The World In Protest, Revolution or Civil War? Part Eleven
This was first published in early 2012.
"Polarization of the Spanish Civil War" Part 6
The inclusion of the far right in the Spanish government coalition* brought many problems for the more moderate rightists, but many average Spaniards suffered from the rightist government policies in general, and from the actions of wealthy landowners and business people who no longer feared government intervention, as the government now favored the upper classes. As a consequence, farm worker wages were cut severely (in some cases, in half!). The military reforms were halted and army officers who supported the Republic were often forced out and replaced by right wing supporters, who also gained promotions. The far right wing was difficult for some other coalition members of the government to tolerate, and the government could not function;** thus in February 1936 new elections were held.
The election campaign turned out to be absolutely vicious from the right wing. Funded by wealthy interests, the right wing had lots of money to spend on pamphlets, leaflets, and radio, often laced with exaggeration or blatant lies. They told voters that if the left won, the victors would come and take their children away from them, burn down businesses and privately owned homes, criminals would be released from prisons into the general population, and Jews and Freemasons would rise in power (remember, Spain was overwhelmingly Catholic). They also had money to pay thugs to break up opposition meetings and to intimidate voters. Some business owners leaned on their employees to vote for the "right." Like scenes from "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington," where the political machine went all out to halt their opposition from being heard, rightist groups blocked roads to prevent pro-Republic speakers from attending rallies, rightist mayors had Republican and leftist supporters and poll watchers locked up to prevent them from voting or doing their jobs (leaving only rightist poll watchers in some locations), and rightist officials halted public transportation to prevent poor people from reaching the polls easily. Rightists also closed polls early in areas where peasants (overwhelmingly pro-Republic) traditionally came into town later, because of working all day. Ballot boxes were seized, their ballots removed, and then refilled with rightist marked ballots. Things were so bad, in some villages with strong Republican sentiments, when the ballots were counted, there we no votes for the "Popular Front."*** In the end, however, in spite of all of the shenanigans and illegal actions of the right, the close vote went to the Popular Front.
* The previous "leftist" government was a coalition of moderate "left-leaning" Republicans (see note at end), socialists, and Marxists. The new "rightist" government was something of the opposite, with more moderate members and pro-monarchists to extreme right wing members, with the extreme right essentially being fascists, without the actual designation as such (yet). NOTE: Spanish Republicans were basically left-leaning and pro-republic; that is, they wanted representative government, as opposed to Spain's recent dictatorship of the 1920s and the monarchy from the past centuries. Americans and people from countries with representative governments in those times (and certainly today) would hardly have seen this as radical, but in Spain, representative government was controversial, as entrenched interests saw it as a threat.
** Just an interjection of opinion here: far right extremists may well have intended for the government to be dysfunctional, as many right wing reactionaries wanted a complete takeover of the government, and their leader installed as, what would have been, a dictator. In more than thirty years now in the U.S., we have seen how the political right has beaten up on "government" by cutting funding and personnel, but then saying how dysfunctional government is. The debate over efficiency in government is a valid one, but the relentless assault on government, and the preaching of "hate the government" by right wing extremists, has made many Americans forget the good government can do to help average and less fortunate people. That's been the object of the assault by the right wing, in my opinion, and it has been to the absolute detriment of the country. A disconnected and inattentive (sometimes distracted) electorate is then overwhelmed by disinformation funded by wealthy interests. This is not to say that those left of center don't get into the disinformation business too, but they "generally" are not as well funded. I'm NOT saying most American conservatives or Republicans want to establish a dictatorship.
*** The "Popular Front" was a coalition of various pro-Republic, leftist, and communist political groups bound together to oppose Spain's rightists in the election.
WORD HISTORY:
Bull-This is the noun meaning, "adult male animal, typically raised for breeding." The ultimate origins of this word are unclear and I am not "sold" on any particular theory, so I'll only begin with it's Old Germanic form, "bullon/bulon," with that same basic meaning, although seemingly used only for "cattle" in ancient times, then later expanded to other animals, like elephants. Whether this then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "bula," with the same meaning, is uncertain, as the word only shows up in texts in the later Old English period. That doesn't mean the word wasn't around originally among the common people, as English also had "steer" (other Germanic languages also had forms of "steer"), which may have been used by the more literate part of English society back then. Or, it could have been borrowed from Old Norse (North Germanic) "boli," especially since it shows up in texts at the time when Old Norse was impacting English. Since the closest relatives of English (German, Dutch, and Frisian) all have forms of the word, did they too borrow it from North Germanic? Or did Old English have a form brought along with the migration of the Anglo-Saxons from the continent to Britain, which stayed among the common people and then was reinforced into broader usage by the borrowing or reinforcement from Old Norse? Whatever the case, "bula" later became "bule," before the modern version. "If" English (and the other West Germanic languages) borrowed the word from North Germanic, it is ironic, as Icelandic is now the only North Germanic language to still use a form of the word, and it still has the original "boli" for "bull." Norwegian, Swedish and Danish no longer use forms of the word. German has "Bulle," Low German Saxon has "Bull," some Low German has "Boll," Dutch has "bul," and Frisian has "bolle."
