7-10 Split
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Well, it's been about a month since I last posted. Shameful.
Anyhow, I'm thinking about adopting a LiveJournal, because I think keeping up with others' thoughts would help me to continually record my own. However, I'll keep this site for essays and stuff. So 7-10 Split has officially become really boring.
Ciao
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
My, it's been ages since I've posted.
So, to find out what's up, eh?
Well, I'm back in Alaska at the moment and somewhat homeless. Living on couches at Sean's place and at Mom's out in Wasilla. It's actually a rather annoying existence, but we'll see how thiungs go. It's only for another month or so. So I'll survive.
Back at the Heritage Center doing the catering thing, which is fun. There are some rather annoying people to have to deal with. A lot of returns from last year, but some of them assume far too much in regards to friendliness and how they treat me and other people.
Ah well.
Back at church, which is nice. I really had missed Pastor Oldfield. It's nice to have both fantastic music *as well as* great preaching.
but I want to check e-mail.
Monday, April 12, 2004
Well, he said that he doesn't reciprocate, so I guess all is well and back to status quo, though admittedly, I'm rather saddened. I'll get over it, though. At least he wants to maintain friendship, so that's a good thing.
I think God's still teaching me patience.
There was a really good discussion last night after church at Carys'. I think I should go harangue David a bit more, and perhaps unload a few things on him. I feel like I'm living a bit of a double life, and it's just not healthy. Oy vey!
Thursday, April 01, 2004
So I'm abit of a buffoon in my admiration for Alex, but what can I do? I can't help but feel like he would be right for me, the perfect mixture of intellect and kindness. But I can't read what's going on. I finally sent him an e-mail letting him know how I felt, but it's too early to expect a reply. We'll see what he says, or if he says anything.
I hate waiting.
God's teaching me patience.
Thursday, January 15, 2004
Has ‘majority rule’ in South Africa brought with it the ‘tyranny of the majority’?
The good of the many outweighs the good of the few. ~Spock
It is a simple fact of life that everyone cannot get what they want at all times; someone is invariably left out of the benefits of an action. Within a democracy, the aim is please as many people as possible, sometimes at the expense of the minority. Such is the case of South Africa where the question is: has the newfound democratic majority rule ushered in an era of tyranny by that majority? Sadly, the only answer can be yes, as no state can properly be rid of such a fault; however, South Africa’s new regime has taken valiant measures to minimise fears of such a system.
Firstly, it would be wise to clarify exactly what a tyranny of the majority is. Such a tyranny manifests itself in many ways; however, the basic underlying factors are always retained. One of the more common definitions was put forward by Alexis de Tocqueville’s study of the United States during the early 19th Century wherein he claimed that the majority are essentially seduced to think along the same lines and any outsiders are brought into the dominant mode of thinking so that they will reflect their neighbours’. This creates“homogeneity of public opinion” and leaves those outside the mainstream to no recourse outside of the majority’s power. Often, there will be discriminatory or apathetic legislation passed, but sometimes this tyranny can lead to physical violence, as in the cases of the Jews in Nazi Germany, the massacres of the Tutsi people by the majority Hutus in Rwanda in 1994 and the extermination of 1.5 million Turkish Armenians in 1915. Race is not the only factor in such tyranny, merely one of the more obvious; class, religion and various other discriminants may lead a person to join a “group” or “community” and that group to gain consciousness of itself because of continual differential treatment.
In the case of South Africa, the coalition that created the transitional constitution and the Constitution of 1996 was afraid of a mirror-image of the previous apartheid state wherein the majority black population would essentially ignore the rights of the white minority and pay back the treatment they had suffered. This was especially relevant to the National Party (NP), but the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) was concerned about its position after having such a free hand in the KwaZulu Nataal for so many years: the African National Congress (ANC) was a threat to this ethnically-based power. The IFP was fully aware of the special relationship they held with the NP and had no desire to join under a government where they would have less poweriii. Therefore, when drafting the transitional constitution, there was an all-party Convention for a Democratic South Africa wherein every political party made its demands heard. The talks broke down due to refusals to compromise over the time frame of the transitional government (ten years or five) and at what point a working constitution would be used (before or after an assembly was elected). Eventually, compromise occurred and the transitional government took over, leading to a second Constitution which included many measures to maintain equality. Party list proportional representation was chosen over set constituencies as the best option for electing the assembly to protect minority voices in the assembly. In practice, this over-represents minority groups as compared to their actual proportions of the general population.
