<p>Google search him; his prejudices are pretty well documented at this point.</p>
<p>I'm amazed Harvard hasn't dropped him.</p>
<p>Doesn’t sound prejudiced to me at all.</p>
<p>If you aren’t being sarcastic, you’re being pretty ignorant.</p>
<p>I’m Indian and Hindu, and I think Professor Witzel is absolutely correct–there are plenty of things in Hinduism that are less than agreeable, and refusing to teach them is dumb as hell. Absolutely, teach about the Hindu caste system, repression of women, animal sacrifice, etc. Give equal treatment to all religions, to be fair–teach about the passages in the Bible where God commands genocide, infanticide and rape. You can explain the historical contexts of these practices–I’m fine with teaching that the Bible is an amalgam of several influences, and the real core of the Bible involves a loving, just God, just as I’m fine with teaching that Hinduism has a more philosophical Vedic side that leans towards monotheism and doesn’t sacrifice animals. But sanitizing any religion to avoid offending members of that religion is not only dishonest, it’s immoral; it does serious injustice to the memory of those harmed by that religion in the past–whether they be the cities God commands to slaughter in the Bible, or the castes and the women that Hinduism has historically oppressed.</p>
<p>this is true. </p>
<p>only when one understands the blessings and the flaws of a culture can one truly learn to appreciate it. sanitizing religious dialog carries the potential risk of continued stereotypes and false assumptions. only by speaking about all aspects of a faith can one expect to defend it.</p>
<p>What the prophet said.</p>
<p>“Absolutely, teach about the Hindu caste system, repression of women, animal sacrifice, etc”</p>
<p>I have 1/4 Vedas memorized, just for context.</p>
<p>The ‘caste’ system as it exists today has ABSOLUTELY NO foundation in the Vedas.
None.</p>
<p>The practice of Sati (still undocumented and unattested) has NO foundation in the Vedas.
None.</p>
<p>Animal sacrifice is shunned by Vedantins.</p>
<p>You have to understand, there is a MASSIVE difference between Theistic Modern Hinduism, (which I could never call myself a part of 1. Because I’m a staunch atheist as a consequence of Vedanta 2. Because seriously, other religions do theism much better)</p>
<p>and actual Vedanta.</p>
<p>One note about the caste system:</p>
<p>Even the names given to different ‘castes’ are irrelevant from the Vedic standpoint.
The Rg Veda specifically posits only that human beings are the product of their actions, and should curtail certain actions so as to live more intelligently.
Nowhere is there ever any talk of separating a society, much less doing it by family lineage.</p>
<p>Which makes sense, seeing as the frequency of the R1a Haplogroup (with the m-177) marker is uniform across these ‘castes’ and across India (and Pakistan, and Iran, and Afghanistan, etc)</p>
<p>In fact, the only documented time in Indian history that a “caste” system was put into place was during British occupation. (and partially during the occupation by the Mughals/Arabs, who were incidentally also uniformly lighter in color) </p>
<p>Racially dividing a country is a common feature of Western 19th century imperialism; Another good example? The genocides inadvertently caused when the rulers of Rwanda created a psychological division between the Hutus and Tutsis based on their ideas of racial supremacy.</p>
<p>Witzel’s linguistics analysis is obsolete; Most PIE reconstructionists have now decided that the Urheimat cannot be placed.</p>
<p>I’m pretty familiar with the IE Linguistics crowd. From going to LSA conferences to taking their classes (literally), I’ve met a lot of them.</p>
<p>The reason people like Witzel are “Widely accepted” is a pernicious thing called “cross citation”.
Academics with the same viewpoint cross cite each other.
