JM, do you agree with this?

by Rishi Tue May 28, 2013 10:11 pm

The early history of the Namboodiri Brahmins is very obscure. Many
historians do not allow that they arrived in Kerala before the third
century CE. Where they arrived from is also not clear. What is certain
is that there were no Namboodiri Brahmins in Kerala in the middle of the
first century when St. Thomas allegedly arrived in Muziris
(Kodungallur). So the claim of some Syrian Christian families to be
descendants of Namboodiris converted by St. Thomas is a fabrication to
give these old Christian families caste status. It is more probable that
some members of the Namboodiri Brahmin community were originally Syrian
Christians who converted to Vedic Hinduism after the fourth century
arrival of Syrian Christian refugees from Persia and Mesopotamia. There
is also no reason to believe members of the Nair community converted to
Christianity at any time in the early Christian era. Syrian Christians
were given the caste status of Nairs by the Malabar rulers; it does not
follow that they were originally of the Nair caste. The original West
Asian Christians who found their way to India’s west coast after the
fourth century were from Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia (Iraq) and
Persia, and spoke the Semitic Middle Aramaic dialect of Syriac. Syriac
remains the liturgical language of Syrian Christians.

http://ishwarsharan.wordpress.com/parts-2-to-9/sita-ram-goel-and-khushwant-singh-exchange-notes-sita-ram-goel-khushwant-singh/

by Guest Tue May 28, 2013 10:17 pm

Rishi wrote:The original West
Asian Christians who found their way to India’s west coast after the
fourth century were from Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia (Iraq) and
Persia, and spoke the Semitic Middle Aramaic dialect of Syriac. Syriac
remains the liturgical language of Syrian Christians.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Wed May 29, 2013 12:02 am

Rishi wrote:The early history of the Namboodiri Brahmins is very obscure. Many
historians do not allow that they arrived in Kerala before the third
century CE. Where they arrived from is also not clear. What is certain
is that there were no Namboodiri Brahmins in Kerala in the middle of the
first century when St. Thomas allegedly arrived in Muziris
(Kodungallur). So the claim of some Syrian Christian families to be
descendants of Namboodiris converted by St. Thomas is a fabrication to
give these old Christian families caste status. It is more probable that
some members of the Namboodiri Brahmin community were originally Syrian
Christians who converted to Vedic Hinduism after the fourth century
arrival of Syrian Christian refugees from Persia and Mesopotamia. There
is also no reason to believe members of the Nair community converted to
Christianity at any time in the early Christian era. Syrian Christians
were given the caste status of Nairs by the Malabar rulers; it does not
follow that they were originally of the Nair caste. The original West
Asian Christians who found their way to India’s west coast after the
fourth century were from Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia (Iraq) and
Persia, and spoke the Semitic Middle Aramaic dialect of Syriac. Syriac
remains the liturgical language of Syrian Christians.

http://ishwarsharan.wordpress.com/parts-2-to-9/sita-ram-goel-and-khushwant-singh-exchange-notes-sita-ram-goel-khushwant-singh/

i have no interest in the caste origins of syrian christians. moreover, i have no knowledge of the caste origins of my family or our ancestors, and have never known or met any syrian christian who knew his own or his ancestors' caste. on a rare occasion, i've heard a second-hand story or two about how someone was laughed at and ridiculed by other syrian christians for hinting at some caste affiliation in ancient times.

the kind of dialogue that seems to have taken place between sitaram goel and khushwant singh - i have not read the contents of your link - does not take place among syrian christians. i suspect that hindus are incredulous about syrian christian society because the notion of a casteless society in india is inconceivable to them. you too are apparently incredulous because you raise a subject that has been raised before, to which i had responded in much the same way.

you should watch the angry hindu reaction to this response of mine.

by Idéfix Wed May 29, 2013 1:51 am

https://such.forumotion.com/t10677-christian-atrocities-against-dalits-in-tn#82873

You should watch the groundhogging in response to this post.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Wed May 29, 2013 8:44 am

Idéfix wrote:https://such.forumotion.com/t10677-christian-atrocities-against-dalits-in-tn#82873

You should watch the groundhogging in response to this post.

the thread you've linked above is about "atrocities on dalits in tamil nadu." they were apparently committed by tamil christians living in dindukal, tamil nadu, not by syrian christians, who are malayalees.

nothing said on the basis of the youtube video in the thread you linked above is applicable to syrian christians. discuss the caste atrocity depicted in your link with maria and the hindus here; it's irrelevant to this thread.

what i've said in this new thread of rishi's about my personal experience is absolutely true. i have never heard a syrian christian say or imply that he belongs to a certain caste, or that his ancestors did.

hindus dispensed excreta for 3,500 years. no one else is responsible for the hindus' millennia-long, oppressive, uncivilized actions.

