English & Its Closest Relatives, Part Three/Final

To answer a question by a reader, English is not Low German, but the Germanic dialects in and around the ancestral homeland of English in northern Germany did not undergo what is called by linguists, "the High German sound shift." Of course neither did English (Anglo-Saxon), as it was by then in England. English does come from Germanic dialects that were unaffected by the sound shift, and the closely related dialects, predominately Saxon, that remained in that area of northern Germany came to form Low German; thus, while English is technically not Low German, it is very closely related. This is a good lead in to High German.

High German is also a close relative of English, and it too is West Germanic. The reason it is called "high" is, it developed in the more hilly and outright mountainous areas of what are now modern Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. During a period between about 500 A.D. to 700 A.D.the southern Germanic dialects underwent a "sound shift;" that is, pronunciation of certain sounds changed. High German became the basis for modern German, but with some Low German influences. Regular readers have undoubtedly seen the noticeable variation in spelling for words of Germanic background, even some that were borrowed from non Germanic sources, when I list close relatives of English words. That is largely because of this sound shift from hundreds of years ago.* The English and Low German "p" sound, often because High German "pf;" thus English has "pipe," but High German has "Pfeife," and it is indeed pronounced as "pfifeh," with the "i" being long. Similarly, we have "pan," and German has "Pfanne," we have "apple," but German has "Apfel." Further, a syllable or word ending "p" sound, became an "f" sound in High German; thus English has "sheep," but German has "Schaaf." We have "sleep," but German has "schlaf(en)." The same happened with ending "t" sounds, which became "s" or "ss" in German; thus English has "out," but German has "aus" (German "au" is pronounced like English "ou" or "ow," as in "how"). English has "eat," but German has "ess(en)," and we have "kettle," but German has "Kessel." Other changes also took place, but you get the idea. German is spoken by about 100 million people, most naturally in Germany, Austria, Switzerland,  Luxembourg, and Liechtenstein, as well as parts of France (especially in Alsace and less so in Lorraine). German is not uncommon outside of Europe, including in the United States, Brazil, and parts of southern Africa (Germany had colonies there for a time). Keep in mind, there are many dialects (variations) of High German, even though "standard" forms of High German are taught in schools in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

"Frankish," usually rendered as "Franconian" in English, is not a true language as such, but rather a group of Germanic dialects, although modern Dutch comes from Frankish,** which traces back to the large Germanic tribe, the Franks.*** Various Frankish-derived dialects are spoken in Belgium, France and western Germany, including Hessian ("Hessisch"). These various dialects are all also closely related to English.

* Not all spelling variations are the result of this sound shift, but many simply reflect pure differences in representing sounds, or variations in pronunciation. Remember, all English speaking people do not pronounce words the same, nor are all words necessarily spelled the same. In German spelling, for example, "ie" is pronounced as English long "e," and German "ei" is pronounced as English long "i." 

** Afrikaans was spawned by Dutch in southern Africa a few centuries ago, and as such it too traces back to Frankish. It is now considered a language in its own right, rather than as a Dutch dialect. 

*** The Franks conquered or occupied much of what is today France (named after them), Belgium, the Netherlands, and western Germany. Historical finds in England indicate some Franks also participated, along with the Angles and Saxons, in the Germanic invasion of Britain, which led to the establishment of England and of English.  

WORD HISTORY:
Long-This is the verb meaning "yearn for, have desire for." Like the adjective form, the verb goes back to Indo European "dlonghos," which meant "long." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "langojanan," with the main meaning being "to make long, to grow long, to lengthen," but also with the additional figurative meaning "yearn for, desire," from the notion of "yearning makes time seem long." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "langian," with the basic meaning "to yearn for, to desire, to grieve after." This later became "longen," before the modern version. Common in the other Germanic languages: German has "verlangen," which has several meanings, among which are "to want, to desire, to long for, to crave;" Low German Saxon has "längen," meaning "to crave, to long for," Dutch has "verlangen," meaning "desire strongly," Frisian has "ferlangje," meaning "to desire," Danish has "længes," meaning "yearn for," Norwegian has " lengte," meaning "yearn or long for," Icelandic has "löngun," meaning "to desire," and Swedish has "länge," "to long for."

Our Contentious System, Part One

You might think people in other parts of the world don't understand some of the aspects of our "American system" (other countries are similar, but not quite the same in all aspects). Actually, the people who often don't understand it are AMERICANS! We have a very contentious system. The point of some of this contentiousness isn't that a "winner," be it a person or an idea, is "right," but that the winner has prevailed after each, or all, sides have had their chance to present its case. I know some of this gets on our nerves at times, but the question becomes, how would you replace it? The other thing to remember is, our system is NOT perfect, in spite of the claims by super patriots, who seem so insecure as to never want to admit to the slightest flaw; but, no system yet put in place anywhere IS perfect. That doesn't mean we should throw in the towel and stop trying.

Look at the legal system. As the saying goes, "We all hate lawyers.....until WE need one!" One of the greatest television shows EVER, the original "Law and Order," showed the workings of the criminal justice system, with all its ah ... flaws? discrepancies? shortcomings? Give me a word here, PLEASE! In one of my favorite episodes, a woman is found dead in her apartment, but some blood from a relative is found there too. After much investigation, the police find out the blood belongs to a woman bank teller. She tells them the dead woman was her mother and that she spent time tracing who her mother was, after spending years in an orphanage. The mother, of very modest means, then told her the father had been a multimillionaire who recently passed away, leaving a fortune "to his children," the names of "his children" not being specified. The police arrest the teller for murder, and they bring in a bank officer who is the teller's boyfriend. Bank cameras showed the teller handing the bank officer a purse upon return from the mother's apartment. Police suspect the purse, not with the teller when she left the bank, contains a blouse covered with blood, as the teller had on a different blouse upon her return to the bank, a blouse several sizes too large for her, but the same size as her mother. After some tough questioning, the bank officer admits that he looked into the purse and that he did indeed see it had such a blouse in it. Meanwhile, down the hall, the police are questioning the woman who has her story down pat. After some tough questioning, she tells them she wants her lawyer. When they ask for a phone number, she tells them they have him down the hall. The boyfriend then tells the police he is the woman's attorney.

The show then shifted to the legal wrangling. The teller hires a criminal defense attorney who goes before a judge arguing that anything the boyfriend bank officer/lawyer told the police was protected by attorney client privilege. The guy had not paid his annual dues to the Bar Association for a few years, but the new attorney loans him the money to bring his dues up to date. The judge rules that as long as the accused woman believed the boyfriend to be her lawyer, that is what counts, and all of his admissions cannot be used against her. It turned out, the boyfriend had been representing the teller in pursuing a claim for part of the dead millionaire's estate.

Okay, what do we have here? "Attorney-client privilege" is an important part of our judicial system. We have a right to consult with an attorney, privately, and to keep those consultations private, under most circumstances.* An attorney of any type, not just a defense attorney, is supposed to defend their client's interest to the utmost. In criminal cases, the prosecution tries to their utmost to convict the person charged with a particular crime. In the television episode covered above, the judge knows the woman is likely guilty from the boyfriend's admissions, but because he had been representing the teller and because the client saw him as her attorney, the judge threw out the evidence. You may not like that evidence against an apparently guilty person is tossed, but that's how it works. We have protections and those protections were put into law to guard against the "state" from being able to do anything and everything to send someone to prison. Remember, there are still countries where whatever the "state" says, goes! Innocent though a person may be, they go to prison. Our system isn't perfect, and innocent people do get convicted, but it is fairly rare. The basic idea of our system is it is better to let a guilty person get off, than to convict an innocent person.

