Diaspora Engagement Through Birthright Program: Hungarian

CEU eTD Collection

Diaspora Engagement In requirements for fulfillmentof the thedegree partial o

through Birthright Hungarianthrough Program: Supervisor: Professor Pogonyi Szabolcs

Nationalism Studies ProgramNationalism Studies Central European University Eszter Herner Budapest, Hungary

Submitted to Submitted Homeland 2014 Arts by 1

- Kovács

- Americans the Encountering

f Masters of

CEU eTD Collection than (or pursuing ethnicity. ofsymbolic signs besides) rather country the towards engagement effective develop to likely more are they and trip, the after affairs Hungary‘s in interested genuinely more even be to tend participants generation third Conversely, case. their in occur not does affairs actual Hungary‘s in interest evoked but journey, symbolicethnicityafter the reinforce) of traces (or more likelytodevelop the by affected equally. program the of side‖ ―learning the and side‖ ―fun the appreciated and better, significantly places and names remembered schedule, a current about or learning history (e.g. Hungarian journey the for individually prepared program, the about conscious more were Americans) Hungarian generations fourth and third (usually ancestors Hungarian o the On Hungary. about enthusiastic very be to tended and programs, the of events community and side‖ ―fun the emphasized extent, lesser a to places and names remembered country, the about knowledge factual less had trip, co less wereHungary) from emigrated who familymembers living having Americans, Hungarian generation second and first (usually heritage Hungarian different semi conducting by Hungary ReConnect journey, birthright Hungarian the of impacts the investigates thesis The attitude ―generational difference‖: members of the first and second generation are are generation second and first the of members difference‖: ―generational patterns patterns - tutrd neves with interviews structured o the f ffairs), had a clear view on the aim and structure of the the of structure and aim the on view clear a had ffairs), respondents

Abstract ther hand, those who are further away from their their from away further are who those hand, ther 2

Toe h ae o s rmt fo their from remote so not are who Those . its T he outcome of the program was also partly partly also was program the of outcome he

participants.

nscious about the programsthe about nscious

h a The nalysis nalysis points and fourth and

u two out of

the the CEU eTD Collection Bibliograph Conclusion6. Empirical5. research ReConnect4. Hungary Hungarian3. nationbuilding policy Theoretical2. framework and literature review Introduction1. T able ofContents 3.1. Hungarian3.1. kin 2.2. Diaspora politics 2.1. Diasporas 5.2. Interviews5.2. Essays5.1. Nation3.2. policy after 2010 5.2.3. 5.2.3. Outcomes 5.2.1. Perceptions theof birthright journey 5.1.2. 5.1.1. Motivations and expected outcomes 3.2.2. Diaspora policy 3.2.1. citizenshipDual and the enfranchisement nonof Identification y

......

...... -

......

state politicsbetween 1989 and 2010 ...... –

......

TheHungar ......

......

...... ian BirthrightJourney ......

......

...... 1

......

...... - resident citizens ......

......

59 56 52 44 41 37 35 35 34 27 23 20 19 15 15

9 5 5 2

CEU eTD Collection in mostly communities. communities emigrant to refer to used be changes, border of result the as minorities as live who communities Hungarian 1 p the in launched were projects government several Besides, Parliament. Hungarian the of members and communities diaspora between consultation of forum a as serves Council The communities. diaspora the of members of up made body consultative the set the through terms institutional in represented was change This ancestry. Hungarian of be to claim still but Hungarian speak not do who those ap new Orbán second the when respect this in 2010 after place took shift great A Romania). in Hungarians as number same the US, the in million 1.5 (roughly recently, quite constit until they although attention homeland‘s the from little very enjoyed basin Carpathian caused Slovakia in2010). tensions with territory the on preferential reside not of do who option Hungarians ethnic the for naturalization introduced Hungary when as well as Slovakia, and both Romania with conflicts provoked which 2001 in Law Status the adopted Hungary when (e.g. cou the debateswith sharp in resultedeven sometimes which 1989, of transition kin active very a pursuing been has Hungary Indeed, mind. coun (kin communities Hungarian is, that Hungarians‖, 1.

Some theoretical clarification is due here: throughout my thesis, the term „kin term the thesis, my throughout here: is due clarification theoretical Some Introduction re a a eut f h rdaig f ugr‘ badr i 12 that 1920 in boarders Hungary‘s of redrawing the of result a as tries proach to the Hungarian diaspora, which was partly manifested in an opening towards towards opening an in manifested partly was which diaspora, Hungarian the to proach Interestingly, compared to Hungarian kin Hungarian to compared Interestingly, „transborder of issue the usually is it policies, building nation Hungary‘s Concerning

ute a relatively large part of Hungarians abroad in terms of numbers numbers of terms in abroad Hungarians of part large relatively a ute

the Western hemisphere who later later who hemisphere Western the 2

- minorities, Hungarian diasporas Hungarian minorities, - - up of the Hungarian Diaspor Hungarian the of up ioiis lvn i te neighboring the in living minorities) - - state policy after the democratic democratic the after policy state government introduced a totally a introduced government - whereas the term „diaspora‖ will „diaspora‖ term the whereas minori t ast few years in order yearsorder in few ast y‖ will be used to refer to to refer to used y‖will be

of Hungary, which which Hungary, of und into turned oe t one‘s to comes ntries affectedntries 1

outside the outside a Council, Council, a

diaspora diaspora CEU eTD Collection journey by a trieswiththe ―homeland‖. so,it toevoke sortof doing identification jointlyredito them help to aims ―group‖and this of generation younger the addresses Hungary ReConnect Nevertheless, US. the in diaspora Hungarian of community coherent unified, the about speak cannot we so community,one into di waves emigration different the political) of members (economic, the and reasons, different by triggered Hungary from waves emigration successive Hungarian as group Hungarian on available literature academic limited The participants‘ the trigger interest Hungary to in by e.g. introducing start tries as well as ―homeland‖, the of picture idealized an show sightseein with operates project The self‖. Hungarian their ―rediscover Hungarian enables it programs: birthright classical of logic follows ReConnect Program. Birthright Hungarian the Hungary, ReConnect Foundation): but policy, diaspora s enjoys formerly neglected diaspora Hungarian communities have initiatives these of All events). cultural organizing in often institution diaspora assist and World the over all Hungarians diaspora in politics Hungarian about young visit Hungarians which frameof the in Program,Sándor Csoma Kőrösi the English),or review media weekly including diaspora, the for database ( Register Hungarian the as such diaspora, the towards approach new this realize to hs hss is o netgt te oeta otoe f t of outcome potential the investigate to aims thesis This which diaspora, Hungarian the for designed project new another is There

ome governmental support and perfectly fits into th into fits perfectly and support governmental ome by conducting semi conducting by - Americans to spend some weeks in Hungary in order to, as the program claims, program the as to, order in Hungary in weeks some spend to Americans - – mrcn isoa culy xss Ti prevd ru i a eut of result a is group perceived This exists. actually diaspora American

was launched by a Hungarian a by launched was - structured interviews wi interviews structured - up entrepreneurs tothem. 3

scover the ―homeland of their ancestors‖ andancestors‖ their of ―homeland the scover first .

th the participants of the 2012 and 2013 and 2012 the of participants the th - American cultural institution (Kossuth institution cultural American - , - Americans empha Americans second e

chain of programs in the new new the in programs of chain d not ever succeed to merge to succeed ever not d - third , the e ugra birthright Hungarian he

g programs that aim to aim that programs g

s in their work (most (most work their in s - agenda

r oe generation more or sizes that no such no that sizes

approach the the approach –

although a virtual a the CEU eTD Collection among by birthright journeys structure analyzing its goals. and primary its partic the on effect trip‘s interviews. the of basis the on subjects the of side the from found be can Hungary toward engagement of traces par whether as well the as ―Hungarianness‖, on had journey that effects ap the of letters cover the examine I interviews, the analyzing Besides programs. Hungary ReConnect ipants lives, the thesis likewise aims to situate ReConnect Hungary ReConnect situate to aims likewise thesis the lives, ipants lcns f h porm s well as program the of plicants

iiat‘ ecpin f n ietfcto with identification and of perception ticipants‘ 4

I . Besides revealing the birthright birthright the revealing Besides was

mainly interested in what what in interested mainly

the content of of content the CEU eTD Collection 4 302 1994): 1, (August Stud Transnational 3 2 diaspo ―Black the to awareness public raised which USA the in movement right civil the of aftermath and thus and diaspora the Hungariangovernment. ancestry themselves consider who individuals are exist not does Canada and USA the in diaspora‖ Hungarian ―the research, my of group target the since sense, Brubakerian this in addressed rather us should we groups bounded as them counting and entities substantive as diasporas of thinking literature. scholarly the in definition consensual became that agendas‖ political homeland. the towards responsibility However, and country, host the into integration complete homela a of myth and/or memory collective of definitions numerous in, resulted 2.1. 2.

Rogers Brubaker, ―The ‗Diaspora‘ Diaspora,‖ Diaspora,‖ ‗Diaspora‘ ―The RogersBrubaker, Brubaker, ―The ‗Diaspora‘Diaspora.‖ ―The Brubaker, William Safran, ―Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return,‖ Return,‖ and Homeland of Myths Societies: Modern in ―Diasporas Safran, William Theoretical framework andli

Diasporas According to Tölölyan, to According i Academic , and who, rather as a project a as rather who, and , e the terme the these descriptions of diaspora were adapted to the ―various intellectual, cultural and and cultural intellectual, ―various the to adapted were diaspora of descriptions these s oes rbkr rus the argues, Brubaker Rogers as a; h rs o Jws dapr lby uig h 16 wr n te ―re the and war 1967 the during lobby diaspora Jewish of rise the ra‖;

ies – the studies: diaspora in interest of growth rapid the to contributed nterest as referringto 38. , o 1 19) 83 (1991): 1 no. 1,

diaspora usually operate with notions notions with operate usually diaspora

n isoa tde hs been has studies diaspora on

four

defined as diaspora, and thus the term has not acquired a a acquired not has term the thus and diaspora, as defined

a ―

– stance or a claim or stance factors were central in the ―popularization‖ of ―popularization‖ the in central were factors 99 ion terature review . Ethnic Studies Racial and Ethnic ,

James Clifford, ―Diasporas,‖ ―Diasporas,‖ Clifford, James and –

to varying degrees and intensity and degrees varying to

potential, are subject of the diaspora politics of of politics diaspora the of subject are potential, 5

nd, idea of return to the homeland, lack of of lack homeland, the to return of idea nd,

ofsd s o te em ―diaspora‖ term the of use confused 4

as a coherent and homogeneou and coherent a as

Brubaker therefore suggests that instead of instead that suggests therefore Brubaker ‖ . In my thesis, the term diaspora will be be diasporawill In theterm thesis, my

growing

28, no. 1 1 no. (2005): 28, such

utrl Anthropology Cultural n h ls decades last the in as dispersion, as Diaspora: A Journal of Journal A Diaspora: – 19. –

s group s of Hungarian Hungarian of

community, the term the

, success 9, . ; there ; which 2

o 3 no. The - 3

CEU eTD Collection US Malden, UK, 7 6 Institute, 5 typology Esman's however, diasporas, many for significance its lost already have emigration seem may definition Esman's entrepreneurial. country. host the in function present their to according them categorize should one diaspora, given the of dispersal of reason the argues who Esman, J. Milton by provided is typology contrasting A reasons economic) (political, different by provoked were that waves emigration various of results insufficientbe to proves however, it typology Cohen‘s archet Jewish the without understandable not is and overtone biblical strong a has 'diaspora' notion expressions. cultural shared in manifest which colonization his diasporas, cultural for As hemisphere. Southern the in diaspora imperial British the or traders, Chinese century, 19th mobility several mentions andexamples, e.g. he US attheend European of migrantsthe the in imperial and labor whe category trade, umbrella an of handles subgroups as diasporas He (Irish). famine as such factors traumatic other to or (Jews) persecution to due dispersed which groups classical means he diasporas victim By imper labor, victim, diasporas: of categories five up set Cohen Robin the in resulted diaspora academic growing in the finally and US; the to migrants of influx great a in resulted which Act Immigration American the of liberalization the it; following ethnicity‖ of diasporization

Robin Cohen, Cohen, Robin Milton J. Esman, ―Definition and Classes of Diasporas,‖ in Diasporas,‖ of Classes and ―DefinitionEsman, J. Milton Khachig Tölölyan, ―Diaspora Studies. Past, Present and Promise. Working Paper‖ (International Migration Migration (International Paper‖ Working Promise. and Present Past, Studies. ―Diaspora Tölölyan, Khachig terest of notions of identity and diversity after the 1960s. the after diversity and identity of notions of terest p, e eeos ute ctgre wih i mdr dapr frain a well. as formations diaspora modern fit which categories further develops he ype,

2012), http://www.migration.ox.ac.uk/odp/pdfs/WP55%20Diaspora%20studies.pdf. 2012), –

as is the case for manycasefor Eastas the is Global Diasporas: An Introduction An Diasporas: Global A:2009). Polity, is useful if one wants to wants one if useful is

creation of numerous typologies numerous of creation

argument is that Caribbean people share the same experiences of of experiences same the share people Caribbean that is argument

when analyzing contemporary diaspora ent analyzingcontemporarywhen diaspora - 7 Central EuropeanAmerica.Central inNorth diasporas

hs e ugss he ctgre: ete, ao and labor settler, categories: three suggests he Thus

(Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1997). Press, ofWashington University (Seattle: investigate 6

more applicable since the initial reasons of of reasons initial the since applicable more Diasporas in the Contemporary World Contemporary the in Diasporas re the reason for emigration was social social was emigration for reason the re

diasporas from a historical perspective, historical a from diasporas . Based on the reasons of dispersal, dispersal, of reasons the on Based .

5 Although Cohen argues that the that argues Cohen Although

The proliferation proliferation The ial, trade, and cultural. and trade, ial, that instead of defining of instead that

ities which arewhich ities of the use of use the of

(Cambridge, (Cambridge,

CEU eTD Collection 1990). & Wishart, (London: Lawrence Rutherford 9 Methods and Univer (Amsterdam Theories Concepts, Transnationalism. and Diaspora 8 roots African of discovery result, a as dia and rediscovery‖, ―imaginative of kind a as works construction identity the on research his on dependen are and other, each from significantly differ identification diasporic of strategies and patterns that emphasized concerns major the research, however, thesis, the of part empirical as her ofreference and unit istheindividual notthe naturebounded overcomethe managesto Dahinden's country. host thedefi one of low). however, formations, transnational and are diaspora between differentiate locality and mobility both (where outsider and high), transnational is locality but high is mobility (where mobile transnational high), are locality low is mobility country host transnationa locality. and mobility own her in (or, diasporas approaches div internal without groups cohesive and bounded as diasporas treat both they as inasmuch Cohen's as limited as just is

Janine Dahinden, ―Dynamics of Migrants‘ Transnational Formations: Between Mobility and Locality,‖ in in Locality,‖ and Mobility Between Formations: Transnational Migrants‘ of ―Dynamics Dahinden, Janine tat al ―utrl dniy n Dapr, in Diaspora,‖ and Identity ―Cultural Hall, Stuart s pora Diasporic identification is a waste topic, topic, waste a is identification Diasporic ‘ s

―cultural identity is a matter of 'becoming' ―cultural isamatterwell'being'.‖ identity of as as of l ties, whereas locality means the degree of embeddedness of of embeddedness of degree the means locality whereas ties, l .

T nitive characters of diasporas, which is the presence of isthepresenceof which ofdiasporas, characters nitive he categories Dahinden defines are: localized diasporic transnational (where (where transnational diasporic localized are: defines Dahinden categories he but sity Press, 2010). Press, sity

locality is high), localized mobile transnational (where both mob both (where transnational mobile localized high), is locality

oiiy en te ere f hscl oiiy f h pro with person the of mobility physical of degree the means Mobility African typology ersity. t largely on the context of the diaspora itself diaspora the of context the on largely t

f h ise have issue the of

- Jamaica Caribbean diaspora, argues that in the case of diasporas, diasporas, of case the in that argues diaspora, Caribbean

nte tplg is typology Another is the most effectively useable useable effectively most the is words since it i it since ns

of both Cohen‘s and Esman‘s ―diasporas‖ inasmuch inasmuch ―diasporas‖Esman‘s and Cohen‘s both of 225.

, transnational formations) from the perspective of of perspective the from formations) transnational , a te eut f h imp the of result the was dniy Cmuiy Clue Difference Culture, Community, Identity:

7 s important from the point of view of my own own my of view of point the from important s

o e ulnd here outlined be to and it is addressed in more detail in the the in detail more in addressed is it and diaspora se per , ed. Rainer Baubock and Thomas Faist Faist Thomas and Baubock Rainer ed. , defined

. y aie aidn who Dahinden, Janine by

o ti thesis this for effective local ties in the local in ties effective

– her article illuminates article her

c o post of act Dahinden does not not does Dahinden though it has to be be to has it though 9 . Stuart Hall, based Hall, Stuart .

He claims thatt h esni the in person the , ed. Johnathan Johnathan ed. , ic she since - ility and and ility colonial colonial the he CEU eTD Collection 13 Studies Racial 12 11 10 their former homeland. of affairs the in interest and engagement effective with paired not is it however, selectively, form), some in cuisine traditional the keeping (e.g. rituals some have and ethnicity their of symbols the use country, they that concluded and USA ethnicity‖. ―symbolic as labels Gans what is mentioned be to has which identification diasporic of aspect other The interest the with identification Romanians applyto not do Roma Romanians and Roma the between hand, other the on and hand, one the on to had of development is identity diasporic of eventuality The themselves anew, transformation through anddifference." reproducing and producing constantly are which those are identities Diaspora hybridity. by wit lives which 'identity' of conception a by diversity; and heterogeneity necessary a of recognition the by but purity, or essence by not defined, that concludes He identity. diasporic the of rediscovery‖ revolution

Ibid. Trandafoiu, Ruxandra Ibid. Herbert J. Gans, ―Symbolic Ethnicity: The Future of Ethnic Groups and Cultures in America*,‖ America*,‖ in Cultures and Groups Ethnic of Future The Ethnicity: ―Symbolic Gans, J. Herbert

235. face stereotypical prejudices stereotypical face

of the group.of the

and of the reflection on their social status, status, social their on reflection the of and

2, no. 1 (January 1979): 1 (January 1 2, 1979): no.

Romanian diaspora Romanian Diaspora Online: Identity Politics and Romanian Migrants Romanian and Politics Identity Online: Diaspora 11

― Gans examined the strategies of identification of ethnic grou ethnic of identification of strategies the examined Gans which means that they pick up element up pick they that means which homeland

very often often very . As a conclusion, Romanian diaspora identity diasporaRomanian conclusion, a As . – ‖ 20, doi:10.1080/01419870.1979.999 20, ,

in order in in the host country, which triggered which country, host the in ra identity was the consequence of the fact that the group the that fact the of consequence the was identity ther, it was a consequence of the of consequence a was it ther, exhibit nostalgia, love and pride towards the home the towards pride and love nostalgia, exhibit mhszd y Trandafoiu, by emphasized hy a t had they to convince the locals that the stereotypes of the the of stereotypes the that locals the convince to 8

which triggered the act the triggered which wr o te rain f boundaries of creation the on work o h and through, not despite, difference; despite, not through, and h 10

[t] e isoa experience diaspora he s of their ―national identity‖ identity‖ ―national their of s 3248.

