Kedves Forumozok!

Sokaig nem jelentkeztem, aminek nem az volt az oka, hogy "ki voltam vonva" a 
forgalombol. Illetve egyszer megiscsak igy tortent: azok kozott voltam, akiknek 
abban a bizonyos uresre sikeritett Foumban meg kellett volna jelenniuk. 
Gyomorgorcsom oldodvan, ossze tudom szedni magam annyira, hogy nehany 
megjegyzest megtegyek. 

1. Gaal Tamasnak felhivom a szives figyelmet, hogy soha nem voltam Csurka 
tamogatoja vagy lelkes hive. Az, hogy valoszinuleg rajta van az ugynoklistan, 
nem lep meg. Ahogy o annak idejen Azcel feneket nyalta, jo erzeseket biztos nem 
keltett a joerzesu emberekben. Dilettans politizalasa, iroi tehetsegevel 
megspekelve nagyon karos. Mindig tisztaban voltam vele, hogy ha elso 
tanulmanyanak hangnemeben folytatja, marginalizalasara elkerulhetetlenul szukseg
lesz. Legujabb gondolatai is egy hintalo politikai raffineriajanak szintjen 
allnak, jol megirva. Egyebkent van meg egy kulon ok, amiert duhos vagyok ra. 
Mielott politizalni kezdett, hozzaertok szerint nagyon kozel kerult a jo 
nemzetkozi hirnevhez - dramairasban. Ha ezt folytatta volna, ezen keresztul 
sokkal tobb hasznot hajtott volna a magyarsagnak, mint dilettans politikai 
fercmuveivel. Ennyi. 

2. Medzihradszky Klaranak, bar nem en voltam a megszolitott. Nos, azt hiszem a 
lelkekeket tenyleg kificamitottak, s enne keredmenyet Klara leveleben is latni 
(mielott megsertodne: ez nem agresszio, rovidesen kifejtem, hogy mire gondolok).
O idezi, hogy a szoc. rendszertol mifele jokat kapott. Nos, mar korabban irtam, 
hogy nagy ovatossaggal kell megitelni az 1960-nal kezdodo korszakot: szerencse a
szerencsetlensegben, hogy nem a Munnich-Szirmai, hanem a Kadar-Aczel duo 
regnalt. Ezzel egyutt: a "jolet" gazdasagi alapja az a kolcsonzesi politika 
volt, melynek a levet ma isszuk, az IMF dikatumainak a szoritasaban. 
Szemermetlen demagogia ilyen korulmenyek kozott a jelen kormanyt pl. szocialis 
erzeketlenseggel vadolni (egyebkent meg igy is: a szocialis kiadasok 
egyfolytaban emelkedtek, ha valaki nem tudna). A "nyugalom" politikai alapja az 
a kulonalku volt, amit majd' minden allampolgar megkotott: kapsz valamennyit a 
felvett kolcsonokbol (ebbol pl. epithetsz hetvegi hazat, vehetsz kocsit, stb.), 
de "sirig tartsd a pofad". Nos, ha valaki nem latja, hogy (i) gazdasagilag e 
szemfenyvsztes katasztrofaba torkollt, es (ii) a politikai szabadsag, ill. a 
gondolkodas szabadsaga sulyos serelmet szenvedett, az vak, es vaksaganak oka 
pontosan a szemfenyvesztes. Meg valamit: EN nem valasztottam a konnyebbik 
eletet; ideiglenesen allomasozom kulfodon (most osszesen 10 honapig), SOHA nem 
volt szandekomban emigralni. Ezert aztan  nem "a kibicnek semmi sem draga" 
alapjan politizalok.  

Maradtam tisztelettel (forumozo es honi magyar):

Szathmary Eors

Kedves Folkl Kati!

Szivembol szoltal, ami a kelet-nyugat viszony megiteleset illeti,
na es a tarsadalmi rendszerek sommas es leegyszerusitett megiteleset
illeti. Lam, nem csak acsarkodas letezik.

(Katinak holnap valaszolok, megint nyakamon Jozsi 99-soros
viseltes kenyszerzubbonya)

Ime a NYT cikk befejezo resze:

Nationalism, she concedes, can help intellectuals overthrow 
Communists.  "But later on", she adds, "it falls into the wrong hands".  

But can it be a force for good?  "I believe yes, but unfortunately 
there's no example of that".  A sardonic laugh follows.

In that laugh, and in much of what follows, there is an awareness 
that this conversation is taking place with an American, in America.  
Again and again, she seeks assurance that America cares about the 
fragile state of democracy in Eastern Europe - and that it might be 
willing to intervene, if necessary, to save Europe from itself.

"You know", she says, speaking of the breakup of Czechoslovakia, "it's 
incredible.  I mean, I am so helpless.  Things happen to us, all the 
time.  It was like that for a century, and it is again.

"it's not like here: People always do things, because your are born 
with it; you are brought up in this spirit, the active approach to life: 
"Stand up and go" We were not.  We are always passive in our lives.

Ms. Dudinska came to America two years ago, to study for a career in 
diplomacy as an international advocate of democracy.  "I'm neither 
Czech nor Slovak, you know.  I'm still trying to figure out who I am.  
I think I'm Jewish.  But first I want to be human."

Her hope that diplomacy could serve idealism faded as she watched 
her own country, and then Yugoslavia, disintegrate.  She worries now 
that there will be new conflicts in Europe, that West Europeans are 
too cynical and that America will stand aside, as in 1938.

"It is so scary, that I can't even tell you" she says.  "In the fall of 
1992 I was overwhelmed by this fear.  I had to do something".

"PURE EVIL"

What she did, while visiting friends back home, was decide to go to 
the Balkans and make a documentary for Americans to see.  Actually, 
a friend had the idea first.  "But because he is not an Eastern 
European he did not think how to do it; he only dreamt about it.  And 
because I already spent one year in America I learned to to things.  I 
persuaded him that we will do it".

In relating to this, her laughter turns jocular; she is amused at her 
practical audacity, acquired from self-confident people she admires.  
She tells of approaching a foundation, designing a project, securing 
funds.  And then of visiting refugees in Belgrade and Zagreb, of 
filming shell-blasted Vukovar.

And here, in the telling, her mood darkens.

"I was so shaken that I couldn't see myself going and searching for a 
job.  I lost the belief that any political job I could find would be 
meaningful.  The whole month I was there I had in my mind all that 
I studied here, the international law, the international relations 
theories and all that stuff, and I wanted to vomit all that time.

"International relations is security, it's trade relations, it's power 
games.  It's not good-and-bad.  But what I saw in Yugoslavia was 
pure evil.  Not ethnic hatred - that's only like a label.  I really had a 
feeling there that I am observing unleashed human evils, and that's 
why I was so shaken."

What to do now?  Perhaps make films, take up human right work, 
study the Middle East or Central Asia.  Find out more about herself.  
She wants to study in Israel, to find roots to a system of secular and 
activist ethics she still clings to.  the Prague student movement, she 
relates, had a slogan:  "If not now, when?  If not us, who?"  Only after 
the revolution did she learn that the phrase originated with Hillel, 
the ancient Jewish scholar and ethicist.

The conversation drifts into more about what America may do in the 
Balkans, and the one point she parries an offhand remark about how 
badly Czechoslovakia was treated for 50 years by the Nazis and the 
Communists.  "And by the West", she adds, in a tone that is anything 
but offhand.