From: Patrick C. Ryan
Message: 26183
Date: 2003-10-01
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael J Smith" <lookwhoscross-eyednow@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2003 1:59 PM
Subject: [tied] Glen, regarding...
> Glen, perhaps you misunderstood me. I agree with you that race has
> nothing to do with linguistics,
<PCR>
I am not so sure that I can agree. I have suspected for some time that changing phonology may be related to changing genetic compositions of a given population.
When I pursued this question on another list, I also got the knee-jerk reaction of 'racism' from some listmembers, the others being reluctant to express their opinions for fear of the same smear tactics.
But the simple facts are that NO ONE has yet been able to satisfactorily explain why sound systems change.
and I don't believe the Indo-Europeans
> were a particular race.
<PCR>
This all depends on what one means by 'race'. I have the strong presumption that the earliest PIE was spoken by a definable population group in which some physical characteristics statistically predominated.
The Mycenaens, Hittites, Armenians, Medes and
> Persians and Lusitanians certainly don't seem to have been blond, and I
> myself don't in any way propose that the Indo-Europeans were originally
> blond. I also agree with you that race is of low importance in regards
> to Indo-European studies.
<PCR>
If we can extract recognizable DNA sequences from Neanderthalers, we certainly ought to be able to obtain some useful genetic information from the skeletal material of areas where we know certain langauges were spoken. Until we do (if we ever even try), 'race' will be a highly speculative subject.
> However, what I do disagree with you on, and what I was trying to say, is
> that someone bringing up what physical characterics Indo-Europeans may
> have had isn't in itself racist, because this consideration by itself
> doesn't suggest any racial superiority. If I were to describe the
> physical characteristics of Ainu or Japanese people, that doesn't mean
> that I consider either of those people superior to other races.
<PCR>
Many people in the West have been brainwashed into believing that any honest discussion of genetic characteristics is, per se, 'racist'. As you correctly observe, 'racist' should be reserved for views which assert superiority of one ethnic group over others.
However, inconveniently for those who would substitute ideology for science, there are clearly measurable differences in many areas of interest among the 'races' (definable breeding populations). Seeking to explain these differences sociologically is a job catgeory in the United States still relatively unaffected by unemployment.
> Again, I don't think it's an important aspect of Indo-European studies,
> but I think the real reason people want to know the appearance of ancient
> peoples is so they can imagine and picture them in their heads while
> discussing or reading about them.
<PCR>
Just so some readers will not automatically classify me as a 'Nordicist', my own view of the Nordic breeding population is that it was probably non-PIE-speaking until relatively late in history, and that the peculiarly Germanic words in that area are probably the scant remains of the non-IE language that Nordics spoke at the time of their first contact with IE speakers.
> Again, this is completely different then subscribing to Hitler, which is
> what you suggested and is a logistic fallacy.
<PCR>
All minority populations are particularly sensitive to any idea that can be twisted into a condemnation of the majority. Browbeating the majority with such accusations evidently makes them feel more secure (the best defence is an attack).
> -Michael
>
>
>
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 14:41:09 +0000 "Glen Gordon"
> <glengordon01@...> writes:
> > Michael:
> > >Proposing what particular race Indo-Europeans were may be
> > >unrealistic but is not racist in any way, and nowhere did he
> > >say he believed one race was superior to another.
> >
> > Um, really, this IS a linguistic forum. Race is so secondary to
> > Indo-European linguistics. And unfortunately, since there are
> > still nuts out there that still follow H*tler's propoganda in
> > relation to Indo-European, when I hear someone obsessing
> > over the fantasy that Indo-Europeans were blond and blue
> > eyed raises giant alarm bells in my head.
> >
> > I mean really, what is so special about blondness to this Siglo
> > character as opposed to redhair or even dirty blond? How is
> > a garden-variety recessive gene important here at all???
> > This isn't gLeN being grumpy, it's about maintaining some
> > common sense. Siglo has no real point and wants to insist
> > on some strange ideology. If he wants to persist with it,
> > he may by all means. But the last thing I want to see in my
> > mailbox is a bunch of posts about some unattested and
> > unlinguistic idea. I didn't sign up for that.
> >
> >
> > = gLeN
> >
> >
<PCR>
As far as Glen is concerned, those linguists who did sign up like Jens and Miguel, did not sign up for routine and juvenile ridicule of their ideas but they put up with Glen. If they can, then Glen ought to be able to occasionally read something with which he, constitutionally, cannot agree.
Pat
PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE@... (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/ and PROTO-RELIGION: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html "Veit ec at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío, geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit, hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)