LL-L "Language use" 2005.05.14 (03) [E/German/Spanish]

Tue Jun 14 16:23:50 UTC 2005

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 14.JUN.2005 (03) * 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 (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: jonny <jonny.meibohm at arcor.de>
Subject: LL-L "Language use" 2005.06.13 (05) [E/German/Portuguese/Spanish]

Ed Alexander schrieb als Kommentar zu T. Byro:

> I could say (in jest), "well, what do you expect from a German", but this
> would only add fuel to the fire.
>
> Ed Alexander

Ein völlig überflüssiger, saudummer "Scherzspruch", wie auch immer er zu
interpretieren ist!

NB: auf deutschen Gymnasien ist Spanisch, nach Englisch und Französisch, die
beliebteste Fremdsprache.

MfG

Johannes "Jonny" Meibohm

----------

From: Brooks, Mark <mark.brooks at twc.state.tx.us>
Subject: LL-L "Language use" 2005.06.13 (05) [E/German/Portuguese/Spanish]

En un e-mail anterior (no me acuerdo de quien) se mencionó que los parlantes
del portugués no se consideran "hispanic".  Hace una década más o menos, yo
ocupaba un trabajo en que administré un examen del Departamento de Trabajo
de los EEUU.  El examen se llamó General Aptitude Test Battery, y una
sección pidió la raza o grupo étnico.  Según las reglas vigentes en esa
década, una persona con una herencia de la península ibérica se consideraba
¨hispanic¨.  Me acuerdo muy bien cuando informé a una brasileña que se
consideraba hispana según nosotros.  Ella rehusó enfaticamente a marcarse
hispana en el formulario.  Fué así como yo la había insultado profundamente.
¡Qué manera de aprender ese punto delicado!  :-0

Mark Brooks

----------

From: jean duvivier <duvassoc at comcast.net>
Subject: LL-L "Language use" 2005.06.13 (08) [E]

Ron,

Your comments are entirely accurate. I never understood why the PC crowd
insists  on labeling "Hispanics" those Spanish speaking people from Central
America and the Caribbean, who as you say are more often than not mestizos
or cholos, and ignore the Chileans, Argentines, Venezuelans, etc.. who are
"criollos" that is of white Spanish origin. Again why do they ignore the
Portuguese and Brazilians ?, it is all a sad example of the arbitrary and
obsolete way of looking at people.
I would have thought that this disappeared when the Nazis bit the dust, but
of course it is still with us.

Jean

----------

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

I have heard people in the US refer to "Hispanics," and to some degree also
to "Asians" (another catch-all label) and African Americans, as "privileged"
or "pampered" minorities, in part because of advancement programs (most of
them now scrapped in many states) and in part because of their visibility in
the media.

Someone tried to tell me that Univision, a Spanish language TV channel
accessible all over the country, was just another sign of this.  She seemed
to assume that it was part and parcel of the government's pampering.  In
reality it is a privately, predominantly Hispanic owned company that
capitalizes on the vast number of Spanish speakers in the United States.
Spanish-speaking consumers are a force to be reckoned with, an enormous and
fast growing consumer pool.  Not capitalizing on it in a capitalist system
would be gross folly.  The same person said that media of this kind only
serves to retard Hispanics' integration, by which I assumed she meant loss
of Spanish in favor of English.  This goes to exemply attitudes and biased
interpretation.  People have a right to choose.  The channel gives folks
what they want, and this is how they sell commercial time and make loads of
money.  If you go to some places in California you will see street
advertizing, including large billboards, in Spanish only.  Those private
enterprise folks ain't stupid.  They know that English language advertising
would be far, far less lucrative in such areas.  And so things take their
"natural" course.  In larger cities of California, there are a number of
Spanish-speaking TV and radio channels in a given place.  The demand is
there, plus it's great for folks like me who enjoy certain Spanish language
programs and use them to improve their language skills.  (Please bear in
mind that Spanish is by far the most studied second language in the US and
that in the Southwest the term "bilingual" refers by default to "English and
Spanish.")

Perhaps I am deluded, but I assume that minorities that feel that their
language and culture are appreciated are more likely to be happy and thus
good citizens, and as such they will figure out by themselves that they must
become proficient in the country's lingua franca.

Jean:

> Your comments are entirely accurate. I never understood why the PC crowd
> insists  on labeling "Hispanics" those Spanish speaking people from
> Central
> America and the Caribbean, who as you say are more often than not mestizos
> or cholos, and ignore the Chileans, Argentines, Venezuelans, etc.. who are
> "criollos" that is of white Spanish origin. Again why do they ignore the
> Portuguese and Brazilians ?, it is all a sad example of the arbitrary and
> obsolete
> way of looking at people.

Although I don't really approve of PC bashing, I agree with you.  The type
of thinking we are talking about was very, very strange to me when I first
came to this country, and it took studying US history more closely to
understand the baggage behind it.  People still tend to think in terms of
racial categories and to simplify the categorization.  They do the latter
obviously because their heads would explode if they paid attention to all
the variations.  (The simple solution of not thinking in racial terms to
begin with has not occurred to most because categorization is too deeply
ingrained.)  If you show just the teensiest bit of African physical
attributes you are "Black," or "African American" in prettied-up terms, and
your European, Native American or Asian admixtures are unimportant, are
overridden, no matter how dominant.  In some cases I can't even see "the
African blood" when born Americans point it out to me.  Unfortunately, the
majority of Americans of African origin participate in this for their own
reasons, and thus it is perpetuated.  People have tried to pretty up the
terminology (e.g., "race" > "ethnicity" > "culture", "multiracial" >
"multicultural" > "diverse").  However, the way of thinking has not changed
significantly (except among some currently rather young people, thank
goodness).  Also, this may explain why so few "Americans" -- and there are
many of them -- admit having indigenous ancestors.

I personally believe that this stems from a combination of racist relics and
guilt complexes regarding slavery of Africans and genocide of indigenous
people.  These were committed or continued by "Americans" *after* they
severed ties with Britain.  Thus, these acts cannot be blamed on colonial
power alone.  In Latin America, on the other hand, slavery and genocide were
committed largely by Spanish and Portuguese power, and the Spanish and
Portuguese have been kicked out.  It was therefore easier for Latin
Americans to make a clean sweep and, to a degree at least, to sympathize and
have good relations with indigenous people and descendants of African
slaves.  ("All of us had suffered under colonial power, and this is a new
day for all of us.")  My wife (who is of part Native American and African
descent) and I tend to be far better received among Latin Americans than
among "Gringos" (and this includes Canada, where we have had a few
unpleasant experiences).  We feel rather "light" in Mexico.  I have been
looking at the "Black Mexicans" of the Costa Chica (states of Guerrero and
Oaxaca) and of Veracruz (e.g., http://www.afromexico.com/).  Although I
don't think their history has been a bed of roses, racist acts against them
do not stand out (even though they retain some African cultural and
religious remnants), their presence has strongly influenced the general
cultures of their areas, and the people in question seem to be enthusiastic
Mexicans -- a type of Mexicans the world knows little about.

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