The German Question, Part Sixty-Five

"Bismarck" Part 5/J "Bismarck as Chancellor & A Treaty With 'Contentious Relatives' "

"The End Of Bismarck"

Kaiser Wilhelm I, the man who appointed Bismarck to power and then stuck with him in that capacity through the years, died in 1888. His son, Friedrich III, became Kaiser (emperor), but he was dying of throat cancer, and he passed away a little more than three months after his father. Then Friedrich's son, Wilhelm, came to the German throne, as Wilhelm II. I would dare say, when many Americans hear the term "Kaiser," this is the man they think of (besides Kaiser rolls, haha), as he was the German leader during World War One. In fact, it would not surprise me in the least if some Americans think his first name was "Kaiser," as he is commonly referred to simply as "Kaiser Wilhelm," and I will use that here.

Once German unification had been achieved, Bismarck worked to keep peace in Europe often through alliances, although the very alliances he used to keep the peace, eventually led other countries into alliances, which then made war more likely if a lit match touched some powder keg. Whatever Bismarck's strengths or faults, he was able to help keep the Europeans from the throats of each other, and he worked hard to keep Germany from the possibility of a two-front war. He also sought to keep a distance from the hot issues in the Balkans, where the declining Ottoman (Turkish) Empire held large non-Turkish areas under their control, and these areas were interested in independence. Here, Russia's role as "protector of the Slavs" came into conflict with the Turks (and Austria-Hungary), as some of these areas were populated by large Slavic majorities.* Germany's closest ally, Austria-Hungary, also had large restless Slavic populations there, but Germany's treaty with Austria-Hungary did not guarantee German military involvement, unless Austria-Hungary was attacked by Russia.

Kaiser Wilhelm II was far more brash. Unlike his long-ruling grandfather, Wilhelm I, who essentially permitted Bismarck to run governmental affairs, this Wilhelm intended to take a far more active role in the governing of his country. This was bound to lead to conflict with Bismarck, the Chancellor of Germany.** The relationship between Kaiser Wilhelm and Bismarck was complicated by the fact that Wilhelm had grown up during Bismarck's time as the head of the Prussian government, and then as chancellor of a unified Germany, and Bismarck probably never thought of Wilhelm becoming Kaiser during his time in office, or perhaps even in his lifetime, but Friedrich III's terminal illness intervened. Bismarck saw Wilhelm as something of a "pupil," who could be reined in, but he was terribly mistaken. Bismarck had been in office for so long, he undoubtedly assumed that the new Kaiser would go along with the policies he, Bismarck, decided to continue or to pursue. Bismarck was 73 years old when Wilhelm became Kaiser, at the ripe "old" age of 29. Just as an example, Bismarck had not shown much interest in a large German navy, but Kaiser Wilhelm did. Big, flashy ships were a way to demonstrate German power (and the Kaiser's), but big, flashy ships also antagonized the European naval powers, especially Britain, drawing them closer together to resist growing German power, instead of keeping them apart, as was Bismarck's policy.

Domestically, Bismarck was disillusioned with workers who, in spite of his "state sponsored socialism," could not be brought into the fold against socialist political views. With growing German prosperity, Bismarck decided to quash the German socialist movement. A large strike by coal miners in 1889 brought the focus on workers.*** Bismarck basically supported the mine owners, but Kaiser Wilhelm felt the miners had valid points and he wanted mine conditions improved. Bismarck then pushed for permanent anti-socialist laws in the Reichstag, where his allies (a majority) essentially supported the legislation. One part of the law permitted the police the power to evict socialists from their homes. A bit of German democracy showed, as even some of Bismarck's supporters felt this part of the law, which had been used against political opponents previously, was too extreme, but hardliners, following Bismarck's lead, insisted on the measure. The Kaiser disapproved. Bismarck had hoped that the strict legislation would bring socialist protests and violence which then could be used as a reason for a strong crackdown on the workers' movement. Bismarck and the Kaiser had a serious disagreement over this whole matter, and the Kaiser made it clear that he did not intend to wage war on his own people. Bismarck, seeing how he had misplayed the matter, backtracked, but the well had been poisoned. Bismarck also made it quite obvious that he did not support the Kaiser's position; a dangerous thing to do, when the chancellor's office relied only upon the Kaiser's support. The whole matter made voters turn away from Bismarck's supporters in the next election, and Bismarck had to put together a new coalition among the political parties in the Reichstag. He met with one party leader without informing Kaiser Wilhelm. Unlike his father and grandfather, Wilhelm expected to be kept informed of Bismarck's actions. The two German leaders clashed heatedly. Bismarck resigned at Kaiser Wilhelm's insistence in March of 1890. He eventually moved to the Hamburg area, where he died in 1898. Bismarck and Kaiser Wilhelm never really reconciled, although the Kaiser bestowed certain honors upon the former chancellor and founder of modern Germany. (A Word History is below the notes)

Next..."Kaiser Wilhelm and World War I"

* Being seen as "protector of the Slavs" was not the only reason Russians were involved in the Balkans, as they had a longstanding interest in acquiring territory there themselves.

** Chancellor is really just the chosen German title for the head of the government, and it corresponds to the British "Prime Minister," or to the title "Premier," in certain other countries, although it bears repeating, in the governing system of Germany at that point in time, the chancellor was appointed by, and therefore beholden to, the Kaiser. He did not have to align himself with any particular political party, or have a majority in the Reichstag for that particular party, or even form a coalition with other parties, except on specific issues, which is what Bismarck did. While the German Reichstag was elected by a truly democratic vote of the German people (that is, "democratic" in those times, meaning "proper age males"), the German political parties lacked clout because of their "disconnect" with the head of the German government, the chancellor. What had developed in the British system, on the other hand, was that the Prime Minister was affiliated with a political party, that party, or in coalition with another party, was able to form a majority in Parliament, and the king/queen then "asked" the party leader (or chosen leader of the coalition) to become Prime Minister. (Note: In Bismarck's time, the British monarch was Queen Victoria, and her oldest child, her namesake daughter Victoria, was married to Friedrich, who later became Kaiser Friedrich III, but who died of throat cancer shortly thereafter. Their son, Wilhelm, became Kaiser Wilhelm II; and yes, he was, therefore, Queen Victoria's grandson.)

