Photos from Slovakia May 2012 – Winning the Silver in Hockey

Silver

May 23, 2016

Allan Stevo

With 2016 IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship taking place in Russia this year,I present to you this article from the archives of 52 Weeks in Slovakia.

As I have long pointed out, Slovaks tend to be fond of their hockey. On Sunday May 20, 2012, Russia faced Slovakia in the world finals of hockey. Russia beat Slovakia 6-2. While Russians offered their world championship hockey team a bit of a weak welcome home, Slovaks offered their silver medal winning team a grand celebration.

In 2002, Slovakia won the gold and many Slovaks proudly mentioned that fact for seven or eight years. In 2012, they have won the silver. I think visitors to this land will be hearing about that victory for at least a few years to come – unless, of course, next year’s team outdoes this year’s team.

Below are a few photos of memorable moments from this year and some photos of Slovaks watching and celebrating hockey. I think these photos are likely enough to demonstrate the deep appreciation for hockey felt by many in this country.

Click here to keep reading Photos from Slovakia May 2012 – Winning the Silver in Hockey

Allan Stevo writes on Slovak culture at www.52inSk.com. He is from Chicago and spends most of his time travelling Europe and writing. You can find more of his writing at www.AllanStevo.com. If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to like it on Facebook or to share it with your friends by email. You can sign up for emails on Slovak culture from 52 Weeks in Slovakia by clicking here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Death of Slovak Hockey

Hockey, fatalism, pessimism

May 22, 2016

Allan Stevo

With 2016 IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship taking place in Russia this year,I present to you this article from the archives of 52 Weeks in Slovakia.

It was not one year ago when one of the most well-recognized magazines in Slovakia declared the death of Slovak hockey. The good players were all born during communism claimed the allegedly conservative publication. Good hockey was a product of those times. Perhaps bad hockey was inevitably therefore a product of the times after communism. Were Slovaks being left with only two options – either return to communism or forever be doomed to bad hockey? Without the logic of central planning, the wealth of the nation could simply not be used to muster the resources required to succeed in a post-communist era.

This is the country in which people young and old, male and female rejoice at the success of Slovak hockey and brag about it to visiting foreign strangers like myself. Wouldn’t communism perhaps be a better fate than giving up on this source of pride of the Slovak nation?

Click here to keep reading The Death of Slovak Hockey

Allan Stevo writes on Slovak culture at www.52inSk.com. He is from Chicago and spends most of his time travelling Europe and writing. You can find more of his writing at www.AllanStevo.com. If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to like it on Facebook or to share it with your friends by email. You can sign up for emails on Slovak culture from 52 Weeks in Slovakia by clicking here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Photographs: Hockey Statues Around Bratislava

May 21, 2016

Allan Stevo

With 2016 IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship taking place in Russia this year,I present to you this article from the archives of 52 Weeks in Slovakia.

Below are ten photos of statues that were positioned around Bratislava during the IIHF World Ice Hockey Championships. The Championships were held during the last week of April and the first two weeks of May 2011. Bratislava and Kosice both played host.

It was hard to walk into a pub or restaurant without finding a hockey game on or being replayed during those weeks. And it was hard to walk more than a few steps without seeing someone wearing the colors of a visiting hockey team, or wearing Slovak hockey jerseys. Lots of Slovaks love hockey, as I’ve pointed out in other articles on this site.

The pictures below were sent to me by a visitor to Bratislava – Peter Propper. Thank you to Peter for sharing them. Scroll over each picture to read its caption, pointing out where each picture was taken. Can you name each spot in Bratislava without peeking at the captions? Enjoy the photos. – Allan

Click here to keep reading Photographs: Hockey Statues Around Bratislava

Allan Stevo writes on Slovak culture at www.52inSk.com. He is from Chicago and spends most of his time travelling Europe and writing. You can find more of his writing at www.AllanStevo.com. If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to like it on Facebook or to share it with your friends by email. You can sign up for emails on Slovak culture from 52 Weeks in Slovakia by clicking here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How Slovaks Are Spending These Two Weeks – Hokej

Hokej

May 20, 2016

Allan Stevo

With 2016 IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship taking place in Russia this year,I present to you this article from the archives of 52 Weeks in Slovakia.

