You Won't Need A Time Machine

I'm republishing this article with a "Word History" and a few minor changes to update it. It was first published in June 2007, and unfortunately, it remains relevant.

We've all read books or seen movies where people get into a time machine and go off to the past. In fact, didn't the little guy on the "Bullwinkle" series use a time machine, "Mr Peabody," wasn't it? Well, the way things are developing for working people in this country, in the not too distant future, working folks will be able to experience what working folks haven't experienced since about 1925! I'm not a labor historian, but I've got to believe that its been about that long since American big business people and wealthy investors (essentially the same thing) so dominated American workers. As unions continue to decline, the bulwark against "the Interests" is eroding. You may not always agree with unions, but folks, without them, I shudder to think where American working people would be, however, "serfdom" is not too far from the answer.

Unions have benefited all workers, because they gave us a floor for wages in many industries, and because they achieved much in the way of health insurance and other benefits, they also gave non-union workers a chance to shoot for many of the same benefits, although perhaps on a somewhat smaller scale. Let me tell you something, if unions lose much more influence, or certainly if they pretty much disappear, look out America!!! It is no coincidence that as unions have declined, the OPPOSITE situation has developed, as wages have been slashed in many fields, jobs outsourced, and corporate power, and the overall power of the wealthy, has increased.

If you aren't a union member and you think that you're pretty secure in your income and benefits, wait until the aforementioned time comes. If you think unions are unimportant to your life, think again. If you indeed make a decent living with good benefits, you probably have that lifestyle because of unions setting the standards. Without unions to provide standards, how long do you think it will take our American wealthy and business people to begin to cut wages and benefits even more than they are doing now? We will need to dig up Lincoln just to sign an "Emancipation Proclamation For Working People." This isn't brain surgery, nor is it Einstein's Theory, it is happening. It is happening right as you read this, as unions are sadly in decline, and wages are stagnant, at best, and various benefits are being cut for many, many workers. Huge oil and gas profits continue to drain money from the pocketbooks of most Americans into the bank accounts of the wealthiest Americans.

If you're not a wealthy investor, CEO, or some such title, you are a working person! You should not be ashamed to be called a "working person;" indeed, you should be proud. Working people need to really get with it and unite against the common threat that is coming our way (actually already upon us). In the end, people will have to make very serious choices. It will NOT be painless. If you thought our ancestors had already fought the tough battles and made the sacrifices to get worker rights, benefits, and decent wages for all time, you are sadly mistaken. They certainly fought those battles, but the wealthy interests are turning the clock back at an astounding pace, just as certainly. Again, we will all have to make choices: Do we stand together against this terrible threat, or do we side with the "lords of the manor?" This is a choice that everyone will have to make. It will be difficult, since the wealthy control so much of this great country. They are making it VERY tough for many people to oppose them, and they will continue to do so. In fact, just as serfs did so many, many years ago, some folks will just be grateful to the lords for having a job and some wages, whatever pitiful sum it may be. The choices will also fall on law enforcement. Will they stand with their fellow workers in the country, or will they continue to prop up and protect the wealthiest 5 or 6% of the population? If you're retired and feel that you really don't have a dog in this fight, think again. What about your children, grand children, or great grandchildren? I'm telling you flat out, when the wealthy get total control, it will be miserable. And they and their stooges will come after your retirement benefits, so you are NOT safe!

Of course, maybe the ruthless, money-grubbing, egomaniacs will all see the light, and we'll all live happily ever after. Unfortunately, this is NOT a fairy tale. The sacrifices of those who have gone before us are being lost. The situation is deteriorating so much, that even the working conditions of 1925 may look good in the not too distant future, as we look at things from the perspective of people's conditions from let's say...1215. Hey, anybody need help at a castle? "Will work for food."

