History of Ghettos, Part Two

Ghettos in America are somewhat complicated and difficult to classify, since there are such a wide range of racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. As immigrants came to America, they tended to settle in close proximity to one another out of necessity and level of social comfort. If you were Polish, for instance, you were apt to feel more at ease, at least for a while, around fellow Poles as you adapted to your new country. Obviously language played a big role, as having neighbors who spoke your language helped, but also religious beliefs played an important role, and churches or synagogues were built in the immediate neighborhood of the respective religion,* and also often had services conducted in a particular language for the immigrant population of the neighborhood. The question really is, were these areas "ghettos?" In the general sense used in Europe for Jews, the answer is probably "no." People came to America, settled together in an area, and later immigrants also settled in that area. While members of an immigrant community may not have always been "welcome" in other areas, they were not forced to live in a certain neighborhood by authorities.

Now, the Irish "may" be something of an exception to this. When Irish immigrants came to America, they were generally very poor and the majority were staunchly Catholic. In the early history of this country, when the population was largely made up of Protestants, Catholics were not easily accepted, as they were seen as being beholden to the Pope and to Rome, and were thus seen as "foreigners" who could not be "real Americans." The Irish tended to settle in certain areas of a city or town, and those who strayed from this practice might face severe repercussions, including death. Likewise, Asian immigrants, mainly from China in the 1800s, settled in parts of cities, particularly in the western United States, but some also moved into cities in the east, establishing so called "China Towns." Today, ethnic enclaves are seen as quaint and often desirable, but this was not always the case, and many people suffered terrible discrimination or abuse.

Of course the main separation of people in America has been based on race. After the Civil War, former black slaves were left to try to fit into a culture from which they had been excluded in virtually all ways. A separate black society had evolved over time, complete with its own form of English dialect in many cases. "In theory" Black Americans could live, work, worship, and enjoy life anywhere in America, but in reality, things were pretty much the opposite, especially in the southern areas of the country, where much of the black population lived. Later, as Black Americans sought employment opportunities, many moved northward, occupying neighborhoods of cities gradually, or sometimes hurriedly, vacated by White Americans fleeing the encroachment of the unwelcome newcomers. Like the Irish immigrants before them, Black Americans were very poor and with segregation and discrimination rampant, they had little chance of improving their lives. The black inhabited areas commonly came to be called "ghettos," and the term came to be associated with poverty, gangs and crime.

With the gradual incorporation of southwestern territories into America came a Latino population, mainly of Mexican heritage, often already living in particular parts of cities or towns (often referred to as "barrios"). Also, as Latinos from Puerto Rico** spread into some northern cities, similar population changes occurred as with Black Americans, and Latinos settled in particular areas of cities, including in a section of Harlem in New York City. Many Cubans came to America in the late 1950s when Fidel Castro and Communists took over the country in a revolution. Many of these Cuban immigrants, often middle class, settled in Florida, with Miami being a major city of settlement. In the last couple of decades, immigration, both legal and illegal,  from many Central American nations has increased, bringing increased Latino populations to many parts of the U.S. Here in Cleveland, part of the near West Side has a substantial, Latino community of diverse background, although previously it was largely Puerto Rican. Of course Los Angeles is the home of a large Latino population, but I'm not certain we can call these areas "ghettos."

Long term efforts to reduce segregation, discrimination and poverty have gradually broken down barriers and mixed the American population; however, especially in some big cities, "ghetto" areas still exist. In Europe since the 1960s, significant immigrant populations have moved into Germany, France, and Britain. In Germany, so many Turks moved into Berlin, the joke for a while was, "What is the capitol of Turkey?" Answer: "Berlin."*** Frankfurt too has a substantial immigrant population, but again, whether areas of these German, or European cities can be truly called "ghettos," is debatable. London having been the capitol of a multi-ethnic empire for so long has had people of non-English heritage for quite some time. The change in demographics has brought conflicts at times, with right-wing extremists, like the perpetrator of the massacre in Norway, seeking to oust non-native inhabitants. With the world so "small" now with the advances in technology and globalization, population shifts, which have always taken place, will continue and grow. Surviving things like droughts, floods, famine, and disease should supersede our individual backgrounds. In the end, like the castaways of "Gilligan's Island," we must all try to get along to survive.

* In more recent decades this has proven to be a problem, as "old ethnic" neighborhoods have been breaking up, or at least eroding enough, that the long established places of worship no longer "fit" the neighborhood. What I mean is, if Jews lived in a particular neighborhood 75 years ago, but now most Jews have now moved out, the neighborhood synagogue may close, just because it is no longer convenient for Jews to attend from their now more distant residences. Likewise, churches established by Germans, Slovaks, Italians or Serbians may have been converted to some other use, or kept as churches, but no longer geared to the particular group that founded the church.    

** Contrary to what Archie Bunker or Fred Sanford, of television comedy fame, thought, Puerto Ricans are American citizens!!! Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, with the President of the United States being the head of state. It is not a state, and as such, Puerto Ricans have no voting representatives in the United States Congress, nor can they cast binding votes for President.

*** For those studying German the joke is: "Was ist die Hauptstadt von der Türkei?" Antwort: "Berlin."

WORD HISTORY:
Poor-This word goes back to Indo European "pau," which had the notion of "small in size, little." This gave its Old Latin offspring "pavo-pars," which meant "getting/receiving little." This then produced Latin "pauper," which meant "poor," and Old French, a Latin-based language, inherited the word as both "poure" and "povre." These were then carried to England by the Normans and English borrowed the word as "poure" in the early 1200s, gradually replacing the native English word "earm," now the obsolete "arm" (not  the part of the body or weapon).^ It wasn't until later that the spelling followed the pronunciation to "poor."

^ While the adjective form "arm" is now archaic in English, I will do the history very soon. I already did "arm," the body part, and "arm," weapon (including the verb form meaning "to supply with weapons").

Barry Goldwater and His Philosophy

I first published this in 2007, but I decided to haul it out of the archives and to add a "Word History" to it, since I did not always include a "Word History" with every article back then. In these times of such terrible political division in America, the Goldwater-Humphrey relationship of a bygone era is important to recall. Further, Barry Goldwater would NEVER have allowed himself to be tied to the agendas of Grover Norquist,* the NRA,** or to certain so called religious groups, that seem anything but religious. I cannot imagine Goldwater signing pledges and vowing to never deviate from "their" demands, if those demands were not in the best interests of the overall country. Nor would Goldwater have proposed or endorsed ideas, only to change positions simply because a Democratic president supported those same ideas.

* Grover Norquist is the head of "Americans for Tax Reform," a cleverly disguised name, intended I'm sure, to confuse the public about the group's real intention; the continued redistribution of income from the poor and middle class to the wealthiest Americans.

** The National Rifle Association, often called "the most powerful lobby in America," and a group that has become so extreme, that if someone proposed restrictions on individuals owning a 150 mm cannon and placing it in their back yard, they would claim it to be unconstitutional. So we now have Americans legally walking around with assault weapons and being able to carry concealed weapons into bars and restaurants in Ohio. Since we've returned to the "Wild West," we need a Marshal Dillon to clean up the mess. No, restrictions on certain weapons won't stop all killings, but it might stop some, and remember, the lives saved might be yours or your loved ones. Think about it.

The article is below.

Sunday August 5, 2007

I was watching a program on C-Span about Barry Goldwater. For those of you who don't know that name, Goldwater was a long time Republican senator from Arizona and the Republican nominee for President in 1964. He lost that election to Lyndon Johnson in a landslide. Goldwater was a conservative, but he was kind of a libertarian on some issues. Just for the record, I liked Barry Goldwater, and I'll tell you why. When people asked him a question, he didn't have to stop and think about what his political adviser told him to say,  nor did he have to recall what the latest polls showed on the subject at hand. He gave an answer. That answer might not have been politically correct, but he gave an answer from his own beliefs. He was not a phony. His language was a bit "crusty," especially for those times, when the list of "no-no words" was much longer than it is today. And, it should be noted, he didn't always save his criticisms for Democrats, but some Republicans were also recipients of his sharp barbs. It was Goldwater who led a Republican group to the White House in August of 1974 to tell President Richard Nixon that he had to resign for the good of the country. At some later point, if I remember correctly, Goldwater referred to Nixon as "a lying s-of a-!"

