kent State University, fi in rol de moderator si comentator. Prof Gerald Bobango dela Centrul de Óercetári dela Vatra Románeascá Neusinarea ungureascá Imediat dupá ce istoricii románi fi au inceput comunicárile, ei au fost intrerupti, in repetate rán duri, de cei aproape 300 de Unguri, care veniserá sá demonstreze contra prezentei románefti la Kent State University, strigánd tot felül de insulte la adresa Romániei, printre care "minciuni, minciuni", in legáturá cu drepturile Romáméi asupra Transilvaniei Prof. Wilson a fost fortat sá intrerupá simpzionul pentru a reaminti Ungurilor. cá tráim in Statele Unite ale Americii, unde fiecare cetátean are dreptul de ex primäre. La sfárfitul programului, Unguriii au smuls microfonul din mána Prof. Banyai, care incerca sá le explice in ungurefte adevárata situajie a minoritátii maghiare din Románia. ín schimb, ei au continuat sá joe. sá intrerupá ji sá ridiculizeze pe vorbitor. Dr. « r,---^eiand.-------“-----*“ DACIA INAINTE sentative of the Kossuth party, agreed upon a cease-fire. The latter stayed in the Rumanian camp while Csutak went to the government in Debrecen to introduce the words of the agreement. During his absence the guerilla band of Hatvan arrived from the Alföld and despite the cease-fire, attacked the Móc people. The enraged Rumanian masses butchered the attackers and along with them Pál Vasvári, a “March” youth deserving of a better fate, and their own brother Dragos, whom they considered party to the “Hungarian betrayal. ” With this fatal mistake the Rumanian-Hungarian hostilities broke out in full force, claiming many innocent victims, especially on our part. Balcescu came in disguise from Havasalföld to Transylvania to disperse the misunderstandings in the tragic situation, and to serve the mutual cause of the revolution. On June 3, 1849, he wrote to his former revolutionary companion, Jon Ghica, in Debrecen: “ The task now is by all means to reconcile the Rumanians with the Hungarians, so that we can set them against the Russian troops. If the government listens to me, then I will go with the representatives to Jancu and will endeavor to win them over. I fear it will be too late. I recommend to the government that for the time being, at least until an agreement is reached, they when K. proposed that I take Jancu and his entire army to Havasalföld. He said that we must hurry to the rescue of all the Bánság and Transylvanian Rumanian principilities, because that is wh«re the basis of the Rumanian nation lies . . . Kossuth in every way facilitates my Transylvanian activities and gives money for expenses. He is truly a great man. ” In the Plan for Peace we can read that “the two nations, the Hungarian and the Rumanian, must mutually help each other, ” and “the Hungarian government quarantees consistent respect for the Rumanian nationality. ” The Rumanian signers assumed the ceasing of the “fratricidal war.” In addition, the “Appendix” lists in detail the far-reaching, epoch-making nationality and individual rights, which on July 28, 1849, the Szeged Parliament codified in Europe’s first Nationality Laws. By now Balcescu was in Jancu s camp. The Rumanian leaders discussed the Plan for Peace on August 3rd and afterwards Jancu s reply was taken by letter to Kossuth: “Having seen the peace proposals which Mr. Balcescu, the representative of the Rumanian emigration, brought to us on the part of the respected Hungarian government, we must express our regrets that in the present circumstances we cannot negotiate on the subject of the re-establishment of peace with our Hungarian brethren, the circumstances being very critical. . . Nevertheless, to show the brotherly sentiments which we entertain towards the Hungarian nation, we have decided, on the basis of all the battles as regards the Hungarian troops, that we will remain neutral. ” But at the end of the fatal month is Világos: Balcescu and Kossuth in exile. Both drew the final conclusions far from their homelands. The former writes Ghica: “My heart breaks to see the poor Hungarians!” Again in 1850: “Austria has long ago completely realized how great a strength and power is national allegiance, and while the Hungarian government exhibited a decidedly rejecting attitude, Austria promised and gave. This was the lure. ” On the same subject in his Parisian lecture of 1851: “It is true and I saw it myself with shame, that the Rumanians fought under a flag of the most vile and merciless tyranny.” (I don’t know whether the Croatian historians ever perceived this in connection with the part of Jellasich? If so, did they have the courage to write it down?) And finally in 1852: “A nationality—be that ever so small— must be respected, because it has the sacred right to live on the land on which it resides, and this natural right overrides any historical right”-, “we must proclaim common freedom, that is, equality for individuals and nationalities and hereby strive for harmony. ” (Quoting Lajos Demény: The Legacy of Balcescu, “A Hét,” Bucarest, Nov. 25, 1977.) This brave young apostle of the common Hungarian-Rumanian fate died of lung disease in 1852 at the age