by Guest Wed May 29, 2013 9:06 am

So far, not heard of Brahmins converting enmasse, or being coerced to convert. Seen them rather be killed. So I believe this theory. Syrian Christians are highly likely not prior brahmins.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Wed May 29, 2013 9:19 am

Vidya Bagchi wrote:So far, not heard of Brahmins converting enmasse, or being coerced to convert. Seen them rather be killed. So I believe this theory. Syrian Christians are highly likely not prior brahmins.

i have never heard that the people who became syrian christians were coerced to convert.

by Merlot Daruwala Wed May 29, 2013 9:21 am

Vidya Bagchi wrote:So far, not heard of Brahmins converting enmasse, or being coerced to convert. Seen them rather be killed. So I believe this theory. Syrian Christians are highly likely not prior brahmins.

Happened in Goa. The Portuguese were the scummiest of colonizers.

by Merlot Daruwala Wed May 29, 2013 9:22 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:So far, not heard of Brahmins converting enmasse, or being coerced to convert. Seen them rather be killed. So I believe this theory. Syrian Christians are highly likely not prior brahmins.

Happened in Goa. The Portuguese were the scummiest of colonizers.

Also Kashmir. Kashmiri Muslims with the surname Butt are basically converted Brahmins.

by Seva Lamberdar Wed May 29, 2013 9:29 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
... Kashmiri Muslims with the surname Butt are basically converted Brahmins.

The origin of the Muslim surname "Butt" is thought (even among some Muslims) as the brahmin subcaste "Bhat".

by Hellsangel Wed May 29, 2013 9:44 am

The one constant is that the Nazranis don't get along with anyone; including each other. Their thousand year old splits continue even today, even 10,000 miles away.

by Guest Wed May 29, 2013 9:56 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:So far, not heard of Brahmins converting enmasse, or being coerced to convert. Seen them rather be killed. So I believe this theory. Syrian Christians are highly likely not prior brahmins.

Happened in Goa. The Portuguese were the scummiest of colonizers.

Also Kashmir. Kashmiri Muslims with the surname Butt are basically converted Brahmins.

oh ok, didn't know much. Usually read and hear big accounts of the times of Aurangzeb, etc, hence these mentions get lost somewhere.

by Kris Wed May 29, 2013 10:49 am

Vidya Bagchi wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:So far, not heard of Brahmins converting enmasse, or being coerced to convert. Seen them rather be killed. So I believe this theory. Syrian Christians are highly likely not prior brahmins.

Happened in Goa. The Portuguese were the scummiest of colonizers.

Also Kashmir. Kashmiri Muslims with the surname Butt are basically converted Brahmins.

oh ok, didn't know much. Usually read and hear big accounts of the times of Aurangzeb, etc, hence these mentions get lost somewhere.

>>>>With the Portuguese, I have heard they resorted to tactics like throwing meat in the wells which would taint the ritual purity of the Brahmins who used that well and rest of the community would then shun them. I don't know if this is a story made up later to vilify the Portuguese. Seemed like they could have simply threatened them with death if they didn't convert. Many families did flee to safety and didn't convert.

by indophile Wed May 29, 2013 10:54 am

Caste system among Indian christians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_among_Indian_Christians

by Guest Wed May 29, 2013 11:03 am

Kris wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:So far, not heard of Brahmins converting enmasse, or being coerced to convert. Seen them rather be killed. So I believe this theory. Syrian Christians are highly likely not prior brahmins.

Happened in Goa. The Portuguese were the scummiest of colonizers.

Also Kashmir. Kashmiri Muslims with the surname Butt are basically converted Brahmins.

oh ok, didn't know much. Usually read and hear big accounts of the times of Aurangzeb, etc, hence these mentions get lost somewhere.

>>>>With the Portuguese, I have heard they resorted to tactics like throwing meat in the wells which would taint the ritual purity of the Brahmins who used that well and rest of the community would then shun them. I don't know if this is a story made up later to vilify the Portuguese. Seemed like they could have simply threatened them with death if they didn't convert. Many families did flee to safety and didn't convert.

we heard the same about muslims. that the notion was, if u drink from a muslim's glass, you become one, and would be outcastd. so all it needed was for one to go spit in a well, and the whole village would be forced to convert, by their own. Sounds too stupid to be true.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed May 29, 2013 11:09 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Idéfix wrote:https://such.forumotion.com/t10677-christian-atrocities-against-dalits-in-tn#82873

You should watch the groundhogging in response to this post.
the thread you've linked above is about "atrocities on dalits in tamil nadu." they were apparently committed by tamil christians living in dindukal, tamil nadu, not by syrian christians, who are malayalees.

