Talk:Lusophobia

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-07. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Comments

• A phobia is supposed to be either irrational, unfair or based on fear.

If you consider Keating's criticism of Portugese colonialism as unfair, you would need to explain why.

Furthermore, criticising the establishment of Portugese as the official language of East Timor should not be regarded as irrational, unfair or based on fear. What is irrational and unfair is choosing a language spoken by barely 5% of the population as the official language.

Kransky 07:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What is irrational and unfair are observations made on the basis of ignorance and ««prejudice. You ignore the fact that Tetum (the most widely spoken language in East Timor, spoken by 80%), which derives a large amount of its vocabulary from Portuguese, is also an official language. The recent, renewed,attacks on this (and Portugual's involvement in East Timor) by The Australian is a case in point. Quiensabe 23:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Cites?

I think this article needs (more?) cites for the use of the term. The article spends time defining it but not much on who has used it or in what context. A term needs to be notable to be defined here. If cites cannot be provided, this material should be merged somewhere else. Perhaps to Lusitanic ?? ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

««The term Lusophobia was often used to describe nationalist sentiments in Brazil in the nineteenth century, with Liberal politicians in Rio de Janeiro and Pernambuco advocating the reduction of Portuguese involvement in the Brazilian economy.1»»

Was it used any where else than in the nineteenth century? If not the rest of the article makes no sense.

Reply: Just read the rest of the lusophobia page. It does make sense, specially nowadays. Joao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.39.120 (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

South Africa

I grew up in South Africa where the white community frequently made "Portuguese jokes" and used racial epithets, the most common being "porro". The essentially sterotype was that Portuguese people were somehow dirty, stupid and- in the case of men- sexually predatory. The women were often alleged to be unattractive. Is this something that can be developed in ths article or is it merely my first hand experience?

you need to document using good sources. Search for what others have written about what you have experienced. Benjiboi 21:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah and now "white" South Africans (with average 5-10% Hottentot/Malay admixture) are being killed and raped by the angry black Bantu natives in the thousands and EMIGRATING EN MASSE WITH THEIR TAILS BETWEEN THEIR LEGS. I guess being a Porra isn´t so bad after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.0.106 (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant

There is a lot of irrelevant information added to this page that has nothing to do with lusophobia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.101.236 (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It not irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.35.18 (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not Lusophobia

"A research study from 2003, which indicated that among the then 15 European Union countries, Portuguese people led the most sedentary lifestyles, prompted the BBC to describe Portugal as the "laziest nation in Europe", [10] although sedentarism and laziness are relatively different concepts."

If it is the British suffer from Anglophobia

British students are laziest in Europe, claims report [1]

Britons are the laziest fat cats of Europe [2]

Bosses choosing committed foreign workers over lazy British' [3]

I am erasing the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.57.58 (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Racism is not the same as lusophobia. I am erasing two items because it is out of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.42.11 (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There are Portuguese blond and blue eyed, though a minority. In Portugal, there's also racism. Sometimes racism is thrown against blond people as well. There is racism everywhere. Joao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.39.120 (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Lusophobia in Luxembourg

In might be worth researching and mentioning lusophobia still happening now in Luxembourg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.25.226 (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

1890 British Ultimatum

How was this Lusophobic rather than Britain pursuing its own interests in keep the way clear for a Capetown-Cairo railway line? I'm going to remove it.

Apparently someone added it back in, though I agree with you that it should be removed. A lot of things in the British and Australian sections are very biased and are written in favor of Portugal. The part about the East Timor conflict with Australia is frankly Anti-Australian, it passes judgement on Australia's decision to support East Timor and makes it appear as if Portugal was in the right to support East Timor's independence. An encyclopedia should state the facts, not pass judgement. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.27.122 (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The “1890 British Ultimatum” is referenced in several sources, however I have been unable to read anything that shows the ultimatum was concerned with anything more that Portugal’s attempt to connect its two major colonies in Africa – Portuguese West Africa (Angola) and Portuguese East Africa (Mozambique). The ultimatum occurred during the European Scramble for Africa. The actual Wikipedia article on this uses one source from which I quote:

• “the Ultimatum was a minor incident in the so-called "scramble for Africa" (page 102)
• “it became Portuguese official policy to claim sovereignty over a large corridor linking the coastal areas of Angola and Mozambique long in possession of Portugal, across a vast hinterland still largely unexplored let alone occupied” (page 102)
• “the mounting tension between the two colonial powers throughout 1889 was finally resolved when on January 11th, 1890, the British Prime Minister Lord Salisbury formally demanded Portuguese withdrawal from the region on pain of breaking off diplomatic relations and, of course, implying recourse to military action. Given the greatly inferior position of Portugal vis-à-vis the world's superpower of the time, the government had no reasonable alternative but to comply with this ultimatum, which it promptly did but at the cost of unleashing a wave of anti-British nationalism” (page 103)
• “took the form of virulent anti-dynastic and anti-British attitudes. In passionate meetings, street demonstrations, political rallies, in countless poems, articles, pamphlets, even cartoons, Britain was depicted as a treacherous nation of pirates and profit-mongers” (page 104)
• “in Portugal [...] the ultimatum is still a live issue — as is shown by the fact that all documents about it known to exist in Lisbon have yet to be thrown open for scholarly inspection (page 104-5)

The interesting thing here is that the ‘ultimatum’ was issued against a CLAIM and nothing more. Additionally the source clearly states that this ‘ultimatum’ actually lead to a wave of anti-British nationalism by the Portuguese and fails to mention any actual corresponding reaction or movement in England.

