Re: JM, do you agree with this?

by Idéfix Thu May 30, 2013 12:28 pm

Hellsangel wrote:
Idéfix wrote:Page 482 of this book sheds light on the origin of names like Titty Thomas.

Culturally, the Syrian Christians were fully Indian and they practiced all the customs in the manner of their fellow men in the country... The Synod of Diamper (1599) strictly ordered Syrian Christians of Kerala to distance themselves from cultural practices which strengthened communal harmony. It is evident that the Westerners had a distaste for whatever was Indian or Hindu. The cultural practices and customs which the Syrian Christians used to keep in common with the Hindu brethren were labeled as unchristian, "heathen", or even as superstitious by the Portuguese missionaries in 1599.

Syrian Christians used to take Indian and Indianized names. The Diamper Synod (1599) prohibited them from having Indian names... A scholar writes: 'the Westerners, especially by Diamper Synod, estranged the Syrian Christians of Kerala who had one language and one ethos with their fellow Keralites, from their fellow non-Christians.'

It still doesn't explain why they didn't simply adopt Portuguese/English names. How did they make up their own names whose origins they can't explain?

Presumably they hated the Portuguese oppressors who forced them to give up their old traditions. They were not in a position to fight back against the Portuguese oppressors, so they had to change their way of life to comply with the wishes of the Portuguese. So they started a new tradition of making up names instead. Interestingly, the attitude of the Portuguese towards Hindus is not that different from the attitude today of at least one descendant of the oppressed Syrian Christians.

by indophile Thu May 30, 2013 1:40 pm

An informative blog article on Syrian Christians (if you have time).
http://winnowed.blogspot.com/2009/08/syrian-christians-brahmin-ancestors-and.html

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu May 30, 2013 1:42 pm

indophile wrote:An informative blog article on Syrian Christians (if you have time).
http://winnowed.blogspot.com/2009/08/syrian-christians-brahmin-ancestors-and.html

Se I was right after all about Rev. Flimmy IYER.

by Rishi Thu May 30, 2013 2:48 pm

According to this belief, St. Thomas did not seek or make converts from any other caste. Anyone with a basic idea of either Indian history or Christian ethos will realise why this sounds very ridiculous. If at all St. Thomas visited India, he is unlikely to have been casteist and would not have focussed only on the upper castes. After all, wasn’t Christ’s mission all about helping the poor and the down-trodden?

The author of the blog is completely wrong.

Forget about Saint THomas having visited India. It is a hoax.

The missionaries who came to SI first went after the lower castes. But they could not convert all of them. Simply because the Brahmins had such a psychological hold on them. When the missionaries talked about the miracles performed by Jesus Christ, the heathens told them "Our Krishna has performed more miracles." The Hindu servants had seen the male missionaries booze, womanize and not bathing frequently. They associated all these vices with the new religion.

Then the missionaries came upon the bright idea of targeting the poor Brahmins for proselytization. They offered scholarships for Brahmins to go to school . They also started colleges like St. Josephs college and Madras Christian College for educating mainly the Brahmins.

The missionaries thought once the Brahmins were converted, the other castes would fall in line. In fact, they did convert quite a lot of brahmins. The brahmins who converted did so out of grattitude for having received free education.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu May 30, 2013 2:53 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:captain I know you're having a lot of fun with this...

i don't think he is. here's one of his latest posts, ranting about events that occurred 2,000 years ago:

indeed, his tribe is the first mass ingratiation witnessed by india. how else can you explain an entire group of people shunning their culture, customs and traditions just for one man when no force was used? they thought they could become like him if they listened to him and aped him. -- captain bhankaskar.

he's quite exercised about "an entire group of people" who are unconnected to him and didn't, and don't harm him in any way "shunning their culture, customs and traditions." he means hindu culture. it's not as if syrian christians barged into his home, drank up his precious stock of liquor, and fell asleep on the sofa in his living room, with their feet on his coffee table.

i see shades of m. s. golwalkar here.

by Hellsangel Thu May 30, 2013 3:06 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

i see shades of m. s. golwalkar here.

