Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,203 
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Mar 16, 2020 9:31:35 GMT
Hungarians were only barely a majority. To be pedantic: Not even that - 49% in the 1910-census, if i remember correctly (or was it an earlier one?). But together with Jews&Germany indeed a narrow majority. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2020 9:39:14 GMT
Hungarians were only barely a majority. To be pedantic: Not even that - 49% in the 1910-census, if i remember correctly (or was it an earlier one?). But together with Jews&Germany indeed a narrow majority. That would be about right for the Lands of the Hungarian Crown as a whole. However, the census of 1910 showed a narrow Hungarian majority in Hungary proper, (Magyarisation had been driving up the number of people who identified as native speakers). The figures - excluding the autonomous Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia- were Hungarian (54%) Romanian (16.1%), Slovak (10.5%), German (10.4%), Ruthenian (2.5%), Serbian (2.5%). |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Mar 16, 2020 11:51:30 GMT
To be pedantic: Not even that - 49% in the 1910-census, if i remember correctly (or was it an earlier one?). But together with Jews&Germany indeed a narrow majority. That would be about right for the Lands of the Hungarian Crown as a whole. However, the census of 1910 showed a narrow Hungarian majority in Hungary proper, (Magyarisation had been driving up the number of people who identified as native speakers). The figures - excluding the autonomous Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia- were Hungarian (54%) Romanian (16.1%), Slovak (10.5%), German (10.4%), Ruthenian (2.5%), Serbian (2.5%). To add to this, and your earlier post, it is forgotten how obsessed European continental liberalism was with linguistic homogenity. I've done some work on this before and I was quite surprised by how virulent it was as a concept, mainly because of the link with romantic nationalism. A clear exception was Germany, where it was conservatives who pushed for the oppression of the various regional tongues. Some examples... Hungary: Budapest was majority German-speaking, and I believe it remained so until the 1910 census that you mention. This included a large percentage of the resident Jewish population, who switched en masse to Magyar in the space of a generation, but many of the German-speakers did the same. The effects can be seen today, with plenty of "pure laine" Hungarians with obviously German surnames. France: I'd recommend Peasants into Frenchman for the detail, but again it was the liberals and later socialists of the Third Republic who were most keen on the promulgation of the Francien tongue. It is no accident that the languages most under assault were Breton and Occitan, both associated with Catholicism and its more reactionary elements to boot. It is also no accident that Alsatian is probably the regional tongue in the best shape, as is was spared this by its own unfortunate fate under the Kaiserreich. Italy: well, Italian is effectively an invention of the pseudo-liberal Italian state of the era. Belgium: the destruction of Walloon, and the long-lasting suppression of Flemish, was the work of the same romantic nationalist liberal organisations who had formed the state. Language policy was used as a means of assault on the Christian Democrats, whose strength was in ultra-Catholic Flanders and rural Wallonia. It still goes on with German in the Ostkantone. As a prime example, the Dutch version of the constitution was not deemed to have binding legal status until 1967! Indeed, the linguistic division of Belgium was somewhat of a Francophone invention, as the civil service believed that Dutch-speakers should have to speak French but not vice-versa. A position that Walloons seem to cling to this day. |
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,203
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Mar 16, 2020 18:49:20 GMT
That would be about right for the Lands of the Hungarian Crown as a whole. However, the census of 1910 showed a narrow Hungarian majority in Hungary proper, (Magyarisation had been driving up the number of people who identified as native speakers). The figures - excluding the autonomous Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia- were Hungarian (54%) Romanian (16.1%), Slovak (10.5%), German (10.4%), Ruthenian (2.5%), Serbian (2.5%). To add to this, and your earlier post, it is forgotten how obsessed European continental liberalism was with linguistic homogenity. I've done some work on this before and I was quite surprised by how virulent it was as a concept, mainly because of the link with romantic nationalism. A clear exception was Germany, where it was conservatives who pushed for the oppression of the various regional tongues. Some examples... Hungary: Budapest was majority German-speaking, and I believe it remained so until the 1910 census that you mention. This included a large percentage of the resident Jewish population, who switched en masse to Magyar in the space of a generation, but many of the German-speakers did the same. The effects can be seen today, with plenty of "pure laine" Hungarians with obviously German surnames. France: I'd recommend Peasants into Frenchman for the detail, but again it was the liberals and later socialists of the Third Republic who were most keen on the promulgation of the Francien tongue. It is no accident that the languages most under assault were Breton and Occitan, both associated with Catholicism and its more reactionary elements to boot. It is also no accident that Alsatian is probably the regional tongue in the best shape, as is was spared this by its own unfortunate fate under the Kaiserreich. Italy: well, Italian is effectively an invention of the pseudo-liberal Italian state of the era. Belgium: the destruction of Walloon, and the long-lasting suppression of Flemish, was the work of the same romantic nationalist liberal organisations who had formed the state. Language policy was used as a means of assault on the Christian Democrats, whose strength was in ultra-Catholic Flanders and rural Wallonia. It still goes on with German in the Ostkantone. As a prime example, the Dutch version of the constitution was not deemed to have binding legal status until 1967! Indeed, the linguistic division of Belgium was somewhat of a Francophone invention, as the civil service believed that Dutch-speakers should have to speak French but not vice-versa. A position that Walloons seem to cling to this day. Indeed, and also in the DanubeMonarchy nationalism was a purely liberal project - neither affecting the Kath.&Kons. nor the SocialDemocrats (although the ChristianSocials' Lueger and the SocialDemocrats' leaders had a origin in national Liberalism). Nationalism was, how the Liberals attracted lots of People - but it made at the same time a coalition of Czech, Italian, German aso. liberals impossible, even unthinkable (only existing in the wet dreams of prof.Masaryk). In Vienna, for example, this liberal bourgeoisie let its teachers extinct the oldViennese dialect, because it was perceived as partly Slavic/unGerman - thus ignoring a priest, who had found out, that certain expressions of the dialect can be found only in the Gothic WULFILA-Bible! |
|