There is always public opinion in high profile cases, but even more importantly there are the feelings of the victim's survivors. In the above television case, what if you were the murdered woman's relative? Would you shout "Yippee! The Constitution works?" My guess is, no, you would likely be furious with the judge for tossing evidence against the apparent killer of your relative. That's just human nature. Depending upon the ultimate outcome of the trial, you "might" see the constitutional issue involved as time passed. In the above case, there is strong evidence to believe the woman is guilty, but let's say evidence tossed by a judge in another case were not as damning. Relatives of the victim are still likely to scream "Foul!" What if, in such a case, the person were truly not guilty? As victims, or relatives/friends of victims, we usually want revenge, and again, like it, not like it, that's a part of human nature. We want someone to pay for the crime. The judicial system is not supposed to be swayed by such things, but it is only supposed to be concerned with the law, no matter who it helps or hurts, but we all have feelings, and enforcement of our laws is certainly subject to those feelings. So under our system, some guilty people go free; probably far more than we'd like, while some innocent people pay a price; probably not many, but how about if YOU were going to prison for something you did not do? Would you be singing the praises of the law?

* There are exceptions, such as if someone else is present during consultations, or if the attorney is in any way connected to the crime being charged, or if the person charged waives his/her right to the privilege. What do these mean? As is always the case, these may seem simple, and they probably usually are, but they can become complex, as in the case I cited above from "Law and Order." These are just some simple examples: first, if I am present when you talk with your attorney, it is NOT private. I'm NOT your attorney; thus, I can repeat whatever was communicated during the conversation. Then again, how much do you want me to keep quiet? (Wink, wink) Second, if I were your attorney and you and I robbed the neighborhood bank, I'm part of the criminal act, communication is not privileged. Lastly, I get in front of a TV camera and tell all or part of what I talked about with my attorney in connection to the charges against me, then I forfeit my attorney-client privilege.

WORD HISTORY:
Client-The ultimate origins of this word are uncertain, although some believe the origins to be Indo European. It traces back to Latin "cluere," which meant "listen, hear, obey." From this came "cliens," which meant "a person who obeyed or followed someone." This gave the sense, "follow advice." The word was borrowed by English in the 1300s, but seems to have come into more common usage in the 1500s as "a patron/customer of an attorney," but that sense broadened shortly thereafter to "a customer, a patron, in general."

English & Its Closest Relatives, Part Two

So which modern languages are the closest relatives of English? Most linguists say Frisian is the closest relative; in fact, Frisian and English belong to a subgroup of West Germanic, created by linguists, called "Anglo-Frisian." Frisian is spoken along the North Sea coastal areas in northwestern Europe, which includes parts of the Netherlands and northern Germany. Southern Denmark once had a few thousand Frisian speakers, but the language there is now virtually extinct. Frisian is divided into three dialects (variations), which are limited in mutually intelligible. The largest Frisian dialect is West Frisian, spoken by 300,000-400,000 Frisians in the Netherlands. East Frisian has declined markedly, but Saterland Frisian, spoken by a couple thousand people in northern Germany, is a remnant of the dialect. There is also North Frisian, spoken by some 10,000 in northern Germany, including on the islands off of the North Sea coast.

Another very close relative is Low German, sometimes simply called, get this, "Saxon," or "Low Saxon." The very terms tell you the language is close to English. Low German is not really so much of a written language, in the sense of a "standard" version, rather it has a good many dialects. The dialect in the general area around Hamburg-Bremen-Kiel is located in the ancestral homeland of English, and indeed many words are still very similar to English. As mentioned in "Part One," the Saxons were a large Germanic tribe, only part of which participated in the invasion of Britain. The language of the Saxons who remained in northern Germany is called "Old Saxon" by linguists, and it later became what is termed "Low German." Low German spread across northern Germany, even far into northeastern Germany, to regions now belonging to Poland and Lithuania. The vast territory covered by Low German gave rise to numerous dialects, as the language was influenced and altered by interaction with other languages, like Polish, Lithuanian, and certainly High German. The language of Berlin was originally Low German, but as the city rose in importance in the German state of Prussia, standard German, based largely upon High German, moved into Berlin as the language of government. An interesting situation developed, as High German could not totally displace the Low German of the city's populace. Instead, High German prevailed for the most part, but with certain Low German words and even Low German pronunciation of some sounds remaining. This gave Berlin the unique dialect called "Berlinerisch."* Numbers are difficult to verify, but somewhere between three and five million Germans seem to speak Low German on a fairly regular basis, if not daily. Several million more have substantial knowledge of Low German, but not enough to be considered truly fluent.

In the final installment, more close relatives of English.

* Standard High German came to be taught in schools throughout much of the German speaking world to make communication easy. Previously, when regional dialects were commonly spoken (some still are regularly used among families and friends), a person from Hamburg (Low German) and a person from Vienna (High German), for example, would not easily have understood one another (that's putting it mildly). The use of High German as a standard eliminated this problem, although dialects are still quite common, and these dialects also influence how people speak standard German. 
   
WORD HISTORY:
Behold-The ultimate origins of this word are unclear, although some believe it to be Indo European. It goes back to the Old Germanic compound "bihaldanan," which meant "to keep, to retain, take hold of." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "behealdan," which had similar meanings, but also "keep in view, hold in view," an additional meaning seemingly peculiar to English. The participle form, "beholden," is still used with the meaning "be obligated to," from the sense "be held to an obligation." German has "behalten," which means "keep or retain, including in memory; that is, remember;" Low German Saxon has "behoolden," with the same meaning as standard German; Dutch has "behouden" (notice the "l" is gone), meaning "keep, maintain, preserve;" Danish and Norwegian have "beholde" meaning “to keep, hold on, retain." Apparently Frisian, Icelandic and Swedish do not use related forms of the compound "behold," at least in modern times, but they do have forms of "hold," and that will be the subject of a history very soon..  

English & Its Closest Relatives, Part One

Old English, also called Anglo-Saxon, was formed from two or three Germanic dialects* taken to Britain in the mid 400s A.D. by elements of Germanic tribes from what is today northern Germany.** Modern linguists classify English and its closest relatives as being "West Germanic," a branch of the broader family of "Germanic languages,"*** which itself is a branch of the Indo European language family.