, 2013. ,

h cam ta the that claims who intragroup solidarity intragroup recogni

of ―imaginative of

was not about about not was tion of tion Ethnic and and Ethnic ps in the in ps (…)

self is -

CEU eTD Collection Review 15 2002). Conn: Praeger, (Westport, ed., Ambrosio, Thomas 2007); Press, Michigan 449 of University 2003): 1, (July 3 no. 57, 14 Turkish currently (although Europe in diaspora Turkish with governments Turkish former of intent the was as diaspora, the with contact keeping and of solidification the over priority contemporary country) resources professional diaspora‘s the for prospects investm througheconomy homeland‘s the support to or home back remittances send to diaspora the persuading namely nature, economic of often be can well. ―established and migrants recent both of engagement the trigger can origin of country the in disasters environmental or developments political case, former the In well. as transnati Østergaard Eva by given is author) the by practices here. diaspo of aspects various the among journeys), birthright through building diaspora precisely (more building diaspora with well. as decades two past the in attention academic acquired etc.). social, its in diaspora its engage to country home the of efforts behavior which concept broad a is politics Diaspora 2.2.

Eva Østergaard Eva Yossi Shain and Aharon Barth, ―Diasporas and International Relations Theory,‖ Theory,‖ Relations International and ―Diasporas Barth, Aharon and Shain Yossi Diaspora politics Diaspora 15

37, no. 3 (2003): 760 (2003): 3 no. 37,

n cmrhnie e o dapr pltc (eerd o s rnntoa political transnational as to (referred politics diaspora of set comprehensive One In the latter case, when diaspora politics is initiated by the homeland, the motivation the homeland, the by initiated is politics diaspora when case, latter the In onal practices can be initiated by both members of the diaspora and the home country country home the and diaspora the of members byboth initiated be can practicesonal

may be also appealing for home country governments. country home for appealing also be may of diasporas, diasporas, of The role of diasporas in international rela international in diasporas of role The

- neet f h snig country sending the of interest Nielsen, ―The Politics of Migrants‘ Transnational Political Practices,‖ Practices,‖ Political Transnational Migrants‘ of Politics ―The Nielsen,

their relationship with the home and the host country, as well as well as country, host the and home the with relationship their –

86, doi:10.1111/j.1747 86, – 9 Ysi Sha Yossi 79;

ra politics diaspora engagement policies are addressed are policies engagement diaspora politics ra

in, isi & isoa i Itrainl Affairs International in Diasporas & Kinship - 7379.2003.tb00157.x. 9 might ,

encouraging return migration has sometimes sometimes has migration return encouraging

- Ethnic Identity Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy Foreign U.S. and Groups Identity Ethnic embody Nielsen. Østergaard Nielsen. or political support (lobby in the host host the in (lobby support political or tions and ethnic conflict resolution has has resolution conflict ethnic and tions far (e t oiia, economic, political, it (be affairs

ents. Besides economic benefits, economicbenefits, Besides ents. 14 h politicization the

Since this thesis is concerned is thesis this Since However International Organization International - Intern Nielsen , depending on the the on depending , ational Migration Migration ational

diasporas‖ as as diasporas‖ and

argues that that argues (Ann Arbor: Arbor: (Ann

in detail in political the the

CEU eTD Collection States,‖ the United in Groups Heritage 21 20 19 http://www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/working%20papers/WPTC 01 2001), Programme, Communities (Transnational 18 doi:10.1080/17449057.2013.846041. 17 16 entitled homeland‘s calling. willingness of degree the on impact crucial a have also may population receptor the groupto similarity culturalemigrantthe the asof well asemigration reasonof the receiving countries‖. receiving the in context political and ―societal the on dependent much very is successful be to out turns often more pro than are reactive projects these practices; transnational of initiators sole the as granted for homeland projects. the in from to reason efforts relevant require another be may might which country government, host the in diaspora the of situation persecution. political of because country the left who co and restitution symbolic a as serve can changes regime after diaspora the the of incorporation political reinforcing the Moreover, of home‖. ―at way party governing‘s a the of aselectorate considered be messagecan therefore important and constituency an ―mainland‖ carries expatriates towards responsibility homeland‘s the demonstrating example, For well. as politics diaspora behind lay can motivations Further political support aswell to prefer rather governments

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Kenneth D. Wald, ―Homeland Interests, Hostland Politics: Politicized Ethnic Identity among Middle Eastern Middle among Identity Ethnic Politicized Politics: Hostland Interests, ―Homeland Wald, D. Kenneth - zbls ooy, Fu Pten o Non of Patterns ―Four Pogonyi, Szabolcs v Østergaard Eva 22%20Ostergaard.doc.pdf.

Alan ― 18

The e The countries, the less interest it has in the homeland‘s affairs, homeland‘s the in has it interest less the countries,

However, it is important to emphasize that sending countries should not be taken be not should countries sending that emphasize to important is it However, Gamlen migration migration - ile, Te oiis f Migrants‘ of Politics ―The Nielsen, - active, and furthermo and active, 21

, who ,

16 s tate and the and tate

gives a concise summary of recent diaspora politics diaspora recent of summary concise a gives

ae et s o is diaspora its of use best make International Migration Review Migration International 19

It is often argued that the longer a diaspora stays in the in stays diaspora a longer the that argued often is It - Resident Voting Rights,‖ Rights,‖ Voting Resident modern geopolitical i geopolitical modern diaspora the engage to attempts the of any whether re, 10

Transnational Political Practices. Working Paper‖ Paper‖ Working Practices. Political Transnational 17

In certain In

42, no. 2 (July 1, 2008): 273 no. (July 2008): 2 1, 42, magination‖ Eth tae rnntoa engagement transnational itiate

n em o ivsmns and investments of terms in nopolitics cases the betterment of the of betterment the cases 20

however, factors like factors however, Nvme 21, 1 2013, November , mpensation for those for mpensation , suggests that suggests to resonate to the the to resonate to

- in his paper paper his in institutional – 3 01. for the the for

home – 19, - CEU eTD Collection 341 Foundation,‖ National American Cuban the of Case The Policy: Foreign U.S. in Groups Interest Ethnic Homelands of Role ―The Vanderbush, Their Walt and Haney J. Patrick and 1999); U.S. the in Diasporas Abroad: Creed Shain, Yossi 2000); Press, University Harvard England: London, Mass. ; (Cambridge, 27 2010). Brill, Boston: Smith(Leiden, Present and Past Nationalisms, Diaspora Homeland: the of 26 25 24 23 840 2008): (November 8 22 with countries several by practiced been have programs these list, Gamlen‘s on politics governments‘willingness toimprove ofhomeland‘s their thediaspora. ties with asset real a be can lobby United the Armenianin the and Jewish elections homeland benefits economic and/or benefits) rights, voting (citizenship, rights social and/or political of extension between ties‖ ―reciprocal of establis the meaning later the etc.). integration, diaspora from engagement diaspora separates offices, government (consulate, diaspora the of charge in bodies official broadcasting. or media language of recognition national financing like ones practical and co to references hinting or holidays, national at diaspora ―r the of celebration the like communities‖. diaspora existing recognize ―formally or structures‖ community and identities ―diasporic countries

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Anthony D. Smith, ―Diasporas and the Homelands in History: The Case of the Classic Diasporas,‖ in Diasporas,‖ Classic the of Case The History: in Homelands the and ―Diasporas Smith, D. Anthony Alan Gamlen, ―The Emigration State and the Modern Geopolitical Imaginati Geopolitical Modern the and State Emigration ―The Gamlen, Alan Tony Smith, Smith, Tony – 61.

lhuh itrgt journey birthright Although

to the diaspora from the side of the state, in turn in state, the of side the from diaspora the to a hv to taeis to strategies two have can Foreign Attachments: The The Attachments: Foreign 22 the diaspora usually diaspora the

o lutae isoi iett cliain aln mentions Gamlen cultivation identity diasporic illustrate To ) –

56, 56, doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2008.10.004. rm h diaspora. the from (investments, ―expatriate tax‖, lobby tax‖, ―expatriate (investments, o te oeads oiia affairs, political homeland‘s the for

h oeadadtedapr. It diaspora. the and homeland the

ole of expatriates in the nation‖, delegation of diplomats to to diplomats of delegation nation‖, the in expatriates of ole s do not appear among the popular ―tools‖ of diaspora diaspora of ―tools‖ popular the among appear not do s Power of Ethnic Groups in the Making of American Foreign Policy Foreign American of Making the in Groups Ethnic of Power starts with statistical procedures or the establishment of of establishment the or procedures statistical with starts States demonstrate clearly that the diaspora‘s effective diaspora‘seffective the demonstrateclearlythat States start 25

h css f w o te lsi diasporas, classic the of two of cases The

International Studies Quarterly Studies International the 11

, ed. ed. , engage

Cmrde U: abig Univ Cambridge UK: (Cambridge, Allon Gal, Athena S. Leoussi, and Anthony D. D. Anthony and Leoussi, S. Athena Gal, Allon et of ment - ethnics abroad in official statutes, official in abroad ethnics of which it might expect political expect might it which of 27 , political participation at the the at participation political ,

on,‖ on,‖ hc frhr xlis the explains further which hi dapr: cultivating diaspora: their usually Political Geography Political

43, no. 2 (June 1, 1999): 1999): 1, (June 2 no. 43, viaiiy f social of availability Marketing the American American the Marketing manifested in manifested

yblc acts symbolic 24 23 ersity Press, Press, ersity

Gamlan T Formal

hment he Call Call he 27, no. 27, 26

the the the

CEU eTD Collection Scientist Behavioral 29 2010). Press, University 28 Kelner aim, whichneglect ispolitical the program‘ssocialization. implicit cannot one members, diaspora for identification national initiate) (or reinforce to is journeys Israelithe has birthright changed a by today, lot trip and inter propagated thus and diaspora the in assimilation combat well. rat as journeys a birthright have of Indiatradition and China Taiwan, Armenia, Israel, Besides it. in participated 200 than more now by and 1990s, the in diaspora T groupmaintaining boundaries. their common in have same together bringing by and ―homeland‖ idealistic the presenting it clear: is journeys birthright of mechanism deterritorialized and territorialized simultaneously u is that to community political common a in belonging shared of sense a fostering by populations seek strategies tourism] [birthright these place and culture, people, between connections inherent of assertions nationalist on ―[d]rawing argues, Kelner them. by (re)discovered is country‖ ―home the which of frame the in participant) the from contribu financial symbolic only requiring or charge, of free (usually journey a for join youngindividuals upon call programs li journeys birthright diaspora significant

he pioneer of birthright journeys is Israel: it initiated its ―home tourism‖ program for the the for program tourism‖ ―home its initiated it Israel: is journeys birthright of pioneer he Jillian L. Powers, ―Reimaging the Imagined Community Homeland Tourism and the Role of Place,‖ Place,‖ of Role the and Tourism Homeland Community Imagined the ―Reimaging Powers, L. Jillian Shaul Kelner, Kelner, Shaul , n o te ot opeesv aayi o birthr of analysis comprehensive most the of One

who

Tours That Bind: Diaspora, Pilgrimage, and Israeli Birthright Tourism Birthright Israeli and Pilgrimage, Diaspora, Bind: That Tours eoe hs ok o the to book his devotes

55, no. 10 (October 1, 2011): 1362 2011): 1, (October 10 no. 55,

as a as xvi.

es in a positive personal experience attached to the home country; these these country; home the to attached experience personal positive a in es

ethnic (or religious) ancestry, the latter being crucial in creating and and creating in crucial being latter the ancestry, religious) (or ethnic

remarkable

step on the way of diaspora engagement. The essence of of essence The engagement. diaspora of way the on step in the diaspora who are who diaspora the in

Initially, the Israeli birthright program targeted to to targeted program birthright Israeli the Initially, sal bir Israeli 12 – oper 78, doi:10.1177/0002764211409380. 78,

ates with highly emotional experiences by by experiences emotional highly with ates roe ad uprooted and rooted , thright program (Taglit Israel). Kelner Kelner Israel). (Taglit program thright

000 persons of Jewish ancestry have have ancestry Jewish of persons 000 a lthough the explicit aim ofbirthrightlthough explicit the ight journeys is given by Shaul Shaul by given is journeys ight of the given country‘s origin to to origin country‘s given the of - Jewish marriages. Obviously, Obviously, marriages. Jewish

nite globally dispersed dispersed globally nite - aged youngsters who who youngsters aged

(New York: New York York New York: (New .‖ 28

h working The e long her American tion As CEU eTD Collection 31 30 it moreover, and East Middle the in politics Jewish of critical less participant dissent a turning participant birthright former a as likewise theyembody po reality in programs, birthright of nature political the deny organizers the although that argues lobbyist effective developing in or etc.) cooperation scientific (investment, homeland the in engagement practical participants' birthright former other the in several resulted which addresses examples she Moreover, journey. the of memories positive the also experience the however, participants the of heart and mind the in time, Taiwan lovely a of construction the to contributed same the At culture. Chinese for cared hardly who th of Beijing, instead Taipei of supporters be would who Chinese diaspora of up made camp a build to aimed obviously and government Taiwanese the by subsidized was program the although j birthrightTaiwanese works open The ended"construc ways ofsocially Kelner home‖. back it ―take can participants that so de also it however, hand, other the on hand, one the on Israel in socialization. migration, conne building about than building Jewish the Israeli the of that argues Kelner program. birthright participants the among years many for observation participant conducted

Audrea Lim, ―Birthright Journeys: Connecting Dots for the Diaspora, thefor Dots Connecting Journeys: Lim, ―Birthright Audrea Kelner,

s well. as Tours That Bind That Tours -

nens o brhih juny Kle sek aot per a ohr authors other at appears about speaks Kelner journeys birthright of endedness e program turned out to be a highly typical summer camp of American teenagers teenagers American of camp summer typical highly a be to out turned program e oevr te i o te rga i pltcl ahr hn tnc r religious or ethnic than rather political is program the of aim the moreover, In his interpret his In litical socialization patterns. litical socialization o eape Ade Lim Audrea example, For

ourney program which she attended at attended she which ourneyprogram .

ation, the Israeli birthright program territorializes Jewish culture Jewish territorializes program birthright Israeli the ation,

ting through diasporas tourism. ctions with the state of Israel or about fostering return return fostering about or Israel of state the with ctions 31 –

Similar conclusion is drawn is conclusion who bySimilar Feldman, – clai

who gives a personal commentary on the the on commentary personal a gives who birthright journeys are more about diaspora diaspora about more are journeys birthright s ht h Irei rga scedd in succeeded program Israeli the that ms

concludes that the journeys are "open are journeys the that concludes ‖

the Dissent

30 age of seventeen ageseventeen of - culture Jewish territorializes

59, no. 3 (2012): 59 (2012): 3 no. 59,

n h U. She US. the in -

claims – 65 .

that by by – ‘ -

CEU eTD Collection http://www.bjpa.org/Publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=171. 1991, April 1, Youth,‖ 33 http://www.thenation.com/article/161460/romance 32 the participants‖. engagem and positive a have will trip the that likelihood the affects socialization of level lower a exhibit to likely are journey the before country the in interest shown not had who those whereas Israel, in inter became state the to attitude positive priori a an had had who those usually journey one after that out points survey the Moreover, country. the to visit second the after develop jour ―one that is report the of conclusion major Theparticipants. amongthe identification Jewish strongerstimulating in as well as Israel toward Jews diaspora engaging in effective be to prove journeys birthright Israelijourney. birthright the of impact the about adults projects. tourism Cohen‘s homeland evaluate to reference of points as used be can which surveys t measure, to difficult are journeys birthright of outputs the Although made everyfeel participant ―more Jewish‖.

tvn . oe, ―Commit Cohen, M. Steven Kiera Feldman, ―The Romance of Birthright Israel,‖ Israel,‖ Birthright of Romance ―The Feldman, Kiera

survey was carried out in the 1990s amongst Canadian Jewish teenagers and young and teenagers Jewish Canadian amongst 1990s the in out carried was survey 33

ney is not enough‖, that is, deep attachment to Israel is more likely to to likely more is Israel to attachment deep is, that enough‖, not is ney ted Zionists and Curious Tourists: Travel to Israel Among Canadian Jewish Jewish Canadian Among Israel to Travel Tourists: Curious and Zionists ted

- birthright 32

n, hc mas that means which ent, - israel?p The survey‘s finding is that the Israeli the that is finding survey‘s The age=0,2. h Nation The

endurin here are a couple of of couple a are here

―pre , June 15, 2011, 2011, 15, June , - rp pro trip g impact upon upon impact g - Israel ested ested CEU eTD Collection 36 n.d.) in 2010,‖ Protection 35 Minority And/or 2004). Center, Research Slavic University, Building Nation Law: Status 34 t after country basically politics Hungarian of the of borders the of redrawing the by issue ―created‖ been had minorities these after immediately central a became abroad minorities Hungarian kin 3.1. Hungarian used as syn kin policy, building nation terms The 1989. after policy building nation transnational Hungarian of nature intensifying borders state borders state across operate (governmental that foundations) institutions agencies, through nation Hungarian the integrate or unite to was Hungarian vision congruent. state and nation prototypical of were 1989 borders after governments the make to was goal primary the to aim howev borders, state beyond reach that policies building nation nationalist of form the denotes nationalism Transsovereign as labeled became (post democratic newly of the issue the is Hungary of history the of aspects interesting most the of One 3. Hungarian nation building

Csergő and Goldgeir, ―Nationalist Strategies and European Integration.‖ European and Strategies ―Nationalist Goldgeir, Csergő and Szabolcs Pogonyi, ―National Reunification beyond Borders: Diaspora and Minority Politics in Hungary since since Hungary in Politics Minority and Diaspora Borders: beyond Reunification ―National Pogonyi, Szabolcs Zsuzsa Csergő and James M. Goldgeir, ―Nationalist Strategies and European Integration,‖ in Integration,‖ European and Strategies ―Nationalist Goldgeir, M. James and Csergő Zsuzsa .

pursue border changes. Thus, it overcomes the traditional form of nationalism where nationalism of form traditional the overcomes it Thus, changes. border pursue European Yearbook of Minority Issues Minority of Yearbook European onyms. . 36 he First World War by the Treaty of Trianon in 1920. In the interwar period it it period interwar the In 1920. in Trianon of Treaty the by War World First he

The following sec following The

transsovereign ( transsovereign

- state politics between 1989 and 2010 1989and between politics state reframed - state politics and nation policy nation and politics state

or returning returning or tion introduces the most significant developments and the and developments significant most the introduces tion

transborder policy , vol. Volume 10, 2011 (European Center for Minority Issues, Issues, Minority for Center (European 2011 10, Volume vol. ,

practiser 15 ) nationalism, which nationalism, 34

or transnational (trans transnational or , ed. Zoltán Kántor et al. (Sapporo: Hokkaido Hokkaido (Sapporo: al. et Kántor Zoltán ed. , s

f rnsvrin ainls a their as nationalism transsovereign of

instead of pursuing the revision of of revision the pursuing of instead

political (nemzetpolitika in Hungarian) are are Hungarian) in (nemzetpolitika

283 er,

- 284.

at the same time time same the at in its ―post its in agenda that operates with operates that agenda

- state) nationalism. state) - national‖ T he Hungarian Hungarian he it does not does it - 1989) 1989) form form 35

CEU eTD Collection 40 39 2004). Center, Research University, Slavic Hokkaido (Sapporo: al. et Zoltán Kántor ed. in Hungary,‖ of Borders the beyond 38 far. so governments ofany 37 the by supervised and Abroad Communities Hungarian of Office the into turned (later Office minister‘s Prime the of supervision the under Abroad Communities Hungarian of Secretary re and reformed Orbán second the when 2010, until ―nation lasted less Hungarian or more of which policy‖ grounds institutional the and principles the both down laid Antall kin Hungarian of publicly. mid the as early 1960s as since regard this in shift gradual smooth, very a was there that note to worth that is it transition, democratic the until governments Hungarian by neglected completely belief common a is it Although of issue the address to ethnic once conflicts) be society will solved classless isrealized, discourse the dominated exclusively resolution‖ ―automatic of propaganda the 1945, after decades governments. Hungarian i any of the agenda the Hungary to again came in never revisionism takeover communist the after however, again, lost re the all War World Second the After Hungary. to back given were population Hungarian significant with territories lost the of many 1941 and 1938 between was aim this and governments, Hungarian of aims the dominated that territories lost the of revision territorial complete was

Pogonyi, ―National Reunification beyond Borders: Diaspora and Minority Politics in Hungary since 2010.‖ since Hungary in Minority and Politics Diaspora Borders: beyond Reunification ―National Pogonyi, typology: Bárdi‘s See There have been radical parties which pro which parties radical been have There ádr ád, Te itr o Relation of History ―The Bárdi, Nándor , 39 However, it was not until the regime change of 1989 of change regime the until not was it However,

40 and by the late the by and

; according to the communist ideology, all social prob social all ideology, communist the to according ; - - state policy started. The first government after the transition led by Józ by led transition the after government first The started. policy state tutrd t I isiuinl em, h Antall the terms, institutional In it. structured Ibid.

