Talk:California textbook controversy over Hindu history
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
 |
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
 |
California textbook controversy over Hindu history was the Hinduism Collaboration of the week for the week starting on 1 January 2006.
For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations. |
.
 |
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette. |
 Archives |
| Archive 1 Jan 2006 - Jan 2007 |
Contents |
[edit] Do all Indians agree with the Hindu nationalist groups objecting to the textbooks?
NO. But various editors here at WP are trying to give the impression that they do. The continued attempts to state that the groups attempting to "saffronize" the California textbooks are supported by all Hindus, or Indians, or desis, or whatever -- there is no basis in fact for this claim. Given that saffronization has been beaten back in India, that various desi groups in the US joined in the attempt to prevent some changes in the textbooks, it's absurd to claim that everyone lines up behind the Hindutvadis.
The claim by a small group to represent a much larger one is endemic in politics these days, and just as often exposed. The latest from the UK is a number of Muslims claiming that the MCB doesn't represent them, and Jewish intellectuals insisting that the Zionists don't speak for them.
I've seen this sort of self-inflation myself, when I was involved in Green politics. We'd have one African-American at a meeting, and whenever he spoke, he claimed to speak for all African-Americans. Which was silly, given that he was a crunchy-granola Birkenstocked dread-locked counter-culture sort of fellow, who was surely not representative of most US blacks. People will try this manoeuvre in politics whenever they think they can get away with it. Just the way some animals will swell up, or bristle their hair, to make themselves look bigger when they're threatened.
Please either come up with some evidence for the claim to support, or stop trying to insert it. Zora 10:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- yes.--D-Boy 11:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Well which Hindu likes see his religion reduced to caste, cows and supposed opression of women? You as well as I know you cant really provide sources for this! Various Indian editors here give you the impression, might be perhaps because most Hindus really do! Hindutva afaik is not a monolithic ideology. Believe me, i've read about Hindutva from a multitutde of sources (not just the pseudo-secular crowd you read). As a Hindu, i can affirm most Hindus DO believe in some of the things mainstream Hindutvaadis stand for (like their views on history.). Amey Aryan DaBrood© 17:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ambroodey, your subjective impressions of what other Hindus believe, and vehement claims to represent the majority position, don't count as evidence. We need statements from reliable sources (mainstream political commentary, academic books, etc.) or results of public opinion polls.
- Also, you're ignoring any distinction between the edits that even Witzel and the other academics believed were necessary, and the ones that they rejected vehemently. The ones they rejected tried to present Hindutvadi beliefs as facts. One point of contention strikes me as bizarre: apparently the Hindutvadi groups tried to suppress any mention of polytheism, and claimed that Hindus worshipped "God". One academic title I skimmed (need to find it again) argued that this type of argument was typical of Hindus from northern India who were trying to counter Christian missionaries and had adopted a monistic Vaishnavism as a counterweight. Zora 21:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Monism and monotheism in Hinduism aren't exclusively Hindutvadi beliefs Zora, it's present in philosophical form from the time of Adi Shankara and is even described in parts of the Vedas. Hindutvadis are wrong to say that polytheist views aren't there but the fact that you're tarring Hinduism with one brush in the first place is pretty stupid. Considering monistic Vaishnavism has been there for a very, very long time, I find it kind of amusing that you believe it's a reaction to Christian missionaries. Also if you want evidence as well, look for it yourself if no one gives it to you! 71.245.160.30 21:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Actually, he's totally right. I grew up as a hindu in america. What they teach in public school is very biased. they focus on the caste system and child infanticide.--D-Boy 11:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- even if that is an accurate description of your experience, this is, what, a sample of one year in one public school in all of the US. We cannot make any sort of generalising statement based on that. We'll need studies to extend that claim to anything like a "they" referring to the US education system as a whole. I0m not saying what you say isn't true, I am saying it is based on a subjective expression that may be completely different with the next person you ask. Also, addressing caste and whatnot is not the same as "reducing" Hinduism to these things. That's just cheap rhetorics. Nobody ever suggested the curriculum should only surround problematic issues, there is an ample choice of colourful and merry folklore as well as deep and intriguing theology to lighten the mood. The entire point is that caste and other social issues will also be mentioned. Talk of "reducing Hinduism to" anything in this context is simply bad faith spin. dab (𒁳) 13:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, he's totally right. I grew up as a hindu in america. What they teach in public school is very biased. they focus on the caste system and child infanticide.--D-Boy 11:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I assure you, most Hindus like to have their religion portrayed neutrally and as a religion, not as a bunch of mythological stories, which is what many people have as an impression of Hinduism. It's just like you can say most Muslims don't like people insulting their Prophet. — Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- what's wrong with mythology? in any case, the problem is that "Hinduism" has a much, much greater diversity than "Islam". You can summarize the central tenets of Islam in a couple of sentences, but with "Hinduism" you'd need a couple of pages just to unravel the various currents before you can begin summarizing them. "Hinduism" is really a misnomer or over-generalization, applied from the outside (as in, "anything religious or spiritual that we found in India"), referring to a lot of things. dab (𒁳) 09:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I will not claim to speak for Hindus (whatever the term really means) in general: I will speak for myself alone. I was raised Hindu. I completed elementary school in India where immersion was natural. I moved to the United States in sixth grade and since then developed a serious interest in and appreciation for the culture of my parents. Throughout my early immersion, I noticed ritual was an integral part of my lifestyle: if my feet touched books, or if I dropped writing utensils, I must touch them to my eyes (it is almost an involuntary reflex now), after all, "the knowledge in books is granted by the goddess Saraswati, she mustn't be disrespected"; in the morning when I got up, I was told to call on Rama to guide me to be as virtuous as he; I must offer porridge to the idols; I must carry a string on my