Monday, August 28, 2017

For a primer on how to make fun of Nazis, look to Charlie Chaplin




File 20170822 22283 omfhs6

Charlie Chaplin’s character Adenoid Hynkel was a not-so-subtle nod to Adolf Hitler.
Wikimedia Commons


White nationalists and neo-Nazis are having their moment. Former Ku Klux Klan Imperial Wizard David Duke is back, yet again, in the media spotlight, while newer figures such as white supremacist Richard Spencer and Christopher Cantwell are broadcasting their views via social media feeds and niche internet channels.

Many Americans are wondering if this resurgent movement should be ignored, feared or fought. What, exactly, is the best antidote for neo-Nazism?

What about laughter?

While the August 12 violence in Charlottesville, Virginia was no joke, the images of armor-clad, tiki-torch-wielding white nationalists did give fodder to late-night talk show hosts and editorial cartoonists.

In a different age, another ascendant white supremacist – Adolf Hitler – used a combination of garbled ideas, stagy phrasing and arch gestures to bewitch much of his nation, even as the rest of the world looked on in disbelief and terror.

While many anti-fascists offered serious and potent arguments against Hitler, comedians like Charlie Chaplin responded to the mortal threat that the Nazis posed in a different way: They used humor to highlight the absurdity and hypocrisy of both the message and its notorious messenger.

Chaplin homes in on his target


In late 1940, producer-director-star Charlie Chaplin released “The Great Dictator.” Often considered Chaplin’s last great film, “The Great Dictator” is the tale of a little Jewish barber in the mythical (but obviously German) nation of Tomania. The barber is mistaken for a dictator modeled after Adolf Hitler named Adenoid Hynkel, and the barber is forced to carry out his impersonation of the German warlord to save his own life.





Hitler’s trademark mustache mimicked Chaplin’s.
Insomnia Cured Here, CC BY-SA



The idea of a film satirizing Hitler was one Chaplin had been working on for years. Chaplin was a dedicated antifascist, and was alarmed at Hitler’s ability to captivate the German people. He warned members of the Hollywood community not to underestimate Hitler merely because they found him comical, an effect magnified by Hitler’s unfathomable decision to apparently borrow the most famous mustache in the world – Chaplin’s little black toothbrush – as his own trademark.

Chaplin regarded Hitler as one of the finest actors he had ever seen. (Hitler carefully monitored his public persona, studying photographs and film of his speeches, and taking lessons in public presentation.) Nonetheless, Chaplin, whose international success was based on little people challenging and defeating powerful institutions and individuals, recognized that comedy could be used against Hitler.

“It is paradoxical that tragedy stimulates the spirit of ridicule,” he wrote in his autobiography. “Ridicule, I suppose, is an attitude of defiance.”

Chaplin was warned in 1939 that the film might be refused release in England and face censorship in the United States. Political factions in both nations were anxious to placate the unpredictable, angry Hitler, and “The Great Dictator” could be calculated to enrage the Nazis, who reviled Chaplin as a “Jewish acrobat.”

But Chaplin was a partner in the distribution company United Artists; simply put, he was his own producer, and answerable primarily to himself when it came to risky investments. Due to Chaplin’s perfectionism, all of his films were expensive. “The Great Dictator” was no different: It cost US$2 million to produce, an enormous sum at the time. That perfectionism delayed the film’s distribution until the height of the English Blitz, by which time audiences in the U.S. and England were ready for Chaplin’s humor of defiance. In 1940, the year of its release, “The Great Dictator” was the third highest-grossing film in the U.S.

Exposing a fraud


Much of the comedy of “The Great Dictator” comes from a merciless indictment of those who would follow such a patently idiotic character. The satire mocks Hitler’s absurdity, solipsism and overweening vanity, while also highlighting Germany’s psychological captivity to a political fraud.

All the techniques of the tyrant are on view: the arbitrary demonizing of identity groups, the insistence on mindless loyalty from his followers, the unpredictable behavior toward foreign leaders that ranges from mere abuse to deceit, even the hostility toward science in favor of dogma. (A series of inventors die while demonstrating the patently impossible military technology Hynkel demands, like a bulletproof suit and a parachute hat.) Hynkel is also a casual sexual harasser and grossly overestimates attendance at official functions.




Charlie Chaplin’s ‘Fake German’ speech from ‘The Great Dictator.’



