LL-L "Genealogy" 2004.09.29 (11) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 29.SEP.2004 (11) * 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 "Genealogy" 2004.09.29 (08) [E]

John Feather wrote:
> Please let's not be so sensitive about these things. I took it that
> "civilized" was either
> 1) ironic
> 2) Spenglerian
> 3) one of those errors which we frequently find in Lowlands postings and
> usually politely ignore.
> ...
> Why do we pick sides among our ancestors? Would Gabriele's daughter be
> better off without her European heritage?

Without her European heritage, my daughter would only be six percent of a
person, so I guess she would certainly not be better off that way.

But this is totally besides the point. Please let us actually be VERY
sensitive about these things, especially in the light of recent developments
in world politics. I would go as far as not dropping the concept of
"civilizing" other cultures and nations altogether. After all, Lower Saxons
were "civilized" into speaking German, just like the Welsh, Irish and Scots
were "civilized" into dropping their mother tongues to be replaced by
English - to name just one aspect, which, however, is of the greatest
importance on this board. Not to mention the many, many other aspects. I
believe that the concept of "civilizing" another country invites the notion
that some cultures, races, languages, or people are better than others, and
I want the person who wrote this (was it you, John?) to be very aware of
this, because I am sure (s)he did not mean it that way.

The late Mahatma Gandhi was once asked: "What do you think of Western
civilization?". He replied: "Well, I think it would be a great idea."

Civilized greetings from the peanut gallery (my favourite is Linus,
actually...)
Gabriele Kahn

----------

From: Uilleam Òg mhic Sheumais <goidel.glas at gmail.com>
Subject: LL-L "Genealogy" 2004.09.29 (08) [E]

Latha math, Lowlanders;

John wrote:
> As to the Cherokee, according to my encyclopaedia they originally lived
near
> the Great Lakes until driven out to the SE, nowhere the New York area, by
> the Iroquois who were a thoroughly nasty bunch. Sorry, who had cultural
> traditions which happened to involve beating everyone else up and
enslaving
> them.

So, John, I'm assuming your article said nothing of the Trail of
Tears? or the fact that the Cherokee was cheated by first Europeans,
then the American government? I think that the Americans were very
much the same if not worse when it came to 'beating everyone else up
and enslaving them'. Apparently you are woefully ignorant of the
history of the Native American. I suggest you pick up a copy of _Bury
My Heart at Wounded Knee_ by Dee Brown and then a copy of _Custer Died
for Your Sins_ by Vine DeLoria, Jr.

>Why do we pick sides among our ancestors? Would Gabriele's daughter be
>better off without her European heritage?

No-one's picking sides. She's saying that using the word "civilize" in
that context is Eurocentric and offensive to the cultures that went
before - some of which still survive. Beautiful, human cultures -
human because they had both bad and good, like all civilizations that
have ever existed. Using the word "civilize" is insensitive to the
devestation the Europeans and following them the Americans visited,
and still visit, upon the Native.

Basically, it's a good idea not to use the word "civilize" when
talking about the interactions of two cultures. Take a look at it from
the flip side. Maybe the Wampanoag thought they were civilizing the
Puritans during King Philip's War. Maybe the Indians saw the European
& American theft of their country and rape of their culture as
"de-civilizing".

Beannachdan,
Uilleam Òg mhic Sheumais

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