Témata prací (Výběr práce)Témata prací (Výběr práce)(verze: 384)
Detail práce
   Přihlásit přes CAS
The representation of the national minorities of Hungary in the historiography of the dualistic era (1867-1918)
Název práce v češtině: Reprezentace národnostních menšin v Uhrách: historiografie období dualismu (1867-1918)
Název v anglickém jazyce: The representation of the national minorities of Hungary in the historiography of the dualistic era (1867-1918)
Klíčová slova: nations, nationalism, national minorities, Hungary in dualistic era
Klíčová slova anglicky: nations, nationalism, national minorities, Hungary in dualistic era
Akademický rok vypsání: 2012/2013
Typ práce: diplomová práce
Jazyk práce: angličtina
Ústav: Ústav světových dějin (21-USD)
Vedoucí / školitel: Mgr. Jaroslav Ira, Ph.D.
Řešitel: skrytý - zadáno a potvrzeno stud. odd.
Datum přihlášení: 03.07.2013
Datum zadání: 03.07.2013
Schválení administrátorem: zatím neschvalováno
Datum potvrzení stud. oddělením: 18.09.2013
Datum a čas obhajoby: 03.06.2014 00:00
Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby:14.05.2014
Datum proběhlé obhajoby: 03.06.2014
Odevzdaná/finalizovaná: odevzdaná pracovníkem v zastoupení a finalizovaná
Oponenti: Gábor Czoch
 
 
 
Zásady pro vypracování
One of the most problematic questions of Hungarian domestic politics in the dualistic era was that of the national minorities. There were in fact five minorities with populations reaching or even exceeding one million each. With the compromise of 1867, the Hungarian legislation gained a certain amount of independence and hence became responsible of regulating the minority question.However, the 19th century was not only the period of the birth of the Hungarian liberal state, it was also the century of history (as the French historian, Gabriel Monod out it). This is important for us in two aspects. Firstly, professional history was born in the period in Europe and also in Hungary, and tackled a double task: on the one hand historians aimed to be objective scientists with a proper, scientific and impartial method, on the other hand, they contributed significantly to the nation building process of the time, creating a national-history narrative with which they legitimised the existence of their nations on the given territory. In addition, history also pervaded the field of political and social theories and thinking in general. This was true in the case of the discourse about the minority question too, in which historical argumentation served as a basis for their reaction to the contemporary situation. The two main theories on the minority questions, namely the theory of one political nation which was dominant from the late 1860s to the late 1880s and the nation state ideology which ruled from the 1890s to the end of the Monarchy, processed a specific view of history. In fact the ideologists of both ideas were persuaded that only the Hungarians (and the Croats) are worthy to be called nations due to their great historical past. This belief was related to a common fear of the Hungarian political elite, according to which, if the minorities manage to claim themselves nations, which they intended to, that would lead to the dissolution of the Hungarian Kingdom. Nonetheless, there was a crucial difference between the two theories. The idea of the political nation which was tolerant with the culture and language of the minorities saw the past of Hungary as the common history of all the peoples living on the territory, as a history of common sufferings and joys, which could serve as a basis for the feeling of togetherness. In the meantime, the idea of the nation state interpreted the history of Hungary as the history of the Hungarian nation, which is the only people in the country to be able to make and have a history, with the passivity of the other peoples on the territory.The goal of my research is to analyse which of the upper mentioned interpretations appear, and how do they appear in three general works on Hungarian history and also in secondary school (the successful completion of which guaranteed the access to the middle class and hence to the elite) history textbooks.There will be two historical events which will be examined in the paper: the Hungarian conquest of Hungary, of which the millennium was celebrated in the 1890s with the active protestation of the minorities, the other one is the revolution and freedom fight of 1848/1849 which was present in everyday politics to such an extent that more than six political parties named themselves after certain events or accomplishments of the events. The main question is which interpretation of history is supported by the auteurs and what are their strategies for unmaking the rival nations on the same territory on which they intend to create their nation state.The sources are the already mentioned general works and approximately thirty secondary school history textbooks.In the Master one “mini mémoire” I completed the first chapter (46 pages) of the paper in which I intend to present the contexts of the research: the birth of the professional history in Hungary and, through the examples of Germany and France, in Europe; and also the major ideas on the minority question of the period.
Seznam odborné literatury
Acsády I., A Magyar Birodalom története I-III, Budapest, 1904.
A felvidék. Grünwald Béla és Michal Mudroň vitairatai, Pozsony, 2011.
Balogh P., A népfajok Magyarországon, Budapest, 1902.
Bilenky S., Romantic nationalism in Easter-Europe, California, 2012.
Bourdé G., Martin H. (dir.), Les écoles historiques, Paris, 1997.
Delacroix, Ch., Dosse, F., Garcia, P. (eds.), Historigraphies. Concepts et débats I, Paris.Eötvös J., Reform és hazafiság, Budapest, 1978.
Gyáni G., Emlékezés, emlékezet és a történelem elbeszélése, Budapest, 2000.
Gyurgyák J., Ezzé lett magyar hazátok. A magyar nemzeteszme és nacionalizmus története, Budapest, 2007.
Hartog F., Le XIXe siècle et l’histoire. Le cas Fustel de Coulanges, Paris, 1988.
Iggers G., A német historizmus, Budapest, 1988.Katus L., A modern Magyarország születése 1711-1914, Pécs, 2010.
Koselleck R., Conze W., Brunner O. (eds.), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe – Historischer lexicon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschlan. Band 2, Stuttgart, 1992, pp. 593-717.
Löwith K., Meaning in history, Chicago, 1949.Miklós T., Hideg démon. Kísérletek a tudás domesztikálására, Pozsony, 2011.
Mocsáry L., Nemzetiség, Pest, 1858.
Monod G., Du progrès des études historiques en France depuis le XVI. siècle, in „Revue Historique” 1876, 1, pp. 5-38.
Noiriel G., A történetírás „válsága”, Budapest, 2001.Nora P. (ed.), Les lieux de mémoire, Paris, 1997.
Prochasson Ch., L’empire des émotions. Les historiens dans la mêlé, Paris, 2008.
Romsics I., Clio bűvöletében. Magyar történetírás a 19–20. században – nemzetközi kitekintéssel, Budapest, 2011.
Szilágyi S. (ed.), A Magyar Nemzet története I-X, Budapest, 1898.
Unger M., A történelmi tudat alakulása középiskolai történelemtankönyveinkben a századfordulótól a felszabadulásig, Budapest, 1979.
 
Univerzita Karlova | Informační systém UK