of 33, in Sicilian exile. His national legacy was slowly forgotten or falsified by the new generation of French-oriented Rumanian politicians, in the same manner as the milestones of Kossuth’s political development, the nationality laws or the progressive concept of the Duna Confederation, were not incorporated in our statehood by the compromise of 1867 and the second liberal generation. However, this is not the Rumanians’ problem, but ours. According to the dictates of fate, the Rumanians must return to the spirit of Balcescu (not only the Transylvanian Hungarians, as evidenced by the writing of Károly Demény). The realization of his legacy is a historical precept and the only possibility for solving their dilemma. Not the attempt at Rumanization. The Csángos have been living in Moldavia for perhaps thousands of years, as descendants of the “Dentu- Magyars, ” and the Rumanians have been in Transylvania since the 13 th century and have not lost their nationality. The first Rumanian imperium during the years 1918-40 repaid every rightful and alleged injury to that Hungarian people who, in similar manner during 800 years could have settled the Rumanian question once and for all. But they did not do it, they did not intend to, and they never employed such consistently harsh measures against the Rumanians as the ones by which the Rumanians lived and live today. Let the endless circle of hatred finally be at an end. Let the scales fall from your eyes. Chauvinistic Rumanian politics cannot exist in this century in the midst of Russians, Ukranians, Bulgarians, Serbs, and a strong, almost homogeneous state of Hungary. Therefore the Transylvanian question must be solved honestly, in an up-to-date manner, in the spirit of human rights and equality of nations, in the spirit of Kossuth and Balcescu, or else Rumania will perish. The great Rumanian dreams are over. They are alone, too. In vain do they seek, with exemplary courage and skill, the helping hand of the Near-West and Near-East. The hands are perhaps ready to help, but the distance makes the intent hopeless. The answer to the Rumanian dilemma can only be a reconciliation with the Hungarian people, as was formulated by Balcescu and Kossuth. Then help does not have to be sought in delusive distance. Mihály Vitéz (Mihaiu Viteazul), voivode of Havaselve (of whom Balcescu wrote his best essay), and István Nagy (Stefan cel Mare), voivode of Moldovia, asked for and received help from the Székelys when the Turks came; most of the time in a battle-deciding manner. Nevertheless, one thing must be acknowledged by every sensible Rumanian, leader and followers alike: We cannot endure the oppression, persecution, and execution of our brethren. We will not stand for our blood to come to the fate of the North-American Indians. The first step toward proof of the Rumanian realization and honesty must be the emancipation of the Hungarian nationality. Present-day Hungary does this with her 1.5% non-Hungarian speaking minorities—therefore we can expect the same. Until Rumania offers proof instead of words, she cannot expect us to understand her dilemma, much less view it with sympathy. Until then we can only be dispassionate spectators of how her problems are forcing her to the chasm. What then are the Hungarian tasks? I will briefly summarize what I have spoken orally and in the pages of this newspaper. Everyone should carry out his responsibilities within the realm of his own possibilities. Hungary should strengthen her official inquiries into the fate of all our separated brothers. In this she can count on the support of every Hungarian around the world, because this is the question on which the Hungarian public opinion is wondrously united. The Hungarian government must especially watch in Transylvania, where the lives of our Transylvanian and Rumanian Hungarian and Székely brothers are among the harshest in all the lands of the earth. Our free and independent Hungarians can take one of two roads: Those who have up to now done so, must try with the American and other official circles, no matter how little or disappointing the results. After all, a raindrop can hollow out a rock. This is why an intellectually united front is important; nuances of ideology can only be interesting to us and not to foreigners, so let us not wash our dirty laundry in public. Because people are better than their governments, we must continue to inundate the American public opinion with the complaints of our minorities. After all, America is responsible for the loss of peace after both World Wars. After the first, Wilson yielded to the French, and during the Second, Roosevelt and his descendants capitulated to the Russians. The second possibility is: finding new roads, revealing our brethren’s situation to the Eastern and African people and asking for their mediatory assistance. This is the least trodded road for our emmigrants, but we must try it, it cannot be less successful than the Western, but perhaps more so. This is our responsibility, because we are free to speak, not like our brothers forced into minority. Translated by: Ilona Kölmer
