"Downfall," A Really Good Movie/Addendum

First published July 17, 2009; edited and updated November 30, 2014. The main article, "Downfall," A Really Good Movie, has also been updated.

I thought I’d add a few more things about "Downfall" ("Der Untergang"):

Director Oliver Hirschbiegel was born in the late 1950s, so well after Hitler’s death. He’s no apologist for Hitler or the Nazis, and in fact, he makes it clear in his “commentary,” he feels that Germans need to face this part of their history. He also says quite clearly that Hitler was not crazy, and knew what he was doing. He feels that the “crazy” argument is too convenient, but while I see where he’s coming from, I don’t completely agree with him, as Hitler was certainly “unstable,” and that’s putting it mildly, in my opinion, although I agree that he was cognizant of much of what he was doing. Hirschbiegel also feels that Hitler knew how to “act” in certain situations; that is, he knew how to perform; raging with anger one moment to intimidate others, then trying to get sympathy from these same people the next moment, with more subdued behavior. There may well be some truth to this, but still, the idea that Hitler was so rational is my biggest disagreement with Hirschbiegel, although perhaps our definitions are what really differ. Still, we have to remember that a highly cultured, educated nation of tens of millions followed Hitler to the gates of Hell, and committed terrible crimes for him.

Traudl Junge says in some of the interviews I’ve seen, that she and the other secretaries didn’t know about the military or political matters of Hitler, as they didn’t participate in typing such orders. She says they handled his correspondence in more personal matters. She also says they weren’t “stationed” in an office outside of Hitler’s, where they announced visitors to him, as he had military and Nazi Party personnel who handled that. She said they were basically free to do whatever they wanted, unless he had something scheduled for them, or if, of course, he sent for them. (See the main article about their lunch/dinner arrangements)

After the war, Hitler’s secretaries took criticism for some of their favorable remarks about him.* They mentioned how kind he was with them, how he protected them and how he gave them little gifts over the years. Perhaps out of naiveté they didn’t realize the “raw nerves” they rubbed with such comments, as millions had died or been traumatized by this SOB. Traudl Junge says she didn’t realize what a criminal Hitler was until after the war when she heard and saw things about what he had done. Her interviews show her to be highly remorseful and full of self blame for her own failure to recognize what he truly was. In one of the interviews, she does say that perhaps she was so close to him because he was like a father to her. She explains that her own father had died when she was a baby, but that her childhood friends always mentioned their fathers, and that she felt this gap in her life. When Hitler treated her so well and worried over her and the others, he became a father figure in her life.

I mentioned in my original article that what first caught my attention about the imminent release of this movie a few years ago, was about the actor who mastered Hitler’s south German accent, Bruno Ganz. At least 25 years ago, I met a lady who had been born during the war in Garmisch-Partenkirchen. She later came to Cleveland and became an American citizen. Now, some may know that Garmisch-Partenkirchen is famous for winter sports events, like skiing and sledding. It is in the Bavarian Alps, right near the border with Austria. Hitler was born in Braunau-am-Inn (Austria), right across the border from Bavaria (Germany), however, his family moved to Linz (Austria) where he actually grew up, and which he considered to be his home town. Later, he lived in Vienna for awhile, where he was rejected for art school, ** and then he crossed the border and lived in Munich, which is where he was, I believe, when what became World War One broke out, and he joined a Bavarian infantry regiment. All of these areas speak a broad south German dialect called “Bavarian,” which is based very much on “Upper German” ("Oberdeutsch"); that is, German from the “upper elevations.” There are variations in Bavarian depending upon where you are in Bavaria or Austria, just as we Americans talk about people having “a southern accent,” but not all Southerners speak exactly the same, as there are differences from state to state and even within the same state. As with many of us, some of our regional speech variances (accents, words and even expressions) can carry over to what could be considered the “standard” language; that is, what is taught in school, and in more modern times, what is frequently (but not always) spoken by announcers on radio or television. Anyway, the lady from Garmisch-Partenkirchen once told me that Hitler must have worked hard to overcome so much of his Bavarian accent for public speaking, as he did. (A word history is below)

* Hitler's cook, who was often with the secretaries, apparently died in Berlin (some survivors think perhaps by her own hand, as she had a cyanide capsule with her, or that she was killed during the last fighting in the city), as she, Traudl Junge and one other secretary remained with Hitler in his Berlin bunker until his death. If I remember right, Hitler's other two secretaries were at his villa above Berchtesgaden in Bavaria in the last weeks of the war.

** I recall some historians speculating that, if only he had made it into art school, the world may have been spared his later actions.

Photo is from the 2005 DVD release by Constantin Film and Sony Home Entertainment

Word History:
It-This goes back to Indo European "ke/ko," which meant "this." This gave Old Germanic "khi(t)," which is also the source of "he." In Old English it was "hit"and was the neuter form of third person "he." (the Germanic languages all had grammatical gender back then, something English later dropped).^ The softly pronounced "h" sound later died out. Dutch retained the "h," and has "het," German has "es (what is called a sound shift made "t" into High German "s"), but Low German has "et," as the sound shift didn't affect Low German, nor did it affect Frisian, and West Frisian has "it." The possessive form in English, "its," didn't really develop until the late 1700s! Before that, English speakers used "his" as the possessive form.

^ English now uses "he, she, it," with only the latter being grammatically neutral and generally used to refer to non human or non gender specific things (after all, we do often refer to a ship, boat or car as "she"). German, however, which still uses grammatical gender, has "er, sie, es," which mean "he, she, it," BUT they all can also mean "it," depending upon the noun they refer to. For instance, "Wagen" means "car" (or "wagon"), and it is a grammatically masculine noun, so the pronoun used when referring to "Wagen" is "er;" as in, "Der Wagen, er ist rot" ("The car, it is red"). Also, "Flasche" means "bottle" (really the same word as English "flask"), but it is a grammatically feminine noun, so: "Die Flasche, sie ist voll" ("The bottle, it is full").

"Downfall," A Really Good Movie

First published July 15, 2009; slightly edited and updated November 30, 2014. There is also a separate "Addendum" to this article, which I've also updated. The Word History updated, 2-4-16.

A few years ago, it must have been in 2003, I read an article or news story about the upcoming release of another historical movie dealing with Hitler’s end in Berlin in 1945. Two things caught my attention; one was that the movie was a German produced film. Now that may not sound too spectacular, but movies about Hitler almost always seem to be American or British produced, and most of the characters are played by American or British actors. This movie would have German-speaking actors portraying the characters who participated in this terrible era of German (and World) history. The second thing had to do with the German language, and, with my love affair with language, this was what REALLY caught my attention. The article made mention that the actor playing Hitler, Bruno Ganz, a man of whom I’d never heard, was credited with having mastered Hitler’s mannerisms so well, that he even got Hitler’s voice and south German accent down pat.* Well, I thought that was interesting, and while I can’t say what I did back in 2003, it is likely that within fifteen seconds of having finished reading the article, my mind had wandered onto something else, and I never went to see the movie when it was released.

Then in the spring of 2009 I came across a reference to this same movie when I was reading something about German dialects. I recalled the article I’d read prior to the film’s release, and I checked out the availability of the movie on DVD, and I found a very reasonably priced edition, complete with English subtitles, interviews with some of the actors, and an additional version with commentary from the director, Oliver Hirschbiegel. I also found that the picture had received several awards, and that it was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film. I was a bit perplexed, since if you have seen one movie about Hitler’s end, you have seen them all, because the ending is always the same; he kills himself (better late than never). I bought the movie, and I’m sure glad I did! What a movie!!! It spurred me to do some further research, and I also checked out a couple of other movies, actually I guess what you’d call documentaries, both with interviews of actual participants from Hitler’s bunker.

