I want to say a word or two in a speculative mode about the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, but first I must acknowledge my delight at Serena Williams’ victory last night. It was obvious that everyone came expecting her to lose and wanting then to give her an enormous sendoff as she “evolved” into retirement. But then she won, and won decisively, 6 – 3, 6 – 3. Wednesday evening she plays the number two seed. If she wins that match you can just cancel every other television show until she finally either loses or, against all the odds, wins the title.
As for the important news, I am more convinced than ever
that the FBI has evidence, in the form of intercepted phone calls or whatever, that
Trump not simply had in his possession documents which he was not legally
permitted to have but actually did something really, really bad with them.
Since the Justice Department is clearly pursuing Trump for the effort to
reverse the results of that 2020 election, by sending phony electors of the
Congress and so forth, it is inconceivable to me that they would bring down on
their heads the storm of trouble that has resulted from their search warrant
simply to gain the return of documents Trump ought not to have had.
We shall see.
Meanwhile, what was not too long ago impossible to conceive,
namely that the Democrats should both pick up two seats in the Senate and hold
the House, is now considered a “longshot.” My natural Tigger is reasserting
itself
73 comments:
I think it's more likely that the Secret Service alerted the FBI. They were on the scene. They knew what Trump was saying, and they could see the classified documents.
Although I'm quite interested in tennis, I'm not aware of whether the U.S. Open is being carried on one of the networks or on cable. That's bc I've never had a cable subscription and for years have not had a working TV at all.
Btw I don't get this stuff about Serena Williams "evolving" rather than retiring just because she chose to phrase it that way. She's retiring from the professional tennis circuit. Since her lifetime earnings are (according to what I heard on radio) 96 million, plus she has endorsements and business ventures, it's not as if she's going to be strapped for cash. She rang the opening bell at NY Stock Exchange yesterday or day before. A Marxist, or at least some, cd prob have a field day w the symbolism of that.
In my view, Trump took those documents to 1) Use them as leverage against political enemies for a 2024 presidential run, and/or 2) Monetize them via foreign "entities".
It would be great to see Serena make it to the finals.
In the news reports I listened to and read, commentators and the public were supportive of Serena Williams’ prospects of winning the U.S. Open and tying Margaret Court’s record of 24 Grand Slam victories. I did not get the sense that people were hoping to see her fail.
There was a time only a few years ago when it was possible to watch the French Open, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open for free on commercial t.v. Now, ESPN and other cable channels have a monopoly on these athletic events and the public has to pay to see them. I resent it.
Tennis was the only sport I have played, thanks to my wife who taught me how to play when we were dating. It is both physically and mentally challenging, requiring the tactical skill of a chess player and the physical endurance of a long distance runner. My wife also taught our daughter how to play (as well as teaching her to swim at the age of 4). My daughter and I used to play several times a week, but when she became the captain of her high school tennis team, she dominated our games. The skill displayed by the professionals (Williams, Everett, Navratilova, Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Sampras, etc.) is absolutely amazing. Unless you have played against a person who can serve the ball at over 90 miles/hr., it is hard to appreciate their ability to return serves coming at them at that speed and higher, and then having rallies that last 4-5 minutes.
The New York Post headline would be:
Trump Treason Trial Trouble!!
The New York Times headline could be:
FBI uses Internet intercepts to take down Trump real estate for intelligence deals with Moscow
Trump back in the news as a real life defendant about to be fired into prison could turn into civil war news again, or maybe Trump will flee to an undisclosed island and live like Napoleon in exile and golf himself to death in the wind. How will Trump's story end?
Probably not with nobody paying attention. Treason with Russia in particular would trigger the FBI into panicked actions such as raiding a former President for contraband and data theft. Treasonous Trump Tricks Public in Triple: tax crimes, political crimes, and crime undermining the justice system. If Howard Hughes could disappear, so could Donald Trump running from the law. Keeping data that he could use to make foreign real estate deals seems most likely his business strategy or how he could get caught bragging in a "perfect" phone call, "I've got all kinds of documents, just tell me what you want and I will give you a price per page.' Just more speculation but the story when finally revealed will draw world attention.
