Tag: colonialism

  • Exploring Heritage: A Look at Nationalism and Identity

    Exploring Heritage: A Look at Nationalism and Identity

    Nationalism, patriotism and a whole bunch of other -isms. I am baffled as to why people feel the need to point out they have x% Viking ancestry… Or that their great-great-grandparents were German.

    If you have ever dared to look closely at your country’s history, what were you told and what did you find out?
    I am intrigued as to why people believe heritage (a rather one sighted version though) is so important.

    Did humanity not begin in Africa? Do you claim African heritage?

    From then onward it depends on what sources you consult. The general consensus will announce first civilizations in the Fertile Crescent of the Levant. People started farming and hence had to settle. Do you claim Mesopotamian/Western Asian heritage?

    Makes one wonder how humanity’s cradle and the birth place of our first civilization are nowadays regarded as uncivilized and savage regions. Funny how losing one’s pigmentation changes things.

    It takes quite a few generations to lose pigmentation. In regions with fewer sunlight, skin tone adapts in order to absorb the sunshine vitamin.

    The first settlement in mainland Europe was in Crete, the Minoan civilization (Knossos). Then mainland Greece had the Mycenaean civilization followed by the Celtic civilization. Only then the Roman empire popped up. Some people would only recognize the Greeks and/or Romans as first civilizations as if the former were uncivilized. Fits right in the European mindset that only themselves were civilized and everyone else Barbarians. Apparently in Greek blah blah blah translated as “bar bar bar”. Perhaps that is why the Greek tourist spots always sport a Bar Street. Romans took over the term. Initially it just meant, one that does not speak Greek. The Romans adjusted the term to anyone perceived non-civilized or non-Romans. Later even evolving from lack of refinement to primitive to outright violent behavior.
    Funny how some people will claim Roman or Greek heritage (I am referring to people without Italian or Greek ancestry). Is that the reason why they need to label their “opponent” (or those not sharing their views) as barbaric?

    When the Roman era came to an end, many tribes were ready to took over. Welcome Dark Ages. At some stage European royalty wore wigs and plenty of perfume to hide their fear of water. Fascinatingly the Islamic Golden Age helped Europe literally into their Renaissance.

    And still there seems no love lost and Europe does not value the region. Sure, Europe excelled, but was it advantageous for humankind? Colonialism, exploitation, imperialism, slavery,…

    Since Europe got rich, they found some land ‘down under’ to dispose ‘their criminals’, well, even hungry English children were imprisoned. After looking for a shortcut to Asian spice markets ‘a new world’ was discovered. The indigenous people of both continents were most probably not amused. After WW2 Europe even offered some territory to a people they disliked and a third case of displacements, slaughter, colonialism and apartheid happened. All in name of civilization? Sounds more like wanting influence, control.

    Anyways, in Europe it was no paradise either for the people. A few certainly got filthy rich. And christianity made sure to take their share (and even more). In feudal times the foundations were laid for capitalism. Nobility and royalty controlled the land. then quarreled and the villagers became soldiers. Afterwards the borders were redrawn and life continued as nothing happened. Sort of…

    In a previous blog I wrote that Jutes and Anglii (from current Denmark) and Saxons (Germany) moved to England. The Anglii gave their name to the land and the language. The Franks, that gave their name to the country of France, came from the Rhine region, yes, Germany.

    So, the people now calling themselves French, do they claim German heritage?

    Everyone speaking English or English nationality, do they claim German or Danish heritage?

    I realize the heritage thing is mostly American. All of the above is just to point out where to draw the line.

    Perhaps it’s worth mentioning that the x% African and x% Mesopotamian are the most important of all. But I imagine those are blatantly ignored. Not?

    Are we human or are we looking to create more minorities to oppress, bully, exploit, etc?

    So, What ancestry do you claim?

  • The Evolution of English: A Cultural Melting Pot

    The Evolution of English: A Cultural Melting Pot

    What do Celts, Vikings (+ Norse mythology), French aristocracy and Germanic tribes have in common? They all contributed to Modern English.
    It’s quite amusing when a language evolved over time and is an amalgamation of several languages and cultures. And then you have an influential person that wants to restrict foreign influence into said language… Hence a little introduction how English was formed as we know it today.

    Introduction

    English is not my first language. As a Belgian, it is actually my fourth. Although, in all honesty, I should rank English second based on proficiency and fluency.

    Perhaps having a Germanic language as mother tongue helps learning English and German.

    Background

    You may know that not only the country of Germany speaks Germanic language. The borders of what used to be German territory and even colonialism (as for most European language spread over the world) are to blame. Interestingly only (or as good as) the English use the word Germany. Hence the confusion, since West Germanic language Dutch and German were once used as synonyms in the region. In Dutch we called current “Nederlands” Diets and the German version Duits. Then again, both were used interchangeably as the language was – back then – very similar. In Dutch we named the country of the “Duits”-speaking people Duitsland. The English of course complicated all this by calling “Nederlands” Dutch. Just like the Germans call the language Deutsch and their country Deutschland. Not to mention the funny variations of the country’s name. I am looking at you Slavic people.

    Source: https://jakubmarian.com/names-of-germany-in-european-languages/

    Some languages use the old tribe’s name of Allemani, Germani or even Saksen (Saxons). The Slavic languages refer to Germans are “mute” or “unable to speak”. Similar to the Roman approach that everyone not Roman(ized) was a barbarian.

