Tamils vs Tamils (Removal of Hindi signboards in Madurai)

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:as i said earlier, a genetic study confirmed that the IVC people and the people inhabiting the IVC region today are of the same stock (i will have to find the link). if this is not true, then please take me to pakistan and punjab and haryana and show me who the aryans are and who the IVC people?

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Rashmun wrote:From the evidence i have seen though i believe the IVC people were distinct from the Aryan people.

please tell me what this ^ evidence tells you? that he is aryan or non-aryan? how?

Propagandhi711 wrote:Twilight zone thread..if this douchemunullah gangothrivedi ever decides to get married in a church and the priest asks if anyone knows a reason why the goat and the drooling man shouldn't get married, one can simply standup and wave printouts of this thread. That should convince any priest of this douche's precarious hold over reality

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Rashmun wrote:From the evidence i have seen though i believe the IVC people were distinct from the Aryan people.

please tell me what this ^ evidence tells you? that he is aryan or non-aryan? how?

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

From the evidence i have seen though i believe the IVC people were distinct from the Aryan people.

no no. i don't know what evidence you have seen.

panini press wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

From the evidence i have seen though i believe the IVC people were distinct from the Aryan people.

no no. i don't know what evidence you have seen.

Any theory that claims that the IVC people were distinct from the Aryans and the IVC people were displaced by the Aryans needs to explain how. The invasion theory has more or less been debunked.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Rashmun wrote:HK, please take a look at this:

http://safarmer.com/frontline/

Romila Thapar has endorsed the views of Witzel and Farmer. I should point out that i do not agree with everything Witzel and Farmer say but on this particular issue they have made a very convincing case and their views on this enjoy the support of two of the foremost scholars of the IVC in the world: Asko Parpola and Iravatham Mahadevan. (you can read the supportive comments of Parpola and Mahadevan in one of the articles whose links Farmer gives).

i read it -- skipped few parts.

see, i do not disagree with witzel and farmer. they are absolutely right. here are my points:

• i do not deny there once were aryans and that they came to india from outside. they also introduced the horse to india and also sanskrit (not as we know sanskrit to be though).
  
  
• i have taken care to stress on "post harrapa" in my posts. the cemetry H culture is POST harappa. IVC was declining and the inhabitants had started moving inland. the aryans, who were already in contact with the IVC people, followed the IVC people to cemetery H areas and settled with them. vedic culture was born from this mixing. cemetery H's language was multilingual. rajaram ascribes this event (the mixing) to the mature harappan stage -- rajaram is wrong and has a hindutva agenda. actually rajaram ascribes everthing sanskrit and vedic to IVC or mature harrapan and denies the existence of aryans -- he is obviously wrong. the fusion between the aryans and the IVC people happened much later in cemetery H (in full bloom for it was already happening earlier in snatches which bring me to my next point).
  
  
• as the authors note, 4% of the rig veda (considered the unadulterated sanskrit of purely foreign origin) has 4% loan words from a punjabi language that has an affinity with munda. so even the rig veda is corrupted by local languages. it goes to show that what followed, sanskrit and the vedas and the upanishads, were a collaborative effort of the post harrapans and aryans. it is wrong to give any one of them sole authorship over it.
  
  
• racially too the aryans and IVC people are indistinguishable. as i said earlier, a genetic study confirmed that the IVC people and the people inhabiting the IVC region today are of the same stock (i will have to find the link). if this is true, then please take me to pakistan and punjab and haryana and show me who the aryans are and who the IVC people? if they have intermingled, did not this intermingling take place in harappan times or is it that there was never an intermingling but an exchange of culture, ideas, language and commerce?

Rashmun wrote:2. I am not so sure about race as you. The sanskrit word varna means color and it also means caste. That is to say, the caste based hierarchy came up on the basis of skin color with fair complexioned aryans at the top of the hierarchy and dark complexioned dravidians at the bottom. that is why even today high caste hindus, on average, will be more fair complexioned than low caste hindus. this is not to deny that there are high caste hindus who are dark complexioned or low caste hindus who are fair (because of inter marriages).

Rashmun wrote:2. I am not so sure about race as you. The sanskrit word varna means color and it also means caste. That is to say, the caste based hierarchy came up on the basis of skin color with fair complexioned aryans at the top of the hierarchy and dark complexioned dravidians at the bottom. that is why even today high caste hindus, on average, will be more fair complexioned than low caste hindus. this is not to deny that there are high caste hindus who are dark complexioned or low caste hindus who are fair (because of inter marriages).

kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:2. I am not so sure about race as you. The sanskrit word varna means color and it also means caste. That is to say, the caste based hierarchy came up on the basis of skin color with fair complexioned aryans at the top of the hierarchy and dark complexioned dravidians at the bottom. that is why even today high caste hindus, on average, will be more fair complexioned than low caste hindus. this is not to deny that there are high caste hindus who are dark complexioned or low caste hindus who are fair (because of inter marriages).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_%28Hinduism%29

Rashmun wrote:

kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:2. I am not so sure about race as you. The sanskrit word varna means color and it also means caste. That is to say, the caste based hierarchy came up on the basis of skin color with fair complexioned aryans at the top of the hierarchy and dark complexioned dravidians at the bottom. that is why even today high caste hindus, on average, will be more fair complexioned than low caste hindus. this is not to deny that there are high caste hindus who are dark complexioned or low caste hindus who are fair (because of inter marriages).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_%28Hinduism%29

Varna means color as well as caste; the one is the cause of the other...