*** Coal was big business in industrial powerhouse Germany. The companies showed big profits, but paid low wages, implemented longer working hours, and refused to pay workers for their time spent descending into, and ascending from, the mines. Mine supervisors were known for ruthlessness and brutality. These were the main reasons for the strike.

WORD HISTORY:
Frau/Fräulein-These two German words have both come into English over time; "Frau" by the early 1800s, although "likely" earlier, but more widespread by the early 1800s, and, "Fräulein" came into English in the 1600s. The main word is "Frau" (the "au" pronounced like the "ow" in English "how"), which means "married woman," and is also the equivalent to the English title "Mrs.," but also, more generally, means "woman, lady, wife." This goes back to Indo European "pro(w)," one of the notions of which was "main, first, chief." This then gave its Old Germanic offspring "frawan," which meant "lord, master," and the feminine form "fraw(o)." Originally the word had a connection to the nobility, but then became more general. This then gave Old High German "frouwa," which then later became "vrouwe," before acquiring its modern form. (The Old Germanic form also gave Old English "frowe," meaning 'woman, lady,' which later died out.) "Fräulein" simply uses the base word "frau," and the diminutive (see note) suffix "-lein," which initially was spelled "lin," giving the German of the Middle Ages "vröuwelîn," which meant "young noble woman." Later it just came to mean "young woman, unmarried woman," and is equivalent to the English title "Miss." It is properly pronounced as if "froy-line." Low German has "Froo" and "Frölen," Dutch has "vrouw," West Frisian has "frou." NOTE: Diminutive means it makes it "smaller or less;" in this case, "less in age."

The German Question, Part Sixty-Four

"Bismarck" Part 5/I "Bismarck as Chancellor & A Treaty With 'Contentious Relatives' "

"Bismarck & Foreign Policy"

Bismarck's overall foreign policy is far too involved for this series. To keep things simple, Bismarck was always on guard against France, as the French clearly wanted revenge for their defeat by Prussia (Germany) in 1870/71. As part of his overall strategy to keep France isolated, Bismarck wanted Russia on his side; thus keeping them from allying with France and putting hostile powers on Germany's eastern and western borders, but his moves to cozy up with the Russians angered the Austrians, as Russia and Austria-Hungary were competitors in eastern and southeastern Europe.* So, he signed agreements with both Russia and Austria-Hungary.** This agreement was so loose, it really meant virtually nothing, but it did symbolize the protection and preservation of monarchies ( a conservative principle in those times), as it was called "The Three Emperors League" or "Dreikaiserbund," in German.

Over the years, I have read so many books and articles about Bismarck and Austria, I know I've seen comments that, ruthless pragmatist though he was, Bismarck regretted that Austria's German population had to be excluded from a united Germany. There's no question that the common German language kept the two contentious relatives close, and the two European powers were, therefore, natural allies, but Bismarck was not one to let pure sentiment get in his way; there had to be the practical side. In 1879, he signed a treaty with Austria-Hungary which said that either country would aid the other if attacked by Russia, but that if either were attacked by "another country,"*** the other partner could remain neutral. This treaty remained in effect long after Bismarck, and kept Germany and Austria-Hungary as allies during World War One. It is usually referred to as "The Dual Alliance."****

Other European countries, like England, France and Spain, had long been involved in establishing colonies. At first, Bismarck refrained from such matters, but what was becoming Germans' collective inferiority complex shifted public sentiment toward building an overseas empire to compete in status with the British and French. Added to this sentiment was the desire by German companies for overseas resources and markets, and this prompted Bismarck to act. Africa was a prime spot. Togoland^ became a German colony in 1884 and remained as such until 1914 in World War One, when the British and French sent troops into the colony, which had virtually no German troops protecting it. It fell without combat. Cameroon also became a colony in 1884 and it too was invaded by British and French troops during World War One. There were some German troops in Cameroon, however, who were supported by even more native colonial troops. There was a fair amount of fighting, and it wasn't until 1916 that the final German outpost there surrendered. What was called "German East Africa"^^ became a colony in 1885 and remained such until the end of World War One. There were some German troops in the colony and many more colonial native troops, which together put up quite a fight against numerically superior British forces. The colony was lost at the end of the war. German Southwest Africa^^^ became a German colony in 1884, remaining such until 1915, when far outnumbered German and native troops surrendered to British and South African forces. Germany also gained some Pacific island colonies, mainly in the New Guinea area, some gained during Bismarck's time, some a few years later. All were lost either during or after WWI.

Next, the final part on "Bismarck"... (A Word History is below the notes)

*With Russia being the largest of Slavic countries, it had come to be seen as the "protector of the Slavs." Austria-Hungary had various Slavic peoples within its borders, all somewhat restless for independence.

** The former Austrian Empire had been divided between the German-Austrian part and the Hungarian part, as "Austria-Hungary," but was united under rule by the Habsburg emperor, who was simultaneously "King of Hungary."

*** At that point in time, 1879, "another country" obviously meant "France," without specifying it.

**** Italy later joined the alliance, making it the "Triple Alliance," but during World War One, Italy remained neutral at first, and then shunned the alliance and joined the Allies against Austria-Hungary and Germany, in 1915.

^ Togoland is now basically the nations of Ghana and Togo.

^^ German East Africa became the modern countries of "Tanzania," "Burundi," and "Rwanda."

^^^ Now the nation of Namibia.

WORD HISTORY:
Frolic/Fröhlich/Frog-Don't laugh, believe it or not, the first two words come from the last! Here's the story: first, I've included German "fröhlich" because of the holiday season, and because of my desire to tie in the German history articles with word histories of common origin between German and English. For those of you who know German or for those who may have had German speaking relatives or neighbors, you may have heard "Fröhliche Weihnachten," which is the German equivalent of "Merry Christmas." It is obviously very close to the English word "frolic." I didn't spend a huge amount of time checking, but I did not find a similar word in English, even going way back to Anglo-Saxon times, that took on the same meaning of "happy, merry," as the German word has.