Now, if you noticed, I said I liked Barry Goldwater. I didn't say I agreed with him on many things, but I liked him in the sense that I respected him. I recall reading many years ago, that Goldwater and Hubert Humphrey were great friends. Humphrey was a Democratic senator from Minnesota, who had also served as vice president under Lyndon Johnson. He was a liberal, to keep the terms simple. You would have thought that these two men would have been like oil and water with their different political views, but they were friends and they respected one another. They did battle on the field of politics, but at day's end, they went to dinner together.

Many years ago, when C-Span had just recently started, there was a political cartoonist on the air one day. I can't recall his name, but he was well known in those times, and I believe he had just retired. He was famous for his satirical cartoons and for skewering politicians from both political parties. The interviewer commented about such, and then asked him if, in all of his years as a political cartoonist, he'd ever known a truthful politician. He answered that he could name two, Edmund Muskie and Barry Goldwater. If I remember right, he said that while he didn't particularly agree with Goldwater on many things, he had respect for him.

To me, Goldwater was trying to hold onto a world that no longer existed in the aggregate, as it had prior to the Great Depression. He was a bold critic of New Deal programs and of government programs in general. As is sometimes said, everything has a purpose, and we need the Barry Goldwaters of the world too. Without them, the opposite point of view would run amok. It's all about some kind of balance. So we have this clash of ideas and philosophies. Neither side completely wins in America (or at least hasn't), and even highly popular FDR had his problems when the public felt he was going too far. The congressional elections of 1938 saw the Republicans come roaring back from the pit of political exile. Part of the reason why was, Roosevelt made an effort to purge critics from his own party, and even more, he attempted to pack the Supreme Court so that his programs would go unchallenged. Americans saw all of this, and they didn't like it.  They liked FDR, but they let him know enough was enough.

Goldwater was sort of the "John Wayne" of American politics of the 1960s and 1970s, and in fact, Wayne strongly supported Goldwater's presidential bid in 1964. He wanted us to stand on our own, and if we fell down, to get up, dust ourselves off and keep going. That's an admirable philosophy, but people need help at times, and in my opinion, that help can sometimes only come from government at some level, and on that point, I have to distance myself from Goldwater. Call me a liberal, or what ever you want to call me, I can take it, I have broad shoulders. In an ideal world Goldwater would have been right, but we don't live in an ideal world. Reality can be harsh, and often is. Government has a role in trying to help people to get back on their feet and to get them back into the game of life.

So Barry, I salute you for your blunt honesty and integrity, things we sorely miss in our current era. I appreciate your philosophy, even while I don't totally agree with it.

WORD HISTORY:

Arm-This is the now generally obsolete adjective^ meaning "poor," which was gradually overtaken and replaced by the word "poor" beginning in the 1200s. It goes back to Indo European "orbh," and the variant "orhm," the meaning of which seems to have varied from "ill and destitute," to "abandoned." This gave Old Germanic "arma," with the same varied meanings. This then gave Old English "earm," which later became "arm." Common throughout the other Germanic languages: German, Low German Saxon, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian all have "arm," with the meaning "poor." West Frisian has "earm," the same spelling as the Old English word, and Icelandic has "armur."

^ It is still used in some dialects in the United Kingdom.   

History of Ghettos, Part One

The idea of separating people from one another for some reason is undoubtedly so old as to be unrecorded in history. The more specific idea of separating humans due to religious, ethnic, or racial background is somewhat better documented as it related to European Jews going back to a time during the Middle Ages in the 1ate 1100s, when Christian officials (Third Lateran Council) decreed that Jews and Muslims were not permitted to have Christian servants, with further implications that Christians should not live among Jews or Muslims. Christian testimony in any legal matter against Jews was the be accepted over the testimony of Jews. The Council also decreed excommunication for Christians who practiced "usury;" that is, "charging interest on loans."* Since Jews were (and had been) excluded from many professions, but not finance, many Jews went into the field, opening new hostility toward them.** So this whole matter led to Jews being more and more excluded from general society, although that had already been going on to some degree even before this time.

By 1516, Venice forced Jews to live in one part of the city (an island) which had a wall built around it and this was the first time the term "ghetto" was used (see Word History). Not long thereafter, Rome and other European cities followed suit, and Jews frequently had to create their own society within the confines of their part of a city.*** Besides the moral issue involved here, Jewish ghettos were almost always restricted in size, thus making for overcrowding and generally poor living conditions. Some cites did not completely restrict Jews to walled in areas, and Jewish living areas then were often called the "Jewish quarter."

The American Revolution, and the subsequent French Revolution, brought changes to the way "some" people thought about separating people, especially Jews, from the rest of society. Gradually some of the barriers to Europe's Jews came down, but bigotry and hatred towards them remained among significant parts of the population, often depending upon the country in question. In Germany, Jews gradually came to be more accepted (I didn't say totally), although less so in the staunchly Catholic areas, particularly in Bavaria and Austria.**** Germany and Austria are obviously important, because of what was to come under Hitler, but my point here is to indicate that many Jews, particularly in central and northern Germany, came to see themselves and be viewed by many Germans, as "Germans." This later became VERY dangerous, as a number of German Jews believed Hitler to be something of a temporary phenomenon, and their ties to Germany also understandably made them highly reluctant to leave their homeland. Needless to say, it cost many German Jews their lives.

More in Part Two.

* Islam forbids charging interest, but the Christian world (although not every Christian) has redefined "usury" to mean "excessive" interest on loans, the definition of which is beyond the scope of this article. 

** Let's face it, while not always true, the basic old saying has much truth, "Lend a person a dollar and you've made a friend, but lend them more than that, and you've made an enemy." We tend to be resentful against those to whom we owe something, usually money, especially if we are having trouble paying it back.

*** You can't have it both ways, folks. If you segregate people, guess what? They develop a culture and society all of their own, likely to be of varying differences from society in general. If you then remove restrictions and permit free movement and living for these previously restricted people, guess what? They ain't (if my former English teachers will forgive me) going to suddenly acclimate themselves to the general population. Such things take time, and the influences typically go in both directions. 

**** Vienna's Jewish population gradually grew, containing much of Austria's Jewish population. For some info on German Jews in the World War One era, see my article:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2011/02/german-question-part-eighty.html   

WORD HISTORY:
Ghetto-The origin of this word is unclear, but it "likely" goes back to "Venetian," technically a Latin derived (Romance) language spoken in Venice and vicinity, that is usually referred to as an Italian dialect. Venetian has "ghet(o)," a word meaning "slag" (a product of making ore into metal) and also used for a foundry producing slag. This came from Italian "gettare," a verb with the primary meaning "to throw," and the extended meaning "to cast/mould" ('mold,' American spelling).^ This traces back to Latin "jactare/iactare," with the same meanings. Whether the Latin word came from Indo European, is unclear. The term "ghetto" was first used in Venice in the modern context in early 1500s, and the original Jewish ghetto there was in the same part of town as a foundry, and the speculation is, the district may have been tagged as a "ghetto," in local usage because of the foundry, and that the term was simply maintained when Jews lived there. The term and meaning then spread to Italian and English borrowed it from Italian in either the late 1500s or early 1600s, and it later came to be applied to an area of a city or town where, compared to the overall population, the dwellers were predominantly minority.

^ English has the similar development of "cast," which means "to throw" (now more often used, but not exclusively, in terms of fishing lines or nets), but with a secondary meaning "pour metal into a mold," as in "cast iron."

"Gandhi" The Movie and History, Part Four

Note: I omitted the fact that besides efforts on behalf of "untouchables," and India's poor in general, Gandhi also championed the cause of Indian women and he used women in his various campaigns, something that was relatively new in male dominated Indian society back then. 

The history of Hindu-Muslim conflict in India is complex. This article is simply an attempt to give readers basic information, but for those interested, there are many books and articles on the subject that can provide far more detail on this very hot issue, which still flares up in modern times. Remember, please support your local library.  

As noted in the previous segments, India was a much larger nation in the time of Mahatma Gandhi, with both Bangladesh and Pakistan comprising parts of the greater whole. The Hindu religion was the largest in India, but Islam held a substantial minority position among India's population, with some areas having Muslim majorities, especially in the northwestern and northeastern regions, but Muslims were essentially scattered throughout all parts of India, just as Hindus and Sikhs lived in Muslim majority areas. The desire of Indians to rule themselves and to end British colonial rule united Indians, no matter what their religious beliefs, and for a time, there was no desire by Indians to divide India into separate Muslim and Hindu majority nations. Muhammed Ali Jinnah, one of the main Indian Muslim leaders going back to the early part of the 20th Century, very much favored one India for quite some time, but his support waned over time. 

