<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Oct 20 2006, 04:32 AM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Oct 20 2006, 04:32 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Oct 20 2006, 08:20 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(acharya @ Oct 20 2006, 08:20 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->That is why the Humanities studies must be funded by Indians and not Maculytes.
There is urgent need of funding of large dept on Indian studies in India with well paying faculty for indegenous fields. We need well paying Indian teaching positions for these
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The model has to be scalable.
[right][snapback]59412[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some millioniers can fund some 5M to start with in an university and this should increase and be sustained for 20-50 years spreading to every universities in India.
Easy reference materials from these depts have to be available for the general public for discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Oct 20 2006, 01:31 PM-->QUOTE(acharya @ Oct 20 2006, 01:31 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Some millioniers can fund some 5M to start with in an university and this should increase and be sustained for 20-50 years spreading to every universities in India.
Easy reference materials from these depts have to be available for the general public for discussion.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Acharya garu
IMHO donation based efforts have limitations and are best suited for projects with clear short term identifiable goals.
10-21-2006, 04:32 AM (This post was last modified: 10-21-2006, 04:37 AM by Husky.)
Agree with post 93 and onwards.
Even had we no enemies, over-specialisation in a restricted set of fields is of no use to any community, especially one as large as India. Bowlers don't always make good batsmen. Need them all to be successful.
But in India's case there is more than the general threat of over-specialisation. We've got certain people jumping to be in the humanities, only so they can further subvert facts to their agenda. And we've got bright minds who aren't willing to see the humanities as an opportunity to serve Dharma. Somewhere here on IF there was a post relaying Michel Danino or Francois Gautier's request for children to study journalism. I think it was a brilliant idea.
We've got the manpower in India to expand to all fields, but the recent cultural pattern of imagining that only the sciences or business-related areas deserve our efforts, means that not many are willing to take off in other fields. (By the way, what happened to the days when every villager had so many talents: sculpting, storytelling, singing, making clay deities, etc., besides being clever at maths. I think these are cultural fields that are as important to our nation as business and sciences.) Throughout India's history, we've had poets, fishermen, philosophers, mathematicians, sculptors, farmers, businessmen, dancers, advisers to the king, etc. It's a sign of civilisation to develop and progress in all fields. No one looked down on these back then, and it is wrong to do so now.
If we want to commit suicide, we should by all means encourage only sciences and management studies and leave the humanities to the 3 terrors. While we're all pondering over the universe, they'll put us in a religious straight-jacket and force-feed the "world is flat" theory to us or the kiddies.
We have to change our way of thinking: sciences are wonderful, but so are all the other talents and it's good to try and make a viable profession out of those.
Social studies may not be the most ... exciting of fields (to me), but at this point in time, it's very important that people with a drive for truth enter into it, instead of leaving it to opportunistic anti-India, anti-Hindu stooges of ChristoIslamism/communism.
Making fun of the gun or the guy who holds it is all good and well, right up to the point where they do you in.
It's too late for me (since I won't willingly study anything new if I can possibly help it), but we must encourage nephews and nieces or any children to use any talents they might have in the direction of the humanities - which is the need of the moment.
I think Vivekananda said that we must bring up people to do this work, people sympathetic enough to India to be willing to undo the lies and mess others have created. The opportunity is there as there are oh so many children in India, we just need to change our mindset and put our priorities straight. More useful than mere monetary donations is the donation of our efforts (or encouraging our younger generations) in this direction.
Our attitude of condescension when it comes to these other fields of study only serves as ammunition for the anti-Dharmics. They'll feel elated to have no competitors. If we want to fight them, we ought to oppose them rather than doing them such a great favour.
10-21-2006, 07:38 AM (This post was last modified: 10-21-2006, 07:39 AM by Husky.)
Rajesh_g, you're right. Duperron came up with the 'Aryan' word.
Post from sci.archaeology: http://www.gatago.com/sci/archaeology/3061965.html
See some of them initially argue that IE did start off with the name 'Aryan'. Finally the outer thread puts them straight:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->An important addition to the message below.