(part of why PIE is sometimes considered an actual language, instead of just a model for certain phonetic changes, that allows etymologies to link correct languages, and not general ones)</p>
<p>Apart from his laughable linguistics (which genetics slowly, but surely has started to show unlikely), the actual behavior of Prof. Witzel suggests racism in the extreme.</p>
<p>From associating Indian Classical arts with prostitution, to deciding to use only French/German (usu. not learned by non Western academics) when discussing the AIT theory in webforums, to having to constantly revise dates of the AIT when archaeological evidence makes it impossible, to speculating that the “Aryans” were fair skinned invaders, to insulting (in a rather puerile manner, I might add), his opponents in public discussion, to proudly declaring he was born in an area conquered by Nazi Germany, to proudly declaring he is a descendant of a great Christian thinking (Martin Luther), Witzel unambiguously projects the image of a racist academic </p>
<p>(Don’t worry, there’s no shortage of racism in academia)</p>
<p>who is living out a sick racial fantasy, and who has based a career on that perversion.</p>
<p>The caste system doesn’t derive from the Vedas,nor does animal sacrifice, but Hinduism is FAR more vast than the Vedas, or the cultural mindset typified by them. That’s Witzel’s entire point–that the changes to schoolbooks Hindu groups in California wanted to create would paint Hinduism almost exclusively in a Vedic light, while Hinduism is much, much bigger than that (how could it not be? Hinduism is perhaps the most heterogeneous religion that has ever existed). </p>
<p>Just to examine a specific theological point: you say there is a massive difference between “Theistic Modern Hinduism” and Vedanta. But theism has plenty of roots in Hinduism, and the Vedic conception of Brahman as a singular divine force has plenty in common with Catholic and Judaic mysticism, continental Christian philosophers, etc. That is, it is much more similar to reflective approaches to Western monotheism than it is to the polytheism which Hinduism also incorporates. My point is that Hinduism certainly incorporates both: it incorporates those who actually believe in the numerous Gods of the Hindu pantheon and it incorporates those who believe in a singular force that pervades all existence and finds expression in myth. It also incorporates those who believe in a single Western-style God–to imply that they are any less “Hindu” simply because their view isn’t completely in line with the Vedas reveals a rigid, narrow, ultimately incorrect understanding of Hindu religion. Similarly, Hinduism incorporates refined Vedic philosophy and, at points in its existence, has involved the caste system, and animal sacrifice. </p>
<p>Also–I don’t know if Sati (women throwing themselves on their husbands’ funeral pyres) is attested to or not, as I’m not an expert on historical data for Indian cultural practices. I do know that Hinduism, like the vast majority of the world’s other religions, has historically treated women rather poorly. Look to the story of Arjuna, the Pandavas and Draupadi. Women were not treated as autonomous beings deserving of freedom, that’s for sure. Why are you so reluctant to acknowledge these aspects of Hinduism do in fact co-exist with its positive elements?</p>
<p>“From associating Indian Classical arts with prostitution, to deciding to use only French/German (usu. not learned by non Western academics) when discussing the AIT theory in webforums, to having to constantly revise dates of the AIT when archaeological evidence makes it impossible, to speculating that the “Aryans” were fair skinned invaders, to insulting (in a rather puerile manner, I might add), his opponents in public discussion, to proudly declaring he was born in an area conquered by Nazi Germany, to proudly declaring he is a descendant of a great Christian thinking (Martin Luther), Witzel unambiguously projects the image of a racist academic.”</p>
<p>I don’t know about any of this and my point’s not to defend Witzel as a man, or to argue that the guy does good research. It’s to show that your narrow view of Hinduism as Vedic Hinduism is dumb, a view Witzel seems to agree with, and the view of his that has created the most controversy. Hinduism has involved plenty of crappy stuff; that stuff’s lack of presence in the Vedas does not make it any less a part of Hinduism.</p>
<p>Just one thing: why is proclaiming he is a descendant of great Christian thinking in any way wrong? Why’s that bad? Are you saying that people who take pride in their religious intellectual heritage are racist? Is Amartya Sen racist when he writes about Hindu traditions of dissent in “The Argumentative Indian”?</p>
<p>^ I don’t think you read what I wrote.</p>
<p>Hinduism is nothing I can associate myself with if we’re going to use real definitions.</p>
<p>Hinduism is a complete theistic perversion of Vedanta, resultant from repeated conquests in history from the time of Alexander the Great onward.</p>
<p>If we’re going to draw (hopefully) a distinction between Hinduism and Vedanta, I wouldn’t ever choose the former.</p>
<p>Witzel’s point is NOT that. Witzel consistently speaks of Hinduism and Vedanta as the same thing, and both as derivative of some alleged Aryan religion of an alleged Aryan people.</p>
<p>Don’t try and educate me about Vedanta. It is inherentlyatheistic.</p>
<p>And again, you’re right; Hinduism does commit atrocities in history.</p>
<p>Vedanta doesn’t primarily because it is NOT a religion and there is NO ‘God’.