So let's get on with "frog:" this word goes back to Indo European "preu," which had the meaning of "hop, spring upward, move hastily." This gave Old Germanic "fruska(z)," which was applied to the "hopping" animal, the frog, and simply meant "hopper" or "jumper." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "frosc" (also spelled "frox"), which then had a diminutive form "frogga." This form continued side by side with "frosc," later spelled "frosk," with the latter still in use by some English dialects in the 1800s! Eventually "frog" ahh.... leaped to the forefront (I couldn't resist that!). The other Germanic languages have: German "Frosch," Dutch "kikvors," Frisian "frosk," Norwegian "frosk," Danish "frø," Swedish has "groda" (I assume this is just a variant of the same Old Germanic word), Icelandic "froskur." "Frolic" came to English in the 1500s, likely  from Dutch "vrolijk." The Dutch form and German "fröhlich" mean "happy, cheerful, joyous" both having been derived from the respective word for "frog" with the idea of "jumping for joy like a frog!" The suffix "lic," in English, "lijk" in Dutch and "lich" in German are from a common Germanic form which gave English "like" (in the sense to be "like" or the same as someone or something).

Congress & The President Finish Year With A Flourish

For a President and a Congress that have seemed disjointed for much of the past two years, they sure put on the full-court press in the last two weeks. With the midterm election now history, even a number of Republicans seemed interested in helping to govern the country. The President finally seemed to decide to grab the reins of government and set the agenda, instead of ceding the stage to congressional Democrats. What a refreshing change.* While I didn't completely agree with the President's initial compromise over tax cuts for very wealthy people, including a substantial lowering of the estate tax,** I still have to give him pretty good marks for the last few weeks. Like him, not like him, or indifferent to him, he is the President for at least the next two years, and the country needs a functioning president.

Will the joy and celebration continue? That's the bad news....I doubt it. If nothing else, the race for the White House in 2012 is developing. Republicans will control the House of Representatives and their representation in the Senate will grow, although control remains in Democratic hands. If you think the last two years have been contentious, these next two years COULD resemble a new civil war. We'll have to see what happens. (A Word History is below the notes)

* I have much in common with many congressional Democrats, but Democrats have always been a diverse and somewhat raucous party, and trying to get Democrats in Congress to agree on the time of day can be a thrilling undertaking, let alone trying to get Republicans to go along.

** Until the huge, and growing, income gap is dealt with (and the huge budget deficit), you're not going to hear me say how great it is to lower taxes on the richest Americans.

WORD HISTORY:
Deal-This word, in the noun form, goes back to Indo European "dail/dhail," which meant "divide." This gave Old Germanic "dailiz/dailaz," meaning "part, share, portion." This then gave Old English "dael," with the same meaning. By the Middle English period it had become "dele," and then it moved to the modern spelling. The Old English verb form was "daelan," meaning "to divide, to separate, to distribute." The use in cards is the notion of "distributing the cards to each player," which supposedly began use in the 1500s. The idea of "bargain" comes from the notion of "portion," with the parties involved getting a "portion" for their own interest. The word, in its various forms, is quite common in the Germanic languages: German has "Teil" (teilen, in the verb form), some Low German dialects have "Deel," Dutch has "deel," West Frisian has "diel," Norwegian and Danish have "del," Swedish has both "del" and "dela," Icelandic has "deila;" all with the same basic notion of "part, share, portion."

The German Question, Part Sixty-Three

"Bismarck" Part 5/H "Bismarck as Chancellor & A Treaty With 'Contentious Relatives' "
"Fear of Average People Brings Social Change"

Bismarck was a staunch monarchist conservative, but he was always thinking about ways to undermine his (and the monarchy's) opponents, which brought him to see a certain sense of reality in the politics of his day. He was very troubled by the socialist movement in Germany, including the more radical variety, communism.* He tried suppressing the socialist movement and its major face to the German public, the "Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei," or "Social Democratic Workers Party."** Laws drawn up by Bismarck were passed by the Reichstag banning the party, and a number of party officials were arrested, but the law was circumvented as the now outlawed party ran candidates as independents, with no political party label, which was a right guaranteed by the German constitution. The number of such "independents" rose in representation in the Reichstag and state legislative bodies. Bismarck feared revolution, and his fears brought him to propose state sponsored social legislation to head off the ever growing popular movement. These programs, most later amended and expanded, became the basis for modern Germany's system of social services. To "soften" the notion of "state sponsored socialism" leveled by Germany's right wing politicians, Bismarck tied the legislative initiatives to Christian principles, something some of America's "Christians(?)" seem to have forgotten. (Anyone can call themselves a "Christian" or any other religious designation, but it doesn't make it so.)

First came health insurance in 1883. While the new law covered only a fairly small percentage of the German working population, it helped to insure most of the lowest paid workers in Germany. The costs were split between employers and employees, with employers only responsible for about a third. In 1884 came what was essentially "workers compensation," or accident insurance for workers. Not only did it pay for injured workers after exhaustion of the above insurance benefits, but it also paid workers a partial pension if they were temporarily disabled. The program was financed by employers, and eventually just came to be seen as the "cost of doing business." In 1889 came Old-Age and Disability Insurance (more commonly known in America as "Social Security"), financed by fees on workers and employers and supplemented by the government.*** Initially, pensions could be collected beginning at age 70, but this was later changed to age 65. The disability part essentially took over from the "workers compensation" program, mentioned above, for workers who were permanently disabled. An added benefit of these social programs was that fewer young Germans left the country for America, where wages were usually higher, but none of the social protections listed above were in effect. While the loss of German workers to America slowed, the growth of the socialist movement continued to climb, even with the enacted reforms. (A Word History is below the notes)

* Remember, the communism that eventually spread around much of the world was based upon the writings and ideas of two Germans, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

**For those familiar with modern German politics, the above mentioned party changed its name in the 1890s, becoming "The Social Democratic Party of Germany" ("Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands," commonly known by the initials "SPD"), which is still one of Germany's major political parties. Reports in the American media usually refer to the party as the "Social Democrats."

