Skip to comments.India bans Book by University of Chicago 'scholar' Wendy Doniger.
Posted on 02/15/2014 1:01:04 AM PST by bakeneko
Wendy Doniger, a 'Hindu Scholar' at the University of Chicago, has had her book banned, or interrupted, by Indian authorities because it denigrates the Hindu religion.
This is a long article and I am still reading it myself, but, having been a UofChicago Student myself in a previous life, I had to go to a 'meet the faculty' dinner and listen to this woman speak; in which, she spent two hours talking about the sexual practices of a village in India she visited. This, I guess, gives her as a UofChicago demigod the capacity to speak for the entire Hindu congregation. I found myself daydreaming all the time of pancakes on bunnies' heads.
As a Marxist, Doniger reduces all of Hindu mythology to a Marxist and homosexual interpretation. She has spawned now two generations of Hindu studies professors at universities who share her deconstructionist view of the world's oldest religion.
And now Real Indian Hindus are mad as hell and are speaking out. Maybe because now the West has abandoned its own moral credibility.
(Excerpt) Read more at rajivmalhotra.com ...
My original whiff of this came from this Chicago Tribune story. They seemed, as always, to be holding back most of their facts.
Thanks for the insight.
Another useless eater commie (lesbian?) with a very high paying gig. She’s got her story and she is sticking to it because it pays so well
She’s a clone of Mooooooochelle who was also paid by U of Chicago for doing nothing useful. To the tune of 350 thousand a year
..... and Michelle Obama was paid $316,962 to handle community affairs for the University of Chicago Medical Center. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-why-michelle-was-working-mom-316k-year-we-didnt-have-luxury-her-not-work#sthash.LPv5uT51.dpuf
Well, peaceful relative to Islam, I should say.
The devil has begun to spread his hate beyond Judeo-Christianity to anything that even has a suggestion of a peaceful divine touch. I’m not equating the faith systems by any means, and frankly champion God from a Christian perspective, but a certain overlap of principles is an observation that C. S. Lewis made. The bible may have presaged this in its prophecy of the one world government that would be exalted over “God, or anything that is worshiped as God.” And bad-mouthing the latter would be the opening salvos, I figure.
In an earlier day this would have been called farce because there would be nothing else to say.
Maybe there ARE villages in India in which the practice has devolved into sexual obsession... I never say that it could never be, to anything strange... but to characterize the whole bloomin’ Hindu faith system that way is something that not even the most ardent Christian evangelist would ever do. Sounds much more like she has a profane axe to grind, and finds the “exotic” setting a convenient excuse to do it.
In the end leftists piss all over 3rd world cultures due to them being too traditional. As in thinking gay marriage is the most absurd thing they ever heard of. Another reason to hate Euro and American style globalism
It’s a peculiarly Western rot.
One could “blame” Judeo-Christianity for making it possible, but again does one really blame the castle-builders for barbarians moving into castles and trashing them? The better something is, the worse the thing that it can be made into via perversion.
Here’s a thread discussing this situation from the New York Times’ perspective.
Follow the money trail. I’ll wager there’s a Saudi Wahabist prince, somewhere along the line, with too much money on his hands, fueling American academia for propaganda to use in their hot and cold wars on the Indian sub-continent.
I did not take her classes at U of C, but she was still considered a celebrity professor when I was there - largely because of her obsession with "gender."
At the same time, banning her books is a stupid, stupid thing to do.
If India is going to be considered a legitimate modern republic, it can't go around banning books.
Is there no one in India who is able to refute her work? Really?
Now there's a surprise !
btw, first post = good job
Does anyone remember the “HUGH, Series Discoveries” of Margaret Mead in what was announced as a work of sociological breakthrough? Remember “Coming of Age in Samoa”? ? ?
Admit it - we all had it forced on us by a professor or a believing friend, neighbor, whatever. It was sold more widely than hotcakes, caused fat deposition between the ears, and eventually left the bad taste in ones mouth that Liberal excess is wont to do.
Turns out the locals told the “social scientist” what they thought she would believe and they played her credulity for all it was worth.
Now, we have a pervert at the central school of communism blathering about sex once again.
Let me guess; is it another case of truth being called denigration?
Those mired in decadence cannot comprehend what decadence is. There is nothing moral about it. There is nothing good about it. It is abject failure, nothing more.
Decadents imagine themselves to be all sorts of things: morally superior, intellectually superior, sophisticated--many things.
What they cannot comprehend is that they are none of these things.
They are mired in decadence, groupthink, and a cultural downward-spiral and are morally and intellectually inferior to those who have gone before them. This they simply cannot imagine.
The true criticism of benevolent Western decadents is the same: a failure of imagination and comprehension.