Originally, it is "assumed," I'd say with a good deal of certainty, that the Germanic tribal elements that founded England could understand one another, although they had spoken different dialects (variations) of Germanic, and more particularly of West Germanic. As many of the dialects of West Germanic and of Germanic, in general, developed further, they grew further apart in mutual intelligibility; that is, how much speakers of the respective dialects could understand one another. English then was influenced by the related North Germanic, as Old Norse (an old form of North Germanic) was carried to England by raiders and settlers, usually Danes, but also some Norwegians, who settled mainly in the northeastern part of England, and also in southern Scotland. All of the Germanic dialects were influenced to varying degrees by Latin at one time or another in two ways: the Roman domination of much of Europe gave various military and government terms to other peoples; and, the adoption of Christianity by the Romans, and the subsequent spread of Christianity throughout Europe (and elsewhere), provided a wide variety of words, not just religious, to other peoples, too, as Latin became the language of the Christian Church. English borrowed some Latin words early on, but it saw a more substantial borrowing from Latin in a roundabout way, as the Norman dialect of French was brought to England by the "Norman Conquest," in late1066 A.D. Old French was a Latin-based language, with Germanic influences from the Germanic tribe the Franks, and the Norman dialect (from the Normandy region) was somewhat different from the dialect of Paris and environs, and it had some North Germanic influences, as Norse raiders had settled in the area; thus giving their name to the region and its people (Northmen=Norman). In this case, the Norse speaking rulers adapted to the regional French dialect, but some Norse words (and "perhaps" some pronunciation) were picked up by the French dialect in the process. Their successful invasion of England brought Norman administration to the English speaking populace, and eventually, although after many word borrowings, Norman French was overwhelmed by English, but it was a gradual process.**** The word borrowings from the Normans, in particular, is what has come to differentiate English vocabulary from its Germanic relatives on the Continent, but the most commonly used English words still trace back to the Germanic roots of English.

Next....The closest relatives of English
  
* The two principal Germanic tribes were the Angles and the Saxons. Research seems to show that the entire tribe of the Angles left what is now northern Germany for Briton in the mid 400s. The Saxons, a much larger tribe (probably a confederation of several Germanic tribes), however, did not all participate in the Germanic invasion of Briton. The Jutes were thought to have been another Germanic tribe that participated in the invasion, but in more recent times historians have been divided over this, with some believing the Jutes to have been part of the Saxons (the confederation I mentioned above). Research seems to show that some Frisians and even some Franks participated in the invasion, but not necessarily in great numbers. "Anglo-Saxon" is the term often used for the early English language, or also Old English, and the terms are interchangeable, although to this day "Anglo-Saxon" is sometimes used for the modern English people or for the language, seemingly meant in an affectionate way.   

** Prior to the Germanic invasions, Britain was Celtic speaking (the people being called "Britons"), although the Romans had been in a large part of the main island for a few centuries, but not in sufficient numbers to change these Celts to Latin speaking. The Romans withdrew their forces from Briton for the defense of Italy and Rome itself circa 410 A.D. The Germanic invasions seem to have diminished the Celts from most of what was to become England in several ways: first, the Germanic invaders killed many of the Celts; second, other Celts were made slaves by the conquerors, and they eventually died off or mixed in with the new Germanic population; third, a number of Celts fled into what is now modern Wales in the west of Britain, to Cornwall in modern southwestern England, and to what is now Brittany in modern France. Few Celtic words besides some place names were borrowed into English, leaving many scholars to believe most of the Celts either escaped or were killed by the Anglo-Saxons. Whatever the case, a whole new Germanic speaking society was formed.  

*** There are two other branches of the Germanic languages: North Germanic, represented in modern times by Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Faroese, and Icelandic; and, East Germanic, which is now extinct, but consisted of Gothic, Vandalic, and Burgundian. Sorry, there is no South Germanic, y'all. Remember, these are "modern" classifications, and the speakers of these various Germanic dialects did not go around claiming to speak "West Germanic, North Germanic, or East Germanic."

**** The Romans conquered what is modern France and remained a major presence there for a few centuries before the Germanic speaking Franks conquered much of the area. The area was Celtic speaking before the Romans marched in, but the Romans administered and stationed so many troops there, the area became Latin speaking. When the Germanic speaking Franks conquered much of the area, they were insufficient in numbers to convert the Latin speaking population to their own language; in fact, ever so gradually (a few hundred years), the Germanic speaking Franks lost their language, as it "blended in" with the Latin dialects of the area, although they gave their name to the territory, "France," and their language name to the language of France, "French." Similar happened in England after the Normans took over. Anglo-Saxon society and language were so rooted in England, the Normans were too small in numbers to have their Norman French dialect overtake English, but their administration gave many words to English, but usually from written texts, not from spoken word; thus these former "French" words were not pronounced in the Norman French manner; they were "Anglicized." 

WORD HISTORY:

Tongue-This word goes back to Indo European "dnghweha," which meant "tongue." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "tungon." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "tunge," which then became "tonge," before the modern version. The meaning "language" also developed from the original meaning "organ of speaking or of speech." Common throughout the other Germanic tongues, ah, I mean languages: German has "Zunge," Low German has "Tung," Dutch has "tong," Frisian has "tonge," Icelandic and Swedish have "tunga," Danish and Norwegian have "tunge."  

Erased Wealth For Some, Gains For Guess Who?

Federal Reserve data released earlier this month showed a huge drop in the net worth of American families; a drop of 39% from 2007 to 2010. This only tells us "the Great Recession" was "greater" than many at first realized. The interesting part of this is, middle class families took much of the blow from those three years of  "the Great Recession.." While middle class people and the poor took a beating, the wealth of one segment of American society actually rose somewhat. I'll bet you'd never guess it was the wealthiest families in America. So you've been losing ground while they've been gaining ground amid the worst times since the 1930s and the Great Depression. Still want to give them more tax cuts? Better think about all of this folks, as it would amount to another transfer of wealth from YOU to people who DO NOT need it! This is NOT a tough one! 

WORD HISTORY:
Wether- This is NOT a misspelling.  I came across this word quite by accident, which then prompted me to check into it. To my recollection, I had never heard of it (keep reading). It certainly is not common in the U.S., but perhaps it is still used in England? Or by people involved with animals, especially with sheep? Anyway let's broaden our language knowledge at bit. The word now means "a male sheep (ram) or goat, usually one that has been castrated." Originally it meant "an animal (usually a lamb) of one year or less." It goes back to the Indo European root "wet," which meant "year." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "wethruz" or "wethraz." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) wether "male sheep, ram." Above, I mentioned that I didn't recall ever hearing of the term, but during my research on the word, I found that it is the second part of "bellwether," a term still much in use, usually as to "leader in trends" or regarding election results. The original meaning of "bellwether" was "a male sheep or goat with a bell around its neck, which led the rest of the herd." German has "Widder," with similar meaning to its English cousin. Apparently the word has died out, or is of very limited use, in other Germanic languages, as for instance, both English and Dutch now use "ram" in common speech.

Capitalism & Long Term, Broad-based Prosperity, Part One

Can capitalism create broad-based prosperity for a long period of time? Progressives have argued that capitalism can only sustain full employment and reasonable wages (and benefits) during times of major war, when large parts of the working population serves in the military, leaving job openings to the civilian population. The scarcity of labor then drives up wages (and potentially benefits), as businesses try to attract and keep workers. When I was much younger, this was one of the big economic arguments between both sides of the political spectrum, as the political feelings of the Vietnam War and the Cold War also stirred debate about economics, particularly capitalism.

