Names and Epithets, Political Correctness and Woke Cancel-Culture

 

Names and Epithets, Political Correctness and Woke Cancel-Culture

 Shrikant G. Talageri

  

Recently, my article “Did the Hittites have “Mongoloid” Physical Features? And if so, What does it Show?” has apparently raised a storm of protest among certain sections of internet trolls, who have apparently been viciously and abusively attacking me on the twin grounds that my article represents “politically incorrect” views, and relies on “outdated and unscientific criteria now universally rejected”.

Let me state at the very beginning itself that I believe in things being factually correct or incorrect; I believe in things being ethically/morally right or wrong; but I very definitely do not believe in things being politically correct or incorrect. In fact, the half-wittedness of people who believe in political correctness and incorrectness on grounds unconnected with facts or ethics/morality only makes me laugh, even if it is sometimes tinged with sadness at the frailties of mankind and of constant amazement at the stupidity of politically motivated and obsessed people. In short: I care two figs for criticism based on woke dogmas of political correctness which seek to control thoughts by mob gangster tactics and to “cancel” out people who do not follow their lexical dictates. In fact I have a very heady contempt for people who live by illogical politically correct dogmas of word usages and taboos, and I am proud to be lambasted by them. If acceptance of the OIT requires the approval of woke ideologists (and of those who buy their dogmas), I don’t care for (and maybe even don’t want) their acceptance.

 

The extremely stupid nature of “political correctness” first came to my notice many decades ago when I read that Shabana Azmi insisted in an interview that she should not be called an “actress” but an “actor” since the former word was discriminatory – strangely, this is one “politically correct” dogma which seems (if one reads newspapers and magazines) to have spread everywhere like wildfire. I wondered then whether she also insisted that she be called a ‘man” rather than a “woman”, or that she should be referred to by the personal pronoun “he/him” rather than “she/her”. Why was “actress” a bad word and “actor” a good one? Did she intrinsically feel male epithets were good and female epithets bad?

Words generally (but naturally, not always − let us not initiate “politically correct” dogmas about word etymologies) have innocuous origins, even if some of them acquire new and loaded meanings in the course of time (see words like “gay” and “queer” for example). Thus the word “Aryan”, for the Indo-European languages, arose from the fact that authors of the two oldest Indo-European language texts (the Rigveda and the Avesta) seemed to refer to themselves as “ārya/airya”. But the gross misuse of the word, which led to its association with Nazi racism, gave the word a bad name and removed it from most academic studies. Today, after woke ideology has been running berserk over the civilized world since the last so many decades, all kinds of words have become “politically incorrect” or “taboo” words. The insane extent to which this can go may be seen from the fact that, in 2015, Oxford University Press issued an edict  that authors should not use the word “pig” anywhere in their writings (even when specifically referring to the mammal species of that name) since it would offend Muslim readers!    

Coming to specifics, the words by which scholars originally “classified” human racial types was also based on innocuous descriptive words based on visual perceptions. Thus, caucasoid, mongoloid and negroid were based on the name of the Caucasus mountains (wrongly believed to be the original cradle of “the white race”), the name of the Mongols, and the Latin word “black” (which does not automatically mean “bad”, whether or not the scholars coining these words believed it to be bad) respectively.

 

And was this classification based on divine revelations or scientific analysis. No: it was based on simple visual perception. It was noticed that, by and large, these physical features were not restricted to individuals but to the entire populations of large and almost-contiguous geographical regions:

1. Ask google the question: “which areas of the world have native people formerly classified as "negroid"?”

AI-generated answer: “The term "Negroid" was formerly used to categorize people from Sub-Saharan Africa and some isolated populations in South and Southeast Asia. Specifically, it encompassed populations in Africa south of the Sahara Desert, stretching from the southern Sahara to the African Great Lakes region, as well as the Negrito populations of the Andaman Islands, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Papua New Guinea.”

2. Ask google the question: “which areas of the world have native people formerly classified as "mongoloid"?”

AI-generated answer: “The term "Mongoloid" was a historical racial classification that broadly encompassed populations primarily in East Asia, Southeast Asia, North Asia (Siberia), Central Asia, the Americas (Native Americans), and parts of the Pacific Islands (Polynesia). This classification is now largely outdated and considered scientifically inaccurate and problematic due to its reliance on superficial physical characteristics and its potential to perpetuate harmful stereotypes.”