Indeed the author of the source clearly states that the issue is still considered a live issue in Portugal.

There is no corresponding rise in anti-Portuguese sentiment at the time of this ‘ultimatum’ by the British people or government. The paragraph and supporting source clearly fail to show this example as any sort of ‘lusophobic’ or even anti-Portuguese movement/ideology.

This is nothing but a case of perceived lusophobia and not actual.

I seek other people’s opinions on deleting this paragraph. 60.224.32.82 (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There has been on comment on my above request, therefore I am removing this section. Should anyone take issue with this, then please do not revert the edit but discuss it here first. I have clearly stated the reasons for removal. 60.224.32.82 (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Australian Section

I believe that the Australian section of this article should be removed and seek alternative opinions on this. The section relies on proving ‘lusophobia’ in Australia based on two references:

“During the crisis in 2006, one Australian commentator attacked Portuguese involvement in East Timor labelling Portugal as Australia's "diplomatic enemy." "Downhill all the way since Habibie let go", Greg Sheridan, The Australian, 26th May 2006.

This link is now dead and the only copies that I can find are pasted into third-party websites without the ability to verify the content. However, should the copies I have found been unaltered, it is biased to call the author’s article an attack on Portugal. The article discusses criticisms of Australia’s Prime Minister by Portugal’s Foreign Minister who made accusations of Australia interfering in East Timor’s internal affairs.

While the author does use the term “diplomatic enemy”, the full sentence reads: “Portugal is Australia's diplomatic enemy in East Timor”. The fact that the entry here can list only one reporter ‘attacking’ Portugal’s involvement in East Timor from an article that clearly reports an attack on Australia’s own involvement by a member of the Portuguese government shows that this is not proof of ‘lusophobia’ but of the normal diplomatic tussles by larger powers in a small country.

This article is not an attack on Portugal or the Portuguese but an attack on the Portuguese government's policy/activity within East Timor. The article also highlights other decisions taken by the East Timorese against the desire/wishes/requests by the Australian government and yet none of these have stopped their implementation.

I believe the above sentence should be removed as the link is now dead, and if not for that, then for the reasons listed above.

“After Portugal withdrew from its overseas territory of Portuguese Timor in 1975, the subsequent Indonesian invasion and annexation of East Timor, supported by the Australian government, also gave rise to anti-Portuguese sentiment in Australia, including people sympathetic to East Timor's struggle.” Current Language Issues in East Timor Dr Geoffrey Hull Text of a public lecture given at the University of Adelaide, 29 March, 2000.

The link for this ‘public lecture’ is to a archiving website. The original website which cannot be accessed was hosted by the Department of International Studies - Asian Studies at Macquarie University for which Mr Hull is an Associate.

While the source material does use the word ‘lusophobia/lusophobe’ four times in the speech, indeed referring to it as a tradition, his proof of this is:

• Australia’s surprise (he uses the words puzzlement, incomprehension, irritation and scorn) at the choice of Portuguese as an official Timor Leste language
• Condemning the usage of calling Timor Leste a colony/former colony (due to the fact it was a região autónoma) – even though he then uses the words decolonisation
• That most Australians have ignorance of Portugal’s role in Timor Leste’s history

• Negative comments on Portugal’s colonisation around the globe

• Media highlights of conditions in Timor Leste at its time of decolonisation
• The misspelling of Portuguese names.

Further his arguments go on to say that any push for English as a language of Timor Leste is that Indonesia encouraged contempt for anything Portuguese and that ‘Timorese youth… uncertain and insecure about their own culture, many of the younger generation are easily manipulated by foreigners now working hard to promote English as the dominant language for various self-interested reasons’. He states that he shares the opinion of ‘CNRT and of the Church… that a generation deprived of the universalistic culture formerly taught in Portuguese schools and nurtured on Suhartoeist materialism and narrow state ideology is poorly equipped to make mature value judgments about language. Their call for a referendum on the official language shows a dangerous tendency to politicise language without any real understanding of the underlying sociological, educational and other cultural issues crucial to enlightened language planning’.

He continues on in describing the ‘unfair advantage that English currently enjoys as the common language of the 'liberators' of the nation. And whereas the Indonesians had suppressed Portuguese in the schools, they had encouraged the teaching of English. In the face of this threat of anglicisation through the power of prestige, Timor's civil and Church leaderships are now appealing to Portugal and Brazil for support in restoring Portuguese in civil society and especially in the schools’.

The transcript is supposedly of a lecture given at Adelaide University in 2000 and is not verified as accurate, it is not a published work, there is no peer review, no sources or references stated. Should it be a true transcript, then it represents the opinion on one person, Mr Hull.