When I studied economics in college, the term often used to describe the American economy of those times was "mixed." Our economy was basically "free enterprise" (I don't hear that term used as much anymore); that is, privately owned businesses, but with government regulations (federal, state or local) of certain business activities or practices* and with government programs, such as Social Security, income or medical assistance for certain elements of the population, usually elderly, although not necessarily poor, or for low income people, financed by special taxes or.by taxes paid into the general fund, which gave the American economy a socialist element (in the sense of 'shared responsibility in caring for others'). Laws and programs put in place during the Great Depression, and then during World War Two, and the expansion of American labor unions, helped smooth out the high level of income disparity prevalent before the Great Depression. Disparity remained relatively contained until the late 1970s, and it has only grown since that time, with huge increases in inequality since the late 1980s.

In Part Two I will have some data for various years.

* Just for example, "child labor laws" prohibited children being exploit...ah, I mean being employed by business. Minimum wage laws are self-explanatory, and overtime laws gave employees the right to higher wages after working so many hours, usually 40 hours per week. Banking laws kept traditional banking, like checking/savings accounts and home/auto loans, separate from riskier investment banking, like investing money in the stock market.

WORD HISTORY:
Long- This is the adjective meaning "measurement distance of a physical object or a duration of time." It is sometimes also used as an adverb. The word goes back to Indo European "dlonghos," which meant "long." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "lang(g)az," with the same meaning. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "lang" and "long," depending upon dialect, and it was quite some time before the spelling "long" won out. Very common in the other Germanic languages: German, Low German, Frisian, and Dutch all have "lang," pronounced similarly to "long", although some Low German dialect has "lank," with the harder ending sound. Norwegian and Danish also have "lang," Swedish has "lång," and Icelandic has "langur."

"Gandhi," The Movie & History

Updated August 24, 2014: The producer and director of "Gandhi," Sir Richard Attenborough, died today just days short of his 91st birthday. This is a series of four articles I did on the movie and the actual history of Gandhi and India. I relied heavily upon notes I made from a book I once owned for much of the information in these articles: "Gandhi: A Life," by Yogesh Chadha, published in New York by John Wiley and Sons, 1997.

The film "Gandhi" was released in late 1982. The movie was more than three hours in length and was produced and directed by English actor/director Sir Richard Attenborough. Just a couple of years after the film was released, I actually met one of the Indian actors of the film (relatively minor role), as we were staying in the same hotel in Frankfurt, (then, West) Germany. "Gandhi" won the Academy Award for "Best Picture" and Richard Attenborough won the Oscar for "Best Director."

If you have never seen this movie, PLEASE do so. In a world filled with such troubles as we have today, I can't believe you would EVER regret it. The film deals with the life of Mohandas Gandhi,* who was born in Porbandar, on the western coast of India. The movie traces much of Gandhi's adult life from the time he went to southern Africa (Natal, a British colony) as an attorney to represent an Indian business.** There he met ruthless discrimination and became determined to fight it, albeit peacefully. He gradually organized the relatively small Indian community in the colony and gave the colonial authorities more than they could handle, achieving some significant civil rights victories for Indians in South Africa. This made Gandhi a force to be reckoned with years later when he returned to his homeland, then too a colony of the British Empire.

Gandhi gradually assumed the leadership of a movement to bring independence to India, a process that took Gandhi and his followers nearly three decades to achieve. During that time he also worked to bring attention to India's excruciating poverty and to try to bridge religious differences within the populace. His plan and beliefs for independence were governed by peaceful non-cooperation with the British and Indian princely authorities. With newsreels shown in movie houses all over the world, Gandhi's peaceful protests were filmed being forcefully put down by colonial police or military forces, a sight that gradually lowered British prestige, but which raised Gandhi's stature throughout the world, including in Britain. Some of Gandhi's followers became frustrated as the Mahatma (see "Word History" below) plodded along against British imperial rule, but he seems to have wanted to prepare Indians for the assumption of self rule.

Just a little history overview: Britain firmly established itself in India during the mid 1700s, but it must be noted that the "India" of those times was far larger than the present nation, as it included what is today Pakistan and Bangladesh. The British ran a colonial government in India, but they also relied heavily upon regional Indian princes to govern the immense country. The northwestern areas and the eastern areas were heavily Muslim in religion, while Hindus generally had a majority in the rest of the country (and overall), although Muslim minorities were widespread. As Indians strove for independence from Britain under the overall leadership of Gandhi, religious differences in India were relatively muted, but once Britain agreed to grant Indian independence in the future, the question of how religion would be handled in the governing of the country became a red-hot issue. Gandhi, while a Hindu, embraced people of all faiths, including Christians, Muslims, Sikhs and Jews, but while he was highly respected by all groups within India, his tolerance of other religions was not accepted by everyone, and religious-based violence erupted. Even Gandhi could not defeat the terrible feelings and hatred caused by the bloodshed, and in spite of his attempts to hold the nation together, a major movement developed among India's Muslim population to form a separate Muslim-majority state to be called "Pakistan." In the end, India was divided, with an independent Pakistan comprising two distinct regions, one in the northwest and one in the east, but separated by a thousand miles, and then the rest of India, with a Hindu majority, but with a substantial Muslim minority, as it remains to this day. Later the eastern part of Pakistan, initially known as East Pakistan, became independent as Bangladesh in the early 1970s.

Next, in Part Two I'll cover a few events in Gandhi's life.

* We Americans "tend" to pronounce the name as "gawn-dee," but British pronunciation "tends" to be more "gandee," which rhymes with, ah...Randy. I just thought that up. Gandhi was portrayed in the movie by actor Ben Kingsley, who is of Indian descent on his father's side. Kingsley won the Academy Award for Best Actor for his excellent performance as the peaceful Indian revolutionary.

** Gandhi had studied law in London, England.

Photo is of DVD edition released in 2001 by Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment.

WORD HISTORY:
Mahatma-This is a title given in India to someone as a sign of great respect, typically for their great knowledge and ability to give counsel to others; literally it means "great soul." It is a compound, with the first part tracing back to Indo European "megh," which meant "great." The second part, "atman," means "soul, spirit," but its original meaning was "breath." This gave Old English and its other Germanic relatives their original word for "breath," which was "aethm" in Old English. German still has "Atem" as its word for "breath" (as well as the verb "atmen," "to breathe"). The compound "mahatman" goes back to Sanskrit (an early Indo European language/dialect). "Mahatma" came into some usage in English in the latter half of the 1800s, as Britain ruled India in those times, but it really became known due to its application to Mohandas Gandhi, aka "Mahatma Gandhi."

Unions & Allies Need A Plan

A number of months ago, a union member friend of mine and I were talking about the decision to try to recall the Governor of Wisconsin, Republican Scott Walker. We both agreed that while we certainly didn't like Walker, the recall idea was not a good one. It was overreach and it was made in haste and in anger. I certainly understand the anger, but these kinds of decisions need to be thought through. The whole thing was terribly misguided, as it used valuable resources of money and effort that will be sorely needed in this year's election in the fall. Walker's success has now put unions on the spot, although I'm not so sure as much as some people believe. At least let's hope not, but that remains to be seen.

