> 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@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@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@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@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@list.indology.info
indology-owner@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
Skype: paoloe.rosati

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@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@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)