The Influence of Giuseppe Verdi on Italian Opera and Italian Nationalism

 Introduction

Giuseppe Verdi, (October 9, 1813 – January 27, 1901) is undoubtedly one of the most important classical music composers in history. However, besides his crucial contribution to the world of arts, Verdi is also known and appreciated for his political role and for his contribution to Italy's reunification.

When the musician was born, in 1813, “Italy” as we know it today, did not even exist. It was merely a cluster of small kingdoms and principalities, with little more to unite them than a common language (BBC, October 2, 2013).

When he died, in 1901, Italy was a unified country, comprising most of the territories it has today. Historians say that Verdi and his music played a crucial role in this unification, as his operas provided the patriotic soundtrack needed for mobilizing and inspiring the masses to make the dream of a big, united country come true.

The reunification process, known in history as “Risorgimento” (the Resurgence), started in 1815, with the end of the Napoleonic Rule and the Vienna Congress, it had its peak in 1848, with the famous wave of European Revolutions, and it ended in 1861, when the King of Sardinia, Victor Emmanuel II, occupied the throne of the unified Italy. It was the first time after approximately 12 centuries that Italy was, legally and officially, a unitary country.

On the same year (1861) the prime minister of the newly unified state, Camillo Cavour, invited Verdi to join the Parliament. The musician accepted the invitation and served in the Legislative Body for four years, advocating the consolidation of the country and the protection of what the Risorgimento had achieved. 

However, his support for reunification had started long before 1861. In 1848, when the wave of European Revolutions caught Milan, Verdi wrote from Paris to his librettist, to congratulate and praise the revolutionaries for their actions: “Honor to these heroes! Honor to all Italy, which in this moment is truly great! The hour of her liberation has sounded.”  (cited in BBC, October 2, 2013). He immediately rushed back home to support the movement and threw his entire weight and his music behind the dream of reunification.

Besides, his work influenced the operas of other contemporary artists, thus making music a very efficient tool for national identity construction. That is why, Verdi is considered today one of the parents of modern Italian Nationalism.

Fertile Ground for Nationalism

Two main things contributed to Italians' need for nationalistic ideals: the glorious history of their country and the deplorable situation in which the nation was in the 19^th century. The opposition is best reflected by the depictions of Italy in popular traditions over the years.

It went from a "nation in arms", illustrated during the Roman Empire as a woman sitting on a pile of shields, with an arrow in her hand, with Victory behind her to a woman in chains that needed to be rescued (Binachini & Coskun 2009).

Throughout this troubled period, classic music was the most spread form of entertainment, and Verdi was the most played composer. Thus, when Verdi and his contemporaries started promoting nationalism through their musical operas, the public was longing for a source of patriotic inspiration, so it gladly embraced classic music as one.

Besides the enthusiasm of the masses, an organizing force was also needed, to channel the power of the public towards the desired end: the Italian Unification - the activists of the Resorgimento, the ones who decided to use Verdi’s music, as a means of transmitting nationalistic messages to the audiences.

The artist's works thus became an important communication line between the revolutionaries and the population. As the former politician and activist for reunification, Giuseppe Mazzini, wrote in his 1863 “Philosophy of Music – Envisioning a Social Opera”, classical music had the function of inspiring young generations of patriots. It was perceived as being “loaded with ideological intentions” and used for propaganda, especially Verdi's music, accessible to a large number of people and easily understood by anyone (Binachini & Coskun, 2009).

The operatic stage of the 19^th century Italy was full of composers calling patriots to fight for national state construction. Their works were built around male heroes who sacrificed themselves for their ideals and virgins whose virtues were either saved by the male heroes or stolen by foreigners. The message was clear: women reproduced the nation, men had to protect it, and fighting for one's country meant fighting for one's very descendants (Binachini & Coskun, 2009). 

The European context of the 19^th century was also favorable for National Identity construction, for the formation and consolidation of nation-states. This process was facilitated by the modernization of society: the move from feudalism to citizenship and social mobility, the spread of industrialization and capitalism, the creation of national educational systems (White & Murphy, 2001).

State apparatuses all over Europe used education, media and cultural elements (including music) to create a sense of solidarity and belonging among the population. National identities were seen as a fluid and changeable set of learned values and ideologies that can be influenced by different factors, understood from a constructivist point of view.

Lillian Farrel (2010, p.108) explains this constructivist approach using Pierre Bordieu's theories of habitus: people's attachment to nations is not naturally inherited but learned and habituated, “progressively inscribed in people’s minds” through “cultural products” such as education, language, judgments, values, music, etc. 

In 19^th century Italy, however, the role of the state apparatus and of the national education system was played by activists and revolutionaries, who used arts and culture, especially Verdi's music, as main tools for promoting nationalistic feelings. In order to better understand the country's evolution in that period of time and Verdi's role in that evolution, we have to define Italy from a nationhood versus stateness point of view.

According to Taras Kuzio (2001), the concepts of stateness and nationhood should be analyzed separately because, even though overlapping, they are, in essence, two different historical processes.

State creation is considered as a mainly artificial process, a man-made creation, and precedes the idea of nation or nationhood, being based not on national consciousness, feelings or ideas, but on transferrable loyalty towards the state (Lintz & Stepan, 1996).

Nation building, on the other hand, is seen as a natural process, associated with the concept of birth, the result of people's strong feelings of solidarity, sense of belonging and identification with the group.

Other academicians made this distinction differently. They say that there are two main types of nations: cultural and political. The cultural nations are those mainly based on common cultural heritage (literature, language, religion, etc.) The political nations are those based on the unifying force of a common political power and constitution (White &Murphy, 2001).

From this perspective, 19^th century Italy was a cultural nation and a nation rather than a state, desperately needing the political driving force to become a unitary state that Giuseppe Verdi and his music helped create. 

