LL-L "Language politics" 2007.06.27 (04) [E]

Wed Jun 27 23:04:03 UTC 2007

=======================================================================

 L O W L A N D S - L * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226

 http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands.list at gmail.com

 Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.php

 Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org - lowlands.list at gmail.com

 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.]

 Administration: lowlands.list at gmail.com or sassisch at yahoo.com

 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 (Zeeuws)

=======================================================================

L O W L A N D S - L  -  27 June 2007 - Volume 04

 ========================================================================

From: Heiko Evermann <privat at evermann.de>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2007.06.27 (02) [E]

Hi Ron, hi everyone,

some thoughts of mine,
> Dear LLers,
> I am upset!
> I know there a Jutian minorities to the South of the border,
> and LS minorities to the North.
> I am revolted that the respective Central Government have
> hijacked these minorities to claim they are theirs.
Well, the government of Schleswig-Holstein does take care of the interests
of
the Germans on the other side of the border, just as the Danish government
does for the Danes on our side. I think that is perfectly normal. Who else
should assist these minorities if not the majorities from the other side of
the border.

> The matter of bilingual signs in Southern
> Jutland is indeed touchy since the Danish language was oppressed when the
> area was under German rule after 1871 and the memory of the
Nazi-occupation
> is still very much alive. It is somewhat similar as if there would be a
> call for bilingual signs in both Flamish and French in the Flemsh speaking
> part of Belgium.
That area became German in 1864, not in 1871. OK, it became Prussian, but
the
1864 was the first of the so-called "Einigungskriege" that led to the German
state of 1871.

> In addition, since the Napoleonic wars Denmark has been reduced to its
core
> which provoked a spirit to defend this core against any intruders, no
> matter what. Though in some ways I understand this it has also resulted
> recently in intolerance and racism as often expressed through the Danish
> People's Party (DF), Karup's comment in the article is an obvious hint
> where those people are coming from. Often their taste is not too far away
> from "Der Stuermer". There is also a prevailing opinion in Denmark that
> immigrants should adopt the culture of the host nation if they want to
live
> in Denmark and since the Germans in Southern Jutland emigrated once from
> further south they are regarded as the descendents of emigrants who should
> integrate in the Danish society. I often reply if this is valid globally
it
> is about time that the European descendents in the Americas, Africa and
> Australia/Oceania start learning the native languages and integrate in the
> native cultures. Now, how many Danes in North America do speak then any
> American-Indian language? Proabably not a single one.
There have been treaties about the protection of the minorities on both
sides
of the border. These treaties have been around for decades. It is sad that
obviously Denmark needs to be reminded of its obligations. Pacta sunt
servanda.

> Moreover, the German minority has been there for so long and certainly
> contributed substantially to the wealth of Danish population in Southern
> Jutland that I think they have the right to be represented when it comes
to
> signs as well. Often I think the issue would be more tolerable to many
> Danes if the German minority would re-discover their Hanseatic roots and
> with it the Low Saxon language of their forefathers, if a request for the
> bilingual signs would be done for adding the Low Saxon versions of the
> placenames in Southern Jutland this would probably be a lot more tolerable
> to many Danes. The problem is, that the Low Saxon forms are often not too
> different from the Danish and in particular Soenderjysk forms. At home we
> called the city of Aabenraa simply "Aap'nraadh", because Apenrade would be
> pronounced like that in our Low Saxon dialect and thus very similar to the
> Danish spelling and pronunciation, although in Soenderjysk it is actually
> pronounced "Affenraa". Haderslev would become "Hadhersleeven" or
> "Haa'rslee", just like Soenderjysk, Soenderborg would be "Sonderborgh" and
> Toender will actually be the German "Tondern". I could imagine if the
> German minority would bring the idea forward that this could ease
> reservations in Denmark, at least among the more liberal minded Danes.
> Whatever will happen now in Soednerjylland, it appears that the
> SH-government is committed to introduce bilingual signs no matter what and
> this is certainly welcomed by all linguistic groups in SH.
The question, whether to use Low Saxon or High German signs should lie
within
the discretion of the German minority in Denmark. My guess is that they
would
prefer High German.

Fortunately we do have the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Charter_for_Regional_or_Minority_Languages
and I think over time the rights that come with this charter will sink into
the minds of the people and I hope that in 20 years people will not
understand how on earth people in 2007 could be against German road signs in
Nordschlesvig.

Kind regards,

Heiko Evermann

----------

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

Hi, Heiko, and thanks for shedding more light on the issue.

You wrote among other things:

Well, the government of Schleswig-Holstein does take care of the interests
of
the Germans on the other side of the border, just as the Danish government
does for the Danes on our side. I think that is perfectly normal. Who else
should assist these minorities if not the majorities from the other side of
the border.

I'm not totally sure I understand what you mean by "taking care."  If you
are talking about protecting them within the framework of national and
state/province welfare, it is in my opinion the country of citizenship that
is first and foremost responsible.  In other words, ethnic Germans of
Denmark, being predominantly Danish citizens, have a right to expect that
their country takes care for them, just as Schleswig-Holstein and Germany
bear primary responsibility for the welfare of ethnic Danes and Frisians
that are German nationals.  These are special groups within the citizenry of
the respective countries that have a right to be treated fairly like all
citizens and on top of it be given special consideration within their own
areas at least, since they are long-time residents of those areas (as
opposed to immigrants) and have a right to continue their linguistic and
cultural heritage.  I understand that this is the basic premise with which
the two countries signed the treaty, and I believe that this is the premise
of the European Language Charter as well.

Looking out for these populations from the other side of the border is a
separate thing.  In my opinion, it is a good thing, just as international
watchdog organizations' vigilance is a good thing.  (And cross-border
organizations would be beneficial too.)  But, strictly speaking, it ought
not be a required thing.  In other words, Danes in Germany ought not have to
rely on the support of the Danish government, just as Germans in Denmark
ought not have to rely on protection from Germany.  Their own respective
country ought to do the right thing without the neighboring country having
to play the watchdog and protector.  This ought to be a matter of course,
without any two-country treaty being signed.  After all, not all European
minorities have "home countries" to rely on for protection, such as
Frisians, Sorbs, Kashubians, Rusyns, Roma, Occitans, Galicians, Catalans,
Arumanians, Rhaetians, Bretons, Gaels, Friulans, Livonians and Saami, to
name only a few.  Who would look out for them if we relied on two-country
treaties?  Does this reliance on two-country treaties not derive from the
same old, tired ideal of "one country = one ethnicity = one language" that
requires cross-border protection from the "home country" if "imperfection"
happens and fellow-ethnics end up living outside the borders?

Why do we have such a hard time wrapping our minds around ethnic and
linguistic diversity within each country that is accepted and protected
without outside pressure having to be exerted?

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.

*********************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20070627/283b1390/attachment.htm>