Talk:Curse of Turan

Untitled

tidy

First and foremost, I'm a Hungarian. Feel free to hate me for opressing Slovakia, Roumania, and Slovenia (which never existed). Never mind that not even my grandfather was born in pre-Trianon Hungary. Nor was yours, most likely.

"These were only some of the larger unfortunate events but by reang this it is clear that, if one is superstitious enough, a clear pattern of mismanagement, negligence and selfishness in the part of the country’s leaders as well as some streak of bad luck is visible."

How nice of you to pinpoint it all on the Hungarian leaders. You forget to mention the fact that we were promised help against the Turks but never got it.

We were promised liberation by the Habsburgs, but they just got rid of the Turks and stayed here. Once again, I doubt that Hungarian leaders could be blamed.

I guess this is never mentioned because that would paint several oh-so-democratic Western European nations in bad light.

"Hungary as a country did not exist."

Get a Mediaval-Europe Atlas will you! Hungary did exist in diminished size.

And on the Hungarians oppressed everyone side note:

Is it just me or someone else actually saw minority rights ever being acknowledged before the 20th century? Native Americans ring the bell? Did you guys learn history or just choose to use 20th century ideals on non-20th-century conditions?

"Hungarians had a kind of admiration for the slovaks, because they live in the hills up north, where the soil yields much less crop and life was much harder work compared to the extremely rich green pastures in Hungary. (The fact that Hungary is not an earthly paradise now show how hopeless the magyar nation is)."

Weird. I think that could be written down to the fact that due to the Trianon peace treaty we lost about 90% of our mineral resources and mountains were anything could be mined. I guess someone missed a couple of Geography classes. Or is it really plausible to have good industry without mineral resources?

"BTW, Slovaks and Croats got their own countries eventually, which shows they were much stronger demographically."

Really? I might have missed a couple of History classes here, because we were thought that they wanted the Habsburgs and the Austro-Hungarian monarchy that's why they butchered Hungary, the mineral resource and food supply of the country.

And the 1867 agreement was not to thwart the Croatian and Slovak national feelings. It was to raise Austria onto the big guys once again. They wanted an empire.

Maybe you should participate in a couple of History classes.

P.s.: I think the poetry of Petőfi (Petrovich, whatever) sucks. And I should also mention that while he was ethically Slovak, he was born on soil that up to this day belongs to Hungary, making him a Hungarian citizen.

Tapsyhapsy 2006.04.20.

---

The editor of this article must be a Slovak man angry with Hungarians i guess. The curse didn't work well because Hungary had prosperous centuries in the middle ages. A hungarian article:http://www2.geographic.hu/index.php?act=napi&rov=6&id=5046

With all due respect: there was no Slovakia to occupy. The country was created in the XX. century. The oppression of Slovak culture is another issue - minorities were not treated as equal.

Adam78:It is suggested that the POV BP should be accompanied by an explanation on the talk page so we know what you believe is POV. While I clearly see NPOV violations, I may disagree with you over what specifically is POV. Others (i.e. the original author) may not find the article POV at all, and would be very interested in your opinion.

Regarding the POV that I see:

195.70.48.242's idea that Hungarians are a downtrodden and subjugated people is only true for part of the country's history. Hungary spent hundreds of years occupying its neighbor Slovakia, repressing Slovak culture and language. As someone of Slovak heritage, my point of view is quite different from that of the author.

I did my best to clean up the style of the article, but I am hardly the person to try and restore this article to NPOV, so I will refrain from further edits.

-Casito 02:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since this article deals with a culture's perception of its own bearers, rather than objective fact, of course it will not be neutral. All objections of the "but Hungarians oppressed Slovaks" type does not change the fact that Hungarians may percieve themselves as oppressed, even while they were oppressing others. So the most this article needs is a clear statement that the opinions in this article are, themselves, cultural biases rather than assertions of the article's author.

POV issues

195.70.48.242's idea that Hungarians are a downtrodden and subjugated people is only true for part of the country's history. Hungary spent hundreds of years occupying its neighbor Slovakia, repressing Slovak culture and language. As someone of Slovak heritage, my point of view is quite different from that of the author.