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/path/v09n06p189_the-colour-of-the-ancient-aryans.htm

one should not blindly swallow whatever one finds in a wikipedia page.

Rashmun wrote:

kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:2. I am not so sure about race as you. The sanskrit word varna means color and it also means caste. That is to say, the caste based hierarchy came up on the basis of skin color with fair complexioned aryans at the top of the hierarchy and dark complexioned dravidians at the bottom. that is why even today high caste hindus, on average, will be more fair complexioned than low caste hindus. this is not to deny that there are high caste hindus who are dark complexioned or low caste hindus who are fair (because of inter marriages).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_%28Hinduism%29

Varna means color as well as caste; the one is the cause of the other...

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/path/v09n06p189_the-colour-of-the-ancient-aryans.htm

one should not blindly swallow whatever one finds in a wikipedia page.

kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:2. I am not so sure about race as you. The sanskrit word varna means color and it also means caste. That is to say, the caste based hierarchy came up on the basis of skin color with fair complexioned aryans at the top of the hierarchy and dark complexioned dravidians at the bottom. that is why even today high caste hindus, on average, will be more fair complexioned than low caste hindus. this is not to deny that there are high caste hindus who are dark complexioned or low caste hindus who are fair (because of inter marriages).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_%28Hinduism%29

Varna means color as well as caste; the one is the cause of the other...

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/path/v09n06p189_the-colour-of-the-ancient-aryans.htm

one should not blindly swallow whatever one finds in a wikipedia page.

It doesn't mean color of the skin. So the classification was made based on the color of the skin? How stupid can that be? According to one school of thought, it is based on the mental attidudes, sattva, rajas and tamo gunas and the varying degrees of those in the individual. The ones with more sattva gunas are the brahmins (indicated by white, for purity), the ones with more rajo gunas are the kshatriyas (red), and the ones with more tamo gunas are the sudhras (black).

You may claim to be a brahmin, but you don't seem to be satvik in nature. You seem to have more tamo gunas (ignorance, foolishness, etc) and hence can be considered a shudra. Color of your skin has nothing to do with it. It's what you are made inside is what matters.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Varna (in ashrama dharma) does not exactly translate into caste. The word caste was incorporated by Europeans.

AND caste is abused by the privileged Ravans (Brahmins)

Rashmun wrote:

kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:2. I am not so sure about race as you. The sanskrit word varna means color and it also means caste. That is to say, the caste based hierarchy came up on the basis of skin color with fair complexioned aryans at the top of the hierarchy and dark complexioned dravidians at the bottom. that is why even today high caste hindus, on average, will be more fair complexioned than low caste hindus. this is not to deny that there are high caste hindus who are dark complexioned or low caste hindus who are fair (because of inter marriages).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_%28Hinduism%29

Varna means color as well as caste; the one is the cause of the other...

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/path/v09n06p189_the-colour-of-the-ancient-aryans.htm

one should not blindly swallow whatever one finds in a wikipedia page.

It doesn't mean color of the skin. So the classification was made based on the color of the skin? How stupid can that be? According to one school of thought, it is based on the mental attidudes, sattva, rajas and tamo gunas and the varying degrees of those in the individual. The ones with more sattva gunas are the brahmins (indicated by white, for purity), the ones with more rajo gunas are the kshatriyas (red), and the ones with more tamo gunas are the sudhras (black).

You may claim to be a brahmin, but you don't seem to be satvik in nature. You seem to have more tamo gunas (ignorance, foolishness, etc) and hence can be considered a shudra. Color of your skin has nothing to do with it. It's what you are made inside is what matters.

it is true that i was born into a brahmin family but i do not believe in the caste system. i have always promoted inter caste marriages. Having said that the sanskrit word Varna does mean color.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Rashmun wrote:2. I am not so sure about race as you. The sanskrit word varna means color and it also means caste. That is to say, the caste based hierarchy came up on the basis of skin color with fair complexioned aryans at the top of the hierarchy and dark complexioned dravidians at the bottom. that is why even today high caste hindus, on average, will be more fair complexioned than low caste hindus. this is not to deny that there are high caste hindus who are dark complexioned or low caste hindus who are fair (because of inter marriages).

i agree with you. from available records, it appears that casteism (followed by colour prejudice) developed rather late (in india). there is nothing wrong with having an aesthetic preference with respect to colour but everything wrong with prejudice and discrimination based on colour and caste. unfortunately the origin of colour and caste prejudices are ascribed to a phenomena that never happened: the AIT. it is a vicious circle. it would be more appropriate to blame these discriminations to times medieval instead (as elsewhere in the world).

kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

kinnera wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_%28Hinduism%29

Varna means color as well as caste; the one is the cause of the other...