Malayalam came from Tamil only after 5th-6th century. In that case how can you say Syrian Christians are malayalees? Or, are you saying Syrian Christianity does not allow non-malayalees maintaining its "purity?"

by Guest Wed May 29, 2013 11:10 am

indophile wrote:Caste system among Indian christians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_among_Indian_Christians

Hmm. Looks like the moment someone says, 'all the people I know are....' means they are simply trying to state how they themselves don't follow the norm.

Syrian Christians maintain their traditional Syrian rites and practices. They derive status within the caste system from the tradition that they are converted from high caste Hindus who were evangelized by St. Thomas which is a matter of debate as some of their occupations like Pig rearing and tradition of eating Pork are attributed to their conversion from lower castes.[8] In the pre-independence period, Untouchability was prevalent in the Kerala society and the Syrian Christians also practiced it in order to keep their upper-caste status. They used to go for a ritual bath to purify themselves on physical contact with the so-called inferior castes.[9][10][11] The Syrian Christians did not cooperate with the evangelical activities of foreign missionaries and they even didn't allow the new converts to join their community since they were afraid that their noble position in the society could have been endangered.[12]

by Idéfix Wed May 29, 2013 11:54 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i have never heard a syrian christian say or imply that he belongs to a certain caste, or that his ancestors did.

Let me quote from the post I linked above:

Here is some evidence of caste-based behavior exhibited by Syrian Christians. Go to the website http://christian.matrimonialsindia.com/christian-syrian-christian-groom/ and look at the profiles that show up. All the people there list their religion as "Christian" and caste as "Christian Syrian." Several of them specify the caste of their "ideal partner." Feel free to ignore this evidence if it makes you angry, upset, or both.

You can follow your lead from last time and ignore this evidence. That way you can continue to pretend that you have never heard a Syrian Christian say that he belongs to a certain caste.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:hindus dispensed excreta for 3,500 years. no one else is responsible for the hindus' millennia-long, oppressive, uncivilized actions.

Are you suggesting that for 3,500 years non-Hindus stored their excreta?

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Wed May 29, 2013 11:56 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Idéfix wrote:https://such.forumotion.com/t10677-christian-atrocities-against-dalits-in-tn#82873

You should watch the groundhogging in response to this post.
the thread you've linked above is about "atrocities on dalits in tamil nadu." they were apparently committed by tamil christians living in dindukal, tamil nadu, not by syrian christians, who are malayalees.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Malayalam came from Tamil only after 5th-6th century. In that case how can you say Syrian Christians are malayalees?

the youtube video in the link posted above by pressulu shows present-day tamilians objecting, in the tamil language, to present-day christians of dindukal, tamil nadu throwing excreta ("shyt" in your language) at them. it's not about the 5th or 6th century, and it's not about syrian christians.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Or, are you saying Syrian Christianity does not allow non-malayalees maintaining its "purity?"

no, but it's possible that they want to keep the "shyt-throwers" out.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed May 29, 2013 12:16 pm

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Idéfix wrote:https://such.forumotion.com/t10677-christian-atrocities-against-dalits-in-tn#82873

You should watch the groundhogging in response to this post.
the thread you've linked above is about "atrocities on dalits in tamil nadu." they were apparently committed by tamil christians living in dindukal, tamil nadu, not by syrian christians, who are malayalees.
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Malayalam came from Tamil only after 5th-6th century. In that case how can you say Syrian Christians are malayalees?
the youtube video in the link posted above by pressulu shows present-day tamilians objecting, in the tamil language, to present-day christians of dindukal, tamil nadu throwing excreta ("shyt" in your language) at them. it's not about the 5th or 6th century, and it's not about syrian christians.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Or, are you saying Syrian Christianity does not allow non-malayalees maintaining its "purity?"
no, but it's possible that they want to keep the "shyt-throwers" out.

So you are calling all Tamil Christians Shyt-Throwers. Thanks for clarifying.

by Propagandhi711 Wed May 29, 2013 12:16 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i have never heard a syrian christian say or imply that he belongs to a certain caste, or that his ancestors did.
Let me quote from the post I linked above:

Here is some evidence of caste-based behavior exhibited by Syrian Christians. Go to the website http://christian.matrimonialsindia.com/christian-syrian-christian-groom/ and look at the profiles that show up. All the people there list their religion as "Christian" and caste as "Christian Syrian." Several of them specify the caste of their "ideal partner." Feel free to ignore this evidence if it makes you angry, upset, or both.