Jinnah was born in Karachi, a port city in then northwestern India, and now part of Pakistan. His father was a successful business man and Jinnah later studied law in England, a similarity he shared with Mohandas Gandhi.* Later Jinnah lived in Bombay (now called Mumbai), on the west coast of India, where he had a huge mansion built. Jinnah advocated Hindu-Muslim unity and was, for a time, not only one of the main leaders of the movement to bring varying degrees of independence to the country, but THE main leader; being highly regarded by both Hindus and Muslims. Jinnah's and Muslim ideas began to change as plans for future self-government began to be dominated by Hindu leaders, including Gandhi, who, in spite of his overt inclusive attitude towards Muslims and others, was a Hindu. Jinnah argued for certain protections for religious minorities, and especially for Muslims, but Hindu leaders, pressed by a fanatical Hindu element, did not respond favorably to Jinnah's proposals, which were defeated in a vote of the main Indian political organization, the Indian National Congress. Jinnah quit the organization and his proposals became the basis of Muslim demands from then on if Hindus wanted Muslim support for one independent Indian nation. After a period out of the political limelight, Jinnah became the head of the (Indian) Muslim League.

Gandhi continued to preach non violent resistance to British rule, always with the idea that he and others would suffer, and have to accept, the consequences of their attempts to free India. While Gandhi preached against British colonial rule, even calling it "evil," he refused to participate in any "war on the British." There is a scene in the movie "Gandhi," where he and others are sitting outside and he tells them, "We've come along way with the British. When they leave, we want to see them off as friends." This certainly represented Gandhi's basic real life feelings, not just something depicted in the movie. While certainly not all Indians agreed with him, his leadership, and the revered stature in which he was held, kept Indians from direct all out hostile conflict with the British.

Gandhi's inclusive behavior towards non Hindus, especially towards Muslims, brought an increasing disenchantment with him from fanatical Hindu elements. As India moved toward independence during World War Two,** Gandhi was confronted with the possible, and likely, division of his country into an independent Muslim nation, under the name Pakistan,*** and the majority Hindu state of India. His attempts to preserve one Indian nation only left Muslims dissatisfied and many Hindus angry that he was too considerate of Muslim demands. Gandhi and many Indians, but certainly not all, opposed helping the British during the war, and Gandhi's antiwar speeches and protests by Indians brought massive arrests by the British, including the arrest of Gandhi. During his imprisonment his wife died, and Gandhi was chronically ill (he was in his 70s). Fearing he would die while in their custody and that his death would then spark a violent uprising by Indians against Britain, the British released him from prison. 

Gandhi and other Indian leaders then faced the nasty divide between Hindus and Muslims. The war ended and Britain made it clear they would grant Indian independence, but the religious issue remained at the center of controversy, and, in spite of attempts by Gandhi, Jinnah, and others to work out a solution, the matter remained unresolved. Muslim leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah, dissatisfied with efforts to keep Muslims within some sort of Indian state, announced he wanted a separate Muslim nation of Pakistan as the only acceptable solution to the religious divide between Indians.**** To put pressure on the Hindus and the British for the creation of an independent Pakistan, Jinnah called for a "direct action day" by Muslims set for mid August 1946, with strikes and protests seemingly meant as the definition of such "action." When the day arrived, events went awry, with some violence in various parts of India, but especially in and around the northeastern city of Calcutta, in the province of Bengal, an area of very mixed Hindu-Muslim population, but with an overall Muslim majority. Terrible violence erupted as Muslims rioted, and then Hindus rioted. As many as 10,000 people were killed, with many bodies horribly mutilated, as one side tried to get even with the other (remember folks, this was all in the name of "religion"). While the violence halted after a few days, periodic and terrible episodes of mass killings took place in the region for months, and Gandhi went there to try to stop the carnage, but he was unable to undo the mistrust that had by then developed between the religious sects. In August of 1947, India was formally given its independence, but without Pakistan, which was partitioned (there was about a thousand mile gap between Western Pakistan and Eastern Pakistan, which is now Bangladesh). All hell broke loose as millions of Muslims living outside of Pakistan picked up as many belongings as possible and headed for the new border, while Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan tried to reach India. Heavy fighting broke out and at least a half million people died. Gandhi, the father of the nation, was devastated that he couldn't achieve a peaceful unified country. Since those times and as a result of the partition and all the violence, India and Pakistan have led a very troubled existence as neighbors, a situation which continues to this day. 

On January 30, 1948, Hindu extremist Nathuram Godse shot Mohandas Gandhi three times in the chest, killing Gandhi as he walked to a prayer service. Godse hated Gandhi's non violent approach to politics and religion, and he resented Gandhi's close association with Muslims over the years. Hindu militants believed Pakistan should not have been granted a separate state from India. Godse was tried and executed by hanging. The trial demonstrated to Hindus that it was one of their own, not a Muslim, who killed Mahatma Gandhi.

Note: There are many books about the life of Gandhi, but to do these articles, I relied heavily upon notes I made a number of years ago from: "Gandhi: A Life," by Yogesh Chadha, published in New York by John Wiley and Sons, 1997. I once owned the book, and while I'm not certain, I believe I donated it to The Cleveland Public Library in about 2009. The movie "Gandhi" is available on DVD.

* Both Gandhi and Jinnah also came from rather well off families of business background, putting them into relatively high social position in Indian society. The movie "Gandhi" depicts the subject's social position early in his life when he mentions "I always travel first class." The movie also shows Jinnah's standing when several of the Indian leaders meet at his elaborate mansion, complete with servants. As the movie correctly shows, Gandhi eventually chose to associate himself with the poorer elements of Indian society, which was by far the majority of the population, and he arrives at Jinnah's mansion for the above mentioned meeting, having come by "THIRD CLASS." Gandhi could just as easily have lived a pretty comfortable life, with fine clothes and a nice residence. Jinnah, on the other hand, retained his wealth.

** There had also been proposals to create Pakistan as a state within a state; that is, Pakistan would have been a mainly self governing region, but would have remained a part of India. 

*** The war only helped Gandhi keep the moral high ground against British rule. Britain declared war on Germany, including in India's name, but the Indian leaders were never consulted beforehand. Gandhi pointed out that Britain wanted to fight "German" tyranny, while at the same time they continued to rule India.
  
**** This sounded easier than it was to accomplish, because while Muslims constituted large majorities in the northwest and northeast, millions of Muslims lived scattered throughout the rest of India, while Hindus and Sikhs lived within the majority Muslim regions in the northwest and northeast. Property also became a big issue later, including Jinnah's mansion, which was in Bombay, a part that remained in India.

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

WORD HISTORY:
Yoga-This word traces back to Indo European "yewg," which had the notion of  "join together, unite." This gave Sanskrit, an ancient Indo European language still used to some degree today, primarily in religion, "yoga," with the same basic meaning, but with the context of "joining with a great spirit, god." This then passed to Hindi, one of the main languages of India. By the 1800s the word began to be used by British military, governmental and civilians in India with the idea of "exercise and mediation used to control the body and mind as one." As interest in eastern religions grew by English speaking people, the use of "yoga" spread, as did the word itself.

"Gandhi," The Movie & History, Part Three

India had a social system called the "Caste System." While most strongly associated with the Hindu religion, it had adherents among some of  India's Muslims and Christians.^ This stratified social system divided Indians into various fixed groups, with little or no social mobility for people of these groups. At the bottom were the "untouchables," with people in this group often suffering terrible discrimination and ill treatment, and with no way out of their "fixed" social position at the bottom of Indian society. Mahatma Gandhi's tolerance and inclusiveness for people of various religious and political views also included his desire to improve the acceptability and the plight of the those at the lowest levels of society. In the early 1930s Gandhi undertook a fast to bring national attention to the situation of the "untouchables" and to protest a British approved plan to give "untouchables" a separate system of representation under a newly devised Indian constitution. Gandhi rejected such a division. To demonstrate inclusiveness, Gandhi preferred to call the "untouchables" the more acceptable "children of God." Gandhi's fast and his subsequent concentration for a time on the nation's social system diverted attention from the attempts to attain freedom from British colonial rule, but it was part of the Mahatma's plan to gradually bring India toward the ability to rule itself and provide a more equitable society.