Wendy D is a gender feminist pervert idiot. She doesn’t translate, she just pretends to translate changing the meaning with her perverted sick world view.
I’ve read hertranslation (well, started to, couldn’t finish because it was so bad) Manu Samhita and it was so bad I threw it away. I’ve read a good translation so I know the difference. Look at the info about her above.
Why shouldn’t India ban her books if they want to? If being considered a “legitimate modern republic” means the toilet and sewer culture we have in the US, why would they want that?
Totally agree, you read my mind. It’s part of the agenda to destroy anything which might stand in the way of the eventual “one world church” and then easily control the members into the forced worship of the antichrist. Apparently Islam is being saved for last because when you push muslims, they push back. Or rather, they often push first, so you don’t push them.
I think at one time, I too might have seen it that way, but with the domination in American culture of certain agendas, people are getting afraid and/or fed-up. We already know that in America, MSM does not allow a real dialogue on the merits or demerits of, for example, the global warming or sodomite agendas. The only time they mention an opposition is to marginalise it, freeze it, demonise it-the Alinsky tactics. They never allow the opposition to speak for itself. People can see what’s going on.
Why should the aggressiveness of leftists in the US justify the aggressiveness of leftists in India? They are both wrong.
I believe in freedom of speech. I also believe that what we have in the US now is not freedom of speech, but licence. For the first 150 years, “freedom of speech” did not cover obscenity, pornography, descriptions of child molestation nor its advocacy, plays about Jesus being a fag, the Vagina monologues, and the like. Nor did it cover naked dancing, women stomping on kittens on youtube, prostitues covering themselves with chocolate on stage, “Gay Pride” parades, and on and on ad nauseum.
It meant “Freedom to express your ideas”.
And that’s the way it should be, and the way the Founders meant it to be. What we have now is utter perversion of freedom of speech. I’m not even touching on ‘hate speech’ and what is forbidden, that’s another topic.
The people who don’t want Wendy’s nasty perverted book sold are not leftists.
And yes, the people banning the books are leftists. They are the watered-down Indian equivalent of national socialists.
Whatever they may or may not be, the Government of India is not bound by our constitution or bill of rights.
For you to insist upon it makes you just as imperialistic as Wendy.
Stomping kittens on youtube was decided by the SCOTUS as falling under freedom of speech.
And according to you, the founders of the country were national socialists because they did not find that blasphemy, pornography or obscenity to be covered under freedom of speech.
(2) The Founders did indeed countenance blasphemy and obscenity, certainly by the definitions operative in their day.
(3) We are not discussing pornography or stomping on kittens. We are discussing a volume of hack comparative religious theory.
If you think speaking the truth about India's mistakes is "imperialism" then you are clearly an advocate of Marxist-Leninist analysis of international relations.
I don't buy into, nor am I cowed by, socialist rhetoric.
Wendy Doniger is free to write what she likes and Indians have a natural right to read whatever they like, regardless of what their silly government says.
1. Yes they did, I did the Moral Absolutes ping list for about a decade, and I remember that case.
2. Obsenity, pornography and blasphemy such as is tolerated (or celebrated) today would never have been countenanced by them, and the mores of that time (much better than ours today) did no countenance such things even by their more stringent parameters.
3. The hack comparative religious theory is considered by practicing Hindus to be blasphemy and obscenity. Why shouldn’t they forbid it if they want to?
A lot of people just hate India and the Hindu religion.
(2) You are again wrong about the Founders. The works of Thomas Paine were inarguably blasphemous by every 18th century standard. And Titus Andronicus was inarguably obscene - yet was printed at Philadelphia in 1795 even as it was being bowdlerized in its home country.
(3) They shouldn't ban it, because they should value liberty over despotism. They should recognize that all human beings have inalienable rights.
There is also the practical difficulty of allowing governments to devide what can or cannot be said and what does or does not constitute something as amorphous as "blasphemy" and "obscenity."
(4) Why do you strain so hard against the facts to defend the Founders (from something they were right about) when you clearly deplore the Declaration they risked their lives for?
I wonder if I'm the only person in this conversation who has actually been to India and visited Hindu holy places.
You think physically having been to India gives you knowledge?
I remember you from previous discussions and it’s pointless to discuss with you.
Have fun discussing with your mind.
I bow out and will leave you with your thoughts.
The SCOTUS did issue a ruling that women in high heels stomping on small animals on Youtube is protected “speech”.
I'm sorry you lack the resources for a reasoned discussion.
The SCOTUS' point was this: banning the videos after the fact can have unintended and unconstitutional consequences - such as exposing people who use the videos as a way to shame, identify and punish the criminals who made them to criminal prosecution themselves.
Life is complicated, lj, and sometimes you actually need to stop and think through the consequences of your actions. Actung rashly can often produce results that are the opposite of what you wanted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.