----- Original Message
-----
Sent: Tuesday, August
27, 2002 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: [tied]
Indo-European Origins: The Anthropological Evidence
> The short answer to that seems to be
"Roger Pearson". List members might care to take a look at the following sites
where rather disturbing allegations unfold of associations with neo-nazis and
former SS-men, and vast amounts of money in the form of academic grants from the
"Pioneer Fund" to further respectability for racism and eugenics:
>
www.searchlightmagazine.com/stories/genewar06.htm
>
www.ferris.edu/isar/bios/pearbib.htm
> I am amazed that these
suggestions appear to have gone unnoticed and unremarked upon for so
long.
They haven't, really. We even talked about
them on Cybalist not that long ago. The question is whether something should be
done about it. My own opinion is that politics and science are different domains
and should be kept apart. If somebody is a good linguist but has
"incorrect" political beliefs, it shouldn't matter professionally.
Don't tell anyone, but my boss (still head
of the Poznan School of English, re-elected last June for the nth time) used to
be a Communist Party activist -- an apparatchik, if you prefer. He's a fine
scholar for all that, a real professional, and he was made an OBE years ago,
when still a Communist, for his leading role in the development of English
studies in Poland. My political sympathies have always been very different, but
it's never mattered at work. Orwell's books were required reading in my
student days at Poznan, and our library had them despite the official
ban.
Now if anyone wants to be a neo-Nazi, why
not let him (provided that he doesn't break any laws)? In my opinion, the world
would be a better place without any fools, but since they are
there, suppressing their rights would be more dangerous, politically
and morally, than having to tolerate them. If a linguist is an admirer of Adolf
Hitler in private but manages to remain an objective scholar in his
working hours, his private life is none of our bussiness (I don't believe in
"false consciousness" -- I spent too many years on the wrong side of the Iron
Curtain). If, on the other hand, he lets his ideological agenda dominate
his thinking (which may easily happen in the social sciences), he will most
likely write rubbish and ruin his reputation with his own hands. In neither case
is it necessary to denounce him to the public as a neo-Nazi. I'm suspicious of
politically correct activists who seem to get their thrills
from witch-hunting, even if the witches are genuine.
It would be much worse if a number of
scholars should organise a mutual support group in order to protect one another,
write favourable reviews of their pals' articles, present a united front to
external criticism, etc. This _is_ a real danger and it's the only reason why we
should be concerned about things like too many linguists whose mutual friend is
a rich man with curious sympathies. But again, no need to cry wolf if there's no
real evidence of foul play.
I try to live up to these principles,
though I confess that being only human I sometimes lose my temper and say too
much.
> As for John V. Day himself, if he is
the same John V. Day responsible for the introductory notes to Anthony
Ludovici's "The Jews, and the Jews in England":
>
www.revilo-oliver.com/Writers/Ludovici/index.html
> then I think he
obviously has the same axe to grind.
Yes, it popped up when I was
searching the web for John V. Day. It might indeed be the same person.
But I don't know, and hence my curiosity.
Piotr