If one doesn't have cable, probably possible to see highlights on YouTube, but that's it.
Of the tennis, I meant.
LFC: She rang the opening bell at NY Stock Exchange yesterday or day before. A Marxist, or at least some, cd prob have a field day w the symbolism of that
Serena Williams' husband is an extremely wealthy venture capitalist in the tech sector.
I didn't know that, Eric. Thanks.
I remember as a child seeing Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall and Stan Smith live at a tournament in Cologne. Later came Jimmy Connors, Björn Borg and Arther Ashe. As a kid, those were the heroes for me. If you now compare their style of play on YouTube with the athleticism and speed of Federer, Nadal or Djokovic today, the difference is really extreme. Some say it's mainly due to the optimized material, e.g. the rackets. In reality, I think it's the optimization of the people in the sport that makes the difference.
Federer's style of play is actually rather similar to John McEnroe's, though McEnroe played more serve-and-volley than Federer.
Stefan Edberg was another very good serve-and-volley player of that era, though he never quite attained the heights that McEnroe did.
Women's tennis in the so-called open era also had a golden age of a kind, w King, Evert, Goolagong and, a bit before them, Margaret Court.
I saw this shocking video on CNN this morning. Police in Alabama arresting a Black man for watering his neighbor’s flowers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJBFX4vOQ-8
Contrary to what the police claim, a citizen who is stopped for alleged suspicious activity does not have to identify him/herself, does not have to provide ID, and most certainly does not have to disclose his/her SSN.
The police in many communities in our country do not know what protections against government action are provided by the U.S. Constitution. The police in this case were guilty of false arrest and false imprisonment and should be fired. Had Pastor Jennings put up any resistance, he could well have ended up dead.
We are long past the Frontier. Having thousands of jurisdictions and little or no standards for hiring doesn't make sense.
"...it is inconceivable to me that they would bring down on their heads the storm of trouble that has resulted from their search warrant simply to gain the return of documents Trump ought not to have had."
The DOJ filing on the special master motion is shocking. I assume some three letter agencies had layers of surveillance (besides the preciously noted likelihood of Secret Service agents dropping a dime) on MAL.
Question for Prof. Wolff or his readers:
I'm interested in getting to know Prof. Wolff's views on Kant's ethical philosophy - what would be a good piece (or a good few pieces) to start with?
Here's where I'm coming from: I've seen mentions of Prof. Wolff's view that Kant's argument for a categorical imperative is unsuccessful (meaning, I think, Kant's argument that there is such a thing as objectively binding, unconditional duty). I'd like to see where Prof. Wolff fleshes this out - but also, more especially, anything that addresses Kant's rather disturbing view of human nature as "radically evil." (I have to admit I know next to nothing about Kant's anthropological writings.)
Thanks in advance.
Michael--The evident place to begin for the professor's views on Kant's ethical philosophy would be his book The Autonomy of Reason: A Commentary on Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. I have not read the book in a very long time and so can't comment on it. I vaguely recall that when I taught Kant's ethics I consulted not it but more recent literature, only because they (Wood, Korsgaard, Allison) were more recent. My sense is that the ur-demolition of Kant's arguments is Hegel's; for literature see, among many, the standard by Allen Wood, Hegel's Ethical System. The one outstandingly interesting recent book I've read that deals with Kant's ethics (very largely with the Formula of Humanity) is Michael Rosen's Dignity: its History and Meaning.
"...and hold the House, is now considered a “longshot.'"
Another straw in the wind? I see that Democrat Mary Peltola has just defeated Sarah Palin for Don Young's House seat.
Thanks, John! Evidently I missed the really obvious answer - I'll head over to Amazon and get that purchase taken care of. :)
In the meantime, I'll bookmark Prof. Wolff's unfinished blog tutorial on Kant's ethical theory. (Just so they're easier to find later: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four.)
thanks Michael for the links to the tutorials, I would never have found.
Good legal advice. You cannot always believe your client.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/09/02/michael-cohen-warning-for-trump-attorneys-ebof-sot-vpx.cnn
Had just recently re-read your 2009 entry on Barbara Ehrenreich and the tunnel vision of book reviewers and been thinking about it recently. Sad to see she passed.