Gandhi's campaign brought discussions about the overall system and it achieved the abandonment of the division of the nation's representatives in the constitution. Many Hindu leaders reconsidered, or outright reversed, their previous support for the overall social system of India. In an ominous sign, however, more orthodox Hindu elements drifted further from Gandhi's ideals of tolerance and inclusiveness.

Next, Gandhi focused his and the nation's efforts on the Indian economy. India was a land of extreme poverty, which Gandhi believed was made worse by exploitation by capitalist interests at the highest economic level, who were not ethical in their treatment of workers. Workers labored long hours, but large profits went to business owners, while the workers earned so little, they could not always get the necessary food or clothing for themselves or their families. To Gandhi, capitalists benefited far out of proportion from the labor of others. He believed the system had to be made fairer, with workers gaining proper wages and respect for the goods they helped to produce, but that workers could not let themselves fall into laziness. Needless to say, business people were not thrilled with Gandhi's ideas. In what became a trademark of Gandhi, he took to spinning his own clothes, and encouraged his Indian brethren to do the same. Why? Indian cotton was sent to England and manufactured into clothing, returning to India at prices many times the original cost. Gandhi reasoned, why not keep the cotton in India, with Indians making their own clothing and keeping the costs at a minimum? The spinning wheel became a symbol of Indian independence.^^ Gandhi likewise promoted Indian agriculture as a means to limit the country's dependence on colonial food products.^^^  Further, by gaining more independence on food and clothing products, it also weakened the British reasons for maintaining colonial rule; that was, to have a colony that produced raw materials that could then go to Britain to be processed or refined, and then returned, at least in part, to the colony for sale at handsome profits. So Gandhi's effort also had major ties to his view of gaining Indian independence from Britain. 

Next, the last part on "Gandhi"

^ Keep in mind, this was still the "large" India, which then included Pakistan and Bangladesh.

^^ Gandhi's beliefs were also critical of (then) modern technology utilized by capitalists, which replaced workers with various mechanical devices. There has always been a struggle between displaced workers and technology, but technology always wins in the end. While Gandhi correctly saw a large Indian population that needed work, work at times deprived by technology, the idea that technological advances can be held back in favor of less efficient methods of production was too idealistic, in my opinion. Understand, Gandhi did not dismiss technology in all cases, and he understood the need for mass production in more advanced nations, but he saw unemployment and under employment as one of the social ills of India, only made worse by technology.

^^^ Large landholders charged rent to small farmers on their land either in cash or by taking percentages of farm goods. At times farmers could not produce enough to pay rent and provide for their families.  

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

WORD HISTORY:
Guru-This word goes back to Indo European "gru/gur," which had the notion of "heavy," which then produced the idea of "serious," and also "heavy with knowledge," which gave Sanskrit "guru," which meant "respected for knowledge;" and thus produced the eventual meaning "teacher," with the further meaning of "priest" in religious contexts. Sanskrit is an ancient Indo European language still used to some extent, often in religion, primarily in India. The word then passed to Hindi and Urdu, both common Indo European languages in India and Pakistan. The word was borrowed by English, likely in the mid to late 1700s, as India came under the firmer control of Britain, but the word didn't really spread throughout English until later, eventually expanding the meaning to the more general "adviser, mentor," with no particular association with religion. The word came into widespread usage during the late 1960s as the Beatles and other popular music groups delved into Indian religion.       

Our Contentious System, Part Two/B

So what about the rest of us in the economic system? Well, human beings seek a better life, the definition of which can't even be given by Webster's Dictionary, as we each have our own definition.We're all trying to get something from someone, but the system isn't especially nasty between most of us. When you want a loaf of bread you head to the nearest store, get a loaf, pay the cashier and go home. Prior to that, the store paid to have the bread delivered by some bakery, which bought ingredients from suppliers and paid workers to mix, bake, load and deliver the bread, and the whole process continues back to flour mills, where the wheat was ground into flour, and then back to farmers and farm workers who harvested the wheat, which they had planted and tended, etc. This system of exchange has worked pretty well for thousands of years, although some of the details change at times, as with barter, common long ago, but which still goes on today.

Unions have a job to defend worker rights and bargain for better wages and benefits. Because unions help to set labor standards, even non union workers benefit. The playing field, however, is not anywhere near level now. Remember, this is a contentious system, not perfect, just like the legal system covered in "Part One" isn't perfect, but with all sides permitted to have their say for their own self interest, but the wealthy interests have far more advantage than the rest of us. The plotters and schemers worked to get so called "free trade," where they could then circumvent American labor unions and put pressure on wages and benefits. Why? Because they were hurting and needed money? Nope, because they wanted mo' money, mo' money, mo' money! The cuts in wages and benefits for many workers in this system have led to the "downward spiral," as given a choice between an American product that costs more, due to the better pay and benefits of American workers, and a cheaper foreign-made product, many Americans, no matter how much they may want to buy American, have to choose the cheaper product because their budgets are so tight, and this keeps the spiral moving downwards, and you know what is at the bottom of the downward spiral in your sink....the DRAIN! Do the CEOs and wealthy investors take less, too? Hell no! They are making record profits and they're making those profits on YOUR misery. So don't be angry with poorer folks about this, they have to try to survive, and the interests are USING IT. Until the whole situation changes, there will continue to be pressure on wages and benefits, although some articles and news reports seem to suggest American companies are slowly bringing jobs, even plants, back to America, due to escalating costs and political uncertainty abroad. We'll have to see how this plays out. Right now, the hardball game is being played on the turf of the wealthy interests, and there are no more ruthless people on Mother Earth than some of these people. With them EVERYTHING is about money and they devote their lives to this one thing and this one thing only. It's tough to keep up with their schemes, because other people actually try to enjoy life, even in little ways, including poor people who may not have many options for enjoyment.

Next, at some point in the near future..."Our Contentious Political System" 

WORD HISTORY:
Thorp-This word is now archaic, but it is seen in names^ and place names, especially in England. It goes back to Indo European "treb," which meant "dwelling," and perhaps a more basic, "place of shelter." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "thurpan," where the vowel and "r" sounds have swapped places.^^ Its meaning in Germanic broadened into "group of living places; hence, 'village,' " but also the notion of a collection of dwellings produced the meaning "group of people, gathering," and even "land where people dwell." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "thorp," which generally meant "village, farming community or estate." Once English borrowed the word "village," the use of "thorp" lessened. While little used in every day English, its Germanic relatives still survive, some in VERY common usage: (unless noted, they all mean "village") German has "Dorf,"^^^ Low German Saxon has "Dorp," Dutch has "dorp," West Frisian has "doarp," North Frisian and Danish have "torp," Swedish also has "torp," but it means "farmhouse, cottage," which takes it back closer to the original meaning, Icelandic has "thorp," which means "village," but also  "farm." Norwegian has "torp," but apparently, like its English relative, it is archaic. 

^ Famous American athlete "Jim Thorpe" is one. Thorpe was of mixed Native American and European ancestry, but his father's paternal side was Irish. 

^^ Sounds changing places is not especially unusual, as it is thought that "bird" originally came from "brid," and "ask" was once "akse" or "axe."

^^^ One of the sound shifts in some West Germanic dialects (English is West Germanic) which produced "High German," changed "p" to "f" or "pf;" thus Low German "Dorp" became High German "Dorf," and Low German "Piep" (English "pipe) became High German "Pfeife" ('ei'=long 'i' sound).  

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part One

"Governing and Political Systems"

Politics is rough business, and it has gotten progressively worse in more recent times. Political parties came into being to help bring people together who had similar ideas, where they could then use common resources to elect candidates to office to enact those ideas into law. American politics has been a bit odd in some ways, as the two major parties have been around since before the Civil War, but they haven't always been terribly ideological in their make up, at least not in a broad-based ideology sense. In times past, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party both had liberal/progressive wings that may well have shared more in common with one another than they did with the respective conservative wing of their own party, with the same only being somewhat true of the conservative wings. I say "somewhat," because, unless you know about American political history, this will be hard for you to understand, as the most conservative elements in the country were in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY until relatively recent times. Actually too, for a while, some of the most liberal elements of the country were in the REPUBLICAN PARTY. Don't faint, it's true!

