The reader is advised outright that the composer of this piece does not fall within the deeply religious category. As a matter of fact, he has a tough time even recalling when he last attended any church service. Instead, he’s simply an ordinary worldly citizen who’s been around a great many years, and thus accorded a broad opportunity to observe mankind’s realm from a carefully studied and objective standpoint. With this essential point established, the conjectural exercise can begin.
Just over two thousand years ago, the legends attached to a particular infant boy’s birth, although perhaps overblown to some extent, have formed a foundation for what has long been the world’s most predominant religious faith. Despite its many misinterpretations and malpractices, along with its having often become corrupted by greed and similarly evil motivation, the spirit engendered by that individual enjoys a powerful and popular influence unmatched by any other human being.
It stands to reason indeed that Jesus Christ entered our midst through divine intervention, with the indisputable goal being that He guide the behavior pattern of the earth’s most intelligent animal species in its long and difficult trek. His status as Messiah lies beyond question.
Certain current-day events occurring within the past two year span – a minor blip in man’s calendar – have given us reason to speculate that divinity has suddenly repeated itself, with the advent of a second person, whose fundamental mission is to help fortify God’s efforts for mankind’s salvation and ultimate benefit.
Does such a statement by a mere mortal appear outrageous? To the devout bible-thumpers or those of differing faiths, maybe so. This, however, isn’t the population segment being addressed herein. We seek the collective opinions of those with clearly more open minds, and the aim is to present the reasoning which supports a rather radical thesis.
In many respects, one might say that the human race consists of just two types – those ready to seek and embrace worthwhile change, as opposed to those who never will be under any circumstances. Whereas our newly-elected President has undertaken to foster long- and much-need improvement in our fundamental practices, the omnipresent band of greed-motivated abominable no-men and no-women continue to persist as they have for countless ages. The daily harangue by political and certain media opponents is proving this point beyond the remotest doubt.
Once more, your writer is about to challenge the older world dogma by endeavoring to strike parallels between the beloved Jesus, the unquestioned Messiah, and what might well be His 21st century counterpart, Barack Obama.
Both men:
· Were products of relatively humble, minority groups;
· Resided in the hub of the world’s universe at the time;
· Came into prominence when man’s status could be described as little other than an
outright mess;
· Were accepted and highly acclaimed by the majority of their populace, yet hated by those
who feared what they stood and were striving for;
· Offered both fresh judgment and inspiration to their followers and fellow believers;
· Were instrumental in fostering revolutionary change.
In Jesus’ case, His influence bore fruit. Nothing has been quite the same since He was brutally forced to leave the earth. In many respects, the uphill election victory scored by Mr. Obama overcame prejudicial feeling that had dominated majority race thoughts for hundreds of years, a situation to which no return can ever be fully possible.
Although Jesus was betrayed by His own people, His teachings did lay the groundwork for what became the world’s major faith which, after becoming the basis for long periods of unfairly imposed dogma and oppression, have eventually earned at least lip service, despite continued misapplication.
In our present-day troubled world, Mr. Obama is attempting to teach us what we should have known all along, but never seemed to apply well. He has attracted countless listeners. However, his enemies, not unlike rodents who infest sewers and constantly seek more adequate habitats to fit their greedy requirements, continue their undermining efforts. Unhappily, they may well succeed in either the short or long run.
Jesus Christ didn’t really manage to save the world, but nobody can deny that He helped it a lot and cast everlasting influence over many people. Barack Obama has dedicated himself to the same level of accomplishment within his somewhat differing, yet in many respects highly comparable universe. For our everlasting good, we cannot but hope he’ll at least succeed in part to prevent what’s left of our ship from being dashed to pieces on the rocks.
Getting back to the basic question of this theme, did the Almighty send Barack Obama to us, as He once did for His only son?
The point has to be strongly debatable, but this writer is inclined to support its possibility.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
KNOCK IT OFF FOR A WHILE -- MAYBE UNTIL NEXT WEEK
In this age of endless world turmoil, with one or more civil or neighboring nation wars being waged at any and all times, there is a certain related feature we’ve always been unable to comprehend. Perhaps somebody will be kind enough to provide a plausible explanation.
It has become fairly common for third party interests to stick their noses into these frays, bringing foe spokesmen together for peace-inducing conferences. Oftentimes, the outcome is a negotiated cease fire. In other words, lay down your weapons, Fellows, and go home for a while to cool off.
What dumbfounds this writer in every such case we’ve noted is the timing aspect. For example, let’s say that the discussions wind up today, with a cease fire mutually agreed upon, after weeks, months, years, or decades of vicious conflict. Why on earth do the intermediaries invariably set it to take effect at a specified later date? What’s wrong with enforcement from this very minute onward instead?
Supposing you walked into a room or around a street corner to discover two men punching the living daylights out of each other, with hands and mouths bloodied. In order to break up the melée, what action would be appropriate on your part?
Well, in accordance with the usual cease fire terms imposed under the previously described circumstances, you’d most likely separate the pair, then sternly tell them “Look, You Guys, this brutal fighting has to stop. So ….. you can keep at it just five minutes more, than call the affair quits for a while.”
Would that make sense? We fail to see how. What is the point in allowing combative forces at any level to carry on the fracas a little while longer, thus wreaking as much additional damage as possible throughout an established “grace” period?
Furthermore, though, judging from these all too frequent delayed action cease fires we’ve observed, the second pertinent question is why bother? The likelihood that they’ll be back dropping bombs, lobbing artillery shells, or whatever else following a brief “cooling off” time span seems rather unavoidable at best.
It has become fairly common for third party interests to stick their noses into these frays, bringing foe spokesmen together for peace-inducing conferences. Oftentimes, the outcome is a negotiated cease fire. In other words, lay down your weapons, Fellows, and go home for a while to cool off.
What dumbfounds this writer in every such case we’ve noted is the timing aspect. For example, let’s say that the discussions wind up today, with a cease fire mutually agreed upon, after weeks, months, years, or decades of vicious conflict. Why on earth do the intermediaries invariably set it to take effect at a specified later date? What’s wrong with enforcement from this very minute onward instead?
Supposing you walked into a room or around a street corner to discover two men punching the living daylights out of each other, with hands and mouths bloodied. In order to break up the melée, what action would be appropriate on your part?
Well, in accordance with the usual cease fire terms imposed under the previously described circumstances, you’d most likely separate the pair, then sternly tell them “Look, You Guys, this brutal fighting has to stop. So ….. you can keep at it just five minutes more, than call the affair quits for a while.”
Would that make sense? We fail to see how. What is the point in allowing combative forces at any level to carry on the fracas a little while longer, thus wreaking as much additional damage as possible throughout an established “grace” period?
Furthermore, though, judging from these all too frequent delayed action cease fires we’ve observed, the second pertinent question is why bother? The likelihood that they’ll be back dropping bombs, lobbing artillery shells, or whatever else following a brief “cooling off” time span seems rather unavoidable at best.
Monday, May 18, 2009
THE TRANSLATION CORNER
Top business executives, often through their public relations officers, love to make glowing statements to the media or to their shareholders, which describe how marvelously effective their company activities are proving to be.
However, words of such a rosy nature usually require translation into what the real facts are. Accordingly, we're showing below the phrases uttered by the trained public relations types, along with the true underlying situations.
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"John Forthright has served as our Chief Executive Officer for the past ten years."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Our company policies and outlook are just as sluggish as they were ten years ago.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
Our field of business is an extremely competitive one."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We aren’t operating as efficiently as our competitors are.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We're looking forward to even better results for the coming year."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“This year has been pretty lousy so far.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"Our staff morale and enthusiasm level is as high as it has been for a long
while."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Most of our people have been with us six months or less.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We're spending substantial sums for new product research and development."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Those guys in our Research Department are driving us into bankruptcy with their spending practices."
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"People are our company's most important asset."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Our payroll costs have gone sky high over the past year.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We've established a more acute sense of financial responsibility."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“The banks are on our tail to improve, or they’ll take us over.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We are investing heavily in staff training and development."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Our people are so inept, we have no choice but to send them on special courses all the time."
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
“Hard work is our main forte.”
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We’re so understaffed and underqualified that we have to work our butts off
around here.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We're constantly seeking new markets, new products, and other new fields to conquer."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Our efforts have been pretty much a bust so far, but some day we hope to make it.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"Our cash flow has improved over the past year."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Our bank balance is a black figure for the first time since 1999.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We're currently quoting on more prospective business than ever before."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We’ve finally learned to adopt sensible pricing policies.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"Our Zilchblende product line has captured 67% of the market during the last six months."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Only three sales have been made of these junk products – two by us and one by a competitor."
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We find it necessary to increase prices."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We’re so inefficient, we can’t even begin to control our costs properly."
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We have a most energetic staff incentive program laid out for the coming year."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We’ve changed the payroll system terminology, to make it sound better to the staff.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"This is our company policy."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“This is how the home office says we should do it.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We have an outstanding array of systems analysts and programmers."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Everybody on our software service staff has had some school training.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"Our company has always enjoyed a harmonious internal relationship."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“The only person who ever makes a decision around here is the CEO.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We've always prided ourselves in being an imaginative organization."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We want to avoid facing reality at all costs.”
However, words of such a rosy nature usually require translation into what the real facts are. Accordingly, we're showing below the phrases uttered by the trained public relations types, along with the true underlying situations.
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"John Forthright has served as our Chief Executive Officer for the past ten years."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Our company policies and outlook are just as sluggish as they were ten years ago.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
Our field of business is an extremely competitive one."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We aren’t operating as efficiently as our competitors are.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We're looking forward to even better results for the coming year."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“This year has been pretty lousy so far.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"Our staff morale and enthusiasm level is as high as it has been for a long
while."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Most of our people have been with us six months or less.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We're spending substantial sums for new product research and development."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Those guys in our Research Department are driving us into bankruptcy with their spending practices."
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"People are our company's most important asset."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Our payroll costs have gone sky high over the past year.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We've established a more acute sense of financial responsibility."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“The banks are on our tail to improve, or they’ll take us over.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We are investing heavily in staff training and development."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Our people are so inept, we have no choice but to send them on special courses all the time."
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
“Hard work is our main forte.”
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We’re so understaffed and underqualified that we have to work our butts off
around here.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We're constantly seeking new markets, new products, and other new fields to conquer."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Our efforts have been pretty much a bust so far, but some day we hope to make it.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"Our cash flow has improved over the past year."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Our bank balance is a black figure for the first time since 1999.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We're currently quoting on more prospective business than ever before."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We’ve finally learned to adopt sensible pricing policies.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"Our Zilchblende product line has captured 67% of the market during the last six months."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Only three sales have been made of these junk products – two by us and one by a competitor."
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We find it necessary to increase prices."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We’re so inefficient, we can’t even begin to control our costs properly."
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We have a most energetic staff incentive program laid out for the coming year."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We’ve changed the payroll system terminology, to make it sound better to the staff.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"This is our company policy."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“This is how the home office says we should do it.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We have an outstanding array of systems analysts and programmers."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“Everybody on our software service staff has had some school training.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"Our company has always enjoyed a harmonious internal relationship."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“The only person who ever makes a decision around here is the CEO.”