Achachan, your powers of observation are now legendary.

by Idéfix Thu May 30, 2013 3:29 pm

by Guest Thu May 30, 2013 3:31 pm

Didn't he first claim that SCs never oppressed lower castes like hindus did? Then he mumbled something about common kerala culture that even muslims followed. Does that cover the oppression too? Then he began talking about idol-submersion practices.... can someone tell what his point or motive is here?

by Guest Thu May 30, 2013 3:36 pm

Vidya Bagchi wrote:Didn't he first claim that SCs never oppressed lower castes like hindus did? Then he mumbled something about common kerala culture that even muslims followed. Does that cover the oppression too? Then he began talking about idol-submersion practices.... can someone tell what his point or motive is here?

Oh buzz off.

by Guest Thu May 30, 2013 3:41 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:Didn't he first claim that SCs never oppressed lower castes like hindus did? Then he mumbled something about common kerala culture that even muslims followed. Does that cover the oppression too? Then he began talking about idol-submersion practices.... can someone tell what his point or motive is here?

Oh buzz off.

Sometimes I wish I had gundas of my own on such. So that if anyone said anything anapshanap to me, someone would come and ask the culprit to buzz off, etc. How to acquire them, any tips, JM?

by confuzzled dude Thu May 30, 2013 3:46 pm

Vidya Bagchi wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:Didn't he first claim that SCs never oppressed lower castes like hindus did? Then he mumbled something about common kerala culture that even muslims followed. Does that cover the oppression too? Then he began talking about idol-submersion practices.... can someone tell what his point or motive is here?

Oh buzz off.

Sometimes I wish I had gundas of my own on such. So that if anyone said anything anapshanap to me, someone would come and ask the culprit to buzz off, etc. How to acquire them, any tips, JM?

You can hire Rashmun.

by truthbetold Thu May 30, 2013 3:49 pm

On behalf of vb,
Buzz off rashmun.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu May 30, 2013 3:51 pm

Vidya Bagchi wrote:Didn't he first claim that SCs never oppressed lower castes like hindus did?

here's what pressulu (idefix) said about oppressing lower castes in his post of 10:04 am today:

"My claim is not that Syrian Christians oppressed large groups of India's other peoples."

pressulu is only fuming about some syrian christians' preference to marry syrian christians.

btw, reading 101 courses are available today at little or no cost.

by truthbetold Thu May 30, 2013 3:52 pm

The unanswered question is what did all non Hindus did with all excreta they were not disposing off. The answer to that could be a major medical breakthrough.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu May 30, 2013 3:58 pm

truthbetold wrote:On behalf of vb,
Buzz off rashmun.

you're still not gonna gain access. to vb's nether regions, that is.

by truthbetold Thu May 30, 2013 3:59 pm

Another question unanswered question is the slavish attitude of tambrams to their Hindu hating long lost uncle?

by truthbetold Thu May 30, 2013 4:07 pm

Jm,
the fact that you chose to respond to this post ignoring all other damaging post supports idefix's charactization of you hiding from facts.
Just for fact clarification. However you try to hide, you are the one who stated that you lost your wife to a Pakistani with a Dick longer than your 4 in. The fact that you stalk vb was irrefutably established. It is also clear that your failure to generate any response from her led your belligerent attacks on her.
Get help before you get in bigger trouble.

by Guest Thu May 30, 2013 4:11 pm

truthbetold wrote:Jm,
the fact that you chose to respond to this post ignoring all other damaging post supports idefix's charactization of you hiding from facts.
Just for fact clarification. However you try to hide, you are the one who stated that you lost your wife to a Pakistani with a Dick longer than your 4 in. The fact that you stalk vb was irrefutably established. It is also clear that your failure to generate any response from her led your belligerent attacks on her.
Get help before you get in bigger trouble.