*** Bismarck wanted the German government involved (both financially and administratively) in these programs in the hopes of luring workers away from the socialist movement. Just as American progressives have faced tough opposition to social legislation with claims that the "government is getting too powerful," and, "government takeover," Bismarck faced the same from German conservatives, and he was forced to change his proposals, except regarding "Social Security," to which the government contributed financially and administratively.

WORD HISTORY:
Baum/Beam/Boom-All three words are closely related, and here is the "Baum" part of "Tannen(baum), from the previous part of this series. The word apparently goes back to Indo European "bheu" or "bu," which meant "to be, exist, be living" but also in that sense, "to grow." This gave Old Germanic "baumaz," meaning "a living, growing tree," which became "bauma" in West Germanic (German and English are Germanic, but more specifically "West Germanic" languages). This then gave Old High German "boum," which eventually became modern German "Baum," meaning "tree," but it can (rarely) also mean "girder," similar to the English word "beam." English "beam" is really just the same word, its early history being the same as "baum," and like its close German relative, it too meant "tree" in Anglo-Saxon (Old English). By the late Old English period, English had settled more on "tree" as the word for this woody growing plant, but "beam" did not die out, rather it took on the meaning "timber for a ship," eventually meaning the support timbers of the frame, and of course, we still use it in that sense today, although not only for ships. Further, also in the Old English period, "beam" had taken on the meaning as in "beam of light." I found a speculative reason on why this developed, but I'm not terribly convinced, so I just as well speculate on it myself: "perhaps" the notion of branches emanating from the trunk of a tree (remember, it also still had the meaning "tree" back then) gave Old English speakers the idea of "light rays coming from a common source." Hey, my speculation is as good as the one I saw elsewhere. Eventually the spelling became "bem" and "beme," before taking on the modern spelling. "Boom," not the loud sound of a crash, but the kind used in construction, is also really the same word, but English borrowed it from the Dutch, whose spelling of German "Baum" and English "beam" is "boom." The Dutch word also meant "tree," but like its Germanic relatives, it had developed other meanings, in this case, "a horizontal piece of timber or metal." Forms of these words are widespread in the Germanic languages, especially in the West Germanic languages: besides English "beam," German "Baum," and Dutch "boom," West Frisian has "beam," North Frisian has "buum" and "booam," Low German Saxon has "Boom," Letzeburgisch/Luxembourgish has "Bam," Icelandic has the rare (high style/poetic) "baðmur" (=bathmur). In all of these languages, except English, it still primarily means "tree."

The Ant In The Room

For the last few years there has been great chatter in the political world about congressional "earmarks." Many a politician has appeared before a television camera and a microphone, thumped his chest, and delivered a message about how he opposes the use of earmarks, and telling us just how dastardly these little buggers are. The interesting thing is, often, but not always, when that same politician's record is examined, it is found that he/she has used earmarks more than some people shower. (Sniff, sniff......ahh, I'll be right back.) In fact, it has not been out of the question for that person to have earmarks in legislation at the same time they are appearing before the television cameras, telling Americans how much they oppose them. The other day, a Republican senator was doing a television interview. He said how bad earmarks are and that funding the government would not go forward until earmarks were removed from any appropriations. The interviewer than asked him, "If earmarks are so bad, why do you have one in the current bill before Congress?" He didn't know what to say, so he did the "Washington Shuffle," and said as little as possible, but came back to his point about how bad earmarks are. That brought the questioner back to why he had an earmark in the current bill. He then at least tried to justify the earmark (I don't remember the actual item he had inserted into the bill). You can't have this stuff both ways; "I'm against these terrible things, except when they're for my constituents." He got caught!

How many of you know what an earmark is? I'll bet not many can answer that, except that for all of the "noise" about them in recent years, you are supposed to be against them. While a true definition has not be agreed upon, essentially earmarks are specific items inserted into appropriations legislation that are not debated or even given scrutiny during the legislative process. Okay, what the hell does that mean? (Just an example) Your congressperson wants to get money allocated for a new (federal) courthouse in his/her district. He/she gets with your state's two senators* to get their support for the project. The money for the new courthouse is inserted into an appropriation bill, and if the legislation passes, that money is now specifically designated to go to the building of that new courthouse. The merits of the new courthouse are not debated.**

The thing about "earmarks" is, the individual projects are not all necessarily wrong or wasteful spending, as has often been portrayed by some politicians or some commentators. Perhaps the existing courthouse is in such bad repair, that a new courthouse is really needed. The problem with earmarks is, they do not face the light of day during the legislative process. On the other side of the coin, that courthouse may not really be needed, and the representative (and senator or senators) are just trying to help their re-election chances, or help building contractors and building trades in their district, maybe even as sort of a "payoff" for campaign contributions.***

Now, another thing: Just this past week, there was an appropriations bill before Congress totaling well over a trillion dollars (it was to fund several departments). Of that amount, eight billion was in earmarks by both Democrats and Republicans (including by the Republican senator mentioned above). Now, I'm not here to defend "earmarks," as I believe they should be publicly debated, but with the clamor raised by Republicans over this bill, one might have thought this would all wipe out the federal budget deficit. While all projects need the light of day, the hub bub over the eight billion out of more than a trillion is pure political theater by the Republicans, some of whom had earmarks in THIS VERY BILL! Throughout this past election campaign, Republican candidates had every chance to be specific about the things they would cut in order to reduce the federal deficit. Few took that challenge, preferring to rely upon the standard "Waste, fraud, and abuse," and of course, "earmarks!" So "earmarks" have been used to build a mountain out of a molehill. (To be fair, Democrats weren't much better.) Imagine this: There are a million killer bees in your house, but Randy shouts, "Look...an ant!" (A Word History is below the notes)

* As I noted, this is just an example, and both senators may not even agree to insertion of the earmark into the legislation, but it sure helps to have at least one of the state's senators on board.

