It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Twenty-Eight

Foreign policy and military actions during Clinton's two terms were important, as always, but they were also highly complex, making them beyond the scope of these articles. I'm just going to barely touch on some subjects which should be familiar to some degree with most readers, but there is plenty of information available elsewhere for those subjects of interest to you. The point isn't for me to do an entire detailed history, but to provide a general background as to what went on during the various administrations, while occasionally providing somewhat more detail, and to see how they or opponents formed or maintained coalitions.
  
During Clinton's two terms he deployed troops to Somalia, where there were American casualties, and the bodies of dead American troops were dragged through the streets there, an incident which brought the withdrawal of U.S. forces.* In the Balkans, the fall of communism had brought ethnic conflict to the region, as, very generally speaking, some ethnic groups (Croats, Slovenes, Bosnians) desired independence from the weakened Yugoslavia, while the Yugoslav government, dominated by Serbs, tried to retain the other regions under its control.** The U.S. military, along with NATO forces, primarily provided air units. In the late 1990s, the Albanian population, centered in the Kosovo region of Yugoslavia, wanted independence from Yugoslav, and thus Serbian, control. Long time animosities grew into armed conflict, and the United Nations and NATO wanted intervention to protect the civilian population (mainly Albanian) and its increasing number of refugees from the Yugoslav military and the exposure of the refugees to the elements. Eventually NATO authorized bombing attacks on Yugoslavia and these attacks were under the overall command of U.S. General Wesley Clark. Further, the end of the Gulf War provided for containment and monitoring of Saddam Hussein and Iraq, and U.S. forces were still deployed in the region to assist in that mission, and indeed, some Iraqi installations were bombed during Clinton's time in office due to violations of the agreement which ended the war. 

The deployment of U.S. troops (and troops from other nations), primarily to Saudi Arabia for the war against Saddam Hussein under President Bush (Sr.), had stirred some Muslim extremists to retaliate for violation of what they considered to be religious lands of Islam and for interference in the affairs of Muslim countries, although other reasons also certainly existed, primarily U.S. support for Israel. Shortly after Bill Clinton took office, the World Trade Center in New York City was bombed by Muslim extremists, killing several people and injuring hundreds. Osama bin Laden, the leader of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda, had established himself in Sudan, but he later was forced to leave, and he went to Pakistan. Bin Laden "declared war" on the United States and plans were formulated to attack various U.S. installations both inside the U.S. and elsewhere, culminating in simultaneous attacks on U.S. embassies in East Africa, killing a dozen Americans and 200-300 Africans, and injuring hundreds more. This brought the FBI to place bin Laden on its list of most wanted and the President ordered missiles fired at targets in Afghanistan and Sudan; the latter missile strike was supposedly based upon erroneous intelligence information and destroyed a prescription drug maker's building, although the U.S. has maintained to this day that the building was used to produce chemical weapons. Further, a truck loaded with explosives was detonated outside a complex with American military personnel in Saudi Arabia killing 19 Americans and wounding a couple of hundred more. Then just before the 2000 election, a terrorist attack occurred on the destroyer USS Cole while it refueled in Yemen, killing 17 sailors and wounding dozens more. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility, with bin Laden calling for more such attacks.

Next, "Sex Scandal and Impeachment"

*  There was a civil war in Somalia and the U.N. and the U.S. tried to provide aid to the suffering population.

** The Balkans has long been a hotbed for conflict, with the "South Slav" (Yugoslav) areas being in the forefront of such conflict. That area had several "ethnic/nationalist" groups, often, but not always, divided over religion, as generally, Serbs, Macedonians and Montenegrins were Orthodox, Croats and Slovenes were Roman Catholic, and Bosnians were Muslim. Add in other groups living in the area, Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians, and Germans, and you can see the potential for conflict. Much of the region was dominated by the Turks for quite some time, thus the Muslim affiliation (an overall minority, but with a majority in certain areas) of part of the population. The (Austro-German) Habsburg family had controlled other parts of the region, and indeed, ethnic tensions there were the immediate cause of the outbreak of World War One (notice I said "immediate cause," not the only cause), as the heir to the Habsburg family, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, along with his wife, were assassinated in Sarajevo in 1914. During World War Two, the Germans and Italians occupied the area, but found it difficult, if not impossible, to control, which led to the rise of Marshal Tito and his eventual postwar rule. During the war, however, there was almost always an air of civil war, and many an atrocity was committed by one group against the other, and that's not counting anything done by the Germans or the Italians. 

