Tutu's Hawaiian and the Emergence of a Neo-Hawaiian Language

[kulaputra]

Save me your misplaced outrage, if you've read any of my previous posts, you know I am a opponent of imperialist, colonialist languages like English, Spanish, Russian, French, Arabic, Portuguese, Chinese etc and the states behind them. Do we need to have a contest of 'I am more opposed to linguistic imperialism'? I'm sure I'd win.

I'm not sure why you're trying to convert this into a pissing contest. It isn't.

But persecution, unless it is straight out genocide (read my previous posts on how the British acted towards the peoples of my country), can take many forms, and psychic violence is just as important as physical violence. Parents are to blame for not transmitting their language, in the sense that they accept and regurgitate the same linguistic ideology that they are brainwashed into.

This doesn't make any sense. How are parents to blame for violence committed against them?

I've heard uncountable accounts from kids (now adults), who relate how their parents refused to teach them the language, because 'it's a useless language, it won't be good for anything'. Certainly they are victims, but brainwashed victims can also be powerful perpetuators of the abuse. Taking the example of France, the best agents that the monolingual state ever had was native speakers of their languages who were convinced that their languages were worth nothing.

If you don't believe me, read actual members from minority language communities. I can cite you Breton language activists who believe in a 'psychic shock' that turned a language community of over a million strong at the start of the century into 150,000 something now. Their argument is that Bretons became convinced and convinced themselves that their language was worth nothing.

Part of language revitalisation must also involve psychological healing and fortification.

Of course; there are similar tales of linguistic trauma from indigenous peoples in the Americas and Australia. But it makes no sense to claim that it was the parents' own fault. It wasn't.

[kulaputra]

Regarding Hebrew, which was mentioned previously... I think Hebrew is the most "successful" example of a language like "Neo-Hawaiian." Modern Hebrew does not represent a result of natural genetic descent from ancient Hebrew; syntactically and phonologically, it has predominantly Indo-European features, even if morphologically it is Semitic.

[nooj]

I'm not sure why you're trying to convert this into a pissing contest. It isn't.

With respect, your comment represents an attitude that is best naive and at worst straight up colonialist.

You went there and I don't appreciate it at all.

I reject your characterisation of my words as colonialist. That is a swear word in my mental dictionary and if you say I have a colonialist attitude, you better be able to defend yourself.

This doesn't make any sense. How are parents to blame for violence committed against them?

They aren't to blame for what was done to them. I've always said that they must be held responsible for what they do. People can be both victims and do bad things at the same time.

Of course; there are similar tales of linguistic trauma from indigenous peoples in the Americas and Australia. But it makes no sense to claim that it was the parents' own fault. It wasn't.

Blame is proportionate. A farmer who does not teach his or her child the language because they want their child to learn the socially more prestigious language is not to blame for creating the socio-economic conditions that make one language socially prestigious and another not. However, the farmer is the one ultimately responsible not teaching the language to their child. In France, there was no physical genocide, the weapon used was far more subtle , it was mental persuasion, and millions of people living in France in the 20th century were persuaded. France could not have, not even in its wildest dreams, entered into people's homes and forced them to stop speaking. Did you watch the video? Rozenn's parents refused to speak to her in Breton, even when she persisted in speaking to them in Breton and that's because they believed they were doing her a favour. They were wrong. You don't think parents can be wrong?

She says that her parents couldn't handle the thought that they had made a terrible, hideous mistake in not teaching her Breton from the beginning and instead of owning up to that, they preferred to use French. That's psychological damage. You realise that there are thousands of native speakers who still think that their language is useless and that it should die? Language activists in France run into them all the time. They are the last native speakers of their language and they prefer their language to die with them. They ARE responsible, and damn the tragic circumstances that have led them to believe this lie, it is still a WRONG view. Why shouldn't the young Gascon learner who I talked to, whose native speaker dad told him 'why would you want to learn my language, it's useless, it's not worth anything' hold his dad responsible?

[kulaputra]

They aren't to blame for what was done to them. I've always said that they must be held responsible for what they do. People can be both victims and do bad things at the same time.

Not teaching your kids a language because of the violence you were subjected to is, in fact, not wrong. There is nothing for which they have to be held responsible for in the first place.

Blame is proportionate. A farmer who does not teach his or her child the language because they want their child to learn the socially more prestigious language is not to blame for creating the socio-economic conditions that make one language socially prestigious and another not. However, the farmer is the one ultimately responsible not teaching the language to their child.

I fundamentally disagree. The farmer would only be doing what made sense to them within the context of the social forces they were subjected to.

Actually, I will go further and say that languages rarely die because of socio-economic conditions alone. The farmer in your situation will in fact teach his kids both the economically important language and the home language unless there are other factors at work, e.g. state-sanctioned linguistic repression, major social upheaval, etc.

In France, there was no physical genocide, the weapon used was far more subtle , it was mental persuasion, and millions of people living in France in the 20th century were persuaded.

First of all, French linguistic discrimination did not begin in the 20th century. By the 20th century many French languages were already moribund, and indeed a little "persuasion" was all that was needed to eradicate or nearly eradicate them.

But "persuaded" is a bizarre choice of word to describe "having the language beaten out of you by primary school educators while facing state-sanctioned linguistic discrimination," which is in fact the reality if you look at French linguistic history over the last ~250 years. French linguistic policy from the French Revolution onwards was essentially one of a conquering nation towards its subjects. The Jean Jaurès quote is telling:

On appelle "patois" la langue d'un peuple vaincu.

One calls "patois" the language of a conquered people.

"Patois," as I'm sure you know, was the French state's appellation for the many regional languages of France.

France could not have, not even in its wildest dreams, entered into people's homes and forced them to stop speaking. Did you watch the video? Rozenn's parents refused to speak to her in Breton, even when she persisted in speaking to them in Breton and that's because they believed they were doing her a favour. They were wrong. You don't think parents can be wrong?

What were her parents subjected to make them think that? They were both physically punished and humiliated, as I'm sure you well know. Being the victim of linguistic discrimination doesn't make you "wrong," it makes you the victim of linguistic discrimination (and indeed, childhood abuse). It's not enough for a language to survive that it be spoken at home, if in the public ambit it is shamed, derided, and physically castigated. Thus one cannot blithely conclude that Rozenn's parents were "wrong."

[Cainntear]

The issue of what in Scotland we often term "the cringe" (embarrassment over one's own heritage) is that the parents are simultaneously wronged and wronging, but that word "wrong" maybe doesn't help. The only way to cure psychological injury is with understanding and patience, and if the injury isn't healed, the behaviour will continue. The word "wrong" becomes an attack on the person's self, and ego defence is a powerful thing. Start throwing the word "wrong" about and you force the other party to double down on being right.

[Teango]

Differences of opinion aside, I'm pretty sure Keao's tūtū would be sad to see the growing lack of aloha here in this thread...

[iguanamon]

Differences of opinion aside, I'm pretty sure Keao's tūtū would be sad to see the growing lack of aloha here in this thread...

I just read this article today on the BBC Website in Portuguese translation, O lugar onde ser gentil é uma norma prevista em lei here's the original in English: In Hawaii being nice is the law.

‘Aloha’ is a legal concept that grew out of the necessity for Hawaiians to live in peace and work together, in harmony with the land and their spiritual beliefs.

I've only been to Hawaii once several years ago. I was witness to the Aloha spirit. I agree with the article, the people of Hawaii are as beautiful as the islands and the sea.

[nooj]

I would like to respond, but I am afraid that once again I have overstepped the lines of the forum rules. If any of you want to talk about it further with me, PM me.