WHAT THE PUBLIC HEARS
"We've always prided ourselves in being an imaginative organization."
THE ACTUAL SITUATION
“We want to avoid facing reality at all costs.”
WHO BEARS THE GREATER GUILT?
The TV sitcom show that insults your intelligence by constantly piping in canned laughter with nearly every dialogue exchange, to imply side-splitting audience humor; or
The viewer who faithfully watches and gets continually tricked into believing the skit is
uproariously funny?
The small-minded character who repeatedly utters unfounded racial, religious, ethnic, or other such slurs; or
The creep who listens and either accepts the non-facts or else offers no comment in rebuttal?
The overzealous loudmouth who yells every word of his TV commercial message into your ears; or
The dope who doesn’t promptly switch to another channel?
(This one is expandable to virtually any con scheme carried out)
The New York City slicker who offers to sell you Brooklyn Bridge; or
The sap who buys it?
The guy who gets caught with his hand in the company till or benefits from purchase kickbacks; or
The boss who magnanimously overlooks or forgives him?
The accountant who presents fraudulently distorted financial results to the management and the public; or
Those naïve enough to believe the figures at face value with never a question raised?
The business executive who denies his personnel fair pay, adequate benefits, and due privileges; or
The employee who suffers along while never rebelling even slightly, and fails to seek work
elsewhere?
TV advertisers who display intentionally misleading commercials; or
The stupes who fall for those half-truth pitches?
The tobacco companies that doctor their products so as to enhance smoker addiction; or
Those dumb enough or too weak to quit the habit?
The food processing companies that market obesity-causing and similarly harmful products; or
The careless gluttons who gobble them up with gusto day after day?
The mudslinging political candidate who attacks an opponent’s personal character rather than deliberate on key issues; or
The voter who lets him- or herself be swayed by such unethical practice?
The political candidate who spouts countless campaign promises he or she has obviously no intention of honoring; or
The jerk who believes and votes for him/her?
Washington lobbyists who endeavor to influence Congress members on behalf of special interest groups; or
Those in office who don’t toss them out on their ears?
The offerer of a bribe; or
The knucklehead who accepts it?
(This one is a bit out of date for the time being)
The automobile manufacturers who keep earnings high through intended dynamic obsolescence practices; or
The yuppie types who habitually buy new cars ever too frequently?
Credit card companies that assess exorbitant interest rates and other charges; or
The meatheads who let themselves fall into debt way over their heads?
(Here’s another one somewhat out of date currently)
The issuers of junk bonds and similar extreme risk securities; or
The suckers who buy them?
The obnoxious kid who grows up to be an equally obnoxious adult; or
The parents who caused him/her to be that way from gitgo?
The viewer who faithfully watches and gets continually tricked into believing the skit is
uproariously funny?
The small-minded character who repeatedly utters unfounded racial, religious, ethnic, or other such slurs; or
The creep who listens and either accepts the non-facts or else offers no comment in rebuttal?
The overzealous loudmouth who yells every word of his TV commercial message into your ears; or
The dope who doesn’t promptly switch to another channel?
(This one is expandable to virtually any con scheme carried out)
The New York City slicker who offers to sell you Brooklyn Bridge; or
The sap who buys it?
The guy who gets caught with his hand in the company till or benefits from purchase kickbacks; or
The boss who magnanimously overlooks or forgives him?
The accountant who presents fraudulently distorted financial results to the management and the public; or
Those naïve enough to believe the figures at face value with never a question raised?
The business executive who denies his personnel fair pay, adequate benefits, and due privileges; or
The employee who suffers along while never rebelling even slightly, and fails to seek work
elsewhere?
TV advertisers who display intentionally misleading commercials; or
The stupes who fall for those half-truth pitches?
The tobacco companies that doctor their products so as to enhance smoker addiction; or
Those dumb enough or too weak to quit the habit?
The food processing companies that market obesity-causing and similarly harmful products; or
The careless gluttons who gobble them up with gusto day after day?
The mudslinging political candidate who attacks an opponent’s personal character rather than deliberate on key issues; or
The voter who lets him- or herself be swayed by such unethical practice?
The political candidate who spouts countless campaign promises he or she has obviously no intention of honoring; or
The jerk who believes and votes for him/her?
Washington lobbyists who endeavor to influence Congress members on behalf of special interest groups; or
Those in office who don’t toss them out on their ears?
The offerer of a bribe; or
The knucklehead who accepts it?
(This one is a bit out of date for the time being)
The automobile manufacturers who keep earnings high through intended dynamic obsolescence practices; or
The yuppie types who habitually buy new cars ever too frequently?
Credit card companies that assess exorbitant interest rates and other charges; or
The meatheads who let themselves fall into debt way over their heads?
(Here’s another one somewhat out of date currently)
The issuers of junk bonds and similar extreme risk securities; or
The suckers who buy them?
The obnoxious kid who grows up to be an equally obnoxious adult; or
The parents who caused him/her to be that way from gitgo?
Sunday, May 17, 2009
A PRIVATE PHILOSOPHICAL OBSERVATION OR THREE
ON LIFE IN GENERAL
There are only three groups of people in the world: 1) Those who make things happen; 2) Those who watch things happen; and 3) Those who have no idea what’s happening.
This fellow has never learned how to tolerate laziness or stupidity – and hopefully never will.
If you allow yourself to be swindled by a confidence scam, you deserve the consequences.
Idle or in-transit time is not something to be spent, but invested.
Being old is strictly a state of mind.
When your age clicks over to the sixty mark, you should no longer be inclined to self-ask “How old am I?”, but rather “How many productive years do I have left?” This will provide a better perspective for making the most of your remaining time.
Given enough years to live, every person would eventually wise up and become a Socialist.
If you’ve nothing better left to do in this world than die, you might as well do it.
ON MANKIND
It’s a toss-up as to which is mankind’s most destructive invention – the nuclear bomb or the passenger automobile.
If it weren’t for selfishness and greed, most of the world’s problems could be readily eradicated by simple changes.
There is much concern being expressed these days over population explosion. In actual fact, the solution to this problem should be quite easy – impose the death penalty upon anyone convicted of corruption.
ON EDUCATION
With an educational institution being most appropriately definable as an environmental area where the prime duty of the person seated up front is to help you teach yourself, it logically follows that we have no such thing as poor schools – only poor students.
ON OCCUPATIONS
Anybody who is not a farmer by chosen occupation deserves to be classified as a horse’s ass.
When viewing European or other national royalty and their lifelong ceremonial duty requirements, the only suitable statement in their regard is “What a way to make a living”.
ON WORKING
Any of your subordinates who are not after your job should tell you either they aren’t remotely qualified, or else the position isn’t worth having.
The way to avoid last-minute changes is to do everything at the last minute.
The best indication of having done a good day’s work is a full waste basket at 5 PM.
ON TOBACCO
Despite the curtailment of Joe Camel and similarly “offensive” ads, coupled with severe restrictions on smoking allowed areas, tobacco companies are still enjoying impressive sales. Why not, then, carry the campaign to a further point where virtually every signpost or indoor spot available for display shows a poster proclaiming “CIGARETTES KILL”? How better can the message be hammered into disdainful minds?
ON U.S. POLITICS
The prime qualification for being a Republican is to have your head up your ass.
ON DOGS
We really have no objection to our best animal friends. What turns us off, though, are the people who bring them to places where only humans should be.
SUNDRY DEFINITIONS
An interesting place: Somewhere you’ve never been.
A library: A vast data storehouse containing all the information in the world except that which you’re expressly looking for.
An atrocity: Any act if aggression or terrorism not perpetrated by American or Israeli forces.
The United States: The land of the greedy and the home of the commercial.
McDonald’s: The number one symbol by which America continues to spread its non-culture throughout the world.
Bus drivers: Small-minded men operating large vehicles.
There are only three groups of people in the world: 1) Those who make things happen; 2) Those who watch things happen; and 3) Those who have no idea what’s happening.
This fellow has never learned how to tolerate laziness or stupidity – and hopefully never will.
If you allow yourself to be swindled by a confidence scam, you deserve the consequences.
Idle or in-transit time is not something to be spent, but invested.
Being old is strictly a state of mind.
When your age clicks over to the sixty mark, you should no longer be inclined to self-ask “How old am I?”, but rather “How many productive years do I have left?” This will provide a better perspective for making the most of your remaining time.
Given enough years to live, every person would eventually wise up and become a Socialist.
If you’ve nothing better left to do in this world than die, you might as well do it.
ON MANKIND
It’s a toss-up as to which is mankind’s most destructive invention – the nuclear bomb or the passenger automobile.
If it weren’t for selfishness and greed, most of the world’s problems could be readily eradicated by simple changes.
There is much concern being expressed these days over population explosion. In actual fact, the solution to this problem should be quite easy – impose the death penalty upon anyone convicted of corruption.
ON EDUCATION
With an educational institution being most appropriately definable as an environmental area where the prime duty of the person seated up front is to help you teach yourself, it logically follows that we have no such thing as poor schools – only poor students.
ON OCCUPATIONS
Anybody who is not a farmer by chosen occupation deserves to be classified as a horse’s ass.
When viewing European or other national royalty and their lifelong ceremonial duty requirements, the only suitable statement in their regard is “What a way to make a living”.
ON WORKING
Any of your subordinates who are not after your job should tell you either they aren’t remotely qualified, or else the position isn’t worth having.
The way to avoid last-minute changes is to do everything at the last minute.
The best indication of having done a good day’s work is a full waste basket at 5 PM.
ON TOBACCO
Despite the curtailment of Joe Camel and similarly “offensive” ads, coupled with severe restrictions on smoking allowed areas, tobacco companies are still enjoying impressive sales. Why not, then, carry the campaign to a further point where virtually every signpost or indoor spot available for display shows a poster proclaiming “CIGARETTES KILL”? How better can the message be hammered into disdainful minds?
ON U.S. POLITICS
The prime qualification for being a Republican is to have your head up your ass.
ON DOGS
We really have no objection to our best animal friends. What turns us off, though, are the people who bring them to places where only humans should be.
SUNDRY DEFINITIONS
An interesting place: Somewhere you’ve never been.
A library: A vast data storehouse containing all the information in the world except that which you’re expressly looking for.
An atrocity: Any act if aggression or terrorism not perpetrated by American or Israeli forces.
The United States: The land of the greedy and the home of the commercial.
McDonald’s: The number one symbol by which America continues to spread its non-culture throughout the world.
Bus drivers: Small-minded men operating large vehicles.
BUTCHERING BOND: THE EPITOME OF HOLLYWOOD SCREENWRITING CORRUPTION
Most present-era respecters of English language literature will concede that author Ian Fleming churned out numerous cleverly-written novels during his all too short earthside venture. In case memories need jogging, he was the man who created master spy/sleuth, supersuave pursuer of sultry ladies, and homicide license 007 holder, James (himself) Bond.