WORD HISTORY:
Race-This is the noun for "group of people of common heritage," and that was the meaning until more recent times, when it became more specifically about skin color. If you read some old history books, authors often referred to a particular group as a "race," a term more commonly replaced today by "tribe" (or ethnic group), as in, "The Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes that founded England," as it would sound odd to us today to call the Angles and Saxons races. You might think the history of this word is an easy one, but its origin is very much in question; so, rather than trace it forward from ancient times, I'm going to go backwards in its history. English borrowed the word in the late 1400s or very early 1500s from French "razza," which seems to have also been spelled "race," by some, and meant "group of people of common heritage, breed (used for animals)." This was derived from Italian "razza," with the same general meanings. The original English word for "race," in the general sense "people," was "theode," and the derived "theodisc," which also referred to language, and which is the ancestor of both "Deutsch" ("German") and "Dutch." Now things get sticky on "race," as no one really is certain where Italian got the word "razza." Attempts to connect it to Arabic and Hebrew (both "Semitic" languages^) seem tempting, but improbable. Connections to Germanic are "possible," as Lombardic, an old Germanic dialect, had "raiza," which meant "line," the implication being "bloodline," and the Lombards did conquer and settle in northern Italy in the mid 500s A.D., giving their name to the northern Italian region "Lombardia," but even if correct, where Germanic got the term is unknown. Whatever the case, the word spread to other European languages, including English relatives German, which has "Rasse," Low German Saxon, which has "Raass," and Dutch "race."

^ Semitic is a branch of the Afro-Asiatic family of languages. Besides Arabic and Hebrew, Semitic also includes, for example, Syriac and Aramaic. 

Extremist Religion Can Be Hazardous To Everyone's Health

Billions of people world wide have various religious beliefs, and many even have strong religious beliefs, but they go about their lives, they go to work, they go to their places of worship, and they don't hurt or bother anyone else over religion. If someone doesn't agree with them, they may wish it were otherwise, but they go about their business. If someone makes fun of them or their religion, they may not like it, they may even get angry, but they contain themselves and move on. Then there are those who have such fanatical religious beliefs, that anyone who dares to disagree with their religious view in any way faces severe repercussions. I just saw where in Bangladesh, a country with an overwhelmingly Muslim population, some Muslims rampaged through a Buddhist area destroying Buddhist temples and burning Buddhist homes, because of a photo posted on Facebook by ONE Buddhist which some Muslims felt insulted Islam. (The story said "one" Buddhist posted the picture, and the story provided no details about the picture.) The government there is trying to keep a lid on things now.

I needn't tell any half way sane person, this behavior is lunacy! It is nonsense out of the Middles Ages, which needed to die in the Middle Ages along with the plague, to which it bears a serious resemblance. It threatens EVERYONE! However, both the plague and such antiquated religious fervor survived the Middle Ages, and to be quite honest, no one really knows what to do about the latter. Unless you've been visiting another planet lately, and some people seem to do so, you are also aware of protests and violence in many Muslim areas of the world directed at the United States over a film made by a guy in California (born in Egypt), a film which was unknown to virtually every human being not visiting another planet before the violence started, which Muslims say insulted their Prophet Mohammad, a charge I believe is likely true (although I didn't see the film), but the extreme reaction to the film has only served to give it more publicity and to give Muslims an increasingly negative image in many parts of the world, an image perhaps exaggerated, since not all Muslims, nor even most Muslims, rose up and started lashing out at the United States. Folks, most of us probably get insulted every day, or at least every week, but people who are seriously troubled about their beliefs are the dangerous ones, since people who feel confident in themselves and any beliefs, religious or political, don't run around in a panic, lashing out at others, because someone said something about them. The fearful ones try to suppress differing views or go out of their way to prove their beliefs are stronger by attacking others. These are signs of weakness, not strength. Such insecure people wall themselves off, fearful someone or some view might actually change them, and they're terrified! "What if my beliefs are wrong? Ahhhhhhhhh! I don't want to know!"