I didn't know that Barbara Ehrenreich passed. I will have to read the obit(s).
The one book of hers I've read is _Blood Rites_. Well written and interesting, though the main argument is, as I think she acknowledges, quite speculative. She wrote a lot of course - very prolific.
https://apnews.com/article/obituaries-barbara-ehrenreich-2fc6b70dd8ebbf2167ff55441902017e
Suppose, God forbid, Trump is elected President in 2024, with no legitimate claim that he did not win the electoral college vote. President Trump proceeds to take actions which essentially eradicate our democracy and turn the United States into a fascist state. Suppose that legislation is passed which requires of each citizen employed as a public servant, including professors employed by a public university and every male subject to military service, to take the following oath upon penalty of death for refusing:
“I swear: I will be faithful and obedient to the leader of the United States and its people, Donald Trump, to observe the law, and to conscientiously fulfill my official duties, so help me God.”
Last night my wife and I watched the movie “A Hidden Life,” a 2019 film written and directed by Terrence Malick, based on the arrest and ultimate execution of an Austrian farmer, Franz Jägerstätter, who refused to take the Hitler Oath. The Hitler Oath was identical to the above, except the word “Reich” was substituted for “United States” and the name “Adolph Hitler” was substituted for “Donald Trump.”
Herr Jägerstätter was arrested, beaten and tortured, and despite being given numerous opportunities to reverse his refusal and take the oath to save his life, he refused, and was ultimately executed by beheading. He left a widow and four young girls. After his trial and being sentenced to death, he met with his wife for the last time, at which meeting she reportedly said to him, “I will continue to love you whatever you decide. Do the right thing.” Prior to the execution, a Nazi officer met privately with him and said (paraphrasing), “How do you think your death will change anything? No one will know about it. The world will go on regardless.” A priest from his home village said to him (paraphrasing): “You can say the oath verbally, but not in your heart. God will not judge you by what you say, but only by what is in your heart.” Still, Herr Jägerstätter refused to say the oath, and was beheaded on August 9, 1943. Of those who are known to have refused to take the oath, he was one of two individuals who were executed for refusing.
Virtually everyone who reads this blog detests Donald Trump. As I was watching the movie, I thought, would I have the courage to refuse to take such an oath if Trump were elected? Would it be a foolish act of defiance, which would change nothing? How many others who read this blog would refuse to take such an oath, and would it change anything? And if not, would refusal still be the right thing to do?
P.S.: The phrase “a hidden life” is from a passage in George Elliott’s novel, Middlemarch.
Correction: George Eliot
First of all, I really doubt that if Trump is re-elected and tries to turn the U.S. into a fascist state, it will take the form that fascism took in Germany 90 years ago. They have much more subtle forms of control and surveillance than they did in the first half of the 20th century. They'll probably try to convince most people that "America is having a good time with Trump" and they'll convince many.
However, if I had to swear such an oath or be executed, I'd swear it and I see no point in refusing to do so.
If I recall correctly, the phrase "a hidden life" is from the very last sentence of Middlemarch, which happens to be a great sentence in one of the greatest novels ever written.
The specific hypothetical question posed by Marc is not, it seems to me, realistic, since if Trump is elected in 2024, bad things will happen but no analogue of the Hitler Oath will be required.
The most insidious forms of propaganda are subliminal. Trump is too brutish to accomplish a sustainable fascist state. DeSantis, however, will be the puller of democracy's thread.
I have a comment on Prof Wolff's post.
Prof Wolff says he finds it "inconceivable" that DOJ would have executed the search warrant unless it had evidence that Trump was planning to do something "bad" with the documents. I don't find it inconceivable at all that, after months of stonewalling by Trump and his lawyers wrt documents some of which are highly sensitive or classified (as apparently can be inferred from the redacted affidavit), the FBI would resort to a search warrant to get them. It seems to me no further evidence of actual or potential wrongdoing wrt the documents wd have been necessary.
