LL-L "Afrikaans" 2004.04.18 (01) [E]

Sun Apr 18 17:57:04 UTC 2004

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 18.APR.2004 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
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: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Afrikaans" 2004.04.17 (02) [A/E]

Elsie wrote:
"If you question this, you have to question, to mention just a few
historical possibilities, the Angles and Saxons' place in the British Isles,
the American's place in the USA, or English in Australia."

I have long made it no secret that I would rather the Angles and Saxons had
never conquered Britain, and their descendants the English never conquered
Cornwall, Ireland, North America or Australasia. And I say that as someone
with an Australian wife and many relatives in Australia, Canada and the
United States.

Whether colonisation (and eradication) of indigenous peoples (whether they
be Khoikhoi, Aboriginal Australian, Celtic or pre-Indo-European) is a common
process in history or not, it is not something of which anyone should be
proud. Likewise, the descendants of colonisers (whether Afrikaner,
Australian or anyone else) should not be persecuted merely for having the
misfortune of being born into such societies - an act over which they had no
control. Yet they should equally not try to gerrymander history so they
appear indigenous which, it should be stressed, is the final act of
colonialism. When colonising cultures (whether English in Britain, or
Netherlandic in South Africa, or Anglo-Saxon in Australia) can claim
indigeinity, colonialism has triumphed.

Go raibh maith agat

Criostóir.

----------

From: Terrence Connor <tconnor at broadpark.no>
Subject: LL-L "Afrikaans" 2004.04.17 (02) [A/E]

Goeie môre laaglanders

I have to admit I am loving this discussion and it has been difficult not to
answer, but as someone who has Afrikaans heritage, I feel I must. Yes and
this discussion is vey political.

Questions to those in the know:

Exactly when does a language become eligible for native status? ( I don't
see how Afrikaans can be native to any other place than Southern Africa,
unless you want to group all the Germanic languages together and say that
they originated in one little valley who knows where. ) Is English "native"
to the British Isles?

Are Sotho (both of them), Tswana, Zulu, QuaQua, Ndebele, Xhosa, Venda, etc
etc. "native" to South Africa or do they originate in the Rift Valley and
the rest of east, central Africa like Afrikaans originates from Dutch which
everyone knows is European. Is this language debate of a  continental or
colour nature?  Where do we draw the language family barriers?

Afrikaans would not be what it is today if it wasn't for that it was native
to Africa. Everyone that speaks Afrikaans at home in Southern Africa has
either a Boer ( those early Dutch, German, French, Belgian, Irish an
Scandinavian settlers) African, or South East Asian blood heritage ..... and
most probably all three, eventhough many would be horrified to know it. But
it is still African

By the way, as far as I am concerned, all afrikaners considered themselves
Boers at one point. Everyone knows where they originate and since the Dutch
are such a tolerant nation, it must be Africa afterall why did the call
their language Afrikaans which simply means African.

Sorry to add this one last tit bit but some I don't remeber who, made a
refence to the fact that Afrikaaners are not/were not very tolerant and
found it surprising that they had the same heritage (50%) as the tolerant
Dutch. The architect of Apartheid Dr. H. Verwoerd was a Dutchman born in
Amsterdam of two Dutch parents.Not a Boerand  not an Afrikaaner. Correct me
if I am wrong.

Personally I would much rather read about / discuss linguistics : adjectival
inflections Zuid Hollands. etc when it comes to Afrikaans. I guess some
topics are a bit close to heart.

Regards

Terrence

----------

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

Folks,

Perhaps we should, as much as possible, try to get away from simplistic and
wishful thought models.  I cannot speak for Elsie, but perhaps this is what
was written between her lines.

I would be the last person to advocate or be apologistic about imperialism
and colonization.  Of course I would never advocate or turn a blind eye to
such things in the present and in the future.  However, I like to think that
I am grown-up and realistic enough to understand that the clock of history
cannot be turned back and that billions of human beings that were born into
the consequences of historical events and human migration (under whatever
circumstances) -- descendants of supposed "aggressors" and "victims"
alike -- cannot be made unborn.

For example, Brasilians, of whatever "race" and ethnic background, cannot be
turned back into Portuguese, Africans, Germans, Italians, etc., leave alone
the fact that most of them are of mixed background.  Whatever happened in
the past, they are Brasilians now, and no consternation about historical
events is going to change that.  Likewise, Afrikaners are not going to be
changed back into whatever their various ancestors were.  Like it or not,
they, their culture and their language exist now, cannot be disassembled and
turned back into "Dutch," Zeelandic, French, German and whatever other
admixture, and, in my opinion, it behooves us to love and respect them as
much as any other human being.  It is highly simplistic and naive to see
them simply as "Dutch colonizers," just as it is to see Southern Africa
simply in terms of black and white.  Afrikaners (or whatever individuals
care to be called) have lived in Southern Africa for centuries, and their
lives, culture, language and ways of thinking are unique to that part of the
world.  This is a fact and should be seen as unrelated to whatever deeds
were done by or are attributed to their ancestors.  Similarly, the
Bantu-speaking populations of Southern Africa are ancestors of colonizers
from up north that partly replaced and partly absorbed the Khoi-San
populations that had been there already (and who knows who may have lived
there before them?).

I have always been and always will be concerned and compassionate about the
fates of "native" populations in colonization situations and their
aftermaths, such as the earlier settlers of the Americas, Greenland,
Australia, New Zealand, Polynesia, Siberia and Eastern Central Asia.
However, this does not mean that I do not feel much compassion with the
descendants of the colonizers as well.  We cannot do anything about the past
except study and analyze it and learn from it.  But we can do a lot about
the future.  Pointing fingers at people on the basis of their attributed
ancestry and states as "natives" vs "colonizers" is going to accomplish
nothing constructive; it only helps to perpetuate grudges and divisions.

Who is "native" and who is not?  How do you determine this?  Is there a
timeline scheme that allows us to measure and classify people, cultures and
languages in these terms?  Strictly speaking, the Celtic cultures and
languages of Britain, Man and Ireland are not native.  They represent one of
many strata, this one having been created by the supposedly first wave of
Indo-European settlers (colonizers?), added to whatever strata existed there
before, going back to a time when Celts spread over much of Europe --
apparently not over a previously unpopulated area, mind you.  Likewise,
Germanic culture and language in Eastern Germany is a stratum on top of one
or more Slavonic ones, which rest on top of an earlier Germanic one, which
rests on top of unknown, supposedly non-Indo-European ones.  Do we *really*
know if Siberian settlers in America were the first humans on that soil?
(Considering genetic research and diversity, they may not have been.)  The
Yakuts of Yakutia, Eastern Siberia, referred to as the "native" population
in terms of Russian colonization, are descendants of Turkic-speaking
colonizers from what is now Mongolia, intermarried and Siberianized in the
"new" land.  Who in the world can really claim to be of truly "native"
stock?  How do we measure these things to justify this type of labeling?
How many grudges can we bear about past attrocities that cannot be undone?
Is it not more important to deal with what we have now, hold on to what we
consider beautiful and useful and move on by turning these things into
something that can make all our lives better?

Regards,
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.
======================================================================