Mr Hull’s Wikipedia entry lists him as having a doctorate in historical linguistics. From 2001 to 2007 he was research and publications director of the Instituto Nacional de Linguística, the national language authority of the independent state of Timor-Leste. He was the designer, principal author and editor of the national Tetum dictionary.

Therefore, proof of ‘lusophobia’ within Australia boils down to one lecture by a holder of a doctorate in historical linguistics who has a vested interest in promoting languages other than English within Timor Leste. The five major reasons for his belief in ‘lusophobia’ within Australia listed above show no proof of any ongoing or prevalent anti-Portuguese feeling or movement in Australia and solely deals with Australia’s involvement within Timor Leste and hence its former colonial master Portugal. I am of the opinion that it is in breach of Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability.

Therefore I believe this sentence and reference should also be removed.

With the removal of these two sentences and their sources, the section on ‘lusophobia’ within Australia can also be removed.

I look forward to hearing other opinions on this.60.224.32.82 (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There has been on comment on my above request, therefore I am removing this section. Should anyone take issue with this, then please do not revert the edit but discuss it here first. I have clearly stated the reasons for removal 60.224.32.82 (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is the lusophobia in the Ex-African overseas provinces section?

I have read this section several times and other than the fact that very little of it is sourced, I have only been able to find what could be considered two examples of lusophobia:

• "towns and villages which were founded by the Portuguese and prospered under Portuguese rule, saw their Portuguese names changed after independence"
• "The statues to Portuguese heroes were removed from its sites"

And even these examples could not be considered lusophobia as is it was a common occurrence for name changes to happen to towns and cities and even countries in ex-colonies. Indeed Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia became Harare, Zimbabwe and this is considered Africanisation and not Anglophobia. Why is the same process in Portugal's ex-colonies be considered anything other?

So either the entire section should be removed as it there is no actual lusophobic theme to it or the entire section other than the points above should be removed. And if the above points are kept, then they should be quantified and linked to articles on Africanization and colonial independence. 60.224.32.82 (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There has been on comment on my above request, therefore I am removing this section. Should anyone take issue with this, then please do not revert the edit but discuss it here first. I have clearly stated the reasons for removal. 60.224.32.82 (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Update to UK Section

"Portugal and the United Kingdom are known for having the oldest alliance in the world." You can’t say the UK is lusophobic and yet also highlight that it has the oldest alliance in the world. This sentence is contrary to the section.

"However, when a three-year old British child, Madeleine McCann, disappeared from Praia da Luz, in the Algarve region of southern Portugal in May 2007, elements in the UK media became critical of the Portuguese legal system and the authorities investigating the case." Criticism of any police and the legal system by the media is common in any case and does not highlight a specific attack. Critical media attention can highlight shortcomings in such a situation and does not necessarily mean there is anti-Portuguese feeling.

"Certain comments and comparisons, some possibly lusophobic or xenophobic in nature, may not have been entirely fair because of an incomplete understanding of the specific legal principles involved." This is an opinion by whoever wrote this section.

"Writing in The Guardian, in September 2007, Marcel Berlins called it "a touch of arrogant xenophobia".[8] Whilst Lusophobia can be xenophobia, xenophobia is not necessarily lusophobia Tony Parsons and Simon Heffer have been criticized for writing the most xenophobic news articles, e.g. Simon Heffer penned an article asking to boycott Portugal as a holiday destination. However, Heffer's plea was ineffective, as the following months saw an increase of British tourists. “The number of UK tourists increased 8% from January to October 2007, and it means that UK tourists have already answered to the appeal to boycott Portugal as a holiday destination” said Mr. António Pina, chairman of Algarve Tourism Board.[9][10] Considered a record, the estimates were of 2 million British tourists holidaying in Portugal in 2007.[11]" This part contradicts itself. The fact that a newspaper editor called for a boycott that failed to manifest is shown by the fact that UK tourists to Portugal increased to a record. There is no lusophobic content here other than that purported by a news editor that was not referenced.

"Tony Parsons' column in the Daily Mirror with xenophobic comments received 485 complaints to the Press Complaints Commission, provoking a massive increase in the number of complaints in 2007 to this commission, being the article of 2007 with most complaints.[12][13]" Again, this part contradicts itself. The fact that Tony Parsons’ column received enough complaints to be the most complained about during 2007 shows there is the opposite to lusophobia in the UK.

I propose this section should be rewritten thus: Negative press and feeling became high in 2007 when a three-year old British child, Madeleine McCann, disappeared from Praia da Luz, in the Algarve region of southern Portugal in May 2007. Many UK media outlets wrote highly critical articles that were described by Marcel Berlins in The Guardian, as having "a touch of arrogant xenophobia".[8] Whilst others in the media such as Simon Heffer attempted to foster anti-Portuguese sentiment with ideas such as boycotting Portugal as a holiday destination, this was not reflected in general public opinion which saw record numbers of UK tourists visit Portugal.[9][10][11] Notable anti-Portuguese articles by Tony Parsons received a record number of complaints to the Press Complaints Commission for that year.[12][13]

Any comments? 203.10.36.68 (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)