- national

1 980s reform communists quite openly raised the raised openly quite communists reform 980s

The Hungarian Status Law: Nation Building And/or Minority Protection Minority And/or Building Nation Law: Status Hungarian The partly minority communities minority bten ugra Gvrmns n Ehi Hnain Living Hungarians Ethnic and Governments Hungarian between s pagate irredentism since 1990, however, none of them has been part part been has them of none however, 1990, since irredentism pagate realized after Hungary allied itself with Naz with itself allied Hungary after realized

rnbre (r kin (or transborder 16

for any of the Soviet satellite states satellite Soviet the of any for - 1990 that the institutionalization the that 1990 - 38 minority) Hungarians were were Hungarians minority) lems (including national and national (including lems

therefore noneed therewas - governmen - gained territories were territories gained - government radically government

issue several times several issue dea of territorial territorial of dea 37 t set up the the up set t

i Germany; i n h first the In

sef - . ,

CEU eTD Collection ofHungary.‖ Borders 41 avoida the in as well as communities, Hungarian transborder Slovakia, and Romania with 1994 of government socialist the priority.attit pragmatic Theits as region stabilitythe ofthe defined pragmaticandmore Horn the talks), OSCE the in role leading a taking by (especially regime and ―ambitious‖ post the understand politics, state this Although never beenHungaryethnickinsbeyond challenged its that ignore cannot borders. the kin of foundations Antallian Law), Status Fidesz first the while relations neighborly good on and development economic on emphasis more put 1998 different on stresses with and degrees varying to Although Hungary‖. with relations their foster and promote shall and borders its of outside living Hungarians to happens what for responsibility of sense a bears Hungary of Republic incorporate was it Hungarians; transborder to reference symbolic a introduced also Euro1989 in constitution the of amendment the Moreover, relations). neighborly (besides policy foreign Hungarian of pillars three Antall the that step important very a was it policy, nation Hungarian of principles the Considering firs the established managed of Hungarian kin thefinancial support it as well as Affairs), Foreign of Ministry

Bárdi, ―The History of Relations between Hungarian Governments and Ethnic Hungarians Living beyond the the beyond Living Hungarians Ethnic and Governments Hungarian between Relations of History ―The Bárdi, - government incorporated the governmental support of Hungarian minoriti Hungarian of support governmental the incorporated government 41 thesis the

- h scesv Hung successive the oenet ok mr cnrnaie tne ih h i the with stance confrontative more a took government wished to wished

ao events major

- does 00 eeomns f the of developments 2010 not aim to discuss in detail the pre the detail in discuss to aim not contribute to enhancement of the international minority protection protection minority international the of enhancement to contribute - state policy as a point of reference, as a result of which it has it which of result a as reference, of point a as policy state

n h spot f cnmc nrsrcue n cvl society civil and infrastructure economic of support the in

- n milestones and 1998 was manifested in the conclusion of the Basic Tre Basic the of conclusion the in manifested was 1998 ra gvrmns a t, n ide dd ae the take did indeed and to, had governments arian 17

aspects (eg. the socialist government of 1994 of government socialist the (eg. aspects -

minorities. minorities.

have to be mentioned in order to clearly clearly to order in mentioned be to have field . hl te Antall the While

nce of nce - - tatc nerto ad good and integration Atlantic 2010 history of Hungarian kin Hungarian of history 2010 t public foundations that that foundations public t interstate conflict with conflict interstate d into the law that ―the ―the that law the into d ntroduction of the the of ntroduction - - government was was government government was was government es among the among es

ude of ude aties aties

the of of - - CEU eTD Collection 44 Center,2004). Protection Minority And/or Building 43 42 between forum consultation the solidified it policy: nation of development institutional the Orbán first the of novelty other the Law, Status the of adoption the Besides n concerning the of history policy the in instance exceptional an as considered be can which Hungarians, governmental minority a of legitimacy the on organizations international with about brought citizenship. through not but language, or culture ethnicity, through linked is one which to state a state, ―foreign‖ a by issued document official h Thus, it. for applied who those for (non significance minister prime Romanian and Hungarian the by signed memorandum a by resolved later was conflict the and Slovakia, and Romania by sovereignty state violating thus and effects extraterritorial having for criticized c health and education transportation, public in treatment preferential and benefits meant practice in which Hungary, of territory the outside living Hungarians ethnic to Natio on even ofand theVenice thestatement High theOSCE provoked Commission Commissioner finally and Slovakia, and Romania with conflicts raised also but government, Hungarian the inst the only not about Countries) Neighbouring in Living Hungarians on Act the (officially kin Hungarian of culmination first The neighboringcountries. ewly Hungary. democratic

Pogonyi, ―National Reunification beyond Borders: Dia Borders: beyond Reunification ―National Pogonyi, Ibid. Zoltán Kántor, ―Status Law and ‗Nation Policy‘: Theoretical Aspects,‖ in in Aspects,‖ Theoretical Policy‘: ‗Nation and Law ―Status Kántor, Zoltán - resident) ethnic Hungarian individuals institutionalized by granting ―Hungarian cards‖ cards‖ ―Hungarian granting by institutionalized individuals Hungarian ethnic resident)

nal Minorities on the rights of kin of rights the on Minorities nal

of the Status Law was Law Status the of

h ugra gvrmn‘ ofotto ih te gvrmns n even and governments other with confrontation government‘s Hungarian the

42 itutionalization of the relation between ethnic Hungarians abroad and and abroad Hungarians ethnic between relation the of itutionalization

s , ed. Zoltán Kántor et al. (Sapporo: (Sapporo: al. et Kántor Zoltán ed. , amn t de to aiming , that olding the ―Hungarian card‖ basically meant to have an have to meant basically card‖ ―Hungarian the olding it made the relation between the Hungarian state and state Hungarian the between relation the made it - tt pltc ws h aoto of adoption the was politics state - states. 18 - spora and Minority Politics in Hungary since 2010.‖ since Hungary in Minority and Politics spora hre the sharpen

43 oevr h dpino h tts Law Status the of adoption the Moreover,

The Status Law offered quasi offered Law Status The

tnc rtra f h law the of criteria ethnic Hokkaido University, Slavic Research Research Slavic University, Hokkaido The Hungarian Status Law: Nation Nation Law: Status Hungarian The in

2001, which brought which 2001, r. h lw was law The are. - government was was government h Sau Law Status the - citizenship . 44

The

CEU eTD Collection became kin from separated di Hungarian of foundations the down Orbán the projects, motivated politically and grandiose these Besides elections. national Hungarian the at vote that meant which citizens, dual to rights political of citizenship. non enabled which Citizenship on Law of respects many in Hungarian point turning huge a meant 2010 in Fidesz of victory landslide The 3.2. Standing Conference referendum failed the after politicians Hungarian transborder and government o benefits social the threaten would Hungarians citizen dual transborder that implying by card chauvinist‖ liberal citizenship dual forum in role major a played Conference representation theirand todiscussactual in respective problems. The countries, issues inorder organiza Hungarian minority and government Hungarian the of members Parliament, Hungarian the of MPs of participation the with year Conference. Standing represent Hungarian minority and MPs Hungarian Nation policy Nation came to a halt u halt a cameto parties kin The possibility of preferential naturalization was soon followed by the extension extension the by followed soon was naturalization preferential of possibility The - encouraged their voters to vote to voters their encouraged state politics. The politics. state . In the campaign period before the referendum the before period campaign the In . ―riay Hnain citizens Hungarian ―ordinary‖ f

- after 2010 after government introduced many symbolic measures, furthermore, it laid laid it furthermore, measures, symbolic many introduced government was notconvenedwas 2010. until nder the Gyurcsány the nder From 1999 the Hungarian Standing Conference was convened once a a once convened was Conference Standing Hungarian the 1999 From - state policy.

most most the drafting of the Status Law; Status the of drafting the

soa oiis s el which well, as politics aspora th obviously was step significant - resident ethnic Hungarians to apply for Hungarian Hungarian for apply to Hungarians ethnic resident - government in 2004, after 2004, in government 19

against the initiative, playing out the ―welfa the out playing initiative, the against

tions that have parliamentary or provincial provincial or parliamentary have that tions

. Due to the tense relation between the the between relation tense the to Due . tvs ih h st p f the of up set the with atives non - resident citizens became eligible to to eligible became citizens resident , the governing the , however, the consultation the however,

the failed referendumon failed the -

e amendment of the the of amendment e n eti regards certain in , the , socialist and and socialist

Hungarian Hungarian re re -

CEU eTD Collection veszik_a_magyar_allampolgarsagot_szerbiaban/2350791/. Serbia),‖ in Purchased 47 Slovak Studies the Europe on Central East More in Citizenship citizenship. Slovak their of citizenship deprived be can country 46 45 since 2011. non many Ukraine and Vojvodina well a is it excluded; not are criteria the fit but origin ethnic different pe (Although abroad. living Hungarians ethnic for naturalization track fast provides it clear: is law the of aim the Nevertheless, Hungary. of state the to citizenship) (i.e. and often critici harshly very been has legislation The law). the by specified are checking bureaucratic its of way the nor knowledge language of level required the (neither language Hungarian the a her or his of one that prove to has applicant the met; are criteria two if Hungary in residence permanent without citizenship Hungarian obtain to possible it makes and Citizenship, on Act the of version amended the tran of citizenship ―dual as to referred (commonly law 2010 between policy nation House), the of session day three only (submitted 2010 in Parliament new the by adopted law first very the was it first, reasons; two for symbolic was It 2010. in victory electoral its after Orbán second the step important most symbolically) and politically (both and citizenship 3.2.1. Dual the enfranchisementnon of

Ibid. Gábor Gergő Kiss, ―Adják Kiss, Gergő Gábor lvka vn int even Slovakia

, 2010), http://eudo 2010), , The introduction of preferential naturalization for ethnic Hungarians was the first and first the was Hungarians ethnic for naturalization preferential of introduction The : zbls ooy, ái M Kvc, n Zot Körtvélyesi, Zsolt and Kovács, M. Mária Pogonyi, Szabolcs 47 ) zed for applying ethnic criteria, ethnic applying for zed

oue a „counter a roduced

Delmagyar. - citizenship.eu/docs/ECEcompreport.pdf. 45

- thus it carried an important message, and second, the discourse on discourse the second, and message, important an carried it thus Veszik a Magyar Állampolgárságot Szerbiában (Hungarian Citizenship Sold and and Sold Citizenship (Hungarian Szerbiában Állampolgárságot Magyar a Veszik - 2014 was almost exclusively dominated by the adoption of this of adoption the by dominated exclusively almost was 2014

, EUDO Citizenship Observatory (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Advanced for Centre Schuman (Robert Observatory Citizenship EUDO , ncestors was citizen of Hungary, and must have a command of of commanda have must and Hungary,of citizen was ncestors hu Spebr 5 21, http://www.delmagyar.hu/szeged_hirek/adjak 2013, 25, September , - - law‖ as the effect of which Slovak citizens naturalizing in another another in naturalizing citizens Slovak which of effect the as law‖ Hungarians obtained Hungarian (and thus EU) citizenship citizenship EU) thus (and Hungarian obtained Hungarians 20 46

however, in fact it requires formal legal ties legal formal requires it fact in however, sborder Hungarians‖). The law itself is itself law The Hungarians‖). sborder

- resident citizens h Pltc o Etra Kin External of Politics The - Hungarian tension about dual dual about tension Hungarian - known fact that both in in both that fact known s after the inaugural inaugural the after s -

government made made government rsons who are of of are who rsons - State State -

CEU eTD Collection 2010.‖ since in Hungary Minority and Politics Diaspora Borders: beyond Reunification 49 2010). Macmillan, (New Palgrave York: 48 it: about evidence have we 2014 April 6 of elections the after Now, party. Fidesz governing widel was non it enfranchised 2010, newly that after expected as well as 2002 and 1998 between Fidesz of politics national Based ofleft relation onthetense siwith limitation, rights voting accordingly; amended was law electoral the and inseparable, are rights political and citizenship that became government measure. leading politicians naturalization preferential on law the of adoption the after since citizenship, dual Hungarian transborder to sympathetic are who electorate mainland its of those reinforcing so, doing a became it time same a and abroad, citizens Hungarian naturalizing newly the of electorate potential the win ultimately to served it agenda; twofold a had naturalization preferential on law the Therefore, sa the at (which political in represented long a was as speeches itself measure The regularly. ceremonies oath citizenship publishe systematically the took who those on as well as citizenship Hungarian for applying Orbán second the of panel ―d of project the earlier, claimed As

On Myra A. Waterbury, Waterbury, A. Myra the governing party‘s changing opinion on political rights and dual citizenship see citizenship dual and rights political on opinion changing party‘s governing the h efacieet f non of enfranchisement The 49

communities. However, by early 2011 this 2011 early by However, f Fidesz of e ie eae h smo o left of symbol the became time me nce they lists voteonlycan for party - ewe Sae n Nto: Diaspor Nation: and State Between wie rdmto, cmesto fr h pifl 04 referendum 2004 painful the for compensation a redemption, awaited

claimed that the extension of voting rights would not follow the the follow not would rights voting of extension the that claimed tool to solidify the national the solidify to tool , n laig oiiin (iitr, tt sceais attended secretaries) state (ministers, politicians leading and d, 48

- government‘s nation policy. Statistics on the number of people people of number the on Statistics policy. nation government‘s

wing parties and transborder Hungarians since 2004 and the and sincethe transborder Hungarians 2004 and wing parties - ual citizenship‖ was the most important communication important most the was citizenship‖ ual eiet citizens resident - resident citizens would overwhelmingly support the the support overwhelmingly would citizens resident

thus stance had been revised and the new slogan of the of slogan new the and revised been had stance 21 were extended to non to extended were

Pltc ad Kin and Politics a

image of the Fidesz the of image

- but a nt self a not was wing parties‘ betrayal of the nation). nation). the of betrayal parties‘ wing

not for individual candidates). - tt Ntoaim n Hungary in Nationalism State - resident citizens (though citizens resident - vdn cnoiat of concomitant evident citizenship citizenship

- government and, by by and, government : Pogonyi, ―National ―National Pogonyi, ah were oath

t the t y

CEU eTD Collection ( inin2006 Italy happened 50 t relation in government Hungarian the kin Hungarian comp first very the is which Abroad, Communities Hungarian for Framework Strategic the adopted Conference Standing Hungarian the 2011, In organizations, institutions and individuals Gábor (Bethlen founded was one new completely a and ceased were foundations existing previously the support, financial kin with overlap administrat public those of work the coordinate inter an Besides, abroad. communities Hungarian p deputy Administration Public State of Ministry the separate within Secretariat a by substituted became Abroad Communities Hungarian for Department several introduced votes from abroad. engagedand reinforce the mor has rights voting mandate). one lessthan was it elections 2014 (at the as maximum of 2mandates worth be can their votes non bycasted votes the of importanceeffective the account into taken However, Fidesz. of position governing the solidifying of way one but is Hungarians transborder of enfranchisement the that namely voting, external of criticism priori of 95%

However, eie da ctznhp n etra vtn rgt, h seco the rights, voting external and citizenship dual Besides those who participated at the elections the at participated who those ie iitr, sl Smé be Semjén Zsolt ministers, rime 50

delicat

Therefore, we can claim that, just as in the case of dual citizenship, non citizenship, dual of case the in as just that, claim can we Therefore, - state policy. The document defines the priorities and main strategic goals of of goals strategic main and priorities the defines document The policy. state e situations can happen anytime and ―diaspora‖ votes can votes ―diaspora‖ and anytime happen can situations e - state politics (foreign affairs, education, health care, etc.). In terms of of terms In etc.). care, health education, affairs, (foreign politics state

other measures other

e indirect than direct political profit; it rather serves as a tool to solidify solidify to tool a as serves rather it profit; political direct than indirect e Pogonyi, ―Four Patterns of Non of Pogonyi,Patterns ―Four national

ud wih s o te ny oy o hc Hungarian which to body only the now is which Fund)

and reforms and image and the electorate of Fidesz than effectively to haunt effectivelyelectorateFideszand than image tohaunt the of o Hungarian communities abroad, which might be be might which abroad, communities Hungarian o can apply for came responsible for the governmental policy for for policy governmental the for responsible came 22

as well. First, well. as

- oe o iez hs fact This Fidesz. for voted o uis ht oc uo plc fed that fields policy upon touch that units ion Resident Voting Rights.‖ Voting Resident - resident citizens, it has to be admitted that admitted be to has it citizens, resident - ministerial body was also set up to to up set also was body ministerial funds rehensive and concise document of of document concise and rehensive and Justice, Justice, and . the previously existing Office or Office existing previouslythe

be dec be ) and besides, one of the of one besides, and

d Orbán nd isive at close results close at isive

might confirm a a confirm might - government - resident , as it it as ,

CEU eTD Collection http://www.nemzetiregiszter.hu/download/b/12/10000/policy_2013.pdf. 2014, April 7, accessed 51 (territoria revisionist any without nation, the of unification symbolic and spiritual a to refers interpretation government‘s the in which nation‖, Hungarian post of mottos central inserted were measures these and Hungarians, diaspora engage or for call to policy structured a introduce th from attention kin of number the equals basically number whose hemisphere, Western the in (migrants diasporas Hungarian interestingly, 1990, 3.2.2. it as inasmuch government Hungarian overuses terms―national unity‖, like the of rhetoric the in appear clearly aims These awarenes generation‘s younger the raise to aims also Hungarians transborder with contacts personal establish to order in Hungarians by inhabited are that neighboring countries placesin visit to students schoolhigh for Unbounded)launched the kin legitimize to government‘s indirectly thus Hungarians, transborder of consciousness population‘s na biggest the Hungarian the strengthen as to targets evidently measure Treaty This steps. these of Peace one is catastrophe Trianon the of day the of commemoration the of introduction The Hungarians. ―mainland‖ but abroad Hungarians not is group target primary Furth summarized as ―prosperous communities‖.