I gave page references to Max Müller without saying which book it was, sorry. It's from "Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas" (London, 1888).
Examples of <b>other works from about the same time which used the term "Aryan" where we would now say Indo-European</b> are George Cox, "The Mythology of the Aryan Nations" (London, 1882) and Ulick Bourke, "The Aryan Origin of the Gaelic Race and Language" (London, 1875).
Alan
<Uneducated comments by others trying to extricate IE from its biblical racist origins>
Seppo, I sympathize with your attempt to stop the spread of racist nazi crap, but you play into their hands by making errors. <b>For example, you say: "Aryan" NEVER referred to "Indo European" group of languages.
This is exactly how Max Müller uses the term. For him the Aryan languages are what we today call the Indo-European languages (and they were called IE long before Max Müller too, but he unfortunately preferred the term Aryan).</b>
Have you read Max Müller, Seppo? Take another look at page xvi, where he writes: "the Aryas, before the were broken up into Hindus, Persians, Greeks, Italians, Teutons, Slaves, and Celts". Or page 2-3, "With two exceptions, all the modern and ancient dialects of our small European continent belong to three great families, the Aryan, the Semitic, and the Turanian." Or page 80: "If we find the same words with the same meanings in Sanskrit, Persian, Armenian, Greek, Latin, Celtic, Slavonic, and Teutonic, what shall we say? Either the words must have been borrowed from one language by the other, or they must have belonged to an older language, from which all these so-called Aryan languages were derived."
Now, would you still be prepared to say: '"Aryan" NEVER referred to "Indo European" group of languages'?
<b>Furthermore, Max Müller certainly helped to spread the use of the term Aryan to cover the whole IE family, but he wasn't the first. It is traced back to Anquetil-Duperron in 1763.
This practice was continued by Schlegel (from 1819), by Pictet in his work from 1859 and then Max Müller.</b>
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Some in the west are coming around and looking into the origins of the term IE. Or maybe it's wishful thinking on my part.
The other people in the sci.archaeology thread are now probably distraught that they have been working as part of a racist fable. Or maybe they got over it, as they always tend to do. Close their eyes, pretend it never happened.
IE studies: Christo biblical endeavour in the start, Christo racist endeavour in the middle, unquestionable "science" today. A reliable lineage indeed.
Author: Michel Danino
Book Title: L'Inde et l'invasion de nulle part
Le dernier repaire du mythe aryen
The title means literally "India and the invasion from nowhere: the
last refuge of the Aryan myth", and the book has 420 pages. The
publishing house, Les Belles Lettres, is a well-established one with
a good distribution.
The webpage of the book is at http://www.lesbelle slettres. com/livre/ ?GCOI=2251010019 7970
4) all hinduism is of sanskritic manufacture. once upon a time only north india was hindu <b>till Agastya muni and others exported hinduism to the south.</b> another north indian export is the brahmi script.
[right][snapback]54706[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and now i stand vindicated. Assuming Dr.Klostermeir is right ofcourse.
3700 BCEÂ Â Â Â Battle of Ten Kings (referred to in the Rigveda) Beginning of Puranic dynastic lists: <b>Agastya, the messenger of Vedic religion in the Dravida country. </b>Vasistha, his younger brother, author of Vedic works. Rama and Ramayana.
   3600 BCEYajur-, Sama-, Atharvaveda: Completion of Vedic Canon.
  Â
[right][snapback]55942[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Sep 5 2006, 05:05 AM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Sep 5 2006, 05:05 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->evidently Indians became smart because of Caucasian gene inflow (try and remember which Witzel supporter said something similar):
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stanley Wolpert - if I'm not mistaken. His books are banned in India by Cong govt since he called Jawaharlal Nehru a homosexual.