The Verdi Effect

The artist was at the peak of his life and career in the 1840s, 1850s and 1860s, during the Risorgimento, his music sending patriotic messages and mobilizing the public behind the unification.

In order to better understand the role of Verdi's work in this process, three questions have to be answered:

1. Were there patriotic themes and values underlined in the musical performances that could have lead people to rebel?
2. Which metaphors may have had the greatest impact on the construction of the National Identity?
3. Are there evidences that this construction has been influential? (Binachini & Coskun, 2009, p.60)

Verdi's operas were indeed full of patriotic elements that inspired nationalistic feelings in people. The “Homeland” was the dominant theme, the one with the greatest impact, evidence of this influential construction being found in Verdi's biography – the events in his life made him aware of the way his country's territory was split among foreign empires.

The musician was born in the village of Le Roncole (part of the French Empire) and, at the age of 20, he moved to Milan (part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), to study. He wrote all but seven of his operas during the Austro-Hungarian rule over the city. This could have influenced him to write about the country and the Homeland, although, in the beginning, his work was not intended for patriotic propaganda.

The most famous musical fragment that inspired nationalistic feelings was the "Va pensiero” chorus, from Nabucco, also known as the “Chorus of the Hebrew Slaves”, describing the anguish of the exiled Jewish people who had lost their Homeland. One of the most famous lyrics was: “Oh mia Patria, sìbella e perduta” (Oh my homeland, so beautiful and lost).

The opera was first played in Milan in 1842 (when the city was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), and the patriotic message of the lyrics was so well received that the public asked for an encore. Forbidden by the Government at that time, such a reaction was considered crucial for the subsequent evolution of Italian Nationalism.

There are also tales according to which, during rehearsals, the workers in theaters throughout Italy used to interrupt their activities when Va Pinsero was sung and applaud at the end of the fragment. When Verdi died, in 1901, the Chorus of the Hebrew Slaves was sung at his funeral, a quarter of a million citizens marching along the streets singing in his memory.

Another important moment in the evolution of the symbiotic relationship between Verdi's work and political nationalism was a performance of "Ernani", in the summer of 1846.  Local journals wrote that the audiences sang along with the artists during a chorus, changing the name of the character Carlo, with Pio – reference to Pope Pius IX, who granted amnesty to nearly 1000 former revolutionaries and unification activists.

Other operas signed by Verdi that served as patriotic soundtrack during the Resorgimento was “Macbeth”, with its famous cry of the Scottish exiled, and “Attila”, with its emotional lyric: Avrai tu l’universo,/ Resti l’Italia a me” (Take the universe, but leave Italy to me) (Binachini & Coskun, 2009).

Theaters, the Twitter of the 19^th Century

Another reason why Verdi's operas were so efficient in the Resorgimento propaganda was the context in which they came to fame. In the 1840s, Giuseppe Verdi was the most played musician in Italy. Margaret Fuller, the correspondent of New York Tribune wrote in 1847: “There is little hope of hearing in Italy other music than Verdi's” (cited in Stamatov, 2002, p.348).

The population and the leaders of the Resorgimento found in Verdi's operas an easy way of expressing their political statements. The musical works were already filled with nationalist and revolutionary symbols that were easily recognized and understood by the public. All the audiences had to do in order to express political solidarity with these concepts was to associate themselves with Verdi's operas through ovations and applause, and they did, all throughout the 1848 revolutions (Stamatov, 2002).

This led to a very effective use of what Peter Stamatov (2002) called “interpretive activism”.  The concept sees audiences not as a uniform mass, where the artistic message has the same impact, but as a network of members that interact with each other and influence one another. The message is therefore disseminated from person to person.

Today, it would be done through Twitter and Facebook, like we've seen during the Arab Spring, the Occupy Movement or the anti-Government protests in Turkey, in 2013.  In 19^th century Italy, all they had was theater and classic operas.

Opera with a Purpose

Although Verdi's operas were intensively used for political purposes in 19^th century, not all of them were intentionally created as political pieces. This began only in 1848, with the start of the Milan Revolution, when Verdi was in Paris, but rushed back to Italy to support the movement and wrote his “first opera with a purpose”: “La Battaglia di Legano”.

The scenario evoked a war started by the Italian troops against the Germans, trying to chase them out of their land. The opera had its premiere in Rome, in 1849, but was forbidden in Milan by the Austrian censors. It was renamed “The siege of Haarlem” and adapted in order to be revived. After writing this piece, Verdi became more directly involved in politics and in the Resorgimento.

Contagious Patriotism

Verdi may be the most famous Resorgimento composer today, but, in the 19^th century, many other inflammatory choruses and hymns written by Rossini, Mercadante and other artists were sung throughout Italy, to keep the patriotic feelings up.

Towards the end of his life, Vincenzo Bellini also wrote one of the most politicized pieces of those times: “Norma”, first performed in 1831 at La Scala. The lead role was played by Giuditta Pasta, a well known singer of that time, very active in the Resorgimento. She appeared on the stage wearing a laurel wreath, in an image strikingly similar to the depiction of Italy on Roman coins (Binachini & Coskun, 2009).

Conclusions

Throughout the 19^th century, Italy went through a crucial process of national identity construction known as the Resorgimento, which ended with the birth of a unified Italian State comprising the old territories that, up to that point, had been incorporated in different foreign empires.

The Italian classic music of that time greatly contributed to the success of the Resorgimento, offering the perfect way of transmitting patriotic and nationalistic messages to the masses. The theaters became the places where the audiences could express their political statements, by reacting to classic operas.

The works of many great 19^th century composers were used by the Resorgimento activists to promote their cause, but the most famous and the one with the greatest impact on the revolution was, by far, Giuseppe Verdi.