Hynkel bloviates mindlessly and unintelligibly. U.S. and English audiences were already quite familiar with Hitler’s untranslated radio speeches, and Chaplin took advantage of this, making Hynkel’s speeches an amalgamation of gibberish, non sequiturs and vaudeville German dialect humor, as when he shouts, “Der Wienerschnitzel mit da lagerbieren, und das Sauerkraut!” (“The wienerschnitzel with the beer and the sauerkraut!”)

Would Hitler laugh at himself?


The success of “The Great Dictator” spawned a cottage industry of Hitler satire. Some of this work was relentlessly lowbrow, such as the Three Stooges’ short “You Nazty Spy!” (1940), Hal Roach Studios’ short feature “That Nazty Nuisance” (1943), and the Warner Bros.‘ animated shorts “The Duckators” (1942), “Der Fuehrer’s Face” (1942) and “Daffy – The Commando” (1943).

The artistic peak of this cinematic effort was the mordant Ernst Lubitsch comedy “To Be or Not to Be” (1942), in which Hitler is explicitly compared to a ham actor-manager who embarks upon a vanity production of – what else? – “Hamlet.”

Hitler was a huge movie fan, and after the war, novelist and screenwriter Budd Schulberg found proof that Hitler had actually seen “The Great Dictator.” More intriguingly, Hitler ordered the film to be screened for him a second time. (Of course, ordinary Germans weren’t allowed to watch it.)

Interviewed for a 2001 documentary, Reinhard Spitzy, an intimate of Hitler, said he could easily imagine Hitler laughing privately at Chaplin’s burlesque of him.

The image of Hitler watching “The Great Dictator” a second time – admiring the work of the only public figure whose sheer charisma before the cameras could rival his own – is a compelling one.

The ConversationChaplin later said that had he known the extent of the Nazis’ barbarity, he would not have burlesqued them; their crimes were simply too immense for comedy, however trenchant. But perhaps “The Great Dictator” still reminds us of political comedy’s golden mean: The more political movements strive to be taken seriously, the more ripe a subject for satire they become.

Kevin Hagopian, Senior Lecturer of Media Studies (Cinema Studies), Pennsylvania State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Matatiele protesters demand roads and water

Roads closed with rocks and burning tyres

By Nombulelo Damba-Hendrik
28 August 2017
Photo of road
Matatiele residents want gravel roads like this road in Tshitsong to be tarred. Photo: Manqulo Nyakombi.
Gravel roads between Hardenburg and Matatiele were closed with burning tyres and big rocks on Monday by angry Matatiele residents demanding better roads and clean water.

The protesters accuse the authorities of neglecting their town. They demand better roads between Matatiele and the border between South Africa and Lesotho. They also want clean water to be supplied to the villages.

Monday’s protest was the third in a month and protesters vowed to continue until their demands were met. Schools were closed and vehicles taking learners to schools were turned away.

Residents have formed a forum to express their grievances. Chairperson of the forum Nhlahla Ntsoti said Matatiele was at a standstill and this would continue until their demands were met. He said the town had been neglected for years. Residents had tried to hold meetings with Matatiele local municipality but promises had not been kept, he said.

“We are fed up and this time we are not going to stop until we are heard. We demand tarred roads, clean water and better health facilities.”

Ntsoti said women in Matatiele had to wake up at 02:00am to fetch water from the river and this was dangerous.

“With the high rate of women being raped and murdered we are scared that women in our area might be attacked if this issue of water is not addressed.”

He said the gravel roads made it difficult for ambulances to arrive in villages quickly and even police vans struggled to reach some of the villages because of poor road conditions.

“We are voters and we have rights. It is time our government takes us seriously like other towns. We are forgotten here,” he said.

Community member Thapelo Mokoena from Maluti village told GroundUp that if the gravel road between Maluti and the Lesotho border was not fixed, Matatiele would lose business. He said traders who travelled from Lesotho to Matatiele to sell goods had to drive on poor roads.

In some villages people had to walk kilometres to fetch water. Some people shared dirty water with animals. In some villages taps had been installed but never worked. In other villages boreholes had been installed but only worked for few months.

“We will continue with this fight,” he said.

Matatiele local municipality spokesperson Olwethu Gwanya said the municipality had held several meetings with residents. She said as far as she knew they wanted better roads but that was an issue not for the municipality but for the Department of Public Works.