What impressed me about the movie, called “Downfall” in English, or “Der Untergang” in the original German (see the “word histories” at the end), was that it wasn’t just a war movie, or another movie about Hitler blowing his brains out. This movie had military action, including some gruesome scenes (so beware), but it delved into something that Germans have been reluctant to do since the war ended, and that is, why they followed Hitler. This same question has been asked by many, many historians, and to be quite honest, there isn’t any one answer. People followed Hitler to varying degrees, and for various reasons. The picture tries to deal with some of this, and I’d actually say, it gives an answer in part, that there wasn’t always clear logic involved in why so many individuals followed Hitler, especially in the last days of the war. If you’re interested in the movie, I won’t spoil everything for you, but I’ll give you an idea of what it covers, some general, some more specific, along with some further explanations that I derived from the other interviews I saw, and from the director’s commentary, which was REALLY great.

First, some criticism was leveled at the producers and director of the film for showing Hitler to be “human” in a couple of scenes: in one scene he hugs his dog and gives her a kiss on the head; then in one of the opening scenes, he treats the female secretarial applicants with respect and courtesy. I find this criticism to be faulty, because Hitler’s personality was part of what attracted people to him. Yes, he was a son-of-a-bitch (all due respect to his mother), and hopefully we all understand that, but like it or not, he was one of US, a human being, and try though we might, we can’t always completely disown evil people like Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam, no matter how uncomfortable their being humans makes us feel. Further, some criticism was given to the positive portrayal of other another participant, namely one doctor, who, after the war, was accused of having conducted experiments on concentration camp inmates, but the director, in his commentary, says that he could not find credible evidence to support the charge. In fact, at the very end of the “commentary version,” the director gives his opinions on each of the main historical participants, with a blunt, negative assessment of many.

This film, like the movie “Patton,” is based on real events (“Patton” being mainly from General Patton’s own writings and also those by General Omar Bradley), although some events are combined into one scene to keep the length and cost of the film within reason. Many sources by actual participants from those times were used in the script of "Downfall." After the war, many German military and political leaders who were actual witnesses to those last days in Berlin wrote about those events, and interestingly, one of his secretaries did not write a book about her time with Hitler until not long before she died from cancer, when she was in her 80s (see below). Almost all of the scenes are based upon fact, even at times with the same words that were spoken by the real historical figures included, and the director says that he only “created” one main character for the movie, a young boy, about 12, in the Hitler Youth, to represent the kids used by the Nazis to actively engage in the street fighting against the Russians in Berlin. I’ll take the director at his word, but the boy’s parents have brief scenes in the movie, and perhaps they were actually based upon real participants, and he just gave them this boy as their son. Further, just so you know, the entire movie is in German, there is even some Berlin dialect spoken, but the English subtitles are excellent, with very accurate translation.

The movie opens with a short clip of one of Hitler’s real secretaries in an interview given not long before she died, and shortly before the movie began filming. Her name was Traudl Junge. The movie covers a good deal about her experience in Berlin during the last ten days or so of the battle, and it is taken from her memoirs, compiled not long before she died (she died in 2002).** She also has an excellent clip at the end of the picture about her failure to try to find out about Hitler and the regime. She started working as one of Hitler’s personal secretaries when she was only 22 years old. He had four such secretaries, and in one of the other documentaries I saw, Traudl Junge mentions that when they were all with Hitler in his military headquarters, he would have lunch with two of his secretaries every day, and then dinner with the other two later in the evening. The secretaries were advised NOT to talk about military or political matters with Hitler, as he wanted to spend time away from those subjects, and in fact, the secretaries provided female companionship for Hitler at lunch, dinner and tea.

With the exception of the scene about Hitler’s meeting the secretarial applicants in late 1942, and his hiring of Traudl Junge at that time, the entire movie is set in war torn Berlin in April 1945, much of it in Hitler’s underground bunker, which was recreated in great detail for the movie (although above ground). Much of the movie was shot in Munich and, interestingly, St. Petersburg, Russia. I say “interestingly,” because the Germans were fighting the Russians in Berlin in 1945. The director says they chose St. Petersburg because parts of the city had been designed by German architects, and these areas are still quite similar to the Berlin of the Hitler era.

I mentioned the “fictional” boy fighting the Russians in the streets of Berlin, well, in one scene his father comes to the boy and his friends (including a girl of maybe 15) who are awaiting the Russian advance. The father, who has lost an arm in the war, tries desperately to convince the kids to go home, as the war is lost, and he doesn’t want them to be killed in such a hopeless cause, but they all stay.

There are several scenes of Hitler and his military personnel in conferences, and Hitler’s “delusional orders” to have them organize large scale attacks against the Russians in order to save Berlin. The generals know it is a bunch of nonsense, but while they complain, mainly behind Hitler’s back, they can’t bring themselves to do anything to stop the carnage. When one officer tries to convince them to act, they turn on him with angry words. When some try to get Hitler to evacuate civilians, he turns down the requests with statements like, “In a war like this, there are no civilians” ("In einem Krieg wie diesem gibt es keine Zivilisten"), and in another scene, when his orders for the destruction of Germany’s infrastructure are challenged for their likelihood of putting Germany back into the Middle Ages, he says something like, “I can't give consideration to the German people, they deserve to live like in the Middle Ages, as they’ve proven to be the weaker people” ... because they didn’t win the war. Talk about "survival of the fittest!" Further still, Nazi “execution squads” roam the streets of Berlin shooting or hanging people, even elderly men, whom they deem to be “deserters” (this is definitely based upon fact). The director says in his commentary that there was no real opportunity to deal with the concentration camp issue, so he “created” a scene where there is a pile of naked bodies to remind people of that horrendous tragedy. Further, and I’m repeating this, but the director says that most of the scenes are recreations of actual events that were written about by others present in Berlin and around Hitler, but that in a case or two, people met with Hitler in private, one-on-one, and that the only account is that of the “survivor,” who may not have accurately reported what was really said, but that they chose to use these accounts anyway.

This is a “deep” movie, as it is about many people trapped by their loyalty to a man who had seriously deteriorated, both physically and mentally. Even his irrationality can’t seem to shake them loose from him. In one scene, Hitler tells people gathered around, that he will not leave Berlin, thus bringing the reply from his long time mistress, Eva Braun, and also from Traudl Junge, that they will stay too. One of the other secretaries asks Traudl Junge later why she had said that, and she replies, “I don’t know why…honestly.” A sniffling Joseph Goebbels, the infamous Nazi propaganda minister, tells Junge that Hitler wants him to take his wife and family (six children) and leave Berlin, but that he won’t obey the Führer’s order.

Overall, this is a gloomy kind of movie, and the director says he put in a “created” ending, because “people need some hope” after watching this macabre part of history. You’ll have to watch the movie to learn of that ending. This is a movie well worth seeing. The performance by Swiss German actor Bruno Ganz as Hitler is just absolutely remarkable. No need to worry that you might like Hitler because he hugs his dog and treats his secretaries well, his actions throughout the movie, based on historical fact, will keep you hating him, perhaps even more so, as well you should. Anyone who likes Hitler because of his dog or his secretaries, already liked him in the first place, and there are probably a few more of them than we would like to believe exist. FIGHT FASCISM!