For the passion and the comprehensive messages he included in his opera, for his role as a member of the Parliament and for his influence on other artists and composers of his time, Giuseppe Verdi is considered today one of the founders of the Italian Nationalism and a great contributor to the construction of the Italian National Identity.

Should We Be Happy with What We Have?

“Happiness is not having what you want. It is wanting what you have.”

(Rabbi Hyman Schachtel)

What Is Happiness?

The dictionary defines happy as “feeling pleasure and enjoyment because of your life, situation, etc.” (Merriam-Webster). Many attempts have been made to contain the term “happiness” in a definition, but a few sentences cannot begin to illustrate what this complex feeling is.

What Does “Being Happy with Your Situation” Mean?

Being happy with what we have does not mean we should stop striving for a better situation, it simply means we should appreciate what we have. Once we are able to cherish the persons around us, the things we possess and the things we have accomplished, we can be truly happy. And only then we can stop seeing the things we do not have as failures, but as future opportunities for happiness.

Can What We Have Make Us Happy?

Defining happiness is difficult when the question is “What makes people happy?”, but it becomes easier when the question is more specific: “What makes you happy?” The things that make one happy can be of no value to the next person. There is no general formula to make people happy; we must find our own source of happiness and our own way to get to it. This means then that we are significantly responsible for our happiness, and thus comes the logical question: “Are we capable of making ourselves happier?”

Pascale Harter asked this question to Professor Ruut Veenhoven, the director of the World Database of Happiness. His answer, based on years of study and research, was “yes”. The state of happiness is prone to change, therefore, we can make ourselves happier, the professor argues. The results of his studies also show that people who are very much focused on their goals and on what they want are less happy than the ones who focus more on what they have already achieved. “The reason seems to be that unhappy people are more aware of their goals, because they seek to change their life for the better" (qtd. in Harter, “Can we make ourselves happier?”).

Our attempts at making ourselves happier, however, should be sincere and not forced. Gilbert shows that, if we force ourselves too much to “generate positive views”, we might end up feeling even worse than before. He supports his idea with the results of a study in which the participants had to listen to the Rite of Spring, by Igor Stravinsky. One group was asked to listen to the music, and the other one was asked to deliberately try to be happy while listening to the music. At the end, the second group was in a poorer state than the first group, as they felt their attempts to be happy were shallow and void of essence (3).

Rather than forcing ourselves to manufacture our happiness, we should focus on what we have and extract our happiness from there. Lori Deschene remembers how she believed she would have it all, when she was a little girl. As the years went by, “it all” seemed further and further away, and concentrating only on her long established goal, she lost sight of the small accomplishments. But, lately, she realized that she does not want it all, and, thus, took a step forward towards happiness “I want to believe that I already possess all that I need to be happy.” (“Tiny Wisdom: On Being Happy with What You Have”).

Fosdick is another advocate of the idea that happiness comes from within. In his book, On Being a Real Person, he approaches the concept from different points of view, and states that happiness depends on “our achievement of personal wholeness and unity” (32).

The pursuit of happiness is one of the unalienable rights from the United States Declaration of Independence, but trying to define and achieve happiness has been attempted centuries ago. Jackson tried to make one of these ancient attempts more available to the modern reader, and presented Aristotle’s take on happiness. Even thousands of years ago, people were aware that “happiness” was a complex concept, very subjective, but revolving around the well-being of a person (“Aristotle on What It Means to Be Happy”).

As mentioned before, this feeling of well-being is different from person to person. There are, however, some steps which have been connected to success and leadership, but which can be applied, generally, in the pursuit of happiness. Finding Happiness – 4 Concepts Connected to Leadership and Success clearly shows that being happy does not mean having everything, but rather making the most of what we have.

In order to be able to do this, there are four major actions we must accomplish: “1. Understand the difference between Pleasure and Happiness, 2. Take control of your life and your happiness, 3. Develop close positive relationships and care for others, 4. Find and express purpose and meaning in your life.” (White).

There are many people who think that being happy means being rich or famous. Believing this is true can create a lot of frustration, because not everybody can be rich or famous, but everybody can be happy.

Furthermore, being rich does not automatically make you happy. Finlo Rohrer analyses the situation of people winning the lottery, and becoming happy is not among the first changes in their lives (“Does winning the lottery make you happy?”).

Being able to find joy in small things and special moments can make us happier than affording to buy expensive clothes every week, for instance. Wayne Coyne had a revelation about the power of these special moments on a rainy day, while waiting for the traffic light to turn green. From the comfort of his car, he saw a couple trying their best to keep warm, and felt sorry for them. But, then, he saw their smiling faces, looking happy in spite of the rain and cold, so “[I]nstead of pitying them, I envied them. […] They didn’t seem to notice the wind. They weren’t worried about their clothes. They weren’t looking at my car thinking, ‘I wish I had that’.” (“Creating Our Own Happiness”)

A likewise inspirational story is told by Marianne Bachleder, who witnessed a young boy saying he was happy with what he had. The eight-year-old was given the opportunity to choose a sticker, and he chose one with an alligator. He then saw another one, with a frog, and said he would have chosen that one, but he did not see it. He could have asked for the frog sticker too, but he did not. He was happy with what he had, with his first choice (“Happy With What I Have”).

There is a difference between “being happy” and “feeling happy”, and understanding this can help us focus on the right things. “[…] ‘feeling happy’ is when you feel good emotionally, for the moment. In contrast, ‘being happy’ is an overarching sense of wholeness in your body, mind and spirit that makes you glad to be alive.” (Schlessel Harpham, 315). The things we want might make us feel happy for a while, but the things that we already have are part of our current happiness, and we should learn to cherish them.