“We called a meeting between the community and Department of Public Works and we asked for a chance to look into their complaints. It’s clear that the community was not happy, hence they decided to continue with their protest,” she said.

Ntsoti said Mehlomakhulu had been asked to pass their grievances on to the Premier’s office. He said the Premier had been asked to respond within seven days. Protesters would wait for him on the gravel roads, he said.

Published originally on GroundUp .

Shaun Abrahams ducks every issue UDF veterans raise

NPA head refuses to withdraw appeal in Zuma corruption case

By GroundUp Staff
29 August 2017
Photo of Shaun Abrahams
Shaun Abrahams, head of the National Prosecuting Authority, has responded to a letter addressed to him by UDF veterans. Photo from NPA website
National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Shaun Abrahams says the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) will not withdraw its appeal against a court ruling on charges against President Jacob Zuma. Abrahams has also refused to supply a list of current cases relating to state capture and corruption.

Writing in response to a letter UDF veterans handed to the NPA on 7 August, Abrahams ducks every request in a response that is occasionally belligerent.

In April 2016 a full bench of the Gauteng High Court ruled that the NPA decision not to charge Zuma was irrational. The NPA then appealed against the decision. The UDF veterans’ letter called on Abrahams to drop the appeal. Abrahams’s response was that the matter preceded his time: “I regret to inform you that I am unable to accede thereto. As you are well aware, the history around this matter predates my appointment as the NDPP. The appeal pending in the Supreme Court of Appeal is premised largely on the powers of the NDPP and the functioning of the NPA. Finality is required in this regard.” Abrahams was appointed NDPP in 2015, about two years before the NPA appealed.

“I disagree with you that the NPA has failed to ‘act in terms of its Constitutional mandate to root out criminal activity within the state’ over the last decade. It is regrettable that you deemed to make such a general statement,” wrote Abrahams in the letter dated 16 August.

Abrahams rejected the UDF veterans’ claim that the NPA had been “glaringly absent” with respect to corruption, such as the Gupta email leaks uncovered, and that Abrahams’s silence made him complicit. “It is rather regrettable that you have to resort to making such comments not understanding the role and functioning of the NPA,” he wrote.

More than ten paragraphs of Abrahams’s 20 paragraph response describe the state structures responsible for fighting corruption. The essence of his claim is that the NPA is not responsible for what the UDF veterans are asking. Instead, he argues, their concerns should be raised with the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (the Hawks).

So in response to the UDF veterans’ call for a “full list of current cases relating to state capture and corruption, including detailed time frames, charges, where these have been laid and court dates where these have been set,” Abrahams says this should be directed to the Hawks.

Abrahams tries to hit back at the UDF veterans: “It does concern me that your interest only lies in the eradication of criminal activity within the state. Regrettably you make no mention of your concerns of corruption and acts of criminal activity around the private sector.” This even though the UDF veterans’ letter explicitly mentions several private companies requiring investigation, including Cash Paymaster Services, Trillian, Tegeta, Oakbay, Mckinsey, Dongfang Electric Company, VR Laser, Multichoice, Linkway Trading and several others.

“Contrary to your belief, indicative of the tone of your letter, the NPA will continue to execute its constitutional mandate without fear, favour, or prejudice,” Abrahams ends.

UDF veteran Zelda Holtzman told GroundUp the group was unhappy with Abrahams’s response but that a fuller statement would be issued after the veterans meet in the first week of September.
Download and read Abrahams’s full response.

Published originally on GroundUp .

Friday, August 25, 2017

When 'man's best friend' feels more hate than love for an owner





File 20170822 30500 jcoymu

Let’s just go our separate ways.
anaxolotl, CC BY-NC



Everyone thinks that dogs worship their owners – viewing them as gods of some sort. While that may be true in the majority of cases, it isn’t always so. As a veterinarian who has focused on animal behavior and the human/canine bond for 30 years, I can confirm that sometimes, no matter what, a dog and his person just aren’t going to get along.

Take Ruckus, an adopted Wheaton terrier with an attitude. He pretty much hated his new owner, Rick, and was none too warm and fuzzy with Rick’s wife, Cindy. Although Rick was a terrific guy by human standards, Ruckus gave him hell – much the same as he had done with his previous male owner. It started slowly with some space guarding and territoriality. It eventually got so bad that Rick had to call on his way home to tell Cindy to confine Ruckus for fear of being attacked.