** Typically, Congress appropriates money to the various departments of the government and those departments and their lower level departments decide how the money will be spent. With earmarks, that whole process is circumvented, since the earmarked project is specifically mentioned in the enacted legislation, it is the law that the specific amount go to that project.

*** New projects obviously mean jobs for workers and money for business people, but that isn't necessarily bad either, it all depends upon the validity of the project.

WORD HISTORY:
Ear-This word for a common body part (the "ear" as in "ear of corn" does not have the same origin, so while spelled the same in modern times, it is not the same word) goes back to the Indo European root "aus/ous," which may have had the notion of "perception," rather than specifically "ear," as some Indo European languages related to English further down the family tree have words derived from this root that pertain to "perception," although one source says it meant "ear." This root gave Old Germanic "auzon," which then gave Anglo-Saxon "eare," which later became "ere," before the modern spelling. Relatives of "ear" are widespread in the Germanic languages: German has "Ohr," Low Saxon German has "Ohr," Dutch has "oor," Frisian has "ear," Norwegian and Danish have "øre," Swedish has "öra," and Icelandic has "eyra." At this time, I am not exactly sure why the Germanic languages all have an "r" in them, although Gothic, an old Germanic dialect/language that has now died out, had "auso," which is close to the original Old Germanic "auzon."

The German Question, Part Sixty-Two

"Bismarck" Part Five/G "Bismarck as Chancellor & A Treaty With 'Contentious Relatives' ""Ethnic Minorities in Bismarckian Germany/German Jews"

For those who have been following this series, remember, until the founding of the actual (Second) German Empire in 1871, the individual German states each had their own laws governing such things as "citizenship." In the German state of Prussia, religious tolerance became something of a tradition going back to Friedrich Wilhelm, the great grandfather of  Frederick the Great, in the 1600s. On the other hand, certain German states, like Austria, were not as tolerant, even though the German emperor was almost always from Austria, and those emperors were at times, but certainly not always, inclined to religious tolerance. The emperors could not force other German leaders to grant religious tolerance, and even in their own Habsburg lands the local leaders, steeped in staunch Catholicism, were not always prone to follow the emperor's lead, although he was also the head of the Habsburg family. Laws and tolerance varied in the many German states over the centuries, but by the mid 1800s, more and more of the states made attempts to grant equality to all of their citizens, regardless of religious belief. Of course, "granting equality" is different from having everyone in the general population "accept" people of differing religions, but ever so gradually, German Jews became much more integrated into German society, with most eventually seeing themselves as "German," and indeed, they were German citizens. One must also consider that, just as in other religious groups, German Jews practiced their faith to varying degrees, with some not adhering to any particular religious beliefs. Then too, Jews and Germans "intermingled," just as "Germans" had intermingled with other "groups" of people, as I have shown in this series of articles, throughout their history. The later Nazi nonsense about "purity," was just that, NONSENSE, period (make that "exclamation point")!*

Over the centuries Jews came to Germany for many reasons, including wars, persecution or out-and-out terror in other lands, often coming from Poland or Russia. Orthodox Jews, by their very beliefs, did not integrate into German society as well, even with the existing German Jews who were often far more secular. These Orthodox Jews experienced far more persecution in every day life, but this was certainly not exclusive to Germany, but elsewhere, too, not that this makes it better. When the North German Confederation was established by Bismarck, religious tolerance and equality (in theory) became law.** When the Confederation became the German Empire in 1871, the same law remained in effect.*** During Bismarck's time, the Jewish population was somewhere between 500,000 and about 575,000, depending upon the year.

This doesn't mean that all Germans took tolerant positions toward Jews during Bismarck's time, as there were extremist nationalist groups that viewed Jews as "foreign." These groups eventually tried to make major inroads into the political system and establish a presence in the Reichstag (the German Parliament). They desired to enact laws repealing equality and religious tolerance. In that general era, these groups ebbed and flowed, but they never made major gains in those times. They certainly were forerunners of what was to come later. (A Word History is below the notes)

* For an interesting take on "intermingling," see my article "Hitler The Jew?": http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2010/10/hitler-jew.html

** Official government positions remained difficult for Jews to attain, and some "converted" to Christianity in order to advance (or at least that was the "take" on such conversions). Remember, Catholics had similar difficulties, and they were Christians! (Prussia, the dominant German state after 1866, was heavily Protestant.)

*** Bismarck and many Prussian officials were not as tolerant of German Catholics.

WORD HISTORY:
Tannen(baum)/Tan-This word, probably known to most of you from the Christmas song, "O Tannenbaum," technically does not mean "Christmas tree," although through repeated usage in that context, it certainly has taken on that meaning. It means "fir tree," in German, and the first part of the word is closely related to English "tan," which is what I will cover here in this Word History. I will cover "Baum," in the next part of this series on the Germans. So again you get two words "Tanne(n)" and "tan." After lots of searching around, I came up with an Indo European root for this word, "dhonu/dhanu," which certainly had to do with "trees," and "perhaps" specifically "oak trees." Several sources expressed the belief that some Germanic dialects (and perhaps Latin, too) acquired the word from Celtic,^ but that is not certain, although some old Celtic dialects had similar words with a connection to "oak" trees. Whatever the case, Old High German had "tanna," which meant "fir" (tree), and seemingly also possibly "oak" (tree) in some old dialects. Perhaps the acorns and pine cones made people use the same word, at least at times, but both German and English also have related specific words for "oak" (in German it is "Eiche," pronounced similarly to "Ike-eh"). The Old High German word then produced modern German "Tann," meaning "pine forest," and it is "der Tann," indicating that grammatically the noun is masculine, and the term is often more poetic in usage rather than as an everyday word. The same Old High German "tanna," also gave modern German "Tanne," which means "fir tree," and it is "die (pronounced like "dee") Tanne," indicating that it is grammatically feminine. Exactly when the word came into English is difficult to say, but the popular song was written in the 1820s in Leipzig, Germany, and while the word "may" have been present prior to that time with some American English speakers because of German immigrants, the song undoubtedly popularized the word, especially around Christmas. When I was a kid, the song was even taught in both English and German in my elementary and junior high school.

