I
have created this new thread because I will acquiesce to the wishes
of those who don't wish to talk more about the IVC. There is,
however, a broader methodological issue that I feel needs to be
addressed.
Michael
Witzel is fond of quoting his teacher "pots don't speak".
And, I would add: they don't have a race either.
The
main point of which I wish to remind people is well-stated by
Stephanie Jamison, Professor of Indo-Iranian Literature, UCLA;
translator of Rig Veda (along with Joel Brereton):
"For
we must not confuse movements of languages with movements of peoples.
Languages can spread to new territories in a number of ways, only one
of which is through the migration (or "invasion") of people
who speak the language."
As
with languages, so with cultures: they don't have a race. The same
can be said of academic research: the theorists may be racists but
the objects of study are not (languages, cultures, pots) .
Numerous
scholars on this list, like Hans Hock, have pointed out quite
convincingly the shortcomings of the Out of India theories. Any
competing theories will have to address those issues, which has not
been done; but they should have the freedom to try. As I mentioned
before, the study of the effect of ideology on objective research is
a different topic altogether; and a valid one. They should not be
conflated.
To
brand a particular field of objective academic research off-limits by
declaring it racist or chauvinist is not only making this mistake, it
is also quite troubling from the viewpoint of academic freedom.
Best,
Dean
Anderson
----
Jamison, Stephanie.
2006. “Bryant, Edward F. & Laurie L. Patton, Eds., The
Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History
(2005). Reviewed by Jamison, Stephanie W.” Journal
of Indo-European Studies
34: 255ff. Can be downloaded at:
http://www.safarmer.com/Indo-Eurasian/Bryant_Patton.review.pdf
From: Jesse Knutson <jknutson@hawaii.edu>
To: Dean Michael Anderson <eastwestcultural@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Hock, Hans Henrich" <hhhock@illinois.edu>; Matthew Kapstein <mkapstei@uchicago.edu>; George Thompson <gthomgt@gmail.com>; Indology List <indology@list.indology.info>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 3:08 AM
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Article about the politics surrounding Indology at the IHRC
Yet I still think it's correct to call Hindutva and Bharavaj's project racist, albeit implicitly and convolutedly so, because there is an implicit judgment of racial superiority. And chauvinism/triumphalism rarely come in some kind of pure form, free of a racist sediment. Explicit racism is highly tolerated in right-wing political/academic circles in India today as you all know. It might be a more confusing type of racism for us to disentangle because it is not as black and white, involving complex judgments about people's origins via caste, language, and way of life etc. But racism is very real both in life and "scholarship".