Plc fr Hu for ―Policy ermore, there were measures that that measures were there ermore, Diaspora policy lhuh ain oiy a be has policy nation Although – ngarian Communities Abroad Abroad Communities ngarian

at least rhetorically least at e homeland before 2010. The second Orbán second The 2010. before homeland e - tt plc. iial, h poet ―Határtalanul project the Similarly, policy. state

2010 kin 2010

- state politics was the propagation of the ―unified and single single and ―unified the of propagation the was politics state - minorities in the neighboring countries) enjoyed very little little very enjoyed countries) neighboring the in minorities and -

n cnrl ocr o Hnain oenet since governments Hungarian of concern central a en in the logic of the revised nation policy. nation revised the of logic the in are ―singl -

Strategic Framework for Hungarian Communities Abroad,‖ Abroad,‖ Communities Hungarian for Framework Strategic strongly connect strongly 23 e, united Hungariane, nation‖.

s of the issue of Hungarian minorities. minorities. Hungarian of issue the of s ed - l) claims, and in which there is is there which in and claims, l) government has been the first to first the been has government

to nation policy, however, their their however, policy, nation to (odres or (Borderless ‖

One of One tional

the CEU eTD Collection 52 D state and became diaspora politics separat kind two the of approaches and ―Hungarian needs characters, different the that implies This the (although Hungarians Standi Hungarian the in represented still is diaspora diaspora and Hungarians the transborder separated of basically bodies government coordination the measure, that With organizations. diaspora for separat a up set to decided government the 2004, after time group di the of ―discovery‖ benefits economic and political of source to politicians of attention the directed country the from Orbán second the of principles the determines which concept nation‖ ―unified mentioned already the beside reason additional more one had Hungarians diaspora to attention of shift the interpretation, my In in of terms in differences sociological huge of dispose they that assume Latin in live communities Can and US the in estimated lives Hungarians diaspora their of group is largest (the number Hungarians diaspora about reliable know of we lack What the migrants). to (due on cohorts information these research to difficult very is it because partly inter because political and partly academic dominate Hungarians‖, to ―diaspora tend traditionally about Hungarians transborder knowledge limited very is there fact, In room forregardless all Hungarians, oftheir residence.

apr pltc dfe fo kin from differ politics iaspora Ibid.

the hostsociety astheir l as well

, as well as to institutional reforms.as well as, toinstitutional In 2010, when the Hungarian Standing Conference was convened anew for the first the for anew convened was Conference Standing Hungarian the when 2010, In s

abroad‖ have been officially admitted. officially been have abroad‖ -

aspora led to the launching of a bunch of programs addressing the addressing programs of bunch a of launching the to led aspora government‘s nation polic nation government‘s - mrc, Western America,

- evel ofknowled tt pltc nt ny n ntttoa trs bt n their in but terms, institutional in only not politics state

ed from eached fromininstitutional terms other after 2010. ,

which has been absolutely unutilized so far. This far. so unutilized absolutely been has which 24 uoe Asrla n Israel), and Australia Europe, y: the recently intensified waves of migration migration of waves intensified recently the y:

ge Hungarian language. of ng Conference by one person per person one by Conference ng Thus

potential (and constantly growing) growing) constantly (and potential we can claim can we e consultative forum exclusively forum consultative e

their level of integration integration of level their

that Hungarian kin Hungarian that

ada, other larger other ada, 52

oevr we moreover, s, and est, region target target s

of ). ). -

CEU eTD Collection program Http://www.origo.hu/ 53 home the of direction the in electorate goals similar have can Hungarians diaspora win and woe from support political limited veryexpect diaspora the in persons of thousands of couple a only elections; national 2014 the at activism little obtaining in Similarly interest lower. latter‘s remarkably been the has citizenship well, Hungarian as diaspora the for but Hungarians transborder certain of kind responsibilityfor diaspo a bears government Hungarian the and matters diaspora Hungarian that message symbolic the carry programs these All Hungary. to back them transfer to bequests Hungarian collect Ithak while etc.), plaques, statutes, Hungarians, after allHungarian named list(streetsworldwide ―memories‖to aimsprogram Julianus cultivation; do andof thebudget greatenthusiasm andbyorganization, diaspora satisfaction with welcomed was program the Interestingly, education. language or events, cultivation heritage cultural organizing in them young help and which organizations of diaspora frame to travel the Hungarians in launched was Program) Sándor Csoma (Kőrösi program up an them give to and Eng and Hungarian in both politics Hungarian on newsletter weekly provides also which worldwide, of launch t for designed and well, as objectives

ubled after the pilot program. pilot the after ubled Bálint Fabók, ―Felrázták Az Elfeledett Magyarokat (Forgotten Hungarians Got Shaken Up),‖ Up),‖ Shaken Got Hungarians (Forgotten Magyarokat Elfeledett Az ―Felrázták Fabók, Bálint - neetnl, lhuh h oto o fs tak auaiain s pn o ol for only not open is naturalization track fast of option the although Interestingly, a lish. Its primary aim was to re to was Itsaim primary lish.

- diaszporaban eitrd o te lcin. hs at mle ta te ugra government Hungarian the that implies fact This elections. the for registered

as in the case of kin of case the in as Hungarian Register (Nemzeti Regiszter), a virtual database for Hungarians Hungarians for database virtual a Regiszter), (Nemzeti Register Hungarian e isoa Oe f h iiil step initial the of One diaspora. he acse Arl , 04 http://www.origo.hu/itthon/ 2014, 9, April accessed , -

elo - magyaroknak.html. this claim this - to - ae iw bu te onr. eody a utrl revitalization cultural a Secondly, country. the about view date

- state policy, namely to namely policy, state 53

can be best illustrated with the newly launched programs launched newly the with illustrated best be can Another key programs are targeting at (physical) heritage (physical) at targeting are programs key Another - channel those who have lost contact with the homethe with contact lost havewho channelthose ra Hungariansra aswell.

the diaspora. On the other hand, however, efforts to efforts however, hand, other the On diaspora. the 25

a f diaspora of

and Mikes Kelemen Mikes and justif y

the nationally engaged image of of image engaged nationally the

dapr mmes exhibited members diaspora , naeet policy engagement 20131111 - program korosi the program was the program was - csoma s

target to target was the the was - sandor

land can can -

CEU eTD Collection sympathetic Hungariansdiaspora. than totransborder tothe aremore voters slightlynationalist that think instinctively might we if evenobjective, implicit respec this In Fidesz. , ugra kin Hungarian t,

- state policy and diaspora policy can have the same same the have can policy diaspora and policy state 26

CEU eTD Collection 55 2014. 24, February 54 age the past Hungary in lived not 18 aged heritage Hungarian of Americans young targets Hungary ReConnect 50 co realization. the City) York New in (based Foundation DC) Washington, in (based Foundation Kossuth Hungarian American the of persons prominent some who Pataki Allison daughter, his and York New of governor former Pataki, George R of case the In programs. such launching by diaspora its reach to tries that government country‘s home the usually is it whereas project, the of initiation di the amongin role proactive highly a played diaspora American Hungarian the since journeys tourism one special a is program birthright Hungarian the Hungary, ReConnect actual circumstances. by defined goals country‘s given the on depends obviously put is emphasis the where ―home the which (re)disc of is framecountry‖ the in participant) the from contribution financial symbolic journeyonly charge,requiringaforof orjoin free (usually originto givencountry‘s the areof country;progra thesehome the attachedto experience personal positive a in lies journeys birthright of essence the earlier, claimed As 4. ReConnect Hungary

Ibid. Máté Vincze, ReConnect Hungary Hungary ReConnect Vincze, Máté - - financed by the Hungarian government and by the Kossuth Foundation in approximately in Foundation Kossuth the by and government Hungarian the by financed 50%.

Birthright journeys are effective and creative ways to engage the diaspora of a state. a of diaspora the engage to ways creative and effective are journeys Birthright 55

The first year when ReConnec when year first The overed by them. The aim of birthright journeys journeys birthright of aim The them. by overed

–

- Th

from the perspe the from e Hungarian Birthright Journey

f 3 Toe h d nt pa Hnain r equally are Hungarian speak not do who Those 13. of suggested the idea of a Hungarian birthright program to program birthright Hungarian a of idea the suggested immediately ms call upon young individuals in the diaspora who diasporathe in young individuals upon call ms ctive of an organizer, interview by Eszter Herner Eszter by interview organizer, an of ctive 27 ( who is very proud of his Hungarian ancestry Hungarian his of proud very is who

t Hungary was offered was 2012 and it was it and 2012 was offered was Hungary t

embraced the idea and started to work on work to started and idea the embraced

diaspora. and

of the Hungarian Human Rights Rights Human Hungarian the of László Hámos, László eConnect Hungary, it was was it Hungary, eConnect a be can

president of the of president

manifold, and and manifold, - 26 who have have who 26 - Kovács, Kovács, aspora its its ) , CEU eTD Collection 57 56 politicians. top with participants meetings the are Hungary ReConnect of highlights other The successful firms participants claimed, Vincze As Neumann. mid the of development scientific the in t Escape Great ―The entitled Marton Kati by book a read to had participants selected the when period preparation message extent certain 3 least itiner the together put an or exchange student a tourism a designing program, internship of instead that concluded and journeys birthright an 2012 both in Foundation Kossuth by economic) immigrants (mostly early ofthe 20 ReConnect advertise organizers Hungary the Facebook, as such sites networking effective most the Beside candidates. optimal reach to order in carefully chosen be to have advertisement fe and Hungary about knowledge very oronly limited who have no those candidates find The try to organizers ancestry.Hungarian her or his has farone how matter not does it and program, the eligiblefor he life storiesof 20

Ibid. Ibid.

- codn t Mt Vnz, h ws n o te raies rm h sd o the of side the from organizers the of one was who Vincze, Máté to According 4 things in Hungary that an American an that Hungary in things 4 in the newsletters of the ―old‖ Hungarian American organizations that were founded founded were that organizations American Hungarian ―old‖ the of newsletters the in ht Hnain ae innovative‖. are ―Hungarians that met Prime Minister Viktor Orbán Viktor Minister Prime met met ,

a b pod of proud be can

in Budapest onthe while trip. in w contacts to Hungarian culture. This also implies that the channels of of channels the that implies also This culture. Hungarian to contacts w ugra start Hungarian – th

Nine Jews who Fled Hitler and Changed the World‖. The book presents presents book The World‖. the Changed and Hitler Fled who Jews Nine century Hungary who left Jews ary of ReConnect Hungary they had in mind the objective to display to objective the mind in had they Hungary ReConnect of ary

- oriented journey would best fit the Hungarian case. When they they When case. Hungarian the fit best would journey oriented the arc of the narrative narrative the of arc the , and the main ―narrative‖ of the whole program was the the was program whole the of ―narrative‖ main the and , - p entrepreneurs up d 2013, the organizers considered the types of existing existing of types the considered organizers the 2013, d - 20 , László Kövér, president of the Parliament, the of president Kövér, László , 28 57 , th

who considers him considers who

hs esg ws already was message This

etr, uh s zlr, inr Tle or Teller Wigner, Szilárd, as such century, th

century. innovative , , and some of whom played a crucialrole whom a, and played some of was 56

brought to its its to brought

designers designers -

or herself Hungarian to a to Hungarian herself or other end other and planted in the the in planted directors of of directors when

The and the the at

CEU eTD Collection 59 58 agency Hungarian promoting abroad). culture secretary Hun for ( Horváth János Hungary, Hungary. contemporary conta in getting that meet to able were they claimed respondents many well; as where categorysecond the in counted be can students Hungarian events the participants, the with conducted interviews international of offices Budapest (R&D led farm Park organic successful a Graphisoft wineries, premier center), industry), business creative support and encourage to aiming institution incorporate programs of group second Center (Holocaust Americans Hungarian of histories family the for relevant be might (Szente country the and etc.) Opera, Square, Hero‘s Castle, (Buda Budapest of parts tourist ―mainstream‖ the visiting like elements of consists category officials). government meeting Parliament, the in (reception formal and entreprene firms), (meeting Hungary day present to ―introduction‖ events), cultural sites, (historical attractions tourist classical categories: main three in grouped be can trip the aim these All fosterthus to the more effective engagementparticipants. of the government ex high a at reception the have, students János

Ibid. ―ReConnect Hungary Hungary ―ReConnect perience for them. for perience

ovt, h ods MP. oldest the Horváth, and the House of Terror), as well as events like a folk ―dance house‖ (táncház). The (táncház). house‖ ―dance folk a like events as well as Terror), of House the and

to demonstrate its real interest towards the American Hungarian diaspora, and and diaspora, Hungarian American the towards interest real its demonstrate to s are reflected are s garian communities abroad, and the director of Balassi Institute (government abroad, Balassi thedirector of garian communities and - 58

The Hungarian Birthright Program,‖ Program,‖ Birthright Hungarian The ct with local young people helped them to learn and understand understand and learn to them helped people young local with ct

On the other hand, those receptions are good ways good are receptions those hand, other the On The formal type of type formal The ― a in the program‘s structure. In my interpretation my In structure. program‘s the in

ugra American Hungarian

companies like PricewaterhouseCoopers. On the basis of the the of basis the On PricewaterhouseCoopers. like companies According to Vincze, whatever political orientation the the orientation political whatever Vincze, to According s

events - akn pltca‘ ofc i awy a lifetime a always is office politician‘s ranking

programs 59 29

ie iiig h Dsg Terminal Design the visiting like and ‖ Http://www.reconnecthungary.org includes meeting the Prime Minister of Minister Prime the meeting includes

let P f Parliament), of MP oldest ndre, Tihany, Eger), museums that museums Eger), Tihany, ndre,

- by a British entrepreneur, British a by

for the Hungarian the for ,

the programs of of programs the , urs, visiting visiting urs, accessed May accessed

Memorial Memorial (a public public (a The first first The h state the CEU eTD Collection 61 interviews. 60 2014. 13, aims. and needs current government‘s Hungarian the country the of image negative eventually the balance to motivated Therefore, left were opposition critiques those of source the that claimed government Hungarian the and well), Orbán the period contrib should participants former case, to attitude sensitive more their and affairs Hungarian current in interest tu of manifestation measured be can ReConnect of outcomes such Obviously, be can ―g of function the fulfill can who Vincze ways. possible various and US the in Hungary with sympathize who in citizens American have to need the emphasized country home ancient the for participants the ―win‖ mind ha organizers the journey, birthright the of outcome expected the for As the such region.as bilingualism the tensionsin orinterethnic to according however, history, one the statements, Hungarian respondents‘ of narratives classical the supporting element an as regarded be can it as inasmuch category second the and first the meet both fits it to day one for Slovakia Southern Hungarian the of representatives to taken are ReConnect of participants The

Máté Vincze, ReConnect Hungary Hungary ReConnect Vincze, Máté The participants‘ interpretation of the trip to Slovakia is is Slovakia to trip the of interpretation participants‘ The . First, . ute to ute h otrn f mrcnivsmns raykn o uies ciiyi Hungary. in activity business of kind any or investments American of fostering the

the -

spread and which is at the same time the time same the at is which and - wing and liberal parties who provided biased information to Western media. media. Western to information biased provided who parties liberal and wing expectation - oenet a hrhy rtczd y etr media Western by criticized harshly was government nn te atcpns no fins o Hungary of ―friends‖ into participants the rning

country. the about information unbiased

to have Americans who are sympathetic to Hungary and are are and Hungary to sympathetic are who Americans have to -

from the perspective of an organizer. of perspective from the minority minority oodwill ambassadors‖ oodwill - day

obe hc te naoal nw o Hnay and Hungary on news unfavorable the check double trip rather serves to learn about contemporary issues issues contemporary about learn to serves rather trip

Slovakia. T Slovakia. 30

classical objective of birthright journeys, birthright of objective classical developed in detail in the chapter analyzing the the analyzing chapter the in detail in developed his program is difficult to classify since since classify to difficult is program his . 60 etil, hs upt s vn more even is output this Certainly, One of t of One

in 10 in 61

Indeed, d Indeed, he possible scenarios of that that of scenarios possible he -

year perspectives. Another Another perspectives. year is

timely a timely ih be might uring the 2010 the uring d such issues such

ad oiiin as politicians (and two nd perfectly fits perfectly nd

main goals in in goals main their

In that that In raised raised - 2014 - the the

CEU eTD Collection 2000). Társasága, Nemzetközi 63 62 organizers the claimed, Vincze as Moreover, through well as organizations American alumni annual channeledDC, participants toHungarian Embassy are dinner Hungarian at inWashington, the the Besides Americans. Hungarian and Hungary to possible as connected American follow to and aims these realize To theirorganizations in homewhen they tothe return US. ac more a take to and involved get to participants Hungary the encouraging by ReConnect process this leaders. to contribute to successor aims therefore find to struggling are and change generational Am Hungarian the of majority the However, ones. previous the than politics towards oriented more were which institutions t 1947 society. American the needs social basic the tackle to the of called turn so typically were institutions the of immigrants economic the was institutions were thei therefore and Stated, United the in situations different faced groups immigrant Hungarian different the waves; emigration to linked are States United the in organizations the cultivatio major other The difficult e gauly aiirzd ih h Aeia pltcl ytm n etbihd their established and system political American the with familiarized gradually hey

Ibi Béla Várdy, Várdy, Béla d.

hrceie ih itntfaue. h frt ru f Hungarians of group first The features. distinct with characterized 1955, 1956) were politically more ac more politically were 1956) 1955, –

if notimpossible organizations, t organizations, Magyarok Az Újvilágban (Hungarians in the New World) New the in (Hungarians Újvilágban Az Magyarok n o f the Hungarian heritage in the United States. United inthe theHungarian heritage f expected outcome of the birthright journey is to is journey birthright the of outcome expected

tive role in the life of the Hungarian American community and and community American Hungarian the of life the in role tive As members of the next emigration waves (interwar period, 1940s, period, (interwar waves emigration next the of members As

262 he organizers he – -

263. to measure.