Why did the effort fail? It wasn't because Walker's opponents didn't try. Many gave their all, but the recall gave conservative donors and groups a single target on which to concentrate their efforts. In most cases, and maybe all cases, unions and Democrats cannot financially compete with the kinds of financial resources available to the political right.* While Walker's opponents blame these huge sums of money poured into Wisconsin to save the Governor as being the reason, that's not the only reason Walker held on. You must remember, many, and probably most, Americans have only a casual interest in politics. You can say Americans need to pay more attention, stomp your feet, throw a tantrum, or whatever, but that's not going to change that fact at the moment. There are times Americans pay somewhat more attention to political issues, and perhaps this time Wisconsinites did so, but overall, recalls have a difficult time, as people do not want perpetual elections. If Walker had been defeated, the situation in Wisconsin would not have improved, as Republicans would have then targeted Tom Barrett, who was Walker's Democratic opponent on the ballot. The political battle would have then raged against him. People want some sort of peace and quiet for a while. My God, here in Ohio, a key battleground state, you can't put on the television for fifteen minutes without seeing several ads for both sides, and it's only June! It gets on your damned nerves, and I'm interested in politics. How do you think Ohioans far less interested in politics feel? And I can only imagine how relieved Wisconsinites must feel now that the recall is over.

The thing is, now unions and their allies need a plan to thwart the plan of destruction that has already been plotted by the corporate bigwigs and their allies, unfortunately some of whom are terribly misguided, as they are people of average means. Make no mistake about it, the corporate leaders and wealthy interests are moving in for the kill. The 2008 elections, the costly struggle over health care, the 2010 elections, the Wisconsin debacle, the fight in Ohio over collective bargaining rights, the coming elections, and other issues I've undoubtedly forgotten have all put a strain on the finances and organizations of America's labor movement, and of progressives in general. This is just what our opponents want, a battle on many fronts where progressive resources are dissipated. The sums of money being raised by the other side only goes to show that they DO NOT need more tax cuts. More tax cuts for the super wealthy lead to more donations to conservative candidates and groups, helping to elect more "tax cutters" and supporters of the right wing agenda, which, if left unchecked, will continue toward an out and out fascist-like system.

Progressive leaders of varying viewpoints, from unions to Democratic Party leaders to leaders of the "Occupy" movements nationwide, need to sit down together and work out a plan to combat those who will totally dominate the country if the labor movement goes down. Then no one will be secure in their income or benefits, including non-union workers, some of whom erroneously seem to think they'll somehow be exempt from cuts. Workers at all levels must be shown what can happen to THEM if the already rich and powerful become even more rich and powerful. Efforts must be thought through, with financial and organizational resources strategically committed to where they can do the most good. Running third party candidates will only serve to help the opposition. THINK! Let's NOT learn the lesson of disunity the hard way! Would you prefer a whole bunch of Scott Walkers in office across the country, including in the presidency? Progressives can't be "purists," but certainly a fairer society must be at the core of principles. Not everyone will always agree on every single issue, but if "fairness" remains at the center of issues, the disagreements hopefully can be limited to details, rather than to overall substance.

* Remember folks, the wealthiest 400 families in America have as much wealth as the bottom 150,000,000 (that's 150 million!). If you think wealth isn't concentrated in America, think again!

WORD HISTORY:
Plan-This word, a close relative of "plain" and "plane," goes back to Indo European "pleh," which had the notion of "flat, spread out." This gave its Latin offspring "planus," which meant "flat surface." French, a Latin-based language, had "plant," which initially meant "layout of a building." The whole concept of "plan" goes back to "laying out a drawing/design on a 'flat' surface." English borrowed the word from French around 1700, and gradually "plan" broadened in meaning to just about any "design," whether by drawing or in the mind. The verb came from the noun in the 1700s. It was also borrowed by German as "Plan" (German nouns are capitalized).

Help Limit The Power Of The Rich & Powerful-VOTE!

Those old enough should remember Ross Perot's remark about the trade legislation of the early and mid 1990s, that it would cause a "large sucking sound" of American jobs being sent elsewhere.* Actually the "sucking sound" has been around for decades now, but we just didn't realize what it was, or maybe we just didn't want to know what it was. It has been the sound of money and wealth being sucked out of the wallets, pocketbooks, bank accounts, and home values of just about everyone living on the under side of a million bucks, give or take a few hundred thousand. A TREMENDOUS transfer of wealth has been taking place. Don't look the other way anymore folks, because this is serious. Reality can be tough to face, but if you supported, or "turned a blind eye to" the policies of the past three plus decades, don't be ashamed to admit your mistake. It is NOT too late, but action must come soon.

We barely escaped a total worldwide economic meltdown comparable to the Great Depression, and probably worse, just a few years ago. Why? Many people worldwide took time to forget all of the scare tactics used "to keep them in line" for the conservative; that is, wealthy interests' cause. Money was pumped into the world economy to avert an even more serious downturn, and an even "Greater Depression" instead became the "Great Recession." We are NOT out of the woods! The world economy is still hanging by a thread, and the rightwing elitists around the world have counterattacked by declaring "austerity" is the only way out; of course, "austerity" means YOU have to give up money or wealth and tighten your belt, not the wealthiest among us. Quite the contrary, we are still being fed the nonsense that "we" need to give tax cuts to wealthy people, because they are "the job creators." With all of the tax cuts given the rich over the past thirty plus years, we should be advertising on Mars for "help wanted," as there should be a labor shortage here on Earth. Conservatives keep telling us we have to give tax cuts to rich folks, or we're going to go to hell in a hand basket. Not only that, but we should further remove regulations on the Interests so they'll give us jobs. It is time for us to take matters into OUR hands, not leave things in the hands of the greediest of the greedy. We DO have potential power, but we're not united in the cause to have some control over our own lives. Giving more money to the wealthy is not going to solve our problems. For a variety of reasons, including OUR own mistakes,** we have UNDER consumption, not OVER consumption of goods and services.*** If you own a small business, this should very much concern you. You need customers! There's a major limit to how many products and services the wealthy can buy from you. Remember folks, we're all in this together. I've been in business myself, so I'm NOT anti-business. Don't be fooled by this "If you don't support tax cuts for the rich, and the repeal of every regulation in sight, you're anti-business." That's absolute NONSENSE!

If you are not registered to vote, or if you are registered, but haven't updated your address or other information with your voter registration officials (usually done by counties), please do so NOW! DON'T WAIT! Also, find out IN DETAIL (and I'd suggest, IN WRITING) what you need to be able to vote when you go to the polls (photo ID or whatever), or to vote absentee (now often done by mail). Don't think because you did this or that in the last election that things are necessarily the same. Some states have changed their laws. Don't risk being turned away from the polls, or having your ballot being challenged, and perhaps not counted, by not complying with the existing laws. Not liking the law changes is not an excuse! Like it, not like it, Republicans have tried to restrict voting under the guise of trying to keep non citizens from voting. I don't want non citizens to vote either, but I don't want eligible voters to be deprived of their basic rights over technicalities. Also, DON'T BE DISCOURAGED by any registration or voting law changes in your state. That's what they're hoping for! They DON'T want YOU to vote! The fewer average and poor people who vote, the bigger the impact of those in the upper incomes and their misguided allies. Don't cede your voice to others by not voting!

* Ross Perot became a billionaire at a time of more overall regulation of the American economy and when income distribution was far less concentrated. Hm, wonder how he did it?

** Remember too, purist capitalists and free marketers have shunned any responsibility for the economic mess. They have chosen to rewrite the Old Testament as "In the beginning, January 20, 2009, God created the heavens and the Earth." Don't be like these money-grubbing, irresponsible superegos. We all have made mistakes, and we need to acknowledge that.

