Den sociale situation omkring kreolsproget i Dansk Vestindien imellem 1750 og 1850 omfattede på slaveriets vilkår både den karibiske kreolkulturs fællesskab mellem sorte og hvide og samtidig indre modsætninger og ambivalens, hvis tilhørende sociale strategier og deres konsekvenser for sprogfællesskabet artiklen undersøger nærmere.
The article explores the social situation surrounding the creole language in the Danish West Indies between 1750 and 1850. Departing from O. Nigel Bolland’s (1998) approach to creolisation which applies a dialectical (thesis-antithesis) view on the processes of Caribbean creolisation and regards the common creole space as a result of constant social contentions and ambivalence, newer theory is supplied, bringing in the diachronic aspect (Lovejoy 2009) and the fact that cultural change does not always move towards a „white“ ideal but can have an autonomous „black“ norm (Moore & Johnson 2004, Chaudenson 2001). The Duch Creole language is regarded as a good example of a common black and white creole culture since it was spoken as a first language by both blacks and whites, a fact which was once neglected in Danish history writing. At the same time, the social antagonisms surrounding the language are examined and five different antithesis strategies are identified: 1) White creoles can invest identity in their own sociolect of the language and insist on its correctness. 2) They can enhance the difference by exerting their own language norm, comprising among other things a more Dutch lexicon. 3) They can take possession of the language in the historical narrative by monopolising it as a „white“ cultural product. 4) Likewise, black creoles stand by their own sociolect; but on the basis of C.G.A. Oldendorp (2000) it is here suggested that beyond this a parallel common language (pidgin or creole) with a more African lexicon might have existed. 5) Finally, the definitive antithesis to the creole culture is exerted first by the whites and then by the blacks abandoning the Creole language altogether. The name of the language is discussed, and in various cases a reading of the sources is offered which differs from Robin Sabino’s (2012).