erican institutions‘ management are facing the problem of of problem the facing are management institutions‘ erican and to help the integration the help to and

fraternal institutions; th institutions; fraternal - p h priiat‘ tk in stake participants‘ the up are

tive than the economic migrants of the first wave, first the of migrants economic the than tive

buildi newsletters 31 in

tend to launch an alumni program that would that program alumni an launch to tend ng an alumni club alumni an ng

n ivttos o aiu events various to invitations and

e goal of these organizations was was organizations these of goal e of the economic immigrants economic the of

(Budapest: A Magyar Nyelv és Kultúra Kultúra és Nyelv Magyar A (Budapest: 62

The majority of the Hungarian majority the The of

involve the participants in participants the involve 19 and try and - h lf of life the 20 th that established that

centur to keep them as as them keep to ies r activities activities r Hungarian . These These .

into

its its . CEU eTD Collection kiraly 65 2010.‖ since Hungary in MinorityPolitics 64 moreover, government, Hungarian the by initiated project a not right the in evenattention Unli voters as well. ofFidesz the for effect legitimizing and reinforcing a have can communities diaspora the of feedbacks program. the of participants the hosting communities the visited having right of journalists the matter Hungarian ―every that revitali communities diaspora in months several spend Hungarians young lets which program the on published articles many been have There Program. Sándor Csoma Kőrösi entitled project revitalization cultural the attention: public considerable gained which several initiated ―establi newly the of government frame the in projects Hungarian the chapter, previous the in introduced already diaspora of case the in work would strategy this however, communiti Hungarian minority ―traditional‖ targeting party. the part Fidesz a has policy nation Hungarian in earlier, claimed As media. Hungarian the in presented is Hungary effective engagement towards companies Hungarian at opportunities internship offer

sb Lu Csaba Waterbury, Waterbury, ke Kőrösi Csoma Sándor Program, ReConnect Hungary received significantly received Hungary ReConnect Program, Sándor Csoma Kőrösi ke - 1167694. ze cultural events there.Right events cultural ze As a final point in the chapter I would like to address the issue of how ReConnect how of issue the address to like would I chapter the in point final a As 64 kács, ―Wannabe Mátyás Király!,‖ Király!,‖ Mátyás ―Wannabe kács, y‘s national y‘s

B n y iw ti ipii ojcie ih b a ai asmto fr policies for assumption valid a be might objective implicit this view, my In

ten tt ad Nation and State etween

wing daily Magyar Nemzet Nemzet Magyar daily wing image and thus to help stabilize the slightly nationalist electorate of of electorate nationalist slightly the stabilize help to thus and image

- leaning m leaning s

‖ Hungary. and for compensating the ―forgotten Hungarians‖, and one of one and Hungarians‖, ―forgotten the compensating for and secondary or implicit implicit or secondary

; Pogonyi, ―National Reunification beyond Borders: Diaspora and and Diaspora Borders: beyond Reunification ―National Pogonyi, ; edia. My assumption is that since that is assumption My edia. - wing newspapers praised the program for demonstrating demonstrating for program the praised newspapers wing

Mno.hu shed‖ diaspora politics, however, there is there however, politics, diaspora shed‖ 32 ue 9 03 http://mno.hu/kulfold/wannabe 2013, 19, June ,

even published a bunch of articles after after articles of bunch a published even

objective in order to foster the participants‘ participants‘ the foster to order in es in the neighboring countries, countries, neighboring the in es policy to a much lesser extent. As extent. lesser much a to policy it is finan is it t soli to :

the birthright journey is journey birthright the to help organize and and organize help to several ced only partially by partially only ced 65 iy h governing the dify

Also, the positive the Also,

interpretation less

only one one only -

matyas public public s -

CEU eTD Collection ―Szükségből Erényt (Virtue out of Need),‖ August 7, 2013, 2013, 7, August Need),‖ of out (Virtue Erényt http://www.demokrata.hu/ujsagcikk/szuksegbol_erenyt/. ―Szükségből Hírlap Part repas Welcomes Répás (Zsuzsanna Zsuzsanna Hungary),‖ ReConnect Répás Fogadta Ösztöndíjasait Hungary ReConnect http://hetivalasz.hu/vilag/az 66 commitment national towards the home government‘s Hungarian the demonstrate to aim which programs news) evening Hun of directions new the summarizing articles of couple a to limited is presentation (its media the in propagated Fidesz the of projects‖ ―national the times), hard in country the left who homeland the of traitors as described often are (they Hungary in controversially rather judged emigrantspeople,finally, Hungarian and are affects of athe state,only handful it furthermore,

Bálint Ablonczy, ―Amerikai Embereink (Our People in America),‖ America),‖ in People (Our Embereink ―Amerikai Ablonczy, Bálint - zsuzsanna acse My 7 21, http:// 2014, 27, May accessed , - 113; Aeia Mgao Bdpse (ugra Aeias n Budapest),‖ in Americans (Hungarian Budapesten Magyarok ―Amerikai 1171434; Consequently, . land Mno.hu

electorate. garian nation policy, nation garian - biztos , July 8, 2013, http://mno.hu/belfold/a 2013, 8, July , - hogy

eonc Hnay a hrl b cutd mn those among counted be hardly can Hungary ReConnect - www.magyarhirlap.hu/amerikai -

government az - elkovetkezo birthright project cannot become one of the leading leading the of one become cannot project birthright 66

, which also explains why the program was not was program the why explains also which , 33 to a radio radio a to -

evekben

- is - interview and to a short report in the in report short a to and interview boven - reconnect - magyarok - lesz - ei Válasz Heti t - ennivalojuk hungary - budapesten. - osztondijasait , January 2, 2013, 2013, 2, January , - 58963.

Balázs Ágoston, Ágoston, Balázs ―A cpns of icipants - fogadta Magyar - CEU eTD Collection patternstwo aspects of as on identification. aswell trip, and thepossible outc the for motivations their stories), (family roots Hungarian their about write to had applicants Hungary apply ReConnect for to participants bythe essays written motivation had I interviews the Besides often discussed by therespondents. hierarchy code the at looking by Also, well.as families into keywords reflecting werecontent narrative content Moreover, ofcodessimilar unit. with the selected with them coded and texts interview the within units narrative small identified qu the of analysis the for software Atlas.Ti Iused Hungarianchurch, school, attending (e.g. community and language family, their through both environment Hungarian genera of terms in either it from remote more are some background; heritage‖ ―Hungarian various of are respondents Skype pa took 13) of (out 7 cohort 2013 the from while 9) of (out 3 cohort 2012 the From participants. 22 total the of out interview self respondents Pro Hungary ReConnect 2013 and 2012 the semi on based is research The journey. 5. Empirical research

n 2 n esn n uaet n eebr 03 n My 04 respectively. 2014, May and 2013 December in Budapest in person in 2 and birthright Hungarian the of outcome the investigate to is thesis the of goal main The - eetd o te neves 1 pros ee iln t vlner o the for volunteer to willing were persons 10 interviews; the for selected This method helped me helped method This tion or of conscious cultivation, while some are surrounded by lively by surrounded are some while cultivation, conscious of or tion ome of the journey in their lives. In my analysis I focusedIn thelastanalysis lives. journeyon ome of my intheir the

scout groups, an additional source additional an rt in the research. the in rt

I - etc.).

structured interviews conducted with participants of of participants with conducted interviews structured c ould to process the interviews in afocusedway. more processtoin interviews the

easily point out the topics that were the most most the were that topics the out point easily

gram. It was a voluntary sample as the the as sample voluntary a was It gram. alitative data. With the With data. alitative

that 8 of t of 8 was he interviews were conducted via via conducted were interviews he

incorporated in the research: the the research: the in incorporated help of the of help . In their essay Intheir program I program

The The s,

CEU eTD Collection 68 Studies Racial Second in ‗home‘ of Legacy foundation the and Constructions Hungarian solid a have still to 67 me for deal great a done have parents “My to returning me with juxtaposed be would America Hungary.” for Hungary my fled years, who grandparents 100 under just “After For pay some to participants,―returning‖ toHungarythe ancestors: duty for meant one‘s my mom, myself.” andfor wou for her, for experience this to able beI to want I and much so her miss that I (mygrandma). Omami connection the imagine even cannot I program, this into get I “If hadSome an emotional can understandcame where she from.” (…) bigg the and life my in person important most the was “She echoes researchesrelationfindingsand ontheofdiasporic family the ofprevious identity th understand better gene second ancestral the as Greece of view concrete Christ scholars; by revealed been has belonging ethnic one‘s of concept the and identities diasporic shaping in plays family most the was ancestors as well as ancestry Hungarian of members family pleasing program. the for was Hungary ReConnect of participants 5.1.1. 5.1. Essays

Ibid. Anastasia Christou, ―Deciphering Diaspora Diaspora ―Deciphering Christou, Anastasia

She taught me so much and I feel that I‟d be better able to understand her and myself if I I if myself and her understand to able better be I‟d that feel I and much so me taught She

Motivations According to the code hierarchy, the most frequent topic in the essays wri essays the in topic frequent most the hierarchy, code the to According

ration Greek migrants in the US. the in migrants Greek ration 29, no. 6 1040 no. (2006): 29, Comparing the ―family factor‖ to others in their motivations, it is clear that clear is it motivations, their in others to factor‖ ―family the Comparing

and expectedand outcomes e life of their ancestors by seeing where they had come from come had they where seeing by ancestors their of life e

decisive aspect to it as it aspect well: to

–

56, doi:10.1080/01419870600960297. 56, reason for participation in the birthright journey. birthright the in participation for reason u lis ht oilzto i te aiy ―constructs family the in socialization that claims ou

aiys ore wud oe ul ice M great My circle. full come would journey family‟s

how their family influenced their motivation to apply to motivation their influenced family their how –

homeland and the source of ‗true‘ Greekness ‗true‘ of source the and homeland -

Translating Transnationalism: Family Dynamics, Identity Identity Dynamics, Family Transnationalism: Translating Generation Greek Generation

67 35

Some

respondents -

American Return Migration,‖ Return American to show respect for the Hungarian the for respect show to est reason why I chose to appl to chose I why reason est

stressed the importance to importance the stressed ld feel with my with feel ld

, which also also which , The role the the role The tten by the the by tten Ethnic and Ethnic

‖ for for ‖ 68 :

y. y. a -

CEU eTD Collection experienc ideal the and shaped has heritage Hungarian my how recognize to and history, and culture Hungarian is program ReConnect “The intensively appeared several aswell times identification Hungarian Hungarian Hungary. day present experience to as well as culture and history Hungarian about more learn to will their emphasized applicants many Furthermore, theytruly who areand wherecame they from.” l who, Americans Hungarian fellow meet to able be will I also “… the journey.” on made friends Hungarian new or trip, the on Americans of cohort the within made friends anti “I had an appealing effect well: as heritage. ethnic participants the of her or his cultivate to room one‘s widen possibly to thus majority and fellows meet to chance a offers the for matter family that or private a been assumption has ―Hungarianness‖ the reinforces further This applic the for friendship reason crucial another factor, to family me, the through Besides vicariously dad, my for and connections real rediscover his.” my start to opportunity m that one Hungary, of taste bitter a with dad my left government communist current then the with ideology and values conflictory and up growing hardship of mixture that dad, my to think “I way a as ameliorate opportunity the of thought participants the of one Finally, our keep to made have we Hungarian heritageinthefamily.” effort joint the all for parents my and me for reward a be would tho even me in established ade it hard for him to want to re to want to him for hard it ade cipate meeting people that I will develop lasting relationships with, whether they are are they whether with, relationships lasting develop will I that people meeting cipate

with fellow Americans of Hungarian ancestry as well as with young Hungarians. Hungarians. young with as well as ancestry Hungarian of Americans fellow with his utr apae i mn esy a a a o self of way a as essays many in appeared culture

attitude to

Moreover, the possibility to ―rediscover‖ one‘s heritage with young fellows young with heritage one‘s ―rediscover‖ to possibility the Moreover, . The will to be able to cultivate one‘s Hungarian heritage more more heritage Hungarian one‘s cultivate to able be to will The . Hungarian heritage: ugh I was born in America and raised in Canada. This program This Canada. in raised and America in born was I ugh

- engage with his heritage. I think this trip could be an an be could trip this think I heritage. his with engage :

t () eoe etr dctd in educated better become (…) to e

eoe the before Learning about Hungary and and Hungary about Learning - understanding understanding trip ike myself, want to learn to want myself, ike to ws o establish to was ation ; the birthright journey journey birthright the ; o ep i father his help to n stronger and CEU eTD Collection 69 unite to serve that symbols and myths values, in embodied images, s or heritage, and repository that claims Smith D. Anthony journey. birthright the of participants the of patterns identification the on research empirical diasp in identity of dynamism and nature unbounded identities. ‗hyphenated‘ in exists and practices and appearsoriginalhome, its farfrom settings diasporic proliferatesin 5.1.2. as avery consideration. tentative to ―return‖ to possibility The culture the keep to Hungarians young more aliv to beginning great a be can it then interested (…) area theToronto can get Once we youthsthem toHungarian in provide knowledge of lots invol more “Being American Hungarian local of work the in organizations and appeared communities engage very as often well: to plan the Besides, essays. the in spread was it of theindividual‘s life, As forthebirthright outcome journey thepotential in of activities the in involved getting andHungarian improv American organizations community, American Hungarian local the with t will the as such sporadically, essays the in appeared application for reasons Other Hungarian my embrace to want I people, those of self.” one be to want not do I Americanized; lost, either Hungarian (…) “ continuetoshapemywill life.”

Tim Edensor, TimEdensor, e andexperience motherland.” their

Identification the good image of Hungary and Hungarian culture that was most frequently brought up culturegood Hungaryfrequentlyand brought most Hungarian thatwas image the of As Edensor argues, ―national identity has has identity ―national argues, Edensor As forgotten or forgotten National Identity, Popular Culture and Everyday Life Everyday and Culture Popular Identity, National - Americans and whatever Americans that do have Hungarian lineage ha lineage Hungarian have do that Americans whatever and Americans ved in Hungarian youth groups and sharing my stories with everyone will will everyone with stories my sharing and groups youth Hungarian in ved

simply do not care about their background and have become fully fully become have and background their about care not do simply et of traditions, and an active shaping repertoire of repertoire shaping active an and traditions, of et and live in live and

ainl dniy n culture and identity national

Hungary appeared in two essays, and even there only only there even and essays, two appearedin Hungary 37 ing

one‘s eoe eahd rm th from detached become ‖ ora, which is very well reflected in my my in reflected well very is which ora, 69

language skills. Edensor‘s definition definition Edensor‘s

(Oxford, New York: Berg, 2002) Berg, New (Oxford, York:

s ― is

oh n inter an both in syncretic cultural formscultural syncretic in

a group of people with people of group a

e ihihs the highlights meanings and meanings

- generational nation the pl o engage o .

p.29. - state, an to an to

CEU eTD Collection 73 72 71 70 essays t therefore, identification varying, is journey the before culture Hungarian the term that appliesforidentification strategies ofthe the respondents. boundaries. community reconstruct) identity ―transportable are rituals‖ these identity; symbolic of element ideal thus are dance folk life‖. of aspects other in interference ―undue require signs. nat expressing ethnics‖ as themselves specialization occupational (segregation, generation fourth and third communities diaspora of which is, identity national of construction the dynamic how highlights identifica (diasporic) individual‘s the of ―elements‖ many for theory; Smith‘s culture national reproduce to way relevant only the is fourth and third second, members diaspora generational of case the in which heritage‖, ―national of nature transferable to useful them differentiate and memories and experiences shared

71 . One core element of it is definit is it of element core One . 73 s etoe erir te xet o hc ec priiat a be epsd to exposed been had participant each which to extent the earlier, mentioned As

h smos n sgs ep o ae tnc dniy iil, oee, hy o not do they however, visible, identity ethnic make to help signs and symbols The

examine diasporic identities since he stresses, on the one hand, the intergenerational the hand, one the on stresses, he since identities diasporic examine that do not demand effective engagement and at the same time help to maintain (or maintain to help time same the at and engagement effective demand not do that and the perception of ―what makes a Hungarian‖ Hungarian‖ a makes ―what of perception the and oa blnig through belonging ional , Nationalism and Modernism and Nationalism

started to find new ways of ethnic belonging. This is This belonging. ethnic of ways new find to started

–

respondents

resonates to Gans‘ to resonates

tnc i te US the in ethnics –

who usually lack the institutional background institutional the lack usually who As my research shows, symbolic ethni symbolic shows, research my As , family narratives and family traditions are significant are traditions family and narratives family , ely the love for Hungarian food; Hungarian for love the ely -

(London: Routledge, 1998). (London: Routledge, institutions , voluntarily and selectively chosen chosen selectively and voluntarily 38 theory on symbolic ethnicity. symbolic on theory

, after having lost ethnic ―surroundings‖ ―surroundings‖ ethnic lost having after , in patterns. tion 72 . My empirical research is in line with line in is research empirical My .