Latin had "tannum" (which meant "oak bark," from the same Indo European source above) and the later derived verb form "tannare," which meant "to use tree bark to dye animal skins;" thus, "tan hides." This then gave Old English "tannian" (perhaps between 900 and 1000 A.D.), meaning "to tan hides," which later became "tannen" in the Middle English period, before the modern shortened version "tan," used as both a verb and a noun. The the first quarter of the 1500s brought the usage "to get browned by the sun" (the noun "tan" for the result of being browned by the sun seems to have developed from the verb in the 1700s ... mid?), and the mid 1600s brought the English expression "tan someone's hide" (that is, "beat or spank someone's backside").

^ Celtic is a branch of the Indo European family of languages, and as such, it is related to English, but further down the family tree. Celtic dialects once blanketed large parts of Europe, but in more modern times, its limited number of representatives still in existence, which include Welsh, Irish Gaelic, Scots (Scottish) Gaelic and Breton (spoken in the Brittany region of France), are fighting for survival. 

Compromise Can Be Dangerous

This last week or so has brought us commentaries from a wide variety of people along the political spectrum about the compromise reached between President Obama and the Republicans in Congress regarding the soon to expire "Bush tax cuts;" that is, the tax cuts proposed by President George W. Bush and enacted by Congress early in Bush's presidency. The first thing to note is the hypocrisy of both sides. Since Obama took office in January 2009, the Republicans have told Americans how he would bankrupt (is bankrupting) the country. Of course, their hypocrisy in reference to Obama started then, since they chose to ignore the Republican record during the previous eight years of George W. Bush, where a budget surplus turned into flowing red ink, with two wars, a Medicare prescription drug benefit, tax cuts (favoring the wealthy), and the bolstering of security around the nation in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, all done without paying for them. This was just the deficit spending done under one Republican president.*

Now Republicans, instead of being fiscally responsible, have more or less demanded that the "Bush tax cuts" be renewed for every income level, including the super, super, super rich.** Then on top of that, they want the tax on estates left by multimillionaires to be lowered to about 35%.*** I've heard several figures tossed out there, but needless to say, there aren't many Americans who would have to pay the upper rate, something around only 40,000. Let's see....if you have the "minimum" upper level estate of 3 million dollars, the tax would be $1.65 million, and the estate would still have $1.35 million in value. I'll tell you, getting by on that could be difficult! Anybody want to leave me that paltry amount in their will? I'll struggle along on it. Did I mention that all of this tax cutting for the wealthy will go on the national credit card? Yep! All of the money in the entire tax package will be borrowed (much of it probably from the Chinese). So, the country is going to borrow more money to give money to people who have so much money now, they can't spend all of it.

Some economists feel this will all stimulate the economy and help bring down the unemployment rate, which certainly is an admirable goal. Let me tell you what I think will happen. It may help somewhat, but the wealthy will turn their tax "savings" over to their money managers and hedge funds. These ruthless people will then drive up prices on EVERYTHING! There will be additional income transfer from your pockets to the bank accounts of America's elite. In the end, all of us will suffer the consequences, and it will all be done with borrowed money. We hear how "you can't raise taxes, even on the wealthy, in a recession." Well, it hasn't bothered the wealthy one bit in driving up the price of oil and gasoline "in a recession." I'm telling you, in the not too distant future, the $4 to $5 a gallon for gas of a couple of years ago will look "good." The income disparity in the country will not abate, it will grow larger. The estate tax cut will allow more concentration at the very top, where essentially now the top 1% owns more of the national wealth than than the bottom 90%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Folks, if this doesn't bother you, it should, and it will have an impact on your life or the lives of your children or grandchildren. It should scare the livin' hell out of you! As the days have passed, at least some folks, Republicans and Democrats, have looked over this whole thing and they have begun to dislike it.

The Democrats have blasted the Republicans for tax cuts for the rich for years. Now a Democratic president seems to be saying, "I didn't really mean it." Just from what I've heard on some television programs from people with contacts within both political parties, the Republicans were astounded how quickly President Obama gave in to all of their demands, especially on the estate tax. The President at least needed to make Republicans defend, VERY PUBLICLY, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans; tax cuts being put on the national credit card bill. The country is going to have to deal with all of this debt. When they come to cut things you or your family or your neighbors need, just remember all of these tax cuts for the wealthy. I've been preaching here for years how the wealthy have absolutely taken over the country. They LOVE Republicans, but they have deep affection for Democrats, as they are not a hell of a lot better. Lest we forget, Republican pushed deregulation (aided by "some" Democrats) of the banking industry was pursued for years, ending with the "Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act," a gift to wealthy bankers that has brought the country to the abyss, as it is the immediate cause for our current economic problems. It was a compromise signed by President Clinton, a Democrat!****

The time for all of this negotiation about shoving money into the hands of America's wealthy was a month or two BEFORE this last election, not AFTER the election, Mr. President! This guy needs a crash course in politics. (A Word History is below the notes)


* For more information, see:
http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2010/07/gop-keynesians-in-disguise.html

** Personally, I favor raising the top level from the $250,000 to like a half million. If you're making a half mil, you're not poor, not that 250 thousand is small change. Keep in mind, those earning the $250,000 (or half million favored by me) would still have their taxes reduced up to that level. It is only on the amount above that they would pay about 3.5% more. Some prominent wealthy folks like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have said taxes on wealthy people like themselves should NOT be extended.