TBT what are your thoughts on telugus perpetually creating trouble in Chattisgarh and other places in India? How should they be tackled?

by indophile Thu May 30, 2013 4:13 pm

truthbetold wrote:The unanswered question is what did all non Hindus did with all excreta they were not disposing off. The answer to that could be a major medical breakthrough.

An article on the subject from the plumbing website. Makes good bathroom reading. Smile

http://www.plumbingsupply.com/toilethistoryindia.html

by Guest Thu May 30, 2013 4:14 pm

indophile wrote:
truthbetold wrote:The unanswered question is what did all non Hindus did with all excreta they were not disposing off. The answer to that could be a major medical breakthrough.
An article on the subject from the plumbing website. Makes good bathroom reading.
http://www.plumbingsupply.com/toilethistoryindia.html

indophile what are your thoughts on telugus perpetually creating trouble in Chattisgarh and other places in India? How should they be tackled?

by Guest Thu May 30, 2013 4:16 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:Didn't he first claim that SCs never oppressed lower castes like hindus did?
here's what pressulu (idefix) said about oppressing lower castes in his post of 10:04 am today:

"My claim is not that Syrian Christians oppressed large groups of India's other peoples."

pressulu is only fuming about some syrian christians' preference to marry syrian christians.

btw, reading 101 courses are available today at little or no cost.

When did I quote caru anywhere? I am talking about your claims. Are you saying you didn't say anything about caste oppression in this thread?

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu May 30, 2013 4:21 pm

truthbetold wrote:The unanswered question is what did all the non-Hindus did with all excreta they were not disposing off?

is this your weekly orgy of errors?

it's...

1. what did all the non-hindus do...;

2. disposing of..., not disposing off;

3. your question should end with a question mark.

by Rishi Thu May 30, 2013 4:36 pm

However you try to hide, you are the one who stated that you lost your wife to a Pakistani ...

TBT,

Are you serious about this?

Nobody can be that stupid to reveal this kind of very personal details on a forum like this.

by Guest Thu May 30, 2013 4:40 pm

Rishi wrote:However you try to hide, you are the one who stated that you lost your wife to a Pakistani ...

TBT,

Are you serious about this?

Nobody can be that stupid to reveal this kind of very personal details on a forum like this.

TBT is just having some fun. No need to take him seriously.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu May 30, 2013 4:43 pm

Vidya Bagchi wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:Didn't he first claim that SCs never oppressed lower castes like hindus did?
here's what pressulu (idefix) said about oppressing lower castes in his post of 10:04 am today:

"My claim is not that Syrian Christians oppressed large groups of India's other peoples."

pressulu is only fuming about some syrian christians' preference to marry syrian christians.

btw, reading 101 courses are available today at little or no cost.

When did I quote caru anywhere? I am talking about your claims. Are you saying you didn't say anything about caste oppression in this thread?

i probably said, in response to pressulu, that in order to establish that syrian christians engaged in caste-based behaviour, it is necessary to show that they oppressed other peoples of india, etc. in response to that, pressulu conceded that his "claim is not that Syrian Christians oppressed large groups of India's other peoples."

whether you quoted "caru" or not, i've now told you what he said, and what i said about oppressing other peoples. you had raised a question about that.

by indophile Thu May 30, 2013 4:45 pm

Rashmun wrote:
indophile what are your thoughts on telugus perpetually creating trouble in Chattisgarh and other places in India? How should they be tackled?

No need to digress in this thread. As for your question, I have no opinion. Since google can provide all the answers, here is the link.
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&q=Maoist+trouble+in+Chattisgarh%2C+Orissa%2C+and+Andhra&oq=Maoist+trouble+in+Chattisgarh%2C+Orissa%2C+and+Andhra&gs_l=hp.3...9526.32916.0.33372.49.42.0.7.7.0.143.2951.39j3.42.0...0.0...1c.1.15.psy-ab.TETEvSyy4Zk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47244034,d.dmQ&fp=f016d54996633e5c&biw=1120&bih=587

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu May 30, 2013 4:47 pm

Rishi wrote:However you try to hide, you are the one who stated that you lost your wife to a Pakistani ...