Meet virtually any Slovak, of any socio-economic status from 17 to 81 years old, male or female, face to face in a private conversation and one of the first three questions will always be “Do you like Slovak women?” Most often, this is the number one question.

The beauty of the Slovak gene pool does not escape Slovaks. In fact, it’s a source of national pride.

But when I had come to Slovakia for the first time, it was August 2002 and another question had supplanted “Do you like Slovak women?” in the top 3: “Do you like Slovak hockey?”

2002 was a Good Year for Slovak Hockey

Just several months prior, Slovakia had won the World Championships in hockey and this was no small issue. No small issue, indeed, when it supplanted “Do you like Slovak women?” as the number one most asked question.

Click here to keep reading How Slovaks Are Spending These Two Weeks – Hokej

Allan Stevo writes on Slovak culture at www.52inSk.com. He is from Chicago and spends most of his time travelling Europe and writing. You can find more of his writing at www.AllanStevo.com. If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to like it on Facebook or to share it with your friends by email. You can sign up for emails on Slovak culture from 52 Weeks in Slovakia by clicking here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Hinlicky Rule is Key to Honest Intellectual Discussion

Twain
Intellectual Honesty

May 8, 2016

Allan Stevo

As a result of some of my more controversial writing, my involvement on boards of directors, my speaking to groups of students at colleges and universities, my political consulting work, and general facets of life, I often find myself in discussions with people on topics about opinions that they hold dear.

Common Limitations to Discussion
In such discussions, it is almost instantaneously apparent who is able to carry out an intellectually rigorous discussion and who cannot.

Those who cannot, generally 1. spout someone else’s opinion as if it were indisputable fact, and occasionally 2. spout their own opinion as if it were indisputable fact. Those two examples are most common. I also commonly encounter those who 3. choose not to believe in fact and couldn’t care less about an intellectual discussion as well as those who 4. are not of sufficient mental capacity to engage in intellectually rigorous discussions.

Of these four styles I commonly encounter, the latter two are far superior, for those utilizing them so clearly recognize their own limitations, which is a mark of honesty that makes interactions so much more authentic and fulfilling. Honesty is a necessary component of intellectually rigorous discussion.

Those who repeat the opinions of others as if they were indisputable fact or their own opinions as if they were indisputable fact can be such horrible partners in discussion because a sense of intellectual honesty is absent.

Contrary to what such a person seems to believe about themselves, when stuck in such a mindset they can be entirely incapable of honest intellectual discussion. Not coincidentally they have proven, not only to me, but to thinking people throughout time to be the most horrible partners in discussion and such a seemingly minor absence of intellectual honesty has led to such horrible results when it finds its way into the hands of someone with power. The English language has distinct definitions for “fact” and “opinion,” and that the two words be used precisely and the differing concepts of the two words be preserved is vital to honest intellectual discussion.

Fact or Opinion, a Key Distinction, and the Life Work of Ignaz Semmelweis
In the social sciences there is no fact, only opinion. While I do not know if this is always the case, this has always been the case in every instance I have seen. Even the sciences themselves tend to have a surprising amount of working theories. The history of science is in fact filled with popular theories that were later debunked. Sometimes great revulsion accompanies the effective challenging of a long-held scientific theory. Violence can even ensue.

I am reminded of the innovative Ignaz Semmelweis, a man ahead of his time, who insisted the reason women were dying by the droves in Vienna hospitals was because of the tradition of physicians passing quite casually between the autopsy table and the birthing area and quite calmly bringing the putridity of the autopsy table on filthy unwashed hands with them. It was greatly offensive to some to suggest that gentlemen could possibly have unclean hands, though the odor of putridity on their hands was often apparent. Semmelweis insisted that something from the corpses were making the women sick, traveling on the hands of physicians, and he correspondingly recommended that a disinfectant solution be used.

This sounded absolutely crazy to so many at the time yet was so accurate. Little creatures, too small to see, were traveling on the hands of physicians. The few clinics that Semmelweis was able to influence procedures in had an immediate decline in deaths from birthing. This evidence did not change the fact that the literature and establishment thinking of the time did not support these theories and so they went unheard. Himself recognizing the overwhelming evidence in favor of this small “offensive” change and seeing the tremendous pain and risk caused to patients by the outlandish status quo, he became increasingly belligerent and made the spreading of this fact an important goal of his life, presenting his arguments on the need for disinfecting the hands of doctors to anyone who would listen.