* I read that Ganz studied a recording of Hitler in a meeting with the President of Finland in 1942, where Hitler spoke calmly and in his every day voice. Ganz studied it for many days to perfect his impersonation of Hitler’s normal speaking voice, rather than the sound of his shrieking voice so often heard in many of his public speeches.

** Traudl Junge had made extensive notes about her time as one of Hitler's secretaries a couple of years after the war ended, while her memory of events was still pretty good. It was these notes that were used for the book she agreed to have published. The notes were illegible in a few places, and the book shows that. Her recollections were also off on some details, especially the chronology of events, but that was to be expected. Just imagine writing about a part of your life and trying to get every incident into proper sequence. The book left all of the errors intact, but then noted the correct information. In at least one of her interviews, she also made a couple of errors on names, referring to General Stülpnagel in France by a mangled version of his name, and also mispronouncing Field Marshal Schörner's name, but neither mistake was exactly earth shattering.

Photo is from the 2005 DVD release by Constantin Film and Sony Home Entertainment

Word Histories:
Under-This common word goes back to Indo European "ndhero," which meant "lower; thus also, below, under." The Old Germanic offshoot was "unther" or "under," with the same meaning, but also, "among." This gave the other Germanic languages forms of the word: Dutch “onder,” German “unter,” Low German Saxon "ünner," Frisian, Swedish, Danish & Norwegian “under,” and Icelandic "undir." The spelling has remained unchanged in English, as even in Old English it was "under."

Gang- This word seems to go back to Indo European "ghengh," which meant "to step, walk." The Old Germanic offshoot was "gangaz," which meant "go." Old English had the noun "gang," which meant a "passage, path, course;" that is, "a place where people 'go.' " Later in English, in the 1600s, it also took on the meaning "a group who goes together,” usually in reference to workmen, but then later still, this developed into “a group that goes together for purposes none too good;” thus our modern meaning "gang," as in members of a gang. Of course, "gangway," is a place where people go, walk. And "gang plank," is a place you don't want to go, if you're captured by pirates. German uses the word in many compounds, for example, "Eingang," literally "in passage, path;" that is, "an entrance," and "Ausgang," meaning literally "out passage, path;" that is "exit."

How Does Your Income Compare?

I first published this in early 2007, but it is even more relevant now, as this was BEFORE the economic meltdown. Updated to include a "Word History" on November 29, 2014. I also simply added a paragraph, almost intact, from another article from back then, as it fit perfectly with this subject. At that time George W. Bush was President. 

A couple of things caught my attention regarding recent reports on income in America. First, the CEO of Home Depot is leaving. He is getting a severance package worth 210 million dollars!!! From my understanding, he's being given the boot for the company NOT doing as well under his leadership. What would he have gotten if he had left the company having done a GOOD job?

Then, on the radio, I heard this info, but I don't believe a source was cited:
The average pay of an American CEO of a company with at least a billion dollars a year in sales is about $44,000 per day (rounded off ... thank God!). The average pay for American workers is around $35,000 per year. Please draw your own conclusions.

President George W. Bush recently said in an interview that corporate boards need to be more vigilant in oversight of CEO pay and benefits. The reaction has been that last week, one Wall Street company paid it's CEO $40 million (as Jethro Bodine, of the Beverly Hillbillies would say, "That's 40 comma... naught... naught... naught...comma...naught...naught...naught"). As if to further prove a point, this week, another Wall Street company paid it's CEO more than $50 million. I'm glad these companies have followed the President's advice. (Generally gleaned from CNBC, December 2006)

WORD HISTORY:
Ween-This is NOT the same word as "wean," which means, "to get used to, get accustomed to, to gradually become independent of," but they are distantly related from long ago. English has a noun and verb form of this word, although both have unfortunately become archaic, but you never know when words may make a comeback, or when you may encounter old forms in poetry or old writings. "Ween" goes back to Indo European "wen," which had the notion of "to wish, to desire, to strive for, to expect." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "wenjanan," which had the meanings "to hope, to imagine, to expect." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "wenan," with the same general meanings, but also with the notion behind these meanings of "to believe unrealistically, have unreal expectations." This then became "wenen," before "ween" became the standard form. Old Germanic also had the noun form "wenaz," which meant "an expectation, a hope." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "wena/wen," with the same meanings, but also "incorrect expectation, false hope." This then became "wene," before "ween" became the standard. Forms of "ween" in the other Germanic languages have suffered a decline in usage too, except: German has the verb "wähnen" (to falsely imagine) in limited use, and the much more common noun "Wahn" (delusion, mania), Dutch has the limited use verb "wanen" (to falsely imagine) and the noun "waan" (delusion). Low German Saxon has "wahn," an adverb meaning "angry," which goes to a state of mind, too.    

What's In A Name? Richard, Barbara

"Richard" goes back to Old High German "Richart/Ricohard," which was a compound of "ric(o)," which meant "ruler," and "hard" (modern German: "hart," see "Word History" below), which meant "hard, strong;" thus, "strong ruler." Long ago this name spread into other Germanic dialects, including Frankish.* The name then merged into the Latin-based language which was gradually absorbing Frankish to become "French," and "Ricard/Richard" was carried to England by the invading Normans, where it became highly common, including as the name of three Kings of England, the most famous being Richard I, known as "the Lionheart." In Spanish and Portuguese the name is "Ricardo."

"Barbara" goes back to Greek "barbaros," which meant "foreign, one whose speech cannot be understood." This was borrowed by Latin as "barbarus," with the same general meaning. Christianity had Saint Barbara dating to either the 3rd of 4th century, who was killed by her father for being a Christian, but he was then struck and killed by lightening. The popularity of the story spread through Christianity, and with it the name proliferated.

I consulted the following, so for more information on any of the names see, "A World Of Baby Names" by Teresa Norman, published by Perigee/Penguin Group, New York, 2003.

* Frankish was the language of the Germanic tribe the "Franks." The Franks eventually occupied much of western Europe, including all or part of what are today, the Netherlands (modern Dutch is derived from Frankish), Belgium (Flemish, a dialect of Dutch, and thus derived from Frankish, is spoken by about 60% of Belgians), Luxembourg (the local German dialect is Luxembourgish, derived from Frankish), part of Germany (part of northwestern and west central Germany and into northern Bavaria, where the dialects are derived from Frankish), and former German majority areas of the province of Lorraine (part of France), where the German dialect is from Frankish, and France, where Frankish provided the name for the country, and its language, besides contributing many words to the Latin-based French language.

WORD HISTORY:
Hard-This word goes back to Indo European "khert/khart," variant of "k(h)rat," which had the meaning "strong, firm, powerful." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "harduz," with the same general meaning. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "heard," which meant "hard, firm," and the figurative "harsh, severe." This then became "hard," with the added figurative meaning "difficult." The other Germanic languages have forms, all with about the same general and figurative meanings as their English cousin (hard, solid, tough, harsh, severe, unyielding): German and Low German Saxon "hart," ^ West Frisian "hurd," Dutch "hard," Danish and Swedish "hård," Norwegian "hard," Icelandic "harður" (also meaning "grim").

^ The Low German Saxon form was once "hard," just a guess, but the change of the ending  "d" to "t" may have come from the influence of the High German dialects.

What's In A Name? Robert, Roberta, Linda

The name "Robert" goes back to Old Germanic "Hrodbert" and the variant "Hrodperht" (which later became "Ruprecht"), both of which meant "bright or shining with glory." Old English had forms, according to dialect, one of which was "Hreodbeorht" (the others were similar). * The name spread throughout much of Europe from various Germanic sources, including Frankish, which gave the name to French. The Normans took along the name, as "Robert," to England, where it gradually replaced the native form. "Roberta" is simply the feminine form of Robert.  