You can follow your lead from last time and ignore this evidence. That way you can continue to pretend that you have never heard a Syrian Christian say that he belongs to a certain caste.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:hindus dispensed excreta for 3,500 years. no one else is responsible for the hindus' millennia-long, oppressive, uncivilized actions.
Are you suggesting that for 3,500 years non-Hindus stored their excreta?

ground hogging in progress

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Wed May 29, 2013 5:14 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Idéfix wrote:https://such.forumotion.com/t10677-christian-atrocities-against-dalits-in-tn#82873

You should watch the groundhogging in response to this post.
the thread you've linked above is about "atrocities on dalits in tamil nadu." they were apparently committed by tamil christians living in dindukal, tamil nadu, not by syrian christians, who are malayalees.
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Malayalam came from Tamil only after 5th-6th century. In that case how can you say Syrian Christians are malayalees?
the youtube video in the link posted above by pressulu shows present-day tamilians objecting, in the tamil language, to present-day christians of dindukal, tamil nadu throwing excreta ("shyt" in your language) at them. it's not about the 5th or 6th century, and it's not about syrian christians.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Or, are you saying Syrian Christianity does not allow non-malayalees maintaining its "purity?"
no, but it's possible that they want to keep the "shyt-throwers" out.

So you are calling all Tamil Christians Shyt-Throwers. Thanks for clarifying.

"so," you want to defend shyt-throwing tamil christians?

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu May 30, 2013 12:53 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i have never heard a syrian christian say or imply that he belongs to a certain caste, or that his ancestors did.

Idéfix wrote:Let me quote from the post I linked above:

Here is some evidence of caste-based behavior exhibited by Syrian Christians. Go to the website http://christian.matrimonialsindia.com/christian-syrian-christian-groom/ and look at the profiles that show up. All the people there list their religion as "Christian" and caste as "Christian Syrian." Several of them specify the caste of their "ideal partner." Feel free to ignore this evidence if it makes you angry, upset, or both.

the evidence i see is of your dishonesty. what you've linked is apparently a matrimonial website whose data entry screen doesn't provide a field for (christian) denomination, and requires christian members to enter that item in the one intended for (hindu) caste. you, i'm sure, knew that all along.

Idéfix wrote:You can follow your lead from last time and ignore this evidence.

incorrect information that resulted from entering data into a poorly-designed data entry screen does not form evidence of caste-based behaviour. if you think that syrian christians collectively engaged in caste-based behaviour, then show that they oppressed large groups of india's other peoples economically, socially, and sexually, and deprived them of important freedoms, from generation to generation, on the basis of each group's birth within a socio-religious hierarchy, and that their religion approved of such behaviour.

Idéfix wrote:That way you can continue to pretend that you have never heard a Syrian Christian say that he belongs to a certain caste.

i will continue to say that i have never heard a Syrian Christian say that he belongs to a certain caste, because that is true. i find it extremely interesting that you don't, or are pretending that you don't believe that.

by Captain Bhankas Thu May 30, 2013 3:36 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i have never heard that the people who became syrian christians were coerced to convert.

face it, philip. thengumthodathils were in awe of a man with the lighter skin. anything the man said was the ultimate truth for them just because he wasn't as dark as them. if he said "jesus > rama" then thengumthodathils bought that. if he said "jorty > padmanabh" then thengumthodathils hi-fived him. if he said "beef stew > potato stew" then thengumthodathils made a beeline for his kitchen.

by Guest Thu May 30, 2013 4:35 am

Captain Bhankas wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i have never heard that the people who became syrian christians were coerced to convert.

face it, philip. thengumthodathils were in awe of a man with the lighter skin. anything the man said was the ultimate truth for them just because he wasn't as dark as them. if he said "jesus > rama" then thengumthodathils bought that. if he said "jorty > padmanabh" then thengumthodathils hi-fived him. if he said "beef stew > potato stew" then thengumthodathils made a beeline for his kitchen.

ayyeda! you have made achachan #upset and #angry now.

by Captain Bhankas Thu May 30, 2013 4:50 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:ayyeda! you have made achachan #upset and #angry now.

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.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu May 30, 2013 6:43 am

captain I know you're having a lot of fun with this and hate to do this to you, but the aramaeans were probably the same skin color as many indians.

by Captain Bhankas Thu May 30, 2013 7:00 am

well, i think he would be at least a few shades lighter than an average indian having lived in a higher latitude region.

by garam_kuta Thu May 30, 2013 9:29 am

Captain Bhankas wrote:well, i think he would be at least a few shades lighter than an average indian having lived in a higher latitude region.

latte, cappucino, chai, tea, coffee or espresso ???

by garam_kuta Thu May 30, 2013 9:33 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Captain Bhankas wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i have never heard that the people who became syrian christians were coerced to convert.

face it, philip. thengumthodathils were in awe of a man with the lighter skin. anything the man said was the ultimate truth for them just because he wasn't as dark as them. if he said "jesus > rama" then thengumthodathils bought that. if he said "jorty > padmanabh" then thengumthodathils hi-fived him. if he said "beef stew > potato stew" then thengumthodathils made a beeline for his kitchen.
ayyeda! you have made achachan #upset and #angry now.

if not in its entirety, this 'vision' of yours could at least save the lives of these people in Tanzania

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu May 30, 2013 10:56 am

Captain Bhankas wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i have never heard that the people who became syrian christians were coerced to convert.

face it, philip. thengumthodathils were in awe of a man with the lighter skin. anything the man said was the ultimate truth for them just because he wasn't as dark as them. if he said "jesus > rama" then thengumthodathils bought that. if he said "jorty > padmanabh" then thengumthodathils hi-fived him. if he said "beef stew > potato stew" then thengumthodathils made a beeline for his kitchen.