Conclusion

A study published by Science Daily and conducted by Jeff Larsen and Amie McKibban shows that people who can appreciate the things they have and still want them are much happier than those who forget the value of things after they get them. Larsen summarized the results of the study: “Simply having a bunch of things is not the key to happiness. Our data shows that you also need to appreciate those things you have.”

This however, does not mean we should limit ourselves to only what we have and not try to improve our current state. While appreciating what we have, we should keep some goals for the future, to help us move forward. “It’s also important to keep your desire for things you don’t own in check.” Larsen concluded (“Is Happiness Having What You Want, Wanting What You Have, or Both?”).

The Holocaust: Tragedy of a Century

Tyranny, war crimes and genocidal violence were always a constant in human history. However, the Holocaust is the most extreme form of genocide that ever happened, being a process of methodical extermination of certain human groups, mostly targeted on “biological”, “racial” considerents.

The Holocaust (Shoah – “Catastrophe”, in Hebrew) means the deliberated mass murder of 5-6 million Jews, plus millions of others members of various ethnic and religious groups, political opponents, war prisoners etc. by European Axis Powers during World War II. This extreme violence occured in the context of  a war that caused the death of around 50 million people in Europe only, a war triggered by Far-Right ideology, extreme nationalism and militarism (Jones, 2006, p. 233).

The so-called “unique uniqueness” of the Holocaust comes right from the intentional, determined and seriously organized process of wiping out an entire population, regardless of age, gender and other considerations (Heinsohn, 2000, Jones, 2006, p. 254).

Origins and Causes

Intolerance and, especially, Judeophobia, were already common in traditional European societies. Their rejection of Jesus and His Divinity, association with His execution and a perceived attack on the Christian moral order were the reasons Jews were discriminated in Christian countries, often violently. From isolation in ghettos to full-scale pogroms and mass expulsions, anti-Jewish persecution was a constant of European Middle Ages.

After the rise of modern states, despite a tendency towards tolerance and integration, even in Pre-War Germany, residual Judeophobia also gained new arguments, including the “backwardness” of traditional Jewish communities, a perceived control over modern means of production (industry, banking), association with cosmopolitanism and an attack on traditional values, all these fueled by modern pseudo-scientific racial theories (Jones, 2006, p. 235).

This became more obvious during the Weimar Republic, when Jews became some of the favorite scapegoats for the WWI disaster of German Far-Rightists, including the leaders of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP). By exploiting divergences in the Democratic camp and the economic crisis, the Nazis managed to get political power in Germany, in January, 1933 (Gilbert, 1987, p. 23, Jones, 2006, p. 235). For Hitler, Jews were the main target, and the “annihilation of the Jews” was a primary goal, even since the early years of the NSDAP. (Jones, 2006, p. 240).

The initial campaign against political opponents of the new regime quickly continued with a growing persecution against Jews. With the Nuremberg Laws (1935), German Jews lost their citizenship rights and large numbers were forced to emigrate. The Kristallnacht (1938) meant the beginning of violent repression (Gilbert, 1987, p. 47-48, Jones, 2006, p. 235-237).

The war further aggravated the situation, as regions with substantial Jewish populations, such as Poland and Soviet territories, were occupied by Nazis and their allies. Ghettoization and “Holocaust by bullets” (punctual massacres perpetrated by military and SS death squads, causing roughly 1.8 million casualties) were the first stages of the extermination process (Jones, 2006, p. 239).

Announced by the decision to halt Jewish emigration from occupied areas, in May, 1941, the “final solution” officially started with the Wansee Conference on January 20, 1942 (although methodic extermination, including the use of gas chambers was already employed in Eastern occupied territories, ever since the autumn of 1941 (Gilbert, 1987, p. 152-184).

The creation of an extensive system of death camps (Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, Chelmno, Majdanek etc.) provided the Nazi regime with a solution for a faster elimination of Jews and other targeted groups. Concentration camps were already common in Fascist countries, while gas chambers were first set up in 1939, so the whole process just required an enlargement of an existing infrastructure (Jones, 2006, p. 240-241).

Targeted Groups

Jews

Jews were the primary target of the Holocaust. Around 5-6 million people with Jewish background were exterminated in Germany, other Axis countries and occupied territories.

Polish and Soviet Civilian Citizens

While Jews were the hardest hit community by the Nazi repression, Slavic peoples were seen by Hitler and other Nazi leaders as the primary target for mass extermination. In addition to the 3 million Jewish Poles, another 3 million Christian Poles died during German occupation. Around 18 million Soviet civilians also lost their lives.

A large numbers of these victims were due to intentional mass murder, deportations, forced labor and forced famine. On a long term, Nazi leaders envisioned a total extermination of Central and Eastern European Slavs, as a premise for a German colonization of the area (Jones, 2006, p. 270-271).

Roma People

Persecution against German gypsies started in 1935, reaching a genocidal climax during the war. The Porrajmos (“Devouring”) – the methodic genocide of Roma peoples by Germany and other Axis regimes claimed somewhere between 500,000 and 1.5 million lives (Jones, 2006, p. 274-276).

Other Ethnic Groups

Other groups were also targeted by Axis regimes, and their identity and reasons for persecutions varied from country to country. For instance, a few thousands of Afro-Germans were closed in concentration camps, where many of them died (while other thousands were expelled or sterilized; Heinsohn, 2000).

The Ustaša regime in Croatia primarily targeted Orthodox Serbs, seen as the main obstacle in establishing a fully Croat and Catholic state (Manhattan, 1986, p. 38).

War Prisoners

3.3 million Soviet war prisoners died due to intentional murder or inhumane treatment in Nazi concentration camps. (Jones, 2006, p. 271). 