*** I am working on another related article that will deal with the question of whether purist capitalism can provide broad-based prosperity for a considerable length of time, without war(s). To be clear, communism failed! So what about its counterpart?

WORD HISTORY:
Rook-English has two basic words "rook." The first "seems" to go back to Indo European "krokh/krekh," which may have meant "crow, blackbird," although ancient Sanskrit, an early form of Indo European, had a word that meant "male bird, rooster." This gave Old Germanic "(k)hrokaz," which meant "crow." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hroc," with the same meaning. This later became "rok," before the modern spelling. The word is seldom used anymore, at least not in the U.S. or Canada. By the late 1500s, this gave English a verb form, meaning "to cheat," perhaps from the notion of the bird "stealing food from other birds." When I was a kid, it was common to hear "I got rooked," or "Don't rook me," but I don't often hear the word as much anymore. Forms of the word in the other Germanic languages have all either died out, or like their English relative, they are seldom used. Interestingly, German has the now little used noun "Ruch," which means "poorly thought of by others, bad reputation," but whether this is a relative of the English word, I'm not certain, although the idea of the English meaning "cheat" and the German meaning "bad reputation" are certainly similar.

The second, and more common modern word "rook," meaning "a playing piece for chess," has an unclear origin, although it seems to trace back to Hindi "rut," the name used for "a playing piece representing chariot mounted forces in the original game of chess," as chess originated in India at least 1500 years ago.^ The Persians borrowed the game and the word as "rukh." Later, when Persia was conquered by Muslims, Arabic borrowed the word as "rukhkh." The spread of Islam into southwestern Europe eventually spread the game and the word to give Old French "roc," and this was borrowed into English in the late 1200s or early 1300s.

^ The original game from India was based upon military forces; thus, "chariot mounted forces" (they also used pieces to represent cavalry, infantry and elephant mounted forces). The later change in the names of the game pieces in Europe (as in "Bishop" and "Knight") came as the Church and nobility were powerful forces in European society. Hindi is an Indo European language related to English further down the family tree, as is Persian.

Mining For More Of Our Information

Websites and other businesses never rest in their quest to mine for more information on all of us. The information is then often sold to other businesses,* although some stores "claim" they only use the information to be able to tailor deals to us. In these cases, stores have their own discount cards issued to patrons, of course, AFTER the patrons fill out a form with lots of personal information. Shoppers must then present the card at checkout to receive any discounts on purchased items. Facebook, Google and other web businesses seem to always be asking for some tidbit from us; "Add your cell phone number to our records so we can send you info, or if you forget your password." Call to buy or inquire about an advertised item, what is the first thing they want? Your phone number, so they can then drive your crazy with calls about other "deals."** It never ends. With online sites, the next thing you find out is that there was a security breach and your personal info might be in the hands of criminals. These companies don't need all of this info! Now there have been recent scams of companies using telemarketers or robots to dial numbers in sequence to see which numbers are active; that is, where they get ringing and no message saying the number is not in service, or they get an answering machines or voice mail, or naturally a live person. Often these calls come from outside the United States as a way to circumvent the law. They also are often, but not always, recorded messages and another violation of the law. Perhaps we're fighting a losing battle, but it's OUR information and OUR privacy, protect it and use it wisely.

* I'm sure you've seen a "Privacy Policy" from many businesses. The thing is, who the hell takes the time to read the damned thing? They naturally want to keep things complicated so they can then say, "Well we gave you our policy and you didn't object." These policies often have clauses about sharing information with "affiliated" companies, which is another way to get around the intent of the law, especially for large corporations with many diverse companies under a corporate umbrella. In other words, if Randy sold you a fishing rod, does that mean Randy can now contact you to sell you a box of donuts from his "affiliated" doughnut shop? Or how about some auto insurance from his insurance agency? Or perhaps you'd like a book from his publishing company? And then, of course, I'm sure you'd enjoy a pizza from his pizza shop! (I AM joking about this stuff. I DON'T have a pizza shop! Ah OK, or an insurance company or a publishing company or....)

** Remember folks, once you buy or inquire and you give them your number, they are NOT bound by the "Do Not Call" laws, unless you eventually tell them to stop harassing, I mean, calling you. They then still have thirty days to remove your name from their call lists. Violations can be reported, even online, to the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) or to many state governments, but to be quite honest, they are overwhelmed, and as I mentioned above, advances in technology have given the bad guys ways to disguise their identities, or to call from places outside the U.S., making it difficult to trace the calls. Not every organization is covered by the Do Not Call law, as political organizations and candidates can contact you, as can charitable organizations. Debt collectors may also call you, but there are restrictions.

WORD HISTORY:
Mine-This is the noun, as in "coal mine." The origins of this word are uncertain, but it apparently goes back to Old Celtic "meini," which seems to have meant "ore," but also "location to dig for ore." Gaulish,^ a Celtic dialect, had "mena," with the same meanings, and this was borrowed into Latin as "mina." This gave Old French, a Latin-based language, "mine," which was then borrowed by English circa 1300. The later additional meaning, "explosives usually planted in excavated ground," came from the idea of military engineers digging "mines;" that is, "tunnels, excavations," under enemy positions and then filling them with explosives to destroy them. The word then transferred to the explosive device itself, a "mine." This term then was even used for such explosive devices used at sea, and the ships used for distributing these sea mines were called "mine layers." The verb form "mine," meaning "to dig an (ore) mine," comes from the noun. Once the "explosive device" meaning emerged for the noun, so did the additional meaning for the verb; that is, "to dig and lay (explosive) mines in an area."

^ The Gauls were a Celtic tribal confederation who lived in what is now much of modern France, and indeed, the area was known as "Gaul," even after it was conquered by the Romans. The term "France" came later after the Germanic speaking Franks conquered much of the same area.

Unpatriotic-Their Allegiance Is To Wealth

This was first published in June 2012, but now, in 2017, Trump and Republicans will begin a drive to give big cut taxes to billionaires, with likely consequences for average and poor folks when the budget cuts come.


In case you missed this story, there is a growing number of wealthy "Americans" giving up their American citizenship, often to avoid paying taxes. Since the administration of George W. Bush U.S. tax officials have made an effort to locate Americans living overseas who make or hold large sums to collect taxes on their incomes.* Last year nearly 1800 of these very wealthy folks gave up their American citizenship in Switzerland.** Many have become "stateless," as they are not citizens of ANY country. And some people dare to call Occupy Wall Street protesters "unpatriotic." Reports suggest there are more than 4500 of these stateless super wealthy folks worldwide, worth nearly 6.5 trillion; that's with a "t." Understand, there are many Americans living overseas for a wide variety of reasons: military service, a spouse and children of military personnel serving overseas, government positions, business positions, education, etc. Do not confuse these people with the super wealthy, unpatriotic former Americans.

* It is complicated, but hey, this is about taxes! From what I can come up with, Americans overseas earning over about $100,000 are those who get hit, but even then, there are credits deducted for paying taxes to other countries. In other words, if you live in another country, make a half million, for example, you may pay little or no American tax because you paid tax in country XYZ, or to several countries, as some of the super wealthy have homes in numerous countries.

