From: "Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba-AT-online.no>
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: Basque
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:33:43 +0100



----- Original Message -----
From: <topp8564-AT-mail.usyd.edu.au>
To: "Aut-Op-Sy" <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: 27. februar 2003 05.24
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: Basque


> On 27/2/2003 2:41 PM, "Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba-AT-online.no> wrote:
>
> >
> > I certainly disagree with you on the question
> > of  language versus "blood and "race".
> >
> > Harald
> >
>
> How do you disagree? Is it in the - trivial - way that "blood and race"
> are nazi concepts, whereas linguistic purism is merely a form of
> bigotry (though in fact it is from the same family tree as the less
> acceptable forms, viz. Herder)? Or do you think that language
> groups form 'natural communities'?

I wrote the comment above before I had seen your reply
to Rata, and maybe I also before I had read your first remark
on this adequately, or given it too much thought, and due
to thecontext was also somewhat confused by what you
wanted to say. Meaning, a struggle for freedom of speech
so to speak, that is to speak and write the language
of choice -- even if ine can always ask how free that choice
is -- or opposition to a further centralization of power,
differs from announcing oneself as some purer and superior
"race" with (interestingly enough the Spanish at
the bottom of the "race"--hierarchy, closely followed by the
Jews).  The Spanish and Gypsies who did speak
the Basque language was considered a greater danger
than the Basque that did not, and of course inter-marriage
was strongly opposed. In the original statues of
Partido Nacionlista Vasco (PNV) only those who could
prove that all eight great-grandparents had Basque family
names were eligble to the higher bodies of the party.
While it is spoken less openly about today, for obvious
reasons, many of these attitudes remain.

I still consider the "blood and race" thing to be far more
dangerous. Should it reappear -- outside of small Nazi
sects -- I am sure we would all very much notice that. And
I do not think there is anything trivial in the concept of
"blood and race" strong links to Nazism.

I certainly will agree that nobody has "the right" to demand
that anybody else speak their language, even if it does
make very much sense to learn the majority language in
the country or region you settle. And not learning is far
from always a free choice either, in particular not for
considerable numbers of women where the question is
interconnected with what their husbands think is proper
and allows them to do.The whole "my home is my prison"
kind of thing

France is of course a classic example of language
chauvinsm. The theory being that anybody regardless
of "race" could become a French citizen as long as
they learned French. You can of course tie this
French colonialism and so on,  still, as far as things
I am opposed to is concerned, I would choose this
anytime before the nationalism based on "blood
and race" which emerged in Germany.

Some of the small and large tensions and conflicts
around language can be more or less directly linked
to "racialization". The populist right certainly does
their outmost to achieve that. But it is playing the cards
straight into their hands to reduce everything to this.
I certainly have yet to speak to an immigrant, or son
or daughter of  immigrants that would buy that. And
it cannot all be reduced to bigotry either, although it
is not hard to find examples of that.

The whole question of language touches on so
many different situations and contexts that it is
hard to day anything general about it.

According to Chris, I could assume we have had
going "racial" conflict between so-called
etnic Norwegians for 150 years. They all would
be surprised to know.

Harald




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---