Beyond that, special care was taken to protect the rights of the various ethnic groups by recognizing fourteen languages as official, effectively guaranteeing the Afrikaner population, as well as others, that they would be able to continue educating their children in their native tongue without interference from the state. As a concession to the South African Congress of Trade Unions (SACTU), the ANC limited the president to two terms and promoted proportional representation.v A Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution, as well, as was a constitutional court wherein people could take legal grievances and appeal through the judicial system. Afrikaners were not stripped of their social positions, nor have they returned to their early 20th Century state. Before the apartheid system, they were, as a whole, rural farm owners and blue-collar workersiv; standards of living were barely above the black population. By the nineties, this was no longer the case and there seems to be no return in sight for such economic problems. Not only were Afrikaners better off than they were at the start of Apartheid, blacks also fared better, as evidenced in a growing middle class. By 2002, blacks held 10% of the top 20% of wage earners in South Africa and a growing number of them were finding their way into managerial positions.v Within the national assembly in 1999, whites took up one-sixth of the seats while only being a little over ten percent of the populationv, showing that they were, by no means, marginalised as a group. Women, Indians, and Coloured Africans as well had greater representation that ever before. Other democratic mechanisms include lobbying, a shared vice-presidency wherein the opposition parties choose people for the posts, and a mixed cabinet where any party with five percent or more of the vote is guaranteed a spot.
None of this is infallible, however, as can be seen in practice. In reality, the ANC is currently headed towards a position similar to that of the former one-party system in Mexico or in Taiwaniv where there are token opposition parties, but one group has free reign due to its influence and ethnic backing and no amount of campaigning or legislation can effect the party’s strangle-hold on power. Part of the definition of the modern democracy is the possibility of new majorities to form through coalitions or new majorities in a parliament, but the ANC has recently consolidated its power and now controls nearly two-thirds of the seats in the assembly. According to Giliomee, in 1994, the racial issue was paramount in that 90% of whites and blacks “voted their ‘colour’”iv by voting for groups which had historical ties to their race and that “in divided societies election assume the form of a racial or ethnic census”iv. This tyranny can be seen in action through the land restitution policies: when land or housing is returned to the original inhabitant, then the current occupier is deprived of his property by the state with little recourse, regardless of his guilt in the transaction. Ultimately, this policy could benefit a large number of people if they effectively take advantage of it, but a minority will be harmed in the process.
The IFP is continually at odds with the ANC because of its perception that the ANC is a Xhosa organisationiii and that Zulus need a stronger voice to combat this rival ethnic group. No party other than the ANC can hope for a majority or to be part of a coalition majority in the foreseeable future, which could lead to disenfranchisement of minority voters as they see that their actions are ineffectual. No matter what, parties such as the NP, IFP, or the Democratic Party cannot hope to defeat the ANC and the ANC has all but free hand in getting legislation through. Admittedly, they have been very restrained in creating policy that is most equitable, but the possibility is still there for them to take advantage of their numbers and usher in policies that would only benefit their constituency. Another bad sign is Inkatha’s denouncement of the deal by the NP and ANC which led to the transitional government because they disapproved of the NP’s forgoing the agreed-upon negotiating strategy.iv The Constitution is therefore not completely universal, as it is claimed.
Obviously, the new South African state is far from perfect and there are many elements of a tyranny of the majority ANC and African populations over the various minority groups. It is questionable to what extent democracy has taken hold in the new regime, though that is its particular aim, due to the overwhelming strength of the ANC. It will be interesting to see if South Africa retains such proportions in its assembly and whether or not it will be possible for the country to promote the needs of its minority groups successfully. On the other hand, coming from such a dramatic and tragic tyranny by the white minority under apartheid, there is little doubt that the new institutions are much more democratic and great care is being taken to keep from infringing on the rights of all of the various peoples living under the regime. The balance of power has shifted along with a general consensus that South Africa must be better than ever before and so must not purposely uphold one group over another, so it can be concluded that whatever tyranny of a majority has occurred, it is less than could exist and certainly is being curbed by various mechanisms inherent to the set up of the new state.