 

Was it morally/ethically wrong or unscientific to note what is before the eyes (though obviously it is morally/ethically wrong as well as unscientific to decide ideas of “superiority” and “inferiority”, or to nurture prejudices and hate-ideologies, on the basis of physical features visible to the eyes)? When we talk of people from certain areas having blonde or red hair, or blue eyes, are we automatically being unscientific and outdated, or hopelessly prejudiced, or automatically believers in racist politics or hate ideologies? Does being politically correct mean becoming (or pretending to be) blind and deaf and giving up the ability to think, or to see what we see?

Yes: woke people believe (or pretend to believe) this, and in fact they make their dogmas of lexical political correctness into weapons for hate-mongering and mob-targeting, and for the cancellation of people and ideas and indeed of Truth and Objectiveness. I have the greatest admiration for J.K.Rowling who courageously faced a veritable siege from woke people for her views on “gender identity” politics. And whether anyone admires me for it or not, and even if everyone attacks me for it, I also stand firm against these satanic woke dogmas. The hate speeches and abuse that I face now only make me laugh.

 

Coming back to the point, people who say the old classification is wrong as a system for classifying mankind (I agree to this part), but then go on to say that the old classification based on physical features visible to the eye has zero value even as visible features, and that the new racist “technology” of “genes” and ‘DNA” disproves and replaces the “outdated” evidence of visible physical features, then I am afraid these people are just newer versions (till even newer ones replace them) of the old “technology” of hair, eyes, skin color and cranial measurements.

See the following questions put to google, and the AI answers. It is clear that there is no direct correlation between visible area-wise physical features (howsoever outdated and politically incorrect as a “science” for “classifying” humanity) and genetic features, that one can be used to disprove the other:

Question put to google: “Do all peoples formerly classified as "mongoloid" have some genes or DNA in common not found in those not so classified?”

AI-generated answer: “No, it's not accurate to say that people formerly classified as "Mongoloid" share specific, unique genes or DNA. While there might be some genetic markers that are more common in populations historically labeled as "Mongoloid," there's no single gene or set of genes that defines this group and distinguishes them from others. Human genetic variation is continuous and complex, and attempts to divide people into distinct racial categories based on genetics are not supported by scientific evidence”.

Question put to google: “Do all peoples formerly classified as "negroid" have some genes or DNA in common not found in those not so classified?”

AI-generated answer: “No, there is no specific set of genes or DNA that is found in all individuals previously classified as "negroid" and not found in others. Modern genetics demonstrates that humans are remarkably similar at the DNA level, with over 99.9% of their genetic material being identical, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). While there is variation in gene frequencies across populations, this variation does not align with historical racial classifications like "negroid"”.

Question put to google: “Do the Andamanese people have some genes or DNA in common with African people formerly classified as "negroid"?”

AI-generated answer: “While Andamanese people do not share significant recent shared ancestry with African populations formerly classified as "negroid," some superficial similarities in physical appearance, like skin tone and hair texture, exist due to similar adaptations to tropical environments rather than shared origins. The Andamanese are believed to be descended from early Southeast Asian populations. The term "negroid" is outdated and considered offensive”.

And yet we have “scientific” clown trolls assuring us that genetics disproves that the Hittites could have had “mongoloid” features”!

 

“Mongoloid”! Yes, though starting out as a word taking the people of Mongolia as a standard physical type, the word has acquired unsavory connotations because of the misuse of the word as a descriptive word for certain disabilities: notably “Down Syndrome”, babies born with this disability being described as “mongoloid” babies. See the following article:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/blog/2020/11/23/how-did-down-syndrome-get-its-name/

But basically, it simply refers to certain types of geography based physical features, neither “superior” nor “inferior” in any way to other types but just physically distinct in appearance.

If just referring to these features in a necessary context is “politically incorrect” or “outdated” according to anyone, I pity people whose minds function on this abysmally low intellectual level. At this rate, if any concerned Indian citizens protest against Indians from the northeast being insulted or discriminated against in urban areas elsewhere in the country only because of their physical features, then we will have to call these concerned citizens “outdated” and “unscientific” for taking official notice of physical features which cannot be attributed to specific “genes” and “DNA”!