Whether Trump will be elected, and if he were elected, would he succeed in turning the United States into a fascist state, and if he did, would legislation be passed which duplicated the Hitler Oath, is not the point. I acknowledge that all of this is unlikely to occur, and certainly hope that it does not occur. Again, that is not the point. The point is, if such an unlikely series of events did occur, what would be the “right” thing to do, and how many people who utterly detest Trump would still be willing to take such an oath? Taking solace in the belief that what I hypothesize will not occur is not dealing with the question.
What if you add another option to the hypothetical, say emigration, or moving to a remote part of Appalachia and joining an armed guerrilla movement against the new fascist regime?
As far as what is the "right" thing to do in the hypothetical, that's kind of obvious, isn't it? The right thing to do is not to take the oath and be executed. (I don't know all that much about Kant's ethics, but I assume that's what a Kantian wd say.)
We might do well to stop thinking of fascism as being a simple either-or condition.... To insist that fascism does not obtain until every abomination of the Nazi state is replicated and every vestige of constitutional government is obliterated is to overlook, at our peril, the disturbingly antidemocratic, authoritarian manifestations inherent in many states that call themselves democracies [including the United States]....
The affluent individual whose views fit into that portion of the American political spectrum known as the 'mainstream' ... and whose political actions are limited to the standardized forms of participation--informal discussion, television viewing, newspaper reading, and voting--is apt to dismiss the contention that American life is [already] fascistic. But those who oppose the existing political orthodoxy and who find themselves under surveillance and subjected to the intimidations, harassments, and sanctions of the U.S. national security state have a less sanguine view....
It seems that the ability of most middle-class whites to perceive the fascist features of American society is seriously blunted not only by their class experiences but by the aura of familiarity and legitimacy that enshrouds the established political culture. In making comparisons between their society and others, they tend to employ a double standard. Thus the organized forms of police violence in America are seen as isolated, aberrant happenings.... But the same practices in certain other lands are treated as predictable components of totalitarian systems.
The Nazi invasion of Poland is fascism in action; the American invasion of Vietnam is a 'blunder' or at worst an 'immoral application' of power. The indoctrination of children in Nazi Germany into the myths and rituals of the nation-sate is seen as characteristic of fascism; but our own grade-school indoctrination replete with flag salutes, national anthems, and history books espousing the myths of American superiority is 'education for citizenship' ..."
-- Michael Parenti, Dirty Truths
(that last post should have all been in quotation marks)
LFC,
Well it wasn't obvious to s. wallerstein, and I submit it would not obviously be the right thing to do for a lot of people who read this blog and detest Trump, including some academics.
It doesn't seem obvious at all.
The "right" thing seems to me to join whatever resistance movement exists and do whatever that movement deems appropriate towards ending fascism. That may involve risking one's life and it may involve less risky conducts.
Committing suicide before the battle begins (as is the case in the example above) does not
contribute anything towards ending fascism besides the fact that in the example the person in question has a wife (and maybe children) and has certain obligations towards them.
The comments indicate that further elaboration regarding Herr Jägerstätter’s circumstances is called for. He was also a conscientious objector and refused to take up arms either to support the Reich or oppose it. He asked if he could serve as a medic and was told he could only do so if he took the Hitler Oath. He refused. So joining the armed resistance was not an option for him. He could take the Oath and live, and return to his family, or refuse, and be executed. He decided that taking the Oath was against his principles, and he refused. According to LFC, standing by his principles was the obviously right thing to do. According to s. wallerstien, it was not, especially when it put his wife and children in a desperate situation. I suspect in the hypothetical that I have proposed, most readers of this blog, including most academics, would agree with s. wallerstein. I could, of course, be mistaken.
Marc
I'm posting on phone (computer not on at moment) so I can't write at length.
But it seems to me you're mixing some things up here. If you want to talk about Jagerrstatter himself (I haven't seen the movie but I'm familiar with some of the background), his decision seems heroic and (to use a big word) supererogatory, more than what was morally required in the situation. He was a devout Catholic, as I recall the story, and his faith doubtless played a role. Whether his wife and children were left desperate or whether they had material support from their community and church, I don't know. The point is it was a heroic act; the categories of right and wrong don't really capture what's going on there.