[right][snapback]56810[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Impact crater dating back to Vedic period
New Delhi
Indian geologists claim to have discovered a possible impact crater in Kutch district of Gujarat dating back to the Vedic period. The crater is suspected to have been formed by the impact of an extra-terrestrial object, is seen as a <b>circular feature near Luna village in the northwestern Banni Plains of the Great Rann in Kutch district.</b>
The site is located about a kilometre away from a human settlement belonging to the Harappan period and may have found <b>reference in ancient Sanskrit texts, which mention the "impact of a burning extraterrestrial object" in western India some 4,000-5,000 years ago. </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Admin+Oct 28 2006, 10:49 AM-->QUOTE(Admin @ Oct 28 2006, 10:49 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The AIT : More than meets the eye</b>
<i>By AÂ Ananth Kumar</i>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->That the search for origins not only is faulty from a theoretical perspective, but can also be ideologically suspect, became clear to Lincoln when the discussion about Dumezil's far-right views grew lively in the 1980s. Other information that came out during the same time also indicated that the discipline of Indo-European studies had not entirely freed itself from its dark past. The racial-anthropological perspective had more or less disappeared from view in the Indo-European disciplne -- even if Gimbustas described the Indo-Europeans as belonging to the Nordic race, and even if both she and Renfrew believed that the developing area of Genetics would shed new light on the question of the Indo-Europeans' origin. But behind the scenes the situation was different. Most notable is perhaps that no one reacted to the fact that the editor of the world-leading journal for research on the Indo-Europeans, Journal of Indo-European Studies, Roger Pearson, had since the 1950s been "one of America's foremost Nazi apologists and quite clearly a racist with one of the world's best web of contacts." Before Pearson, along with Marija Gimbustas, Edgar C. Polome, and Raimo Anttilla, founded the Journal of Indo-European Studies, he had worked with Hans F. K. Gunther, who had continued to spread his racial doctrines after the fall of the Third Reich. Pearson was also chairman of the American division of the World Anti-Communist League and lobbied in Washington for more funds for defense, the Contras, and the UNITA guerillas. Together with Polome, one of the United States' leading researchers in the area of Germanic religion, he has also published the academic, racist journal the Mankind Quarterly.
In the 1970s, the Mankind Quarterly, which alternates articles about race and genetics with articles about the Indo-Europeans and prehistoric cultures, became a model when one of Europe's leading neo-fascists, Alain de Benoist, founded his own journal called Nouvelle Ecole. In the journal's so called Comite de patronage were, among others, Roger Pearson, Mircea Eliade, the German classicist Franz Altheim (formerly of SS-Ahnenerbe), Marija Gimbustas, Stig Wikander, and the Swedish anthropologist Bertil J Lundman. There was also the Benoist sympathasizer Jean Haudry, who publishes France's foremost journal for Indo-European studies, Etudes indo-europeennes. Some people were probably on the Comite de patronage because they were unaware of its political sympathies, or because they wanted to sun themselves in the flow of great scholarly names; others were there because they supported the neo-Fascist views of the journal. Georges Dumezil was also on the journal's Comite de patronage. But when Benoist in 1972-73 (no. 22-23) published an honorary issue for Dumezil, which made the French press speculate whether Dumezil sympathized with Benoist's neo-Fascism, Dumezil withdrew his support from the journal. In newspaper interviews, he later made it clear that he did not support Benoist's neo-Fascism, at least not without reservations. However, this even triggered the ideologically critical examination of his work that was initiated by Arnoldo Momigliano and Carlo Ginzburg (see the introduction).
The debate around Dumezil, Pearson, Haudry, Indo-European scholarship, and Fascism made Lincoln add his support to those who felt that the Indo-European scene had to be cleaned up. In several articles, Lincoln argued that it could actually be proved that Dumezil's sympathies for French and Italian Fascism had influenced his scientific research of the 1930s. As a consequence of this, Lincoln became more or less persona non grata among the Indo-Europeanists of the United States, and references to his work declined. In the 1990s, Lincoln continued to critically study the history of Indo-European scholarship, which resulted in Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology, and Scholarship (2000; a work that would have been very important to the ideas in my study had it been published before the Swedish edition). His studies of Indo-European mythology have now made him question the very belief in an objective historiography, and he sees the scientific search for knowledge as a site for political power struggles. The work of cultural studies is, according to Lincoln, "myth plus footnotes". In one of his latest articles, Lincoln has also chosen to modify the classification system of the history of religions. The myths that he earlier studied as "Indo-European" are now presented as "Eurasian" or as "Indo-European" (in quotation marks). With that, the category of religion that saw the light with Oriental Jones' discovery in 1786 is eliminated.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
10-30-2006, 04:11 AM (This post was last modified: 10-30-2006, 04:12 AM by acharya.)
