How many people speak Yiddish these days?

Today there are far less than a million people who speak Yiddish. Before the Second World War, there were about 11 million Yiddish speakers!
According to some estimates, about 600,000 people speak Yiddish worldwide today. The majority of them are based in the United States and Israel. But at least in the ultra-orthodox Hasidic communities the number of Yiddish speakers is on the rise, as they take the commandment “Thou shalt be fruitful and multiply” very seriously indeed…

 
How long has Yiddish been spoken for, and how has it evolved?

Yiddish has been spoken for approximately 1,100 years. The majority of scholars hold that it started to evolve in the Germanic lands of Central Europe, where Jews from France and Italy settled in the 10th century. Their encounter with the surrounding medieval German dialects resulted in a unique Jewish language that fuses together large elements of medieval German with Hebrew and Aramaic as well as some Romance elements. The earliest extant document in Yiddish dates from 1272 and consists of one line in the Machzor (festival prayer-book) of Worms.
When Jews moved eastwards, the language was further enriched by Slavic elements, mainly from Polish, Ukrainian and Belorussian. The Yiddish spoken today is almost exclusively Eastern Yiddish (in its various dialects), apart from a few remaining Western Yiddish speakers in Alsace.

 
Is there a tradition of Yiddish literature?

There is a vast tradition of Yiddish literature. Old Yiddish literature ranges from epic poems about Jewish knights as Elye Bokher’s Bove-bukh (1541) to collections of tales as the Mayse-bukh (1602) and religious literature popular among women as the Tsenerene (1622), also known as the Ashkenazic “Women’s Bible”.
Although there were both Hasidic and Maskilic works written in Eastern Yiddish in the early 19th century, modern Yiddish literature only evolved in the late 19th century. The three classics of modern Yiddish literature are Mendele Moykher-Sforim (Sh.Y. Abramovitsh), Sholem-Aleykhem and Y.L. Perets. Yiddish literature flourished in the period between the two world wars and had its three main centres in Poland, Soviet Russia and the United States. In 1978, Isaac Bashevis Singer was the first Yiddish writer to be awarded the Nobel Prize for literature.
Today there are still a small number of Yiddish poets and writers in Israel, the US and Eastern and Western Europe.

 
Are there any Yiddish idioms that have come into use in English?

Yiddish words like shlep (dragging – either oneself or heavy loads), kvetsh (complaining), meshuge (crazy) and khutspe, often spelled “chutzpah” (impertinence) are very commonly used among British and American Jews. Sometimes, though, Yiddish words have changed their meaning in English. In Yiddish a shmues is just a friendly conversation. But the English “to shmooze” has taken on the meaning of chatting in a persuasive manner, often in order to obtain favours. Unfortunately, apart from Jewish culinary delights, such as beygelekh (bagels), latkes, kugl, and knishes, it is often Yiddish curses and rude words, which reach the general public.