The man sounded so strange to society that he was patently ignored and ultimately found himself in a mental asylum committed by his own wife. He died shortly after being admitted, probably as a result of being badly beaten by guards when he first arrived at the asylum and tried to walk right out the door he had just been tricked to walk through.

Medical literature came around to his view on the topic, though it remains surprisingly difficult still a century and a half later to get doctors to wash their hands adequately. It’s almost as if they can’t imagine the thought that they might be carriers of disease. In theory Semmelweis has prevailed, in practice quite the battle remains. The inroads made by the “crazy” Semmelweis and those who came after him have been monumental.

How many women have survived child birth since then because of the insistence of this seemingly crazy man to simply be heard? How many women died because of the tendency of those holding established views to confound the definitions of fact and opinion? What other life saving innovations might the world have known if the great gulf between fact and opinion were not taken so personally when challenged, were not such an affront to the ego of the educated man?

Listening to Respond and Listening to Understand
The issue of accepting the distinct definitions “fact” and “opinion,” while vital, is but a small step toward honest intellectual debate. Far more developed and important is to speak not for the sake of responding, but to truly understand the perspective of the other.

The most important part of an intellectual discussion is the capable absorption and thorough understanding of an idea that is the contra to your own. This tends to be such a challenging concept for so many.

You must understand that opposing view inside and out. That can be hard work and uncomfortable. It’s easy though, and common, to avoid that hard work and discomfort by simply attacking the person you are speaking to as being in some way an unfit or invalid conversational partner.

Though discussions tend to leave less thoughtful parties judging the mental competency or morality of an intellectual opponent, seldom is the believer of a strongly held idea a bad person or mentally deficient. If that were the case, a shift in popular opinion on any issue would be enough to render a person who does not shift mentally deficient or a bad person. Or in the converse might suddenly render a mentally deficient person or bad person to be the opposite because he or she now suddenly happens to hold a popular opinion when popular opinion shifts toward that individual’s long-held opinion.

Limitations of Popular Opinion
Popular opinion tends to have limitations. In fact, it has been my experience, that the majority is generally wrong. Oscar Wilde in The Importance of Being Earnest boldly stated “Everything popular is wrong.” Robert Heinlein in the thought provoking Time Enough for Love posited “Does history record any case in which the majority was right?” As Mark Twain, the clever contrarian pointed out in a private notebook that has since be perused by Twain researchers “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority it is time to reform.” Feeling a little less pithy but nonetheless displeased with popular opinion he also wrote “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority it is time to pause and reflect.”

These quotes appear to be reactionary statements and a gross overgeneralization, but the idea that a popularly held opinion is a wrong opinion is generally accurate. That’s true for many reasons, just one reason that popular opinion is so effective at being wrong can be seen in one of the common methods by which popular opinion tends to form.

The Formation of Popular Opinion

For an opinion to be held by a majority of society, that opinion must go through a variety of mutations and processes in order to eventually reach that level of acceptance.

For example, a popular opinion might start with some thinker producing an innovative idea. He or she understands the idea inside and out after 40 years of work and testing. Some people will hear the idea directly from him, there may be feedback, the idea may be shaped by that feedback.

Others will read the idea. Perhaps they will read several books on the topic from different perspectives and will see the limitations and strengths of the idea as they truly are, much like the original thinker can see the strengths and limitations. They may even tell themselves, with great honesty, that they will never fully understand the idea and that the idea must be one that they constantly revisit and study in order to feel comfortable speaking with some authority on the topic, constantly ready to profess ignorance and to even deep down feel some level of ignorance, admitting that they, just like anyone else do not have all the answers.

Others may only read one book on the topic. Reading but one book on a topic may make someone feel like an authority, especially if the book caries the tone of being a well-argued piece. Yet being an authority would be an overstatement since that book is likely to present an argument held by an author over other arguments that might be equally valid. Equally valid arguments might not even be mentioned by an author.

The great veil of certainty created by a superficial education on a topic is one of the ugliest tendencies among intellectuals. How common it is for someone to obtain an advanced degree, read a book, or skim an article and the then conclude that everything they know on a topic is incontestable truth. This confirmation bias among the faux intelligent has long been recognized by marketers. The more schooling one gets, the harder it is to convince that person of a new idea. They are the intelligentsia, but that does not make them intelligent.