You have to understand, the American governmental system is different from most other democracies. Quite a number of other democratic nations have what are typically called "parliamentary systems," and they vary, and this is only a very basic explanation, but there is a "head of state," often an elected president, but, for example, in the case of our close ally Britain (technically, "the United Kingdom"), the monarch is the head of state. For the past 60 + years that monarch has been Queen Elizabeth II. The "head of state" often has little direct power, but rather acts as the ceremonial head of the nation, meeting heads of state from other countries and attending state dinners both at home and abroad. Then there is the actual "government;" that is, the various departments or bureaus that comprise the governing structure of a nation. Each department, often termed a "ministry," has a head official, a "minister," with cabinet status. Then there is a prime minister (in some countries called a "premier" or a "chancellor"), who acts as the head of the cabinet; that is, the government, which is typically really very powerful. Then there is a "parliament" (again, with various other names according to nation), a legislative body that acts upon proposals for the laws of the nation.

The political parties in these parliamentary nations tend to be much more ideological than has been the case in America; until fairly recently, at least. Also, there are typically two or three (occasionally more) major political parties in parliamentary nations, along with some minor parties, sometimes even a multitude of smaller parties. The political parties lay out their party platforms and voters then really vote for a particular party, rather than party candidates.* If a party receives a clear majority of seats in the parliament, they enact their party's ideas into law, as the party representatives seldom stray from what the party has presented to the voters; after all, the voters were presented ideas, not really candidates, and they voted a particular party into power to enact those ideas. The leader of  the winning party becomes prime minister. The winning party gets to enact its program. The voters will then be able to see if they like or dislike the enacted and implemented polices of the ruling party. Typically, there are no excuses in a situation like this. Prime Minister XYZ can't say, "We tried to govern, but the opposition party/parties wouldn't pass what we wanted." If things go terribly awry in the nation, or if there is some major scandal involving a member or members of the government, the parliament can hold a vote of "no confidence," and the head of state must decide if new elections should be called, or if the ruling party can still continue to form a government. (This can also apply to a coalition government, covered right below.)

There are, however, times when one party does not get a majority. Depending upon their percentage of the vote, the leading party will likely attempt to work a deal with one or more other parties to form a government, in which case, it is called a "coalition government." In coalition governments there have to be compromises. These compromises typically involve giving certain cabinet positions to coalition partners. Remember, and this can't really be overemphasized, the ministers who head the various government ministries are very powerful.

So, how does this compare to the American system? That will be covered in "Part Two"

* Of course, this is the general theory behind it, but naturally, at times, there may be a party leader whose personality draws people to vote for his/her political party. You can't factor the human element out of any of this, then again, strong personality Winston Churchill was Prime Minister of Britain throughout much of World War Two, only to be ousted by voters near the very end of the war. Also an interesting note, Churchill changed political parties a couple of times during his long career.

WORD HISTORY:
Coalition/Coalesce-These words are so closely linked, it is impossible to really do them separately. "Coalition" is a compound word that is rather complicated; perhaps as complicated as building coalitions in politics, but hopefully you will be able to follow this. The first part, "co," is from Latin "co(m)," which simply means "together," as in "cooperation," which means "operate (work) together." The "co" prefix was/is typically used before vowels and "com" typically before consonants, as in "compost." The second part of the word traces back to Latin "alescere," which meant "to grow (up)," and it was derived from Latin "alere," which meant "to nourish." This all gave Latin "coalescere," which meant "to grow together, to unite," and this seems to have been borrowed by English directly from Latin in the 1500s as "coalesce;" that is, "unite, combine parts into one, merge." The past participle root of Latin "coalescere" was "coalit(o)," which gave French "coalition," meaning "fused together, united, joined parts." This was then borrowed into English in the early 1600s. Close English relative German also borrowed the word as "Koalition."

Our Contentious System, Part Two/A

Our economic system is highly contentious, and some want, and frankly we've been heading toward, what is commonly called a "dog-eat-dog" system with few if any rules, where some people get an advantage and exploit that advantage to the fullest for personal gain, no matter who gets hurt in the process. If someone would give them money for their mother, they would sell her in a heartbeat; after all, "she only raised me, but what has she done for me lately?" The people who are more than likely to want this kind of system, dating back to the beginnings of mankind, are more than likely well off, with a bunch of psychological problems needing psychiatric attention as soon as possible, before they either destroy everyone, or we turn and destroy them in self defense. They have superegos that need a constant "fix," just like a drug user. The only things is, in modern America, we lock drug users up, but we let the egomaniacs run wild, destroying our lives, our country and perhaps the world, and some folks even want to reward these egomaniac misfits with tax breaks and tax cuts!

The country and parts of the world have allowed the egomaniacs/super rich to rise to a point of power that is now difficult to roll back. The Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed them to use their virtually unlimited resources to keep them in control, no matter who is president, or which party is in control of Congress, although they hope for the far more compliant Republicans, most of whom seem more than willing to do their bidding. These superegos are so spoiled, they now see what was once moderation as being "socialist" or even "communist," but they need that "fix." As I've said here many times before, most Americans want businesses to succeed, but we want "success, not excess," and we've seen lots and lots of excess in more recent times. Since the continued rise of the superegos and super rich, the country has been in decline, which is the opposite of what they tell us, "Give us tax cuts, less regulation and everything will by okay." Nonsense! This has been going on for over three decades, we're worse off, by far. Occupy Wall Street and unions have brought the inequality issue front and center, although it has currently lost some steam. If the system continues to allow income to flow from everyone else to the top, only bloodshed will change things.  They are not going to give up power quietly. Look at how they're trying to destroy Obama, and he's basically supportive of the system. You must toe the line in giving them a total free hand, or else. Unions, Occupy Wall Street, and others are trying to get other Americans to pay attention, but I'm afraid until these other Americans too fall under the yoke of the superegos, they may not listen, and it will definitely be too late then. The worst thing is to think nothing can be done about the situation. Remember the five dollar a month bank fee by Bank of America that was stopped a few months ago by common action by everyday citizens? Undoubtedly some, like sheep going to the slaughter, were willing to pay and accept their fate. WE can make a difference. It is a contentious system, BE CONTENTIOUS. Trust me, the big boys are NOT worried about YOU and they are more than willing to be contentious.

We had some fairly tough regulation put into effect by President Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, and by his distant cousin, President Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat. I just looked out the window and Mother Earth was still there, and history shows that the rich were still the rich and prosperity was much more widespread, helped along by the regulations of the above presidents and others. One thing has changed in the last few decades, the rich are MUCH richer, and the country is in decline. The emergency bell is ringing folks!     

More in "Part Two/B"

WORD HISTORY:
Hold-The ultimate origins of this word are uncertain, but many believe it to be from Indo European. Old Germanic had "haldanan," which meant "to grasp, to keep." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "healdan," with the same basic meaning, but with the added "keep watch over," a meaning which then went to the closely related "behold" (see note below ^). This then became "holden," before the modern form. The noun form developed from the verb with the meaning "grip/grasp" ("get a good hold on the desk before you lift it"), and also "fort," now more common in the compound "stronghold." The noun form used for storage in planes or ships, as in "ship's hold," is not from the same word, in spite of the similar meaning, but rather it is closely related to "hole." Common in the other Germanic languages; these are verbal forms: German has "halten," Low German has "hoolden," Dutch has "houden" (not an error, there is no "l"), West Frisian has "hâlde,"  Danish has "holde," Norwegian has "halda/holde" (depending upon dialect), Icelandic has "halda," and Swedish has "hålla" (no error here either, there is no "d").

^ For the history of the related "behold," see:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2012/06/english-its-closest-relatives-part-two.html  

Ernest Borgnine, Andy Griffith & Memories

Note, July 30, 2017: Tough to believe they've been gone for five years... 


Actor Andy Griffith died recently at the age of 86, followed just days later by fellow actor Ernest Borgnine, who was 95. Borgnine was born in the United States of Italian heritage, and in fact, he lived in Italy for a time as a child, before his family returned to America. Andy Griffith was born and raised in North Carolina.