“Why hellair, I’m sew frightfully gled you could awl make it, what-oh?”
The 3rd Baronet Swizzleton-Cockburn-Smythe adjusted his monocle and greeted the Labour club crew, who, by a happy coincidence, were also made up of tired, two-dimensional stereotypes. A member of the Labour club came forward, wiping his soot-blackened hands on his overalls. He doffed his hard hat, its lamp still aflame.
“Y’areet? Wor! By ‘eck man, its reet classy oop ‘ere. Sorry we’re leet but we ‘ad to come all the way cross toon like. Ah’ve ‘ad nowt to drink an’ ah’m canny thirsty, me.”
The members of OUCA and OULC took their seats, making an effort not to sit next to someone who shared their political views or genitalia. Tweed jackets and silk cravats mingled with jeans and t-shirts. The Labour girls were dressed much like the Labour boys, except without the unkempt beards. The conservative ladies wore cocktail dresses.
Conversations broke out. A girl was asked why she voted Conservative. “Father says I oughtn’t talk about politics.”
“Ach, ye must have some views o’ ye oon?”
“Actually, I mainly pour the Port.”
At another end of the table, a drunken OUCA member was trying to flirt with an attractive, if slightly prim, Labour girl.
“It’s just terrible how we consume so much in the West. We could learn a lot from indigenous peoples like the Inuit, who waste nothing, and who work together instead of pursuing private gain.”
“Yah. Totally. Yah.” The OUCA member nodded along at her earnest speech.
“Bankers should be taxed at 90 percent. The Big Society is a bourgeois conspiracy. Private education and private healthcare are a blight on society. Unhappiness, crime and disease are caused by disparities in wealth.”
“Mmm. Yah. Couldn’t agree more.”
“We need to abolish the monarchy…”
“I say, steady on! That’s Bolshevism. And that’s my Aunt’s second cousin you’re talking about.”
Someone chinked two glasses together and stood up. “Listen up cheps: here’s one for the gels. I sconce anyone who’s had a threesome or better!”
The Conservatives erupted in deep, bellowing guffaws. Everyone else looked faintly embarrassed. Now it was Labour’s turn. “I sconce anyone who’s a Blairite!” This was immediately met with the reply “I sconce Brownites!” The beardies fell into fits of laughter at this, and one girl nearly spilled her Guinness down her Che Guevara T-shirt.
The revels dragged on for some time, and a new spirit of cross-party co-operation and friendship was formed. That is, until the bill came.
“Alreet, ah say it’d be champion if we split the bill evenly. It’s the oonly fair way, like.”
“But I only had salad. He had two curries, bhajees and pakoras!”
“Why don’t we just pay for what we ate?”
“Oh. I see what you’re saying. Just because you have more money than me you should be able to eat more? Do you realise how fucking disgusting that is? I should not have to pay as much for the same thing as lord snooty over here.”
“How about the people with more money subsidise it for the rest of us?”
“What? Tories having to foot the bill for Labour excesses? Bloody typical!”
The argument went on for so long that the owner of Jamal’s put the bill on the slate. The rival clubs are currently disputing which one of them was responsible for the debt.

World leaders often call on Chinese consumers to buy more to rescue the global economy. Can they?

Perhaps. Consumer spending has nearly quadrupled since 2000. Just ask GM, Tesco, Apple, and all the other multinationals banking on Chinese consumer spending. Starbucks alone has just announced plans to triple its number of stores in China to 1,500 by 2015. Five years ago, when I began to research my latest book, I started a list of Number One’s for the Chinese consumer: largest consumer of mobile phones, beer, beef, etc. And China is also quickly becoming the largest luxury goods market. Someday soon you will have to go to Shanghai to see the hottest LV handbag or fanciest Tag Heuer watch.

This sounds like good news?

Not entirely. Even if Chinese consumers manage to spend enough to rescue the world economy, consider the domestic and global implications of the Chinese driving more cars, eating more meat, or taking more package tours to the UK. Nobody should begrudge the Chinese their Happy Meals or any of the other pleasures non-Chinese consumers enjoy. But everyone everywhere needs to contemplate the collective impact of these seemingly minor changes in Chinese lifestyles. China doesn’t need to be the Number One consumer in anything to have dramatic impacts.

Can you give an example?

The implications of Chinese consumerism are wide-ranging, interconnected, and often both good and bad. Take cars. Fifteen years ago few Chinese owned cars. But in 2009, China surpassed the US as the world’s largest car market and grew another 40% in 2010. This is good news for multinationals such as GM, which now sells more cars in China than in the US. Anyone invested in stock markets may already be benefiting from Chinese consumerism. But there are many more implications. Even with the continual addition of new and wider roads, cities like Beijing cannot confiscate land, demolish residential buildings, and build roads fast enough to accommodate all these new cars. These roads are gobbling up China’s valuable agricultural land. And cars aren’t fueled by goodwill. China lost its energy independence in the 1990s and now, as with the many Western countries, China’s need for imported oil forces its government into unsavory international relationships.

Is anyone countering the problems created by Chinese consumerism?
The Chinese state certainly is. But can legislation successfully offset the negative impacts fast enough? And if the downsides of increased consumption aren’t mitigated quickly enough in China, can we expect India, Brazil, and other developing consumer markets to be any different? China is a harbinger for much of the world.

Should we be worried?