Religious Dissenters

Within this category, fall members of mainstream religions in Germany and allied countries, who contested the regime on religious grounds, but mostly Neoprotestants (with Jehovah’s Witnesses as the primary target) seen as enemies of the regime, due to their pacifist and anti-establishment beliefs. 10,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses were arrested and over 1,200 were killed in Germany only (Jones, 2006, p. 267).

Political Opponents

Political opponents to Hitler’s rule and, especially, Left-Wing activists were the first target of the Nazi repression. While there are no clear numbers of these victims, it seems that only the Communists exterminated by the Nazi regime exceeded 100,000 (Jones, 2006, p. 264).

Disabled People

State directed “euthanasia” of disabled people, seen as social parasites even before the Nazi regime was installed, claimed over 250,000 lives. The so-called “Aktion T-4” was, actually, the first mass extermination process undertaken by Hitler’s government, starting in September 1939 (Heinsohn, 2000, Jones, 2006, p. 268-269).

Undesirables, Asocial, Homosexuals

Unemployed persons, those considered “criminals” under vague arguments and part of the male homosexual minority were the target of persecutions. While few were actually isolated in death camps, imprisonment conditions were so harsh that thousands of them died (Jones, 2006, p. 264-266).

Perpetrators

The Reich Main Security Office (RSHA – the security division of the SS) and, especially, the Jewish Affairs Department (with representatives throughout the Reich, occupied areas an allied states) led by Adolf Eichmann was the main institution overseeing the “Operation Reinhard”, i.e. the extermination of Jews. The implementation was handled by various SS units, as well as the German regular army (Gilbert, 1987, p. 284).

Apart from Germany, other Axis nations enforced genocidal measures against Jews, Roma and other groups.

Admiral Horthy’s regime in Hungary organized mass executions of Jews, Serbs, Roma etc., even since the beginning of their involvement in the War (Gilbert, 1987, p. 287-288). In March 1944, Horthy agreed to start mass deportations of Jews to German camps (Gilbert, 1987, p. 662-681). 63,000 Jews were killed in Hungary (including occupied territories), prior to the Nazi occupation. More than 400,000 were deported to death camps after the occupation, most of them being killed (Cole, 2001).

Romania, under the Antonescu regime, organized the killing of hundreds of thousands of Jews, nomad Roma people and religious dissenters, starting with punctual pogroms, such as those in Iasi and Galati, in June 1941, and going up to full-scale deportation, isolation in death camps and mass executions (such as those in Odessa, in October 1941) in occupied Soviet territories (Gilbert, 1987, p. 161-219).

The puppet “Independent State of Croatia” was one of the regimes most involved in mass extermination of “undesirable” categories, meaning political opponents, Jews, Roma but, mostly Serbs. Death camps, massacres, deportation, torture, etc. were employed to establish a politically, religiously and ethnically homogenous state, a process that claimed at least 700,000 civilian lives (Manhattan, 1986, p. 34-75).

The Vichy Regime in France, the Quisling regime in Norway and Tiso’s government in Slovakia deported much of their Jewish population to German concentration camps. On the other hand, Finland, Bulgaria and Italy, while also Axis members, refused deportation and other violent repression measures (Gilbert, 1987, p. 547-548).

Besides Axis countries and puppet regimes, pro-Nazi militias and auxiliary forces in occupied regions were also involved in mass murder of “undesirable” populations, mostly Jews. Ukrainian, Lithuanian and Latvian nationalists were among the fiercest collaborators in organizing anti-Jewish pogroms (Gilbert, 1987, p. 154-157).

Consequences

The most evident consequence of the Holocaust and other Nazi war crimes was the demographic one. Millions of people perished, with dramatic consequences on a short term (workforce shortage, abnormal sex ratio, low fertility, “missing generations”) and on a long term (a lower population and different ethno-confessional structure; Gitelman, 1993, p. 3-4).

Another consequence was that the Holocaust gave a significant boost to the Zionist ideology, with hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing to Palestine and even more seeing emigration as the sole solution to a safe future, and the assimilationist doctrine losing terrain. This led to the creation of a new state, Israel, with all the related conflicts in the Near East.

Finally, the horrific accounts of these war crimes caused a significant shift in Global public opinion, towards a firm rejection of Antisemitism, Racism and Far-Right ideologies. However, in some regions, in the USSR, for instance, this rejection was used to suppress various nationalist movements, associated or not with Nazism (Gitelman, 1993, p. 4-9).

Cred in Dumnezeu, dar nu in Biserica

Sunt unul din acei oameni care cred in Dumnezeu, in bunatate si compasiune, dar au fost dezamagiti de tot ce inseamna Biserica. Stiu, ar trebui sa facem ce zice "popa", nu ce face, dar deja nu mai este vorba de cazuri izolate. 

Biserica a devenit o afacere si doar clericii au de profitat din asta. Cate orfelinate, azile de batrani sau cantine sociale ati vazut finantate de biserica? Cate familii ati vazut ajutate din Cutia Milei la care toti cotizam? Unde se duc miliardele stranse din donatii si taxe de cult? Cu siguranta nu la cei saraci, bolnavi si oropsiti! 

Avem mai multe biserici decat spitale si scoli, si, in timp ce bolnavii se zbat in mizerie si copii invata in conditii improprii, noi construim catedrale luxoase, poleim acoperisuri cu aur si comandam clopote actionate electric.

Dumnezeu, asa cum il stiu eu, ne asculta rugaciunile si daca le rostim in camp deschis sau intro camera saracacioasa, si daca nu sarutam zeci de icoane si nu memoram zeci de rugaciuni. Dumnezeu asa cum il stiu eu vrea sa-i ajutam pe cei care au nevoie, nu sa impodobim Biserici. Pana la urma primesc destui bani, si nu-i justifica in fata nimanui.