, u bcue hy tl ―perceive still they because but ), Food, national holidays, celebration holidays, national Food,

from outsiders‖. from

he patterns patterns he n h ohr ad Smith hand, other the On r vr complex very are

–

especially in the case the in especially it

70 appeared in almost in appeared

Gans claims that claims Gans city is definitely is city His definition His -

of manifested in in manifested of ethnicity of symbols and and symbols Hungar

n the in ian ian is s, –

CEU eTD Collection 75 London,‖ 74 generation the of some however, family, participant‘s the to exclusively limited was it cases the of most For environment. Hungarian one‘s of description the was American the to others introducing or roots Hungarian their with Hungarian heritage.” touch lost have may who others with foods Hungarian Sharing Toronto. in life my to back Hungary bring to want I “Mostly, roots:reconnect one‘s with lost identity. national of experience society host po but private only to contradicts family their to connected ―culti and live respondents analysis narrowerits sense of food national consuming reminded be could who migrants of consist not does sample fragmentarily it as belonging their same the of members meanings the by ―productive recognized carries which marker ethnic an as considered been long has Food ancesto writings every

Ibid. Marta Rabikowska, ―The Ritualisation of Food, Home and National Identity among Polish Migrants in in Migrants Polish among Identity National and Home Food, of Ritualisation ―The Rabikowska, Marta

Another dominant featu dominant Another rs. , Social Identitie Social consuming

–

– respondents reported about Hungarian Sunday school attendance, scouting or or scouting attendance, school Sunday Hungarian about reported respondents

Rabikowska rgrls o hw eoe h priiat s rm i o his from is participant the remote how of regardless , ‖. in my sample, consuming Hungarian food appeared as a private (or family) family) (or private a as appeared food Hungarian consuming sample, my in 74 as national foodis as national

As Rabikowska claims, food projects food claims, Rabikowska As litical performance of migrants since it delineates their otherness in the the in otherness their delineates it since migrants of performance litical –

s Hungarian food is basically the most common and evident way how the the how way evident and common most the basically is food Hungarian

16, no. 3 (2010): 377 (2010): 3 no. 16, u materially but , however, in their case H case their in however, , mn tms t s vn iie t fml occasions family to limited even is it times many , s ruet h cam ta cnuig h ntoa fo i not is food national the consuming that claims who argument ‘s va

te‖ their Hungarian identity, and obviously it is strongly strongly is it obviously and identity, Hungarian their te‖ re that was brought up in connection with being a Hungarian a being with connection in up brought was that re

In one of the essays, food essays, the of one In mediated –

– eosiue te enn o home. of meaning the reconstitutes 98, doi:10.1080/13504630.2010.482432. 98,

ru, h truh food through who group, 39

by the (ethnic family. ofthe) by side

ungarian food is associated with ―home‖ with associated is food ungarian the concept of ―home‖ for migrants for ―home‖ of concept the explicitly - the the eae rtas celebrate rituals related – appeared as a as appeared

mostly first or second second or first mostly ―home

hr Hungarian her r 75

Certainly, my my Certainly,

. Based on my Based on my

country hs partly This ―tool‖ ‖ by by ‖

t in o

CEU eTD Collection to se it well: Here, great privilege year when last received finally we all ourHungariancitizenship.” Hungarians, were They authority. Romanian under lived they where Transylvania from came parents my “Originally one essay: Hungary to ties Effective tradition.” h at relatives aging their for cared generation parent‟s my “(…) principles core are future better be should universalthat tothe humanexperience. a for hope unyielding an and you, break would who those narrative personal my of part become have and path, career pursuits, intellectual my shaped have they that meaningful and powerful so book “That we have experiencing andarealways times, still tough we will although that attitude Hungarian the me give to combined These age. young a at Church the to introduced was I Additionally, have. Hungarians that ethic work incredible the learned “I Hungarian great the researched I (…) 1848. Hiscommitment Kossuth. Lajos freedom to anddemocracy very ins were during it achieve to struggle the the and in Austria lost from lives independence for desire the like history Hungarian of pieces and bits hard polite, were Hungarians how me told “She illustrated with thefreedom fights of1848and 1956 are and freedom for desire and bravery nation‘s the of ethos the on centered individual are narratives their family through the or through traditions Hungarians family see narratives, respondents the how about reported essays Some respondents. the for identity social a than rather individual an public, a than rather private a is Hungarian‖ food) national church. Hungarian goingto be citizens the significance of of significance the rves as a remedy for the parents who have been Hungarians but never were allowed allowed were never but Hungarians been have who parents the for remedy a as rves

[James Michener‘s The Bridge at Andau] at Bridge The Michener‘s [James

of their mother country.

is however one‘s family for all of the cases, which also means that means also which cases, the of all for family one‘s however is

but they never lived inside the present border of Hungary. It was a was It Hungary. of border present the inside lived never they but – receiving Hungarian citizenship has obviously has citizenship Hungarian receiving

citizenship citizenship The dominant medium of Hungarian culture Hungarian of medium dominant The

–

as an element of Hungarian identity appeared in only only in appeared identity Hungarian of element an as -

40 the will for freedom, the courage to act against against act to courage the freedom, for will the

” -

working, courageous, and wise. I le I wise. and courageous, working,

and the story of the 1956 revolution are are revolution 1956 the of story the and edns n research and readings be hopeful for the future.” ome -

piring.” (just as in the case of of case the in as (just as is the Hungarian the is as a symbolic layer as layer symbolic a

―bei . These These . arned arned

ng a ng

CEU eTD Collection myself very American.” these cooked m all of part of they sort it was over, and come all that parties Christmas, or huge Easter like these holidays bigger the had all and we food, Hungarian remember I little was I when “(…) met first we knew that abouteach otherwas we when common in have we thing only the was that “Because (ageneration second respondent) time.” the All Hungarian. said always I was nationality my what me asked anyone Whenever tha all speak really can‟t just I perfectly. language the understand I actually “So “I‟m Hungarian surrounded speaking by Hungarian effecti without with self the influenced Hunga generation fourth or third were respondents 3 and Canada, or USA the to migrated who grandparents their was Transylvania), in case one (in Hungary th meaning Americans, Hungarian generation heritage‖. ―Hungarian their of terms in background outcome o the and Hungary, about and trip with birthright the about impressions respondents‘ experiences the Hungary), previous heritage, Hungarian of cultivation ancestry/ancestries, ethnic three on information get semi were participants the with conducted interviews The 5.2. Interviews hi Hnain family Hungarian their As it was already mentioned, the participants of the program came from very diverse diverse very from came program the of participants the mentioned, already was it As f the their program in personal lives. e is o ugr or Hungary to ties ve -

Israeli.” Israeli.” - eiiin f y epnet; hs who those respondents; my of definition y life growing up, but definitely more removed from it (…) I considered I (…) it from removed more definitely but up, growing life y (a third generation third (a respondent) rian Americans. The distance from the Hungarian ancestors greatly greatly ancestors Hungarian the from distance The Americans. rian

(a first generation respondent) broader topics: the respondents‘ background (life story, family, family, story, (life background respondents‘ the topics: broader

members tended to identify as Hungarian more easily (even (even easily more Hungarian as identify to tended members

relatives: were Hungarian. all speaking speaking 3 respondents were second generation, meaning that it that meaning generation, second were respondents 3

at the parents or at least one parent was born in born was parent one least at or parents the at 41

Hungarian) than those who have not been been not have who those than Hungarian) u o te 0 epnet 4 ee first were 4 respondents 10 the of Out

”

(ageneration second respondent) - structured. My questions aimed to aimed questions My structured. had

had esnl experiences personal ;

the only thing we thing only the t well. (…) well. t

CEU eTD Collection family narratives about the ancestors‘ homeland. Although I was aware that from a a from that aware was I Although homeland. ancestors‘ the about narratives family of sort some had we that fact the common in had we thing Hunga one the definitely was “It we became friends...” And name.‟ last same the have We you. see to Good you. meet to Nice with „Hey. them: messaged someone see to And (…) in up growing Because name. last neighborhood. the in Hungarians any reallyweren‟t there sameYork New of part that in York, New the with group the in someone see to nice was “It “ ancestry Hungarian like how and life his in does everyone this brought influenced all together. Andhowthat that. what about talk to also cool Hun how about “ which createdfamiliarity, aof sense instantgroup cohesion: an man visible, and significant was ancestry Hungarian their of terms in participant the of diversity the if even Moreover, really didn‟t who back of generation outside actually interesting tosee themix ofeveryone. few all a at quite really this Hungarian themselves had consider who me, like know, people you and, were Hungarian much there as speak didn‟t they but Hungary from also gra were whose parents people other some were there then and Hungarian fluent spoke she and Hungary from both were actually parents her and Canada from girl a was There others. “ and time in removed more a diverse getsomething different groupsoweall would thetrip.” from were some pick to tried and they think I So (…) country, share. to perspective different had the each we so generations… to close were these America, to some were There c and interesting… regime communist the escaped had wasfather his family, immediate whose it participants so background, different a from was everyone “Yes, all almost enrich the journey: experience ofthe by noted and examined was respondents participants the of background diverse The They areamazing, them Ilove all talked all we And there. were all we why that‟s because part big a like definitely was It than it to connected more clearly looked people some that fact the interesting was it me For y respondents talked about their ―common Hungarian heritage‖ as a ―link‖ between them, them, between ―link‖ a as heritage‖ Hungarian ―common their about talked yrespondents rian ancestry. I was interested in learning the participants‘ a priori knowledge about Hungary and Hungary aboutknowledge priori a participants‘ the learning interestedin I was ;

the intragroup diversity was regist was diversity intragroup the garian…like Hungary was a part of us, why we are here, how was that. It was was It that. was how here, are we why us, of part a was Hungary garian…like (…) S

t i nt fet h rsodns preto o ter commonality; their of perception respondents‘ the affect not did it o that was definitely the was o that key topic onthewhole trip

the same last name besides my family was nice. Then I I Then nice. was family my besides name last same the , we were family, wewere soclose.” like all a

42 ”

ered as interesting and something that could that something and interesting as ered ”

a i o “herita of bit

e ad hs was this and ge” .”

ndparents or or ndparents ame the

CEU eTD Collection often the and cultivating heritage, ―ethnic‖ in dominant was that family the of the side Hungarian of the most was for it out, participants turned it As family. the within rivalry‖ ―ethnic any caused journey Hu the in participation the whether detect to wanted I therefore background, highly decision toapply influentialReConnect their for in the program. t of life the ―understand‖ to that claimed respondents many essays, the country Hungary loved members family Hungarian m ancestry, Hungarian their about asked When st the tells It my was that knowledge ofHungary.” thirteen. was I when me on going were that for atrocities the and „56 of revolution got actually dad my that Michener, James by Bridge The called book the through was history Hungarian to exposure my “Right, care listened.” really never I but war, She the (…) about heritage. stories Hungarian my about care didn‟t “I Worldfather, andmy passed grandfather away in WarII.” gra “ ancestors interest Hungary aconscious in more had etc.) politics, history, of terms (in country the in interest and knowledge little exhibited but stories family about talk could Hungary) in live to used grandparents or parents whose those (i.e. family the in environment ―stro a had who those respect: this in patterns major two identify could I Basically, journey. birthright the on went they before Hungary about had had respondents the methodolo e od e bu goig p n vlae Eeyhn ta h ue t d wt his with do to used he that Everything village. a in up growing about me told He ndfather. He loved Balatonfüred (…) he would tell me th me tell (…)would heBalatonfüred lovedHe ndfather. manifested through through manifested Most of the respondents the of Most

and how they regret not regret they how and (a gical point of view this is rather problematic, I still tried to reveal to tried Istill problematic, ratheris this view of point gical second

generation respondent)

–

s t a rvae b te essays the by revealed was it as gastronomy – having been having

as Americans in general in Americans as , while thos while , . (ageneration fourth respondent) One of the reasons for this phenomenon is the fact that fact the is phenomenon this for reasons the of One

, how enthusiastically they had spoken about the about spoken had they enthusiastically how , able to return to the homeland the to return to able 43 e who were more remote from the Hungarian Hungarian the from remote more were who e d because I was younger, and I never really really never I and younger, was I because d

any respondents emphasized how much th much how emphasized respondents any

even beforeeven thetrip

there. So until the ReConnect p ReConnect the until So there. te grandmother] [the

– (a first generation(a respondent) first already e history and everything about his and everythingabout history e

do not dispose of only one ethnic ethnic oneonly of dispose not do –

hs utvto is cultivation this :

heir ancestors was was ancestors heir , and, similarly to similarly and, , ngarian birthright ngarian what information what nger‖ Hungarian Hungarian nger‖

las od me told always r o the of ory rogram rogram

itself most

eir

CEU eTD Collection organizers. the of a as that farm organic the from of think greatlyorganizers the Interestingly, differs program this on respondents the of aspect th of one with interview the in highlighted was that program favorite as interviews the of all almost in occurred that programs the of One minds. respondents the trip, the about asked When research and differently remember ishow certain to the participants relate programs. Hungary. ReConnect describe to used frequently experience‖ ―lifetime classification the program; the about very opinions and feelings positive had them of all that clear is It itself. program the about were impressions their what they programs the remembered 5.2.1. whole my for soit‟s life, it did I But heritage. Italian our to just attention more He paying (…) be would that. we like wishes doesn‟t He heritage. Italian before Hungarian put I how like doesn‟t it like Italian. didn‟t very He is (…) he „cause Hungary, like doesn‟t he food, Hungarian like really doesn‟t “He child‘s Hungarian growing interest culture: in was There family. the of side Hungarian the to closer live to happened simply Lithuanian) Polish, (e.g. heritage European Eastern other of dispose who those that is explanation other The Hungarian. from anc Swedish or German Irish, have who those so emigration, European Western than later started waves emigration European Eastern Perceptions of the journeyPerceptions birthright of h mjr at f h itriw ws bu hw h priiat eautd and evaluated participants the how about was interviews the of part major The

like I to want change.” only one instance in which the which in instance one only a visiting was enjoyed or did not enjoy, how they saw Hungary and Hungarian people, and and people, Hungarian and Hungary saw they how enjoy, not did or enjoyed ir

birthright journey to Hungary. Hungary. to journey birthright [the applicat [the n rai fr ad okn open cooking and farm organic an

ion for ReConnect] for ion estry are even further away from these cultures than than cultures these from away further even are estry ―other ethnic side‖ of the family disapproved the the disapproved family the of side‖ ethnic ―other randomly listed the programs which ca which programs the listed randomly

lt h rsodns ak rey bu the about freely talk respondents the let I However, , just because he is protective, and he he and protective, is he because just , e organizers as well, however,the well, as organizers e - successful foreign investment in investment foreign successful i glá tgte. hs a a was This together. gulyás air an interesting finding of the the of finding interesting an and that was labeled was that and me to their their to me

was was CEU eTD Collection 76 remembered scenery beautiful for the and landscape. fun‖ ―had everybody where and relaxing and refreshing was that program w element latter the Usually well. as winery a to visit a included which was program popular highly and mentioned often other The bit,prepared alittle farming meal reallymechildhood.” reminded andit ofmy a anorganic when wegotto farmandlearned was “One ofmy favorite things and saw she that something be where up‟.” shewasgrowing might this „wow, like was it there, was I when So farm. a in up after sheexperiencedthe war( growing childhood, her about her from stories many heard I (…) farm… the to went I “When be encountered: also engagement. diaspora of tool this of mechanism working the in youngsters fellow with experience shared positive the emphasizes that journeys birthright on programs. those among un farm organic the list not did those even relevance; economic an to receptive more have were who interviewees might that something as biofarm the about the atmospher the praising program, this of aspect‖ ―community the American aspiring young to appealing be might US, the in food organic of popularity the given which, Hungary, country the of citize British a by owned is (it Hungary

Kelner, Kelner, animously put the organic farm on the top of their list is perfectly in line with the literature the with line in perfectly is list their of top the on farm organic the put animously

fire and picking the vegetables the picking and fire worked as a reminder of their family or represented a place where family narratives can can narratives family where place a represented or family their of reminder a as worked Besides the abovementioned programs abovementioned the Besides Tours That Bind That Tours

as well as the ideal geographical and climatic conditions for organic farming in in farming organic for conditions climatic and geographical ideal the as well as

businesspeople

; Feldman, ―The Romance ofBir Romance ―The ; Feldman,

…) She did talk about herchildhood, she talked didtalk aboutliving …) She . On the other hand, the participant univocally emphasized univocally participant the hand, other the On . themselves n) which can demonstrate the development potential development the demonstrate can which n) erigaot uies potnte i Hungary in opportunities business about learning 45 -

for the meal. None of the respondents talke respondents the of None meal. the for that served ―community building‖ rather than than rather building‖ ―community served that thright Israel‖; Lim, ―Birthright Journeys.‖ ―Birthright Lim, thright Israel‖;

The fact that the respondents respondents the that fact The

h dy pn a lk Balaton, lake at spent day the 76 e of chilling together around around together chilling of e

For

some, the organic farm organic the some, , while Balaton was was Balaton while , as described as a a as described as bout Hungarian bout Hungarian

d CEU eTD Collection diaspor of phase important an definitely is journey birthright leaders”. political top the with meet just and visits parliamentary the them. overwhelming and boring occasions offi government with meetings the especially trip, birthright the of parts official the However, something great. was that m as am „I like much very was he to begin he roots, even you and you if time spend beinthe somuch US?‟ ask questions inParliament like „could Hungarian his about talked he person, nice really a just was he And (…) the in lived and man revolution A the Parliament. during the left of had member who oldest the with met we but name, his remember can‟t “I Hungarian roots was: with American an for Horváth János of example the appealing how stressed respondent One really was That him. with talked Horváth, cool.” János meet to got We Parliament. in we Orbán, tour Minister a Prime got meet to got we Parliament, to went we did: we things many “So remembered and for―inspirational‖ ―nice‖. being ―Hungari his besides and participants, the on impression former a and USA. the Parliament in emigrant Hungarian Hungarian the of Member oldest the being latter the Horváth, me cohort 2013 The name). Orbán‘s Viktor recall could them of all not (although them for memory lasting a remained occasion this obviously, and Office, Minister‘s Prime the in reception a had cohort 2012 The names. the recall to difficulties had actuall they persons the about asked when however, privileged, and special very interviews. the of all almost fa getting il wr nt peln t al h priiat; oe lie ta te fud these found they that claimed some participants; the all to appealing not were cials

Despite the critical remarks critical the Despite miliar with Hungary, with miliar refreshing. ”

o dnt nw f hy cet utpe cultures multiple accept they if know don‟t You , because, as one respondent argued, respondent one as because, , The majority of the respondents remembered these occasions as as occasions these remembered respondents the of majority The -

meeting politicians was another central topic that came up in up came that topic central another was politicians meeting uch an American as I am a Hungarian‟ a am I as American an uch Probably for the latter reason latter the for Probably , however, , and could not recall whom they met and met they whom recall not could and , 46 the majority opinion was rather positiv rather was opinion majority the

Meeting top politicians in the frame of the the of frame the in politicians top Meeting

States for I don‟t know maybe 50 years years 50 maybe know don‟t I for States an American‖ background he was was he background American‖ an “you don‟t just go to any country any to go just don‟t “you a , János Horváth made a great a made Horváth János , engagement process for the the for process engagement t László Kövér and János János and Kövér László t

(…) (…) and so to hear to so and

why So that was was that So y met they met y

they e about e met

CEU eTD Collection 77 well. as Hungary about statements charged emotionally made respondents the people, local on opinion positive general the to Similarly loved that.” tr is she that at look „Wow, just they Hungary, to went North I when But French‟. proper speaking not you‟re from „wow look was dirtiest the me gave they I and them to French speak because to tried I (…) Montreal to excited go I whenever really got they people, peopl „wow like were they And America. to Hungarian speak to tried táncház the “At it and same the been could meet r have would experience the think (…) memorable. don‟t as been have wouldn‟t I them met not we had and come to got and Germany experience, entire in was of I when and them of some part with contact in stayed still best I Germany in was I the when because frankly was that thought I there, were we when students that pieces the of one definitely then “And with Hungarianwas alsovery as studentslisted afavorite program. often lives students‘ older the from only Hungarians generations. met had he previously because age, his at Hungarians lives. their live students Hungarian still they whom with Hungary in friends find could they first, reasons: two for great opportunity with touch in get could they thus students Hungarian people. Hungarian local meeting respondents: government cultivation‖, identity ―diaspora as labels itself, state

Gamlen, ―The Emigration State and the Modern Geopolitical Imagination.‖ Geopolitical the and Modern State Emigration ―The Gamlen,

can hr ws n mr apc o te itrgt rp ht a vr pplr ih the with popular very was that trip birthright the of aspect more one was There

keep in touch, and second, they had the chance t chance the had they second, and touch, in keep

as it serves at least two goals; first, it can be interpreted as a form of what Gamlen what of form a as interpreted be can it first, goals; two least at serves it as ‘s

eal people and saw theday saw and eal people ay f h suet exhibit students the of Many

real commitment towards real commitment , moreover, , [folk dance house] dance [folk accompanied the participants of ReConnect for most of t of most for ReConnect of participants the accompanied

ying to learn our language‟. And it was just so welcoming and open. I open. and welcoming so just was it And language‟. our learn to ying back for a past few weekends I got to stayed with one of my friends my of one with stayed to got I weekends few past a for back the evening when an when evening the

―

Also, one respondent appreciated that he was able to meet to able was he that appreciated respondent one Also, ordinary we met some people. What I really liked was that when I when that was liked really I What people. some met we -

to its diaspora.its And I also think by introducing us to the students we students the to us introducing by think also I And e over there know my language, this is amazing‟ and amazing‟ is this language, my know there over e 77 - day life.”