Yes, but we should worry about the right thing. After all, there is no shortage of anxieties concerning China these days, including competition for energy resources, growing Chinese military budgets, an undervalued Chinese currency, and carbon emissions. But I think we need to focus on the more subtle, underlying challenge that connects all of these and many other China challenges: the effects of China’s ongoing development of a consumer culture-in other words, their replication of our lifestyles.

“Allow me to clarify my position,” said Aaron Porter, NUS prez and future Labour minister. “While I do, in principle, agree with the proposals, there is at the same time a vital balance to be struck between what is on the one hand a totally necessary course of action, with which I think everyone here would agree, and, on the other, the need to maintain an open dialogue and not to rule out the pursuit of other, perhaps, no less important channels and activities; maintaining all the while, of course, that the most direct and effective route is the one we must take, yet not forgetting the alternatives, such as staying completely still, taking a side road, or, indeed, going backwards. Put quite simply, I am totally in favour of what everyone is calling out that we should do, however, I am not totally in favour of it.”

“Do you want to go to fucking Kukui or not?” Asked one of the students. After his talk, Aaron Porter had found himself cornered by a tiny minority of determined individuals who had set out with the sole intention of causing anarchic mayhem on the dance floor.
“Don’t get me wrong. I absolutely, one hundred percent, want to go to Kukui. Let there be no doubt on this; no misunderstanding; no confusion. It is my expressed position on Clubbing that it is the just and proper action to take when other possible routes for enjoying the evening have been exhausted.”
“Great then. Let’s get going.” The other students made general noises of assent.
Porter led the march to Kukui. He later hailed this part of the night as a complete success. Seeing the size of the queue outside the club, he remarked: “Tonight students have come out in their hundreds to demonstrate their support for clubbing. This is a clear sign to those in authority that we stand united and in total solidarity. We have made our voices clear. We have conclusively expressed our opposition to staying in.”
“That’ll be five pounds please.” One of the small group of hardcore ravers had reached the front of the queue. She looked in her purse.
“I’ve only got four.”
The girl at the till began to serve the next person in line. This did not go down well. “What about my human rights?” She turned to the NUS President. “Aaron, do you think you should have to pay to get into a student club night?”
“Erm, I would be more in favour of a club night tax.”
“What the fuck?”
“You know, those who get the most fun out of the evening, it stands to reason, should have to pay a contribution to the club the next day. It’s progressive.”
“But won’t that discourage the most talented party animals from going out?”
“We need to ask ourselves what constitutes the fairest system for funding club nights. Clearly those who benefit more from clubbing should be expected to pay a higher proportion. Some people move on from clubbing to achieve hugely rewarding one night stands; it is not fair that the majority who go back to bed unsatisfied should end up twenty pounds out of pocket with nothing to show for it.”
At this point one of the group tried to shove his way into Kukui. He was stopped by a pair of bouncers.
“Me kyan stan’ dem fuckin’ pigs man. Come we merk dem rarsclarts. You get me?” Said the classicist from New College, adjusting his hood.
“Now now,” said Porter, nervously. “I believe we’ve made our point here. Look at all the people queueing peacefully; if a small minority take things too far our important message will be overshadowed by violence.”
“Hush your mout’, pussio.” In the commotion, Aaron Porter was struck on the head by a stray fire extinguisher. The culprit has yet to be identified.

Two days after the announcement of the negative growth last quarter and with anti-cuts protests still at the front of the nation’s minds, I met with Michael Fallon. Michael is currently the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, senior advisor to David Cameron and a notable parliamentarian. In the past he has also served as Minister for Education under Margret Thatcher and John Major, so there seemed few people within the Conservative Party better able to give the Cherwell an insight into how the Conservatives view their future and the future of the coalition government.

Throughout January both the Conservatives and the Lib Dems were suffering in the opinion polls, with Labour varying from a five to a ten point lead over the Conservatives, and striding thirty points ahead of the Liberal Democrats. These figures did not seem to worry Michael, and when I questioned whether the coalition could do more to resonate with the public he did not try to query their low support. Instead he admitted “We didn’t expect to be popular” and cited public sector pay freezes, the cuts which mean that “jobs will disappear”, as well as the VAT increases which will make “some households feel the pinch”. I was surprised. I knew that the coalition was not claiming to provide an easy ride through the recession but for a politician to offer so freely the reasons for their lack of public popularity seemed unusually honest. Michael continued that in order to get the economy growing the first and most important task was to “sort the deficit out.” Although protests and polls alike show that the Conservatives were right to calm their expectations of public admiration, their main aim of deficit reduction is being dealt with head on.

