A comment leads me to repost Dane-Geld, a Kipling poem that I put up a few years ago. Today the Danes are the good guys rather than, as in the poem, the bad guys, and of course the fear isn't of nations but of extremist religious groups. But the principle is the same: When you give in to threats of violence, this just emboldens the threateners to demand more. What happens when someone wants to do a movie of Mohammed's life? Or says harsh things about Islam that some extremist Muslims find offensive or even blasphemous? Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated.
In any case, here's the poem; it actually isn't one of Kipling's best from the standpoint of craft — his historical poems generally aren't, I think — but it's still pretty good:
It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night — we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: --"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"
Another great reason not to pay taxes!
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
I approve of Kipling, but Charles Pinckney said it more succinctly:
“Millions for defense, sir, but not one cent for tribute.”
Or if you prefer historical accuracy, what he probably actually said:
“No, no, not a sixpence.”
To go on Prime Time TV and to say: --
"We are put upon, that's right — so let's find someone to fight,
And that will help your fear to go away."
And that is called asking for Vain-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to inflict the Vain-geld
And you'll be freed of all worry and pain!
It is always a temptation if Al Qaeda's on vacation,
To find some benighted country and to say: --
"Though we know you weren't involved, domestic problems will be solved
If we liberate you from your Despot straight away."
And that is called playing the Vain-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That deciding to go after Vain-geld
Is shortsighted, wrong and inane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of a great nation,
To stoke their fear while taking rights away;
So when you see their case on lies and cant is based,
You will find it better policy to say: --
"We do not give-in to Vain-geld,
No matter how heavy the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And a nation's great soul all but lost."
...When Pack meets with Pack in the Jungle, and neither will go from the trail,
Lie down till the leaders have spoken—it may be fair words shall prevail.
When ye fight with a Wolf of the Pack, ye must fight him alone and afar,
Lest others take part in the quarrel, and the Pack be diminished by war.
The Lair of the Wolf is his refuge, and where he has made him his home,
Not even the Head Wolf may enter, not even the Council may come.
The Lair of the Wolf is his refuge, but where he has digged it too plain,
The Council shall send him a message, and so he shall change it again. ...
"and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack." Good stuff. Poetry lets you float off on some many thought waves. That lair bit makes me think of the dissent in Georgia v. Randolph.
Tommy Atkins
Young man "Do you like Kipling?"
Demur young lady "I don't know, you naughty boy. I've never Kipled."
There is nothin' like a Dane,
Nothin' in the world,
There is nothin' you can name
That is anythin' like a Dane!
I believe that in an earlier period, the late 9th century, paying Danegeld was a successful policy for Alfred the Great. If you know more of the history of that period than I do, I would be happy to be corrected. As far as I know, you are correct about the period you describe, the late 10th and 11th centuries.
The administrative establishment that developed to collect the Danegeld is regarded by medievalists as quite advanced and a key component of the effectiveness of the high medieval English monarchy. Bear in mind that practically no kingdom had a system of taxation at that time, particularly not one that could yield stable and predictable revenue, but this is exactly what the Danegeld system set out to do. English kings continued collecting the Danegeld even when there were no Danes to pay off and used it to fund, among other things, their military forces.
(I do realize some readers will consider extension of a government's taxing apparatus to be a bad thing.)
- It also fails as an analogy when the geld sought is a valid claim. If you were to steal from someone and try to weasel out of the debt by claiming it was "danegeld" you would just be trying to cowardly weasel out of a debt. You wouldn't be some elder statesmen or resistor of tyranny - just a two-bit conman trying to weasel out of what is owed.
Geld meant money or payment in Old English (and still means money in German today) and so Danegeld simply meant money paid to the Danes. That it was money extorted by the Danes is what gives the term its pejorative connotation, but that was the fault of the Danes and no one else.
Danegeld seems to me to be as neutral as a descriptive term can be. It is not a characterization like calling the Huns animals. Though Huns are, technically and like everyone else, animals, it is not because of the Huns that animals is perjorative when used in reference to people.
Perhaps the Danes were merely an economic and political minority with corrupt government at home. Pity the poor Dane, and shame on you monks of Lindisfarne for flaunting yourself.
Anyway, "Aethelred Unraed" a pun because "Aethelred" means "noble counsel." Thus, he was "the nobly-counseled king who got bad advice."
What bad advice did Aethelred receive? Well, for starters, paying the Danegeld, which was urged upon him by the archbishop of Canterbury and the nobles of the areas that were to be ravaged. Facing ruin, they would much rather have had the burden of being the Danes' neighbors spread across the entire kingdom and so persuaded the king to gather a ransom payment. But as argued above, eventually the system of gathering revenue kingdom-wide worked to the kings' advantage.
When once you get rid of the Dane
You must always pay the Danegeld
Suit yourself, but it does imply extortion. That's why calling a debt that isn't extortion "danegeld" is a cheap, cowardly, and in some cases insulting attempt to avoid a debt.
Geld meant money or payment in Old English (and still means money in German today) and so Danegeld simply meant money paid to the Danes. That it was money extorted by the Danes is what gives the term its pejorative connotation, but that was the fault of the Danes and no one else.
No, it was the fault of those Danes, not all that have ever lived since. It's similar, though not as severe, to anti-semitic people who call Jewish people "Christ-killers" - smearing a whole racial or ethnic group with a pejorative term from a historical act or acts that only part of a group at a particular time were involved in.
It's also similar to calling or comparing people of germanic descent who don't act like or believe in the ideology of the Nazis "nazis". It's smearing a whole ethnic group for the historical acts of some members of that ethnic group.
Danegeld seems to me to be as neutral as a descriptive term can be. It is not a characterization like calling the Huns animals. Though Huns are, technically and like everyone else, animals, it is not because of the Huns that animals is perjorative when used in reference to people.
See above. At least in some, I would say all, modern usages it implies extortion or coercion. That's why its a cheap, cowardly, emotionally manipulative tactic to call a normal debt "Danegeld".
I'm not saying its a big deal and I'm not one to get offended at things like that, and I don't think most people of germanic or scandinavian descent would, but it is or can be vaguely racist to use the term, especially when it is applied incorrectly to legitimate claims.
Or you may be confusing "Danegeld" with "Danelaw" (a Danish client state set up in northwestern England during Alfred the Great's reign). Accepting Danelaw was arguably a very successful policy for Alfred the Great, chosing not to risking the parts of England he controlled by fighting battles he probably couldn't win.
As I understand it, Alfred's policy included both Danegeld and Danelaw and succeeded on both counts.
Keith K,
The fact that Danegeld failed a hundred years later does not disprive that it was a successful policy under Alfred. Probably it is pointless to generalize and say that paying Danegeld is always good or always bad.
Correct, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
It's similar, though not as severe, to anti-semitic people who call Jewish people "Christ-killers" - smearing a whole racial or ethnic group with a pejorative term from a historical act or acts that only part of a group at a particular time were involved in.
Here I disagree. The fact that Danegeld is called Danegeld is, to me, of purely historical and etymological interest. It does not tar the nationality.
Finally, I would agree that the term should only be used with reference to extortion.