Cand eu si sotul meu ne-am cununat religios, au platit nasii taxa de 300 RON. Cand am inmormantat-o pe mama, a trebuit sa platesc pentru slujba "crestineasca". Atunci cand am pomenit-o  dupa 6 saptamani de la deces, preotul ma astepta la poarta, pentru ca nu avusese bunica cei 100 RON necesari. 

Cand am vrut sa ne botezam fetita, preotul nici nu a vrut sa discute cu noi pana nu am platit taxa de cult, 40 RON. Taxa pentru botez era 300 RON la biserica de care "apartineam", si 250 la o alta din oras, unde ne-au botezat fetita fara sa mai intrebe de taxa de cult.

Am stat luni de zile prin spitale, in Bucuresti, Severin si Craiova, si nu am vazut un singur preot care sa incerce sa aline durerea celor fara speranta, singuri pe lume si deznadajduiti, desi multi ar fi avut nevoie de asta, dar a trebuit sa platesc de cate ori am mers la biserica, indiferent de biserica sau de preot.

Nu ma plang, ii multumesc lui Dumnezeu ca am putut plati taxele respective si fi in "randul lumii", dar ce s-ar fi intamplat daca nu ne-am fi permis?

Si am avut si alte experiente nefericite. Am crescut mancand carne in postul Pastelui si al Craciunului, si nu doar o data la masa se afla si preotul care era prieten cu unchiul meu. Cand cineva a facut o gluma pe tema asta, a raspuns "E pacat ce scoti din gura, nu ce bagi". Total de acord, doar ca nu a fost tocmai imaginea de care aveam nevoie ca si copil in formare, mai ales ca preotul respectiv facea afaceri nu tocmai curate cu unchiul meu. 

La cununia religioasa, preotul era baut si fiecare miscare a sa lansa un miros insuportabil de transpiratie. Poate sunt o pacatoasa, dar a fost cam greu sa traiesc solemnitatea momentului, sa ma concentrez asupra vorbelor sale de duh. Ce-i drept, sunt convinsa ca relatia noastra e binecuvantata si suntem meniti sa fim impreuna pentru tot restul vietii, asa ca se poate spune ca slujba de cununie si-a atins scopul.

Intrun an, de sarbatori, cum nu cunosteam orasul foarte bine, am rugat preotul sa ne indrume spre o familie cu copii si posibilitati reduse. Bradul natural cumparat de sotul meu nu incapea in bucataria noastra micuta si aveam mai multe decoratiuni decat ne trebuiau, asa ca ne-am gandit sa mai adaugam cate ceva si sa facem o bucurie unor copii.

Ei bine, desi trecea cu "Craciunul", si intrase in zeci de case chiar in ziua respectiva, "sfantul parinte" nu cunostea nicio familie care sa aiba nevoie de asa ceva. Ce oameni bogati traiesc in orasul nostru, nu?

Stiu, sunt si exceptii, sunt si preoti cu credinta care isi ajuta semenii, si ma bucur pentru ei, pentru cei care beneficiaza de sprijinul lor si pentru enoriasii care au gasit un exemplu demn de urmat. Pe toti ceilalti, insa, va rog sa nu mai lasati bani la biserica, sa nu mai donati covoare, mobilier si altele asemenea unei astfel institutii, ci sa le dati celor care chiar au nevoie de ajutorul vostru.

Am cunoscut oameni care donau covoare si mobilier pentru biserica, in timp ce copii si nepotii lor traiau de pe o zi pe alta in conditii precare, dar probabil ca daca si-ar fi ajutat familia nu le-ar fi aparut numele nicaieri, pe cand donatiile au facut ca numele lor sa fie vazut de toti cei care treceau pragul bisericii.

Dumnezeu, asa cum il stiu eu, va aprecia mai mult zambetul pe care-l aduceti pe chipul unui copil sarman cu o ciocolata sau o jucarie, bucuria unei familii care doarme in sfarsit la caldura dupa multe nopti de frig, satisfactia unei mame care are in sfarsit mancare si hainute pentru micutii ei sau multumirea unor batrani care isi pot alina in sfarsit suferinta cu medicamentele de care au nevoie sau o masa calda.

Nu mai ajutati biserica, ajutati-i pe cei care au nevoie! Veti face mai mult bine si va veti simti mai bine!

The Consequences of Having a Minority Government in Sweden Before the 2014 Elections

After decades of Social Democratic rule, in 2006, the Swedish electorate turned to the Right, empowering the Alliance, a four-party coalition led by Fredrik Reinfeldt’s Moderate Party.

There were several reasons for this surprising move, the most important being an (at least perceived) inability and unwillingness of Göran Persson's Social Democratic government to cope with the increasing unemployment levels (Engström 1). Although the new government aimed to fight unemployment and started the term with a significant economic growth, troubles began appearing.

In 2008, Sweden was hit by the Global financial crisis. Unemployment rose again over 9%, while the country’s GDP dropped by 5%. The Alliance’s strategy of reducing the financing for education programs was seen as a factor that further aggravated the employment issue. All these seriously affected the popularity of Reinfeldt’s Cabinet (Engström 1).

In the meantime, a new militant strategy from the Social Democrats, targeting the working class, had gained some adherence, although not as much as it could have. One of the causes was the perceived dissolution of the Party’s identity, due to the alliance with the Left Party and the Green Party.

This caused the General elections in 2010 to have a mixed result. They were a success for the Moderates, maintaining their second position in the Riksdag. However, their allies lost some seats, enough to prevent a parliamentary majority (Engström 2).