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. you might seek out mr drinkman to have a conversation about beef - and pork, and chicken, and lamb, and shrimp, indeed all those meats eaten together in one gigantic, gluttonous meal.

by Idéfix Thu May 30, 2013 11:04 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:the evidence i see is of your dishonesty. what you've linked is apparently a matrimonial website whose data entry screen doesn't provide a field for (christian) denomination, and requires christian members to enter that item in the one intended for (hindu) caste. you, i'm sure, knew that all along.

This is a "Christian Matrimonials" site that displays this banner at the top of the page. JM, do you agree with this? Banner10

People who posted their profiles there were not coerced to type in their caste; they did so freely. The site allows people to not state caste if they prefer that; many Syrian Christians actively chose to state their caste. Some even indicated that their ideal mate would be from their own caste. It is plainly dishonest to claim that people who want to marry a person of their own caste have nothing to do with caste.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:if you think that syrian christians collectively engaged in caste-based behaviour, then show that they oppressed large groups of india's other peoples economically, socially, and sexually, and deprived them of important freedoms, from generation to generation, on the basis of each group's birth within a socio-religious hierarchy, and that their religion approved of such behaviour.

Ah, trying to move the goalpost now, are we? My claim is not that Syrian Christians oppressed large groups of India's other peoples, so this is a red herring. Oppressing large groups is not the only caste-based behavior that is possible. The Syrian Christians who posted their caste -- and sought partners of their caste -- on that website also engaged in caste-based behavior.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i will continue to say that i have never heard a Syrian Christian say that he belongs to a certain caste, because that is true. i find it extremely interesting that you don't, or are pretending that you don't believe that.

I don't believe it because there is easily available evidence that shows that several Syrian Christians did indeed state their caste willingly, and sought partners from within their caste. You are welcome to ignore inconvenient evidence that threatens the idealized notions you have of your own caste.

by Guest Thu May 30, 2013 11:17 am

Idéfix wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:the evidence i see is of your dishonesty. what you've linked is apparently a matrimonial website whose data entry screen doesn't provide a field for (christian) denomination, and requires christian members to enter that item in the one intended for (hindu) caste. you, i'm sure, knew that all along.
This is a "Christian Matrimonials" site that displays this banner at the top of the page.

People who posted their profiles there were not coerced to type in their caste; they did so freely. The site allows people to not state caste if they prefer that; many Syrian Christians actively chose to state their caste. Some even indicated that their ideal mate would be from their own caste. It is plainly dishonest to claim that people who want to marry a person of their own caste have nothing to do with caste.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:if you think that syrian christians collectively engaged in caste-based behaviour, then show that they oppressed large groups of india's other peoples economically, socially, and sexually, and deprived them of important freedoms, from generation to generation, on the basis of each group's birth within a socio-religious hierarchy, and that their religion approved of such behaviour.
Ah, trying to move the goalpost now, are we? My claim is not that Syrian Christians oppressed large groups of India's other peoples, so this is a red herring. Oppressing large groups is not the only caste-based behavior that is possible. The Syrian Christians who posted their caste -- and sought partners of their caste -- on that website also engaged in caste-based behavior.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:i will continue to say that i have never heard a Syrian Christian say that he belongs to a certain caste, because that is true. i find it extremely interesting that you don't, or are pretending that you don't believe that.
I don't believe it because there is easily available evidence that shows that several Syrian Christians did indeed state their caste willingly, and sought partners from within their caste. You are welcome to ignore inconvenient evidence that threatens the idealized notions you have of your own caste.

wanting to marry someone from your own community; and exploiting and oppressing members of other communities are two completely different things. You are blithely comparing apples to oranges and then complaining why JM does not do the same. By the way, i know dalits who wished to marry (and did marry) fellow dalits. Does this mean that they are indulging in casteism?

by Guest Thu May 30, 2013 11:22 am

talking about oppression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_among_Indian_Christians

