Over at Cliopatria, Ralph Luker links to this story of fundamentalists trying to push their religious views into California textbooks. In this case, the fundamentalists are Hindu, and the textbooks are on World History.
It's interesting to compare the accuracy of the Wikipedia article on the Aryan invasion theory with the BBC's background article. The Wikipedia entry is a bit light on the subject — coverage of the modern political debate is limited to a page worth of text at the end of the article. The BBC, on the other hand, presents the nationalist version as unquestioned fact, with such phrases as "Why is the theory no longer accepted?" and "It even teaches that some of the most revered books of Hindu scripture are not actually Indian, and it devalues India's culture by portraying it as less ancient than it actually is."
UPDATE 1/25 (Alan A): The Beeb has amended its page to reflect our criticisms.
Posted by Ben Brumfield at January 24, 2006 08:33 AMYes, the BBC's page is very sub-par. This is really not an area that the Corporation does well, and they should get out of the business of trying to turn their news website into a general reference resource.
Posted by: Alan Allport at January 24, 2006 10:44 AMHonestly, this is far below "sub-par":
The theory was not just wrong, it included unacceptably racist ideas:While there are, of course, plenty of problems with the Aryan invasion theory and many of those problems originiate from 19th century German racial theory, this is nothing more than the BBC parroting the propaganda of some ethnic pressure group. I mean really, "not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from other cultures" is a concept with no basis whatsoever in Anglo-American thought. The whole article is nothing more than nationalist chauvinism.
- it suggested that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from other cultures
- it implied that Hinduism was not an authentically Indian religion but the result of cultural imperialism
- it suggested that Indian culture was static, and only changed under outside influences
- it downgraded the intellectual status of India and its people by giving a falsely late date to elements of Indian science and culture
Perhaps it wouldn't be so suprising if it were nationalist propaganda for the nation that hosts the BBC.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 24, 2006 11:40 AMI do agree with your general point on the BBC's background material section. In my experience it ranges from mediocre to inane. This is the first time I've ever seen it be both wildly inaccurate and slanted, however. Makes me wonder what I'd find if I compared the background material on the early history of Christianity with this stuff on Hinduism.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 24, 2006 11:47 AMI've written a complaint to the site's editors about this. Will see if any response shows up.
Posted by: Alan Allport at January 24, 2006 12:07 PMWe'll see.
To be fair, the articles on Christianity are also writen from a fairly devout perspective, though they vary a bit. From the article on Mormonism:
Before Joseph could fulfil the task of restoring the Church it was necessary for him to get the authority to do it. This authority could come only from God.In 1829 Joseph was visited by John the Baptist. The Baptist laid hands on the heads of Smith and his colleague Oliver Cowdery and gave them the authority of the Aaronic Priesthood.
I might have reframed that with a few more "Mormons believe"s, but it's certainly not written from the perspective of a secular historian. That still falls short of the Aryan invasion theory article, which might be compared to a long denunciation of mainstream Mesoamerican archaeology in an article on the Latter Day Saints.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 24, 2006 12:27 PMYes, I agree. In the Mormon case it might be fairly argued that to add 'allegedly' to every verb would be pedantic, just as it would be to qualify the factual certainty of every miracle in a traditional saints' tale. The reader knows what's going on here. The Aryan question is one of secular history and any attempt to sanitize it for religious sensibilities is only going to deceive the reader.
Posted by: Alan Allport at January 24, 2006 12:38 PMThey have responded:
Thank you for your email. I don't think the article purports to provide an undogmatic overview - it presents a particular view of Hindu history in order to balance the more conventional view presented elsewhere on the site.
However, you'll be glad to know that we soon will have the badly needed impartial overview article, written by an expert in the subject. The article is currently being circulated for comments, and we hope to have it online within a very few weeks.
Best wishes
Religion Internet Team.
I am not particularly convinced by the disclaimer in the first paragraph (and have told them as much), but to their credit at least they recognize that the current page is inadequate and that it will soon be revised.
Excellent.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 25, 2006 09:39 AMThey have amended the page - not in the sense that they have changed much of the content, but in the sense that they have owned up to its less-than-objective status. See what you think.
Posted by: Alan Allport at January 25, 2006 10:18 AMWow, that was fast! They may still be updating it, though, as it seems much improved over your description.
I'm impressed.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at January 25, 2006 10:33 AMSome indology discussion at:
http://irffanclub.blogspot.com/