To Ruckus, Rick was persona non grata in his own home. It all ended very badly one day when Ruckus was tied up outside while Rick was mowing the lawn. Ruckus’s constant lunging eventually dislodged the tethering post and he flew at Rick, teeth bared and intent on committing grievous bodily harm. A wrestling match ensued; the police and animal control were called while Rick hung on with Ruckus in a choke hold. You really don’t want to know how this story ended: not well for Ruckus, I’m afraid.

Rick adored Ruckus, but it was one-way love. Ruckus truly hated him and engaged in what I called unidirectional aggression. I later found out that unidirectional aggression is a recognized entity in people as well as other animal species.

While there are dogs like Ruckus who frankly dislike their owner, there are others who get no pleasure out of living under the same roof as them. They merely tolerate certain people because they have no other choice. After adoption, these hapless hounds just find themselves having to endure uninteresting or punitive owners. Some withdraw and remain in a permanent funk. Others simply accept this shoddy treatment as the norm and carry on as best they can.






Fear can turn into aggression for some dogs.
Jan Tik, CC BY



In some cases, the dog may have good reason to be nonplussed with his owner: mistreatment will weaken and even seriously damage the human-animal bond. For example, a Brittany intended for hunting was constantly being trained by his owner using an electric shock collar. One day, the dog hid from him and lay quaking under the bed. When the man tried to drag him out, the dog bit him. You could say the man got his just desserts. The behavior the dog showed was fear aggression – directed toward the owner.

Curiously, this direct association between harsh treatment by an owner would not explain Ruckus’ situation because Rick never mistreated him. It seems most likely that Ruckus had been seriously abused by a man in the critical period of his development – certainly the within the first three to four months of life – and he never forgot it (almost like PTSD).

A German shepherd I wrote about in my book “The Dog Who Loved Too Much” was fearful of, but not aggressive to, his male owner. In this case, similar to the Ruckus situation, it was not what the male owner had done to the dog but what other men had done to the dog previously that carried over as a dislike of all men.

But this dog’s reaction was not proactive and aggressive like Ruckus’. Rather, it manifest as pure fear with no aggression – probably because of the dog’s naturally retiring temperament. When the man came home, the dog ran and hid and never appeared again until he left. The dog did not interact with him at all – except under one discrete circumstance.

When the man’s wife, a diabetic, became hypoglycemic at night (a very dangerous situation), the dog would run to the husband’s side of the bed and tug at the bedclothes until he woke up and realized the problem. The dog’s love for the wife caused him to overcome his fear and summon help when it was really needed. Bravery is not about having no fear but having the grit to fight through it. By this standard, the dog was as brave as they come – although he still would have preferred that the male owner did not exist at all.






I’m just not that into you… and I think you know why.
myri_bonnie, CC BY-NC-ND



So when you hear about dogs being “man’s best friend” and supplying “unconditional love” – that’s true only if the person adopts a compatible pet and invests time and attention, showing the dog it’s understood and appreciated. Long walks, plenty of fun, regular meals, clear communication, good leadership and affection should create the dog of everyone’s dreams.

The ConversationIt’s another instance where “the love you take is equal to the love you make,” to quote the Beatles. Mean-spirited owners, or those who have been duped into using punitive training methods, do not enjoy the wonderful bond that can exist – and their dogs do not appreciate them either.

Nicholas Dodman, Professor Emeritus of Behavioral Pharmacology and Animal Behavior, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Those who brought Zuma to power shouldn't be forgotten, or forgiven




File 20170822 30494 lc6f1r
The SACP and Cosatu have spoken out against South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma.
Flcker/GCIS


It is now a matter of record – rather than an issue for serious debate – that the presidency of Jacob Zuma has been an unmitigated disaster for South Africa.

Zuma’s stewardship – if his tenure since 2009 can be dignified with such a description – has been one long narrative of national decline. The fact that he remains in office is testament to the moral and intellectual decay of the governing African National Congress (ANC) over the course of his presidency.

That the party which produced such giants of the liberation struggle as Albert Luthuli, OR Tambo and Nelson Mandela should have repeatedly endorsed the leadership of such a compromised individual provides cause for great sadness at the humbling of a once great political movement.

But, as his presidency staggers on it has become noticeable that some in the ANC’s “broad church” are beginning to peel away in disgust. Over the last two years veterans of the movement have expressed dissatisfaction with the party’s direction and there have been frequent calls for Zuma to stand down.

