Dear Vishal,
I said I felt very sorry about
the JIES business. Not that I can do much about it personally, but it's good if
people are aware of such shady liaisons, so I have sent my warnings
to a few colleagues. I won't do more, since far from being a pro-Nazi type
I am not a fanatical Nazi-hunter either. Fortunately, it's easy to see that the
"blood money" has not been used to convert the JIES into a mouthpiece of
Nazi sympathisers (or can you prove that it has?). "Our stalwarts" don't get any
of the the money anyway. The JIES people don't pay linguists to write for the
journal.
Given the crucial importance of Hittite,
Iranian and Indo-Aryan in mainstream IE studies I find it surprising that
you should call them Eurocentric. On the other hand, given the geographical
density of the family, accusations of "Eurocentrism" sound like accusing
Romanists of a Mediterranean bias.
Prof. Misra's idée fixe is too obvious to
be an illusion, and it doesn't take a white supremacist to see that his
linguistics is thoroughly unsound and unprofessional (white supremacists, with
the possible exception of Pearson, have no deep interest in linguistics
anyway, judging from their excesses on this list some time ago, and please note
that we showed them the door on that occasion). Did I really "hurl abuse" at Misra? I merely suggested, in an
aside, that his disavowal of ideological commitment might not be quite
sincere. There must be a psychological reason behind such consistent
self-delusion and his refusal to consider (let alone accept and
accommodate) _any_ evidence that disagrees with his views, even such as has
been common knowledge for 130 years.
I have not attempted to
discredit Misra views indirectly through an ad hominem attack, or by
attributing a false consciousness to him. Quite the contary, I have on several
occasions laid out my purely technical objections to historical linguistics as
rewritten by Misra. I don't have to psychoanalyse him to prove my point. For all
I care he could be a hardline Indocentric nationalist, or whatever, and I
wouldn't mention the fact or give a damn about it if it didn't matter
professionally. Also, I couldn't care less what colour or hue anyone's skin
is -- white, brown or turquoise. My eyes happen to be dark brown and
my hair is black, if it matters to you -- but I hope it doesn't, really.
It's Misra's linguistics, not his skin or hidden prejudices (if any) that I
object to; and the reason why I object to it is that it is very
bad science -- something that places Misra on the fringe. I would prefer
to ignore Misra altogether if his ideas were not circulated here at regular
intervals and if he were not cited as an exemplary Indian linguist -- an honour
he certainly does not deserve (alas for Indian linguistics if he
did).
Yours,
Piotr
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 9:56 PM
Subject: [tied] Re: Misra, Bryant and Indigenous-Nationalist
Conflation
VA: And what motive causes you to stick to what I think are Eurocentric
theories? White Suopermacism? Why does IE studies still rely on Anti-Jewish
racists, why is their premier journal published by a person who is accused of
being a follower of a Nazi like ideology?
How easy it is for people like
Piotr and their European/N-American white colleagues to hurl abuses at others,
when their own stalwarts take blood money to publish their papers in JIES EVEN
TODAY.
Before accusing others with brown skins, look into your own
mindest.
A more charitable explanation of Mishra's viewpoint could have
been that he is deluding himself.
[from another posting:]
... The post by Piotr on S S Mishra clearly brings out his hidden
prejudices and proves once again that respectable scholars of IE studies are
quite dishonorable in treating people who do not have white skins (and perhaps
blonde hair and blue eyes).