Word Count: 1492
Monday, December 15, 2003
In einen idealen Welt, haben Männer und Frauen einigen Rollen. Wenn sie heiraten, verspircht der Mann seine Frau zu schützen, während die Frau ihre Mann helfen muβ. Er kann die Entscheidung treffen, aber sie muβ einwilligen. Die wichtigste Sache in seine Ehe ist Leibe und nachste ist Vertrauen. Wenn eine Frau ihr Mann liebt, sollte sie sein Lebe versuchen zu verbessern. Er sollte daβ, auch.
Warum muβ der Mann seine Frau schützen? Und wie kann Mann? Es ist sehr schwer, aber bringt er viel Freude und Liebe. Er kummert sich um seine Frau auf viele Arten: er arbeitet und verdient Geld für das Haus; er spricht gut über sie; er liebt sie und so kann sie seine Gefühle sehen. Wenn alle schief geht, ist der Mann die Person sie zu trösten. Dies sind gute Möglichkeiten siene Frau zu schützen.
Und so was muβ due Frau tun? Sie muβ ihm repektieren und ihm helfen. In diese Utopie, kennen Männer und Frauen ihre Rollen und akzeptieren sie. Dafur, weiβt die Frau was sie tun muβ. Erstmal, muβ sie ihren Mann lieben. Sie kann mit die Kinder im Haus bleiben. Wenn beide einwilligen kann sie arbeiten. Naturlich, heiratet sie ein Mann der denkt wie sie. In schwer Zeit, muβ sie Geld auch verdienen.
Beide wollen Kinder oder nicht. Wenn der eine liebt Kinder und die andere haβt Kinder, sollten sie nicht heiraten! Aber unser Mann und Frau wollen Kinder. Wer spielt wleche Rolle in der Erziehung? Naturlich, muβ die Frau wann das Babie sehr junge ist bleiben bei im. Der Mann muβ seine Frau helfen und ein guter Vater sein. Er kocht, putzt, und die Windeln wechselt, weil er siene Frau liebt. Sie arbeitet wenn die Kind groβer werden, oder auch nicht. Es ist ein Vollzeitjob zu eine Muttie zu sein!
Friday, December 12, 2003
Take the Horst-Wessel-Lied. Analyse the text, answering the following questions: What is the idea of nationhood which emerges from the text, and how does this reflect the circumstances of its composition?
A tumultuous, hopeless nation reeling from the worst insult to its sovereignty and might in the period between the two world wars. Such was the picture of Germany in 1926: a large economically devastated land with a proud history which was conversely also a fledgling state that had lost millions of young men and seen more than its share of bloodshed. Such an atmosphere was the perfect breeding ground for such extremist movements as the far-right National Socialist Party or their sworn enemies, the far-left Communist Party as well as for colourful characters such as Horst Wessel. His song, later to become the unofficial German anthem, is very much a product of its time and has become a dated and disdained piece of Nazi propaganda.
The “Horst Wessel Lied” is full of illustrious images of a triumphant, powerful military reflecting the Nazi Party’s structure and philosophy and the worshipful tone is evident. It almost seems as if the text were written explicitly for the purpose of becoming a march-style anthem as when one reads it, there is a very strong rhythm and a pulsating beat. For example, the first line, with eleven syllables, tends to lend a 4/4-style beat with its obvious iams: “Die Fahne hoch die Reihen fest geschlossen.” This mirrors the image the Nazis held of themselves: they were the best hope for the German nation and their ideas naturally brought order.
The poem’s simple and extremely jingoistic style directly reflects the life of its author, Mr. Wessel. By all accounts, he was a low-life and whoremonger, but a devout Nazi supporter. A proud member of the S.A., he believed in the dream of an again proud Germany who would retake its traditional borders as well as extend itself to allow comfortable living space for every German man, woman, and child. By 1926, when Wessel joined, the Nazi Party was an established national political party, though still thuggish in its operation.