TBT, Are you serious about this?

he is not. no one takes TBT or his crassness seriously.

by Guest Thu May 30, 2013 4:53 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:Didn't he first claim that SCs never oppressed lower castes like hindus did?
here's what pressulu (idefix) said about oppressing lower castes in his post of 10:04 am today:

"My claim is not that Syrian Christians oppressed large groups of India's other peoples."

pressulu is only fuming about some syrian christians' preference to marry syrian christians.

btw, reading 101 courses are available today at little or no cost.

When did I quote caru anywhere? I am talking about your claims. Are you saying you didn't say anything about caste oppression in this thread?
i probably said, in response to pressulu, that in order to establish that syrian christians engaged in caste-based behaviour, it is necessary to show that they oppressed other peoples of india, etc. in response to that, pressulu conceded that his "claim is not that Syrian Christians oppressed large groups of India's other peoples."

whether you quoted "caru" or not, i've now told you what he said, and what i said about oppressing other peoples. you had raised a question about that.

Pressulu provided many more links on the same oppression. That's when you mumbled something about common traditions of Kerala. Anyway, do you still think Syrian Christians never oppressed lower caste people?

by Idéfix Thu May 30, 2013 5:23 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:Didn't he first claim that SCs never oppressed lower castes like hindus did?
here's what pressulu (idefix) said about oppressing lower castes in his post of 10:04 am today:

"My claim is not that Syrian Christians oppressed large groups of India's other peoples."

At 10:04 am CDT today, I was unaware of the Syrian Christian practice of untouchability. I knew about other caste-based behavior they exhibit, and I posted about that.

Thanks to Vidya, I now know about the casteism of Syrian Christians, and their well-documented practice of untouchability. I have posted ample evidence of this casteist behavior, and I don't see you disputing any of it. I am not holding my breath for you to acknowledge that you were wrong about Syrian Christians. You have an idealized notion of your own caste, and you will likely cling to it. You aren't the first to deny the well-documented casteist behavior of people of your own caste -- I have interacted with other apologists for their castes here.

by Guest Thu May 30, 2013 5:25 pm

I simply quoted, twice, from the wiki link Kris posted. I had no idea or care myself Smile

by Idéfix Thu May 30, 2013 5:32 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i probably said, in response to pressulu, that in order to establish that syrian christians engaged in caste-based behaviour, it is necessary to show that they oppressed other peoples of india, etc. in response to that, pressulu conceded that his "claim is not that Syrian Christians oppressed large groups of India's other peoples."

I said this to you before, and you have chosen to go groundhog in response... your logic is bad. In order to establish that Syrian Christians engaged in caste-based behavior, it is not necessary to show that they oppressed other peoples of India. It is only necessary to show Syrian Christians engaging in caste-based behavior. I have done that adequately.

As for Syrian Christians oppressing other peoples of India, I have already provided ample evidence for the Syrian Christian practice of untouchability. Several sources, some of them written by Syrian Christians, confirm the casteist behavior of Syrian Christians.

In summary: your logic is bad, and your argument has been proven wrong.

by Idéfix Thu May 30, 2013 5:37 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
truthbetold wrote:On behalf of vb,
Buzz off rashmun.
you're still not gonna gain access. to vb's nether regions, that is.

Great logic in trying to understand TBT's motives, Jerji. By the same token, have you decided whether to grant access to your nether regions to the one who seeks it?

by Hellsangel Thu May 30, 2013 6:04 pm

Idéfix wrote:Jerji. By the same token, have you decided whether to grant access to your nether regions to the one who seeks it?

Achachan has no choice in the matter. Someone has to change his diapers.

by truthbetold Thu May 30, 2013 6:53 pm

Rishi and rashmun,
go back and read the thread on penis size. If you do not follow the details, you will ha e to send the questions to jm for explanation.

by truthbetold Thu May 30, 2013 6:55 pm

Rashmun,
Start an independent thread to allow those interested to comment on that topic.

by truthbetold Thu May 30, 2013 7:10 pm

Jm,
If anyone can be labelled as crass you will be ranked first in line. Your personal attacks on multiple posters, your baseless diatribes against a group called northindians, and your bullying of female posters makes you the biggest jerk on this forum.

