LL-L "Terminology" 2009.05.11 (06) [EN]

[Lowlands-L List]

===========================================
L O W L A N D S - L - 11 May 2009 - Volume 06
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
===========================================

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

Folks,

As on most Monday evenings, tonight I watched another installment of
Deutsche Welle TV’s English language report series *European Journal*.

Today I was struck by the portrayal of the Sámi ("Lapp") as "indigenous
people":

"The Sámi are an indigenous people, one of the last in Europe. ..."
[http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4227371,00.html]

I am not quite sure how to understand this.

I do understand why we refer to the first nations of the Americas, of
Australia, of Siberia etc., "indigenous": we are aware of fairly recent
European colonization of those regions.

I am not necessarily rejecting Deutsche Welle's portrayal. I am merely
challenging, or rather wondering about the categorization. What makes the
Sámi "indigenous", as opposed to "ethnic and linguistic minorities" such as
the Pomaks of Greece, the Sorbs of Germany, the Frisians of Germany and the
Netherlands, and the Basques of Spain and France? Or are they "indigenous"
too? Are the Occitans of Southern France "indigenous" since they were there
and spoke their own language before the French took over? Are the Welsh
indigenous Britons and the "Anglo-Saxons" are not? Are Low Saxon ("Low
German") speaking people of Northern Germany and the Eastern Netherlands
"indigenous" Saxon remnants that were there prior to German and Dutch power
encroachment?

Is there some awareness that the Germanic- and Finnish-speaking populations
of the Nordic countries are relative newcomers to that part of the world,
while the Sámi are the aboriginals .. at least as far as we know ... or
assume? Or is it that traditional culture and lifestyle of the Sámi appear
alien to mainstream Europe? Are they seen as relic *Naturkinder *with their
originally nomadic, reindeer-herding lifestyle on par with American
"Indians" and non-European Siberians? Their languages are related to those
of the Finns, Karelians, Estonians and Livonians. So why are these not
"indigenous"? Or are they?

What thinking, if any, is behind the distinctive label "indigenous" within a
European context?

Alltied den Düvel sien Afkaat,
Reinhard/Ron
Seattle, USA

•

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

*********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20090511/9c6e0c7a/attachment.htm>