The Bond books provided easy reading, much welcome put-it-downness and pick-it-up-laterness, a tempting sex interlude every few chapters, and suspenseful plots, climaxing with justifiable, sometimes comedy-tainted bloodshed. Mr. Fleming did indeed manage to incite mass reader sensationalism in his prime composing years.
During the mid-1960s, a person who couldn’t hold his or her own in cocktail and dinner party discussion of almost any James Bond adventure simply didn’t belong among those who were “with it”.
Perhaps on a comparable basis with the revered football coach Knute Rockne, Fleming was cut down at the very height of his career. Unlike the fabled Notre Dame mentor, though, he hasn’t been remembered with pseudo-reverence decades thereafter. In fact, his literary contributions are virtually forgotten today by the less-aged generations. There happens to be a most unfortunate reason for that.
All thirteen Bond tales that stemmed from Fleming’s penmanship were turned into movies, with a series of extremely masculine heroes. The initial productions launched Sean Connery into stratospheric stardom. Others have followed in his wake, all adequate, but none quite so exclamation pointy. British actor Bernard Lee also enjoyed top support ratings in his continuing role as “M”, James’ iron-jawed, authoritarian, anti-espionaging boss. The girls who came and went from film to film didn’t necessarily damage their careers by hitting the sack with our ubiquitous rogue either.
Now, as one often says, that was the good news. It’s time to proceed with the bad.
The novels were published between 1953 and 1962, the last two after Fleming’s demise in 1964. The first four, beginning with 1963, made reasonable viewer sense, as Connery globe-hopped, caressed a series of fair maidens, and wiped out nasty blokes by increasingly unimaginable means. The remaining nine, since supplemented by an apparent eternal string of lower class writers’ copycat efforts, warrant description in no terms other than repulsive to the hilt. The disappointing cumulative result to date has been an utter wipeout of any and all tastefulness once exhibited by the original author.
Doctor No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, and Thunderball, despite a few spice-adding script deviations from the books, did stick fairly close to the original stories. From then onward, the plots have featured a consistent pattern of sex, ultra-modern technological gimmickry, more sex, more technological gimmickry, and finally blowing the arch villains’ structures for foul evil-doing plumb to hell. Even Fleming’s off-beat tale The Spy Who Loved Me was converted into the same mess as the other eight stinkeroos.
Despite middle or advanced age, most of us fellows can remember taking our girls to the movies and seizing the opportunity to grip them tightly whenever suspenseful terror appeared on the screen. The love scenes were also helpful, although much less recognizable as such in earlier days. Sure, everyone enjoys being thrilled, including our lady friends. Nevertheless, to what extreme are Hollywood producers entitled to transform worthy literature into nonsensical garbage, solely to make the box office receipts climb?
When dwelling upon this far too lengthy string of sickening James Bondist glamor/violence, a person might be tempted to watch Shakespearean classics rescripted in a similar vein. Wouldn’t it be great to see Hamlet having an Oedipus affair with his scheming mother, then destroying her with dynamite, MacBeth engaging in an extra-marital event on several occasions before having his head lopped off right before the camera, Romeo and Juliet jumping between the bedsheets a few times prior to their explosively exaggerated mutual suicide, or Portia sleeping around when not dishing out dynamic courtroom oratory?
Despite this seemingly endless stream of filmed trash, a few of us elder folk are still able to retain memories from the days when Ian Fleming (not just Ian who) offered us tasteful relaxed reading, and Mr. Connery’s antics paralleled the initial plots to an acceptable degree.
The Bond books provided easy reading, much welcome put-it-downness and pick-it-up-laterness, a tempting sex interlude every few chapters, and suspenseful plots, climaxing with justifiable, sometimes comedy-tainted bloodshed. Mr. Fleming did indeed manage to incite mass reader sensationalism in his prime composing years.
During the mid-1960s, a person who couldn’t hold his or her own in cocktail and dinner party discussion of almost any James Bond adventure simply didn’t belong among those who were “with it”.
Perhaps on a comparable basis with the revered football coach Knute Rockne, Fleming was cut down at the very height of his career. Unlike the fabled Notre Dame mentor, though, he hasn’t been remembered with pseudo-reverence decades thereafter. In fact, his literary contributions are virtually forgotten today by the less-aged generations. There happens to be a most unfortunate reason for that.
All thirteen Bond tales that stemmed from Fleming’s penmanship were turned into movies, with a series of extremely masculine heroes. The initial productions launched Sean Connery into stratospheric stardom. Others have followed in his wake, all adequate, but none quite so exclamation pointy. British actor Bernard Lee also enjoyed top support ratings in his continuing role as “M”, James’ iron-jawed, authoritarian, anti-espionaging boss. The girls who came and went from film to film didn’t necessarily damage their careers by hitting the sack with our ubiquitous rogue either.
Now, as one often says, that was the good news. It’s time to proceed with the bad.
The novels were published between 1953 and 1962, the last two after Fleming’s demise in 1964. The first four, beginning with 1963, made reasonable viewer sense, as Connery globe-hopped, caressed a series of fair maidens, and wiped out nasty blokes by increasingly unimaginable means. The remaining nine, since supplemented by an apparent eternal string of lower class writers’ copycat efforts, warrant description in no terms other than repulsive to the hilt. The disappointing cumulative result to date has been an utter wipeout of any and all tastefulness once exhibited by the original author.
Doctor No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, and Thunderball, despite a few spice-adding script deviations from the books, did stick fairly close to the original stories. From then onward, the plots have featured a consistent pattern of sex, ultra-modern technological gimmickry, more sex, more technological gimmickry, and finally blowing the arch villains’ structures for foul evil-doing plumb to hell. Even Fleming’s off-beat tale The Spy Who Loved Me was converted into the same mess as the other eight stinkeroos.
Despite middle or advanced age, most of us fellows can remember taking our girls to the movies and seizing the opportunity to grip them tightly whenever suspenseful terror appeared on the screen. The love scenes were also helpful, although much less recognizable as such in earlier days. Sure, everyone enjoys being thrilled, including our lady friends. Nevertheless, to what extreme are Hollywood producers entitled to transform worthy literature into nonsensical garbage, solely to make the box office receipts climb?
When dwelling upon this far too lengthy string of sickening James Bondist glamor/violence, a person might be tempted to watch Shakespearean classics rescripted in a similar vein. Wouldn’t it be great to see Hamlet having an Oedipus affair with his scheming mother, then destroying her with dynamite, MacBeth engaging in an extra-marital event on several occasions before having his head lopped off right before the camera, Romeo and Juliet jumping between the bedsheets a few times prior to their explosively exaggerated mutual suicide, or Portia sleeping around when not dishing out dynamic courtroom oratory?
Despite this seemingly endless stream of filmed trash, a few of us elder folk are still able to retain memories from the days when Ian Fleming (not just Ian who) offered us tasteful relaxed reading, and Mr. Connery’s antics paralleled the initial plots to an acceptable degree.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
SANDY
Years ago, after this writer had succeeded in working up to a middle management position with a prominent (albeit now extinct) public accounting firm, a certain personally memorable incident took place. Minor in many respects though it was, the eventual outcome remains unknown, and holds to this day a considerable amount of wonderment.
The event occurred back in that era not too far beyond World War II and Korea, when every young lad recently having finished his formal education fell subject to military draft. As new staff members were brought in from various universities each autumn, the expectation was that, one-by-one, we’d soon be losing them temporarily. Nevertheless, their forerunners would be due to return as replacements.
Among our younger personnel one year was a promising lad named Sanford Weisman, known to his cohorts as Sandy. His military number had come up, with a departure date only a few weeks off. How many more senior people he sought advice from in his particular situation isn’t known. Anyway, this writer happened to be among them.
Sandy had been assigned to the Air Force. At the time, as he explained, the option lay open either to try for flying duty or restrict his activities to ground crew participation. This was a key decision, and he asked for help in making it.
If he chose to fill out his service days on the ground, the term would be two years. However, should he endeavor to and succeed in becoming a flyer, he’d be required to sign up for five. Consequently, being away for the longer period would delay his career as a budding income tax accountant rather unduly.
The obvious question he posed, therefore, dealt with returning to the accountancy world as quickly as possible, or else playing the odds of becoming a pilot for a longer service stay.
Again, lacking any knowledge as to what course others may have advised Sandy to take, this fellow’s reply to the lad’s puzzlement became swiftly obvious. The words used to counsel him are still vividly remembered, and are quoted below.
“Sandy, do you want to get in and out of the service as expediently as possible, rather than seek a more useful military job? Would you like spending the rest of your life looking skyward whenever a plane flies over, and telling yourself you might have been up there too, but had turned down the chance?
Should this situation be repeated today, many decades afterward, the advice tendered wouldn’t be altered by a single word. It was sincerely offered and the absolutely correct thing to say, beyond all doubt.
A few days later, the conversation with Sandy was related on separate occasions to two of the firm’s high-ranking partners. Sworn bean-counters to the very end, both of them displayed the same indignant reaction. Once again, their words still ring loudly.
“Well,” each gentleman stated in somewhat of a huff, “Sandy had better decide pretty soon whether he wants to be an accountant or a pilot!”
An accountant or a pilot indeed. How many of us have ever had that choice laid before us? Not many. Given such option, this writer would have likely debated roughly five seconds before coming up with the answer. What’s the sense of settling for a “what might have been” result?
People who hold strong devotion toward being accountants above all else are of a certain mind. This particular fellow doesn’t happen to fall within their ranks.
We can’t help but remain forever curious whether Sandy Weisman did or not.
The event occurred back in that era not too far beyond World War II and Korea, when every young lad recently having finished his formal education fell subject to military draft. As new staff members were brought in from various universities each autumn, the expectation was that, one-by-one, we’d soon be losing them temporarily. Nevertheless, their forerunners would be due to return as replacements.
Among our younger personnel one year was a promising lad named Sanford Weisman, known to his cohorts as Sandy. His military number had come up, with a departure date only a few weeks off. How many more senior people he sought advice from in his particular situation isn’t known. Anyway, this writer happened to be among them.
Sandy had been assigned to the Air Force. At the time, as he explained, the option lay open either to try for flying duty or restrict his activities to ground crew participation. This was a key decision, and he asked for help in making it.
If he chose to fill out his service days on the ground, the term would be two years. However, should he endeavor to and succeed in becoming a flyer, he’d be required to sign up for five. Consequently, being away for the longer period would delay his career as a budding income tax accountant rather unduly.
The obvious question he posed, therefore, dealt with returning to the accountancy world as quickly as possible, or else playing the odds of becoming a pilot for a longer service stay.
Again, lacking any knowledge as to what course others may have advised Sandy to take, this fellow’s reply to the lad’s puzzlement became swiftly obvious. The words used to counsel him are still vividly remembered, and are quoted below.
“Sandy, do you want to get in and out of the service as expediently as possible, rather than seek a more useful military job? Would you like spending the rest of your life looking skyward whenever a plane flies over, and telling yourself you might have been up there too, but had turned down the chance?
Should this situation be repeated today, many decades afterward, the advice tendered wouldn’t be altered by a single word. It was sincerely offered and the absolutely correct thing to say, beyond all doubt.