Some will read but an article on the topic. Simply reading about any topic in article form there tends to be such great distortions of important themes, as brevity necessitates, and the biased and simplified nature typical of reporting necessitates.

Even well-written investigative pieces for The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone, all publications that have a reputation for excellent long form investigative articles by fantastic writers on generous editorial calendars bring with them limitations.

The extent of these limitations become even more obvious with fewer words and tighter editorial calendars. The 500 or 800 word article by the overworked daily news reporter being the least helpful for understanding an idea. Reading a daily news source or subscribing to Vanity Fair might be enough to make one feel like they know it all. Yes, regular reading habits like these certainly help put a person in the top ten percent of knowledgeable people, but it is not details of fact that bring intellectual honesty, but the overarching structure of the person’s intellect and with that overarching structure the unquenchable desire to get closer to truth.

Is the person rigorous about his intellectual honesty and seeking to constantly challenge what he knows and identify what he doesn’t know? If not, the pride given by being a subscriber of a well-written, well-researched publication has left that subscriber further away from intellectual honesty than he would be without the subscription. That dishonest foundation is a poor one on which to build a sense of accomplishment in life. It takes so much energy to keep on top of what opinions are popular rather than building a framework that welcomes all opinions.

So many do exactly that though, they build a foundation that concerns itself more with popular thinking than intellectually rigorous thinking. This makes insightful and effective challenges to the status quo aberrant to such a person, rather than a natural phenomena to roll with as life ebbs and flows out of the control of any one individual. It’s a truly frightening world for the intellectually dishonest person because his foundation of facts and relationships and a false sense of authority can be so difficult to replicate where there is not an overarching intellectually rigorous mind.

Lucky for him, most of society cannot pick up on what a fraud he is because he speaks with a sense of authority and arrogance that appeal to many who find it an honor to simply be around a well-read person. There’s an impoverished and petty view there, in which new ideas are a constant threat rather than an amazing opportunity for an intellectual adventure.

An intellectually rigorous mind finds abundance in the world and knows no status quo for he or she can think effectively through every situation. For an intellectually rigorous mind there are no threats in change. This characteristic is a benefit, for as time has proven, change is the only constant. The intellectually rigorous mind prepares for a tumultuous reordering of his mind every time he opens a book, confident in his ability to handle such tumult and to think through all situations. He even seeks books that he hopes might do that. This is very different than the know-it-all who derives significance from reading the proper publications and holding the proper beliefs. The extent of the limitations of reading a mere article can indeed be very limiting.

Some will only read a headline. Some who read a headline and will tell others about it. Such a person may perhaps even fill in the blanks and fudge some of the details to sound more knowledgeable than the reading of a headline would support. Discussions will take place. Some will engage in those discussions at varying levels of insight. The news might begin to introduce the idea in reports with negative tonality in the media that will over time turn into supportive tonality. Some viewers will latch onto that idea and maintain the original negative association that new ideas tend to be introduced to the public with, others will reform their thinking once the positive associations begin.

The idea will become a talking point. Lawmakers will begin to like the idea. The talking points will take a political shift. Advocates of the idea will spawn other advocates of the idea, some of who will not even know why they advocate for the idea beyond the statement “Someone I really like/trust/value/know well told me this was a good idea and I believed that person.” Sometimes it is “Someone I really like was told by someone who they really like that this was a good idea.” By the time this idea has made its way through society, it has been shaped by so many different variations that are so far from the original intent that it has lost a great deal of value.

What was once a well-formed concept and theory, carefully thought through over the course of a career or lifetime, has now become nothing more than a soundbite simple enough to be capably held in the mind of people to whom a deeper understanding of the topic would be anathema, but to whom the repetition of the soundbite as fact is natural.

Here the concept takes on an orthodoxy – literally meaning “correct opinion” – and the challenging of it in its watered down state becomes a threatening sacrilege to many in a society.

The Overestimation of the Popular and the Importance of the Hinlicky Rule
The overestimation of the popular and the lack of thought on how easily and often thoughtlessly beliefs are formed has led to small arguments, great wars, and everything in between. Anything that can allow a person to step back from that tendency to view the self, ones own behaviors, and ones own beliefs as central to the universe is a tool that can be helpful in engaging in intellectual discussion.

