LL-L "Afrikaans" 2004.04.15 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 15.APR.2004 (02) * 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: Global Moose Translations <globalmoose at t-online.de>
Subject: LL-L "Afrikaans" 2004.04.15 (01) [E]

> Speakers of Afrikaans:
> 80.000 black
> 2.730.000 coloured
> 10.000 Asian
> 2.920.000 white

Maybe I missed something here, but could somebody please explain the
difference between "black" and "coloured" in this context?

Gabriele Kahn

----------

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

Marco quoted:

> Speakers of Afrikaans:
> 80.000 black
> 2.730.000 coloured
> 10.000 Asian
> 2.920.000 white

Where do the aboriginal "Khoi-San" fit in there, given that many (most?)
have become Afrikaans speakers?  Are they considered "black" if they are
deemed "pure" and "coloured" if they are deemed "mixed"?  I would hardly
call them "black" in any case (but then again, racial categorizations are
alien to my way of thinking, and I may be taking these labels literally when
I shouldn't).

Gabriele:

> Maybe I missed something here, but could somebody please explain the
> difference between "black" and "coloured" in this context?

I believe that "black" denotes "pure native Sub-Saharan African," while
"coloured" (Afrikaans _kleurig_) denotes "mixed race," often lumped together
with "Asian" (which under apartheid included South Asians, Southeast Asians
and East Asian but for economic reasons excluded the "honorary white"
Japanese ... usually not West Asians either, unless one of them happened to
look "too dark" ...).  However, what would I know?  I was more informed
about the categorization under apartheid (because it seemed so outrageous
that it was worthy of studying) than about post-apartheid categorization.
As Elsie mentioned, this old system occasionally led to even more absurd
allocations, based on individuals' looks.  On some occasions it even led to
splitting up families where one or more of the children were deemed to look
"suspiciously un-white" (or otherwise not like falling into a family's
racial category).  I heard of one case in which a daughter was allowed to
stay with her "white" family only if she was hired by them as a maid and
lived in a separate building ...

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