The significant success of the Sweden Democrats, a Nationalist party, further deepened the problem, since none of the two political blocs was willing to cooperate with them. The result is that the new Reinfeldt Cabinet is a minority one, lacking two Riksdag seats (Engström 2-3).

What are the consequences of having a minority government in Sweden?

Description

The situation of a minority government is not new, neither to Sweden nor to the whole Scandinavian region. Actually, for over two thirds of the post-1945 period, the countries in this region were ruled by minority cabinets (Rasch 1).

Like in any parliamentary democracy, the government needs Parliament support or tolerance. Support means a 50%+1 majority, supporting a majority government (either a single-party government, or a coalition one). A minority government derives its legitimacy from legislature tolerance, i.e. support from ruling parties MPs and tolerance from (part of) opposition MPs (Rasch 4).

This is especially true in a parliamentary governing system, such as that in Sweden, where the formation and demise of the cabinet is entirely within the power of the Parliament (the Riksdag, in Sweden). At any time, any parliamentary majority is able to vote the government out of office (Rasch 1).

Currently, there are eight political parties represented in the Riksdag, forming three different blocs.

The Alliance, i.e. the governing coalition, brings together the Moderate Party (Moderata Samlingspartiet, Liberal-Conservative – 107 seats), the Liberal People’s Party (Folkpartiet Liberalerna, Right-Wing Liberal – 24 seats), the Centre Party (Centerpartiet, Liberal – 23 seats) and the Christian Democratic Party (Kristdemokraterna, Centre-Right – 19 seats). Thus, the Alliance, while forming the Cabinet, misses 2 seats to form a majority (the Riksdag has a total of 349 seats).

The main opposition bloc is formed by the Red-Greens: the Swedish Social Democratic Party (Sveriges Socialdemokratiska Arbetareparti, Centre-Left – 112 seats), the Green Party (Miljöpartiet de Gröna – 25 seats) and the Left Party (Vänsterpartiet, Socialist – 19 seats).

The Nationalist, anti-immigration, Right-Wing Swedish Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna) hold 20 seats, forming the other opposition bloc (Sveriges Riksdag).

Analysis

As mentioned above, the high occurrence of minority cabinets and the high frequency of single-party governments are two characteristics of the Scandinavian democracies (Rasch 6-7, Denti). There are two main causes of such evolution: a strong parliamentarian system and negative parliamentarism.

Scandinavian parliaments are often seen as “working parliaments”, with a central place in national politics. Sweden’s unicameral Riksdag not only has the power of appointing the Prime Minister and ousting a government, through a no-confidence vote, but, through the various committees (roughly corresponding to government ministries), it has a much firmer control over the legislative process.

Committee proposals and recommendations have priority over those of the ministries. This is a trend common to most Nordic countries and frequently considered a decline of cabinets’ influence. Rather than just rubber-stamping government decision, parliamentary committees have an active role in controlling and revising government decisions. They also allow a much wider dispersal of the policy-making process, also co-opting the political opposition (Rasch 12-15).

Furthermore, the existence of independent administrative agencies, without direct ministerial control, and that have the responsibility of implementing much of the legislation, has, as an effect, a corrosion of the government’s influence (Denti).

Negative parliamentarism means that, in order to function, the cabinet needs to be tolerated (i.e. not to get the no-confidence vote), but not necessarily supported by a majority. Actually, according to the Swedish Constitution, there is an investiture vote the Prime Minister needs to obtain, but it is rather different from those found in other European democracies: any proposal is accepted, unless it is not rejected by an absolute majority (Rasch 9-10).

Furthermore, the proportional electoral system means that a high number or parties are represented in the legislature. In this case, the process of forming the government is a complex one, requiring intense negotiations, and dealing with opposite interests of joining a cabinet (and, thus, applying the party’s political program) and keeping a still strong position in the opposition (and avoiding various electoral costs).

After all, a strong parliamentarian system means that the influence of opposition groups on decision-making is rather high, due to their participation in parliamentary committees.

Here are the main causes that lead to minority cabinets, according to existing literature (Rasch 8):

• A temporary, caretaker government, during a period of crisis;
• One or more coalition members withdrawing;
• No party or alliance winning the majority of seats after the general elections;
• A party or coalition is a few seats short of a parliamentary majority;
• Extreme parties have a significant share of the parliamentary seats and are not seen reliable to mainstream parties for a government coalition.

The current minority cabinet was formed due to a combination of the two latter causes. The political forces currently represented in the Riksdag are highly polarized due to the two main (Right and Left) blocs, with the Alliance being only two seats short of a majority. In the meantime, the only non-affiliated party, the Swedish Democrats, are considered as an extreme Far-Right party, thus being avoided as a political partner by both blocs.

Since the current polarization of the Riksdag is likely to continue, the situation will also persist, at least until the next general elections, in September 2014. The Social Democrats’ minor partners are not likely to break the Alliance. The Left Party is too far away, from an ideological point of view, from the Centre-Right Bloc. The Green Party, on the other hand, has a negative history with the Alliance, with all the negotiations in 2001-2006, the Moderates and their allies agreeing on several policies contrary to the Greens’ platform (Denti).

So, what are the consequences of having a minority government?

A common prejudice is that minority cabinets are less stable than majority ones. However, at least concerning the Scandinavian case, history shows that such a government can be quite stable, even for a long period. When it comes to policy-making efficiency, it all depends on the ideological gaps dividing the governing coalition and the opposition parties (Rasch 18-19).

A minority government can well pursue any legislative program, it just needs much more persuasion and negotiation with opposition blocs. This can be both an advantage and a disadvantage. It is an advantage, because a much wider consensus is often reached, through government-opposition deals on legislation of national interest.