Now you want to take this historically specific situation and transfer it to a completely different context, which just seems kind of silly to me frankly.
Perhaps a problem here is that the hypothetical distracts from current analogues. For example, in a future Trump/DeSantis administration (and as with the first Trump administration) one isn't going to the Federal Bench unless one has been vetted from law school on by the Federalist Society. This seems way more effective then relying on a mere oath.
Moving on, our aspiring fascist overlords are on a learning curve. Trump screwed up with his first appointments. Even toadies like Sessions and Barr had their limits. When trump cleaned house at Defense and Homeland in the Fall it was clear something was up. Schedule "F" which would have politicized the Federal Civil service came late, wasn't implemented, and was repealed by Biden. Any future Republican administration won't make that mistake.
Why bother with an oath when one can do a google search? That and a Republican Congress and president will be sufficient.
If he was against all forms of armed resistance, how about sheltering Jews or gay people or Communists, that is, groups Hitler was determined to exterminate? If he didn't have space to shelter persecuted people, he could have aided those who did, with food for those being sheltered, etc.
How about circulating anti-Nazi or anti-war propaganda?
When I speak of resistance, I'm not just referring to armed struggle, but to all forms of active opposition to a dictatorship.
Well, LFC, it hardly surprises me that you think my hypothetical is “silly,” since you and I hardly ever agree on anything.
I have acknowledged that my hypothetical regarding Trump is unlikely, and perhaps highly unlikely. But being even highly unlikely does not equate to impossible. I suspect that there was not an insignificant number of people living in Germany and Austria in the 1930’s who thought that Hitler’s rise to power was highly unlikely, until it happened. And when it happened, also thought it highly unlikely that the German populace would succumb to his oratory and support his fascist ideology, and that it was highly unlikely that a Hitler Oath would be imposed.
My point is that there are a lot of people who read this blog who absolutely detest Trump, some of whom I suspect are also conscientious objectors, and there are a lot of people who do not read this blog who also detest Trump, many of whom I suspecrt are also conscientious objectors. Assuming, God forbid, the highly unlikely were to occur, how far would they be willing to allow their contempt and hatred of Trump to dictate their principle never to take an Oath to swear allegiance to him, if their lives were at stake, or if, in addition, they had to choose between standing by their principles and leaving their families, wives, and children without financial support. You may think that such an exercise in contemplating the highly unlikely is, as you put it, silly. I do not.
s. wallerstein,
There was in fact a German couple, Otto and Elise Hempel, who, after their son was killed in combat in WWII, took it as their mission to plant anti-Nazi notes in various locations around Berlin. The Gestapo launched a dedicated campaign to find out who they were, and upon identifying them, executed them. How much their notes helped in inspiring anti-Nazi resistance or in hastening the end of the war is impossible to know.
With regard to Herr Jägerstätter specifically, he lived in a small village in the mountains of Austria. He was a farmer. I dare say, he probably never met a Jewish person or openly homosexual person in his life. His opposition to the Nazis was the result of his seeing video reports of Wehrmacht victories in Poland, and the killing of civilians. When the Anschluss occurred, he was the only member of his village who voted against it. He also rejected an offer for him to become the mayor of the village. There were no concentration camps in proximity to where he lived, so he in all likelihood was not aware of the implementation of Hitler’s Final Solution. He was simply opposed to Germany imposing its will on the populace of other countries, largely inspired, as LFC pointed out, by his Catholic faith, and it was this opposition which motivated his refusal to take the Hitler Oath, or to take up arms himself.
Marc,
I don't know the circumstances of this guy's life, but in my experience under the Pinochet dictatorship life isn't like Orwell's 1984. Children don't turn their parents in to the secret police because they fail to show sufficient enthusiasm when the dictator appears on TV.
People talk to each other, trust each other when they get to know one another and news that does not appear in the official media spreads. Perhaps in a small village one does not know any one who would oppose a dictator, but otherwise, even if one does not know anyone in active opposition, one knows others who know someone in active opposition, just as when we were in college, while we might not have known where to go for a abortion for a pregnant girl friend, we knew someone who knew someone who knew.
Counter-cultures develop almost everywhere.