The fact that so much animosity remains among the central and eastern european nations shows only one thing: how successful the Habsburg's imperial strategy was. Those nations were mere pawns in the emperors' hands. In the 1848-49 hungarian freedom fight slovaks, croats and rumanian were used against Hungary. After the 1867 agreement magyars were used to supress the slovakian and croation national aspirations. No wonder there was such a mess after the Habsburg empire collapsed in late 1918. Just consider the recent (mid-1990s) velvet separation of Czech and Slovak states. Or the bloody Balkan conflict. These go against common sense, both from an economical and cultural point of view. These were probably the last repercussions of the Habsburg's intrigue.

BTW, Slovaks and Croats got their own countries eventually, which shows they were much stronger demographically.

Hungarians had a kind of admiration for the slovaks, because they live in the hills up north, where the soil yields much less crop and life was much harder work compared to the extremely rich green pastures in Hungary. (The fact that Hungary is not an earthly paradise now show how hopeless the magyar nation is).

Most hungarian people think slovaks are angry at us mainly because of Sandor Petofi. He was Alexander Petrovich, an ethnic slovak, who declared himself a hungarian as a teenager and became a laurate poet, leader of the hungarian independence movement and finally a MIA of the freedom war. He denounced his birth nation a few times, because he held very nationalistic (hungarian) views.

And you call Petofi nationalistic when you call the Hungarians hopeless? Don't let me laugh.

Dec 12/2005. Please note:

All of the above comments were written regarding a previously posted article. The article has been thoroughly revised (not by the original author) in the spirit of NPOV as well as to reflect the historical fact more closely. Please feel free to comment on the article, not on the Hungarians and their relationships to their neighbors as those discussions are beyond the scope of the subject discussed here. Thank you.

I agree there are POV issues. First of all Turani is exactly the name used by the military officers who formed the country of Turkey after the disintegration of the Ottoman empire / the Caliphate. A good book on that subject is "Attaturk." If you want to see the Turani atok from the "other side" that is, the country which at one time believed that all of Eastern Europe was its own, not just Hungary. My reading of the phrase Turani atok (yes, I am Hungarian too) is that the Turks are a curse upon the Hungarians and continually made trouble for us. Eastern Europe, particularly Hungary and Romania were always being crushed between the hammer and the anvil, that is Russia and Turkey. Massey has written an excellent book on the life and times of Peter the Great, so you can read the history from the Russian perspective too. In English, everything I've said is in English. There are a few Hungarian and Eastern European scholars in the USA, but not many. "The West" must rely on biographies of key players, or they must learn Hungarian and find out what is said. Also, keep in mind that, during the Ottoman period, history was rewritten to please the Caliphs, and during Communism, history was rewritten again to please the partitkar (propaganda officials part of every enterprise and school in that period). In the farther past, history was rewritten to please the Roman Catholic Church. To study Hungarian history is to study lies and propaganda and attempt to find the truth they are hiding.

So that's why I say the turani atok is misunderstood in this article. It could also refer to the feeling Christians had when, after breaking with their Pagan past (could've been just a different version of Christianity, because in 1000 AD, you had a lot of "heresies" that were still Christianity), and embracing the RC church, then 500 years later, they are ruled by a Caliphate. This would very likely lead to them calling the Turks a curse. The Turani were a sect of military officers within the Ottoman Empire who wanted to take over the Caliphate and form a better less corrupt government... anyway.. I think you cannot view Eastern European, and especially Hungarian, history only from the inside, and you can't trust only the vague references in the West, but you must go and search the oldest libraries in Europe for references from other cultures, especially disinterested observers, and anyone who was contending for power at the time of major changes. Attaturk was a Montenegrin who chose to view himself as Turani and eventually formed the Turkish state after the crumbling of the Caliphate. Go read, find out. Because I think this article is making a lot of noise about very little. It's just an old epithet for yet another people who wanted to rule Hungary,a nd in this case were Turks. It's like saying "charlies" in English in reference to Viet Cong during the Vietnam War. (If you live in the USA, you will no doubt notice that many Vietnamese immigrants who are male are named Charlie.)

Hungarians do have one unhappy trait: they are right when they believe that everyone wants to take their land from them. History has shown that much, no matter where you look. I do believe that we were cruel to the Romanians (I have read exiled Romanian's writings also) and we should attempt to live together in peace with them now. Enough is enough. But that means two states and everyone can speak whatever language in school. I had to kneel on corn if I uttered a Hungarian word. No more of that from either side. We are finished with it. I hope, and we should all hope. And we should forget old epithets and focus on good relations. OK I'm done with my soapbox. I have been reading this article and watching it change for years. I could not remain silent anymore. The time for old epithets is over. Please let it go. I'm sorry if this is preachy, but there are worse things than preaching peace and letting go of old resentments. 24.136.246.9 (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments on new content

I propose to remove the part about the curse being still in effect.