It is often a disadvantage, because it can hinder various initiatives, due to obstruction from the opposition, but also from the ruling coalition’s own “backbenchers”. Indeed, it is historically proven that a less stable cabinet gives a much higher power of negotiation to its own MPs (Blackburn et al. 14-15).

Even in single-party cabinets, various concessions to individual MPs are necessary, but this becomes even more difficult to handle in a four-party coalition like the Alliance, especially since ideological differences are not negligible.

Finally, the need to gain support from opposition forces may also lead to serious effects, when it comes to the Far-Right. Statistics show that the Swedish Democrats tend to vote for government initiatives, which, to some extent, is natural, due to a smaller ideological distance.

However, this support may come with a cost: ruling coalition parties needing to support radical nationalist agenda. This happened once in Sweden’s history, in 1991-1994 when the Moderate Party-led Bildt cabinet relied on the New Democracy (another Right-wing populist party) votes.

More recently, in Denmark, the parliamentary support for the Centre-Right-wing cabinets from the radical Danish People’s Party decisively influenced the process of policy-making, regarding sensitive subjects like immigration and refugees (Lindberg).

Conclusion

A minority government is not new and it is a logical consequence of the Swedish electoral and parliamentary system and of the current political polarization. As history has already proven, many times in the country’s history, a minority government does not need to be weak or unstable. By proper and wise negotiation, important decisions can be passed, by consensus with opposition forces, which can bring significant benefits to the nation.

However, in this particular case, a minority cabinet requires responsibility from mainstream parties, both from the ruling coalition and from those of the main opposition bloc, in order to limit the extent of political radicalism on key government policies.

Relying on the Far-Right, based on common ideological grounds and vote exchange (from the Alliance), and isolating the pro-government camp and failing to reach consensus, (from the Centre-Left opposition) are susceptible of improving the position of nationalists, with possible internal and international consequences, similar to those occurring in Denmark few years ago.

The Ethical Affect of Michael Crichton’s Prey, Nanotechnology and Artificial Intelligence on Our Future

Nature has, in many ways, laid the foundation for what human beings aspire to create through science. While all of our current technologies are based on “top-down” fabrication methods in which matter is shaped and molded into the desired form[1], nature does not work in this way.

Nature operates based on a “bottom-up” workflow that allows, for example, a human embryo’s cells to independently govern themselves, working in parallel to develop what will become a sentient, autonomous and independent human organism. That organism, too, is comprised of trillions of individual cells that are guided by this constructive principal towards sustaining themselves. As Eric Drexler notes:

"Nature shows that molecules can serve as machines because living things work by means of such machinery. Enzymes are molecular machines that make, break, and rearrange the bonds holding other molecules together. Muscles are driven by molecular machines that haul fibers past one another. DNA serves as a data-storage system, transmitting digital instructions to molecular machines, the ribosomes, that manufacture protein molecules. And these protein molecules, in turn, make up most of the molecular machinery just described." (Drexler 182)

This natural principle forms the bedrock of our proof-of-concept for nanotechnology, which is based fundamentally on natural processes. For scientists worldwide, nanotechnology represents the next step in fabrication methods, drug delivery systems and electronics.

In MichaelCrichton’s Prey, nanotechnology is used to convey a sense of horror through the proliferation and evolution of a sentient swarm that threatens humanity through a “grey-goo” scenario. We arrive at this ethical dissonance through the introduction of artificial intelligence: if a self-replicating swarm of self-aware nano-sized robots were to go loose on the world, would humanity be in danger?

The short answer to this question, as far as actual, real-life nanotechnology is concerned, is no. Michael Crichton applies some heavy flavoring to the poorly understood field of nano-robotics in order to arrive at a convenient medium for a good horror story.

In scientific parlance, he is skewing the facts. The ethical dilemma that he represents, however, is clear: do human beings have the right to create our own life forms by mimicking nature? Is this a dangerous idea?

This question, which forms the moral backbone of the book, is represented in a number of ways, including the swarm’s affect on Julia, who is originally suspected of infidelity by the book’s protagonist, Jack Forman. The fact that she later transmits a symbiotic version of the swarm to others through a kiss is a telling symbol.

The swarm is previously shown to make her act like an abusive mother, effectively subverting the two most important family relationships that form the foundation of successful human co-existence.

The fact that the swarm did this seems to indicate that Crichton believes that our attempts to create artificially intelligent life will undermine all of our most deep-seated and necessary human characteristics.

Of course, human beings have been recreating what we see in nature since we began drawing on cave walls tens of thousands of years ago. From an ethical point of view, there should be little difference between creating an artificially intelligent being and a sentient, biological being through birth.

If we take for granted that sentience is equal and that these two things are both alive, then there is very little reason to be afraid of the ethical consequences of this train of thought.

The chances of creating a “grey-goo” super plague are vastly exaggerated by Crichton’s need to expose the supposed terrible dark side of technological advance- something that makes a good story but doesn’t always hold up to rigorous examination.

If we examine, for example, the ethical dangers represented by biotechnology in the last century, we see a great degree of ethical restraint and control exerted by the men and women involved.

Imbuing the scientific community with a sense of trust resulted from peer-review processes of the academic establishments produces numerous “regulators” who can identify the improper conduct that the governmental authorities are unlikely to notice and respond to it (Reynolds 203), among other checks and balances.

While it is certain that nanotechnology will be used for military purposes by governments worldwide, and so, too, will artificial intelligence eventually become a mainstay of modern society, the ethical dilemma around which Prey is based seems largely designed to scare people away from these technologies. This is a tactic that, while decidedly backwards in scope, cannot be matched by the human impetus for scientific progress.

---

[1] Not unlike Michelangelo’s famous remark that he does not create a sculpture from a block of marble, but in fact releases the sculpture that is already present in the marble by chipping away the unnecessary parts.