I'm not an expert capital E on the period (so the usual caveats apply), but from what I know the opportunities for resistance, esp effective resistance (armed or otherwise), within Nazi Germany and its immediately adjacent absorbed/conquered territories, e.g. Austria, were very limited.
Unlike, say, in occupied France (and Vichy France) or in occupied Yugoslavia or occupied Greece or behind German lines on the Eastern Front, there were no armed partisan guerrilla forces in Germany or Austria that one could join. One could hide Jews and others that the Nazis were looking for, but that was of course dangerous. One could disseminate or distribute anti-Nazi leaflets but few did, and if caught you were imprisoned or more likely executed, as with the couple Marc mentioned or three of the members of the resistance group called the White Rose. There was the group of officers and ex-officers who plotted to assassinate Hitler. Within Germany itself, afaik, that was basically it as far as active resistance went.
Nazi Germany, like Stalinist Russia or contemporary North Korea, was a totalitarian regime. As the adjective suggests, they successfully sought or seek near-total control over their citizens' political lives.
If the U.S. goes in a Trumpian direction in 2024 and after, it will more likely move toward something that resembles a regime like Orban's Hungary rather than Nazi Germany. Unlike Nazi Germany, which as just mentioned was a totalitarian state, Orban's Hungary is some kind of proto-authoritarian regime, or what political scientists Levitsky and Way call "competitive authoritarian," meaning certain trappings such as elections are maintained but the party in power finds ways to neuter or control countervailing institutions such as the judiciary and press. Not a real democracy, but not totalitarian either.
LFC: Let's not forget the Edelweißpiraten. When I visited Cologne some time in the 1990s flowers were still being laid at the spot where some of their members were hanged by the Nazis.
As to Marc's hypothetical, what puzzles me is that his response to some of his respondents is to complexify the situation. That suggests to me that the problem was insufficiently defined in the first place and that we likely still need to know a whole lot more than we presently know. And even then, given our own complex individual histories, it's almost guaranteed that we'd evaluate matters in many different ways and respond as we each saw fit. I don't see that we can be required to all arrive at the same moral conclusion and respond in the identical manner. But what do I know? I'm just a retired academic.
Anonymous @4:24pm,
Marc is convinced that there are indeed universal moral laws that should lead us all to the same conclusions.
Hours of debate on this a few months back.
Anonymous,
I don’t quite understand why you claim that the hypothetical is complicated. It is, admittedly, highly unlikely to occur, as I acknowledged. But if it were to occur, there are only two possibilities – you agree to take the Oath, or you refuse. As I stated, watching the movie I began to think what I would have done, or would do, were I in a comparable situation. I have not offered any opinion that one answer is right and the other wrong, I just wanted to stimulate a conversation regarding what readers might think was right or wrong, which I have done.
The movie itself was stressful to watch. The cinematography of Austria, where it was filmed, was stunning. The music, which included excerpts from Görecki’s Requiem and Avo Pärt’s Tabula Rasa II, was poignant. The acting and script superb. Despite receiving awards at the Cannes Film Festival, it did not receive a single nomination from the Academy Awards.
Eric,
While I have opined that there are valid moral precepts that do not require proof, such as that it is immoral to bash in the skull of a newborn human child, I have never expressed the view that when faced with a law requiring that one take an oath of allegiance to a totalitarian ruler, that it is immoral to do so, despite one’s contempt for the ruler. You are attributing views to me which I have never expressed, based on an extrapolation which does not follow from the views which I have expressed.
I should have added that there were, no doubt, some other examples of resistance, such as the one anonymous mentions above. Also some public opposition from a prominent member of the clergy or two; there was a prominent bishop, for instance, who objected to the regime's euthanasia program in the '30s. But these are still the exceptions.
"Euthanasia program" being a somewhat euphemistic short label.
Sometimes the resistance is more subtle, small acts of sabotage, people who fuck up on purpose, police who arrive late the day they are supposed to round up Jews, etc.
s.w.
Despite the fact that historians have combed over the period endlessly, there are likely some small acts like that that are just lost to history: never recorded at all. My guess, based on some things I've read, would be that there were not that many of them, but I don't know.