"Linda" goes back to German "linde," which meant "tender, gentle" (see "Word History"). The word was used to form compounds for names, and the ending "e" was pronounced "ah/eh." The shortened form, "Linda," spread to English in the 1800s, helped along by an association with the Spanish word "linda," which meant 'beautiful, pretty."

I consulted the following, so for more information on any of the names see, "A World Of Baby Names" by Teresa Norman, published by Perigee/Penguin Group, New York, 2003.

* The second part of the compound, Old English "beorht," is indeed the old form of "bright," as the "r" and vowel sound later changed places and the aspirated "h" became "gh," which was pronounced until somewhat more modern times.

WORD HISTORY:
Lithe-This word goes back to Indo European "lent," which had the notion of "flexible, bendable." This gave Old Germanic "linthaz," with similar meaning, but also the figurative "soft, gentle, tender." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "liþe" (þ=th), meaning "soft, gentle," and also "mild" for weather. In modern times the meaning tends to be "thin (of body)," from the meaning of "flexible," which also still exists. The "n" sound did not survive in Old English, nor in its close relative Old Saxon (the surviving Saxon dialect in northern Germany, as not all Saxons participated in the invasion of Britain), which had "liþi." German has "lind(e)" (soft, tender) and Icelandic "linr" (soft), but most forms in the Germanic languages have died out.

What's In A Name? Michael, Michelle, Alan

"Michael" goes back to Hebrew "Mikhael" (transliterated from Hebrew) , and means "who is like God?," in a question form. Greek borrowed the name from Hebrew as "Mikhael" (transliterated from Greek), and Latin took it as "Michael." "Michelle/Michele" are just feminine forms of "Michael," and they came to English via French "Michel."

While far from a certainty, Alan and its main spelling variations, Allen and Allan, "may" go back to the name of an ancient group of people, the Alans, who came from the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo European. At least some of the Alans settled in Gaul, including in Brittany. Gaul was the area of western Europe which generally later became France. Brittany, whose inhabitants are called "Bretons," * is important, because it is highly likely the name "Alan" was carried to England by Bretons who came after the Normans invaded in 1066. The name then spread into Scotland and Ireland.

I consulted the following, so for more information on any of the names see, "A World Of Baby Names" by Teresa Norman, published by Perigee/Penguin Group, New York, 2003.

* Breton is a Celtic language, and Celtic dialects were spoken in much of Gaul and Britain long ago. Breton is closely related to Welsh and Cornish, as well as Irish and Scots Gaelic, and Manx (from the Isle of Man).

WORD HISTORY:
Angel-The ultimate origin of this word is unknown, but Greek had "angelos" (transliterated from Greek), which meant "messenger," but which later took on the religious meaning as translations from Hebrew biblical texts for "messenger of God, God's messenger." Latin borrowed the term as "angelus," and Old English (Anglo-Saxon) borrowed a form as "engel." The spelling change to "angel" with the "j" like pronunciation of the "g" came from the influence of French "angele" (derived from Latin), carried to England by the Normans, but the process "seems" to have taken some time, and the old spelling and pronunciation persisted into the 1400s. The French form was from Latin. The other Germanic languages have: German and Low German Saxon "Engel," West Frisian "ingel," Dutch, Norwegian and Danish "engel," Icelandic "engill," Swedish "ängel."

What's In A Name? Mary, Patrick, Patricia

The name "Mary" goes back to Hebrew "Miryam," and it "may" have meant "bitter" or "bitterness," but with no degree of certainty, as it "might" be derived from "myrrh," the sap taken from a species of tree, which was then used to make medicines, and I "suppose," it must be bitter in taste. Greek borrowed the Hebrew name as "Mariam," but also in the abbreviated form "Maria," which is the form Latin took from Greek. French, a Latin-based language, often used the name as "Marie," and English speakers often spelled this as "Mary," but "Marie" and "Maria" are certainly common, but not likely recognized by everyone as really being the same name.  

"Patrick" goes back to Latin "pater;" that is, "father," and this then gave Latin "patricius," * which meant, "from or of the nobility," from the notion of "elders, fathers," as in American usage of "Founding Fathers." So Patrick essentially means "noble, nobleman." The use of the name by the man who became Saint Patrick, who helped bring Christianity to Ireland, brought more widespread use to the name. "Patricia" is simply the feminine form of "Patrick," and therefore generally means, "noble, of the nobility."  

I consulted the following, so for more information on any of the names, see, "A World Of Baby Names" by Teresa Norman, published by Perigee/Penguin Group, New York, 2003.

* Latin "patricius" is the ancestor of English "patrician," a word English borrowed from Latin-based French. 

WORD HISTORY:
Gull-This word replaced long used English "mew" (see link below) as the general word for a common family of shorebirds. The ultimate origin of the word is unknown, and its history is sketchy, but it "seemingly" goes back to Celtic "vwellanna," which then later gave forms to its Brythonic branch (Welsh "gwylan" and "Cornish "guilan"); that is, the Celtic dialects carried to, and present in, Britain before the Germanic invasions. English borrowed the word as "gulle" circa 1600. Exactly why "gull" caught on enough to displace the original English word is unclear.

Note: For the history of "mew" see the "Word History":   http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2014/11/whats-in-name-john.html

What's In A Name? John

Where does the name John come from? Well, John is an ancient name, going back to Hebrew "Yohanan" (transliterated from Hebrew), "graced by God." Greek took the name as "Ioannes" (transliterated from Greek), which was then borrowed by Latin as "Ioannes," but later spelled as "Iohannes." Christianity popularized the name in much of Europe and it was established in England as "Johannes" during the 1100s. The Normans brought their dialectal forms of the name to England as "Johan/Jehan," with the "J" pronounced as "zh," as in the male name "Jean" (as if, "zhawn") versus the female name "Jean," as if "gene." This brought English to "Jon/John." There are many variations to the name in other languages, although some of those variations are used in English speaking countries in the "foreign form" (for lack of another term), for example, German "Johann/Johannes," Slavic "Ivan," Irish (but commonly used in English) "Sean," and Spanish "Juan."

I consulted the following, so for more information on the name "John," see, "A World Of Baby Names" by Teresa Norman, published by Perigee/Penguin Group, New York, 2003.

WORD HISTORY: 

Mew-This is now an antiquated word, but it is still present in the terms "sea mew" and "mew gull," terms for a "seagull" and a "common gull," both the same general bird. "Mew" goes back to Old Germanic "maigwiz," the word used for such a bird, likely in imitation of the sound made by the bird. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "maew," which then became "mewe," before the modern version. The other Germanic languages have: German "Möwe," Low German Saxon "Meev," West Frisian "miuw," Dutch "meeuw," Icelandic "máfur" (also "mávur"), Danish "måge," Norwegian "måke," Swedish "mås."

Give To Charities, But With Care

As we approach the holiday season, I hope we can turn our thoughts to the many legitimate charities which seek to help others. Certainly many people are in great need, and those in need are right here in the United States, as well as in other parts of the world. Job losses and low wages due to downsizing, outsourcing, technology, and just plain greed, have put tremendous stress on an increasing number of families and individuals. Many of this nation's poorest residents are CHILDREN. * So, if you can spare even a small amount, please give to the charity of your choice. Remember, some of the lowest of lowlifes are out in force at this time of year looking to scam well meaning people out of their money. They call, they send emails, they send letters or cards, but don't ASSUME any request for money or for your credit or debit card info is legit until you check out the organization. Technology has advanced so much and so quickly, scammers can hide their own number by using phony telephone numbers, or duplicate phone numbers of legitimate businesses or people, which will be displayed on your caller ID. This is called "spoofing." Similar can be done with email addresses. NEVER give ANY personal information out over the telephone or online to someone who has contacted you, no matter who they say they represent, including your bank or some local, state or federal governmental agency. This is a link to some helpful advice about preventing charity scams:  http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0074-giving-charity

Also, please don't forget the animal charities.