The deaths of these two much respected actors took me back in time, well back in time in the one case, to the early to mid 1960s when I devotedly watched "McHale's Navy." If you lived through that time and watched the show, I'm certain you haven't forgotten the antics of the crew of PT-73, led by Borgnine as the boat's commander. The series, which aired on ABC, lasted a number of years and it made stars of both Tim Conway* and Joe Flynn. Conway played the PT-73's bungling ensign, Charles Parker, and Flynn played Captain Wallace Binghamtom, the base commander and a man who wanted to move up in rank, but whose own ineptness and bad luck** held him back. The series was set during World War Two, mainly in the Pacific, where the Japanese were the enemy, but during the last year or two, the series shifted to the Mediterranean and Italy, where the Germans were the enemy.*** The basic story line was, McHale's PT boat crew was top notch, but they spent much of their time plotting how to make money and throw parties. They even had an escaped Japanese POW, named "Fuji," helping with the chores around their base. Binghamton was obsessed with wanting to catch McHale and crew at their games and have them thrown into prison; something he could never succeed in doing. Borgnine's role in the show turned out to be less important than his name, since he was a well known actor (an Academy Award winner in 1955), which gave the network a marketing point. Once the public caught onto "McHale's Navy," it was Conway and Flynn, not Borgnine, who stole the show. The show's success led to two full length movies being made, including one without Borgnine,**** who had other commitments during the filming, as I remember, which only demonstrated that Borgnine's McHale character had become secondary to the Parker and Binghamton roles. Nevertheless, over the years, when I have seen Ernest Borgnine or heard his name, "McHale's Navy" and those times in the 1960s come to mind. At that time my friends and I thought we had it tough going to school or enduring the heat of the baseball field, but those times were easy compared to later.

I was not much of an "Andy Griffith Show" kid, although I certainly was well aware of the popular show. In fact, and it has been a long time, but I don't recall any of my close friends mentioning watching the show regularly, as many of us did with "McHale's Navy." In the mid 1980s, however, Andy Griffith starred in popular "Matlock," initially on NBC.*****  The idea of the show was about an aging southern defense attorney who typically proved the innocence of his clients in the final courtroom scenes of each episode, often by some obscure finding that pointed to the real culprit. Griffith was just great in the role and the duration of the series from 1986 until 1995 is a testimony to his outstanding portrayal of Ben Matlock, decked out in his seersucker suit. While more of a drama, the show used humorous scenes, including occasionally with former "Andy Griffith Show" mate Don Knotts.

All episodes of both "McHale's Navy" and "Matlock" are available on DVD, although "Matlock" episodes are still shown on television. I can't say for certain, but I don't believe "McHale's Navy" is shown on television any longer.

* Tim Conway is from suburban Cleveland, and his name is actually Thomas/Tom, but he changed it to Tim for show business, as there was already a "Tom Conway." Joe Flynn was from nearby Youngstown.

** Whenever he overcame his own bungling, fate seemed to turn things against him, prompting him to look heavenwards and say, "Somebody up there has got to hate me." Flynn also was known for saying a frustrated, "I could just scream!"

*** No political correctness in those times, as World War Two's horrors were still too fresh in the minds of many Americans. In the television series, the Japanese were referred to as "Nips," taken from the Japanese word for Japan, "Nippon," and the Germans were usually called "Krauts," obviously after the common German dish, sauerkraut.

**** "McHale's Navy Joins The Air Force" is absolutely hilarious. If you have never seen this movie, please do so. Tim Conway's "Parker" is a scream, as he is mistaken for the son of a top Air Force general, and his scenes in the women's barracks and as the navigator of a transport plane will have you laughing well beyond the duration of the movie. Flynn too continues his excellent portrayal as Captain Binghamton.  

***** The show later switched to CBS and then to ABC, before leaving the air as a first run series in 1995.

WORD HISTORY:
Navy-This word goes back to Indo European "nau," which meant "boat." This gave its Latin offspring "navis," which meant "ship, boat," and then "navia," which meant "fleet of ships." Old French, a Latin-based language, inherited a form of the word as "navie." English borrowed the word from French in the 1300s, but it wasn't until the 1500s that the modern meaning developed of "collective military ships and vessels of a country." 

Addition: "Possible Meaning Of Schicklgruber"

After I published the article, I came across an additional meaning for "gruber" in Bavarian dialect, especially in the area where the Schicklgrubers lived; that is, "a person who lives by a well." Perhaps from the notion that the person had dug the well. In the original article, I did note that that the name could have been used for a person who dug irrigation ditches for agriculture or even wells. For the original article:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2012/07/possible-meaning-of-schicklgruber.html

WORD HISTORY:
Reeve-English actually has a couple of words "reeve," but this is the one now more common as a family name," as it meant "a local official," and it is really the same word as the second part of "sheriff."  This official had varying responsibilities through the times. Its origin is not exactly certain, and not everyone agrees with this history, but it "seems" to go back to Indo European "gerbh," which meant "to carve or scratch out." This gave Greek "graphein" which meant "to write or draw." This then produced Greek "grapheus," "a scribe, a writer." If correct, it appears then that Germanic borrowed the term as "grafa," with a long "a" sound, and with the connotation of "an official," as people who could write were important back then, and this official had much to do with records or record keeping. This then gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "gerefa," then shortened to "refa," which then became "reeve." There are or were numerous similar words with similar meanings in the other Germanic languages, although it seems they trace to West Germanic (English is West Germanic). German has "Graf" ("a count," noble title, Low German Saxon has both "Grääf" and "Graaf," with the same meaning, Dutch has "graaf" ("a count"),  Frisian, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish have "greve," also with the same general meaning. I did not find a similar term in Icelandic, but I did not spend a lot of time searching, and they might have used a similar term which has now died out or which is little used in modern times.    

"Gandhi," The Movie & History, Part Two

Mohandas Gandhi chose to "fight" British rule of India by peaceful means, through non-cooperation with the colonial government. There is a scene in the movie "Gandhi," where Gandhi tells other, less patient and less peaceful, Indian leaders, in speaking about the British, "I want to change their minds, not kill them for weaknesses we all possess." Now, I can't tell you if Gandhi ever really said that in real life (I've tried to find it, but without success), or if this came from a scriptwriter, but the basic part of the statement was a major part of his non violent campaign to gain independence. That line has stayed with me for all of these years, and maybe regular readers have noticed, when writing about politics or economics, I frequently say things like, "both sides do it," or "such and such is human nature," or "most people want or do this or that." After all, for instance, we're all greedy to some extent, but those with great power have the ability to exploit others to try to satisfy their greed, and they need to have some restraints placed upon them, lest they destroy the lives of others, and perhaps even themselves eventually, as the exploited turn on them with a vengeance.

Gandhi was arrested several times and spent the equivalent of about 6 to 7 years of his life in prison in India (he also was jailed in South Africa earlier). Other Indian leaders were also jailed. He picked his times and places for non violent protests with great thought, including one that had Gandhi and supporters walk (it was called a "march") nearly 250 miles to the sea over more than a three week period, building the suspense and news coverage, and then pick up small lumps of salt from the beach in violation of colonial law.* Gandhi was later arrested, but another major part of the protest took place at a nearby salt works, and it occurred without Gandhi. News coverage was extensive, depicting how peaceful Indians were clubbed by police. The Indians did not fight back as the clubs fractured several skulls, and reportedly a few hundred Indians were hospitalized, and a couple died. Reports went around the world, and people everywhere began to question British rule of India, although these protests did not in themselves result in Indian independence.

Next, in Part Three, a little more on Mahatma Gandhi 

* The British had implemented a monopoly on salt production and collection in India, and they taxed it too. Salt is a necessary mineral for life, and it was especially so in India's hot climate. While the tax was not particularly high, India's population was terribly impoverished, making it difficult for many to pay the tax and buy the salt on extremely limited incomes. The salt was there for the taking from coastal areas, but it was against the law for Indians to take it without paying the tax.   

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

  WORD HISTORY:
Sikh-A "Sikh" is a person from a particular religious sect in India which was established in the mid 1400s in Punjab, a region of northern India at that time, and now a region divided between India and Pakistan. English traders established trading posts in India in the early 1600s, from which eventually developed colonial rule over the area, which then included modern Pakistan and Bangladesh. The use of the term "Sikh" seems to have become more widespread in English usage by the mid to late 1700s. "Sikh" traces back to ancient Sanskrit, an early Indo European dialect/language that still exists, and the Sanskrit word "siksati," which means "a student, one who learns." This gave "Punjabi" and "Hindi"^ the term "sikh," which means "a student of, or disciple of."   

^ Both Punjabi and Hindi are Indo European languages and are thus related to English, but further down the family tree. Punjabi is spoken extensively in Pakistan and northwestern India. Hindi is the official language of government in India, along with.....English!