    English is born

    When do you pinpoint when a language starts? Do you really have to start from the root language PIE (Proto Indo-European) on the Black Sea shores? I will leave the languages family tree and details to linguists and historians.

    Have you ever heard of Ingvaeonic? Aka North Sea Germanic?

    The point where I like to start, since it bears so many similarities are the Anglo-Saxons, Frisians and Jutes. Certain English people like the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ very much but the same people seem to forget those two tribes/people were of “foreign” origin. Quite surprising they still use the “Briton” but have completely denounced their Celtic heritage. I can only imagine it is mainly thanks to the Romans.

    The Angles (people) hailed from current Denmark/Germany border region, Saxons are German and the Frisians span from Germany over the Netherlands into Belgium.

    From the Anglo-Saxons, Frisians and Britons cultural mix, and perhaps even noteworthy to mention that there was something like Romans once upon a time. And a change in religion, the number of gods were drastically reduced.

    Later influences

    From 800-950 the language assimilated Old Norse, as you will know, if you ever watched Viking series. At the same time there was a simplification of Old English grammar. If you want to learn about the Norse (aka Northern Germanic languages) influence in the English language, you should definitely check your weekdays and toponymy of English towns and cities. Old English is barely comprehensible to a majority of people nowadays as it is written in runes and 85% of vocab no longer in use. Old English is probably more understandable to a modern German speaker.

    About 1066, quite a well known date in English history sort of marks the transition to Middle English. It should not come as a surprise that many words concerning conflict are of Norse influence.

    Middle English changed quite a bit for the language. At the end of the Middle English period, from 1400 to 1600, the Great Vowel Shift happened.

    At the same period the English language (through the British Empire) was “exported” worldwide. Perhaps this indicates why English dialects are perceived as strange. Especially since the language was going through some changes. If you know about Madagascarian/Malagasy fauna you are probably aware that isolation affects evolution differently than in Eurasia, Africa or Americas.

    Royalty introduced the French language into English. Some kings barely spoke English. In Dutch people eat, just like the English peasants “calf” whilst the aristocracy ate “veal”. Therefore the English having two words: one for the animal, one for the food.

    Do you say royal or kingly? Paternal or fatherly? Amorous or lovesome? Dictionary or wordbook? Blond(e) or fair(-haired)? Do you ponder or wonder? Science or knowledge? Escape or flee? Port or harbor? Reply/response or answer? Chase or hunt? Property or owndom/belongings? People or folk? Valuable or worthy? Abandon or forsake? Distance or span? Incredible or unbelievable? Despair or hopelessness? Do you resist or withstand? Ire/rage or angry/wrathful? Severe or stern? Enemy or foe? Tomb or grave? Zero or Nought? Ridiculous or laughable? Assume or foreguess?
    Yes, I realise nowadays they are not always synonyms.

    Have you ever wondered where synonyms come from? Don’t you believe one word is easier? That is the beauty of amalgamation. Problems arise when synonyms, perhaps just very subtly, change slightly in definition.

    Modern English started about 200 years ago. Reading a book from the early ME might be challenging though.

    Unsurprisingly languages evolve even faster since the invention of the internet. Well, actually it already started with Hollywood.

    In non-English languages is an enormous influx of English words and expressions (cringe, rizz, etc) but also other languages. American-English will have more Spanish influences whilst Aussie/NZ will have more Asian.

    So, what now?

    Are we going to lock in a language and denounce every foreign influence? I remember a time (in my youth) when people were looking for Flemish/Dutch equivalents for English words (like computer, download, soft/hardware). I assume it was more hilarious than a serious attempt to save our language from English influence. Imagine the replies of the public who came up with a Dutch alternative for a floppy-disk?
    Quite ridiculous when you realize that computare is of Latin origin. Also in the Lowlands we a similar story language-wise.

    Funny how some people are xenophobes but have no problem devouring “foreign” food. The look on the faces of islamophobes is priceless when you explain the origins of Spain’s national dish paella.

    I don’t understand how tourists can travel abroad and only eat food they know. In Dutch we have a proverb roughly translated like:

    What the farmer does not know, he does not eat.

    Obviously metaphorically. Often I wonder what happened when European people were introduced to potatoes, chocolate (originally so not the later sugar rush version) and many other fruit&veg, spices, etc. If you restrict your diet to produce what is native to the land as well as locally produced, you certainly will have to take supplements. Especially in the US where farmers usually specialize in just one product. In comparison, in Europe you have many farmers opening a shop (and vending machines) selling a range of local produce. Oftentimes even cheaper than in the local supermarkets.

    Anyways, what’s next? Have you ever heard about Cockney rhyming slang? Just to say that dialects were used or created to identify if a person was part of the community and hence to be trusted. As if all danger and risk came from outside. Nowadays crime fighters always look to non-strangers first. According to statistics people should change their view on who to trust. Strangers are statistically safer to be around. I realize this is against our instincts. I assume psychologists and psychiatrists will have a decent explanation.

    I’d rather want to talk to a stranger, someone from another country or region, or someone showing an interest in the region; than so-called locals. Strangers (usually) have a more open mind, have more appreciation and respect than locals.

    Languages were never a(n) (major) obstacle. Traders on the silk road were most probably proficient in many languages. Apparently Marco Polo knew four languages.

    PS: Does anyone know why white people in other countries are known as “expats” (even if they have no intention to return to their hoe nation) whilst non-whites indiscriminately “migrants”?

    Back to Homepage