[An-lang] Malay in broader terms

[Fay Wouk]

>--- David Gil <gil at eva.mpg.de> wrote:
>
>>>   From the above, it should be obvious that for linguistic and
>>  ethnographic discourse, the more limited Indonesian usage is more
>>  precise and hence more appropriate than the broader Malaysian one.  And
>>  it would also seem to be preferable on ethical grounds.  Maybe Pilipinos
>>  don't mind being called Malays, but many Indonesians of other
>>  ethnicities would find this very strange.  Using Malay as a cover terms
>>  for Minangkabau, Javanese, Bugis and so forth is a bit like using German
>>  as a cover term for Swedish, Dutch, English and so on.
>
>This is very helpful. Thanks.
>
>Now, on Wikipedia, I have someone who objected to the use of "ethnic
>Austronesian." I plan on responding to this person over the weekend, but I
>would like your or any body else's insight as well. I want to reconcile this
>issue, but I feel my expertise to be inadequate. He brought up the
>Indo-Europeans, but I feel that this doesn't really compare. Or does it?

 From an anthropological perspective, it does. (I'm not an
anthropologist per se, but after 10 years in an anthropology
department, I know a fair bit about it.) Your Wikipedia person is
right that 'ethnic Austronesian' doesn't make sense. The problem is,
of course, that Malay was supposed to refer to a racial type, and
race is not the same as ethnicity. Many anthropologists now say race
is a cultural phenomenon, not a biological one, and don't want to
refer to racial groups, only to ethnic groups. But they are not the
same thing. There are populations that differ in biological descent.

First, you need to decide whether you are talking about biology or
ethnicity. In the Philippines, there are lots of different ethnic
groups speaking Austronesian languages. My understanding is that some
of them are descended (biologically, genetically) mainly from
Austronesian immigrants, and some of them are mainly descended from
pre-Austronesian populations. (Of course, there is admixture. People
do not respect linguistic, cultural or biological boundaries when it
comes to mating.)

If you are referring to biology, that is, to populations who look
physically different from each other, but who belong to a variety of
ethnic groups, you need to make it clear that the term you are using
does not refer to either language or culture. Then you can really use
any term you like. You could use Austronesian, or Malay. But you
can't throw ethnic in there.

And yes, Indo-European is very comparable. There is a language group.
There is huge biological difference between the populations using
these languages, from Scandinavian types to Indian types. In the same
way, Austronesian language are spoken by 'Malay' looking people, and
also by very different physical types in Melanesia and Polynesia.

However, the notion of a 'Malay archipelago' is a bit weird. There is
a Malay peninsula, and Indonesian archipelago and a Philippine
archipelago. And I doubt it was ever correct to consider the entire
area a single group ethnically. So Malay may not be the best choice.

But why not refer to Pilipinos as Pilipinos? Wouldn't that be simplest?

Or do you really want to talk about race, and biological similarities
between those Pilipinos and Malays and Indonesians (not the whole
population of any country) who are descended mainly from Austonesian
speaking immigrants some thousands of years ago? If so, know that you
are opening a can of worms, since biological differences and
similarities between populations are a politically incorrect topic.

Fay

--
Dr. Fay Wouk
Senior Lecturer in Linguistics
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019
Auckland
New Zealand
f.wouk at auckland.ac.nz
_______________________________________________
An-lang mailing list
An-lang at anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/an-lang