Careful of Political Ads And The Dodge Game

Just a thought about political ads from candidates or supporters from both parties where the candidate says, "I'm for," or "I'm against," and then some generalized statement that ends with "for more information go to www.," and then some website address. If you have a plan or program, tell us what it is in your ad, don't refer us to a website most people will never visit. These things make me suspicious right away. Maybe they should say, for more info, go to my site: "I Don't Want You Tell You What The Hell I believe." Remember folks, just because we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press doesn't mean you're going to have an informed public. This is a battle for information. Politicians by their very nature try to keep from saying in any detail what they intend to do if elected. They may even have to be pressed for generalities. I realize they're afraid they will alienate elements of the electorate, but we need to know more than "Romney will stand up to China." What the hell does that mean? Or, "I know how jobs are created." What the hell does that mean? Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida, and the host of "Morning Joe" on MSNBC, was recently talking about how Romney just won't answer questions, and remember, Joe is a REPUBLICAN! Now, in fairness, Romney may give us more info as time passes, and it is the duty, in my opinion, of the American press to get answers from him. Our system isn't perfect, but there has to be more info than "I know how jobs are created."

In this coming election, Romney has more on him to tell us what he believes and what he wants to do, because, "essentially," we know what Obama believes and what his programs have been. That's just true of incumbents for any office; they've been there, so we know "most" things about them. Further, incumbents can sort of hide behind "I can't discuss sensitive foreign policy details," and that may or may not be true, but it is what it is, and the public is sort of in a "Catch 22;" if we get details on a sensitive issue, it could lead to a foreign policy problem, but if we don't have information, we can't decide if the issue is really sensitive or not. The President also has to be pressed on what he wants to do in a second term. It isn't enough to say "I want to be your President again."

WORD HISTORY:
Reek-The ultimate origins of this word are uncertain and it seems to only appear in Germanic, although Lithuanian has a similar word, but it could well have been borrowed from Germanic (Lithuanian bordered on Germanic dialects/languages for centuries). Old Germanic had "reukanan," which meant "give off smoke." This gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "reocan," with the same meaning. This later became "reken," before the modern version. The notion of "smoke" giving off an odor to clothing, hair, etc. gave the word a secondary meaning of "smell badly," the meaning that has persisted into modern times in English and some other Germanic languages. There was once also a noun form in English "riec" (Old English) and later "rek," before "reek," but it is now archaic, although such forms in other Germanic languages are still much in use: German has the noun "Rauch," which means "smoke," and the noun "Rauchen," which means "smoking,"^ the verb "rauchen," meaning "to smoke," but also "riechen," which means "to smell (in the sense 'use your nose,' not the sense 'smell badly'),"^^ and the noun "Geruch," meaning "a smell, a scent, an odor;" Low German has the noun "Rook" ("smoke), as does Dutch ("rook"), but Dutch also has "reuk," ("scent, odor"), and  the verb "roken" ("to smoke"), as well as "ruiken" ('to smell," in the sense "with your nose," but also "smell badly/reek"); West Frisian has "reek" ("smoke") and the verb "rikje" ("to smoke"), as well as "rûke" ("to smell," although I'm not sure how much this is used anymore); Danish has "røg"  ("smoke") and the verb "ryge" ("to smoke"); Norwegian has "røyk" ("smoke") and "røyke" ("to smoke"); Swedish has "rök"  ("smoke") and the verb "ryka"  ("to smoke"); and Icelandic has "reykur" ("smoke") and the verb "rjúka" ("to smoke").

^ You've perhaps seen "Rauchen Verboten" signs in movies or pictures set in Germany. It means "No Smoking," literally "Smoking Forbidden" (Verboten=forbidden and again shows the close relationship between the two languages).
 
^^ In German (and others, see more above) the notion of smoke making things smell gave rise to the verb meaning "to use your nose to detect odors, scents;" that is, "how an odor is detected," rather than the result of "the odor given off," as in English "reek."

"Possible" Meaning Of "Schicklgruber"

I have noticed a number of searches brought people to this site to see if I have the meaning of "Schicklgruber." The interest, I'm sure, stems from Adolf Hitler's family. Hitler's father, Alois, was the illegitimate child of Maria Schicklgruber, but she later married Johann Georg Hiedler, and Alois much later changed his last name to the stepfather's name, and at some point, "Hiedler" came to be spelled "Hitler."*

Now, as to what "Schicklgruber" means, I don't really know for certain, and I have checked many sources; however, I have a "possible" explanation. The second part of the name is no problem, as it is the same as English "grub" (see Word History below), a verb little used anymore, but which means "to dig;" thus giving us "grubber," "a digger," and the compound term "moneygrubber," for a person whose whole life centers around making ("digging for") money in any way. "Schickl" is the problem. It is Bavarian dialect and I found some "supposed" meanings.** (see further, below) Keep in mind, names often undergo spelling changes, as I noted above, "Hiedler" became "Hitler," and there were various spellings of "Hiedler" before that. In the German language world, dialects prevailed far longer than overall use of standard German, and names usually have a long history. If you are a regular reader, you have probably noticed an occasional "Word History" will deal with a word little used in modern England, EXCEPT in names or place names, because the names go back to a time when the word was commonly used. Names also often came from jobs a person did.

So, this is pure speculation on my part, but German has "Schicht, which means "layer or strata of earth." The southern dialects frequently use "l," "el," "li,"or "le" at the end of words to denote "small," or "smaller." The dialect form could have changed the "ch" to "ck," and the "t" sound could have been dropped when the ending "l" was added. As to the ending "l," while a totally different dialect, Swabian in southwestern Germany uses "Häusle" for "a little house (Haus);" or, "cottage." Anyway, "Schicht" would tie in with "gruber" ("digger"), perhaps meaning "ditch digger," from the notion of "one who digs through layers of the earth," perhaps from agriculture and digging irrigation ditches or even wells? Some of the "supposed" meanings I mentioned earlier also seem to tie in with this possible meaning, as they gave "mud" as the meaning, possibly a later development. I also saw "manure" as a possible meaning, and this could have developed from "mud," if that meaning is correct. Of course too, I also wondered IF the "manure" meaning may have come from those who were making a political statement, as Hitler obviously (and correctly) stirs strong emotions in people; thus making Hitler's ancestor's "manure diggers, or perhaps shovelers/shovellers."

Now, German also has "Schicksal," which means "fate, destiny." Dialect could have produced "Schickl," perhaps with a meaning of "grave digger;" that is, "one who digs for people who have met their fate." The thing is, sources indicate High German did not acquire the word until the 1500s, and it came from Low German and Dutch, as "schicksel," and essentially meant "chance," which then became "destiny, fate." I could not determine how Low German and Dutch got the term. I even checked to see if I could find a similar term in English, that would now be archaic, but I had no luck. English, Low German and Dutch are all close relatives, and Middle and Old English vocabulary did not have as many foreign borrowings as modern English.

So, these are just theories, but if either might be correct, I lean toward the first.

* For a little more, see my article "Hitler The Jew:"  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2010/10/hitler-jew.html 

** They may be correct, but I cannot verify that.

WORD HISTORY:
Grub-This now little used verb is closely related to both "grave" and "groove." It goes back to Indo European "ghrebh/ghrabh," which had the notion of "to dig, to scratch." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "grubb," which then gave West Germanic "grubbjan," both with the same basic meaning. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) a presumed "grubbian,"^ which then became "grubben," before the more modern version. Moneygrubber was formed from the noun form "grubber," which means "digger." Further, "grubby" ("dirty") came from the notion of digging in the dirt. "Grub," the noun meaning "larva," seems to have been derived from the notion that many larvae live and dig in the soil. The slang American form "grub," meaning food, seems to have come from the idea of birds eating the grubs (larvae). The word has many forms in other Germanic languages, because, as I mentioned above, even in English it is closely related to "grave" and "groove." Just some examples: German has the verb "graben," which means "to dig," and its 1st and 3rd person singular past tense form is "grub." Further, German has "grübeln," which means "to ponder, to consider," from the notion "dig through your thoughts, mind." German also has the noun "Grubber," "digger, cultivator." Some Low German dialect has "growe" which means "to dig." From what I could find, Frisian has "grave," which means "to dig," Dutch has "graven," also meaning "to dig."