Time to ask why
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Why does their model still persist? Why do indologists not reconsider the fundamental premise of their theory? Though they have retracted the Aryan Invasion and have been forced to give up large scale migrations (to the point where, at present, one must imagine tiny bands of Aryan entrants to have silently crept into India, wiped out all records of their presence and interactions there, and then disappeared or died out without passing on their genes), they refuse to reformulate or even re-evaluate their basic assumption.
Why? What are the reason(s) governing indology's non-self-critical approach when dealing with counter-evidence from other sciences?
As we have seen, linguistics has historically been, and continues to be, motivated by concerns that are not always scientific. What motivations are driving IE linguistics and indology research today?
  * Is it inertia? Are they unwilling to sift through the material that laid the foundations of IE research in the last 150 years of the field? Or are they, unlike real scientists [52], so sure of the inerrancy of their framework that they are unwilling to re-evaluate it, its assumptions and central premise?
  * Has the IE world-view come to define the very identity of the west? Has their view of their past and their origins become so intimately tied up with the Indo-European framework? (See also [53])
  * Are there other motivations propping up the IE framework today, just like there was during the period of British imperialism when the AIT served its purpose? [54]
<b>
Indians today need to reconsider whether they should so whole-heartedly base their entire world-view upon a model whose very premise remains unverified and unverifiable. [55]</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These questions need to be answered here. In this very thread on UNMASKING AIT
--To keep subjugating Hindus through external and internal means. Especially internal means: produce as many Romila Thapars as possible, who make life easier for neo-colonialists, evangelists etc.
--To make sure Macaulay mantra is not harmed: Getting a paycheck by spitting at India should always be easier than getting a paycheck by saluting India. As long as that statement is kept true (by any means), Indians will keep India down.
10-30-2006, 09:51 AM (This post was last modified: 10-30-2006, 10:09 AM by Husky.)
Post 114 (rajesh_g): where do you find all this brilliant stuff and how did you know Lincoln's book even existed, especially since:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Lincoln became more or less persona non grata among the Indo-Europeanists of the United States, and references to his work declined.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Also, what is the source for the contents of 114? That is, who is the first-person character in this statement:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->[Lincoln's work] would have been very important to the ideas in my study had it been published before the Swedish edition<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Post 115 (acharya),
I also think asking why is very important - particularly because IE research and articles written in the US and Europe about India and related topics (articles which, in those countries, are seen as being no more than merely 'useful scholarship' and 'research') have great repercussions in India. In this way, foreign interests have immense leverage over events and thought processes in India. 'Distance manipulation', if such a term exists.
The whole thing about AIT and IE and the controversies surrounding them is that it stops us from asking why in the first place. Keeps us from seeing the forest for the trees. There are at least three stages we need to get through (or layers of the onion that need to be peeled off first, if you will):
(1) Uncritically accepting AIT (and IE). This keeps us occupied on arguing about petty things like the fictive Aryans supposedly having oppressed the other fictions (like Dravidians)
(2) Realising the AIT is a fraud and engaging the AIT proponents in arguments, in order to dispell the fiction from our lives
(3) Finding there are inconsistencies in IE (and expending efforts in futile arguments against infallibility of PIE) and discovering the more transparent ideological motivations holding up belief in IE
Even if we reach stages 2 and 3, we forget to follow through to wondering why it is that we've been made to put time and resources into this thing which some 'indologists' and 'researchers' at least must know has shaky foundations and a seriously suspect history. Yet these knowing scholars too do nothing about it, but continue working on in the field (Lincoln excepted). That really makes one start to think about why they would be doing this, what's in it for them, who they are working for, what they are working towards (their real purpose).
