Dravidian origins

[Robert Zydenbos]

Am 28 Dec 2000, um 21:03 schrieb Subrahmanya S.:


<color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> As usual this is typical spinning.


</color>Typical, usual Subrahmanya!


<color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> It was the european colonialists who introduced the concept

> of race in the first place and then went onto conjure up

> an Aryan invasion - Now the natives are being accused of

> having thought their fellow cuntrymen are "racially and religiously

> inferior" !!!


</color>Sorry that I remember the races in the Veda; or Manu, of the

Manusm.rti; or remember those millions of people called Dalitas,

and how they were and still are treated. Or that they had a

spokesperson named Ambedkar, who wrote in his book

_Annihilation of Caste_ that Hinduism must be destroyed in order

for India to have social justice. Now why should he have written

such things, if there were no "racially and religiously inferior"

people?


<color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> As usual europeanists try to hasten to cover up abuse of India

> by western colonialist and religious ideologies.


</color>I thought I explicitly did not do so - hm, oh well... Calumniare

audacter, semper aliquid haeret... Maybe Ambedkar too was a

western colonialist or something. Anyhow, something tells me that

the Dalitas (etc.) will be around for a long time yet, and that it

takes more than mere shouting to cover them up. And this travesty:


<color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> For Indians to make an effort to know their own history is to be

> labelled chauvinistic !


</color>..., i.e., shouting at someone in an obvious attempt at shouting

away unpleasant facts, is not chauvinism, but something worse,

and should have no place in scholarly exchanges.


Am 29 Dec 2000, um 10:19 schrieb Vanbakkam Vijayaraghavan:


<color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> Romanticizing colonialism does not help.


</color>(I hope this does not mean that VV thinks I did that, because it

would mean that he cannot read.)


Romanticising the past is hardly better than romanticising

colonialism. It is a waste of time. It does not explain, e.g., the

existence of newer religious groups that came into being to

religiously emancipate those who were discriminated against.

Looking at things as they were and are is always better, and

certainly on an originally academic forum, than any kind of

romanticising.


<color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> The last remark does not carry much weight. Race was an unknown

> concept in India. As far as religion is concerned there was no idea

> of One True Male God and all religious paths were considered by and

> large valid


</color>Apart from that there are Vedic passages that highlight differences
in physical features of people, I think the distinctions between race,
var.na, jaati make little difference for those who are at the receiving
end of discrimination and exploitation: in any case, they were 'born
wrongly'... I am very happy that this does not matter in some Hindu
minorities, where it also does not matter that I am a 'mleccha' (do
we remember the mlecchas?).


There are many things in India that are genuinely admirable, but

romantic fantasies, or misleading, quasi-indignant loudness, do

nobody any good; they do not help India either. Recognising some

of one's cultural weaknesses is a sign of one's overall cultural

strength. Some of our friends on this list have not yet realised that.


RZ
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attachment.bin
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3441 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20001230/f5efed1f/attachment.bin>