* See Time: http://time.com/3588844/child-homeless-study/

WORD HISTORY:
Appeal/Peal-"Appeal" is a compound of "ap" and "peal." The "ap" goes back to Indo European "ad," which meant "at, near," which gave Latin "ad," meaning "to, towards," and "ap" is simply a variant of "ad." The "peal" part goes back to Indo European "pel," which meant "drive, beat, thrust." This gave its Latin offspring "pellere," which meant "to drive, to push." The original Latin compound "appellere" seems to have been used for "to drive or to direct a ship to a certain place." While presumably the same word with a modified spelling, the meaning of "appellare" also changed; "to address, to call by name;" thus also, "to summon," perhaps from the notion of "directing a ship," to "directing a person toward another or to a place by calling their name, addressing them."  This gave the legal meaning, "to call for a review and reversal of a verdict;" as well as "to accuse someone," thus, "call before an authority." Old French, a Latin based language, inherited a form of the word as "apeler," with the legal meanings, but also, "to call to someone, to call out." English borrowed the word in the early 1300s with those same meanings, but eventually the meaning of "calling for a review and reversal of a verdict," prevailed in the legal sense, and the "call out to someone" meaning continued as, "make a serious request to someone." The noun form came from the verb in French as "apel," which was also borrowed by English in the early 1300s. German also later borrowed a form of the noun from French as "Appell," the main meaning of which is "roll call, muster," but it also means "appeal." "Peal," meaning "ringing of a bell or bells," is simply a shortened form of "appeal" from later in the 1300s, with the notion of, "bells calling out to summon worshipers."

The Mean Old Man or Woman On The Block?

Are you the mean old man or woman on the block? Excuse me for a second while I open the window .... "Hey you kids, quit playin' out there! Get the hell away from here, you little morons! ... I'm tellin' ya. Errrr." Some people go through their lives very angry for whatever reason. They didn't have to wait to become the mean old man or woman on the block, they started early; mad at the world, grouchy and grumbling, begrudging of others, fearful that someone might get something they didn't get, and generally just a pain in the ass to everyone around them. If you've been one of these people, and you know if you have been, do you want to continue being a pain in the ass until your dying breath? Do you want a lifetime of resentment and bitterness to make you well known for being the mean old man or woman on the block? Why not make peace with yourself and others and don't do everything in your power to earn that epithet, "the mean old man or woman on the block."

As we grow older, there is a tendency for some, but certainly not all, to seem to try to help others, maybe out of the realization that their lives are heading for the finish line and perhaps out of a religious belief that they want to save their souls. Then too, some may do similar not out of a religious belief, but because they want their lives to make a difference, that they will not have lived and died in vain; and I think also, they hopefully have learned from decades of life how we need to help others and not just look to helping ourselves.

My favorite book is John Steinbeck's "East of Eden." In Chapter 34, Steinbeck boils life down in his shortest chapter of the book. He talks about the death of a man, unnamed, but who is unmistakably John D. Rockefeller, the wealthiest man of his time, and something of "the mean old man on the block." Rockefeller lived here in Cleveland, and is indeed buried here, on the East Side. Steinbeck writes about how Rockefeller's ruthless desire for wealth left him a hated man, even after he later gave huge sums to various causes, in what Steinbeck says was an attempt, "to try to buy back the love he had forfeited." Steinbeck even thinks Rockefeller's good deeds may have outweighed the bad, but still, when Rockefeller died, many an American said, "Thank God that son of a bitch is dead." Don't cement your mean old man or woman on block image into people's minds, lest you have a similar burden to overcome. (Quotes and info here are from "The Works of John Steinbeck," Longmeadow Press, 1985. ISBN: 0-681-31923-2)

WORD HISTORY:
Grunt-I have questions about this word's history, but it "seems" to simply be an imitative word of some Germanic dialects for the grunting sound of swine. Old Germanic seemingly had "grunnetanan," which meant "to grunt." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "grunnettan," which later became "grunten," before the modern version. Besides the English form, German has "grunzen," Danish has "grynte," Norwegian has "grynt," and Swedish has "grymta." One question I have is, why don't Low German, Frisian and Dutch have forms, and for that matter, Icelandic? After all, pigs haven't stopped grunting, nor have humans. Both Latin ("grunnire") and Greek ("gryzein") have forms, which "might" indicate a tendency beyond Germanic to form an imitative word.

Puttanesca Sauce And Its Real Meaning

Puttanesca sauce is something of a famous Italian pasta sauce, seemingly developed in the 1950s, but in my opinion, no one really knows, and like most recipes, there are variations, often regional. The word "Puttanesca" is derived from the Italian word "puttana," which means "prostitute, whore." The sauce is spicy, so you can draw your own conclusion, although I read somewhere that some of the "ladies" made such a pasta sauce for their "clients," so some theorize it received its name from that. But how did they all know the same basic recipe? Did they attend cooking school in their "off time?" Whatever the case, it is a great pasta sauce, but then again, any dish with chili peppers will pretty much earn that accolade from me. I believe spaghetti was the pasta of choice for this sauce originally, but you can use just about any pasta and I'm sure, if you ever go to Rome, you won't be banned from entering the Vatican or singing "Arrivederci Roma."
   
Puttanesca Sauce
quarter cup olive oil (if you want to add some 'irony' to the sauce, use 'extra virgin' olive oil)
5 cloves garlic, chopped
6 to 8 anchovy fillets, chopped (please don't be afraid to use anchovies, as they add a great flavor to the sauce, but are not strong, like you might associate with the time you bit into one on your pizza)
1 or 2 fresh small hot peppers, finely chopped, or 1/2 to 1 teaspoon red chili flakes (you can make this as hot as you want, or less so, but use at least 1 fresh pepper or 1/2 teaspoon pepper flakes to keep to the authentic side of the recipe)
about 14 to 16 pitted olives, halved or coarsely chopped (Kalamata olives are good, or cured black olives, or the larger green olives, or better yet, use some of each) 
3 tablespoons of capers, drained
1 28 oz. can chunky or diced plum tomatoes with some juice
1 28 oz. can tomato sauce
tablespoon chopped parsley
(variations: some use onion, some use chopped basil or dried, some use dried oregano, some add a little red wine)

Heat the olive oil in a large skillet, saute the garlic, peppers and anchovies until the garlic and peppers soften a bit and the anchovies begin to melt and mix in. Add and mix in the other ingredients, except the parsley, and simmer for about ten to fifteen minutes or so, letting the sauce thicken a bit. Stir in the parsley. Italians do not typically serve any kind of cheese as a topping for this sauce, so be careful, or no "Asti Spumante" for you!

This time I had fettuccine with Puttanesca sauce and
a small cucumber salad and Italian bread

WORD HISTORY:
Sauce-This word goes back to Indo European "sal," which meant "salt." This gave its Italic/Latin offspring "sal," a relative of English "salt," but the English form was derived from Germanic, which had also gotten its form from Indo European, its parent language. From Latin "sal" came the adjective "salsus," which meant "salted," and from that was derived a noun form "salsa," which meant "brine," but later the more general "flavoring agent." This was passed on to Old French, a Latin-based language, as "sauce," and this was then borrowed by English during the 1300s.