A few days later, the conversation with Sandy was related on separate occasions to two of the firm’s high-ranking partners. Sworn bean-counters to the very end, both of them displayed the same indignant reaction. Once again, their words still ring loudly.
“Well,” each gentleman stated in somewhat of a huff, “Sandy had better decide pretty soon whether he wants to be an accountant or a pilot!”
An accountant or a pilot indeed. How many of us have ever had that choice laid before us? Not many. Given such option, this writer would have likely debated roughly five seconds before coming up with the answer. What’s the sense of settling for a “what might have been” result?
People who hold strong devotion toward being accountants above all else are of a certain mind. This particular fellow doesn’t happen to fall within their ranks.
We can’t help but remain forever curious whether Sandy Weisman did or not.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
FROM LATIN TO ESPERANTO: A POTHOLE-LADEN LINGUISTIC JOURNEY
INTRODUCTION
Although our performance as mankind certainly belies the fact that we have really been a civilized society since the days of Ancient Greece and Rome, we have nonetheless managed to derive a beneficial communication means known as spoken and written language.
Linguistic scholars have painstakingly studied, analyzed, and classified tongues throughout the world into numerous dynasties, clans, families, groups, branches, sub-branches, or whatever, in the interest of enlightening those who may be seeking knowledge and understanding as to why we say and write things as we do and have done for so many centuries.
Society’s most influential languages of our present day include what the scholars have defined as falling under the Indo-European umbrella. These are the Balto-Slavic, Celtic, Germanic or Teutonic, Indo-Iranian, and the Italic or Romance categories, each embracing numerous different tongues, but all having common parentage at various levels.
SCOPE
This particular study has been confined to the following Germanic and Romance languages which are official to the major western European countries, along with their prime antecedents, Greek and Latin:
· Italian
· Portuguese
· Spanish
· French
· German
· Dutch
· English
· Danish
· Norwegian
· Swedish
· Icelandic
Obviously, the above list expands the global coverage to include all of North and South America, Australia and New Zealand, and ex-colonies in Africa and Asia. To it we’ve chosen to add Esperanto, a Romance- and Germanic-related linguistic endeavor developed on what amounts to an independent basis in the late nineteenth century, and very much alive today. Considerably more attention will be devoted to this tongue further on, due to its significance relative to the others.
Our selected group represents the principal languages spoken by roughly one-sixth of the modern world population, and more like two-thirds of what we know as the western world.
Icelandic is included because it definitely falls into the Scandinavian category, and also stands out as one which has failed to change with the times over many centuries, having been relatively isolated from its three major sisters, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. The odd combination of similarity and dissimilarity is quite unique.
RATIONALE
The question on the reader’s mind at this point is most likely what purpose is being served by this linguistic exercise. Perhaps we weren’t even sure ourselves until rather recently, i.e. well into the analytical process. Then, in a sudden revelation, more or less, the why factor became very apparent.
Mankind took over its rule on earth with nothing but untapped resources to exploit. Without the remotest imagination compared to our beings today, focus was placed strictly on life’s necessities. As millions of years came and went, the effort to more effectively utilize our natural surroundings was extremely gradual, to say the least.
Now, we can look with great pride at the technological progress we’ve achieved in such areas as space exploration, medicine, computer technology, and otherwise, especially from the close of World War II onward, which absolutely borders on the phenomenal. How could we have envisioned so much accomplishment as recently as 1945?
To make the long story short, our occupation of this planet began with the utmost in simplicity. Describing the whole business as gradual amounts to a gross understatement. One striking example is failure to recognize the potential of electricity until the early eighteenth century, when it had been with and identifiable to us from the very start. Why did we have to wait so long for Benjamin Franklin’s striking “discovery”?
Furthermore, why didn’t someone prior to Thomas Edison realize how this basic energy source could be put to effective use?
Although we’d known for quite a while that light traveled at a rate of 186,000 miles per second, it wasn’t until the twentieth century before the whiz kids at IBM Corporation could determine how to put such speed to use for communication and related purposes.
So much for scientific and technological advancement having proceeded at the proverbial snail’s pace, requiring centuries of tortoise-like movement, even after we allegedly became “civilized” during the Ancient Greek and Roman reigns. Our subject at hand is actually man’s means of spoken and written communication through language.
THE SAGA OF MODERN-DAY LANGUAGE
It seems we might safely say that effective interpersonal communication really began with the Greeks and later the Romans during their respective glory days. This isn’t intended to imply that the Hebrews and Phoenicians of earlier ages merely grunted at one another. They were obviously able to speak and compose as meaningfully within their own environment as we do in ours now. The same capabilities existed among the peoples of the Far East, darkest Africa, and the open plains of North and South America.
The point we wish to make, however, is that the words we use throughout the dominating western world at present stem from three sources: Greek, Latin, and Germanic. Whatever we say or jot down on paper is the end result of a distillation process that has taken place for over two millennia.
Are we thus able to say with full confidence that this linguistic evolution has reached a stage of complete refinement? Of course we can’t. Every national language in use today is sufficiently riddled with rules, non-rules, and exceptions to make full mastery a virtual impossibility, except by those relatively rare folk somewhat divinely endowed with comprehension-grasping genius.
What we’ve chosen herein to constitute as “lingogenesis” came from those halcyon empire days, wherein the rules for speaking and writing were far from simple. In fact, they couldn’t have been more unduly complicated. At such stage in mankind’s development, the ugh sounds and finger signs of past eras had already evolved into a strong desire to make oneself a full hundred per cent clear when communicating with a fellow being or beings, but has never quite made the grade.
Although Greek served as the source of numerous Latin words, it has in many cases simply bypassed its neighbor and moved directly into the Romance and Germanic offspring, having become firmly so entrenched.
While Greek and Latin went on to spread their verbal influence among the Mediterranean nations, Germanic tongues enjoyed the same effect throughout northern Europe. Although English was decidedly one of the latter’s offspring, the Normans brought French with them when they conquered Britain in 1066, and remained as dominating occupants for a few hundred years. Upon eventually moving out, they nevertheless left behind a clear Romanesque effect.
English therefore developed into a dual heritage language, and stands today as one whereby a person has the choice of relating to either the Germanic or Greek/Latin roots in uttering a verbal or composing a written statement. Of course, those among us to whom it is a native tongue perform this so-called feat without considering or, in most cases, realizing why.
BACK TO THE ORIGINS ONCE AGAIN
Whereas these three prime source languages obviously came about through their own evolutionary processes, Latin bears strong evidence of having been carefully structured through the use of certain scholarly application. In order that anything whatsoever might be expressed in the clearest and understandable fashion, rules had to have been laid out for its human exponents to follow. Nowhere else in the linguistic universe has such methodology been so apparent, even to the relatively casual observer.
This is especially true in the case of verb tenses, providing for distinct means whereby the indicative, subjunctive, and imperative moods were each broken down into active and passive voice, covering present, imperfect, present perfect, past perfect, future, and future perfect time element factors. In turn, nouns, pronouns, and adjectives all were required to bear gender (masculine, feminine, neuter) and case (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative) designations. Even a couple of touches were thrown in for good measure, such as vocative and locative degrees.
We tend to suspect that the proclivity of irregular verb endings was already in existence at the time the scholars sat down and laid out the rules. Changing them could well have been deemed as nothing short of heretical.
By way of further hard and fast rulemaking, any combination of nouns or pronouns with the adjectives by which they were modified had to show full agreement as to case, number (i.e. singular or plural) and gender.
Did so much strictness indeed make sense? Yes, of course it did to the erudite upper crust types who dwelt in the acts of writing prose, correspondence, dramatic works, flowery speeches, and the like. Still, what about the average blokes on the street? Can the fact really be accepted that these common folk employed the full range of grammatical regulations spread out for their use?
The answer to this question is a straightforward no. The most explanatory example lies in our present-day English-speaking population, where a highly (in many ways) simplified language ranks among the more difficult subjects for students to master, in addition to which it gets horrifically butchered when spoken or written down by absolutely countless millions.
On this factual premise, could one honestly believe that those ancient Roman adults and children fared any better than their modern-day counterparts? It may be clearly presumed that a much more watered down means of expression reigned in those days. Undoubtedly, even those of the high and mighty set must have found need to resort to their grammatical rulebooks to make sure the correct verb form or whatever applied in their speeches and compositions.
A fairly cursory review of a Latin dictionary today will reveal certain allowable spelling alterations, which probably came about through errors which became so commonly applied in due course that the Roman society deigned to accept them.
THE ROAD BETWEEN YESTERYEAR AND NOW
We refer back to the title of this piece, where we label such a road to be heavily laden with potholes. No descriptive statement seems to be more appropriate.
Latin’s daughter tongues, principally Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and French, as well as those Germanic offspring Dutch, English, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, and Icelandic have undergone a long-run trend toward gradual simplification ever since the days of the Caesars and Attila the Hun. There has been some notable success. However, none of these updated language versions has managed to unencumber itself fully from irregular verb forms, pronunciation variations due to all sorts of accent marks or otherwise, retention of archaic spelling, and other downright failures to make the transition as complete as it could have been. Somehow, the members of the hoity-toi population wish to retain as many complexities as possible for sheer traditional reasons. As a matter of fact, we’ve found a few to have been added in certain cases.
THE QUEST FOR A LINGUA FRANCA
Consequently, modern-era school days or adult age study of any common language cited herein calls for carefully memorizing many rather needless rules and exceptions. A lot of students never make out in a satisfactory manner. Universities with liberal arts colleges often require passing marks in at least one foreign tongue, with loss of advanced degree eligibility the price for failure. This hardly seems fair, but has been known to happen.
Over a great many decades, efforts have been expended by skilled linguists to devise easier-to-master languages for international and other intercommunication use. For various reasons, none has ever reached the intended objective. Ironically instead, the overwhelming demand to learn English by citizenry worldwide supposedly fulfills the need. As a consequence, no more popular lingua franca exists than that which was born of Germanic parentage and married temporarily to French.
Yes, English has dropped a whole lot of archaic complexities over the centuries, which has to help the learner somewhat. From the standpoints of spelling and pronunciation rules, though, it doesn’t exactly stand as among the easiest. Despite the remaining shortcomings, this is what the major populace has chosen to be the most appropriate international communication method.
THE GOOD DR. ZAMENHOF
Dr. L.L. Zamenhof was a Polish oculist who entertained a dream similar to a number of others who both preceded and succeeded him – developing a universal language, usable as a common point between speakers of opposite nations. The fruits of his rather tedious endeavor were initially published in 1887.
The man hadn’t just sat week after week in an empty attic quietly putting together what he was to label Esperanto, directly related to the Romance word meaning “hope”. Instead, he had submitted drafts of his work to others for review and comment, then incorporated their more appropriate suggestions into his publishable product.
Esperanto wasn’t yet final, however. A society came into being to study and refine the work even more. Conventions were subsequently held, revisions proposed, accepted or rejected, and the end results eventually presented to the world.
Whereas the outpourings of its predecessors and successors died quiet deaths, Esperanto and its exponents have carried on ever since. It stands as the sole “manufactured” international language which has earned a reasonable degree of public acceptance.