Syrian Christians maintain their traditional Syrian rites and practices. They derive status within the caste system from the tradition that they are converted from high caste Hindus who were evangelized by St. Thomas which is a matter of debate as some of their occupations like Pig rearing and tradition of eating Pork are attributed to their conversion from lower castes.[8] In the pre-independence period, Untouchability was prevalent in the Kerala society and the Syrian Christians also practiced it in order to keep their upper-caste status. They used to go for a ritual bath to purify themselves on physical contact with the so-called inferior castes.[9][10][11] The Syrian Christians did not cooperate with the evangelical activities of foreign missionaries and they even didn't allow the new converts to join their community since they were afraid that their noble position in the society could have been endangered.[12].

by Guest Thu May 30, 2013 11:30 am

Vidya Bagchi wrote:talking about oppression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_among_Indian_Christians

Syrian Christians maintain their traditional Syrian rites and practices. They derive status within the caste system from the tradition that they are converted from high caste Hindus who were evangelized by St. Thomas which is a matter of debate as some of their occupations like Pig rearing and tradition of eating Pork are attributed to their conversion from lower castes.[8] In the pre-independence period, Untouchability was prevalent in the Kerala society and the Syrian Christians also practiced it in order to keep their upper-caste status. They used to go for a ritual bath to purify themselves on physical contact with the so-called inferior castes.[9][10][11] The Syrian Christians did not cooperate with the evangelical activities of foreign missionaries and they even didn't allow the new converts to join their community since they were afraid that their noble position in the society could have been endangered.[12].

none of the references given are easily verifiable since they are not available online. you cannot just swallow everything you come across in a wikipedia article.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu May 30, 2013 11:32 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:captain I know you're having a lot of fun with this and hate to do this to you, but the aramaeans were probably the same skin color as many indians.

I have valid and solid information that intentionally some white/lighteER skinned guys were sent to talk to the thengamthodathils. That effect can still be seen in the admiration of Svenkas and Ingas.

by Guest Thu May 30, 2013 11:35 am

Rashmun wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:talking about oppression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_among_Indian_Christians

Syrian Christians maintain their traditional Syrian rites and practices. They derive status within the caste system from the tradition that they are converted from high caste Hindus who were evangelized by St. Thomas which is a matter of debate as some of their occupations like Pig rearing and tradition of eating Pork are attributed to their conversion from lower castes.[8] In the pre-independence period, Untouchability was prevalent in the Kerala society and the Syrian Christians also practiced it in order to keep their upper-caste status. They used to go for a ritual bath to purify themselves on physical contact with the so-called inferior castes.[9][10][11] The Syrian Christians did not cooperate with the evangelical activities of foreign missionaries and they even didn't allow the new converts to join their community since they were afraid that their noble position in the society could have been endangered.[12].

none of the references given are easily verifiable since they are not available online. you cannot just swallow everything you come across in a wikipedia article.

Sure. If you say so Rashmun.

by Guest Thu May 30, 2013 11:38 am

Vidya Bagchi wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:talking about oppression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_among_Indian_Christians

Syrian Christians maintain their traditional Syrian rites and practices. They derive status within the caste system from the tradition that they are converted from high caste Hindus who were evangelized by St. Thomas which is a matter of debate as some of their occupations like Pig rearing and tradition of eating Pork are attributed to their conversion from lower castes.[8] In the pre-independence period, Untouchability was prevalent in the Kerala society and the Syrian Christians also practiced it in order to keep their upper-caste status. They used to go for a ritual bath to purify themselves on physical contact with the so-called inferior castes.[9][10][11] The Syrian Christians did not cooperate with the evangelical activities of foreign missionaries and they even didn't allow the new converts to join their community since they were afraid that their noble position in the society could have been endangered.[12].

none of the references given are easily verifiable since they are not available online. you cannot just swallow everything you come across in a wikipedia article.

Sure. If you say so Rashmun.

.

by Guest Thu May 30, 2013 11:41 am

Rashmun wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:talking about oppression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_among_Indian_Christians

Syrian Christians maintain their traditional Syrian rites and practices. They derive status within the caste system from the tradition that they are converted from high caste Hindus who were evangelized by St. Thomas which is a matter of debate as some of their occupations like Pig rearing and tradition of eating Pork are attributed to their conversion from lower castes.[8] In the pre-independence period, Untouchability was prevalent in the Kerala society and the Syrian Christians also practiced it in order to keep their upper-caste status. They used to go for a ritual bath to purify themselves on physical contact with the so-called inferior castes.[9][10][11] The Syrian Christians did not cooperate with the evangelical activities of foreign missionaries and they even didn't allow the new converts to join their community since they were afraid that their noble position in the society could have been endangered.[12].

none of the references given are easily verifiable since they are not available online. you cannot just swallow everything you come across in a wikipedia article.

Sure. If you say so Rashmun.

.