d eun itrs in interest genuine ed For example, one respondent recalled t recalled respondent one example, For ‖ n scn, t also it second, and lasts in was just getting to meet the Hungarian the meet to getting just was in lasts

47 Hungarian people. The respondents found this this found respondents The people. Hungarian

open ay nevees prcae ta some that appreciated interviewees Many

- air party party air o learn from ―authentic source‖ how how source‖ ―authentic from learn o was spontaneously organized organized spontaneously was

demonstrates learning about Hungarian Hungarian about learning

he programs and programs he

h homeland the he moment moment he CEU eTD Collection 78 participant the to appeared Budapest ―local‖ T described often likewise factor a as interviews many t Although ―national‖. the with countryside the however, landscape, Hungarian prototypical the Scotland). i place central a acquired have and nations to attached cases many in become have landscapes rural Typical but realHungarianpeople dolive inBudapest.” Paris in live actually don‟t people French real Like industry. tourism the in worked everyone and local like very seems still a therelive who people metyou and everywhere, Hungarian heard you and Hungarian, Hungary of city capital the it‟s though even Budapest, “But elsewhere as well: ―typic between contrast The one ofmy favorite cities.” it. loved really I and genuine so seemed it but different, completely something just was Hungary But different. that not are they but westernized, very seem also German especially in time emphasized theoriginalityand that was Budapest in things appealing participants some interview, every almost in appeared which country. mother the to return to wanted because view ― that claimed and airplane the from ―Hungary‖ glimpsed she when “I was surprised how original Hungary was, because I have been to Austria and Ispent Hungaryand because I have was, toAustria been some howoriginal wassurprised “I

hus it seems that the contrast between ―cosmopolitan‖ Western cities and the ―original‖ or ―original‖ the and cities Western ―cosmopolitan‖ between contrast the that seems it hus Edensor, Edensor, I

a ee seen ever had I National Identity, Popular Culture and Everyday Life Everyday and Culture Popular Identity, National

78 couldn‟t share it with with it share couldn‟t

Although Hungarian tourist industry usually applies the Great Plain or Puszta as Puszta or Plain Great the applies usually industry tourist Hungarian Although ntoa smoim eg te pampas the (e.g. symbolism national n

ad ht ― that and ‖ as ―genuine‖ and ―genuine‖ as

- speaking countries, they are different certainly from th from certainly different are they countries, speaking al Western European cosmopolitan cities‖ and Budapest appeared Budapest and cities‖ cosmopolitan European Western al

ht ae te onr uiu ad aube Bdps was Budapest valuable, and unique country the makes that uniqueness of the country ofthe uniqueness my I

a s oewemd ih apns ad ans too sadness and happiness with overwhelmed so was grandma Besides praising the beauty of Hungary and Budapest, Budapest, and Hungary of beauty the Besidespraising tee s o uh histo much so is ―there as less bustling than other other than bustling less as s

48 to be sufficient to link national associations to a to associations national link to sufficient be to , e ata Hnain ancesto Hungarian actual her ‖, he peacefulness of the countryside appeared in in appeared countryside the of peacefulness he

my respondents my .

Argentina or the Highlands Highlands the or Argentina

lie that claimed did not exclusively associate associate exclusively not did y in ry it was the most amazing most the was it (…) Europea

I really love it, it‟s it, love really I h city the one of the most most the of one n r who always always who r capital cities capital e US, they they US, e ‖ . Others Others . nd not nd in .

CEU eTD Collection exhibi they Interestingly, also politicians top with meetings the evidently, less though moreover, Balaton) to going students, Hungarian meeting together, gulyás cooking memorable most the here”. it: formulated she as or boring, and unnecessary as entrepreneurs trip, the about enthusiastic meetin respondents. like programs ―professional‖ quotation, latter the of one by only appreciated was firm legal global a of office Budapest the representativeof the from out turns it As like asmuch that participant other the of Some etc. Hungary in business the starting and regime legal Pricewaterhouse with met “We to got we things, great was it that, Ihear something about that personally enjoyed all alot.” doing …were entrepreneurs Hungarian these of all so Budapest, of future occasions to opportunities business country‘s the about information introduce to claimed that ofHungary wheneverthinks she shesees a― respondent one Hungarian‖; ―truly as remembered often also were places rural Certainly, place “We went to, I don‟t know h know don‟t I to, went “We

seriously consider bu consider seriously ad o uaet s el curd nation a acquired well as Budapest so and ,

or those who were more were consciouswholeor aboutbirthright trip those who the

Based on the respondents‘ reports about their favorite programs, it can be stated that stated be can it programs, favorite their about reports respondents‘ the on Based partic the how see to interested very was I useful and interesting, especially those who either have business aspirations business have either who those especially interesting, and useful

It is also telling that a second generation respondent, who otherwise was very very was otherwise who respondent, generation second a that telling also is It otmoay ugr through Hungary contemporary .. .”

xeine wr those were experiences siness oppor siness ted little interest in the programs which aimed to get them closer to to closer them get to aimed which programs the in interest little ted akd bu te cain we t when occasions the about talked ow it‟s called a „design school‟ „design a called it‟s ow C oopers in Budapest. I particularly enjoyed that, learning the learning that, enjoyed particularly I Budapest. in oopers tunities in Hungary, some of the participants found these these found participants the of some Hungary, in tunities 49 hc hd cmuiy ulig set (e.g. aspect building community a had which

ucsfl entrepreneurs successful ipants related to the programs which aimed aimed which programs the to related ipants l mg i te ys f h respondents. the of eyes the in image al got .

E a high rank on the respondents‘ lists. lists. respondents‘ the on rank high a field full ofsunflowers field full ven if the target group is group target the if ven [Design Terminal] Terminal] [Design hey had been introduced to to introduced been had hey ti i nt h I came I why not is “this

or by providing providing by or ‖. in the centre the in too young too s

for the for the g didn‟t

CEU eTD Collection homeland. ancestral the about narrative‖ ―historical a give to than people Hungarian one the reason, this For days. these facing is minority a such difficulties the about something learn to c fully not whole the if even However, themselves consider they so and sothat very, ofthat, also opposite was hardto it very interesting.Partof grasp, Iguess guess I years of hundreds town this consider they Hungarian, like for towns these in lived an York New move? the issue.The participants‘ o had had they that claimed 1920 in redrawn were Hungary of borders Hungarian of existence the country the with of outside unfamiliar minorities been had they that admitted respondents ―nati the of narrative by undeveloped used was e.g. ―Trianon‖ word The with region. the struggles in bilingualism contemporary their about told had they stories the and Hungarian meeting on the was reports the by of focus the rememberedrespondents, the of majority was itself trip the Although history. Hungarian ―teach‖ to designed one The hard toface ofthebecause thebrutalities past, simply but t said others while interesting were Museum) Holocaust contra a Terror, in of evaluated Castle, (House Buda visited they (e.g. museums places the historical and to Visegrád), made were references few history; Hungarian “As Americans and Canadians I think it w it think I Canadians and Americans “As ‟. Crazy I know but but know I Crazy ‟. - - a ti t Soai bte sre te i t peet contemporary present to aim the served better Slovakia to trip day day trip to Southern Slovakia Southern to trip day lear to them, the respondents mentioned in the interviews that it was certainly good certainly was it that interviews the in mentioned respondents the them, to lear d

after the college I‟m sure I‟ll move somewhere else, somewhere move I‟ll sure I‟m college the after dictory manner; some claimed that the House of Terror was was Terror of House the that claimed some manner; dictory nl rua ws o bogt up brought not was trauma‖ onal I mean just, here we here just, mean I difficulties issue they had not enjoyed it at all (and not necessarily because it is it because necessarily not (and all at it enjoyed not had they , and even those who had known before the trip that the the that trip the before known had who those even and ,

of Hungarian minorities in the neighboring countries was was countries neighboring the in minorities Hungarian of s part of Hungary even like the modern borders say sort of sort say borders modern the like even Hungary of part s

is an interesting point among the programs that were that programs the among point interesting an is comprehend as hard for us to grasp, well, „ well, grasp, to us for hard as 50

move around all the time, like now I live in in live I now like time, the all around move

the situation the situation hey werehey notinterested init). O te contr the On . two

are respondent

(…) well illustratedhere:well nly vague ideas about ideas vague nly

These people have have people These why don‟t you just just you don‟t why r, ot f the of most ary, s

only, and the and only, ugr and Hungary scouts there scouts .” highly highly

CEU eTD Collection answers. pers their in brought effectively program the what about asked when however, heritage‖, your about learn and ―rediscover Hungary‖, ―experience roots‖, your to ―reconnect as such phrases contained question that to answer typical The was. ―learning ofthe side‖ program equally. better considerably places and names remembered pr the about conscious exposed were who generations) fourth and third the (usually those Hungary, about enthusiastic very be to tend and programs the about conscious less were places and names heritage remembered programs, Hungarian their from remote so not were who Americans) Hungarian generation second and first (usually those While well. as experience in traced be could participants the ofconsciousness general and identification the in discovered patterns two the that stated be can it overall, In youyou‘rewhere todo what have todo‖. told th during freedom personal ― was it impressionsbetter had he concludedthat and trip birthrighttwo I the to go to chance the had had who participant was mine of assumption this Interestingly, history. Hungarian in connecting co in interest and awareness raising in birthright successful more was Hungarian journey the of structure whole the unit, larger the of level the on Moreover, as akdtersodns bu wa te hn h ga o goal the think they what about respondents the asked also I less structured and more liberal more and structured less

the participants ga, a a la ve o te i ad tutr o te schedule, the of structure and aim the on view clear a had ogram, e Hungarian trip while the Israeli resembled ―a summer camp camp summer ―a resembled Israeli the while trip Hungarian e to other Americans ofto other AmericansHungarianin―lecturing‖ on ancestry than o hi Hnain eiae o lse etn wr more were extent lesser a to heritage Hungarian their to

‖, meaning that he felt much more like an adult with adult an like more much felt he that meaning ‖,

to a lesser extent, emphasized the ―fun side‖ of the the of side‖ ―fun the emphasized extent, lesser a to 51

sraeli birthright program. He compared the the compared He program. birthright sraeli

their perception of the birthright journey‘s journey‘s birthrightthe of perception their ,

n apeitd the appreciated and onal lives, th lives, onal on the Hungarian the because oneon implicitly ntemporary Hungary and and Hungary ntemporary ey gave very different different very gave ey eonc Hungary ReConnect f ―fun side‖ and the the and side‖ ―fun

reinforced by a a by reinforced CEU eTD Collection http://www.brandeis.edu/cmjs/pdfs/evaluatingbri.04.pdf. Maril and (Maurice Report Research 79 before journey the than often more it practicing or courses Hungarian attending about reported Others Budapest. g after year is gap one a other have the to and planning 2014 for school summer a for scholarship a won already has them about talked respondents who those by and previously extent some to it spoken had who those by both expressed was language the learn to will the Interestingly, language. Hungarian learning is trip the by raised was that interest frequentlymentioned most of findings and ―organized inthe diaspora. ontheparticipationlife‖ Jewish in effect little made journey the that found research the hand, other long a be to proved homeland the about more learn to will and interest raised the Moreover, nationals. its to and homeland visited the to attitude positive a is trip birthright the of effect obvious most the that found al. et Saxe reference. of point as used be still can research the of findings the etc.), methodology, aim, (primary t Although program. a made who al. et Saxe by provided is journeys 5.2.3. “I enjoyed it so much I learned so much and it actually made me want to take Hungarian take to want me made actually it and much so learned I much so it enjoyed “I

Leonard Saxe et al., al., et Saxe Leonard Outcomes Concerning co most the Perhaps Saxe et al.‘s et Saxe

the Evaluating Birthright Israel: Long Israel: Birthright Evaluating

he Jewish and the Hungarian birthright trips differ in many respects respects many in differ trips birthright Hungarian the and Jewish he ReConnect

report on the Jewish birthright journey. Bas journey. birthright Jewish the on report their plans to attend intensive language courses in Hungary; one of of one Hungary; in courses language intensive attend to plans their peesv smay n h long the on summary mprehensive

yn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University, 2004), 2004), University, Brandeis Studies, Jewish Modern for Center Cohen yn birthright journey, journey, birthright auto ad o ae one a take to and raduation had not have any command of it before. Two Two before. it of command any have not had 52

systematic follow systematic - Term Impact and Recent Findings Recent and Impact Term - term outcome of the trips as well. On the the On well. as trips the of outcome term its outcomes strongly correlate to the the to correlate strongly outcomes its

79 on Jewish religious identity identity religious Jewish on - - up on the Jewish birthright Jewish the on up term effects of birthright birthright of effects term

er agae ore in course language year ed on the interviews, t interviews, the on ed , Birthright Israel Israel Birthright , he

CEU eTD Collection joining considering are them of haveReConnect to another thecountry. 2014asescorts tovisit opportunity some Similarly, trip. return the realized already have retu to idea The though how they it, aboutin interested very talk also were they constantly and experiences myI all about because talked I is, Budapest, it beautiful is go to thinking are they places the of one family his “M was it talk and Hungarian hear would he time Ilikemembers hasnoone him.” elsetobring he so here, onthe phone, only The people. his around ev certain to him bring I So (…) go. to him want I good. is which father, my bring I events, have they whenever (…) course, language a taking am I after and time the “ also was community American frequentlythe respondents: mentionedby Hungarian local the in integrate their or cultivate ancestry to effort Hungarian more make to or Hungary visit to members family Encouraging I‟ll Hungarian, that‟s someoneprogram.” see I if am I passionate… that something It‟s program. the about him to talked I so and it on „Hungary‟ a with wearing hat day other the subway the on guy a saw I well. as people random to just even and ta to try I definitely, Hungarians, as identify that know I who “People to beHungarian: conversation start to ready been have and names Several anyonesense ofwith family you metHungarian is that talked literally ta said: were we and she girl this met I and night other the bar the at was meet I I …like Wheneversomeone thing. same the exactly do I now And patriotic‟. so are „You said: and her someone saw she time every (…) time the all Hunga mom my of fun make to used I remember “I A general a certain Hungary enthusiasmtheinterviews and pridefor was inall traceable aga (…) my father, he never would go to the Magyar Ház to any event. Now that I get emails all emails get I that Now event. any to Ház Magyar the to go would never he father, my (…) y parents, y in so right now I‟m now right actuallyin so taking atmyof Hungarian asemester school…” rian or she… just anything to do with Hungary, she was so excited. I would laugh at laugh would I excited. so was she Hungary, with do to anything just she… or rian t

it was just was it really cool. epnet camd ht ic te rp hy ae en oe wr o Hungarian of aware more been have they trip the since that claimed respondents „

What‟s your nationality? nationality? your What‟s this summer it‟s the it‟s summer this for rn to Hungary appeared also quite often, and three of my respondents actually respondents my of three and often, quite also appeared Hungary to rn

like 2 hours about Hungary. I told her about the trip. It‟s just new, this new, just It‟s trip. the about her told I Hungary. about hours 2 like ”

wedding anniversary and they going to do to going they and anniversary wedding -

‟ Hungarian. I‟m

with unknown people whom were supposed were whom people unknown with . ‖

‟

bouey ak o hm bu the about them to talk absolutely n se „e ot s a I. We I‟. am so out, „Get she: And

lk about the program, the about lk ents (…) so he can be be can he so (…) ents

a big trip, and trip, big a

lking and and lking :

CEU eTD Collection respondents. Hungarian for looking (e.g. typicalfir morefor was trip neighborhood)afterthe the ethnicityrestaurantsin symbolic stronger exhibiting hand, other the On as Ipossibly can.” t him motivate to Try time… muchthat participating isn‟t unfortunately He Representatives. of House US the cois who Congress the of the Membersof one know I “And generation) interest Enhanced system thepolitical tuned with inHungary.more “ much I‟m and afterwards learning then and trip the on going definitely but bit, little a Iwasfami trip. before reading politics “I‟ve bitof onHungarian goingthe alittle done of advantage (…)much IthinkI‟m asIdonow. more have involved So definitely been.” thanIwould take to I sure am try I … int been sure have definitely would not I‟m trip I the about out found so not I Had literature, those. as such Hungarian opportunities, of authors or professors the at or York actual where New Columbia, of university in being interesting and an that, to certainly attention is more pay now, do I right now, Hungary atmosphere political that say can I so and politics, f in stronger interested and interest bigger a created definitely “It about Hungary more learn to opportunities for search conscious the was generation fourth and third the for for learn to will the earlier, enthusiasm increased stated the did neither generation, the with correlation As show not did Hungarian project. the of outcomes the examining when find program the to attitude When I‟mcomecan. come. Ihavegoingto asIanopportunity, asoften “ I don‟t wanna don‟t I the country or the plan to visit Hungary again. The only thing that was typical exclusively exclusively typical was that thing only The again. Hungary visit to plan the or country the The ―generational gap‖ which was which gap‖ ―generational The ; althou ;

o get more involved in the Hungarian Caucus. I‟m trying to stay as connected as stay to trying I‟m Caucus. Hungarian the in involved more get o :

be one of thos of one be

in gh this case is exceptional, it is still worthmention: case to gh still is isexceptional, it this erested, but…I don‟t know if I‟d search out experiences like that quite as quite that like experiences out search I‟d if know don‟t but…I erested, Hungarian s and in the degree of consciousness about the trip is more difficult to difficult more is trip the about consciousness of degree the in and s e -

American relations was exhibited by one participant one by exhibited was relations American people who come to Hungary once in a few years, I wanna wanna I years, few a in once Hungary to come who people ly there are quite a few opportunities to meet Hungarian meet to opportunities few a quite are there ly discovered

in relation to relation in eig f oncin () a also am I (…) connection. of eeling - chair of the Hungarian Caucus inCaucus the Hungarian of chair self st and second generationsecond and st ”

- identification

, (fourth (fourth

in the in liar CEU eTD Collection 80 preparationindividual more and conscious presence during thetrip. m involvement the with effective be to likely more is program birthright Hungarian the through engagement diaspora that conclude I Therefore, than rather country the towards engagement effective develop to likely more are they and trip, the after it in interested genuinely more even be to tend and well as trip the before country the in interest exhibited had participants develop to likely more are they trip the after and it, about knowledge factual less significantly have passionate about the b be to happen groups two the more are members diaspora generationsecond that and first lines‖: ―generational amongseparated reveals it that is research my of asset interesting An about the country. country‘scur the with familiar more becoming (e.g. well as journey the after connection stronger exhibit to likely more are journey the in participation and politics) current or history country‘s the those well; as rese here individual pursuing (e.g. traceable for preparation conscious is more a had pattern who participants similar a case, Hungarian the in measured be cou the the if Israel to participants engaging in effective more be to proved journey Israelibirthright the results, survey Cohen‘s to According journey. well as journey trip birthright the to generations different of respondents