“…and the Vedic conception of Brahman as a singular divine force has plenty in common with Catholic and Judaic mysticism, continental Christian philosophers, etc…”</p>
<p>Wrong. This is precisely the information that goes into base education because of people like Michael Witzel.</p>
<p>I’m not implying Hindus are any less “hindu”.</p>
<p>I’m implying that modern Hinduism is an umbrella of devolved traditions that at best poorly approximate Vedanta and introduce concepts of God where there should be atheism, and the Professor Witzel trying to conflate elements of Hinduism that ARE similar to Western theism as evidence of an Aryan migration are TOTALLY dishonest and motivated by racism.</p>
<p>I am not reluctant to acknowledge those “aspects” (I prefer barbarous practices) of Hinduism.</p>
<p>I think religion generally creates the kind of groupthink that propagates that kind of behavior.</p>
<p>What I am reluctant to do is accept the mistranslations and fanciful speculation of Prof. Witzel on texts I have memorized, on teachings I have learned, and a language I have studied copiously.</p>
<p>“…why is proclaiming he is a descendant of great Christian thinking in any way wrong? …”</p>
<p>The good Professor often makes the argument that any hindu/vedantin can never be taken seriously in a discussion because they have a motive to promote their religion.</p>
<p>I would argue that an argument of motivation also precludes him from having any say in religious matters, as he consistently brings his heritage up.</p>
<p>The OP is just a 2/10 ■■■■■, nothing to see here folks.</p>
<p>^ That’s pretty funny.</p>
<p>You’re pretty good, Shalashaska.</p>
<p><em>sits back and hopes he gets the reference</em></p>
<p>"Hinduism is a complete theistic perversion of Vedanta, resultant from repeated conquests in history from the time of Alexander the Great onward.</p>
<p>If we’re going to draw (hopefully) a distinction between Hinduism and Vedanta, I wouldn’t ever choose the former."</p>
<p>Witzel argued during the California schoolbook thing that less than attractive parts of HINDUISM should not be removed from textbooks. Obviously lots of these things aren’t in the Vedas. That’s not the point.</p>
<p>“Witzel’s point is NOT that. Witzel consistently speaks of Hinduism and Vedanta as the same thing, and both as derivative of some alleged Aryan religion of an alleged Aryan people.”</p>
<p>I’m not talking about Witzel’s research, philosophies, etc. Again, I was arguing in favor of Witzel’s view on whether disagreeable Hindu practices should be incorporated into Californian textbooks.</p>
<p>“Don’t try and educate me about Vedanta. It is inherentlyatheistic.”</p>
<p>Nice job asserting that a religious text is “atheistic” and offering no evidence. The Vedas are not purely theistic in the sense of modern theism–that is, they don’t argue that there is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God as Western religion does. That doesn’t mean they are “atheistic”–they very clearly refer to a DIVINE presence in the world, and this presence is a single ontological entity, single just like God in monotheistic religions. </p>
<p>If you really want to reject the entirety of historical Hinduism in all its variety as a bunch of “devolved traditions,” you go ahead and do that. And again, I’m not arguing for Witzel’s position on anything other than the California schoolbook controversy. I agree with him that HINDUISM (not strict Vedanta/Vedic Hinduism/whatever) has a lot of bad traits, and those traits should not be deliberately overlooked by writers of history and textbooks.</p>
<p>“The good Professor often makes the argument that any hindu/vedantin can never be taken seriously in a discussion because they have a motive to promote their religion.”</p>
<p>If this is really his argument, then that’s obviously very dumb. In places I’ve seen him assert that Hindu groups wanting to delete negative aspects of Hinduism from textbooks are doing so on the basis of their socioreligious identity, rather than because of a scholarly commitment to the truth. That’s absolutely, incontrovertibly true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok that last line was dusty as hell but I’m bumping your rating up to 7/10 for the MGS shoutout lol</p>
<p>“Nice job asserting that a religious text is “atheistic” and offering no evidence.”</p>
<p>Nice job asserting that Vedanta is a religion.
