LL-L "Language varieties" 2003.01.15 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 15.JAN.2003 (04) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 http://www.lowlands-l.net * admin at lowlands-l.net * Encoding: Unicode UTF-8
 Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm
 Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
 Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
 Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
=======================================================================
 You have received this because you have been subscribed upon request.
 To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l" as message
 text from the same account to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or
 sign off at <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
 L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
 S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: Criostoir O Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2003.01.14 (05) [D/E]


Ian,

 "Well I guess we have to agree to disagree."

Indeed. As you I hope you realise, no malice is mixed in with the
disagreement. Disagreement is the lifeblood of discussion and debate, after
all.

"'British South Africans' are quite different from
Canadians or Australians or any others, in that they
are a comparatively small minority in their country
numerically and their 'British' identity therefore
shows rather more clearly compared to other cultures -
that is to say 'British' in a cultural rather than
national sense."

Possibly, although the British-born in Canada (some 650,000 in 31 million)
and in the United States (670,000 in approximately 290 million) seem to
present even greater numerical minorities than in South Africa. Perhaps the
apartheid experience encouraged a greater identification with Britain on the
part of the British-born there, I don't know. Perhaps because the
British-born there were a relatively privileged minority within white
society, they clung to a sense of Britishness more so than their
counterparts in Canada or elsewhere (although I would imagine British-born
subjects - some haven't yet become Australian citizens - aligned with One
Nation in Australia would be roughly the same).

"And I have to say I have visited Australia, Canada and
the United States and the UK is much less the focus of
the news in those countries (declining in order) than
is the case in South Africa. Something as minor as
changes to the British drink licensing laws on the
Australian news...?"

I have yet to visit South Africa, Canada or the United States but I know
many, many South Africans in Australia and have the usual network of family
in Canada and the US. If you look at the ABC (Australian Broadcasting
Corporation) website at www.abc.net.au/news, there's still a fair amount of
British-interest news there, some of it quite ephemeral (gossip, etc), and I
did indeed read of the drink licensing law change there - it was presented,
if I recall, as a quaint, "fancy that" mention, in part I suspect because it
was an excuse to write mischievous screeds about poms and warm beer. I think
the Australian (www.theaustralian.com.au) and the West Australian
(www.thewest.com.au) reported it too, but you'd have to check.

It may interest you to know that many of the South Africans I know are
Afrikaans-speaking Coloureds - some of whom still cling to the 'status' of
their British Subject passports! Clearly senses of Britishness about South
Africans aren't merely the domain of the white, British-born or
British-descended minority.

Tá fáilte romhat mo chara,

Criostóir.

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language varieties

As a footnote, let me add, in case people aren't aware of it already, that
since recently Australia no longer requires people who become naturalized
(i.e., choose to become Australian citizens) to forfeit their previous
citizenships.  This means that citizens of most countries now can have both
citizenships.  (U.S. citizens are in a somewhat ambiguous situation in that
*in theory*, i.e. by the exact letter of U.S. law, they could lose their
citizenship if they *choose* another one, but this seems to have been
ignored so far, as in the case of the considerable number of U.S. citizens
who have become Canadian and Australian citizens in addition.)

British citizens, like citizens of some other countries (e.g., Greece and
Israel), will by default retain their "nationality" and thus their original
citizenship irrespective of what other citizenships they may take on.
Moreover, their foreign-born children and grandchildren will be considered
British nationals if they choose to move to the United Kingdom, will at
least be entitled to long-term visas and work permits.  (You have to prove
that you have at least one British grandparent.)  Thus, the only thing a
British citizen would lose by becoming a citizen of another country would be
that their great-grandchildren and their offspring would not be considered
British.  Many people in Commonwealth countries, especially "immigration
countries," are aware of this "perk" British people have (though few U.S.
citizens are aware of it).  In my experience, people with this knowledge,
especially in countries in which there are certain prejudices against or
"sensitivities" vis-Ã -vis British, especially English, immigrants, will
often judge British immigrants by whether or not they are prepared to become
citizens of the new country.  Not becoming naturalized after many years of
residency is often seen as a negative sign, as a rejection of the host
country's people, as indicative of a "colonial attitude," certainly as
deliberately retained, if not emphasized, formal ties with their native
country/countries.

I wonder if this comes into play in the case of British people in South
Africa, if under the apartheid regime relatively few of them chose to become
South African citizens and thus formally embrace "South-African-dom."

Cheers!
Reinhard/Ron

==================================END===================================
* Please submit postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
* Postings will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
  to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
  <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 =======================================================================