"Polarization of the Spanish Civil War" Part 6
The inclusion of the far right in the Spanish government coalition* brought many problems for the more moderate rightists, but many average Spaniards suffered from the rightist government policies in general, and from the actions of wealthy landowners and business people who no longer feared government intervention, as the government now favored the upper classes. As a consequence, farm worker wages were cut severely (in some cases, in half!). The military reforms were halted and army officers who supported the Republic were often forced out and replaced by right wing supporters, who also gained promotions. The far right wing was difficult for some other coalition members of the government to tolerate, and the government could not function;** thus in February 1936 new elections were held.
The election campaign turned out to be absolutely vicious from the right wing. Funded by wealthy interests, the right wing had lots of money to spend on pamphlets, leaflets, and radio, often laced with exaggeration or blatant lies. They told voters that if the left won, the victors would come and take their children away from them, burn down businesses and privately owned homes, criminals would be released from prisons into the general population, and Jews and Freemasons would rise in power (remember, Spain was overwhelmingly Catholic). They also had money to pay thugs to break up opposition meetings and to intimidate voters. Some business owners leaned on their employees to vote for the "right." Like scenes from "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington," where the political machine went all out to halt their opposition from being heard, rightist groups blocked roads to prevent pro-Republic speakers from attending rallies, rightist mayors had Republican and leftist supporters and poll watchers locked up to prevent them from voting or doing their jobs (leaving only rightist poll watchers in some locations), and rightist officials halted public transportation to prevent poor people from reaching the polls easily. Rightists also closed polls early in areas where peasants (overwhelmingly pro-Republic) traditionally came into town later, because of working all day. Ballot boxes were seized, their ballots removed, and then refilled with rightist marked ballots. Things were so bad, in some villages with strong Republican sentiments, when the ballots were counted, there we no votes for the "Popular Front."*** In the end, however, in spite of all of the shenanigans and illegal actions of the right, the close vote went to the Popular Front.
* The previous "leftist" government was a coalition of moderate "left-leaning" Republicans (see note at end), socialists, and Marxists. The new "rightist" government was something of the opposite, with more moderate members and pro-monarchists to extreme right wing members, with the extreme right essentially being fascists, without the actual designation as such (yet). NOTE: Spanish Republicans were basically left-leaning and pro-republic; that is, they wanted representative government, as opposed to Spain's recent dictatorship of the 1920s and the monarchy from the past centuries. Americans and people from countries with representative governments in those times (and certainly today) would hardly have seen this as radical, but in Spain, representative government was controversial, as entrenched interests saw it as a threat.
** Just an interjection of opinion here: far right extremists may well have intended for the government to be dysfunctional, as many right wing reactionaries wanted a complete takeover of the government, and their leader installed as, what would have been, a dictator. In more than thirty years now in the U.S., we have seen how the political right has beaten up on "government" by cutting funding and personnel, but then saying how dysfunctional government is. The debate over efficiency in government is a valid one, but the relentless assault on government, and the preaching of "hate the government" by right wing extremists, has made many Americans forget the good government can do to help average and less fortunate people. That's been the object of the assault by the right wing, in my opinion, and it has been to the absolute detriment of the country. A disconnected and inattentive (sometimes distracted) electorate is then overwhelmed by disinformation funded by wealthy interests. This is not to say that those left of center don't get into the disinformation business too, but they "generally" are not as well funded. I'm NOT saying most American conservatives or Republicans want to establish a dictatorship.
*** The "Popular Front" was a coalition of various pro-Republic, leftist, and communist political groups bound together to oppose Spain's rightists in the election.
WORD HISTORY:
Bull-This is the noun meaning, "adult male animal, typically raised for breeding." The ultimate origins of this word are unclear and I am not "sold" on any particular theory, so I'll only begin with it's Old Germanic form, "bullon/bulon," with that same basic meaning, although seemingly used only for "cattle" in ancient times, then later expanded to other animals, like elephants. Whether this then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "bula," with the same meaning, is uncertain, as the word only shows up in texts in the later Old English period. That doesn't mean the word wasn't around originally among the common people, as English also had "steer" (other Germanic languages also had forms of "steer"), which may have been used by the more literate part of English society back then. Or, it could have been borrowed from Old Norse (North Germanic) "boli," especially since it shows up in texts at the time when Old Norse was impacting English. Since the closest relatives of English (German, Dutch, and Frisian) all have forms of the word, did they too borrow it from North Germanic? Or did Old English have a form brought along with the migration of the Anglo-Saxons from the continent to Britain, which stayed among the common people and then was reinforced into broader usage by the borrowing or reinforcement from Old Norse? Whatever the case, "bula" later became "bule," before the modern version. "If" English (and the other West Germanic languages) borrowed the word from North Germanic, it is ironic, as Icelandic is now the only North Germanic language to still use a form of the word, and it still has the original "boli" for "bull." Norwegian, Swedish and Danish no longer use forms of the word. German has "Bulle," Low German Saxon has "Bull," some Low German has "Boll," Dutch has "bul," and Frisian has "bolle."
Labels: English, etymology, Germanic languages, money in politics, Popular Front, Spain, Spanish Civil War, Spanish political right, Spanish Republic
posted by Randy at 1:16 AM
2 Comments:
So "bull" and Spain go together? "Bullfight?" Interesting articles, as always.
In this case I did think of "bull" because of Spain, but not every "Word History" is necessarily connected to the article; in fact, most are not connected.
Post a Comment
<< Home