For reasons already given, Dr. Zamenhof’s dream has never achieved anything near complete fulfillment, thanks to the virtually universal clamor to make English the second language to everyone desirous of expanding his or her communicability. Nevertheless, the product he so painstakingly created does indeed live on, and will likely continue to do so in its own right.
ESPERANTO AND ITS TECHNICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The principal feature of this personally structured language is that, in most instances, the simplest of rules are applied. Uniformity reigns throughout, with absolutely no exceptions.
Further key examples of uniformity, in contrast to other languages under surveillance herein, are as below:
· Nominative case nouns end with “o” in the singular and “oj” in the plural;
· Objective case nouns end with “on” in the singular and “ojn” in the plural;
· Adjectives end with “a”, and adverbs with “e”;
· There is a sole definite article related to any noun, namely the term “la”.
· The indefinite article has disappeared.
Pronouns, be they nominative, possessive, or objective, have been reduced to the absolutely simplest of terms.
Similar unique features apply to verbs, wherein the specific tense is determinable by the last one or two letters, and the same applies to each person, singular and plural:
· “as” for the present;
· “i” for the infinitive;
· “is” for the past tense:
· “os” for the future tense;
· “us” for the conditional;
· “u” for the imperative.
The present perfect, past perfect, future perfect, and conditional perfect tenses are formed with the appropriate form of the auxiliary verb “est_”, which corresponds to the English “to be”.
In contrast, when choosing a noun in any of the Romance tongues, one must know which of the two genders it applies, making article and adjectival adjustments as appropriate. German and Icelandic are actually worse, having three. Even Dutch and the other Scandinavian languages have two.
Verbs offer yet more “fun”, with ending changes dependent on the person and gender. This problem extends partly to English as well. Only Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish are exempt.
That isn’t all that’s wrong with verbs, in every language of reference here. There are enough irregular endings, in English included, to muddle the mind of any school child, small or large, not to mention the adult endeavoring to master a new tongue.
The so-called “perfect” tenses, i.e. present, past, and future, require an auxiliary verb, which is normally the equivalent of “have”. However, do the Romance languages plus German and Dutch stop there? Heavens no. In certain, at least reasonably specific, cases the form of “be” must be used instead.
Just to complicate the speakers’/writers’ lives even further, the subjunctive, which ought to have died a slow death following the collapse of the Roman Empire, remains alive and well thousands of years later. Under certain fairly definable conditions, the form of any verb is subject to change endingwise under the Romance, German, and Icelandic rules. Fortunately, such usage is extremely limited or virtually non-existent now in Dutch, English, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. The student should thank whatever gods may be for this.
One encouraging thing to be said in the Romance and Germanic areas (other than for English) is that the pronunciation rules are hard and fast, at least relatively speaking. There are still a great many exceptions, as you might expect, but they can be readily recognized from the accent marks used. They vary from one language to another, and aren’t altogether too difficult to catch on to.
English actually does retain an umlaut or an accented vowel here and there, but they bring no problem unto themselves. The bugaboo comes from supposed pronunciation rules, which they decidedly are not, but rather colloquial practices. The whole matter can best be described as dialectical, where how you say countless words depends upon where you originated. From the Scottish to the Irish to the Yorkshiremen to the Londonians to the Bostonians to the Deep Southerners to the Texans to the Australians, and still onward to the less developed country peoples who converse in any number of differing Pidgin ways, comprehension isn’t always easy or even possible between two spokesmen who grew up varying distances apart.
Now is a most fitting point to focus once again on Esperanto, language’s masterpiece of carefully structured simplicity. Although adjectives must still agree with the words they modify as to case and number, this should be only a minor inconvenience to the learner, in contrast to any other known language on the face of the earth.
A particular feature to which the Esperanto learner must adapt his or her thinking to, albeit with little difficulty and appreciative understanding, is the very common use of prefixes, infixes, and suffixes. Although they also proliferate in other languages, especially German, Dutch, and English, Dr. Zamenhof’s purpose was to make them fully useful for word conversion, i.e. forming virtually any part of speech from a simple root. The effect is that no other language, English included, offers more flexibility, without the necessity of an “obese” dictionary. The student doesn’t have to remember two entirely different words to denote male and female noun gender, whereas the conversion comes from an easy-to-follow suffix. This is but one example among many.
The most suitable punch line to this exercise is the ability to state that anything a person would wish to say or write in the Latin of yesteryear may also be expressed through modern Esperanto, at least insofar as common, day-to-day terms are concerned. Therefore, by the same token wherein we consider our most ancient ancestors as having been capable of “discovering” and even exploiting electrical energy, à la Ben Franklin and Tom Edison, we’re fully convinced that those Roman scholarly types might well have resorted to the same utmost simplicity as did Dr. Zamenhof.
We’d have little difficulty proving our point by showing a list of a thousand or so common Latin words with the Esperanto terms right alongside. True, German is sometimes the source instead, and we could add numerous examples thereof for good measure.
Nevertheless, such a statement as that above does indeed give rise to a speculative question. Why didn’t those scholars seek pure simplicity in the first place, instead of endeavoring to plow so many complexities into the grammatical rulebook? By way of an equally speculative answer, we suspect that the boys were actually catering to the big-wigs, with an intent to produce a communication means utilizable by those who deemed themselves infinitely superior to the ordinary Joes walking the Roman streets.
Carrying our thesis just a step further, look how many of today’s more erudite citizens, who always know which case, number, and gender to use, or what tense to apply, tend to look down upon the less formally trained in speech and composition. Anyway, it’s a thought.
To add one additional theoretical query to our analysis, let us suppose that the boys with their quill pens or whatever they chose to write with had really devoted their mental prowess to designing a language virtually every citizen could employ with relative ease, and “gone to press” on such basis. What would the likely result be today, after a millennium or two of transitional amendment, so-called refinement, or otherwise? Perhaps the Esperanto-like foundation might have become only semi-recognizable by now, having been riddled over long centuries with exceptions and locally-chosen deviations. Who will ever know?
Still, any such reservations as that shouldn’t wash away our strong belief that we would all be better communicators at this stage, had things begun with the goal of maximum interpersonal understanding, as opposed to fostering presumed snobbishness.
Although our performance as mankind certainly belies the fact that we have really been a civilized society since the days of Ancient Greece and Rome, we have nonetheless managed to derive a beneficial communication means known as spoken and written language.
Linguistic scholars have painstakingly studied, analyzed, and classified tongues throughout the world into numerous dynasties, clans, families, groups, branches, sub-branches, or whatever, in the interest of enlightening those who may be seeking knowledge and understanding as to why we say and write things as we do and have done for so many centuries.
Society’s most influential languages of our present day include what the scholars have defined as falling under the Indo-European umbrella. These are the Balto-Slavic, Celtic, Germanic or Teutonic, Indo-Iranian, and the Italic or Romance categories, each embracing numerous different tongues, but all having common parentage at various levels.
SCOPE
This particular study has been confined to the following Germanic and Romance languages which are official to the major western European countries, along with their prime antecedents, Greek and Latin:
· Italian
· Portuguese
· Spanish
· French
· German
· Dutch
· English
· Danish
· Norwegian
· Swedish
· Icelandic
Obviously, the above list expands the global coverage to include all of North and South America, Australia and New Zealand, and ex-colonies in Africa and Asia. To it we’ve chosen to add Esperanto, a Romance- and Germanic-related linguistic endeavor developed on what amounts to an independent basis in the late nineteenth century, and very much alive today. Considerably more attention will be devoted to this tongue further on, due to its significance relative to the others.
Our selected group represents the principal languages spoken by roughly one-sixth of the modern world population, and more like two-thirds of what we know as the western world.
Icelandic is included because it definitely falls into the Scandinavian category, and also stands out as one which has failed to change with the times over many centuries, having been relatively isolated from its three major sisters, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. The odd combination of similarity and dissimilarity is quite unique.
RATIONALE
The question on the reader’s mind at this point is most likely what purpose is being served by this linguistic exercise. Perhaps we weren’t even sure ourselves until rather recently, i.e. well into the analytical process. Then, in a sudden revelation, more or less, the why factor became very apparent.
Mankind took over its rule on earth with nothing but untapped resources to exploit. Without the remotest imagination compared to our beings today, focus was placed strictly on life’s necessities. As millions of years came and went, the effort to more effectively utilize our natural surroundings was extremely gradual, to say the least.
Now, we can look with great pride at the technological progress we’ve achieved in such areas as space exploration, medicine, computer technology, and otherwise, especially from the close of World War II onward, which absolutely borders on the phenomenal. How could we have envisioned so much accomplishment as recently as 1945?
To make the long story short, our occupation of this planet began with the utmost in simplicity. Describing the whole business as gradual amounts to a gross understatement. One striking example is failure to recognize the potential of electricity until the early eighteenth century, when it had been with and identifiable to us from the very start. Why did we have to wait so long for Benjamin Franklin’s striking “discovery”?
Furthermore, why didn’t someone prior to Thomas Edison realize how this basic energy source could be put to effective use?
Although we’d known for quite a while that light traveled at a rate of 186,000 miles per second, it wasn’t until the twentieth century before the whiz kids at IBM Corporation could determine how to put such speed to use for communication and related purposes.
So much for scientific and technological advancement having proceeded at the proverbial snail’s pace, requiring centuries of tortoise-like movement, even after we allegedly became “civilized” during the Ancient Greek and Roman reigns. Our subject at hand is actually man’s means of spoken and written communication through language.
THE SAGA OF MODERN-DAY LANGUAGE
It seems we might safely say that effective interpersonal communication really began with the Greeks and later the Romans during their respective glory days. This isn’t intended to imply that the Hebrews and Phoenicians of earlier ages merely grunted at one another. They were obviously able to speak and compose as meaningfully within their own environment as we do in ours now. The same capabilities existed among the peoples of the Far East, darkest Africa, and the open plains of North and South America.
The point we wish to make, however, is that the words we use throughout the dominating western world at present stem from three sources: Greek, Latin, and Germanic. Whatever we say or jot down on paper is the end result of a distillation process that has taken place for over two millennia.
Are we thus able to say with full confidence that this linguistic evolution has reached a stage of complete refinement? Of course we can’t. Every national language in use today is sufficiently riddled with rules, non-rules, and exceptions to make full mastery a virtual impossibility, except by those relatively rare folk somewhat divinely endowed with comprehension-grasping genius.
What we’ve chosen herein to constitute as “lingogenesis” came from those halcyon empire days, wherein the rules for speaking and writing were far from simple. In fact, they couldn’t have been more unduly complicated. At such stage in mankind’s development, the ugh sounds and finger signs of past eras had already evolved into a strong desire to make oneself a full hundred per cent clear when communicating with a fellow being or beings, but has never quite made the grade.
Although Greek served as the source of numerous Latin words, it has in many cases simply bypassed its neighbor and moved directly into the Romance and Germanic offspring, having become firmly so entrenched.
While Greek and Latin went on to spread their verbal influence among the Mediterranean nations, Germanic tongues enjoyed the same effect throughout northern Europe. Although English was decidedly one of the latter’s offspring, the Normans brought French with them when they conquered Britain in 1066, and remained as dominating occupants for a few hundred years. Upon eventually moving out, they nevertheless left behind a clear Romanesque effect.