WORD HISTORY:
Money-The ultimate origins of this word are unknown. It goes back to the Roman goddess "Juno," and a title she carried, "Moneta." Her temple was used to mint coins, and the term eventually transferred to the minted coins as "moneta." Where her title of "Moneta" came from is uncertain, but "some" have speculated it came from Latin "monere," which meant "to advise," thus the title would be "advisor." Even if correct, where Latin got "monere" is unknown. Anyway, Latin "moneta" was inherited by Old French as "moneie," meaning "coins, money," and this was borrowed into English during the 1200s with the same meaning and even initially with the same spelling, which then altered to "moneye," before the modern version. The term later came to be applied paper bills as well as to coins.

The German Question, Part Forty-Five

“German Unification” Part One/ "Wars With Denmark"

First: The history of Schleswig-Holstein is far more complicated than what I will write about here, so if your background traces back to one of these areas, or to Denmark, I hope you won't feel slighted. Even with my generalizations, I hope no one will become too confused, as it is quite complex. Second: Remember the basics of feudalism; the lower level, vassals, pledged fealty and service (often militarily) to the upper level, a lord, who provided some sort of protection or basic living conditions. That lord's property, or area of control, was called a "fief" (no "To Catch a Fief" or "Fief Of Baghdad" jokes, please). This system had many levels, with lower level nobles/landowners pledging service to higher nobles, and at times, those nobles then doing the same with even higher nobles, even eventually reaching to the level of kings or emperors.

In the far northern part of what is now Germany (and near Denmark), there were two provinces, Schleswig and Holstein (now most commonly referred to in the combined "Schleswig-Holstein"), that were a center of controversy. Both regions had long, but somewhat varied, associations with Danish kings, who also carried the titles of (Danish) "Duke of Schleswig" and (German) "Count of Holstein" (Count=Graf, in German).* Centuries before, Schleswig had been considered a part of Denmark, but that changed during the Middle Ages, when it was a fief of the Danish king. Holstein, while a possession of the Danish king, was a fief of the German emperor (as mentioned about feudalism in the opening above), and it was a part of the Old German Empire (Holy Roman Empire), and later, it was a member of the German Confederation (the era where we are now in this series). Holstein was almost exclusively German in background (language and custom), but while Schleswig had a German majority, there was a minority of the population that considered themselves to be Danes, and a somewhat smaller percentage that were Frisian.** To complicate matters, in the 1400s, there had been an agreement between the Danish king and a number of German nobles stipulating that Holstein could not be annexed to Denmark, but giving the king the title of "duke," regarding Schleswig. It seems that the German nobles felt that with the separate title of duke, the province would retain some independence of the Danes, and indeed that happened, although it took a couple of centuries (see Note 2, below). Further, the two provinces were declared to be "forever undivided."*** (Separate note: There was actually a third province, (German) Saxe-Lauenburg, involved in some of these disputes, but only at times. It was a part of the German Confederation, but it too was a possession of the Danish king. It had been the king's possession since being handed over to Denmark by Sweden, which had gotten it from Prussia, following Napoleon's first defeat, in 1814. The province was exclusively German in population. [Told you, this stuff is confusing. No wonder they fought so many wars.])

The ouster of Napoleon from Germany inspired German nationalism, and that included German nationalism in Schleswig. The German population of the province began to make it known that they wanted to be part of any new German nation, which at that time appeared to be more imminent than it actually proved to be. The Danish population of the northern part of Schleswig (where they were a majority) likewise made it known that they didn't want to become German subjects. To keep this somewhat simple, the revolutions that erupted in 1848 led the Danish king to grant a constitution. As part of the Danish reorganization, the king and Danish nationalists wanted Schleswig to be incorporated into Denmark proper, although with a great deal of independence. This brought open challenges by the German population, which gained the support of Prussia.**** Further, there was that treaty from the 1400s, which the Germans now used to their advantage, since it stated that Schleswig could not be annexed to Denmark, and that Schleswig and Holstein could not be separated. The Danes in Denmark and the Danish population in Schleswig essentially wanted Schleswig and Holstein to be separated, with the boundary between the two provinces also becoming the boundary between Denmark and the German Confederation, or any new German state. The Germans argued that the old treaty didn't permit the two provinces to be separated, and that Schleswig should become part of the German Confederation, as Holstein already was. On their side, the Danes had a treaty from the 1700s where some European governments declared that the Danish king would always also assume the title of "Duke of Schleswig." As if these issues were not enough, there was much controversy over the succession to the Danish throne. Laws going back many centuries throughout the German states and Denmark did not permit female succession as rulers. The Danes had been debating allowing female succession, as one of their kings, Frederick VII, was childless. If the existing (traditional) law prevailed, this would have permitted a German-leaning noble to rule in Schleswig and Holstein. Danes wanted a new Danish law to prevail which permitted female succession, including in their possessions, Schleswig and Holstein, and there was a declaration of such a law by the Danes. Germans, of course, opposed the decree. This all added more fuel to the fire.