^ No written evidence of this word has been found, but it presumed that Old English had this form or similar, as its West Germanic relatives had forms (English is West Germanic).

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

In 1970 the Vietnam War was raging and U.S. military forces were deployed around the world, with more than 250,000 being stationed just in Europe. The U.S. military in 1970 totaled more than 3 million (active) men and women. By 1975 that number had dropped by almost a million. In 1995 the total was just above 1.5 million, and since 1996 the total number has been "around" 1.4 million; that is, less than half the total in 1970.

In 1970, the unemployment rate in January was 3.9%, but it had climbed to 6.1% by the end of the year. In 1975 unemployment was 8.1% in January and 8.2% at the end of the year. When Ronald Reagan took office for his second term in January 1985, the unemployment rate was 7.3% and was 7.0% by the end of the year, and 5.4% when he left office. When Bill Clinton took the oath for his second term, unemployment was 5.6% and was the exact same rate at the end of the year, and 4.2% when he left office. When George W. Bush took office for his second term in January 2005, unemployment was 5.3% and 4.9% at the end of the year, and was 7.8% when he left office.*  

Critics of capitalism over time have contended that the economic system heavily benefits those lucky enough to get to the top, or those already there by birth, and that capitalism can't provide long term, broad-based prosperity without large scale war to bolster the economy. Nothing I publish here, now or in the future, will resolve that debate, but hopefully you will come away with an understanding of the debate, although the idea that those born into wealthy families having a DECIDED advantage over others is hardly in dispute, except for perhaps some on the right, who seem to view this as an "entitlement."** The direction of the economy can be influenced  by a number of factors, not just wars, but as can be seen in the numbers above, the American military has been relatively stable in numbers for quite a long period. Any war where you risk your life is a major war, but in terms of numbers, the wars and military actions since Vietnam have not involved as large a number of troops as that war, which itself didn't compare to the huge military commitment of World War Two, when more than 16 million Americans served in the military. In 1944, when U.S. forces and the American economy were both fully engaged in World war Two, unemployment was about 1%.***

So, as the American military scaled back, unemployment has bounced around, and unemployment has even dropped to fairly low levels at times, but only temporarily, and income disparity has increased. After 9/11, President George W. Bush ordered an invasion of Afghanistan, followed not long thereafter by an invasion of Iraq. Any effect on unemployment seems to have been little, if any, but there was not an increase in the overall number of Americans in the military, nor did the country require a huge build up in military goods and equipment. If we, or any other country, concentrate on building loads of military goods, even, or especially, in times of relative peace, when do we begin to look like Nazi Germany? When Hitler took power, he used a number of things, like public works projects, to help the German economy rebound from the Great Depression. Later he shifted much of the effort into both the expansion of the German military in manpower and weaponry.****

Purist capitalism has lots of rough edges, and, in my opinion, they have to be filed down in order to have reasonable periods of prosperity for many and not just the few. Business people resist hiring, by nature; after all, if you own or have owned a business, do (did) you just go out and hire people without the business to sustain such employment? The notion by some that there is (or has been) some sort of conspiracy by business people to keep unemployment high just doesn't wash with me. With some nutcase right wing business people? Maybe, but the desire to make money is too strong for most people, and that includes us further down the income scale.

When Ronald Reagan was in office, unemployment dropped from nearly 11% about midway in Reagan's first term to 5.4% when he left office in January 1989, BUT there were huge deficits run every year of his presidency. Now, I'm not against Keynesian economic policies in their proper place, but Reagan "claimed" to be a conservative. Ever since, conservatives have tried to give Reagan credit for the drop in unemployment, but place the blame for the huge deficits on Democrats. This is an attempt to have it both ways, or actually, multiple ways. Conservatives argued that the New Deal spent money foolishly and that it did not end the Great Depression. They then turned right around (no pun intended) and said that the huge spending and deficits of World War Two ended the economic downturn. Either increased government spending helps or it doesn't. Pick one, please! With Reagan, huge government deficits helped reduce unemployment, but then conservatives blamed the deficits on Democrats, claiming Reagan's tax cuts saved the economy (conveniently leaving out the number of times taxes were raised under Reagan) and that tax cuts "pay for themselves;" thus not increasing the deficit. With such huge deficit spending an issue, the Reagan administration then argued "the deficits don't matter." Conservatives continued to blame Democrats for the deficits, always saying "Democrats blocked Reagan on budget cuts." Nonsense! Reagan had "working majorities" in Congress much of the time; after all, that's how he got a number of things passed. The fact is, he NEVER proposed a balanced budget, nor did he indicate how a balanced budget should be achieved. My overall point here is, you can't claim purist "capitalism" brought unemployment down, rather huge government outlays and Reagan's military build-up (which took much of the added spending) did so, or at least had much to do with lowering the unemployment rate. If you worked in an industry that benefited from military production, you too benefited, but the 1980s saw an overall decline in the middle class, as unions lost favor,***** indeed hastened by Reagan's anti-union policy, which began to give American business a grip on the country which has only increased incredibly since then. 

So my answer is, no, purist capitalism cannot produce long term, broad-based prosperity. Purist capitalism may well need help from wars, although the kinds of wars that produce mass employment seem to be a thing of the past. Capitalism needs help in reducing income disparity and in keeping it from self destruction, and that means it then is not "purist" capitalism, although today's Republicans seem bound and determined to take the country down the road to purity. That is a dangerous path for us, and for capitalists.

* Statistics are from the Department of Labor/Bureau of Labor Statistics.

** "If" concerted efforts by Republicans to repeal inheritance taxes on the wealthiest Americans succeed, this will indeed become even more of an "entitlement" than it is now. Even some very wealthy Americans fear this will establish a true "aristocracy" in America in place of a "meritocracy;" that is, a system where a person is rewarded by their merits (achievements). An "aristocracy" is a system where people of wealth and high social standing rule by inheritance, regardless of any achievement, or perhaps, even in spite of any achievement.

*** It would be interesting to know who made up this 1% (we know who makes up the 1% in today's jargon; the wealthiest Americans), as labor was in such short supply during the World War Two, that many women who were previously out of the labor force took jobs, some of which had been seen as "man's work," in  factories that produced military goods. "Rosie the Riveter" became a popular song and poster figure representing American women working for the war effort.

**** Some would undoubtedly argue that Hitler even used the public works projects to plan for military actions, and I would agree, BUT better highways, railways, ports, and waterways do not HAVE to be used solely for military purposes. As a kid I recall some people talking about America's then developing interstate highway system as being for war (it was the Cold War era). Defense planning was undoubtedly taken into consideration as part of the program, but not exclusively, and it would have been irresponsible not to consider such measures, but by the time of interstates, the idea of some mass invasion of America by conventional forces was lessening, as long-range missiles had become the concern. Hitler, on the other hand, was able to mask his aggressive military plans in eastern Europe, to some degree, with Germany's Autobahn system being seen as a measure to bring Germany more into the automotive age, which was undoubtedly part of the plan, too. The Autobahns were then coupled with plans to build an affordable car for Germans, the Volkswagen. The mass production of the Volkswagen, however, was interrupted by the war and did not take place until the postwar period. Militarily Hitler faced a problem not historically unique to German leaders; potentially hostile forces on both Germany's eastern (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Soviet Union) and western (France and probably Britain) borders. Improved transportation between Germany's border areas would allow him to shuttle troops to either border much more quickly, something that indeed happened during World War Two. Hitler's pact with Mussolini secured Germany's southern border, which by 1938 included Austria, thus making the southern border directly up against Italy.

***** Not every decline in unions or in the middle class can be pinned on Reagan, as some things were "in motion" when he took office, but his policies certainly seemed to make a bad situation worse.    

WORD HISTORY:
Broad-The origins of this fairly common word are unknown; in fact, its forms are only found in the Germanic languages. Old Germanic had "braidaz," which meant "spacious, wide." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon)  "brad," with a long 'a' sound, and with the same general meaning. This then became "brode," before the modern version. The expression that something is "as broad as it is wide" is certainly true, because "broad" and "wide" really mean the same thing. The noun slang form for "a woman" started in the early 20th Century in America, but the exact reason is uncertain, although some attribute it to "broad hips." Common in the other Germanic languages: German has "breit," Low German Saxon has "breet," West Frisian and Dutch have "breed," East Frisian, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish all have "bred," and Icelandic has breithur. Like their English relative, these all mean "broad, wide."