Communism in eastern Europe built walls and barbed-wire fences, complete with armed guards in gun towers, for the announced purpose of keeping aggressors out of their "paradise," but the propaganda fooled no one, as the walls and fences were built to keep their own people from experiencing anything beyond their own imagined "Garden of Eden," because they were too afraid their own ideas and life style could not stand up in comparison or criticism. Such weak egos are VERY dangerous. Some people don't want to know or to search for truth. They are content with their beliefs, and they don't care how flawed their beliefs might be. "Two plus two is five," and they are happy to believe that and they don't want anyone telling them it's three...ah, wait a second, let's see... oh...four! The whole point is, weak leaders exploit the lack of education and backwardness of some to keep control of such people.

Like it, not like it, change requires criticism, something none of us is especially fond of when it is directed at us. Moderates, or people who really practice peaceful religion do not always speak up, so the fanatics take over. Remember, you may feel very strongly about your religion, but your religion is sacred to YOU, not necessarily to others. I try to accept people's religious beliefs, but behavior such as that mentioned above makes it very difficult. This kind of religious terror, however,  is a reality and we're going to have to live or die with it. When you have "elements of a religion" (not everyone) say that no one can criticize their religion, or we'll kill you, there's no room for any discussion with such people. When you have these same elements attacking members of other religions or nationals from other countries, just because one person, or one small group of people affiliated with a particular religion or nation, insulted their religion, this has all the ingredients of major world tension for a long, long time to come; and that's if we don't blow the world to pieces over such things first.

Christianity also has fanatics and the history of Christianity is not pretty. It is filled with hatred, violence, killing and intolerance; and that's just among people who called themselves Christians! Christianity also has been highly intolerant of other religions, although some of that has lessened in more recent times, especially in relation to Judaism. Islam has also had such a troubled history within its own ranks. Christianity and Islam have had a very contentious relationship throughout history, but with periods of relative peace. People from both religions have perpetrated atrocities against members of the other religion. Sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference between religious and political fanatics, since some fanatics wrap themselves in the garb of religion to spew their hatred. As I said, I generally respect people's religious beliefs, but some things are not purely religious, nor can we allow zealots to try to pull us back to medieval, or even to ancient, times.

WORD HISTORY:
Fanatic-The ultimate origin of this word is uncertain. It goes back to Latin "fanum," which meant "temple." This then produced "fanaticus," which had the notion of "something derived from the temple," which then led to the extended meaning "inspired by a deity." The fervor of some religious people in Roman times led to the further meaning "frenzied or overzealous religious person," a further development of which dropped the religious necessity to become "mad, insane person." English borrowed the word in the earlier part of the 1500s, but its pronunciation apparently was strongly influenced by French "fanatique," a word Latin-based French inherited from its Latin ancestor. In English the word gradually assumed the meaning "overzealous person," a meaning even used in Roman times.  

"Gandhi" The Movie and History, Part Four

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The German Question, Part Sixteen

The Germans have been affected by religious strife more than some other European peoples. The reason for this is simple, Germans themselves have been very divided in their denominational choices. This is a very complex and important part of German history, and I want to try to keep it simple, although I may fail in that attempt, but we'll see.....

Over the centuries leading up to the 1500s, the Church* had become corrupted in the views of a number of average citizens. Money flowed to the Church and to its representatives throughout Christendom, often in exchange for forgiveness of sins, real or perceived. While other matters of the Church came into question, like what the balance should be between Church and secular governance, the upheaval that came was centered around the question, "how much money does one need to save their soul?" Ever so gradually concern for the individual had been rising throughout Europe, and this in the face of the feudal system that had been in place, where local rulers dominated the landscape, and individuals were relegated to serving the interests of these rulers. These rulers were often tied to the Church, and indeed, the Church itself had rulers who literally controlled portions of territory in the German inhabited, or ruled, areas.

