LL-L "Language politics" 2005.04.08 (08) [E]

Fri Apr 8 23:19:10 UTC 2005

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 08.APR.2005 (08) * 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
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.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 (ZeÃªuws)
=======================================================================

From: kt4nn at juno.com <kt4nn at juno.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2005.04.08 (03) [E]

> So lets not fight a lost cause but CONCENTRATE on
> safeguarding our linguistic diversity in face, and with
> the HELP of English.

I agree with Mike. English can provide the enterprise to give Germanic
Languages opportunity.

The linguistic diversity begins at home. But many have no spouse or children
to pass the language down.

But we can learn more language until something happens.

      Peter Sorensen

----------

From: Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2005.04.08 (05) [E]

Mike, the problem with your suggestion about Letzebuergesch is that
the common viewpoint in Luxembourg will most likely be that it isn't
economically viable (although it really is; it's just going to be hard
for people to fathom an international business haven in Luxembourg
with such restrictions).

Re the French interior ministry's comments on "patois": The entire
post-revolutionary French government should be shot. Seriously, these
people care more about national unity than the concerns of their
constituents. La franÃ§ais est la langue de la republique, no matter
what!!! You want to have a Breton-medium public school? Our answer: La
franÃ§ais est la langue de la republique. You want to require all civil
servants in the French portion of Basque country have a certain degree
of Basque fluency? La franÃ§ais est la langue de la republique. You
want to set up a regional parliament with the regional language as a
co-official language? La franÃ§ais est la langue de la republique. You
want to? La franÃ§ais est la langue de la republique. You? La franÃ§ais
est la langue de la republique. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts - la
franÃ§ais est la langue de la republique, and a tool for linguistic
oppression of les minoritÃ©s at that.

Mark

----------

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

I agree with Mike (yes, Mike, buddy, I do agree with you at times) at least
as much (but actually more than) that it is nice to see so much passionate
response to this topic (Mike's not coming as a surprise, of course).  It is
heartening to see that a lot of thinking about this subject area is going
on, and I sense many a glimpse of wisdom in the postings.

With time (and maturity or simply "crotchetiness") it is becoming
increasingly obvious to me that in European language politics people tend to
deal with surface symptoms more than with underlying causes, more than with
age-old ingrained views and attitudes.  Despite much talk about unity,
Europe has really not evolved very far from the tribal society stage, at
which one tribe has one language (variety). This has been expanded to the
nation state, as if to a super-tribe, which in a way it is, the historical
pattern being that one tribe conquers others, creates a "federation" and
imposes its culture, beliefs and language on the conquered.  It ought
therefore not come as a surprise if the thought pattern "unity requires
uniformity" still predominates, most clearly expressed in France and Greece
and lately also in the Czech Republic.  It does not matter how much and how
passionately you praise the idea of diversity within unity, the average
European -- having seen ideologies come and go -- sticks to the ideal of
"one country, one language," pays lip-service at best, and considers
alienation between related people across arbitrary political boundaries a
price that needs to be paid.  People, languages and cultures are being filed
away in compartments.

In my experience, the average European still considers diversity within one
country a negative thing, a type of obstacle or hardship that needs to be
dealt with by removing it.  This comes to the fore most clearly in
xenophobic expressions regarding "foreigners" (which may have lived within a
given country all their lives, or for generations, if not for centuries).
We saw it happen during the last Danish and Dutch election campaigns, both
countries considered "liberal" by most standards, also in the recent school
attire debacle in France ("Islamic dress is un-French"), and in many a
European politician's chauvinistic remarks about Turkey's ambitions to join
the European Union, and we see it in Germany's persistence in labeling and
treating generations of German-born Turks and others as "foreigners," just
as generation after generation of locally born Roma and Jews have
traditionally been seen and treated.

>From xenophobia vis-Ã -vis real or labeled foreigners to xenophobia vis-Ã -vis
indigenous minorities is but a tiny step.  By speaking differently you
declare yourself a type of foreign body, and that's not a good thing,
especially when you have been given glorious opportunities for "upgrading"
to a new nationalized person.  Given such attitudes, why should people want
to embrace diversity and pay for it, pay for "special" (= "foreign")
education that perpetuates the "foreignness" of "those people"?

When I visit Europe and share such observations and views, people tend to
react with attitudes like "it's really more complex than you know" and "it's
easy for you to judge, being used to living in melting pots."  The
underlying tenor tends to be that places like the Americas and Australia
have *chosen* diversity, that it is self-imposed, that places like Britain,
France, Belgium and the Netherlands are paying for having colonial pasts,
while most of Europe didn't ask for it, can't or won't put up with it.

I firmly believe that reluctance and hostility vis-Ã -vis European language
rights are rooted in all of this and that nothing will change unless more
fundamental attitudes change.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

P.S.: But then again, perhaps I *am* just weird as a result of being
European, Australian and (as of next Monday afternoon) American at the same
time.

==============================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.
======================================================================