As readers of this column may know by now, I am a word person.

Words, their histories, and their shifting meanings across linguistic barriers and over time draw me.

Like swivel — noun and verb — which are ultimately derived from the Old English swivana, “to sweep, to sweep, to rotate.” But by the mid 14th Century when Chaucer wrote The Canterbury Tales in Middle English, it meant “to have sex with,” in the coarsest, umm, present day sense of that word.

And how could “poopnoddy” have ever meant “love”as it did to Elizabethan ears?

While my interest has never gotten me a single invitation to a party or social gathering, and indeed, may have even earned me a lifetime ban, it’s brought me a lot of pleasure over the years.

Which is why I am compelled at this moment to lace up the boxing gloves, step into the ring and fight for a word that lately has taken a hell of a beating: annexation.

In the broad sense, the word means “to attach to,” or “add to.” Anyhow, that’s what the White House wants us to believe it means with its recent talk about “annexing” Canada and the semi-autonomous nation of Greenland.

While annexation has meant different things over time and in different contexts, in the context of international law today, it is the forcible acquisition and assertion of legal title over one state’s territory by another state, typically after military occupation of that territory. And in international law, it is generally held to be illegal.

It has nothing to do with “cession,” the process by which territory is peacefully given or sold through treaty.

So, if you’re a big, powerful country and you want to take over a smaller country, or a piece of it, you’ll typically do so after your military forces have occupied it. Even states carrying out annexation, for example, Russia, recognize this and typically avoid using the word to describe their actions. Does the present administration know this? Maybe it does, but doesn’t care? Our diplomats certainly should.

Among history’s most infamous examples of annexation were Nazi Germany’s sham annexation (Anschluss) of Austria that same year.

Funny, how, according to the Gestapo’s own investigation, the majority of Austrians opposed the Anschluss, but 99 percent of them ended up voting for it. How did that happen?

While in general, annexation can be be legitimized by other states and international bodies, judging by the world’s reaction to what the present administration is saying, legitimization is doubtful. The only head of state who supports the United States in this matter at the moment is Vladimir Putin.

It’s important to bear in mind that Greenland and Canada have repeatedly and forcefully said “leave us alone, we’re happy as we are.” Last week, the common folk of Greenland refused the invitation to chat with any of the visiting contingent of our high ranking officials, including the vice president and the director of national security. Ostensibly, the yanks had come to parlay, but as the Greenlanders saw it, they were there to bully, bluster, brow beat, and intimidate them into submission. In effect, the people of Greenland told us to shove it.

And given these ominous words of our chief executive, who can blame them: “We’ll get Greenland one way or the other.” And didn’t the guy at the top say just the other day he would “not rule out the use of military force” to get Greenland?

Reminds me of “manifest destiny,” the doctrine that people in the 19th Century declared allowed this country to roll over Native Americans. Or even the shameful way the owners of the sugar plantations in Hawaii wrestled it from the Native Hawaiians.

Speaking for myself, I don’t want any more of that. Bet I’m not alone.

–

Robert Whale can be reached at robert.whale@auburn-reporter.com.