Undoubtedly many of the criticisms of the Church had been around for quite some time, but with Gutenberg  popularizing movable type, the written word spread far and wide, and in German, not just the Latin of the Church, and some average people actually wanted to learn how to read so they could discover more about life and the world to which they had been thus far exposed. Those who could read spread the word to those not so fortunate. While there were numerous leaders of the Reformation,** Martin Luther,*** a Christian monk and theologian from a German area called "Saxony" ("Sachsen" in German),**** challenged Church practices and published his famous "95 Theses" (in 1517) to lay out his ideas on reform. Two very important ideas of Luther were: each person can achieve salvation without the aid (intercession) of some Church representative, and second, that the German princes^ should reduce Papal authority in Germany. Luther's ideas spread throughout Germany and he was eventually ex-communicated by the pope and he and his teachings were outlawed by the German emperor, Karl V (Charles V), who backed the Papacy. Many of the German princes, however, backed Luther (as did much of the public), and indeed he was provided sanctuary and out-and-out protection by Prince Frederick of Saxony. "Lutheranism," as it came to be called, gained large followings in much of northeastern and central Germany, something that persists to this very day.

Luther's ideas stirred the general public, which wanted social reforms to help alleviate their depressed conditions.^^ Reformers far more radical than Luther incited the public, and this led to the "Peasant War of 1524/25" (Bauernkrieg, in German),^^^ which essentially was a rebellion, mainly in the southern and southwestern German lands, and which was finally suppressed by the nobles, with the SUPPORT of Luther.

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

* The "Church" now meaning the Christian element based in Rome and ruled by the Papacy, as there was the Eastern Christian Church by this time, too.

** "The Reformation" came to be a term used to describe the movement to "reform" the Church and it is the same term in German, although the pronunciation is as if, "ray-for-maw-tsee- own." It is a Latin-based word, but the specific religious meaning came via Martin Luther.

*** For those interested in words/names, it seems the family name had previously been spelled "Luder." As I've noted in other articles, "d" and "t" in the Germanic languages was/is often interchangeable, so to speak, and the change in spelling to the "th" didn't change much, as German does not have the "th" pronunciation of English, but pronounces such as "t;" thus the name in German is pronounced like "looter," a pronunciation which might well please some "anti-looters" ... I mean anti-Luthers. 

**** Since the end of World War Two, Luther's part of Saxony has been part of the German state called "Sachsen-Anhalt," although the separate state, "Sachsen," also still exists, and to confuse matters even more, another state, Lower Saxony (Niedersachsen), also exists.

^ Local and regional German rulers carried a wide variety of titles (for example: kings, princes, archdukes), but they were collectively known as "the German princes," regardless of their technical titles.

^^ For example, many people wanted certain waterways and hunting areas controlled as "public areas," rather than by private owners who could extract huge payments for the right to use the areas.

^^^ "Peasant" does not have the same "unflattering" meaning in German as it does in English; at least, in American English. English speakers use the word "farmer" in much the same way as German speakers use "peasant" ("Bauer," which can be translated as "farmer" too), and if you call farmers "peasants" in English, it will likely be considered an insult by many, perhaps all.

WORD HISTORY:
Way-This goes back to Indo European "wegh," which had the notion of "movement, travel, ride." The Old Germanic offshoot was "wegaz," which meant "path, road, course," and then later produced Old English "weg," with the same meanings. The "g" sound died out at some point in the Middle Ages, leaving modern English with "way," just as happened with "daeg," which became modern "day." The other Germanic languages have: German and Dutch both have "weg" ("Weg," in German, as all German nouns are capitalized), Low German has "Weg/Weeg," West Frisian "wei," Norwegian "vei," Danish "vej," Swedish "väg;" and Icelandic "vegur," all with the same basic meanings as their English relative.