*** Due to a quirk in the law passed during George W. Bush's term, there is NO estate tax right now! It is scheduled to go to a maximum 55% on amounts OVER 3 million dollars in 2011. The tax percentage varies on lesser amounts. So, you must have an estate worth in excess of 3 mil to pay the top rate. Presently, I'm a ways off....ah....quite a ways off! The Obama-GOP Bill would do two things to alter the 2011 estate tax: it would lower the maximum tax to 35% AND raise to $5 million/$10 million (depending upon status) the beginning amount subject to that maximum tax. Again, billionaires like Buffett have said that this is wrong, and that it even goes against the capitalist principle of "meritocracy;" that is, by being able to pass huge sums on to others, those people will not have to be "good at anything," rather they will be fantastically wealthy without having to have proven themselves in the market place.

**** For more on "Gramm-Leach-Bliley" see:
http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2009/03/understanding-crisis-part-three.html

WORD HISTORY:
Wealth (Weal)-This word, related to "well" (as in, "well off, financially or health wise"), goes back to the Indo European root "wel," which had the notion of "to wish, to desire, to will." This gave Old  Germanic "welon," which meant "well being, welfare (not the government program), possessions, riches" (all things humans "desire"). This then gave Old English "wela/weola," with the same general meaning. This then became "wele" and eventually what is now the archaic "weal." By the 1200s, a "th" was added to the end, perhaps in imitation of "health." By the latter part of the 1300s, a "y" had been tacked onto the ending to mean "people of great means, the rich" (in a collective sense). Close English relative German has "Wohl," a noun, meaning "well being, welfare." In the other Germanic languages, the related words are more closely associated with English "well," or they are used in compounds that match English "welfare" (Norwegian has "velferd," for example, and German has the direct word, "Wohlfahrt").

The German Question, Part Sixty-One

"Bismarck" Part Five/F "Bismarck as Chancellor & A Treaty With 'Contentious Relatives' ""Ethnic Minorities in Bismarckian Germany/West

I should have noted in the last installment: Frisians in Bismarck's Germany, while proud of their heritage, would have undoubtedly also seen themselves as "Germans," just as those in the Netherlands would have seen themselves as "Dutch," and those in Denmark would have seen themselves as "Danes." In all three cases there may well have been a few "hold outs," but it was likely much more like what we have had with so many different groups in America; that is, immigrants came to the United States, but their children and later additions saw themselves as "Americans," while some still kept alive the traditions of their ancestors in various ways. Also, in Denmark, there are very few (North) Frisian speakers (and there were not that many even dating back to Bismarck's time onward); so few in fact, that I could not find any recent data on the subject. This is just a guess, but any Frisian speakers still in existence all undoubtedly speak Danish on an every day basis, and there are no Frisian-language newspapers in Denmark. Some sources even noted that Frisian is no longer spoken in Denmark.

In the western areas of Germany, in Alsace-Lorraine, lived more than 211,000 French-speaking inhabitants (according to the 1900 census), which represented 11 1/2% of the population of the province (the other 88 1/2% spoke German). Just an assumption, but I would think nearly all French-speaking inhabitants were Catholic (the "German" population was mixed Protestant and Catholic). Also, in a fairly small area in what is now part of Belgium, in the area usually referred to as "Eupen-Malmedy," there were some 12,000 Walloon and French-speaking residents (about 29% of the region), and it is just as likely that they were all Catholic.* (The "German" population there, about 71%, was undoubtedly Catholic too.) The Catholics in both Alsace-Lorraine and Eupen-Malmedy were subject to all of Bismarck's anti-Catholic policies mentioned previously in this series. Since there was no actual "Poland" (as a nation) at that time, the Polish population in Germany was certainly different from the French-speaking population in Alsace-Lorraine, since France was very much in existence, a major power, and the ties of the French-speaking part of the population to France were strong. The French-speaking residents were always "suspect" (to the Germans), but not even all of the German speaking citizens were always solidly committed to Germany, especially those of the upper classes, where people tended to be fluent in both French and German, but where French was often preferred to German. Interestingly, the German government permitted French to be used in schools in French-speaking areas, but German was used in all governmental affairs (not that this is necessarily unreasonable).*** Perhaps the main difference between the German residents of Alsace-Lorraine and the Germans in the rest of Germany is something that is difficult to gauge, but it had to do with the fact of French rule in the area for a couple of centuries, but most importantly, the French Revolution, and the participation by many people in the area in that revolution. In the German states, their own revolutions had not been successful, and they had lived under autocratic rule, so there was more of a lighter democratic tradition in Alsace-Lorraine. Time gradually favored the German point-of-view, as younger generations did not feel the same connection to the previous French rule.****

Next, "The Jewish Minority in Bismarck's Germany".... (A Word History is below the notes)

* Take your pick, Walloon is either a separate language closely related to French, or a dialect of French, based in part of modern Belgium (the other main linguistic group of Belgium being "Flemish," see note **) Linguists have had disagreements over its official classification. Whatever the case, it is Latin-based, but it has had many influences from the nearby Germanic dialects/languages, specifically Flemish, Dutch, and German (including German dialects in the area, like Luxemburgisch). For decades now, the debate is essentially only of historical importance, as Walloon is almost extinct, with only a handful of people actually being fluent anymore, since in the early part of the 20th Century, "standard" French (I'll use that term) was used in all schools in the Walloon region.

** Belgium is one of those countries where there is more than one language spoken by significant portions of the population. As I have attempted to show in some of these articles on the Germans, until the 1800s, territories were conquered, annexed, sold, or inherited, without regard to the "background," including language, of the local population. "Nationalism" among various "ethnic groups" began to spread, especially during the 1800s, and it became a serious problem for Austria, which possessed a wide variety of non-German populated lands. "Ethnically/linguistically" modern Belgium is about 39% Walloon (French speaking), most living in the "Wallonia" southern part of the country, and about 60% Flemish, most living in the "Flanders" northern part of Belgium. There is a German minority (the area discussed in this article) along the German border, but it numbers just less than 1% of the population, and an even smaller (less than half a percent) "Luxembourgish" population, believe it or not, located on the border with Luxembourg (imagine that). The relationship between the various groups has been contentious at times over the last century or two. Some linguists in just the last decade or so have declared Flemish to be a dialect of Dutch, rather than a separate language in its own right, but not everyone agrees.