** You don't think they went to Switzerland because of secret Swiss bank accounts, do you? Ah c'mon now! You mean they'd try to hide money? Haha Laws passed in the 2000s have pried open some of these "secret" accounts, however. 

WORD HISTORY:
Patriot-This word traces back to Indo European “phater/phter/phaeter/pater,” which meant "father." This then gave its Greek offspring "pater," which then spawned "patris," "fatherland," which then produced "patriotes," meaning "from the same country." Latin borrowed the word as "patriota," "a countryman." This gave French "compatriot" and the shorter "patriote," both with the meaning "fellow countryman." English borrowed the word from French in the late 1500s, when the word was already developing the additional sense "loyal supporter of one's country."

Accepting Change, Sometimes Grudgingly

Even John Wayne accepted change, albeit often grudgingly. In one of his later movies, "Big Jake," a favorite of mine, the story has many elements of the changing of the times, and of the Duke's gradual, but not total, acceptance of those changes. It was set in the early 1900s, and while horse travel still dominated, the automobile, a contraption viewed with contempt by Wayne's character, had entered the scene in the "Old West." The movie shows the limits of the modern vehicle, as the good guys, in automobiles, chase the bad guys, who are on horseback. Horses can climb much rough terrain, something automobiles cannot do. Both horses and automobiles need water and "fuel," with the fuel for horses being of the food variety, of course. Two of Wayne's sons* in the film like the new automatic handguns and rifles with telescopic sights, as opposed to Wayne's old-fashioned "six shooter," standard rifle, and "sawed-off shotgun." Wayne tells the one son to use the new rifle to shoot a deer that is off in the distance, but the son refuses to shoot the deer to make a point, displaying the emerging new morality.** When Wayne tells him "we need food," the boy then complies, astounding Wayne with his perfect shot at great distance. Wayne begins to accept the modern rifle as an improvement over the old. Wayne gets an old Indian friend to help him, and the two lament the disappearance of the buffalo from the American Plains, a travesty both progressives and conservatives could agree upon.*** In a poignant moment, Wayne tells him, "Things change."

In the final showdown, one son, armed with the automatic handgun, takes down a top gunslinger with a six shooter. The other son has the new rifle, but he misses the first shot, showing that new things aren't infallible, but he nails the bad guy with his second shot. In the end, the bad guys, led by veteran actor Richard Boone, are killed and Wayne's kidnapped grandson is freed (the "old" saving the "new"). Wayne's Indian friend is killed in the shootout, just as the Indians have also disappeared from the Plains.  

* One son played by the Duke's real life son, Patrick, and the other played by Robert Mitchum's son, Christopher.

** Things are not so black and white, as hunters associated with my family always sought to protect wildlife from abuse and overkill, but I get the point. 

*** As I've noted many times before, unfettered capitalism says, "Get the money, get the money, get the money. The hell with buffalo, the landscape, or Mother Nature." The scary question is, where would many of today's Republican leaders come down on such an issue?

WORD HISTORY:
Change-This word goes back to Indo European "kamb," which had the notion of "bent, crooked." This was passed on to its Old Celtic^ offspring, seemingly intact, as "kamb." Latin borrowed the term as "cambire," by which time the notion of "bent, crooked" had developed the secondary idea of "altered, changed," and the notion of "altered" then further developed into "change hands;" that is, "exchange, barter." This then became Latin "cambiare" and it was inherited by Latin-based Old French^^ as "changier," although still with the primary meaning "alter." English borrowed the word from French as "change" in the 1200s. The noun form has the same basic history, except the Latin verb produced the noun "cambio," meaning "an exchange, bartering." Old French inherited it as "change," which was then picked up by English in the early 1200s.The idea of "balance sum returned from a payment" (as in, "The price was $5.99, and here's the 'change' from your $10.00") developed in the late 1500s or the early 1600s.

^ Celtic is a branch of the Indo European family of languages. Its dialects were once widespread in Europe, but only a few survive as modern languages; for example, Scots/Scottish Gaelic, Irish (Gaelic), Welsh, and Breton (spoken in Brittany, France). These languages are all related to English, but further down the family tree.

^^ Old French was the dialect spoken in what is now much of France, part of Belgium, part of Switzerland, and part of Luxembourg. When the Romans conquered this area, circa 50 B.C., the area was largely Celtic speaking, but gradually Latin spread throughout, giving something of a mixture, but with Latin dominating. Germanic tribes conquered, settled, or traversed parts of the region, giving a Germanic layer to the language; in fact, the terms "France" and "French" are derived from the Germanic tribe the Franks, and "Burgundy" is derived from the Germanic tribe the Burgundians. Later still, the North Germanic "Northmen" raided, then settled in, an area that came to be called "Normandy," derived from "Northmen," as is the name of the inhabitants, the "Normans." All of these factors influenced Old French, and thus modern French, but Latin remained the primary component.

Fear Drives The Political Ads, But... Part Two

While humans are by nature pretty much apprehensive about change, much of the political right "fears" change, some pathologically so. The ultra modern American right seems to not only want to stop change, or slow it down, but to reverse course to some unknown destination in the past. The past is a safe place, because even if there were bad times, we know the outcome. With the future, things are truly never certain. The constant barrage about "hate the government," "never trust government," "government IS the problem, not the solution," "fear the government" has played with the minds of many, and not to their own self interest, but to the advantage of corporations and other wealthy interests, who help fund ad campaigns of misinformation, disinformation and outright lies designed to scare people with irrational fears of government. I'm not naive, the political left uses fear too, but elderly and poor people are rightly fearful the conservatives, especially the ultra conservatives, will take away or curtail their security benefits. Like a gambler who can't stop trying to beat the odds, and like the bankers and others who gambled on the housing market, there are those who want to gamble Social Security money in the stock market. They will never do it if they aren't making the rules, and their number one rule will be "Heads they win, tails you lose."

Remember, capitalism is NOT about providing for everyone, or getting you medical care, or sending your kids or grandchildren to school. It is about one thing, making money. Pure capitalists see fairness as "I beat you, I get the rewards." You don't have to be a communist to see that communism, in the big picture, provided a counterbalance to capitalism for decades. Capitalists were often held in check, to some degree, by the fear that average people would turn to communism as a refuge from ruthless capitalists. The thing was, communism was fatally flawed by providing no incentives for people to strive for achievement; that is, more money, and by using total force to dominate. Like it, not like it, most people want more; we all want a better life and we all have selfishness in us. The problem comes when one group dominates and can then make the rules to benefit themselves. This little joking statement has much truth to it: "I want everyone to be treated fairly, but I just want to be treated more fairly than you." Capitalists now see themselves as the victors. To the victors go the spoils, and these ruthless people are raking in the spoils, at YOUR expense. It isn't by magic that income inequality has grown so much.

All the while the income gap has increased, the "un-rich" have remained divided over all sorts of issues, I'm certain to the absolute glee of the ruthless and greedy. When we are divided, they win, because we aren't paying enough attention to their actions. Changes in America and the world have given many people an "angst" (see "Word History" below), and the ultra conservatives plan to keep that "angst" in place. Fear of minorities, fear of unions, fear of people of different faiths, fear of people with odd sounding names, fear, fear, and more fear. The fear that should be most prevalent should be the fear of what the wealthy and the interests will continue to do to us.   