Cohen, ―Committed Zionists and Curious Tourists.‖ Curious and Zionists ―Committed Cohen, ore remote ore The general conclusion of my research concerning the differen the concerning research my of conclusion generalThe ntry before ntry o reinforce) (or rent affairs rent from their Hungarian ancestors Hungarian their from s n ie with line in is

the journey the

irthright trip irthright trip ) than those who are more emotional more are who those than ) rcs f yblc tnct, hl tid n fut generation fourth and third while ethnicity, symbolic of traces

. 80 p a

Although long Although (especially its eiu rsac o te mat f h Jws birthright Jewish the of impact the on research revious

, are , (or besides) (or

- y community term effects of the birthright journey cannot journey birthright the of effects term wi

had had an interest an had had f isoa ebr wo dsie being despite who, members diaspora of lling to ―invest‖ in the experience through experiencethe in ―invest‖ to lling

pursuing si pursuing n prl i te ucm o the of outcome the in partly and

aspects) but less conscious and interested and conscious less but

gns of symbolic ethnicity. symbolic of gns and Hungary and buttend to ce in the in ce and positive attitude to attitude positive and

attitudes of the the of attitudes arch in in arch

CEU eTD Collection Americans Hungarian generation who Those o attitude differentofpatterns two out pointed interviews the of analysisThe are from. where they and come they who themselves: about learn to indirectly thus and ancestors, their of life the understand participant Many journey. birthright the to applying for motivations the in traceable was Hungary to relating in family the of role the for applicable is ethnicity symbolic of concept through oftenby most consuming Hungaria measures, symbolic Hungarian aspect. political) (communal, public any have not does it and matter private a as overwhelmingly appears ―identity‖ Hungarian respondents‘ identity, diasporic of cultivation and shaping the in role central a plays family journey birthright the of participants the with interviews The tries toreachcountry. stakeholdersfor future the potential intra nor homecoming Hungary day present economic impor most engagement, effective about bring to expected is run long the on which interest participants‘ the raise to is program the of aim primary the that argued Also, lives. their in re the examined programs. Hungary semi conducting 6. Conclusion hs hss ie t ivsiae h ipcs f h Hnain itrgt journey birthright Hungarian the of impacts the investigate to aimed thesis This terms are s .

pondents‘ pondents‘ structured interviews with interviews structured not so remote from their Hungarian heritage (usually first and second second and first (usually heritage Hungarian their from remote so not Moreover, by positioning the focus of the program on the introduction of of introduction the on program the of focus the positioning by Moreover,

I gave a detailed discussion on the structure of the birthright journey and journey birthright the of structure the on discussion detailed a gave I With the help of the interviews and the participants‘ application essays I essays application participants‘ the and interviews the of help the With - t a as b age ta RCnet ugr poaae neither propagates Hungary ReConnect that argued be also can it ethnic marriages (as some of the classic birthright birthright classic the of some (as marriages ethnic identification patterns, motivations and the outcome of the journey journey the of outcome the and motivations patterns, identification

aig iig aiy ebr wo mgae from emigrated who members family living having s considered the trip as an opportunity to better better to opportunity an as trip the considered s the participants of the 2012 and 2013 ReConnect 2013 and 2012 the of participants the 56

respondents of the research. the of respondents

heritage

and their essays their and n food at home n food

is typically programs do), but do), programs f the participants.the f

- in moreover, the the moreover,

t revealed

herefore, the

the country, the The central The cultivated cultivated tantly in in tantly that that by CEU eTD Collection con more and preparation individual through experience the in ―invest‖ to willing are but ancestors, Hungarian their from remote far perhaps are who participants of case the in reached probably conclusion, a As pursuing ethnicity. ofsymbolic signs besides) (or than rather country the towards engagement effective develop to likely more interested genuinely more even be to tend affai actual reinforce) generation second and first the of members difference‖: Hungarian of ―generational the by affected partly also was program Americans the of outcome the Moreover, heritage. as identify to preferred and Hungarians as themselves declare mo were Americans Hungarian generation fourth and third while current situation, country‘s the in interest without or knowledge language without Hungary, to ties effective without Hungarians as easily identified Americans Hungarian generation second and self respondents‘ the in traceable was difference‖ ―generational The ―learning ofthe side‖ program equally. places and names remembered affairs), current or history program, the about ancestors Hungary about side‖ ―fun the country, the about knowledge program the about conscious less were Hungary)

cos rsne uig h trip the during presence scious (usually third and fourth generations Hungarian Americans) Americans) Hungarian generations fourth and third (usually rcs f yblc tnct atr h journey the after ethnicity symbolic of traces rs does not occur in their case. their in occur not does rs . On the other hand, those hand, other the On . n cmuiy events community and h primary the rprd niiuly o te ore (.. erig bu Hungarian about learning (e.g. journey the for individually prepared a a la ve o te ai the on view clear a had remember goal significantly

of of

f h programs the of ed eonc Hungary ReConnect ,

who who Conversely, s hy r mr lkl to likely more are they as

names and places to a lesser extent, emphasized extent, lesser a to places and names in

57 better, and appreciated the ―fun side‖ and the the and side‖ ―fun the appreciated and better, are ugr‘ affairs Hungary‘s

further away in ti in away further ofrd y h trip the by offered s third and fourth generation participants participants generation fourth and third ,

, and

m and structure of the schedule, schedule, the of structure and m but evoked interest in Hungary‘s Hungary‘s in interest evoked but r mor are tend a b peitd to predicted be can

after the trip, and they are are they and trip, the after ed me from me -

e likely to develop (or (or develop to likely e definitions as well: fir well: as definitions

to be very enthusiastic enthusiastic very be to epn t the to respond were more conscious more were , had

their Hungarian their e eiat to hesitant re

less factual factual less

e m be al for call ost st CEU eTD Collection learning away Hungarian) fades withtime. t engagement the for mobilized effectively be can ethnicity symbolic whether exploring in useful also be would 10 in trip birthright the of re journey the after years two and one out carried research the of results the to according speculation on based is journey birthright the the of engagement effective owards the homeland the owards - year perspective would be useful to conduct. The future research future The conduct. to useful be would perspective year birthright program birthright

, or whether the intensive post intensive the whether or , spectively, a research measuring the actual outcome outcome actual the measuring research a spectively,

58 .

However, as the prediction on the success of of success the on prediction the as However, - trip enthusiasm (e.g. in (e.g. enthusiasm trip CEU eTD Collection Up).‖ Shaken Got Hungarians (Forgotten Magyarokat Elfeledett Az ―Felrázták Bálint. Fabók, In Diasporas.‖ of Classes and ―Definition J. Milton Esman, Tim. Edensor, and Mobility Between Formations: Transnational Migrants‘ of ―Dynamics Janine. Dahinden, In Integration.‖ European andStrategies ―Nationalist Goldgeir. M. James andZsuzsa, Csergő, to Travel Tourists: Curious and Zionists ―Committed M. Steven Cohen, Robin. Cohen, ―Diasporas.‖Clifford, James. Anastasi Christou, Diaspora.‖ ‗Diaspora‘ ―The Rogers. Brubaker, Ethnic and Governments Hungarian between Relations of History ―The Nándor. 2013. Bárdi, Budapest).‖ 7, in Americans August (Hungarian Budapesten Need).‖ Magyarok ―Amerikai of out (Virtue ed. Thomas, Ambrosio, Erényt ―Szükségből Balázs. Ágoston, America).‖ in People (Our Embereink ―Amerikai Bálint. Ablonczy, (Zsuz Zsuzsanna Répás Fogadta Ösztöndíjasait Hungary ReConnect ―A Bibliography yais Iett Cntutos n te eay f hm‘ n Second in ‗home‘ Greek of Legacy the and Constructions Identity Dynamics, 19. Slavic Research2004. Center, University, Hokkaido Sapporo: Protection Halász. Iván and Vizi, Balázs Ieda, Minority Osamu Majtényi, And/or Building Nation In Hungary.‖ of Borders the beyond Living Hungarians Accessedhttp://w May 27,2014. Praeger, 2002. http://www.demokrata.hu/ujsagcik tennivalojuk http://hetivalasz.hu/vilag/az 2013. Hungary).‖ 1171434. ReConnect of http://mno.hu/belfold/a Participants Welcomes aain eih ot, Arl , 1991. 1, World Berg, 2002. April edited byBaubock and Thomas Rainer Fais In Locality.‖ Youth,‖ Hokkaido University, Slavic Research Center, 2004. Sapporo: Halász. Iván and Vizi, Balázs Ieda, Osamu Majtényi, Balázs Protection Kántor, Zoltán Minority And/or Building Nation Law: Status Hungarian The Jewish February 2014 http://www.bjpa.org/Publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=171. Canadian 1997. 1040

–

- . Cambridge, UK, Malden,UK, US . Cambridge, 56. doi:10.1080/01419870600960 mrcn eun Migration.‖ Return American Global Diasporas: An Introduction An Diasporas: Global ainl dniy Pplr utr ad vrdy Life Everyday and Culture Popular Identity, National

Accessed

. Dcpeig Diaspora ―Deciphering a. - 58963.

isoa n Tasainls. ocps Tere ad Methods and Theories Concepts, Transnationalism. and Diaspora tnc dniy rus n US Frin Policy Foreign U.S. and Groups Identity Ethnic

May

Accessed May 21 2014 Cultural Anthropology Cultural - reconnect 21 2014

ww.magyarhirlap.hu/amerikai

- - hungary k/szuksegbol_erenyt/. biztos A: Polity, 2009. 59 tnc n Rca Studies Racial and Ethnic Ethnic and Racial Studies Racial and Ethnic 297.

- hogy - – osztondijasait t. Amsterdam 2010. University Press, . Seattle: University of Washington Press, Washington of University Seattle: .

9, no. 3 (August 1, 1994): 302 9, no.3(August 1994): 1, rnltn Tasainls: Family Transnationalism: Translating - az e , - elkovetkezo dited by Zoltán Kántor, Balázs Balázs Kántor, Zoltán by dited

Diasporas in the Contemporary Contemporary the in Diasporas

Accessed May 21 2014 Accessed 21 May - fogadta The Hungarian Status Law: Status Hungarian The Mno.hu - H - evekben magyarok . Oxford, New York: York: New Oxford, . eti Válasz eti -

repas 28, no. 1 (2005): 1 (2005): 1 no. 28,

Jl 8 2013. 8, July , 9 n. (2006): 6 no. 29, . Westport, Conn: Conn: Westport, . eree: 16 Retrieved: ayr Hírlap Magyar

- - zsuzsanna Israel Among Among Israel is sanna Répás Répás sanna - - budapesten. , January 2, January , - boven eie by edited , Generation – 38.

- lesz - – - , .

CEU eTD Collection Abroad Communities Hungarian for ―Policy Körtvélyesi. Zsolt and Kovács, M. Mária Szabolcs, Pogonyi, ——— Non of Patterns ―Four Szabolcs. Pogonyi, ——— Király!‖ Østergaard Mátyás ―Wannabe Hungary ReConnect Vincze. Máté Csaba. Lukács, Diaspora.‖ the for Dots Connecting Journeys: ―Birthright Audrea. Lim, ―Adják Gergő. Gábor Kiss, Shaul. Kelner, In Aspects.‖ Theoretical Policy‘: ‗Nation and Law ―Status Zoltán. Kántor, in Groups Interest Ethnic of Role ―The Vanderbush. Walt and J., Patrick Haney, in In Diaspora.‖ Cultures and Identity ―Cultural and Stuart. Hall, Groups Ethnic of Future The Ethnicity: ―Symbolic J. Herbert Gans, Imagination.‖ Geopolitical Modern the and State Emigration ―The Alan. Gamlen, Fe da, ir. Te oac o Brhih Israel.‖ Birthright of Romance ―The Kiera. ldman, http://mno.hu/kulfold/wannabe (2012): 59 2014 veszik_ Serbia).‖ http://www.delmagyar.hu/szeged_hirek/adjak in Purchased and Sold Citizenship York: University New York Press, 2010. Hokkaido Sapporo: Halász. Iván and Vizi, University, Center, Slavic Research 2004. Balázs Ieda, Osamu Majtényi, Balázs Buildin Nation Law: Status Quarterly Foundation.‖ National American Cuban the of Case The Policy: edited by Rutherford.London:Lawrence Johnathan & 1990. Wishart, doi:10.1080/0141 America*.‖ Geography Accessed February 202014 http://www.thenation.com/article/161460/romance korosi Http://www.origo.hu/ omnte Ara. Acse Arl , 2014. 7, April http://eudo Accessed 2010. Studies, Abroad.‖ Advanced http://www.nemzetiregiszter.hu/download/b/12/10000/policy_2013.pdf. for Communities Centre citizenship.eu/docs/ECEcompreport.pdf. Schuman Europe Central East in Citizenship State EuropeanIssues, for Center Minority n.d. In 2010.‖ since 2001. be Reunification ―National . Programme, 2013, 1 Communities Review Transnational Practices.‖ Political of Migrants‘ Transnational ―ThePolitics . 22%20Ostergaard.doc.pdf. Paper.‖ Http://www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/working%20papers/WPTC Working Herner - ile, v. Te oiis f Migra of Politics ―The Eva. Nielsen,

- - csoma

– a_magyar_allampolgarsagot_szerbiaban/2350791/. Kovács, February 24,2014. Kovács, February 37, no. 3 (2003): 760 37, no.3(2003): Touri Birthright Israeli and Pilgrimage, Diaspora, Bind: That Tours 19. doi:10.1080/17449057.2013.846041.

– 1,1999):43, no.2(June 341

65. doi:10.1353/dss.2012.0067. 27, no.8(November 2008): 840 - tnc n Rca Studies Racial and Ethnic sandor 9870.1979.9993248. uoen erok f ioiy Issues Minority of Yearbook European - . Accessed April 9, 2014. http://www.origo.hu/itthon/20131111 2014. 9, April Accessed . program - ezk Mga Álmográo Sebáa (Hungarian Szerbiában Állampolgárságot Magyar a Veszik

- yond Borders: Diaspora and Minority Politics in Hungary in Politics Minority and Diaspora Borders: yond Ado Mnrt Protection Minority And/or g

– from the perspective of an organizer. Interview by Eszter Eszter by Interview organizer. an of perspective the from 86. doi:10.1111/j.1747 - - a matyas - diaszporaban -

Resident Voting Rights.‖ Voting Resident

60 - – kiraly 61.

. EUDO Citizenship Observatory. Robert Robert Observatory. Citizenship EUDO . Identity: Community, Culture, Difference Culture, Community, Identity: – -

56. doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2008.10.004. t‘ rnntoa Pltcl Practices. Political Transnational nts‘ - - - 1167694. elo taei Faeok o Hungarian for Framework Strategic , o 1 Jnay 99: 1 1979): (January 1 no. 2, Delmagyar.hu

- - magyaroknak.html. birthright - Mno.hu 7379.2003.tb00157.x. h Nation The

Accessed2014 May 21 h Pltc o Externa of Politics The

, edited by Zoltán Kántor, Kántor, Zoltán by edited , Vl Vlm 1, 2011. 10, Volume Vol. , - - , June June , Accessed February 21 21 February Accessed 01 israel?page=0,2. Ethnopolitics , September 25, 2013. 2013. 25, September , Internat - International Studies International Jn 1, 2011. 15, June , Dissent

ional Migration ional The Hungarian The

U.S. Foreign U.S. 9 2013. 19, , November ,

9 n. 3 no. 59,

Political Political

. New . Kin l –

20. - - - ,

CEU eTD Collection A. Myra Waterbury, Intere ―Homeland D. Kenneth Wald, Béla. Várdy, Paper.‖ Working Trandafoiu, Ruxandra. Promise. and Present Past, Studies. ―Diaspora Khachig. Tölölyan, Tony. Smith, ——— Theory.‖ Relations International and ―Dias ―Diasporas D. Anthony Barth. Smith, Aharon and Yossi, Shain, ——— Yossi. Shain, Return.‖ and and ShaulBenjamin Phillips, I. Mark Rosen, Leonard,Kadushin, Hecht, Shahar Saxe, Charles Homeland of Myths Societies: Modern in ―Diasporas William. Safran, Hungary ―ReConnect Polish among Identity National and Home Food, of Ritualisation ―The Marta. Rabikowska, of Role the and Tourism Homeland Community Imagined the ―Reimaging L. Jillian Powers, eih tde, rnes nvriy 2004. 2000. Policy Foreign . University, 2010. Brill, Boston: Leiden, Smith. D. Anthony and Leoussi, S. Athena Gal, Allon by edited In Diasporas.‖ Brandeis International Organization Cambridge,UniversityUK: Press, Cambridge 1999. . Studies, Michigan 2007. Press, http://www.brandeis.edu/cmjs/pdfs/evaluatingbri.04.pdf. for Center Cohen Jewish Marilyn and Maurice Report. Research Israel Birthright Studies Kelner. Transnational of Journal doi:10.13 A Diaspora: Http://www.reconnecthungary.org London.‖ doi:10.1080/13504630.2010.482432. in Migrants doi:10.1177/0002764211409380. Place.‖ nentoa Mgain nttt, 2012. Institute, in Hungary 42, no.2(July273 1,2008): EasternMiddle Groups theUnited Heritage in States.‖ Migration Nyelv Társasága,és Kultúra Nemzetközi 2000. Http://www.migration.ox.ac.uk/odp/pdfs/WP55%20Diaspora%20studies International Nationalism andNationalism Mo Marketing the American Creed Abroad: Abroad: Creed American the Marketing

Magyarok Az Újvilágban (Hungarians in the New World) New the in (Hungarians Újvilágban Az Magyarok Foreign Attachments: The Power of Ethnic Groups in the Making of American American of Making the in Groups Ethnic of Power The Attachments: Foreign isi & isoa i Itrainl Affairs International in Diasporas & Kinship mrcn eairl Scientist Behavioral American vlaig itrgt sal Long Israel: Birthright Evaluating 53/dsp.1991.0004. . New Palgrave York: 2010. Macmillan, Between State and Nation: Diaspora Politics and Kin and Politics Diaspora Nation: and State Between The Call of the Homeland: Diaspora Nationalisms, Past and Present and Past Nationalisms, Diaspora Homeland: the of Call The Diaspora Online: Identity Politics andRomanian Online: IdentityPolitics Migrants Diaspora Press, University Harvard England: London, Mass. ; Cambridge, . poras and the Homelands in History: The Case of the Classic Classic the of Case The History: in Homelands the and poras dernism

57, no.3(July 449 1,2003):

– 301. oil Identities Social . London:. Routledge, 1998. sts, Hostland Politics: Politicized Ethnic Identity among Identity Ethnic Politicized Politics: Hostland sts, h Hnain itrgt Program.‖ Birthright Hungarian The

, n.d. Accessed May, n.d.Accessed 13,2014.

Diasporas in the U.S. and Their Homelands Their and U.S. the in Diasporas 5 n. 0 (Octobe 10 no. 55, -

em mat n Rcn Findings Recent and Impact Term

6 n. (00: 377 (2010): 3 no. 16,

International Migration ReviewInternational Migration –

, o 1 19) 83 (1991): 1 no. 1, . Ann Arbor: University of of University Arbor: Ann .

79.

1 21) 1362 2011): 1, r . Budapest: A Magyar A Budapest: .

- State N State .pdf. , 2013. ationalism

Modern

– – – 99. 98. 78. , . .