Toward the very end, when the outcome became completely clear, there was some disobedience, e.g. Speer's refusal to follow Hitler's orders to destroy infrastructure as the Allied (incl Russian) armies advanced.
Anonymous,
I had never heard of the Edelweisspiraten (Edelweiss Pirates) before, so I Googled the name and read the Wikipedia article about them. The EP were German youths, between the ages of 14 and 18, who rebelled against the regimentation of the Hitler Youth. “[T]he Edelweisspiraten offered young people considerable freedom to express themselves and to mingle with members of the opposite sex. This was unlike Nazi youth movements, which were strictly segregated by sex.” The EP were not rebelling against the Nazi territorial aggression or their fascist ideology. They were rebelling against what they viewed as the infringement on their personal leisure activity. It is a gross mischaracterization, therefore, to suggest that they were taking a political stance against Nazi fascism, in the same category as the principled resistance of Franz Jägerstätter or Otto and Elise Hempel.
But, according to Anonymous, the Nazis hanged some of them anyway, suggesting the regime viewed them as a real threat. (I haven't read the Wiki article.)
Yes, a group of 13 EP were hung in Cologne, but not because they opposed the Reich’s aggression on its neighbors, or because of its fascist policies and oppression of other ethnicities. They were hanged because they rebelled against the Hitler Youth. “Although they rejected the Nazis’ authoritarianism, the [EP]’s nonconformist behavior tended to be restricted to petty provocations. Despite this, they represented a group of youth who rebelled against the government’s regimentation of leisure and were unimpressed by the propaganda touting Voksgemeinschaft (perople’s community).” (Footnote omitted.)
In a totalitarian system any gesture of personal liberation is subversive.
In the novel 1984 Winston's rebellion against the system takes the form of falling in love with and having sex with Julia. That is a subversive act.
"Sometimes the resistance is more subtle..."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/03/world/europe/mikhail-gorbachev-russia-funeral.html?referringSource=articleShare
This is not so subtle:
"The partisan Maksym Makhrynov killed several Russian soldiers in the occupied city of Tokmakh. The Russians figured out where he lived and came to arrest him the next day. He blew himself up by his front door and took another 2 Russians with him."
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1566027081754054656
On the other hand it's not unreasonable to assume the refusal of the major networks to carry Biden's Philadelphia speech as a sort of collaborationist
hedging against a possible fascist takeover in the next couple of years.
Well congratulations to all those who can suddenly become experts by reading wikipedia. Now we know we're not to have any sympathy for a bunch of working class German kids because they were the wrong sort of Nazi resisters. Shame on you.
PS You should have said "hanged".
Anonymous,
No, I am not ashamed of myself for pointing out that the Edelweiss Pirates do not belong in the same category of resistance to Nazism and the Third Reich as Franz Jägerstätter or Otto and Elise Hempel, who acted out of opposition to the war itself and the fascist ideology which the Nazis espoused. The EP were rebelling against the regimentation of the Hitler Youth, a valid basis for protest, no doubt, but a egocentric cause not of the same caliber as the protests by Franz Jägerstätter or Otto and Elise Hempel.
And “were hanged” and “were hung” are both acceptable forms of the past tense of the transitive verb “to hang.”
Marc, "hung" and "hanged" are not interchangeable. Pictures were hung, Folks hung out and folks were hanged mean different things.
aaall,
"Folks were hung by their feet from the rafters" and "Folks were hanged by their feet from the rafters" are equivalent in meaning and either is acceptable. Although when the word "hang" refers to a manner of execution, the use of the past tense "were hanged" is preferable to "were hung," but is not mandatory.
It wouldn’t be “acceptable” to say that Mussolini was hanged (upside down). He was hung. Anyway, that’s what Bryan Garner says in his “Modern English Usage,” and this is loosely backed up by, e.g., R.W. Burchfield in his revision of “Fowler’s Modern English Usage.” Burchfield says that’s there’s nothing “erroneous” about using hung to mean killed by the rope, but “this use [is] just less customary in standard English.” There’s a detailed account of this subject in the OED (of which Burchfield was a Chief Editor). The verbs hang and hung have been in English for a long time—in fact for longer than English has been around—but these words have separate etymologies, deriving from (two) different Old English words (plus an Old Norse word). With respect to Mussolini (who in another sense doesn’t deserve respect), it would be misleading (and, I think, erroneous) to say or write (as some reporters at the time did write) that he was hanged. He was hung a day after he was shot. Anyway, I think it’s advisable not to mix the words, just like it’s a good idea to respect the distinction between disinterested and uninterested. Etc.