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/path/v09n06p189_the-colour-of-the-ancient-aryans.htm

one should not blindly swallow whatever one finds in a wikipedia page.

It doesn't mean color of the skin. So the classification was made based on the color of the skin? How stupid can that be? According to one school of thought, it is based on the mental attidudes, sattva, rajas and tamo gunas and the varying degrees of those in the individual. The ones with more sattva gunas are the brahmins (indicated by white, for purity), the ones with more rajo gunas are the kshatriyas (red), and the ones with more tamo gunas are the sudhras (black).

You may claim to be a brahmin, but you don't seem to be satvik in nature. You seem to have more tamo gunas (ignorance, foolishness, etc) and hence can be considered a shudra. Color of your skin has nothing to do with it. It's what you are made inside is what matters.

it is true that i was born into a brahmin family but i do not believe in the caste system. i have always promoted inter caste marriages. Having said that the sanskrit word Varna does mean color.

yeah, varna is also color, the color represented by your mental make-up, your guna, not the color of your skin. I mentioned that above too.

panini press wrote:

kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Varna means color as well as caste; the one is the cause of the other...

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/path/v09n06p189_the-colour-of-the-ancient-aryans.htm

one should not blindly swallow whatever one finds in a wikipedia page.

It doesn't mean color of the skin. So the classification was made based on the color of the skin? How stupid can that be? According to one school of thought, it is based on the mental attidudes, sattva, rajas and tamo gunas and the varying degrees of those in the individual. The ones with more sattva gunas are the brahmins (indicated by white, for purity), the ones with more rajo gunas are the kshatriyas (red), and the ones with more tamo gunas are the sudhras (black).

You may claim to be a brahmin, but you don't seem to be satvik in nature. You seem to have more tamo gunas (ignorance, foolishness, etc) and hence can be considered a shudra. Color of your skin has nothing to do with it. It's what you are made inside is what matters.

it is true that i was born into a brahmin family but i do not believe in the caste system. i have always promoted inter caste marriages. Having said that the sanskrit word Varna does mean color.

yeah, varna is also color, the color represented by your mental make-up, your guna, not the color of your skin. I mentioned that above too.

There was a long discussion on old CH about this between LittleFella and Rashmun. It is the discussion in which Rashmun made some strongly casteist statements. I remember someone had posted the meanings of the word varna. Like many common Sanskrit words, it has several distinct meanings, and both "color" and "one of the four high-level caste groups" are among them. But to argue that caste is based on color is a non sequitur. It is akin to arguing that the set dosa was created so each little dosa in the set is eaten after playing a set in a tennis match.

panini press wrote:

kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Varna means color as well as caste; the one is the cause of the other...

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/path/v09n06p189_the-colour-of-the-ancient-aryans.htm

one should not blindly swallow whatever one finds in a wikipedia page.

It doesn't mean color of the skin. So the classification was made based on the color of the skin? How stupid can that be? According to one school of thought, it is based on the mental attidudes, sattva, rajas and tamo gunas and the varying degrees of those in the individual. The ones with more sattva gunas are the brahmins (indicated by white, for purity), the ones with more rajo gunas are the kshatriyas (red), and the ones with more tamo gunas are the sudhras (black).

You may claim to be a brahmin, but you don't seem to be satvik in nature. You seem to have more tamo gunas (ignorance, foolishness, etc) and hence can be considered a shudra. Color of your skin has nothing to do with it. It's what you are made inside is what matters.

it is true that i was born into a brahmin family but i do not believe in the caste system. i have always promoted inter caste marriages. Having said that the sanskrit word Varna does mean color.

yeah, varna is also color, the color represented by your mental make-up, your guna, not the color of your skin. I mentioned that above too.

There was a long discussion on old CH about this between LittleFella and Rashmun. It is the discussion in which Rashmun made some strongly casteist statements. I remember someone had posted the meanings of the word varna. Like many common Sanskrit words, it has several distinct meanings, and both "color" and "one of the four high-level caste groups" are among them. But to argue that caste is based on color is a non sequitur. It is akin to arguing that the set dosa was created so each little dosa in the set is eaten after playing a set in a tennis match.