I think that there is reason to believe that the period described by either version of the curse has ended. Although the Roman Catholic Church still plays an important part in the cultural life in Hungary, the decline of religious life in general and the separation of church and state have greatly decreased its influence (compared to Medieval or pre-WWII level). On the other hand, if the curse was uttered "around the year 1000", then the one-thousand-year period has just elapsed. Indeed, one can view the recent events of Hungarian history (transition to democracy, joining EU & NATO) as much more fortunate events than before and opportunities for unity and happiness of the country-nation. (Mikoranaplemegy 11:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC))

Summa Summarium

What a load of crap. (OK, *mostly* crap) István 00:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You didn't need to put that "mostly" in there. :) I couldn't find a template that said "this article is garbage, please either improve it hugely or delete the whole damnable mess", so I just settled for littering it with fact tags. :) Maybe should be a candidate for deletion? K. Lástocska 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wont write that the 20th century doesnt bear some resemblance to a cursed era (I might get struck by lightening) and there *is* a suicide problem in Hungary (notice that, despite the sharp and iconoclastic Hungarian sense of humour, this is the only subject I know of which is not joked about - everyone knows someone...), a problem that BTW has been around for about as long as official records. But this article is simply a half-fable, easily twisted vehicle to air any of the half-baked nationalist or racial grievences, even baldfaced slanders that anyone cares to concoct. I couldnt imagine writing similar text for any other group of people unless I had both a mean streak AND a screw loose. Not too encyclopaedic in this form, Im afraid. But I would defer to the judgement of others, i.e. Ncurse or Alensha before putting this up AfD. István 03:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, AfD would be just whiny - the thing exists and can be described properly. What's needed is someone with reference to do a better job. István 03:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

We have a pretty useful hu:Turáni átok article. ;-) Why don't we translate it? (Or actually why don't you, as I'm afraid my English is not good enough) - Hu Totya 00:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ajjajjajjaj...look in the page history at the very first version of this article. Written like that, why wasn't it deleted on sight??

Totya, kösz. That will help. :) K. Lásztocska 20:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A Fresh Start

File:Arpad speaks.jpg

Before the Curse

OK, thanks Zello, for the new start on this one in the proper direction. Ive elaborated somewhat, even put in a list of catastrophe's to elaborate upon (best to tell it in our own words). Also, the possibility that the curse ended in 2000 is noteworthy somewhere here. This time in Hungary I was told its ok to clink your beer now because the Arad thing is over (any more opinion on that? call me an unrepentant vaskalap, but Im still not clinking yet)

As for the remark on the prior version about Hungarians being "sad, even when they make love" - perhaps this was based upon original research by the poster - there perhaps should be an article about szlovak difficulties differentiating between sadness and dissapointment? István 20:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to say the curse is entirely over, if the entire year of 2006 is any indication. Good God, first the Danube puts BP underwater for a month, then our poor relations with the aforementioned Slovaks just get worse and worse, then we get hit with a huge, deadly storm ON ST. STEPHEN'S DAY for crying out loud, then we hear an ominous, thundering "Elkúrtuk!" from somewhere, and do I really need to remind anyone what came after THAT? And to cap it all off Puskás öcsi died. Don't clink your beer just yet, my friend....*whimper*.... K. Lásztocska 01:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we wont really know for sure in our lifetime unless some new calamity leaves no doubt that the curse is still on. 2006 wasn't such a banner year, but I'm not taken too far aback by its crop of troubles. Apropos of the new year and popular pessimism, there is a Hungarian New Years' saying - "I predict the new year will be about average: not as good as the previous year, but better than the one to follow". István 04:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope I didn't hurt anybody's feelings but I try to keep the content as serious and encyclopaedia-like as is possible. The topic itself allures man into exaggerations, subjective claims, original research so I think caution is needed. Zello 08:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Taking seriousness to its logical conclusion, one must arguably delete the article en toto, as it describes a fable, an emotional construction likely born of chronic collective frustration. I believe the standard for inclusion must be closer to verifiability. Exaggeration, subjectivity or original research might be kicked about here on the talk page at best, but events which did in fact occur, and are often attributed to this curse, belong in the article (perhaps more seriously presented). István 08:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The popular belief itself is certainly encyclopaedia-like content regardless of its truth. For example we are quite sure now that Hera or Zeus are only myths but they have their place in an encyclopaedia. I think speaking about national catastophes we need only those that were really fatal blows not everything that went wrong in the course of our history. I think the traditional list is quite obvious: 1241, 1526, 1849, 1920, 1956. Luckily no present-day event has a similar magnitude, from some wider perspective they are only a strong storm, small riots etc. What the article really needs, I think, are literary sources mentioning the curse. I vaguely remember for example a Vörösmarty poem from the 1850s but I'm not sure. Zello 09:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Not as good as the previous year but better than the next one"...ugh, this is getting quite depressing. I guess the riots and the Cup final, and probably the floods don't really belong, but I am still struck by the symbolism of the deadly storm hitting the country's capital in the middle of celebrations for the day of our patron saint...K. Lásztocska 16:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