There have been two unsuccessful attempts to unseat him at meetings of the ANC’s National Executive Committee (in November 2016 and May 2017. And eight motions of no confidence motions have been tabled against him in parliament. In the latest 26 ANC MPs voted with the opposition, with a further nine abstaining.

In addition, the ANC’s alliance partners, the South African Communist Party (SACP) and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu), have both called for his resignation. Cosatu even barred him from attending its gatherings, an unprecedented humiliation for an ANC leader.

Yet these expressions of revulsion at Zuma’s leadership should be placed within their proper historical context. It is important to recall the role these two organisations had in helping facilitate this disaster in the first place.

Complicity and fantasy


Between 2005 and 2007 the SACP and Cosatu were fervent cheerleaders for Zuma in his successful campaign in 2009 to supplant Thabo Mbeki and become ANC president, and thus president of the country. The left projected their own ideological fantasies onto Zuma: they saw in him hope for a “left turn” and a repudiation of the neo-liberal economics which they associated with Mbeki.

This was always a bizarre position. There was nothing in Zuma’s record to inspire confidence that he would engineer a shift to the left. As the country’s deputy president from 1999 to 2005, he failed to strike a single dissenting note about the ideological direction of Mbeki’s macro-economic policy, far less set out an alternative left-wing prospectus.

There was also a significant body of evidence suggesting his politics were highly reactionary, with strong overtones of sexual and ethnic chauvinism which should have set alarm bells ringing for any self-respecting socialists.

For example, Zuma was acquitted of a rape charge in 2006 after deploying a defence which was deeply sexist and patriarchal. Zuma also uttered the notorious comment which would come to haunt him – that he had intercourse with his accuser knowing she was HIV positive but took a shower afterwards as a precaution against infection. This was a comment so steeped in ignorance that it should have immediately disqualified him from ever holding high political office.

But it didn’t end there. Throughout the rape trial his supporters gathered outside the court each day to hurl vicious sexist abuse at his accuser. “Burn the Bitch” was a favourite. Her name and address were also circulated in a contempt of court, actions which paved the way for harassment which eventually caused her to leave the country.

Not once when addressing his supporters at the end of each day’s proceedings, did Zuma condemn the abuse, or reproach his supporters. Instead, in a display of machismo, he chose to whip up the mob with militaristic anthems from the ANC armed struggle era. All of this in a country blighted by violence against women.

Rise of kleptocracy


Zuma also commenced his presidency with 783 unresolved charges of fraud, money laundering and embezzlement hanging over him relating to the notorious arms deal scandal of the late 1990s and early 2000s. But the SACP and Cosatu leadership chose to view those charges as evidence of a “conspiracy” against Zuma and an attempt to sabotage a socialist presidency.

They would now prefer their unconditional support for Zuma to be considered merely as an unfortunate historical footnote which has not tarnished their ideological credentials. They are wrong. Their willingness to overlook such egregious failings was a cynical betrayal of progressive values.






Julius Malema, once a staunch Zuma supporter is now his fierce critic.
EPA/Kim Ludbrook



Equally, Julius Malema, now the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters, has sought to reinvent himself as a passionate opponent of Zuma. Yet as head of the ANC Youth League back in 2006-2007 he championed Zuma’s candidacy with a messianic fervour usually laced with threats against his opponents such as the infamous “shoot to kill for Zuma” slogan.

Mea culpa


Ten years on the chickens have come home to roost, and the grim reality of the Zuma presidency is now visible. The South African state has become little more than a plaything of the Zuma patronage network. This descent into kleptocracy has been documented in rich detail by a number of reports.

Consequently, the SACP and Cosatu have been compelled to recognise that Zuma, and his corrupt support networks are indeed a cancer in South African politics, shamelessly enriching themselves in a country still defined by poverty and extreme inequality with unemployment at 27.7% in the first quarter of 2017, and youth unemployment standing at 38%

The ConversationThe SACP and Cosatu may have found their voices over the last six months in lamenting this appalling record. But this has been a deathbed conversion, occurring much too late to carry any real conviction. The monster that is the Zuma presidency has wrought massive damage on South Africa and is rightly reviled. But the role of the SACP and Cosatu as architects of that debacle should be neither forgotten nor forgiven.

James Hamill, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, University of Leicester

This article was originally published on The Conversation.