Acharya,
I wanted to ask you this: is the west hoping to do something similar in China or is that merely a dream of Eurocentrists who have nothing better to do?
If it's the former, then I think their present efforts at concocting a European ('Aryan') fable for China should be instructive; even if it will inevitably be different from 18th century Christo Europe's endeavours in India.
Are they hoping their work related to China will pay dividends in the future? This is something we need to pay attention to - witness what happens and how a new myth is built up (or, at least, an attempt at one). Hopefully the Taiwanese and Chinese will deflect it, because it won't just have political repercussions for them. Social and religious instability will also ensue in due time.
Also, Acharya, if the west merely wants to make India unstable, diminish chances of it becoming an economic and/or political centre (superpower), then why their strange interest in Samskritam? Is it a mix of (1) racist/fascist ideology that still makes them think they own Samskritam and (2) the aforesaid endeavours to put a stop to India's growth? Or is it much more?
You once alluded to (Samskritam thread) a 200-500 year plan of colonisation which the British had and which the Americans might have inherited. What would then be their gain? Just a billion workers doing the bidding of gawd and his chosen land of America? India could become the manufacturing/industrial plant of America merely by pumping dollars into the country and directing Indians to what they want done. Then why this elaborate game?
<b>EDIT:</b> Apparently, I have a short memory. I think your posts 244 and 246, and that of dhu ( 247 ) in the same Samskritam thread already covered the questions in my last paragraph.
What is more important for us to do is to move beyond Shri Muller and look into the entire field. There are many interesting characters in this field. Look at Roger Pearson for instance.. This character is head-honcho at JIES (Journal of Indo-European Studies) and Mankind Quarterly. More details on this character at his Wiki page.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Dr. Roger Pearson's racialist theories are circulated worldwide by neo-Nazi and white supremacist organizations." (Bellant 1989)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both JIES and Mankind Quarterly are pretty reputed and powerful.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Pearson left the Heritage Foundation after a Washington Post expose of the racist/fascist orientation of the World Anti-Communist League. Pearson chaired the American branch, the Council on American Affairs from 1975-80, as well as the WACL from 1978-79.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This article on Pioneer Fund, Heritage Foundation and Pearson is also worth a read..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The fascist ideologist Roger Pearson, whose Institute for the Study of Man has been one of the top Pioneer beneficiaries over the past 20 years ($869,500 from 1981 to 1996) is the clearest example of the extremist ideology of the Fund's leadership.
Pearson came to the United States in the mid-1960s to join Willis Carto and the group around Right magazine. In 1965 he became editor of Western Destiny, a magazine established by Carto and dedicated to spreading fascist ideology. Using the pseudonym Stephan Langton, Pearson then became the editor of The New Patriot, a short-lived magazine published in 1966-67 to conduct "a responsible but penetrating inquiry into every aspect of the Jewish Question", which included articles such as "Zionists and the Plot Against South Africa", "Early Jews and the Rise of Jewish Money Power", and "Swindlers of the Crematona".<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Many other interesting links through the Wiki page above. The most scary part about the whole thing is this quote..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The environment within which the Fund operates has also changed. Over the past decade the Fund has responded to these circumstances, and to the window of opportunity afforded it in recent years for advancing its agenda, by accelerating its grant-making to a rate sustainable only by spending its capital. <b>Weyher was quoted in GQ magazine after the publication of The Bell Curve as saying, "It seemed to make more sense to spend the money than to save it, so we spent it. Once it's gone, we'll just quit."</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If there are any doubts about how powerful these people are..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Pioneer Fund served as a small part of "a multimillion dollar political empire of corporations, foundations, political action committees and ad hoc groups" active in the 1980s (Washington Post, 31 March 1985, p1; A16) developed by Tomas F Ellis, Harry Weyher, Marion A Parrott, R E Carter-Wrenn and Jesse Helms. The Fund has served as a nexus between academic theory and practical political ideology. Its leadership, especially Weyher, Ellis and Parrott, are part of an interlocking set of directorates and associates linking the Pioneer Fund to Helms's high-tech political machine. Ellis, for example, simultaneously served as chairman of the National Congressional Club and the Coalition for Freedom, co-founder of Fairness in Media, a board member of the Educational Support Foundation and Director of the Pioneer Fund. Weyher, president of the Pioneer Fund, served as lead counsel for Fairness in Media.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Fascist ideologist Roger Pearson, a Pioneer Fund beneficiary ($568,000 from 1981-1991) and author of Eugenics and Race, published by Willis Cartoâs notoriously anti-Semitic Noontide Press, argues that the white race is endangered by inferior genetic stock, but with proper use of modern biological technology "a new super-generation" descended from "only the fittest" of the previous generation can be produced. The first nation to adopt such a scientific breeding program, Pearson contends, "would dominate the rest of the world."