You keep running away from facts and responding to diversionary comments. I will continue to be rude to you as long as you remain bigoted arrogant pompous idiot.

by Petrichor Thu May 30, 2013 7:54 pm

Judgement in favor of Plaintiff based on amicus curiae filed by Idefix.

1. Term "caste-based" is by its nature a loose definition.
2. Evidence has been adduced that back in the day, SC's practiced caste-hierarchical customs, that they acquiesced in the practice of untouchability. The evidence is fairly convincing.
3. The defendant brings a good point about current-day SC's that they do not actively promote caste distinctions and the court is not persuaded by Christian Matrimonials website that the "Syrian Christian" caste is inter alia anything more than a simple distinction and preference in search of mates of a particular kind.
4. No award on the costs. Plaintiff seems well-funded.
5. Leave for appeal denied on the grounds that the naarthiendien SC (supreme court, silly) will find this intellectually challenging and the case will drag on forever.

by truthbetold Thu May 30, 2013 8:50 pm

[quote="Muezzin-Bar'chu"]Judgement in favor of Plaintiff

2. Evidence has been adduced that back in the day, SC's practiced caste-hierarchical customs, that they acquiesced in the practice of untouchability. The evidence is fairly convincing.
r.[/quote
Just like blacks acquiesced to being slaves by cooking and serving for their white masters.
Django unchained is available on Dvd as proof of the above.

by Rishi Thu May 30, 2013 9:10 pm

TBT,

I think this caste hierarchy business must have been agreed upon by all the castes except SC/STs who had no choice in this mater.

by truthbetold Thu May 30, 2013 9:16 pm

Rishi wrote:TBT,

I think this caste hierarchy business SC/st had no choice in this mater.

fixed.
rishi,
I am in complete agreement with the fixed statement.

by b_A Thu May 30, 2013 10:28 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
truthbetold wrote:On behalf of vb,
Buzz off rashmun.
you're still not gonna gain access. to vb's nether regions, that is.

You are the true example of the "dirty old man". You cannot participate in any discussion without talking about genitals.

by b_A Thu May 30, 2013 10:32 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Rishi wrote:However you try to hide, you are the one who stated that you lost your wife to a Pakistani ...

TBT, Are you serious about this?
he is not. no one takes TBT or his crassness seriously.

Look who is talking about the crassness. The dirty old man of SuCH.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu May 30, 2013 11:10 pm

Muezzin-Bar'chu wrote:Judgement in favor of Plaintiff based on amicus curiae filed by Idefix.

1. Term "caste-based" is by its nature a loose definition.
2. Evidence has been adduced that back in the day, SC's practiced caste-hierarchical customs, that they acquiesced in the practice of untouchability. The evidence is fairly convincing.
3. The defendant brings a good point about current-day SC's that they do not actively promote caste distinctions and the court is not persuaded by Christian Matrimonials website that the "Syrian Christian" caste is inter alia anything more than a simple distinction and preference in search of mates of a particular kind.
4. No award on the costs. Plaintiff seems well-funded.
5. Leave for appeal denied on the grounds that the naarthiendien SC (supreme court, silly) will find this intellectually challenging and the case will drag on forever.

look who's talking!

by Petrichor Thu May 30, 2013 11:28 pm

When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your
side, argue the facts. When neither the facts nor the law are on your side,
make an ad hominem attack.
-- Old Adage

by Captain Bhankas Fri May 31, 2013 6:06 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:you're off the mark, bhankaskar; you're making assumptions about others based on your own preferences and experience. i find dark skinned indians no less (physically) attractive than the lighter-skinned ones.

furthermore, i prefer leek-and-potato soup to beef stew.

my alleged preferences and your choices are irrelevant to the discussion.