Fritz,
Thank you for this thorough and erudite exegesis on the proper use of the words "hanged" and "hung."
MS: You might find this amusing. It’s from a short book “On Philosophical Style” by the notable American idealist/rationalist philosopher, Brand Blanshard (1892-1987). The discussion between you and aaall reminded me of this:
“… clearness and vividness often turn on mere specificity. To say that Major André was hanged is clear and definite; to say that he was killed is less definite, because you do not know in what way he was killed; to say that he died is still more indefinite because you do not even know whether his death was due to violence or to natural causes. If we were to use this statement as a varying symbol by which to rank writers for clearness, we might, I think, get something like the following: Swift, Macaulay, and Shaw would say that André was hanged. Bradley would say that he was killed. Bosanquet would say that he died. Kant would say that his mortal existence achieved its termination. Hegel would say that a finite determination of infinity had been further determined by its own negation.”
Fritz,
Thank you. Yes, very amusing.
How would Wittgenstein describe it?
Re. Marc's query... I guess everyone is "passing it over in silence." ;)
Michael,
Impressive Wittgenstein reference. Was my query all that metaphysical?
Isn't "hang" and "hung" determined, by their usage? The use theory of meaning. Also both are examples of prescriptive grammar, and not descriptive grammar. If the power structure of the social order were radically changed to those who lack formal prescriptive rules of grammar to blue collar workers in a democratically run work place what is acceptable as "proper grammar" would change.
Thanks F.P., excellent and saved me a trip to the library. I did not know that there are two separate words involved.
Michael wins the thread.
s.w., if you see this, any thoughts on the vote?
Normally voting is voluntary, but this time it was obligatory (you could be fined), so instead of the around 50% of people who usually vote, around 85% voted. Those who don't usually vote tend to be uneducated and poor, and the left assumed that the welfare state articles (healthcare, pensions, etc.) would attract their vote.
It didn't. Apparently, uneducated voters were turned off by Native-American rights and by completely legalized abortion, probably also by gay rights, animal rights and feminism in general. They were concerned about the lack of control of illegal immigration and the lack of measures to deal with radical and violent Native-American activism as well as of crime in general. That is, they wanted a text which imposed law and order.
There was a lot of rightwing fake news and the left blew it with stupid stunts like booing the national anthem during the opening of the constitutional convention, etc.
s. wallerstein,
What you have written about how the poor and uneducated reacted to measures which were supposed to benefit them reminds me of Erich Fromm's Escape From Freedom.
Perhaps expecting folks with lives (not just the poor and uneducated!) to digest a 170 page, 388 article document was unrealistic. Its size and scope was a gift to the mendacious and unscrupulous. Staying with multiple veto points was disappointing. Let's hope the next attempt learns from this.
aaall,
There were numerous programs on TV from the opening of the convention in July 2021 until the recent plebiscite debating and explaining the draft. The right lied a lot during those programs, but you choose your fake news depending on your prior beliefs.
The draft was handed out free in the Santiago downtown (paid for by the government), I got a copy and was offered one several more times. I realize not everybody goes to downtown Santiago, but a lot do. You could download it for free on internet and a glance at Buscalibre, a South American version of Amazon, indicates that it was number one on the Chilean best-seller list for months for about 5 dollars.
Nah you're not being serious lazily citing a movie character's thoughts as evidence the movie director was anti-Semitic, especially one who called the Holocaust the nadir of human history and criticized Spielberg for sanitizing it. Anyone can tell you're grasping for air and so is the article. Not interesting at all and was refuted by Bill Krohn for Cinema Scope a long time ago - but the truth (being an "AH") might be a little more difficult pill to swallow.
Post a Comment