some remarks

[George Cronk]

Are you Professor Gupta of Indiana University?  I am Dr. George Cronk, Chair
of the Dept. of Philosophy & Religion, at Bergen Community College in New
Jersey.  We are scheduled to interview Byeong D. Lee on May 4 for a teaching
position in Philosophy here.  Dr. Lee was your student, right?

Just thought I'd say hello.

-----Original Message-----
From: anil k gupta <sristi at AD1.VSNL.NET.IN>
To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
Date: Sunday, April 05, 1998 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: some remarks


>excellent note after a long time shorn of extremist notions, lucid and
>likeable
>
>anil
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dominique.Thillaud <thillaud at UNICE.FR>
>To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
>Date: Wednesday, March 18, 1998 3:13 PM
>Subject: some remarks
>
>
>>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 ;)
>>
>>
>>
>>Dominique THILLAUD
>>Universite' de Nice Sophia-Antipolis, France
>>