I can understand syrian christians wanting to marry within themselves. They are a small community and they correctly foresaw that they would quickly get absorbed and become non-existent if they started inter-marrying. But the claim that the syrian christians were practicing untouchability, and that they would go for a ritual bath if touched by a low caste hindu, seems very unlikely to me.

by Propagandhi711 Thu May 30, 2013 11:43 am

Rashmun wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:talking about oppression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_among_Indian_Christians

Syrian Christians maintain their traditional Syrian rites and practices. They derive status within the caste system from the tradition that they are converted from high caste Hindus who were evangelized by St. Thomas which is a matter of debate as some of their occupations like Pig rearing and tradition of eating Pork are attributed to their conversion from lower castes.[8] In the pre-independence period, Untouchability was prevalent in the Kerala society and the Syrian Christians also practiced it in order to keep their upper-caste status. They used to go for a ritual bath to purify themselves on physical contact with the so-called inferior castes.[9][10][11] The Syrian Christians did not cooperate with the evangelical activities of foreign missionaries and they even didn't allow the new converts to join their community since they were afraid that their noble position in the society could have been endangered.[12].

none of the references given are easily verifiable since they are not available online. you cannot just swallow everything you come across in a wikipedia article.

yes, you must cross post the wiki link to multiple groups, then start using your own link as evidence. that's how you build an incontrovertible proof of your argument. that;s the logical way of arguing on the internets and it's known as the douchemun method

by Hellsangel Thu May 30, 2013 11:44 am

Written by a Nazrani:

The other side of the picture was that
the Christians started borrowing several social customs and practices (
like the ceremonies related to birth, marriage and death)⁶²
of the dominant castes to present themselves as fitting well into the
newly evolving socio-cultural order. The spice-producing St.Thomas
Christians as well as the descendants of the foreign Christian merchants
together seem to have imbibed a lot of elements from the neighbouring
cultural space in this social process. One of the most important social
practices that the indigenous Christians imbibed was the practice of
untouchability. The Christians believed that by touching low castes they
would remain polluted, which would deter them from interacting with the
Nairs and Brahmins.⁶³
As this would ultimately affect their trading activities, the
Christians were keen to observe untouchability rather meticulously in
their dealings with artisan groups and lower castes. They also used to
wear sacred thread(puunuul),⁶⁴
kudumi(tuft), but the only difference from that of the Brahmins was
that the Christians used to insert a silver cross into their
tuft(kudumi)⁶⁵.
The practice of St.Thomas Christians wearing sacred thread was later
quoted by Robert de Nobili for justifying his wearing of sacred thread
as a part of his missionary method of inculturation experimented in
Madurai in the seventeenth century⁶⁶.
The Christians also keenly observed birth-related pollution as well as
pula ( perception of the family as being under pollution after the
death of a member) and resorted to pulakuli( the feast usually held on
10th day after funeral) and sradham ( feast held one year after the
funeral, when the souls were believed to come back). ⁶⁷

by Idéfix Thu May 30, 2013 11:44 am

From the book, No Elephants for the Maharaja: Social and Political Change in the Princely State of Travancore (1921-1947) by Louise Ouwerkerk:

The position of the Syrian Christians was of course completely different. They could be described as a caste which happened to have Christianity as their personal religion; they considered themselves to be a high caste, and were accepted as such by their Hindu neighbors. Like the high-caste Hindus, they accepted the whole caste structure — they kept the rules of untouchability and approachability. Their different sects resembled the sub-sects of the Nayars; there was no social intercourse or intermarriage between them. They regarded the Church as identical with the Syrian Christian community and made no attempt to preach the Gospel to the heathen around them. This socially exclusive casteism and lack of missionary zeal were mutually dependent.

This blog by a Syrian Christian blogger quotes the above passage: http://cochinblogger.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/syrian-christians-as-a-caste/

Another Syrian Christian, who is also more honest about his/her community than Jerji, responds:

I am told that, somewhat to the embarrassment of my cousins, our Syrian Christian grandmother would not allow Dalit workers across the threshold – though I’m sure she regarded herself as a “good Christian”, and saw no contradiction between her attitude and beliefs.
She died in the early 1960′s, and with her that particular prejudice. But I’ve read that there are still many Syrian Christian churches where Dalits are not exactly welcomed..

by Guest Thu May 30, 2013 11:49 am

Propagandhi711 wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Vidya Bagchi wrote:talking about oppression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_among_Indian_Christians

Syrian Christians maintain their traditional Syrian rites and practices. They derive status within the caste system from the tradition that they are converted from high caste Hindus who were evangelized by St. Thomas which is a matter of debate as some of their occupations like Pig rearing and tradition of eating Pork are attributed to their conversion from lower castes.[8] In the pre-independence period, Untouchability was prevalent in the Kerala society and the Syrian Christians also practiced it in order to keep their upper-caste status. They used to go for a ritual bath to purify themselves on physical contact with the so-called inferior castes.[9][10][11] The Syrian Christians did not cooperate with the evangelical activities of foreign missionaries and they even didn't allow the new converts to join their community since they were afraid that their noble position in the society could have been endangered.[12].