body; etc. My life was laced with rituals, each one dedicated to various "gods," who were interconnected fibers in a vast and rich mythological tapestry. When I came to the US and started attending the temples here, I noticed the rituals still existed in some form, but the vague and arcane philosophies were morphing into well-defined principles and to my own shock were becoming severely polarized.... the kids who were raised here told me there was only one God (of course they would recount the concept of Brahman, present in some ancient Hindu philosophical texts; Brahman is not realized in the oldest Vedic writings). This is of course a form of evolution: Hindus adapting/preserving their religion in a foreign world with foreign religious philosophies. I guess people can believe whatever the heck they want, but if we are to write textbooks, we shouldn't account for the voices of just the tech-savvy Non-Resident Indians; the development of Hinduism is must more complex than that. And to the shock of many NRIs, modern academics like Jones, Elphinstone, Bernard, Thieme, Witzel, Thapar, etc. have been studying this rich development for the last three centuries (and before them, millennia of Hindu, Persian, Greek, Arab, Chinese academic commentators). Why shouldn't we include the description of the caste system or the importance of animal husbandry to the early nomadic settlers or the concept of suttee or the development of advanced mathematics or pioneering commentaries on civil law, linguistics, religion, etc. etc. etc. 141.213.182.42 (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cut down
On the external links. Just use one or two to represent each view. The Behnam 13:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'll trim them down to a few each unless anyone objects. Addhoc 17:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "History Today"
With the "History Today" article, we at least have some source other than newspaper weblinks. Sure, it is partisan, but at least it is up front about being partisan. I see no reason not to cite it. Regarding the quality of the journal, it isn't Nature, but it will have to do until we can cite more authoritative studies (does it have an ISSN?). dab (𒁳) 06:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- It may not. It didn't make Thompson Scientific's Arts & Humanities Citation Index (the only "History Today" listed is British), it's new and it's avowedly partisan, judging from the review cited on the ICHS page. That their articles aren't peer-reviewed doesn't mean that all articles are bad, only that no attempt is made to shield others from radioactivity, accidental or intentional. rudra 10:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reactions from Hindu Media
We might want to include in the article that a publication of the Hindu community, "Hinduism Today", created a social studies lesson designed to be an alternative to the present California textbooks: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/education/ Natha 17:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I read this lesson plan. It is not historically accurate nor are the presented claims very citable. The lesson goes to extraordinary lengths to discredit what it calls the "Aryan Invasion Theory." 141.213.185.150 (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- On what basis do you state that it is not historically accurate?! It discredits the Aryan Invasion theory because it is still taught despite the fact that it _HAS_ been discredited. I think it is a good idea to include the link Kkm5848 (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- it hasn't. that's just what you read on partisan blogs. On other partisan blogs, you read that biological evolution has been discredited. Nevertheless, evolution is still taught at school. Yet elsewhere, you read that "3 Dimensions is erroneous math without a 4th corner perspective dimension". Go figure: blogs don't count. dab (𒁳) 13:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Name change
The current name of this article is both ungrammatical and semantically confusing & misleading. Therefore, I would like to rename it to California textbook controversy over Hindu history. If there are no objections, I will make that change in a few days -- unless somebody can suggest a better name than my proposal. Cgingold (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] FOSA description
"anti-hindu" is not a "factual description", it is a characterisation of one party to the dispute by the other. it should not be used unattributed. Doldrums (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- go read the wp article on FOSA...there is a cited WP:RS reference stating exactly this. Kkm5848 (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 3O
dispute is over terming[1] Friends of South Asia as an "anti-Hindu" group, based on this partisan opinion column in a marginal news source. the opinion is unattributed, unbalanced by other views and reported as a factual description. Doldrums (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Third opinion. Without debating the news source itself, it is an opinion piece written by one of their primary columnists. Opinion columns are not reliable sources of facts and information. The claim and source should be removed. Vassyana (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't have access to muse, but it seems like Prema Kurian in an article "Who Speaks for Indian Americans? Religion, Ethnicity and Political Formation" published in American Quarterly (muse.jhu.edu/journals/american_quarterly/v059/59.3kurien.html) states the same thing. While I haven't cited the book; the column is based on the book that was published in India by an independent publisher. Kkm5848 (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Kurian mentions this accusation: "Groups that mobilized to oppose the edits of the Hindu groups included South Asian studies scholars, South Asian groups such as FOSA, secular Indian American groups such as the Coalition against Communalism (CAC) and the Campaign to Stop Funding Hate (CSFH), and Dalit groups such as the Ambedkar Center for Justice and Peace and the Guru Ravidass Gurdwaras of California. Articles by members of this side meticulously traced and publicized the links between the Vedic Foundation, Hindu Education Foundation, Hindu American Foundation, and Hindutva groups in the United States and India, and criticized the changes as trying to promulgate an upper caste, male, North Indian, sanitized view of Indian history and deny oppression. Groups supportive of the VF, HEF, and HAF on the other hand, denounced the scholars, secular Indian American and Dalit groups, as 'anti-Hindu.'" (p. 776)
- So, obviously, Kurian doesn't say that FOSA is "anti-Hindu". The article reports that FOSA is among groups that have been denounced as anti-Hindu by supporters of the VF/HEF/HAF. Since this denunciation was made in the context of the events that this article covers, it may be worth putting this in, provided that it's properly attributed and contextualized.
- The Kurian piece would probably be a good source for other aspects of this article, too. It's the only coverage of this event that I've seen in a peer-reviewed academic journal. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- The "anti-Hindu group" claim was fraudulently restored in this edit [2] that I reverted. It was slipped in with the revert of the ip's removal of tags. The consensus on this seems clear. Dance With The Devil (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