English therefore developed into a dual heritage language, and stands today as one whereby a person has the choice of relating to either the Germanic or Greek/Latin roots in uttering a verbal or composing a written statement. Of course, those among us to whom it is a native tongue perform this so-called feat without considering or, in most cases, realizing why.
BACK TO THE ORIGINS ONCE AGAIN
Whereas these three prime source languages obviously came about through their own evolutionary processes, Latin bears strong evidence of having been carefully structured through the use of certain scholarly application. In order that anything whatsoever might be expressed in the clearest and understandable fashion, rules had to have been laid out for its human exponents to follow. Nowhere else in the linguistic universe has such methodology been so apparent, even to the relatively casual observer.
This is especially true in the case of verb tenses, providing for distinct means whereby the indicative, subjunctive, and imperative moods were each broken down into active and passive voice, covering present, imperfect, present perfect, past perfect, future, and future perfect time element factors. In turn, nouns, pronouns, and adjectives all were required to bear gender (masculine, feminine, neuter) and case (nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative) designations. Even a couple of touches were thrown in for good measure, such as vocative and locative degrees.
We tend to suspect that the proclivity of irregular verb endings was already in existence at the time the scholars sat down and laid out the rules. Changing them could well have been deemed as nothing short of heretical.
By way of further hard and fast rulemaking, any combination of nouns or pronouns with the adjectives by which they were modified had to show full agreement as to case, number (i.e. singular or plural) and gender.
Did so much strictness indeed make sense? Yes, of course it did to the erudite upper crust types who dwelt in the acts of writing prose, correspondence, dramatic works, flowery speeches, and the like. Still, what about the average blokes on the street? Can the fact really be accepted that these common folk employed the full range of grammatical regulations spread out for their use?
The answer to this question is a straightforward no. The most explanatory example lies in our present-day English-speaking population, where a highly (in many ways) simplified language ranks among the more difficult subjects for students to master, in addition to which it gets horrifically butchered when spoken or written down by absolutely countless millions.
On this factual premise, could one honestly believe that those ancient Roman adults and children fared any better than their modern-day counterparts? It may be clearly presumed that a much more watered down means of expression reigned in those days. Undoubtedly, even those of the high and mighty set must have found need to resort to their grammatical rulebooks to make sure the correct verb form or whatever applied in their speeches and compositions.
A fairly cursory review of a Latin dictionary today will reveal certain allowable spelling alterations, which probably came about through errors which became so commonly applied in due course that the Roman society deigned to accept them.
THE ROAD BETWEEN YESTERYEAR AND NOW
We refer back to the title of this piece, where we label such a road to be heavily laden with potholes. No descriptive statement seems to be more appropriate.
Latin’s daughter tongues, principally Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and French, as well as those Germanic offspring Dutch, English, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, and Icelandic have undergone a long-run trend toward gradual simplification ever since the days of the Caesars and Attila the Hun. There has been some notable success. However, none of these updated language versions has managed to unencumber itself fully from irregular verb forms, pronunciation variations due to all sorts of accent marks or otherwise, retention of archaic spelling, and other downright failures to make the transition as complete as it could have been. Somehow, the members of the hoity-toi population wish to retain as many complexities as possible for sheer traditional reasons. As a matter of fact, we’ve found a few to have been added in certain cases.
THE QUEST FOR A LINGUA FRANCA
Consequently, modern-era school days or adult age study of any common language cited herein calls for carefully memorizing many rather needless rules and exceptions. A lot of students never make out in a satisfactory manner. Universities with liberal arts colleges often require passing marks in at least one foreign tongue, with loss of advanced degree eligibility the price for failure. This hardly seems fair, but has been known to happen.
Over a great many decades, efforts have been expended by skilled linguists to devise easier-to-master languages for international and other intercommunication use. For various reasons, none has ever reached the intended objective. Ironically instead, the overwhelming demand to learn English by citizenry worldwide supposedly fulfills the need. As a consequence, no more popular lingua franca exists than that which was born of Germanic parentage and married temporarily to French.
Yes, English has dropped a whole lot of archaic complexities over the centuries, which has to help the learner somewhat. From the standpoints of spelling and pronunciation rules, though, it doesn’t exactly stand as among the easiest. Despite the remaining shortcomings, this is what the major populace has chosen to be the most appropriate international communication method.
THE GOOD DR. ZAMENHOF
Dr. L.L. Zamenhof was a Polish oculist who entertained a dream similar to a number of others who both preceded and succeeded him – developing a universal language, usable as a common point between speakers of opposite nations. The fruits of his rather tedious endeavor were initially published in 1887.
The man hadn’t just sat week after week in an empty attic quietly putting together what he was to label Esperanto, directly related to the Romance word meaning “hope”. Instead, he had submitted drafts of his work to others for review and comment, then incorporated their more appropriate suggestions into his publishable product.
Esperanto wasn’t yet final, however. A society came into being to study and refine the work even more. Conventions were subsequently held, revisions proposed, accepted or rejected, and the end results eventually presented to the world.
Whereas the outpourings of its predecessors and successors died quiet deaths, Esperanto and its exponents have carried on ever since. It stands as the sole “manufactured” international language which has earned a reasonable degree of public acceptance.
For reasons already given, Dr. Zamenhof’s dream has never achieved anything near complete fulfillment, thanks to the virtually universal clamor to make English the second language to everyone desirous of expanding his or her communicability. Nevertheless, the product he so painstakingly created does indeed live on, and will likely continue to do so in its own right.
ESPERANTO AND ITS TECHNICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The principal feature of this personally structured language is that, in most instances, the simplest of rules are applied. Uniformity reigns throughout, with absolutely no exceptions.
Further key examples of uniformity, in contrast to other languages under surveillance herein, are as below:
· Nominative case nouns end with “o” in the singular and “oj” in the plural;
· Objective case nouns end with “on” in the singular and “ojn” in the plural;
· Adjectives end with “a”, and adverbs with “e”;
· There is a sole definite article related to any noun, namely the term “la”.
· The indefinite article has disappeared.
Pronouns, be they nominative, possessive, or objective, have been reduced to the absolutely simplest of terms.
Similar unique features apply to verbs, wherein the specific tense is determinable by the last one or two letters, and the same applies to each person, singular and plural:
· “as” for the present;
· “i” for the infinitive;
· “is” for the past tense:
· “os” for the future tense;
· “us” for the conditional;
· “u” for the imperative.
The present perfect, past perfect, future perfect, and conditional perfect tenses are formed with the appropriate form of the auxiliary verb “est_”, which corresponds to the English “to be”.
In contrast, when choosing a noun in any of the Romance tongues, one must know which of the two genders it applies, making article and adjectival adjustments as appropriate. German and Icelandic are actually worse, having three. Even Dutch and the other Scandinavian languages have two.
Verbs offer yet more “fun”, with ending changes dependent on the person and gender. This problem extends partly to English as well. Only Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish are exempt.
That isn’t all that’s wrong with verbs, in every language of reference here. There are enough irregular endings, in English included, to muddle the mind of any school child, small or large, not to mention the adult endeavoring to master a new tongue.
The so-called “perfect” tenses, i.e. present, past, and future, require an auxiliary verb, which is normally the equivalent of “have”. However, do the Romance languages plus German and Dutch stop there? Heavens no. In certain, at least reasonably specific, cases the form of “be” must be used instead.
Just to complicate the speakers’/writers’ lives even further, the subjunctive, which ought to have died a slow death following the collapse of the Roman Empire, remains alive and well thousands of years later. Under certain fairly definable conditions, the form of any verb is subject to change endingwise under the Romance, German, and Icelandic rules. Fortunately, such usage is extremely limited or virtually non-existent now in Dutch, English, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. The student should thank whatever gods may be for this.
One encouraging thing to be said in the Romance and Germanic areas (other than for English) is that the pronunciation rules are hard and fast, at least relatively speaking. There are still a great many exceptions, as you might expect, but they can be readily recognized from the accent marks used. They vary from one language to another, and aren’t altogether too difficult to catch on to.
English actually does retain an umlaut or an accented vowel here and there, but they bring no problem unto themselves. The bugaboo comes from supposed pronunciation rules, which they decidedly are not, but rather colloquial practices. The whole matter can best be described as dialectical, where how you say countless words depends upon where you originated. From the Scottish to the Irish to the Yorkshiremen to the Londonians to the Bostonians to the Deep Southerners to the Texans to the Australians, and still onward to the less developed country peoples who converse in any number of differing Pidgin ways, comprehension isn’t always easy or even possible between two spokesmen who grew up varying distances apart.
Now is a most fitting point to focus once again on Esperanto, language’s masterpiece of carefully structured simplicity. Although adjectives must still agree with the words they modify as to case and number, this should be only a minor inconvenience to the learner, in contrast to any other known language on the face of the earth.
A particular feature to which the Esperanto learner must adapt his or her thinking to, albeit with little difficulty and appreciative understanding, is the very common use of prefixes, infixes, and suffixes. Although they also proliferate in other languages, especially German, Dutch, and English, Dr. Zamenhof’s purpose was to make them fully useful for word conversion, i.e. forming virtually any part of speech from a simple root. The effect is that no other language, English included, offers more flexibility, without the necessity of an “obese” dictionary. The student doesn’t have to remember two entirely different words to denote male and female noun gender, whereas the conversion comes from an easy-to-follow suffix. This is but one example among many.
The most suitable punch line to this exercise is the ability to state that anything a person would wish to say or write in the Latin of yesteryear may also be expressed through modern Esperanto, at least insofar as common, day-to-day terms are concerned. Therefore, by the same token wherein we consider our most ancient ancestors as having been capable of “discovering” and even exploiting electrical energy, à la Ben Franklin and Tom Edison, we’re fully convinced that those Roman scholarly types might well have resorted to the same utmost simplicity as did Dr. Zamenhof.
We’d have little difficulty proving our point by showing a list of a thousand or so common Latin words with the Esperanto terms right alongside. True, German is sometimes the source instead, and we could add numerous examples thereof for good measure.
Nevertheless, such a statement as that above does indeed give rise to a speculative question. Why didn’t those scholars seek pure simplicity in the first place, instead of endeavoring to plow so many complexities into the grammatical rulebook? By way of an equally speculative answer, we suspect that the boys were actually catering to the big-wigs, with an intent to produce a communication means utilizable by those who deemed themselves infinitely superior to the ordinary Joes walking the Roman streets.
Carrying our thesis just a step further, look how many of today’s more erudite citizens, who always know which case, number, and gender to use, or what tense to apply, tend to look down upon the less formally trained in speech and composition. Anyway, it’s a thought.
To add one additional theoretical query to our analysis, let us suppose that the boys with their quill pens or whatever they chose to write with had really devoted their mental prowess to designing a language virtually every citizen could employ with relative ease, and “gone to press” on such basis. What would the likely result be today, after a millennium or two of transitional amendment, so-called refinement, or otherwise? Perhaps the Esperanto-like foundation might have become only semi-recognizable by now, having been riddled over long centuries with exceptions and locally-chosen deviations. Who will ever know?