 

Physical features visible to the eye are also a measure of the great diversity of the human race. They don’t have to fit in with any “genetic” classifications based on “genes’, “DNA” and “haplogroups” in order to be accepted as valid features. I myself, in referring to the greatness and diversity of Indian culture in every respect, have often written about this same “outdated” classification with pride. For example, in my article; “Why Is Indian Culture the greatest culture in the world? And why is it in mortal peril?” (an extract from the Voice of India Volume "India's Only Communalist" edited by Koenraad Elst, a Commemoration Volume to Sita Ram Goel who (along with Ram Swaroop) was the true Bhishma Pitamaha of Hindutva scholarship, published in 2005. My whole article in that volume was entitled "Sita Ram Goel - Memories and Ideas", and a major portion of that article was uploaded by me on my blogspot as "Hindutva or Hindu Nationalism"), I wrote:

1.“There are three recognised races in the world (Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid), and India is the only area in the world which has all three native to it: the Andaman islanders are the only true Negroids outside Africa. Sometimes, a fourth race, Australoid, is postulated (otherwise included among Caucasoids), and we have it among the Veddas of Sri Lanka. Language wise, six of the nineteen families of languages in the world are found in India, three of them (Dravidian, Andamanese and Burushaski) only in India. And the numerically and politically most important family of languages in the world, Indo-European, originated (as I have shown in my books) in India.”

[Yes, in that article, I used the words: “three recognised races in the world”. I meant in the sense of external physical types, not genetic types or racial hierarchical types. But trolls are welcome to make the most of it!]

2. “The idea that Vedic or Sanskrit culture represents Indian culture and that other cultures within India are its subcultures and must be incorporated into it, is wrong…..all other cultures native to this land: the culture of the Andaman islanders, the Nagas, the Mundas, the tribes of Arunachal Pradesh, etc. are all Indian in their own right. They don’t have to be - and should not be - Sanskritised to make them Indian”

3. “It will not be an exaggeration to say that the day on which the last of the Andamanese tribals breathes his last breath will be one of the blackest days in our modern human history, in more ways than one. Indian culture will be very much the poorer, by one of its three native races and by one of its six native language families, apart from the different other aspects, most of them probably unrecorded, of Andamanese culture (although I recall seeing a Films Division documentary, “Man in Search of Man”, long ago on Doordarshan, which provided some glimpses of Andamanese culture, including some strains of their music). But, apart from that, it will show how “progress and development” can be as ruthless as “religion”: if the natives of Tasmania were ruthlessly wiped out from the face of this earth, in mediaeval times, in the fanatical name of religion, the natives of the Andaman islands will have been ruthlessly wiped out from the face of this earth, in modern times, in the mindless name of progress and development.”

Elsewhere, I have repeatedly expressed my pride in the fact that my family (of Indians) includes people of all “types”, and expressed my frantic desire to oppose forces out to drive these different “types” into oblivion:

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-andaman-islanders-and-indian.html 

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-oldest-language-in-world.html

Sorry, but I have no intentions of allowing woke hate-ideologies, even if not consciously “woke”, to dictate my use of words.

 

As for the actual material point about whether or not the Hittites “had mongoloid features” (not “belonged to the mongoloid race”), this is apparently testified to by the numerous contemporary depictions of Hittites by Egyptians and others (and by the Hittites themselves), where they depict the Hittites with a number of “mongoloid’ features, but do not depict non-Hittites with those same features. Whether the early (nineteenth and early twentieth century) scholars were prejudiced or not is immaterial. If they were lying, prove it beyond doubt: until then their perception has to be noted. Whether human beings can indeed be “scientifically” classified by these racial types is also immaterial. And giving as comparable examples totally irrelevant (Jesus depicted in medieval Europe, Krishna depicted in Mughal times, etc.) or isolated (the dancing girl of Harappa) is laughable.

As for my articles apparently making people “laugh”, it is always better (and more an act of piety) to make people laugh than to make them cry. Not that it matters to me either way whether people laugh or cry on reading my articles! And I have never got, or tried to get, any kind of monetary or material advantage from my writings, and see no need to lie or to dissimulate in order to get, or retain, anyone’s approval. So I am actually totally immune and indifferent to trolls: in fact usually I help them to earn some piety by laughing at their rants. No-one has the power to cancel me out!