Re: Aryan invasion theory and race

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Koenraad Elst" <koenraad.elst@...> wrote:

> It would seem to me that "racism" defines a political ideology that
> allots unequal rights to people of different races.

Wrong. This is not the main definition of the English term "racism", but of "racial/ethnic prejudice/discrimination" (a.k.a. "skin color-aroused discrimination") instead. You are here referring to _institutional_ racism and its underlying political ideology; yet, some more basic, general and all-encompassing definitions of "racism" are:

- "the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race" (Oxford English Dictionary);

- "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary);

- "the belief that some races are innately superior to others because of hereditary characteristics" (Collins Essential English Dictionary);

- "the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others" (The American Heritage Dictionary).

> In that strict sense, there is nothing racist in Watson's quoted
> statement, for he doesn't deny people of what he determines to be
> the lower-averaging races any rights that he allows the higher-
> averaging ones.

Wrong again. Geneticists who claim there to be a divergence of intellect or any other human capacity or ability between populations geographically separated in their evolution are "racists" according to the definitions of the English term "racism" provided above. Indeed, this was stressed by Dr. Francis Collins, Director, U.S. Human Genome Research Institute, who thus commented Watson's unfortunate 2007 statements about a link between "race" and itelligence:

http://tinyurl.com/lo7afg
"I am deeply saddened by the events of the last week, and understand and agree with Dr. Watson's undoubtedly painful decision to retire in the aftermath of a racist statement he made that was both profoundly offensive and utterly unsupported by scientific evidence."

Denial of any rights is not a constituent part of the currently accepted definition of "racism".

> But if "racism" is defined loosely as someone who merely accepts
> the concept of race as meaningfully distinguishing between classes
> of people, then of course he would be a racist.

Exactly. Yet, this isn't a "loose" definition of the term "racism"; on the contrary, it is the _main_ definition of it! See above.

> That "race" doesn't correspond to anything determinable, is open to
> question. Francesco's compatriot Luigi Cavalli-Sforza bends over
> backwards in the introduction to his influential book on Genes &
> Languages to deny "race", then goes on to develop an advanced form
> of the same concept under a different name, "genetic cluster".

I don't think Cavalli-Sforza, either consciously or unconsciously, identifies genetic clusters with "races", although some other population genetists have obliquely and surreptitiously suggested such an identification -- for hints to the debate on genetic clusters and "races", see the Wikipedia articles at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics

> Michael Hart fondly quotes him. I don't follow the racist websites,
> but I am sure that many of them quote Cavalli-Sforza as argument of
> authority, including against his own introductory rhetoric.

So what? Are you talking about _scientists_, or those who distort their theories for their own intellectual and/or political ends? The latter's faulty misrepresentations of certain scientific theories cannot certainly be projected back onto the scientists they "quote as argument of authority"!

> In my opinion, "anti-racists" make a grave mistake in trying to
> deny the fact of racial distinction, as if difference and legal
> inequality were equivalent.

"Scientific" racism, as defined above, has always provided the base for "legal" (i.e. State-driven) racial discrimination throughout history. But, Koenraad, what do you mean when you state that "racial distinction" should not be denied? Aren't you, by chance, trying to tell us you are a supporter of the idea that "racial distinctions" do exist (which is, alas, unsupported by scientific evidence)?

The concept that discrimination can be based on "race" presupposes the existence of "race" itself. However, the U.S. Government's Human Genome Project has announced that the most complete mapping of human DNA to date indicates that there is no distinct genetic basis to racial types -- see at

http://tinyurl.com/4rct9o

Based on this evidence, "racial characteristics" logically cannot exist either.

> Better to accept difference, including biological inequality
> (compare the number of Kenyan and Japanese marathon winners),

You're again wrong. The gold medal winners for the 2000 and 2004 Olympic Games marathon for women were two *Japanese* athletes, and those for the 1936 (!) and 1992 Olympic Games marathon for men were two *Korean* athletes! See at

http://tinyurl.com/q4xbpr
http://tinyurl.com/qwhqny

Yours is typically an unscientific commonplace, Koenraad. Now please don't come up and tell us that black males are "innately" more capable than white ones to sexually satisfy a woman, or that the ancient Germanic tribes (a "Nordic race") were "innately" stronger than the ancient Romans (a "Mediterranean race") in combat! :^)

> Kalyanaraman's position would be that... all AIT believers are
> racists. I don't agree with that, but under the prevailing
> ideological configuration, he can draw upon a concept recently
> deployed by the "anti-racists", viz. "subconscious racism". I am
> sure that Francesco does not hold racist opinions, but along with
> the "anti-racists", Kalyan could say that you are nonetheless the
> prisoner of an encompassing racism that goes deeper than your
> conscious opinions, one that comes to the surface in thin disguise,
> viz. in your belief in a white invasion of India.

While making clear once again that I don't believe in any "Aryan invasion" of India, and that most of mainstream scholars in Indian pre-/proto-history, Vedic literature, and Indo-Iranian linguistics likewise *don't* think in terms of an "Aryan invasion" of India, let me state that this appeal of yours to a supposed "subconscius racism" shared by myself and said maistream scholars is just BS.

Charges of racism, "unconscious" or not, against the scholars who have argued for a non-autochthonouness of the Indo-Aryans to the Indian sub-continent are particularly malicious and odious when coming from such Brahmin supremacists as Kalyanaraman and others. True, caste discrimination within Hinduism is not properly a form of racism (although we could start another discussion thread on this very sensible topic), yet it approximates the definitions of "racism" I have provided in the beginning of this post -- just replace the term "race" with "caste" and examine the results!

Regards,
Francesco