German nationalists in Schleswig and Holstein rose against Danish rule in 1848, establishing a separate government. In support, Prussia sent troops into the area which precipitated a war with Denmark (called "The First Schleswig War"). Prussia's action gave a boost to its prestige among most Germans, except mainly the Habsburgs of Austria, who wanted to see Prussia's influence over Germans diminished, so as to retain their own standing among Germans. The war dragged on for three years, including numerous ceasefires and negotiations (other European powers participated in the negotiations), before European powers got Prussia to agree to return Schleswig and Holstein to Danish possession, with Denmark essentially agreeing not to annex Schleswig. This was basically a Danish victory, but the actual issues remained unresolved.

To be continued.... (A Word History is below the notes)

* For those who have been following this series, and just for example, remember that the kings of England were also hereditary rulers of Hanover (Germany), but Hanover was not a part of England. Hanover was entitled to a vote in the election of the German emperor, so you had the King of England voting on who became German emperor. Remember too, King George I of England did not speak English, rather German, but his successors did speak English. In the case above, the King of Denmark had a seat in the German Confederation due to his possession of Holstein, which was a German state. Confused yet?

** The population of Schleswig had been becoming more and more "German" in nature. The spread of Lutheranism brought German language religious services to much of Schleswig, and also, over the course of a couple of centuries, German officials tended to run many of the local bureaucracies. Gradually, Low German overtook Danish in what had been majority Danish speaking parts of the province, but again, the province seems to have had at least a scant German majority for much of its history, even before this advance by German. While population patterns may not always work out this way, in the case of Schleswig, it was very reasonable, with increasing percentages of people considering themselves Danes, the closer an area was to Denmark proper.

*** This was an interesting situation. Since Schleswig was a fief of the king, his role as duke of the province made him a vassal to himself in his role as king. The "forever undivided" clause is difficult to understand (at least for me, duh!). Schleswig was considered Danish, while Holstein was conceded to be German. While both were possessions of the Danish king, they were in different spheres of influence right from the start. Since the agreement specifically forbade Denmark to annex Schleswig, the same had to be true of Holstein, simply by implication. If what happened to one, had to happen to the other, this was a controversy just waiting to develop. The text above will show how this played out.

**** By this time, Prussia dominated much of northern Germany, and the German populations of both Schleswig and Holstein felt an attachment to Prussia, and therefore, both wanted any new German nation to be led by Prussia and not Austria, a south German state. This certainly gave Prussia an incentive to help with the German situation in Schleswig.

WORD HISTORY:
Brat-Not as in "you little brat," but rather the shortened form of "bratwurst," which is commonly used in American English, usually in the plural, "brats." I'm not certain about usage in the rest of the English speaking world. "Wurst" was covered in a previous Word History. "Brat" goes back to Indo European "bhreue," which had to do with "cooking, heating, boiling, burning." This then gave Old Germanic "bredon/bredan," which meant "roast meat, roast flesh." This then gave Old High German "brado/brato/praten," with the same meaning. (By the way, it also gave Old English "braede," which meant "meat" and "braed" which meant "flesh," both of which later died out. The same base also gave German "Braten," meaning "roast.") This then gave German "Brät," meaning "lean meat, finely chopped veal or swine." By putting "lean, chopped veal or pork" into casings, this gave German "Bratwurst," the sausage we all know today. "Supposedly" the word was first borrowed into English from German in the early 1900s.