Nice job asserting that a philosophy that unambiguously states that being infinite, the infinite natural law that is has no separation from you has any room at all for theism.</p>
<p>“And again, I’m not arguing for Witzel’s position on anything other than the California schoolbook controversy.”</p>
<p>You really didn’t read half of what I wrote, did you?</p>
<p>I’m saying he consistently conflates Hinduism with Vedanta.</p>
<p>“Again, I was arguing in favor of Witzel’s view on whether disagreeable Hindu practices should be incorporated into Californian textbooks.”</p>
<p>I am ALSO in favor of those descriptions of HINDUISM.</p>
<p>“I’m not talking about Witzel’s research, philosophies, etc”</p>
<p>I AM talking about his research, and philosophies which manifest themselves as his continued association of Hinduism with Vedanta, and his dogged persistence (aided by cross citations with his former students) that Vedanta is the result of blond haired blue eyed Nordic supermen invading South Asia.</p>
<p>Because THAT is precisely what irks me about Harvard; That they haven’t looked into at all the research and philosophies of Professor Witzel, which was the entire point of the OP.
Jeesh.</p>
<p>@ Shalashaska:</p>
<p>Apart from our evidenced disagreements on what indicates racism and what is or isn’t the philosophy I’m enraged a Harvard Wales Professor routinely misrepresents in the public understanding via his domination of academia promotion…</p>
<p>Did you feel like the B&B squad was a bit contrived? </p>
<p>I mean…seriously…If I wanted to replay every Metal Gear game, I would’ve (and I did before I sat down for 4…) only done that…</p>
<p>It seems we agree more or less (?) on the whole Witzel thing. So.</p>
<p>“Nice job asserting that Vedanta is a religion.
Nice job asserting that a philosophy that unambiguously states that being infinite, the infinite natural law that is has no separation from you has any room at all for theism.”</p>
<p>1) When did I assert that Vedanta is a religion? You’re the one that professes affinity with Vedanta while spouting disgust at the rest of Hinduism, merely “devolved traditions.” My argument is that Vedic Hinduism is not the entirety of Hinduism, or the only “true”/legitimate/pure form of Hinduism.</p>
<p>2) Your second sentence doesn’t even make grammatical sense, but I’ll try to work with it. My argument is that Vedic philosophy is not atheistic, in that it very clearly articulates a conception of the divine. The atheist denies that the divine exists. Furthermore, the Vedas are like monotheistic religion in that they hold that there is only one divine presence (that is, the Vedas are closer to monotheism than polytheism. I’m not saying they ARE monotheistic in the sense that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are monotheistic). Lastly, I was criticizing you for “asserting” things without giving evidence, not for simply “asserting” (i.e. arguing for) them in the first place.</p>
<p>And finally–you say the “entire point of the OP” was that Harvard hasn’t looked into all the research and philosophies of Professor Witzel." I interpreted the ridiculously non-specific OP (“Google search him; his prejudices are pretty well documented at this point”) as referring to Witzel’s position on the schoolbooks. Pretty reasonable when the first search result on Google for “Professor Witzel” deals with that controversy. Stop being so arrogant.</p>