*** There were fairly strong elements of the population of Alsace-Lorraine that were very pro-German, and I don't want to lead anyone to believe that this element was not influential.

**** It also should be noted that about 100,000 "pro-France" residents left Alsace-Lorraine for France after the German annexation. As these people were obviously the most "French," that must have lessened pro-French activities in Alsace-Lorraine.

WORD HISTORY:
Lore-This word, perhaps more common in the compound "folklore," simply means "knowledge, accumulated learning." It is closely related to "learn." It goes back to the Indo European root "leis/lais," which had the notion of "to follow a track or path." This then gave Old Germanic "laizo," which was passed on to its offspring, West Germanic, as "laiza,"^ and then also with the advanced meaning of "teach, instruct." (I suppose in the sense, "teach people to follow a path or course.") This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "lar," with a long "a" sound, and meaning "knowledge, things that are taught." The Middle English period gave us the modern spelling. So, "folklore" means "the accumulated knowledge of the people through the course of time." German has "Lehre," Low German has "Lehr," West Frisian "leare," Norwegian and Danish have "lære," Swedish has "lära," Icelandic has "laera," and Dutch has "leren," all with the basic meaning of "teach, instruct (instruction, for nouns)." 

^ These forms with 'z' came to be rendered with 'r' due to rhotacism; that is, a tendency to convert some consonant sounds, usually 'z,' to 'r.' This happened with the Germanic forms "laizo/laiza" that took the course about "teach, instruct," but another branch maintained the "z" sound (altered a bit to the similar 's') and the basic meaning "track, path," which gave German what eventually became modern "Gleis," the rails of a train track. This same Old Germanic form gave English some forms of "last," including the verb meaning "to endure, hold out" (from the notion of "continue on a path").      

The German Question, Part Sixty

"Bismarck" Part Five/E "Bismarck as Chancellor & A Treaty With 'Contentious Relatives' ""Ethnic Minorities in Bismarckian Germany/"Northwest/Frisians"

Since the Polish areas of eastern Germany (prior to World War I) have been mentioned in some of the previous articles in this series, for those interested, "Anna Anderson," the woman who claimed to be "Anastasia," the daughter of Tsar Nicholas II, was from that area. I did four articles on her. Here are the links, in sequence:

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/07/we-all-love-mystery.html

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/07/some-additions-to-we-all-love-mystery.html

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/10/update-on-mystery.html

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2008/11/mystery-solved.html

The Frisians were an old Germanic tribe that settled along the northwest coastal areas of Europe (modern Netherlands, Germany, Denmark). Their language is close to English, and indeed they live in the same general area of the old Germanic tribes the Saxons, the Angles and the Jutes. These were the main Germanic elements which participated in the invasion of Briton, and historians believe that a fair number of Frisians were also counted among these invaders. Not all Saxons participated in the invasion, and their Germanic dialect, now referred to as "Low Saxon," or "Low German Saxon," flourished in that general northwest area of Europe, what is now the Netherlands and Germany. No question that over time, "Low German" (English, Frisian and Low German are all close relatives) made big inroads into the Frisian speaking population in the region. The 1900 census of Germany shows 20,600 Frisian speakers. How much that would have changed (downward) from Bismarck's time, I don't really know, but probably at least some. Not only was Frisian losing speakers to Low German, but by Bismarck's time, his promotion of standard German in schools would have made many Frisians bi-lingual, if not tri-lingual (Frisian, Low German, and standard German), and in somewhat rarer cases, multi-lingual (Frisian, Low German, standard German, and a dialect of Danish).* Today, Frisian, specifically "West" Frisian** is spoken in the Netherlands, adjacent to Germany, where there are approximately 350,000 (West) Frisian speakers.*** In Germany, our main concern in this article, "East" Frisian has been in decline for quite some time, and there are only about 2,000 remaining speakers of a dialect of East Frisian called "Saterland," in the German state of Lower Saxony (Niedersachsen, in German). "North" Frisian has about 10,000 speakers in the German state of "Schleswig-Holstein," where it is also spoken not only on the mainland, but on some German islands off the coast. In all cases, these East and North Frisian speakers also speak standard German, something that was undoubtedly not so true in Bismarck's time. The main thing about Bismarck and the Frisians is, he promoted the teaching of standard German in schools throughout the country, which gradually made Frisian and German dialects less and less important, although even today, Frisian is still used as an every day language by some in Germany, as are some German dialects, with standard German being used to communicate with German speakers from other areas.

(A Word History is below the notes)

* Low German speakers too were increasingly bi-lingual, being taught standard German in school. Today, Low German speakers have dwindled considerably, as standard German is used more and more. Low German has declined so much, that efforts have been made to promote the teaching of Low German in schools as a second language to keep it from further decline.

** Linguists break Frisian down into three dialects, "West," "East," and "North."

*** I am only using an approximation, and according to several sources, there are many more people of Frisian heritage in the Netherlands who understand West Frisian to varying degrees, but who are not considered fluent in the language, with some of these also being able to read and write some basic Frisian.

WORD HISTORY:
Schnell-This is one of the words frequently heard in movies or on TV when Germans, usually in a World War Two setting, are involved. You may be surprised to know that English has its own very similar word, although it is now archaic. I cannot find an Indo European root for this word, so I can only start with Old Germanic, which had "snellaz," meaning "quick, active." (There seems to have been a secondary meaning of "bold," and I found this additional meaning for both English and German.) This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "snel/snell," with the same basic meaning, and Old High German "snel," again with the same meaning. The word fell out of common usage in English at some point in the Middle Ages. The German word, eventually spelled "schnell," is still very much in use. In German, a "Schnellzug" is an "express train." Low German has "snell," Dutch has "snel." A form of the word was borrowed into some of the Latin-based languages from Frankish ''snel."