In 1965 Pearson became editor of Western Destiny, a magazine established by Carto and dedicated to spreading fascist ideology. Using the pseudonym [link to deposition] of Stephan Langton, Pearson then became the editor of The New Patriot, a short-lived magazine published in 1966-67 to conduct "a responsible but penetrating inquiry into every aspect of the Jewish Question," which included articles such as "Zionists and the Plot Against South Africa," "Early Jews and the Rise of Jewish Money Power," and "Swindlers of the Crematoria."
Despite Pearsonâs long history of association with neo-Nazi groups, he was appointed in 1977 to the original board of editors of Policy Review, a journal published by the respected Heritage Foundation, a conservative political research organization in Washington, D.C. <b>Perhaps the clearest indication of Pearsonâs acceptance into the mainstream is the letter of support he received from then President Ronald Reagan, thanking Pearson for his "substantial contribution to promotion and upholding those ideals and principles that we value at home and abroad."</b>
Pearson and Cattell have been longtime associates. Cattell has published numerous times in Pearson's Mankind Quarterly and Pearson has published a number of Cattell's monographs. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Note: In this sworn deposition of 1994, Roger Pearson admits, under oath that he uses the pen names, R. Peterson, James McGregor, Edward Langford.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
10-30-2006, 11:05 AM (This post was last modified: 10-30-2006, 11:27 AM by Husky.)
Thanks.
Just googled on: "The Bell Curve" Weyher. Racism Resurgent: How Media Let The Bell Curve's Pseudo-Science Define the Agenda on Race
(It's about the book 'The Bell Curve', the racism and fascism behind it, the Pioneer Fund, Weyher, Roger Pearson)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->When the <b>New Republic</b> devoted almost an entire issue (10/31/94) to a debate with the authors of The Bell Curve, editor Andrew Sullivan justified the decision by writing, "The notion that there might be resilient ethnic differences in intelligence is not, we believe, an inherently racist belief."
In fact, the idea that some races are inherently inferior to others is the definition of racism. What the New Republic was saying--along with other media outlets that prominently and respectfully considered <b>the thesis of Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein's book</b>--is that racism is a respectable intellectual position, and has a legitimate place in the national debate on race.
The Bell Curve was accorded attention totally disproportionate to the merits of the book or the novelty of its thesis. The book and its dubious claims set the agenda for discussions on such public affairs programs as Nightline (10/21/94), the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour (10/28/94), the McLaughlin Group (10/21/94), Charlie Rose (11/3/94, 11/4/94), Think Tank (10/14/94), PrimeTime Live (10/27/94) and All Things Considered (10/28/94).
In addition to the above-mentioned New Republic issue, the "controversy" made the covers of Newsweek (10/24/94) and the New York Times Magazine (10/9/94), took up nearly a full op-ed page in the Wall Street Journal (10/10/94), and garnered a near-rave review from the New York Times Book Review (10/16/94; Extra! Update, 12/94).
While many of these discussions included sharp criticisms of the book, media accounts showed a disturbing tendency to accept Murray and Herrnstein's premises and evidence even while debating their conclusions. "While Murray and Herrnstein base their findings on various surveys and extensive research, many of the conclusions they draw are fiercely disputed," declared Robert MacNeil (10/28/94). "You've written a long book," Ted Koppel told Murray (10/21/94). "I assume a great deal of work and research went into it. But the problem is your book has become a political football."