WORD HISTORY:
Angst-This word, meaning "irrational or unexplained unease, sense of fear," goes back to Indo European "(h)engh," which had the notion of "tight, narrow, constricted." This produced the variant, "angh," with the same basic meaning, but also meaning "constricted to the point of pain, distress," which then gave its Old Germanic offspring "anguz," with the same basic meaning. The West Germanic branch of Germanic had "angust," which gave Old English "angnes" and "angsumnes," both with the meaning "pain or distress of the body or mind." These words eventually died out in English, however, the same West Germanic word gave Old High German "angust, which then became "angest" and then the modern form "Angst." During the 1800s, the word came to be used among the medical community in regard to psychology, even somewhat in English, especially a bit later under the influence of Sigmund Freud's ideas on the human mind. There seems to be no "official" date the word was borrowed into English, but during the 1930s and early 1940s the word had spread more into general usage.   

Fear Drives The Political Ads, But...

Politics is always about "fear" to some degree, often to a large degree. All political parties use it, especially America's two main parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. Fear can make people behave irrationally, and at times, both parties would prefer that you would just listen to their ads, panic, and not "think." The question is, is one party really playing more on irrational fear than the other? My answer is "yes." Americans of the right or the left have always had skepticism of government; after all, the nation was founded in revolution against rule by England, but interestingly, the collective scandals of Republican Richard Nixon's administration* made the country even more skeptical, with many folks seemingly seeing conspiracies in just about every event thereafter. Some skepticism is one thing, overload on conspiracies isn't good for your mental health, folks. Take a deep breath or two and THINK.

Since Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980, there has been a growing ultra-conservative, anti-government movement that has gradually taken over the Republican Party. Even some Republicans have noted that Reagan would not be able to win his party's nomination in this day and age, as he was "too moderate." Twenty years ago President George Bush, Sr. was essentially held hostage by the extreme right wing of the GOP, a right wing that never really got behind him in his reelection bid. When Democrat Bill Clinton won the election, this ultra right movement attacked him in unrelenting manner, with some even accusing the President of murder.** By the mid to late 1990s, right wing militia groups had grown and a few extremists blew up a federal office building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and injuring hundreds more. The poison has only grown since then, as George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq mobilized major opposition to his administration, as the "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction," the reason given by Bush for going to war, were not found.*** These examples and many more have left a dizzying number of conspiracy-like claims by people in both parties against one another.

When Barack Obama was elected as President of the United States, right wing and white militia membership rose as fear of the first African-American president gripped these people.**** Since that time, conservative groups, led by the rise of the "Tea Party," have stoked the fires of paranoia against Obama and Democrats, often charging or implying that the President would take away guns from all Americans, no matter how law abiding, or that he was not American born, or that he was a secret Muslim seeking to destroy the country from within, or that he was out to destroy religion, or that he was seeking to bankrupt the country (conveniently forgetting the debts piled up by his Republican predecessor, indeed, predecessors). As some of the saner elements of the "media world" have noted, there hasn't been any attempt to ban guns, and Ted Nugent's recent display was way out there, folks, although Ted's words seemed to almost indicate that Obama was on his way at that very moment to disarm all in the crowd. These folks and others need to get a grip on themselves. Sadly, few if any Republican leaders have stepped forward to squelch the nonsense or the hate mongering. Conservative talk radio or television hosts have become rather notorious for spewing venom and egging on an element of the population whose very sanity is in question.

On the other side, Democrats claim Republican budget cuts and program changes will result in the destruction of government programs necessary for elderly and poor Americans. Republicans say it is untrue, but when you talk about privatizing all or parts of these programs, that means lots of greedy people will try to get their hands on the tons of money used for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Will "free markets" care if you or your parents or your grandparents have dependable income or medical care? Do you trust for profit business people to make sure you don't live in abject poverty or in sickness or misery from serious illness?*****  The desire by many in the GOP for the elimination of Legal Aid will deprive poor folks of legal advice and representation in this complex legalistic society we have. What if YOU fall on hard times? We like to criticize "government bureaucrats," but would you prefer to seek assistance from a government employee who collects a salary in the work force, or from a business person interested in profit only?  

More in "Part Two-Angst"

* President Nixon was often under political fire for his policies, primarily regarding the Vietnam War, a war that had become increasingly unpopular and increasingly divisive. To keep this simple, some of Nixon's top administration officials were involved in orchestrating a break-in of the Democratic headquarters in one of the buildings in the Watergate complex in Washington. The burglars planted bugging devices and checked or photographed some documents. These officials then tried to cover up their misdeeds, as several of the actual burglars were arrested. The whole scandal would require a separate article, or series of articles, but in the end, Nixon resigned, having been accused in the cover up and obstruction of justice. A number of Americans felt the President was directly involved in authorizing the break-in.

** Vince Foster was a White House official during the first few months of Bill Clinton's administration. He was found dead in a park in suburban Washington D.C. in what various law enforcement agencies concluded was a suicide. Later, Special Prosecutor Ken Starr (a Republican) concluded the same. Right wing groups charged that Bill Clinton, or Hillary Clinton, or both, were really behind Foster's death, an allegation that lingers to this day. 

*** I guess I should say that the very close and contentious election of 2000 just laid a powder keg out waiting for a lit match to touch the fuse. For those too young or unaware, the 2000 election brought a razor-thin victory to George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore. In hotly contested Florida, Bush was awarded the state, and therefore the presidency, by only some 500 votes out of several million votes cast in that state.

**** Let me make one thing perfectly clear (ah, that might not be a great choice of words, but what the hell, I'll stick with it; after all, I mentioned Nixon), I'm NOT saying any or all criticism of Obama is racist or bigoted, and I have criticism of some things he's done myself. We need an open discussion of issues and criticism of political leaders' ideas is part of that discussion. However, there's no question in my mind that racism and bigotry lie behind a certain element in the country (interestingly, "a minority") who are willing to bring the whole country down to discredit Obama. They are NOT afraid he will fail, they are afraid he will succeed, thus making a case for another possible future African-American president.

***** I've noted in articles before that my father was a staunch Republican, but once retired, he began to see how important Social Security and Medicare were. After the GOP took control of Congress in the mid 1990s and Republicans began to talk about "privatizing" Social Security, he started to criticize their ideas, worrying that wealthy business people couldn't "wait to get their hands on that (Social Security) money," as he told me.  

WORD HISTORY:
Thing-The ultimate origin of this common word is unclear, but Old Germanic had "thengan" or "thingan," which meant "council or assembly of officials," but it also began to develop the secondary meaning "matters discussed by the assembly." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "thing," which kept the "assembly (meeting)" idea, as well as the "matters discussed" meaning. Gradually the secondary meaning became the primary meaning in the Germanic languages, as other words replaced the meaning "assembly," although traces of the original meaning survive, as Iceland's parliament is the "Althing." Over time, the idea of "matters discussed," broadened to "matters in general," and then even to "objects." Common in the other Germanic languages, all with the same basic meaning as their close English relative: German and Low German Saxon have "Ding," some Low German dialect has "dinkj, "West Frisian and Dutch have "ding," Norwegian, Danish and Swedish all have "ting," and Icelandic has "thing."