[INDOLOGY] Lexical challenge for the OIT
Arnaud Fournet
fournet.arnaud at wanadoo.fr
Sat Oct 20 00:08:15 UTC 2018
@ Koenrad Elst scripsit:
The linguistic evidence merits better than to be discussed in the middle
of a less scholarly controversy, so I will leave that for another
occasion and probably another platform. More important to Arnaud is
clearly this statement of mine:
Well, it's your own subjective selection in my whole post.
@ Koenrad Elst scripsit:
I have never applied the Reductio ad Hitlerum to Indo-European studies.>
Which he calls
Good joke. It's all what your shit-and-muck sprinkling system is about.
Wow, there he says this dirty word again.
The dirty word adequately and aptly describes your dirty method and your
dirty discourse.
I think that cats are cats, and should be called cats, for the sake of
clarity.
@ Koenrad Elst scripsit:
At least it provides an answer to Paolo's question: yes, the list rules
have changed, such colloquialisms are now an approved part of list's
discourse, and the scholars on this list don't object to being
associated with them. Well, since these unprovoked attacks on me are
being allowed, I have a right to answer them. And no, this does not mean
that I want or need the right to answer them in kind.
More jokes. Don't try to victimize yourself.
Who can seriously believe that your shit-and-muck sprinkling system is
"unprovoked attacks"??
I'm quite convinced most people on the list see clear in your tricks.
@ Koenrad Elst scripsit:
Of course I should have realized that for some people, highlighting the
historical fact of a Nazi association with their own AIT is unbearable.
Still, I sign and persist, confident that the first-hand evidence amply
supports this position. But is highlighting a connection also a
reduction to that connection? Is this a Reductio ad Hitlerum? Unlike
Arnaud, I happen to have a record of actively *opposing* such discourse,
which among Hindus is very common.
Again, more jokes.
@ Koenrad Elst scripsit:
There, in an effort at criminalizing the specific AIT, many polemicists
undiscerningly demonize the entire discipline of Comparative &
Historical Linguistics, and do indeed reduce it to colonial racism,
which later was taken to its extreme by the Nazis.
I don't want to defend the Germans, but at the time Germany sank into
Nazism in 1933, it had no colony left since 1918...
So the link between Nazism and colonial racism is definitely odd.
@ Koenrad Elst scripsit:
(Hints at a much-diluted similar reduction are also present in Western
scholarship: Poliakov, Lincoln, Arvidsson…) But, while on the one hand
opposing this grim over-interpretation of the historical fact of a later
association with the Nazis, I do on the other hand acknowledge that same
historical fact: yes, the AIT was taught in the Nazi-controlled schools,
not just as an ephemeral detail but as a cornerstone of Nazi
*Rassenkunde*, as theorized by Nazi race theorist Hans Günther and
summed up briefly by Hitler himself.
Be it true or not, this is irrelevant as regards the nature and status
of Indo-European studies as a whole, throughout the world.
Again, it's odd that you seem to think that Nazism is the Greenwich
Meridian of everything, when most people think Nazism is a complete
failure that led Germany into the deepest abyss.
@ Koenrad Elst scripsit:
> The usual attitude in the West is to let sleeping dogs lie: not soil
our discipline with an annoying consciousness of this historical
association. That is alright, except that too many AIT defenders do
bring in political associations themselves. Some of them even slander
the OIT by falsely linking it to those same Nazis; one example of this
you have just seen. Does that mean the Nazis located the Homeland in
India? Of course not, and Arnaud avoids mentioning this obvious
refutation of his own claim.
Apparently, you do not seem to have understood what I wrote.
I'll develop more on this below.
@ Koenrad Elst scripsit:
So he brings in something else as a common element: "autochthonicity". A
general objection here is elementary logic: this is a "cum hoc ergo
propter hoc" fallacy. Indeed, all AIT defenders except the remaining
deliberate racists among them are defying this pamphleteering fallacy
all the time: they don't feel themselves to be Nazi just because they
defend a Nazi-approved theory. Specifically, it also happens to be
factually wrong: the Nazi doctrine about the Homeland was not
"autochthonicity". Neither Belarus nor Atlantis are in Germany. What
mattered for them was only that the Homeland was not in the territory of
an "inferior" or "mongrel" race, India. There is also a chronological
problem: when the later Nazis were still WW1 frontline soldiers, the
first arguments against the AIT were already being developed by Sri
Aurobindo (partly in a paper called Arya), whose secretary KD Sethna was
later, in old age, to write the book Karpasa (1982) that set in motion
the OIT 2.0 (i.e. Indian version).
>
> And by the way, for me the reason is not "autochthonicity" either.
Unlike for Indians, India is not my country. If I had a say in the
matter, I would locate the Homeland right in my garden so I could open
an Urheimat theme park. But history is not there to fulfil our wishes,
and some historical facts just have to be accepted even if inconvenient.
Historians take dispassionate note of such facts, not the shrill
rhetoric we have just been treated to. Some facts, like the
"association" of X with Y, need not be treated as important, but they
should not be denied either.
Basically, I will summarize my opinion by stating that the OIT is not a
scientific theory but rather a kind of politico-religious belief.
I would personally distinguish three types of politico-religious groups
and beliefs: Traditionalism, Millennarism and Ancestralism.
Each of the types is focused either on Present, Future or Past,
respectively.
Typically, Judaism and Pre-Vatican2 Catholicism belong to the
Traditionalist tendency. The motto is "let's keep being what we are".
Protestantism rather belongs to Millennarism, especially American
Protestantism. Communism is also a Millenarist thinking. The motto is
"Let's break away from the Past, and Future will be an ocean of myrth
and happiness".
Ancestralism is exemplified by Islamic Salafism, and their completely
invented Islam of the Origins, which is nothing but 100% myth. The motto
is "The mythical past is what we need now".
Nazism is a bit peculiar because it mixes Millennarist and Ancestralist
features: the 1000-jähriges Reich (in the future) and the mythical pure
race (in the past). I suppose this mixture bears testimony to the severe
cultural breakdown and collapse of Germany at that time.
Obviously the OIT is an politico-religious belief of the Ancestralist type.
That's why the OIT shares features with Nazism and Islamic Salafism: all
of them sell a completely mythical past.
That's why I wrote that the OIT has more in common with Nazism than the
usual theories about the PIE homeland.
So, yes, you Koenrad Elst and your OIT comrades have more in common with
Nazism than what you believe.
Basically, you-all have the same intellectual mold as Nazism to a large
extent. You're Ancestralists.
Besides, neither the Pontico-Caspian homeland nor the Anatolian homeland
have anything to do with Traditionalism, Millennarism and Ancestralism.
Contrary to the OIT, they are scientific theories and they are not
politico-religious beliefs.
More information about the INDOLOGY
mailing list