While Murray and Herrnstein were generally characterized as sober social scientists, their critics were sometimes identified with censorious political correctness: "Both Murray and Herrnstein have been called racists," wrote Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen (10/18/94). "Their findings, though, have been accepted by most others in their field, and it would be wrong--both intellectually and politically--to suppress them." Proclaimed Newsweek's Geoffrey Cowley (10/24/94): "As the shouting begins, it's worth noting that the science behind The Bell Curve is overwhelmingly mainstream."
Murray himself doesn't think that the research they relied on was so mainstream. "Some of the things we read to do this work, we literally hide when we're on planes and trains," Murray told the New York Times Magazine (10/9/94). <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The fund's current president, Harry <b>Weyher</b>, denounces the Supreme Court decision that desegregated schools, saying, "All Brown did was wreck the school system" (GQ, 11/94). The fund's treasurer, John Trevor, formerly served as treasurer for the crypto-fascist Coalition of Patriotic Societies, when it called in 1962 for the release of Nazi war criminals and praised South Africa's "well-reasoned racial policies" (Rolling Stone, 10/20/94).
One of the Pioneer Fund's largest current grantees is Roger <b>Pearson</b>, an activist and publisher who has been associated with international fascist currents. Pearson has written: "If a nation with a more advanced, more specialized or in any way superior set of genes mingles with, instead of exterminating, an inferior tribe, then it commits racial suicide" (Russ Bellant, Old Nazis, the New Right and the Republican Party).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->These are the people that financed nearly all The Bell Curve's "data" on the connection between race and intelligence. (Murray and Herrnstein themselves have not been funded, although Weyher says of Herrnstein, "We'd have funded him at the drop of a hat, but he never asked"--GQ, 11/94.)Â [...]
Murray and Herrnstein's claims about the higher IQs of Asians--widely cited in the media as fact--are almost entirely cited to Richard Lynn, a professor of psychology at the University of Ulster.
In the book's acknowledgements, Murray and Herrnstein declare they "benefitted especially from the advice" of Lynn and five other people.
Lynn has received at least $325,000 from the Pioneer Fund (Rolling Stone, 10/20/94). He frequently publishes in eugenicist journals like Mankind Quarterly--published by Roger Pearson and co-edited by Lynn himself--and Personality and Individual Differences, edited by Pioneer grantee Hans Eysenck. Among Lynn's writings cited in The Bell Curve are "The Intelligence of the Mongoloids" and "Positive Correlations Between Head Size and IQ."
Murray and Herrnstein describe Lynn as "a leading scholar of racial and ethnic differences." Here's a sample of Lynn's thinking on such differences: "What is called for here is not genocide, the killing off of the population of incompetent cultures. But we do need to think realistically in terms of the 'phasing out' of such peoples.... Evolutionary progress means the extinction of the less competent. To think otherwise is mere sentimentality." (cited in Newsday, 11/9/94)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So all that IQ stuff I read about is based on this drivel? Glad to expell it from my memory - no space to waste on racist rubbish. Just sorry I lent it any credibility before.
As an aside: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2008
Weyher writes to 'correct' the New York Review of Books' review of The Bell Curve. And a reply is given by the reviewer.
Even though I don't subscribe to AIT, I've always wondered why it's easy to distinguish between brahmins, Dalits and the rest. I am not talking skin color here. Even a dark-skinned Brahmin has certain features which distinguish him from a fair-skinned dalit. Irrespective of color, certain features do characterize brahmins, dalits and others. Perhaps, husky and others who're into this can throw some light on this.
IMO, however, AIT is popular for one reason and one reason only. Indians love AIT, because it gives them a chance to identify themselves with westerners. That's why most Indians try to keep it alive, and it's not due to western scholarship and the rest. Those things may be true but Indians are willingly accepting their research, why? It's because deep down, as Francois Gautier suggests, Indians want to be white; hence the success of AIT even though it's got no evidence.