Rashmun wrote:Following public outcry on the Facebook account of Madurai District Administration over installing street signs in Hindi in the temple town, Collector Anshul Mishra has asked the city Corporation to remove them.

“Respecting the sentiments of our Tamil brothers and sisters, I am ready to take back my words regarding issue of tri-lingual boards and use of Hindi in these boards ... I am here to serve people of Tamil Nadu and not promote my mother tongue ...,” Mishra posted in the Facebook account of Collector Madurai.

Recently, the Madurai Corporation had made an announcement to install tri-language (Tamil, Hindi and English) signboards across the city to facilitate tourists visiting Madurai from various parts of the country. Immediately, activists of Tamil Desa Pothu Udamai Katchi staged a protest on January 25 demanding the removal of the signages.

However, as Corporation was slow to react to their pleas, the People’s Campaign for Tamil Cause took the cyber route for redressal. Several people, espousing the Tamil cause, sought the Collector’s intervention to remove the signages.

The movement argued that no other state in the country had put up signboards in Tamil to facilitate tourists from this state.

”In a day, hundreds of pilgrims from TN visit Kasi, Mumbai, Delhi and various places of pilgrimage in North India. The local bodies of those cities never displayed Tamil boards there ... Even in international terminals,we can seen single-language boards in the native language”

Some of the posts also emphasised Madurai’s legendary connection with Tamil Sangam. There were others who said that they were not against Hindi language but insisted on Tamil signboards only in Tamil Nadu.

However, the debate did not stop there. Immediately after the Collector’s post, scores of Facebook users asked him not to remove the Hindi signboards. A few posted comments saying, ”While we are proud of being Tamil, we should respect and encourage learning other languages, especially Hindi. We Tamils will be respected only if we are able to take together other language-speaking people and languages.” Some emphasised that Madurai was a popular tourist centre that attracted people from north India. Signboards in Hindi would help such tourists.

When Express contacted Collector Anshul Mishra, he said, ”As the District Magistrate, I need to maintain peace and tranquility in the district. And also, respecting Tamil sentiments, I have asked the Corporation officials to remove the signboards in Hindi.”

[url=http://newindianexpress.com/states/tamil_nadu/article1451522.ece

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:as i said earlier, a genetic study confirmed that the IVC people and the people inhabiting the IVC region today are of the same stock (i will have to find the link). if this is not true, then please take me to pakistan and punjab and haryana and show me who the aryans are and who the IVC people?

*correction*

panini press wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Rashmun wrote:2. I am not so sure about race as you. The sanskrit word varna means color and it also means caste. That is to say, the caste based hierarchy came up on the basis of skin color with fair complexioned aryans at the top of the hierarchy and dark complexioned dravidians at the bottom. that is why even today high caste hindus, on average, will be more fair complexioned than low caste hindus. this is not to deny that there are high caste hindus who are dark complexioned or low caste hindus who are fair (because of inter marriages).

i agree with you. from available records, it appears that casteism (followed by colour prejudice) developed rather late (in india). there is nothing wrong with having an aesthetic preference with respect to colour but everything wrong with prejudice and discrimination based on colour and caste. unfortunately the origin of colour and caste prejudices are ascribed to a phenomena that never happened: the AIT. it is a vicious circle. it would be more appropriate to blame these discriminations to times medieval instead (as elsewhere in the world).

You don't need an Aryan Invasion in order for the caste system to develop, and the existence of the caste system does not help prove the Aryan Invasion theory. The Polynesians of Hawaii had an elaborate eight-level caste system that was rather rigid. There was no Aryan or any other invasion there that led to the development of that system; all the people on the islands were of the same Polynesian ethnic stock.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

panini press wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

Rashmun wrote:2. I am not so sure about race as you. The sanskrit word varna means color and it also means caste. That is to say, the caste based hierarchy came up on the basis of skin color with fair complexioned aryans at the top of the hierarchy and dark complexioned dravidians at the bottom. that is why even today high caste hindus, on average, will be more fair complexioned than low caste hindus. this is not to deny that there are high caste hindus who are dark complexioned or low caste hindus who are fair (because of inter marriages).

i agree with you. from available records, it appears that casteism (followed by colour prejudice) developed rather late (in india). there is nothing wrong with having an aesthetic preference with respect to colour but everything wrong with prejudice and discrimination based on colour and caste. unfortunately the origin of colour and caste prejudices are ascribed to a phenomena that never happened: the AIT. it is a vicious circle. it would be more appropriate to blame these discriminations to times medieval instead (as elsewhere in the world).

You don't need an Aryan Invasion in order for the caste system to develop, and the existence of the caste system does not help prove the Aryan Invasion theory. The Polynesians of Hawaii had an elaborate eight-level caste system that was rather rigid. There was no Aryan or any other invasion there that led to the development of that system; all the people on the islands were of the same Polynesian ethnic stock.

interesting.