Here Come The Cossacks!

While the actual origins of the Cossacks is a bit sketchy, most people probably think of the Cossacks as the elite cavalry of Tsarist Russia, or others may think of the nomadic horsemen of the Russian Steppe. When I was a kid, the movie "Taras Bulba" was released. It starred Yul Brynner, who just seemed perfect for the role as the Cossack leader circa 1600.* Tony Curtis starred as his son. It was one of those movies I saw back in those times that I still remember to this day, as the masses of horse mounted actors dressed in colorful Cossack costumes dashed across the big screen. The film was loosely based on a novel of the same name by Nikolai Gogol, who was actually born and raised in a Ukrainian Cossack community in the 1800s.

The Cossacks initially had a contentious relationship with Russia, at times participating in open revolt against the Tsarist government. Eventually the Tsars saw the Cossacks as great military assets, and in exchange for their military service, they were not taxed. Viewed as elite and loyal servants of the Tsar, they were revered, but also feared by the population, as the government of Tsar Nicholas II used them to help put down the revolution that started in 1905, a good deal of which took place in the countryside. This role was not to be repeated in the revolution that swept through Russia in the late winter of 1917. With many Cossack units serving at or near the front line during World War I, the Cossack units, and for that matter, other army units, stationed in the capital of St. Petersburg (renamed Petrograd during the war) were largely made up of recruits and reservists who were witnesses to the lack of food and the terrible suffering of the population. When protests erupted, they did little to quell the disturbances, which encouraged more of the population to join in, and in fact eventually, these units went over to the revolution, helping to bring down Nicholas II and tsardom in favor of a "provisional government," which itself was overthrown later that year by the Bolsheviks.** This precipitated a civil war in Russia, with Cossack troops serving both in support of the Bolshevik government, as well as in opposition. When the Bolsheviks finally emerged triumphant, untold numbers of Cossacks were allegedly killed (likely true), and Cossack lands were confiscated, as the communist government sought to eliminate the Cossacks as a separate identity, and to bring their lands under government control. Later, many more died at the hands of Stalin and his forced collectivization program, which brought widespread starvation to the Ukraine and to parts of the Caucasus region, both home to many Cossacks. Exact numbers are unknown, but some estimates are that at least a million Cossacks died at this time.

World War Two brought new challenges for the Cossacks. Faced with defending the Stalinist regime, which had so decimated their people, some Cossacks defected and went into service for the Germans, while many others continued to serve in Soviet units. As the Cossack and other Soviet defectors to the Germans often served in units used to combat resistance fighters behind the actual front lines, there's no doubt in my mind that some of these forces participated in atrocities, but the details are beyond the scope of this article, although I may cover such details in a future article. Also, Tsarist Russia had a terrible history of mistreatment and repression of its Jewish population. How much Cossacks participated in this repression is something I need to research more, along with the specifics of the World War Two actions, but I wanted to at least make mention of it here. When World War Two ended, tens of thousands of Cossacks were prisoners of the Allies, who turned them over to the Soviets by agreement among the Allied powers. These were not just soldiers, but family members too, as they tended to travel in family groups. Some committed suicide, and how many were executed I don't know, but presumably all others were sent to labor camps.

There are some books available about the Cossacks, but I consulted the following for some of the information I used here:
"The Cossacks, An Illustrated History," by John Ure, published by Overlook Press, 2002.
"The Cossacks" by Philip Longworth, published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston," New York, 1970.

* Yul Brynner was actually born in the Russian Pacific coast region at Vladivostok.

** Nicholas II abdicated for both himself and his son, who was afflicted with hemophilia. The Bolshevik takeover came to be known to most as "the Bolshevik Revolution."

WORD HISTORY:
Cossack/Cassock-These two words seem to actually be the same word, but the spelling variation and the different meanings having come to English from different "immediate" sources. They both go back to Turkic, a family of languages primarily from southwestern Asia, which then spread into southeastern Europe. ^ The exact Turkic root of the word is unclear, as some believe it be "qaz," which had the notion of "wander," and the various Turkic tribes were often nomads of the Asian plains, but there are other possible Turkic word sources. Whatever the case, the source word expanded to "quzzak/kazakh," with the meaning "wanderer, nomad, free man of the open plain," and this was borrowed by Slavic as "kozak." This gave its Russian descendant "kazak," which was later borrowed by French as "casaque," and English borrowed the word from French in the later 1500s or early 1600s. The word "Kazakh," and its plural form for a Turkic people from Asia, prominently featured in the name "Kazakhstan," is really the same word as "Cossack." The Cossacks' long history as nomadic horsemen made them expert cavalrymen and they eventually became part of the Tsarist military in Russia as elite cavalry units."Cassock" goes back to the same sources, except that Italian called a long riding coat a "casacca," after similar apparel used by the Cossacks. French likely borrowed the term from Italian as "casaque," simply with the meaning of "long coat," and English borrowed it from French in the 1500s. It began to be used for religious clothing in the mid 1600s.

^ The more specific language, "Turkish," is one of the Turkic languages, a language family just as is Indo European, the ancient ancestor of English. Linguists generally use a "family tree" setup in classifying languages, and Turkic has several branches, as does Indo European, with English belonging to the Germanic branch. Turkic also has languages in northeastern Asia. The Turkic-speaking Bulgars were a group that entered southeastern Europe, mixed with other people there, and became the modern Bulgarians, but a form of Slavic gradually replaced their own Bulgar language by about 1400. Bulgar is now extinct, as is Hunnic, the language of the famous Huns, which were also a Turkic speaking people.

Flemish Beef And Beer Stew

Flanders is the northern part of multicultural (Latin, Celtic and Germanic) and trilingual Belgium (Flemish/Dutch, French and German are all official). The language of Flanders is "Flemish," a dialect of Dutch, and it is therefore closely related to English, Low German, German, and Frisian. In more recent decades the term "Flemish" has been replaced more and more with "Dutch." The people of Flanders are called "Flemings," so if your family name is "Fleming," there is a chance that at least that part of your family tree traces back to Flanders, although that is not a certainty, as not all family names "Fleming" relate to Flanders. Belgium is known for its beer, and the stew I'm covering in this recipe uses beer as one of its main ingredients.

For a brief sketch of the history of the overall region, this is a link to my article on the subject. The history is very complicated, but my article should give you a little understanding:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2010/07/german-question-part-twenty.html  

As with all popular recipes, there are variations to this recipe, often determined by the use of regional beers in Belgium, or the addition of carrots, or mushrooms, or of another herb, like tarragon, but the basic recipe seems to be pretty firm. I only tried this recipe once, but it was at least fifteen years ago, and where I got the recipe, I'm not sure, but since I had it jotted down on paper, it may have been from some television show.

The amounts I'm using will give you a basis for how to make a larger amount.