none of the references given are easily verifiable since they are not available online. you cannot just swallow everything you come across in a wikipedia article.

yes, you must cross post the wiki link to multiple groups, then start using your own link as evidence. that's how you build an incontrovertible proof of your argument. that;s the logical way of arguing on the internets and it's known as the douchemun method

Hello Propa. Having a headache again?

by Guest Thu May 30, 2013 11:55 am

Idéfix wrote:From the book, No Elephants for the Maharaja: Social and Political Change in the Princely State of Travancore (1921-1947) by Louise Ouwerkerk:

The position of the Syrian Christians was of course completely different. They could be described as a caste which happened to have Christianity as their personal religion; they considered themselves to be a high caste, and were accepted as such by their Hindu neighbors. Like the high-caste Hindus, they accepted the whole caste structure — they kept the rules of untouchability and approachability. Their different sects resembled the sub-sects of the Nayars; there was no social intercourse or intermarriage between them. They regarded the Church as identical with the Syrian Christian community and made no attempt to preach the Gospel to the heathen around them. This socially exclusive casteism and lack of missionary zeal were mutually dependent.

This blog by a Syrian Christian blogger quotes the above passage: http://cochinblogger.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/syrian-christians-as-a-caste/

Another Syrian Christian, who is also more honest about his/her community than Jerji, responds:

I am told that, somewhat to the embarrassment of my cousins, our Syrian Christian grandmother would not allow Dalit workers across the threshold – though I’m sure she regarded herself as a “good Christian”, and saw no contradiction between her attitude and beliefs.
She died in the early 1960′s, and with her that particular prejudice. But I’ve read that there are still many Syrian Christian churches where Dalits are not exactly welcomed..

The fact that the syrian christians were not indulging in evangelism must have been welcomed by members of other religions.

by Idéfix Thu May 30, 2013 12:00 pm

A Historical-Developmental Study of Classical Indian Philosophy of Morals,
Chapter 25: Interaction between Classical Indian Ethics and Christian Ethics, by C.D. Sebastian, Page 484

Untouchability was practiced by Syrian Christians. They used to go for a ritual bath after physical contact/touch with men of lower castes, and even of the Nair caste. We get this information from the Diamper Synod Decree 2 in Section IX... The conclusion I would like to draw is that the caste mentality or casteism, an aspect of the mores of Indian ethos, was prevalent among the Syrian Christians.

http://books.google.com/books?id=1gtxVmUr1ygC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=syrian+christians+untouchability&source=bl&ots=Jj5BLm75CQ&sig=KMtgoi9Vd2YzPJAsMFltBMKgxNY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=wHWnUeetLYra8wSuxoC4AQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=syrian%20christians%20untouchability&f=false

by Guest Thu May 30, 2013 12:01 pm

it is a well known fact that all hindus who converted to syrian christianity were brahmins.

it is also a well known fact that syrian christians in india do not practise casteism.

it is also a well known fact that the aramaeans who converted the brahmins were of medium brown complexion. this well known fact has been confirmed by a redoubtable poster of such who himself is of a konkan brahmin complexion.

i hope the rest of the discussion in this thread will rely on these well known facts.

it is also a well known fact that the the well known facts cited in this post require no citation.

by Idéfix Thu May 30, 2013 12:16 pm

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.'

by Hellsangel Thu May 30, 2013 12:19 pm

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?

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu May 30, 2013 12:21 pm

Captain Bhankas wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:ayyeda! you have made achachan #upset and #angry now.
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.

bhankaskar, please control your emotions. you are puzzled and frustrated, partly because of your incorrect assumptions, and partly because of your apparently rigid life-experience as a hindu.

i suspect that the syrian christians you're ranting about don't deliberately shun hindu culture, customs or traditions; they merely have their own in some facets of life, mainly religious, and in others, practice the ones that are common to all the people of kerala, including the muslims.

i am glad that it is not the the culture, custom or tradition of syrian christians or the other people of kerala to immerse thousands, maybe millions of garish idols in the sea and pollute their beautiful beaches and coastal waters in order to please a god who removes obstacles, thus avoiding the effort to remove those obstacles themselves.

some customs are best shunned.

by Hellsangel Thu May 30, 2013 12:26 pm

An interesting comment here:

http://nasrani.net/2007/05/16/names-middle-names-and-last-names-among-the-syrian-christians/

Amprayil,
That was an important point. I have added it to the article.

Jacob Idiculas
Idiculla should be a derivative of Itty.

Kuruvilla
Kuruvilla would have been derived from Korah, son of Esau.

Thank you.

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com