Three years after the München Beer Hall Putsch, the Nazis were pursuing legal means to gain power wherein they required every type of propaganda they could muster and Wessel’s Lied fit the bill. His song appeals to the nationalist in its listener and makes strong usage of images of political enemies acting against the greatest good of society. “Kam’raden die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen/ Marschien im Geist in unsern Reihen mit.” Other extremist groups, especially Communists, did, in fact, live up to this line in that there were often armed conflicts between paramilitary “gangs”. It is somewhat ironic, nevertheless, that Wessel would choose the word “Kameraden” and go on to indict the Communist party within the same sentence. As well, his usage of the word “Geist” is quite indicative of the bombast of this piece. Either he suggests that the intangible spirit of their fallen colleagues march with them in a strictly poetic sense, or else he is insinuating that the actual ghosts walk alongside the men, literally. The latter conjures images of lost and angry souls, questing for the rectification of whatever wrongs were done them in life, relying on their compatriots to take the needed action to bring their souls to peace. It is still a stirring image either way, spurring countless men to take up arms for themselves and their slain companions.
More than anything else, the German people wanted something to believe in which the latter half of the second stanza addresses: “Es schau’n auf’s Hackenkreuz voll Hoffnung schon Millionen/ Der Tag für Freiheit und für Brot Bricht an[!]” Freiheit? From what, one may ask. It bears remembering that France occupied a large region of the Rhineland as well as the perpetually problematice Alsace-Lorraine Region and Germany was paying the Allies billions and billions in reparations, of which the control of payments was thoroughly under Allied nations’ control. There were checks on the size and power of the German Army and hyperinflation was absolutely catastrophic. The German people were desperate for their country to have freedom to make its own fate and to live under a regime which held its values in common with the people it governed. “Freiheit” is merely a pseudonymn for sovereignty. Of course, then the same must be asked of Brot: why is it so important as to be on the same level as a purely conceptual noun such as Freiheit? Again, economics comes into play as does Wessel’s background. He was a poor man, though educated. At this time, unemployment levels were well over two million men and Wessel was one of the unemployed masses. It was a struggle to survive, let alone thrive. Many people had no idea where their next meal would come from and Wessel was keen to exploit this fact. Therefore, the people hope for the dawn of a new day when they will have both luxury of freedom and the basic necessity of bread.
The idea of the nation is obviously one in which naught but the Nazi Party has power and Hitler’s ideas bring a new utopia to all Germanic peoples. Yet there is an ominousness even amongst the bravado. The current state of the German nation is less than desirable, being referred to as “Die Knechtschaft”, though it is unclear what mechanism is actually enslaving them. Viewed as a German, it is probably the countries party to the Treaty of Versailles, commonly seen as the root of all German ills. Viewed as a Nazi, however, there is much more antipathy towards rival political parties with different views of Germany’s future, such as the Communists and Social Democrats, who clung to the ideals of the Weimar Republic. The Nazis felt that their political rivals were not willing to go far enough to promote the German country’s interests, especially regarding the ethnic ideas of nationality that they held so dear. Wessel, by association, bought into such ideas as the superiority of the “Aryan” people and the inherent inferiority of Jews, Gypsies, and other non-German peoples. A continuation of the previous centuries’ mistrust and fear of aliens, this view of the German nation would come to a head within twenty years.
Wessel’s death was inconsequential; he was merely a foot soldier for the Nazi Party. What did matter, though, was the legacy of his death and how it was used to promote the Nazi cause, exactly like his song. That he was lauded as a martyr and given a very public funeral is of extreme importance because it brought public sympathy to the party (while the remains of a martyr were defiled by Communists throwing stones) and helped them to win the hearts of the German people nation-wide. His song is similar. Frankly, it is an unimpressive poem, but in the hands of Joseph Goebbels, it became a patriotic anthem, a march at the heart of the Nazi cult. (Ironically, this poem is all show and no heart!)
Clearly, the “Horst Wessel Lied” does not endure as a piece of brilliant literature and few would argue such a thing; however, it is a highly invaluable text in understanding the era it come from. It helps to propagate Nazi ideals and shows the extreme devotion and ardent belief held by many people at the time who were seduced by the National Socialist platform and its charismatic leaders. The hopes for the future, discontent with the present, extreme political battles, and hero-worship of Adolph Hitler were all intrinsic to 1920’s society as well as Wessel’s poem. Much like the official national anthem, the “Horst Wessel Lied” can never step out of the shadow of Nazi Germany and shall forever be tainted with the evils of the era, promulgated as millions sang along to its lyrics.
(1279 words)