JM wrote:he's quite exercised about "an entire group of people" who are unconnected to him ...

i am not. i don't care what you or your tribe does. i am only guessing the reasons why thengumthodathils did what they did. there were no swords involved. there were no material incentives involved. why did they continue practicing evils of hinduism and YET take his bait hook, line and sinker? because the saint was a few shades lighter than your ancestors and they thought they could become like him if they worshiped his god and aped him.

by Guest Fri May 31, 2013 7:44 am

Captain Bhankas wrote:i am not. i don't care what you or your tribe does. i am only guessing the reasons why thengumthodathils did what they did. there were no swords involved. there were no material incentives involved. why did they continue practicing evils of hinduism and YET take his bait hook, line and sinker? because the saint was a few shades lighter than your ancestors and they thought they could become like him if they worshiped his god and aped him.

LOL. He himself couldn't have written this better.

by Captain Bhankas Fri May 31, 2013 8:29 am

Idéfix wrote:Presumably they hated the Portuguese oppressors who forced them to give up their old traditions. They were not in a position to fight back against the Portuguese oppressors, so they had to change their way of life to comply with the wishes of the Portuguese. So they started a new tradition of making up names instead. Interestingly, the attitude of the Portuguese towards Hindus is not that different from the attitude today of at least one descendant of the oppressed Syrian Christians.

one has to marvel at the creatiwiTTy of SCs in coming up with names such as aby, bincy, binu, biss, dinil, ditty, femy, fincy, finny, job(YES!, job!!), koshy, leeba, linzy and suby. they feared they would be shown a red card if they chose more than five alphabets to create a name. despite that fear, look at the variety of the first names!

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Fri May 31, 2013 11:06 am

Idéfix wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i probably said, in response to pressulu, that in order to establish that syrian christians engaged in caste-based behaviour, it is necessary to show that they oppressed other peoples of india, etc. in response to that, pressulu conceded that his "claim is not that Syrian Christians oppressed large groups of India's other peoples."
I said this to you before, and you have chosen to go groundhog in response... your logic is bad.

repeating the word "groundhogging" endlessly is no logical argument.

Idéfix wrote:In order to establish that Syrian Christians engaged in caste-based behavior, it is not necessary to show that they oppressed other peoples of India.

it is absolutely necessary to do so, because oppression of other peoples according to birth is the crucial and major element of the caste system. oppression is a necessary and sufficient condition for the caste system to exist.

Idéfix wrote:As for Syrian Christians oppressing other peoples of India,...

in a moment of unintended honesty, you admitted that your claim is not that Syrian Christians oppressed large groups of India's other peoples.

by Hellsangel Fri May 31, 2013 11:18 am

Captain Bhankas wrote:
Idéfix wrote:Presumably they hated the Portuguese oppressors who forced them to give up their old traditions. They were not in a position to fight back against the Portuguese oppressors, so they had to change their way of life to comply with the wishes of the Portuguese. So they started a new tradition of making up names instead. Interestingly, the attitude of the Portuguese towards Hindus is not that different from the attitude today of at least one descendant of the oppressed Syrian Christians.

one has to marvel at the creatiwiTTy of SCs in coming up with names such as aby, bincy, binu, biss, dinil, ditty, femy, fincy, finny, job(YES!, job!!), koshy, leeba, linzy and suby. they feared they would be shown a red card if they chose more than five alphabets to create a name. despite that fear, look at the variety of the first names!

Actually the only name whose origins can explained in that list is Job. And in fact a phrase based on that name has made it to the dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/job%27s%20comforter

The rest are all marvels of creativiTTy.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri May 31, 2013 11:18 am

[quote="Jeremiah Mburuburu"]

Idéfix wrote:
Idéfix wrote:As for Syrian Christians oppressing other peoples of India,...
in a moment of unintended honesty, you admitted that your claim is not that Syrian Christians oppressed large groups of India's other peoples.

Yes. You are right. Syrian Christians, while not as aggressive as Mahamadans, focused and oppressed only regional small groups of India's other peoples at a given time.

by Sponsored content