Hi, I haven't posted in a long time, but this thread caught my attention. I am a PhD candidate who is working on a thesis that investigates the experiences of ethnic German immigrants in Canada. I am also the grand daughter of Donauschwaben immigrants. I joined this list a very long time ago because of my personal and academic interest in the history of the Donauschwaben. 1) On the issue of the term Donauschwaben: Prior to WWII, the Habsburg colonists and their descendents were simply called Schwaben, Ungarlaendish (Hungarian) Schwaben or more regional terms like Banater Schwaben. Most sources agree that the word Donauschwaben was first used in the early 1922, they diverge on its origins. In The Danube Swabians in the Pannonian Basin Anton Tafferner et al. claim that Austrian geographer Roberts Sieger invented the word in order to differentiate between the Schwaben of southeastern Europe from those in the Schwaben area of Germany. In Between Hitler and Tito Zoran Janjtovic contends instead that Hermann Ruediger, also an Austrian Geographer, coined the term because Ungarlaendish Schwaben no longer adequately described the group after the break up of Austria-Hungary. I think Professor G.C. Paikert also had something to say about this debate in The Danube Swabians, but I don't have the book on hand and can't look it up. See below for full citations. 2) On the issue of scholarly versus non scholarly sources: As an academic, I draw on both scholarly and non-scholarly sources in my research. I don't think one is necessarily "better" than the other. They both have their strengths and weaknesses and must be analyzed differently. For instance, as an academic I must be careful when using non-scholarly sources because they may not be as meticulously researched as academic works. They may use evidence that academics would consider suspect, not use evidence at all, or take their evidence at face value and present it uncritically. Note that I use the word "may" here. There are some very well researched non-scholarly works out there. Sometimes the only difference between two is they type of content. For instance, non-scholarly histories tend to provide a historical narrative about a particular event, place or group of people whereas scholarly histories make arguments and provide a detailed analysis of the topic. Some types of non-scholarly books (such as memoirs and autobiographies) are also useful for academics as "primary sources." These types of books are based on the authors personal experiences. They may not be 100% accurate because memory is fallible and everyone had their own personal biases. However, they are useful as evidence in scholarly studies once they are analyzed for internal consistency and compared to other similar accounts to determine their accuracy. I have personally found the Donauschwaben memoirs and autobiographies invaluable in my research. Scholarly sources also have their own issues. They may be biased because they subscribe to a particular school of thought such as Marxist, Feminist or neo-Liberal. They might also be trying to prove a political point. Alfred M. De Zayas' books Nemesis at Potsdam and A Terrible Revenge come to mind. Both use the ethnic cleansing of Germans in Eastern Europe to advocate a particular set of political views related to human rights law. One thing that should be mentioned is that there is not a large scholarly literature on the Donauschwaben, particularly in the English language. If you restricted yourself solely scholarly sources, you would run out of them quite quickly. The scholarly works on the Donauschwaben tend to be outdated. The best study on the Donauschwaben in English remains G.C. Paikert's The Danube Swabians. It was published in the 1960s and does not reflect major advances in method and analysis that subsequently occurred in the social sciences and humanities. Best regards, Rebecca Strung PhD Candidate McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario P.S. Below is an annotated Biliography of the sources mentioned in this email: Alfred M. De Zayas. Nemesis at Postdam: The Anglo Americans and the Expulsion of the Germans. Background, Execution, Consequences. (London, Henley & Boston, 1977). • The most scholarly of De Zayas' studies. Written during the Vietnam war, this book attempted to use the example of the expulsion to influence American foreign policy. Despite the political bent, this book is generally well researched and the arguments meet scholarly standards. Alfred M. De Zayas. A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944 – 1950. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994. • By the time De Zayas wrote this book he had become a human rights activist and was no longer interested in objective scholarship at this point. In particular, this book contains a lot of uncritically presented eye-witness testimony designed to shock the reader. It was intended for a popular audience and falls short of scholarly standards. Frey, Katherine Stenger: The Danube Swabians: A People With Portable Roots. Mika Publishing Company. Belleville, Ontario, 1982. •A good quality amateur source. For most of the book, the author draws on existing books on the Donauschwaben and her own personal experiences. It contains some new research on the Donauschwaben experience in Canada culled from personal memories, interviews, and the documents of ethnic organizations. The author does not provide much analysis of her topic and tends to use her sources uncritically. Janjetovic, Zoran . Between Hitler and Tito: The Disappearance of the Vojvodina Germans. Belgrade, 2002. • Janjetovic is one of the best scholarly sources on the disappearance of the ethnic Germans in Yugoslavia. His works are extremely balanced and objective despite the controversial nature of the topic. Paikert, G. C. The Danube Swabians: German Populations in Hungary, Romania, and Yugoslavia and Hitler’s Impact on their Patterns, Gunther Bayer, ed. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1967) • Paikert was a Professor and former Hungarian civil servant. The book is meticulously researched but his methods and analysis are outdated. His works also tend to have a bit of a Magyar bias. This study nonetheless remains the best monograph on the Donauschwaben in the English language. Tafferner, Anton, Josef Schmidt, and Josef Senz. The Danube Swabians in the Pannonian Basin, A New Ethnic German Group. (New Berlin, Wisconsin: Danube Swabian Assocation, USA, Inc, 1982), 2. • Tafferner is an example of a meticulously researched non-scholarly source. It does not have the sort of analysis you would expect in a scholarly source, but remains an excellent source of information. It's also a bit on the short side. On 2010-08-09, at 10:12 PM, Rosina T Schmidt wrote: > > Hello Cornell, > > Let's agree that we disagree when it comes to calling ourselves 'Banaters'. > That would be only correct for those people who were actually born or live > in Banat, as a New Yorker is a New Yorker if he was born there or lives > there. What's his ethnicity? New Yorker??? Besides there were people of > different ethnicity living in Banat as well, like Hungarians, Serbs, > Croatians, Slovaks, Walachians, Rumanians, and others. They were also > 'Banaters'. > > Ethnically speaking we have ethnic German roots, but not ethnic Banat roots, > as there is no such a thing. There are all kinds of ethnic Germans, as we > discussed it on this worthy list so many times, like the Russian-Germans, > Bohemian-Germans, Siebenburger Sachsen, Burgunder etc., etc., and us, the > Donauschwaben. While some claim that we are German-Hungarians, I beg to > differ, than my Donauschwaben clan moved from Hungary in 1865 south to > Slavonia or what is now Croatia, so for the 700,000 ethnic Germans of Danube > Swabian roots in what used to be Yugoslavia the Hungarian-Germans name is of > course wrong. You can't call us the Yugoslavian-Germans also, as there were > other ethnic German groups there before our tribe purchased farms in that > corner of the woods. Actually Pannonian Plains, not woods. > > If I recall correctly the name Donauschwaben (Danube Swabians) was coined in > 1935. Today in ex-Yugoslavia they call us Podunavski Schwabe, and I beg > Boglarka and Sorin to tell us the correct name for our ethnic German group > in Hungary and Romania. > > More on DS history: > http://www.hrastovac.net/historical/Danube-Swabian-History.htm. The SIX > Danube Swabian areas were settled during the same period of settlement by > the Habsburgs, no matter if it was in Sathmar, Batschka, Syrmia, Banat, > Swabian Turkey or Ofner Bergland. > > See you all in Mt. Angel, where we will learn some more about our > fascinating DS history! > > Rosina > www.hrastovac.net > > > > > > > > This post is addressed to the so called experts, > as well as those list-members who are trying to learn about your background. > > Unless a statement, opinion, answer to a > question (or whatever you wish to call it) is > accompanied by a refereed scholarly source, it is > just a statement, an opinion and in all to many > cases, a guess that in most probability is > incorrect. In all likelihood such statements > made by the experts on this list lead you astray > if they do not tell you who offered the > information. Typically you need the authors full > name, title of the book, article or scholarly > work, its publisher, town of publication and the > year of publication. If you really want to be > sure you need more than one source to learn the truth. > > This applies to the name "of who we are" and to > every detail thereafter. We are not > Donauschwaben. In fact, none of us are as > such. We are either Banaters or descendants from > the other areas in the immediate area of the > Banat. To lump the seven areas together because > that makes a bigger group has no value nor > significants. The number of us still remains > insignificant. The different areas had different > costumes and histories, background and so > forth. You do not get the true picture with a broad paintbrush. > > The recent discussions of a name, is an excellent > example. Now, I know I can't influence the so > called experts from continuing to sound like they > know everything. But you, as listeners need to > be able to discriminate between truth and > fiction. You really should look in the > literature for true answers. I am not saying > that the exchange of information in the > Familienbooks isn't valuable but even then you > take a chance that the transcriber makes an > error. I know assumptions, a fancy name for > guessing, is prevalent on this list. Believe me > I am an expert in a very small slice of knowledge > and I try to stay within my area of > expertise. Can you believe 100% of what you find > in the published literature? No, you need to > review the literature to determine what one group > is stating, where that group is coming from and > what other scholars have to say. Typically you > find believers, disbelievers or attractors and > distractors and people who say: "Show me the > facts so that I can form an educated conclusion > on which group is correct." Again, the recent > name discussion beautifully illustrates that point. > > Peace and please let us not rush to making > statements when we do not have all the > facts. What is true in the Serbian Banat, by the > way is not true for the Romanian Banat. And, by > the I won't get into the discussion of Hungary.... > > I do not want to see any flames... But, please > think when you read... And read published > material and not only quick replies on this list... > Oh, yes, there is periodically wonderful material > available on this list and thanks to Steve for doing an excellent job. > > > Peace, > Cornell > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BANAT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message