Still, any such reservations as that shouldn’t wash away our strong belief that we would all be better communicators at this stage, had things begun with the goal of maximum interpersonal understanding, as opposed to fostering presumed snobbishness.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
THE DAY THE GOOD GUYS WON
One particularly unforgettable Saturday afternoon in this writer’s memory took place almost countless years ago while attending a movie theater matinee. Since the custom in those times was to devote that part of any given week catering to the very young generation by featuring thrill-laden action films, the bill-of-fare offered Tonka, a Walt Disney Studios production.
Tonka was the name of an undoubtedly fictitious horse which happened to serve as a mount for General George Armstrong Custer’s ill-fated Seventh Cavalry at Little Big Horn. Although this wouldn’t be the writer’s normal plans for Saturday PM entertainment, the occasion was rather special, in accompanying a young son and a battery of his cronies immediately following a home-based birthday party.
What remains especially memorable about said film is how the Disney folk had created the buildup for and the carrying out of that famous battle. In case any readers may be short on their U.S. history recollections, this was one day when the Indians emerged victorious, leaving absolutely no Seventh Cavalry survivors to regale their grandchildren decades later with exaggerated tales about the skirmish at Little Big Horn.
The decided villains in this movie were Custer and his merry men, and we must accord the studio due credit for painting him as the real (as they say in Yiddish) schmuck he truly happened to be. In turn, his fellow horsemen didn’t exactly come across as nice home-loving chaps.
Obviously, therefore, by simple process of elimination, the Sioux warriors filled the good guys role, kind to their mothers and all that. Consequently, as the bitter battle roared across the screen, every time a Redskin bit the dust, the entire audience on hand (some 95% kids as we’ve already explained) would groan in exasperation. However, each cavalryman falling from his horse brought on a rousing cheer. Finally, when General Custer stopped a bullet (or maybe an arrow, because memory fails) and hit the dirt mortally wounded, the young audience yelled with fervor equal to that attached to watching a favorite ballcarrier execute a lengthy touchdown run. The boys were exalted.
As for our kindly horse Tonka, whether he survived the onslaught or not has been forgotten. The key point to stress is that on said day in American western history the Indians – the good guys – took the marbles.
We must confess to having been frightfully long-winded in the opening to this piece. Nevertheless, that single movie (well, there have been others of better quality reaching toward the same goal) represented the antithesis to how those we now patronizingly refer to as Native Americans were consistently referred to on the silver or multi-colored screens as “savages” or by other appropriate slurs – even “prairie niggers” on one fortunately isolated occasion.
The sad part is that such oftentimes negative opinions expressed on theater and old film TV reruns reflect a common feeling among much of the majority group populace in this so-called equal rights and privileges country. Must this be? Why, this writer often feels compelled to ask, do the American Indians of recent centuries past deserve such down-our-noses disrespect? Were they really wrong in wanting to protect their hunting grounds and their ability to roam freely within their established territories? Had they no right to resist Whitey’s ever-increasing westward movement, to take over the North American universe to his supposedly progressive liking?
Just consider again the afore-mentioned term Native American. Shouldn’t that amount to more than an allegedly polite title? So far as we can determine, they were here first. They owned the joint. The migrants from across the Atlantic were invaders. Friendly, well-meaning ones, though? Like hell they were. In more than one recorded incident, they proved to be as arbitrarily brutal at conducting bloody massacres of Indians as any attributed to the frowned-upon Redskins. Rather shamefully, the history books make little or no mention of the atrocities committed by the paleface on a people trying to defend their homeland.
Eventually and inevitably, the invasion force prevailed, due to its “superior” education and “advanced” technology for the time. One by one, previously hostile Indian tribes agreed to cease their opposition due to de facto defeat, in return for fair settlement treatment. Wow! The promises for comfortable reservation-area living dished out by the conquering masters rate among U.S. or any other nation’s history as the mightiest of whoppers. The oft-quoted expression “White man speak with forked tongue” couldn’t have been more accurate. A reasonable amount of library or internet research will spell this situation out pretty clearly, from broken oath to broken oath and sub-human act to sub-human act.
As opposed to their black counterparts, the Indians weren’t hauled across the ocean waves in the cargo holds of cattle boats. They were here at the outset, when Jamestown, Virginia became settled and the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. Some proved to be friendly hosts, but others didn’t, for readily plausible reasons. In the long run, they were rendered a much dirtier deal than the enslaved captives from African shores – who have since succeeded in emerging phoenix-like from the ashes, after a once seemingly interminable struggle.
However, the expression “Lo, the poor Indian” continues to apply. No need ever existed for an act equivalent to the Emancipation Proclamation, since they theoretically had their freedom already. Unfortunately, their race has never produced a Jackie Robinson, a Martin Luther King, or a Barack Obama. Their small relative U.S. population (1.5%), has likely helped prevent such from happening. Concerted efforts on their behalf by Marlon Brando et al have proven relatively fruitless. In any event, it appears much too late.
In our customary humble opinion, though, they do deserve recognition as the “good guys” from certain standpoints, or at least the “valiant land defenders”, if nothing more. What a shame they didn’t fare better. The cards were simply stacked against them.
Still, does Whitey actually earn everlasting blame for horning into hitherto “private” property, and deciding that he had the sacred right to take over? Looking back over our collective shoulders, we must grudgingly admit the effort has been worth it, despite the fact that such actions virtually destroyed a once happier race.
Tonka was the name of an undoubtedly fictitious horse which happened to serve as a mount for General George Armstrong Custer’s ill-fated Seventh Cavalry at Little Big Horn. Although this wouldn’t be the writer’s normal plans for Saturday PM entertainment, the occasion was rather special, in accompanying a young son and a battery of his cronies immediately following a home-based birthday party.
What remains especially memorable about said film is how the Disney folk had created the buildup for and the carrying out of that famous battle. In case any readers may be short on their U.S. history recollections, this was one day when the Indians emerged victorious, leaving absolutely no Seventh Cavalry survivors to regale their grandchildren decades later with exaggerated tales about the skirmish at Little Big Horn.
The decided villains in this movie were Custer and his merry men, and we must accord the studio due credit for painting him as the real (as they say in Yiddish) schmuck he truly happened to be. In turn, his fellow horsemen didn’t exactly come across as nice home-loving chaps.
Obviously, therefore, by simple process of elimination, the Sioux warriors filled the good guys role, kind to their mothers and all that. Consequently, as the bitter battle roared across the screen, every time a Redskin bit the dust, the entire audience on hand (some 95% kids as we’ve already explained) would groan in exasperation. However, each cavalryman falling from his horse brought on a rousing cheer. Finally, when General Custer stopped a bullet (or maybe an arrow, because memory fails) and hit the dirt mortally wounded, the young audience yelled with fervor equal to that attached to watching a favorite ballcarrier execute a lengthy touchdown run. The boys were exalted.
As for our kindly horse Tonka, whether he survived the onslaught or not has been forgotten. The key point to stress is that on said day in American western history the Indians – the good guys – took the marbles.
We must confess to having been frightfully long-winded in the opening to this piece. Nevertheless, that single movie (well, there have been others of better quality reaching toward the same goal) represented the antithesis to how those we now patronizingly refer to as Native Americans were consistently referred to on the silver or multi-colored screens as “savages” or by other appropriate slurs – even “prairie niggers” on one fortunately isolated occasion.
The sad part is that such oftentimes negative opinions expressed on theater and old film TV reruns reflect a common feeling among much of the majority group populace in this so-called equal rights and privileges country. Must this be? Why, this writer often feels compelled to ask, do the American Indians of recent centuries past deserve such down-our-noses disrespect? Were they really wrong in wanting to protect their hunting grounds and their ability to roam freely within their established territories? Had they no right to resist Whitey’s ever-increasing westward movement, to take over the North American universe to his supposedly progressive liking?
Just consider again the afore-mentioned term Native American. Shouldn’t that amount to more than an allegedly polite title? So far as we can determine, they were here first. They owned the joint. The migrants from across the Atlantic were invaders. Friendly, well-meaning ones, though? Like hell they were. In more than one recorded incident, they proved to be as arbitrarily brutal at conducting bloody massacres of Indians as any attributed to the frowned-upon Redskins. Rather shamefully, the history books make little or no mention of the atrocities committed by the paleface on a people trying to defend their homeland.
Eventually and inevitably, the invasion force prevailed, due to its “superior” education and “advanced” technology for the time. One by one, previously hostile Indian tribes agreed to cease their opposition due to de facto defeat, in return for fair settlement treatment. Wow! The promises for comfortable reservation-area living dished out by the conquering masters rate among U.S. or any other nation’s history as the mightiest of whoppers. The oft-quoted expression “White man speak with forked tongue” couldn’t have been more accurate. A reasonable amount of library or internet research will spell this situation out pretty clearly, from broken oath to broken oath and sub-human act to sub-human act.
As opposed to their black counterparts, the Indians weren’t hauled across the ocean waves in the cargo holds of cattle boats. They were here at the outset, when Jamestown, Virginia became settled and the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. Some proved to be friendly hosts, but others didn’t, for readily plausible reasons. In the long run, they were rendered a much dirtier deal than the enslaved captives from African shores – who have since succeeded in emerging phoenix-like from the ashes, after a once seemingly interminable struggle.
However, the expression “Lo, the poor Indian” continues to apply. No need ever existed for an act equivalent to the Emancipation Proclamation, since they theoretically had their freedom already. Unfortunately, their race has never produced a Jackie Robinson, a Martin Luther King, or a Barack Obama. Their small relative U.S. population (1.5%), has likely helped prevent such from happening. Concerted efforts on their behalf by Marlon Brando et al have proven relatively fruitless. In any event, it appears much too late.
In our customary humble opinion, though, they do deserve recognition as the “good guys” from certain standpoints, or at least the “valiant land defenders”, if nothing more. What a shame they didn’t fare better. The cards were simply stacked against them.
Still, does Whitey actually earn everlasting blame for horning into hitherto “private” property, and deciding that he had the sacred right to take over? Looking back over our collective shoulders, we must grudgingly admit the effort has been worth it, despite the fact that such actions virtually destroyed a once happier race.
Friday, May 8, 2009
THE LONG LONG ROAD
It stands to reason that optimum racial equality in America has finally arrived and is decidedly here to stay. Those of us old enough to look back over our shoulders may do so with a sense of long-awaited deep satisfaction that justice and fairness seems to have at last been achieved.
The men and women we now call African Americans with duly earned respect have finally managed to grow devoid of the manifold standard slurs, except perhaps in hushed private conversations between diehard white supremacists. The insulting terms haven’t disappeared completely, and the likelihood is they won’t for maybe another half-century or so, but they no longer dominate many personal vocabularies, even when telling racial jokes.
This much overdue condition can only be described as most welcome to many of us. The question at hand, however, must be “Why on earth has it taken so all-fired long to become a life style norm among the U.S. population?” Why weren’t the terms of Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Emancipation Proclamation put into real effect within a reasonably limited time period thereafter? Why did our fundamental thinking require nearly a century and a half to kick in?