The German Question, Part Seven

So we're now in the era circa 1000 A.D. and the term "German" is more appropriate for the Germanic peoples living in what are now modern Holland (The Netherlands), two-thirds of Belgium, Alsace, a part of Lorraine, Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, and about two-thirds of Switzerland. (See this article for more info on Germanic/German meanings:

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-do-we-call-them-these-names.html )

As we've seen, following Charlemagne's death, his vast holdings had been divided, thus bringing a demise to his original empire. In 962 A.D., under Otto I, the eastern region of the original empire was revived with the name, "Holy Roman Empire." The name was chosen to show that the mantle of the Roman Empire had been picked up once again, and that the empire would be a protector of Christendom. The Crusades had the Germans sending substantial contingents of men to the Middle East as part of the German-led "Holy Roman Empire." The Crusades brought many heroes to Christendom, including to the Germans. Many warriors returned home and were rewarded for their services with land and noble titles. It was during this general time frame that "feudalism" developed. (See Word History below)

Feudalism was an important part of the history of many European countries, and it certainly had a major impact on the historical development of the Germans, more so to the negative side. Feudalism is a complicated subject, but an important part of it was basically a system where "lords" ruled their lands by providing land to some number of men, "vassals," who then vowed to provide military aid to that ruler. Typically, the land was not granted outright, but "leased" to the vassal, who had the right to earn whatever income he could from that land. With the Germans, the system actually was in place regarding the emperor, as he was dependent upon a large network of "lords" to provide him with military forces. This dependency weakened the role of the emperor, although the power of the emperor, in some cases, was certainly tied to his own personality. Some emperors had forceful personalities that garnered them support, others were much weaker, with the latter being the rule, not the exception. On the other hand, the power of the local and regional nobles increased with this situation, thus forming the basis for a number of "states" within the empire. Some of these "states" eventually came to be called kingdoms (and were thus ruled by "kings"), others were called principalities (ruled by princes), duchies (ruled by "dukes") or arch duchies (ruled by archdukes).* Collectively these various regional rulers came to be called "the German princes," regardless of their specific titles. Throughout this struggle for power, the Papacy was always looming large, looking to expand its power, too. All of this led to a very fragmented power structure, seldom with a central authority.

Otto I and his immediate successors were Saxon emperors and they were followed by Frankish emperors through much of the 11th Century and into the 12th Century, when another Saxon became the emperor. Then followed the Hohenstaufen dynasty, which had developed in Swabia, in southwestern Germany (now known as the home of Mercedes, the famous auto company, which is in the city of Stuttgart). Frederick I, a Hohenstaufen, is perhaps best remembered for his nickname, Barbarossa, which was used later by Hitler as a code name for his invasion of the Soviet Union. The Hohenstaufens eventually came to be deeply involved in Italy, much of which had been a part of the empire. Ever so gradually, however, the Papacy eroded German control over Italy. Due to marriages, some of the Hohenstaufens spent far more time in Italy, namely Sicily, than in the German areas. This further weakened imperial power within the German lands, as governing authority was essentially turned over to the increasingly powerful rulers of the "states."

* Just for the sake of example, Bavaria was a kingdom, while Austria was an arch duchy. The number of these "states" constantly changed, but frequently they numbered in the hundreds, and occasionally in the thousands!!! It was no wonder the Germans remained so divided for centuries, with so many local/regional rulers.

 

WORD HISTORY: 

Feudal-Like the word "fee," covered in "The German Question, Part Four," this word goes back to Indo European "peku," which meant "cattle" and ultimately "property." Latin got the word from Germanic (presumably from Frankish) as "feudum," which meant a type of "estate provided in exchange for service." From this developed Latin "feudalis," which English seems to have acquired in the early 1600s as "feudal." People in the Middle Ages did not see "feudalism" as a form of societal structure, and that term was not applied to the system in those times, but rather came along much later and was used by historians. Feudal is much connected with "fee," and for those interested, here is the link to that article, with the Word History at the end:

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2010/03/german-question-part-four.html