some remarks

[Vaidix]

Dear list members


>> excellent note after a long time shorn of extremist notions, lucid and
>> likeable

>> anil


> >Dear Indologists,
> >        Despite my intention don't to touch my keyboard in dubious debates,
> >I can't restrain to write few words ;)
> >
> >1) can we stop to playing with words ?
> >
> >Bhadraiah Mallampalli wrote: "can not grasp and remember simple words like
> >"Scheduled castes" of Indian society, and continue to use the incorrect
> >"untouchables" (a word banished from official Indian media long ago)"
> >        1) I suppose English and American peoples are better judges about
>< >the use of their own mother tongue ;)
> >        2) Changing names don't change the reality. I find ridiculous the
> >new tendancy of "banishing words". In France, it's today incorrect to say
> >"aveugle" (blind) or "sourd" (deaf), they must be replaced by "non-voyant"
> >(not seeing) and "mal-entendant" (badly hearing): what is changing for
> >them? I agree with a french humorist who suggested to replace "con"
> >(bloody) by "mal-comprenant" (badly undrstanding). I'm afraid that
> >rejecting "untouchables" is nothing but a poor essay to close the eyes over
> >a real problem; "scheduled castes" seems to me an insulting euphemism and,
> >speaking French, I'll continue to use the words "intouchables" or "parias".
> >
> >George Thompson wrote: "we're supposed to be talking about a *migration
> >theory*. If you keep on insisting on an *invasion theory*, where there is
> >none ..."
> >        I don't understand clearly the difference between the two words.
> >Was the coming of Europeans in East America a migration or an invasion? Was
> >the coming of East Americans in West America a migration or an invasion?
> >        From the American point of view they were peaceful farmers going
> >toward free lands, undoubtly a migration. Alas, Amerindians knew well the
> >land was not "free", the peaceful farmers were armed with guns and
> >travelling with a powerful army, undoubtly an invasion (some
> >ill-intentioned people say a genocid)!
> >        Once again, debating about words is not debating about reality but
> >about ideological point of view ;)
> >
> >2) colonialist scholars ?
> >
> >        I, personnally, reject firmly any accusation of colonialism or
> >neo-colonialism. I know perfectly that India was colonized by England, a
> >big part of Africa by France, Greece and Gaul by Roma, &c. I know perfectly
> >that few scholars gave an ideological support to all conquests and
> >slaveries, eurindianist Germans to the nazi power, Russian biologists to
> >the stalinian one, &c. But they were very few!
> >        In a large majority, scholars are honest and honourable* peoples,
> >rarely supporting the politic of their government, rarely involved in
> >military or economical war. To reject the point of view of westerner
> >scholars with an accusation of colonialism is not only insulting, but also
> >stupid.
> >        When I consider the Indian civilization as an Eurindian one, that's
> >based on many serious and published studies. I have nothing to do with the
> >eventual "greatness" of any land! I'm studying them but I don't like
> >Eurindians nor their ideology. They were war fans and the extension of
> >Eurindian languages all over the world shows perfectly they had no problems
> >in destroying civilizations. It's true that some of them, by a later
> >evolution, attained a wonderful state of spiritual development, but just
> >few of them (I know only Greece and India in this way). I suppose (just my
> >religious opinion: no debate, please) that other ones were "perverted" in
> >their evolution by bellicist monotheistic ideologies ("Dieu reconnaitra les
> >siens", "Gott mit uns", "the Holy Bible in each GI's pocket", &c.).>
> >        I hope to be a religious, peaceful and honnest man, but I'm not
> >sure that all my pitaras were good guys and I don't intend to defend them
> >blindly. Hence, I don't intend to be judged for their faults and, in the
> >actual case, for the English conquest of India! ...
> >
> >        Regards,
> >Dominique
> >
> >* not in Antonius' sense ;)
> >
> >
> >

Brilliantly misplaced emotions of Prof Thillaud!!

I am no authority in any language including sanskrit or even my own mother
tongue Telugu.  I have no business to judge any language.

I am sorry I did not explain myself clearly.  My mention of India banishing
the use of the word 'untouchables' is a parallel to the banishing of the 'N'
word for African Americans.  Let any newspaer use that word today, and its
offices will be sued for billions of dollars.  (I agree that the use of the
word 'banish' is not scholarly.  It was not 'banish', the right word must be
'politicaly incorrect'.).

India has its right to discard words that do not suit its culture.  We will
mend ours and request others' language if necessary.

Prof Anil, do you still see 'extremism' in my words?

Regards,
Bhadraiah Mallampalli