Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 18:37:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Yvette Rosser, yvetterosser@yahoo.com
Subject: 6th Grade Social Studies Textbooks–approved edits To: Tom Adams, tadams@cde.ca.gov
Greetings Tom Adams,
Yesterday I sent you a long letter regarding edits in the sixth grade textbooks. I appreciate your commitment to professionalism and pluralism. In your months of deliberative procedures you paid attention to the learning criteria as well as the sensibilities of religious minorities in our communities. After due process the SBE decided to edit several negative or erroneous descriptions about the religious beliefs and practices ! of Jews, Muslims, and Hindus from our children’s textbooks.
After two days of testimony and weeks of study, the SBE issued a notice on November 8th, that the Ad Hoc Committee had reviewed 684 edits, and approved 499. Shortly after these edits were announced a highly incendiary letter arrived from a professor. He singled out the Hindu-American community, using pejoratives against them and making ungrounded assumptions, with a blanket condemnation of all the suggested editorial changes made by the Hindu-American citizens who testified before the California Curriculum Committee.
Before writing his rather racist and rude letter, the professor did not have the opportunity to review any of the edits, yet he stated that the “proposed revisions are not of a scholarly but of a religious-political nature” and “do not reflect the views of the majority of specialist on ancient Indian history nor of mainstream Hindus.” He pronou! nced judgment without reviewing the materials. Certainly, as a scholar of Sanskrit he must know that Hindi is written in the Devanagari alphabet that has 52 characters, whereas the Harcourt textbook stated that, “Hindi is written with the Arabic alphabet, which uses 18 letters…” Other edits were of a more sensitive interpersonal nature reflective of the intimacy of practitioners. Since Professor Witzel is well known within the Hindu-American community for his mocking tone and aggressive stance, he would not be a good source of editorial advice concerning “the intimacy of practitioners”
I sincerely hope that last-minute misinformed efforts by biased academics cannot derail a state approved process in which testimony was taken from dozens of citizens, who submitted documents; followed by a clearly laid out procedure in which several reports were made within the SBE and a final judgment was issued. This was the case on November 8th before the l! etter arrived from Dr. Witzel. I am greatly concerned that the decision of the SBE will be withdrawn regarding the representation of Hinduism in 6th grade social studies textbooks. Does this also mean that the changes approved in the sections on Judaism and Islam will also be rescinded? Will the whole process have to be repeated?
I assume, once a proclamation is made public, based on citizen input and professional and bureaucratic review, that recalling certain sections would require a public process, or some kind of consultation with the citizens upon whose testimony the approved edits were based. There is also the embarrassing problem that if the edits requested by the Hindus are retroactively disallowed and the edits requested by the Jews and Muslims are allowed to remain–this is blatant discrimination. The SBE must ensure that the Hindu citizens of California are not singled out for discrimination because of a random letter to the Curricu! lum Committee.
It could as well as been a group inspired by their academic investigations into the veracity of the Exodus story in the Bible. Such a motivated group may have unintentional anti-Semitic tendencies as they argue that the “Exodus story was produced for theological reasons: to give an origin and history to a people and distinguish them from others by claiming a divine destiny.” (http://www.truthbeknown.com/exodus.htm) The ICS reviewed the Jewish portion of the textbooks and suggested that “It is essential to clarify that the Passover observance is: “more than a meal and not a celebration of the tenth plague; rather, it commemorates the Exodus.” The ICS requested these edits: “Jewish families hold a special ceremony called the Seder. During this service, families retell the Exodus story, [add these words: express sorrow for the plagues God sent to the Egyptians,] and eat certain foods. [remove these words: such as matzoh, a ! bread Israelites ate during the Exodus.] [Add this sentence: “Jews observe Passover for eight days in memory of the Exodus when their ancestors escaped from Egyptian slavery.]” Because there are scholars who refute the Exodus story will you retract your approved edits if they wrote you a heated letter? Before rescinding the approved edits would you confer with the ICS?
I ask these important questions because of an email letter sent out on Friday, Nov. 11, at 8:33am written by Steve Farmer to the yahoo discussion group of which he and Michael Witzel are cofounders and moderators, The Indo-Eurasian Research Group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasian_research/
Under the subject line, “California Hindutva textbook fiasco ends well!”, Dr. Farmer wrote:
[…]
In California this Wednesday the State Board of Education demonstrated that science can still win – by decisively voting _not_ to give into Hind! utva pressures to change California textbooks.
Events that started on this List just last Saturday, resulting in a letter we put together signed by 50 top international researchers, turned the tide.
It is now 6:30 am in California. Michael and I will have a detailed report of what went on this week in California – both at the Board meeting on Wednesday and behind the scenes – by the end of the day.
Thanks – and congratulations! – to Arun Vajpayee, the brave graduate student who got the ball rolling last Saturday, and to the scores of researchers on the List who helped in California!
The BBC Hindutva issue is next….
Best,
Steve
—end forwarded of letter—
Is this true? Is it that simple to undo weeks of SBE work and hours of citizen testimony? Did your office “decisively” and suddenly vote to rescind the approved edits? Did someone in your office really send Steve Farmer and Michael ! Witzel a “detailed report of what went on … in California – both at the Board meeting on Wednesday and behind the scenes”? If so, did they also send the same notice to the Hindu Education Foundation (HEF) who submitted numerous briefs? Could I also please received a copy of that “detailed report”?
I will willingly offer advice or help pro bono to solve this problem in any way possible. I have a PhD in Curriculum and Instruction and MA & BA In South Asian Studies and I am highly motivated regarding this topic. Please let me know if the SBE backtracked regarding the notice of recommendations issued by Sue Stickel on November 8th, the Deputy Superintendent Curriculum and Instruction Branch. If so, were all the edits cancelled or only those regarding Hinduism?
Thank you, I hope to hear from you at your earliest convenience.
All the best,
Yvette C. Rosser, PhD
512 928-9557
In his letter above, Steve Farmer is referring to the BBC website about Hinduism:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml
The Aryan Invasion Theory
One of the most controversial ideas about Hindu history is the Aryan invasion theory.
This theory, originally devised by F. Max Muller in 1848, traces the history of Hinduism to the invasion of India’s indigenous people by lighter skinned Aryans around 1500 BCE.
The theory was reinforced by other research over the next 120 years, and became the accepted history of Hinduism, not only in the West but in India.
There is now ample evidence to show that Muller, and those who followed him, were wrong.
Why is the theory no longer accepted?
The Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological, linguistic and ethnological evidence.
Later research has either discredited this evidence, or provided new evidence that combined with the earlier evidence makes! other explanations more likely.
Modern historians of the area no longer believe that such invasions had such great influence on Indian history. It’s now generally accepted that Indian history shows a continuity of progress from the earliest times to today.
The changes brought to India by other cultures are not denied by modern historians, but they are no longer thought to be a major ingredient in the development of Hinduism.
Dangers of the theory
The Aryan invasion theory denies the Indian origin of India’s predominant culture, but gives the credit for Indian culture to invaders from elsewhere.
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.
The theory was not just wrong, it included unacceptably racist ideas: