[INDOLOGY] Religious Literature with Political Purposes

Tue Jul 7 19:33:04 UTC 2015

> words like “tribal” and “tribal cults” should be avoided.
> “Indigenous” might be a good substitute.

Dear Prof. Hart,

I stand corrected. Or - do I?

In fact - why these terms should be avoided? The question of political
correctness? It seems to be, considering your opinion that "these words
have long been used to marginalize, demean, and patronize various ethnic
groups". I personally do not share your conviction. The Constitution of the
Indian Republic recognizes 645 "district tribes" formally enumerated  in
the list of Scheduled Tribes in India. Although it is understood that the
term "Scheduled Tribes" is equivalent to "indigenous peoples", the term
"tribe" is formally used.

Is the term "indigenous" less nebulous than the term "tribal"? I am, again,
not convinced. But, that may be the question of my un-English linguistic
heritage.

> Word like “tribal” and “tribal cult” in my opinion serve to obscure the
fact
> that the groups they are applied to are comprised of human beings whose >
cultures are quite as complex and sophisticated as the Brahmanical culture
> to which they are contrasted.

Let me ask a straightforward (and possibly naive) question: have you ever
heard a statement in which the use of the term "tribal" was meant,
consciously, to rob the "indigenous peoples" of their humanity?

> “untouchable”

Should we re-edit Gandhi's and Ambedkar's works, and insert "Dalits" in
place of "untouchables". What about the "practices of untouchability"?
Should we, from now on, speak about the "practices of Dalitness/Dalithood"?

> and the n-word

What, pray, is "n-word" supposed to mean?

Finally, it is the Sanskritic term "upa-jati" that was formed and is used
to define the "tribals/indigenous peoples" as groups of lower, of
sub-status. Is there a tendency to use some other, less demeaning
Sanskritic term to describe these groups?

Best,

Artur Karp

Warsaw, Poland

2015-07-07 19:46 GMT+02:00 George Hart <glhart at berkeley.edu>:

> Might I gently suggest that words like “tribal” and “tribal cults” should
> be avoided. Like “untouchable” and the n-word, these words have long been
> used to marginalize, demean, and patronize various ethnic groups—and they
> are so nebulous that they have no real meaning (for me, at least).
> “Indigenous” might be a good substitute. Words like “tribal” and “tribal
> cult” in my opinion serve to obscure the fact that the groups they are
> applied to are comprised of human beings whose cultures are quite as
> complex and sophisticated as the Brahmanical culture to which they are
> contrasted.
>
> I am also bothered by the use of the term “Sanskritization,” It is, in my
> opinion, a simplification of a very complex series of processes and
> interactions and is, in the end, quite misleading. In most areas, India has
> a cellular culture. Many different groups with varied identities,
> histories, practices, social views, etc. exist side by side, interacting
> with each other in complex ways. People may get status by eating more meat,
> less meat, or no meat at all, and the same goes for many other practices,
> beliefs and customs. It is perhaps useful to point out that in a place like
> Tamil Nadu, about 25% of the people are Dalits (3% are Brahmins). They have
> their own social hierarchies, no doubt, but they are not driven by
> “Sanskritization.” Nor, for the most part, are the great majority of the
> rest of the people, all of whom are considered “Sudras” by the Brahmins.
> George Hart
>
> On Jul 7, 2015, at 5:38 AM, Artur Karp <karp at UW.EDU.PL> wrote:
>
> > two poles: one "sanskritisation", the other "tribalisation".
>
> The question is: who functions in the role of priests at Kamakhya Devi?
>
> Priests of local tribal cults?
>
> If not, I would rather see there not "tribalization", but rather
> "controlled Sanskritization" of tribal cultural elements, undertaken not by
> the tribals, but by the local representatives of Sanskritic culture.
> Motivated, as you have noticed, by the political need to communicate on one
> hand with the local population, on the other - with the broader network of
> sub-continental cult/pilgrimage centers.
>
> Artur K.
>
> 2015-07-07 12:20 GMT+02:00 Paolo Eugenio Rosati <paoloe.rosati at gmail.com>:
>
>> I complitely agree.
>> But why "we" talk about "sanskritisation" phenomena if a goddess and her
>> devotional cult are dominated by tribal elements? I would like to describe
>> this goddesses as "tribalised", maybe because they represent a manipulation
>> of the "mainstream" Hindu Devi, to whom are overimposed tribal elements.
>>
>> If the sanskritisation (or brahmanisation) process can be described as a
>> vertical axis where are different degrees of sanskritisation; maybe we
>> could describe this axis with two poles: one "sanskritisation", the other
>> "tribalisation"... obviously the dialectic between cultures bring to hybrid
>> phenomenon, but in my opinion the Hindu-Assamese culture is widely
>> dominated by tribal traditions, and this probably depend by ancient politic
>> needs.
>>
>> Best,
>> Paolo
>>
>> P.S.: Maybe someone has a pdf copy of Kunal Chakrabarti "Religious
>> Processes: The Puranas and the Making of a Regional Tradition" (2001).
>>
>>
>> On 7 July 2015 at 11:25, Artur Karp <karp at uw.edu.pl> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Paolo,
>>>
>>> > So that are we sure that Kamahya is a sanskritised goddess? Or should
>>> we consider the reverse process? Doesn't seem that were the Hindus to
>>> emulate the tribal-men incorporating tribal worship elements?
>>>
>>> To my mind, both.
>>>
>>> A perfect example of a dialogic situation, whatever the motivation
>>> behind the move to set up a new, structurally enriched place of worship and
>>> a newly conceived object of veneration.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Artur
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>>> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
>>> committee)
>>> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options
>>> or unsubscribe)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paolo E. Rosati
>> Oriental Archaeologist
>> PhD candidate in Civilisations of Asia & Africa
>> Section: South Asian Studies
>> Dep. Italian Institute of Oriental Studies (ISO)
>> 'Sapienza' University of Rome
>> paoloe.rosati at uniroma1.it
>> paoloe.rosati at gmail.com
>> Mobile: (+39) 3387383472
>> Skype: paoloe.rosati
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
> committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
> unsubscribe)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
> committee)
> http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or
> unsubscribe)
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20150707/e7112986/attachment.htm>