The Hinlicky Rule does precisely that. It does it so effectively that I would argue no one has any place speaking without obedience to the concepts contained within it. I do not mean that as a statement of support for state sponsored censorship. I mean that in the exact opposite way – we have personal rights and responsibilities.

One of those responsibilities is that a person has the responsibility to opt out of offering opinions in a discussion if he or she cannot follow the Hinlicky Rule and should instead inquisitively and openly engage in the asking of questions. No one should invoke the power of the state to censor a person unwilling to do this, but it is acceptable to walk away or change the subject on a person who is obstinately unwilling to fulfill this basic responsibility of absorbing the legitimacy of the argument of an intellectual opponent before proceeding with a discussion. That is your right as a conversational partner when faced with someone unwilling to fulfill the basic responsibility of listening so that an honest intellectual debate is taking place.

The Hinlicky Rule, Shedding Light, and Shedding Heat
For one who wants to shed light, such a discussion would be a poor use of time, in fact, the point of speaking to one who prefers not to listen would be unclear. Often in such discussions there are those that only want to fight for the sake of fighting, who appreciate the energy that such a one-sided discussion helps release, and who find joy in the negative feelings created between two people during a heated exchange with no resolution of understanding. None of those are reasons I have discussions.

Regardless of why I personally have discussions, discussion is a legitimate way to accomplish those aforementioned goals of fighting, energy release, and fostering ill will, however that type of discussion would not be an honest intellectual debate – it would be but an attempt at releasing emotion, which could be done just as easily through loudly expressed, non-linguistic utterances and threatening physiology. Why bother to pretend to even engage in a discussion when grunting, some eye contact, and a little chest puffing is enough to do the job? The Hinlicky Rule so effectively steers us clear of that pitfall on the journey to seeking greater truth in the world around us. The Hinlicky Rule is:

“You shall not criticize the position of another…until you can state that position with such accuracy, completeness and sympathy, that the opponent himself declares, ‘Yes, I could not have said it better myself!‘ Then, and only then, may you criticize. For then you are engaging a real alternative and advancing a real argument. Otherwise you shed only heat, not light.”

The Importance of Humbleness and Admissions of Ignorance in Honest Discussion
How seldom such a thing is done. It would quite naturally be too damaging to the modern ego to profess ignorance like Socrates or carry oneself with occasional humbleness like Jesus. Yet, that is precisely what intellectual debate demands of you – honesty. It’s an honesty in desiring to know the truth as best as you possibly can, an honesty to know the many components that are shaped through many open interactions with many thinkers; it’s an honesty to recognize that you are very limited in your own personal resources, no matter how incredibly brilliant you are, and that there is an intellectual crucible to honest human intellectual interaction that can help refine any idea; there is an honesty in recognizing the difference between fact and opinion.

The Hinlicky Rule, in providing a basis for that process, allows honest intellectual discussion to occur in a way that it could not in its absence, making the Hinlicky Rule a vital foundation of honest intellectual discussion.

Allan Stevo writes on Slovak culture at www.52inSk.com.  He is from Chicago and spends most of his time travelling Europe and writing.  You can find more of his writing at www.AllanStevo.com.  If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to like it on Facebook or to share it with your friends by email.  You can sign up for emails on Slovak culture from 52 Weeks in Slovakia by clicking here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Try This Slovak Tradition for Your True Love

Maj

May 5, 2016

Allan Stevo

With the 1st of May here, an important holiday from pre-communist times co-opted by communists across Europe, I present to you this article from the archives of 52 Weeks in Slovakia.

A young man who wants to impress a girl at this time of year has a traditional option that he can use to make that happen.  First, he gathers his friends together for a trip into the forest.  They find the tallest, straightest tree, fell it, and bring it into town under cover of darkness.  During the night, they fashion it in the traditional way (described later) and leave it standing under the bedroom window of the man’s beloved.  This gift left to her on the May 1  is called a “maj,” which is also the Slovak word for the month of May.

Building a Maj in Dubravka

Dubravka is where the last communist president of Czechoslovakia, Gustav Husak, came from.  Being Husak’s home is perhaps still Dubravka’s greatest claim to fame.  It’s a hidden corner of Bratislava, filled with panelaky (big concrete apartment buildings) and is home to very pleasant hikes still in the Bratislava city limits.  Despite the many concrete buildings that dominate most of Dubravka, some parts of it still feel like a village.

Each spring in Dubravka, outside of the Dom Kultury (House of Culture), a “maj” is erected.  The same is done in many towns and villages around Slovakia to celebrate the coming of May in a traditionally meaningful way.

Click here to keep reading Try This for Your True Love Tomorrow

Allan Stevo writes on Slovak culture at www.52inSk.com.  He is from Chicago and spends most of his time travelling Europe and writing.  You can find more of his writing at www.AllanStevo.com.  If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to like it on Facebook or to share it with your friends by email.  You can sign up for emails on Slovak culture from 52 Weeks in Slovakia by clicking here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Happy Easter Again ! When Easter is Celebrated Among the Rusyn People of Slovakia

Easter Eggs from the Rusyn Lands. | Photo: Pavlo  Markovyc, www.pysanky.info

Rusyns

May 1, 2016

Allan Stevo

With Orthodox Easter here, I present you an article from the archives of 52 Weeks in Slovakia.

Slovakia is Central Europe by many definitions. Those who say otherwise generally tend to be ignorant on the topic or joking around.

For example, I’ve been told in jest that the vychodňari (people of Eastern Slovakia) are of a different mind than the rest of the people of Slovakia and that Asia starts at Štrba (a village in central/eastern Slovakia, below the High Tatras, above the Low Tatras, situated along the European Continental Divide). Not only is it not the start of Asia, it’s not even the start of Eastern Europe.

East Moved West

After World War II, Eastern Europe came west, swallowing up much of Central Europe and blurring the borders. That extra blurring of the borders by the aggressively extraterritorial Russians made the borders so blurry that to many, Europe went from analogue to digital – where there was previously much gray began to be perceived as black and white. “The ability to capture the subtle nature of the real world is the advantage of analog techniques.”  The analogue nature of life, and especially the analogue nature of the polyglot land called Central Europe was lost in the power struggle between the two world empires – the Eurasian USSR and the North American USA. In this more digital, this more binary model, you were either West or East. Many outsiders saw it as being either “for us” or “against us.” And it didn’t really matter who the “us” was, much of the world saw that clear digital division.  When you’re talking about borders its important to remember how blurry borders can be.

Click here to keep reading Happy Easter Again ! When Easter is Celebrated Among the Rusyn People of Slovakia

Allan Stevo writes on Slovak culture at www.52inSk.com.  He is from Chicago and spends most of his time travelling Europe and writing.  You can find more of his writing at www.AllanStevo.com.  If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to like it on Facebook or to share it with your friends by email.  You can sign up for emails on Slovak culture from 52 Weeks in Slovakia by clicking here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

An Inheritance from Communism?

Photo: Bachspics

Slovak Workers and ‘Pat a Mat

April 29, 2016

Allan Stevo

With the 1st of May here, an important state holiday from communist times, I present to you this article from the archives of 52 Weeks in Slovakia.

At a bus stop, I see two Bratislava city workers moving leaves and dust about on this dry fall morning – one with a leaf blower, the other with a shovel.  The one with the leaf blower does nothing a broom couldn’t accomplish as he dusts up the passengers-to-be at the bus stop and sends dry leaves out into the street.  He doesn’t actually leave the bus stop leaf-free.  He proceeds to move more leaves out onto the street, directing some onto the waiting shovel, and he and his colleague go about their way, having accomplished little with their leaf blower/shovel combination.

Watching these two men work.  Heck, watching nearly any skilled and unskilled laborer in Bratislava work, leaves me feeling like communism did a real number on Slovak society.

Click here to keep reading An Inheritance from Communism?

Allan Stevo writes on Slovak culture at www.52inSk.com.  He is from Chicago and spends most of his time travelling Europe and writing.  You can find more of his writing at www.AllanStevo.com.  If you enjoyed this post, please use the buttons below to like it on Facebook or to share it with your friends by email.  You can sign up for emails on Slovak culture from 52 Weeks in Slovakia by clicking here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment
  • join our mailing list
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments on 52inSk.com