1 1/2 lbs. beef chuck, bite size chunks
2 slices bacon, chopped
2 large onions, sliced or chopped
2 garlic cloves, chopped (this was not in all recipes, but it was in the original recipe I used)
tablespoon or so of flour, enough to coat the beef
3/4 tablespoon dark brown sugar (if you only have light, use light, the "brown sugar police" won't get you)
1  12 to 16 oz bottle of brown or red ale *
1 to 1 1/2 cups of beef stock
1 teaspoon of thyme
2 medium leaves
1 teaspoon of Dijon mustard ("Ah, pardon me, do you have any Grey Poupon?" Actually I make my own.)
1 tablespoon of cider vinegar
salt and pepper (use in two phases, first some mixed with the flour to season the beef, then later when all other ingredients are added, add a little more to the pan)
1 tablespoon of parsley

Coat the beef in the flour mixed with some salt and pepper. In a Dutch oven (I guess this is because Flemish is a dialect of Dutch .. okay, settle down, I'm just kidding) saute the bacon until the fat is rendered, remove the bacon and set it aside. Brown the beef in the bacon fat (you can pour off some of the fat, but it is only from 2 slices of bacon to brown 1 1/2 lbs of beef), when the beef is pretty will browned, add the onions and let cook until they begin to soften, then add the garlic and let cook until it also softens. Add the rest of the ingredients, except the parsley, the brown sugar and the vinegar, but include the bacon. Bake at 350 for about an hour, then add the brown sugar and vinegar, stir and let bake another 20 to 30 minutes, or until the meat is tender. Add the parsley and stir right after removing the dish from the oven. This is often, but not always, served with fries. Of course a glass of beer is mandatory, or the "beer police" WILL GET YOU! Then again, if you have more than one beer, the REAL police may get you.

* I checked several recipes and all but one used brown or red ale, but the one used light (in color, not calories) regular American beer. Of course, if you want to try to be authentic, you can pretty easily find Belgian beers nowadays, or American made Belgian-style beers. I love brown ale, so this kind of dish must have been invented with me in mind, albeit that I read somewhere that it was invented in like 1380, or some such date, but hey, they anticipated me. The United States now has lots of small craft brewers which make all sorts of beers once only generally available through imports, and that was if you could find them, or afford them. I prefer to support American made products, especially if they are from companies that pay and treat their workers decently. I'm not against a special treat of an import once in a while, so if you buy a Belgian import for this recipe, I'm fairly certain you won't trigger the "Great Recession, Part Two," or cause a gigantic leap in the trade deficit. English brown ales are excellent, and German Altbier is even more so, in my opinion. The German term "alt," is simply the English word "old," but it doesn't mean the beer has been sitting around since the turn of the century, but rather that it was brewed in "the old style;" that is, with yeasts fermented at room temperature, not at a chilled temperature. Ale is simply a type of beer, just like lager, stout, or pilsner.   

WORD HISTORY:
Leek-The ultimate origin of this word is unclear, but it "seems" the only forms outside of the Germanic languages were borrowed from Germanic (some Slavic languages have forms, as does Finnish ^). Some "suggest" its origins are from an Indo European word, the meaning of which was then developed into the name for the plants in Old Germanic. Besides the word itself, it is also the second part of English "garlic." Old Germanic had "lauka," which was a general word for "leek, onion, garlic, chive" (all from the same plant family). This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "leac," with the "e" and "a" originally pronounced separately, and with the same general Germanic meaning. Later the "e" sound alone prevailed and the spelling became "leek," and the meaning narrowed to the more specific plant, as English had its own word "garlic," but English relinquished its own compound form "enneleac/ynneleac" in favor of "onion," a word borrowed from French ("chive" was also borrowed from French). The other Germanic languages have: German "Lauch" (leek), ^^ Low German Saxon "Look" (leek), West Frisian "knyflok," as the second part of a compound (garlic, leek), Dutch "look" (leek, garlic), Danish "løg" (onion), Norwegian "løk" (onion), Icelandic "laukur" (onion), and Swedish "lök" (onion).

^ The Slavic tribes often had lots of contact with the Germanic tribes long ago, so this is certainly possible. Finnish, a non Indo European language, borrowed words from both Germanic and Slavic sources.

^^ Some of the other Germanic languages still use compounds with their respective forms of "leek" for the more specialized plant meanings. For instance, German uses its word in compounds for two of the other plants: "Schnittlauch," meaning "chive" and "Knoblauch," for "garlic," but the word for "onion" ("Zwiebel") was borrowed from Latin, and besides the former English compound for onion, English too used a form, "cipe," borrowed from the same Latin word, but these forms were replaced by "onion."

Heston And Olivier Star: "Khartoum," Plus Some History

NOTE: This article contains information about the movie "Khartoum," including its ending. If you have not seen the movie before and if you don't want to know the ending (although the ending is really obvious), please be forewarned.

While the historical "siege of Khartoum" took place in 1884-85, and the movie was released in 1966, and I'm writing this in November of 2014, you will see that the wars and killings centered around this general topic are not new, and they remain with us to this very day.

The movie "Khartoum" was released back in the mid 1960s and was loosely based upon historical events in the Sudan in eastern Africa in the 1880s. Charlton Heston starred as British General Charles Gordon, who a few years earlier had served in the Sudan as part of the Turkish-Egyptian governing authority, and who played a big role in ending the slave trade there, giving Gordon a great deal of popularity among many of the Sudanese. Gordon had become well known to the British public for his earlier role in China, where he led a highly successful force of British, American and Chinese troops in support of the Chinese emperor to put down some rebellions. This earned Gordon the nickname, "Chinese Gordon." Laurence Olivier starred as "the Mahdi," a self proclaimed Sudanese religious and military leader, whose name was Muhammad Ahmad. The Mahdi led a rebellion against the governing powers of the Sudan (see more below), and thousands of Sunni Muslim Sudanese who believed him to be the true successor to the Prophet Muhammad, flocked to his cause.

Sudan, or "the" Sudan, as I use (I must have been taught that in school long ago, and it therefore sounds more natural to me), had a complicated relationship with Egypt, the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), and Britain. The region had long been linked with Egypt, but much of Egypt and the Sudan was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. The British got involved in Egypt in the early 1880s, and this brought calls for the use of British forces to quell the uprising led by the Mahdi, something the British government did not want to do. The Sudan was garrisoned by Egyptian troops, but with some British officers. The movie depicts the British government's resistance to sending troops and instead asking General Gordon to go to the Sudan in an attempt to satisfy those calling for military forces to be sent, and to evacuate British and Egyptian military, governmental and business personnel from the region. Remember, this is a movie and not a documentary, and as such, actual historical events are not always followed, but rather depicted in some fashion to generally represent the historical events, and then too, there is always the need for any film to make money, and thus scenes are often added for tension and to get people interested to pay to see it.

Khartoum was the center for the administration of the Sudan and Gordon arrives there to jubilant crowds, for his reputation is so powerful, people feel they will now be saved from the Mahdi's takeover. While Gordon prepares a defense of the city, he also tries to get the British government to change its policy and to send troops. The movie shows Gordon going to meet with the Mahdi on a couple of occasions during the ten month siege of Khartoum, although that likely never happened in real life, but historically, the two leaders did exchange various communications. Gordon wants the Mahdi to allow the Egyptian troops and administrators to leave unharmed, but while the Mahdi wants Gordon to leave, he will not permit the Egyptians to leave, as they are marked for death. The Sudanese population will then have to submit to strict Islamic law or be executed. Meanwhile, back in Britain, the public wants British troops sent to the Sudan to "save Gordon." The government relents and finally thousands of troops are sent to Egypt, where they spend time training for the hot climate and rough terrain. The government really hopes this delay will force Gordon to abandon Khartoum, save himself, and join these British forces in Egypt, something, however, he will not do. Historically, Gordon had strong, but somewhat out of the ordinary, Christian religious beliefs, and the religious element of his life is depicted in the movie. In his last meeting with the Mahdi, the two use their religious views against one another, as each essentially condemns the other to death as the will of their views of God (Allah).