Comedians and students alike speculate that Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister, currently lies amongst the list of most hated people in Britain. Evidence of which is seen in the polls, with the Liberal Democrats down to single figures. Now seemed like an appropriate time to ask Michael how the Conservative Party was faring in the coalition. Suddenly the conversation took a turn. No longer were we discussing the hardships of the nation, instead the reformer within Mr Fallon took the mike. “[It] seems a very strange consequence”, he said, but the coalition means that the Conservative party “are now able to do some things which we may have had great difficulty in doing had we won the election outright”. Listing off aspirations, Michael’s excitement showed. Welfare reform, education reform and “shaking up the NHS” were all projects, he said, which may not have been implemented with a weak Parliamentary majority.

Michael had written, in October of 2010, that the Conservatives would stand by their values throughout their time in coalition government, and after. I asked Mr Fallon to what extent this had remained true four months on. He admitted that there had been some compromises. The renewal of trident has been delayed, and capital gains tax has been raised above the manifesto level. However, the compromises and policy changes coming from the Liberal Democrats have not represented a reduction in Conservative conviction. The use of pupil premiums and the increase in tax allowances for the poorest, he claimed, “are very Conservative things”.

However, the need to preserve values whilst joining together two parties requires a careful balance. We “have to be careful here not to end up

with some Conservative achievements and some Liberal Democrat achievements.” Although Michael rejected swiftly John Major’s suggestion that the coalition should join together to run for the next election, stating that it would be impossible to “persuade either party to merge its identity with the other”, he emphasised that “both parties have to take responsibility for all the policies and all the decisions”.

Close ideology on policy areas of education and taxation help the coalition to stay consistent. The Liberal Democrats, although they have “modified their positions once they’ve come to the reality of government” have come together and “been pretty constructive overall”. Even the most left wing of the Lib Dems “want to see the coalition succeed”. An example of the coalition working together, Michael claimed, was the reform to the curriculum in the form of the English Baccalaureate.

Justifying this change, Michael said that “Softer GCSEs… have been a bit of a deception. They have deluded a lot of previous school leavers into believing that they were properly equipped for university or indeed for working life”. The coalition hopes that creating a more rigorous GCSE system will help to create “higher aspirations and higher standards” ensuring that no one is “deterred from pursuing a more academic route to university”.

Finally our conversation turned to the economy. With negative growth in the last quarter, I asked Michael if he was optimistic about the recovery. “Over the longer term, yes”, he responded “we’ve taken the measures needed both to stimulate growth and to control the deficit”. He claimed that following every recession there are “choppy periods where growth falters, [which were] combined… with one month of particularly bad weather.” Although a double-dip recession is “theoretically possible” he warned that we should not “get bewitched by one month or one quarter’s figures. What we need to do is get the long term changes in the economy right”.

Michael continued to establish the four reasons that, he believes, the growth under New Labour was “pretty unsustainable”: “it centred around a housing boom, a banking boom and public spending out of control and immigration out of control”. He considers that the coalition’s policies, which have already pushed through cuts in corporation tax and reduction in regulation on business, are “doing the things that will help create growth”, a more stable growth than was seen under New Labour. These policies should have the result of creating “the foundations for a better balanced economy in which the financial sector, especially the banking sector, will be slightly smaller than it was at the height of the boom, and that’s a good thing.”

Thus, with headlines riddled with speculation over the possibility of a double-dip recession and discontent being felt both in the polls and in the streets, Michael Fallon is adamant that there is still a bright future for the Conservative Party, the coalition and the nation it will leave. He hopes, and believes, that the coalition’s aims will be achieved; that the economy will recover, education will be improved and the NHS will become more productive. The coalition has faced opposition throughout its existence however, regardless of disagreement over the ways and the means, the ideology and the values; these are aims, at least, which we can all agree on.