A lengthy list can be drawn up of prominent persons from both races who contributed to the painfully gradual evolution which has culminated in the virtually 100% black and white social equality we know at present, and our grandchildren one day will believe was never otherwise.
We’ll begin with Thomas Jefferson, who at least devoted “lip-service” composition when writing the Declaration of Independence in 1776, while slaves toiled on his Monticello, Virginia plantation right outside his drawing room. It strikes us as somewhat inconsistent to read his words “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal” under such conditions.
Jefferson is said to have been upset and disturbed over the fact that slavery continued to remain in force. History tells us how this icon of democracy did undertake efforts for reform and abolition to some degree, but subject to constant blocking by traditionalists, even while he eventually occupied the White House for two terms. As a consequence, this situation carried on for another “four score and seven years” before anything concrete was done about it.
Lincoln, of course, comes next in the sequence, when his executive decree freed every American man, woman, and child from involuntary bondage, albeit while a civil war raged over that very issue. Still, what had now become the law of the land was considered repugnant to a great many prosperous landowners, among others.
Despite the newfound freedom, members of the black race weren’t permitted to vote until 1870, thanks to the 15th Constitutional Amendment – men only, though, since ladies from all races were forced to wait another fifty years before being allowed ballot box access.
Who, then, really made us change ever-so-gradually from a pure white supremacy outlook to an absolutely equal status in our present 21st century? The fact is, no single individual performed the transformation alone. The process was simply a little bit at a time, thanks to a further list of outright fairness exponents, as well as prominent heroes in their chosen fields.
Jesse Owens’ unprecedented track and field feats at the 1936 Berlin Olympics brought on many accolades for his performance, but all too often supplemented by such remarks as “Too bad he’s a nigger” (a direct quote made in this writer’s presence).
Joe Louis, a gentleman credited with doing much for the advancement of his race, made a name for himself during the mid-1930s by knocking out one boxing ring opponent after another within the opening round. It took him little time to become the leading heavyweight championship contender. Another remembered quote on this prospect was “We don’t want a nigger at the top”. This writer’s responsive “Why not?” produced no answer other than the implausible “Just because”.
Jackie Robinson’s signing to play for the Brooklyn Dodgers’ baseball club starting with the 1947 season became subject to the utmost ridicule. “No nigger can stand the pace” was an opinion commonly rendered. There’s no question, however, that owner Branch Rickey’s action in this respect caused as major a breakthrough of the racial barrier as the sports world or any other has ever felt.
Furthermore, no one can help but appreciate the efforts and accomplishments of the martyred Martin Luther King, plus Jesse Jackson, Sidney Poitier, Bill Cosby, Tiger Woods, and perhaps the man now standing head and shoulders above the entire pack, President Barack Obama, along with others far too numerous to mention, in their respective fields. Their outstanding spirit and deeds are bound to last as long as our modern-day civilization manages to survive.
To a boy from a northern state visiting the U.S. south countless years ago, observing the four-restrooms, the separate drinking fountains, the “whites only” door signs on stores and restaurants, the stage we’ve reached today appeared extremely remote at any future date.
Even with the changes which began to be wrought just following World War II, When “coloreds” were gradually occupying houses in hitherto lily-white neighborhoods, lynchings, other racially-motivated murders, and unwarranted beatings continued throughout the deep south. Nevertheless, the eventual 180-degree movement proved itself irreversible.
Hopefully by now, the scorn has been reduced down to isolated hanging noose incidents or to simple hate mail, as sent to the likes of Hank Aaron and Tiger Woods, declaring them respectively unfit, due solely to their color, to break Babe Ruth’s career home run record or participate in the professional golfing realm.
This writer can’t avoid a sense of true gratification in noting how African Americans have become gridiron standouts throughout leading southern universities, whereas in the not too distant past, such fellows could be unwelcome campus visitors at best, and not even allowed to use the restrooms, let alone roam about outside unchallenged and possibly molested.
It remains true that the black race has produced a few so-called villains. Jack Johnson, heavyweight champion in the teen years of the 20th century, had white girl friends, a totally forbidden activity area. Singer Billie Holiday became an overly-publicized victim of drug addiction. O.J. Simpson was convicted of murdering his wife and her paramour, at least in the public eye, if not the courts. Home run record holder Barry Bonds perjured himself by denying the use of anabolic steroids.
Concert and movie singer Paul Robeson became ostracized principally due to his socialistic beliefs, but undoubtedly amplified by his color. However, the renowned Charlie Chaplin, as Caucasian as they come, was accorded the same public treatment.
So what? Every racial, religious, creed, and ethnic group has its produced its share of bad pennies. Nevertheless, our African American inhabitants can point with utmost pride to such persons as George Washington Carver, Ella Fitzgerald, Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Nat King Cole, Hattie McDaniel, Jim Brown, Muhammad (Cassius Clay) Ali, Leontyne Price, those we’ve previously cited herein, and many more for whom we’d never have the space to list completely. Almost countless blacks can now stand face-to-face and shoulder-to-shoulder with their once alleged “superiors”. In fact, it almost seems that the reasons for such unwarranted past prejudice never actually existed.
They did, however, but happily there will be no reversion to former times. We certainly hope not, anyway.
Again, though, why in blazes did all this take so long to happen?
The men and women we now call African Americans with duly earned respect have finally managed to grow devoid of the manifold standard slurs, except perhaps in hushed private conversations between diehard white supremacists. The insulting terms haven’t disappeared completely, and the likelihood is they won’t for maybe another half-century or so, but they no longer dominate many personal vocabularies, even when telling racial jokes.
This much overdue condition can only be described as most welcome to many of us. The question at hand, however, must be “Why on earth has it taken so all-fired long to become a life style norm among the U.S. population?” Why weren’t the terms of Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Emancipation Proclamation put into real effect within a reasonably limited time period thereafter? Why did our fundamental thinking require nearly a century and a half to kick in?
A lengthy list can be drawn up of prominent persons from both races who contributed to the painfully gradual evolution which has culminated in the virtually 100% black and white social equality we know at present, and our grandchildren one day will believe was never otherwise.
We’ll begin with Thomas Jefferson, who at least devoted “lip-service” composition when writing the Declaration of Independence in 1776, while slaves toiled on his Monticello, Virginia plantation right outside his drawing room. It strikes us as somewhat inconsistent to read his words “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal” under such conditions.
Jefferson is said to have been upset and disturbed over the fact that slavery continued to remain in force. History tells us how this icon of democracy did undertake efforts for reform and abolition to some degree, but subject to constant blocking by traditionalists, even while he eventually occupied the White House for two terms. As a consequence, this situation carried on for another “four score and seven years” before anything concrete was done about it.
Lincoln, of course, comes next in the sequence, when his executive decree freed every American man, woman, and child from involuntary bondage, albeit while a civil war raged over that very issue. Still, what had now become the law of the land was considered repugnant to a great many prosperous landowners, among others.
Despite the newfound freedom, members of the black race weren’t permitted to vote until 1870, thanks to the 15th Constitutional Amendment – men only, though, since ladies from all races were forced to wait another fifty years before being allowed ballot box access.
Who, then, really made us change ever-so-gradually from a pure white supremacy outlook to an absolutely equal status in our present 21st century? The fact is, no single individual performed the transformation alone. The process was simply a little bit at a time, thanks to a further list of outright fairness exponents, as well as prominent heroes in their chosen fields.
Jesse Owens’ unprecedented track and field feats at the 1936 Berlin Olympics brought on many accolades for his performance, but all too often supplemented by such remarks as “Too bad he’s a nigger” (a direct quote made in this writer’s presence).
Joe Louis, a gentleman credited with doing much for the advancement of his race, made a name for himself during the mid-1930s by knocking out one boxing ring opponent after another within the opening round. It took him little time to become the leading heavyweight championship contender. Another remembered quote on this prospect was “We don’t want a nigger at the top”. This writer’s responsive “Why not?” produced no answer other than the implausible “Just because”.
Jackie Robinson’s signing to play for the Brooklyn Dodgers’ baseball club starting with the 1947 season became subject to the utmost ridicule. “No nigger can stand the pace” was an opinion commonly rendered. There’s no question, however, that owner Branch Rickey’s action in this respect caused as major a breakthrough of the racial barrier as the sports world or any other has ever felt.
Furthermore, no one can help but appreciate the efforts and accomplishments of the martyred Martin Luther King, plus Jesse Jackson, Sidney Poitier, Bill Cosby, Tiger Woods, and perhaps the man now standing head and shoulders above the entire pack, President Barack Obama, along with others far too numerous to mention, in their respective fields. Their outstanding spirit and deeds are bound to last as long as our modern-day civilization manages to survive.
To a boy from a northern state visiting the U.S. south countless years ago, observing the four-restrooms, the separate drinking fountains, the “whites only” door signs on stores and restaurants, the stage we’ve reached today appeared extremely remote at any future date.
Even with the changes which began to be wrought just following World War II, When “coloreds” were gradually occupying houses in hitherto lily-white neighborhoods, lynchings, other racially-motivated murders, and unwarranted beatings continued throughout the deep south. Nevertheless, the eventual 180-degree movement proved itself irreversible.
Hopefully by now, the scorn has been reduced down to isolated hanging noose incidents or to simple hate mail, as sent to the likes of Hank Aaron and Tiger Woods, declaring them respectively unfit, due solely to their color, to break Babe Ruth’s career home run record or participate in the professional golfing realm.
This writer can’t avoid a sense of true gratification in noting how African Americans have become gridiron standouts throughout leading southern universities, whereas in the not too distant past, such fellows could be unwelcome campus visitors at best, and not even allowed to use the restrooms, let alone roam about outside unchallenged and possibly molested.
It remains true that the black race has produced a few so-called villains. Jack Johnson, heavyweight champion in the teen years of the 20th century, had white girl friends, a totally forbidden activity area. Singer Billie Holiday became an overly-publicized victim of drug addiction. O.J. Simpson was convicted of murdering his wife and her paramour, at least in the public eye, if not the courts. Home run record holder Barry Bonds perjured himself by denying the use of anabolic steroids.
Concert and movie singer Paul Robeson became ostracized principally due to his socialistic beliefs, but undoubtedly amplified by his color. However, the renowned Charlie Chaplin, as Caucasian as they come, was accorded the same public treatment.
So what? Every racial, religious, creed, and ethnic group has its produced its share of bad pennies. Nevertheless, our African American inhabitants can point with utmost pride to such persons as George Washington Carver, Ella Fitzgerald, Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Nat King Cole, Hattie McDaniel, Jim Brown, Muhammad (Cassius Clay) Ali, Leontyne Price, those we’ve previously cited herein, and many more for whom we’d never have the space to list completely. Almost countless blacks can now stand face-to-face and shoulder-to-shoulder with their once alleged “superiors”. In fact, it almost seems that the reasons for such unwarranted past prejudice never actually existed.
They did, however, but happily there will be no reversion to former times. We certainly hope not, anyway.
Again, though, why in blazes did all this take so long to happen?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