The pressure on the British government becomes too much, and the troops in Egypt are given the order to move into the Sudan. The Mahdi organizes his attack on Khartoum and gives the order for the assault. The Egyptian troops put up a valiant defense, inflicting heavy casualties on the enemy, but in the end the Mahdi's forces overcome their resistance and enter the city. Gordon, who is in his residence, goes out to meet the Mahdi's forces. As he appears at the head of some steps, the soldiers cease fire and grow silent. Gordon descends a few steps and one of the soldiers throws a spear which kills him and his body topples from the staircase. Gordon is beheaded and his head is put atop a long pike and carried to the Mahdi, who is terrified by its sight, as he had ordered that Gordon not be killed (historically true). The idea here is, the Mahdi was an astute leader, and he knew that killing the famous Gordon "could" bring substantial British military forces against him. The narrator tells us the British troops arrived just two days later (true), but that the Sudan suffered terribly in the aftermath of the Mahdi's victory, although the Mahdi's rule was short lived, as he too died just a short time later, and the narrator says, "Why, we shall never know," but with the implication that Gordon's religious "threat" or "curse" to the Mahdi in their last meeting had been fulfilled. Historically, how Gordon died is not really known, but the scene in the movie was not "invented" by the filmmaker, but rather was taken from some accounts and from a famous painting depicting Gordon's death. The actual final battle was not really as seen in the movie, as one of Gordon's own men opened one of the gates to the city, allowing the Mahdi's forces to enter. Many of the Egyptians were killed in the fighting, with survivors being executed, and some Sudanese were executed, with the total number being in the thousands. The Mahdi did indeed die just a few months later, "presumably" from typhus.  

The following were consulted for this article:
"Gordon of Khartoum-The Saga Of A Victorian Hero" by John H. Waller, published by Atheneum, 1988.
"Gordon of Khartoum" by Peter Johnson, published by Patrick Stevens, 1985

WORD HISTORY:
Ennet-This now largely British dialectal, but generally antiquated word for "duck," the waterfowl, goes back to Indo European "anet/anat," with the meaning "waterbird, waterfowl." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "anuth," with the same meaning. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "ened/enid," which meant "duck." This later became "enede," before the later version, "ennet," which is also at times written "annet." Other forms in the Germanic languages are: German "Ente," Low German "Aant," Dutch "eend," West Frisian "ein," Danish and Norwegian "and," Icelandic "önd," Swedish "and," but also "an."

German Shoemaker's Pie (Schusterpastete)

The German name for this dish is "Schusterpastete." A "Schuster" is a shoemaker or cobbler, and "Pastete" means sort of a "pie;" that is, a dish covered with dough or some sort of crust, and this dish is more of a layered casserole, than a pie, as you'll see. The dish originated in East Prussia, a region, since World War Two, mainly part of Poland, but also with a part now belonging to Russia. The idea lying behind the dish, was that shoemakers often struggled financially, and they had to be very efficient in  the use of their limited resources, so this dish was a way to use leftover roast by combining it with ingredients that were not usually all that expensive. Of course, you can make the dish with fresh beef and uncooked potatoes by simply extending the cooking time, and perhaps by adding the top "crust" after the dish has baked for awhile. Sour cream was a VERY common component in East Prussian cooking, something the Germans likely picked up from the various Slavic people they encountered as they settled in parts of eastern Europe a few centuries ago, where sour cream was/is common, as dairy farming was one of the main professions. East Prussia also bordered on the Baltic Sea, which usually made fish, especially herring, plentiful, and cheap, something that is not much the case in this day and age.

There are variations to Schusterpastete, including those with fish only, or with some type of pork as the main meat component, but this is the version I know, and it can be a bit dry if you don't use just this side of a ton of butter (see recipe below), so I add a little beef broth. With East Prussians having ready access to dairy products, butter was used more to keep the dish moist, but with all that butter, and then sour cream too, you might hear your arteries clogging before you finish eating; that is, IF you finish eating. I don't always measure things when cooking; all that, "a quarter cup of this, and a half teaspoon of that," is not for me, so I'll try to give you some general guidelines, and you can adjust things to the amount you are preparing. I've made this dish many, many times over the years. This recipe is very much based upon one found in, "The Cuisines of Germany," by Horst Scharfenberg, Poseidon Press (Division of Simon & Schuster), New York, 1989, from original German edition of 1980.

About 2 lbs or so, leftover roast beef, cut into bite sized pieces
about 7 or 8 medium potatoes, boiled in their skins, but then cooled, peeled and cut into about 1/4" slices
a couple of tablespoons of butter, or more if you'd like (the recipe I first used many years ago called for like the equivalent of a stick of butter)
a good deal of fresh pepper
a large onion, chopped
several pieces of herring, chopped (pickled herring is usually readily available in markets, but I just made this dish again a few days ago, and I didn't have herring, but I did have a can of boneless, skinless sardines, and they worked just fine)
a little beef broth (I wouldn't add much, as you don't want the dish to be runny. Just a tablespoon or two, so it will help to "steam" the dish during baking, keeping it moist)
1 cup of sour cream (you can use "light")
breadcrumbs
a little seasoned salt (my own addition)
canola oil or vegetable oil to grease the baking dish (the recipe actually calls for ....BUTTER!)

Grease the baking dish, place potato slices to cover the bottom of the dish, add a little seasoned salt and pepper over the potatoes, add the beef, which should be cut into bite sized pieces, then cover the meat with more potato slices. Saute the onion in some of the butter (or oil) until slightly softened, mix the herring and onion together and layer the mixture on top of the potatoes. Cover the onion/fish mixture with the remaining potatoes, add a little seasoned salt and pepper. Now spread the sour cream on top, then add the breadcrumbs; this is the "crust" of the "Pastete" (Panko-style breadcrumbs will give you a good crunchy crust, but regular breadcrumbs are really traditional). Put some pieces of butter on top. Remember, the main ingredients are already cooked and just need to be heated through, so bake at 400 degrees for 30 to 45 minutes, until the "crust" is crispy.

WORD HISTORY:
Fresh-This word has a variety of meanings: "newly produced, newly found, not in preserved form, unspoiled, previously unknown," and a number of others, and while the meaning, "too forward, overly flirtatious, cheeky, impudent, sassy," is applied to a word with the same spelling, the word of that meaning was borrowed from German "frech," which also has those meanings.^ The ultimate origins of "fresh" are unknown, but Old Germanic had "friskaz," which meant "fresh," and this then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "fersc" (that's not a typo, the "e" sound came before the "r" sound back then, see other Germanic language forms below), and it had the meanings, "unsalted (thus modern "not preserved"), pure," but later the spelling became "fresch," before the modern version. The meaning was also later influenced by French "fres/freis" (modern "frais"), and the French form's meaning of "new, recent." The French form, and also the Italian form, "fresco," trace back to Latin, and Latin borrowed it from the same Old Germanic form. The other Germanic languages have: German "frisch," meaning "fresh," also, "crisply cool, chilly (of weather)," Low German Saxon "frisch," meaning "fresh," Dutch "vers," meaning "fresh" (notice the similarity to how English once spelled it's form, with the "e," then the "r"), West Frisian "farsk," meaning "fresh" (also with the vowel sound before the "r"), Danish "frisk," meaning "fresh"), Norwegian "fersk," also meaning "fresh" ("e" before "r"), Swedish "färsk," meaning "fresh" (another vowel before "r"), and Icelandic "ferskur," meaning "fresh" (and the vowel before "r").

^ English once had "frec," with the meaning "bold, daring," but it died out in favor of other words, like "bold" and "daring."