PS Zello, is this the poem you meant?

AZ ÁTOK

Férfiak!" így szólott Pannon vészistene hajdan,

"Boldog földet adok, víjatok érte, ha kell."

S víttanak elszántan nagy bátor nemzetek érte,

S véresen a diadalt végre kivítta magyar.

Ah de viszály maradott a népek lelkein: a föld

Boldoggá nem tud lenni ez átok alatt.

1832

Yes, this is it. I think we should add to the article together with a rough translation. Zello 22:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I changed the English translation. I hope it's to everyone's satisfaction. Egyebkent tetszik a cikk! Hunor-Koppany 00:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, very nice indeed. Did you xl8 it? István 20:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Sounds a lot better in Hungarian though! Hunor-Koppany 01:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

The Persian root reference توران is indeed pronounced "Turân" according to [1].

Personal troubles section

This needs fleshing out. I think I remember a statistic that Hungarian males have the shortest life expectancy in Europe, and Hungarian females are closer to (but below) the average for Europe, the net/net is a fairly low average for all. This is still very much a WIP. István 04:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably I'm mistaken but I always believed that Curse of Turan only means internal strife between Magyars. I use the expression in this narrow sense and I think it was used originally in this way the 19th century. It's a bit surprising to me that you use it in a way to refer such a wide range of problems. Zello 13:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you insofar as nobody uses it as an excuse for their specific personal instances - e.g. Ive never heard anyone blame their divorce on the curse - (or their suicide) but rather in a collective national sense. I believe whatever its original definition was, it has morphed into an absurd scapegoat for the well-known shortlist of misfortunes. Just raise the subject of epidemic divorce, heart disease, suicide and the curse is often mentioned, even if in jest. Moreover, people often cite accumulated stress, and the magyar inability to shed it properly as a cause of these troubles, and nobody really knows why this is so - and thus the curse is often again mentioned, even if in jest. István 14:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Conversion to Christianity

There were Pagans, Christians, Jews, and very possibly a smattering of islamic and possibly other religions among the Magyar tribes before 1000 AD however to include Islam explicitly, indicating that the number of Islamic Magyars was significant in relation to pagan or other religion, requires reference. István 21:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Confused theories of origin

I'm a bit curious. If that poem was written about the curse in 1832, how does the second theory say it only originated in 1848-50? Seeing how there's a lack of sources anyhow, I'm tempted to remove that second theory as nonsense, but I'm reluctant to do so right now, in case it actually is supported somewhere. Anyone know of citations for that part specifically, or an explanation for the contradiction? -Bbik 01:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Its a good point, which weakens, though not disproves, the 1848 theory as it doesn't mention "Turán". That there could have been many competing theories of origin before 1848 and somehow after this time one became overwhelmingly accepted thus crowding out the others is also possible. Finally we have to consider the Magyar psyche a bit: someone once wrote that if a curse did not exist, then Hungarians would be compelled to invent one. I suppose the answer lay in historical mention where the words "Turán/Turáni" and "átok" appear next to each other, as they don't in that poem - otherwise it would have been called the curse of Pannon. István 14:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

title?

I feel slightly foolish mentioning this now, after work on this article has been ongoing for several months, but is "Curse of Turan" really grammatically correct? I was under the impression that "Turán" referred to an entire people, not to any individual (an evil sorcerer, say.) If that is the case, shouldn't it be "Curse of the Turan"? K. Lásztocska 03:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)