Paglia in WSJ

[Jim heartfield]

Yes, the theory of Aryan origins and its critique is quite well-known,.
Most recently in Britain, Nazi Aryan theories were the subject of a
rather good documentary on the fourth largest terrestrial television
channel with viewing figures around three million (pop 60 m). It is the
subject of best-selling author Umberto Eco's recent book on the quest
for the perfect language,  and indeed the subject of that most famous of
all critiques, De Saussure's Course on Linguistics. Two fat volumes of
Martin Bernal's Black Athena go into the question, which, despite the
hostility that Bernal met with on publication of the first volume, won
its reputation with the second. Britain's foremost anthropologist Lord
Renfrew made his reputation with a demolition of the 'Aryan' theory.
Anthropology degrees include the deconstruction of it as a basic
component of the first year.

Indeed, most extraordinary of all the theory of Aryan origins and its
racial intent has been the subject of a Hollywood blockbuster starring
Harrison Ford, who stars as Indiana Jones is his struggle to expose the
Nazis manipulation of archaeology.

So, when you say that this is a secret, you have to admit, it is a
pretty widely-known secret. You think of Paglia as the mainstream
against which you want to rebel. But in this debate, at least as you
pose it, you are the mainstream, she is the rebel.

You accuse me of throwing in my lot with the critics of the anti-
scientific left, as though that was something to be ashamed of. If the
left is anti-scientific, then it ought to be criticised. What should we
praise? Stupidity, obscurantism?

You call Paglia a racist and accuse me of indulging racism, because 'I
am an Aryan'! Well, really, get a grip, Rakesh....

In message <v02130500630bd3306052@[128.112.70.23]>, Rakesh Bhandari
<bhandari at phoenix.Princeton.EDU> writes

>Then she's clearly stupider than I thought. Well known by whom? Not by most
>Indians certainly. And certainly not by her; she evinces NO knowledge at
>all of the relation between racism and archaelogy though the pt of the
>editorial she decided to write was to defend archaelogy agains the charge.
>How different is this than declaring a war on science without knowing
>anything at all about 20th century physics?  As for being a well worn path,
>the ground breaking book I cited was published in 1997! (Thomas Trautmann,
>Aryans and British India. California) But of course as one who has decided
>to throw in with reactionary opponents of the anti scientific left, it is
>not surprising that you seem willing here to support the one sided,
>reactionary critique of those challenging Eurocentrism. You can afford to
>indulge the racism of these types. I can't. You are an Aryan, I am not.
>Yours, Rakesh
>
>
>

-- 
Jim heartfield